nadal - he tied borg's record of 16 titles won as a teenager [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

nadal - he tied borg's record of 16 titles won as a teenager

jenanun
10-25-2005, 05:51 PM
another thread about nadal... sorry, i can't help it ;)

but would nadal be the most successful teen player?

his slam record may not be brilliant, (anyway, only 7 players can win a GS as a teenager) but he has already won most titles in a calender year:

Rafael Nadal 11 2005
Mats Wilander 9 1983
Bjorn Borg 7 1974
Andre Agassi 6 1988
Boris Becker 6 1986
John McEnroe 5 1978
Bjorn Borg 5 1975
Jimmy Connors 5 1972

and total titles won by teenager:

Rafael Nadal 16
Bjorn Borg 16
Mats Wilander 13
Boris Becker 12
Andre Agassi 10
Andrei Medvedev 8
Lleyton Hewitt 7
Michael Chang 6

GS won by teenager:

Mats Wilander 2 - 1 AO, 1 RG
Bjorn Borg 2 - RG
Boris Becker 2 - Wimbledon
Rafael Nadal 1 - RG
Pete Sampras 1 - USO
Michael Chang 1 - RG
Stefan Edberg 1 - AO

:worship:

jenanun
10-25-2005, 06:37 PM
just to add a little bit more info:

Nadal's 24 match winning streak is the longest streak of any teenager in the Open Era.

PaulieM
10-25-2005, 06:40 PM
i think there was a thread about this a while back. you might want to bump that one, to see what people had to say, you can add the new stats. :)

Raquel
10-25-2005, 06:43 PM
Boris's back to back Wimbledons at 17 and 18 would still give him the edge for me.

jenanun
10-25-2005, 06:43 PM
i think there was a thread about this a while back. you might want to bump that one, to see what people had to say, you can add the new stats. :)

hm i guess someone must have done that as well....

sorry..

*go and find the old thread*

Chloe le Bopper
10-25-2005, 07:04 PM
I'd go with Wilander. Almost as many as titles as Borg and one more slam. Rafa's stats are impressive too, but I can't go with him on this one at the present time.

Then again, I some might debate the importance of Wilander's first two AO's, but whatever. I'm not really in the mood :p

Frederick16
10-25-2005, 09:57 PM
wasn't aaron krickstein really good when he was young?

MisterQ
10-25-2005, 11:06 PM
I would still go with Wilander and Borg (although Nadal is near the top of the list). That's because their slam results are superior.

Other than his RG win, Nadal has never made the QF of a slam.

Wilander, in addition to his 2AO and 1RG wins, also reached the following as a teenager:

1 RG Final
1 RG Semi
1 USO QF

Borg, in addition to his 2 RG, also reached the following as a teenager:

1 RG QF
2 Wimb QF
1 USO SF

Borg's first Wimbledon was very soon after his 20th birthday.

Tennis_Passion
11-08-2005, 07:15 AM
He is lucky that he wasnt born at the same time as Agassi and Samprass....
C'mon, look how old Andre is and he is still top 5, just think how good when he is at his prime 10 years ago, I have always been a fan of Michael Chang who I believe we more talented and better clay courter than Nadal (who won RG much younger as well), just born at the worse time possible. But admittedly Rafael is the most "accomplished" teenager player, but in term of most talented, probably for the past decade, certainly not in history.

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 07:19 AM
He is lucky that he wasnt born at the same time as Agassi and Samprass....
C'mon, look how old Andre is and he is still top 5, just think how good when he is at his prime 10 years ago, I have always been a fan of Michael Chang who I believe we more talented and better clay courter than Nadal (who won RG much younger as well), just born at the worse time possible. But admittedly Rafael is the most "accomplished" teenager player, but in term of most talented, probably for the past decade, certainly not in history.

Chang a better claycourt player than Nadal? That is very funny and how do you explain that? It's about his success as a teen, not who is more talented.

