GOAT Discussions

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 28, 2012.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Santana was injured.
    The only major WIN was the 1972 French, the only tough match being against Metreveli (Nastase lost in the first round).
    Of course, Gimeno was a good player. But not significantly above others such as Emmo, Santana, Stolle, Newcombe, Roche, Ralston, etc.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  2. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I have tried to clear up the confusion and amended the listing for 1958.
    I hope that it is clearer now.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, you have not answered my remark that the former pros (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) won the vast majority of open majors in the first years of open era.

    I correct me: they won 8 out of 10 majors (or 10 out of 13 majors). They did it even though they were old men then! Is there a better prove that the outcast pros have been clearly better than the amateurs?

    Lew Hoad might have been impressed by Santana's 1965 grass game because Manolo was earlier known as a typical claycourt player. Absolutely he was not awesome on grass in comparison to the top pros.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Santana was injured for years?

    "Gimeno was a good player"? From now onwards I will call you the GOAT expert for this comment.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  5. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    The "old pros" (not including Newcombe, Roche, Smith, Ashe) won six of the first seven, only Ashe winning at Forest Hills, but in 1970 and 1971 the younger guys finally broke through, although Rosewall won at Forest Hills.
    This dominance was mainly by Laver and Rosewall. Where was Gimeno (apart from the weakened 1972 French), Stolle, Ralston, Bucholz, McKay, etc. Emmo had a good run at Wimbledon in 1970 and Forest Hills in 1969.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I'm afraid we will never become friends because of your strange kind of argumentation. I just cannot stand you.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Again wrong: The younger guys did not break through after 1969. Laver and Rosewall just could not or would not participate at all majors. When they did the still were awesome.

    I have already given you Gimeno's highlights in open era, but you just ignore them. Okay.... Stolle, Buchholz, Ralston were still very good even when they declined.. For instance Ralston beat Newcombe at the AO and Laver at the US Open...

    Stolle and Buchholz had also good runs in open majors. Not just Emmo.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  8. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786


    You are the one that's wrong. Laver participated in the 1970 Wimbledon and US Open and didn't make it past the 4th round at either event. Not exactly "awesome".
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I'm not as wrong as you might think. Of course you are right that Laver had a terrible downfall in 1970 and later (that's the reason, btw, why I cannot give him the alone No.1 for 1970) but Rosewall and Gimeno kept carrying the flag of the old pros: Rosewall won the 1970 US Open and reached final at Wim.,Gimeno reached SF at Wim., Rosewall won the strong 1971 AO and reached SFs at Wim., Rosewall won the 1972 AO and Gimeno won the 1972 French Open. How good the old pros might have been we can see also in Rosewall's two big finals in 1974 when he was 39.

    I agree that Laver declined earlier than Rosewall, at least at the majors.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  10. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Sorry but the whole problem of that argument is Borg only got to play a hard court during his absolute peak years of 1978-1981. It would be like if the only hard court slam Nadal could ever play was the U.S Open from 2008-2011, and in that case Nadal's overall record would be superior to Borg with a title, runner up, and two semis, vs Borg who has no title, one more final, but a loss in the quarters which Nadal those years did not have. Had Borg had to play the U.S Open on hard courts before 1978 you can rest assured he would have numerous early losses, as it was he had 3 losses before the quarters the 5 previous years with it played on clay or grass, so would likely (almost certainly) have only been worse, or in absolute best unlikely case scenario no better, had it been on hard courts.
     
  11. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Borg is ahead of Nadal. he has pedigree on both slow and fast courts. nadal, for a lack of better word, sucks on fast courts. That is all i need to know.

    Also Borg's 11 slams come from 3 majors a year since no one played AO. So if we normalize his major count, we get

    11 *4/3 = 14.66 ~ 15 majors.

    Or you can pick the most important non-slam tournament from that era and add it to Borg's slam count. Either way, Borg is miles ahead of Nadal.

