PDA

View Full Version : Is Nadal the greatest clay court player of all time?


Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 11:58 AM
I think he is

Semi-Pro
04-03-2010, 12:00 PM
I'd say Borg is for now since he has more FO's.

We just have to wait and see until Nadal's career is over.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 12:05 PM
I'd say Borg is for now since he has more FO's.

We just have to wait and see until Nadal's career is over.

Borg never had to gave Federer in every single FO. In fact Borg lost to Panetta a serve amd volleyer.

Plus Nadal has the world record for most consecutive clay court wins.

rovex
04-03-2010, 12:07 PM
It's very hard to tell, but all i know is that the clay court field has been poor for a while.

Rippy
04-03-2010, 12:08 PM
Borg never had to gave Federer in every single FO. In fact Borg lost to Panetta a serve amd volleyer.

Plus Nadal has the world record for most consecutive clay court wins.

But Federer is the perfect matchup for Nadal...

JDL
04-03-2010, 12:09 PM
"We just have to wait and see until Nadal's career is over. "


i thought nadal's career was/is already over :P

Rippy
04-03-2010, 12:10 PM
"We just have to wait and see until Nadal's career is over. "


i thought nadal's career was/is already over :P

You joined in October 08, and made your first post now?! :)

samprasvsfederer123
04-03-2010, 12:23 PM
You joined in October 08, and made your first post now?! :)

sht that is weird

mtr1
04-03-2010, 12:24 PM
There was a guy called Borg, I hear he was quite handy too.

Carsomyr
04-03-2010, 12:36 PM
A very close second behind Borg.

Carsomyr
04-03-2010, 12:38 PM
You joined in October 08, and made your first post now?! :)

Someone just now remembered that they created a troll account for special occasions.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 12:59 PM
But Federer is the perfect matchup for Nadal...

True but other than a rookie Lendl , who did Borg have to face?

kishnabe
04-03-2010, 01:04 PM
Rafa is great claycourter but he does not stick a handle to Borg... Borg losing to Pannata twice since Pannata is a great player.
Nadal losing to Soderling was not so great...all credit to soderling.

borg number one
04-03-2010, 01:12 PM
Borg faced an array of great clay courters and clay court specialists. He's the greatest ever, followed by, Nadal and Lendl in my opinion in the Open Era. Rosewall was another all time great. Borg had it all in terms of being a great clay courter, and he lost once to Panatta when he was about 17. Adriano Panatta was not a bad player, by the way. Borg beat Vilas in two other FO finals, as well as Lendl, Orantes, Gerulaitis and Pecci in other FO finals. He won 6 FO's by 25 and he skipped it in 1977 due to a players' strike. He was a clay court MONSTER as is Nadal!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/09/article-0-0187E12500000578-190_468x517.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/tennis.fanhouse.com/media/2009/05/1-nadal-borg-425la-052609.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1981/0615_large.jpg

Wolland
04-03-2010, 01:35 PM
In my book he is.

Talker
04-03-2010, 01:51 PM
With all respect to Borg, who by the way is one of my all-time favorites, I have to go with Nadal.
I have no numbers here, just that I've never seen anyone play on clay like Nadal has.

DownTheLine
04-03-2010, 01:54 PM
This thread needs a poll. Yes he is the greatest.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 01:57 PM
Rafa is great claycourter but he does stick a handle to Borg... Borg losing to Pannata twice since Pannata is a great player.
Nadal losing to Soderling was not so great...all credit to soderling.

Gimme a break. Panatta was a serve amd volleyer on red clay . He doesn't deserve to shine soderlings shoes.

borg number one
04-03-2010, 02:02 PM
Gimme a break. Panatta was a serve amd volleyer on red clay . He doesn't deserve to shine soderlings shoes.

Panatta was a much more accomplished clay court player than Soderling. It was his best surface. Soderling is not a really good clay court player. All the stars aligned for him to beat Nadal last year. Anyway, as you can see, Panatta won quite a bit on clay, including one FO title in 1976 among 8 total clay titles. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Panatta

LuckyR
04-03-2010, 02:09 PM
If you make the record for most clay court wins with the GOAT in the draw --> you are the GOAT on clay, simple, really. True Borg has more FOs, which makes him the FO leader, but the OP asked about GOAT on clay (not FO leader) and there are more clay tourneys than just the FO.

Augustus
04-03-2010, 02:11 PM
For now, Borg is still the clay GOAT in my opinion. If Nadal wins another French Open, however, I consider him equal to Borg

aprilfool
04-03-2010, 02:13 PM
If he isn't then he is the second best all time, imo. I think that one more French win will cement his status as the Clay GOAT.

Changmaster
04-03-2010, 02:14 PM
But Federer is the perfect matchup for Nadal...

Losing to someone 7 times out of 20 matches is not what I would call a "perfect matchup." Plus, Federer has a winning record over Nadal on non-clay surfaces.

Sure, Nadal matches up well against Fed. Still though, the way some people talk about about Fed vs Nadal, you'd think that Fed has never beaten Nadal. Whereas in reality, a 13-7 record in favor of Nadal, while lopsided, is far from dominating.

But if Fed is indeed the perfect matchup for Nadal, then that shows how incredibly good Fed is, that he's still managed to win 7/20 matches against the most unfavorable matchup possible.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 02:16 PM
Panatta was a much more accomplished clay court player than Soderling. It was his best surface. Soderling is not a really good clay court player. All the stars aligned for him to beat Nadal last year. Anyway, as you can see, Panatta won quite a bit on clay, including one FO title in 1976 among 8 total clay titles. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Panatta

ok.......

Borgs competition : panetta.

Nadals competition: Federer.

I rest my case

swordtennis
04-03-2010, 02:18 PM
Yes. He is a clay prodigy. A Phenom.
It takes away from just how gr8 Nadal is when "Nadal is a bad matchup 4 Federer". He is not that horrible of Match-up. Lot of it is Mental. It also takes away from federers Wins and tight battles he has had with Nadal.

Augustus
04-03-2010, 02:19 PM
ok.......

Borgs competition : panetta.
Nadals competition: Federer.

