View Single Post
Old 01-03-2013, 08:01 PM   #108
Towser83's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,312

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo View Post
Even Borg said Nadal is a better clay court player than he is. Nadal only lost ONCE at the French Open the guy is invincible on clay. Look how many times Nadal has destroyed Federer in the French Open final. Nadal also has more French Open titles than Borg. Come on, face the facts Nadal is superior to Borg on clay.
He destroyed Federer once at RG, 4 sets isn't destroying in most cases and the finals in 2006 and 2011 certainly weren't destructions.

Also I would say overall Nadal is a better clay player but I don't think it's by as much as people think. Borg only lost twice at RG and to one person, one of these losses was his first time at RG at an age when Nadal hadn't played RG yet (Borg was born almost exactly 30 years before Nadal down to the month) Borg lost at his first RG when he was 17 and won the next year at 18. Nadal didn't enter til he was 19 (before anyone corrects me, I'm rounding up to his age at the end of RG since he usually has a birthday during the last days). So borg has an extra loss but if Nadal had entered in 2003 he probably would have lost, there was a fair chance he'd lose in 2004 too depending who he faced. Borg also played his last RG (and won his 6th) at age 25 in 1981, Nadal won his 6th RG in 2011 at the same age. He beat Borg's total at RG at an age when Borg had retired. No excuses, the numbers back Nadal but doesn't automatically mean Borg wasn't good enough to win 7. That we'll never know, but we should still respect Borg. He didn't fail, he just didn't try. Have to give Nadal the credit for trying where Borg didn't, but also respect that up until Borg retired he was matching Nadal for RG titles. I am sure if Nadal retires now or doesn't make it back to full health people will say "ah but he would have won more" etc.

Also worth noting that Borg overall as a player, won 11 slams by 25 whilst hardly playing the AO. Had he played it every year and carried on into his late 20s I think it's possible he'd have had 13-16 Slams, maybe more.

Originally Posted by monfed View Post
Yes it is. Ralph has basically 6 real RGs, and even if you consider his 7 RGs, some people consider Borg as the better clay courter,if not its a tie. Borg didn't have the luxury to moonball weak 1HBH like Ralph so he had it much much harder to dominate at RG.

Ralph's 2011 RG has a big star on it,a widely acknowledged fact. Look as much as I like Ralph I can't quite crown him the clay GOAT cause that would be injustice to Borg,sorry.
man you sound like those idiots who don't count some of Federer's slams

Originally Posted by Clarky21 View Post
What Montroll is trying to say is that he thinks Nadal's RG title last year doesn't count because he did not play Eeyore in the final.
Clarky, it's 2013 now!

Originally Posted by Steve0904 View Post
The other poster didn't say he wasn't mentally or physically strong. He/she simply said he's overrated in that department, and that is very debatable. For the record, I think he's one of the strongest players on both accounts that tennis has ever seen never mind the last 20 years.

But for example, a lot of people look at Nadal's 5 set record and his wins over Federer, and say he's mentally tough. This is true obviously, however they fail to mention his really bad losses to Gonzalez, Delpo, Tsonga, and Federer (at WTF 2007 and 2011). Contrast this with say Federer and off the top of my head I can only recall 2 matches in a longer career where he's been absolutely blown off the court. Those being RG 2008 and Olympics 2012. The general consensus is that if Nadal can get it to 5 (or 3) sets he will win, but he's been "destroyed" a fair bit in his career for someone of his standard. The thing about this logic is that no one actually questions Nadal's mental toughness. Everybody just says "Well that guy was way too good today" and everybody moves on. He's also had many injuries and MTO's, but he's known for fitness and stamina. People will say if he wins he was healthy or he was injured but he fought through it, but when he loses "He was injured!" is a favourite line. Again, I still believe he is one of the strongest on both accounts in all time, but this is some food for thought.

Contrast this again with Federer, and you have almost total opposites. Federer has an average 5 set record for someone of his standard, but he rarely gets blown off the court. Therefore Federer often loses very close matches, mostly to rival players because lesser players can't take him to 5 sets and are often beaten very easily. Then it is more prudent to question mental toughness because he lost a 5 set match where he often had a thousand chances to break and never took advantage of them. It's a study in how you want to lose matches with both these guys. Also physically, he has only 2 walkovers in over 1000 matches (a significant amount more than Nadal obviously as he's older by 5 years), and has never retired in his career. In fact, aside from Wimbledon 2012 I can't remember the last time he called a trainer on the court.

Just some food for thought.
some good points. I do agree that it takes mental strength to come back and make a match when you're getting thrashed, and also people marvel at Nadal's physical ability like it's an achievement but treat Federer's ability to keep healthy as luck.

Originally Posted by veroniquem View Post
Borg's achieved more on grass and indoor. Nadal achieved more on clay and hard. All in all, their achievements are close. As for their playing style, Borg wore his opponents down with long rallies. If anything, Nadal is the more aggressive of the 2 (especially on clay).
On clay yeah, but on grass Borg serve and volleyed more than any top player today. He was in a way more agressive than the whole tour is now.

Originally Posted by veroniquem View Post
Nadal's goathood is already established thanks to clay and I don't think there is anything Djoko (or anyone else) can do about that. As for USO 2011, we cannot know for a fact that Rafa would have won the final vs Fed. We can assume he would have (based on past results) but we cannot categorically decide that Fed had 0 chance to win (especially at USO).
That's fair of you Vero. based on the form of both players that year I think Nadal would have probably won in 2010, Federer would have had to play better. But who knows how that final would have gone down. In 2011 it's a tougher call as I thought Federer was playing pretty well, I usually give to edge to any match after 2008 to Nadal though.
How to clarky - work out most or only realistic outcome, claim the opposite
Federer, Djokovic, Delpo fan (also like Nalbandian, Dimitrov, Tsonga)
Towser83 is offline   Reply With Quote