er00si said:Could we have some stats or facts on how Nadal is the same or different from former clay Kings?
Is Nadal unique in ... ?
1) run down each shot faster;
2) better top spin;
3) higher energy level;
4) fitter;
5) more aggressive.
er00si said:Could we have some stats or facts on how Nadal is the same or different from former clay Kings?
Is Nadal unique in ... ?
1) run down each shot faster;
2) better top spin;
3) higher energy level;
4) fitter;
5) more aggressive.
Lendl, Muster, and Courier were probably just as fit, but none of them were as fast in the 5th set as Nadal, so he ties a few in 4) and probably wins 3) hands down. Guga was definitely more aggressive, and maybe even a top form Ferrero was more aggressive. I think Nadal's game may be the most brutal of all. His combination of foot speed, heaviness of ball, consistency, and indomitable will is something very unique. Muster intimidated guys but IMO there was something spastic, dorky, and comical about him. He's like the guy who keeps jogging in place during soccer practice even between drills, huffing and puffing, only to pass out. Super intense, but in a dorky way. Not sure where I'm going with this...er00si said:1) run down each shot faster;
2) better top spin;
3) higher energy level;
4) fitter;
5) more aggressive.
:mrgreen:Grimjack said:Right now, he's Andres Gomez in effeminate clothing.
Grimjack said:Assuming that to earn the title "Clay King," one needs to have won the French Open, then Nadal is different from all but the very bottom tier of these guys in that he's won only one meaningful title his entire career. That's an important difference, I think.
And we're asking if he's surpassed the game's great clay players on other surfaces now? Based on what, his QF loss in the Australian one year? Right now, he's on par with one slam wonders like Moya, Costa, Gaudio, Gomez, Ferrero, and Noah.
He's got to at least double his output before he goes in the same sentece with the Brugueras of the world.
Triple it before he belongs with Kuerten.
Do all that AND expand his dominance into other slams AND reach world #1 before we can begin to talk about him as even a minor noble among history's claycourt royalty. Courier was probably no better than the 4th or 5th best player of his own generation, but right now, Nadal has an awfully long way to go to even sniff his accomplishments, and people wonder whether he's surpassing the Borgs, Wilanders, and Lendls of the world? Has he passed these guys on the non-clay surfaces? No. He can't sniff their jocks on clay or off.
He can't even lay claim to a Moya- or Chang-like "decent run" at a non-clay slam.
Right now, he's Andres Gomez in effeminate clothing.
Nadal = Chang, but without the hardcourt resume.
Why is it Guga and Muster behind COURIER!!??ohplease said:A bit strong, but I was going to post essentially the same points. Nadal's probably accomplished more than Gaudio/Moya, maybe he's more along the lines of Muster at this point. Still behind Brugera, who's behind Guga, who's behind Courier.
Andres Guazzelli said:Why is it Guga and Muster behind COURIER!!??
Courier won 2 FO, and 23 titles overall.
Muster won just 1 FO, but plenty of MS, and 44 titles overall, plus some nice winning streaks.
Guga just had 20 titles altogether, but 3 FO.
Vilas won 49 claycourt titles, more titles than Muster altogether. He won, yeah, only 4 GS, one FO, and one US open on clay, but he was runner up in 3 other FO.
IMO, with 62 titles, and 49 claycourt titles, Vilas is the ultimate King of Clay. Plus his 53 streak matches on clay.
Vilas won two grass Grand Slams. Plus 17 titles in 1977, plus a 46 match streak, one loss, and one 38 match streak right after that loss. A 145-14 record that year.ohplease said:I'm sure Vilas was great - but he's ultimately forgotten by the tennis world, at large.
Easy call.
er00si said:Could we have some stats or facts on how Nadal is the same or different from former clay Kings?
Is Nadal unique in ... ?
1) run down each shot faster;
2) better top spin;
3) higher energy level;
4) fitter;
5) more aggressive.
Andres Guazzelli said:IMO, with 62 titles, and 49 claycourt titles, Vilas is the ultimate King of Clay. Plus his 53 streak matches on clay.
Andres Guazzelli said:Vilas won two grass Grand Slams. Plus 17 titles in 1977, plus a 46 match streak, one loss, and one 38 match streak right after that loss. A 145-14 record that year.
