Tournament of Peaks

[NatF]

I think Hoad would have handled Nadal's lefty topspin forehand. He liked to take balls on the rise, and hit winners off of them (a la Wawrinka).

You are correct about Laver: he would not have stayed back and tried to rally with Nadal. He would do that for a while, but would look for any opportunity to come in to the net to end the point with a volley (a la Panatta v. Borg).

You fans of the old players like to think this and that, but Wawrinka has only one win on clay versus Nadal and that was last year when Nadal's game was in gutter.

As far as Laver goes he would have been passed a lot.

It's much easier said that done.

 

[hoodjem]

You fans of the old players like to think this and that, but Wawrinka has only one win on clay versus Nadal and that was last year when Nadal's game was in gutter.

As far as Laver goes he would have been passed a lot.

It's much easier said that done.

Yes, we do. It's all hypothetical.

 

[NatF]

Yes, we do. It's all hypothetical.

Indeed it is, but this is an obvious case of rose tinted glasses

 

[Limpinhitter]

You fans of the old players like to think this and that, but Wawrinka has only one win on clay versus Nadal and that was last year when Nadal's game was in gutter.

As far as Laver goes he would have been passed a lot.

It's much easier said that done.

In my view, Borg had the greatest passing shots of all time. If Laver played the way he did against Borg, I think he would have a winning percentage at net against Nadal. Nadal has great passing shots, but, unlike Borg, Nadal hasn't had to face ANY great net players in his career.

 

[Limpinhitter]

You fans of the old players like to think this and that, but Wawrinka has only one win on clay versus Nadal and that was last year when Nadal's game was in gutter.

As far as Laver goes he would have been passed a lot.

It's much easier said that done.

I'm especially a fan of players who made me shake my head and think WTF was that? Laver did that a few times per set.

 

[pc1]

You fans of the old players like to think this and that, but Wawrinka has only one win on clay versus Nadal and that was last year when Nadal's game was in gutter.

As far as Laver goes he would have been passed a lot.

It's much easier said that done.

In theory that's the way to beat Nadal unless you're Djokovic or Borg. But it demand a great amount of technical stroke versatility and very little margin for error. Laver would have a better shot than most because he was far more talented than most but it would be an enormously tough task. What the old line, "Many have tried, many have failed."

Still it would have been interesting to see what would have happened.

I can't think of many outside of Borg and Djokovic who would have some adequate chance against Nadal on red clay. Maybe Kuerten, Lendl and Wilander would have some chances. Laver of course. Perhaps Kramer at his peak with the strong consistent power groundstrokes and the huge serve to keep him in the match. Segura once said his best win was a five set win over Kramer on clay. It wasn't any of the wins against Gonzalez but Kramer on clay so that tells me what Segura thought of Kramer's strength on clay.

 

[hoodjem]

In theory that's the way to beat Nadal unless you're Djokovic or Borg. But it demand a great amount of technical stroke versatility and very little margin for error. Laver would have a better shot than most because he was far more talented than most but it would be an enormously tough task. What the old line, "Many have tried, many have failed."

Still it would have been interesting to see what would have happened.

I can't think of many outside of Borg and Djokovic who would have some adequate chance against Nadal on red clay. Maybe Kuerten, Lendl and Wilander would have some chances. Laver of course. Perhaps Kramer at his peak with the strong consistent power groundstrokes and the huge serve to keep him in the match. Segura once said his best win was a five set win over Kramer on clay. It wasn't any of the wins against Gonzalez but Kramer on clay so that tells me what Segura thought of Kramer's strength on clay.

I still think the the way to beat Nadal on clay is to use the Panatta stratagem.

 

[Limpinhitter]

In theory that's the way to beat Nadal unless you're Djokovic or Borg. But it demand a great amount of technical stroke versatility and very little margin for error. Laver would have a better shot than most because he was far more talented than most but it would be an enormously tough task. What the old line, "Many have tried, many have failed."

Still it would have been interesting to see what would have happened.

I can't think of many outside of Borg and Djokovic who would have some adequate chance against Nadal on red clay. Maybe Kuerten, Lendl and Wilander would have some chances. Laver of course. Perhaps Kramer at his peak with the strong consistent power groundstrokes and the huge serve to keep him in the match. Segura once said his best win was a five set win over Kramer on clay. It wasn't any of the wins against Gonzalez but Kramer on clay so that tells me what Segura thought of Kramer's strength on clay.

I know you're a big Kramer fan, but, of all the greats you cite, I think Nadal would be a bad match-up for Kramer on clay. His backhand would be a vulnerable weak link against Nadal.

 

[pc1]

I know you're a big Kramer fan, but, of all the greats you cite, I think Nadal would be a bad match-up for Kramer on clay. His backhand would be a vulnerable weak link against Nadal.

True but as with Federer, his serve may keep him in the match. And Kramer's serve is up there with any player's in history.

Kramer did have a strong backhand but I agree it would be vulnerable. I was just searching for past greats who would have some chance against Nadal. Kramer was a tremendously consistent player off the baseline on clay and he has great putaway volleys and a great forehand, perhaps one of the top few of all time to put shots away.

It's hard to find a player who can be a decent match with Nadal on red clay in tennis history. I don't think Tilden would have much of a shot. Cochet would have no chance at all. Lacoste would lose. Some past greats who could zone out and have great power may have some chances like Hoad, Kovacs or Vines but I think they would lose a large majority of the time.

You need a player with super groundstrokes on both sides, great speed, great stamina, great power and be able to handle Nadal's lefty high topspin. You would also like good volleys and a great serve. Very few measure up on clay there. If it was a job search and this was the requirements, the job probably would remain unoccupied.

Actually one matchup I would love to see is peak Mecir against Nadal.

 

[JohnYandell]

Limp,

I play with with a Head Radical and GC with a Vokl but it's not the racket. Unless you have a radar gun and a high speed camera to measure the spin I would question that the ball you were hitting was pro quality. If you had filmed yourself I also question whether the swing would be shorter.

One thing to understand about the modern pro slice is it isn't a chop--what you describe you did sounds like that--the modern slice is not a shorter swing. It's still a long swing with a high finish but much more radically down coming into and going through the ball. The modern players aren't stupid. They figure out how to hit the ball and the coaches follow them. If there was a way to hit through the ball on a flatter plane they would figure it out. I sincerely doubt that you are capable of handling balls in a way they can't.
In any case I think you and I can agree to disagree. This discussion is going nowhere.

Anyone else up for the sports attack challenge?

 

[Limpinhitter]

Limp,

I play with with a Head Radical and GC with a Vokl but it's not the racket. Unless you have a radar gun and a high speed camera to measure the spin I would question that the ball you were hitting was pro quality. If you had filmed yourself I also question whether the swing would be shorter.

One thing to understand about the modern pro slice is it isn't a chop--what you describe you did sounds like that--the modern slice is not a shorter swing. It's still a long swing with a high finish but much more radically down coming into and going through the ball. The modern players aren't stupid. They figure out how to hit the ball and the coaches follow them. If there was a way to hit through the ball on a flatter plane they would figure it out. I sincerely doubt that you are capable of handling balls in a way they can't.
In any case I think you and I can agree to disagree. This discussion is going nowhere.

Anyone else up for the sports attack challenge?

John, if you "reply" to my comment, the forum will give me a notice of your reply. Otherwise, it's just coincidence that I found that you replied to my comment.

I didn't say that the modern chop was a shorter swing. I'm saying that the swing path is so vertical that it results in a chop, not a slice, and from what I've seen, the finish is low with the racquet head pointing down to the ground at the finish. I also didn't say that modern players were stupid. But, most use 2 handed backhands and don't need a slice to handle high bouncing balls. As for Federer, in my view, he had a gap in his armor that was exposed by Nadal. From what I've seen, since training with Edberg, he seems to have added a more driving slice to his arsenal that I think would be much more effective against Nadal's forehand, and he is also hitting a more traditional backhand volley.

 

[JohnYandell]

John, if you "reply" to my comment, the forum will give me a notice of your reply. Otherwise, it's just coincidence that I found that you replied to my comment.

I didn't say that the modern chop was a shorter swing. I'm saying that the swing path is so vertical that it results in a chop, not a slice, and from what I've seen, the finish is low with the racquet head pointing down to the ground at the finish. I also didn't say that modern players were stupid. But, most use 2 handed backhands and don't need a slice to handle high bouncing balls. As for Federer, in my view, he had a gap in his armor that was exposed by Nadal. From what I've seen, since training with Edberg, he seems to have added a more driving slice to his arsenal that I think would be much more effective against Nadal's forehand, and he is also hitting a more traditional backhand volley.

As I said I think this is a good place to agree to disagree. The video evidence in my opinion does not support what you think.