PDA

View Full Version : Rafa "Muster" Nadal can't handle Serve and Volley


tennis-hero
05-13-2009, 03:44 PM
Muster couldn't handle S&V

we all know how much Nadal bases his game on Musters, but with "apparently" better passing shots

although on recent evidence it has to be pointed out that anyone with good net awareness would be at an advantage against Nadal

Tsonga and Blake have shown this in the past

Muster had 2 things going against him, he wqasn't consistent and he was up against the kings of S&V

Nadal has the consistency that Muster didn't have, but he incredibly lucky to be playing in an era where volley is a long forgotten art

Muster was a tougher fighter then Nadal, on par with Hewitt who is certainly superior to Nadal in fighting spirit

no one will match the Sampras fighting spirit but Muster was close.

how lucky should Rafa feel knowing that he won't have to face Sampras

because watching Rafa at the Madrid masters, and watching S&V own him EVEN ON CLAY

i have to say

Sampras could beat Rafa on clay

Bud
05-13-2009, 03:46 PM
Muster couldn't handle S&V

we all know how much Nadal bases his game on Musters, but with "apparently" better passing shots

although on recent evidence it has to be pointed out that anyone with good net awareness would be at an advantage against Nadal

Tsonga and Blake have shown this in the past

Muster had 2 things going against him, he wqasn't consistent and he was up against the kings of S&V

Nadal has the consistency that Muster didn't have, but he incredibly lucky to be playing in an era where volley is a long forgotten art

Muster was a tougher fighter then Nadal, on par with Hewitt who is certainly superior to Nadal in fighting spirit

no one will match the Sampras fighting spirit but Muster was close.

how lucky should Rafa feel knowing that he won't have to face Sampras

because watching Rafa at the Madrid masters, and watching S&V own him EVEN ON CLAY

i have to say

Sampras could beat Rafa on clay

Melzer was destroyed today trying S&V tactics against Nadal :oops:

Nadal d. Melzer 6-3, 6-1 in 61 minutes :oops:

tennis-hero
05-13-2009, 03:48 PM
Melzer was destroyed today trying S&V tactics against Nadal.

I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

Bud
05-13-2009, 03:50 PM
I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

6-3, 6-1 :oops:

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 03:58 PM
Nadal's fighting spirit has already surpassed Muster's and Hewitt's. If he can keep this up it will be up there with Sampras.

tennis-hero
05-13-2009, 04:08 PM
6-3, 6-1 :oops:

heres a pro-tip

the final score doesn't always reveal what happened in a match

Wimbledon 2007

Rafa had some major chances in the 5th but look at the score and you'd think the 5th set was one way traffic

so next time- Think before you drink

also, if you had watched the match, you would have seen what S&V was doing to Nadal

Zaragoza
05-13-2009, 04:08 PM
Keep starting stupid threads like these, please. Everyday. So you get banned as soon as possible.

tennis-hero
05-13-2009, 04:12 PM
Keep starting stupid threads like these, please. Everyday. So you get banned as soon as possible.

actually this a perfectly fair and unbiased analysis of Nadal's strengths and weaknesses

i know you Nadal police wont anyone to say anything that criticises him but i have my right

I was being honest, i see a fault in his game, similar to Nadal's mentor Thomas muster


>.>

<.<

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 04:23 PM
Melzer was destroyed today trying S&V tactics against Nadal :oops:

Nadal d. Melzer 6-3, 6-1 in 61 minutes :oops:

LOL.. Who? Melzer?

Bud
05-13-2009, 04:25 PM
heres a pro-tip

the final score doesn't always reveal what happened in a match

Wimbledon 2007

Rafa had some major chances in the 5th but look at the score and you'd think the 5th set was one way traffic

so next time- Think before you drink

also, if you had watched the match, you would have seen what S&V was doing to Nadal

When you combine the score with the length of the match that pretty much tells the whole story.

6-3, 6-1 in 61 minutes :oops:

maverick66
05-13-2009, 04:28 PM
LOL.. Who? Melzer?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/playerprofiles/default.asp?playernumber=M762

seems hes top 30 i would say hes pretty good. there are guys playing solid tennis outside of the big 4.

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 04:40 PM
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/playerprofiles/default.asp?playernumber=M762

seems hes top 30 i would say hes pretty good. there are guys playing solid tennis outside of the big 4.

Top 30? I never even heard of the guy. Whats this guy doing trying to serve-volley against Nadal on clay for? Something tells me he isnt Edberg

maverick66
05-13-2009, 04:43 PM
well if you watched tennis you would hear of him. instead you just come in and make a baseless statement. Hes a good player and last time i checked trying to grind it out with nadal on the red stuff fails pretty hard.

Chadwixx
05-13-2009, 04:47 PM
Top 30? I never even heard of the guy. Whats this guy doing trying to serve-volley against Nadal on clay for? Something tells me he isnt Edberg

He's the guy with a 2-1 record vs agassi :)

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 04:50 PM
I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

This thread is a joke. Sampras would own Rafa, on clay?! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this forum. Sampras, never even made the finals at Roland Garros and was beaten by guys who used the same strategy as Nadal only Nadal does it much better.

Pete lost to the great Gilbert Schaller in the first round of the 1995 French Open. Everyone knows what a well known player Schaller was.

Also, Nadal was not on the ropes in his match. Even the ATP website said that he made it through with ease.

This thread is a ridiculous.

benasp
05-13-2009, 04:51 PM
- How many french open had sampras won?
- 0 but he would crush nadal on clay
- and loose to a nobody in the next round ?

yeah right

tacou
05-13-2009, 04:52 PM
omg.

I've never seen a thread like this.

genius!

no wonder everyone S&Vs against Nadal, what with his passing shots being so weak..

tacou
05-13-2009, 04:53 PM
actually this a perfectly fair and unbiased analysis of Nadal's strengths and weaknesses

i know you Nadal police wont anyone to say anything that criticises him but i have my right

I was being honest, i see a fault in his game, similar to Nadal's mentor Thomas muster


>.>

<.<

fair and unbiased?? claiming PETE SAMPRAS could be Nadal on clay warrants you a swift kick in the pants.

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 05:07 PM
I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

Thanks I needed a good laugh.

http://www.daveoncode.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/doh.jpg

tacou
05-13-2009, 06:09 PM
seriously this thread is upsetting me, take it away

raiden031
05-13-2009, 06:17 PM
Sampras would own Rafa on clay

You lost all credibility after that statement. How can Sampras own Nadal on clay when he can't even own mediocre players on clay during his era? Are you saying that Nadal wouldn't even be considered a good claycourter during Sampras' era?

oscar_2424
05-13-2009, 06:18 PM
Nadal can beat sampras on clay with his eyes closed.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 08:06 PM
When you combine the score with the length of the match that pretty much tells the whole story.

