Is there a clay player from the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s that could have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros?

Nadal est unique et irremplaçable, le meilleur de l'histoire sur n'importe quelle surface.
Et le film ne se termine toujours pas ...
;)


 
JaoSousa said:
According to some people on here, it has gotten significantly better in the last 15 years. And this is not even a "wrong" opinion, because the truth is that tennis has changed a lot in 15 years. Not as much as some people claim, but it has. The problem is that most users try to put down Federer's peak in 2004-2007 because it wasn't as high a level as Djokovic in 2015, or that he played "weaker players". The same with Djokovic, who people try to say played "weaker" players.

The truth is, the eras were "weak" because the people who dominated them made those eras look weak. And again, you cannot be blamed for not playing against xyz if xyz did not even reach you in the draw.

Instead of doing this, we should be crediting Federer for the fact that he has played so long and across so many different generations of players, all while remaining at the top of the sport. We should commend Djokovic for how pedestrian he made the competition look in 2015. And we should praise Nadal for the stranglehold that he kept on his favorite slam, not allowing exceptional players like Federer and Djokovic to get a sniff at it for the longest time.
Click to expand...
That's the logic behind the mid 2000s weak era yes. But nobody really argues 2011 was weak for example, and after 2015 I'd say the field getting weaker is undeniable cause it's the same dudes but just ad more advanced stages of decomposition.

Nadal posted career high stats on HC last year while being slower than ever.
 
Peak Nadal? No.

And I think compare Borg to Nadal is impossible.

Someone like Peak Kuerten (1997, 2000-2001) may sneak one or a couple of RG away from a weaker Nadal (like 2011 or 2018 for eg), but that's about it.
 
The game was soooo different in the 1970s than it is now. Just look at Borg's dominance of Lendl and Vilas. I'm pretty sure Borg wins with wood, even with Rafa's mobility. And in the 1980s, Lendl would have been a 50/50 shot. In the 1990s, Guga. There is a world of difference between Guga's backhand and the backhands of pretty much every other one-hander on clay. Nice to think that Nadal would have dominated everyone the way he's dominated the current group, but put him in those eras with that equipment, and he's just not mowing down the the greatest of those eras. Sure, with today's equipment and strings he could do it, but that's like putting a guy on a Revolutionary War battlefield with an M16...
 
JaoSousa said:
I think if you put anybody from 1970s-1990s on the same clay court with Rafa, they would get blasted off the court. This is not just because Nadal is an amazing claycourter, but because tennis was different in those times. The game has evolved a lot. It is not inconceivable to think that in 50 years, the world #1 would blast Nadal off a clay court. So your question can be answered like this: Definitely not, but there is one player that achieved somewhat close to the level of dominance on clay that Rafa himself achieved.

Borg in 1978 Roland Garros is one of the most dominant slam performances of all time. Would probably get beaten 6-0 6-0 6-1 by Nadal, but he is the only one who comes close to the level of dominance Nadal has shown on clay over the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

Borg and Rafa would have been a great rivalry. How anyone can say Rafa would have killed Borg is not taking into consideration the string, the racquets, and never saw Borg play. Borg may have gotten the better of Rafa, but I'll have to say 5-5 if they played ten times. You can't project what a dominant, more all around player like Borg would do with more powerful racquets and livelier strings. Borg was the first player that used topspin as a weapon - imagine how his ball would have jumped if he could have used poly. He had a better serve than Rafa. He was equally as fit but faster than Rafa, and a better volleyer which is witnessed by him serve and volleying to 5 straight Wimbledon titles on super fast grass, which Rafa would not have been able to do. Add to that, he only lost to one player EVER at RG (twice) and I would not be surprised if Borg won more than Rafa. Mentally they were equal - and if you saw Borg play you wouldn't question that. The greatest mental performance I've ever seen was the 1980 Wimbledon final when he lost I believe 7 match points in the 18-16 4th set breaker and then won the 5th set 8-6. Borg won 6 RGs, but would have won more if he wasn't kept from playing 1 when he was the overwhelming favorite and if he didn't leave the game so early (his call - but look it up - tennis had a part in that by making him qualify for the Slams when he wanted to return). He was only 26 when he won his last RG. Rafa has already played 15 RGs and won 12. Borg played 8 times and won 6. He was only 17 when he played his first one and lost in the 4th round and then won 6 of 7 - losing one year in the quarters to Pannata, who was the only player to beat him at RG.
 
