How well would Rafole do in the 1990's? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How well would Rafole do in the 1990's?

Chase Visa
05-12-2012, 12:37 AM
Given all the whinging about the courts and it's speed, I wonder what would've happened in the 1990's, where not everything played like blue clay, and there was actual contrasts with court speed.

GOAT = Fed
05-12-2012, 12:38 AM
Be on dat dere steroids.

Srs.





Semi-srs.

Ben.
05-12-2012, 12:39 AM
They wouldn't have even become professionals.

Pirata.
05-12-2012, 12:42 AM
Rafa probably would've done very well on clay, possibly won a few RG and Masters, but not so much elsewhere.

Seingeist
05-12-2012, 12:45 AM
zomg THEY WOULD HAVE LOST EVERY MATCH EVARRRR!!!! EVEN ON WTA TO EVERYONE ALL THE TIME lolz amirite?

reery
05-12-2012, 12:46 AM
They'd both go OK but wouldn't dominate like they do now.

Courier-like career.

zlaja777
05-12-2012, 12:47 AM
15 slams each.

Certinfy
05-12-2012, 12:47 AM
Both would be top 10 and only really do very well on clay whereas on other surfaces just be good.

Guys like Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych, Del Potro would probably be the guys racking up the slams off the clay.

Ben.
05-12-2012, 12:48 AM
zomg THEY WOULD HAVE LOST EVERY MATCH EVARRRR!!!! EVEN ON WTA TO EVERYONE ALL THE TIME lolz amirite?

Hmmmmm.... but what if they played eachother? :explode:

reery
05-12-2012, 12:48 AM
They wouldn't win more than 4 slams each.

A career like Courier, as I said.

Mark Lenders
05-12-2012, 12:52 AM
It doesn't matter because they didn't play in the 90s.

All you'll find in this thread is speculation passed as fact by each posters to blow the horn of their favorite players/slam their hated player

Seingeist
05-12-2012, 12:55 AM
Hmmmmm.... but what if they played eachother? :explode:

DUUUUHHHH mutual retirement after unbroken stream of DF's SRSLY

Moder
05-12-2012, 12:57 AM
Nadal would have dominated on Clay.

Even Darren Cahill says Nole vs Agassi is a good match up for Novak.

Ben.
05-12-2012, 12:59 AM
DUUUUHHHH mutual retirement after unbroken stream of DF's SRSLY

What about BYE? He was in his prime in the 90s, far fewer losses than he has in this generation. Could they have challenged him?

tennishero
05-12-2012, 12:59 AM
theyd have it even easier than now

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 01:02 AM
theyd have it even easier than now

What, on ice rinks, two-shot grass courts and quicker HCs than now?

evilmindbulgaria
05-12-2012, 01:03 AM
It doesn't matter because they didn't play in the 90s.

All you'll find in this thread is speculation passed as fact by each posters to blow the horn of their favorite players/slam their hated player

Very well said, Mark! That is a baiting thread, should be closed!

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:04 AM
Rafa probably would've done very well on clay, possibly won a few RG and Masters, but not so much elsewhere.

Rafa would be unbeatable on 90s clay, they used larger balls back then so all clay played pretty much like Monte Carlo today. Rafa would not lose a set in most of his RG victories, no Soderling would be able to bash through him on fast claycourts.

Djokovic would probably dominate Australia and win a couple of Usopen, Nadal would win some slams outside RG but I think not the career slam.

Muster and Bruguera would be remembered as great mugs like Ferrer who would lose final after final in straight sets against Nadal on clay. Sadly that would apply to Kuerten aswell.

misty1
05-12-2012, 01:07 AM
well neither one of them would have ever been ranked number one thats for sure

they would be top 10 and nadal would win slams but not as many as he has now. Im not sure novak would win any

Topspindoctor
05-12-2012, 01:13 AM
They would have evolved as different players, using the technology and surfaces of that time.

They are both very talented so Nadal and Djoker would be slam winners in any era.

Nadal would be kinda like Borg, Djoker similar to Connors.

Lol @ nostalgiatards who think Nadal and Djoker would fail in the 1990's because their gamestyle is adapted completely to modern surfaces and racquets.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:16 AM
well neither one of them would have ever been ranked number one thats for sure

they would be top 10 and nadal would win slams but not as many as he has now. Im not sure novak would win any

What a joke, so Djokovic would not beat 30-year old Korda in Australian Open?

Djokovic would win slams at any time in the open era, maybe in the 50s-60s he would have some trouble without any hardcourts and wooden raquets.

Peak Djokovic would beat peak Courier, the slow hardcourt king of the early 90s in Australia and would be 50-50 against both Agassi and Sampras (mostly because Sampras is a bad matchup for Djokovic), he would however not be required to beat Agassi at any year except 95, Sampras most often would not make deep runs aswell.

Clay Death
05-12-2012, 01:16 AM
They would have evolved as different players, using the technology and surfaces of that time.

They are both very talented so Nadal and Djoker would be slam winners in any era.

Nadal would be kinda like Borg, Djoker similar to Connors.

Lol @ nostalgiatards who think Nadal and Djoker would fail in the 1990's because their gamestyle is adapted completely to modern surfaces and racquets.



affirmative general topspin doc.

clay warrior and nole would have dominated the slams picture in the 90`s.

people forget that these 2 are pretty much supermen who happen to be amazing athletes.

hiperborejac
05-12-2012, 01:20 AM
What a stupid OP. Their fail in Madrid has nothing to do with the court speed. They would be still main force in 90's although not so dominant. Novak would still win everything except maybe grass tournaments (yes even indoor carpet). Rafa would win everything except maybe indoor tours.

Clay Death
05-12-2012, 01:22 AM
exactly right.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:23 AM
What a stupid OP. Their fail in Madrid has nothing to do with the court speed. They would be still main force in 90's although not so dominant. Novak would still win everything except maybe grass tournaments (yes even indoor carpet). Rafa would win everything except maybe indoor tours.

I wouldnt like Djokovic's chanses against Sampras and Becker on fast indoors, but the 90s was very inconsistant on every surface and he would get his chanses on that surface aswell.

I dont know however if Nadal could snatch one from Sampras/Krajicek on 90s grasscourts. I do agree Nadal would be a force to be reckoned with on grass, he would appear in SFs and even Fs but I dont know if he would ever beat Sampras.

Djokovic could very well win 2 RGs at his current age if he is transported to the 90s without Nadal sitting next to him in his DeLorean.

HKz
05-12-2012, 01:24 AM
As always, impossible to answer since who knows what type of play style they would develop had they been born to play in the 90s..

But, if we go by how they play now, Nadal would still be a reckoning on clay. How much? Hard to say. While much of the spin he generates can be attributed to how he strokes the ball, you have to be retarded as fuck to think that technology isn't playing a huge factor in it as well. So he wouldn't be getting this massive top spin were he to play in the 90s. Outside of RG, Australia would be logical to think of some success for him. Titles? I don't think so. Australia has always been the 2nd slowest since the 90s, however, remember that Nadal has only won Australia once, so would be impossible to say because Australia in the 90s along with aggressive big serving baseliners that Nadal dislikes facing could have been too great to succeed in. Wimbledon and US Open IMO would have been out of the question regardless.

Djokovic IMO would have better overall success than Nadal. He plays well on faster surfaces, evident by his indoor successes, several finals at Cincinnati which is arguably the fastest event at the moment, and a great record in New York. I mean we just have to look at Agassi for some comparison. Agassi IMO more aggressive and different considering how early he took the ball, but both have fantastic ground games, strong consistency, adequate serves and one of the best returns in the game. Djokovic is arguably better coming in, however, Agassi was really strong against players with variety which is something Djokovic seems to struggle with.

My guess? Nadal 1 AO and 5 RGs. Djokovic 2 AO, 1 RG, 1 USO. inb4 Rafatards and Noletards flame my guess because clearly they have time machines and can go back into the 90s and see that Nadal/Djokovic would win every single slam from 1990 to 2000.

affirmative general topspin doc.

clay warrior and nole would have dominated the slams picture in the 90`s.

people forget that these 2 are pretty much supermen who happen to be amazing athletes.

Who cares if they are amazing athletes. Tennis in the 90s wasn't entirely about tennis rackets with legs.

james82
05-12-2012, 01:24 AM
affirmative general.

clay warrior and nole would have dominated the slams picture in the 90`s.

people forget that these 2 are pretty much supermen who happen to be amazing athletes.

no way,they are gtood but they would be to busy complaing about every surface :P

viruzzz
05-12-2012, 01:24 AM
Rafa would dominate clay so damn much.
I mean, he would lose some matches vs Muster, but nothing else.

romismak
05-12-2012, 01:28 AM
Hard to tell, big WHAT IF -but most likely scenario in 90s conditions would be:

Rafa - best clay-courter in that era, winning multiple RG´s and clay Masters, howewer his succes on other surfaces would be limited, maybe he would win something on slow HC, but don´t think much, on fast HC, carpet and indoor HC he wouldn´t be even top 10, on grass he maybe would be fine, but not Wimbledon champion for sure.

Nole - he would be strong contender on any surface, on clay would be top 5 but hard to tell if he win RG with Rafa, Muster and others arround. On grass he won´t do much

On HC he would be top player, playing with Pete and Andre for slams.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:29 AM
Rafa would dominate clay so damn much.
I mean, he would lose some matches vs Muster, but nothing else.

Nadal would never lose a match against Muster, he would kill Muster's backhand and be better at every department compared to Muster. What you think Muster could do better than Nadal?

Maybe the dropshot. This matchup would look alot like Borg-Vilas.

Kuerten maybe could get one against Nadal, but then I am beeing overly optimistic. Only Borg could compete with Rafa on clay (that is win more than 30% of matches), if Rafa was transported to the 70s.

hiperborejac
05-12-2012, 01:33 AM
I wouldnt like Djokovic's chanses against Sampras and Becker on fast indoors, but the 90s was very inconsistant on every surface and he would get his chanses on that surface aswell.

I dont know however if Nadal could snatch one from Sampras/Krajicek on 90s grasscourts. I do agree Nadal would be a force to be reckoned with on grass, he would appear in SFs and even Fs but I dont know if he would ever beat Sampras.

Djokovic could very well win 2 RGs at his current age if he is transported to the 90s without Nadal sitting next to him in his DeLorean.

Yet, did they met Rafa's passing or Novak's return? Or Rafa's ass picking and Novak's ball tapping? We'll never know ;) Champions are made of mental strength not of game style I guess.

HKz
05-12-2012, 01:34 AM
Nadal would never lose a match against Muster, he would kill Muster's backhand and be better at every department against Muster. What you think Muster could do better than Nadal?

Maybe the dropshot. This matchup would look alot like Borg-Vilas.

Muster was a lefty though. His backhand wasn't that great, but Nadal would have to bit hitting down the line from his forehand in order to reach Muster's backhand, which is something Rafa doesn't really do on clay all that much. Not to mention, Nadal would NOT be generating the same spin against Muster as he does now.

Plus, like Rafa, Muster liked to camp on his backhand side to play extra forehands. Have to also remember that Muster's backhand wasn't that bad. It is just as good as Nadal's IMO. I mean he used to flatten his backhand out so well and it would surprise opponents a lot on the clay.


Kuerten maybe could get one against Nadal, but then I am beeing overly optimistic. Only Borg could compete with Rafa on clay (that is win more than 30% of matches), if Rafa was transported to the 70s.

You gotta be shitting me. You're being optimistic? Do you think Gaudio is better than Kuerten? Hell no. Yet, Gaudio troubled Nadal early on in Nadal's career regardless of how young Nadal was for their first two matches. Even in MC 2006 he took the first set against Nadal before mentally failing like always. That alone is reason enough to believe Kuerten would have been a very difficult opponent for Nadal. The spin, like in the case against Muster, would not be as exaggerated, and Kuerten had obviously one of the best backhands especially for clay, like Gaudio. Couple that with a strong serve, great touch at the net, and very decent forehand, and you got yourself a great match up against Nadal.

james82
05-12-2012, 01:35 AM
Rafa would dominate clay so damn much.
I mean, he would lose some matches vs Muster, but nothing else.

there was a lot of good clay courters in the 90s though that were only good on clay,i dont think he would domminate

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:39 AM
Muster was a lefty though. His backhand wasn't that great, but Nadal would have to bit hitting down the line from his forehand in order to reach Muster's backhand, which is something Rafa doesn't really do on clay all that much. Not to mention, Nadal would NOT be generating the same spin against Muster as he does now.

Plus, like Rafa, Muster liked to camp on his backhand side to play extra forehands. Have to also remember that Muster's backhand wasn't that bad. It is just as good as Nadal's IMO. I mean he used to flatten his backhand out so well and it would surprise opponents a lot on the clay.

I have seen Nadal attack alot down the line against players with good backhands, against Nalbandian lately he goes only down the line. His forehand down the line is underrated, look at how Nadal lately has developped a deadly 2-punch serve-forehand down the line combo on weak returns.

He absolutely destroys Lopez' backhand everytime they play but then Lopez has a spectacularly bad backhand. Problem is no really good lefty is around, but he has an amazing record against the lefthanders available.

Sri
05-12-2012, 01:42 AM
I think Nole can adapt and would be similar to Agassi.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:45 AM
You gotta be shitting me. You're being optimistic? Do you think Gaudio is better than Kuerten? Hell no. Yet, Gaudio troubled Nadal early on in Nadal's career regardless of how young Nadal was for their first two matches. Even in MC 2006 he took the first set against Nadal before mentally failing like always. That alone is reason enough to believe Kuerten would have been a very difficult opponent for Nadal. The spin, like in the case against Muster, would not be as exaggerated, and Kuerten had obviously one of the best backhands especially for clay, like Gaudio. Couple that with a strong serve, great touch at the net, and very decent forehand, and you got yourself a great match up against Nadal.

Gaudio and Andreev defeated Nadal in the early part of 2005 when Nadal was 18 and ranked outside top 20. You are absolutely right about that.

That 2006 match is hugely overrated, I have seen Murray, Ferrer and Davydenko have absolutely spectacular sets against Nadal on claycourts and not because of that are they a threat to Nadal.

Gaudio was double breadsticked, like everyone else he couldnt keep up concentration needed to play absolutely out of this world tennis for more than one set against Nadal. Nadal breaks you down on clay, make you put incredible amount of mental energy to just win one set. Most succumb after that set, like all those I listed did, Gaudio arguably in the most spectacular manner.

Only Borg would have the mental energy to keep up with Nadal, we are talking about RG which requires 3 sets out of this world.

Kuerten didnt move that well on clay, I think Nadal would reveal this weakness in longer rallies.

Arkulari
05-12-2012, 01:48 AM
Rafa might not have won Wimbledon if it was as fast as let's say 1996 but champions like him and Nole would have definitely won GS regardless of era.

HKz
05-12-2012, 02:03 AM
I have seen Nadal attack alot down the line against players with good backhands, against Nalbandian lately he goes only down the line. His forehand down the line is underrated, look at how Nadal lately has developped a deadly 2-punch serve-forehand down the line combo on weak returns.

He absolutely destroys Lopez' backhand everytime they play but then Lopez has a spectacularly bad backhand. Problem is no really good lefty is around, but he has an amazing record against the lefthanders available.

That isn't a forehand down the line.. That is a inside-in forehand that you are talking about.. If he played that shot, it would be against Muster's forehand. Now I didn't say he doesn't hit the insde-in forehand, because yes, that particular shot from Nadal is very vicious. But how often does he play that normal down the line forehand, something someone like Federer excels at tremendously? The fact that he can't play it enough or pull the trigger well enough on that particular shot has been much of the reason for his recent lack of success against Djokovic.

He has an amazingly good left handed record because like you said, aside from Nadal himself, Verdasco is truly the only one that can match him from the baseline, but we all know his mental failings. So it is very difficult to judge how he would play against a truly great lefty. Even judging his ability to play against a very strong one-handed backhand player is unknown, because none of the current players with better one-handed backhands than forehands, can be considered "champions" like Kuerten/Gaudio. Then again, Blake and Youzhny had great records against Nadal at one time despite their one-handed backhands, but that was more because they would hit the ball quite flat.

Gaudio and Andreev defeated Nadal in the early part of 2005 when Nadal was 18 and ranked outside top 20. You are absolutely right about that.

That 2006 match is hugely overrated, I have seen Murray, Ferrer and Davydenko have absolutely spectacular sets against Nadal on claycourts and not because of that are they a threat to Nadal.

Gaudio was double breadsticked, like everyone else he couldnt keep up concentration needed to play absolutely out of this world tennis for more than one set against Nadal. Nadal breaks you down on clay, make you put incredible amount of mental energy to just win one set. Most succumb after that set, like all those I listed did, Gaudio arguably in the most spectacular manner.

Only Borg would have the mental energy to keep up with Nadal, we are talking about RG which requires 3 sets out of this world.

Kuerten didnt move that well on clay, I think Nadal would reveal this weakness in longer rallies.

Sure Nadal breaks you down on clay, but that is what most great courters, including Kuerten and Muster, were well at doing. The clay courters these days either lack the weapons to hurt Nadal when he is on the defensive on clay (Ferrer) or lack the consistent mental strength to continue for several sets (Almagro).

Chase Visa
05-12-2012, 02:12 AM
Honest opinion:

I don't see Rafa going well outside of the dirt. On the dirt though, there aren't really many players that could beat him. He'd still dominate there, as would he in any era bar maybe the 70's.

Djoker on the other hand off grass should be good. He was good on quick surfaces early in his career, and I can see him adapting.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:22 AM
That isn't a forehand down the line.. That is a inside-in forehand that you are talking about.. If he played that shot, it would be against Muster's forehand. Now I didn't say he doesn't hit the insde-in forehand, because yes, that particular shot from Nadal is very vicious. But how often does he play that normal down the line forehand, something someone like Federer excels at tremendously? The fact that he can't play it enough or pull the trigger well enough on that particular shot has been much of the reason for his recent lack of success against Djokovic.

He has an amazingly good left handed record because like you said, aside from Nadal himself, Verdasco is truly the only one that can match him from the baseline, but we all know his mental failings. So it is very difficult to judge how he would play against a truly great lefty. Even judging his ability to play against a very strong one-handed backhand player is unknown, because none of the current players with better one-handed backhands than forehands, can be considered "champions" like Kuerten/Gaudio. Then again, Blake and Youzhny had great records against Nadal at one time despite their one-handed backhands, but that was more because they would hit the ball quite flat.

No, I am talking about his great inside out forehand, the one he uses after great sliding serves to opponents backhand that leaves a slice or short return which he places in the corner that is empty because his opponent is far out on the ad court.

It is the inside-out forehand that he uses more and more often against players like Del Potro, Nalbandian and Murray and it is one of his most important shots on grasscourts but not so much on clay. It is however a great shot, his inside-in forehand great but can be a weakness at times in my opinion because it is often used as a defensive shot and doesnt work when his opponent is having a great day.






Sure Nadal breaks you down on clay, but that is what most great courters, including Kuerten and Muster, were well at doing. The clay courters these days either lack the weapons to hurt Nadal when he is on the defensive on clay (Ferrer) or lack the consistent mental strength to continue for several sets (Almagro).

It is an atrocity to compare Muster and Kuerten to Nadal on clay, it is an atrocity to compare anyone not named Borg to Nadal on clay. I have seen Muster and Kuerten together maybe 100 matches, I know what they were made off. They were never unbeatable against almost anyone, it was always a sense of achievement when they won a big claycourt tournament, they had to sweat alot to get each one of them and it wasnt because their opponents were better than today but because they couldnt just completely outplay every opponent like Nadal does. If I made a list of players that Kuerten and Muster lost to on clay during their peak years it would probably make you understand how fragile both were if they had a bad day or encountered a slightly bad matchup (thrust me, they did this very often).

Also, Kurten didnt break down opponents at all, he most often when he played well just outplayed them and was more aggressive while when he wasnt playing too well anyone had a good chanse against him.

Slice Winner
05-12-2012, 02:30 AM
Rafa would have made a decent footballer.

HKz
05-12-2012, 02:32 AM
No, I am talking about his great inside out forehand, the one he uses after great sliding serves to opponents backhand that leaves a slice or short return which he places in the corner that is empty because his opponent is far out on the ad court.

It is the inside-out forehand that he uses more and more often against players like Del Potro, Nalbandian and Murray and it is one of his most important shots on grasscourts but not so much on clay. It is however a great shot, his inside-in forehand great but can be a weakness at times in my opinion because it is often used as a defensive shot and doesnt work when his opponent is having a great day.

How does Nadal's inside-out forehand have great effect on Nalbandian's backhand? Go re-read your original post. Clearly you didn't explain your original arguments properly..

But now since we are magically on the inside-out forehand talk, so what if he plays an inside-out forehand against Muster? Again, the spin wouldn't be as massive as it is now, and Muster had an adequate backhand. Muster could do the same shit to Nadal's mediocre backhand. Honestly, don't see what else is there to compare. The Nadal and Muster matchup wouldn't have happened much at Roland Garros anyways because it wasn't like Muster was a consistent RG performer anyways, he just had 2 great years.

It is an atrocity to compare Muster and Kuerten to Nadal on clay, it is an atrocity to compare anyone not named Borg to Nadal on clay. I have seen Muster and Kuerten together maybe 100 matches, I know what they were made off. They were never unbeatable against almost anyone, it was always a sense of achievement when they won a big claycourt tournament, they had to sweat alot to get each one of them and it wasnt because their opponents were better than today but because they couldnt just completely outplay every opponent like Nadal does. If I made a list of players that Kuerten and Muster lost to on clay during their peak years it would probably make you understand how fragile both were if they had a bad day or encountered a slightly bad matchup (thrust me, they did this very often).

Also, Kurten didnt break down opponents at all, he most often when he played well just outplayed them and was more aggressive while when he wasnt playing too well anyone had a good chanse against him.

How is it an atrocity? Muster was one of the hardest workers from the back of the court. Again, much of Nadal's current style and ability to break down players, is due to the spin he places on the ball.. Muster and Kuerten broke down players with the assets they had.

I don't see how showing me how "fragile" Muster and Kuerten were would prove that Nadal would be as successful in the 90s. What true clay courters are playing right now that could be considered real clay court champs? None. Ferrero and Gaudio were gone a long time ago.

Topspindoctor
05-12-2012, 02:45 AM
Haters actually going so far as to compare Nadal to mediocre clay courters like Muster who could barely scrape together one RG title :lol:

6>3>1

Deal. Borg said Nadal is clay GOAT.

I value his opinion over some clown like HKz trying to sound intelligent on a forum. :bigwave:

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:48 AM
How does Nadal's inside-out forehand have great effect on Nalbandian's backhand? Go re-read your original post. Clearly you didn't explain your original arguments properly..

But now since we are magically on the inside-out forehand talk, so what if he plays an inside-out forehand against Muster? Again, the spin wouldn't be as massive as it is now, and Muster had an adequate backhand. Muster could do the same shit to Nadal's mediocre backhand. Honestly, don't see what else is there to compare. The Nadal and Muster matchup wouldn't have happened much at Roland Garros anyways because it wasn't like Muster was a consistent RG performer anyways, he just had 2 great years.

Nadal uses his inside out forehand to avoid rallying against the Murray and Nalbandian backhand and make them rally with their weaker sides, is that so difficult to understand?

Muster's backhand was a one handed backhand and he would probably not have dealt very good even with his own topspin forehand, let alone Nadal's forehand. Nadal's backhand is not that great (except in 2008 and 2010) but atleast a twohanded backhand deals better with alot of spins than onehanded backhands.

Muster wasnt very consistant in any big tournament except Monte Carlo.


How is it an atrocity? Muster was one of the hardest workers from the back of the court. Again, much of Nadal's current style and ability to break down players, is due to the spin he places on the ball.. Muster and Kuerten broke down players with the assets they had.

I don't see how showing me how "fragile" Muster and Kuerten were would prove that Nadal would be as successful in the 90s. What true clay courters are playing right now that could be considered real clay court champs? None. Ferrero and Gaudio were gone a long time ago.

Comparing Muster to Nadal is like comparing Sampras to Ivanisevic on grass. You say he has so much of the same style and the spin and the ability to break down players and Ivanisevic had the ability to hold serve, win tiebreaks and bore his opponents to death.

But Sampras and Nadal are whole different league of players than the other 2 mentioned, the similarities are actually more deep between Nadal and Sampras in the way they lift their game at the right moments, in the right tournaments, the way they can at times lift their games to heights never seen before, make their main rivals disappear completely in deciding finals (Federer 2008, Agassi 1999). Ivanisevic and Muster are just hardworking players with no godgiven talent (except limited areas like Muster's forehand and Ivanisevic's serve) that do the best of their situation and look for openings.

Nadal and Sampras are in fact both often not given credit for beeing absolutely incredible talents, some things Nadal can do with the tennis raquet has never been seen before, some shots are not from this world and that is not only because of athletism. Sometimes their games are unexciting and aesthetically not as pleasing as Federer and Laver, but their talents should not be discredited, I dont even think of Nadal foremost as a hardworking player but as a great talent with great hardworking attitude.

It is also a joke that you think Gaudio was a greater claycourt champ than Djokovic and Federer. Misconception that a claycourt champ is a specialist, you know Agassi had greater results on clay than Corretja and greater results on grass than Krajicek?

rickcastle
05-12-2012, 02:50 AM
I think Nadal would dominate clay on any era except for Borg's era, where they will probably split the bounty. As for the other slams, no dice for both except for maybe one Australian Open for Djokovic.

