Connors vs Nadal-"what if" matches

anointedone

Banned
I found this an intersting article:

http://www.411mania.com/sports/other_sports/57468/Across-the-Net-7.23.07:-Connors-vs.-Nadal--\

What if matches

While the tennis season runs from January 1st through the end of November, some weeks are more exciting than others. On slower weeks, I will give my views on "what if" matches between players from different eras. I do this first because they are interesting questions to consider and second because almost everyone seems to be focused on Federer vs. Sampras when many interesting hypothetical matches are out there. I begin the series with two fiery left handers: Jimmy Connors vs. Rafael Nadal.

Methodology: This is admittedly highly speculative for many reasons. Sports medicine has rendered some injuries minor that used to end careers. Racket and strong technology along with training techniques have changed the sport. Also, tennis is played far less frequently on grass, green clay and carpet than it was in previous eras. All of that means this is far from an exact science. I will try to update all players that need updating (i.e. Borg playing with a wooden racket would struggle vs. Nadal, but if you update Borg's equipment and training he would at least hold his own).

I think when comparing players two related, but separate questions must be asked. First, who had more career accomplishments? Second, who would win more often than not if the two players faced off on a variety of surfaces? It is possible that in the case of Mats Wilander and Boris Becker that Wilander would be considered the more accomplished player and still be the underdog on surfaces other than clay. In our first case, Connors is obviously the more accomplished of the two, but Nadal is 21 and still has a lot of tennis in front of him. My series of "what if" matches will focus on the second question and analyze how a series of matches might turn out between two players. This series will focus on a hypothetical series of 10 three out of five set matches on each of these surfaces: slow hard court, red clay, grass, fast hard court and a fast indoor court. This series of matches will mirror Wimbledon, the Master's Cup, the Australian, French and U.S. Opens.

Connors vs. Nadal: The Tale of the Tape

Mind: Mentally both players competed about as hard as any player in history. Each player's competitiveness served to intimidate opponents. This alone makes for a compelling match up. Each man would give and expect no quarter from the other.

Tactics/Stroke Production: This is a fascinating contrast. Nadal hits with massive topspin that gives him a large margin for error, but also hits with great depth and power. Connors hit the ball flat and at times used slice/underspin on his forehand and backhand. Nadal tends to stay behind the baseline allowing his foot speed and fitness to make up for any court positioning he surrenders. Connors took the ball on the rise and tried to command points by moving his opposition from side to side waiting on a short ball to attack. Connors attack was often predicated on establishing superior court positioning. Both men served in a way that was hard to pick on, but did not produce a ton of winners. Nadal plays a lot of doubles and has surprisingly soft hands. Connors was very effective at ending points at the net due to the high quality of the approach shots he hit after getting a short ball.

The Surface Splits

Slow Hard Court: Jimmy Connors never played on the slower hard courts of Melbourne Australia, but the surface would not have bothered him. His keen eye sight and return of serve would have benefited from a court that slowed down serves. Nadal has produced reasonable but not excellent results on this surface. Both men would likely take it to each other on this surface and have their successes. If Connors could produce enough short balls from Nadal he'd have the advantage, but the slower surface would allow Nadal to line up passing shots. Both guys would break serve often.
Prediction 5-5

Red Clay Court: This is Nadal's best surface, but Connors missed the French Open during his best clay court years. Anyone expecting Jimmy to go down 0-10 probably only saw Connors late in his career when he tried to end points quickly. Connors liked to attack, but he could bide his time as well. Jimmy beat Bjorn Borg in 4 sets on green clay at the 1976 U.S. Open and was runner-up at two other U.S. Opens on green clay. Still, Connors did not volley well when the passing shot dipped below the net. Nadal on clay would have time to force Connors to volley up more often than not.
Prediction Nadal 8 Connors 2

Grass Court: Nadal's two Wimbledon runner-up finishes prove that the Spaniard can play on grass. Connors won 4 grand slam titles on grass and finished as a runner-up at 5 grass court grand slam events. Connors ability to take the ball on the rise along with his flat and under spin ground strokes would frustrate Nadal. Connors would attack Nadal's serve and keep the ball low. Nadal bends well for low shots, but over three out of five sets the advantage goes to the player keeping the ball low. Nadal would retrieve well enough to have some success, but Connors would dictate play.
Prediction Connors 7 Nadal 3

Fast Hard Court: Nadal would not be plagued by the low bounces of grass court tennis, but Connors was a master of this surface. He invented the hard court tactics that served Agassi well over the years. Jimmy would attack Nadal's serve more than he liked. Even if Nadal had the goods to ward off Connors' attacks, he'd be faced with constant pressure. Once again, the aggressor would have the advantage on a faster surface. If the match was played in New York, Connors would thrive in an environment that has perplexed many European players including Nadal. My expectation is that any short ball Jimmy could attack would result in a put away volley and a raucous reaction from the crowd.
Prediction Connors 7 – Nadal 3

Fast Indoor Court: Similar to the previous two surface, Connors would likely dictate play by attacking second serves, keeping the ball low and moving Nadal from side to side. Nadal's superior height and upper body strength might serve him well on a surface that rewards raw power more than any other, but Connors flat ground strokes, foot speed and return of serve would still be very effective.
Prediction Connors 6 - Nadal 4

Final tally: Connors 27 – Nadal 23 In some ways, tennis strategies are cyclical. Nadal is playing a souped up version of the heavy topspin tennis that ruled the 1970's and early 1980's. Connors flat ground strokes are not the norm and have not been for a long time. However, flat ground strokes and taking the ball on the rise match up well with Nadal's style of play. A key to beating Nadal is not getting pushed behind the baseline. A player like Connors who launched his body into every ground stroke was hard to push backwards. If a player has Connors or Agassi type eye sight and can take the ball early, he may bother Nadal a great deal. The good news for Nadal is that no player has demonstrated that sort of timing other than Agassi and Connors.
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
Personally I think the writer does a good breakdown of their games and comparing them. Connors is a true great of the game, I rate him much higher then Agassi who plays a similar game personally. I think he would have indeed been a tough foe for Nadal, but Nadal would have been no pushover for Jimbo either.
 

Eviscerator

Banned
Lets put it this way. If we took Nadal and magically transported him back to Connors prime years and he had to play with wood or a T2000, Connors would win the majority of matches in my opinion. If we were to reverse the time machine and Connor to the present with slower courts/conditions and modern racquests, I think Nadal would win most of the matches.

So my final total would be tie between two great competitors.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Nadal's heavy topspin game is suited for modern equipment, while Connor's flat strokes only work in the old days. Today players don't hit flat strokes unless they go for winners. The writer should understand that Connor's game just won't work in modern tennis.
 

keithchircop

Professional
Nadal's heavy topspin game is suited for modern equipment, while Connor's flat strokes only work in the old days. Today players don't hit flat strokes unless they go for winners. The writer should understand that Connor's game just won't work in modern tennis.

H2H
Safin - Roddick: 3-4
Nalbandian - Roddick: 2-3

flat, hard strokes still work.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
H2H
Safin - Roddick: 3-4
Nalbandian - Roddick: 2-3

flat, hard strokes still work.

??? Dude, you sure hell don't know what you are talking about. Flat stroke is just one type of stroke in modern tennis. It is faster than spinning stroke, but the margin of error is greater. Pros usually use this stroke when they want to go for winners. Connors hit almost every stroke flat ! It may work with wooden racquet, but it's not going to work with modern equipment where topspin strokes are easier to hit with modern racquets.
 
Caution to all readers. Helloworld is a huge Nadal groupie. She/he even believes Nadal has both the best return of serve, and best volley, in the game today. Take the nonsense with a grain of salt. :)
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
What is a Nadal groupie ??? I don't care what you call me anyway... It's just childish. If you ask any pros, their answers will be very similar to mine. People just don't hit only flat stroke like 30-40 years ago anymore. Safin has a good flat stroke, but tell him to hit every stroke flat, and he will think that you are crazy.
 

keithchircop

Professional
??? Dude, you sure hell don't know what you are talking about. Flat stroke is just one type of stroke in modern tennis. It is faster than spinning stroke, but the margin of error is greater. Pros usually use this stroke when they want to go for winners. Connors hit almost every stroke flat ! It may work with wooden racquet, but it's not going to work with modern equipment where topspin strokes are easier to hit with modern racquets.

YOU are the one who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. You're saying flat-hitters can never win against heavy topspin players. What i did was provide proof of the contrary: flat-hitting players ranked #22 and #24 on ATP fairing well against the topspinning #4 who also happens to have the biggest serve ever.

If it were as you're saying Grosjean, Hrbaty, Blake, Berdych, Malisse... they'd never have cracked the top 50. You're such a Nadal fan that you cannot realize that certain styles of play are suited to certain surfaces. Let me spell it out for you. Heavy topspin makes the ball bounce high. Clay makes the ball bounce high. Therefore heavy topspin on clay makes the ball bounce VERY high making it hard to return. Hence, Nadal's massive topspin style makes him the king on clay. Not all matches are played on clay, Sonny.

There is a surface called grass. Now I'm referring to proper grass, like the one of the Queens Club. Grass on which the ball bounces low. What you want is to maximize this at your opponent's expense. If you hit with topspin on proper grass you're making the ball bounce higher, you're making yourself a disservice by making it easier for your opponent to return your shots. Why do you think a serve and volleyer like Mahut made it to the final?
 
Last edited:

helloworld

Hall of Fame
First of all, I am not a Nadal fan. It's those Federer's worshipers trying to make fun of my posts when I say Nadal is good at something. Second, you do have no clue about tennis, seriously. Noone in the ATP tour hit flat stroke only anymore. You just have to understand this simple fact. It's like a serve. The first serve is usually flat and fast and the second is usually spin and kick serve. In groundstroke rallies, both sides will most often use topspin stroke and they may go for big flat stroke once in a while. Nadal happens to have a powerful topspin, hence he is known for his topspin, but he can smack the ball flat when he wants to, and it's extremely accurate and powerful. Anyone is the ATP can hit massive topspin and massive flat stroke. It depends on the situation and their choices. Do you understand it now ? There is no only TOPSPIN guy and FLAT guy anymore. Gosh, tennis beginners can really be annoying sometimes...
 

keithchircop

Professional
god, you're dumb. when we use "flat-hitter" we refer to someone who hits predominantly flat, like 65% of the time or more, not 100%. grow a brain.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
god, you're dumb. when we use "flat-hitter" we refer to someone who hits predominantly flat, like 65% of the time or more, not 100%. grow a brain.

