Why do people say Nadal is the undisputed clay GOAT?

D

dangalak

Banned
He isn't. :?

I mean you can call him the clay GOAT but it's hilarious to me that being a mere ONE RG behind Nadal, completely disqualifies him from the discussion. That is even more laughable once you consider that RG and slams in general didn't have the weight that they hold now. Borg skipped several RG tournaments if I recall correctly. How fair is it to judge him on something that only gained the weight it has now, after he retired?

Not to mention, the "Nadal would beat Borg" nonsense is pathetic as well. Well, yes he would. With his Babolat racket. Good luck trying to hit heavy spin with a wooden racket though. :lol:

In my book they are both co GOATs on that surface. Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.
 
Clarky21

Clarky21

Banned
dangalak said:
He isn't. :?

I mean you can call him the clay GOAT but it's hilarious to me that being a mere ONE RG behind Nadal, completely disqualifies him from the discussion. That is even more laughable once you consider that RG and slams in general didn't have the weight that they hold now. Borg skipped several RG tournaments if I recall correctly. How fair is it to judge him on something that only gained the weight it has now, after he retired?

Not to mention, the "Nadal would beat Borg" nonsense is pathetic as well. Well, yes he would. With his Babolat racket. Good luck trying to hit heavy spin with a wooden racket though. :lol:

In my book they are both co GOATs on that surface. Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.
Click to expand...



He has done more than enough. This thread is just one big fail.
 
kishnabe

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Borg is better than Nadal in my books because of his 5 Wimbledon on fast grass with an inferior game to others on grass.
 
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
First off I dislike nadal. Secondly the 8 consecutive Monte Carlo speaks for itself and who's fault is it that Borg skipped RG's??
 
Virginia

Virginia

Hall of Fame
Nobody, but nobody, has as many clay court championships as Anthony Wilding. Google him, or just check the Former Pro Player Talk forum.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Since he is. Nadal's record on clay eclipses Borg in everyway now. There is no debate, except amongst a few extreme blind Nadal haters. If Rosewall was properly recognized for his career people would be debating who is the 2nd best on clay between Borg and Rosewall right now. The end.
 
D

dangalak

Banned
RF20Lennon said:
First off I dislike nadal. Secondly the 8 consecutive Monte Carlo speaks for itself and who's fault is it that Borg skipped RG's??
Click to expand...

NadalAgassi said:
Since he is. Nadal's record on clay eclipses Borg in everyway now. There is no debate, except amongst a few extreme blind Nadal haters. If Rosewall was properly recognized for his career people would be debating who is the 2nd best on clay between Borg and Rosewall right now. The end.
Click to expand...

NadalAgassi said:
Borg only skipped the 77 French amongst years he was truly an active player. It was his choice to skip it. Evert would have about 25 slams today if she played the Australian and French through the 70s, perhaps she should be crowned the female GOAT by your logic. The previous year Borg played the French and lost to Panatta anyway, so who knows for sure what happens if he plays.

Connors was barred from the 74 French. He did not choose to skip it, he was deprived the chance. One wants to play what if Connors probably would have won it by beating Borg that year. Borg was so far his beetch at the time even beating Connors on red clay would have been nearly impossible, especialy with how easily Connors beat an improved Borg on green clay at the U.S Open next year (and yes I know green is very different from red, but even considering that). Even in 75 Connors probably would have had a real shot of beating Borg.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hood_Man

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
This is the problem with going purely by numbers IMHO. Guys like Borg, Laver, Connors etc didn't have the goals to aim for that todays players do, they were creating those goals themselves. A great athlete with a determination to meet a goal will achieve amazing things, but if we're trying to determine how "good" these guys were then it's impossible to compare them to each other.

If a player today wins 8 Wimbledons and retires happy and content, are they worse than someone who wins 9 Wimbledons in 20 years time, who then in turn retires happy and content?
Not necessarily, because the former may have carried on and gone for #9 if that was the goal at the time, and the latter would then have had to aim for 10 so on and so forth etc etc...

I wouldn't lose sleep if Nadal was the undisputed clay GOAT as he's pretty much dominated the last 8 clay seasons (or co-dominated in 2009 with Fed and 2011 with Djokovic), and numbers do come into that, they're just not everything. Nadal winning 7 French Opens alone doesn't automatically put him above Borg in my eyes.



...Although Nadal only being beaten once in 8 years and only being pushed to 5 sets once too, now that just might...

[EDIT]

If we use Greatest to mean "largest in number" however, then Nada is the Greatest French Open Player of the Open Era no doubt.
 
