archie mac said:
I think you are wrong, Federer would be playing almost a different game, his big shots would not be winners, he would not be able to put anywhere near the amout of top spin on his shots. His serve would not be anywhere near the weapon it now is. It would be much more a game of tactics. I really think he would lose to the past champs.
Waugh has never played on a sticky pitch of which Hobbs was the best, and by some distance better then Bradman on such pitches. Bradman said Larwood in Aust. 1932/33 was the fastest and I think that is good enough for me. In the 1950s Sth Afr. came to Aust. they organised for Bradman to have a net with their bowlers, he proceeded to slay the best they could throw (no pun) up to him. I think your hero Sobers started in the 1950s?
Top spin isnt associated with metal rackets - the power you have while putting top spin is. Borg used to put top spin to his groundstrokes as well.
His(Federer's) big shots wouldnt be winners but his shot-making would be equal, if not superior in accuracy ( you forget how bleeding accurate these players are if they arnt going for a power shot) and his overall superior court fitness and methodical approach would finish off Tilden in 3 sets flat.
Not to mention, tennis players today are far more tactically aware than in the past.
All he'd have to do to ol Bill is to just make him run from corner to corner and Bill would fall flat in a jiffy.Very few tennis pros of the old think that they would stand a chance against the modern generation (Borg onward- when professionalism came into tennis) and Laver himself said that if he played the way he did, even with normalised equipments, he would've struggled to break into the top 10 in the 80s-onwards era.
As per Larwood- well, i dont doubt that he was fast. But fast doesnt mean quality. mohammed Sami is blisteringly fast but he is no great shakes.
And again, relative strength means nothing about absolute strength.
I am sure if i faced the best of the best of England's tennis players from 1800s, i would cream them all over the ballpark and same goes with cricket and Jack here.
Simply because their levels of fitness, technical proficiency and the challenges posed by the field was nowhere comparable.
Professionalism brings the field closer which it was not in any sport in the amatuer eras- sure, there were some who would've done well in the modern era, but they wouldnt have been able to feed on absurdly incompetent fellows, who wouldnt even make the zimbabwe XI today.
The fact that the game was easier and far less intensity is evident from the age those guys played till.
Retiring in the 40s was commonplace for Test and FC players back then, which is an incredible rarity today. That they could play well into their 40s, despite inferior nutrition and fitness levels show just how much easier the game was back then compared to modern day standards.
