Congrats Nadal but he PROVED its easier to win a career slam in this era. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Congrats Nadal but he PROVED its easier to win a career slam in this era.

SetSampras
09-14-2010, 02:10 AM
Lets be honest here.. Would Nadal even come close to even SNIFFING a career slam under different more polarized conditions with less racket technology with his grind em dirtball style ? i think not.

A glamorized clay courter with a clay court game primarily already winning a career slam by 24 years of age? That would have NEVER happened before. We all know it

Mjau!
09-14-2010, 02:17 AM
Of course not. He wouldn't even have won a second Wimbledon (nevermind the USO) without his new custom made super-strings.

LaFuria
09-14-2010, 02:17 AM
I think it's clear that neither Nadal or Federer deserved their career slam, but they made the most of the lack of competition, so credit to them. You can only beat what's in front of you.

2003
09-14-2010, 02:19 AM
Pete, do you really have nothing better to do in retirement?

We all know you are the greatest of all time, and Nadals career slam, even though you never got one, doesn't change that.

:worship:

Polikarpov
09-14-2010, 02:19 AM
You can put Pete in today's game, with today's technology, and he still wouldn't come close at winning Roland Garros. Nadal is just a monster.

azinna
09-14-2010, 02:19 AM
Not sure what not deserving the career slam means. And no champion since the mid-1900s has won a slam without some debt to improved racquet and string technology.

I think the real issue is Rafa's mental strength and self-belief. He never learned to believe what players typically do: that there's a surface that completely takes you out of your game, makes winning a slam improbable if not impossible. Despite all the expressed humility, Rafa never believed that.

Waterfox
09-14-2010, 02:20 AM
Have you ever played Nadal?

He is the most Devastating thing on Earth since Godzilla!

romismak
09-14-2010, 02:23 AM
I don´t think this era is easy- or easy to win slam now. Players like Djokovic, Murray are hell good players but they can win slams or more slams in era of Federer-Nadal- those two are too perfect. Other thing is conditions and surfaces- 20 years ago the game was played whole other way like today and Wimbledon was far faster- Nadal would probably never won Wimbledon on fast grass but his AO title and now US open title with better service maybe yes- still on clay there will no one beat him because no one was so physical before- it is hard to compare i think only slam he wouldn´t win in the past can be Wimbledon but other 3 he can and Rolland Garros he would dominate also.

born_on_clay
09-14-2010, 02:23 AM
not true
next

CCBH
09-14-2010, 02:25 AM
Burn in hell, haters.

Filo V.
09-14-2010, 02:49 AM
Well, this isn't the past. It's the here and the now, and he has 9 GS titles. No-one can predict what would have happened, it's about the reality, and reality tells us Rafael Nadal is one of the best players to ever play the game. It's that simple, everybody.

Freddi22cl
09-14-2010, 02:51 AM
Lets be honest here.. Would Nadal even come close to even SNIFFING a career slam under different more polarized conditions with less racket technology with his grind em dirtball style ? i think not.

A glamorized clay courter with a clay court game primarily already winning a career slam by 24 years of age? That would have NEVER happened before. We all know it

glamorized clay courter?

tell that to Federer

Priam
09-14-2010, 02:51 AM
Sampras still bitter Federer and Nadal have career slams.

Action Jackson
09-14-2010, 02:52 AM
It might be easier, but both Federer and Nadal still had to do it.

swisht4u
09-14-2010, 02:54 AM
Nadal did what he had to do to get the job done.
I don't want to hear any whining about it, it's in the books and that's final.

tennis2tennis
09-14-2010, 02:55 AM
it brings me so much joy to see sampras fans so pissed! The only thing that stopped Pete from joining Roger and Rafa and doing the career grandslam isn't tougher competition but that he's shit on RG...acept it and move on!

Jimnik
09-14-2010, 02:56 AM
Indeed, time to face facts. Nadal is a Wimbledon and US Open champion. He's proven himself to be far more versatile than Sampras ever was.

Ackms421
09-14-2010, 03:00 AM
It's easier today to win the career slam?? Seriously guys...Federer and Nadal are the only two players that perform consistently well on all surfaces. If clay and grass were so similar, then Murray wouldn't do so poorly at the French every year and then follow it up with a strong Wimbledon performance. Federer and Nadal's success is due to their talent and hard work. Their success has not been duplicated by anyone else on the men's (or women's) side. And, btw, those of you crying about surface homogenization should remember that years back 3/4 slams were played on grass. Now, THAT, is some serious similarity.

Johnny Groove
09-14-2010, 03:00 AM
This is the type of result that won't be full appreciated for several decades, when no one had done it since Fed and Nadal.

Action Jackson
09-14-2010, 03:04 AM
This is the type of result that won't be full appreciated for several decades, when no one had done it since Fed and Nadal.

Most people are revisionist when it comes history. Remember the parts they want and forget the factors that don't suit their point of view.

The Magician
09-14-2010, 03:04 AM
I think it's clear that neither Nadal or Federer deserved their career slam, but they made the most of the lack of competition, so credit to them. You can only beat what's in front of you.

Neither did Agassi :haha: Federer was probably the closest to deserving it because of his consistency on clay but even I'm honest that in a better clay court era he wouldn't have won.

Sad to see what should be the ultimate goal in tennis reduced to a back and forth grand slam exchange between the top players :o There really are fewer and fewer records left that matter in a historical context.

Filo V.
09-14-2010, 03:06 AM
Did not deserve their career slam? What type of utter bullshit statement is that? What the fuck is "deserved"? They earned their titles by winning the matches in those majors. Bottom line. They EARNED their victories with WINS. That's tennis for you.

Calidreth
09-14-2010, 03:07 AM
No Nadal would have had more majors in the previous era. If the more athletic players of today can't stop him, you think the preppy players of the past would've? Nonsense.

alfonsojose
09-14-2010, 03:11 AM
Sad, but true. The USO courts are faster than Wimby's :tears:

moon language
09-14-2010, 03:14 AM
This is why it's pointless to compare achievements across eras and entertain notions of "the greatest of all time". There are a lot of variables that have changed over time.

MalwareDie
09-14-2010, 03:16 AM
in a better clay court era he wouldn't have won.


I don't think he would have won either.

It is easier to win a CGS in this era. I don't think these three would have won the CGS in an earlier time either.

name_change
09-14-2010, 03:17 AM
Love the bitterness!

Jimnik
09-14-2010, 03:21 AM
I guess Federer's CGS was equally easy and unimpressive. It's the same generation. Can't have it both ways.

Topspindoctor
09-14-2010, 03:21 AM
Lets be honest here.. Would Nadal even come close to even SNIFFING a career slam under different more polarized conditions with less racket technology with his grind em dirtball style ? i think not.

A glamorized clay courter with a clay court game primarily already winning a career slam by 24 years of age? That would have NEVER happened before. We all know it

No need to get mad because Mugpras failed in RG while Nadal succeeded on hardcourts :wavey:

HarryMan
09-14-2010, 03:27 AM
Whatever the case maybe, both Federer and Nadal have proven to be more versatile by winning all four slams, something Sampras could never achieve.

Clydey
09-14-2010, 03:28 AM
People constantly overstate how similar the surfaces are. There are many examples that suggest otherwise.

Mjau!
09-14-2010, 03:31 AM
I guess Federer's CGS was equally easy and unimpressive. It's the same generation. Can't have it both ways.

No, no, no! Roger has a classical game so it's even more impressive! :p

Forehander
09-14-2010, 03:31 AM
Love how people neglect the fact that even when 90's generation players play in the 00s generation they won't necessarily be able to utilize the maximum out of the modern technology. The ranking probably would have changed around if tennis back then was played and trained the way it is now. Not everybody is physically gifted to suit the modern style of game.

kooties
09-14-2010, 03:31 AM
ok, if this is true then Del Potro would be a mug if he doesn't ever win Wimbledon, and Roddick would have underachieved for not making at leas the finals of the French.

gulzhan
09-14-2010, 03:33 AM
Neither did Agassi :haha: Federer was probably the closest to deserving it because of his consistency on clay but even I'm honest that in a better clay court era he wouldn't have won.

Sad to see what should be the ultimate goal in tennis reduced to a back and forth grand slam exchange between the top players :o There really are fewer and fewer records left that matter in a historical context.

Finally, two words of truth-- EVEN I, meaning: THE BIGGEST LIER ON MTF, ULTIMATELY DISHONEST PERSON WHO THINKS HE CAN MAKE ANY STATEMENT AND ANY PROMISE IN HIS SIGNATURE, KEEP IT IN POSTS FOR LONG TWO MONTHS (AT LEAST), THEN TAKE IT OFF AND PRETEND IT NEVER EXISTED!

Well, we still remember it, asshole! :armed: GET OUT OF GM or put Rafito (preferably with USO trophy and No photoshop!) on your avatar and start praising his game! Especially since there is so MUCH to praise!

