Which 80's/90's Wimbledon Champions would you back Nadal to beat?

[mtr1]

Nadal has won two Wimbledon titles, and has established himself as the second best grass court player of this "era". However, the game has changed, no more Serve & Volley play, and reports from the players that the grass has slowed slightly.
How do you think Nadal would fare against the champions of the recent past? The match would be played on the grass of the 80's/90's.

edit: There is no room for "other", just state why if you think Nadal wouldn't defeat any of them.

 

[TACOSRULE]

he would lose to almost all of them really


Nadal could beat them on the new grass though

 

[Clay lover]

I chose Cash, Stichand Krajicek simply because Nadal is simply a superior player to them regardless of the surface. I chose Agassi and Connors as well because as fellow baseliners Nadal can rally even better on grass.

 

[mtr1]

I chose Cash, Stichand Krajicek simply because Nadal is simply a superior player to them regardless of the surface. I chose Agassi and Connors as well because as fellow baseliners Nadal can rally even better on grass.

I think Nadal would stand more of a chance against Agassi and Connors, but their ability to take the ball on the rise and hit flat would neutralise Nadal's topspin game.

 

[aphex]

on old grass:

no chance against: borg, mac becker, cash, edberg, stich, krajicek.
slight chance against agassi, connors

 

[Clay lover]

Some guys here talk as if fast grass and S&V combined meant the death of the heavy topspin baseline game. Well, Borg won 5 wimbys with it. While I don't think Nadal stand as much of a chance on fast grass, he would be no slouch either. He didn't win 2 Wimbys and 1USO because of nothing.

 

[TACOSRULE]

just because he would lose to them doesnt mean he couldnt beat them sometimes. I think Federer would win 3 wimbledons and nadal 2 on the old grass

 

[Mortifier]

Although the head to head between Agassi and Nadal is 0-2 I think Andre's playing style would be a bad matchup for Nadal. A prime Agassi taking the ball on the rise, as Davydenko for instance, would probably give him the edge in many rallies.

Pete is always a force to be reckoned with. His serve on grass alone is a major force.

Prime Borg with the new technology and all would probably give him a tough match. I also have a feeling that Edberg would do well, atleast on fast grass.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

on old grass:

no chance against: borg, mac becker, cash, edberg, stich, krajicek.

Very astute, aphex; Nadal--great as he is--never faced players with the kind of skill displayed by McEnroe, Becker, Edberg & Sampras at the height of their careers.

slight chance against agassi, connors

Yeah, they would be more of a tight match-up for Nadal, and I see a lot of down-to-the-wire struggles--no blow-outs on either side.

 

[aphex]

Very astute, aphex; Nadal--great as he is--never faced players with the kind of skill displayed by McEnroe, Becker, Edberg & Sampras at the height of their careers.



Yeah, they would be more of a tight match-up for Nadal, and I see a lot of down-to-the-wire struggles--no blow-outs on either side.

Why do you leave Krajicek out?
His 1996 run was phenomenal...
(I assume the OP is asking how Nadal would fare against them the year(s) they won...)

 

[mtr1]

Why do you leave Krajicek out?
His 1996 run was phenomenal...
(I assume the OP is asking how Nadal would fare against them the year(s) they won...)

Yes. And I agree that Krajicek's 1996 run was of a good enough quality to challenge any of the other champions.

 

[mltaylor]

Can we give Nadal an 80's/90's racquet?
How about just gut, no poly or hybrids.

What would some of the players from the 80's/90's do with Nadal's equipment/technology?

 

[mtr1]

Can we give Nadal an 80's/90's racquet?
How about just gut, no poly or hybrids.

What would some of the players from the 80's/90's do with Nadal's equipment/technology?

Seeing as the match would be played on "old" grass, I think that everyone should be allowed to take advantage of the latest "technology", to be fair to Nadal.

