Must Nadal beat Djokovic at Roland Garros to seal his legacy as The King of Clay? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Must Nadal beat Djokovic at Roland Garros to seal his legacy as The King of Clay?

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-18-2011, 05:21 AM
I say no because he has far eclipsed Borg on clay. Dominating not only the French but Monte and Rome. But Borg unlike Nadal had no foe who could really defeat him multiple times on clay (At least I don't recall one) First they both have to make the final but I believe Rafa has a couple if not many more French Opens in him. And Novak up until late has been playing amazing tennis. So it begs the question, must Rafa defeat his biggest challenger on his court to seal the title of Clay GOAT. Obviously a 7th RG would seal it regardless.

Mountaindewslave
12-18-2011, 05:23 AM
regardless of what happens from 2012 onward he already will and is recognized as the best clay courter of all time....... it's irrelevant

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-18-2011, 05:25 AM
regardless of what happens from 2012 onward he already will and is recognized as the best clay courter of all time....... it's irrelevant

I suppose you're right because Prime Clay Nadal would roast Prime Clay Djokovic. We saw that in 2008 semi

Kat_YYZ
12-18-2011, 05:26 AM
why do they allow all these obvious double accounts? :rolleyes:
who the hell makes such a crappy user name?

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-18-2011, 05:28 AM
why do they allow all these obvious double accounts? :rolleyes:
who the hell makes such a crappy user name?

I'm no one's double account -_-

Topspindoctor
12-18-2011, 05:43 AM
Retarded topic...Nadal has 6 Roland Garros titles, clay win streak and huge amount of clay titles - he's the clay GOAT, it's up to Novak to start building his own clay legacy by at least making one RG final.

SetSampras
12-18-2011, 06:14 AM
ROFL.. 6 RG titles to 0? No I don't think Nadal needs to down Nole at the French

fsoica
12-18-2011, 06:17 AM
no, he does not

bishi
12-18-2011, 06:31 AM
I do not appreciate the talents of Nadal....but seriously, what a ridiculous thread. Novak has a lot to prove before this becomes relevant.

HKz
12-18-2011, 06:39 AM
Lol? What kind of thread is this. Sure, he would "replace" Nadal as the current "King of clay" if he were to win Roland Garros next year regardless of whether he beats Nadal or not along the way, but certainly the overall title of "King of clay" belongs to Borg/Nadal until someone surpasses them or Nadal truly surpasses Borg.

Pirata.
12-18-2011, 08:32 AM
Rafa can't be King of Clay unless he defeats Fognini in the 2012 final :shrug:

fsoica
12-18-2011, 09:17 AM
nadal already defeated djokovic , how many times, 3?, at roland garros...
i'd love to see the djoker beating nadal next year in the final, but this will not at all diminish nadal's status as the clay goat

GSMnadal
12-18-2011, 09:21 AM
2006 Roland Garros QF: Nadal def. Djokovic 6-4 6-4 ret.
2007 Roland Garros SF: Nadal def. Djokovic 7-5 6-4 6-2
2008 Roland Garros SF: Nadal def. Djokovic 6-4 6-2 7-6

He has beaten his biggest challenger here 5 out of 6 times. Now that there is a new one, one that isn't even good enough to make it to a final, one he has beaten here three times already, and numerous other times on other claycourts. All of a sudden he has to beat him one more time?

Rubbish, there is only one king of clay, one all time best, and his name is Rafael Nadal.

buzz
12-18-2011, 10:08 AM
Lol? What kind of thread is this. Sure, he would "replace" Nadal as the current "King of clay" if he were to win Roland Garros next year regardless of whether he beats Nadal or not along the way, but certainly the overall title of "King of clay" belongs to Borg/Nadal until someone surpasses them or Nadal truly surpasses Borg.

this. Nadal needs one more RG to make it indisputable his opponent doesn't matter.

samanosuke
12-18-2011, 10:11 AM
nadal doesn't need anything. anything needs what nadal wants

Naudio Spanlatine
12-18-2011, 10:29 AM
I have no comment:tape: :ignore:

Lucilla
12-18-2011, 11:54 AM
Rafael is and will always be the King of Clay! :worship:

EddieNero
12-18-2011, 12:02 PM
Ridicilous thread. Even If Djokovic beats Nadal 6-1 6-0 6-1 next year it won't change anything, especially Nadal's legacy on this surface.
Nadal will start losing at RG sooner or later, but it happens to every player no matter how invincible they were at their prime. It's like claiming Sampras losing to Bastl completely ruined his grass legacy.

fmolinari2005
12-18-2011, 12:10 PM
Retarded topic...Nadal has 6 Roland Garros titles, clay win streak and huge amount of clay titles - he's the clay GOAT, it's up to Novak to start building his own clay legacy by at least making one RG final.

ROFL.. 6 RG titles to 0? No I don't think Nadal needs to down Nole at the French

2006 Roland Garros QF: Nadal def. Djokovic 6-4 6-4 ret.
2007 Roland Garros SF: Nadal def. Djokovic 7-5 6-4 6-2
2008 Roland Garros SF: Nadal def. Djokovic 6-4 6-2 7-6

He has beaten his biggest challenger here 5 out of 6 times. Now that there is a new one, one that isn't even good enough to make it to a final, one he has beaten here three times already, and numerous other times on other claycourts. All of a sudden he has to beat him one more time?

Rubbish, there is only one king of clay, one all time best, and his name is Rafael Nadal.

I thought this day would never come but: a triple :yeah: to this trio.

The OP would be better off using the internet to find porn.

Looner
12-18-2011, 12:28 PM
Voted YES to piss off Rafatards who think Fed needed to beat Nadull at RG for it count. What I think is that Nadal's legacy is set in stone. Although I wouldn't be so sure about Prime Clay Nadal would beat Prime Clay Djoko(as one Rafahead called them).

fran70
12-18-2011, 12:35 PM
7 RG titles would definitely seal his name as the best clay court player of all times. Rafa found on Djokovic in 2011 as his first serious thread on clay and is the only one that I can see can put in danger his legacy at RG.

Sunset of Age
12-18-2011, 02:22 PM
:silly: :silly: :silly: thread started by an even :silly:-er poster.
Username is an obvious giveaway - double account.

tripwires
12-18-2011, 02:23 PM
:haha: What a thread.

arm
12-18-2011, 03:27 PM
He already has :scratch:

masterclass
12-18-2011, 03:43 PM
...But Borg unlike Nadal had no foe who could really defeat him multiple times on clay (At least I don't recall one)...

Not true. The great Bjorn Borg in his illustrious career faced several clay court adepts during the top Clay King decade (see bottom of this post).
If one is talking about overall clay court (not just the French or US Open [played on clay from 1975-77]), there were a few that beat him multiple times, but not many, usually earlier in his career, and no one dominated him. Here are the ones that gave him the most trouble:
Clay Record Only:
Bjorn Borg
vs. Jimmy Connors (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 0 - 2) - note that Connors was not a Clay King in terms of clay titles won (12), but has the 6th highest winning pct (.779)
vs. Ilie Nastase (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 1 - 0 )
vs. Adriano Panatta (overall 7 - 5 - Roland Garros: 1 - 2) Panatta Total clay titles: (7) Winning pct.(682)

Strangely enough, rivals Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe (overall 7 - 7) never played against each other on clay, (Grass: 1 - 1, Hard: 1 - 3, Carpet: 5 - 3 ).
Clay was McEnroe's worst surface - 4 titles lifetime, and best slam performance reaching 1984 finals at Roland Garros.

