Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Phoenix1983, Dec 7, 2012.

?

Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

  1. Nadal has already surpassed Borg

    53 vote(s)
    56.4%
  2. Nadal needs to win another slam to pass Borg

    7 vote(s)
    7.4%
  3. Nadal needs to win another slam to pass Borg, NOT at the FO

    14 vote(s)
    14.9%
  4. Nadal has plenty more to do to surpass Borg

    20 vote(s)
    21.3%
  1. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I don't know why the Tennis Channel ranked Nadal ahead of Borg, given that they did their survey a year ago when he hadn't even surpassed Borg on clay.

    They obviously prioritise the career slam highly, otherwise there is no way Agassi would be anywhere near No 7 on the all-time list.
     
  2. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Agassi being ranked ahead of Tilden, Rosewall (crazy that he didn't even make the top 10), Connors and Lendl on that Tennis Channel list is absolutely hilarious.

    Agassi vs. McEnroe is a far more debatable comparison, but I would also rank Mac above him as well.
     
  3. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    They put a lot of stock on Laver's GS, so it's fair to put some for the players that have won the career slam.

    As for Borg and Nadal, i think they are very close. They each have certain area above one another. I have no problem with either one being ahead.
     
  4. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nadal was already ahead of Borg on clay before this year. His dominance at events like Monte Carlo and Rome had him superior as Borg even with the same # of FO titles.
     
  5. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Yes I guess so - still I don't see why he was ranked ahead of Borg in a poll done a year ago, when even now it is pretty much even between them.
     
  6. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Still very close results: 25-23 in favour of Nadal having surpassed Borg at this stage.
     
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Lendl and Rosewall is ranked at #12 and #13, it's not that they are miles behind.

    Tilden was light years from today. Those day they were wearing pant and sweater.
     
  8. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I'm just wondering TMF. Have you and 5555 ever gotten into an argument/debate on this forum, because I would pay a hefty sum to see it I must say.
     
  9. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Yes, I think Tilden is ranked about where he should be (I personally have him at No 9 all-time, the Tennis Channel have him at No 10). Basically he should be bottom half of the all-time top ten.

    This, by the way, is an extraordinary achievement given that he was at his peak almost 100 years ago. To still be universally ranked among the all-time top ten despite playing so long ago, when the game was much less competitive, only shows how great his achievements were.

    Yet let's not pretend that he should be contending for the top spot. He was considered the GOAT of the first half of the 20th century, and has gradually slipped down the rankings since. This only makes sense - the greats of subsequent eras have dominated in more challenging times.
     
  10. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    It would be the Isner-Mahut of arguments.
     
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    :)

    No, but I wouldn't mind. I know he loves Nole very much. He reminds me of Thundervolley who always asks for proof/evidence whenever he disagree with other people's opinion(lol).
     
  12. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    After my newfound appreciation for Borg, I don't think Nadal has surpassed him yet. He needs more displays of utter dominance (and not just on clay) to bypass him.
     
  13. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Here is a comparison of the opponents Borg and Nadal beat (from the QF stage onwards) in their slam wins:

    Borg

    1974 French: Ramirez, Solomon, Orantes
    1975 French: Solomon, Panatta, Vilas
    1976 Wimbledon: Vilas, Tanner, Nastase
    1977 Wimbledon: Nastase, Gerulaitis, Connors
    1978 French: Ramirez, Barazzutti, Vilas
    1978 Wimbledon: S. Mayer, Okker, Connors
    1979 French: Gildemeister, Gerulaitis, Pecci
    1979 Wimbledon: Okker, Connors, Tanner
    1980 French: Barazzutti, Solomon, Gerulaitis
    1980 Wimbledon: G. Mayer, Gottfried, McEnroe
    1981 French: Taroczy, Pecci, Lendl

    Nadal

    2005 French: Ferrer, Federer, Puerta
    2006 French: Djokovic, Ljubicic, Federer
    2007 French: Moya, Djokovic, Federer
    2008 French: Almagro, Djokovic, Federer
    2008 Wimbledon: Murray, Schuettler, Federer
    2009 Australian: Simon, Verdasco, Federer
    2010 French: Almagro, Melzer, Soderling
    2010 Wimbledon: Soderling, Murray, Berdych
    2010 US: Verdasco, Youzhny, Djokovic
    2011 French: Soderling, Murray, Federer
    2012 French: Almagro, Ferrer, Djokovic
     
  14. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Australia
    His US Open and Australian Open wins make up for that.
     
  15. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    HAHAHAHAHA. Stop it, please. You're killing me! LOL

    [​IMG]
     
  16. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Wow, why are we even talking about anything in this thread? It's settled then, The Tennis Channel said so! It also said Fed > Laver, and that Pancho Gonzales is not even Top 10. LMFAO. Tennis Channel? More like Comedy Central.
     
  17. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    But I do have facts. In the 80s people used S/V in grass, and JMac would have destroyed Fed playing S/V with 80s racquets. It's that simple.

    What does Phelps play? Marbles?

    Winning more slams doesn't make Fed greater than Laver or Borg. It doesn't work like that. Fed failed against his main challenger, and the rest was a field full of pigeons.
     
  18. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,052
    Location:
    shiran
    The only potential blemish in Nadal's superior record is that he had weak competition (talentless federer) in some of his slam finals.
     
  19. Borrelli

    Borrelli Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    CT
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGvgXpuSKaE @ Borg's footwork! People talk about Federer being light on his feet but I think Borg's footwork was quicker. It's like he's floating out there on the clay. It just looks so much better than the way Nadal stomps around out there.
     
  20. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,314
    I consider Nadal and Borg to be about equal based on the fact that they have both won 11 Slam titles. If Nadal wins another one, he will have earned the credentials to be ahead in the comparison, IMO.

    In my comparison, I have disregarded (a) competition faced (b) difference between eras (c) difference of materials and skill-sets (d) who I like more (e) career Slam (f) Olympics and other important accomplishments (g) aesthetic considerations, etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  21. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    The Career Grand Slam suddenly counts for nothing.

    And Nadal being the only man in history to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year counts for nothing? And 21 masters shields? Borg somehow overcomes all this?

    Has Federer surpassed Sampras yet?
     
  22. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Australia
    For once I agree with you.
     
  23. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,917
    I thought you said only slams matter? So if Nadal has more tune-ups than Borg on clay that means Nadal is the superior clay player but if Federer has won a few more tune-up grass events than Sampras that does not make Federer superior on grass?

    I see double standards! :)
     
  24. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    I call BS on AO 2010, he was losing anyways to murray .....

    USO 2009, stomach problems or not, he'd have lost to delpo .....

    again, a perspective on history is required to understand. AO was prestigious during Laver's time - in the 60s ...

    It only declined in importance from mid-70s till the mid 80s ........ the WCT /Year ending masters were far more important at that time

    essentially borg won 11 majors while playing in an era of 3 majors/year ....so to be fair to him, we'd have to take into consideration the 4th most important event - the WCT /year ending masters......

    I'm not holding playing the AO against nadal, but rather those who don't have a clue about history are holding borg not playing AO against him .... the fields at the AO that time were equivalent to what you'd find in a 500 event now ...
     
  25. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,117
    Not true at all, it's just another one of your stupid assumptions. I hardly post on here, yet somehow all I've got on my mind is Rafa. LOL. then I look at your post count and see you spend the majority of your life on here and yet again LOL. Then I realise that the majority of your "discussions" are anti-Nadal and ROFLMAFAO. Keep it up.

    Face it Borg couldn't adjust his game to defeat his rivals at the USO. Rafa did. And he adjusted to defeat his rivals at the AO and at WIM as well.

    Yes genius I was talking about ALL the majors, you know something Mr.Borg failed to do? If you find it more impressive to win 2 out of 4 majors than to win 4/4 than all you're doing is revealing your stupid logic and anti-Nadal agenda. Seriously did Nadal steal your goat when you were a kid?

    Again Borg didn't have to play against Federer did he? so that including 5 wins in your brackets there means sfa. He wouldn't have had 5 wins in a row if he had to meet Fed in the finals 3 years in a row lol.

    So Borg's 6 finals in a row vs Nadal 5 finals in a row (and yes it was 5 in a row in terms of when he played). They are both dominant periods on grass.

    If he didn't have to meet Fed in the finals he would've had 4 Wimbledon titles and been only 1 behind Borg, just like if Borg had to play Fed 3 years in a row he would've most likely lost 2/3 to him and been left with 3 WIM titles instead of 5.

    Point is Rafa was still very young and he had to deal with probably the greatest grass courter of all time when he was in his prime and he STILL almost won 2 out of those 3 encounters. Go and ask Federer how bad Nadal is on grass.


    I've already gone over this stuff, feel free to read above again in case you still don't get it.

    Now let's do the fair thing and add Fed to Borg's path and we'll add McEnroe to Nadal's path from 2011 onwards. Rafa has 4 WIM's and Borg has at most 3.

    BTW we add McEnroe from 2011 onwards because he wasn't a threat until later on in Borg's WIM run.


    But Wimbledon was to him "his home" and losing there is what tore him apart.

    WTF are you on about? Blake, Youhzny and Gonzalez ALL had good records against Nadal at the time Ancic's only win against Nadal came on carpet. LOL and not only that Rafa beat Ancic at WIM in 2003 when he was like barely 17 but somehow in 06 Ancic would've beaten him? You fail so bad hahahahahaha.


    I did not mention the AO at all in this instance, I was talking purely about the USO which he failed to win because he couldn't put it together like Nadal did. Sure he might've had the ability, but I didn't say he didn't, again you highlight your poor comprehension and reading skills. I said he was not good enough to win it and the history books agree with me :)

    And your response is with

    a) excuse #1
    b) excuse #2

    Why did well past his prime Fed beat Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2012? That was in fact a year and a half later than their AO11 encounter.

    Let me guess, because Nadal and Murray nearly beat him this time? Mustn't have had anything to do with the level Murray and Nadal played...

    But he couldn't WIN the US Open. What part of that do you not understand? His level was either not consistent enough to last the whole tournament OR he just didn't have the ability. Now you and I both agree he had the ability so it must be because he couldn't hold his high HC level of play long enough to win it. He failed, Nadal didn't; deal with it, that is the undisputable fact.

    So what? He won both the USO and AO, please give me a link to the vision where Borg won the US Open. I'd like to see it.

    I also like how you conveniently like to say Borg only had 4 tries to win the USO on HC well less chance to be dominated too then, you see it works both ways lol.

    Also back then there weren't as many power hitters that could belt you off the court since the racquet technology wasn't there.

    Nice counter argument. I'm convinced now.

    Hogwash, Borg wouldn't have taken the #1 ranking off Federer. No way he was going to beat him in 3 major finals consecutively to take it away. I'd even make the case that Fed would've beaten Borg at RG at least once which would further reduce Borg's chances of taking the ranking away.

    He couldn't beat McEnroe at the USO, he had 2 attempts and although he did push him in one of the finals, he got beat convincingly in the other.

    So, as promised, I will kindly point you to Borg's failed (HC) US Open attempts:

    1978 LOST to Connors 6-4 6-2 6-2
    1979 LOST to Tanner 6-2 4-6 6-2 7-6
    1980 LOST to McEnroe 7-6 6-1 6-7 5-7 6-4
    1981 LOST to McEnroe 4-6 6-2 6-4 6-3
     
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    .......duplicate post .....
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    clueless, majority of my discussions are pro-federer, not anti-nadal ...... and majority of your posts are pro-nadal

    lol @ making it 2 out 4 like the australian was highly regarded back then ...... just putting that time and again just makes you look highly dense

    borg won 3 of the 4 major events of his time - Wimbledon, FO, Masters ( also WCT Dallas in 76 when the field was better than the Masters )

    like, I said, take away fed for nadal and mac for borg, nadal ends up with max of 4 majors there, borg with 6 .... that's still quite a lot of difference

    and nadal almost lost all 3 on 3 vs federer @ wimbledon, let's not forget that ... and an older rafa was losing to lukas rosol and djokovic .......

    @ the part of 5 finals in a row ( for nadal when he played ) vs 6 for borg... I don't consider it that way, nadal not playing in 2009 does go against him ..(roddick and to a lesser extent would have a fair shot at defeating him before the finals )

    even if we do agree to that for a moment , lets take a look at their semi opponents, shall we ?

    borg :

    76 : a red-hot tanner who had beaten connors in the previous round
    77 : gerulatis at his finest, an all time classic match
    78: okker
    79 : connors
    80 : gottfried
    81 : connors

    4 of those 6 are formidable ones

    for nadal :

    2006 : baghdatis
    2007 : djokovic (who retired )
    2008 : schuttler
    2010 : murray
    2011 : murray

    that's 2 formidable opponents ...murray in 10,11

    pales in comparison to borg's both quantity and quality wise ...

    before you bring in the floaters like haase/petzschener etc, borg also faced the likes of amaya, amritraj, edmundson ......

    lol, why from 2011 onwards, why not 2010 ... nadal has 3 then, 2006,07,08 ....

    add fed to borg's path, fed beats him two times out of 3, remove mac, borg still has 4 at wimbledon ..

    it took an all time great on grass, mac in an extremely close match and a great clutch performance to finally dethrone borg ...

    nadal on the other hand was losing to djoker ( who is very good, but not great on grass ) and then to lukas rosol .....

    and finally this is on presnt day grass that favours rafa more than the old slick, low bouncing grass ......he'd have it much tougher on the grass in the olden years ...


    yeah, he was so devastated that he absolutely dominated and straight-setted connors @ the USO later and reached the finals there ....

    because ancic was much better at 2004 and 2006 wimbledon than he was at 2003 wimbledon .........

    your point of nadal beating ancic in 2003 is like saying roddick at 2009 wimbledon would have no chance vs murray @ wimbledon because a younger murray beat him in straights in 2006 ...... oh wait :oops:

    roddick was in terrible form in first half of 2006 and in good form in 2009, which is why that happened

    that was blake's 1st meeting with nadal - no prior record

    that was the 3rd match b/w gonzo and nadal ... one in 2004 , one in 2006, 2004 one shouldn't be taken that seriously as rafa wasn't in top 30 back then , so only one match that can be taken seriously and that isn't much of a sample ...

    rafa was actually 3-1 vs youzhny before that US Open match

    so you fail majorly with this so called argument as well ......


    being good enough to win it meaning having the ability to win it ... doesn't mean they've actually accomplished it ... otherwise one would directly use the records and wouldn't even argue about whether one had the ability to win it or not ....

    because even a well past prime federer can put in great performances ? just that the consistency and the ability to grind it out is lesser ... those qualities are more essential at the AO than at wimbledon .... add to it the fact that djoker is by some distance better at the AO than at wimbledon ....... jeez, it isn't rocket science ...

    oh no doubt, both murray and nadal played well, but djoker was well below his best ... I'm saying it because I watched it


    fair enough, but borg didn't have a propensity to get dominated when he lost at the other HC or indoor events as well ...... that is the case with nadal ........ and then I burst out laughing at the below statement of yours

    lol , ha ha ha ..... so power-hitting is the only way to dominate a player scoreline wise ?????? yeah, just shows how narrow your thinking and experience of tennis is ........

    umm, borg wouldn't need to beat federer thrice to get the no 1, just twice, he could definitely at the FO,and he would have a chance at wimbledon as well ...

    and unlike rafa, he was darn good indoors as well, so he'd pick up more points there ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  28. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, because 78 connors, 79 tanner, 80 mac, 81 mac were playing at a higher level than djoker in USO 2010 .... put rafa in the same place as borg and he probably ends up with zero majors at the USO as well .....

    I will point towards rafa's first 5 failed attempts at the USO as well :

    2005 - loses to blake in 3 sets
    2006 - loses to youzhny in 4 sets
    2007 - loses to ferrer in 4 sets
    2008 - loses to murray in 4 sets
    2009 - loses to del potro in 3 sets


    now fact is rafa did actually win the USO in 2010 and that is a major plus point for him ........ But level wise, he isn't that much above borg there ...their winning %s on HC are also very similar ...

    however borg's major plus point is that he simultaneously dominated clay/grass when they were polarized ( quite a bit more than today )

    add to that, he's much better indoors and won the major indoor tournaments at his time ....( which btw were more important back then than the AO )
     
  29. rafafan20

    rafafan20 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    USA
    the dichotomy in the poll is funny
     
  30. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Australia
    That's why they're better. You don't know how a player from an era in the 80s would do against somebody now, because that isn't feasible. That is not something that we can predict, we can speculate and speculate, but that won't determine a true outcome.

    Players of the past are of course inferior to players of the present, technology and advanced training methods do matter and do count. Withdrawing that statement because you believe that it isn't a good base for a comparison is also not feasible. Players like Borg, Connors and the like would pale in comparison to Federer and Nadal simply because they're more advanced and have had better ways to train. Pit them against each other in their primes and they would fall short to the "greats" of this era.
     
  31. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Grass doesnt even have a Masters, so yes on grass all that matters is Wimbledon. If one is REALLY desperate they could argue Queens as having some value, a 500 event. Even that would be meaningless for Federer though as Federer never even plays Queens, any of his non Wimbledon grass victories are Halle, a 250 event, and yes I would say a 250 event has no value to anyone but a tour journeyman, and is meaningless in discussing GOATs. Are you comparing Halle to Rome or Monte Carlo now, LOL! Always fun to explain simple and obvious things to incredibly stupid people.
     
  32. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,117
    Lol at abmk trying to boost his post count even further by triple posting and requoting the same things over and over again. You would think after 9000 posts you would have got the hang of understanding how to quote posts properly, but then again I do realise you are slow so perhaps you will learn in your next 9000 posts...

    First of all, I am 100% right when I said Borg won only 2/4 majors because regardless of how highly the AO was regarded back then it is still a major.

    And lol how you ask why I said from 2011 onwards add McEnroe to Rafa's path when I just explained why. McEnroe didn't make it to the 79 WIM final he was NOT a threat to Borg until 80 that's why we add him to the most recent 2 Wimbledon's of Rafa's path. So Rafa 4 and Borg 2-3 in WIM titles because Fed would not disappear off Earth after facing Borg in the first 3 finals.

    And lol how you call the 81 WIM final an extremely close match, it was close no doubt but not extremely close. Another one of your biased opinions to try and favor your argument. What an ignorant human being you are hahaha.

    Your Federer past his prime argument holds absolutely no water either, in USO 11 Fed had MP's against him and the same goes for USO10 which was only a few months before AO11. Fed didn't lose because he's past his prime he just got his arse kicked and only junk tennis gave him a lead in the second set.

    Fed had a very dominant and consistent period at the end of 2011 and 2010 wasn't too bad either. His form going into the 2011 AO was very good as it was with AO12 but we all know what happened at this year's AO so I shouldn't repeat it should I? :)

    Power hitting is also very threatening to anyone when the shots keep going in, just look at the Nadal v Rosol result. He blasted winners left right and center especially in the fifth set. Do you really think Rosol would've been able to do that with a wooden racquet?

    And Borg would most definitely have to beat Fed thrice because he wouldn't be picking up any points at AO now would he? Fed would make the final of EVERY major and most likely at the very least win AO and USO. Lol I like how you think you know what you're on about but really you have nfi. lol.

    With the Wimbledon paths, you look at semi opponents, yeah I agree Borg had it tougher than Rafa, but then I look at the final opponents and see that Rafa had to play FEDERER 3 years in a row. I look at Borg and while he did have some tough final opponents they were certainly no Roger Federer pal.

    Keep trying though, seriously you're good for a laugh.
     
  33. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,117
    OMG dude you are off this planet now hahahahahaha. So Ancic beats Federer in the FIRST round in 02 WIM, but has a bad 03 WIM only to bounce back and have a great 04 and 06 WIM?

    Let me make something perfectly clear, Ancic's 06 WIM was NOTHING special, Novak ALMOST beat him lol and if you seriously think he would have had a chance at beating Nadal in the 06 final you are kidding yourself.

    Murray's history of crumbling and not performing at his best when under pressure is well documented so it's no surprise he didn't bring his best in his first ever WIM semi final. I've already gone over this whole Ancic thing so time to stop humiliating yourself by thinking Ancic was even a snowball's chance in hell of beating Nadal in 06 WIM because I refuse to believe you're THAT stupid.

    Dude I missed a semi-colon after saying they all "had good records against Nadal; at the time Ancic's...

    So I wasn't referring to their records against Nadal at the time just Ancic's. I meant their records in general against Nadal were pretty good especially early on in Rafa's career.

    So yeah missed a semi-colon, big deal it's not like I'm writing a program here and not as big a screw up as triple quoting :oops:
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  34. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Nadal's AO title counts for next to nothing in a comparison with Borg, since Borg hardly ever played there. His USO title and managing to win this in the same season he won on grass and clay as well, certainly does count in his favour. His Masters shields are close to irrelevant in a comparison of all-time greats, they are not the highest level of competition in tennis.

    In Borg's favour he has two YECs on carpet (where Nadal has been very poor and has only reached one final), more time at No 1, more total tournaments, an even higher winning percentage at the slams (won 11/27 which he contested), all-time record Davis Cup winning streak (33 matches).

    But most importantly, he dominated on two incredibly polarised surfaces (clay and old grass) simultaneously. This combined with winning on carpet and coming very close to winning the US on hard means I consider him marginally more versatile than Nadal, despite the latter winning slams on grass, clay and hard.

    As I said it is very, very close between them and I certainly wouldn't find it ridiculous that someone ranks Nadal ahead. But I personally rank Borg above - just - at this stage.
     
  35. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    30-26 in favour of Nadal. Still very close result.
     
  36. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Yeah, you got some excellent points there.
     
  37. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, it was a mistake caused because of logout problems .... but then you are Mr.Perfect with quoting posts, right ? jeez, what an achievement !

    its not a matter of technicality here, but rather getting the context of the era right ....

    but rafa in 2012 didn't even come close to making it to the 2nd week ... you add mac when he was ie. 2011, 2010 to be fair .....

    it was 4-6,7-6,7-6,6-4 with both players winning 2/15 of their BPs ... mac won 160 points, borg 154 ... hell yeah, that was a pretty close match >> you'd know if you had seen it ...

    so federer is in his prime from 2004-till now ????? LOL , ha ha ha ha ......

    end of 2010, 2011 was mainly indoors, where consistency/stamina/elements are less of a factor ....


    guess you missed the memo that there were loads of SnVers at that time ... if there were lesser power hitters back then, there are very few SnVers now ...

    power hitters aren't the only type of threats .... there were more varied styles of play back then ...

    point is you are only thinking this from rafa's point of view ..... not from the context of both the generations ...

    not that tough when we are talking about the federer of 2008 or 2010 when rafa took over no 1 ... if you are talking about the federer of 2004-2007 or 2009 , then yeah , borg would have it tough , but then nadal didn't take over when fed was at his best either ...

    but borg of 78 would have more decent shot at beating federer in 2008 ...
    you mentioned nadal's 5 finals in a row ( when he played ) ... it probably wouldn't be if he faced tougher opponents in the semis like borg did -> nadal lost to rosol in 2012 and djoker in 2011 ...

    and like I said before , this was on grass which favoured rafa's game more than the old, slick grass in borg's day .......it'd be worse for rafa there ....
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    lol and robert kendrick was 2 points away from beating nadal in 06 @ wimbledon, do you remember or have you erased that from your mind ???? :lol:

    ancic in the QF vs fed in 2006 was playing well and federer played an excellent match to win it in straights >> you'd know if you had actually seen the match

    as far as ancic in 2002/2003 concerned, he beat federer in 2002 because federer was a headcase at that time and it was a first round match ... ancic didn't go much farther, his ranking was pretty low at that time ..

    he ended 2002 and 2003 ranked in the 80s and 70s respectively ...


    so, let's see murray's history of "crumbling & not performing his best under pressure" comes only into the picture now ????

    what you described didn't happen in the 2009 SF though ... he was playing well and roddick just plain beat him ...

    a classic example of what you described was in the 2011 SF ... Murray after playing a very good first set , lost it when he missed a routine FH on a BP on rafa's serve in the 2nd ...... he only recovered towards the end set 3rd set, by which time , he had nearly lost two sets ... and then just played decent tennis afterwards in the final set ...

    then there was the mini-choke in the 2nd set breaker in the 2010 SF, when up a SP in the breaker and on serve, misses the first serve, puts in a weak 2nd serve and totally goes on the defensive allowing rafa to dictate and win the point ... major credit to rafa for managing to dictate the point, but murray had his chance there ...

    so whom exactly did rafa face as that major a threat till the finals at wim ?????? :lol:

    borg faced red hot tanner, at his very best gerulatis and connors ( twice ) in the semis ...

    the comparison isn't even close !!! inspite of the federer factor, rafa still is behind by some distance ... if he was beating everyone but federer in all these years ( not just 2006-08 ), you might have a point , but he lost to djoker in 2011 and rosol in 2012 ( & didn't play in 2009, where roddick and to a lesser extent hewitt would have a good shot at beating him )

    anyways coming back to the original point, just because rafa beat ancic at wimbledon when they were both young, doesn't guarantee he'd win in 2006 as well .....

    no, like I proved, at the time of those meetings, they didn't have any significant edge over rafa at all ...... so you'd be saying they wouldn't have a chance against the world #2, rafa .... just like you are saying for ancic in wimbledon at 2006 .....
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  39. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,552
    Location:
    Weak era
    Not so sure about that.

    A comparison between Fed and Sampras is far easier to do (and even in that case there are various difficulties) than a comparison between Borg and Nadal (or Fed, Sampras for that matter etc.).

    In Nadal, Fed and Sampras' era AO is clearly at worst the 4th most important tourney of the year while arguably tourneys Basel and Dubai today have better fields than AO did in Borg's day.

    As much as people (though mainly Nadal fans to be precise) ridicule WTF/YEC today it was the 4th most important even in Borg's era and he did very well there (overall he was a terrific player on indoor carpet while Nadal struggles on slow indoor HC).

    Regarding USO, true Nadal won the title but Borg reached 4 USO finals and arguably had the toughest competition there out of any tennis great (McEnroe and Connors are some of the best USO players of all time and Borg had them both in the way and at their peaks/primes), given that (some) Nadal fans love to bring the competition argument even when compared to a player largely from the same era (Fed) they should realize that a case can be easily made for Borg in that regard.

    There's also the matter of the polarization of surfaces, grass and clay were complete polar opposites in Borg's day and his continued dominance in both of those tourneys is one of the most impressive feats in tennis ever (if not even the most impressive).

    It is very hard to make a straightforward comparison between Borg and any other modern (say since 1990) tennis great, personally I wouldn't even put Fed above him and Nadal still has some ways to go to match Fed's achievements overall.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  40. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Between losing to Panatta in the 1976 French QF and losing to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon F, Borg won 69 consecutive matches at the French and Wimbledon - the two most polarised surfaces in tennis.

    Just think about that if you are thinking about placing Nadal clearly above Borg.
     
  41. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    Total bs. It's not Nadal's fault that Borg chose to skip the AO. Nadal won the AO and Borg did not so Nadal's AO title doesn't count since Borg skipped it? Borg never won the USO after having a number of cracks at it. He only won 2 of the 4 slams. Too bad for Nadal haters like you Nadal surpassed Borg when he finally got to 11 slams considering he has THE CAREER SLAM AND BORG DOES NOT. There are other numerous reasons Nadal has surpassed Borg as well, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining them because people like you won't get it anyway.


    Also, let's discount all of Fed and Cvac's AO titles because Borg never won it. Fed doesn't have the career slam either according to this dumb logic. And when Cvac wins RG next year, he won't have the career slam either since Borg never won it. As a matter of fact let's take away Andre's career slam as well since Borg never won it. Makes perfect sense, right?


    It's plain to see the only people arguing in favor of Borg are *******s/Nadal haters. It's very clear to see why these people are picking Borg, and that alone makes their opinion worth less than used toilet paper. I mean, we have one ******* arguing about imaginary years at #1 for Borg, and trying to count that as part of Borg's achievements. Laughable doesn't even begin to describe the desperation and lengths these people will go to in order to denigrate Nadal's career(inculding trying to discount his AO title). You people won't give him credit for anything.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  42. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    I disagree that nadal's AO doesn't count, it does of course ...... A fair comparison in borg's era would be the Masters ( which he won twice ) and was wayyyyy more prestigious than the AO ...

    so he won 3 of the 4 major events of his time ..... nadal's plus point is he won all 4

    but borg's plus point is his simultaneous domination over clay and grass when they were more polarized than now ...

    another plus point of course is that he was much better indoors than rafa ...

    borg was no1 in 78,79,80 and arguably in 77 ... it was only the stupid ranking system in 78 that put connors at #1 in 78 ......

    its funny that you talk about people not giving credit to nadal for anything when you repeated ad nauseum that nadal playing very well on clay wouldn't defeat djoker in the FO 2012 final ......

    a little bit of perspective in history regarding borg's time and his achievements would also help .....
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  43. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    I guess I had no reason to believe Cvac would beat Nadal there. He had only beaten him in the last 3 slam finals they played. What was I thinking to pick Cvac to win that match? Lol.


    Funny this doesn't apply to *******s when it comes to Nadal. Please chime in with this comment directed at them next time they try to discount Nadal's MC wins, and try to crap on his RG wins.


    And if the masters back then mattered more than the AO, Borg's masters titles are worth more than Fed and Cvac's AO titles as well. If Nadal's AO counts less due to that reason then so do theirs.
     
  44. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    and nadal had beaten him twice in straights on clay before RG ....... had lost the min no of games he ever had @ RG before the finals ....

    djoker OTOH had gone down two sets to love vs seppi and had to save MPs vs tsonga ....

    nadal had stretched djoker to 5 on djoker's best surface and djoker was in better form then by some distance than @ the FO this year ...

    so whom would you logically favour ????

    one thing to say djoker had a shot , another to say nadal had no chance vs djoker in that form


    at your command ! :)


    Like I said, the AO is a full major these days. It very much counts fully ...
    The year ending masters then could be considered an equivalent then to the AO of today .... How difficult is that to get ? :confused:

    when I said the masters was wayyyyyy more prestigious than the AO, I meant in borg's era ..... not the AO of today's era .....I would have thought that was obvious, but apparently it wasn't !
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  45. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I didn't mean Nadal's AO title doesn't count per se, of course it does (in fact it was one of his most impressive major victories, with back-to-back wins in incredibly close matches against Verdasco and Federer). I was saying that the AO can't be used as one of the big 4 tournaments in Borg's era - instead it should be the YEC. In which case Borg has 13 major tournament victories.

    But you are absolutely right - the major argument for Nadal > Borg is the fact that he won all the major tournaments of his time whereas Borg could not win the USO, despite it being played on grass, clay and hard during his time.

    I'm not a Nadal hater at all - I said, as any reasonable person would, that Nadal and Borg are very evenly matched. I just happen to put Borg marginally ahead (because I don't like copping out and ranking players equal). It's thoroughly defensible to say Nadal is ahead as well, as you do, but you don't have to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nadal hater. :confused:
     
  46. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Because the people that are arguing for Nadal are not "*******s" right? Oh wait... You seem to have the same grouping problem as NadalAgassi does. I'll leave it there.

    Fact is, the AO wasn't a big event in Borg's time. It was the equivalent of a 500 or maybe even a 250 that was at the end of November. Call me crazy, but even though it was on outdoor grass, I wouldn't favour Nadal to win it at that time either. Nobody is trying to discount Nadal's AO win (apart from the biggest fanboys). It counts for a lot today in a comparison of the top players since say the mid to late 80's, but in comparison between Nadal (and any other top player today) and Borg, it can't really be used as any evidence of any kind.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  47. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    Oh please. Go back and read through this thread and look at who most of the people picking Borg and claiming Nadal's AO title doesn't count are fans of. Just a coincidence, huh?

    No, not "any other top player today", because *******s would never say that Fed's AO titles don't count when compared to Borg. Neither would the Djokotards(most of which are really *******s anyway). It only applies to Nadal and no one else.
     
  48. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,128
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Again, there is nobody really saying Nadal's AO title doesn't count (apart from the biggest fanboys). You must read between the lines here, and stop playing the injured party. If you read phoenix's most recent post you will see this. Djokovic is not on Borg's level yet so that comparison is irrelevant. And in Federer's case even if we didn't count his AO titles (which we shouldn't when comparing the two), he still has 2 more majors than Borg, and 6 YEC to 2. Don't make this about Nadal getting the short end of the stick when compared to Federer or Djokovic when you know full well there are just as many reasons for people to vote for Borg as there are for Nadal.

    Now if you asked me who was a better clay court player between Nadal and Borg, I would say Nadal. If Nadal was losing a poll titled "Who is the greatest clay court player of all time?" I would be the first to say that Nadal was getting unfair treatment. Again, Federer fans and "*******s/Nadal haters" are not the same thing. Neither are Nadal fans and "*******s/Fed haters.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  49. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,347
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Stop whining. All anyone has said is that in Borg's era the AO wasn't such a big deal. So Borg shouldn't be criticized for not winning the AO. The career slam is a show of versatility really, Borg has that in spades winning the FO 6 times and the polar opposite Wimbledon 5 times.
     
  50. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    Yeah, this.

    If Nadal's AO doesn't count, Borg's dominance of two very different surfaces wouldn't either.

    And Masters have the top players in them, of course they count also.

    The time at number one is debatable. And there's the OG as well.
     

Share This Page