Nadal would only win 5 slams in any previous era

[Blocker]

I'll give him 5 FOs minimum in any era prior to this one and the assumption is he's using whatever technology was prevalent at the time. He ain't winning other slams and the rich takent of clay courters in the 90s would prevent him from winning 9 FOs. The accumulative effect of having to play guys like Muster, Moya, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Brugeuria etc every FO would take its toll on him.

He's certainly not going to win 14 slams and no career slam in any prior era either.

An overrated player who nade a name for himself by being dominant at one slam in a weak clay era and beating Federer more often than not. The court conditions post the Sampras era has pretty much assisted him with everything else.

Discuss.

That is all.

 

[tennis_pro]

Blocker - saying it how it is since 1999.

 

[Livedeath]

The accumulative effect of having to play guys like Muster, Moya, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Brugeuria etc every FO would take its toll on him

Are you by any chance stating Fed and Djoko are mugs, as he got 9 alone at FO by beating them.

 

[JohanLiebert]

Are Blocker and 90s Clay, the same person?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The guy is saying freaking Agassi could trouble Rafa on clay. Are you serious? Did you watch Agassi on clay at all? Obviously not given you've listed him as a clay court phenom.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Then there's Moya who made it past the QF at the FO once in his entire career.

 

[dgold44]

Could nadal really beat the French musketeers in the late 20s on clay

I would have to say yes

 

[Russeljones]

I'll give him 5 FOs minimum in any era prior to this one and the assumption is he's using whatever technology was prevalent at the time. He ain't winning other slams and the rich takent of clay courters in the 90s would prevent him from winning 9 FOs. The accumulative effect of having to play guys like Muster, Moya, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Brugeuria etc every FO would take its toll on him.

He's certainly not going to win 14 slams and no career slam in any prior era either.

An overrated player who nade a name for himself by being dominant at one slam in a weak clay era and beating Federer more often than not. The court conditions post the Sampras era has pretty much assisted him with everything else.

Discuss.

That is all.

His uncle created an anti-Federer. In another era there wouldn't be a single player to counter. Nadal would have been a better player for sure.

 

[dgold44]

His uncle created an anti-Federer. In another era there wouldn't be a single player to counter. Nadal would have been a better player for sure.

Nadal won everything and his clock has expired
It's super sad but most players crashed and burned in their mid to late 20s
Only a few were great in 30s and one went strong into his 40s

 

[Russeljones]

Nadal won everything and his clock has expired
It's super sad but most players crashed and burned in their mid to late 20s
Only a few were great in 30s and one went strong into his 40s

Why bother quoting me?

 

[mattosgrant]

Then there's Moya who made it past the QF at the FO once in his entire career.

The only clay courter from that period who I think could challenge Nadal at all would be peak Kuerten of 99-2001. The rest no, they would be the unlucky ones. Yes Moya, or even more Agassi or Kafelnikov seriously threatening Nadal on clay is just funny. Atleast Muster, Courier, Bruguera, I could see someone suggesting it even if I disagree.

 

[uliks]

You misspelled Federer's name there OP...

 

[VexlanderPrime]

A thread with Blocker, tennispro, Sab and Dgold in the first 8 posts? What is this, the Thunderdome?

 

[Jonas78]

I'll give him 5 FOs minimum in any era prior to this one and the assumption is he's using whatever technology was prevalent at the time. He ain't winning other slams and the rich takent of clay courters in the 90s would prevent him from winning 9 FOs. The accumulative effect of having to play guys like Muster, Moya, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Brugeuria etc every FO would take its toll on him.

He's certainly not going to win 14 slams and no career slam in any prior era either.

An overrated player who nade a name for himself by being dominant at one slam in a weak clay era and beating Federer more often than not. The court conditions post the Sampras era has pretty much assisted him with everything else.

Discuss.

That is all.

Interesting, but nothing more than pure subjective. I dont agree, but that is of course also subjective.

There is no reason to believe the main-field in tennis has been weaker than in the 80's or 90's. Why should it? World population grow lager and tennis is as popular as its always been.

