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

[Anaconda]

Yes, it was. When else have you ever seen a guy under pressure hold his serve 64 TIMES IN A ROW in the 5th set to stay in a match? You'll NEVER see that again, ever. Not even close. What Mahut did without mentally cracking for so many consecutive service games was inhuman.

And at no point during that match did I think Isner and Mahut had what it took to be a slam champion. It might be one of the most talked about matches, but in terms of quality you would have to be an absolute crack head to label that match as the greatest match of all time. Roddick's serving at Wimbledon 09 surpasses that, as he actually played three real returners (not Isner or Mahut) in Hewitt, Murray and Federer and got broken what, 5 times? In the final, considering fatigue and who he was playing, held serve until the very end.




Just because there is a bigger number to the score than some other epics (Fed v Safin AO 05 for example) does not make it a better match. You have more posts than anyone else in this forum, yet I wouldn't hold your opinion above someone like !tym, systematicanomoly, GuyClinch, Ollinger, Drakulie etc.

 

[spinovic]

Vintage TT. Let's take a guy at the worst point in his career and draw obvious conclusions from that. Because...well...they're obvious, aren't they?

(Note: This tactic can also be applied using his very best. As in, take the very best game, nay even point, he's played and apply it to any 5-10 year period you wish.)

 

[Feather]

Vintage TT. Let's take a guy at the worst point in his career and draw obvious conclusions from that. Because...well...they're obvious, aren't they?

(Note: This tactic can also be applied using his very best. As in, take the very best game, nay even point, he's played and apply it to any 5-10 year period you wish.)

This !

This thread is total nonsense to pick an all time great at his lowest point in his career and derive conclusions from it as if it's a given

 

[HardcourtHeaven]

It would have been ugle for Rafa as much as I admire him

 

[BreakPoint]

Do you have any proof?

If you had been watching Federer for many years prior, it was extremely obvious that there was something severely wrong with Federer. He was lethargic, sweating much more than he usually does, not moving his feet, mishitting the ball much more, being out of position more, etc. What more evidence do you need other than what happened to him in the 2008 French Open final?

 

[BreakPoint]

Oh so now winning slams with any stick other than the PS85 automatically puts an asterisk on the win? This is comedy gold. And worse, are you suggesting Sampras would've won multiple FOs if he had access to the APD? With a continental grip on all shots? The guy would get thrown off if his PSes were strung 1 lbs more or less than his preferred tension. He used the PS for one reason - he felt it gave him the best chance of winning the big titles. And btw, the only guy to win the FO with a PS in the 90s was Courier. Bruguera used a Sergio Tacchini stick. Muster, Kuerten and Agassi used Head pro stocks and Kafelnikov had a Fischer. So that means the only person to "BP-win" an FO in the 90s was Courier. And like I said, Luxilon was around in the 90s and wasn't illegal so why couldn't Nadal have used it then? Also, are you telling me that Courier, Kafelnikov, Muster and Kuerten were better players than Nadal on clay, all things equal? Even worse, you seem to be suggesting that if you took the APD away from him, he'd be nothing more than a par-level clay grinder, which is absolute rubbish. He developed his style to play with topspin, not because he thought he could get the most out of an APD by developing the kind of mechanics he uses.

Sure, Sampras would've done pretty well. But do you see him winning as many slams? No way. He'd have been passed 3x as much on the slower courts today.

Where do you get this stuff?

Sampras used "a continental grip on all shots"? Maybe you should let Sampras know that because he thinks he's been using an eastern forehand and backhand grips.

Bruguera used a Kneissl to win his first FO and a Yonex to win his second, not a "Sergio Tacchini stick":

At his FO win 1993 he used a dark green Kneissl White Star 35.

according to S. Bruguera by way of Bruguera Tennis Academy, he did used a Kneissl racket

 

[ACE of Hearts]

If you had been watching Federer for many years prior, it was extremely obvious that there was something severely wrong with Federer. He was lethargic, sweating much more than he usually does, not moving his feet, mishitting the ball much more, being out of position more, etc. What more evidence do you need other than what happened to him in the 2008 French Open final?

