PDA

View Full Version : Who would win on clay- Nadal vs Guga?


MARK ANDERS
05-05-2008, 07:03 PM
I say Nadal would destroy him, how say you?

lagranwilly
05-05-2008, 07:24 PM
On his prime, I think Guga would have a great chance...It would be a great match to see

PascalMariaFan
05-05-2008, 07:33 PM
I think what you meant to ask is how many points would Guga win.

gj011
05-05-2008, 07:35 PM
Borg. 10 chars.

flyer
05-05-2008, 07:38 PM
This really is not even that close, its Nadal by a mile

Nadal_Freak
05-05-2008, 07:42 PM
Guga in his prime could handle the high ball well but Nadal has a lot more to his game on clay than that. (Drop shots, angles, and passing shots on the run)

Cup8489
05-05-2008, 08:11 PM
plus guga has teh 1hbh..seems a weakness for anyone against nadal...

35ft6
05-05-2008, 08:40 PM
Guga would have to be serving lights out to stand a chance, but it would be a great match. I give the edge to Nadal. I just can't imagine Rafa almost losing to Michael Russell, and Guga had to play a lot of 5 set matches at Roland Garros even when he ended up champion. It would be a great match, though, if Guga was playing 100% and Nadal about 90%. Prime Rios versus Nadal, two lefties, would be just as interesting.

ledor
05-05-2008, 08:44 PM
in both their primes, nadal would edge out guga. I think guga's 1handed backhand would break down a bit faster, but not by much, because guga had great retrieval skills.

quest01
05-05-2008, 08:45 PM
Nadal would destroy Guga and Borg, hands down.

flyer
05-05-2008, 08:48 PM
The only thing Guga actually does/did better was serve, but even thats not a huge edge because Nadal's lefty spinny serves are very effective on clay, besides that Nadal is faster, much better forehand, more solid backhand, faster, better volleyer, better fighter.........long day at the office for Guga

Andres
05-05-2008, 08:48 PM
plus guga has teh 1hbh..seems a weakness for anyone against nadal...
Guga's backhand wasn't a weakness by any means.

Vision84
05-05-2008, 08:51 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qTim7ruk2vs

As much as I love guga though I would have to give the edge to Nadal. Guga will always be my favorite clay courter.

I think Guga would have a better shot than Federer though. Guga's backhand was more of a weapon on clay and he would handle Nadal's high topspin to that side better.

Andres
05-05-2008, 08:51 PM
The only thing Guga actually does/did better was serve, but even thats not a huge edge because Nadal's lefty spinny serves are very effective on clay, besides that Nadal is faster, much better forehand, more solid backhand, faster, better volleyer, better fighter.........long day at the office for Guga
On clay, Guga's FH was better than Nadal's BH, and his BH wasnt any worse than Nadal's FH.

Nadal is 10 times a better mover, though.

Fries-N-Gravy
05-05-2008, 09:01 PM
^
nadal's movement is a huge factor that people forget. everyone's always comparing forehands and backhands. the reality of nadal's dominance is his anticipation is so much better, moves fast, slides well. he's won something like 101 of the past 102 matches or something like that on clay. only loss to fed. and most of his matches end very quickly.

he would destroy prime guga and force prime borg into retirement again, wood racquet or not. people keep talking about "technology", you also have to realize regardless of racquet or strings, players hit much more topspin these days, are fitter, stronger, bigger. the game has evolved and the players have adapted to it. if wood racquets were still in use by pros they would be shattered every other game.

gj011
05-05-2008, 09:05 PM
Prime Guga probably. Prime Borg no way.

"What if" threads like this make no sense anyway. So arguing about this is a moot point.

Fries-N-Gravy
05-05-2008, 09:07 PM
exactly. we don't know how guys like borg or laver would have ended up playing like had they grown up during modern times or vice versa.

Andres
05-05-2008, 09:10 PM
exactly. we don't know how guys like borg or laver would have ended up playing like had they grown up during modern times or vice versa.We're talking about Guga, not Borg, nor Laver.

Cup8489
05-05-2008, 09:10 PM
Guga's backhand wasn't a weakness by any means.

i never said it was, but it's still a 1hbh, and with nadal's skipping groundstrokes, anyone not 6' 10" would have trouble hitting it that high unless they took it on the rise, which is needless to say very difficult

he just wouldnt be able to use it as effectively as he usually could, because nadal's groundstrokes are both extremely solid.

Andres
05-05-2008, 09:17 PM
Have you ever SEEN Guga playing?

In fact, you should check Nadal playing Gaudio. Gaudio is like 5 inches shorter than Guga, and he had no problem punishing Nadal's FH with his backhand drives. Gaudio is the only one hander I've seen actually winning those crosscourt rallies against Nadal on clay.

In fact, at some point, Nadal simply stopped hitting to his backhand. I don't think Guga would be bothered with Nadal high balls, specially since he used to own Muster.

Both Guga and Gaudio could hit vicious topspin backhand drives from anywhere... low balls, high balls, on the run, anything.

The wonders of the extreme EBH, you know?

Dilettante
05-05-2008, 09:22 PM
Have you ever SEEN Guga playing?

In fact, you should check Nadal playing Gaudio. Gaudio is like 5 inches shorter than Guga, and he had no problem punishing Nadal's FH with his backhand drives. Gaudio is the only one hander I've seen actually winning those crosscourt rallies against Nadal on clay.

Nadal owns Gaudio badly. I don't really see your point. A tennis match is much more than just a single shot's analysis.

Andres
05-05-2008, 09:24 PM
Nadal owns Gaudio badly. I don't really see your point. A tennis match is much more than just a single shot's analysis.
I agree 100%. There's a reason why Nadal owns Gaudio badly: He's better than Gaudio at EVERYTHING, except the backhand :)

In the end, Nadal is simply a better player :p

Andres
05-05-2008, 09:28 PM
Nadal owns Gaudio badly. I don't really see your point. A tennis match is much more than just a single shot's analysis.
My point has nothing to do with Gaudio, nor a shot analysis. I'm just explaining WHY Guga would be a better matchup for Nadal than Fed. This other guy said Guga's backhand would be a weakness only because it's a one-hander, and I'm pointing out why it wouldn't be.

Two of the last three guys to beat Nadal on clay had OHBHs: Federer and Gaudio. I still don't know how did Andreev def. Nadal allá en tu ciudad :)

Dilettante
05-05-2008, 09:28 PM
Anyway, I think prime Guga would have a good shot against Nadal. A 100% Coria would have it too, but we just won't see it happen.

And about Guga's BH against Nadal... you have to think that Nadal's topspin can become something simply hummongous,

PD: When Gaudio and Andreev (aquí en mi ciudad donde lo tenemos ya adoptado) did beat Nadal, Nadal was not "Nadal" yet. The only defeat in his prime has been to Fed, but I don't think Fed's BH was the key, but other Fed's game weapons.

Andres
05-05-2008, 09:35 PM
Eso es discutible... Nadal venía de hacer QF en Buenos Aires (perdió con Gaudio), y ganar Costa de Sauipe, Acapulco (10 partidos seguidos en tierra), final del MS Miami, y otros dos partidos más en Valencia. Venía de 12 partidos seguidos en tierra, y un récord de 20-1 en el ultimo mes :p

Después de ese partido, empezó a ganar TODO (ganó Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Roma y Roland Garros de manera consecutiva).

Ya ERA "Nadal". El ultimo partido del anterior Nadal fue contra Gaudio, la semana anterior a ganar todo, en la que ganó el primer set 6-0, y perdio 0-6, 1-6 :p

flyer
05-05-2008, 09:54 PM
^^^Ese era el partido cuando Gaudio se enojo con Nadal?

flyer
05-05-2008, 09:58 PM
Anyway, I think prime Guga would have a good shot against Nadal. A 100% Coria would have it too, but we just won't see it happen.

