Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by FedFan_2009, Aug 5, 2009.
Borg's 3 consecutive Channel Slams
Federer's 10 straight grand slam finals(8-2).
Borg because he played in a much tougher era.
You mean he wasn't as dominating because he wasn't as good as Federer.
Federer's era is much stronger with guys like clay-GOAT Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, all of which could win multiple slams in Borg's era.
Federer's by far.
Of course I expect 100% of ******-tards to vote for Borg.
Winning Wimbeldon and the French that many years when they were the polar opposites is not an easy feat.
And you know my thoughts on the current crop of stuperstars.
Fed's achievement is impressive, but was most impressive is how no one can step up at the slams outside of one other player. Thats more or less mind boggling
Borg beat the likes of Mac, Connors and Vilas in those slams.
And Roscoe Tanner, who wouldn't be top-20 today.
Ok, maybe a little harsh -- but certainly not top-10.
Can we all agree that they're equal feats?
Yea they're pretty equal.. Very impressive in their own ways
Voted for Federer's final streak. That requires remarkable consistency and excellence on all surfaces.
Federer now has a streak of 16 out of 17 major finals made. His current streak of 6 is the second highest of the Open era.
Get over it you idiot
Federer of course.
Yup and it's virtually unanimous, Federer's streak. Which means that he's better then Borg and GOAT.
I can't begin to tell you the many ways in which Federer is NOT the greatest of all time.
Winning French and Wimbledon back to back was extremely difficult in those days.The surfaces were polar opposites the technology wasnt advanced.
That said I think they're both equally impressive.
Separate names with a comma.