If Nadal had to play on a true mix of fast and slow courts - same success?

[yemenmocha]

If there was a true range of both FAST courts and slow courts throughout the year as there was in the 90's and prior, would Nadal have enjoyed the same success?

I'm not talking about courts considered fast by today's standards - as Federer calls them... "less slow".

Fast grass
Fast carpet
Fast hard courts.

Only real slow courts would be the clay court season.

 

[fed_da_man]

is this a rhetorical question?

 

[yemenmocha]

is this a rhetorical question?

I'd like to have the affirmative action for baseliners come to an end. Bring back the years of having a true RANGE of court speeds.

 

[nadal_slam_king]

Nadal played in the fastest Roland Garros conditions (and balls) ever, and won Roland Garros, over Federer in 2011 (6-1 in the 4th set, the most lopsided 4th set they've ever played at RG). There is no doubt, to anyone who watched tennis in the 80s and 90s, 2011 is the fastest Roland Garros has ever been.

 

[fed_da_man]

Nadal played in the fastest Roland Garros conditions (and balls) ever, and won Roland Garros, over Federer in 2011 (6-1 in the 4th set, the most lopsided 4th set they've ever played at RG). There is no doubt, to anyone who watched tennis in the 80s and 90s, 2011 is the fastest Roland Garros has ever been.

so you voted 'no', right?

 

[kishnabe]

Nadal played in the fastest Roland Garros conditions (and balls) ever, and won Roland Garros, over Federer in 2011 (6-1 in the 4th set, the most lopsided 4th set they've ever played at RG). There is no doubt, to anyone who watched tennis in the 80s and 90s, 2011 is the fastest Roland Garros has ever been.

Fastest Clay courts are not the same as the Fastest Grass Courts and Hard Courts.


Yes Nadal beat a 30 year old Federer past his prime on clay....big deal. Federer was only lucky to take a set because of the speed of the clay.

 

[BigServer1]

I voted not as successful, simply because the slower, higher bouncing surfaces suit his game to a T.

 

[cknobman]

Where is the "H3ll no he would not!" option?

 

[DRII]

You could ask the same question of Federer! The player who has gained the most from homogenized surfaces! Unlike Sampras who actually had to deal with vastly different surfaces and actual specialists for each!

Also, Nadal does not necessarily flourish on slow courts, but on courts that carry his spin with firm and/or high bounces. He's done quite well on fast surfaces!

 

[malbaker86]

I think he'd do just as well as he's doing now. Some people (not you OP), should just give the man his due credit as being an all time great.

Think about it...he'd still do well on clay and it's not like he's been a bust on HC's; he's had success there. He would adjust to the conditions at Wimbledon being that he's a pretty adaptable player

 

[CRWV]

You could ask the same question of Federer! The player who has gained the most from homogenized surfaces! Unlike Sampras who actually had to deal with vastly different surfaces and actual specialists for each!

Also, Nadal does not necessarily flourish on slow courts, but on courts that carry his spin with firm and/or high bounces. He's done quite well on fast surfaces!

Bad argument, Fed developed on more varied surfaces and adapted to slower ones over time (for instance, he used to S&V a lot more - played more like Sampras than the way he plays now)

Nadal has had success on hard courts, but comparing the US open/wimbledon/aussie of today to carpet courts and fast grass of the 90's? not even close. If we had true variety in surface speeds, Rafa, at best, would have 1 of each major plus a ton of FO's...I wouldn't bet on Rafa to win a fast Wimbledon...

 

[DRII]

Bad argument, Fed developed on more varied surfaces and adapted to slower ones over time (for instance, he used to S&V a lot more - played more like Sampras than the way he plays now)

Nadal has had success on hard courts, but comparing the US open/wimbledon/aussie of today to carpet courts and fast grass of the 90's? not even close. If we had true variety in surface speeds, Rafa, at best, would have 1 of each major plus a ton of FO's...I wouldn't bet on Rafa to win a fast Wimbledon...

Not true at all!

Federer won all his majors during these times of homogenized surfaces (as has Nadal), he never won a major serving and volleying!

The firming of grass courts had already taken place by the time Federer won Wimbledon, which has been the major surface change since the 90's.

The USO was abnormally slow last year, but till then it has been a relatively fast outdoor hardcourt tournamnet which Nadal won in dominating style in 2010.

The Aussie Open has gone thru some changes from rebound ace to plexicushion -- which Federer has won on both, but thats it as far as surface disparity for Federer, which pales in comparison to the 90's!

 

[SLD76]

Not true at all!

Federer won all his majors during these times of homogenized surfaces (as has Nadal), he never won a major serving and volleying!

The firming of grass courts had already taken place by the time Federer won Wimbledon, which has been the major surface change since the 90's.

The USO was abnormally slow last year, but till then it has been a relatively fast outdoor hardcourt tournamnet which Nadal won in dominating style in 2010.

