PDA

View Full Version : Nadal cannot possibly do what Agassi has accomplished...


BabolatFan
05-31-2006, 07:06 AM
Ok Nadal fans, relax. I'm talking facts here. Nadal at the moment is the king of claycourt tennis and he is #2 at 19 years of age. However I don't think that he can win USO or Oz slams because of his style of game. Too much spin on fast surfaces. No way Jose! :p
On the other hand, Agassi has won all 4 slams and attained the number 1 spot in 1995. Wow. He won his last FO slam in 1999.
What do you all think about Nadal's potential to win more slams? Is Rolland Garros his only road to the Slam contest?

ksbh
05-31-2006, 07:14 AM
Well, how many players have accomplished what Agassi has?!

Nadal has the potential to win other slams, no question about that. But will he match Agassi's accomplishments? Can't tell, it's a tall order for any player.

Ok Nadal fans, relax. I'm talking facts here. Nadal at the moment is the king of claycourt tennis and he is #2 at 19 years of age. However I don't think that he can win USO or Oz slams because of his style of game. Too much spin on fast surfaces. No way Jose! :p
On the other hand, Agassi has won all 4 slams and attained the number 1 spot in 1995. Wow. He won his last FO slam in 1999.
What do you all think about Nadal's potential to win more slams? Is Rolland Garros his only road to the Slam contest?

Jackie
05-31-2006, 07:17 AM
I think he could, that kid is really good but the only thing I don't really like about him is that his forhand topspin looks kinda flat.

breakfast_of_champions
05-31-2006, 07:58 AM
and agassi could never accomplish what nadal just did either.

arosen
05-31-2006, 08:08 AM
Rafa is very, very likely to win AO. Fed is super lucky Rafa did not show up this year. The surface is slow, the ball bounces high, perfect conditions for Rafa. One tourney he is not going to win is Wimby. It's like Sampras and clay.

highsierra
05-31-2006, 08:10 AM
Why is it that there are so many people here keep making such mindless assertions? I thought the folks playing tennis are thought to be better educated, and actually have a brain?

freaky
05-31-2006, 08:17 AM
Why talking about AO! one step at the time..
but in future I think he has potential..

lucky leprechaun
05-31-2006, 08:26 AM
Nadal needs to build his hard court resume a little bit before I make judgement. There's tons of people he hasn't played yet that I think could potentially give him trouble on hard courts.

Turning Pro
05-31-2006, 08:32 AM
Ao yup is his best bet outside of the French.I can see Nadal going deep next year.I expect the Quarters at least next year if he's fit and 'on'.

we've seen his hardcourt potential.

Agassi at Montreal.
Fed at Dubai,v.close in Miami.

Aykhan Mammadov
05-31-2006, 09:03 AM
"Nadal cannot possibly do what Agassi has accomplished... "

Not possibly, but definetly. 9 slams and all 4 !!!

matchpoint
05-31-2006, 09:10 AM
Ok Nadal fans, relax. I'm talking facts here. Nadal at the moment is the king of claycourt tennis and he is #2 at 19 years of age. However I don't think that he can win USO or Oz slams because of his style of game. Too much spin on fast surfaces. No way Jose! :p
On the other hand, Agassi has won all 4 slams and attained the number 1 spot in 1995. Wow. He won his last FO slam in 1999.
What do you all think about Nadal's potential to win more slams? Is Rolland Garros his only road to the Slam contest?

I am not a Nadal fan nor Andre fan but how about this for a start.
1. Andre won his first slam at age 22, Nadal at age 19.
2. Andre became #1 at age 25, Nadal #2 at age 19.
3. Andre was owned by Sampras, yet Andre is older
4. Nadal owns Federer, yet Nadal is younger

Both Andre and Nadal have their own records to speak but Nadal's record has spoken much earlier than Agassi's and we can say that at this point in time the only other record that we can say about Agassi's is just being the oldest player on tour, not that it is bad but that's just how it is.

The truth is, the only other reason why you would compare Andre to Nadal is to make people think that Andre achieved something when he was a teenager. Maybe we can go back to this when Nadal becomes 22 years old then we'll see, it's too early to say at this time the guy is still very young.

matchpoint
05-31-2006, 09:14 AM
Why is it that there are so many people here keep making such mindless assertions? I thought the folks playing tennis are thought to be better educated, and actually have a brain?

Agree with you totally.

matchpoint
05-31-2006, 09:27 AM
his forhand TOPSPIN looks kinda FLAT.

ugh? sorry, could not resist...

johnkidd
05-31-2006, 09:32 AM
I think Nadal will be able to adapt his game to hardcourt. Flatten the ball out a bit. Grass might be another story. It will depend on how well he can return.

BabolatFan
05-31-2006, 09:38 AM
and agassi could never accomplish what nadal just did either.

That's why I also said Nadal's the king of claycourt tennis. But he gets outpowered on fast surface like AO slam, USO and oh yeah he lost to Blake at PacificLife. So my question to you is can he win more slams besides FO?

BabolatFan
05-31-2006, 09:54 AM
I am not a Nadal fan nor Andre fan but how about this for a start.
1. Andre won his first slam at age 22, Nadal at age 19.
2. Andre became #1 at age 25, Nadal #2 at age 19.
3. Andre was owned by Sampras, yet Andre is older
4. Nadal owns Federer, yet Nadal is younger

Both Andre and Nadal have their own records to speak but Nadal's record has spoken much earlier than Agassi's and we can say that at this point in time the only other record that we can say about Agassi's is just being the oldest player on tour, not that it is bad but that's just how it is.

The truth is, the only other reason why you would compare Andre to Nadal is to make people think that Andre achieved something when he was a teenager. Maybe we can go back to this when Nadal becomes 22 years old then we'll see, it's too early to say at this time the guy is still very young.

Ok u made a valid point there mate. I'll let u slide this time :neutral: I'm a fan of Federer actually and hope that he wins the FO slam this year. The question is very simple. Can Nadal win all 4 slams, not necessarily consecutively? I know it's too premature to speculate on this but my firm stand is NO. There're so many hardcourt talented players coming up. Even Nadal's own countryman Almagro can potentially beat him on fast surface. Remember though that I'm only talking slams.

Gilgamesh
05-31-2006, 10:13 AM
The things Agassi has accomplished throughout his career are a tall order for anyone to match or surpass.

But Nadal has as much potential as any player I have ever seen. Basically, it is just too early to say Nadal can't do this or that right now because the kid is still only 19 years old.

travlerajm
05-31-2006, 10:37 AM
Chang won his first French at 17. Maybe Chang vs. Nadal is an apter comparison than Agassi vs. Nadal?

FOs: Chang =1, Nadal = 1.
Other slams: Chang = 0, Nadal = 0.
Career high: Chang = #2, Nadal = #2.

Hewitt rulez
05-31-2006, 10:41 AM
I think Rafa has a good chance to win an Oz open and a decent chance to win the US Open as long as he doesn't meat Blake.

travlerajm
05-31-2006, 10:55 AM
I think Rafa has a good chance to win an Oz open and a decent chance to win the US Open as long as he doesn't meat Blake.

Chang made it to the USO final, the AO final, and one more FO final. Let's see Nadal can surpass that?

fastdunn
05-31-2006, 11:10 AM
The thing is Wimbledon changed the type of grass with slow, high-bouncing
"rye" grass from 2001 in order to attrack more of baseliners.

When you say "it's hard for top-spining baseliners to win Wimnbledon",
you're refering to old Wimbledon with extremely fast grass and lighter balls.

It's not a surprise that baseliners like Hewitt or Federer started to win
from around year 2001. They specifically re-designed Wimbledon courts
for baseliners.

Now, if Borg/Agassi could do it against all those serve-and-volleyers
when grass was extremely fast( and ball was light), I should wonder
why can't a talent like Nadal do it on much slower, higher bouncing
rey grass with heavier balls, against fellow baseliners ???


Ok Nadal fans, relax. I'm talking facts here. Nadal at the moment is the king of claycourt tennis and he is #2 at 19 years of age. However I don't think that he can win USO or Oz slams because of his style of game. Too much spin on fast surfaces. No way Jose! :p
On the other hand, Agassi has won all 4 slams and attained the number 1 spot in 1995. Wow. He won his last FO slam in 1999.
What do you all think about Nadal's potential to win more slams? Is Rolland Garros his only road to the Slam contest?

federerhoogenbandfan
05-31-2006, 11:14 AM
The thing is Wimbledon changed the type of grass with slow, high-bouncing
"rye" grass from 2001 in order to attrack more of baseliners.

When you say "it's hard for top-spining baseliners to win Wimnbledon",
you're refering to old Wimbledon with extremely fast grass and lighter balls.

It's not a surprise that baseliners like Hewitt or Federer started to win
from around year 2001. They specifically re-designed Wimbledon courts
for baseliners.

Now, if Borg/Agassi could do it against all those serve-and-volleyers
when grass was extremely fast( and ball was light), I should wonder
why can't a talent like Nadal do it on much slower, higher bouncing
rey grass with heavier balls, against fellow baseliners ???

For a whole ton of reasons:

Borg and Agassi and Federer and Hewitt all move more comfortably on the grass then Nadal, they all have better serves, they all hit the ball earlier, they all can hit the ball cleaner without excess spin more regularly, except for Hewitt they all can hit winners early in a point regularly unlike Nadal who takes alot of shots to win most points, they both have more compact swings which is a must on grass. You really have never seen Nadal play on grass I assume, although watching him play on other surfaces and picturing it on grass should be enough really.

BabolatFan
05-31-2006, 11:27 AM
For a whole ton of reasons:

Borg and Agassi and Federer and Hewitt all move more comfortably on the grass then Nadal, they all have better serves, they all hit the ball earlier, they all can hit the ball cleaner without excess spin more regularly, except for Hewitt they all can hit winners early in a point regularly unlike Nadal who takes alot of shots to win most points, they both have more compact swings which is a must on grass. You really have never seen Nadal play on grass I assume, although watching him play on other surfaces and picturing it on grass should be enough really.

Yeah, ain't that the truth though? They all have solid serves and I'm not sure if Nadal can sole rely on his fitness nor can he rely on his serve and volley game. I just can't wait to the Wimbledon draw!

BaseLineBash
05-31-2006, 11:36 AM
I think the thing left out about Andre is that he is CAPABLE on ALL surfaces. Every one has a main weapon that sets them apart, his eyes are his weapon. Time will tell with Nadal. When Agassi first hit the tour he could play on anything just as today and be efficient, Nadal's game has not proven itself on all surfices, but Andre's did off the bat!

BabolatFan
05-31-2006, 11:38 AM
I think the thing left out about Andre is that he is CAPABLE on ALL surfaces. Every one has a main weapon that sets them apart, his eyes are his weapon. Time will tell with Nadal. When Agassi first hit the tour he could play on anything just as today and be efficient, Nadal's game has not proven itself on all surfices, but Andre's did off the bat!

Ah that's exactly the point!

superman1
05-31-2006, 11:40 AM
Uh...why are we comparing Agassi to Nadal now?

There is no comparison. Agassi in my opinion is one of the top 5 greatest players of all time. Nadal is just a kid with one Grand Slam and with enormous potential to do great things in his career. He does not have the game to have the success that Andre had, but you never know. I just highly doubt we'll be seeing a 36 year old Nadal with a bald head still competing at the top.

fastdunn
05-31-2006, 12:25 PM
For a whole ton of reasons:

Borg and Agassi and Federer and Hewitt all move more comfortably on the grass then Nadal, they all have better serves, they all hit the ball earlier, they all can hit the ball cleaner without excess spin more regularly, except for Hewitt they all can hit winners early in a point regularly unlike Nadal who takes alot of shots to win most points, they both have more compact swings which is a must on grass. You really have never seen Nadal play on grass I assume, although watching him play on other surfaces and picturing it on grass should be enough really.

That's a valid point. Borg, for example, actually had great serves.
And Agassi has very compact swing. I agree Nadal needs to improve
on those. I think Hewitt has pretty loopy forehand which I think is bigger
than Nadal and weak point on all surfaces. Hewitt, somehow, was able to
adjust successfully. I think Nadal has pretty compact swing on
his backhand and his forehand backswing is not as big as Hewitt's.

Some says "Wimbledon makes everybody's serve into a weapon".
Well that was when grass was fast and the ball was lighter but
I think it still holds truth to some extent. If Nadal can improves his LEFTY
serve a little bit, it would be effective enough.

I'm betting that Nadal can adjust on grass in the future.
It takes time especially because you don't get much chances
to play on grass. Note that Sampras didn't do well on grass
early in his career. He lost at 1st rounds for 1989, 1990
and then 2nd round in 1991. You'd expect he would have done
better with his serves. He needed time to adjust on grass.

Plus Wimbledon wanted baseliners like Nadal to do better on their
courts. They re-designed it specifically for that. We're seeing results immediately from around 2001. It's not really radical prediction that
we'll see clay courters do better at Wimbledon in the future.....

superman1
05-31-2006, 12:27 PM
He'll need to hit through the ball better and also learn to come in at net. He has good hands, so it's not inconceivable that he could transform himself into an all-courter. That's his only chance at having longevity.

tennis_nerd22
05-31-2006, 12:36 PM
Why is it that there are so many people here keep making such mindless assertions? I thought the folks playing tennis are thought to be better educated, and actually have a brain?

lol thats why it will be funny if nadal wins the US Open or Wimbledon :D

The Pusher Terminator
05-31-2006, 10:07 PM
Nadal will win the US Open...he has beaten Fed twice on hard courts; however, Nadal will unfortunately never win Wimbledon.

But who cares...grass is not a "real" surface. Who the hell plays on grass? Its an outdated ancient surface that should not count as a grandslam surface. Its like playing the world series on asphalt, or playing football on air balloons, or playing Hockey on concrete. No one plays on those surfaces. Grass is not a fair representation of the sport...yet its the most prestigious tournament...ridiculous!

RiosTheGenius
05-31-2006, 10:13 PM
yeah, and Nadal will probably never step on the moon like Neil Armstrong did, or win more races than M. Schumacher... get over it.. carry on

Andres
05-31-2006, 10:13 PM
Nadal will win the US Open...he has beaten Fed twice on hard courts; however, Nadal will unfortunately never win Wimbledon.

But who cares...grass is not a "real" surface. Who the hell plays on grass? Its an outdated ancient surface that should not count as a grandslam surface. Its like playing the world series on asphalt, or playing football on air balloons, or playing Hockey on concrete. No one plays on those surfaces. Grass is not a fair representation of the sport...yet its the most prestigious tournament...ridiculous!
But it counts. And it's the most prestigious tournament in the world. So get over or deal with it.
There are no har-tru tourneys, yet I don't see you complaining about it.
Grass is a part of tennis tradition. A huge HUGE part. So stop whining about that...

And I agree with you about Nadal on hardcourts. But I don't know if US Open yet, but the Rebound Ace of the OZ Open seems to fit better his style ;)

fastdunn
05-31-2006, 10:34 PM
I can not imagine Wimbledon on any other surfaces.
Wimbledon is very stubborn on traditions.

For those who knows Wimbledon, it's very surprising
move for Wimbledon to succumb to outside
pressure and change the type of grass.

OrangeOne
05-31-2006, 10:51 PM
But who cares...grass is not a "real" surface. Who the hell plays on grass? Its an outdated ancient surface that should not count as a grandslam surface. Its like playing the world series on asphalt, or playing football on air balloons, or playing Hockey on concrete. No one plays on those surfaces. Grass is not a fair representation of the sport...yet its the most prestigious tournament...ridiculous!

Ummm, "tennis" as a sport, in it's current variant, started as "lawn tennis".

Enough said? It's where it all started, it *is* the sport. Everything else - well that's an impersonation of the original.

As for sports with natural, challenging elements - what about mountain-biking, skiing, rally-driving, golf, need I say more?

dandy2fast
06-01-2006, 05:33 AM
No one plays on those surfaces. Grass is not a fair representation of the sport...yet its the most prestigious tournament...ridiculous!

Do you want us to create a poll like :

What is the most ridculous?
A/ Pusher terminator's posts on the TW message board

B/ Wimbledon

:mrgreen: