Bjorn Borg must be the best clay courter of all time !!!

[Zimbo]

This point was made before. We can tell when this is happening as well. I could tell when this happened when Borg retired. Both 82 and 83 RGs were his for the taking. The winners wound up being a 17-year old Mats Wilander and the softball king Yannick Noah. Frankly I don't value their RGs as much as I do Borg's. I can tell when an era is low on premium talent. It happens often.

Here are the players Wilander beat in '82. Cybrog, how can you dis-value Wilander's RG title? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know Borg didn't play and if he did he would have been the heavy favourite but that was a difficult draw to get thru. Give the 17 year old his props. Look who Wilander beat in the fourth round. Yeah, it's Lendl, the same guy that took Borg to 5 sets the previous year.

R128
Cortes, Alejandro (COL)
N/A
6-4 6-3 6-4

R64
Motta, Cassio (BRA)
N/A
6-3 6-4 4-6 6-2

R32
Luna, Fernando (ESP)
N/A
6-3 6-1 6-0

R16
Lendl, Ivan (USA)
N/A
4-6 7-5 3-6 6-4 6-2

Q
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)
N/A
6-3 6-3 4-6 6-4

S
Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG)
N/A
7-5 6-2 1-6 7-5

W
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)
N/A
1-6 7-6 6-0 6-4

 

[Benhur]

This point was made before. We can tell when this is happening as well. I could tell when this happened when Borg retired. Both 82 and 83 RGs were his for the taking. The winners wound up being a 17-year old Mats Wilander and the softball king Yannick Noah. Frankly I don't value their RGs as much as I do Borg's. I can tell when an era is low on premium talent. It happens often.

Your unwavering love of Borg makes you contradict yourself in various ways. You are now making it sound as if the 82 and 83 RG were "low on premium talent" -- just because Borg didn't play them. So you say you don't value them as much as Borg's titles. On the other hand, if he had played them (and won them, since "they were his for the taking" according to you) then of course you wuold value them. Why? Well because whenever Borg played and won, it was *by definition* a strong tournament in your book. You make it sound as if the field was so weak in 82 and 83 that a 17 year old kid and a "softball king" just walked in and took it.

That is sheer nonsense, and the only thing it proves is your devotion to Saint Borg. I think he was great, too, but he is not holy.

Now let's do a simple exercise. Let's examine the players Borg beat to win the French in 81, and the players Wilander and Noah beat the next two years:

Borg in 81 beat: Lopez-Maeso, C. Motta, Torre, T. Moor, B. Tarocy, V. Pecci and Lendl

Wilander in 82 beat: Cortes, Motta, Luna, Lendl, Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas.

Only your unwavering devotion to Borg makes you believe that he beat stronger players than Wilander those years, or suggest that there was no talent and so the title just fell on Wilander's lap. Wilander proved his win wasn't a fluke. He was in a total 5 RG finals and won 3. His career as a teenager equals Nadal's.

As for "soft-ball king Yannick Noah", I remember that final with Wilander. Noah played outstanding, spectacular tennis. Wilander certainly didn't beat himself. He never did.
And Noah made it to that final by beating:

Jarryd, Pecci, Dupre, Alexander, LENDL and Roger- Vasselin

You cannot seriously contend that Wilander and Noah's titles are worth any less than Borg's the previous year. Just look at who they beat. Among other excellent clay court players, they both beat Lendl, who was already a top 2 player and had taken Borg to 5 sets in the 81 final.

And the notion that these titles "were his for the taking" is again pure speculation on your part. I contend that Wilander, Lendl (and even Noah in 83) could have very well beaten Borg in 82 and 83. This is just my own speculation, but it is just as solid as yours, as far as speculation goes.

 

[snapple]

Your unwavering love of Borg makes you contradict yourself in various ways. You are now making it sound as if the 82 and 83 RG were "low on premium talent" -- just because Borg didn't play them. So you say you don't value them as much as Borg's titles. On the other hand, if he had played them (and won them, since "they were his for the taking" according to you) then of course you wuold value them. Why? Well because whenever Borg played and won, it was *by definition* a strong tournament in your book. You make it sound as if the field was so weak in 82 and 83 that a 17 year old kid and a "softball king" just walked in and took it.

I think anytime the 6 time champion and last 4 in a row skips the tourny, it's fair to say that it's now "up for grabs". However, that does not mean the remaining competition is not worthy but simply means that the dominant player is no longer there to dominate. I agree that the overall quality of the field was equal if not higher in 82 and 83 than in the latter years that Borg was winning.

