View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 09:21 AM   #457
TMF
G.O.A.T.
 
TMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizo View Post
Borg not winning the Australian Open during his career means about as much as Nadal failing to win the title at Rotterdam during his (and Nadal has played at Rotterdam more times than Borg played at the Aussie Open).
I think you're harsh on Nadal, because Australian Open is a tough place to win, and when he won 2009 AO took a lot out of him physically. You're equating a small Rotterdam to the AO in terms of meaningful event, but that doesn't take away how hard it is to win. AO arguably the hardest of all the 4 slam, it's taxing on the body, and dealing with the heat wave. Basically, Nadal did something special that he doesn't deserve, because Borg didn't play back then. Could Borg have won the AO had he played? Maybe he could, but still the AO is no where near as competitive as today(as you stated that it wasn't meaningful). Nadal face all adversity in 2009, I'm not sure if Borg could've done given a same exact situation.

With that being said, if Nadal's AO win isn't the standard hold against Borg, some people shouldn't take Laver's 69 GS and hold against Federer and modern players, because it isn't applicable to today either. But somehow Federer always get slighted because he can't win the GS. It's a double standard.
TMF is offline   Reply With Quote