Started By
Message

re: Will the fact Nadal has trouble winning on grass affect his legacy?

Posted on 7/8/14 at 8:12 pm to
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
53243 posts
Posted on 7/8/14 at 8:12 pm to
quote:

Borg's US Open final losses were all on green clay. Back then, it really wasnt a true third surface.

I don't think so. Anything at the end of the 1970's and early 1980's was Flushing Meadows hardcourts. But it does bring up some good points. I think Laver would have won 20 majors if he could have played in majors most of the 1960's, but how much did he pad his numbers with three majors on grass? Would Pete have even more with three majors on grass? I argue no, because he won five US Opens, anyway, but maybe he would have a couple of more Aussies. How would Sampras do on Wimbledon grass post-2002? How would Nadal do on 1990's Wimbledon grass? How would Nadal do without poly strings? How would Borg do with poly strings? All things to think about.
This post was edited on 7/8/14 at 8:24 pm
Posted by Roscoe
Member since Sep 2007
2913 posts
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:14 pm to
quote:

Will the fact Nadal has trouble winning on grass affect his legacy? but why didn't he win a us open? ... guy was incredible, but he never won a us open, which is the 3rd surface (unless i'm mistaken) ... admittedly, i'm not a tennis player, but i enjoyed watching the big swede run around on sunday mornings in the finals ... his record is unique, to say the least ...


You are right. Only one of his finals losses was on clay. Nevertheless, he still couldn't win it during the three tears it was played on clay.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram