Wimbledon

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Federer folded up tent against Nadal in the French this year. I saw it. I did not like it. He went down a step with that lack of will. He can beat Nadal on clay, he just does not think he can... at Rolan Garros anyway.

For the last 3 years (on Espn and on this site too) people been so sure Federer can beat him at the French.I have no idea why they think this.He is giving his best each year at that place,and this man is (at that tournament) superior.Nadal is the best clay player ever,and people refuse to give him credit for that.You obviously don't respect him yet,or you wouldn't keep saying he is gunna get beat by Federer there.There is no evidence whatsoever that Federer can beat him at Roland Garros.The only chance is if Nadal gets injured(which is always a decent possiblity,,i.e. 2004)

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

For the last 3 years (on Espn and on this site too) people been so sure Federer can beat him at the French.I have no idea why they think this.He is giving his best each year at that place,and this man is (at that tournament) superior.Nadal is the best clay player ever,and people refuse to give him credit for that.You obviously don't respect him yet,or you wouldn't keep saying he is gunna get beat by Federer there.There is no evidence whatsoever that Federer can beat him at Roland Garros.The only chance is if Nadal gets injured(which is always a decent possiblity,,i.e. 2004)

Who brought Nadal's clay winning streak to a close Scuds?
Federer can beat him on any surface because he is a better player.
But Nadal has the mental toughness edge, my take.

[Samarta]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Who brought Nadal's clay winning streak to a close Scuds?
Federer can beat him on any surface because he is a better player.
But Nadal has the mental toughness edge, my take.

Federer beat him in Hamburg....yes it's clay, but it's as close to hard courts without being on one as you'll ever find....just because it says clay doesn't mean it's Roland Garros. Can he beat him on clay? sure...Is Nadal in his head? absolutely.....will he ever win the French......I say he's got one maybe two more legit shots....

Originally Posted by Samarta

Federer beat him in Hamburg....yes it's clay, but it's as close to hard courts without being on one as you'll ever find....just because it says clay doesn't mean it's Roland Garros. Can he beat him on clay? sure...Is Nadal in his head? absolutely.....will he ever win the French......I say he's got one maybe two more legit shots....

Agree in totality.

Nadal is definitely a great clay court player but I wouldn't call him the best just yet...just like I won't say Federer is the best grass player.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

For the last 3 years (on Espn and on this site too) people been so sure Federer can beat him at the French.I have no idea why they think this.He is giving his best each year at that place,and this man is (at that tournament) superior.Nadal is the best clay player ever,and people refuse to give him credit for that.You obviously don't respect him yet,or you wouldn't keep saying he is gunna get beat by Federer there.There is no evidence whatsoever that Federer can beat him at Roland Garros.The only chance is if Nadal gets injured(which is always a decent possiblity,,i.e. 2004)

Check out Borg on clay Scuds. You are forgetting or never saw.

[ArlJim78]

to me Nadal is the best I've ever seen on clay, and Roger is the best grass player for sure and also best overall player I have ever seen.

I'll go with Borg on both grass and clay surfaces, but Federer overall.

[Samarta]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I'll go with Borg on both grass and clay surfaces, but Federer overall.

so how do you take him over Federer on 2 of 3 major surfaces but say Federer is a better player?

Originally Posted by Samarta

so how do you take him over Federer on 2 of 3 major surfaces but say Federer is a better player?

What surface are most tournaments played on?
Answer: Hard Courts.

What surface did Borg NEVER win a major championship on?
Answer: Hard Courts.

And there you have it.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Check out Borg on clay Scuds. You are forgetting or never saw.

That guy was boring as watching eggs boil.Nobody has been better on clay than Nadal.He has won 3 French Opens in a row,and if he doesn't get injured,I think he could win even 6 or 7 in a row there.He is too good.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That guy was boring as watching eggs boil.Nobody has been better on clay than Nadal.He has won 3 French Opens in a row,and if he doesn't get injured,I think he could win even 6 or 7 in a row there.He is too good.

Borg won 5. Four in a row. When tennis was in its prime, the late 70's. Everyone played, a much larger % of people participated in tennis.

Borg was boring? You have got to be kidding...

Oh the fist pumping and the Ladies Capri shorts... I get it.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Borg won 5. Four in a row. When tennis was in its prime, the late 70's. Everyone played, a much larger % of people participated in tennis.

Borg was boring? You have got to be kidding...

Oh the fist pumping and the Ladies Capri shorts... I get it.

This is the prime (as far as I am concerned.) These 2 right here,right now ....this is the best it gets.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

This is the prime (as far as I am concerned.) These 2 right here,right now ....this is the best it gets.

It really would be interesting to see what McEnroe and Borg could do with the rackets they have today. The ball just flies off of them. My first racket was a wood Jack Kramer. You had to hit it right in the middle. And if your strings were not gut you were at a severe disadvantage. The new rackets are much easier to control, much, much lighter, and my serve would have been very big for a short guy. You can get away with horrible mishits.

Roscoe Tanner seriously might have hit the hardest serves of all time with the rackets today.

Really the technology has changed the game so much. You could never hit a forehand over the net using a grip like they use today with the old rackets. I think Borg and a few other guys had a grip somewhat like they use today. But the game is really not the same because the ball is moving so much faster and its so much easier to hit hard with control.

[Samarta]

Originally Posted by pgardn

It really would be interesting to see what McEnroe and Borg could do with the rackets they have today. The ball just flies off of them. My first racket was a wood Jack Kramer. You had to hit it right in the middle. And if your strings were not gut you were at a severe disadvantage. The new rackets are much easier to control, much, much lighter, and my serve would have been very big for a short guy. You can get away with horrible mishits.

Roscoe Tanner seriously might have hit the hardest serves of all time with the rackets today.

Really the technology has changed the game so much. You could never hit a forehand over the net using a grip like they use today with the old rackets. I think Borg and a few other guys had a grip somewhat like they use today. But the game is really not the same because the ball is moving so much faster and its so much easier to hit hard with control.

They actually did a side by side shot of Borg/Federer's forehands and the motion was almost identical.....I saw most of the greats from the 70's and 80's play in person several times and I personally thought McEnroe was the most talented...he had the best hands of anyone that has ever played period....the guy was a magician at the net.....