Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Sergi Bruguera or rafael Nadal (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=138171)

Pete Semper 06-11-2007 06:57 AM

Sergi Bruguera or rafael Nadal
 
Who's the best on clay between Bruguera and Nadal ?Sergi got some serious arguments to beat Nadal, his forehand was more powerfull...

Dedans Penthouse 06-11-2007 07:41 AM

!tym.......paging !tym
 
The poster whose 'moniker' is !tym is the offical historian of Sergi Bruguera; if Bruguera did it, !tym could give you the facts--down to the very last detail. His take on this particular question would be interesting.

My pick: Nadal. Too tough "upstairs."

Rabbit 06-11-2007 07:54 AM

I too would have to go with Nads. Three in a row is better than anyone since and except for Borg...

pj80 06-11-2007 09:22 AM

Bruguera had 2 in a row. And if it wasnt for Muster or Kuerten, he could have easily had 4 or 5.
And who did Nadal beat? Federer, a guy who rather plays on grass and hard court than clay.

Rabbit 06-11-2007 09:34 AM

^If if's and but's were candy and nuts.....

Yeah, but there was Muster and there was Kuerten and Kuerten has 3 which eclipses Bruguera's 2.

Hell, if it hadn't been for Pantta, lack of interest, and graphite rackets Borg would still be winning the French...

CEvertFan 06-11-2007 11:34 AM

Nadal is already better on clay than Sergi Bruguera ever was. Federer made it to the last two French Open finals, which at the current time makes him better on clay than everyone except for Nadal.

lostinamerica 06-11-2007 11:38 AM

Nadal has never even lost at Roland Garros. Lets wait until the guy actually loses a match before we make comparisons.

Warriorroger 06-11-2007 12:59 PM

Nadal, couldn't stand those boring clay battles from Bruguera in the 90s.

35ft6 06-11-2007 04:34 PM

Nadal is just as consistent, more powerful, faster, mentally tougher, a more explosive backhand... Not even close IMO.

AAAA 06-11-2007 05:29 PM

Bruguera was like a wall as I recall when Courier played him once in a FO final. A shame they're not from the same generation as it would be fun to see them both getting a taste of their own medicine, like when Sampras played Krajicek at Wimbledon.

chaognosis 06-11-2007 05:42 PM

I agree with most: Nadal is a clay champion of a higher class.

!Tym 06-11-2007 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35ft6 (Post 1511910)
Nadal is just as consistent, more powerful, faster, mentally tougher, a more explosive backhand... Not even close IMO.

Nadal uses a Luxilon/Babolat combo. Bruguera was VERY fast, Richard Krajicek said he "couldn't believe how fast," level fast. Nadal on the other hand tries MUCH harder point in and point out than Bruguera like Muster did, but pound for pound, I would not say Nadal was any faster if you eliminate heart from the equeation. Bruguera's max level forehands when he went for broke are as hard and as explosive as anyone I've ever seen, his racket head speed was second to none when he decided to let loose. The difference is that Nadal is of the new Luxilon breed like Blake, Gonzales, et. all that's been trained into the mentality of swinging all out all the time, because the Luxilon lets us get away with it. The older generation had to pick and choose when to let loose, I believe it was AndrewD who was an Australian Open linesman for a great period of time who said that. The old guys he said could smack it just as hard, but they picked their spots when to swing for the fences because the technology created and made that kind of mentality a necessity. As far as backhand goes, Tony Trabert wrote a Tennis Magazine instruction article on Bruguera's backhand saying that when it was on it was one of the best and most versatile in the game; he could definitely bop it as Malivai Washington said, it's just that he didn't always choose to. Volleys and touch, when it comes to feathered topspin, drop volleys, etc. Bruguera in my opinion was clearly better, whereas I consider Nadal merely a solid volleyer, and his topspin is not as much of the finesse variety that Bruguera could generate (watch the Leconte-Bruguera Paris Indoors match to see what I mean). As far as clutchness goes, I would say Nadal tries hard but he's definitely not an ice vein level of clutch like Muster or Courier.

I've said it before, but Nadal IS in another class than Bruguera on clay, but in a one-match your life is on the line situation, I would defintely give Bruguera a real chance.

Nadal is to me, the best combination of Muster and Bruguera. He's not quite as fit as Muster, but he has the natural foot speed of Bruguera. He's not quite as clutch as Muster, or even a fully commited Brugera, but he also doesn't space out in matches and give half effort for large portions of matches. He's a lefty like Muster, yet has the height of Bruguera. He's got more of the natural talent and feel of Bruguera, without quite as soft hands, but he's got more feel than Muster.

Also, Bruguera wasn't in shape for the 95 French due to injury and his legs "felt like spaghetti." He may have won three or four in a row had his body held up. He and Krajicek are actually best buddies practically, and they both share something in common...really fragile bodies. Had they been able to stay healthy, I believe they each would have won at least one or two more slams.

Before anyone question's Bruguera's pure talent level, note that he came within two points of a 6-love set against Sampras at the year ending championships when the courts actually played really fast, he was playing so well in fact that Sampras shook his head and bowed down to him in jest at the beginning of the third. He serve and volleyed his way to victory over Rafter at Wimbledon in the match of the tournament in 94, again when grass played like grass.

He also only played on hard courts one time in his entire life prior to turning 18. His mentality and game developed differently. Guys back then simply weren't told to swing all out all the time. Bruguera used Technifibre multifilament strung low in his RD-7s. A lot of free swinging western grippers would have a hard time keeping the ball in play at all with that kind of setup these days.

Bruguera vs. Nadal, one match only with life on the line, there is definitely a comparison in my opinion. The rest of the time and a career though, definitely no comparison. It's the same deal with Muster and Kuerten.

Muster has better fitness than Nadal, Muster would outlast anyone in his physical peak including Nadal. On a blistering hot day, or with my life is on the line stipulations, I give Muster the same real shot as Bruguera. Muster was one of the most clutch players I've ever seen, Nadal on the other hand gets tight but fights through and masks that tightness with his heart. Muster with a gun to his head, however, would be my pick in the clutch everytime. Again, one time only deal, Muster's got a real shot; career wise? No shot. As I said, Nadal is like the perfect hybrid.

Kuerten? Same deal. One match with life on the line, you've got to give him a real shot. He brings tremendous angled power to the table and more importantly like most one-handers isn't bothered by high-bounding topspin at all (Muster being the only other one like this). Kuerten was the Korda of clay, but with way more heart day in and day out, which got him through his bad days quite a bit unlike say a Krajicek who unless he was "on" he was already heading to the locker room. However, over a career, same deal; Nadal is superior. Kuerten's heart wouldn't save him on his off days against Nadal since Nadal's heart is just as big, BUT he also never really has truly off days either and has way more margin for error on his strokes.

Overall, Nadal's the greatest clay courter of all time, no question (though we'll never know what a genetic freak like Borg could have done with modern technique and equipment). However, you can't say that no other former king of clay's wouldn't have a chance against him. Coria gave him all he could handle a few years ago, and Coria in my opinion while great is definitely not quite as good as previous kings of clay at their peak.

federerfanatic 06-11-2007 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !Tym (Post 1512328)
Coria gave him all he could handle a few years ago, and Coria in my opinion while great is definitely not quite as good as previous kings of clay at their peak.

Coria gave him all he can handle in one match only. That does not make Coria of old an obvious clay rival on clay by any means. Hewitt and Davydenko gave him all he could handle in one match each on clay. Heck even Nieminen did in one match.

Fred The Red 06-11-2007 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj80 (Post 1510928)
Bruguera had 2 in a row. And if it wasnt for Muster or Kuerten, he could have easily had 4 or 5.
And who did Nadal beat? Federer, a guy who rather plays on grass and hard court than clay.

Bruguera never played Muster and only lost ONCE to Kuerten at RG.

Is it beacuse Federer rather plays on grass that he isn't a worthy clay court opponent? Without Nadal Federer woul already won 3 times the French Open...

Rabbit 06-12-2007 05:11 AM

Borg would take 'em all... ;)

Moose Malloy 06-12-2007 08:59 AM

Quote:

Nadal is just as consistent, more powerful, faster, mentally tougher, a more explosive backhand... Not even close IMO.
Not that I disagree, but didn't you say that you only saw Bruguera play for the 1st time in a senior match on TTC a few months ago? That's a rather strange basis for an opinion, did you see the '93 FO final? or just some highlights on youtube?

vivavincent 06-17-2007 06:52 AM

Nadal is the attactive version of Bruguera.

Pete Semper 06-17-2007 05:09 PM

Talkin about Bruguera...

www.brugueratennis.com


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse