Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Phoenix1983, Dec 7, 2012.
Djokovic will surpass both Sampras and Nadal
LOL, ha ha ha !!!!!!
typically clueless ..... the WCT/Masters were wayyyyy bigger than the AO in borg's time ....
no, nadal wasn't even close to dominating grass as borg did ... that 21 year old nadal's performance in that final was probably his 2nd best performance on grass ( to the 2008 final ) ... so its not like he's put up many performances better than that ...
djoker also defeated him quite convincingly in 2011 final and rosol knocked him out early in 2012 .....
first of all do you seriously think rafa would have come close to dominating on the fast low bouncing grass as borg did ???? :lol:
regarding borg quitting because of mcenroe, what a load of cr*p ........ mcenroe challenged borg in 80 and borg beat him ...
borg quit because of burnout and because he was forced by the rules then to qualify for the majors if he didn't play enough tournaments ..
its unbelievable how many clueless are there who believe he quit because of mac ....
Final H2H was 7 all with zero matches on clay .... mac wouldn't stand a chance on clay vs borg except maybe in 84 .... mac was 3-1 in majors vs him, but borg was 2-0 at the masters and the masters were extremely prestigious at that time ...
connors owned borg far worse initially and he turned it around completely dominating him ...
ancic would have a decent shot at beating him in the 06 finals .... 07 , he'd most probably have won though .... and borg would have had 6 in a row if not for mac .... ( their 4-setter in 81 was as close as it gets for a 4-setter )
right, because borg had that many chances @ HC slams as nadal did :roll:
nadal has the edge on HC in terms of accomplishments, but playing level wise, it isn't much different and it isn't a level comparision here as borg played far far less on HC than nadal has .....
actually you are the one who is delusional ........ but then whatever suits you :lol:
my rating of borg over nadal isn't because I'm biased or something like that, its because I have a much better perspective of history than you do ...
I rate borg only slightly behind sampras , would have rated him above him if he had won just one more slam ...
borg was no 1 for 4 years 77 to 80 ( 77 is debatable , agreed ) ( scr*w the stupid ATP rankings at that time ) , nadal only for two ..
purely open era alone, IMO, federer > ( some gap ) sampras >(marginally ) borg > (some gap ) nadal
I doubt that.. But he should passed Connors and Mac in the next few years.
Yeah and if he surpasses Connors and Mac then he will surpass everyone of Sampras's rivals too. So that makes Federer's competition much tougher than Sampras's. But you will never go for that idea. You're so biased for Sampras's era when the days of Connors, Borg and Mac were much tougher.
Could connors or Mac beat Federer? well Connors took a young agassi to 5 sets there when he was 37 years old. He made the semis of the US Open the year after Sampras won it for the first time, and he was 39. Weak era? :lol: It's hard to compare eras but if we're going to suppose Laver would have a chance against Federer, then Connors and Mac certainly would.
Gotta laugh at Djokovic being compared to a 5 times and 4 times USO champion. No he doesn't compare to them, he hadn't even won it when Nadal faced him. Also bear in mind that the only times Djokovic has beaten Federer at the US Open, he had to save match points and against a 29 and 30 year old Federer, but for which he would be 0-5 at the event. He has always struggled there vs Fed.
If Murray is there, he won't surpass any of them in terms of slams. (Since they'll share slams equally among each other I'd think in the next few years while Nadal is the FO guardian)
Why not? He's got another 4 good years left. 16 slams up for grabs in that time. Say Murray takes a few and Delpo a couple. Djoker has 10 for him to give him 15. Fedal are done.
ROFLMAO. Djoker isn't a real Fed "contemporary rival". There is a 6 year difference there.. Nice try though. Fed was already working on slam #10 or something by the time Djoker reached his real potential
And do you seriously not think Nole will not grab some more USO titles? He will get in the 3-5 vicinity before its all said and done. You can count on that.
lol, you are a massive joke .......
any decent player could've beaten federer who played cr*p at USO 2010 SF ...
fair play to djoker for the USO 2011 one, but he still had to save MPs ....I'd give an in-form mac a good shot at defeating 2011 fed and connors a decent shot as well ...
lol @ the agassi mention ... connors and mac were by some distance better at the USO ... connors won in 78 , beating borg, in 82 & 83 beating lendl ... and even at 30+ years went toe-to-toe with peak mac in 84 ...
mac of course won 4 USOs, 79,80,81 and 84 .... by some distance better than agassi, not even close .....
ROFLMAO. Did Mac and Connors have to deal with Sampras their entire careers at the USO? Get outta here with that weak crap. Agassi had to deal with Sampras at his peak at the USO and Fed at his peak.
Djoker and Agassi had to contend with arguably the two greatest USO players in HISTORY. Mac and Connors wouldn't have faired well at all if they were in Andre's spot. Andre's career overlapped BOTH Fed and Pete's USO peaks
Hell if Andre didn't have to play Sampras and Fed all those times at the USO he would have a good 6-7 USO titles himself. NO ONE had more bad luck then Agassi did at the USO. He had to deal with the arguably the two greatest players of all time at their peaks there
yes and no .......
yes to the point regarding playing level ...
no to the point regarding accomplishments
if we are comparing by today's standards only, you'd think nadal has surpassed borg ...
but if you take into consideration that the situation was completely different in the 70s when borg played, no .... borg's accomplishments are better some distance - when you factor in the 2 YECs and his Dallas win ......
mac and connors dealt with each other + lendl + borg ....... clueless ....
fact is andre didn't win any of those matches ......his biggest wins @ the two USOs he won were stich and todd martin ......compared to mac/connors conquests there , they pale in comparision ....
at federer's prime, djoker won 1 set in 3 matches @ the USO ....
So Lendl, Connors, Mac the equivalent of dealing with Sampras or Federer all those years? Clueless huh?? :shock:
I would rather deal with Connors, Mac and Borg any day of the week at the USO then have to deal with Sampras and Fed (in their primes) 7 or 8 times in my career
Sampras and Fed only have TEN USO titles in between them afterall.. Not much right?
dumb point .. the AO didn't have much significance in borg's time ....
if you say borg didn't win USO, that's fine ...but he did win 3 of the 4 most important tournaments in his time - wimbledon, FO and masters/Dallas
and borg has 5 wimbledon's to nadal's 2
he dominated two slams, nadal only one ...
lol, yeah, mac and borg played each other 14 times , they were 7 all ....none of those matches on clay ... mac wouldn't stand a chance vs borg on clay (except in 84 , but then their matches were before that ) , if they had played 4-5 matches there, h2h would easily be in favour of borg
LOL, no . he has a pretty good case and IMO
borg > nadal ATM
yes, sampras and federer are better than mac/lendl/connors on deco II ..
agassi didn't actually win any of those matches vs sampras or federer ( at his prime ) ... if he had, you'd have a point ...
mac, lendl, connors actually beat each other @ the USO ... far better wins than any agassi had at the USO
prime lendl/connors/mac > prime agassi @ the USO ...
He took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years of age (Who else could do that at that age).. Played him tough in 2005 (after playing 3 straight 5 setters), beat Fed in 2001, played Sampras tough a few times (especially in 2001 when they went those 4 TB's).
I think Andre did pretty well for himself considering the circumstances.
not quite, I think he should've taken out sampras once , either 95 or 2001 ....95 even more so , if he had done so, then would have rated him on par with mac/connors/lendl on deco II ....
you think agassi played sampras tough there ???
watch connors-mac at 84 .... connors at 30+ plays one of finest matches vs peak mac ... mac served at ~65% and yet his winning % at the net was only close to 50% ....
only in 2001 did agassi play close to his very best - that was a classic match ; in the other 3 matches, nope ... the 90 final was a poor performance , 95 and 2002 finals were just decent performances
as far as taking fed to 5 in 2004, the heavy wind was a major factor , otherwise, match would probably have been over in 4 IMO ... still give him quite a bit of credit for stretching federer there and even in the 2005 final ....
and connors/mac/lendl have 12 USOs between them (with 10 of them on deco II ) .... not much right ? :lol:
And yet when Djokovic hit his prime he still had to come back from 2 sets to 0 down and save match points vs a 29 year old Federer. Anyway my point is, you're the one always going on about how Djokovic doesn't compare to an old Becker, Courier etc, but he's better than prime Connors and Mac? ROLMFAO, you samptards will say anything. Mac and connors are much better than Becker and Courier :lol: Djokovic might grab some more US Open titles but will he get to 5? Was Nadal facing TWO players who were already on their way to 4-5 titles? Even if Murray wins 4 and Djokovic wins 5, both players started winning the US Open after Nadal won his. Borg was dealing with established champions.
They had to deal with EACHOTHER. Connors won it as many times as Sampras and yet Mac still managed to win 4 times. Even when Mac was the young guy and Connors was getting old, both guys won. Agassi had enough chances to win 4 titles as well, he had enough years where sampras wasn't an issue. He didn't though. And news for you but Connors is arguably the greatest US Open player too.
And wait, Djokovic had to contend with Federer? But Fed is not a "real contempoary rival" :lol:
As for agassi winning 6-7 US Open titles, no. In 1990 with no Sampras lendl would probably have won, in 1995 Agassi probably would have won, in 2001 vs Hewitt and Safin it's 50/50 and in 2002 Agassi probably would have won. So 4, maybe 5 US Open's at the most.
Another point, Agassi had to deal with prime Fed as well? Why does that even matter when he was old broken back, hobbling Agassi? Who cares if you have to deal with God when you are old and broken and stand no chance of winning? No Borg was more unlucky.
Yeah and Mac and Connors have NINE between them, that's not that much different. Difference is Borg had to deal with both of them in his PRIME year (in other words the years where he had the best chance of winning) Agassi dealt with only Sampras in his prime. He dealt with prime Federer from 2004 when he was 34 and had a broken back etc... who cares who you are facing in the years when you're too old to win anyway?
Connors took Agassi to 5 sets at the USO at the age of 37 and finished just out of the top 10. In 1991 he retired at 2 sets all agaisnt chang at RG.. a 39 year old taking a RG champion to 5 on clay? Yeah some would say Connors was good as an oldie too.
Answer to the original question....No
Borg = tennis God..........nuff said
Didn't know this was even a question. Nadal is much more dominant than Borg.
You also need to take note I am guessing the majority of people on this forum have never even seen a full borg match or any number of his matches, you kids were still in utero when borg was spooging all the super models. If you knew borg, you knew that as well as being a sure hand at just overall doing things well from ball striking, and being very consistant; he was most famous for just being the quickest guy on the court. You couldn't get anything past him. He was a jack rabbit and that's how he earned most of his wins. That and versatility. But Nadal is just a beast. He is like a cyborg with just intensity, strength, power and spin. His ball lands and shoots up in the air with all the spin, his shots curve in mid air. He drags you out so wide that there is no way for you to get the back into the court while he's at net. Nadal is well able to win the FO and other grandslams past the age of 25. That is one BIG note that you need to understand that Borg could never do. He retired and came back at 25 and was still playing with a woodie, while everyone else converted to graphite and aluminum and he could no longer win any matches. In fact, he lost some really embarrassing matches too. His style was more of a old school style with slicing and flat hitting. The power that came with the new technology outlasted him. Nadal on the other hand is like granite. He is almost unbreakable.
How can you even compare Borg to Nadal. His accomplishments will be overtaken even more as time goes on, but I would say 2 slams ago, Nadal was much foreseeable as the more dominant force.
Who's this Borg guy people speak about?
not sure if serious :shock:
OMG where to begin.........are you sure you ever saw Borg play? Borg was not a flat ball hitter....he started using his slice more and more as it become stronger but he was all heavy topspin. His balls would pass 2 to 2 1/2 meters over the net and kick up just as much. Yes he was one of if not the fastest players on tour and his freaky metabolism and lower heart rate allowed him to outlast just about anyone. But he played damn smart percentage tennis and had excellent tactics and with Bergelin he worked his but off learning his opponents. Maybe you need to revisit the 1976 Wimby final, 1978 Wimby semi or 1980 Wimby final - or the 78 Panetta match in Rome......Borg was a shot maker period.
[QUOTE=cc0509;7052038]Let's just see how Nadal is in the next couple of years. Nadal could be burned out too for all we know but he has not pulled a Borg yet. Who knows what is really going on with Nadal right now.[/QUOTE]
I'm shivering with excitement dude with that statement in bold......oooops,
must be that the heater is not on, and is damn cold!!! .......:twisted::twisted:
Uh, no. The ATP awarded Borg player of the year in 1977 and 1978, even though Connors was ranked number one. So even the ATP recognized how awful their computer rankings were and knew Borg was the best player in those years. The ITF also called Borg World Champion in 1978. He was indisputably the best player of 1978 and arguably the best in 1977 along with Vilas (Connors being a distant third despite holding the number one ranking). No what-ifs involved.
The ATP hated Connors with a passion at the time so they are hardly a reliable source. 1977 Vilas was the real #1 of the year anyway, not Borg. 1978 was probably Borg, but it wasnt a landslide, and if it were a landslide he would have surely atleast managed it on the computer and didnt. Also funny to see you say it like this when you actually said Serena Williams wasnt best player in the World a few months again only since she isnt ranked #1, lol! The other posters point is correct, as far as time spent actually ranked #1, Borg and Nadal are virtually the same in every aspect- 2 year end #1s, almost same weeks, Borg had a longer consecutive span ranked #1, but one could say Nadal spending large parts of 4 straight years ranked #1 is more impressive.
I don't think there's any parallel between the ATP in the 70s and the modern WTA. The tour was still in flux in the 70s. Borg played lots of tournaments that didn't count toward his ATP ranking.
I don't know what you mean by landslide, but I'm pretty sure no respectable tennis source would argue Connors was actually the best player of 1978. It's definitely Borg's year. I agree, though, that Vilas was the best player of 1977.
Indeed, the WTA ranking system of the last decade is by FAR worse and more controversial than the ATP's ranking system ever was, making it far less credible than the ATP ranking system while not always perfect or irrefutable, at all times was. Speaking of Players of Year only 4 times in the last 15 years did the WTA year end #1 even win WTA Player of Year. Those being Serena twice and Henin twice, the only credible #1 ranked women players (considering others who at times were the credible #1s like Venus and Clijsters hardly ever spent any time ranked there by the silly WTA computer) of the last 12 years atleast.
The fact that you are arguing means it's extremely close.
The fact that Nadal has not retired yet makes his odds of clearly, unquestionably surpassing Borg pretty good.
Nadal's career will also be longer than Borg's.
Very even poll as expected.
17-16 in favour of Nadal having surpassed Borg are the results so far.
Should have made the poll public. Next time dude.
Oh so because it was bigger than AO back then, that should count against Nadal now right? Great logic you dumbass.
IF there was a major exclusively indoor in this era, Nadal would've adapted his game to suit those conditions and won it. Proof is, you look at every major Rafa has won each of them. He doesn't/didn't play the same style at each of those majors he CLEARLY made changes for each of them to give himself a better chance at winning. Unless you want to make the argument that Rafa played clay court style and STILL managed to win each of them because that would be an even more amazing accomplishment.
06WIM - Final def by Federer
07WIM - Final def by Federer
08WIM - Final def Federer
09WIM - DNP
10WIM - Final def Berdych
11WIM - Final
So that's 5/5 attempts making it to the final. Nadal would've had 4 WIM titles if not for having to deal with perhaps the greatest grass courter of all time.
Also, full credit to Rosol for beating Rafa, I thought he played incredible considering his ranking and Nadal was clearly not playing anywhere near his best in all his 2012 grass matches. But this doesn't mean Rafa didn't have a very dominant period on grass.
Who knows? How do you know he wouldn't have? Oh wait, you're going to use the low bouncing HC performances as a guide again aren't you? LOL don't be ridiculous, if a title as important as Wimbledon was still a fast low bouncing surface, Rafa would've adapted his game from probably before turning pro and could've had every chance to dominate it.
He quit because he couldn't handle losing to McEnroe, stop being delusional. If he had won WIM in 81 he would've stuck around for longer you could put your house on that.
You say Ancic would've had a chance at beating him in 06 ROFLMFAO! Ancic couldn't carry Nadal's bags.
Who's fault is that? Is that Nadal's fault? Seriously Borg could've had many more chances if he didn't put his tail between his legs and run from the sport. Not that it would've mattered anyway, he was simply not good enough to win the USO in his era anyway.
lol stop drinking your own bath water. There's no way that you can compare Nadal and Borg's playing level on HC. Rafa has beaten the godly Roger Federer in not only many HC matches, but more importantly he is UNDEFEATED against Federer in grand slam HC matches. Fed would sweep the court with Borg on a HC.
Not to mention that Novak is the best at AO since it switched to plexicushion, hasn't lost a set to Federer at AO IINM, yet Nadal who can only play on clay came within a bee's dick to beating him in the AO12 final.
Playing level wise on outdoor HC, Rafa OWNS Borg there's no doubt about it.
LOL there is some gap between Nadal and Borg alright, but you've got it the wrong way around.
Anybody playing in Federer's era would've been behind him in the rankings. The fact that a 22 year old Nadal took that ranking away from Federer should be enough evidence alone of how good he is OFF clay.
Nadal owns a winning h2h against any top 10 player, more importantly in majors he owns the remaining "big 4" players apart from maybe Novak where it could be considered closer. Nadal leads that too btw 6-3.
He has beaten Federer, Novak and Murray on all 3 surfaces that the majors are played on. Those 3 cannot say the same regarding Nadal as they've NEVER beaten him on clay at RG and grass too in Murray's case since he has never beaten him at WIM either.
So Nadal has the versatility to beat the other 3 major contenders of his era at any one of those slams whereas the same cannot be said about his rivals. They cannot beat him at RG (unless he's injured of course, but I'm talking if they're all healthy) and it seems Fed can't beat him at any major at all anymore.
Now tell me Borg could beat his rivals at any major and I'll kindly point you towards Borg's failed USO campaigns lol.
no , clueless, I'm not saying it should count against nadal, rather than it should count in favour of borg, but all you can think of is rafa , rafa, rafa .... blah, blah , blah .......
you are talking about rafa's adjustments to win all the majors ? jeez, borg went from slow, grinding rallies @ the FO to SnVing frequently @ wimbledon 2 weeks later ...... this isn't to downplay rafa's adjustments to win off-clay, they were very impressive, no doubt, but borg's adjustments were far more drastic/impressive ...... he didn't adjust just to win wimbledon once or twice , he won it 5 times in a row and made the final for a 6th time !
compared to borg's 6 finals in a row ( including 5 wins ), that is not "dominant"
you don't even understand the word dominate ....... rafa may have a won a wimbledon or two by adapting there, but he sure as hell wouldn't have dominated as borg has ... he hasn't shown that level of adaptability at all ....
hell, even on the current grass, which favors him a lot more than the old, slick grass, he hasn't come close to matching borg's achievements on grass
even hypothetically, take fed out for nadal and mac out for borg, nadal has at max 4 wimbledons, borg has 6 wimbledons .... still quite some distance ......
as usual , typical ignorance ( or deliberating ignoring the facts to put down borg to pump up rafa in the comparison ) ....not surprising ....
he was getting beaten worse by connors from 74-76 and turned it completely around ...he didn't have problems handling losses ...
typical ******* ......suppose would be saying the same about 2005 USO blake, 2006 USO youzhny or 2007 AO gonzalez, 2012 wimbledon rosol etc .... if those wins over rafa didn't didn't actually happen :roll:
the AO wasn't on HC till 88 .... oh and yes, he definitely had the ability to win the USO in his era , just about missed out in 80 ..... he dominated and beat connors in straights in 81 ( connors took winner mac to 5 in 80 and would win the 82 and 83 USOs )
LOL, typical ignorance ... djoker's wins over fed @ the AO were with
a) 2008 - mono
b) 2011 - well past his prime federer
mind you, both matches were with djoker at his very best
he was sub-par by those standards in AO 2012 ...
borg took 4 time USO winner mac to the brink in 1980 final ( just as close as nadal did vs djoker in AO 2012 final )
and dominated connors , 5 time USO winner including thrice on HC ) winning in straights in 81 USO final
not much of a difference in playing level on HC at all ....
let's talk about some of nadal's losses in HC slams as well, shall we ?
Let's take it from 2007 onwards only - gets ripped apart by gonzo in the AO 2007 QF, ferrer beats him convincingly in USO 2007, tsonga rips him apart in AO 2008, murray defeats him convincingly in USO 2008, delpo rips him apart in USO 2009, murray defeats him convincingly in AO 2010, ferrer defeats him convincingly in AO 2011 (got injured on court, so maybe excuse this one ) , djoker defeats him convincingly in USO 2011 ... .
see a lot of domination/thrashings there !
only time borg was dominated like that in a HC slam was 78 USO final ( where he was injured ) ....
umm, no .....
oh, he is pretty good off clay , no doubt , but he isn't better than borg off clay ...
yes, borg was capable of beating his rivals at any major, he beat connors and was very close to winning vs mac in 80 ..
and plainly he'd have an even better chance @ the AO on rebound or plexicushion ....
Oh please. Stop acting like the injured party and talking about the "real" world for god's sake. From what I've seen on this forum I will agree that Nadal gets the short end of the stick so to speak more times than not (Sampras and Hewitt are others IMO), but you know this poll is not a clear cut case for Nadal, and if you don't then I can't help you. You seem to have a bad habit of talking about "****s" and "Planet TW" and generalizing a bunch of people as well, but I digress. I think everybody has that problem on this forum actually.
See this is the problem with this tennis forum (and probably many others). You get people like 90's clay or sonicare or myself or yourself who give an honest opinion (sometimes) and just get branded as a fan of some player, and/or a hater of another. Sometimes people are actually right, or they have enough believable facts to back up their opinions regardless of who they like or don't like. Take sonicare for example. He's been called a "Nadal hater" in this thread, and he might very well be, but that doesn't mean his opinion that Nadal hasn't surpassed Borg yet is "wrong" or counts for nothing.
As for my opinion, well I wish there was an even option in the poll, but if I was forced to give an answer I'd give a slight edge to Borg (funny hey ). Now if you asked me if someone like Djokovic, Agassi, or Connors was better in terms of pure acheivements than Nadal then I would say no everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. This is clear cut to me, and I'm pretty sure to a large majority of people. The Olympics and the AO are basically moot points. I don't think Nadal would choose to play the AO if it was the equivalent of a 500 or a 250, and Borg never played the Olympics. So he basically had 3 slams to win 11 whereas Nadal has 4. Nadal is better on clay, but Borg is better on grass by a larger margin IMO, and he had to deal with much larger differences in the surfaces. In Nadal's favour he has 21 MS titles compared to Borg's 15 equivalents. The other thing Nadal has over Borg is a USO, but it's not as if Borg was a total scrub there, and he has 2 (3?) YEC to Nadal's zero. Just my two cents.
Who shouldn't be satisfied is Fed, who lacked the talent to respond to someone of as limited talent as you claim Nadal is. Good for Fed to pack his slam count with victories against old men and irrelevant third rate fluke finalists.
My name is merely an hommage to the master. Prove any of my statements wrong. Take Fed's class away and his ability to win slam finals against nobodies or washed out, have-beens, and you end up with somebody who, despite his class, is far from being what some pretend he is.
Hahaha,add to that, the talentless Ralph had the gall to humiliate the elegant and graceful Fed, and take away numerous Slams from the GOAT. How arrogant of Rafa. Now that's funny............oooops wrong thread.....:twisted:
No you're name still fits you when you say things like "Federer would've been Borg's pigeon on all surfaces." You got any proof of this? Perhaps he would've dominated Federer, but based on the facts we have this is a terrible assumption to make. Federer is most likely better on today's grass, and he would probably have a fair shot against Borg on the faster stuff. He's also arguably a better HC player. As such you're assumption may not be wrong, but it is a bad one given the facts we have. QED.
When you compare two players of different eras who have never played each other, and who competed in completely different conditions and against completely different fields, all you have is assumptions. This whole thread (and more than 50% of this whole site) is just a bunch of assumptions, like the GOAT discussion.
Just because you don't like my assumption it doesn't make it terrible. Borg was a beast in clay and grass when grass was actual grass, and Fed has lost slams in clay (and fake grass) to somebody "of limited talent". LOL
And it's "YOUR", not "YOU'RE". That's my "assumption" anyway.
Oh, and I know the answer to your riddle. What happened to that noble user?
To expand a bit on my previous reply, Borg was considered the best of 1978 by not just the ATP but also the ITF and other sources like Tennis Magazine. Did all of these organizations have it out for Connors? There is no person or entity knowledgeable on tennis history who has said Connors was in fact the best player of that year, so yes, I think it is a landslide in Borg's favor. That makes it definitively three years of being the best player for Borg compared to two for Nadal, so not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless. And Borg also has the arguable 1977, which puts Nadal even further behind. And that's all I really meant when saying Borg had more time at the top (although I still expect Nadal to match or surpass Borg's three years).
Additionally, Borg was a dominant force on three surfaces: clay, grass, and indoor carpet. Nadal, while a contender on every surface, has been dominant really only on clay. This is reflected in Borg's domination of two separate slams, while Nadal has dominated only one. Not a definitive argument in Borg's favor, but certainly something to be thought about.
Umm listen here ****, the only reason why Ralph(who is indeed a player with limited talent) ever beats Fed is because he's matchup issue for Fed,this was established in their very first encounter back in friggin 2004 when Ralph was roaming around in his diapers and Fed was in his prime.
You and your kin will continue to deny this because your argument completely falls apart,but I'm not gonna get into an argument as to why a bad matchup is extremely hard to overcome,doesn't matter if your'e GOAT/not. The biggest reason why Fed is considered the GOAT by most experts is because they believe he's the most versatile and the most complete player the game has ever seen(he was called GOAT by some when he infact won only 5 slams)
Your mancrush Ralph got his ass kicked from Alaska to Texas against Djokovic 7 consecutive times on 4 different surfaces spanning 3 consecutive slams whilst both players being in their prime all because Ralph's moonballing tactics didn't work against Djokovic's incredible 2 hander. Ralph couldn't change a thing, that showed how limited he is as a player. When Djokovic's level fell through the floor in 2012, Ralph finally got some wins THAT too on his beloved clay.
FWIW moonballing the s**t out of Fed's BH with 5000+ rpm ain't a sign of inventive tennis,he's just lucky to have this massive matchup advantage,got it good.
Disagree completely, every era is harsh, probably the era of feeder/nadal is the weakest one considering that apart those 2 the rest, before djoko and murray raise, wasn't really a serious danger.
Players like federer and nadal exist now because 30 years ago existed people like Borg, connors, lendl etc etc. People that at their time they were the best because they we're bringing to tennis something new or something more than the others setting standards and inspiring players of the future generations like us, including the big champions of the tour.
You can't compare champions of different eras, of course the actual ones are stronger, that is due because of course 30 years more of history much more money around therefore much more involvement of professionalism.
Don't be such a silly boy. Nadal has 11 GS titles and he didn't accomplish those by "moonballing" Fed's backhand, did he? I mean, didn't he have to play all sorts of players besides Fed?
Regardless, the fact Fed cannot respond to Rafa's "simple" tactics show he is of limited talent himself. You would think somebody "touched by the tennis Gods" like Fed would come up with some countermeasure to such a predictable tactic, right? LOL
And Nadal has had his revenge against Djoker. Something Fed will never have against Nadal. Suck on that lemon for a while.
Oh look the grammar police are here. Sorry I made a typing mistake master. I do know the difference between you're and your, I just never proofread my post. Btw it's "on" clay not "in" clay. You're assumption is still a bad one. If you had said Federer would be Borg's pigeon on clay, that I would've agreed with, but across all surfaces, I don't think so. I think a fair majority of educated people would say McEnroe's famous phrase back to your face.
No, Nadal hasn't achieved as much in Wimbledon.
And he lost to Lukas Rosol.
If you’re going to take into consideration Borg being injured, or Fed's mono, you have to for Nadal as well. You only mention AO 2011?, there have been many others. He’s won what he has (more or less equal to what Borg won) while having withdrawn from 6 slams and played injured many others (you mentioned AO 2011, there's also AO 2010, USO 2007, USO 2009...).
He's also had to withdraw several times from the WTF.
Also, that the AO wasn’t as important back then shouldn't count against Nadal. Borg still could have played it if he chose to. Laver did and it counts high on his achievements. Same thing with having retired so early. It was his choice. All the slams Nadal has missed it hasn't been because he’s chosen to.
I think it's very close anyway, not only between them two but among all really great players.
Borg disagree with you.
"For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game"
Borg is listed at #5 by The Tennis Channel
1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
Having assumption but at least have some facts to back up, and you have nothing. That's just like saying JMac is not ahead of Roddick and would get killed by him at Wimbledon and the USO.
So why do Phelps, Gretzky, Rice or Jordan are considered the greatest player to their respective sport? Because that's the consensus by general public. Federer is widely considered the greatest tennis player, so he deserve the equal respect. Capiche ?
Separate names with a comma.