Originally Posted by krosero
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.
Borg basically hasn't won the US Open, which was at the time the 2nd most prestigious tournament in the world, which means he must have wanted it pretty badly. But he didn't win it. Nadal did. The number of attempts doesn't matter. Nadal could've played the US Open a 100 times for all I care, he still won it. Not having played is not better than making even the 2nd Round. If Borg didn't give himself enough chances to win the US Open, he only has himself to blame. No point in handing him phantom trophies. And it's not like he didn't have his shots and chances. 4 finals is a lot. And he quit at 26. Doesn't matter why, he quit. No phantom trophies after that, either. Nadal, right now, is equal to Borg, I'm not saying he's higher. But given time, it seems inevitable that he will top him since Nadal, unlike Borg, doesn't seem to be a quitter. I guess time will tell.