Is Nadal Greatest Clay Court Player Ever?

The following is an excerpt from this week's Sports Illustrated tennis column. Was wondering if people feel rafa can be considered greatest clay courter ONLY if he matches Borg's 6 French titles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is such a weird time in the men's game. We're in the throes of the Gilded Age of Federer, a player we're all (self included) poised to call the Greatest of All-Time. Obscured by this aura is the niggling reality that on clay, it's the guy ranked No. 2 who is absolutely dominating.

It's not that Nadal owns Federer on the dirt. It's that he owns everyone! The guy is closing in on 70 straight clay-court matches, this at a time when the men's field has never been deeper. Before beating Federer in straight sets of the Monte Carlo event -- still another Masters Series title -- Nadal was surrendering an average of four games a match during the tournament.

And much as we hate this line of "reasoning," rev up a tape of Borg or Vilas, watch where their shots land, take note of the pace, and I defy you to tell me either would stand a chance against Nadal. Heresy, I know. But, I'm telling you, it wouldn't be close.

The problem with putting your chips on active players in these discussions is that their luck can change. Nadal goes on an inexplicable Guillermo Coria-like losing streak, and suddenly he's not such a force of nature. But the way things are going, and barring a radical change, he's on his way to becoming tennis' BMOC: best man on clay.

I think so. I don't like it, but I think so. Nadal is more than a counterpuncher.

Chris Evert/Bjorn Borg


But I agree he would destroy Borg if they were to play in their "prime".

Doubt Nadal could get a 1st serve in if he had to play with a wood racquet.

Absurd comparison from Wertheim, imagine if baseball allowed metal bats, no one would even try to compare eras, major records would fall every year. How old is Wertheim anyway? 35? Yeah, he's an expert allright. I'll bet anything he's never seen Borg play live.

Moose Malloy said:

Doubt Nadal could get a 1st serve in if he had to play with a wood racquet.

Absurd comparison from Wertheim, imagine if baseball allowed wooden bats, no one would even try to compare eras, major records would fall every year.

Click to expand...

With a couple of months to get used to a wooden racquet, the feel and the reduced headsize, I think he could be a great matchup against Borg.

Moose Malloy said:

Doubt Nadal could get a 1st serve in if he had to play with a wood racquet.

Absurd comparison from Wertheim, imagine if baseball allowed wooden bats, no one would even try to compare eras, major records would fall every year.

Click to expand...

doesnt baseball only allow wooden bats?

As much as I like him I still have to put Borg above him. But if Nadal keeps this up he will be before his career is over. If he wins this French for the third time in a row I would put him second to Borg. All the Muster-Guga fanboys can kiss it.

you people think he can outrun borg?

seriously?

Borg had a better backhand, better serve,better volleys, never ever ever ever got tired, ever.And is also the fastest player of all time.

The only shot comparable to one of borg's he has in his artillary is his forehand, but I think you people forget the the incredible power and spin borg generated with his wooden racquet, (he had a bigger ground strokes than lendl btw, and we all know how big lendl hit with his modern '90's racquet).

With a couple of months to get used to a wooden racquet, the feel and the reduced headsize, I think he could be a great matchup against Borg.

Click to expand...

I guess you could say the same thing if Borg got hold of a Babolat with lux strings when he was 20. Wonder what Nadal's unforced error count would be with a wood racquet. And more importantly, his winner count. Borg's racquet was the size of a toothpick compared to Nadal's, I'm not sure Nadal is the cleanest hitter of the ball around today, so a 65 sq inch wood racquet with no flexibility probably wouldn't make him look so good.

The changes in racquet technology effectively ended anyway to compare eras. Considering Borg was more of a freak of nature relative to his peers than Nadal(he was almost the only guy who could hit with topspin consistently with wood, & he strung his racquets at 80 ilbs! No one before or since ever played with that high a tension), I think he'd do fine had he been born 30 years later.

