Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Yes indeed, but Nadal has already matched it and obviously has a good chance to surpass it, and Nadal never won any of his majors when they were basically cheese majors with depleted fields like the 74 and to an extent the 75 French Opens were. Would Borg have ever won the 74 French had Connors been allowed to play? I know Connors is not some GOAT on red clay, but Borg was his b*tch of slaves at that point.
Well Connors lost in the 1st round at RG in 1973 so it's difficult imagine him improving so drastically on his worst surface in one year. Plus he only ever beat Borg once in an official match in Europe/outside the US. Their European h2h played out a lot differently to their American h2h, and Borg had already beaten him before in 1973. Borg never had the same fear playing Connors in Europe as he did playing him in the US during the mid 70s.
Manuel Orantes and Vilas who Borg beat in the 1974 and 1975 finals were far better players on red clay than Connors was.
Similarly we could debate what Nadal's grand slam title count would be if the grand slams awarded terrible prize money and there were many non-slam events and exhos around that were offering a lot more $$$. Maybe Nadal, Federer would skip some slams if no-one was counting how many they won, they had no crystal ball to predict that people would actually care about that 30 years later, and could make a lot more money elsewhere. Really it's small wonder that Borg took events like the Pepsi Grand Slam so seriously.
Really the only easy cross-era comparisons are between players from the 90s and later.