2006 Federer versus Borg on clay

[Nadalgaenger]

I have tremendous respect for Borg and his dominance on clay, but it is worth asking how Federer in his prime would have done against Borg. After all, the only man capable of beating Fed in his prime on clay was Nadal, and most of us would agree that Nadal>Borg on clay, based on the assumption that Nadal had all of Borg's athleticism, consistency, and endurance plus a great deal more power.

Keep an open mind. Watch the following two clips. The first is Borg in 1981 vs. Lendl. What I notice here is that the speed of the rally is so painfully slow that Lendl is literally standing still after striking the ball. There is minimal feet movement. It looks almost like two club players having a casual hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XssIt7dUnag

The second is the brilliant 2006 Rome final. Watch Federer take it to Nadal here and put him on the ropes (especially in set 4). I honestly feel that Federer's level here is one of the highest ever seen on clay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8X-bdLkWs

Of course most here will declare Borg superior based on his superior results, but how can one argue that Borg would have dominated 2006 Federer after watching these videos? And yes, I am aware of the limitations of a wooden racket and the slower clay conditions. I have played with a wooden racket numerous times and find them perfectly manageable honestly.

 

[MichaelNadal]

:lol: I just thought of this matchup earlier.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Borg will win almost everytime they face, he was that good but the matches won't be a blowout. They will remain much closer than what people think. Fed was once an excellent clay courter.

 

[jg153040]

That is interesting. Because Borg wasn't a lefty and Federer wouldn't have a matchup issue with him.

What is Fed's win % compared to Borg in their primes if we don't count Rafa losses?

 

[jg153040]

Borg will win almost everytime they face, he was that good but the matches won't be a blowout. They will remain much closer than what people think. Fed was once an excellent clay courter.

Yeah, we have to assume Borg would have a winning h2h, but I think Fed would do a lot better than vs Nadal.

Borg is not as good as Nadal and also not a bad matchup vs Federer. So, Fed would probably take quite a few clay tournaments from Borg.

Rafa stopped Federer from like tons of RG titles and master titles.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

That is interesting. Because Borg wasn't a lefty and Federer wouldn't have a matchup issue with him.

What is Fed's win % compared to Borg in their primes if we don't count Rafa losses?

Federer lost 3 matches on clay in 2006--all to Nadal.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

What weapons does Borg have that would trouble Federer? I honestly can't identify any obvious ones. He was basically the prototypical grinder. Please show me a Borg highlight reel that is more dazzling than 2006 Federer on clay.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Yeah, we have to assume Borg would have a winning h2h, but I think Fed would do a lot better than vs Nadal.

Borg is not as good as Nadal and also not a bad matchup vs Federer. So, Fed would probably take quite a few clay tournaments from Borg.

Rafa stopped Federer from like tons of RG titles and master titles.

Like I said the matches will be close than its versus Nadal, against whom Fed suffers a terrible matchup disadvantage (including mentally) and Nadal being a superior claycourter to Borg IMHO. But Borg will most definitely win more often than not due to being the better clay courter

 

[Nadalgaenger]

If Lendl was able to stand still and watch his ball go over the net without any split step or special prep, then we can assume Borg almost never attacked the way a modern player would. Basically we are watching a moonball exchange.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Like I said the matches will be close than its versus Nadal, against whom Fed suffers a terrible matchup disadvantage (including mentally) and Nadal being a superior claycourter to Borg IMHO. But Borg will most definitely win more often than not due to being the better clay courter

Ok, well I fully agree about Nadal being a nightmare matchup for Fed. But Nadal can rip unbelievable spin into Fed's backhand at will and STILL 2006 Fed was able to take it to Nadal. He also took a 6-1 set off Nadal at the French that year.

So maybe we can conclude that Borg is more steady/consistent on the clay whereas Fed can achieve higher peaks?

 

[NatF]

Relative to era's Borg was much much better. That's all that matters. Comparing Borg with 70's technology and training to Federer of 30 years later is inherently unfair.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Ok, well I fully agree about Nadal being a nightmare matchup for Fed. But Nadal can rip unbelievable spin into Fed's backhand at will and STILL 2006 Fed was able to take it to Nadal. He also took a 6-1 set off Nadal at the French that year.

So maybe we can conclude that Borg is more steady/consistent on the clay whereas Fed can achieve higher peaks?

No. Borg had one of the most dominant slam at RG in 1978 which is easily comparable to Nadal's 2008. His peak is higher than that of Fed's.

Lol stop being delusional.

 

[Russeljones]

Federer's clay game arrived later, imo. I don't think his 2006 clay tennis was as good as his 2009 clay tennis.

 

[Steve0904]

Relative to era's Borg was much much better. That's all that matters. Comparing Borg with 70's technology and training to Federer of 30 years later is inherently unfair.

Yeah. This..

 

[jg153040]

Relative to era's Borg was much much better. That's all that matters. Comparing Borg with 70's technology and training to Federer of 30 years later is inherently unfair.

I wonder if Borg played today with Nadal, and Fed played in Borg's era how many FO titles they would both have.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I have tremendous respect for Borg and his dominance on clay, but it is worth asking how Federer in his prime would have done against Borg. After all, the only man capable of beating Fed in his prime on clay was Nadal, and most of us would agree that Nadal>Borg on clay, based on the assumption that Nadal had all of Borg's athleticism, consistency, and endurance plus a great deal more power.

Keep an open mind. Watch the following two clips. The first is Borg in 1981 vs. Lendl. What I notice here is that the speed of the rally is so painfully slow that Lendl is literally standing still after striking the ball. There is minimal feet movement. It looks almost like two club players having a casual hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XssIt7dUnag

The second is the brilliant 2006 Rome final. Watch Federer take it to Nadal here and put him on the ropes (especially in set 4). I honestly feel that Federer's level here is one of the highest ever seen on clay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8X-bdLkWs

Of course most here will declare Borg superior based on his superior results, but how can one argue that Borg would have dominated 2006 Federer after watching these videos? And yes, I am aware of the limitations of a wooden racket and the slower clay conditions. I have played with a wooden racket numerous times and find them perfectly manageable honestly.

I'm pretty sure that Federer could be very competitive with Borg on clay, not only with his 2006 form. After all I think Federer is a great clay courter and was unlucky to play Nadal who is at the same time the greatest clay courter ever AND a bad match-up.

Saying that, Federer didn't play all his clay matches as he played Rome 2006 (one of my favorite match of all time) and if they played several matches on clay, I think Borg as a higher average level on clay, and therefor would win the majority of the matches.

Keep in mind that Borg knew that he could beat every grinder. Why would he attack if his opponent is content to grind? He didn't need to. But when he had to he could. He won Wimbledon 5 times...

 

[NatF]

I wonder if Borg played today with Nadal, and Fed played in Borg's era how many FO titles they would both have.

Borg would win more than Federer did and Federer would win less than Borg did. I'm pretty sure of that.

 

[jg153040]

Ok, well I fully agree about Nadal being a nightmare matchup for Fed. But Nadal can rip unbelievable spin into Fed's backhand at will and STILL 2006 Fed was able to take it to Nadal. He also took a 6-1 set off Nadal at the French that year.

So maybe we can conclude that Borg is more steady/consistent on the clay whereas Fed can achieve higher peaks?

Fed had amazing peaks on clay. He defeated god mode Nole in 2011, where Rafa couldn't take a set off Djokovic at the time.

Fed bageled Kuerten and Rafa on clay.

Also, isn't Federer undefeated vs some top clay players? Vs Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, Almagro, Ferrer. I think Fed is undefeated vs those.

Fed is very underrated on clay.

Also, when was the first time Djokovic defeated Federer on clay? It was only after in 2009.

Not to mention that Fed's peers couldn't touch him on clay.

 

[merwy]

Those guys are playing with a piece of wood. Rackets have changed so much. If you watch this match for example of 2008 between McEnroe and Borg, you see that they're already hitting the ball harder than in the video you posted. And Borg is 52 here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RklxDYoUhpw

Just shows you how much racket technology has changed

 

[TommyA8X]

Obviously if we put Fed from 06 against Borg from the 80s on clay, Borg would eat three bagels.

It's really hard to imagine what would have happened if they both had played in the 80s/00s, but I think it's fair to say Fed would've fared much, much better than against Nadal.

 

[TheMusicLover]

[ MANTRA] It. Is. Impossible. To. Compare. Different. Players. From Different. Era's Wit. Different. Circumstances, Equipment, Medics, and Coaching. [ / END MANTRA]

 

[jg153040]

Obviously if we put Fed from 06 against Borg from the 80s on clay, Borg would eat three bagels.

It's really hard to imagine what would have happened if they both had played in the 80s/00s, but I think it's fair to say Fed would've fared much, much better than against Nadal.

What if we give Borg modern racket and Fed the old racket, but Fed still having an edge of modern training and technique.

That would be interesting.

 

[nguyentuanson16792]

You can't compare technicque from 80s to Modern. And different raquet too. Tennis is always a game of improvement. This means new tennis player always plays better than old tennis player.

 

[jg153040]

You can't compare technicque from 80s to Modern. And different raquet too. Tennis is always a game of improvement. This means new tennis player always plays better than old tennis player.

Sometimes tennis is just different, not necessarily better.

If you put modern grass players on fast grass vs a great serve and volley guy, I don't think they would win.

 

[nguyentuanson16792]

What if we give Borg modern racket and Fed the old racket, but Fed still having an edge of modern training and technique.

That would be interesting.

Then Fed would hit wide and Borg would hit the net constantly

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Borg will win almost everytime they face, he was that good but the matches won't be a blowout. They will remain much closer than what people think. Fed was once an excellent clay courter.

Solid post.

The matches would be close and Fed being the great player he is (including on clay) would hang with Borg just the way he did with Nadal. It seemed that when Nadal won that one close set in the earlier stages of a match and putting just that little distance between him and Fed, he'd pull away from there. In the case of Borg, he physically (i.e. stamina-wise) was Nadal's equal if not more and thus I think he'd eventually outlast, outsteady Fed in close, competitive sets as well.

Just like Fed - eyes locked-in at contact:

Wanna tennis lesson? Here's one below. No matter what your swing path is, here's what you can take away from this:

Note the position of his head and shoulders-perfect BALANCE. Sliding into this shot and kicking up as much clay as he is in preparation to execute the stroke, Borg's upper body is so 'quiet' and completely in balance - one of the many reasons he was so utterly consistent:

 

[jg153040]

[ MANTRA] It. Is. Impossible. To. Compare. Different. Players. From Different. Era's Wit. Different. Circumstances, Equipment, Medics, and Coaching. [ / END MANTRA]

Yeah true, but even if we take that into an account, Federer doesn't have a matchup problem vs Borg and Borg is not as good as Rafa.

I think Rafa made Fed look much worse on clay than he actually is.

Fed has 5 FO finals, that is insanely good.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Relative to era's Borg was much much better. That's all that matters. Comparing Borg with 70's technology and training to Federer of 30 years later is inherently unfair.

I can't fully accept this answer. It's like saying that "relative to competition" the UCONN women's basketball team is better than any NBA team in history.

And Borg's era was only 25 years earlier. When I watch Sampras from the early 1990s I feel fully confident he could beat many modern pros today (25 year difference).

 

[Nadalgaenger]

You can't compare technicque from 80s to Modern. And different raquet too. Tennis is always a game of improvement. This means new tennis player always plays better than old tennis player.

Borg wasn't able to hang with average pros just 10 years later because the game had passed him up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJHXp_1_EM

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I'm pretty sure that Federer could be very competitive with Borg on clay, not only with his 2006 form. After all I think Federer is a great clay courter and was unlucky to play Nadal who is at the same time the greatest clay courter ever AND a bad match-up.

Saying that, Federer didn't play all his clay matches as he played Rome 2006 (one of my favorite match of all time) and if they played several matches on clay, I think Borg as a higher average level on clay, and therefor would win the majority of the matches.

Keep in mind that Borg knew that he could beat every grinder. Why would he attack if his opponent is content to grind? He didn't need to. But when he had to he could. He won Wimbledon 5 times...

Borg would not be able to stand 5 feet behind the baseline and moonball Fed the way he does Lendl in the video. Fed would step into the court and blast winners. Borg would be passive in most of the rallies against the greatest offensive player in tennis history.

 

[Earnest One]

I wonder if Borg played today with Nadal, and Fed played in Borg's era how many FO titles they would both have.

Now THIS is the relevant question!! If you are going to ask for a comparison, you have to include both--especially on clay.

In ten matches, I think Nadal would win 8-2; Federer would be 6-4. Nadal is a beast, and Federer simply has more variety.

I'd like to see a compilation of Borg's drop shots on clay. He was faster than Nadal, but he often played even further behind the baseline. Again, Federer has too much variety. Borg versus McEnroe never happened--this would have been a great barometer, especially McEnroe of 1984. IMO, Federer playing Borg would be like McEnroe with his touch (at both the baseline and at net) combined with a super solid and powerful backcourt game.

In terms of Federer, Borg beats him with consistency and speed; that and a slightly better mental game would bring Borg 4 wins out of 10. This matchup, however, would be FAR more interesting than Nadal-Borg or Nadal-Federer (where Federer should have won at least one FO final -- he had a serious mental block that started when he lost the Rome final, 2006 -- one of the greatest matches of all time).

It is interesting that some of the greatest matches ever involve Federer LOSING (to Nadal in Rome, Safin at the AO, and Nalbandian at the WTF); Wimbledon 2008 is only up there because of history and Federer's comeback; Nadal choked in the 4th set tiebreaker -- he was clearly better up till that point.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

2006 Fed nearly bageled the clay GOAT in the first set of the FO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvaNkMhy3MI

 

[Earnest One]

2006 Fed nearly bageled the clay GOAT in the first set of the FO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvaNkMhy3MI

"Nearly". Nadal came out flat. And Federer played scared after the first set. He could have (should have) won this match. He should have applied even more pressure on Nadal at the start of the 2nd set. This was a huge mistake. Winning the first set so easily actually hurt him, IMO.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Now THIS is the relevant question!! If you are going to ask for a comparison, you have to include both--especially on clay.

In ten matches, I think Nadal would win 8-2; Federer would be 6-4. Nadal is a beast, and Federer simply has more variety.

I'd like to see a compilation of Borg's drop shots on clay. He was faster than Nadal, but he often played even further behind the baseline. Again, Federer has too much variety. Borg versus McEnroe never happened--this would have been a great barometer, especially McEnroe of 1984. IMO, Federer playing Borg would be like McEnroe with his touch (at both the baseline and at net) combined with a super solid and powerful backcourt game.

In terms of Federer, Borg beats him with consistency and speed; that and a slightly better mental game would bring Borg 4 wins out of 10. This matchup, however, would be FAR more interesting than Nadal-Borg or Nadal-Federer (where Federer should have won at least one FO final -- he had a serious mental block that started when he lost the Rome final, 2006 -- one of the greatest matches of all time).

It is interesting that some of the greatest matches ever involve Federer LOSING (to Nadal in Rome, Safin at the AO, and Nalbandian at the WTF); Wimbledon 2008 is only up there because of history and Federer's comeback; Nadal choked in the 4th set tiebreaker -- he was clearly better up till that point.

This is the most honest response I have seen. I think many Borg fans hide behind the argument that you can't compare eras. Perhaps I will be on this board defending Fed and Nadal against accusations that they couldn't compete with the juggernauts of 2035. Nevertheless, I think Federer presents a panoply of offensive weapons beyond anything Borg offered or witnessed on clay. Borg was primarily a baseline grinder, a prototype for Ferrer more than Nadal.

 

[Ihatetennis]

Borg will win almost everytime they face, he was that good but the matches won't be a blowout. They will remain much closer than what people think. Fed was once an excellent clay courter.

I have to disagree, I believe Federer would win 9/10 times

The only person fed lost to was nadal, and Borg doesn't have a 4000 rpm forehand that he can hit to a backhand

Fed destroyed everyone except nadal on clay, and that's because of badass crazy topsspin

 

[Earnest One]

.... I think Federer presents a panoply of offensive weapons beyond anything Borg offered or witnessed on clay. Borg was primarily a baseline grinder, a prototype for Ferrer more than Nadal.

Yes! That is why it's such a shame that Borg never met McEnroe on clay. At least Mac had variety. Federer would blitz Borg with variety. That doesn't mean he would dominate every match, but Borg never really saw this. At that level, only McEnroe at his peak could contend. It isn't clear how Borg would respond. This is a great unknown and is independent of the "era" conundrum.

Borg was indeed a prototype for Ferrer -- he didn't hit monster shots like Nadal. Obviously Borg beats Ferrer on style (no f...ng doubt about THAT) and speed. Borg's speed was phenomenal; I may well be wrong, but I doubt if it's been matched by anyone in the last 30 years. I would love to see a serious scientific analysis/quantification of Borg's quickness (anticipation and reaction time) and his raw speed. Some video clips boggle the mind--as it seems like time is sped up.

Jordan could fly. But Borg did it first!

 

[NatF]

Borg had a big serve and big ground strokes on both sides...he was no Ferrer. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Borg with modern strings would be a monster.

 

[Earnest One]

Borg had a big serve and big ground strokes on both sides...he was no Ferrer. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Borg with modern strings would be a monster.

A big serve on clay isn't as impressive (unless you are Federer in the 2009 FO final 2nd set tiebreak). Borg's serve wasn't as good as Federer's. Look at his service motion and the amount of lift he gets going up to the ball; Fed's jump is phenomenal--it can really only be seen in slow motion. And Federer's kick serve is monstrous; perhaps modern racquets would help Borg, but there is little comparison in terms of serve other than both being fast and, more importantly, clutch.

Many players are monsters off the ground. This is a given. Consistency, however, is the key. Borg would be a monster but with consistency.

I agree with your objection. Ferrer only compares in terms of consistency and reasonably hard hitting (no moonballs like Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon); for serving, Borg was far, far better. But he would look weak compared to Federer.

 

[Steve0904]

Yeah, I wouldn't be putting Borg and Ferrer (apart from this sentence) in the same sentence on any surface, let alone clay. :lol: That's laughable.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Yes! That is why it's such a shame that Borg never met McEnroe on clay. At least Mac had variety. Federer would blitz Borg with variety. That doesn't mean he would dominate every match, but Borg never really saw this. At that level, only McEnroe at his peak could contend. It isn't clear how Borg would respond. This is a great unknown and is independent of the "era" conundrum.

Borg was indeed a prototype for Ferrer -- he didn't hit monster shots like Nadal. Obviously Borg beats Ferrer on style (no f...ng doubt about THAT) and speed. Borg's speed was phenomenal; I may well be wrong, but I doubt if it's been matched by anyone in the last 30 years. I would love to see a serious scientific analysis/quantification of Borg's quickness (anticipation and reaction time) and his raw speed. Some video clips boggle the mind--as it seems like time is sped up.

Jordan could fly. But Borg did it first!

I'm glad you see the light! Ferrer is the modern Borg, and though Ferrer hits harder and arguably plays with more tenacity, Borg had an edge on speed and better consistency than Ferrer. But I honestly don't see Borg beating Nadal on clay or Federer on grass.
Borg's speed was impressive, but he was by no means a phenomenal runner. Wayne Gretzky makes him look slow here. I'm not saying that Nadal, Fed, or Djokovic are much faster than Borg, but let's not get carried away.

Skip to minute 20:00 on the video to see Borg in a race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72OzmBFFno

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Federer could take Borg on the blue clay! That much is clear!
Fed never lost on the blue!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_hOxS-eZAc

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Federer's clay game arrived later, imo. I don't think his 2006 clay tennis was as good as his 2009 clay tennis.

Yeah it was. In 2009 he almost lost to Haas and Del Potro. I think even Acasuso? gave him trouble. He wasn't playing well in 2009.

His clay peak was 2006-2007.

 

[merwy]

[ MANTRA] It. Is. Impossible. To. Compare. Different. Players. From Different. Era's Wit. Different. Circumstances, Equipment, Medics, and Coaching. [ / END MANTRA]

Pretty much the be all and end all of the discussion. Still, we keep having these discussions.

 

[Earnest One]

...
Borg's speed was impressive, but he was by no means a phenomenal runner. Wayne Gretzky makes him look slow here. I'm not saying that Nadal, Fed, or Djokovic are much faster than Borg, but let's not get carried away.

Skip to minute 20:00 on the video to see Borg in a race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72OzmBFFno

Look closely. Borg had the very worst start--by far--and finished second. If he had Gretzky's start it would have been very close. Still, Borg did not NOT look impressive in this race--at all; a decidedly subpar performance. But this is a vanishingly small sample. Borg, the tennis player, essentially never got off to such a bad start. Run the race again, but have them all start on a split-step! Then time them.

RE: Ferrer and Borg. My hypothesis for the resistance here is that their hitting styles are so different. This throws in a monkey-wrench. Who can really compare the grace and beautiful flow of Borg with the utterly mundane, workmanlike look of Ferrer. Results-wise, however, they are remarkably similar. I haven't paid much attention lately, but Ferrer--when playing well--essentially never lost to lower-ranked players. But he could not rise above his ranking--he could NEVER get to the top (nor will he, IMO). Here, Borg would have an edge, mentally and with the serve.

