Rafa in the 90s!!

The-Champ

Legend
Is it a fair assessment to say that in order to finish the year as no.1 during Rafa/Fed generation, you have to win at least 2 slams and a bunch of masters shields annually? The only time Rafa finished a season as no.1, he needed to win 2 slams, 4 masters, an olympic gold and a couple of small tournaments.

I do remember that during Samrpas' reign, he sometimes needed to win just 1 slam to finish the season as no.1.

Prior to 2008, Rafa manage to win 1 slam, a couple of masters and small tournaments yearly. Those titles were not enough to overtake the great fed.

Would Rafa's credentials catapult him to top of the rankings during the Sampras era? Could he have ended the season as no.1 more than once?
 

aleexxxxx

Rookie
I believe so. No one in the 90s is beating rafa at Paris or any of the clay masters. He would be making qf and sf appearances at other masters and snagging maybe 1 a year. Not to mention he would be doing the same at AO, Wimbledon and us open.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Is it a fair assessment to say that in order to finish the year as no.1 during Rafa/Fed generation, you have to win at least 2 slams and a bunch of masters shields annually? The only time Rafa finished a season as no.1, he needed to win 2 slams, 4 masters, an olympic gold and a couple of small tournaments.

I do remember that during Samrpas' reign, he sometimes needed to win just 1 slam to finish the season as no.1.

Prior to 2008, Rafa manage to win 1 slam, a couple of masters and small tournaments yearly. Those titles were not enough to overtake the great fed.

Would Rafa's credentials catapult him to top of the rankings during the Sampras era? Could he have ended the season as no.1 more than once?
TMF has aready won 2 GS including a finalist this year, and it's not even a given that he'll be #1 at the end of the year. He was winning 2 to 3 GS per year to earned the year end #1. It took RAfa amazing results in 2008 to overtake Federer, who had a great year himself with 1 GS and 3 GS finalist.

In the 90's, you don't need to be dominant to earned the year #1. 1998 is arguably the WORSE year and #1 in the history of tennis. Sampras won only 1 slam, total of 4 titles, and lost 17 or 18 times. With this stats, he would NEVER be #1 in TMF's era.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF(The Mighty Federer) has aready won 2 GS including a finalist this year, and it's not even a given that he'll be #1 at the end of the year. He was winning 2 to 3 GS per year to earned the year end #1. It took Rafa amazing results in 2008 to overtake Federer, who had a great year himself with 1 GS and 2 GS finalist and 1 semi GS.

In the 90's, you don't need to be dominant to earned the year #1. 1998 is arguably the WORST year end #1 in the history of tennis. Sampras won only 1 slam, total of 4 titles, and lost 17 or 18 times. Even a slamless Rios wash threaten for the year end #1. With Pete's stats, he would NEVER be #1 in TMF's era.
***EDIT***
 

GameSampras

Banned
I believe so. No one in the 90s is beating rafa at Paris or any of the clay masters. He would be making qf and sf appearances at other masters and snagging maybe 1 a year. Not to mention he would be doing the same at AO, Wimbledon and us open.
Lets see.. Soderling the nut beat Nadal... But oh yea... No one else is beating Rafa at the French in the 90s. :?

Muster of 95 could beat a Nadal in top form at the French. Bruguera and Courier would most certainly have their chances as well
 

The-Champ

Legend
Lets see.. Soderling the nut beat Nadal... But oh yea... No one else is beating Rafa at the French in the 90s. :?

Muster of 95 could beat a Nadal in top form at the French. Bruguera and Courier would most certainly have their chances as well

This thread is not about who would beat who when or where. This is about:


Would Rafa have finished no.1 more than once in the 90's, based on his yearly credentials in this era?
 

GameSampras

Banned
This thread is not about who would beat who when or where. This is about:


Would Rafa have finished no.1 more than once in the 90's, based on his yearly credentials in this era?


Probably 98.. But honestly I dont see any other year he finishes #1. If we substitute 09 Nadal in for 1999, he gets injured. Prior to 08 he couldnt do any damage at the HC slams. And doubtful he is ever winning wimbeldon.. THen we have the racket technology to think about too.. He wouldnt be able to generate as much topspin, his bread and butter...



So one year probably in the 90s for Rafa. I dont see any other year
 

The-Champ

Legend
Probably 98.. But honestly I dont see any other year he finishes #1. If we substitute 09 Nadal in for 1999, he gets injured. Prior to 08 he couldnt do any damage at the HC slams. And doubtful he is ever winning wimbeldon.. THen we have the racket technology to think about too.. He wouldnt be able to generate as much topspin, his bread and butter...


So one year probably in the 90s for Rafa. I dont see any other year


again, this is not about how nadal would play in the 90s.


this is about comparing Rafa's results (the numbers), to the results of those players who finished the years as no.1 in the 90's.



I'll simplify

Would Rafa's total atp points in 2005 enough for him to be no.1 at any year during the 90s?

How about his total points in 2006? 2007? 2008?
 

The-Champ

Legend
Lets see.. Soderling the nut beat Nadal... But oh yea... No one else is beating Rafa at the French in the 90s. :?

Muster of 95 could beat a Nadal in top form at the French. Bruguera and Courier would most certainly have their chances as well

With the way Rafa played at this years FO, do doubt even the umpire of the 90s would beat him.


With the way Rafa played 2005-2008, none of those players you mentioned would stand a chance.
 
both of them would cream Rafa of 2009. Hell, if söderling can, so can anyone.
Stop being stupid.

Roland Garros
2009-05-31 1/8 R. Nadal 1-3 R. Soderling 2-6 7-6 4-6 6-7
Campionati Inter****onali d\'Italia
2009-04-30 1/8 R. Nadal 2-0 R. Soderling 6-1 6-0
Wimbledon
2007-07-04 1/16 R. Soderling 2-3 R. Nadal 4-6 4-6 7-6 6-4 5-7
Roland Garros
2006-05-29 1/64 R. Soderling 0-3 R. Nadal 2-6 5-7 1-6
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Is it a fair assessment to say that in order to finish the year as no.1 during Rafa/Fed generation, you have to win at least 2 slams and a bunch of masters shields annually? The only time Rafa finished a season as no.1, he needed to win 2 slams, 4 masters, an olympic gold and a couple of small tournaments.

I do remember that during Samrpas' reign, he sometimes needed to win just 1 slam to finish the season as no.1.

Prior to 2008, Rafa manage to win 1 slam, a couple of masters and small tournaments yearly. Those titles were not enough to overtake the great fed.

Would Rafa's credentials catapult him to top of the rankings during the Sampras era? Could he have ended the season as no.1 more than once?

Let's put it this way,,,,,, If Fed weren't around, nadal would be sitting on 5 straight years as year-end number 1, and counting.
 

flying24

Banned
Lets see.. Soderling the nut beat Nadal... But oh yea... No one else is beating Rafa at the French in the 90s. :?

Muster of 95 could beat a Nadal in top form at the French. Bruguera and Courier would most certainly have their chances as well
The only players in the 90s to have any chance of beating a semi normal Nadal at the French are:

Muster of 1995
Courier of 1992

That is it. I would add Kuerten of 2000-2001 but that isnt part of the 90s. Forget Bruguera, I have noticed your past comments on him and you overrate him alot. I laughed when you put him as 4th best clay courter of the Open Era, LOL! To me he is more or less on par with Federer as a clay courter.
 

flying24

Banned
I think Nadal would have been a lock for the 1998 year end #1. He would have taken it by a huge margin. That was a really weak year for mens tennis, and a weak year overall for the great Sampras. Rios and Rafter both nearly ended the year #1 and would have without late year injuries. Nadal probably would have ended that year #1 by several thousand points under the current system atleast.

He would have dominated the clay court season. The top clay courters that year were Rios the flake, Costa, and Moya. No problem.

The Australian Open was such a weak event with a Korda-Rios final that Nadal would probably have won the title even playing the same way he got destroyed by an on fire Tsonga.

He wins tons of hard court Masters that year just like he did last year. Wimbledon he is in the semis or finals that year, and the U.S Open he has a real shot of winning also with Sampras injury.
Probably 1998 is an even more dominant year for him than 2008.

