Nadal vs Borg on clay [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal vs Borg on clay

Pigsarestupid
04-23-2008, 07:39 PM
I guess this has been done before many times, I would still like to hear some opinions about how the 2 clay masters compare with each other. Clearly the game is different from 30 years ago, with different equipment and the clay getting faster for each year. It is pretty obvious Borg would beat Nadal with a wooden raquet and the same goes for Nadal with modern raquets. It is also clear that we cant compare their overall achievment, because Nadals career isnt over yet. I wasnt even born when Borg was playing tennis, so what I want to know is if he dominated his opponents the same way Nadal dominates his opponents, aswell as the quality of Borgs opponents in comparasion with todays players on claycourts. From results only it seems Nadal is dominating this era on clay more than even Borg 30 years ago, what I dont know is the quality of Borgs opponents.

I know Vilas was a great player but it seems like he was Borgs btch on clay and couldnt challenge him much better than Djokovic can challenge Nadal on clay. For me the question is about players like Panatta who defeated Borg 5 times on clay, twice in roland garros. What kind of player was Panatta, why did he cause Borg so much trouble?

It also seems like Borg was less serious about lesser clay events where he often lost to unknown players, in fact Borg didnt even care for RG that much as he one year in his prime simply decided not to play the tournament.

For me Nadal seems to have been more dominant in his 3 years on the top of the hill and it also seems like every clay event is very important to him. On the other hand Borg had more well known clay opponents like Vilas and Lendl in his late clay career, maybe that is what is missing in Nadals clay era (unless you count Roger as a great clay opponent).

elessar
04-23-2008, 07:55 PM
I guess this has been done before many times, I would still like to hear some opinions about how the 2 clay masters compare with each other. Clearly the game is different from 30 years ago, with different equipment and the clay getting faster for each year. It is pretty obvious Borg would beat Nadal with a wooden raquet and the same goes for Nadal with modern raquets. It is also clear that we cant compare their overall achievment, because Nadals career isnt over yet. I wasnt even born when Borg was playing tennis, so what I want to know is if he dominated his opponents the same way Nadal dominates his opponents, aswell as the quality of Borgs opponents in comparasion with todays players on claycourts. From results only it seems Nadal is dominating this era on clay more than even Borg 30 years ago, what I dont know is the quality of Borgs opponents.

I know Vilas was a great player but it seems like he was Borgs btch on clay and couldnt challenge him much better than Djokovic can challenge Nadal on clay. For me the question is about players like Panatta who defeated Borg 5 times on clay, twice in roland garros. What kind of player was Panatta, why did he cause Borg so much trouble?

It also seems like Borg was less serious about lesser clay events where he often lost to unknown players, in fact Borg didnt even care for RG that much as he one year in his prime simply decided not to play the tournament.

For me Nadal seems to have been more dominant in his 3 years on the top of the hill and it also seems like every clay event is very important to him. On the other hand Borg had more well known clay opponents like Vilas and Lendl in his late clay career, maybe that is what is missing in Nadals clay era (unless you count Roger as a great clay opponent).

Absolutely not ! Never before was such a revolutionary idea introduced :worship:

stebs
04-23-2008, 08:09 PM
what I want to know is if he dominated his opponents the same way Nadal dominates his opponents

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-78, O, Clay , Draw: 128


Deblicker, Eric (FRA) 6-1 6-1 6-1
Fagel, Rick (USA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) 6-0 6-2 6-2
Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 6-2 6-4 7-6
Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 6-3 6-3 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 26-May-80, O, Clay , Draw: 128

Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) 6-3 6-1 6-4
Gomez, Andres (ECU) 6-2 6-2 6-1
Portes, Pascal (FRA) 6-3 6-0 6-1
Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-3 6-3
Solomon, Harold (USA) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 6-4 6-1 6-2

elessar
04-23-2008, 08:11 PM
Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-78, O, Clay , Draw: 128


Deblicker, Eric (FRA) 6-1 6-1 6-1
Fagel, Rick (USA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) 6-0 6-2 6-2
Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 6-2 6-4 7-6
Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 6-3 6-3 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 26-May-80, O, Clay , Draw: 128

Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) 6-3 6-1 6-4
Gomez, Andres (ECU) 6-2 6-2 6-1
Portes, Pascal (FRA) 6-3 6-0 6-1
Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-3 6-3
Solomon, Harold (USA) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 6-4 6-1 6-2
That TB is a disgrace :(