Clay Kings (28 Titles and higher) 1968-present:
Nastase[1969-1977](320-93) - 28 Titles 1 Slam
Lendl[1980-1993] -(329-75) - 28 Titles 3 Slams
Orantes[1969-1982](498-149)- 30 Titles 1 Slam
Borg[1974-1981] - (245-39) - 30 Titles 6 Slams
*Nadal[2004-2011] -(231-18) - 32 Titles 6 Slams
Muster[1986-1996]-(422-127)- 40 Titles 1 Slam
Vilas[1973-1983] -(632-162)- 45 Titles 2 Slams
* Still active

#Era Kings(by decade): 4 Kings (133 Titles) in the 1970's to 1980's, 2 Kings (68 Titles) in the 1980's to 1990's, 1 King (32 Titles) in the 2000's to 2010's

Regards,
masterclass

Saberq
12-18-2011, 04:51 PM
Not true. The great Bjorn Borg in his illustrious career faced several clay court adepts during the top Clay King decade (see bottom of this post).
If one is talking about overall clay court (not just the French or US Open [played on clay from 1975-77]), there were a few that beat him multiple times, but not many, usually earlier in his career, and no one dominated him. Here are the ones that gave him the most trouble:
Clay Record Only:
Bjorn Borg
vs. Jimmy Connors (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 0 - 2) - note that Connors was not a Clay King in terms of clay titles won (12), but has the 6th highest winning pct (.779)
vs. Ilie Nastase (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 1 - 0 )
vs. Adriano Panatta (overall 7 - 5 - Roland Garros: 1 - 2) Panatta Total clay titles: (7) Winning pct.(682)

Strangely enough, rivals Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe (overall 7 - 7) never played against each other on clay, (Grass: 1 - 1, Hard: 1 - 3, Carpet: 5 - 3 ).
Clay was McEnroe's worst surface - 4 titles lifetime, and best slam performance reaching 1984 finals at Roland Garros.

Clay Kings (28 Titles and higher) 1968-present:
Nastase[1969-1977](320-93) - 28 Titles 1 Slam
Lendl[1980-1993] -(329-75) - 28 Titles 3 Slams
Orantes[1969-1982](498-149)- 30 Titles 1 Slam
Borg[1974-1981] - (245-39) - 30 Titles 6 Slams
*Nadal[2004-2011] -(231-18) - 32 Titles 6 Slams
Muster[1986-1996]-(422-127)- 40 Titles 1 Slam
Vilas[1973-1983] -(632-162)- 45 Titles 2 Slams
* Still active

#Era Kings(by decade): 4 Kings (133 Titles) in the 1970's to 1980's, 2 Kings (68 Titles) in the 1980's to 1990's, 1 King (32 Titles) in the 2000's to 2010's

Regards,
masterclass

this guy is a human Wikipedia

Imperfect Angel
12-18-2011, 05:31 PM
King of Clay? he'd need to win at least 6 RG titles and also beat Nadal at least 3 times.:p

HKz
12-18-2011, 05:51 PM
Not true. The great Bjorn Borg in his illustrious career faced several clay court adepts during the top Clay King decade (see bottom of this post).
If one is talking about overall clay court (not just the French or US Open [played on clay from 1975-77]), there were a few that beat him multiple times, but not many, usually earlier in his career, and no one dominated him. Here are the ones that gave him the most trouble:
Clay Record Only:
Bjorn Borg
vs. Jimmy Connors (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 0 - 2) - note that Connors was not a Clay King in terms of clay titles won (12), but has the 6th highest winning pct (.779)
vs. Ilie Nastase (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 1 - 0 )
vs. Adriano Panatta (overall 7 - 5 - Roland Garros: 1 - 2) Panatta Total clay titles: (7) Winning pct.(682)

Strangely enough, rivals Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe (overall 7 - 7) never played against each other on clay, (Grass: 1 - 1, Hard: 1 - 3, Carpet: 5 - 3 ).
Clay was McEnroe's worst surface - 4 titles lifetime, and best slam performance reaching 1984 finals at Roland Garros.

Clay Kings (28 Titles and higher) 1968-present:
Nastase[1969-1977](320-93) - 28 Titles 1 Slam
Lendl[1980-1993] -(329-75) - 28 Titles 3 Slams
Orantes[1969-1982](498-149)- 30 Titles 1 Slam
Borg[1974-1981] - (245-39) - 30 Titles 6 Slams
*Nadal[2004-2011] -(231-18) - 32 Titles 6 Slams
Muster[1986-1996]-(422-127)- 40 Titles 1 Slam
Vilas[1973-1983] -(632-162)- 45 Titles 2 Slams
* Still active

#Era Kings(by decade): 4 Kings (133 Titles) in the 1970's to 1980's, 2 Kings (68 Titles) in the 1980's to 1990's, 1 King (32 Titles) in the 2000's to 2010's

Regards,
masterclass

I still think had John and Bjorn met after 1981 on clay that McEnroe would at the very least push their matches the distance if not win them. He was beginning to be too strong mentally against Bjorn and his style of play frustrated Borg unlike Connors. Interestingly, Connors was 3 and 3 with Borg on clay if I remember correctly, however, the 3 clay wins Jimmy had were all on faster clay surfaces.

Corey Feldman
12-18-2011, 05:55 PM
is beating him 3 times already not enough :lol:

Sophocles
12-18-2011, 05:57 PM
I'd turn it around and say if Djoker beats Nadal at R.G., continuing to own him on clay as well as everywhere else, Borg will have one thing over Nadal - that he was never owned by anybody on clay.

Capuccino
12-18-2011, 06:10 PM
nothing is "must" except dying

Johnny Groove
12-18-2011, 06:12 PM
:lol:

Nadal needs a win over Nole at RG to cement his legacy like Federer needs a win over Murray at Wimbledon to cement his legacy.

Naudio Spanlatine
12-18-2011, 06:25 PM
nothing is "must" except dying

:worship:

btw i love you sigy:lol:

Saberq
12-18-2011, 07:02 PM
:lol:

Nadal needs a win over Nole at RG to cement his legacy like Federer needs a win over Murray at Wimbledon to cement his legacy.

this .....why is this even a fucking question...Novak did shit on RG

masterclass
12-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Clay record only:Bjorn Borg vs. Jimmy Connors (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 0 - 2 )
Rivals Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe never played against each other on clay.
Clay was McEnroe's worst surface - 4 titles lifetime, and best slam performance reaching 1984 finals at Roland Garros.
I still think had John and Bjorn met after 1981 on clay that McEnroe would at the very least push their matches the distance if not win them. He was beginning to be too strong mentally against Bjorn and his style of play frustrated Borg unlike Connors. Interestingly, Connors was 3 and 3 with Borg on clay if I remember correctly, however, the 3 clay wins Jimmy had were all on faster clay surfaces.

HKz, "...had John and Bjorn met after 1981..." Huh??? They were not even close on clay. Borg was a Clay King (32 titles, 6 slams), McEnroe won 4 titles on clay, that's it.

Predicting any outcome between the two post 1981 is illogical or fanciful at best. Borg for all practical purposes stopped competing after the 1981 season ('82 and '83, he played only 1 match at his "home tournament" in Monaco). McEnroe from 1981 on was in his prime, but was competitive with Borg on other surfaces from 1979-81. They rarely met on clay during this time for primarily 2 reasons. Borg played clay mostly in Europe, and McEnroe played in the U.S. rarely on clay. On the 2 occasions where they were in the same clay tournament (Roland Garros - 1980-81), McEnroe was clearly not good enough on clay to go far enough to even reach Borg:
1981 Roland Garros: - Borg won his 4th consecutive here (6 out of 8) and last Slam in career d. Ivan Lendl in 5 sets. McEnroe lost to Lendl in the QF in 3 sets. Later in that year, McEnroe would defeat Borg for the first time at Wimbledon in 4 sets and at the US Open in 4 sets.
1980 Roland Garros: - Borg won his 3rd consecutive here. McEnroe lost in the Round of 32 to Paul McNamee.

Finally, John McEnroe's best clay slam effort at Roland Garros was in 1984, losing in the final, again to Ivan Lendl. I'm almost sure John McEnroe himself would tell you that he would have had no chance against Bjorn Borg on clay. John's best game simply didn't match to that surface. No shame in that.

Bjorn Borg vs. Jimmy Connors (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 0 - 2)

Match breakdown:
Bjorn Borg defeated Jimmy Connors 3 times consecutively (1977-79) on clay at the finals of Pepsi Grand Slam in Boca Raton, Florida.
This was a special invitational tournament where only 4 players who had won a slam competed. It has no equivalent today. It was an important tournament at the time because it was played for more money than all 4 Slams combined.
It was played on a relatively fast green clay (Har-Tru) surface. See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY) for highlights of the 1979 Final. With the low TV angle of the shots, you almost feel like you are playing the point. Watching that match reminds me of the great athleticism of Borg. He moved effortlessly and quickly around the court, much like Roger Federer, but played in a style very similar to Rafael Nadal (mostly topspin), but notice how he also had a wicked slice approach shot when coming to the net.

Connors defeated Bjorn Borg earlier in Borg's career 3 times, twice at the relatively fast US Open on clay (1975-1976). See the last part of the 1976 match here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0dMd9q2o6w). Connors also won once his first match with Borg on clay at the US Men's Clay Court Championships in Indianapolis in 1974.

Regards,
masterclass

Pirata.
12-18-2011, 10:02 PM
Rubbish, there is only one king of clay, one all time best, and his name is Rafael Nadal.

Nadal and Borg.

Egreen
12-18-2011, 10:14 PM
Huh? As if Djokovic was the gatekeeper at RG or something. He's never even made a final there.:rolleyes:

stewietennis
12-18-2011, 11:18 PM
How is beating a random player who hasn't achieved anything in a particular tournament going to help him "solidify" his King of Clay legacy?

MIMIC
12-19-2011, 01:00 AM
Nadal could lose 6-1, 6-1, 6-0 to Novak at RG (which he probably will next year :p), but Rafa's legacy as the Clay God has already been written.

Kat_YYZ
12-19-2011, 05:48 AM
I thought this day would never come but: a triple :yeah: to this trio.

The OP would be better off using the internet to find porn.

The OP made the thread knowing it will generate a storm of pro-Nadal posts (even by people who aren't his fans). Set up a nice straw man to tear down and create a Nadal love-in. :zzz:

HKz
12-19-2011, 06:13 AM
HKz, "...had John and Bjorn met after 1981..." Huh??? They were not even close on clay. Borg was a Clay King (32 titles, 6 slams), McEnroe won 4 titles on clay, that's it.

Predicting any outcome between the two post 1981 is illogical or fanciful at best. Borg for all practical purposes stopped competing after the 1981 season ('82 and '83, he played only 1 match at his "home tournament" in Monaco). McEnroe from 1981 on was in his prime, but was competitive with Borg on other surfaces from 1979-81. They rarely met on clay during this time for primarily 2 reasons. Borg played clay mostly in Europe, and McEnroe played in the U.S. rarely on clay. On the 2 occasions where they were in the same clay tournament (Roland Garros - 1980-81), McEnroe was clearly not good enough on clay to go far enough to even reach Borg:
1981 Roland Garros: - Borg won his 4th consecutive here (6 out of 8) and last Slam in career d. Ivan Lendl in 5 sets. McEnroe lost to Lendl in the QF in 3 sets. Later in that year, McEnroe would defeat Borg for the first time at Wimbledon in 4 sets and at the US Open in 4 sets.
1980 Roland Garros: - Borg won his 3rd consecutive here. McEnroe lost in the Round of 32 to Paul McNamee.

Finally, John McEnroe's best clay slam effort at Roland Garros was in 1984, losing in the final, again to Ivan Lendl. I'm almost sure John McEnroe himself would tell you that he would have had no chance against Bjorn Borg on clay. John's best game simply didn't match to that surface. No shame in that.

Bjorn Borg vs. Jimmy Connors (overall 3 - 3 - US Open: 0 - 2)

Match breakdown:
Bjorn Borg defeated Jimmy Connors 3 times consecutively (1977-79) on clay at the finals of Pepsi Grand Slam in Boca Raton, Florida.
This was a special invitational tournament where only 4 players who had won a slam competed. It has no equivalent today. It was an important tournament at the time because it was played for more money than all 4 Slams combined.
It was played on a relatively fast green clay (Har-Tru) surface. See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY) for highlights of the 1979 Final. With the low TV angle of the shots, you almost feel like you are playing the point. Watching that match reminds me of the great athleticism of Borg. He moved effortlessly and quickly around the court, much like Roger Federer, but played in a style very similar to Rafael Nadal (mostly topspin), but notice how he also had a wicked slice approach shot when coming to the net.

Connors defeated Bjorn Borg earlier in Borg's career 3 times, twice at the relatively fast US Open on clay (1975-1976). See the last part of the 1976 match here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0dMd9q2o6w). Connors also won once his first match with Borg on clay at the US Men's Clay Court Championships in Indianapolis in 1974.

Regards,
masterclass

Way to take statements and overthink them. Seems like that is what 99% of your posts here have been so far. Not to mention, you act like bringing all this information, all of which I already know, is going to prove something. In short, tl;dr

Either way, my statement has nothing to do with their individual successes. John was getting too strong mentally at the tail end of Bjorn's career, I think it was only a matter of time that John ran away with the H2H record and give Bjorn a great challenger on the clay.

SetSampras
12-19-2011, 06:26 AM
Thats like saying Sampras needed a wimbledon win over Muster or Rios at wimbledon to prove his grass court GOAT status or Fed needs a win over Murray at the USO to prove his hardcourt GOAT status. ROFL.. Ridiculous.

You don't need wins over 0 time French Open winner or a 0 time wimbledon or USO winner if you got the resume on that particular surface

Chirag
12-19-2011, 07:49 AM
why do they allow all these obvious double accounts? :rolleyes:
who the hell makes such a crappy user name?

you have proof :confused: or are you just guessing .

Chirag
12-19-2011, 07:55 AM
The OP made the thread knowing it will generate a storm of pro-Nadal posts (even by people who aren't his fans). Set up a nice straw man to tear down and create a Nadal love-in. :zzz:

:stupid::stupid:

by the way ,Nadal is already clay goat .he doesnt need wins over 0 time champions at that surface to seal his legacy :wavey::wavey:

Logical
12-19-2011, 05:31 PM
Clay God:worship:
http://www.buzkeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/nadal1.jpg
Haters:bigwave:

Naudio Spanlatine
12-19-2011, 05:32 PM
Clay God:worship:
http://www.buzkeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/nadal1.jpg
Haters:bigwave:

Dee loves you very much for this pic:cool: :inlove:

Logical
12-19-2011, 05:40 PM
Dee loves you very much for this pic:cool: :inlove::hug:

Super Djoker
12-19-2011, 08:24 PM
This thread is Silly! He already did in 2007 and 2008! Him losing again at RG wouldent tarnish it either! Borg Retired at 26! DON,T FORGET THAT!

masterclass
12-19-2011, 09:16 PM
Way to take statements and overthink them. Seems like that is what 99% of your posts here have been so far. Not to mention, you act like bringing all this information, all of which I already know, is going to prove something. In short, tl;dr

Either way, my statement has nothing to do with their individual successes. John was getting too strong mentally at the tail end of Bjorn's career, I think it was only a matter of time that John ran away with the H2H record and give Bjorn a great challenger on the clay.

In short, your entire conjecture is based on a fallacy, which leaves you nothing to back up your statement.

Who cares what might have happened after Borg retired??? He was done, finished. His career Clay King level is well established. McEnroe's career is also finished, and his level on clay also known - nothing compared to Borg's.

It's like saying that a person who never achieved more than a blue belt in karate, but maybe had a black in judo, would have a good chance of pushing or beating a person who had a black belt in karate after that person had retired and his level had obviously diminished. Of what value is that?

The only thing we have to compare regarding their clay court ability is their individual career performances on clay and those clay tournaments in which they both played. The example of their 1981 performances (Borg's last year) at Roland Garros is sufficient to make the point.

There was no head-to-head on clay for a reason. John was never good enough on that surface to meet or challenge Borg. There was no comparison. I take the time to substantiate my reasoning, which you have chosen to ridicule. Definitely more than enough said.

-masterclass

Mystique
12-20-2011, 05:24 AM
No. Nadal has nothing to prove on clay. Absolutely nothing. He has already made a pretty strong case to being the greatest ever on the surface. Just because Novak beat him a couple of times on the surfaces changes nothing as far as his clay court legacy goes.

However, if Novak is fully fit and playing close to his 2011 level next year, I think its imperative Nadal gives everything on the clay courts especially if they meet at Roland Garros. He needs to break the losing habit to Novak for his own future. His best chance is always clay, even if he suffered his worst defeats to Djokovic on that surface this year.

HKz
12-20-2011, 05:37 AM
In short, your entire conjecture is based on a fallacy, which leaves you nothing to back up your statement.

Who cares what might have happened after Borg retired??? He was done, finished. His career Clay King level is well established. McEnroe's career is also finished, and his level on clay also known - nothing compared to Borg's.