And about Guga's BH against Nadal... you have to think that Nadal's topspin can become something simply hummongous,

PD: When Gaudio and Andreev (aquí en mi ciudad donde lo tenemos ya adoptado) did beat Nadal, Nadal was not "Nadal" yet. The only defeat in his prime has been to Fed, but I don't think Fed's BH was the key, but other Fed's game weapons.

I don't think Fed had anything to do with that victory what so ever, he played the same as he always does, Nadal was tired (physically but even more so mentally), which is what Federer has to relly on becuase hes not good enough to beat a 100% Nadal, and niether was Guga

Dilettante
05-05-2008, 09:58 PM
Sorry for the Spanish, to the non-Spanish speakers.

¿Te refieres al partido con Andreev? Yo creo que cuando Nadal empezó a creer que estaba muy cerca de ser "invencible" y se transformó en otro jugador fue cuando venció a Coria en Roma. Fue entonces cuando hizo "clic". Hasta ese día, y por mucho que Nadal estuviese progresando, Coria era reconocido unánimamente como el actual rey de la tierra batida incluso pese a no haber ganado RG, y también era famoso por su resistencia y tenacidad. Ahí fue, para mí, cuando Nadal se ciñó la corona del "polvo de ladrillo" como decís por allá. El siguiente Roland Garros fue sólo la confirmación de algo que ya había ocurrido.

I don't think Fed had anything to do with that victory what so ever, he played the same as he always does, Nadal was tired (physically but even more so mentally), which is what Federer has to relly on becuase hes not good enough to beat a 100% Nadal, and niether was Guga

I couldn't watch that match, so I can't really say. I guess Nadal was tired, but Federer is the player who has pushed Nadal further on a claycourt since the (103-1?) streak started. I guess Federer had to do something even being Nadal tired, because no one else has been able to do it in those last three years and Nadal has been tired other times.

FedForGOAT
05-05-2008, 10:01 PM
On clay, Guga's FH was better than Nadal's BH, and his BH wasnt any worse than Nadal's FH.

Nadal is 10 times a better mover, though.

Are you saying Guga's backhand is as much of a weapon on clay as Nadal's forehand? I can't see how you could start supporting that argument. Guga's backhand is definitely not a weakness, but it does not inflict nearly the same a mount of damage N adal's forehand does.

flyer
05-05-2008, 10:04 PM
^^^Yeah that post by Andres confused me too

Nadal_Freak
05-05-2008, 10:31 PM
^^^Yeah that post by Andres confused me too
Yeah Andres is trying not to be biased but saying Guga's backhand is just as good (or bad) as Nadal's forehand definitely shows that. I don't think Guga's backhand would be a weakness but I'm sure he could get some errors on that side. Nadal can handle pace on clay unlike Muster. I believe Nadal has better reflexes and speed compared to Muster.

Mikael
05-06-2008, 03:06 AM
I'm gonna have to go against the flow here and vote for prime Guga vs prime Nadal. However, I definitely would not vote for Coria.

Guga has all the weapons that other players like Blake or Berdych use against Nadal on hard courts, except Guga is an expert at using those weapons on clay (big serve, big shots, can flatten them out). Besides, Guga is tall and used to clay, so he wouldn't be as troubled by Nadal's high topspin. Actually, I believe his 1HB would be a weapon in the crosscourt match-up to Nadal's FH. In a typical play I'd see him angling his BH crosscourt, drawing Nadal off the court, and then sniping it down the line. Guga was a master of both those BHs.

He is also a master of the drop-shot, very useful vs Nadal.

Besides, Guga is one of those few "clutch" players that seem to always come up with the goods on big points, like ace at 30-40 in the 5th set. He certainly wouldn't choke.

OTOH, Coria is the kind of guy that I feel Nadal would beat easily. Coria is a scrappy player, a small dude with a 2HB running everywhere and beating you with consistency. Nadal would outgrind Coria easily, besides he is a much bigger guy and could also beat Coria to the ground with superior power and spin. I just don't see a way for Coria to win. He couldn't outlast Nadal, he couldn't frustrate him, he certainly couldn't outhit him...

Andres
05-06-2008, 04:43 AM
OTOH, Coria is the kind of guy that I feel Nadal would beat easily. Coria is a scrappy player, a small dude with a 2HB running everywhere and beating you with consistency. Nadal would outgrind Coria easily, besides he is a much bigger guy and could also beat Coria to the ground with superior power and spin. I just don't see a way for Coria to win. He couldn't outlast Nadal, he couldn't frustrate him, he certainly couldn't outhit him...And yet, he was two points away from beating him at Rome, when he lost 8-6 in the fifth set TB.

my_forehand
05-06-2008, 05:08 AM
And yet, he was two points away from beating him at Rome, when he lost 8-6 in the fifth set TB.

Por favor disculpe mi pobres espanol y aún más pobres conocimientos de historia de tenis (o es al revés?) Pero cuando los dos hizo jugar unos a otros?

:oops: Jeez.

crosscourt
05-06-2008, 05:13 AM
Guga was as good a player as Nadal -- and had better claycourt opponents to play.

ksbh
05-06-2008, 05:32 AM
Nadal would destroy Guga alright but destroy Borg? You got to be kidding!

Nadal would destroy Guga and Borg, hands down.

boris becker 1
05-06-2008, 05:59 AM
brugera in his prime would have beaten Nadal

zagor
05-06-2008, 06:09 AM
Guga was as good a player as Nadal -- and had better claycourt opponents to play.

Guga at his best was maybe as good as Nadal but day-in,day-out Nadal is far more consistant,he rarely if ever has off days on clay as long as he isn't fatiqued while Kuerten had his fair share of those.As for the better opponents I agree,Kuerten had tougher opponents IMO.Nadal's main rival on clay is Federer who is much more at home on hardcourts and grass than on clay IMO,even Coria and Puerta did as good or better against Nadal,because they're claycourt specialists,not hardcourters trying to play on clay.

Mikael
05-06-2008, 06:16 AM
And yet, he was two points away from beating him at Rome, when he lost 8-6 in the fifth set TB.

Yep Andres, there's a couple of close matches even though Nadal owns the H2H... goes to show that we tend to exaggerate everything on these boards when we talk about tennis players, even though the actual differences are much smaller. Like drawing a caricature of someone instead of taking a neutral photograph.

flyer
05-06-2008, 06:22 AM
Guga was as good a player as Nadal -- and had better claycourt opponents to play.

Like?........Michael Russel?

35ft6
05-06-2008, 06:25 AM
Nadal is the best clay courter I've ever seen. Borg is a bit before my time, but still, I've seen video of his matches, and unless we're talking about a hypothetical Borg with the same raw athletic ability but with different strokes, I don't see how he'd had a chance against Nadal. That flicky backhand of his would be torn apart by Nadal's forehand.

