PDA

View Full Version : With his 6th French Open, is Nadal officially the King of Clay?


Messarger
06-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Or does that title still belong to the great Bjorn Borg?

cknobman
06-10-2011, 12:45 PM
Bjorn has 6 too so its still his. Borg was first and he has dibbs on it until Rafa can get 7.

NadalAgassi
06-10-2011, 12:49 PM
Nadal has more titles at the other big clay events like Monte Carlo and Rome. So it is Nadal.

Nadal doesnt face the toughest clay court field but neither does Borg. The toughest clay court fields were in the 80s, 90s, and the 60s when they got together.

kishnabe
06-10-2011, 12:52 PM
Rafa is the KING of clay and Rogerina is the QUEEN of clay :-D

Queen has more power than the King! Borg is still King of Clay till Nadal gets his seventh. Though that is inevitable....just call him the king already. THough something happened the last time someone was called king!

jmverdugo
06-10-2011, 12:54 PM
He is more like the Little Prince

The-Champ
06-10-2011, 12:56 PM
Queen has more power than the King! Borg is still King of Clay till Nadal gets his seventh. Though that is inevitable....just call him the king already. THough something happened the last time someone was called king!

So fed would needs to win 8 wimbys to be declared grass GOAT?

Prodigy
06-10-2011, 12:57 PM
I'd say it's still pretty close. A 7th title should seal the deal though, I would think.

Tammo
06-10-2011, 12:58 PM
Nadal is the king of clay by far.

kishnabe
06-10-2011, 01:06 PM
So fed would needs to win 8 wimbys to be declared grass GOAT?

Yeah obviosly....Federer would need to get 8 for sure. Federer was never grasscourt goat....but GOAT in general. Though I say Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras and Nadal is a slighly better claycourter than Borg....hard to comprehend that. Though I never said Federer was grasscourt.....it seems as if you are saying that I thought that subtly.

zagor
06-10-2011, 01:11 PM
Nadal has more titles at the other big clay events like Monte Carlo and Rome. So it is Nadal.

Nadal doesnt face the toughest clay court field but neither does Borg. The toughest clay court fields were in the 80s, 90s, and the 60s when they got together.

But if Vilas is light years ahead of Fed on clay than Borg was even more dominant than Nadal against a much tougher rival on clay :).

NadalAgassi
06-10-2011, 01:18 PM
But if Vilas is light years ahead of Fed on clay than Borg was even more dominant than Nadal against a much tougher rival on clay :).

Vilas is much better than Federer on clay, but Djokovic is much better than anyone else from back then on red clay so it evens out. Who were the other top clay courters then- Panatta, Ramirez, Dibbs? Connors wasnt even particularly great on red clay and skipped the French from 74-78 anyway.

tennis_pro
06-10-2011, 01:36 PM
Vilas is much better than Federer on clay, but Djokovic is much better than anyone else from back then on red clay so it evens out. Who were the other top clay courters then- Panatta, Ramirez, Dibbs? Connors wasnt even particularly great on red clay and skipped the French from 74-78 anyway.

So is Djokovic better than Federer on clay?

NadalAgassi
06-10-2011, 01:43 PM
So is Djokovic better than Federer on clay?

In time he probably will be. Federer had a score to settle in the French Open semis and played his best match on clay in years, but Djokovic still has been able to do things prime Federer cant, like beat Nadal on clay twice in a row in straight sets. I would be surprised if Djokovic doesnt win atleast 1 French and probably more than 5 Masters on clay too.

tennis_pro
06-10-2011, 02:02 PM
In time he probably will be. Federer had a score to settle in the French Open semis and played his best match on clay in years, but Djokovic still has been able to do things prime Federer cant, like beat Nadal on clay twice in a row in straight sets. I would be surprised if Djokovic doesnt win atleast 1 French and probably more than 5 Masters on clay too.

What if Federer (hypothetically) beats Djokovic again at the French Open in 2012 or 2013 and after that Djokovic wins a French Open title?

MichaelNadal
06-10-2011, 02:13 PM
I think Federer is the better claycourter and Nole has a longggg way to go to be in that conversation.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
06-10-2011, 02:14 PM
Nadal is the king of clay, yes.
Even Borg said this

Kobble
06-10-2011, 02:18 PM
I think he is the king of clay. I still think Borg was incredible, though.

Netzroller
06-10-2011, 03:11 PM
Yes, he is.

He has matched Borg's FO record and overtaken him in every other achievement on clay.

Magnus
06-10-2011, 03:13 PM
Both Nadal and Borg are incredible clay players. Why the need to compare so much?

tennis_pro
06-10-2011, 03:37 PM
I think Federer is the better claycourter and Nole has a longggg way to go to be in that conversation.

NadalAgassi is really getting me confused. He claims that Djokovic is a better clay courter than Federer because Djokovic has beaten Nadal the last 2 times they played while Federer has a mere 2-12 record over the Spaniard. Vilas didn't have to beat Borg to be the best clay courter in 1977 as far as I remember...