6-3, 6-1 in 61 minutes :oops:
Actually, it doesn't since serve and volley points end on one or two shots so matches are much shorter than when each point is a 20 stroke baseline rally.

Nadal had few answers when Meltzer his all of those beautiful drop volleys. :)

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 08:07 PM
Nadal can beat sampras on clay with his eyes closed.
I'd bet a million dollars that he couldn't. :)

Should you or should I bring the blindfold? ;)

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 08:12 PM
You lost all credibility after that statement. How can Sampras own Nadal on clay when he can't even own mediocre players on clay during his era? Are you saying that Nadal wouldn't even be considered a good claycourter during Sampras' era?
Sampras only beat great claycourters and French Open champions like Courier and Muster at the French Open. :shock:

maverick66
05-13-2009, 08:21 PM
Nadal had few answers when Meltzer his all of those beautiful drop volleys. :)

cause he clearly hit enough to win:-?

and mulitquote is your friend dont be scared to use it.:)

slicefox
05-13-2009, 09:02 PM
heres a pro-tip

the final score doesn't always reveal what happened in a match

Wimbledon 2007

Rafa had some major chances in the 5th but look at the score and you'd think the 5th set was one way traffic

so next time- Think before you drink

also, if you had watched the match, you would have seen what S&V was doing to Nadal


First time I see a post on these boards from someone who actually UNDERSTANDS tennis. First person I've met on the boards with a triple-digit IQ.

Congrats bro, you are Newton reborn compared to the rest of people (who have arguments like "6-3 6-1").

Indeed, a weak SV player gave nadal trouble. Imagine what a well-trained Serve and Volleyer could do to him. I predict nadal's fall will be to a serve & volley player. The art will come back, it is forced to come back.

slicefox
05-13-2009, 09:05 PM
You lost all credibility after that statement. How can Sampras own Nadal on clay when he can't even own mediocre players on clay during his era? Are you saying that Nadal wouldn't even be considered a good claycourter during Sampras' era?

Yes, that's exactly what we are saying. Nadal in the 90's would get owned on every surface, including water and moon sand.

Too bad you were just a kid in the 90s so you will never truly understand.

vndesu
05-13-2009, 09:09 PM
Yes, that's exactly what we are saying. Nadal in the 90's would get owned on every surface, including water and moon sand.

Too bad you were just a kid in the 90s so you will never truly understand.

imagine with the racquet technology too, mainly pros in the 90's were using mid sized where others like chang or agassi used os.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:16 PM
Oh yes, Sampras and Edberg would own Nadal on clay, look at all those FOs they have combined: 0. Impressive numbers, Nadal would stand no chance :lol:

Nadal_Freak
05-13-2009, 09:19 PM
You know tennis-hero is a troll when even Fed fans are annoyed by him. lol

Bud
05-13-2009, 09:22 PM
Actually, it doesn't since serve and volley points end on one or two shots so matches are much shorter than when each point is a 20 stroke baseline rally.

Nadal had few answers when Meltzer his all of those beautiful drop volleys. :)

After the first 3 games... didn't Nadal adjust and then steamroll Melzer... running off almost 12 straight games... breaking serve 4 times along the way? :oops:

I'd like to find a copy of this match... so as to learn how to destroy and dispatch a S&V player, pronto :-D

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:24 PM
After the first 3 games... didn't Nadal adjust and then runoff almost 12 straight games... breaking serve 4 times? :oops:

I'd like to find a copy of this match... so as to learn how to destroy and dispatch a S&V player, pronto :-D

Are you crazy? BP doesn't let simple facts get in the way of his opinions :mrgreen:.

OTMPut
05-13-2009, 09:37 PM
It could have been closer. Melzer did not serve as well he did in his previous match.

abmk
05-13-2009, 09:38 PM
LOL @ the thread :)

slicefox
05-13-2009, 09:47 PM
Oh yes, Sampras and Edberg would own Nadal on clay, look at all those FOs they have combined: 0. Impressive numbers, Nadal would stand no chance :lol:

your argument = zero sense

FO players back then were adjusted to S&V. Nadal is not. That's the point of this thread.

Noveson
05-13-2009, 09:55 PM
cause he clearly hit enough to win:-?

and mulitquote is your friend dont be scared to use it.:)

Leave him alone, he needs to keep up his 30 post a day average;)

Anyway it is ridiculous to say ANYBODY who has not won a french open title would "own" possibly the greatest claycourter to ever play the game on clay.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 10:02 PM
your argument = zero sense

FO players back then were adjusted to S&V. Nadal is not. That's the point of this thread.

Oh, yes, this arguments makes so much sense. The players of the 90's would get steamrolled in every surface because they are not adjusted to Nadal's game, suck it :twisted:. See, I can say stupid sh*t too.

The-Champ
05-13-2009, 10:23 PM
because watching Rafa at the Madrid masters, and watching S&V own him EVEN ON CLAY

i have to say

Sampras could beat Rafa on clay


Congratulations for posting probably the dumbest argument ever.

Here let me show you one of mine:

Because Santoro destroyed Samrpas 6-1 6-1 at the Monte Carlo Masters once, imagine what Bahrami would've done to Sampras.

King_roger
05-13-2009, 10:32 PM
Top 30? I never even heard of the guy.

What??? :shock::shock:
Sorry, but that's a little bit embarrassing. IMO
I mean he's No. 1 of Austria and No. 27 ATP....

BTW: Jürgen could do much better, even against Rafa, but it's a mental problem.... :(

thalivest
05-13-2009, 10:41 PM
Sampras could beat Rafa on clay

You are right. Rafa after all lacks the superior weapons and mental toughness of such clay court legends as Magnus Larsson, Gilbert Schaller, Paul Haarhuis, Jacco Eltingh, Olivier Gross, Thierry Champion, Gabriel Markus, Carl-Uwe Steeb, Mark Philippoussis, Karol Novacek, Arnaud Di Pasquale, Fabrice Santoro, Fernando Meligini, Roman Delgado, and many others.

Gen
05-13-2009, 10:46 PM
Muster couldn't handle S&V

we all know how much Nadal bases his game on Musters, but with "apparently" better passing shots

although on recent evidence it has to be pointed out that anyone with good net awareness would be at an advantage against Nadal

Tsonga and Blake have shown this in the past

Muster had 2 things going against him, he wqasn't consistent and he was up against the kings of S&V

Nadal has the consistency that Muster didn't have, but he incredibly lucky to be playing in an era where volley is a long forgotten art

Muster was a tougher fighter then Nadal, on par with Hewitt who is certainly superior to Nadal in fighting spirit

no one will match the Sampras fighting spirit but Muster was close.

how lucky should Rafa feel knowing that he won't have to face Sampras

because watching Rafa at the Madrid masters, and watching S&V own him EVEN ON CLAY

i have to say

Sampras could beat Rafa on clay

In 2008 Wimbledon final Federer desperately tried to serve and volley. During the first 2 sets 15 attempts resulted in 1 winner. Are you capable of calculating percentage? Why don't you watch some matches before crapping around?

thalivest
05-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Muster was a tougher fighter then Nadal, on par with Hewitt who is certainly superior to Nadal in fighting spirit

Yes Hewitt is a superior fighter to Nadal. That is why when still close to his best in 2004 he let Federer feed him 2 bagels in the U.S Open final. What an amazing fighter. :shock:

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 11:06 PM
Oh yes, Sampras and Edberg would own Nadal on clay, look at all those FOs they have combined: 0. Impressive numbers, Nadal would stand no chance :lol:
Yes, they would because if Nadal played in the early 90's, he wouldn't have a high-tech APD nor the high tech poly strings. He's be playing with a PS 6.0 85 strung with gut, just like Sampras and Edberg did, but Nadal would be shanking like crazy with his high speed reverse forehands. :lol: LOL

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 11:08 PM
After the first 3 games... didn't Nadal adjust and then steamroll Melzer... running off almost 12 straight games... breaking serve 4 times along the way? :oops:

I'd like to find a copy of this match... so as to learn how to destroy and dispatch a S&V player, pronto :-D
The way I saw it, Meltzer started to make unforced errors like crazy after the first 3 games. He started to miss even easy volleys. Guys like Sampras and Edberg wouldn't have missed those. :)

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 11:10 PM
What??? :shock::shock:
Sorry, but that's a little bit embarrassing. IMO
I mean he's No. 1 of Austria and No. 27 ATP....

BTW: Jürgen could do much better, even against Rafa, but it's a mental problem.... :(
I agree. Meltzer just couldn't mentally keep it together during that match with Nadal. :(

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:13 PM
I agree. Meltzer just couldn't mentally keep it together during that match with Nadal. :(

Nobody can according to you. Nadal must be amazing, getting so lucky to win all his matches according to you, yet still winning almost every tournament right?

Clay lover
05-13-2009, 11:15 PM
I think during the course of the Melzer v Nadal match you can see Nadal adjusting his game to Melzer's serve and volley by trying to return everything low and hard, and moving in and punishing his second serve. NO, Nadal will not topspin loop a moonball back for a serve return when someone is serve and volleying against him. He is actually a SMART player, and he has already considered all the IFs proposed by you serve and volleying elitist fanboys even before you came up with them.

and no, I am not saying this because I am a Nadal fanboy. I would even agree that Nadal has no edge over great serve and volleyers liek Sampras on any surface other than clay. But I am saying this because too many people underestimate Nadal's ability to adjust to different game styles.

King_roger
05-13-2009, 11:25 PM
I agree. Meltzer just couldn't mentally keep it together during that match with Nadal. :(

No buddy, I just meant he has mental problems in generally...
look: (it's in german, but I collected all the "magic-Melzer matches") :mrgreen:
http://saitenforum.de/board/showpost.php?p=292326&postcount=89

DarthMaul
05-13-2009, 11:31 PM
I am watching this thread and getting sick of *******s who are hunting every person that can say other things than "Nadal is God". A forum is supposed to allow every people to post their opinions, bad or good. Sad...

Bud
05-13-2009, 11:31 PM
I think during the course of the Melzer v Nadal match you can see Nadal adjusting his game to Melzer's serve and volley by trying to return everything low and hard, and moving in and punishing his second serve. NO, Nadal will not topspin loop a moonball back for a serve return when someone is serve and volleying against him. He is actually a SMART player, and he has already considered all the IFs proposed by you serve and volleying elitist fanboys even before you came up with them.

and no, I am not saying this because I am a Nadal fanboy. I would even agree that Nadal has no edge over great serve and volleyers liek Sampras on any surface other than clay. But I am saying this because too many people underestimate Nadal's ability to adjust to different game styles.

Agreed. He adjusted to Melzer's game effectively and forced Melzer to start making errors.

Bud
05-13-2009, 11:32 PM
I am watching this thread and getting sick of *******s who are hunting every person that can say other things than "Nadal is God". A forum is supposed to allow every people to post their opinions, bad or good. Sad...

Start your own tennis forum and run it the way you like :wink:

DarthMaul
05-13-2009, 11:34 PM
Start your own tennis forum and run it the way you like :wink:

Why don't YOU start a NADAL worshipping forum instead?

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 11:42 PM
No buddy, I just meant he has mental problems in generally...
look: (it's in german, but I collected all the "magic-Melzer matches") :mrgreen:
http://saitenforum.de/board/showpost.php?p=292326&postcount=89
Well, then isn't that worse? That means he can't keep it mentally together no matter who he's playing against. :(

Bud
05-13-2009, 11:46 PM
Why don't YOU start a NADAL worshipping forum instead?

I'm not the one complaining... you are :oops:

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:51 PM
on clay he would win most of the matches against serve and volleyers for sure, however it would give him more trouble than other baseliners apparently weaker than him
but i dont think sampras would beat nadal more than once per year (once when his serve would work amazingly) or so because nadal is simply too good on clay

on other surfaces sure, serve and volley would cause a lot of troubles for this guy lol
he lost to mahut in queens and nearly lost to kendric (i think) in wimbledon
2 challenger level serve and volleyers...
yeah S&V has future if just someone learnt to play it properly

LurkingGod
05-14-2009, 12:30 AM
I am watching this thread and getting sick of *******s who are hunting every person that can say other things than "Nadal is God". A forum is supposed to allow every people to post their opinions, bad or good. Sad...

I'm watching this thread and getting sick of Nadal haters who are hunting every person that can say other things than 'Nadal sucks'. A forum is supposed to allow everybody to post their opinion, bad or good. Sad..:cry:

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 12:33 AM
Why don't YOU start a NADAL worshipping forum instead?
The way he plays at the moment, every forum is bound to become a Nadal worshipping forum...

anointedone
05-14-2009, 12:34 AM
If Nadal showed up in a wheelchair for every match Sampras would still never get a win over him on clay.