Its a shame the top players aren't timed over the years, I'm curious if Nadal's speed is in the same league as Borg(who outsprinted an olympic hurdler in the 70s)

That's something that could be used to compare eras, if they started timing all the top 10 players, & compare every 5 years to see if anything has changed. Somehow I doubt its changed much, tennis players aren't really covering that much ground per point on average.

perfect post, Gorilla

Borg could handle high looping balls from Nadal to the backhand too. Nadal doesn't have any shot that would hurt Borg on clay in his prime, and he lacks Borg's consistency-- believe it or not-- and variety.

No he is not, other great players have yet to exist.

IMHO, I think he is.

I would rate nadal as high as vilas, and like vilas he would be left shaking his head as borg won every.single.rally.

Yeah it was amazing to see Borg thrash Vilas. Vilas was so fit, so strong, a human backboard that could play all day(& with "lefty" spin). Yet he still couldn't keep up with Borg.
So many of the games they played at the '78 French Open went to deuce or ad Vilas, yet Borg won almost every one of those games. Throwing out any physical comparisons between players of different eras, I don't think there has ever been anyone as mentally tough as Borg. No matter what the score, no matter how long the rally was, he simply wouldn't miss when it mattered.

In terms of long rallies, I think Borg probably played & won more long rallies than anyone in the history of the game. His resting heart rate was like that of a marathon runner.

his resting heart rate was far lower than that of a marathon runner, it was 36, the resting heart rate of a tour de france g.o.a.t.
It is incredible that one of the fittest human beings of all time played tennis.

It's not that I haven't read all this about Borg before, but the more times I read about him, the more difficult it is for me to say that you could whole-heartedly put someone ahead of him as a candidate for GOAT.

Even if Federer wins the FO, or gets more than 14 slams, it'd still be difficult to say he was greater than Borg. I don't think I can say Sampras was greater than Borg. Or even Laver.

I think we can get a sense of who the candidates for GOAT are, from one groups of players to the next. Among his peers -- Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Vilas -- I think Borg clearly has the nod for representation there. Likewise, among Sampras' peers, he has the nod. Probably likewise with Laver (although some will claim that he was not nearly as good as Hoad, Gonzales, etc). And I think the same will be true of Federer.

But in terms of really conclusively saying who the GOAT was, I don't think you can really do it.

dh003i said:

It's not that I haven't read all this about Borg before, but the more times I read about him, the more difficult it is for me to say that you could whole-heartedly put someone ahead of him as a candidate for GOAT.

Even if Federer wins the FO, or gets more than 14 slams, it'd still be difficult to say he was greater than Borg. I don't think I can say Sampras was greater than Borg. Or even Laver.

I think we can get a sense of who the candidates for GOAT are, from one groups of players to the next. Among his peers -- Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Vilas -- I think Borg clearly has the nod for representation there. Likewise, among Sampras' peers, he has the nod. Probably likewise with Laver (although some will claim that he was not nearly as good as Hoad, Gonzales, etc). And I think the same will be true of Federer.

But in terms of really conclusively saying who the GOAT was, I don't think you can really do it.

Click to expand...

What a breath of fresh air. Someone actually admitting it is nearly impossible to name a GOAT, even when taking slam count into consideration. I agree Borg could have been the greatest. The man was incredible. I think the only thing you can do is discuss who the greatest playERS were. We have so many 15 year olds (and older people wanting to live vicariously through his victories) around here saying Federer is already the "GOAT" when that's the only player they have really watched. :roll: I don't know if I would even consider him top 5 yet. I don't care if he even wins 20 slams I don't think I could ever call him better than a few of the greats. He just hasn't had the mentally strong and talented competition, other than Nadal who generally spanks him, so...

great post.

To the OP's question: Not yet.... Borg is the reason.

- KK

He's the best I've ever seen. I would say yes. And I'm not even hesitating.

TennisandMusic said:

What a breath of fresh air. Someone actually admitting it is nearly impossible to name a GOAT, even when taking slam count into consideration.

Click to expand...

I think everybody has admitted this at some point. It's called stating the obvious. We talk about GOAT because it's fun, same reason why baseball fans will talk about greatest team ever, most of the players of the 20's being dead notwithstanding.

