If we went back to the old conditions. Who would dominate? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If we went back to the old conditions. Who would dominate?

SetSampras
12-13-2011, 07:07 PM
Rebound Ace
Fast slippery, low bouncing grass
Fast USO HC
SLOW clay
Carpet

I would have to think Nole and Rafa's domination would cease other then on clay and maybe in Australia but they were struggle the rest of the seasons under faster conditons. Same with Murray's results going downhill. Maybe a good counterpuncher on grass like or at the USO like Hewitt. Tsonga and Berdych being major threats and slam winners under the old conditions? Fed dominating?

ossie
12-13-2011, 07:16 PM
nothing would change, if anything delpo would dominate even more.

samanosuke
12-13-2011, 07:23 PM
sampras everywhere . now please close the thread

v-money
12-13-2011, 07:23 PM
I really think Del Potro would be hurt by old conditions. His serve is not great for a guy his height and he is not even that great on grass at current conditions...I can only imagine that old grass would be worse. Ferrer beat him on slow clay in Davis Cup, but a faster surface would have really helped him. He would still be good on hardcourts though.

Haelfix
12-13-2011, 08:11 PM
It would almost surely help Murray. Counterpunchers need faster courts to redirect pace.

It would probably hurt Rafa and Nole somewhat, and help Federer obviously.

Del Potro is an interesting case. He'd be better on slower clay, worse on grass and its unclear about the USO, but I think he'd still be great there.

rocketassist
12-13-2011, 08:36 PM
:haha: Del Potro would be one of the worst affected. The faster the court the less rhythmic his game is.

ossie
12-13-2011, 08:53 PM
:haha: Del Potro would be one of the worst affected. The faster the court the less rhythmic his game is.im guessing you didnt watch usopen 2009

romismak
12-13-2011, 09:15 PM
Hard to tell but from top players i would say Nole and Rafa would be worse, because their game is about movements, deffense, long rallies, on faster surfaces like old grass and faster HC, indoor carpet they would be worse.
Murray is hard to tell, with his style it depends if he adapt- with faster surfaces it would be easy for guys hit through him, but the truth is also it can help him redirect pace and absorb it, even his return on faster surfaces could be more dangerous, also Andy when on has good serve and volleys. So by Andy it is hard to tell.
By Roger, he has good serve, volleys could play great on carpet, faster HC, old grass, but big hitter would more easily outhit him like Berdych, Delpo, Soderling, Tsonga did it in last 2 years.
Delpo and Soderling would have more problems with faster surfaces, because they need time for their big groundstrokes, also their volleys are horrible so they can´t even help themselfes with net game so play from baseline with powerfull FH-BH is harder when you have less time, so they would be in worse situation than on today´s slower surfaces
Slower clay- it would just help Nole and Rafa for total domination on clay, nobody would came close to them, maybe Ferrer would be better there too with his stamina, consistency and return.

GSMnadal
12-13-2011, 09:37 PM
im guessing you didnt watch usopen 2009

I thought the US Open was a terribly slow blue clay court? Or was it not before Rafa won it :confused:

Saberq
12-13-2011, 09:44 PM
im guessing you didnt watch usopen 2009

F L U K E

leng jai
12-13-2011, 10:10 PM
nothing would change, if anything delpo would dominate even more.

Del Potro on 90s grass would dominate the comedy channel.

xdrewitdajx
12-13-2011, 11:26 PM
nothing would change, if anything delpo would dominate even more.

is that possible, though? have the upper boundaries of dominance not been reached by Del Potro? He's nearly in the top 10, and would be if it weren't for giants Almagro and Tipsarevic, for god's sake!

BigJohn
12-13-2011, 11:32 PM
nothing would change, if anything delpo would dominate even more.

QF...wtf?

Sunset of Age
12-13-2011, 11:47 PM
nothing would change, if anything delpo would dominate even more.

:haha:

sampras everywhere . now please close the thread

:D

JurajCrane
12-14-2011, 12:09 AM
I´ll go with Fed domination almost everywhere but Roland Garros. Something like years 2006 and 2007 with Nadal winning in Paris.

Also with some exceptions like Novak winning Australia or French, maybe US Open ? Sadly I can´t see player who could have a upper hand among these three.

Topspindoctor
12-14-2011, 12:39 AM
Nadal is modern Borg, so he'd still dominate grass where his lefty serve would be even more potent on low bouncing/skidding surface and do well in AO (in fact Nadal would dominate AO, considering clowns Agassi faced in his AO "domination"). At RG Nadal would probably win like 10 in a row, 'cause fast clay is why he lost in 2009 and got taken to 5 in 2011 by an all serve mug like Isner.

leng jai
12-14-2011, 12:46 AM
Nadal is modern Borg, so he'd still dominate grass where his lefty serve would be even more potent on low bouncing/skidding surface and do well in AO (in fact Nadal would dominate AO, considering clowns Agassi faced in his AO "domination"). At RG Nadal would probably win like 10 in a row, 'cause fast clay is why he lost in 2009 and got taken to 5 in 2011 by an all serve mug like Isner.

