Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?

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

  1. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    Borg didn't play the AO from 76 to 81, so "failed" is a pretty strong and almost hostile word to apply in that context, but perfectly reasonable for the USO.

    As has been pointed out already numerous times, the AO didn't mean much back in Borg's day, while the YEC's meant a lot more than they do today.

    The way I see it, Borg's 3 YEC's are "almost" equivalent to winning 3 AO's in today's era. At the very least, his 3 YEC's offset Rafa's single AO title. But his failure to win the USO is a definite mark against him.

    All things considered, I still pick Borg over Rafa, but it's pretty close and I'm pretty sure Rafa will surpass him, in my books, before all is said and done. If it weren't for Rafa's knees, I'd put money on Rafa challenging Laver/Fed for GOAThood. But now it's impossible to say. From my viewpoint, he'll surpass Borg either way, but whether he can topple Samrpas remains to be seen...
     
  2. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,620
    Fair comment.
     
  3. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    I dont think nadal achievements at the us open are that much better than borgs.in fact i think you could argue the opposite. Since borg made the top 10 he was in 8 us opens. In 1980 he only lost by the skin of his teeth. He made 4 us open finals. Nadal has been in seven us openS (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.

    Re. Australian open, everybody knows that borg didnt take it seriously, hence that is why he only played it once when he was 17. The wct finals was the 4th major for most of the 70s and the masters was the 4th major in the early 80s. Borg got 3 of these tournaments. Hence a realistic equivalency is that borg is on 14 majors and nadal on 11.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  4. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    You can mention the Olympics all you want, but you can't make all tennis fans agree that it's worth all that much at this point in time.

    There is virtually unanimous agreement across the board, as to the value of the Slams, but a gazillion different opinions when it comes to the Olympics.

    This recent era is really the first one that has seen a solid interest amongst the top players, yet my gut feel is that they'd all take winning a slam over winning an Olympic gold (unless cornered into having to say something patriotic, for love of country :)).

    But either way, I think Rafa's Olympic Gold has potential significance when comparing him to his current peers and future players, but very limited significance when trying to compare him to earlier eras.

    There was talk not so long ago about adding a 5th Official Grand Slam event in Asia. If that were to happen eventually, sometime after Fed or Rafa retired, would they be lesser players because, obviously, they would have never won it?
     
  5. myalterego

    myalterego Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    208
    Fifth on GOAT list behind Federer, Laver, Sampras, and Borg.
     
  6. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,620
    No, but please don't try to belittle Nadal's USO and AO titles because Borg couldn't win one and couldn't be bothered with the other. As I said earlier, YECs are shiny badges on Borg's resume, but the 2 missing Slams are hard to compensate for.
     
  7. CMM

    CMM Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,713
    He won in 2010 and made the final in 2011.
     
  8. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    I dont think nadal achievements at the us open are that much better than borgs.in fact i think you could argue the opposite. Since borg made the top 10 he was in 8 us open finals. In 1980 he only lost by the skin of his teeth. He made 4 us open finals. Nadal has been in seven us open finals (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.
     
  9. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,620
    LOL! Are you kiki in disguise?
     
  10. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    I don't belittle Rafa's AO or USO (or Olympic Gold) in any way shape or form!

    Just saying that in context of Borg's day, the AO can be offset by Borg's YEC's, which were MORE than just a shiny badge back then. And the Olympic Gold just didn't exist, so let's compare it to something else perhaps, such as the number of indoor titles Borg won? But no need to go there unless you really want to dig into the details of all of the things that have changed in importance, since the 70's versus today.

    But for the USO, this is an indisputable achievement that Rafa has over Borg, NO MATTER HOW MANY FINALS Borg made it too, or how close he got to actually winning one.
     
  11. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    I dont think nadal achievements at the us open are that much better than borgs.in fact i think you could argue the opposite. Since borg made the top 10 he was in 8 us open finals. In 1980 he only lost by the skin of his teeth. He made 4 us open finals. Nadal has been in seven us open finals (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.
     
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    True, i forgot 2011. Point still stands though about borg not being that far behind with 4 finals, particularly when he was so close in 1980
     
  13. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    Not at all. But we are two compare players from two different eras we need to understand what was the important tournaments of those eras. In borgs era every tennis historian will tell you that the australian open wasnt taken as seriously by alot of players compared to now. The wct finals in the 70s and themasters in the early 80s were regarded as defacto majors. So 14 is a reasonable figure for borg.
     
  14. scineram

    scineram Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Hellhole Hungary
    Not in top 10, since he plays in the weakest era in history.
     
