Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Messarger, Jun 10, 2011.
Or does that title still belong to the great Bjorn Borg?
Bjorn has 6 too so its still his. Borg was first and he has dibbs on it until Rafa can get 7.
Nadal has more titles at the other big clay events like Monte Carlo and Rome. So it is Nadal.
Nadal doesnt face the toughest clay court field but neither does Borg. The toughest clay court fields were in the 80s, 90s, and the 60s when they got together.
Queen has more power than the King! Borg is still King of Clay till Nadal gets his seventh. Though that is inevitable....just call him the king already. THough something happened the last time someone was called king!
He is more like the Little Prince
So fed would needs to win 8 wimbys to be declared grass GOAT?
I'd say it's still pretty close. A 7th title should seal the deal though, I would think.
Nadal is the king of clay by far.
Yeah obviosly....Federer would need to get 8 for sure. Federer was never grasscourt goat....but GOAT in general. Though I say Federer is a better grasscourter than Sampras and Nadal is a slighly better claycourter than Borg....hard to comprehend that. Though I never said Federer was grasscourt.....it seems as if you are saying that I thought that subtly.
But if Vilas is light years ahead of Fed on clay than Borg was even more dominant than Nadal against a much tougher rival on clay .
Vilas is much better than Federer on clay, but Djokovic is much better than anyone else from back then on red clay so it evens out. Who were the other top clay courters then- Panatta, Ramirez, Dibbs? Connors wasnt even particularly great on red clay and skipped the French from 74-78 anyway.
So is Djokovic better than Federer on clay?
In time he probably will be. Federer had a score to settle in the French Open semis and played his best match on clay in years, but Djokovic still has been able to do things prime Federer cant, like beat Nadal on clay twice in a row in straight sets. I would be surprised if Djokovic doesnt win atleast 1 French and probably more than 5 Masters on clay too.
What if Federer (hypothetically) beats Djokovic again at the French Open in 2012 or 2013 and after that Djokovic wins a French Open title?
I think Federer is the better claycourter and Nole has a longggg way to go to be in that conversation.
Nadal is the king of clay, yes.
Even Borg said this
I think he is the king of clay. I still think Borg was incredible, though.
Yes, he is.
He has matched Borg's FO record and overtaken him in every other achievement on clay.
Both Nadal and Borg are incredible clay players. Why the need to compare so much?
NadalAgassi is really getting me confused. He claims that Djokovic is a better clay courter than Federer because Djokovic has beaten Nadal the last 2 times they played while Federer has a mere 2-12 record over the Spaniard. Vilas didn't have to beat Borg to be the best clay courter in 1977 as far as I remember...
It's like saying after 2002 Wimbledon that Federer is a better grass court player than Hewitt because Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, even though Hewitt won the title in 2002 while Federer's best result at the time was one QF (of course that turned out true anyway but what if Hewitt won more Wimbledons and Federer had none?)
I don't think so, IMO Nadal needs one more FO to really cement his place as such an imaginary thing.
Fed is 3-1 against Novak on clay. The end.
The REAL King
don't bother. Its natural for Nadalagassi to get confused when he has to make so many accounts and post a different POV from each of them :twisted:
I dont know whom you are referring to but I never considered Vilas a better clay courter than Borg at any point in time ever.
If Vilas was the top clay courter in 1977 it was by default since Borg didnt even play the French then had to pull out of one of his US Open matches midway through with an injury. There is a reason he wasnt named either ATP player of the year despite 2 slams.
Nadal. He surpasses Borg in practically every relevant statistic.
At the moment, it is clearly Nadal. He has absolutely dominated clay since 05 and now has equalled Borg as well. Overall advantage to Nadal.
in the near future, he will...
for those people saying that borg is still clay GOAT, name me a single stat that borg is above nadal on clay?
im not talking about who's era is stronger or coulda, shoulda, woulda bullsh*t.
im talking about facts, numbers.
nadal has more clay titles, longer winning streak, same number of FO, better overall winning %, better finals winning %, 7 consecutive monte carlos, 6 barcelonas, 5 romes, 2 hamburg/madrid, 6 French Opens. nadal has more clay titles won without dropping a set than borg, nadal's record at the FO is far more dominant than borg, nadal has lost far fewer sets at the FO than borg. nadal and borg both have won the FO twice without dropping a set.
there is nothing that borg has over nadal on clay. NOTHING.
therefore its pretty easy to decide who is the clay GOAT......its Rafael Nadal.
Yeah, but Borg's era was stronger...
where were you aphhy baby??:twisted:
ok, since u concede that nadal's numbers are superior to borg, we can debate about who had the stronger era.
im sure federer could beat any of borg's rivals in borg's era.
thus, nadal's era is stronger.
Good point, but I still think Borg's era was stronger...
FO titles won in a strong era Borg 6 Nadal 3.That's according to Nadal's own fans by the way so I can't really argue it.
3 is VERY generous imo...
Also, lets not forget Nadal never defeated Panatta at RG...
Does that put an asterisk next to his RG titles?
What? I'm just repeating what Nadal fans say themselves all the time,that 2004-2007 was a weak era and Nadal won 3 FO titles during that period.
It's not about being generous or not,this is just the way things are:
2004-2007-weak era Nadal wins 3 FOs
2008-+ strong era Nadal wins 3 FOs
I totally agree with aphex 3 is very generous..
The tour was structured quite differently in 1974-1981 when Borg was playing. He concedes that he made a mistake by playing WTT, which caused him (and others) to be barred from playing the FO that year. He would have had a great shot at winning the FO title that year. In 1978 and 1980 he won the FO without losing a single set (he won 3 majors w/o losing a set as he won the '76 W title w/o losing a set as well). His dominant run in 1978 had him losing I believe 32 games the whole tournament. Borg vs. Nadal at the FO would be incredible, equalized for equipment of course. Borg was a better mover in my opinion that Nadal and I think he had a bit more stamina as well, as difficult as that is to believe for those that never saw Borg play. I saw Vilas play on clay live in the early 80's on red clay and I thought, how in the world can someone dominate that guy on clay? Well Borg did in 1978 especially (he beat Vilas in two finals, as well as great clay courters like Orantes and Lendl). Here are a couple of clips of Borg in action vs. Pecci, Vilas, and Lendl at RG.
u beat nadal by taking it to him, borg cannot do that.
thus nadal would destroy borg
Haters should reread the FACTS, they can't handle the truth.
Wrong. I don't think either would "destroy" the other. You have to equalize for equipment and if you did that, Borg could most certainly go on offense plenty. He was quicker than Nadal as well, so Nadal would not be able to play the way he does against most anyone else he's faced. He also had more stamina in my opinion. Great matchup though. Destroy? No, you are talking about two all time greats on clay. When that happens, you's tend to have tough matches, close matches, with neither able to dominate the way they do in say early rounds.
You must really HEART Ralpha!
Nadal destroyed Federer only once at FO,every other time he had to do it in 4 yet he would supposedly destroy Borg? You don't know what you're talking about do you?
don't make him cry again!
These discussions always end up confusing who was the better player with who has the better record. They are both valid topics, but the first is much more difficult to decide than the second, at least in this case. How would Nadal have fared on clay growing up with wood racquets in the 70s, or how would Borg have fared on clay growing up with current racquets in the 00s. Who knows. It’s an exercise of the imagination. For all we know, there may have been another player from a different time that would have beaten both of them regularly.
The topic of who has the better record is at this point fairly easy to decide, unless you think that the only measure allowed is the number of FO titles, where they are equal. Everywhere else Nadal has a significant lead. His winning percentage on clay is more than 6 percentage points higher than Borg’s, and that’s a big gap. He also has more titles. And most of Nadal's clay titles imply that the top players of the day had to be in the tournament because they are compelled to do so by regulations that didn’t exist in Borg’s time, when players had a lot more freedom about what tournaments they entered. You can always argue that Borg had to deal with clay titans far superior to what you find in the 00s, but then you are again slipping into the who-is-the-better-player kind of speculation. Whether or not the likes of Vilas, Pecci, Orantes, young Lendl etc would have easily dispatched the likes of Coria, JC Ferrero, Federer, Ferrer, Davydenko, Djokovic, is not at all clear to me. If you stick to the record, Nadal’s is by now clearly better.
actually nadal has destroyed ******* 17 times.
borg is nothing compared to nadal on clay.
and nadal is better than borg overall too.
im still waiting for these borgtards to bring up one stat on clay that borg is superior to nadal.
im still waiting.
Separate names with a comma.