PDA

View Full Version : Would Nadal be GCCOAT if...


Safinator_1
04-13-2009, 07:36 AM
Hey guys just wondering if Nadal were to win his 5th consecutive FO this year which i think he has a good chance to. Would he be considered the GCCOAT ahead of Borg. (BTW those who are confused GCCOAT = Greatest Clay Courter Of All Time)

I know that Borg has 6 FO titles but he only achieved 4 consecutive FO titles. Nadal currently has that same achievment in consecutive FO now but if he were to win it this year he would have 5. Nadal also holds the record for most Clay Court wins in the entire era and most dominant Clay record in his generation 100 something to 2.

Nadal also holds 4 consecutive AMS montecarlos, 4 consecutive Barcelonas, 3 Consecutive AMS Rome and AMS hamburg before its downgraded.

Would this FO put Nadal ahead of Borg or would he have to win FO next year which shouldn't be a problem considering he maintains his form

Josherer
04-13-2009, 07:39 AM
Wait till career's over.

He could win the next 2 french's and then for the rest of his carrer loose in the 1st round of every french for all we know.

It's too early to judge wether or not a player is GOAT before career has ended.

gj011
04-13-2009, 07:56 AM
To be the undisputed GCCOAT Nadal needs to win either 6 consecutive or 7 total RG titles.

clayman2000
04-13-2009, 08:05 AM
Once again people confuse greatness with stats.
Its not about how much you do, but rather how good are you

Its more of a in their prime, who would win Nadal or Borg.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:06 AM
He needs to win at least 7 to be considered the greatest clay courter of all tiime.

gj011
04-13-2009, 08:08 AM
Once again people confuse greatness with stats.
Its not about how much you do, but rather how good are you

Its more of a in their prime, who would win Nadal or Borg.

You can't compare players from different eras that way. Also since time traveling machine is not invented yet they could never play each other in their prime.

That is way their career achievements is the only valid and objective way to compare them.

Turning Pro
04-13-2009, 08:13 AM
He needs to win at least 7 to be considered the greatest clay courter of all tiime.

Wrong 6 consecutive would make it pretty much undisputed. 5 consecutive is a wash.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:19 AM
Wrong 6 consecutive would make it pretty much undisputed. 5 consecutive is a wash.

Do you know what undisputed means? If he wins 6, people who prefer Borg are not going to say that Nadal is above Borg. He would be at most the equivalent of Borg in their perspective. Undisputed is a situation where EVERYBODY agrees on something. If Nadal wins 6, it won't be undisputed. Many will claim him the greatest, but definitely not all.

tournaking
04-13-2009, 08:27 AM
Shouldn't the stength of the other players of each era be factored into the equation?

JediMindTrick
04-13-2009, 08:35 AM
Once again people confuse greatness with stats.
Its not about how much you do, but rather how good are you

Its more of a in their prime, who would win Nadal or Borg.

This is a rethoric question, no?

380pistol
04-13-2009, 08:39 AM
You can't compare players from different eras that way. Also since time traveling machine is not invented yet they could never play each other in their prime.

That is way their career achievements is the only valid and objective way to compare them.



That's one way, but not the only valid way. Too many variables get overlooked if that's the only measuring stick. Certain things like the level of players around, climate of the game are also heavy factors, as well as some others I may be omitting.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 08:47 AM
I'm already putting Nadal ahead of Borg on clay. Here is why:
at Nadal's age, Borg had won 18 tournaments on clay (2 of which called "pepsi grand slam" had only 2 rounds with only 4 players participating, a format that doesn't exist anymore and cannot be compared to any current event on clay). Nadal has won 22 tournaments on clay.
Borg had won 3 RG (1974, 1975 and 1978) and had also lost 3 (1973, 1976 and 1977). Nadal has won 4 consecutive RG (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) and has never lost any.
Outside of RG the clay events Borg had won several times were:
- Boston: 3 times
-Bastad: 2 times
- Rome: 2 times
- Barcelona: 2 times
Nadal:
- Monte-Carlo: 4 times
- Barcelona: 4 times
- Rome: 3 times
- Stuttgart: 2 times
Borg had lost on clay 28 times to 17 different players. Nadal has only lost 14 times (exactly half!) to 12 different players.
Players to whom Borg had lost several times on clay:
- Adriano Panatta: 5 times
- Jimmy Connors: 3 times
- Raul Ramirez: 3 times
- Manuel Orantes: 2 times
- Corrado Barazzutti: 2 times
- Ilie Nastase: 2 times.
The ONLY player Nadal has lost to several times on clay is Gaston Gaudio (3 times). And of course Nadal also holds the record for longest streak on clay (or on any surface for that matter): 81 matches won in a row.
For all those reasons, I consider Nadal a better clay court player than Borg at this point in time.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 08:51 AM
I'm already putting Nadal ahead of Borg on clay. Here is why:
at Nadal's age, Borg had won 18 tournaments on clay (2 of which called "pepsi grand slam" had only 2 rounds with only 4 players participating, a format that doesn't exist anymore and cannot be compared to any current event on clay). Nadal has won 22 tournaments on clay.
Borg had won 3 RG (1974, 1975 and 1978) and had also lost 3 (1973, 1976 and 1977). Nadal has won 4 consecutive RG (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) and has never lost any.
Outside of RG the clay events Borg had won several times were:
- Boston: 3 times
-Bastad: 2 times
- Rome: 2 times
- Barcelona: 2 times
Nadal:
- Monte-Carlo: 4 times
- Barcelona: 4 times
- Rome: 3 times
- Stuttgart: 2 times
Borg had lost on clay 28 times to 17 different players. Nadal has only lost 14 times (exactly half!) to 12 different players.
Players to whom Borg had lost several times on clay:
- Adriano Panatta: 5 times
- Jimmy Connors: 3 times
- Raul Ramirez: 3 times
- Manuel Orantes: 2 times
- Corrado Barazzutti: 2 times.
The ONLY player Nadal has lost to several times on clay is Gaston Gaudio (3 times). And of course Nadal also holds the record for longest streak on clay (or on any surface for that matter): 81 matches won in a row.
For all those reasons, I consider Nadal a better clay court player than Borg at this point in time.