It's like saying after 2002 Wimbledon that Federer is a better grass court player than Hewitt because Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, even though Hewitt won the title in 2002 while Federer's best result at the time was one QF (of course that turned out true anyway but what if Hewitt won more Wimbledons and Federer had none?)

jackson vile
06-10-2011, 03:38 PM
Nadal is the king of clay, yes.
Even Borg said this

I don't think so, IMO Nadal needs one more FO to really cement his place as such an imaginary thing.

Magnus
06-10-2011, 03:39 PM
In time he probably will be. Federer had a score to settle in the French Open semis and played his best match on clay in years, but Djokovic still has been able to do things prime Federer cant, like beat Nadal on clay twice in a row in straight sets. I would be surprised if Djokovic doesnt win atleast 1 French and probably more than 5 Masters on clay too.

Fed is 3-1 against Novak on clay. The end.

Bud
06-10-2011, 04:00 PM
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/09/ceo_socnet/image/burger-king.jpg

abmk
06-10-2011, 10:08 PM
NadalAgassi is really getting me confused. He claims that Djokovic is a better clay courter than Federer because Djokovic has beaten Nadal the last 2 times they played while Federer has a mere 2-12 record over the Spaniard. Vilas didn't have to beat Borg to be the best clay courter in 1977 as far as I remember...

It's like saying after 2002 Wimbledon that Federer is a better grass court player than Hewitt because Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, even though Hewitt won the title in 2002 while Federer's best result at the time was one QF (of course that turned out true anyway but what if Hewitt won more Wimbledons and Federer had none?)

don't bother. Its natural for Nadalagassi to get confused when he has to make so many accounts and post a different POV from each of them :twisted:

NadalAgassi
06-10-2011, 10:16 PM
NadalAgassi is really getting me confused. He claims that Djokovic is a better clay courter than Federer because Djokovic has beaten Nadal the last 2 times they played while Federer has a mere 2-12 record over the Spaniard. Vilas didn't have to beat Borg to be the best clay courter in 1977 as far as I remember...

I dont know whom you are referring to but I never considered Vilas a better clay courter than Borg at any point in time ever.

If Vilas was the top clay courter in 1977 it was by default since Borg didnt even play the French then had to pull out of one of his US Open matches midway through with an injury. There is a reason he wasnt named either ATP player of the year despite 2 slams.

Xemi666
06-11-2011, 02:05 AM
Nadal. He surpasses Borg in practically every relevant statistic.

Spider
06-11-2011, 02:09 AM
At the moment, it is clearly Nadal. He has absolutely dominated clay since 05 and now has equalled Borg as well. Overall advantage to Nadal.

LeoMOMO
06-11-2011, 02:18 AM
in the near future, he will...

illuminati
06-11-2011, 02:46 AM
for those people saying that borg is still clay GOAT, name me a single stat that borg is above nadal on clay?

im not talking about who's era is stronger or coulda, shoulda, woulda bullsh*t.

im talking about facts, numbers.

nadal has more clay titles, longer winning streak, same number of FO, better overall winning %, better finals winning %, 7 consecutive monte carlos, 6 barcelonas, 5 romes, 2 hamburg/madrid, 6 French Opens. nadal has more clay titles won without dropping a set than borg, nadal's record at the FO is far more dominant than borg, nadal has lost far fewer sets at the FO than borg. nadal and borg both have won the FO twice without dropping a set.


there is nothing that borg has over nadal on clay. NOTHING.

therefore its pretty easy to decide who is the clay GOAT......its Rafael Nadal.

aphex
06-11-2011, 03:01 AM
for those people saying that borg is still clay GOAT, name me a single stat that borg is above nadal on clay?

im not talking about who's era is stronger or coulda, shoulda, woulda bullsh*t.

im talking about facts, numbers.

nadal has more clay titles, longer winning streak, same number of FO, better overall winning %, better finals winning %, 7 consecutive monte carlos, 6 barcelonas, 5 romes, 2 hamburg/madrid, 6 French Opens. nadal has more clay titles won without dropping a set than borg, nadal's record at the FO is far more dominant than borg, nadal has lost far fewer sets at the FO than borg. nadal and borg both have won the FO twice without dropping a set.


there is nothing that borg has over nadal on clay. NOTHING.

therefore its pretty easy to decide who is the clay GOAT......its Rafael Nadal.

Yeah, but Borg's era was stronger...

tusharlovesrafa
06-11-2011, 03:13 AM
Yeah, but Borg's era was stronger...

where were you aphhy baby??:twisted:

illuminati
06-11-2011, 03:19 AM
Yeah, but Borg's era was stronger...

ok, since u concede that nadal's numbers are superior to borg, we can debate about who had the stronger era.

im sure federer could beat any of borg's rivals in borg's era.

thus, nadal's era is stronger.

nuff said.

aphex
06-11-2011, 03:44 AM
where were you aphhy baby??:twisted:

Here Tushie...sit!

ok, since u concede that nadal's numbers are superior to borg, we can debate about who had the stronger era.

im sure federer could beat any of borg's rivals in borg's era.

thus, nadal's era is stronger.

nuff said.

Good point, but I still think Borg's era was stronger...

zagor
06-11-2011, 03:46 AM
for those people saying that borg is still clay GOAT, name me a single stat that borg is above nadal on clay?

FO titles won in a strong era Borg 6 Nadal 3.That's according to Nadal's own fans by the way so I can't really argue it.

illuminati
06-11-2011, 03:48 AM
FO titles won in a strong era Borg 6 Nadal 3.That's according to Nadal's own fans by the way so I can't really argue it.

nice trolling

aphex
06-11-2011, 03:49 AM
FO titles won in a strong era Borg 6 Nadal 3.That's according to Nadal's own fans by the way so I can't really argue it.

3 is VERY generous imo...

aphex
06-11-2011, 03:50 AM
Also, lets not forget Nadal never defeated Panatta at RG...

Does that put an asterisk next to his RG titles?

zagor
06-11-2011, 03:51 AM
nice trolling

:confused: What? I'm just repeating what Nadal fans say themselves all the time,that 2004-2007 was a weak era and Nadal won 3 FO titles during that period.

zagor
06-11-2011, 03:52 AM
3 is VERY generous imo...

It's not about being generous or not,this is just the way things are:

2004-2007-weak era Nadal wins 3 FOs
2008-+ strong era Nadal wins 3 FOs

tusharlovesrafa
06-11-2011, 03:54 AM
I totally agree with aphex 3 is very generous..

borg number one
06-11-2011, 03:59 AM
The tour was structured quite differently in 1974-1981 when Borg was playing. He concedes that he made a mistake by playing WTT, which caused him (and others) to be barred from playing the FO that year. He would have had a great shot at winning the FO title that year. In 1978 and 1980 he won the FO without losing a single set (he won 3 majors w/o losing a set as he won the '76 W title w/o losing a set as well). His dominant run in 1978 had him losing I believe 32 games the whole tournament. Borg vs. Nadal at the FO would be incredible, equalized for equipment of course. Borg was a better mover in my opinion that Nadal and I think he had a bit more stamina as well, as difficult as that is to believe for those that never saw Borg play. I saw Vilas play on clay live in the early 80's on red clay and I thought, how in the world can someone dominate that guy on clay? Well Borg did in 1978 especially (he beat Vilas in two finals, as well as great clay courters like Orantes and Lendl). Here are a couple of clips of Borg in action vs. Pecci, Vilas, and Lendl at RG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jGn0ZIZtaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY&feature=related

(thanks Krosero)

illuminati
06-11-2011, 04:17 AM
The tour was structured quite differently in 1974-1981 when Borg was playing. He concedes that he made a mistake by playing WTT, which caused him (and others) to be barred from playing the FO that year. He would have had a great shot at winning the FO title that year. In 1978 and 1980 he won the FO without losing a single set (he won 3 majors w/o losing a set as he won the '76 W title w/o losing a set as well). His dominant run in 1978 had him losing I believe 32 games the whole tournament. Borg vs. Nadal at the FO would be incredible, equalized for equipment of course. Borg was a better mover in my opinion that Nadal and I think he had a bit more stamina as well, as difficult as that is to believe for those that never saw Borg play. I saw Vilas play on clay live in the early 80's on red clay and I thought, how in the world can someone dominate that guy on clay? Well Borg did in 1978 especially (he beat Vilas in two finals, as well as great clay courters like Orantes and Lendl). Here are a couple of clips of Borg in action vs. Pecci, Vilas, and Lendl at RG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jGn0ZIZtaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY&feature=related

(thanks Krosero)

u beat nadal by taking it to him, borg cannot do that.

thus nadal would destroy borg

Xemi666
06-11-2011, 05:06 AM
for those people saying that borg is still clay GOAT, name me a single stat that borg is above nadal on clay?

im not talking about who's era is stronger or coulda, shoulda, woulda bullsh*t.

im talking about facts, numbers.

nadal has more clay titles, longer winning streak, same number of FO, better overall winning %, better finals winning %, 7 consecutive monte carlos, 6 barcelonas, 5 romes, 2 hamburg/madrid, 6 French Opens. nadal has more clay titles won without dropping a set than borg, nadal's record at the FO is far more dominant than borg, nadal has lost far fewer sets at the FO than borg. nadal and borg both have won the FO twice without dropping a set.


there is nothing that borg has over nadal on clay. NOTHING.

therefore its pretty easy to decide who is the clay GOAT......its Rafael Nadal.

Haters should reread the FACTS, they can't handle the truth.

borg number one
06-11-2011, 05:13 AM
u beat nadal by taking it to him, borg cannot do that.

thus nadal would destroy borg

Wrong. I don't think either would "destroy" the other. You have to equalize for equipment and if you did that, Borg could most certainly go on offense plenty. He was quicker than Nadal as well, so Nadal would not be able to play the way he does against most anyone else he's faced. He also had more stamina in my opinion. Great matchup though. Destroy? No, you are talking about two all time greats on clay. When that happens, you's tend to have tough matches, close matches, with neither able to dominate the way they do in say early rounds.

aphex
06-11-2011, 05:29 AM
u beat nadal by taking it to him, borg cannot do that.

thus nadal would destroy borg

You must really HEART Ralpha!

zagor
06-11-2011, 05:44 AM
u beat nadal by taking it to him, borg cannot do that.

thus nadal would destroy borg

Nadal destroyed Federer only once at FO,every other time he had to do it in 4 yet he would supposedly destroy Borg? You don't know what you're talking about do you?

aphex
06-11-2011, 05:46 AM
Nadal destroyed Federer only once at FO,every other time he had to do it in 4 yet he would supposedly destroy Borg? You don't know what you're talking about do you?

don't make him cry again!