Byrd
04-23-2008, 08:11 PM
I see Borg lost the most games to Tanner, I heard he always had problems with big servers, especially Tanner.

tennizen
04-23-2008, 08:21 PM
Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-78, O, Clay , Draw: 128


Deblicker, Eric (FRA) 6-1 6-1 6-1
Fagel, Rick (USA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) 6-0 6-2 6-2
Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 6-2 6-4 7-6
Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 6-3 6-3 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 26-May-80, O, Clay , Draw: 128

Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) 6-3 6-1 6-4
Gomez, Andres (ECU) 6-2 6-2 6-1
Portes, Pascal (FRA) 6-3 6-0 6-1
Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-3 6-3
Solomon, Harold (USA) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 6-4 6-1 6-2

I am sure if MTF existed the weak claycourt era(at that time) would definitely have been pointed out for those who couldn't see it:lol:

l_mac
04-23-2008, 08:21 PM
Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-78, O, Clay , Draw: 128


Deblicker, Eric (FRA) 6-1 6-1 6-1
Fagel, Rick (USA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) 6-0 6-2 6-2
Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 6-2 6-4 7-6
Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 6-3 6-3 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 26-May-80, O, Clay , Draw: 128

Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) 6-3 6-1 6-4
Gomez, Andres (ECU) 6-2 6-2 6-1
Portes, Pascal (FRA) 6-3 6-0 6-1
Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-3 6-3
Solomon, Harold (USA) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 6-4 6-1 6-2


For sure Borg played during a time where there were only giants of the game on a clay court. :sad: The competition he faced was terrifying.

hra87
04-23-2008, 08:57 PM
I am sure if MTF existed the weak claycourt era(at that time) would definitely have been pointed out for those who couldn't see it:lol:

For sure Borg played during a time where there were only giants of the game on a clay court. :sad: The competition he faced was terrifying.

Are you two ACTUALLY suggesting that Borg played during a weak clay era? That's ridiculous.

Pigsarestupid
04-23-2008, 09:04 PM
Can somebody explain to me why Panatta caused so much problem for Borg on clay? How was Panattas game? What weapon did he have that caused Borg to lose to him 5 times on clay and twice in RG?

Also I wonder when Nadals Panatta will show up...

tennizen
04-23-2008, 09:10 PM
Are you two ACTUALLY suggesting that Borg played during a weak clay era? That's ridiculous.

No I am actually saying that the lopsidedness of those scores was because of Borg's greatness while Nadal's dominance is merely due to the absence of good clay courters:shrug:

hra87
04-23-2008, 09:11 PM
No I am actually saying that the lopsidedness of those scores was because of Borg's greatness while Nadal's dominance is merely due to the absence of good clay courters:shrug:

Oh. Spot on then. That makes sense. Please disregard previous post.

Pigsarestupid
04-23-2008, 09:21 PM
No I am actually saying that the lopsidedness of those scores was because of Borg's greatness while Nadal's dominance is merely due to the absence of good clay courters:shrug:

Did you watch tennis when Borg was playing? I really dont know how many here even existed when Borg was winning titles. I doubt a little that Borgs opponents were so much better than Nadals opponents and I cant find any objective reasons to belive in that theory.

elessar
04-23-2008, 09:24 PM
Can somebody explain to me why Panatta caused so much problem for Borg on clay? How was Panattas game? What weapon did he have that caused Borg to lose to him 5 times on clay and twice in RG?

Also I wonder when Nadals Panatta will show up...
he was a very talented S&V who ironically was at his best on slow surfaces.

hra87
04-23-2008, 09:27 PM
Did you watch tennis when Borg was playing? I really dont know how many here even existed when Borg was winning titles. I doubt a little that Borgs opponents were so much better than Nadals opponents and I cant find any objective reasons to belive in that theory.

There is actually an easy way to find objective reasons. You can determine which players are NATURAL clay-courters, and see what percentage of people winning clay matches were clay-courters and what percentage of people winning hardcourt/grass/carpet matches were hardcourt/grass/carpet players. The fact of the matters is there are FAR fewer top claycourters now, and even those claycourters lose regularly to hardcourters. In Borg's time there were more claycourters and they beat hardcourt/grass/carpet players far more often.

