How many Wimbledon titles would Nadal have won in the 1990s?

Nadal and Djokovic are sometimes thought of as similar players. Both very fast, athletic, physically fit and strong in addition to being good tennis players.

However, there are some fundamental differences between them. It's difficult to imagine Djokovic being as dominant on any surface as Nadal has been on clay.

Conversely, it is perfectly possible to imagine Djokovic winning a Wimbledon in the 1990s. He seems more adaptable than Nadal. He can play like Nadal against nadal (defensive) and like Federer against Federer (aggressive).

This brings me to a hypothetical question. Would Nadal have won Wimbers in the 1990s? Or would he have been a bit clueless against the big servers and the serve and volley game? Would people have easily dismissed his top spin based game on the then fast and low bouncing grass? I can't think of too many baseliners who were not flat hitters winning Wimbledon.

Your point? It is akin to saying how many Wimbledon titles would Pete Zamora have won in the 2010's. Like I said differing court speeds favour different players and that is the way it has always been.

Of all the hypothetical questions on all the forums in all the world, this one walks into mine.

Julius - bad luck!

TA - I think it is another one of those unknowables. Maybe Rafa's style of play doesn't look as if it would have handled the fast grass of the W of the 1990s well, but I don't think you can ever underestimate a champion's heart or, in this case, Rafa's very considerable returning skills.

Having said that, many truly believe that Sampras is the greatest grass court player of them all with a game ideally adapted for W. I don't think I could bet against Pete in this instance, but of course Rafa would have had a very comprehensive revenge on clay in these hypothetical contests imo.

I think Nadal would have enjoyed the clay in the 1990s even more. Can't see who would have stopped him. He is much more aggressive on clay than people like Bruguera or Wilander.

Where is the poll?


It's clear ...a fat 0 and he would not have past teh 1/4F.

When he reached his first final in 2006...he could have been lost v Querrey....and will most likely have lost on fast grass. So that 6 matches of experience wasted for the next year. Then he woudl have lost v Yousny in 2007, then Gulbis, Petchner etc....

If Nadal coudl not win Cincy and the USO when it was relatively fast, no way he woudl have made an impact on the very fast and low bouncing SW19.

Tennisanorak wrote:I think Nadal would have enjoyed the clay in the 1990s even more. Can't see who would have stopped him. He is much more aggressive on clay than people like Bruguera or Wilander.

I am not sure about that at all. In 1990 we woudl have had to play with natural gut strings....meaning his topspin would have lost considerable power and would have had no choice but to hit flatter which would have helped his opponent immensely.

Remember in the 90s hard hitters wee often winning at the FO and Edberg a SVer almsot won it. Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Medvedev were ruling. Of course we had teh bruguera, muster period but frankly there were not facing anyone as good as Federer on clay!

Federer has been so close to Nadal on clay in 99% of their matches, even if falling on the wrong side, that I think any slight disadvantage from Nadal, here the new strings missing, woudl have shifted the balance in Federer's favour.

I reckon Nadal would have been a better player without Tony, he'd be right-handed, he's fast, quite strong so wouldn't have a problem playing SBH...
THAT Nadal would've been a lot more interesting....

I don't think Nadal woudl have been that strong without Toni and his team. That was Toni's plan to bet everything on Nadal's fitness.

Tenez wrote:I don't think Nadal woudl have been that strong without Toni and his team. That was Toni's plan to bet everything on Nadal's fitness.

He'd probably be similar to Murray but with a much better mental mindset

Lets not forget Nadal has won Queens which is much quicker than Wimbledon, beating Karlovic along the way. Nadal is a highly adaptive player (he's shown that), and he would have made some different approaches in the 90s had he been raised then. We have to remember his movement and footwork on grass is amazing....you dont get to just about every final since 2007 at Wimbledon without being pretty adept on the surface. Agassi did pretty well on grass in the 90s with an essentially baseline game and a poorish serve...Nadal has a lefty serve, decent return game, but is much better mover, player of shots on the run, and around the net than Agassi was...so no reason why if Agassi won one and got to another final Nadal couldnt have done similar.
I dont buy all this stuff about Nadal being nothing without Toni, coaches often get too much credit for the natural ability the players have within them, especially mental abilities. Coaches show players the best way but its only the players that make the difference and apply themselves...otherwise we'd have millions of amazing players around the world given the popularity of tennis. Its only the ones with true talent that rise to the top. How many other Toni's are there around the world with a youngster who is 'just' effectively average and will never break into the even the Futures tour no matter how much coaching they get? That Nadal broke onto the ATP tour at age of 16 beating top 100 guys didnt have much to do with fitness either.

But hey, this forum usually seeks to denigrate just about every aspect of Nadal's attributes, game and success so its not surprising to read the same thing over and over...

lydian wrote:Lets not forget Nadal has won Queens which is much quicker than Wimbledon, beating Karlovic along the way. ...

It's not really. They use the same fluffy balls.

But not the same grass.

Tennisanorak wrote:How many Wimbledon titles would Nadal have won in the 1990s?

I'm not sure. I figure it has to be a number between zero and ten. However, since Nadal was four in 1990 and 13 in 1999, I don't think he would have been physically strong enough to have won.

lydian wrote:But not the same grass.

Frankly the grass is hardly relevant. It doesn;t grow with little hands catching the fur on the balls.

Hasn't Murray and Hewitt won it twice each? Murray says that slower conds suit him better. He never won Wimbledon afa I know.

Nadal would have won the most bagelled awards at Wimbledon in the 90's.

Being serious though I think he would his maximum in 90's tennis would be a rare run to the semi's, with mostly 3rd round appearances.

If we are talking about playing in 90s conditions with 90s equipment, he'd have struggled to get deep in the tournament with his current tactics - OK, Agassi won from the baseline, but that was because of his ability to take the ball early and aggressively. Nadal's game is more akin to Courier's (although with perhaps slightly more variety), and JC managed a best of one final, one QF and a couple 4th rounds.

Of course, Rafa would still be great on clay and on slower hard courts in 90s conditions, and the unknowable is whether his technique and tactics would have changed. His serve now is efficient but still usually high %, whereas with the then-present conditions he might have needed (and been willing) to go for more power with less margin of safety. Also, he can play from the baseline, but usually choses to play from deeper - different conditions could have led to altered tactics, and may have seen him handle the faster conditions better than some on here think.

Tenez wrote: It doesn;t grow with little hands catching the fur on the balls.

Thanks for the patronising tone, always a pleasure.