At this point I think you have to say Nadal is a superior hard court player to Borg. However I think Borg at this point still has to be the superior grass court player and indoor player. On clay it is a toss up. Borg is over Nadal at the moment but that could change, and good chance it will.
Martina Navratilova convinced Nadal will be the GOAT
- Thread starter octogon
- Start date
Xemi666
Professional
Borg is over Nadal at clay too at this moment, but that will probably change next year. Obviously, Borg has had a far superior career on grass too. But, Nadal is still playing, we'll see how things pan out in the end.
Xemi666
Professional
I hear you. Those folks would be wrong then. That's the thing many people don't realize. Borg was actually good/great on ALL non-clay surfaces. He won 5 hard court titles, 22 indoor titles, and 6 grass court titles (5 Wimbledons). That's just the official ATP tourneys listed on the website. The same thing is true of Nadal now. The guy is good/great on EVERY non-clay surface. You name it and he can play on it. Then with BOTH players, you have the red clay. They're arguably the two greatest clay courters of all time. Many similarities between the two in my opinion. Borg brought me so much joy when he played. These days, Nadal is a modern version in many ways. Make no mistake about it, I give Nadal enormous credit for his non-clay prowess. The '09 AO title and the '10 US Open title were both huge statement wins for him. He may be most vulnerable on hard courts, but he is basically as good as anyone on hard courts/grass courts now if he is healthy (even when the opponent is at 100%). Then, he has all those intanglibles that help him even more at the majors (5 set strength, mental toughness, self-confidence, etc). For quite a while now, I've thought that Nadal would ultimately go down as a true great, along with others in the "first tier" such as Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer. Many also consider such players as Rosewall, Gonzalez, and Tilden in that very elite group of players.
I was too young to watch Borg, when he started playing I wasn't in this world yet
. People say Nadal is like the Borg of his era, and it's true that their careers are somewhat similar so far.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
She cannot be serious.:-? I don't think even Roger will win 20.:neutral:
danielrios
Semi-Pro
I do think so. With an easy draw he could win every major final he plays. His problem is with top 10. If top players lose early he definitely could do it.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
What are the chances he avoids the top 10 at 4 slams? I can see it happening at one slam but not at 4... When was the last time Roger won a slam without facing a top 10?
danielrios
Semi-Pro
1 slam per year: 20 slams
Nadal would have to win atleast 6 Wimbledons and win more Queens for me to think of rating him over Borg on grass. Borg won 5 straight Wimbledons on true grass which was alot faster and tougher on the baseliners than today, and had far superior grass court competition to Nadal who has an over the hill Federer, Murray, a past his prime Roddick, and otherwise a collection of grass court nobodies.
P_Agony
Banned
P_Agony
Banned
You mean more of a cheater, more boring, more forced, more unnatural. To each his own I guess.
P_Agony
Banned
Yeah, its a good thing, just like Nadal's problem with his knees is a good thing for tennis :shock:
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
Tendonitis doesnt go away in 3-4 days, where did u get that info from?
Nadal puts lots of pressure on his knees, over time it gets worse and he is not getting any younger.
And by the way it's not only about tendonitis, he has had different types of injuries, I am guessing shoulder will be coming next.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
I am a Nadal fan my dear,
But I am a very honest person first. I dont let love blind my eyes buddy, I still see the truth.
abmk
Bionic Poster
What? T&M really said that? Well, actually its not surprising given my sig
yeah, he did, not once but twice !
nadal_slam_king
Banned
Everybody knows about Rafa's 2010 blood-spinning treatment. His doctor has spoken about it in IMMENSE detail. You should read. LOLL shoulder, good one.
I seem to recall you explaining that treatment by saying "blood is removed from a tendon".
Buckethead
Banned
Here is my take on this:
Martina is entitled to her opinion and her opinion has much more impact than most people's opinion.
I do not agree with her when she talked about Murray though.
Murray does give credits to his opponents but that doesn't mean He accepts when He loses a match, that is his personality. Murray's problems are more technical (forehand, serve, too defensive..) than not giving credits to his opponents.
About Fed I disagree with her. If Fed is able to play his best, like at AO this year, He can still beat anyone whenever they play their best depending on the surface, but she is right when she says that Fed's dominance is over, and it's been over since got the mono before AO in 2008, since then, everything is different.I also agree with her and she says Fed can't get any better, He can be a little better on his backhand, but it will a lot of work, and I am not sure if He will put that work on it.
About Nadal she is dead wrong. Nadal can't get much better, and Nadal doesn't only play Federer, He also has to play others to get to the final, and the field is getting closer and closer to Nadal, not to mention the ones that already beat Nadal lately and some can thrash him on HC. Nadal's major wins this year were a cakewalk in every single one.
He didn't have to play more than 2 top 10 players to win it, and they were not strong mentally. However if no one manage to get there that is not Nadal's problem. He did beat Djokovic when they both played their best, that was probably the hardes major He won this year, but even though Fed would have beaten Nadal if He were in the final.
She is wrong again about Nadal being a number one being healthy. There are many players coming up that will be able to beat him, how can she predict the future?
Del Potro is the one who will take his umber one away from him and del Potro is the one who will be winning 2 majors a year, not Nadal, in fact I think next year will be the last year Nadal will be on the top. I really doubt Nadal will win more than 12 at best.
Another thing is, ATP is not WTA, ATP has a strong top 200, and people are even watching challengers now, and that shows how interesting challenger have become, not to mention the ATP.
Martina is entitled to her opinion and her opinion has much more impact than most people's opinion.
I do not agree with her when she talked about Murray though.
Murray does give credits to his opponents but that doesn't mean He accepts when He loses a match, that is his personality. Murray's problems are more technical (forehand, serve, too defensive..) than not giving credits to his opponents.
About Fed I disagree with her. If Fed is able to play his best, like at AO this year, He can still beat anyone whenever they play their best depending on the surface, but she is right when she says that Fed's dominance is over, and it's been over since got the mono before AO in 2008, since then, everything is different.I also agree with her and she says Fed can't get any better, He can be a little better on his backhand, but it will a lot of work, and I am not sure if He will put that work on it.
About Nadal she is dead wrong. Nadal can't get much better, and Nadal doesn't only play Federer, He also has to play others to get to the final, and the field is getting closer and closer to Nadal, not to mention the ones that already beat Nadal lately and some can thrash him on HC. Nadal's major wins this year were a cakewalk in every single one.
He didn't have to play more than 2 top 10 players to win it, and they were not strong mentally. However if no one manage to get there that is not Nadal's problem. He did beat Djokovic when they both played their best, that was probably the hardes major He won this year, but even though Fed would have beaten Nadal if He were in the final.
She is wrong again about Nadal being a number one being healthy. There are many players coming up that will be able to beat him, how can she predict the future?
Del Potro is the one who will take his umber one away from him and del Potro is the one who will be winning 2 majors a year, not Nadal, in fact I think next year will be the last year Nadal will be on the top. I really doubt Nadal will win more than 12 at best.
Another thing is, ATP is not WTA, ATP has a strong top 200, and people are even watching challengers now, and that shows how interesting challenger have become, not to mention the ATP.
Last edited:
Omega_7000
Legend
What??????? :lol:
MotherMarjorie
Banned
Mother Marjorie thinks that Martina Navratilova has a well-intended bias towards publicizing another lefty as GOAT. However, Martina and her predictions haven't always been on-target.
That said, Mother Marjorie will leave this one alone for the time being. She can do that, you know.
As Always,
Mother Marjorie
That said, Mother Marjorie will leave this one alone for the time being. She can do that, you know.
As Always,
Mother Marjorie
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
We'll see if Nadal's body can hold up enough for him to make a run at Fed's 16 Grand Slam singles titles - I won't hold my breath though since it's only going to get more difficult from here on (as he hits 25 and up) for Nadal to remain healthy.
Martina might be right but I think she's not thinking it through all the way and is just assuming that Nadal will remain healthy - something I wouldn't want to bet money on...
Martina might be right but I think she's not thinking it through all the way and is just assuming that Nadal will remain healthy - something I wouldn't want to bet money on...
P_Agony
Banned
Well, T&M has gone insane a long time ago. I don't know why he's so miserable considering his hero is doing so well. Maybe he just needs to get out more, breath a little, drink something, meet some nice girls, perhaps even get a job. Bu for that he'll need a CV, and what will he write there? That he's a mental case? How will he get a job? And then he'll have no money, and he won't be able to get a nice looking girl a drink! So let's assume the girl doesn't mind, she'd still be frightened by his crazy personality, and he'll be all depressed, and then, then the worst thing will happen - He'll come back to post here!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
big bang
Hall of Fame
1. sure Nadal cant get much better, just like that he would never be anything but a claycourter, would never win Wimby, AO or USO. He improves his game all the time and will continue to do so!.
2. he only faced 2 top 10 players to win a slam, so its a cake-walk?? funny when you mention that the top 200 are very strong LOL..
3. He beat joker when they both played their best according to you right? joker beat Fed in the semi, but STILL he would have beaten Nadal in the final?? Pretty hard to believe especially when you look at their head to head.
Lets see Del-po win a couple of matches to start with before saying he will take the #1 spot away from Nadal and win multiple slams.
Nadal just had the most impressive season since Laver won the Grand-Slam, thats pretty hard to ignore!. Its going to be extremely hard to continue that kind of dominance, but as long as hes fit his ranking is not going to drop even if hes not going to win 3 slams next year.
What response would you have preferred?
Would you rather everyone just say, "I agree, Martina is right"?
:-?
P_Agony
Banned
How come Nadal's season is more impressive than Fed's 2006?
Fed won 3 slams that year (making all 4 finals, unlike Nadal in 2010). Fed won 4 MS titles that year (IW, Miami, Toronto and Madrid) against Nadal's 3 MS titles in 2010. Fed later won the TMC which is by far the most important event in tennis after the 4 majors. Fed missed just one final in ALL of the tournaments he played in 2006, and he lost only to two players THE WHOLE YEAR.
Heck, Fed's 2007 season was more impressive than Nadal's 2010 season.
big bang
Hall of Fame
1. he didnt win 3 slams in a row! big difference. Fed never won 3 in a row within same calenderyear.
2. Nadal was the first ever to make the clean sweep on clay. On top of that he won FO and Wimby back to back for the second time.
Only thing thats gonna beat that is 4 slams in a row!
P_Agony
Banned
No, Nadal's 2010 is inferior to Fed's 2006 and 2007 season, and I could argue over 2004 as well. IF Nadal wins Paris and then the YEC, we can talk, but even then it'll probably be Fed's 2006 due to that extra slam final.
Nadal did not win all 3 slams in one season(dry). Fed also won 3 straight slams(and not in one season), but between those three slams, Roger won the 2nd most important tourney(YEC) when Nadal never made the final. Roger won 3 straight slam in two occasions including the YEC. Not to mention he made all 4 finals while Rafa was roasted by Murray in 2010 AO semi. He also set the highest atp ranking points in early 2007.
I seriously doubt you ever watch Roger play at all !
big bang
Hall of Fame
yeah yeah and if Nadal wins all 4 next year, then fed would still have 3, 4 or 5 seasons that was way better according to you ****s because its only 1 more then Fed ever won in a season and Fed won something else to at least equal it right?
Rafa won 3 in a row this year and was the first ever win everything on clay. Lots of players won TMF and masters 1000 before, but noone did whar Rafa did that why hes had the better season compared to any Fed ever had!
You worship makes you blind:shock:.
Rafa won 3 in a row this year and was the first ever win everything on clay. Lots of players won TMF and masters 1000 before, but noone did whar Rafa did that why hes had the better season compared to any Fed ever had!
You worship makes you blind:shock:.
three slams + 1 slam final are three slams
big bang
Hall of Fame
no no its 5 just ask TMF and agony! 3 in a row beats 3 + 1 final that shouldnt even be discussed. Oh wait it wasnt Fed so it doesnt count
*******s allways say "its all about the slams" guess thats changed hah??
3 slams in a row on different surfaces: RECORD!
3 slams being US Open, CLay, Wimbledon when played on different surfaces: RECORD!
3 slams being USopen, Clay, Wimbledon when played on different surfaces in a row in a calendar year: RECORD!
holey moley.
Last edited:
Buckethead
Banned
So are 3 majors, in your case slams lol, in a row, in one year or in 10 years.
This discussion is absolutely unnecessary and idiotic.
However Nadal won the French playing only one top 10, in the final only, with everybody out of form, I mean the top 10, and Soderling gave it away easily. Sod played so bad that he had 15 BP and didn;t convert a single one.