I rest my case

Come on, what about Orantes, Vilas, Lendl just to name a few. The fact that he owned these guys on clay doens't mean they're no strong competition! Pannatta was just a bad matchup for him, like Simon is for Federer e.g.

borg number one
04-03-2010, 02:23 PM
Just to throw some numbers out there, Borg was 245-39 on clay, which is about a 86% winning %. He won 30 clay titles, including 6 FO titles, during his career.

Meanwhile, Nadal is now 181-16 on clay, which is about a 91% winning %. He has won 25 titles on clay, including 4 FO titles.

Federer is 141-42 on clay, which is about a 77% winning %. He has 9 clay titles and 1 FO title.

Cross-court
04-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Seriously, how many of these threads are people going to do? "Is Federer the GOAT?" "Is Nadal the GOAT?" There must be hundreds of them already! An end has to be put to this.

swordtennis
04-03-2010, 02:33 PM
Just to throw some numbers out there, Borg was 245-39 on clay, which is about 86%, and he won 30 titles on clay, including 6 FO titles during his career. Meanwhile, Nadal is now 181-16 on clay so far, which is about 91% , and he has won 25 titles on clay, including 4 FO titles. Federer is 141-42 on clay, at 77%, with 9 clay titles and 1 FO title.

Sick numbers. It is not easy picking Nadal over Borg. Its a dead lock even tho I favor nadal slightly.

Rhino
04-03-2010, 02:33 PM
Yeah, I think he is.

Rippy
04-03-2010, 02:40 PM
Losing to someone 7 times out of 20 matches is not what I would call a "perfect matchup." Plus, Federer has a winning record over Nadal on non-clay surfaces.

Sure, Nadal matches up well against Fed. Still though, the way some people talk about about Fed vs Nadal, you'd think that Fed has never beaten Nadal. Whereas in reality, a 13-7 record in favor of Nadal, while lopsided, is far from dominating.

But if Fed is indeed the perfect matchup for Nadal, then that shows how incredibly good Fed is, that he's still managed to win 7/20 matches against the most unfavorable matchup possible.

No no, I'm aware it's not completely lopsided. It's just I don't think having to go through Fed gives Nadal an advantage over Borg, since there are players that Nadal would fear more than Fed.

GoaLaSSo
04-03-2010, 02:44 PM
Nadal. Up until he lost to soderling he had only lost a few times on clay in his professional career. That was his 1st French open loss!!!!

Povl Carstensen
04-03-2010, 02:52 PM
Just to throw some numbers out there, Borg was 245-39 on clay, which is about a 86% winning %. He won 30 clay titles, including 6 FO titles, during his career.

Meanwhile, Nadal is now 181-16 on clay, which is about a 91% winning %. He has won 25 titles on clay, including 4 FO titles.

Federer is 141-42 on clay, which is about a 77% winning %. He has 9 clay titles and 1 FO title.

245-39, 30 clay, 6 FO's is a bit better than 181-16, 25 clay, 4 FO's, but close....

borg number one
04-03-2010, 03:00 PM
245-39, 30 clay, 6 FO's is a bit better than 181-16, 25 clay, 4 FO's, but close....

I agree. Nadal is also very impressive on clay and has accomplished a great deal very quickly.

kishnabe
04-03-2010, 03:03 PM
Borg lost only twice at the French to the same guy...and had he not retired so young he would have like 10 FO or more.
Nadal on the other hand even if win more than 6 French opens...I don't think in terms of pure ability on clay would he be better than borg. Nadal with a donnay borg pro strung at 80lb of tension...I don't think he can handle that....the fact that he plays a topspin game is with that racquet and strings. If he used a wooden racquet and played agianst borg...he would lose big time. Borg is the best that has ever played on Clay...and should be the greatest simply because he the most fit and tactile complete player on clay. Ken Rosewall won like 10 FO...he is great too.. Nadal even at the end of his career would be dawned as one of the greatest clay courters but he holds no cake to Borg. Even If nadal achieves more than borg...Borg is the better clay courter in pure ownage on clay!

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
04-03-2010, 03:24 PM
What about Ken Roswell?

swordtennis
04-03-2010, 03:29 PM
Nadal in all probability will win 1 or 2 more French Opens.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 03:30 PM
Borg lost only twice at the French

nadal has only lost once.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 03:32 PM
Come on, what about Orantes, Vilas, Lendl just to name a few. The fact that he owned these guys on clay doens't mean they're no strong competition! Pannatta was just a bad matchup for him, like Simon is for Federer e.g.

All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

borg number one
04-03-2010, 03:32 PM
Here are some numbers for Lendl on clay: 329-75, 81%, 29 clay titles, including 3 FO Titles. Rosewall is another all time great on clay, no doubt.

swordtennis
04-03-2010, 03:36 PM
All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

I tend 2 agree.....

Agassifan
04-03-2010, 03:39 PM
All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

Yeah.. because they're not lefties with high bouncing top spin

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 03:41 PM
Here are some numbers for Lendl on clay: 329-75, 81%, 29 clay titles, including 3 FO Titles. Rosewall is another all time great on clay, no doubt.




Lendl played with a graphite against borgs tiny wood racquet and Lendl still couldn't win.

Then to top it off Borg lost to freaking Chang while he cramped up amd served underhand.

Lendl is not a contender .

Rosewall played during the grass era. Almost everyone had a continental grip amd Syed serve and volley. Don't go prehistoric on us.

borg number one
04-03-2010, 03:42 PM
All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

Both Lendl and Vilas were better clay court players than Federer, given Federer's results so far. Also, why compare Borg's opponents to Federer? It's safe to say that Borg was quite a bit better than Federer on clay. Meanwhile, Nadal is among the all time greats on clay. Borg, Lendl, and Rosewall are others near the top of the list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik22RUEk9aY&feature=PlayList&p=9D7F0B3F7F842B15&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=28 (Lendl vs. McEnroe)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxmgflWQsUg&feature=PlayList&p=9D7F0B3F7F842B15&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=24 (Lendl vs. Wilander)

davey25
04-03-2010, 03:42 PM
Borg never had to gave Federer in every single FO.

Well considering Borg would spank Federer on clay who cares.

Rippy
04-03-2010, 03:42 PM
All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

How good they are isn't about whether they can beat Federer or not.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 03:45 PM
Well considering Borg would spank Federer on clay who cares.

Borg wouldn't win a set.

borg number one
04-03-2010, 03:53 PM
Borg wouldn't win a set.


So, in your opinion, Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever, with Federer about #2 all time? So, Borg couldn't get a set off Federer or Nadal, and the two of them are by far the greatest clay courters of all time, is that your opinion? What about Lendl, Wilander, or Vilas versus Federer?

I disagree, Nadal-Borg would be close, but Federer is more like top 10-20 all time on clay. To say that Borg couldn't take a set off him really defies logic and would imply that Federer could win in straight sets against anyone in history on clay, besides Nadal and today's other "great clay courters" like Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro.

davey25
04-03-2010, 03:55 PM
Hip crippled Kuerten took prime Federer to school on clay. I guess in his prime he would triple bagel Borg on clay then considering how easy it was for him to beat up on poor little Rodgie even in a warped state, LOL!

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 04:22 PM
So, in your opinion, Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever, with Federer about #2 all time? So, Borg couldn't get a set off Federer or Nadal, and the two of them are by far the greatest clay courters of all time, is that your opinion? What about Lendl, Wilander, or Vilas versus Federer?

I disagree, Nadal-Borg would be close, but Federer is more like top 10-20 all time on clay. To say that Borg couldn't take a set off him really defies logic and would imply that Federer could win in straight sets against anyone in history on clay, besides Nadal and today's other "great clay courters" like Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro.

Borg played with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings . When he tried to male a comeback against the power tennis graphite racquets with his same set up he was destroyed.

Even on the old timers tour he does not fair very well. Johnny Mac routinely beats him even on clay.

Yes I do think Federer is the second greatest clay courter of all time.

Wilander....just a Borg clone

Vilas.....another Borg clone but not as good.

Lendl lost to Borg and Borg only used a wood racquet while Lendl had a graphite. Lendl also lost to chang who played on ome leg amd served underhanded .

Ocean Drive
04-03-2010, 04:28 PM
Ha, Borg has 6 rg.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 04:37 PM
Ha, Borg has 6 rg.

Nadal still has time. He has won 4 out of 5. In the same time frame Borg did not do better with far less competition . Federer trumps all.

davey25
04-03-2010, 04:39 PM
So lets see, according to Murray Mound:

-Nadal is a mediocre hard court player
-Federer is the 2nd greatest clay courter of all time
-Blake and Ljubicic are better hard court players than Nadal

What else am I missing here?

Fedfan1234
04-03-2010, 04:58 PM
Nadal isn't the clay goat just yet.
Although he can become the clay goat by winning 2 more RG titles. Rosewall was a good clay court player, he won RG 2 times and 4 equivalent pro titles on clay. (If I am correct.)
Borg has 6 RG. Thus if he equals this I think we can call him the clay GOAT.

dmt
04-03-2010, 06:31 PM
Borg and Nadal are the top 2 for me

However Nadal has been super dominant on clay even outside of fo. He is the first guy to win rome masters 4 times, first one to win Monte Carlo five times in a row, won Barcelona 5 times in a row and has won hamburg once too. I dont think he gets enough credit for what he has done outside of Roland Garros. His 81 match winning streak is the longest on clay

Right now maybe Borg is slightly ahead but to say Nadal is far behind is absurd and shows bias.

dmt
04-03-2010, 06:34 PM
I am a big fan of Borg but i think some people are forgetting lendl was young and not in his prime yet when Bjorn beat him. Yeah Lendl was still very good but he still had not hit his prime.

Also i wonder if Connors was allowed to play french open during his peak years, i wonder how Borg would have fared against him. I do think Bjorn would be the favourite but Connors could score an upset.

kishnabe
04-03-2010, 06:56 PM
Nadal isn't the clay goat just yet.
Although he can become the clay goat by winning 2 more RG titles. Rosewall was a good clay court player, he won RG 2 times and 4 equivalent pro titles on clay. (If I am correct.)
Borg has 6 RG. Thus if he equals this I think we can call him the clay GOAT.

Rosewall won 10 FO ( 1 Amateur Era, 8 consecutive pro, 1 open era)

OKUSA
04-03-2010, 07:07 PM
Borg is the greatest right now, Nadal can be the greatest if he gets 7 RG's

borg number one
04-03-2010, 07:36 PM
I don't know if any player besides Borg is capable of playing this well on clay, with a small wooden frame (70 sq. inches), and in the case of Borg strung at 80 lbs, with only vs gut. Imagine him say with the best modern frames, and poly strings! Now, who else could do this with small, old frames and gut? Listen to how the ball sounds when Borg & Connors hit it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY

Thanks to TW Poster Krosero.

Murray Mound
04-03-2010, 07:53 PM
Ha, Borg has 6 rg.

I am a big fan of Borg but i think some people are forgetting lendl was young and not in his prime yet when Bjorn beat him. Yeah Lendl was still very good but he still had not hit his prime.

Also i wonder if Connors was allowed to play french open during his peak years, i wonder how Borg would have fared against him. I do think Bjorn would be the favourite but Connors could score an upset.

Prime shmrime. Lendl had a graphite racquet amd still lost to Borg who was playing with a wood racquet. Gimme a break!

Cross-court
04-03-2010, 07:57 PM
What about Ken Roswell?

Hey who's the girl on your avatar?

ClubHoUno
04-03-2010, 08:00 PM
I think he is

If Nadal wins 2 RG more, then I would have to agree.

He's then the true KING OF CLAY.

Rjtennis
04-03-2010, 09:35 PM
It is pretty close. They are both unbeleivable on clay. My vote would be for Nadal though. He has had to get through some tough players to win his FO titles.

