Why do people say Nadal is the undisputed clay GOAT?
 

He isn't. :?

I mean you can call him the clay GOAT but it's hilarious to me that being a mere ONE RG behind Nadal, completely disqualifies him from the discussion. That is even more laughable once you consider that RG and slams in general didn't have the weight that they hold now. Borg skipped several RG tournaments if I recall correctly. How fair is it to judge him on something that only gained the weight it has now, after he retired?

Not to mention, the "Nadal would beat Borg" nonsense is pathetic as well. Well, yes he would. With his Babolat racket. Good luck trying to hit heavy spin with a wooden racket though. :lol:

In my book they are both co GOATs on that surface. Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.

This is why I don't read "General Pro Player Discussion."

This is why I read it:lol:

He has done more than enough. This thread is just one big fail.

As much as I hate to admit it...listen to the lady, people.

I can't believe this stuff. :?

Borg is better than Nadal in my books because of his 5 Wimbledon on fast grass with an inferior game to others on grass.

First off I dislike nadal. Secondly the 8 consecutive Monte Carlo speaks for itself and who's fault is it that Borg skipped RG's??

Borg is a way better grasscpurter but rafa has achieved more on clay

Nobody, but nobody, has as many clay court championships as Anthony Wilding. Google him, or just check the Former Pro Player Talk forum.

Errr....RG is just ONE aspect of his clay GOATness

Since he is. Nadal's record on clay eclipses Borg in everyway now. There is no debate, except amongst a few extreme blind Nadal haters. If Rosewall was properly recognized for his career people would be debating who is the 2nd best on clay between Borg and Rosewall right now. The end.

yeah like winning barcelona and monte carlo 8 times in a row

You fail to understand something: French Open was not nearly as significant as it was now. That is however the reason why people consider Nadal the "undisputed greatest CC ever". Seems a bit daft to me.

And yes, what you say about Evert is true. Modern players such as Graf and Serena are very overrated (Serena even more so) because of their GS prowess. Martina and Chrissie managed to rack the slams up without even trying to win them at every opportunity. That's why I laugh at the notion of Graf being the GOAT because of her 22 majors. (the Parche issue aside)

Likewise, it is laughable to look down on modern players because they are inferior in TOTAL title count. Different standards.

This is the problem with going purely by numbers IMHO. Guys like Borg, Laver, Connors etc didn't have the goals to aim for that todays players do, they were creating those goals themselves. A great athlete with a determination to meet a goal will achieve amazing things, but if we're trying to determine how "good" these guys were then it's impossible to compare them to each other.

If a player today wins 8 Wimbledons and retires happy and content, are they worse than someone who wins 9 Wimbledons in 20 years time, who then in turn retires happy and content?
Not necessarily, because the former may have carried on and gone for #9 if that was the goal at the time, and the latter would then have had to aim for 10 so on and so forth etc etc...

I wouldn't lose sleep if Nadal was the undisputed clay GOAT as he's pretty much dominated the last 8 clay seasons (or co-dominated in 2009 with Fed and 2011 with Djokovic), and numbers do come into that, they're just not everything. Nadal winning 7 French Opens alone doesn't automatically put him above Borg in my eyes.



...Although Nadal only being beaten once in 8 years and only being pushed to 5 sets once too, now that just might...

[EDIT]

If we use Greatest to mean "largest in number" however, then Nada is the Greatest French Open Player of the Open Era no doubt.

Nadal is the best ever on clay...Has more majors on clay than Borg, more clay titles overall (a crapload of Masters titles at clay too), better winning percentage on the surface too, not to mention sheer strength of performance and aura on the surface.

Did Masters titles even exist back then?

Not to mention what the hell does "strength of performance and aura on the surface" even mean? :lol: Are you talking about the fact that he hits 6000+ RPM FH winners while Borg couldn't?

the sheer fact that just about all tennis experts claim him to be the greatest on the surface, that he has more clay titles, winning percentage, and French Opens as a whole point to him being the greatest on the surface...Dude gets taken to one 5 setter in his French Open career....that's ridiculous, one loss too. Can't argue with stuff like that. Best clay courter ever.

It means that he hardly ever loses on clay. The perception of being "unbeatable" is what the aura refers to.

Appeal to authority/popularity. :)

Same thing went for Borg. :?