Tennis_Passion
11-08-2005, 07:26 AM
Chang a better claycourt player than Nadal? That is very funny and how do you explain that? It's about his success as a teen, not who is more talented.
Michael has better tactics/better anticipation/better shot selection than Rafael.
Rafael is just a natural athelete without too much to work on, yes, he may have a bit of wicked spin, but from what I see, his talent is nowhere near Roger's or Michael's/

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 07:36 AM
Michael has better tactics/better anticipation/better shot selection than Rafael.
Rafael is just a natural athelete without too much to work on, yes, he may have a bit of wicked spin, but from what I see, his talent is nowhere near Roger's or Michael's/

This about teenage players at the time, not who is more talented, and who is more successful.

Since you want to go on a tangent. Yes, well Chang couldn't beat Muster on clay who was a prototype for Nadal.

Chang had raw speed, Nadal is not as quick, but his anticipation is outstanding. Better shot selection very debatable, Nadal doesn't play stupid shots and neither did Chang. Nadal moves better on clay than Chang, not just about speed, overall movement. Nadal has nearly won everything already on clay, something Chang never came close to.

Chang wasn't a complete player or close to a complete player, look what happened when he lost a little bit of speed. Nadal isn't anywhere near one as yet, but not even close as to who the better teen player was out of these two.

Tennis_Passion
11-08-2005, 08:09 AM
This about teenage players at the time, not who is more talented, and who is more successful.

Since you want to go on a tangent. Yes, well Chang couldn't beat Muster on clay who was a prototype for Nadal.

Chang had raw speed, Nadal is not as quick, but his anticipation is outstanding. Better shot selection very debatable, Nadal doesn't play stupid shots and neither did Chang. Nadal moves better on clay than Chang, not just about speed, overall movement. Nadal has nearly won everything already on clay, something Chang never came close to.

Chang wasn't a complete player or close to a complete player, look what happened when he lost a little bit of speed. Nadal isn't anywhere near one as yet, but not even close as to who the better teen player was out of these two.
Well, Muster beat a lot of people, just as Nadal did, but that does not make him a greater player than those he beat. But yes, Thomas Muster is probably the best clay-court player in history. But I must disagree with him being Nadal's prototype. Thomas Muster was not the aggressive player that Nadal is, and he also has more variety in his game, I would say he should be more closely associated with Coria, despite playing left-handed. And I have to say that Chang, while fast, does have one of the best anticipation right up there with Hewitt and probably Safin. Nadal also is a one-dimentional player and his accomplishment, as I said, came at an era when the #3 player, Hewitt in this instance, doesnt care much about winning, #4, player, Roddick, who cant win anything, and a #1 player who skips Master events from time to time. I admit that he is a successful, (Chang's success also came at an earlier age mind you), but he certainly is one that I would consider as being one of the talented, off-topic, but still worthy of note.

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 08:20 AM
Well, Muster beat a lot of people, just as Nadal did, but that does not make him a greater player than those he beat. But yes, Thomas Muster is probably the best clay-court player in history. But I must disagree with him being Nadal's prototype. Thomas Muster was not the aggressive player that Nadal is, and he also has more variety in his game, I would say he should be more closely associated with Coria, despite playing left-handed. And I have to say that Chang, while fast, does have one of the best anticipation right up there with Hewitt and probably Safin. Nadal also is a one-dimentional player and his accomplishment, as I said, came at an era when the #3 player, Hewitt in this instance, doesnt care much about winning, #4, player, Roddick, who cant win anything, and a #1 player who skips Master events from time to time. I admit that he is a successful, (Chang's success also came at an earlier age mind you), but he certainly is one that I would consider as being one of the talented, off-topic, but still worthy of note.

Muster was nowhere the best player in claycourt history not even close, number 5 at best. Why is Nadal like Muster? Extreme determination, excellent anticipation and both can attack when they needed to and had/have outstanding defensive skills, can run all day, hugely dominant with their forehands, but hard to break down their backhands that is much more in common with Muster than other players.

Chang won RG when it was it's weakest, if you want to play that game, in trying to discredit Nadal. Wilander was on the slide and gone, Lendl was outsmarted by Chang, he had a weaker field and after his RG achievement he didn't come close to winning there again, easily beaten in 95.

Yes, Nadal only won Monte Carlo, Barcelona (tougher than most TMS clay events), Rome and RG in the same season that easily out accomplishes anything Chang did as a teen in an overall context.