Anyway, Borg versus Lendl, 1981 French Open finals (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

Nadal versus Federer, 2007 finals. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zYJkwgpv8KA&feature=related)

I know we always talk about the power of the modern game, but watching these videos, what strikes me more is the improved placement. Fed and Nadal are hitting harder and closer to the lines, more angles, etc.

boris becker 1
05-06-2008, 06:58 AM
Bruguera was just as fit as nadal. Bruguera didnt miss. Look at how good Bruguera is on the senior tour now. He owns these guys because he is fitter and he has added a slice backhand to his game

Bruguera had a decent serve he would have won a lot of free points on his serve.

bruguera owned muster,costa, kuerten, corretja,ferrero all champions or clay court players. nadal has beaten what accomplished clay court players?????

flyer
05-06-2008, 07:04 AM
Bruguera was just as fit as nadal. Bruguera didnt miss. Look at how good Bruguera is on the senior tour now. He owns these guys because he is fitter and he has added a slice backhand to his game

Bruguera had a decent serve he would have won a lot of free points on his serve.

bruguera owned muster,costa, kuerten, corretja,ferrero all champions or clay court players. nadal has beaten what accomplished clay court players?????

well ferrero which you mentioned also coria, gaudio but there really arn't any becuase nadal is that dominant so they don't have a chance to win anything, if you want to make that argument than how many accomplished clay courters did borg beat?.....thats why you have to analyze their games and the match up, when you look at how the chips stack up its really a no contest

Vision84
05-06-2008, 07:11 AM
I know we always talk about the power of the modern game, but watching these videos, what strikes me more is the improved placement. Fed and Nadal are hitting harder and closer to the lines, more angles, etc.

You just described the effect of poly strings right there.

noeledmonds
05-06-2008, 07:13 AM
Nadal against Kuerten (in their respective primes) would probabely be a far closer contest than most of you seem to suggest. Nadal has far more consitant results than Kuerten but in his prime Kuerten was one of the best clay courters in the open-era. I don't thing anyone would "demolish" a prime form Kuerten on clay. Kuerten would certainly give Nadal a lot more trouble than Federer (Nadal's toughest clay court competition at the moment). Kuerten's one handed backhand is one of the finest in the open-era and would not be neutralised in the same way that Federer's is by Nadal. Who knows what the outcome would be but I suspect both players would be capeable of recording victories over each other. I would narrowly take Nadal over Kuerten if I was pushed to make a desision.

Borg on the other hand is a different matter. Clearly Nadal would beat Borg if Borg played as he did in the 1970s (i.e. with a wooden racket with a tiny frame and even smaller sweet spot). However, if equipment is equal it is hard to argue that anyone in the history of the game could beat a prime Borg on clay. Borg won 2 French Opens without losing a single set in 1978 and in 1980. He was only taken to a tiebreak once over those 2 tournaments also. Borg demolished Vilas (a great clay courter himself and stronger clay court competition than anyone Nadal has faced) on several occasions at the French Open. Nadal has never beaten Federer with nearly as much ease as Borg could beat Vilas. In a hypothetical contest between prime form Nadal and Borg I can only see Borg coming out on top. Also, the longer the match went on the more likely Borg would be to win. Borg's 5 set record is one of the best ever and I don't think ever lost a match that went to 5 sets on red clay. Nadal's 5 set record is less robust and he does sometimes show signs of fatigue.

crosscourt
05-06-2008, 07:25 AM
Like?........Michael Russel?

Not really. Russell is a good player and is capable of pushing good players on all surfaces, but he wasn't quite what I had in mind. I don't recall Russell winning major clay court tournaments.

cc

35ft6
05-06-2008, 07:34 AM
bruguera owned muster,costa, kuerten, corretja,ferrero all champions or clay court players. nadal has beaten what accomplished clay court players?????It's hard to accomplish anything on clay when somebody is thoroughly dominating the surface. But for starters, he beat Costa on clay when he was 16, and he's never even lost a set to Ferrero on clay (he's 6-1), his only loss to Juan coming on hard courts.

Andres
05-06-2008, 08:07 AM
Por favor disculpe mi pobres espanol y aún más pobres conocimientos de historia de tenis (o es al revés?) Pero cuando los dos hizo jugar unos a otros?

:oops: Jeez.
Sorry, didn't get it :p
Wanna try in english? :)

norcal
05-06-2008, 08:55 AM
Last night on TTC they were showing Guga v Norman. Based on that and seeing a lot of Nadal lately I don't see Guga beating Nadal. The more I see Nads on clay the more he's looking like the clay GOAT. He is an animal.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 09:09 AM
And yet, he was two points away from beating him at Rome, when he lost 8-6 in the fifth set TB.
Rome Clay doesn't count. By far the fastest clay out there. Just as fast as Miami and Indian Wells. Of course the movement and unpredictable bounces are still there but not enough to say Coria gives Nadal problems on clay. Same with Fed.

vive le beau jeu !
05-06-2008, 09:24 AM
bruguera owned muster
are you kidding ?!
or you mean muster owned bruguera, right ? :rolleyes:
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=muster%2C+t&player2=bruguera%2C+s
it's almost like muster was bruguera's nemesis !

slice bh compliment
05-06-2008, 09:27 AM
.....bruguera owned muster,costa, kuerten, corretja,ferrero all champions or clay court players. nadal has beaten what accomplished clay court players?????

Bruguera was awesome. Still is. But do you really believed he OWNED Kuerten? Certainly not that day in 1997 in the final of Roland Garros, right?Now, given Rafa's record over the past three years on clay, do you really think the fact that he really has not had to play a ton of former Roland Garros champions takes away somehow, from his legacy?From the tennis that I have seen since the 70s, the best on clay have been Borg, Rafa, Lendl, Guga, Wilander, Vilas and Sergi. Honorable mention to Panatta, Muster, Courier, Chang, Andre, Kafelnikov, Gomez, Alberto Costa, JC Ferrero, Coria, Moya, Gaudio, Corretja and Rios.Third tier: Solomon, Dibbs, Ramirez, Mantilla and many, many others.
Guga at his best would have lost to Rafa more times than not. But the wins would go down in history.

agarasbattier
05-06-2008, 09:41 AM
It would be a close match but Nadal would have won.

crosscourt
05-06-2008, 09:58 AM
Kuerten was a better clay and hard court player than Bruguera.

cc

Moose Malloy
05-06-2008, 10:01 AM
Bruguera was just as fit as nadal.

uh, no. Fitness was never his strength actually. I think many equate 'great claycourter' with 'great fitness' but that's not always the case.

After defeating Courier in the '93 FO final, Bruguera had to leave the court immediately after the trophy presentation to get an IV he was so dehydrated.
While Courier looked like he could go another 5 sets.

but watching these videos, what strikes me more is the improved placement. Fed and Nadal are hitting harder and closer to the lines, more angles, etc.

how about you go videotape yourself playing a match(not just hitting, because we all know that match play is the only way to gauge anything) with a wood racquet with natural gut & then tape yourself playing with whatever you normally use. I'm sure we'll see quite a difference in how close you can hit to the lines, as well as control/pace etc between the racquets.

Man, I wish I knew something about putting videos on the internet, it's sorta sad the same clips have been used to define Borg for years to so many. I have a match on dvd from 1980 - Borg vs Lendl at Basel indoors, with great low camera angles, they were absolutely crushing the ball.

I'd also love to be able to post some footage of Nalbandian playing with a woodie at an exo a while back, it wasn't pretty. He sure as hell had trouble hitting "closer to the lines."

also, did you know that RG used balls that came out of a box in Borg's day?

Andres
05-06-2008, 10:05 AM
Rome Clay doesn't count. By far the fastest clay out there. Just as fast as Miami and Indian Wells. Of course the movement and unpredictable bounces are still there but not enough to say Coria gives Nadal problems on clay. Same with Fed.
You're talking nonsense.

First of all, fastest claycourt out there is Gstaad, not Rome. But you didn't know it.

Second of all, no professional claycourt will be as fast as any hardcourt, no matter how slow the hardcourt is. But you didn't know it, but you'll use it as an argument because you have never stepped a foot on a real claycourt.

You always say Rome is so much faster than Monte Carlo. That's BS. YOU can't even tell. You readed it somewhere and now use it as an argument. And if anything, you can't tell if the difference is the actuall courts or the size of the balls.

