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

[dominikk1985]

I surprised that muster was quite good at taking the ball early watching those highlights. his strokes didn't seem to have a lot of penetration but he did stay on the line quite a lot and played very intense. those were some grueling clay fights.

[Clarky21]

If Nadal's strings are the only reason he produces so much spin, why can't other player's do the same thing with the same string?

[RAFA2005RG]

Which strings did Nadal use before 2010? Because I know he made a big change in early 2010.

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

an entertaining contrast of styles... and a magnificent performance from stefan in that match !

i'm also happy to see the "net cam":

it was a really cool view ! i want it back...
(even if there will be less 'traffic' close to the net than in the 80's/90's, unfortunately)

PS: i'm sure you loved the final of the 1991 USO too, as i did... right ?

look at the balance and poise edberg had on the court. you could take a cast of him from any position and it would stand on its own.

[Razoredge]

Is this a joke? Nadal would clown Muster's even with 90's strings, Nadal is the clay court GOAT and Muster is just a useless pretender that could only scratch up a single French Open title.

17 year old Nadal would clown Muster with 90's strings, prime Nadal would make dude look like the 1000th ranked junior.

Some of you guys just don't have any respect for Nadal, dude is just supernatural on the clay.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

Is this a joke? Nadal would clown Muster's even with 90's strings, Nadal is the clay court GOAT and Muster is just a useless pretender that could only scratch up a single French Open title.

17 year old Nadal would clown Muster with 90's strings, prime Nadal would make dude look like the 1000th ranked junior.

Some of you guys just don't have any respect for Nadal, dude is just supernatural on the clay.

Even with the same strings, Nadal would have a tough match against Muster. With 90s string, Nadal ain't going win against Muster with modern strings, period.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Even with the same strings, Nadal would have a tough match against Muster. With 90s string, Nadal ain't going win against Muster with modern strings, period.

Wow, just zero respect for the GOAT clay courter.

[NadalAgassi]

Muster is basically a poor mans Nadal. As for his prime, his prime basically lasted less than 2 years anyway. The mid 95-early 97 Muster is the only one who might not get completely killed by 2005-2012 Nadal on every surface, although would still get killed on all except clay and slow hard courts in early 97.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Even with the same strings, Nadal would have a tough match against Muster. With 90s string, Nadal ain't going win against Muster with modern strings, period.

This is such crap. Nadal has 7 RG titles, 8 MC titles, 6 Rome titles, and had to go through the GOAT and the GOAT in training to win a lot of them, yet you think he wouldn't stand a chance against Muster? Nadal has also beaten some very good clay courters throughout his career as well, and was beating them when he was just a kid, yet you think he wouldn't stand a chance against Muster? The way a lot you act any 3.0 level mug off the street can beat Nadal.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

This is such crap. Nadal has 7 RG titles, 8 MC titles, 6 Rome titles, and had to go through the GOAT and the GOAT in training to win a lot of them, yet you think he wouldn't stand a chance against Muster? Nadal has also beaten some very good clay courters throughout his career as well, and was beating them when he was just a kid, yet you think he wouldn't stand a chance against Muster? The way a lot you act any 3.0 level mug off the street can beat Nadal.

Yeah, like I said just zero respect for how unbelievable this guy is on clay.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

1990 and 1996 were bad losses. Muster could beat Gomez and Stich in big matches, and had shown it before. Courier was the best clay-courter the 2 times when he beat Muster at the French Open, and Rafter was just a terrible matchup and coming after an epic 5 set win over Agassi.

When he lost to Kuerten, he wasn't playing well on clay at the time, full stop. But it was still a bad loss considering the lead he had in the fifth set.

Regarding the Sampras loss, that wasn't a surprise considering Muster's slump in the first half of 1991, where he could barely win matches on the tour.

I find it funny you seem to imply losing to Gomez or even Stich is a worse loss than losing to Rafter. In 1994 Rafter was a virtual nobody, and at best of times he was strictly a mediocre clay courter. Gomez in 1990 was the winner of Roland Garros that year, and even in Rome where he lost to on fire Muster in the 3rd set tiebreaker he claimed he hadnt shown all his cards in that match. Stich is a serve and volley player not suited to clay like Rafter, but a way better player than 94 Rafter, and a better clay courter than even prime Rafter would be too. Yeah I know Rafter made the RG semis once, but that was one of the worst FOs ever with the number 16 the only seed in the semis.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Mustard

1990 and 1996 were bad losses. Muster could beat Gomez and Stich in big matches, and had shown it before. Courier was the best clay-courter the 2 times when he beat Muster at the French Open, and Rafter was just a terrible matchup and coming after an epic 5 set win over Agassi.

When he lost to Kuerten, he wasn't playing well on clay at the time, full stop. But it was still a bad loss considering the lead he had in the fifth set.

Regarding the Sampras loss, that wasn't a surprise considering Muster's slump in the first half of 1991, where he could barely win matches on the tour.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I find it funny you seem to imply losing to Gomez or even Stich is a worse loss than losing to Rafter. In 1994 Rafter was a virtual nobody, and at best of times he was strictly a mediocre clay courter. Gomez in 1990 was the winner of Roland Garros that year, and even in Rome where he lost to on fire Muster in the 3rd set tiebreaker he claimed he hadnt shown all his cards in that match. Stich is a serve and volley player not suited to clay like Rafter, but a way better player than 94 Rafter, and a better clay courter than even prime Rafter would be too. Yeah I know Rafter made the RG semis once, but that was one of the worst FOs ever with the number 16 the only seed in the semis.

i disagree about rafter sucking on clay. it was his least favorite surface and he certainly wasn't building his schedule around it but, even if this win over muster was his first big result on clay and despite an obvious inconsistency, he still had some good results on this surface later, like making the SF at RG in 1997 and the final at rome in 1999 (beating agassi on the way, who would win RG soon after).
even in davis cup, on clay and in front of hostile crowds, he was giving a hard time to ferrero and kuerten... until he got injured, unfortunately (in both matches).

with muster, it's mainly a match-up issue, as it's been said: the guy hated to play top S&V players !
about RG 1996, even if he already defeated stich before, it certainly didn't prove he would have an easy walk in the park this time, despite his stellar form...
i found his loss against kuerten a lot more disappointing (even if he ended up winning the tournament). who knows what would have happened if he somehow managed to win this close 5th set......
(he had a significant mental edge over the players he would have faced later in the draw)

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

If Nadal's strings are the only reason he produces so much spin, why can't other player's do the same thing with the same string?

no, he produces the most spin because he has the highest RHS. fed and him have the highest RHS and thus highest spin. the swing path does play a big role too but there is a direct correlation between RHS and spin. but the strings help of course.

[Clay lover]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

no, he produces the most spin because he has the highest RHS. fed and him have the highest RHS and thus highest spin. the swing path does play a big role too but there is a direct correlation between RHS and spin. but the strings help of course.

Just wait till the bashers say that the higher RHS is due to some "change" in equipment. LOL

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Clay lover

Just wait till the bashers say that the higher RHS is due to some "change" in equipment. LOL

Microscopic rocket boosters on his racket? Lol.

[monfed]

Ralph has nothing on Kuerten. He wouldn't be able to moonball Kuerten's GOAT clay BH so Ralph would get beaten quite handily.

He'd get beaten by Muster too without the polystrings as I mentioned before.

[helloworld]

Let's put it this way. The difference between the top pros is very minimal, and a string advantage would play a critical deciding factor in determining the outcome of a winner. In this case, Muster will win easily with the string advantage.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I find it funny you seem to imply losing to Gomez or even Stich is a worse loss than losing to Rafter. In 1994 Rafter was a virtual nobody, and at best of times he was strictly a mediocre clay courter. Gomez in 1990 was the winner of Roland Garros that year, and even in Rome where he lost to on fire Muster in the 3rd set tiebreaker he claimed he hadnt shown all his cards in that match. Stich is a serve and volley player not suited to clay like Rafter, but a way better player than 94 Rafter, and a better clay courter than even prime Rafter would be too. Yeah I know Rafter made the RG semis once, but that was one of the worst FOs ever with the number 16 the only seed in the semis.

The loss to Rafter is easy to explain--Muster was done after his gruelling match vs Agassi the round before, and he would basically have lost to anybody that day. Just looking at his face when he came on court that day was enough to know that he was done. The only "bad" loss out of the three was to Gomez, imho. Not that losing to Andres was bad, especially in '90, but Muster just faded away after losing the first set. Stich in '96 just played a perfect match and gave him his Söderling moment, otherwise Muster would very probably have won RG that year, too (Kafelnikov had nothing to trouble him with in the final).

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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.

Yeah, because beating Medvedev (MC and Hamburg champion and RG finalist), Albert Costa (RG champion, it sure wasn't *Carlos* Muster played in QF, he had already beaten him in the 3rd round), Kafelnikov (RG champion), and Chang (RG champion) in a row at RG sure is such a lame draw, isn't it? I mean, one finalist and three past or future champions back to back to back to back, there aren't that many slam champions that had to go through such a draw in the past 20 years (I can't think of any, actually)...

(Oh, and he also beat a future two-time GS finalist in Pioline in the 2nd round, but I'm not counting him for the sake of this argument, as he didn't reach the final in RG, just the semis.)

As to the OP's question, give any one of them poly strings and the other 90's technology, and the one with the "old" tech gets totally blown off the court, no question. Otherwise, if we're talking about '95-'96 Muster, both with the same tech, it would be awfully close. Nadal would win some, and so would Muster. The interesting point, of course, is that both being left-handed, they would naturally neutralize each other's biggest weapon.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by monfed

Ralph has nothing on Kuerten. He wouldn't be able to moonball Kuerten's GOAT clay BH so Ralph would get beaten quite handily.

He'd get beaten by Muster too without the polystrings as I mentioned before.

The question is, would Nadal have beaten you without the polystrings?