Would Nadal be as successful in the 90's? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Would Nadal be as successful in the 90's?

Shinoj
11-30-2011, 02:39 PM
Simple question.

In the faster courts of the 90s what chances his moon balling style had

In the Hard Courts
In the Grass Courts
In the Clay courts


Also what chances he would have had against Sampras,Agassi,Kafelnikov etc..In general...

Roadmap
11-30-2011, 02:44 PM
Certainly wasn't winning Wimbledon. There can be no doubt about that.

Saberq
11-30-2011, 02:44 PM
he would rule Clay and given his spirit and fight in him he would rule other stuff too

MatchFederer
11-30-2011, 02:45 PM
Still a legend.

syc23
11-30-2011, 02:50 PM
He would still be a monster on clay in his early years but would not stand a chance against Sampras/Agassi/Rafter USO and Sampras on grass would destroy Nadal on fast grass.

rickcastle
11-30-2011, 02:55 PM
He would never have won the career grandslam but Nadal would be a beast on clay on any era.

Las7
11-30-2011, 03:12 PM
I don't see him winning anything outside of clay personally - of course we are not taking into account how exactly he would have played in such conditions. But with his current game style he would only have chances on clay in the 90s

Sapeod
11-30-2011, 03:13 PM
He wouldn't win anything in the 90s. He'd just be another generic claycourter.

Sophocles
11-30-2011, 03:22 PM
On clay, yes, elsewhere, no.

sexybeast
11-30-2011, 03:31 PM
On clay he would and I think he would snatch 1 or 2 in the Australian Open aswell, but I doubt he would ever win the other 2 slams in the 90s.

AncicCilic
11-30-2011, 03:48 PM
I think he'd dominate clay anyway.
Hard he would have similar success as now i tihnk.
Only difference i see is grass, he wouldn't be able to cope with that old grass surface against good serve and volleyers.

Start da Game
11-30-2011, 04:06 PM
@mods

this topic's been discussed already, merge this duplicate thread with the earlier one.....

Lurking
11-30-2011, 04:10 PM
If Nadal was at the level he was in '05 in '02, what would he have gone onto achieve?

If he gets the same perks in the 90's as he does in the 00's he gets a shot at Wimbledon '02, a past his prime Sampras at USO and some shocking AO's. He wouldn't have the same amount of SF's/F's at Wimbledon/USO, but he'd still have a decent shot of winning a career Slam.

petar_pan
11-30-2011, 04:43 PM
Becker, Edberg, Stich, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Krajicek, Rafter and Henman would eat him for breakfast in Wimbledon.

finishingmove
11-30-2011, 04:49 PM
I don't think so.

He was like 4 years old.

Shinoj
11-30-2011, 04:49 PM
Becker, Edberg, Stich, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Krajicek, Rafter, Henman would eat him for breakfast in Wimbledon.


haha...Thats nice.


I have got a poem for it

Look over your back Nadal buddy

If Goran wont eat you, Rafter will, If Rafter wont,Stich will, If Stich wont,Kafelnikov will,Becker will, If Becker wont Edberg will, If Edberg wont Agassi would, If Agassi wont then Sampras will.


Nowhere to hide Nadal ....:toothy::toothy::toothy:


@STG, the Title hasnt been discussed. Have used the Search Option and plus there is an intellectually stimulating Poll attached to it. :)

petar_pan
11-30-2011, 04:54 PM
haha...Thats nice.


I have got a poem for it

Look over your back Nadal buddy

If Goran wont eat you, Rafter will, If Rafter wont,Stich will, If Stich wont,Kafelnikov will,Becker will, If Becker wont Edberg will, If Edberg wont Agassi would, If Agassi wont then Sampras will.


Nowhere to hide Nadal ....:toothy::toothy::toothy:


@STG, the Title hasnt been discussed. Have used the Search Option and plus there is an intellectually stimulating Poll attached to it. :)

Unfortunately Wimbledon is dead for couple of years. From day when Rafa won.

Start da Game
11-30-2011, 05:08 PM
Unfortunately Wimbledon is dead for couple of years. From day when Rafa won.

wimbledon 2002 1st round - mario ancic def. roger federer 6-3, 7-6(2), 6-3

wimbledon 2003 1st round - rafael nadal def. mario ancic 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 6-4

Shinoj
11-30-2011, 05:13 PM
wimbledon 2002 1st round - mario ancic def. roger federer 6-3, 7-6(2), 6-3

wimbledon 2003 1st round - rafael nadal def. mario ancic 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 6-4


Roger Federer is a Wimbeldon Legend

Rafael Nadal is a Wimbeldon Anomaly.

HKz
11-30-2011, 05:14 PM
Just like the Federer thread, another impossible question to deal with logically since who knows how his play style would have evolved had he been born to play in the 90s. Maybe he would not have been a lefty, maybe he would have had a one-handed backhand, who knows. However, if we were to look at this in terms of his current play style (which is really irrational either way) then I don't think he would be nearly as successful overall.