So basically you're comparing Borg's losses to Jimmy Connors to Nadal's losses to Gaudio? :confused: Let's be real here. Those stats are hardly an indication of GOATness.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 08:57 AM
Do you know what undisputed means? If he wins 6, people who prefer Borg are not going to say that Nadal is above Borg. He would be at most the equivalent of Borg in their perspective. Undisputed is a situation where EVERYBODY agrees on something. If Nadal wins 6, it won't be undisputed. Many will claim him the greatest, but definitely not all.
If Nadal won 6 consecutive RG, it would be totally undisputed as Borg did NOT win his 6 titles consecutively (6 consecutive is a better record than 6 non consecutive). There are other reasons why Nadal's dominance would be undisputed: Nadal holding records that Borg doesn't have such as (and those are just examples): most # of tournaments won on clay overall, most wins at specific tournaments, fewest losses and to fewest opponents, longest streak on clay, etc, etc

drakulie
04-13-2009, 09:01 AM
he would need to have more FO wins than Borg, and also beat Borg in one of those finals to be considered GCCOAT.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 09:02 AM
So basically you're comparing Borg's losses to Jimmy Connors to Nadal's losses to Gaudio? :confused: Let's be real here. Those stats are hardly an indication of GOATness.
I am not comparing Connors to Gaudio at all (I believe Gaudio is a better clay courter than Connors but that's totally off topic). I'm showing you that at 22, Borg had lost to 6 different players several times and to 1 of those players (Panatta) 5 times (including at RG). I'm comparing that to Nadal who only lost several times to 1 player, never more than 3 times and never at RG and yes I'm claiming that so far Nadal has outclassed Borg on clay in every department.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 09:08 AM
If Nadal won 6 consecutive RG, it would be totally undisputed as Borg did NOT win his 6 titles consecutively (6 consecutive is a better record than 6 non consecutive). There are other reasons why Nadal's dominance would be undisputed: Nadal holding records that Borg doesn't have such as (and those are just examples): most # of tournaments won on clay overall, most wins at specific tournaments, fewest losses and to fewest opponents, longest streak on clay, etc, etc
That's what you have in mind, but it doesn't neccessasy means that everyone will agree with you. I for one don't think that Nadal will be undisputed if he wins the French Open only 6 times. That would put him at the level of Borg, but not above Borg.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 09:17 AM
I am not comparing Connors to Gaudio at all (I believe Gaudio is a better clay courter than Connors but that's totally off topic). I'm showing you that at 22, Borg had lost to 5 different players several times and to 1 of those players (Panatta) 5 times (including at RG). I'm comparing that to Nadal who only lost several times to 1 player, never more than 3 times and never at RG and yes I'm claiming that so far Nadal has outclassed Borg on clay in every department.
That's just laughable. Connors is a great clay court player. He is one of the few players who won his grand slams on three different surfaces. His 1976 US Open victory was against Borg on clay. Gaudio is basically a lottery grand slam winner against a crippled Coria. Connors has won far more clay titles than Gaudio can ever dream of. There is no comparison whatsoever between these two. I understand that you are being bias toward Nadal, but those comparisons are just not a valid point to claim Nadal as the greatest clay courter of all time. He needs to win at least 7 French Open to be considered the undisputed greatest clay courter of all time.

JoshDragon
04-13-2009, 09:17 AM
That's what you have in mind, but it doesn't neccessasy means that everyone will agree with you. I for one don't think that Nadal will be undisputed if he wins the French Open only 6 times. That would put him at the level of Borg, but not above Borg.

Not if he wins them consecutively. Borg never won 6 straight.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 09:21 AM
Not if he wins them consecutively. Borg never won 6 straight.

Didn't you just read what I said? You can back up your thought with whatever you want, but in the end not everyone will agree with you if Nadal only wins 6 French Open. Get it, mr. Goku? BTW, Dragon Ball movie sucks.

drakulie
04-13-2009, 09:25 AM
If Nadal_Freak and Veroniquem make enough excuses>>> Nadal will definitely be the GCCOAT.

BTW, Gaudio?Connors?? Goes to show how limited your thought process is.

Gorecki
04-13-2009, 09:37 AM
If Nadal wins 6 FO and one happens to be one the fist day of moonssoons in India and in Burkina faso is Full Moon, then Nadal would be GCCWIMAIAFMABSOAT...

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 09:44 AM
That's what you have in mind, but it doesn't neccessasy means that everyone will agree with you. I for one don't think that Nadal will be undisputed if he wins the French Open only 6 times. That would put him at the level of Borg, but not above Borg.
And you have 0 arguments to back up that claim (other than personal preference), meaning that claim would be whimsical and unsubstantiated. For all (other) rational people 6 consecutive rank higher than 6 non consecutive and longest streak on one surface ranks higher than... no streak at all.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 09:45 AM
If Nadal wins 6 FO and one happens to be one the fist day of moonssoons in India and in Burkina faso is Full Moon, then Nadal would be GCCWIMAIAFMABSOAT...
Wow, that sounds harder than winning 7 FO. I guess he can also be GCCOAT if he can accomplish that one. :lol:

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 09:55 AM
That's just laughable. Connors is a great clay court player. He is one of the few players who won his grand slams on three different surfaces. His 1976 US Open victory was against Borg on clay. Gaudio is basically a lottery grand slam winner against a crippled Coria. Connors has won far more clay titles than Gaudio can ever dream of. There is no comparison whatsoever between these two. I understand that you are being bias toward Nadal, but those comparisons are just not a valid point to claim Nadal as the greatest clay courter of all time. He needs to win at least 7 French Open to be considered the undisputed greatest clay courter of all time.
That is ridiculous. I already said that the comparison between Connors and Gaudio was completely off topic. It is not the reason why Nadal is the best at this point. Since you choose to totally ignore the reasons, I will summarize them 1 last time. At same age, Borg had:
- fewer titles on clay than Nadal
- fewer RG than Nadal
- had never won any clay title more than 3 times
- had lost to more opponents more times and to the same opponents more times than Nadal
- Nadal has the record for longest streak on clay (or on a single surface)
About the comparison (off topic) of Connors to Gaudio, the most prestigious title on clay is RG ( was USO even on red clay?) and Connors has never won RG, that's why I rank Gaudio higher on that surface but that's irrelevant to this thread and can be discussed elsewhere if you wish to.
PS: the major difference in head to heads between Borg and Nadal has nothing to do with Gaudio. It has everything to do with Panatta to whom Borg lost 5 times on clay including at RG.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 10:01 AM
If Nadal_Freak and Veroniquem make enough excuses>>> Nadal will definitely be the GCCOAT.

BTW, Gaudio?Connors?? Goes to show how limited your thought process is.

Varoniquem, read the above post. Learn something yet?? Your posts are nothing but excuses to make Nadal the greatest. BTW, did you just skip school today? Bad boy. :mad:

anointedone
04-13-2009, 10:05 AM
While I am a big Nadal, Borg faced a much tougher clay court field than Nadal has. So Nadal IMHO would need to win either 7 consecutive French Opens or 8 combined (if not consecutive) French Opens to be the GCCOAT. I personally believe he will do that though, or more.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:05 AM
Varoniquem, read the above post. Learn something yet?? Your posts are nothing but excuses to make Nadal the greatest. BTW, did you just skip school today? Bad boy. :mad:
They're not called excuses, they're called arguments, of which you have none. And FYI I'm not a boy ;-)

drakulie
04-13-2009, 10:08 AM
At same age, Borg had:
- fewer RG than Nadal



Hmm, so now we are bringing *age* into the discussion. In that case, Borg won 2 French Opens by the time he was 19 years old, vs Nadal's one. Guess that makes him greater.

