How would Nadal fare... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How would Nadal fare...

AnnabelLee
06-04-2005, 01:38 PM
against the top claycourters in their primes. Only considering the claycourters of the 90s and 00s because its easier to compare.

So how would Nadal fare against the Bruguera of 93-94, the Muster of 95, Costa in the mid of the 90s, Guga in 00-01, Courier in the early 90s, Ferrero in 02-03 or Coria of 04. or against Gaudio at his best.

Whats your opinion on that. im quite interested. please post

Action Jackson
06-04-2005, 01:41 PM
What's Gaudio doing in that list? Rios and Corretja should be included in that list if you are going to include Coria.

AnnabelLee
06-04-2005, 01:44 PM
What's Gaudio doing in that list? Rios and Corretja should be included in that list if you are going to include Coria.

just took those guys as examples mate

Action Jackson
06-04-2005, 01:47 PM
just took those guys as examples mate

Nadal isn't in his prime yet, so it's hard to judge.

AnnabelLee
06-04-2005, 01:48 PM
yep i know, thought about taking nadal in the form he is in now and the other champs in their primes

Action Jackson
06-04-2005, 01:53 PM
yep i know, thought about taking nadal in the form he is in now and the other champs in their primes

It's too hard to say just after 1 good year. I don't think he'd beat Muster as they play a similar game, the one difference is that Muster had a better backhand and serve, but Nadal has superior passing shots and can flatten the shots better, but Muster later in his career was much better on hardcourts.

For every one point, another counterpoint could be easily made.

Nastase
06-04-2005, 01:59 PM
Courier? Coria? What are those two doing here, Courier dominated the french open because in those years the tournament was empty of class claycourt players, he played like a robot and I must add that his tennis was awful. Coria didn't win and for me is a great player but out of determination and bravery in the important moments. If I have to choose one of the players you mentioned to see a duel against Nadal I'll take Muster, the year he won was impossible to beat him even for Nadal although there's no way to prove it. The real Guga would be a great opponent for Rafa too. If you go back even more in the past you will find better players like Borj, McEnroe, Santana, etc... The swedish was just nearly invencible on clay.

Action Jackson
06-04-2005, 02:02 PM
Courier? Coria? What are those two doing here, Courier dominated the french open because in those years the tournament was empty of class claycourt players, he played like a robot and Y must add that his tennis was awful.

So true about Courier, and it took Sergi to put that prick in his place.

I mean Lendl and Wilander were much better on clay than McEnroe ever was.

If Nadal wins on Sunday he equals something Muster and Wilander did.

Nastase
06-04-2005, 02:08 PM
Lendl took advantage of the last years of McEnroe and other great players too, althought John never won RG it's better for me in that surface, he was a genius. Ivan is a better version of Alex Correjta with even better physical qualities but he didn't have the class of John. Wilander was also an amazing claycourt player.

Nastase
06-04-2005, 02:09 PM
Don't forget about Vilas.

Action Jackson
06-04-2005, 02:13 PM
Lendl took advantage of the last years of McEnroe and other great players too, althought John never won RG it's better for me in that surface, he was a genius. Ivan is a better version of Alex Correjta with even better physical qualities but he didn't have the class of John. Wilander was also an amazing claycourt player.

Lendl won all of the big events at least once and there is no way I could consider him weaker than McEnroe on this surface on grass for sure or maybe hardcourts, but definitely not on clay.

He didn't have that much talent then again neither did Wilander for that matter, but Lendl for about 7 years was very good on clay and Vilas well one of the best.

Nastase
06-04-2005, 06:59 PM
That's your opinion, for me Lendl has always been overstimated, he was a tough player but his tennis was extremely boring and out of resources. As I told you Corretja reminds me of him a lot.

NYCtennisfan
06-04-2005, 07:37 PM
Yep, Courier was only good on clay because nobody was around that was a good claycourter. Would it hurt to give the guy some credit? I know his tennis was uninspired but he had a great run on clay beating the likes of Sergi, Costa, Muster, Agassi, Mancini, and others. He retrieved the ball really well, and was incredibly consistent from both wings. He harldy gave away a point.

Lendl was a great on clay and I don't see how anyone can argue with that. McEnroe never cared about playing on clay. In his greatest year, 1984, he only played at Forrest Hills and the World Team Cup before RG. He owned everyone on clay at those events through pure prodigious talents and let the 84 final get away. In the years '80-'83, he would only play RG and maybe one other tournament on clay and do fairly well. He wasn't by any means a great claycourter, just a great player who could win anywhere due to his prodigious talents. He never even tried to get better on clay.

Action Jackson
06-05-2005, 11:04 AM
That's your opinion, for me Lendl has always been overstimated, he was a tough player but his tennis was extremely boring and out of resources. As I told you Corretja reminds me of him a lot.

I never said Lendl played beautiful tennis or was gifted, he made the most of what he had and was very good on clay during that period I said earlier I mean he is not a patch on Borg, but who is.

Action Jackson
06-05-2005, 11:07 AM
Yep, Courier was only good on clay because nobody was around that was a good claycourter. Would it hurt to give the guy some credit? I know his tennis was uninspired but he had a great run on clay beating the likes of Sergi, Costa, Muster, Agassi, Mancini, and others. He retrieved the ball really well, and was incredibly consistent from both wings. He harldy gave away a point.

Courier got fortunate that Wilander and Lendl were not forces and that's the same for Agassi as well, you mentioned Mancini he had one good year in 89 as for Muster he wasn't at his best till later. I mean once Rosset showed up Courier on clay, then Bruguera finished the job and he wasn't the same afterwards, and he was interim before the good claycourters really came through.

Neely
06-05-2005, 11:52 AM
Courier dominated the french open because in those years the tournament was empty of class claycourt players
Sure, I agree... maybe Courier's two consecutive French Open victories have been both as empty of class claycourt players as Nadal's draw and way to his final. Also don't forget that Agassi's draw was also very empty, and his other two final appearences as well.

Action Jackson
06-05-2005, 11:57 AM
Sure, I agree... maybe Courier's two consecutive French Open victories have been both as empty of class claycourt players as Nadal's draw and way to his final. Also don't forget that Agassi's draw was also very empty, and his other two final appearences as well.

Lets party we agree on something.

Neely
06-05-2005, 12:00 PM
Unbelievable these lucky jerks Agassi and Courier, aren't they? Together they've made two hands full of semifinals, finals and wins at Roland Garros and got nothing but empty draws in all those dead years of claycourt tennis.

Action Jackson
06-05-2005, 12:05 PM
Unbelievable these lucky jerks Agassi and Courier, aren't they? Together they've made two hands full of semifinals, finals and wins at Roland Garros and got nothing but empty draws in all those dead years of claycourt tennis.

89-92 the years to clean up, when it was there and that's why Agassi when he won in 99 was such a good effort, even though I hate the results, kudos to the man.

You must be joking if you don't think that there are particular eras where the level is weaker than previous, it happens in all sports.