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/15100000/nadal-fans-rafael-nadal-15180245-610-423.jpg

Benhur
06-11-2011, 05:50 AM
The tour was structured quite differently in 1974-1981 when Borg was playing. He concedes that he made a mistake by playing WTT, which caused him (and others) to be barred from playing the FO that year. He would have had a great shot at winning the FO title that year. In 1978 and 1980 he won the FO without losing a single set (he won 3 majors w/o losing a set as he won the '76 W title w/o losing a set as well). His dominant run in 1978 had him losing I believe 32 games the whole tournament. Borg vs. Nadal at the FO would be incredible, equalized for equipment of course. Borg was a better mover in my opinion that Nadal and I think he had a bit more stamina as well, as difficult as that is to believe for those that never saw Borg play. I saw Vilas play on clay live in the early 80's on red clay and I thought, how in the world can someone dominate that guy on clay? Well Borg did in 1978 especially (he beat Vilas in two finals, as well as great clay courters like Orantes and Lendl). Here are a couple of clips of Borg in action vs. Pecci, Vilas, and Lendl at RG.


These discussions always end up confusing who was the better player with who has the better record. They are both valid topics, but the first is much more difficult to decide than the second, at least in this case. How would Nadal have fared on clay growing up with wood racquets in the 70s, or how would Borg have fared on clay growing up with current racquets in the 00s. Who knows. Itís an exercise of the imagination. For all we know, there may have been another player from a different time that would have beaten both of them regularly.

The topic of who has the better record is at this point fairly easy to decide, unless you think that the only measure allowed is the number of FO titles, where they are equal. Everywhere else Nadal has a significant lead. His winning percentage on clay is more than 6 percentage points higher than Borgís, and thatís a big gap. He also has more titles. And most of Nadal's clay titles imply that the top players of the day had to be in the tournament because they are compelled to do so by regulations that didnít exist in Borgís time, when players had a lot more freedom about what tournaments they entered. You can always argue that Borg had to deal with clay titans far superior to what you find in the 00s, but then you are again slipping into the who-is-the-better-player kind of speculation. Whether or not the likes of Vilas, Pecci, Orantes, young Lendl etc would have easily dispatched the likes of Coria, JC Ferrero, Federer, Ferrer, Davydenko, Djokovic, is not at all clear to me. If you stick to the record, Nadalís is by now clearly better.

illuminati
06-11-2011, 05:50 AM
Nadal destroyed Federer only once at FO,every other time he had to do it in 4 yet he would supposedly destroy Borg? You don't know what you're talking about do you?

actually nadal has destroyed olderer 17 times.

borg is nothing compared to nadal on clay.

and nadal is better than borg overall too.

illuminati
06-11-2011, 05:53 AM
im still waiting for these borgtards to bring up one stat on clay that borg is superior to nadal.

im still waiting.

aphex
06-11-2011, 05:55 AM
im still waiting for these borgtards to bring up one stat on clay that borg is superior to nadal.

im still waiting.

I don't think Nadal ever beat Panatta at RG...a bit dodgy if you ask me...

zagor
06-11-2011, 05:55 AM
actually nadal has destroyed olderer 17 times.

You need to learn the definition of "destroy",very few of those wins were straight set demolitions and keep in mind that Fed is a HC/grass player that also happens to be good on clay while Borg was a monster on clay,big difference.

borg is nothing compared to nadal on clay.

Right.

and nadal is better than borg overall too.

Maybe(although I'd disagree)but there's sure not a lot separating them as players overall or on clay.Saying one is much better than the other is silly.

big bang
06-11-2011, 06:07 AM
Nadal is the king of clay, yes.
Even Borg said this
True my friend, I know you are a big Fed fan but still you are not biased like most other Fed fans(or should I say haters?). Fed is a great clay courter himself and pretty much dominates everyone but Nadal. If There was no Nadal around then Fed would have 5-6 RGīs and we wouldnt be having this conversation.. So suck it up boys because Nadal clearly surpassed Borg and you knoiw it. But as a Fed fan you shouldnt claim that this is a weak era should you?. You cant say that Fed is GOAT but Nadal is not Clay-GOAT, that is just stupid!.

borg number one
06-11-2011, 06:10 AM
Borg won 11 majors by 25, having only played the AO once at 17. He also dominated at the biggest tournament around, Wimbledon. While Nadal has the US Open title now (he was very impressive there), Borg did make the final there 4 times. As for winning a "hard court major", he had exactly 4 chances (not 2 a year like now) and he made the final there three of those four years. He only lost to either McEnroe or Connors in the finals of majors. He has the best winning % at the majors of anyone (look at stats for players even at 25 and you'll see that 89% is tough to very tough to match). He was also a extremely good indoor player, winning about 23 indoor titles. He won the Masters Cup in Jan. 1980 and Jan. 1981, going 5-0 vs. Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors in Madison Square Garden, so he was extremely good on all surfaces, not just clay. In addition, he won his 5 in a row at Wimbledon on grass that was considerably faster than it is now, so the adjustment was greater in his time. If you want to make a name for yourself, you do it at Wimbledon first and foremost in my book. He had a 41 match win streak there and won 5 in a row, losing in final #6. He also won the French Open twice without losing a set, so he was utterly dominant there. After winning the FO in 1981, amazingly he never played the tournament again. In 1982, Wilander won the FO and had been practicing with Borg as a leadup. He said that he struggled to ever win a set off of Borg in 1982 during that time.

zagor
06-11-2011, 08:17 AM
True my friend, I know you are a big Fed fan but still you are not biased like most other Fed fans(or should I say haters?).

Please,of course he's biased,99,99% of people in this forum are.BTW not thinking Nadal is the undisputed clay GOAT doesn't make one a Nadal hater.

Fed is a great clay courter himself and pretty much dominates everyone but Nadal. If There was no Nadal around then Fed would have 5-6 RG´s and we wouldnt be having this conversation..

Don't forget Fed lost in straights to a way past his prime Guga as well in 2004,the year he won 3 slams and TMC so it's not as easy as that although Fed is probably top 10-20 of all time on clay.

So suck it up boys because Nadal clearly surpassed Borg and you knoiw it.

Clearly surpassed? They're still pretty close and it's not all black and white in stats or else why would there still be people who argue for example that Sampras is greater than Fed and Mcenroe is greater than Lendl? Borg is still a valid choice for the best CC player ever,of course so is Nadal(maybe even more so)but saying stuff like Borg is nothing compared to Nadal on clay and Nadal would destroy Borg is nonsense(notice BNO doesn't make such claims in favour of Borg despite the fact that it's obvious how much he idiolizes him).

But as a Fed fan you shouldnt claim that this is a weak era should you?. You cant say that Fed is GOAT but Nadal is not Clay-GOAT, that is just stupid!.

It isn't Fed fans who are proclaiming weak eras,it's Nadal fans(among others).Problem is only 2 years separate Fed's first slam and Nadal's so whether people like it or not their career are intertwined which means when Nadal fanboys discredit Fed's accomplishments by screaming weak era they're basically downgrading Nadal as well(even if they don't realize it).If 2004-2007 was indeed such a weak period then Nadal's FOs(half of his total)won in that period are weak as well,right? Some Nadal fans seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 12:38 PM
I think it's silly that we compare 2 era's that are so far apart. The stats aren't that far apart and with 6 FO's each it's subjective. You can make arguments for both. But to put CURRENT Rafa against Borg in the late 70's early 80's is silly because tennis wasn't as fast paced and athletic as it is today. Different technology, different types of players that play at today's faster speed. Let's put Serena against this fine lady while we're at it at Wimbledon shall we?

http://hopeseguin.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/suzanne-tennis-1920s1.jpg?w=240&h=336

It's silly people! Just support who you support and move on.

borg number one
06-11-2011, 12:46 PM
^^Not the same at all. That analogy is totally misguided and a big stretch, because you went back many decades, not just back to 1981 when Borg competed in and won his last FO title. Suffice it to say, in any matchup between the two, you have to equalize for equipment, if you are comparing abilities. Either they both play with small, heavy wood racquets and no poly strings, or with they both play with modern frames. Borg is nothing like the average tennis athlete from the 70's of course. So, saying "tennis is more athletic" glosses over the fact that both Borg and Nadal are basically big anomalies. Who thinks players in the top 10 could outrun Borg, anyone?

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

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

Novak Djokovic held it lightly, feeling the contours as if he were examining a T. rex bone at a natural history museum.
To be fair, the Wilson Jack Kramer Autograph tennis racket is a dinosaur.

"It's the first time in my life" to hit with it, said Djokovic, born in 1987, long after wood joined the museum shelves of tennis history. The fifth-ranked player in men's professional tennis who competes with a Wilson nBlade graphite racket added, "Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."


http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0517/ten_g_bborgts_200.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/238/870/115148671_crop_340x234.jpg?1307187639

http://www.ibn-tv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/53256271_nadal_v_borg.jpg

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 12:52 PM
^^Im purposefully exaggerating. My point is, it's different. If's but's and when's are useless in this argument. Borg fans are going to say Borg, and Nadal fans are going to say Rafa. Say what you will but they run faster today because they HAVE to. The strings, racquets etc make the ball move faster. Saying "what if" Nadal had a wooden racquet is a bit silly. Of course it's harder to play with one, only a fool would say it isn't. But tennis isn't played with wooden racquets today, hence the argument being silly. Compare the stats and level of competition sure, but saying who would win if they were on court is a stretch bc it's basically 2 different sports they play. I think if THAT Borg in the video you showed me, (with a raqcuet from today mind you) had to play a 2006 Federer or a 2011 Djokovic on clay, he would lose. Which is why the argument is silly.

borg number one
06-11-2011, 01:03 PM
Yes, but you have to acknowledge that switching from wood to modern frames is A LOT easier than going the other way in terms of your hitting. You are aided by the technology shift (we've seen it happen all around us). So, Borg's shots would improve considerably with modern frames, yet Nadal would have to adjust his swingpath considerably to go to wood. So, if they BOTH played with modern frames, you have Nadal playing the same way and a different Borg hitting against you. The Defense would be the challenge that Borg would have to face, as he would face more spin and firepower. Meanwhile, his shots with modern frames would be a lot harder and have a lot more spin than he generated with the old frames. The width of a frame is key when hitting topspin. That Borg was able to hit that way with a HEAVY ~70 sq. inch frame is amazing. Now, as far as that defensive challenge for Borg, he was unlike most anyone from that era in terms of movement. He was faster and quicker than even Nadal and had stamina in spades. Nadal gets a slight strength advantage in my book, but not by much. Borg's legs were extremely strong, and he was very strong in the torso as well, so he would be well armed to hold up on defense as well. My conclusion: great match between the two that would be a "barn burner".



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

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 01:07 PM
Yes, but you have to acknowledge that switching from wood to modern frames is A LOT easier than going the other way. So, Borg's shots would improve considerably with modern frames, yet Nadal would have to adjust his swingpath considerably to go to wood. So, if they BOTH played with modern frames, you have Nadal playing the same way and a different Borg hitting against you. The Defense would be the challenge that Borg would have to face, as he would face more spin and firepower. Meanwhile, his shots with modern frames would be a lot harder and have a lot more spin than he generated with the old frames. The width of a frame is key when hitting topspin. That Borg was able to hit that way with a HEAVY ~70 sq. inch frame is amazing. Now, as far as that defensive challenge for Borg, he was unlike most anyone from that era in terms of movement. He was faster and quicker than even Nadal and had stamina in spades. Nadal gets a slight strength advantage in my book, but not by much. Borg's legs were extremely strong, and he was very strong in the torso as well, so he would be well armed to hold up on defense as well. My conclusion: great match between the two that would be a "barn burner".



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

All things considered, I see your points. I still haven't seen a video where I think Borg is faster than Rafa though, im just not seeing that. But if it was somehow possible to equalize everything maybe it would be a pretty close match. It's not fair to "just stick" a modern racquet in Borg's hand, or to "just stick" a wooden racquet in Rafa's hand. I suppose it would only be even if they both grew up playing with the same type of stick and conditions. If that was the scenario it would be a complete toss-up. I think the problem is actually what I just said. Im trying to stick Borg in today's conditions, and others are trying to stick Rafa in Borg's conditions, hence the off-balance of the match.

borg number one
06-11-2011, 01:28 PM
All things considered, I see your points. I still haven't seen a video where I think Borg is faster than Rafa though, im just not seeing that. But if it was somehow possible to equalize everything maybe it would be a pretty close match. It's not fair to "just stick" a modern racquet in Borg's hand, or to "just stick" a wooden racquet in Rafa's hand. I suppose it would only be even if they both grew up playing with the same type of stick and conditions. If that was the scenario it would be a complete toss-up. I think the problem is actually what I just said. Im trying to stick Borg in today's conditions, and others are trying to stick Rafa in Borg's conditions, hence the off-balance of the match.

Well, at least you're trying to do the analysis and equalize for conditions. That's a lot better than many that think about this question, then see some footage of the 70's-80's and think "well, of course the guys today are so much better, heck Connors is about a 4.5", lol..

Shoes, strings, racquets, all have been massively upgraded. Here Larry Stefanki here who says that "Borg is still the fastest player he's ever seen", but no doubt about it Nadal is a "special player". He's the player that reminds me of Bjorn Borg more than anyone I've seen. Although, in some ways, Borg is a mix of Federer and Nadal, though Laver was Borg's idol when he grew up (which probably contributed to his on court demeanor as the "Ice Man").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQ92DTWEbc&feature=related

Vortex Tour 95
06-11-2011, 01:30 PM
Or does that title still belong to the great Bjorn Borg?

Borg is the king.

Nadal is the EMPEROR!

Vortex Tour 95
06-11-2011, 01:33 PM
Nadal destroyed Federer only once at FO,every other time he had to do it in 4 yet he would supposedly destroy Borg? You don't know what you're talking about do you?

Borg lost twice to the same serve and volleyer Panatta .

Nadal lost once in the same year he had so many problems that he skipped Wimbledon altogether. ( very lucky for Fed).

TheTruth
06-11-2011, 02:43 PM
for those people saying that borg is still clay GOAT, name me a single stat that borg is above nadal on clay?

im not talking about who's era is stronger or coulda, shoulda, woulda bullsh*t.

im talking about facts, numbers.

nadal has more clay titles, longer winning streak, same number of FO, better overall winning %, better finals winning %, 7 consecutive monte carlos, 6 barcelonas, 5 romes, 2 hamburg/madrid, 6 French Opens. nadal has more clay titles won without dropping a set than borg, nadal's record at the FO is far more dominant than borg, nadal has lost far fewer sets at the FO than borg. nadal and borg both have won the FO twice without dropping a set.


there is nothing that borg has over nadal on clay. NOTHING.

therefore its pretty easy to decide who is the clay GOAT......its Rafael Nadal.

That pretty much sums it up!

TheTruth
06-11-2011, 02:50 PM
True my friend, I know you are a big Fed fan but still you are not biased like most other Fed fans(or should I say haters?).

Fed is a great clay courter himself and pretty much dominates everyone but Nadal.

If There was no Nadal around then Fed would have 5-6 RGīs and we wouldnt be having this conversation..

So suck it up boys because Nadal clearly surpassed Borg and you knoiw it.

But as a Fed fan you shouldnt claim that this is a weak era should you?. You cant say that Fed is GOAT but Nadal is not Clay-GOAT, that is just stupid!.


So many good points in this post! The last point being the best.

TheTruth
06-11-2011, 03:03 PM
I think it's silly that we compare 2 era's that are so far apart. The stats aren't that far apart and with 6 FO's each it's subjective. You can make arguments for both. But to put CURRENT Rafa against Borg in the late 70's early 80's is silly because tennis wasn't as fast paced and athletic as it is today. Different technology, different types of players that play at today's faster speed. Let's put Serena against this fine lady while we're at it at Wimbledon shall we?

http://hopeseguin.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/suzanne-tennis-1920s1.jpg?w=240&h=336

It's silly people! Just support who you support and move on.

I agree.

It doesn't really matter who is the greatest or not, unless somehow that magically translates into more moolah in your bank account.

TheTruth
06-11-2011, 03:04 PM
^^Not the same at all. That analogy is totally misguided and a big stretch, because you went back many decades, not just back to 1981 when Borg competed in and won his last FO title. Suffice it to say, in any matchup between the two, you have to equalize for equipment, if you are comparing abilities. Either they both play with small, heavy wood racquets and no poly strings, or with they both play with modern frames. Borg is nothing like the average tennis athlete from the 70's of course. So, saying "tennis is more athletic" glosses over the fact that both Borg and Nadal are basically big anomalies. Who thinks players in the top 10 could outrun Borg, anyone?

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

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




http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0517/ten_g_bborgts_200.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/238/870/115148671_crop_340x234.jpg?1307187639

http://www.ibn-tv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/53256271_nadal_v_borg.jpg

Very nice pics! Especially the last one.

cc0509
06-11-2011, 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by MichaelNadal
All things considered, I see your points. I still haven't seen a video where I think Borg is faster than Rafa though, im just not seeing that. But if it was somehow possible to equalize everything maybe it would be a pretty close match. It's not fair to "just stick" a modern racquet in Borg's hand, or to "just stick" a wooden racquet in Rafa's hand. I suppose it would only be even if they both grew up playing with the same type of stick and conditions. If that was the scenario it would be a complete toss-up. I think the problem is actually what I just said. Im trying to stick Borg in today's conditions, and others are trying to stick Rafa in Borg's conditions, hence the off-balance of the match.

People who say that they don't think Borg was as quick as Nadal or as talented are usually people that have never seen Borg play live when he was unstoppable. If you had seen Borg play, you would never say that Nadal is a better athlete or quicker, etc. etc. Truth is both are great ahtletes and both are great on clay. If Borg was at his peak now and had all of the technology available in today's world, Borg would easily give Nadal a run for him money, no question. Who is the better of the two? I can't say that, but I do know that Borg is definitely in the running.

Vortex Tour 95
06-11-2011, 04:25 PM
I think someone has to change his name to :

BORG NUMBER TWO


.

illuminati
06-11-2011, 06:02 PM
im still waiting for a borg fan to name me a single clay stat that borg is SUPERIOR to nadal in.

if they cant, then they are conceding that nadal is the clay GOAT.

mcr619619
06-11-2011, 06:28 PM
i agree...Nadal is king of clay..

NadalAgassi
06-11-2011, 06:35 PM
I think it's silly that we compare 2 era's that are so far apart. The stats aren't that far apart and with 6 FO's each it's subjective. You can make arguments for both. But to put CURRENT Rafa against Borg in the late 70's early 80's is silly because tennis wasn't as fast paced and athletic as it is today. Different technology, different types of players that play at today's faster speed. Let's put Serena against this fine lady while we're at it at Wimbledon shall we?

http://hopeseguin.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/suzanne-tennis-1920s1.jpg?w=240&h=336

It's silly people! Just support who you support and move on.

I would love to see Lenglen if she were born in the 80s playing today though. Personally I think she would be a real beast today from what I have read about her game and playing style. Sadly we will never know though.

Lenglen and Wills are the two hardest all time greats to evaluate since both lost only 1 matches in 7 or 8 years, and that was a match they each quit with illness/injury. They win almost all their slam finals 6-2, 6-0 or something like that. So basically everyone in their eras sucked except them, so it is impossible to compare them to Graf, Navratilova, Serena, et al. One cant seriously do it by evaluating their dominance over a collection of tomatoe cans. It is too bad they werent contemporaries and playing vs each other some.

sonicare
06-11-2011, 06:59 PM
im still waiting for a borg fan to name me a single clay stat that borg is SUPERIOR to nadal in.

if they cant, then they are conceding that nadal is the clay GOAT.