Tennis_Passion
11-08-2005, 08:32 AM
Like I said.....I am not trying to discredit Nadal's success. I think he did accomplish a lot this year matching titles won with Federer. Just saying that he does not have any challenge from anywhere else other than Roger while Chang at that time had to face a field that's deeper than today where there were a number of players who could win RG. And Muster was to me one of the greatest clay-courter, putting him at #5 on your list, I say, under-rated him. While I can see the similarity you describe between Muster and Nadal, there are just too many differences in the way they play. Again, not trying to discredit him, but one needs to look at the context before hailing as the "greatest teenager player" in the world. Pete won his first slam at 19 when people thought Chang was the "greatest teenager player" in the world, you know how the story turns out. Nada may have "early" success, (I wouldnt call early if you compare him to Chang), but that may not be a good indicator as how good he could be in the future. Roddick won his first slam pretty young with a handful of masters title back then as well, didnt turn out that great since then.

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 08:45 AM
Like I said.....I am not trying to discredit Nadal's success. I think he did accomplish a lot this year matching titles won with Federer. Just saying that he does not have any challenge from anywhere else other than Roger while Chang at that time had to face a field that's deeper than today where there were a number of players who could win RG. .

For one I have never said Nadal was the best teenage player of all time and actually don't. He had no challengers, that is not true, yes he struggled very hard to win in Rome and the final in RG wasn't easy, he was not the dominant player on clay at the start of the season and he established himself clearly as that when he won RG.

The field was not deeper in 89 as to who could win it, the potential dominant claycourt player of that generation was virtually retired then. So Chesnokov, Mancini, a Wilander who was gone and Lendl who cared about the grass at that time, it's a dream to meet a serve/volleyer in a RG final, Chang deserved his title win without a doubt, but don't try and pull that one about a stronger field then. I think the rose coloured glasses need to come off between 89-93 claycourt tennis was in a transition period.

And Muster was to me one of the greatest clay-courter, putting him at #5 on your list, I say, under-rated him. While I can see the similarity you describe between Muster and Nadal, there are just too many differences in the way they play. Again, not trying to discredit him, but one needs to look at the context before hailing as the "greatest teenager player" in the world.

Borg, Wilander, Guga and Lendl all better claycourt players than Muster, didn't even need to think about that. The game has changed as it does, but there are more than enough similarities between them, and Nadal has adapted for the modern game.

I always look at the overall context and no I have not once said that Nadal was the best teenager that has played and you are playing down his achievements, trying to say Chang was better on clay which is very doubtful and he was lucky to be born in a different era.

Tennis_Passion
11-08-2005, 08:56 AM
You do realize the whole point of this thread is trying to make him appear as the most successful teenage player in the history of ATP? As for the field 16 years ago, I could not remember much, but that was an era when Lendl was dominating everything, but still being challenged by some strong talents unless this year. Again, not trying to take away anything from Nadal, but other than Roger, there just weremt many contenders for titles especially on clay. Anyways, I do agree with you that he had achieved quite a lot this year, and the comparison of who is more talented is irrelevant in this thread, let's just say that both are deserving of their titles, under difference circumstances, and leave it at that.

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 09:04 AM
You do realize the whole point of this thread is trying to make him appear as the most successful teenage player in the history of ATP? As for the field 16 years ago, I could not remember much, but that was an era when Lendl was dominating everything, but still being challenged by some strong talents unless this year. Again, not trying to take away anything from Nadal, but other than Roger, there just weremt many contenders for titles especially on clay. Anyways, I do agree with you that he had achieved quite a lot this year, and the comparison of who is more talented is irrelevant in this thread, let's just say that both are deserving of their titles, under difference circumstances, and leave it at that.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think Nadal is the best ever teen player, there have been more than enough reasons as to why this is the case and they have been explained. Yes, I know the point of the thread.

It wasn't me that was trying to introduce Chang into it, you came and said things that I didn't agree with and gave reason as to why. I do remember the RG years of that time and explained why Muster was ranked 5 in that clay list. Everything stated above was thought out and if you want to complain about no competition then Muster has no competition in 95 when he killed everyone, Borg and Wilander had no competition either, Coria had none in 94 either. I didn't bring up the talent factor, it was never about that.

