PDA

View Full Version : Nadal vs older era?


tenniskid567
11-01-2009, 03:58 PM
How do you think those guys with one hander's would fare if they played guys like Nadal who attack with super high topspin shots to the one handed backhand? It just seems that no one used to attack it like Nadal attacks Federer with it. I just used Nadal in the title because I coudn't think of a title, and I'm not really biased one way or the other, I'm just wondering what you guys think.

Outbeyond
11-01-2009, 04:05 PM
You know, we could debate this kind of question endlessly. I came into tennis via McEnroe. I adored him and still am his biggest fan, but I love Nadal now, too. But even Mac admits there's no comparison. Today, players use completely different rackets, and don't forget that Big Eye (or whatever we call that thing that tells whether balls have crossed lines) has changed the game forever, as have the physiques of our newest players who seem to hit the gym as often as they hit the courts for practice.

I don't think Mac could beat Nadal or Federer today, not a chance. But that doesn't take away from what he gave to me years ago in the late 70's and early 80's....my absolute, enduring love of tennis!

President of Serve/Volley
11-01-2009, 04:18 PM
You know, we could debate this kind of question endlessly. I came into tennis via McEnroe. I adored him and still am his biggest fan, but I love Nadal now, too. But even Mac admits there's no comparison. Today, players use completely different rackets, and don't forget that Big Eye (or whatever we call that thing that tells whether balls have crossed lines) has changed the game forever, as have the physiques of our newest players who seem to hit the gym as often as they hit the courts for practice.

I don't think Mac could beat Nadal or Federer today, not a chance. But that doesn't take away from what he gave to me years ago in the late 70's and early 80's....my absolute, enduring love of tennis!



Mac would beat Nadal.... Mac's volleys would give Nadal a very tough time.

ubermeyer
11-01-2009, 04:20 PM
Nadal wins

IvanAndreevich
11-01-2009, 05:08 PM
Back in the day there were no strings to put that massive spin on the balls.

prosealster
11-01-2009, 05:11 PM
if they stay back, nad will feast on their OHBH all day long...
if they come in....they wont stand a chance against nad's passing shot...

nad wins, no contest

President of Serve/Volley
11-01-2009, 05:30 PM
if they stay back, nad will feast on their OHBH all day long...
if they come in....they wont stand a chance against nad's passing shot...

nad wins, no contest



Pete Sampras would beat Nadal on old vintage grass 6-0, 6-0, 6-0...

Blinkism
11-01-2009, 05:32 PM
Nadal wins, methinks.

Cantankersore
11-01-2009, 05:35 PM
Pete Sampras would beat Nadal on old vintage grass 6-0, 6-0, 6-0...

Because Sampras is well-known for frequently breaking his opponent's serve, and Nadal isn't well known for holding serve.

OddJack
11-01-2009, 05:54 PM
I believe that high top spin to backhand by Nadal has been over emphasized. Look at Davydenko. Yes he has two handed backhand, but he is short and yet he is not that troubled by that HIGH top spin that people repeatedly talk about here.

Look at AO 09 final. During the whole match none of the three commentators, Pat Mac, Cahil, Gilbert, ever mentioned that Rodge was troubled by his topspin to backhand.

I think there is a hype going on here with that Nadal high topspin to BH.

IvanAndreevich
11-01-2009, 06:35 PM
I believe that high top spin to backhand by Nadal has been over emphasized. Look at Davydenko. Yes he has two handed backhand, but he is short and yet he is not that troubled by that HIGH top spin that people repeatedly talk about here.

Look at AO 09 final. During the whole match none of the three commentators, Pat Mac, Cahil, Gilbert, ever mentioned that Rodge was troubled by his topspin to backhand.

I think there is a hype going on here with that Nadal high topspin to BH.

