Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MARK ANDERS, May 5, 2008.
I say Nadal would destroy him, how say you?
On his prime, I think Guga would have a great chance...It would be a great match to see
I think what you meant to ask is how many points would Guga win.
Borg. 10 chars.
This really is not even that close, its Nadal by a mile
Guga in his prime could handle the high ball well but Nadal has a lot more to his game on clay than that. (Drop shots, angles, and passing shots on the run)
plus guga has teh 1hbh..seems a weakness for anyone against nadal...
Guga would have to be serving lights out to stand a chance, but it would be a great match. I give the edge to Nadal. I just can't imagine Rafa almost losing to Michael Russell, and Guga had to play a lot of 5 set matches at Roland Garros even when he ended up champion. It would be a great match, though, if Guga was playing 100% and Nadal about 90%. Prime Rios versus Nadal, two lefties, would be just as interesting.
in both their primes, nadal would edge out guga. I think guga's 1handed backhand would break down a bit faster, but not by much, because guga had great retrieval skills.
Nadal would destroy Guga and Borg, hands down.
The only thing Guga actually does/did better was serve, but even thats not a huge edge because Nadal's lefty spinny serves are very effective on clay, besides that Nadal is faster, much better forehand, more solid backhand, faster, better volleyer, better fighter.........long day at the office for Guga
Guga's backhand wasn't a weakness by any means.
As much as I love guga though I would have to give the edge to Nadal. Guga will always be my favorite clay courter.
I think Guga would have a better shot than Federer though. Guga's backhand was more of a weapon on clay and he would handle Nadal's high topspin to that side better.
On clay, Guga's FH was better than Nadal's BH, and his BH wasnt any worse than Nadal's FH.
Nadal is 10 times a better mover, though.
nadal's movement is a huge factor that people forget. everyone's always comparing forehands and backhands. the reality of nadal's dominance is his anticipation is so much better, moves fast, slides well. he's won something like 101 of the past 102 matches or something like that on clay. only loss to fed. and most of his matches end very quickly.
he would destroy prime guga and force prime borg into retirement again, wood racquet or not. people keep talking about "technology", you also have to realize regardless of racquet or strings, players hit much more topspin these days, are fitter, stronger, bigger. the game has evolved and the players have adapted to it. if wood racquets were still in use by pros they would be shattered every other game.
Prime Guga probably. Prime Borg no way.
"What if" threads like this make no sense anyway. So arguing about this is a moot point.
exactly. we don't know how guys like borg or laver would have ended up playing like had they grown up during modern times or vice versa.
We're talking about Guga, not Borg, nor Laver.
i never said it was, but it's still a 1hbh, and with nadal's skipping groundstrokes, anyone not 6' 10" would have trouble hitting it that high unless they took it on the rise, which is needless to say very difficult
he just wouldnt be able to use it as effectively as he usually could, because nadal's groundstrokes are both extremely solid.
Have you ever SEEN Guga playing?
In fact, you should check Nadal playing Gaudio. Gaudio is like 5 inches shorter than Guga, and he had no problem punishing Nadal's FH with his backhand drives. Gaudio is the only one hander I've seen actually winning those crosscourt rallies against Nadal on clay.
In fact, at some point, Nadal simply stopped hitting to his backhand. I don't think Guga would be bothered with Nadal high balls, specially since he used to own Muster.
Both Guga and Gaudio could hit vicious topspin backhand drives from anywhere... low balls, high balls, on the run, anything.
The wonders of the extreme EBH, you know?
Nadal owns Gaudio badly. I don't really see your point. A tennis match is much more than just a single shot's analysis.
I agree 100%. There's a reason why Nadal owns Gaudio badly: He's better than Gaudio at EVERYTHING, except the backhand
In the end, Nadal is simply a better player
My point has nothing to do with Gaudio, nor a shot analysis. I'm just explaining WHY Guga would be a better matchup for Nadal than Fed. This other guy said Guga's backhand would be a weakness only because it's a one-hander, and I'm pointing out why it wouldn't be.
Two of the last three guys to beat Nadal on clay had OHBHs: Federer and Gaudio. I still don't know how did Andreev def. Nadal allá en tu ciudad
Anyway, I think prime Guga would have a good shot against Nadal. A 100% Coria would have it too, but we just won't see it happen.
