*Official* Tennis Thread

[Anil]

Edit: re. Wimbledon, I think Nadal can take Novak there. Dunno why, just think it's so

maybe because he has been a finalist the last two years and is riding an even bigger momentum wave this year?

 

[Burgey]

maybe because he has been a finalist the last two years and is riding an even bigger momentum wave this year?

Yep, that could be it .

 

[ohtani's jacket]

No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. Just because one plays aggresively doesn't mean he/she is going to win.

No, it's a fact. Nadal has the clay court record to prove it. Whether Nadal could beat Borg is a matter of opinion, but you're not offering a reason why he couldn't.

What ?? Nastase was the Champion in 1973, the year before Borg became the French Champion for the first time. And that a player like Nastase never made it beyond QF since 1973 is a testimony to the quality of Clay Court Players in that era. Nastase was always beaten by the likes of Solomen, Panetta, Orantes

Nastase beat Borg a few times early on (Monte Carlo in '73 & Madrid in '74) & lost to him in Rome in '74. He may have been the best clay court player in the world from '73-75, but it was a murky era due to the WCT situation. In any event, Borg never faced him on route to a French Open title. If anything, he was more of an opponent for Borg on non-clay surfaces and was out of the top 20 by 1977.

What is the point ? Are you trying suggest that all of Borg's wins were possible because of the above ? Borg played all of them at different times and won the Open with or without all of them. So your pick and choose doesn't really matter.

You can't claim Borg played in some kind of loaded field if the players aren't there. Borg played in an era with a lot of great clay court specialists, some of whom were all-courters, but claiming Americans who were either banned from participating or couldn't be bothered with a European dominated clay court tournament is nonsense. Picking straws out of a hat like Arthur Ashe is also nonsense, given Borg never played a match against him.

That's how good Borg was, despite competition from some of the best Clay Court Players ever, he managed to win 6 titles in a relatively very short career. He had 30 Clay Court Titles in an era where Villas alone had 45.

Nobody's disputing how great Borg was on clay or at Roland Garros. The emphasis is on how dominant Nadal is -- unbeaten at Roland Garros & 23 clay court titles in 4 years.

First of all Borg won 3 MonteCarlo competition between 1976-1980. Which I will call as domination in an era of so many world class Clay Court players. Secondly Nadal has not dominated Hamburg as you are saying.

Nadal has won four in a row at Monte Carlo, while winning at Rome (other than this year.) He's only competed seriously at Hamburg the last two years, made the Final one year, won it the next. It's not Nadal's fault that Juan Carlos Ferrero, Kuerten and Moya are past their prime. Or that Federer happens to make the Final of important clay court tournaments.

Lastly I have never questioned Nadal's dominance in this era but just your theory that he is best ever and would have beaten Borg.

I don't think anyone in the Open era could beat Nadal. He's too young, too strong, too fast, too athletic. The only way he'll lose is when his legs start getting older. Yes, it's an opinion, but so what? Clay court tennis is 3/4 defence, 1/4 offence. Nadal's quarter offence is more powerful than 70s players. Who knows if it would be different with a wooden racket? They should play an exhibition & find out.

 

[Sanz]

You can't claim Borg played in some kind of loaded field if the players aren't there. Borg played in an era with a lot of great clay court specialists, some of whom were all-courters, but claiming Americans who were either banned from participating or couldn't be bothered with a European dominated clay court tournament is nonsense. Picking straws out of a hat like Arthur Ashe is also nonsense, given Borg never played a match against him.

It's not a claim, its a fact. Best American Clay Court Players during Borg's era were Solomon,Gerulaitis who you seemed to have missed. Connors played in 79,80, 81 - All Those years Borg won French Open. Mcenroe playe din 80, 81. The point is that Borg dominated all, old, young, peers etc.

Also please do your research before making your subjective assessment of my post.

 

[Sanz]

No, it's a fact. Nadal has the clay court record to prove it. Whether Nadal could beat Borg is a matter of opinion, but you're not offering a reason why he couldn't.

If you are going to pass your opinion as a 'fact' then the onus is on you to prove it, not others who do not agree with such claims.

It is already hard to compare the likes of players whose paths have crossed (e.g. Sampras Vs. Roger) and you are making a statement about players whos careers are almost 25-30 years apart. On what basis do you think Nadal is better than Borg on Clay and how do you prove that ?