 

[CyBorg]

I totally disagree. For starters Kuerten definitely would not have been able to run with Nadal. Kuerten moved very well, especialy on clay, but he was still nowhere near the fastest. Nadal is one of the fastest players in history, and definitely the fastest since Borg. Kuerten while a very good mover, does not even fit on the first page of the fastest guys of recent times. Nadal, Federer, Hewitt, Coria, Ferrero, Bruguera, Chang, are all much much faster then Kuerten.

The point was made in another message board: Nadal wouldn't had a consistent answer for Kuerten's backhand down the line. Nadal doesn't hit up the line with any consistency - backhand to backhand Kuerten would have hurt Nadal big time.

Kuerten was never as dominant or great as Nadal on clay. Look at all the matches he lost on clay in 1999-2001 when he was dominant.

This point has been made before as well. In a deeper era success is shared between players. In an era where there is one elite player, a number of poor floaters and several talented players better suited for other surfaces the one elite player will win almost everything.

He is a great clay courter, but Nadal has already easily eclipsed him, and if they played in their mutual primes Kuerten would only win on his dream days, the days everything were perfect for him. That is still better then anyone else today does though.

I would rate Nadal by a hair over Kuerten, but Gustavo would have been a terrible matchup for Nadal. Kuerten was much too balanced a mover, with explosive groundstrokes and an ability to punish Nadal's topspin groundies unlike any player in today's era.

That was an incredibly windy day, Kuerten hated those conditions, and that is why Medvedev won.

Medvedev won because he adjusted better to the windy conditions - a measure of an excellent clay courter, a brilliant talent whenever he showed up.

 

[CyBorg]

Here are the players Wilander beat in '82. Cybrog, how can you dis-value Wilander's RG title? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know Borg didn't play and if he did he would have been the heavy favourite but that was a difficult draw to get thru. Give the 17 year old his props. Look who Wilander beat in the fourth round. Yeah, it's Lendl, the same guy that took Borg to 5 sets the previous year.

R128
Cortes, Alejandro (COL)
N/A
6-4 6-3 6-4

R64
Motta, Cassio (BRA)
N/A
6-3 6-4 4-6 6-2

R32
Luna, Fernando (ESP)
N/A
6-3 6-1 6-0

R16
Lendl, Ivan (USA)
N/A
4-6 7-5 3-6 6-4 6-2

Q
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)
N/A
6-3 6-3 4-6 6-4

S
Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG)
N/A
7-5 6-2 1-6 7-5

W
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)
N/A
1-6 7-6 6-0 6-4

Wilander was not the player he would wind up to be in later years. Here he was simply younger and fresher than old guys like Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas. Vilas choked of course - there was no doubt that he was the better player at this time. Lendl still had his head up his rear end half the time around these years and was known for giving up halfway through matches. He made a hell of an effort in 1981, but only took Borg to five sets because Bjorn already was halfway to Disneyland after the semifinal.

I remember Wilander in 82 and Noah in 83 - they were two of the weaker RG winners in memory, both taking advantage of playing aging Borg contemporaries.

This happens again and again when a new guy comes onto the scene and surprises older players who have not seen nearly enough of him. Michael Chang won in another clay stalemate in 1989 - with Wilander on his way down; Lendl on his way down; Leconte on his way down. Chang with fresher legs and nondescript style won RG even though he was hardly great on clay.

The difference between Chang and Wilander is that Wilander grew into a great claycourter even though he wasn't one yet in 82.

 

[CyBorg]

Your unwavering love of Borg makes you contradict yourself in various ways. You are now making it sound as if the 82 and 83 RG were "low on premium talent" -- just because Borg didn't play them. So you say you don't value them as much as Borg's titles. On the other hand, if he had played them (and won them, since "they were his for the taking" according to you) then of course you wuold value them. Why? Well because whenever Borg played and won, it was *by definition* a strong tournament in your book. You make it sound as if the field was so weak in 82 and 83 that a 17 year old kid and a "softball king" just walked in and took it.

No one just walks in and takes it, but the point is that fields go up and down in quality from year to year. Borg retired in the early 80s and Vilas was reaching 30. That's two of the top 10 clay courters of all time either absent or regressed. 1982 should still have been Vilas' tournament, but he waited and waited for his chance to play someone other than Borg for the title and when the chance came he encountered a 17-year old kid he knew little about. And when things got close the the old dog simply had no new tricks.

Now let's do a simple exercise. Let's examine the players Borg beat to win the French in 81, and the players Wilander and Noah beat the next two years:

Borg in 81 beat: Lopez-Maeso, C. Motta, Torre, T. Moor, B. Tarocy, V. Pecci and Lendl

Wilander in 82 beat: Cortes, Motta, Luna, Lendl, Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas.

