Rosewall v. Nadal

Who would win?


  • Total voters
    42

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
In response to Chopin's thread with a better match-up (imo)

Here's a question. Rosewall v. Nadal right now, presuming Rosewall is in his prime and with whatever racket/string, etc. he desired. I think he would eat Nadal's forehand to his backhand up with his slice, and would destroy Rafa. What do you all think?

EDIT: 1985 AO, so it is between their time periods
 
Last edited:

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Destroy? C'mon! I think Rosewall would be a tough match-up for Ralph on grass because of his low, deep, skidding groundies and volleys, and his slice serve to Ralph's backhand. I also can see Rosewall taking many of Ralph's high loopers in the air from in front of the baseline cutting off Ralph's time. On every other surface, where the ball is going to come up a little more, I have to give the edge to Ralph. Ralph has the edge in power and speed, although Rosewall could probably change direction better. Rosewall's best chance against Ralph on clay would be to dink him to death because Ralph doesn't like low short balls.

I can't answer the poll because none of the choices accurately reflects my opinion. I'd give Rosewall 6 out of 10 on grass, Ralph 6 out of 10 on hard and 8 out of 10 on clay.
 
Last edited:

H2O

Banned
I will go for Rafa but I can't pick up one of your choices related to him. The reason is very simple indeed. I have seen him alive.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Excellent! More cross-generational comparisons.

P.S. Club Chopin is accepting new members for the holiday season!
 
Last edited:

pjonesy

Professional
You've got 4 generations (really 5) of evolving topspin b/w Rosewall and Nadal. I don't think Rosewall could handle Lendl's topspin, much less Nadal's. Rosewall would think that he was playing an alien. I don't see how that generation of players could hit the ball cleanly, if they had never dealt with modern racquet and string technology. The technology that can create such pace and spin on the ball with minimal effort. Its not a fair comparison. Too many years between them. You are talking about two competely different games.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Rosewall has very little chance against rafa with the babolat racquet. On clay he has no chance. This isn't even worth a debate.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I'd love to see prime Rosewall with 66 sq. in wood and gut versus prime Nadal WITH 66 sq. in. WOOD AND GUT on clay.

I believe that Rosewall would win easily, because Muscles would be supremely consistent while Nadal would mishit 9 out of 10 shots (as he tries to figure out he cannot hit his usual topspin shots). I think it would be 6-0, 6-1, 6-2.

It actually would not be fair.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
I'd love to see prime Rosewall with 66 sq. in wood and gut versus prime Nadal WITH 66 sq. in. WOOD AND GUT on clay.

I believe that Rosewall would win easily, because Muscles would be supremely consistent while Nadal would mishit 9 out of 10 shots (as he tries to figure out he cannot hit his usual topspin shots). I think it would be 6-0, 6-1, 6-2.

It actually would not be fair.

Once again, knowing what I know about tennis technique, I have to disagree with the logic. For the record, I think Rosewall wins such a scenario because Rafa's normal advantages would be taken away or made irrelevant, but Rafa would NOT be mishitting balls left and right. This idea is, quite frankly ludicrous for at least two reasons:

1) The pace would be slower. When we see Federer shank a backkhand, it's usually on some ball was crushed or some high topspin shot spinning rapidly over his shoulder. Nadal is going to face neither of these balls.

2) Most importantly, all the top pros, and basically all pros, can flatten out their strokes. In fact, many have effortless looking strokes if you've seen them in person. Pay particular attention to how Nadal or Federer warms up. He'd perfectly capable of flattening out the ball in the context of a slower pace ball match against Rosewall.

None of this is to say that Rosewall wouldn't win playing with wood, but instead that a guy who has won Wimbledon and the US Open and has amazing eyes isn't going to lose because he shanks every other ball.

Best,
Chopin
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Destroy? C'mon! I think Rosewall would be a tough match-up for Ralph on grass because of his low, deep, skidding groundies and volleys, and his slice serve to Ralph's backhand. I also can see Rosewall taking many of Ralph's high loopers in the air from in front of the baseline cutting off Ralph's time. On every other surface, where the ball is going to come up a little more, I have to give the edge to Ralph. Ralph has the edge in power and speed, although Rosewall could probably change direction better. Rosewall's best chance against Ralph on clay would be to dink him to death because Ralph doesn't like low short balls.

I can't answer the poll because none of the choices accurately reflects my opinion. I'd give Rosewall 6 out of 10 on grass, Ralph 6 out of 10 on hard and 8 out of 10 on clay.

I disagree. Rafa's strength is his topspin forehand, which he would hit to Rosewall's backhand. Rosewall will do his amazing slice to Rafa's forehand or any other corner, Rafa will struggle with the low skidding ball and give weak return, Rosewall puts away from the net.

that being said, we really need to specify surface, so let's just say it's between them, so 1985 AO (to comply with Chopin's thread, as this is a comparison of that)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
How would you know?

*B/c Rafa is considered a goat on clay along with borg.
*Rosewall never faced a player like Rafa, who can hit amazing topspin
*Rosewall never dominate on clay like Rafa
*Rafa is playing in a current era, and hence, much higher standard
*And most importantly, no player at 5'6" today with a babolat racquet has ever made any noise against the field !!
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Once again, knowing what I know about tennis technique, I have to disagree with the logic. For the record, I think Rosewall wins such a scenario because Rafa's normal advantages would be taken away or made irrelevant, but Rafa would NOT be mishitting balls left and right. This idea is, quite frankly ludicrous for at least two reasons:

1) The pace would be slower. When we see Federer shank a backkhand, it's usually on some ball was crushed or some high topspin shot spinning rapidly over his shoulder. Nadal is going to face neither of these balls.

2) Most importantly, all the top pros, and basically all pros, can flatten out their strokes. In fact, many have effortless looking strokes if you've seen them in person. Pay particular attention to how Nadal or Federer warms up. He'd perfectly capable of flattening out the ball in the context of a slower pace ball match against Rosewall.

None of this is to say that Rosewall wouldn't win playing with wood, but instead that a guy who has won Wimbledon and the US Open and has amazing eyes isn't going to lose because he shanks every other ball.

Best,
Chopin
OK. Give Nadal 6 months to get used to the racquets and strings, maybe he would learn to not go for the topspin and hit the flatter shots allowable. He still would have a hard time with those notorious low-skidding backhands. (Maybe he would ask Muscles for a few pointers on how to hit those beauties, particularly off the clay where you have to dig a trench just to get strings on the ball.)

But then , I wonder what would become of his game? What would be his strategy? Would he become a serve and volleyer? Would he slice and dice? Would he remain a power-baseliner? (I know: an all-court genius, just like . . . Laver.)

As my Mom used to say, what would Rafa do?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
*B/c Rafa is considered a goat on clay along with borg.
*Rosewall never faced a player like Rafa, who can hit amazing topspin
*Rosewall never dominate on clay like Rafa
*Rafa is playing in a current era, and hence, much higher standard
*And most importantly, no player at 5'6" today with a babolat racquet has ever made any noise against the field !!

Correction time

*B/c Rosewall faced a player like Laver who could hit amazing topspin
*B/c Rafa never faced a player likke Rosewall who can the best slices ever
*Rosewall was better at RG than Wimby
*Rosewall was playing in a past era, and hence, much higher standard
*And most importantly, Rosewall would probably choose a Wilson over a Babolat any day
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I disagree. Rafa's strength is his topspin forehand, which he would hit to Rosewall's backhand. Rosewall will do his amazing slice to Rafa's forehand or any other corner, Rafa will struggle with the low skidding ball and give weak return, Rosewall puts away from the net.

that being said, we really need to specify surface, so let's just say it's between them, so 1985 AO (to comply with Chopin's thread, as this is a comparison of that)

Guys,

Both players are incredible players and you cannot underestimate either one of them. Also both are amazing athletes with incredible skills and coordination.

Nadal would be fabulous in any era but frankly if he played in Rosewall's era with his current technique of hitting the ball, he would have problems beating Rosewall on any surface in my opinion. Nadal would have to adjust his technique because of the small wood frames and the old style tennis strings. If Nadal did this he would give up some of his great advantages, namely his heavy topspin shots that bounce very high.

However I would think Nadal would adjust and be one of the great players if he played in Rosewall's time.

Too much has been made of technique. I believe Rosewall would have adjusted his game if he played in today's era and the same for Nadal if the situation was reversed. Frankly Rosewall's flat game is very similar to Agassi's and Jimmy Connors' game and no one questions whether they can play today.

Rosewall played at a top level from the 1950's to the late 1970's. In that time he defeated greats like Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Lew Hoad, Pancho Segura, Arthur Ashe, Ashley Cooper, Gimeno, Emerson, Laver, Stolle, Newcombe, Vitas Gerulaitis and yes even Jimmy Connors. Connors was to dominate Rosewall later when Rosewall was about 40 and over. Connors was the only one to dominate Rosewall.

Around 1980 I read that Rosewall played Ivan Lendl in a practice set. I understand that the people viewing the set said the rallies were magnificent. I believe Lendl won but in a very close set around 6-4. Rosewall was 46 that year and Lendl was one of the top ten player in the world.

What some of you may not realize is that a lot of Rosewall's greatness trancends simple tennis technique. Rosewall had an almost magical understanding of when to position himself on the tennis court so he could hit the perfect shot. I just don't see that today, even from Federer and Nadal. Players would describe Rosewall as almost appearing out of nowhere to hit a shot. So many times I see points from guys like a Roddick for example in which Roddick hits a shot in which his opponent can barely reach and they have to float the ball back slowly. Well a Rosewall would be in position to put the ball away but Roddick lets the ball bounce on the baseline and essentially the rally is now even. Roddick gave up his advantage. Rosewall didn't do things like that.

Rosewall's footwork and anticipation has been rarely if ever matched in the history of tennis. I do think that Nadal may be one of the few who is on Rosewall's level in this aspect of the game.

Rosewall's concentration on hitting the ball is unbelievable. He is one of the greatest pure ball strikers ever, like a Jimmy Connors and an Andre Agassi. From a pure ball striking point of view he is superior to Nadal. Does anyone think he was call "The Doomsday Stroking Machine" for nothing? He was the best clay court playing in the world for over a decade. He won the French in 1953 and he won the French again when Open tennis started in 1968. This is not some ordinary player we are talking about here.

Another about Rosewall's game is how early he prepared and how on balance he was. This is something way out of the ordinary compared to even greats of the game. Connors was a great example in recent times of this. Because Rosewall seemed to get to the shot with decades to spare, he could be on balance and hit his shots with great power and disguise. This wouldn't be any different if Rosewall changed his technique and hit with different style.

Rosewall's hand speed is quite incredible and his volleying skills were off the charts. No one today in my opinion can come close to matching Rosewall at the net. Some may argue that Rosewall was smaller and therefore didn't have as much reach but his great speed and anticipation let him cover the net like a blanket.

Rosewall's won 136 tournaments in his great career and dominated all surfaces, especially clay. I sincerely doubt if Nadal would defeat Rosewall a huge majority of the time on clay. I can see Nadal winning the majority of course but 8 out of 10 seems a bit much.

As far as fast surfaces are concerned, Rosewall used to dominate on fast surfaces as grass, hard court and wood. Yes he won on wood. In fact Rosewall used to win Pro Majors on clay and then win Pro Majors on wood I believe in just the next week! To switch from a super slow surface as clay and then a surface faster than the old fast grass in such a short time is another one of Rosewall's great achievements.

Nadal is in many ways similar to Rosewall. His concentration is great. His speed and footwork to my mind is the best in tennis and perhaps the best since Borg. He, like Rosewall rarely makes unforced errors. I believe both are geniuses of the sport.

Nadal's peak may be now or perhaps in the future. But Nadal has won 43 tournament to Rosewall's 136 and 9 majors to Rosewall's 23. Right now for pure accomplishments Nadal is not close to Rosewall at this point in time. I do believe that Nadal has a chance to surpass Rosewall. It'll be tough but you figure it would have to be since Rosewall is a GOAT candidate and any GOAT candidate would have to have a fabulous record.

In Rosewall's prime he would be competitive with Nadal on any surface.

Oh yeah I also forgot to mention that in 1976, Rosewall in a year he would be 42 played Guillermo Vilas, a lefty with super heavy topspin strokes on grass and Rosewall defeated Vilas in three straight sets, with the loss of only four games. Rosewall had absolutely no problems with Vilas' heavy lefty topspin strokes. Vilas played a style very similar to Nadal, not as good as Nadal in my opinion but he wasn't chopped liver either. Rosewall who was way pass his prime was able to handle the heavy topspin of Vilas and beat him easily.

So yes I believe Rosewall, with his timeless assets would do very very well today.

Here's Rosewall in 1970 against Tony Roche in the US Open final. Notice the great volleying skills, hand speed, movement and anticipation as well as his great backhand. Also consider that Rosewall is 35 about to be 36 and way past his prime. He was a lot better.

Ask yourself who would be able to hit some of the volleys Rosewall hit in this match today, even with today's rackets. I can tell you from watching Rosewall that he volleyed like that all the time. It's not just highlights, it was his norm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJubuKDN7Fk

Incidentally, does anyone lob as well as Rosewall does today? Just asking.
 