As for rest of your post - there is nothing that I have not addressed before, you simply repeating the stuff 10 times isn't going to convince me.

 

[Anil]

I don't think anyone in the Open era could beat Nadal. He's too young, too strong, too fast, too athletic. The only way he'll lose is when his legs start getting older. Yes, it's an opinion, but so what? Clay court tennis is 3/4 defence, 1/4 offence. Nadal's quarter offence is more powerful than 70s players. Who knows if it would be different with a wooden racket? They should play an exhibition & find out.

nadal is a prime product of his era where power rules...better fitness regimen, infinitely more power-generating and lighter raquets...hence the strength, quickness and athleticism...and what do you mean by too young? how the hell is that even a factor when you compare across generations?

borg was an incredible athlete by his generation's standards, the quickest on the court, the best retriever...it is difficult to compare players who played that far apart and say one is clearly better unless there is a day-and-night difference in their respective records(and the opposition they faced) and there most certainly isn't...the best you can say is that they are two of the greatest clay-courters ever...

in any case borg was clearly the better overall player(i know that is not under discussion but nadal has a ways to go even before being compared to bjorn borg in that aspect) with his fantastic records at both wimbledon and rolland garros(especially the incredible record of winning both three years in a row) and 4 u.s open finals by the age of 26 when he retired...i would say we have to wait till at least the autumn of nadal's career to see where he is at that point and then maybe we can make a definitive comparison either way...

 

[ohtani's jacket]

It's not a claim, its a fact. Best American Clay Court Players during Borg's era were Solomon,Gerulaitis who you seemed to have missed. Connors played in 79,80, 81 - All Those years Borg won French Open. Mcenroe playe din 80, 81. The point is that Borg dominated all, old, young, peers etc.

Also please do your research before making your subjective assessment of my post.

Conners was on the other side of the bracket in '79. This isn't golf where you play against the entire field. Borg beat the unseeded Gildemeister, the 4th seed Gerulaitis and an unseeded Pecci to win the title. The same situation happened in 1980. Hell, McEnroe was the second seed in 1980 & went out in the third round. Conners & McEnroe were seeded in the same bracket in '81 (2 & 3 respectively) & both went out in the quarters. Borg beat the 15th seeded Taroczy and unseeded Pecci before going five sets with Lendl in the final. Not only did Borg have the easier bracket (by virtue of being the number one seed), but he never played Conners or McEnroe in the French Open.

If you are going to pass your opinion as a 'fact' then the onus is on you to prove it, not others who do not agree with such claims.

Proving Nadal is the most dominant clay court player is easy. His record. He's 112-2 since emerging as the premier clay court player. It's not debatable. It doesn't mean he could beat Borg, but Borg being a champion player in an era full of great clay court players doesn't mean Nadal isn't the most dominant player ever.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

nadal is a prime product of his era where power rules...better fitness regimen, infinitely more power-generating and lighter raquets...hence the strength, quickness and athleticism...and what do you mean by too young? how the hell is that even a factor when you compare across generations?

I'm talking about if you where to play Nadal *now*. He's too young as in he has too much spring in his legs. Of course if he were to play a 22 year-old Borg age wouldn't be an issue, but that's not really what I meant. I don't think he's more talented than Borg or has better shots, I wouldn't necessarily say he's more determined or fitter either. He's just far more powerful. Some of that is the rackets and strings, but a large part is his physique. Couple that with his speed and determination & there you have it. Maybe Borg could figure him out, but he never played against a guy like Nadal & he retired before we could see how he handled the new generation.

 

[Anil]

I'm talking about if you where to play Nadal *now*. He's too young as in he has too much spring in his legs. Of course if he were to play a 22 year-old Borg age wouldn't be an issue, but that's not really what I meant. I don't think he's more talented than Borg or has better shots, I wouldn't necessarily say he's more determined or fitter either. He's just far more powerful. Some of that is the rackets and strings, but a large part is his physique. Couple that with his speed and determination & there you have it. Maybe Borg could figure him out, but he never played against a guy like Nadal & he retired before we could see how he handled the new generation.

that's exactly what i am saying, as far as borg and nadal go, it is a completely hypothetical situation and with conditions being so different between the two generations, it is next to impossible to pick one or the other as a better player unless there is a huge difference in their accomplishments which is not the case...borg won 6 french opens by the age of 25, i don't think that is so far off what nadal has accomplished thus far on clay to make that kind of judgement...who is to say borg, if he had been a product of this generation wouldn't have worked out like nadal did and generated similar kind of power? in fact there is a lot of basic similarity to their playing styles, both being exceptional athletes with wonderful court coverage, very patient, not error-prone etc etc...

