Nadal = faster Muster [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal = faster Muster

Pages : [1] 2

alfonsojose
09-26-2006, 07:44 PM
:eek: I've never seen Muster before. It's almost the same forehand and angles. And i'd dare to say Muster backhand is even better :) Rafa is faster and can flatten it out a bit more

GlennMirnyi
09-26-2006, 07:45 PM
I'd say "stronger" Muster.

alfonsojose
09-26-2006, 07:51 PM
I'd say "stronger" Muster.
:D

RonE
09-26-2006, 07:52 PM
Sorry Alfie- apples and oranges.

Muster's serve was nowhere near as efficient as Rafa's- he wasn't able to generate the same angles, spin and placement on his serve as Rafa can.

Nadal is more aggressive and his defensive skills are a different league. His net play is also a league above Muster's.

One more thing- Muster absolutely detested playing the big S&V players. When you pressured him into a corner with fast serving and took away his time that was when he really started to bleed. Rafa is able to generate angles and passes from impossible positions that Muster could only dream about.

And all this from someone who is by no means a Nadal fan and has seen Muster at his prime.

GlennMirnyi
09-26-2006, 08:08 PM
Sorry Alfie- apples and oranges.

Muster's serve was nowhere near as efficient as Rafa's- he wasn't able to generate the same angles, spin and placement on his serve as Rafa can.

Nadal is more aggressive and his defensive skills are a different league. His net play is also a league above Muster's.

One more thing- Muster absolutely detested playing the big S&V players. When you pressured him into a corner with fast serving and took away his time that was when he really started to bleed. Rafa is able to generate angles and passes from impossible positions that Muster could only dream about.

And all this from someone who is by no means a Nadal fan and has seen Muster at his prime.

I don't think Nadal resists the S&V players more than Muster. A very limited Kendrick had his chances to defeat him. A good S&V player would have won easily.

As I said, I think Nadal is a more developed Muster. They are from different generations. Nadal is what Muster would be in case he played today. Stronger, better in the defence, a little more ofensive.

MariaV
09-26-2006, 08:30 PM
Sorry Alfie- apples and oranges.

Muster's serve was nowhere near as efficient as Rafa's- he wasn't able to generate the same angles, spin and placement on his serve as Rafa can.

Nadal is more aggressive and his defensive skills are a different league. His net play is also a league above Muster's.

One more thing- Muster absolutely detested playing the big S&V players. When you pressured him into a corner with fast serving and took away his time that was when he really started to bleed. Rafa is able to generate angles and passes from impossible positions that Muster could only dream about.

And all this from someone who is by no means a Nadal fan and has seen Muster at his prime.

:eek: ;) :hatoff:

RonE
09-26-2006, 08:56 PM
:eek: ;) :hatoff:

:p :p :p

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-26-2006, 09:00 PM
Sorry Alfie- apples and oranges.

Muster's serve was nowhere near as efficient as Rafa's- he wasn't able to generate the same angles, spin and placement on his serve as Rafa can.

Nadal is more aggressive and his defensive skills are a different league. His net play is also a league above Muster's.

One more thing- Muster absolutely detested playing the big S&V players. When you pressured him into a corner with fast serving and took away his time that was when he really started to bleed. Rafa is able to generate angles and passes from impossible positions that Muster could only dream about.

And all this from someone who is by no means a Nadal fan and has seen Muster at his prime.

:eek: :worship:

Some of guys are so good at killing my hate ;)

RonE
09-26-2006, 09:09 PM
:eek: :worship:

Some of guys are so good at killing my hate ;)

Where have you been? Recovered yet from your disappointing loss to Jogy in the ACC? :hug:

scarecrows
09-26-2006, 09:12 PM
Ferrari = faster Fiat

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-26-2006, 09:12 PM
Where have you been? Recovered yet from your disappointing loss to Jogy in the ACC?

I still can't believe I lost.

I thought the Fedtards hated me ;)

Should try and pick fights with other groups like the croatards. :D

mangoes
09-26-2006, 09:17 PM
:eek: :worship:

Some of guys are so good at killing my hate ;)


We're still waiting on a positive Roger post from you ;) :p

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-26-2006, 09:46 PM
We're still waiting on a positive Roger post from you

He is the best grass court player of all time behind Sampras ;)

Pfloyd
09-26-2006, 10:12 PM
Yeah Muster is exactly like Nadal, except that Nadal is + speed

+ More Shot Variety

+ More Strength

+ Better Net Play

+ More fighting spirit

+ Better Service

+ Better Hard Court Game

= Nadal

Yeah, of course, Muster is exactly like Nadal...

DDrago2
09-26-2006, 10:18 PM
Nadal = faster mister Muster :lol:

shotgun
09-26-2006, 10:24 PM
And Muster had a much more controversial personality.

DrJules
09-26-2006, 10:46 PM
Nadal is far more talented. Much better hand and eye cordination, fitter and faster. Nadal will achieve far more than Muster.

lordmanji
09-26-2006, 10:50 PM
its not about who's better head to head in some sort of vacuum, but who's better in their own time.

Macbrother
09-26-2006, 10:50 PM
I don't really get all the hype that surrounds this guy. (Muster) Granted, I did not see him play, but I look back at his statistics and all that really jumps out is 1 French Open Championship, and a couple of 30 match streaks. And yet, I very often hear him being spoken of as one of the "best of all time" on clay and of course "king of clay," whereas several other dirtballers have accomplished much more. This is by no means a knock to Muster and I mean no offense to his fans, I'm just curious from someone who saw him play or knows more about him.

Andre♥
09-26-2006, 11:09 PM
Muster played during a time when they were a huge spanish armada. Clavet, both Costas, Corretja, Mantilla and others were so much better than Robredo, Verdasco, etc...

Muster's streak was amazing because there were lots of huge clay talents and Muster was able to beat them all without losing a match for months. And he was the kind of player that was always playing week after week.

Muster vs Nadal would be a great match and I guess it would be 50/50.

Radek Stepanek
09-26-2006, 11:16 PM
I LIKE this thread! It is very true. I have been thinking this for a long time!

Also, :hatoff: to RonE, for being a Fedtard, and for posting something about Nadal that makes sense, even though Nadal is displayed as a pig in his avatar.

hitchhiker
09-27-2006, 12:24 AM
Muster played during a time when they were a huge spanish armada. Clavet, both Costas, Corretja, Mantilla and others were so much better than Robredo, Verdasco, etc...


Very true. we are in a generation where people will struggle to name 5 top clay players.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 12:31 AM
Nadal is far more talented. Much better hand and eye cordination, fitter and faster. Nadal will achieve far more than Muster.

Is running considered talent?

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 12:36 AM
Very true. we are in a generation where people will struggle to name 5 top clay players.

In fact, comparing to the likes of Guga, Muster and the Spanish armada, there are no top claycourters nowadays.

Johnny Groove
09-27-2006, 12:51 AM
RonE and a pro-Rafa post :hearts:

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 12:56 AM
There's always some bullshit excuse for why Nadal is not one of the best clay courter's of all time.....

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 12:58 AM
I mean Nadal beat Coria (when he was playing good), Gaudio, Federer, Ferrero, Moya, Volandri, I mean who the hell does he have to beat to prove that he's an awsome clay courter, Borg?

hitchhiker
09-27-2006, 01:21 AM
I mean Nadal beat Coria (when he was playing good), Gaudio, Federer, Ferrero, Moya, Volandri

Thats the best list anyone can come up with and it says it all.

Gaudio who is always flaky, old Moya, Ferrero who hasnt been the same after 2003, Volandri??, Federer isnt all that natural of a player on clay.

Its not Nadals fault but the clay competition isnt that deep right now, thats a fact.

Its the same on grass. I mean 35 year old Bjorkman in semi and Nadal in final? :o

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 01:40 AM
I mean Nadal beat Coria (when he was playing good), Gaudio, Federer, Ferrero, Moya, Volandri, I mean who the hell does he have to beat to prove that he's an awsome clay courter, Borg?

:haha:

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 02:14 AM
Thats the best list anyone can come up with and it says it all.

Gaudio who is always flaky, old Moya, Ferrero who hasnt been the same after 2003, Volandri??, Federer isnt all that natural of a player on clay.

Its not Nadals fault but the clay competition isnt that deep right now, thats a fact.

Its the same on grass. I mean 35 year old Bjorkman in semi and Nadal in final? :o

Nadal beat gaudio on clay the year after Gaudio won RG, so that's not so bad.

Nadal' also beaten Alamgro, that when playing at his level, is quite good on clay.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 02:15 AM
True, the competition on clay may not be as hard, or as deep as it was a few years ago, but surley Nadal is better than all other past clay courters (with the exception being Borg).

oschemi
09-27-2006, 02:21 AM
:haha:

GlennMirnyi you such a dick. I mean serously, WTF is wrong with you?!? :mad:

World Beater
09-27-2006, 02:33 AM
True, the competition on clay may not be as hard, or as deep as it was a few years ago, but surley Nadal is better than all other past clay courters (with the exception being Borg).

:rolleyes:

forgot about guga conveniently? not that i am surprised. i would by no means say he is surely better than kuerten...he doesnt even have 3 rg's yet. on stats alone, guga is better now...later remains to be seen

my 2 cents: muster is much more aggresive than nadal.

nadal is a more complete player, but he still retrieves a little too much for whatever reason...if the guy learns how to play more aggressive on a consistent basis, he will have a long career.

oschemi
09-27-2006, 02:43 AM
:rolleyes:

forgot about guga conveniently? not that i am surprised. i would by no means say he is surely better than kuerten...he doesnt even have 3 rg's yet. on stats alone, guga is better now...later remains to be seen

my 2 cents: muster is much more aggresive than nadal.

nadal is a more complete player, but he still retrieves a little too much for whatever reason...if the guy learns how to play more aggressive on a consistent basis, he will have a long career.

Guga is better than Nadal?!?? lol. I dont know what Nadal has to do to convince pple. I mean, who wins 62 consecutive matches on a tough surface like this.

hitchhiker
09-27-2006, 02:47 AM
Guga is better than Nadal?!?? lol. I dont know what Nadal has to do to convince pple. I mean, who wins 62 consecutive matches on a tough surface like this.

right now guga has achieved more as have a few others

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 02:49 AM
right now guga has achieved more as have a few others

True, but give Nadal just one more FO, and then by achievments he will be better than Guga, you just watch how some people still state that Guga is a better clay courter...

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 02:50 AM
:rolleyes:

forgot about guga conveniently? not that i am surprised. i would by no means say he is surely better than kuerten...he doesnt even have 3 rg's yet. on stats alone, guga is better now...later remains to be seen

my 2 cents: muster is much more aggresive than nadal.

nadal is a more complete player, but he still retrieves a little too much for whatever reason...if the guy learns how to play more aggressive on a consistent basis, he will have a long career.

I agreen with this.

oschemi
09-27-2006, 02:50 AM
right now guga has achieved more as have a few others

That consecutives no of wins on a single surface is enough to convince me that Guga does not hold a candle to Nadal. This is my 2 cents

World Beater
09-27-2006, 03:01 AM
That consecutives no of wins on a single surface is enough to convince me that Guga does not hold a candle to Nadal. This is my 2 cents



seems you just started watching tennis?

take a look at who nadal beat during his streak...clay depth is really pathetic, and because the grass has been slown down, its nearly impossible to defeat federer- grass depth kinda sucks these days too. fewer grass specialists.

nadal's best win is over gaudio or federer? give me a break. if nadal beats ferrer, gaudio and federer a hundred times in a row on clay doesnt mean he is the best ever on clay, or better than kuerten.

just look at kuerten's wins at rg...who he beat? muster,kafel, medvedev,bruguera etc

if im not mistaken, gaudio, ferrero and moya are the only three players who have won an rg that nadal has beaten...and on the totem pole of rg champions, moya and gaudio arent all that high.

think about the matchups...nadal would have lots of problems against the best bh on clay of all time...what can nadal attack now?

JW10S
09-27-2006, 03:03 AM
Interesting comparison...both are lefties and both had/have long win streaks on clay. Both are very tenacious but Nadal has a bit more variety and a better backhand. I enjoyed watching Muster play--he was a bulldog...

hitchhiker
09-27-2006, 03:03 AM
That consecutives no of wins on a single surface is enough to convince me that Guga does not hold a candle to Nadal. This is my 2 cents


by that logic vilas has achieved more on clay then borg

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 03:05 AM
Hey, I agree with you insofar as admiting that the depth in clay is not as apparent as it was a few years ago.

One thing is saying that Nadal is a OK hard court player, another thing is to say that he is "un-proven" as one if the best clay courters of all time.

Yes both Kuerten and Borg have more RG's than Nadal, this is true. But Nadal in his top form could probably topple any other clay courter in history, of course, odds are they can also beat Nadal in clay as well.

But give Nadal a few more years, and at the pace that he is going on clay, I have no doubt he will be considered the greatest clay courter of all time.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 03:08 AM
by that logic vilas has achieved more on clay then borg

That could easily be negated by looking at the H2H between those two players. You also add the fact that Borg has 4 more RG than Vilas, and then you could disagree with his faulty logic.

However, Borg also had an amazing clay court streak of many games that was ended by an injury in one of his matches. His streak wasnt broken by being defeated.

However Nadal is up there with the best clay courters of all time.