Last edited:

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
*B/c Rafa is considered a goat on clay along with borg.
*Rosewall never faced a player like Rafa, who can hit amazing topspin
*Rosewall never dominate on clay like Rafa
*Rafa is playing in a current era, and hence, much higher standard
*And most importantly, no player at 5'6" today with a babolat racquet has ever made any noise against the field !!

- Ralph never faced a player like Rosewall who can keep the ball low, deep and penetrating, or short and angled, all with pinpoint accuracy that Ralph doesn't have.
- Ralph would have trouble with Rosewall's slice serve out wide in the deuce court.
- Ralph has proven that he is vulnerable to a competent net player. Rosewall is one of the greatest net players of all time.
- Ralph's net game is weak by comparison.
- Ralph's game is one dimentional, he has no plan B. Rosewall is one of the most versatile players of all time.
- Rosewall's size is virtually irrelevant to the analysis. His serve was underpowered, but, very effective because of his great placement and disguise. Further, Rosewall had one of the greatest smashes of all time.

PS: I do think that Ralph would have a winning record against Rosewall on clay and hard courts, but not on grass. In any event for you to say that it's not even worth a debate is just ignorant!
 
Last edited:
Indeed :lol:

Hey guys, Usain Bolt vs Carl Lewis, who wins? :twisted:

Bolt has run a faster 100M, but there are questions as to his use of PED's. I don't know if he's guilty of that, but in Track and Field, use of PED's has been rampant. Lewis dominated for a long time. Remember Ben Johnson? Also, check him out in the long jump. Lewis is the only guy to have defended a 100M successfully. Bolt has now run it in 9.72, but see some numbers here put up by lewis in that event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_progression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyThXWLVkkc ('84 Long Jump)
 

Xemi666

Professional
Bolt has run a faster 100M, but there are questions as to his use of PED's. I don't know if he's guilty of that, but in Track and Field, use of PED's has been rampant. Lewis dominated for a long time. Remember Ben Johnson? Also, check him out in the long jump. Lewis is the only guy to have defended a 100M successfully. Bolt has now run it in 9.72, but see some numbers here put up by lewis in that event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_progression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyThXWLVkkc ('84 Long Jump)

Indeed he has ;) Check all athletics records, I'm sure you'll notice a trend.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
- Ralph never faced a player like Rosewall who can keep the ball low, deep and penetrating, or short and angled, all with pinpoint accuracy that Ralph doesn't have.
hmmm....ever heard of Federer? Despite the bounce today stay higher?
- Ralph would have trouble with Rosewall's slice serve out wide in the deuce court.
How many mph Rosewall can serve, besides hitting an 80mph slice?:rolleyes:
- Ralph has proven that he is vulnerable to a competent net player. Rosewall is one of the greatest net players of all time.
Net rushers has become nearly extinct since the game has evolved. I seriously question you ever watch tennis today.
- Ralph's net game is weak by comparison.
Again, this is an era of dominant baseliner, not s/v. And on clay, baseliners dominate on clay not just in this era, but also in the 90s. Do the knowledge !!
- Ralph's game is one dimentional, he has no plan B. Rosewall is one of the most versatile players of all time.
LMAO. HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!
- Rosewall's size is virtually irrelevant to the analysis. His serve was underpowered, but, very effective because of his great placement and disguise. Further, Rosewall had one of the greatest smashes of all time.
Yep, in the past 10 yrs, players at his size dominate the tour !!:rolleyes:
PS: I do think that Ralph would have a winning record against Rosewall on clay and hard courts, but not on grass. In any event for you to say that it's not even worth a debate is just ignorant!
This is coming from you saying Laver would OVERPOWER Nadal on clay. LOL

Thanks for the good laugh.
 
Indeed he has ;)

Let's see if he can keep it up and win at the next Olympics to match Lewis, who defended his 100M gold. He's a great sprinter, no doubt. Hopefully he is clean as well. Marion Jones seemed great as well. As did Ben Johnson. Jordan or Bryant/James? Jordan. You have to be real careful with the constant progression argument. It's just not that simple. Once a new #1 emerges in Tennis, that guy or Federer? That guy or 2010 Nadal?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Correction time

*B/c Rosewall faced a player like Laver who could hit amazing topspin
*B/c Rafa never faced a player likke Rosewall who can the best slices ever
*Rosewall was better at RG than Wimby
*Rosewall was playing in a past era, and hence, much higher standard
*And most importantly, Rosewall would probably choose a Wilson over a Babolat any day

You are a funny man.
 