    Like I said in some other post, Nadal needs 3 more non-FO slams, preferably from at least 2 of the majors on top of what he already has. nadal could win another 50 FO's, it doesnt add anything to his GOAT status. he needs to double his non-clay resume and add some big indoor titles to go above borg. unfortunately, I don't see that happening. sucks cos nadal works hard, he was just never as talented as borg or federer.

    Borg is no.2 on the all time great list. ahead of sampras who is in a way reverse nadal. great on fast courts but comparatively sucked on slow courts.

    P.S sorry to school you like this but sometimes adults have to discipline kids with honest talk. i am sure you will get over it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    For once I agree with you
    Fact is AO does not equal WCT or Masters during Borg days so we must consider indoor majors when comparing both guys
     
  13. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    If that's how things are, Nadal would only play the French Open, because he'd then effectively have 7*4/1 = 28 Majors. But that's not how things are, unfortunately, so Nadal has 11 Majors and do does Borg. The difference-maker is that Nadal hasn't quit at 26. Yet.
     
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Borg retired at 25 with more majors than Nadal at 25
     
  15. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    Borg has the best percentage of grand slam finals reached and grand slams won. He played 27 slams and reached 16 finals, wining 11.

    He has more slams than Lendl, Agassi, Mac, etc. playing only 3 slams per year and retiring at 25.

    An absolute beast.
     
  16. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    No because all 4 majors today are regarded as important. Back in the day, AO was not. your argument sucks.

    My argument posted above is solid. Even kiki agrees with me FFS
     
  17. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Borg did have an amazing career, his versatility in order to adjust his game fron clay to grass was and still is unparalleled but he was never as dominant as other players great players have been, and that in my opinion is what excludes him from tier 1 greats (i consider him a top 5 player all time though behind Fed, Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras).
    For example, during his prime years (1978-1981) he won 7 out of 11 majors played (64%). He also won 2 Masters. Federer in his prime years (2004-2007) won 11 out of 16 majors (69%) and in addition 3 Masters. Borg won a total of 34 titles whereas Federer won a total of 42 titles.
    Overall not a big difference but nevertheless a clear one. I personally regard dominance in peak years as the main criteria to evaluate greatness and is my feeling that sometimes Borg is a bit overhyped around here as he was some superhuman being during his dominant years where it was almost impossible to beat him.
     
  18. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    Actually Borg won over 70 tournaments in his best five years including an incredible 21 in 1979. I believe Borg won 76 tournaments over his best five years. For example in 1979 Borg won the French, Wimbledon, the Masters, the Canadian Open over McEnroe on hard court. Borg's winning percentages over that period exceed anyone but Bill Tilden plus his games won percentages are on a totally different level from anyone perhaps ever.

    Borg was not overhyped. For example Pat Rafter won two majors and eleven tournaments in his whole career. Borg in 1979 surpassed Rafter's entire career and I believe Rafter is in the Hall of Fame.
     
  19. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    That is a complete strawman. I have Fed slightly ahead of Borg anyway so I don't know why you posted all the above.

    As for Sampras, b**ch please..

    Sampras is the complete opposite of nadal. great fast court, sucked comparatively on slow courts. Thus, Borg will always be ahead of sampras and he has more majors when we normalize them anyway.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    ROTFL the very idea you think Borg is ahead of 2 out of 3 of Laver, Gonzales, or Federer is already enough to not bother reading any of the rest of your post (which I am sure was complete and utter crap anyhow).

    BTW people retiring at 25 is NOT a further mark of greatness, in fact just the opposite. Dont make me laugh by even thinking of introducing that as a way to further build Borg up. That is even more ridiculous than the fantasy Australian Opens for Borg some are trying to award.

    As for Borg and Sampras, Sampras is easily better than Borg on any surface outside of clay (where of course Borg is light years ahead). Sampras did not suck on all slow courts, I am quite sure he is easiily better than Borg on a hard court of any speed, slow, medium, or fast. Now as for normalizing, if we are going to do one what if we might as well do them all, so if Borg couldnt win the U.S Open not only on fast hard courts in all his peak years, but on more preferred surfaces in his non peak ones, so the only normalization to assume when comparing him to Sampras and Nadal is if the Australian Open were also on hard courts like the times of both Sampras and Nadal, and he played it every year, he would have probably won none and still had only 11 slams. Meanwhile if we want to do a hypothetical for all from Borg's vantage point, now the Australian Open is on grass for all 3 rather than hards, and all playing in full fields like a regular slam each year, all time grass GOAT Sampras then gains a TON more slams vs the few Borg gains, and Nadal probably even gains an additional 1 or 2 as he is better on grass than hard courts himself. So in the latter scenario Borg might stand in better stead vs Nadal, but yet even worse vs Sampras. When Sampras retired nobody ranked him below Borg btw.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2012
  21. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    And how many of those 21 tournaments have a 4 or an 8 man field?? Give me a break here, you know perfectly well that those exhibitions should not have the same value as an ATP recognized tournament. Otherwise we should sart to take more seriously those exhibitions between Sampras and Federer or what about The Battlle of the Surfaces between Fed and Rafa, should we award the winner of that match with a title too??
    I am not taking anything away from Borg, i would be crazy to deny him as an all time great, but in my opinion he doesn`t belong in the top tier.
     
  22. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    So let me get this straight for you:

    12 majors > 11 majors (not counting AO)
    6 years as the top player (1993-1998) > at best 4 years as the top player ( 1977-1980)
    better player on grass and hard> better player on clay
    5 masters > 2 masters and 1 WCT

    Keep up the good work sun :)
     
  23. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Kiki would agree with any argument favoring great grandfathers, it's like me celebrating about NadalAgassi agreeing with me. Borg didn't win the USO despite full commitment towards winning one. What makes you think he'd have won the AO in, say, today's field?
     
  24. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Borg retired at 26, my dear Kiki. And he quit, more like.
     
  25. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    You sound a little butthurt but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

    Sampras marginally better player on fast but not even in the same stratosphere on clay. Even on grass, sampras could never win 5 wimbledons in a row. Dont get me started on how much sampras sucked on clay.

    Thus Borg > samopras. always was and will be.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  26. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Atleast Borg got to 4 USO finals

    Sampras has how many finals ar RG?
     
  27. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Still achieved more than sampras and was more dominant. Rather live a day like a lion than a 100 years like a jackal. LMAO He left on his own terms which makes him an incredible human being and a greater champion.
     
  28. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Compare likes for likes, please.

    Sampras : 7 Wimbledons, Borg : 6 French Opens
    Sampras : 5 US Opens, Borg : 5 Wimbledons
    Sampras : 2 Australian Opens, Borg : 4 US Open finals

    Even if we disregard the AO during Borg's time and take into account his WCT wins, Sampras is ahead by a good bit.
     
  29. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Just want to add, i don't think people comprehend what Borg was able to do with his 3 consecutive channel slams.

    he would grind from the baseline at the FO and win. two weeks later he would be serving and volleying against the best on grass and winning wimbledon.

    I want you to think about that for a second.
     
  30. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    He lived like a lion and he quit when he had become a Jackal. Make no mistake about it, he was a jackal when he quit. Sampras, and hopefully Nadal, have more heart than Borg ever did. That's a champion.
     
  31. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Thought about it, I'd still put Federer, Sampras and Nadal (given time) over him.
     
  32. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    sampras who couldnt get to 1 french open final

    nadal who hasnt shown his face after the embarassing loss at wimbledon against world no 105

    oh and lets not forget threatening to boycott a tournament becos clay was the wrong color
    hahahahhahahahahahahaha

    great champions indeed.
     
  33. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Borg who couldn't get to one US Open win, even when it was on his best surface, Clay.

    Borg, who sulked off center-court like a little boy after he was spanked by McEnroe and was never relevant again.

    See, I can do it too.

    Besides, Nadal was more worried about the surface being slippery than its freaking color.
     
  34. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    On Grass : Sampras > Borg

    On Clay : Borg >>> Sampras

    On Hardcourts : Sampras >> Borg
     
  35. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    on fast courts

    sampras > borg

    on slow courts

    borg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sampras

    thus borg >>> sampras
     
  36. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    ofcourse because that exposes nadal for what he is. a glorified grinder/pusher who could never dominate on fast skidding courts by being agressive.
     
  37. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    False, false, false.

    Sampras would've decimated Borg on Hardcourts, much like Borg would've Sampras on Clay. You know this, which is why you over generalize and oversimplify matters with the black/white fast/slow court distinction.
     
  38. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    more nonsense without proof. go ahead and post some proof my dancing monkey. it feels great to see you so desperate to get my approval. LMAO
     
  39. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Apart from the fact that the game in Sampras' era was very different to what it was in Borg's era, on what do you base the assertion in your quote above? Remember that Sampras lost to players like Yzaga, Philippoussis, Korda and Kucera in hardcourt majors during the periods when he was world number 1. Also, Borg only played in 4 hardcourt majors in his career, while Sampras played in 25 hardcourt majors.
     
  40. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    The same basis on which people state Borg would decimate Sampras on Clay: their respective records on the surface.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  41. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Prove that Borg could beat Sampras on Clay. Go on, prove it :)
     
  42. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,692
    Sampras was better than Borg on 3 out of the 4 surfaces; grass, hard and carpet/indoors which is a big plus in his favour.

    Plus his longevity was outstanding. I've always believed that his feat of winning slam titles as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s (Rosewall is the only other man to have done that) is one of the most underrated achievements in tennis history. In fact I believe that Sampras's longevity is actually better than Agassi's, which was hugely aided by him half-assing it and not fully dedicating himself to the sport throughout most of his 20s.

    As far as domination goes, Sampras was the year end no. 1 from 1993-1998, and Borg was the best for 3 years from 1978-1980, so you can argue that Sampras was far more dominant. However if you look at the quality of Borg's prime years, they were better than Sampras's in my opinion. I think that Borg's 1979 and 1980 were both better seasons than any years that Sampras ever had. His 1978 also rivals any of Sampras's best seasons. Borg's 1976 and 1977 seasons when he wasn't the best player in the world, were still better than Sampras's 1996 and 1998 seasons when he finished as the year end no. 1. Sampras was never really as dominant over a stretch of years as Borg was from 1978-1980.

    I do think it is very close between them and many writers and tennis historians considered Borg to be greater than Sampras and vice versa. Neither of those two players are on the same tier as Federer or Laver in my opinion though.
     
  43. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    LOL... so you have been trolling all along. i thought u were having a serious discussion. LMAO..well played. i fell for it initially. 9/10 for effort
     
  44. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    If I was trolling, so were you. You asked me to prove Sampras could beat Borg on Hards, and I asked you to prove Borg could beat Sampras on Clay. Hypocrisy much? Hmm?
     
  45. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Hardcourts wasn't that widespread in Borg's era, and he still won 7 hardcourt titles. Borg also won 6 titles on grass, 42 titles on clay and 46 titles on carpet, so he was clearly excellent across all surfaces.
     
  46. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Borg was the more rounded player, no doubt about that, but Sampras was still better on every surface other than Clay (where he was way worse). But then, if Sampras was that good on Clay, he'd be up there with Federer fighting for the GOAT position, or heck, he'd be the undisputed GOAT.
     
  47. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    Here again the same inconsistency. One speculation and not the other. You're happy moving some of the conditions of Nadal's time, like an all-hardcourt USO, into Borg's time. But other conditions of Nadal's time, you won't give to Borg. Imagine if Borg, Connors and McEnroe had an AO in their time that was on par with the other Slams, in terms of prize money, prestige, attendance and ranking points; and imagine it was played in January, starting a new season rather than cutting into the off-season. There is no way that under those conditions, Borg, Connors and McEnroe would not be playing the AO every year.

    About your first speculation, putting the USO at Flushing Meadow throughout Borg's career: as I said above, he would probably be taking early losses in those early years. But paradoxically I think it improves his chances of winning at Flushing when he hits his peak. In '78 when the USO moved to Flushing, it was a necessary but controversial move; people complained about the surface, the planes, the noise, the lights, you name it. But after a few years, the hullabaloo died down to some extent, as people realized this was what the USO was going to be. There were a lot of things about Flushing that Borg did not like, but if he'd been playing there from the start, as a teen, I think there would have been a good chance that he would have settled in by the late 70s and adapted to the place -- like Stefan Edberg did after many uncomfortable years there.

    So no, I don't agree with your "absolute best unlikely case scenario no better". I think if you put Borg at Flushing from the beginning of his career, his chances of taking the title late in his career (as Nadal did) improve.

    You can't assume zero wins for Borg on AO hardcourts just because he didn't win at Flushing. He lost at Flushing to three Americans (Connors, Tanner and McEnroe) who had the highest possible motivation -- winning their home Slam -- and who all fed off the rowdy energy at Flushing, or were, at worst, comfortable with it. Connors was never better than in front of the New York crowd; and McEnroe was born in New York.

    In Australia it would have been reversed. Sampras mentioned in his book how he didn't particularly like the AO, for various little reasons (including the surface); obviously he found his deepest motivation at Wimbledon and at his home Slam. I guess that would have been generally true for the Americans that Borg lost to.

    Sampras also mentioned how much the Swedes tended to like the AO. I think he put it down to how they thrived in the intense heat. Do I even need to go into how Borg would have thrived in that heat, especially against his less fit American rivals?

    Wilander loved playing in Australia when it was still at Kooyong and won that title early. He did well when it moved to Rebound Ace, winning on his first try, with big wins over defending champion Edberg and hometown hero Cash. New York was a tougher place for him throughout his career; it took him longer to adapt there, though he did eventually (just like Edberg).

    And I think Rebound Ace would have suited Borg more than DecoTurf. The high bounce would have been to his liking (same as it was for Chris Evert and, of course, for Agassi). His main obstacle, McEnroe, would have done better, imo, on the fast courts at Flushing.

    Same with the Australian grass. The bounce there was higher than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills, because the dry heat hardened the turf. The one year that Wimbledon played close to that was 1976, in the middle of a long English heat wave. Dan Maskell noted how the high bounce that year was to Borg's liking: and Borg won that Wimbledon without dropping a set, not having any of the problems he usually had in Wimbledon's first week when the grass is typically still thick and often slippery.

    Sampras, as the grasscourt GOAT, would have done great on any grass surface. But I hope you're not assuming that because he won 7 Wimbledons we might as well imagine 6 to 8 AO titles for him. As he said himself, he never especially liked the AO, for various reasons; now imagine him playing at the inferior Kooyong facilities, for less prize money, in December. How motivated do you think he would have been there, compared to Wimbledon or the USO?

    Rod Laver won 4 Wimbledons, but he didn't win 4 times at the other grasscourt majors. He took the AO three times; the USO just twice. Sampras' haul of AO titles, even if he got to play it on grass, could have been significantly lower than his 7 Wimbledon titles.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    sonicare, I agree
     
  49. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    borg with his style of play would've probably done better on slow HC than sampras tbh .....
     
  50. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes, he gave Jimbo a big scarece.Connors always aknowledged Jan.But he was a bit past his prime, although the 1974 version of Jimmy Connors , well, I think just the best Newcombe or the best Nastase could have beaten him.
     

Share This Page