PDA

View Full Version : Best French open player of the open era


kragster
03-13-2012, 03:30 PM
Not that many choices but just wanted to gauge the forum sentiment.


Edit: I already know where this poll is heading.

boredone3456
03-13-2012, 03:33 PM
Borg or Nadal



Maybe Keurten lendl and wilander about here




Everyone else starts about here

Clarky21
03-13-2012, 03:35 PM
Borg.

10Bjorns

The Bawss
03-13-2012, 03:36 PM
I cast my vote to Federer. Because this is a poll and he must win it.

fed_rulz
03-13-2012, 03:39 PM
I cast my vote to Federer. Because this is a poll and he must win it.

that honor goes to "The Rocket" Rod Laver.

Towser83
03-13-2012, 03:42 PM
Erm, surely this is a 2 choice poll - Borg or nadal. The others don't come close - though Wilander like Nadal won at his first attempt and was even younger at only 17, but overall he doesn't come close to Nadal.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 03:44 PM
It's got to be Nadal, in my opinion.

Nadal is 45-1 (6 titles), Borg 49-2 (6 titles), Wilander 47-9 (3 titles), Lendl 53-12 (3 titles) and Kuerten 36-8 (3 titles).

kishnabe
03-13-2012, 03:50 PM
Borg for best French Open player. Best clay court player would be Nadal.

Nadal just needs 1 more RG and he is better than Borg at the French.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 03:50 PM
Borg no question. Nadal played in a weak clay era.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 03:54 PM
Rafael Nadal
2005: CHAMPION
2006: CHAMPION
2007: CHAMPION
2008: CHAMPION
2009: Round of 16 Loser
2010: CHAMPION
2011: CHAMPION

Bjorn Borg
1973: Round of 16 Loser
1974: CHAMPION
1975: CHAMPION
1976: Quarter Final Loser
1977: DID NOT PLAY
1978: CHAMPION
1979: CHAMPION
1980: CHAMPION
1981: CHAMPION

Mats Wilander
1982: CHAMPION
1983: Runner-up
1984: Semi Final Loser
1985: CHAMPION
1986: Round of 32 Loser
1987: Runner-up
1988: CHAMPION
1989: Quarter Final Loser
1990: DID NOT PLAY
1991: Round of 64 Loser
1992: DID NOT PLAY
1993: DID NOT PLAY
1994: Round of 128 Loser
1995: Round of 64 Loser
1996: Round of 64 Loser

Ivan Lendl
1978: Round of 128 Loser
1979: Round of 16 Loser
1980: Round of 32 Loser
1981: Runner-up
1982: Round of 16 Loser
1983: Quarter Final Loser
1984: CHAMPION
1985: Runner-up
1986: CHAMPION
1987: CHAMPION
1988: Quarter Final Loser
1989: Round of 16 Loser
1990: DID NOT PLAY
1991: DID NOT PLAY
1992: Round of 64 Loser
1993: Round of 128 Loser
1994: Round of 128 Loser

Gustavo Kuerten
1996: Round of 128 Loser
1997: CHAMPION
1998: Round of 64 Loser
1999: Quarter Final Loser
2000: CHAMPION
2001: CHAMPION
2002: Round of 16 Loser
2003: Round of 16 Loser
2004: Quarter Final Loser
2005: Round of 128 Loser
2006: DID NOT PLAY
2007: DID NOT PLAY
2008: Round of 128 Loser

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 03:58 PM
^^^ There we go. Ever since Borg and Nadal won their first FO, they won in a 4/2 distribution. But in Borg's loss it was a QF, while Nadal was 4th round. Therefore Borg > Nadal.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 04:00 PM
^^^ There we go. Ever since Borg and Nadal won their first FO, they won in a 4/2 distribution. But in Borg's loss it was a QF, while Nadal was 4th round. Therefore Borg > Nadal.

Nadal won his first French Open, though. Borg didn't.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:02 PM
Nadal won his first French Open, though. Borg didn't.

Yeah but Borg was only 17 when he lost. If Nadal played at that age he would have lost too.

kragster
03-13-2012, 04:02 PM
Borg for best French Open player. Best clay court player would be Nadal.

Nadal just needs 1 more RG and he is better than Borg at the French.

Why does Nadal need 1 more RG to be better than Borg at the FO but Fed is leading Sampras 3:1 in the USO poll when both have the same number of slams?

Nadal has a higher winning % than Borg at the FO and has never been stretched to 5 sets in his 6 FO finals.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:04 PM
Why does Nadal need 1 more RG to be better than Borg at the FO but Fed is leading Sampras 3:1 in the USO poll when both have the same number of slams?

Nadal has a higher winning % than Borg at the FO and has never been stretched to 5 sets in his 6 FO finals.

Not being stretched to 5 sets is meaningless if you've already lost in 4.

Limpinhitter
03-13-2012, 04:04 PM
that honor goes to "The Rocket" Rod Laver.

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Rocket!

magnut
03-13-2012, 04:08 PM
Yannick Noah.....because he was French. All other years and champions it was just another tournamnet.

The last 7 years or so its been pretty much the Spanish Open.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 04:09 PM
Not being stretched to 5 sets is meaningless if you've already lost in 4.

Adriano Panatta twice beat Borg in 4 sets at the French Open, the only times Borg lost there. Borg also had to go 5 sets in 2 French Open finals (1974 against Orantes and 1981 against Lendl).

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:12 PM
Adriano Panatta twice beat Borg in 4 sets at the French Open, the only times Borg lost there. Borg also had to go 5 sets in 2 French Open finals (1974 against Orantes and 1981 against Lendl).

Thanks for making my case. Borg lost to a FO champion. Nadal lost to a slamless wonder. Case closed. Borg > Nadal. Additionally Nadal's stats are inflated because he started playing at a much later age than Borg.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 04:14 PM
Thanks for making my case. Borg lost to a FO champion. Nadal lost to a slamless wonder. Case closed. Borg > Nadal. Additionally Nadal's stats are inflated because he started playing at a much later age than Borg.

LOL. Keep clutching those straws ;)

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:16 PM
LOL. Keep clutching those straws ;)

Don't need to. It's quite clear. Borg > Nadal.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Don't need to. It's quite clear. Borg > Nadal.

It's not clear at all. Nadal's winning percentages at the French Open and on clay in general are superior to Borg's. Nadal has also beaten Federer 5 times at the French Open.

lgbalfa
03-13-2012, 04:20 PM
my vote goes to thomas muster.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 04:23 PM
my vote goes to thomas muster.

I really wish I could agree with you. Thomas was amazing when winning there in 1995, and looked very good in 1990 until he blew his semi final, but there's no question that Muster underachieved at the French Open considerably, and running into Courier a couple of times and serve and volleyers like Rafter and Stich didn't help.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:32 PM
It's not clear at all. Nadal's winning percentages at the French Open and on clay in general are superior to Borg's. Nadal has also beaten Federer 5 times at the French Open.

It's actually quite clear. Nadal's stats are simply inflated due to playing clay nobodies other than Federer. Borg played a much harder field and lost only to a FO champion. Nadal lost to Soderling. Pathetic. Borg > Nadal.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 04:37 PM
Adriano Panatta twice beat Borg in 4 sets at the French Open, the only times Borg lost there. Borg also had to go 5 sets in 2 French Open finals (1974 against Orantes and 1981 against Lendl).

But obviously Nadal plays in a weak era right? If Federer did so did Nadal.

kragster
03-13-2012, 04:39 PM
It's not clear at all. Nadal's winning percentages at the French Open and on clay in general are superior to Borg's. Nadal has also beaten Federer 5 times at the French Open.

Save your breath, you should know better by now :)

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 04:41 PM
I really wish I could agree with you. Thomas was amazing when winning there in 1995, and looked very good in 1990 until he blew his semi final, but there's no question that Muster underachieved at the French Open considerably, and running into Courier a couple of times and serve and volleyers like Rafter and Stich didn't help.

I would have really enjoyed seeing Muster in the final against Agassi. I think it would have been one spectacular final, albeit only if Agassi could have his hair in place :)

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 04:46 PM
It's actually quite clear. Nadal's stats are simply inflated due to playing clay nobodies other than Federer. Borg played a much harder field and lost only to a FO champion. Nadal lost to Soderling. Pathetic. Borg > Nadal.