Thanks, :roll:

helloworld
04-13-2009, 10:08 AM
While I am a big Nadal, Borg faced a much tougher clay court field than Nadal has. So Nadal IMHO would need to win either 7 consecutive French Opens or 8 combined (if not consecutive) French Opens to be the GCCOAT. I personally believe he will do that though, or more.
WOW, this guy has some serious logic for a dedicated Nadal fan. You should go to law school!

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:09 AM
While I am a big Nadal, Borg faced a much tougher clay court field than Nadal has. So Nadal IMHO would need to win either 7 consecutive French Opens or 8 combined (if not consecutive) French Opens to be the GCCOAT. I personally believe he will do that though, or more.
Does that mean you would not consider any record outside of RG? (like most tournaments overall, most matches won, most success at same tournament or best head to heads overall). In that case it would be best RG player rather than best clay player overall.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 10:10 AM
Hmm, so now we are bringing *age* into the discussion. In that case, Borg won 2 French Opens by the time he was 19 years old, vs Nadal's one. Guess that makes him greater.

Thanks, :roll:

Basically, Federer would be a nobody according to his logic. :???:

tahiti
04-13-2009, 10:11 AM
The fact that Rafa holds the longest winning streak on clay makes him already the goat on clay in my opinion. Add onto that all the titles so far and yet to come....it will only get better. He'd also have to equal Borg's record of FOs and maybe one more, but Borg never had such an unbelievable streak on clay, even with the titles he got. So Rafa is clearly the record holder on clay to date.

drakulie
04-13-2009, 10:12 AM
Basically, Federer would be a nobody according to his logic. :???:

^^Problem is, veroniquem and nadal_freak (the two biggest Nadal haters on the board), have no logic.

tahiti
04-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Basically, Federer would be a nobody according to his logic. :???:

And your job on the board is to......?
Critisize everybody.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Hmm, so now we are bringing *age* into the discussion. In that case, Borg won 2 French Opens by the time he was 19 years old, vs Nadal's one. Guess that makes him greater.

Thanks, :roll:
teenage years is a bit too young to make comparisons. Borg won most of his titles between the age of 18 and 23, so the comparison to current Nadal (= by the age of 23) is quite relevant. Anyway that's why I added "to this point" or "so far" if only you could read. I have no way to predict what Nadal is gonna do in the next 3 years.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:15 AM
Too many mistakes.

I'm already putting Nadal ahead of Borg on clay. Here is why:
at Nadal's age, Borg had won 18 tournaments on clay (2 of which called "pepsi grand slam" had only 2 rounds with only 4 players participating, a format that doesn't exist anymore and cannot be compared to any current event on clay). Nadal has won 22 tournaments on clay.

A pretty shoddy way to look at things. Borg won fewer clay court events, but he also played fewer clay court events. The other thing to mention is that the atp doesn't count a great number of events, so Borg most likely won an equal or bigger amount of titles on clay (does it matter?).

Borg had won 3 RG (1974, 1975 and 1978) and had also lost 3 (1973, 1976 and 1977). Nadal has won 4 consecutive RG (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) and has never lost any.

1) Borg didn't lose in 1977. He didn't play due to the WTT dispute. His loss in 1973 was when he was 16.

2) Nadal, to the best of my knowledge, missed the 2003/2004 RGs due to injuries. Had he not done that he would have had two RG losses to his record.

Outside of RG the clay events Borg had won several times were:
- Boston: 3 times
-Bastad: 2 times
- Rome: 2 times
- Barcelona: 2 times
Nadal:
- Monte-Carlo: 4 times
- Barcelona: 4 times
- Rome: 3 times
- Stuttgart: 2 times

The tour wasn't organized like it is today. Boston was a masters-quality event, if you will. Borg won there for three years in a row, but soon after, most likely due to the move of the US Open to Flushing, the event lost much of its lustre. Borg didn't play there again.

Borg played in Rome exactly three times. 1974, 1975 and 1978. That's it. He also skipped Monte Carlo in 1976 and 1978.

I won't bother with Bastad and Stuttgart.

The problem with your analysis is that it is much too quantitative, when you should be looking at percentages. In terms of quantity, Nadal will always come out on top, because the schedule never changes from year to year.

Borg had lost on clay 28 times to 17 different players. Nadal has only lost 14 times (exactly half!) to 12 different players.
Players to whom Borg had lost several times on clay:
- Adriano Panatta: 5 times
- Jimmy Connors: 3 times
- Raul Ramirez: 3 times
- Manuel Orantes: 2 times
- Corrado Barazzutti: 2 times
- Ilie Nastase: 2 times.

Another example of one-sided quantitative outlook on the players, ignoring the fact that most of Borg's losses came early in his career, while Nadal missed a lot of big events at that same age.

The ONLY player Nadal has lost to several times on clay is Gaston Gaudio (3 times). And of course Nadal also holds the record for longest streak on clay (or on any surface for that matter): 81 matches won in a row.
For all those reasons, I consider Nadal a better clay court player than Borg at this point in time.

Try again. This is bad.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 10:16 AM
teenage years is a bit too young to make comparisons. Borg won between the age of 18 and 23, so the comparison to current Nadal (= by the age of 23) is quite relevant. Anyway that's why I added "to this point" or "so far" if only you could read. I have no way to predict what Nadal is gonna do in the next 3 years.
ROFL!!! You just love making senseless excuses, aren't ya? :)

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:18 AM
Let's forget the RG titles for a second and focus on Borg as the best player on red clay.

If we look at RG titles only then we ignore 1977 completely and this is the year when Borg had a record of 22-0 on the surface, but missed RG due to WTT. He was 2-0 against that year's RG champ Vilas on clay.

Borg was clearly the best clay courter for five years in a row (1977-1981).

If Nadal dominates again this year he will equal that feat - however Borg also put together solid results on clay from 1974 to 1976, although not peak-dominant.

drakulie
04-13-2009, 10:21 AM
teenage years is a bit too young to make comparisons.

And the age you use is a bit too old. LMAO!!

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:24 AM
Too many mistakes.



A pretty shoddy way to look at things. Borg won fewer clay court events, but he also played fewer clay court events. The other thing to mention is that the atp doesn't count a great number of events, so Borg most likely won an equal or bigger amount of titles on clay (does it matter?).



1) Borg didn't lose in 1977. He didn't play due to the WTT dispute. His loss in 1973 was when he was 16.

2) Nadal, to the best of my knowledge, missed the 2003/2004 RGs due to injuries. Had he not done that he would have had two RG losses to his record.



The tour wasn't organized like it is today. Boston was a masters-quality event, if you will. Borg won there for three years in a row, but soon after, most likely due to the move of the US Open to Flushing, the event lost much of its lustre. Borg didn't play there again.

Borg played in Rome exactly three times. 1974, 1975 and 1978. That's it. He also skipped Monte Carlo in 1976 and 1978.

I won't bother with Bastad and Stuttgart.

The problem with your analysis is that it is much too quantitative, when you should be looking at percentages. In terms of quantity, Nadal will always come out on top, because the schedule never changes from year to year.



Another example of one-sided quantitative outlook on the players, ignoring the fact that most of Borg's losses came early in his career, while Nadal missed a lot of big events at that same age.



Try again. This is bad.
You have very good points here, especially the fact that Borg didn't play RG in 1977. Still, no matter how you look at it, the results are there:
3 RG for Borg, 4 for Nadal
5 losses to Panatta for Borg, not more than 3 to 1 player for Nadal
Longest streak on clay for Nadal
I do not believe that Borg played fewer clay tournaments a year than Nadal but if he did, as you claim, that would make it even worse since it would mean that Borg lost twice as much as Nadal and to many more players than Nadal OVER THE COURSE OF FEWER TOURNAMENTS, THUS FEWER MATCHES. Such a fact could NOT make his resume look better no matter what.

drakulie
04-13-2009, 10:25 AM
Still, no matter how you look at it, the results are there:
3 RG for Borg, 4 for Nadal


wrong, 2 RG for Borg, 1 for Nadal.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:29 AM
wrong, 2 RG for Borg, 1 for Nadal.
I'm not talking at 19. We all know Borg was the most precocious player ever which is precisely why Nadal is unlikely to have a shorter career than him and is very likely to increase the advantage he already has over Borg in the future. For instance, if Nadal wins RG this year, he will have 5 consecutive RG titles at 23, something which Borg never achieved in the course of his career.

drakulie
04-13-2009, 10:30 AM
I'm not talking at 19.

I am, and I will remind you, **YOU** are the one that keeps bringing age into the discussion.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:31 AM
You have very good points here, especially the fact that Borg didn't play RG in 1977. Still, no matter how you look at it, the results are there
3 RG for Borg, 4 for Nada

I fail to see the validity here. Borg is worse than Nadal because he played World Team Tennis in 1977?

Eh? Wha? Huh?

5 losses to Panatta for Borg, not more than 3 to 1 player for Nadal
Longest streak on clay for Nadal

Three of those were when Borg was 16. You're a better poster than this. You can think critically. I know you can.

I do not believe that Borg played fewer clay tournaments a year than Nadal but if he did, as you claim, that would make it even worse since it would mean that Borg lost twice as much as Nadal and to many more players than Nadal OVER THE COURSE OF FEWER TOURNAMENTS, THUS FEWER MATCHES. Such a fact could NOT make his resume look better no matter what.

It's like they sucked out your brain and replaced it with Josh's. This makes zero sense.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:33 AM
wrong, 2 RG for Borg, 1 for Nadal.

Heh. We can pick an arbitrary age and base our arguments on it. That's how it works.

Of course if Nadal keeps up dominating like this until he's 28 then I guess he'll have 10 French Opens and will be the clay king for all times.

But some posters are a bit too eager to count the unhatched chickens.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:41 AM
I fail to see the validity here. Borg is worse than Nadal because he played World Team Tennis in 1977?

Eh? Wha? Huh?



Three of those were when Borg was 16. You're a better poster than this. You can think critically. I know you can.



It's like they sucked out your brain and replaced it with Josh's. This makes zero sense.
No, because at the age of 20 (1976) Borg lost in the quarter final to Panatta at RG while Nadal won RG from 19 to 22 years old without losing there to anybody, which is why Nadal has the streak of 4 in a row at age 22, because Nadal never lost 5 times to another player on clay be it at 16, 15 or any age at all, because Nadal has only lost 14 times on clay in all (and that includes all the matches he played at 16 years old as well) vs 28 times for Borg (at same age as Nadal) even though (according to you) Nadal played even more matches on clay than Borg.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:45 AM
No, because at the age of 20 (1976) Borg lost in the quarter final to Panatta at RG while Nadal won RG from 19 to 22 years old without losing there to anybody, which is why Nadal has the streak of 4 in a row at age 22, because Nadal never lost 5 times to another player on clay be it at 16, 15 or any age at all, because Nadal has only lost 14 times on clay in all (and that includes all the matches he played at 16 years old as well) vs 28 times for Borg (at same age as Nadal) even though (according to you) Nadal played even more matches on clay than Borg.

1) Nadal wasn't averaging as many matches on clay at the ages 15-17 as Borg did; Borg's losses came because he was playing more in those years, losing to older guys like Panatta.

2) If you want to make the argument that Nadal is a more accomplished player at the age of 22 (almost 23) than Borg than go ahead, but he doesn't have as good a career on the surface quite yet.

Now, I bet if Borgforever were here he'd tell you that Nadal never faced anyone like Panatta and that in general today's competition on the surface is a joke. But even ignoring all of that, your arguments still don't add up.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 10:45 AM
Heh. We can pick an arbitrary age and base our arguments on it. That's how it works.

Of course if Nadal keeps up dominating like this until he's 28 then I guess he'll have 10 French Opens and will be the clay king for all times.

But some posters are a bit too eager to count the unhatched chickens.
I agree that this is a temporary assessment. I have never said otherwise and it will have to be reevaluated by the time Nadal ends his career.
However, given how short Borg's career was I do not expect time to play in favor of Borg in that matter but who knows? We'll see.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:47 AM
I agree that this is a temporary assessment. I have never said otherwise and it will have to be reevaluated by the time Nadal ends his career.
However, given how short Borg's career was I do not expect time to play in favor of Borg in that matter but who knows? We'll see.

Rewind to 1981 and everyone's talking about how Borg will win 10 French Opens. Same old song.

EikelBeiter
04-13-2009, 10:50 AM
Nadal already is the greatest clay court player of all times.

Why does it matter if he wouldn't get as many Roland Garros championships as borg? He would absolutely demolish prime Borg on clay, which is only natural because times change and tennis has evolved.

But at this point he is undisputabely the best clay court player to ever play this game.

deltox
04-13-2009, 10:50 AM
I'm already putting Nadal ahead of Borg on clay. Here is why:
at Nadal's age, Borg had won 18 tournaments on clay (2 of which called "pepsi grand slam" had only 2 rounds with only 4 players participating, a format that doesn't exist anymore and cannot be compared to any current event on clay). Nadal has won 22 tournaments on clay.
Borg had won 3 RG (1974, 1975 and 1978) and had also lost 3 (1973, 1976 and 1977). Nadal has won 4 consecutive RG (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) and has never lost any.
Outside of RG the clay events Borg had won several times were:
- Boston: 3 times
-Bastad: 2 times
- Rome: 2 times
- Barcelona: 2 times
Nadal:
- Monte-Carlo: 4 times
- Barcelona: 4 times
- Rome: 3 times
- Stuttgart: 2 times
Borg had lost on clay 28 times to 17 different players. Nadal has only lost 14 times (exactly half!) to 12 different players.
Players to whom Borg had lost several times on clay:
- Adriano Panatta: 5 times
- Jimmy Connors: 3 times
- Raul Ramirez: 3 times
- Manuel Orantes: 2 times
- Corrado Barazzutti: 2 times
- Ilie Nastase: 2 times.
The ONLY player Nadal has lost to several times on clay is Gaston Gaudio (3 times). And of course Nadal also holds the record for longest streak on clay (or on any surface for that matter): 81 matches won in a row.
For all those reasons, I consider Nadal a better clay court player than Borg at this point in time.

your forgetting an important factor


the scheduling, the ranking of tourneys today vs then. to many variables to not just use the stats for the fairest overall. you can say nadal has had a better 4 year run on clay, but to say better career til his career ends is again as with all nadal threads, premature.

what happens if he hurts his arm and it heals but its still not the same shoulder after the injury, he continues to play and fails to make the finals for 3 straight years. would he still be the best on clay?


toooo many variable and to much assumption when it comes to nadal on these boards.

as for the loosing on clay, well your taking borgs after prime losses and before prime losses and accumulating them onto his prime losses.

wait til nadal is 25-27 and see if he can hold down the clay supremecy or if his loss total starts adding up like borgs.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 10:58 AM
Nadal already is the greatest clay court player of all times.

Why does it matter if he wouldn't get as many Roland Garros championships as borg? He would absolutely demolish prime Borg on clay, which is only natural because times change and tennis has evolved.

But at this point he is undisputabely the best clay court player to ever play this game.

Disagree. The greatest clay court player of all time will be a guy from democratic superpower Cuba 50 years from now.

He'll have biceps as big as tree trunks.

JeMar
04-13-2009, 11:09 AM
Actually, now that I read some of these posts, I'm not so sure anymore...

thejoe
04-13-2009, 11:09 AM
I don't like to comment on this issue, because I don't know enough about Borg.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 11:21 AM
1) Nadal wasn't averaging as many matches on clay at the ages 15-17 as Borg did; Borg's losses came because he was playing more in those years, losing to older guys like Panatta.

2) If you want to make the argument that Nadal is a more accomplished player at the age of 22 (almost 23) than Borg than go ahead, but he doesn't have as good a career on the surface quite yet.

Now, I bet if Borgforever were here he'd tell you that Nadal never faced anyone like Panatta and that in general today's competition on the surface is a joke. But even ignoring all of that, your arguments still don't add up.
I'm answering to point #1
OK, let's discount the years from 15 to 18 then. We'll only take into account from 19 years old to 22 (1975 to 1978 for Borg and 2005 to 2008 for Nadal). Over those 4 years, Borg played 23 clay court tournaments while Nadal played 25. Over that period Borg lost 9 times ( including once at RG), Nadal lost 4 times, 0 time at RG. Borg won 14 tournaments on clay ( including 2 pepsi events- with only 2 rounds and 4 participants which really can't be compared to any current regular tournament- and 2 slams). Nadal won 21 tournaments (including 4 slams).
Would you like to review your argument?

deltox
04-13-2009, 11:28 AM
I'm answering to point #1
OK, let's discount the years from 15 to 18 then. We'll only take into account from 19 years old to 22 (1975 to 1978 for Borg and 2005 to 2008 for Nadal). Over those 4 years, Borg played 23 clay court tournaments while Nadal played 25. Over that period Borg lost 9 times ( including once at RG), Nadal lost 4 times, 0 time at RG. Borg won 14 tournaments on clay ( including 2 pepsi events- with only 2 rounds and 4 participants which really can't be compared to any current regular tournament- and 3 slams). Nadal won 21 tournaments (including 4 slams).
Would you like to review your argument?

thats why i said hes had the best 4 year stretch of any clay courter in my above post. but time will tell on the rest

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 11:29 AM
I'm answering to point #1
OK, let's discount the years from 15 to 18 then. We'll only take into account from 19 years old to 22 (1975 to 1978 for Borg and 2005 to 2008 for Nadal). Over those 4 years, Borg played 23 clay court tournaments while Nadal played 25. Over that period Borg lost 9 times ( including once at RG), Nadal lost 4 times, 0 time at RG. Borg won 14 tournaments on clay ( including 2 pepsi events- with only 2 rounds and 4 participants which really can't be compared to any current regular tournament and 3 slams). Nadal won 21 tournaments (including 4 slams).
Would you like to review your argument?

I've said all I've had to say. Borg had a flawless record over five years (1977-1981) over which he lost only three matches on red clay. If Nadal puts together six years like that then an argument can be made that he's more accomplished on the surface.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 11:45 AM
I've said all I've had to say. Borg had a flawless record over five years (1977-1981) over which he lost only three matches on red clay. If Nadal puts together six years like that then an argument can be made that he's more accomplished on the surface.
Well, Nadal has a chance to play his fifth flawless year on clay in 2009 (2005 to 2009 and I didn't even mention the numerous davis cup matches Nadal won on clay during that time!) and since Borg was 25 in 1981 and Nadal is only 23 this year, I would say Nadal has a reasonable chance to pack in a few more remarkable years on clay than Borg... Will he? Time will tell.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 11:46 AM
Well, Nadal has a chance to play his fifth flawless year (even a bit more flawless since he didn't miss a single RG in those 5 years) on clay in 2009 (2005 to 2009 and I didn't even mention the numerous davis cup matches Nadal won on clay during that time!) and since Borg was 25 in 1981 and Nadal is only 23 this year, I would say Nadal has a reasonable chance to pack in a few more remakable years on clay than Borg... Will he? Time will tell.

Yes, of course.

Pirao
04-13-2009, 02:23 PM
If he wins RG again this year he will be, no doubt in my mind. Even Borg didn't win 5 FO in a row, and Nadal will surely has 3 or 4 more RG in him I think.

jelle v
04-13-2009, 04:11 PM
Had Nadal reached this streak 10 years ago, there would be no doubt in my mind that Nadal was the G.C.O.A.T.

Only problem now that I have, is that the current field of tennisplayers, has no true gravelplayers anymore. Nadal imo is the last great gravelplayer we will see for a long time. But because of lack of competition (imo), he will have to beat Borg's record fairly big to be the GCOAT imo. At this point i will however, rate himi just as high as Borg (yes already). But winning 5 in a row, or getting to 7 RG's will not put Nadal past Borg in my book. If Nadal wins 8 RG's however, imo he will be the greatest yes.

thejoe
04-13-2009, 04:13 PM
Had Nadal reached this streak 10 years ago, there would be no doubt in my mind that Nadal was the G.C.O.A.T.

Only problem now that I have, is that the current field of tennisplayers, has no true gravelplayers anymore. Nadal imo is the last great gravelplayer we will see for a long time. But because of lack of competition (imo), he will have to beat Borg's record fairly big to be the GCOAT imo. At this point i will however, rate himi just as high as Borg (yes already). But winning 5 in a row, or getting to 7 RG's will not put Nadal past Borg in my book. If Nadal wins 8 RG's however, imo he will be the greatest yes.

But is that his fault? He can only beat who is infront of him, and he does with ease. Judge him on his level of play, not by who he is playing.

T1000
04-13-2009, 04:24 PM
when he demolishes borgs records. no competition right now makes it harder for him to prove he's the best.

JoshDragon
04-13-2009, 04:39 PM
Didn't you just read what I said? You can back up your thought with whatever you want, but in the end not everyone will agree with you if Nadal only wins 6 French Open. Get it, mr. Goku? BTW, Dragon Ball movie sucks.

You mean you went to go see it?:shock:

JoshDragon
04-13-2009, 04:43 PM
While I am a big Nadal, Borg faced a much tougher clay court field than Nadal has. So Nadal IMHO would need to win either 7 consecutive French Opens or 8 combined (if not consecutive) French Opens to be the GCCOAT. I personally believe he will do that though, or more.

It doesn't matter, Borg and Nadal were both heads and shoulders above the rest of their competition. Nadal could have beaten any of those guys Borg faced on clay. Even Connors or Vilas.

deltox
04-13-2009, 04:47 PM
It doesn't matter, Borg and Nadal were both heads and shoulders above the rest of their competition. Nadal could have beaten any of those guys Borg faced on clay. Even Connors or Vilas.

cant say coulda beaten them, they didnt have babolats then remember. alot of todays players woulda been in trouble with older technology, roddick, nadal, anyone who uses massive spin or uses an overpowering technique.. thats my opinion anyways

JeMar
04-13-2009, 04:49 PM
Had Nadal reached this streak 10 years ago, there would be no doubt in my mind that Nadal was the G.C.O.A.T.

Only problem now that I have, is that the current field of tennisplayers, has no true gravelplayers anymore. Nadal imo is the last great gravelplayer we will see for a long time. But because of lack of competition (imo), he will have to beat Borg's record fairly big to be the GCOAT imo. At this point i will however, rate himi just as high as Borg (yes already). But winning 5 in a row, or getting to 7 RG's will not put Nadal past Borg in my book. If Nadal wins 8 RG's however, imo he will be the greatest yes.

I don't think the strength of the field should be held against Nadal, as he had no control over who was standing at the other side of the net.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by anointedone
While I am a big Nadal, Borg faced a much tougher clay court field than Nadal has. So Nadal IMHO would need to win either 7 consecutive French Opens or 8 combined (if not consecutive) French Opens to be the GCCOAT. I personally believe he will do that though, or more


WOW, this guy has some serious logic for a dedicated Nadal fan. You should go to law school!


I bet you do not have any idea what background every Nadal fan has. Since you talk about logic, would you care to explain what you find logical in anointedone's post?

helloworld
04-13-2009, 05:06 PM
I bet you do not have any idea what background every Nadal fan has. Since you talk about logic, would you care to explain what you find logical in anointedone's post?

What part of his post don't you understand? He said that Nadal needs at least 7 FO to be considered undisputed GCCOAT, which is understandable as Borg has 6, and Nadal has what, 4 right now? Nadal still has some work to do. We can revive this thread in about 2-3 years, and see if he lives up to the expectation.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:21 PM
I dunno.. It will still be debatable IMO since today the clay court field is that weakest its been in YEARS.


But thats just my opinion.. Maybe Nadal is the GOAT on clay but it doesnt negate the fact that the field is pretty crappy on clay. Fed is the 2nd best clay courter in this era? Fed is solid but certainly not on the level of other past greats on clay.

Dominating today's clay field and even getting the record at RG, doesnt automatically equate to the GOAT. Who knows how Nadal would have done in the 70's, 80's, 90s at RG. I would suspect he would have much tougher draws and much better dirtballers to contend with than he does today. Taking nothing away from Fed, Djoker, Monfils, Ferrer etc. I dont see a great clay court player out there today other than Nadal. Havent seen one in years

helloworld
04-13-2009, 05:24 PM
I dunno.. It will still be debatable IMO since today the clay court field is that weakest its been in YEARS.


But thats just my opinion.. Maybe Nadal is the GOAT on clay but it doesnt negate the fact that the field is pretty crappy on clay. Fed is the 2nd best clay courter in this era? Fed is solid but certainly not on the level of other past greats on clay.
Fed is definitely not top 10 clay courters in my book. His 2004 and 2008 scoreboard definitely proves that. Even a torn up broken hip Guga demolished him in straight sets. Let's not even mention a bagel and breadstick last year...

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:27 PM
Fed is definitely not top 10 clay courters in my book. His 2004 and 2008 scoreboard definitely proves that. Even a torn up broken hip Guga demolished him in straight sets. Let's not even mention a bagel and breadstick last year...

Youre right.. Old plastic hipped broken down passed his prime Guga was straight setting Fed, before nadal even got ahold of Fed on clay. Thats your "clay court competition" there in this era. Like I mentioned, Still debatable if Nadal is the GOAT on clay due to the circumstances. He never played anyone on Guga, Borg, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas' level. NEVER.. His greatest conquer is over Fed and relative weak draws before meeting Fed in the final. So IT IS debatable, whether Nadal gets the RG record or not. You can certainly make arguments

ChanceEncounter
04-13-2009, 05:35 PM
I am not comparing Connors to Gaudio at all (I believe Gaudio is a better clay courter than Connors but that's totally off topic). I'm showing you that at 22, Borg had lost to 6 different players several times and to 1 of those players (Panatta) 5 times (including at RG). I'm comparing that to Nadal who only lost several times to 1 player, never more than 3 times and never at RG and yes I'm claiming that so far Nadal has outclassed Borg on clay in every department.

You can't compare people simply because they were better "at age ." What if Nadal were to inexplicably lose in the first round of every French Open thereafter? Some people rise early and peak early and then decline. Some people rise late, peak late, and decline late. Some are a mix in the middle.

You can't analyze greatness over a whole career without looking at the [i]whole career.

Not everyone is going to accomplish everything at the same amount of time. Not everyone's body fills out at the exact same time.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 05:40 PM
What part of his post don't you understand? He said that Nadal needs at least 7 FO to be considered undisputed GCCOAT, which is understandable as Borg has 6, and Nadal has what, 4 right now? Nadal still has some work to do. We can revive this thread in about 2-3 years, and see if he lives up to the expectation.


I understood every word of it, and everything he said was HIS opinion (not an empirical evidence). Maybe you find his opinion logical because you agree with it? Everyone has his opinion who the greatest is. Johnny Mac last year said, Nadal is the best he has ever seen on clay. I agree with him, but that doesn't mean he was right.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 05:44 PM
I dunno.. It will still be debatable IMO since today the clay court field is that weakest its been in YEARS.


But thats just my opinion.. Maybe Nadal is the GOAT on clay but it doesnt negate the fact that the field is pretty crappy on clay. Fed is the 2nd best clay courter in this era? Fed is solid but certainly not on the level of other past greats on clay.

Dominating today's clay field and even getting the record at RG, doesnt automatically equate to the GOAT. Who knows how Nadal would have done in the 70's, 80's, 90s at RG. I would suspect he would have much tougher draws and much better dirtballers to contend with than he does today. Taking nothing away from Fed, Djoker, Monfils, Ferrer etc. I dont see a great clay court player out there today other than Nadal. Havent seen one in years


Crappy? Because Nadal wins everything? Take Rafa out of the equation and you'll probably have a variety of winners. Would that make it a strong field?

Fed is not at Michael Chang's level?

edberg505
04-13-2009, 05:52 PM
Youre right.. Old plastic hipped broken down passed his prime Guga was straight setting Fed, before nadal even got ahold of Fed on clay. Thats your "clay court competition" there in this era. Like I mentioned, Still debatable if Nadal is the GOAT on clay due to the circumstances. He never played anyone on Guga, Borg, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas' level. NEVER.. His greatest conquer is over Fed and relative weak draws before meeting Fed in the final. So IT IS debatable, whether Nadal gets the RG record or not. You can certainly make arguments

Fed is definitely not top 10 clay courters in my book. His 2004 and 2008 scoreboard definitely proves that. Even a torn up broken hip Guga demolished him in straight sets. Let's not even mention a bagel and breadstick last year...

You guys make it sound as if Federer has never beaten Guga on clay.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:52 PM
Crappy? Because Nadal wins everything? Take Rafa out of the equation and you'll probably have a variety of winners. Would that make it a strong field?

Fed is not at Michael Chang's level?



No not just because Nadal wins everything.. And I didnt say Fed wasnt on chang's level but I certainly dont think Fed is better than Guga, Muster, Courier, Bruguera etc. Fed isnt a top clay court player in history. Top 20 maybe.. Not top 10.

Would Nadal win every RG and have the ridiculous win-loss record he does on clay, in a different era? I dunno about that. This would equate to tougher draws.. Not the types of draws he had now. Chances are for Nadal to get through the draws the French he would have had to of gone through some battles. Not cakewalks.

Ive seen Monfils, Ferrer, Djoker, Nalbandian, and others from this era play on clay, and I dont see how any of them were better than best of the clay courters from the 70s, 80s, 90s

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 05:57 PM
Youre right.. Old plastic hipped broken down passed his prime Guga was straight setting Fed, before nadal even got ahold of Fed on clay. Thats your "clay court competition" there in this era. Like I mentioned, Still debatable if Nadal is the GOAT on clay due to the circumstances. He never played anyone on Guga, Borg, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas' level. NEVER.. His greatest conquer is over Fed and relative weak draws before meeting Fed in the final. So IT IS debatable, whether Nadal gets the RG record or not. You can certainly make arguments


But Sampras Never played anyone at the level of prime Borg, Federer or Laver at wimbledon. His greatest competitions were the mental midget Goran, but maybe you consider Pioline at Laver's level?

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 05:57 PM
You guys make it sound as if Federer has never beaten Guga on clay.


Exactly, Federer bageled him in Hamburg.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:59 PM
But Sampras Never played anyone at the level of prime Borg, Federer or Laver at wimbledon. His greatest competitions were the mental midget Goran, but maybe you consider Pioline at Laver's level?

Why must u bring up Pete whenever I bring up another player? LOL

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:59 PM
Exactly, Federer bageled him in Hamburg.

RG is more of a big deal than Hamburg

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 06:02 PM
Im not saying Nadal couldnt dominate at the level he does on clay today in any other era. Im just saying it would be tougher for him.. He would encounter much tougher draws against more quality clay court players is all then he does today.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 06:06 PM
No not just because Nadal wins everything.. And I didnt say Fed wasnt on chang's level but I certainly dont think Fed is better than Guga, Muster, Courier, Bruguera etc. Fed isnt a top clay court player in history. Top 20 maybe.. Not top 10.

Would Nadal win every RG and have the ridiculous win-loss record he does on clay, in a different era? I dunno about that. This would equate to tougher draws.. Not the types of draws he had now. Chances are for Nadal to get through the draws the French he would have had to of gone through some battles. Not cakewalks.

Ive seen Monfils, Ferrer, Djoker, Nalbandian, and others from this era play on clay, and I dont see how any of them were better than best of the clay courters from the 70s, 80s, 90s


I don't remember the year Borg won the FO without dropping a set. Was Borg playing on a weak field then, or was he simply too good?

edberg505
04-13-2009, 06:09 PM
Exactly, Federer bageled him in Hamburg.

Yup, BAGELED!

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 06:10 PM
You can't compare people simply because they were better "at age ." What if Nadal were to inexplicably lose in the first round of every French Open thereafter? Some people rise early and peak early and then decline. Some people rise late, peak late, and decline late. Some are a mix in the middle.

You can't analyze greatness over a whole career without looking at the [i]whole career.

Not everyone is going to accomplish everything at the same amount of time. Not everyone's body fills out at the exact same time.
Sure but both Borg and Nadal were early achievers: they're tie for most number of titles as teenagers, they've achieved the double RG-W at the same age and they're the only 2 players who got 6 slams by their 23rd birthday. So comparing them is more relevant than , let's say, comparing Lendl and Wilander at the same age. Borg and Nadal have a very similar profile, Borg even said in an interview that his game had a lot in common with Nadal's.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 06:11 PM
RG is more of a big deal than Hamburg


Guga played Hamburg to lose?



Rafa's 14 losses on clay should not be counted because it wasn't at the FO.

egn
04-13-2009, 06:11 PM
I dunno.. It will still be debatable IMO since today the clay court field is that weakest its been in YEARS.


But thats just my opinion.. Maybe Nadal is the GOAT on clay but it doesnt negate the fact that the field is pretty crappy on clay. Fed is the 2nd best clay courter in this era? Fed is solid but certainly not on the level of other past greats on clay.

Dominating today's clay field and even getting the record at RG, doesnt automatically equate to the GOAT. Who knows how Nadal would have done in the 70's, 80's, 90s at RG. I would suspect he would have much tougher draws and much better dirtballers to contend with than he does today. Taking nothing away from Fed, Djoker, Monfils, Ferrer etc. I dont see a great clay court player out there today other than Nadal. Havent seen one in years

You bring up a valid point. Fed is definitely good competition and Nadal and him no doubt would have success on clay in another era, but is it to the same level. Wherever Nadal goes I can see him squeaking out a few french opens...as many as he has but thats all speculation..fed if place in the right era could get one, but thats not the point. Anyway the point is the following the best clay courters that were supposed to challenge Nadal are as follow..a tad bit of a run down.

Federer - okay existed but not close to Nadal's level on clay has only one victory against him and the huge mental block against him.
Ferrer - Great skills, never focused or lived up to potential.
Nalbandian - See above.
Juan Carlos Ferrero - Tragic injury ended his career at a young age never giving him the chance to win more than one french open.
Kureten- combination of age and injuries kicked in to ruin his career.
Coria- mental flake, lost control of himself in his chance to dominate in france, career went down a spiral from there.
Gaudio- another mental flake, never could keep it together and saw his career go down the tube.
Safin- got injuried in 2003 right as he was starting to show through on the surface in 2002 and never came back the same. Also a headcase.
Robredo- failure at ever coming through in the big events.
Djokovic- Breathing problems, headcase, not a great clay court player yet but a good one none the less.
Davydenko- Does he even count? Could go deep in slams but still failed.
Monfils- Does not know how to use his own skills.
Juan Martin Del Potro- might be able to eventually make ground on Nadal..my predicition.

But the point is all those guys had potential on the surface and all failed, were headcases or got injuried. The field from 2002-2004 took a nosedive. Nadal honestly should get some respect for saving clay court tennis, for if had not been for him Federer would have 3 clay court slams by now..and no offense but he is not that good a clay courter either. Fed at most should have 1 or 2 (pushing it) His game is not that amazing on clay either..he is more lucky than Nadal guys like Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio and Kureten did not stay around and keep their heads on straight.

Yet at the same time Nadal still has to be great..you need to be great to beat good clay courters over and over again, very good ones for that fact. So he never faced another "great" clay courter..he still didn't beat idiots on clay. He beat a 13 slam winner over and over again in French Open finals..lets give him so credit.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 06:14 PM
Why must u bring up Pete whenever I bring up another player? LOL



Because we were comparing Borg to Nadal, and you brought up Wilander, Muster, courier and Bruguera.

Nadal_Freak
04-13-2009, 06:28 PM
Guga played Hamburg to lose?



Rafa's 14 losses on clay should not be counted because it wasn't at the FO.
So Nadal would play a tournament 3 days before the French Open? Rome came the week before and Nadal had 2 days to rest before Hamburg. He had 8 days for RG.

The-Champ
04-13-2009, 06:34 PM
So Nadal would play a tournament 3 days before the French Open? Rome came the week before and Nadal had 2 days to rest before Hamburg. He had 8 days for RG.


What is the point of your post? Just asking....:oops:

drakulie
04-13-2009, 06:38 PM
Rafa's 14 losses on clay should not be counted because it wasn't at the FO.


Agreed. In fact, none of Nadal's losses should ever be held against him, because he wasn't ready.

CyBorg
04-13-2009, 06:47 PM
Agreed. In fact, none of Nadal's losses should ever be held against him, because he wasn't ready.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2isavl5.jpg

Nadal_Freak
04-13-2009, 07:06 PM
What is the point of your post? Just asking....:oops:
The point is Nadal's preparation is drastically different for a slam compared to a Masters Series. Thus, why you put more emphasis on what Nadal does in slams compared to Masters Series. Not all losses are equal to each other.

JoshDragon
04-13-2009, 08:06 PM
Youre right.. Old plastic hipped broken down passed his prime Guga was straight setting Fed, before nadal even got ahold of Fed on clay. Thats your "clay court competition" there in this era. Like I mentioned, Still debatable if Nadal is the GOAT on clay due to the circumstances. He never played anyone on Guga, Borg, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas' level. NEVER.. His greatest conquer is over Fed and relative weak draws before meeting Fed in the final. So IT IS debatable, whether Nadal gets the RG record or not. You can certainly make arguments

Nadal would have owned Guga, Bruguera, and Courier, most of the time. Wilander, Borg, and Vilas would have been much harder but I still think Nadal would win their h2h because he is mentally stronger than they were.

gj011
04-13-2009, 08:21 PM
Nadal would have owned Guga, Bruguera, and Courier, most of the time. Wilander, Borg, and Vilas would have been much harder but I still think Nadal would win their h2h because he is mentally stronger than they were.

Mentally stronger than Borg? Not sure about that.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 09:32 PM
Yup, BAGELED!
Fed also begeled Nadal in Hamburg, but nobody cares since it is not a grand slam. If Fed is so good, why couldn't he bagel Nadal like he did in Hamburg? That's right. If Nadal doesn't let him, Fed is toast.

380pistol
04-13-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't remember the year Borg won the FO without dropping a set. Was Borg playing on a weak field then, or was he simply too good?

Yeah Borg raped Vilas in the final 1,1 and 3. Who held the claycourt streak before Nadal??? Alrighty then.

jelle v
04-14-2009, 01:34 AM
But is that his fault? He can only beat who is infront of him, and he does with ease. Judge him on his level of play, not by who he is playing.

I'm not blaming him am I..?

Fact remains that his competition is weaker than any other era on gravel. And I am judging him on his level of play. Otherwise I wouldn't think he could become the greatest claycourter ever.

thejoe
04-14-2009, 02:24 AM
Youre right.. Old plastic hipped broken down passed his prime Guga was straight setting Fed, before nadal even got ahold of Fed on clay. Thats your "clay court competition" there in this era. Like I mentioned, Still debatable if Nadal is the GOAT on clay due to the circumstances. He never played anyone on Guga, Borg, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas' level. NEVER.. His greatest conquer is over Fed and relative weak draws before meeting Fed in the final. So IT IS debatable, whether Nadal gets the RG record or not. You can certainly make arguments

Federer also bagelled Kuerten 2 years earlier in Hamburg.

Safinator_1
04-14-2009, 02:28 AM
It is very hard to compare players between different eras since there are so many factors that needs to be taken into account.

One factor that stands out to me the is the competition of the field and i know Nadal cannot control it i believe if he keeps winning over them on a very consistent basis that would for me balance things out compared to the competition in borgs days.

100th post on my thread started yippee :D