Safin and Nalbandian do not hit flat stroke 65% of the time, especially Nalbandian. Players who use flat stroke 65% of time are probably players in the 1920s or something. Your tennis knowledge is very minimal, yet you act as if you really know something about tennis...
 

keithchircop

Professional
You forgot to say Grosjean, Hrbaty, Blake, Berdych, and Malisse don't hit prevalently flat as well. Next you're gonna tell us Henman and Mahut are not serve and volleyers. The vast majority of top players are heavy topspin baseliners. Not all of them. There are exceptions. You'd know this if you watched someone other than Nadal play.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
You forgot to say Grosjean, Hrbaty, Blake, Berdych, and Malisse don't hit prevalently flat as well. Next you're gonna tell us Henman and Mahut are not serve and volleyers. The vast majority of top players are heavy topspin baseliners. Not all of them. There are exceptions. You'd know this if you watched someone other than Nadal play.

Henman and Mahut are indeed serve and volleyer, but that is irrelavent to our present discussion. Although it is good to see that you have now open your mind more to tennis knowledge.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Safin, Berdych, Blake, and the others... they're not flat hitters. You heard it from helloworld first.

Looks like you're going back down to that slump again. We all know that those players that you mentioned can hit good flat strokes, but you still failed to realize the fact that these players are not just flat hitters. They can generate massive topspin and create great angles as well. Hence, calling them a 'flat hitter' is simply null and ignorant.
 

keithchircop

Professional
Looks like you're going back down to that slump again. We all know that those players that you mentioned can hit good flat strokes, but you still failed to realize the fact that these players are not just flat hitters. They can generate massive topspin and create great angles as well. Hence, calling them a 'flat hitter' is simply null and ignorant.

The only thing that is ignorant here is your pathetic excuse for a brain. If you don't want to admit that Safin is a predominantly flat hitter suit yourself. Search the boards and see what you come up with. Sure he can hit with topspin, just like Nadal can hit flat. Let's do as you say. Let's not associate Safin with flat hitting, let's not associate Nadal with topspin because they don't hit that way 100% of the time. You're a fool. Go find a pro-Federer thread to troll.
 

Eviscerator

Banned
Why get your blood pressure up and make this so personal :confused:

You each have an opinion that differs from the other. A healthy discussion or robust exchange of ideas is good, but lets not stoop to personal insults or attacks.
 

swisser

Banned
ok im going to agree with kieth.helloworld is tring to say topspiners can hit top and flat.kieth is right safin berdych and blake hit flat of the time.nadal has got to the french 3 anythink else.no execpt wimby where he struggled.plain as simple flat is as good top.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
keith and helloworld stop arguing plz...
It's getting to the point where its hard to read your posts and filter out the personal attacks to get to your opinions... I would have to agree with both of you in one way or another...yes players do hit the ball flat not everybody hits with topspin but i've only seen a few players hit totally flat all the time, or even predominately. takao suzuki from japan hits almost all flat or slice, blake hits flat often, berdych not quite as much but still a good ammount... but i'm pretty sure safin, nalbo, malisse, grosjean do not hit flat that often their normal shots just aren't that spinny...they hit through the court more...

the question here is what you call topspin and what you call flat...the only person i can recall who hits like everyshot with no topspin is suzuki...the rest hit topspin just a moderate kind... this is how the game is now...there are lots of people who hit the ball flattish but with open stance forehands of today almost no shots are totally flat. look at some of the replays on tv and watch the ball rotation. this will give you something at least

to the OP, I hate arguments like this, you just can't compare different generations...the sampras-fed argument is fine cuz they are pretty close, but more than 10 years is impossible to compare... like Eviscerator said if we made conners in his prime come to now and have the same gear he would get ass r@ped... if we sent nadal back in time and play with wood rackets he would get beat down, although he might do better than conners today, because he is physically much stronger...If you bring into the argument training and other factors it is impossible to make a good thesis as it is all hypothetical....

anyway thoughts????
 
I wrote the column in question and agree that such a head to head is hard to do. Still, I think Connors' style proved to be remarkably adaptable to new opponents and new equipment. Somewhere earlier in the thread it is stated you can't play how Jimmy played anymore (or something like that). I would modify that to say no one plays how Jimmy did because that way is much harder to learn. If anyone is teaching a kid they will instruct them to use topspin. I think a totally flat hitter could develop, but the training of having to hit the sweet spot every time and the lack of margin for error on contact points and balance make teaching anyone to play that way kind of silly. Today's rackets and strings offer instructors of the very young a much easier way to teach than the Connors method.
 
Top