Boris Franz Ecker
11-08-2005, 09:04 AM
Wilander won 2 Grand Slams until his 20. Birthday.
AO 84 were played late in the year.

Boris Becker of course 2 Wimbledon, 1 SF at Roland Garros, 1 SF at US Open. At least 1 additional QF. Besides he was 2 times finalist at the Masters.

French Open and Australian Open were relatively small events in the 70ies and early 80ies, so Boris has the edge.

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 09:07 AM
All the top players did play RG so relatively small event doesn't cut it as an excuse and when Wilander played the AO all the big players were there when he won it.

Wilander also made a Slam final as a teenager, actually I did give the edge to Borg.

Boris Franz Ecker
11-08-2005, 10:25 AM
There's no doubt Boris had the most success at teenager.
He won the biggest tournament two times, Wilander and Borg won two big tournaments.

It doesn't matter, who participated.

Action Jackson
11-08-2005, 01:21 PM
There's no doubt Boris had the most success at teenager.
He won the biggest tournament two times, Wilander and Borg won two big tournaments.

It doesn't matter, who participated.

You were the one who said that the RG and AO were relatively small events, and not me.

It's a Slam and spare me the crap about Wimbledon about the title everyone wants to win, it's not true for the whole tennis world. The AO is slightly less regarded than the other three and the points are exactly the same for winning a Slam, there is no doubt in your mind, that's the difference.

R.Federer
11-08-2005, 01:34 PM
I didn't read the whole discussion.
rafal is definitely up there.
It would depend on how this is defined. As usual, many people take performances in slams above everything else. In that way, it is hard to get past Wilander as #1.
With total titles and a great season its hard to get by rafal

jzpyt06
11-08-2005, 05:48 PM
nadal is still a baby and has done so much, the endless titles, hard court when all said he couldn't do it why u gotta beg ppl to see that his done so much when its rite there for all 2 see. I mean if he doesn't win a title its "oh my gosh nadal is crap" dame this is the boy's first full year on tour cut him some slack what could one possibly ask for. His only 19. Most 19 year old tennis player... u can't even find them. He steam rolled up the rankings bring a legion of other young players with him.

only time will tell next year we all hav a great chance to see wat happens. Why would he slow down. I think he will better manage where and when he plays but i think the titles will keep coming.

Plastic Bertrand
11-09-2005, 03:37 AM
Wilander, Becker, Borg and then Nadal in that order, though cases could be easily made for all of them. Wilander won the most Slams as a teenager, and the overall records in the Slams should take precedence over tour titles.

jenanun
03-04-2006, 06:06 PM
hehe... bump this up coz now nadal has tied wilander's record with 13 titles won as a teenager...

will he be able to tie borg's record by winning 3 more titles before RG?

Nacho
03-04-2006, 06:17 PM
he definitely can

landoud
03-04-2006, 06:40 PM
congrats rafa

jenanun
04-24-2006, 05:33 PM
bump this up coz he is now a step closer to break borg's record of 16 titles won as a teenager....

ChloeLove
04-24-2006, 08:04 PM
Looking at your signature Jenanun, I would say that he definitely his. I don't know if anyone has seen this, but atptennis.com posted some more stats, about Nadal.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/chloe-jane/stats.jpg

Fumus
04-24-2006, 08:09 PM
I think that's a bit unfair babes, as Nadal has only played 16 finals and everyone on that list sides Enqvist played over 40.

ChloeLove
04-24-2006, 08:13 PM
True :rolleyes: It's still worthy however, ATP posted it.

jenanun
04-24-2006, 08:40 PM
Looking at your signature Jenanun, I would say that he definitely his. I don't know if anyone has seen this, but atptennis.com posted some more stats, about Nadal.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/chloe-jane/stats.jpg

i didnt notice that before... the stat that ATP posted.. until the nadal's winning streaks on clay....

did they always posts some stats at the bottom of the page? or something new to the site?

if they have those before, there must be lots of federer's record breaking stats which i had missed.

if that's something new, than they must really LOVE rafa! :inlove:

ChloeLove
04-25-2006, 12:34 AM
Yeah, I haven't noticed it before people started posting his winning streaks on clay. From now on I'll remember to scroll down the page. I enjoy these stats.

Ays25
04-25-2006, 01:35 AM
becker was the most succesfull teenager for me. he achieved big things in a time when tennis was at its bets. nowadays there is only a good player like federer and nadal
but nadal certainly comes after becker.

Chloe le Bopper
04-25-2006, 02:55 AM
i didnt notice that before... the stat that ATP posted.. until the nadal's winning streaks on clay....

did they always posts some stats at the bottom of the page? or something new to the site?

if they have those before, there must be lots of federer's record breaking stats which i had missed.

if that's something new, than they must really LOVE rafa! :inlove:
They also made Rafa's fan page long before they made Fed's :lol:

bad gambler
04-25-2006, 02:59 AM
Borg

oz_boz
04-25-2006, 03:27 PM
Borg

Ditto.

I don't think Nadal will reach 16 tournament wins before he turns 20. Had he been born just a few days earlier, then maybe. Anyway it' be great if he repeats his success from last year, MC-Barca-Rome-RG (skipping Hamburg). Wouldn't that give him 56 victories in a row? I think he'll make it! Although I really hope that Roger gets his RG crown...

Action Jackson
04-25-2006, 03:34 PM
Borg

Borg, Wilander and Becker were great teens and look at their respective Slam count.

jenanun
04-30-2006, 05:13 PM
to win either rome/hamburg, he will tie borg's record with 16 titles won as teenager

to win both rome and hamburg, he will make a new record with 17 titles won as teenager!!!!

VAMOS RAFA!

ChloeLove
04-30-2006, 11:21 PM
to win either rome/hamburg, he will tie borg's record with 16 titles won as teenager

to win both rome and hamburg, he will make a new record with 17 titles won as teenager!!!!

VAMOS RAFA!
I wasn't sure if Rafa was playing Hamburg or not? If he plays both Rome, and Hamburg, i'd imagine he'd win one, if not both. I would've thought he'd miss one, to take a break before RG. :confused:

atheneglaukopis
04-30-2006, 11:34 PM
I wasn't sure if Rafa was playing Hamburg or not? If he plays both Rome, and Hamburg, i'd imagine he'd win one, if not both. I would've thought he'd miss one, to take a break before RG. :confused:
There's an article in his forum stating that he's announced his intention to play Hamburg, because he hasn't won it yet. Nadal: out to assault Federer's fiefdom (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=34482&page=45&pp=15). Since he's announced this, I should think he's going to play, unless the final at Rome is like last year's.

lilfairyprincess
05-01-2006, 12:38 AM
i dont think rafa will play in hamburg if he wins in rome. he will need to rest before roland agrros as im sure it is more important to try to retain his roland garros crown than to win hamburg because "he hasnt won it yet".

* altho maybe the record for most titles won by a teenager is just as important to him :shrug:

anyways...i just hope he doesnt over-do things and end up with an injury!! :scared:

NATAS81
05-01-2006, 12:39 AM
No, Rafa probably won't play Hamburg if he wins.

Deivid23
05-01-2006, 12:48 AM
I think Nadal will play Hamburg regardless he wins Rome or not. Only if he wins and he makes a huge physical effort during Rome´s week he will pull out from German tourney.

almouchie
05-01-2006, 12:51 AM
niced stats
nadal is still young & will probalby play more tournies
& not win as many titles
thou a great stats
who has he lost to in those 2 finals, I know one of them was to federer in ATM'
what about the other

Deivid23
05-01-2006, 12:54 AM
what about the other

2004 Auckland, Hard, F
New Zealand Hard F Hrbaty 4 6 6 2 7 5

If my memory doesn´t fail me, Nadal was up 3-0 in final set, that means he was close to win in his only two defeats in finals. Impressive

Flibbertigibbet
05-01-2006, 12:58 AM
Hrbaty seems to be a danger man - has a 2-0 record over Federer and a 3-1 record over Nadal, though most of those wins were before the players hit their peaks. :lol:

ChloeLove
05-01-2006, 01:57 AM
There's an article in his forum stating that he's announced his intention to play Hamburg, because he hasn't won it yet. Nadal: out to assault Federer's fiefdom (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=34482&page=45&pp=15). Since he's announced this, I should think he's going to play, unless the final at Rome is like last year's.
Thanks :) I'm sure Rafa has a lot of desire to play Hamburg, especially since Federer has already won it 3 times. If he defeated Federer, it would definitely hit the nail on the coffin right before RG.

