boris becker 1 said:
and to these so called Nadal fans who are 16 years old. Bruguera in his prime would have wiped the floor with Nadal on clay
Actually, though a lot would say Nadal's best would beat Bruguera's best; I'm not so sure.
Bruguera to me was a lot more talented than given credit for, and I think a lot of it is because most never saw him except a few matches here or there.
He won more points than Sampras in every match they ever played, including on super fast indoors; and had he been in any kind of shape, he would have defeated Sampras that one time he lost to him at the French. He beat Rafter at Wimbledon pulling serve and volley out of his hat back when grass played like grass. He had Becker on the ropes, very nearly beating him in straight sets at the year ending championship semis in Germany when the courts were actually fast. When Korda won the Grand Slam Cup on super fast indoors in heroic fashion against Sampras and Stich in the semis, he also barely survived Bruguera in the quarters.
This is a guy whose forehand was even more western than Nadal's, yet he's beaten a guy like Krajicek in straight sets indoors when they were actually fast. Beat a FIRED up Leconte at the Paris Indoors with one of the most amazing crowd supports for a single player you'll ever see, and though Leconte was old and sucky by this point, that was not the case in this ONE *isolated* match, Leconte played brilliantly this match.
Bruguera himself pointed something out when a person asked him why he wasn't very good outside clay. He said that you have to realize that he NEVER played on hard courts until he was 18 at the US Open. Do people even understand what kind of disadvantage that is? Bruguera said that had he grown up later, his game would have developed differently and it would have been different. I think he's got a legitimate point that no one ever recognizes or brings up when traditionalist talk about oh how the claycourters don't have "real" talent whatever that means.
He also had soft hands. He hit two of the most acutely angled backhand passing shots I've ever seen against Pioline and Medvedev. He hit two of the most "that's *really* spectacular" FEATHERED acutely angled running forehand topspin passes you'll ever see against Muster in the Lipton finals, and he did it two points in a row at a point in the match where was clearly tanking and out of gas so it wasn't a fluke, that's natural talent.
In the Leconte Paris Indoors match, he out Leconted Leconte a few times with cat and mouse, TOUCH, style tennis, even Leconte clapped after these points.
Against Courier in a seniors tour final on clay, he *toyed* with a much more serious Courier by playing a style totally different from his typical style on tour. Instead of trying to bash heavy top, he plays like Santoro and salt and peppers drop shots, short angled forehands, and drop volleys with near 100% winning percentage. And yet, at Wimbledon he did much the same thing against Rafter. He could pull a rabbit out of his hat without much notice, why? Because he had natural talent, he wasn't as rigid as a Courier. Courier trained to be a machine. Bruguera tried to immitate a machine, but really he was more of a washing machine with on and off rinse cycles and absent-mindedness.
His backhand pass was very good. He actually played right on top of the baseline against Sampras and Becker on even very fast indoors and returned their serves about as well as you could off that side. It was his forehand chip that was the problem, and yet against guys who came in it wasn't a bad play. Nadal is more like Muster in that he'll stand back to get the full swing in.
Bruguera's problems were two-fold. Injuries and a lack of mental commitment. He was known to tank whenever he didn't feel well, even within the same match, you'd see him just go through the motions quite often, and really he was a guy who picked his spots for when to give it his all.
Nadal gives it his all 110% of the time like Muster, but this does not mean that Bruguera's 110% effort level would not be able to match Muster or Nadal's.
He was very fast too, Krajicek said that he "couldn't believe how fast" he was actually. He had good length, reach. Had soft hands for extreme angles and drop volleys. His backhand return was excellent. His serve was not great, but it was not horrible either; he could spot it well. He could generate extreme topspin off BOTH sides. Everyone talks about his forehand being famous for spin, yet I've also seen him mix in some of the highest bouncing topspin backhands you'll ever see. His backhand was more versatile than Nadal's, period. Nadal actually has a fairly flat backhand, and the trajectory doesn't change much. Bruguera took Sampras apart with this shot alone at the 97 Lipton semis, yet not with any single type of backhand shot, but rather with a VARIETY of backhand shots from high topspin, to flat sting rays, to running approaches Bjorkman style, to acute angled passes, and so forth.
His forehand he could hit as huge as anyone when he wanted too as well, not just topspin. But as for his ability to manipulate all kinds of topspin off this side, I think it's unparalleled...he could flick hard and heavy topspin, moonball topspin, feathered dipping angles, literally any kind or degree of topspin modulated all with the flick of a wrist it seemed.
Talented player? I think so, but not a day in, day out type player either. As Courier said about him and the level of effort he gave at the US Open, "the boy tanked, just say it, the boy tanked."
A Bruguera playing as if his life was on the line, if that was the stipulation? AND he was up against Nadal; whoever loses, you die? THEN, I think Bruguera's got a real shot, because I think a lot of the things Nadal can do, Bruguera could do just as well when he was giving it his all. The difference though to me was that Bruguera had softer hands. And the thing is when you evaluate a guy like Nadal, you have to realize that he's the type who plays EVERY match and EVERY single point like his life is on the line. For most players, you can't ask them to do that because mentally they simply don't have that kind of energy or desire in them. Nadal can't suddenly "elevate" his energy over what he normally does for this match since you can't elevate on 110%. Whereas a guy like Bruguera's typical level cannot help but elevate in this kind of format.
Remember, Buguera said that he hated playing Muster more than anyone and that Muster owned him. He also said that they played basically the same except that he had maybe a little more touch (probably a nice, PC way of saying he thought he had more talent than him); BUT that the difference he thought was that Muster was always superior to him in terms of FITNESS. Nadal has that and "heart" over Bruguera just like Muster did, but otherwise I always thought of Nadal as kind of like the perfect meshing of Muster and Bruguera.
He has a little more of the natural talent and softer hands and natural speed/length of Bruguera; but with the determination, killer instinct, fitness, RELENTLESSNESS point-in, point-out, match-in, match-out of a Muster.
I think Bruguera had the more varied backhand and slightly softer hands though than Nadal, i.e. a little more ability to come up with shoe string "whimsical" type shots.
And Muster was less prone to getting tight in the clutch compared to Nadal (Nadal looked *very* shaky at points in the Wimbledon final when he had his chances I thought). Muster was like Seles, a natural born assassin in the clutch, whereas Nadal is OVERALL clutch, but you get the feeling that it's his heart in the end that saves him from failing in the clutch rather than natural born cold-bloodedness like a Seles or Muster.
Also, I think Nadal is fit, but it IS possible for him to get tired whereas with Muster that wasn't even a question. Muster was all-time maniacal when it comes to fitness in my opinion, and I don't think anyone's ever topped him at his peak fitness. The guy was simply a MANIC machine with an infinite battery.
Overall, Nadal is WITHOUT A DOUBT a better player than both Muster and Bruguera *day in day out* for the above reasons. But in any single one match with the stipulation being that their lives were on the line, I think both these guys would have at least a 50/50 *if not better* chance of beating Nadal also for the same reasons.
.