1996 and 1997 he would be #1 for periods of the year and have a shot of ending the year #1. However it wouldnt be easy and he would be dueling Sampras all year for that. He wins the French both years, no problem. Who are his competition, Muster in 96 was upset, Kafelnikov, a past his prime Bruguera, a pre prime Kuerten, pretty easy again.

1999 he would have been in real contention for the year end #1 even with his injuries. Agassi did nothing that year until the French, and who is to say Nadal couldnt have won the French that year even injured with all the big guns going out early that year.
 

drwood

Professional
The only players in the 90s to have any chance of beating a semi normal Nadal at the French are:

Muster of 1995
Courier of 1992

That is it. I would add Kuerten of 2000-2001 but that isnt part of the 90s. Forget Bruguera, I have noticed your past comments on him and you overrate him alot. I laughed when you put him as 4th best clay courter of the Open Era, LOL! To me he is more or less on par with Federer as a clay courter.
Excellent point...completely agree.
 
Nadal would have won the calender slam a couple of time in the 90s with the weak field. Sampras is lucky to have played in the 90s and not faced Nadal.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
nadal would have been a beast.

no question about it.

think about it like this. muster was able to get to #1 winning bunches of mm clay tournies. nadal wins all the clay mm tournies and ALL the big ones on clay regularly. he would have been a threat every freaking year for #1. sampraz would have had his hands full for sure. kiss those 6 year end #1's goodbye. maybe gets a couple in a row if he's fortunate.

im confident nadal would have reached the second week at wimbledon consistently and his hard court prowess is certainly vastly superior to muster. he was 10x the competitor rios, kafel, rafter were put together.
 

goyeji

Banned
I think Nadal is having a great career in his own era. If anything, he probably benefitted from being second-ranked for a few years. Having Federer as a likely opponent in major finals was a treat for him.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
The only players in the 90s to have any chance of beating a semi normal Nadal at the French are:

Muster of 1995
Courier of 1992

That is it. I would add Kuerten of 2000-2001 but that isnt part of the 90s. Forget Bruguera, I have noticed your past comments on him and you overrate him alot. I laughed when you put him as 4th best clay courter of the Open Era, LOL! To me he is more or less on par with Federer as a clay courter.
maybe muster and only because he is lefty and could play topspin. but then again nadal has a combo of pace and spin that clay tennis has not seen before.

not courier. his bh would have been abused to the hilt and he just doesnt have enough guns to go through nadal.

tell me...who has actually had consistent success grinding on clay against nadal? Nobody. the only player - soderling basically took his game from fast courts and translated it to clay to hit through nadal.

courier has no chance to put it bluntly..and if you asked him yourself - he would agree.

so far the only weapon on clay i have seen that can put some kind of resistance against nadal's fh consistently on clay is the gaudio bh / verdasco fh. but even then nadal still wins the majority of the rallies. nadal's fh is just too big a weapon on clay - the other player's left side can still be a strength and can still lose most of the exchanges.

tbh. im not really convinced anyone could put much resistance to nadal - kuerten would have the best chance - but guga would have to be absolute top notch to win. we all know how great nadal's defense is...
 

Steve132

Professional
maybe muster and only because he is lefty and could play topspin. but then again nadal has a combo of pace and spin that clay tennis has not seen before.

not courier. his bh would have been abused to the hilt and he just doesnt have enough guns to go through nadal.

tell me...who has actually had consistent success grinding on clay against nadal? Nobody. the only player - soderling basically took his game from fast courts and translated it to clay to hit through nadal.

courier has no chance to put it bluntly..and if you asked him yourself - he would agree.

so far the only weapon on clay i have seen that can put some kind of resistance against nadal's fh consistently on clay is the gaudio bh / verdasco fh. but even then nadal still wins the majority of the rallies. nadal's fh is just too big a weapon on clay - the other player's left side can still be a strength and can still lose most of the exchanges.

tbh. im not really convinced anyone could put much resistance to nadal - kuerten would have the best chance - but guga would have to be absolute top notch to win. we all know how great nadal's defense is...
Great post. Nadal is simply too consistent and too powerful for any of the clay courters of the 90's. You would have to go back to Lendl or possibly even Borg in order to find a player who can match him in baseline rallies.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Tough to say how Nadal would fair in the 90s. I think he would definitely have to go through a tougher draws to get all those RG titles, than he had in the 00s where he has some cakwalk breezes to get there so we dont know how that would affect his body or if he would become fatigued.

