Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by aphex, Jan 12, 2011.
...and then wins RG2011, will he be ahead of Borg?
(Assuming he retires after that)
Hard to say, Borg was an absolute beast in his prime, winning 11 majors till the age of 25 (I'm sure he'd add at least 2-3 if he continued playing) not participating in the AO is huge. Borg was a bit unlucky to have both Connors and McEnroe playing their best at the US Open, he knew that if he beat one, he'd bump into another.
On the other hand we have Nadal potentially with 11 majors (the last 5 won) on all surfaces, his Grand Slam set completed, an Olympic Gold, every big title won in his career at least once with the exception of the World Tour Finals.
I'd say IF Nadal wins the AO and the FO this year, he's on equal terms with Borg, but not better.
I'd have to say ralph
Also Bjorn would still remain much cooler
11 slams, a career slam, 5 slams in a row and 6 french opens? I'd say Rafa.
It's not just about the slams though...
I see your point, if considering at moment both are at 11 slams, it would be tough; I'd still give the slight edge to Nadal based on potential & surface/career slam, despite Borg's higher win percentage against top 10 & overall titles.
If Nadal, does win the AO and then a sixth FO title, I would put him in the "first tier" of all time greats, along with such players as Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer. I really think that perhaps P. Gonzalez is right up there as well with those four (though he, Rosewall, Laver and many others were well before my time). Personally, I would still not say he has established himself as great or greater than Bjorn Borg, but that's my opinion. I could see how someone could make the argument. I suppose I look at this in a fairly traditional way, because I really tend to look at Wimbledon quite closely. I would perhaps give him more credit for say winning this year's AO, and adding the '11 W title as opposed to adding a 6th FO to a '11 FO title (since he'd already established such a great record on red clay already). In my opinion, from here on out, the best way for him to strengthen his resume so to speak is to add Wimbledon titles and also outperform Roger Federer. Both will be tall tasks, yet I fully expect him to retain #1 and basically win more majors during the next few years than anyone else. He's a threat everywhere. He'd definitely be in the conversation with these all time greats no matter how you look at this. Borg may not have had the "Career Slam" by 25, but his track record was still jaw dropping and he had five straight W titles, as well as 6 straight finals there. His only losses in GS finals were to players named Connors or McEnroe. Overall, Borg racked up 64 official ATP titles and about a 100 titles if you count so called "unofficial" titles (back then, they played a lot of big money exos in addition to "official" tour events), while Nadal is at 43 right now. Call me old fashioned, but I think that there is perhaps no better way to plant yourself in the record books and in the "greatest of all time" conversation than racking up titles at Wimbledon.
Sorry but 1st tier is Laver/Federer.
I'd put Borg in 2nd tier along with Sampras.
I don't think Ralph makes the second tier with the above scenario...
If Rafa won the Grand slam this year (and YES I mean the real grand slam) you still wouldn't have him at tier 1 or even tier 2 because you're obviously a hater and are not objective in your opinions.
If Borg is tier 2 then if Rafa wins 11 majors then he should be considered tier 2 as well.
If Nadal completed the Grand Slam this year, (thereby reaching 13 slams/7 consecutive), I would put him a bit ahead of Federer and Laver.
With the original scenario (reaching 11), although he'd have the same no. of slams as Borg, I'd put Borg slightly ahead due to his domination over the field for more years...
Although it is extremely unlikely to happen, this place would go into meltdown.
According to who? You? Well your opinion means less to people than Simon Reed or Peter Bodo's...
lol, true...just to add, if in addition to my original scenario, he wins another wimby (any year) i.e. reaching 12 with
6 Clay and
I'd put him ahead of tier 2...(very likely to happen IMO)
Go watch some Jersey Shore and be quiet little boy.
When was the last time a player on the mens side won 5 in a row? Nadal would be in a category of his own.
If only he would rest, 6 in a row (Wim) wouldn't be out of the question.
6 in a row would put him above all IMO. It's hard to even fathom that it could be done this year. 6 majors in a row would be an unbelievable achievement and I'd put it higher than The Grand Slam because he'd have to win 2 majors of each surface in a row.
I really hoped after USO he would stop because he had gotten into a position to achieve a ridiculously insanely staggering epic feat, once you really think about it! The really hard thing to understand is why, surely well knowing this, Nadal would continue playing and end with an unsuccessful WTF campaign. That bit of the year was never good for him, always belonged to Fed. Somebody in his entourage too greedy? Just for the historical incredulity of it, I think it's beyond a pity if he threw that away just for shortsighted overplaying.
If Rafa wins 5 slams in a row (and he'll have a great shot at 6), it's not just the slams that'd make him great, it's the fact he has 18 masters shields (and probably 21 shields soon), already the record, plus his weeks at number one continue to increase with no sign of ending.
He's already ahead of Borg just from the fact he's won the 4 slams whereas Borg never won a slam on hard. What is this nonsense about having to win 5 consecutive slams to be better than Borg? Borg has never even won 3 consecutive, let alone 4 or 5. Rafa's winning % on clay is also the highest in history, so higher than Borg's as well.
If Rafa won 5 slams in a row, he would be the best player of open era, period, with several slams on every surface, Olympic gold, best winning % in masters, best record ever on 1 surface and most consecutive slam titles in open era, all of this at a record young age and at the fastest pace ever seen.
IF Nadal won 6 in a row, what to call it? The Nadal Epic?
If that happens the media should give him a new nickname: "TENNIS", because that's who he'll be :lol:
yup. the h2hs are also impt:twisted:
Rafa's masters shields record backs up the slams very nicely. He's already got 18 and will probably keep winning the clay masters events each year and get to around 30 shields. And the number one ranking is going to really pile up in weeks.
Since about 2007, I have had great admiration for Nadal in terms of his tennis greatness. I see many similarities between him and Borg (though each player is obviously quite unique). By 2008, I began viewing him as the best overall player in the world, despite Federer's achievements. While Borg captured no hard court majors, it should also be noted that Borg had exactly 4 chances to win a hard court major (1978-1981). During those 4 opportunities, he lost in 3 US Open finals to Connors and McEnroe. Meanwhile, he had 5 W titles, 6 FO titles, as well as some big year end wins at the Masters in Jan. '80 and Jan. '81 (he could definitely play on fast surfaces, 5-0 at MSG those two indoor tourneys in NY against Connors, McEnroe and Lendl)). Meanwhile, Nadal has had two chances every single year (10+ chances already). Plus, Borg's record at Wimbledon is still quite far ahead of Nadal's. So, yes, one could say he's already ahead of Borg, but the counter position could also be reasonably held. Federer caught Borg's 5 titles at W and added a 6th recently. Meanwhile, Nadal is still one shy of Borg's 6 FO titles. That says a lot about Borg's greatness.
ITA about the many similarities. Borg won his 6th RG title at just 25, so it's not like he has more RG success, it's just that Rafa is still younger. And as I wrote Rafa's winning record on clay is already higher than Borg's.
Borg currently has more Wimbledon titles but having the 2 slam titles on hard court + still more than 1 W make Rafa a more complete/impressive player than Borg.
If Rafa has a weakness, it's indoor. No doubt Borg was much better there but slams are the most important titles and there is no indoor slam.
Can you even read?
Try reading the first post again and avoid going off on useless tangents in my thread.
youre such a goof, nobody cares about the masters titles except fanboys like you
"If he wins Australia, the French and Wimbledon is a lock, he only needs to defend his US Open! Great times!"
My God listen to yourself, goofs. You're all gonna look like morons after the Australian Open if Nadal fails to win it and it's far from given (we've got 5-6 guys with equally good chances as Nadal). I guess you wanna squeeze out as much joy as you can before Australia.
The Nadaltards really need a cold shower, fast.
I am answering Borg number one's post (nothing to do with you. Starting a thread doesn't mean you own all the posts in it...)
Yeah but if Fed had 25 you would care wouldn't you? In fact I'd go as far as saying that if Fed has the Masters record that'll be brought up in every post about Fed GOATness, but because Nadal has the record they don't matter. LOL.
Of course it's far from a given. No one has ever said otherwise. This is a "if" thread, doesn't mean it will happen.
Federer leads the H2H, 2 surfaces to 1. Thanks for playing.
Beware the *******s!
Head to head is all surfaces combined. That's 8-14 and no, that's not a leading head to head, no matter how you look at it. (2-6 in slams)
Not on the major stage where it matters most...
You're talking the same "if Nadal wins" crap ever since he won the US Open. I'm sick of it! If he is to win in Australia, let it be. I've had enough of Nadaltards imitating freaking Nostradamus for some months now.
huh? since when was i talking about Federer
the h2h is skewed and you know it, it's hilarious that in today's era where 70% of the time is played on hard courts they managed to play 12 times on clay compared to only 7 on hard courts and 3 on grass, the fedal h2h is worthless
a doubly-weak era?? it was a weak era when Fed won 3 in a row...
Why are you reading this thread then? No one is forcing you. You should stay away from a subject that aggravates you.
Skewed? Just testifies to Fed's weakness on clay or to Rafa's unprecedented genius on clay and higher domination on 1 surface than Fed can ever dream of. Doesn't that make Rafa the better player? If Rafa can overcome Fed on the surfaces he is supposed to dominate but Fed cannot overcome Rafa on clay, then Rafa is the most dominant player, not Fed.
Actually, if it's skewed, it should be to Fed's advantage: Fed has had 4 opportunities to beat Rafa at RG and still he failed. Rafa succeeded within only 3 attempts at W and 1 attempt at AO. Damning stat for Fed.
Rafa leads 3-1 on outdoor HC so really Fed's lucky he hasn't met Rafa on more occasions in masters tourny's because Nadal has the edge on him on outdoor HC.
Well if you want to consider Fed part of a weak era then suit yourself
What is this "outdoor" material? Is it new?
Pfff haha why don't you look deeper?
"Nadal has a 1-0 over Federer in Dubai and the Australian Open. Federer is lucky they only met once there." sounds about right for such a ****** as yourself
Not new but indoor does not have the outdoor elements.
Not in slams. Rafa leads that 2 surfaces to 1 (and the grass h2h will probably change). And 6-2 in all slam matches. That's the real h2h.
Totally wrong and a youre double wrong + a lol from myself as for Nadal being a "genius". If hitting to your oponent backand all the time is considered genius, then I'm freaking Einstein.
"and higher domination on 1 surface than Fed can ever dream of"
Dominating 2/3 Masters titles + a Slam (3/4 titles in total) is one thing. Having to win 6 Masters titles + 2 Slams + a Masters Cup + several other smaller titles like Tokio, Dubai, Basel, Rotterdam and so on is another.
Btw you're really a girly? Cause I can't think of any girl who is as vicious as you are and defends Rafito as if he was your first and only child.
The thing is, everybody knows that Nadal is better than Federer on clay, hence the 10-2 h2h on the surface. And EVERYBODY (including you) knows that the h2h is skewed but you wouldnt let such an ace fly away in "arguements". Ever wondered when Federer plays Nadal and theres a pre-match warm-up the commentators use to mention the h2h stats and then ALWAYS add "but! if you take the h2h off clay...."
ok cowboy tell me when 9 gets bigger than 16, if it doesnt your can throw your h2h in the garbage
Separate names with a comma.