Now that you list the losing finalists, it's pretty easy to see why he was never pushed to 5 sets. 7/14 came against clowns, 4/14 came against a grass court player, 3/4 are against a quintessential HC player.What happened to all the clay courters?-- “The West as we knew it no longer exists”-- Ursula von der Leyen
On 26/05/2025 3:12 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Google says Roger, four times.
I believe there were two SF as well.
It's simply crazy how he defended his turf on his beloved clay
about 20 times :)
Even harder to understand how he was never pushed to 5 sets in those 14 finals, worst he did was lose 1 set.
In finals he beat;
Federer 4
Djokovic 3
Thiem 2
Wawrinka 1
Ferrer 1
Ruud 1
Soderling 1
Puerta 1
Google says Roger, four times.
I believe there were two SF as well.
It's simply crazy how he defended his turf on his beloved clay
about 20 times :)
On 26/05/2025 3:12 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Google says Roger, four times.
I believe there were two SF as well.
It's simply crazy how he defended his turf on his beloved clay
about 20 times :)
Even harder to understand how he was never pushed to 5 sets in those 14 finals, worst he did was lose 1 set.
In finals he beat;
Federer 4
Djokovic 3
Thiem 2
Wawrinka 1
Ferrer 1
Ruud 1
Soderling 1
Puerta 1
Borg's 6 was considered untouchable 20 yrs ago. Evert is female FO goat
and she has 7 titles.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:r
On 26.5.2025 11.23, Whisper wrote:> On 26/05/2025 3:12 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:>> Google says Roger
r u serious?
His brute power was amazing to watch. Legend.
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:
His brute power was amazing to watch. Legend.
Watch this first point of the 2008 Wimbledon final fifth set, hear what commentator says, and then watch what Nadal does.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mHsg2M25PzY&t=15400s
What is incredible is how high Rogi's second serve bounces. I mean, the court looks green and all that, but how can I really tell it's gwass?I think Rafa's record is inflated. Half of his RG titles are against morans. His titles on non-pony surfacesare helped by surface homogenisation. The icing on the cake ... Morrison.Ombilible.
You can question one slam or two, but when a guy wins 14 FO titles, it does end any argument that gets raised by anyone before it even starts.Wondering about those clay court specialists that you keep bringing, will you list few of those players thatwe witnessed in the last 30 years that would have beaten Nadal on clay?
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:are helped by surface homogenisation. The icing on the cake ... Morrison.Ombilible.
What is incredible is how high Rogi's second serve bounces. I mean, the court looks green and all that, but how can I really tell it's gwass?I think Rafa's record is inflated. Half of his RG titles are against morans. His titles on non-pony surfaces
It was homoginezed for everyone.
And I think it's better this way.
Nadal still won bulk of his titles on clay, and Federer/Djokovic won bulk of theirs on grass/HC.
But due to homogenisation they were competitive on all surfaces and met each other everywhere, both in favourable and less favourable conditions.
We got to see the rivalries and how they adapt.
In comparison, 1980s and 1990s were less interesting. I'm not talking about the game itself, it had some high for sure on grass and HC.
But you almost felt like there's were two separate tours.
You had Sampras, Becker, Ivanišević, and you had Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera... for example.
They hardly ever met.
So not only it was less interesting from a fanboy perspective, it was also very unnatural and artificial.
The discrepancy of the era happened due to racquet technology advancements. It is not how it was supposed to be.
Remember back in the days, with wood, there was no such surface discrepancy. Sure, you had players suited for certain surfaces, but the best ones were competitive accros all surfaces.
Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Budge, Vines, Tilden, Cochet, Wilding it goes without saying that they were able to win on all surfaces.
So basically surface homogenisation of late 90s, early 00s allowed us to go back in time, and enjoy rivalries like previous fans enjoyed during wood era.
Surface homogenisation was a necessary thing to offset surface discrepancy caused by the advancements of racquet and strung technology.
That's why I think we shouldn't judge harshly players of the 80s and 90s who failed to win on all surfaces or failed to win all slams, notably McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras.
Connors and Wilander actually won on all surfaces and Borg, while he didn't win on HC, is actually from a transitional era too, at the tail end and had a short career.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:r
On 27.5.2025 0.49, *skriptis wrote:> Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:>> His brute power
You can question one slam or two, but when a guy wins 14 FO
titles, it does end any argument that gets raised by anyone
before it even starts.
Wondering about those clay court specialists that you keep
bringing, will you list few of those players that we witnessed in
the last 30 years that would have beaten Nadal on
clay?
But, you know, Rafa isn't 14/3 times better than Kuerten, for example.
On 5/26/25 2:49 PM, *skriptis wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:
His brute power was amazing to watch. Legend.
Watch this first point of the 2008 Wimbledon final fifth set, hear
what commentator says, and then watch what Nadal does.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mHsg2M25PzY&t=15400s
It's how I remember him too.
I really liked seeing this. Thanks.
It seemed better without coaching, as a purer individual contest.
Coaching would also wreck bullfighting, and for the same reasons.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:are helped by surface homogenisation. The icing on the cake ... Morrison.Ombilible.
What is incredible is how high Rogi's second serve bounces. I mean, the court looks green and all that, but how can I really tell it's gwass?I think Rafa's record is inflated. Half of his RG titles are against morans. His titles on non-pony surfaces
It was homoginezed for everyone.
And I think it's better this way. Nadal still won bulk of his titles on clay, and Federer/Djokovic won bulk of theirs on grass/HC.
But due to homogenisation they were competitive on all surfaces and met each other everywhere, both in favourable and less favourable conditions.
We got to see the rivalries and how they adapt.
In comparison, 1980s and 1990s were less interesting. I'm not talking about the game itself, it had some high for sure on grass and HC.
But you almost felt like there's were two separate tours.
You had Sampras, Becker, Ivanišević, and you had Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera... for example.
They hardly ever met.
So not only it was less interesting from a fanboy perspective, it was also very unnatural and artificial.
The discrepancy of the era happened due to racquet technology advancements. It is not how it was supposed to be.
Remember back in the days, with wood, there was no such surface discrepancy. Sure, you had players suited for certain surfaces, but the best ones were competitive accros all surfaces.
Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Budge, Vines, Tilden, Cochet, Wilding it goes without saying that they were able to win on all surfaces.
So basically surface homogenisation of late 90s, early 00s allowed us to go back in time, and enjoy rivalries like previous fans enjoyed during wood era.
Surface homogenisation was a necessary thing to offset surface discrepancy caused by the advancements of racquet and strung technology.
That's why I think we shouldn't judge harshly players of the 80s and 90s who failed to win on all surfaces or failed to win all slams, notably McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras.
Connors and Wilander actually won on all surfaces and Borg, while he didn't win on HC, is actually from a transitional era too, at the tail end and had a short career.
On 27.5.2025 15.49, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:r
On 27.5.2025 0.49, *skriptis wrote:> Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote
in message:>> His brute power
You can question one slam or two, but when a guy wins 14 FO
titles, it does end any argument that gets raised by anyone
before it even starts.
Don't get me wrong. I think Rafa is an incredible player. The best clay courter ever. I love to watch him lose.
But can the best be overvalued? I think, yes. And I think Rafa's record
is what it is because of historical happenstances. Clay is a bit of a red-headed surface these days. It requires a lot of court time, but the
tour structure doesn't pay for it. Muster played clay all year long. The present guys get fined for skipping obligatories.
Wondering about those clay court specialists that you keep
bringing, will you list few of those players that we witnessed in
the last 30 years that would have beaten Nadal on
clay?
Proving "ifs" that never came is difficult. But, you know, Rafa isn't
14/3 times better than Kuerten, for example. Even a washed out Ferrero managed to beat Rafa twice (lost 7 though. But Ferrero was a shell of
himself after his slide in abouts 2004, the year of the Great Clay Plague).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 201:49:19 |
| Calls: | 9,602 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,682 |
| Messages: | 6,152,745 |