By the way Nadal lost only 4 games in 2 sets today. Some trouble, LOL!

Pirao
05-14-2009, 12:37 AM
Yes, they would because if Nadal played in the early 90's, he wouldn't have a high-tech APD nor the high tech poly strings. He's be playing with a PS 6.0 85 strung with gut, just like Sampras and Edberg did, but Nadal would be shanking like crazy with his high speed reverse forehands. :lol: LOL

Yes, yes, we should be playing with wooden racquets, :lol:, we already went over that and I owned you, want me to bring that thread up?

Bud
05-14-2009, 12:38 AM
Yes, yes, we should be playing with wooden racquets, :lol:, we already went over that and I owned you, want me to bring that thread up?

I make it a habit to occasionally play with a woodie :oops:

ignigena
05-14-2009, 12:39 AM
Muster couldn't handle S&V

we all know how much Nadal bases his game on Musters, but with "apparently" better passing shots

although on recent evidence it has to be pointed out that anyone with good net awareness would be at an advantage against Nadal

Tsonga and Blake have shown this in the past

Muster had 2 things going against him, he wqasn't consistent and he was up against the kings of S&V

Nadal has the consistency that Muster didn't have, but he incredibly lucky to be playing in an era where volley is a long forgotten art

Muster was a tougher fighter then Nadal, on par with Hewitt who is certainly superior to Nadal in fighting spirit

no one will match the Sampras fighting spirit but Muster was close.

how lucky should Rafa feel knowing that he won't have to face Sampras

because watching Rafa at the Madrid masters, and watching S&V own him EVEN ON CLAY

i have to say

Sampras could beat Rafa on clay

I cant agree with any of your comments.

ignigena
05-14-2009, 12:39 AM
I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

This make my laugh.

ignigena
05-14-2009, 12:41 AM
actually this a perfectly fair and unbiased analysis of Nadal's strengths and weaknesses

i know you Nadal police wont anyone to say anything that criticises him but i have my right

I was being honest, i see a fault in his game, similar to Nadal's mentor Thomas muster


>.>

<.<


I nearly fall of from the chair when i read that. Thank you.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 12:42 AM
I make it a habit to occasionally play with a woodie :oops:
Whenever you play mixed doubles? :)

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 12:46 AM
Yes, yes, we should be playing with wooden racquets, :lol:, we already went over that and I owned you, want me to bring that thread up?
I think you meant to say that I owned YOU since you have never played with a wood racquet before so you have NO clue what the heck you're talking about. :oops:

Clay lover
05-14-2009, 12:52 AM
Yeah, saying that Nadal would suck with woodies = OWNing someone. Way to have good logic. Would Nadal even play like this if he was born in the woodies era. Even if you say he would suck then, too bad, success is about being born in the correct time too. There is absolutely NO way you can take anything away from Nadal just because he didn't have to play with woodies. The rest of the tour didn't have to, either, and guess who's ranked no. 1?

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:10 AM
Yeah, saying that Nadal would suck with woodies = OWNing someone. Way to have good logic. Would Nadal even play like this if he was born in the woodies era. Even if you say he would suck then, too bad, success is about being born in the correct time too. There is absolutely NO way you can take anything away from Nadal just because he didn't have to play with woodies. The rest of the tour didn't have to, either, and guess who's ranked no. 1?
If Nadal didn't play like this would he still be Nadal and would he still be so dominant? Not a chance! Take away the massive topspin that he's able to generate with his APD and poly strings and what do you have left? A Nadal that plays just like everyone else?

Clay lover
05-14-2009, 01:31 AM
If Nadal didn't play like this would he still be Nadal and would he still be so dominant? Not a chance! Take away the massive topspin that he's able to generate with his APD and poly strings and what do you have left? A Nadal that plays just like everyone else?

And he was able to capitalize on the equipment in this era. Can't say anything else but Kudos to him for that. IF Nadal was able to take advantage of the technology and become dominant, why can't others do so as well? Isn't the techonology there already? And guess what, out of all the stiff racquet poly strings baseline bashers, he's still the best, and there's a reason for it. There's no way you can discredit someone who can make the most of this era's technology by looking into the past.

Dutch-Guy
05-14-2009, 01:33 AM
Tennis-Zero and his best friend BreakPoint at it again.

Leonidas
05-14-2009, 01:36 AM
This make my laugh.
are you the dumbert poster on tennis warehouse? Madrid clay is the fastest due to the height and Melzer was serving out of his mind during the first games. Plus, it was rafa´s first match, so he needed some warm up. Now you go back into your cave!

Leonidas
05-14-2009, 01:37 AM
are you the dumbert poster on tennis warehouse? Madrid clay is the fastest due to the height and Melzer was serving out of his mind during the first games. Plus, it was rafa´s first match, so he needed some warm up. Now you go back into your cave!
Sorry i didn´t mean you, but the poster before you

Thor
05-14-2009, 01:38 AM
anyone with good net awareness would be at an advantage against Nadal
Tsonga and Blake have shown this in the past

Muster had 2 things going against him, he wqasn't consistent and he was up against the kings of S&V


Muster was a tougher fighter then Nadal, on par with Hewitt who is certainly superior to Nadal in fighting spirit


because watching Rafa at the Madrid masters, and watching S&V own him EVEN ON CLAY

i have to say

Sampras could beat Rafa on clay


So,to sum this up: Blake beat Nadal in their first 3 HC encounters by playing at the net, Muster wasnt consistent,Nadal is not a fighter ans Sampras could beat Rafa on clay...

Comedy at its best

ignigena
05-14-2009, 01:45 AM
are you the dumbert poster on tennis warehouse? Madrid clay is the fastest due to the height and Melzer was serving out of his mind during the first games. Plus, it was rafa´s first match, so he needed some warm up. Now you go back into your cave!

Either i expressed it poorly or you understanded it bad. I was talking about what was the conclusion he take about that match. Rafa dominated it all, Merzer had to play risky and he could keep that style too long without comiting ue.

I dont insult, i hope you are able to be polite, even if you strongly disagree.

ignigena
05-14-2009, 01:46 AM
Sorry, change could for couldnt

ignigena
05-14-2009, 01:47 AM
Sorry i didn´t mean you, but the poster before you

My excuses, I didnt see this post before my reply.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:53 AM
And he was able to capitalize on the equipment in this era. Can't say anything else but Kudos to him for that. IF Nadal was able to take advantage of the technology and become dominant, why can't others do so as well? Isn't the techonology there already? And guess what, out of all the stiff racquet poly strings baseline bashers, he's still the best, and there's a reason for it. There's no way you can discredit someone who can make the most of this era's technology by looking into the past.
So then you agree that Nadal is a product of the modern equipment technology and that he wouldn't be nearly as dominant without it.

