Who displayed the 3rd Highest Clay Peak after Nadal and Borg ?

Who displayed the 3rd Highest clay peak after Nadal and Borg ?

  • Nastase in 1973 (9 Titles on Clay that year)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Orantes in 1975 (8 Titles on Clay that year)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wilander in some year (mention in comments)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    58

Razer

G.O.A.T.
The 3rd Best Clay Courter of all time should have a high peak level as well, otherwise how can he be 3rd ?

So who is it ?

I think it is Vilas

He played 147 matches in 1977, out of those 100 on Clay, won 14 titles and 2 of them were Grand Slams...... Record 53 match win streak on Clay in 1977 which was broken 28 years later..... What a BEAST !!!
 
Last edited:

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Borg didn't display second highest level in absolute term , in relative terms? Yeah

Edit: now some posters will come and engage in Hypotheticals of would should.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Yes, relative only. ...Otherwise Diego Schwartzman with his racquet can beat Laver using wooden racquets..... In these discussions peaks are always relative only I guess

I have seen some serious ttw scholars unironically taking it in absolute terms lol
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Lendl IMO.

Which year? Was he better than Vilas or Muster who have some abnormal win streaks at their peak.

I have seen some serious ttw scholars unironically taking it in absolute terms lol

Borg himself would lose to current guys, he would need some new type of training and help from modern diets/medicines to evolve, he was born 30 years before Nadal and so he would need to bridge that evolutionary gap.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Which year? Was he better than Vilas or Muster who have some abnormal win streaks at their peak.



Borg himself would lose to current guys, he would need some new type of training and help from modern diets/medicines to evolve, he was born 30 years before Nadal and so he would need to bridge that evolutionary gap.

Lendl throughout the 80s IMO, he was clearly the best of his time.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I have seen some serious ttw scholars unironically taking it in absolute terms lol
When it comes to Borg people mostly people keep it on relative terms or adjusted with better tech. If you talking about 90s and early 00s then yes it also argued for some even on absolute terms.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Which year? Was he better than Vilas or Muster who have some abnormal win streaks at their peak.



Borg himself would lose to current guys, he would need some new type of training and help from modern diets/medicines to evolve, he was born 30 years before Nadal and so he would need to bridge that evolutionary gap.
Lendl at RG 1986.
:cool:
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
When it comes to Borg people mostly people keep it on relative terms or adjusted with better tech. If you talking about 90s and early 00s then yes it also argued for some even on absolute terms.

I have seen some clown seriously believing Jmac would be dominating Wimbledon and beating peak big 3. Level of athleticism wasn't same even in 90s , extended rallies ,better control of ball by poly made tennis way more athletic post 2003-2004.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Which year? Was he better than Vilas or Muster who have some abnormal win streaks at their peak.



Borg himself would lose to current guys, he would need some new type of training and help from modern diets/medicines to evolve, he was born 30 years before Nadal and so he would need to bridge that evolutionary gap.

Borg would be losing to top 20 players if we transport him today , he would have to be transformed into an entirely new player to excel.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I have seen some clown seriously believing Jmac would be dominating Wimbledon and beating peak big 3. Level of athleticism wasn't same even in 90s , extended rallies ,better control of ball by poly made tennis way more athletic post 20003-2004.
Yeah a few posters sure.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I have seen some clown seriously believing Jmac would be dominating Wimbledon and beating peak big 3. Level of athleticism wasn't same even in 90s , extended rallies ,better control of ball by poly made tennis way more athletic post 20003-2004.

Yes, I too have seen that and I have always wondered how people call J Mac to have the highest Grass peak ever in 1984, that is so funny. Quite easily people ignore Sampras and Federer, directly they say J Mac can beat them at his best, I am left wondering how the hell are they saying that....
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
He was the best, but was it really "clearly" if with Mats there was a guy playing alongside him who won the same amount of FO titles and beat Lendl twice at the FO?

I'm speaking pure level wise. Accomplishment wise, Wilander is right up there. Lendl's peak though was the best in the 80s.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Yes, I too have seen that and I have always wondered how people call J Mac to have the highest Grass peak ever in 1984, that is so funny. Quite easily people ignore Sampras and Federer, directly they say J Mac can beat them at his best, I am left wondering how the hell are they saying that....

