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. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,449
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I never said Borg was better than Nadal, learn to read and not just see what would give you an excuse to moan. And Federer's achievements are on another level compared to both of them. Don't embarass yourself.
     
  2. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    I didn't embarrass myself. You're the one who keeps saying that Borg's wins on two totally different surfaces amount to more than Nadal's wins at the AO and at the USO. Since Fed also won every single one of his slams on the same surfaces Nadal did, this also applies to him.
     
  3. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,449
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Borg and Nadal have the same amount of slams. Federer has 6 more plus a plethora of other accolades. Plus when his dominance started slams like the US Open were alot faster etc...
     
  4. PCXL-Fan

    PCXL-Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Obviously Nadal earned his RG slams in the pathetically weak clay era we are currently in. Federer is Nadal's main rival is a joke. Djokovic can't even slide properly on clay.

    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.
     
  5. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,272
    Location:
    Chile
    Where he was so injured he hasn't played again after 5 months. Let's not forget you're the one who decided to bring this factor into this discussion.

    I like Borg. But Nadal does have 5 finals and the only years he's done less than taht has been way back in 2005 and when he's been injured in 2009 and 2012. My point is simply, he is very good on grass, and I do think it's not far off to compare him to Borg there. But yeah, achievements wise Borg does have the edge.

    Fed is a great player, one of the greatest, but yes, you know I think because of things we've discussed many times his slam count doesn't prove what many of his fans insist it does.

    AO and OG couldn't count or count the same way for Borg, but you cannot blame Nadal for not winning on non-existent grass either.
     
  6. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,272
    Location:
    Chile
    They are very close. There's no point is repeating why, it's all been said here already.

    He would be, and that is why Fed fans who are also Nadal haters or are very biased against him don't want Nadal near him.

    It's not the same as weeks at number one. Djokovic would most likely be the best player of 2012, but that doesn't translate to him having been number one is all weeks of 2012.

    The OG should be somewhere between a masters and a slam.

    Yes it is. Otherwise Fed's resume on clay isn't strong enough.
     
  7. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,449
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    The OG is debatable. Points wise it's less than a masters and it's only as hard to win as a masters from 6 years ago too.

    Federer has 10+ Clay titles and 5 FO finals. Besides that clay is one third of the circuit. Federer dominated the other two thirds. Bit different to Nadal only dominating one third.
     
  8. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    But he racked up those accolades on the same surfaces that Nadal did his. Nadal was also his only competition for years so his era was pretty weak too, right?


    And do you have any proof that the USO was slowed down as much as you say?
     
  9. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686

    Lol, this stuff could not be more predictable if you tried.
     
  10. PCXL-Fan

    PCXL-Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Exactly. Roddick was the best competition Federer had until pre-prime Nadal shows up.

    Both Federer and Nadal have the luxury of winning slams in an amazingly weak era on their respective "dominant" surfaces.

    For this reason I'd cut down on the number of slams of their dominant surface if placed in stronger "surface" eras.

    You have to question both Federer's dominance and Nadal's dominance in their respective surfaces if players like 2007 Preprime Nadal can almost defeat Federer and Djokovic who doesn't even slide properly on clay can dominate Nadal for an entire claycourt season.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  11. PCXL-Fan

    PCXL-Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    double post
     
  12. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Your attempted point in the context of this thread is meaningless, as Borg won his RG titles in an even weaker clay era. Vilas was his biggest competition, and could barely get games off Borg on clay, and isnt even as good a clay courter as Federer who has both a superior RG record and more Masters equivalent titles than Vilas. Look at the various RG finalists of that era, Brian Gottfried, Harold Solomon, Victor Pecci, lol! Nadal is still the best clay courter of all time by far, and Borg still probably 2nd best (well I think Rosewall is but I know most dont feel that way) due to the huge chasm in their success at RG and general clay dominance vs the others, inspite of their weak clay competition. Guys who did have tough clay competition would be Lendl, Wilander, and to some extent Kuerten.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2012
  13. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,998
    Nice attempt at backtracking but it doesn't work. You have said with respect to Sampras and Federer that only slams matter when I tried to bring up the fact that Federer has more grass titles. Now you are trying to backtrack when you have used the very thing in the Nadal/Borg debate that you chastised me for in the Sampras/Federer debate. You know how I know I have won this argument? Because you are insulting me and calling me stupid. That is a sure sign I have won and you slipped up and contradicted yourself. :oops:
     
  14. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    Yeah sure, come on admit it pal, you just don't know what you're doing.