Third of all, you get unpredictable bounces only 5% of the total bounces. After all, this is clay, not grass. The only moments you have crazy bounces is when the ball clips the lines. The rest of the time, is pretty predictable. It's vertical, but predictable.

You'll use anything to argue, and you don't care wether if the info is right or wrong... as long as it fits your point, it's fine by you.

The difference between Montecarlo's clay and Rome's clay is probably the same difference between Valencia's clay and Viña del Mar's.

"BY FAR, THE FASTEST CLAYCOURT OUT THERE"... Jeez, go buy a clue. I'll give you the addy of a clue-store. You have absolutely no idea.

And no, i'm not a *******. In fact, I don't even like Fed, and I want Nadal to be #1, but you're beyond idiocy.

And YES, MS Roma DOES count. Why are you ruling out Rome's because of the court speed? If anything, fastest courts help NADAL, not CORIA.

In fact, Coria being so close on a "faster" claycourt speaks better about Coria than about Rafa.

Rome just as fast as MS Indian Wells and MS Miami :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 10:11 AM
You're talking nonsense.

First of all, fastest claycourt out there is Gstaad, not Rome. But you didn't know it.

Second of all, no professional claycourt will be as fast as any hardcourt, no matter how slow the hardcourt is. But you didn't know it, but you'll use it as an argument because you have never stepped a foot on a real claycourt.

You always say Rome is so much faster than Monte Carlo. That's BS. YOU can't even tell. You readed it somewhere and now use it as an argument. And if anything, you can't tell if the difference is the actuall courts or the size of the balls.

Third of all, you get unpredictable bounces only 5% of the total bounces. After all, this is clay, not grass. The only moments you have crazy bounces is when the ball clips the lines. The rest of the time, is pretty predictable. It's vertical, but predictable.

You'll use anything to argue, and you don't care wether if the info is right or wrong... as long as it fits your point, it's fine by you.

The difference between Montecarlo's clay and Rome's clay is probably the same difference between Valencia's clay and Viña del Mar's.

"BY FAR, THE FASTEST CLAYCOURT OUT THERE"... Jeez, go buy a clue. I'll give you the addy of a clue-store. You have absolutely no idea.

And no, i'm not a *******. In fact, I don't even like Fed, and I want Nadal to be #1, but you're beyond idiocy.

And YES, Rome DOES count. Why are you ruling out Rome's because of the court speed? If anything, fastest courts help NADAL, not CORIA.
I was talking about the Clay tournaments that are the biggest. Master Series and Slams. When players are serving 10 aces and winning 70% of their first serve points compared to 2 aces and winning 55% of their first serve point, I'd say there is a big difference in the speed of the courts from Rome and Monte Carlo. You get a clue. Rome counts for Rome but not for the French Open as the speed is quite different as well. When Roddick is doing well, you know the courts are playing faster than normal. I don't know how they get the clay to play that fast but it is looking a lot like a hard court. Nadal is ultimate slow court player. Speed never helps his game but he can still do well on Fast Clay. If he had a choice, he would go with Slow Clay (except Hamburg) everytime.

Andres
05-06-2008, 10:11 AM
bruguera owned muster,costa, kuerten, corretja,ferrero all champions or clay court players. nadal has beaten what accomplished clay court players?????
Bruguera was :
3-12 vs. Muster
0-3 vs. Kuerten
0-2 vs. Ferrero
3-3 vs. Costa
5-2 vs. Corretja

Ohhh, you meant THEY owned Sergi, right? ;)

Andres
05-06-2008, 10:16 AM
I was talking about the Clay tournaments that are the biggest. Master Series and Slams. When players are serving 10 aces and winning 70% of their first serve points compared to 2 aces and winning 55% of their first serve point, I'd say there is a big difference in the speed of the courts from Rome and Monte Carlo. You get a clue. Rome counts for Rome but not for the French Open as the speed is quite different as well. When Roddick is doing well, you know the courts are playing faster than normal. I don't know how they get the clay to play that fast but it is looking a lot like a hard court.
What about Roddick serving 37 aces at the French Open? Were they carpet-like fast?

37 aces vs. Michael Chang, R64 Roland Garros 2001. Roddick won 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-7(5) 7-5 . He served 0 (ZERO) aces next match against Hewitt, while Hewitt served 15 (FIFTEEN). Maybe they sped up the courts each time Lleyton was serving!

Big servers serve big on any surface. You've said clay neutralizes the serve, and I say that's BS. If you've played on clay, you'd never say clay NEUTRALIZES the serve.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 10:21 AM
What about Roddick serving 37 aces at the French Open? Were they carpet-like fast?

37 aces vs. Michael Chang, R64 Roland Garros 2001. Roddick won 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-7(5) 7-5 . He served 0 (ZERO) aces next match against Hewitt, while Hewitt served 15 (FIFTEEN). Maybe they sped up the courts each time Lleyton was serving!

Big servers serve big on any surface. You've said clay neutralizes the serve, and I say that's BS. If you've played on clay, you'd never say clay NEUTRALIZES the serve.
Monte Carlo clay neutralized serves. Rome is still allowing big servers a chance. Not hard to figure out. The slower the surface, the harder it is to dominate with your serve. I've consistently seen higher ace counts and first serve percentage points won except when Rome got totally drenched with water yesterday. Before that though my point was made. A dry Rome court is as fast or close to what Miami was.

Andres
05-06-2008, 10:23 AM
Those 37 aces were at Roland Garros. Not Rome, ROLAND GARROS.

So I guess they also sped up the courts at the French Open, right? Just to prove you wrong?

Ohhh, french ba$*****!

(no offense, VLJB :p)

edberg505
05-06-2008, 10:30 AM
What about Roddick serving 37 aces at the French Open? Were they carpet-like fast?

37 aces vs. Michael Chang, R64 Roland Garros 2001. Roddick won 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-7(5) 7-5 . He served 0 (ZERO) aces next match against Hewitt, while Hewitt served 15 (FIFTEEN). Maybe they sped up the courts each time Lleyton was serving!

Big servers serve big on any surface. You've said clay neutralizes the serve, and I say that's BS. If you've played on clay, you'd never say clay NEUTRALIZES the serve.

Andres, you are wasting your energy. This argument is an exercise in futility.

Andres
05-06-2008, 10:38 AM
Ohhh, I have extra energy to spare, edberg :)

edmondsm
05-06-2008, 10:46 AM
Not this argument again. I love Guga, but he would have lost to Nadal probably 70%-80% of the time.

coloskier
05-06-2008, 11:29 AM
^
nadal's movement is a huge factor that people forget. everyone's always comparing forehands and backhands. the reality of nadal's dominance is his anticipation is so much better, moves fast, slides well. he's won something like 101 of the past 102 matches or something like that on clay. only loss to fed. and most of his matches end very quickly.

he would destroy prime guga and force prime borg into retirement again, wood racquet or not. people keep talking about "technology", you also have to realize regardless of racquet or strings, players hit much more topspin these days, are fitter, stronger, bigger. the game has evolved and the players have adapted to it. if wood racquets were still in use by pros they would be shattered every other game.

Let us not forget that they can only hit with more topspin BECAUSE of the new technology. Try hitting that kind of topspin with an 85 sq in racket and pure gut and lighter balls, and you'll hit more frames than Fed having a bad day.

35ft6
05-06-2008, 11:32 AM
how about you go videotape yourself playing a match(not just hitting, because we all know that match play is the only way to gauge anything) with a wood racquet with natural gut & then tape yourself playing with whatever you normally use. I'm sure we'll see quite a difference in how close you can hit to the lines, as well as control/pace etc between the racquets. Just want to point out I said nothing to the contrary. Sure, equipment played a huge part in it. My main point is that this isn't something people really talk about, the greater shot placement from the baseline of today's players. Once you start talking about power AND placement, some of Nadal and Fed's rally balls are hit with more power, weight, and precision than Ivan and Borg's winners. Yes yes yes, the equipment is a huge part of that, but equipment allows new technique, it's a huge causal loop...

