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. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    I already tore that argument apart ......


    see post #127

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7053939&postcount=127

    for that argument to have validity, he'd have to defeat all other quality opponents apart from federer ( he didn't face many, it pales in comparison to borg ) ... the year where it was more likely he would ( not that he knew of course ), 2009, he missed out ....


    yes, whether borg was no 1 in 77 goes, its debatable .... borg was clear no 1 in 78, 79, 80 ......by some distance more time than rafa ... just because the stupid rankings at that time don't show he was no 1 in 78, doesn't mean he wasn't .......
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  2. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Time at number one is an important stat, it shows consistancy. It shows that you were the best in a given year. The OG has only recently become important, and it's not slam calibre either.

    Nadal's AO should count, ofcourse it should. I think the issue is more saying Nadal is better than Borg because Borg didn't win an AO. Which is nonsense. Nadal's AO win counts towards his slam count, it's not valid to denigrate Borg's lack of.
     
  3. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    I'm surprised that Nadal is winning this poll, lol. Haters aren't doing a good enough job, just 14 votes?.

    Sorry but I really don't think you did.
     
  4. monfed

    monfed Guest

    I guess they aren't haters after all,aye? :lol:
     
  5. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    It is an important stat, but even if you add a year for Borg the difference isn't that big. Plus that player of the year thing... not the same thing as weeks at number one.

    The OG still counts or the same reason that the AO counts.

    This things are really pretty impossible to compare anyway IMO. So I don't even really think Nadal is better than Borg, not that Federer is better than Nadal. I agree they're very close.

    I think it's clear though that for some people here their main problem in not wanting to put Nadal ahead of Borg is that Borg is a goat contender and they don't want to count Nadal as one. Just see the amount of votes option 4 has on the poll.
     
  6. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    so, conclusively proving that rafa had it much easier to make it to the finals isn't enough to destroy that argument ?

    the fact the he didn't have to defeat that many tough opponents to reach those finals isn't enough ?

    his losses to rosol and djoker while borg was defeating and at times destroying connors ( by some distance better than djoker on grass ) and tanner isn't enough ? really ?
     
  7. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    Oh, those 14 are.
     
  8. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,588
    He beat Fed at his grass prime (which is more then anyone Borg ever beat on grass)
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    of course, it couldn't just be that people regard borg's domination of clay and grass when they were quite a bit more different than as highly impressive and the fact that he was far more competent than rafa indoors ( apart from being very good on HC as well ) .... it just can't be, can it ?
     
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    mac in 1980 ~ fed in 2008 ......
     
  11. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    I don't think that would make them put Nadal that far away, no.
     
  12. mental midget

    mental midget Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,434
    on clay, hard to argue he hasn't.

    nadal's got one of every slam (although it comes up often that this was less of a goal among the top players in borg's era.

    borg won the most prestigious tournament 5 times in a row. that's a big one.

    it's close. maybe borg by a nose due to many wimby titles?
     
  13. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    it depends ... there is no option mid-way b/w a non-FO slam and a lot more to do .....that is where I'd put him .... mid-way through through those 2 options ...
     
  14. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    You don't know if he would have defeated other tougher opponents. His level against Murray and Fed says he probably would have.

    And Rosol?, really?.

    Maybe Mac was a s good in 1980, but Nadal played Fed there 3 years in a row.
     
  15. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    So you voted 4 and object to being called a hater, I get it :)

    I guess not a hater, but I do think you're biased against him. Borg has things over Nadal but Nadal has things over him as well. You at least have to admit they're close.
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    I actually voted for 3, being in a good mood :) ....... but I can see why some , despite not being haters would vote for option 4, given lack of an option midway b/w 3 and 4 ...

    they are close, but not that close IMO, nadal still has some work to do to surpass him
     
  17. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    You're one of the ones I was talking about so my used toilet paper analogy applies to you




    Yep. The fact that the 4th option has so many votes speaks volumes, and just correlates with what I already said. *******s/Nadal haters are voting against Nadal just because they don't like him. They will never give him the credit he deserves. Just look at how many of them try and argue Nadal's MC titles don't count, or that his slam count is too lopsided towards clay so his slams don't count as much. It's exasperating to converse with these types which is why most of them landed on my ignore list a long time ago.
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    not his level against djoker .....whom he matches up worse against than against federer ( his level was impressive in 2007, 2008 finals regardless of matchup though )

    let's not forget murray's implosion mid-way in 2011 SF after missing a routine FH on a BP opportunity ... it wasn't that tough ..


    yes, an early loss there, which borg didn't have .....

    .................


    what I absolutely detest is the idea that nadal achievements wise is remotely close on grass ( even considering the federer factor ) ...

    I'm not talking level wise when both are playing well, I'm talking overall achievements wise

    it took a monumental effort from mac in the 81 final to finally dethrone borg there ... ( djoker's level in the 2011 final wasn't that good overall and neither was rosol's ( apart from the final set where he was insane ) )

    some talk up nadal adjusting to grass ... of course, he did and it was great ...... but when compared to borg's adjustment from RG to wimbledon, from endless rallies at RG from the baseline to frequent SnVing at the net at wimbledon, it frankly pales in comparison .....

    and the_order was even insinuating that nadal could even come close to borg's domination there on the old, slick , low boucing grass ....... please , he couldn't do that on the present day grass, let alone the grass in older times ,where it'd be much tougher ...

    its just plain cluelessness/bias and an insult to borg IMO ....
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    I'm surprise no old-timers from former pro player talk forum come to defend Borg.:)
     
  20. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,711
    Location:
    Weak era
    Yet if the title was "Has Fed surpassed Borg yet?" I have a feeling they would come running :).

    Historians like Rafa because he beats Fed so much.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    So true. Imagine what it's like if it was "has Fed surpassed Laver yet?" Haha
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    lol ..... indeed .....
     
  23. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,711
    Location:
    Weak era
    Yes, Fed again suddenly became a great player that bolsters Rafa's legacy instead of an overrated, lucky, weak era benefactor :).

    Regardless, presuming Fed's such a great player and we're considering him an important factor here, well Borg had two Fed equivalents at USO to deal with so we have to take that into account as well then.

    Borg did have the advantage of one USO being played on green clay (to which I would guess Nadal's game would translate nicely) but he also had to completely change his playing style at Wimbledon due to old slick grass.

    It's not that Nadal's AO titles don't count, it's just that they have to be put into perspective when comparing him to Borg because in his day AO was the equivalent of say Basel today while YEC/WTF was the 4th most important tourney.

    Abmk is also right that computer rankings at a time were a mess and regarding OG, tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport in his day (it became an Olympic sport again in 1988).
     
  24. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    Which Nadal shouldn't be criticised for not doing.

    Anyway, if those two cancel each other out, then Nadal still has the edge on clay.
     
  25. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,711
    Location:
    Weak era
    The OP would have to duck for cover to avoid the righteous wraith of the historians :).

    By the way, I wouldn't even put Fed above Borg (say that he surpassed him), aside from the fact that I don't believe in the undisputed GOAT title, Borg dominating complete polar opposites (which they were in his time) in clay and grass to such a degree is probably the most impressive feat for me in tennis history, he also reached 4 USO finals and was a beast on carpet.

    Presuming there are GOAT tiers, Borg would be in the 1st one as far as I'm concerned.
     
  26. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    They're not imaginary. Borg was unanimously considered the best player of 1978, 1979, and 1980. Nadal has held that honor for only two year.
     
  27. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    How many years would Borg have been considered best player with Federer as a contemporary? Or even a prime McEnroe, who pushed Borg to immediately quit once he emerged. Even Connors was really past her best years once Borg began to dominate, he was about where Federer was in his own career from mid 2010 to today.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2012
  28. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    I don't know, but that has nothing to do with this thread.
     
  29. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Borg didn't immediately quit after McEnroe emerged, as he was playing in tournaments and big money invitationals in 1982 and 1983. It was the ITF that pushed him to quit by saying that he would have to qualify for Roland Garros and Wimbledon despite all his successes at those events.
     
  30. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Why wasnt he playing the slams and tournaments that really matter though, and putting himself on the line against people like McEnroe again. This was not the 1960s and early 1970s anymore, by no token of imagination were money exhibitions any longer more important than Wimbledon or the U.S Open, not even Roland Garros. He played no slams, and few real tournaments so most regard him as being retired. Ever Navratilova still plays silly World Team tennis as a Boston Lobster or something like that today. One of the few real ATP tournaments he played he got spanked by Yannick Noah at Monte Carlo as well, giving the impression he was hardly playing serious tennis any longer at that point.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2012
  31. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Because he was insulted by the authorities saying that he needed to qualify for those tournaments that he had performed so strongly at for a consistent period of time, and told them to shove it, and many of the big name players at the time firmly sided with him. Imagine if the ITF told Nadal that he needed to qualify for Wimbledon this year, and what his and uncle Toni's reaction would be.

    Big money invitationals were still huge then, with pretty poor prize money on offer at the majors compared to those events, they were a great way to players to rake in the big bucks and play in front of packed crowds. McEnroe and Connors also played an insanely high number of those events during their careers.

    Making big money playing at the Suntory Cup in Tokyo where he was a megastar, was more important to Borg than trying to boost his grand slam title count which was a meaningless stat at the time. He wasn't to know that in future decades on tennis forums, stats obsessed anoraks would slice and dice his grand slam results.

    It's hilarious that people judge Borg by the modern day standards of slam counting, and cannot get their heads around the context of his own era. It's also hilarious that this very lazy 'Borg retired because of McEnroe' myth has been allowed to spread.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  32. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,588
    This is still going on.

    Nadal surpassed Borg.. END OF STORY. He surpassed him as Clay GOAT by a WIDE margin.. Won all 4 slams and has gotten the best of his main rivals more times then not (he owns winning h2hs vs EVERY ONE of his main rivals, one of which is one of the GOATs). Borg did not.

    Prime for Prime was Borg better? Maybe.. Perhaps.. Possibly.. Career wise, no . Nadal has had the superior career
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  33. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    i think nadal has to win another major that is non clay at least..

    there were only 3 majors really until the aust open moved dates in 1983 so that messes up borgs cv..

    borg didnt win the u.s open although in 4 finals

    also borg won the world tour finals in 1979 and 1980 (on hardcourt).
     
  34. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    The vote is 36-29 in Nadal's favour, not conclusive - however I guess this indicates that "consensus opinion" is that Nadal is slightly greater than Borg.

    There are many valid arguments to the contrary though, which have been aired in this thread. :)

    Anyway it's up to Nadal to come back over the next few years and rack up such achievements that this question is no longer even relevant.
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373

    They both are very close. Funny how you have Nadal > Borg as a slam dunk but can never accept Federer > Sampras when the gap between them is 1000000x wider than Nadal/Borg(if there is hardly any gap).
     
  36. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    And Nadal won the USO and the AO on hardcourt. Oh, I forgot those don't count because Borg never won them.
     
  37. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,588
    I never disputed Fed has a better resume then Pete have I? :? Thats not to say I think Pete wasn't the better player either.. But the thread is about "greater" or Surpassing. Which is resume based
     
  38. PCXL-Fan

    PCXL-Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    I learnt today from a user name 90's Clay that Sampras was equal to Federer on clay.

    Nadal won his slams in a pathetically weak era of clay tennis. Pathetic. Weak. Era. Federer was his only clay rival. Federer couldn't even take Nadal to 5 sets ever at RG. Djokovic can't even slide right on clay.

    Weak era. Nadal would only get 3-5, probably 4 RG slams back in the 90s. Sampras would be able to take a set from Nadal just like Federer can. But Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, and Muster would probably cause Nadal to only win 4 RG in the 90s.
     
  39. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Then Fed's era was even weaker, especially because a dirtballer like Nadal was his only competition for years, especially at Wimby.


    As for the rest of your post, my used toilet paper analogy applies for you as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  40. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    My point about the rankings wasn't really related to Borg/Nadal. There numbers in that regard aren't too far apart and I don't know enough about the era to dispute the 'official' numbers. I was mainly trying to say that the #1 ranking is a big achievement which some Nadal fans (not necessarily yourself) like to belittle.

    The OG is not that big a deal. It should count more as an extra masters than as an extra slam...

    Nadal isn't a GOAT contender. His resume off clay isn't strong enough yet. Even his h2h with his main rivals which is often touted as being one of his strengths is built on his clay dominance.

    I already said I rate Nadal more highly than Borg....

    Keep on whining little miss butthurt. If by one of the ones you mean someone who thinks that Nadal has surpassed Borg then you'd be right. I just think it's close.
     
  41. PCXL-Fan

    PCXL-Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    I completely agree with you on this one. Roddick was Federer's main grass rival until a very young and very preprime Nadal shows up almost taking the Mantel away from prime Federer.

    If Federer and Nadal were the same age, I think Federer would only have 2-3 Wimbledons whilst Nadal would have many more Wimbledon trophies.

    But my remark still stands:
    I learnt today from a user name 90's Clay that Sampras was equal to Federer on clay.

    Nadal won his slams in a pathetically weak era of clay tennis. Pathetic. Weak. Clay Era. Federer was his only clay rival. Federer couldn't even take Nadal to 5 sets ever at RG. Djokovic can't even slide right on clay.

    Weak era. Nadal would only get 3-5, probably 4 RG slams back in the 90s. Sampras would be able to take a set from Nadal just like Federer can. But Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, and Muster would probably cause Nadal to only win 4 RG in the 90s.
     
  42. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    i know he did, you dismal mess..and i did say borg didnt win australian its obvious if i said there were only 3 majors the top players took seriously back then..what else would i be on about ?..bloody wimbledon ?? duhh.

    you sad sarcastic little oaf.
     
  43. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Nice namecalling. Seems as if you have an anger problem. Welcome to ignore.


    And Nadal still won the USO and Borg didn't. Choke on that.
     
  44. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,124
    Location:
    New York


    He definitely doesn't. It is Borg who would need to win a slam on hard court to catch up on Nadal (Nadal has 2/ Borg 0...) + Borg doesn't have the career slam of course and has only 2 out of the 4 slams. Clear edge to Nadal in clay records on top.
     
  45. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Not having an AO shouldn't count against Borg...As far as I'm concerned Borg's domination of 2 very different surfaces easily make up for Nadal's victories on hardcourts, considering the speeds and way courts these days play.
     
  46. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I agree, I'm not sure why people don't recognise these points...
     
  47. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    choke on what ??..oh that hmmm..so you want people to choke ?? what was that about an anger problem hun ?

    look at yourself and your bitterness any time anyone dares to suggest anything that you could percieve to be a comment against nadal ??...choke on that.

    and guess what my little love balloon..im a fan of borg and nadal...too bad for borg in aust or u.s open..heres to the nadal grand slam some time..choke on that
     
  48. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    The career slam is basically an achievement of versatility. Borg's channel slams are perhaps the greatest show of versatility there have ever been.
     
  49. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    yes i know :-?..go away and learn something about tennis that happened before 2005..good for nadal he won all four majors..tough t1ts on borg.

    and if we are on about things players didnt win, nadal hasnt won the world tour finals and borg won it twice.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  50. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    Ok, then Borg is better than Fed.
     

Share This Page