Only your unwavering devotion to Borg makes you believe that he beat stronger players than Wilander those years, or suggest that there was no talent and so the title just fell on Wilander's lap. Wilander proved his win wasn't a fluke. He was in a total 5 RG finals and won 3. His career as a teenager equals Nadal's.

You're putting words in my mouth and frankly boldly exagerrating in places. Take a deep breath, think of something coherent to say and then get back to me.

 

[anointedone]

The point was made in another message board: Nadal wouldn't had a consistent answer for Kuerten's backhand down the line. Nadal doesn't hit up the line with any consistency - backhand to backhand Kuerten would have hurt Nadal big time.

The thing is that Nadal is a lefty so there would hardly be any "backhand to backhand".

This point has been made before as well. In a deeper era success is shared between players. In an era where there is one elite player, a number of poor floaters and several talented players better suited for other surfaces the one elite player will win almost everything.

Kuerten's much less dominance on clay compared to Nadal cant be put down strictly to depth or quality of competition.

Except for 1 loss in almost 3 years Nadal has never lost to anyone on clay. Kuerten during his dominance on clay from 1999-2001 includes losses to all of Vincenzo Santopadre, Vince Spadea, Nicolas Escude, Juan Ignacio Chela, Mariano Puerta, Dominik Hrbaty, Karol Kucera. Note those are not even all his losses, I excluded the losses you could even semi-argue were due to the quality of competition (and even then you would be very wrong compared to Nadal's dominance). These losses show Kuerten's lesser dominance on clay was not due to his competition. No matter how bad you think say the best 5clay courter today are, maybe Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Robredo, Nalbandian or Davydenko, they are all easily better then all these guys who beat Kuerten during his dominance, and yet none of them can beat Nadal except for Fed once. In facts some of these players - Chela, Puerta, Hrbaty, Spadea, are still playing today and are considered non-existant factors in todays "weak" clay court field. Funny how that is.

I forgot to mention Kuerten has a straight sets loss, in a best 3-of-5 sets match in Davis Cup, in BRAZIL, to Lleyton Hewitt. The best Hewitt has done vs Nadal in 3 matches on clay was take him deep in a 3rd set once, in a tournament Nadal was generaly accepted to be "tank on emptied" for more then any other event, and ended up having his long win streak snapped 6-0 in the final set to Federer. Kuerten also has a 6-0, 6-2 loss to Moya during his prime on clay. Or maybe you will now argue Nadal is lucky to be playing and old Moya, and the younger Moya could have beaten him 6-0, 6-2 on a hot day too.

I would rate Nadal by a hair over Kuerten, but Gustavo would have been a terrible matchup for Nadal. Kuerten was much too balanced a mover, with explosive groundstrokes and an ability to punish Nadal's topspin groundies unlike any player in today's era.

As I already stated Kuerten, while a very good mover, especialy on clay, still fars short of a number of the very best movers. He is clearly inferior to Nadal himself, Coria, Kuerten, Hewitt, and others in that department.

Kuerten has never faced a player with the extreme combination of heavy spin, brute force, and consistency on his shots as Nadal. There is little evidence by how Kuerten would handle Nadal's shots. Alex Corretja and Alex Costa are not even a teaser to the heavy topspin groundies you would face from Nadal.

 

[CyBorg]

The thing is that Nadal is a lefty so there would hardly be any "backhand to backhand".

Have you ever seen Kuerten's backhand down the line? To which of Nadal's sides would it go? The backhand.

Kuerten's much less dominance on clay compared to Nadal cant be put down strictly to depth or quality of competition.

Except for 1 loss in almost 3 years Nadal has never lost to anyone on clay. Kuerten during his dominance on clay from 1999-2001 includes losses to all of Vincenzo Santopadre, Vince Spadea, Nicolas Escude, Juan Ignacio Chela, Mariano Puerta, Dominik Hrbaty, Karol Kucera. Note those are not even all his losses, I excluded the losses you could even semi-argue were due to the quality of competition (and even then you would be very wrong compared to Nadal's dominance). These losses show Kuerten's lesser dominance on clay was not due to his competition. No matter how bad you think say the best 5clay courter today are, maybe Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Robredo, Nalbandian or Davydenko, they are all easily better then all these guys who beat Kuerten during his dominance, and yet none of them can beat Nadal except for Fed once. In facts some of these players - Chela, Puerta, Hrbaty, Spadea, are still playing today and are considered non-existant factors in todays "weak" clay court field. Funny how that is.

I agree with you that Nadal is more consistent than Kuerten, but he would not have been as dominant in Kuerten's era. By the way, most of Kuerten's bad losses were in minor tournaments like Munich and Gstaad. I wouldn't base Kuerten's clay abilities on results such as these, just as we don't give too much credence to Pete Sampras' play in minor tournaments. On the big stage Kuerten showed up and played well enough to beat any clay courter in history, including Borg.

I forgot to mention Kuerten has a straight sets loss, in a best 3-of-5 sets match in Davis Cup, in BRAZIL, to Lleyton Hewitt.

Hewitt was dangerous on all surfaces. He took Nadal to three sets in Hamburg - and that's the old, withered Hewitt. Hewitt could beat anyone on a given day, and on any surface especially in the Davis Cup atmosphere, even Kuerten.

As I already stated Kuerten, while a very good mover, especialy on clay, still fars short of a number of the very best movers. He is clearly inferior to Nadal himself, Coria, Kuerten, Hewitt, and others in that department.

Again, I would rate Nadal over Kuerten. But in the Roland Garros atmosphere, everything considered, it would be a dead heat. You underrate Gustavo.

Kuerten has never faced a player with the extreme combination of heavy spin, brute force, and consistency on his shots as Nadal. There is little evidence by how Kuerten would handle Nadal's shots. Alex Corretja and Alex Costa are not even a teaser to the heavy topspin groundies you would face from Nadal.

Nonsense. Nadal is nothing new to clay. He incorporates classical aspects to clay in an era where most play with a globalized hardcourt approach. His lengthy clay court winning streak is an indicator of the times more than anything else. Nadal can hurt almost each and every one of his opponents with the topspin high to the backhand. Five-six years ago this would have been more or less commonplace. Consult some tapes.

 

[CyBorg]

I think anytime the 6 time champion and last 4 in a row skips the tourny, it's fair to say that it's now "up for grabs". However, that does not mean the remaining competition is not worthy but simply means that the dominant player is no longer there to dominate. I agree that the overall quality of the field was equal if not higher in 82 and 83 than in the latter years that Borg was winning.

The depth was pretty good, but the best of the bunch was not there while Vilas had clearly lost a step. That left a number of solid but in large part unproven guys. The one who got to the top was a kid who surprised the older guys in large part because they hadn't seen enough of him.

Borg did something very similar in 74 when he won his first French Open. I consider it to be a lesser accomplishment than his subsequent French Opens. The field was generally deep but nothing exceptional while the defending champion was the highly inconsistent Ilie Nastase.

This happens again and again in history - even Becker's win at Wimbledon in 1985 is like that. He was at the right place, at the right time, rightly aligned with John McEnroe mental breakdown, using his energy and enthusiasm to beat Kevin Curren. But no one in his right mind would argue that Becker was at his peak or anywhere near it in 1985. Or that he was a worse player in 1988 when he lost to a near-prime Edberg.

The point goes back to Nadal and Federer at Roland Garros - the fields are horrible, much worse than ever before and we have one elite clay courter and a finesse hardcourt/grasscourt superstar who struggles with topspin to his backhand. And yet Roger has more RG finals than Thomas Muster. Why? Because results deceive. They don't tell the whole story. Draws, circumstances reveal a lot more.

 

[Benhur]

Wilander was not the player he would wind up to be in later years. Here he was simply younger and fresher than old guys like Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas. Vilas choked of course - there was no doubt that he was the better player at this time. Lendl still had his head up his rear end half the time around these years and was known for giving up halfway through matches. He made a hell of an effort in 1981, but only took Borg to five sets because Bjorn already was halfway to Disneyland after the semifinal.

You continue to bring up gaseous imponderables to give weight to arguments that have none. It won't work

Wilander was one of the most prodigious teenagers in tennis history, right up there with Nadal and Becker. He burst into the clay scene in 1982 and went straight to the top, winning Barcelona, Bastad, Geneva and Roland Garros. And he was runner up that same year at Basel, Brussels and Stockholm. In 1983 (the year Noah beat him in the final) Wilander won Aix-En-Provence, the Australian Open, Barcelona, Bastad, Cincinnati, Geneva, Lisbon, Monte Carlo and Stockholm; and he was runner up at Guaruja and Roland Garros.

Your contention that his 82 RG win and his 83 final was without much merit because “he was not the player he would be" is just a mealy-mouthed meaningless platitude. Your contention that he beat Vilas in 82 because the latter just "choked" sounds even sillier. Of course, you can *always* say that so and so “choked” when you don’t like the result. Those who don't like Borg could say his opponents just "choked". There is no way to prove they didn’t. That's what I call a gaseous imponderable. Not that the choke is uncommon in tennis, mind you, but preventing it from ocurring (i.e. keeping your cool) is part of a tennis player’s required abilities.

Your attempt at dismissing Lendl's stature at the time, and the significance of the fact that Wilander and Noah had to beat Lendl at RG in 82 and 83 respectively, is even more ludicrous. Lendl was a top two player already then. He was beating Mac regularly in those years. Your saying that Lendl "only took Borg to five sets because Bjorn already was halfway to Disneyland" is also full of laughing gas and little more. Those kinds of statements only support my contention that you can say *anything* you want to dismiss a result you don't like.

Here’s Lendl results in those years. Just count the titles and finals. Maybe he was playing“with his head in his rear end,” as you put it, but I doubt it. In any case, just imagine what he would have done if he had cared to put his head on his shoulders.

1981 -- Titles won:
Barcelona, Basel, Buenos Aires, Cologne, Las Vegas, Madrid, Masters, Canadian Open, Stuttgart Indoor, Vienna.

1981 Runner up:
Indianapolis, La Quinta, Richmond WCT, Roland Garros, Stuttgart Outdoor.

1982 -- Titles won:
Cincinnati, Dallas WCT, Delray Beach WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Frankfurt, Genova WCT, Hartford WCT, Houston, Los Angeles-2 WCT, Masters, Munich-2 WCT, Naples Finals WCT, North Conway, Strasbourg WCT, Washington

1982 - Runner up:
La Quinta, Madrid, Monte Carlo, Canadian Open, US Open.

1983 -- Titles won:
Detroit WCT, Hilton Head WCT, Houston-WCT, Milan, Canadian Open, San Francisco, Tokyo Indoor

1983 -- Runner up:
Australian Open, Brussels, Dallas WCT, Masters, Philadelphia, US Open

I remember Wilander in 82 and Noah in 83 - they were two of the weaker RG winners in memory, both taking advantage of playing aging Borg contemporaries.

No they weren't. That's nonsense. Noah played some of the best tennis of his life in that 83 final. And nobody without a big bias would ever say Wilander was a "weak" winner of RG -- any year.

The truth is that a brief look at the players Borg faced in 81 and the players Wilander and Noah faced in 82-83 demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are claiming. The field was stronger in 82-83 than it had been for Borg. And Wilander and Noah were very much part of the strength of the field, not part of its weakness.

 

[Benhur]

Because results deceive. They don't tell the whole story. Draws, circumstances reveal a lot more.

Draws and "circumstances" reveal that they can always be brough up to argue any thing one wishes. So and so "choked". So and so "was already in Disneyland". So and so "wasn't yet the player he would be". So and do would have done better, or worse, if he had had to play x instead of y.

It is a given that you play the hand you are dealt. Not the hand you might have been dealt. And the result tells what you did with the hand you were dealt. There is nothing more.

In addition, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that the playing field was stronger for Borg than for Wilander and Noah. If anything, he got by far a better hand in 81.

 

[CyBorg]

Draws and "circumstances" reveal that they can always be brough up to argue any thing one wishes. So and so "choked". So and so "was already in Disneyland". So and so "wasn't yet the player he would be". So and do would have done better, or worse, if he had had to play x instead of y.

Great. And you can disagree with these arguments and go on living.

It is a given that you play the hand you are dealt. Not the hand you might have been dealt. And the result tells what you did with the hand you were dealt. There is nothing more.

I've already had this argument many times before. You're entitled to believe this. I don't find the way you think very interesting. I like to analyze - it's worth my time and it gets people really riled up, because they like quick and easy certitude. I don't.

In addition, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that the playing field was stronger for Borg than for Wilander and Noah. If anything, he got by far a better hand in 81.

The argument is not that Borg had a tougher field than Wilander and Noah. The argument is that Wilander and Noah won RG in a period adjoining two eras; a period without dominance. There's a reason why Wilander didn't win RG again until 1985. There's a reason why Noah never came close again.

All of this ties into my argument that results deceive. Noah has an RG title; Alex Corretja does not. Which is the better clay courter? Corretja.

 

[CyBorg]

You continue to bring up gaseous imponderables to give weight to arguments that have none. It won't work

Wilander was one of the most prodigious teenagers in tennis history, right up there with Nadal and Becker. He burst into the clay scene in 1982 and went straight to the top, winning Barcelona, Bastad, Geneva and Roland Garros. And he was runner up that same year at Basel, Brussels and Stockholm. In 1983 (the year Noah beat him in the final) Wilander won Aix-En-Provence, the Australian Open, Barcelona, Bastad, Cincinnati, Geneva, Lisbon, Monte Carlo and Stockholm; and he was runner up at Guaruja and Roland Garros.

