Roland Garros: battle of the clones

First topic message reminder :

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)

S_A I am disappointed with you that you seem so reluctant to move your lips from Nadal's bum. But don't worry would could discuss HC ownership of Federer?

Better volleyer than Nadal? I beg to differ. infact we can all see players with great net skills and Nadal is a great volleyer. Due to the negativity Federer fans have towards his game. they've failed to realise it earlier on but a few can now admit Nadal's superiority at the net. Infact his net conversion rate in one of the highest if not the highest on tour. Many commentators now highlight it in snippets this days but McEnroe was one of those to always call him a great volleyer because he is.

Anyway, so if Nadal and Borg met on clay, Borg will use his superior net skills to beat him? Federer tried to rush to the net Roland Garros and an ambulance was nearly called for him:laugh: Legendkilla, you are entertaining me. Perhaps you can find a compilation video of Borg's net play so we can compare to Nadal's.

Yes I recall the 2008 final and it was painful viewing.

You rate Nadal and I rate Borg. I am leaving it at that as debating with you seems to go to different realms.

Well you got some good tennis education from this at least. It pays to know about tennis before debating with me Legendkilla because as much i make fun, when it comes to indepth tennis knowledge and when i feel to debate, you'll be left in dust.

Educated from you? Wishful thinking on your part.

Count yourself lucky I am actually 'conversing' with you.

Note:

Debating is not a competition. It is called an exchanging of views. Even morons have days off being annoying.

Well i think you actually should be counting yourself lucky i'm educating you. Tomorrow you might not be that lucky and all i'll do is laugh at your never ending laughable comments like " Borg has better net play on clay" etc

Or I could laugh at your 'Nadal is not fit' excuse to every defeat this year

Nadal - Borg finals, and I would give Rafa the edge in close 5 setter.

legendkillar wrote:I can't be talking to idiots on the same thread

Look, I still don't see why you called me an idiot. I never personally insulted you, i just felt that borg's serve and volley skills wouldn't really help him on the slow yellow clay against nadal. As SA pointed out Rafa can hit great passing shots- thats why i think volleying against nadal on clay wouldn't be useful (maybe on another surface). Still, no need to call me an idiot for thinking that.

I honestly don't think we've seen the best of Nadal yet. Can anyone say that about the other players on that list ?

erictheblueuk wrote:I honestly don't think we've seen the best of Nadal yet. Can anyone say that about the other players on that list ?

I am not sure what you mean. If you think Nadal has not peaked yet, it would be very surprising considering the amount of wins, miles run and that he is approaching the end of what is by most considered the prime for a tennis player: 26 years old.

Analysing the results Nadal scored in the last year and current year, again, the perspective is not particoularly encouraging as the trends in term of results and ranking is clearly downwards.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: considered the prime for a tennis player: 26 years old.

He's 25.

I think Nadal has probably peaked in relative terms (ability to get results against the ever improving competition, e.g. as measured by W/L record) and perhaps even peaked in absolute terms.

However it's an open question and he could yet prove me wrong.

Also, just because he's peaked doesn't mean he's about to substantially decline, he could stay at this level for several years.

I think Nadal plays better now than then. His shots certainly have a better length than in 2008 and even 2010. I thought he played pretty well v Monfils but the difference is that players can now handle his game better. Having said that we know with Nadal that he is not the same in slams and this is where we get surprised every time.

lol Tenez, Nadal is a vastly better player than Monfils - what has Monfils achieved in the game outside of the odd nice win like this one? Nadal does pretty much better across all events than most players - Gael included. One swallow doesnt make a summer...yes he does well in slams because he has that ability to raise his game...I believe they call it talent?

You see, you keep making the same mistake.

The truth is Nadal has a better record than Monfils but yesterday Monfils was better.

Saying Nadal has a much better record than Djokovic doesn't make Nadal better than Djokovic.

I wish you could distinguish between the two. Stop looking at slam count or you will end up being wrong footed very often in tennis.

Then you have to do the same for Fed and just accept that no matter how many shots Fed has that looping topspin shot is better than all of them and thus Nadal is a much better player.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:just accept that no matter how many shots Fed has that looping topspin shot is better than all of them and thus Nadal is a much better player.

Good point.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Then you have to do the same for Fed and just accept that no matter how many shots Fed has that looping topspin shot is better than all of them and thus Nadal is a much better player.

No. You have to analyse a bit better . You need to be more precise and say that Nadal is better on clay. He has not proven he is better on other surfaces as tennis is played on other surfaces.

If anything we can say that Nadal got creamed last time they played. So for now we can even say that Federer "may" have learnt how to handle Nadal. We never know. We might even say that Federer is still improving faster than Nadal. We could also say that Nadal weirdly enough has a very different energy level in slams as his record there is strickingly different from other tournaments.

Had Nadal beaten Federer more often than not on other surfaces would certainly give Nadal more credit. But not only he failed to beat him more often but more importantly he even failed to give himself enough chance to.

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Then you have to do the same for Fed and just accept that no matter how many shots Fed has that looping topspin shot is better than all of them and thus Nadal is a much better player.

No. You have to analyse a bit better . You need to be more precise and say that Nadal is better on clay. He has not proven he is better on other surfaces as tennis is played on other surfaces.

Record on
outdoor hard 4-1 Nadal
clay 12-2 Nadal

So for the surfaces that are played on 3/4 slams the overall H2H is 16-3
With grass the H2H 17-5

amritia3ee wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:just accept that no matter how many shots Fed has that looping topspin shot is better than all of them and thus Nadal is a much better player.

Good point.

Most annoying Nadal fangirl EVER!

amritia3ee wrote:So for the surfaces that are played on 3/4 slams the overall H2H is 16-3

Or 5-3 if the 3/4 of the slams are outdoor HC and grass, instead of outdoor HC and clay.

You're just annoyed because I pointed out that 3 out of 4 slams are played on outdoor hard and clay where the combined H2H is 16-3 (12-2+4-1). Even if we include grass where there have only been 3 matches- 2 of them when Nadal was very young (same age Fed was losing to Henman) it is 17-5.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:So for the surfaces that are played on 3/4 slams the overall H2H is 16-3

Or 5-3 if the 3/4 of the slams are outdoor HC and grass, instead of outdoor HC and clay.

Yes good point So even if we takes Rafas favourite surface out he's 5-3 up. Good point that.

amritia3ee wrote:You're just annoyed because I pointed out that 3 out of 4 slams are played on outdoor hard and clay where the combined H2H is 16-3 (12-2+4-1). Even if we include grass where there have only been 3 matches- 2 of them when Nadal was very young (same age Fed was losing to Henman) it is 17-5.

No, I am annoyed because you just managed to insult all the memebrs of the forum in one go, in the thread just closed.

But.....do I take you seriously....NOT.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:So for the surfaces that are played on 3/4 slams the overall H2H is 16-3

Or 5-3 if the 3/4 of the slams are outdoor HC and grass, instead of outdoor HC and clay.

Yes good point So even if we takes Rafas favourite surface out he's 5-3 up. Good point that.

It's certainly an accurate point, although I'm not sure it has great meaning. Stich has an overall +ve H2H against Sampras, but it doesn't mean he's a better player than Sampras. Nastase has a +ve H2H against Connors, but again, it doesn't mean he's a better player. Or perhaps 'greater' should be used, rather than 'better'.

Stich vs Sampras was only 5-4.

amritia3ee wrote:Stich vs Sampras was only 5-4.

Which would indicate what? That Sampras was a bit better? Or Stich was a bit better?

Nastase - Connors was 16-12
Nastase - Gerulaitis was 3 -12
Connors - Gerulaitis was 15 - 6

So obviously Nastase was better than Connors who was better than Gerulaitis who was better than Nastase.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

So obviously Nastase was better than Connors who was better than Gerulaitis who was better than Nastase.

Ouch my head hurts.

If only Head to heads weren't the only way to decide which player is better than which.

Oh wait....

H2H is only a factor on deciding who is better than who. You also have to look at the trophies they have won, the people they have beaten when winning these trophies etc

amritia3ee wrote:H2H is only a factor on deciding who is better than who. You also have to look at the trophies they have won, the people they have beaten when winning these trophies etc

Which is when it becomes totally subjective and as long as people remember that, and don't try to 'prove' the 'truth' then everything should be all hugs and kisses (urgh!). It might also help if we remember that it doesn't really matter if the player we like is universally acclaimed as the greatest ever or an over-rated journeyman because a) it's not our success anyway, it's theirs and b) it's only tennis.

But if the internet had been around 40 years ago, you can bet that some die-hard Vitas fans would be using that 2-13 vs Nasty to 'prove' their own 'truth'. And the Nasty fans would be saying 'Slam count' to 'prove' theirs.

The thread has gone off topic. Perhaps "battle of clones: Wimbledon: time is due.