Clay Court GOAT

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Any of the top 20-30 top guys Kodes had to play, would devastate the 1930´s pro field...except for Perry and Vines.I´d like Vines and Perry play almost peak Laver, almost peak Rosewall, peak Newk, peak Connors, peak Borg...just as Jan had to endure.And then, we would talk...

And I thought we weren't going to discuss this anymore.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

And I thought we weren't going to discuss this anymore.

And we won´t.

My next underrated player ( nº 3 underrated of the 70´s), after Newk and Kodes, will be Manuel Orantes...nobody gives a damn for him here...which proves how little tennis most of posters have seen...what do you think of him? shall I open the thread or do we keep it a private business?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

And we won´t.

My next underrated player ( nº 3 underrated of the 70´s), after Newk and Kodes, will be Manuel Orantes...nobody gives a damn for him here...which proves how little tennis most of posters have seen...what do you think of him? shall I open the thread or do we keep it a private business?

Orantes is one of my favorites of all time. I had the good luck of seeing him play numerous matches at the 1975 US Open which he won.

I was of the opinion at that time that Orantes was playing the best tennis of the tournament going into the semi against Vilas who many picked to win the tournament. I was at the famous semi against Vilas and it was such an unbelievable match. Despite the skill of Vilas it was Orantes who really controlled the match with his variety and great touch. Yes I know Vilas won the first two sets but when I say Orantes controlled the match I mean it all depended on how Orantes played. If Orantes played well he was in control and I didn't think Vilas could do anything about it. Orantes seemed to be able to hit what I called touch streaks in which he seemed to do no wrong and no angle or drop shot was impossible for him. When Orantes was down 5-0 (with several match points against him I believe in the sixth game) in the fourth set I thought Vilas was going to win and moved closer to the portal so I could get a quick jump on leaving. Well it was going to take a lot longer since Orantes hit a touch streak and in what seemed to be a blink he won seven straight games to win the fourth set and he of course won the fifth set.

The consensus of the experts was that Jimmy Connors should win the final, especially considering the long match that Orantes played the night before. However considering the level of tennis Orantes was playing I couldn't see how Connors could hurt him. On har-tru Orantes could more than stand up to even the great Connors on that surface. Orantes had great passing shots on both sides plus topspin lobs, drop shots and beautiful angles. It was hard for me to see Connors winning but I figured the experts knew more than I did. Sure enough Orantes won in straight sets in a dominant performance.

Orantes wasn't as strong on other surfaces as he was on clay but he is one of the finest touch clay players I've ever seem. I thought his touch was superior to Nastase or McEnroe. At his best I was of the opinion he was superior to many more famous clay court players.

Incidentally I do have some rebuttals to your last post about Kodes but enough is enough. We're not getting anywhere with this.

Do you really think the great John Newcombe is underrated? Perhaps a bit forgotten by time but that's the case with many all time greats.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Orantes is one of my favorites of all time. I had the good luck of seeing him play numerous matches at the 1975 US Open which he won.

I was of the opinion at that time that Orantes was playing the best tennis of the tournament going into the semi against Vilas who many picked to win the tournament. I was at the famous semi against Vilas and it was such an unbelievable match. Despite the skill of Vilas it was Orantes who really controlled the match with his variety and great touch. Yes I know Vilas won the first two sets but when I say Orantes controlled the match I mean it all depended on how Orantes played. If Orantes played well he was in control and I didn't think Vilas could do anything about it. Orantes seemed to be able to hit what I called touch streaks in which he seemed to do no wrong and no angle or drop shot was impossible for him. When Orantes was down 5-0 (with several match points against him I believe in the sixth game) in the fourth set I thought Vilas was going to win and moved closer to the portal so I could get a quick jump on leaving. Well it was going to take a lot longer since Orantes hit a touch streak and in what seemed to be a blink he won seven straight games to win the fourth set and he of course won the fifth set.

The consensus of the experts was that Jimmy Connors should win the final, especially considering the long match that Orantes played the night before. However considering the level of tennis Orantes was playing I couldn't see how Connors could hurt him. On har-tru Orantes could more than stand up to even the great Connors on that surface. Orantes had great passing shots on both sides plus topspin lobs, drop shots and beautiful angles. It was hard for me to see Connors winning but I figured the experts knew more than I did. Sure enough Orantes won in straight sets in a dominant performance.

Orantes wasn't as strong on other surfaces as he was on clay but he is one of the finest touch clay players I've ever seem. I thought his touch was superior to Nastase or McEnroe. At his best I was of the opinion he was superior to many more famous clay court players.

Incidentally I do have some rebuttals to your last post about Kodes but enough is enough. We're not getting anywhere with this.

Do you really think the great John Newcombe is underrated? Perhaps a bit forgotten by time but that's the case with many all time greats.

Good post.Orantes won ALL the big clay events except RG ( and he lsot in a 5 sets final to Borg, after leading 2 sets to none and then collapsed in what turned to be Bjorn´s first major).Won Hamburg,Rome,Barcelona,Boston,Indianapolis,Toronto ,Montecarlo..ALL OF THEM.He won on fast indoor the Masters, even if Borg and Connors didn´t play it, there were a lot of great players.He did another memorable comeback against Fibak in the finals ( he was one of the best at comebacks in tennis history)...aided by some help from Kirk Douglas wife.

He reached the Wimbledon semis and , at 18, after having been world´s best junior (Orange Bowl and Wimbly), he was thrown into a DC final against the legendary team of Emerson ( best amateur of the 60´s) and Newcombe ( nº 1 that year in the amateur field)...well, nobody had heard of him but he almost defeats Emmo on GRASS, at Sidney, and after being beaten in the first 2 sets... his comeback history started there.

He hold for a while the record in Masters participation ( he almost never followed the WCT tour, on the other hand).

Touch, angles, drops, lobs, a marvelous left handed BH ( possibly one of the best in the 70´s), great control and tempo and brilliant mind...

Why didn´t he win more majors? first, great competition.Second, he is, along Hoad and Roche, the worst case of luck with injuries.He had surgery like 6 or 7 times during 10 years spam..and finally, he was too much a nice boy.All former aussies and Orantes counterparts respected and admired him for being such a gentleman.He gave his opponents many points if he thought a bad call had dammaged his opponent.He applauded many nice shots from them, he was a true gentleman.His peers really liked him.

And, finally, he had the bad luck to carry Spain´s hopes after greats Gimeno ( a friend) and specially Santana ( an enemy and the man that put Spain in the tennis world).The pressure he had, specially on DC, by the weird spanish press was really too much to bear.Such a gentleman like him had to quit the DC team because of politics...unbelievable, when he had played ( and won) for Spain being injuried...

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

it´s so amazing how americans worship Vines ( who just won 3 majors and played a very weak pro field till Perry came in)...and forget completely about the first girl to win the GS, Mo Connolly.She, at her peak against Court´s,Navy´s,Graf´s or Lenglen´s peak would have been a memorable match.

I have not forgotten Mo. I believe that she pretty much he crushed her competitors.

Her GS is a great achievement--she is a strong GOAT candidate (in spite of the brief career).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I have not forgotten Mo. I believe that she pretty much he crushed her competitors.

Her GS is a great achievement--she is a strong GOAT candidate (in spite of the brief career).

Now, she was really unfortunate¡¡¡.I´d say Lenglen and Connolly are basic cornerstones in the evolution of women´s tennis ( as big or bigger in that sense than King or Court)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I have not forgotten Mo. I believe that she pretty much he crushed her competitors.

Her GS is a great achievement--she is a strong GOAT candidate (in spite of the brief career).

Originally Posted by kiki

Now, she was really unfortunate¡¡¡.I´d say Lenglen and Connolly are basic cornerstones in the evolution of women´s tennis ( as big or bigger in that sense than King or Court)

That's why I think you have to also consider a player's peak level of play when you evaluate a player all time. Connolly was virtually unbeatable at her beat as was Lenglen and Court. If you look at total career Connolly looks fine but several players do surpass her but looking at peak level there is an argument she's up there with anyone.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's why I think you have to also consider a player's peak level of play when you evaluate a player all time. Connolly was virtually unbeatable at her beat as was Lenglen and Court. If you look at total career Connolly looks fine but several players do surpass her but looking at peak level there is an argument she's up there with anyone.

I fully agree.

[kiki]

Last underrated 70´s great:Victor Pecci.

He played marvelous tennis to reach the 79 FO finals, taking a set off peakest Borg after eliminating, one after the other, Barazutti,Solly,Vilas and Connors.

That year he reached the MC sf, Queen´s final on grass, beating Ashe and taking a set off mac, played the SA open finals on hard and ALMOST won Washington DC over Vilas (retired with cramps when he was about 1-2points away from taking the title)

In 81 beat Vilas en route to Rome Finals, defeated Borg at MC and defeated Mayer and Noah at Paris, just to lose the semifinal to Borg.

Great serve, kicking or flat, sensational touch volleys ( helped by his enormous reach), solid and deep sliced BH, very good top spin Fh..only his mind and poor footwork prevented him from becoming a real great champion.Still, when inspired, could beat anybody and his was some of the finest S&V play ever seen at Roland Garros.

[krosero]

Borg and Pecci: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSK7KeB4CbY

Full match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNZg...eature=related

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Borg and Pecci: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSK7KeB4CbY

Full match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNZg...eature=related

Borg faced very few S&V players on clay.But he lost twice to Panatta, lost a set off Pecci and the only guy to give him some trouble in 1978 was...Roscoe...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Borg faced very few S&V players on clay.But he lost twice to Panatta, lost a set off Pecci and the only guy to give him some trouble in 1978 was...Roscoe...

Panatta was a fantastic clay court player but he didn't beat Borg again after Borg reached his best years starting in 1977. He took Borg to five sets in 1978 in the Italian Open final which was one of the most bias matches I have ever seen in terms of lines calls. The linescalling was to be nice unbelievable. Borg also had objects tossed at him but somehow won the match. Maybe Stan Smith overcame more in his Davis Cup match against Tiriac but I'm not sure.

