Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 60 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
40,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
This is a what-if article parachuting legends of previous era in today's generation and speculating that some would struggle.
The article combines both ATP and WTA and breaks down each player skills and make the case why they think the said player would struggle in today's environment.

My post will only include WTA players.
Of the 8 legends, only 3 are women, some you could have predicted, others would surprise you.


There is lot push-back about the article in the comments section of the website.

Now it is your turn here at the Hub of tennis discussion. Have you say.

8 All-Time Tennis Greats Who Would Struggle on Today's ATP and WTA Tours





Jason Miller/Getty Images











Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic have formed probably the toughest era in history for another player to try and break through with a Grand Slam win.
For evidence, we will rely on the speculations of history's greatest legends and give them a chance to come to 2012 to take on the ATP, and also measure them by the past decade.


Of course, removing the technology and conditions from past legends takes away their comforts and methods of success, so part of this speculation will attempt to examine the former legends by guessing as to how they would adapt with today's demand for baseline power and efficiency. Do they have the skill sets to generate topspin and pace, and can they return well?


There are five legends from the ATP that would undoubtedly struggle with this simulation.
In the WTA, things are more in flux in 2012. It would not be as difficult for Steffi Graf to continue her success now, for example.


There are three legends from the WTA that would probably struggle today, and in the context of the past decade.


Finally, the players that appear in this article were champions, so they would continue to battle with their trademark determination and heart. This is not to denigrate the players from the past, but to try and give an honest look at their skills in the modern game, and likewise show the evolution of tennis. They will be presented chronologically.


There is a major surprise on the final slide that may take a BCS computer to help with the math and speculation. Have fun!



Players Speculative Analysis





7. Martina Navratilova



Getty Images/Getty Images
There hasn't been a player quite like Navratilova before or since. She always insisted she played tennis the right way, but would she change her game in today's WTA?
She is one of the great athletes in tennis history and could add more topspin to hold her own on the baseline. Her reflexes and touch at net would produce some Grand Slam wins at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.
But the WTA is deeper now, even if there is currently no dominant player. There are enough very good players with different skill sets that would still make it difficult for Navratilova to dominate.
Would she get overpowered by the Williams sisters and Maria Sharapova? Do Victoria Azarenka, Agnieszka Radwańska and Samantha Stosur represent enough variety to trouble Navratilova?
In 2012, Navratilova could very well be the No. 1 player, but taking on the previous decade, it would be tough to win 10 Grand Slams, a far cry from her 18-Slams career at an earlier era.




4. Arantxa Sánchez Vicario






Simon Bruty/Getty Images


Though her tenacity could give Steffi Graf some fits in the 1990s, Sanchez Vicario's greatest talent was keeping the rally alive for one more ball.
She was the ultimate retriever, but it's a tough way to win Grand Slams in today's WTA, even without the truly dominant players that made women's tennis so strong 10 years ago.


Sanchez Vicario could win the French Open this year, but there are more athletic women who have various ways to attack her game.
A backboard like Caroline Wozniacki could also use her terrific backhand to put pressure on Sanchez Vicario.


Would she have defeated Li Na in last year's French Open?
How would she do against Petra Kvitová's left-handed forehand?
Sanchez Vicario would be a winner, but just one of the mix on the merry-go-round of the WTA.




2 . Martina Hingis





Al Bello/Getty Images
There was a lot of beauty to her tennis, juxtaposed with her occasional surliness. It's actually a shame she was overshadowed by the power of the Williams sisters, Capriatti's resurgence and other big-hitting players.


It would have been especially delightful to see her extend her peak another five years to challenge Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin.
Now? It might be another similar opportunity for Hingis to direct her intelligent strokes. She plays similarly to Agnieszka Radwańska with her construction of points, scrambling and use of guile.


The biggest question is Hingis's toughness against a variety of skilled players. She rides her confidence well, but her early success may have blighted her willingness to fight through a competitive field.





Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ho-would-struggle-on-todays-atp-and-wta-tours
 

· it's just me against the music.
Joined
·
27,562 Posts
Re: Article: Legends Who Would StruggleToday

Sanchez Vicario would excel - I mean HELLO, WOZNIACKI DID. Sanchez Vicario is a better version of Wozniacki. How stupid.