TennisandMusic said:

What a breath of fresh air. Someone actually admitting it is nearly impossible to name a GOAT, even when taking slam count into consideration. I agree Borg could have been the greatest. The man was incredible. I think the only thing you can do is discuss who the greatest playERS were. We have so many 15 year olds (and older people wanting to live vicariously through his victories) around here saying Federer is already the "GOAT" when that's the only player they have really watched. :roll: I don't know if I would even consider him top 5 yet. I don't care if he even wins 20 slams I don't think I could ever call him better than a few of the greats. He just hasn't had the mentally strong and talented competition, other than Nadal who generally spanks him, so...

great post.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Every generation has its stand out competitor and people start to make comparisons, conveniently ignoring racket technology, nutrition and fitness issues, playing styles, etc. The GOAT argument is the silliest argument of them all. Playing in different eras, with all things being changed, there is no level ground upon which to make comparisons. But, it makes some people feel better...somehow!

I guess if Borg played with his trusty Donnay wood and Nadal played with his Babolat, Nadal would have the advantage. He would be able to keep balls deeper, get more spin etc. But, that's why it's difficult to compare different eras in sports. They DIDN'T use the same equipment. If Borg had grown up using what the pro's do now, he would have hit different shots--deeper shots. You don't think he could adapt?? Well, he did win 6 FO's, then turn around and win 5 Wibledons. I haven't seen Nadal do that yet. Nadal is definitely a great clay courter. But the best of all time??? Not until he reaches 6 FO's.

It's not equipment, Borg's backhand IMO would have been easy pickins' for Nadal. That two hander with one hand release backhand of his wouldn't be able to withstand Nadal's crosscourt kick forehands. I'd like to see what an in form Bruguera or Kuerten could have done, but not really Borg.

if Nadal's the best you've seen

you must not been watching or playing tennis very long. Borg is the best I've seen on the red stuff, bar none.

35ft6 said:

It's not equipment, Borg's backhand IMO would have been easy pickins' for Nadal. That two hander with one hand release backhand of his wouldn't be able to withstand Nadal's crosscourt kick forehands. I'd like to see what an in form Bruguera or Kuerten could have done, but not really Borg.

Click to expand...

Isn't that crosscourt kick forehand pretty much what Vilas was doing to him? (without much success, while we're at it)
I know, the pace, the equipment, yara yara, but I'm not sure if Nadal is generating THAT much more spin than Borg and/or Vilas. At least, not enough to REALLY bother Borg.

And for the record, no, I'm not a Nadal hater

TennisandMusic said:

What a breath of fresh air. Someone actually admitting it is nearly impossible to name a GOAT, even when taking slam count into consideration. I agree Borg could have been the greatest. The man was incredible. I think the only thing you can do is discuss who the greatest playERS were. We have so many 15 year olds (and older people wanting to live vicariously through his victories) around here saying Federer is already the "GOAT" when that's the only player they have really watched. :roll: I don't know if I would even consider him top 5 yet. I don't care if he even wins 20 slams I don't think I could ever call him better than a few of the greats. He just hasn't had the mentally strong and talented competition, other than Nadal who generally spanks him, so...

great post.

Click to expand...

For the record, I'm not saying I think Federer will end up being a second-tier great player...although if he wins the FO, there really isn't anything to knock against him.

However, once you start learning about the game, you realize that you can't make judgements about GOAT very well. Some of the people who've been alive a long time, and seen the pre-open-era players play, maybe can make better judgements.

It's easy to under-rate the old players when you've never seen them play, saying their era just wasn't physical. I'm sure that in 20, 30, 40 years, when a lot of people will have never seen Federer play (although at least they'll have DVDs, or whatever that's transferred to), people will say, "Oh, how good could he have been...that era just wasn't as strong, athletic, etc as we are now".

Obviously the part about where Borg's shots landed is not fair, since it was a different era in terms of equipment.

A better hypothetical is how Nadal would do against a prime Kuerten. That would be a great match.

