Is Nadal the greatest Clay Court Player ever? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Nadal the greatest Clay Court Player ever?

mdhallu
06-11-2006, 06:06 PM
He seems like he has the goods: Fitness, Quickness, Unrelentless Aggression, and the Mental Strength like no other

anserq
06-11-2006, 06:07 PM
Seems like it.

Chloe le Bopper
06-11-2006, 06:08 PM
Let's consider this a few years from now if he's added a some more RG's to his resume at that point. Right now he's trailing by a few ;)

Jimnik
06-11-2006, 06:08 PM
Yes

Viken01
06-11-2006, 06:08 PM
i guess he is

scarecrows
06-11-2006, 06:10 PM
Definitely

Flibbertigibbet
06-11-2006, 06:10 PM
#1. Borg - Six RGs.
-
-
-
#2A. Lendl - Three RGs.
#2B. Wilander - Three RGs.
#2C. Kuerten - Three RGs.
(I'm not sure how to break this tie, I don't know enough.)
-
#3. Nadal - Two RGs.

He could definitely surpass Lendl/Wilander/Kuerten, but Borg's record is really tough.

Chocobo
06-11-2006, 06:11 PM
He's not yet (Borg has 6 RG), but he could be

betterthanhenman
06-11-2006, 06:12 PM
No

jenanun
06-11-2006, 06:13 PM
no... not yet...

but maybe someday, he will be

he needs to win another 4 RG to prove he is better than borg....

anserq
06-11-2006, 06:13 PM
Oh 6 RG'S!!? BORG? That's CRAZEH!

joeb_uk
06-11-2006, 06:13 PM
I wonder what he has to do, to be considered the greatest :shrug:

Maybe if he wins all 3 masters series on clay, and rg in one season he could well be considered one of the best.

connectolove
06-11-2006, 06:14 PM
He can get to be.

mdhallu
06-11-2006, 06:20 PM
Nadal will only get better...he's 20 years old but he plays with the mind of a 30 year old tennis player...if he improves his volleys like he has his serve...anything is possible

tenniswiz
06-11-2006, 06:24 PM
No, not at this moment. Two RG titles just ain't gonna cut it for Rafa. Needs at least 4 more to be compared to the tennis legend of Borg. I still believe that Borg was athletically most gifted player ever and definitely most dominant on clay! After all, 6 RG titles ain't a joke. ;)

MisterQ
06-11-2006, 06:24 PM
He has only played RG twice, and won it both times! He's hasn't even had a chance to equal Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Borg.... But with the unprecedented dominance of this win streak, you have to give the standard answer that he is "on track" to become the greatest. I believe he already fits in that nebulous category of "one of the greatest." ;)

Alvarillo
06-11-2006, 06:25 PM
still not the best but soon ..... still 20
2 RG, 4 MS on clay, 2 Godó ..... amazing!

iloveupeterpan
06-11-2006, 06:26 PM
Winning is not everything.
I believe Coria is a more talented clay specialist than Nadal.
All Coria needs to improve is just his mentality.

robert6061
06-11-2006, 06:26 PM
Rafa is certainly the greatest clay court player in history among players of his age group...he was infinitely superior to Borg and Vilas when they were his age.
Many older fans refer to Borg's clay court supremacy after winning six French Open titles. However, Borg and Vilas were players of the 'wood raquet' generation where the standard of their opposition was far inferior to the opposition facing Nadal today.
Furthermore, some of Borg's victories at Roland Garros were during the period that most top players were skipping the French Open to play world team tennis in the USA.
The same applies to Vilas when he won in 1977.
Borg was a superlative athlete but in a head to head situation on clay I would put my money on Rafa. I also think Rafa would have beaten Lendl on clay even at his peak and also the likes of Moya,Chang,Courier and Muster.
The more I think about it Rafa is the greatest ever clay court player.

BlueSwan
06-11-2006, 06:29 PM
It's really hard to compare him to Borg - that was another era entirely. But in recent years, I'd say he's definitely the best claycourter. When you compare him to players like Muster, Guga, Bruguera, etc. I think he could outlast every one of them. He's basically redefined the "grinder" style, mainly by being so incredibly focused at all times. Also, he just doesn't give you many openings - he has a way of returning balls deep and with tremendous spin even when stretched. I don't really think any of the previous clay greats were able to do that.

To beat him, I think you'd need a guy with a twohanded backhand, who's able to take the ball on the rise and hit with consistency and depth. Guga had a fantastic onehanded backhand, but I think even his backhand would fall short against Nadals highbouncing shots.

I think Marcelo Rios is someone who could potentially have troubled Nadal gamewise, but I just don't think he had the mental strength to do it.

If Agassi was more comfortable on clay, he might be up for it. He has that ability to dictate play by taking the ball early, but aside from the late 80's and in 1999 (of course) he didn't have much succes on clay.

At the moment I think Nadals worst enemy is himself. I'm not even speaking of potential injuries, although that is a concern giving the hard work he puts in. I'm mainly talking about whether he'll be able to maintain thta incredible mental focus. That is something few players have managed to do year in year out.

tenniswiz
06-11-2006, 06:29 PM
He has only played RG twice, and won it both times! He's hasn't even had a chance to equal Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Borg.... But with the unprecedented dominance of this win streak, you have to give the standard answer that he is "on track" to become the greatest. I believe he already fits in that nebulous category of "one of the greatest." ;)
I think it's a bit premature to start talking about Nadal's greatness yet; for that, he needs to back his two RG titles up with something hard or grassy (two Wimbledons or two US Opens would suffice). Until then, he'll be considered to be one of the greatest on clay but that's just about it.

Chloe le Bopper
06-11-2006, 06:29 PM
However, Borg and Vilas were players of the 'wood raquet' generation where the standard of their opposition was far inferior to the opposition facing Nadal today.

It's all relative.

It's not as though Borg and Vilas were facing off against "weaker opposition" while they took advantage of 2006 sports medicine and light-weight, oversized racquets. They had the same tools available to them as everybody else. They just stood out as greats.

Neverstopfightin
06-11-2006, 06:30 PM
What we can say is that he is the ATP player with a best % of wins on clay ever , never a player has had better % than Nadal ( Obviously a minimum of matches are required to include players in this stat) . For example Nadal overcame the best Borg's % ever when he was playing in Barcelona this year although it's true that if Borg hadn't retired so early he had improved his best % on clay.

MisterQ
06-11-2006, 06:32 PM
I think it's a bit premature to start talking about Nadal's greatness yet; for that, he needs to back his two RG titles up with something hard or grassy (two Wimbledons or two US Opens would suffice). Until then, he'll be considered to be one of the greatest on clay but that's just about it.

I'm talking about being greatest on clay, sorry if that was unclear.

jenanun
06-11-2006, 06:38 PM
I believe Coria is a more talented clay specialist than Nadal.

or roddick is a more talented player than federer.....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mecir72
06-11-2006, 06:51 PM
If we are to compare eras we have to compare results not standard of play. Nadal is certainly on his way to becoming one of the all time clay greats. He could very well surpass Borgs record if no new clayphenom shows up pretty soon.
As far as standard of play on clay goes I would say Kuerten comes closest to Nadal.
And if Federer cant fins a way to beat Nadal he could never be considered the greatest ever IMHO.

BlueSwan
06-11-2006, 06:53 PM
And if Federer cant fins a way to beat Nadal he could never be considered the greatest ever IMHO.
I agree. Nadal is really the main thing standing between Federer and the claim to that title. You cannot be the greatest ever if you consistently lose to the number 2 player in the world.

BlueSwan
06-11-2006, 06:54 PM
Let me clarify that - I think losing to Nadal on clay is OK for Federer. Losing to him on hardcourts is not OK.

liisa
06-11-2006, 06:54 PM
Winning is not everything.
I believe Coria is a more talented clay specialist than Nadal.
All Coria needs to improve is just his mentality.

it actually is,honey

tenniswiz
06-11-2006, 06:56 PM
I'm talking about being greatest on clay, sorry if that was unclear.
Point accepted, thanks! :wavey:

tenniswiz
06-11-2006, 07:02 PM
Let me clarify that - I think losing to Nadal on clay is OK for Federer. Losing to him on hardcourts is not OK.
Absolutely, clay doesn't suit Federer's offensive mindset well. I dream about the US Open final with Federer vs. Nadal and if somehow Nadal manages to win that one in Federer's prime, well then, my hats off to Nadal, but until then, I think Nadal has some work cut out for him to be placed in the same category with Laver, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Wilander, Sampras, Federer.......