TennisFan008
04-04-2010, 04:36 AM
Borg's 77-81 > Nadal's 05-09, nevermind that he has 2 more RG's.

forzamilan90
04-04-2010, 06:45 AM
if nadal wins 1 more than borg he'll be the best but for right now it's borg, just like for grass it's sampras now, but let fed win 8 wimbledons and then he's the best on that court

borg number one
04-04-2010, 06:53 AM
if nadal wins 1 more than borg he'll be the best but for right now it's borg, just like for grass it's sampras now, but let fed win 8 wimbledons and then he's the best on that court

I do think that you can consider more than sheer number of titles on a surface when trying to compare players across eras, but it's a factor certainly. Nadal needs 2 more FO titles to equal Borg's total of 6 French Open Titles, having skipped the tourney in 1977 due to a players strike.

forzamilan90
04-04-2010, 06:56 AM
either way, nadal is certainly second best at this point. i mean rosewall, whatnot come on, nadal is a solid second, borg is just the measuring stick on that surface for now

djokovicgonzalez2010
04-04-2010, 07:00 AM
Borg? 10 chars

big bang
04-04-2010, 07:29 AM
Borg lost only twice at the French to the same guy...and had he not retired so young he would have like 10 FO or more.
Nadal on the other hand even if win more than 6 French opens...I don't think in terms of pure ability on clay would he be better than borg. Nadal with a donnay borg pro strung at 80lb of tension...I don't think he can handle that....the fact that he plays a topspin game is with that racquet and strings. If he used a wooden racquet and played agianst borg...he would lose big time. Borg is the best that has ever played on Clay...and should be the greatest simply because he the most fit and tactile complete player on clay. Ken Rosewall won like 10 FO...he is great too.. Nadal even at the end of his career would be dawned as one of the greatest clay courters but he holds no cake to Borg. Even If nadal achieves more than borg...Borg is the better clay courter in pure ownage on clay!
what a load of BS, what the F... does equipment have to do with anything:shock:

big bang
04-04-2010, 07:40 AM
I don't know if any player besides Borg is capable of playing this well on clay, with a small wooden frame (70 sq. inches), and in the case of Borg strung at 80 lbs, with only vs gut. Imagine him say with the best modern frames, and poly strings! Now, who else could do this with small, old frames and gut? Listen to how the ball sounds when Borg & Connors hit it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY

Thanks to TW Poster Krosero.

here we go again:roll: maybe Nadal would be even better with a wooden frame and maybe Borg would suck big time with graphite and poly strings! you will never know..

borg number one
04-04-2010, 08:01 AM
here we go again:roll: maybe Nadal would be even better with a wooden frame and maybe Borg would suck big time with graphite and poly strings! you will never know..

True, that could be possible. Yet, there is no doubt that as far as hitting with power and topspin, the new technology gives you an advantage. It's easier to hit with the new frames vs. trying to adapt to the old frames. There is a higher "degree of difficulty" when it comes to trying to hit with the old frames. Nadal would have to alter his swing path, while Borg's transition would be more on the defensive end (defending against players and the new frames). Remember that the new frames are a perfect fit for all of Borg's strengths as a great baseliner.

dmt
04-04-2010, 08:05 AM
I do think that you can consider more than sheer number of titles on a surface when trying to compare players across eras, but it's a factor certainly. Nadal needs 2 more FO titles to equal Borg's total of 6 French Open Titles, having skipped the tourney in 1977 due to a players strike. I agree that Borg has a more impressive record at roland garros, but what about outside of it? I think Nadals 5 consective Monte Carlo titles, 4 overall Rome titles, these things should also be in consideration.

dmt
04-04-2010, 08:07 AM
True, that could be possible. Yet, there is no doubt that as far as hitting with power and topspin, the new technology gives you an advantage. It's easier to hit with the new frames vs. trying to adapt to the old frames. There is a higher "degree of difficulty" when it comes to trying to hit with the old frames. Nadal would have to alter his swing path, while Borg's transition would be more on the defensive end (defending against players and the new frames). Remember that the new frames are a perfect fit for all of Borg's strengths as a great baseliner.

I agree. A couple of years ago i borrowed my grandfathers old wodden racket (he used to play when he was young and he still had his racket) and i tried playing with it. It was so hard. I agree that with modern technology u can hit with more power and topspin but i dont think we can blame it on the current players, they play with the rackets available to them.

borg number one
04-04-2010, 08:16 AM
I agree. A couple of years ago i borrowed my grandfathers old wodden racket (he used to play when he was young and he still had his racket) and i tried playing with it. It was so hard. I agree that with modern technology u can hit with more power and topspin but i dont think we can blame it on the current players, they play with the rackets available to them.


Exactly. Let's also not hold it against Borg and his peers who could only play with the technology available at that time. Let's recognize the tremendous skill it required to play with this this frame, versus a modern frame. I agree that defense is at a premium now due to this shift in technology, in that it's harder to defend against winners. Borg was a tremendous athlete though and one of the greatest players on defense in the Game's history.


http://www.80s-tennis.com/images/Donnay/new/borg-pro-bag.jpg


http://www.besportier.com/images/wilson-six-one-tour-blx.jpg

jamesblakefan#1
04-04-2010, 08:43 AM
Gimme a break. Panatta was a serve amd volleyer on red clay . He doesn't deserve to shine soderlings shoes.

*facepalm*

Leave this thread now please ty.

pjonesy
04-04-2010, 12:29 PM
I just wish we could have a tournament with Rios, Lendl, Vilas, Borg, Kuerten and Nadal all in their primes. At Roland Garros, of course. At this point, I think Nadal and Borg are even. Nadal seems to have evolved from the patience and consistency of Borg, the power and accuracy of Lendl and the intensity and athletic topspin stroke production of Vilas. Rios and Kuerten are in their own leagues. They have 1 in a billion clay court talent that will never be duplicated. That being said, I think Borg wins the tournament.

jamesblakefan#1
04-04-2010, 12:37 PM
I just wish we could have a tournament with Rios, Lendl, Vilas, Borg, Kuerten and Nadal all in their primes. At Roland Garros, of course. At this point, I think Nadal and Borg are even. Nadal seems to have evolved from the patience and consistency of Borg, the power and accuracy of Lendl and the intensity and athletic topspin stroke production of Vilas. Rios and Kuerten are in their own leagues. They have 1 in a billion clay court talent that will never be duplicated. That being said, I think Borg wins the tournament.

Rios? Marcelo "0 slam champ" Rios? :confused:

How's he even in the conversation?

David L
04-04-2010, 04:02 PM
True, that could be possible. Yet, there is no doubt that as far as hitting with power and topspin, the new technology gives you an advantage. It's easier to hit with the new frames vs. trying to adapt to the old frames. There is a higher "degree of difficulty" when it comes to trying to hit with the old frames. Nadal would have to alter his swing path, while Borg's transition would be more on the defensive end (defending against players and the new frames). Remember that the new frames are a perfect fit for all of Borg's strengths as a great baseliner.
Please, do you seriously think if new technology had not been introduced, generations after Borg would have had anymore difficulty using wood than his generation and generations before? Do you think that new generations would not have been able to take up the mantle from where he left off and continue to advance the game? The way you talk about playing with wood, anyone would think it were an extremely difficult challenge that only a select few uber-talented individuals could manage. Playing with wood is not that hard. That's what everyone used to play with before graphite was introduced and I'm sure every pro today would have been able to learn the game just fine and turn pro, had there been no new technology.

Why would anyone try to adapt to old frames? What does it prove to say it would be harder to adapt to old frames when the same would be true for Borg if he were born to this generation of young players? Each generation adapts to the conditions of their time. Give them wood and they will learn to play with wood. Give them graphite and they will learn to play with graphite. New technology does not make the game easier at the professional level when they all have access to it and can all exploit it to its maximum. It makes it harder. For the amateur recreational player who has not the time or inclination to learn the game with any degree of dedication, graphite does make the game easier. However, for the budding professional intent on forging a career, he or she is going to learn what they need to learn to succeed, whether with wood or graphite. I think it's a much bigger challenge to learn how to play the violin well, for instance, than to learn how to play tennis well with wood, but this has not prevented millions from doing it over 100s of years. Also, the construction of the violin has barely changed since the 16th century, but this has not prevented technique from going through the roof. The advances have been ridiculous and these days it's not uncommon to see kids playing the most advanced pieces before they have hit double-digits in the age bracket. Human beings rarely stand still. We look to learn and build on the discoveries of past generations. We also share a common anatomy, so there are no supermen being built. Everyone is just human, at the most. Which means however good you are at something, you are still very fallible, can be and probably will be surpassed.

I think the challenge for professional players is not dictated by what their equipment will allow them to do, because it's the same for everyone. By the time players are pros, they are long past that point. The real challenge is in competing against the best in the world. As far as who is the greatest on clay, I don't care, but the argument that technology makes professional tennis easier today is lame and patently false.

Toxicmilk
04-04-2010, 04:16 PM
Second to James Blake, imo. :twisted::twisted::twisted:

It's hard to say really, Borg was another time. Hard to compare.

robow7
04-04-2010, 04:43 PM
You could just as well add another French Open championship to Borg's resume because when Wilander won in 1982 he claimed Borg would have easily routed the field since they practiced together continuously and Wilander stated he couldn't begin to take a set off him. Such a shame he wasn't allow to play.

LuckyR
04-04-2010, 05:31 PM
You could just as well add another French Open championship to Borg's resume because when Wilander won in 1982 he claimed Borg would have easily routed the field since they practiced together continuously and Wilander stated he couldn't begin to take a set off him. Such a shame he wasn't allow to play.

If you want to play the "what if" game, you might as well take away all of Borg's FO's, since if he would have played against Roger he never would have won even one.

Murray Mound
04-04-2010, 05:55 PM
If you want to play the "what if" game, you might as well take away all of Borg's FO's, since if he would have played against Roger he never would have won even one.

So true.

Borg had no real weapons except his speed and consistency .

LuckyR
04-04-2010, 06:02 PM
So true.

Borg had no real weapons except his speed and consistency .

Borg was great and clearly dominated in his era. But his era didn't have the GOAT in it. Nadal's does.

Peter H.Gilmore
04-04-2010, 06:37 PM
I think they're both equal.

World Beater
04-04-2010, 06:59 PM
he is def in the argument for sure...i think nadal has the highest level on clay but borg is still the greatest.

borg number one
04-04-2010, 07:07 PM
Please, do you seriously think if new technology had not been introduced, generations after Borg would have had anymore difficulty using wood than his generation and generations before? Do you think that new generations would not have been able to take up the mantle from where he left off and continue to advance the game? The way you talk about playing with wood, anyone would think it were an extremely difficult challenge that only a select few uber-talented individuals could manage. Playing with wood is not that hard. That's what everyone used to play with before graphite was introduced and I'm sure every pro today would have been able to learn the game just fine and turn pro, had there been no new technology.

Why would anyone try to adapt to old frames? What does it prove to say it would be harder to adapt to old frames when the same would be true for Borg if he were born to this generation of young players? Each generation adapts to the conditions of their time. Give them wood and they will learn to play with wood. Give them graphite and they will learn to play with graphite. New technology does not make the game easier at the professional level when they all have access to it and can all exploit it to its maximum. It makes it harder. For the amateur recreational player who has not the time or inclination to learn the game with any degree of dedication, graphite does make the game easier. However, for the budding professional intent on forging a career, he or she is going to learn what they need to learn to succeed, whether with wood or graphite. I think it's a much bigger challenge to learn how to play the violin well, for instance, than to learn how to play tennis well with wood, but this has not prevented millions from doing it over 100s of years. Also, the construction of the violin has barely changed since the 16th century, but this has not prevented technique from going through the roof. The advances have been ridiculous and these days it's not uncommon to see kids playing the most advanced pieces before they have hit double-digits in the age bracket. Human beings rarely stand still. We look to learn and build on the discoveries of past generations. We also share a common anatomy, so there are no supermen being built. Everyone is just human, at the most. Which means however good you are at something, you are still very fallible, can be and probably will be surpassed.

I think the challenge for professional players is not dictated by what their equipment will allow them to do, because it's the same for everyone. By the time players are pros, they are long past that point. The real challenge is in competing against the best in the world. As far as who is the greatest on clay, I don't care, but the argument that technology makes professional tennis easier today is lame and patently false.

