By Raymond Lee | Saturday, April 18, 2026
Photo credit: Riyadh Season/Netflix
Carlos Alcaraz and Jannick Sinner have won virtually everything in sight in the last few years on the ATP tour. At least one of the two have won the last 9 majors and 10 of the last 11!
At this rate one or both players will obliterate the current record of majors won
currently held by Margaret Court and Novak Djokovic.
This is quite reminiscent of the last 20 or so years in which the Big Four of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray won virtually every major and seemed to be in the semifinals of every top tournament.
Obviously Alcaraz and Sinner are gifted players and would be great in any era. I was watching Andy Roddick’s wonderful podcast on YouTube the other day. Roddick was discussing the GOAT forehands. It was a fascinating discussion with the former pro Chris Eubanks. Naturally, they were talking about forehands they had seen. They did not discuss, for example, the super forehands of Pancho Segura, Ellsworth Vines or Fred Perry which historically have been named on many lists as the GOATs when it
comes to super forehands.
An interesting comment was made by Roddick in one of his podcasts. The comment was attributed to James Blake who essentially said the best player of all time is the current world No. 1!
This comment of course makes a lot of sense since it is logical to assume that the quality of the game of tennis has gradually improved over the years.
However, it clearly is not always true and there are some problems with this type of thinking in tennis history.
Some, including Hall of Famer John McEnroe, are already saying that Alcaraz and Sinner are playing at a higher level than anyone has ever played, including the Big Four.
That is highly debatable of course. The comments could be that of recency bias. This always seems to occur in any sport when you have a new great young champion or in this case, champions. You see the current top player or team do something amazing. It sticks in your memory and the memory of past greats fades.
So how can we really know if the level of play has improved? Has the level improved or has the top player or players declined?
Tennis technique and tennis equipment technology is always changing for the better. This of course improves the level of play.
By the logic of James Blake, Aryna Sabalenka is the greatest ever female player and Alcaraz is the greatest ever male player. For all we know, perhaps they are!
Is Sabalenka greater than former number world No. 1 champions Serena Williams, Chris Evert, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Navratilova or more recently Ash Barty and Iga Swiatek?
Here’s a great match between Justine Henin and Serena Williams at the 2007 Wimbledon quarterfinals.
Is Alcaraz better than peak Federer, Nadal, Kramer, Vines, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Gonzalez or Djokovic among others?
Setting personal bias aside, how do we prove that theory true?
Do we base it on the quality of the rallies?
How can we judge it properly if the modern superior tennis equipment may mask the true talent and skill level between the old-time players and the current players.
Here’s highlights of a great match between Nadal and Federer at the 2009 Australian Open. The rally that starts at 12:53 is perhaps the greatest rally of their super rivalry.
To use an analogy, the game of chess has powerful computer programs to analyze the accuracy of a player’s moves. Therefore, we can analyze the past players’ games with the current players’ games. Clearly the current players have played at a superior level when you consider the quality their moves in chess.
But are the current players in chess necessarily more talented than the players of the past?
Chess players today have access to the great chess computer programs to learn from which are much stronger than any human, even the best chess player in the world. They have the theory and analysis of past games to learn from. They have the internet to play more games. Naturally, they should be better or at least you would think so.
Yet players like Bobby Fischer, Jose Capablanca, Garry Kasparov have done extremely well when computer programs analyze the accuracy of their moves.
Kasparov did have strong computer chess programs for some of his career. They were not of the level that we have now, however.
Fischer for example is still one of the most accurate players ever according to the current computer programs despite never having computer programs of the strength they have today.
There is also something to be said about analyzing chess games without the help of a computer program. The chess player’s mind must work more in the analysis, and it may very well help during a competitive tournament.
Harry Nelson Pillsbury in chess was an absolute genius, probably a genius overall. Pillsbury played in the late 1800s to early 1900s.
Pillsbury’s feats of memory are astounding! He could immediately memorize ridiculously long words and spell them backwards a brief time later. He was brilliant at playing blindfold chess with as many as 22 games played simultaneously. Pillsbury was arguably the best chess player in the world during certain periods of time according to sites that analyzed past Elo ratings strengths.
If Pillsbury played the World Champion Emmanuel Lasker for the title during Pillsbury’s peak, he would have a decent chance to defeat the great Lasker.
Unfortunately, Pillsbury became ill at an early age, and this obviously affected his chess playing. The disease he had is curable now so if he had access to modern medicine perhaps Pillsbury would have been World Champion in chess.
At his peak, Pillsbury was a chess genius.
