Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Federer > Nadal, Apr 20, 2009.
Who wins??? I would say the buttpicker.
we had this topic so i vote 3.
repeat thread, do a search
see nadal on clay... most dominant etc etc
Johnny Mac last year said that Rafa is the best he's ever seen on clay.
The guy is old, so he is probably senile.
I'm a Swede, but I will still vote for Nadal. I haven't seen Björn during his prime years but I've seen a lot of his old matches on Swedish television (re-runs) and I mean a lot. I just don't see him beating a prime Nadal on clay.
I'd say with the wooden rackets and the smaller balls-borg
with the current rackets and bigger balls-rafa
Borg vs. Lendl 1981 Roland Garros Final
Nadal vs. Federer 2008 Roland Garros Final
Personally, I think Nadal shows more skill. Maybe it's the technology, but the older matches seem to be slower and softer. It's all subjective, but check out the clips and make up your own mind.
a blowout win for nadal unless nadal had to use a 65 sq in wood racquet to compete with borg in this match. if that is the case, then probably borg would win.
Both playing with wood racquets Borg in 4 sets. Both playing with graphite Rafa in 5 sets.
Faster surface, nicer sounds effects, different impressions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY
What racquet? What ball? What condition?? You haven't specified anything as always...
As you wish...
Racquet: Frying Pan
Ball: Table Tennis Ball
Wow tennis was so boring back in 1981 lol. Those guys are barely running in that clip. They look like they're almost at walking pace.
Alexander of Macedon v Napoleon in snooker? who wins?
Its a very tough thing to compare 2 greats from different eras...who would win Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali?
Give Nadal a woodenracket,and grey non-pressuriced balls and put prime Borg in front off him then we would have a real battle!
I voted Borg.
Alexander the great wins. Napoleon is too short too play snooker.
i'd love to see the almighty Jesus Raf shanking 90% of his shots in a 65 sq. in...
Every year around this time someone starts a thread like this. This is so pointless!!! They'll never play!!! There is no reason to try to compare eras. There doesn't always have to be a GOAT. There can be two separate phenomenal dominating players in history. One doesn't have to be the greatest EVER...
I agree. I didn't realise the balls were bigger.
From what I've read the clay at RG was far slower than it is today. Add that to the other factors and it's apples and oranges.
Rafa is slightly more dominant than Borg was on clay. Borg was just magic on grass though.
Is is even real tennis without pressurized balls?8)
One thing I know is that Borg has the best tennis movement I've ever seen. Yes, better than Nadal's.
Also ... to the jackasses who say there's barely any running and the game is oh so slow, well the surface is different, the racquets are different, and the balls are different.
Have a look at CyBorg's link and tell me they hit "softly" and barely did any running back then.
Puhlease ... Connors had to hit above his head 100 times due to the topspin generated by Borg with a 60ish sq inch racquet with 18 mains. A bit more difficult to time and hit topspin regularly with that tool when compared with a 100 sq inch Babolat AeroPro I would say.
Get some perspective. If you can't find it in your brains ... buy some.
Well i guess in the 70:s grey non-pressurized balls was the hottest thing
I'd pick Nadal. These two guys are so close on clay and thus seemingly ignorable advantage of playing a lefty game will kick in.
Same reason why I would pick Laver over Sampras or Federer.
Disagree. Borg percentages on red clay are pretty much identical to Nadal's and he won two French Opens without losing a set. Nadal has so far done it once.
Borg in straights over the butt-picker.
Just the thought of a Norse God losing to a butt-picker.
A more apt dream match would be prime Courier vs Butt-Picker.
Courier in 5.
EDIT: Courier in 4
Well, Borg in his "prime" played with wood and Rafa played with graphite. Rafa in a landslide...
So Rafa in his prime vs Borg in his prime? Hm, that's a tough one. I'd say triple bagel, no?
Rafa in five?!:-? What makes you think Borg would be able to win two sets against Rafa with a graphite racquet?
Jesus Christ. That's like saying who would win an MMA fight. Fedor in his prime or Gracie in his prime. Let's get real
Not sure about this. Nadal has absolutely dominated Monte Carlo, more than Borg did. And Nadal's numbers at Rome are better than Borg's as well. Nadal has dominated the two biggest non-major clay events. I'm not sure that Borg did this to such a degree.
Borg is absolutely brilliant. This match kind of reminded me of Federer vs Roddick. With Connors coming in and getting passed.
Separate names with a comma.