Wimbledon Fed (the grass King) was injured and out of form just like everybody else, Nadal cheated against Petzchner , almost lost against Haase who got injured.
The US Open was a little better since, since He played Djokovic in the final.
But we still have to applaud Rafa, but it wasn't something impossible to win these 3 as it was won.
Nadal hasn’t won 2011 AO, you just said he had the finest season since Laver, which I completely prove you WRONG. Stay on topic! Since you never watch Roger played, I told you he also won 3 straight slams at two different occasions. Also, between Rafa’s 3 slams run, he won one mickey mouse title(Japan). During Roger’s 3 slams run, he won a 2 MS(indoor Madrid, Canada), Halle, Tokyo, Basel. And most important...the YEC. Added to the fact he was the finalist at the FO in 2006 and 2007.
I’m so tired of having to explain to ignorant poster.
Please...stop making a fool out of yourself when you don't watch tennis !
Buckethead
Banned
Answers-
1- That is why they work hard everyday, to be better and be able to adapt to other surfaces and so forth, but it was an achievement for him, in my opinion. A good example to be taken.
2- A little contradictory, but yes, not a difficult draw with those match ups he had, even if the competition is closer
3- Are you kidding me? That match could' ve been won by Fed, and Djoker out played Fed, and that doesn't mean Fed couldn't find an extra gear to the final and also Fed on his best Djoker gets destroyed, simple as this.
4-We'll anxiously wait for it to happen.
maybe you did know this but no one is going to give amazing rafa a tough time on clay who do you think can challenge him he owns all LOL @ soderling playing bad why dont you ask yourself why did he play bad it is because amazing rafa run down everything and make him look bad
so what if he had 15BP and didnt convert any it is because amazing rafa played well and did not allow him to convert even if he had 100 break points but cannot convert, then he deserve to lose because the only reason he lost is because the other player (amazing rafa) converted more break points than him just because you are able to make break point 15 chances it does not mean you should win the match after all he is playing against amazing rafa, so 15 BPs is already a good job against the messiah of clay
Last edited:
and what makes you think amazing rafa will have no answer to that extra gear?
no no its 5 just ask TMF and agony! 3 in a row beats 3 + 1 final that shouldnt even be discussed. Oh wait it wasnt Fed so it doesnt count
*******s allways say "its all about the slams" guess thats changed hah??
2005 W.......ONE !
2005 USO....TWO !
2006 AO......THREE !
2006 W.......ONE !
2006 USO....TWO !
2007 AO......THREE !
Learn how to count. Better yet, start watching tennis !
Buckethead
Banned
That wasn't clay court my friend, that was fast HC and Fed can handle everything Nadal can throw at him in NY.
Feds forehand on fast HC can destroy Nadal with his buggy whip forehand.
But it's past we can't do anything.
peace out bro.
very true but i believe amazing rafa will not get destroyed because nobody can destroy amazing rafa even if it was on a trampoline maybe you did not know this but amazing rafa has mastered a new skill called the flat goat forehand that has 43.43791% less top spin that make the ball go faster just a shame that we could not see how not so amazing roger will deal with it hopefully next year or at AO'11
peace out bra.
IvanisevicServe
Banned
Rafa plays for my life on clay. Anywhere else...no.
Grass: Sampras
Hardcourt: Prime Federer
Grass: Sampras
Hardcourt: Prime Federer
That just means nobody is the best on every surface. So the greatest ever would not have to be the best on every surface.
The-Champ
Legend
I said slams cuz the guy I was quoting did. And if it was impossible it wouldnt have happened.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Rafa played 2 top 10 to win USO (Verdasco + Djoko) + Youzhny who was on his way back to top 10 (he's #9 right now).
At Wimbledon, he also played 2 top 10 (Murray and Sod) + Berdych who was on the verge of making top 10 as well (currently #6)
That is 3 top 15 he had to beat for each one of those slams. Much better than Fed who in 2009 won Wimbledon playing just 1 top 10 and 1 top 15 (or top 20 for that matter), same for RG.
BTW, in his career, Fed has won 33 titles without playing a top 5 (19 for Rafa), 15 titles without playing a top 10 (13 for Rafa), 9 titles without playing a top 20 (4 for Rafa) and 5 titles without playing a top 30 (2 for Rafa)
Last edited:
