Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
As I already mentioned I dont even care about tournament win totals for any players before 1980 as it is obvious by the huge disparity in numbers it was far easier to win alot of tournaments then than it is today, not due to the so called weaker fields some believe of the past, but the much more physical nature of the game today.
Of course it is debateable but I would still go with Nadal. Borg never won 3 slams in the same year (and if he didnt play the Australian it is his fault), he never won a slam on hard courts, he never won the U.S Open despite having the chance to win it on 3 different surfaces including even on CLAY for sevearal years he was in or close to his prime. Given all the what ifs that are brought up for Borg regarding the Australian Open, if Nadal had 3 U.S Opens on green clay starting after his first French Open win he probably would have 4 U.S Open titles (or at minimum 3) today, and Borg still has 0. Nadal has won multiple slams on each surface, and even if the has the benefit in that sense of 2 slams being on his weakest of the 3 major surfaces (hard courts) he still managed a U.S Open win, Australian Open title, and Olympic singles gold, all on hard courts. Nadal has won atleast 1 slam for 7 years in a row now, so his longevity already matches or exceeds (probably exceeds) Borg's, and Nadal was ranked #1 or #2 for almost every single week for almost 8 years as well, while Borg didnt even become #2 caliber until about 5 years before he retired.
In your first paragraph you refuse to judge the current era by the standards of Borg's era. But then you go on to judge Borg by the standards of the current era. Olympic gold by Nadal? Tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport in Borg's time. And Borg not playing 4 Slams a year, you put down merely as his fault. You well know that virtually nobody played the Australian, and the fault lies with the tournament organizers who scheduled it during the holidays and couldn't offer the same prize money as the other Slams were offering. That was part of the tour structure at the time -- a weak AO -- and you don't take that into consideration, simply putting it down to the fault of the players.
I mean, if you're going to criticize the players for choosing not to play the AO, then why don't we criticize them today for their choices. Nadal has bad knees. Well, why not say it's his own fault, for playing so much on hard courts? Couldn't he choose to play on clay courts and skip more hard court tournaments?
Of course, Nadal shouldn't be faulted for that, because the hardcourt tournaments are well-attended, and important, and well-paying. He's just going where the money and the players are going: same thing that Borg did. They do exactly the same thing, but Nadal gets credit while Borg gets faulted.
You've been saying that Borg should get no credit for speculatory AO wins (which is correct, I agree with that), and when you do speculate you say he might not have won any. But you speculate about how Nadal would have fared if he had gotten to play the USO on clay, strengthening his case by speculating that he'd have three extra USOs. Why one speculation and not the other?
Obviously you're speculating about Nadal winning green-clay USO's as a way to show his superiority over Borg. But then why not allow that Borg could have won a few AO's on grass, given how many Wimbledons he won? Seems to me both speculations are reasonable, if you're going to speculate.
Nadal and Borg each have 11 Slams, each winning those 11 in an 8-year period. In that span, Borg played only 4 hardcourt majors, making 3 finals. In the same eight-year timespan, Nadal has won 2 hardcourt majors in 14 attempts: he has the hardcourt win that Borg doesn't have but his overall record in hardcourt majors is filled with early-round losses before '09 and is relatively weak.
And you said nothing about the year-end championships, where Borg has a clear edge.