I think if you put anybody from 1970s-1990s on the same clay court with Rafa, they would get blasted off the court. This is not just because Nadal is an amazing claycourter, but because tennis was different in those times. The game has evolved a lot. It is not inconceivable to think that in 50 years, the world #1 would blast Nadal off a clay court. So your question can be answered like this: Definitely not, but there is one player that achieved somewhat close to the level of dominance on clay that Rafa himself achieved.
The evolution is somewhat at a stall point though. I don't see someone playing much better than this, that's one of the main reason the oldies own the younger players.
Yeah, especially Pete with his amazing backhand, perfectly built to cope with Rafa's forehand
cope with Rafa's forehand
It would have been fun to see someone totally different, like Becker/ Leconte, against Rafa. Watching on the telly, it's seems weird why guys don't come in more against Rafa - the potential of changing the dynamics a lot by doing so, is obvious. But players nowadays stop coming in if they are passed one or two times. Some of the old, aggressive guys just kept coming at you, and didn't mind being passed. They knew net rushing also made opponents make errors and it also means taking control over the points to some extent.
In more recent years, Cilic in Australia and US was a good example; he served out wide, to Rafa's backhand and came in behind it. He won many points with that strategy. More difficult to pull of on clay, obviously
PS! No need to respond with a booming running forehand from 3 meters behind baseline gif
no, borg
Borg says, “Hello!” if Rafa had to play with pre-poly/wood racquets.
“Benefits” is a very cloudy word from Borg’s era, non?should they benefit from the same technology/pharmaceutics?
How do we know either supposition?
Oui, me thinks if you transport Rafa back to a Sat night out with Bjorn and Mac and give him a wood to play on Sun morning against those guys, that he may not dominate nor win the match
We mostly agree. In my lifetime, among men, only Borg enjoyed anywhere near the dominance that Rafa has at RG. My supposition (though also unprovable) is that Bjorn and Rafa would have found ways to be great in any era - as would legends in any sport. In thinking about their hypothetical matchup, probably more projecting Borg to this era than vice versa, I did not see where Borg had an advantage, other than possibly endurance. Rafa's was/is remarkable, Borg's was beyond that. But it is all guesswork. For what it's worth, I've followed tennis since Borg was a teen idol and greatly respect him.
Oui, me thinks if you transport Rafa back to a Sat night out with Bjorn and Mac and give him a wood to play on Sun morning against those guys, that he may not dominate nor win the match
Exactly.
All good points here. But I don't know if you were watching tennis actively in the 70s. Back then we all thought: "How can anybody play better than Laver?" Tennis has already evolved so much from where it was, and he will be the best for generations to come. Then we were all proven wrong. However, there are periods in history where there is more evolution and less evolution. Like the Middle Ages versus the Renaissance.
.Good point ..although (kiddingly) who could hypothetically beat those Middle Ages players, with their 10-pound racquets, dead strings and wood-like balls.
I think the sport has changed so much that Nadal would probably win due to his sheer athleticism. Would be a close match though. Really hard to compare as we have no idea how Rafa would have adjusted his game. Who knows, maybe Ryan Harrison would have beaten Borg with a Wooden Racket?
I should have clarified. I was talking about overall history there and not just in tennis. Imagine playing with those balls!
You were clear...just having fun...carry on, my friend.
He will always have that match to show even to his grandkids.Too bad he had to retire early because I would have loved to see him winning a FO, maybe 2014 or 2015.
Tennis hasn't gotten much better in the last 10 years tbh.
According to some people on here, it has gotten significantly better in the last 15 years. And this is not even a "wrong" opinion, because the truth is that tennis has changed a lot in 15 years. Not as much as some people claim, but it has. The problem is that most users try to put down Federer's peak in 2004-2007 because it wasn't as high a level as Djokovic in 2015, or that he played "weaker players". The same with Djokovic, who people try to say played "weaker" players.
