PDA

View Full Version : Nadal vs. Borg


ruxxx
05-29-2006, 09:28 AM
Clay-schmay! Who cares about mud? Isn't Borg's 49 consecutive more impressive? (with 40 more later in his short career)
********************
Does anyone know the exact details of Borg's 49 ?

Ripper
05-29-2006, 10:09 AM
Imo, yes, but you can't put Nadal down, because of that.

Wondertoy
05-29-2006, 10:19 AM
Nadal is very tough on this surface, Borg was tough on all surfaces.

ruxxx
05-29-2006, 10:44 AM
Exactly! But did Borg's winning streak cover all three surfaces?

Andres
05-29-2006, 10:47 AM
Exactly! But did Borg's winning streak cover all three surfaces?
Borg's streak is consecutive matches. I don't know if they're 40 in clay, and 7 in grass, and then, 2 in clay.... but still impressive!!! :D

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 01:09 PM
nadal would destroy the "saintly" borg on any surface. borg didnt have near the competition as nadal. nobody cared about the clay season in the seventies, and borg never did win the us open. nadal is still a teenager and has already broken the alltime claycourt winning streak.

Andres
05-29-2006, 01:23 PM
borg didnt have near the competition as nadal.
The so called GREATS played Borg: McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Nastase...
Not competition? Not competition my *** :cool:

Tennis_Goodness
05-29-2006, 01:45 PM
Nadal and Borg would be a good match on only clay! Other then that I don't think Nadal could hang with him!

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 01:45 PM
The so called GREATS played Borg: McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Nastase...
Not competition? Not competition my *** :cool:

connors skipped the french, and claycourt season in his prime, and probably would have won the french in 74, and 75. mcenroe came in towards the end of borgs career and put borg into retirement. lendl arrived on the seen at the very end of borgs career only. borg was yearend #1 only twice. a modern nadal is just better than borg. nastases best years were when borg was a teenager.

Tennis_Goodness
05-29-2006, 01:46 PM
Borg is considered by some to be the best player ever, Nadal would not win except on clay!

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 01:53 PM
Borg is considered by some to be the best player ever, Nadal would not win except on clay!

nadal has won hardcourt tournaments. and would have beaten federer at the nasdaq/liptons had it not been for a bad call. nadal can win on all surfaces if he puts his mind to it. right now he just seeems to care about his clay only.

Breaker
05-29-2006, 01:55 PM
nadal has won hardcourt tournaments. and would beaten federer at the liptons has iit not been for a bad call.

Borg won 5 Wimbledons, I think that outclasses the 4 hardcourt titles Nadal has :rolleyes: . Also if Nadal is so much greater than Borg then he should have been able to get through the bad line call when he was up a DOUBLE BREAK and finish off the match. Federer won that match fairly just has Nadal has won their other 5 encounters fairly.

Moose Malloy
05-29-2006, 01:56 PM
connors skipped the french, and claycourt season in his prime. mcenroe came in towards the end of borgs career and put borg nto retirement. lendl arrived on the seen at the very end of borgs career only. borg was yearend #1 only twice. a modern nadal is just better than borg.

I notice you post in almost every thread about Borg, saying what a dinosaur he is, that he had no competition, etc.
And I also notice you post about Connors as well, but praising his accomplishments.
Not sure you can have it both ways, saying that Borg sucks because of his mediocre competition, that his play looks like slow motion compared to today, etc.
But yet Connors doesn't get the same treatment? Wasn't the competition he faced in his prime just as "mediocre" as Borg? Doesn't his play now look "slow motion?"

Who did Connors have to face in his best years? A 40 year old Ken Rosewall? A past his prime Ashe(who still was able to upset Connors at Wimbledon)?

I love this board, it has all types. Not just Federer fanatics vs Sampras fanatics debates, but some diehard Connors fan that wastes no opportunity to diss a playerregarded as his superior by all historians. He won more majors than Connors & won his last 8 meetings vs him. Nuff said.

was your first racquet a t-2000?

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 02:01 PM
I notice you post in almost every thread about Borg, saying what a dinosaur he is, that he had no competition, etc.
And I also notice you post about Connors as well, but praising his accomplishments.
Not sure you can have it both ways, saying that Borg sucks because of his mediocre competition, that his play looks like slow motion compared to today, etc.
But yet Connors doesn't get the same treatment? Wasn't the competition he faced in his prime just as "mediocre" as Borg? Doesn't his play now look "slow motion?"

Who did Connors have to face in his best years? A 40 year old Ken Rosewall? A past his prime Ashe(who still was able to upset Connors at Wimbledon)?

I love this board, it has all types. Not just Federer fanatics vs Sampras fanatics debates, but some diehard Connors fan that wastes no opportunity to diss a playerregarded as his superior by all historians. He won more majors than Connors & won his last 8 meetings vs him.

was your first racquet a t-2000?

gee moose, i looked threw my posts here and i don't believe i praised connors once. why don't you comment on the points i've made here if you believe there incorrect. thats if u can.

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 02:04 PM
Borg won 5 Wimbledons, I think that outclasses the 4 hardcourt titles Nadal has :rolleyes: . Also if Nadal is so much greater than Borg then he should have been able to get through the bad line call when he was up a DOUBLE BREAK and finish off the match. Federer won that match fairly just has Nadal has won their other 5 encounters fairly.

i think borg and nadal played against different competition and in different eras. nadals career is not over yet either.:rolleyes:

Breaker
05-29-2006, 02:07 PM
i think borg and nadal played against different competition and in different eras. nadals career is not over yet either.

Then we can not equally compare the two, let's just say Borg was the most dominant player on clay in his era, Nadal is the most dominant player on clay at the moment. There is no way to prove which competition was stronger or who is better when they are in different eras.

Moose Malloy
05-29-2006, 02:11 PM
gee moose, i looked threw my post here and i don't believe i praised connors once. why don't you comment on the points i've made here if you believe there incorrect. thats if u can.

I've read your past posts, its obvious you are a Connors fan. And the hostility you constantly show Borg isn't just a coincidence.

You did post that Borg's FO titles weren't quality wins because Connors didn't play those years. Considering Connors never won a red clay title in his entire career, & couldn't beat Borg at Wimbledon, I don't think he would have posed much of a threat to Borg at the French.

Again, if you think Borg had no competition in his era, than you must agree Connors had pretty bad competition as well, since they are contemporaries & played their best tennis at the same time.

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 02:12 PM
Then we can not equally compare the two, let's just say Borg was the most dominant player on clay in his era, Nadal is the most dominant player on clay at the moment. There is no way to prove which competition was stronger or who is better when they are in different eras.

right, and the pc's in the seventies were just as good as todays too.

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 02:18 PM
I've read your past posts, its obvious you are a Connors fan. And the hostility you constantly show Borg isn't just a coincidence.

You did post that Borg's FO titles weren't quality wins because Connors didn't play those years. Considering Connors never won a red clay title in his entire career, & couldn't beat Borg at Wimbledon, I don't think he would have posed much of a threat to Borg at the French.

Again, if you think Borg had no competition in his era, than you must agree Connors had pretty bad competition as well, since they are contemporaries & played their best tennis at the same time.

not discussing connors here, nadal. but connors did beat borg on clay at the us open. connors didn't play a lot of red clay tournaments in his prime because of his banning at the french. and most experts(and reasonable people) agree a connors in 1974, who went 99-4, would have been too much for a teenage borg. most reasonable people also realize the competiton today is much tougher.

Tennis_Goodness
05-29-2006, 02:22 PM
nadal has won hardcourt tournaments. and would have beaten federer at the nasdaq/liptons had it not been for a bad call. nadal can win on all surfaces if he puts his mind to it. right now he just seeems to care about his clay only.


Nadal has not won the big tourmaments on other surfaces besides clay. He is the best on clay but he has not proven himself to be a potential champion of any other slams. I don't think he will win many slams besides Clay. He might win the AO a couple of times and possibly the USO, but he does not have the game to be a Roger Federer or a Borg or a Sampras!

Aykhan Mammadov
05-29-2006, 02:25 PM
It is definetly joke to start compare Nadal with GREAT Borg. Borg is 5 time Wimb champion !!! + 6 times FO champion !!! nadal has only 1 slam, let him win the second at least.

Max G.
05-29-2006, 02:28 PM
It is definetly joke to start compare Nadal with GREAT Borg. Borg is 5 time Wimb champion !!! + 6 times FO champion !!! nadal has only 1 slam, let him win the second at least.

Mammadov speaks truth!