Rafa might also be the best clay-player the world has ever seen. He crushed both prime-Federer and prime-Nole from 2004-2014. And if we are to believe most pro-players Federer and Nole is as close to perfection as a tennis-player has ever been. And pre 2015 Rafa was ahead both Fed and Nole H2H, not only on clay, but totally.

Im not even a Rafa-fan, but i have to give him that! Tennis has also evolved. If you had put 2004-2014 Nadal in 1994-2004 or 1984-1994 i think he would have won more than 14 slams. But than again, due to changes and adjustments in a lot of factors, you can really only be good in your own era.

 

[ArcspacE]

Worst

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Is this another indirect way of saying Sampras is greater than Federer? Since that is always the theme of these posts?

 

[mattosgrant]

Interesting, but nothing more than pure subjective. I dont agree, but that is of course also subjective.

There is no reason to believe the main-field in tennis has been weaker than in the 80's or 90's. Why should it? World population grow lager and tennis is as popular as its always been.

Rafa might also be the best clay-player the world has ever seen. He crushed both prime-Federer and prime-Nole from 2004-2014. And if we are to believe most pro-players Federer and Nole is as close to perfection as a tennis-player has ever been. And pre 2015 Rafa was ahead both Fed and Nole H2H, not only on clay, but totally.

Im not even a Rafa-fan, but i have to give him that! Tennis has also evolved. If you had put 2004-2014 Nadal in 1994-2004 or 1984-1994 i think he would have won more than 14 slams. But than again, due to changes and adjustments in a lot of factors, you can really only be good in your own era.

Rafa is definitely the clay GOAT. Personally I believe peak Borg on clay is better, but his achievements are now way behind Nadal's, so Nadal is clearly the greater clay courter. However the clay field does lack depth. Outside of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic there is nobody. It would be better if you had guys like Soderling, Del Potro, Wawrinka playing well for more than 1-2 years but you don't. Davydenko was never really a clay courter, Nalbandian neither, Roddick and Hewitt sure as heck not, Coria and Ferrero were all but gone when this big 3 era started, Ferrer isn't even really a clay courter IMO and he isn't even that good either, Murray struggled on clay most of his career (pretty good in 2011 and 2015 only), and there is no such thing as clay specialists today either. This lack of depth has benefitted Federer and Djokovic much more than Nadal though. Nadal in his prime would be winning most of the clay titles in any era. Federer would not reach so many French Open and Masters finals in any era but the one he played in, although on the counter to that he would have a better shot at sneaking out 2 French Opens in another era too.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The only clay courter from that period who I think could challenge Nadal at all would be peak Kuerten of 99-2001. The rest no, they would be the unlucky ones. Yes Moya, or even more Agassi or Kafelnikov seriously threatening Nadal on clay is just funny. Atleast Muster, Courier, Bruguera, I could see someone suggesting it even if I disagree.

Yeah, agreed. Agassi was miserable on clay -- he was lucky to even get the RG he has. Kafelnikov also lucked out due to getting a gassed Sampras in the SF. I don't see either of these guys challenging Rafa. It's pretty much a joke to say these guys would even beat prime Fed or Nole at RG let alone Rafa.

 

[gambitt]

Gaudio used to beat up on Nadal on clay, but he vanished after 2004 along with his fellow clay court specialist Coria. Ferrero dropped 2 levels in 2004 and Guga was perennially injured.

That's 4 guys who were awesome on clay, all of whom effectively vanished at the same time and between them they would have stolen a few French Opens from Nadal at their respective peaks. The only reason Fed got to so many FO finals was because he didn't have to face these guys either - he was the defacto second best clay courter at the time, which tells us exactly how weak the clay field was back then. Who else was there? The clay court specialists were few and far between.

 

[Blocker]

Are you by any chance stating Fed and Djoko are mugs, as he got 9 alone at FO by beating them.