Borg was born before nadal..infact he is old enough to be nadals dad... so really rafa is just borgs son. see this pic below :

http://chanarchive.org/content/50_b/279435161/1287043525117.jpg

borg number one
06-11-2011, 07:45 PM
I think someone has to change his name to :

BORG NUMBER TWO


.

Who, Rafa??

Vortex Tour 95
06-11-2011, 07:53 PM
Who, Rafa??

Good one!

.

Benhur
06-12-2011, 04:56 AM
Yes, but you have to acknowledge that switching from wood to modern frames is A LOT easier than going the other way in terms of your hitting. You are aided by the technology shift (we've seen it happen all around us).

Right, but as a thought exercise this stops far too short and is not realistic at all. It is not a matter of giving an already developped player a racquet he has never used and saying: you have xx months to adapt! If you are going to imagine a comparison on these terms, you need to imagine it from the start. In other words: both players growing up in the same era with the same equipment. Then, there is no longer any late "adaptation" required, as they both learn to play with the same equipment.
I think both would be excellent players in each others era, since they both are obviously extremely talented and athletic. But beyond that, there is not much more to say.

borg number one
06-12-2011, 05:03 AM
Right, but as a thought exercise this stops far too short and is not realistic at all. It is not a matter of giving an already developped player a racquet he has never used and saying: you have xx months to adapt! If you are going to imagine a comparison on these terms, you need to imagine it from the start. In other words: both players growing up in the same era with the same equipment. Then, there is no longer any late "adaptation" required, as they both learn to play with the same equipment.
I think both would be excellent players in each others era, since they both are obviously extremely talented and athletic. But beyond that, there is not much more to say.

What did players have to do in about 1983-1984 when the graphite frames came on the scene and you no longer used wood frames?

Hitman
06-12-2011, 09:04 AM
You can't really say who is GOAT. Too many variables, just too many to have an outright GOAT.

Nadal is the best player on clay of his era. And Borg is the best on clay in his era. And both are two of the most greatest players. But, sorry, Nadal is not the clay GOAT.

If Nadal is the clay GOAT, because he has won the most presitgious clay titles. Then Federer is overall GOAT because he won the most presitigious titles overall. Because it seems that is the logic used here.

Now, is Federer GOAT? IMO, no, too many variables. He was the most accomplished player of his era. Just as Sampras was the most of his, and so on.

TheNatural
06-12-2011, 10:02 AM
Agassi says Nadal has it.

When you see Nadal on clay, when you yourself had so much trouble imposing yourself in Paris, what do you feel?

He is the greatest clay-court player in history. Even compared to Borg. No one has ever moved like him. Nadal has lost just once in Paris. Beating him here is one of the most difficult things to do in sport.

Can you imagine facing him?

No, it’s impossible. He’d send me home. It would be a waste of time for everyone – especially for him!

World Beater
06-12-2011, 01:57 PM
gotta give credit to what players achieve in their own eras, and nadal's stats across slams and MS on clay are imo a tad better than borg.

Nadal is the clay goat.

Vortex Tour 95
06-13-2011, 07:33 AM
You can't really say who is GOAT. Too many variables, just too many to have an outright GOAT.

Nadal is the best player on clay of his era. And Borg is the best on clay in his era. And both are two of the most greatest players. But, sorry, Nadal is not the clay GOAT.

If Nadal is the clay GOAT, because he has won the most presitgious clay titles. Then Federer is overall GOAT because he won the most presitigious titles overall. Because it seems that is the logic used here.

Now, is Federer GOAT? IMO, no, too many variables. He was the most accomplished player of his era. Just as Sampras was the most of his, and so on.


Personally I just don't see how anyone cam possibly call Fed the goat of his era or Any era for that matter.

How can you be the GOAT if you can't even beat the best player in your own era???

I think that Federer is the most beautiful player that has ever lived but if you can't beat the best player in your own era then that has to disqualify you as the goat .

I think it's 7-2 in grandslams withe Fed losing on every surface. I think Fed has lost his goat status. It's game over for Fed.

Benhur
06-14-2011, 10:31 AM
What did players have to do in about 1983-1984 when the graphite frames came on the scene and you no longer used wood frames?

Yes, but am not sure what the relevance of that is. In the first place there is no period where players switched from graphite to wood. Of course, if they had been forced to, they would have to adapt, and those who had grown up with wood would adapt more easily.

We do have a revealing fact, though. When Borg attempted to come back to the tour ten years later, he came back with a wooden racquet. That's astonishing, but also revealing. By then nobody was playing with wood. He had to be perfectly aware of the differences, and of he advantages of playing with the new racquets, and obviously he must have tried playing with graphite etc, and the fact that he still chose to come back using a wooden indicatt in 1991 indicates he didnít think those advantages were enough to offset his familiarity with wood. He must have felt he played better with wood even if his opponents were using graphite. That's the only explanation.

Another interesting case is Connors, who stuck with his T-2000 well into the 80s. Nobody but him could even begin to use that racquet by then.

What these things show is that old familiarity with a piece of equipment can go a very long way and is crucial. Which is precisely why I insist that the only meaningful way to make these kind of comparisons is not by imagining how they might adapt, but simply imagine both players growing up with the same equipment.