The fight for the king of clay (who do u think is better?

Question

bjorg borg or rafael nadal

Answer 1

Bjorn Borg should not have retired. He would have beat Sampras' record before Samprass even came on the scene. He was excellent. but he said he lost motivation and drive, and walked off into the sunset.

He was amazing on all surfaces, which puts him ahead of Nadal in my books.  However, Nadal is more fun to watch. His style is like a cowboy!!!

Answer 2

I say Nadal. We can speculate all we want about hte match ups. Their games are very similar.

But Nadal has stronger competition. For one there's a guy called Federer who is arguably the best of all time. Borg never had to play anyone that good. Maybe an again Rod Laver.

Secondly Nadal was considered a favorite to win the 2005 French Open as early as March 2005. That was 3 months before he ever played a single match at the French Open. Tell if any other player can claim such a feat.

*EDIT*

I just want to make one comment on what Elrond wrote:

"Nadal has not faced a high-quality claycourter besides Federer in the past three years. Since Gustavo Kuerten in 2001, there has been no high quality claycourter who has been able to reach the high standards of Nadal-Federer on clay"

Sure, but to compare other clay courters to Federer and Nadal is kinda unfair don't you think? Borg played against other clay court legends (legends in hindsight is what I call them), but that doesn't mean they were anywhere near as good as Federer and Nadal. And similarly, modern clay courters are not legends in the sense that they haven't won many titles. But that's primarily because Nadal won't let them. Even Federer will end up with much fewer clay titles than Vilas and company. That doesn't mean these modern guys aren't as good as or better than Borg's comtemporaries.

*EDIT*

I'm still reeling from Petesux comment, that  Borg's and Nadal's styles were "totally opposite". You just have to laugh these things off.

*EDIT*

Elrond, it's the old weak era debate all over again.

Hypothetically speaking, suppose Rafa were to win the next 10 French Opens, for a total of 13. That would mean that none of his comtemporaries would have won the French Open. Then someone could say Nadal played in a weak era of clay courters because none of them were able to win the French.

But suppose instead Nadal only won 5, and Federer won 2, Djokovic 2, Davydenko 1. Now Nadal has contemporaries with French Open success, thus "strengthening" his era.

Does winning 8 instead of 13 then make him a greater clay court player?

Answer 3

i think nadal is better... he still unbeaten at french open....

Answer 4

i like nadal

but yes there is still some more titles that he needs to win to be considered the best ever.

Answer 5

Rafael Nadal is the best he has the longest winning streak on clay courts.

Answer 6

well, you have forgoten a few major clay-courters, like guga kuerten, or michael chang or even thomas muster. I wouldnt put any of them as the "king," they all have there own streaks, and have had their luck in the draws. But between borg and nadal, nadal for sure. I say he wins at least 3 more french opens.

Answer 7

(Nina: I enjoyed your earlier comments).

Nadal is already one of the four greatest clay courters in tennis history, along with Bjorn Borg, Ken Rosewall and Maxime Decugis.

But first, compare Nadal with the other three 3-time French Open winners in the open era. Of Nadal’s 23 titles, 18 are clay. Ivan Lendl had 28 clay titles (among 94 titles). Mats Wilander had 20 clay titles (among 33 titles). Guga Kuerten had 16 clay titles (among 22 titles). If Nadal’s career ended today, where will he sit in clay tennis history?

Now, Bjorn Borg -- the king of clay…father of the modern forehand... heavy topspin master … super endurance, athleticism and speed on a tennis court…original tennis s*x god...etc. Watch video clip (see other parts as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsT_b_cPg...

Nadal’s 81 consecutive wins on clay is the record. Nadal beat Guillermo Vilas’ record of 53 wins in a row. Third place is Borg with 46 consecutive wins.

Vilas had 46 clay titles, more than double Nadal’s 18 clay titles. Borg had 28 clay titles, including six French Opens between 1974 (age 18) and 1981 (aged 25). After age 20, Borg played fewer tournaments (all surfaces) than most top players in his era (about 14 to 19 events a year but he had a high winning percentage).

Amazingly, Borg and Vilas were contemporaries. Yet Borg has an 11-2 winning record on clay against Vilas. Borg was the king of clay in an era of great clay rivals and high-quality clay specialists. Besides Vilas, Borg also had to compete on clay against tough players on clay such as Rod Laver, Manuel Orantes, Ivan Lendl, Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors, Adriano Panatta, Mats Wilander, Jan Kodes, Jose Higueras, Vitas Gerulaitis, Yannick Noah, Andres Gimeno, Raul Ramirez, Harold Solomon, Tom Okker, Corrado Barazzutti, Víctor Pecci, etc.

Nadal has not faced a high-quality claycourter besides Federer in the past three years. Since Gustavo Kuerten in 2001, there has been no high quality claycourter who has been able to reach the high standards of Nadal-Federer on clay. Not Ferrero, Ferrer, Gaudio, Costa, Coria, Agassi, Moya, Davydenko, Robredo, Nalbandian, Canas, Corretja or Mantilla. Most top claycourters tried to become all-court players, while the remaining claycourt specialists were not talented enough.

Despite Nadal’s incredible clay record so far, he still has some work to do to overtake Bjorn Borg as the King of Clay. Nadal has a good shot at equaling or surpassing some of Borg’s records on clay: 6 French Opens, 4 consecutive French Opens, 28 consecutive French Open wins, and 28 clay titles by age 25. Nadal is unlikely to pull off Borg’s French Open-Wimbledon double for three years in a row, even if he wins one Wimbledon.

Let’s review in two years’ time whether Nadal has become the King of Clay in tennis history. Or whether his injuries have prematurely ended his career.

*EDIT*

I just want to comment on what Dr. D wrote in his edit:

- First, to write that “to compare other clay courters to Federer and Nadal is kinda unfair...that doesn't mean they were anywhere near as good as Federer and Nadal” is to presume that Nadal and Federer are the gold standard who cannot be matched or surpassed, all things being equal across the different eras.

What are the clay credentials of Nadal’s biggest clay rivals? These were the clay credentials of Borg’s competition: Rod Laver (two French Opens, two Grand Slams); Guillermo Vilas (1977 French Open, 3 French Open runner ups, 46 clay titles); Ivan Lendl (three French Opens, 28 clay titles); Jimmy Connors (1976 US Open on clay, 12 clay titles); Manuel Orantes (1975 US Open on clay, 1974 French Open runner up, 30 clay titles); Ilie Nastase (1973 French Open champ, 1971 French Open runner up, 27 clay titles); Jan Kodes (two French Opens); Mats Wilander (three French Opens, 20 clay titles); Adriano Panatta (1976 French Open champ); Jose Higueras (15 clay titles); Andres Gimeno (1972 French Open champ); Vitas Gerulaitis (1980 French Open runner up, 9 clay titles); Yannick Noah (1983 French Open champ, 12 clay titles); Harold Solomon (1976 French Open runner up, 8 clay titles); Raul Ramirez (10 clay titles); Tom Okker (6 clay titles); etc. Borg had tough competition on clay.

- Second, it is fair to ask why haven’t the other claycourters been able to challenge Nadal and Federer more. Yes, Nadal and Federer (like Borg) are both so talented that they can dominate their field both on other surfaces as well as on clay. But if Nalbandian, Ferrer, Davydenko or Ferrero had played mainly clay events throughout the year and consequently became even better claycourters, Nadal would have had a tougher time when he returned to clay. None of the other top claycourters are like Thomas Muster, who won 40 of his 44 titles on clay (only one French Open) and was briefly No. 1 in the middle of Pete Sampras’ era. Someone like a Muster (or Guillermo Vilas) might have busted up Nadal’s streak.

- Third, why haven’t modern top clay courters won many clay titles and why haven’t they become as good as Borg’s competitors (in challenging Nadal)? Nadal plays in only 5 of these 24 ATP clay events (International Series and up), so other top clay courters have an opportunity to win the other 19 clay events every year. But many of these 19 clay tournaments are not won by the top claycourters -- check out the 2007 clay events in link.

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/arch...

Today’s other top claycourters have lost some of their clay abilities because they have become all-court players and are playing less clay events than they did when they were younger (e.g., Juan Carlos Ferrero won eight clay titles from 1999 to 2003--including French Open, 2 Monte Carlo and 1 Rome--but has not won one clay title since 2003; he has since become a better hardcourt player than claycourt player).

- Yeah, Nadal is--in many ways--a modern, updated version of Bjorn Borg. Most people have not watched Borg play claycourt tennis at the French Open.

Answer 8

rafael nadal will be better on clay then borg

Answer 9

nadal... :)

Answer 10

Borg, definitely. Like the girl above said, Nadal is fun to watch. Borg was intense. I only see his games on DVDs, but he is so cool that its uncanny.

Answer 11

Rafael Nadal.

Answer 12

Rafael Nadal is the man on clay :P Vamos Rafa