Clay Court GOAT

[timnz]

Originally Posted by big bang

but still its the closest thing to red clay.. if he could win on other surfaces why not har-tru?? I mean USO still counted as a claycourt tournament back then and some of the other claycourt specialists didnt seem to have trouble playing there. I still think its a flaw in Borgs resume!

He would have love to have won it. Again, though in 1975 & 1976 Borg was 19 and 20 years old respectively - not at his peak yet. A pity he was injured in 1977 - I don't see anyone beating him if he was healthy that year.

[newmark401]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by newmark401
I'd also include the Dohertys in the discussion. A list of some of their clay court singles victories can be found here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=322284


They certainly won the top clay court titles of their time (and personally I think that Laurie was the best pre-world war one player, even though I am a fan of Wilding), but the number of their clay court titles, with full respect to their abilities, wasn't up there with someone like Wilding ie 13 to 16 Clay court titles each compared to over 60 for Wilding."

That list of the Dohertys' clay court singles titles isn't complete, but it's all I have for them. I don't think their numbers really matter, it's their utter dominance which is so impressive.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by big bang

but still its the closest thing to red clay.. if he could win on other surfaces why not har-tru?? I mean USO still counted as a claycourt tournament back then and some of the other claycourt specialists didnt seem to have trouble playing there. I still think its a flaw in Borgs resume!

Borg did eventually have great success on har-tru, not at the USO but at the Pepsi Grand Slam, which doesn't exist anymore but was a big tournament at the time. I don't think he was as strong on Har-Tru as he was on red clay, but the evidence is there that he was the best har-tru player of his generation. He just had to gradually overtake Jimmy Connors.

In '75 at the USO he was still far from his peak and not favored to win the USO. And he lost to Connors (who owned him them, physically and psychologically) in straights.

In '76 he went into the USO as the Wimbledon champion, and some people expected him to win, others picked Connors. And Connors beat him in a very close match (Connors had 2-point margin in total points won; Borg had points to go up two sets to one).

In January '77 he beat Connors in a close match at Pepsi. In September he was top-seeded at the Open and the favorite to win, but defaulted early with an injury.

In January '78 he beat Connors in another three-setter at Pepsi, 6-1 in the final set, a little more comfortably than the previous year.

In early '79 he dominated Connors at Pepsi, 6-2, 6-3. And he won Pepsi again in 1980, his last time playing that tournament.

So basically Borg didn't solve Connors until January '77, and until then Connors prevented him from winning the USO. Afterwards he solved Connors (eventually even dominating him), but there was only one USO left on Har-Tru and he was injured for it.

So a combination of youth and injuries (and a tough early matchup with Jimmy Connors) shut Borg out at the three USO's played on clay.

[CyBorg]

Borg also won three consecutive events at the US Pro (Boston) on har-tru from 1974 to 1976 (correct me if I'm wrong). Hilton Head was an exo on har-tru as well. Borg won that in 1976 and 1977 and then it was scrapped.

Har-tru played faster than red clay and was much more friendly to players like Connors and other guys who simply did not do well on red. It's "clay", but "clay" is just a label. The material isn't the same.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by newmark401

"Quote:
Originally Posted by newmark401
I'd also include the Dohertys in the discussion. A list of some of their clay court singles victories can be found here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=322284


They certainly won the top clay court titles of their time (and personally I think that Laurie was the best pre-world war one player, even though I am a fan of Wilding), but the number of their clay court titles, with full respect to their abilities, wasn't up there with someone like Wilding ie 13 to 16 Clay court titles each compared to over 60 for Wilding."

That list of the Dohertys' clay court singles titles isn't complete, but it's all I have for them. I don't think their numbers really matter, it's their utter dominance which is so impressive.

They were impressive indeed. Wilding himself I think was hugely respectful of Laurie's abilities.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Borg also won three consecutive events at the US Pro (Boston) on har-tru from 1974 to 1976 (correct me if I'm wrong). Hilton Head was an exo on har-tru as well. Borg won that in 1976 and 1977 and then it was scrapped.

Har-tru played faster than red clay and was much more friendly to players like Connors and other guys who simply did not do well on red. It's "clay", but "clay" is just a label. The material isn't the same.

Yes, Boston went to har-tru in '74 and Borg won it three straight times (though he didn't have to face Connors). Plus he has those two Hilton Head titles on har-tru.