It's like saying that a person who never achieved more than a blue belt in karate, but maybe had a black in judo, would have a good chance of pushing or beating a person who had a black belt in karate after that person had retired and his level had obviously diminished. Of what value is that?

The only thing we have to compare regarding their clay court ability is their individual career performances on clay and those clay tournaments in which they both played. The example of their 1981 performances (Borg's last year) at Roland Garros is sufficient to make the point.

There was no head-to-head on clay for a reason. John was never good enough on that surface to meet or challenge Borg. There was no comparison. I take the time to substantiate my reasoning, which you have chosen to ridicule. Definitely more than enough said.

-masterclass

Once again, you clearly didn't get my point but go ahead, base your crap on your "facts" to fall back on and give me some useless elongated answer that has nothing to do with what I was pointing out.

shiaben
12-20-2011, 07:06 AM
Needless to say. If the two do come across each other, Nadal will do anything it takes to defeat Djokovic at Roland Garros. Whether it takes him 5 sets and to bruise his shoulders with heavy hitting and serving, he'll do it. He'll even cripple himself in the process if he must. Clay is his pride. He's not going to go down without a dirty sweaty hard fought fight.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 12:39 PM
Once again, you clearly didn't get my point but go ahead, base your crap on your "facts" to fall back on and give me some useless elongated answer that has nothing to do with what I was pointing out.

Well he's got a point. Mac was the hardest match-up for Borg but they still split their head-to-head without ever playing on Borg's best surface & Mac's worst. Borg actually led the H2H on carpet despite Mac's being the better player on that surface. I'm sure Mac on a good day could have caused problems for Borg, particularly in 1981 after getting a definitive mental edge over him, but even in 1981 Borg was still zinging plenty of passing shots past Mac on fast surfaces. Imagine the time he'd have had for those shots on that slow European clay.

To take an analogy, Nadal is Federer's toughest match-up & has a clear mental edge over him, but on Nadal's own worst "surface" - indoors - he has taken only 1 set in 4 meetings.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 12:40 PM
Needless to say. If the two do come across each other, Nadal will do anything it takes to defeat Djokovic at Roland Garros. Whether it takes him 5 sets and to bruise his shoulders with heavy hitting and serving, he'll do it. He'll even cripple himself in the process if he must. Clay is his pride. He's not going to go down without a dirty sweaty hard fought fight.

Doesn't mean he'll take a set though.

BroTree123
12-20-2011, 02:02 PM
I guess I'll echo what the other peeps said above. Nole could probly win RG next year by taking Rafa to the cleaners in the final, but it in regards to his Clay-court legacy it wouldn't mean jack....doesn't have to seal anything unless Nole has, or will have, similar credentials on the dirt.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 02:08 PM
A lot of people are missing the point. Nobody is suggesting Djokovic is a rival for the King of Clay title. The point is that if Djoker continues to own Nadal on clay, his actual rival(s) for King of Clay - Borg (& Rosewall) - will have one significant edge on him, that they were never owned by anybody on clay.

Time Violation
12-20-2011, 02:17 PM
A lot of people are missing the point. Nobody is suggesting Djokovic is a rival for the King of Clay title. The point is that if Djoker continues to own Nadal on clay, his actual rival(s) for King of Clay - Borg (& Rosewall) - will have one significant edge on him, that they were never owned by anybody on clay.

Good point :)

Just like heaven
12-20-2011, 02:36 PM
A lot of people are missing the point. Nobody is suggesting Djokovic is a rival for the King of Clay title. The point is that if Djoker continues to own Nadal on clay, his actual rival(s) for King of Clay - Borg (& Rosewall) - will have one significant edge on him, that they were never owned by anybody on clay.

:rolleyes: That's because he retired early.

Vida
12-20-2011, 03:41 PM
if nadal loses to djokovic at FO, his legacy will take a hit.

in the mind of whoever contemplates legacy, it isnt only a pure mass of achievement, but rather an idea of ability, or, in terms of lasting ability - a potential for invincibility - that is the key element.

therefore, novak 2.0 beating nadal at the french would signal that, game-vs-game, nadal has met his match.

the fact nadal already beat him many times, in terms of legacy, cant be used as an argument, because tards will ask: what good are those wins if they came against a player still not in his prime?

as you can easily see, this dilemma shares its roots with another one that too, touches on the issue of legacy.

Saberq
12-20-2011, 04:22 PM
his legacy wont take a hit it is set in stone

Shinoj
12-20-2011, 04:36 PM
I think what the OP meant was..

Nadal till now no doubt was highly successful on Clay. To many the Best ever. But not to me because Borg was playing in conditions where there was minumum help from the equipments; something which is quite opposite in Nadal's case.

Anyways, Nadal has been quite successful till now but while he still being in his prime, met a match in Nole2.0.. And in fact it really wasnt a match as Djokovic thumped him in his own favourtite backyard Clay.

Now for those who claim that Rafa is Clay GOAT and stuff like that, Nadal was beaten in his prime,25 years old,by a player not much younger than him, and in his own best Surface.

That really shakes the ground that Rafa is a CLay GOAT.

To me he has to beat Djokovic consistently to claim his so called "Clay GOAT" Position.

To me

Its

Bjorn Borg Then Djokovic(Potentially) and then Rafael Nadal.

tribalfusion
12-20-2011, 05:26 PM
To me

Its

Bjorn Borg Then Djokovic(Potentially) and then Rafael Nadal.


Djokovic is the second best clay courter of all time and hasn't even won RG.

You are truly one for the record books with your trolling...

Shinoj
12-20-2011, 05:40 PM
Djokovic is the second best clay courter of all time and hasn't even won RG.

You are truly one for the record books with your trolling...


I said Potentially, as he had defeated Nadal in his peak. Read it.

tribalfusion
12-20-2011, 05:50 PM
I said Potentially, as he had defeated Nadal in his peak. Read it.

Be serious...every tennis great has lost at his peak especially outside of the slams.

Djokovic is 24 and has never won RG. To say he is potentially the 2nd best clay courter of ALL TIME is seriously demented.

Federer has beaten Nadal on clay and Djokovic too and has won RG. That's without even mentioning Muster, Wilander etc all of whom have much better resumes than Novak on clay.


Stop trolling.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 05:58 PM
:rolleyes: That's because he retired early.

Well, he was 26, which Nadal will be next year, and nobody owned him.

Had he carried on I'm sure Lendl & perhaps Wilander would have had some wins, & of course nobody remains at the top for ever, but Nadal is still winning slams and in his prime (if past his peak).

Shinoj
12-20-2011, 06:02 PM
Be serious...every tennis great has lost at his peak especially outside of the slams.

Djokovic is 24 and has never won RG. To say he is potentially the 2nd best clay courter of ALL TIME is seriously demented.

Federer has beaten Nadal on clay and Djokovic too and has won RG. That's without even mentioning Muster, Wilander etc all of whom have much better resumes than Novak on clay.


Stop trolling.


Nadal has lost consistently to Djokovic, he hasnt lost once or twice.

And this would serve you right

poˇtenˇtial (p-tnshl)
adj.
1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.
2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
3. Grammar Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow.
n.
1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
2. Something possessing the capacity for growth or development.
3. Grammar A potential verb form.
4. Physics The work required to move a unit of positive charge, a magnetic pole, or an amount of mass from a reference point to a designated point in a static electric, magnetic, or gravitational field; potential energy.
5. See potential difference.

tribalfusion
12-20-2011, 06:16 PM
Nadal has lost consistently to Djokovic, he hasnt lost once or twice


Nadal has lost 2 times on clay in non-slam events to Novak. He has also beaten Novak 9 times on clay. That's some strong claim you have there :)

How many times has Nadal lost to Djokovic on clay at RG? Has it ever happened? How many RGs does Djokovic have?

Oh yeah, that's right. The answer is zero. Federer has a better clay resume than Djokovic easily and no one puts him at second best of all time on clay.

Your "potential" is just another way of avoiding the obvious: a player at 24 with no slams who has been regularly manhandled by another player over the whole arc of his career is a long, long way from being the 2nd or even 10th greatest player on that surface.

Just like heaven
12-20-2011, 06:18 PM
Well, he was 26, which Nadal will be next year, and nobody owned him.

Had he carried on I'm sure Lendl & perhaps Wilander would have had some wins, & of course nobody remains at the top for ever, but Nadal is still winning slams and in his prime (if past his peak).