Hingis would struggle (like she did, lol) and Navratilova would never have played her old game in today's game so hard to even say how she would do because her game would be nonexistent.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
40,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Re: Article: Legends Who Would StruggleToday

Sanchez Vicario would excel - I mean HELLO, WOZNIACKI DID. Sanchez Vicario is a better version of Wozniacki. How stupid.
I don't totally disagree wiht, but Woz is physically more imposing than Sanchez Vicario.
Maybe, ASV would have been another Dominica Cibulkova on the lower end or Franny at higher end.

and Navratilova would never have played her old game in today's game so hard to even say how she would do because her game would be nonexistent.
This is hard to figure out; but if Conchita Martinez , who briefly played in this era, and also plays serve-and-volley, is template to go by, may they are not totally off.
 

· Most Loved Member
Joined
·
11,211 Posts
Re: Article: Legends Who Would StruggleToday

This is ridiculous. All three would have won more Slams if they had peaked in this era, rather than fewer. Navratilova would still be virtually unbeatable, but would have no one as good as Evert to contend with. Sanchez would grind at least as well as Azarenka and Wozniacki but with way more skill and variety. Hingis was the #1 player for five years, at a time when the level of tennis was a lot higher than it is now. She went toe to toe with peak Serena; today, a 25% Serena is annihilating the whole tour.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
40,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Re: Article: Legends Who Would StruggleToday

Hingis would struggle (like she did, lol) and Navratilova would never have played her old game in today's game so hard to even say how she would do because her .
Hingis would not have been to develop her game, she would have been smothered and/or overwhelmed by power and quickly find out there was no good returns in pursuing that kind of game.
 

· Worshipping the bangs
Joined
·
62,809 Posts
The '80s were a lot deeper than people today give it credit for being. The idea that Martina didn't have to deal with deep fields doesn't wash. She was a dominant player, not a dominant player in a weak era.

That's the whole problem with the whole idea behind these types of articles. There's no way you can really access what would have happened if a player had been born 30 years after they were actually born.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,399 Posts
What If's....

Bubbly little article, but I'll take it with a grain of salt, I learnt from a break up that what if's don't get things done, let alone get anybody anywhere.

What If's are nothing but speculation of a past life.

It's nice to consider them, but thats as far as it goes.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,199 Posts
Are you serious????

Martina Hingis struggling today?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
14,576 Posts
One thing you have to bear in mind is that any player born before the mid 1970s learned to play with either a wooden or aluminium racquet and their technique would reflect this. It's not until you get to Monica Seles that you have players whose technique and style of play is built around exploiting carbon fibre composite racquets. Players up to and including Graf and Sabatini, who were only a year or two shy from turning professional when composite racquets became available, would have probably had a more powerful game had they been born a few years later.

Of the three players mentioned in the article, only Hingis would have learned to play with a composite racquet from an early age and would likely be much the same player now as they were then. Hingis' serve, particularly her 2nd serve, would get murdered in the modern era and I doubt she would win half of what she did in her day. Sanchez-Vicario would, I suspect, be more like Clijsters but favouring clay (she'd probably dominate that surface nowadays). As for Navratilova, imagine a taller, left-handed version of Justine Henin with a killer serve - in other words, as utterly unbeatable now as she was in her prime.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,199 Posts
One thing you have to bear in mind is that any player born before the mid 1970s learned to play with either a wooden or aluminium racquet and their technique would reflect this. It's not until you get to Monica Seles that you have players whose technique and style of play is built around exploiting carbon fibre composite racquets. Players up to and including Graf and Sabatini, who were only a year or two shy from turning professional when composite racquets became available, would have probably had a more powerful game had they been born a few years later.

Of the three players mentioned in the article, only Hingis would have learned to play with a composite racquet from an early age and would likely be much the same player now as they were then. Hingis' serve, particularly her 2nd serve, would get murdered in the modern era and I doubt she would win half of what she did in her day. Sanchez-Vicario would, I suspect, be more like Clijsters but favouring clay (she'd probably dominate that surface nowadays). As for Navratilova, imagine a taller, left-handed version of Justine Henin - in other words, as utterly unbeatable now as she was in her prime.
Agree with most but several areas where I strongly disagree.
I don't know how you compare Navratilova, one of the greatest serve and volley players of all time IF not the greatest, to Justine Henin, practically a baseliner with a good net game, but definitely not the all-court skill of Martina.

