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

[big ted]

even with change of strings how can you compare an 11 time gs champion (7 fo's and counting) to a one timer? if muster can lose to sampras, rafter, stich at the french he can lose to a 7 time fo champion that uses nylon string.

[tkramer15]

Muster is my all-time favorite, but these types of "What if" scenarios, while fun to think about, are really impossible to gauge. Certainly, Muster could've benefited from today's string technology. With that said, my feeling has always been that Nadal does everything Muster did, but better. I'm not really able to judge how adversely Nadal's game would be affected by having to use the 1990s strings.

I think the fitness/stamina category is the only area where Muster may actually edge Nadal. Muster moved well, but Nadal moves better and is way more adept at transitioning from defense to offense within a point. Like Nadal, Muster liked to dominate rallies with his forehand from the middle of the court and force the other player to do more running. Neither was known for his serve, but Nadal's is probably a little more effective. The interesting part of this fictional matchup would be the lefty vs. lefty factor.

In this totally fictional matchup, I feel like the Muster from 1995-96 (on clay) would hold his own for sure, but I don't think he would have enough in his game to consistently trouble Nadal.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

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

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

Come on Mustard

Originally Posted by tusharlovesrafa

I see double whammy for MUSTARD here..

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by adidasman

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).

Muster using poly? When was this? I do know that Muster changed his racquet in late 1996. He said that it enabled him to hit the ball flatter, to serve better and to volley better, which resulted in the best hardcourt results of his career in 1997, but his clay form suffered because the new racquet was pretty awful for hitting topspin balls.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

i agree, muster in straights !

[Mustard]

I find a lot of similarities between Vilas, Muster and Nadal in terms of gamestyle, with the different technologies, of course.

[big ted]

1. from most of these posts apparently people think the only reason nadal has won 11 grand slam titles is because of poly strings

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.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by adidasman

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).

wasn't guga the first to use poly successfully in the FO?

[monfed]

Ralph's game is a direct byproduct of poly.
He and his big mouth uncle whine so much already,imagine if Ralph had to switch to 90s strings right now,he'd probably quit tennis in protest.

On topic - Ralph would lose.

[The Bawss]

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.

[President]

Nadal could still produce plenty of topspin with 90's strings and equipment, its not like it was the 70's. Look at guys like Bruguera and Muster himself! Rafa has more advantages over Muster than just more spin, he's a much better shotmaker and moves a lot better as well. Nadal would still win the large majority of their meetings.

[The-Champ]

Bruguera could hit plenty of spin, why wouldn't Nadal?

[Cup8489]

This would be close. I think Nadal's retreiving and spin (which wouldn't be so thoroughly hindered as to be ineffective) would overpower Muster's fitness.

Nadal is probably the best, or second best, dirtballer ever.

[Disgruntled Worker]

Depends on the surface. Nadal on clay is still the best of all time.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by big ted

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. The guy could play no doubt but he was not a GOAT on clay - his nick-name at the time, the King of Clay, now seems more like an attempt at humour, as if taunting him for his avoidance of non-clay court tournaments for much of the year.

The year he won the French he beat Chang in the final - an otherwise second string clay-court player since he won the FO in '89 - and a string of players who under-performed in Medvedev, Carlos Costa and Kafelnikov. That year 11 of the 16 seeds failed to make it past the 4th round.

In his prime years (91-9 Muster only once it past the 4th round at the French other than the year he won it. King of Clay? In his prime alone Courier and Bruguera achieved more than him imo.

Given time to get used to them Nadal has too much game for Muster using the strings available at the time (something like a gut/kevlar combo perhaps?)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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.

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).

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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 using what was available back then.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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.

We were talking about Muster's prime, not other periods of his career. In other periods, Muster was still a very good clay-courter and still had a brilliant record in finals, but was inconsistent for the most part. In his prime, he found ways to win almost all the time on clay, even from impossible situations, and did his best work on other surfaces too. 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.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mustard

...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.

[JW10S]

Muster was among the 1st players to use poly strings...