No, you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying that the Game is easier today. I'm saying HITTING with more power/spin is easier with today's racquets/strings, that's all. My point is that IF you can manage great shotmaking with wood frames, one can undoubtedly hit with more power/pace with modern frames/strings. Yet, given that with racquets that were less wide, with smaller sweet spots, and no poly strings, the players of today would have not be able to generate the same pace/spin as they do with modern technology. That's all I was pointing out. People that have never played with wood have a hard time understanding how different it was.

We know this, Borg would have been able to hit harder and with more spin with modern frames. Nadal would NOT have been able to hit as hard or with nearly as much spin as he does now if he was using small wood frames. We know those things to be true and should factor those things in when comparing their games.

Folks should not simply assume Nadal has more "ability" based on the technology differences. One must equalize for technology advances. I am not asserting that the Game is simply "easier" because of technology. It has simply helped enable a certain dominant style of play.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-20-raquet-tech_N.htm

Zimbo
04-04-2010, 07:15 PM
Prime shmrime. Lendl had a graphite racquet amd still lost to Borg who was playing with a wood racquet. Gimme a break!

You try to hit with Lendl's racquet. Its nothing like racquets of today.

borg number one
04-04-2010, 07:20 PM
So true.

Borg had no real weapons except his speed and consistency .

Borg had the best forehand in the Game and it was certainly a weapon. He also had a great serve. If Borg played Federer, I suspect that he would make Federer hit a ton of backhands, while he would be able to counter Federer's offense. Also, as far as speed and consistency, on clay, let's not forget just how vital those attributes are. Federer would not be able to consistently outrally Borg on clay. Borg was too consistent, fit, and fast. Plus, he was very capable of going from defense to offense very quickly.

Murray Mound
04-04-2010, 07:41 PM
Borg had the best forehand in the Game and it was certainly a weapon. He also had a great serve. If Borg played Federer, I suspect that he would make Federer hit a ton of backhands, while he would be able to counter Federer's offense. Also, as far as speed and consistency, on clay, let's not forget just how vital those attributes are. Federer would not be able to consistently outrally Borg on clay. Borg was too consistent, fit, and fast. Plus, he was very capable of going from defense to offense very quickly.

Borg had a good forehand.....Lendl had a great forehand.

and no offense.....but a guy named "borg number one" may be just a tad biased.

borg number one
04-04-2010, 07:55 PM
Borg had a good forehand.....Lendl had a great forehand.

and no offense.....but a guy named "borg number one" may be just a tad biased.

Yes, Lendl did have a great forehand. I'd say Borg's was also great, but one could argue that Lendl had one of the best forehands ever. Also, I agree, I'm definitely biased. Aren't we all? I readily admit to being a Borg fan, no question about that.

Justdoit10
04-04-2010, 08:01 PM
Borg had the best forehand in the Game and it was certainly a weapon. He also had a great serve. If Borg played Federer, I suspect that he would make Federer hit a ton of backhands, while he would be able to counter Federer's offense. Also, as far as speed and consistency, on clay, let's not forget just how vital those attributes are. Federer would not be able to consistently outrally Borg on clay. Borg was too consistent, fit, and fast. Plus, he was very capable of going from defense to offense very quickly.
Yes absolutely. Borgs greatness on clay should not be compared to Federers. Borg is clearly the best clay courter of all time in my opinion but it seems that you dont give Federer much credit at all.

JoshDragon
04-04-2010, 09:38 PM
So true.

Borg had no real weapons except his speed and consistency .

Obviously Borg had weapons. He was the 5 time Wimbledon champion and it took a lot more than just speed and consistency to win there. Not to mention Borg served and volleyed his way to the title.

pjonesy
04-04-2010, 10:01 PM
Rios? Marcelo "0 slam champ" Rios? :confused:

How's he even in the conversation?

The clay court season is why Rios was ranked #1. However, like you said, he did not win Roland Garros. I still believe he had one of the best clay court games in history, although he never reached his potential. Muster was another one who had one of the all time best clay court games, but was only able to put everything together once at Roland Garros. But, I will take Rios out of the conversation since he did not win the French.

nfor304
04-04-2010, 10:30 PM
Lendl played with a graphite against borgs tiny wood racquet and Lendl still couldn't win.

Then to top it off Borg lost to freaking Chang while he cramped up amd served underhand.

Lendl is not a contender .

Rosewall played during the grass era. Almost everyone had a continental grip amd Syed serve and volley. Don't go prehistoric on us.


Erm... no he didnt

nfor304
04-04-2010, 10:32 PM
Borg played with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings . When he tried to male a comeback against the power tennis graphite racquets with his same set up he was destroyed.

Even on the old timers tour he does not fair very well. Johnny Mac routinely beats him even on clay.

Yes I do think Federer is the second greatest clay courter of all time.

Wilander....just a Borg clone

Vilas.....another Borg clone but not as good.

Lendl lost to Borg and Borg only used a wood racquet while Lendl had a graphite. Lendl also lost to chang who played on ome leg amd served underhanded .

You obviously dont know anything about players from beyond 5 years ago....

jamesblakefan#1
04-04-2010, 10:39 PM
Borg played with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings . When he tried to male a comeback against the power tennis graphite racquets with his same set up he was destroyed.

Even on the old timers tour he does not fair very well. Johnny Mac routinely beats him even on clay.

Yes I do think Federer is the second greatest clay courter of all time.

Wilander....just a Borg clone

Vilas.....another Borg clone but not as good.

Lendl lost to Borg and Borg only used a wood racquet while Lendl had a graphite. Lendl also lost to chang who played on ome leg amd served underhanded .

http://i25.tinypic.com/24bsnwm.jpg

abmk
04-04-2010, 11:03 PM
Borg played with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings . When he tried to male a comeback against the power tennis graphite racquets with his same set up he was destroyed.

Even on the old timers tour he does not fair very well. Johnny Mac routinely beats him even on clay.

Yes I do think Federer is the second greatest clay courter of all time.

Wilander....just a Borg clone

Vilas.....another Borg clone but not as good.