Federer was dealing with some back issues. Idk about mono.

 

[BreakPoint]

That's players generating greater power because the strings allow them to.

But if the strings can generate the power, then the player doesn't have to.

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer was dealing with some back issues. Idk about mono.

It was mono. You don't get over mono that quickly. Just ask Robin Soderling.

 

[BreakPoint]

And at no point during that match did I think Isner and Mahut had what it took to be a slam champion. It might be one of the most talked about matches, but in terms of quality you would have to be an absolute crack head to label that match as the greatest match of all time. Roddick's serving at Wimbledon 09 surpasses that, as he actually played three real returners (not Isner or Mahut) in Hewitt, Murray and Federer and got broken what, 5 times? In the final, considering fatigue and who he was playing, held serve until the very end.




Just because there is a bigger number to the score than some other epics (Fed v Safin AO 05 for example) does not make it a better match. You have more posts than anyone else in this forum, yet I wouldn't hold your opinion above someone like !tym, systematicanomoly, GuyClinch, Ollinger, Drakulie etc.

I was on the edge of my seat for the entire 5th set of that match. ALL 138 GAMES! That's a VERY long time.

I define "quality of match" as suspense and drama, not quality of the shots or play.

 

[NatF]

But if the strings can generate the power, then the player doesn't have to.

It's about keeping the ball in the court as well...guys today can hit the ball hard and keep it in most of the time. Guys like Wawrinka can average 80+ MPH on their groundies, you didn't see that in the 90's.

 

[Anaconda]

I was on the edge of my seat for the entire 5th set of that match. ALL 138 GAMES! That's a VERY long time.

I define "quality of match" as suspense and drama, not quality of the shots or play.

I measure quality of a match using both criteria; This is why I enjoyed the Wimbledon 07 and AO 2005 so much, as well as AO 2012. Comebacks, great shot-making, 5th setters, relentless rallies, good serving (especially Federer at W07 ad Safin at AO05). I'd also add Wawrinka and Djokovic's meetings at AO to boot. You can't disregard the actual quality of the tennis being played or you are just missing the point of the 'quality of match' altogether.

 

[BringBackSV]

If you had been watching Federer for many years prior, it was extremely obvious that there was something severely wrong with Federer. He was lethargic, sweating much more than he usually does, not moving his feet, mishitting the ball much more, being out of position more, etc. What more evidence do you need other than what happened to him in the 2008 French Open final?

Honestly, Im not sure how you could have watched Wimbledon 08 and felt Roger was not himself. Im not sure how you could watch Wimbledon 07 and been surprised that Rafa could beat him. Yeah, he got his ass handed to him at RG 08 and in no way does that validate what you are saying. You are also trying to argue that the symptoms of mono stay with you forever which is false and I'll take Roger's word for it on how he was feeling.

 

[NatF]

Federer was fit but low on confidence from around the clay season in 2008.

 

[Anaconda]

Honestly, Im not sure how you could have watched Wimbledon 08 and felt Roger was not himself. Im not sure how you could watch Wimbledon 07 and been surprised that Rafa could beat him. Yeah, he got his ass handed to him at RG 08 and in no way does that validate what you are saying. You are also trying to argue that the symptoms of mono stay with you forever which is false and I'll take Roger's word for it on how he was feeling.

It was apparent that Federer's days of winning 3 slams a year were comming to an end. His movement declined, and his illness did effect him. It was really in 2007/08 when Federer's movement and forehand declined when he took his serve to the next level - it was pretty much the shot that helped him through 08-09. I think if he didn't improve his serve, a slam win (let alone 4) would have been pretty hard to come by. It was the sole reason he won the W07 final against Nadal, and the US Open against Djokovic. But yeah, the monglandular fever didn't help, but he was starting to lose more frequently as his FH became a liability due to an obvious decline in footwork.



Another thing is that Federer really could have won the final at W08, and no one would have questioned his decline. I think people also think Federer was completely unstoppable even from 04-07, when he had tremendous luck to be playing a dead Safin at AO04 who was injured throughout all of 03, and needed the rain to save him against Roddick at W04, and even the likes of Haas, Davydenko and Baghdathis were giving Federer a lot of trouble at AO. The only slam Federer has been pretty much completely dominant in his prime was the US Open.

 

[offensivebaseliner]

If Borg could win 5 in the fastest of fast grass eras, why not Nadal?

 

[tlm]

Only breakpoint and his fed fan buddys who are obvious rafa haters can come up with these threads that are a complete joke. He has won wimbly twice and made it to the finals also. Grass is definitely his worse surface but he still won it twice. No matter how much twisting and BS so you haters come up with this is a fact that you guys just can't face.

To make any kind of statements about rafa in the last 2 years is a farce at best. He is nowhere near the player that he was a few years ago. He has really dropped his level and may not ever get it back, but to talk about the current rafa like the real player that he once was is a total joke.

He can hardly win on clay in his current form. He lost to fogninii twice this year on clay. In the last few years he has been losing to nobody's on any surface, so to talk about his grass court tennis now in this stage of his career is just the haters trying to make themselves feel better.

He has played against many SnV players and beats them almost everytime, but not this current rafa. His match against brown I have never seen him miss so many easy passing shots that he was all set up for on his forehand side. This would not have happened in the past when he was in his prime. I see brown is so good that he lost the next round, no surprise his game will never work in today's game unless he is playing guys like rafa who are in a total funk.

 

[tlm]

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.

Sampras is full of cr@p, rafa would have destroyed his weak backhand.

 

[West Coast Ace]

If Borg could win 5 in the fastest of fast grass eras, why not Nadal?

Because Borg was willing to leave his clay game in France and play grass court tennis?

I think honest Nadal fans will admit the guy is stubborn to a fault.

I'm - grudgingly - going with @BreakPoint on this one. Nadal's game, which is is either unwilling/unable to change, would not have fared well against serve/volley on fast tracks with light balls. And I'll even let him take his Babolat in the Time Machine - wouldn't help.

 

[TommyA8X]

Once you get mono, you NEVER get over it. You have the virus for life. Just ask Soderling and Ancic.

Federer has never been the same player again after he came down with mono in early 2008. Just compare the year he had in 2007 vs. 2008.

The virus remains dormant in the body. Very rarely it can reactivate and cause some mild symptoms... Fed didn't have mono in W 2008, or any kind of mono symptoms. He had mono before AO, it messed with his preparation so he played like cr*p for several tournaments, causing him to lose confidence, culminating with a pathetic FO final. That match gave Nadal even more of a mental edge for their Wimbledon meeting (completely opposite for Fed), finally giving us the glorified W 2008 final (where Fed couldn't return Nadal's 60 mph 2nd serves for the first two sets)

 

[MichaelNadal]

This !

This thread is total nonsense to pick an all time great at his lowest point in his career and derive conclusions from it as if it's a given

Look who made the thread.

 

[tlm]

Because Borg was willing to leave his clay game in France and play grass court tennis?

I think honest Nadal fans will admit the guy is stubborn to a fault.

I'm - grudgingly - going with @BreakPoint on this one. Nadal's game, which is is either unwilling/unable to change, would not have fared well against serve/volley on fast tracks with light balls. And I'll even let him take his Babolat in the Time Machine - wouldn't help.

It's amazing how many live in fantasyland here. So many want to talk about the 90's and lighter balls and smaller rackets. And now it is time machines, pretty hilarious how some will do anything they can to diminish rafa one of the greatest of all time.

But of coarse the main reason for all the hate is because this kid from Spain came and rained on feds parade. How they miss the days before rafa came along and fed got to whoop on the weak field that he racked up most of his majors in. Those were the days weren't they all the frontrunner fans were in heaven.

 

[ProStaff forever]

If Nadal was playing the 90s game, he'd be using a heavy western grip and having first round exists like his Spanish compatriots.

 

[Chadillac]

Sampras is full of cr@p, rafa would have destroyed his weak backhand.

Not his backhand volley. It was really good

Nadal was clearly rattled, even when he got a clean look at a pass he would miss them. Thats the pressure this style of play puts on an opponent.

Deep/short serve and volley'rs are nadals worst nightmare.

 

[tlm]

Not his backhand volley. It was really good

Nadal was clearly rattled, even when he got a clean look at a pass he would miss them. Thats the pressure this style of play puts on an opponent.

Deep/short serve and volley'rs are nadals worst nightmare.

He has beaten 99% of the guys that have tried this tactic. Where have you been? Many have tried and many have failed, but now rafa can lose to just about anybody on any surface.

Like I already posted but of coarse you dreamers don't want to talk about the fact that he lost to fogninii twice this year on clay. Let me guess that was because of SnV tactic also. LOL

 

[spinovic]

Federer was fit but low on confidence from around the clay season in 2008.

Federer is never low on confidence, especially on grass. He moves on from tough losses as well as anyone to ever play.

He simply lost a close match against an all-time great who was just reaching his prime as Federer was just exiting his own. It was a match that could have easily gone either way, a match in which both guys were insanely clutch at various points and ultimately Nadal was just a little bit better in the end that day.

If Federer were that fragile psychologically, I seriously doubt he'd have followed up that beat down at RG and that heartbreaking loss at Wimbledon by making the finals of the next 6 majors and winning half of them.

 

[Chadillac]

He has beaten 99% of the guys that have tried this tactic. Where have you been? Many have tried and many have failed

The Wtf is the fastest tournament we have today (its still slow compared to the 90's).

I think you went a touch high with the 99% based on his results there.

Nadal didnt like the slices and drop shots, it was obvious and brown doesnt do it as good as sampras.

Nadals babolat sensor would fall off when pete got finished with him.

 

[Chadillac]

He has beaten 99% of the guys that have tried this tactic. Where have you been? Many have tried and many have failed, but now rafa can lose to just about anybody on any surface.

Like I already posted but of coarse you dreamers don't want to talk about the fact that he lost to fogninii twice this year on clay. Let me guess that was because of SnV tactic also. LOL

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/04/semifinal-2-rafael-nadal-vs-3-pete-sampras/54634/

Id also like to add many experts disagree with you. This hypothetical match was played at their peaks

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

It was mono. You don't get over mono that quickly. Just ask Robin Soderling.

mono

 

[tlm]

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/04/semifinal-2-rafael-nadal-vs-3-pete-sampras/54634/

Id also like to add many experts disagree with you. This hypothetical match was played at their peaks

Oh Ya a hypothetical match, this is beyond hilarious.

 

[tlm]

The Wtf is the fastest tournament we have today (its still slow compared to the 90's).

I think you went a touch high with the 99% based on his results there.

Nadal didnt like the slices and drop shots, it was obvious and brown doesnt do it as good as sampras.

Nadals babolat sensor would fall off when pete got finished with him.

Please name all these losses he had against SnV players. By the way where is Dustin the net rusher at now?

 

[tlm]

The Wtf is the fastest tournament we have today (its still slow compared to the 90's).

I think you went a touch high with the 99% based on his results there.

Nadal didnt like the slices and drop shots, it was obvious and brown doesnt do it as good as sampras.

Nadals babolat sensor would fall off when pete got finished with him.

Oh Ya the 90's if you could only transfer time you could live out your fantasy serve contest tennis.

Believe it or not the 90's are long gone and it's time for you and BP to start living in reality.

 

[crazyups]

......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.

Whoopsy, we forgot to mention how Federer would have been destroyed in the 90's by the serve and volleyers after his 2013 wimbledon loss to Stakhovsky.

 

[LETitBE]

If Nadal "would have been" destroyed by serve-volleyers in his prime, why didn't any of his 7 opponents in the years he won simply serve-volley and destroy him. Unless it wasn't quite so simple.

The same reason Federer didnt "Brown"him death with dropshots.In other words....TOO THICK.

 

[Chadillac]

Please name all these losses he had against SnV players. By the way where is Dustin the net rusher at now?

I dont think you realize the fast courts favor the serve and volley. He is losing to good fast court baseliners like daveydanko (when betting on himself), imagine what a true fast court player would do to him. Brown with consistency.

Id take a 40yr old Mansour Bahrami over nadal on a 90's surface after what i saw in this match.

 

[BreakPoint]

I measure quality of a match using both criteria; This is why I enjoyed the Wimbledon 07 and AO 2005 so much, as well as AO 2012. Comebacks, great shot-making, 5th setters, relentless rallies, good serving (especially Federer at W07 ad Safin at AO05). I'd also add Wawrinka and Djokovic's meetings at AO to boot. You can't disregard the actual quality of the tennis being played or you are just missing the point of the 'quality of match' altogether.

Many regard the 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and McEnroe as "one of the greatest tennis matches ever played". In fact, before the 2008 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal, it was deemed THE greatest match ever played. Why? It certainly wasn't the quality of play. If you watch the match, the play was of average quality and nothing spectacular. What made it a great match was the drama and suspense of the 4th set tiebreak that went to 18-16 with multiple match points and set points. If that tiebreak never happened and it was a routine 6-4 set instead, no one would even talk about nor remember that match.

For me, drama and suspense trumps quality of play, shotmaking, number of sets, level of tournament, round in draw, or who the players were. The fact that it was a 1st round match and that neither Isner nor Mahut were Slam champions or ever will be is totally irrelevant to me. The greatest match ever played could have very well been between two guys down at my local park had it gone to 70-68 in the 5th set.

 

[BreakPoint]

Honestly, Im not sure how you could have watched Wimbledon 08 and felt Roger was not himself. Im not sure how you could watch Wimbledon 07 and been surprised that Rafa could beat him. Yeah, he got his ass handed to him at RG 08 and in no way does that validate what you are saying. You are also trying to argue that the symptoms of mono stay with you forever which is false and I'll take Roger's word for it on how he was feeling.

I said the mono virus stays with you forever, which is a fact. Just like the herpes virus stays with you forever. Call up Robin Soderling and ask him how long mono stays with you.

Roger was not going to blame all of his losses on mono. He's way too classy for that. But anyone who's watched every single one of his matches over the past 12 years knows the truth.

 

[BreakPoint]

If Borg could win 5 in the fastest of fast grass eras, why not Nadal?

Because Borg served and volleyed when he played Wimbledon. Nadal does not.

Borg also didn't have to face the big powerful serve and volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc. Even little, low-power McEnroe beat him at Wimbledon.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sampras is full of cr@p, rafa would have destroyed his weak backhand.

Huh? What "weak backhand"? And how does Nadal even hit to Sampars' backhand if he can't even touch the ball? Sampras either hits an ace or puts away the first volley for a winner on the old fast low-bouncing grass.

 

[BreakPoint]

The virus remains dormant in the body. Very rarely it can reactivate and cause some mild symptoms... Fed didn't have mono in W 2008, or any kind of mono symptoms. He had mono before AO, it messed with his preparation so he played like cr*p for several tournaments, causing him to lose confidence, culminating with a pathetic FO final. That match gave Nadal even more of a mental edge for their Wimbledon meeting (completely opposite for Fed), finally giving us the glorified W 2008 final (where Fed couldn't return Nadal's 60 mph 2nd serves for the first two sets)

Because Federer's movement was hampered by his debilitating mono. Federer never used to sweat, even in a 5th set in stifling heat and humidity. During all of 2008, he was sweating like a pig in almost all of his matches.

 

[KineticChain]

nadal would have been crunched by the serve and volleyers of 1920s. give nadill a wooden racket and he literally wouldn't be able to hit the ball with it. he would be a 4.0 at best with wooden cause wooden requires finness and touch. the depth of talent was much deeper in the 1920s through 70s. now literally anyone can be a professional player by picking up these modern SUPERRACKETs and hit the ball like SUPERMAN. things sure have gone downhill.