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 11:47 AM
Those 37 aces were at Roland Garros. Not Rome, ROLAND GARROS.

So I guess they also sped up the courts at the French Open, right? Just to prove you wrong?

Ohhh, french ba$*****!

(no offense, VLJB :p)
Yes Roddick had a great serving day. It's about the law of averages. The fact you had to go back 6 years to get a stat like that proves my point. You can still serve aces on clay but they are harder to come by than other surfaces. Rome is the fastest clay. Even the announcers are saying it and it is proven by the averages of the tournament. The French Open is slower than Rome.

lambielspins
05-06-2008, 01:04 PM
On Kuerten's best day it would be almost a toss up. However Kuerten was never anywhere near as consistent or dominant on clay as Nadal. It wasnt simply due to competition. Maybe he did have more competition on clay, but he had a ton of real bad losses or near real bad losses on clay also that Nadal never would have in his prime.

Andres
05-06-2008, 02:04 PM
Yes Roddick had a great serving day. It's about the law of averages. The fact you had to go back 6 years to get a stat like that proves my point. You can still serve aces on clay but they are harder to come by than other surfaces. Rome is the fastest clay. Even the announcers are saying it and it is proven by the averages of the tournament. The French Open is slower than Rome.I picked that number cause that's the record of aces on clay.

Want something more recent? Karlovic, French Open 2007: 22 aces vs. Blake, first round. 32 aces vs. Björkman, second round.

Guccione, Davis Cup 2007 against Belgium: 37 aces on the belgian clay, which was pretty damn slow.

Of course it's harder to ace people on clay... but the key word here is HARDER. You have said several times clay neutralizes the serves, and that ain't true. A serve that clips the line is just as effective on clay than on grass.

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 02:12 PM
Let us not forget that they can only hit with more topspin BECAUSE of the new technology. Try hitting that kind of topspin with an 85 sq in racket and pure gut and lighter balls, and you'll hit more frames than Fed having a bad day.

good thing no one told courier! ;)

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 02:15 PM
kuerten was incredible.

Before gaudio and coria went crazy they ewre basically just as good as nadal and had incredibly competetive matches with nadal.Kuerten was a level above them, as is nadal.They're both awesome, saying one would totally iniolate the other is just stupid.

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 02:16 PM
Those 37 aces were at Roland Garros. Not Rome, ROLAND GARROS.

So I guess they also sped up the courts at the French Open, right? Just to prove you wrong?

Ohhh, french ba$*****!

(no offense, VLJB :p)

let's not forget the success of our good friend Goran!!!!!!!!

veroniquem
05-06-2008, 04:53 PM
kuerten was incredible.

Before gaudio and coria went crazy they ewre basically just as good as nadal and had incredibly competetive matches with nadal.Kuerten was a level above them, as is nadal.They're both awesome, saying one would totally iniolate the other is just stupid.
I'm sorry but nobody in the history of clay was "just as good as Nadal".

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 04:57 PM
I'm sorry but nobody in the history of clay was "just as good as Nadal".

what about borg?

Leelord337
05-06-2008, 04:59 PM
u should add a poll to this

veroniquem
05-06-2008, 04:59 PM
Maybe with the exception of Borg. But at 21, Borg didn't have the amazing records Rafa has right now

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 05:07 PM
Maybe with the exception of Borg. But at 21, Borg didn't have the amazing records Rafa has right now

yes he did

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 05:55 PM
yes he did

He had two Frenches and two Wimbledons. He did all right.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 05:58 PM
He had two Frenches and two Wimbledons. He did all right.
For his time but we all know that the level in 70's is nothing to what it is now. Heck even 90's is not quite at the level now.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 06:02 PM
For his time but we all know that the level in 70's is nothing to what it is now. Heck even 90's is not quite at the level now.

Which is why McEnroe is winning senior tours against much younger players.

But enjoy talking out of your *** all you like.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 06:05 PM
Which is why McEnroe is winning senior tours against much younger players.

But enjoy talking out of your *** all you like.
Seniors tour? :lol: Yeah give me a break. I doubt players are livid about the seniors tour. They've had their time in the sun but I don't think they take that tour as seriously as John McEnroe. Btw where is Borg on that tour?

Babb
05-06-2008, 06:06 PM
Try hitting that kind of topspin with an 85 sq in racket and pure gut and lighter balls, and you'll hit more frames than Fed having a bad day.
Lol... that gave me a good laugh... :D

Wondertoy
05-06-2008, 06:33 PM
plus guga has teh 1hbh..seems a weakness for anyone against nadal...

Look, Guga's 1 handed backhand is better than any 2 handed backhand in the game, including Nadal's. Guga in 5.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 06:34 PM
Seniors tour? :lol: Yeah give me a break. I doubt players are livid about the seniors tour. They've had their time in the sun but I don't think they take that tour as seriously as John McEnroe. Btw where is Borg on that tour?

Insightful.

flyer
05-06-2008, 06:50 PM
Not really. Russell is a good player and is capable of pushing good players on all surfaces, but he wasn't quite what I had in mind. I don't recall Russell winning major clay court tournaments.

cc

yet he psuched Guga to five sets and had match points if i remember correctly, wouldn't happen to Nadal, he buzzsaws people

veroniquem
05-06-2008, 07:01 PM
He had two Frenches and two Wimbledons. He did all right.
Exactly 2 RG, Rafa has 3 plus the incredible streak plus all the other tournaments. We're comparing domination on clay here. Wimbledon is another subject entirely.

bangchu
05-06-2008, 07:01 PM
Rome Clay doesn't count. By far the fastest clay out there. Just as fast as Miami and Indian Wells. Of course the movement and unpredictable bounces are still there but not enough to say Coria gives Nadal problems on clay. Same with Fed.

Damn, is every Nadal troll like this? Don't count this, don't count that. Nadal get pushed to the limit, so don't count it. Oh yes, let's count only when the score is 6-0 because that clearly shows how dominant Nadal is on clay. Remind me again who ate a bagel at Hamburg final last year?

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 07:07 PM
Damn, is every Nadal troll like this? Don't count this, don't count that. Nadal get pushed to the limit, so don't count it. Oh yes, let's count only when the score is 6-0 because that clearly shows how dominant Nadal is on clay. Remind me again who ate a bagel at Hamburg final last year?
Remind me again which tournament is most useful when it comes to Roland Garros? Monte Carlo is the answer.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 07:19 PM
Exactly 2 RG, Rafa has 3 plus the incredible streak plus all the other tournaments. We're comparing domination on clay here. Wimbledon is another subject entirely.

Borg's most dominant years on clay were from 77-80. He was undefeated on red in both 77 and 78 and had a couple of superficial losses in 79 and 80.

I like Nadal and think that he's the only guy worth giving a damn about on clay today, but eventually the mileage will catch up with him. It does that to the best of them and often earlier than expected.

lambielspins
05-06-2008, 07:26 PM
yet he psuched Guga to five sets and had match points if i remember correctly, wouldn't happen to Nadal, he buzzsaws people

That is what I mean. Kuerten at his best could match up pretty evenly vs Nadal at his best. It would be a hell of a match. However Kuerten never sustained a standard consistently even close to Nadal on clay. He only played as well as Nadal plays all the time on clay about 20% of the time.

Nearly losing to Michael Russel at the French Open? You have to be kidding me, that wouldnt happen to Nadal in a million years. Or even going 5 sets with Kafelnikov regularly at the French Open. Federer is a heck of alot better then Kafelnikov on any surface and still doesnt give Nadal that tough a time at Roland Garros yet.

