aphex
Banned
I don't need to. You just expose yourself more and more everytime you post. I can just wait and watch yourself selfdestruct
You really are dumber than a bag of hammers...
I'm done trying to teach you what irony is...bye-bye
Which 80's/90's Wimbledon Champions would you back Nadal to beat?
- Thread starter mtr1
- Start date
You really are dumber than a bag of hammers...
I'm done trying to teach you what irony is...bye-bye
Your poll needed an option - 'None of the above'
On pre-2002 Grass - I think Nadal might beat Cash and Connors but probably not and that's it.
Its incorrect to say the grass has slowed slightly. It has slowed considerably! I remember Tim Henman's comments in 2002 that the Grass had slowed down enormously.
On pre-2002 Grass - I think Nadal might beat Cash and Connors but probably not and that's it.
Its incorrect to say the grass has slowed slightly. It has slowed considerably! I remember Tim Henman's comments in 2002 that the Grass had slowed down enormously.
abmk
Bionic Poster
that is so no true, he normally serves well against nadal - perhaps the AO 2009 F has created this myth ......
he served brilliantly against him in rome 2006,wimbledon 2006,wimbledon 2007, TMC 2007,wimbledon 2008 etc ... just on top of my head
ksbh
Banned
LOL! It's been over 2 years now but the Federer lovers can't get over Wimbeldon 2008?!
The-Champ
Legend
my bad, you're right, I've just checked the stats. AO was horrible serving from him, other than that he served well.
Xemi666
Professional
So, if Nadal handled Fed's serve well enough to win Wimbledon against him, how do you figure he couldn't beat big servers?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Where's the option for "None of the Above"?
mtr1
Professional
The poll only allows 10 options, and there are 10 champions. If you think "none of the above" state why in your post.
Yes, and Borg played S&V to do it.
President of Serve/Volley
Semi-Pro
Pete Sampras would beat Nadal in any form, on old grass..
I am surprised by the lack of votes (figured he would be way ahead) I mean, if he was in the zone, like 1997 and 1999, he would kill anyone that ever played Wimbledon.
I am surprised by the lack of votes (figured he would be way ahead) I mean, if he was in the zone, like 1997 and 1999, he would kill anyone that ever played Wimbledon.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um....Borg won 5 Wimbledons by SERVING AND VOLLEYING! Get your facts straight.
That's what made Borg so much more amazing than Nadal. Borg won 6 French Opens by grinding endless rallies from the baseline and then a mere two weeks later, he transformed himself into a serve and volleyer and won 5 Wimbledons. Nadal, on the other hand, plays the same baseline game at both the French and at Wimbledon and never had to transform his entire game to win, thanks to the new grass, the modern racquets and strings, and the dearth of serve and volley competitors left in the game.
Last edited:
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
These Young boys have never really seen Pete play. Hence why Agassi somehow has as many votes.
aphex
Banned
*******s started watching tennis when they first got horny with Nadal's muscles. Fact.
they're not all 16 year old girls you know..
kiki
Banned
In old grass, not today´s, and with equal equipment, he´d lose 8 out of 10 times to most of them.Probably could win 4 out of 6 vs Cash,Connors and Krajicek and could be on equal terms with Agassi.
He would lose most of his matches against other guys like Ashe and Newcombe, and would might be win 1-2 out of 10 vs Laver
Roger No.1
Rookie
Thats what I meant - on old grass, if he went back in time 20 years and had to use that technology. I would guess Cash of 87 would beat Nadal the same way he beat Lendl.
Other players you mention: Ashe, Laver, Newcombe are from 60s and 70s and we are talking about 80s/90s.
mtr1
Professional
The title of the poll is who you would back Nadal to beat, not who would beat Nadal. Sorry if it is confusing.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
oh yes, that would be lovely as well... i've got to admit that watching a lumberjack getting chainsawed into bits is such a delightful pleasure !!!
(especially by an elegant player as edberg)
Last edited:
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
1980: Bjorn Borg Def Rafael Nadal: Bjorn Borg was at his best that day....and even an inspired McEnroe couldn't seal the deal...I wouldn't expect a Nadal who is a junior in every aspect of Borg beat Borg.
1981: Rafael Nadal def John McEnroe: John McEnroe wasn't that great that day to watch, Rafa at his best would defeat him in 4
1982: Jimmy Connors def Rafael Nadal: Jimmy Connors was enticing to watch against McEnroe that day...I can't give Nadal the chance agianst someone who fights as hard as him but has a better grass game!
1983 & 84: John McEnroe was peerless in 1984 and 83 he was in fine form....in that form I would only give Federer or Borg to beat him. Nadal would be lucky to get 5 games from the 1984 version.
1985 & 1986: Rafael Nadal Def Boris Becker: Becker again was inspiring power player who emerged out of nowhere and I really think he could win but Rafa 2010 or 2008 would be too much for him.
1987: Rafael Nadal def Pat Cash: No explanations needed.
1988 & 1990 : Edberg Def Nadal: No chance for Nadal to win with Edberg S&V game. He beat legends like Becker, McEnroe along the way and Miroslav Mecir was a find player himself. Judging by that form...no chance for Nadal.
1989: Becker Def Nadal: Becker was peerless that year and should have beaten Edberg at FO and go on to win it. He won Wimby and US open this year....his best year....and I don't think Rafa can't handle him this year.
1991: Rafael Nadal def Micheal Stich: Didn't want to see Stich def Becker saw the semi vs Edberg...I just think that Stich would be overwhelmed by the ocassion since his win was agianst an unspired Becker!
1992: Rafael Nadal def Andre Agassi: Nadal is better user of the court than Ivanisevic....he would outplay Agassi from the baseline even though Agassi is better hitter!
1993,94,95,97,98,99: Pete Sampras Def Rafael Nadal: Pete Sampras would be too much For nadal with his capable Baseline game, and S&V.
1996: Kracijek def Nadal: Kracijek beat Sampras at his best,,,,,No doubt he would be Nadal. He has the best mix of game and that 2 weeks he was a beast.
2000: Rafael Nadal def Pete Sampras: Sampras was weak that year and he was shooken by Rafter in the first set. Sampras was lucky that Rafter went away after the second set. That won't happen with Nadal plus Sampras is older now...I would say Nadal in 5!
1981: Rafael Nadal def John McEnroe: John McEnroe wasn't that great that day to watch, Rafa at his best would defeat him in 4
1982: Jimmy Connors def Rafael Nadal: Jimmy Connors was enticing to watch against McEnroe that day...I can't give Nadal the chance agianst someone who fights as hard as him but has a better grass game!
1983 & 84: John McEnroe was peerless in 1984 and 83 he was in fine form....in that form I would only give Federer or Borg to beat him. Nadal would be lucky to get 5 games from the 1984 version.
1985 & 1986: Rafael Nadal Def Boris Becker: Becker again was inspiring power player who emerged out of nowhere and I really think he could win but Rafa 2010 or 2008 would be too much for him.
1987: Rafael Nadal def Pat Cash: No explanations needed.
1988 & 1990 : Edberg Def Nadal: No chance for Nadal to win with Edberg S&V game. He beat legends like Becker, McEnroe along the way and Miroslav Mecir was a find player himself. Judging by that form...no chance for Nadal.
1989: Becker Def Nadal: Becker was peerless that year and should have beaten Edberg at FO and go on to win it. He won Wimby and US open this year....his best year....and I don't think Rafa can't handle him this year.
1991: Rafael Nadal def Micheal Stich: Didn't want to see Stich def Becker saw the semi vs Edberg...I just think that Stich would be overwhelmed by the ocassion since his win was agianst an unspired Becker!
1992: Rafael Nadal def Andre Agassi: Nadal is better user of the court than Ivanisevic....he would outplay Agassi from the baseline even though Agassi is better hitter!
1993,94,95,97,98,99: Pete Sampras Def Rafael Nadal: Pete Sampras would be too much For nadal with his capable Baseline game, and S&V.
1996: Kracijek def Nadal: Kracijek beat Sampras at his best,,,,,No doubt he would be Nadal. He has the best mix of game and that 2 weeks he was a beast.
2000: Rafael Nadal def Pete Sampras: Sampras was weak that year and he was shooken by Rafter in the first set. Sampras was lucky that Rafter went away after the second set. That won't happen with Nadal plus Sampras is older now...I would say Nadal in 5!
mtr1
Professional
The-Champ
Legend
Because Nadal would have to come up with extremely well placed returns against big servers like Pete or Krajicek who rush the net after every big serve.
namelessone
Legend
I just love this comparisons, even though you can't really say what would happen for sure.
Now we are comparing Nadal, a guy who played on grasscourts where the bounce is higher and in the polystring era and thus is a product of the modern era of tennis against the old S&V players on old grass(their turf)? Now that's not giving Nadal a fair chance, is it? It's like taking one of the oldie S&V'ers and putting them on today's slower courts with the early graphite raquets. Each guy(Nadal on old faster courts and old S&V'ers on today's slower courts) would get beat pretty badly because they DO NOT FIT in that era, their training is for their respective era.
Let's take Nadal. When Nadal grew up playing tennis surfaces were still pretty fast. In fact very young Nadal loved faster courts as he didn't have his grinding style yet, he just hit hard of the forehand side and that was pretty much it, in fact at 15 he said that he loved playing more indoors and grass than on clay. But put Nadal in the 70's or 80's. Would Tony pick a grinding style for him if he wanted his nephew to win WB one day? Would he pick a more defensive style when grass was the main surface on tour? Even the guys that did very well on clay like Nastase and Vilas had good and sometimes excellent results on grass. Nadal could have been a very offensive minded player IMO but his uncle chose consistency. And with the slowing down of some courts because people didn't want to see servefests, it worked in Nadal's favour.
And you can basically adapt this model to everyone in history. Edberg, a prominent S&V'er said, if I remember correctly, that he definitely wouldn't come in as much today as he did in the past and he stated the technical details of why he would do that. Had Edberg born in the modern era, we probably wouldn't have seen a S&V Edberg or if we did see him, he would be a sort of llodra, hanging around the top but not being a top player.
Volleying was easier in the past, it's tough to dig extremely spinny balls from your shins all the time not to mention the fact that you can't get to the net fast enough nowadays cause most courts work against a big serving game.
On old surfaces, guys with the training of their times would beat Nadal(all conditions favour them).
On the new surfaces, Nadal will get them most times IMO(most conditions would favour Nadal).
Watch some Sampras matches from the 90's and tell me how the hell could Pete do that today. Before he could reach the net the ball would already be at his feet, at least at most tournaments, with the exception of WB(yes, I can believe S&V is still quite do-able at WB today) and a couple of indoor tournaments.
Now we are comparing Nadal, a guy who played on grasscourts where the bounce is higher and in the polystring era and thus is a product of the modern era of tennis against the old S&V players on old grass(their turf)? Now that's not giving Nadal a fair chance, is it? It's like taking one of the oldie S&V'ers and putting them on today's slower courts with the early graphite raquets. Each guy(Nadal on old faster courts and old S&V'ers on today's slower courts) would get beat pretty badly because they DO NOT FIT in that era, their training is for their respective era.
Let's take Nadal. When Nadal grew up playing tennis surfaces were still pretty fast. In fact very young Nadal loved faster courts as he didn't have his grinding style yet, he just hit hard of the forehand side and that was pretty much it, in fact at 15 he said that he loved playing more indoors and grass than on clay. But put Nadal in the 70's or 80's. Would Tony pick a grinding style for him if he wanted his nephew to win WB one day? Would he pick a more defensive style when grass was the main surface on tour? Even the guys that did very well on clay like Nastase and Vilas had good and sometimes excellent results on grass. Nadal could have been a very offensive minded player IMO but his uncle chose consistency. And with the slowing down of some courts because people didn't want to see servefests, it worked in Nadal's favour.
And you can basically adapt this model to everyone in history. Edberg, a prominent S&V'er said, if I remember correctly, that he definitely wouldn't come in as much today as he did in the past and he stated the technical details of why he would do that. Had Edberg born in the modern era, we probably wouldn't have seen a S&V Edberg or if we did see him, he would be a sort of llodra, hanging around the top but not being a top player.
Volleying was easier in the past, it's tough to dig extremely spinny balls from your shins all the time not to mention the fact that you can't get to the net fast enough nowadays cause most courts work against a big serving game.
On old surfaces, guys with the training of their times would beat Nadal(all conditions favour them).
On the new surfaces, Nadal will get them most times IMO(most conditions would favour Nadal).
Watch some Sampras matches from the 90's and tell me how the hell could Pete do that today. Before he could reach the net the ball would already be at his feet, at least at most tournaments, with the exception of WB(yes, I can believe S&V is still quite do-able at WB today) and a couple of indoor tournaments.
aphex
Banned
haha very funny :evil:
Pwned
Hall of Fame
The POG has been used by many pros up until the last few years. Some may even still use it. Contracts are probably the reason they don't. The racquet hasn't changed much. Nadal could play just as well with a POG OS.
Roger No.1
Rookie
I think in 86 Becker would beat Nadal,
In 1991 Stich would beat him too - he was in amazing form.
And in 1992 Agassi would win because he could take the ball on a rise - on faster grass its an advantage.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
Nadal could beat anyone on the list or anyone that's ever played the game, period. He could also lose to them. The point being that he could and would give any of those players a good match. I would also say that it's not enough to have them go one match to "determine" the outcome. Best of five, maybe.
Roger No.1
Rookie
Don't forget Nadal would have to play with 80's racuet, and if he played with wood like Borg - then forget it, he'd have no chance. One of his big weapons is his power and topspin which wouldn't be possible with an old racquet/ old strings.
kiki
Banned
This is the reason why, if we have to choose a GOAT, we have to go for the guy who would to very well, mixing up strings,surfaces and other conditions.Those who better adapt, survive.I think Federer has the game to be an all time great in this mixture, so does Laver.Borg and Sampras, as well as Nadal,Agassi,Mc and Connors, if we could create this " perfect mixture" i mentioned, would always contend, but I do nto think they´d prevail.Neither would Wilander.probably Becker and Edberg would be somewhat very close to Sampras and Borg.
But this would be a very difficult " relativisation " job to do
Similar threads