 

[BreakPoint]

He has beaten 99% of the guys that have tried this tactic. Where have you been? Many have tried and many have failed, but now rafa can lose to just about anybody on any surface.

Like I already posted but of coarse you dreamers don't want to talk about the fact that he lost to fogninii twice this year on clay. Let me guess that was because of SnV tactic also. LOL

When? How many of Nadal's opponents have served and volleyed on 100% of their serves, like Brown did?

 

[BreakPoint]

Whoopsy, we forgot to mention how Federer would have been destroyed in the 90's by the serve and volleyers after his 2013 wimbledon loss to Stakhovsky.

Um...no. One of the best serve and volleyers of all time, 7-time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras served and volleyed against Federer and Federer still beat him. Stakhovsky beat Federer because Federer couldn't move due to his severe back injury.

 

[zep]

Um...no. One of the best serve and volleyers of all time, 7-time Wimbledon champion Pete Sampras served and volleyed against Federer and Federer still beat him. Stakhovsky beat Federer because Federer couldn't move due to his severe back injury.

Yeah and Nadal is in the best moment of his career. It's ironic that you make excuses for Federer but at the same time can't see that Nadal is not even winning on clay, let alone grass.

 

[gcollins]

I'd like to point out that Roger went on to win additional Wimbledons after his loss in 08, and there was no indication of his decline until later in his career. Asserting that Nadal could not win a Wimbledon after beating the greatest player who ever played there while that player was in his prime (playing quality tennis that match, too) is just absurd.

In this case, diminishing Nadal's greatness in the mid to late 2000's on grass diminishes Federer's greatness, and I won't have that. If you believe Federer would win an old fashioned Wimbledon or eight, then you have to believe a prime Nadal at least gets one.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yeah and Nadal is in the best moment of his career. It's ironic that you make excuses for Federer but at the same time can't see that Nadal is not even winning on clay, let alone grass.

What does this have anything at all to do with Federer?

If Federer was never born, Nadal would still have lost to the top serve and volleyers on the fast grass and indoor carpet of the 90's. Heck, Nadal can't even win against serve and volleyers on today's slow grass and slow indoor hardcourts.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

What does this have anything at all to do with Federer?

If Federer was never born, Nadal would still have lost to the top serve and volleyers on the fast grass and indoor carpet of the 90's. Heck, Nadal can't even win against serve and volleyers on today's slow grass and slow indoor hardcourts.

At his peak he could, like said before he beat Mirnyi, Ancic, Bjorkman, Fish, Karlovic on grass.
I am not saying Nadal would for sure win Wimbledon in the 80's, but at least try to state facts instead of writing this load of crap.

 

[reaper]

I don't understand why people who know so much about tennis that they can tell which players from different eras could beat each other don't do something much simpler....bet thousands of dollars on matches that are actually taking place...like the 16 round of 16 matches that are taking place tonight. Maybe they do, or maybe they prefer to speculate on hypotheticals like how Nadal would have fared at Wimbledon in the '90's precisely because the answer can never be known.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I don't understand why people who know so much about tennis that they can tell which players from different eras could beat each other don't do something much simpler....bet thousands of dollars on matches that are actually taking place...like the 16 round of 16 matches that are taking place tonight. Maybe they do, or maybe they prefer to speculate on hypotheticals like how Nadal would have fared at Wimbledon in the '90's precisely because the answer can never be known.

Goffin to win at least a set today, go big.

 

[Keizer]

Where do you get this stuff?

Sampras used "a continental grip on all shots"? Maybe you should let Sampras know that because he thinks he's been using an eastern forehand and backhand grips.

Bruguera used a Kneissl to win his first FO and a Yonex to win his second, not a "Sergio Tacchini stick":

Thanks for correcting my facts. I got the Sergio Tacchini stick information from

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bruguera-93-rolland-garros-racquet.414322/

However, how does that change the fact that he didn't use a PS85? You still haven't told me why Nadal wouldn't have won 7 FO's without a Bab and Poly when nobody else had access to them either. Face it, Bab or not, Nadal is a once in a lifetime slow court player.