You are entitled to your opinion. Grass is still grass, but three different surfaces is a huge distinction. The depth of hc today blows away the depth of grass in the 60s. I'm pretty sure if you take away the hc slam with only 2 surfaces, Nadal would win a lot more. Similar to Fed if there wasn't no slam on clay...he would win more. Just to show that having the 3rd surface makes it more challenging and hence win less.
I guess "blows away" is in the eyes of the beholder.You are entitled to your opinion. Grass is still grass, but three different surfaces is a huge distinction. The depth of hc today blows away the depth of grass in the 60s. I'm pretty sure if you take away the hc slam with only 2 surfaces, Nadal would win a lot more. Similar to Fed if there wasn't no slam on clay...he would win more. Just to show that having the 3rd surface makes it more challenging and hence win less.
This argument about no hard court slams in Laver's time and before and a bit later is such nonsense in my opinion. Remember the argument can go any way you want it.
Here's an argument for you and I want to point out that I don't necessarily believe this is true but can any of you tell me it wouldn't be true?
Fact-Grass was faster in the old days at Wimbledon and the US Open with terrible bounces. Very often the ball wouldn't bounce at all. You couldn't hit a lot of groundstrokes with heavy topspin then. It's really a different surface today.
Fact-Wooden racquets are smaller and less powerful.
Fact-Strings aren't as good as today and the strings at that time combined with the smaller racquets allow less spin.
Fact-Federer, Djokovic and Nadal never played on the faster and poorly maintained (with very bad bounces) grass of Wimbledon, the Australian and the US Open.
Theory-A serve and volleyer at that time would try to kick serves to Federer's weaker backhand return.
Federer or Nadal or Djokovic may have to change their swing patterns to adapt to the old conditions.
Fact-They have NEVER won a grass tournament on the old fast grass while Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Newcombe, Borg, Connors, Gonzalez and McEnroe have.
Theory-With bad bounces (especially at the West Side Tennis Club), one player can have a bunch of lucky bounces and upset a player.
Can anyone prove Federer, Nadal or Djokovic can win on the old fast grass under the old conditions? The answer would be no.
Do I think it hurts them in any way? The answer is no because it's ridiculous to even ask that question and it is also ridiculous to ask about it being tougher to win a hard court major. Frankly with Laver's super solid strokes and power I would bet he would easily have won a number of hard court majors and I think players like Nadal would win on the old fast grass and old wooden racquets. Nadal would have adapted.
But I could make that ridiculous argument.
Point is this. All of this guys don't have to prove anything. They all won on every surface.
If Nadal was healthy at the 2009 French and Federer did not win that tournament, do I think Federer wasn't an excellent clay player? NO, I would still think so.
Guys like Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Rosewall, Federer, Nadal have won on every surface.
I think the answer to your questions can be answered by career W/L stats. If for example, Borg or Laver had a depreciated ratio relative to other surfaces, it would suggest a problem. If W/L stats are basically similar, then presuming eventual similar success in a major on hard is a good bet. Luck and circumstance can play a role in four majors in a specific. Its harder to explain over seasons of hard court tennis.
Borg was also wonderful on indoor surface. He had a superior head to head against McEnroe on that surface and McEnroe was at least the number 2 on that surface for the decade of the 80s. So another surface of strength for Borg.
Borg was also wonderful on indoor surface. He had a superior head to head against McEnroe on that surface and McEnroe was at least the number 2 on that surface for the decade of the 80s. So another surface of strength for Borg.
Good Point.Even if Indoor has almost gone off, we must consider it as a measure of greatness, along grass,hard and clay.That would make climb up in the rankings guys like Mc Enroe,Lendl,Becker,Sampras,Federer...and Nastase
Kiki,
Your mention of Nastase is inspired. Nastase at his best would give almost anyone would ever played some problems and he didn't have a weak surface.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Na/I/Ilie-Nastase.aspx?t=mr
If Nastase played Andre Agassi, both at their best on red clay, medium indoors, hard court and grass I may very well pick Nastase, as long as Nastase doesn't go totally overboard.
