Who is the 2nd best clay courter of all time

[Racquet_smash]

In the second half of 1977, Vilas was really riding high. He won 46 matches in a row, and something like 74 wins in 75 matches. The high point was Vilas winning the 1977 US Open final against Connors 2-6, 6-3, 7-6, 6-0, just one year after Connors had beaten Vilas 6-4, 6-2, 6-1 in their 1976 US Open semi final on the same court. Vilas beat Connors again in the January 1978 Masters, though lost to Borg, while Connors beat Borg in the final.

He had a few decent runs, but overall he wasn't very good against the top players. He has a losing record against Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Connors, Gerulaitis and many more. In many of these cases the h2h is completely one sided.

Nadal would have likely dominated Vilas as much as Borg did.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Not to diminish Borg's dominance of Vilas, but Vilas was very much a flat track bully who had a losing record against just about every top player of the time, particularly the 1-7 vs Wilander.

Valid point. I am not making a case for Borg > Nadal overall on clay though. Just that peak level play they are very comparable. The huge difference with Nadal is a massive edge in longevity (which is likely even without Borg's early retirement btw).

 

[martinezownsclay]

Vilas had a similar style to Borg, although left-handed and one-handed backhand, but was generally slightly inferior in every aspect, so if they just slug it out from the baseline then Borg is going to win unless Vilas perhaps is in such good form that he is doing those things better than Borg. When Vilas did beat Borg, it was usually because he mixed things up tactically and didn't just slug it out from the baseline with Borg.

Nadal's dynamic with Federer and Djokovic is very different to that of Vilas and Borg.

Well yes, but on the latter point Nadal is much more of a true bad match up for Federer, than Borg is for Vilas. Since being a weaker version of someone else isn't so much a bad match up, it is just being weaker. Nadal is a bad match up for Federer (with very different games, apart from both being mainly baseliners) for a lot of reasons, one being his heavy lefty topspin forehand going into Federer's one handed backhand that has a tough time dealing with that consistently. So you could argue Nadal is the one in that comparision with the more favorable match up, in comparision to Vilas and Borg, and he still fares better vs Nadal on clay than Vilas vs Borg.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Valid point. I am not making a case for Borg > Nadal overall on clay though. Just that peak level play they are very comparable. The huge difference with Nadal is a massive edge in longevity (which is likely even without Borg's early retirement btw).

Their peaks are comparable, i don't disagree with this.

I wouldn't rule out Nadal dominating Vilas the same way Borg did.

 

[timnz]

Not to diminish Borg's dominance of Vilas, but Vilas was very much a flat track bully who had a losing record against just about every top player of the time, particularly the 1-7 vs Wilander.

Wilander vilas is really interesting - I think most matches were after Vilas’ prime. However Vilas won the first match they played in straight set Madrid 1982, then won the first set at Roland garros in 1982 - and then never won a set again their whole rivalry.

Sometimes the match up is bad. Similarly wilander connors - Connor’s never won an official match, however Connors dominated in non-sanctioned tournaments like Suntory cup in Japan. So that makes 4 wins connors had over wilander - all in invitational tournaments. All in the 1983 to 1986 period. Beaver creek 1983 and 1985, newport Beach 1983, suntory tokyo 1986 - all in straight sets interestingly. None of which were clay fyi

 

[Racquet_smash]

Wilander vilas is really interesting - I think most matches were after Vilas’ prime. However Vilas won the first match they played in straight set Madrid 1982, the won the first set at Roland garros in 1982 - and then never won a set again their whole rivalry.

Sometimes the match up is bad. Similarly wilander connors - Connor’s never won an official match, however Connors dominated in non-sanctioned tournaments like Suntory cup in Japan. So that makes 4 wins connors had over wilander - all in invitational tournaments. All in the 1983 to 1986 period. Beaver creek 1983 and 1985, newport Beach 1983, suntory tokyo 1986 - all in straight sets interestingly. None of which were clay fyi

Well, that same season Vilas lost in straights to Wilander in the FO final. That's definitely a very bad loss given he didn't win a set against a 17 years old.

But as i said the issue with Vilas is that he didn't just match up badly against one or two players (and even the 6-24 against Borg and Wilander is a tad too bad if you ask me) but he lost the majority of matches against basically every great player of the era. His record against Lendl for reference is 5-10, against Gerulaitis 6-7 (and we aren't talking about an all time great) and he lost to Harold Solomon 3 times at the FO who ain't exactly considered one of the best players ever. Even someone like Okker who wasn't a T1 player destroyed him 6-1 in overall matches played.

 

[timnz]

Well, that same season Vilas lost in straights to Wilander in the FO final. That's definitely a very bad loss given he didn't win a set against a 17 years old.

But as i said the issue with Vilas is that he didn't just match up badly against one or two players (and even the 6-24 against Borg and Wilander is a tad too bad if you ask me) but he lost the majority of matches against basically every great player of the era. His record against Lendl for reference is 5-10, against Gerulaitis 6-7 (and we aren't talking about an all time great) and he lost to Harold Solomon 3 times at the FO who ain't exactly considered one of the best players ever. Even someone like Okker who wasn't a T1 player destroyed him 6-1 in overall matches played.

Vilas did win a set in the FO final. The first set. Okker could push hard a lot of very good players when he was on. But your main point stands about Vilas’ record against the absolute elite. He was still a very good player. 4 slams (though 2 of those were ‘minor slams’ during the AO weak era of 1970, 1972-1982). His most impressive non-clay feats was winning the WTF on grass, the Milan indoor (over Connors) on indoor carpet and the poor field 2 AO’s on grass and others. He certainly was a more versatile player than Muster, a player he is often compared to

 

[Racquet_smash]

Vilas win a set in the FO final. The first set. Okker could beat a lot of very good players when he was on. But your main point stands about Vilas’ record against the absolute elite.

Alright, memory didn't serve right there lol