Lendl lost to Borg and Borg only used a wood racquet while Lendl had a graphite. Lendl also lost to chang who played on ome leg amd served underhanded .

http://lh6.ggpht.com/SergioAlex76/SO-gmOgK37I/AAAAAAAAALo/xgE7YPn-QBw/fail-tv-show.jpg

Spider
04-05-2010, 01:15 AM
Borg is the greatest at the moment, Nadal is getting there though.

David L
04-05-2010, 01:44 AM
No, you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying that the Game is easier today. I'm saying HITTING with more power/spin is easier with today's racquets/strings, that's all. My point is that IF you can manage great shotmaking with wood frames, one can undoubtedly hit with more power/pace with modern frames/strings. Yet, given that with racquets that were less wide, with smaller sweet spots, and no poly strings, the players of today would have not be able to generate the same pace/spin as they do with modern technology. That's all I was pointing out. People that have never played with wood have a hard time understanding how different it was.

We know this, Borg would have been able to hit harder and with more spin with modern frames. Nadal would NOT have been able to hit as hard or with nearly as much spin as he does now if he was using small wood frames. We know those things to be true and should factor those things in when comparing their games.

Folks should not simply assume Nadal has more "ability" based on the technology differences. One must equalize for technology advances. I am not asserting that the Game is simply "easier" because of technology. It has simply helped enable a certain dominant style of play.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-20-raquet-tech_N.htm
I don’t think anyone seriously believes Nadal would hit the ball as well as he does now with a wooden racket. Obviously, he is not going to be able to generate the same spin or pace. My guess is that people are making the calculation that Nadal’s upside is stronger than Borg’s, regardless of the equipment used, given his evident ability and the tail of the tape next to Borg.
Nadal is obviously bigger and stronger, and there’s not much in it when it comes to their relative speed and endurance. He also has good coordination and the capacity to learn tennis related technique. If you gave Nadal a wooden racket tomorrow, naturally, he would not play as well with it as he would if he had been playing with it since the age of 4. However, he has demonstrated more than enough prowess for anyone to make the inference that he would have become very good with wood also. I don’t think he would have had any trouble at all learning the game with wood. His technique would just be different. From where he is now, he would be downsizing. And while he would not be able to hit the ball as well, I believe he would still pack a bigger punch than Borg. The question is, would he be able to match Borg’s consistency? This is impossible to answer. Nadal has been able to fashion equivalent consistency in the modern game, which is no mean feat, so he could well have done the same during Borg’s time. As great as Borg was, he was only human and he was also playing in the early infancy of tennis as a professional career. Since then, the field has gotten much deeper and I think we have seen many players that are as physically gifted as he was or more so. I think it’s so common place now that we often take it for granted.

I think Borg would find it more difficult to upsize to this era than Nadal would to downsize to Borg’s. Borg, like all other players, would have the benefit of new technology, but I think a player like Nadal would still probably have the upper hand. He appears to have equivalent talent, but is clearly stronger and taller. This would probably make the difference, in favour of Nadal, regardless of era. Players of Borg’s height and stature tend to struggle more in the modern game and do not seem able to exploit the technology quite to the degree the bigger, stronger athletes can.

Dilettante
04-05-2010, 01:56 AM
No, you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying that the Game is easier today. I'm saying HITTING with more power/spin is easier with today's racquets/strings, that's all.

Yo're missing a VERY important point also.

Today's players don't hit a static ball. They hit balls coming from an opponent who also makes more powerful/spin shots than players from decades ago. So these balls are harder to control that those Borg had to manage.

Using your own logic, what makes you think that Borg or other players from the past would be prepared to manage this kind of power/spin coming from the opponent.

Maybe today's racquets make the shot itself easier, BUT also make the opponen't shot harder to manage. It requires a whole new set of skills and techniques that older players didin't need to develop.

MethodTennis
04-05-2010, 01:57 AM
Errm cos this aint been done before.

Anyway how can we know if he is the greatst of ALL time. Can someone here see the future?

These cross decade questions are pointless its all opinion.

Then some one post some stats and shows that xyz player has a high win percentage on surface abc than other play qrs. Those stats mean nothing because I have a higher win percentage than rafa on clay in competitions. Not because im better than rafa but because the one competiton I played had a very week field.

So therefore who you played comes into it. Many player alter there style to beat certain players but this may make them look worse as far as asthetics are concerend in terms of how there strokes look.

We need less oppinion on who is the best and more facts about interesting stuff!

Rippy
04-05-2010, 02:41 AM
Errm cos this aint been done before.

Anyway how can we know if he is the greatst of ALL time. Can someone here see the future?



It just means the greatest so far... The future isn't "time" yet since it hasn't happened.

Murray Mound
04-05-2010, 04:09 AM
Obviously Borg had weapons. He was the 5 time Wimbledon champion and it took a lot more than just speed and consistency to win there. Not to mention Borg served and volleyed his way to the title.

No he really didn't .

Nick Bolleteri who trained Borg during his comeback said something like :

"Borg is the greatest champion who didn't have any great weapons"

Borg basically hit moon ball topspins all day long until you made a mistake.

Murray Mound
04-05-2010, 04:12 AM
Erm... no he didnt

Thanks...obvious typo. I meant Lendl lost to chang.

borg number one
04-05-2010, 04:57 AM
Yo're missing a VERY important point also.

Today's players don't hit a static ball. They hit balls coming from an opponent who also makes more powerful/spin shots than players from decades ago. So these balls are harder to control that those Borg had to manage.

Using your own logic, what makes you think that Borg or other players from the past would be prepared to manage this kind of power/spin coming from the opponent.

Maybe today's racquets make the shot itself easier, BUT also make the opponen't shot harder to manage. It requires a whole new set of skills and techniques that older players didin't need to develop.


I agree with that. Overall, defense is now harder because of the pace and spin that is possible. Meanwhile, shotmaking has been facilitated. The change in technology has made shot production easier (harder shots with lots of spin), but I realize that you are now defending AGAINST better weaponry.

Meanwhile, Borg seems well suited to play great defense, given his natural strengths. Also, the modern game is dominated by baseliners, and not serve and vollyers, who were better served by the old technological dynamics relative to today. You would not see serve and volleyers bothering Borg the way they used to, given modern frames and conditions, but defending against baseliners would be more difficult, overall. McEnroe vs. Borg for example, with modern frames, would likely favor Borg, not McEnroe, who relied on being able to charge the net all the time.

I agree, defense overall has become more difficult overall, but at the same time, modern frames allow players to generate considerable pace from strange spots on the court, especially from deep behind the baseline. Borg would have loved hitting passing shots with these modern dynamics, for example, in ways that were impossible during his era. In general, the return game has been helped by modern technology. He would have to adapt to increased power and the sustained hard rallying from the baseline that is the trademark of today's pro tennis. Overall, I think his athletic prowess would allow him to make such an adaptation. Though, in general the players are fitter today (bigger premium on your legs), Borg was an athletic phenom, who would train with Vilas for example, by hitting about 3-4 hours on red clay during practice sessions.

Cyan
04-05-2010, 09:46 AM
So far Borg is.

6 >>4

Gorecki
04-05-2010, 01:29 PM
http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/cookie-monster-sings-Rammstein.-Das-Kr%C3%BCmelmonster-sagt-NEIN-wrestling.jpg

what i think of this subject...

valiant
04-05-2010, 01:38 PM
I never saw borg play. So as far as I have seen Nadal is the best.

The-Champ
04-05-2010, 06:03 PM
No he is NOT...its Björn.


But Rafa is still great...he was able to win 4 FOs despite having bad knees.

Justdoit10
04-05-2010, 06:06 PM
No he is NOT...its Björn.


But Rafa is still great...he was able to win 4 FOs despite having bad knees.
Nah Nadal is garbage. He played in a shiate era were no one can play on clay.Therefore, he still sucks on clay but just not as much as other players. Hence he got 4 FOs. If he played against a true claycourter, he would get bageled and breadstick. :lol: :lol:

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:13 PM
Nah Nadal is garbage. He played in a shiate era were no one can play on clay.Therefore, he still sucks on clay but just not as much as other players. Hence he got 4 FOs. If he played against a true claycourter, he would get bageled and breadstick. :lol: :lol:


Quality post from JDI as usual. :) Quoted for the truth. That's right, Nadal is an overrated clown. You don't even need a true clay courter. If Fed at the time didn't choke during those 13 losses, Nadal would even have a hard time winning a MS shield. Nadal is light years away from being the greatest clay player of all time, in the grand scheme of things. Deal with it.

The-Champ
04-05-2010, 06:14 PM
Nah Nadal is garbage. He played in a shiate era were no one can play on clay.Therefore, he still sucks on clay but just not as much as other players. Hence he got 4 FOs. If he played against a true claycourter, he would get bageled and breadstick. :lol: :lol:


Hey if you got a problem with this, look at your post history. It should all ring a bell. :lol:

:)

Are you crazy? I have no problem with this,,,,what you wrote is accurate. Rafa is probably no. 55 on my all time greats on clay. He would have been a lot lower, but because he won them on one leg I put him in the 50s. Federer is somewhere in the hundreds...

Justdoit10
04-05-2010, 06:15 PM
:)

Are you crazy? I have no problem with this,,,,what you wrote is accurate. Rafa is probably no. 55 on my all time greats on clay. He would have been a lot lower, but because he won them on one leg I put him in the 50s. Federer is somewhere in the hundreds...
lol! Well said, Sir. We have reached an agreement.:)
http://www.cortechsolutions.com/getattachment/67340091-7d73-4a63-aa9e-db4805e14fd8/Service-Level-Agreement.aspx

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:17 PM
:)

Are you crazy? I have no problem with this,,,,what you wrote is accurate. Rafa is probably no. 55 on my all time greats on clay. He would have been a lot lower, but because he won them on one leg I put him in the 50s. Federer is somewhere in the hundreds...

You just overly glorified his place in the dirt. I would place him somewhere between 100 and 150.

Justdoit10
04-05-2010, 06:17 PM
Quality post from JDI as usual. :) Quoted for the truth. That's right, Nadal is an overrated clown. You don't even need a true clay courter. If Fed at the time didn't choke during those 13 losses, Nadal would even have a hard time winning a MS shield. Nadal is light years away from being the greatest clay player of all time, in the grand scheme of things. Deal with it.
Please keep up. Me and Champ have establish Nadal as being the 55th best clay courter while fed is in the 100s. :)

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:19 PM
Please keep up. Me and Champ have establish Nadal as being the 55th best clay courter while fed is in the 100s. :)

I disagree with the fed part. Talent wise, Fed is within top 20 on the all time list on clay. As for Nadal his talents belong to the bottom mud. Thank you.

Justdoit10
04-05-2010, 06:20 PM
I disagree with the fed part. Talent wise, Fed is within top 20 on the all time list. As for Nadal his talents belong to the bottom mud. Thank you.
Well Federer doesnt utilize his talent and chokes while Rafa plays on one leg so I guess it evens out. :)

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:21 PM
Well Federer doesnt utilize his talent and chokes while Rafa plays on one leg so I guess it evens out. :)

I can't complain. What a mental midget. I guess Nadal just learn how to be a mental midget and choke like Fed recently. :)

The-Champ
04-05-2010, 06:32 PM
I disagree with the fed part. Talent wise, Fed is within top 20 on the all time list on clay. As for Nadal his talents belong to the bottom mud. Thank you.


winning while playing on one leg takes massive talent. Thank you.:)

The-Champ
04-05-2010, 06:33 PM
I can't complain. What a mental midget. I guess Nadal just learn how to be a mental midget and choke like Fed recently. :)



What you say is true but, add to that the fact that he plays on one leg :)

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:33 PM
winning while playing on one leg takes massive talent. Thank you.:)

It also takes a lot of luck and lots of choking from the other side of the net. Tusen tack.

Justdoit10
04-05-2010, 06:34 PM
On a serious note. Borg is still the best but Nadal is on his way there and the second best clay courter in history.

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:36 PM
On a serious note. Borg is still the best but Nadal is on his way there and the second best clay courter in history.

What are you talking about?! Who wants to be serious with you at the moment?!

But on the real serious side, I agree with you.

Dimension
04-05-2010, 06:50 PM
What you say is true but, add to that the fact that he plays on one leg :)

I am glad that we have an agreement.