netlets said:
Borg and Rafa would have been a great rivalry. How anyone can say Rafa would have killed Borg is not taking into consideration the string, the racquets, and never saw Borg play. Borg may have gotten the better of Rafa, but I'll have to say 5-5 if they played ten times. You can't project what a dominant, more all around player like Borg would do with more powerful racquets and livelier strings. Borg was the first player that used topspin as a weapon - imagine how his ball would have jumped if he could have used poly. He had a better serve than Rafa. He was equally as fit but faster than Rafa, and a better volleyer which is witnessed by him serve and volleying to 5 straight Wimbledon titles on super fast grass, which Rafa would not have been able to do. Add to that, he only lost to one player EVER at RG (twice) and I would not be surprised if Borg won more than Rafa. Mentally they were equal - and if you saw Borg play you wouldn't question that. The greatest mental performance I've ever seen was the 1980 Wimbledon final when he lost I believe 7 match points in the 18-16 4th set breaker and then won the 5th set 8-6. Borg won 6 RGs, but would have won more if he wasn't kept from playing 1 when he was the overwhelming favorite and if he didn't leave the game so early (his call - but look it up - tennis had a part in that by making him qualify for the Slams when he wanted to return). He was only 26 when he won his last RG. Rafa has already played 15 RGs and won 12. Borg played 8 times and won 6. He was only 17 when he played his first one and lost in the 4th round and then won 6 of 7 - losing one year in the quarters to Pannata, who was the only player to beat him at RG.
Click to expand...
I am simply saying that with the exact technologies that they played with, Nadal would have won easily. It is futile to compare what would have happened if they had the exact same technology either. Some of the points you have made here are true, but are only hypothetical. I should have clarified what I meant in the post.

In general, head to head comparisons across eras are not wise to make. Like you said, strings, rackets, and style of play has evolved.
 
smalahove said:
Having watched a few of his highlights of his RG matches that have been released lately, there is absolutely no way 97 Guga would "annihilate" 2020 Nadal at RG. C'mon, a right hander with a one handed backhand? Most likely, 2022 Nadal would straight set the best version of Guga.
Click to expand...
But Guga loved high backhands
 
netlets said:
Borg and Rafa would have been a great rivalry. How anyone can say Rafa would have killed Borg is not taking into consideration the string, the racquets, and never saw Borg play. Borg may have gotten the better of Rafa, but I'll have to say 5-5 if they played ten times. You can't project what a dominant, more all around player like Borg would do with more powerful racquets and livelier strings. Borg was the first player that used topspin as a weapon - imagine how his ball would have jumped if he could have used poly. He had a better serve than Rafa. He was equally as fit but faster than Rafa, and a better volleyer which is witnessed by him serve and volleying to 5 straight Wimbledon titles on super fast grass, which Rafa would not have been able to do. Add to that, he only lost to one player EVER at RG (twice) and I would not be surprised if Borg won more than Rafa. Mentally they were equal - and if you saw Borg play you wouldn't question that. The greatest mental performance I've ever seen was the 1980 Wimbledon final when he lost I believe 7 match points in the 18-16 4th set breaker and then won the 5th set 8-6. Borg won 6 RGs, but would have won more if he wasn't kept from playing 1 when he was the overwhelming favorite and if he didn't leave the game so early (his call - but look it up - tennis had a part in that by making him qualify for the Slams when he wanted to return). He was only 26 when he won his last RG. Rafa has already played 15 RGs and won 12. Borg played 8 times and won 6. He was only 17 when he played his first one and lost in the 4th round and then won 6 of 7 - losing one year in the quarters to Pannata, who was the only player to beat him at RG.
Click to expand...

Borg would have won 8 or maximum 9 French Open titles.
With the appearance of Lendl and a more mature Wilander, the door to the title would have been closed to him.

I am sorry, but Nadal is in a totally different dimension from the Swedish player.
There is no point of comparison anymore.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Exactly.

And the #100 ranked player in 2040 would destroy any version of Nadal on clay.

The game evolves.

The better question is, could 2008 Rafa with a wood racket (allow him 6 months to practice with it), beat 70's Borg? Consider that Nadal's excessive topspin would be impossible with a wood racket.
Click to expand...

So Rafa gets 6 months to play with a wooden racket , that Borg played his whole life with ?
Excellent idea ...
 
terribleIVAN said:
Based purely on tennis ability and fitness, all past clay specialists would have a shot if Rafa was teleported to their era, because the material wouldn't have allowed Rafa to moonball to his opponent's backhand like he has built his strategy on.

It neutralizes his adversaries and makes the contest an endurance affair, where he always wins.

Remember, Puerta gave Rafa hell: Isner almost beat him.

Having said that, if Rafa saw that tactic didn't work, he could have adapted (provided Tony wasn't around) and improved his game to overcome once more the opposition.