And how does one explain a washed up Hingis in 2006 reaching the top 10 after being off the tour for several years? :shrug: Even if she didn't improve her serve (which I believe would be highly unlikely) look at the servers at the top of the game... ffs, Aga Radwanska has been dominating this year.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,841 Posts
I disagree with all three.

If there's one player who would achieve a lot less now, it's got to be Graf. There are too many players who can attack you off of both sides, a la Seles, for her to win 22 grand slams.

You could argue that her slice might trouble more players now because they don't face it, but the courts are slower, and I'm not buying that.
 

· it's just me against the music.
Joined
·
27,562 Posts
Agree with most but several areas where I strongly disagree.
I don't know how you compare Navratilova, one of the greatest serve and volley players of all time IF not the greatest, to Justine Henin, practically a baseliner with a good net game, but definitely not the all-court skill of Martina.

And how does one explain a washed up Hingis in 2006 reaching the top 10 after being off the tour for several years? :shrug: Even if she didn't improve her serve (which I believe would be highly unlikely) look at the servers at the top of the game... ffs, Aga Radwanska has been dominating this year.
I guess we need to define "struggle." By struggle, I define it - for the purpose of this "debate" - not winning any slams. Hingis would STILL not win any slams in today's game. Hell, Azarenka beat her in 2007 at the USO. Azarenka five years later would feed her breadsticks. And don't give me Hingis was different in 2006 and 2007. Hingis was unchanged. The game just passed her by. From 1997-2002, not every girl played like Serena, Venus, and Davenport. Hingis could survive by feasting on the other girls and staying #1 without winning slams. Then, by 2002, everyone beefed up and on came Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, etc. Hingis was done and found herself out of the game. Came back in 2006 and made her way back to the top 10 but never made a slam SF.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,199 Posts
I guess we need to define "struggle." By struggle, I define it - for the purpose of this "debate" - not winning any slams. Hingis would STILL not win any slams in today's game. Hell, Azarenka beat her in 2007 at the USO. Azarenka five years later would feed her breadsticks. And don't give me Hingis was different in 2006 and 2007. Hingis was unchanged. The game just passed her by. From 1997-2002, not every girl played like Serena, Venus, and Davenport. Hingis could survive by feasting on the other girls and staying #1 without winning slams. Then, by 2002, everyone beefed up and on came Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, etc. Hingis was done and found herself out of the game. Came back in 2006 and made her way back to the top 10 but never made a slam SF.
C'mon.. Hingis in 2007 was practically retired. And she was completely different.. she was more than a step slower, she was lazier and she hardly put in the work to "win slams". It was as if she was happy just to be playing again.

And :lol: at Azarenka feeding her breadsticks. Hingis was pushed out by her unwillingness to change (her huge ego) and health issues. Everyone wasn't just beefing up (Mauresmo as an example? really?).

Even if that's true, the game has progressively weakened since 2004 to a degree. And need I repeat: Azarenka, Stosur, Kvitova and Li are slam champions. Can you really tell me that at any point in her career, Hingis was not as good as these four players? I'd give 1996 Hingis a chance at winning slams today. Even if she had the same lack of strength and unwillingness to improve her fitness, Hingis had more variety, flair, shot selection, court sense and anticipation than anyone currently playing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,731 Posts
I disagree with all three.

If there's one player who would achieve a lot less now, it's got to be Graf. There are too many players who can attack you off of both sides, a la Seles, for her to win 22 grand slams.

You could argue that her slice might trouble more players now because they don't face it, but the courts are slower, and I'm not buying that.
Read Bobito's post, Reply #11; he's got it right for the most part.

If Graf had learned the game with a wide-beamed, carbon fiber racquet, she would not have favored the slice on her backhand side. Today, she uses the same racquet that Djokovic uses and she flicks topspin backhands with ease. See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUl2rkiqhCI
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,841 Posts
:lol: She maybe hits 4 backhands in a 3 minute clip, maybe 2 you could argue are topspin, neither look easy or natural. She flattens out one backhand that looks more like a mistake, and that's the only one with decent pace.

You're truly delusional.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top