Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Sorry but the whole problem of that argument is Borg only got to play a hard court during his absolute peak years of 1978-1981. It would be like if the only hard court slam Nadal could ever play was the U.S Open from 2008-2011, and in that case Nadal's overall record would be superior to Borg with a title, runner up, and two semis, vs Borg who has no title, one more final, but a loss in the quarters which Nadal those years did not have. Had Borg had to play the U.S Open on hard courts before 1978 you can rest assured he would have numerous early losses, as it was he had 3 losses before the quarters the 5 previous years with it played on clay or grass, so would likely (almost certainly) have only been worse, or in absolute best unlikely case scenario no better, had it been on hard courts.
Borg is ahead of Nadal. he has pedigree on both slow and fast courts. nadal, for a lack of better word, sucks on fast courts. That is all i need to know.
Also Borg's 11 slams come from 3 majors a year since no one played AO. So if we normalize his major count, we get
11 *4/3 = 14.66 ~ 15 majors.
Or you can pick the most important non-slam tournament from that era and add it to Borg's slam count. Either way, Borg is miles ahead of Nadal.
Like I said in some other post, Nadal needs 3 more non-FO slams, preferably from at least 2 of the majors on top of what he already has. nadal could win another 50 FO's, it doesnt add anything to his GOAT status. he needs to double his non-clay resume and add some big indoor titles to go above borg. unfortunately, I don't see that happening. sucks cos nadal works hard, he was just never as talented as borg or federer.
Borg is no.2 on the all time great list. ahead of sampras who is in a way reverse nadal. great on fast courts but comparatively sucked on slow courts.
P.S sorry to school you like this but sometimes adults have to discipline kids with honest talk. i am sure you will get over it.