Clay lover
05-14-2009, 02:01 AM
So then you agree that Nadal is a product of the modern equipment technology and that he wouldn't be nearly as dominant without it.

Um I agree that he took advantage of modern techonlogy to become the player he is now, but, I say it again, that IN NO WAY discredits his achivements because he is currently the best at that.

Your arugment is like this: if a buff dude and a sharpshooter travelled back in time, the buff dude will spank the sharpshooter all the time because the only weapon available was wood clubs. But does that discredit in anyway the marksmanship skills of the sharpshooter ? No chance in hell.

ignigena
05-14-2009, 02:13 AM
Um I agree that he took advantage of modern techonlogy to become the player he is now, but, I say it again, that IN NO WAY discredits his achivements because he is currently the best at that.

Your arugment is like this: if a buff dude and a sharpshooter travelled back in time, the buff dude will spank the sharpshooter all the time because the only weapon available was wood clubs. But does that discredit in anyway the marksmanship skills of the sharpshooter ? No chance in hell.

agree. 10 chart.

Pirao
05-14-2009, 02:42 AM
I make it a habit to occasionally play with a woodie :oops:

Oh, that's cool man, I have nothing against people who play with wood racquets! What I don't like is people who say the only real tennis is the one played with wooden racquets and say that Nadal doesn't play real tennis and would suck with wooden racquets, which also fail to comprehend that sports change and evolve. People like BP.

Pirao
05-14-2009, 02:44 AM
I think you meant to say that I owned YOU since you have never played with a wood racquet before so you have NO clue what the heck you're talking about. :oops:

Hahahaha, changing the point again? We were talking about how sports change and evolve, and I fully owned you, to the point that you stopped responding to my points, because you had no response, other than admiting I was right!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260363&page=9

That is the thread.

theagassiman
05-14-2009, 02:47 AM
Top 30? I never even heard of the guy. Whats this guy doing trying to serve-volley against Nadal on clay for? Something tells me he isnt Edberg

What else do expect him to do?
Cry?

helloworld
05-14-2009, 02:48 AM
Rafa 'Muster' Nadal Prime Optimal Ultimate Version VII would destroy any S&V on clay, and this coming from a fan of S&V.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-14-2009, 03:14 AM
Rafa 'Muster' Nadal Prime Optimal Ultimate Version VII would destroy any S&V on clay, and this coming from a fan of S&V.

you won't find many bigger sampras and s@v fans than mehere either..

but this thread deserves that face palm picture....

we had a whole bunch of threads about this last week and we would never
know sampras vs nadal other surfaes (prob 90's grass to pete) but clay?LOL

raiden031
05-14-2009, 03:19 AM
Yes, that's exactly what we are saying. Nadal in the 90's would get owned on every surface, including water and moon sand.

Too bad you were just a kid in the 90s so you will never truly understand.

Ok this is BS. It is quite obvious if you watch video from past til present, you will see that the game is far more physical than it used to be. It also makes sense because there have been new revolutionary ideas developed over the years as far as training and nutrition. There is no way that Nadal would not compete with players from 10-20 years ago. He moves better than all of them.

The only thing going against Nadal would be that grass would be harder for him in that era because it was much faster. Sampras would definitely own Nadal on grass.


Sampras only beat great claycourters and French Open champions like Courier and Muster at the French Open.


9 out of 13 times in FO he didn't make it past the 3rd round. Then his best showing is 1 SF appearance. I'd be scared of that if I was Nadal. :rolleyes:

prosealster
05-14-2009, 03:28 AM
are u kidding????

muster was a S&Ver's b*%ch because he was robotic...he does not have decent passing shots, does not move well, dont have a low return, does not have the ability to take ball early...rely on grinding his opponent down...just not a good match up...in contrast...nads moves well, and passes well...totally different sort of players..he is not robotic...and changes directions of his shots with ease...

it's not that no one can S&V...it's just that S&V does not work in modern game... they just cant even make to the pro level... I think personally...part of the reason for the aussie tennis decline is that we place TOO much emphasis on volley in the teaching of the up coming juniors....I think they are beginning to realise that now and getting the good juniors onto clay courts as much as possible

Blade0324
05-14-2009, 06:05 AM
If Nadal didn't play like this would he still be Nadal and would he still be so dominant? Not a chance! Take away the massive topspin that he's able to generate with his APD and poly strings and what do you have left? A Nadal that plays just like everyone else?

So Take away the topspin that Fed is able to generate with his poly strings and modern racquet and what do you have. A Fed that shanks even more balls then he does now and can't keep anything on the court since he'd have no spin. Your arguement goes against all of the players not just Nadal. Take the technology away from any of them and they all go down a notch but the is still the top and the bottom is still the bottom.
Have you ever actually seen a tennis match or played. I think perhaps you are mistaking lawn darts for tennis.:oops:

Blade0324
05-14-2009, 06:12 AM
BP and the OP are simply delusional and must be sitting together in the corner of the round box huffing sharpies.
S&V will NOT work against Nadal on any surface. It will be slightly effective for a short time at the beginning until he adjusts and then the person blindly and foolishly crashing the net will simply be wasting their time and energy making the trip to and from the net as they will see ball after ball fly by them, come right at their chest and dip to their shoe tops at the last second. It's not about a being a Nadal Fan, or a fan of any other player for that matter it's just about the reality of what would and would not work.
Also Samprass would be lucky to get even close in a set against Nadal on Clay. Nadal would make him look like a monkey with a racquet...oh wait to late for that.

LeftySpin
05-14-2009, 07:16 AM
I think this thread is a little bias. Again its hard to say what "could" be done. If its so effective I just wonder why everyone else doesn't do it.

Bhagi Katbamna
05-14-2009, 07:18 AM
Just because it didn't work on that particular day by that particular player is not enough to say the strategy is faulty. I think attacking Nadal is the only way to beat him. Otherwise, the other player will do a lot of running, and still lose badly.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 07:21 AM
Just because it didn't work on that particular day by that particular player is not enough to say the strategy is faulty. I think attacking Nadal is the only way to beat him. Otherwise, the other player will do a lot of running, and still lose badly.
Then there is no way to beat him because noone using systematic serve and volleying is ever gonna win against Nadal especially on clay. The guys who HAVE beaten Nadal in the last 12 months, like Murray, have succeeded thanks to radically different tactics.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:13 AM
Um I agree that he took advantage of modern techonlogy to become the player he is now, but, I say it again, that IN NO WAY discredits his achivements because he is currently the best at that.

Your arugment is like this: if a buff dude and a sharpshooter travelled back in time, the buff dude will spank the sharpshooter all the time because the only weapon available was wood clubs. But does that discredit in anyway the marksmanship skills of the sharpshooter ? No chance in hell.
What happens after Obama bans all guns so the sharpshooter no longer owns a gun? He'd better start going to the gym and start working out. :shock: ;) LOL

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:26 AM
So Take away the topspin that Fed is able to generate with his poly strings and modern racquet and what do you have. A Fed that shanks even more balls then he does now and can't keep anything on the court since he'd have no spin. Your arguement goes against all of the players not just Nadal. Take the technology away from any of them and they all go down a notch but the is still the top and the bottom is still the bottom.
Have you ever actually seen a tennis match or played. I think perhaps you are mistaking lawn darts for tennis.:oops:
Um...Federer uses natural gut in his mains. His spin isn't coming from his poly crosses, they just lower the power of his gut mains. There's also nothing "modern" about his K90. It's based on 27 year-old technology and plays closer to a wood racquet than anything else currently on the market. Have you even played with the K90? How did you play with it? If you could play just as well with a K90 as you do with your usual racquet, you should do OK with a wood racquet.

Give Federer a wood racquet and his play may drop a notch. Give Nadal a wood racquet and his play will drop 10 notches. There's really no comparison. Just take a look at their styles and how they hit the ball. It's quite obvious. If you knew anything about hitting a tennis ball, you'd know that. It ain't rocket science.

Melissa
05-14-2009, 12:35 PM
Um...Federer uses natural gut in his mains. His spin isn't coming from his poly crosses, they just lower the power of his gut mains. There's also nothing "modern" about his K90. It's based on 27 year-old technology and plays closer to a wood racquet than anything else currently on the market. Have you even played with the K90? How did you play with it? If you could play just as well with a K90 as you do with your usual racquet, you should do OK with a wood racquet.

Give Federer a wood racquet and his play may drop a notch. Give Nadal a wood racquet and his play will drop 10 notches. There's really no comparison. Just take a look at their styles and how they hit the ball. It's quite obvious. If you knew anything about hitting a tennis ball, you'd know that. It ain't rocket science.

OK. You really have my curiosity piqued. Just called the tennis shop. They have a K90 demo and I am going to use it tomorrow in my practice match. Will let you know how badly I do.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:01 PM
OK. You really have my curiosity piqued. Just called the tennis shop. They have a K90 demo and I am going to use it tomorrow in my practice match. Will let you know how badly I do.
Yes, please report back to us.

BTW, what is your usual racquet and strings? Also, do you hit the ball anything remotely like Nadal?

JT_2eighty
05-14-2009, 01:02 PM
This thread delivers

...nothing of substance, but many laughs at anyone actually trying to make a valid point

the OP is either dumb or brilliantly able to dupe so many into a heated convo about fantasy tennis

Melissa
05-14-2009, 01:32 PM
Yes, please report back to us.

BTW, what is your usual racquet and strings? Also, do you hit the ball anything remotely like Nadal?

Wilson ps 6.1 (kind of old rackets from my univ. days)
Babolat vs 60 & 62#

~GiGGle~ No. Very flat. Think Lindsey D style wise. NOT talent wise~GiGGle~
I play in the Dynamo division of our leagues. 4.5 to club pro level. Quite a few college players during summer league.
2hbh return of serve. 1hbh during play except when jammed.
Really getting hyped for this.

djoker23
05-14-2009, 01:35 PM
I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

Impossible there is no way that sampras would ever even beat nadal even in his prime and nadal in 06

maverick66
05-14-2009, 01:43 PM
If Nadal didn't play like this would he still be Nadal and would he still be so dominant? Not a chance! Take away the massive topspin that he's able to generate with his APD and poly strings and what do you have left? A Nadal that plays just like everyone else?

If its such an advantage to use that racket with those strings why doesnt everyone use them? your thinking is incorrect in thinking he can only win because of racket technology. We have never seen anyone this physically gifted in tennis period. How he is able to move and hit is something that no one else is able to emulate right now.

I also saw you say that he would be forced to use the prostaff 85 in the 90's but what about the guys using the OS POG? that was no small headsize so not everyone in the 90's was using small frames. I know you feel strongly that Nadal sucks but your reasoning is not good.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 02:12 PM
Wilson ps 6.1 (kind of old rackets from my univ. days)
Babolat vs 60 & 62#

~GiGGle~ No. Very flat. Think Lindsey D style wise. NOT talent wise~GiGGle~
I play in the Dynamo division of our leagues. 4.5 to club pro level. Quite a few college players during summer league.
2hbh return of serve. 1hbh during play except when jammed.
Really getting hyped for this.
Well, your current racquet is already a lot closer to a K90 with gut mains than the Babolat APD with full poly is, just due to the weight, smaller head size, and the gut strings.

Have you ever played with a standard wood racquet? You may want to give one of those a try too. :)

Melissa
05-14-2009, 02:50 PM
Well, your current racquet is already a lot closer to a K90 with gut mains than the Babolat APD with full poly is, just due to the weight, smaller head size, and the gut strings.

Have you ever played with a standard wood racquet? You may want to give one of those a try too. :)

Actually I have hit with my dad a number of times with woodies. But we have never done it for much more than 15 min. He is afraid I will hurt my elbow. But I have never had a problem. I think he just doesn't want to lose to me playing with a woody~GiGGle~He is terrible with it.

Clay lover
05-14-2009, 06:59 PM
What happens after Obama bans all guns so the sharpshooter no longer owns a gun? He'd better start going to the gym and start working out. :shock: ;) LOL

And why should Obama ban all guns? Technology does not move backwards, jsut as humans continue to evolve. Your logic doesn't make the slightest sense. If you love wood racquets so much go play with it yourself, instead of trying to reduce everyone to wood racquets to make S&V players like yourself look better. Times have changed, face it.

Dilettante
05-14-2009, 07:00 PM
I think you need to watch that match again

Metzer had Rafa on the ropes with S&V in the 1st set

when someone like MEtzer can own Rafa with S&V ON CLAY

then you know the clay era is WEEEEEEEEEEEEAK

and also

Sampras would own Rafa on clay

This guy must be a genius.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 09:08 PM
And why should Obama ban all guns?
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news? Gun sales have shot through the roof ever since Obama was elected because everyone expects him to ban guns soon. He voted for gun bans every chance he got as a Senator and people expect him to push for the same as President.

Technology does not move backwards, jsut as humans continue to evolve.
But why should we allow technology to ruin tennis? Why not preserve the natural beauty of the game for all to enjoy for many generations? Has the net, the court, and the ball changed very much over the past 100 years? They still use Slazenger balls at Wimbledon which have been used for almost 100 years. Why should they changed the racquets and strings so drastically? Technology has killed the variety and strategy in tennis. Now it's more like watching a video game. :(

JT_2eighty
05-14-2009, 09:20 PM
:confused:I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news? Gun sales have shot through the roof ever since Obama was elected because everyone expects him to ban guns soon.

key word is 'expects'. you really are basing your argument on the patterns of gun enthusiasts? hah, good one. I guess you're right, you never know when he's gonna pull the "ban guns" lever. I put money on a surprise October "melt guns for green energy" initiative.

maverick66
05-14-2009, 09:24 PM
But why should we allow technology to ruin tennis? Why not preserve the natural beauty of the game for all to enjoy for many generations? Has the net, the court, and the ball changed very much over the past 100 years? They still use Slazenger balls at Wimbledon which have been used for almost 100 years. Why should they changed the racquets and strings so drastically? Technology has killed the variety and strategy in tennis. Now it's more like watching a video game. :(

Do you even watch tennis?

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 10:05 PM
Do you even watch tennis?
Umm...I probably watch 10 times more tennis than you do, both live in person and on TV. :-? That's why I'm so qualified to critique it.

Safinator_1
05-14-2009, 10:10 PM
Unfortunately progress does not wait for no one, As time goes by i think technology will influence more on a players ability than they are now. It is just the way it is. Nothing can change that

maverick66
05-14-2009, 10:24 PM
Umm...I probably watch 10 times more tennis than you do, both live in person and on TV. :-? That's why I'm so qualified to critique it.

from your description of whats going on i dont think you do. I get the feeling you sit in your house watching old tapes of the woodie era thinking how great they are.:(

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:14 PM
from your description of whats going on i dont think you do. I get the feeling you sit in your house watching old tapes of the woodie era thinking how great they are.:(
Having played in both the wood era and today's era, I am in a very good position to compare the two. It's all about perspective. I have it but many here who never played nor watched during the wood era do not. All they know is the modern era, so how could they possibly be qualified to critique it?

You can't be a food critic if the only thing you've ever eaten in your life is pizza and you can't be a movie critic if the only movies you've ever seen in your life are action movies.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 11:18 PM
Having played in both the wood era and today's era, I am in a very good position to compare the two. It's all about perspective. I have it but many here who never played nor watched during the wood era do not. All they know is the modern era, so how could they possibly be qualified to critique it?

You can't be a food critic if the only thing you've ever eaten in your life is pizza and you can't be a movie critic if the only movies you've ever seen in your life are action movies.



I agree. You could just critic the taste of pizza though.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:22 PM
Unfortunately progress does not wait for no one, As time goes by i think technology will influence more on a players ability than they are now. It is just the way it is. Nothing can change that
How much technology is there in major league baseball? The bats, balls, gloves, cleats, etc. are pretty much the same as they have been forever.

How about pro basketball? What technology is there? The ball is pretty much the same. And don't say the shoes. They don't make much difference. It's all marketing. That one pro (I forgot his name) who started his own shoe company making and selling $20 basketball shoes proves that. He wears them on court in NBA games and his zero technology shoes perform just as well as the latest and greatest $200 Nike shoes that are supposedly full of "technology".

Technology is for computers and cell phones, not for sports.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:24 PM
I agree. You could just critic the taste of pizza though.
But there's a lot more to food than just pizza, just like there's a lot more to tennis than just baseline bashing with powerful modern racquets and poly strings.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 11:31 PM
How much technology is there in major league baseball? The bats, balls, gloves, cleats, etc. are pretty much the same as they have been forever.

How about pro basketball? What technology is there? The ball is pretty much the same. And don't say the shoes. They don't make much difference. It's all marketing. That one pro (I forgot his name) who started his own shoe company making and selling $20 basketball shoes proves that. He wears them on court in NBA games and his zero technology shoes perform just as well as the latest and greatest $200 Nike shoes that are supposedly full of "technology".

Technology is for computers and cell phones, not for sports.

I've been playing tennis for over 20 years and must say the luxilon strings have helped me out a lot. For me that's a huge improvement. What I've lost in touch and power vs natural gut I've more than made up for in consistency with luxilon. I think racquets have to some degree actually gone a step backwards. The mg prestige I use today has nothing on the prestiges from the late 80's early 90's. Same could be said for wilson. The prostaffs from the 80's are way better than stuff they're putting out now.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 11:34 PM
But there's a lot more to food than just pizza, just like there's a lot more to tennis than just baseline bashing with powerful modern racquets and poly strings.

Exactly. That's why I somtimes state that I did not watch tennis prior to the 80's so that people will know waht my range of viewership is and that I'm not dissing on Laver if I forget to mention him.

Safinator_1
05-14-2009, 11:47 PM
How much technology is there in major league baseball? The bats, balls, gloves, cleats, etc. are pretty much the same as they have been forever.

How about pro basketball? What technology is there? The ball is pretty much the same. And don't say the shoes. They don't make much difference. It's all marketing. That one pro (I forgot his name) who started his own shoe company making and selling $20 basketball shoes proves that. He wears them on court in NBA games and his zero technology shoes perform just as well as the latest and greatest $200 Nike shoes that are supposedly full of "technology".

Technology is for computers and cell phones, not for sports.

Yet for some reason it seems technology has affected tennis and i don't think it will ever go back

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 12:02 AM
Yet for some reason it seems technology has affected tennis and i don't think it will ever go back
It's because people are lazy by nature and they'd rather buy a tennis game than develop one through hard work.

The first time I ever saw the Prince oversize racquet back in 1976, I knew the sport of tennis would never be the same again. :(

380pistol
05-15-2009, 12:06 AM
How much technology is there in major league baseball? The bats, balls, gloves, cleats, etc. are pretty much the same as they have been forever.

How about pro basketball? What technology is there? The ball is pretty much the same. And don't say the shoes. They don't make much difference. It's all marketing. That one pro (I forgot his name) who started his own shoe company making and selling $20 basketball shoes proves that. He wears them on court in NBA games and his zero technology shoes perform just as well as the latest and greatest $200 Nike shoes that are supposedly full of "technology".

Technology is for computers and cell phones, not for sports.

$20 shoes were Stephon marbury. 2 time NBA MVP Steva Nash wears shoes made from recycled material as well. Also it's not marketing (although that's a good point), it's also about how much it costs too make the shoes. And wasn't ther a whole debate about Nike selling kicks for $150, when they cost what $1.25 or something to make.

All that technology for less than $2.

Melissa
05-15-2009, 07:14 AM
BP - Check your email.

Blade0324
05-15-2009, 08:27 AM
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news? Gun sales have shot through the roof ever since Obama was elected because everyone expects him to ban guns soon. He voted for gun bans every chance he got as a Senator and people expect him to push for the same as President.

But why should we allow technology to ruin tennis? Why not preserve the natural beauty of the game for all to enjoy for many generations? Has the net, the court, and the ball changed very much over the past 100 years? They still use Slazenger balls at Wimbledon which have been used for almost 100 years. Why should they changed the racquets and strings so drastically? Technology has killed the variety and strategy in tennis. Now it's more like watching a video game. :(

The part about it ruining tennis is simply your opinion. Many people, feel that it has made tennis much better. You are actually in the minortiy here. If the majority felt as you do then there would be changes. That's the way the world works.

Blade0324
05-15-2009, 08:35 AM
It's because people are lazy by nature and they'd rather buy a tennis game than develop one through hard work.

The first time I ever saw the Prince oversize racquet back in 1976, I knew the sport of tennis would never be the same again. :(

Then get in your Delorian and go back to 1975. None of us want you here anyway. You have got to have social issues in real life based on your behavior here. Do you frequently get in arguements/debates with people? I'd have to say that after a couple of your foolish and delusional comments and refusal to even acknowledge when you are wrong (most of the time) I would expect that you have frequently been punched in the face.

Chadwixx
05-15-2009, 09:14 AM
How much technology is there in major league baseball? The bats, balls, gloves, cleats, etc. are pretty much the same as they have been forever.


Actually we are in a juiced ball era.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/9906012/rss

Players are taking steroids and greenies. Mlb is no longer considered a sport in my book.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 10:16 AM
The part about it ruining tennis is simply your opinion. Many people, feel that it has made tennis much better. You are actually in the minortiy here. If the majority felt as you do then there would be changes. That's the way the world works.
Yet, tennis was more popular and more people played tennis in the U.S. back in the wood era than today. So I don't think I'm in the minority.

And, no, that's not the way the world works. Most people in the world did not want the Iraq War, yet we had the Iraq War. Most people do not want to be fat, yet we have an obesity epidemic. Most people do not want the values of their houses to go down, yet house prices have been plummeting for years. Most people do not want the stock market to crash and their 401K's get decimated, yet it did. What people want and what actually happens are two completely different things.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 10:17 AM
Then get in your Delorian and go back to 1975. None of us want you here anyway. You have got to have social issues in real life based on your behavior here. Do you frequently get in arguements/debates with people? I'd have to say that after a couple of your foolish and delusional comments and refusal to even acknowledge when you are wrong (most of the time) I would expect that you have frequently been punched in the face.
And what are YOU doing right now? :oops:

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 10:19 AM
Actually we are in a juiced ball era.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/9906012/rss

Players are taking steroids and greenies. Mlb is no longer considered a sport in my book.
Exactly! No new technology is allowed in baseball so players just have to become better baseball players on their own without the help of new equipment technology.

Blade0324
05-15-2009, 11:18 AM
And what are YOU doing right now? :oops:

Well I was referring to in person but whatever. Also to be in a debate or arguement it takes 2 sides having viable positions and being able to defend them. You just babble incessently about whatever you want. Not exactly mentally stimulating.:oops:

Blade0324
05-15-2009, 11:20 AM
Yet, tennis was more popular and more people played tennis in the U.S. back in the wood era than today. So I don't think I'm in the minority.

And, no, that's not the way the world works. Most people in the world did not want the Iraq War, yet we had the Iraq War. Most people do not want to be fat, yet we have an obesity epidemic. Most people do not want the values of their houses to go down, yet house prices have been plummeting for years. Most people do not want the stock market to crash and their 401K's get decimated, yet it did. What people want and what actually happens are two completely different things.

Here you go again with the wood era.
I think you have an infatuation with "the wood era" because you like holding "wood" besides your own.

thetaxman
05-15-2009, 11:58 AM
Every sport changes with time. Let's just enjoy what we have today.

The-Champ
05-15-2009, 02:07 PM
Here you go again with the wood era.
I think you have an infatuation with "the wood era" because you like holding "wood" besides your own.


LOL

10 chars

gflyer
05-15-2009, 02:17 PM
Keep starting stupid threads like these, please. Everyday. So you get banned as soon as possible.

I don't see why he should be banned, because you don't agree?
I think this is a very legitimate thread.
I am not sure about the fact that Muster was more of a fighter then Nadal.
Nadal is tough as nails. I cannot think about anybody tougher than him.
But I agree on your technical speculation about serve-and-volleyers.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 02:55 PM
Well I was referring to in person but whatever. Also to be in a debate or arguement it takes 2 sides having viable positions and being able to defend them. You just babble incessently about whatever you want. Not exactly mentally stimulating.:oops:
Um...and YOU have a "viable position"? :-?

Your position seems to be - Today's tennis with modern racquets and poly strings is better because I've never played in the wood era, so therefore, the modern era must be better.

That's like you saying - McDonald's is better than Burger King because I've never eaten at Burger King before in my life so McDonald's must be better. :oops:

Yeah, real viable position.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Here you go again with the wood era.
I think you have an infatuation with "the wood era" because you like holding "wood" besides your own.
Um...tennis was more popular and played by more people in the U.S. in the 1970's than it is today, and most people were using wood racquets in the 70's so therefore, it was in the "wood era".

maverick66
05-15-2009, 03:30 PM
Um...tennis was more popular and played by more people in the U.S. in the 1970's than it is today, and most people were using wood racquets in the 70's so therefore, it was in the "wood era".

thats not why tennis in this country has declined. its declined big time because other sports have grown a ton. kids wanna play other sports. thats why there is no top athlete from the USA playing tennis. if kids are not into it the sport will not be big. they are the ones that drive the sport. they buy the stuff that pros use and want to attend everything that top guys are attending.Tennis sadly is heading the way of golf in that its a game people play when they get older because they can still play.