to me Vilas's 49 clay titles actually equates to about 15, as most of the tournaments he won were attended by low ranked players. If you bother to check, he tended to pick tournaments Borg didn't go to, and every time he played Borg he was toast.
The Fall of Rafael Nadal
- Thread starter ClayDeath
- Start date
that winning feeling is coming back. this picture says it all. he is finding out that winning is fun. winning feeds his soul.
i thought you said he was done, like 10000 times?
you seemed so certain
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,606
- Reactions
- 14,767
- Points
- 113
I don't know that this is exactly "nonsense." I'm not going to bother to do the google search, but I do understand that Vilas played a lot of minor tournaments on clay, which buffed up his resume. Anyway, their h2h is 18-5 in favor of Borg. Vilas won two on clay...their first and last meetings. Borg won 10 of their matches on clay. I loved Vilas, in the day, but let's not pretend he was more than he was, compared to Borg.
49 titles on clay is a lot.
it is a hard surface to win titles on. it takes skill, endurance, strategy, consistency off both wings, superb movement, off the charts physicality and tremendous mental and emotional discipline.
just ask boris becker. he failed to win a single clay event during his tenure as a touring pro.
if you have never played the sport on clay at a high level then you are not qualified to say how good or bad vilas was. you just would not know and you just would not understand.
you must understand clay and you must have played the game at a fairly high level on clay.
it is a hard surface to win titles on. it takes skill, endurance, strategy, consistency off both wings, superb movement, off the charts physicality and tremendous mental and emotional discipline.
just ask boris becker. he failed to win a single clay event during his tenure as a touring pro.
if you have never played the sport on clay at a high level then you are not qualified to say how good or bad vilas was. you just would not know and you just would not understand.
you must understand clay and you must have played the game at a fairly high level on clay.
you are an idiot.
So 49 titles say Vilas > Borg? or Nadal? Borg and Nadal built their clay career with big titles, Vilas built his by going to tournaments where the top dog didn't go. Not going to teach you a lesson about clay games (which you seem to not know anyway), but he never beat Borg on clay after the first time when Borg was a 16 year old, and there was like 11 match winning streak in Borg's favour overall, and of course he won their last match on clay.
From 1973 until 1980, Borg owned Vilas on clay without losing a match with tons of bagels. Vilas not only struggled to win sets, he barely won games most of the times, what does that tell you?
One would notice that Vilas only won titles in which Borg didn't go, and those titles were too small for Bjorn.
And Rafa is done i thought?
true, the fact that Vilas kept going to those unknown events cannot be seen as a legit way to build legacy. Winning those against players in the 100s is not the same as winning against the best like Borg and Nadal did.
Tennis Fan
Major Winner
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reactions
- 429
- Points
- 83
I've read that before. Most of Rafa's tournaments were with the entire field, but sometimes people tend to look at the numbers only and omit important factors such as competition and point values.
Tennis Fan
Major Winner
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reactions
- 429
- Points
- 83
Agree about the legacy building part. Nadal and Borg have to be considered the two best clay courters I think, if Borg was indeed a clay courter. I know he won Wimbledon at least five times, but don't know about his hard court prowess.
As a long time observer and player, tennis was different back in the days of Vilas and Borg.
For one, it was more localized. Travel wasn't as easy as today. For example, Borg played mostly in Europe, Connors in the USA, Vilas in South America (he won Buenos Aires 8 times).
Players played under contract. Sometimes this cost them participation in even a major.
Top players didn't meet each other as often as they do today due to enforced mandatory tournaments.
After some consideration, I believe enforced mandatory tournaments these days may be better for tournaments, but not the players. I believe they tend to compete better when they don't meet as much.
Players were generally more surface specialists in those days unless they were very top players. The surfaces were not homogenized. Very different. Different styles of play were needed to succeed on each surface.
Many would mostly play on their favorite surface and occasionally play on others.
So the quality or depth of field on clay was significant in those days. I once did an analysis where I determined the deepest depth on clay was in the mid-late 70's. There were many excellent performers.
Manuel Orantes from Spain, Adriano Pannata from Italy, Solomon, Dibbs, Gottfried, and Stockton from the USA. Ramirez from Mexico. Nastase from Romania, and many others.
Borg indeed rose above them all. But Vilas was no slouch. Don't underestimate him. He should have a #1 next to his name, but the ATP didn't calculate #1 every week as they do now.
Vilas and his topspin was no doubt in the top 3 or 4 clay players of the day.
When Borg was prevented from competing at Roland Garros in 1977 due to his WTT contract, Vilas won at Roland Garros defeating Gottfried, 0, 3, & 0 in the final, only dropping one set in the tournament.
But then Borg came back in 1978, and defeated Vilas in the final, 1, 1, & 3, without dropping a set in the tournament averaging losing about 4 games/match.
Obviously Borg was simply a clay monster during that time.
From Jan 1977, to the end of 1981 when he retired from GS competition, 5 years, Borg was an incredible 120-3 on clay.
The 3 losses:
He had 1 loss to Vilas in May 1980 at the Nations Cup, losing 3-6, 6-1, 1-6.
He had to retire due to a thigh injury (see pic below) in Hamburg 1979, leading 4-1 against the USA's ) Eliot Teltscher.
He had to retire due to a shoulder injury in R16 of the 1977 US Open on green clay (HarTru) against Dick Stockton after winning the first set 6-3, but losing the second 4-6, and behind 1-0 when he retired.
Borg in pain following thigh injury at Hamburg in 1979.
But almost all of Borg's matches on clay during that time were in Europe.
When he played in North America he was even contracted to use a different racquet (Bancroft) than his usual Donnay.
Borg surely earned his status as one of the greatest of all time, including his 6 titles at Roland Garros and 5 consecutive Wimbledons.
But Vilas was also a very fine player, and he deservedly won a lot of titles including his 4 majors.
In 1977 alone, Vilas won 16 titles, 14 on clay including Roland Garros, and the US Open on green clay (HarTru) beating defending champion, Jimmy Connors.
Vilas played an incredible 140 matches winning 128 that year including 21 finals; he was a true iron man of the sport.
Tennis was different in those days, they played mostly with small wooden racquets, not as much firepower, but it was classic tennis, and we still have to respect these player's accomplishments.
Guillermo Vilas being carried off the court in triumph after defeating Jimmy Connors in the men's singles final.
Respectfully,
masterclass
For one, it was more localized. Travel wasn't as easy as today. For example, Borg played mostly in Europe, Connors in the USA, Vilas in South America (he won Buenos Aires 8 times).
Players played under contract. Sometimes this cost them participation in even a major.
Top players didn't meet each other as often as they do today due to enforced mandatory tournaments.
After some consideration, I believe enforced mandatory tournaments these days may be better for tournaments, but not the players. I believe they tend to compete better when they don't meet as much.
Players were generally more surface specialists in those days unless they were very top players. The surfaces were not homogenized. Very different. Different styles of play were needed to succeed on each surface.
Many would mostly play on their favorite surface and occasionally play on others.
So the quality or depth of field on clay was significant in those days. I once did an analysis where I determined the deepest depth on clay was in the mid-late 70's. There were many excellent performers.
Manuel Orantes from Spain, Adriano Pannata from Italy, Solomon, Dibbs, Gottfried, and Stockton from the USA. Ramirez from Mexico. Nastase from Romania, and many others.
Borg indeed rose above them all. But Vilas was no slouch. Don't underestimate him. He should have a #1 next to his name, but the ATP didn't calculate #1 every week as they do now.
Vilas and his topspin was no doubt in the top 3 or 4 clay players of the day.
When Borg was prevented from competing at Roland Garros in 1977 due to his WTT contract, Vilas won at Roland Garros defeating Gottfried, 0, 3, & 0 in the final, only dropping one set in the tournament.
But then Borg came back in 1978, and defeated Vilas in the final, 1, 1, & 3, without dropping a set in the tournament averaging losing about 4 games/match.
Obviously Borg was simply a clay monster during that time.
From Jan 1977, to the end of 1981 when he retired from GS competition, 5 years, Borg was an incredible 120-3 on clay.
The 3 losses:
He had 1 loss to Vilas in May 1980 at the Nations Cup, losing 3-6, 6-1, 1-6.
He had to retire due to a thigh injury (see pic below) in Hamburg 1979, leading 4-1 against the USA's ) Eliot Teltscher.
He had to retire due to a shoulder injury in R16 of the 1977 US Open on green clay (HarTru) against Dick Stockton after winning the first set 6-3, but losing the second 4-6, and behind 1-0 when he retired.
Borg in pain following thigh injury at Hamburg in 1979.
But almost all of Borg's matches on clay during that time were in Europe.
When he played in North America he was even contracted to use a different racquet (Bancroft) than his usual Donnay.
Borg surely earned his status as one of the greatest of all time, including his 6 titles at Roland Garros and 5 consecutive Wimbledons.
But Vilas was also a very fine player, and he deservedly won a lot of titles including his 4 majors.
In 1977 alone, Vilas won 16 titles, 14 on clay including Roland Garros, and the US Open on green clay (HarTru) beating defending champion, Jimmy Connors.
Vilas played an incredible 140 matches winning 128 that year including 21 finals; he was a true iron man of the sport.
Tennis was different in those days, they played mostly with small wooden racquets, not as much firepower, but it was classic tennis, and we still have to respect these player's accomplishments.
Guillermo Vilas being carried off the court in triumph after defeating Jimmy Connors in the men's singles final.
Respectfully,
masterclass
Last edited:
Rafa's fellow Spanish players continue to do well on clay.
I am happy for almagro and
Pablo carreno busta.
The Spaniard's powerful serve proved too much for Kyrgios, who is currently at a career-high ranking of 20, in a match which saw the 21-year-old struggle to get on top.
Kyrgios broke his opponent twice but a number of unforced errors from the Australian and seven aces from the 30-year-old were enough to see Almagro through.
Almagro is hoping to win his first tour-level title since May 2012 and will face fellow Spaniard Pablo Carreno Busta in the final on Sunday.
I am happy for almagro and
Pablo carreno busta.
The Spaniard's powerful serve proved too much for Kyrgios, who is currently at a career-high ranking of 20, in a match which saw the 21-year-old struggle to get on top.
Kyrgios broke his opponent twice but a number of unforced errors from the Australian and seven aces from the 30-year-old were enough to see Almagro through.
Almagro is hoping to win his first tour-level title since May 2012 and will face fellow Spaniard Pablo Carreno Busta in the final on Sunday.
As a long time observer and player, tennis was different back in the days of Vilas and Borg.
For one, it was more localized. Travel wasn't as easy as today. For example, Borg played mostly in Europe, Connors in the USA, Vilas in South America (he won Buenos Aires 8 times).
Players played under contract. Sometimes this cost them participation in even a major.
Top players didn't meet each other as often as they do today due to enforced mandatory tournaments.
After some consideration, I believe enforced mandatory tournaments these days may be better for tournaments, but not the players. I believe they tend to compete better when they don't meet as much.
Players were generally more surface specialists in those days unless they were very top players. The surfaces were not homogenized. Very different. Different styles of play were needed to succeed on each surface.
Many would mostly play on their favorite surface and occasionally play on others.
So the quality or depth of field on clay was significant in those days. I once did an analysis where I determined the deepest depth on clay was in the mid-late 70's. There were many excellent performers.
Manuel Orantes from Spain, Adriano Pannata from Italy, Solomon, Dibbs, Gottfried, and Stockton from the USA. Ramirez from Mexico. Nastase from Romania, and many others.
Borg indeed rose above them all. But Vilas was no slouch. Don't underestimate him. He should have a #1 next to his name, but the ATP didn't calculate #1 every week as they do now.
Vilas and his topspin was no doubt in the top 3 or 4 clay players of the day.
When Borg was prevented from competing at Roland Garros in 1977 due to his WTT contract, Vilas won at Roland Garros defeating Gottfried, 0, 3, & 0 in the final, only dropping one set in the tournament.
But then Borg came back in 1978, and defeated Vilas in the final, 1, 1, & 3, without dropping a set in the tournament averaging losing about 4 games/match.
Obviously Borg was simply a clay monster during that time.
From Jan 1977, to the end of 1981 when he retired from GS competition, 5 years, Borg was an incredible 120-3 on clay.
The 3 losses:
He had 1 loss to Vilas in May 1980 at the Nations Cup, losing 3-6, 6-1, 1-6.
He had to retire due to a thigh injury (see pic below) in Hamburg 1979, leading 4-1 against the USA's ) Eliot Teltscher.
He had to retire due to a shoulder injury in R16 of the 1977 US Open on green clay (HarTru) against Dick Stockton after winning the first set 6-3, but losing the second 4-6, and behind 1-0 when he retired.
Borg in pain following thigh injury at Hamburg in 1979.
But almost all of Borg's matches on clay during that time were in Europe.
When he played in North America he was even contracted to use a different racquet (Bancroft) than his usual Donnay.
Borg surely earned his status as one of the greatest of all time, including his 6 titles at Roland Garros and 5 consecutive Wimbledons.
But Vilas was also a very fine player, and he deservedly won a lot of titles including his 4 majors.
In 1977 alone, Vilas won 16 titles, 14 on clay including Roland Garros, and the US Open on green clay (HarTru) beating defending champion, Jimmy Connors.
Vilas played an incredible 140 matches winning 128 that year including 21 finals; he was a true iron man of the sport.
Tennis was different in those days but we still have to respect these player's accomplishments.
Guillermo Vilas being carried off the court in triumph after defeating Jimmy Connors in the men's singles final.