 

[Sanz]

he retired before we could see how he handled the new generation.

What are you talking about ? He beat Ivan Lendl @ French in 1981.

Ivan Lendl was a physical monster on the courrt.

 

[Sanz]

that's exactly what i am saying, as far as borg and nadal go, it is a completely hypothetical situation and with conditions being so different between the two generations, it is next to impossible to pick one or the other as a better player unless there is a huge difference in their accomplishments which is not the case...borg won 6 french opens by the age of 25, i don't think that is so far off what nadal has accomplished thus far on clay to make that kind of judgement...who is to say borg, if he had been a product of this generation wouldn't have worked out like nadal did and generated similar kind of power? in fact there is a lot of basic similarity to their playing styles, both being exceptional athletes with wonderful court coverage, very patient, not error-prone etc etc...

Well Said.

 

[Sanz]

I'm talking about if you where to play Nadal *now*. .

What do you mean *now* - Ofcourse Borg would lose to Nadal, if he played him now.

 

[Jono]

nadal is a prime product of his era where power rules...better fitness regimen, infinitely more power-generating and lighter raquets...hence the strength, quickness and athleticism...

I'm not getting in on the Borg vs. Nadal argument, however I highly dispute that statement with regards to strength/power in particular. The racquet technology has greatly helped him, no doubt, but he hits so much less winners than your average player, he's the complete opposite of the 'product of this era'. He grinds matches, he doesn't blast the player off the court.

Your Roddick, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Tursonov etc. are far better examples.

 

[Anil]

I'm not getting in on the Borg vs. Nadal argument, however I highly dispute that statement with regards to strength/power in particular. The racquet technology has greatly helped him, no doubt, but he hits so much less winners than your average player, he's the complete opposite of the 'product of this era'. He grinds matches, he doesn't blast the player off the court.

Your Roddick, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Tursonov etc. are far better examples.

no it's not....power doesn't just relate to the ability to hit tons of winners, players like mcenroe, edberg, rafter etc used to hit a lot of winners but were certainly not power players in their era...nadal generates a lot of pace as well as spin off his shots, which is helped by the fact that he is powerfully built and exceptionally athletic so i don't really see any contradiction in saying that...and roddick(or any of those other players you mentioned) can't really overpower nadal either when both are on top of their games, because apart from his huge serve(and nadal is a very good returner), there are not too many "power" aspects about his game that nadal can't match or out-match...and as for blasting players off the court, his demolition of federer in the french open would count as one such example, in fact a lot of his matches on clay courts would be examples of absolutely crushing opponents...

 

[ohtani's jacket]

What do you mean *now* - Ofcourse Borg would lose to Nadal, if he played him now.

What I meant by "now" is present form. I don't believe any player from the Open era could beat Nadal, even if they were products of this generation. I can't say that for certain, but Nadal losing at Roland Garros is a hypothetical situation in itself. Nobody knows how to do it, from coaches to ex-players to the world's number one player. Until someone does, I'm sticking by my claim that he's unbeatable.

What are you talking about ? He beat Ivan Lendl @ French in 1981.

Ivan Lendl was a physical monster on the courrt.

Yeah, but it was Lendl in his first Grand Slam final. Lendl went out to lose his first four finals. Borg had a 6-2 record over Lendl (including 4 out of 4 on clay), but it was early days. It would've been interesting if Borg had stuck around to face guys like Lendl and Wilander in '84-85.