First of all, Nadal has benefited greatly from the technology of strings and rackets. Although rackets were similar, they are still quite different to many of the larger head rackets we have today. At the same time, his unorthodox forehand would cause him a bit of trouble on the faster surfaces. Sure, he is great at passing shots, but you see how the court speed and bounce greatly affect his ability to do so, not to mention, many of these guys do it right off the serve unlike players here who try to work the point and then try to come in. At the same time, we all know how much he has struggled against big servers throughout his career. Couple this with low, quick bouncing surfaces, it will be very hard for him to grip his teeth into his opponents' service games. I mean you can see how Agassi and Courier, and to a lesser extent Kafelnikov were the only players in the 90s that had success at Roland Garros AND success at other slams. Everyone else - Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya - only won at the French Open and they all had much more similar styles to Nadal, as in they were true clay courters unlike the previous three who were more fast-court baseliners who had great groundstrokes that translated well on clay. If we really look at this objectively, virtually no true clay courter from 70s onward had success at the other slams. Sure, we had players like Borg who won Wimbledon and the French Open on so many occasions, but who are we kidding, players like Borg were much more similar to Federer than Nadal, at least when it came to playing outside of Roland Garros.

Shinoj
11-30-2011, 05:31 PM
Posters also be aware of the fact that Nadal himself said the 90s was not tennis at all. Deep down inside he knew he is not good enough for REAL Tennis.

petar_pan
11-30-2011, 05:52 PM
Posters also be aware of the fact that Nadal himself said the 90s was not tennis at all. Deep down inside he knew he is not good enough for REAL Tennis.

90's was the prime of tennis game. you had grass with services and volleys (what grass really is), you had clay and you had hard. you had carpet nad hard indoor suit for aggresive players. nowdays evertything is same slow shit. and you had alot great players, alot GS champions (10 or more). And among of them you had the man who had the most GS titles in the history of the game, only 2 less than Federer. Today only 3 players can take a GS.

tektonac
11-30-2011, 05:52 PM
I don't think so.

He was like 4 years old.

in that case, clay only.

SetSampras
11-30-2011, 06:03 PM
Not at Wimbledon or Flushing but on clay, and maybe an AO title or two still

Sapeod
11-30-2011, 06:07 PM
wimbledon 2002 1st round - mario ancic def. roger federer 6-3, 7-6(2), 6-3

wimbledon 2003 1st round - rafael nadal def. mario ancic 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 6-4
Nice logic.

RG 09 R4: Soderling def. Nadal in 4.
RG 09 F: Federer def. Soderling in straights.

Chase Visa
11-30-2011, 09:27 PM
Would've owned the clay, but he wouldn't be much chop off it. Kinda like Muster, Kuerten and Brugera.

emotion
11-30-2011, 09:33 PM
He'd be even better on clay, but have poor results on grass, fast HC, carpet

SetSampras
11-30-2011, 09:34 PM
Would he be better on clay? I dunno.. Take away racket technology, you can't generate that type of topspin

r2473
11-30-2011, 09:35 PM
I don't think so.

He was like 4 years old.

I think you misunderstood the question. The OP is clearly wondering how successful Nadal would be if he played in the 90-year olds divison.

He could possibly be wondering how successful Nadal will be when he's in his 90's.

He could also mean, if Nadal were 90 and playing on the tour right now, how successful would he be.

DrJules
11-30-2011, 09:46 PM
wimbledon 2002 1st round - mario ancic def. roger federer 6-3, 7-6(2), 6-3

wimbledon 2003 1st round - rafael nadal def. mario ancic 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 6-4

Those 2 matches occurred before either Federer or Nadal won a Wimbledon title. Since then of course Federer has been 3 times more successful than Nadal (6/2=3) at Wimbledon.

DrJules
11-30-2011, 09:49 PM
Nadal would still be lethal on clay, but fail to win on the older grass with its lower bounce. Possibly win a hard court GS or 2.

DrJules
11-30-2011, 09:51 PM
Nice logic.

RG 09 R4: Soderling def. Nadal in 4.
RG 09 F: Federer def. Soderling in straights.

Love the response.

atennisfan
11-30-2011, 11:05 PM
He wouldn't have won USO and Wimby for sure.

Topspindoctor
12-01-2011, 12:27 AM
Clown topic. Nadal's game would have developed differently in the 90's. I suspect he'd win 7-8 RG's 3-4 AO's, 1-2 USO's if he played in that mug era. He'd have problems winning Wimbledon with faster grass and many serve bots, but he'd win many many more slams on other surfaces considering the mug competition. Must have been nice for Agassi to face clowns like Medvedev, Schüttler, Clement and Todd Martin in slam finals :o :o :o

Shinoj
12-01-2011, 04:48 AM
Clown topic. Nadal's game would have developed differently in the 90's. I suspect he'd win 7-8 RG's 3-4 AO's, 1-2 USO's if he played in that mug era. He'd have problems winning Wimbledon with faster grass and many serve bots, but he'd win many many more slams on other surfaces considering the mug competition. Must have been nice for Agassi to face clowns like Medvedev, Schüttler, Clement and Todd Martin in slam finals :o :o :o

I suspect you are a Clown, you Mug.

Mountaindewslave
12-01-2011, 04:53 AM
he would still dominate clay in a very similar fashion, let's be realistic, the biggest clay court threats like Courier and Muster are no where near the clay court opponent he has had in Roger Federer!

Nadal would win many Roland Garros's, but I also think that he would have a great chance at Australia. you guys are assuming he plays his passive game and defends entirely but he would likely have a year of 2010 like form where he would play agressively and have a great shot at US OPEN or Wimbledon.

I still would expect him to win a lot of slams, more than Courier did, maybe 6 or 7 by the end. pure speculation of course it's too bad we'll never know what could have been in some twisted twilight zone

stewietennis
12-01-2011, 04:58 AM
Nadal wouldn't be AS successful in the 90s. He'll achieve success on clay, perhaps around five French Opens, but the other surfaces will be too fast for him, even the Australian Open was faster back then. But if he adapts and plays an aggressive game, he might win in Melbourne Park.