That's all very interesting. But none of this grants any perspective as to how good Wilander truly was around this time. Hint: he was worse than he was in 1986 when he lost in the third round of RG to Andrei Chesnokov.

Your contention that his 82 RG win and his 83 final was without much merit

Nonsense. I never said this.

Your attempt at dismissing Lendl's stature at the time, and the significance of the fact that Wilander and Noah had to beat Lendl at RG in 82 and 83 respectively, is even more ludicrous.

I didn't dismiss his stature at all. His stature around this time was just as it was - much inferior to that of 1985-1988.

Here’s Lendl results in those years. Just count the titles and finals. Maybe he was playing“with his head in his rear end,” as you put it, but I doubt it. In any case, just imagine what he would have done if he had cared to put his head on his shoulders.

Fantastic player. Major choker in big matchups right up until, let's say, 1984 when he beat Mac in Roland Garros.

No they weren't. That's nonsense. Noah played some of the best tennis of his life in that 83 final. And nobody without a big bias would ever say Wilander was a "weak" winner of RG -- any year.

Ugh, watch the Noah match again. It was terrible tennis. His groundies were awful.

The truth is that a brief look at the players Borg faced in 81 and the players Wilander and Noah faced in 82-83 demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are claiming. The field was stronger in 82-83 than it had been for Borg. And Wilander and Noah were very much part of the strength of the field, not part of its weakness.

You're misrepresenting my position in your first sentence and you're downright wrong in the second.

 

[Mark Vessels]

nadal had the longest win streak on clay, nuff' said.

Agassi endorsing Head. Enough said

 

[Benhur]

Great. And you can disagree with these arguments and go on living.



I've already had this argument many times before. You're entitled to believe this. I don't find the way you think very interesting. I like to analyze - it's worth my time and it gets people really riled up, because they like quick and easy certitude. I don't.

Claiming that a player went five sets because he was in Disneyland, or that another one's win is not valuable because he hadn't reached yet his full potential, or that he won because the oponent may have choked and endless other stuff you say is NOT analyzing. It's just making idle unsubstantiated gratuitous claims. Anyone can argue the opposite with equal merit.

The argument is not that Borg had a tougher field than Wilander and Noah. The argument is that Wilander and Noah won RG in a period adjoining two eras.

No. You are trying to get out of what you said. Now you claim you were only talking of the fact they were in a "period adjoining two eras." But the phrase is irrelevant to this discussion unless it has some bearing on the relative strength of the playing fields of those eras. Your argument was that they won because this "adjoining era" was, in your words "low on premium talent," which is the same as saying they had easier fields to play against than Borg. This is what you said:

The winners wound up being a 17-year old Mats Wilander and the softball king Yannick Noah. Frankly I don't value their RGs as much as I do Borg's. I can tell when an era is low on premium talent.

The truth is Wilander and Noah dealt with more "premium talent" to win the tournament in 82-83 than Borg did the previous years, as shown by the draws. I thought you considered the draws and circumstances to be of the utmost importance. Which is it?

 

[Virginia]

Chris Evert Lloyd won the French Open 7 times, 3 times v Navratilova in the final. She won some finals 1 and 2.

She also had a 125 match winning streak on clay.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Nadal is the best clay courter of all time. Nuff said. If Borg and Nadal played one another Nadal would blast Borg off the court. His shots look like little puffballs compared to Nadal's booming game.

 

[Virginia]

R u b b i s h!

 

[Zimbo]

Wilander was not the player he would wind up to be in later years. Here he was simply younger and fresher than old guys like Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas. Vilas choked of course - there was no doubt that he was the better player at this time. Lendl still had his head up his rear end half the time around these years and was known for giving up halfway through matches. He made a hell of an effort in 1981, but only took Borg to five sets because Bjorn already was halfway to Disneyland after the semifinal.

I remember Wilander in 82 and Noah in 83 - they were two of the weaker RG winners in memory, both taking advantage of playing aging Borg contemporaries.

This happens again and again when a new guy comes onto the scene and surprises older players who have not seen nearly enough of him. Michael Chang won in another clay stalemate in 1989 - with Wilander on his way down; Lendl on his way down; Leconte on his way down. Chang with fresher legs and nondescript style won RG even though he was hardly great on clay.

The difference between Chang and Wilander is that Wilander grew into a great claycourter even though he wasn't one yet in 82.