Sri
05-12-2012, 02:52 AM
If they are playing in the 90's are they playing with 90's era rackets / strings?

Would Nadal have been able to extract so much top spin with those rackets? I think that is crucial to his game.

zlaja777
05-12-2012, 02:53 AM
They would have evolved as different players, using the technology and surfaces of that time.

They are both very talented so Nadal and Djoker would be slam winners in any era.

Nadal would be kinda like Borg, Djoker similar to Connors.

Lol @ nostalgiatards who think Nadal and Djoker would fail in the 1990's because their gamestyle is adapted completely to modern surfaces and racquets.

Nice one.

HKz
05-12-2012, 02:53 AM
Haters actually going so far as to compare Nadal to mediocre clay courters like Muster who could barely scrape together one RG title :lol:

6>3>1

Deal. Borg said Nadal is clay GOAT.

I value his opinion over some clown like HKz trying to sound intelligent on a forum. :bigwave:

What an utterly moronic clown you are. Is this thread about Nadal's status as clay goat? Please find one post where I argue that Nadal isn't clay goat. Fucking pathetic. Yeah, Muster's 40 win/5 loss clay title record is so mediocre.

HKz
05-12-2012, 02:57 AM
Nadal uses his inside out forehand to avoid rallying against the Murray and Nalbandian backhand and make them rally with their weaker sides, is that so difficult to understand?

Muster's backhand was a one handed backhand and he would probably not have dealt very good even with his own topspin forehand, let alone Nadal's forehand. Nadal's backhand is not that great (except in 2008 and 2010) but atleast a twohanded backhand deals better with alot of spins than onehanded backhands.

Muster wasnt very consistant in any big tournament except Monte Carlo.

Once again, the SPIN would not be as evident as it is now.. Technology is totally different then. And about the backhand discussion, please re-read your original post, you aren't making sense in your original post about it.

Comparing Muster to Nadal is like comparing Sampras to Ivanisevic on grass. You say he has so much of the same style and the spin and the ability to break down players and Ivanisevic had the ability to hold serve, win tiebreaks and bore his opponents to death.

But Sampras and Nadal are whole different league of players than the other 2 mentioned, the similarities are actually more deep between Nadal and Sampras in the way they lift their game at the right moments, in the right tournaments, the way they can at times lift their games to heights never seen before, make their main rivals disappear completely in deciding finals (Federer 2008, Agassi 1999). Ivanisevic and Muster are just hardworking players with no godgiven talent (except limited areas like Muster's forehand and Ivanisevic's serve) that do the best of their situation and look for openings.

Nadal and Sampras are in fact both often not given credit for beeing absolutely incredible talents, some things Nadal can do with the tennis raquet has never been seen before, some shots are not from this world and that is not only because of athletism. Sometimes their games are unexciting and aesthetically not as pleasing as Federer and Laver, but their talents should not be discredited, I dont even think of Nadal foremost as a hardworking player but as a great talent with great hardworking attitude.

It is also a joke that you think Gaudio is a greater claycourt champ than Djokovic and Federer.

Rofl, this is quite a really stupid comment considering what I said. I really not going to respond. You clearly didn't read my comments on this.

Yes, Nadal's doing something never been done before naturally. So sad Borg/Muster/etc didn't get the same technology.

Mark Lenders
05-12-2012, 02:58 AM
I don't like hypotheticals that much, but I think neither Nadal or Djokovic or even Federer would have been consistent no.1 in the 90s.

Pistol Pete is the ultimate fast court player imo. It's obviously a 100% hypothetical situation, but I don't think any of the current crop would have stopped Pete's dominance in those specific very fast courts at Wimbledon and to a lesser extent US Open.

His serve was one of the best ever and he actually went for broke and made the shots more often that not. Imagine Tsonga, only instead of only making those shots very rarely (2008 AO vs Nadal, 2011 W vs Fed...) doing it most of the time.

The courts at Wimbledon and USO in the 90s were just tailor-made for a player like Sampras to dominate.

Lestat
05-12-2012, 03:04 AM
the pig would still be the clay king, I mean, in the 90 you had Muster who was a great claycourter but not even close to Nadull and some low tier spaniards as Bruguera, Costa, etc.. and honestly, they are not better than Almagro/Ferrer and these two can hardly play two sets to Nadull. Moya wasnt (IMO) exactly only a claycourter so I dont count on him.

I have respect for Guga, he was an agressive claycourter, really enjoyable to watch and winner of 3 RG... I think he the only claycourter of that decade that can steal some match to Nadull, but still he would be the king as he is now.

On the other hand I cant see Humbolito winning GS at any other surface, only clay.

Djokovic would be top 10 most probably. Being runner up in some USO/AO but hardly beating Agassi/Sampras.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:07 AM
Once again, the SPIN would not be as evident as it is now.. Technology is totally different then. And about the backhand discussion, please re-read your original post, you aren't making sense in your original post about it.

I said:

I have seen Nadal attack alot down the line against players with good backhands, against Nalbandian lately he goes only down the line.

What doesnt make sense? I maybe wasnt specific enought that it was down the line at their forehand sides, I obviously didnt mean he attacks the backhand of Murray and Nalbandian but that he adapts by playing their forehands by going down the line.



Rofl, this is quite a really stupid comment considering what I said. I really not going to respond. You clearly didn't read my comments on this.

Yes, Nadal's doing something never been done before naturally. So sad Borg/Muster/etc didn't get the same technology.

No, this is very stupid. You are putting Muster in the same league as Borg and Nadal. 2 are utterly dominant forces in their best surfaces and elsewhere rarely ever seen in tennis and Muster was a dominant force in mickey mouse tournaments where none of the best played and also competitive in some big claycourt tournaments (specially MC).

Technology has nothing to do with it, Muster wouldnt win lots of RGs in this era, dont be silly. Muster was not some player who ever had it in him to be a great in tennis with any technology, the thing that made him special is that he made the basolute best of the little gifts he was born with.

Nadal and Borg are legends and born with godgiven talent, it is not so much about technology as you try to make it seem.

BauerAlmeida
05-12-2012, 05:16 AM
They would have evolved as different players, using the technology and surfaces of that time.

They are both very talented so Nadal and Djoker would be slam winners in any era.

Nadal would be kinda like Borg, Djoker similar to Connors.

Lol @ nostalgiatards who think Nadal and Djoker would fail in the 1990's because their gamestyle is adapted completely to modern surfaces and racquets.


I can't believe it, but I agree 100%.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 05:51 AM
There are a few basic problems with this sadly. Rafafools and Djokovic fans for the most part can't comprehend tennis existed before they came top of the tree.

Secondly as HkZ said there is no time machine can't transport back time. Then again Nadal plays like a top 90s claycourt player naturally the upgraded version, but he wouldn't get as much as spin as he does now. Even then no way they'd play the same way then as now.

Surfaces were too different for them to be dominant everywhere. Yes, they would win Slams in that era, but Federer made the point about Nadal as it applies to Djokovic. "Anyway, every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him and myself".

Of course there is no way to tell effectively despite what sexybeast will tell you.

Houstonko
05-12-2012, 06:11 AM
Not saying about surface speed. From 1990s to 2003 the racquet string and nutrition is different. Its very difficult to get a return in wimbledon due to the racquets. Rafa and Nole won't do anything because they don't have natural talent in their serve.

Today their current serve is the maximum they can do, its a strong tell on what they can do in 90s.

Houstonko
05-12-2012, 06:18 AM
the pig would still be the clay king, I mean, in the 90 you had Muster who was a great claycourter but not even close to Nadull and some low tier spaniards as Bruguera, Costa, etc.. and honestly, they are not better than Almagro/Ferrer and these two can hardly play two sets to Nadull. Moya wasnt (IMO) exactly only a claycourter so I dont count on him.

I have respect for Guga, he was an agressive claycourter, really enjoyable to watch and winner of 3 RG... I think he the only claycourter of that decade that can steal some match to Nadull, but still he would be the king as he is now.

On the other hand I cant see Humbolito winning GS at any other surface, only clay.

Djokovic would be top 10 most probably. Being runner up in some USO/AO but hardly beating Agassi/Sampras.

Don't think Rafa is much better than 90s clay specialists. He struggled against Coria in 2005 Rome Final at his peak physical strength. This is a giant tell. Today there r hardly any specialists who can play real clay court tennis with endurance, maybe only Djokovic. Rafa has it easy to the final.
Those 90s players are training whole year for the clay season(skippin/tanking most of the year) compared to today, none of them do this.

rvI0ClKPK-w

e3Xsb3x9vVE

MIMIC
05-12-2012, 06:23 AM
These fucking threads, Jesus!

Clay Death
05-12-2012, 06:24 AM
get real mate. he was 10 years old when he played coria.


look at his clay record now.

Lestat
05-12-2012, 06:30 AM
Don't think Rafa is much better than 90s clay specialists. He struggled against Coria in 2005 Rome Final at his peak physical strength. This is a giant tell. Today there r hardly any specialists who can play real clay court tennis with endurance, maybe only Djokovic. Rafa has it easy to the final.
Those 90s players are training whole year for the clay season(skippin/tanking most of the year) compared to today, none of them do this.

rvI0ClKPK-w

e3Xsb3x9vVE

I didnt consider Coria as a player of the 90s.

Coria was a hell of claycourter, only stopped by his mental weakness. He should have won at least two RG.

Mountaindewslave
05-12-2012, 06:43 AM
As always, impossible to answer since who knows what type of play style they would develop had they been born to play in the 90s..

But, if we go by how they play now, Nadal would still be a reckoning on clay. How much? Hard to say. While much of the spin he generates can be attributed to how he strokes the ball, you have to be retarded as fuck to think that technology isn't playing a huge factor in it as well. So he wouldn't be getting this massive top spin were he to play in the 90s. Outside of RG, Australia would be logical to think of some success for him. Titles? I don't think so. Australia has always been the 2nd slowest since the 90s, however, remember that Nadal has only won Australia once, so would be impossible to say because Australia in the 90s along with aggressive big serving baseliners that Nadal dislikes facing could have been too great to succeed in. Wimbledon and US Open IMO would have been out of the question regardless.

Djokovic IMO would have better overall success than Nadal. He plays well on faster surfaces, evident by his indoor successes, several finals at Cincinnati which is arguably the fastest event at the moment, and a great record in New York. I mean we just have to look at Agassi for some comparison. Agassi IMO more aggressive and different considering how early he took the ball, but both have fantastic ground games, strong consistency, adequate serves and one of the best returns in the game. Djokovic is arguably better coming in, however, Agassi was really strong against players with variety which is something Djokovic seems to struggle with.

My guess? Nadal 1 AO and 5 RGs. Djokovic 2 AO, 1 RG, 1 USO. inb4 Rafatards and Noletards flame my guess because clearly they have time machines and can go back into the 90s and see that Nadal/Djokovic would win every single slam from 1990 to 2000.



Who cares if they are amazing athletes. Tennis in the 90s wasn't entirely about tennis rackets with legs.

entirely delusional if you think that 90s rackets would prevent Nadal from creating massive topspin :o remember today all other players have access to the SAME EXACT equipment that he has so it's not as though he has any advantage technology wise, the different is his talent and HOW he hits the ball.

in the 90s Nadal would still be hitting with WAY more spin than his opponents AND he might actually be benefited by the ball type and conditions of clay in the 90s. the fact is pretty much any era Nadal would dominate on clay and its pathetic to say otherwise.

Nadal and Djokovic would probably due well on any surface at any time, they are great athletes, and their physical strengths, flexibility, speed, power, all contribute to why they do so well. both would be able to do damage on hard court and grass at moments but obviously not as consistantly as today.

Naudio Spanlatine
05-12-2012, 06:44 AM
This is why GM has become worst and worst day by day:facepalm:

Mountaindewslave
05-12-2012, 06:46 AM
I don't like hypotheticals that much, but I think neither Nadal or Djokovic or even Federer would have been consistent no.1 in the 90s.

Pistol Pete is the ultimate fast court player imo. It's obviously a 100% hypothetical situation, but I don't think any of the current crop would have stopped Pete's dominance in those specific very fast courts at Wimbledon and to a lesser extent US Open.

His serve was one of the best ever and he actually went for broke and made the shots more often that not. Imagine Tsonga, only instead of only making those shots very rarely (2008 AO vs Nadal, 2011 W vs Fed...) doing it most of the time.