While the argument does hold water, you can't really base that argument for determining the best FO player ever. Nadal has the tools to succeed on clay and it appears that he is at home on clay just as fish are in water.

It is interesting though to hear Nadal fans(Not calling Muster a Nadal fan) say that Federer is only a product of a weak era when a majority of Nadal's achievements are against Federer. Can't exactly say that Nadal is an amazing FO player and likely the best that ever set foot at RG and then chastise Federer for not being able to beat the best clay court player of all time.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 04:54 PM
While the argument does hold water, you can't really base that argument for determining the best FO player ever. Nadal has the tools to succeed on clay and it appears that he is at home on clay just as fish are in water.

It is interesting though to hear Nadal fans(Not calling Muster a Nadal fan) say that Federer is only a product of a weak era when a majority of Nadal's achievements are against Federer. Can't exactly say that Nadal is an amazing FO player and likely the best that ever set foot at RG and then chastise Federer for not being able to beat the best clay court player of all time.

Well this thread was initiated by a *********, so you kind of have to speak in language they will comprehend.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 05:06 PM
Save your breath, you should know better by now :)

I can't help it :)

kragster
03-13-2012, 05:12 PM
I can't help it :)

Lol, but you should know that the one thing a troll wants most is attention. Taking that away is the best way to annoy a troll. Someone else in another thread spent 6 pages arguing with *********! Nothing positive ever comes from arguing with a troll.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 05:22 PM
Funny how the label of 'troll' is so liberally thrown about by ***** themselves. The hypocrisy is quite ripe.

Hood_Man
03-13-2012, 05:25 PM
There are a lot of stats that would probably prove it, but this one knocks me out of my shoes: Borg conceded 8 sets en route to winning his first French Open in 1974, but Nadal conceded just 7 sets in 4 years between 2005 and 2008.

Borg was perhaps spared losing a few more in fact due to the first two rounds of '74 being best of 3 sets, having lost his opening set in the first round 6-4 to Jean-François Caujolle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles#Section_6

In fact, in his 6 winning years Borg conceded 14 sets in total, while Nadal conceded 10 from his.

If I was to include their losses things would be even more in Nadals favour since it would become 20 sets to 13.

[EDIT]

Oh yeah, forgot to add, my pick is Nadal. In case I wasn't obvious enough :lol:

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 05:29 PM
There are a lot of stats that would probably prove it, but this one knocks me out of my shoes: Borg conceded 8 sets en route to winning his first French Open in 1974, but Nadal conceded just 7 sets in 4 years between 2005 and 2008.

Borg was perhaps spared losing a few more in fact due to the first two rounds of '74 being best of 3 sets, having lost his opening set in the first round 6-4 to Jean-François Caujolle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles#Section_6

In fact, in his 6 winning years Borg conceded 14 sets in total, while Nadal conceded 10 from his.

If I was to include their losses things would be even more in Nadals favour since it would become 20 sets to 13.

[EDIT]

Oh yeah, forgot to add, my pick is Nadal. In case I wasn't obvious enough :lol:

Wait a second wait a second. If you say Borg lost 8 sets in winning one FO, and 14 sets for all 6 FO, then doesn't that mean Borg only lost 6 sets for the remaining 5 FO??????!!!! That's better than Nadal's 7 sets lost for 4 FO's.

Hood_Man
03-13-2012, 05:31 PM
Wait a second wait a second. If you say Borg lost 8 sets in winning one FO, and 14 sets for all 6 FO, then doesn't that mean Borg only lost 6 sets for the remaining 5 FO??????!!!! That's better than Nadal's 7 sets lost for 4 FO's.

It's open to interpretation :)

celoft
03-13-2012, 05:38 PM
Borg.

He only lost to a FO champ(Panatta twice). Soderling never won the FO.

Is Soderling still active?

Mustard
03-13-2012, 05:43 PM
Rafael Nadal
2005 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Lars Burgsmuller (6-1, 7-6, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Xavier Malisse (6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Richard Gasquet (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-4, 3-6, 6-0, 6-3)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. David Ferrer (7-5, 6-2, 6-0)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3)
F: Rafael Nadal def. Mariano Puerta (6-7, 6-3, 6-1, 7-5)

2006 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Kevin Kim (6-2, 6-1, 6-4)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (5-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-2, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 6-4 ret.)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (6-4, 6-2, 7-6)
F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)

2007 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Juan Martin del Potro (7-5, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Flavio Cipolla (6-2, 6-1, 6-4)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Albert Montanes (6-1, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-1, 7-6)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Carlos Moya (6-4, 6-3, 6-0)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (7-5, 6-4, 6-2)
F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)

2008 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Thomaz Bellucci (7-5, 6-3, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Devilder (6-4, 6-0, 6-1)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Jarkko Nieminen (6-1, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Fernando Verdasco (6-1, 6-0, 6-2)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 6-2, 7-6)
F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)

2009 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Marcos Daniel (7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (6-1, 6-4, 6-2)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-1, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Robin Soderling def. Rafael Nadal (6-2, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6)

2010 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Gianni Mina (6-2, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Horacio Zeballos (6-2, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Thomaz Bellucci (6-2, 7-5, 6-4)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Jurgen Melzer (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
F: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)

2011 French Open - Rafael Nadal
R128: Rafael Nadal def. John Isner (6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Pablo Andujar (7-5, 6-3, 7-6)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Antonio Veic (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (7-5, 6-3, 6-3)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1)


Bjorn Borg
1973 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Cliff Richey (6-2, 6-3)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Pierre Barthes (3-6, 6-1, 8-6)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Dick Stockton (6-7, 7-5, 6-2, 7-6)
R16: Adriano Panatta def. Bjorn Borg (7-6, 2-6, 7-5, 7-6)

1974 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Jean-Francois Caujolle (4-6, 6-0, 6-4)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Toma Ovici (6-1, 6-1)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Jean-Loup Rouyer (6-4, 6-2, 6-0)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Erik Van Dillen (0-6, 6-3, 6-3, 5-7, 6-3)
QF: Bjorn Borg def. Raul Ramirez (6-2, 5-7, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)
SF: Bjorn Borg def. Harold Solomon (6-4, 2-6, 6-2, 6-1)
F: Bjorn Borg def. Manuel Orantes (2-6, 6-7, 6-0, 6-1, 6-1)

1975 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Norman Holmes (6-2, 6-3)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Peter Szoke (6-1, 6-1)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Jiri Hrebec (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Stan Smith (6-2, 6-3, 6-0)
QF: Bjorn Borg def. Harold Solomon (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
SF: Bjorn Borg def. Adriano Panatta (6-4, 1-6, 7-5, 6-4)
F: Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-2, 6-3, 6-4)

1976 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Dominique Bedel (0-6, 6-0, 6-4, 7-5)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Hans Kary (6-1, 6-1, 6-2)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Antonio Zugarelli (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Francois Jauffret (6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 4-6, 10-8 )
QF: Adriano Panatta def. Bjorn Borg (6-3, 6-3, 2-6, 7-6)

1978 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Eric Deblicker (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Rick F a g e l (6-0, 6-1, 6-0)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Paolo Bertolucci (6-0, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Roscoe Tanner (6-2, 6-4, 7-6)
QF: Bjorn Borg def. Raul Ramirez (6-3, 6-3, 6-0)
SF: Bjorn Borg def. Corrado Barazzutti (6-0, 6-1, 6-0)
F: Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-1, 6-1, 6-3)

1979 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Tomas Smid (6-1, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Tom Gullikson (6-3, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Raymond Moore (6-3, 6-1, 6-0)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Gilles Moretton (7-5, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Bjorn Borg def. Hans Gildemeister (6-4, 6-1, 7-5)
SF: Bjorn Borg def. Vitas Gerulaitis (6-2, 6-1, 6-0)
F: Bjorn Borg def. Victor Pecci (6-3, 6-1, 6-7, 6-4)

1980 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Alvaro Fillol (6-3, 6-1, 6-4)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Andres Gomez (6-2, 6-2, 6-1)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Pascal Portes (6-3, 6-0, 6-1)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Balazs Taroczy (6-2, 6-2, 6-0)
QF: Bjorn Borg def. Corrado Barazzutti (6-0, 6-3, 6-3)
SF: Bjorn Borg def. Harold Solomon (6-2, 6-2, 6-0)
F: Bjorn Borg def. Vitas Gerulaitis (6-4, 6-1, 6-2)

1981 French Open - Bjorn Borg
R128: Bjorn Borg def. Jose Lopez-Maeso (6-2, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Bjorn Borg def. Cassio Motta (6-1, 7-5, 6-0)
R32: Bjorn Borg def. Paul Torre (6-2, 6-1, 6-2)
R16: Bjorn Borg def. Terry Moor (6-0, 6-0, 6-1)
QF: Bjorn Borg def. Balazs Taroczy (6-3, 6-3, 6-2)
SF: Bjorn Borg def. Victor Pecci (6-4, 6-4, 7-5)
F: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1)

Mustard
03-13-2012, 05:44 PM
Is Soderling still active?