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 07:31 PM
That is what I mean. Kuerten at his best could match up pretty evenly vs Nadal at his best. It would be a hell of a match. However Kuerten never sustained a standard consistently even close to Nadal on clay. He only played as well as Nadal plays all the time on clay about 20% of the time.

Nearly losing to Michael Russel at the French Open? You have to be kidding me, that wouldnt happen to Nadal in a million years. Or even going 5 sets with Kafelnikov regularly at the French Open. Federer is a heck of alot better then Kafelnikov on any surface and still doesnt give Nadal that tough a time at Roland Garros yet.

kafelnikov was a RG champion, the guy had serious game and along with agassi, the most unbelievable groundstrokes I have ever seen, he was, like agassi,a little slow around the court, but this was negated by the clay.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 07:31 PM
That is what I mean. Kuerten at his best could match up pretty evenly vs Nadal at his best. It would be a hell of a match. However Kuerten never sustained a standard consistently even close to Nadal on clay. He only played as well as Nadal plays all the time on clay about 20% of the time.

Nearly losing to Michael Russel at the French Open? You have to be kidding me, that wouldnt happen to Nadal in a million years. Or even going 5 sets with Kafelnikov regularly at the French Open. Federer is a heck of alot better then Kafelnikov on any surface and still doesnt give Nadal that tough a time at Roland Garros yet.

Some players are tougher matchups for some than others.

We've had Canas beat Federer in back-to-back tournaments and that's not because Canas is a great player. It's because at that particular time he was a terrible matchup for Roger. Roger, at the same time, dominated Roddick. Is Canas better than Roddick. Of course not.

It's the same thing with Kafelnikov or Russell and Guga.

The fact is that Guga was a great player, even if not always consistent. Part of the reason he was not as consistent as Rafa is that he played in one of the deeper eras of clay court tennis in the history of the sport. Rafa plays in one of the weakest. His two best opponents on the surface are not clay courters (Federer/Djokovic).

The question that must be posed is whether Kuerten would be a tough matchup for Nadal and I think that the answer is yes. Kuerten had guts, something that most of his opponents on clay today lack. His backhand up the line would also bother Nadal.

Another tough matchup for Nadal would have been peak Muster who, as !Tym put it recently, was a genuine assassin.

lambielspins
05-06-2008, 07:56 PM
We've had Canas beat Federer in back-to-back tournaments and that's not because Canas is a great player. It's because at that particular time he was a terrible matchup for Roger.

No it was because of major major fluke. It was probably the biggest back-to-back fluke result of this entire decade in tennis. One-time flukes of that caliber happen rarely, but two-times are even rarer, but that was just one of those. I know it may sound easy to say this, but I said this in another thread too, and that was evidenced by Federer's easy next 4 sets vs Canas where he dropped a mere 9 games, which is what anyone with a brain fully expected to happen. Hopefully they play another 6 times so the myth some sillies have that Canas is a tough opponent based on a couple bigtime fluke wins is driven home even further.

Roger, at the same time, dominated Roddick.

This is understandable. Roger is a much better player then Roddick. Roger also dominates Davydenko to about the same degree, and in the last 3 years he is about equal the player that Roddick is.

Is Canas better than Roddick. Of course not.

Read paragraph 1.

It's the same thing with Kafelnikov or Russell and Guga.

Kuerten has had other bad showings on clay other then his performances vs Russell and Kafelnikov. Look at all his early round losses on the surface even in his dominant years of 1999-2001, and even though the French Open is the biggie you know full well as a clay court fan that events like Monte Carlo and Rome especialy are special to these clay courters, especialy to the more clay specialist types like Kuerten, who was not as successful overall on other surfaces a s Nadal. This whole time of the year are very special to them and any events like those that are big with such a long history even moreso.

The fact is that Guga was a great player, even if not always consistent. Part of the reason he was not as consistent as Rafa is that he played in one of the deeper eras of clay court tennis in the history of the sport.

I would be happy to list all his losses on clay even from 1999-2001. This would dispell any theory he wasnt as consistent strictly due to the "competition".

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 08:04 PM
No it was because of major major fluke. It was probably the biggest back-to-back fluke result of this entire decade in tennis. One-time flukes of that caliber happen rarely, but two-times are even rarer, but that was just one of those. I know it may sound easy to say this, but I said this in another thread too, and that was evidenced by Federer's easy next 4 sets vs Canas where he dropped a mere 9 games, which is what anyone with a brain fully expected to happen. Hopefully they play another 6 times so the myth some sillies have that Canas is a tough opponent based on a couple bigtime fluke wins is driven home even further.



This is understandable. Roger is a much better player then Roddick. Roger also dominates Davydenko to about the same degree, and in the last 3 years he is about equal the player that Roddick is.



Read paragraph 1.



Kuerten has had other bad showings on clay other then his performances vs Russell and Kafelnikov. Look at all his early round losses on the surface even in his dominant years of 1999-2001, and even though the French Open is the biggie you know full well as a clay court fan that events like Monte Carlo and Rome especialy are special to these clay courters, especialy to the more clay specialist types like Kuerten, who was not as successful overall on other surfaces a s Nadal. This whole time of the year are very special to them and any events like those that are big with such a long history even moreso.



I would be happy to list all his losses on clay even from 1999-2001. This would dispell any theory he wasnt as consistent strictly due to the "competition".

I'm not going through all of this, because most people already know my opinion.

I would rate Nadal higher than Kuerten, but I think that best-against-best Kuerten v. Nadal we have a best-of-five match and it comes down to pure guts. You can throw out the little things. Both guys are geniuses of clay.

And I don't agree that Canas was a fluke. He was fresh coming off a lot of time off tennis, but being an old guy he's gotten worn out during 2007. He's not the same player.

lambielspins
05-06-2008, 08:57 PM
I'm not going through all of this, because most people already know my opinion.

I would rate Nadal higher than Kuerten, but I think that best-against-best Kuerten v. Nadal we have a best-of-five match and it comes down to pure guts. You can throw out the little things. Both guys are geniuses of clay.

And I don't agree that Canas was a fluke. He was fresh coming off a lot of time off tennis, but being an old guy he's gotten worn out during 2007. He's not the same player.

Well I agree with that so we dont really disagree then anyway. I already said Kuerten at his best vs Nadal at his best on clay would be a virtual dead heat that could go either way. I also said however that Kuerten only played his best on clay some of the time, Nadal does all the time, which is why he is by far the more consistent and dominant clay courter. Also even if Nadal would arguably have been less dominant with better competition which I concede is possible, Kuerten would not have been this dominant vs even today competition on clay for those very reasons.

As for Canas fine if you dont think he was ever a fluke. I still think his tennis of March-June last year was a bigtime fluke. This is a guy who is a many years veteran of the ATP tour before his suspension and spent a measley 12 weeks of his career ranked in the top 10 (even then only 8-10 those career best 12 weeks in the rankings). Before the suspension he managed a mere 1 slam quarterfinal. He just isnt that good. His caliber of March-June last year, not only in his wins vs Federer, was a fluke for a player like him which could never have continued IMO.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 09:15 PM
Well I agree with that so we dont really disagree then anyway. I already said Kuerten at his best vs Nadal at his best on clay would be a virtual dead heat that could go either way. I also said however that Kuerten only played his best on clay some of the time, Nadal does all the time, which is why he is by far the more consistent and dominant clay courter. Also even if Nadal would arguably have been less dominant with better competition which I concede is possible, Kuerten would not have been this dominant vs even today competition on clay for those very reasons.

The thread question was - Nadal v Guga; who would win. Not which should be rated ahead of the other. So, there's nothing to argue about.

As for Canas fine if you dont think he was ever a fluke. I still think his tennis of March-June last year was a bigtime fluke. This is a guy who is a many years veteran of the ATP tour before his suspension and spent a measley 12 weeks of his career ranked in the top 10 (even then only 8-10 those career best 12 weeks in the rankings). Before the suspension he managed a mere 1 slam quarterfinal. He just isnt that good. His caliber of March-June last year, not only in his wins vs Federer, was a fluke for a player like him which could never have continued IMO.

Canas is as good as his career results are and these results include a Masters Series title. A player like this is perfectly capable of knocking off the best in the business on a given number of nights.

lambielspins
05-06-2008, 09:41 PM
Canas is as good as his career results are and these results include a Masters Series title.

An achievement also managed by players such as Albert Portas, Andrei Pavel, and Roberto Carretero. I do agree he is only as good a player as his career results though. As good as 11 year of pro tennis pre-suspension, a grand 12 weeks in the top 10 to show for it, far less then Nicolas Lapentti and Rainer Schuettler. As good as a mere 1 slam quarterfinal in 23 played pre-suspension, and 2 in 26 played counting his comeback, never beyond that stage. His career results do indeed say all that needs to be said.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 10:07 PM
An achievement also managed by players such as Albert Portas, Andrei Pavel, and Roberto Carretero. I do agree he is only as good a player as his career results though. As good as 11 year of pro tennis pre-suspension, a grand 12 weeks in the top 10 to show for it, far less then Nicolas Lapentti and Rainer Schuettler. As good as a mere 1 slam quarterfinal in 23 played pre-suspension, and 2 in 26 played counting his comeback, never beyond that stage. His career results do indeed say all that needs to be said.

I am not a big Canas fan, but the fact is that he played excellent tennis last spring and gave more players trouble than Federer alone. If his wins over Roger were the only accomplishments worth talking about then maybe I would agree with you.

12 weeks in the top 10 is pretty good. Victor Pecci was another guy who never made it above #9 in the world, but at his finest was an absolute nightmare to play against, giving many top players tough matches, which included a win over Borg in Monte Carlo.

There are many other examples. Guys like this are not flukes. Calling them flukes is lazy.

crosscourt
05-06-2008, 10:23 PM
yet he psuched Guga to five sets and had match points if i remember correctly, wouldn't happen to Nadal, he buzzsaws people

Absolutely -- capable of pushing good players on all surfaces. Then again Borg used to face match points in early rounds at Wimbledon in his prime. Some great players are like Nadal and maintain a very high level of play in each round of a tournament, others are vulnerable early on.

CAM178
05-06-2008, 10:59 PM
Nadal, no question. Nadal is the best player on clay. . . .ever. 103 wins in 104 matches on clay? That's insane. Nobody's ever been that dominant. And I almost don't count his loss at Hamburg, as Nadal almost pulled out of that tournament before it started, due to exhaustion.

Nadal is an artist on clay. You play deep, he drop shots you. You want to stay and play long rallies? Good freaking luck. You want to play power? He'll just give you deep heavy topspin and run you. You want to run him? Bad choice, as you won't be able to walk for a week when he finishes with you.

But the thing I love is that Rafa almost always has the same scorelines in his clay matches against good players: first set is somewhat close, but then he walks away with it in the second, as the opponent is dead tired.

Davydenko said it best after losing to Rafa in Monte Carlo: 'Nobody but Rafa can play that way, point after point after point. Nobody can match his intensity.'

slice bh compliment
05-07-2008, 01:10 AM
The thread question was - Nadal v Guga; who would win. Not which should be rated ahead of the other. So, there's nothing to argue about.....

Maybe we will get to see a Rafa vs Guga 1st rd at Roland Garros in a few weeks!

my_forehand
05-07-2008, 02:04 AM
Sorry, didn't get it :p
Wanna try in english? :)

:lol: That was embarassing.

I wanted to ask when they both played.

noeledmonds
05-07-2008, 02:35 AM
Absolutely -- capable of pushing good players on all surfaces. Then again Borg used to face match points in early rounds at Wimbledon in his prime. Some great players are like Nadal and maintain a very high level of play in each round of a tournament, others are vulnerable early on.

This is not at all true. Borg never faced a match point against him in any grand slam that he won. Here are the male players who have saved at least one match point on the way to winning grand slam tournaments:

Gerald Patterson 1927 Australia Final John Hawkes
Dinny Pails 1947 Australia Final John Bromwich
Rod Laver 1960 Australia Final Neale Fraser
John Newcombe 1975 Australia SF Tony Roche
Johan Kriek 1982 Australia SF Paul McNamee
Stefan Edberg 1985 Australia R16 Wally Masur
Marat Safin 2005 Australia SF Roger Federer
Rene Lacoste 1927 Roland Garros Final Bill Tilden
Gottfried von Cramm 1934 Roland Garros Final Jack Crawford
Rod Laver 1962 Roland Garros QF Marty Mulligan
Adriano Panatta 1976 Roland Garros R128 Pavel Hutka
Gustavo Kuerten 2001 Roland Garros R16 Michael Russell
Gaston Gaudio 2004 Roland Garros Final Guillermo Coria
Henri Cochet 1927 Wimbledon Final Jean Borotra
Bob Falkenburg 1948 Wimbledon Final John Bromwich
Ted Schroeder 1949 Wimbledon QF Frank Sedgman
Neale Fraser 1960 Wimbledon QF Butch Buchholz
Fred Perry 1936 United States Final Don Budge
Manuel Orantes 1975 United States SF Guillermo Vilas
Boris Becker 1989 United States R64 Derrick Rostagno
Pete Sampras 1996 United States QF Alex Corretja
Andy Roddick 2003 United States SF David Nalbandian

Andres
05-07-2008, 04:54 AM
Remind me again which tournament is most useful when it comes to Roland Garros?
That would be Roland Garros.

Andres
05-07-2008, 05:00 AM
:lol: That was embarassing.

I wanted to ask when they both played.
5 times. Nadal won 4, Coria won 1.

2003 MS Monte Carlo, Coria won 7-6 6-2
2005 MS Monte Carlo, Nadal won 6-3 6-1 0-6 :shock: 7-5
2005 MS Rome, Nadal won 6-4 3-6 6-3 4-6 7-6(6). They got to 6-6 in the fifth set TB.
2005 Beijing (Hard), Nadal won 5-7 6-1 6-2

2006 featured the crappy Coria, which Nadal absolutely ate for breakfast.

2006 MS Monte Carlo, Nadal won 6-2 6-1

HyperHorse
05-07-2008, 05:28 AM
Guga VS Rafa...
Well, that would be a battle for the ages..
Realistically it could go either way, right down to the wire..
I'd have to give Guga a slight edge as he as more power and variety in his game, much bigger serve and reach.
2 sets all, 5-5 in the final set and Rafa serving at 30-30...
The two warriors with salt crusted sweat on their faces..
The crowd in total suspense..
Mmmmm....

ndtennis
05-07-2008, 05:31 AM
i would make for a good match but I have no doubt Nadal would take him down

Gugafan
05-07-2008, 06:30 AM
Those who have said it would be blowout for Nadal have probably never seen Guga play in hes prime, and base their judgements on a injury plagued guga who has barely been mobile in the last yr or two.

Guga was a master on clay, had one of the best backhands of all time. In addition, in hes prime he would move soo effortlessly. I often see Federer struggling with his footing on clay, you would rarely see Guga off-balance. He also had other great weapons like the backhand drop shot.