Last edited:
forzamilan90

forzamilan90

Legend
Nadal is the best ever on clay...Has more majors on clay than Borg, more clay titles overall (a crapload of Masters titles at clay too), better winning percentage on the surface too, not to mention sheer strength of performance and aura on the surface.
 
D

dangalak

Banned
forzamilan90 said:
Nadal is the best ever on clay...Has more majors on clay than Borg, more clay titles overall (a crapload of Masters titles at clay too), better winning percentage on the surface too, not to mention sheer strength of performance and aura on the surface.
Click to expand...

Did Masters titles even exist back then?

Not to mention what the hell does "strength of performance and aura on the surface" even mean? :lol: Are you talking about the fact that he hits 6000+ RPM FH winners while Borg couldn't?
 
forzamilan90

forzamilan90

Legend
dangalak said:
Did Masters titles even exist back then?

Not to mention what the hell does "strength of performance and aura on the surface" even mean? :lol: Are you talking about the fact that he hits 6000+ RPM FH winners while Borg couldn't?
Click to expand...

the sheer fact that just about all tennis experts claim him to be the greatest on the surface, that he has more clay titles, winning percentage, and French Opens as a whole point to him being the greatest on the surface...Dude gets taken to one 5 setter in his French Open career....that's ridiculous, one loss too. Can't argue with stuff like that. Best clay courter ever.
 
D

dangalak

Banned
forzamilan90 said:
the sheer fact that just about all tennis experts claim him to be the greatest on the surface, that he has more clay titles, winning percentage, and French Opens as a whole point to him being the greatest on the surface...Dude gets taken to one 5 setter in his French Open career....that's ridiculous, one loss too. Can't argue with stuff like that. Best clay courter ever.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority/popularity. :)

Tony48 said:
It means that he hardly ever loses on clay. The perception of being "unbeatable" is what the aura refers to.
Click to expand...

Same thing went for Borg. :?
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
dangalak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
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

Talker

Hall of Fame
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.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
90's Clay said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Mustard

Bionic Poster
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

Mustard

Bionic Poster
dangalak said:
Borg skipped FO tournaments more than once.
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

dangalak

Banned
Talker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole my friend. :)

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

Mustard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Mustard

Bionic Poster
dangalak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Players like Rosewall and Wilding are up there too.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
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).
 
S

Sim

Semi-Pro
dangalak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
 
D

dangalak

Banned
TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course they would be, they played in the past. :rolleyes:
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
RF20Lennon said:
Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT
Click to expand...

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.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
RF20Lennon said:
Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT
Click to expand...

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

RF20Lennon

Legend
NadalAgassi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

RF20Lennon

Legend
TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
RF20Lennon said:
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!
Click to expand...

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 ***** 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
NadalAgassi said:
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 ***** 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
RF20Lennon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Monte Carlo is the only clay event in 2008 that Federer outplayed Djokovic. At Rome Djokovic won the title while Federer lost to Stepanek (who IIRC was getting bageled by Djokovic and quit mid match). At Hamburg Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and on fire Nadal, then Federer could not even beat a fatigued (due to the Djokovic war) and much weaker Nadal the next day. At Roland Garros Federer was playing very poor tennis for his standards, but got to the final through a **** easy draw, while Djokovic was playing solidly and well and had set point to go to a 4th set vs Nadal in his best clay form ever. Federer winning over Djokovic at RG 2008 is unlikely, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay in an event he wasnt in top form, which he definitely was in Monte Carlo 2008 and Roland Garros 2011, and definitely was not at Roland Garros 2008. A subpar Federer is not good enough to beat Djokovic on clay period. Meanwhile their H2H in 2008-2009 on clay is 1-1 so it is not like Federer had an edge in that sense either.
 
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
NadalAgassi said:
Monte Carlo is the only event in 2008 that Federer outplayed Djokovic. At Rome Djokovic won the title while Federer lost to Stepanek (who IIRC was getting bageled by Djokovic and quit mid match). At Hamburg Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and on fire Nadal, then Federer could not even beat a fatigued (due to the Djokovic war) and much weaker Nadal the next day. At Roland Garros Federer was playing very poor tennis for his standards, but got to the final through a **** easy draw, while Djokovic was playing solidly and well and had set point to go to a 4th set vs Nadal in his best clay form ever. Federer winning over Djokovic at RG 2008 is unlikely, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay in an event he wasnt in top form, which he definitely was in Monte Carlo 2008 and Roland Garros 2011, and definitely was not at Roland Garros 2008. A subpar Federer is not good enough to beat Djokovic on clay period. Meanwhile their H2H in 2008-2009 on clay is 1-1 so it is not like Federer had an edge in that sense either.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything that you said except that I think Fed wouldve won because Djokovic was not as comfortable moving on clay back then in 2008 also that the reason nadal edged him in hamburg was because of experience same reason i think fed wouldve ousted him again just my opinion
 
D

dangalak

Banned
NadalAgassi said:
Monte Carlo is the only clay event in 2008 that Federer outplayed Djokovic. At Rome Djokovic won the title while Federer lost to Stepanek (who IIRC was getting bageled by Djokovic and quit mid match). At Hamburg Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and on fire Nadal, then Federer could not even beat a fatigued (due to the Djokovic war) and much weaker Nadal the next day. At Roland Garros Federer was playing very poor tennis for his standards, but got to the final through a **** easy draw, while Djokovic was playing solidly and well and had set point to go to a 4th set vs Nadal in his best clay form ever. Federer winning over Djokovic at RG 2008 is unlikely, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay in an event he wasnt in top form, which he definitely was in Monte Carlo 2008 and Roland Garros 2011, and definitely was not at Roland Garros 2008. A subpar Federer is not good enough to beat Djokovic on clay period. Meanwhile their H2H in 2008-2009 on clay is 1-1 so it is not like Federer had an edge in that sense either.
Click to expand...

Federer was like 5-0 up in the first set IIRC. One of his more impressive collapses.

You act like it was an unremarkable straight set affair.

And yes, Djokovic woulda probably wonin RG.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
RF20Lennon said:
I agree with everything that you said except that I think Fed wouldve won because Djokovic was not as comfortable moving on clay back then in 2008 also that the reason nadal edged him in hamburg was because of experience same reason i think fed wouldve ousted him again just my opinion
Click to expand...

Fair enough. We will never know for sure. It is too bad they dont have a bronze match between the losing semifinalists, and a silver match between the winning bronze match winner and losing finalist IF they didnt already play in the semis, lol! Actually I wish the Olympic would have something like that for the winning bronze medal game winner and losing finalist if they didnt meet in the semis, as sometimes I think the former would end up winning.


dangalak said:
Federer was like 5-0 up in the first set IIRC. One of his more impressive collapses.

You act like it was an unremarkable straight set affair.

And yes, Djokovic woulda probably wonin RG.
Click to expand...

Actually it was a 3 setter so I am fully aware it was not an unremarkable straight set affair. What you said is exactly why it was not so impressive a performance IMO, choking one set away badly and ultimately losing to a very fatigued Nadal on Federer's own favorite clay. Certainly doesnt stack up to what Djokovic produced vs Nadal in the semis of that event.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Virginia

Virginia

Hall of Fame
Mustard said:
Players like Rosewall and Wilding are up there too.
Click to expand...
Mustatd, if you care to check, I think you'll find that Wilding won more clay court championships than anyone else, including Nadal. I agree about Rosewall being up there also.
 
underground

underground

G.O.A.T.
First of all I hate Nadal. However he is the undisputed clay GOAT. His crazy streak on clay, 8 consecutive Monte Carlo Titles, 7 Roland Garros Titles in 8 years. In fact when Federer bagelled Rafa on clay in Hamburg that was probably the best thing he's ever done.
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
underground said:
First of all I hate Nadal. However he is the undisputed clay GOAT. His crazy streak on clay, 8 consecutive Monte Carlo Titles, 7 Roland Garros Titles in 8 years. In fact when Federer bagelled Rafa on clay in Hamburg that was probably the best thing he's ever done.
Click to expand...

That was German clay so it does not count. ;)
 
S

sunof tennis

Professional
dangalak said:
You can say that he was better than Borg but the margin isn't ginormous.
Click to expand...

I think that is the point of the thread. By anology, one could say that Fed is better than Pete becuase of his overall numbers, but it is not fair to say it is undebatable. Come on people-read. I have no problem with people saying that Nadal is better on clay than Borg, but to say that is undebatable given the difficulty of comparing accross eras with the different technologies in my opinion is just wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Undisputed GOAT of Open Era?
Replies
8
Views
745
tricky
T
Shaolin
Nadal: Clay GOAT
Replies
9
Views
637
Deleted member 733170
D
M
If Federer beats Nadal at the FO he is the undisputed GOAT
2 3
Replies
136
Views
10K
Speranza
Speranza
A
What does Nadal have to do to get clay GOAT status?
Replies
12
Views
981
tenis1
tenis1
JustBob
Fed is the GOAT of arrogance.
Replies
34
Views
4K
norcal
norcal
Top