And as far as I know nobody owned Nadal, especially on clay.
If he doesn't win RG next year, then it's simply a loss. Doesn't mean someone "owns" him.
Nadal leads Djokovic in the H2H, he beat him at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams, at the Olympics, in the Davis Cup and also at some Masters 1000 events.
Heck, he beat Djokovic even at the WTF, which is one of his worst tournaments.
So people who say that Djokovic owns Nadal are crazy. Maybe it was the case for 2011 but if we take into account their entire careers Djokovic doesn't own Nadal at all.

sexybeast
12-20-2011, 06:40 PM
Nadal is the greatest claycourt player of all time and nothing can change that. Only nostalgitards would deny that, someone younger owning him when he is declining would hardly be a good argument against him beeing the clay GOAT.

Vida
12-20-2011, 06:46 PM
Nadal is the greatest claycourt player of all time and nothing can change that. Only nostalgitards would deny that, someone younger owning him when he is declining would hardly be a good argument against him beeing the clay GOAT.

its hard seeing nadal as clay goat if he keeps on losing to djokovic on clay. a)djokovic is a different animal to the past, so nadals wins against him dont matter much b) there is no big difference in age between them c) with 25 years old, nadal is still in his prime, esp looking at insane numbers hes been having past 2 years.

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 06:47 PM
And as far as I know nobody owned Nadal, especially on clay.

Nobody did on clay, indeed.

Nadal is the greatest claycourt player of all time and nothing can change that. Only nostalgitards would deny that, someone younger owning him when he is declining would hardly be a good argument against him beeing the clay GOAT.

/End of thread.

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 06:55 PM
its hard seeing nadal as clay goat if he keeps on losing to djokovic on clay. a)djokovic is a different animal to the past, so nadals wins against him dont matter much b) there is no big difference in age between them c) with 25 years old, nadal is still in his prime, esp looking at insane numbers hes been having past 2 years.

Nonsense.
Rafa's clay achievements so far - and don't forget he's still going strong, in contrary to Borg who called it quits after six RG titles - are nothing short of amazing, and whatever H2H will appear to whatever player in the future will take away NOTHING of those. If indeed Djokovic manages to outdo Rafa in clay court titles, I promise I'll eat my shoes - and post a vid of it. ;)

Rafa still being in his prime? Uhm, after some six, seven years of being #1, #2? Ever heard of 'early bloomers' in the sport? How long do they usually last? Rafa has outnumbered the most of them by miles already. Very, very remarkable, and it speaks TONS about his talent.
The guy's mileage is one of a true veteran by now. Once again, it's not the age number, it's the mileage that counts most of all.

Not even going into the fact that he surely wasn't at his best the past season for most of the time. Despite that, he still made tons of finals. Count him out at your own risk.

Funny to realize that I may well have posted the exact same thing about Federer a couple of years ago. :o

Vida
12-20-2011, 07:14 PM
Nonsense.
Rafa's clay achievements so far - and don't forget he's still going strong, in contrary to Borg who called it quits after six RG titles - are nothing short of amazing, and whatever H2H will appear to whatever player in the future will take away NOTHING of those. If indeed Djokovic manages to outdo Rafa in clay court titles, I promise I'll eat my shoes - and post a vid of it. ;)

Rafa still being in his prime? Uhm, after some six, seven years of being #1, #2? Ever heard of 'early bloomers' in the sport? How long do they usually last? Rafa has outnumbered the most of them by miles already. Very, very remarkable, and it speaks TONS about his talent.
The guy's mileage is one of a true veteran by now. Once again, it's not the age number, it's the mileage that counts most of all.

Not even going into the fact that he surely wasn't at his best the past season for most of the time. Despite that, he still made tons of finals. Count him out at your own risk.

Funny to realize that I may well have posted the exact same thing about Federer a couple of years ago. :o

statistically it wont of course. nobody can erase the past.

but in terms of ability (a key element in GOAT obsessions), losing to djokovic on clay will result in his clay game being regarded as 'not good enough'. it sounds silly when you think how nadal is/was regarded on clay, but 2011 was revealing to say the least.

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 07:25 PM
but in terms of ability (a key element in GOAT obsessions), losing to djokovic on clay will result in his clay game being regarded as 'not good enough'. it sounds silly when you think how nadal is/was regarded on clay, but 2011 was revealing to say the least.

Just like Federer found his nemesis in Nadal, Nadal himself might find his nemesis in Djokovic. But as facts (yep, those 'statistics') are right now, Djokovic still has a very, very long way to go to come anywhere even near to the achievements that both of the aforementioned have managed.

I've never been in favour of proclaiming any player the GOAT at all, as I think that differences in technicalities, surfaces, advances in bio-medical physics, etc. in between different era's do not allow for a 'GOAT' to be proclaimed at all. But as the facts are right now, it's not too far off to proclaim Fed the all-over 'GOAT', as skewered as that title may be, and Rafa the indesputed CLAY COURT 'GOAT' just the same (not ignoring the great results he got elsewhere, including the CYGS).

Yes, Djokovic has had a truly remarkable 2011 season - indesputably one of the best ever seasons - but before jumping to conclusions, how about awaiting whether he'll be able to back it up come 2012? Not that too much to ask for, I gather?

Egreen
12-20-2011, 07:33 PM
It's the same situation with Federer, it does not matter that Federer has not beaten Nadal at a slam since 2007(pre-prime for Nadal), the moment Federer won 15 slams he was considered the GOAT by most people.

Had Federer remained at 14 slams, the H2H with Nadal(after 2007) at the slams would have been brought as the reason he can't be GOAT.

If Nadal wins a 7th RG, even if he avoids Djokovic 2.0, he will be considered the clay GOAT by most people.

If he remains with 6 RG, then the H2H with Djokovic 2.0 will be used against him on clay as the reason why he can't be the clay GOAT.

Vida
12-20-2011, 07:34 PM
Just like Federer found his nemesis in Nadal, Nadal himself might find his nemesis in Djokovic. But as facts (yep, those 'statistics') are right now, Djokovic still has a very, very long way to go to come anywhere even near to the achievements that both of the aforementioned have managed.

I've never been in favour of proclaiming any player the GOAT at all, as I think that differences in technicalities, surfaces, advances in bio-medical physics, etc. in between different era's do not allow for a 'GOAT' to be proclaimed at all. But as the facts are right now, it's not too far off to proclaim Fed the all-over 'GOAT', as skewered as that title may be, and Rafa the indesputed CLAY COURT 'GOAT' just the same (not ignoring the great results he got elsewhere, including the CYGS).

Yes, Djokovic has had a truly remarkable 2011 season - indesputably one of the best ever seasons - but before jumping to conclusions, how about awaiting whether he'll be able to back it up come 2012? Not that too much to ask for, I gather?

I agree with many things you say, but in the end, IF djokovic continues to beat nadal on clay (including at the FO), there is no question that his legacy will take a hit. thats how it works. there will always be somebody who will say 'yes, but he couldnt beat djokovic'. simple really.

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 07:43 PM
I agree with many things you say, but in the end, IF djokovic continues to beat nadal on clay (including at the FO), there is no question that his legacy will take a hit. thats how it works. there will always be somebody who will say 'yes, but he couldnt beat djokovic'. simple really.

Okay, yeah, but such will have just as much value as to all those that claim that Federer wasn't the legendary player people say he was/is, because of his H2H with Nadal.
Am I mistaken, or might I include you in that category as well, Vida? ;)

IMHO - zilch.
Eventually, it's the total amount of titles (GS preferably), weeks at #1, etc. that define a genuine 'great'. Not some H2H to whatever a player, but well, that's my personal opinion of course. ;)

Vamos, Raf!

Egreen
12-20-2011, 07:45 PM
Bottom line, Federer is the overall GOAT because of his 16 slams.

Nadal is not yet the clay GOAT, he would need more RGs than Borg.

This is for the Open era.

Vida
12-20-2011, 07:51 PM
It's the same situation with Federer, it does not matter that Federer has not beaten Nadal at a slam since 2007(pre-prime for Nadal), the moment Federer won 15 slams he was considered the GOAT by most people.

Had Federer remained at 14 slams, the H2H with Nadal(after 2007) at the slams would have been brought as the reason he can't be GOAT.

If Nadal wins a 7th RG, even if he avoids Djokovic 2.0, he will be considered the clay GOAT by most people.

If he remains with 6 RG, then the H2H with Djokovic 2.0 will be used against him on clay as the reason why he can't be the clay GOAT.

a very good post. only if the accomplishments are 'equal' or being without any decisive numerical advantage, than, when assessing greatness, we should look at other things, like h2h, quality of field, competition among other top players?

that makes sense in what is usually a difficult thing to agree upon: a criteria for measuring greatness.

not sure how would some people take it though. I know a clown on this board (a closet murray fangirl), who would argue until end of time how nadal is actually a talentless mug who wins on clay due to weak competition, how h2h between fed and nadal was irrelevant when looking at feds greatness, and at the same time how fed, in fact, is the GOAT because he had the most difficult time beating awesome competitors like nalbandian, safin, hewitt and agassi.

a bit of a gray are there.

Vida
12-20-2011, 07:57 PM
Okay, yeah, but such will have just as much value as to all those that claim that Federer wasn't the legendary player people say he was/is, because of his H2H with Nadal.
Am I mistaken, or might I include you in that category as well, Vida? ;)

IMHO - zilch.
Eventually, it's the total amount of titles (GS preferably), weeks at #1, etc. that define a genuine 'great'. Not some H2H to whatever a player, but well, that's my personal opinion of course. ;)

Vamos, Raf!

in my book, yes, only if it is numerically tough to decide, I would venture into that stuff. obviously, with fed, he's won so much and has been there for so long that what goes against him is largely insignificant.

Johnny Groove
12-20-2011, 07:58 PM
A lot of people are missing the point. Nobody is suggesting Djokovic is a rival for the King of Clay title. The point is that if Djoker continues to own Nadal on clay, his actual rival(s) for King of Clay - Borg (& Rosewall) - will have one significant edge on him, that they were never owned by anybody on clay.

Oh please. Laver matched Rosewall win for win on clay.

And Borg was only 7-5 on clay vs. Adriano Panatta in his career. :scratch:

In comparison, Nadal is 9-2 lifetime vs. Djokovic. :yeah:

if nadal loses to djokovic at FO, his legacy will take a hit.

in the mind of whoever contemplates legacy, it isnt only a pure mass of achievement, but rather an idea of ability, or, in terms of lasting ability - a potential for invincibility - that is the key element.

therefore, novak 2.0 beating nadal at the french would signal that, game-vs-game, nadal has met his match.

the fact nadal already beat him many times, in terms of legacy, cant be used as an argument, because tards will ask: what good are those wins if they came against a player still not in his prime?

as you can easily see, this dilemma shares its roots with another one that too, touches on the issue of legacy.

:lol:

One year a GOAT does not make. Let's see if Nole can back up his 2011.

Sunset of Age
12-20-2011, 08:00 PM
One year a GOAT does not make. Let's see if Nole can back up his 2011.

Well yeah. Let's indeed wait and see so.
I have my doubts. ;)

Moseph21
12-20-2011, 08:09 PM
What a crock of sh*t thread. When Djokovic wins at least 7 RG titles,16 clay masters titles,and multiple other titles on clay then he can be called clay goat as he will have topped Nadal's numbers. Until then he is not even in the same stratosphere as Nadal on the surface,and cannot hold a candle to him regardless of how many times Nadal lost to him this year. Besides,Nadal has already beaten Djokovic 3 times at RG anyway.

buzz
12-20-2011, 08:12 PM
I agree with many things you say, but in the end, IF djokovic continues to beat nadal on clay (including at the FO), there is no question that his legacy will take a hit. thats how it works. there will always be somebody who will say 'yes, but he couldnt beat djokovic'. simple really.

If he loses to some other player than Djokovic at RG his legacy would also take a similar hit.

Dominance is gonna end sometime and it is always difficult to tell if its because some players play on a higher level or if the once dominant player dropped his level.

Vida
12-20-2011, 08:14 PM
oh but it was a shellacking of prime order. never has a no.1 ranked player been beaten five times consecutively, all in finals, across surfaces, across continents. plus, once they changed ranks, another pummeling to the ground in another final of another grands slam tournament.

no man, woman or child thought of it happening even in wildest dreams.

and it wasnt just some guy who came down from heaven, with some new game, new brain. same guy whos been pushed to the brink of tears in previous years, just switched something in his head, diet... and thats it. looking back, the inevitability of what was going to come was there in their first match this year, at IW.

a miracle.

acionescu
12-20-2011, 08:25 PM
And who thinks that Rafa plays the same on clay in 2011 as in 2008 is simply deluded. Or a Djokovic fan :facepalm:

Vida
12-20-2011, 08:26 PM
If he loses to some other player than Djokovic at RG his legacy would also take a similar hit.

Dominance is gonna end sometime and it is always difficult to tell if its because some players play on a higher level or if the once dominant player dropped his level.

I dont think this stands. observing tards who obsess over greatness, legacy etc, it isnt a number they are after, it is an idea.

kind of like, when you read the press these days, writing about djokovic's great year, it would go '...and, dont forget that he was 10-1 vs two of the greatest players of all time'. there is probably a better example, but these clowns sure look at whom against you lost (or won), not just the pure fact you've won or lost.

arm
12-20-2011, 08:33 PM
And who thinks that Rafa plays the same on clay in 2011 as in 2008 is simply deluded. Or a Djokovic fan :facepalm:

That's being a bit too comprehensive, I am afraid.

Either way, that is hardly an argument, because the same thing can be said about 2007 and 2008 Nole on clay not being the same player he was in 2011. :shrug: And those are the years Rafa beat him in RG. ;)

MatchFederer
12-20-2011, 09:34 PM
Well, Nole conquered Nadal on clay this year but didn't make it to the finals of RG. Would have liked this Nole around in from 2006 - 2009, then Fed might have won 2 or 3 RG titles. :D

But seriously, Nadal has a few wins over Djoker at RG already and clearly has a higher clay tennis level than Djokovic has ever achieved. This can be seen in Nadal's results at RG and the fact that Nole hasn't made a final yet. However to become an almost unquestioned and undisputed GOAT of clay, that means to be certainly considered above Borg and Rosewall, he could do with more clay 1000's and a couple more RG titles. If he managed this then it would be very difficult to dispute that he has no true peer on clay historically.

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 09:42 PM
And as far as I know nobody owned Nadal, especially on clay.
If he doesn't win RG next year, then it's simply a loss. Doesn't mean someone "owns" him.
Nadal leads Djokovic in the H2H, he beat him at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams, at the Olympics, in the Davis Cup and also at some Masters 1000 events.
Heck, he beat Djokovic even at the WTF, which is one of his worst tournaments.
So people who say that Djokovic owns Nadal are crazy. Maybe it was the case for 2011 but if we take into account their entire careers Djokovic doesn't own Nadal at all.

Djoker in 2011 was at a different level from his earlier play. If he carries on beating Nadal then we can say peak Djoker owns Nadal. But if it's "owning" we object to, we can say instead that Borg was never "overtaken" on clay by somebody within a year of his age, & it's vanishingly unlikely he would have been even had he carried on playing. Lendl didn't win a slam until 1984, by which time Borg would have been pushing 30 and clearly in decline anyway. McEnroe's game worked only sporadically on the surface & Wilander was just an inferior version of Borg.

Matt01
12-20-2011, 09:47 PM
No.

It's Djokovic who now has to prove that he can be dominant over Nadal for more than two matches in one year. Then we can see and talk again...

Sophocles
12-20-2011, 09:48 PM
Oh please. Laver matched Rosewall win for win on clay.

And Borg was only 7-5 on clay vs. Adriano Panatta in his career. :scratch:

In comparison, Nadal is 9-2 lifetime vs. Djokovic. :yeah:

I'm pretty sure the clay H2H between Rosewall & Laver is heavily in Rosewall's favour, but I'm prepared to stand corrected. Of course, Rosewall was 5 years older than Laver.

Borg has a positive H2H against Panatta & wasn't on a heavy losing steak against him when he retired. IF Djoker carries on beating Nadal on clay, we shan't be able to say the same about him & Djoker.

This doesn't mean Nadal can't be the clay GOAT. It just means there's something Borg has over him. What it counts for is a matter of opinion.

buzz
12-20-2011, 10:10 PM
I dont think this stands. observing tards who obsess over greatness, legacy etc, it isnt a number they are after, it is an idea.

kind of like, when you read the press these days, writing about djokovic's great year, it would go '...and, dont forget that he was 10-1 vs two of the greatest players of all time'. there is probably a better example, but these clowns sure look at whom against you lost (or won), not just the pure fact you've won or lost.

So hats of to Djokovic for doing that, nice achievement. But it has nothing to do with Nadal. If nadal loses to Soderling Berdych or Delpotro at RG he is also going to get 'humiliated'.

Kip
12-20-2011, 11:27 PM
No.

I think any player that buys into the mindset of having to prove themselves to anyone other than themselves sets themselves up for disappointments.

Naudio Spanlatine
12-20-2011, 11:46 PM
No.

I think any player that buys into the mindset of having to prove themselves to anyone other than themselves sets themselves up for disappointments.

:worship:

Yolita
12-21-2011, 12:19 AM
Nadal has nothing to prove on clay. He's the undisputed king, even if Novak were to win Roland Garros in 2012.

hipolymer
12-21-2011, 12:39 AM
No.

It's Djokovic who now has to prove that he can be dominant over Nadal for more than two matches in one year. Then we can see and talk again...

2 matches? haha, don't make me laugh

tennizen
12-21-2011, 12:53 AM
15 RGs. That's what's needed.

Mountaindewslave
12-21-2011, 03:00 AM
Bottom line, Federer is the overall GOAT because of his 16 slams.

Nadal is not yet the clay GOAT, he would need more RGs than Borg.

This is for the Open era.

please you are delusional if you think that at this point Nadal does not hold the title of greatest clay court player of all time over BOrg.....

better feats, better player, more dominant, unbeatable at his prime. Borg was great but Nadal has nothing to prove at this point. He likely will pass Borg and no longer tie him for Roland Garros titles but even if he didn't it is quite evident that Nadal at his best, say 2008 Roland Garros, is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era.

clay. Nadal. he just is the best. those debating otherwise are purely unsettled or uncomfortable with the idea of Nadal being at the top of anything, sort of like the disjointed tennis fans who still argue that Sampras is better than Federer.............

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 10:36 AM
please you are delusional if you think that at this point Nadal does not hold the title of greatest clay court player of all time over BOrg.....

better feats, better player, more dominant, unbeatable at his prime. Borg was great but Nadal has nothing to prove at this point. He likely will pass Borg and no longer tie him for Roland Garros titles but even if he didn't it is quite evident that Nadal at his best, say 2008 Roland Garros, is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era.

clay. Nadal. he just is the best. those debating otherwise are purely unsettled or uncomfortable with the idea of Nadal being at the top of anything, sort of like the disjointed tennis fans who still argue that Sampras is better than Federer.............

Actually Borg was more dominant at 1978 R.G. than Nadal was in 2008.

Chirag
12-21-2011, 10:58 AM
Actually Borg was more dominant at 1978 R.G. than Nadal was in 2008.

just checked the results and yes Borg was more dominant :eek:

Chirag
12-21-2011, 11:05 AM
please you are delusional if you think that at this point Nadal does not hold the title of greatest clay court player of all time over BOrg.....

better feats, better player, more dominant, unbeatable at his prime. Borg was great but Nadal has nothing to prove at this point. He likely will pass Borg and no longer tie him for Roland Garros titles but even if he didn't it is quite evident that Nadal at his best, say 2008 Roland Garros, is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era.

clay. Nadal. he just is the best. those debating otherwise are purely unsettled or uncomfortable with the idea of Nadal being at the top of anything, sort of like the disjointed tennis fans who still argue that Sampras is better than Federer.............

why should someone be labelled delusional if he thinks Borg is greater than Nadal ,I mean its a pretty debatable topic and not an open and shut case .Their feats are almost similar ,better player is debatable,dominance i pretty much the same and booth were unbeatable in their primes .Likewise its quite evident that Borg at his best ,say 1978 Roland Garros is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era .

Nadal needs that 1 more French Open but still its not closed since Borg skipped 1977 French Open when he was in his prime because of WTT .Chances were he might have won that RG too if it werent for his contract :)

masterclass
12-21-2011, 11:13 AM
please you are delusional if you think that at this point Nadal does not hold the title of greatest clay court player of all time over BOrg.....

better feats, better player, more dominant, unbeatable at his prime. Borg was great but Nadal has nothing to prove at this point. He likely will pass Borg and no longer tie him for Roland Garros titles but even if he didn't it is quite evident that Nadal at his best, say 2008 Roland Garros, is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era.

clay. Nadal. he just is the best. those debating otherwise are purely unsettled or uncomfortable with the idea of Nadal being at the top of anything, sort of like the disjointed tennis fans who still argue that Sampras is better than Federer.............

Perhaps delusional is a little strong. First, the term GOAT (Greatest of All Time), is very difficult to establish, and that it is better to judge only a player's time frame (averaging around a decade). The press and fanatics love to use the GOAT term because it grabs headlines, generates more controversy, and satisfies fanatics egos. But to take players of one particular time frame, and compare them to a different one decades apart is conjecture. Who knows how the player would have performed with different equipment, different surfaces, different competition, different tournaments, different schedules, etc.? There are simply too many variables, and GOAT simply becomes a matter of one person or group's opinion vs. others.

I think most will agree that both players either are or among the Clay Kings of their decades and of the Open Era, and an earlier extensive (as usual;)) post of mine showed why:

Clay Kings (28 Titles and higher) 1968-present:
Nastase[1969-1977](320-93) - 28 Titles 1 Slam
Lendl[1980-1993] -(329-75) - 28 Titles 3 Slams
Orantes[1969-1982](498-149)- 30 Titles 1 Slam
Borg[1974-1981] - (245-39) - 30 Titles 6 Slams
*Nadal[2004-2011] -(231-18) - 32 Titles 6 Slams
Muster[1986-1996]-(422-127)- 40 Titles 1 Slam
Vilas[1973-1983] -(632-162)- 45 Titles 2 Slams
* Still active

#Era Kings(by decade): 4 Kings (133 Titles) in the 1970's to 1980's, 2 Kings (68 Titles) in the 1980's to 1990's, 1 King (32 Titles) in the 2000's to 2010's
Based purely on this, one could say that during Borg's time frame, clay court tennis was ultra-competitive and Nadal's not. It also shows that no matter what Nadal does in the future, he has already established himself as one of the Clay Kings of the Open Era. If Nadal wins another Roland Garros, he will have more clay slams than Borg or anyone else, but recall that Borg was shut out of the 1977 event. But again, they are from two different times. Those of us who have seen both play are fortunate; one can admire them both. -masterclass

masterclass
12-21-2011, 11:17 AM
why should someone be labelled delusional if he thinks Borg is greater than Nadal ,I mean its a pretty debatable topic and not an open and shut case .Their feats are almost similar ,better player is debatable,dominance i pretty much the same and booth were unbeatable in their primes .Likewise its quite evident that Borg at his best ,say 1978 Roland Garros is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era .

Nadal needs that 1 more French Open but still its not closed since Borg skipped 1977 French Open when he was in his prime because of WTT .Chances were he might have won that RG too if it werent for his contract :)

:) Agreed. You said it first :bolt:

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 11:53 AM
Based purely on this, one could say that during Borg's time frame, clay court tennis was ultra-competitive and Nadal's not.

Exactly. If you look at that list of 7 players Borg was competing against 4 of them. That's 5 clay-court greats all at least overlapping. Nadal has had to play nobody on the list. Of course you could argue that Federer, for example, would have had more titles without Nadal, but then look at how many titles Borg's competitors were able to amass, even while Borg was building up a resume comparable to Nadal's. Of course the tour was more fractured then, but even so....

Saberq
12-21-2011, 02:25 PM
Actually Borg was more dominant at 1978 R.G. than Nadal was in 2008.

Nadal played against better players plus he destroyed Fed in the final...you know the GOAT

Chirag
12-21-2011, 02:27 PM
Nadal played against better players plus he destroyed Fed in the final...you know the GOAT

I will take Vilas over Federer on clay any day ;)

Mystique
12-21-2011, 02:32 PM
Nadal played against better players plus he destroyed Fed in the final...you know the GOAT

Shows your tennis knowledge.
I am inclined to believe Nadal is indeed the greatest clay court player of all time, but this is just nonsense. He doesn't compete with a stronger field. In fact, he competes a weaker field than Borg's time. He came into the picture when Gaudio, Juerten were going out of the picture and today plays headcases like Verdasco, Almagro and Djokovic(B4 2011). Lets not even talk about Federer who is bread and butter for Rafa's game on clay.

This is not saying Nadal wouldn't have similarly dominated that era too, maybe he would have, but to say Bjorn had easier opposition isnt right. In his time, the surfaces were truer and tennis hadnt been revolutionized so much by technology which enabled guys like Nadal to put in so much topspin and weight on their shots. A reason Nadal's game works so well on clay, apart from his incredible movement and footwork is the spin he puts on the balls - a result of technological advancement. Without this, Nadal wont achieve as much on clay. So cut Bjorn some slack. Not only did the guy compete in a strong era and win 6 clay majors, he also did it in traditional manner and equipment.

Sophocles
12-21-2011, 02:35 PM
Nadal played against better players plus he destroyed Fed in the final...you know the GOAT

You might want to read my post immediately preceding yours.

Just like heaven
12-21-2011, 02:43 PM
L'Equipe proclaimed him clay GOAT when he only had 4 French Opens.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Tennis/breves2010/20100523_205342_le-jury-de-l-equipe-vote-nadal.html

Egreen
12-21-2011, 03:41 PM
please you are delusional if you think that at this point Nadal does not hold the title of greatest clay court player of all time over BOrg.....

better feats, better player, more dominant, unbeatable at his prime. Borg was great but Nadal has nothing to prove at this point. He likely will pass Borg and no longer tie him for Roland Garros titles but even if he didn't it is quite evident that Nadal at his best, say 2008 Roland Garros, is unstoppable and certainly the highest clay court level of the open era.

clay. Nadal. he just is the best. those debating otherwise are purely unsettled or uncomfortable with the idea of Nadal being at the top of anything, sort of like the disjointed tennis fans who still argue that Sampras is better than Federer.............

He needs one more RG.

Just like Federer had to overtake Sampras to be considered better officially.

Saberq
12-21-2011, 03:55 PM
I will take Vilas over Federer on clay any day ;)

that's because you know shit....:D

Chirag
12-21-2011, 04:16 PM
that's because you know shit....:D

Vilas is better than Federer on clay .He has won 2 clay slams and been runner up 4 times ;)

Plus 46 >9 (titles on clay) and 46>12 (streaks on clay)

tribalfusion
12-21-2011, 05:11 PM
Vilas is better than Federer on clay .He has won 2 clay slams and been runner up 4 times ;)

Plus 46 >9 (titles on clay) and 46>12 (streaks on clay)

Listing titles alone isnt enough.

If Nadal weren't around Federer would have had many more titles just as if Federer and Nadal weren't around other players would have many more slams.

There are also fewer tournaments to be played on clay by players going for the top rankings today with the way the tour is so it is silly to look at that stat as if it said all you needed to know.

At some point, you have to look at qualitative factors...like you know, actually watch a guy play and know something about tennis.

Federer is not inferior to Vilas on any surface and it's hard to make an argument that he is inferior to more than a very small number of people on any surface for that matter. This was true even before he had 16 slams and by the same token, Nadal's incredible level, particularly on clay, was evident even before he had 10.

Saberq
12-21-2011, 05:12 PM
Vilas is better than Federer on clay .He has won 2 clay slams and been runner up 4 times ;)

Plus 46 >9 (titles on clay) and 46>12 (streaks on clay)

yeah all those strong fields in South America are making the case for Vilas

Matt01
12-21-2011, 05:52 PM
2 matches? haha, don't make me laugh


He only won 2 matches on clay against Rafa :shrug:

SERBINATOR
12-21-2011, 07:23 PM
I will take Vilas over Federer on clay any day ;)

also

Guga Kuertan > Federer (on Clay)

Borg had a much tougher Competition than what Nadal had to contend with, so Borg's 6 is in my sense more magical than Nadal's RG 6

masterclass
12-22-2011, 01:22 AM
Exactly. If you look at that list of 7 players Borg was competing against 4 of them. That's 5 clay-court greats all at least overlapping. Nadal has had to play nobody on the list. Of course you could argue that Federer, for example, would have had more titles without Nadal, but then look at how many titles Borg's competitors were able to amass, even while Borg was building up a resume comparable to Nadal's. Of course the tour was more fractured then, but even so....

Here is a further breakdown of the records of the Clay Kings in terms of career titles won in the 70's-80's (I'll only include those who started in the 70's, even though Lendl overlapped and played some of these players in the early 80's).

Using only their most prolific year (most titles overall) and with totals on all surfaces and clay only (not including Davis Cup and byes):

Ilie Nastase (1973):
Tournaments: Won 14 out of 29, 1 slam (9 titles out of 12 on clay, including Roland Garros) 10 titles won in Europe 4 in N. America.
Matches: 126-15 (clay 59-3). Losses to Raul Ramirez, Tom Okker, and Adriano Panatta.
Streak: 32 straight on clay

Manuel Orantes (1975):
Tournaments: Won 8 out of 25, 1 slam (7 titles out of 20 on clay including US Open) 4 won in N.America, 3 in Europe, 1 in Africa.
Matches: 100-17 (clay 80-13)
Streak: 15 straight on clay.

Guillermo Vilas (1977):
Tournaments: Won 16 titles out of 31, 2 slams (13 titles out of 18 on clay, US Open and Roland Garros) 10 out of his 16 titles were won in the N.America and Europe, 4 in S.America, 1 each in Africa/Asia.
Matches: 128-16, (clay 86-5) . On clay, beat Connors at the US Open, lost to Nastase once and Borg twice.
Streak: 70-1, 44 consecutive, 65-1 on clay with only loss a retirement to Nastase.

Bjorn Borg (1979):
Tournaments: Won 13 out of 20, 2 slams (6 titles out of 7 on clay, including Roland Garros) 6 titles won in North America, 6 in Europe, 1 in Asia
Matches: 82-7 (clay 26-1). On clay, 1 loss was retirement in Hamburg.
Streak: From 1977-1980 on clay 94-3. 2 losses due to retirement in '77 and '79, 1 loss to Vilas in 1980.

Jimmy Connors was a factor as well, having the 6th highest winning pct. on clay.

and now for a comparison to the current 2000's to 2010's Clay King:

Rafael Nadal (2005):
Tournaments: Won 11 out of 21, 1 slam (8 titles out of 10 on clay, including Roland Garros) 8 won in Europe, 2 in N.America, 1 in Asia
Matches: 77-10 (clay 48-2). Losses to Gaudio and Andreev.
Streak: 2005-2008 after loss to Andreev, won 77 straight on clay before losing to Roger Federer, followed by 22 more into 2008 for a 99-1 clay match record in that 3 year span.

-masterclass

stewietennis
12-22-2011, 01:44 AM
Looking at Bjorn's most dominant French Open 1975: Borg had to play 4R Stan Smith (2 majors), SF Adrianno Panatta (0 majors at the time) & F Guillermo Vilas (0 majors at the time)

Looking at Nadal's most dominant French Open 2008: Rafa had to play SF Novak Djokovic (1 major at the time) and F Roger Federer (12 majors at the time)

Benny_Maths
12-22-2011, 02:26 AM
Rafa is, at the very least, on the same level as Borg. People say that technology advancements equipped him with more weapons. But they seem to forget that technology also enhanced his oppponents' skills. And besides, one could argue that primitive technology helped Borg. After all, it limited the options that his opponents had at their disposal to use against Borg.

Topspindoctor
12-22-2011, 02:59 AM
Nadal haters will never admit he's better than Borg on clay even if he wins 10 RG. They'll cite "mug clay era", even if they are Fedtards....Nadal can't win against forum clowns no matter what he achieves...

leng jai
12-22-2011, 03:02 AM
Nadal haters will never admit he's better than Borg on clay even if he wins 10 RG. They'll cite "mug clay era", even if they are Fedtards....Nadal can't win against forum clowns no matter what he achieves...

Same deal with Nadull tards and Federer's achievements :zzz:

paseo
12-22-2011, 03:20 AM
Yes. Of course. Another obstacle for Nadal to become acknowledged as anything good is always nice.