Nadal vs. Borg

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by ruxxx, May 29, 2006.

  1. ruxxx

    ruxxx New User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12
    Clay-schmay! Who cares about mud? Isn't Borg's 49 consecutive more impressive? (with 40 more later in his short career)
    ********************
    Does anyone know the exact details of Borg's 49 ?
     
    #1
  2. Ripper

    Ripper Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,652
    Location:
    "Where Moth & Rust Destroy"
    Imo, yes, but you can't put Nadal down, because of that.
     
    #2
  3. Wondertoy

    Wondertoy Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    869
    Nadal is very tough on this surface, Borg was tough on all surfaces.
     
    #3
  4. ruxxx

    ruxxx New User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12
    Exactly! But did Borg's winning streak cover all three surfaces?
     
    #4
  5. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    Borg's streak is consecutive matches. I don't know if they're 40 in clay, and 7 in grass, and then, 2 in clay.... but still impressive!!! :D
     
    #5
  6. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    nadal would destroy the "saintly" borg on any surface. borg didnt have near the competition as nadal. nobody cared about the clay season in the seventies, and borg never did win the us open. nadal is still a teenager and has already broken the alltime claycourt winning streak.
     
    #6
  7. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    The so called GREATS played Borg: McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Nastase...
    Not competition? Not competition my ass :cool:
     
    #7
  8. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Nadal and Borg would be a good match on only clay! Other then that I don't think Nadal could hang with him!
     
    #8
  9. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    connors skipped the french, and claycourt season in his prime, and probably would have won the french in 74, and 75. mcenroe came in towards the end of borgs career and put borg into retirement. lendl arrived on the seen at the very end of borgs career only. borg was yearend #1 only twice. a modern nadal is just better than borg. nastases best years were when borg was a teenager.
     
    #9
  10. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Borg is considered by some to be the best player ever, Nadal would not win except on clay!
     
    #10
  11. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    nadal has won hardcourt tournaments. and would have beaten federer at the nasdaq/liptons had it not been for a bad call. nadal can win on all surfaces if he puts his mind to it. right now he just seeems to care about his clay only.
     
    #11
  12. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,725
    Borg won 5 Wimbledons, I think that outclasses the 4 hardcourt titles Nadal has :rolleyes: . Also if Nadal is so much greater than Borg then he should have been able to get through the bad line call when he was up a DOUBLE BREAK and finish off the match. Federer won that match fairly just has Nadal has won their other 5 encounters fairly.
     
    #12
  13. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    I notice you post in almost every thread about Borg, saying what a dinosaur he is, that he had no competition, etc.
    And I also notice you post about Connors as well, but praising his accomplishments.
    Not sure you can have it both ways, saying that Borg sucks because of his mediocre competition, that his play looks like slow motion compared to today, etc.
    But yet Connors doesn't get the same treatment? Wasn't the competition he faced in his prime just as "mediocre" as Borg? Doesn't his play now look "slow motion?"

    Who did Connors have to face in his best years? A 40 year old Ken Rosewall? A past his prime Ashe(who still was able to upset Connors at Wimbledon)?

    I love this board, it has all types. Not just Federer fanatics vs Sampras fanatics debates, but some diehard Connors fan that wastes no opportunity to diss a playerregarded as his superior by all historians. He won more majors than Connors & won his last 8 meetings vs him. Nuff said.

    was your first racquet a t-2000?
     
    #13
  14. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    gee moose, i looked threw my posts here and i don't believe i praised connors once. why don't you comment on the points i've made here if you believe there incorrect. thats if u can.
     
    #14
  15. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    i think borg and nadal played against different competition and in different eras. nadals career is not over yet either.:rolleyes:
     
    #15
  16. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,725
    Then we can not equally compare the two, let's just say Borg was the most dominant player on clay in his era, Nadal is the most dominant player on clay at the moment. There is no way to prove which competition was stronger or who is better when they are in different eras.
     
    #16
  17. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    I've read your past posts, its obvious you are a Connors fan. And the hostility you constantly show Borg isn't just a coincidence.

    You did post that Borg's FO titles weren't quality wins because Connors didn't play those years. Considering Connors never won a red clay title in his entire career, & couldn't beat Borg at Wimbledon, I don't think he would have posed much of a threat to Borg at the French.

    Again, if you think Borg had no competition in his era, than you must agree Connors had pretty bad competition as well, since they are contemporaries & played their best tennis at the same time.
     
    #17
  18. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    right, and the pc's in the seventies were just as good as todays too.
     
