dominikk1985
Legend
What do you think? usually we talk about the older player having to use old material but since nadal is considered better by most lets reverse the advantage to even the field. so who would win?
what surface? what tournament? how many times would they play? would Nadal be injured? would he have his wonder serve from USO 2010? would he be tired? have burnt fingers/a virus etc? would... i'll cut a long story short, I haven't a clue :lol:
Roland Garos of course
Rafa with 90s technology? LOL!! Even Federer would beat him easily.
I hate these threads. Again, you are assuming that player X will play the same if he grew up with equipment Y. Player grow up with their equipment and tailor their games to them, not the other way round.
I just hate it when everyone is being so unfair to Nadal just because he plays an "unorthodox" game. Out of all the players who uses full poly, he is the most successful, that means he must be doing something right. Why can't people leave it at that?
There's no such thing as being "more reliant" on technology. Everyone is helped by modern racquets. Federer doesn't have the most classic technique on his groundstrokes either.
Btw I'd like to hear what Mustard has to say.
Come on Mustard
I see double whammy for MUSTARD here..
Muster wins most of the time, though Nadal would push him. But didn't Tommy use poly strings toward the end of his career? Regardless of what he was endorsing, I seem to recall he was using poly in the mid-Nineties (in his Kneissl Reach Machine).
i agree, muster in straights !I'm not sure, guys. How would Nadal play with 1990s strings and how would Muster play in his peak years with modern poly strings? It's not really possible to know this. Muster is superior to Nadal in fitness and grinding, but Nadal is superior to Muster in game variety and physical mobility. Nadal would have change his style a bit to win, I think, because Muster was even fitter and was utterly relentless in his persistence. Nadal's strategy would be to make Muster run a lot, particularly in making him run into the forecourt, while Muster's strategy would be a straight forward baseline war.
Muster wins most of the time, though Nadal would push him. But didn't Tommy use poly strings toward the end of his career? Regardless of what he was endorsing, I seem to recall he was using poly in the mid-Nineties (in his Kneissl Reach Machine).
This ^.2. lendl, kuerten, courier, vilas, wilander were probably all better claycourters than muster imo so i dont know why hes so highly regarded for winning it once. even bruguera won it twice.
This ^.
Muster is flattered somewhat by clay-court history revisionists. He often got beaten by nobodies on clay in his prime - other than one magical year where he was on fire.
And? There's no doubt he went on a magical run - one which was truly outstanding.In Muster's prime, he was 111-5 on clay, winning 18 clay-court tournaments in a 19 month period, which included a French Open, 2 Monte Carlos, 2 Romes, 2 Barcelonas and 2 Stuttgart Outdoors. The people who beat him on clay in this period were Corretja, A. Costa, Moya, Stich and Benfele Alvarez. Apart from Benfele Alvarez (which was a loss to a guy well outside the top 100), the other 4 guys were a future 2-time French Open runner-up (Corretja), 2 future French Open champions (Moya and A. Costa), and a former major winner who has won titles on all surfaces (Stich).
And? There's no doubt he went on a magical run - one which was truly outstanding.
But then you look at the other years in his prime > 1993, 1994, 1997 - and that's being charitably short - he was not a consistent performer really in the bigger scheme of things.
This was about whether he'd beat Nadal if Nadal had to use the strings of the era - I say Nadal would clean him up regardless. Bruguera managed to hit his forehand with close to as much topspin as Nadal does in Muster's era.
That's sort of the point re: my comment about Muster's prime. It's easy to pick a prime period which suits the argument. His prime was not 25 months long - he just achieved the most in that particular 25 month period of his prime....Muster's prime was just a 25 month period (February 1995 to March 1997). In his 15 year career, Muster won 44 tournaments on the main tour, yet 21 of those 44 titles came within that 25 month peak.
That's sort of the point re: my comment about Muster's prime. It's easy to pick a prime period which suits the argument. His prime was not 25 months long - he just achieved the most in that particular 25 month period of his prime.
I accept 91 was perhaps too early for him but 92, 93 and 94 were not. It was when he was 25-27 yrs old.1991 saw Muster in a slump for the first half of the year, where he could barely win matches. One would have to be crazy to think that was his prime.
i think due to musters type of charisma/persona, his legend has grown bigger than what it really was. what if muster was in his prime now playing with poly? would he be winning 7 french opens and counting? nadal is barely even tested on clay alot of the time and i dont think its because of poly strings. i just dont see how people would choose muster
Ha! I can't believe how many people really think that the string change will affect Nadal that much. It's not about the arrow, its about the Indian. Nadal is a 7 time RG champion, probably the clay GOAT, and you are asking how he would do on his favorite courts against a very good but unspectacular 1 time RG winner? It's no contest at all. Nadal will for sure struggle more than if he could use poly, and the matches would probably be close. But Nadal is better than Muster in basically every single aspect of the game. Fitness is arguable imo. Nadal by far.
The only players I see giving Nadal a rough time at the French would be Kuerton and Borg. Borg vs Nadal would be a great match if the playing field was level. Kuerton could probably win a few matches out of 10 vs Nadal on clay. His backhand surely would have held up better than Federers.
Kuerton also dominated Federer in their match in 2004, and that was injured Kuerton.Ha! I can't believe how many people really think that the string change will affect Nadal that much. It's not about the arrow, its about the Indian. Nadal is a 7 time RG champion, probably the clay GOAT, and you are asking how he would do on his favorite courts against a very good but unspectacular 1 time RG winner? It's no contest at all. Nadal will for sure struggle more than if he could use poly, and the matches would probably be close. But Nadal is better than Muster in basically every single aspect of the game. Fitness is arguable imo. Nadal by far.
The only players I see giving Nadal a rough time at the French would be Kuerton and Borg. Borg vs Nadal would be a great match if the playing field was level. Kuerton could probably win a few matches out of 10 vs Nadal on clay. His backhand surely would have held up better than Federers.
"Fluker"? That's an absurd statement. The fluke is that he didn't win more titles at RG, not that he won one.Get over yourselves, Muster was a chump. Nadal could breadstick a 30-year old Muster only hitting second serves and I'm not even saying this to be controversial.
We are talking undisputed clay GOAT vs some 1 RG fluker.
"Fluker"? That's an absurd statement. The fluke is that he didn't win more titles at RG, not that he won one.