[Start da Game]

giles simon.....

[FlowerPrincess]

I agree, this is the strongest era so far.

[tennizen]

Originally Posted by fast_clay

blood started pissing out my ear after reading this, should i see a doctor..?

depends on the color of the blood

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

i have proven evidences for what i said and you still have none, zero......of course day dreaming is for free so anybody can do that......by the same token of what you are trying to convey with your last sentence, nadal would have developed a game suitable for those conditions too and actually would have done better bBASED ON THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE that he is more adaptable and would relatively have fared better in a non-homogenized era of different surfaces and varied styles.......what you are doing is, blindly assuming based on what fed did in a homogenized era with modern rackets and he is not even 10% adaptable to what nadal is and doesn't even have 30% the heart that nadal has......

I'm not assuming anything, nor do I need to provide any 'proof', because my claim is simply that we don't know how well Federer would have done in a different era. You're the one making assumptions, not me.

Even if Nadal is more adaptable, success = 1.) initial ability/talent + 2.) adaptability. We need to know 1.) first before we can determine anything, and we don't know that precisely because as you say, "you just can't translate their current games to the past".

Federer is very successful in this era, despite in your view not being very adaptable. There's no reason in principle why that couldn't hold true for previous eras.

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm not assuming anything, nor do I need to provide any 'proof', because my claim is simply that we don't know how well Federer would have done in a different era. You're the one making assumptions, not me.

Even if Nadal is more adaptable, success = 1.) initial ability/talent + 2.) adaptability. We need to know 1.) first before we can determine anything, and we don't know that precisely because as you say, "you just can't translate their current games to the past".

Federer is very successful in this era, despite in your view not being very adaptable. There's no reason in principle why that couldn't hold true for previous eras.

that's why you have to read back a few pages.......i am not the one initiating the assumptions game......i only pointed out the clueless opinion that nadal's game would suffer the most when everybody else is using the same technology that he does and nadal is not even that great with his serve, return, volley for his game to take a major hit with the wooden rackets of the 60s......

[Singularity]

That's why I indicated in my first post in this thread, that the argument should end on both sides.

[Clay Death]

how would great athletes like nasty and borg have faired in the modern era?

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Singularity

That's why I indicated in my first post in this thread, that the argument should end on both sides.

it won't end when you want it to end......

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Clay Death

how would great athletes like nasty and borg have faired in the modern era?

borg would have kept himself super fit and kept coming at players......nastase would have enjoyed the new rackets.......

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

that's why you have to read back a few pages.......i am not the one initiating the assumptions game......i only pointed out the clueless opinion that nadal's game would suffer the most when everybody else is using the same technology that he does and nadal is not even that great with his serve, return, volley for his game to take a major hit with the wooden rackets of the 60s......

It's not about "taking a hit", it's about having the game to succeed. Wooden racquets didn't make shit serves, slices, touch, & volleys better; they rewarded good serves, good touch, good slices, & good volleys. Nadal has none of these, Federer has all of them. Ergo, Federer would be more suited to wooden racquets. It's not a question of adapting since Federer would have less to change than Nadal, and in any case the whole notion of adaptation is irrelevant since the thought-experiment involves growing up in the wooden-racquet era. Not to mention the fact that your drivel about adaptability rests on the false premiss that Nadull has demonstrated an ability to adapt. He never had to adapt his game against Fed as it already worked, & he hasn't adapted his game against Djoker.

What's your point again?

[Shirogane]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

...nastase would have enjoyed the new rackets.......

Oh yes, definitely.

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

It's not about "taking a hit", it's about having the game to succeed. Wooden racquets didn't make shit serves, slices, touch, & volleys better; they rewarded good serves, good touch, good slices, & good volleys. Nadal has none of these, Federer has all of them. Ergo, Federer would be more suited to wooden racquets. It's not a question of adapting since Federer would have less to change than Nadal, and in any case the whole notion of adaptation is irrelevant since the thought-experiment involves growing up in the wooden-racquet era. Not to mention the fact that your drivel about adaptability rests on the false premiss that Nadull has demonstrated an ability to adapt. He never had to adapt his game against Fed as it already worked, & he hasn't adapted his game against Djoker.

What's your point again?

the point has been made in the previous pages......when all the players today are using the same technology and whatever you are witnessing today off their rackets is with the same technology of today, you just can't make a blanket statement saying only this player would fit the previous eras or only this wouldn't fit.....

[Shirogane]

Originally Posted by DrJules

You need to watch more tennis from 60s and early 70s.

The game Federer used to beat Sampras in 2001 at Wimbledon would have worked much better than any game I have seen Nadal deliver. Federer was using serve and volley more than playing from the baseline. He used slice and flatter shots more than extreme topspin. Nadal plays a game further from the 60s and early 70s version of the game.

This.

Fed, of course, also won in 2003 playing serve-and-volley tennis.

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Shirogane

This.

Fed, of course, also won in 2003 playing serve-and-volley tennis.

not that.....this, what i am saying now,

he did not play serve and volley and certainly not with a wooden racket.....a serve and volleyer doesn't stay back regularly on second serves......

[Clay Death]

vamos great general shankar.