...never thought I'd see the day when I, in all seriousness, agree with one of Aykhan's posts, but that day has come ;)

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 02:29 PM
Nadal has not won the big tourmaments on other surfaces besides clay. He is the best on clay but he has not proven himself to be a potential champion of any other slams. I don't think he will win many slams besides Clay. He might win the AO a couple of times and possibly the USO, but he does not have the game to be a Roger Federer or a Borg or a Sampras!

now breakdown borg and nadal games shot by shot. what does borg's game have that nadals doesn't?

nothing!

inyourface
05-29-2006, 02:33 PM
we can't compare players of two diferent decades, its fun but not real, in sport, 5 years of difference is a world , 20... remember this, borg return with 32 years old, 32 to AGASI is like to be a teenager,well Arrese destroy to BORG, that not meaning that Arrese was better than BORG, only that the game is in evolution, but if you want compare, NADAL destroy BORG but isn't real

Moose Malloy
05-29-2006, 02:48 PM
now breakdown borg and nadal games shot by shot. what does borg's game have that nadals doesn't?

nothing!

If nadal of today played borg of 1980 with a wood racquet, he would lose. likewise if borg of 1980 played nadal of today he would lose.
There is no way to compare because of changes in racquet technology. Technology has changed the game, not the player. If you're gonna harp on this "todays players are just plain better tangent," why stop at Borg?
Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Rosewall are all all worse than Nadal in the literal sense. Hell they're all worse than Justin Gimelstob. Which mean absolutely nothing. Accomplishments are all that matters in any sport. And Nadal can only dream of doing what Borg did. Just like most baseball/basketball players can only dream of doing what Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Larry Bird, Kareem, etc did. They are all better than today's players because they won more, period.

Borg outsprinted an Olympic hurdler in the 70s. His speed is as good, if not better than Nadal's. Borg's serve was among the biggest in his time. Nadal's is pretty mediocre compared to his contemporaries.
Borg S&Ved quite a bit while winning 5 straight Wimbledons. So, I'd rate his volleying much higher than Nadal as well.

most reasonable people also realize the competiton today is much tougher.

In some way, it is tougher & is some ways it isn't. What do you think of what Vilas says?

Is it harder to win a record like this now than it was back in your day?

GV: It's hard to compare the two, other than to say that I established my record in a single season and it took Rafael two years to beat it. That shows that I played more games than he does. The main difference comes from the fact that it was a lot tougher on the circuit in my day. You've got someone looking after you nowadays - one phone call and you can sort out all the logistics for the entire week. In my day, that wasn't an option, and a lot of players dropped out of the circuit since they couldn't stand all the hassle. There were very few direct flights in those days, so we had to stop off in between flights. It really was no fun, and it got to people in the end.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2006-05-29/200605291148908346629.html

Gilgamesh
05-29-2006, 03:02 PM
nadal would destroy the "saintly" borg on any surface. borg didnt have near the competition as nadal. nobody cared about the clay season in the seventies, and borg never did win the us open. nadal is still a teenager and has already broken the alltime claycourt winning streak.

I agree with everything in this post.

Borg is a bum. He proved nothing in his career. Borg didn't win the US Open. He didn't win the Aussie Open. His competition was pathetic. I mean c'mon...look at some of his GS opponents: McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Lendl, and etc. Compare that to today's elite competition of tennis gods.

Who cares that Nadal has not won any GS other than the FO...he has already clearly established himself as the GOAT with his CLAY winning streak. Nobody in history can compare. Not Sampras, not Laver, not Borg, not Kramer, not McEnroe, not Hoad, not Pancho, nobody. Nadal would easily destroy Borg, Sampras, and Fed on any surface especially in Wimbleton/grass in any era.

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 03:04 PM
If nadal of today played borg of 1980 with a wood racquet, he would lose. likewise if borg of 1980 played nadal of today he would lose.


dam, i just might have to agree with you here.

inyourface
05-29-2006, 03:06 PM
wrong, NADAL destroy BORG but again this not meaning nothing,why?because NADAL cover more terrain about 20 or 25% more than CONORS of NASTASE or other enemy of BORG, a huge difference is the resistence , is big today because is better prepared, other difference is the rest, the players of today rest the serves a lot better than the epoque of BORG, y NADAL or NALBALDIAN or other see a serve of NASTASE to 140 km/h they laugth,and etc.etc. etc.etc ....bla bla......

Moose Malloy
05-29-2006, 03:38 PM
Clay-schmay! Who cares about mud? Isn't Borg's 49 consecutive more impressive? (with 40 more later in his short career)
********************
Does anyone know the exact details of Borg's 49 ?