OSmeone
04-23-2008, 09:28 PM
tennis would win

Nathaliia
04-23-2008, 09:30 PM
Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-78, O, Clay , Draw: 128


Deblicker, Eric (FRA) 6-1 6-1 6-1
Fagel, Rick (USA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) 6-0 6-2 6-2
Tanner, Roscoe (USA) 6-2 6-4 7-6
Ramirez, Raul (MEX) 6-3 6-3 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-1 6-0
Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 26-May-80, O, Clay , Draw: 128

Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) 6-3 6-1 6-4
Gomez, Andres (ECU) 6-2 6-2 6-1
Portes, Pascal (FRA) 6-3 6-0 6-1
Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) 6-0 6-3 6-3
Solomon, Harold (USA) 6-2 6-2 6-0
Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) 6-4 6-1 6-2
mug era :lol:

Thierry Champion would blow him.

tennizen
04-23-2008, 09:32 PM
Did you watch tennis when Borg was playing? I really dont know how many here even existed when Borg was winning titles. I doubt a little that Borgs opponents were so much better than Nadals opponents and I cant find any objective reasons to belive in that theory.

I was actually kidding. I haven't watched Borg and don't care much for this debate. Just based on extrapolation I agree with the bolded part.

There is actually an easy way to find objective reasons. You can determine which players are NATURAL clay-courters, and see what percentage of people winning clay matches were clay-courters and what percentage of people winning hardcourt/grass/carpet matches were hardcourt/grass/carpet players. The fact of the matters is there are FAR fewer top claycourters now, and even those claycourters lose regularly to hardcourters. In Borg's time there were more claycourters and they beat hardcourt/grass/carpet players far more often.

hra87 I was being sarcastic in both my posts:lol: I am not really getting into this debate:)

hra87
04-23-2008, 09:34 PM
I was actually kidding. I haven't watched Borg and don't care much for this debate. Just based on extrapolation I agree with the bolded part.



hra87 I was being sarcastic in both my posts:lol: I am not really getting into this debate:)

Heh, and I thought OTHER people were bad at detecting sarcasm. I take the cake. :worship:

tennizen
04-23-2008, 09:37 PM
Heh, and I thought OTHER people were bad at detecting sarcasm. I take the cake. :worship:

:lol: We all have our off-moments:hug::)

Pigsarestupid
04-23-2008, 09:39 PM
There is actually an easy way to find objective reasons. You can determine which players are NATURAL clay-courters, and see what percentage of people winning clay matches were clay-courters and what percentage of people winning hardcourt/grass/carpet matches were hardcourt/grass/carpet players. The fact of the matters is there are FAR fewer top claycourters now, and even those claycourters lose regularly to hardcourters. In Borg's time there were more claycourters and they beat hardcourt/grass/carpet players far more often.

I dont buy that, there were loads of americans in RG semifinals and finals in Borgs era and I dont think USA is known for teaching people to play clay tennis. Also the spanish and argentinian clay specialists were kind of nonexistent, except Vilas that is (who was kind of a pioneer for Argentinian tennis).

I have just checked and there were 10 american semifinalists in RG between 75-80. Unless there is something I dont know about american clay tradition it seems to me that many of these players where not clay specialists.

theDreamer
04-23-2008, 09:51 PM
I am sure if MTF existed the weak claycourt era(at that time) would definitely have been pointed out for those who couldn't see it:lol:

For sure Borg played during a time where there were only giants of the game on a clay court. :sad: The competition he faced was terrifying.

Are you two ACTUALLY suggesting that Borg played during a weak clay era? That's ridiculous.

No I am actually saying that the lopsidedness of those scores was because of Borg's greatness while Nadal's dominance is merely due to the absence of good clay courters:shrug:

Oh. Spot on then. That makes sense. Please disregard previous post.


I'm sorry but I had to do this:
:haha::haha::haha::haha:
:worship::worship:

JediFed
04-23-2008, 10:30 PM
Wow, so true.

Every era was full of clowns. Gerulaitis in a RG Final?

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 12:57 AM
I think the greatest claycourt era was the second half of the 90s and beging of the century with Muster, Moya, Corretja, Costa, Guga, Kafelnikov, Ferrero and Coria leading the way. But this clay era isnt that bad, if you just take a look at the early 90s and late 80s when french open finalists were Courier, young Agassi, old Gomez, Edberg, Michael Chang and even Petr Korda. Courier was probably called the king of clay in this era, now that is a clown era.

Muster, Spanish armada, argentinians and Guga came to the rescue and they were the most entertaining bunch I have seen, you always had 7-8 different great clay players who could win the french open. I miss those good old days, but we are still better off today then we have been in other eras when Australians and americans (who didnt even grow up on clay) have dominated the french open.