Xemi666

Professional
Let's see if he can keep it up and win at the next Olympics to match Lewis, who defended his 100M gold. He's a great sprinter, no doubt. Hopefully he is clean as well. Marion Jones seemed great as well. As did Ben Johnson. Jordan or Bryant/James? Jordan. You have to be real careful with the constant progression argument. It's just not that simple. Once a new #1 emerges in Tennis, that guy or Federer? That guy or 2010 Nadal?

Oh, it's pretty simple, every absolute stat proves that athletes have become better overtime, that they don't dominate their competition as a result is because the competition has improved as well ;)
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Let's see if he can keep it up and win at the next Olympics to match Lewis, who defended his 100M gold. He's a great sprinter, no doubt. Hopefully he is clean as well. Marion Jones seemed great as well. As did Ben Johnson. Jordan or Bryant/James? Jordan. You have to be real careful with the constant progression argument. It's just not that simple. Once a new #1 emerges in Tennis, that guy or Federer? That guy or 2010 Nadal?

Progression arguments are not always correct. Tom Watson almost won the British Open in golf last year at the age of 59. He was but a shadow of what he used to be but he was over 72 holes, equal to the best in the tournament and only lost in a playoff.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Bolt has run a faster 100M, but there are questions as to his use of PED's. I don't know if he's guilty of that, but in Track and Field, use of PED's has been rampant. Lewis dominated for a long time. Remember Ben Johnson? Also, check him out in the long jump. Lewis is the only guy to have defended a 100M successfully. Bolt has now run it in 9.72, but see some numbers here put up by lewis in that event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_progression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyThXWLVkkc ('84 Long Jump)

BN1,

I don't want you to be like Data. Why? If we keep assumed every athletes use drug, then everything they have accomplished are nullify. If that's the case, then they shouldn't stripped away Ben Johnson's Gold Medal since Lewis isn't clean either. See my point. You are a great fan of Borg, and during his time there are players use drugs...how do you like it if Borg gets labeled for using PED when he was never tested positive? Not fair insn't it? As I've mentioned before, there are a few bad apples everywhere...whether it's a cops, CEOs, or an athletes.
 
BN1,

I don't want you to be like Data. Why? If we keep assumed every athletes use drug, then everything they have accomplished are nullify. If that's the case, then they shouldn't stripped away Ben Johnson's Gold Medal since Lewis isn't clean either. See my point. You are a great fan of Borg, and during his time there are players use drugs...how do you like it if Borg gets labeled for using PED when he was never tested positive? Not fair insn't it? As I've mentioned before, there are a few bad apples everywhere...whether it's a cops, CEOs, or an athletes.

TMF, oh, don't get me wrong. I brought up PED's and Bolt because Lewis has specifically leveled that accusation. It may or may not be true. Forget Bolt for a moment. There is no question that many T&F athletes have been nailed for PED's in recent years. Just like in baseball. Look at baseball for example. Remember Bonds/McGwire and the argument that baseball players were just bigger and better due to "progression". So, we need to be real careful before we categorically assume that in each and every sport, the latest is, just because it is the latest, better than EVER before. With T&F, and swimming for example, you do have objective times to track, which is convenient. It's subtle though. You also have to consider progression over say 50 years, 100 years, or 30-40 years. Basically, it's very hard to make sweeping conclusions. You just have to analyze it sport by sport and athlete by athlete by athlete. You are absolutely right that not ALL T&F athletes are guilty. That's an excellent point. I hope Bolt is clean. He's good for the Sport. Yet, my mention of his need to defend Olympic Gold was also a reference to the notion that "time will tell". Lewis vs. Bolt head to head? Epic battle. Lewis was a "gamer", so it would interesting, no doubt. On Borg, you are 100% right. I would defend him all day.
 
Progression arguments are not always correct. Tom Watson almost won the British Open in golf last year at the age of 59. He was but a shadow of what he used to be but he was over 72 holes, equal to the best in the tournament and only lost in a playoff.

