As many have said over the years, Nadal would have been destroyed by the serve and volleyers......

BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
......on the fast grass and carpet of the '90's.

Even a mediocre, inconsistent serve and volleyer ranked outside the top 100 is 2-0 versus Nadal on today's SLOW grass. Can you imagine what the top serve and volleyers would have done to Nadal on the fast grass and carpet of the 90's? Guys like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, etc. would have had a field day with Nadal. Heck, even Giles Muller beat Nadal on the slow Wimbledon grass.
 
I see no reason for releasing this statement of the obvious?

Even the clueless fan boys around this place who haven't held a racquet in their hand before, clearly know Nadal is an absolute joke on grass. He avoided these dodgy match-ups in 2008 and 10 and the tour wasn't as strong (Not weak, just not as strong) and then he came up against a relatively out-of-form single handed backhand Federer in the final, on a dried up centre court, who he only JUST scraped by.

Don't quote me, I'm not getting into a debate where I have to own you Nadal die hards once again, just refer to start-da-game's thread where-in he was claiming Nadal would win Wimbledon, which the tool unsurprisingly deleted. :D :D :D

Apparently I was clueless for having not glanced at the draw. That was hilaaaaarrious.
 
BreakPoint said:
......on the fast grass and carpet of the '90's.

Even a mediocre, inconsistent serve and volleyer ranked outside the top 100 is 2-0 versus Nadal on today's SLOW grass. Can you imagine what the top serve and volleyers would have done to Nadal on the fast grass and carpet of the 90's? Guys like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, etc. would have had a field day with Nadal. Heck, even Giles Muller beat Nadal on the slow Wimbledon grass.
Click to expand...

Nadal, playing his game style from the last 10 years (i.e. the "real" Nadal), would probably have never gotten to a final at Wimbledon during the 90s. But nobody knows how Nadal would have played tennis had he been born 15 years earlier (he probably would have learnt to play tennis in Spain and would have played like most Spanish players during the 90s, i.e. zero chance of getting to a final at Wimbledon anyway, but nobody knows with certainty).
 
He really has been very very lucky with all the changes in court conditions, balls, strings, and playing styles....which turned out to benefite him tremendously.

Whereas I think Federer would have been almost as successful (maybe not that much, but still an all-time great) had he played in any previous decade, with Nadal I am not sure at all (about his success outside clay, had he played in previous decades with former conditions against different playing styles).

But as I always say, nobody knows, and he was absolutely great playing under the conditions of his own era.
 
NLBwell said:
No, Nadal would have developed a very different game if he grew up then.
Click to expand...

Nadal would have developed a different bloody game if he had started back then? Are you kidding me?

This is the most ridiculous, irrational argument, I have ever friggan come across.

This guy's game, entire game, is built around the heavy spin he can put on a tennis ball. Most crucially on his FOREHAND and slightly less crucially on his serve. The swinging lefty serve. There was no way back in the 90s that you could generate that much spin with how immature string technology was at that time. He would not have had been able to form that swinging lefty serve and he certainly, certainly would not have been able to develop that heavy as **** topspin forehand. This is why we actually see more and more lefties having greater success in pros.

Nadal's whole effectiveness....


.....is the heaviness IN SPIN he can generate with his forehand. The leftiness of his swinging serve into the weak right hander's backhand. These two qualities have been developed with the aid of incredible work ethic practise and perhaps also a bit of innate talent, BUT really, most of the reason it is due to his physicality. The brute force and strength that goes into creating that heavy topspin forehand, with the pulling motion upwards, finishing above his shoulder.

My point essentially is, IF Nadal had been given racquets where the strings meant you couldn't generate as much EASY spin using, he wouldn't have had the talent (I'm sorry but it's true), the talent, to develop any other style of game to get his game to the level of being even able to PLAY in the pros.