BTW, Borg never won a slam on hc. Kuerten was awefully good on clay, but never pass the QF at the AO and the USO.
Kiki,
Your mention of Nastase is inspired. Nastase at his best would give almost anyone would ever played some problems and he didn't have a weak surface.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Na/I/Ilie-Nastase.aspx?t=mr
If Nastase played Andre Agassi, both at their best on red clay, medium indoors, hard court and grass I may very well pick Nastase, as long as Nastase doesn't go totally overboard.
I think that Agassi's steadiness is underappreciated on TT. Becker, one of the biggest hitters ever, explained that his problem against Agassi was that Agassi hit harder than he did, AND was steadier than he was.
With Agassi's unprecedented combination of power and consistency, I don't see Nastase having a winning record against Agassi on any surface except, perhaps, clay, which would neutralize Agassi's power and reward Nastase's touch and versatility. Nastase might have some success against Agassi on grass, but, only because grass rewards foot speed which, in addition to great hitting on the run, Nastase had in abundance, and Agassi had neither.
1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Laver
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Borotra
11. Drobny
12. Santana
13. Gimeno
14. Vilas
15. Federer
16. Courier
17. Muster
Possibly but remember I'm talking about Nastase at his best and at his best he was able to beat Jimmy Connors at his best, not all the time but quite often.
One thing Agassi used to say was that Mecir gave him the most problems of any player he ever played. Funny thing was that I think they played only once unless there were some exhibitions I didn't know of. My point is that Mecir was a very fast player with great touch, very similar to Nastase in that respect but he didn't come close to Nastase's effectiveness on serve.
Possibly but remember I'm talking about Nastase at his best and at his best he was able to beat Jimmy Connors at his best, not all the time but quite often.
One thing Agassi used to say was that Mecir gave him the most problems of any player he ever played. Funny thing was that I think they played only once unless there were some exhibitions I didn't know of. My point is that Mecir was a very fast player with great touch, very similar to Nastase in that respect but he didn't come close to Nastase's effectiveness on serve.
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.
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.
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.
Mecir only success against only swedish players.
Borg played exactly four majors on hard courts in his career. Only four.
Not four, it's five as per my information..
Not four, it's five as per my information..
Pancho would agree. He said that even at his very best, Hoad could beat him.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.?)
Here we are--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
Roddick, no doubt is the best clay courter
N°1 Nadal
And Federer would have been clay goat if nadal just kept playin "padel"
Here we are--
How is Borg still above Nadal now?
How is Borg still above Nadal now?
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.
I agree with TMF about opinions. That's his opinion. My opinion is different.THERE'S NO FACT, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION IS TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN ANY PREVIOUS ERA IN ANY SURFACE, ESPECIALLY ON HC.
I agree with TMF about opinions. That's his opinion. My opinion is different.
I may regard my opinion as more logical and more supported by evidence, but that's just my opinion.
THERE'S NO FACT, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION IS TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN ANY PREVIOUS ERA IN ANY SURFACE, ESPECIALLY ON HC.
I know that the dimensions of the court have not changed. Have the dimensions of the ball changed much?Finally, clay is the only surface that has remained relatively unchanged.That is why, IMO, clay is the surface were we can be more objective in comparing today´s and former players.
Of course, I don´t get into the matherials, balls, rackets and strings which have changed so much that it is almost impossible to make a fair comparison.
I know that the dimensions of the court have not changed. Have the dimensions of the ball changed much?
(Weren't all tennis balls back in the 20s or 30s pressureless?)
1. Borg-Nadal (co-number ones)
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
Federer doesn't belong on the list. But for Nadal's bad knees, Soderling would never had eliminated him in 2009, and Ralph would have, yet, another win in a major final against Federer. Nastase, on the other hand, should be much higher on the list near Vilas. He was a master clay court player.