My point is, Federer and Djok are only 2 players, and Fed never provided any resistance to Nadal at the FO. In the 90s Nadal could have faced up to any 4 of the players I mentioned in my OP the FO, year after year. The accumulative effect of facing 4 fairly solid clay courters year after year would have taken its effect on Nadal eventually. Look at Sampras, faced Brug, Courier and Kafelnikon in the one FO and that's all before the final and it took its toll on him. Playing good clay courters round after round year after year will take its toll on anyone, even the FO GOAT.

 

[metsman]

Yeah, agreed. Agassi was miserable on clay -- he was lucky to even get the RG he has. Kafelnikov also lucked out due to getting a gassed Sampras in the SF. I don't see either of these guys challenging Rafa. It's pretty much a joke to say these guys would even beat prime Fed or Nole at RG let alone Rafa.

nah Agassi was pretty great on clay in the early 90's at least when his movement was still great. Really blew his chances in those two early RG finals.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

nah Agassi was pretty great on clay in the early 90's at least when his movement was still great. Really blew his chances in those two early RG finals.

Diagree.. He never looked natural on the surface.

I also think it's a stretch to say he'd beat Rafa on clay anyway.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah, agreed. Agassi was miserable on clay -- he was lucky to even get the RG he has. Kafelnikov also lucked out due to getting a gassed Sampras in the SF. I don't see either of these guys challenging Rafa. It's pretty much a joke to say these guys would even beat prime Fed or Nole at RG let alone Rafa.

Kafelnikov didn't even win a Masters on clay, and Agassi didn't win his first Masters until age 32. This says a lot when there were 3 a year that the top guys regularly played. Agassi probably should have won a French in the early 90s instead of 99 but in a way both were fortunate to win a French in that era. Many guys I would have otherwise considered better on clay- Corretja and Rios for starters, who were far more successful overall on the regular clay circuit, never won one for instance. So yeah thinking of either seriously challenging Nadal on clay is wishful thinking.

 

[mattosgrant]

nah Agassi was pretty great on clay in the early 90's at least when his movement was still great. Really blew his chances in those two early RG finals.

I agree he should have won a French in the early 90s for sure. However that was really a transition time for mens clay tennis with Lendl and Wilander old and washed up and no strong pretender to the clay throne until Courier and Bruguera emerged. Lendl skipping the 1990 French which he would have won easily as well. That is mainly why Agassi such a great shot at the 90 and 91 French titles. It wasn't because he was some monster clay courter, he was barely winning any clay tournaments on tour despite reaching those French finals and losing as favorite.

 

[metsman]

I agree he should have won a French in the early 90s for sure. However that was really a transition time for mens clay tennis with Lendl and Wilander old and washed up and no strong pretender to the clay throne until Courier and Bruguera emerged. Lendl skipping the 1990 French which he would have won easily as well. That is mainly why Agassi such a great shot at the 90 and 91 French titles. It wasn't because he was some monster clay courter, he was barely winning any clay tournaments on tour despite reaching those French finals and losing as favorite.

when he physically had the game to be a good clay courter he mentally wasn't there. That's how I look at Agassi as a clay courter.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Kafelnikov didn't even win a Masters on clay, and Agassi didn't win his first Masters until age 32. This says a lot when there were 3 a year that the top guys regularly played. Agassi probably should have won a French in the early 90s instead of 99 but in a way both were fortunate to win a French in that era. Many guys I would have otherwise considered better on clay- Corretja and Rios for starters, who were far more successful overall on the regular clay circuit, never won one for instance. So yeah thinking of either seriously challenging Nadal on clay is wishful thinking.

Agassi would have gotten a FO at some point I agree; but he was never a great claycourter. I personally believe Kuerten would be Nadal's biggest challenge; and he didn't really play his best until the early 2000s.

 

[6august]

Around 3:15, Edberg clearly indicated that now is a weak era. So disrespectful.

 

[Druss]

Nadal won everything and his clock has expired
It's super sad but most players crashed and burned in their mid to late 20s
Only a few were great in 30s and one went strong into his 40s

According to many Djokovic fans, Federer (going on 35) is in his peak.

 

[dgold44]

Nadal would have blown Agassi off the court on clay