C
chandu612
Guest
If Fed faced Borg in all those matches on clay, instead of Nadal, how would he have fared? worser or any better?
Wood rackets (Fed has a few months to adjust): Borg wins by outplaying and outlasting Fed. Fed's only possible advantages over Borg might be serve and volleys, which won't go over well.
Modern rackets (Borg has a few months to adjust): Fed wins by overpowering Borg. Borg won't be able to develop reliable modern strokes in a few months, and Federer will be able to punish a lot of his balls.
Much better avatar.
Borg would probably pose less of a stylistic problem for Federer than Nadal, with handedness being a somewhat key issue. Nonetheless, if we are to fantasize about such hypothetical, I don't see much happy hunting here for Roger, though just like against Nadal he'd get his odd wins on clay against him.
Borg vs Rafa at Roland Garros, now there's an interesting debate to be had with that hypothetical.
Except fed when he plays nadal,he has that helpless look on his face everytime they play.Yes, I agree. Borg has said that he'd like to have played Nadal on clay. Borg vs. Nadal on clay would have been great tennis to watch. Two clay court maestros. Many tennis fans these days either don't know much about how Borg really was or they misunderstand him. He was very modest and he often praises Nadal and Federer for example, but Bjorn Borg thinks he could have beaten anyone on a tennis court. That's just how these all time greats are wired. They do not lack self belief.
If Fed faced Borg in all those matches on clay, instead of Nadal, how would he have fared? worser or any better?
what equipment would they be playing with? you guys dont seriously think borg would beat federer with a wooden racket do you?
If Fed faced Borg in all those matches on clay, instead of Nadal, how would he have fared? worser or any better?
worser
worser
ಠ_ಠworser
Shouldn't prime fed supposed to be able to beat anybody on any surface any time?
well I was asking what if Borg was born and came along the same time as Nadal did. So he would be using the same current era racquets.
Borg is a midget, compared to those two guys and not even as fast, even though he was extremely fast in his day. Both Nadal and Federer would destroy Bjorn. His strokes whilst setting up the future for perfect biomechanics of today, are prehistoric, compared to todays players.
Just as Laver looked hilarious playing Borg with his antiquated Continental strokes on Clay in South Carolina, so too would Borg looks funny and outdated against these two guys. I doubt he would touch Federer's serve all that often.
well I was asking what if Borg was born and came along the same time as Nadal did. So he would be using the same current era racquets.
this is too hypothetical to take seriously.
If Fed faced Borg in all those matches on clay, instead of Nadal, how would he have fared? worser or any better?
I say Fed has a good shot at beating Borg.
The main reason Fed loses to Rafa on clay is the repeated heavy, high bouncing forehand to the Fed backhand. Borg doesn't have that shot (nobody but Rafa has ever had that shot).
Fed beat Djokovic 2.0 on clay during his "god mode" year. He's done well against everyone else on clay in his career as well. Rafa simply has that one big shot that he can keep winning with over and over.
It's not just that one shot that causes Federer to lose to Nadal on clay though. Even Kuerten took out Federer on clay, when Federer was in his prime. I think Federer could get an odd win, but you have to equalize for equipment. Borg would also be able to hit very substantial topspin off both wings (esp. with poly too). He was just too fast and consistent too, with incredible stamina. Federer would have a tough time with players like Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, and Vilas as well, but it would be even tougher versus Borg. Borg also had a better first serve than Nadal.
If Fed faced Borg in all those matches on clay, instead of Nadal, how would he have fared? worser or any better?
But I think Federer became a much better clay courter from 2006-2008. His only odd loss was Radek Stepanek in Rome.
well I was asking what if Borg was born and came along the same time as Nadal did.
this is too hypothetical to take seriously.
Are we talking modern equipment/training/preparation or wooden racket era?
^^LOL..So Borg wasn't a great athlete??
Borg is indeed a great athlete, a better athlete probably than Federer but he is not a better athlete than Nadal. John McEnroe who always praises his rival Borg to the heavens says that in terms of the best athletes ever in the game Nadal is one and Borg is two. I agree with him here.
I think the reasoning in this thread is wrong.
a) Federer has been dominated by the clay courter of the era.
b) Borg was the best clay courter of a former era, who have similar record with Nadal.
c) Federer would be dominated by Borg.
I don't agree with it. Federer has been dominated by Nadal because of how their games match-up strongly in his defavor, especially on clay. Versus the rest of the field, he has been extremely dominant on clay. Without a match-up as bad as it is against Nadal, Federer is up there with the best clay courters of the open era.
Also, remember that Borg lost twice the US Open played on clay against Connors, winning only one set.
For me Borg would be the favorite on clay, but he wouldn't dominate Fed as Nadal did it. Far from it.
Borg is a midget, compared to those two guys and not even as fast, even though he was extremely fast in his day. Both Nadal and Federer would destroy Bjorn. His strokes whilst setting up the future for perfect biomechanics of today, are prehistoric, compared to todays players.
Just as Laver looked hilarious playing Borg with his antiquated Continental strokes on Clay in South Carolina, so too would Borg looks funny and outdated against these two guys. I doubt he would touch Federer's serve all that often.
I say Fed has a good shot at beating Borg.
The main reason Fed loses to Rafa on clay is the repeated heavy, high bouncing forehand to the Fed backhand. Borg doesn't have that shot (nobody but Rafa has ever had that shot).
Fed beat Djokovic 2.0 on clay during his "god mode" year. He's done well against everyone else on clay in his career as well. Rafa simply has that one big shot that he can keep winning with over and over.
Bjorn99, Laver was an old man when losing to Borg. As late as 1974 The Rocket defeated Borg twice.
I don't think so, not with modern frames either. Borg plays with those today and former pros marvel at things they can do these days hitting. Prime Borg would be much too fit and too good on clay for Federer. Borg would be much too consistent, no place for Federer to go. Borg was great off both wings, very fit, fast, very good serve, and he could go on offense on clay as well. Borg on his strengths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGh4p0dyIk