I can't see Nadal getting the better of Borg (presuming equipment equal). Borg was an extreme athlete who I don't think would stuggle in any era. Borg's leg strength was tested and shown to be stronger than any other Sweedish athlete. Borg had a resting heart rate of just over 30 beats per minute. Nadal is physically fit and fast, but not that amazing. Borg also really owned the clay courters back in his day. Borg won 2 FOs without losing a set. Borg used to win many matches to the loss of just 2 or 3 games. The number of bagels this man gave on clay was incredible.

I can't see Nadal getting the better of Borg (presuming equipment equal). Borg was an extreme athlete who I don't think would stuggle in any era. Borg's leg strength was tested and shown to be stronger than any other Sweedish athlete. Borg had a resting heart rate of just over 30 beats per minute. Nadal is physically fit and fast, but not that amazing. Borg also really owned the clay courters back in his day. Borg won 2 FOs without losing a set. Borg used to win many matches to the loss of just 2 or 3 games. The number of bagels this man gave on clay was incredible.

Click to expand...

However, I think it's revealing to examine HOW he won his matches compared to how Nadal is winning. Borg simply outlasted his opponents refusing to make unforced errors and no one could compete with him on this level, especially with the lack of power afforded by wood rackets in those days. Nadal, on the other hand, outlasts his opponents AND overpowers them. Typically he pounces on any short balls and exploits any opportunities to take control of the point. Borg was not nearly as ruthless in this respect, and I don't think he could ever get away against a Nadal utilizing the topspin hit semi-moon ball that was the stable of his day.

Not saying he couldn't adjust given today's technology, just not sure if he would be nearly as dominant employing a more aggressive style that I believe today's clay court game requires.

snapple said:

However, I think it's revealing to examine HOW he won his matches compared to how Nadal is winning. Borg simply outlasted his opponents refusing to make unforced errors and no one could compete with him on this level, especially with the lack of power afforded by wood rackets in those days. Nadal, on the other hand, outlasts his opponents AND overpowers them. Typically he pounces on any short balls and exploits any opportunities to take control of the point. Borg was not nearly as ruthless in this respect, and I don't think he could ever get away against a Nadal utilizing the topspin hit semi-moon ball that was the stable of his day.

Click to expand...

Borg had far more diversity to his game than simply outlasting his oponents, although this was the stratergy that he often used to much effect. Borg won 5 Wimbledon titles and could play more aggressive tennis and at the net too if neccessary. Borg was a very powerfull power too when he wanted to be. Borg beat Lendl when Lendl was playing with a graphite racket. It is a common misconception to say that wood rackets are far less powerfull. You just need to hit the very small sweet spot on the racket to generate the power. The topspin Borg could generate with a wood racket was remarkable, and Borg had no trouble dealing with others top spin either.

it's absurd to compare guys from the past to today in actual court play. how many home runs would babe ruth hit against today's pitchers? of course, today he'd be juiced too.

..... nadal would destroy borg circa-1975. but borg in 2007 with modern racquet would be a different story. i think borg was better on clay relative to his peers. alot of bagels at FO, unheard of today (although again era's are tricky to compare)

i think nadal's competition for clay greatness are vilas, borg and muster. sorry if there's someone older i forgot. (maybe laver)

i don't know alot about muster but when they showed rafa's clay streak and the top 6-7 streaks, muster had two separated by a few months. two quasi-nadal streaks on clay.

Borg had far more diversity to his game than simply outlasting his oponents, although this was the stratergy that he often used to much effect. Borg won 5 Wimbledon titles and could play more aggressive tennis and at the net too if neccessary. Borg was a very powerfull power too when he wanted to be. Borg beat Lendl when Lendl was playing with a graphite racket. It is a common misconception to say that wood rackets are far less powerfull. You just need to hit the very small sweet spot on the racket to generate the power. The topspin Borg could generate with a wood racket was remarkable, and Borg had no trouble dealing with others top spin either.

Click to expand...

