PDA

View Full Version : In reality Is Nadal the greatest 21 year old ever?


Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 01:57 PM
Sure Borg may have won more....but Borg did not have to contend with the like of Roger Federer or the man with the fastest serve on earth Andy Roddick or the legend Agassi and Sampras killers Hewitt and Safin.

psamp14
06-10-2007, 01:59 PM
nadal is arguably the greatest 21 year old tennis player ever...i would argue on his side for sure...

borg did compete with many other top tier players, but i dont think he faced a player in his finals of the caliber of roger federer....

to beat federer, twice in 2 consecutive finals...unbelievable..

fastest serve andy roddick and sampras killers hewitt/safin are irrelevant

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 02:13 PM
sampras killers hewitt/safin are irrelevant


well...they did beat Pete. and you forgot about Agassi.

psamp14
06-10-2007, 02:16 PM
hewitt's 5-4 record over sampras and safin's similar record make them "sampras killers"?

sure they beat sampras at the us open back to back years in the finals...but this is a 30 year old sampras versus 20 year olds

nadal played agassi only twice...and the time they played at wimbledon....agassi was basically in the retiring mode...

even if you take my arguments into consideration, nadal is still arguably the greatest 21 year old in tennis history based on competition with federer

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:26 PM
Nadal, Becker, Borg were all multiple major champions at 21.

Borg won his second Wimbledon at 21, but probably didn't reach the next stage of greatness until the fall of '77 where he had an amazing indoor season, winning pretty much every title in sight (it was an unusually buzy fall for him and he typically skipped much of the indoor season in later years). He did lose in the masters cup to Connors to close out the year and skipped the Aussie.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 02:29 PM
Hell no. Borg and Wilander had way tougher competition and still achieved more by around the time they turned 21 then Nadal has. As all 3 were born in the summer June-August period you can compare closely to around the point they turn 21 too. Nadal's bigger titles are all on clay, nowhere else. So you only evaluate his competition on clay alone. On clay he faces Federer, but on Federer's worst surface; and nobody else that good on clay.

Borg faced much tougher clay competition then Nadal does with Vilas, Panatta, and Nastase, all better then Federer on clay, and much tougher then anyone today outside Federer on clay. On grass where Borg had also won 2 Wimbledons by that age Borg faced Connors, Nastase, Gerulatis, and Tanner; again much tougher competition then Nadal has on clay.

Wilander won his 4th slam title, 1 more then Nadal the summer of 85, just before he turned 21. Like Borg his slams were at 2 different events, on 2 different surfaces, 2 Aussies on grass and 2 French Opens on clay, unlike Nadal. Wilander also faced much tougher competition on those surfaces then Nadal does on the only surface you evaulate the competition of his bigger wins-clay. On clay Mats faced Lendl, for a bit Vilas, and Noah. The first year Mats won the Australian he beat both Lendl and McEnroe.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:34 PM
Hell no. Borg and Wilander had way tougher competition and still achieved more by around the time they turned 21 then Nadal has. As all 3 were born in the summer June-August period you can compare closely to around the point they turn 21 too. Nadal's bigger titles are all on clay, nowhere else. So you only evaluate his competition on clay alone. On clay he faces Federer, but on Federer's worst surface; and nobody else that good on clay.

Borg faced much tougher clay competition then Nadal does with Vilas, Panatta, and Nastase, all better then Federer on clay, and much tougher then anyone today outside Federer on clay. On grass where Borg had also won 2 Wimbledons by that age Borg faced Connors, Nastase, Gerulatis, and Tanner; again much tougher competition then Nadal has on clay.

Wilander won his 4th slam title, 1 more then Nadal the summer of 85, just before he turned 21. Like Borg his slams were at 2 different events, on 2 different surfaces, 2 Aussies on grass and 2 French Opens on clay, unlike Nadal. Wilander also faced much tougher competition on those surfaces then Nadal does on the only surface you evaulate the competition of his bigger wins-clay. On clay Mats faced Lendl, for a bit Vilas, and Noah. The first year Mats won the Australian he beat both Lendl and McEnroe.

I think it's closer than you think. Nadal does have some very good hardcourt results and is a Wimbledon finalist. Even his clay accomplishments alone is gobsmacking - the MC/Rome/RG combo three years in a row.

I admit that you have a point about his competition on clay. It stinks.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 02:36 PM
I think it's closer than you think. Nadal does have some very good hardcourt results and is a Wimbledon finalist. Even his clay accomplishments alone is gobsmacking - the MC/Rome/RG combo three years in a row.

I admit that you have a point about his competition on clay. It stinks.

The slams are what matter though and Nadal has never been even past the quarters of a hard court slam, he doesnt even have semi or final losses to show for at this point. His Wimbledon final is his only other final or semi in a slam outside the French at the time of his 21st birthday.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:41 PM
The slams are what matter though and Nadal has never been even past the quarters of a hard court slam, he doesnt even have semi or final losses to show for at this point. His Wimbledon final is his only other final or semi in a slam outside the French at the time of his 21st birthday.

I don't think Slams are the only thing that matters. Definitely not when looking at a 21-year old. Besides we don't know what he'll do in the upcoming two slams this year. As far as we're concerned his slam results last year were applicable to his 20th year of age, not 21st.

Let's wait until September. I admit that I find the US Open hardcourt ill-suited for Rafa's style.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 02:49 PM
I don't think Slams are the only thing that matters. Definitely not when looking at a 21-year old. Besides we don't know what he'll do in the upcoming two slams this year. As far as we're concerned his slam results last year were applicable to his 20th year of age, not 21st.

Let's wait until September. I admit that I find the US Open hardcourt ill-suited for Rafa's style.

Well I am comparing him to Borg and Wilander at the point they each turned 21, since Nadal just turned 21. I did not even look at what Borg and Wilander did in the year betweeen turning 21 and 22 either to be fair. I agree depending what happens before he turns 22, you could re-evaulate a comparision between Borg and Wilander. However that is in the future, as of now that is what Nadal has done, and that is exactly how it compares to guys like Borg and Wilander. What will happen in the next year while he is still 21 hasnt happened yet, whatever that is.

Slams are what matters the most by far. Especialy today when it is extremely clear the 4 slams are the most important events. That was not as much the case in the days of Borg and Wilander, and they still manage to clearly surpass Nadal in slam results by this age. There was not a circuit of 9Masters events a year then like today so I am not sure how you compare events like that.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 02:52 PM
Hell no. Borg and Wilander had way tougher competition and still achieved more by around the time they turned 21 then Nadal has.


Greater competiton than Federer? Who?

Borgs greatest competiton was Mcenroe (Lendl was still a rookie).

Wilander lost to Noah at the French. I don't think you can compare Noah to Federer?

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:54 PM
Well I am comparing him to Borg and Wilander at the point they each turned 21, since Nadal just turned 21. I did not even look at what Borg and Wilander did in the year betweeen turning 21 and 22 either to be fair. I agree depending what happens before he turns 22, you could re-evaulate a comparision between Borg and Wilander. However that is in the future, as of now that is what Nadal has done, and that is exactly how it compares to guys like Borg and Wilander. What will happen in the next year while he is still 21 hasnt happened yet, whatever that is.

Slams are what matters the most by far. Especialy today when it is extremely clear the 4 slams are the most important events. That was not as much the case in the days of Borg and Wilander, and they still manage to clearly surpass Nadal in slam results by this age. There was not a circuit of 9Masters events a year then like today so I am not sure how you compare events like that.

There was a good thread somewhere, may have been on the former pros board, that compared old events to the masters tourneys of today. Some that would qualify from 30 years ago for example are Boston, Wembley, Dallas, Philadelphia and the usual Monte Carlo/Rome/Canada. It's all very interesting.

ACE of Hearts
06-10-2007, 02:57 PM
If Nadal is playing and getting results at 25 or 26, then u might have a point.He needs to win something other then the FO.I wanna see him try and get 6 FO titles.I dont know if Nadal will be effective when he turns 25 or 26.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 03:03 PM
If Nadal is playing and getting results at 25 or 26, then u might have a point.He needs to win something other then the FO.I wanna see him try and get 6 FO titles.I dont know if Nadal will be effective when he turns 25 or 26.

but this thread is about being the greatest 21 year old ever and not the greatest 25 or 26 year old ever.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 03:04 PM
Greater competiton than Federer? Who?

Borgs greatest competiton was Mcenroe (Lendl was still a rookie).

Wilander lost to Noah at the French. I don't think you can compare Noah to Federer?

Nadals biggest titles are on clay only. So you only evaulate Federer on clay, and the rest of Nadals competition on clay.

Like I said Borg faced Panatta, Vilas, and Nastase on clay where he won 2 of his 4 slam titles at that point. All 3 of those are better then Federer on clay, and much better then whoever you consider the other top clay courters of today are(it is hard to even decide who they are which says something). Borg faced Connors and Nastase on grass, both better on grass then Federer on clay; as well as Tanner and Gerulatis on grass, both better then whoever you consider the 3rd-5th best clay courters today.

Wilander faced Lendl, Noah, and an older Vilas. Lendl is superior to Federer on clay, without any doubt. The other 2 are better then whoever you consider the 3rd-4th best clay courter today. On grass Wilander beat Lendl and McEnroe back to back to win the Australian, tougher back to back wins then any Nadal had to win the French. McEnroe on grass is better then Federer on clay, and Lendl on grass is better then anyone after Federer on clay today.

It is really pretty simple. You cant evaluate Federer in general as a player as Nadal competition, since Nadal has won all his biggest titles on clay only, and thus only Federer as a clay court player, and the rest of todays field on clay can be evaluated as Nadals competition.