He's had mono. Hasn't played since July 2011, when he won Bastad in dominant fashion.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 06:18 PM
He's had mono. Hasn't played since July 2011, when he won Bastad in dominant fashion.

That proves Nadal would never have won W2008 if Fed didn't have mono in the beginning of the year.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 06:21 PM
That proves Nadal would never have won W2008 if Fed didn't have mono in the beginning of the year.

LOL. Dream on :)

MichaelNadal
03-13-2012, 06:23 PM
LOL. Dream on :)

Exactly, he showed he could do it in 2007.

tennis_pro
03-13-2012, 06:25 PM
Exactly, he showed he could do it in 2007.

But chose to lose instead.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 06:26 PM
But chose to lose instead.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLL, Game set and match as Fed said at Wimby 2007. :)

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 06:26 PM
LOL. Dream on :)

Don't need to, it's quite clear. We saw what mono did to Ancic and now Sod.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 06:35 PM
Don't need to, it's quite clear. We saw what mono did to Ancic and now Sod.

You know damn well that Federer's mono was nowhere near as bad a strain as Soderling's or Ancic's.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-13-2012, 06:51 PM
You know damn well that Federer's mono was nowhere near as bad a strain as Soderling's or Ancic's.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't have any of their doctor's reports. All I know is Courier said Fed's mono cost him tons of practice time. Given how Fed's game is built on precision that loss of practice would have cost him dearly against someone as good as Nadal.

VOLLEY KING
03-13-2012, 06:53 PM
Nadal.


.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-13-2012, 08:10 PM
You know damn well that Federer's mono was nowhere near as bad a strain as Soderling's or Ancic's.

True, but as DFTW pointed out it did cost him practice time. If Nadal fans want to discredit Federer's FO then you sure need to put asterisks next to WIM 08 and AO 09.

Mustard
03-13-2012, 08:17 PM
True, but as DFTW pointed out it did cost him practice time. If Nadal fans want to discredit Federer's FO then you sure need to put asterisks next to WIM 08 and AO 09.

From me, there has been no discrediting of Federer's 2009 French Open win nor are there any asteriks against Nadal's majors.

VOLLEY KING
03-13-2012, 08:23 PM
Thanks for making my case. Borg lost to a FO champion. Nadal lost to a slamless wonder. Case closed. Borg > Nadal. Additionally Nadal's stats are inflated because he started playing at a much later age than Borg.

Borg lost to a serve and volleyer twice on red clay!

Nadal only lost once .

VOLLEY KING
03-13-2012, 08:27 PM
From me, there has been no discrediting of Federer's 2009 French Open win nor are there any asteriks against Nadal's majors.

I stand corrected. Misread this

monfed
03-13-2012, 10:39 PM
Bjorn Borg.

The reason why I choose Borg over Nadal is because Borg rattled off RGs without having a FH-BH advantage over his opponents which Nadal intrinsically has being a left hander.

In short , Borg didn't have a natural advantage over opponents before the match even begun like Nadal has which tips the balance in Borg's favour.

To be even more blunt, Borg won RGs by virtue of mastery of his OWN game as opposed to exploiting opponent's weakness which Nadal's famous for(abusing BHs to the hilt.)

Clarky21
03-13-2012, 10:45 PM
Bjorn Borg.

The reason why I choose Borg over Nadal is because Borg rattled off RGs without having a FH-BH advantage over his opponents which Nadal intrinsically has being a left hander.

In short , Borg didn't have a natural advantage over opponents before the match even begun like Nadal has which tips the balance in Borg's favour.

To be even more blunt, Borg won RGs by virtue of mastery of his OWN game as opposed to exploiting opponent's weakness which Nadal's famous for(abusing BHs to the hilt.)



Ok,I agree that Borg is better,but does this mean that all of ****'s recent wins over Nadal don't count because he abuses Nadal's bh much in the same way that Nadal abuses Fed's? You play to your opponents weaknesses,and Nadal should not be punished for doing so when every single player on the tour does the same thing.

winstonplum
03-13-2012, 10:46 PM
Mustard, the ignore button is a powerful and soothing option. I notice that I never see his writing quoted anywhere except when you quote it now. Let go and do it. Ignore. It's a beautiful feeling. Don't feed the trolls. He's a robot: Nadal sucks, Nadal sucks, Nadal sucks, Nadal sucks, Nadal sucks, Nadal sucks, Nadal sucks . . .

Mustard
03-13-2012, 10:47 PM
In short , Borg didn't have a natural advantage over opponents before the match even begun like Nadal has which tips the balance in Borg's favour.

What about Borg's ability to outlast even Vilas? Vilas regularly went toe-to-toe with Borg in the rallies and the matches felt close, yet Borg would win with one-sided scorelines.

monfed
03-13-2012, 11:22 PM
What about Borg's ability to outlast even Vilas? Vilas regularly went toe-to-toe with Borg in the rallies and the matches felt close, yet Borg would win with one-sided scorelines.

Key word - ability(as explained in my previous post.)

Example - Nadal was outlasting Djokovic in 90% of their matches against Djokovic prior to 2011. Once Djokovic got his fitness levels up, he's outlasting Nadal(who would've thought?). Vilas and the others could've improved their fitness levels, no excuse for that.

"Outlasting" is a credit to Borg's athleticism as opposed to Nadal's natural lefthanded advantage. Common sense really.

sandiegoman
03-13-2012, 11:25 PM
that honor goes to "The Rocket" Rod Laver.

The rocket? Nadal would blast topspin over his head

monfed
03-13-2012, 11:31 PM
The rocket? Nadal would blast topspin over his head

Give Nadal a wooden racquet(with natural gut) and see how much topspin he generates. ;)

Sentinel
03-13-2012, 11:37 PM
Parera in two.

namelessone
03-13-2012, 11:41 PM
It's really only between Borg and Nadal. The differences between them are very small indeed but I find some of the arguments here laughable.

As much as people want to belittle Nadal's achievements, so far Nadal has been a steadier force(though not by that much) at RG than Bjorn. He made 6 out of the last 7 RG finals(winning all of them), got revenge on the only guy to ever beat him there(Bjorn stands 1-2 versus Panatta at RG while Nadal is 3-1 versus Sod in Paris). Both guys have won RG twice without dropping a set.

IMO, Nadal is ahead of Borg by a slight margin but I think that if he manages another RG that pretty much seals it for me.

namelessone
03-13-2012, 11:52 PM
Bjorn Borg.

The reason why I choose Borg over Nadal is because Borg rattled off RGs without having a FH-BH advantage over his opponents which Nadal intrinsically has being a left hander.

In short , Borg didn't have a natural advantage over opponents before the match even begun like Nadal has which tips the balance in Borg's favour.

To be even more blunt, Borg won RGs by virtue of mastery of his OWN game as opposed to exploiting opponent's weakness which Nadal's famous for(abusing BHs to the hilt.)

This makes absolutely no sense.

By your logic, we should also discount Orantes,Muster,Vilas's wins as well since you know, they were left-handers.

Every game is won by exploiting your opponent's weakness, by bludgeoning them with your own strengths. The most famous example is with Fed's BH against Nadal. In his prime, against almost anyone else, Fed would slice and dice with his BH, not to mention the fact that there was a time when he would hit hard off returns with it.

In his prime, everybody was praising this shot. This shot was outstanding until it was faced with Nadal's somewhat unique heavily spun forehand. At that point it was severly weakened, except indoors. Nadal used his strength to exploit his weakness, just like Fed used his strengths(fh and serve mostly) against the others weaknesses(best example is Fed slicing and dicing the lumbering giants of the tour or using his BH DTL against Djokovic's weaker FH wing).

monfed
03-14-2012, 01:25 AM
This makes absolutely no sense.

