View Single Post
Old 11-14-2012, 03:50 PM   #453
Gizo
Professional
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
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.
Nadal has been the best player in the world twice, in 2008 and 2010, so never in back to back years. Borg was the clear best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980 so Borg was more dominant.

Plus Nadal was a lot weaker indoors than Borg was on any surface, despite benefiting from indoor courts between slowed down considerably. In fact I'm not sure if Nadal has been any better indoors than Sampras was on clay. . Borg was outstanding on clay, grass and carpet and still very good on hard courts. Nadal has been outstanding on clay, grass and hard but has just 1 title win indoors so far. So Borg was more versatile across all surfaces (and he played in more polarised surface conditions as well) than Nadal.

And Borg didn't quit right after the 1981 US Open. That's one of the biggest tennis myths that has developed over the years. He played a lot of exhos and invitations in 1982, but the regulatory bodies wanted him to play more official tournaments and eventually said he had to qualify for Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Unsurprisingly Borg pretty much told them to shove it.

Considering the governing bodies covered up Agassi's failed drugs tests in 1997, it's safe to say that they learnt from the whole Borg saga and realised that in a niche sport like tennis, they desperately needed to protect the few stars that they had (not that I'm saying that's right or anything).

Last edited by Gizo : 11-14-2012 at 03:54 PM.
Gizo is offline   Reply With Quote