This thing about har-tru not being clay is tricky, because har-tru might be faster, but it's still a slow surface, comparable to clay in that sense. On the other hand as you say the material is not the same, and it made some difference in the matchups. I think it made a difference in the Borg-Connors matches, though not necessarily because Borg was really hindered on har-tru. Red clay, especially at its slowest, was obviously Borg's strongest suit, but he could play well on all slow surfaces. I think it made more of a difference to Connors. He could play great on har-tru but was, at best, questionable on red clay. Or at least an unproven force on red clay.

I don't know but did Jimmy have any real experience on red clay, I mean in his formative years? He lost in the opening rounds at the French in '72 and '73 when he was already a top player; and after he started playing at the French again in '79 he never got past the semis. It's just a contrast with what he did at the USO on har-tru (making all three finals, and winning one of them).

[CyBorg]

Connors could drive through the ball on har-tru, take it early, force it to the corners, overpower the opponent. But on red everything stayed up and grinding out long rallies was more to Borg's strengths.

As for comparing clay across eras, we can only really use red clay results if we want to be fair. Nadal has not played a single atp match on har-tru, so we don't know how he'd do. So ultimately it's red clay results of one versus red clay results of another. IMO.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Connors could drive through the ball on har-tru, take it early, force it to the corners, overpower the opponent. But on red everything stayed up and grinding out long rallies was more to Borg's strengths.

As for comparing clay across eras, we can only really use red clay results if we want to be fair. Nadal has not played a single atp match on har-tru, so we don't know how he'd do. So ultimately it's red clay results of one versus red clay results of another. IMO.

In the matches I've seen, Connors does seem to be getting a lot of pace from his opponents on har-tru, and of course that's something he liked.

As for the comparison with Nadal, I agree about restricting it to red clay, though if I had to speculate I think Nadal would adapt to har-tru just as well as Borg did. Neither one of them grew up on har-tru but both excel for obvious reasons on slow dirt.

Now Federer, I wonder, he didn't grow up on har-tru, but if har-tru gave Connors an advantage I think it may have given a similar advantage to Federer. Now that would have been really interesting, to see the Fed-Nadal rivalry on clay split up between red clay and some har-tru matches.

[Gizo]

I think with Borg's defeats to Connors on har-tru at the US Open in 75 and 76, the fact that they were playing the US was probably more important than the surface. As we all know Connors was considerably more formidable in the US, regardless of the surface, than he was in the Europe (he still had an excellent record outside the US of course). And Connors only beat Borg once in Europe.

Har-tru courts are pretty much exclusively used it North America (though you can find a few in London). These are hypothetical scenarios, but put the pre-prime Borg of 75-76 against Connors on har-tru on Europe, and he would stand a much better chance of winning than he did in the US. Likewise even if the US Open had used European style red clay for a bit, I think Connors still would have found a way to win the title on it. Stich is another player like Connors who was outstanding in his home country regardless of the surface, as highlighted by his excellent record in German tournaments on clay, carpet and grass.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Gizo

I think with Borg's defeats to Connors on har-tru at the US Open in 75 and 76, the fact that they were playing the US was probably more important than the surface. As we all know Connors was considerably more formidable in the US, regardless of the surface, than he was in the Europe (he still had an excellent record outside the US of course). And Connors only beat Borg once in Europe.

Har-tru courts are pretty much exclusively used it North America (though you can find a few in London). These are hypothetical scenarios, but put the pre-prime Borg of 75-76 against Connors on har-tru on Europe, and he would stand a much better chance of winning than he did in the US. Likewise even if the US Open had used European style red clay for a bit, I think Connors still would have found a way to win the title on it. Stich is another player like Connors who was outstanding in his home country regardless of the surface, as highlighted by his excellent record in German tournaments on clay, carpet and grass.

Connors beat Borg a couple of times on clay in South America in minor tournaments though in 1977 and 1978. One of them was in Buenos Aires in 1978 straight after the US Open - he beat Borg 5–7 6–3 6–3. He also Beat Borg on clay in 1974 in Indianapolis. Having said that from 1977 onwards Borg was definitely dominant over Connors.