All true. Just don't think he ever faced anyone with the power and consistency the likes of Nadal. The 20 year old Lendl was just too inexperienced and prone to choking to rise to the occasion. I've watched too many highlights of his matches when a ball he hit barely reached the service line, took a big bounce due to the topspin, yet is merely bunted back in response - I just can't help but think that Nadal (or Fed for that matter) would never let him get away with that. I can even envision Agassi mercilessly pouncing on those shots on the rise and drilling them to the corners. If nothing else, Borg would be forced to utilize many more of his skills to which you refer in order to prevail. Whether that would have translated to 6 FO wins can only be left to speculation.

snapple said:

All true. Just don't think he ever faced anyone with the power and consistency the likes of Nadal. The 20 year old Lendl was just too inexperienced and prone to choking to rise to the occasion. I've watched too many highlights of his matches when a ball he hit barely reached the service line, took a big bounce due to the topspin, yet is merely bunted back in response - I just can't help but think that Nadal (or Fed for that matter) would never let him get away with that. I can even envision Agassi mercilessly pouncing on those shots on the rise and drilling them to the corners. If nothing else, Borg would be forced to utilize many more of his skills to which you refer in order to prevail. Whether that would have translated to 6 FO wins can only be left to speculation.

Click to expand...

are people disagreeing? i haven't read too closely......

just read a borg book (by romanian first wife). borg was an amazing athlete. beat european 110 metres hurdle champion at 400 meters hurdles. i mean, that's amazing athleticism. and very, very well conditioned (as is rafa)

borg playing his 1976 shots would get killed by nadal. double-bagelled at least....... borg with today's racquet's would probably play a completely different game.....

i think we need to compare their greatness.... and agreed it's somewhat pointless but entertaining.... easier to see in baseball, but how do you compare mays/mantle/aaron to bonds/"prime" griffeyJR/A-Rod? they're all great.

Maybe.. but I think Gustavo Kuerten was better in his prime.

snapple said:

All true. Just don't think he ever faced anyone with the power and consistency the likes of Nadal. The 20 year old Lendl was just too inexperienced and prone to choking to rise to the occasion. I've watched too many highlights of his matches when a ball he hit barely reached the service line, took a big bounce due to the topspin, yet is merely bunted back in response - I just can't help but think that Nadal (or Fed for that matter) would never let him get away with that. I can even envision Agassi mercilessly pouncing on those shots on the rise and drilling them to the corners. If nothing else, Borg would be forced to utilize many more of his skills to which you refer in order to prevail. Whether that would have translated to 6 FO wins can only be left to speculation.

Click to expand...

Borg landed spectacular wins against many clay courters. Borg holds a winning record against the following great clay courters on red clay: Vilas, Connors, Panatta, Lendl, Willander, Orantes. Have you ever tried playing with a wood racket? Nadal would not be able to attack Borg's shots with wood. The sweet spot is so small that Nadal would likely make many more errors and generate less top spin. Borg with a modern racket would generate at least as much topspin as Nadal. You seem to think that Nadal's variety is some how greater than Borg's. Borg's Wimbledon titles (where he S&V nearly every 1st serve) clearly prove this is not the case. Borg could probabely outgrind Nadal without even using this aspect of his game. Do you really think that the likes of Federer and Agassi could put away Borg's shots with like equipment? Agassi was ownded by Lendl, who was of course a worse version of Borg in many respects, a worse grinder with less variety. Wilander bageled Agassi on clay, so I don't know how you come to the conlusin that Agassi could put away Borg's shots on clay. Federer struggles enough with Nadal, Borg would probabely be worse for him, or at least similar. Borg's 6 FO titles are not even the most impressive part of his FO story. It is how he won the FO titles. Borg won 6 of 8 FO titles, 2 without the loss of a set, lost to just one player (Pannata), holds a 5 set record of 5-0 there, won 4 consecutive titles before retiring. Borg would undoubtably have won more if he had played on, Wilander admits himself that he would have no chance of beating Borg at the FO in 1982.