    No, it isn't. You're making it look like anybody who won the AUS open back then only won it because it didn't really matter. How disrespectful and arrogant of you. Typical *******.


    Doesn't matter, 11 and 12 are the last 2 WIM's he played just like 80 and 81 were the last 2 Borg played.

    BTW Rafa would beat McEnroe in 2010 anyway.

    That still isn't extremely close. I'll give you a tip, learn the meaning of words before you try and use them ok?

    He is still playing very well and although not as consistent as his peak days, let's not forget from 04-06 there wasn't really much competition for him.

    Lol I love how you always have some excuse for Fed's beatings but then you criticize anyone who makes excuses for Rafa.

    Indian Wells this year was outdoors he seemed to have no trouble with Nadal then which BTW was only a couple weeks after the AO where Nadal kicked his arse.

    That's because SnV isn't as viable now as it was back then. If there were more pure SnV players these days they'd struggle to make top 10.

    Where did I say they were the only type of threat? Please, point that out. Oh wait I get it, your poor comprehension skills have come to play again, sorry I forgot about that for a second my bad.

    Point is these days, when a power hitter is going for broke and they are going in off both wings it is incredibly difficult to do anything about it.

    Point is you are only looking at this from against Rafa's point of view. Just like most of the other crap you post.

    Lol right on cue you have more excuses for Federer. Fed never reclaimed the #1 when Nadal was at his best either. I'd like to see Fed's 04-07 records against Rafa from 2008 or 2010. Even Rafa 2011 form would've been too much for Fed's 2007 form to handle. Also, you don't have to take my word for it, whenever they played from 04-07 Rafa was still getting the better of him for the most part:

    04 - Rafa 1 Fed 0 (can't wait for the excuse here 17 year old boy beat him)
    05 - Rafa 1 Fed 1 (obviously even)
    06 - Rafa 4 Fed 2 (spoils go to Rafa again)
    07 - Rafa 2 Fed 3 (Fed finally gets the better of Rafa... only just)

    So imagine what happens if Rafa was more consistent? Oh wait let's have a look:

    08 - Rafa 4 Fed 0 :)oops:)
    09 - Rafa 1 Fed 1 (well, even but still goes to Rafa AO09 >>>>>> Madrid)
    10 - Rafa 1 Fed 1 (even but that's because Fed couldn't make it to any finals)
    11 - Rafa 3 Fed 1 :)oops:)
    12 - Rafa 1 Fed 1 (well same as in 09, AO win is much more important that Masters)

    So yeah, Fed from 04-07 would have a VERY hard time dealing with Nadal from 08-12.

    Well if you want to make the surface argument against Rafa, I'll make it against Borg, SnV against Fed in 08 WIM final and he's toast.
     
  15. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,272
    Location:
    Chile
    It obviously means more than what the points awarded would show. Also, if it's not so hard to win then why hasn't Fed won it. It's played on surfaces that favour him and he's had many chances.

    Federer also won RG the year he could avoid Nadal (let's not even get into why Nadal wasn't in that final). Nadal didn't need to avoid anyone to get his hc titles.

    Of course he does, Nadal won it ;).
     
  16. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,797
    Location:
    Weak era
    Yes, especially when he's used to bolster Rafa's resumee :p.

    Well it's hard to talk about proof when we're largely discussing and comparing the very best here, there's not a lot separating them either way but (some) Fed fans are entitled to their opinion that Fed is the best (it's not like he's a bad choice in that regard).

    However in the same way Nadal's achievements don't prove he's above Borg either, if he say wins another 3 slams it won't be as simple as claiming 14>11.

    In a way this is true but it is my personal belief that no player would ever dominate both clay and grass in such polarized conditions which does make Borg quite unique in the history of the game.

    Actually, I've seen a number of people here arguing that Borg should be in the 2nd tier, I think people underrate him very often around here, especially when he's compared to the likes of Fed, Sampras and Laver.

    Not that it matters that much, we both know that by the time Nadal hangs up his racquet it will be hard to argue against him being in the 1st tier whether one likes him or not.
     
  17. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,797
    Location:
    Weak era
    I would avoid posting this in the former pro section, there are people there believing that Vilas is as good as Nadal on clay and would dominate Fed to the same degree.
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    only very close for those who don't recognize the context of borg's time .. .rafa still has some work to do ...


    even with the stupid rankings at that time, borg has similar no of weeks at no 1 as rafa ... for those who have watched the matches of that era and are aware of the records, they know that under any reasonable system, borg's no of weeks at #1 would be quite a bit more than what the rankings at that time show ....
     
  19. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    Yes I remember, but I also remember Nadal beating him and then picking up form and confidence as the tournament continued.

    Lol why do you assume I haven't seen these matches you keep referring to? Is it because I said Ancic had no chance in hell of beating Nadal in the final if they played? hahahahaha.

    I'm in stitches laughing at this. But I'll get a little more serious with you, I challenge you to create a thread and put a poll and ask: would Ancic have beaten Nadal in the 06 WIM final? I would be in shock if the poll result wasn't in a landslide with the answer NO.

    See your problem is you have very few brain cells functioning in your head. Going by your logic, I would have to say that Verdasco would've beaten Federer in the 09AO final.

    Ah another Fed excuse. Good.

    And you conveniently leave out Rafa's mistakes in those matches. Murray wasn't in his very first home major semi final against Rafa, he was against Roddick. Roddick is a lesser opponent than Rafa by some margin and so every mistake Murray made against Rafa would cost him.


    LOL Roddick and Hewitt beating Nadal at Wimbledon in 09. If Rafa didn't have to deal with personal issues as well as a bung knee, there is no way Hewitt would've beat him. Roddick would have a slight chance but that's it.

    And you seem to forget that Rafa faced Federer 3 years in a row up there. You want to talk about draws and having an easy ride?

    AO04
    AO06
    AO07
    AO10
    WIM03
    WIM09
    USO04
    USO05
    RG09

    WOW that's a lot of **** easy draws there.


    Look, it's time you get it through your skull there was absolutely no way Ancic was going to beat Rafa in that WIM final. Fed had his troubles in that match I know because I watched it ;)

    Wrong. but I'm not surprised you can't read very well. Also, don't tell me what I would be saying because your assumptions are ridiculous enough as it is.
     
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    I don't attribute the 2012 loss to any injury at all ... he was perfectly fit and fine before wimbledon and even during the rosol match he was moving well ... its just that rosol plain beat him ....

    level wise, when playing well, nadal and borg are comparable on respective grass courts they played on , but resume wise, borg is simply quite a bit better, it isn't a small edge, it is quite a lot

    and if we consider borg had to adapt more in his day to the grass when compared to nadal, that makes the edge even more impressive

    if we bring in the federer argument into the picture @ wimbledon, do the same for borg @ the USO ( where he had to face both connors and mac ) - he was good enough to make 3 finals in 4 attempts on HC ... remove one of these 2 or a slight dip in the form of either of these 2 and borg has a USO title , possibly 2 ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    ditto for ancic ...

    of course it would be a landslide if a poll were created right now given what all rafa has accomplished after that ... but not so if it was in 2006

    I said ancic would have a shot vs rafa in 2006 wimbledon, not that he would win it ...not that he was the favourite

    and yes , verdasco , if he played as well as he did in the semis, keeping his head on and federer served as badly as he did in the finals, verdasco would have a shot , but he wouldn't be the favourite.

    how is saying he was a headcase pre-prime in 2002 an excuse ? It is a well-documented fact ..... jeez, wonder how many people like you are there who will say any explanation is an excuse ?


    even if we excuse the mistake in the 2010 semi, the letdown in the 2011 semi wasn't a minor one, murray was a total mess after that miss until late in the 3rd set ....... he didn't even put up that strong a fightback after that ...


    yes, you'd also say djoker on his weakest surface, grass, would not have a chance vs rafa at wimbledon 2011 either , even more so considering that rafa was in better form going into the finals ..

    roddick would only have a slight chance ??????? LMAO !!!!!!!

    rafa was struggling with returning his serve on slow HCs on miami in 2010 you think roddick would only have a slight chance vs rafa with roddick playing at his very best on grass ????????

    ha ha ha ha ........... you are good for a laugh .......

    and hewitt was playing very well as well, he'd have a good shot as well ...

    AO 2004 - hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero, safin in a row .....easy draw ??

    AO - andreev in 1R, davydenko, tsonga and murray

    wim 03 - scud and roddick

    wim 04 - hewitt and roddick ( at his very best )

    USO 04 - agassi and hewitt

    USO 2005 - nalbandian, hewitt and agassi

    RG 2009 - del potro playing brilliant tennis and soderling in the finals

    lol those are easy draws ?????????? ha ha ha ! just goes to show what a fed hater you are ......

    AO 2006 had davydenko/haas/baghdatis all playing well ... AO 2007 - gonzalez on fire and roddick in the semis ( got blitzed )

    I will give you that AO 2007 & to a lesser extent AO 2006 were relatively weak , but that's about it .......
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  22. kalyan4fedever

    kalyan4fedever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    How do you guys get so much time in breaking the quotes sentence by sentence and then reply o_o
     
  23. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,126
    Location:
    New York
    No it doesn't. Winning 2 out of the 4 slams doesn't make up for winning all 4. No matter how one looks at it. And it's not the AO that makes the biggest difference obviously, it's the USO of course.
     
  24. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,265
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    The tennis expert has spoken.

    :roll:
     
  25. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,449
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    The fact Federer hasn't won one isn't really a factor at all. The size of the draw, the number of matches and the format of those matches are not dissimilar to a masters. Having a sly dig at Federer doesn't change that.The OG means alot to the players, doesn't make it slam calibre.

    Nadal was in the draw, if he didn't make it far enough then it's not Federer's fault. Federer had made 3 previous finals in a row so it's not like he's some clay court mug. He beat the guy who sent Nadal packing anyway...

    If we're making excuses the only reason Nadal won the AO 09 was because Federer turned into a mental midget that day versus him and couldn't serve.

    As for the speed of the US Open, I'll admit I'm going by word of mouth more than anything on that. The general slowing down of the tour is quite clear though wouldn't you say?
     
  26. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,970
    You and me, both are astonished by their patience. Kudos to abmk and the order :)
     
  27. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    I still think he had great points, even if you make some good ones yourself.

    The fact is Nadal has won the CYGS, and he's also won slams in all surfaces in the same year. Plus the 21 Masters Shields.

    Nobody gifted any of that to Nadal. No doubt Nadal is not as versatile as Federer or Borg, but this in my opinion even lends more weight to his achievements.

    Yes, I think Borg was more versatile than Nadal. Still, Nadal has achieved things that Borg didn't.

    Regarding being able to compare players, it's always difficult to compare players from different eras. Even comparing Sampras and Federer is tough because of their very limited H2H and the fact that they met when Sampras was in deep decline.

    I also think that the depth of the field, and the level of competition, in general, was lower during Borg's time (even if you can point out a few giants that stood amongst the rest). But maybe this is just historical revisionism? I don't know. LIke I say, comparing players from different eras is very difficult.

    I have to agree with you on this. Funny thing is that, didn't borg lose one USO in clay? Or was it grass?

    Yes, I agree there also. One more reason why evaluating players in an absolute scale is very difficult.

    I think that Borg might have been the best ever (again, a flawed statement) if he had pursued different objectives and had a longer career. But based on achievements alone, I feel Nadal has the upper hand. A CYGS still means something even in an era of homogeneized surfaces. And he still had to win 2 slams on his worst surface (hardcourt), which is a feat on its own. The 21 Masters titles also is a very important achievement. Nadal might end up with the highest Master win count to date (tied at the moment with Federer).

    In general, I think Borg was more versatile in his era than Nadal is in his. But I also think that Nadal's achievements are superior. Borg had the stuff to probably become the best ever (relative factors nonwithstanding), but for whatever reason, he fell short.

    I won't say Nadal is better than Borg, that's stupid. His achievements seem to have overtaken Borg's however.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  28. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,624

    No one thinks Sampras is "as good" as Federer on clay overall.. Me either.. But I would argue Sampras had more solid conquests on clay then Federer. Djoker isn't a great clay court player.. Hes GOOD but not great. I wouldn't put even NEARLY on the level of Bruguera, Courier, Guga, Lendl Wilander at their peaks. These guys truly knew how to master and play on clay.. It was their best surfaces.. Its Roger's weakest surface by far, Djoker's 2nd weakest surface etc.

    I doubt Rafa would have mopped up clay titles in the 90s like he has since 2005-present. He would have draws way more littered with guys who excel on clay unlike now.

    Nadal has surpassed Borg and I think hes the clay GOAT ( though I don't how Rafa would do on clay if you gave him 1950's-1990s racket technology either). I assume he would figure it out. But in terms of clay depth, the 00s'-present just hasn't been one of the strongest depth wise. But then again it wasn't in Borg's time either.

    Clay was the strongest depth wise in the 80s-early/mid90s
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  29. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    Confident Ancic vs confident Rafa in a WIM final, geez I wonder who'd win :oops:

    Yes it would, you'd be the only idiot to vote yes along with the other idiotic *******s.

    No he wouldn't have a shot, not a snowball's chance in hell.

    Nonsense, Verdasco would never beat Fed in a major final. Even if he went 2 sets up he'd most likely crumble.

    Nadal knee problems are a well documented fact too, but you ****s don't seem to have a problem calling him a liar and saying it's an excuse...

    And in 09 semi he didn't play his best either because of the mental pressure, that's why Roddick beat him.

    Absolute crap. Novak beat Rafa continuously in HC and CC finals leading up to that Wimbledon. Not only that Novak had only lost one match all year at that point and Rafa had a fracture in his foot.

    To think that Novak would not even have a chance against Rafa in that final is absolute crap. The problem for you is, you know sfa about the sport to say crap like Novak should've been considered to have no chance against Rafa in WIM 11, but Ancic had a decent shot if they played in the 06 final. LOL.

    Keep laughing, the only reason you think Roddick would've beaten Rafa is because Fed struggled against him. They played only once on grass in 2008 Queen's IIRC and Nadal beat him in straights. If Nadal was fit and firing in 09 WIM he would've handled Roddick. And to say Hewitt could've beaten him is even funnier hahahahaha.

    Hewitt was well below his best at the time his ranking had plummeted and Fed had figured him out.

    Nalbandian was too hot and cold, as has been the case for most of his career. He played pretty well but that was Fed's only challenge for the whole tournament.

    Ferrero LOL. and Safin was stuffed after all his 5 set matches. So yeah was a pretty easy draw.

    And? Is that meant to impress anyone? It was a **** easy draw especially considering how **** Murray played in that final.

    :oops:

    Oh yeah the major threat that is Hewitt, tell me after that 2003 Davis cup match how many years did it take Hewitt to record another victory over Fed?

    And Roddick was and always has been his pidgeon.

    LOL stop embarrassing yourself. You really think an old man Agassi was tough? I don't care if it was a 5 setter, if Agassi was a few years younger he probably would've won but at his age he was never going to have the endurance to go on with it in the fifth.

    And Hewitt again major LOLz. double bagel in a slam final and you call that tough? My **** could've beat Hewitt that day.

    :oops: Another weak ass draw.

    Sod played **** in the final compared to how he played against Rafa. Del Potro played well but didn't have the endurance to run it out.

    Yeah I hate Fed so much I said Borg wouldn't have a shot at beating him or taking the #1 ranking off him. Fed's a top tier great, so it should be expected that he would beat jokers like those over and over in slams. Just tell me though, he's played against Rafa in 10 majors, how many of those did he go on to win? Once you conjure enough brain power to answer that you will then understand how good Rafa is to dominate probably the greatest player in majors.

    Out of all those "tough opponents" you listed tell me how many of them are at least tier 3 greats? Agassi is the only one and he was set for retirement at the time and far from his best.

    Rafa's had to win 7 of his 11 majors by beating the greatest player. Tell me how many times did Borg have to beat anyone near Fed's level to win his majors?

    No they were all weak and common sense tells you that. If you watched those tournaments you could see Fed was going to win all of them easily except for probably WIM03 but only because he hadn't won a major before that.

    There were only 2 players with a realistic chance of beating Federer in majors during that period. Nadal and Djokovic. That's it they were the only 2 where you could say at the start of the tournament those to had a realistic to knock Fed out, so it's not Fed's fault that those draws were easy, it's just a fact that's all.

    Just because those players played well from time to time, guys like Haas, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Andreev etc. doesn't mean they had the capability to knock Fed off in a major. They could push him especially if Fed wasn't switched on, but they couldn't beat him in one post 2003.
     
  30. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,634
    Lawl, no.

    Borg dominated the French and Wimbledon (when the speed was vastly different compared to now), made 4 US Open finals and was only stopped by 2 other American GOAT's in Connors and McEnroe, didn't even play at the AO which wasn't considered a major at the time. Nadal would have to score another 1-2 Wimbledons and at least 1 major on hard courts to be considered better than Borg.

    Right now I would say that they are roughly equal on hard courts, Nadal is slightly better on clay and Borg still has a healthy advantage on grass.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  31. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Well, it was, it just wasn't attended as well as the others. If Borg had won the U.S. Open in one of his Channel Slam years, he would've gone to Australia to try to win the calendar slam (and Connors I think said he'd have followed him there to try to stop him). It was still a part of the Grand Slam, but it sometimes wasn't one of the four best events in terms of participation and deep draws.
     
  32. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,624
  33. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    Wow yur cool brah, u wrote lawl instead of lol.

    Borg only dominated Wimbledon because Federer wasn't there like he was for Nadal get your head out of your arse.

    IF Nadal wins another 2 wimbledons and another HC title that puts him on 14 majors and in contention to surpass Sampras. Then you consider that you would think he'd have a couple more RG titles in the meantime. Could even be on 16 and in contention to be greater than Fed. Let alone Borg lol.

    No, Nadal won the US open and the AO which was on HC, as well as the Olympics on HC. What has Borg won on a HC? Rafa > Borg on HC.

    Rafa > Borg on clay
    Borg > Rafa on grass but the 5 wimbledon titles to 2 is VERY misleading considering Rafa had to beat Fed to win his.
     
  34. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    I like this gif. :lol:
     
  35. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    I don't think you can say this with any certainty. In any case, Nadal lost to Federer twice at Wimbledon. Without Federer in his way, he'd have at most four Wimbledon titles, which still doesn't match Borg.
     
  36. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    You don't understand the point properly. Yes Nadal's 4 wouldn't match Borg BUT if Federer was around in Borg's era, Borg would've lost to him at least twice putting him on 3 WIM titles.

    4 > 3 you see the point now? Unless you want to agree with that other fool and say Ancic would've beaten Nadal in 2006 WIM final :oops:
     
  37. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,272
    Location:
    Chile
    I guess we pretty much agree here :)

    Which shows your bias. you have no problem attributing loses of Borg and Fed to injuries, mono, hot-headedness, whatever.

    Precisely.
     
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    there is a difference b/w saying a player would have a shot vs another and saying he'd win .... but you are too thick to get that


    yes, his knee problems are well documented ... But you can see signs in the players movement when they have problems - see his QF vs ferrer @ AO 2011 for example ... or when he injured himself at the closing stages of the murray match @ AO 2010 ......

    there were no signs whatsoever before or during the match of any injury or problems in movement - same case - soderling RG 2009 , rosol wimbledon 2012 ..... all these injury "excuses" came up after the matches were over

    had nothing to do with pressure, roddick was the superior player and just plain beat him ...


    novak was anyways beating rafa on HC even before that, so not big a deal ...

    if fed who normally handles roddick's serve that well had trouble ( along with murray & hewitt ) , you can be sure nadal who handles it much worse would have lot of trouble .... on top of it roddick was playing brilliantly off the ground ... hell yeah, anything other than a very top form rafa and rafa loses ..........

    08 @ Queens, roddick was just coming off a shoulder injury

    yes, he had hewitt figured out by losing to him in the Davis semi >> you are totally clueless

    ferrero had just come off a final @ the US Open and was developing pretty fast on HC as well

    nalbandian played pretty well


    so andreev in 1R playing darn well, davydenko on fire in the QF is easy ?

    murray played fairly decently in that final (unlike USO 2008 or AO 2011), he just got outclassed ..


    so that's a credit to federer ......... hewitt/roddick would've been getting multiple wins easily over any other great in that time-frame


    endurance ? that agassi match was split over multiple days ... so endurance doesn't come into the picture here @ all ... hewitt was in brilliant form going into the finals ... was just totally outclassed by federer there ....


    yeah, sod didn't play as well as he did vs rafa, but after the first set, he was playing quite well in the 2nd & 3rd sets ...

    as far as delpo is concerned, jeez, federer having greater endurance is a factor in his favour not against him ... while delpo was a bit fatigued, he was still good enough to get the break back in the final set ....



    that's plain dumb ...... federer was that good enough not to allow any of these players when playing well to beat him ... most of the other greats weren't ...

    want examples ? history is littered with enough such examples !

    roddick in the wim 04 final or wim 09 final or USO 2007 QF is sure as hell is >> either djoker ( and of course fed ) in RG 2008 , probably just as tough as fed was in some of the other RG finals , >> djoker in USO 2010 , >> soderling in FO 2010, berdych in wim 2010 etc etc ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    but of course, competition comes only into the picture for poor rafa at wimbledon ...

    borg having to face two of the greatest players @ the USO in their primes- connors, mac doesn't matter in the one bit .... borg's USO resume @ USO isn't misleading at all .........

    ha ha ha ...:lol:

    if not for fed, nadal would have 4 wimbledons at max, still one less than borg

    if not for either connors/mac, borg would have 2 USOs along with multiple other finals , quite a bit better than rafa there ...



    the hypocrisy of it all ............
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  40. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    One area that Nadal and Borg have been very similar to each other in, has been the constant injury excuses that have circulated the media whenever they have lost big matches.

    As we know it has been an all too common occurrence with Nadal and Uncle Toni, and it was exactly the same with Borg and his coach Lennart Bergelin back in the 70s/80s (Bergelin always seemed to be moaning and talking about injuries). It has been very annoying with Nadal in recent years, and it was just as annoying with Borg back then.
     
  41. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,634
    Stick to reality, nooblet. You won't convnice me that Nadal has achieved more than Borg no matter how many what ifs and would'ves you put in there. Abmk did a great job of proving that you know nothing - so Nadal had it harder at Wimbledon because he had to face Federer while at the same time Borg had it super easy to had to deal with Connors and McEnroe. Besides these 2 were Americans and always got way more support than Borg.

    Besides, you should be banned for using multiple accounts so you should just shut your mouth and be grateful that you have the privilege of just reading the threads, let alone posting here.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  42. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    No he would not have a shot. Not even half a chance.

    AO11 wasn't a knee problem it was a hamstring tear. Try and run with that happening to you, oh wait I forgot you don't play tennis so you wouldn't have a clue.

    Many of Nadal's losses are because of injury, if you think he was moving well against Murray you're kidding yourself. BTW I still think he would've lost that match anyway, but it is a fact that he injured his knee during that one.

    Yeah he just pulled out of Wimbledon for nothing...

    Rubbish.

    You yourself claimed that Novak couldn't win big/important matches against Nadal even on HC. So you were either full of it back then or your full of it now, either way, you're full of it.

    Novak beat Nadal consecutively not only on HC but in CC finals as well. If you think that wasn't a big deal then you're a nutcase.

    Here we go, I knew this was your reason the whole time. You only rate Roddick's 09 WIM campaign because your lover struggled against him in the final. You know Nadal would've beaten him.

    So what? USO09 was just because Nadal was coming of a knee injury, see I can play this game too...

    If you watched the match, Fed was on top in the Davis cup match and should've won in straights. He had a mental lapse which let Hewitt back in and momentum took him through to make the comeback. In that AO04 match, Fed had him figured out, hence he won a set 6-0 and pretty much dominated after the first set...

    Yeah so fast he got beaten by Chris Guccione in Sydney leading up to it LOL.

    I said that, still having reading problems are we?

    I already explained how these guys would never be able to finish the job against a player like Federer. Why do you need to keep saying the same **** over and over and over and over again?

    Whenever Fed sees these guys in his draw he laughs and knows he straight through them.

    No he didn't, he played ****.

    Yes it is a credit to Federer, but at the same time, those two lose a lot of credit because they could never beat him at a major. Ever. Yep that's right Hewitt and Roddick's combined wins over Federer in a major = 0. If they were as good as you pump them up to be (which BTW I know you're only doing so to pump Fed's tyres up) they would've beat him at least ONCE.


    Yeah so Agassi had to recover and get back out there day after day. A lot harder to do when in your mid 30's and Hewitt's brilliant form turned to absolute crap in that final only you won't admit that because you have nfi about this sport.

    Do you really think Hewitt played well in that match? In that case Berdych played well against Rafa in the WIM10 final...

    So? Your point is what? He put up a bit of a fight? WOW. I'm sure Fed was very worried that Sod would beat him...

    Even the commentators noticed how Delpo was running out of gas. That break back was Delpo showing his fighting characteristics but reality is he could not keep up his level of play.

    Yeah that's right Fed was good enough to not allow them to beat him even when they were playing well, but when Nadal or Novak play well Fed struggles big time, so much so that he can't beat Nadal in a major in 5 years and counting.

    Those guys were never going to beat Federer even if Fed was in trouble against them you knew that Fed was still going to come back and beat them. That has never been the case with Nadal and Novak at a major.

    15/17 of Fed's majors where he didn't have to beat Nadal. Most of those were before Nadal could play well consistently on HC, Grass and Clay.

    7/11 majors Nadal HAD to beat Federer. So you must admit Nadal has had a pretty tough blow considering he had to beat the greatest player to win the majority of his majors, whereas Fed did not have to beat his greatest threat to get 15 of his 17 majors. And before you say that's not Fed's fault, well it is because he lost to Rafa in 8 different majors, why wasn't he able to win more against Nadal? That IS his fault for losing to him. And before you start flapping on about RG, remember Nadal DID overcome Fed at Wimbledon where Fed FAILED to overcome Nadal at RG.

    Even Fed's 2009 major wins were because he didn't have to deal with Nadal. By his standards, he didn't play too well against Roddick in that 09 final (could only break his serve once or twice in the whole match IIRC). If Fed faced Rafa in that form he would've been beaten in straight sets.

    And you still couldn't even answer this simple question:

    Rafa's had to win 7 of his 11 majors by beating the greatest player. Tell me how many times did Borg have to beat anyone near Fed's level to win his majors?
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  43. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    I don't need to convince you and I'm not trying to. I really don't care about you, I just used common sense, sorry that you don't have any.

    I don't have multiple accounts I hardly post on here only from time to time to put ****s like you and abmk in their place.

    Also, if I don't shut my mouth what are you going to do about it? Tell your mommy?
     
  44. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Roger had about fifty aces and above 100 winners in that match against Roddick. And you still say that Roger didn't play well to his standards? My God, Roger should have been a super human then! Try facing 130 mph serves and 100 mph forehand shots following that serve. If Roger hadn't played well he wouldn't have won that match at all!

    Borg played on fast grass while Rafa played on grass considerably slowed down. Even on this version of slowed down grass, Rafa has huge problems in the first week of Wimbledon when the grass is comparitively fast. Except for 2008 and 2011 he played five setters in either second or third round at SW 19 with absolutely nobodies. Do you honestly think Rafa would have fared well on the old grass like Borg?
     
  45. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,538
    Location:
    Australia
    Federer didn't play bad at all in the 2009 final, Roddick just played out of his skin and even that wasn't enough to seal the deal.
     
  46. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    So Nadal despite being by far the most hated player on this forum (other than maybe Serena) is winning this poll. That already says enough and should be the end of the thread.
     
  47. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    I don't know. Maybe Borg wouldn't have lost to Federer at least twice. Or maybe having Federer in his era would motivate him to keep playing after 26 and he wins more later in his career. It's literally impossible to say.
     
  48. monfed

    monfed Guest

    I guess the polls aren't wrong after all aye,Professor? Or are they incorrect only when Ralph loses? :lol:
     
  49. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    The ****s are voting for Nadal to enhance Fed's strong era :D
     
  50. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,133
    Maybe he wouldn't have lost to Fed twice, that's quite possible... but it isn't likely given Fed is widely recognised as the greatest player of all time. If Borg takes a couple of WIM titles away from Fed coupled with Borg most likely beating Fed at RG, then Fed would have won less majors and hence not considered the greatest. But it's not impossible to say because it's not impossible to give an opinion based on strong evidence. It IS impossible to know however.

    And Borg had McEnroe to motivate him instead he quit. It doesn't make sense that Fed would provide any extra motivation than McEnroe did. Jmac was finally a challenger that was a real threat to him at Wimbledon and that didn't motivate him at all.
     

Share This Page