I have reservation about Fed's grass peak since he didn't look as unbeatable as Pete did while playing best. Maybe we are yet to witness Pete's eqvilatent on slow grass , someone will arrive and Fed was merely a prototype?
 
Last edited:

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I have seen some clown seriously believing Jmac would be dominating Wimbledon and beating peak big 3. Level of athleticism wasn't same even in 90s , extended rallies ,better control of ball by poly made tennis way more athletic post 2003-2004.
Some? I’d say quite a few. I’ve seen versions of this argument, that past greats would be able to play and win against the Big 3 with either or change in conditions, many many times. Never understood this.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I have reservation about Fed's grass peak since he didn't look as unbeatable as Pete did while playing best. Maybe we are yet to witness Pete's eqvilatent on slow grass , someon will arrive and Fed was merely a prototype?

Yeah Federer was not as dominant as Pete but maybe that is because of the age gap, the presence of Nadal and later Djokovic created a bit of a dent as these guys were younger to him as well, so thats also there. I think Roger would have been much better served with Djokodal of his same age, at least on Grass.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Yeah Federer was not as dominant as Pete but maybe that is because of the age gap, the presence of Nadal and later Djokovic created a bit of a dent as these guys were younger to him as well, so thats also there. I think Roger would have been much better served with Djokodal of his same age, at least on Grass.

I am not counting his losses post 30 but even at 25-26 Nadal took him to ropes and was a better player off ground in 2 finals ( especially 2007) I can't imagine someone even challenging Pete in Wimbledon finals let alone getting that close and facing a defeat .
 

austintennis2005

Professional
Which year? Was he better than Vilas or Muster who have some abnormal win streaks at their peak.



Borg himself would lose to current guys, he would need some new type of training and help from modern diets/medicines to evolve, he was born 30 years before Nadal and so he would need to bridge that evolutionary gap.
What would be the modern diets/medicines that were not available in the 1970’s?
 

buscemi

Legend
Năstase in 1973? Won the French and Italian Opens back to back. Didn’t lose a single set at the French Open, beating Pilic in the final, 6-3, 6-3, 6-0. Beat Orantes in the Italian Open final, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1.

So, in back-to-back BO5 set finals at the two biggest clay tournaments in the world, Năstase lot a total of 9 games over 6 sets.
 

Gizo

Legend
For what's it worth, the most impressed I've been by any player's level on clay, other than that of Nadal and Borg, and per the eye test, at a single big tournament, was Bruguera's at RG in 1993, in-particular destroying Medvedev in the semis and beating Courier in a very high quality 5 set final. His inside out forehand, touch, lethal passing shots and drop volleys were quite something.

Courier's level of play during his RG 1992 title defence was hugely impressive, but then I thought per the eye test that Bruguera's level during his 1993-1994 title runs was even better.
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I am not counting his losses post 30 but even at 25-26 Nadal took him to ropes and was a better player off ground in 2 finals ( especially 2007) I can't imagine someone even challenging Pete in Wimbledon finals let alone getting that close and facing a defeat .

Pete was very dominant in Wimbledon finals and thats why he was the ultimate alpha. Thats why I also say that losing in earlier rounds is fine but once you reach the final all eyes are on you at the big stage, if people pip you there it raises some serious questions.

This is also one of the reasons why Djokovic is not taken seriously despite 4 titles at the US Open, he has lost to so many people in the final in his 20s that those defeats have made it worse, it would have been better if he lost in 1st week than in the F.

Djokovic fans would like to pretend that those plates are medals but we know that for a GOAT those plates are stains on the legacy.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Pete was very dominant in Wimbledon finals and thats why he was the ultimate alpha. Thats why I also say that losing in earlier rounds is fine but once you reach the final all eyes are on you at the big stage, if people pip you there it raises some serious questions.

This is also one of the reasons why Djokovic is not taken seriously despite 4 titles at the US Open, he has lost to so many people in the final in his 20s that those defeats have made it worse, it would have been better if he lost in 1st week than in the F.

Djokovic fans would like to pretend that those plates are medals but we know that for a GOAT those plates are stains on the legacy.
So losing in 1st round is somehow better than reaching the finals and losing them?