JW10S
09-27-2006, 03:09 AM
My earlier post refered to the comparison between Nadal and Muster. Nadal does not as yet hold a candle to Borg though on clay or any other surface.

oschemi
09-27-2006, 03:15 AM
seems you just started watching tennis?

take a look at who nadal beat during his streak...clay depth is really pathetic, and because the grass has been slown down, its nearly impossible to defeat federer- grass depth kinda sucks these days too. fewer grass specialists.

nadal's best win is over gaudio or federer? give me a break. if nadal beats ferrer, gaudio and federer a hundred times in a row on clay doesnt mean he is the best ever on clay, or better than kuerten.

just look at kuerten's wins at rg...who he beat? muster,kafel, medvedev,bruguera etc

if im not mistaken, gaudio, ferrero and moya are the only three players who have won an rg that nadal has beaten...and on the totem pole of rg champions, moya and gaudio arent all that high.

think about the matchups...nadal would have lots of problems against the best bh on clay of all time...what can nadal attack now?



Then I guess Fed must be the biggest clay clown of all time given the fact that he has been ripped a new asshole each time against Nadal at FO. And you talk about matchups? So you think Guga's 1hbh would have held up against Nadal's topspin??!!?? Lolz. I think you need to watch more tennis

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 03:16 AM
This is true on clay and grass. As soon as Nadal (if he actualy manages to win one) wins a HC GS, then Nadal could be considered a better HC player than Borg.

It sure sounds weird...

Mimi
09-27-2006, 03:17 AM
may be he is on drugs ;)? :smoke: :rolls:
GlennMirnyi you such a dick. I mean serously, WTF is wrong with you?!? :mad:

oschemi
09-27-2006, 03:19 AM
My earlier post refered to the comparison between Nadal and Muster. Nadal does not as yet hold a candle to Borg though on clay or any other surface.

:retard: :retard:

World Beater
09-27-2006, 03:35 AM
Then I guess Fed must be the biggest clay clown of all time given the fact that he has been ripped a new asshole each time against Nadal at FO. And you talk about matchups? So you think Guga's 1hbh would have held up against Nadal's topspin??!!?? Lolz. I think you need to watch more tennis

Are you that :retard:?

one extreme doesnt imply another.

roger isnt great on clay...he is good on clay, not great. kuerten's bh on clay is way better than roger's. many players are better than roger....doesnt mean he is a clown.

nadal needs a 4th set tb to beat federer on clay, and gaudio, the headcase has a win over nadal. and kuerten's fh is miles better than gaudio's...his serve is also miles better than gaudio...

you tell me what happens?

anyways, if you think nadal is a greater player on clay than borg, you seriously need help

JW10S
09-27-2006, 03:37 AM
If you actually have a point to make why not be man enough to type it instead of relying on cartoons.

oschemi
09-27-2006, 03:41 AM
If you actually have a point to make why not be man enough to type it instead of relying on cartoons.

Umm... I think that cartoon says it all.

JW10S
09-27-2006, 03:52 AM
Ah, I see... it's a self portrait.

spencercarlos
09-27-2006, 04:01 AM
Guga is better than Nadal?!?? lol. I dont know what Nadal has to do to convince pple. I mean, who wins 62 consecutive matches on a tough surface like this.
Peak Guga would beat Nadal on clay.
Guga was noy only consistent but also before the hip injury Kuerten was phisically strong, and when on he had a monster serve and lets not even talk about the backhand.

spencercarlos
09-27-2006, 04:03 AM
As for the thread i agree Nadal is an upgraded version of Muster :p

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 04:36 AM
Shut up oschemi you moron. You know nothing about tennis you troll. Guga was the only player in history to beat Sampras and Agassi back-to-back, when he won the TMC. He wasn't a moonballer like Nadal.
3 FO.

Consecutive matches mean nothing. What matters? ACHIEVEMENTS! TITLES! hitchhiker is completely right. By your logic Vilas was better than Borg, and that's absurd.

Nadal doesn't hold even the chandelier to Guga.

leng jai
09-27-2006, 04:41 AM
I just watched my Kuerten Vs Ferrero 2001 RG SF tape. Kuerten would rip Nadal, and Ferrero would probably beat him as well.

Chloe le Bopper
09-27-2006, 05:30 AM
I just watched my Kuerten Vs Ferrero 2001 RG SF tape. Kuerten would rip Nadal, and Ferrero would probably beat him as well.
Oh, ok.

oschemi
09-27-2006, 05:31 AM
I just watched my Kuerten Vs Ferrero 2001 RG SF tape. Kuerten would rip Nadal, and Ferrero would probably beat him as well.

Omg lolz... :haha: :haha: :haha:

Come on you guys..keep the comedy rolling..hahahah

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:19 AM
Hey, I agree with you insofar as admiting that the depth in clay is not as apparent as it was a few years ago.

One thing is saying that Nadal is a OK hard court player, another thing is to say that he is "un-proven" as one if the best clay courters of all time.

Yes both Kuerten and Borg have more RG's than Nadal, this is true. But Nadal in his top form could probably topple any other clay courter in history, of course, odds are they can also beat Nadal in clay as well.

But give Nadal a few more years, and at the pace that he is going on clay, I have no doubt he will be considered the greatest clay courter of all time.

But he is not the greatest and stop proclaiming him as the greatest player on clay already.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:23 AM
Omg lolz... :haha: :haha: :haha:

Come on you guys..keep the comedy rolling..hahahah

As for comedy, you are the only comedic talent in here.

You just started watching tennis yesterday and on this subject matter apart from comedic buffoonery what is your contribution.

It's like me how could I contribute to a conservation with a woman about PMS or childbirth? I can't or won't understand the subject matter fully to contribute anything valuable, so I don't. The same logic applies here.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:31 AM
In fact, comparing to the likes of Guga, Muster and the Spanish armada, there are no top claycourters nowadays.

Basically it was Guga that closed the door on the Muster time on clay, but hey Nadal is the greatest ever claycourter of all time and philistines like us are just deluded.

Exodus
09-27-2006, 06:43 AM
nadal is starting to show some signs of burning out already.

oschemi
09-27-2006, 06:43 AM
Basically it was Guga that closed the door on the Muster time on clay, but hey Nadal is the greatest ever claycourter of all time and philistines like us are just deluded.

Yep, u are.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:54 AM
One more thing- Muster absolutely detested playing the big S&V players. When you pressured him into a corner with fast serving and took away his time that was when he really started to bleed. Rafa is able to generate angles and passes from impossible positions that Muster could only dream about.

And all this from someone who is by no means a Nadal fan and has seen Muster at his prime.

This is true about Muster struggling against S/V players, but the one difference is that he had to more of them than Nadal and on surfaces a lot quicker. This being said Muster could never beat Edberg on anything and he struggled against those kinds of players on all surface, though Nadal doesn't play against guys that served and volleyed with big games like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Stich, Rafter and the like. In spite of this it, it's not a weakness Nadal has to the level of Muster, though Berdych showed that kind of game can trouble him in Cincy when he moved forward more than he normally does.

Nadal is better than Muster at the net? I am glad you think so about that. As for being more aggressive at the same stages of his career well yes without a doubt and don't forget unlike Nadal, Muster had his success later in his career and the fact his hip and knee probs cause of the accident limited the time he played on hardcourts. Muster's backhand was flatter and he didn't beat Sampras on carpet, by hitting moonballs.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 06:55 AM
But he is not the greatest and stop proclaiming him as the greatest player on clay already.
---> Lafuria wrote: "But give Nadal a few more years, and at the pace that he is going on clay, I have no doubt he will be considered the greatest clay courter of all time."

That's not saying that he IS the greatest clay court player but he's merely stating that he COULD become the greatest.
Maybe you find that ridiculous as well (in my book, Borg is the best clay courter) but time will tell, right?

For me, Rafa has only just begun and to proclaim that he's the greatest clay courter is premature. He's one of the best but there were quite a few amazing clay courters.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 07:09 AM
---> Lafuria wrote: "But give Nadal a few more years, and at the pace that he is going on clay, I have no doubt he will be considered the greatest clay courter of all time."

That's not saying that he IS the greatest clay court player but he's merely stating that he COULD become the greatest.
Maybe you find that ridiculous as well (in my book, Borg is the best clay courter) but time will tell, right?

For me, Rafa has only just begun and to proclaim that he's the greatest clay courter is premature. He's one of the best but there were quite a few amazing clay courters.

Well there is the Guga vs. Nadal thread Lafuria was already proclaiming Nadal as the greatest ever claycourter of all time and I said then I am not going to take that him or that claim seriously. I doubt he is suddenly going to change his view on that. That is the reason for my scepticism.

He is not even in the top 5 of all time at this moment, he maybe, he may not be in the end.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 07:45 AM
But he is not the greatest and stop proclaiming him as the greatest player on clay already.

DUDE CAN YOU READ?

Damn man it get frustrating when you distort what IM SAYING.

I AM NOT SAYING HE IS THE GREATEST YET.

IM AM SAYING THAT HE COULD LOSE AGAINST THE BEST CLAY COURTERS OF A FEW YEARS AGO, but he also can beat them and I dare say with more frequency than visa - versa.

IF HE GOES AT THE PACE he is going then YES he will be the GREATEST CLAY COURTER OF ALL TIME. He is not that yet, dammit.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:02 AM
DUDE CAN YOU READ?

Damn man it get frustrating when you distort what IM SAYING.

I AM NOT SAYING HE IS THE GREATEST YET.

IM AM SAYING THAT HE COULD LOSE AGAINST THE BEST CLAY COURTERS OF A FEW YEARS AGO, but he also can beat them and I dare say with more frequency than visa - versa.

IF HE GOES AT THE PACE he is going then YES he will be the GREATEST CLAY COURTER OF ALL TIME. He is not that yet, dammit.

No, I am a functioning illiterate.

What! he could lose against those players that must be a big step to take from previously to admit that? You have no doubts that he will the greatest ever on clay and I have plenty of doubts about that.

As for twisting your words around not at all. As you said previously in the thread using Gaudio, a past it Ferrero and Volandri as examples of who Rafa beat on clay. It's not Nadal's fault that this particular generation of claycourt players wasn't strong as previously, but do you need to overhype him?

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 08:12 AM
How is 62 consecutive wins on clay, beating Federer 4 times in finals, having a perfect record at Roland garros, and winning Monte Carlo, Barcelona Roma and RG 2 years in a row overhyping him? Im not overhyping him, Im stating the fact, and yes, they are quite impressive. By me even merley mentioning these stats its seems as im over hyping him, but im not.

"Yes both Kuerten and Borg have more RG's than Nadal, this is true. But Nadal in his top form could probably topple any other clay courter in history, of course, odds are they can also beat Nadal in clay as well."

That was a quote from the originial post I made where I CLEARLY stated that Nadal could lose against the past great clay courters, but odds are they would lose to Nadal first.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:23 AM
How is 62 consecutive wins on clay, beating Federer 4 times in finals, having a perfect record at Roland garros, and winning Monte Carlo, Barcelona Roma and RG 2 years in a row overhyping him? Im not overhyping him, Im stating the fact, and yes, they are quite impressive. By me even merley mentioning these stats its seems as im over hyping him, but im not.

Vilas had more wins than Borg, so Vilas was better than Borg on clay? You know the answer to this question. Therefore just hiding behind the numbers without having seen all of those players at their respective primes and not taking into account the respective competition at the time. You do it for one and don't do it for the other.

Next point, if you acknowledge that between 1993 and 2003 there was a stronger and greater overall depth of claycourt talent and there was, you have yourself have acknowledged that. Then it clearly stands to reason that it's easier for Nadal to have his fun now, than Muster did over that 2 year period or do you disagree with that? As for overhyping him, well we are never going to agree on that. I know what Nadal has done so far, but when you use Gaudio, a has been Ferrero and Volandri as trying to solidfy your argument then that is funny.

"Yes both Kuerten and Borg have more RG's than Nadal, this is true. But Nadal in his top form could probably topple any other clay courter in history, of course, odds are they can also beat Nadal in clay as well."

That was a quote from the originial post I made where I CLEARLY stated that Nadal could lose against the past great clay courters, but odds are they would lose to Nadal first.

Come on Borg and Nadal in the same sentence at this stage. You are kidding with me now.

So what makes you think Guga would lose to Nadal at his best? It's a terrible match up for Nadal for once and Muster is a bad match up for Nadal. Or do you need me to explain why this is?

It's a hypothetical argument to start of with and you are providing some entertainment for me. You never know Rafa could beat Bruguera more often than not.

RonE
09-27-2006, 08:38 AM
This is true about Muster struggling against S/V players, but the one difference is that he had to more of them than Nadal and on surfaces a lot quicker. This being said Muster could never beat Edberg on anything and he struggled against those kinds of players on all surface, though Nadal doesn't play against guys that served and volleyed with big games like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Stich, Rafter and the like. In spite of this it, it's not a weakness Nadal has to the level of Muster, though Berdych showed that kind of game can trouble him in Cincy when he moved forward more than he normally does.


Of course there are a lot of "what ifs" it's very hard to compare two different eras in the game and lets face it the game has changed quite a bit over the last 10 years. If one were to create a time warp and put Nadal up against Sampras, Edberg, Rafter, Becker on a fast indoor surface it obviously wouldn't be his element but I think he could have done better against them than Muster. Of course it's all speculation but that is my personal opinion.

You mentioned Berdych and yes aggressive players who move into the forecourt obviously give Nadal trouble- however let's not forget that Berdych was not S&Ving netto- he would set the point up with powerful heavy groundstrokes so that the pure S&Vers like Edberg or all rounders like Becker or Sampras would not have that same kind of capability off the ground. It takes a combination of a couple of groundstrokes to soften Nadal up from the baseline and then move foreward close to the net to take away his time (unless you move in off a big serve). Chip and charge tactics would not work against Nadal as effectively as they did against Muster I feel.