Pecci was another player who was fantastic when he was on his game. Borg actually led in the third set of that French Open final they play I believe by 5-2. Just one more game to win in straights but Pecci played three great games to tie and eventually win the set.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Panatta was a fantastic clay court player but he didn't beat Borg again after Borg reached his best years starting in 1977. He took Borg to five sets in 1978 in the Italian Open final which was one of the most bias matches I have ever seen in terms of lines calls. The linescalling was to be nice unbelievable. Borg also had objects tossed at him but somehow won the match. Maybe Stan Smith overcame more in his Davis Cup match against Tiriac but I'm not sure.

Pecci was another player who was fantastic when he was on his game. Borg actually led in the third set of that French Open final they play I believe by 5-2. Just one more game to win in straights but Pecci played three great games to tie and eventually win the set.

Now that you mention it, Smith always played great DC tennis , he was extremely motivated for DC, in John mc Enroe´s way.While he was a lousy clay courter, he somehow managed to beat the likes of Nastase,Tiriac,Pala and Kodes on clay, just when they played DC.

Who do you think was the more complete man, Kodes or Smith? While Stan´s record is great indoors and grass and bad ( except heroic DC ties) on clay, Kodes never outstood indoors but has an amazing clay and grass record.Tough call.At FH, fi, they both shared wins...

[Q&M son]

Originally Posted by pc1

Orantes is one of my favorites of all time. I had the good luck of seeing him play numerous matches at the 1975 US Open which he won.

Great player, agree.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Now that you mention it, Smith always played great DC tennis , he was extremely motivated for DC, in John mc Enroe´s way.While he was a lousy clay courter, he somehow managed to beat the likes of Nastase,Tiriac,Pala and Kodes on clay, just when they played DC.

Who do you think was the more complete man, Kodes or Smith? While Stan´s record is great indoors and grass and bad ( except heroic DC ties) on clay, Kodes never outstood indoors but has an amazing clay and grass record.Tough call.At FH, fi, they both shared wins...

The ATP doesn't have the best records but Smith was pretty good on clay. I recall him winning a few clay court tournaments in his day.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...mith.aspx?t=mr

Here's Jan Kodes on clay. Yes I agree Kodes' clay court record was better because of his French titles but Smith wasn't bad.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...odes.aspx?t=mr

Kiki,

For fun, please compare Smith and Kodes at their peaks stroke by stroke. There is no wrong in this analysis. You brought it up on who was the more complete player.

A couple of no brainers. Smith on serve, volley and overhead. Kodes on backhand and speed.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

The ATP doesn't have the best records but Smith was pretty good on clay. I recall him winning a few clay court tournaments in his day.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...mith.aspx?t=mr

Here's Jan Kodes on clay. Yes I agree Kodes' clay court record was better because of his French titles but Smith wasn't bad.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...odes.aspx?t=mr

Kiki,

For fun, please compare Smith and Kodes at their peaks stroke by stroke. There is no wrong in this analysis. You brought it up on who was the more complete player.

A couple of no brainers. Smith on serve, volley and overhead. Kodes on backhand and speed.

Kodes had a better BH, return and speed, while Stan dominated at the serve and overhead.I´d give Smith a small edge at the FH, but Kodes was as good if not a better volleyer, if you don´t count S&V ( which aided so much Smith because of his big serve and terrific reach).They are quite even.Both had great courage, too.

[The-Champ]

Where does Nadal stand now in Clay GOAT list? Has he tied or surpassed Borg?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Where does Nadal stand now in Clay GOAT list? Has he tied or surpassed Borg?

I created this thread in May of 2009 (before the French Open that year). At the time Nadal was behind Borg in Roland Garros wins - he only had 4 at that stage - so I had Nadal at second. But given that Nadal is at 7 now (and with all his other clay titles) - I think we now have to proclaim him number 1 all time on the surface. He will eventually get the record for the most open era clay titles (Vilas holds that record for the time being), but even if he doesn't he still is the best of all time on that surface.

(I will say that I am certain that Borg would have won the 1977 and 1982 French Opens if he had competed in them - but that's down to him - Nadal shouldn't be penalised because Borg didn't show up).

[ctromano]

no no no...

#1 NADAL
#2 Borg
#3 Evert
#4 GUGA
#5 MUSTER
#6 Federer

[timnz]

Do we view Federer's losses to Nadal on Clay (being the majority of matches they have played against each other) in a more positive light? After all Federer lost to the best player of all time on the surface! Hence, he isn't doing at all bad playing Nadal hard on all but one of the matches (I am only aware of the French Open 2008 being the only time that Nadal completely overwhelmed Federer on that surface). Keep in mind that Clay is Federer's worst surface. So playing the best clay player of all time on your worst surface - not so bad if you lose. And to get a couple of wins - well that's just cream.

My feeling is that it is exactly the same case with Borg and McEnroe - if the majority of matches they had played had been on clay (as it turned on, they didn't even play one). McEnroe might have just 1 victory on clay against Borg at most.