I think Borg and Guga would have the best shot.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is off the charts, if you think all Nadal had to do was hit big looping forehand all his career to beat guys like Fed or Djokovic consistently.
 
Embarrass comments in this thread , that a 12 time winner of a slam , was only really winning because of technology .
 
RaulRamirez said:
Trying to put technology differences aside, the best clay players from that era were Borg, and then Vilas. Projecting Borg to this era, he was highly skilled and close to tireless. Rafa is bigger, stronger and at least equally skilled. On his best day...projecting that the ATGs would always find a way to succeed ...Future-Borg could possibly win 25-30% of their matches. (I don't usually do hypotheticals.)

Vilas was physically a beast, but he did not have Nadal/Borg's movement or repertoire of shots. I don't project him as a tough matchup for Rafa.
Click to expand...

You cannot just put technology to one side, you also need to look at advances in sports nutrition, sports therapy, medicine. Too many variables to compare players from different eras, even the top guys themselves acknowledge that. As others said, 20 30 years from now, players will come up that will make these current greats look weaker.
 
Hitman said:
You cannot just put technology to one side, you also need to look at advances in sports nutrition, sports therapy, medicine. Too many variables to compare players from different eras, even the top guys themselves acknowledge that. As others said, 20 30 years from now, players will come up that will make these current greats look weaker.
Click to expand...
This is why I usually avoid hypotheticals. But yes, I tried to reasonably project Borg to this era, with the attributes he had - nobody else approached what Nadal has done at RG. Maybe, he'd hit Rafa off the court, but even with greater nutrition, he's physically not as big as Rafa. Now, his speed and stamina were phenomenal, and obviously, his strokes would be even more lethal, so who knows. I think my projection was reasonable, given the question.
 
RaulRamirez said:
This is why I usually avoid hypotheticals. But yes, I tried to reasonably project Borg to this era, with the attributes he had - nobody else approached what Nadal has done at RG. Maybe, he'd hit Rafa off the court, but even with greater nutrition, he's physically not as big as Rafa. Now, his speed and stamina were phenomenal, and obviously, his strokes would be even more lethal, so who knows. I think my projection was reasonable, given the question.
Click to expand...

Who knows indeed.
 
Hitman said:
We all do at times. It's really about how you present them. Not just speaking tennis opinions here.
Click to expand...
My goal is to say exactly what I would as if speaking with someone, or writing an article with my byline - something I've done many times. In person, I care deeply about listening, mutual respect and trying to find common ground.
 
Definitely Lendl and Wilander. The way they use to literally walk back to the center of the baseline after every moon ball was incredible.
 
morten said:
But Guga loved high backhands
Click to expand...
Guga’s backhand is def not an ATG one, and even the best ohb has nothing more than a flyweight’s chance against a super heavyweight. You need to be able to step in and flatten the high ball out, and no ohb can do this consistently through a match. Just a matter of fact.
 
Less spin in the wood era but more emphasis on the ability to not make erros, and to run and run over and over again.
I'm sure that Nadal would have been pretty good. And the left biceps is surely a huge advantage when you have to carry a 50 kgs racquet.
 
DSH said:
Borg would have won 8 or maximum 9 French Open titles.
With the appearance of Lendl and a more mature Wilander, the door to the title would have been closed to him.

I am sorry, but Nadal is in a totally different dimension from the Swedish player.
There is no point of comparison anymore.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this - do you think Rafa would have won 6 RGs if he had a 72" racquet head and string that didn't allow his ball to jump nearly as high as it does now? The margins are so thin - the main reason Rafa doesn't do as well in a tournament (when he loses) is because his ball doesn't bounce as high and shoot up as quickly. His ball would be much more manageable for other players if he had to use a multi and a much smaller, much heavier racquet head. He would also never be able to hit winners from way behind the baseline. That's why Borg, who was faster, equally as fit and mentally tough, had a better serve (which would be huge in this rivalry) and volleyed better, would beat him more times than he would lose to him. What makes Rafa great today would not have been possible in Borg's era. He would still have been a great player, but would not have been able to flick his wrist and get himself out of trouble 10 feet behind the baseline. JMO.
 
kevaninho said:
Your ignorance is off the charts, if you think all Nadal had to do was hit big looping forehand all his career to beat guys like Fed or Djokovic consistently.
Click to expand...

Nobody in his right mind would deny all Rafa's strategy since he came on the tour has been built on neutralizing opposition with the high bouncing lefty forehand to his opponent's backhand.

Then he would make the contest a fitness affair.

Rafa's shots were most of the time loopy instead of flat. Now he's trying to reverse that trend but it's not easy since Tony taught him that way.

You just can't do that sort of thing with wooden rackets.

Borg, Guga and many others were much better at taking time away from their opponents by playing flat shots.

This by the way isn't a dig to Rafa: i fully believe he would have been an even better player had he employed a real coach from the start (he would actually have been a monster had he been taught tennis properly).

It's just that Tony saw the opportunity to dominate clay and refused to develop Rafa's game away from this surface.

That's plain as day for anyone who followed his career.
 
smalahove said:
Guga’s backhand is def not an ATG one, and even the best ohb has nothing more than a flyweight’s chance against a super heavyweight. You need to be able to step in and flatten the high ball out, and no ohb can do this consistently through a match. Just a matter of fact.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of Thiem and Stanimal? Guga's backhand would hold up fine.
 
I read an article that said that 1936 Jesse Owens was fast enough to medal in the 100 meter dash in 2012. They calculated how much time would be shaved off of his 10.3 100 meter dash by having starting blocks, running on synthetic grippy rubber tracks instead of slippery dirt tracks, and the massive advance in shoes. These adjustments bring his time down to 9.78. Granted, this isn’t perfect. But it makes a ton of sense.

Equipment makes a massive difference, something that I learned first-hand from playing competitive racquetball for 30 years.

 
terribleIVAN said:
Nobody in his right mind would deny all Rafa's strategy since he came on the tour has been built on neutralizing opposition with the high bouncing lefty forehand to his opponent's backhand.

Then he would make the contest a fitness affair.

Rafa's shots were most of the time loopy instead of flat. Now he's trying to reverse that trend but it's not easy since Tony taught him that way.

You just can't do that sort of thing with wooden rackets.

Borg, Guga and many others were much better at taking time away from their opponents by playing flat shots.

This by the way isn't a dig to Rafa: i fully believe he would have been an even better player had he employed a real coach from the start (he would actually have been a monster had he been taught tennis properly).

It's just that Tony saw the opportunity to dominate clay and refused to develop Rafa's game away from this surface.

That's plain as day for anyone who followed his career.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If this was the case, how on earth was he making Wimbledon finals 3 years in a row, as well as winning at Queens, under Toni's coaching early in his professional career?

Yes, his game on clay, was what built the foundation, but to say he never developed his game off of clay is crazy.

Or was it just that grass was playing like clay in 2006/07/08 ?

:rolleyes:
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Ever heard of Thiem and Stanimal? Guga's backhand would hold up fine.
Click to expand...

No, they don’t. None of those players are able to step in and flatten out a Nadal fh, on anything close to a consistent level. Yes, they can rip a CC winner from the back court, and sometimes a dtl from the back as well, but stepping in on a high FH from Nadal when you’re stuck in a CC rally is the domain of the thbh.
 
kevaninho said:
I disagree.

If this was the case, how on earth was he making Wimbledon finals 3 years in a row, as well as winning at Queens, under Toni's coaching early in his professional career?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He was covering the court like a rabbit.

Chasing down everything.

That's how.
 
kuerten would be the best bet.......first thing he is taller than rafa and second he has a great backhand........he is a legendary clay courter who knew how to win on clay against the best in business........
 
I don't think anybody from those decades could have beaten him.

The only other person (outside of Soderling obviously) who I think could have beaten a healthy Nadal would have been a peak (which we never saw) and healthy Coria.

Nobody else.
 
netlets said:
Let me ask you this - do you think Rafa would have won 6 RGs if he had a 72" racquet head and string that didn't allow his ball to jump nearly as high as it does now? The margins are so thin - the main reason Rafa doesn't do as well in a tournament (when he loses) is because his ball doesn't bounce as high and shoot up as quickly. His ball would be much more manageable for other players if he had to use a multi and a much smaller, much heavier racquet head. He would also never be able to hit winners from way behind the baseline. That's why Borg, who was faster, equally as fit and mentally tough, had a better serve (which would be huge in this rivalry) and volleyed better, would beat him more times than he would lose to him. What makes Rafa great today would not have been possible in Borg's era. He would still have been a great player, but would not have been able to flick his wrist and get himself out of trouble 10 feet behind the baseline. JMO.
Click to expand...

www.aftonbladet.se

Björn Borg on Rafael Nadal: ”Best player on clay ever”

Swedish tennis legend Björn Borg couldn’t believe his eyes watching Nadal demolish Wawrinka and winning French Open for the tenth time. ”I have never seen anyone play such a good final in Paris. He is the best ever player on clay”, Borg says, speaking exclusively to Sportbladet.
www.aftonbladet.se
8-B
 
Last edited:
For sure Borg would beat him. But probably Muster, Bruguera as well to name a few. Nadal has only really had one good opponent at FO and that is Djoko.

Players like Borg, Lendl, Muster, Bruguera, Courier etc has way tougher competition.
 
junior74 said:
It would have been fun to see someone totally different, like Becker/ Leconte, against Rafa. Watching on the telly, it's seems weird why guys don't come in more against Rafa - the potential of changing the dynamics a lot by doing so, is obvious. But players nowadays stop coming in if they are passed one or two times. Some of the old, aggressive guys just kept coming at you, and didn't mind being passed. They knew net rushing also made opponents make errors and it also means taking control over the points to some extent.

In more recent years, Cilic in Australia and US was a good example; he served out wide, to Rafa's backhand and came in behind it. He won many points with that strategy. More difficult to pull of on clay, obviously :(

PS! No need to respond with a booming running forehand from 3 meters behind baseline gif :)
Click to expand...

I guess you never saw Roddick play vs Nadal.

This notion that all you need to beat Nadal is just “come in to the net more” is the most stupid theory in tennis. Pure cope.
 
I find guys like Nadal and Borg fascinating to hypothesise about because they're clearly such momentum players. Borg packed it up after a few bad beats at peak and Nadal's level is pretty swingy based on confidence, especially compared to other GOAT-tier players.

If you spot Nadal his first 5 RGs before revealing Borg, I don't like Borg's chances of picking up more than 2. If you line them up at the same time, both would have interesting RG careers, maybe 3 Borg, 5 Nadal. Obviously we know what happens if we spot Borg his first 5 RGs before revealing Nadal.

Irregardless, I don't think Borg would allow Nadal to dominate clay the way Fedovic have. He would've found a way to make it a bit more competitive at RG.
 
ElChivoEspañol said:
I guess you never saw Roddick play vs Nadal.

This notion that all you need to beat Nadal is just “come in to the net more” is the most stupid theory in tennis. Pure cope.
Click to expand...

Thanks for over-simplifying my comment. The point of my comment was you need to take something away from Rafa's rhythm and you need to make him pay for his court positioning in order to create some space for yourself to explore.

Reacting to Rafa's loopy shots is a losing game.
 
I think Krajcek would regularly beat Nadal simply because he would not let him play. I could see a guy like enquist giveing him problems as well. Guys like Rafter and Edberg would be a thorn in his side. For the traditional clay courters Brueguera and Nadal would have some wars. Rios would be interesting because he seemed to have some magic ability to make even the best players look like novices when he was healthy. In Hamburg Medvedev would beat him because he pretty much owned everyone on cold wet clay.

One things for sure He wouldnt be able to stay that far back in those days. Players would exploit the heck out of that and his serve would be attacked a lot more. I still think he would rack up titles due to mental strength alone but he would have to work a lot harder throughout the entire tournament, face many different styles, and have a shorter career in terms of success before his body broke down and hindered his game sufficiently enough to make it ineffective.
 
Obviously you can't compare teleporting Rafa in earlier years or someone in 2000s and 2010s. A matchup analysis is impossible. So we have tu judge about how they dominate the field and their main competition.
I take account that Nadal had elite clay competition in Federer and Djokovic, and peak Federer can't beat Babydal in 2005/06.

I think some of the greatest RG player ever could sneak some RG titles winned by Rafa, if their peak years overlap with worst Rafa showdowns in RG.
I think that peak Borg and Lendl are better 2005/06 Rafa. I think no one was better than him at RG in late 00s and early 10, and 2017 as well. Hard to judge his last two title, Thiem isn't peak Nole or Fed, but he dominated vs the field. But maybe they can have a shot as underdogs in 2014, 2018 and 2019 anyway.
Peak Wilander probably would be the underdog in every year, but definitely he would have had a shot in Rafa's worst years. I'm skeptical about Kuerten.
Going out from 70s, 80s and 90s topic, I think peak Nole could beat Rafa too in 2005/06.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Is Djokovic a better player at Roland Garros or at Wimbledon?
Replies
15
Views
1K
nolefam_2024
N
RAFA2005RG
Beating Nadal in the Roland Garros Final is the toughest feat in tennis history?
2
Replies
88
Views
12K
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
L
  • Poll Poll
Who's a better clay court player: Djokovic or Kuerten?
2
Replies
76
Views
4K
BauerAlmeida
BauerAlmeida
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
[POLL] Is Djokovic better on clay or Nadal on hard outdoor?
2 3
Replies
149
Views
8K
Winner Sinner
Winner Sinner
Lukhas
Roland-Garros 2013: Nadal won't have a special seeding
2
Replies
94
Views
9K
TheF1Bob
TheF1Bob
Back
Top