Nadal is better than Muster at the net? I am glad you think so about that. As for being more aggressive at the same stages of his career well yes without a doubt and don't forget unlike Nadal, Muster had his success later in his career and the fact his hip and knee probs cause of the accident limited the time he played on hardcourts. Muster's backhand was flatter and he didn't beat Sampras on carpet, by hitting moonballs.

Perhaps "better" was a poor choice of words. He does make more forrays and is prepared to take the net more than Muster. Then again his strokes have more penetration pushing the opponent back allowing him to move in for the kill. As for deft touch in close quarters- Nadal is still a bit lacking in this department he almost never drop shots and he does not execute the subtle touch angled shots near the net as well as Muster did.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 08:39 AM
I've said it before but I really don't see the point in talking about match-ups between a player whose career is finished (or in Kuerten's case, all but over) and another player who's at the beginning of his career.


The comparisons with Borg and other greats are utterly premature but on the other hand there's no need to "underhype" Nadal either (is "underhype" even a word...what's the opposite of "overhype"?) as some tend to do (not looking at anybody in particular).

stebs
09-27-2006, 08:41 AM
Its the same on grass. I mean 35 year old Bjorkman in semi and Nadal in final? :o
It's always been like that on grass. There are always strange players going deep. Voltchkov in the semi's? Washington in the final?. :o

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:47 AM
Of course there are a lot of "what ifs" it's very hard to compare two different eras in the game and lets face it the game has changed quite a bit over the last 10 years. If one were to create a time warp and put Nadal up against Sampras, Edberg, Rafter, Becker on a fast indoor surface it obviously wouldn't be his element but I think he could have done better against them than Muster. Of course it's all speculation but that is my personal opinion.

Yes, of course there are unknown quantities, but it was a fact that Muster struggled against those players on any surface and as for Nadal. I doubt he would lose to these guys on clay if he were playing to his level. It's not something he faces often though and probably won't in the near future.

You mentioned Berdych and yes aggressive players who move into the forecourt obviously give Nadal trouble- however let's not forget that Berdych was not S&Ving netto- he would set the point up with powerful heavy groundstrokes so that the pure S&Vers like Edberg or all rounders like Becker or Sampras would not have that same kind of capability off the ground. It takes a combination of a couple of groundstrokes to soften Nadal up from the baseline and then move foreward close to the net to take away his time (unless you move in off a big serve). Chip and charge tactics would not work against Nadal as effectively as they did against Muster I feel.

Well pure serve/volleying wouldn't work against Nadal unless it was the Belarussian ice and the very light balls played at high altitiude. There is a way to play him and Berdych pretty much shows how it's done and both of them suffer like most players when time is taken away from them, but it requires different tactics in regard to get them on the defensive and able to expose the weaknesses.

Perhaps "better" was a poor choice of words. He does make more forrays and is prepared to take the net more than Muster. Then again his strokes have more penetration pushing the opponent back allowing him to move in for the kill. As for deft touch in close quarters- Nadal is still a bit lacking in this department he almost never drop shots and he does not execute the subtle touch angled shots near the net as well as Muster did.

Are you talking about Muster before or after injury? Muster towards the end of his career had greater success on the hardcourts than on clay? Why was that, then? It wasn't cause he didn't have penetration on his shots, the fact he had to go flatter and that Guga showed him the door on clay, lead to greater success on those surfaces.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:50 AM
I've said it before but I really don't see the point in talking about match-ups between a player whose career is finished (or in Kuerten's case, all but over) and another player who's at the beginning of his career.

The comparisons with Borg and other greats are utterly premature but on the other hand there's no need to "underhype" Nadal either (is "underhype" even a word...what's the opposite of "overhype"?) as some tend to do (not looking at anybody in particular).

Would you rather talk about Federer's nose? Seriously, it is a useless exercise and I am just time wasting at the moment with it, but at least it's something semi-tennis related.

Underhype I think is a word, though personally I would use underrate and as for Nadal I am realistic.

RonE
09-27-2006, 08:58 AM
Are you talking about Muster before or after injury? Muster towards the end of his career had greater success on the hardcourts than on clay? Why was that, then? It wasn't cause he didn't have penetration on his shots, the fact he had to go flatter and that Guga showed him the door on clay, lead to greater success on those surfaces.

Admittedly I did not see Muster play prior to his 1989 injury. But I did see him at his peak years on the clay and in his post domination period on clay.

I am well aware of Muster's success on hardcourts particularly in 1997 when he made the AO semis, won Dubai, IW semis, won Miami, final of Cincinnati. I saw the transformation in his game between 1996 and 1997 when he did become more aggressive and stepped into his shots more flattening them out.

I never said he did not have penetration in his shots- he was fierce and powerful- I simply said Rafa has greater penetration on his shots and the difference is Rafa can hit those shots with a great deal of pace and huge amounts of spin. Muster also had incredible spin on his forehand but Nadal has greater zing and spin on his forehand than Muster did. Nadal can hit his B/H with greater pace and body weight but the fact that his is a double fisted B/H as opposed to Muster's single handed B/H changes the complexion and makes it difficult to compare that stroke.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:04 AM
Admittedly I did not see Muster play prior to his 1989 injury. But I did see him at his peak years on the clay and in his post domination period on clay.

I am well aware of Muster's success on hardcourts particularly in 1997 when he made the AO semis, won Dubai, IW semis, won Miami, final of Cincinnati. I saw the transformation in his game between 1996 and 1997 when he did become more aggressive and stepped into his shots more flattening them out.

I never said he did not have penetration in his shots- he was fierce and powerful- I simply said Rafa has greater penetration on his shots and the difference is Rafa can hit those shots with a great deal of pace and huge amounts of spin. Muster also had incredible spin on his forehand but Nadal has greater zing and spin on his forehand than Muster did. Nadal can hit his B/H with greater pace and body weight but the fact that his is a double fisted B/H as opposed to Muster's single handed B/H changes the complexion and makes it difficult to compare that stroke.

We'll disagree on the backhand side and so you would the say the difference between the forehand/backhand side is greater between who?

Players are going to get more powerful over time that is natural progression isn't it? How is Nadal exactly more aggressive? I mean when Muster was handing out the pain, he didn't do it by being a wall, that is what held him back after the surgery and the mental strain it took to come back which 2 years to overcome, was he had to become more aggressive than he was.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:07 AM
Rafa has no chance to be the best clay courter of all time.
Everyone who plays in todays era sucks.

Borg, Muster & Kuerten were god like and no one will be a better clay courter than them. If someone has greater achievements it doesn't count since their competition sucked.

Even if Nadal wins 10 RG and 200 clay matches in a row he is no where near the greatness of Kuerten, Muster & Borg.

Signed,

GeorgeWHitler

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:09 AM
Rafa has no chance to be the best clay courter of all time.
Everyone who plays in todays era sucks.

Borg, Muster & Kuerten were god like and no one will be a better clay courter than them. If someone has greater achievements it doesn't count since their competition sucked.

Even if Nadal wins 10 RG and 200 clay matches in a row he is no where near the greatness of Kuerten, Muster & Borg.

Signed,

GeorgeWHitler

That was almost humorous.

The TMC is 2 months away, don't try and peak too soon :)

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:13 AM
I am curious, what Nadal would have to do for the haters to respect him and stop belittling his acclomplishments.

Give me some numbers: How many RGs, what streak #?

Hitler lets hear some numbers.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:18 AM
I am curious, what Nadal would have to do for the haters to respect him and stop belittling his acclomplishments.

Give me some numbers: How many RGs, what streak #?

Hitler lets hear some numbers.

Why are you trying to ask me a semi-serious question first of all?

Streak = irrelevant. Pure numbers are irrelevant without quanitfying factors as was said earlier Vilas had more wins on clay than Borg and he wasn't better.

Fact is I am not belittling his achievements, just clowns like yourself who already think he is the greatest claycourter of all time.

Next thing is I don't hate Nadal, just realistic about what he is facing today on clay and he can only beat what is front of him and it's not that much. As for being the greatest claycourt player of all time, he has quite a lot of years to go before he could be considered that.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:20 AM
Why are you trying to ask me a semi-serious question first of all?

Streak = irrelevant. Pure numbers are irrelevant without quanitfying factors as was said earlier Vilas had more wins on clay than Borg and he wasn't better.

Fact is I am not belittling his achievements, just clowns like yourself who already think he is the greatest claycourter of all time.

Next thing is I don't hate Nadal, just realistic about what he is facing today on clay and he can only beat what is front of him and it's not that much. As for being the greatest claycourt player of all time, he has quite a lot of years to go before he could be considered that.

How many RGs? (To consider him the best)
I am curious to see what it will take for you to consider him the best?

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:20 AM
How many RGs? (To consider him the best)
I am curious to see what it will take for you to consider him the best?

100.

liisa
09-27-2006, 09:24 AM
First of all, Nadal already IS the best clay-courter ever. His streak speaks for itself.
Secondly, Muster himself said in a recent interview that he is FLATTERED that they compare him to Nadal. He's full aware of the fact that Rafa is much better, not only FASTER.

stebs
09-27-2006, 09:27 AM
First of all, Nadal already IS the best clay-courter ever. His streak speaks for itself.
Vilas has longest winning streak (all-surface) of all time. So he is the greatest ever?

Ridiculous logic.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:27 AM
The usual oh he has the greatest streak, therefore he must be the greatest. I wish everything was that black and white.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:27 AM
How many RGs? (To consider him the best)
I am curious to see what it will take for you to consider him the best?

Are you serious about that question?

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:27 AM
100.

Wonderful. So no matter what Nadal does, Hitler wont consider him the best on clay. Therefore you are too biased to be taken seriosly in this argument :wavey:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:28 AM
Wonderful. So no matter what Nadal does, Hitler wont consider him the best on clay. Therefore you are too biased to be taken seriosly in this argument :wavey:

Look at the above post, you might even get the 100 in context.

Considering a joker like yourself I am disappointed you couldn't see a clear joke.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:34 AM
Look at the above post, you might even get the 100 in context.

Considering a joker like yourself I am disappointed you couldn't see a clear joke.

Alright then lets have a serious answer.

How many RGs would Nadal have to win for you to consider him the best clay courter of all time?

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 09:37 AM
Would you rather talk about Federer's nose? Seriously, it is a useless exercise and I am just time wasting at the moment with it, but at least it's something semi-tennis related.
Roger's nose? :lol: No thanks.
You're right, this topic of conversation is at least directly related to tennis even if I do find it a rather useless exercice. It beats taking about player's noses.

Underhype I think is a word, though personally I would use underrate and as for Nadal I am realistic.
Underrate? Does that have the same meaning as underhype, though? (never mind, not important).

Doesn't the vast majority of posters think that they are being realistic (other than those who set out to troll on purpose?)

Nadal already IS the best clay-courter ever
Sorry, liisa. Everybody knows me as a huge Rafafan but this is simply not the case YET.
I have too much respect for other masters like Borg to say that and it's simply premature at this point in Rafa's career.


How many RGs would Nadal have to win for you to consider him the best clay courter of all time?
I don't think that asking "how many RGs" will get you anywhere, R=FK.
People will put that in perspective by talking about the depth of competition and so on.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:39 AM
Alright then lets have a serious answer.

How many RGs would Nadal have to win for you to consider him the best clay courter of all time?

First of all does it matter? Second of all it's not just about RG titles in total, though it helps.

Give it a 5-7 year timeframe and then it will be a lot clearer where he stands among the best of all time on clay. This will be a rare time I answer anything from you seriously.

prima donna
09-27-2006, 09:39 AM
Life is short, but there are a few things that I'd be willing to sell my soul to the devil in exchange for an explanation to the logic or reasoning that was used in order to arrive at a certain point of so called "comprehension" or atleast to formulate some bogus conclusion.

Nadal is not the greatest clay court player of all time, one need not mention the simple fact that tennis has reached a different level. I'm speaking from a perspective that places emphasis on the equipment that players of 2006 are using, as opposed to the equipment that a guy like Muster was using during his dominant days or Borg's wooden stick.

Nadal's passing shots from 20 feet behind the baseline would not only be impossible using Borg's stick, but he'd be under the knife constantly trying to correct all of the problems stemming from even trying such a shot.

The same argument could be made for Federer on Grass, but the difference is Federer atleast took out a washed up Sampras. Coria was never king on clay, neither was Gaudio, neither was Ferrero and neither were any of these other imposters.

Also, I can assure you that if Roger were going up against guys like Guga in their prime that he'd get booted off the court in straights, especially considering the fact that even a washed up Guga threw him a straight set beating.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:43 AM
Roger's nose? :lol: No thanks.
You're right, this topic of conversation is at least directly related to tennis even if I do find it a rather useless exercice. It beats taking about player's noses.

Underrate? Does that have the same meaning as underhype, though? (never mind, not important).

Doesn't the vast majority of posters think that they are being realistic (other than those who set out to troll on purpose?)

I have already told you my views on this topic and its seriousness. I mean when people say Nadal is already the greatest, then they are not being realistic.

All things have to be considered, the level of competition is one of them. I mean look at Courier for example, he had the potential to crush everyone on clay and he won it 2 years in a row and then Bruguera got him and it changes, shifts are going to happen.

DDrago2
09-27-2006, 09:48 AM
I mean Nadal beat Coria (when he was playing good), Gaudio, Federer, Ferrero, Moya, Volandri, I mean who the hell does he have to beat to prove that he's an awsome clay courter, Borg?