Respectfully,
masterclass
remarkable post general.
vilas unleashed a new weapon in that final against james scott Connors: a sliced backhand.
but make no mistake about it. his topspin backhand was money and among the greatest topspin backhands of all time.
you don't win that much on clay without having machine like consistency off both wings.
he even bagged 2 slams on grass.
Last edited:
speaking of james scott Connors who grew up in east illinios:
Connors won eight Grand Slam singles championships: five US Opens, two Wimbledons, and one Australian Open. He did not participate in the French Open during his peak years (1974–78) and only played in two Australian Opens in his entire career, winning it in 1974 and reaching the final in 1975.
In 1974, Connors was the dominant player. He had a 99–4 record that year and won 15 tournaments, including three of the four Grand Slam singles titles. The French Open did not allow Connors to participate due to his association with World Team Tennis (WTT).[5][6] However, he won the Australian Open, defeating Phil Dent in four sets. He also beat Ken Rosewall in straight sets in the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open. His exclusion from the French Open denied him the opportunity to become the first male player since Rod Laver to win all four Major singles titles in a calendar year
Connors won eight Grand Slam singles championships: five US Opens, two Wimbledons, and one Australian Open. He did not participate in the French Open during his peak years (1974–78) and only played in two Australian Opens in his entire career, winning it in 1974 and reaching the final in 1975.
In 1974, Connors was the dominant player. He had a 99–4 record that year and won 15 tournaments, including three of the four Grand Slam singles titles. The French Open did not allow Connors to participate due to his association with World Team Tennis (WTT).[5][6] However, he won the Australian Open, defeating Phil Dent in four sets. He also beat Ken Rosewall in straight sets in the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open. His exclusion from the French Open denied him the opportunity to become the first male player since Rod Laver to win all four Major singles titles in a calendar year
Love him or hate him, Connors was an amazing player who along with Borg brought the game to the common folk.
His grit, fierceness, determination, and in-your-face attitude was a long way from the Australian and country club genteel set.
He played with the unique metal framed Wilson T-2000 when almost everyone else was playing with a wood frame, but the head on his T2000 was still as small or perhaps smaller than its wooden counterparts.
Along with what you mention General, his longevity in the sport was also superb.
Jimmy's first title was in 1972, his last in 1989. And who can forget his amazing run to the US Open semifinal in 1991?
Jimmy's passion for the game and every point was unmatched in my eyes until Rafael Nadal came along.
Connors: "Rafa is built out of the mold I came from. You walk out on the court and you give everything you have, from the very first point to the end, no matter what the score."
Emerson: "Every point that Nadal plays is like the second World War."
One thing is for sure; whether Rafa is in shape to win or not, he gives it everything.
Respectfully,
masterclass
Jimmy stayed in top 20 for 2 decades.
Unbelievable longevity for those days.
General masterclass he was durable to be sure but he could also control the center of court better than the others.
He did not have to play from downtown Barcelona like Rafa.
He could take ball on the rise off both wings and he was confident at the net.
All right, the Madrid draw is out. The top players have arrived.
How many of you think it will be a Djokovic - Nadal final?
Did Rafa prove at Monte Carlo and Barcelona he was fit enough and ready for a winning assault on Roland Garros?
Some people say Rafa only beat [2]Murray, [4]Wawrinka, [6]Nishikori in best of 3 sets, which proves nothing, and that he is still lacking in certain areas.
Has Nadal somehow, someway, halted his fall for one more run for a 10th French Open title?
Does Rafa still have to beat Djokovic at some point (Madrid or Rome) before RG?
Respectfully,
masterclass
How many of you think it will be a Djokovic - Nadal final?
Did Rafa prove at Monte Carlo and Barcelona he was fit enough and ready for a winning assault on Roland Garros?
Some people say Rafa only beat [2]Murray, [4]Wawrinka, [6]Nishikori in best of 3 sets, which proves nothing, and that he is still lacking in certain areas.
Has Nadal somehow, someway, halted his fall for one more run for a 10th French Open title?
Does Rafa still have to beat Djokovic at some point (Madrid or Rome) before RG?
Respectfully,
masterclass
Jimmy stayed in top 20 for 2 decades.
Unbelievable longevity for those days.
General masterclass he was durable to be sure but he could could control the center of court better than the others.
He did not have to play from downtown Barcelona like Rafa.
He could take ball on the rise off both wings and he was confident at the net.
Santana says the djokovic is the favorite here.
lets put it this way: rafa has to beat him in rome and also capture the rome title.
that will start restoring his confidence. right now djokovic has destroyed him 11 out of last 12 matches. that cant be good for your confidence.
it would be better if somebody else can take down djokovic here in Madrid.
but he has to take down djokovic himself in rome.