Yeah a 5% improvement on one of his serves would make up for the need to play actual grass court tennis.

Topspindoctor
12-14-2011, 12:52 AM
Yeah a 5% improvement on one of his serves would make up for the need to play actual grass court tennis.

Nadal would win Wimbledon from the baseline - just like Agassi did.

leng jai
12-14-2011, 01:19 AM
Nadal would win Wimbledon from the baseline - just like Agassi did.

Yeah they're both baseliners - the similarities are uncanny.

Agassi didn't dominate grass either.

Topspindoctor
12-14-2011, 01:29 AM
Yeah they're both baseliners - the similarities are uncanny.

Agassi didn't dominate grass either.

Agassi won Wimbledon once and since Nadal is a much better player than Agassi, he'd win it more than once. Simple logic. IMO he'd be horrible match up for Sampras with topspin to BH - To beat Nadal Sampras would probably have to serve @ 70%+ and play flawless tie-breaks. Second, with his best passing shots, he'd counter S&V'ers nicely.

tommyg6
12-14-2011, 01:35 AM
Guys like Roddick, Isner, Karlovic, Anderson, Muller, and Raonic would win more events.

madmax
12-14-2011, 01:49 AM
not Sampras - that much is clear

rocketassist
12-14-2011, 02:46 AM
Agassi won Wimbledon once and since Nadal is a much better player than Agassi, he'd win it more than once. Simple logic. IMO he'd be horrible match up for Sampras with topspin to BH - To beat Nadal Sampras would probably have to serve @ 70%+ and play flawless tie-breaks. Second, with his best passing shots, he'd counter S&V'ers nicely.

Not on fast grass- he doesn't return serve well enough, the volleys would drop too low for him and the whole speed of the points would pass him by.

abraxas21
12-14-2011, 04:03 AM
man, some of these posts...

in dark momements i inevitably tend to question my life and my stay on MTF. am i waisting my time posting on this website? should i go out to the sun and see the birds? what is the spirit made of? then however i look at a thread like this and it all makes sense to me. this type of threads is the reason why i joined this site

Nole Rules
12-14-2011, 04:17 AM
man, some of these posts...

in dark momements i inevitably tend to question my life and my stay on MTF. am i waisting my time posting on this website? should i go out to the sun and see the birds? what is the spirit made of? then however i look at a thread like this and it all makes sense to me. this type of threads is the reason why i joined this site

:haha:

Mechlan
12-14-2011, 04:27 AM
Agassi won Wimbledon once and since Nadal is a much better player than Agassi, he'd win it more than once. Simple logic. IMO he'd be horrible match up for Sampras with topspin to BH - To beat Nadal Sampras would probably have to serve @ 70%+ and play flawless tie-breaks. Second, with his best passing shots, he'd counter S&V'ers nicely.

There's a reason so few baseliners did well at Wimbledon in the 90s. Nadal is not a miracle worker. He already struggles with big servers during the first week of Wimbledon. Now imagine him coming across a mental giant like Sampras who also has the ability to hit enough winners to hold his own from the back of the court.

Ajk822
12-14-2011, 06:04 AM
Isner would be in the top 10 and constantly be a threat to win tournaments.

Shinoj
12-14-2011, 06:08 AM
Federer and Djokovic would succeed in any conditions. Those who are saying Djokovic would struggle in faster courts need to see the Aussie Open over the years. They were quite fast and he was quite successful.

Nadal,sadly for his fans would struggle. he himself admitted that 90's Tennis was too fast for him.

Smoke944
12-14-2011, 06:17 AM
Nadal is modern Borg, so he'd still dominate grass where his lefty serve would be even more potent on low bouncing/skidding surface and do well in AO (in fact Nadal would dominate AO, considering clowns Agassi faced in his AO "domination"). At RG Nadal would probably win like 10 in a row, 'cause fast clay is why he lost in 2009 and got taken to 5 in 2011 by an all serve mug like Isner.

Nadal would win Wimbledon from the baseline - just like Agassi did.

Agassi won Wimbledon once and since Nadal is a much better player than Agassi, he'd win it more than once. Simple logic. IMO he'd be horrible match up for Sampras with topspin to BH - To beat Nadal Sampras would probably have to serve @ 70%+ and play flawless tie-breaks. Second, with his best passing shots, he'd counter S&V'ers nicely.

:lol:

HKz
12-14-2011, 07:20 AM
im guessing you didnt watch usopen 2009

One great tournament means nothing about dominance. As pointed out, his serve is mediocre for his height, and while faster surfaces are great when he pounds a ball back in the court, it also hurts him because he has much less time to set up and get a good shot at a nice forehand as his defensive skills are again pretty poor on faster surfaces.

As far as this thread, this shit has been asked what, a thousand times now?

You could say faster/more varied surfaces would suit Federer, but if he was given the same group of players to deal with, I doubt he would really end up dominating the game more during the years he played.

Nadal on the other hand should be expected to do a least a little worse. Fact is, his game was tailored on clay like many other Spaniards, and the homogenization of surfaces certainly helped allow him to play well at the other slams a little more consistently than his predecessors. While he is great defensively, his return of serve against big servers, especially on faster surfaces, is rather poor. At the same time, he struggles to really hit through the court with his forehand, although his backhand is actually a decent weapon on the faster courts when he is confident since he hits it much flatter.

Djokovic is an interesting case I guess. You can make the case that he has strong groundstrokes that are relatively flat. His return of serve is also good. At the same time, we know his strength in his defensive skills and movement. So in a way, he could be compared to Agassi. Strong baseliners like Djokovic do well in general no matter what the surface speed is. We have seen Djokovic have consistent results at the US Open, Cincinnati and many indoor tournaments, which are the fastest surfaces we have today. The only problem now is that tards like SetSampras will claim those surfaces are 100000 x slower than what they used to be in the 90s.

Agassi won Wimbledon once and since Nadal is a much better player than Agassi, he'd win it more than once. Simple logic. IMO he'd be horrible match up for Sampras with topspin to BH - To beat Nadal Sampras would probably have to serve @ 70%+ and play flawless tie-breaks. Second, with his best passing shots, he'd counter S&V'ers nicely.

What kind of fucking logic is that? Since when does Nadal take the ball on the rise you fool? Since when does Nadal have a great return you fool?

All of Nadal's stats are skewed from his consistent and strong results on clay. His stats outside of clay are mediocre for the most part, and this is in an era of slower surfaces clearly. Sampras would destroy Nadal on the faster surfaces. Nadal's passing shots are a result of a player coming in during a rally allowing Nadal time to set up his shots.. Nadal has a difficulty handling huge servers and his returns are mediocre AT BEST. Instead, he relies on getting returns in play and working the point out.

Your posts get sillier and sillier every day.

Federer and Djokovic would succeed in any conditions. Those who are saying Djokovic would struggle in faster courts need to see the Aussie Open over the years. They were quite fast and he was quite successful.

Nadal,sadly for his fans would struggle. he himself admitted that 90's Tennis was too fast for him.

Australia was never that fast, lol. Although I do agree Djokovic would not necessarily get hurt from faster surfaces, I certainly would not go as far as to say he would dominate. Previous to the Federer generation, Agassi and to a lesser extent Borg/Connors had been the only players with true baseline games that would have careers where people could argue they dominated for a while.

Jimnik
12-14-2011, 11:32 AM
Sampras would still suck on today's clay.

Chase Visa
12-14-2011, 11:51 AM
Federer

[/thread]

Sophocles
12-14-2011, 12:51 PM
Obviously it would help Federer, at least relative to Nadal & to a lesser extent Djoker. It would hurt Nadal a lot, Djoker less. It would help Murray. It's kind of obvious isn't it?

leng jai
12-14-2011, 12:53 PM
Obviously it would help Federer, at least relative to Nadal & to a lesser extent Djoker. It would hurt Nadal a lot, Djoker less. It would help Murray. It's kind of obvious isn't it?

You're overlooking the fact that Nadull's lefty serve out wide would decimate all opponents with ease on faster courts.

Sophocles
12-14-2011, 12:58 PM
You're overlooking the fact that Nadull's lefty serve out wide would decimate all opponents with ease on faster courts.

Indeed I am. Combine that with his McEnroe-esque volleying skills & that vicious slice, & you've got the greatest grass-court player of all time.

manadrainer
12-14-2011, 01:01 PM
Indeed I am. Combine that with his McEnroe-esque volleying skills & that vicious slice, & you've got the greatest grass-court player of all time.

This.

oh wait...

leng jai
12-14-2011, 01:05 PM
Indeed I am. Combine that with his McEnroe-esque volleying skills & that vicious slice, & you've got the greatest grass-court player of all time.

It just goes to show how gracious the Nadull tards have been. They could be grinding on the fact that Nadull would have won 7 consecutive Wimbledons if it was old school grass but clearly they are bigger than that.

Shinoj
12-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Australia was never that fast, lol. Although I do agree Djokovic would not necessarily get hurt from faster surfaces, I certainly would not go as far as to say he would dominate. Previous to the Federer generation, Agassi and to a lesser extent Borg/Connors had been the only players with true baseline games that would have careers where people could argue they dominated for a while.

In recent times Australia has been the fastest amongst the lot and Djokovic has been dominating there. Thats why i said that.

Thats exactly the reasoning, Baseliners with aggressive style and good shot making calls for dominating the Tournaments and thats what Agassi did. Djokovic is more or less in the same mould.

peRfect-Tennis
12-14-2011, 10:17 PM
Fed would dominate bar none. Look what happens on an indoor court.

samanosuke
12-14-2011, 10:25 PM
Nadal is modern Borg, so he'd still dominate grass where his lefty serve would be even more potent on low bouncing/skidding surface and do well in AO (in fact Nadal would dominate AO, considering clowns Agassi faced in his AO "domination"). At RG Nadal would probably win like 10 in a row, 'cause fast clay is why he lost in 2009 and got taken to 5 in 2011 by an all serve mug like Isner.

http://www.bug.hr/_cache/b5e3d03e243349e4ab24f46b9772ba5a.jpg

Nadal would win Wimbledon from the baseline - just like Agassi did.

http://josiahcm.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/facepalm_jim_76437.jpg?w=360&h=450

Agassi won Wimbledon once and since Nadal is a much better player than Agassi, he'd win it more than once. Simple logic. IMO he'd be horrible match up for Sampras with topspin to BH - To beat Nadal Sampras would probably have to serve @ 70%+ and play flawless tie-breaks. Second, with his best passing shots, he'd counter S&V'ers nicely.


http://www.gtfo.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Facepalm-jesus-facepalm-facepalm1.jpg

peRfect-Tennis
12-14-2011, 10:37 PM
In recent times Australia has been the fastest amongst the lot and Djokovic has been dominating there. Thats why i said that.

Thats exactly the reasoning, Baseliners with aggressive style and good shot making calls for dominating the Tournaments and thats what Agassi did. Djokovic is more or less in the same mould.

Australia the fastest? No chance.

Egreen
12-14-2011, 11:52 PM
Of the top 4:

Federer.

Murray would do better.

No Career Slam for Nadal or potential Career Slam for Djokovic.

rocketassist
12-15-2011, 12:07 AM
Australia the fastest? No chance.

This year it was.

Action Jackson
12-15-2011, 12:09 AM
This year it was.

It wasn't the fastest this year.

rocketassist
12-15-2011, 12:11 AM
It wasn't the fastest this year.

What was? USO was super slow.

helvet empire
12-15-2011, 12:12 AM
This year it was.

I think US was still a bit faster

Action Jackson
12-15-2011, 12:31 AM
What was? USO was super slow.

US Open still faster in spite of its new found slowness.

MalwareDie
12-15-2011, 12:37 AM
The AO will never be faster than the USO (Even this year's joke USO) with the humidity there to fizzle everything out.

HKz
12-15-2011, 02:21 AM
This year it was.

I sincerely doubt that. US Open was still noticeably faster this year.

Sophocles
12-15-2011, 11:35 AM
It just goes to show how gracious the Nadull tards have been. They could be grinding on the fact that Nadull would have won 7 consecutive Wimbledons if it was old school grass but clearly they are bigger than that.

Yeah they deserve a lot of credit.

I mean Ivanisevic's lefty serve was nowhere near as good as Nadal's, & he was unbeatable at Wimbledon.

samanosuke
12-15-2011, 12:49 PM
just one thing i don't understand . nadal tards mostly of the time for nadal's defeats blaming his mugish return of serve but at the same time that same tards saying that he would be more dominant on faster and lower bouncing courts

HKz
12-15-2011, 02:40 PM
just one thing i don't understand . nadal tards mostly of the time for nadal's defeats blaming his mugish return of serve but at the same time that same tards saying that he would be more dominant on faster and lower bouncing courts

Impossible to understand how their head works.

Don't forget the injury card too about how hardcourts are so bad for him.

Sophocles
12-15-2011, 04:08 PM
just one thing i don't understand . nadal tards mostly of the time for nadal's defeats blaming his mugish return of serve but at the same time that same tards saying that he would be more dominant on faster and lower bouncing courts

All these baffling questions will be answered if you VOTE SOPHOCLES in the popularity contest (Non-Tennis for anyone who doesn't know).

samanosuke
12-15-2011, 04:10 PM
popularity contest ? first voice

rocketassist
12-15-2011, 04:11 PM
Dunno, USO looked slow as a snail. Had Tipsarevic played those first two sets v Djokovic at the AO, I think he'd have been two sets up and in control. The USO court enabled Nole to get unreachable balls back over and over.