PDA

View Full Version : IF borg agrees to plays an exibition match with rafa then how many games can he win?


tusharlovesrafa
06-13-2011, 05:45 AM
Actually i was now watching Rocky balboa....so this gave me an idea to come up with this hypothetical question...which may sound crazy but still.What if bjorn borg comes out of his retirment and agress to play an exibiton match with rafa on RG clay then how many games can he win?:)

jonnythan
06-13-2011, 05:57 AM
Exhibition, Rafa plays easy on the legend and lets him have a few games.

In a competition he wouldn't get one.

zagor
06-13-2011, 05:58 AM
Actually i was now watching Rocky balboa....so this gave me an idea to come up with this hypothetical question...which may sound crazy but still.What if bjorn borg comes out of his retirment and agress to play an exibiton match with rafa on RG clay then how many games can he win?:)

Stop watching crappy movies and drawing conclusions for real life from them.

tusharlovesrafa
06-13-2011, 06:00 AM
Stop watching crappy movies and drawing conclusions for real life from them.

You a true fed fanboy..:)

FlamEnemY
06-13-2011, 06:06 AM
Stop watching crappy movies and drawing conclusions for real life from them.

True.

If it's an exhibition match, Nadal goes easy and wins 6-4 6-3 (and 6-4 if it's five sets)

If it's a real match, Borg will be lucky to win a single game. No, wait, he'll be lucky even to go up 30-15.

For comparison, take Muster's comeback on tour. He's having trouble even playing challengers, even if he's actually younger than Borg and is more accustomed to the new racket technology.

laboule
06-13-2011, 06:45 AM
Dont you dare compare Muster with Borg! :)

BounceHitBounceHit
06-13-2011, 07:11 AM
As many as Rafa elects to allow. :)

No, seriously......tennis is an odd game. He might get a few. No more.

BHBH

Semi-Pro
06-13-2011, 07:46 AM
You a true fed fanboy..:)

What does this have anything to do with him being a fan of fed?

This certainly rates as one of the dumbest threads I think we've had on this forum.

corners
06-13-2011, 08:39 AM
None...if Rafa plays as he does on tour. In that scenario Borg only wins a game if he hits four consecutive aces.

Sentinel
06-13-2011, 08:49 AM
Actually i was now watching Rocky balboa....so this gave me an idea to come up with this hypothetical question...which may sound crazy but still.What if bjorn borg comes out of his retirment and agress to play an exibiton match with rafa on RG clay then how many games can he win?:)
Shame on you, you should watch Sunny Deol movies and YOU JOLLY WELL KNOW THAT :D

It'll be decided in advance. Prolly 3 and 4.

goober
06-13-2011, 09:06 AM
Borg is 55 years old. Have you seen him play lately?- not pretty. If he got any games it would be charity games. The only player of his generation who I think could a few games legit would be JMac playing Nadal on grass.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 09:18 AM
Didn't you just recently discover tennis..how many weeks has it been since you found out that Borg was a tennis player?:lol:

Borg would win a few......................points, if Nadal had to serve and volley every single point on his service games.

Actually i was now watching Rocky balboa....so this gave me an idea to come up with this hypothetical question...which may sound crazy but still.What if bjorn borg comes out of his retirment and agress to play an exibiton match with rafa on RG clay then how many games can he win?:)

SStrikerR
06-13-2011, 09:22 AM
Connors in 5.

Tammo
06-13-2011, 09:22 AM
Is it 2 out of 3 sets, or just to 8 games?

The-Champ
06-13-2011, 09:45 AM
It all depends on Nadal, considering Borg's age.

JeMar
06-13-2011, 09:52 AM
None.

(10)

Manus Domini
06-13-2011, 10:18 AM
Borg is 55 years old. Have you seen him play lately?- not pretty. If he got any games it would be charity games. The only player of his generation who I think could a few games legit would be JMac playing Nadal on grass.

on fast grass, I'd say JMac might be able to win a set actually.

BounceHitBounceHit
06-13-2011, 10:25 AM
on fast grass, I'd say JMac might be able to win a set actually.

An interesting thought. This is reasonable to consider, given Mac's highly unorthodox style. ;) BHBH

goober
06-13-2011, 10:43 AM
on fast grass, I'd say JMac might be able to win a set actually.

well considering Nadal has won wimbledon twice I would say no chance. :)First JMac could not break Nadal. Second I still think you have in your mind the JMac of 5 years ago. I saw Jmac play about 6 months ago and he lost to an out of shape Michael Chang who was passing him pretty easily.

Manus Domini
06-13-2011, 12:06 PM
well considering Nadal has won wimbledon twice I would say no chance. :)First JMac could not break Nadal. Second I still think you have in your mind the JMac of 5 years ago. I saw Jmac play about 6 months ago and he lost to an out of shape Michael Chang who was passing him pretty easily.

A} I said fast grass. As in the grass of the 90s, not the grass of today. S&V tactics would actually work there, while Nadal's strategy would suffer.

B} I think the JMac of 5 years ago could be Nadal on 90s grass. Nadal isn't used to playing legendary S&Vers like Chang was.

Mick
06-13-2011, 12:06 PM
nadal vs borg is not as interesting as wozniacki vs borg :)

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 12:27 PM
how would John Mcenroe of today go against Serena williams on the Wimbledon Centre court if Mac had to use this wooden racket in the picture.

http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq164/manpreetsb/john-mcenroe-bjorn-borg.jpg

jonnythan
06-13-2011, 12:29 PM
Mac would get blown off the court.

Mick
06-13-2011, 12:39 PM
Mac would get blown off the court.
he would break a few racquets first. serena vs mac would be an amazing match. too bad it won't happen.

MichaelNadal
06-13-2011, 04:56 PM
Stop watching crappy movies and drawing conclusions for real life from them.

Hey now, don't be dissing Rocky.

PSNELKE
06-13-2011, 05:03 PM
Oh tush, that┤s a pretty idiotical question.
If he agreed to play an exhibition match with Ralph I think he could even win this.
Ralph doesnt give a shiit about exos and he is a nice guy. :P

pc1
06-13-2011, 05:27 PM
Here's an interesting question, John McEnroe age 52, one set on fast grass against Nadal. Now Nadal should win and probably very easily but considering Mac gave Roddick problems for a set (tiebreaker in WTT, Roddick and Mac both had double set point and Roddick won the last point) last summer, can Mac give Nadal some trouble? McEnroe keeps in great shape.

timnz
06-13-2011, 05:31 PM
If Borg was the same age as rafa and they were both playing with rackets from borgs era -how many games per set would rafa win? I would say one or two.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 06:03 PM
Here's an interesting question, John McEnroe age 52, one set on fast grass against Nadal. Now Nadal should win and probably very easily but considering Mac gave Roddick problems for a set (tiebreaker in WTT, Roddick and Mac both had double set point and Roddick won the last point) last summer, can Mac give Nadal some trouble? McEnroe keeps in great shape.

14 year old Nadal could beat Pat Cash and could probably beat Mcenroe then too.So its probably a more realistic question to ask if 14year old Nadal could beat prime mcenroe on grass.

cucio
06-13-2011, 11:56 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Uo1dXyGtYIk/TdrHnT2nCSI/AAAAAAAACJA/DEnJ-KmzDtk/s1600/Fool.jpg

aphex
06-14-2011, 12:31 AM
23 year old Borg would not get a game, let alone 55 year old borg.

tusharlovesrafa
06-14-2011, 12:32 AM
23 year old Borg would not get a game, let alone 55 year old borg.

Agree with you ...Sir..:)

PSNELKE
06-14-2011, 12:33 AM
23 year old Borg would not get a game, let alone 55 year old borg.

Ape, you serious bro? :lol:

whomad15
06-14-2011, 12:46 AM
now how about if they aren't allowed to use polyester strings?!
oooo and the tide turns slightly

aphex
06-14-2011, 12:53 AM
Ape, you serious bro? :lol:

Absolutely.

30 year old borg could barely take games off journeymen of the early 90s.

No, 23 year old borg would hardly get a game off Nadal.
Grass, yes.
Hard, probably.
Clay, absolutely not.

borg number one
06-14-2011, 04:29 AM
When Borg tried to play in the early 1990's, he hadn't been practicing seriously for years. He himself called his comeback attempt as "madness". I think by then he wanted to play again, but it had been too late. Borg and Nadal are two great players, I don't think the matches would be lopsided one way or the other, if you equalize for equipment/technology, strings, racquets, and shoes. On the old courts at Wimbledon, I'd take Borg. On the new courts of Wimbledon, I'd take Borg. Indoors, Borg. On clay, very close I think. On hard courts, I think it would be very close. On hard courts, given Nadal's improvement there, it would be very close. Basically, close matches between the two.

This is Borg in 1979 with wood frames, at age 23.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (thanks Krosero)

This is Borg in 1981, versus Lendl, aged 25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk

Now, as to the scenario posed by the OP, of course, Borg would struggle to even win games given the age difference. Yet, here's what a player for Harvard experienced when he played Borg a couple of years ago.

"Tennis great Bjorn Borg taught at Harvard yesterday, but not in the classroom.

The 11-time Grand Slam champion schooled the Crimson’s Alexei Chijoff-Evans, a talented 21-year-old junior whom Borg ran nonstop for nearly an hour on the court at Murr Center. Borg, still lean but now gray at 53, barely broke a sweat, displaying an array of forehands, backhands, and surgically placed lobs.

“You’re so outrageously fit,’’ Chijoff-Evans told the living legend. “You’re just cruising. I’m dying.’’

After the practice they did have a match. Borg won 6-2, 6-1.

tusharlovesrafa
06-14-2011, 04:34 AM
Oh tush, that┤s a pretty idiotical question.
If he agreed to play an exhibition match with Ralph I think he could even win this.
Ralph doesnt give a shiit about exos and he is a nice guy. :P

How dare you call my tactical and metholodical brain idiot:twisted:..

PSNELKE
06-14-2011, 04:39 AM
How dare you call my tactical and metholodical brain idiot:twisted:..

Oh tush I never experienced you to be like this. :P

aphex
06-14-2011, 04:41 AM
Forget equalization, it's not quantifiable.

What I'm saying is, if you take Nadal of 2011 and transport him through time to 1980, just before the FO final and put him on the court against Borg, Borg would not get a game.

tusharlovesrafa
06-14-2011, 04:41 AM
Oh tush I never experienced you to be like this. :P

i forgive you..:)

borg number one
06-14-2011, 04:49 AM
Forget equalization, it's not quantifiable.

What I'm saying is, if you take Nadal of 2011 and transport him through time to 1980, just before the FO final and put him on the court against Borg, Borg would not get a game.

Borg "would not get a game" if Nadal was transported to 1980, but then it's not "quantifiable" to equalize for technology?? Why should we forget equalizing for equipment but then use a time machine in that way? With wood frames, Nadal would struggle mightily. If he had graphite frames and Borg had wood frames, Nadal would win easily, but of course that's completely stacked. How about Borg with graphite frames and Nadal with wood, same thing, that's very stacked, Borg wins easily of course.

Aside: Borg lost 32 games when he won the '78 FO. He has won three majors without losing a set, the '78 and '80 FO titles and the '76 W title. No one else has won W without losing a set, at least in the Open era.

aphex
06-14-2011, 05:01 AM
Borg "would not get a game" if Nadal was transported to 1980, but then it's not "quantifiable" to equalize for technology?? Why should we forget equalizing for equipment but then use a time machine in that way? With wood frames, Nadal would struggle mightily. If he had graphite frames and Borg had wood frames, Nadal would win easily, but of course that's completely stacked. How about Borg with graphite frames and Nadal with wood, same think, very stacked, Borg wins easily of course.

Aside: Borg lost 32 games when he won the '78 FO. He has won three majors without losing a set, the '78 and '80 FO titles and the '76 W title. No one else has won W without losing a set, at least in the Open era.

Yes, Nadal with a wood frame would struggle.

I'm not comparing probable players (how borg/nadal would play if this and that),
I'm comparing actual players.
The actual Borg of 1980 and the actual Nadal of 2011.

Greatness has nothing to do with playing level. You can only be compared to your own era.

borg number one
06-14-2011, 05:16 AM
Yes, Nadal with a wood frame would struggle.

I'm not comparing probable players (how borg/nadal would play if this and that),
I'm comparing actual players.
The actual Borg of 1980 and the actual Nadal of 2011.

Greatness has nothing to do with playing level. You can only be compared to your own era.

I understand, but the equipment makes a HUGE difference. So you have the actual players, but they are using completely different equipment. So, since we are comparing players, it's just not reasonable to have one use wood frames while the other uses modern frames if we are using a hypo in which we take Nadal back to 1980. These kinds of questions will always be discussed. In 2020-2030, do you really think folks won't wonder how Borg, Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Laver, etc. would do against the top players of the time? Of course they will. I for one will argue that Federer and company could hold their own most likely. Who knows what equipment changes and other changes will take place by then though. If there are big changes from now until then, we'll wonder how they would do versus the top players of now would do against them. If folks say that "Nadal would get bageled", it would be mistaken in my opinion.

aphex
06-14-2011, 05:44 AM
I understand, but the equipment makes a HUGE difference. So you have the actual players, but they are using completely different equipment. So, since we are comparing players, it's just not reasonable to have one use wood frames while the other uses modern frames if we are using a hypo in which we take Nadal back to 1980. These kinds of questions will always be discussed. In 2020-2030, do you really think folks won't wonder how Borg, Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Laver, etc. would do against the top players of the time? Of course they will. I for one will argue that Federer and company could hold their own most likely. Who knows what equipment changes and other changes will take place by then though. If there are big changes from now until then, we'll wonder how they would do versus the top players of now would do against them. If folks say that "Nadal would get bageled", it would be mistaken in my opinion.

Jeez, who's talking about fair, unfair and all that stuff...the thread had a question, I'm giving my opinion regarding that question...

And, of course not...Federer wouldn't be able to get a game against the 2040 no.1.

As I said, you can only compared to your contemporaries.

borg number one
06-14-2011, 05:51 AM
Jeez, who's talking about fair, unfair and all that stuff...the thread had a question, I'm giving my opinion regarding that question...

And, of course not...Federer wouldn't be able to get a game against the 2040 no.1.

As I said, you can only compared to your contemporaries.

Federer wouldn't be able to get a game against the 2040 #1, why wouldn't he? I do agree that when you compare players to their own contemporaries, only then do you have an "apples to apples" comparison.

On the exact question posed by the OP, my opinion would be a 50+ yr. old Borg would struggle to win even a game vs. 25 yr. old Nadal at the height of his powers. Yet, it's good to have some context for that very mismatched scenario.

PSNELKE
06-14-2011, 06:01 AM
Epic stuff going on here guys: Ape takes side with Ralph. :shock:

aphex
06-14-2011, 06:08 AM
Epic stuff going on here guys: Ape takes side with Ralph. :shock:

I'm just stating the obvious:

Borg is a greater player than Ralph,
Ralph is a better player than Borg.

Manus Domini
06-14-2011, 06:16 AM
14 year old Nadal could beat Pat Cash and could probably beat Mcenroe then too.So its probably a more realistic question to ask if 14year old Nadal could beat prime mcenroe on grass.

You're honestly comparing Pat Cash to John McEnroe? Nadal wouldn't be able to take a game off prime McEnroe on fast grass, and he'd lose a set to this JMac

borg number one
06-14-2011, 06:26 AM
You're honestly comparing Pat Cash to John McEnroe? Nadal wouldn't be able to take a game off prime McEnroe on fast grass, and he'd lose a set to this JMac

Cash would have been about 35 at that stage too, so a young Nadal was facing someone very much past his prime years. I think you're right too, Cash was good for a bit, but not in the same league as McEnroe as a player. He had flashes of brilliance, but overall, not in the same league. Here's Cash when he was red hot in 1984, at about 20 years of age. At 35, I'm sure he was way past his prime years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj8B-nLD-hM

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

tusharlovesrafa
06-14-2011, 06:30 AM
I'm just stating the obvious:

Borg is a greater player than Ralph,
Ralph is a better player than Borg.

Such a double standard..one calls you a ape and you reply his msg properly and When it comes to me you call me Moron..
You hurt me..:cry:

mental midget
06-14-2011, 07:44 AM
I understand, but the equipment makes a HUGE difference. So you have the actual players, but they are using completely different equipment. So, since we are comparing players, it's just not reasonable to have one use wood frames while the other uses modern frames if we are using a hypo in which we take Nadal back to 1980. These kinds of questions will always be discussed. In 2020-2030, do you really think folks won't wonder how Borg, Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Laver, etc. would do against the top players of the time? Of course they will. I for one will argue that Federer and company could hold their own most likely. Who knows what equipment changes and other changes will take place by then though. If there are big changes from now until then, we'll wonder how they would do versus the top players of now would do against them. If folks say that "Nadal would get bageled", it would be mistaken in my opinion.

i don't see technological changes coming any time in the near future that will represent as great a shift as did wood to composite, or gut/nylon to polyester, simply because from a physical standpoint the game cannot afford to get much faster. we may continue to see incremental improvements in spin production, but there's a limit to how fast an athlete can move on the court, and i do believe the governing bodies of professional tennis are likely to outlaw any technology that resulted in an 'unrecognizable' shift of fundamental gameplay.

also, nadal would be plenty good with a wooden racket. he's not my favorite player, but it's incredibly naive to suggest he's simply a product of a large-headed racket and polyester strings.

borg number one
06-14-2011, 07:51 AM
i don't see technological changes coming any time in the near future that will represent as great a shift as did wood to composite, or gut/nylon to polyester, simply because from a physical standpoint the game cannot afford to get much faster. we may continue to see incremental improvements in spin production, but there's a limit to how fast an athlete can move on the court, and i do believe the governing bodies of professional tennis are likely to outlaw any technology that resulted in an 'unrecognizable' shift of fundamental gameplay.

also, nadal would be plenty good with a wooden racket. he's not my favorite player, but it's incredibly naive to suggest he's simply a product of a large-headed racket and polyester strings.

I agree as to the first portion. There are some limits on the human body. Just look at some of the injury problems cropping up now. Nadal would still be great with a wood frame, as he'd adjust his strokes. He is a splendid athlete. Yet, the racquet width is a big factor as to what swings are possible (surface area as to the shot as the racquet is slanted). So, he would have to adjust his stroke production significantly. Going the other way does not entail the same degree of adjustment. Of course, you then have to defend against greater firepower, so that's yet another consideration. So, with modern frames, hitting becomes lot easier, yet the defense demands are greater, hence the shift towards more physicality that we've seen.

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

See: http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=342:tennis-rakettechnology-article&catid=95:tennis-general-articles&Itemid=173

With the quick, whipping swing that many players use today, it is more difficult to hit the ball at exactly the same location on the head each time the racket is swung. However, due to the characteristics of the modern racket and the heavy topspin strokes used, the resulting ball trajectory is much less sensitive to the exact location of the ball impact on the strings. (The racket is more "forgiving" or it has a large "Sweet Spot".) If there is a preferred location to hit the ball (such as the center of the strung area), the new rackets give you more latitude for error of impact location both in a direction across the racket face, and along the main axis of the frame.

Because the new frames are much wider than the old wood rackets, they are much more stable against twisting when the ball impact point is not along the principal axis. The physical property of the racket that produces this stability is called the polar or roll moment of inertia. The larger this moment, the less the racket will twist on off-center hits and the less the power degrades as the ball impact point moves off of the axis. This moment of inertia is proportional the weight of the racket and to the square of the width of the racket head. A 10-inch wide head (the size of a typical oversize racket) is 25% wider than the old 8-inch wide wooden frame, so it has a moment of inertia that is over 50% greater. This more than makes up for the 25% reduction in weight that comes with the newer rackets. This increase in polar moment reduces the racket twist on off-axis impact (hence reduces the ball's errant angle due to the twist), and keeps the rebound ball speed from changing too much on such off-center hits. Both of these effects give the player a larger margin for impact location error in the striking of the ball. In addition, the use of topspin gives the player a much larger "window" of acceptable angles to hit into, if the shot is to land in the court.

mental midget
06-14-2011, 08:21 AM
I agree as to the first portion. There are some limits on the human body. Just look at some of the injury problems cropping up now. Nadal would still be great with a wood frame, as he'd adjust his strokes. He is a splendid athlete. Yet, the racquet width is a big factor as to what swings are possible (surface area as to the shot as the racquet is slanted). So, he would have to adjust his stroke production significantly. Going the other way does not entail the same degree of adjustment. Of course, you then have to defend against greater firepower, so that's is yet another consideration. So, with modern frames, hitting becomes lot easier, yet the defense demands are greater, hence the shift towards more physicality that we've seen.

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

See: http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=342:tennis-rakettechnology-article&catid=95:tennis-general-articles&Itemid=173

agree with all of this.

zagor
06-14-2011, 10:48 AM
Hey now, don't be dissing Rocky.

The original is OK but the sequels? The less said the better.

Gorecki
06-14-2011, 10:53 AM
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm24/lambfreack/sunnydeol-2b-1_1186980358.jpg

hoosierbr
06-14-2011, 01:21 PM
It wouldn't be fair to Nadal. How devastating it would be to see a guy in his 20's humiliated by a guy in his 50's. :)

Xemi666
06-14-2011, 02:40 PM
You're honestly comparing Pat Cash to John McEnroe? Nadal wouldn't be able to take a game off prime McEnroe on fast grass, and he'd lose a set to this JMac

:lol: I wonder if you're trolling or just delusional.

accidental
06-14-2011, 04:14 PM
I would say he could take 8 games maybe. But only if they play best of 15 sets format

accidental
06-14-2011, 04:24 PM
You're honestly comparing Pat Cash to John McEnroe? Nadal wouldn't be able to take a game off prime McEnroe on fast grass, and he'd lose a set to this JMac

Cash only retired in 1996, and if he played a 14 year old Nadal that would have been in 2000, so Cash would have only been a few years removed from the tour.

Cash is also one of the fittest former players going around and is one of the best players for his age group on the seniors tour and has basically coached full time since his retirement, coaching rusedski and Philippousis full time in 97-99 as well as running his tennis academy

Smasher08
06-14-2011, 04:51 PM
Rafa is kind, gracious and generous. In an exo, there's no way he'd let Borg get embarassed.

3 and 3.

Chopin
06-14-2011, 10:56 PM
Forget equalization, it's not quantifiable.

What I'm saying is, if you take Nadal of 2011 and transport him through time to 1980, just before the FO final and put him on the court against Borg, Borg would not get a game.

That's ridiculous, and I think today's guys are better. It just doesn't make sense--what racquets are they using?

aphex
06-15-2011, 01:41 AM
That's ridiculous, and I think today's guys are better. It just doesn't make sense--what racquets are they using?

English. Do you speak it?

Each with his racquet/gear he is/was actually using.

tusharlovesrafa
06-15-2011, 01:44 AM
English. Do you speak it?

Each with his racquet/gear he is/was actually using.

no sÚ InglÚs
Δεν ξέρω αγγλικά

Chopin
06-15-2011, 10:58 AM
English. Do you speak it?

Each with his racquet/gear he is/was actually using.

Well, duh. If Nadal was using a graphite racquet and Borg was playing with wood it would be no contest.

If both we're playing with graphite, I think Rafa wins in straights most of the time, though I could see Borg pushing him. If wood, then Borg.

bluetrain4
06-15-2011, 11:13 AM
It's an exhibition. He gets at least 4 games, probably 5. Nadal could beat him 6-0, 6-0, but, again, it's an exhibition.

Serve_Ace
06-15-2011, 11:24 AM
Games? You mean points?

borg number one
06-15-2011, 05:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGh4p0dyIk

See Borg on his strengths here from the HBO Documentary, Fire&Ice. On red clay especially, endurance is a huge component. Borg says "I've never actually been tired in a tennis match". That is amazing!

Netzroller
06-15-2011, 06:24 PM
As for the original question, 55yo Borg would most definitely not win a game against Nadal.


As for this racket technology discussion, there is one problem.
We only know 2 things: We know how prime Borg played with a wooden racket and we know how Rafa plays with a graphite stick.
Obviously, they have never played each other. However, some have seen these players many times and we can all watch their videos. Therefore, we can make a somewhat educated guess about how a match of these two would go. I see that this scenario is not fair, but it is one you can have a somewhat serious conversation about.

On the other hand, we'll never know how (young) Borg would play with a graphite stick and how Nadal would have played with a wooden stick. If they had played at a different time, they might have developed an entirely different style of play and different techniques. Every player is to a great extent a product of his environment. How they play(ed) is/was a reaction to the equipment, courts, opponents they faced etc. Both are obveiously very talented, so they could have certainly adapted to different situation. Thus, this all becomes pure speculation and the 'equalizing' argument, saying they would have been x% better/worse with cerain equipment is highly flawed.

What we could possibly find out is how Nadal plays with a wooden stick (as a one time try), in case he agrees to play a exo with wooden rackets

borg number one
06-15-2011, 06:35 PM
As for the original question, 55yo Borg would most definitely not win a game against Nadal.


As for this racket technology discussion, there is one problem.
We only know 2 things: We know how prime Borg played with a wooden racket and we know how Rafa plays with a graphite stick.
Obviously, they have never played each other. However, some have seen these players many times and we can all watch their videos. Therefore, we can make a somewhat educated guess about how a match of these two would go. I see that this scenario is not fair, but it is one you can have a somewhat serious conversation about.

On the other hand, we'll never know how (young) Borg would play with a graphite stick and how Nadal would have played with a wooden stick. If they had played at a different time, they might have developed an entirely different style of play and different techniques. Every player is to a great extent a product of his environment. How they play(ed) is/was a reaction to the equipment, courts, opponents they faced etc. Both are obveiously very talented, so they could have certainly adapted to different situation. Thus, this all becomes pure speculation and the 'equalizing' argument, saying they would have been x% better/worse with cerain equipment is highly flawed.

What we could possibly find out is how Nadal plays with a wooden stick (as a one time try), in case he agrees to play a exo with wooden rackets

I agree with your post. I think you're right. We do have substantial data on players going from wood racquets to primitive graphite frames though. We saw McEnroe switch to the Dunlop Max 200g in 1983, we saw Connors switch to a Pro Staff in about 1984 (when he was about 32), and so on. The pro tour switched from wood frames en masse in 1983-1985 really and we saw the difference in play. Plus, everyone, not just the pros, made the switch from wood frames to graphite frames (with some of us playing with metal frames in between). So, there is substantial data as to players that did actually make that switch in competitive play. We don't have nearly as much data in the other direction, with players trying to switch from graphite frames to wood frames. We also have accounts such as this:

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

"Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xdbcU_qJc (McEnroe vs. Connors in 1984)