Shinoj
12-01-2011, 05:02 AM
he would still dominate clay in a very similar fashion, let's be realistic, the biggest clay court threats like Courier and Muster are no where near the clay court opponent he has had in Roger Federer!

Nadal would win many Roland Garros's, but I also think that he would have a great chance at Australia. you guys are assuming he plays his passive game and defends entirely but he would likely have a year of 2010 like form where he would play agressively and have a great shot at US OPEN or Wimbledon.

I still would expect him to win a lot of slams, more than Courier did, maybe 6 or 7 by the end. pure speculation of course it's too bad we'll never know what could have been in some twisted twilight zone


2010 was different, Djokovic,Murray all had issues and Federer was getting owned at the hands of Nadal. It was by far the WORST year in Tennis ever. No wonder Nadal dominated.

petar_pan
12-01-2011, 10:25 AM
Why do you guys think he would be so dominant on clay? There were players like Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Chang, Medvedev. No way he would be as dominant as he is vs players like Muster and Kuerten.

bjurra
12-01-2011, 10:42 AM
He would have been the 2nd best player in the world during the 90s.

bjurra
12-01-2011, 10:45 AM
Why do you guys think he would be so dominant on clay? There were players like Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Chang, Medvedev. No way he would be as dominant as he is vs players like Muster and Kuerten.

You vastly overrate the players mentioned. You know Guga was ranked 66 and had hardly won a clay match in 97 when he first won the RG title? That tells you something about the competition. Muster is a poor man's Rafa and would have had a very poor h2h.

Chang and Medvedev were hardly clay court giants. Chang's RG victory in 1989 is the ultmiate proof of a mug era.

Shinoj
12-01-2011, 11:08 AM
His slow moonballing play would have been cannon and fodder for Agassi. I could see so very well Agassi hammering him from side to side till the point of submission. Agassi was a GOAT for people who used to play Topspin, Bruguera,Musters and so on. Also his return of Serve was best ever. So when Nadal,exposed for his lack of talent which shows in his weak serves, serves Dollop Agassi can hit those for the Parking garage outside, of course after one bounce. So folks here we see

Agassi Hammering Nadal :smash::smash:


Now we move to next legend, Patrick Rafter

Rafter was a S&V GOAT, His accurate and high bouncing serves which will send the serve to Nadal's backhand and as we often see he plays a Girlish Backhand when he doesnt have much time. So i can so very well see Rafter Hammering Nadal's Bakhand with his briliantly under rate Top SPin Serves. And for his Return games Trust Mr Rafter to relentless attack Nadals WTA serves on his backhand forehand and you name what hand. Somehow Nadull picks up the return to send one over the net and our Man Patrick rafter smashes in into the crowd, of course after one bounce

So the Result would be folks

Rafter hammering Nadull once again, :smash::smash::smash:

So we move onto the next one

Kafelnikov

Kafelnikov was an All court player. He really had no weaknesses. His Groundstrokes were quite astounding, and his volleying skills are vastly vastly under rated. Trust the Kalashnikov to smash and pound Nadulls Backhand and send one rocket through his forehand and Naduller cannot pick himself once again

So folks The Russian Pistol outgunning Nadull :armed::armed::armed:



So we move on to the nst one Edberg

Trust Edberg to chip and charge Nadull all day long and considering the S&V GOAT he really was you could see one volley going to the front of the court, one going to the back of the court, one diagonal one everything. I could see a fuckin Geometry out there

So folks. Edberg Hammering Nadull once again:smash::smash::smash::smash:


Now we move on Mr becker.

Now Becker was really an incredible player, he was an astonishing Talent. Becker would be up for it. trust the German B****d to pound Nadulls Backhand forehand,everyhand with his loaded serves all day long. Cant see a remote break point on Beckers serve. And when the German is returning the game trust him to smash a Forehand that would pound nadull into Submission

The Result.. Another Hammering :smash::smash:



Now regarding Sampras, he was quite a non existant personality off the court. He had charishma as much as Water vapours in Sahara desert, But But But... He will be up for this challenge. And with his powerful serving and the ability to stay in the rallies by his slices and the then one unleashing when it really matters would see him through

So folks, without breaking much sweat, Sampras outgunning Nadull once again. :smash::smash::smash:



So Nadull is really up against the 90s bloke and i havent even mentioned Michael Stich,Andrei Medvedev and so on.

So Nadull :wavey::wavey::wavey:

buzz
12-01-2011, 11:43 AM
His slow moonballing play would have been cannon and fodder for Agassi. I could see so very well Agassi hammering him from side to side till the point of submission. Agassi was a GOAT for people who used to play Topspin, Bruguera,Musters and so on. Also his return of Serve was best ever. So when Nadal,exposed for his lack of talent which shows in his weak serves, serves Dollop Agassi can hit those for the Parking garage outside, of course after one bounce. So folks here we see

Agassi Hammering Nadal :smash::smash:


Now we move to next legend, Patrick Rafter

Rafter was a S&V GOAT, His accurate and high bouncing serves which will send the serve to Nadal's backhand and as we often see he plays a Girlish Backhand when he doesnt have much time. So i can so very well see Rafter Hammering Nadal's Bakhand with his briliantly under rate Top SPin Serves. And for his Return games Trust Mr Rafter to relentless attack Nadals WTA serves on his backhand forehand and you name what hand. Somehow Nadull picks up the return to send one over the net and our Man Patrick rafter smashes in into the crowd, of course after one bounce