Of course Nadal is the best claycourter of all time. The match winning streaks are ridiculous, but Guga would be Rafas greatest rival. Guys like Ferrer, Almagro, Davydenko dont really have the ability to serve u off the court like Guga could do.

maverick66
05-07-2008, 06:54 AM
i would love to say to guga as he was just great with the way he played but nadal is another level on the dirt. ive seen guys play out of there mind agains t nadal only to fail and lose badly. it would be an intresting matcup as it would be a guy with great flair vs a great physical player. but in the end the physical play of nadal seems to win on clay.

35ft6
05-07-2008, 08:13 AM
Those who have said it would be blowout for Nadal have probably never seen Guga play in hes prime, and base their judgements on a injury plagued guga who has barely been mobile in the last yr or two. I've seen Guga in his prime. He was one of my favorites. And I remember even when he was winning the French he'd have to play a lot of 5 set matches. He wasn't exactly steam rolling people. He was the king of clay at the time but his domination was nowhere near Nadal's. I really thought Ferrero choked in one of the semifinals. Guga was slicing forehands and doing everything to just stay in points and Ferrero cracked IMO.

35ft6
05-07-2008, 08:18 AM
Also, Guga was a total natural on the dirt, he looked like a fish in water, but Nadal, even more so. Nadal's point construction on clay, his understanding of the court geometry, the way he uses the width AND depth of the court to keep his opponent off balance, is the most impressive I've ever seen. Except for the serve, I think their power off the ground is equal, and I might even give the edge to Rafa. In terms of touch, Nadal all the way. The guy's volleys are underrated and I rarely see him miss a drop shot. Maybe he rarely misses because he has so much margin for error seeing as how he can push a guy back 20 feet behind the baseline but still. Nadal is really underrated.

crosscourt
05-07-2008, 08:46 AM
This is not at all true. Borg never faced a match point against him in any grand slam that he won. Here are the male players who have saved at least one match point on the way to winning grand slam tournaments:

Gerald Patterson 1927 Australia Final John Hawkes
Dinny Pails 1947 Australia Final John Bromwich
Rod Laver 1960 Australia Final Neale Fraser
John Newcombe 1975 Australia SF Tony Roche
Johan Kriek 1982 Australia SF Paul McNamee
Stefan Edberg 1985 Australia R16 Wally Masur
Marat Safin 2005 Australia SF Roger Federer
Rene Lacoste 1927 Roland Garros Final Bill Tilden
Gottfried von Cramm 1934 Roland Garros Final Jack Crawford
Rod Laver 1962 Roland Garros QF Marty Mulligan
Adriano Panatta 1976 Roland Garros R128 Pavel Hutka
Gustavo Kuerten 2001 Roland Garros R16 Michael Russell
Gaston Gaudio 2004 Roland Garros Final Guillermo Coria
Henri Cochet 1927 Wimbledon Final Jean Borotra
Bob Falkenburg 1948 Wimbledon Final John Bromwich
Ted Schroeder 1949 Wimbledon QF Frank Sedgman
Neale Fraser 1960 Wimbledon QF Butch Buchholz
Fred Perry 1936 United States Final Don Budge
Manuel Orantes 1975 United States SF Guillermo Vilas
Boris Becker 1989 United States R64 Derrick Rostagno
Pete Sampras 1996 United States QF Alex Corretja
Andy Roddick 2003 United States SF David Nalbandian

Is that right? What about the Borg v Armritraj match. I don't remember the year.

cc

gj011
05-07-2008, 09:44 AM
JCF would own both of them :twisted:

CyBorg
05-07-2008, 10:35 AM
Is that right? What about the Borg v Armritraj match. I don't remember the year.

cc

1979. I don't recall it coming down to a match point, but Amritraj had his chances.

CyBorg
05-07-2008, 10:36 AM
Nadal, no question. Nadal is the best player on clay. . . .ever. 103 wins in 104 matches on clay? That's insane. Nobody's ever been that dominant. And I almost don't count his loss at Hamburg, as Nadal almost pulled out of that tournament before it started, due to exhaustion.

That's crafty.

From 1977 to 1980 inclusive Borg had two losses on red dirt. One of them was when he retired up 4-1 in Hamburg and another was a meaningless match in World Team Cup against Vilas.

I'm just going to not count those either.:???:

CyBorg
05-07-2008, 10:37 AM
Oh, noes. Rafa must have been exhausted again today. Let's just not count this one too.

Andres
05-07-2008, 10:53 AM
That's crafty.

From 1977 to 1980 inclusive Borg had two losses on red dirt. One of them was when he retired up 4-1 in Hamburg and another was a meaningless match in World Team Cup against Vilas.

I'm just going to not count those either.:???:
Muster was 111-5 during '95 and '96. He lost to Costa in Kitzbuhel, and a walkover in Amsterdam. Since we don't count Walkovers, and Kitzbuhel's clay is rather fast, he didn't lose at all in 1995.

He lost in Kitzbuhel '96 to Benfele Alvarez, but again, Kitzbuhel is too fast, so we can't count it.
He lost to Michael Stich at Roland Garros, but Stich was wearing an orange shirt, so Muster couldn't see him move. We shouldn't count that one either, he was hindered!
He had a WO to Gaudenzi at St. Polten. Walkovers don't count, just like Amsterdam '95
He lost to Moya in Munich. Germans don't like Austrians, so he felt threatened and couldn't concentrate. Let's rule that one out as well.

So, if my math is correct, he was 116-0 those years. IMMMMPRESSSSSIVE!

CyBorg
05-07-2008, 11:08 AM
Muster was 111-5 during '95 and '96. He lost to Costa in Kitzbuhel, and a walkover in Amsterdam. Since we don't count Walkovers, and Kitzbuhel's clay is rather fast, he didn't lose at all in 1995.

He lost in Kitzbuhel '96 to Benfele Alvarez, but again, Kitzbuhel is too fast, so we can't count it.
He lost to Michael Stich at Roland Garros, but Stich was wearing an orange shirt, so Muster couldn't see him move. We shouldn't count that one either, he was hindered!
He had a WO to Gaudenzi at St. Polten. Walkovers don't count, just like Amsterdam '95
He lost to Moya in Munich. Germans don't like Austrians, so he felt threatened and couldn't concentrate. Let's rule that one out as well.

So, if my math is correct, he was 116-0 those years. IMMMMPRESSSSSIVE!

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9774/roflgg9.gif

crosscourt
05-07-2008, 11:18 AM
[QUOTE=CyBorg;2313662]1979. I don't recall it coming down to a match point, but Amritraj had his chances.[/QUOTE

I may have misremembered. Nonetheless, the point remains that Borg did sometimes struggle in early rounds at Wimbledon.

deme08
05-07-2008, 11:37 AM
JCF would own both of them :twisted:

Dame right! Screw Guga and Nadal, Juan Carlos Ferrero all the way!

joeri888
05-07-2008, 11:40 AM
Rafa would win now, Kuerten 10 years ago.

Rafa will be remembered as a claycourt wonder for much longer than Gustavo though.

CyBorg
05-07-2008, 11:52 AM
I may have misremembered. Nonetheless, the point remains that Borg did sometimes struggle in early rounds at Wimbledon.

He was up 4-1 on Borg in the 4th and then took him to the tiebreak, but Borg snuck one out.

crosscourt
05-07-2008, 02:04 PM
Your memory is much better than mine.

CyBorg
05-07-2008, 03:30 PM
Your memory is much better than mine.

It isn't. I haven't seen the match in a while. I did google some of the facts about it.

drakulie
05-07-2008, 04:19 PM
Guga would definitely win a few and Nadal would also win a few. It's a toss up, strongly dependent on how Guga serves.

crosscourt
05-07-2008, 10:14 PM
It isn't. I haven't seen the match in a while. I did google some of the facts about it.

Well, at least you remembered to look it up!

Leelord337
05-08-2008, 10:28 AM
Can you say "POLL"?