 

[Jono]

no it's not....power doesn't just relate to the ability to hit tons of winners, players like mcenroe, edberg, rafter etc used to hit a lot of winners but were certainly not power players in their era...nadal generates a lot of pace as well as spin off his shots, which is helped by the fact that he is powerfully built and exceptionally athletic so i don't really see any contradiction in saying that...and roddick(or any of those other players you mentioned) can't really overpower nadal either when both are on top of their games, because apart from his huge serve(and nadal is a very good returner), there are not too many "power" aspects about his game that nadal can't match or out-match...and as for blasting players off the court, his demolition of federer in the french open would count as one such example, in fact a lot of his matches on clay courts would be examples of absolutely crushing opponents...

Blasting people off the court does not necessarily involve crushing opponents, and alternatively, not blasting people off the court does not necessarily mean that they can't crush an opponent. You've completely misread my post.

Just because Nadal's game can handle power players (and out play them), doesn't mean he relies on power. He outplays them by getting to every ball (due to his speed and fitness) and grinding them down, forcing them to hit unforced errors. This is especially true on hard courts, and a large reason why he's been unsuccessful in the Aus Open vs. Gonzalez (in 2007) and Tsonga (in 2008).

Ask any expert who defines the new era of tennis the most, and Nadal's name will not come up. Why? Name another player even remotely similar? Exactly.

I dispute your terminology that Nadal is a product of his era, when simply, if he is, he's the only one.

 

[Anil]

Blasting people off the court does not necessarily involve crushing opponents, and alternatively, not blasting people off the court does not necessarily mean that they can't crush an opponent. You've completely misread my post.

Just because Nadal's game can handle power players (and out play them), doesn't mean he relies on power. He outplays them by getting to every ball (due to his speed and fitness) and grinding them down, forcing them to hit unforced errors. This is especially true on hard courts, and a large reason why he's been unsuccessful in the Aus Open vs. Gonzalez (in 2007) and Tsonga (in 2008).

Ask any expert who defines the new era of tennis the most, and Nadal's name will not come up. Why? Name another player even remotely similar? Exactly.

I dispute your terminology that Nadal is a product of his era, when simply, if he is, he's the only one.

so what does blasting people off the court mean for you in this era? most players at the top of the tennis world rely on power(and a lot of them rely just on power with little or no finesse, players like andy roddick) these days, so the end result is that while there are still very quick one-sided matches, there is not a whole lot of disparity between the top players as far as power goes(to put it simply, there is no ramesh krishnan in the top 50 anymore) so no one(again among the top players) blasts the other out just using pure power anymore...so when federer who is not known as a power player but has power and finesse in ample measure absolutely destroys a roddick in a grand slam, what would you call it? when nadal has an equally dominant victory, i would use the same strong words to describe his wins as well...and you also said it is directly related to hitting a lot of winners...in my opinion it is not, for me it is completely dominating/crushing your opponent...and nadal muscles his groundstrokes with as much pace as a lot of the top players....he doesn't have the fastest serve but to put it mildly it is no dolly either....just because he is a great retriever and less error-prone doesn't mean that his game doesn't have power...and if you say instead of him and feds and maybe djokovic being the prime products of this era, you think that roddick, tursunov et al represents it, that's a totally absurd view-point as far as i can see....

 

[Jono]

Its not absurd, again, your terminology here is being used incorrectly.

Federer is the best player of this era obviously. He however is not a by-product of this era.

Just like batsmen such as Dhoni, Symonds, Yusuf Pathan and other power batsmen, with the forearm jab shot, are by-products of the modern era, it doesn't mean they are the best. Obviously a Tendulkar and Lara are better, but they don't define what this era of batting is about.

Equally, a by-product of an era in tennis must be one that actually has attributes that are directly related to what the benefits of this era allow. Hence a Roddick was less likely to be successful in the past, however can consistently be a top 5 player nowadays.

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and going back a little while, Safin (and even Davydenko though he isn't anything special) are exceptions to what the modern era is about, because they not only have the common characteristics of your average tennis players nowadays, but have more (finesse in Federer and Djokovic's case, incredible fitness and patience in Nadal's case) and hence are better players.

We're not really arguing about anything other than the definition of what a 'product of an era' player is.

 

[Johnners]

Agree with Jono here. Roddick & Gonzalez type players are the best examples of by-products of this ear for mine.

 

[Sanz]

Jono, How are Dhoni, Symonds, YP are the by product of the modern era when we have seen guys like Sanath Jaisuriya have been doing that for years.