Collins: Nadal still not Borg's equal on clay [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Collins: Nadal still not Borg's equal on clay

WhataQT
06-10-2008, 08:00 AM
Nadal still not Borg's equal on clay
Spaniard, however, may eventually surpass Swede as best-ever on dirt




OPINION
By Bud Collins
NBC Sports


Bud Collins


PARIS Ė I sat dazzled today by the amazing display that Rafael Nadal put on before a packed stadium at Roland Garros to win his fourth consecutive French Open title. The Spaniard, ranked No. 2 in the world and seeded second here, was brilliant beyond words and so dominant that world No. 1 Roger Federer could only win four games in a lopsided straight-set defeat, 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 that took under two hours to complete.


For Nadal it was a history-making Sunday as he became the second man to win four consecutive French Open titles. Bjorn Borg, who was on hand to watch todayís final, won four in a row in 1978-81. Nadal raged through this Paris fortnight, a young superstar on a mission, not dropping a set and losing only 41 games in seven rounds while extending the perfection of his career match record at Roland Garros to an astounding 28-0.


Borg is unsurpassed at this major, having won the ultimate test on dirt six times (he won consecutive titles in 1974-75 to precede his run of four straight to close out the Ď70s and begin the Ď80s).


And it is Borg who remains at the head of the class of clay-court artists Ė even in light of all that we are seeing from Nadal. My belief on that could eventually change since Nadal, who just turned 22, would seem on track -- unless something goes terribly wrong with his career -- to overtake Borg as the all-time clay-court master. Nadal winning seven or more French Opens does not seem out of reach by any means Ė but until he does, Borg stays as my King of Clay.


Certainly Borgís accomplishments on the red dirt of Roland Garros stand alone, but there have been some other illustrious clay-court players worth including in the discussion of the best-ever players on the surface. One of those is Nadalís Spanish compatriot Manuel Santana, who won the French Open twice (1961 and 1964). And there was the great Italian clay-court artist Nicola Pietrangeli, who won consecutive titles in 1959 and 1960. And Guillermo Vilas, who won here in 1977, was -- like Nadal -- a great southpaw on clay although Nadal is quicker on the court than Vilas though I suspect the Argentine was probably stronger than the Spaniard.


But none of the three aforementioned clay-court superstars was better than Nadal. No itís just Borg that Nadal must surpass on dirt. Borg, the all-time cream of the clay-court crop, who rose to the highest of heights on the surface has for so long seemed to have his supremacy on the surface beyond the reach of anyone. But that began to change the first time Nadal stepped foot on a court at Roland Garros. And no one understands better than the Spaniard Ė as humble as he has been in interviews geared around his mastery on clay Ė that to eventually be anointed King Rafa of the Clay he must reduce what Borg achieved on the surface to second best.


What is most impressive about Nadal is that he is a far better player than he was last year. Heís serving better and if itís possible, heís moving better as he covers the court. The thing which helps Nadal look so good on clay against Federer is he is always there Ė meaning he is always in place to have a shot at hitting the ball, which takes away one of Federerís strengths, which is keeping the ball away from his opponents. And like most players, Federer just cannot handle the immense spin that Nadal puts on his shots.


If you look at the stats from this latest Paris collision of the two best players in the world Ė this was the third straight year they have met in the French Open final --


Federer was only able to win five of 24 points when his second serve went in, and 26-of-53 points on his first-serve. He made 35 unforced errors to seven for Nadal and only won 18-of-42 points at the net. Federer faced at least one break point in all but one of his 11 service games.


In case fans are wondering, the last time Federer lost a set at love was in 1999 at the Queenís Club tournament on grass -- he fell to Zimbabwean Byron Black 6-3, 6-0 in the first round.


The only worse final I recall at Roland Garros was in 1977 when Vilas defeated Brian Gottfried 6-0, 6-3, 6-0, but itís hard not to notice that Gottfried wasnít the top player in the world as Federer has been for so long.


Nadal is just marvelous and I donít see how Federer can be called the greatest player of all time if he canít beat Nadal on a clay court. Nadal improved his overall winning record over Federer to 11-6. In their 10 clay-court meetings, Federer has won only once in the Hamburg final last year. And instead of looking better in this third consecutive Paris title-match against Nadal -- the last two of which both went to four sets -- Federer looked as if he was lost with no answers.


While itís hard to deny that today was all about Nadal and deservedly so, a few words about Federer must be written. I keep looking back to the third-round match at the Australian Open in January when Janko Tipsarevic tested all of Federerís patience before the world No. 1 barely came through but then went on to lose to eventual champion Novak Djokovic in the semifinals. Iíve felt that since that Tipsarevic match Federer is just not the same player and itís possible that maybe he never will be.


It is probably premature to write but it could be that weíre seeing the end of Federerís reign at the top. Iím thinking that Pete Sampras might be feeling a little safer with his all-time record of 14 majors won after today since Federer is still two majors behind equaling that record. I know a few months ago that Sampras said he thought that Federer would go way ahead of him, but Iím not so sure that is all that certain now.


One question that is always brought up when discussing Nadal is whether he can win at any of the other majors. I believe he can and his best shot is at Wimbledon. He can win Wimbledon and shouldíve won Wimbledon last year. He has a tough time at the U.S. Open because over the course of the year he takes a lot out of himself when he plays so by the time Flushing Meadows comes around in late August heís worn out. But if Nadal sets his mind to winning the U.S. Open he can tinker with his schedule and work it out to where he can be fresh and ready to contest for the title in New York. As for the Australian Open, maybe it takes place too early in the year for Nadal to be at his best since he just hasnít shown much Down Under, although I think his game should translate well to the Aussie hardcourt surface.



Nadal can back up his French Open win with a title at Wimbledon in just a few weeks time. And I also believe that one day in the future, maybe sooner than most think, Nadal will take from Federer the No. 1 ranking. Bottom line: If youíre Nadal, the best is yet to come!

© 2008 NBC Sports

Knightmace
06-10-2008, 08:39 AM
Big ups to Nadal, he is equally Borg imo, but only on clay.

BlueSwan
06-10-2008, 09:10 AM
Nadal is just marvelous and I donít see how Federer can be called the greatest player of all time if he canít beat Nadal on a clay court.

Now that is just nonsense. If Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time, which I believe that he is, why should the greatest allround tennis player of all time be expected to beat him on clay (which, BTW, he has done, in Hamburg last year)??

I mean, who else is in contention for the title of GOAT? Pete Sampras whose clay court results are dismal for a player of his status? Bjorn Borg, who never won the US Open (or the Australian Open) and whom Federer has already superceded in terms of number of Grand Slams won as well as in most other statistical terms?

Certainly, the fact that Federer can't defeat the greatest clay courter of all time at Roland Garros, in absolutely no way threatens his claim to the title of the GOAT.

Tnn74
06-10-2008, 09:49 AM
^^ Okay, calm down... :lol: this article was, after all, written by Bud Collins :shrug:
One thing he is correct though... Rafa is indeed the greatest clay courter ever :angel:

avocadoe
06-10-2008, 09:50 AM
basically, this is good news for Roger, as BC is overwhelmingly wrong in his predictions :)

Bibberz
06-10-2008, 09:52 AM
Now that is just nonsense. If Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time, which I believe that he is, why should the greatest allround tennis player of all time be expected to beat him on clay (which, BTW, he has done, in Hamburg last year)??

I mean, who else is in contention for the title of GOAT? Pete Sampras whose clay court results are dismal for a player of his status? Bjorn Borg, who never won the US Open (or the Australian Open) and whom Federer has already superceded in terms of number of Grand Slams won as well as in most other statistical terms?

Certainly, the fact that Federer can't defeat the greatest clay courter of all time at Roland Garros, in absolutely no way threatens his claim to the title of the GOAT.

I agree. If we're waiting for a GOAT who is the GOAT on all surfaces, we're never going to crown anyone.

Kolya
06-10-2008, 10:45 AM
He's equal to Borg on clay. But never in greatness.

DDrago2
06-10-2008, 11:12 AM
I agree. If we're waiting for a GOAT who is the GOAT on all surfaces, we're never going to crown anyone.