You also really did not look into these past players too closely if you say Borg had McEnroe as his biggest competition of his career at the time he was 21. Connors had always been a much bigger rival and competitor to Borg at the time he turned 21, then McEnroe had been to that point. Vilas clearly was over McEnroe up to that point in time too, and in fact the year Borg was 21 many felt Vilas who won 2 slams that year was the worthy World 1 even. In fact McEnroe would not displace Connors as Borg biggest rival, and one of the top 2 guys in the World along with Borg, until around when Borg turned 23. The fact you honestly think the very young McEnroe was or had been Borgs biggest competition when he turned 21, shows you really dont understand that period of tennis at all.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 03:05 PM
There was a good thread somewhere, may have been on the former pros board, that compared old events to the masters tourneys of today. Some that would qualify from 30 years ago for example are Boston, Wembley, Dallas, Philadelphia and the usual Monte Carlo/Rome/Canada. It's all very interesting.

Ok that would be helpful in fact. As it is I find it hard to look too much into Masters results today vs those past players, as the competitive circuit was so different then vs today as to what were considered the events of that level of importance vs today.

Ultra2HolyGrail
06-10-2007, 03:14 PM
It's hard to say he's the greatest 21yr old if he dont win anything but the french. Greatest most brutal game for the red clay, he probably is.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 03:17 PM
Ok that would be helpful in fact. As it is I find it hard to look too much into Masters results today vs those past players, as the competitive circuit was so different then vs today as to what were considered the events of that level of importance vs today.

Here it is.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=118045&highlight=wembley+dallas+boston

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Here it is.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=118045&highlight=wembley+dallas+boston

Thanks. :p

Attila the tennis Bum
06-10-2007, 05:57 PM
Lendl is superior to Federer on clay, without any doubt.

are you joking? Lendl lost to Chang and Chang was only playing on one leg!!

In fact Lendl almost lost to Mcenroe on clay!

Federer is a far better clay court player than Lendl ever could dream of.

federerfanatic
06-10-2007, 10:03 PM
are you joking? Lendl lost to Chang and Chang was only playing on one leg!!

In fact Lendl almost lost to Mcenroe on clay!

Federer is a far better clay court player than Lendl ever could dream of.

Did you even watch tennis before 2 years ago. McEnroe in 1984 was unbelievable on any surface. There was no shame in losing to him even on clay had it happened. Anyway that was the match that turned Lendl's mental approach around, and he became one of the toughest competitors in those big finals, rather then a bit of a choker like he was known before, and showed a bit in how he played the first half of that match too before McEnroe started to choke.

Lendl was absolutely incredible on both hard courts and clay, and not bad on grass either. He sure as heck was better then Federer on clay, and I am a Federer fan.

So you downplay Lendl's ability on clay due to Chang's hugely unlikely and miracelous win? Well should Becker's greatness on grass be downplayed due to his huge upset loss to Peter Doohan at Wimbledon during the peak of his dominance there. Should Pete Sampras's greatness at the U.S Open be downplayed because of his major upset loss to Jaime Yzaga in the 4th round of the 94 U.S Open, in the midst of a period of 3 other U.S Open titles from 93-96. If Kuerten had not saved that match point vs Michael Russel at the 2001 French Open during her absolute peak on clay, would you have judged his quality as a clay courter based on that result?

Attila the tennis Bum
06-11-2007, 11:09 AM
I'm sorry dude. Roger Feder would have destroyed Lendl on any surface.

In fact not only did Chang beat Lendl on only one leg and with an underhanded serve, but Borg beat Lendl using a wooden racquet while Lendl was using a graphite one!

Finally , Mcenroe was a great champion.....but not on clay. The fact that Lendl almost lost to Mcenroe on clay is a huge indication that Federer was far superior to Lendl on that surface.

In fact, Nadal may be the greatest clay courter ever and just take a look how hard it is for Nadal to beat Federer!

Moose Malloy
06-11-2007, 11:18 AM
Lendl beat both Bruguera & Muster in straight sets on clay when he was 32, & plagued by back problems. Think about that for a second.

And Lendl is the only player in the open era to win Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Roland Garros at least twice.

Its pretty obvious that Lendl was at least one of the 3 best claycourters of the open era.

tHotGates
06-11-2007, 11:31 AM
Lendl beat both Bruguera & Muster in straight sets on clay when he was 32, & plagued by back problems. Think about that for a second.

And Lendl is the only player in the open era to win Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Roland Garros at least twice.

Its pretty obvious that Lendl was at least one of the 3 best claycourters of the open era.

Totally agree ... Lendl was one of the all time greats.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-11-2007, 11:59 AM
No one is saying thqt Lendl was not a great player. he was one of the greatest of all time!!! Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

But thats not the issue. The issue is how does Lendl compare to Federer.

The truth is that Lendl had a pretty one dimensional game and I really believe Federer would have destroyed Lendl on any surface.

Nadal is better than any clay courter that Lendl ever faced except maybe for Borg or Wilander who both beat lendl at the FO.

If not for Nadal I truly believe that federer would have three FO's already. Feds problem is that he is facing one of the greatest clay courters of all time.

At 21 nadal has the world record for most clay court wins in a row. At 21 he has broken Mcenroes record of the most wins on any surface. At 21 nadal has never lost a best of five match on clay. At 21 Nadal has won every french open he has ever entered.

Bottom line...Fed would have destroyed Lendl on clay. And Nadal may be the greatest 21 year old in the history of tennis because no other player has ever had to deal with the likes of Roger Federer.

Moose Malloy
06-11-2007, 12:14 PM
Nadal is better than any clay courter that Lendl ever faced except maybe for Borg or Wilander who both beat lendl at the FO.


so who's the best claycourter Nadal has faced? or Federer for that matter? Tommy Robredo? Davydenko? Face it, as great as those 2 are, the claycourt field today is not at an alltime high. Kuerten & Ferrero got injured, neither player got to face either of them in their prime.
As you said Lendl played Borg & Wilander(and beat Wilander twice at the French) He also beat Vilas & Gomez many times on clay, they were pretty good on clay as well.
And I mentioned he beat Bruguera & Muster on clay well past his prime, which I think shows how good he was in his prime. Nadal doesn't play that differently from Muster or Bruguera. Lendl would not be destroyed by anyone on clay, that's a pretty absurd thing to say, he had no business beating Muster & Bruguera at that stage of his career, & yet he did. I think Bruguera almost double bageled Federer on clay early in his career.

I see threads debating Nadal vs Muster & Nadal vs Bruguera, it seems like most think those 2 would at least be competitive with Nadal, so when you see how Lendl fared vs those 2, its not that far-fetched for him to be competitive with Federer on clay. He's certainly fitter & stronger than Fed. Probably fitter than Nadal as well.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-11-2007, 04:58 PM
What people are ignoring is that Nadal has also faced the greatest grass courter the world has ever seen in Roger Federer . Don't forget that Roger holds the world record for straight grass court wins. Whats so shocking is that Nadal actually almost took two sets off him,

Do you really think that its an accident that Nadal is the first player in like the last 35 years to win the French and then get to the finals of Wimbledon!

All these records by 21 and to have to face Federer on grass!!!! I think that Nadal is in reality the greatest 21 year old the world has ever seen.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-11-2007, 05:00 PM
so who's the best claycourter Nadal has faced? .

Roger Federer....need I say anymore?

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 07:30 PM
Roger Federer....need I say anymore?

People have already told you they dont consider Federer as good a clay courter as the guys like Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Panatta, Nastase, and Wilander; thus dont consider Nadal to have the tougher competition where all his big wins have come, on clay. People have already told you the next best clay courter after Federer isnt even in the same league as those players.

VamosRafa
06-11-2007, 07:49 PM
I like Steve Tignor's wrap-up on tennis.com:

The U.S. broadcasters spent a lot of time talking about how unlucky Federer is to have Nadal around, and what an accomplishment it would be for him to beat him. But look at it from Nadal's side for a second. He's just had to beat the best player in the world, the guy who will likely be considered the best ever, three straight years at a major, two of those times in finals. Forget the fact that it's on clay; Federer is better than everyone else on dirt anyway, so Nadal's wins can't be diminished by pointing to the surface. It's not as big a deal as winning a calendar-year Slam, but Nadal's trifecta over Federer makes his current run at the French Open an accomplishment worth celebrating and remembering—shaking your head at, even—in its own right.

scotus
06-11-2007, 08:00 PM
Greater competiton than Federer? Who?

Borgs greatest competiton was Mcenroe (Lendl was still a rookie).

Wilander lost to Noah at the French. I don't think you can compare Noah to Federer?

In Noah's defense, I must mention that he actually won the French Open. No matter how great Federer is, the same can't be said about him.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-11-2007, 08:06 PM
People have already told you they dont consider Federer as good a clay courter as the guys like Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Panatta, Nastase, and Wilander; thus dont consider Nadal to have the tougher competition where all his big wins have come, on clay. People have already told you the next best clay courter after Federer isnt even in the same league as those players.


Federer would have crushed anyone of those guys.

In fact Mcenroe was asked at this French open who he thought was in better shape....Nadal or Borg. Mcenroe said that although Borg was in great shape...Nadal was far stronger and hit the ball far more violently. To make matters worse.....Nadal is a lefty.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-11-2007, 08:07 PM
In Noah's defense, I must mention that he actually won the French Open. No matter how great Federer is, the same can't be said about him.

I don't believe that you should mention Noah and Roger Federer in the same sentence.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 08:10 PM
Federer would have crushed anyone of those guys.

That is your opinion. Arent you getting that dont seem to agree with you, and dont feel Federer is better then those guys on clay like you do.

In fact Mcenroe was asked at this French open who he thought was in better shape....Nadal or Borg. Mcenroe said that although Borg was in great shape...Nadal was far stronger and hit the ball far more violently. To make matters worse.....Nadal is a lefty.

A great player playing in the 21st century should be hitting the ball far more violently then a great player playing with wood raquets in the 70s.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 05:20 AM
A great player playing in the 21st century should be hitting the ball far more violently then a great player playing with wood raquets in the 70s.

Its not really fair to compare eras. I agree with that.

However, Nadal has more topsin than Borg, is stronger than Borg, and is a lefty.

If there were no Nadal then Federer would have three FO's and you all would be a singing a very different tune. We place too much weight on results rather than weighing the competition.

Nadal at 21 has broken and tied so many records that you have to acknowledge what you are witnessing here. Guys like Lendl , Wilander and Kuerten won three FO's in their entire careers. Nadal has already done that at the ripe old age of 21 (barely 21).

I do not think the world has ever seen a clay courter like Nadal before. In any other era Federer would be the greatest of all time. Federer would have beaten Lendl, Wilander, and even Borg on clay.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 06:53 AM
Bottom line...Fed would have destroyed Lendl on clay.

Sure. He would have destroyed the old Lendl with a back problem. Aside from that he couldn't destroy Michael Chang on clay.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 06:57 AM
Federer doesn't have a consistent forehand on clay.

Federer doesn't have a consistent backhand on clay.

Federer doesn't have a decent first serve on clay.

Federer plays a finesse game not suited to clay.

In a deeper era Federer is hard pressed to make the semi final at the French Open. Nadal excluded, today's tennis doesn't have a single top-notch clay court player.

Brettolius
06-12-2007, 07:06 AM
In a deeper era Federer is hard pressed to make the semi final at the French Open. Nadal excluded, today's tennis doesn't have a single top-notch clay court player.

How do you figure that? A good majority of the players today are clay court players, they play clay court tennis on grass and hardcourt as well. There are more quality baseliners which leads to a bit of parity. There is really no argument that the field is deeper than ever before.

Rhino
06-12-2007, 07:07 AM
Hell no. Borg and Wilander had way tougher competition

Rubbish.....

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 07:12 AM
How do you figure that? A good majority of the players today are clay court players, they play clay court tennis on grass and hardcourt as well. There are more quality baseliners which leads to a bit of parity. There is really no argument that the field is deeper than ever before.

I am not speaking about depth. Tennis has plenty of solid clay courters such as Robredo and Ferrer, but they do nothing to hinder the excellence of someone like Nadal. They are not good enough to upset an elite player.

Unlike - turn the clock back seven years and you have clay courters like Costa, Corretja, Ferrero, Kuerten, Norman all capable of beating anyone at anytime at a given moment. When Kuerten was the king of clay he wasn't untouchable because he had competition.

Now, it's not unnatural for this kind of dive in clay court excellence. This has happened before and we'll see another wave of talented players join the fray. But seeing Federer make two FO finals while playing a notch better than mid-90s Sampras (one could argue that 96 Sampras played better than Federer did at the French this year) on the surface tells you all you need to know about the state of today's clay tennis.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 07:15 AM
Sampras' 1996 French Open Run:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Didn't make the final, but beat legit clay courters, unlike Federer in either of the past two years. What's more impressive?

ksbh
06-12-2007, 07:36 AM
Spot on Cyborg! Not only is the competition **** poor on clay but just about on all surfaces. As someone else said, clay court tennis being played on grass!

Roddick is no 3 in the rankings! Need we say more about the state of competition?!

In a deeper era Federer is hard pressed to make the semi final at the French Open. Nadal excluded, today's tennis doesn't have a single top-notch clay court player.

helloworld
06-12-2007, 07:39 AM
OMG. Just because 2 men are dominating the sport doesn't mean that the field is weak ok ?

malakas
06-12-2007, 07:42 AM
In reality Is Nadal the greatest 21 year old ever?

The greatest 21 year old ever????
He** no!http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/ras.gif
I am!:D
When I become 21.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 07:46 AM
OMG. Just because 2 men are dominating the sport doesn't mean that the field is weak ok ?

This is a valid point, which is why we need to look at surfaces and players specifically.

I think that the state of the game is fine in general. Hardcourt tennis in general is flourishing - the field is deep, there are great players all around. Roddick really sucks sometimes, but one has to admit that he was great last fall at the US Open. Hardcourt tennis is legit. Grass court tennis is fine - could be better, but fine.

But the clay court tennis is garbage. Just look at the guys that made the semis. It's clear as day.

Nadal - the only legit clay courter of the bunch.
Federer - finesse hard court/grass court player .. best player in the game; barely beat a flat hitting Davydenko .. served at 50 percent and sometimes less
Davydenko - again, hits hard and flat .. a bit of an Agassi redux here .. guys like this do not make FO semis in deep eras; they get their asses handed to them
Djokovic - very similar to Federer; a guy we will see succeed on hard and grass courts; not clay

I'm reminded of 1989 here. Lendl on the downswing. Wilander having injury and motivation problems. Muster/Courier not yet emerged. What we get is a final between a grass courter in Edberg and a 17-year old Michael Chang.

Look into your bowl of Cheerios, people. It's clear as day. Today's clay court tennis is a one-sided affair, and that's not solely due to Nadal's greatness.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 08:46 AM
Sampras' 1996 French Open Run:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Didn't make the final, but beat legit clay courters, unlike Federer in either of the past two years. What's more impressive?

Ok while I dont think Federer is the greatest clay courter now you are going too far. Federer is definitely better then Sampras on clay, hands down, slam dunk, no questions about it. As for Sampras's wins at the 96 French Open, Courier was clearly on the way down already, and Bruguera was coming off an injury layoff and barely in the top 100 at the time. If you think Federer would not have been able to beat those two at that particular point in time at the French Open, and probably quite a bit easier then Pete did, you are crazy.

Oh yeah no way does Fed get waxed by Kafelnikov in a French Open semi either, tired or not.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2007, 09:30 AM
Do you really think that its an accident that Nadal is the first player in like the last 35 years to win the French and then get to the finals of Wimbledon!


I think this incorrect statement puts all your other opinions in perspective. Nothing wrong with being uninformed, but to think that you are uninformed & arguing with people that are is a little absurd.

There is really no argument that the field is deeper than ever before.

Just look at the draws at the FO 10-15 years ago & look at it this year. Who are some of the guys that Nadal/Fed are playing in the early rounds, not just the later rounds? Storace? Montanes? Who are they? Here were some of the unseeded players not too long ago: Arazi, Mancini, Muster, Medvedev, Mantilla, Norman, Larsson, El Aynaoui, Blanco, DeWulf, Portas, Meligeni, Clavet, Gumy, Squillari, Alami, Berasategui, Costa? Look up their claycourt resumes and compare to some of the dangerous floaters this year. Its really no contest.

and Bruguera was coming off an injury layoff and barely in the top 100 at the time.

He was in the semis in '95 & the final in '97. Clearly he was a lot better than his ranking at the '96 French.

Oh yeah no way does Fed get waxed by Kafelnikov in a French Open semi either, tired or not.

Probably not, but its really hard to predict how someone will react physically to playing 3 five setters in one tournament, especially at the French. not many have experienced that. has Fed ever played more than one 5 setter at a major? he rarely even plays a match longer than 3 hours, not sure he'd be fresh as a daisy if he ever was pushed that much.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 09:57 AM
He was in the semis in '95 & the final in '97. Clearly he was a lot better than his ranking at the '96 French.

Sure he was probably somewhat better then his ranking but he was not in good form at the time in the least. His record on clay coming into the French Open for 1996 was a mere 6-5, or 4-4 if you exclude the World Team Cup. He also only missed January mostly, as his injury happened at the end of 1995. So it is not like his ranking so low was stricly due to missing so much time. You know as well as I do that Bruguera was playing alot better in both 1995 and 1997 then he was in 1996. Not only would Federer have probably beaten Bruguera that particular year, I hugely doubt he would have lost even a set.

Probably not, but its really hard to predict how someone will react physically to playing 3 five setters in one tournament, especially at the French. not many have experienced that. has Fed ever played more than one 5 setter at a major? he rarely even plays a match longer than 3 hours, not sure he'd be fresh as a daisy if he ever was pushed that much.

Federer would not have been as tired as Sampras for the semifinal with Kafelnikov that year since he would not have have played 3 5-setters. How he would have responded physically is irrelevant since those players that year would not have pushed him that much. Are you honestly thinking Federer would have had nearly as tough a time with any of the 3 guys who took Sampras 5 sets they way they were playing at the time, and with how consistent very good Federer has been on clay, even if in todays weaker clay court field? A badly slumping Bruguera, a clearly past his prime Courier, and Todd Martin, would have done well to even take 1 set off Federer between all of them, maybe 2 between all of them at most. I saw all of those matches, and I definitely feel that way. If I could bet my car for just a free weekend vacation to a hotel all expenses payed trip, on a time machine going back and Federer winning the 96 French Open with the exact same draw Sampras had, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I agree that Federer would not as regularly have been a finalist in past eras on clay, as he is today; but he also would have a better shot to win a French Open or even more at some point, since there were years he would have had not a single person to beat nearly as good as Nadal, or the eventual champion was not nearly as good as Nadal, like Kafelnikov in 96, and Moya in 98.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 11:28 AM
"The U.S. broadcasters spent a lot of time talking about how unlucky Federer is to have Nadal around, and what an accomplishment it would be for him to beat him. But look at it from Nadal's side for a second. He's just had to beat the best player in the world, the guy who will likely be considered the best ever, three straight years at a major, two of those times in finals. Forget the fact that it's on clay; Federer is better than everyone else on dirt anyway, so Nadal's wins can't be diminished by pointing to the surface. It's not as big a deal as winning a calendar-year Slam, but Nadal's trifecta over Federer makes his current run at the French Open an accomplishment worth celebrating and remembering—shaking your head at, even—in its own right.".. Steve Tignor

flying24
06-12-2007, 11:59 AM
Forget the fact that it's on clay

Once I read that part, I stopped reading.

Chadwixx
06-12-2007, 12:03 PM
Sampras' 1996 French Open Run:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Didn't make the final, but beat legit clay courters, unlike Federer in either of the past two years. What's more impressive?

Stich, rosset and sampras made the semis? Krajick in the qf's? Those are grass court players winning the french.

TheTruth
06-12-2007, 12:16 PM
Fed's competition?

Thank goodness for Nadal, Djokovic, Canas, and Volandri. At least these guys compete!

Davydenko-2007 French Open semi performance. Disgusting! Pitiful conversion of opportunities. Yeah, I would put him up there with having the heart of a lion.

Ljubicic?-Where is he by the way? Former world #3, never been to a grand slam final because he would rather lose to a lesser player than go to the big dance for himself.

Blake? 0-9 in five-setters, and how many up two sets to love matches has he lost? How's that for mental tenacity?

Roddick? Poor limited, predictable, bad volleying Roddick, his time has past!

Robredo? Oh my goodness, does anyone really think he should be top ten?

Gonzalez? Perennial error fest who got it together for six months out of his ten year career, only to let it slip back into his old mindset?

This is the competition that the "GOAT" has had to face?

Contrast all the veterans who are too banged up to seriously contend for titles and I think we are looking at the biggest smoke and mirrors trick in the history of the game!

caulcano
06-12-2007, 12:32 PM
"The U.S. broadcasters spent a lot of time talking about how unlucky Federer is to have Nadal around, and what an accomplishment it would be for him to beat him. But look at it from Nadal's side for a second. He's just had to beat the best player in the world, the guy who will likely be considered the best ever, three straight years at a major, two of those times in finals. Forget the fact that it's on clay; Federer is better than everyone else on dirt anyway, so Nadal's wins can't be diminished by pointing to the surface. It's not as big a deal as winning a calendar-year Slam, but Nadal's trifecta over Federer makes his current run at the French Open an accomplishment worth celebrating and remembering—shaking your head at, even—in its own right.".. Steve Tignor

That's quite insightful.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 01:00 PM
Ok while I dont think Federer is the greatest clay courter now you are going too far. Federer is definitely better then Sampras on clay, hands down, slam dunk, no questions about it. As for Sampras's wins at the 96 French Open, Courier was clearly on the way down already, and Bruguera was coming off an injury layoff and barely in the top 100 at the time. If you think Federer would not have been able to beat those two at that particular point in time at the French Open, and probably quite a bit easier then Pete did, you are crazy.

Oh yeah no way does Fed get waxed by Kafelnikov in a French Open semi either, tired or not.

Oh, Federer would definitely get waxed by Kafelnikov considering he almost got waxed by Davydenko.

Federer is better than Sampras on clay, but not by much.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 01:09 PM
Stich, rosset and sampras made the semis? Krajick in the qf's? Those are grass court players winning the french.

Sampras eliminted a couple of really good clay courters on his way to the semi.

OrangeOne
06-12-2007, 01:13 PM
Oh, Federer would definitely get waxed by Kafelnikov considering he almost got waxed by Davydenko.

Federer is better than Sampras on clay, but not by much.

You can't be serious, right? Federer is clearly the 2nd best clay-courter on earth right now, Sampras could never lay claim to that title.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 01:24 PM
You can't be serious, right? Federer is clearly the 2nd best clay-courter on earth right now, Sampras could never lay claim to that title.

What's your point? Several people, including myself, have explained in great detail why it is important to look at individual eras and judge the depth of talent accordingly. What part of this do you not understand?

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:04 PM
Oh, Federer would definitely get waxed by Kafelnikov considering he almost got waxed by Davydenko.

Federer is better than Sampras on clay, but not by much.

Almost got waxed by Davydenko? A straight sets win is almost being waxed. ROTFL!!!

Kafelnikov would not beat Federer in their mutual primes on any surface, period. Kafelnikov waxing Federer on clay?!? Federer not better then Sampras on clay by much!??! Some of you clowns I cant figure out if you are serious or just trying to be as out there as possible. :p

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:06 PM
Sampras eliminted a couple of really good clay courters on his way to the semi.

Courier was not particularly good by 1996. 1996 was the only year Courier even made the quarters the last 6 years of his career at the French Open, including 1995 the year previous. Bruguera also was not that good in 1996, he was 4-4 or 6-5(depending if you count the dumb World Team event)on clay that year. Neither Courier or Bruguera were the "really good" clay courters that year.

Many of the "really good" clay courters of that year like Costa, Corretja, Rios, and Muster were taken out alright, but not by Sampras.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 02:07 PM
Federer is better than Sampras on clay, but not by much.

Can I smoke some of that?

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:09 PM
Almost got waxed by Davydenko? A straight sets win is almost being waxed. ROTFL!!!

Kafelnikov would not beat Federer in their mutual primes on any surface, period. Kafelnikov waxing Federer on clay?!? Federer not better then Sampras on clay by much!??! Some of you clowns I cant figure out if you are serious or just trying to be as out there as possible. :p

Why be rude? Kafelnikov is a French Open champion. He can definitely beat Federer on clay. He would definitely beat Federer who is struggling with his serve and forehand.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:10 PM
I wonder if Federer in his prime would loss in early rounds to Gilbert Schaller, Ramon Delgado, and Mark Phillipousis at the French Open.

OrangeOne
06-12-2007, 02:10 PM
What's your point? Several people, including myself, have explained in great detail why it is important to look at individual eras and judge the depth of talent accordingly. What part of this do you not understand?

There is a large difference between not understanding something, and not agreeing with it.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 02:10 PM
I wonder if Federer in his prime would loss in early rounds to Gilbert Schaller, Ramon Delgado, and Mark Phillipousis at the French Open.

Fed would kill them.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:11 PM
Courier was not particularly good by 1996. 1996 was the only year Courier even made the quarters the last 6 years of his career at the French Open, including 1995 the year previous. Bruguera also was not that good in 1996, he was 4-4 or 6-5(depending if you count the dumb World Team event)on clay that year. Neither Courier or Bruguera were the "really good" clay courters that year.

Many of the "really good" clay courters of that year like Costa, Corretja, Rios, and Muster were taken out alright, but not by Sampras.

Do you remember this tournament? Try to get your hands on the tapes, because Sampras played extremely well. He also beat Gustaffson in the first round - an excellent clay court player. The battles with Courier showed Pete's guts, the kind of guts we don't see from Roger on this surface. And you're wrong about Courier. He was still very solid at this time and Bruguera would have made the quarters at least if he hadn't bumped into Sampras.

Mark Vessels
06-12-2007, 02:12 PM
Sure Borg may have won more....but Borg did not have to contend with the like of Roger Federer or the man with the fastest serve on earth Andy Roddick or the legend Agassi and Sampras killers Hewitt and Safin.

No, I am (In the future)

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:15 PM
There is a large difference between not understanding something, and not agreeing with it.

I don't mind that you don't agree with me, but try to understand that being the second best player on clay in 2007 is mixed praise.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:15 PM
Why be rude? Kafelnikov is a French Open champion. He can definitely beat Federer on clay. He would definitely beat Federer who is struggling with his serve and forehand.

Kafelnikov did not beat any quality clay courters to win his French Open. He beat Krajicek in the quarters, Sampras in the semis, and Stich in the final, all fellow fast court players. If Federer had been in his prime then, and had the draw of either Kafelnikov or Sampras that year he would have won the French Open title with relative ease that year, dropping maybe 1 or 2 sets along the way. I have seen Kafelnikov play many times, as I was a big follower of tennis in the 90s. Federer would have to beat himself to lose to Kafelnikov on any surface. Federer is stronger off the ground on either side, stronger off both the serve and return of serve, moves better on any surface, has a much wider arsenal of shots, and is mentally far beyond choking quitter Kafelnikov. There is a reason Kafelnikov was basically the b%tch of all the biggest guns then.

That is why I said Federer is both lucky and unlucky. Lucky in a way that the clay court field does not have more depth, which allows him to reach finals more regularly then he otherwise would, I agreed. Unlucky in though in that there is a guy like Nadal who much better then guys like Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi(on clay)who won French Opens in years Federer could have easily won with the same draw they had; as well as all people Federer could have beaten on clay in their primes in a French Open final.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:22 PM
Do you remember this tournament? Try to get your hands on the tapes, because Sampras played extremely well. He also beat Gustaffson in the first round - an excellent clay court player. The battles with Courier showed Pete's guts, the kind of guts we don't see from Roger on this surface. And you're wrong about Courier. He was still very solid at this time and Bruguera would have made the quarters at least if he hadn't bumped into Sampras.

Actually I was a big follower of tennis then. I saw all those matches. No Courier was not that formidable anymore at the time. Courier's confidence was going downhill quickly and he was a shadow of his 91-93 form. Every year from 93 onwards he went down a bit more. That French Open would be Courier's last ever quarterfinal of a slam. There is a reason for that, and it wasnt that he was still such a formidable player, that is for sure. Federer would not have needed the same guts Sampras had in that match since Federer would never have been down 2-set-0 on the Courier of 1996 anyway to begin with.

There is no reason to assume Bruguera would have made the quarters neccessarily had he not played Sampras, when he was only 4-4 on clay coming into the French Open. If he had it would have been largely since that was a French Open full of upsets with Costa, Corretja, Muster, and Rios, all going out earlier then expected. Bruguera's 4-4 record on clay(6-5 if you count World Team Cup)accurately shows his level on clay that year, and watching that match I felt the same way. A more skilled clay courter then Pete, yes someone like Federer included, would have finished him off with ease that day.

Gustaffson was a quite good clay courter. "Excellent", particularly with how hard you on the current crop, is way overstating it. No he is not someone Federer would lose to in the first round, I assure you of that.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:23 PM
Kafelnikov did not beat any quality clay courters to win his French Open. He beat Krajicek in the quarters, Sampras in the semis, and Stich in the final, all fellow fast court players. If Federer had been in his prime then, and had the draw of either Kafelnikov or Sampras that year he would have won the French Open title with relative ease that year, dropping maybe 1 or 2 sets along the way. I have seen Kafelnikov play many times, as I was a big follower of tennis in the 90s. Federer would have to beat himself to lose to Kafelnikov on any surface. Federer is stronger off the ground on either side, stronger off both the serve and return of serve, moves better on any surface, has a much wider arsenal of shots, and is mentally far beyond choking quitter Kafelnikov. There is a reason Kafelnikov was basically the b%tch of all the biggest guns then.

That is why I said Federer is both lucky and unlucky. Lucky in a way that the clay court field does not have more depth, which allows him to reach finals more regularly then he otherwise would, I agreed. Unlucky in though in that there is a guy like Nadal who much better then guys like Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi(on clay)who won French Opens in years Federer could have easily won with the same draw they had; as well as all people Federer could have beaten on clay in their primes in a French Open final.

Kafelnikov v Corretja
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Kafelnikov%2C+Yevgeny&player2=corretja
Kafelnikov v Bruguera
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=K267&playernum2=B350
Kafelnikov v Kuerten - some excellent battles
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Kafelnikov%2C+Yevgeny&player2=kuerten
Kafelnikov v Moya - very close
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=K267&playernum2=M605

Muster is one guy who handed Evgeny his ***. Otherwise Kafelnikov performed admirably against the better clay talents of his era. He was a legit clay courter and much better on the surface than Roger.

Zhenya had a very consistent, almost robotic clay court game. Very consistent, accurate groundstrokes. Federer is not this way - he tries to go for the winner too often and he can't do this on clay with any consistency. Kafelnikov would exploit this.

But don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that Federer couldn't beat Kafelnikov, but in the 96 semi - I doubt it.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:27 PM
Actually I was a big follower of tennis then. I saw all those matches. No Courier was not that formidable anymore at the time. Courier's confidence was going downhill quickly and he was a shadow of his 91-93 form. Every year from 93 onwards he went down a bit more. That French Open would be Courier's last ever quarterfinal of a slam. There is a reason for that, and it wasnt that he was still such a formidable player, that is for sure. Federer would not have needed the same guts Sampras had in that match since Federer would never have been down 2-set-0 on the Courier of 1996 anyway to begin with.

There is no reason to assume Bruguera would have made the quarters neccessarily had he not played Sampras, when he was only 4-4 on clay coming into the French Open. If he had it would have been largely since that was a French Open full of upsets with Costa, Corretja, Muster, and Rios, all going out earlier then expected. Bruguera's 4-4 record on clay(6-5 if you count World Team Cup)accurately shows his level on clay that year, and watching that match I felt the same way. A more skilled clay courter then Pete, yes someone like Federer included, would have finished him off with ease that day.

Gustaffson was a quite good clay courter. "Excellent", particularly with how hard you on the current crop, is way overstating it. No he is not someone Federer would lose to in the first round, I assure you of that.

Well, I respect your opinion, but I think you're underrating Pete's opposition at the 96 RG. I would have liked to see Roger play several guys in a row with this kind of pedigree. Until the QF in Robredo Roger was not even tested and no that's not because he was a world beater.

Just look at Roger's draw and then look at Pete's. I think Pete's SF is more impressive than either of Roger's finals. His 2006 draw was even more laughable.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Kafelnikov v Corretja
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Kafelnikov%2C+Yevgeny&player2=corretja
Kafelnikov v Bruguera
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=K267&playernum2=B350
Kafelnikov v Kuerten - some excellent battles
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Kafelnikov%2C+Yevgeny&player2=kuerten
Kafelnikov v Moya - very close
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=K267&playernum2=M605

Muster is one guy who handed Evgeny his ***. Otherwise Kafelnikov performed admirably against the better clay talents of his era. He was a legit clay courter and much better on the surface than Roger.

Zhenya had a very consistent, almost robotic clay court game. Very consistent, accurate groundstrokes. Federer is not this way - he tries to go for the winner too often and he can't do this on clay with any consistency. Kafelnikov would exploit this.

But don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that Federer couldn't beat Kafelnikov, but in the 96 semi - I doubt it.

Federer gives Nadal tough battles, just like Kafelnikov gives Kuerten. No difference, except that Nadal is a much more dominant clay courter then Kuerten. Before you bring up the tougher competition argument, which I agree with, Nadal still is the superior and more dominant clay courter compared to Kuerten. If I made a list of who Kuerten's losses on clay from 1999-2001 were all to, this would make it clear that competition as tough or not, Nadal is the more dominant clay courter by far.

In 2004 Moya had one of the best years of his career, so he was definitely still in his "prime". Yet Federer beat him easily in their one meeting on clay in Hamburg. Obviously other then that 1 match, Federer never had the opportunity to play Bruguera or Corretja or Moya or players exactly their level as the guys Federer plays today on clay, are either clearly superior to them(Nadal)or clearly inferior(the rest).

Federer is a much better player then Kafelnikov on any surface. Watching the two play on tape there is a chasm between their talent levels, weaponary, and mental toughness.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Federer gives Nadal tough battles, just like Kafelnikov gives Kuerten.

You know that's not true.

If I made a list of who Kuerten's losses on clay from 1999-2001 were all to, this would make it clear that competition as tough or not, Nadal is the more dominant clay courter by far.

By far? You know that's not true.

In 2004 Moya had one of the best years of his career, so he was definitely still in his "prime".

You know that's not true.;)

Federer is a much better player then Kafelnikov on any surface. Watching the two play on tape there is a chasm between their talent levels, weaponary, and mental toughness.

Well, I definitely agree about the talent levels. Not so much on the mental toughness aspect.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Well, I respect your opinion, but I think you're underrating Pete's opposition at the 96 RG. I would have liked to see Roger play several guys in a row with this kind of pedigree. Until the QF in Robredo Roger was not even tested and no that's not because he was a world beater.

Just look at Roger's draw and then look at Pete's. I think Pete's SF is more impressive than either of Roger's finals. His 2006 draw was even more laughable.

I agree Pete's draw to the semis was much tougher then Federer's was. I dont disagree with that. My point was I fully expect Federer would have made his way through that same draw, and much more comfortably then Pete did. Of course no way will we be able to ever prove that right or wrong, and that is where we differ. However remembering watching that French Open, and watching Federer play today on clay, I still dont doubt that for a second. Where the difference lies for me is nobody even close to Nadal would have been waiting at the end for Roger, at that 1996 French Open. Which already makes it an easier task for him for that reason alone.

Federer's 2 finals to me or more impressive then Pete's semifinal still, since Kafelnikov is a very beatable semifinal opponent, and would have been for Roger I feel, and Pete could not make it past. You obviously rate Kafelnikov much more highly then I ever did.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:43 PM
I agree Pete's draw to the semis was much tougher then Federer's was. I dont disagree with that. My point was I fully expect Federer would have made his way through that same draw, and much more comfortably then Pete did. Of course no way will we be able to ever prove that right or wrong, and that is where we differ. However remembering watching that French Open, and watching Federer play today on clay, I still dont doubt that for a second. Where the difference lies for me is nobody even close to Nadal would have been waiting at the end for Roger, at that 1996 French Open. Which already makes it an easier task for him for that reason alone.

Federer's 2 finals to me or more impressive then Pete's semifinal still, since Kafelnikov is a very beatable semifinal opponent, and would have been for Roger I feel, and Pete could not make it past. You obviously rate Kafelnikov much more highly then I ever did.

Fair enough. And remember that I would definitely rate Federer as the better clay court player than Pete. But the recent viewings have changed my perception of his game on this surface. I think it is vastly overrated.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 02:45 PM
Speaking of Moya, Federer played him on clay only once until this past Hamburg tournament.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 03:03 PM
You know that's not true.

Kuerten vs Kafelnikov on clay, excluding a 1996 match for very obvious reasons; was 4-0 for Kuerten, and 11-5 in sets. Federer vs Nadal on clay so far is 5-1 for Nadal, and 18-8 in sets. Federer was just as tough an opponent for Nadal on clay, as Kafelnikov was for Kuerten.

By far? You know that's not true.

Wrong, to me that is true. Nadal is FAR more dominant then Kuerten in his prime on clay, as much as people love Kuerten and dont want to see that very definite fact. Kuerten from 1999-2001, his "prime", won only 10 of the 22 tournaments he played on clay. Kuerten won only 4 of the 9 Masters events he played on clay during that time. He won 2 of the 3 French Opens, but had to save a match in a 4th round in 1 of them. Before you bring up the "tougher" competition as the only reason for Nadal's far superior dominance on clay compared to Kuerten, look at some of Kuerten's losses on clay from 1999-2001. Vincent Santoparde, Vincent Spadea, Nicolas Escude, Juan Ignacio Chela, Dominik Hrbaty, Karol Kucera, Lleyton Hewitt(in Brazil), Max Mirnyi, count among his losses from 1999-2001 on clay. Several of those were during first or second rounds of major Masters events on clay like Monte Carlo, Rome, or Hamburg. Kuerten was a point away from a straight set loss to Michael Russel at the 2001 French Open. Kuerten had a 6-2, 6-0 score in a loss to Moya in the 99 Hamburg quarters, and Moya would still go on to lose in the next round. I am perfectly comfortably saying Nadal is far far more dominant then Kuerten on clay, and while I do agree with you that he faces less competition on clay, he clearly is more dominant regardless.

You know that's not true.;)

Again, no I dont know thats not true. I believe it is true. Moya has only finished in the year end top 5 three different years in his whole career. 1998, 2002, and 2004, each year at #5 years end exactly. So that was one of the only three years he ever finished that high, #5 at years end. Moya has only won 2 Masters titles on clay, and 3 Masters title total, in his whole career. Those years he won a Masters title are those same 3 years-1998, 2002, and 2004. The years they came on clay are 1998(the year he won the French Open) and 2004. 2004 his win came in Rome.

In 2004 Moya reached the French Open quarters, losing only to Coria. He probably would have been in the final if he had been in the other half. Moya then reached the 4th round of Wimbledon on his worst surface, and took Hewitt to 4th sets. Moya was definitely in his prime in 2004, as it was one of the best years of his career. There is nothing that indicates it wasnt.

Well, I definitely agree about the talent levels. Not so much on the mental toughness aspect.

Kafelnikov was not known as a mentally tough player. He was a huge mental flake, which is one of the reasons he would not have never won a slam if he didnt luck out with 2 super lucky draws. While his game was generally inferior to the biggest guns, it was good enough to probably beat them on occasion, but he did not have the mental toughness to ever beat them on the big stage. Luckily for him at the 96 French Open and 99 Australian Open, the stars aligned and he didnt have to. Whenever a guy has never won a Masters title, yet won 2 Grand Slams, you know he was very lucky. He might be the weakest 2 time Slam Champion since the early 80s since the Australian became a fully regarded slam.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 03:08 PM
Fair enough. And remember that I would definitely rate Federer as the better clay court player than Pete. But the recent viewings have changed my perception of his game on this surface. I think it is vastly overrated.

Well you might be right. I am disagreeing with you on Pete or Kafelikov compared to Pete on clay, or Federer's chances of winning a French Open in years like 96 or 98 vs now. I have already admitted there is much tougher competition then on clay, then there is now. Nadal IMO is without a doubt the best clay courter since, if not clearly Borg, then since Lendl and Wilander at the very least. However he would not have been as dominant vs Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, etc...as he is now. Likewise Federer would definitely not make the finals of almost every clay court event then as he does now, even if his chances of winning a French Open or two in the right year, would have been better then without Nadal all the same IMO.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 03:11 PM
Speaking of Moya, Federer played him on clay only once until this past Hamburg tournament.

Yeah I know. I was referring to that match in 2004. The funny thing is their 2004 match on clay, which I would argue was still in Moya's prime as it was one of his 3 best years ever results-wise, was an easier win for Fed then the match this year with Moya clearly past his prime. Just like 2002 a still immature Fed clearly not in his prime beat Kuerten pretty easily in the final set of a matchup between them on clay, with Kuerten atleast closer to his prime then Fed was at that point. However in 2004 an injured clearly diminished Kuerten straight setted Fed now the Worlds dominant #1, at the French Open. So funny the conflicting conclusions you could draw from any 1 of those results. :p

Chadwixx
06-12-2007, 03:40 PM
I don't mind that you don't agree with me, but try to understand that being the second best player on clay in 2007 is mixed praise.

3 grass court players make it to the semis of the french in 96 and that was a strong era?

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 06:55 PM
3 grass court players make it to the semis of the french in 96 and that was a strong era?

Dude take a look at his name...cyBorg. To make matters worse he even has a pic of Borg next to his tag. Do you really believe that you are going to convince him of anything. He is obviously biased.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 06:56 PM
Kuerten vs Kafelnikov on clay, excluding a 1996 match for very obvious reasons; was 4-0 for Kuerten, and 11-5 in sets. Federer vs Nadal on clay so far is 5-1 for Nadal, and 18-8 in sets. Federer was just as tough an opponent for Nadal on clay, as Kafelnikov was for Kuerten.

Kafelnikov took Kuerten to five sets twice. Both times lost in stunning fashion. It doesn't compare.

Wrong, to me that is true. Nadal is FAR more dominant then Kuerten in his prime on clay, as much as people love Kuerten and dont want to see that very definite fact. Kuerten from 1999-2001, his "prime", won only 10 of the 22 tournaments he played on clay. Kuerten won only 4 of the 9 Masters events he played on clay during that time. He won 2 of the 3 French Opens, but had to save a match in a 4th round in 1 of them. Before you bring up the "tougher" competition as the only reason for Nadal's far superior dominance on clay compared to Kuerten, look at some of Kuerten's losses on clay from 1999-2001. Vincent Santoparde, Vincent Spadea, Nicolas Escude, Juan Ignacio Chela, Dominik Hrbaty, Karol Kucera, Lleyton Hewitt(in Brazil), Max Mirnyi, count among his losses from 1999-2001 on clay. Several of those were during first or second rounds of major Masters events on clay like Monte Carlo, Rome, or Hamburg. Kuerten was a point away from a straight set loss to Michael Russel at the 2001 French Open. Kuerten had a 6-2, 6-0 score in a loss to Moya in the 99 Hamburg quarters, and Moya would still go on to lose in the next round. I am perfectly comfortably saying Nadal is far far more dominant then Kuerten on clay, and while I do agree with you that he faces less competition on clay, he clearly is more dominant regardless.

All right then. I don't mind you saying that Nadal is more dominant. But he's not by far the better player. I'd take Kuerten myself. He moved like Federer but could exploit Nadal with his backhand.

Again, no I dont know thats not true. I believe it is true. Moya has only finished in the year end top 5 three different years in his whole career. 1998, 2002, and 2004, each year at #5 years end exactly. So that was one of the only three years he ever finished that high, #5 at years end. Moya has only won 2 Masters titles on clay, and 3 Masters title total, in his whole career. Those years he won a Masters title are those same 3 years-1998, 2002, and 2004. The years they came on clay are 1998(the year he won the French Open) and 2004. 2004 his win came in Rome.

Look at the players he faced in 2004. This also coincided with Ferrero's demise. Definitely Moya made a nice comeback, but he wasn't in his prime.

In 2004 Moya reached the French Open quarters, losing only to Coria. He probably would have been in the final if he had been in the other half. Moya then reached the 4th round of Wimbledon on his worst surface, and took Hewitt to 4th sets. Moya was definitely in his prime in 2004, as it was one of the best years of his career. There is nothing that indicates it wasnt.

He wasn't.

Kafelnikov was not known as a mentally tough player. He was a huge mental flake, which is one of the reasons he would not have never won a slam if he didnt luck out with 2 super lucky draws. While his game was generally inferior to the biggest guns, it was good enough to probably beat them on occasion, but he did not have the mental toughness to ever beat them on the big stage. Luckily for him at the 96 French Open and 99 Australian Open, the stars aligned and he didnt have to. Whenever a guy has never won a Masters title, yet won 2 Grand Slams, you know he was very lucky. He might be the weakest 2 time Slam Champion since the early 80s since the Australian became a fully regarded slam.

Well, I can tell that this post would make Jon Wertheim happy.:p

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 07:04 PM
3 grass court players make it to the semis of the french in 96 and that was a strong era?

A couple of things:

- look at the draw

- note that Rosset and Stich were established clay court players. Stich won Hamburg and was runner-up another time

Stich beat Muster on his way to the semi final - the defending French Open champion. It was no walk in the park. Rosset was lucky, unlike Pioline who had to face both Rios and Berasategui.

Tennis_Monk
06-12-2007, 07:06 PM
If federer is going to play a two handed back hand, Then even Roddick can have realistic hopes of beating Federer on Clay.

Federer is good the way he is. He himself let him down by playing crappily in two finals. If he is so bad, then he should be loosing in straight sets..he didnt!

Tennis_Monk
06-12-2007, 07:13 PM
If federer is going to play a two handed back hand, Then even Roddick can have realistic hopes of beating Federer on Clay.

Federer is good the way he is. He himself let him down by playing crappily in two finals. If he is so bad, then he should be loosing in straight sets..he didnt!

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 07:34 PM
Kafelnikov took Kuerten to five sets twice. Both times lost in stunning fashion. It doesn't compare.

Federer took Nadal to 5 sets in Rome, and lost in even more stunning fashion, in fact he had 2 match points, closer then Kafelnikov ever came to beating Kuerten on clay. Federer also beat Nadal in Hamburg on clay. So Federer in 6 matches with clay, has come closer to beating Nadal 2 of those 6 times, once actually beating him, the other a point away twice, then Kafelnikov has in any of his 4 matches with Kuerten on clay. Also Kuerten, despite winning the French Open, was not in his prime in 1997, when that first 5 setter occured. That was a complete shocking win for Kuerten. It was so premature he would be unseeded at the 98 French Open, even with the benefit of the ranking points for a grand slam win still on his ranking. So basically Kafelnikov played Kuerten 3 times in his prime on clay, a 4 set and 5 set loss at the French, and a lopsided straight set loss in another event. Federer's challenge to Nadal on clay absolutely compares atleast as much to Kafelnikov's challenge to the much less dominant king of clay prime Kuerten IMHO.

All right then. I don't mind you saying that Nadal is more dominant. But he's not by far the better player. I'd take Kuerten myself. He moved like Federer but could exploit Nadal with his backhand.

I agree that Kuerten at his peak level could compare to Nadal on clay, but his day in-day out performance on clay was nowhere near Nadal. Kuerten could play only sometimes as well as Nadal can play almost all time on clay. Federer would get some wins over Kuerten on clay for sure in his prime IMO, since Kuerten did not play at a peak level day in-day out to anything the extent Nadal does. Look at the collection of names that have beaten Kuerten in his prime on clay again, and some of the obscure names and shocking performances.

Look at the players he faced in 2004. This also coincided with Ferrero's demise. Definitely Moya made a nice comeback, but he wasn't in his prime.

A player not Moya is not good enough to end a year #5 in the World, post the results he did all year, and win a Masters title, if he is not in his prime. I have seen him play many times in the latter part of the 90s as well. He is a very good player but he hits the ball late, his backhand is supect, he gets himself out of position trying to run around those backhands and isnt quite quick enough to do it efficiently, and doesnt return all that well. A player like that could not post the 2004 results he did if he were not in his prime. This is not some grand champion who is used to contending for #1 and winning grand slams.

Well, I can tell that this post would make Jon Wertheim happy.:p

Wertheim and I share pretty similar take on Kafelnikov I think. One time a writer wrote in suggesting Kafelnikov should be rated over Rafter, and I was thinking "no freaking way" and then Wertheim wrote almost the same thing I would have had I responded in the mailbag. :p

roysid
06-12-2007, 10:25 PM
No doubt. Nadal is the greatest 21 year old. Because by 21

- he has 81 match streak on clay
- he already won 3 straight French Opens
- he defeats Roger Federer (the possible GOAT) in grand slam finals
- he won 3 straight titles in Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome
- his non clay court performances is also good. Reached WImbledon finals. Won hard court masters in Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells.

fednad
06-13-2007, 09:05 AM
I don't know if anyone has mnetioned it in this thread, but Boris Becker had achieved more than Nadal by the age of 21:
3 Wimbledon (1985, 1986, 1989) + 1 US open(1989) + 1 Wilmbledon Final + 2 French Open Semi Finals (1987, 1989) + 2 Davis Cups (1988, 1989)

Now that is any time way ahead of what Nadal has achieved.
Nadal may end up having more success than Becker by the time he finishes his career, but by the age of 21, Boris was much ahead.

helloworld
06-13-2007, 10:28 AM
I don't know if anyone has mnetioned it in this thread, but Boris Becker had achieved more than Nadal by the age of 21:
3 Wimbledon (1985, 1986, 1989) + 1 US open(1989) + 1 Wilmbledon Final + 2 French Open Semi Finals (1987, 1989) + 2 Davis Cups (1988, 1989)

Now that is any time way ahead of what Nadal has achieved.
Nadal may end up having more success than Becker by the time he finishes his career, but by the age of 21, Boris was much ahead.

Can't be so sure about that. Nadal just turned 21 and he might as well end up with more slams than Becker by the time he turns 22.

Zimbo
06-13-2007, 12:28 PM
I don't know if anyone has mnetioned it in this thread, but Boris Becker had achieved more than Nadal by the age of 21:
3 Wimbledon (1985, 1986, 1989) + 1 US open(1989) + 1 Wilmbledon Final + 2 French Open Semi Finals (1987, 1989) + 2 Davis Cups (1988, 1989)

Now that is any time way ahead of what Nadal has achieved.
Nadal may end up having more success than Becker by the time he finishes his career, but by the age of 21, Boris was much ahead.

Look this is about who's the greatest 21 year old not who the best. Everyone who knows anything about tennis knows you can't compare generations (due to racquet technology, strings, etc.....) So Nadal vs Lendl, Fed vs Lendl, Nadal vs Wilander, Fed Vs Borg should not be mentioned.

Wilander rusume at 21 years old:
'82 French-Champion
'83 French-Finalist (Lost to Noah)
'83 AO-Champion
'84 French-Semi's (Lost to Lendl)
'84 AO-Champion
'85 French-Champion
'85 USO-Semi's (Lost to Mac)
'85 AO-Finalist (Lost to Edberg)
-Note: even though he was considered a clay courter he made it to 3 straight AO finals, winning 2 of them. Not bad.

Becker's see above qoute

Borg's, I don't have time to research it at the moment but many people on the board would know.

What Nadal is doing is awesome. By the time he turns 22 we will see if he's the greatest 21 year old, but of right now I would say no. We need to see what he's going to do at the next 3 slams. Lambielspins I agree with you.

Big Fed
06-13-2007, 02:00 PM
Sure Borg may have won more....but Borg did not have to contend with the like of Roger Federer or the man with the fastest serve on earth Andy Roddick or the legend Agassi and Sampras killers Hewitt and Safin.

Get off nadal's nuts yo.

crazylevity
06-13-2007, 10:03 PM
I find it so funny that the people who bash Federer for his one handed backhand in another thread go on to use Federer as reason for Nadal's greatness.

Borg never had to contend with a Federer like figure because HE WAS the Federer like figure.

krz
06-13-2007, 10:54 PM
you can't be the greatest 21 year old if other people at 21 have won more slams and different slams.

and seriously by now we should know you can't compare older players with newer ones. Just b/c racket/string technology.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-14-2007, 06:27 AM
you can't be the greatest 21 year old if other people at 21 have won more slams and different slams.

and seriously by now we should know you can't compare older players with newer ones. Just b/c racket/string technology.

sure ya can. For example Borg is a far greater player than Federer will ever be.

Federer is the most talented player the world has ever seen but he is not the best. Borg was far better because of his mind. If Borg played today he would figure out a way to beat anyone.

Borg changed his game to serve and volley to beat Mcenroe at Wimbledon. he invented the open stance and his insane backhand which is a cross between a one hand and two hand. He invented while playing hockey.

Federer is far more talented...Borg did not have a big serve or any huge strokes....what Borg had over Federer was his mind. There a reason why they call him the ice man.

Federer is stubborn and set in his ways while Borg was a forwardthinking genius.

Tennis is not only about skill as Borg has proved. Or even Brad Gilbert who attained the #3 ranking with virtually no strokes.

crazylevity
06-14-2007, 08:08 AM
sure ya can. For example Borg is a far greater player than Federer will ever be.

Federer is the most talented player the world has ever seen but he is not the best. Borg was far better because of his mind. If Borg played today he would figure out a way to beat anyone.

Borg changed his game to serve and volley to beat Mcenroe at Wimbledon. he invented the open stance and his insane backhand which is a cross between a one hand and two hand. He invented while playing hockey.

Federer is far more talented...Borg did not have a big serve or any huge strokes....what Borg had over Federer was his mind. There a reason why they call him the ice man.

Federer is stubborn and set in his ways while Borg was a forwardthinking genius.

Tennis is not only about skill as Borg has proved. Or even Brad Gilbert who attained the #3 ranking with virtually no strokes.

Good Lord. Have you even seen Borg play?? If you haven't stop making such ridiculous statements.

krz
06-14-2007, 08:19 AM
yea borg's serve was slow and his forehand was weak and spinless you're right lol

Slams are the measure of a players greatness.

CyBorg
06-14-2007, 08:25 AM
Good Lord. Have you even seen Borg play?? If you haven't stop making such ridiculous statements.

Backhanded compliment?

CyBorg
06-14-2007, 08:26 AM
Backhanded compliment?

har har har

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 07:56 AM
Good Lord. Have you even seen Borg play?? If you haven't stop making such ridiculous statements.

Actually its not ridiculous at all unless you think that Nick Bolleteri is ridiculous.. During Borgs comeback Nick Bolleteri made those comments about Borg. Nick felt that Borg was the greatest champion ever with the least amount of weapons. Check it out on you tube for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0BF780663894165A

freaking new copyright laws...looks like the link doesnt work....never the less its true. What Nick said was that Borg did not have a big serve , he did not have a big backhand ...at times he had a pretty decent forehand...but no real outstanding big weapons. Borgs big weapon was his mind.

crazylevity
06-15-2007, 08:19 AM
look at the Wimby finals against McEnroe; Borg's groundies were passing McEnroe like laser beams. Borg's serve is by no means Sampras-like, but it produced a fair share of winners. And what of his fitness? You don't win 6 French Opens if you have a Nalbandian like gut. NO WEAPONS?

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 08:41 AM
Actually its not ridiculous at all unless you think that Nick Bolleteri is ridiculous.. During Borgs comeback Nick Bolleteri made those comments about Borg. Nick felt that Borg was the greatest champion ever with the least amount of weapons. Check it out on you tube for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0BF780663894165A

freaking new copyright laws...looks like the link doesnt work....never the less its true. What Nick said was that Borg did not have a big serve , he did not have a big backhand ...at times he had a pretty decent forehand...but no real outstanding big weapons. Borgs big weapon was his mind.

Aw, poor baby can't work the Internet.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 09:33 AM
Aw, poor baby can't work the Internet.

I guess when you cannot counter the facts so you have to get personal. Never the less I am correct.

Besides why are you upset....I am saying how incredible Borg was and that his great intellect made him greater than Fed.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 09:36 AM
look at the Wimby finals against McEnroe; Borg's groundies were passing McEnroe like laser beams. Borg's serve is by no means Sampras-like, but it produced a fair share of winners. And what of his fitness? You don't win 6 French Opens if you have a Nalbandian like gut. NO WEAPONS?

Of course he had weapons...but not really a BIG one. As Bolleteri points out!

His serve was good.....was it great? NO!

He had a very consistent backhand....a very good backhand. Was it a huge weapon? ....NO!

He had a very good forehand and he could hit some big shots ....was it a GREAT forehand....NO!

Borgs strokes were VERY VERY good....but it was his mind that was really amazing. Borg would hit the same ball for hours and hours until you made a mistake. He was the ICE MAN!!!

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 09:47 AM
I guess when you cannot counter the facts so you have to get personal. Never the less I am correct.

Besides why are you upset....I am saying how incredible Borg was and that his great intellect made him greater than Fed.

You wouldn't know facts if they hit you square in the face.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 11:26 AM
You wouldn't know facts if they hit you square in the face.

Like I said...rather than pointing to anything logical you need to resort to personal unrpovoked attacks to turn this into an insult match.

The truth is that you have no defense and Bolleteri was right....Borg is probably the greatest champion because of his great mental toughness rather than his strokes.

I refuse to lower myself to a discussion on your level. if you have some factual basis for your assertions I would be happy to discuss them....however I will not be baited into an insult war.

anointedone
06-15-2007, 11:28 AM
Yes he is the greatest 21 year old ever. It is not his fault competition is weak today. His power and fitness wins him all the titles though, not weak competition. Competition will get better once Djokovic, Gasquet, Haas, Youzhny, Querry, Young, Baggy, Monfils, and a few others of the underachieving talents or young upstarts bump take over top spots next to Nadal. Guys like Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, are ok competition for Nadal but not quite enough to make it exciting.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 12:02 PM
Like I said...rather than pointing to anything logical you need to resort to personal unrpovoked attacks to turn this into an insult match.

The truth is that you have no defense and Bolleteri was right....Borg is probably the greatest champion because of his great mental toughness rather than his strokes.

I refuse to lower myself to a discussion on your level. if you have some factual basis for your assertions I would be happy to discuss them....however I will not be baited into an insult war.

The classic troll and bait.

I have been posting on Internet message boards for 7 years and I have seen all the tricks from all the trolls. You are a classic troll.

Here is how you work. You like to upset people by getting on their nerves by making confident statements that are false and not backed up. You feed on this. It's part of your daily existence, your pathetic survival.

But that's not all. Then comes the really beautiful part. When posters call you out you perform the 'bait', by shifting the blame onto the other person. In this case you claim that the other person is angry - the aggressor and therefore the problem. This is how you manufacture chaos - by baiting the other person with the hopes that they become worked up and this entertains you.

I've seen this done many times before and I can see right through you. This is classic trolling with no other purpose than to pillage, wreack havoc and turn people against each other.

Here is why I am even bothering posting this. Trolls are typically to be ignored - most of the intelligent posters here agree with this. However we also know that tennis message boards inform young readers, those who are new to tennis. People who flood these boards to troll and misinform spread false information and this spreads like wildfire. In the likely case that a reader without a particularly deep awareness of tennis and its history stumbles upon this thread he will rest assured that your ramblings are purposeful trolling done with the intention to disrupt and aggravate.

99% of the TW posters now know that you are a troll. Now they must learn to not fall for the 'bait' as well.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 12:11 PM
All I said was that Nick Bolleteri says that Borg did more than anyone else without any HUGE weapon . Borgs mind was his greatest weapon.Thats why was called the ICE man.

If you have a problem with Nick Bolleteri then tell him that. But please do not kill the messenger.

Again, I refuse to lower myself. if there is any fact you would like to discuss I will be more than happy to discuss it. But as far aspersonal attack I am sorry but there is no room for that on these boards.

TheNatural
06-15-2007, 03:20 PM
you dont need weapons if the balls are flat, you just need fitness.

look at the Wimby finals against McEnroe; Borg's groundies were passing McEnroe like laser beams. Borg's serve is by no means Sampras-like, but it produced a fair share of winners. And what of his fitness? You don't win 6 French Opens if you have a Nalbandian like gut. NO WEAPONS?

The Gorilla
06-15-2007, 03:23 PM
Borg Had:

A 120mph serv

The best backhand

The best forehand

amazing volleys

Was the fastest player in the world

Was the fittest player in the world

Was the strongest player in the world

He had plenty of weapons.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 08:28 PM
Borg Had:

A 120mph serv

The best backhand

The best forehand

amazing volleys

Was the fastest player in the world

Was the fittest player in the world

Was the strongest player in the world

He had plenty of weapons.

Im gonna go with Bolleteri's opinion over yours. Unless of course you an back up what you are saying.

But lest just assume arguendo what you are saying is true....

leys say he had a 120 mph serve (i dont think they had radar back then)...but lets ay you are right. He had a good serve but it was NOT A BIG WEAPON. At least not like Mcenroe or Tanner.

Borg had a good forehand. But far fom the best. It was extremely consistent and he could outlast most anybody. But was it a huge weapon?....no way....not compared to Lendl...Now that was a weapon!

amazing volleys???? your on drugs. Borg had good volleys...Mcenroe & Laver had amazing volleys.

Fittest player ? YUP!!!! gotta give you that one!!!

The best backhand....far from it. very consistent.....but not a weapon like Lendl had. No one ever said "keep the ball away from Borgs backhand."

Hops
06-15-2007, 08:58 PM
Sure Borg may have won more....but Borg did not have to contend with the like of Roger Federer or the man with the fastest serve on earth Andy Roddick or the legend Agassi and Sampras killers Hewitt and Safin.


slams by age

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_age.html


titles-finals thru age 21

33 - 17 Bjorn Borg
28 - 9 Jimmy Connors
25 - 11 John McEnroe
24 - 8 Boris Becker
22 - 4 Rafael Nadal
20 - 18 Mats Wilander
19 - 10 Ivan Lendl
18 - 6 Pete Sampras
17 - 6 Lleyton Hewitt
16 - 10 Stefan Edberg
15 - 9 Michael Chang
15 - 7 Andy Roddick
14 - 7 Andre Agassi

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 09:12 PM
slams by age

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_age.html


titles-finals thru age 21

33 - 17 Bjorn Borg
28 - 9 Jimmy Connors
25 - 11 John McEnroe
24 - 8 Boris Becker
22 - 4 Rafael Nadal
20 - 18 Mats Wilander
19 - 10 Ivan Lendl
18 - 6 Pete Sampras
17 - 6 Lleyton Hewitt
16 - 10 Stefan Edberg
15 - 9 Michael Chang
15 - 7 Andy Roddick
14 - 7 Andre Agassi

yeah but the point was Borgs competiton. He played during the baseline bashing days. When Borg played Laver or newcombe on grass he got his butt kicked. In fact even Mcenroe beat Borg both at Wimbledon and the Us open after which time he retired.

At 21 who did Borg face? Panatta?? How does he compare to Roger Federer? Nadal has had to beat Roger Federer all three times he won the FO. Borg never had to deal with anything like that.

On the other hand Borg was a genius and probably would have figured out a way to beat both nadal or Federer.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 09:24 PM
Poster Five-O responding to another stupid troll on the Former Pros Board.

For the umpteenth time, go look at the draws, and look at who the guys advancing in majors during Borg's era had to beat to get there.

Going into 1976 these were the rankings:

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA)***
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)***
3 Borg, Björn (SWE)***
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA)***
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP)
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS)***
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROM)**
8 Alexander, John (AUS)
9 Tanner, Roscoe (USA)*
10 Laver, Rod (AUS)***
11 Okker, Tom (NED)
12 Roche, Tony (AUS)+
13 Ramirez, Raul (MEX)
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA)+
15 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)*
16 Fillol, Jaime (CHI)
17 Solomon, Harold (USA)
18 Dibbs, Eddie (USA)
19 Kodes, Jan (TCH)**
20 Newcombe, John (AUS)***
21 Smith, Stan (USA)***
22 Lutz, Bob (USA)
23 Gottfried, Brian (USA)
24 Riessen, Marty (USA)
25 Cox, Mark (GBR)

Red denotes accomplished S & V'er.

+ Slam winner-Both Roche and Panatta won the RG; Roche also reached one Wimbledon Final and two US Open Finals.

* denotes single grass court major winner

** denotes multi-major winner with one grass court major

*** denotes multi-grass court major winner

Other notables:

Raul Ramirez the leading prize money winner in 1976. Yes, over everyone. He and Brian Gottfried also formed one of the most formidable doubles pairings of the era. (From Total Tennis-by Bud Collins)

Brian Gottfried- In 1976 he reached 15 singles finals, winning 5, and was runner-up at the French Open. He won the men's doubles at the French Open in 1975 and 1977. In 1976 he won the men's doubles at Wimbledon. He finished his career ranked tied for 22nd in the 50 all-time open era singles titles leaders (16), and tied for 12th in the doubles leaders. His game was viewed as technically flawless, particularly his potent forehand volley, considered one of the best in the game. (From Wikipedia)

Two notables were missing from the '76 Wimbledon draw Laver and Rosewall, other than that, on quick inspection, all played.

The seeds:

1. Ashe
2. Connors
3. Nastase
4. Borg
5. Panatta
6. Vilas
7. Tanner
8. Ramirez
9. Okker
10. Newcombe
11.
12. Roche
13. Fillol Jr.
14. Gottfried
15.
16. Smith

Other more than capable serve and volleyers on grass or any fast court that were in the Wimbledon draw that year were Amritraj, Dent, Stockton, Metreveli, Case, Carmicheal, Warwick, Alexander, Pilic, Riessen, Lutz, Gorman, Gullickson, Stone, Edmondson, Ruffels, Meiler, Cox, Taylor, etc. (oh yeah, and Borg himself became effective at the style as well). Also in the draw just plain enormous servers Dibley, Amaya and Dupre (not that John Alexander wasn't).

If you have trouble identifying game styles someone here will be glad to help you out.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-15-2007, 09:38 PM
Your kidding right? Laver, Nasatse and rosewall were old men.

Connors did not play the French.

besides do you think that guys like Gottfried , Panatta compared to Roger Federer? What is so amazing about Nadal is that he had to face Roger Federer three times at the FO and once at Wimbledon all by the age of 21 and three times in finals. Sorry dude but Roger is better than anyone else you mentioned.

That being all said....i really believe that Borg could figure anyone out.

fednad
06-15-2007, 11:43 PM
Guys like Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, are ok competition for Nadal but not quite enough to make it exciting.

A camouflaged troll.......
Guys "like Federer" are "OK" competition to Nadal.
If someboy says that Nadal is an OK competition to Fed, I will try to digest that (though I will most probably disagree and say that Nads is not OK but a good competition)
What's with u --- got up on the wrong side of the bed? OR just delusional?