He was able to capitalise on modern string technology because he had the physicality to develop such an artificial, yet workable technique. Without modern string technology, his physicality wouldn't have been able to take advantage of anything. As the game in the 80s and 90s lent itself to big serving, having great hands and feel around the court.
 
Last edited:
but let me ask you all something......if agassi could win wimbledon, make a final and a few semifinals, why not nadal?

in what way is agassi a superior grasscourter compared to nadal?

you guys are so idiotic sometimes......nadal ousted peak ancic in 2003 who ousted fed the previous year......had he not ousted ancic that year, fed would not have won his first wimbledon that year due to mental block against ancic.....serve and volleyers were sure difficult but players with large heart like rafa would have found a way past them......remember that you are talking about a guy who beat karlovic(who took out defending wimbledon champ hewitt in 2003) on the fast grass of queens club......also remember that he is the one who played the greatest tennis match ever along with fed and the match was on grass......

just because he is suffering a few defeats due to fitness and confidence issues, you cannot ignore his greatness on the surface......

so i think he would have won wimbledon even in the 90s.....
 
Start da Game said:
but let me ask you all something......if agassi could win wimbledon, make a final and a few semifinals, why not nadal?

in what way is agassi a superior grasscourter compared to nadal?

you guys are so idiotic sometimes......nadal ousted peak ancic in 2003 who ousted fed the previous year......had he not ousted ancic that year, fed would not have won his first wimbledon that year due to mental block against ancic.....serve and volleyers were sure difficult but players with large heart like rafa would have found a way past them......remember that you are talking about a guy who beat karlovic(who took out defending wimbledon champ hewitt in 2003) on the fast grass of queens club......also remember that he is the one who played the greatest tennis match ever along with fed and the match was on grass......

just because he is suffering a few defeats due to fitness and confidence issues, you cannot ignore his greatness on the surface......

so i think he would have won wimbledon even in the 90s.....
Click to expand...

Stop talking. Seriously.

YOU THOUGHT THE GUY WOULD WIN WIMBLEDON! You are so stupid! You shouldn't even have an opinion! Why DO YOU HAVE TO TALK?!

Just stop, JUST STOP.

You've never come out with anything sensical, EVER. Every forum I see you on. Start the friggan game? Start gettin' a frikken brain my friend. How about that one?!
 
Sorry, Start da Game, but Agassi's strokes, mechanics, skills and entire game is TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY different than Nadal's. If you don't see it as clear as the blue sky (and you don't understand why Agassi's game was, in fact, extremely good to play on fast low bouncing grass, for a baseliner I mean, whereas Nadal's baseline game is totally different and not suited at all to play against serve and volleyers on fast low bouncing grass), then I may advice you to play more tennis against many more varied opponents on much more varied conditions (then you'll see all this as clear as I see it).
 
mattennis said:
Sorry, Start da Game, but Agassi's strokes, mechanics, skills and entire game is TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY different than Nadal's. If you don't see it as clear as the blue sky (and you don't understand why Agassi's game was, in fact, extremely good to play on fast low bouncing grass, for a baseliner I mean, whereas Nadal's baseline game is totally different and not suited at all to play against serve and volleyers on fast low bouncing grass), then I may advice you to play more tennis against many more varied opponents on much more varied conditions (then you'll see all this as clear as I see it).
Click to expand...

He doesn't have any passion or love for the sport. Just a random kid that attaches himself to a player he thinks is cool and with it comes all these annoying threads on tennis forums, where he makes a complete and utter mockery of himself.
 
mattennis said:
He really has been very very lucky with all the changes in court conditions, balls, strings, and playing styles....which turned out to benefite him tremendously.

Whereas I think Federer would have been almost as successful (maybe not that much, but still an all-time great) had he played in any previous decade, with Nadal I am not sure at all (about his success outside clay, had he played in previous decades with former conditions against different playing styles).

But as I always say, nobody knows, and he was absolutely great playing under the conditions of his own era.
Click to expand...
Federer would have been a great player even during the wood era with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings. If Nadal had to play with a tiny wood racquet without poly strings? I don't think he would have won even a single match even at the challenger level.
 
Start da Game said:
but let me ask you all something......if agassi could win wimbledon, make a final and a few semifinals, why not nadal?

in what way is agassi a superior grasscourter compared to nadal?

just because he is suffering a few defeats due to fitness and confidence issues, you cannot ignore his greatness on the surface......

so i think he would have won wimbledon even in the 90s.....
Click to expand...

Agassi and Nadal's games couldn't be more different. Totally different players. If your idea of different is "baseline vs serve and volley" you just don't have enough of a grasp of the intricacies off tennis
 
mattennis said:
Sorry, Start da Game, but Agassi's strokes, mechanics, skills and entire game is TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY different than Nadal's. If you don't see it as clear as the blue sky (and you don't understand why Agassi's game was, in fact, extremely good to play on fast low bouncing grass, for a baseliner I mean, whereas Nadal's baseline game is totally different and not suited at all to play against serve and volleyers on fast low bouncing grass), then I may advice you to play more tennis against many more varied opponents on much more varied conditions (then you'll see all this as clear as I see it).
Click to expand...

This might be true but it's still silly to argue that Nadal could not have developed into a different player if he had grown up during those times. That's just pure speculation.
 
Start da Game said:
but let me ask you all something......if agassi could win wimbledon, make a final and a few semifinals, why not nadal?

in what way is agassi a superior grasscourter compared to nadal?

you guys are so idiotic sometimes......nadal ousted peak ancic in 2003 who ousted fed the previous year......had he not ousted ancic that year, fed would not have won his first wimbledon that year due to mental block against ancic.....serve and volleyers were sure difficult but players with large heart like rafa would have found a way past them......remember that you are talking about a guy who beat karlovic(who took out defending wimbledon champ hewitt in 2003) on the fast grass of queens club......also remember that he is the one who played the greatest tennis match ever along with fed and the match was on grass......

just because he is suffering a few defeats due to fitness and confidence issues, you cannot ignore his greatness on the surface......

so i think he would have won wimbledon even in the 90s.....
Click to expand...
"peak Ancic"? Stop making me laugh. The poor guy had mono. He had no "peak". He was never heard from again and quit tennis and went to law school.

Nadal would have done the same thing most Spanish/South American clay courters did in the 90's - skipped Wimbledon altogether.

Oh, and Agassi took the ball extremely early and hit the ball flat. That type of game works on fast surfaces, like the 90's grass and carpet. Nadal's vertical strokes do not. He would have mishit every other ball.
 
Nadal hurts players with spin.

Players like Hewitt were counter-punchers who hurt players with all court smarts, great lateral movement from side to side and an ability to redirect pace. Nadal isn't able this. So just because there were part baseliners and part counter-punchers like Hewitt and Agassi during the 90s and early 2000s, it doesn't mean Nadal would have been able to play with those racquets with a game that was of the quality to compete with the pros.
 
Nadal's game relies of aggressive footwork preparation and heavy spin.

- If you speed up the courts, there is less time to be aggressive with your footwork preparation.
- If you regress string technology, there is less of an easy ability to generate such heavy spin on the ball.

These two missing factors render Nadal's game as it currently is as non-management in the days of old.

The people that make the silly argument that Nadal would have founded a different style are having a laugh, because when you identify Nadal's core fundamental strengths, you'll know and realise they don't involve him have great hands and feel or elegant more naturally fluid and fluent footwork.
 
Start da Game said:
but let me ask you all something......if agassi could win wimbledon, make a final and a few semifinals, why not nadal?

in what way is agassi a superior grasscourter compared to nadal?

you guys are so idiotic sometimes......nadal ousted peak ancic in 2003 who ousted fed the previous year......had he not ousted ancic that year, fed would not have won his first wimbledon that year due to mental block against ancic.....serve and volleyers were sure difficult but players with large heart like rafa would have found a way past them......remember that you are talking about a guy who beat karlovic(who took out defending wimbledon champ hewitt in 2003) on the fast grass of queens club......also remember that he is the one who played the greatest tennis match ever along with fed and the match was on grass......

just because he is suffering a few defeats due to fitness and confidence issues, you cannot ignore his greatness on the surface......

so i think he would have won wimbledon even in the 90s.....
Click to expand...

Lol. Because of RoS, obviously :)
 
I also think it's a great shame that Nadal's name is on the Wimbledon roll of honor. For that matter, I think he probably wouldn't even have won the US Open in the 1990s and early 2000s, when the courts were extremely fast and low-bouncing by today's standards. Between Wilander in 1988 and Hewitt in 2001, nobody won the US Open who didn't either hit through the ball from the baseline with relatively little topspin or blanket the net. And Hewitt's game is more like Agassi's in terms of success against attacking players on fast courts than it is like Nadal's.

All that said, what about Jim Courier's run to the final in 1993?
 
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? How the heck could ANYBODY know how anyone would have played in a different era or how they would have matched up against the players from that time?

Given that Nadal successfully adapted his game to be effective on ALL the surfaces of his time, why does anyone suppose he wouldn't have adapted his playing style to whatever worked in the 1990s if he had been playing back then?

You have to laugh, you really do! :D
 
Mainad said:
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? How the heck could ANYBODY know how anyone would have played in a different era or how they would have matched up against the players from that time?

Given that Nadal successfully adapted his game to be effective on ALL the surfaces of his time, why does anyone suppose he wouldn't have adapted his playing style to whatever worked in the 1990s if he had been playing back then?

You have to laugh, you really do! :D
Click to expand...

The doubt is because of the fact that the adjustments he'd have had to make back in the 1990s would have been far greater than the ones that he has had to make, and so much harder to make.

Really, all he's done is make tactical adjustments. but in the 1990s he'd have had to change his entire technique.
 
helterskelter said:
The doubt is because of the fact that the adjustments he'd have had to make back in the 1990s would have been far greater than the ones that he has had to make, and so much harder to make.

Really, all he's done is make tactical adjustments. but in the 1990s he'd have had to change his entire technique.
Click to expand...

Point is, we just don't know? How can anyone know?
 
BreakPoint said:
Federer would have been a great player even during the wood era with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings. If Nadal had to play with a tiny wood racquet without poly strings? I don't think he would have won even a single match even at the challenger level.
Click to expand...

LOL, is this for real? A 14-time Slam champion would struggle to win matches at the Challenger level!?

Athletic ability doesn't magically disappear because of changes in equipment. What makes you think Federer (and the entire field in general) didn't benefit from new racquets and strings just as much as Nadal did?
 
Lendl and Courier made Wimbledon finals and Borg won multiple. Whether Nadal could win Wimbledon or not in the 90's is one thing, but saying he'd be a complete dud is silly IMO. He's clearly not as good on grass as he used to be so these early losses don't mean he'd be struggling to get out of the second round in the 90's.
 
Mainad said:
Point is, we just don't know? How can anyone know?
Click to expand...

We can't know for sure. But you speculated about it too. You said, "Given that Nadal successfully adapted his game to be effective on ALL the surfaces of his time, why does anyone suppose he wouldn't have adapted his playing style to whatever worked in the 1990s if he had been playing back then?"

The clear implication is that you think he could have done. If you want to make that claim, you have to be prepared to accept that others will post arguments to the effect that they disagree with you.

Sure, you can just opt out of the debate by saying that we can't know. But the later part of the comment that I quoted somewhat contradicts that sentiment.
 
BreakPoint said:
......on the fast grass and carpet of the '90's.

Even a mediocre, inconsistent serve and volleyer ranked outside the top 100 is 2-0 versus Nadal on today's SLOW grass. Can you imagine what the top serve and volleyers would have done to Nadal on the fast grass and carpet of the 90's? Guys like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, etc. would have had a field day with Nadal. Heck, even Giles Muller beat Nadal on the slow Wimbledon grass.
Click to expand...

True. He's just another grinder moonballer who benefited the most of the slowing down of all'surfaces and the particularly weak clay era in 2004-2014.

He shoulda had a Muster/Kuerten career at best.
 
helterskelter said:
We can't know for sure. But you speculated about it too. You said, "Given that Nadal successfully adapted his game to be effective on ALL the surfaces of his time, why does anyone suppose he wouldn't have adapted his playing style to whatever worked in the 1990s if he had been playing back then?"

The clear implication is that you think he could have done. If you want to make that claim, you have to be prepared to accept that others will post arguments to the effect that they disagree with you.

Sure, you can just opt out of the debate by saying that we can't know. But the later part of the comment that I quoted somewhat contradicts that sentiment.
Click to expand...

I made my comment simply to counter the ridiculous assertions of those posters who confidently assert what Nadal wouldn't have been able to do had he played in a different era!
 
Mainad said:
I made my comment simply to counter the ridiculous assertions of those posters who confidently assert what Nadal wouldn't have been able to do had he played in a different era!
Click to expand...
People can be so confident in their assertions. They're knowledge is INFINITE!

Just to give my 2 cents, I think Nadal would not have been as good at Wimbledon, but there is no ignoring his talent and underrated net play. My guess is that he might make it to the semis a few times at least, and it would not surprise me if he was able to win a title and make a couple finals. People often forget that players are more adaptable than we think. All you need to do is look at Borg who is very comparable to Rafa.

Also, someone made the assertion that Nadal and Agassi are basically interchangeable for this topic. That, I must say, is ludicrous. Baseliners are not all the same. Agassi is much more suited to faster surfaces than Nadal.
 
No one has benefitted more from slow surfaces more than nadal. The wtf is like the old french open and he gets bageld there.

He would probably just skip the tournament like the spanish players did in the 90's because they stood no chance with their glorified junior style of play
 
Mainad said:
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? How the heck could ANYBODY know how anyone would have played in a different era or how they would have matched up against the players from that time?

Given that Nadal successfully adapted his game to be effective on ALL the surfaces of his time, why does anyone suppose he wouldn't have adapted his playing style to whatever worked in the 1990s if he had been playing back then?

You have to laugh, you really do! :D
Click to expand...

I agree, comparing different eras and trying to pigeonhole a player and his technique into that era is kind of ridiculous. There would have been a totally different approach back then to mold Rafa, or whoever, to the style of play that would have brought success back then, due to racquet/string technology of the day, court surfaces to play on, etc... And I say that as a Fed fan who does believe that Federer has the tennis talent to play in practically any era. But really, you just don't know.
 
Mainad said:
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? How the heck could ANYBODY know how anyone would have played in a different era or how they would have matched up against the players from that time?

Given that Nadal successfully adapted his game to be effective on ALL the surfaces of his time, why does anyone suppose he wouldn't have adapted his playing style to whatever worked in the 1990s if he had been playing back then?

You have to laugh, you really do! :D
Click to expand...
Because for Nadal to get rid of his big, powerful Babolat racquet, his spin monster poly strings, and his vertical swinging massive topspin reverse forehands to be able to play in the 90's, he wouldn't win anything.
 
Mainad said:
Point is, we just don't know? How can anyone know?
Click to expand...
Yes, we do know. How many guys who grew up playing on slow red clay won Wimbledon in the 90's? None.

How did the "King of Clay" during the '90's, Muster, do at Wimbledon? How about Kuerten?
 
Last edited:
jm1980 said:
LOL, is this for real? A 14-time Slam champion would struggle to win matches at the Challenger level!?

Athletic ability doesn't magically disappear because of changes in equipment. What makes you think Federer (and the entire field in general) didn't benefit from new racquets and strings just as much as Nadal did?
Click to expand...
You're right, I should have said Futures level or even a local Open tournament.

Because Federer beat 7-time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras using a 20-year-old tech 85 sq. in. racquet strung with full gut. Do you think Nadal could have done the same? Not in your wildest dreams!

Federer vs. Nadal on the fast, low-bouncing 90's grass with both using 65 sq. in. wood racquets strung with full gut. Who would you put your life savings on to win?
 
Think i remember hearing Rafter say once that he would fancy his chances S&V against Nadal even at peak because he returned from so far back and had so much net clearance. I do think good S&V players with an accurate serve would have smothered him on fast grass/carpet.
 
Zoolander said:
Think i remember hearing Rafter say once that he would fancy his chances S&V against Nadal even at peak because he returned from so far back and had so much net clearance. I do think good S&V players with an accurate serve would have smothered him on fast grass/carpet.
Click to expand...
Sampras has said essentially the same thing about Nadal - that he "licks his chops" every time he watches him play as he knew he would kill him with his style of play against someone who stood so far back to receive serve, often played from well back behind the baseline, and who never serves and volleys.
 
If beating Nadal was that easy, not sure why Federer couldn't do that in most of of their GS matches. Most of the tennis pros from the 90's regard Federer as one of the best tennis players ever. Surely,he could serve and volley.
 
Mick said:
If beating Nadal was that easy, not sure why Federer couldn't do that in most of of their GS matches. Most of the tennis pros from the 90's regard Federer as one of the best tennis players ever. Surely,he could serve and volley.
Click to expand...

They never played at Us and Fed leads the H2H at Wimby and WTF. He would have destroyed Nadal on carpet same way Nadal destroyed him on clay.
 
Retired players/athletes claiming they could still compete/beat current players/athletes? You don't say! ;)

Plus, who the heck cares how Nadal or any other player would have done in the 90's or the 1890's... These "arguments" just sound like sour grapes to me...
 
Boom-Boom said:
They never played at Us and Fed leads the H2H at Wimby and WTF. He would have destroyed Nadal on carpet same way Nadal destroyed him on clay.
Click to expand...

Yet Rafa could beat him at the USO and the WTF isn't even fast. It's well known that Rafa loses all hypothetical matches but lucky for him, he played in reality.
 
JustBob said:
Retired players/athletes claiming they could still compete/beat current players/athletes? You don't say! ;)

Plus, who the heck cares how Nadal or any other player would have done in the 90's or the 1890's... These "arguments" just sound like sour grapes to me...
Click to expand...

It's a rather dumb hypothetical.
 
Chadillac said:
No one has benefitted more from slow surfaces more than nadal. The wtf is like the old french open and he gets bageld there.

He would probably just skip the tournament like the spanish players did in the 90's because they stood no chance with their glorified junior style of play
Click to expand...

They slowed down clay huh?
 
Lol @ the morons claiming Nadal would be a dud on grass, when the 90s saw "giants" like Pioline and Washington in the Wimbledon finals. Did you clowns even watch Nadal in 2007 and 2008? He's in a slump, and I have no doubt he'll come out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Forehand grips of these serve and volleyers, and which S&v's with 2HBH?
Replies
6
Views
2K
NamRanger
N
yemenmocha
  • Poll Poll
If Nadal had to play on a true mix of fast and slow courts - same success?
Replies
36
Views
4K
conway
conway
Sherlock
The Real Reason Serve and Volley Tennis has Disappeared
2 3
Replies
103
Views
9K
Wilander Fan
W
K
Ranking Serve & Volleyers
Replies
15
Views
2K
JohnThomas1
J
T
Estimated Head to Head - Federer vs Nadal - by Surface
Replies
33
Views
2K
bruce38
B
Back
Top