62 titles in his career, the same ammount than Sampas. Two more than Agassi. 920 wins overall. I think he's #3 or #4 in total wins.
Is he ultimately forgotten, or ... you just don't know too much about him?
Ask Borg, ask Lendl, ask Connors, ask McEnroe, they will have something to say about him
Vilas won 4 GS, and was Runner Up in other 4, I think.ohplease said:I'm not required to know that much about him. I need to know as much about him as say, Yevgeny Kafelnikov or Carlos Moya.
As far as # of tournament wins - you've proven my point. You can win all the tournaments you want, if they aren't Grand Slams - history won't care. Vilas himself would probably gladly trade half his tournament wins for 1 or 2 more slam titles.
Lendl, Muster, and Courier were probably just as fit, but none of them were as fast in the 5th set as Nadal,
As fit as Nadal is, NOBODY was as fit as Muster at his peak ever in my opinion. The guy was like a machine, ran 10 miles a day!
I'm not required to know that much about him. I need to know as much about him as say, Yevgeny Kafelnikov or Carlos Moya.
I'm sure Vilas was great - but he's ultimately forgotten by the tennis world, at large.
Moose Malloy said:And the standards for greatness were different in different eras. Majors weren't always the most important events. They didn't even have the most prize money compared to other events in those days.
By your logic, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin will be forgotten by the tennisworld in 20 years.
mileslong said:guys like emerson and lavel should have a huge asterisck by their name since back in the their day they only had to play one match to defend their crown. if they won wimbledon the year before then they simply had to play the championship match the next year to either defend or lose their crown...
guys like emerson and lavel should have a huge asterisck by their name since back in the their day they only had to play one match to defend their crown. if they won wimbledon the year before then they simply had to play the championship match the next year to either defend or lose their crown...
VamosRafa said:I think Rafa said it best today in a press conference in Barca:
I do agree with Grimjack, it's hard to compare the career of a guy who is just starting his to guys whose careers are over or nearly over.
Moose Malloy said:ohplease, check out this thread, you might then understand why it is hard to compare greatness in any era(since the standards were not always the same)
if you read up on this history of the game, you will realize that Emerson is not on anyone's list of greatest players(& he is #2 according to you, just because of his majors) If Vilas gets asterisks on 2 majors, Emerson gets asterisks on all 12.
I guess you can only understand tennis in the 70s if you were there. The media & players weren't constantly flashing a major count for players. Prize money list was as significant as ranking(like it is in golf today). Some non-atp events could get better fields & got more news coverage than majors. Have you heard of the Dallas WCT event? It was as big as any major today in the field it got, prestige, prize money, tv coverage. Laver-Rosewall played 2 great matches there in the early 70s that they both count among their most important matches. And today, no one has any idea of that.
Vilas is in the Hall of Fame(& got in when standards were higher) check out the link to learn more about him(notice how they include Italian Open results along with major results? See what I mean about standards changing. You can't pretend that pro tennis players were judged the same way 20-30 years ago & hold them up to the standards of today.)
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=88040
http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/guillermo_vilas.html
This is irrelevant, though, since all of his contemporaries have the option of using the same technology if they so wish. It's as relevant as saying that Sampras' success on grass should have an asterisk next to it in light of the fact that guys who played in the 60's didn't have the option of playing with the Pro Staff 6.0. Your point would be better taken if Nadal got into a time machine and played the 1955 French Open using his Babolat while everybody else had to use wood.sureshs said:Nadal is a fantastic player, but when comparing him with past clay court greats, keep in mind that Babolat racquets have revolutionized the topspin game. Nadal is the poster-boy for the lighter stiff big-head racquet which can be whipped in a topspin. Also don't forget the strings (does he use BB?) which these days can generate top spin unimaginable to older players. Heck, even my topspins are better with a BB ALU Power. It is a feedback process - access to such racquets and strings at an early age leads to a certain kind of game, then as they get older they reinforce the habits. A great player of the past who is still fit may not be able to get into a groove with this equipment now if he had played with older stuff before.
Yes, very different.
Peak Gugu > Peak the Nadal
Do we test for drug use here?
That aged wellHe's got to at least double his output before he goes in the same sentece with the Brugueras of the world.
That aged well