Going back to the OP(which wasn't about a claycourt streak, but the record of most consecutive matches won regardless of surface)

I can't find all 49(itf website used to be good, but I can't seem to access Borg's activity)

Got this from other sites:

http://www.setratings.com/index.php?option=com_playerreport&Itemid=40&pid=549&page=2

Looks like the streak included titles on outdoor hard, indoor carpet, clay, & grass. Certainly more impressive than Vilas' 46, which were all on clay.

In '79, Borg won 3 straight titles on 3 different surfaces, Wimbledon, Bastad(clay),Toronto(hard)

Fed is the only other player to do this, in '04(Wimbledon, Gstaad, Toronto).

The Championships at Wimbledon, Great Britain
June 25, 1979
Surface: Grass
R128 Tom Gorman (USA) W 3-6 6-4 7-5 6-1
R64 Vijay Amritraj (IND) W 2-6 6-4 4-6 7-6 6-2
R32 Hank Pfister (USA) W 6-4 6-1 6-3
R16 Brian Teacher (USA) W 6-4 5-7 6-4 7-5
QF Tom Okker (NED) W 6-2 6-1 6-3
SF Jimmy Connors (USA) W 6-2 6-3 6-2
F Roscoe Tanner (USA) W 6-7 6-1 3-6 6-3 6-4

Bastad, Sweden
July 16, 1979
Surface: Clay
R32 Christophe Freyss (FRA) W 6-4 6-0
R16 Antonio Zugarelli (ITA) W 6-0 6-1
QF Billy Martin (USA) W 6-0 6-3
SF Kjell Johansson (SWE) W 6-3 6-0
F Balazs Taroczy (HUN) W 6-1 7-5

Toronto, Canada
August 13, 1979
Surface: Hardcourt
R64 Bruce Manson (USA) W 6-2 6-4
R32 Ivan Molina (COL) W 6-0 6-3
R16 Yannick Noah (FRA) W 6-2 6-4
QF Gene Mayer (USA) W 6-4 6-1
SF Ivan Lendl (USA) W 6-3 6-1
F John McEnroe (USA) W 6-3 6-3

federerhoogenbandfan
05-29-2006, 04:18 PM
I notice you post in almost every thread about Borg, saying what a dinosaur he is, that he had no competition, etc.
And I also notice you post about Connors as well, but praising his accomplishments.
Not sure you can have it both ways, saying that Borg sucks because of his mediocre competition, that his play looks like slow motion compared to today, etc.
But yet Connors doesn't get the same treatment? Wasn't the competition he faced in his prime just as "mediocre" as Borg? Doesn't his play now look "slow motion?"

Who did Connors have to face in his best years? A 40 year old Ken Rosewall? A past his prime Ashe(who still was able to upset Connors at Wimbledon)?


Connors competition in 74 was not that strong I felt. He beat an extremely old Ken Rosewall in 2 of his 3 slam finals, people mock Federer whenever he has an off day and loses a single set to an over-30 Agassi, yet praise Connors to the hilt for having a 3-slam year when 2 of those slam final wins was over a 40-year old much farther from his prime then Agassi was the last two years.

Of course Borg is over Connors all-time, I dont see how anybody could argue otherwise.

superman1
05-29-2006, 05:20 PM
Nadal isn't even in the top 15 of greats, let's not jump the gun and start comparing him to Borg. A great is a great, no matter what era they're in. If Borg was born in the 80's and played today, he'd be kicking just as much ***. I see people in the parks hitting harder than guys did with wooden racquets. It doesn't take a hell of a lot of talent to hit the ball hard. Hell, you can do it with a Toys R Us racquet, just as long as it's made of some type of metal.

driger
05-29-2006, 06:39 PM
Of course Borg is over Connors all-time, I dont see how anybody could argue otherwise.

Connors does hold more major records than Borg. most wins alltime, most tournament wins, 3rd most weeks at #1, and 2nd most yearend #1's. while Borg has more slams. A case can be made for Connors.

breakfast_of_champions
05-29-2006, 06:43 PM
Connors does hold more major records than Borg. most wins alltime, most tournament wins, 3rd most weeks at #1, and 2nd most yearend #1's. while Borg has more slams. A case can be made for Connors.

u forgots to mention borg records for suicide attempts, bankruptys, and failed marriages, too.

