The stars did in fact align. If they had video replay the outcome might have been different. On the free kick by Guerreiro, Lloris appeared to buckle his knee. He wasn't able to push off at 100% when Eder scored the winning goal from distance. Lloris should have pulled himself out of the game. The free kick should not have been awarded as reply showed it was Eder's hand touching the ball and not Koscielny! Margin of victory are so small in sports that's what makes it so exciting to watch! I finally got a little luck in winning that bet!
It's not just Wilander 9 out of the top 12 ever played in Borgs era! You gotta remember, no hard courts at slams until 78. So just by the nature of two surfaces you are going to get better clay court players! Only Nadal, Joker and Muster can crack the top 12 all time on clay! There's really no comparison in terms of competition.
advances in racket tech. (like in golf, makes it easier to play, helps level the playig field), players bigger, more tournaments, more players playing -- harder to dominate now than in the wood racket days. keep that in mind
Nadal has made a mockery of clay tennis , a combo of mental strength matched likely only to Tiger's and physical power-- that fuck can stay at the baseline pounding balls for hours
Nadal has made a mockery of clay tennis , a combo of mental strength matched likely only to Tiger's and physical power-- that fuck can stay at the baseline pounding balls for hours
More difficult to do that with wood racquets! I disagree with technology leveling the playing field. Both players have access to the same equipment, not an issue. We can agree to disagree on who would win in Paris, but based on the quality of clay court players in the 70's Borg had the tougher competition on clay. Only one player in Nadal's era cracks the top 12, eight players in Borg's era.
Vilas has 240 more wins on clay than Nadal! Orantes has 120 more wins than Nadal. Vilas, Orantes, Nadal, Nastase and Muster are the only players with over 400 wins on clay! None played in Nadal's era. Three played in Borg's era and he crushed them all in Paris! Joker only has 225 wins on clay. There's no comparison in clay court competition.
More difficult TO PLAY with wooden racquets , important distinction .Made it easier for the truly skilled to win with
as an example;
would Tiger Woods prefer the field to play with today's set of clubs Vs clubs from Nocklaus' era?
Nicklaus' era, of course. MUCH harder to hit, less forgiving , cant generate the same ball speed...etc
2nd shot on a par 5 that demands a high fade to land softly , gotta carry 225yds and hit it soft?
with Nicklaus-era clubs few could pull that shot of, say 10% of the field . Woods could pull that off all day long, so could Jack
today? are u kidding!!!!
hybrids, new shafts, ball tech ---- 70% can pull it off
so the exceptionally skilled have more names in contention now, harder to win
Your argument is the field benefits from greater technology, yet somehow it doesn't benefit the greats?? Tennis is entirely different. The wood racquets made it easier for serve and volley players. Less pace for passing shots. That's one of the reasons the serve and volley went the why of the dinosaurs. In Borgs day, much harder to dominate as a baseliners as it is today. Anyhow non of this is quantifiable, meaning we could go in circles for days on end. Technology does not only benefit the field, it also benefits the greats too. Wins and win/loss records are quantifiable, and there were a hell of a lot more better clay players in the 70's than today!
Borg -120
Nadal ev
If they play ten times in Paris, 9 out of 10 goes five, Borg wins 5.3 times out of ten, for the simple fact much better clay court players and he had the same FO victories as Nadal did upon his retirement, even though he missed playing one year to play World team tennis. Goes to show slams were not that important back in the day, which is another reason why I think, Joker becomes the Goat in a few weeks. Weeks at number 1 should be at least on par with slams, if not greater, for the simple fact it's much harder to become number 1 than it is to win a slam!
Nadal ev
If they play ten times in Paris, 9 out of 10 goes five, Borg wins 5.3 times out of ten, for the simple fact much better clay court players and he had the same FO victories as Nadal did upon his retirement, even though he missed playing one year to play World team tennis. Goes to show slams were not that important back in the day, which is another reason why I think, Joker becomes the Goat in a few weeks. Weeks at number 1 should be at least on par with slams, if not greater, for the simple fact it's much harder to become number 1 than it is to win a slam!