When you watch Nadal play, his game simply does not convince you, although he is winning

You are also underestimating the amount of luck he had until now. That luck includes not having to play players who have good chance of beating him (did he play Nalbandian, Safin?)

Johnny Groove
09-27-2006, 09:51 AM
Life is short, but there are a few things that I'd be willing to sell my soul to the devil in exchange for an explanation to the logic or reasoning that was used in order to arrive at a certain point of so called "comprehension" or atleast to formulate some bogus conclusion.

Nadal is not the greatest clay court player of all time, one need not mention the simple fact that tennis has reached a different level. I'm speaking from a perspective that places emphasis on the equipment that players of 2006 are using, as opposed to the equipment that a guy like Muster was using during his dominant days or Borg's wooden stick.

Nadal's passing shots from 20 feet behind the baseline would not only be impossible using Borg's stick, but he'd be under the knife constantly trying to correct all of the problems stemming from even trying such a shot.

The same argument could be made for Federer on Grass, but the difference is Federer atleast took out a washed up Sampras. Coria was never king on clay, neither was Gaudio, neither was Ferrero and neither were any of these other imposters.

Also, I can assure you that if Roger were going up against guys like Guga in their prime that he'd get booted off the court in straights, especially considering the fact that even a washed up Guga threw him a straight set beating.

ahh, PD is back and writing Anti-Nadal essays.

If Nadal was using Borg's wooden stick, he wouldnt be 20 ft. behind the baseline in the first place. Hed know that those shots would be impossible and would employ different tactics to win.

And of course there hasnt been a king of clay because the surface is so difficult to dominate and there are so many good clay courters from around the world. However, Nadal has beaten (on clay) ferrero 3 times, Moya 2 times, Costa in 03 when he was defending champ and Nadal was 16, Coria 3 times, and Gaudio 3 times. Again, none of them were ever considered "Kings of Clay" but they are French Open champs from Nadal's career (except Coria of course)

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:55 AM
And of course there hasnt been a king of clay because the surface is so difficult to dominate and there are so many good clay courters from around the world. However, Nadal has beaten (on clay) ferrero 3 times, Moya 2 times, Costa in 03 when he was defending champ and Nadal was 16, Coria 3 times, and Gaudio 3 times. Again, none of them were ever considered "Kings of Clay" but they are French Open champs from Nadal's career (except Coria of course)

Ferrero 2003 and before is a lot different from the Ferrero after the chicken pox and he hasn't been as good.

Costa had his run in 2002 when everything came together, he was actually a bigger threat from 1997 to 2000.

I am a huge Gaudio fan, but seriously he wasn't as good as the two above. He has been too inconsistent to justify that.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 09:55 AM
I mean when people say Nadal is already the greatest, then they are not being realistic.
Agreed. :)

All things have to be considered, the level of competition is one of them. I mean look at Courier for example, he had the potential to crush everyone on clay and he won it 2 years in a row and then Bruguera got him and it changes, shifts are going to happen.
Agreed again. :)

Yes, but my point is that at this stage of his career: those are a lot of potentials and quite a few IFs and BUTs. There's little point in talking about Courier in relation to what might happen to Nadal's career. I mean, you are right to use this to help put the "greatest clay courter" hype into perspective but it's not that relevant either IMO.

In a few years time, we might be sitting here wondering about why Rafa has underachieved OR we could be discussing if anybody in the future will possible be able to equal his accomplishments. Right?

No offence, George and you know my viewpoint on this (I'm repeating myself, I know ;) ) but comparing one career, fully in the past with one career at the beginning is not that realistic either IMO just because there are too many IFs and BUTs.

its.like.that
09-27-2006, 09:57 AM
There is no need to compare these two magnificent players.

Both have been the best claycourters in the world at a particular stage, and that is all that needs to be said.

prima donna
09-27-2006, 09:58 AM
ahh, PD is back and writing Anti-Nadal essays.

If Nadal was using Borg's wooden stick, he wouldnt be 20 ft. behind the baseline in the first place. Hed know that those shots would be impossible and would employ different tactics to win.

And of course there hasnt been a king of clay because the surface is so difficult to dominate and there are so many good clay courters from around the world. However, Nadal has beaten (on clay) ferrero 3 times, Moya 2 times, Costa in 03 when he was defending champ and Nadal was 16, Coria 3 times, and Gaudio 3 times. Again, none of them were ever considered "Kings of Clay" but they are French Open champs from Nadal's career (except Coria of course)

If you'd pay attention to what's being said, instead of getting your tampon in a bunch everytime that you saw Nadal's name written in a partial light, then maybe someday what you contribute to this board would actually become appreciated.

That being said, I've bashed Roger plenty of times (including that last message), anyone that's capable of formulating a rational thought or understands even the first thing about tennis should be more than capable of comprehending the lack of competition, technology and other issues of which have factored into aiding Nadal.

This has always been my major problem with certain fanbases, preferably ones made up of teenyboppers without any prior knowledge of the sport. You can't just go around calling players the best because they've run through mediocre fields for a 2 year period, not how it works.

No argument to be made here, Nadal isn't in the same class as the greatest clay courters of all time.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 10:00 AM
Yes, but my point is that at this stage of his career: those are a lot of potentials and quite a few IFs and BUTs. There's little point in talking about Courier in relation to what might happen to Nadal's career. I mean, you are right to use this to help put the "greatest clay courter" hype into perspective but it's not that relevant either IMO.

In a few years time, we might be sitting here wondering about why Rafa has underachieved OR we could be discussing if anybody in the future will possible be able to equal his accomplishments. Right?

No offence, George and you know my viewpoint on this (I'm repeating myself, I know ;) ) but comparing one career, fully in the past with one career at the beginning is not that realistic either IMO just because there are too many IFs and BUTs.

Of course there are too many what ifs in this sort of this thing and it's a fishing expedition in reality.

The Courier thing was relevant and people thought the same about Muster when he was beating up on everyone. Fact is they got caught and unless Nadal retires this year, then they will catch up with him. That is nothing more than evolution.

As for underachieving even if Nadal retires now or doesn't win another Slam, he wouldn't have underachieved at all.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 10:04 AM
As for underachieving even if Nadal retires now or doesn't win another Slam, he wouldn't have underachieved at all.
Agreed again. :)

ginnylegend
09-27-2006, 12:27 PM
No way has Nadal underachieved. You could say in some ways he has overachieved.

Neely
09-27-2006, 01:13 PM
IF HE GOES AT THE PACE he is going then YES he will be the GREATEST CLAY COURTER OF ALL TIME. He is not that yet, dammit.
Very true. Look at what he has done with 20. He has about 10 more years left to add to this.

So is Nadal the best already? No.
Do I think he will be the best by achievements on clay and reputation on clay presumed he can continue playing healthy? Yes, I do, he has excellent chances for this.


One more thing about the streak. As some have pointed out the streak is not everything. But I would say Nadal's clay winning streak involving two Roland Garros titles and so many Masters titles is not one which he accomplished by playing Mickey Mouse tournaments. So when to Muster, for me, this streak easily sends Muster's clay winning streak packing, by both: quality of tournaments and quantity (too obvious now).


You are also underestimating the amount of luck he had until now. That luck includes not having to play players who have good chance of beating him (did he play Nalbandian, Safin?)
Oh yes, he really needed a HUGE luck for that not to happen :)

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 01:56 PM
Of course there are a lot of "what ifs" it's very hard to compare two different eras in the game and lets face it the game has changed quite a bit over the last 10 years. If one were to create a time warp and put Nadal up against Sampras, Edberg, Rafter, Becker on a fast indoor surface it obviously wouldn't be his element but I think he could have done better against them than Muster. Of course it's all speculation but that is my personal opinion.

You mentioned Berdych and yes aggressive players who move into the forecourt obviously give Nadal trouble- however let's not forget that Berdych was not S&Ving netto- he would set the point up with powerful heavy groundstrokes so that the pure S&Vers like Edberg or all rounders like Becker or Sampras would not have that same kind of capability off the ground. It takes a combination of a couple of groundstrokes to soften Nadal up from the baseline and then move foreward close to the net to take away his time (unless you move in off a big serve). Chip and charge tactics would not work against Nadal as effectively as they did against Muster I feel.



Perhaps "better" was a poor choice of words. He does make more forrays and is prepared to take the net more than Muster. Then again his strokes have more penetration pushing the opponent back allowing him to move in for the kill. As for deft touch in close quarters- Nadal is still a bit lacking in this department he almost never drop shots and he does not execute the subtle touch angled shots near the net as well as Muster did.

Nor can you prove, with any certainty, that Nadal could not beat Kuerten or Muster. You say Kuerten would be a bad matchup for Nadal on clay? Come on, thats simply not true. The 62 match winning streak does prove something: he is more consistent than Kuerten. If you use that logic it means by sheer number of times they would face each other, Nadal would be favorite.

Minimising Federer on clay is a big mistake. Yeah he had'nt reached the FO finals till this year, but his progress on clay had been enourmous.

However my final point is this: if he continues at the pace he is going, he will become the greatest clay court player ever. Yeah he could injure himself, yeah he'll maybe only win 5 FO, in which case Borg remains the best clay courter. But seriosuly dont mention any typical good past claycourt and mention him as a threat to Nadal. That is disrespectful given all he has done on clay in 2 years....

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 02:03 PM
Nor can you prove, with any certainty, that Nadal could not beat Kuerten or Muster. You say Kuerten would be a bad matchup for Nadal on clay? Come on, thats simply not true. The 62 match winning streak does prove something: he is more consistent than Kuerten. If you use that logic it means by sheer number of times they would face each other, Nadal would be favorite.

Why do you have to go back to the streak? It is cause you have flaws in your other arguments? If it hasn't convinced people by now, it's not going to.

Come on please tell me why Kuerten at his best is not a bad match up for Nadal? You still the miss point about Vilas and Borg when it comes to the streak. Therefore by yourself admitting that the level at the moment was lower than previously, then it stands to reason that he is easier to have a streak.

Minimising Federer on clay is a big mistake. Yeah he had'nt reached the FO finals till this year, but his progress on clay had been enourmous.

People aren't underrating Federer, but Federer couldn't beat past it Costa and got shown up by a Guga past his best and lost to Mantilla past his prime on clay. He has progressed, but this is not about him and never has been about him.

However my final point is this: if he continues at the pace he is going, he will become the greatest clay court player ever. Yeah he could injure himself, yeah he'll maybe only win 5 FO, in which case Borg remains the best clay courter. But seriosuly dont mention any typical good past claycourt and mention him as a threat to Nadal. That is disrespectful given all he has done on clay in 2 years....

What's disrepectful is some people thinking Nadal is already the greatest claycourt player of all time.

Rogiman
09-27-2006, 02:29 PM
You say Kuerten would be a bad matchup for Nadal on clay? Come on, thats simply not true. The 62 match winning streak does prove something: he is more consistent than Kuerten. If you use that logic it means by sheer number of times they would face each other, Nadal would be favorite.

:retard:

I've encountered many stupid posters during my 2 years here, and you're up them with the best of them.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 02:34 PM
What's disrepectful is some people thinking Nadal is already the greatest claycourt player of all time.
all the time?

OK...apart from Liisa. Who said that?

There's no crime in believing that he has that POTENTIAL, right? Others might find that delusional as well but it's hard to argue with that since we can't look into the future.
One might argue that thinking that he can become the greatest is wishful thinking but one might also argue that thinking that he won't become the greatest is wishful thinking as well.


About match-ups. Prime Kuerten did not play prime Nadal and they never will do so. Talking about it is sheer speculation no matter how often people use the :retard: emoticon.
Furthermore (and once again repeating the same point): I fail to see the relevance of comparing prime Kuerten with what Nadal has done so far and his level right now in the beginning stages of his career.
Kuerten in his prime might have beaten Nadal. Very possible. Guga in his prime was fantastic. But come to this discussion again when Nadal retires and then we will have a more complete picture to talk about match-ups.

The rest of it is all speculation since these things are not as simple as 1+1=2.

TheBoiledEgg
09-27-2006, 02:37 PM
Edberg would have taken the shit out of Nadal even on clay just like he did to Muster :rolls:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 02:40 PM
all the time?

OK...apart from Liisa. Who said that?

There's no crime in believing that he has that POTENTIAL, right? Others might find that delusional as well but it's hard to argue with that since we can't look into the future.
One might argue that thinking that he can become the greatest is wishful thinking but one might also argue that thinking that he won't become the greatest is wishful thinking as well.

It's more common than you think. There is a difference between potential and the reality as you already know.

The reality is that he isn't by a long way. Whether he does or not, it will be found out soon enough, but the recency effect is always abundant as is a lack of perspective.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 02:46 PM
It's more common than you think. There is a difference between potential and the reality as you already know.
Sure, but the future isn't a reality as we already know.

Maybe I wasn't being very clear but when I used the word "potential" I was talking about what could possibly happen in the future.
Whether that will happen or not is a different matter.
Frankly, reaching Borg will be a very tall order in my opinion.

hitchhiker
09-27-2006, 02:49 PM
Minimising Federer on clay is a big mistake. Yeah he had'nt reached the FO finals till this year, but his progress on clay had been enourmous.


lets not forget federer got destroyed by Kuerten at RG. sure federer has improved on clay since 2004 but it kuerten was far from his peak in 2004 as well

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 02:55 PM
Sure, but the future isn't a reality as we already know.