RiosTheGenius
05-29-2006, 07:01 PM
ok everybody... so I have an idea and I'm sure many of you will appreciate this:
let's start one thread where we can fit all the Nadal Bashing ... because I am getting really cheesed off with these threads.
I do like the Pro player talk, so not coming here isn't a solution.
but lately it seems as if some of you are trying to find every possible way to put Nadal down... and you know what??... in two weeks he'll shut you all up anyway... so carry on

ruxxx
05-29-2006, 10:58 PM
THANK YOU! Moose for finally cutting through the noise and answering my question. Note: your list, while impressive, comprises only 18 of his 49 victories. That wimbledon line-up was tough. And plus besides, he tacked on a string of 40 more a year and a half later. TV is greatly impressed by records, but Nadal on clay is not very significant.

inyourface
05-30-2006, 01:58 AM
we are not talking about NADAL,we are talking about the evolution of the game.one example,FEDERER - LAVER at his prime, well 6-0 6-0 6-0 to FEDERER.why? if you want compare we have to put LAVER when he was a boy in tha NICK BOLLITIERY training camp,then make planings of training, eat food especial,and energetics drinks to cover fast to continue training,then learn how to rest powerfull serves with automatics movements, if he not resign then put in the same court with FEDERER,we cant compare, is like to put shack vs bill rusell, rusell have more rings but in face to face we al know that the result is 100 to 20 points, win oneal.

inyourface
05-30-2006, 02:00 AM
we are not talking about NADAL,we are talking about the evolution of the game.one example,FEDERER - LAVER at his prime, well 6-0 6-0 6-0 to FEDERER.why? if you want compare we have to put LAVER when he was a boy in tha NICK BOLLITIERY training camp,then make planings of training, eat food especial,and energetics drinks to recover fast to continue training,then learn how to rest powerfull serves with automatics movements, if he not resign then put in the same court with FEDERER,we cant compare, is like to put shack vs bill rusell, rusell have more rings but in face to face we al know that the result is 100 to 20 points, win oneal.

superman1
05-30-2006, 02:54 AM
Completely ridiculous, and a complete insult to Laver.

I hit harder than Laver ever did. Could I beat him in his prime? HELL NO. Even if you made him play with wood he'd still rip me apart 6-0 6-0. Give him a modern racquet and he'd win in 20 minutes.

inyourface
05-30-2006, 03:13 AM
if you put NADAL SAFIN FEDERER KARLOVIK BLAKE ALMAGRO and more you see easy that they are strongest than MAC CONNORS LAVER LENDL ...the game is more fisic if you dont see that ....sorry

inyourface
05-30-2006, 03:14 AM
if you put NADAL SAFIN FEDERER KARLOVIK BLAKE ALMAGRO and more you see easy that they are strongest than MAC CONNORS LAVER LENDL ...the game is more fisic if you dont see that ....sorry

urban
05-30-2006, 05:23 AM
I read once, that Lendl used to play some training sets against Laver at around 1990. Lendl won the sets at an average of 6-3. He said that Laver still had top ten volleys at that time. This was, when Lendl was Nr. 1 in the world, and Laver over 52. When Korda played Laver around 1995, he said, that he was shocked by the movement and repertoire of the then 55 old Laver, he never saw a more talented player, and he played against some good guys.

Eviscerator
05-30-2006, 05:32 AM
nadal would destroy the "saintly" borg on any surface. borg didnt have near the competition as nadal.

:rolleyes:

Dedans Penthouse
05-30-2006, 06:02 AM
nadal would destroy the "saintly" borg on any surface.
Good one!

Yeah, like you said....Nadal would DESTROY an all-time great, a Bjorn Borg on ANY surface; especially (e.g.) grass?

Good one.

Eviscerator
05-30-2006, 06:27 AM
we are not talking about NADAL,we are talking about the evolution of the game.one example,FEDERER - LAVER at his prime, well 6-0 6-0 6-0 to FEDERER.why? if you want compare we have to put LAVER when he was a boy in tha NICK BOLLITIERY training camp,then make planings of training, eat food especial,and energetics drinks to recover fast to continue training,then learn how to rest powerfull serves with automatics movements, if he not resign then put in the same court with FEDERER,we cant compare, is like to put shack vs bill rusell, rusell have more rings but in face to face we al know that the result is 100 to 20 points, win oneal.

:rolleyes: These are some of the worst posts I've ever read on this forum. To generalize and say that the greats of the past would be destroyed by today's greats is absurd.
I read things like Babe Ruth would not even be able to play in the majors today and just:rolleyes: People forget, or more typically never knew how great these players really were. Babe Ruth played when the mounds were higher, the ball was dead, starting pitching was not watered down, it was common to throw pitches outlawed today, when pitchers could own the inside of the plate and would not hesitate to put one in your ear, the strike zone was larger, no body armor was allowed, and the list goes on and on. Just as some people say Ruth could not play in today's game, I'd love to see Bonds deal with all of the aforementioned and see how well he did.

I should not even dignify your Laver vs. Federer or O'neal vs. Russell assertions, but you have gone so far over the top, you need a little bit of educating. Laver was arguably the greatest player ever to grace a tennis court. For someone to come along and say he would be beaten 0 & 0 is,,,,WAIT A MINUTE--I am not even going to try and explain how absurd that is, nor the O'neal vs. Russell comment as I have better things to do with my time. JUST GET A CLUE before you start making a fool of yourself.

theace21
05-30-2006, 06:34 AM
If nadal of today played borg of 1980 with a wood racquet, he would lose. likewise if borg of 1980 played nadal of today he would lose.
There is no way to compare because of changes in racquet technology. Technology has changed the game, not the player. If you're gonna harp on this "todays players are just plain better tangent," why stop at Borg?
Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Rosewall are all all worse than Nadal in the literal sense. Hell they're all worse than Justin Gimelstob. Which mean absolutely nothing. Accomplishments are all that matters in any sport. And Nadal can only dream of doing what Borg did. Just like most baseball/basketball players can only dream of doing what Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Larry Bird, Kareem, etc did. They are all better than today's players because they won more, period.

Borg outsprinted an Olympic hurdler in the 70s. His speed is as good, if not better than Nadal's. Borg's serve was among the biggest in his time. Nadal's is pretty mediocre compared to his contemporaries.
Borg S&Ved quite a bit while winning 5 straight Wimbledons. So, I'd rate his volleying much higher than Nadal as well.



In some way, it is tougher & is some ways it isn't. What do you think of what Vilas says?

Is it harder to win a record like this now than it was back in your day?

GV: It's hard to compare the two, other than to say that I established my record in a single season and it took Rafael two years to beat it. That shows that I played more games than he does. The main difference comes from the fact that it was a lot tougher on the circuit in my day. You've got someone looking after you nowadays - one phone call and you can sort out all the logistics for the entire week. In my day, that wasn't an option, and a lot of players dropped out of the circuit since they couldn't stand all the hassle. There were very few direct flights in those days, so we had to stop off in between flights. It really was no fun, and it got to people in the end.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2006-05-29/200605291148908346629.html
Great Post!!!

For those you you trying to compare different Nadal to Borg, and who is better. Go out tonight and when you play your match, use an old wood racket.

What: you can't hit the ball as hard, the sweet spot is so small, it is heavy...

The game has change, and the new rackets have made it easier for players to have success.

Borg was amazing, it is a shame he retired early - he was great fun to watch.

Nadal is amazing, he as only begun his career, he can't be one of the greatest at 20 years old. Give him time...

Post back with your wood racket match results. Good Luck...

Hedges
05-30-2006, 07:32 AM
If nadal of today played borg of 1980 with a wood racquet, he would lose. likewise if borg of 1980 played nadal of today he would lose.
There is no way to compare because of changes in racquet technology. Technology has changed the game, not the player. If you're gonna harp on this "todays players are just plain better tangent," why stop at Borg?
Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Rosewall are all all worse than Nadal in the literal sense. Hell they're all worse than Justin Gimelstob. Which mean absolutely nothing. Accomplishments are all that matters in any sport. And Nadal can only dream of doing what Borg did. Just like most baseball/basketball players can only dream of doing what Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Larry Bird, Kareem, etc did. They are all better than today's players because they won more, period.

Borg outsprinted an Olympic hurdler in the 70s. His speed is as good, if not better than Nadal's. Borg's serve was among the biggest in his time. Nadal's is pretty mediocre compared to his contemporaries.
Borg S&Ved quite a bit while winning 5 straight Wimbledons. So, I'd rate his volleying much higher than Nadal as well.



In some way, it is tougher & is some ways it isn't. What do you think of what Vilas says?

Is it harder to win a record like this now than it was back in your day?

GV: It's hard to compare the two, other than to say that I established my record in a single season and it took Rafael two years to beat it. That shows that I played more games than he does. The main difference comes from the fact that it was a lot tougher on the circuit in my day. You've got someone looking after you nowadays - one phone call and you can sort out all the logistics for the entire week. In my day, that wasn't an option, and a lot of players dropped out of the circuit since they couldn't stand all the hassle. There were very few direct flights in those days, so we had to stop off in between flights. It really was no fun, and it got to people in the end.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2006-05-29/200605291148908346629.html

Why are we still discussing this topic? The above post pretty much puts it to rest. Apples and oranges, guys. Case closed.

Andres
05-30-2006, 07:37 AM
Why are we still discussing this topic? The above post pretty much puts it to rest. Apples and oranges, guys. Case closed.
You're making me hungry... ;)

wildbill88AA
05-30-2006, 09:55 AM
cars, computers, and medicine are better today, than in the 70's. so are the tennis players. tough concept to grasp, ay?

Grimjack
05-30-2006, 10:28 AM
what does borg's game have that nadals doesn't?


Ten additional grand slams. And at least SOME non-embarrassing non-clay slam results.

BHud
05-30-2006, 10:30 AM
As Vilas said "Borg is Borg"...Rafa has a ways to go...

superman1
05-30-2006, 10:33 AM
What does Borg's game have that Nadal's doesn't? Do you even know Borg's game? He could stay at the baseline and hit winners from all sides, or he could transform into a pure serve and volleyer. Whatever he felt like. He had maybe the most complete game ever.

breakfast_of_champions
05-30-2006, 10:35 AM
Ten additional grand slams. And at least SOME non-embarrassing non-clay slam results.

well go watch an old seventies borg match, then go watch a nadal match. i think you'll find one of these matches appears thats its being played in slow motion. as much as i loved tennis in the seventies, i'd still have admit the field today is better due to more prize money, training methods, and the racket technology.

ksbh
05-30-2006, 10:40 AM
If the field today is better, how is it that just 2 guys (the top 2) are winning everything in sight and nobody else has a chance?

well go watch an old seventies borg match, then go watch a nadal match. i think you'll find one of these matches appears thats its being played in slow motion. as much as i loved tennis in the seventies, i'd still have admit the field today is better due to more prize money, training methods, and the racket technology.

Grimjack
05-30-2006, 10:49 AM
most reasonable people also realize the competiton today is much tougher.

I don't think you understand the definition of reason. Or perhaps you don't understand the definition of competition. Either way, you're showcasing your ignorance, so either is fine by me.

A "reasonable person" might well conclude that the overall LEVEL of play is higher today -- owing to improvements in technology, improvements in training, and a few decades' worth of evolution of the game itself.

But the competition will never be higher than it was from the mid-70's to the mid-80's. That spans the eras from (A) when tennis was at its height of popularity, so the talent pool that pro tennis was drawing from was the biggest % of the population it's ever been, statistically guaranteeing that the competition was toughest then; to (B) when tennis had the generation of players who grew up in era A maturing into pros.

The modern era is the most evolved game of tennis ever. But the players playing today are playing in an era when tennis is a total non-factor in drawing the world's best athletes and competitors.

In Borg's era, the best tennis players were the best of the best. And Borg was a legend among them.

In Nadal's era, the best tennis players are the best of the rest (and in this era, they're "the rest" after not one or two, but MANY other sports -- so the talent pool tennis is drawing from today is genetically laughable). And Nadal still only manages to show up in any real sense for one meaningful tournament a year.

urban
05-30-2006, 11:09 AM
Borg was good, excellent, but he was far from technically complete. His volley was pretty unimpressive and short. Vitas said, the short volley worked quite well on grass, because at least the ball stayed low. Borg's main weapons were his legs and his brain. Had the best legs and body in tennis. In Tennis Magazine December 2000, they had a nice article about Borg's body. On clay, he played high topspins off both flanks like a metronome, never playing a drop shot or something of a variation. On grass, he shortened his long backswing on the return, and played better, when the grass was worn down. A underrated weapon on grass and clay was his first serve. Like a Swiss knife, not spectacular, but always useful and solid.

Max G.
05-30-2006, 11:11 AM
cars, computers, and medicine are better today

And people have still stayed people. Cars, computers, and medicine have been reengineered many times over - but as of now, scientists have yet to redesign humans ;)

breakfast_of_champions
05-30-2006, 11:14 AM
And people have still stayed people. Cars, computers, and medicine have been reengineered many times over - but as of now, scientists have yet to redesign humans ;)

oh, i guess thats why a 290 pound lineman in the nfl is considered small by todays standards. and there are 276 pound quarterbacks. lol

simi
05-30-2006, 11:42 AM
And people have still stayed people. Cars, computers, and medicine have been reengineered many times over - but as of now, scientists have yet to redesign humans ;)

They're trying, Max. Give 'em a few more years.

p.s. You guys should quit trying to teach a pig how to fly. Some things just won't happen.

Taram_Nifas
05-30-2006, 01:16 PM
I just don't see Nadal dominating Grass like Borg did. I think Nadal will make his mark on Clay of course, but also maybe Australia and maybe the U.S Open. Let's see where Nadal is at when he turns 26...

seaducer67
05-30-2006, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE=Moose Malloy] Nadal in the literal sense. Hell they're all worse than Justin Gimelstob.

I do take issue with this, Justin Gimelstob may very well be the one of the greatest journeyman player ever, and even if he wasn't you must admit he's a court jester a classic clown with a power game. :D

Steve Dykstra
05-30-2006, 01:54 PM
If nadal of today played borg of 1980 with a wood racquet, he would lose. likewise if borg of 1980 played nadal of today he would lose.
There is no way to compare because of changes in racquet technology. Technology has changed the game, not the player. If you're gonna harp on this "todays players are just plain better tangent," why stop at Borg?
Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Rosewall are all all worse than Nadal in the literal sense. Hell they're all worse than Justin Gimelstob. Which mean absolutely nothing. Accomplishments are all that matters in any sport.

Right on, I agree completely on this point. If I hear one more person say Federer is better than Sampras because he won that one match or because he hits the ball better, I am going to puke.

HollerOne5
05-30-2006, 01:58 PM
If the field today is better, how is it that just 2 guys (the top 2) are winning everything in sight and nobody else has a chance?

It's only been like this for just about a year now, and a year/year and a half before that it was just one man. I don't think its possible for Nadal and Federer to continue to dominate the tour between the two of them for a long period of time. We arent' dealing with Evert and Navratilova days of tennis here. Players learn and catch on to the dominant players, mens and womens, these days. As you can see, its very hard for top players to stay on top. People begin to not fear players (which, right now, everyone fears Federer) and other things come into play like injuries, etc. Just look, no one fears Roddick or Hewitt anymore, but they used to. I don't think its realistic for Nadal and Federer to keep this up for the next 5 years or so. I mean, if they did, Federer would hold about 20-25 grand slams, and Nadal would have about 10 or so, do you think thats possible?

Steve Dykstra
05-30-2006, 02:01 PM
In Borg's era, the best tennis players were the best of the best. And Borg was a legend among them.

In Nadal's era, the best tennis players are the best of the rest (and in this era, they're "the rest" after not one or two, but MANY other sports -- so the talent pool tennis is drawing from today is genetically laughable). And Nadal still only manages to show up in any real sense for one meaningful tournament a year.

I agree with all your other points, but I think this last point is debatable. I think what you are saying may be true in America, but what about the rest of the world? Was South America such a huge tennis area back in the 70s? I think that the level of competition may have increased due to other countries getting more involved in tennis.

HyperHorse
05-30-2006, 10:43 PM
why are u guys even talking about this?
IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT...
the racquets were different, the players back then didnt train as hard as today..
and the game is more physically demanding now...
if you're going to compare Nadal to someone else...
i think Muster, Courier, Other top spanish players are a better benchmark to which to compare with Nadal... *sigh*

!Tym
05-30-2006, 10:56 PM
It's only been like this for just about a year now, and a year/year and a half before that it was just one man. I don't think its possible for Nadal and Federer to continue to dominate the tour between the two of them for a long period of time. We arent' dealing with Evert and Navratilova days of tennis here. Players learn and catch on to the dominant players, mens and womens, these days. As you can see, its very hard for top players to stay on top. People begin to not fear players (which, right now, everyone fears Federer) and other things come into play like injuries, etc. Just look, no one fears Roddick or Hewitt anymore, but they used to. I don't think its realistic for Nadal and Federer to keep this up for the next 5 years or so. I mean, if they did, Federer would hold about 20-25 grand slams, and Nadal would have about 10 or so, do you think thats possible?

That's true. The FEAR factor makes an incredible difference at this level. When player's fear you or you still have that new kid on the block "aura" surrounding you, it's like you're protected by an angel for awhile, player's play you with kid's gloves.

Fear, when players OVER respect you, it's the difference between routinely winning sets 6-4 and suddenly losing sets 5-7 at this level. It's not a huge difference, but that's all it takes to turn the tides at this level when virtually all matches are decided by just one break a set.