Borg simply outlasted his opponents refusing to make unforced errors and no one could compete with him on this level, especially with the lack of power afforded by wood rackets in those days. Nadal, on the other hand, outlasts his opponents AND overpowers them. Typically he pounces on any short balls and exploits any opportunities to take control of the point. Borg was not nearly as ruthless in this respect, and I don't think he could ever get away against a Nadal utilizing the topspin hit semi-moon ball that was the stable of his day.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true, I've watched both the 1978 & 1980 French Open final in their entirety recently & Borg would punish anything short(his forehand seems very like Sampras' to me) Just watching a few clips on youtube doesn't really give you the whole picture. He even S&Ved on occasion. He came in more than Lendl ever did on clay. Off course short ball has a new meaning today, but going back to racquets, its impossible to punish the short balls of today with wood.

Yes, most of his game on clay was based on not missing, but Borg was a complete player who had a hell of a lot more variety, power, etc than Eddie Dibbs or Harold Solomon(now those guys more accurately reflect 'moon ball' players than Borg ever did)

Borg won 5 Wimbledons, 2 masters-how aggressive do you think he was there? you think he hit moonballs on grass/carpet? the guy hit more volleys in one match at Wimbledon than Nadal does in a year. And more aces/service winners.

I think everyone on this thread should go out & play a match with a wood racquet today, its very odd to me that so many seem clueless that many aspects of nadal's evolved from graphite being introduced 25 years ago, it is simply impossible to play the way he does with wood, esp with those grips. Borg was the only guy that could hit with heavy top in his time, do you think that's because no one else tried? or because it was so hard to do with that equipment?

Its well documeted what a freak of nature he was athletically-his resting heart rate, his blowing away pro soccer players in training sessions, him being among the strongest athletes in his country(not just compared to tennis players in his country, all athletes!) I wonder what Nadals' heart rate is & how he compares to soccer players, athletically (like is he a better athlete than his uncle-the beast of barcelona?)

This thread is bizarre to me, kinda like someone saying that Dr. J or Michael Jordan couldn't compete with todays NBA players because they aren't athletic/skilled enough! Borg may or may not be the best player of alltime, but his is the best tennis athlete, & yet he couldn't adapt to todays game? Guess tennis requires no athleticism, that a superathlete who won 11 majors playing with a racquet the size of a toothpick couldn't be greatly helped by playing with a racquet the size of a 747. haven't we all been helped by larger racquets?

Ultimately I could just post this everytime someone tries to compare the 2, since people are trying to compare something that cannot be compared:

Borg's racquet-65 sq inches(strung at 80 ilbs, lol at those who don't think he was strong compared to todays players), with no flexibility at all & a sweetspot the size of an acorn.

Its a shame we'll never see an atp event with wood to once & for all prove that equipment is more responsible for the evolution of the game than any other factor.

I saw a wood racquet doubles exo between Nalbandian/Gaudio & Vilas/Clerc last year, you would have thought Nalbandian was a 3.5(or less) on the basis of that. I think Clerc would have double bageled him had they played a match(& he's in his 40s)
Wish it was on youtube, since so much of what appears there is what people use to make judgments on players apparently.

easier to see in baseball, but how do you compare mays/mantle/aaron to bonds/"prime" griffeyJR/A-Rod? they're all great.

Click to expand...

big difference-there are all playing with the same equipment(basically) imagine if baseball introduced metal bats, no record would be safe. and no one would want to see it, it would hurt the game worse than steroids has.

Borg never had to play the athletes of today. Tennis is way deeper now than back then. Its so hard to compare different eras in all sports, but everyone must agree that in all sports including tennis the athletes are much stronger and faster today. Now days you can't get by on just speed or a big serve, you need to be a complete player. Fed would beat borg on clay aswell as Nadal, and Guga. Sorry.

