Originally Posted by Gizo
The problem is that many people mistakenly judge the careers of Borg, Connors etc using modern day 21st century glasses. That is silly of course as their careers need to be judged based on the context of their actual eras, i.e. when the grand slam title count was completely meaningless and non-official invitational tournaments were very important.
if we compare Borg and Nadal only by the French, Wimbledon, and U.S Open, and overall seasons beyond those, I would still favor Nadal. Nadal has won all of those unlike Borg who as I already mentioned failed to win a U.S Open despite the benefit of it being played on a form of his favorite surface for several years, and Nadal's French Open record is better than Borg's record anywhere. Borg's Wimbledon record is better than Nadal's, but Nadal has only 1 less final at this point, and Borg wasnt forced to deal with Federer or anyone like him at Wimbledon. Nadal was overall one of the two dominant players at all times from the start of 2005 to about the middle of 2012, so 7.5 years. Borg was overall one of the two dominant players at all times from about the spring of 1976 to basically quitting right after the 1981 U.S Open so about 5.5 years. Both were only dominant on their own for about 2 years, so no difference there.