CyBorg,

I can see your point and I agree with you that Wilander got better later on, but who doesn't. From 17 year old on Becker got better, Borg got better, and Nadal got better. I also agree with you that Wilander beat Borg's contemporaries and he won mostly due to fresh young legs and the willingness to stay out there the whole day. As for Noah, he played great in '83. Did you know he beat Borg on clay in '82 Monte Carlo Open? So he was a pretty good player on the surface.

So since you stated that you di-valued their RG title, IF Borg would have played and IF he would have won it in those 2 years would you di-value Borg's hypothitically 2 additional RG titles? Benhur raised a simliar question. To me you were unclear in your response. Can you please answer it.

 

[Zimbo]

Lendl still had his head up his rear end half the time around these years and was known for giving up halfway through matches. He made a hell of an effort in 1981, but only took Borg to five sets because Bjorn already was halfway to Disneyland after the semifinal.

If Borg was halfway to Disneyland after already how the hell would you have guaranteed that Borg would have taken the title in '82-'83. Come on now. Yes, Borg was the man on clay. He was the best. But to sit there and state that he would have won if he entered is a little too much. As you said, he "was halfway to Disneyland" already. I will admit even if he wasn't fully committed he would probably still be the favourite but that doesn't mean he would have won. Lendl was the heavy favourite in '89 and looked what happened.

 

[Zimbo]

The argument is not that Borg had a tougher field than Wilander and Noah. The argument is that Wilander and Noah won RG in a period adjoining two eras; a period without dominance. There's a reason why Wilander didn't win RG again until 1985. There's a reason why Noah never came close again.

The two reasons.
1. I red hot Noah in the '83 finals in a hostle environment.
2. A red hot Lendl (you know him, the other great clay courter in the 80's). The next round Lendl did beat Mac who was playing the best tennis or his career that year.

 

[Benhur]

CyBorg,
I can see your point and I agree with you that Wilander got better later on, but who doesn't. From 17 year old on Becker got better, Borg got better, and Nadal got better. I also agree with you that Wilander beat Borg's contemporaries and he won mostly due to fresh young legs and the willingness to stay out there the whole day.

My comment on this is that these early bloomers like Wilander, Becker and Nadal, do get better in general, mostly in the sense that their game becomes more complete. But the fact that Becker was a more complete player in 88 than in 85, or Nadal today than in 2005, or Wilander in 86 than in 82, does NOT preclude their ability to play their best tennis *already* at their early age. That's why they burst into the scene the way they did. You watch Becker play on grass in the summer of 85, first at Queens (which he won btw) and then the run throug his first Wimbledon title, and I do believe that in many of those matches he was *already* playing as well as he would ever play on grass. I have no way of proving this, of course. But neither can the opposite be proven. Generalities do not impinge on particulars. In fact, it is entirely possible that he played better tennis in some of those matches than he did against Edberg three years later, even though three years later he was *generally* a better player. There is simply no instrument to measure such imponderables as quality of play between one match and another. Same thing Nadal. Watch him play in 2005 and early 2006, when he was 17-18. In many of his matches he played as well as he plays today. In some, he may have played better. Same applies to Wilander. So I don't see how the fact that a player gets to be generally better can be used to argue that their early successes are the result of lack of talent in the general field, just because a few years later they failed to win the same event.

 

[Zimbo]

My comment on this is that these early bloomers like Wilander, Becker and Nadal, do get better in general, mostly in the sense that their game becomes more complete. But the fact that Becker was a more complete player in 88 than in 85, or Nadal today than in 2005, or Wilander in 86 than in 82, does NOT preclude their ability to play their best tennis *already* at their early age. That's why they burst into the scene the way they did. You watch Becker play on grass in the summer of 85, first at Queens (which he won btw) and then the run throug his first Wimbledon title, and I do believe that in many of those matches he was *already* playing as well as he would ever play on grass. I have no way of proving this, of course. But neither can the opposite be proven. Generalities do not impinge on particulars. In fact, it is entirely possible that he played better tennis in some of those matches than he did against Edberg three years later, even though three years later he was *generally* a better player. There is simply no instrument to measure such imponderables as quality of play between one match and another. Same thing Nadal. Watch him play in 2005 and early 2006, when he was 17-18. In many of his matches he played as well as he plays today. In some, he may have played better. Same applies to Wilander. So I don't see how the fact that a player gets to be generally better can be used to argue that their early successes are the result of lack of talent in the general field, just because a few years later they failed to win the same event.

I agree. Cyborg usually is on top of things but I completely disagree with him here. I think you and I presented pretty strong arguments but I guess he's just doesn't agree or is to bias to see it.

 

[Benhur]

Ugh, watch the Noah match again. It was terrible tennis. His groundies were awful.

No, it was not terrible tennis. It was practical emotional tennis to beat Wilander. Expecting beautiful cool classical groundstrokes from Noah is like expecting prunes from almond trees. His game as I remember it was based on a kind of constant unpredictable harrassment shotmaking, with a wide variety of what some may call "junk" shots. His weird slice forehand that he used over and over. Junk perhaps. Oh, but what beautifully creative junk it was! He had a totally unique game that could rattle the very best, especially the steady ones like Lendl and Wilander. I think Noah played a brilliant match in the 83 final, with a game exactly geared to the purpose at hand. The purpose at hand was beating *Wilander*, whose game by then was well known: Mats was the ultimate steady baseliner. Noah had to know he stood no chance at all if he just traded shots from the back with someone like Wilander. Before the match, I gave Noah very little chances of winning, but I knew that if he was to win, it would be by playing more or less the way he did, with all those mad dashes to net following brilliant “junk”. I don’t know how he beat Lendl earlier in the tournament (never watched that match) but it must have been something similar.

It should be remembered that Noah learned the rudiments of the game in Cameroun, where there were practically no tennis courts or racquets. He learned to hit some spherical object against a wall with wood *boards* shaped in the form of a racquet. You, who like to speculate on the might-have-beens, speculate on what this fellow might have been if started trainig from the age of 4 with real tennis racaquets and teachers, like Agassi.

Now, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I prefer guys that play like Lendl and Federer: brilliant smooth laser sharp shotmaking from the back. But from an emotional point of view, I have no problem surrendering to "unorthodox" brilliance like Noah's in that 83 final, or Mcenroe's in so many matches.

Nadal is hard to categorize. He is a bit like Vilas elevated to the n power. He exudes *contagious* energy and willpower. But he is also extremely talented (much more than Vilas was). His best asset, though, is the grey matter between his ears, and that is not likely to get impaired any time soon. Unless he gets physically injured or he suffers an existential crisis like Borg, I expect him to be a major force in tennis for many years to come. There is also this Jekyll-Hyde split in him. While he plays, he is all business, a maniac almost, full of weird tics that he does not even seem to be aware of. As soon as the match is over and he takes off his bandana and shakes his hair loose, he becomes this mellow sweet chill kid, like ready to go surfing on the beach or something. His entire expression changes. I don't see this huge split in any other player. I've been following tennis for many years. I think this is a very unique period. The Federee-Nadal run on the top two spots is already far and away the longest in the history of the sport. I want Fed and Nadal to stay healthy, and a lot more finals between the two.

 

[Zimbo]

Cyborg, this is want you wrote about Lendl while replying to Benhur:

"I didn't dismiss his stature at all. His stature around this time was just as it was - much inferior to that of 1985-1988."

"Fantastic player. Major choker in big matchups right up until, let's say, 1984 when he beat Mac in Roland Garros."

If we use your logic, because Borg beat Lendl in the final's in '81 you should not place value on that win. What do you have to say about that?

 

[Benhur]

Cyborg, this is want you wrote about Lendl while replying to Benhur:

"I didn't dismiss his stature at all. His stature around this time was just as it was - much inferior to that of 1985-1988."

"Fantastic player. Major choker in big matchups right up until, let's say, 1984 when he beat Mac in Roland Garros."

If we use your logic, because Borg beat Lendl in the final's in '81 you should not place value on that win. What do you have to say about that?

Exactly. He beat this "major choker" who took him to 5 sets only because of Disneyland, and he also beat a few complete non-entities before the "major choker" to get to the final. Yet his title is worth much more than Wilander's in 82. Go figure.

Well, hell, the choker won 10 titles in 1981. (See how many titles the top players are winning in the last ten years or so). Then the choker entered 23 tournaments in 1982, reaching the finals in 20 of them and winning 15 of those 20 finals. That's 15 titles and 5 runner-up apperarances in one year. Of course it is a common occurrence in the open era for players to have a year like that. There must by plenty of other players in the open era with 15 titles and 5 runner-up appearances in one year. I just don't know who they are. CyBorg will let us know. All I know is this "choker" is one of the guys Wilander and Noah had to beat to win their titles in 82 and 83. Peace of cake, obviously.

 

[BTURNER]

Rosewall won the French singles championship in '53,68. Someone named Rose won it in '58 Where did this #10 come from? Must be talking doubles, a whole different sport WITH a partner to share the record with. Maybe his partners were the great clay courters.