I think the best way to explain why Federer is seen as the best player ever is to put things in quality/quantity perspective. A player can overcome all before him in purely way of quantity - striking the ball harder, being more consistent etc. but not introducing anything new quality-wise. With Federer, he didn't bring anything bigger quantity-wise in the game - and even nothing completely new quality-wise for that matter - but, he in a way compiled into a harmonic whole everything that was done before him and with a personal stamp and style of his own. He looks like a final stage of evolution of decades of the game - in the way on which he plays and he looks.
Younger players like Nadal and Djokovic are bringing new things only quantity-wise - they are stronger, more consistent etc. but they don't bring anything new to the game on they way on which Federer did, or some other ex-champs like Borg in their's time.

Forehander
06-10-2008, 11:22 AM
I think the best way to explain why Federer is seen as the best player ever is to put things in quality/quantity perspective. A player can overcome all before him in purely way of quantity - striking the ball harder, being more consistent etc. but not introducing anything new quality-wise. With Federer, he didn't bring anything bigger quantity-wise in the game - and even nothing completely new quality-wise for that matter - but, he in a way compiled into a harmonic whole everything that was done before him and with a personal stamp and style of his own. He looks like a final stage of evolution of decades of the game - in the way on which he plays and he looks.
Younger players like Nadal and Djokovic are bringing new things only quantity-wise - they are stronger, more consistent etc. but they don't bring anything new to the game on they way on which Federer did, or some other ex-champs like Borg in their's time.

wow this is good post :worship:

Bazooka
06-10-2008, 11:37 AM
Nadal has been more dominant than Borg in the clay tournaments, he never won 81 matches in a row. He's the recordman in Montecarlo, Rome and Barcelona. Also Borg failed to win the USO on clay, I would like to see what Nadal would do there...

Talking strictly about RG, Borg is still a little above Nadal. It's true that he has 6 titles, but Nadal is undefeated, never played a 5th set, and has defeated the number 1 in three finals in a row. Also, by just winning his first round match next year, he will make a new 29-0 record in the tournament.

So for me, Nadal has equaled or slightly surpassed Borg in clay.

Just talking about clay, you know, in general tennis there's no doubt who's greatest.

gebl
06-10-2008, 12:09 PM
Nadal has been more dominant than Borg in the clay tournaments, he never won 81 matches in a row. He's the recordman in Montecarlo, Rome and Barcelona. Also Borg failed to win the USO on clay, I would like to see what Nadal would do there...

Talking strictly about RG, Borg is still a little above Nadal. It's true that he has 6 titles, but Nadal is undefeated, never played a 5th set, and has defeated the number 1 in three finals in a row. Also, by just winning his first round match next year, he will make a new 29-0 record in the tournament.

So for me, Nadal has equaled or slightly surpassed Borg in clay.

Just talking about clay, you know, in general tennis there's no doubt who's greatest.

yes.

as usual, Bud Collins misjudges matters.

for the reasons in the quote above, Nadal has already pulled ahead of Borg on clay.

also, Federer can already be reasonably expected to be labelled the GOAT without needing to beat Nadal at RG.

thank you Bud for confirming (by putting forward the opposite) the above.

Beforehand
06-10-2008, 12:59 PM
Now that is just nonsense. If Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time, which I believe that he is, why should the greatest allround tennis player of all time be expected to beat him on clay (which, BTW, he has done, in Hamburg last year)??

I mean, who else is in contention for the title of GOAT? Pete Sampras whose clay court results are dismal for a player of his status? Bjorn Borg, who never won the US Open (or the Australian Open) and whom Federer has already superceded in terms of number of Grand Slams won as well as in most other statistical terms?

Certainly, the fact that Federer can't defeat the greatest clay courter of all time at Roland Garros, in absolutely no way threatens his claim to the title of the GOAT.

Glad to know that I"m not the only one who has thought this repeatedly over the last 2 or so years. I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

Bazooka
06-10-2008, 01:16 PM
yes.

as usual, Bud Collins misjudges matters.

for the reasons in the quote above, Nadal has already pulled ahead of Borg on clay.

also, Federer can already be reasonably expected to be labelled the GOAT without needing to beat Nadal at RG.

thank you Bud for confirming (by putting forward the opposite) the above.

Fair enough, Federer would be the GOAT except for Laver :devil:

star
06-10-2008, 01:30 PM
Thanks for posting the article! :hatoff:

I figured the GOAT defenders would troop out to protest. :) :) :)

thrust
06-10-2008, 02:02 PM
Rosewall lost 11 years of his prime at the Slams because he became a Pro. Laver lost 5 or 6 years of his prime. Had they played the Slams those years, both would have more than 14 Slam wins. Rosewall won 15 of the Pro Slams, against tougher competition, than those playing the Slams those 11 years. The same is true of Laver during his years as a Pro. GOAT? We will never know, for sure.

thrust
06-10-2008, 02:07 PM
As for the comparison of Borg and Nadal on Clay, I would say Nadal is at least as good as Borg was. He has never lost at RG in 4 years! Rafa is only 22, so if he remains healthy, he should win a few more. Now though, Rafa needs to win other Slams to be considered an all time great. I am sure, and hope that he will!

Ariadne
06-10-2008, 02:13 PM
Rosewall lost 11 years of his prime at the Slams because he became a Pro. Laver lost 5 or 6 years of his prime. Had they played the Slams those years, both would have more than 14 Slam wins. Rosewall won 15 of the Pro Slams, against tougher competition, than those playing the Slams those 11 years. The same is true of Laver during his years as a Pro. GOAT? We will never know, for sure.

:rolleyes:

It always confounds me as why those who trot out Laver and Rosewall whenever the GOAT debate is alluded to always fail to mention the uniformity of the playing surfaces of their time as a mitigating factor.

star
06-10-2008, 02:15 PM
As for the comparison of Borg and Nadal on Clay, I would say Nadal is at least as good as Borg was. He has never lost at RG in 4 years! Rafa is only 22, so if he remains healthy, he should win a few more. Now though, Rafa needs to win other Slams to be considered an all time great. I am sure, and hope that he will!

On clay, I think Nadal still has few fences to clear. He has years ahead of him -- although in tennis one shouldn't be overly optimistic about how many years a player has left at his peak. But, at any rate, he started winning at an early age as did Borg, so that helps. I think Nadal is dominating his era on clay much as Borg did, but agree that on the whole Nadal hasn't yet challenged Borg.

star
06-10-2008, 02:21 PM
:rolleyes:

It always confounds me as why those who trot out Laver and Rosewall whenever the GOAT debate is alluded to always fail to mention the uniformity of the playing surfaces of their time as a mitigating factor.

I know this was the argument Sampras fans always made to support GOAT achievement for Sampras. The counter-argument is that playing and dominating predominantly on fast surfaces such as grass made it even more remarkable that Laver won a (then) slower RG twice.

Still, even if Laver is brushed aside, Sampras's record stands between Federer and GOAT. Once he has equaled or surpassed that record and still hasn't won RG, the debate over Laver can begin. :) :)

But Laver may still have the edge because he played with wooden racquets. :lol:

Comparing eras is very difficult, imo.

Bazooka
06-10-2008, 02:36 PM
On clay, I think Nadal still has few fences to clear. He has years ahead of him -- although in tennis one shouldn't be overly optimistic about how many years a player has left at his peak. But, at any rate, he started winning at an early age as did Borg, so that helps. I think Nadal is dominating his era on clay much as Borg did, but agree that on the whole Nadal hasn't yet challenged Borg.

You know that in 1975, 1976 and 1977 the US Open was played on clay? Borg reached SF, F and 4R on those. So did Borg dominate clay in his time like Nadal does now?

star
06-10-2008, 02:41 PM
You know that in 1975, 1976 and 1977 the US Open was played on clay? Borg reached SF, F and 4R on those. So did Borg dominate clay in his time like Nadal does now?

Yes, clay, but not red clay. Yes, I know Orantes beat Connors on clay and it was a highlight of my tennis watching career.

Perhaps, I should have been more eloquent. I think that Nadal is currently playing as dominantly as Borg on clay, but records are records, and I think Nadal has a few fences to clear.

It's a problem of comparing eras always. We can't say how Nadal would have played on the interim clay at the USO.

Bazooka
06-10-2008, 03:01 PM
It's a problem of comparing eras always. We can't say how Nadal would have played on the interim clay at the USO.

True, we can only guess and it's always about points of view. Mine is pretty clear: Borg dominated RG and is the top RG player ever, but no one has dominated the clay events in the tour like Nadal 2005-2008. Borg also lost 6 finals on clay, between 1973 and 1976, to 4 different players (Vilas, Connors, Nastase and Laver), while only one guy has defeated Nadal on a clay final, and he just got trashed. So outside RG and Wimbledon I doubt Borg had the aura of invincibility Nadal has now on any clay.

Bazooka
06-10-2008, 03:04 PM
Yes, clay, but not red clay. Yes, I know Orantes beat Connors on clay and it was a highlight of my tennis watching career.

As you mention yourself, Orantes won and also Vilas did, so I guess it should be clay after all, blue or not :)

How I wish to see more of that fast clay, an excellent surface IMO.

It's a mistery how Borg seemed to have trouble with faster clay and yet win Wimby five times.

star
06-10-2008, 03:50 PM
As you mention yourself, Orantes won and also Vilas did, so I guess it should be clay after all, blue or not :)

How I wish to see more of that fast clay, an excellent surface IMO.

It's a mistery how Borg seemed to have trouble with faster clay and yet win Wimby five times.

Green clay. :)

Borg didn't like New York, and he particularly didn't like playing under the lights.

I also used to love the Bull of the Pampas, but he hasn't aged as well as Borg. :)

Orantes was particularly spectacular because he was playing Connors in his prime and he had played a (I think) five set match the night before the final. Conventional wisdom was that he would barely be able to make a match of it.

star
06-10-2008, 03:54 PM
True, we can only guess and it's always about points of view. Mine is pretty clear: Borg dominated RG and is the top RG player ever, but no one has dominated the clay events in the tour like Nadal 2005-2008. Borg also lost 6 finals on clay, between 1973 and 1976, to 4 different players (Vilas, Connors, Nastase and Laver), while only one guy has defeated Nadal on a clay final, and he just got trashed. So outside RG and Wimbledon I doubt Borg had the aura of invincibility Nadal has now on any clay.

I'm not sure about lack of invincibility.

I just don't like to compare while careers are still going on, and I don't much like it afterward either. Each great player is unique and faces unique circumstances as well. It could be said that the players Borg faced were more difficult than those faced by Nadal. In fact, that's a pretty good argument from the four names you've posted. :)

Anyway, it could be argued into eternity. I'm only happy that I got to see both of them play and have gotten to see Nadal play in person -- although not on his great surface. :)

Bazooka
06-10-2008, 03:58 PM
I'm not sure about lack of invincibility.

I just don't like to compare while careers are still going on, and I don't much like it afterward either. Each great player is unique and faces unique circumstances as well. It could be said that the players Borg faced were more difficult than those faced by Nadal. In fact, that's a pretty good argument from the four names you've posted. :)

Anyway, it could be argued into eternity. I'm only happy that I got to see both of them play and have gotten to see Nadal play in person -- although not on his great surface. :)


Fair enough. That, plus the cuteness of your avatar really puts an end to the discussion... :)

GlennMirnyi
06-10-2008, 04:06 PM
This guy just discovered America!

MacTheKnife
06-10-2008, 04:21 PM
He's equal to Borg on clay. But never in greatness.

I would partially agree with this. He has the potential to be equal to or greater than Borg on clay, but will he ?? He is certainly not yet, and I agree with Collins on that. A lot of these younsters on this board never saw Borg play. I even heard Rafa say the other day in an interview that he hadn't seen much of Borg play on clay, he always saw the Wimbledon matches.

I would strongly suggest that if anyone wants to make these statements, go out an buy some old DVDs of Mr Borg on clay. It was something special.

If Rafa wants to be greater than Borg, he needs to go real off about 5 straight Wimbledons while he's winning multiple FOs. Therein lies Borgs greatness !!!