With a brash opening statement like this, I shouldn't even bother responding to your post but I'll cut you some slack since you're a little more reasonable than the blind *******s here.



By your logic, we should also discount Orantes,Muster,Vilas's wins as well since you know, they were left-handers.

Never said discount, I said it tips the balance in Borg's favour. If I discounted Nadal's RG record I wouldn't have even compared him to Borg in the first place.

I haven't even mentioned how much racquet technology(polystrings especially) enables him to generate unheard of RPM which the lefthanders mentioned didn't have the privilege of using , neither did Borg. Heck, throw Nadal in the 90s and it's quite unclear if he'd had the same runaway success at RG that he has in this era without polystring technology.

To be blunt, Nadal without the RPM is a bit like a headless chicken as proven by his stellar record on low bouncing slick surfaces.



Every game is won by exploiting your opponent's weakness, by bludgeoning them with your own strengths.

Federer,Laver,Borg(to name a few) weren't bludgeoning their opponents weaknesses, they were winning due to the excellence and completeness of their own game.


The most famous example is with Fed's BH against Nadal. In his prime, against almost anyone else, Fed would slice and dice with his BH, not to mention the fact that there was a time when he would hit hard off returns with it. In his prime, everybody was praising this shot. This shot was outstanding until it was faced with Nadal's somewhat unique heavily spun forehand. At that point it was severly weakened, except indoors.

Yes, when Nadal is incapable of exploiting Fed's weaker wing indoors because he simply doesn't get the same purchase(HIGH bounce DUH) that he gets on slow HCs(majority of the tour currently),clay and slow grass(compared to the 90s), he turns into a headless chicken. Proving once again why he so heavily reliant on exploiting a said player's weaker wing, also proven by numerous Djokovic beatdowns(when his lasso FH doesn't even do damage against Nole's solid FH,his weaker wing).



Nadal used his strength to exploit his weakness, just like Fed used his strengths(fh and serve mostly) against the others weaknesses(best example is Fed slicing and dicing the lumbering giants of the tour or using his BH DTL against Djokovic's weaker FH wing).

Nadal's FH can't do damage against either the Djokovic BH or his FH, which displays his heavy reliance on exposing a player's weaker wing for success.It's little wonder why Nadal stuggles against players with solid BHs like Djokovic,Davydenko,Nalbandian,Murray,Coria.


Lucky for Nadal, Coria disappeared who gave him major fits on clay and was touted as the big clay rivalry(Nadal-Coria),instead got a favourable matchup in Federer in multiple RG finals. He didn't even face Kuerten who has arguably the best BH on clay in history and would've greatly nullified Nadal's lasso FH which his game so heavily relies on.

namelessone
03-14-2012, 02:43 AM
Never said discount, I said it tips the balance in Borg's favour. If I discounted Nadal's RG record I wouldn't have even compared him to Borg in the first place.

So winning as a righty is more important than winning as a lefty? Interesting logic you're using there. Most important advantage lefties have is the serve outwide on the ad court and Nadal's most prodigious surface is clay, a surface where serve is hardly that important.

I haven't even mentioned how much racquet technology(polystrings especially) enables him to generate unheard of RPM which the lefthanders mentioned didn't have the privilege of using , neither did Borg. Heck, throw Nadal in the 90s and it's quite unclear if he'd had the same runaway success at RG that he has in this era without polystring technology.

And how is this Nadal's fault?

He is taking advantage of the tennis habitat he grew up in. And what exactly pray tell is hindering Nadal in developing a heavy topspin game if he plays in Bjorn's age(in this scenarion Nadal grows up with wood rackets)? Borg, Vilas were already topspin machines with their woodies, it's just that in the 90's the strings changed and players adapted. Nadal's opponents have access to the very same tech he uses.

Federer,Laver,Borg(to name a few) weren't bludgeoning their opponents weaknesses, they were winning due to the excellence and completeness of their own game.

Actually, they are using their strengths directly into their opponent's weakness. To give you a modern example see Fed's FH or BH(strength) going to Djokovic's FH(on the run Djoker's FH is a weakness when confronted with pace) or his slicing BH(a shot that's eaten up by Nadal for example) going low to tall player's 2-H BH(weakness for them since they have to bend and a 2h-er has more trouble hitting low shots).

What makes the player you listed above amazing players is that they have many strengths and FEW weaknesses. That's why it makes sense to bludgeon those chinks in the armor when you see them.



When Nadal is incapable of exploiting Fed's weaker wing indoors because he simply doesn't get the same purchase(HIGH bounce DUH) that he gets on slow HCs(majority of the tour currently),clay and slow grass(compared to the 90s), he turns into a headless chicken. Proving once again why he so heavily reliant on exploiting a said player's weaker wing, also proven by numerous Djokovic beatdowns(when his lasso FH doesn't even do damage against Nole's solid FH,his weaker wing).

You do realize that this is what makes sense in any freaking matchup, don't you? Exploiting your opponent's weaknesses? Why the hell do you think Djokovic diverts every second ball to Nadal's BH side?

Lucky for Nadal, Coria disappeared who gave him major fits on clay and was touted as the big clay rivalry(Nadal-Coria),instead got a favourable matchup in Federer in multiple RG finals. He didn't even face Kuerten who has arguably the best BH on clay in history and would've greatly nullified Nadal's lasso FH which his game so heavily relies on.

As usual, many people here overhype the past. Coria, a RG finalist by this point mind you(and not particularly tough mentally, see RG 2004 final), lost twice in 2005 to a 19 year old Nadal in his breakout year. You could see that Coria had the clay pedigree but in what was arguably his prime he could barely handle a young Nadal. Ditto for Gaudio, the freaking RG champ from 2004, who ended 3-3 in h2h with Nadal, 2 of his wins coming when Nadal was 17,18 years old.

These two had the potential to push a young Nadal at most and yet you think they could have handled a more mature Nadal? I very much doubt it. You are severly underestimating Nadal's clay's prowess, this is a guy that has a 90% win percentage on this surface, and he was a very tough cookie to crack when he was a teenager for guys that were either RG champs or finalist. At 17, Nadal beat Costa in 2003 MC and Costa had won RG the previous year. But then again Toni was probably training spanish lapdogs for Rafa from that time and had the money to bribe a RG winner.

If it were a matter as simple as GOOD BH = no win for Nadal, if it was you would be right about Kuerten but sadly you are not. Now speculating about this matchup is pointless but Nadal has beat guys on clay that had/have spectacular BH, heck he beat some of them on HC as well.

Those guys that you put up there, Nalby, Djoko, Davy, Murray, Coria, all guys with good/great BH. You know what their collective clay h2h is with Nadal? 22-3 for Nadal. That's something you would expect from a Fed-Roddick matchup.

Anyway, this whole "if player x was there" is ridiculous. I could just as well say that Borg was lucky with Connors absence in those 4 years at RG and Borg actually admitted that he was intimidated by the american.

aphex
03-14-2012, 02:55 AM
Borg was never owned by anyone on clay.

The nadal is owned by Nole 2.0.

Big_Dangerous
03-14-2012, 03:03 AM
Borg no question. Nadal played in a weak clay era.

Djokovic and Fed are weak on clay?

GTFO!

namelessone
03-14-2012, 03:03 AM
Borg was never owned by anyone on clay.

The nadal is owned by Nole 2.0.

Hopefully the ATPWorldTour website will have a different player profile for Novak 2.0 so he don't confuse him with the 1.0 version which was 9-0 against Nadal on clay.

Big_Dangerous
03-14-2012, 03:04 AM
Borg was never owned by anyone on clay.

The nadal is owned by Nole 2.0.

Nadal lost 2 matches on clay to Nole... I'd hardly consider that owning someone.

For the last 11 months, yes Djoker has owned Rafa, but 80+% of those matches were on a surface other than clay.

namelessone
03-14-2012, 03:04 AM
Djokovic and Fed are weak on clay?

GTFO!

Sure they are.

For delusional people.

Big_Dangerous
03-14-2012, 03:07 AM
Hopefully the ATPWorldTour website will have a different player profile for Novak 2.0 so he don't confuse him with the 1.0 version which was 9-0 against Nadal on clay.

I think you mean 0-9 against Rafa on clay.


Yeah it seems some of you have forgotten that Nadal was 9-0 on clay vs Nole before last year...

So explain to me how a 2-9 record is in anyway ownage?

namelessone
03-14-2012, 03:16 AM
I think you mean 0-9 against Rafa on clay.


Yeah it seems some of you have forgotten that Nadal was 9-0 on clay vs Nole before last year...

So explain to me how a 2-9 record is in anyway ownage?

It's simple, you take away the part that doesn't suit your point(the 9 losses) and keep the 2 wins and in aphex's mind that's ownage. But seeing as aphex is one of the long standing trolls of TW you shouldn't take his words too seriously.

TW uses ownage like MTF uses mug, it is a overused term which rarely applies. Ownage is what Fed did to Roddick, what Nadal did to Gasquet and so on.

aphex
03-14-2012, 03:21 AM
It's simple, you take away the part that doesn't suit your point(the 9 losses) and keep the 2 wins and in aphex's mind that's ownage. But seeing as aphex is the long standing trolls of TW one shouldn't take his words too seriously.

TW uses ownage like MTF uses mug, it is a overused term which rarely applies. Ownage is what Fed did to Roddick, what Nadal did to Gasquet and so on.

It's like saying Hrbaty is a better player than nadal because he beat the nadal before he came into his own. Obviously nadal would have reversed the scoreline as he matured.

Similarly, the losses before Djoko came into his own on clay (2011) should be taken very lightly.

monfed
03-14-2012, 04:37 AM
So winning as a righty is more important than winning as a lefty? Interesting logic you're using there. Most important advantage lefties have is the serve outwide on the ad court and Nadal's most prodigious surface is clay, a surface where serve is hardly that important.

The other MOST important advantage that you've omitted is that Nadal has a field day with BHs because of his natural lefthanded advantage(coupled with his massive RPM). The tour in general has stronger FHs than BHs and the tour has WAY more STELLAR right handers than left handers which Nadal's exploited to the hilt.

There's a reason why people scrutinize how Nadal would've performed if he was a right hander, noone ever scrutinizes Sampras, Federer,Djokovic if they played left handed. Also, Nadal's a 1D player, atleast imo he is.




And how is this Nadal's fault?

He is taking advantage of the tennis habitat he grew up in. And what exactly pray tell is hindering Nadal in developing a heavy topspin game if he plays in Bjorn's age(in this scenarion Nadal grows up with wood rackets)? Borg, Vilas were already topspin machines with their woodies, it's just that in the 90's the strings changed and players adapted. Nadal's opponents have access to the very same tech he uses.

I don't know on what planet Borg,Vilas generate more topspin than Nadal.
No way Nadal generates that much topspin with a freaking wooden racquet with natural gut, which would've rendered him ineffective.



Actually, they are using their strengths directly into their opponent's weakness. What makes the player you listed above amazing players is that they have many strengths and FEW weaknesses. That's why it makes sense to bludgeon those chinks in the armor when you see them.



The question is not whether they're playing into their weakness(everyone does to some extent), the question is how heavily RELIANT they're on it. Nadal RELIES HEAVILY on exploiting a weak BH. When he's unable to do it, he loses and quite badly at that as proven repeatedly by Djokovic and also against Fed indoors where Fed's BH doesn't break down.


To give you a modern example see Fed's FH or BH(strength) going to Djokovic's FH(on the run Djoker's FH is a weakness when confronted with pace) or his slicing BH(a shot that's eaten up by Nadal for example) going low to tall player's 2-H BH(weakness for them since they have to bend and a 2h-er has more trouble hitting low shots).


Federer uses his variety to outfox opponents (ballbashers /grinders/shotmakers). Variety with his serve, his dropshots, coming often to the net, taking the ball early thereby taking time away from his opponents. There's a reason why his serve is so effective even if it's not the fastest because he's able to vary it so much. It's hard to beat Federer because he gives you no rhythm because of his variety. It's not logical to pick out ONE scenario and say "oh look he just exploited the weaker wing", that happens all the time. In other words there's no general pattern of play associated with Federer's play.OTOH Nadal serves to Fed's BH, hits his FHs and BHs to his BH. His entire play directs everything to Fed's BH, against Djokovic it doesn't work because he has nowhere to go since his staple diet(FH-BH) exchanges don't yield results. He hasn't changed a thing to counter prime Djokovic, 7 consecutive beatings prove it.




You do realize that this is what makes sense in any freaking matchup, don't you? Exploiting your opponent's weaknesses? Why the hell do you think Djokovic diverts every second ball to Nadal's BH side?

As does Nadal, divert balls he gets to Djokovic's weaker wing his FH. But it doesn't yield him results because it's not his regular pattern of play which points to his heavy reliance on his staple diet exploiting a weaker wing(left handed FH-BH advantage). Again keyword is reliance. Djokovic can be beaten with variety which Fed's shown on Fed's worst surface,clay. Almost did it in USO as well. Nadal has very little variety.




As usual, many people here overhype the past. Coria, a RG finalist by this point mind you(and not particularly tough mentally, see RG 2004 final), lost twice in 2005 to a 19 year old Nadal in his breakout year. You could see that Coria had the clay pedigree but in what was arguably his prime he could barely handle a young Nadal. Ditto for Gaudio, the freaking RG champ from 2004, who ended 3-3 in h2h with Nadal, 2 of his wins coming when Nadal was 17,18 years old. These two had the potential to push a young Nadal at most and yet you think they could have handled a more mature Nadal? I very much doubt it. You are severly underestimating Nadal's clay's prowess, this is a guy that has a 90% win percentage on this surface, and he was a very tough cookie to crack when he was a teenager for guys that were either RG champs or finalist. At 17, Nadal beat Costa in 2003 MC and Costa had won RG the previous year. But then again Toni was probably training spanish lapdogs for Rafa from that time and had the money to bribe a RG winner.


I don't buy the young/baby Nadal BS copout strategy. Most Nadal fans claim that Nadal was very much in his clay prime in 05(moving wall etc) and Coria did push him to 5 in Rome(probably one of the greatest clay court matches in history.) I did use the word "struggle" and it's hardly a stretch to think that Coria would've fared well against Nadal as he matched up well. Bringing up Gaudio and Costa is irrelevant because I didn't even mention then and they wouldn't have fared well against Nadal with their less than stellar 1HBHs. They're not Kuerten.



If it were a matter as simple as GOOD BH = no win for Nadal, if it was you would be right about Kuerten but sadly you are not. Now speculating about this matchup is pointless

Speculating how Nadal would've fared against ONE of the greatest clay courters ever isn't a pointless pursuit BECAUSE Kuerten is well known for opening up the court even with a HIGH bouncing ball with his BH alone. He's probably the only player in history with a 1HBH who could do it with ease.


but Nadal has beat guys on clay that had/have spectacular BH, heck he beat some of them on HC as well.

Yea,on slow HC mostly, a place where even Nalbandian's BH is susceptible.




Those guys that you put up there, Nalby, Djoko, Davy, Murray, Coria, all guys with good/great BH. You know what their collective clay h2h is with Nadal? 22-3 for Nadal. That's something you would expect from a Fed-Roddick matchup.

Nalby, Davy are mostly awful on clay, they were never a factor on it, their BHs are more suited to HCs anyway. Murray is only recently hitting his stride but he's still a major headcase but he did trouble Nadal in RG 2011(17 BPs) and took a set off him in MC. Prime Djokovic(ala 2.0) basically schooled Nadal in two consecutive clay masters without dropping a set. Coria as explained before ran Nadal very close and had they played more could've beaten him as well.


Anyway, this whole "if player x was there" is ridiculous. I could just as well say that Borg was lucky with Connors absence in those 4 years at RG and Borg actually admitted that he was intimidated by the american.

It is NOT ridiculous in a GOAT debate, otherwise its better to say "resultswise player X is better than player Y".


Gosh, this is tiring,I'm done.

namelessone
03-14-2012, 06:42 AM
The other MOST important advantage that you've omitted is that Nadal has a field day with BHs because of his natural lefthanded advantage(coupled with his massive RPM). The tour in general has stronger FHs than BHs and the tour has WAY more STELLAR right handers than left handers which Nadal's exploited to the hilt.

Gee, I guess that explains why the other lefthanders are doing so tremendously well on tour, with choketastic Lopez being at 15, king choker Verdasco at 19, Melzer in 20th position. Nadal is literally the only lefty making waves in these last years. Are you seriously saying that his leftyness is the only reason for his tremendous success. While Lopez,Melzer, Dasco hit flatter than Nadal, they still hit with a ton of spin on their fh side and yet they don't even have a fraction of Nadal's success.

Oh, and that lefty fh to righty bh is a lefties natural CC shot, just like righties would go fh to fh, as we so often see them do.

There are guys that are lefties like Nadal.
There are guys that spin the ball massively just like him(Andreev for one).

Yet only Nadal managed success with this formula and that has less to do with his shots and more with physical and mental preparation.



I don't know on what planet Borg,Vilas generate more topspin than Nadal.
No way Nadal generates that much topspin with a freaking wooden racquet with natural gut, which would've rendered him ineffective.

Hold on, I didn't say they generated as much topspin as Nadal, just that their game was topspin heavy just like Nadal. In fact there is nothing unique about Nadal's strokes, they are basically the same as some of past players but with better tech(string). Vilas, to give just one example, outside of his 1-h, had a body and game quite similar to Nadal. Take a look at his left arm and then come back to me. Nadal is simply the upgraded version of a style of play that's been around since forever. Vilas could have played with today's rackets(with the same style from his youth) just like Nadal could've topspinn'ed with wood if he had grown up with it.


The question is not whether they're playing into their weakness(everyone does to some extent), the question is how heavily RELIANT they're on it. Nadal RELIES HEAVILY on exploiting a weak BH. When he's unable to do it, he loses and quite badly at that as proven repeatedly by Djokovic and also against Fed indoors where Fed's BH doesn't break down.

Of course it relies heavily on BH abuse because it's THE MAIN STRATEGY for any lefty worth his salt. Instead of going with say, 60% of balls(random number) to the BH like most lefties would, Nadal goes maybe 80%, even more if he is playing Fed since that is Fed's LONE weakness(and was at his peak as well).

Most players have weak BH and even righties tries to force the issue by focusing on the BH side of opponents, only they find this harder to do due to the righty-righty matchup. Why wouldn't lefties do this(the bh abuse) when it comes more naturally to them, since it's their freaking standard CC shot?



Federer uses his variety to outfox opponents (ballbashers /grinders/shotmakers). Variety with his serve, his dropshots, coming often to the net, taking the ball early thereby taking time away from his opponents. There's a reason why his serve is so effective even if it's not the fastest because he's able to vary it so much. It's hard to beat Federer because he gives you no rhythm because of his variety. It's not logical to pick out ONE scenario and say "oh look he just exploited the weaker wing", that happens all the time. In other words there's no general pattern of play associated with Federer's play.OTOH Nadal serves to Fed's BH, hits his FHs and BHs to his BH. His entire play directs everything to Fed's BH, against Djokovic it doesn't work because he has nowhere to go since his staple diet(FH-BH) exchanges don't yield results. He hasn't changed a thing to counter prime Djokovic, 7 consecutive beatings prove it.

Actually Nadal did change certain things in a couple of matches but within the limitations of his already established game(which is kind of hard to majorly change at 25). To beat Djokovic you need pace and a solid BH, both things Nadal lacks since his BH is wonky and his game relies on spin. That's why Murray and Fed are the biggest dangers to Djokovic, because of how they match up to the new Djokovic, Murray can hang with returns and on the BH side(Murray has always started to lose with Djoko when his fh magic wears off) and Fed because he can always pummel Djoko with flat fh while surprising him with his DTL BH.

If Nadal had beaten Djoko in AO final(and he wasn't far off) would you have honestly said that Nadal changed many things in his game? I'm pretty sure most of you would have blamed it on Djokovic's fatigue.


As does Nadal, divert balls he gets to Djokovic's weaker wing his FH. But it doesn't yield him results because it's not his regular pattern of play which points to his heavy reliance on his staple diet exploiting a weaker wing(left handed FH-BH advantage). Again keyword is reliance. Djokovic can be beaten with variety which Fed's shown on Fed's worst surface,clay. Almost did it in USO as well. Nadal has very little variety.

Yes, you need some variety but first of all you need to be solid off both sides. Djoko 2.0 is very solid on both sides and to beat him you need to be that as well and maybe throw some junk his way. Nadal's slice isn't exactly terrific and he is getting majorly abused on the BH side.





I don't buy the young/baby Nadal BS copout strategy.

That's because it goes against your supposed point.


Most Nadal fans claim that Nadal was very much in his clay prime in 05(moving wall etc) and Coria did push him to 5 in Rome(probably one of the greatest clay court matches in history.)

He was in his prime because that was the year he actually started winning big but it was still his FIRST GS WINNING YEAR and his peak came later. It's like arguing that Djoko's best form ever came in 2007-2008 or that Fed's best grass game was in 2003. Nadal was still very young at the time.


I did use the word "struggle" and it's hardly a stretch to think that Coria would've fared well against Nadal as he matched up well. Bringing up Gaudio and Costa is irrelevant because I didn't even mention then and they wouldn't have fared well against Nadal with their less than stellar 1HBHs. They're not Kuerten.

So I guess other RG champs and finalists losing to a very young Nadal doesn't matter because they didn't have Nadal proof one handers like Kuerten? Jesus Christ. Coria definitely had clay chops but wasn't the most mentally tough guy out there and 2005 Nadal was only a taste of things to come, Rafa got way better after that.


Speculating how Nadal would've fared against ONE of the greatest clay courters ever isn't a pointless pursuit BECAUSE Kuerten is well known for opening up the court even with a HIGH bouncing ball with his BH alone. He's probably the only player in history with a 1HBH who could do it with ease.

It is pointless because it has no effect in the real world, it's empty banter because THEY NEVER MET and never will(in a serious competition). You could take this speculation and apply to every GOAT candidate for every sport ever(what if Borg had played in Laver's era, would he still have 6 RG etc.). It's trivial chit chat.


Nalby, Davy are mostly awful on clay, they were never a factor on it, their BHs are more suited to HCs anyway. Murray is only recently hitting his stride but he's still a major headcase but he did trouble Nadal in RG 2011(17 BPs) and took a set off him in MC. Prime Djokovic(ala 2.0) basically schooled Nadal in two consecutive clay masters without dropping a set. Coria as explained before ran Nadal very close and had they played more could've beaten him as well.

I suppose this has nothing to do with Nadal being post prime on clay(just clay), in his 7th consecutive year of clay prowess, right? It just took Murray and Djokovic 4-5 years to "come into their own" on clay, right? Coria could have pushed Nadal, maybe even beaten him at times but since he had trouble dispatching a very young Nadal his promises moving forward look kinda bleak. Coria's game, in many aspects, was very much like Ferrer's and you saw how Ferrer struggles with Nadal.




Gosh, this is tiring,I'm done.

Good, because I've rarely seen a more pointless argument from someone against Nadal in the clayGOAT or RG-GOAT discussion -- Borg was better because he had to do it as a righty and with woodies. Yeah sure, Nadal has as many RG titles and finals as Bjorn, a better clay winning percentage, more clay titles overall, won it twice without losing a set just like Bjorn, lost less times than Borg in RG but oh noes, he did it while being a lefty hopped up on Babolat strings so that puts him one step lower.

I bet that if Nadal somehow beats Borg's RG record until he retires, people still won't give him credit.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 06:50 AM
I thought *********s always harp on the age and how much was accomplished??? Borg accomplished more at the FO at an earlier age. He had to play a lot of FO champions. Nadal played essentially none until Fed finally won it in 2009 only because Sod took out Nadal for him.

namelessone
03-14-2012, 07:05 AM
I thought *********s always harp on the age and how much was accomplished??? Borg accomplished more at the FO at an earlier age. He had to play a lot of FO champions. Nadal played essentially none until Fed finally won it in 2009 only because Sod took out Nadal for him.

Here's the catch, Nadal played none because he basically owned RG since his arrival in 2005.

The RG champs still active in 2005 were JCF,Agassi,Moya,Kuerten,Costa,Gaudio.

The only RG champ Nadal missed on his clay notch were Kuerten and Agassi who was already quite over the bend as Nadal was rising. Hell, Kuerten's results in RG from 2005-2008 were 1R,DNE,DNE,1R and in 2008 he retired.Gustavo had hip surgery a while back and in 2005 he was way past his prime. And Agassi was one year away from retirement.

In time,Nadal beat all these guys on clay(except Kuerten and Andre since they never met) so I have a question for all the doubters around here: who the hell is gonna stop Nadal 2005 except maybe Federer?

Coria goes out in 4R to weak claycourter(according to monfed) Davydenko,
Gaudio at the same stage to future spanish lapdog David Ferrer,
Agassi goes out in 1R,
Kuerten goes out in 1R,
JCF goes out in 3R(to Safin of all people, LOL),
Moya goes out in 3R to Fed(straights no less).

And this reasoning applies after 2005 as well. The only real threat was Federer and Nadal eventually owned him on clay, along with the whole goddam tour. The geezers above only got older or retired, Coria and Gaudio(the true "threats") fizzled out by 2007(not just on clay), basically only Fed and later Djokovic would rise to challenge Nadal's hold on clay.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 07:36 AM
If Kuerten was at his peak between 2005-2010, no way Nadal wins that many FO. Like Borg with Panetta.

aphex
03-14-2012, 07:39 AM
If Kuerten was at his peak between 2005-2010, no way Nadal wins that many FO. Like Borg with Panetta.

If Soderling was at his peak between 2005-2008 and 2010, also no way...

Tammo
03-14-2012, 07:42 AM
Nadal poll % on TW > Borg poll%


Therefore Nadal >Borg

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 07:53 AM
Highly doubtable that DFTW even saw the likes of Borg and Panetta play.
Funny also how he talks about trolling.
Clarky just being the regular pessimist.

Funniest quotes:

- Soderling was at his peak between 2005-2008 and 2010 no way he wins that many FO titles. - ape

- If Kuerten was at his peak between 2005-2010, no way Nadal wins that many FO. Like Borg with Panetta. - DFTW

- Funny how the label of 'troll' is so liberally thrown about by ***** themselves. The hypocrisy is quite ripe. - DFTW

- That proves Nadal would never have won W2008 if Fed didn't have mono in the beginning of the year. - DWTF .... this one actually one of the funniest, since he seems to know a lot about mono rofl

- The reason why I choose Borg over Nadal is because Borg rattled off RGs without having a FH-BH advantage over his opponents which Nadal intrinsically has being a left hander. - monfed

Comedy Gold. :lol:

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:00 AM
Highly doubtable that DFTW even saw the likes of Borg and Panetta play.
Funny also how he talks about trolling.
Clarky just being the regular pessimist.



What's funny about me talking about trolling? I'm not the one initiating the troll name calling. It's these so-called fans who think they themselves are not trolls and go around accusing others of it. Just because my opinion differs from theirs I'm a 'troll'. LOL. Now that is the real comedy and if you can't recognize that, then you have to change your sense of humour.

VOLLEY KING
03-14-2012, 08:15 AM
What's funny about me talking about trolling? I'm not the one initiating the troll name calling. It's these so-called fans who think they themselves are not trolls and go around accusing others of it. Just because my opinion differs from theirs I'm a 'troll'. LOL. Now that is the real comedy and if you can't recognize that, then you have to change your sense of humour.

No you don't understand the definition of trolling.

Saying anything remotely complimentary about Nadalis considered trolling here and an act of heresy in the church of latter day Federites.

Fed may possibly be the greatest player of all time.....I can say that.
But that doesn't mean we cannot acknowledge the greatness of certain other players......that's the "N" word here at TW.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:27 AM
No you don't understand the definition of trolling.

Saying anything remotely complimentary about Nadalis considered trolling here and an act of heresy in the church of latter day Federites.

Fed may possibly be the greatest player of all time.....I can say that.
But that doesn't mean we cannot acknowledge the greatness of certain other players......that's the "N" word here at TW.

Of course Nadal is great. So is Djokovic. So is Delpo.

But on this forum having the opinion that Borg > Nadal appears heresy and all of my arguments are dreams :). LOL talk about tardism.

monfed
03-14-2012, 08:37 AM
Gee, I guess that explains why the other lefthanders are doing so tremendously well on tour, with choketastic Lopez being at 15, king choker Verdasco at 19, Melzer in 20th position.

Lack of quality left handers(even average ones are few to begin with which I clearly pointed out in my previous post but you overlooked/ignored) has actually benefited Nadal as opposed to abusing a righty's BH with his lasso FH which I've repeated like 10X times already in my posts yet you keep sidestepping the issues by bringing in inane points

Lopez,Llodra are S&Vers, a breed that's got no chance even in Wimby and that's saying something about the slow surfaces of today. Melzer,Verdasco hit flat with not even close to the same RPM as Nadal(this isn't even debatable,Nadal's been recorded with 5000 RPM on his FH )
The crux of the situation is Nadal's lefthanded advantage is an advantage which he exploits to the hilt and just because other left handers don't exploit it as much as Nadal does doesn't mean it's less of an advantage. And just because the lefthanders don't win as much as Nadal doesn't mean it's not advantageous to them. Noone's said it's fair/unfair, point is its naturally advantageous to Nadal for the mentioned reasons.




Oh, and that lefty fh to righty bh is a lefties natural CC shot, just like righties would go fh to fh, as we so often see them do.

Only problem with this argument is that there are 100X more right handers than lefties for the righty FH-BH to work and the lefties that we do have are freakin Melzer,Chokedasco,Lopez,Llodra to name a few. You don't even need to exploit their BHs to win, they're not great.



There are guys that spin the ball massively just like him(Andreev for one).



Andreev is just more proof to indicate why Nadal's benefited so heavily from playing left-handed. The fact that Andreev can't exploit BHs since for him it would be a DTL FH basically proves it. And again Andreev doesn't generate the same amount of RPM that Nadal generates.




Hold on, I didn't say they generated as much topspin as Nadal, just that their game was topspin heavy just like Nadal. In fact there is nothing unique about Nadal's strokes, they are basically the same as some of past players but with better tech(string). Vilas, to give just one example, outside of his 1-h, had a body and game quite similar to Nadal.

Give Nadal a wooden racquet and I'd wager he wouldn't have generated as much topspin as he does now which would've nullified his main weapon against those stellar claycourters like Vilas,Borg etc.



Of course it relies heavily on BH abuse because it's THE MAIN STRATEGY for any lefty worth his salt. Instead of going with say, 60% of balls(random number) to the BH like most lefties would, Nadal goes maybe 80%, even more if he is playing Fed since that is Fed's LONE weakness(and was at his peak as well).

Actually Nadal goes 80% with pretty much every right hander(even Djokovic to his own undoing) and when it doesn't work he's a dead duck as proven clearly by how badly Nadal loses to even grandpa Federer indoors. He doesn't have a contingency plan at all when the BH abuse option fails which points to his 1D game(lack of variety) which is what most people criticize him for.


Most players have weak BH and even righties tries to force the issue by focusing on the BH side of opponents, only they find this harder to do due to the righty-righty matchup. Why wouldn't lefties do this(the bh abuse) when it comes more naturally to them, since it's their freaking standard CC shot?

Which is why it's so much more advantageous to be a lefthander(which I've repeated countless times now) since there are 100x more opportunities to exploit the BH side more easily compared to the miniscule opportunites that righties have due to limited number of left handers and the ones that are there are mugs who are forced to play on slow-molasses courts. Jesus.





If Nadal had beaten Djoko in AO final(and he wasn't far off) would you have honestly said that Nadal changed many things in his game? I'm pretty sure most of you would have blamed it on Djokovic's fatigue.

Actually, Djokovic played quite poorly in the final(probably played his worst HC tennis with a non existent serve), and still should've closed it out in 4 when he was 0-40 on Nadal's serve and 5-3 up in the breaker.




Yes, you need some variety but first of all you need to be solid off both sides. Djoko 2.0 is very solid on both sides and to beat him you need to be that as well and maybe throw some junk his way. Nadal's slice isn't exactly terrific and he is getting majorly abused on the BH side.

I'm hearing this Nadal getting abused on his BH side so much which is half the story because Nadal was 14-4 against a supposed bad matchup which is laughable since that just doesn't happen when you're up against a bad matchup. Nadal was even beating Novak on HCs back then(USO 2010 being the shining example, Olympics too). The thing is Nadal's FH isn't doing the same damage to Nole's BH now as it was doing prior to 2011 because Nole's become even better off that wing and is now using it more as a weapon than he did before. Even commentators have been stating how Novak's BH is a weapon which they certainly weren't saying prior to 2011.



That's because it goes against your supposed point. He was in his prime because that was the year he actually started winning big but it was still his FIRST GS WINNING YEAR and his peak came later.[/B] It's like arguing that Djoko's best form ever came in 2007-2008 or that Fed's best grass game was in 2003. Nadal was still very young at the time.


I didn't say Nadal was at his peak , I said Nadal was in his prime in 2005, winning MC,Rome, RG, a stellar achievement for a supposed "baby" Nadal. So my point stands. Nadal's an early bloomer is what it is. Almost doing the clay sweep by being a baby/pre-prime is just nonsense,sorry not buying. For all I know the next thing you'll say is Nadal's a clay god that simply cannot be beaten.





So I guess other RG champs and finalists losing to a very young Nadal doesn't matter because they didn't have Nadal proof one handers like Kuerten? Jesus Christ. Coria definitely had clay chops but wasn't the most mentally tough guy out there and 2005 Nadal was only a taste of things to come, Rafa got way better after that.

I specificially picked out Kuerten BECAUSE of how he dealt with high bouncing balls to his BH with consummate ease,he actually dispatched them. And Coria lost a freakin 5 set tiebreaker to Nadal in Rome 2005, it was mighty close, could've gone either way. So to say he wouldn't have beaten Nadal in future encounters is a stretch.




It's trivial chit chat.

Just like it's trivial to compare Nadal to Borg(for your mentioned reasons) but you said in your first post here that he's slightly ahead of Borg(for your own reasons, which I didn't dispute btw) and I said Borg for my own reasons which you called me out for by saying my post makes no sense, to which I responded. It's cool with me but just pointing out the chain of events.





I suppose this has nothing to do with Nadal being post prime on clay(just clay), in his 7th consecutive year of clay prowess, right? It just took Murray and Djokovic 4-5 years to "come into their own" on clay, right?

Djokovic entered is prime in 2011 and whether Nadal's in his post prime on clay(when he's only lost to one man the whole season) is purely subjective, we've beaten this dead horse enough.


Coria's game, in many aspects, was very much like Ferrer's and you saw how Ferrer struggles with Nadal.


Ferrer is a defensive backboard, Coria had much more offense to his game compared to Ferrer.



Yeah sure, Nadal has as many RG titles and finals as Bjorn, a better clay winning percentage, more clay titles overall, won it twice without losing a set just like Bjorn, lost less times than Borg in RG but oh noes, he did it while being a lefty hopped up on Babolat strings so that puts him one step lower.

Like I said before, Borg didn't have a natural advantage over his opponents like Nadal has being a lefthander. This tips the scales in Borg's favour which is purely my opinion which you needn't agree with. I'm entitled to my opinion just like you are to yours(realise that I didn't refute your opinion when you said Nadal's ahead of Borg).



I bet that if Nadal somehow beats Borg's RG record until he retires, people still won't give him credit.

Yes, just like if Fed somehow beats Pete's record he will still probably not be called the grass GOAT over Sampras. You'll just have to deal with it.

jean pierre
03-14-2012, 10:01 AM
Vilas won "only" one French, but he is the recordman of matches won in Roland-Garros (54, I think).

namelessone
03-14-2012, 10:16 AM
@monfed, we'll agree to disagree but at least you formulated a polite reply, which is more than a lot of people here would have done, so thanks for that I guess.

VOLLEY KING
03-14-2012, 10:37 AM
Wrong thread .

Mustard
03-14-2012, 11:54 AM
Vilas won "only" one French, but he is the recordman of matches won in Roland-Garros (54, I think).

56 matches won by Vilas at the French Open. I don't think anyone has won more.

Devilito
03-14-2012, 12:06 PM
Borg and Nadal. If we're talking about 2nd tier, Courier could have been dominant at the french if he didn't burn out so early

VOLLEY KING
03-14-2012, 12:36 PM
Borg and Nadal. If we're talking about 2nd tier, Courier could have been dominant at the french if he didn't burn out so early

I think it's just Nadal. He broke Vikas record.

Fate Archer
03-14-2012, 01:30 PM
@monfed, I also enjoyed your interaction here, very quality posts and great points.

Great stuff.

jackson vile
03-14-2012, 03:19 PM
I think it's just Nadal. He broke Vikas record.

Look, after he wins the FO again it will be 100% indisputable. Might not happen this year, but when it does...

VOLLEY KING
03-14-2012, 04:05 PM
Look, after he wins the FO again it will be 100% indisputable. Might not happen this year, but when it does...

I didn't phrase myself correctly,

Nadal holds the world record for most clay court wins in a row . The former record holder is Vilas and NOT Borg.

jackson vile
03-14-2012, 04:15 PM
I didn't phrase myself correctly,

Nadal holds the world record for most clay court wins in a row . The former record holder is Vilas and NOT Borg.

Right, I know that and only a moron would argue that Nadal is not #1. However, my point is that soon there will be zero argument to hold and that scares a lot of those people. They want to detract from Nadal in every shape and form that they possibly can. You hold your arguments together extremely well, very rational and logically.

Cup8489
03-14-2012, 04:23 PM
Nadal won his first French Open, though. Borg didn't.

to be fair, Rafa didn't even play it the first two years he was a legit entry; not true for borg.

Cup8489
03-14-2012, 04:24 PM
I didn't phrase myself correctly,

Nadal holds the world record for most clay court wins in a row . The former record holder is Vilas and NOT Borg.

So what? Borg was only ever beaten by 1 man at the FO, twice. His presence on court was insane.. most guys lost before they even got on court. For me, it's still Borg somewhat, Nadal close behind.

zagor
03-15-2012, 01:13 AM
Look, after he wins the FO again it will be 100% indisputable. Might not happen this year, but when it does...

So what matters most is the slam count? Good to know for future reference.

Right, I know that and only a moron would argue that Nadal is not #1.

Now, now LOLville no need for such insults on a personal level. You're showing tremendous disrespect to past greats like Borg and Rosewall here, I thought you were supposed to hold past greats in high value? I guess you're proving that's only the case when it suits your argument.

However, my point is that soon there will be zero argument to hold and that scares a lot of those people.

Not really, people could use the same argument you use repeteadly against a certain other player-> weak era.

zagor
03-15-2012, 01:23 AM
Federer,Laver,Borg(to name a few) weren't bludgeoning their opponents weaknesses, they were winning due to the excellence and completeness of their own game.

Can't speak for Laver or Borg (were before my time) but Federer bludgeoned players' BHs with his inside out FH as long as I remember watching him play. Every player is gonna try to exploit opponent's weakness to various degrees, it just smart high % play.

kragster
03-15-2012, 05:34 AM
Can't speak for Laver or Borg (were before my time) but Federer bludgeoned players' BHs with his inside out FH as long as I remember watching him play. Every player is gonna try to exploit opponent's weakness to various degrees, it just smart high % play.

Post reported for making too much sense. Posters like you shouldn't be allowed on tw.

Mustard
03-15-2012, 09:30 AM
to be fair, Rafa didn't even play it the first two years he was a legit entry; not true for borg.

Nadal had to miss the 2003 and 2004 French Opens due to injury. An elbow injury in 2003 after he was messing about with his mates and fractured his elbow after falling over the net, and an ankle stress fracture in 2004 sustained in a match against Gasquet in Estoril.

monfed
03-16-2012, 12:41 AM
Can't speak for Laver or Borg (were before my time) but Federer bludgeoned players' BHs with his inside out FH as long as I remember watching him play. Every player is gonna try to exploit opponent's weakness to various degrees, it just smart high % play.

It's OK as long as you're not a dead duck when your primary strategy fails and that's what is damning. Look I've explained this adnauseum , take it or leave it.

Apun94
03-16-2012, 02:26 AM
Not being stretched to 5 sets is meaningless if you've already lost in 4.

Thats only one time u idiot! Remember Soderling ANNIHILATED Fed next yr. Everyone looses at their own terf once in a while.
Child, please watch tennis first, then comment. Thank You.

jackson vile
03-16-2012, 10:09 AM
Thats only one time u idiot! Remember Soderling ANNIHILATED Fed next yr. Everyone looses at their own terf once in a while.
Child, please watch tennis first, then comment. Thank You.

Your time is better spent on someone with a brain.

kiki
03-16-2012, 10:12 AM
Chris Evert.