Why do people say Nadal is the undisputed clay GOAT?

[dangalak]

You can say that he was better than Borg but the margin isn't ginormous.

Originally Posted by dangalak

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.

Navratilova did try to win every GS she could. When she skipped the French it was because she was back then a bit of a mug on clay anyway. Even the Australians she skipped were while she was losing to 33 year old Court and Stove at Wimbledon, so if we presume everyone playing (including Evert as well) she still doesnt win any of them probably the years she didnt play them, or maybe 1 in the later 70s at most.

Yes I agree Evert is way underrated in a historical sense, and missed out on alot of extra slams at the French and Australian because of what you said, but I think she is automaticaly pulled down by people due to her dominance at the hands of Navratilova in the 80s when perceived (rightly or wrongly) to still be close to her best. Even winning many more slams wouldnt have helped her much in peoples eyes I suspect. Navratilova put the nail in Evert's would be GOAT coffin with her ownage of Evert for a 2-3 year period which was just too overwhelming and emphatic for people to ignore or ever think Evert could be better than Navratilova regardless of stats. Graf was lucky as heck with the stabbing, but as far as perception of being dominated in a head to head sense she never suffered dominance at the hands of Seles even approaching the same stratosphere as what Evert was dealt by Navratilova from 82-early 85, heck Federer suffered worse ownage at the hands of Nadal by a long ways than Graf at the hands of Seles, yet still far below what Evert suffered at the hands of Evert.

OK so the French wasnt the be all and end all back then, so what was for clay court tennis according to you. Every major venue that existed both then and now Nadal is ahead of Borg, Monte Carlo titles, Rome titles, French Open titles, Hamburg titles. Borg's edge is what exactly. It simply doesnt exist. Borg failed to win a single U.S Open in 3 years close to his prime it was held on clay, even if it was green clay, losing to Connors twice. That doesnt help him in comparision to Nadal either.

[90's Clay]

Well his clay records speak for themselves. No one is breaking them.. At least any time soon. But there were guys comparable to Nadal on clay. Guys like Guga, Rosewall or Borg and perhaps a few others which could hold their own vs. Nadal.

And this era hasn't exactly produced NEAR the talent on clay that some past eras did.

Nole and Roger are probably the two other best clay courters of the 00's-present.

Taking nothing away from those guys.. They are good clay court players. But not GREAT

[Talker]

I ranked Nadal as the best ever on clay after the 2008 clay season, he had 4 RG's then.

There wasn't anyone that ever lived that could beat him there.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Well his clay records speak for themselves. No one is breaking them.. At least any time soon. But there were guys comparable to Nadal on clay. Guys like Guga, Rosewall or Borg and perhaps a few others which could hold their own vs. Nadal.

And this era hasn't exactly produced NEAR the talent on clay that some past eras did.

Nole and Roger are probably the two other best clay courters of the 00's-present.

Taking nothing away from those guys.. They are good clay court players. But not GREAT

I agree Nadal's clay court era wasnt one of the best, but neither was Borg's. Other than his pigeon and the Mickey Mouse event horder Vilas who was his big competition? Eddie Dibbs, Ramirez, Harold Solomon, please. Panatta, a serve and volleyer, was by far his toughest opponent on clay, along with Connors I guess who isnt even a clay courter either. Federer and Djokovic alone are already sufficient to make tougher competition than that whole group combined. The guys who faced tougher clay court competition are all guys who won alot less- Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten.

[Mustard]

If Nadal isn't the clay GOAT in terms of achievements, who is? Nadal has won more times on clay at the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome than anybody else in the history of the sport.

Nadal's career win-loss record on clay is 254-19 (a 93.04 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the start of 2005 is 228-9 (a 96.20 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the 11th April 2005 is 214-7 (a 96.83 winning percentage)

It's simply staggering that Nadal had a career win-loss record of 40-12 on the 11th April 2005, and now it's 254-19.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Borg skipped FO tournaments more than once.

You have to play them to win them.

The only times Borg skipped the French Open were in 1977, when he decided to play 1977 World Team Tennis and thus made himself ineligible for the 1977 French Open, and in 1982 when Borg declined to play due to his political disputes with the ITF and the tennis authorities, which eventually led to Borg's retirement from full-time tennis in January 1983.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Talker

I ranked Nadal as the best ever on clay after the 2008 clay season, he had 4 RG's then.

There wasn't anyone that ever lived that could beat him there.

Hyperbole my friend.

I reckon the Brazilian at his best would have good chances.

Originally Posted by Mustard

If Nadal isn't the clay GOAT in terms of achievements, who is? Nadal has won more times on clay at the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome than anybody else in the history of the sport.

Nadal's career win-loss record on clay is 254-19 (a 93.04 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the start of 2005 is 228-9 (a 96.20 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the 11th April 2005 is 214-7 (a 96.83 winning percentage)

It's simply staggering that Nadal had a career win-loss record of 40-12 on the 11th April 2005, and now it's 254-19.

Nadal IS the clay GOAT. Borg was however too dominant and too good to not be mentioned in the same sentence. He was basically Nadal in the past, if not marginally inferior.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Nadal IS the clay GOAT. Borg was however too dominant and too good to not be mentioned in the same sentence. He was basically Nadal in the past, if not marginally inferior.

Players like Rosewall and Wilding are up there too.

Well people say Borg is a strong number 2. Not sure what more you want. When people say Nadal is the undisputed #1 it doesnt mean Borg is way behind, just that he clearly is behind and it is without real debate at this point, doesnt mean by a huge margin.

I think Rosewall is underrated and should atleast be rated up with Borg on clay, if not up with Nadal. It is truly sad alot of this forum actually thinks Federer is a better clay courter than Rosewall (what an epic joke that is).

[Sim]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Nadal IS the clay GOAT. Borg was however too dominant and too good to not be mentioned in the same sentence. He was basically Nadal in the past, if not marginally inferior.

Nadal is the undisputed #1 clay GOAT.
Borg is the undisputed #2 clay GOAT.

That's the way I see it. The only thing you could argue for Borg is harder? competition, but that's not clear cut proof for superior dominance on clay. Nadal way more titles outside the French Open, so that for me puts him above Borg no question (not to mention one more FO). I mean...how can you not be amazed at something like 8 straight Monte Carlo wins?

[TMF]

I'm not a Nadal fan but he's a goat on clay. I don't care if you put any past great cc playing in his era, that player at best would be the 2nd best cc, much like Federer is the 2nd best himself.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm not a Nadal fan but he's a goat on clay. I don't care if you put any past great cc playing in his era, that player at best would be the 2nd best cc, much like Federer is the 2nd best himself.

Of course they would be, they played in the past.

[RF20Lennon]

Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT

[TMF]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT

I know it sounds crazy but if there wasn't Nadal, Fed's prowess on clay would be comparing to Borg, who never had a player like Nadal's calibre.

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT

Unlikely. He would probably have 5 French Open titles (I am guessing 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011) but would not have anywhere near the dominance on clay in general that someone like Borg has. Even in his prime years Federer was losing on clay to old Costa, old Kuerten, Volandri, and others. He would not compile stats like 8 Monte Carlo titles or anything approaching that on clay even without Nadal. He would rank higher than he does currently on clay but not GOAT. Borg would be the undisputed clay GOAT to people without Nadal, even if Rosewall really should rank up with him but isnt perceived that way by people for whatever reason.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Unlikely. He would probably have 5 French Open titles (I am guessing 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011) but would not have anywhere near the dominance on clay in general that someone like Borg has. Even in his prime years Federer was losing on clay to old Costa, old Kuerten, Volandri, and others. He would not compile stats like 8 Monte Carlo titles or anything approaching that on clay even without Nadal. He would rank higher than he does currently on clay but not GOAT. Borg would be the undisputed clay GOAT to people without Nadal, even if Rosewall really should rank up with him but isnt perceived that way by people for whatever reason.

add 2008 and 2009 (the year he won) so that makes 6 french opens a tie with borg. Add 3 monte carlo titles, Add multiple hamburg titles, Add 3 Madrid titles, Add a Rome title yes it would be still debateable but one could argue that he would be the clay goat. Plus without Rafa Fed wouldve won 11 slams in a row!! crazy stuff!

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by TMF

I know it sounds crazy but if there wasn't Nadal, Fed's prowess on clay would be comparing to Borg, who never had a player like Nadal's calibre.

well I mean if nadal played in that era borg would still beat him cause you cant create even close to this much topspin with wooden rackets

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

add 2008 and 2009 (the year he won) so that makes 6 french opens a tie with borg. Add 3 monte carlo titles, Add multiple hamburg titles, Add 3 Madrid titles, Add a Rome title yes it would be still debateable but one could argue that he would be the clay goat. Plus without Rafa Fed wouldve won 11 slams in a row!! crazy stuff!

I definitely think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in 2008. Djokovic played better tennis than Federer at every clay event that year both were in minus Monte Carlo. Federer wasnt even playing well at that years French either, he struggled to get past Monfils and of course was brutally raped by Nadal in the final, eating bakery products all day long. Djokovic managed 3 times as many games off Nadal in the semis as Federer in the final would. If we want to get objective and just go with the losing finalist each time though that would be Puerta in 2005 and Federer in 2008, but subjectively speaking most would say Federer in 2005 and Djokovic in 2008 are the winners those years instead. So either way it is 5. No the clay resume you posted would not eclipse Borg by a long ways. Someone who was dominant as Borg on clay it would take alot more than only 3 titles at the next biggest clay events, and less (or atleast definitely not more) French Opens than Borg.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I definitely think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in 2008. Djokovic played better tennis than Federer at every clay event that year both were in minus Monte Carlo. Federer wasnt even playing well at that years French either, he struggled to get past Monfils and of course was brutally raped by Nadal in the final, eating bakery products all day long. If we want to get objective and just go with the losing finalist each time though that would be Puerta in 2005 and Federer in 2008, but subjectively speaking most would say Federer in 2005 and Djokovic in 2008 are the winners those years instead. So either way it is 5. No the clay resume you posted would not eclipse Borg by a long ways. Federer even without Nadal is still no Nadal on clay.

ofcourse not by no means!! But he would have results comparable to the great Borg! Also Highly doubt Djokovic wouldve beaten fed! Fed beat him in monte carlo the only time they met on clay that year and even though Djokovic retired in that match Pretty sure Fed wouldve won. But again it was just a statement its not like it ever happened anyway.