My point here is that there is a difference between quality of play and whether the players are truly superior in talent than in the past. Perhaps the players of the past in chess are every bit as talented as the players today. Maybe even more so because they developed their own individual styles.
I cannot imagine a player as brilliant as Pillsbury was not being one of the top players in the world today given the same advantages that the top players have had.
This may be true to a certain degree in tennis. As of now we don’t have computer analysis in tennis like chess to determine the quality of play.
Novak Djokovic just recently in 2023 won three major titles. Djokovic crushed Sinner and Alcaraz without the loss of a set in the 2023 World Tour Finals that year. Djokovic looked far ahead of anyone else in tennis at that point. He looked like an invincible tennis machine.
Did Alcaraz and Sinner improve so much that they by far overtook Novak Djokovic by 2024? Did Novak Djokovic decline so much that Alcaraz and Sinner were now far superior to him? Or is it a combination of both?
I would tend to think it’s a combination of both. Djokovic has already hinted that he’s not playing at the level he used to. Can he regain it at such a late age for a tennis player or is he beyond the point of no return? Father Time always wins out in the end.
Djokovic defeated Sinner just recently at the 2026 Australian Open. It makes you wonder how well peak Novak Djokovic around 2015 would do against Alcaraz and Sinner.
Let’s say both players (Alcaraz and Sinner) win majors at the same rate they are both going now. They both obliterate the all-time record for majors won.
Are they necessarily playing at a higher level than any player ever?
Or is it just because no one else can challenge their 50/50 monopoly of majors in recent years?
Perhaps they didn’t have anyone to get in their way like the Big Four got into each other’s way, especially during majors.
How would they do against the Big Four at their peaks?
Who knows? We can only know if we can magically bring the Big Four back to the same physical level at their peaks with the racquets of today. That’s not going to happen. These types of imaginary sports matchups are the stuff of great discussions and arguments over the centuries.
The only member of the Big Four still playing the ATP Tour is Djokovic. Djokovic is 39 this year. Djokovic is about 16 years older than Alcaraz and 14 years older than Sinner! That’s a lot of years to give up.
Sabalenka and Swiatek have been the players with the best records in recent years. Are they the greatest ever?
I’m going to discuss why perhaps levels of play have improved over the years in tennis and why just because the level of play has improved doesn’t necessarily mean the skills or talent of the players are higher! I will not discuss the small changes in tennis technique and tennis technology. I will discuss major changes like the two-handed shots.
Carlos Alcaraz has been compared to Lew Hoad because, like Hoad, his variety of strokes, touch shots combined with power are perhaps unmatched in today’s current tennis tour. I write in today’s current ATP Tour because with the old heavy tiny wooden racquets and strings the players did not have the spin and the power almost every player can hit today. The old-time players had to figure out ways to win with wood. Players like Nastase, Orantes, Laver, Rosewall, Santana, John McEnroe, Segura, Tilden, Vines, Bobby Riggs, Gonzalez, Kramer, Santana, Orantes, Jimmy Connors and even Bjorn Borg were very proficient in hitting drop shots, volleys and lobs. Although Borg did not use the drop shot nearly as much as the others on this list. These players were also extremely versatile and could beat you in many ways. If plan A wasn’t working, they had several other plans to win.
The thing is the players of the past with wood had to play that way. There were not many players who could consistently overpower others. Perhaps a Vines, Hoad, Kovacs or Laver could at times. In the case of Vines, perhaps even most of the time, but even they could be off and resort to another strategy.
With the women, players like Helen Wills, Alice Marble, Maureen Connolly, Chris Evert, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles could overpower their opponents with powerful groundstrokes. Graf and Seles played with racquets closer to modern racquets and Evert had somewhat modern racquets late in her career. And when I write modern racquets, I mean non-wood racquets. Those racquets still aren’t as great as the current racquets are today.
Martina Navratilova had perhaps the greatest serve and volley game at her peak in the history of tennis. Her lefty serve was unbelievably effective and her volley was perhaps unsurpassed in WTA history.
You wonder if these players would have developed the same type of game if they grew up with today’s super tennis equipment and expert coaching. I would think not. I also think the reverse would be true if players today played in the past with wood.
Martina Navratilova perfected her super serve and volley game based a lot on the top players of the time. Players like Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Billie Jean King, Margaret Court, Rosie Casals, Virginia Wade were superb serve and volleyers. They started out with small wooden racquets. It was much harder to pass players at the net in those days. Many players just had one handed slice/flat backhands. Unless you were Ken Rosewall, it wasn’t the most effective passing shot.
Later, tennis developed more powerful and larger racquets with strings that made spin more effective.
Navratilova improved so much that she only lost 14 matches in 5 years while winning 427. During this period Navratilova won 12 majors and at one point won 6 major tournaments in a row, the equivalent of 1.5 Grand Slams over a two-year period! Clearly the longest period of total tennis domination during the Open Era.
I would suspect Navratilova’s fitness training had a lot to do with her great improvement as well as technique and equipment changes. Navratilova was No. 1 in the world 7 times and in the top 3 in the world for 16 straight years and 17 in total. She was never out of the Top 10 when she was playing regularly on the tour. So, she was in the Top 10 for 21 straight years.
Serena Williams, while great, was No. 1 in the world 5 times, two times less than Navratilova. Serena Williams was in the Top 3 in the world for 9 years and she was in the Top 10 for 16 years.
I do believe that the times you are year-end No. 1 is one of the most important statistics in evaluating the greatness of a player! When we look at a baseball team, we think of that team won the World Series or not. Winning the World Series means they are No. 1 for the year.
Doesn’t every player strive to be the best for that particular year? So, if you achieve that goal, it should be thought of as a great achievement! Perhaps it could be the greatest achievement in a great tennis player’s resume, even over number of majors won.
Navratilova did that 7 times!
With that in mind Navratilova’s record stands with any Open Era player and frankly any player that ever lived.
Here is a past her prime Navratilova playing a 22-year-old Steffi Graf at the US Open semifinals.
Of course, there are different training methods during the different eras designed to maximize player effectiveness based on the racquets and the rules. One rule in the past was that players weren’t allowed to jump into the serve. One foot had to be on the ground when the racquet connected with the ball.
Martina Navratilova’s game improved immensely once she changed some of her training habits which included the types of foods she would have.
Now of course the level of the rallies in tennis and the overall solid hitting of the tennis ball is going to be superior nowadays to those who hit with a tiny but heavy 65 square inch wood with the strings of those days.
The equipment is much better today. It’s like a person who drives a fast car can move faster than a person riding a Thoroughbred Horse.
Players like Hoad, who could hit with tremendous topspin and power on the backhand side and forehand side were very rare in the past because of the smaller surface to hit the topspin, the lesser strings, and the overall heavier racquet. Those players who could hit with topspin often had a lot of mishits because of the smaller size of the racquet.
Hoad was a man of unreal strength. There are incredible stories about the things he was able to do on the court and off the court. He had wrists of steel and like Rod Laver after him, could flick his wrist and the ball could travel with great spin and speed. He was very fast when young also but perhaps not quite as fast as Laver.
Hoad wasn’t particularly tall at 5’11 tall. That is about the height of Alcaraz today. Hoad’s serve was gigantic also.
Despite his great talent, Hoad unfortunately had major back problems that limited his greatness.
At the same time, a person does wonder if you transported a young Pancho Gonzalez, after he developed his basic game to the current day. How would Gonzalez have adapted and what would he do?
Gonzalez had arguably the greatest serve of all time. Physically he could match up well with anyone playing today. He was 6’3.5” tall and was a great overall natural athlete. They described his movement as similar to a panther. That is how smooth Gonzalez was.
Despite Gonzalez’s ability to hit with great power, he was really a touch player.
According to the great tennis analyst and coach Vic Braden, Gonzalez would have served in the 140-mile per hour range. Not too shabby.
Historically Gonzalez’s serve has been one of the top choices when there are discussions about the greatest serves of all time. I’m not sure how Gonzalez’s serve would compare with John Isner’s awesome serve, but it is up there with anyone.
Point is it is hard to compare wood racquet era players with players in this modern era!
Undoubtedly, as I wrote earlier, the level of the rallies and overall smooth stroking is of a much higher quality today, but it is all relative. The players of today grew up with the current high-quality racquets and strings. The tennis equipment seems to be improving every year. At the rate we are going, we’ll probably have a computerized tennis racquet that can virtually swing the ball for you in the future.
Rod Laver played tennis at a super high level with a wood racquet. Still, if you compare that quality of play to a top player with today’s racquets it wouldn’t be that high a level at all, relatively speaking. But if the Laver of that time played with today’s racquets, I believe he would have adapted well enough to play at a super level. He’d probably be very competitive with any player of today. How competitive is debatable since it’s just hypothetical. Laver was a brilliant, extremely gifted player, so I think he’d be among the top, if not the top player in the game.
If Rafael Nadal played with a wood racquet of the past and played in that era, I’m sure he would be great. The thing is that he could not hit with the ultra-powerful topspin that he could hit with at his peak with his normal racquets.
Would he be as great playing with a wood racquet? Of course he would be relatively speaking, assuming the opposition also played with wood. Nadal would have changed his game somewhat to adapt to the wood racquets.
Nadal definitely would not play at the same high level with a wood racquet as with the modern racquets. Relatively speaking, however, he’d be perhaps greater than any player at that period of time with a wood racquet.
I’m assuming in this example that Rafa would have already developed his game and went back to let’s say the mid-1960s and played with a wood racquet.
If he was born in 1938, like Rod Laver, Nadal would probably hit with a one handed backhand and be a right-handed player because of the different coaching. Left-handed play in those days was considered to be not good which clearly was incorrect.
Nadal is a natural righty so even with that I think he’d be great.
Oddly enough, some tennis greats of the past like Margaret Court and Ken Rosewall were natural lefties who were forced to play right-handed.
It was thought that playing left-handed was a disadvantage. Tell that to people playing Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Guillermo Vilas, Rafael Nadal and John McEnroe. I think they might disagree.
Rafael Nadal would be as skilled as he ever was, perhaps in some ways more so but his level wouldn’t be as high because his inferior wood equipment would not allow him to play at that high level that he plays at with the present-day racquets. Still if he played in the past, in comparison to the players then, I think he’d be as good as any player then, perhaps better.
Nadal, if transported to the past (sounds like a plot for a Star Trek episode) would be as skilled as ever and I am sure he could use his knowledge of future tennis techniques to his advantage in the past.
So how do we look at the tennis statistics of today and compare them to the past?
Let us look at one example with Pete Sampras.
Pete Sampras, considered by many to be the greatest server of all time is rated at No. 14 all-time by the ATP Tour’s new stats.
Sampras is No. 8 all time when you look at what I consider the most important statistic; percentage of holding serve!
Frankly I think Sampras is really much better than that! Don’t you?
What’s my reasoning you may ask? Well, consider that, since the ATP records for holding serve have been kept, Sampras, while active as a player, led the ATP in percentage of holding serve 7 times in 11 years! He never finished out of the Top 10 and his worst finish was No. 7 in his last year as a player in 2002. That is just awesome.
The percentage of holding serve numbers were lower during Sampras’ day. In 1991 for example, Sampras led the ATP tour in that statistic with 87.3%, fractionally ahead of Stich, who had the same percentage number.
It wasn’t until 1996 when Sampras cracked the 90% barrier with 90.8%. Many have surpassed the 90% of holding serve mark since then. Players like Roddick, Isner, Karlovic, Raonic and of course Federer have surpassed the 90%-mark numerous times. Rafael Nadal, a great player with an excellent serve also broke the 90% mark for one year in 2010.
Is Pete Sampras the best server of the Open Era?
Well, that depends on how you define it. Borg was one of the best servers of his time. He had a wood racquet but his power on serve could surpass many in those days with more powerful racquets. He held serve probably an unreal percentage of the time. This is very clear when you look at his superhuman Games Won Percentages.
In a video of Borg’s 1981 US Open semifinal match against Jimmy Connors, Borg hit an ace which the announcers said was the second fastest of the tournament! So, Borg clearly had serving power comparable to anyone in the game at the time. They had huge power servers like Roscoe Tanner for example so the fact Borg hit the second hardest serve of that tournament is quite impressive.
Borg was also known for being a clutch server. Whether that is true or not is debatable.
You could easily argue that John Isner, Andy Roddick, Karlovic and some others are there also. We don’t have all the stats for great past servers of the Open Era like John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith, Boris Becker, Roscoe Tanner, John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg among others.
John McEnroe was also one of the great servers of the Open Era but his speed on the serve was not that of some players.
Sampras, Tanner, Ivanisevic, Roddick, or Becker could serve at much greater speeds. However, his serve was extremely hard to read and of course hard to return. He could slice an opponent off the court with his lefty can opener slice serve. McEnroe would be waiting at the net for the weak return and the probable winning volley.
Some have called McEnroe’s serve the best in the game during his time. Incidentally, McEnroe’s return was excellent too, especially in his best year of 1984.
Considering that McEnroe was probably the best net player in tennis with excellent groundstrokes I would say that he had the weapons to back up his serve extremely well.
Was he superior to Pete Sampras in percentage of holding serve? I am not sure, but I tend to think that if we could get his statistics for that category for 1984, I would guess McEnroe’s percentage would have even surpassed Sampras’ best years!
Why has the percentage of holding serve risen? Frankly, I can only guess. Perhaps it is the equipment. Perhaps it is the different techniques that have been used in serving. I would guess it’s most likely the equipment which allows the server nowadays to serve harder yet still at a much higher first serve percentage.
It’s funny when the non-wood larger modern racquets with larger frames and different materials first came out, many said the advantage was given to the returner. Yet it seems to me that the first strike capacity and of course much higher serving percentages of the powerful new racquets and strings actually give perhaps more of an edge to the server.
When I write all-time, I mean since they have been keeping the statistics. We do not know the statistics for how often on average players were able to hold serve in the past and obviously how often players could break serve. I would love to know who held serve most often with the past players and who broke serve the most often.
Players like Pancho Gonzalez and Jack Kramer were known for rarely losing serve so for all we know they could have had some years that perhaps topped the ATP list if they keep records and had an ATP tour at the time.
Of course, the competition that Kramer and Gonzalez faced was different in that they faced, in the pros, only the cream of the crop. There were no easy matches.
I believe Jack Kramer kept a record for Gonzalez serving on pressure points for about a year. If memory serves, Gonzalez got 87% of his first serves in! I am not certain what Kramer described as pressure points, but I assume it’s break points. The number is fabulous by today’s standards but especially during Gonzalez’s time when he used a small heavy wood racquet.
You cannot teach height, so it is no coincidence that great tall servers like Isner and Karlovic top the current list in percentage of holding serve. Yet players of a smaller height like Roddick, Federer and of course Sampras were superb at holding serve.
To be fair Roddick has said Isner did have excellent serving technique so I assume he means Isner would be a great server even if he was a lot shorter.
Sinner is very versatile, but I tend to think of him as super bread and butter player. By that I mean he does not necessarily change his style too much but plays his incredible basic power game and movement which can overwhelm just about any player with the except for a few.
Currently, as of April 2, 2026, Sinner leads the ATP in both percentage of holding serve and percentage of breaking serve. Needless to say, very few players have done that for the entire tennis season.
Speaking of a few players, looking at the games won percentages of Bjorn Borg in the 1970s which were ridiculously great, particularly in 1978 and 1979, I would be stunned if the great Borg did not lead the ATP in percentage of holding serve AND percentage of breaking serve by a good margin in some years. Some have suggested that the ATP tour rankings could be based on ELO ratings. If that was the case, Borg’s potential ELO at his peak was off the charts great.
I would also think John McEnroe in 1984, a year in which he won an astounding 65.2 percent of his games, also would have led the ATP in both categories! John McEnroe switched from a wood racquet to a graphite racquet I believe in 1983 and used the graphite racquet all of 1984, which was one of the greatest seasons in tennis history! The quality of his play that year was spectacular!
Jimmy Connors at his peak was in the 63% range for percentage of games won which is fantastic. Connors used the T-2000 tennis racquet, which was a super powerful racquet, but Connors seemed to be one of the few who could control it.
So, what are some of the reasons for improvements in the playing level of tennis? Ellsworth Vines, the former number one and arguably still one of the tennis GOAT candidates, believed the two-handed backhand is one of the major reasons for the improvement.
One of the reasons is that Vines felt the two-handed shots are more capable of driving back the kick serves that only a few players in the past with a one-handed backhand like Kovacs, Hoad and Laver could.
Of the male players who have won 20 majors, two of the three have two-handed backhands.
Now this fact comes with a caveat, players prior to 1968, if they won a major, often would turn professional to make money in tennis. Once a player turned professional, they were not allowed to play the majors like the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Championship. If you don’t play a major tournament, you certainly aren’t going to win it.
The majors were not always that important in the minds of the players in some years, especially early Open Era of tennis. Nowadays every player plays all the majors if possible.
However, in the 1970s, many players skipped the Australian and there were often boycotts of majors like Wimbledon or the Australian. The French Open did not allow players to play if they signed a contract to play World Team Tennis.
So, Jimmy Connors in 1974, when he won 3 majors out of 3 entered was not allowed to enter the French Open. If Connors won the French, assuming the rest of the year was the same, Connors could have won the Calendar Year Grand Slam.
I’m fairly certain that players like Tilden, Vines, Gonzalez, Laver would have won over 20 majors or at least come close if they were allowed to play them and in the case of Vines continued to play them. Borg won 11 majors despite the fact he was, in his most active years, playing only three majors at most. Often just playing two majors in a year.
Tilden and Vines had the special problem in their time that the transportation to the other majors overseas had to be by boat! This could take many weeks. The players would get out of shape and not be as competitive. It wasn’t generally worth traveling overseas every year.
Tilden was super dominant during the 1920s and early 1930s. For example, at the age of 37 in 1930, Tilden won Wimbledon and the championships of four other countries. He won the championships of Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany. In total, Tilden, against top competition, won 18 tournaments with a 120-6 record in 1930. Not bad for a 37-year-old that year.
Tilden during his peak from 1920 to 1925 won 8 majors out of 8 played. During that period, he almost never lost! He had several years in which he lost only one match!
I think Tilden probably would have won several Calendar Year Grand Slams during that period. The odds of Tilden being upset in a five-set match was virtually nil in my opinion at that time!
Tilden is a player who would have learned to adapt to the current racquets fairly easily. He had a million shots and was always learning. He was a tennis genius.
It is very probable to me that Tilden and Pancho Gonzalez would have won over 20 majors if Open Tennis was always around.
Helen Wills won 19 majors out of 24 played. There is almost no doubt Wills would have won way over 20 majors if she played in a time where airplane transportation was better and if she wanted to play more majors. Wills also had some health problems which would easily been taken care of today I believe.
I think Suzanne Lenglen would have easily won over 20 majors too. Lenglen was perhaps the most unbeatable player ever.
So, would Wills and Lenglen do well today? Well, perhaps with the training they have today, perhaps. Lenglen was a great athlete with superior movement. Wills’ movement was not close to the level of Lenglen.
So just because players in recent years have won more majors does not mean the quality of their play is necessarily better than some players of the past.
The skill level of some of these past players is extremely high. Laver, Tilden, Gonzalez, Kramer and Vines were extremely versatile.
The same could be said about Chris Evert, Martina Navratilove, Hana Mandlikova, Billie Jean King, Margaret Court, Serena Williams, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles among others.
There was an amazing example of Tilden learning how to play with Fred Perry’s continental forehand style when Tilden was around 50 because Tilden knew he would not be a complete player unless he learned it. Perhaps if these players were born 25 years ago, some or all these past players may have played with a two-handed backhand.
Laver’s versatility was perhaps as great as any player that lived. Here’s a quote from Gordon Forbes’ book “A Handful of Summers:
“If anything, Rodney was perhaps too much the individual ever to be as great in doubles as he was in singles. While he made some shots so quick and stunning that he left everyone, including his partners, with severe cases of dropped jaw, he also sometimes confused things by playing unconventional shots—things like drive volleys, or topspin lobs for service returns or colossal groundstrokes from the back of the court when he should have been at the net. He also sometimes advanced to net behind his own lobs, quite confident apparently of volleying back his opponent’s smash, which he sometimes did.”
That’s the thing about level of play in tennis history.
Some players who may not be as skilled and talented as past players may look more skilled and talented due to the better equipment. So, the transition from wood to the greater racquets and strings of today does cause some illusions about how good the player is.
Clearly, general quality of play tends to improve over time. Technique and training in tennis have improved, especially when they have computer analysis nowadays. However, I would not say that Roger Federer around 2006 would not be at all competitive today. There is no doubt in my mind he’d be a dominant player, perhaps number one, assuming he used the current tennis equipment.
It’s funny to me how some people on the internet discuss evolution in sports like the changes in the players are immediate. Ten years to some seems like ancient history but really, it’s not.
Improvement in sports is gradual and, in some years, perhaps more improvement than others. It is not like some science fiction movie in which the star suddenly develops super speed or can fly! Although when Boris Becker leaped at the ball when at the net it seemed like he was flying.
Is the two-handed backhand really an improvement? I would tend to say it is a major improvement in the evolution of tennis styles. I would think that it helps anyone that the second hand helps to stabilize the arm and wrist among other multitude of reasons. Players can always switch to a one hander when needed or for a slice one-handed mix-up.
But you never know, perhaps legendary players with a one hander like Federer, Sampras, Billie Jean King, Margaret Court, Martina Navratilova, Evonne Goolagong, Hana Mandlikova, Rod Laver, Vilas, Becker, Ashe, McEnroe and Edberg would not have done as well with a two hander. Then again, perhaps they even would have been better.
I suppose it all depends on the player and the skills of that player.
They used to say that the two-hander was inferior because it reduced the reach of that player using the two-handed shot. Also in the past, it was harder for players to hit a backhand with a lot of topspin due to the smaller and heavier frame of the wooden racquet. Players like the great Bjorn Borg could hit heavy topspin with his two-handed backhand with his unique follow-through. Laver and Hoad had massive wrists that enabled them to flick the heavy small wood racquet like a ping pong paddle and put powerful topspin on the ball with great pace.
It is clear that the switch from the inferior wood racquets to today’s super racquets is the main reason why the rallies in tennis are so much better and honestly, more fun to watch nowadays. It was not the most fun to see John Newcombe versus Stan Smith on grass at times. Big serve, volley winner on so many points. There seemed to be no rallies. Often good to watch if you want to nap.
Of course, it depends on the situation. John Newcombe versus Stan Smith could be as exciting as it gets. One perfect example was their fantastically dramatic match that went five sets in the first match of the Davis Cup final in 1973. Newcombe won that match in the fifth set after being down a break earlier in the fifth set! Sometimes it seemed in those days that all Newcombe did in big matches was to win it in the fifth set.
Another reason the rallies are better is that we have surfaces that are more conducive for longer rallies instead of the lesser terrible grass surface that had terrible bounces, if any bounce at all like at Forest Hills at the US Open.
The grass there at Forest Hills was so bad at times it was extremely hard to have decent rallies. Net play was a must.
Wimbledon changed the type of grass they used so rallies would be better. The US Open at first changed from grass to Har Tru, a clay-like surface, then in 1978 they switched to a fast hard court.
The Australian Open switched from grass to hard court in 1988. Mats Wilander won the first Australian Open on hard court over Pat Cash in five sets.
Steffi Graf defeated Chris Evert in straight sets that year also at the Australian Open.
Mats Wilander was not bad on grass at the Australian Open either. Wilander won the Australian Open on grass in 1983 over Ivan Lendl and in 1984 over big serving Kevin Curren.
Possibly the number of two-handed shots in tennis history has been outnumbered by the one-handed shots. Yet some of the most legendary shots in tennis history have been two-handed.
I’ve heard so much about the legendary Pancho Segura two-handed forehand. The man was not a typical player with a two-handed backhand.
Most two-handed shots have a one-handed forehand and a two-handed backhand. Segura was the opposite with a one-handed backhand and a two-handed forehand!
It is utterly amazing the number of players not only called Segura’s forehand the best forehand they have ever seen but the best single shot they have ever seen! Laver, Kramer, Vines, Riggs are among the ones who have called it the greatest forehand they have seen. Laver didn’t play Segura until Segura was over 40 so that’s impressive. I spoke a few years ago to a well-known player who has seen every player from Rosewall to the Big Four of Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.
When I asked him about the greatest forehand he had ever seen, he immediately said Pancho Segura. When I first was about to ask the question, I thought that with the number of great forehands that have existed since he played that there was room for doubt.
Yet there was no doubt in his mind that it was Segura! It seems that so many who have seen Segura hit his forehand that many believed it was the greatest single SHOT they have ever seen, not just the best forehand. He explained that Pancho Segura could do anything with the shot. He had incredible power and control. He had accuracy. He had unbelievable disguise. He could lob, drop shot, blast it through you.
I believe Kramer said it was sort of the same shot as Jimmy Connors’ lefty backhand but far better! And anyone who has seen the Jimmy Connors’ backhand knows how awesome a shot it was!
Connors’ backhand is arguably the greatest backhand of all time. When I read Kramer’s comments about the Segura forehand versus the Connors’ backhand I thought it may have been a bit of an hyperbole, but in discussing the shot with that well known player, I realized that it possibly could be true.
Unfortunately, I cannot find anything with extended videos focusing on Segura and his forehand. Here’s a little bit here.
While I can’t imagine a shot much superior to the great Jimmy Connors’ backhand, I can see from those who have seen both shots their reasoning for the superiority of the Segura forehand. Roddick discussed the Connors’ backhand in his greatest backhands podcast. Very fascinating comments.
Here’s Connors being stretched so wide he can’t hit his great two-handed backhand but hits an astounding one hander down the line at the 1978 US Open against the great Italian player Adriano Panatta.
Do I think most of the great players of the past would do well today? Probably. They would probably have to change their stroking style somewhat to compete but I’m sure they wouldn’t have much of a problem.
I think Ken Rosewall was a fabulous player. The man won I believe over 120 tournaments in his career and played the most matches in tennis history with close to 2400 matches played. Rosewall was incredibly quick, had a super volley, a great overhead and a fantastic return. He had great groundstrokes for his time.
Rosewall’s legendary shot was his slice/flat backhand which was lethal on the return and an excellent baselining groundstroke. He was one of the few players who could consistently pass players with a slice backhand. He had a great lob.
His serve however wasn’t exactly that of a John Isner. It wasn’t that strong but good enough in his day to serve and volley.
Rosewall never hit a topspin backhand during a match, but I understand in practice he could. He would have to develop a more aggressive topspin backhand to play today in my opinion. I’m sure a player of his great talent would be able to do it.
He’d also have to shore up his serve, which was passable. It wasn’t particularly fast and according to Arthur Ashe, he double faulted a lot.
Again, I am sure with today’s racquets he would have developed a strong, more powerful first serve and a better second serve with greater spin.
I’m not sure a player of his small stature at 5’7” tall would do today. Would he do as well as he did with wood? I don’t know.
Here’s Rosewall against Laver in the 1972 WCT Finals. Note how Laver could smoothly hit topspin drives off his backhand when Rosewall lobbed over his head.
Also notice how excellent Rosewall sliced backhand is on the service return.
Here’s Rosewall versus Jimmy Connors. Rosewall had a lot of problems with the Connors return and overall power.
John Newcombe was a legend also. He, like Rosewall, did not have a topspin backhand. I’m sure he could easily have developed that shot with today’s racquets.
Newcombe did have one of the great first and second serves of the Open Era with a wood racquet. Newcombe’s serve would be awesome with today’s racquets. Newcombe’s volley would possibly be the best in tennis today. He was unbelievable at the net.
Because of Newcombe’s great serve he was able to compete well with the great Jimmy Connors. Newcombe defeated Connors in two majors, the 1973 US Open quarterfinals and the 1975 Australian Open final. Obviously he won the 1975 Australian Open and he also went on to win the 1973 US Open over Jan Kodes in the final.
Margaret Court had very strong groundstrokes for the time. I have never seen her hit a topspin backhand. Like Newcombe or Rosewall, I’m certain she would have easily developed a topspin backhand with today’s equipment.
Court was one the greatest athletes in Women’s Tennis history. She had decent height at I believe 5’9” tall and tremendous speed and range. Her serve was one of the best in tennis.
If Court played with today’s racquets, she would be super.
I do think just about every player today would be able to do well with wood but they could not have the same power and spin they have now. I am sure there would be a lot more mishits also with the small heavy wood racquet.
Do I think the overall quality of the game is better today than in the past?
Yes of course. It would be silly not to think so. However, as I indicated earlier, I think most of the top players of the past in the Men’s game like Tilden in the 1920s, Vines in the 1930s, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver and Hoad for example would be fine in today’s game after they adjusted to the equipment. All these players were gifted physical talents. All except Laver and Hoad were over 6 feet tall. Hoad only a half inch below 6 feet tall and Laver about 5’9.5” during his playing days. All of these players had excellent serves and groundstrokes.
One major thing that we don’t take into account is the much greater health care we get nowadays as opposed to the past. Perhaps players as Mo Connolly, Alice Marble, Lenglen and Wills with our current medical findings would be healthier than ever. Perhaps with better food and health care they may be taller also.
Mo Connolly ended her career because of a horseback riding accident. I wonder if they could have repaired the injury with today’s medical knowledge. I understand she tried to play in an exhibition in January of 1955 but retired when she felt huge pain. Almost 70 years later I wonder if she was treated by today’s doctors, if she could have resumed her great career.
Connolly had won 9 straight majors that she entered when she was injured and had to retire!
I think Wills, Lenglen, Alice Marble and the top players of the 1970s would be excellent also among the Women Players. Maureen Connolly wasn’t tall at a reported 5’5” tall however players like Justine Henin was perhaps fractionally taller yet was number one in the world! Jasmine Paolini is 5’4” tall yet has reached number 4 in the world.
Of the past women players, and by past, I mean prior to 1960, I think Alice Marble perhaps would do as well as anyone. She had a great kick serve, had powerful groundstrokes, was a great volleyer with a fantastic overhead. She had decent height at 5’8” tall.
The story of how she won a baseball throwing contest over Babe Didrikson Zaharias as a young teen by throwing a baseball from centerfield into the stands in Seals Stadium in San Francisco is unbelievable. I mention that story because it shows how perhaps she had the strength and arm speed able to hit powerful first and seconds serves that would be very effective today.
When I write about how I think these past players like Helen Wills would be successful today, the assumption is that they are using the training methods and equipment of today. If Wills for example did not adapt to today’s game, she would easily lose to today’s players.
My conclusion is that while the general level of play is clearly superior as the years advance, the top players in almost any era would be excellent nowadays, with some possible exceptions. This is assuming they will be given time to adjust to the new technology.
I’d love to see how a young Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Hana Mandlikova, Steffi Graf, Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills, Alice Marble, Billie Jean King and Evonne Goolagong would do today.
I’d also be quite curious among the men how a young Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer, Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Lew Hoad, Ellsworth Vines, Rod Laver, John Newcombe and Bjorn Borg would do today.
What players of the past do you think would do well today? What players of recent times do you think would do well in the old wood racquet era?