I dont believe Nadal is the unbeatable force so many people are led to believe. I think it all depends on how certain players match up with him. Obviously Fed matches up horribly.. But we dont know how guys like COurier, Bruguera, ANdre etc would. I would assume they could handle the topspin to the BH moreso than Fed can.


Nadal would get his titles, but I dont think he would be nearly as dominant as he was on clay in the 90s overrall especially the early to mid 90s.
 

flying24

Banned
Tough to say how Nadal would fair in the 90s. I think he would definitely have to go through a tougher draws to get all those RG titles, than he had in the 00s where he has some cakwalk breezes to get there so we dont know how that would affect his body or if he would become fatigued.

I dont believe Nadal is the unbeatable force so many people are led to believe. I think it all depends on how certain players match up with him. Obviously Fed matches up horribly.. But we dont know how guys like COurier, Bruguera, ANdre etc would. I would assume they could handle the topspin to the BH moreso than Fed can.


Nadal would get his titles, but I dont think he would be nearly as dominant as he was on clay in the 90s overrall especially the early to mid 90s.
First of all LOL at you even mentioning Agassi as a potential threat to Nadal on clay. Agassi couldnt even beat 30 year old Gomez (who I dont think had even gone past the quarters of the French before that year) to win 1 of his French Open finals, and couldnt hold a 2 sets to 1 lead vs Courier in his first ever slam final in the 2nd. Then Agassi got slaughtered by Courier the next year in the semis, getting only 7 games in 3 sets. After that Agassi went the next 7 years making only 1 quarterfinal of the French (where he lost to Kafelnikov). Finally in 1999 Agassi had about the 2nd or 3rd flukiest French Open win ever (only say 2nd or 3rd due to Gaudio in 2004) struggling mightily through a very easy draw with all the big guns crashing out, yet which he was still lucky to survive atleast 3 of the matches. After that Agassi never made another semifinal at the French. Agassi took until 32 to finally win his first Masters title on clay. Nadal would lord over Agassi on clay. Federer would look like an amazing rival for Nadal on clay compared to what Agassi would be able to do vs him on that surface. Agassi wouldnt get anywhere near as many sets as Federer has gotten off Nadal on clay even if they also played 10+ times and I doubt he would have even beaten him twice.

Bruguera is a weaker version of the Nadal game in many ways. I dont see anything he would have to hurt Nadal with really. He would be more competition on clay than Agassi but still would hardly ever beat Nadal, and probably never at the French.

Couriers backhand is worse than Federers. What on earth makes you think the Courier backhand would withstand the Nadal topspin drives any better on clay than Federers does. Courier in many ways is a weaker version of Federer, a game built around an outstanding forehand which was the best of the 90s but still Federer is better, and Federer is better in every other aspect of the game than Courier. Courier is probably more natural a clay courter than Federer and more a grinder on that surface. Still I dont see Courier overall doing any better vs Nadal on clay than Federer. Though I will say Courier at the 92 French was playing some sick insane tennis and would have had a shot vs Nadal that year.

So again Courier of 92 and Muster of 95. Those are the 90s guys with a shot vs a semi normal Nadal at the French. That is it, finitto, no more.
 
Last edited:

gsquicksilver

Semi-Pro
Is it a fair assessment to say that in order to finish the year as no.1 during Rafa/Fed generation, you have to win at least 2 slams and a bunch of masters shields annually? The only time Rafa finished a season as no.1, he needed to win 2 slams, 4 masters, an olympic gold and a couple of small tournaments.

I do remember that during Samrpas' reign, he sometimes needed to win just 1 slam to finish the season as no.1.

Prior to 2008, Rafa manage to win 1 slam, a couple of masters and small tournaments yearly. Those titles were not enough to overtake the great fed.

Would Rafa's credentials catapult him to top of the rankings during the Sampras era? Could he have ended the season as no.1 more than once?

that's because federer won 2-3 slams during those years when rafa only won 1 slam.
 
Top