shermanator12290
Rookie
hes not the king of anything right now he's always ****ed up
Borg also didn't win any clay court event 5 times in a row (Rafa did in Monte-Carlo and Barcelona). He also didn't get an 81 win streak on clay and note that although it's true he won 6 RG overall, he also didn't do better than 4 in a row and he did the 4 in a row at an older age than Rafa. Borg also lost on clay more than Rafa. Since 2005 (his breakthrough year), Rafa hasn't lost on clay more than once to any player except for Fed (to whom he's lost twice) and he's lost once to only 3 players: Andreev, Ferrero and Soderling.See? Nadal gets no respect. Did Borg have to beat federer to win any of these?
"some success"? He's won a slam on hard, Indian Wells twice, Canada twice, Madrid indoor, the Olympics, Dubai, Beijing, has made the final of Miami, Shanghai and Paris indoor. And let's not forget his success on grass either at Queen's and Wimbledon.
A lot of so called fast court specialists would kill for a record like that, sorry, starting with Roddick who is desperate to ever win W.
Borg also didn't win any clay court event 5 times in a row (Rafa did in Monte-Carlo and Barcelona). He also didn't get an 81 win streak on clay and note that although it's true he won 6 RG overall, he also didn't do better than 4 in a row and he did the 4 in a row at an older age than Rafa. Borg also lost on clay more than Rafa. Since 2005 (his breakthrough year), Rafa hasn't lost on clay more than once to any player except for Fed (to whom he's lost twice) and he's lost once to only 3 players: Andreev, Ferrero and Soderling.
Yes slams are what matters. And who are the guys who won slams on hard court in the last 4 years or so? Fed, Rafa, Djoko and Delpo. If those guys are not the best current hard court players, then who is?1) People will remember your name for the number of MAJORS you win...with that being said masters 1000 events are irrelevant so don't even bother. Olympics? Sure, every four years. lol.
2) I said NOTHING about grass because he has adjusted his game for the surface and he is a good player on it.
Yes slams are what matters. And who are the guys who won slams on hard court in the last 4 years or so? Fed, Rafa, Djoko and Delpo. If those guys are not the best current hard court players, then who is?
We would not be having this conversation if Wimbledon hadn't chickened and slowed down grass (and used old balls) to appease the clay courters. Grass these days plays slower than HC and almost as slow as clay.
On a fast surface Nadal has no chance, on the slick green grass of the 90's he would not be a force. Forget about finals and winning.
Sorry but Borg is the King of Clay ( 6FO titiles) and more ability than Nadal ever had!
In fact Borg plays Clay better than Nadal![/QUOTE]
and the award for joke of the day goes to you sir!
funny guy LOL
LOL at this thread.
Depends what you mean by "king". If we are talking mastery of a surface(plus titles on it) then Nadal is the king of clay in this era. If we are talking all time,only Borg surpasses him. Borg has 30 something clay titles if I am not mistaken and at 23 years old Rafa has 25. To surpass Borg,Rafa has to win 2 more RG's and a couple more clay titles and he will be the CCGOAT.
And Nadal is not just a claycourter,he is actually one of the few who know how to play on grass nowadays,along with Fed,Roddick,Hewitt and maybe Murray. The guy has 3 WB finals(and is the youngest guy to reach third round here since Becker) and could have easily had 3 WB with no GOAT in sight.
Regarding competition: there is no doubt that Borg had to deal with more natural claycourters in his time(because there were more surface specialists) like pannata,orantes or vilas but Nadal did not luck out on his wins,he has always had to defeat the nr.2 claycourter(by far with 4 RG finals,none of Borg's competition managed that) and nr.1 seed to win his RG titles,not to mention that they have met quite a few times in clay masters as well.
1974 RG: Borg met Orantes in the final and the spaniard was seeded 14 but the swede manages to win after losing the first two sets.
1975 RG: Bjorn met Vilas in the final(after finishing off panatta in SF) and the argie was seeded 4th.
1978 RG: Borg met Vilas again,who this time was seeded second and had a easier time with him than in 75'.
1979 RG: Borg met Victor Pecci Sr.,an unseeded player,but who had the run of his life,defeating Higueras,Vilas and Connors along the way.
1980 RG: Borg met Vitas Gerulaitis,the fifth seed,in the final.
1981 RG: Perhaps Borg's toughest RG final,meets the nr.5 seed,Lendl,and manages to beat him in five sets.
2005 RG: Nadal beats Puerta,an unseeded player,after beating the nr.1 seed,Fed in the semifinals.
2006 RG: Nadal beats the nr.1 seed Federer in the final,after beating the nr.4 seed,ljubicic, in the semifinals.
2007 RG: Nadal beats the nr.1 seed Federer in the final,after beating the nr.6 seed djokovic in SF.
2008 RG: Nadal beat the nr.1 seed Federer in the final,beating djokovic(nr 3 seed) in the SF.
I would give anything to see a Borg versus Nadal on clay,with both in their primes,with modern rackets(can you imagine borg's spin with one of those?).
WELLLL.... Borg had to contend with Many great ClayCourters than RAFA, Had Borg not played, then those Clay_Courters would have won a few more RG. One is Vilas, and I don't want to name others since there are too many.
Nadal only had to face Federer, and some other guys who aren't prominent clay courters. Ya there is Djokovic and Monfils who are pretty good on clay but who else.
The 70's and 80's are tought times with a stronger competition.
I know the player now are stronger but Federer and Nadal are head and heels above the rest which makes them look weak. Still those times, everyone can bite everyone elses necks. That means Borg battle for 6 french Opens are more meaningful than Nadal. Yes in reality one RG= RG. SO nadal and borg mean the same. In terms of who is the better clay courter obviously Borg.
Borg with a wooden racquet will beat Nadal with a wooden Racquet.
Borg Racquet.with a Modern Graphite Racquet will beat a Nadal with a Modern
Plus for the guy who said there is lack of respect for Nadal...Well I actually hated Nadal for beating Federer at the french. But after Fed won RG, I know Nadal is the reason it makes it so interesting. Heck people will dislike Nadal for reasons, but in the future it will be like..GOOD times those days when I critizied Nadal because (.....)
Thank you Namelessone! It's great you noted the tech changes. IMAGINE Borg with a Wilson BLX or Babolat frame and Luxilon strings that would ENHANCE his topspin off both wings!
To generate the spin and pace Borg did with a wood frame that was ~70 sq. inches, very heavy (I've heard his custom frame was about 17 ounces!), and wood is something many don't quite comprehend. If you've played with those frames, you'll see why almost NO ONE hit the way he did in the wood era. It took incredible skill/strength to pull that off.
It's also nice to have some historical perspective when comparing Nadal and Borg. The seeding is a bit strange though. For example, though Vilas was often seeded outside the top 5, he was TOUGH on clay. Beating Vilas twice and Lendl once in those FO finals wasn't easy, plus as you rightly mentioned, that era was filled with lots of clay court specialists, from South America, Europe, as well as the U.S. (Dibbs, Solomon for example).
sorry I was too quick before.. this part is just,, whats the word? insane I guess
If there is one player in history who could beat a healthy,prime Nadal on the RG clay that would be Borg and Borg alone,at least IMO. I suppose Muster or Guga could have a shot with 2005 Nadal.
Yes, I'd include those guys along with Lendl as well. They were all very tough in their prime. Even Wilander was very tough, but he would have perhaps had a more difficult time with Nadal's power and spin. Vilas with modern frames would have been also interesting against Nadal. Two very strong lefty players.
I've seen Vilas play live on red clay in Houston (River Oaks, early 1980's), and let me tell you, that guy was scary strong. His shots would bounce so high with topspin that is was driving players way back near the fence of the courts (without poly/though he was using graphite by then). He could outlast anyone on clay, except for one guy, Borg. They had many 5 hour workouts on clay when Vilas was coached by Tiriac.
Check this out:
Really? What's your basis for that? You don't think that Borg's Game would have been more formidable with Graphite/Poly strings? Then add that on top of what he was able to do with OLD technology. Adjusting to modern frames is MUCH simpler than vice versa. I know, it worked for me, so I have no doubt Borg could have thrived with better technology, as did many other players who made the switch. Borg's game was tailor made for the baseline style of today, with heavy spin off both wings. He could have THRIVED with the new frames/strings. He was playing today's Game, in many ways, back in the late 1970's! He and Lendl ushered in the modern style that is now the "norm".
What is your basis for concluding that Borg beating Nadal on clay equalized for technology is somehow "insane"? That would mean NO ONE could beat Nadal on clay, unless you think all the players of today are greater than Borg somehow.