GugaF1
09-14-2010, 03:37 AM
Borg did or at least he was winning French Open with Wimbledons back to back and could play really well on HC also, in the seventies with wooden rackets.

I don`t see as to why it easier as Borg he is not on another level than Nadal, actually quite similar in many ways.

We are simply living at quite possibly a time where the best two player in history playing together overlaping. They are like a Sampras x Agassi upgraded in every sense. So appreciate it.

CCBH
09-14-2010, 03:37 AM
Wow, just amazing, these MTFers :worship:. Now all career Grand Slams are easy as pie all of a sudden. I guess you and I can go and dominate the tour in this era.

BAMJ6
09-14-2010, 03:57 AM
My big issue in todays era is why Wimbledon changed its grass to slow it down? Players who never thought they could win the slam now do while other slams never changed

Rebound Ace made the AO more attractive to the top players

Hewitt and Nadal seem unnatural Wimby winners because of the surface change

Everko
11-09-2010, 02:09 PM
Wow, just amazing, these MTFers :worship:. Now all career Grand Slams are easy as pie all of a sudden. I guess you and I can go and dominate the tour in this era.

didn't you hear? If Nadal does it means its easy:rolleyes:

careergrandslam
11-09-2010, 02:36 PM
as brad gilbert said, 2010 is the greatest year in tennis history. winning the 3 most important slams is legendary. it takes amazing talent, skill, and determination to achieve such an incredible year.

Topspindoctor
11-09-2010, 02:38 PM
as brad gilbert said, 2010 is the greatest year in tennis history. winning the 3 most important slams is legendary. it takes amazing talent, skill, and determination to achieve such an incredible year.

:yeah:

Federer couldn't even scrape together RG+USO in the same year in his prime. And now Nadal won 3 consecutive slams in the same year on 3 different surfaces. No wonder Fedtards are furious.

emotion
11-09-2010, 02:44 PM
Weak era, but goes for both

Paylu2007
11-09-2010, 03:39 PM
:yeah:

Federer couldn't even scrape together RG+USO in the same year in his prime. And now Nadal won 3 consecutive slams in the same year on 3 different surfaces. No wonder Fedtards are furious.

lol keep your wet dreams so you can be happy living in your fantasy :)

In real life this is the only true:

16>>>9
:D

btw yes Fed couldnt win RG and USO on same year, he only could make ALL THE GRAND SLAM FINALS THAT YEAR :) oh and he did that too a couple more times previously :) how loser He is :)

so, while Roger is winning or losing finals where was Rafita? oh yeah losing in earlier rounds :)

A_Skywalker
11-09-2010, 03:41 PM
lol keep your wet dreams so you can be happy living in your fantasy :)

In real life this is the only true:

16>>>9
:D

My god, some of the arguments are really stupid, from both sides, but this is the most stupid. Federer is 5 years older and played many more GS tournaments.

Paylu2007
11-09-2010, 03:57 PM
My god, some of the arguments are really stupid, from both sides, but this is the most stupid. Federer is 5 years older and played many more GS tournaments.

that doesnt make 16 less than 9 :wavey:

Pirao666
11-09-2010, 04:14 PM
Lets be honest here.. Would Nadal even come close to even SNIFFING a career slam under different more polarized conditions with less racket technology with his grind em dirtball style ? i think not.

A glamorized clay courter with a clay court game primarily already winning a career slam by 24 years of age? That would have NEVER happened before. We all know it

And Sampras still wouldn't have won RG! Bitter Samprastard :lol:

/trolling

Laver doesn't deserve his CYGS because 3 of those slams were on grass.

/end trolling

Well, this isn't the past. It's the here and the now, and he has 9 GS titles. No-one can predict what would have happened, it's about the reality, and reality tells us Rafael Nadal is one of the best players to ever play the game. It's that simple, everybody.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

luie
11-09-2010, 04:37 PM
Lets be honest here.. Would Nadal even come close to even SNIFFING a career slam under different more polarized conditions with less racket technology with his grind em dirtball style ? i think not.

A glamorized clay courter with a clay court game primarily already winning a career slam by 24 years of age? That would have NEVER happened before. We all know it
It is easier for nadull to win wimbledon in this era than previous era but to say nadull is just a glorified
claycourter is a bit too simplistic & inaccurate. In the 90's many players who won RG or made the finals were able to win/reach finals on other surfaces,Agassi won all 4 slams, Courier make all 4 finals,Edberg made the finals on all 4 etc.
Imo nadull is a better player than player than courier so I don't think its farfetched to say nadull in the 90s could have won 3/4 slams bar Wimbledon.Because nadull is a big match player he could have won finals in that era, USO is debateable depending on who he plays.