The Aussie Open has gone thru some changes from rebound ace to plexicushion -- which Federer has won on both, but thats it as far as surface disparity for Federer, which pales in comparison to the 90's!

Fed beat Pete at wimbledon when the courts were still fast. I daresay that if conditions had remained fast when he finally put his game and mentality together, he'd still win majors.
'

 

[DRII]

Fed beat Pete at wimbledon when the courts were still fast. I daresay that if conditions had remained fast when he finally put his game and mentality together, he'd still win majors.
'

Nice hypothetical!

May or may not be true; we'll never know...

Also and again; Wimbledon is still fast; it just has a firmer and more consistent bounce now which allows for baseliners to have a chance to win.

All in all IMO 'new grass' is the best surface the players compete on now. It's still fast, has a truer bounce, has less traction than hard-court which requires better improvisational skills and is easier on the body...

 

[Gangsta]

You can only win on surfaces that are out there. I would say that if the courts were any different, then the top pros would still have won about as much. They just would have adapted themselves well enough. Its crazy to pin a dozen slams on just nature of surfaces.

 

[zcarzach]

This iteration of Nadal would probably not have done well. However, if there were still fast courts, I suspect the Nadal wouldn't play his standard game on them, but would play more suitable tennis. Federer too. Both have the talent to play anywhere and win, if they train for it.

 

[CRWV]

Not true at all!

Federer won all his majors during these times of homogenized surfaces (as has Nadal), he never won a major serving and volleying!...

The consensus is that courts were slowed by the time he was 21/22; should he have won a dozen majors between 17-21?

 

[fed_rulz]

Not true at all!

Federer won all his majors during these times of homogenized surfaces (as has Nadal), he never won a major serving and volleying!
....

more evidence that this clown has never watched Federer play..

 

[laughingbuddha]

His slam count could not have been that much worse considering that most of his slams even in this ridiculously slow era have come at the French.

8 or 9 slams probably and might have never gotten to #1.

 

[DRII]

more evidence that this clown has never watched Federer play..

Your ignorance never fails to shine thru...

If you have something to say, try doing so without being offensively absurd.

What slam has Federer won mainly S&Ving ???

 

[Federererer]

If there really was a true mix, Nadal would only ever win clay slams and nothing else.

 

[Rock Strongo]

We don't know. We will probably never know either.

 

[kishnabe]

Your ignorance never fails to shine thru...

If you have something to say, try doing so without being offensively absurd.

What slam has Federer won mainly S&Ving ???

2003 Wimbledon.....

 

[MichaelNadal]

You can only win on surfaces that are out there. I would say that if the courts were any different, then the top pros would still have won about as much. They just would have adapted themselves well enough. Its crazy to pin a dozen slams on just nature of surfaces.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Feather]

What slam has Federer won mainly S&Ving ???

Wimbledon 2003

Again in his match against Pete Sampras in 2001, fast Wimbledon, he serve and volleyed to win. Watch it on youtube. He stopped S&V once the courts slowed down.

 

[Feather]

I don't think he would have done well on fast courts. He hasn't even reached final in the Cincinnati masters yet

I don't think he is good at adapting either. He never won WTF and he never was able to adapt to Madrid when they made changes to the clay.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

On the Subject:

On Clay, mostlikely yes. probably even better, with the somewhat slower clay!

On grass... with that grip??? my big fat white knee!!! not even a semi!!! Muster-like career all the way!!!!

ON HC - my guess is as good as anyones! i would say slightly less

What slam has Federer won mainly S&Ving ???

i'll let you reply to yourself!!!

Your ignorance never fails to shine thru...

ps: the answer is SW19 2003!!!!

 

[namelessone]

I don't think he would have done well on fast courts. He hasn't even reached final in the Cincinnati masters yet

I don't think he is good at adapting either. He never won WTF and he never was able to adapt to Madrid when they made changes to the clay.

Yet he made two SF and one final there, stopped by Federer each time.

He won Olympics, which was on fastcourt, beating Djokovic and Gonzalez in the last 2 rounds.

He won Madrid when it was indoors, coming down from 2 sets down to beat Ljubicic.

He made Paris indoors final.

He won USO.

He won Dubai beating Federer in the final.

As Strongo said, we will never know the real answer. While Nadal was always destined to become a monster on clay, the way he played the game in his teens does show signs of promise if HC were kept fast in a couple of locations. Nadal hit some absolutey brutal(flatter) forehands for his age and at times looked like a lefty Gonzalez, with all that power under the hood.

The problem with these kind of threads is that we always assume the players would play their current game(tailored to these conditions) in any kind of era, which I think is kinda bogus. Edberg, the prince of S&V(if not the king) said some time ago that he would rarely come to the net if he played today because it is easier to get passed nowadays and it's not worth the risk. Yup, THE Edberg would most likely be a baseliner in this era.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

The problem with these kind of threads is that we always assume the players would play their current game(tailored to these conditions) in any kind of era, which I think is kinda bogus. Edberg, the prince of S&V(if not the king) said some time ago that he would rarely come to the net if he played today because it is easier to get passed nowadays and it's not worth the risk. Yup, THE Edberg would most likely be a baseliner in this era.

which makes it safe to assume he would not be half the player he was....

 

[giggc]

if i were nadal, i will be very happy at reading many threads posted on the web. nadal has no say on how fast the playing surface is, on whether poly should be used, how many FO he could win, etc. why it seems there are many thread to discredit what he achieved? maybe he is not a great player, or even many saying he "cheated" but after all, he did win a number of GS and master titles, not like those one-hit wonder, so can ppl show more appreciation to him?

 

[Feather]

Yet he made two SF and one final there, stopped by Federer each time.

He won Olympics, which was on fastcourt, beating Djokovic and Gonzalez in the last 2 rounds.

He won Madrid when it was indoors, coming down from 2 sets down to beat Ljubicic.

He made Paris indoors final.

He won USO.

He won Dubai beating Federer in the final.

As Strongo said, we will never know the real answer. While Nadal was always destined to become a monster on clay, the way he played the game in his teens does show signs of promise if HC were kept fast in a couple of locations. Nadal hit some absolutey brutal(flatter) forehands for his age and at times looked like a lefty Gonzalez, with all that power under the hood.

The problem with these kind of threads is that we always assume the players would play their current game(tailored to these conditions) in any kind of era, which I think is kinda bogus. Edberg, the prince of S&V(if not the king) said some time ago that he would rarely come to the net if he played today because it is easier to get passed nowadays and it's not worth the risk. Yup, THE Edberg would most likely be a baseliner in this era.

I said Rafa couldn't even adapt to the situations that are existing in the current system. If he couldnt even adapt to the different courts how can you assume that he will adapt to even tougher ones? When they changed the surface in Madrid, he got eliminated very early.

 

[namelessone]

I said Rafa couldn't even adapt to the situations that are existing in the current system. If he couldnt even adapt to the different courts how can you assume that he will adapt to even tougher ones? When they changed the surface in Madrid, he got eliminated very early.

Because Nadal could develop into a different player if many surfaces on the tour are fast. The Nadal of today is a product of the conditions from the era he grew up in. When Nadal was a teen surfaces were already being slowed down.

The surface in Madrid was an abberation because it was too slippery for many players. Next year you will see how the surface should have been, regardless of colour.

And how exactly has Nadal "not adapted" to the conditions in the current system? He's won 11 slams(4 off clay), won a ton of MS'es(5 off clay), Olympics Gold, has at least a final in all major events except Cincy(even indoor events like WTF,Shaghai,Paris,Madrid when it was HC), made 8 out of the last 9 GS finals(5 of those 8 being off clay).

If not for Djokovic last year, he could have won a couple of HC masters and WB and USO back to back.

 

[DRII]

Wimbledon 2003

Again in his match against Pete Sampras in 2001, fast Wimbledon, he serve and volleyed to win. Watch it on youtube. He stopped S&V once the courts slowed down.

Wimbledon had already been firmed up (or as you all keep saying 'slowed down') by 2003!

And i disagree; he was not mainly S&Ving in that tournamnet...

 

[kishnabe]

Wimbledon had already been firmed up (or as you all keep saying 'slowed down') by 2003!

And i disagree; he was not mainly S&Ving in that tournamnet...

So John Mcenroe was lying out of his ass then?

 

[NadalAgassi]

So John Mcenroe was lying out of his ass then?

Why not, he usually does. John Mcenroe has called Nadal the best volleyer on tour, and has started calling him the best ever early/middle last year, so unless you are going to admit those things are true to, whatever he says must be taken with a grain of salt. He is notorious for his string of bizarre on air comments.

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

How many more courts will be like the one played in WTF? Is that part of the polls? Nadal would be CREAMED, and CRUSHED if more courts are just like that. Proof of what I said: WTF 10 and 11.

Here's the link to support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Nadal_rivalry#Hard
Section "Singles Federer—Nadal (10–18)". Notice that the H2H is in favor of Rafa (18W), but substract his 5W at RG, it's now only 13W.

Also remember a 31-old year Fed beating Rafa at Indian Wells 12. A well past-prime Fed as many like to label now vs a very primer Rafa. A fluke of nature, I guess.

How about blue clay? Does it count? Rafa would not play, sorry, I forget.

The point is all these tour organizers should have left the court conditions as they were, from very fast to very slow with a range of intermediate speed. Now it just seems like all courts have almost (I didn't say, identical) the same speed and bounce.

 

[conway]

I like Nadal, but I doubt he would win a Wimbledon on old conditions. He would still win hard court slams since even much poorer players like Kafelnikov and Chang were often making finals. In fact he could win more hard court slams in the 90s as he wouldn't be facing the likes of Federer and Djokovic, or even Murray, besides Sampras of course, there was nobody else that great or consistent on hard courts. Agassi was AWOL most of the 90s.