 

[Xemi666]

Of course nobody, just like he would have never won USO ever if any of the past champions there, like Safin or. We all know Nadal is a clay courter lucky he's playing in a mug era with slow surfaces and no S&Volleyers










That was irony if you couldn't tell.

 

[ksbh]

He could beat all of the above except Pete Sampras & to some extent Stefan Edberg.

 

[aphex]

Of course nobody, just like he would have never won USO ever if any of the past champions there, like Safin or. We all know Nadal is a clay courter lucky he's playing in a mug era with slow surfaces and no S&Volleyers










That was irony if you couldn't tell.

That's not irony.
In case you couldn't tell.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Ralph would conqour all apart from Sampras.

 

[Xemi666]

That's not irony.
In case you couldn't tell.

Glad you could find time to quote me, I thought you would be too busy thinking new ways of hating on Nadal

 

[aphex]

Glad you could find time to quote me, I thought you would be too busy thinking new ways of hating on Nadal

Glad I could teach you what irony is, I thought you would be too busy thinking new ways of loving Nadal

 

[cneblett]

Some guys here talk as if fast grass and S&V combined meant the death of the heavy topspin baseline game. Well, Borg won 5 wimbys with it. While I don't think Nadal stand as much of a chance on fast grass, he would be no slouch either. He didn't win 2 Wimbys and 1USO because of nothing.

But Borg did play a fair amount of s&v while winning on those courts. Even on clay he did some, noticed it on clay when they were reshowing the ABC TV series shot at Hilton Head during the 70's, World Series of Tennis or something like it. They reshow the episodes on Tennis Channel every so often.

 

[Roger No.1]

If he played with an 80's racquet - he'd have little chance to beat any of them. He would not be able to generate as much power and spin with an older frame. I think he'd lose in straight sets to Becker, Edberg, Mcnroe, Sampras, Cash and probably could take Borg, Agassi, Connors to 4 or 5 sets.

 

[Jchurch]

As Aphex pointed out, on old grass it would be very hard for Nadal to beat any of these plays as he has trouble dealing with flat hard shots as it is already. I would only see him having a chance against Connors out of all the people on the list.

 

[TACOSRULE]

People have said he couldnt win a GS off clay, he wouldn't be around at 24, he wont ever get to #1, cant beat roger at wimbledon, etc.

 

[Jchurch]

People have said he couldnt win a GS off clay, he wouldn't be around at 24, he wont ever get to #1, cant beat roger at wimbledon, etc.

People also said Federer would never win a French, He would never pass Sampras' mark of 14 slames, etc... see the point. A lot of people say a lot, but it means nearly nothing.

 

[Manus Domini]

Nadal has won two Wimbledon titles, and has established himself as the second best grass court player of this "era". However, the game has changed, no more Serve & Volley play, and reports from the players that the grass has slowed slightly.
How do you think Nadal would fare against the champions of the recent past? The match would be played on the grass of the 80's/90's.

edit: There is no room for "other", just state why if you think Nadal wouldn't defeat any of them.

oops misread, thought title said which would you back to beat Nadal.

I say he'd lose to probably all of them, but I think he would have the hardest time with the S&Vers (they give him a lotta trouble on tour nowadays), so I would say Cash, Sampras, JMac, Borg to beat Nadal.

 

[Xemi666]

People also said Federer would never win a French, He would never pass Sampras' mark of 14 slames, etc... see the point. A lot of people say a lot, but it means nearly nothing.

Who said that exactly?

 

[TACOSRULE]

People also said Federer would never win a French, He would never pass Sampras' mark of 14 slames, etc... see the point. A lot of people say a lot, but it means nearly nothing.

egg jacc lee

 

[Xemi666]

Glad I could teach you what irony is, I thought you would be too busy thinking new ways of loving Nadal

I doubt clowns and hypocrites have anything to teach me, sorry

 

[aphex]

I doubt clowns and hypocrites have anything to teach me, sorry

Indeed, I doubt your fellow nadturds have anything to teach you.
Except maybe how to crawl even deeper into your idol's anal cavity.

Btw, seriously you didn't know what irony is?
LOL, what a tool!

 

[mtr1]

Of course nobody, just like he would have never won USO ever if any of the past champions there, like Safin or. We all know Nadal is a clay courter lucky he's playing in a mug era with slow surfaces and no S&Volleyers









That was irony if you couldn't tell.

There is no need to troll, it's a legitimate question, the intent of the thread was not to bash Nadal.

 

[Roger No.1]

Indeed, I doubt your fellow nadturds have anything to teach you.
Except maybe how to crawl even deeper into your idol's anal cavity.

Btw, seriously you didn't know what irony is?
LOL, what a tool!

Haha, do you think that is why he has to pick his shorts before every point?:twisted:

 

[Cyan]

All of them but Sampras.

 

[kamakaze]

I agree all of those past great would destroy Nadal on grass, except for Sampras.

 

[The-Champ]

Although the head to head between Agassi and Nadal is 0-2 I think Andre's playing style would be a bad matchup for Nadal. A prime Agassi taking the ball on the rise, as Davydenko for instance, would probably give him the edge in many rallies.
.

okey, if Nadal plays Davydenko on grass next year. I put a hundred bucks on Nadal winning that match, a trashing to be exact. would you take the bet?

One thing i've noticed is that Nadal's footwork on grass is almost as amazing as when his on clay. HC on the other hand, he's not that great, Federer, Murray and Djokovic I've noticed are a bit better specially Federer trumps all.

Nadal's movement on grass is something to behold.

 

[Xemi666]

There is no need to troll, it's a legitimate question, the intent of the thread was not to bash Nadal.

It was not a critic directed at you, it's a legitimate question as you said. However a lot of the responses, from the usual suspects, are just another thinly veiled attempt to downplay Nadal's achievements, the same that happened when Nadal won USO and many of the same people were saying "Safin would have destroyed Nadal at USO!" for no other reason than frustration at Nadal owning them again.

Aphex for instance, is one of those clowns that constantly insult and downgrade Nadal, pretty pathetic if you ask me. There are many players I'm not a fan of, but I don't go around insulting them because it's pathetic and childish. Some people should learn to just enjoy tennis, instead of talking trash at every opportunity.

 

[Xemi666]

Indeed, I doubt your fellow nadturds have anything to teach you.
Except maybe how to crawl even deeper into your idol's anal cavity.

Btw, seriously you didn't know what irony is?
LOL, what a tool!

I know perfectly well what irony is, as I said I don't need hypocrites and clowns to tell me. Lol at you calling other people tools, when you're one of the biggest tools around.

 

[The-Champ]

Pete would have to have a very poor serving day for Rafa to beat him. When Pete's serve was on, his groundies usually was on fire as well. That's a freakin' scary prospect.

Rafa would have least chance against champions with overpowering serve.

I have no doubt he would match up well against Agassi, Borg or Connors.

 

[The-Champ]

Ralph would conqour all apart from Sampras.

I believe an on fire Sampras and Becker would be Nadal's ultimate destroyer on grass.

 

[Xemi666]

Pete would have to have a very poor serving day for Rafa to beat him. When Pete's serve was on, his groundies usually was on fire as well. That's a freakin' scary prospect.

Rafa would have least chance against champions with overpowering serve.

I have no doubt he would match up well against Agassi, Borg or Connors.

How would you rate Federer's serve, out of curiosity? How do you think he would do against players with overpowering serve?

 

[Pioneer]

This is an easy question. Nadal would destroy Borg, because they're both fast and excellent baseliners but Nadal has got the firepower while Borg is a little bit weaker.

The guys with the best chances against Nadal would be Edberg, because he has proven that he can destroy baseliners, Stich and Krajicek because they're strong, they've got the big serves and they won't try to play Nadal from the baseline - kind of like Berdych/Soderling but with better net game.

Sampras... I don't know. Sampras beats the counterpunchers on grass all the time but Nadal is not a counterpuncher. He's an all court player who can dictate play from the baseline. But Sampras won't try to outbaseline Nadal like Federer would attempt. He would make it an all court match so it's 50/50.

 

[Xemi666]

This is an easy question. Nadal would destroy Borg, because they're both fast and excellent baseliners but Nadal has got the firepower while Borg is a little bit weaker.

The guys with the best chances against Nadal would be Edberg, because he has proven that he can destroy baseliners, Stich and Krajicek because they're strong, they've got the big serves and they won't try to play Nadal from the baseline - kind of like Berdych/Soderling but with better net game.

Sampras... I don't know. Sampras beats the counterpunchers on grass all the time but Nadal is not a counterpuncher. He's an all court player who can dictate play from the baseline. But Sampras won't try to outbaseline Nadal like Federer would attempt. He would make it an all court match so it's 50/50.

Nadal destroy Borg? Come on. It would be a close match each and every time, you don't destroy a 5 time wimbledon champion on grass.

 

[aphex]

Of course nobody, just like he would have never won USO ever if any of the past champions there, like Safin or. We all know Nadal is a clay courter lucky he's playing in a mug era with slow surfaces and no S&Volleyers










That was irony if you couldn't tell.

I know perfectly well what irony is, as I said I don't need hypocrites and clowns to tell me. Lol at you calling other people tools, when you're one of the biggest tools around.

LMAO

No, you don't, muppet.

 

[Pioneer]

There's a lot of Nadal hate in this thread. Especially by Federer fanboys who still think Federer will beat Nadal at Wimbledon 2011

 

[Messarger]

Uhm, why is everyone assuming that Nadal will play his current game on the 80s/90s Wimbledon grass?

 

[Xemi666]

LMAO

No, you don't, muppet.

This post is not surprising, you can't even see the irony in this, your own post :lol: I'm glad you don't dispute my other statements and accept you're a clown though, that's refreshing.

 

[mtr1]

It was not a critic directed at you, it's a legitimate question as you said. However a lot of the responses, from the usual suspects, are just another thinly veiled attempt to downplay Nadal's achievements, the same that happened when Nadal won USO and many of the same people were saying "Safin would have destroyed Nadal at USO!" for no other reason than frustration at Nadal owning them again.

Aphex for instance, is one of those clowns that constantly insult and downgrade Nadal, pretty pathetic if you ask me. There are many players I'm not a fan of, but I don't go around insulting them because it's pathetic and childish. Some people should learn to just enjoy tennis, instead of talking trash at every opportunity.

Thank you for the sophisticated response, I therefore retract my "troll" comment.

 

[The-Champ]

How would you rate Federer's serve, out of curiosity? How do you think he would do against players with overpowering serve?

Federer has a great serve, but inconsistent. He rarely serves well against Nadal for instance.


Federer returns better against big servers than Nadal, so I have no doubt he would be winning wimbledons in any era.

 

[mtr1]

Looking at some of the responses, there are a few that agree with my initial ideas. I would say out of all of the champions, I would back Edberg, McEnroe and Sampras to beat Nadal every time in a Wimbledon final.
I would favour Nadal over Agassi, but give a slight edge to others, to beat Nadal more than 50% of the time.

 

[The-Champ]

This is an easy question. Nadal would destroy Borg, because they're both fast and excellent baseliners but Nadal has got the firepower while Borg is a little bit weaker.

Borg was a very smart player and rushes the net when opportunity presents itself. If Nadal kills him from the baseline he would rush the net and make Rafa pass him like a million times. That would be a dream match.

 

[The-Champ]

Uhm, why is everyone assuming that Nadal will play his current game on the 80s/90s Wimbledon grass?

exactly, Rafa would not have those 5000rpms forehands.