The courts at Wimbledon and USO in the 90s were just tailor-made for a player like Sampras to dominate.

are you fucking kidding me? do you seriously think Federer would not dominate in the 90s with fast conditions? it would be like heaven for him. YES, he had easier competition in the early to mid 2000s than he would in the 90s but the speed of the courts more than makes up for this. Federer would dominate any era, he's the most naturally gifted tennis player to exist (at least to exist and take advantage of his game) and Pistol Pete's only chance would be on grass because of his serve. Federer in his prime is a perfect tennis specimen and regardless of who is against the net or what the surface is like he is practically unbeatable on surfaces besides clay....

and quite frankly in the 90s on clay if Federer didn't have Nadal around he probably would rack up a bunch of them too. Agassi and Sampras never had the movement that Federer had nor the pure game with almost no flaws. false conversation these days labels Federer's backhand as his weakest shot throughout his career, but when he was younger it was not a very bad shot at all. over time it appears to have become more of a weakness but 2004-2007 it was a weapon as well.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 07:12 AM
Quite frankly mountain you don't have a clue when it comes to Fed on clay. Before 2003 he lost to clay guys who were at their peak in the 90s, yes the style of game he doesn't face anymore.

Houstonko
05-12-2012, 07:16 AM
get real mate. he was 10 years old when he played coria.


look at his clay record now.

Look at his clay record today then. One competitor who plays with endurance, puts ball in consistently, real clay court tennis etc.. makes him tank. Last year Djokovic play the same as Coria in this video, with a more accurate backhand. However Nadal was better on clay in 2005 though, had better records. Coria is the last real clay player who specialise in clay, Ferrer is not & miles away from Coria.

TigerTim
05-12-2012, 08:56 AM
Rafa would sweep 7RG and perhaps 1/2AO, Novak would win around 3/4AO and a USO. Sampras would destroy them on grass, and often at the USO.

paseo
05-12-2012, 09:23 AM
I'm sorry, Man. I don't know.

MIMIC
05-12-2012, 10:23 AM
I wonder what kind of threads Chase Visa would post in the 90s.

70-68
05-12-2012, 10:44 AM
Impossible to tell. They might have developed into a different player with different game. I don't know if they would win more or less, but with the gamestyle they are playing in this era, they would probably not win Wimbledon in the '90s. Nadal would probably dominate on clay, but as some people said, he wouldn't be able to create so much spin with a racket from the '90s, so his greatest strength would be taken away, he could be more beatable. Djokovic would have a decent shot at every slam except Wimbledon.
Also, people are saying they are so talented they would probably adapt to the various surfaces from previous eras. Well, they didn't really show a great ability to adapt to this blue clay, so this remains questionable to me.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 01:55 PM
Quite frankly mountain you don't have a clue when it comes to Fed on clay. Before 2003 he lost to clay guys who were at their peak in the 90s, yes the style of game he doesn't face anymore.

He lost to anyone before 2003, anyone anywhere if I remember correctly. Like Philippoussis in Hamburg, Gaudenzi and Mantilla in Rome, Nalbandian in Nonte Carlo, Horna and Arazi in RG, Jiri Novak and Radek Stepanek in Gstaad and this is just on clay 2002-2003. Before 2004 he was not a reliable player, could win against anyone and lose against anyone anywhere. In fact a minority of the clay matches were lost to typical 90s claycourters, most of the losses on any suface didnt make much sense. He also had a 1-7 h2h against Hewitt in 2003 and 0-5 against Nalbandian and he couldnt beat Henman in half a dozen matches. Federer in 2003 simply had problems dealing with players he didnt like playing, it was mostly mental.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 01:57 PM
Federer never liked playing the 'topspin' clay court player even before Humbalito showed up. Acasuso almost beat him in 09 RG ffs.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:04 PM
Federer never liked playing the 'topspin' clay court player even before Humbalito showed up. Acasuso almost beat him in 09 RG ffs.

Federer after 2004 learned to defeat players he doesnt like playing. In 2003 Federer would be straight setted by Acasuso, in 2009 he won in 4 sets. I recommend you rewatch how Federer reacted in 2003 when he was having trouble with something compared to in his peak, it is like day and night. It doesnt really make any sense how some people can neglect the importance of Federer's new mental approach and maturing on court, it is actually the key factor to his transformation into a 16-slam champion.

Also, Federer doesnt lose to Nadal because he doesnt like playing topspin claycourt players, but because Nadal is a better player on clay.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 02:10 PM
Gaudio better than Kuerten hahahahahahahahahaha.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:11 PM
Gaudio better than Kuerten hahahahahahahahahaha.

No one said that. Silly.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 02:13 PM
Federer after 2004 learned to defeat players he doesnt like playing. In 2003 Federer would be straight setted by Acasuso, in 2009 he won in 4 sets. I recommend you rewatch how Federer reacted in 2003 when he was having trouble with something compared to in his peak, it is like day and night. It doesnt really make any sense how some people can neglect the importance of Federer's new mental approach and maturing on court, it is actually the key factor to his transformation into a 16-slam champion.

Also, Federer doesnt lose to Nadal because he doesnt like playing topspin claycourt players, but because Nadal is a better player on clay.

He won that 4 setter cause Acasuso shit his pants. Fed was poor in that tournament till the final but he kept wriggling through.

And Costa and Guga beat him in 04 as well.

And as for the last sentence- Nadal isn't a better player off it, but he continues to trouble Federer because of match-up issues. On clay, it is only highlighted more.

Federer has always hated topspin dirtballers and he's quite fortunate there aren't many credible ones around.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:16 PM
Some people will make it out that Nadal is just a topspin freak, he is so much more than that just like Sampras is so much more than an all serve freak. You cant just simplify tennis legends like that. Both Sampras and Nadal are players that will go the distance to do whatever is nescessary to be victorious, Sampras would survive slower serves in the 80s and Nadal would easily survive less topspin in the 90s. Nadal went so far as learn to serve like Federer to win Usopen 2010, the overly enthusiastic Nadal fans are actually more right than the cynics when it comes to this, Nadal is very eager to learn and adapt.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 02:18 PM
He won that 4 setter cause Acasuso shit his pants. Fed was poor in that tournament till the final but he kept wriggling through.

And Costa and Guga beat him in 04 as well.

And as for the last sentence- Nadal isn't a better player off it, but he continues to trouble Federer because of match-up issues. On clay, it is only highlighted more.

Federer has always hated topspin dirtballers and he's quite fortunate there aren't many credible ones around.

Mantilla beat him in 2003 and he wasn't near his best, just like Costa and Guga. Nadal is perfect in breaking down Fed on clay, he knows what he needs to do and Fed knows it.

The surface homogenisation helps Fed on clay, but hurts him in the other surfaces. Nadal and Djokovic never played on slick, low bouncing courts.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:20 PM
He won that 4 setter cause Acasuso shit his pants. Fed was poor in that tournament till the final but he kept wriggling through.

And Costa and Guga beat him in 04 as well.

And as for the last sentence- Nadal isn't a better player off it, but he continues to trouble Federer because of match-up issues. On clay, it is only highlighted more.

Federer has always hated topspin dirtballers and he's quite fortunate there aren't many credible ones around.

Nadal is much better on clay than Federer, his h2h against the rest of the tour compared to Federer on clay should be enought as evidence that this is much more than a matchup issue. Nadal even is 10-2 up to Djokovic which is a bad matchup for him, he is probably 30-3 against players I consider to be matchup issues for him on clay (Davydenko, Djokovic, Soderling, Berdych, Del Potro).

Federer won the 4th set because Acasusor shit his pants, but the whole match things werent working for him and he just kept on beeing positive about his chanses and just winning important points and playing great in deciding moments. Federer 2003 would be the other way around.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:25 PM
Federer lost to Mantilla for the same reason he lost to Jiri Novak in Gstaad that year and the same reason he lost to Philippousis in Hamburg and Horna in RG that year. All 4 completely different kind of players that he would never have lost to in 2006-2009.

He also lost to Costa in Miami, Mirnyi in Rotterdam, Squillari in Sidney, Gambill in Doha before clay season begun. Anyone want to analyse how Federer is lucky to not play Gambill and Squilari on hardcourt during his peak? Is the retirement of players like Philippoussis the reason Federer dominated Hamburg 2004-2007? Would Horna and Arazi straight set Federer 2006 in RG 1st round?

Chase Visa
05-12-2012, 02:30 PM
Pre 2004 Federer was rather flaky. I can't remember any bad losses since then, however.

Chase Visa
05-12-2012, 02:31 PM
Actually if the Rafa of 2008/2010 showed up he would do damage everywhere.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 02:32 PM
Pre 2004 Federer was rather flaky. I can't remember any bad losses since then, however.

Hasn't played those types of players who aren't around because of surface homogenisation who changed their games think about. Fed struggles with Andreev and he is nowhere near the level of the other tougher guys in the 90s.

This thread is about Rafole and that question can never be really answered, since they will never go back to fast surfaces.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:35 PM
Pre 2004 Federer was rather flaky. I can't remember any bad losses since then, however.

Federer pre 2004 had Safin's consistency and brain and Safin didnt lose to Santoro 8 times simply because Santoro was a bad matchup but because Safin couldnt deal with playing someone who was a bad matchup to his game.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:36 PM
Hasn't played those types of players who aren't around because of surface homogenisation who changed their games think about. Fed struggles with Andreev and he is nowhere near the level of the other tougher guys in the 90s.

Federer deals with Andreev beeing a bad matchup and fins a way to defeat him, another excellent example of the differense between Federer post-2003 and pre-2003.

JanKowalski
05-12-2012, 02:38 PM
With 90s courts and 90s rackets Nadal would be irrelevant outside of clay and Djokovic could maybe do some damage in AO. W and USO would be out of their reach.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:38 PM
Actually if the Rafa of 2008/2010 showed up he would do damage everywhere.

Rafa serving like 2010 could very well defeat Sampras in the 90s Usopen final. No kidding.

I think Agassi would be one hell of a bad matchup to Nadal which he would not overcome, but great serving was always a good start to defeat Agassi.

JanKowalski
05-12-2012, 02:41 PM
Rafa serving like 2010 could very well defeat Sampras in the 90s Usopen final. No kidding.

:spit:

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:45 PM
:spit:

Sampras never won Usopen losing so few service games as Rafa 2010. Now take some time to consider what damage Nadal would do to Sampras' backhand.

70-68
05-12-2012, 02:46 PM
Would Nadal serve like that with a racket from 15-20 years ago?

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:50 PM
Would Nadal serve like that with a racket from 15-20 years ago?

Returners would have more trouble returning aswell with old raquets (probably even more) so it evens out. Lets just say no one could throw himself at 1st serves like Djokovic today, in the 90s raquet technology was more in favor of big servers than the returner.

barahmasa
05-12-2012, 02:52 PM
Sampras never won Usopen losing so few service games as Rafa 2010. Now take some time to consider what damage Nadal would do to Sampras' backhand.

Oh come on, Rafa's 2010 US Open opponents were a joke... :o

JanKowalski
05-12-2012, 02:53 PM
Sampras never won Usopen losing so few service games as Rafa 2010. Now take some time to consider what damage Nadal would do to Sampras' backhand.

Sampras would not allow Nadal to punish his backhand, because he would end the points quicker. Assuming Nadal would even reach the final. He wouldn't, playing with 90s racket. Nadal USO 10 is overrated, he had a cake draw.

Looner
05-12-2012, 02:53 PM
Hasn't played those types of players who aren't around because of surface homogenisation who changed their games think about. Fed struggles with Andreev and he is nowhere near the level of the other tougher guys in the 90s.

This thread is about Rafole and that question can never be really answered, since they will never go back to fast surfaces.

You keep claiming that Fed would lose to clay court specialists. I mean I thought you'd seen how JesusFed emerged after 2003. Surfaces were not as bad as now in 2004 or 2005. Fed also defeated Coria in Hamburg for crying out loud. I think you're wrong but you'll probably say I'm a tard/don't know shit/something even more stupid.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:54 PM
Oh come on, Rafa's 2010 US Open opponents were a joke... :o

It was bad, but not as much a joke as Sampras' 93 Usopen opponents. probably about even with Sampras' 96 and 2002 draw. Only Sampras 95 draw is obviously more impressive than Rafa 2010.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Sampras would not allow Nadal to punish his backhand, because he would end the points quicker. Assuming Nadal would even reach the final. He wouldn't, playing with 90s racket. Nadal USO 10 is overrated, he had a cake draw.

Sampras would before thinking of finishing points first have to figure out how to get back Nadal's serve to his backhand with interest so Nadal doesnt dominate his service games easily with his forehand to Sampras' backhand. Let me give this out for you: Sampras topspin backhand return was much worse than Federer's and nowhere comparable to Djokovic ofcourse.

Theoretically Sampras could defeat Nadal in 3-4 tiebreaks, but Nadal is mentally stronger than Agassi so each tiebreak would probably be 55-45 and not 70-30 like against Agassi. So, it would probably be a coin toss.

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 03:00 PM
You keep claiming that Fed would lose to clay court specialists. I mean I thought you'd seen how JesusFed emerged after 2003. Surfaces were not as bad as now in 2004 or 2005. Fed also defeated Coria in Hamburg for crying out loud. I think you're wrong but you'll probably say I'm a tard/don't know shit/something even more stupid.

Well not my fault you don't get it. The types of guys Federer struggles on clay aren't around anymore apart from Nadal with that gamestyle, that has already been answered due to court conditions.

Second of all you think Bruguera, Corretja, Kuerten, Mantilla and Costa he played none of them were at peak when they defeated him. Fed would be getting nothing less than shoulder high on the backhand, he didn't then as they were able to pin him on that side. Corretja, Guga, Mantilla and Costa did beat him, so you can't claim Fed wasn't at his peak, yet these guys on clay were past theirs. In other words you don't get match ups, as Coria is irrelevant and doesn't play the game to bother Fed.

barahmasa
05-12-2012, 03:04 PM
Anyway, I agree with most other posters, Rafa would still dominate clay with at least 4-5 RG titles, maybe he could snatch an AO title, but he wouldn't be much of a threat at the US Open and would probably never win Wimbledon.

Nole would maybe snatch a few AO's and would always be a serious contender at the US Open and other fast hardcourts.

Both of them would probably be number 1° at some time.

But who could know for sure...

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:09 PM
. Corretja did beat him

He played 2 good matches in RG against peak Corretja as an 18 and 19 year old, most sets were very close and he lost mostly because of lack of experience and not because Corretja's game was "too difficult for him to handle".

Action Jackson
05-12-2012, 03:10 PM
Oh come on, Rafa's 2010 US Open opponents were a joke... :o

Never take what sexybeast says seriously.

Considering there is no solid forensic or no time machine that goes backwards it's something that can't be told. Nadal facing someone on a fast low bouncing hardcourt or indoors would be fun to watch, but will never see it.

Looner
05-12-2012, 03:11 PM
Well not my fault you don't get it. The types of guys Federer struggles on clay aren't around anymore apart from Nadal with that gamestyle, that has already been answered due to court conditions.

Second of all you think Bruguera, Corretja, Kuerten, Mantilla and Costa he played none of them were at peak when they defeated him. Fed would be getting nothing less than shoulder high on the backhand, he didn't then as they were able to pin him on that side. Corretja, Guga, Mantilla and Costa did beat him, so you can't claim Fed wasn't at his peak, yet these guys on clay were past theirs. In other words you don't get match ups, as Coria is irrelevant and doesn't play the game to bother Fed.

Yeah, yeah, I don't get match ups. Because Federer hasn't overcome every single one of his match up problems. And if you claim that RN only has advantage because of the shoulder-high balls then that's ridiculous. It's also the lefty stuff. I know Guga has defeated Feds at RG but to say Fed won't overcome the bad match ups at his peak is a bit ridiculous. Having a 'know it all' opinion is similar.

Federer really matured as a player from 2003 onwards. To claim he would lose to those guys every single time like he's lost to RN is nothing short of ridiculous.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 03:15 PM
It was bad, but not as much a joke as Sampras' 93 Usopen opponents. probably about even with Sampras' 96 and 2002 draw. Only Sampras 95 draw is obviously more impressive than Rafa 2010.

Sjeng Schalken (2002) was a better player than any Nadal USO 10 opponent sans Djokovic.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:17 PM
AJ is debating like Start da game who claimed Federer is a slowcourt player who cant play on fast courts. Proving his point by showing that Henman, Rafter and other serve and volleyers dominated Federer pre-2004 before surfaces got slower to allow Federer to dominate tennis.

Ofcourse you can make any point valid taking example of some results Federer had pre 2004, peak Hewitt, Nalbandian and Agassi were 15-1 against Federer pre-2003 master cup, maybe it was their aging and inconsistency that allowed Federer to dominate later on?

Henman and Rafter were something like 9-0 against Federer in 2003, obviously Federer would never handle serve and volleyers. Ferrero and Haas also caused Federer pre-2003 loads of trouble, if only Ferrero hadnt been injured and Haas inconsistent Federer would not dominate after 2004.

We could go on and on like this...

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:18 PM
Sjeng Schalken (2002) was a better player than any Nadal USO 10 opponent sans Djokovic.

Big sans, that Djokovic guy.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 03:19 PM
Big sans, that Djokovic guy.

And I give you in 2002 Roddick and Agassi. Right back at 'cha.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:21 PM
Yeah, yeah, I don't get match ups. Because Federer hasn't overcome every single one of his match up problems. And if you claim that RN only has advantage because of the shoulder-high balls then that's ridiculous. It's also the lefty stuff. I know Guga has defeated Feds at RG but to say Fed won't overcome the bad match ups at his peak is a bit ridiculous. Having a 'know it all' opinion is similar.

Federer really matured as a player from 2003 onwards. To claim he would lose to those guys every single time like he's lost to RN is nothing short of ridiculous.

In AJs world matchups are written on stone, they can never be overcome. Never! It must be easy for him to bet when he got secret information on the matchup issue, when no one else in the entire world except the tennis genius which is AJ can see that matchup issues exist in tennis.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:22 PM
And I give you in 2002 Roddick and Agassi. Right back at 'cha.

Let us limit to players between 20-30, shall we? Not teenager Roddick and Agassi beeing one year older than old Sampras himself. Djokovic was at peak age.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 03:24 PM
Let us limit to players between 20-30, shall we? Not teenager Roddick and Agassi beeing one year older than old Sampras himself. Djokovic was at peak age.

Agassi who won the next grand slam title after this one and Roddick who reached the SF of it. Yeah.

USO 2002 draw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal USO 2010 draw. One tough match and six easy ones including two of his bendover Spaniards and Simon desperate to go and see his newborn son.

:haha:

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:27 PM
Agassi who won the next grand slam title after this one and Roddick who reached the SF of it. Yeah.

USO 2002 draw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal USO 2010 draw. One tough match and six easy ones including two of his bendover Spaniards and Simon desperate to go and see his newborn son.

:haha:

I think you could say the 2002 draw is slightly more difficult than Nadal's 2010 but Sampras 93 surely is easier than Nadal 2010.

What is more important is that we all know that Nadal was playing tennis in that Usopen that no player in the draw could beat (except maybe Federer), had Murray gone to SF he would be slaughtered, Murray even lost to the bad Nadal 2011 edition.

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 03:30 PM
I think you could say the 2002 draw is slightly more difficult than Nadal's 2010 but Sampras 93 surely is easier than Nadal 2010.

What is more important is that we all know that Nadal was playing tennis in that Usopen that no player in the draw could beat (except maybe Federer), had Murray gone to SF he would be slaughtered, Murray even lost to the bad Nadal 2011 edition.

But Sampras wasn't?

Murray 2010 was playing a LOT better than 2011 though but ran into his own awkward customer in Wawrinka, so we'll never know.

EDIT: 1993 USO was a kind one for Pete I suppose- Chang and Pioline the toughest opponents and Volkov in an SF. No bendover countrymen though.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:33 PM
But Sampras wasn't?

Murray 2010 was playing a LOT better than 2011 though but ran into his own awkward customer in Wawrinka, so we'll never know.

Sampras wasnt what?

Murray 2010 would not defeat Nadal serving 200 mph, that would just not happen. Not even Djokovic was able to do that, why would Murray be up to the challenge?

rocketassist
05-12-2012, 03:37 PM
Sampras wasnt what?

Murray 2010 would not defeat Nadal serving 200 mph, that would just not happen. Not even Djokovic was able to do that, why would Murray be up to the challenge?

because Murray's a better returner of big serves than Nole is? Every Noletard who disputes that isn't going to make me budge on that. Not to mention USO 2010 was faster than USO 2011.

Nadal 2010 was an easy as it got. Avoided all of Tsonga, Del Potro out through injury, Berdych on a faster court than the AO one, and Murray and instead got two of his worshipping armada and Grandpa Youzhny.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:40 PM
because Murray's a better returner of big serves than Nole is? Every Noletard who disputes that isn't going to make me budge on that. Not to mention USO 2010 was faster than USO 2011.

Nadal 2010 was an easy as it got. Avoided all of Tsonga, Del Potro out through injury, Berdych on a faster court than the AO one, and Murray and instead got two of his worshipping armada and Grandpa Youzhny.

Del Potro is the only one on your list who could defeat Nadal in Usopen 2010, Berdych had just been destroyed in Wimbledon final despite form of his life and sucks in Usopen and Tsonga is not very good in Usopen aswell.

Maybe Soderling would be a challenge but he is a bad returner.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:44 PM
Anyway, I still would love to hear how Sampras would break Nadal's serve. That thing has been on my mind for such a long time, how would Sampras ever get to challenge Nadal on his service games?

Some say he would be running around on 2nd serves but Nadal has such a high 1st serve % on important matches and he was actually serving loads of 2nd serve aces in 2010 Usopen.

JanKowalski
05-12-2012, 03:55 PM
Nadal's USO 10 was a joke draw including Djokovic. He had more time to rest after playing a useless Youzhny in SF, while Djokovic played a 5-setter against Fed. Djokovic was visibly tired in the final, while Nadal was fresh as a daisy, having had a cakewalk to the final.

sexybeast
05-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Nadal's USO 10 was a joke draw including Djokovic. He had more time to rest after playing a useless Youzhny in SF, while Djokovic played a 5-setter against Fed.

Well, Djokovic has shown to be quite good recovering from 5 setters. His 5 setter against Murray was much more physically demanding than the one against Federer. Overall I agree Djokovic was tired in the last set, it doesnt take away the whole achievment of Nadal defeating one of the best hardcourters of our generation to win Usopen.

It certanly is better than defeating Pioline or likewise, it is definetly not the easiest Usopen draw of all time. But yeah, it was an easy draw.

Looner
05-12-2012, 04:13 PM
That's post glutten free Djokovic you're talking about. The Djoko from the USO 2010 final was a joke physically and crucially mentaly. At the time he was 4-13 before the match started against RN...

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 10:35 PM
I was just looking at some stats and found some interesting stuff about Nadal on grass. I have previously defended Nadal saying he is foremost a great holder of service games on grass and therefor he would still be great on fast grass, this is just a little evidence that I am right:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=4&s=2&y=0

Nadal has 90% of service games held, together with Rusedski and Krajicek and not far behind Ivanisevic, Philippoussis and Stich (at 91) and Federer got 92. Ahead of Boris Becker (89).

However Nadal is an avarage returner on grass:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=9&s=2&y=0

Ranked far behind Federer, Murray and Djokovic here and behind even Del Potro and some random unknown players at 57th.

Makes you wonder if Nadal actually would benefit from 90s grasscourts, specially when playing players like Djokovic who is an avarage server on grass but quite good returner. Nadal's serve-forehand combo on grass is one of the most underrated weapons of all time, you cant escape it unless you have a super backhand return like Djokovic's. Nadal's sliding adcourtserve is close to impossible to return with interest (even his 2nd serve on grass) and if your return is avarage he will punish you with his forehand, another underrated shot which is among the top 5 forehands of all time in tennis.

Take a player like Sampras who had no good topspin return on his backhand, he would actually be completely dominated by Nadal's serve and forehand combination.

Federer broke Nadal 4 times in 10 sets between 2007-2008, Murray got 2 breaks in the 10 sets he played Nadal 2008-2011.

So we have 2 of the best returners on grasscourt in this era and they won 6 breaks in 20 sets against Nadal, on faster grass naturally that number would be even lower. Am I wrong with my logics here?

I dont like Nadal but I get really tired of people underrating Nadal as a "moonballer" who would never even be able to compete without slow surfaces. It doesnt make any sense, Nadal may not have won the career grand slam in other eras but he would be nightmarish for many great players, like Sampras and he would most definetly be competitive at Wimbledon.

Johnny Groove
05-14-2012, 10:37 PM
They would both still be top 10 players, despite what the haters say.

bjurra
05-14-2012, 10:41 PM
They would both still be top 10 players, despite what the haters say.

They would be top 3 players.

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 10:45 PM
They would both still be top 10 players, despite what the haters say.

Top 10? Both would br nr1 at some point.

Some people saying Djokovic would only win some AOs, completely ridiculous. Rafter won 2 Usopens and Djokovic is alot greater on any kind of hardcourt than Rafter.

Nadal would win atleast 3 of 4 slams in my mind. He would win AO, RG and either one of Wimbledon and Usopen at some point. He would be nightmarish for Sampras on any surface except indoors. Agassi would however be a really bad matchup for Rafa, lucky for him Agassi would be in another dimension for most of the 90s.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-14-2012, 10:56 PM
what would've happened in the 1990's

courier would have ***** them
eberg would have ***** them
sampras would have ***** them
becker would have ***** them
Agassi (when on) would have ***** them
goran would have ***** them

lucky to be top 20 both of them

federer would have won calender grand slam

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 10:56 PM
I am sure if MTF was around in Borg's era there would be nostalgitards calling Borg a claycourt specialist with bad competition on grass against clowns and be speaking about Laver, Rosewall, Kramer, Budge and Gonzalez as true grasscourters from the great old era from the days they were young and actually enthusiastic about something in life.

Mark Lenders
05-14-2012, 11:03 PM
I agree with the poster who said Nadal of USO 2010 would beat Sampras in the USO.

It might be an unpopular opinion, the Nadal of USO 2010 is the highest level of tennis I've seen across a Grand Slam tournament.

It was basically the best rallier on tour + Sampras-like serving. It was amazing quality. Of course it was a one off: if Nadal could serve like that all the time, he'd be (almost) unbeatable.

LOL at people suggesting Murray would have beaten Rafa in USO 2010. Murray can't even beat Rafa when he's serving like a WTA player. How was he supposed to beat Rafa serving 200km/h+ bombs on a regular basis. He'd have brushed aside like all Rafa's opponents were.


Not to mention Federer. Roger is usually dominated dominated from the baseline from Rafa. Now add tons of free points on serve for Rafa on serve. I did the math and the result is = Rafa in 3.

Only kind of player who would have stood a chance would be an on-fire big hitter. A poster, I think Sexybeast, said Del Potro wuld have a chance (playing like 2009, I assume), but I doubt he could deal with Rafa's serve honestly

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 11:08 PM
Nadal during his peak:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=4&s=2&y=2008

2008 service games held on grass:95%

That is Karlovic's stats on service games held on grass.

You are saying that a bad returner like Sampras with his weak backhand would be able to return Nadal's serve without letting Nadal dominate with his forehand?

Would Sampras ever get out of rallies with his backhand while beeing pushed by Nadal's forehand?

Mark Lenders
05-14-2012, 11:10 PM
Nadal during his peak:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=4&s=2&y=2008

2008 service games held on grass:95%

That is Karlovic's stats on service games held on grass.

You are saying that a bad returner like Sampras with his weak backhand would be able to return Nadal's serve without letting Nadal dominate with his forehand?

Would Sampras ever get out of rallies with his backhand while beeing pushed by Nadal's forehand?

I assume that's meant at me, since the last post was mine.

I agreed with you, in case you failed to notice. I definitely think Nadal serving like USO 2010 would beat Sampras at the USO.

2008? Nah. His serve wasn't that great, he held 95% of the service games because of his ground game, which is long been the best on tour, not because of his serve. Although, that said, his serve is also been more effective on grass than on other surfaces.

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 11:12 PM
Nadal is 0.619 on tiebreaks, Sampras is 0.637 so he has a small advantage but both are top 5 tiebreakers of all time and mentally among the strongest of the open era.

It would not be like playing Agassi or Ivanisevic on tiebreaks for Sampras (both far below 6.00)

sexybeast
05-14-2012, 11:15 PM
I assume that's meant at me, since the last post was mine.

I agreed with you, in case you failed to notice. I definitely think Nadal serving like USO 2010 would beat Sampras at the USO.

2008? Nah. His serve wasn't that great, he held 95% of the service games because of his ground game, which is long been the best on tour, not because of his serve. Although, that said, his serve is also been more effective on grass than on other surfaces.

Well, I am both thinking of Sampras against Nadal in Wimbledon and Usopen. Normally Nadal's serve suits grass perfectly because his serve slides away on grass far out from his opponents backhand while on hardcourt it doesnt slide so much and neither can he hit throught the surface.

However in 2010 he was hitting so hard he easily hit through opponents, sometimes even on 2nd serve. It was actually mindblowing to watch, I couldnt decide if he was serving better than Federer at that tournament.

But as that works as an exception, on grass he would always be challenging Sampras.

Mark Lenders
05-14-2012, 11:20 PM
Well, I am both thinking of Sampras against Nadal in Wimbledon and Usopen. Normally Nadal's serve suits grass perfectly because his serve slides away on grass far out from his opponents backhand while on hardcourt it doesnt slide so much and neither can he hit throught the surface.

However in 2010 he was hitting so hard he easily hit through opponents, sometimes even on 2nd serve. It was actually mindblowing to watch, I couldnt decide if he was serving better than Federer at that tournament.

But as that works as an exception, on grass he would always be challenging Sampras.


Agree. But that goes without saying. He challenged Federer on grass, no reason why he'd not challenge Sampras.

Agree about USO 2010 too. No doubt in my mind that had Federer beaten Djokovic in the semis, he'd have lost the final in 3 sets. Nadal usually dominates rallies vs Federer. Now add tons of free points for Nadal on serve and it's impossible to look past Nadal in 3.

His level of play in that tournament was just mindblowing. Groundgame like Nadal + serving bombs like Sampras.

king_roger
05-14-2012, 11:29 PM
Agree. But that goes without saying. He challenged Federer on grass, no reason why he'd not challenge Sampras.

Agree about USO 2010 too. No doubt in my mind that had Federer beaten Djokovic in the semis, he'd have lost the final in 3 sets. Nadal usually dominates rallies vs Federer. Now add tons of free points for Nadal on serve and it's impossible to look past Nadal in 3.

His level of play in that tournament was just mindblowing. Groundgame like Nadal + serving bombs like Sampras.

Or is it maybe because of his puffy draw? I mean, Lopez, Verdasco, Youzhny up to the final. And Djokovic had chances, but was more tired because of that super saturday tradition.

Mark Lenders
05-14-2012, 11:33 PM
Or is it maybe because of his puffy draw? I mean, Lopez, Verdasco, Youzhny up to the final. And Djokovic had chances, but was more tired because of that super saturday tradition.

No.

No one was beating Nadal in that tournament. Djokovic taking a set in itself was a feat considering how insanely well Rafa was serving and playing.

king_roger
05-14-2012, 11:39 PM
No.

No one was beating Nadal in that tournament. Djokovic taking a set in itself was a feat considering how insanely well Rafa was serving and playing.

Well, that's your opinion. The fact is that he won it, and it's all that matters. I could also say no one was beating Fed in RG 2009, but the truth is he was patchy for a couple of matches. In the end, it doesn't really matter. But the thing is, Fed is actually better at returning faster serves than the sliced ones. And he sure is better than Djokovic at finishing points quickly. It all depends on the form of the day. And that super saturday nonsense should be abandoned, it should be friday-sunday like all the other slams.

Mark Lenders
05-14-2012, 11:44 PM
Well, that's your opinion. The fact is that he won it, and it's all that matters. I could also say no one was beating Fed in RG 2009, but the truth is he was patchy for a couple of matches. In the end, it doesn't really matter. But the thing is, Fed is actually better at returning faster serves than the sliced ones. And he sure is better than Djokovic at finishing points quickly. It all depends on the form of the day. And that super saturday nonsense should be abandoned, it should be friday-sunday like all the other slams.

That'd be bizarre though, considering Federer was on the brink of defeat quite a few times in RG 2009, while Nadal squashed aside all his rivals including Djokovic.

Federer can't beat Nadal at Slams when Nadal is serving like a WTA player. How would he be benefitted by Rafa getting tons of free points on serve?

EddieNero
05-14-2012, 11:44 PM
As well as they did in Madrid.

reery
05-15-2012, 12:24 AM
Or is it maybe because of his puffy draw? I mean, Lopez, Verdasco, Youzhny up to the final. And Djokovic had chances, but was more tired because of that super saturday tradition.

Djokovic was still in awe and shock after finally beating Federer at the USO, where it took him 4 attempts to do it. That victory took out too much from him, he was barely in the final mentally and physically.

Slice Winner
05-15-2012, 01:15 AM
That'd be bizarre though, considering Federer was on the brink of defeat quite a few times in RG 2009, while Nadal squashed aside all his rivals including Djokovic.

Federer can't beat Nadal at Slams when Nadal is serving like a WTA player. How would he be benefitted by Rafa getting tons of free points on serve?

Because it was on a fast court. Nadal has never played Federer at a slam on a fast court. It would alter the match up in Federer's favour.

Topspindoctor
05-15-2012, 01:45 AM
On fast grass Nadal would be literally unbreakable. His serve might not be amazing on the other courts, but the lefty out wide serve has made him dominant player on grass in this era.

Sampras might hold his serve against Nadal. But he wouldn't break him either.

Mark Lenders
05-15-2012, 01:48 AM
Because it was on a fast court. Nadal has never played Federer at a slam on a fast court. It would alter the match up in Federer's favour.

What? Wimbledon is clearly the fastest Slam still. It's still the Slam with more 1st serve points won % and hold % and winner/UE ratio. It's slower than before but it's still the fastest. Young Nadal (2006 and 2007 when he was 19 and 20) caused Federer all kinds of trouble there and beat him in 2008.

The match-up has always been terrible for Federer, which would only be accentuated if Nadal could win 2/3 free points per service game as he was in USO 2010.

rocketassist
05-15-2012, 02:03 AM
What? Wimbledon is clearly the fastest Slam still. It's still the Slam with more 1st serve points won % and hold % and winner/UE ratio. It's slower than before but it's still the fastest. Young Nadal (2006 and 2007 when he was 19 and 20) caused Federer all kinds of trouble there and beat him in 2008.

The match-up has always been terrible for Federer, which would only be accentuated if Nadal could win 2/3 free points per service game as he was in USO 2010.

It's difficult to tell what the fastest slam is now. RG's faster than it once was, AO's mega slow, USO got slowed for 2011 and Wimbledon's well, slow.

Slice Winner
05-15-2012, 02:04 AM
What? Wimbledon is clearly the fastest Slam still. It's still the Slam with more 1st serve points won % and hold % and winner/UE ratio. It's slower than before but it's still the fastest. Young Nadal (2006 and 2007 when he was 19 and 20) caused Federer all kinds of trouble there and beat him in 2008.

The match-up has always been terrible for Federer, which would only be accentuated if Nadal could win 2/3 free points per service game as he was in USO 2010.

The Wimbledon court is medium speed, with a fairly low bounce. However, they use very heavy balls, which slows the whole event down.
It's way slower than the USO. I'm shocked you think it's fast.

Naudio Spanlatine
05-15-2012, 02:07 AM
This thread is just.....
http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j464/fashnuguess/random%20gifs2/tumblr_l8sgej1CFK1qbwdexo1_400.gif

Mark Lenders
05-15-2012, 02:11 AM
The Wimbledon court is medium speed, with a fairly low bounce. However, they use very heavy balls, which slows the whole event down.
It's way slower than the USO. I'm shocked you think it's fast.

And I'm shocked you think otherwise. Wimbledon is the Slam with the best serve stats by a distance. Where else could you have seen Tsonga literally serve Federer off the court?

Mark Lenders
05-15-2012, 02:12 AM
It's difficult to tell what the fastest slam is now. RG's faster than it once was, AO's mega slow, USO got slowed for 2011 and Wimbledon's well, slow.

It's not difficult at all - it's Wimbledon.

It might be slower than before but it's still the fastest, the one where you see the better winner/UE errors ratio and the one where the serves still plays a big part.

SelvenluvJo
05-15-2012, 03:15 AM
Nadal would have dominated on Clay.


this

MIMIC
05-15-2012, 03:44 AM
Djokovic was still in awe and shock after finally beating Federer at the USO, where it took him 4 attempts to do it. That victory took out too much from him, he was barely in the final mentally and physically.

To this very day, I still cannot believe that Federer fans will make excuses for DJOKOVIC in order to discredit Nadal's U.S. Open.

rocketassist
05-15-2012, 03:50 AM
To this very day, I still cannot believe that Federer fans will make excuses for DJOKOVIC in order to discredit Nadal's U.S. Open.

Djoker should have won that USO- it was on his racket and he failed.

However in reverse circumstances Nadal shouldn't have lost the 2011 Wimbledon final.

Mechlan
05-15-2012, 04:12 AM
On fast grass Nadal would be literally unbreakable. His serve might not be amazing on the other courts, but the lefty out wide serve has made him dominant player on grass in this era.

Sampras might hold his serve against Nadal. But he wouldn't break him either.

For serious? Nadal does not have a great serve. When he's in the zone, it's good, but by no means unbreakable. Mostly Nadal just has an amazing ground game to back it up. Sampras relies on a few good shots to put pressure. He takes quite a lot of risk, but he's so good mentally that it pays off for him. Plus, Sampras would not be a fucking idiot like Federer and allow Nadal to serve to his backhand 95% of the time with no consequence. He'd have the balls to attack, and would probably surprise Nadal by pulling it out in the most critical point of a set too.

HKz
05-15-2012, 04:15 AM
What? Wimbledon is clearly the fastest Slam still. It's still the Slam with more 1st serve points won % and hold % and winner/UE ratio. It's slower than before but it's still the fastest. Young Nadal (2006 and 2007 when he was 19 and 20) caused Federer all kinds of trouble there and beat him in 2008.

The match-up has always been terrible for Federer, which would only be accentuated if Nadal could win 2/3 free points per service game as he was in USO 2010.

IMO US Open has been faster than Wimbledon for many years now.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-15-2012, 12:28 PM
how would nadal and nole play without cheat strings

you can't hit the ball with 5000rpm on 90s string technology
you dont get huge sweet spot zones

throw in real fast courts
uneven bounce
agressive big servers
agassi level oat returners
a real clay era of great clay courters

nadal and nole dont win shit

maybe a 250 here or there

federer wins calender grand slam

Sophocles
05-15-2012, 12:28 PM
Djoker should have won that USO- it was on his racket and he failed.

Exactly. Nadal's play that tournament is grotesquely overrated. He did a couple of things better than normal - served decently, though the difference is far smaller than most people imagine, & actually managed to hit the occasional backhand dtl -, but he left numerous short balls in the middle of the court in that final that Djoker inexplicably failed to punish.

Mark Lenders
05-15-2012, 12:29 PM
IMO US Open has been faster than Wimbledon for many years now.

Then why are serves so much more effective in Wimbledon? More aces, better hold %...

Sophocles
05-15-2012, 12:49 PM
I was just looking at some stats and found some interesting stuff about Nadal on grass. I have previously defended Nadal saying he is foremost a great holder of service games on grass and therefor he would still be great on fast grass, this is just a little evidence that I am right:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=4&s=2&y=0

Nadal has 90% of service games held, together with Rusedski and Krajicek and not far behind Ivanisevic, Philippoussis and Stich (at 91) and Federer got 92. Ahead of Boris Becker (89).

However Nadal is an avarage returner on grass:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=9&s=2&y=0

Ranked far behind Federer, Murray and Djokovic here and behind even Del Potro and some random unknown players at 57th.

Makes you wonder if Nadal actually would benefit from 90s grasscourts, specially when playing players like Djokovic who is an avarage server on grass but quite good returner. Nadal's serve-forehand combo on grass is one of the most underrated weapons of all time, you cant escape it unless you have a super backhand return like Djokovic's. Nadal's sliding adcourtserve is close to impossible to return with interest (even his 2nd serve on grass) and if your return is avarage he will punish you with his forehand, another underrated shot which is among the top 5 forehands of all time in tennis.

Take a player like Sampras who had no good topspin return on his backhand, he would actually be completely dominated by Nadal's serve and forehand combination.

Federer broke Nadal 4 times in 10 sets between 2007-2008, Murray got 2 breaks in the 10 sets he played Nadal 2008-2011.

So we have 2 of the best returners on grasscourt in this era and they won 6 breaks in 20 sets against Nadal, on faster grass naturally that number would be even lower. Am I wrong with my logics here?

I dont like Nadal but I get really tired of people underrating Nadal as a "moonballer" who would never even be able to compete without slow surfaces. It doesnt make any sense, Nadal may not have won the career grand slam in other eras but he would be nightmarish for many great players, like Sampras and he would most definetly be competitive at Wimbledon.

This is missing the point that Wimbledon grass in the 1990s was different. It was faster & much lower-bouncing. Nadal's sliding serve to the right-hander's backhand is most effective when the court is a) fast & b) high-bouncing. Look at how easily Federer handles Nadal's ad-court serve on low-bouncing surfaces. Sampras's return wasn't as good as Federer's, but it is underrated: he was playing & beating some of the best servers in the history of the game on fast surfaces, & contrary to what you imply, he wasn't winning every set on a tie-break. In the biggest matches he often went into the zone & blew people off the court. But anyway, the main point is Nadal's serve would have been less effective on '90s grass, not more, even if faster. Not only that, but also he'd have had returns coming back at him much faster, bouncing very low, so his 2nd shot, the forehand, would have been far less effective too, & against Sampras chipping & charging with superb net coverage he'd have had to hit it as a pinpoint passing shot to boot - easy on today's grass but very hard on yesterday's, at knee height or lower, with less time to prepare the shot. And as you say, he'd have had enormous problems returning serve against the best of the era. Factor in that Sampras combined massive & accurate serving with 1st-strike tennis, flat hitting, a deadly net game - elements that have always troubled Nadal on faster surfaces -, & Nadal ain't beating him on low-bouncing Wimbledon grass.

Nadal would have dominated clay nearly as much as he does today, perhaps even more. I could see Kuerten beating him perhaps, but only once or twice. The only caveat of course is if Djoker is also around & in 2011 form. Nadal wouldn't have won Wimbledon, though he would have made the semis or final a few times (less consistently than now). He'd have done squat indoors, as now. He'd have been owned by Agassi on hard courts but could have snatched an A.O. in Agassi's absence. He's had one year playing very well at the U.S.O. (though not as well as his tards make out) & if he repeated that in the 1990s I suppose he might have got lucky there that one year, depending on the draw.

Djoker isn't that good on grass and wouldn't have won Wimbledon in the '90s, though he would have made the later stages a few times. In 2011 form he'd be competing with Nadal on clay, otherwise he'd be largely 2nd best, not only to Nadal but also at times to the other top clay players of the day. On hard courts he'd be splitting slams with Agassi, Sampras, & Courier. Indoors he wouldn't be doing as well as Sampras & Becker but he'd probably win a few tournaments.

Slice Winner
05-15-2012, 01:19 PM
Then why are serves so much more effective in Wimbledon? More aces, better hold %...

It's to do with the bounce as well as the speed - USO is a higher bounce, so it's easier to return, despite being faster.
Serving stats on their own aren't a great way of getting an accurate take on a court's speed.

sexybeast
05-15-2012, 01:47 PM
This is missing the point that Wimbledon grass in the 1990s was different. It was faster & much lower-bouncing. Nadal's sliding serve to the right-hander's backhand is most effective when the court is a) fast & b) high-bouncing. Look at how easily Federer handles Nadal's ad-court serve on low-bouncing surfaces.

I wont say that you are wrong because I dont have the expertise on the grasscourt surface, I have never played on that surface but my impression is that if you serve with alot of sidespin on grasscourts the ball slides away from the opponent while on indoor courts the sidespin doesnt get much effect and that is why Nadal's serve is so good on grasscourts and not hardcourts. I dont think it got to do with high bounce, that is not my impression atleast. It should slide even more on faster grasscourts.



Sampras's return wasn't as good as Federer's, but it is underrated: he was playing & beating some of the best servers in the history of the game on fast surfaces, & contrary to what you imply, he wasn't winning every set on a tie-break. In the biggest matches he often went into the zone & blew people off the court. But anyway, the main point is Nadal's serve would have been less effective on '90s grass, not more, even if faster. Not only that, but also he'd have had returns coming back at him much faster, bouncing very low, so his 2nd shot, the forehand, would have been far less effective too, & against Sampras chipping & charging with superb net coverage he'd have had to hit it as a pinpoint passing shot to boot - easy on today's grass but very hard on yesterday's, at knee height or lower, with less time to prepare the shot. And as you say, he'd have had enormous problems returning serve against the best of the era. Factor in that Sampras combined massive & accurate serving with 1st-strike tennis, flat hitting, a deadly net game - elements that have always troubled Nadal on faster surfaces -, & Nadal ain't beating him on low-bouncing Wimbledon grass.

Sampras was not a horrible returner, he was actually good at returning big servers. I have no doubt he would have dealt with Roddick's serve almost as good as Federer does, but Nadal is a different beast. First of all Nadal can back up his serve with one of the best forehands of the open eras, one that barely ever misses and one that kills slice returns or weak returns every single time. Against Roddick you just need to get a good slice back and his serve is easy to block back at the same speed it comes to you but Nadal's serve is impossible to block because of all spin and Nadal's forehand doesnt allow you to slice back his serve. You need to return with interest like Djokovic does on his backhand side, problem is only Djokovic can do that, maybe Agassi in Sampras' era but Federer and Sampras cant return Nadal's 1st serve or even his 2nd serve with interest. They are doomed to be dominated by Nadal's forehand to their backhands from start on Nadal's serve.

Sampras would not be able to chip and charge against Nadal, it is suicide. Nadal deals with slices better than any player I have ever seen, it is unclear how low the ball must bounce for Nadal ever to struggle against slices on his forehand. Nadal also can hit passing shots at will, the only time to approach the net against Nadal is either on perfect approaches or on your serve because Nadal is an avarage returner.


Nadal would have dominated clay nearly as much as he does today, perhaps even more. I could see Kuerten beating him perhaps, but only once or twice. The only caveat of course is if Djoker is also around & in 2011 form. Nadal wouldn't have won Wimbledon, though he would have made the semis or final a few times (less consistently than now). He'd have done squat indoors, as now. He'd have been owned by Agassi on hard courts but could have snatched an A.O. in Agassi's absence. He's had one year playing very well at the U.S.O. (though not as well as his tards make out) & if he repeated that in the 1990s I suppose he might have got lucky there that one year, depending on the draw.

Djoker isn't that good on grass and wouldn't have won Wimbledon in the '90s, though he would have made the later stages a few times. In 2011 form he'd be competing with Nadal on clay, otherwise he'd be largely 2nd best, not only to Nadal but also at times to the other top clay players of the day. On hard courts he'd be splitting slams with Agassi, Sampras, & Courier. Indoors he wouldn't be doing as well as Sampras & Becker but he'd probably win a few tournaments.

I agree with you on everything you just said, except I give Nadal more of a chanse at Wimbledon than you do. He would need alot of luck to win both Wimbledon and Usopen, that is for sure.

I also think Djokovic would be the dominant force in Australia that was missing in that era, he would fill Agassi's spot while Agassi was doing other things than tennis.

Sophocles
05-15-2012, 03:11 PM
I wont say that you are wrong because I dont have the expertise on the grasscourt surface, I have never played on that surface but my impression is that if you serve with alot of sidespin on grasscourts the ball slides away from the opponent while on indoor courts the sidespin doesnt get much effect and that is why Nadal's serve is so good on grasscourts and not hardcourts. I dont think it got to do with high bounce, that is not my impression atleast. It should slide even more on faster grasscourts.




Sampras was not a horrible returner, he was actually good at returning big servers. I have no doubt he would have dealt with Roddick's serve almost as good as Federer does, but Nadal is a different beast. First of all Nadal can back up his serve with one of the best forehands of the open eras, one that barely ever misses and one that kills slice returns or weak returns every single time. Against Roddick you just need to get a good slice back and his serve is easy to block back at the same speed it comes to you but Nadal's serve is impossible to block because of all spin and Nadal's forehand doesnt allow you to slice back his serve. You need to return with interest like Djokovic does on his backhand side, problem is only Djokovic can do that, maybe Agassi in Sampras' era but Federer and Sampras cant return Nadal's 1st serve or even his 2nd serve with interest. They are doomed to be dominated by Nadal's forehand to their backhands from start on Nadal's serve.

Sampras would not be able to chip and charge against Nadal, it is suicide. Nadal deals with slices better than any player I have ever seen, it is unclear how low the ball must bounce for Nadal ever to struggle against slices on his forehand. Nadal also can hit passing shots at will, the only time to approach the net against Nadal is either on perfect approaches or on your serve because Nadal is an avarage returner.



I agree with you on everything you just said, except I give Nadal more of a chanse at Wimbledon than you do. He would need alot of luck to win both Wimbledon and Usopen, that is for sure.

I also think Djokovic would be the dominant force in Australia that was missing in that era, he would fill Agassi's spot while Agassi was doing other things than tennis.

I don't think proper grass courts take spin (except underspin) as well as the current Wimbledon ones. I mean, look at that Davis Cup tie last year between Switzerland & Australia, on traditional grass. I know Federer & Tomic slice a lot anyway, but the ball was bouncing so low they often had no other option. Nadal's slice is pretty average, so that wouldn't help him. And while you are correct to say he handles his opponents' slices exceptionally well, you have to bear in mind he is handling them mostly on slow high-bouncing courts on which the slice tends to sit up. But sure, I might be underestimating his chances at Wimbledon - I'm biased, after all. For the rest I think we pretty much agree.

Fedex
05-15-2012, 11:25 PM
I agree with the poster who said Nadal of USO 2010 would beat Sampras in the USO.

It might be an unpopular opinion, the Nadal of USO 2010 is the highest level of tennis I've seen across a Grand Slam tournament.

It was basically the best rallier on tour + Sampras-like serving. It was amazing quality. Of course it was a one off: if Nadal could serve like that all the time, he'd be (almost) unbeatable.

LOL at people suggesting Murray would have beaten Rafa in USO 2010. Murray can't even beat Rafa when he's serving like a WTA player. How was he supposed to beat Rafa serving 200km/h+ bombs on a regular basis. He'd have brushed aside like all Rafa's opponents were.


Not to mention Federer. Roger is usually dominated dominated from the baseline from Rafa. Now add tons of free points on serve for Rafa on serve. I did the math and the result is = Rafa in 3.

Only kind of player who would have stood a chance would be an on-fire big hitter. A poster, I think Sexybeast, said Del Potro wuld have a chance (playing like 2009, I assume), but I doubt he could deal with Rafa's serve honestly

:spit::facepalm:

Fedex
05-15-2012, 11:30 PM
That'd be bizarre though, considering Federer was on the brink of defeat quite a few times in RG 2009, while Nadal squashed aside all his rivals including Djokovic.

Federer can't beat Nadal at Slams when Nadal is serving like a WTA player. How would he be benefitted by Rafa getting tons of free points on serve?

Right, faster serves always = more effective serves.

Federer is the best at absorbing the pace of big serves. Big serves give him no problems. The spinning serve out wide to his backhand has been the most effective serve against him.

Why am I even bothering though. I can't value the opinion of someone who actually thinks Nadal in the 2010 US Open was the highest level ever played, simply because he hit 130 mph serves a few times.

Jamoz
05-15-2012, 11:31 PM
Nadal's racket size is like a giant peel. I doubt he could even hit a ball with those smaller 90's rackets ;)

Mark Lenders
05-15-2012, 11:39 PM
:spit::facepalm:

Any arguments?

Right, faster serves always = more effective serves.

Federer is the best at absorbing the pace of big serves. Big serves give him no problems. The spinning serve out wide to his backhand has been the most effective serve against him.

Why am I even bothering though. I can't value the opinion of someone who actually thinks Nadal in the 2010 US Open was the highest level ever played, simply because he hit 130 mph serves a few times.

1-Not always, but Rafa's serve was more effective than ever in that tournament.

2-A lot of times actually, he was even doing damage with his second serve.

+ he combined that serve with the best ground game on tour.

Jamoz
05-15-2012, 11:42 PM
Any arguments?



A lot of times actually, he was even doing damage with his second serve.

+ he combined that serve with the best ground game on tour.

And paid the price, if i remember right he fucked up his arm with that fast serve? Now that serve is gone.

Mark Lenders
05-15-2012, 11:45 PM
And paid the price, if i remember right he fucked up his arm with that fast serve? Now that serve is gone.

Yes, it was a one off. If Rafa could serve like that all the time combined with his ground game, he'd obliterate every record there is in this sport.

It's obvious he can't do it regularly. Just pushed himself once because he really wanted to add the US Open to his collection and that was the only way. It was never a viable long term serve.

Jamoz
05-15-2012, 11:53 PM
Yes, it was a one off. If Rafa could serve like that all the time combined with his ground game, he'd obliterate every record there is in this sport.

It's obvious he can't do it regularly. Just pushed himself once because he really needed it to add the US Open to his collection. It was never a viable long term serve.

Yep, Not a Nadal ass kisser, but i salute him for that. He was taking a risk and it was worth it. Might have ruined his arm permanently

BauerAlmeida
05-16-2012, 01:40 AM
No offense, but you're an idiot.

It's true. As it's also true that if Federer had Nalbandian's topsin backhand he would do it to. Or if Djokovic had Raonic's serve, etc.

But what matters it's what you have.

tektonac
05-16-2012, 01:43 AM
theyd have it even easier than now

this->

Mjau!
06-06-2012, 03:52 PM
Guga would beat Nadal.

Leo
06-06-2012, 04:02 PM
It doesn't matter because they didn't play in the 90s.

All you'll find in this thread is speculation passed as fact by each posters to blow the horn of their favorite players/slam their hated player

Agreed. It's really hard and pointless to speculate. They grew up at different times when different parts of the game were emphasized than those who played professionally in the 90s at the top of the game. They also grew up and have played with very different equipment, surfaces, etc.

I think Nadal and Nole are strong adapters and maybe don't get enough credit for that on MTF, so I think with their natural talent for the game they would have been champions in the 90s. But it was a different sport and it's impossible to say how successful they would have been.

mystic ice cube
06-06-2012, 04:13 PM
What are you talking about saying Nadal was almost unbeatable at USO 2010? Del Potro in 09' would have fucking obliterated him, never mind arguing about the rest of the tour.

sexybeast
06-06-2012, 04:42 PM
Guga would beat Nadal.

Maybe once every 4 matches, Nadal would probably take advantage of Guga's avarage movement in long rallies.

samanosuke
06-06-2012, 05:09 PM
shame that really few people can realize how much faster were grass and HCs . miami which was even then slower HC was playing faster than cincy is playing today . people think that uso is playing fast, it is playing MUCH slower than it was played just 15 years ago. just look at these 2 Goran's matches from 96, his serves are mostly around 200 kmhs and they are looking bigger than when Raonic or ISner hits over 230kmhs today.



CIoCSoBYboQ



n_YXlt9qqkw


no need to talk about grass or carpet

mystic ice cube
06-06-2012, 05:59 PM
shame that really few people can realize how much faster were grass and HCs . miami which was even then slower HC was playing faster than cincy is playing today . people think that uso is playing fast, it is playing MUCH slower than it was played just 15 years ago. just look at these 2 Goran's matches from 96, his serves are mostly around 200 kmhs and they are looking bigger than when Raonic or ISner hits over 230kmhs today.
Thanks for that. It's a shame we don't have such variety anymore, just look at the demise of the serve & volley game.

sexybeast
06-06-2012, 06:42 PM
Thanks for that. It's a shame we don't have such variety anymore, just look at the demise of the serve & volley game.

The past always gets idealized, the 90s was a rough decade to get through for many tennis fans. It was the only decade dominated by big servers, points not decided by great touch at the net or great baseline rallies, but mostly aces and unreturnable serves.

Also it is the only decade where the greats had no idea how to play on claycourts. For most of the decade only one force dominated (Sampras) and that one force was not entertaining and aesthatically pleasing like Federer.

I am sure 15 years from now even critics will be romantics about the 2000s/2010s tennis era. I am also sure MTF would be bored to death and dream back to the 80s in the 90s "mug era", in the 80s people would dream back to Borg/Mcenroe rivalry and in the Borg era people would be bored to death by him moonballing with Vilas and losing only a couple of games, the utter lack of excitement in RG and dream back to the time when allcourters like Laver and Rosewall battled it out with touch and actually taking risks on claycourts.

Action Jackson
06-06-2012, 06:46 PM
Lets see them play on this and Milan wasn't as fast as some.

GsVHv43uFRg

sexybeast
06-06-2012, 06:54 PM
Lets see them play on this and Milan wasn't as fast as some.

GsVHv43uFRg

Kuerten won TMC 2000, Corretja and Moya battled it out in the TMC final 98 and Muster won Essen master series indoor 1995.

Djokovic surely would get his chanses as he is a good indoor player unlike those mentioned. Nadal would occasionally also produce some good results, he is atleast on the same level as those mentioned on this surface.

There would be no reason to play the fastest carpet MM tournaments for Rafole, they would obviously focus on the big ones.

Quadruple Tree
06-06-2012, 07:26 PM
The past always gets idealized, the 90s was a rough decade to get through for many tennis fans. It was the only decade dominated by big servers, points not decided by great touch at the net or great baseline rallies, but mostly aces and unreturnable serves.

Also it is the only decade where the greats had no idea how to play on claycourts. For most of the decade only one force dominated (Sampras) and that one force was not entertaining and aesthatically pleasing like Federer.

None of this is remotely true except that Sampras dominated most of the decade.

sexybeast
06-06-2012, 07:38 PM
None of this is remotely true except that Sampras dominated most of the decade.

Please be more specific than that. I love serve and volley tennis and surely there were some gems in the 90s like Stich, Rafter and Edberg but mostly it was the big servers like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic and Krajicek who dominated most of the decade, Wimbledon was at times unwatchable.

Also all of them had little idea of how to play on claycourts, Becker, Edberg and Sampras didnt have a game suited for clay at all and Agassi never really learned how to move on that surface. A decade when all the greats lacked skills completely on the 2nd most important surface, that left a great vacuum.

No era before or after have we had so short rallies indoors, Wimbledon and Usopen, it was boom-boom tennis. Raquets generated too much power and neglected players who depended more on touch.

rocketassist
06-06-2012, 07:40 PM
Please be more specific than that. I love serve and volley tennis and surely there were some gems in the 90s like Stich, Rafter and Edberg but mostly it was the big servers like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic and Krajicek who dominated most of the decade, Wimbledon was at times unwatchable.

Also all of them had little idea of how to play on claycourts, Becker, Edberg and Sampras didnt have a game suited for clay at all and Agassi never really learned how to move on that surface. A decade when all the greats lacked skills completely on the 2nd most important surface, that left a great vacuum.

No era before or after have we had so short rallies indoors, Wimbledon and Usopen, it was boom-boom tennis. Raquets generated too much power and neglected players who depended more on touch.

Sampras had no talent? :lol:

Just because the very top players didn't dominate on clay doesn't mean it wasn't good. The clay field was tough.

sexybeast
06-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Sampras had no talent? :lol:

Just because the very top players didn't dominate on clay doesn't mean it wasn't good. The clay field was tough.

I never said Sampras lacked talent, what I meant was that he was so good serving that few times it was required from him to show his talent.

mystic ice cube
06-06-2012, 07:48 PM
The past always gets idealized, the 90s was a rough decade to get through for many tennis fans. It was the only decade dominated by big servers, points not decided by great touch at the net or great baseline rallies, but mostly aces and unreturnable serves.
Well yes, but I still would love for more variety of the courts, particularly at Wimbledon. It would give bigger hitters a chance at a court that would generally suit them. Slowing them down is basicly saying that tennis is primarily a game of defending, when its obviously more than that.

Quadruple Tree
06-06-2012, 07:53 PM
Please be more specific than that. I love serve and volley tennis and surely there were some gems in the 90s like Stich, Rafter and Edberg but mostly it was the big servers like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic and Krajicek who dominated most of the decade, Wimbledon was at times unwatchable.

LOL. Becker, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek won a grand total of 3 Slams in the 90's between themselves. Domination, no doubt.

Also all of them had little idea of how to play on claycourts, Becker, Edberg and Sampras didnt have a game suited for clay at all and Agassi never really learned how to move on that surface. A decade when all the greats lacked skills completely on the 2nd most important surface, that left a great vacuum.

Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Kafelnikov, Moya, Kuerten aren't greats? You have a pretty extreme definition of great.

No era before or after have we had so short rallies indoors, Wimbledon and Usopen, it was boom-boom tennis. Raquets generated too much power and neglected players who depended more on touch.

The fact is other than Sampras, none of the so called "big servers" won that much in the 90's, and I don't really know what to say if you think Sampras just relied on his serve and had no touch or weapons from the baseline. I guess all those times he beat Agassi, Courier, Chang, and Kafelnikov, they must have been double faulting like 100 times because there's no way he could stay in rallies with them.

Hian-GOAT
06-06-2012, 08:13 PM
Are you kidding me?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3scs3INeO1qemaclo1_400.gif

Nadal's shitty game would have been worms to the birds of the time.

sexybeast
06-06-2012, 08:51 PM
LOL. Becker, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek won a grand total of 3 Slams in the 90's between themselves. Domination, no doubt.

Ádd Sampras and you get 15 slams, in Wimbledon every year a final was played involving one of these big servers, we are talking about 14 years in a row 1988-2001 with one of these in either side of the net!

In USOPEN between 1990-2002 a big server reached the final every year except 91 and 94.

That is domination of a playing style, you can include players like Todd Martin, Philippoussis and Rusedski to that crew.


Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Kafelnikov, Moya, Kuerten aren't greats? You have a pretty extreme definition of great.

A great is often meant some player with around 6 slams on different surfaces. It is not an extreme definition at all, you shouldnt think of it as having the same meaning as beeing great on clay, no "a great" is a dominant force of his era, one that clearly has his name in the history books. You mentioned players who were good/great on clay, but none of the dominant forces of the era were capable of producing great results on clay. 4 dominant forces were Sampras, Agassi, Becker and Edberg, all of them lacking skills on clay compared to greats in other eras (Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic).



The fact is other than Sampras, none of the so called "big servers" won that much in the 90's, and I don't really know what to say if you think Sampras just relied on his serve and had no touch or weapons from the baseline. I guess all those times he beat Agassi, Courier, Chang, and Kafelnikov, they must have been double faulting like 100 times because there's no way he could stay in rallies with them.

Sampras was the only player who clearly dominated the 90s but the big servers were almost every year present in finals and semifinals on grasscourts, fast hardcourt and indoors. He was ofcourse no all-serve mug but had a great game to break the serve of opponents aswell, but his serve is what will forever be most remembered because it was his biggest weapon.

If a specific style dominated the 90s outside clay it would be the big servers, the big servers havent dominated any other era other than the 90s.

Action Jackson
06-07-2012, 04:13 AM
sexybeast, trolling like a master.