Case in point. Imagine prime Watson who was challenging the great Nicklaus. Modern equipment and Nicklaus?? Scary thought!
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Bolt has run a faster 100M, but there are questions as to his use of PED's. I don't know if he's guilty of that, but in Track and Field, use of PED's has been rampant. Lewis dominated for a long time. Remember Ben Johnson? Also, check him out in the long jump. Lewis is the only guy to have defended a 100M successfully. Bolt has now run it in 9.72, but see some numbers here put up by lewis in that event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_progression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyThXWLVkkc ('84 Long Jump)

Actually, Bolt ran a 9.58 which is prima facie proof that he's either (1) juiced up, or (2) he's an alien from Alpha Centauri.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By1JQFxfLMM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
BN1,

I don't want you to be like Data. Why? If we keep assumed every athletes use drug, then everything they have accomplished are nullify. If that's the case, then they shouldn't stripped away Ben Johnson's Gold Medal since Lewis isn't clean either. See my point. You are a great fan of Borg, and during his time there are players use drugs...how do you like it if Borg gets labeled for using PED when he was never tested positive? Not fair insn't it? As I've mentioned before, there are a few bad apples everywhere...whether it's a cops, CEOs, or an athletes.

Faulty logic. The rise of drug use among athletes of all sports (outside of weight lifting and bodybuilding), is a fairly recent phenomenon, which would tend to nullify only the more recent accomplishments.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give you a good laugh.

fixed ;)

Rafa has trouble with TODAY's s/vers, imagine how much trouble he would against good ones of that day. Fed's slice is also NOTHING like Rosewalls, and both played against heavy topspin lefties (yes, Laver used a lotta topspin for his day). Plus, Rosewall has done well on clay. In fact, the one slam he hasn't won is Wimby, so his clay game definitely is better than his amazing grass game.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
fixed ;)

Rafa has trouble with TODAY's s/vers, imagine how much trouble he would against good ones of that day. Fed's slice is also NOTHING like Rosewalls, and both played against heavy topspin lefties (yes, Laver used a lotta topspin for his day). Plus, Rosewall has done well on clay. In fact, the one slam he hasn't won is Wimby, so his clay game definitely is better than his amazing grass game.

Question for you....how many s/v had beaten rafa, let alone a solid baseliners today??

Keep in mind my post was about them playing in today's, not in the 60/70s, so s/v is suicidal. Nadal would get the best of him simply b/c he's a beast. No player can produce the kind of topspin+speed combined as rafa.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If you guys watch the WTF today, notice how great Ferrer moves. For a small guy, he has wheels that rival chang and laver...simply relentless!! But the problem is he simply too small to compete with Federer, who's 6'1" with better serve, more power, and better shot making.
 

big bang

Hall of Fame
This is one of the few times I actually agree with TMF (and I grew up watching tennis in the 80´s and 90´s, so Im no pimple-faced teenager as the older posters might think). These great players of the past would not be able to handle the power and spin of todays game and least of all Nadal´s spin that gives everyone in todays game trouble!.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Question for you....how many s/v had beaten rafa, let alone a solid baseliners today??

Keep in mind my post was about them playing in today's, not in the 60/70s, so s/v is suicidal. Nadal would get the best of him simply b/c he's a beast. No player can produce the kind of topspin+speed combined as rafa.

how many s/vers of today are anywhere near the ability to play perfect all-court games as Laver and Rosewall?
 

Xemi666

Professional
So the best response to athletes getting better you guys could give me is "because now everyone is on PEDs"? I expected more :(
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Too much has been made of technique. I believe Rosewall would have adjusted his game if he played in today's era and the same for Nadal if the situation was reversed. Frankly Rosewall's flat game is very similar to Agassi's and Jimmy Connors' game and no one questions whether they can play today.

height might just be one factor here, just saying


Rosewall's footwork and anticipation has been rarely if ever matched in the history of tennis. I do think that Nadal may be one of the few who is on Rosewall's level in this aspect of the game.

absolutely disagree with this ... federer has as good anticipation and footwork as rosewall did , nadal is inferior to both fed and rosewall as far as anticipation and footwork is concerned - part of the reason why he stands behind the baseline - he needs some time to anticipate and run down balls , the other reason of course being he can't hit as well on the rise ... where nadal scores over both fed/rosewall is his footspeed and tenacity to run down balls ..

also I'd say murray has better anticipation than nadal ( though not better footwork )
 
height might just be one factor here, just saying




absolutely disagree with this ... federer has as good anticipation and footwork as rosewall did , nadal is inferior to both fed and rosewall as far as anticipation and footwork is concerned - part of the reason why he stands behind the baseline - he needs some time to anticipate and run down balls , the other reason of course being he can't hit as well on the rise ... where nadal scores over both fed/rosewall is his footspeed and tenacity to run down balls ..

also I'd say murray has better anticipation than nadal ( though not better footwork )

Im sorry but to say Rosewall has better footwork and anticipation than Nadal is a joke. Look at the speed of shot that they both have to chase down and how much less time Nadal has to get into position than Rosewall.
 
Top