Nadal knows he is capable of beating Federer, and probably wants to add Hamburg to his titles. It would help him surpass, or equal the points he won last year. I'd like him to play it, but I hope he doesn't exhaust himself too much. I guess i'm just being a concerned fan :rolleyes:

Jairus
05-01-2006, 01:46 PM
To answer the thread, I hope not...I like the idea of Borg holding records.

Jairus
05-01-2006, 01:48 PM
Thanks :) I'm sure Rafa has a lot of desire to play Hamburg, especially since Federer has already won it 3 times. If he defeated Federer, it would definitely hit the nail on the coffin right before RG.

Nadal knows he is capable of beating Federer, and probably wants to add Hamburg to his titles. It would help him surpass, or equal the points he won last year. I'd like him to play it, but I hope he doesn't exhaust himself too much. I guess i'm just being a concerned fan :rolleyes:

True...it would hit the nail on the clay coffin. Beating Fed at Wimbledon would really be hitting the nail on the coffin.

jenanun
05-13-2006, 07:35 PM
he can and will do it tomorrow.....

....but....if not, last chance will be in hamburg..

vamos rafa!

Action Jackson
05-14-2006, 10:44 AM
To answer the thread, I hope not...I like the idea of Borg holding records.

It doesn't matter there have been teens who have won more Slams.

scoobs
05-14-2006, 11:03 AM
There is no coffin folks - it's a match - let's assume Nadal wins Rome today, wins Hamburg next week beating Federer and then wins the French Open, beating Federer.

Are people suggesting that that means Roger should give up trying or something? This is one season - potentially they'll be back to do this next year, and the year after, and the year after that, and the year after that...I don't think you can project the currently hypothetical results of one season and say that's pretty much that for the rest of his career. Who know what will happen in the future?

jenanun
05-15-2006, 10:46 PM
he definately is one of the most successful teenager player...

http://www.atptennis.com/en/graphics/sharkbites_teens.jpg

Frank Winkler
05-15-2006, 11:53 PM
how soon we forget.
best clay-court player. Villas was unbeatable until Borg came along and then Villas could not win against Borg.
Bjorn Borg the best clay-court player by far. I think Villas beat him once.
Bjorn Borg allways gets a little underated if you just look at numbers.
He just did not play that much. But he allmost allways won except at the us open.
Each year he played the slams and only a few other tournaments.
As a teenager he had allready started his winning streak at Roland Garros and Wimbledon. once twice three times?
clay unbeatable, hard court won everything except us open, grass his poorest surface won it 5 times and few times against the best grass player at the time. I cannot remember his name he is such an a--h--e

megadeth
05-16-2006, 12:12 AM
he'll do a borg alright, and then retire before 25, but with only the FO as his slam... :devil:

mallorn
06-01-2006, 09:55 AM
....but....if not, last chance will be in hamburg..
Everybody here thought that Rafa can't beat the record if he doesn't play Hamburg, but they said on the ATP show that he still can if he wins RG. It seems that since he entered the tournament as a teenager they would still count it. Or else someone at the ATP got it all wrong. :confused:

Thanks for the news and video link, Mamasue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP1s2qaZznw

mamasue
06-01-2006, 10:30 PM
Hey, mallorn! :wavey:

The ATP does have the same age rule that I'm familiar with in swimming. It's on page 59 of the rule book. I don't know why I never thought of it being the same in tennis. :shrug:

http://i3.tinypic.com/11c5wck.jpg

http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/ATP_Rulebook.pdf

mallorn
06-01-2006, 11:39 PM
Oh, thanks for clearing this up!

I wonder if Rafa knows about it. Seems the Vilas record was getting to him a little bit, I'd rather nobody told him there's another one on the line! :lol: