Clay Court GOAT

[CharlesJScott]

Mecir only success against only swedish players.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Or he would win less if he was playing majors on hard and grass surfaces as Laver and co did throughout much of the 1960s.

The whole business of Laver playing three of the four grand slam events on grass really applies only to two years of his professional career. 1968 and 1969. The preceding years involved a different tour with different surfaces. The following years involved him missing many grand slam events in favour of playing other, better paying, events like the WCT tour and others.

And in 1968 he didn't play the Australian because Open tennis didn't happen until April that year (Australian was in January). So only 2 out of 3 available Open Grand Slam tournaments in 1968 were on grass.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Haha! I would say Sampras gave Agassi the most problems of any player. But, if Mecir gave Agassi problems, then, IMO, it was not because Mecir was quick although he was very quick. It was because Mecir made his opponents run - more than anyone else I've ever seen - and Agassi didn't hit well on the run.

As for Nastase, he was a bit like Hoad in that respect. He could play at the highest levels when he kept his focus. And, just when it seemed that Connors and Borg had left him behind, he would come up with a devestating win against one of them.

I like your point on Hoad.Very underrated here.I many times thought peak Laver vs peak Hoad would probably be the best match of all time.Devastating tennis, with no shots undoable.Over 10 games, Laver would get the edge but, on a given day, people who followed Hoad closely said he was untouchable...1956 Hoad vs 1967 Laver, that would be close to a heart break

[kiki]

Originally Posted by CharlesJScott

Mecir only success against only swedish players.

Ask Mac about that...

[CharlesJScott]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Borg played exactly four majors on hard courts in his career. Only four.

Not four, it's five as per my information..

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by CharlesJScott

Not four, it's five as per my information..

What's the fifth one?

1978 US Open, 1979 US Open, 1980 US Open, 1981 US Open.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by CharlesJScott

Not four, it's five as per my information..

No. Only four.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

I like your point on Hoad. Very underrated here.I many times thought peak Laver vs peak Hoad would probably be the best match of all time. Devastating tennis, with no shots undoable. Over 10 games, Laver would get the edge but, on a given day, people who followed Hoad closely said he was untouchable. . . 1956 Hoad vs 1967 Laver. That would be close to a heart break.

Pancho would agree. He said that even at his very best, Hoad could beat him.

(I do often wonder what set Muscles on fire in the finals of the '56 US Championships--keeping Hoad from the GS.?)

[urban]

The wind that day. It hampered Lew's service rhythm a bit. But their earlier matches at Australian and Wim were close 4 set affairs, too. In the Wim final Ken lead Lew 4-1 in the fourth, but Lew stormed back to take the set.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Pancho would agree. He said that even at his very best, Hoad could beat him.

(I do often wonder what set Muscles on fire in the finals of the '56 US Championships--keeping Hoad from the GS.?)

Possibly, the pressure of having the GS at hands, plus don´t forget Hoad and Muscless had grown up together (the Wonderkids, they were called), and if Hoad didn´t approach his top, Rosewall would make him pay for it - as Laver so often said-.Rosewall and Hoad knew each other like twins brothers...

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Lacoste
8. Kuerten
9. Laver
10. Borotra
11. Drobny
12. Vilas
13. Santana
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Muster
17. Courier
18. Federer
19. Kodes
20. von Cramm
21. Emerson
22. Trabert
23. Agassi
24. Connors
25. Gimeno
26. Frank Parker
27. Roche
28. Nastase
29. Sven Davidson
30. Jack Crawford
31. Fred Perry
32. J.E. Patty

Here we are--

[got spin?]

Roddick, no doubt is the best clay courter

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by got spin?

Roddick, no doubt is the best clay courter

Roddick or Sampras.

[TennisLovaLova]

N°1 Nadal
And Federer would have been clay goat if nadal just kept playin "padel"

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by TennisLovaLova

N°1 Nadal
And Federer would have been clay goat if nadal just kept playin "padel"

What a novel opinion. But, you won't make many friends around here with that kind of talk. Hahaha!

[Mustard]

How is Borg still above Nadal now?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Here we are--

Where are Panatta and Orantes? Panatta won Rome and Roland Garros ( as well as Hamburg and a Davis Cup final played on clay); Orantes won Forest Hills, Rome and some other titles like Barcelona,Hamburg,Indianapolis and Boston.If Gimeno is in the list, they both should also be.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Mustard

How is Borg still above Nadal now?

It amazes me this is even a question but since I'm such a nice person I'll clarify things for you. I won't even use arguments from other fan groups( Fed fans, Novak fans, historians etc.) since they're overall very biased against Rafa but rather I'll just concentrate on a few things that Nadal fans themselves stated quite often.

According to the majority of Nadal fans 2004-2007 was an extremely weak period of tennis overall (weak era as it is often calle by little bulls) and half of Nadal's current # of FO titles comes from that period so given that it was a weak era than 3 of Nadal's FO titles are weak themselves, Borg on the other hand has no such problem given that all of his FO titles were won in a strong era.

Another issue is that of a main rival, according to Borg fans Vilas was an amazing physical specimen, real beast and warrior on court and a great player overall(even underrated according to them).

Nadal's main rival on the other hand again according to Nadal fans( as I said it wouldn't be fair to use biased statements from other fan groups) is a mentally weak crybaby who has no BH and who basically owes all of his titles to luck, weak opponents(bums, chokers, babies etc.), pansy draws, rigged schedules etc. etc.

Overall when we compare:

FO titles won in strong era-> Borg-6 Nadal-3

Borg's main CC rival>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal's main CC rival


Conclusion: Even according to his own fans Nadal is inferior to Borg so what's the discussion here? Borg>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nadal

[kiki]

iN FACT, CLAY COURT IS THE ONLY SURFACE WHERE I WOULD SAY THAT TODAY´S PLAYERS CAN RIVAL WITH THE 1970´S OR 1980´S.SO NADAL HAS MERIT IN WINNING THE FO 6 TIMES.ANOTHER THINK IS THE USO, WIMBLEDON OR THAT THING CALLED YEC.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Mustard

How is Borg still above Nadal now?

Borg had a great forehand, although Ralph's fh is even better. Borg had the better serve, the better backhand, the better net game, and at least equal if not the better speed and conditioning. Although Ralph is one of the mentally toughest, most cometitive players of all time, Borg was THE mentally toughest, most competitive player of all time (on the men's side). That intangible - mental toughness/competitiveness - is more important on clay, which recquires more patience and focus, than other surfaces. That's why they are the 2 best clay court players of all time.

Both playing with modern racquets, I give the edge to Borg, 6/10 on clay.