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Number 1 is absolutely Nadal. He is by far the best clay court player the game has ever seen. He is an absolute beast on the red dirt and has an unbelievable defensive game. Borg was good, but Nadal is simply unbeatable in terms of defense and that is probably the most important thing on clay. The second most important thing is the ability to rally and construct points, and Nadal also has that going for him.

Number 2 is Borg. Do I even need to really argue his case?

Federer I believe could've been known as one of the clay court greats had it not been for Nadal. Federer did very well on clay before Nadal came and took all the trophies on the dirt. I mean, Federer coul've had 5 straight titles at Roland Garros if Nadal were never born. But such an argument is, of course, unfair. But Federer has made it to 4 straight French Open finals; and before that made it to the semifinals, where he lost to Nadal. Federer has also beaten Nadal on clay, which is a massive achievement for anyone who pulls off such a feat. Not only that, he BAGELED Nadal on clay. How many times do you see Nadal bageled? How many times will you ever see him bageled on his own turf?

And there's also Coria. He was a good clay court player as well. But I'm not too familiar with the older generation players, so I can't really make a case for or against any of these players. All I know is that Borg was essentially the old school Nadal and Nadal is the buffed up, modern-day Borg.

[dmt]

Federer isnt the third best on the red dirt, no way. Top 10? yes, but not top 3. Gustavo Kuerten was better on clay.

[big bang]

Originally Posted by xFullCourtTenniSx

Number 1 is absolutely Nadal. He is by far the best clay court player the game has ever seen. He is an absolute beast on the red dirt and has an unbelievable defensive game. Borg was good, but Nadal is simply unbeatable in terms of defense and that is probably the most important thing on clay. The second most important thing is the ability to rally and construct points, and Nadal also has that going for him.

Number 2 is Borg. Do I even need to really argue his case?

Federer I believe could've been known as one of the clay court greats had it not been for Nadal. Federer did very well on clay before Nadal came and took all the trophies on the dirt. I mean, Federer coul've had 5 straight titles at Roland Garros if Nadal were never born. But such an argument is, of course, unfair. But Federer has made it to 4 straight French Open finals; and before that made it to the semifinals, where he lost to Nadal. Federer has also beaten Nadal on clay, which is a massive achievement for anyone who pulls off such a feat. Not only that, he BAGELED Nadal on clay. How many times do you see Nadal bageled? How many times will you ever see him bageled on his own turf?

And there's also Coria. He was a good clay court player as well. But I'm not too familiar with the older generation players, so I can't really make a case for or against any of these players. All I know is that Borg was essentially the old school Nadal and Nadal is the buffed up, modern-day Borg.

I have Nadal ahead of Borg as well! sure Borg got more FO at this point, but Nadal dominated all claycourt events the last 5 years (09 was not as great I know) Nadal is still very young, even with his physical problems he could easily focus on clay only and win pretty much all there is, but his ambitions is bigger than just being the greatest claycourter!

[borg number one]

That's a good discussion above on Har-Tru courts (rublico) vs. red clay and also on Borg/Connors on clay. Connors preferred the "faster" clay and also playing in the United States. Furthermore, he did get Borg when Borg was 19-20, as opposed to 20+. Having said that, Connors was a great rublico player, so he should get credit for being one of the best rublico players at the time, along with Borg and Vilas.

Orantes took the US Open in 1975, and Connors beat a 20 year old Borg in the 1976 final. In 1975, Connors beat Borg in the SF. In 1977, Borg retired in the 4th round vs. Dick Stockton with a shoulder injury. (I don't think he ever lost a match to Stockton). In 1978, they switched to hard courts and Borg lost to Connors in the final, but Borg did have a bad blister on his thumb (thumb unjury) and he could hardly grip his racquet after pain shots.

I'll add that even M. Orantes was pretty tough on rublico (green clay). Borg beat Orantes in the FO final in 1974 on red clay, but Orantes beat Connors on rublico at the US Open final in 1975. Players such as Orantes, Vilas, and Clerc were some very dangerous clay courters back then that could give serve and volleyers fits on clay. Wood racquets on clay vs. modern racquets on clay have changed the dynamics some, plus they have supposedly made clay at the Fo faster than it was during the 70's. So, with wood racquets, slower red clay, and no Luxilon strings, blasting a great clay courter in the 70's off the court was a very tall order.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by krosero

This thing about har-tru not being clay is tricky, because har-tru might be faster, but it's still a slow surface, comparable to clay in that sense. On the other hand as you say the material is not the same, and it made some difference in the matchups. I think it made a difference in the Borg-Connors matches, though not necessarily because Borg was really hindered on har-tru. Red clay, especially at its slowest, was obviously Borg's strongest suit, but he could play well on all slow surfaces.

I played a lot on har-tru as a youngster (it is popular in the southern US) and on hard courts.

The ball tends to skid a lot, particularly off of power shots. I don't know if this is also true of red clay (having played on red clay only twice, and I can't remember the conditions--I was too young).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

In the matches I've seen, Connors does seem to be getting a lot of pace from his opponents on har-tru, and of course that's something he liked.

As for the comparison with Nadal, I agree about restricting it to red clay, though if I had to speculate I think Nadal would adapt to har-tru just as well as Borg did. Neither one of them grew up on har-tru but both excel for obvious reasons on slow dirt.

Now Federer, I wonder, he didn't grow up on har-tru, but if har-tru gave Connors an advantage I think it may have given a similar advantage to Federer. Now that would have been really interesting, to see the Fed-Nadal rivalry on clay split up between red clay and some har-tru matches.

I saw Connors play Borg in the US Open semi in 1975. Borg wasn't nearly the player he would be and it was clear that Borg had problems on har-tru with the Connors power and also the fact his shots didn't bounce as high as many other players and tended to skid. Connors was able to win almost any big point in that match by hitting Borg's short balls and approaching the net. Borg was able to adjust to that obviously in later years.

[borg number one]

Rubico courts play quite a bit faster. I've played junior tournaments on both surfaces. Sometimes on a rubico court, it can seem a bit slippery and one has more difficulty coming to a complete stop and changing directions. You tend to "slide around" on rubico a bit more than red clay and it's definitely faster, with the balls bouncing lower. One notices the finer particles contained on a red clay court, versus the "pebbles" on a rubico court. A really nice rubico court is a lot of fun to play on, especially in the heat of a Houston summer! Yet, Red Clay feels a lot better to me. When you slide, the clay tends to sort of "keep you up better", so one can really run around pretty fast with good traction, given that you'll have to slide properly as you're moving laterally and forwards/backwards on the court.

See this excerpt on wikipedia describing rubico courts:

Green clay

Green clay, Har-Tru or "American" clay, is similar to red clay, the differences being that it is slightly harder and faster. Green clay is packed to make the subsurface. It is then covered with a topping. These clay courts are found primarily in the Eastern and Southern parts of the United States, but are also located in all 50 states. In parts of the gulf coast region of the Southeast, green clay courts are often referred to as "rubico." There are two major WTA tournaments played on green Har-Tru clay courts; the Family Circle Cup in Charleston, SC and the MPS Group Championships in Ponte Vedra Beach, FL, a new event in 2009.

[timnz]

I disagree with some recent posts. I would place Borg ahead of Nadal because 6 French Opens beats 4 French Opens. Now Nadal has the potential to be number 1 (and probably will take that position) but that is just potential, he has to get there - until then Borg is number 1 on clay. You can't rate people on what they could be, you can only rate people on what they have achieved to date.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

Connors beat Borg a couple of times on clay in South America in minor tournaments though in 1977 and 1978. One of them was in Buenos Aires in 1978 straight after the US Open - he beat Borg 5–7 6–3 6–3. He also Beat Borg on clay in 1974 in Indianapolis. Having said that from 1977 onwards Borg was definitely dominant over Connors.

I think in a thread last year somebody questioned whether the Buenos Aires exo really was on clay. It was something about whether the exo was held at the venue normally used for Davis Cup (definitely red clay) or on some other court.

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by timnz

I disagree with some recent posts. I would place Borg ahead of Nadal because 6 French Opens beats 4 French Opens. Now Nadal has the potential to be number 1 (and probably will take that position) but that is just potential, he has to get there - until then Borg is number 1 on clay. You can't rate people on what they could be, you can only rate people on what they have achieved to date.

There's not just French Open!!! Rafa set some numbers on this surface that will probably never be equal

Besides that,Rafa is playing very few clay tournaments over the season.. all in all,after this year's French Open (with Nadal's result from Monte Carlo,Barca,Rome and Paris) we will probably have some better picture about this two greatest clay players of all time