Again, I think the style issue is hard to swallow. It is true: How can you put Borg and Ferrer in the same sentence? It is jarring, unless you add 10 paragraphs about their respective serves and mental strength, 100 paragraphs about their style of play, and 1,000 paragraphs about "nuances"!

All written very very carefully and concisely.

 

[jg153040]

Federer could take Borg on the blue clay! That much is clear!
Fed never lost on the blue!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_hOxS-eZAc

Nadal and Borg were lucky that majority of tournaments were on red clay.

If clay was blue, Nadal would not be in any goat conversations.

 

[jg153040]

Yeah it was. In 2009 he almost lost to Haas and Del Potro. I think even Acasuso? gave him trouble. He wasn't playing well in 2009.

His clay peak was 2006-2007.

Yeah this. Clay was so weak. Federer was playing terrible in 2009 and he still won. The only good clay courter in this era was Nadal.

Federer would have 5 FO and would dominate clay too if it wasn't for Nadal. That is crazy for a guy who lost to old Kuerten in straight sets in his peak and is not even better than Vilas according to some people.

 

[hoodjem]

I have tremendous respect for Borg and his dominance on clay, but it is worth asking how Federer in his prime would have done against Borg. After all, the only man capable of beating Fed in his prime on clay was Nadal, and most of us would agree that Nadal>Borg on clay, based on the assumption that Nadal had all of Borg's athleticism, consistency, and endurance plus a great deal more power.

Keep an open mind. Watch the following two clips. The first is Borg in 1981 vs. Lendl. What I notice here is that the speed of the rally is so painfully slow that Lendl is literally standing still after striking the ball. There is minimal feet movement. It looks almost like two club players having a casual hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XssIt7dUnag

The second is the brilliant 2006 Rome final. Watch Federer take it to Nadal here and put him on the ropes (especially in set 4). I honestly feel that Federer's level here is one of the highest ever seen on clay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8X-bdLkWs

Of course most here will declare Borg superior based on his superior results, but how can one argue that Borg would have dominated 2006 Federer after watching these videos? And yes, I am aware of the limitations of a wooden racket and the slower clay conditions. I have played with a wooden racket numerous times and find them perfectly manageable honestly.

Fed does look very good in the second vid.

But don't forget that the first video is at the end of the fifth set on RG clay. The 21-year-old Lendl was completely spent. Yes, he does stand immobile after hitting, but Borg could have gone another two sets. He was never worn down, never tired.

A peak Fed might pull it off on clay, but he'd better win in three quick ones (a la Panatta) or be in incredible shape and be prepared to go the full distance against prime Borg.

(Here's a video of them playing together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGv33lMVj8 )

 

[hoodjem]

The second is the brilliant 2006 Rome final. Watch Federer take it to Nadal here and put him on the ropes (especially in set 4). I honestly feel that Federer's level here is one of the highest ever seen on clay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8X-bdLkWs

Of course most here will declare Borg superior based on his superior results, but how can one argue that Borg would have dominated 2006 Federer after watching these videos? And yes, I am aware of the limitations of a wooden racket and the slower clay conditions. I have played with a wooden racket numerous times and find them perfectly manageable honestly.

One thing I wish to say is that in this video I find Nadal's constant grunting "Ooowaaah" after almost every hit even as early as the first set very annoying. (Shades of Monica Seles or Sharapova.)

I do admire Federer's absolute silence.

 

[RF20Lennon]

How can you compare ancient rackets to modern tech? There is no way you could compare unless both had the same racket and we don't know how either would play with the other.

 

[TommyA8X]

Fed does look very good in the second vid.

But don't forget that the first video is at the end of the fifth set on RG clay. The 21-year-old Lendl was completely spent. Yes, he does stand immobile after hitting, but Borg could have gone another two sets. He was never worn down, never tired.

A peak Fed might pull it off on clay, but he'd better win in three quick ones (a la Panatta) or be in incredible shape and be prepared to go the full distance against prime Borg.

(Here's a video of them playing together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGv33lMVj8 )

Fer was as fit as anyone during his peak years. He didn't lose to Nadal in Rome 06 due to being tired. Fed could easily go for 4+ hours against Borg on clay. He did so against Nadal (who was returning everything in his clay prime. Certainly better than what Borg did with his wooden racket).