Originally Posted by abmk
yeah, only problems with that argument are :
peak safin would've beaten laver @ AO 2005 ......
and laver's main problem, ; at times, going for too much and losing concentration for spells would cost him big time vs nadal who is just too good at focusing on every point and very rarely loses focus
while laver's BH and net play are better than federer's, federer's serve and fh are better ......
also nadal was better on clay in 2006 than he was in 2005 ....
federer/laver are at pretty similar levels on clay IMO, while laver would not face the matchup problem that federer does, still would probably not be enough vs nadal on clay ....especially 2006 onward ...and even in 2005, he'd have to be in absolute top form ....
I think Nadal probably would have beaten Laver most of the time on red clay. It would be interesting in that Laver would have played Nadal very differently than anyone has ever played him. And Laver's forehand was still very powerful especially if he decided to go for that.
Laver probably would have used various drop shots and angles just to bring Nadal up to net. Nadal imo is a very good volleyer but he still is uncomfortable there where forced to be there. Rod would probably use a lot of different angles, volleys when appropriate.
I think Laver would be able to beat Nadal at times on clay. I don't think he would be embarrassed. I believe for example Laver has defeated Rosewall more times than not on clay so Rod was a great clay court player.
One thing for sure, Nadal would face someone with a huge amount of playing styles. He could not get adjust to one style of play. And yes I do think it's very possible Laver was a better clay court player than Federer. Sorry guys but that's how I feel. More solid on both sides, better volley, a little better variety and Laver's forehand was still considered the best in tennis by many in his day so his forehand isn't exactly chopped liver.