Is Nadal Now The Best Ever On Clay?

With Nadal's 7th win at Roland Garros can he finally claim to be the best player ever on this surface?

I think he has to be. An argument can be made for Borg if we only look at RG (based on mega dominance and early retirement) but he didn't own the other events to the same extent.

David Ferrer all day

He was the best clay courter before this match as well. So i voted yes.

You missed out Tim Henman. Who could forget his 2004 run to the semi finals.

haha HB...and he pushed Coria hard for 2 sets as well...infact I feel he could have won that match had he had a little more muscle on those chicken legs of his...

I see Tennis as a sport that evolves, the conditions have evolved, the rules have evolved, the balls have evolved, the racquet technology has evolved, the line technology has evolved (we now also have Hawkeye), the fitness has evolved, the medical knowledge has evolved, the prize money has evolved, the training and diets have evolved, the professionalism has evolved, etc etc.

So when someone says is such a such a player the "best ever", my immediate thoughts are you plonker. But then I think hey it gives us something to talk about - a form of socialisation, where people are brought together in friendship and cameradie, discussing a subject they are interested in and perhaps emotionally connected with. And as I peruse these threads I indeed see people coming together in polite and friendly conversation. It kind of gives one hope to this world - that people can get on together - to face those uncertain issues of economic decline, overpopulation, wealth inequality, starvation, disease, climate change, animal extinction, rising fuel prices, war, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Draper etc.

RG has not changed much since the days of Borg. We have seen the likes of Costa, Guga, Chang, Moya and Bruguera. When you consider his 55-1 at RG, he has to be the King, perhaps the Emperor.

True comments Nore staat but when people say best ever I think they mean most accomplished. I am sure in 30 years from now there will be super clay courter that probably physically dominates Nadal. But I think what people are really talking about is the most dominant or most accomplished. Afterall we don't have the benefit of a time machine and we can't match 80 Borg v. 2012 Nadal. But the criteria is more of how great that player was in relation to the competition or how dominant. Determining who is the best ever truely would require a time machine and a long series of matches between all the contenders of different eras. But then what equipment or conditions would we use? So even then it is subjective.

However when you talk about level of accomplishment or dominance in their time now you have more objective measures available. IE number of slams or weeks at number 1. So greatest ever in my mind really means most dominant ever, at least to an extent. Not that this measure doesn't also have difficulties and subjective areas. But at least we can look at their accomplishments and that of their contemporaries for some type of feel or gauge.

That is a different question to the one that was asked. The answer to the question, which male tennis player dominated their era the most on clay, is probably Rafael Nadal.

It will take a long time for someone to measure up to Nadal on clay. Borg, Vilas and Muster, some illustrious predecessors.

Nore Staat wrote:That is a different question to the one that was asked. The answer to the question, which male tennis player dominated their era the most on clay, is probably Rafael Nadal.

Yes that I think is what people are really argueing when they say "greatest ever" they mean most dominant or accomplished. I mean when they compare Laver or Fed they honestly don't think of Roger playing head to head against Laver 10 times to see what would happen. I mean I think everyone knows with the growth and evolution physically of modern athletes that fed probably beats laver assuming modern technology. But what they are really talking about in these comparisons I think is who has the best resume and is the most accomplished or dominant when they played the game. Invariably these clay goat and goat discussions become a resume and accomplishment comparing discussion.

For me it has to be Nadal I have thought it before he won 7 RG finals.
His record in Rome and Monte Carlo are also going to be difficult to beat.
to have won 50 matches out of 51 at RG has to be in itself an amazing achievement.

Nadal had already overtaken Borg’s clay achievements, this RG takes him further. Borg’s RG record withstood 30 years; why can’t Nadal’s last longer. Nadal is still active; Borg retired at the same age. With victory this year at RG, he appears to have dispelled all doubts, and perhaps all doubting Thomases.

Nadal has improved but so is the competition, this year he looked like in Vintage form yet an off color out of Djokovic took him to 4 sets, I am yet to see a fit and form Del Potro vs Rafa Nadal in FO, I still remember how close their davis cup tie on clay was.

So yes while Rafa is getting better so is his competition , so inspite of Rafa being at his best he might still lose some matches in RG.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal has improved but so is the competition, this year he looked like in Vintage form yet an off color out of Djokovic took him to 4 sets, I am yet to see a fit and form Del Potro vs Rafa Nadal in FO, I still remember how close their davis cup tie on clay was.

So yes while Rafa is getting better so is his competition , so inspite of Rafa being at his best he might still lose some matches in RG. :thumbsup:

IC you are not raining on my parade because you are telling me and his fans nothing more than Rafa has said himself.. and did after the tournament. He knows that every tournament he wins is special to him. He lives in the moment ic and I think he is fully aware that it cant go on forever .. but you cant take today away from him or his fans. So we will worry about RG next year not now.