Maybe I wasn't being very clear but when I used the word "potential" I was talking about what could possibly happen in the future.
Whether that will happen or not is a different matter.
Frankly, reaching Borg will be a very tall order in my opinion.

Lots of things can happen in the future. Nadal could have reached his peak, he could win 50000 matches in a row on clay, he could have a long term injury etc etc.

There are certain things that can be answered when it comes to Guga or Muster vs Nadal. Who would win more of than not isn't one of them. Their gamestyles aren't going to change and the potential match ups could be discussed. Though we all know it's not going to happen.

Richard_from_Cal
09-27-2006, 02:56 PM
I met Thomas Muster....and before the accident, he might have had a hard time thinking that he could be #1.

Comebacks are hard. Hats off, therefore, to Thomas.

...and talent will out. I hope (and do think) that Mr. Nadal would come back...if he had a similar injury. (Not that I'm wishing it on him...)

TennisGrandSlam
09-27-2006, 03:04 PM
Nadal 2005 - 11 titles: Costa do Sauipe, Acapulco, TMS Monte Carlo, Barcelona, TMS Rome, Roland Garros, Bastad, Stuttgart, TMS Montreal, Beijing, TMS Madrid

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=2005&player=N409&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0





Muster 1995 - 12 titles: Mexico City, Estoril, Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Rome, Roland Garros, St Poelten, Stuttgart Outdoor, San Marino, Umag, Bucharest, Essen

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1995&player=M099&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Corey Feldman
09-27-2006, 03:12 PM
Please dont compare tonto the squash player to that austrian clay beast of a legend Thomas

liisa
09-27-2006, 03:18 PM
Please dont compare tonto the squash player to that austrian clay beast of a legend Thomas


:help: :tape: get a life, weirdo

Corey Feldman
09-27-2006, 03:26 PM
:lol:

go suck a fat one doll

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 03:59 PM
:retard:

I've encountered many stupid posters during my 2 years here, and you're up them with the best of them.

I dont see you saying anything for arguments sake, at least I have something to say you asshole.

Rogiman
09-27-2006, 04:14 PM
I dont see you saying anything for arguments sake, at least I have something to say you asshole.
Let's see: Nadal's winning streak is longer ==> Guga can't be a tough matchup for him. :worship:

:retard:

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 04:14 PM
Why do you have to go back to the streak? It is cause you have flaws in your other arguments? If it hasn't convinced people by now, it's not going to.

Come on please tell me why Kuerten at his best is not a bad match up for Nadal? You still the miss point about Vilas and Borg when it comes to the streak. Therefore by yourself admitting that the level at the moment was lower than previously, then it stands to reason that he is easier to have a streak.



People aren't underrating Federer, but Federer couldn't beat past it Costa and got shown up by a Guga past his best and lost to Mantilla past his prime on clay. He has progressed, but this is not about him and never has been about him.



What's disrepectful is some people thinking Nadal is already the greatest claycourt player of all time.


The thing with Vilas is that as soon as he played Borg, much more often than not he would lose. Unfortunatley Nadal and Kuerten never faced each other, and will never face each other in there prime.

Yeah, Tennis is all about match ups, but there hasent been a single player that Nadal can't "figure out" on clay. At least not yer.

I agree with you that it is stupid to say that Nadal is best claycourter ever, that is much too premature. Yeah he could get injured, or maybe not...maybe he will simply start losing on clay...who knows.

All I was talking about is pace. At the pace he is going, he can eventualy be considered the best clay courter of all time. He is not that yet and may never be that.

Well this whole conversation wasent about Guga either, he was brought into it. And yes, Federer has improved enourmously on clay, but I cannot say wether he could beat a top form Guga...probably not.

But you know what, lets stop arguing about this because we are not going to convince each other of anything. That or that we simply arent understanding each other.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 04:16 PM
Let's see: Nadal's winning streak is longer ==> Guga can't be a tough matchup for him. :worship:

:retard:

No you idiot, I didnt fuckin say that. I said that odds are, if they faced each other, based on Nadals record with all other top players on clay, statisticaly Nadal should be able to beat Guga more often than visa-versa. Guga in his prime was amazing, but he was never as consistent as Nadal. This dosent mean that Guga would be a walk in the park, no way in hell, Guga was a phenomenal clay courter, but so it Rafa.

Rogiman
09-27-2006, 04:21 PM
No you idiot, I didnt fuckin say that. I said that odds are, if they faced each other, based on Nadals record with all other top players on clay, statisticaly Nadal should be able to beat Guga more often than visa-versa. Guga in his prime was amazing, but he was never as consistent as Nadal. This dosent mean that Guga would be a walk in the park, no way in hell, Guga was a phenomenal clay courter, but so it Rafa.
A matchup is not about statistics, it's about player X's strengths and weaknesses vs. player Y's strengths and weaknesses, if it were about statistics Federer would never lose :retard:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 04:23 PM
The thing with Vilas is that as soon as he played Borg, much more often than not he would lose. Unfortunatley Nadal and Kuerten never faced each other, and will never face each other in there prime.

Yeah, Tennis is all about match ups, but there hasent been a single player that Nadal can't "figure out" on clay. At least not yer.

I agree with you that it is stupid to say that Nadal is best claycourter ever, that is much too premature. Yeah he could get injured, or maybe not...maybe he will simply start losing on clay...who knows.

All I was talking about is pace. At the pace he is going, he can eventualy be considered the best clay courter of all time. He is not that yet and may never be that.

Well this whole conversation wasent about Guga either, he was brought into it. And yes, Federer has improved enourmously on clay, but I cannot say wether he could beat a top form Guga...probably not.

But you know what, lets stop arguing about this because we are not going to convince each other of anything. That or that we simply arent understanding each other.

I know exactly what I am saying and I have doubts that Nadal could beat Muster on clay consistently at their respective bests. A match up issue there, fact is Nadal doesn't have the game that would put Muster off, not the variations needed to get him out of his rhythm.

Nadal has been beaten on clay before and he might even lose again, though I am not sure if you are prepared to acknowledge that.

Difference between us is I am realistic and not going to proclaim him as the greatest claycourt player or potentially that at the moment. As I said time will work that out soon enough.

If you know tennis is about match ups, then why would say Guga is a bad match up?

Rogiman
09-27-2006, 04:25 PM
All I was talking about is pace. At the pace he is going, he can eventualy be considered the best clay courter of all time. He is not that yet and may never be that.

Another flash of brilliance! Let's see: 62 wins on clay in two years=31 wins per year, for, say, 10 years=310 consequtive wins on clay, plus 1 RG per year==> 10 RG titles! :worship:

That's not the way life goes, you dumbass :retard:

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 04:54 PM
Those guys start watching tennis and after 3 months think they can say something about it.
1st: NADAL'S PEAK IS NOW!!! He's the claycourt version of Hewitt. See what happens to Hewitt today... he's not even a shadow of his former self. Some guys peak when older and some peak when they're still young. You guys are insane thinking Nadal will do a Federer and peak 'till 28. Physical players never last that long.
2nd: Winning streaks mean nothing. What matters is what a player achieves. Great finals, tough matches. What's the big deal of having 100 consecutive wins if they are against Benneteaus, Sarettas, Vinciguerras, Volandris, Normans????

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 05:15 PM
I am going to bump this thread after 2007 RG.

then after the 2008 RG, 2009 RG and so on.

Each time I'll see how many of you are still holding on to your Kuerten dolls. Maybe some of the older people here are too senile to understand reality and or love Federer so much that their brain is too clouded to think clearly.

mangoes
09-27-2006, 05:25 PM
I am going to bump this thread after 2007 RG.

then after the 2008 RG, 2009 RG and so on.

Each time I'll see how many of you are still holding on to your Kuerten dolls. Maybe some of the older people here are too senile to understand reality and or love Federer so much that their brain is too clouded to think clearly.

I have a serious question for you. Has it crossed your mind that this, present, time period may be Nadal's peak period?? Because, if we stop for a moment and consider the fact that if there were not a Roger Federer, Nadal would be closing his second year as no. 1. I'm getting the impression that because Nadal hasn't held the no. 1 spot, most of his fans are still projecting his peak period to come further down the road. But, the playing field may change in the next 2, 3 years. I think it will be very hard for Roger to maintain this level of play for another 2 years. But, in those two years, it may very well be another player, who has found his form, that we haven't considered, that will dethrone Roger. Am I saying that Nadal will not win more French Opens?? No. Am I saying that he won't win about 5 or 6 Grand slams? No. But, Nadal may not be able to dominate the game in a couple of years when the other youngsters catch up to him..........as was the case with Hewitt.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 05:31 PM
1st: NADAL'S PEAK IS NOW!!!
:lol:

While you're at it: care to tell us the lottery numbers for next week? :)

Maybe he's peaking, maybe not but there is no way that you can say for sure that he is peaking.

____
Furthermore, about another favorite cliché: "what happens to Hewitt can also happen to Nadal".
Yes, sure it can. However:
1. I hope that Hewitt can climb his way back and prove people wrong who are saying that he's over the hill. He's still young enough.
2. It's not because Hewitt has a certain path in tennis that the same will happen to Nadal. They're not exactly the same person, are they? I mean, what's the point of saying something like that anyway?

____

By the way, this is a quote by Thomas Muster about Nadal (I know that it doesn't prove a thing but it's still nice to read):

Thomas Muster:
“When I see him play, I see similarities with me and my own game – but it’s just comparing a Formula 1 car from 10 years ago to those that are racing now”, he laughed. “It actually is a compliment, comparing him to me; some years ago, I thought the comparison was just interesting, but now I’m really honoured to be compared to him – plus, he is a modest guy and he has already achieved more than I did. I hope he’s going to break all the records I established”.(August 2006, Pete Bodo's blog, reported by the journalist Miguel Seabra)

rofe
09-27-2006, 05:32 PM
I have a serious question for you. Has it crossed your mind that this, present, time period may be Nadal's peak period?? Because, if we stop for a moment and consider the fact that if there were not a Roger Federer, Nadal would be closing his second year as no. 1. I'm getting the impression that because Nadal hasn't held the no. 1 spot, most of his fans are still projecting his peak period to come further down the road. But, the playing field may change in the next 2, 3 years. I think it will be very hard for Roger to maintain this level of play for another 2 years. But, in those two years, it may very well be another player, who has found his form, that we haven't considered, that will dethrone Roger. Am I saying that Nadal will not win more French Opens?? No. Am I saying that he won't win about 5 or 6 Grand slams? No. But, Nadal may not be able to dominate the game in a couple of years when the other youngsters catch up with him

You are trying to reason with R=FK when he thinks of himself as a shepherd guiding the masses? :lol:

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 05:33 PM
I am trying to figure out why so many people think this is Nadal's peak?

Do you think that or is is wishful thinking. ;)

mangoes
09-27-2006, 05:39 PM
I am trying to figure out why so many people think this is Nadal's peak?

Do you think that or is is wishful thinking. ;)


No, I'm asking you if you have considered this?? This has nothing to do with Rafatards or Fedtards. As I said, this was a serious question. And as I said, this is just something I considered. No one knows if that will be the case. But, it is something that should be considered and not brushed under the carpet as the silly wishful thinking of Fedtards. Removing Roger from this scenario, Nadal would be dominating the game of tennis. And, if that were the case, would we be saying that this isn't Nadal's peak period:shrug:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:45 PM
I am going to bump this thread after 2007 RG.

then after the 2008 RG, 2009 RG and so on.

Each time I'll see how many of you are still holding on to your Kuerten dolls. Maybe some of the older people here are too senile to understand reality and or love Federer so much that their brain is too clouded to think clearly.

Hahahahahahaha, you are already in the TMC.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 05:49 PM
No, I'm asking you if you have considered this?? This has nothing to do with Rafatards or Fedtards. As I said, this was a serious question. And as I said, this is just something I considered. No one knows if that will be the case. But, it is something that should be considered and not brushed under the carpet as the silly wishful thinking of Fedtards. Removing Roger from this scenario, Nadal would be dominating the game of tennis. And, if that were the case, would we be saying that this isn't Nadal's peak period

Seriously there is room for improvement in his game.
He might be at his clay court peak but his overall game can be improved upon.
If you removed Federer, Nadal would win 2 GS this yr while Roddick and Bagh would win 1 each.
I wouldn't call that domination.

Hitler you wont accept Rafa as the best till he wins 100 RGs so your logic is completely twisted.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:51 PM
Hitler you wont accept Rafa as the best till he wins 100 RGs so your logic is completely twisted.

I told you already. You have already had your 1 serious answer to a question for the year and if you choose to ignore that, then it's your fault and not mine.

alfonsojose
09-27-2006, 07:00 PM
I wanted to start a nice dialogue and it ended this way :tears: :sobbing:

vcash, vcash, ... :angel:

DrJules
09-27-2006, 07:39 PM
It is far too early to assess Nadal and compare his achievements in tennis with the greatest ever. However, at just over 20 Nadal has achieved a lot:

2 grand slam - 2* French Open
6 master series - 4 clay court
and 17 titles in total.

This is not to say he will continue to perform at the same level, but the 6 French Open titles won by Borg are certainly attainable, winning more than 10 master titles on clay may be feasible and he may reach a 100 undefeated streak.

Time is on his side and the achievements of Borg and others are possible.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 08:08 PM
Seriously there is room for improvement in his game.
He might be at his clay court peak but his overall game can be improved upon.
If you removed Federer, Nadal would win 2 GS this yr while Roddick and Bagh would win 1 each.
I wouldn't call that domination.

Hitler you wont accept Rafa as the best till he wins 100 RGs so your logic is completely twisted.

Yes, someone who understands...about time.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 08:09 PM
Another flash of brilliance! Let's see: 62 wins on clay in two years=31 wins per year, for, say, 10 years=310 consequtive wins on clay, plus 1 RG per year==> 10 RG titles! :worship:

That's not the way life goes, you dumbass :retard:

Your a fucking Idiot, your filling in made up gaps.

I havent said that Nadal will win 10 RG's YOU said that.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 08:11 PM
I know exactly what I am saying and I have doubts that Nadal could beat Muster on clay consistently at their respective bests. A match up issue there, fact is Nadal doesn't have the game that would put Muster off, not the variations needed to get him out of his rhythm.

Nadal has been beaten on clay before and he might even lose again, though I am not sure if you are prepared to acknowledge that.

Difference between us is I am realistic and not going to proclaim him as the greatest claycourt player or potentially that at the moment. As I said time will work that out soon enough.

If you know tennis is about match ups, then why would say Guga is a bad match up?

Seriously I think you dislike Rafa and that's why you consistently keep saying stuff I never said. I'm sure Rafa is beatable on clay, Federer was within a point of achieving it, Nieminen in Barcelona was quite close too..

Whatever...

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:18 PM
Seriously I think you dislike Rafa and that's why you consistently keep saying stuff I never said. I'm sure Rafa is beatable on clay, Federer was within a point of achieving it, Nieminen in Barcelona was quite close too..

Whatever...

I don't have the blinkers on that is the difference between you and me. I am realistic that is the difference and as for hating Nadal cry me a river please.

He has a long way to go and hey I must hate Federer and Gaudio as well cause I have criticised them in the past.

When you take Rafa = Fed killa seriously, then it's hard to take you seriously.

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:20 PM
Another flash of brilliance! Let's see: 62 wins on clay in two years=31 wins per year, for, say, 10 years=310 consequtive wins on clay, plus 1 RG per year==> 10 RG titles! :worship:

That's not the way life goes, you dumbass :retard:

My friend, I am sorry to tell you that this is the type of forecast quality some empirical macroeconomists produce by extrapolating current trends into the more distant future :scared:

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:29 PM
As for the essence of the argument, my subjective ranking of great claycourt players of the open era goes as following:

Borg
Wilander-Lendl
Guga
Vilas
Bruguera-Muster

Where does Nadal belong in the great scheme of things? It is too early to tell. One thing that is hard to control for is evolution, it is obvious that any modern player would just murder Borg if you just bring him forward with his wooden racket, but what does this say? Nothing.

As for the argument here, it looks obvious to me that Guga is a bad match up for Rafa, as for Muster they have similarities but also differences as other posters have pointed out. The streak tells more about the mental strength and consistency of Rafa and the relative weakness of the current field, at the end of his career Rafa will be judged more by his titles and his influence in the game.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:32 PM
As for the essence of the argument, my subjective ranking of great claycourt players of the open era goes as following:

Borg
Wilander-Lendl
Guga
Vilas
Bruguera-Muster

Where does Nadal belong in the great scheme of things? It is too early to tell. One thing that is hard to control for is evolution, it is obvious that any modern player would just murder Borg if you just bring him forward with his wooden racket, but what does this say? Nothing.

As for the argument here, it looks obvious to me that Guga is a bad match up for Rafa, as for Muster they have similarities but also differences as other posters have pointed out. The streak tells more about the mental strength and consistency of Rafa and the relative weakness of the current field, at the end of his career Rafa will be judged more by his titles and his influence in the game.

That post was right on the money, but that maybe lost on some people.

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:34 PM
More generally, one has to appraise 3 factors, accounting for the evolution of the game.

-titles and career achievement. For example, Borg's three consecutive Wimbledon-RG titles will be hard to repeat
-competition at the time of the achievement. For example, Lendl has as many slams as Agassi, but look at how many slams his opponents in the era got relative to Agassi.
-the effect they exerted on the evolution of the game. Again, Lendl has an influence more important than McEnroe, but Bruguera seems to have influenced clay court tennis a lot.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:38 PM
More generally, one has to appraise 3 factors, accounting for the evolution of the game.

-titles and career achievement. For example, Borg's three consecutive Wimbledon-RG titles will be hard to repeat
-competition at the time of the achievement. For example, Lendl has as many slams as Agassi, but look at how many slams his opponents in the era got relative to Agassi.
-the effect they exerted on the evolution of the game. Again, Lendl has an influence more important than McEnroe, but Bruguera seems to have influenced clay court tennis a lot.

The game keeps evolving. Lendl lost 11 finals but look who he lost to Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg and Wilander these are not exactly duds are they?

Courier lifted the tempo and the fitness and then Bruguera and Muster took it from there and then Guga when he got over Muster made tennis more attacking on clay as the surface got faster as well.

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:39 PM
That post was right on the money, but that maybe lost on some people.

The funny thing is that we will be dismissed as Rafa haters, while some of the people claiming that he will be the best claycourt player of all time (and I don't have in mind specific posters on this board) dismissed Rafa as an overrated clown when he was murdered at the US Open from Roddick and lost on clay to Mutis at the end of 2004.

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:42 PM
The game keeps evolving. Lendl lost 11 finals but look who he lost to Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg and Wilander these are not exactly duds are they?

Courier lifted the tempo and the fitness and then Bruguera and Muster took it from there and then Guga when he got over Muster made tennis more attacking on clay as the surface got faster as well.

I totally agree, I was thinking that Guga would be the man to achieve success in hard court slams as part of the evolution but he was never in form at the AO and he got injured just when he looked ready on doing that at the US Open.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:42 PM
The funny thing is that we will be dismissed as Rafa haters, while some of the people claiming that he will be the best claycourt player of all time (and I don't have in mind specific posters on this board) dismissed Rafa as an overrated clown when he was murdered at the US Open from Roddick and lost on clay to Mutis at the end of 2004.

I am already a Rafa hater cause I won't tow the party line. Well the Rafalution was huge just after DC in Sevilla. Then again hey it's Ok I said he has done quite well on hardcourts at this stage of his career. Then again I forgot Miami was "blue" clay.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 08:44 PM
Can everyone agree on this?

Of all current players, Rafael Nadal has the greatest potential to be the best clay court player of all time.

Whether he gets there or not, time will tell.

Hitler you wouldn't even consider him in the top ten would you?

Aguante_el_Gato
09-27-2006, 08:55 PM
As for the essence of the argument, my subjective ranking of great claycourt players of the open era goes as following:

Borg
Wilander-Lendl
Guga
Vilas
Bruguera-Muster

Where does Nadal belong in the great scheme of things? It is too early to tell. One thing that is hard to control for is evolution, it is obvious that any modern player would just murder Borg if you just bring him forward with his wooden racket, but what does this say? Nothing.

As for the argument here, it looks obvious to me that Guga is a bad match up for Rafa, as for Muster they have similarities but also differences as other posters have pointed out. The streak tells more about the mental strength and consistency of Rafa and the relative weakness of the current field, at the end of his career Rafa will be judged more by his titles and his influence in the game. :worship: 100% agree

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:56 PM
I am going to bump this thread after 2007 RG.

then after the 2008 RG, 2009 RG and so on.

Each time I'll see how many of you are still holding on to your Kuerten dolls. Maybe some of the older people here are too senile to understand reality and or love Federer so much that their brain is too clouded to think clearly.

The funny thing is that if somebody said that Roger will win 3 slams a year for 2007, 2008 and 2009 you would be dismissing that as Fedtardness. Rafa might or might not win RG the next three years. Federer might or might not reatin his current level for 3 more years. These statements carry no information at all, anything one way or another is just wishful thinking.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 09:00 PM
I don't have the blinkers on that is the difference between you and me. I am realistic that is the difference and as for hating Nadal cry me a river please.

No offence, George, but LaFuria has a point. Not about the hating part (because I don't think that you do. You're probably not exactly a fan - fair enough - but that doesn't make you a hater) but he has a point about using words against him that he never said in the first place (not in this thread anyway - don't know about the rest of MTF).

LaFuria never said in this thread that Rafa is the greatest claycourter.
He acknowledged the fact that Rafa is beatable on clay (Federer, Nieminen,...came close).
...

What more do you want from him?

I mean, I seriously don't get it?

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:00 PM
Can everyone agree on this?

Of all current players, Rafael Nadal has the greatest potential to be the best clay court player of all time.

Whether he gets there or not, time will tell.

Hitler you wouldn't even consider him in the top ten would you?

What's wrong with you? That was almost a sincere post.

Facts are you are joker for the most part, so I treat you as one. As for your above quote can you agree the Earth revolves around the Sun?

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:02 PM
Oh my God!

Hitler agreed that it is possible Nadal could one day become the greatest clay court player ever.

My superior logic has brought another being to the light.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:02 PM
No offence, George, but LaFuria has a point. Not about the hating part (because I don't think that you do. You're probably not exactly a fan - fair enough - but that doesn't make you a hater) but he has a point about using words against him that he never said in the first place (not in this thread anyway - don't know about the rest of MTF).

LaFuria never said in this thread that Rafa is the greatest claycourter.
He acknowledged the fact that Rafa is beatable on clay (Federer, Nieminen,...came close).
...

What more do you want from him?

I mean, I seriously don't get it?

Merton explained it clearly enough and you should be able to get that.

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 09:03 PM
Merton explained it clearly enough and you should be able to get that.

No, Merton made a good point about why Rafa is not to be considered as the best claycourter right now but it's not an explanation why you are using words against LaFuria he never said in the first place.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:04 PM
Oh my God!

Hitler agreed that it is possible Nadal could one day become the greatest clay court player ever.

My superior logic has brought another being to the light.

You already think he is the greatest that is the difference. Therefore you bought nothing, sorry to break it you.

You are such a clown I already said earlier within 5-7 years it will be clear enough where he stands, but keep practicing selective reading.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:06 PM
No, Merton made a good point about why Rafa is not to be considered as the best claycourter right now but it's not an explanation why you are using words against LaFuria he never said in the first place.

Hitler is a closet Fed fan. Therefore you cannot say anything positive about Nadal without offending him. Fedtards are like animals, their instinct is to insult Nadal and make up random statements to discredit him.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:06 PM
No, Merton made a good point about why Rafa is not to be considered as the best claycourter right now but it's not an explanation why you are using words against LaFuria he never said in the first place.

He has said it previously not in this thread and anyone who thinks Nadal already is the greatest clay player already, then it doesn't deserve to be taken too seriously.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:08 PM
Why are you such a clown?

Why are you such a fool?

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 09:09 PM
He has said it previously not in this thread
LaFuria, did you?

Within this thread, he didn't so there's no need to get on his case IMO.

anyone who thinks Nadal already is the greatest clay player already, then it doesn't deserve to be taken too seriously.
Yes, we've established that.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:11 PM
Why are you such a fool?

You are a funny guy, hamming it up for the board. You are training hard, but you are not getting a higher seeding :)

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:13 PM
You are a funny guy, hamming it up for the board. You are training hard, but you are not getting a higher seeding

Go watch some old retired player and comment on how much better he is that todays players.

People evolve.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:22 PM
Go watch some old retired player and comment on how much better he is that todays players.

People evolve.

This is what we have established. You just started following tennis recently and think Nadal is already the greatest player on clay, He may or not maybe at the end and that was well established earlier in this thread and yet what is the point you are trying to prove exactly?

The essence is. The rumour goes your tennis knowledge could be written on the back of a postage stamp. The conclusion is that would be folded in half and there'd be space left over.

lafuria, Casta and nearly everyone else in this thread has contributed some very good points, irrespective of point of view, but hey I am just a Nadal hater.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:24 PM
I am 22. Have been following tennis since I was 13. It is my opinion that Nadal is the best clay court player I have seen in the 9 years that I have watched tennis.

Also, people improve in everything from generation to generation. We are smarter, bigger, stronger and faster than people were 100 years ago.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 09:28 PM
R= FK

Thanks for the laughs man, but I have had enough with the jokes for now.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:29 PM
You must be an old man Hitler.

Can't accept the fact that newer generations will always surpass the older generations.

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 09:50 PM
LaFuria, did you?

Within this thread, he didn't so there's no need to get on his case IMO.


Yes, we've established that.

What is it that your asking me?

Castafiore
09-27-2006, 10:01 PM
What is it that your asking me?
My question should be in this thread somewhere but I was just wondering if you previously said on MTF that Rafa IS the greatest claycourter?

You've never said so in this particular thread. That much I know.

ExpectedWinner
09-27-2006, 10:04 PM
I am 22.


22 month young?

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 10:06 PM
My question should be in this thread somewhere but I was just wondering if you previously said on MTF that Rafa IS the greatest claycourter?

You've never said so in this particular thread. That much I know.

Im pretty sure I havent directly or inderctly said that. I think Georhe ought to post when I said that Im curious..

Corey Feldman
09-27-2006, 10:09 PM
Lafuria, Rafa = fed killa

enough of the :bs: already k thanks.

:lol:

Pfloyd
09-27-2006, 10:11 PM
Lafuria, Rafa = fed killa

enough of the :bs: already k thanks.

:lol:

;)

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 10:17 PM
Very few enlightened beings see the logic.

One day you will be intelligent enough to understand Escude. At least you have hope unlike PrimaDonna and GlennMirnyi.