R.Federer
06-11-2006, 07:02 PM
If he continues at this rate, he could be. But its too early to say that now.

mecir72
06-11-2006, 07:08 PM
Wit the sort of determination Nadal seems to have it is hard to see him not finishing up as a tennis great when his career is over. He is the main favourite for RG for years to come it seems, and surely second favourite atleast at the australian. Still has something to prove on grass but his serve has improved so I am sure he is no pushover. On fast hardcourts like US Open he is definitely an outsider atleast.

stebs
06-11-2006, 07:47 PM
Not by accomplishments but by performance, could be.

vincayou
06-11-2006, 07:54 PM
Still way behind Borg. Borg won it 6 times, and it could have been more if he hadn't retired so early. The grip he had on the trophy during his years of dominance were comparable to those of Nadal. Everybody pretty much knew from the start that he would win.

4 more years then for Rafa.
Hopefully not, because it would be a bit boring.

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-11-2006, 07:56 PM
If he keeps it up he will be.

A bit too early to tell right now.

That 60 win streak is the greatest by far though. :D

the cat
06-11-2006, 07:57 PM
The greatest clay court player in the history of men's tennis is Bjorn Borg. But Rafael Nadal has a chance to rival Borg in French Open titles if he can stay healthy and hungry. But Nadal's 2 French Open titles is far away from Borg's 6 French Open titles that's for sure.

Excellent posts BlueSwan and Becca.

DDrago2
06-11-2006, 08:24 PM
I agree. Nadal is really the main thing standing between Federer and the claim to that title. You cannot be the greatest ever if you consistently lose to the number 2 player in the world.

Yes you can.

mdhallu
06-11-2006, 09:31 PM
Yes you can.
Explain...if Federer almost always loses to Nadal on clay then how is he better than him on that surface? The greatest tennis player is the one who wins the most...not the one who looks the best or has the most beautiful shots...

star
06-11-2006, 09:38 PM
I think it's a bit too early to give Nadal that title. He's won RG twice only. How many times did Borg win? (6)

But, he's very good. I particularly like his ability to concentrate throughout a long match and just stay with it. I know that's not a trait people around here hold in high regard, but Borg taught me to love that trait. :)

Deivid23
06-11-2006, 09:41 PM
Had Nadal lost today he would have been a fluke and a one-slam wonder. Now he´s the best clay court player ever. Gotta love overreactions.

mdhallu
06-11-2006, 09:44 PM
Had Nadal lost today he would have been a fluke and a one-slam wonder. Now he´s the best clay court player ever. Gotta love overreactions.
No...had he lost today he would have lost to one of the greatest after shattering the all time record for clay court wins...

tenniswiz
06-11-2006, 09:47 PM
Explain...if Federer almost always loses to Nadal how is he better than him? The greatest tennis player is the one who wins the most...not the one who looks the best or has the most beautiful shots...
Ok, let's put Federer and Nadal on the grass of Wimbledon 3 or 4 times and see how would Nadal fare in those matches. I don't think those matches are going to be even close. Of course, you can say whatever you want about Nadal beating Federer on his favorite surface CLAY, but do NOT forget that Federer is still the best on grass and hard courts and second best on clay and to me that defines greatness. Look at Sampras who was dominant on grass and hard courts, but was never really considered to be a Top 5 player on clay and people still believe that he is one of all-time greats. Federer has a legitimate chance of acquiring 10+ Grand Slam titles in his career and maybe surpassing Pete's 14 Grand Slam record and winding up being anointed as the greatest of all time.

mdhallu
06-11-2006, 09:48 PM
I said on clay...look above

tenniswiz
06-11-2006, 09:53 PM
I said on clay...look above
Sorry my fault. But that still doesn't take away from Federer's greatness. He'll still end up in the Top 5 of all time when it's all said and done.

ChloeLove
06-11-2006, 10:28 PM
He has the longest clay court streak, in what could be considered the toughest era for clay courters. So he is obviously dominant enough, and in the future I see him winning more RG's. He has won numerous titles at other clay court events.

He his already among the greatest clay court players ever. I'd say the only one who is above him right now is Borg. The other players have won a few RG's, but were not as dominant as Nadal on a whole. Nadal has already surpassed some of Borg's records, 6 RG's is not out of the question.

