Who would win: nadal with 90s strings vs (prime) Muster with poly

dominikk1985 · 12-02-2012, 12:53 PM

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?

tennis_pro · 12-02-2012, 12:57 PM

I'll try to make it as objective as possible.

I don't like Nadal so I voted for Muster.

Sabratha · 12-02-2012, 12:58 PM

Muster would win.

cork_screw · 12-02-2012, 01:17 PM

Man, you kids have a lot of time on your hands to think of these absurd scenarios. But I like how you took Nadal and you took something to debilitate what he would prefer, and you gave Muster something that he already does well and enjoys and you enhanced it. Muster wasn't known as a flat ball hitter. He loved to grind and to spin/loop the ball. He had a very heavy ball. Giving him poly giving him a pretty huge advantage. You could give nadal full gut and muster full gut and muster would win because you neutralized all of nadal's spin. The strings gives nadal a huge pleasure point in how he performs. Look at it this way, Nadal gets a beat down against fed almost every time at the World Tour Finals. Nadal does very poorly there because that court doesn't have the high bounce and is slowed down. So hen you give him those strings, you're basically glueing that court's attributes to that stick. No matter where he plays he's not going to get the type of spin or power that he needs out of polys. Talent alone wouldn't cover it or his grinding technique. You might be able to even serve and volley against him. He would also make more unforced errors because polys allow you to hit harder without the ball flying out. The gut was more sensitive (that's why it was routinely strung at such high tensions to control it) and gave a S/V more advantage than a baseline grinder. That's why the 80's and 90's (a time of serve/volley) was so dominate in that time. His technique and his racquet goes a long ways, but there's moments when he lost matches where he blamed that the string tension was too loose and was causing him to hit the ball out. He is big on strings. I don't think this is an even comparison, nor would muster need a big favor on his side if you debilitate nadal with one of his biggest aids. It's pretty simple.

90's Clay · 12-02-2012, 01:19 PM

Peak Muster (1995) would completely annihilate Rafa (non poly vs. non poly). Rafa's main weapon is heavy topspin.. With 90s racket technology (no poly strings) that would diminish his effectiveness severely. He wouldn't be able to generate the RPM's on his shots.

tennis_pro · 12-02-2012, 01:23 PM

Btw I'd like to hear what Mustard has to say.

Towser83 · 12-02-2012, 01:24 PM

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

dominikk1985 · 12-02-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towser83

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

Roland Garos of course

Towser83 · 12-02-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

Roland Garos of course

But would it be raining?

dominikk1985 · 12-03-2012, 12:35 AM

Come on Mustard

The Moonballer · 12-03-2012, 12:42 AM

Muster off of clay. Only because of today's strings can Paella generate such moon balls.

helloworld · 12-03-2012, 01:51 AM

Rafa with 90s technology? LOL!! Even Federer would beat him easily.

tusharlovesrafa · 12-03-2012, 02:52 AM

I see double whammy for MUSTARD here..

Feather · 12-03-2012, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helloworld

Rafa with 90s technology? LOL!! Even Federer would beat him easily.

Still Sampras won't beat him

TheNatural · 12-03-2012, 03:27 AM

Muster was pretty good, it took Sampras 5 sets to beat him at the French Open.

Clay lover · 12-03-2012, 06:59 AM

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.

Hitman · 12-03-2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay lover

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.

This post clearly shows why we can't have a GOAT, or even a surface GOAT. Conditions, playing equipment, training techniques, supplements, depth of competition etc are always changing. Players can only really be considered the greatest of their own generation. This is why I don't consider Federer as GOAT, even while being a massive fan, or consider Nadal clay GOAT for the same reason. Both are greatest of their Era's though.

And we can only speculate what COULD or WOULD have happened. No one will ever really truly know.

Clay lover · 12-03-2012, 07:17 AM

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.

Hitman · 12-03-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay lover

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.

Nadal is a very skilled and highly talented player. He perfectly designed his game to suit the conditions that were placed upon the tour, and adapted to the courts, the racquets, the balls, and the overall conditions the best he could within his own physical limitations.

I am sure, he would have found a way to adapt to would have been possible of him in genetations gone by, even if that meant a completely different Nadal to the one we see today. Racquets, and courts change. But the mind of a champion has always been eternal.

adidasman · 12-03-2012, 08:06 AM

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).

View Poll Results: Who wins
Nadal	33	52.38%
Muster	30	47.62%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

12-02-2012, 12:53 PM	#1
dominikk1985 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,812	Who would win: nadal with 90s strings vs (prime) Muster with poly 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?

12-02-2012, 12:57 PM	#2
tennis_pro G.O.A.T. Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 11,767	I'll try to make it as objective as possible. I don't like Nadal so I voted for Muster. __________________ "By the Nalbandian logic, I could beat Federer when I'm "in form". Nalbandian is only a threat to linesmen." - pvaudio

12-02-2012, 01:17 PM	#4
cork_screw Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,966	Man, you kids have a lot of time on your hands to think of these absurd scenarios. But I like how you took Nadal and you took something to debilitate what he would prefer, and you gave Muster something that he already does well and enjoys and you enhanced it. Muster wasn't known as a flat ball hitter. He loved to grind and to spin/loop the ball. He had a very heavy ball. Giving him poly giving him a pretty huge advantage. You could give nadal full gut and muster full gut and muster would win because you neutralized all of nadal's spin. The strings gives nadal a huge pleasure point in how he performs. Look at it this way, Nadal gets a beat down against fed almost every time at the World Tour Finals. Nadal does very poorly there because that court doesn't have the high bounce and is slowed down. So hen you give him those strings, you're basically glueing that court's attributes to that stick. No matter where he plays he's not going to get the type of spin or power that he needs out of polys. Talent alone wouldn't cover it or his grinding technique. You might be able to even serve and volley against him. He would also make more unforced errors because polys allow you to hit harder without the ball flying out. The gut was more sensitive (that's why it was routinely strung at such high tensions to control it) and gave a S/V more advantage than a baseline grinder. That's why the 80's and 90's (a time of serve/volley) was so dominate in that time. His technique and his racquet goes a long ways, but there's moments when he lost matches where he blamed that the string tension was too loose and was causing him to hit the ball out. He is big on strings. I don't think this is an even comparison, nor would muster need a big favor on his side if you debilitate nadal with one of his biggest aids. It's pretty simple. Last edited by cork_screw : 12-02-2012 at 01:26 PM.

12-02-2012, 01:23 PM	#6
tennis_pro G.O.A.T. Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 11,767	Btw I'd like to hear what Mustard has to say. __________________ "By the Nalbandian logic, I could beat Federer when I'm "in form". Nalbandian is only a threat to linesmen." - pvaudio

12-03-2012, 02:52 AM	#13
tusharlovesrafa Hall Of Fame Join Date: May 2011 Location: india...lucknow... Posts: 2,142	I see double whammy for MUSTARD here.. __________________ The-champ on rafa - he has been struggling like an asthmatic 70 year-old trying to satisfy a seasoned prostitute.