So the Result would be folks

Rafter hammering Nadull once again, :smash::smash::smash:

So we move onto the next one

Kafelnikov

Kafelnikov was an All court player. He really had no weaknesses. His Groundstrokes were quite astounding, and his volleying skills are vastly vastly under rated. Trust the Kalashnikov to smash and pound Nadulls Backhand and send one rocket through his forehand and Naduller cannot pick himself once again

So folks The Russian Pistol outgunning Nadull :armed::armed::armed:



So we move on to the nst one Edberg

Trust Edberg to chip and charge Nadull all day long and considering the S&V GOAT he really was you could see one volley going to the front of the court, one going to the back of the court, one diagonal one everything. I could see a fuckin Geometry out there

So folks. Edberg Hammering Nadull once again:smash::smash::smash::smash:


Now we move on Mr becker.

Now Becker was really an incredible player, he was an astonishing Talent. Becker would be up for it. trust the German B****d to pound Nadulls Backhand forehand,everyhand with his loaded serves all day long. Cant see a remote break point on Beckers serve. And when the German is returning the game trust him to smash a Forehand that would pound nadull into Submission

The Result.. Another Hammering :smash::smash:



Now regarding Sampras, he was quite a non existant personality off the court. He had charishma as much as Water vapours in Sahara desert, But But But... He will be up for this challenge. And with his powerful serving and the ability to stay in the rallies by his slices and the then one unleashing when it really matters would see him through

So folks, without breaking much sweat, Sampras outgunning Nadull once again. :smash::smash::smash:



So Nadull is really up against the 90s bloke and i havent even mentioned Michael Stich,Andrei Medvedev and so on.

So Nadull :wavey::wavey::wavey:

Why not use the pistol emoticons for Pistol Pete instead of Kafelnikov?

MIMIC
12-01-2011, 11:45 AM
I don't think so.

He was like 4 years old.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

thrust
12-02-2011, 12:57 AM
He would still be a monster on clay in his early years but would not stand a chance against Sampras/Agassi/Rafter USO and Sampras on grass would destroy Nadal on fast grass.

Mostly agree with this, though I don't think he would dominate quite as much on clay as he does now. Fed would do very well on all surfaces, but not dominate as he has done 2004-08.

Topspindoctor
12-02-2011, 04:43 AM
He wouldn't win anything in the 90s. He'd just be another generic claycourter.

:stupid:

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 05:00 AM
Nadal has benefitted a lot from the Modern Racket Technology, which makes him hit Topspin after Topspin from way back in the baseline. Thats a BIG BIG part of his game. Thats his bread and butter in fact.

So as it stands in the 90s when those Technologies wont support that part of his game. So what he will be reduced to, as he could no longer his those monstrous Topspins?

Well he has to rely on the strength of his Flat ground strokes. And if you remove the amount of Topspin on his ground strokes, they are pretty ordinary.

He really could have reduced to the level of Francisco CLavet or Bohdan Ullirach. A Generic Clay COurter.

Perhaps he could have won the Nice Tournament,which used to happen in France or perhaps a Hamburg one,when most of the guys are down injured.

SetSampras
12-02-2011, 05:09 AM
I think there was a study conducted on who on tour hit with the most RPMS on the ball and Bruguera was leading the way. Im sure Nadal could hit with the same amount topspin on the ball.. Of course, it would probably be significantly less then what he hits now.



Anyways.. i don't believe Nadal mop the RG titles with the same regularity because quite frankly most of the decade ( especially early-mid 90) you have more threats littered throughout the draw, equating to tougher roads to the finals. Nadal would definitely have to work more to get those championships.. Not to say he couldn't do it, but it would be tougher then this shit mug era of clay clowns we have had since the early 00s.

Even later you still have Mr. Kuerten hanging around, and thats not a picnic. Hes a much tougher customer then Nadal's swiss pigeon boy

shiaben
12-02-2011, 06:23 AM
Yeah, he wouldn't be as successful for the obvious reasons: racket head technology. I'm sure he'd still win slams though and remain a familiar threat on tour to any player.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 10:05 AM
Nadal has benefitted a lot from the Modern Racket Technology, which makes him hit Topspin after Topspin from way back in the baseline. Thats a BIG BIG part of his game. Thats his bread and butter in fact.

So as it stands in the 90s when those Technologies wont support that part of his game. So what he will be reduced to, as he could no longer his those monstrous Topspins?

Well he has to rely on the strength of his Flat ground strokes. And if you remove the amount of Topspin on his ground strokes, they are pretty ordinary.

He really could have reduced to the level of Francisco CLavet or Bohdan Ullirach. A Generic Clay COurter.

Perhaps he could have won the Nice Tournament,which used to happen in France or perhaps a Hamburg one,when most of the guys are down injured.

Do you even play tennis yourself? Give Rafa any racquet from the 90s and he would still produce monstrous topspin. And unlike a player like Bruguera, Rafa can flaten out his shots.

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 10:16 AM
Do you even play tennis yourself? Give Rafa any racquet from the 90s and he would still produce monstrous topspin. And unlike a player like Bruguera, Rafa can flaten out his shots.



I am a champ you Mug. I play almost all the sports, you name it.. tennis,Football,Cricket and what not...


His Topspin is basically the result of Modern technology, Because the Rackets are such light it makes for an easy rotation. Thats why you can whip it almost every shot, coz hitting topspin after topspin requires tremendous strength and Flexibility and unless you are a Superman it will really screw your wrists up.

Thats why with these Lighter rackets he whips Topspin on almost each shot. Its a racket technology.

There is a reason why Folks like Laver and Rosewall used to hit so many Backhand Slices with their heavier Wooden rackets because its not easy to generate that amount of Topspin with a wooden racket.

He is really an Athletic Mug without that Topspin. In fact i would go to an extend saying that likes of Kafelnikov,Kuerton,Rafter and even henman could have defeated that Mug who without his Topspin.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 10:18 AM
I think there was a study conducted on who on tour hit with the most RPMS on the ball and Bruguera was leading the way. Im sure Nadal could hit with the same amount topspin on the ball.. Of course, it would probably be significantly less then what he hits now.



Anyways.. i don't believe Nadal mop the RG titles with the same regularity because quite frankly most of the decade ( especially early-mid 90) you have more threats littered throughout the draw, equating to tougher roads to the finals. Nadal would definitely have to work more to get those championships.. Not to say he couldn't do it, but it would be tougher then this shit mug era of clay clowns we have had since the early 00s.

Even later you still have Mr. Kuerten hanging around, and thats not a picnic. Hes a much tougher customer then Nadal's swiss pigeon boy

Guga was ranked top 10 once in the 90s, 1999. In 1997, Guga beat Filip de Wulf in the semifinal the first time he won RG and in the final he beat a slumping Bruguera who didnt even finish in the top 100 the next year. Bruguera had beaten the clay Gods Rafter and Arazi in the QF and SF. To say that Guga would have any significant impact on Rafa in the 90s is simply wrong.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 10:20 AM
I am a champ you Mug. I play almost all the sports, you name it.. tennis,Football,Cricket and what not...


His Topspin is basically the result of Modern technology, Because the Rackets are such light it makes for an easy rotation. Thats why you can whip it almost every shot, coz hitting topspin after topspin requires tremendous strength and Flexibility and unless you are a Superman it will really screw your wrists up.

Thats why with these Lighter rackets he whips Topspin on almost each shot. Its a racket technology.

There is a reason why Folks like Laver and Rosewall used to hit so many Backhand Slices with their heavier Wooden rackets because its not easy to generate that amount of Topspin with a wooden racket.

He is really an Athletic Mug without that Topspin. In fact i would go to an extend saying that likes of Kafelnikov,Kuerton,Rafter and even henman could have defeated that Mug who without his Topspin.

How old are you, 14? I can tell you racquets in the 90s used modern technology. Don't bring up Laver and Rosewall! :smash:

And to say racquets in the 90s would have been to heavy for Rafa is just comedy.

I would concede today's strings generate more topspin than in the 90s but Rafa would still dominate. If his game was purely about topspin, he would not have won Wimbledon.

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 10:26 AM
How old are you, 14? I can tell you racquets in the 90s used modern technology. Don't bring up Laver and Rosewall! :smash:

And to say racquets in the 90s would have been to heavy for Rafa is just comedy.

I would concede today's strings generate more topspin than in the 90s but Rafa would still dominate. If his game was purely about topspin, he would not have won Wimbledon.

There is lot of difference between the Game now and the 90s. If you happen to notice, the game was becoming too much faster because of Racket technology so thats the reason they decided to slow down the courts.

His Topspins would be very much restricted. And Topspin is his Game.

And you are the one who just started watching Tennis... Wimbeldon nowadays is almost like a Slow Hard Court tournament. Rafa Fanboy

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 10:30 AM
Guga was ranked top 10 once in the 90s, 1999. In 1997, Guga beat Filip de Wulf in the semifinal the first time he won RG and in the final he beat a slumping Bruguera who didnt even finish in the top 100 the next year. Bruguera had beaten the clay Gods Rafter and Arazi in the QF and SF. To say that Guga would have any significant impact on Rafa in the 90s is simply wrong.


Kuerton was the king of Clay in the late 90s. he was one of the best players of Clay in the 90s...To say Guga would not have impact on 90s Clay is atrocious Fanboy

bjurra
12-02-2011, 10:35 AM
Since your memory doesnt seem to stretch back very far, I can tell you that the tour started to slow down things already in the 90s because fans and journalists complained about lack of rallies.

The difference between racquet technology 1985 - 1995 is much bigger than the difference 1995 - 2005.

Anyway, Borg was able to generate topspin with a wooden racquet, why wouldnt Rafa be able to do that?

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 10:38 AM
Since your memory doesnt seem to stretch back very far, I can tell you that the tour started to slow down things already in the 90s because fans and journalists complained about lack of rallies.

The difference between racquet technology 1985 - 1995 is much bigger than the difference 1995 - 2005.

Anyway, Borg was able to generate topspin with a wooden racquet, why wouldnt Rafa be able to do that?



Let me spell it out for you

The Degree of topspin varies.

Heavier racket --- Lesser Topspin
Lighter racket --- Vicious topspin.

Nadal clearly has an advantage because of Modern technology. Its no surprise.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 10:45 AM
Let me spell it out for you

The Degree of topspin varies.

Heavier racket --- Lesser Topspin
Lighter racket --- Vicious topspin.

Just very wrong.

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 10:47 AM
Just very wrong.

Ask any Tennis expert around your locality and ask him how nadal is able to generate so much topspin. Lighter and more advance racket Technology.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 10:59 AM
Ask any Tennis expert around your locality and ask him how nadal is able to generate so much topspin. Lighter and more advance racket Technology.

How come nobody else can generate that topspin then? Does Rafa have an exclusive patent?

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 11:09 AM
How come nobody else can generate that topspin then? Does Rafa have an exclusive patent?


Thats a point i made in some other thread.

Rafa is not a Natural tennis Player. he is athletic all right. But almost all aspect of his game is manipulated by Toni. Toni realised making him leftie would give him an advantage. he made him that. Toni noticed that Topspinning groundshots would give another advantage over righties. He imbibed that in him. He made him a Physical beast because he realised the game is moving towards Athleticism. he made him that.

Rafa is a completely manufactured tennis Player. There is a reason why Tennis connoisseurs never praise Rafa. See Rafa's face when he defeats federer. Its full of guilt as in he never deserves it.

r3d_d3v1l_
12-02-2011, 12:04 PM
Nadal would get trashed in the 90´s, that´s a fact. What hurts him the most is variety and ofensive play and if you had the 90´s court speeds, he would be destroyed by everyone, except on clay.

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Nadal would get trashed in the 90´s, that´s a fact. What hurts him the most is variety and ofensive play and if you had the 90´s court speeds, he would be destroyed by everyone, except on clay.

This.


In fact i really think even on Clay he could get hammered. Afterall Muster,Courier,Bruguera were all masters of manoeuvrings the ball around the court which had little Topspin, as it would be hindered for Nadal,going by 90s standards.

If you get past Muster Bruguera will get you, if you get past him Courier will get you, if you get past COurier Kafelnikov will get you, if you get past kafelnikov Kuerton will get you. And most of them will get you. :toothy:

Shirogane
12-02-2011, 12:25 PM
Probably not, but we can't know for sure. Maybe he would play with the right hand. Maybe he would have to be a serve and volley player.

r3d_d3v1l_
12-02-2011, 01:19 PM
Who knows. I mean, if the courts wouldn´t slown down, probably Federer would be a great s&v, instead of being a great baseliner. The man was going 100% to the net on the first serves in Wimbledon back in the day, so imagine what would happen if tennis wasn´t turned into pusherville.

echf
12-02-2011, 01:34 PM
Thats a point i made in some other thread.

Rafa is not a Natural tennis Player. he is athletic all right. But almost all aspect of his game is manipulated by Toni. Toni realised making him leftie would give him an advantage. he made him that. Toni noticed that Topspinning groundshots would give another advantage over righties. He imbibed that in him. He made him a Physical beast because he realised the game is moving towards Athleticism. he made him that.

Rafa is a completely manufactured tennis Player. There is a reason why Tennis connoisseurs never praise Rafa. See Rafa's face when he defeats federer. Its full of guilt as in he never deserves it.

Wow. What a load of bullshit. Rafa is a very talented tennis player, and otherwise he wouldn't be able to accomplish so much. And lots of "tennis connoisseurs" and former champions know this and praise him. I think deep down you know this too but for some reason you don't like him and want to invent pathetic excuses.

Regarding some of the other lies in your post: contrary to popular opinion, Toni did not force him to play lefty. Back in the time Rafa used to hit two-handed forehands and backhands, and Toni realized that almost no one in the pro tour hits two-handed forehands so told him to choose one side. Nadal himself chose to play lefty. And about the "guilty face", it only exists in your imagination.

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 02:08 PM
Wow. What a load of bullshit. Rafa is a very talented tennis player, and otherwise he wouldn't be able to accomplish so much. And lots of "tennis connoisseurs" and former champions know this and praise him. I think deep down you know this too but for some reason you don't like him and want to invent pathetic excuses.

Regarding some of the other lies in your post: contrary to popular opinion, Toni did not force him to play lefty. Back in the time Rafa used to hit two-handed forehands and backhands, and Toni realized that almost no one in the pro tour hits two-handed forehands so told him to choose one side. Nadal himself chose to play lefty. And about the "guilty face", it only exists in your imagination.

If he is such a talented player then he always falter in Indoors. thats because his main weapon topspinning Moonball doesnt work indoors.

In Indoors you have to think on your feet, there is not much time on your hands, as a result you have to rely upon your hand eye co-ordination, that means that your "Talent" comes into play, and there is no time for playing topspinning Moonballs ... which Obviously Nadal fails to deliver.

He has meagre Talent. Its the court,conditions and Toni which has made him.

Ben.
12-02-2011, 03:18 PM
Shinoj, another tedious, one note and embittered hater with a hard on for Nadal and a very narrow definition of talent. As has been pointed out by everyone with a brain this is a pointless and futile exercise. Plus, any serious points you try to make are instantly negated by your shameless subjectivity on the issue.

Would Rafa, exactly as he is now, be as successful in the 90s? Obviously not. Would Rafa, exactly as he is now, exist in the 90s? Obviously not.

Why not bring Laver forward 40 years while you're at it? Could answer some more obvious and meaningless questions.

Shinoj
12-02-2011, 03:22 PM
Shinoj, another tedious, one note and embittered hater with a hard on for Nadal and a very narrow definition of talent. As has been pointed out by everyone with a brain this is a pointless and futile exercise. Plus, any serious points you try to make are instantly negated by your shameless subjectivity on the issue.

Would Rafa, exactly as he is now, be as successful in the 90s? Obviously not. Would Rafa, exactly as he is now, exist in the 90s? Obviously not.

Why not bring Laver forward 40 years while you're at it? Could answer some more obvious and meaningless questions.

i would have bought Laver on .... if i had seen him play....:wavey:

Roddickominator
12-02-2011, 03:49 PM
The improvements in racket technology have been significant, but it's moreso the improvements in string technology, diet, and fitness that have helped the current generation of players. Especially Nadal. You don't even have to hit the ball in the center of the racket and you can still blast a 100+ mph winner. That allows guys like Nadal to use a huge swing and be able to consistently generate very high rpms, without worrying about shanking shots.

Without string technology and his physical advantages he has obtained due to modern nutrition, Nadal would have had to drastically change his game in order to compete on all surfaces. He would definitely be able to hang on clay....probably still even be the top player there, though less dominant. Anywhere else, he would have major problems. I imagine he'd have a Courier-type career.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 04:20 PM
Give Rafa the racket Muster played with in the 90s and I can assure you he wouldn't shank all his shots.

Moya had his breakthrough in mid 90s and already back then used the Babolat Pure Drive, which is closely related to the AeroPro Rafa uses.

The big difference versus today are the strings but Rafa would still have kicked ass on clay in the 90s and been a force on hardcourts.

SetSampras
12-02-2011, 05:21 PM
Guga was ranked top 10 once in the 90s, 1999. In 1997, Guga beat Filip de Wulf in the semifinal the first time he won RG and in the final he beat a slumping Bruguera who didnt even finish in the top 100 the next year. Bruguera had beaten the clay Gods Rafter and Arazi in the QF and SF. To say that Guga would have any significant impact on Rafa in the 90s is simply wrong.

Do people not realize due to diverse conditions, back in the 90s that generallly the clay specialists were NOT ranked at the very top in the world because their game didn't translate well on other surfaces? ROFL.

Guga may not have been top player, but he is TWICE the threat to Rafa due to his strong BH on the dirt unlike the Swiss Princess. Kuerten is probably the biggest threat to the Nadal thrown, that there has ever been. Think Nole this year on clay vs. Nadal and then some.. Thats what Kuerten can do to Nadal on the dirt

bjurra
12-02-2011, 07:29 PM
Do people not realize due to diverse conditions, back in the 90s that generallly the clay specialists were NOT ranked at the very top in the world because their game didn't translate well on other surfaces? ROFL.

First of all, Guga peaked 2000-2002 so he wasn't a big force of the 90s.

Secondly, Muster was ranked 1 so saying that clay courters couldn't reach a top ranking is completely wrong. Corretja peaked at 3 and Bruguera at 4 and they were mugs off the clay.

Thirdly, Guga would have struggled a lot with his one-handed bh against Rafa. You more or less need a two-handed bh to handle Rafa's forehand, as proven by Davydenko and Djokovic.

SetSampras
12-02-2011, 08:36 PM
First of all, Guga peaked 2000-2002 so he wasn't a big force of the 90s.

Secondly, Muster was ranked 1 so saying that clay courters couldn't reach a top ranking is completely wrong. Corretja peaked at 3 and Bruguera at 4 and they were mugs off the clay.

Thirdly, Guga would have struggled a lot with his one-handed bh against Rafa. You more or less need a two-handed bh to handle Rafa's forehand, as proven by Davydenko and Djokovic.

Nonsense.. Guga's BH was Nowhere NEAR the liability that Fed's is to the Nadal moonball to the BH.. I suggest you watch some peak Guga on clay

MalwareDie
12-02-2011, 08:44 PM
Thats a point i made in some other thread.

Rafa is not a Natural tennis Player. he is athletic all right. But almost all aspect of his game is manipulated by Toni. Toni realised making him leftie would give him an advantage. he made him that. Toni noticed that Topspinning groundshots would give another advantage over righties. He imbibed that in him. He made him a Physical beast because he realised the game is moving towards Athleticism. he made him that.

Rafa is a completely manufactured tennis Player. There is a reason why Tennis connoisseurs never praise Rafa. See Rafa's face when he defeats federer. Its full of guilt as in he never deserves it.


Hmmmm .... there is something familiar about your posting style.

peRfect-Tennis
12-02-2011, 08:52 PM
No chance, on clay yes, but on any of the other 3 surfaces when they played fast he wouldn't have a chance!

Start da Game
12-02-2011, 08:54 PM
Thats a point i made in some other thread.

Rafa is not a Natural tennis Player. he is athletic all right. But almost all aspect of his game is manipulated by Toni. Toni realised making him leftie would give him an advantage. he made him that. Toni noticed that Topspinning groundshots would give another advantage over righties. He imbibed that in him. He made him a Physical beast because he realised the game is moving towards Athleticism. he made him that.

Rafa is a completely manufactured tennis Player. There is a reason why Tennis connoisseurs never praise Rafa. See Rafa's face when he defeats federer. Its full of guilt as in he never deserves it.

bullshit from start to finish......

bjurra
12-02-2011, 08:57 PM
Nonsense.. Guga's BH was Nowhere NEAR the liability that Fed's is to the Nadal moonball to the BH.. I suggest you watch some peak Guga on clay

Guga didn't have that many excellent seasons (he had two really good ones and one or two more decent ones) but I remember peak Guga very well. No opponent back then played like Rafa so we will never know for sure how he would have coped. The closest would be Muster but his forehand is still not comparable to Rafa's.

Shinoj
12-03-2011, 06:23 AM
Give Rafa the racket Muster played with in the 90s and I can assure you he wouldn't shank all his shots.

Moya had his breakthrough in mid 90s and already back then used the Babolat Pure Drive, which is closely related to the AeroPro Rafa uses.

The big difference versus today are the strings but Rafa would still have kicked ass on clay in the 90s and been a force on hardcourts.


No way he could create those topspins. Its clearly a product of the 2000s. And forget about Hardcourts, they were too fast and you needed pure Flat and hard groundstrokes to revel in that, Like Agassi and Sampras. Nadal would have no chance.

GSMnadal
12-03-2011, 10:08 AM
Well, we can never say that can we.

Rafa grew up with the technology at hand, and his game was perfected and created with those techniques. If he was born earlier, he would've done the same, so who knows what kind of game he would've had back then.

And while we're at it, why don't we time travel those '90 legends to this era, see how they would do. Sampras would be an all serve mug, Agassi would be just another Djokovic, all the clay court specialists would have 0 Roland Garros titles to back up their status (maybe a couple masters titles, but even that would be a great struggle for them).

The game is always, always improving, that's normal and nothing to be ashamed of. It's because of advancing technology, better training methodes, better medical knowledge. There might be stronger era's because of the fortune that a more talented player was born earlier, but if you look at a quality/time line, it would be always rising, with a couple of minor exceptions/peaks here and there.

Yesterdays top players <<< Todays top players <<< Future top players.

bjurra
12-03-2011, 06:02 PM
Yesterdays top players <<< Todays top players <<< Future top players.

I think in 5-10 years from now we will complain about the 2015-2020 period being a mug era. And it will be justified.

Slice Winner
12-03-2011, 06:40 PM
The game is always, always improving

No, the game is always, always changing.

siloe26
12-03-2011, 09:25 PM
Do people not realize due to diverse conditions, back in the 90s that generallly the clay specialists were NOT ranked at the very top in the world because their game didn't translate well on other surfaces? ROFL.



70's : Borg, Vilas
80's : Wilander
90's : Muster, Bruguera,Kuerten (end of the 90's)

Players who have clay as their best surface have always been a force. And a player who was born to be a champion will always find a way to become one. He will not be exactly the same player, he will play with the weapons of his era, but he will be successful. Mc Enroe and Edberg would find a way to win these days, just like Borg found a way to be dominant in the days of serve and volley and Vilas found a way to win 3 of the 4 slams. It would be the same for Nadal.

siloe26
12-03-2011, 09:33 PM
No way he could create those topspins. Its clearly a product of the 2000s. And forget about Hardcourts, they were too fast and you needed pure Flat and hard groundstrokes to revel in that, Like Agassi and Sampras. Nadal would have no chance.

Again, which era are you talking about? The one of Borg, who won Wimbledon 5 times in an era of fast grass? The one of wilander, who won at least 2 slams on each surface despite the fact that he didn't have much power and was playing a cat and mouse game?
No, Nadal wouldn't have the same topspin, his topspin would be comparable to the one of Borg or Vilas if he played in the seventies. But would he have a Djokovic in front of him? No, of course! Because Djokovic would also play a different game... and be successful at it.

Fedex
12-03-2011, 11:47 PM
Guga would have given Nadal all he could handle on clay and probably take a couple RG titles away from Rafa. He played amazing attacking tennis on clay.

Fedex
12-04-2011, 12:06 AM
Well, we can never say that can we.

Rafa grew up with the technology at hand, and his game was perfected and created with those techniques. If he was born earlier, he would've done the same, so who knows what kind of game he would've had back then.

And while we're at it, why don't we time travel those '90 legends to this era, see how they would do. Sampras would be an all serve mug, Agassi would be just another Djokovic, all the clay court specialists would have 0 Roland Garros titles to back up their status (maybe a couple masters titles, but even that would be a great struggle for them).

The game is always, always improving, that's normal and nothing to be ashamed of. It's because of advancing technology, better training methodes, better medical knowledge. There might be stronger era's because of the fortune that a more talented player was born earlier, but if you look at a quality/time line, it would be always rising, with a couple of minor exceptions/peaks here and there.

Yesterdays top players <<< Todays top players <<< Future top players.

lol

Agassi's game isn't really anything like Djokovic's. That's a horrible parallel to draw.

bjurra
12-04-2011, 07:08 PM
Guga would have given Nadal all he could handle on clay and probably take a couple RG titles away from Rafa. He played amazing attacking tennis on clay.

Have a look at Guga's results in the 90s and then delete your post.

rubbERR
12-04-2011, 07:14 PM
If he keeps winning, you are as good as your last match they say, good words.

Shinoj
12-05-2011, 10:03 AM
Again, which era are you talking about? The one of Borg, who won Wimbledon 5 times in an era of fast grass? The one of wilander, who won at least 2 slams on each surface despite the fact that he didn't have much power and was playing a cat and mouse game?
No, Nadal wouldn't have the same topspin, his topspin would be comparable to the one of Borg or Vilas if he played in the seventies. But would he have a Djokovic in front of him? No, of course! Because Djokovic would also play a different game... and be successful at it.



DOnt compare Nadal to Borg and Vilas. Borg and Vilas both had good FLAT Groundstrokes which Clearly Toni hasnt taught Nadal. The Key word is FLAT.

green25814
12-05-2011, 10:32 AM
I don't think so.

He was like 4 years old.

This

If Nadal had actually grown up in the 80s, he'd be a completely different player from what we see now, no way of knowing what he'd be like