I'm not saying that Nadal & co. would beat Borg using wood rackets. What I am suggesting is that Borg's style TODAY would not be as dominant. Moreover, the modern version Borg would be playing the game not on the same terms that would was so clearly the master of in his day. None of the players you cited ever put him in a position in which he was truly under relentless pressure - once again, that was a sign of the times. His whole aura of superiority was based on unbelievably consistent ground strokes. As everyone has already agreed, that would not be sufficient today, so the question becomes would the modern Borg be able to leverage the qualities which served him so well back in the day to anywhere near the same degree? Bottom line is that while it is difficult if not impossible to compare errors, it is legitimate to question whether the skills that gave a player his main competitive advantage would translate effectively to the modern era. IMO a game like Laver's would translate much better...and yes I realize Borg was a great athlete, fast runner...etc.

Finally, what he accomplished at Wimby, while obviously incredible, was due in large measure to his amazing return of serve and passing shots - strokes that would not be as critical on clay even today (especially against Nadal).

Borg never had to play the athletes of today.

Click to expand...

have any of todays players played an athlete of Borg's level?

did you miss the resting heart rate part, 80 ilbs racquet tension, blowing away soccer players, outsprinting an olympic hurdler, tests that proved he was one of the strongest athletes in Sweden, etc? we aren't making this stuff up.

Jackie Robinson lettered in 4 sports at UCLA in the 40s, call me delusional but somehow I think he would still have been an all star in todays MLB.

Sports get more athletic over time, yes. But that doesn't mean the best of today is better than the best of the past. Pele, Ali would still be great today(do you disagree?), so I don't think its a stretch to say Borg would still be great today.

Borg would have beaten Nadal 6-2, 6-2 or 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 almost every time they played on clay. Nadal would probably be the 5th or 6th best clay courter in another era. Todays clay court field is terrible. Federer who hates clay, absolutely cant stand clay, and is so extremely uncomfortable on it is his closest competition on clay. After Federer it is Robredo, Gaudio, and god knows who else. So Nadal pretty much wins all the clay events by default with no competition at all.

Players like Borg, Lendl, Wilander, all won over and over again against the most incredible competition. Nothing like todays field of clay court clowns.

Even though Nadal is incredibly consistent, Borg was far more consistent, if Nadal hits 10 balls point after point without error, Borg could hit 25 without error point after point. Borg looked about the same speed to me, but since that was the 70s and this is the 2000s he would be even faster then Nadal, on clay anyway, if he were in his prime today. Borg volleyed on the clay, Nadal rarely does. Borg would just have no problem with Nadal on clay at all. Borg domianted on clay vs real competition like Vilas, Nastase, Panatta, Ramirez, Dibbs, Solomon, just an incredible field of opponents. Nadal wins by default on clay by horribly uncomfortable clay courter Federer, one-slam fluke Gaudio, has been Coria, second tier Robredo or Ferrer.

Finally, what he accomplished at Wimby, while obviously incredible, was due in large measure to his amazing return of serve and passing shots - strokes that would not be as critical on clay even today (especially against Nadal).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you dismiss this as evidence that Borg couldn't adapt to todays clay game. No one gave him a shot at ever doing anything at Wimbledon around 1975. Borg worked his ass off in generating a bigger serve, taking the ball earlier, etc.
I don't think there has ever been a player who changed his game so dramatically(& we've seen what happens to players that try to change too much) & yet not lose what made him great in the 1st place.

Dunno, if the ultimate grinder could transform himself into a S&V/all court player enough to win 5 straight wimbledons, somehow it doesn't seem like much of a leap to change from a counterpuncher to an agressive counterpuncher on clay? claycourt tennis is more agressive today, but its still about making less errors, correct? didn't federer make the same amount of winners vs nadal in monte carlo? so why was that match so easy for nadal? because he didn't make any errors.
if Borg was able to change his game to hit more winners on grass, carpet, etc, why would he not be able to do it with vastly superior equipment on a surface that he grew up on?

Federer who hates clay, absolutely cant stand clay, and is so extremely uncomfortable on it is his closest competition on clay.

Click to expand...

Not true. Fed grew up on clay and has said many times that he feels quite at home on the surface. He's just not the best at it.

latinking said:

Tennis is way deeper now than back then.

Click to expand...

Manifestly not true. Tennis was far bigger and more popular then, and thus was able to draw not only a far higher percentage of the total athletes from the pool, but also a far higher percentage of the truly elite-level athletic talent.

Today, tennis is played by far fewer people on far fewer courts worldwide. Additionally, boatloads of sports have caught, surpassed, and left behind tennis in terms of professional popularity. Today's elite-level athlete has many more options available to him in terms of potential career paths. So, as kids, they are correspondingly less likely to be trained in tennis.

In general, you can always state the ranks of professional athletes (on average) of today will be bigger, faster, and better-conditioned than those of the past. But that is not the same as stating that depth is at an all time high. Tennis had way more of the world's truly great athletes in the 70's than it does today.

Werthless is such a dumb tool. I like how he claims that men's tennis has more depth today as if that somehow applies to clay.

Clay court tennis is in the worst shape its been in years. Years ago we had guys like Moya, Ferrero and Kuerten in their primes, surrounded by the likes of Corretja, Rios, Norman and Costa.

Today we have Nadal..... ehhh, Robredo.... Robredo?

Werthless strikes again.

drakulie said:

Chris Evert/Bjorn Borg


But I agree he would destroy Borg if they were to play in their "prime".

Click to expand...

Borg would grind him into submission.

Especially if one would give Nadal a wooden racket and add an extra layer of clay for 'extra slow'. He wouldn't win a set.

Moose Malloy said:

Doubt Nadal could get a 1st serve in if he had to play with a wood racquet.

Absurd comparison from Wertheim, imagine if baseball allowed metal bats, no one would even try to compare eras, major records would fall every year. How old is Wertheim anyway? 35? Yeah, he's an expert allright. I'll bet anything he's never seen Borg play live.

Click to expand...

I'll say it again. Werthless is an idiot.

snapple said:

However, I think it's revealing to examine HOW he won his matches compared to how Nadal is winning. Borg simply outlasted his opponents refusing to make unforced errors and no one could compete with him on this level, especially with the lack of power afforded by wood rackets in those days. Nadal, on the other hand, outlasts his opponents AND overpowers them. Typically he pounces on any short balls and exploits any opportunities to take control of the point. Borg was not nearly as ruthless in this respect, and I don't think he could ever get away against a Nadal utilizing the topspin hit semi-moon ball that was the stable of his day.

Not saying he couldn't adjust given today's technology, just not sure if he would be nearly as dominant employing a more aggressive style that I believe today's clay court game requires.

Click to expand...

Nadal's aggressive style would be useless in the 70's. He wouldn't be able to hit one decent passing shot with a wooden racket.

Nadal's aggressive style would be useless in the 70's. He wouldn't be able to hit one decent passing shot with a wooden racket.

Click to expand...

But my point was that Borg would have just as much trouble adopting his game to today as his largely passive style (on clay) wouldn't cut it against rafa.

Moose Malloy said:

have any of todays players played an athlete of Borg's level?

did you miss the resting heart rate part, 80 ilbs racquet tension, blowing away soccer players, outsprinting an olympic hurdler, tests that proved he was one of the strongest athletes in Sweden, etc? we aren't making this stuff up.

Jackie Robinson lettered in 4 sports at UCLA in the 40s, call me delusional but somehow I think he would still have been an all star in todays MLB.

Sports get more athletic over time, yes. But that doesn't mean the best of today is better than the best of the past. Pele, Ali would still be great today(do you disagree?), so I don't think its a stretch to say Borg would still be great today.

Click to expand...

I do think borg was a good athlete, and of course there was great ones before. But it is a fact that on average athletes are much better today.It is a fact. People are in better condition now. Yes there was great athletes back then, never said it wasn't. Today way more depth, Nadal has to face guys in the first round that would probably make quarter or semis, years ago. Way more depth. Borg only had to worry bout a few guys. Now days a player ranked 120 can play amazing.

I think Borg , Ali, willy mays, would be great today, but everyone else would not be so far behind as it was back when they was playing thier sports.