  15. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,123
    Best slowcourt player ever. 1 AO plexi, 2 W's slow grass, 7 FO's.

    on fast courts, I rate him around Roddick and Hewitt.
     
  16. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Borg and Nadal are equal cuz they have equal slams, duh.

    When Nadal wins one more he will be greater than Borg.

    Simple.
     
  17. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    Maybe...maybe not. Time will tell.

    And to make your life even more of a living hell, I don't think Rafa needs to actually win 14 slams, to overtake Pete.

    Some folks already have Borg/Nadal ahead of Pete, even though I double-checked that 11 is less than 14 :shock:

    Oh well, it's absolute lunacy in the first degree, but not everyone has a spreadsheet handy :)
     
  18. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,549
    You mean, if he wins one more, he will be greater than Borg or Laver, and will become the equal of Emerson? Wow! Sure looks like an efficient way of seeing things. ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  19. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Why wouldn't Nadal need to win AT LEAST 14 slams to overtake Pete, when you consider Pete's considerable advantages in weeks at #1, WTF titles (5-0), and dominance at two majors, compared to dominance at one major?
     
  20. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    I wouldn't consider Nadal greater than Pete even if he equals Pete's 14 majors. Nadal was never the dominant world #1 in his era. He spent most of his time at #2 despite the fact that he owns the world #1 of his generation(Federer). Nadal needs to prove a lot more in terms of dominance and consistency to hold the top spot.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,994
    Of course he can't be the dominant #1 simply because he had Federer. It's easy for Pete because he had Agassi instead. Had Pete was playing along with Federer, he would be spending most of the time ranked #2. Now that Nadal has Nole to deal with, Pete didn't have anyone to challenge him. Clearly, Nadal was in a much tougher position than Pete.
     
  22. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,444
    Thanks.

    What Borg did on clay and grass was incredible. I have no doubt he would have won several AO titles if he had played more often and if it were looked at as an important event, and I also feel he was very unlucky to have Connors and McEnroe to deal with at the US Open. 2 of the Greatest US Open champs pretty much in the same era (the later years of connors and the earlier years of Mac fell into borg's heyday)
     
  23. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    As much as I do not compare players from different eras, it is just plain foolish to assume that one player from one era will completely dominate the other. In this case, you are assuming that Federer will dominate Pete in the top spot without any proof. Do you have a time machine? Can you really predict something that will never happen? The answer is you can't, and to assume that you can is just plain irrational. Nadal spending most time at #2 though is the simple truth that diminish his legacy.
     
  24. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,191
    Borg quit and took his ball and went home like a baby after Mac handed him his butt a ton of times. That counts against Borg IMO.

    I'm not going to put someone on my tier list of greats who retired from the game at only 25-26 years old. Borg had a great career but the top tier guys pressed on and had success even into their 30s some cases 40s like Rosewall and Pancho.

    Borg still has arguably a better career then Nadal because he maintained his #1 spot longer then Nadal can do.. But Nadal continues to press on and if Nadal can win some slams during his late 20s or even early 30s, to me that will put Nadal over Borg because of the longevity issue which I find very important.

    Laver dominated into his 30s.. Pancho had success even into his 40s. Rosewall was hugely successful into his 30s and 40s. Sampras won slams 12 years apart which is insane. These guys all had success past their primes, while Borg QUITS!!
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  25. Leto

    Leto Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    452
    I don't hold Borg's early retirement against him, though understandable if some people do.

    To me, his achievements are what really matter, and by retiring early, he will simply pay the price in a GOAT discussion because he lost the opportunity to achieve even more.

    Nadal is the perfect case in point, as I too think Nadal will overtake him quite soon on a majority of people's lists.
     
  26. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    That is not the reason Borg retired. This myth that McEnroe "drove Borg into retirement" continues to persist.
     
  27. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,226
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    I don't think it's fair to call Federer GOAT and then argue that Nadal's #2 (after Federer) in this era somehow diminishes his position against Borg.

    The fact that we are arguing shows that Nadal and Borg are currently equal. However, Nadal is still active so by the end of his career I am sure he will surpass Borg to the same extent Federer will have surpassed Sampras.

    He will have more majors, more Masters, AO and USO titles, clay GOAT status - all of that in Federer's era. I don't think Borg stands a chance.
     
