Glad you enjoyed it :)

Brilliant.

Its 1990...

Also, with those rackets there's no way you can generate the same power from a short swing. So clean shots over trickery is the order of the day.

Notice Jansher holds his shots a little, just a touch. Not comparable to today, but he does this subtlety particularly on the forehand, especially when Jahangir hits a cross court to his forehand. let me search for a quick timestamp

5:00 , 5:22 for example. Jansher's forehand seems to have a lot of variety, and his bh length is particularly good here.

Jansher in particular would annihilate all of them.

It is simply not possible to determine this. Ramy at his best with no injuries would be a daunting opponent. The game is different now, the tin is a different height, the ball is different the rackets are different the scoring is different. The score system favored Jansher who was so dominant physically. Every era had their racket ability players and the physical players. Jansher and Jahangir, Nicol and Power, Ramy and Nick Matthew. Having seen both Ramy and Power play live and actually knocked a few balls with Power, there is something about him that I felt was more gifted with a Racket and court IQ. He was not particularly fit, especially when compared to someone line Nicol, but my word the guy could control a ball

adam white Fair point. I’ve played Nicol. More severe than Power physically and athletically. Hunt. Nicol. Shabana. Even Ashour they are all on record that Jansher is the goat. Look at his movement. I saw him beat players in the top 8 for 6-8 points. I know the tin was higher and the scoring different. But Jansher’s record was phenomenal. One years Super Series he won all 8 events, dropped a total of one set and no match lasted longer than 40 minutes!! 😊. I saw him make players run around him like lemmings. Unbelievable.

brian o connor they were after Jehangir’s time. His was goat.

Interesting assesment ... i watched the whole match thinking that *raquet difference aside* Ramy would outplay them ... i was big fans of the Khan's as a kid, and love the old school, but gotta disagree

Because then, men were men and lasted for hours on court. Smal rackets and points only when in serve made the game lasted longer. Not the pussy boys of today, with tennis rackets and score whether in serve or not.

Well the tin was lower back then. I guess the court looks smaller because of perspective. Nothing to compare it to really.

Uzair Bilal tin was higher, not lower. 19 inches, instead of 17 now. Better players (movers) always make the court seem smaller. They appear to walk to the ball because they have so much time.

@@ShoaibAhmedNZ i think it was still 21 inch back then, it only decrease to 19inch when approaching the 2000s era . And in the 2010s era it went even lower to 17inch .

All about the foreshortening effect of the camera.

same size court.........Ball was single yellow....ie. > 40-50% more bouncy . Racquet weight was 180-220gm vs current 125 gm and face size half of current and sweet spot maybe 70-80% smaller.....much less powerful but ball more bouncy. Great privilege and honor to hv both played in person...