Borg the fav Vs Nadal , RG final?
for what its worth -do a quick googele search on 'top clay players of all time'. Dont think you'll find a list with Nadal as not #1, ..looked at 5 or so , they did all have Borg #2 tho
----------------------
another metric to look at is winning % Vs top 10's (here's yuor tally as of 2018, u know here to get more undated numbers?);
all surfaces
smaller sample size for Borg, but impressive nonetheless
[FONT=roboto_regular]Best Winning Percentage vs. Top 10 In History[/FONT]
<tbody>
</tbody>
for what its worth -do a quick googele search on 'top clay players of all time'. Dont think you'll find a list with Nadal as not #1, ..looked at 5 or so , they did all have Borg #2 tho
----------------------
another metric to look at is winning % Vs top 10's (here's yuor tally as of 2018, u know here to get more undated numbers?);
all surfaces
smaller sample size for Borg, but impressive nonetheless
[FONT=roboto_regular]Best Winning Percentage vs. Top 10 In History[/FONT]
| Player | Record | Winning Percentage |
| 1. Bjorn Borg | 64-27 | 70.3% |
| 2. Novak Djokovic | 184-89 | 67.4% |
| 3. Roger Federer | 214-111 | 65.8% |
| 4. Rafael Nadal | 160-84 | 65.6% |
| 5. Boris Becker | 121-65 | 65.1% |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Much harder to become #1 than to win a slam? I'm going to have to start calling you GEDInSports again. Haha.
Sigh. I guess then these players who made it to #1 are greatness?
Gustavo Kuerton
Amelie Mauresmo
Patrick Rafter
Marat Safin
Juan Ferrero
Ana Ivanovic
Thomas Muster
Carlos Moya
Marcelo Rios (0 Grand Slams)
Jelena Jankovic (0 Grand Slams)
Dinara Safina (26 weeks at #1, 0 Grand Slams)
Caroline Wozniaki (74 weeks at #1, 1 Grand Slam)
another way of looking at it, i'll say the following, cant 'prove it is what it is. I do get your point about the accomplished clay resumes that Borg played with
6 matches Borg Vs Fed at RG?
i say 3-3 , tight to call
6 matches Borg Vs Nole at RG ?
i say 3-3 , tight to call
so naturally I see Nadal taking care of anyone on clay at RG and he's the fav vs anyone . Borg could not physically wear down opponents lke Nadal .Nole and Fed are top 10 clay courters of all time-that is how good Nadal has been . Nole in 16 trips to RG has won 83% of his matches. Fed in 18 trips has won 80%. IF NOT for having played in the nadal era these two likely have 3-4 French Open titles each. fed and Nole have both reached FIVE RG finals!!! how many did Muster, nastase reach?
6 matches Borg Vs Fed at RG?
i say 3-3 , tight to call
6 matches Borg Vs Nole at RG ?
i say 3-3 , tight to call
so naturally I see Nadal taking care of anyone on clay at RG and he's the fav vs anyone . Borg could not physically wear down opponents lke Nadal .Nole and Fed are top 10 clay courters of all time-that is how good Nadal has been . Nole in 16 trips to RG has won 83% of his matches. Fed in 18 trips has won 80%. IF NOT for having played in the nadal era these two likely have 3-4 French Open titles each. fed and Nole have both reached FIVE RG finals!!! how many did Muster, nastase reach?
So I guess these guys are great too than?
Pat Cash
Petra Korda
Sergi Bruguera
Richard Krajicek
Michael Stich
The Great Andres Gomez
Goran Ivanisevic
Albert Costa
Thomas Johansson
Gaston Gaudio
Marin Cilic
Juan Martin del Porto
Stan Wawrinka
I could add more to the list of men grand slam winners without reaching number 1. Your list only Rios is slamless!!! That fact the way more men have won slams than have reached the number 1 ranking proves 100% that it is more difficult to reach number 1 than to win a slam! There's been 50 different grand slam winners since 1973, yet only 26 have reached number 1? Christ it took Wilander 7 slams to finally reach number 1! Don't be like a libtard with the name calling when presented by facts!