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    I am the real Kiki and Timinz has made a very good point - again-.He just happen to have been watching Borg when the swede was at his peak, something that you recent comers will never know.
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    he is in his perfect right to quit when he wants to.He just won 6 FO, 5 Wimbledon IN A ROW (against all time great grass courters like Nastase,Connors and Mc Enroe), wins 2 back to back Masters beating, day in day out the world´s nº2,3,4,5 ( in 79) and the world´s nº2,3,4 ( in 80)...and you even criticize him¡¡¡¡
     
  30. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,689
    It's interesting that in the preview to the Lendl-McEnroe US Open 1982 semi-final, when listing both players' major titles, their Masters and WCT titles were mentioned. Of course Lendl hadn't won any slam titles by that stage, but McEnroe's 2 WCT Finals titles and 1 Masters title at the time were listed alongside his 1 Wimbledon title and 3 US Open titles.

    Just goes to show how big those tournaments were back then.

    Borg, Connors and McEnroe had no-way to know during their careers then tennis would become far more grand-slam centric in later decades, and that their careers would be judged on new standards that didn't exist during their primes.
     
  31. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,620
    Thanks for the generalisation. What we saw of Borg does not equate to what we've seen from Nadal. That's all.
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Completely right.Masters and WCT titles were far above AO in the 70´s and till the mid 80´s.Just to show how big tennis was back then.
     
  33. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Just fun reading all these posts where Nadal is placed lower than Borg and Sampras. Nadal has a career slam, neither of them do. Nadal is an Olympic champion. Neither of them are. Nadal wom more masters-equivalent tourneys than both of them taken together. How come they are more accomplished then Nadal? Wishful thinking and sour grapes in one bottle.
     
  34. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
  35. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    LOL, Federer went ahead of Laver? When did this happen?
     
  36. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    But of course you do know: four losses are much much better than one win. If you ask Borg to confirm it, he'll gradly exchange US Open title for four losses. He enjoyed them.

    My favourite tournament is Monte Carlo. And it's big in Europe. I think I'll add 8 Rafa's MC titles, and let them be a 19 slam champ.
     
  37. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    You make a good point, because its like the tennis gods asking Murray "do you mind if we substitute your finals losses for a slam title? Sorry to do this to you, I know you loved those finals losses", I mean can you imagine Murray's reaction?
     
  38. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Who cares where the world ranks Nadal. For me it's Pete and Rafa over everyone else. No nagging ******* can change that.
     
  39. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    lol

    Nadal's not even top 5.
     
  40. Zarfot Z

    Zarfot Z Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    787
    The idiocy is stunning.
     
  41. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    you can take your top 5 and ********
     
  42. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    The fact that Nadal played in the Federer Era is not very important because Federer didn't prevented to achieve a lot more than he did. Apart two Wimby, maybe a couple of WTF and few master 1000, Federer wasn't the one responsible for Nadal failure in some event (Nole hurted him more), although Fed is repsonsible for the #2 of Nadal.

    Anyway for me Nadal did achieve enough to be one of the greatest all time great :)

    11 Slams are 11 slams.
     
  43. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Yours. Why don't you go back to the landfill which was your place of birth and education?
     
  44. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    In order for Nadal to be deemed "great" will Federer's nutty fans need Nadal to win 12, 13, 14, 15 slams....more?
     
  45. ricki

    ricki Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Czech Rep.
    1. Nadal
    2. Federer
    3. Sampras
    4. Laver
    5. Borg
     
  46. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Yes, he is. Even if you use the number of slams as the only criterion.

    1. Federer - 17
    2. Sampras - 14
    3. Emerson - 12
    4. Laver-Borg-Nadal - 11.

    BTW if it's the only criterion, Emerson is bigger than Laver.
     
  47. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    That 12th Nadal slam is sure going to be an interesting day for the Feds, ain't it?
     
  48. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,434
    Why? He needs 7 more to pass Federer.
     
  49. roysid

    roysid Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,385
    Nadal is definitely below Fed and Pete. Lacking in slams, No.1's etc.

    He is definitely ahead of Agassi, Mcenroe, Emerson.

    Is he ahead of Lendl : Tough to decide. Nadal has more slams and has won all 4. But Lendl was No.1 for so long (270 weeks). Won so many titles in the era of Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg etc.

    Is he ahead of Connors : Again tough to decide. Connors leads in titles and No. 1 but in those days it was a bit easier to win titles.

    Is he ahead of Borg : Maybe not at this moment. Both are at 11 slams. But Borg didn't care for AO. Plus Borg has the holy grail of slams (W) five times
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  50. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    Just saying, you and the other nuts will have to call Nadal great, 12 slams is more than Borg and Laver, or is that still not great?
     

Share This Page