And about Guga's BH against Nadal... you have to think that Nadal's topspin can become something simply hummongous,
PD: When Gaudio and Andreev (aquí en mi ciudad donde lo tenemos ya adoptado) did beat Nadal, Nadal was not "Nadal" yet. The only defeat in his prime has been to Fed, but I don't think Fed's BH was the key, but other Fed's game weapons.
Eso es discutible... Nadal venía de hacer QF en Buenos Aires (perdió con Gaudio), y ganar Costa de Sauipe, Acapulco (10 partidos seguidos en tierra), final del MS Miami, y otros dos partidos más en Valencia. Venía de 12 partidos seguidos en tierra, y un récord de 20-1 en el ultimo mes
Después de ese partido, empezó a ganar TODO (ganó Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Roma y Roland Garros de manera consecutiva).
Ya ERA "Nadal". El ultimo partido del anterior Nadal fue contra Gaudio, la semana anterior a ganar todo, en la que ganó el primer set 6-0, y perdio 0-6, 1-6
^^^Ese era el partido cuando Gaudio se enojo con Nadal?
I don't think Fed had anything to do with that victory what so ever, he played the same as he always does, Nadal was tired (physically but even more so mentally), which is what Federer has to relly on becuase hes not good enough to beat a 100% Nadal, and niether was Guga
Sorry for the Spanish, to the non-Spanish speakers.
¿Te refieres al partido con Andreev? Yo creo que cuando Nadal empezó a creer que estaba muy cerca de ser "invencible" y se transformó en otro jugador fue cuando venció a Coria en Roma. Fue entonces cuando hizo "clic". Hasta ese día, y por mucho que Nadal estuviese progresando, Coria era reconocido unánimamente como el actual rey de la tierra batida incluso pese a no haber ganado RG, y también era famoso por su resistencia y tenacidad. Ahí fue, para mí, cuando Nadal se ciñó la corona del "polvo de ladrillo" como decís por allá. El siguiente Roland Garros fue sólo la confirmación de algo que ya había ocurrido.
I couldn't watch that match, so I can't really say. I guess Nadal was tired, but Federer is the player who has pushed Nadal further on a claycourt since the (103-1?) streak started. I guess Federer had to do something even being Nadal tired, because no one else has been able to do it in those last three years and Nadal has been tired other times.
Are you saying Guga's backhand is as much of a weapon on clay as Nadal's forehand? I can't see how you could start supporting that argument. Guga's backhand is definitely not a weakness, but it does not inflict nearly the same a mount of damage N adal's forehand does.
^^^Yeah that post by Andres confused me too
Yeah Andres is trying not to be biased but saying Guga's backhand is just as good (or bad) as Nadal's forehand definitely shows that. I don't think Guga's backhand would be a weakness but I'm sure he could get some errors on that side. Nadal can handle pace on clay unlike Muster. I believe Nadal has better reflexes and speed compared to Muster.
I'm gonna have to go against the flow here and vote for prime Guga vs prime Nadal. However, I definitely would not vote for Coria.
Guga has all the weapons that other players like Blake or Berdych use against Nadal on hard courts, except Guga is an expert at using those weapons on clay (big serve, big shots, can flatten them out). Besides, Guga is tall and used to clay, so he wouldn't be as troubled by Nadal's high topspin. Actually, I believe his 1HB would be a weapon in the crosscourt match-up to Nadal's FH. In a typical play I'd see him angling his BH crosscourt, drawing Nadal off the court, and then sniping it down the line. Guga was a master of both those BHs.
He is also a master of the drop-shot, very useful vs Nadal.
Besides, Guga is one of those few "clutch" players that seem to always come up with the goods on big points, like ace at 30-40 in the 5th set. He certainly wouldn't choke.
OTOH, Coria is the kind of guy that I feel Nadal would beat easily. Coria is a scrappy player, a small dude with a 2HB running everywhere and beating you with consistency. Nadal would outgrind Coria easily, besides he is a much bigger guy and could also beat Coria to the ground with superior power and spin. I just don't see a way for Coria to win. He couldn't outlast Nadal, he couldn't frustrate him, he certainly couldn't outhit him...
And yet, he was two points away from beating him at Rome, when he lost 8-6 in the fifth set TB.
Por favor disculpe mi pobres espanol y aún más pobres conocimientos de historia de tenis (o es al revés?) Pero cuando los dos hizo jugar unos a otros?
Guga was as good a player as Nadal -- and had better claycourt opponents to play.
Nadal would destroy Guga alright but destroy Borg? You got to be kidding!
brugera in his prime would have beaten Nadal
Guga at his best was maybe as good as Nadal but day-in,day-out Nadal is far more consistant,he rarely if ever has off days on clay as long as he isn't fatiqued while Kuerten had his fair share of those.As for the better opponents I agree,Kuerten had tougher opponents IMO.Nadal's main rival on clay is Federer who is much more at home on hardcourts and grass than on clay IMO,even Coria and Puerta did as good or better against Nadal,because they're claycourt specialists,not hardcourters trying to play on clay.
Yep Andres, there's a couple of close matches even though Nadal owns the H2H... goes to show that we tend to exaggerate everything on these boards when we talk about tennis players, even though the actual differences are much smaller. Like drawing a caricature of someone instead of taking a neutral photograph.
Nadal is the best clay courter I've ever seen. Borg is a bit before my time, but still, I've seen video of his matches, and unless we're talking about a hypothetical Borg with the same raw athletic ability but with different strokes, I don't see how he'd had a chance against Nadal. That flicky backhand of his would be torn apart by Nadal's forehand.
Anyway, Borg versus Lendl, 1981 French Open finals.
Nadal versus Federer, 2007 finals.
I know we always talk about the power of the modern game, but watching these videos, what strikes me more is the improved placement. Fed and Nadal are hitting harder and closer to the lines, more angles, etc.
Bruguera was just as fit as nadal. Bruguera didnt miss. Look at how good Bruguera is on the senior tour now. He owns these guys because he is fitter and he has added a slice backhand to his game
Bruguera had a decent serve he would have won a lot of free points on his serve.
bruguera owned muster,costa, kuerten, corretja,ferrero all champions or clay court players. nadal has beaten what accomplished clay court players?????
well ferrero which you mentioned also coria, gaudio but there really arn't any becuase nadal is that dominant so they don't have a chance to win anything, if you want to make that argument than how many accomplished clay courters did borg beat?.....thats why you have to analyze their games and the match up, when you look at how the chips stack up its really a no contest
You just described the effect of poly strings right there.
Nadal against Kuerten (in their respective primes) would probabely be a far closer contest than most of you seem to suggest. Nadal has far more consitant results than Kuerten but in his prime Kuerten was one of the best clay courters in the open-era. I don't thing anyone would "demolish" a prime form Kuerten on clay. Kuerten would certainly give Nadal a lot more trouble than Federer (Nadal's toughest clay court competition at the moment). Kuerten's one handed backhand is one of the finest in the open-era and would not be neutralised in the same way that Federer's is by Nadal. Who knows what the outcome would be but I suspect both players would be capeable of recording victories over each other. I would narrowly take Nadal over Kuerten if I was pushed to make a desision.
Borg on the other hand is a different matter. Clearly Nadal would beat Borg if Borg played as he did in the 1970s (i.e. with a wooden racket with a tiny frame and even smaller sweet spot). However, if equipment is equal it is hard to argue that anyone in the history of the game could beat a prime Borg on clay. Borg won 2 French Opens without losing a single set in 1978 and in 1980. He was only taken to a tiebreak once over those 2 tournaments also. Borg demolished Vilas (a great clay courter himself and stronger clay court competition than anyone Nadal has faced) on several occasions at the French Open. Nadal has never beaten Federer with nearly as much ease as Borg could beat Vilas. In a hypothetical contest between prime form Nadal and Borg I can only see Borg coming out on top. Also, the longer the match went on the more likely Borg would be to win. Borg's 5 set record is one of the best ever and I don't think ever lost a match that went to 5 sets on red clay. Nadal's 5 set record is less robust and he does sometimes show signs of fatigue.
Not really. Russell is a good player and is capable of pushing good players on all surfaces, but he wasn't quite what I had in mind. I don't recall Russell winning major clay court tournaments.
It's hard to accomplish anything on clay when somebody is thoroughly dominating the surface. But for starters, he beat Costa on clay when he was 16, and he's never even lost a set to Ferrero on clay (he's 6-1), his only loss to Juan coming on hard courts.
Sorry, didn't get it
Wanna try in english?
Last night on TTC they were showing Guga v Norman. Based on that and seeing a lot of Nadal lately I don't see Guga beating Nadal. The more I see Nads on clay the more he's looking like the clay GOAT. He is an animal.
Rome Clay doesn't count. By far the fastest clay out there. Just as fast as Miami and Indian Wells. Of course the movement and unpredictable bounces are still there but not enough to say Coria gives Nadal problems on clay. Same with Fed.
Separate names with a comma.