Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by papertank, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,580
    I agree with you, they should. Tier 1 imho (in chronological order): Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and Federer, with the last two probably getting the top spots, in whatever order. ;)
     
    #51
  2. tistrapukcipeht

    tistrapukcipeht Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,325
    1-Fed
    2-Sampras
    3-Roy Emerson
    4-Borg
    5-Laver
    6-Nadal over achiever or if you prefer overacheater
     
    #52
  3. Monsieur_DeLarge

    Monsieur_DeLarge Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    492
    (listed alphabetically within each tier)

    Tier 1:
    Federer, Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Tilden

    Tier 2:
    Borg, Budge, Kramer, Nadal, Rosewall

    Tier 3:
    Agassi, Cochet, Connors, Hoad, Lendl, McEnroe, Perry, Riggs, Vines

    Bottom half of the top ten for me. If he can manage a third year as the world's best player and equal Sampras' slam count, then I'd probably bump him up to the top level.


    Regards,
    MDL
     
    #53
  4. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    Before Wimbledon, I had Fed and Laver tied, but I'm finally willing to give Fed the outright GOAT title :shock:

    Also before Wimbledon, I had Rafa at #5 overall. That remains the same for me, but instead of thinking that he'd be shooting his way up the ranks over the next few years to the very top, I'm starting to think that he'll be lucky to even surpass Samrpas, given his poor WO performance and ongoing knee problems :???:

    I am actually EQUALLY interested in seeing what happens with Rafa now, in the leadup and completion of the USO, as I am in who will win the Olympic Gold (very big deals for Fed/Murray in particular, so I hope at least one of them wins it).

    1. Fed
    2. Laver
    3. Sampras
    4. Borg
    5. Rafael Nadal
     
    #54
  5. Praetorian

    Praetorian Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,208
    There's always someone out there trying to stir it up:evil:
     
    #55
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    5. Federer
    6. Borg
    7. Sampras
    8. Budge
    9. Nadal
    10. Lendl
     
    #56
  7. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Dunno why everyone is going crazy with this Laver hype.

    He has 11 slams. Sampras should be ranked higher, because.... uh, he has more slams.

    Duh.
     
    #57
  8. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    --Albert Einstein

    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
    --Euripides

    Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
    --Elbert Hubbard

    There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
    --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
    #58
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,468
    There are some greats with unbelievable resumes playing at a super high level for decades. Nadal is a super player but his career is rather short compared to some players like Bill Tilden. Tilden from 1912 to 1930 won 138 of 192 tournaments played, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. That's a winning percentage of 93.6. Players couldn't play all the majors every year because travel by boat would take many weeks and they would get out of shape. Still Tilden won 10 classic majors and 14 total majors if you include Pro Majors.

    Pancho Gonzalez played at a high level for decades and was number one for many years, from the late 1940's to the 1970's. Arguably the greatest serve and the best player ever.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

    You have Rosewall, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Kramer, Budge, Borg, Lendl, Vines, Connors. Rosewall, Laver, Borg and Lendl for example all won over 100 tournaments in their careers.

    I think Nadal has a chance to be the greatest ever but we'll have to see.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
    #59
  10. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    There are a gazillion threads on this forum, articles at wikipedia, and numerous other sources that can educate you on Laver's greatness and why it's perfectly reasonable (even if you decide to disagree), to put Laver at/near the top.

    But even if you want to ignore all of the many factors, I can keep it simple and say:

    - Laver has 2 actual Calendar Year Grand Slams
    - Pete was useless on clay, so doesn't even have a CAREER slam

    Those two things combined, are enough for me to put Laver ahead of Sampras, but there's more than that, which can be researched pretty easily at the various sources I provided above.
     
    #60
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    The AO was considerably weak during borg's time .... Not a true major at all ...Dallas and the YEC were much more important/tougher at that time ..... borg won those ...

    borg was accomplished indoors as well, which rafa is not ..

    borg is/was also by some distance better than rafa on grass ..this despite rafa getting the benefit of the the slower, true bouncing grass ..... LOL !!

    peak-to-peak , I don't really see much of a difference b/w borg/rafa on clay tbh ....Remember borg also couldn't enter 77 FO because of WTT ....going strictly by stats, you'd have to give slight edge to rafa but it isn't by that much ....

    rafa's only "true" edge over borg is winning the USO , which borg could not.

    borg was also YE #1 in 78,79,80 ( arguably in 77 as well ) ..... rafa only for 2 years ( 2k8 and 2k10 )

    one can still easily and I repeat easily argue that borg was/is better/greater than nadal ....
     
    #61
  12. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    No.


    10 nononononono's.

    Borg won Slam tournaments from 74 until 81.

    During that time the AO saw the following champions:

    1974 Jimmy Connors
    1975 John Newcombe
    1976 Mark Edmondson
    1977*
    1978 Guillermo Vilas
    1979 Guillermo Vilas
    1980 Brian Teacher
    1981 Johan Kriek

    *1977 was a shambles with two scheduled Australian Opens in January and December of the same year.

    If you are arguing that this was an easy tournament to win, then why didn't Borg win it? The people who competeted in it and won it (during that time) aren't exactly push-overs.

    No AO, no USO, no Olympics. No Borg is not Nadal's equal.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
    #62
  13. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    No need to overcomplicate things.

    More Grand Slam titles = greater player.

    Who cares about 'mitigating circumstances' or couldawouldashoulda's. Who cares that Laver was not allowed to go on the pro tour for 5 years during which he could have won several more slams - it simply doesn't matter because he didn't win more slams.

    At the end of the day, you just plug total GS numbers into a spreadsheet, sort from highest to lowest, and there are your GOATS in the right order.

    Simple as that.

    There is no need to have any conversation whatsoever around the topic.
     
    #63
  14. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    You are obviously entitled to your point of view!

    In that case, why would you even bother reading these threads through multiple pages? You already have the simple-minded kind of answer that works for you, sitting right there in your spreadsheet :)
     
    #64
  15. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    I don't understand why other people also haven't come to the uncomplicated conclusion sitting on my spreadsheet.
     
    #65
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    1. borg only ever played the AO once, in 74, he wasn't even a slam champion then.

    2. the fields in that time at the AO were horrible ....connors only went there twice, 74,75 .. borg only once ....mac went there only since 83 ... very few top players attended ..... ( tanner, vilas ) and when they did, they won ....

    3. Olympics ?????? LOL , what ?????? really ????? tennis wasn't an Olympic sport in borg's time .... Plus the YEC > Olympics, tennis achievement/difficulty wise ....not even close ....
     
    #66
  17. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Of course there is a case to argue that Borg is still greater than Nadal. The problem is that many people are very silly and view Borg's career achievements in the 70s and 80s through 00s glasses, when the sport and the main goals and priorities have changed so much over the years. Connors and McEnroe have both said how slighted they feel that their career achievements are now viewed through these 90s and 00s glasses, when they had many different goals in the sport compared to Sampras, Federer, Nadal etc.

    Borg played in an era where racking up as many slam titles as possible was nowhere near as important as it became from Sampras's era. The main goals were to try to complete the calendar grand slam, win as many Wimbledon titles as possible, try to earn as much money as possible from lucrative invitational tournaments, exhos, win the Davis Cup etc. The prize money of the slams back then was joke compared to many other tour events, invitationals etc, this whole 'only slams matter' and 'slam counting' mentality which became popular in the 90s was not present then, and winning non-slam and unofficial tournaments was more important.

    Borg won 3 channel slams when the surfaces were far more polarised, with him engaging in endless baseline rallies at Roland Garros, and then serve volleying regularly at Wimbledon. And I agree that there is a case to argue that Borg was more versatile than Nadal, given that he was better on his worst surface hard courts than Nadal has been indoors.

    No Borg not winning the Australian Open (he only showed up there once in 1974) is not a blemish on his career in the slightest. During Borg's prime is was well below the 'big 5' of Wimbledon, the US Open, Roland Garros, the WCT finals and the Masters in terms of importance. It was not a proper slam during that period, with terrible prize money, not so many ranking points on offer, and shockingly bad facilities . It was held just before the Masters which offered considerably more prize money so guess with tournament the top players prioritised in those years. It had a smaller draw size than the other 3 slams every year from 1969-1987. In 1975 no players in the top 20 apart from Connors and Newcombe showed up, and things got worse from 1976-1982. Players ranked outside the top 200 were getting direct entries there. Gerulaitis said he valued his Italian Open titles in 1977 and 1979 over his Australian Open title in 1977.