Corey Feldman
09-27-2006, 10:22 PM
;)im surprised big Carlita hasnt been here yet to delete all posts made against you or the mighty spaniards :scared:

well give it time :scared:

One day you will be intelligent enough to understand Escude. At least you have hope unlike PrimaDonna and GlennMirnyiNope...

THis game can rewrite history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FIGHT FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE against the evil minions of the empire!!!!!!!!!!!Go NINJA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PLEA SE I LOVE YOu and I am a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 10:40 PM
Im pretty sure I havent directly or inderctly said that. I think Georhe ought to post when I said that Im curious..

Not a problem man these 2 posts below indicate 2 things. The first one in essence you used a quote from Federer saying "is probably the best clay courter of all time", to back up your point that he is. If I got it wrong, then I got it wrong.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4128550&postcount=63

The second one I clearly state and which you agreed to is that it's too early to say either Nadal or Federer are the best ever in the respective fields.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4128574&postcount=67

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 10:59 PM
Nope...

THis game can rewrite history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FIGHT FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE against the evil minions of the empire!!!!!!!!!!!Go NINJA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PLEA SE I LOVE YOu and I am a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my god Tourmalante Skywalker has been reborn.

Wheres my lightsaber :D

Corey Feldman
09-27-2006, 11:24 PM
"and I am a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/fighting/fighting0040.gif

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 11:31 PM
Join the Rafa side Escude it is your destiny.

Corey Feldman
09-27-2006, 11:37 PM
I'll bandwagon jump him when or if he wins Wimbledon, like i did with JesusFedgod.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 11:49 PM
I'll bandwagon jump him when or if he wins Wimbledon, like i did with JesusFedgod.

:devil:

Pfloyd
09-28-2006, 12:13 AM
Not a problem man these 2 posts below indicate 2 things. The first one in essence you used a quote from Federer saying "is probably the best clay courter of all time", to back up your point that he is. If I got it wrong, then I got it wrong.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4128550&postcount=63

The second one I clearly state and which you agreed to is that it's too early to say either Nadal or Federer are the best ever in the respective fields.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4128574&postcount=67

Yeah dude, I agree with you, we just seem to like to argue or something.

By the way Federer said that, not me. Federer said probably because if he continues this way, he will become the best clay courter, he is en route to becoming it. But yes, he is still 4 rg away...

leng jai
09-28-2006, 12:37 AM
Can we all shut the fuck up now and agree that Tommy Haas is the best claycourter of all time?

Jogy
09-30-2006, 12:27 PM
It is funny to watch when I see always how the posters create and twisting the words and statistics how they need it to make the player they don't like looking bad.

It is not okay to say that Federer has no competition and that his number of titles does not say anything and that the era of Sampras was stronger and that Sampras needed to be much more dominante to win 14 Grand Slams and did not have strollings in the draw like Federer because Sampras had better opponents, and opponents which are more experienced and Grand Slam winner himselves.

At the same time here are people who saying that Nadal's clay winning streak, dominance on clay and straight two French Open titles are not rated high because there is no other good clay player and not many rivals :lol: :haha: great job Federer idiotic tards! :yeah:

GermanBoy
09-30-2006, 12:32 PM
You should change the title: Nadlal = uglier Muster! :devil:

Not that Muster was hot or anything... :p

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-30-2006, 12:37 PM
R= FK

Thanks for the laughs man, but I have had enough with the jokes for now.

Out of interest, which retired claycourters do you rank above Nadal? Muster has openly admitted that, even in his prime, he wouldn't have a hope against Nadal.

Jogy
09-30-2006, 12:44 PM
Out of interest, which retired claycourters do you rank above Nadal? Muster has openly admitted that, even in his prime, he wouldn't have a hope against Nadal.
currently I guess all claycourt players with more Roland Garros would be above Nadal, right? 6 French Open are better than 2.

but I think you also have to see overall dominance and Masters titles and all other stuff Nadal achieved on clay
but French Open most important of course

More interesting question would be what claycourters at the age of 20 would you rank above Nadal?
Easy answer: not anybody!

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-30-2006, 07:52 PM
Well, if it's just a question of counting French Open titles, of course Rafa doesn't come out on top.

wcr
09-30-2006, 10:45 PM
I don't really get all the hype that surrounds this guy. (Muster) Granted, I did not see him play, but I look back at his statistics and all that really jumps out is 1 French Open Championship, and a couple of 30 match streaks. And yet, I very often hear him being spoken of as one of the "best of all time" on clay and of course "king of clay," whereas several other dirtballers have accomplished much more. This is by no means a knock to Muster and I mean no offense to his fans, I'm just curious from someone who saw him play or knows more about him.

Muster nearly lost a leg in an awful automobile accident in Florida. His rehab and return to the game when he went on a long clay court winning streak (all in one year I think) and an RG title is a testament to his strength physically and mentally. Who knows what his career would have been like had he not been so badly injured. How can we know who is more competitive between Muster and Nadal? Has Nadal had to face the same challenge?

World Beater
09-30-2006, 11:26 PM
Muster nearly lost a leg in an awful automobile accident in Florida. His rehab and return to the game when he went on a long clay court winning streak (all in one year I think) and an RG title is a testament to his strength physically and mentally. Who knows what his career would have been like had he not been so badly injured. How can we know who is more competitive between Muster and Nadal? Has Nadal had to face the same challenge?

muster's mind and competetiveness increased after the accident not before...he had to compensate somehow for the physical ability he lost because of the accident...i think his motivation increased and he became a warrior...

muster is the original "animal", not nadal. the guy was hitting shots while in a wheelchair :scared:

JW10S
10-01-2006, 12:45 AM
muster's mind and competetiveness increased after the accident not before...he had to compensate somehow for the physical ability he lost because of the accident...i think his motivation increased and he became a warrior...

muster is the original "animal", not nadal. the guy was hitting shots while in a wheelchair :scared:

Muster was injured in the accident (he was struck by a car while getting his wallet out of the trunk of his) on the eve of what was then the Lipton (this year the Nasdaq) finals--a hardcourt event. Upon his return to the tour he focused on the clay court events because they were initially easier on his leg. The year he won RG and was briefly ranked World #1 he was nearly unbeatable on clay. He later played less and less on clay as he wanted to prove again he could play on other surfaces. As stated Muster realized he had been given a second chance and was an even tougher competitor after the accident. Had he continued to focus mainly on the clay court events he would have won more. Yes, Muster was the original 'Animal'. Nobody liked seeing him in their draw on clay. Nadal has similar passion and has a bit more variety in his game but few players had/have the same grit and determination that Muster had.

the_natural
10-01-2006, 11:22 AM
In 1995 muster won something like 14 titles, the year Agassi was the clear number 1 and Pete was number 2. Just pointing out a fact.

Nadal does have better hard court results but there were more guys in the top 100 who were brought up on the hard courts of america back in his day, no im not trying to bring up the competition debate again, but im just saying that Rafa plays against alotta guys who stay a few feet behind the baseline and try to out rally him, even on hard courts. My point is that Rafa has shown a weakness against guys who can attack the short ball, have strong serves, can do something with a weak reply, and who are QUICK into the net. The "serve volleyers" that Rafa has easily dealt with are Wesley moodey, Mark Phil? (Sorry but tim henman plays more like an underpowered all courter these days he mixes in occassional serve volley), they are either big power players who are slow to the net, or fast net rushers who dont close out the point with strong authouritative volleys. And someone mentioned Robert Kendrick, see that guy had a mix of both, Fast to close in, very good serve (well disguised and nice pace and placement) and he did pretty well against Nadal (yeh I know it was grass so that makes a difference but dont forget that the grass courts these days are being compared to medium paced hard courts these days).

Musters had a one handed lefty backhand if im not mistaken, I think nadals vicious topspin could break down his backhand if he attacked it enough and Nadal could get more shots back into play. Muster however did have that gritty determination, he chased down every ball so he could take a set off him at least.

For people saying that Rafa is stronger than Muster... Welll back in the early 90s there were a number of people who thought that Muster hit the ball (off the ground) harder than anyone ever did before him. With the change in training regimes, racket technology etc I think Muster would match Nadal quite well in the power department.


Im a rafa fanatic, I also enjoyed watching muster play, so im less inclined to be biased against either player, but I think Muster would be a solid match for Rafa on the faster courts, he would probably edge him on the hard courts, On clay Rafa in 4 sets (5 sets max). But thats MY OPINION im not touting it like its a fact.

Action Jackson
10-01-2006, 11:29 AM
Out of interest, which retired claycourters do you rank above Nadal? Muster has openly admitted that, even in his prime, he wouldn't have a hope against Nadal.

Why do you care actually? I have pretty much said everything on this topic already.

MisterQ
10-04-2006, 04:45 AM
Mustered up half a minute of footage here... ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mi87vyvi7wM&mode=related&search=

NATAS81
10-04-2006, 05:07 AM
Also likely a lot stronger than Tom the Tank.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 01:50 PM
Bump. Incredible how people underrated Rafa back in the days he was considered a simple claycourt specialist. Do people really need a number to belive? I mean everyone saying we will see in 5 years, but why do they need to wait 5 years? Do you really need to know much about tennis to see that Rafa is not simply "a more athletic Muster" or that no force would be able to stop him to surpass the likes of Bruguera and Muster?

It is weird, because you dont need to be a tennis genius to just say 7 RGs>6 RGs, the tards seemed to be more spot on in this thread while nostalgic fans just wanted to delay the inevitable that was just happening infront of their eyes.

I know exactly what I am saying and I have doubts that Nadal could beat Muster on clay consistently at their respective bests. A match up issue there, fact is Nadal doesn't have the game that would put Muster off, not the variations needed to get him out of his rhythm.


Wow, that is fanboyism at its best. Like if Nadal would be the one needing to get Muster out of rythm.... :rolleyes:

Does AJ still belive this?


As for the essence of the argument, my subjective ranking of great claycourt players of the open era goes as following:

Borg
Wilander-Lendl
Guga
Vilas
Bruguera-Muster

Where does Nadal belong in the great scheme of things? It is too early to tell.


That post was right on the money, but that maybe lost on some people.

Really? At 2006 it was too early to tell that Nadal was a better claycourter than Bruguera/muster when he at 20 and already more big titles on clay than both Bruguera and Muster in their whole career!

Really?

Macbrother
05-31-2012, 02:15 PM
Really? At 2006 it was too early to tell that Nadal was a better claycourter than Bruguera/muster when he at 20 and already more big titles on clay than both Bruguera and Muster in their whole career!

Really?

Where are your predictions from 6 years ago so we can criticize them, pulverize them, and tell you how stupid they were, einstein?

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 02:21 PM
Where are your predictions from 6 years ago so we can criticize them, pulverize them, and tell you how stupid they were, einstein?

Well, there is a smugness from nostalgitards against the enthusiasm from everyone else about current players which annoys me. When someone ranks Bruguera and Muster ahead of Nadal in 2006, that makes little sense because Nadal had just turned 20 and won more big tournaments than Muster and Bruguera in their whole careers, my question is how far do these people go to lift the past against the present?

To me the only real question in 2006 was if Nadal was better than Borg on clay, that is not a prediction but just a matter of beeing able to see greatness on the court and not numbers. If Nadal would die in a car accident late 2006, would people really rank Muster and Bruguera ahead of him?

Senna died in his 30s in formula one and is ranked by many ahead of Schumacher who beat most of his records, I really wonder how people can rank Bruguera and Muster ahead of someone with more big titles and going for 70-80 wins in a row at the time on the surface and that was doing things never seen since Borg on the surface.

rafa_maniac
05-31-2012, 02:25 PM
No need to gloat. Most of the reasonable ones said "time will tell", and tell it did.

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 02:27 PM
Well, there is a smugness from nostalgitards against the enthusiasm from everyone else about current players which annoys me. When someone ranks Bruguera and Muster ahead of Nadal in 2006, that makes little sense because Nadal had just turned 20 and won more big tournaments than Muster and Bruguera in their whole careers, my question is how far do these people go to lift the past against the present?

Where were you saying Nadal 6 years ago would arguably be the greatest claycourt player of all time around with Borg? Nadal proved himself over time yes 6-7 years is time enough, he didn't prove it then.

Hey genius I can be a genius with hindsight.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 02:29 PM
No need to gloat. Most of the reasonable ones said "time will tell", and tell it did.

Anyone can say "time will tell" about anything, I can tell you the euro cant be saved, my opponent comes with different arguments and then a third one just says "time will tell"?

Such a wise guy...

green25814
05-31-2012, 02:29 PM
Its silly to overrate people at such a young age. Most people agreed Nadal was very special, particularly on clay, but few predicted he'd be such a monster.

But there are so many cases of amazing players at young ages who then fell away, I see nothing wrong with saying Muster was ahead in 06.

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 02:32 PM
sexybeast as usual you got nothing. You weren't around so you get zero respect.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 02:32 PM
Its silly to overrate people at such a young age. Most people agreed Nadal was very special, particularly on clay, but few predicted he'd be such a monster.

But there are so many cases of amazing players at young ages who then fell away, I see nothing wrong with saying Muster was ahead in 06.

I dont listen to economists who said "time will tell" before the crisis, I listen to those who predicted what was to come before the crisis.

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 02:32 PM
Its silly to overrate people at such a young age. Most people agreed Nadal was very special, particularly on clay, but few predicted he'd be such a monster.

But there are so many cases of amazing players at young ages who then fell away, I see nothing wrong with saying Muster was ahead in 06.

Yes, sexybeast knows everything.

green25814
05-31-2012, 02:34 PM
I dont listen to economists who said "time will tell" before the crisis, I listen to those who predicted what was to come before the crisis.

Economics is more about mathematics, why are you comparing it to tennis players? :lol:

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 02:37 PM
sexybeast as usual you got nothing. You weren't around so you get zero respect.

It is not a thing about the EGO, I gloated a bit in the Djokovic-Wilander thread where I predicted Djokovic was not a Safin at 2 slams but one among the greats, that was some really shameful gloating from my side.

This one I was not around but I just ask how some of the selfcalled tennis experts in this site cant predict anything that will come and cant see true greatness in the 2006 Rafa? You rank Bruguera and Muster ahead of 2006 Rafa if he dies in a car accident?

Then I am to belive when you say completely insane hypothetical things like Lendl would win 3 Wimbledons in this era?

green25814
05-31-2012, 02:42 PM
It is not a thing about the EGO, I gloated a bit in the Djokovic-Wilander thread where I predicted Djokovic was not a Safin at 2 slams but one among the greats, that was some really shameful gloating from my side.

This one I was not around but I just ask how some of the selfcalled tennis experts in this site cant predict anything that will come and cant see true greatness in the 2006 Rafa? You rank Bruguera and Muster ahead of 2006 Rafa if he dies in a car accident?

Then I am to belive when you say completely insane hypothetical things like Lendl would win 3 Wimbledons in this era?

Muster is a clay great, so its not as if people were predicting Rafa to be a mug. I think you need to chill out about some posts from six years ago

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 02:47 PM
Muster is a clay great, so its not as if people were predicting Rafa to be a mug. I think you need to chill out about some posts from six years ago

It's simple this guy is bored. Didn't come here and say Nadal was going to be great, yet wants to gloat because we wanted to wait and see what happened. Nadal backed it up, year in and year out since 2005. No one expected at that time it would last that long, but he did and that's what great players do. He was not great in 2006.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 02:49 PM
Muster is a clay great, so its not as if people were predicting Rafa to be a mug. I think you need to chill out about some posts from six years ago

Ok, Muster had his countless mickey mouse tournaments that some people might rank ahead of RAfa 2006s 2 RGs.

But 2006 Rafa was ahead of Bruguera already in every department. 2 RGs=2 RGs Bruguera

2 Romes+2 Monte Carlos>2 Monte Carlos

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 02:52 PM
No one expected at that time it would last that long, but he did and that's what great players do.

Plenty of people in this thread did and got ridiculed by you. I dont need personal glory.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 02:54 PM
Nadal didn't surpass Muster till 2007 IMO

green25814
05-31-2012, 02:57 PM
It's simple this guy is bored. Didn't come here and say Nadal was going to be great, yet wants to gloat because we wanted to wait and see what happened. Nadal backed it up, year in and year out since 2005. No one expected at that time it would last that long, but he did and that's what great players do. He was not great in 2006.

Agreed

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:01 PM
All things have to be considered, the level of competition is one of them. I mean look at Courier for example, he had the potential to crush everyone on clay and he won it 2 years in a row and then Bruguera got him and it changes, shifts are going to happen.

Comparing Nadal 2006 to an american hardcourter in a weak clay era who won 4 titles on clay in his whole career is not very wise.

Smoke944
05-31-2012, 03:02 PM
Courier was a hardcourter? :spit: What more can you enlighten us about? :lol:

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:04 PM
Comparing Nadal 2006 to an american hardcourter in a weak clay era who won 4 titles on clay in his whole career is not very wise.

And this is a strong clay era? Murray in an RG SF?

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 03:05 PM
sexybeast trolling that a 2 time RG winner and finalist was a hardcourter in an era where surface homogenisation didn't exist. As per usual trying to equate what happens in modern tennis and apply it to the 90s on clay dumb dumb dumb.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:06 PM
And this is a strong clay era? Murray in an RG SF?

Better than Petr Korda (who never won a claycourt tournament) in a RG final

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:10 PM
sexybeast trolling that a 2 time RG winner and finalist was a hardcourter in an era where surface homogenisation didn't exist. As per usual trying to equate what happens in modern tennis and apply it to the 90s on clay dumb dumb dumb.

Jim Courier warmed up for the french open playing hardcourt tournaments, jumped the whole claycourt season and played serve and volleyers, Korda and Agassi to win his RG titles. Weak claycourt era, no matter what you think about the surface homogenisation.

4 titles on red clay and close to 20 hardcourt titles make you a hardcourter.

duchuy89
05-31-2012, 03:13 PM
I love Rafa!

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:14 PM
Better than Petr Korda (who never won a claycourt tournament) in a RG final

Korda had the draw open up for him when Cherkasov knocked out Edberg. But he was still the seventh ranked player which is why he had a bit of a favourable draw. But don't let that cloud you over this mighty era which saw Melzer reach the SF in 2010 and Murray in 2011.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:15 PM
Courier defeated two RG champions and one finalist on his way to that 92 title plus an AO champ in the final. Shit draw, shit tournament.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:17 PM
Korda had the draw open up for him when Cherkasov knocked out Edberg. But he was still the seventh ranked player which is why he had a bit of a favourable draw. But don't let that cloud you over this mighty era which saw Melzer reach the SF in 2010 and Murray in 2011.

Yes, but a 17 year old Chang won the tournament 1989 and Edberg-Becker in SF, a 30 year old won the tournament 1990 and in 91 the final was played by 2 americans who had together won a grand total of 2 matches on red clay during claycourt season.

Then 1992 Korda in the final. Mugs in semifinal has beenseen in all eras, but to reach final it must be a real mug era.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:20 PM
Courier defeated two RG champions and one finalist on his way to that 92 title plus an AO champ in the final. Shit draw, shit tournament.

Medvedev was 17, Muster and Agassi were far from their future peaks aswell.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:21 PM
Yes, but a 17 year old Chang won the tournament 1989 and Edberg-Becker in SF, a 30 year old won the tournament 1990 and in 91 the final was played by 2 americans who had together won a grand total of 2 matches on red clay during claycourt season.

Then 1992 Korda in the final. Mugs in semifinal has beenseen in all eras, but to reach final it must be a real mug era.

What was wrong with Chang's win? He knocked out Lendl. Or even Agassi who gets dissed for his clay prowess but won one RG and reached 2 more finals.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:22 PM
Medvedev was 17, Muster and Agassi were far from their future peaks aswell.

Muster had two years prior given Agassi the beating of his life in DC.

Agassi never hit the heights on clay again like he did in 1990-92. Luck went his way in 99.

Corey Feldman
05-31-2012, 03:24 PM
has Action Jacko had a brain aneurysm in this thread yet?

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 03:25 PM
Muster from 91-93 was burned out from his efforts coming back from this. He worked so hard in 1990 and he was shit for years after.

6uNB4tMl8P8

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:25 PM
Muster had two years prior given Agassi the beating of his life in DC.

Agassi never hit the heights on clay again like he did in 1990-92. Luck went his way in 99.

Agassi didnt even participate in the warmup events before RG, he dominated RG together with Courier because the opposition was weak.

You think Agassi could reach RG finals in this era without playing any claycourt event before RG?

You should take a look at Muster's claycourt results in 1992, he won Monte Carlo with a draw made in heaven (not saying this to diminish Muster, but this was his easiest big tournament win on clay) but lost in 1st round in almost every other claycourt tournament before RG.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:28 PM
Agassi didnt even participate in the warmup events before RG, he dominated RG together with Courier because the opposition was weak.

You think Agassi could reach RG finals in this era without playing any claycourt event before RG?

I think any of the current top 3 would, providing they didn't face each other till the final.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:29 PM
Agassi didnt even participate in the warmup events before RG, he dominated RG together with Courier because the opposition was weak.

You think Agassi could reach RG finals in this era without playing any claycourt event before RG?

You should take a look at Muster's claycourt results in 1992, he won Monte Carlo with a draw made in heaven (not saying this to diminish Muster, but this was his easiest big tournament win on clay) but lost in 1st round in almost every other claycourt tournament before RG.

Soderling never did anything in any clay Masters but it doesn't stop him being a well respected player on the surface does it?

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:30 PM
I think any of the current top 3 would, providing they didn't face each other till the final.

This top 3 grew up on clay and can actually slide on clay, claycourt tennis is in their system so to speak.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:32 PM
Soderling never did anything in any clay Masters but it doesn't stop him being a well respected player on the surface does it?

True, but Soderling had gone throught 2 incredible draws in RG and grew up on the surface, Agassi didnt do anything special to reach 2 finals in the 90s, neither did Courier (his 92 draw is debatable).

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:34 PM
This top 3 grew up on clay and can actually slide on clay, claycourt tennis is in their system so to speak.

Agassi wasn't a bad mover on clay. There were better out there, but he still had a good game for the surface. I imagine you're one of these who puts Djokovic ahead of a bunch of 1/2/3 time RG champions.

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 03:38 PM
Cause sexybeast has reading and comprehension issues.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4187034&postcount=158

2006 5-7 years it will be clear enough where he stands. That is obvious enough.

Same year, it's too early to say either Nadal or Federer are the best ever in the respective fields.

Action Jackson
05-31-2012, 03:39 PM
Soderling never did anything in any clay Masters but it doesn't stop him being a well respected player on the surface does it?

Keeps changing the rules to suit the argument.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:39 PM
Agassi wasn't a bad mover on clay. There were better out there, but he still had a good game for the surface. I imagine you're one of these who puts Djokovic ahead of a bunch of 1/2/3 time RG champions.

I dont agree Agassi is not a bad mover on clay, he was a bad mover but his great shotmaking sometimes made up for that.

I put Djokovic ahead of both Agassi and Courier in terms of the tennis he is able to produce on clay. I am sure Djokovic would beat Agassi even with 90s raquets on claycourt, Courier would be more of a challenge but he would beat him aswell.

If Djokovic will surpass Agassi and Courier on clay depends solely on Nadal's future decline, he got 3-4 years to win 1-2 RGs and take his place ahead of them in clay rankings.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:40 PM
I dont agree Agassi is not a bad mover on clay, he was a bad mover but his great shotmaking sometimes made up for that.

I put Djokovic ahead of both Agassi and Courier in terms of the tennis he is able to produce on clay. I am sure Djokovic would beat Agassi with 90s raquets on claycourt, Courier would be more of a challenge but he would beat him aswell.

If Djokovic will surpass Agassi and Courier on clay depends solely on Nadal's future decline, he got 3-4 years to win 1-2 RGs and take his place ahead of them in clay rankings.

So Djokovic is better on clay than them despite having zero RGs. Ace.

bjurra
05-31-2012, 03:43 PM
Agassi wasn't a bad mover on clay. There were better out there, but he still had a good game for the surface. I imagine you're one of these who puts Djokovic ahead of a bunch of 1/2/3 time RG champions.

Djokovic at his best is better than these 1/2/3 time champions. Simple as that.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:44 PM
Djokovic at his best is better than these 1/2/3 time champions. Simple as that.

:haha:

No he's not.

bjurra
05-31-2012, 03:45 PM
So Djokovic is better on clay than them despite having zero RGs. Ace.

Djoko 2.0 hasn't been around that long, he has only had one shot at the title so far.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 03:45 PM
So Djokovic is better on clay than them despite having zero RGs. Ace.

Agassi also had 0 RGs at Djokovic's age and 0 master series. Djokovic's W/L is way better than both Courier and Agassi. My whole point is to say numbers dont say it all, debating about numbers makes you stop debating about tennis.

Rafa was greater than Kuerten and Wilander already in 2006 to anyone who could see tennis potential/abillities and not only numbers.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:46 PM
Agassi also had 0 RGs at Djokovic's age and 0 master series. Djokovic's W/L is way better than both Bruguera and Agassi. My whole point is to say numbers dont say it all, debating about numbers makes you stop debating about tennis.

Rafa was greater than Kuerten and Wilander already in 2006 to anyone who could see tennis potential/abillities and not only numbers.

Guga and Wilander had more RG titles and big clay court titles than him in 2006 so he wasn't.

bjurra
05-31-2012, 03:46 PM
:haha:

No he's not.

In 2018 there will be no Nole, no Rafa, no Fed. The best players around will be like Berdych or Ferrer. Maybe then you will appreciate the greatness of these three.

bjurra
05-31-2012, 03:48 PM
Guga and Wilander had more RG titles and big clay court titles than him in 2006 so he wasn't.

Wilander won at 17 because it was a complete mug era, not because he was some kind of super hero.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:48 PM
In 2018 there will be no Nole, no Rafa, no Fed. The best players around will be like Berdych or Ferrer. Maybe then you will appreciate the greatness of these three.

You aren't a clay court great until you win Roland Garros. I don't think anyone can deny that, not even you.

bjurra
05-31-2012, 03:50 PM
You aren't a clay court great until you win Roland Garros. I don't think anyone can deny that, not even you.

Fed was a superb clay courter even before he won RG. Not even an idiot like you can fail to grasp that.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 03:51 PM
Fed was a superb clay courter even before he won RG. Not even an idiot like you can fail to grasp that.

He was an excellent clay courter but he wasn't a 'great' The clay court greats win the big one. I'm not saying Gaudio is obviously, but the greats win it.

Ok, grandad?

bjurra
05-31-2012, 03:58 PM
He was an excellent clay courter but he wasn't a 'great' The clay court greats win the big one. I'm not saying Gaudio is obviously, but the greats win it.

Ok, grandad?

Grandad? Is is you who is glorifying the past, not me. :)

Even before RG 2009, Fed was a better clay courter than 90% of all previous RG champions. It is not his fault he wasn't born 5 years earlier.