    #18
  19. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    not discussing connors here, nadal. but connors did beat borg on clay at the us open. connors didn't play a lot of red clay tournaments in his prime because of his banning at the french. and most experts(and reasonable people) agree a connors in 1974, who went 99-4, would have been too much for a teenage borg. most reasonable people also realize the competiton today is much tougher.
     
    #19
  20. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423

    Nadal has not won the big tourmaments on other surfaces besides clay. He is the best on clay but he has not proven himself to be a potential champion of any other slams. I don't think he will win many slams besides Clay. He might win the AO a couple of times and possibly the USO, but he does not have the game to be a Roger Federer or a Borg or a Sampras!
     
    #20
  21. Aykhan Mammadov

    Aykhan Mammadov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    It is definetly joke to start compare Nadal with GREAT Borg. Borg is 5 time Wimb champion !!! + 6 times FO champion !!! nadal has only 1 slam, let him win the second at least.
     
    #21
  22. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,357
    Mammadov speaks truth!

    ...never thought I'd see the day when I, in all seriousness, agree with one of Aykhan's posts, but that day has come ;)
     
    #22
  23. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    now breakdown borg and nadal games shot by shot. what does borg's game have that nadals doesn't?

    nothing!
     
    #23
  24. inyourface

    inyourface Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    we can't compare players of two diferent decades, its fun but not real, in sport, 5 years of difference is a world , 20... remember this, borg return with 32 years old, 32 to AGASI is like to be a teenager,well Arrese destroy to BORG, that not meaning that Arrese was better than BORG, only that the game is in evolution, but if you want compare, NADAL destroy BORG but isn't real
     
    #24
  25. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    If nadal of today played borg of 1980 with a wood racquet, he would lose. likewise if borg of 1980 played nadal of today he would lose.
    There is no way to compare because of changes in racquet technology. Technology has changed the game, not the player. If you're gonna harp on this "todays players are just plain better tangent," why stop at Borg?
    Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Rosewall are all all worse than Nadal in the literal sense. Hell they're all worse than Justin Gimelstob. Which mean absolutely nothing. Accomplishments are all that matters in any sport. And Nadal can only dream of doing what Borg did. Just like most baseball/basketball players can only dream of doing what Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Larry Bird, Kareem, etc did. They are all better than today's players because they won more, period.

    Borg outsprinted an Olympic hurdler in the 70s. His speed is as good, if not better than Nadal's. Borg's serve was among the biggest in his time. Nadal's is pretty mediocre compared to his contemporaries.
    Borg S&Ved quite a bit while winning 5 straight Wimbledons. So, I'd rate his volleying much higher than Nadal as well.

    In some way, it is tougher & is some ways it isn't. What do you think of what Vilas says?

    Is it harder to win a record like this now than it was back in your day?

    GV: It's hard to compare the two, other than to say that I established my record in a single season and it took Rafael two years to beat it. That shows that I played more games than he does. The main difference comes from the fact that it was a lot tougher on the circuit in my day. You've got someone looking after you nowadays - one phone call and you can sort out all the logistics for the entire week. In my day, that wasn't an option, and a lot of players dropped out of the circuit since they couldn't stand all the hassle. There were very few direct flights in those days, so we had to stop off in between flights. It really was no fun, and it got to people in the end.

    http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2006-05-29/200605291148908346629.html
     
    #25
  26. Gilgamesh

    Gilgamesh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    I agree with everything in this post.

    Borg is a bum. He proved nothing in his career. Borg didn't win the US Open. He didn't win the Aussie Open. His competition was pathetic. I mean c'mon...look at some of his GS opponents: McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Lendl, and etc. Compare that to today's elite competition of tennis gods.

    Who cares that Nadal has not won any GS other than the FO...he has already clearly established himself as the GOAT with his CLAY winning streak. Nobody in history can compare. Not Sampras, not Laver, not Borg, not Kramer, not McEnroe, not Hoad, not Pancho, nobody. Nadal would easily destroy Borg, Sampras, and Fed on any surface especially in Wimbleton/grass in any era.
     
    #26
  27. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    dam, i just might have to agree with you here.
     
    #27
  28. inyourface

    inyourface Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    wrong, NADAL destroy BORG but again this not meaning nothing,why?because NADAL cover more terrain about 20 or 25% more than CONORS of NASTASE or other enemy of BORG, a huge difference is the resistence , is big today because is better prepared, other difference is the rest, the players of today rest the serves a lot better than the epoque of BORG, y NADAL or NALBALDIAN or other see a serve of NASTASE to 140 km/h they laugth,and etc.etc. etc.etc ....bla bla......
     
    #28
  29. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Going back to the OP(which wasn't about a claycourt streak, but the record of most consecutive matches won regardless of surface)

    I can't find all 49(itf website used to be good, but I can't seem to access Borg's activity)

    Got this from other sites:

    http://www.setratings.com/index.php?option=com_playerreport&Itemid=40&pid=549&page=2

    Looks like the streak included titles on outdoor hard, indoor carpet, clay, & grass. Certainly more impressive than Vilas' 46, which were all on clay.

    In '79, Borg won 3 straight titles on 3 different surfaces, Wimbledon, Bastad(clay),Toronto(hard)

    Fed is the only other player to do this, in '04(Wimbledon, Gstaad, Toronto).

    The Championships at Wimbledon, Great Britain
    June 25, 1979
    Surface: Grass
    R128 Tom Gorman (USA) W 3-6 6-4 7-5 6-1
    R64 Vijay Amritraj (IND) W 2-6 6-4 4-6 7-6 6-2
    R32 Hank Pfister (USA) W 6-4 6-1 6-3
    R16 Brian Teacher (USA) W 6-4 5-7 6-4 7-5
    QF Tom Okker (NED) W 6-2 6-1 6-3
    SF Jimmy Connors (USA) W 6-2 6-3 6-2
    F Roscoe Tanner (USA) W 6-7 6-1 3-6 6-3 6-4

    Bastad, Sweden
    July 16, 1979
    Surface: Clay
    R32 Christophe Freyss (FRA) W 6-4 6-0
    R16 Antonio Zugarelli (ITA) W 6-0 6-1
    QF Billy Martin (USA) W 6-0 6-3
    SF Kjell Johansson (SWE) W 6-3 6-0
    F Balazs Taroczy (HUN) W 6-1 7-5

    Toronto, Canada
    August 13, 1979
    Surface: Hardcourt
    R64 Bruce Manson (USA) W 6-2 6-4
    R32 Ivan Molina (COL) W 6-0 6-3
    R16 Yannick Noah (FRA) W 6-2 6-4
    QF Gene Mayer (USA) W 6-4 6-1
    SF Ivan Lendl (USA) W 6-3 6-1
    F John McEnroe (USA) W 6-3 6-3
     
    #29
  30. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    Connors competition in 74 was not that strong I felt. He beat an extremely old Ken Rosewall in 2 of his 3 slam finals, people mock Federer whenever he has an off day and loses a single set to an over-30 Agassi, yet praise Connors to the hilt for having a 3-slam year when 2 of those slam final wins was over a 40-year old much farther from his prime then Agassi was the last two years.

    Of course Borg is over Connors all-time, I dont see how anybody could argue otherwise.
     
    #30
  31. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    Nadal isn't even in the top 15 of greats, let's not jump the gun and start comparing him to Borg. A great is a great, no matter what era they're in. If Borg was born in the 80's and played today, he'd be kicking just as much ass. I see people in the parks hitting harder than guys did with wooden racquets. It doesn't take a hell of a lot of talent to hit the ball hard. Hell, you can do it with a Toys R Us racquet, just as long as it's made of some type of metal.
     
    #31
  32. driger

    driger Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    Connors does hold more major records than Borg. most wins alltime, most tournament wins, 3rd most weeks at #1, and 2nd most yearend #1's. while Borg has more slams. A case can be made for Connors.
     
    #32
  33. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    u forgots to mention borg records for suicide attempts, bankruptys, and failed marriages, too.
     
    #33
  34. RiosTheGenius

    RiosTheGenius Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,818
    ok everybody... so I have an idea and I'm sure many of you will appreciate this:
    let's start one thread where we can fit all the Nadal Bashing ... because I am getting really cheesed off with these threads.
    I do like the Pro player talk, so not coming here isn't a solution.
    but lately it seems as if some of you are trying to find every possible way to put Nadal down... and you know what??... in two weeks he'll shut you all up anyway... so carry on
     
    #34
  35. ruxxx

    ruxxx New User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12
    THANK YOU! Moose for finally cutting through the noise and answering my question. Note: your list, while impressive, comprises only 18 of his 49 victories. That wimbledon line-up was tough. And plus besides, he tacked on a string of 40 more a year and a half later. TV is greatly impressed by records, but Nadal on clay is not very significant.
     
    #35
  36. inyourface

    inyourface Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    we are not talking about NADAL,we are talking about the evolution of the game.one example,FEDERER - LAVER at his prime, well 6-0 6-0 6-0 to FEDERER.why? if you want compare we have to put LAVER when he was a boy in tha NICK BOLLITIERY training camp,then make planings of training, eat food especial,and energetics drinks to cover fast to continue training,then learn how to rest powerfull serves with automatics movements, if he not resign then put in the same court with FEDERER,we cant compare, is like to put shack vs bill rusell, rusell have more rings but in face to face we al know that the result is 100 to 20 points, win oneal.
     
    #36
  37. inyourface

    inyourface Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    we are not talking about NADAL,we are talking about the evolution of the game.one example,FEDERER - LAVER at his prime, well 6-0 6-0 6-0 to FEDERER.why? if you want compare we have to put LAVER when he was a boy in tha NICK BOLLITIERY training camp,then make planings of training, eat food especial,and energetics drinks to recover fast to continue training,then learn how to rest powerfull serves with automatics movements, if he not resign then put in the same court with FEDERER,we cant compare, is like to put shack vs bill rusell, rusell have more rings but in face to face we al know that the result is 100 to 20 points, win oneal.
     
    #37
  38. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    Completely ridiculous, and a complete insult to Laver.

    I hit harder than Laver ever did. Could I beat him in his prime? HELL NO. Even if you made him play with wood he'd still rip me apart 6-0 6-0. Give him a modern racquet and he'd win in 20 minutes.
     
    #38
  39. inyourface

    inyourface Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    if you put NADAL SAFIN FEDERER KARLOVIK BLAKE ALMAGRO and more you see easy that they are strongest than MAC CONNORS LAVER LENDL ...the game is more fisic if you dont see that ....sorry
     
    #39
  40. inyourface

    inyourface Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    if you put NADAL SAFIN FEDERER KARLOVIK BLAKE ALMAGRO and more you see easy that they are strongest than MAC CONNORS LAVER LENDL ...the game is more fisic if you dont see that ....sorry
     
    #40
  41. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,372
    I read once, that Lendl used to play some training sets against Laver at around 1990. Lendl won the sets at an average of 6-3. He said that Laver still had top ten volleys at that time. This was, when Lendl was Nr. 1 in the world, and Laver over 52. When Korda played Laver around 1995, he said, that he was shocked by the movement and repertoire of the then 55 old Laver, he never saw a more talented player, and he played against some good guys.
     
    #41
  42. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    :rolleyes:
     
    #42
  43. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,072
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Good one!

    Yeah, like you said....Nadal would DESTROY an all-time great, a Bjorn Borg on ANY surface; especially (e.g.) grass?

    Good one.
     
    #43
  44. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    :rolleyes: These are some of the worst posts I've ever read on this forum. To generalize and say that the greats of the past would be destroyed by today's greats is absurd.
    I read things like Babe Ruth would not even be able to play in the majors today and just:rolleyes: People forget, or more typically never knew how great these players really were. Babe Ruth played when the mounds were higher, the ball was dead, starting pitching was not watered down, it was common to throw pitches outlawed today, when pitchers could own the inside of the plate and would not hesitate to put one in your ear, the strike zone was larger, no body armor was allowed, and the list goes on and on. Just as some people say Ruth could not play in today's game, I'd love to see Bonds deal with all of the aforementioned and see how well he did.

    I should not even dignify your Laver vs. Federer or O'neal vs. Russell assertions, but you have gone so far over the top, you need a little bit of educating. Laver was arguably the greatest player ever to grace a tennis court. For someone to come along and say he would be beaten 0 & 0 is,,,,WAIT A MINUTE--I am not even going to try and explain how absurd that is, nor the O'neal vs. Russell comment as I have better things to do with my time. JUST GET A CLUE before you start making a fool of yourself.
     
    #44
  45. theace21

    theace21 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,263
    Great Post!!!

    For those you you trying to compare different Nadal to Borg, and who is better. Go out tonight and when you play your match, use an old wood racket.

    What: you can't hit the ball as hard, the sweet spot is so small, it is heavy...

    The game has change, and the new rackets have made it easier for players to have success.

    Borg was amazing, it is a shame he retired early - he was great fun to watch.

    Nadal is amazing, he as only begun his career, he can't be one of the greatest at 20 years old. Give him time...

    Post back with your wood racket match results. Good Luck...
     
    #45
  46. Hedges

    Hedges Guest

    Why are we still discussing this topic? The above post pretty much puts it to rest. Apples and oranges, guys. Case closed.
     
    #46
  47. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    You're making me hungry... ;)
     
    #47
  48. wildbill88AA

    wildbill88AA Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    cars, computers, and medicine are better today, than in the 70's. so are the tennis players. tough concept to grasp, ay?
     
    #48
  49. Grimjack

    Grimjack Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,439
    Ten additional grand slams. And at least SOME non-embarrassing non-clay slam results.
     
    #49
  50. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,275
    As Vilas said "Borg is Borg"...Rafa has a ways to go...
     
    #50

Share This Page