Hype? Have you never seen a match between a 1 hander and Nadal on a high-bouncing surface?

wangs78
11-01-2009, 06:43 PM
How do you think those guys with one hander's would fare if they played guys like Nadal who attack with super high topspin shots to the one handed backhand? It just seems that no one used to attack it like Nadal attacks Federer with it. I just used Nadal in the title because I coudn't think of a title, and I'm not really biased one way or the other, I'm just wondering what you guys think.

If prime Mac played prime Nadal with today's racquets, Nadal wins.

If they played with racquets from Mac's era, Mac wins.

Now if it was Fed playing against Mac with those old racquets, I'd have a tough time deciding.

RCizzle65
11-01-2009, 07:41 PM
Hype? Have you never seen a match between a 1 hander and Nadal on a high-bouncing surface?

Wawrinka doesn't seem bothered by it

timnz
11-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Kuerten is taller than Nadal or Federer. I think that height plus his great single handed backhand would have helped him handle those high bouncing balls from Nadal.

OddJack
11-01-2009, 08:10 PM
Hype? Have you never seen a match between a 1 hander and Nadal on a high-bouncing surface?

See, this is what I am talking about.

Most players now have two HB. If anything one handed BH has better reach than 2HB. OP does not specify clay in his post.

BTW, last time a one handed player against Nadal beat him on clay in Madrid, yes he has the records on his side but what it tells you is that the high top spin to BH does not determine the outcome by itself.

Falloutjr
11-01-2009, 08:13 PM
Back in the day there were no strings to put that massive spin on the balls.

But players still figured out how to hit spins and construct points, I believe Nadal would succeed, if he didn't have that dreaded 2hbh ;)

serve stopper
11-01-2009, 08:16 PM
I'm gonna have to go with nadal on this one

doom
11-01-2009, 08:22 PM
If you transported Nadal to the 80s-early 90s he would get killed.

He would have to use a non babolat racket with non poly strings and play on faster surfaces against players who serve harder, hit flatter and volley more often than players today.

If you transported any of the greats from that era to today though they would probably not do very well even if they switched equipment

kishnabe
11-01-2009, 08:29 PM
My brain hurts from wondering, So stop trying to imagine this. Nadal wins period since they never saw anything close to a topspin junkie since Borg.

JoshDragon
11-01-2009, 08:33 PM
Mac would beat Nadal.... Mac's volleys would give Nadal a very tough time.

Yeah right. The courts are way too slow for Mac too even have a chance today. Rafa, would slaughter Mac with his passing shots.

It would not be a pretty sight.

Blinkism
11-01-2009, 08:33 PM
See, this is what I am talking about.

Most players now have two HB. If anything one handed BH has better reach than 2HB. OP does not specify clay in his post.

BTW, last time a one handed player against Nadal beat him on clay in Madrid, yes he has the records on his side but what it tells you is that the high top spin to BH does not determine the outcome by itself.

Since then he's beaten Gasquet, Gonzalez, Blake, Robredo, Ljubicic, and Lopez.

Maybe it wasn't on clay, but Nadal seems to play better against guys with 1HBHs

EDIT: Nadal beat Marcos Daniel in his very next match on clay. Daniel has a 1HBH. Just a factual error, there, OddJack.

JoshDragon
11-01-2009, 08:34 PM
If you transported Nadal to the 80s-early 90s he would get killed.

He would have to use a non babolat racket with non poly strings and play on faster surfaces against players who serve harder, hit flatter and volley more often than players today.

If you transported any of the greats from that era to today though they would probably not do very well even if they switched equipment

He wouldn't be killed on clay and he'd probably win the French Open 8 times in a row.

OddJack
11-01-2009, 09:08 PM
Since then he's beaten Gasquet, Gonzalez, Blake, Robredo, Ljubicic, and Lopez.

Maybe it wasn't on clay, but Nadal seems to play better against guys with 1HBHs

EDIT: Nadal beat Marcos Daniel in his very next match on clay. Daniel has a 1HBH. Just a factual error, there, OddJack.

The point is that Nadal seems to play better than most everyone on tour, either one handed or two. All I am saying is that too much emphasis has been given to his topspin to BH. There is simply not enough 1HB players against him to support your claim. Some people talk like Nadal invented top spin to BH on clay.

If there is anything to emphasize endlessly about him would be his grinding, grinding, grinding. Remember he went down not because he could not top spin, but because of bad knee, bad abdominal muscle. bad joints. He simply could not chase all the balls like he did through out 2008.

President of Serve/Volley
11-01-2009, 09:10 PM
Yeah right. The courts are way too slow for Mac too even have a chance today. Rafa, would slaughter Mac with his passing shots.

It would not be a pretty sight.



How about on old vintage grass 1985 or carpet or old indoor courts speed?

Yeah, Mac would own him, any prime S/V like Edberg, Boris Becker would beat Nadal very easily on super quick surfaces.

Becker vs Nadal on Carpet for your life? You cannot be thinking to take Nadal... Becker easily.

President of Serve/Volley
11-01-2009, 09:12 PM
If you transported Nadal to the 80s-early 90s he would get killed.

He would have to use a non babolat racket with non poly strings and play on faster surfaces against players who serve harder, hit flatter and volley more often than players today.

If you transported any of the greats from that era to today though they would probably not do very well even if they switched equipment



Except for Roger Federer.

namelessone
11-01-2009, 09:55 PM
These imaginary match-ups are irrelevant because we honestly don't know how the players might have managed. Perhaps young fed or nadal wouldn't even have played tennis if they started it with a heavy wooden racket. Perhaps they would have played football instead of tennis. Why do people automatically assume that Federer would still have played like today?Perhaps he would have become a S&V'er,not a baseliner. Or perhaps Nadal would have turned out a different player because he couldn't counterpunch well with a wooden racket. According to 2/3 of the posters here out of the current crop of players today only Fed would still play well with a wooden racket which is laughable IMO.

Oh,and can you imagine some with connors,borg's or mcenroe's drive with today's rackets? It would be quite a show. It's fun to imagine such things but don't take them too seriously.

JoshDragon
11-01-2009, 11:13 PM
How about on old vintage grass 1985 or carpet or old indoor courts speed?

Yeah, Mac would own him, any prime S/V like Edberg, Boris Becker would beat Nadal very easily on super quick surfaces.

Becker vs Nadal on Carpet for your life? You cannot be thinking to take Nadal... Becker easily.

If Nadal, was able to use his current racquet then I think he would beat Becker on the indoor courts, but if he had to use the older racquets than I agree that Becker would win.

dropshot winner
11-02-2009, 02:01 AM
I believe that high top spin to backhand by Nadal has been over emphasized. Look at Davydenko. Yes he has two handed backhand, but he is short and yet he is not that troubled by that HIGH top spin that people repeatedly talk about here.

Look at AO 09 final. During the whole match none of the three commentators, Pat Mac, Cahil, Gilbert, ever mentioned that Rodge was troubled by his topspin to backhand.

I think there is a hype going on here with that Nadal high topspin to BH.
Davydenko has a very good rally backhand, way better than Federer's and especially Sampras'.

And the AO2009 was one of the best performances backhand-wise from Federer against Nadal. Usually he shanks and mistimes a lot more shots from that wing, unfortunately Federer served like crap, but that's another story.

OddJack
11-02-2009, 06:54 AM
Davydenko has a very good rally backhand, way better than Federer's and especially Sampras'.

And the AO2009 was one of the best performances backhand-wise from Federer against Nadal. Usually he shanks and mistimes a lot more shots from that wing, unfortunately Federer served like crap, but that's another story.

Davydenko has nothing "way better" than Federer. Federer's BH, just like Nadal's top spin, has been the subject for over emphasis. Nadal's backhand, also known as two handed forehand, is one of the best, yet in every match Federer has had more BH winners than him, and of course more UE's which comes with it. When people compare BH and FH of diff. players they also should consider the style a certain player employs. Players like Murray and Nadal will always have less Errors off their BH than Federer and that comes already packaged in their games style.
On average, 30% to 40% of strokes are played with BH. How could anybody stand at world number one with almost half of his game "way worse" than his opponent?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-02-2009, 06:59 AM
?

Yeah, Mac would own him, any prime S/V like Edberg, Boris Becker would beat Nadal very easily on super quick surfaces.

Becker vs Nadal on Carpet for your life? You cannot be thinking to take Nadal... Becker easily.
Agree with this,someone cant possibly argue with this that would just be ridiculous

dropshot winner
11-02-2009, 07:17 AM
Davydenko has nothing "way better" than Federer. Federer's BH, just like Nadal's top spin, has been the subject for over emphasis. Nadal's backhand, also known as two handed forehand, is one of the best, yet in every match Federer has had more BH winners than him, and of course more UE's which comes with it. When people compare BH and FH of diff. players they also should consider the style a certain player employs. Players like Murray and Nadal will always have less Errors off their BH than Federer and that comes already packaged in their games style.
On average, 30% to 40% of strokes are played with BH. How could anybody stand at world number one with almost half of his game "way worse" than his opponent?
I specifically wrote "rally backhand", not the backhand as a package.

Davydenko can't hit slices like Federer, but his rally backhand IS way better. Federer can only dream of hitting his backhand down the line like Davydenko.
If Federer had that shot he would've probably retired this year out of boredom with 4 or 5 consecutive calender slams.

Federer has been so successful because he was able to keep points alive extremely well off the backhand side, it allowed him to play a forehand sooner or later, either inside-out (Federer's best shot) or a regular forehand.

JoshDragon
11-02-2009, 10:07 AM
Agree with this,someone cant possibly argue with this that would just be ridiculous

Borg would own Federer on clay.

coloskier
11-02-2009, 01:55 PM
How do you think those guys with one hander's would fare if they played guys like Nadal who attack with super high topspin shots to the one handed backhand? It just seems that no one used to attack it like Nadal attacks Federer with it. I just used Nadal in the title because I coudn't think of a title, and I'm not really biased one way or the other, I'm just wondering what you guys think.

It depends on one big thing. Is Nadal playing with equipment from their era or the other way around. If he had to play with rackets and strings from the 80's/90's, he would be hitting the fence with every one of his shots.

Casey10s
11-02-2009, 02:15 PM
These imaginary match-ups are irrelevant because we honestly don't know how the players might have managed. Perhaps young fed or nadal wouldn't even have played tennis if they started it with a heavy wooden racket. Perhaps they would have played football instead of tennis. Why do people automatically assume that Federer would still have played like today?Perhaps he would have become a S&V'er,not a baseliner. Or perhaps Nadal would have turned out a different player because he couldn't counterpunch well with a wooden racket. According to 2/3 of the posters here out of the current crop of players today only Fed would still play well with a wooden racket which is laughable IMO.

Oh,and can you imagine some with connors,borg's or mcenroe's drive with today's rackets? It would be quite a show. It's fun to imagine such things but don't take them too seriously.
I agree. Also, don't forget that with the head sizes being smaller than today, one couldn't hit the heavy topspin without shanking a lot of them due to catching the frames. This has been pointed out in some magazine articles.

Take a top player from any era and drop them in at any other era when they were young and they would probably play something near the style of that time. They would not radically play at any different style except what existed for that era. My opinion is a great player is great no matter when they played. Laver, Connors, Borg, and so on would be bulkier if they grew up today and would have different styles since they would be learning the style of today's tennis. Nadal would probably be thinner and not hitting heavy topspin (due to the technology) if he played in the 70's and Laver would not be using a continental grip on forehands if he grew up in today's era.