Fedex
06-11-2006, 10:30 PM
No, Borg is the greatest ever. I dont think he will catch Borg in RG titles, and he certainly wont win 6 consecutive like he did. But nonetheless, he will end up being one of the greatest clay players ever.

Merton
06-11-2006, 10:36 PM
It is at least premature to suggest that, right now he is simply on course to become one of the best clay court players.

I was not around at the time but i can bet that there was a thread about Roger being possibly the best tennis player ever after he won against Lleyton at the 2004 US Open.

Merton
06-11-2006, 10:36 PM
Had Nadal lost today he would have been a fluke and a one-slam wonder. Now he´s the best clay court player ever. Gotta love overreactions.

Spot on.

wimbledonfan
06-12-2006, 12:31 AM
Ok, let's put Federer and Nadal on the grass of Wimbledon 3 or 4 times and see how would Nadal fare in those matches. I don't think those matches are going to be even close. Of course, you can say whatever you want about Nadal beating Federer on his favorite surface CLAY, but do NOT forget that Federer is still the best on grass and hard courts and second best on clay and to me that defines greatness. Look at Sampras who was dominant on grass and hard courts, but was never really considered to be a Top 5 player on clay and people still believe that he is one of all-time greats. Federer has a legitimate chance of acquiring 10+ Grand Slam titles in his career and maybe surpassing Pete's 14 Grand Slam record and winding up being anointed as the greatest of all time.


The difference so far between Fed and Pete is that Pete was never dominated by any single player throughout his career . This is the same reason why Andre isn't considered the greatest player of all time because he would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most .

mdhallu
06-12-2006, 12:40 AM
The difference so far between Fed and Pete is that Pete was never dominated by any single player throughout his career . This is the same reason why Andre isn't considered the greatest player of all time because he would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most .
This is very true...people may be mesmerized by Federer's shot making skills and finesse now but when all is said and done history will realize how good Sampras was...The one time Sampras lost to Federer at the end of his dominance it was a very close 5 set match...LONG LIVE THE SERVE AND VOLLEY

Bibberz
06-12-2006, 12:41 AM
I think there's a high chance Nadal won't catch Borg's 6 RG titles. I'd still consider him the best claycourter if he could pad this streak some more and pick up some more MS shields/RG titles.

star
06-12-2006, 01:26 AM
It was music to my ears when JMac said today to Mary (Fed=God) Carillo: You don't give enough credit to Nadal for mixing things up. He rarely hits the same shot twice in a row.

:) :) :)

star
06-12-2006, 01:28 AM
The difference so far between Fed and Pete is that Pete was never dominated by any single player throughout his career . This is the same reason why Andre isn't considered the greatest player of all time because he would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most .

Part of the problem for Federer is that with Nadal now being number 2, Nadal has to get to the final in order for them to meet on the sufaces that favor Federer. I think that doesn't happen as often as Federer getting to the final on clay.

tenniswiz
06-12-2006, 01:50 AM
Part of the problem for Federer is that with Nadal now being number 2, Nadal has to get to the final in order for them to meet on the sufaces that favor Federer. I think that doesn't happen as often as Federer getting to the final on clay.
Absolutely right. The problem is that Nadal is way too awkward and beatable on the grass of Wimbledon and on the hard courts of the US Open where Federer would definitely be the favorite and could take it to Nadal and even their h2h record out considerably. It's much easier for Federer to reach the final at RG and get beat by Rafa, whereas Rafa really struggles to get to the second week at Wimbledon or the US Open.

tenniswiz
06-12-2006, 01:57 AM
The difference so far between Fed and Pete is that Pete was never dominated by any single player throughout his career . This is the same reason why Andre isn't considered the greatest player of all time because he would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most .
Yeah, because Pete could lose to some unknown player from Spain or South America at RG in the early round and no one would've cared much as they know that Pete wasn't really able to challenge the big guns on CLAY. Whereas, Federer can pretty much beat anyone on clay but Nadal. That's the difference; Pete was never one of the best on clay, but Federer is the Top 2 player on clay.

holagirl56
06-12-2006, 02:05 AM
Nadal still has to prove himself before he's considered the greatest clay court player ever, but he's definitely one of the greats.

mdhallu
06-12-2006, 02:05 AM
Yeah, because Pete could lose to some unknown player from Spain or South America at RG in the early round and no one would've cared much as they know that Pete wasn't really able to challenge the big guns on CLAY. Whereas, Federer can pretty much beat anyone on clay but Nadal. That's the difference; Pete was never one of the best on clay, but Federer is the Top 2 player on clay.


during his peak in 93, 94 Sampras's Clay Court Records Respectively were 14-4 and 12-2 ....he may not have been strong on Clay but don't be fooled that he was horrible on it either...he got unlucky a few times in Paris making it to the QF 3 times and the Semifinal once but lost....

tenniswiz
06-12-2006, 02:20 AM
during his peak in 93, 94 Sampras's Clay Court Records Respectively were 14-4 and 12-2 ....he may not have been strong on Clay but don't be fooled that he was horrible on it either...he got unlucky a few times in Paris making it to the QF 3 times and the Semifinal once but lost....
Yes, he was OK but nowhere near the Top 2 and people still think he's the greatest of all time. Even if Federer never wins the RG crown, he'll still be considered the greatest of all time provided that he keeps winning Wimbledons, US Opens and AOs and surpasses Pete's record of 14 GS titles. I still believe that Roger has a shot at the RG title next year, you never know.

star
06-12-2006, 02:27 AM
Don't you think the goal of getting 15 grand slam titles is a pretty tall order for Federer? He got a later start winning GS titles than Sampras. He's 25 this year. That gives him about 2 more years at peak performance.

Chloe le Bopper
06-12-2006, 02:36 AM
I agree. Nadal is really the main thing standing between Federer and the claim to that title. You cannot be the greatest ever if you consistently lose to the number 2 player in the world.
But is it okay if the player is not number 2? (ie: Krajicek to Sampras)

tenniswiz
06-12-2006, 02:41 AM
Don't you think the goal of getting 15 grand slam titles is a pretty tall order for Federer? He got a later start winning GS titles than Sampras. He's 25 this year. That gives him about 2 more years at peak performance.
What do you mean? He's 24 and is already tied with Pete w.r.t. the # of GS titles: 7 at this age. To top it off, Federer has a solid chance to expand that record to 8(tied with Pete at this age) or 9(surpass Pete's record at this age). I can see Federer winning Wimbledon and US Open and probably AO for another 2-3 years and maybe after that either Wimbledon or US Open per season for a couple more years. All in all, I do think that Federer is on track of acquiring more than 14 GS titles barring serious injuries and stuff like that.

Clara Bow
06-12-2006, 02:51 AM
Not at this juncture...no. But he is one of the greats. I think Borg is the greatest claycourter ever (and more and more in today's game his RG titles backed by Wimbly titles seems more and more outstanding.) But if Rafa lasts- maybe we can revisit this topic in five years or so.

admiralpye
06-12-2006, 04:08 AM
too soon to tell. it's only been a little over a year.

Rafalution
06-12-2006, 04:24 AM
Not at the moment. Legend in the making

Action Jackson
06-12-2006, 06:23 AM
No

heya
06-12-2006, 07:16 AM
Luke Jensen, John Mc, PMc and Mary turned on their shit faucet mouths.
They loved hearing their own evil troll voices.
Desperate Luke, smug about his doubles French Open win, predicted that Hewitt would win to set up "multidimensional" Federer's Grand Slam.
Poor twit lost his mind.

Anyone who didn't get lucky at non-clay tournaments was a one-dimensional, lowly little boy.
Then, John Mc admitted he was stunned and changed Federer's position to only #7 on the GOAT list. Mary chuckled with pain.

Brad loved getting huge cash + attention for his lies; he enjoyed mocking about
injuries of players he hated. Only "the rival" of Nadal was "interesting".
As long as Brad's on TV, no one can beat his face to a pulp.
Brad Gilbert claimed that "big power, huge serve and forehand" were enough to win RG. If you don't serve big, you're ordinary, he says.
No wonder he cried for the 2000th time that no player under age 25 picked him for a coaching job.
Thanks to Pat and Mary's endorsement, Brad can jump on bandwagons and leech off of ESPN channel.

ivanna
06-12-2006, 09:49 AM
Not YET.

Halba
06-12-2006, 09:53 AM
all the current tennis players are playing at 50% more intensity than the 70s(wooden rackets, unfit players cmon, lack of clay specialists) and about 25% more intensity than the late 80s mid 90s when sampras came on

you only have to watch how the top 10 players r playing to get an idea of the intensity. Sure Borg would still be fantastic if he was playing right now, but tennis was totally different!

Tom_Bombadil
06-12-2006, 11:23 AM
Absolutely right. The problem is that Nadal is way too awkward and beatable on the grass of Wimbledon and on the hard courts of the US Open where Federer would definitely be the favorite and could take it to Nadal and even their h2h record out considerably. It's much easier for Federer to reach the final at RG and get beat by Rafa, whereas Rafa really struggles to get to the second week at Wimbledon or the US Open.

Whatever you say dude, but you're a little biased considering Federer would kick Nadal's ass on hardcourts. You don't see they played each other 3 times and Nadal won the last two, only losing the first one and in 5 sets. But yeah, Fed is going to kick Nadal's ass, he has the keys. ;)

Scotso
06-12-2006, 12:16 PM
Chris Evert is :worship:

But Nadal may end up the greatest ;)

Deea
06-12-2006, 01:07 PM
One answer possible to this question: a big YESSSS! :p

connectolove
06-12-2006, 01:07 PM
Absolutely right. The problem is that Nadal is way too awkward and beatable on the grass of Wimbledon and on the hard courts of the US Open where Federer would definitely be the favorite and could take it to Nadal and even their h2h record out considerably. It's much easier for Federer to reach the final at RG and get beat by Rafa, whereas Rafa really struggles to get to the second week at Wimbledon or the US Open.

So true, but I hope it starts changing. I have no idea if Nadal can improve so much on hard courts and grass that he can be consider an important contender, but I hope that he does. Now, if it happens it would be a great injection for tennis.

ExpectedWinner
06-12-2006, 04:31 PM
The difference so far between Fed and Pete is that Pete was never dominated by any single player throughout his career . This is the same reason why Andre isn't considered the greatest player of all time because he would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most .


Thanks for enlightening me. :rolleyes: I thought the reasons were: "only" 8 GS, never 6 yrs as No1, never dominated the tour.

However, I do think that their rivalry was overhyped by the media because as you put it "Agassi would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most."

RonE
06-12-2006, 04:52 PM
"Ever"- it is way too early to say that with absolute authority.

Certainly the best of the decade so far alongside Kuerten whom he could very well surpass in terms of results over the next two years.

Right now there is no one that can come close to him on the red stuff.

It is all theoretical of course but I would have loved to see how he would have fared on the dirt against players like Guga, Corretja, Mantilla, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rios, Muster and Bruguerra at their respective peaks. That would have made for some compelling watching!

oz_boz
06-13-2006, 09:21 AM
If he wins three more RG he ties with Borg, IMO.

Agassi Fan
06-13-2006, 10:12 AM
Yes, he is.

J. Corwin
06-13-2006, 10:14 AM
Way too early to tell. He's on pace but tennis is fickle: Nadal plays a very taxing brand of tennis and I'm not sure if he can play at his peak for several more years to break Borg's RG record. That, and a young phenom can come up and overtake his throne.

forever_rafter
06-13-2006, 10:16 AM
I never liked Guga but I think he was way better than Nadal is

liisa
06-13-2006, 04:38 PM
He is

Fedex
06-15-2006, 11:52 PM
The difference so far between Fed and Pete is that Pete was never dominated by any single player throughout his career . This is the same reason why Andre isn't considered the greatest player of all time because he would usually lose to Pete when the matches counted the most .
Well lets just wait and see. 4 of the 7 matches between Nadal and Federer have been on clay. Nadal only holds a 2-1 edge on hardcourts. Lets wait for the matches to even out on all surfaces, before we proclaim that Federer cant ever beat Nadal. They have yet to play at the USO or Wimbledon, where Federer is the clear favorite.

Fedex
06-15-2006, 11:53 PM
If he wins three more RG he ties with Borg, IMO.
No, that would only give Nadal 5, Borg has 6.

Fedex
06-15-2006, 11:55 PM
Part of the problem for Federer is that with Nadal now being number 2, Nadal has to get to the final in order for them to meet on the sufaces that favor Federer. I think that doesn't happen as often as Federer getting to the final on clay.
Correct. :)

scoobs
06-16-2006, 12:07 AM
I won't know if Rafa is the best clay court player ever until the end of history.

Ask me then