    And LOL at anyone stupid enough to bring in Nadal's olympic gold medal in a comparison with Borg, when tennis only became an olympic sport again in 1988. That's like arguing that Borg is greater because he won the WCT finals while Nadal didn't, despite the tournament being scrapped after 1989.

    Borg has a big blemish in failing to win the US Open, but he did reach 4 finals there losing to great players in Connors and McEnroe. However he was more dominant overall than Nadal at his peak. Nadal has never been the best player in the world in back to back years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
    #67
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    ^^

    Excellent post. My thoughts as well ...You put it in a better way ...:)
     
    #68
  19. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,709
    Location:
    Weak era
    Interesting, as far as I remember you had Pete over Fed before? What made you change your mind, Fed's recent Wimbledon win?

    I disagree on Borg (personally I'd put him above Sampras and at the very least equal with Fed) but others (abmk and Gizo namely) put it better than I can/could.
     
    #69
  20. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    LOL thanks but your posts were excellent and more to the point than my very long winded one.

    In Borg's time as well Wimbledon had more of a special place over the other slams, and he won it 5 times in a row and reached the final in the 6th year, which was incredible.

    Even in Sampras-Borg comparisons which were more common before Federer reached greatness, I've always thought that Borg definately has a case to be ranked above Sampras. Arguing that Sampras was greater, just because of his 14 slams to Borg's 11, when the slam title count was almost meaningless in Borg's prime, was crazy.
     
    #70
  21. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Roscoe Tanner and Vitas Gerulaitis were the winners in 1977, by the way.
     
    #71
  22. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,267
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Brian Teacher, Johan Kriek, and Mark Edmondson aren't pushovers? I've heard it all now. The AO just wasn't important to Borg, Connors, and McEnroe in that period -Borg didn't return after a third round loss in '74; after losing the '75 final to Newcombe, Connors never played there again; McEnroe was never consistently there, skipping it in his best seasons ('81, '84).

    The Olympics? You've got to be getting me. Tennis was an Olympic event once between 1924 and 1984 - in 1968. How was Borg supposed to win a medal when he never even had a chance to?

    If this were an apples to apples comparison (which it's not), the only thing Nadal has over Borg is a US Open title. Borg was far more dominant and was the best player more often. Borg isn't in GOAT debates for nothing. I have him just below Sampras, who is below both Federer and Laver.
     
    #72
  23. tennnnis

    tennnnis Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    Location:
    casablanca
    1.federer
    2.sampras
    3.nadal
    4.borg
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    10.laver
     
    #73
  24. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,289
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    nowhere

    10 goats
     
    #74
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    Agreed. One has to always look at the context of the eras in which the players played. You can't evaluate them using the lenses of just one era ....
     
    #75
  26. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    :lol::lol::lol::lol:

    And you were telling me that I didn't have arguments, only "nationalism" in other thread. At least I don't write stuff like that.
     
    #76
  27. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    Nadal won all 4 Slams + the Olympics. Nothing on Borg's resume compares. He did all this during the time of Roger Federer.
     
    #77
  28. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    If you think the only argument Sampras has over Borg is 14 instead of 11, then you are really doing Pete a disservice.
     
    #78
  29. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    GOAT = greatest of all time. The part in bold has certain implications that might be lost on some.
     
    #79
  30. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    The WCT Finals and Masters more than compare to the Olympics. Borg not winning the Australian is irrelevant when judging in his career. From that list you brought up, the one big thing that Nadal has over Borg in his US Open title, not that Borg didn't have a good record at that tournament either.

    Bringing up the olympics in this particular comparison (again) is irrelevant and you are making a huge fool of yourself by doing so. Borg failing to win the olympic tennis tournament which didn't exist during his career means the same as Nadal failing to win the WCT finals which didn't exist during his career.
     
    #80
  31. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    I don't think that at all and that was pretty clear from my post. Sampras's Wimbledon and US Open records and the fact that he was the best player in the world for 5 years from 1993-1997 (I can't give him 1998 though) are huge factors.

    My point was that people who argue that Sampras is greater, JUST because of his lead in the grand slam title count are being silly and not considering the context of the two players' eras. Those people are doing a disservice to both Borg and Sampras.
     
    #81
  32. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    OK...fair enough...I guess I read your post without considering the "context" you posted it in...I apologize for doing you a disservice :)
     
    #82
  33. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    When comparing all players during the Open Era you cannot nitpick what you can and cannot include as an achievement. You are a making a fool of yourself by saying Borg had a good record at the USO. How good? He didn't win it. Nobody remembers those who don't win. I admire Borg's legacy tremendously but Nadal has done more. And again, the fact that he's done it all during the reign of Roger Federer amplifies his achievements.
     
    #83
  34. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
    --Euripides
     
    #84
  35. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I agree: Borg > Nadal (as of 7-12)
     
    #85
  36. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    I agree that Nadal has surpassed Borg looking at statistics, but I don't think it's as simple as that.

    As well as the fact that Borg rarely played the AO, and dominatd 2 majors (which played TOTALLY different back then), where Nadal has only dominated 1 major, picked up 2 titles at Wimbledon (his second without any real competition) and currently one off titles at the other 2 majors, wouldn't you agree that Borg played in a tougher era?

    Early in his career Borg did better at the US Open than Nadal, later on however he was unlucky enough to run into Connors and McEnroe - 2 of the greatest US Open champions of all time. In fact Connors is possibly THE best US Open champion, and McEnroe 4th. Nadal ran into Djokovic who is now potentially a all time great, but this is based almost entirely on what he did last year. At the time of the US Open 2010 he was considered a one slam wonder by many and had had a terrible year where a slam final had never looked on the cards. He will probably never claim 5 US Open titles like Connors, or even 4 like McEnroe.

    It's funny that people constantly deny Federer has well and truly overtaken Sampras, cos you know "Sampras's era was tougher" but when it comes to Borg and Nadal, the same people won't say anything about how Borg played in a tougher era (and really it was tougher than Sampras's era)

    I have no problem with Nadal being greater than Borg (even if he isn't now, he will be) but it isn't as clear cut as some people make it out to be. Borg faced a much tougher task to win the US Open than Nadal did. Nadal never even had to beat Federer there who he would still have a great shot against because he always does. But Still Federer was the US Open great of this era. Currently Djokovic has as many titles as Roddick, Safin, Hewitt.
     
    #86
  37. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    Agree with all this you mentioned. Specially that line, that is one of the reasons I think Borg is not only better than Nadal but also better than Sampras (and I think it could also be considered better than Federer, I don't think so, but I wouldn't think it's "wrong" if people think that).

    Winning 6 Roland Garros titles (a record untill a month ago) and 5 Wimbledon in a row (record) during that time (toughest era, surfaces where really different) it's impressive. Besides a few of USO finals too.
     
    #87
  38. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    No need to apologise at all and no disservice done whatsoever :).

    Nope when comparing all players of the open era, you need to consider what the goals and status of various tournaments were during their respective peak and overall career periods. You need to understand the things haven't been constant during the open era, and the fact that the set-up and priorities have changed during different time periods of the past 44 years.

    You are obviously very stupid as highlighted by your posts on this thread and don't have the ability to make this differentiation, so you are making a blanket assumption that nothing has changed during the open era.

    And Borg had a very good record at the US Open, reaching 4 finals and one more semi-final there. If you don't consider that to be good record, you are showing yourself to be a silly glory supporter with no perspective. You don't remember who doesn't win because you are laughably narrow-minded.

    Your insistence on bringing up a tournament that Borg had no opportunity to win as it didn't exist in his time, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something.

    The WCT Finals was a huge part of the open era for 19 years. Do you think that Borg's 1976 title in Dallas should be used to favour him over Sampras, Nadal etc? Of course not as that would be similarly ridiculous.
     
    #88
  39. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Of course while I have argued that there are numerous reasons to rank Borg over Nadal, there are of course numerous reasons to make the opposite assertion as well.

    Nadal's RG-Wimbledon-US Open triple crown in 2010, like Federer's 5 consecutive US Open titles from 2004-2008, is a very underrated achievement. Winning the 3 most prestigious tournaments on 3 different surfaces in a relatively short time period is staggering.

    Either way it is definitely not 100% cut and dry.
     
    #89
  40. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,588
    Tier 1: Laver, Sampras, Federer, Rosewall, Pancho, Tilden
    Tier 2: Lendl, Nadal, Connors, Agassi, Borg etc..


    He's up there.. Problem with Nadal is he doesn't have much time at #1 AT ALL. He's won a lot, He's won just about everything, but he doesn't have that long stint as the #1 player in the world and the true year in year out dominance.. He can't seem to defend a slam title off of clay, he can't stay at the top for an extended period of time.

    Maybe if he can get up in the 14-18 slam count range it wouldn't matter as much
     
    #90
  41. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    I don't care much about the pre-open era guys but I agree with that except that Borg is on the tier 1.
     
    #91
  42. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    Though Nadal is an incredibly accomplished player who had just about beaten everyone not named Federer, Laver and Sampras in terms of statistics, I just cannot place him above someone who was the undisputed best player in the world for over five years in a row in Borg. Nor can I place him above Lendl, who was also just about the best player of the second half of the 80s.

    To me, the first requisite to be a tier 1 all-time-great is that you must be the best player firstly of your own generation. Whilst Nadal is younger than Federer, their major winning years are only two years apart. Though Nadal has a good head to head against Federer his weaker record against the rest of the field and only two years at number 1 raises question marks as to whether or not he can even be called the best player of this era, let alone all time.
     
    #92
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    I LOL'ed at placing borg in tier2. Actually he's better than your 'crush' Sampras in so many ways it isn't even funny .... One can easily argue Borg > Sampras ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
    #93
  44. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    The only knock against Rafa is thathis longest stretch of dominance has only lasted like 4 months. Twice.
     
    #94
  45. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,659
    Borg is tier one, add mcenroe to tier two

    It a pretty good list but borg is in tier one

    Tier 1: Laver, Sampras, Federer, Rosewall, Pancho, Tilden, Borg
    Tier 2: Lendl, Nadal, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe

    Mcenroe is there with nadal because indoor play was siginificant part of the tour in those days and mcenroe has 8 major indoor titles to go with his 7 slams.
     
    #95
  46. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    It's incredible that you would rank a player who failed to win 2 Slam tournaments over one who's completed a career Slam. Only here.
     
    #96
  47. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I like your posts but I must add that it's silly to point out Olympics as an achievement that Borg didn't have. No one really cares about that.. It may be great from an athlete point of view, but Tennis point of view, it's below a masters event
     
    #97
  48. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    The Australian Open of 2012 is not the Australian Open of 1976. It was equivalent to Queens or Halle and served mainly as the proving grounds for Australian players.

    Hence, not an apples to apples comparison.

    Borg played exactly one Australian Open in his life, where as Nadal has played eight.

    Moreover, Nadal is not the undisputed best player of his era.

    Borg dominated the latter half of the 1970s and won the majority of the majors over his rivals and was only stopped at the US Open, where for sponsorship reasons he used an entirely different racquet.
     
    #98
  49. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    Borg failed to win the USO or AO in any year between 76 and 81. There's no excuse. End of the day we draw the line and find Nadal stands above Borg.
     
    #99
  50. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    I understand the conflicting weight some players give the Olympics (particularly those who have won it as opposed to those who haven't) but when comparing achievemtns we can't close our eyes to trends (if you like) in certain athletes' careers. Nadal set out to win everything humanly possible. Why should we in retrospect denigrate his achievements because an equally amazing and probably infinately more charming athlete chose not to compete at the Australian Open? All I am saying is we should respect Nadal for the sacrifices he has made and the boxes he has ticked. I am well aware of the respetive tournaments' standing at the time. I am not pretending Borg could have won the Olympics. I am saying that it's crazy not to mention the Olympics when its an adornment on an already exquisite and rare achievement - the career slam.
     

Share This Page