Kuerten vs. Nadal ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Kuerten vs. Nadal ?

oschemi
09-11-2006, 08:57 PM
Who will win in their primes on hard courts, clay courts and grass courts?

World Beater
09-11-2006, 09:02 PM
are you serious?

oschemi
09-11-2006, 09:04 PM
are you serious?

It is just an opinion thread. I just wanted to know pples opinion if they were both playing each other in their primes :)

Johnny Groove
09-11-2006, 09:04 PM
This is a stupid thread. Add that to the fact that there is no poll, and :rolleyes:

but regardless, Rafa on all surfaces :D

Billabong
09-11-2006, 09:10 PM
Guga could be awesome on hardcourt (won many titles including TMC 2000 where he beat Sampras and Agassi back to back, and TMS Cincinnati 2001), so I think in his prime he would beat Nadal there. Guga also reached the finals of TMS Indian Wells, TMS Miami, TMS Montreal and the quarters of the USO twice. Also, on clay, I give the edge to Guga, especially because of his killer backhand and his awesome serve. On grass, Nadal would definitely beat Guga with his great court coverage. That's my opinion:angel: as a Guga fan;)

marcRD
09-11-2006, 09:11 PM
Hard to say, I dont think Guga would be intimidated by Rafas top spin on his backhand. Guga both has the power and the ability to hit 10 straight shots close to the line and never miss (Something Federer lacks). I think whoever would win would have to do it in a 5 set battle on clay. Other surfaces doesnt really matter, but Nadal would probably beat Guga on grass and I dont really know who would win on hardcourt.

Vass
09-11-2006, 09:14 PM
Guga could be awesome on hardcourt (won many titles including TMC 2000 where he beat Sampras and Agassi back to back, and TMS Cincinnati 2001), so I think in his prime he would beat Nadal there. Guga also reached the finals of TMS Indian Wells, TMS Miami, TMS Montreal and the quarters of the USO twice. Also, on clay, I give the edge to Guga, especially because of his killer backhand and his awesome serve. On grass, Nadal would definitely beat Guga with his great court coverage. That's my opinion:angel: as a Guga fan;)
I agree, although on grass it would have been anybody's guess.

World Beater
09-11-2006, 09:14 PM
Guga could be awesome on hardcourt (won many titles including TMC 2000 where he beat Sampras and Agassi back to back, and TMS Cincinnati 2001), so I think in his prime he would beat Nadal there. Also, on clay, I give the edge to Guga, especially because of his killer backhand and his awesome serve. On grass, Nadal would definitely beat Guga with his great court coverage. That's my opinion:angel: as a Guga fan;)

he was awesome. not could have been awesome.

he's the only player to beat both andre and pete indoors, and he did it in high pressure situation...that was probably the most exciting year of tennis in terms of rankings that i have seen.

kuerten had a good serve, and was very solid off both wings. his bh was magical and the fh was indeed a weapon. his movement considering his height 6 '3 earlier in his career was pretty good too.

in short i agree w/ your analysis. i dont think nadal would be able to push around kuerten on clay or hard because of guga's great bh. plus he has a much better serve than nadal. on grass, i think nadal gets the edge, but i think guga's serve could indeed earn him some cheap points.

DrJules
09-11-2006, 09:19 PM
in short i agree w/ your analysis. i dont think nadal would be able to push around kuerten on clay or hard because of guga's great bh. plus he has a much better serve than nadal. on grass, i think nadal gets the edge, but i think guga's serve could indeed earn him some cheap points.

Attitude is important. Nadal is happy playing on grass while Kuerten resented it so would always see Nadal winning on grass.

Actually I think Guga may have struggled hitting through the defensive wall Nadal offers on a clay court.

Guga's best chance would be on hard courts which appear to be Nadal's weakest surface.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-11-2006, 09:19 PM
Nadal easily 11 out of 10 times

Billabong
09-11-2006, 09:25 PM
he was awesome. not could have been awesome.

he's the only player to beat both andre and pete indoors, and he did it in high pressure situation...that was probably the most exciting year of tennis in terms of rankings that i have seen.

kuerten had a good serve, and was very solid off both wings. his bh was magical and the fh was indeed a weapon. his movement considering his height 6 '3 earlier in his career was pretty good too.

in short i agree w/ your analysis. i dont think nadal would be able to push around kuerten on clay or hard because of guga's great bh. plus he has a much better serve than nadal. on grass, i think nadal gets the edge, but i think guga's serve could indeed earn him some cheap points.

I totally agree:yeah: After reading this, I really want to see some vintage Guga again, I have both his unbelievable Lisboa victories on DVD:lol::cool:

Timariot
09-11-2006, 09:26 PM
Kuerten would win. He had enormous power off both wings and Nadal's style would fit him. Well, maybe on grass/carpet Nadal would win.

Eden
09-11-2006, 09:29 PM
Guga could be awesome on hardcourt (won many titles including TMC 2000 where he beat Sampras and Agassi back to back, and TMS Cincinnati 2001), so I think in his prime he would beat Nadal there. Guga also reached the finals of TMS Indian Wells, TMS Miami, TMS Montreal and the quarters of the USO twice. Also, on clay, I give the edge to Guga, especially because of his killer backhand and his awesome serve. On grass, Nadal would definitely beat Guga with his great court coverage. That's my opinion:angel: as a Guga fan;)

I agree :yeah:

World Beater
09-11-2006, 09:33 PM
Attitude is important. Nadal is happy playing on grass while Kuerten resented it so would always see Nadal winning on grass.

Actually I think Guga may have struggled hitting through the defensive wall Nadal offers on a clay court.

Guga's best chance would be on hard courts which appear to be Nadal's weakest surface.


well luck is important too...guga has had some injuries.

if not, im sure we would have seen kuerten do better and better,
he did reach the qf of wimbledon once too, you know.

mungyo
09-11-2006, 09:35 PM
gugaaaaaaaaaaa!! yeahhh

shotgun
09-11-2006, 09:36 PM
Could go either way on grass, but for the effort alone I'd give Nadal the edge.

I think Guga would beat him on clay, the top spin wouldn't bother him. I remember Vinciguerra had a similar game to Nadal (of course not as consistent and with a worse backhand), and he was destroyed by Guga in Roland Garros in 2000.

As for hard, depends on what kind of hard. Guga would have the advantage on the faster ones (decoturf, carpet), while Nadal would have the edge on slower and bouncier surfaces like Rebound Ace.

oschemi
09-11-2006, 09:38 PM
Could go either way on grass, but for the effort alone I'd give Nadal the edge.

I think Guga would beat him on clay, the top spin wouldn't bother him. I remember Vinciguerra had a similar game to Nadal (of course not as consistent and with a worse forehand), and he was destroyed by Guga in Roland Garros in 2000.

As for hard, depends on what kind of hard. Guga would have the advantage on the faster ones (decoturf, carpet), while Nadal would have the edge on slower and bouncier surfaces like Rebound Ace.

But the thing is that Nadal is too dominant on that surface. Nobody has come close since Borg. That is why I dont believe Guga would be able to handle Nadal on clay

shotgun
09-11-2006, 09:43 PM
But the thing is that Nadal is too dominant on that surface. Nobody has come close since Borg. That is why I dont believe Guga would be able to handle Nadal on clay

It's not like Nadal has lots of quality opposition nowadays on clay, apart from a dedicated Federer who has improved a lot on the surface. If he had to play against the 2003 Ferrero and the 2004 Coria at the same time, I'm not sure if his supremacy would be the same.

Lee
09-11-2006, 09:44 PM
But the thing is that Nadal is too dominant on that surface. Nobody has come close since Borg. That is why I dont believe Guga would be able to handle Nadal on clay

Have you ever watched Guga play on clay in 2000 and 2001?

oschemi
09-11-2006, 09:47 PM
Have you ever watched Guga play on clay in 2000 and 2001?

Yes I have, Guga had a lot of trouble with Kafelnikov and lost to Moya 2 and 0 on one ocassion. Guga was not anywhere as dominant as Nadal. He was vulnerable to some players

Pfloyd
09-11-2006, 09:50 PM
Come on, some of you are talking as if Nadal has already hit his prime....He's only 20, and has shown improvments in various areas of his game....

Billabong
09-11-2006, 09:54 PM
Yes I have, Guga had a lot of trouble with Kafelnikov and lost to Moya 2 and 0 on one ocassion. Guga was not anywhere as dominant as Nadal. He was vulnerable to some players

Yah, Guga lost to Moya 2 and 0 in 1999 Hamburg (Guga was even better on clay in 2000-2001), and that loss was right after Guga WON TMS Monte Carlo and TMS Roma:rolleyes: Also, you forget a top-form Kafelnikov would trouble Nadal as well. I agree Guga wasn't as consistent as Nadal is, but I do believe he had tougher opposition and that a top-form Guga would be able to handle Nadal on clay.

BTW, even when Guga was out of form in 2004, he still beat Federer in straight sets in RG;) The only man to defeat Fed in straight sets since then is.... Andy Murray, last month;)

sawan66278
09-11-2006, 09:58 PM
Being both a Rafa and Guga fan, I would have to say, at this point, Guga would win on hard court, indoor, and clay...yes clay...Just last year, Rafa went five sets with Coria at the Italian Open...and Guga in his prime played Kafelnikov, Muster, etc...I remember he defeated four former French Champions to win his first French (I believe)...

The high ball would not bother him...and he had, in my mind, the greatest one-handed backhand in the history of the game...I will NEVER forget his match against Max at the U.S. Open where he rallied from two sets to love down...

And let's not forget, who was the one man to beat at the Roger at the slams two years ago...Guga...by a score of 6-3,6-3,6-3 :eek: :eek: :eek:

I love Rafa, but Guga...man...

oschemi
09-11-2006, 09:58 PM
Yah, Guga lost to Moya 2 and 0 in 1999 Hamburg (Guga was even better on clay in 2000-2001), and that loss was right after Guga WON TMS Monte Carlo and TMS Roma:rolleyes: Also, you forget a top-form Kafelnikov would trouble Nadal as well. I agree Guga wasn't as consistent as Nadal is, but I do believe he had tougher opposition and that a top-form Guga would be able to handle Nadal on clay.

BTW, even when Guga was out of form in 2004, he still beat Federer in straight sets in RG;) The only man to defeat Fed in straight sets since then is.... Andy Murray, last month;)

Hmm.. I can see that you are a die hard guga fan, so I am not surprised your opinion is biased.. hey but thats ok ;)

Eden
09-11-2006, 09:58 PM
It's not like Nadal has lots of quality opposition nowadays on clay, apart from a dedicated Federer who has improved a lot on the surface. If he had to play against the 2003 Ferrero and the 2004 Coria at the same time, I'm not sure if his supremacy would be the same.

:yeah:

Lee
09-11-2006, 09:59 PM
Hmm.. I can see that you are a die hard guga fan, so I am not surprised your opinion is biased.. hey but thats ok ;)

:haha: :haha: :rolls: :rolls:

Billabong
09-11-2006, 09:59 PM
Hmm.. I can see that you are a die hard guga fan, so I am not surprised your opinion is biased.. hey but thats ok ;)

Oh I don't say I'm not biased... but at least I can explain my opinion with real facts;)

Naranoc
09-11-2006, 10:00 PM
Eden: :lol: You don't realise that he's calling your beloved Fed poor opposition too? ;)

oschemi
09-11-2006, 10:01 PM
Being both a Rafa and Guga fan, I would have to say, at this point, Guga would win on hard court, indoor, and clay...yes clay...Just last year, Rafa went five sets with Coria at the Italian Open...and Guga in his prime played Kafelnikov, Muster, etc...I remember he defeated four former French Champions to win his first French (I believe)...

The high ball would not bother him...and he had, in my mind, the greatest one-handed backhand in the history of the game...I will NEVER forget his match against Max at the U.S. Open where he rallied from two sets to love down...

And let's not forget, who was the one man to beat at the Roger at the slams two years ago...Guga...by a score of 6-3,6-3,6-3 :eek: :eek: :eek:

I love Rafa, but Guga...man...


Rafa was still 18 then and just developing. Considering how dominant he has been, there has to be something special about him on this surface that no one since borg has been able to match

Billabong
09-11-2006, 10:01 PM
Being both a Rafa and Guga fan, I would have to say, at this point, Guga would win on hard court, indoor, and clay...yes clay...Just last year, Rafa went five sets with Coria at the Italian Open...and Guga in his prime played Kafelnikov, Muster, etc...I remember he defeated four former French Champions to win his first French (I believe)...

The high ball would not bother him...and he had, in my mind, the greatest one-handed backhand in the history of the game...I will NEVER forget his match against Max at the U.S. Open where he rallied from two sets to love down...

And let's not forget, who was the one man to beat at the Roger at the slams two years ago...Guga...by a score of 6-3,6-3,6-3 :eek: :eek: :eek:

I love Rafa, but Guga...man...

I totally agree:yeah: BTW quick correction, the score was 6-4, 6-4, 6-4:)

scarecrows
09-11-2006, 10:02 PM
Nadal easily 11 out of 10 times

..

Timariot
09-11-2006, 10:02 PM
Everyone should watch RG 2001 semi (moral final) between Guga and JCF. They were both at their peak...and Guga destroyed JCF. Awe-inspiring match...

shotgun
09-11-2006, 10:03 PM
Eden: :lol: You don't realise that he's calling your beloved Fed poor opposition too? ;)

No, I'm not. Did you read the whole post? :)

Lee
09-11-2006, 10:04 PM
BTW, even when Guga was out of form in 2004, he still beat Federer in straight sets in RG;) The only man to defeat Fed in straight sets since then is.... Andy Murray, last month;)

And that win of Murray is not a best of 5 matches ;)

Billabong
09-11-2006, 10:05 PM
Everyone should watch RG 2001 semi (moral final) between Guga and JCF. They were both at their peak...and Guga destroyed JCF. Awe-inspiring match...

That was one of Guga's best matches ever:worship: He was perfect that day:D

World Beater
09-11-2006, 10:05 PM
Eden: :lol: You don't realise that he's calling your beloved Fed poor opposition too? ;)

sorry, as an appreciator of fed's tennis i will be the first to say, guga is far superior to fed on clay. at least atm.

also, ferrero, moya, muster, kafelnikov, medvedev, bruguera, rios..i mean cmon what do we have now?

all these players are as good as federer on clay. But in a matchup situation, federer matches up well with all of them, which is why i would believe he would still win. he doesnt matchup well with kuerten and nadal.

Eden
09-11-2006, 10:07 PM
Eden: :lol: You don't realise that he's calling your beloved Fed poor opposition too? ;)

Sorry, for just agreeing with other users opinions. In fact I was always following Gugas matches and I can just not see that Nadal has the competition on clay that Guga had with players like Corretja, Ferrero, Moya and Coria who were at their best at that time.

Nadal is amazing on clay, but I just think that Guga would have beat him.

Billabong
09-11-2006, 10:10 PM
Rafa was still 18 then and just developing. Considering how dominant he has been, there has to be something special about him on this surface that no one since borg has been able to match

Yes, Nadal has been the most dominant player on clay since Borg, we all know that. But the opposition the other players had in between is a huge factor in my opinion. Even though Guga was never as dominant as Rafael was, I still believe he would be able to beat him at his prime. Guga had all the weapons you can ask for.

BTW there are some similarities with Hingis in 1997. I'm a HUGE fan of hers, she's my favorite WTA player. But in 1997, when she totally dominated everything, the opposition wasn't what it was in 1990-1993 and in 2000-2003. This is the reason she wasn't able to dominate since, the opposition got so much tougher. Right now Rafa's only rival on clay is Federer, who I agree is already a very tough opposition. But a few years ago, there were a lot more of great clay players. Nadal would definitely be among the very best as he's an awesome clay player, but I don't think he would dominate as much as today in Guga's or Muster's time.

Eden
09-11-2006, 10:35 PM
all these players are as good as federer on clay. But in a matchup situation, federer matches up well with all of them, which is why i would believe he would still win. he doesnt matchup well with kuerten and nadal.

Roger won one match against Guga on clay in Hamburg 2002 and lost to him on hardcourt in Indian Wells 2003 by the way (just for the discussion of Kuertens play on othe surfaces ;) ). Against Moya Roger had 2 wins on clay, 2004 in Hamburg and last year in Paris at the French. There was only one match between Roger and Ferrero on clay, 2003 in Rome, when Ferrero had to retire when Roger was leading. Against Coria Roger won two times on clay: 2004 and 2005 in Hamburg

Timariot
09-11-2006, 10:37 PM
Guga was more prone to upsets than Nadal was. There is no question about that. However, there is also no question that there were more great clay players in 2000-2002 than there is today.

World Beater
09-11-2006, 10:39 PM
guga was upset by safin...i wouldnt call that an upset...all the years after his rg victory, he was hampered by injury.

Sheek
09-11-2006, 10:42 PM
gugaaaaaaaaaaa!! yeahhh

pfftt your sig is outdated :P

Billabong
09-11-2006, 10:59 PM
Guga was more prone to upsets than Nadal was. There is no question about that. However, there is also no question that there were more great clay players in 2000-2002 than there is today.

That's exactly my point;)

Boris Franz Ecker
09-11-2006, 11:05 PM
Guga was more prone to upsets than Nadal was. There is no question about that. However, there is also no question that there were more great clay players in 2000-2002 than there is today.

No.
Federer is better than all opponents Kuerten had.
Of course, Kuerten one beat Federer in Paris. But that was an exception.

prima donna
09-11-2006, 11:13 PM
Kuerten easily.

Billabong
09-11-2006, 11:15 PM
No.
Federer is better than all opponents Kuerten had.
Of course, Kuerten one beat Federer in Paris. But that was an exception.

OMG you think a top-form Kuerten wouldn't find a way to beat Federer on clay:rolleyes:? Guga, far from his best in 2004, still beat Federer in straight sets in a best of 5 sets. What about a 2000-2001 Kuerten:retard: Federer definitely improved a lot on clay since 2004, but a top-form Kuerten would still beat him in my opinion. He's just way too comfortable on that surface. Kafelnikov, awesome on clay himself in his prime, called him the "Picasso of tennis" on clay:lol:

I'm a Federer fan BTW;)

prima donna
09-11-2006, 11:18 PM
This is a stupid thread. Add that to the fact that there is no poll, and :rolleyes:

but regardless, Rafa on all surfaces :D

Did you ever actually have the pleasure of witnessing Kuerten in his prime ? In the future, prior to making accusations or carelessly throwing around names like "fedtard" it'd be better if you were to do a self evaluation and came to terms with the fact that you're of the tard variety as well.

cmurray
09-11-2006, 11:32 PM
I LOVED Guga. He is easily the most likable tennis player I know of. Ever. How anybody could resist that adorable grin.... I had the GREAT pleasure of seeing him play live at the US Open in 2001. He loved tennis and he made me love to watch him love tennis. Does that make sense?? :)

I'd agree with a vast majority of posters. Rafa on grass (obviously. Guga hated it), Guga on hards. Clay is tougher. I know I'm a Rafa fan, but I was also a Kuerten fan. As much as I loved Guga on clay, Rafa is a bloody clay-court genius. Since I've never seen anyone play so naturally on the dirt, I give the slight edge to Rafa on clay as well. I don't think Rafa would win every time, though....Guga would have given him all he could handle.

CarstenL01
09-11-2006, 11:42 PM
on a good day, i think guga on all surfaces, because he has the better shots...

NYCtennisfan
09-12-2006, 12:00 AM
The variance between Guga's performances was greater than Nadal's. He had lower lows, but higher highs. When Guga was on with his FH-BH combos, he could beat Nadal on clay, but if he was off, then Nadal would beat him. Out of 10 matches, maybe 7-3 or 6-4 to Guga.

On hardcourts, Guga had the weapons to knock Nadal around the court. He had a very underrated serve which could generate a lot of aces. He hit 35 aces in a match against Goldstein last year here at the Open. He could push Nadal around with both the FH and BH.

Grass is a hard one to call because Guga theoretically has the weapons to beat Nadal on clay, but of course never liked to play on the stuff so Rafa takes these encounters pretty consistently.

Merton
09-12-2006, 12:58 AM
Guga, but Nadal is still developing. It is not fair to make a comparison right now.

sawan66278
09-12-2006, 01:09 AM
Guga, because of his happy-go-lucky personality, never really reached the level of success he could have...and, unfortunately, he choked a lot of close matches away (ex. match against Nalbandian at the French)...but let's remember, had he not gotten the hip injury in 2001, he would have ended as the year #1 two years in a row...He is one of the most underrated talents in the history of the game...I really miss him... :sad: :sad:

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 01:16 AM
Nadal is not developing. Wake up! Nadal is like Hewitt, his prime is now, the future will be downhill. Write that down and come to me later if I'm wrong.

Just to remember, Kuerten has 3 RG titles. So you can't just dismiss him like that. The guy that beat Sampras and Agassi in a MC is not too far from a genius. In his prime he had all the weapons to defeat Nadal in any kind of surface. His backhand, unlike Federer's, was used to face heavy topspin. He wouldn't suffer a bit with the moonballs. Much better at the net, even tough it wasn't his greater strenght. Much more technical and powerful groundstrokes and a much better serve.

Coria in 2004 almost beat Nadal, and he's very far from Muster and Kafelnikov. What makes you think that Guga, who fought many exceptional claycourters, would lose to a claycourter whose greater opposition is a dedicated Federer and the likes of Mathieu?

Godiva
09-12-2006, 01:29 AM
Everyone should watch RG 2001 semi (moral final) between Guga and JCF. They were both at their peak...and Guga destroyed JCF. Awe-inspiring match...


I remember this. JCF had beaten Guga in Hamburg or Rome just a couple of weeks before and everyone was prematurely handing JCF the RG crown. Guga seemed to have had no answers for JCF that time. He rethought his strategy and comprehensively dismantled JCF in that RG semi. JCF looked so demoralised at the end. Vintage Guga :worship:
er... what was the question again? Oh, Guga hands down.

oschemi
09-12-2006, 01:32 AM
Nadal is not developing. Wake up! Nadal is like Hewitt, his prime is now, the future will be downhill. Write that down and come to me later if I'm wrong.

Just to remember, Kuerten has 3 RG titles. So you can't just dismiss him like that. The guy that beat Sampras and Agassi in a MC is not too far from a genius. In his prime he had all the weapons to defeat Nadal in any kind of surface. His backhand, unlike Federer's, was used to face heavy topspin. He wouldn't suffer a bit with the moonballs. Much better at the net, even tough it wasn't his greater strenght. Much more technical and powerful groundstrokes and a much better serve.

Coria in 2004 almost beat Nadal, and he's very far from Muster and Kafelnikov. What makes you think that Guga, who fought many exceptional claycourters, would lose to a claycourter whose greater opposition is a dedicated Federer and the likes of Mathieu?


Hmm.. from what you are saying, Nadal is not developing and therefore Federer must be one of the worst clay players to ever play the game..lol

Lee
09-12-2006, 01:37 AM
I remember this. JCF had beaten Guga in Hamburg or Rome just a couple of weeks before and everyone was prematurely handing JCF the RG crown. Guga seemed to have had no answers for JCF that time. He rethought his strategy and comprehensively dismantled JCF in that RG semi. JCF looked so demoralised at the end. Vintage Guga :worship:
er... what was the question again? Oh, Guga hands down.

Guga won Monte Carlo that year and lost in 5th to JCF, so I'm not so sure about 'no answers for JCF'. And instead of withdrew from Hamburg, he played and lost to Mirnyi in first round 3rd set TB.

Then he came to RG and defeat Kafelnikov in QF, JCF in SF and Corretja in Final. All are very good players on clay.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 02:07 AM
Hmm.. from what you are saying, Nadal is not developing and therefore Federer must be one of the worst clay players to ever play the game..lol

Nadal is sure developing. Everybody saw the thrashings he's got last months.

Federer is far from being one of the best claycourters.

Godiva
09-12-2006, 03:00 AM
Guga won Monte Carlo that year and lost in 5th to JCF, so I'm not so sure about 'no answers for JCF'. And instead of withdrew from Hamburg, he played and lost to Mirnyi in first round 3rd set TB.

Then he came to RG and defeat Kafelnikov in QF, JCF in SF and Corretja in Final. All are very good players on clay.


I know it was one of the clay masters, but my memory doesn't serve me very well. Likewise I didn't remember the details of the match against JCF but I remember he lost and lots of people practically crowning JCF the RG king. What I seem to remember is that Guga couldn't handle JCF from the baseline where he himself was supposed to be king at the time. He didn't play a purely baseline game against JCF at the French.

Lee
09-12-2006, 03:13 AM
I know it was one of the clay masters, but my memory doesn't serve me very well. Likewise I didn't remember the details of the match against JCF but I remember he lost and lots of people practically crowning JCF the RG king. What I seem to remember is that Guga couldn't handle JCF from the baseline where he himself was supposed to be king at the time. He didn't play a purely baseline game against JCF at the French.


If both forehands are on for the day, I will give the edge to Juan Carlos. Unfortunately, I don't have the match but I guess that's the case.

But Ferrero was a very good player although he faded out after 2003. When he plays well, (like in 2002 and 2003) he can still challenge Nadal on clay, IMO.

ufokart
09-12-2006, 06:27 AM
I'd say Guga would have the edge.

liptea
09-12-2006, 07:21 AM
Is Guga completely retired? semi-retired? quarter-retired?

sorry, it's a little off-topic. I'm just wondering.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 08:17 AM
But the thing is that Nadal is too dominant on that surface. Nobody has come close since Borg. That is why I dont believe Guga would be able to handle Nadal on clay

Are you serious?

How long have you been watching tennis? I wouldn't even back Nadal over Muster on a claycourt and it was Guga that changed the face of clay tennis and if you want to see why Guga could handle Nadal on clay, just look at the RG 3rd round of 1997 and this was not a Guga at his peak.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 08:18 AM
Is Guga completely retired? semi-retired? quarter-retired?

sorry, it's a little off-topic. I'm just wondering.

He is playing doubles in Davis Cup apparently.

Deivid23
09-12-2006, 08:42 AM
Kuerten would have been an horrible match-up for Rafa, he would beat him consistently on hc´s, on clay it could go either way imo

Monteque
09-12-2006, 08:58 AM
This is, for me, is too early thread.
Why you guys bother with who'll win between these 2 players. There's no the way out. Well, Nadal still U-21, he could improve so much part of his game still. I know most you guys have most voices to Guga because he is more deserved it, due to his long career and seniority in tennis, so i can understand it.

But for interlude, who have the longest streaks on clay, and who the man who directly won the FO for the first debut. So i give the edge for Rafa than Guga. I believe everyone will easily choose Rafa 3 or 4 upcoming years, when he win others FO (i mean not just FO). So, place the credence for it, because this guy still just a boy and he'll breaking all claycourt records outhere, just wait. Time to check-legged........ ;)

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 09:00 AM
This is, for me, is too early thread.
Why you guys bother with who'll win between these 2 players. There's no the way out. Well, Nadal still U-21, he could improve so much part of his game still. I know most you guys have most voices to Guga because he is more deserved it, due to his long career and seniority in tennis, so i can understand it.

But for interlude, who have the longest streaks on clay, and who the man who directly won the FO for the first debut. So i give the edge for Rafa than Guga. I believe everyone will easily choose Rafa 3 or 4 upcoming years, when he win others FO (i mean not just FO). So, place the credence for it, because this guy still just a boy and he'll breaking all claycourt records outhere, just wait. Time to check-legged........ ;)

What?

Monteque
09-12-2006, 09:21 AM
What?

Make it simple. Wait for 3 or 4 years again. We will choose Nadal easily :devil:

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 09:25 AM
Make it simple. Wait for 3 or 4 years again. We will choose Nadal easily :devil:

Hahahahaha, only death is guaranteed in life.

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 09:27 AM
I've always wondered why some of you fantasize over impossible match-ups (impossible because the players are from a different generation and will never play against each other when they are both at the peak of their ability and power).

What's the point? :shrug:


Kuerten's career is all but finished. Nadal is only starting and some of you guys want to compare them? Are you guys kidding?
Same with Muster & co: why on earth would you compare peak Muster whose career is long behind him with a 20-year old Nadal and actually come across as serious while comparing the two. Come on, get real for just a moment.

Monteque
09-12-2006, 09:34 AM
^ In some parts, your post have a similar meaning with my first post here.
It useless to compare both let alone one is in the beginning career, and one is old man.

stebs
09-12-2006, 09:44 AM
I think the temptation is to say Guga as he is maybe the most likeable tennis player ever. Baghdatis reminds me of hima actually. Anyway, his game was beautiful, his smile was beautiful and his attitude was beautiful. It is tough to say the same of Nadal. He is liked enough but not the same as Guga. As it happens I think Guga could beat Nadal on clay but more often than not in a 3 set match.

In 3 sets I would give the edge to Guga. In a 5 setter I give the edge to Rafa.

Pfloyd
09-12-2006, 11:37 AM
Why wasnt Guga able to win 60 consecutive matches on clay?

Pfloyd
09-12-2006, 11:47 AM
Kuerten easily.

I have to ask:

Why is it that when talking about Nadal, you insult him? I mean, to say "Kuerten easily" is quite a strong statement.

So, Nadals two Incredible clay court years were merely luck or what? Or are some of you already starting to think Nadal will never win in another tournament again wether it be clay or hardcourt? I have a feeling that Nadals last few HC tournaments might have made people forget everything else he's done (and NO, he cant be compared to Federer, I, WE, know that...)

Please, what Nadal has done one clay, is quite amazing. Yes, Kuerten was an amazing clay court player, but already what Nadal has done on clay these two years closely matches what Kuerten did on clay his entire CAREER.

Hey, I know you loathe Nadal, because he is untalented, has luck draws, is cocky, cannot win in hardcourt against ANYBODY in the top 30 and (add 1000 more reasons here), but man, dont be so freaking hateful all the time.

Woud'nt it be better that we mutually aprecciate each and every player, instead of becoming tards and pissing each other off?

I mean, there can still be comparisons, but man, not these types.

leng jai
09-12-2006, 12:22 PM
Why wasnt Guga able to win 60 consecutive matches on clay?

Two things here

1. Guga's playing style is very different from Nadal. He relied on blasting his opponents off the court and dominating the baseline rallies. Nadal is a bit of a grinder. He relies on his awesome court speed/defense and heavy topspin to wear opponents down. Rafa's playing style is easier to maintain over an extended period of time. Of course if you rely on ultra flat groundies and a high number of winners to win you're going to have a few off days.

2. There were more clay courters in Guga's era. JCF, Costa, Corretja etc. Guga Vs JCF in the 2001 RG Semi is some of the biggest hitting you'll ever see.

TheBoiledEgg
09-12-2006, 03:52 PM
Guga at his best > alot better than Nadal at his best.

stebs
09-12-2006, 03:54 PM
Guga at his best > alot better than Nadal at his best.
That's true of some players today over a short period of time. Guga was great but he wasn't perfect. On clay no-one in the history of the game can keep up the kind of play you need to beat Nadal on clay for 5 sets of tennis.

TheBoiledEgg
09-12-2006, 03:57 PM
That's true of some players today over a short period of time. Guga was great but he wasn't perfect. On clay no-one in the history of the game can keep up the kind of play you need to beat Nadal on clay for 5 sets of tennis.

true
but Guga's BH DTL would be a killer going to Rafa's BH and then killing the reply at the net.

stebs
09-12-2006, 04:00 PM
true
but Guga's BH DTL would be a killer going to Rafa's BH and then killing the reply at the net.
Yeah that's true but I still stick by what I said earlier, Guga wins a 3 setter. Rafa wins a 5 setter.

Ales_Alessandra
09-12-2006, 04:08 PM
Is Guga completely retired? semi-retired? quarter-retired?

sorry, it's a little off-topic. I'm just wondering.

Not yet! This weekend was his birthday! He said he wants to be back and he is doing everything for it! And one of the things that most motivate him is to play against Rafa! That's what he said in a special interview for his birthday. Seems that he will be with the DC team in two weeks. His physiotherapist has said that he is near his old form. He works like 6-7 hrs/day on rheab.
Let's see what happen! Good vibes for my favs next year, one more year of great tennis from them wouldn't be bad!!! :)

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 04:10 PM
That's true of some players today over a short period of time. Guga was great but he wasn't perfect. On clay no-one in the history of the game can keep up the kind of play you need to beat Nadal on clay for 5 sets of tennis.

Hahahahaha.

ufokart
09-12-2006, 04:28 PM
So, Nadals two Incredible clay court years were merely luck or what? Or are some of you already starting to think Nadal will never win in another tournament again wether it be clay or hardcourt? I have a feeling that Nadals last few HC tournaments might have made people forget everything else he's done (and NO, he cant be compared to Federer, I, WE, know that...)

I don't think this thread is to compare who will be greater, but to compare what was a peak Guga with What Nadal is today.

Please, what Nadal has done one clay, is quite amazing. Yes, Kuerten was an amazing clay court player, but already what Nadal has done on clay these two years closely matches what Kuerten did on clay his entire CAREER.

Are you really going to compare the sorry state of claycourt tennis today with the one when Guga was at his peak? :haha:
Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero who where the great clay court players in 2003-2004 are playing terrible now and even Donald Young would beat them on a claycourt :lol:.
Rafa has no real opposition aside from Federer and in my opinion it's because the real claycourters suck right now. I believe that the Ferrero of 2003 and Coria/Gaudio of 2004 would have the edge over him.
Clay court tenis is kind of a joke nowadays, claycourters terribly suck and the players who's worst surface is clay are winning matches :retard: :lol:.

On the contrary in Guga's era there were many more claycourters at the peak of their game than today.

But this is obviously a speculation thread, we are not going to know for sure what would have happened, so there is no need to get so pissed off because of what some of us say :)

And for the record, i'm not a Rafa-hater nor a Fedtard (i'm saying it just in case :lol: )

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 05:08 PM
IClay court tenis is kind of a joke nowadays, claycourters terribly suck and the players who's worst surface is clay are winning matches :retard: :lol:.
Come on, you can do better than exaggerating like this.

ufokart
09-12-2006, 05:18 PM
Come on, you can do better than exaggerating like this.

It's obviously an exaggeration, but that seems the only way someone can get a little attention in this forum :lol:

Since i began watching tennis in 96' i find this and last year pretty weak in terms of claycourt tennis. Nadal is a great player, but i believe that he wouldn't be so succesfull if players like Ferrero, Gaudio or Coria had kept their level.
That was my point, don't know if it's right or wrong, but Guga had a greater competition in his days than Nadal now.

I'm still a claycourt snob and like watching it, so i'm not biased in this aspect :lol: :)

Sjengster
09-12-2006, 05:25 PM
On both slow and fast surfaces the story seems to be the same in the last few years; an era of parity with a number of top contenders has been replaced by domination by two men to an astonishing degree. It would be fascinating to see the Ferrero of 2003 against the present Nadal just to see whether there would be a difference, or whether it's simply a bad match-up for Ferrero even in his best form and Nadal at his best is the superior claycourt player. But as for Coria, has everyone forgotten last year's MC and Rome finals so easily? That was Coria very nearly at his 2004 best and we saw the results, you can't say he didn't give Nadal the utmost competition in that Rome final. I doubt we're ever going to see two such incredible finals two years in a row at the same tournament again.

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 05:29 PM
It's obviously an exaggeration, but that seems the only way someone can get a little attention in this forum :lol:
You're bound to get attention by exaggerating but you're losing credibility IMO

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 05:30 PM
Again, I'll say it one more time. Not all players are late-bloomers like Guga and Federer. Most actually go downhill, like Hewitt. He went from #1 to just a top 10 contender as he got older. That's what's going to happen with Nadal. His game is pure physique and he only keeps winning (on clay) because he's young.
Nadal = claycourter Hewitt. Write that down. His prime was last year, now it's only downhill.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 05:30 PM
You're bound to get attention by exaggerating but you're losing credibility IMO

In what way are they losing credibility?

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 05:33 PM
In what way are they losing credibility?
You're smart enough to figure it out.

ufokart
09-12-2006, 05:34 PM
You're bound to get attention by exaggerating but you're losing credibility IMO

I'm losing credibility just because of a joke? (i even put a :lol: at the end of the message)
Wow, credibility sure dissapears fast in this forum :lol:

Sjengster
09-12-2006, 05:35 PM
Again, I'll say it one more time. Not all players are late-bloomers like Guga and Federer. Most actually go downhill, like Hewitt. He went from #1 to just a top 10 contender as he got older. That's what's going to happen with Nadal. His game is pure physique and he only keeps winning (on clay) because he's young.
Nadal = claycourter Hewitt. Write that down. His prime was last year, now it's only downhill.

Don't know how Guga was a late bloomer by winning his first Slam at the age of 20. For that matter Federer was 21 at the time he won Wimbledon, so not exactly in the middle of his career as he is now.

If Nadal's prime was last year then he's done a remarkable job of duplicating his 2005 claycourt results to the letter this year and then improving his grasscourt results significantly, wouldn't you say? Not bad for a downhill slump.

Naranoc
09-12-2006, 05:36 PM
Nadal = claycourter Hewitt. Write that down. His prime was last year, now it's only downhill.

:haha: From some who has the phrase 'Anyone vs. Nadal' in their signature, I doubt anyone's going to take you seriously.

stebs
09-12-2006, 05:36 PM
Hahahahaha.
Of course sometimes it is possible to keep it up for three sets of tennis for best 3 out of 5. ;) I in no way mean that Nadal is invincible over 5 sets. Just that as a player you would need to make sure you either steamrolled him or accepted that you would have to lose some sets.

Remember, there may not be stellar opposition about but nevertheless Rafa has never lost a 5 set match on clay. I cannot see anyone beating him instraight sets on clay and if that is the case then the fighter in Rafa comes in. Sure, Guga has some of that in him but he is just too nice on court to be a truly great fighter. There are exceptions to the rule but many of the best sportsmen in the world have an arrogant streak and refuse to admit defeat. It can help very much in the heat of the battle whatever sport is being played.

A perfect example of what I mean is Mathieu - Nadal at RG. For me the first set of that match was a truly incredible set. Mathieu played out of his mind to somehow take that set off a Nadal who was playing pretty fantastic himself. I don't care if you are Federer, Kuerten, Muster or anyone else. It isn't possible to keep up that level for 3 sets. Instead it has to be staggered. So long as Nadal isn't playing badly I don't see a situation in the near future where anyone has a hope of beating him in straight sets in a five set match on clay.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 05:37 PM
You're smart enough to figure it out.

Am I? I mean I could write some deep and meaningful about this subject, but that would be a waste of time. These era things are fraught with potholes and can't be too serious, even allowing for this, there are certain factors that can't be overlooked.

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 05:37 PM
I'm losing credibility just because of a joke? (i even put a :lol: at the end of the message)
Wow, credibility sure dissapears fast in this forum :lol:

If you're just joking and nothing more, you're reputation as a clown will not decline. That's true.

If you were trying to make a point as well as a joke, like I think you were trying to do (were you): do you really think that you will convince a lot of people who are actually interested in a good conversation or make them think about your viewpoint by exaggerating so much and when people disagree, sell it off as a "joke".

Just speaking for myself: the argument you were possibly making totally got lost by exaggerating so much because you were trying to grab attention at the cost of making sense.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 05:39 PM
Of course sometimes it is possible to keep it up for three sets of tennis for best 3 out of 5. ;) I in no way mean that Nadal is invincible over 5 sets. Just that as a player you would need to make sure you either steamrolled him or accepted that you would have to lose some sets..

The way you make him out to be, he is better than Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Guga and Bruguera combined.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 05:40 PM
Don't know how Guga was a late bloomer by winning his first Slam at the age of 20. For that matter Federer was 21 at the time he won Wimbledon, so not exactly in the middle of his career as he is now.

If Nadal's prime was last year then he's done a remarkable job of duplicating his 2005 claycourt results to the letter this year and then improving his grasscourt results significantly, wouldn't you say. Not bad for a downhill slump.

Guga's prime was in 2000. He was 24. That's late blooming.
Federer's first really dominating year was 2004. He was 23.

Grasscourt results? Wimbledon was luck and you know it. Did he played any good grasscourt player 'till Federer?
His hardcourt record this year is a complete downhill.

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 05:40 PM
The way you make him out to be, he is better than Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Guga and Bruguera combined.
How did stebs make him out to be better than those players combined? That's a conclusion you're making out of nothing or not much.

Why are you so touchy about this topic?

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 05:41 PM
:haha: From some who has the phrase 'Anyone vs. Nadal' in their signature, I doubt anyone's going to take you seriously.

I'm losing my sleep because of that. :rolleyes:

stebs
09-12-2006, 05:43 PM
The way you make him out to be, he is better than Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Guga and Bruguera combined.
What makes you say that? His style of play is perfect for clay. It is possible for many to take a set but so hard to get more than that. I know you are respected on these boards but why not try to give reasons for these answers instead of writing them as if I'm stupid and of course I'm wrong. Of course I don't think he is better than those guys, at least not yet.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 05:44 PM
Of course sometimes it is possible to keep it up for three sets of tennis for best 3 out of 5. ;) I in no way mean that Nadal is invincible over 5 sets. Just that as a player you would need to make sure you either steamrolled him or accepted that you would have to lose some sets.

Remember, there may not be stellar opposition about but nevertheless Rafa has never lost a 5 set match on clay. I cannot see anyone beating him instraight sets on clay and if that is the case then the fighter in Rafa comes in. Sure, Guga has some of that in him but he is just too nice on court to be a truly great fighter. There are exceptions to the rule but many of the best sportsmen in the world have an arrogant streak and refuse to admit defeat. It can help very much in the heat of the battle whatever sport is being played.

A perfect example of what I mean is Mathieu - Nadal at RG. For me the first set of that match was a truly incredible set. Mathieu played out of his mind to somehow take that set off a Nadal who was playing pretty fantastic himself. I don't care if you are Federer, Kuerten, Muster or anyone else. It isn't possible to keep up that level for 3 sets. Instead it has to be staggered. So long as Nadal isn't playing badly I don't see a situation in the near future where anyone has a hope of beating him in straight sets in a five set match on clay.

Just to remember, Guga has 3 RG. 5 set matches on clay were not a problem to him.
They weren't a problem in hardcourts too, as everybody probably remembers his match against Mirnyi in the US Open... 5 thrilling sets.

stebs
09-12-2006, 05:47 PM
Just to remember, Guga has 3 RG. 5 set matches on clay were not a problem to him.
They weren't a problem in hardcourts too, as everybody probably remembers his match against Mirnyi in the US Open... 5 thrilling sets.
I do not mean five sets would be any problem to him physically. More I mean that Nadal seems to be maybe a little more mentally tough. At this stage of his career anyway, we will have to wait and see what Nadal is like in a few years. I think it is likely that while his technical game will improve there is a big possibility that a slightly less determined and relaxed attitude will make him more rather than less vulnerable, particularly on clay.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 05:49 PM
I do not mean five sets would be any problem to him physically. More I mean that Nadal seems to be maybe a little more mentally tough. At this stage of his career anyway, we will have to wait and see what Nadal is like in a few years. I think it is likely that while his technical game will improve there is a big possibility that a slightly less determined and relaxed attitude will make him more rather than less vulnerable, particularly on clay.

In 2001 Guga won RG after saving at least one MP against Michael Russell in one of the first rounds. Third set, two sets down. Won 3-2 after that. That's as good as it gets mentally.

stebs
09-12-2006, 05:51 PM
In 2001 Guga won RG after saving at least one MP against Michael Russell in one of the first rounds. Third set, two sets down. Won 3-2 after that. That's as good as it gets mentally.
I would continue to attempt to outline the finer points of my post to you in an effort to further my argument but it is clear that you hate Nadal and would probably retort that Mathieu is stronger than him mentally as well.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 05:52 PM
How did stebs make him out to be better than those players combined? That's a conclusion you're making out of nothing or not much.

Why are you so touchy about this topic?

I already made my points about this particular topic in relation to the subject at hand. As for being touchy far from it, considering comparing different generation in itself is a useless exercise and not to be taken seriously. Is that clear enough?

cmurray
09-12-2006, 05:54 PM
People are expecting too much from Rafa. He's going downhill? Because he lost in the quarters of the US Open? He lost in the third round last year - last time I checked, that was moving up. His unlikely run at Wimbledon has raised expectations to the point where a quarterfinal loss on a surface he's clearly uncomfortable on is a sign that his career is practically over. He learns at an amazing pace.

Can he keep up this sort of pace next year? I have no idea, but neither do those of you who proclaim that he's all but washed up.

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 05:56 PM
I already made my points about this particular topic in relation to the subject at hand. As for being touchy far from it, considering comparing different generation in itself is a useless exercise and not to be taken seriously. Is that clear enough?
:lol:

That's coming from a guy who was comparing Muster with his entire career behind him with a 20-year old Nadal.

Or was that sarcasm again because I must admit, you use that so much that I could be missing it when you actually are trying to make a point without being sarcastic.

Or was that an exaggeration as a way to grab attention of the idiots here but you hate to use emoticons to make that point?

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 05:57 PM
People are expecting too much from Rafa. He's going downhill? Because he lost in the quarters of the US Open? He lost in the third round last year - last time I checked, that was moving up. His unlikely run at Wimbledon has raised expectations to the point where a quarterfinal loss on a surface he's clearly uncomfortable on is a sign that his career is practically over. He learns at an amazing pace.

Can he keep up this sort of pace next year? I have no idea, but neither do those of you who proclaim that he's all but washed up.

2nd round exit in Miami (final last year), 3rd in Canada (winner last year). Retired from Beijing (winner last year). What's that? Uphill?

stebs
09-12-2006, 05:58 PM
I already made my points about this particular topic in relation to the subject at hand. As for being touchy far from it, considering comparing different generation in itself is a useless exercise and not to be taken seriously. Is that clear enough?
You have not made any clear or valid points in a response to any of my posts. It is my fear that you have made a wrong first impression of my thoughts on this subject due to a perfectly understandable misunderstanding of my post. Having read it back I can see exactly how it sounds and I may edit it in the hope that others do not stray along the same line of thought as it seems you did after reading it.

Although comparing players from different generations may be a fruitless activity it is still desirable that a debate about it can be held using valid points and evidence rather than unexplained one line answers.

stebs
09-12-2006, 06:00 PM
2nd round exit in Miami (final last year), 3rd in Canada (winner last year). Retired from Beijing (winner last year). What's that? Uphill?
For three downhills I can give you three uphill's. Indian Wells, the US Open itself and Cincinnati.

cmurray
09-12-2006, 06:03 PM
2nd round exit in Miami (final last year), 3rd in Canada (winner last year). Retired from Beijing (winner last year). What's that? Uphill?


Um, WIMBLEDON?????????? Remember that little tournament? I'd say 2nd round to finals is a pretty impressive jump.

stebs
09-12-2006, 06:04 PM
Um, WIMBLEDON?????????? Remember that little tournament? I'd say 2nd round to finals is a pretty impressive jump.
I'm certainly no Rafa fan but I respect him for sure and I can tell you for free that you will find no joy in trying to persuade GlennMirnyi anything positive about Nadal. I hear he is in line for a decent seeding in the arseclown contest.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 06:06 PM
What makes you say that? His style of play is perfect for clay. It is possible for many to take a set but so hard to get more than that. I know you are respected on these boards but why not try to give reasons for these answers instead of writing them as if I'm stupid and of course I'm wrong. Of course I don't think he is better than those guys, at least not yet.

OK, what is it that you specifically want me to address? Is there a need to hype up Nadal, when his results speak for themselves?

- Style of play perfect for clay, well that is a no brainer.

- There have been many before you have been touted as the next big thing, look at Coria for example when he was dominating on clay and he got compared to Borg by media outlets etc and look what has happened to him, hence the hyperbole should be kept in check, which relates to why these sort of things can't be taken seriously.

- Next point, if you want to have a discussion about this, then you have to look at the respective players that Guga was up against and what Nadal is up against. That has to be taken into account, there are generational shits within sport, it happens. Claycourt tennis from 1993-2003 in an overall sense was deeper in terms of top contenders and granted they can only beat what was in front of them. Costa, Rios, Corretja, Medvedev, Mantilla, Muster at the end, Bruguera is a hell of a lot more quality than what is around at the moment.

- The last one is the respective match up issue and I am only talking about clay here, it works very well for Guga. Considering Guga with the serve can stretch Nadal out with the angles and the he played Muster and Bruguera and those guy forehands were heavier than Nadal's or as heavy and to the heavy forehand to the backhand wouldn't bother him. Look at how Berdych troubles Nadal, Guga wouldn't give Nadal the time either to get comfortable in rallies.

As for how good Nadal becomes is unknown, but there are always knee jerk reactions to these things.

cmurray
09-12-2006, 06:10 PM
I'm certainly no Rafa fan but I respect him for sure and I can tell you for free that you will find no joy in trying to persuade GlennMirnyi anything positive about Nadal. I hear he is in line for a decent seeding in the arseclown contest.

thanks for the tip. :)

Not for nothing, but I remember people saying at the beginning of this year that there was NO WAY Rafa was going to repeat his claycourt success again. I mean he lost in miami to MOYA!??? Obviously, they were proven incorrect. We'll allow the results to speak for themselves, shall we? And if, by the end of May Rafa's won nothing, I'll gladly admit defeat.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 06:12 PM
:lol:

That's coming from a guy who was comparing Muster with his entire career behind him with a 20-year old Nadal.

Or was that sarcasm again because I must admit, you use that so much that I could be missing it when you actually are trying to make a point without being sarcastic.

Or was that an exaggeration as a way to grab attention of the idiots here but you hate to use emoticons to make that point?

You can make what you will of it.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 06:14 PM
Wimbledon was PURE LUCK. Next year any Waske-esque guy in the first round will end Nadal's tournament.
In hardcourts it's all downhill. The up part in IW doesn't balance the downhill in Miami and Canada.

ufokart
09-12-2006, 06:17 PM
If you're just joking and nothing more, you're reputation as a clown will not decline. That's true

At least i got a reputation, that's something :p

If you were trying to make a point as well as a joke, like I think you were trying to do (were you): do you really think that you will convince a lot of people who are actually interested in a good conversation or make them think about your viewpoint by exaggerating so much and when people disagree, sell it off as a "joke".

I think my point was pretty clear (right or wrong), with or without jokes, so if you concentrate on the jokes, it's your problem, i can't do anything about that :), this is how i write.
Why can't someone try to make a point and joke at the same time?. It's tennis, not government policy. I think you are taking the matter too seriously, especially considering this is a speculation thread.
I consider these two years as weak in terms of competition and quality compared with other years, i didn't enjoyed the clay season that much. You may disagree with me, that's fine, but since i posted here you just talked about my jokes :rolleyes:

Just speaking for myself: the argument you were possibly making totally got lost by exaggerating so much because you were trying to grab attention at the cost of making sense.

Sorry you didn't get my point by focusing on the jokes. Next time i'm going to post two consecutive messages, one with my opinion and the other with all the lame jokes. :rolleyes: :lol:

Next point, if you want to have a discussion about this, then you have to look at the respective players that Guga was up against and what Nadal is up against. That has to be taken into account, there are generational shits within sport, it happens. Claycourt tennis from 1993-2003 in an overall sense was deeper in terms of top contenders and granted they can only beat what was in front of them. Costa, Rios, Corretja, Medvedev, Mantilla, Muster at the end, Bruguera is a hell of a lot more quality than what is around at the moment.

I agree.


I like Rafa and i like Guga. And i also said how i felt about claycourt tennis nowadays. I think that Guga would win, because i am more impressed with what he achieved when there were so many great clay players. Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero are clearly playing badly by their standarts and i don't see how you can possibly deny that. Apart from Nadal and Federer i don't see a lot of great clay players, i see good players, but not much more.
The majority of what i posted here was a comparison of Guga's time and Nadal's time, and it's ok to debate it, but as George said, it's pretty useless considering this is all speculation of what could have been like and that we have no way of knowing what would have happened. And i also didn't intend my messages to bash Nadal, but some people apparently consider thinking Guga was better a disrespect to Rafa achievements or something like that. :cuckoo:

cmurray
09-12-2006, 06:17 PM
Wimbledon was PURE LUCK. Next year any Waske-esque guy in the first round will end Nadal's tournament.
In hardcourts it's all downhill. The up part in IW doesn't balance the downhill in Miami and Canada.


:haha: You're obviously the expert.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 06:20 PM
:haha: You're obviously the expert.

You're too. :rolleyes:

Castafiore
09-12-2006, 06:22 PM
Why can't someone try to make a point and joke at the same time?. It's tennis, not government policy. I think you are taking the matter too seriously, especially considering this is a speculation thread.
I consider these two years as weak in terms of competition and quality compared with other years, i didn't enjoyed the clay season that much. You may disagree with me, that's fine, but since i posted here you just talked about my jokes :rolleyes:
Well, without making too big a deal out of this: your point got drowned in the joke part IMO.

No problem with combining humor with a good conversation but it's difficult to find the right balance.

stebs
09-12-2006, 06:23 PM
OK, what is it that you specifically want me to address? Is there a need to hype up Nadal, when his results speak for themselves?
I was more wanting an explanation for your previous post but I am also perfectly happy to have a discussion on this subject.

- There have been many before you have been touted as the next big thing, look at Coria for example when he was dominating on clay and he got compared to Borg by media outlets etc and look what has happened to him, hence the hyperbole should be kept in check, which relates to why these sort of things can't be taken seriously.

Yes that's true but looking at one surface Rafa isn't actually a million miles from acheiving things comprable to some of the clay greats. He is a long way from Borg and I haven't compared the two but he has done some things on the surface which set him apart even from the great Swede. I am not saying Rafa is going to be the next God or anything like that. Anyway, to compare the two in match-up terms you don't really need Rafa to be any older than he is. If we compare them as they are then that is fine.

- Next point, if you want to have a discussion about this, then you have to look at the respective players that Guga was up against and what Nadal is up against. That has to be taken into account, there are generational shits within sport, it happens. Claycourt tennis from 1993-2003 in an overall sense was deeper in terms of top contenders and granted they can only beat what was in front of them. Costa, Rios, Corretja, Medvedev, Mantilla, Muster at the end, Bruguera is a hell of a lot more quality than what is around at the moment. I have no retort to this argument. It is valid and there is no comeback, Guga has beaten off far more than Rafa although guys like Coria, Ferrero, Gaudio and Federer are certainly not walkovers. Also, although I see you made the comment only in passing which makes it somewhat unfair for me to pick holes in it there are some facts which make the fact that Guga faced these guys less impressive.

For instance, on the red stuff Guga is actually 1-2 against Rios with his only win coming due to a retirement and lost his only match on clay against Medvedev in straight sets.

- The last one is the respective match up issue and I am only talking about clay here, it works very well for Guga. Considering Guga with the serve can stretch Nadal out with the angles and the he played Muster and Bruguera and those guy forehands were heavier than Nadal's or as heavy and to the heavy forehand to the backhand wouldn't bother him. Look at how Berdych troubles Nadal, Guga wouldn't give Nadal the time either to get comfortable in rallies.

Although this is undoubtedly true we have seen similar match-ups on clay and Nadal has won them. In fact even Federer isn't as far as all that from Guga on clay stylistically. I would even say that if Federer was basing his clay tennis on a previous great then Guga would be the most likely. Of course there is a large enough difference in skill but Nadal has shown he isn't all that fazed by different styles on his most loved surface.

ufokart
09-12-2006, 06:24 PM
Well, without making too big a deal out of this: your point got drowned in the joke part IMO.

No problem with combining humor with a good conversation but it's difficult to find the right balance.

Ok, if you got my point in the end, then we can put at least this issue to sleep :)

Chocobo
09-12-2006, 06:27 PM
Guga hands down

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 06:34 PM
Yes that's true but looking at one surface Rafa isn't actually a million miles from acheiving things comprable to some of the clay greats. He is a long way from Borg and I haven't compared the two but he has done some things on the surface which set him apart even from the great Swede. I am not saying Rafa is going to be the next God or anything like that. Anyway, to compare the two in match-up terms you don't really need Rafa to be any older than he is. If we compare them as they are then that is fine.

First of all you can have the last word on this subject, because it's just going to go around in circles and circles and have already said why it's a pointless exercise.

You are still doing the hype thing and for the record I don't hate Nadal, I am neutral towards him, but have alrea

I have no retort to this argument. It is valid and there is no comeback, Guga has beaten off far more than Rafa although guys like Coria, Ferrero, Gaudio and Federer are certainly not walkovers. Also, although I see you made the comment only in passing which makes it somewhat unfair for me to pick holes in it there are some facts which make the fact that Guga faced these guys less impressive.

For instance, on the red stuff Guga is actually 1-2 against Rios with his only win coming due to a retirement and lost his only match on clay against Medvedev in straight sets.

Please pick as many holes as you want in the arguments. I have already stated that the depth was higher and why it was so when Guga was playing, maybe there will be another generation shift and push Nadal to even better or he maybe caught up sooner than you think.

Andreev has beaten Rafa on clay does that mean he is a better player overall?

I am sorry Gaudio isn't a patch on those guys, and as for Ferrero. Nadal has not played Ferrero when he was at his best, but at the same time it is a bad match up for Ferrero now as he doesn't have the same power as he had then. As for Federer look how he struggled against those Spanish guys and they were past their peak except for Corretja,

Although this is undoubtedly true we have seen similar match-ups on clay and Nadal has won them. In fact even Federer isn't as far as all that from Guga on clay stylistically. I would even say that if Federer was basing his clay tennis on a previous great then Guga would be the most likely. Of course there is a large enough difference in skill but Nadal has shown he isn't all that fazed by different styles on his most loved surface.

Federer and Guga aren't similar except that they play right handed and have one hand backhands.

Viken01
09-12-2006, 06:42 PM
guga would kick nadal's ass like he did against fed at RG04 :)

sawan66278
09-12-2006, 07:03 PM
The one X-factor is the heart of Nadal...Guga played with heart, but he did not train off the court or with the intensity necessary to reach his full talent...and I agree with Stebs, in five set matches, heart and fitness win the day...

And forget saying anything positive about Rafa to GlennMirnyi....he has never said one positive thing about him, and actually calls him a moonballer...

In my mind, Rafa may very well end up being the best ever on clay...but if I evaulate their games up to this point, Guga wins on clay, but Rafa wins on grass, hard court and indoor are toss-ups...

Let's also not forget, aside from the Russel match, Guga was a choker....He is one of my favorite players ever, but let's not forget his gags...to Tursunov at the U.S. Open, to Nalbandian at the French, to Pioline at the U.S. Open, to Robredo at the French, to Kafenikov at the U.S. Open...I lost so much hair watching him blow matches he should have won...Rafa came back from two match points down just this year against one of the greatest players ever!!! Can Guga say the same?

stebs
09-12-2006, 07:07 PM
You are still doing the hype thing and for the record I don't hate Nadal, I am neutral towards him
I take the same position. In fact, some would say that I am a Fedtard that hates Nadal. I can't say that I agree with this sentimanet but nor can I say I feel like I have a shred of bias toward the Spainard.

Please pick as many holes as you want in the arguments. I have already stated that the depth was higher and why it was so when Guga was playing, maybe there will be another generation shift and push Nadal to even better or he maybe caught up sooner than you think.
I agree. I was just stating that it isn't as strong an argument as might be percieved by some.

Andreev has beaten Rafa on clay does that mean he is a better player overall?

Yes, sure why not? :p

Of course I do not think that. Perhaps this is a knee-jerk reaction from me mentioned inferior head to heads that Guga has? If so then let me say that my response was toward your point that Guga played in a time full of great clay courters. If I had mentioned Andreev being a rival then of course it would be natural for you to bring up the fact that he won the meeting between the pair in Valencia. Since I did not I cannot see the relevance.

I am sorry Gaudio isn't a patch on those guys, and as for Ferrero. Nadal has not played Ferrero when he was at his best, but at the same time it is a bad match up for Ferrero now as he doesn't have the same power as he had then. As for Federer look how he struggled against those Spanish guys and they were past their peak except for Corretja,
There are great clay courters you mentioned that Guga didn't play in their prime and personally I would argue that Costa is certainly comprable to Gaudio. I would like to say at this point that I am agreeing with you that the field of clay courters was stronger during the period that Guga dominated than it is now. I am just trying to lessen the strength of this argument.

Federer and Guga aren't similar except that they play right handed and have one hand backhands.

At times during this clay court season I think Federer was certianly trying to style his one hander on Guga's. they will never be that similar due to the difference in the height they are played at but I would certainly say that their game's aren't worlds apart. If Federer, as a young player, had tried to make himslef into a clay specialist I think his game would start to look more similar to Guga's. They went in different directions as youngsters which affected the style and game but if you went to the root of the pair's game I don't think it would be as different as you imply.

stebs
09-12-2006, 07:08 PM
The one X-factor is the heart of Nadal...Guga played with heart, but he did not train off the court or with the intensity necessary to reach his full talent...and I agree with Stebs, in five set matches, heart and fitness win the day...
Although I agree with aspects of this post I did say earlier and will repeat now, Guga's fitness would not be an issue. He has it in abundance.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 07:24 PM
I agree. I was just stating that it isn't as strong an argument as might be percieved by some.

Do you want me to write a doctorate on it? Seriously, it's not hard to pick flaws in an argument that you don't agree with, but I am not saying anything there that is even close to controversial.

Of course I do not think that. Perhaps this is a knee-jerk reaction from me mentioned inferior head to heads that Guga has? If so then let me say that my response was toward your point that Guga played in a time full of great clay courters. If I had mentioned Andreev being a rival then of course it would be natural for you to bring up the fact that he won the meeting between the pair in Valencia. Since I did not I cannot see the relevance.

Never said great at all. Just said collectively the field was stronger at that time at the top than it is now. You made relevance to certain H2H heads, just to make a point, decided to play with that one.

There are great clay courters you mentioned that Guga didn't play in their prime and personally I would argue that Costa is certainly comprable to Gaudio. I would like to say at this point that I am agreeing with you that the field of clay courters was stronger during the period that Guga dominated than it is now. I am just trying to lessen the strength of this argument.

I am honest about Gaudio, and while Gaudio was more talented than Costa. He was not better and look who went further in the major clay events consistently and it wasn't the Argentine. If you are going to try and convince me that this lost of players on clay are as good as that era I mentioned previously, then that is funny, but you are not.

At times during this clay court season I think Federer was certianly trying to style his one hander on Guga's. they will never be that similar due to the difference in the height they are played at but I would certainly say that their game's aren't worlds apart. If Federer, as a young player, had tried to make himslef into a clay specialist I think his game would start to look more similar to Guga's. They went in different directions as youngsters which affected the style and game but if you went to the root of the pair's game I don't think it would be as different as you imply.

What does Federer have to do with this? They don't play the same style and never have and it's not even close. If you want to use a comparison at least make it as close to the original as possible and even then, that is fraught with problems.

Fed struggles with the heavy forehand to the backhand, Guga didn't. That is one major key to any match up with Nadal.

mungyo
09-12-2006, 08:40 PM
pfftt your sig is outdated :P

ups :smash: .................. :yeah:

Pfloyd
09-12-2006, 08:55 PM
May not be completly relevant, but one question (and no, I am not trying to make some point):

Will Nadal has a better carreer than Kuerten?

oschemi
09-12-2006, 09:24 PM
May not be completly relevant, but one question (and no, I am not trying to make some point):

Will Nadal has a better carreer than Kuerten?

Yes he will, barring serious injury. He almost has. That ridiculous streak speaks for itself.

oschemi
09-12-2006, 09:27 PM
Do you want me to write a doctorate on it? Seriously, it's not hard to pick flaws in an argument that you don't agree with, but I am not saying anything there that is even close to controversial.



Never said great at all. Just said collectively the field was stronger at that time at the top than it is now. You made relevance to certain H2H heads, just to make a point, decided to play with that one.



I am honest about Gaudio, and while Gaudio was more talented than Costa. He was not better and look who went further in the major clay events consistently and it wasn't the Argentine. If you are going to try and convince me that this lost of players on clay are as good as that era I mentioned previously, then that is funny, but you are not.



What does Federer have to do with this? They don't play the same style and never have and it's not even close. If you want to use a comparison at least make it as close to the original as possible and even then, that is fraught with problems.

Fed struggles with the heavy forehand to the backhand, Guga didn't. That is one major key to any match up with Nadal.

It is funny how you say Guga will not struggle with that topspin forehand. Please name one player that Guga has played that has the kind of vicious topspin Nadal has. So, since they have never played, it is impossible to conclude that Guga's backhand will not struggle with Nadal's topspin forehand

SwissMister1
09-12-2006, 09:44 PM
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

people forget now how good Guga really was back then

leng jai
09-12-2006, 11:34 PM
Anyone with a single handed backhand would struggle with Nadal's forehand

alelysafina
09-13-2006, 12:17 AM
It is funny how you say Guga will not struggle with that topspin forehand. Please name one player that Guga has played that has the kind of vicious topspin Nadal has. So, since they have never played, it is impossible to conclude that Guga's backhand will not struggle with Nadal's topspin forehand

and vice versa :)

Action Jackson
09-13-2006, 11:24 AM
It is funny how you say Guga will not struggle with that topspin forehand. Please name one player that Guga has played that has the kind of vicious topspin Nadal has. So, since they have never played, it is impossible to conclude that Guga's backhand will not struggle with Nadal's topspin forehand

Bruguera and Muster thank you and that was mentioned earlier, so practice selective reading.

Godiva
09-13-2006, 11:55 AM
Anyone with a single handed backhand would struggle with Nadal's forehand


Tell that to J. Blake.

cmurray
09-13-2006, 12:03 PM
Tell that to J. Blake.

True... but james hasn't played Nadal on clay.

Grüezi
01-31-2007, 08:52 PM
I have never started a new thread, so I hope this works and you all find it worthy of responding to!

bokehlicious
01-31-2007, 09:00 PM
Nadal in straights

cmurray
01-31-2007, 09:02 PM
Nadal in straights

or at the most, 4. See....we CAN agree on something. ;) Also, I like poker too. Watch it all the time. Hachem is my favorite.

Grüezi
01-31-2007, 09:05 PM
I think Guga could take at least a set off of Nadal... even at his peak no one gives him a chance?

cmurray
01-31-2007, 09:07 PM
I think Guga could take at least a set off of Nadal... even at his peak no one gives him a chance?

I dunno, man. Rafa on clay is a tough proposition. Let me ask you this? Do you think Roger of today could have beaten Guga on clay? I say yes.

Andre♥
01-31-2007, 09:08 PM
I'm far from being a Guga fan, but I think he would at least take both Nadal and Federer to a fifth set...

Grüezi
01-31-2007, 09:15 PM
Well, Guga did beat Federer (handily) at RG 2004. But the Federer of today, hard to say.

superhoops
01-31-2007, 09:15 PM
Nadal.

Lee
01-31-2007, 09:16 PM
Well, Guga did beat Federer (handily) at RG 2004. But the Federer of today, hard to say.

And that's not even Guga at his peak.

bokehlicious
01-31-2007, 09:18 PM
And that's not even Guga at his peak.

Neither Roger's

Grüezi
01-31-2007, 09:32 PM
Thanks for merging... didn't realize there was a similar thread.

Lee
01-31-2007, 09:37 PM
Neither Roger's

You can deny all you want.

Guga was not totally recovered from hip surgery in 2004 and later had another hip surgery.

Roger won 3 slams and TMC that year.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-31-2007, 09:44 PM
Dunno, Guga in his prime was amazing on clay. I'm not so sure its as cut and dry as some ppl here make it out to be. Guga new how to be aggressive on clay, his backhand was amazing. Of course Rafa has an amazing record on clay, but not to take away from his achievements (see I can something against my fav, unlike many fans), he hasn't had any decent competition on clay. Guga did, yet still managed to win 3 RG titles. I dunno, maybe too tough to call.

GlennMirnyi
01-31-2007, 09:44 PM
Nadal fans are delusional. Guga played against much better competition on clay and won RG 3 times.

robrulz5
01-31-2007, 09:47 PM
No one will ever really know who is better.

guga2120
01-31-2007, 09:47 PM
this is a very hard one to call, Nadal last year on clay was as good as I have ever seen anybody play on the dirt. I would have loved to seen this match more than any matchup ever.

I think they would both win matches against each other, but i would say 2006 Nadal wins in 5 sets on clay. Last year Rafa was unstoppable, im not sure Guga in his prime could have done it.

I would take Gustavo on hard courts though.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-31-2007, 09:57 PM
Nadal fans are delusional. Guga played against much better competition on clay and won RG 3 times.
Did you read what I just wrote?

GlennMirnyi
01-31-2007, 10:03 PM
Did you read what I just wrote?

I had finished writing before reading what you wrote.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-31-2007, 10:04 PM
I had finished writing before reading what you wrote.
Ok, sorry.

GlennMirnyi
01-31-2007, 10:09 PM
Ok, sorry.

Anyway, if I read, I wouldn't really believe you had written that, too reasonable to be true. :p

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-31-2007, 10:14 PM
Anyway, if I read, I wouldn't really believe you had written that, too reasonable to be true. :p
Hahaha. Well it is possible ;)

allero
01-31-2007, 11:50 PM
Of course Rafa has an amazing record on clay, but not to take away from his achievements (see I can something against my fav, unlike many fans), he hasn't had any decent competition on clay.
Coria in 2005? Federer in 2006?

holagirl56
01-31-2007, 11:58 PM
Coria in 2005? Federer in 2006?

I think what they mean is that Nadal only faces Coria (although Coria has disappeared now) and Federer in the finals of tournaments, wheras in 2000-2003, the clay court specialists would pop up everywhere, especially early in tournaments. I respect Nadal and a lot of his accomplishments at 20, but his winning streak on clay can be partly considered because he hasn't been meeting any real competition until the finals.

allero
02-01-2007, 12:06 AM
Well, just looking at the important clay tournaments Rafa won in 2005, he did have to go through Gaudio, Gasquet and Coria (F) to win Monte Carlo, then through Cañas, Ferrer and Coria (F) again in Rome, through Gasquet, Ferrer, Federer and Puerta (F) in Roland Garros. I wouldn't call it no competition until the finals.

holagirl56
02-01-2007, 12:17 AM
Well, just looking at the important clay tournaments Rafa won in 2005, he did have to go through Gaudio, Gasquet and Coria (F) to win Monte Carlo, then through Cañas, Ferrer and Coria (F) again in Rome, through Gasquet, Ferrer, Federer and Puerta (F) in Roland Garros. I wouldn't call it no competition until the finals.

How about 2006?

Denise
02-01-2007, 12:33 AM
It's a tough one, but I think Guga could win :banana:

GlennMirnyi
02-01-2007, 01:16 AM
Well, just looking at the important clay tournaments Rafa won in 2005, he did have to go through Gaudio, Gasquet and Coria (F) to win Monte Carlo, then through Cañas, Ferrer and Coria (F) again in Rome, through Gasquet, Ferrer, Federer and Puerta (F) in Roland Garros. I wouldn't call it no competition until the finals.

Gasquet? :haha:

Fedex
02-01-2007, 01:50 AM
I give the edge to Guga on clay and hardcourts, and Nadal on grass.

LK_22
02-01-2007, 08:50 AM
Definitely Guga on hard and probably clay, I think he would hit straight through Nadal

Have to give advantage to Nadal on grass though but Kuerten overall :yeah:

leng jai
02-01-2007, 09:08 AM
Guga would blow Nadal off the court in his prime.

CooCooCachoo
02-01-2007, 09:34 AM
Nadal in three. He is a class above Kuerten, even when Kuerten was at his prime.

Action Jackson
02-01-2007, 09:44 AM
Nadal in three. He is a class above Kuerten, even when Kuerten was at his prime.

You almost sound serious?

Billabong
02-01-2007, 11:08 AM
I remember this thread;) Well, if I haven't already said it, prime Guga would definitely win on clay:yeah:

*Viva Chile*
02-01-2007, 11:11 AM
All I have to say is the match is played today Rafa will beat Guga 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 :sad:

Hagar
02-01-2007, 11:59 AM
And let's not forget, who was the one man to beat at the Roger at the slams two years ago...Guga...by a score of 6-3,6-3,6-3 :eek: :eek: :eek:

I love Rafa, but Guga...man...

That match at RG2004 is in my top 5 of best matches ever. Guga's body was aching but he played vintage clay tennis and completely dismantled Federer. I get tears in my eyes when I think about this match.

Guga having so much trouble with injuries is the biggest tennis tragedy of the last 5 years. It would have been great if he could have played his best tennis.
This said, I remain hopeful that he can come back.

Hagar
02-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Guga, because of his happy-go-lucky personality, never really reached the level of success he could have...

Isn't it amazing? This guy won 3 times RG and still we have the feeling that he did not reach his true potential. That is of course because he was such a good player that you always felt he could have won a lot more.
I keep hoping that he can somehow get back to his old level.
He was such a joy to watch. I miss him a lot.

allero
02-01-2007, 01:31 PM
Gasquet? :haha:

Yes, the player who made Monte Carlo semifinal and Hamburg final in 2005 beating the greatest player of the world best ever Federer among others.

Action Jackson
02-01-2007, 01:33 PM
Yes, the player who made Monte Carlo semifinal and Hamburg final in 2005 beating the greatest player of the world best ever Federer among others.

So?

allero
02-01-2007, 01:38 PM
How about 2006?
In 2006 there was less competition than in 2005. Mainly, because Coria and Gaudio started struggling a lot. Still, he had to face players like Djokovic, Almagro, Robredo and Gonzalez all of whom when they are on their game can be pretty good clay court players. And of course 3 wins vs. Federer.;)

Action Jackson
02-01-2007, 01:41 PM
In 2006 there was less competition than in 2005. Mainly, because Coria and Gaudio started struggling a lot. Still, he had to face players like Djokovic, Almagro, Robredo and Gonzalez all of whom when they are on their game can be pretty good clay court players. And of course 3 wins vs. Federer.;)

You are kidding those guys at the moment aren't a patch on the excellent generation of claycourt players from 93 to 03.

Hendu
02-01-2007, 01:46 PM
Nadal in three. He is a class above Kuerten, even when Kuerten was at his prime.

If an inform Coria could push Nadal to the limit, how come Kuerten wouldn't even win a set?

It would have been a close match... the winner? I don't know.

jazar
02-01-2007, 02:42 PM
guga on clay and hard, but with the grass courts slowing down and bouncing higher it would be interesting on grass, but i would still give a slight egde there to nadal

Godiva
02-01-2007, 04:12 PM
Guga having so much trouble with injuries is the biggest tennis tragedy of the last 5 years. It would have been great if he could have played his best tennis.
This said, I remain hopeful that he can come back.


Tragedy is an understatement. Guga had the potential to win a couple of US Opens and a couple more on clay. He even had potential on grass having previously gotten to the Wimbledon quarter finals. I also believe he could have given Roger trouble on clay and possibly on hard.... but....:sad: it was not to be.

As for the original question, well duh.

BgStallion
02-01-2007, 08:59 PM
Ferrero beat Nadal in cincy with only a small outburst of his previous self. So don't tell me that the Ferrero from 2003 can't beat Nadal .

Black Adam
02-01-2007, 09:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrladEPVweI&mode=related&search=

Guga in his Prime would have won. Watch how he demolished a Fererro in his prime. :sad: Come back Guga :sad:
If he is well he might make FO 2007 more interesting. I want to see Nadal given a run for his someone instead of winning basically unchallenged in Paris.

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-01-2007, 09:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrladEPVweI&mode=related&search=

Guga in his Prime would have won. Watch how he demolished a Fererro in his prime. :sad: Come back Guga :sad:
If he is well he might make FO 2007 more interesting. I want to see Nadal given a run for his someone instead of winning basically unchallenged in Paris.

Indeed it would be interesting. That match was amazing, Guga really is missed.

I would love to see a 2003 Ferrero against Nadal as well.

guga2120
02-01-2007, 09:49 PM
I hope he does come back, he just hasn't moved the same since the injury, and that is obviously so crucial on clay. Gustavo when he was healthy was one of the greatest players i have ever seen, im still not certain he would have beaten Nadal of last year on clay, its very hard to call, certainly the 2 best clay courters since Borg.

After watching Nadal's season last year i still would give a slight edge to him at RG, but Kuerten on other surfaces.

watching that video against Ferrero, his backhand.:bowdown:

Fedex
02-01-2007, 10:26 PM
Ferrero beat Nadal in cincy with only a small outburst of his previous self. So don't tell me that the Ferrero from 2003 can't beat Nadal .
I think Ferrero in his prime on clay would also create some problems for Nadal. I've always thought that to beat Nadal on clay, you need to have an agressive clay court game. You're not going to beat him on clay by playing defensively. That's why I give Guga the edge too, but it would be an interesting matchup for sure.

fooolingu
02-02-2007, 02:08 AM
One thing for certain is that Guga had the ugliest grunt of all time. Can you imagine poking this guy? The grunts would surely be a turn-off. Now Nadal's grunts are like music to a choir boy's ear!

sawan66278
02-02-2007, 02:14 AM
Objectively, if you look at Guga's game compared to Rafa's, you see that he had a better backhand, a better serve, and as good a forehand. In my opinion, he was, based on when he was healthy, the best clay court player I have ever seen. Think about it: in 2004, he defeated Roger in STRAIGHT SETS when only at about 70%...and Roger won three of the four majors that year!!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

He had the most potent and powerful one-handed backhand in the history of the game...and at his best, could give Roger or anyone a run for their money on ALL surfaces excluding grass...

I miss Guga...and I feel he would still be in the top two or three in the world hands down if he had not gotten injured...:sad: :sad: :sad:

aramis
02-03-2007, 10:23 PM
I think Ferrero in his prime on clay would also create some problems for Nadal. I've always thought that to beat Nadal on clay, you need to have an agressive clay court game. You're not going to beat him on clay by playing defensively. That's why I give Guga the edge too, but it would be an interesting matchup for sure.

I also think the 2003 Ferrero had the right type of game to consistently beat Nadal on clay. He had the consistency from the baseline to stick with Nadal, but he also had a huge weapon with that forehand and a strong serve to back it up. And he moved around the court as quick as anyone. Its a real pity that JCF doesn't play with the same power and energy he used to.

As for Guga, he definitely had the power game to beat Nadal, but I feel that he had a lot less margin for error than Ferrero. So when his game was on he just wouldn't miss. It wouldn't matter if he was up against a wall like Nadal, he would just keep on pounding away until the "wall" broke down. But if his game wasn't on, it seems like he could lose to anyone on clay, so I wouldn't say that out of ten matches, Guga would win them all; it would be more like 50/50 because of his inconsistency.

ClayMaster
05-24-2008, 05:17 PM
In your opinion who do you think would win?? Guga in his "prime" or Nadal the way he is playing now?? and of course it would be on clay

octatennis
05-24-2008, 05:20 PM
i would say nadal for his incredible mind but it would be a close match similar to the one rafa played against gaudio in montecarlo.

Pigsarestupid
05-24-2008, 10:51 PM
Guga would win, I think Gugas backhand would not be intimitated by Nadals top spin and that is the key to win against Nadal on clay.

CyBorg
05-24-2008, 10:52 PM
We have never had thread about this here before.

prima donna
05-24-2008, 11:02 PM
It's already been done.

Eden
05-24-2008, 11:15 PM
In your opinion who do you think would win?? Guga in his "prime" or Nadal the way he is playing now?? and of course it would be on clay

Have a look in this thread ;)

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=95039&highlight=kuerten

RedFury
05-24-2008, 11:17 PM
Slightly off topic as this is one of those 'discussions' with no definite answer.

I'd love to see Guga get to say goodbye in a match against Rafa. Likely two of the greatest and best examples of being both exceptional athletes and real, down-to-earth people.

Thanks for the memories, Guga. You were an inspiration, a rival and a gentleman to my countrymen and just a plain joy to watch.

Knowing what I know about your life I can only wish and hope for, that the very best of it is yet to come for you.

Guga, todo un 'crack.'

adee-gee
05-24-2008, 11:23 PM
Seeing as we came to the conclusion in a thread that Nadal could beat God on clay, I see no reason why Guga should cause him any problems :smoke:

guga2120
05-24-2008, 11:36 PM
Nadal would win more often. One thing is for certain, if Guga was in his prime, Rafa would have never won 81 matches in a row on clay.

Guga would win, I think Gugas backhand would not be intimitated by Nadals top spin and that is the key to win against Nadal on clay.

This means nothing. That is Nadal's key to beating Roger, not Guga, or anybody else. If he plays Nalbandian or Novak, he won't just go to the backhand, b/c they both will be able to deal with it. He plays that way with Roger b/c it has always worked. Gustavo would be able to deal with Nadal's forehand on either side. They both could beat each other, but in a 5 set match, a healthy Nadal would beat pretty much anybody more often than not. Gustavo has a better serve and a better backhand. Nadal has better defense and movement and he is physically stronger.

Beforehand
05-25-2008, 12:19 AM
We have never had thread about this here before.

We haven't since May of 2008, when he joined. He could always use the search function, but I don't see why there needs to be bitchiness about starting the thread.

Beforehand
05-25-2008, 12:20 AM
Have a look in this thread ;)

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=95039&highlight=kuerten

More like it! :cool:

Albop
05-25-2008, 12:27 AM
Clay master=Claydeath ?

:confused:

Stgobaiano
05-25-2008, 12:55 AM
Guga is a crack but Nadal is simply better than him in achievements and game.

He is 21 years old and pass Guga achievements

Knightmace
05-25-2008, 01:40 AM
I have no idea, Rafa probably.

finishingmove
05-25-2008, 03:24 AM
kuerten would do better than roger is doing ,now, on clay , and on other surfaces its pointless to discuss.

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-25-2008, 04:06 AM
Nadal easily 11 out of 10 times

So true.

Kuerten can make all the pansy hearts he wants on the court and Nadal will still kick his ass in straight sets.

GuiroNl
05-25-2008, 06:27 AM
So true.

Kuerten can make all the pansy hearts he wants on the court and Nadal will still kick his ass in straight sets.

:spit:

Fed=ATPTourkilla
05-25-2008, 11:07 PM
So true.

Kuerten can make all the pansy hearts he wants on the court and Nadal will still kick his ass in straight sets.

Heh.

Kuerten would put up more of a fight than Roger does but he would get ground down, same as everyone else...

usi123
07-29-2008, 02:01 PM
Could Kuerten in his peak have beaten Nadal on clay?

Sebby
07-29-2008, 02:14 PM
I wish we could have seen that matchup. The more frustrating is (without Kuerten injuries and unlike Borg or Muster) it could have been completely possible.

And to answer your question, I don't know. But Kuerten's backhand would have hurt Nadal a lot, that's for sure.

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Anyone COULD... WOULD he have? Possibly, if he played out of his skin and caught Nadal on a bad day, but I doubt he'd have led their head to head on clay.

finishingmove
07-29-2008, 02:34 PM
guga would own the 2006 nadal :cool:

that backhand makes a big difference playing him.

2008 nadal would still win

rocketassist
07-29-2008, 03:09 PM
Wouldn't be as one sided as some Nadal-salivating fools in this thread think- Guga could play aggressive for 5 sets on clay and actually paint the line.

Mansave_75
07-29-2008, 04:01 PM
Rafa on all surfaces! C'mon that's obvious. :)

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 04:09 PM
Grass would be a blow out to Nadal. Clay is both of their best, so it would be competitive. Nadal has greater week in week out consistency so he would win the majority, but Guga would certainly get a win here and there. I'd imagine the same sort of scenario on hardcourts.

Pfloyd
07-29-2008, 04:10 PM
The best Nadal is favorite on clay against the best Kuerten, really I think its quite clear.

Guga could win a few 3 set matches when Nadal is not on, and Guga is, but for the most part, this one is for Nadal.

Hard Courts would be the most competitive between these two IMHO.

Pirao666
12-29-2010, 07:16 PM
Nadal destroys him on grass, wins more often than not on clay (say 8 out of 10), and would win often on Hard (say 6 or 7 out of 10).

vn01
12-29-2010, 07:20 PM
Nadal beats Kuerten on clay. Close, but wins.
On grass Rafa destroys Guga.
On hard...I don't know. Guga might have advantage

Sapeod
12-29-2010, 07:24 PM
Nadull 2008 >>> Nadull 2010 >>> Kuerten 2001 >>> Kuerten 2000 >>>> Kuerten 1997 >>> Nadull 2009 Nadull 2007 >>>> Nadull 2006 >>>>> Nadull 2005.

Therefore, 2008 and 2010 Nadull would beat Kuerten. Kuerten would beat Nadull in the other years though.

So, 2001 Kuerten would beat 2006 Nadull in a close match.

latso
12-29-2010, 07:57 PM
looooooooooooooooool Guga has the upper hand in MTF votes

this is ridiculous lmao :D

Guga would be happy to snatch a set somewhere against this beast

Kiedis
12-29-2010, 09:25 PM
In the parallel universe of the haters Nadal wouldn't win a single match against any player. Good thing the results that really count ocurr in the real world :lol:

Forehander
12-30-2010, 01:10 AM
lol what type of joke shit is this? When I saw Kuerten on clay back in 2001 I thought he was totally awesome but when when I saw Nadal on clay in 2004-2005 I already thought he was invincible let alone 2006. On the clay, Nadals got absolutely no weakness. Nadal 2006 would beat 2001 prime Kuerten on a sub-par day.

Topspindoctor
12-30-2010, 03:02 AM
Nadal would win in 3 sets.

star
12-30-2010, 03:05 AM
Nadal beats Kuerten on clay. Close, but wins.
On grass Rafa destroys Guga.
On hard...I don't know. Guga might have advantage

Guga have the advantage on hard???

:lol: I don't think so. Guga wasn't much of a hard court player. It's true that he beat Federer on hard as well as at RG, but Guga struggled on hard court. He could never adapt his beautiful game to hard.

And I'm a HUGE Guga fan. Loved the guy. He was so fabulous.

Ibracadabra
12-30-2010, 03:05 AM
Guga.

Pirata.
12-30-2010, 07:18 AM
Guga have the advantage on hard???

:lol: I don't think so. Guga wasn't much of a hard court player. It's true that he beat Federer on hard as well as at RG, but Guga struggled on hard court. He could never adapt his beautiful game to hard.

Runner-up in Canada, Miami and Indian Wells and won Cincy (which Rafa has yet to do), won a YEC, two time quarterfinalist at USO...

I mean, he wasn't as good as Murray is on hard courts, but he was no hard court mug either.

Serenidad
12-30-2010, 10:30 AM
Kuerten for sure in 4 sets.

guga2120
12-30-2010, 07:12 PM
Gustavo, would beat 2006 Nadal.

RedFury
12-30-2010, 10:56 PM
Rafa > anyone on clay. Now or ever.

Next.

Zagor
12-31-2010, 09:51 AM
Nadal would win in 3 sets.

But that can't be true,according to Kafelnikov Guga is better than Nadal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8690906.stm

"For me Kuerten had a better game than Nadal and definitely a lot stronger competition, so I would put him ahead of Nadal"-Kafelnikov

Sorry, but opinion of former #1 and multi GS champ >>> opinion of an angry kid posting on forums(according to you),right?

So Guga>>>>Nadal

Nole Rules
12-31-2010, 10:20 AM
But that can't be true,according to Kafelnikov Guga is better than Nadal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8690906.stm

"For me Kuerten had a better game than Nadal and definitely a lot stronger competition, so I would put him ahead of Nadal"-Kafelnikov

Sorry, but opinion of former #1 and multi GS champ >>> opinion of an angry kid posting on forums(according to you),right?So Guga>>>>Nadal

OWNED.
:haha:

Commander Data
12-31-2010, 10:32 AM
The game has moved on. I doubt Guga would beat Nadal.

Pirao666
12-31-2010, 10:41 AM
But that can't be true,according to Kafelnikov Guga is better than Nadal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8690906.stm

"For me Kuerten had a better game than Nadal and definitely a lot stronger competition, so I would put him ahead of Nadal"-Kafelnikov

Sorry, but opinion of former #1 and multi GS champ >>> opinion of an angry kid posting on forums(according to you),right?

So Guga>>>>Nadal

Wilander said Soderling would beat Nadal at the FO final and that Nadal knew he couldn't beat Soderling, since Wilander is a 7 slam champion Soderling must have beat Nadal... oh wait :devil:

Lleyton_
12-31-2010, 10:42 AM
But that can't be true,according to Kafelnikov Guga is better than Nadal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8690906.stm

"For me Kuerten had a better game than Nadal and definitely a lot stronger competition, so I would put him ahead of Nadal"-Kafelnikov

Sorry, but opinion of former #1 and multi GS champ >>> opinion of an angry kid posting on forums(according to you),right?

So Guga>>>>Nadal

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:xVtJjylZZUvBxM:http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/High%20Five.jpg&t=1

fsoica
12-31-2010, 10:57 AM
the 2005, 2006 and especially 2007 version of clay nadal was not that impressive, so guga stands some chances. Versus 2008 or 2010 nadal, the pig wins for sure...

Pirao666
12-31-2010, 11:10 AM
the 2005, 2006 and especially 2007 version of clay nadal was not that impressive, so guga stands some chances. Versus 2008 or 2010 nadal, the pig wins for sure...

Lol, I see, but the Guga who almost lost to Michael Rusell is impressive? LMAO.

Lleyton_
12-31-2010, 01:23 PM
funny how you value Kafelnikov's opinion in this thread



but not this one:
"Nadal much more charismatic than Federer, brings much more energy to the public & will win more Slams than Federer" (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=174161)

You're not very smart but it's okay.

paseo
12-31-2010, 11:55 PM
But that can't be true,according to Kafelnikov Guga is better than Nadal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8690906.stm

"For me Kuerten had a better game than Nadal and definitely a lot stronger competition, so I would put him ahead of Nadal"-Kafelnikov

Sorry, but opinion of former #1 and multi GS champ >>> opinion of an angry kid posting on forums(according to you),right?

So Guga>>>>Nadal

:lol:

Topspindoctor words just bit him in the ass.

rocketassist
01-01-2011, 03:44 AM
Lol, I see, but the Guga who almost lost to Michael Rusell is impressive? LMAO.

When you're a risk taker like Guga is, sets can be dropped. I respect that more than Nadal defending like his brick wall self and winning 2, 2 and 2.

Vivalavida18
01-01-2011, 08:29 AM
But that can't be true,according to Kafelnikov Guga is better than Nadal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8690906.stm

"For me Kuerten had a better game than Nadal and definitely a lot stronger competition, so I would put him ahead of Nadal"-Kafelnikov

Sorry, but opinion of former #1 and multi GS champ >>> opinion of an angry kid posting on forums(according to you),right?

So Guga>>>>Nadal

http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Gael_Monfils_Novak_Djokovic.jpg

Pirao666
01-01-2011, 11:50 AM
When you're a risk taker like Guga is, sets can be dropped. I respect that more than Nadal defending like his brick wall self and winning 2, 2 and 2.

Still stuck in 2005 I see :lol: I respect more the guy who won 9 slams so far and a career GS, won RG two times without dropping a set, has the longest winning streak on clay, etc, etc.

born_on_clay
01-01-2011, 01:01 PM
Rafa without a second thought
Rafa is a clay court GOAT

Lukenole
01-01-2011, 01:25 PM
2006 Nadal.

Ilovetheblues_86
01-02-2011, 07:01 AM
http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Gael_Monfils_Novak_Djokovic.jpg

They cant lick Guga`s toenails. :)

Stronga23
10-08-2011, 07:16 PM
Who wins?? Guga would be a tougher opponent than Roger by far because Rafa's topspin wouldnt work on Guga's backhand. I say Guga in 5 :)

Chris Kuerten
10-08-2011, 07:29 PM
Kuerten is a mug, Nadal in 3.

Alex999
10-08-2011, 08:21 PM
Kuerten is a mug, Nadal in 3.
I love Guga. It's hard to say. Nadal is more athletic but Guga had that special touch.

DrJules
10-08-2011, 09:10 PM
Expect Nadal to win certainly on grass and most times on hard courts.

On clay could very close.

Pirata.
10-08-2011, 09:59 PM
I thought I read something from Carlos Moya the other day saying that Guga would probably beat Rafa on clay, but I can't remember.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-08-2011, 10:50 PM
to beat peak nadal (imo)

you need

solid ground strokes on both sides- that can last 25+ rallies over and over again
amazing court coverage
great defense
great offense
a solid return of serve

you look at djokovic and he ticks every box
you look at murray and he ticks every box aswell

so the final piece of this nadal puzzle

self belief

Shinoj
10-09-2011, 08:29 AM
Kuerton really had a great game for Clay courts. His shotmaking was very good, both on the backhand and the forehand. His Backhand down the line was a killer. And the way he made that shot while on the run was truly a great watch. I was never fan of his for some reason. Probably because i liked Kafelnikov more.And thats the reason i saw Kuerton pretty closely. He was not an out and out offensive player or enforcer, he used to stay in the rallies with his ground strokes and then he had those big shots on both the sides. he really was some formidable player on clay courts.

On the Top of it , he was a highly irritating opponent. he never knew that he got beaten. Kafelnokov had for a few times gotten better of him during the matches but he somehow dug out of those trenches and beaten him.

All in All, his plus points on Clay were, brilliant shotmaking, great defense and a under rated serve too. And i could very well see him killing off the moonballs and destroying the backhand of Nadalluer.

Guga to edge this one out for me.