A_Skywalker
11-09-2010, 05:08 PM
that doesnt make 16 less than 9 :wavey:

Haha, at least you proved you know mathematics well.

Mungo
11-09-2010, 06:43 PM
The OP is a joke. The only one that proved it's easier to win a carrer slam is Federer. His only major on clay came when the best player on the surface (Nadal) was injured. Nadal has won at least 2 majors on every surface proving his multisurface versatility, something Fed will never do.

RedHotRafa
11-09-2010, 09:02 PM
For no matter how long time and tennis history goes on people will always praise the past and how hard it was. People always thinks everything is way better in the past

RedHotRafa
11-09-2010, 10:04 PM
And now the Sampras tards start to come out and hate on Fed and Nadal for something their idol could NEVER accomplish because he simply had NO clay court game.

BigJohn
11-09-2010, 10:10 PM
And now the Sampras tards start to come out and hate on Fed and Nadal for something their idol could NEVER accomplish because he simply had NO clay court game.

Not true. He won Rome in 94.

Matt01
11-09-2010, 10:40 PM
Not true. He won Rome in 94.


LOL...that's the only big clay court tournament that the won in his whole career.

Clay Death
11-09-2010, 10:52 PM
mods:

drag this pathetic thread outside and have a very large farm animal shit on it for a week.

Seingeist
11-09-2010, 10:56 PM
mods:

drag this pathetic thread outside and have a very large farm animal shit on it for a week.

+10

Seriously, MTF is bogged down enough as it is with tard-baiting shit threads. Why on earth are we resurrecting mercifully dead ones?

rocketassist
11-09-2010, 11:20 PM
Easier, definitely.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-10-2010, 12:30 AM
no way nadal's game wins on 90s grass

just impossible

his forehand, his great weapon would be a HUGE liability, look at the way soderling dismantled it at RG by hitting deep and taking time away from rafa, now imagine that every round against players who would be able to outhit nadal in rallies

his backhand would be his best shot- though a great shot it is- it isnt good enough to win a slam on

he wouldn't get past the quaters in the 90s. and no way 90s sampras is losing a final to anyone on 90s wimbledon grass... not even roger

finishingmove
11-10-2010, 02:09 AM
Thread summary:

Lets be honest here.. Would Nadal even come close to even SNIFFING a career slam under different more polarized conditions with less racket technology with his grind em dirtball style ? i think not.

A glamorized clay courter with a clay court game primarily already winning a career slam by 24 years of age? That would have NEVER happened before. We all know it

Pete, do you really have nothing better to do in retirement?

We all know you are the greatest of all time, and Nadals career slam, even though you never got one, doesn't change that.

:worship:

Burn in hell, haters.

Finally, two words of truth-- EVEN I, meaning: THE BIGGEST LIER ON MTF, ULTIMATELY DISHONEST PERSON WHO THINKS HE CAN MAKE ANY STATEMENT AND ANY PROMISE IN HIS SIGNATURE, KEEP IT IN POSTS FOR LONG TWO MONTHS (AT LEAST), THEN TAKE IT OFF AND PRETEND IT NEVER EXISTED!

Well, we still remember it, asshole! :armed: GET OUT OF GM or put Rafito (preferably with USO trophy and No photoshop!) on your avatar and start praising his game! Especially since there is so MUCH to praise!


mods:

drag this pathetic thread outside and have a very large farm animal shit on it for a week.

fast_clay
11-10-2010, 02:23 AM
THREAD STATUS: gangraped

kronus12
11-10-2010, 03:18 AM
No Nadal would have had more majors in the previous era. If the more athletic players of today can't stop him, you think the preppy players of the past would've? Nonsense.

No he wouldn't, the serving power of Sampras and Goran would have destroyed him. The surface of the past is faster then todays court, its a fact you can't ignore.
Serve and Volleyers in that era would never have given Nadal enough time to whip his forehand.
Not only that his ball wouldn't bounce as high as on todays courts.
He still would be competitive but winning wimbledon and Usopen back in that era with those courts, I wouldn't bet on it.

HKz
11-10-2010, 03:45 AM
Not this shit again

Everko
11-10-2010, 02:38 PM
But you forget that Rafa did it at such a young age

Clay Death
11-10-2010, 02:49 PM
if it was that easy to win a slam then why didnt more players win slams?

looks to me like its just the clay warrior and fed who have snatched up all the slams as far as the last 20,000 slams go.

the only exceptions being djokovic and d-pot.