TankingTheSet
04-24-2008, 01:07 AM
I dont buy that, there were loads of americans in RG semifinals and finals in Borgs era and I dont think USA is known for teaching people to play clay tennis. Also the spanish and argentinian clay specialists were kind of nonexistent, except Vilas that is (who was kind of a pioneer for Argentinian tennis).

I have just checked and there were 10 american semifinalists in RG between 75-80. Unless there is something I dont know about american clay tradition it seems to me that many of these players where not clay specialists.

Be careful, I don't much about that time but even the US Open was played on clay around that time (before 1978) and there were for sure many more clay courts in the US. It's a different era. Americans were a lot of better on clay at the time.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 01:24 AM
Be careful, I don't much about that time but even the US Open was played on clay around that time (before 1978) and there were for sure many more clay courts in the US. It's a different era. Americans were a lot of better on clay at the time.

American clay was vastly different from european clay, Borg couldnt even win usopen on american clay and that should tell how different american clay really was.

BaggyGreen92
04-24-2008, 01:33 AM
This is not a match up. Tennis has evolved.

Action Jackson
04-24-2008, 01:57 AM
Is this Clown Death's brother?

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 02:00 AM
Is this Clown Death's brother?

Are you talking about me? :confused:

RagingLamb
04-24-2008, 02:37 AM
Why not bump old threads instead if you know this has been discussed before?

FedFan_2007
04-24-2008, 02:52 AM
Nadal is a claycourt king who turns into a MUG on hardcourts!

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 02:55 AM
Is this Clown Death's brother?

you must have me confused with somebody else Homes. evidence seems to suggest that you are one of the clowns here. i figured you and fed fan were cousins.

just stick to tennis instead of attacking people and taking cheap shots at them. it doesnt serve your cause well.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 02:59 AM
Why not bump old threads instead if you know this has been discussed before?

Sorry, I just dont know any of the old threads. I kind of suspected this has been discused before, but at the same time I dont know what harm another thread about an old subject might do to anyone.

Action Jackson
04-24-2008, 03:21 AM
you must have me confused with somebody else Homes. evidence seems to suggest that you are one of the clowns here. i figured you and fed fan were cousins.

just stick to tennis instead of attacking people and taking cheap shots at them. it doesnt serve your cause well.

Don't fret, because I and many others have called you out on your bullshit on certain subjects, using 11th graders as reference points.

Rain is wet, the sun rises in the east and you enjoy a good troll. These are called facts.

Action Jackson
04-24-2008, 03:22 AM
Sorry, I just dont know any of the old threads. I kind of suspected this has been discused before, but at the same time I dont know what harm another thread about an old subject might do to anyone.

The search engine here works for the most part, it should be used and yes this subject has been done to death.

hra87
04-24-2008, 03:42 AM
:lol: We all have our off-moments:hug::)

Oh man,I just read your posts again, and they are worded in a way that makes it very plainly obvious they are sarcastic. I must have been reading it way too fast. But l_mac's, if she was joking, isn't as obvious. Your second one in particular is about as sarcastic as humanly possible.

prima donna
04-24-2008, 03:56 AM
Borg.

Kolya
04-24-2008, 04:00 AM
Borg.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 09:58 AM
The search engine here works for the most part, it should be used and yes this subject has been done to death.

Well the existence of this thread doesnt mean everyone must come here and take a visit, if you are tired talking about a subject why do you come here with that kind of negative attitude? Just let it be where it is and go to other threads, let those who still want to discuss the subject do whatever they want (like new people who havent taken part of these old discussions).

Lleyton_
04-24-2008, 10:08 AM
Borg.

stebs
04-24-2008, 10:12 AM
Heh, and I thought OTHER people were bad at detecting sarcasm. I take the cake. :worship:

:lol: Now you see how easy it is next time I mistake you for a troll and take a sarcastic post for a real one you can't laugh so hard. :p

tennizen
04-24-2008, 12:46 PM
Oh man,I just read your posts again, and they are worded in a way that makes it very plainly obvious they are sarcastic. I must have been reading it way too fast. But l_mac's, if she was joking, isn't as obvious. Your second one in particular is about as sarcastic as humanly possible.
:lol:

:lol: Now you see how easy it is next time I mistake you for a troll and take a sarcastic post for a real one you can't laugh so hard. :p


I think it's ok to laugh when somebody else misses it and be prepared to be laughed at when you do it;):lol: