Roland Garros: battle of the clones

Year 2078.

The ITF board has allowed clones of former tennis great to take part of the competition to boost interest and revenue to a brand new level. Every clone is perfectly trained and programmed to play in his prime (age 20 to 26)

Here is the top seeding for Roland Garros (played on syntetic yellow clay).

1) Borg
2) Nadal
3) Lendl
4) Wilander
5) Vilas
6) Kuerten
7) Courier
8) Muster

How do you think the tournament would shape up?

This is my view : SF: Nadal - Lendl / Borg - Vilas - F: Borg - Lendl - W: Borg ( by some distance)

I think there is one missing. Federer. Federer at his prime, having trained with modern larger frame from a younger age to win on clay.

That woudl be my clone to win.

Consider that Federer would have to face not just Nadal, but all the best clay courters of the modern era. Also: the clay, though yellow, is the traditional slow type. Can see Fed as favourite in AO 2078 and USO 2078 but not at RG.

Without Nadal Federer would had had more FOs than Nadal himself and certainly more than many of those names.

So what prevented Federer from winning Nadal on clay was essentially teh fact that his tennis was developed for faster surfaces. If I wanted to bet my life in 70 years about a tennis players winning the FO, I woudl pick teh most talented player and train him specifically for clay. Nadal is essence did just that and had a great advantage over Federer in that respect.

And after Federer, I woudl pick Djokovic in fact, not Nadal.

Will have Nadal -Kuerten SF and Borg-Lendl other semi finals. All in thei prime. Seeing what a barely walking Kuerten did to Federer at Roland Garros, he will provide Nadal a great test. Borg should beat Lendl so we willl have a Borg-Nadal final. Now that is a match to watch.

Interesting thread. Could you do one for the other Slams too

Semi's:

Borg v Kuerten

Nadal v Lendl

Final

Borg v Nadal

Borg in 4

S_A I will not accept you having the same 4 as me as well as the same final. Change your opinion!!!

I think it will be a RF and RN final, and Rafa to win in 4 or 5 sets. Close. SF would be Rafa beating Borg, Roger beating Wilander or Lendl.

Federer should be in the top 8 because in another era he might have won multiple FOs.

I think Nadal - Borg final and Nadal to win.

Maybe hold off until next week before doing the Wimbledon and Australian Open threads rather than all at once?

Nadal at 70% would walk it.

well you have to go with a Nadal-Borg final really. The two greatest clay-courters of all time, and by a distance. As for the final, tough to call, but I tip Nadal to eventually wear down Borg and win in 5.

erictheblueuk wrote:Nadal at 70% would walk it.

At 100% he could not take a set of Djoko last year! Not even a very tired Djoko who had struggled the day before v Murray.

Amazing how things change swiftly. I maintain that with proper training I'd put Fed first, Djoko or Borg then.

You have a point regarding the match up nadal djoko. There may been the need to add the Djoker although his track record on clay is relatively slim when compared to the others top clay courters. Muster, for instance, was simply unplayable during 1995, year when he won all the mayor tournaments on clay. Vilas won some 40 tournaments on clay as well.

one good year on clay, where he didn't even win the big one? Sorry, not enough to get into the top 8 of all time IMO, not even close...

erictheblueuk wrote:Nadal at 70% would walk it.

Well he was 70% at last years FO and walked it. Giving him Federer in that finals was a waste of time. My granny would have won the that first set.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:one good year on clay, where he didn't even win the big one? Sorry, not enough to get into the top 8 of all time IMO, not even close...

But that's the point of this article. It's not about hall of fame v Hall of fame cause that's very easy. we just need to count the number of slams and that's it.

It;s about facing those players at their peak. And of course, having them trained under similar conditions cause there is no way Borg with his wooden racquet woudl take a game off Muster otherwise.

And this why if comparing Federer v Nadal for instance we have to take into account the fact that one learnt the game with natural gut and heavy racquet v Light and new strings which certainly helped Nadal considerably in his FO slam quest.

Tenez wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:Nadal at 70% would walk it.

At 100% he could not take a set of Djoko last year! Not even a very tired Djoko who had struggled the day before v Murray.

Amazing how things change swiftly. I maintain that with proper training I'd put Fed first, Djoko or Borg then.

You could be right about Novak, but as he's never won RG he's not in the given list of players.

Also Fed's had enough chances to take down Nadal at RG and he ain't done it, so barring injury I don't see this changing.

erictheblueuk wrote:Also Fed's had enough chances to take down Nadal at RG and he ain't done it, so barring injury I don't see this changing.

Well I have explained that. Fed won 15 slams on faster surfaces so his game was designed for faster surfaces. However, he still was pretty close to Nadal on clay. Had he put his time and effort on clay like he would in a "virtual" world in 70 years time, my bet woudl be with the most talented player to make the most of similar conds....all other parameters remaining equal.

fair enough Tenez, but right now I don't rate Novak's prime above any of the 8 on that list. I don't rate Fed's prime there either, but he's probably a bit closer.

i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

lk: apologies, a little short of time usually.

I think, regardless the shot making ability (Nadal above imo) and the technical profile (Borg superior) is the calibre of the player what ultimatly makes the difference. Borg, imo, is superior on that respect.

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

And what exactly do you mean by that or how did you come to such an exciting opinion? Is the anything in Borgs game compared to Nadal's that you can show us will be the defining factor in the alleged "depth"?

Borg had a better footwork than Nadal for sure. Like Federer he was gliding. Nadal is pounding the ground.

Poor Borg, if gliding got Federer thrashings at RG at the hands of Nadal, i wonder what would have happen to him but then again he is better than the Swiss and had a foot work on clay almost as good as Nadal so perhaps it won't be one sided.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

And what exactly do you mean by that or how did you come to such an exciting opinion? Is the anything in Borgs game compared to Nadal's that you can show us will be the defining factor in the alleged "depth"?

Hmmmm I have never seen Nadal at the net, except for the toss before a match.

Maybe with your infinite wisdom you can tell me 1 thing Nadal had that Borg didn't?

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

And what exactly do you mean by that or how did you come to such an exciting opinion? Is the anything in Borgs game compared to Nadal's that you can show us will be the defining factor in the alleged "depth"?

Hmmmm I have never seen Nadal at the net, except for the toss before a match.

Maybe with your infinite wisdom you can tell me 1 thing Nadal had that Borg didn't?

I hate to say it - but two Hardcourt slams?

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

And what exactly do you mean by that or how did you come to such an exciting opinion? Is the anything in Borgs game compared to Nadal's that you can show us will be the defining factor in the alleged "depth"?

Hmmmm I have never seen Nadal at the net, except for the toss before a match.

Maybe with your infinite wisdom you can tell me 1 thing Nadal had that Borg didn't?

I hate to say it - but two Hardcourt slams?

We are talking Clay game barry

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

And what exactly do you mean by that or how did you come to such an exciting opinion? Is the anything in Borgs game compared to Nadal's that you can show us will be the defining factor in the alleged "depth"?

Hmmmm I have never seen Nadal at the net, except for the toss before a match.Maybe with your infinite wisdom you can tell me 1 thing Nadal had that Borg didn't?

That's quite funny to be honest. Infact reminds me of the famous comment from one journalist at Wimbledon 2000 or was it 2002 that "Federer's visits to the net were as frequent as a visit to the moon"

But then again, Nadal easily in the top 3 best volleyers in the world. If you say Federer was an average net player until he employed Annacone, that's more the point.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

ebar86 wrote:i think, even someone obviously dislikes nadal, u cant take away his credit for winning most FO majors.
when he retired, it is very unlikely tht someone will be as dominant as him on clay as far as current generation is concerned.

So far he is even with Borg, according to my knowledge. Personally I rate Borg as a different class and tend interpret the Nadal wins as a consequence of lack of great clay courters in recent years.....

JK,

I think that is best summary of the difference between the 2. Also I would add that Borg had better depth in his Clay game than Nadal. 2008 was the only time I had seen Nadal go through it from the off attacking, but Federer fans would argue against a 'well conditioned' version because of the mono he suffered that year.

And what exactly do you mean by that or how did you come to such an exciting opinion? Is the anything in Borgs game compared to Nadal's that you can show us will be the defining factor in the alleged "depth"?

Hmmmm I have never seen Nadal at the net, except for the toss before a match.Maybe with your infinite wisdom you can tell me 1 thing Nadal had that Borg didn't?

That's quite funny to be honest. Infact reminds me of the famous comment from one journalist at Wimbledon 2000 or was it 2002 that "Federer's visits to the net were as frequent as a visit to the moon"

But then again, Nadal easily in the top 3 best volleyers in the world. If you say Federer was an average net player until he employed Annacone, that's more the point.

Still you didn't answer the question.

Federer's game predominantly has been from the baseline. Annacone has added a stronger net game to Federer's overall game. Served him well in the treacle that was Paris. Federer is 30 and even though he has been a good volleyer, it hasn't been integral to use. When he utilised the drop shot for his only FO success it required him to be strong at the net. Take Nadal on Clay because he is un-beatable on the baseline, and despite the un-natural performance that Soderling put in against him, Nadal has looked un-shakable on Clay.

See I am not Federer worshipper so you are barking up the wrong tree. I didn't see a case for him to be in the top 8 Clay courters of all time given the varied views of his position in the Clay court game.

Back to Borg and Nadal, Borg's game was all round better than Nadal's. His net play alone helped him achieve his victory over Lendl in 1981. Granted Lendl hadn't developed into the player he would become and plus Borg was well within his peak. At this moment in time yes I would rate Borg above Nadal. Don't panic. Opinions can change as Nadal has time on his side and there is no reason why he cannot go on and achieve 8-9 FO titles. If I was a Borg worshipper, then yes I would worried that this year alone Nadal can surpass him as the greatest Clay courter ever.

Legendkilla it is you who haven't answered by question on the alleged "depth". You came back with the only thing not important to have on clay - Net play. Are wea talking about Wimbledon here? You seem to be steering into a different direction. I have seen Nadal play and have seen Borg and i don't see th depth you referred to or what Borg could do on clay that Nadal couldn't. I don't care whether you rate Borg over Nadal, irrelevant to the discussion at the end of the day.

So net play in terms of drop shots, serve and volley you rate Nadal and Borg the same? Interesting.

Wimbledon?

Hmmmmmmm.....Are you Peter Mandelson?? Because spin like that Labour could use right now.

Net play is hardly crucial on clay lol

amritia3ee wrote:Net play is hardly crucial on clay lol

Not heard of the Clay of the 70's? lol

Is nadal playing in the 70's?
If he did, who knows he might have come into the net more. Right now he really doesn't need to come in that often.

I can't be talking to 2 idiots on the same thread

Which part of this are you not getting? Is the discussion about Wimbledon or FO clay? If it's FO clay then you saying you rate Borg's net play higher is pointless. Net play doesn't determine a clay match or McEnroe, Edberg etc would have won a FO. Nadal is the best passer tennis has ever seen. I see you have added drop shots. Nadals is good at that to and i also don't see any hierachy in drop shots. Clay tennis is won from the baseline, not at the net so if that's the so-called depth you think Borg has over Nadal, then it's laughable.

See he is insulting because he has realised he is not talking sense. Talking about net play on clay related thread as "depth" is about the dumbest comment i read all day

Which part of this are you not getting?

Did baseline play alone win 70's French Open? No

Simples

Simple_Analyst wrote:Which part of this are you not getting? Is the discussion about Wimbledon or FO clay? If it's FO clay then you saying you rate Borg's net play higher is pointless. Net play doesn't determine a clay match or McEnroe, Edberg etc would have won a FO. Nadal is the best passer tennis has ever seen. I see you have added drop shots. Nadals is good at that to and i also don't see any hierachy in drop shots. Clay tennis is won from the baseline, not at the net so if that's the so-called depth you think Borg has over Nadal, then it's laughable.

Yh, dunno why LK obsessed with 'net play' here.

I don't know why your obsessed with Nadal not playing 70's.

I don't bang on about Borg not playing today.

What a smart pair.

legendkillar wrote:I don't know why your obsessed with Nadal not playing 70's.

Maybe because Nadal didn't play in the 70's.

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't know why your obsessed with Nadal not playing 70's.

Maybe because Nadal didn't play in the 70's.

So that makes Nadal better than Borg because?

legendkillar wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't know why your obsessed with Nadal not playing 70's.

Maybe because Nadal didn't play in the 70's.

So that makes Nadal better than Borg because?

I didn't say anything about Nadal being better or worse than Borg.
I just said atm he doesn't need to serve and volley on clay, you have to acclimatise yourself for the conditions you play in. I can't see why you are criticising Nadal for that.

Simple_Analyst wrote:See he is insulting because he has realised he is not talking sense. Talking about net play on clay related thread as "depth" is about the dumbest comment i read all day

by Simple_Analyst Today at 5:53 pm

.Lol lets start from Monfils win over Nadal. I only saw the match from the 2nd set when Nadal was a 4-2 up and he played short mostly from there with Monfils playing inspired tennis. Coming in with a shoulder injury, it was always going to be a hinder when he meets Monfils on a good day. I was impressed by him though. He squandered 2 match points and still held his bottle. Federer should call him quick and learn how to choke and still win.

I think this ranks as the dumbest quote of the year!

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't know why your obsessed with Nadal not playing 70's.

Maybe because Nadal didn't play in the 70's.

So that makes Nadal better than Borg because?

I didn't say anything about Nadal being better or worse than Borg.
I just said atm he doesn't need to serve and volley on clay, you have to acclimatise yourself for the conditions you play in. I can't see why you are criticising Nadal for that.

Do you have anything to say LK? You called me an idiot because I said Nadal doesn't have to serve and volley atm??

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't know why your obsessed with Nadal not playing 70's.

Maybe because Nadal didn't play in the 70's.

So that makes Nadal better than Borg because?

I didn't say anything about Nadal being better or worse than Borg.
I just said atm he doesn't need to serve and volley on clay, you have to acclimatise yourself for the conditions you play in. I can't see why you are criticising Nadal for that.

Right.....

1. Borg was a better volleyer on Clay than Nadal. Doesn't matter whether it is todays game or yesterday.
2. Where did I criticise Nadal? I simply put another player higher in skill at the net than Nadal.

It is you who said Nadal is better than Borg on clay. Perhaps you can tell us how. Oh! You need already: Net Play and drop shots

Legendkilla i'm disappointed in you. For some one who claims to watch Borg play in the 70s you'll have seen him rooted to the baseline at Roland Garros but a few weeks after at Wimbledon, will often Serve and Volley especially on the 2nd serve. So may be we should change the debate to Wimbledon?