:unsure: :unsure: :X3:
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
So losing in 1st round is somehow better than reaching the finals and losing them?

:unsure: :unsure: :X3:

Yes, it is better for ATGs

For GOATs it is better to lose early by being in bad form than be in form and lose in the end to someone better ...... you either be out of form or you raise hell if you reach the business end.... thats what is expected from alphas.... it is the betas who count plates .... guys like Murray can count their plates....
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Yes, it is better for ATGs

For GOATs it is better to lose early by being in bad form than be in form and lose in the end to someone better ...... you either be out of form or you raise hell if you reach the business end.... thats what is expected from alphas.... it is the betas who count plates .... guys like Murray can count their plates....
This makes no sense at all

A player that reaches finals will always be better than a player that loses in R2
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
This makes no sense at all

A player that reaches finals will always be better than a player that loses in R2
We had this discussion a couple of times and I agree it sounds illogical and is definitely a paradoxon but for GOAT candidates, meaning the best of the best there can actually be instances where it could be detrimental for their case to lose a final, at least in the public perception. Reason here is that when a GOAT candidate loses early it will be blamed on fluke or bad form and quickly forgiven as long as it does not happen to often, whereas a loss in an epic battle in a final against a fellow GOAT candidate will leave the impression of him being in great form and still losing to someone better.
Famous example is RG 08, nobody can tell me that this loss added anything positive to Fed's legacy. He already had enough finals and such a devastating loss did not help his case at all.
Another example is Wimblie 08. Nadal conquering Fed at his favourite slam was huge for him. Had Fed lost in the quarter, he would be 3-0 against Nadal at Wimbledon and I think the general consensus would be that Nadal was only able to win in the absence of Fed when someone else took him out for him (like it is with Fed at RG in 09).
Speaking of which. Had Nadal lost a potential RG 09 final against Fed, this would have been huge for Fed's case and in conclusion bad for Nadal. Losing to Sod however, is not seen as much more than a weird upset that happens even to the best.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
We had this discussion a couple of times and I agree it sounds illogical and is definitely a paradoxon but for GOAT candidates, meaning the best of the best there can actually be instances where it could be detrimental for their case to lose a final, at least in the public perception. Reason here is that when a GOAT candidate loses early it will be blamed on fluke or bad form and quickly forgiven as long as it does not happen to often, whereas a loss in an epic battle in a final against a fellow GOAT candidate will leave the impression of him being in great form and still losing to someone better.
Famous example is RG 08, nobody can tell me that this loss added anything positive to Fed's legacy. He already had enough finals and such a devastating loss did not help his case at all.
Another example is Wimblie 08. Nadal conquering Fed at his favourite slam was huge for him. Had Fed lost in the quarter, he would be 3-0 against Nadal at Wimbledon and I think the general consensus would be that Nadal was only able to win in the absence of Fed when someone else took him out for him (like it is with Fed at RG in 09).
Speaking of which. Had Nadal lost a potential RG 09 final against Fed, this would have been huge for Fed's case and in conclusion bad for Nadal. Losing to Sod however, is not seen as much more than a weird upset that happens even to the best.
But Fed got destroyed in that RG final so he wasn't in great form anyway. So because it was a final, his form suddenly was great?
 

SonnyT

Legend
Whatever peak Djokovic had in 2011 clay, Fed beat it where it counted most.
In 2007, 19 year old Djokovic had a 7-6 2-6 7-6 win for his first victory over Federer. We don't claim a 19-year-old was better than #1 player in the world! Accidents DO HAPPEN!

Borg: 10-3 vs Vilas; 4-0 vs Lendl
Nadal: 11-2 vs Federer; 20-8 vs Djokovic

So it had to be Djokovic!
 

buscemi

Legend
Villas in 1977. Not even close.
By far the best two clay court players Vilas played in 1977 were Borg and past-his-prime Nastase.

Borg was 2-0 against Vilas, beating him 6-2, 6-3 in Monte Carlo and 6-0 in the 4th set in Nice.

Vilas was 1-1 against Nastase, beating him in 3 sets in a B03 final in Virginia Beach and quitting after losing the first two sets against him in Aix en Provence, 6-1, 7-5 in the infamous spaghetti string match.

Outside of the Majors, the two biggest clay court tournaments were probably the Italian Open, where Vilas was straight setted by Franulovic, and Hamburg, where Mottram beat him in three sets.

That doesn't cut it for me.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
But Fed got destroyed in that RG final so he wasn't in great form anyway. So because it was a final, his form suddenly was great?
He played a really bad match but reaching the final alone tells us he was not overall in bad form. I seriously believe him losing in the semi would have been better for his legacy. Even worse is that this devastating loss eventually also ruined his confidence and carried over to the Wimbledon final.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
By far the best two clay court players Vilas played in 1977 were Borg and past-his-prime Nastase.

Borg was 2-0 against Vilas, beating him 6-2, 6-3 in Monte Carlo and 6-0 in the 4th set in Nice.

Vilas was 1-1 against Nastase, beating him in 3 sets in a B03 final in Virginia Beach and quitting after losing the first two sets against him in Aix en Provence, 6-1, 7-5 in the infamous spaghetti string match.

Outside of the Majors, the two biggest clay court tournaments were probably the Italian Open, where Vilas was straight setted by Franulovic, and Hamburg, where Mottram beat him in three sets.

That doesn't cut it for me.
The third highest level should be someone who at least was the best on clay in the respective year. Vilas would not have won the FO in 77 if Borg had played.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He played a really bad match but reaching the final alone tells us he was not overall in bad form. I seriously believe him losing in the semi would have been better for his legacy. Even worse is that this devastating loss eventually also ruined his confidence and carried over to the Wimbledon final.
Or that nobody was able to expose his true level which in Fed's case was true. His draw was pretty weak.

Might as well say Djoker was in great form at the AO this year as he only lost in the semis to the eventual winner, Sinner.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
We had this discussion a couple of times and I agree it sounds illogical and is definitely a paradoxon but for GOAT candidates, meaning the best of the best there can actually be instances where it could be detrimental for their case to lose a final, at least in the public perception. Reason here is that when a GOAT candidate loses early it will be blamed on fluke or bad form and quickly forgiven as long as it does not happen to often, whereas a loss in an epic battle in a final against a fellow GOAT candidate will leave the impression of him being in great form and still losing to someone better.
Famous example is RG 08, nobody can tell me that this loss added anything positive to Fed's legacy. He already had enough finals and such a devastating loss did not help his case at all.
Another example is Wimblie 08. Nadal conquering Fed at his favourite slam was huge for him. Had Fed lost in the quarter, he would be 3-0 against Nadal at Wimbledon and I think the general consensus would be that Nadal was only able to win in the absence of Fed when someone else took him out for him (like it is with Fed at RG in 09).
Speaking of which. Had Nadal lost a potential RG 09 final against Fed, this would have been huge for Fed's case and in conclusion bad for Nadal. Losing to Sod however, is not seen as much more than a weird upset that happens even to the best.
I can see how some fan bases would rather their favorite had lost early rather than face a key rival. But I don’t think any of the ATGs think this way. You don’t get to be so good without an incredibly strong spirit of competition, of wanting to win it all.

i think AO19 was the most dominant win (measured by the DR) among Big 3 slam matches. And possibly some Nadal fans would have preferred Rafa had lost earlier. But Rafa himself? I don’t think that thought would ever cross his mind. That‘s why I don’t wish Novak had lost earlier in RG2020. It was a key part of his struggle to win more.

you are right that if some matches hadn’t taken place the way they did, say W08 F, new narratives would have arisen (Nadal only wins at WB when Fed isn’t around). But if anything, knowing what we know, such matches only prove how useless all the hypothetical match discussions are. The reality is we don’t know and should stop pretending we have any clue who would win hypothetical matches.
 

inflation_era

Professional
In 2007, 19 year old Djokovic had a 7-6 2-6 7-6 win for his first victory over Federer. We don't claim a 19-year-old was better than #1 player in the world! Accidents DO HAPPEN!

Borg: 10-3 vs Vilas; 4-0 vs Lendl
Nadal: 11-2 vs Federer; 20-8 vs Djokovic

So it had to be Djokovic!

Wasn't a slam.
 
Top