View Single Post
Old 11-24-2012, 08:05 PM   #59
abmk's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S
Posts: 15,583

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
I can say what if Nadal got the U.S Open on clay for 3 years like Borg (although in Borg's case still didnt capatilize), while had the Australian Open been exactly like today, a real slam played on hard courts Borg might still have won 0 or at best only 1 there vs the 3 additional Nadal would likely have won with 3 U.S Opens on clay after his first RG win. Thus they all cancel out and become irrelevant.
what exactly makes you think nadal would win all 3 on har-tru ? The surface closest to har-tru is probably madrid masters , where rafa hasn't exactly been dominant ....

also borg didn't play 77 RG, where he'd easily be the favorite to win had he played .... he'd have played if the tour was standardized as it is today ...

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Either way my reason for ranking Nadal over Borg is simple. Borg couldnt even win a U.S Open with it on 3 different surfaces. By extension could never win a hard court slam. On top of that on Borg's best surface (clay) Nadal is now the hands down GOAT ahead of Borg.
nadal is one slam ahead at RG .... borg is 3 slams ahead at their mutual 2nd best slams, wimbledon ...

borg was still not that experienced to win on grass in 74 ... nadal at the same age wasn't either ...and borg was injured at the 77 USO ...

borg had just 4 shots at HC slams ... what exactly did nadal do in HC slams after he had won his 1st slam ? lets see , hmm, lose to blake at USO 2005, youzhny at USO 2006, gonzalez at AO 2007, ferrer at USO 2007 ..even in the next 2, lost to tsonga at the AO in 2008, murray at the USO in 2008

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Others can disagree but there is nothing that conclusively proves Borg or Nadal have the "lead", fact is both have 11 slams and beyond that it is speculation and opinion to who is better. However most in the real World (not Planet TW of lovesick Federer worshippers and Nadal haters which is a comedy based irrelevance) most now regard Nadal as being above Borg.
oh well, that's just ignoring the reality that the indoor tournaments ( WCT/Masters ) were very important tournaments then, far more important than the AO and borg won them .....

LOL @ just counting the slams won, when the slams weren't 'standardized'/borg didn't get as many shots at them in the time-frame when he played .....

also borg was clear YE no 1 for 3 years ( 78-80 ) and arguably in 77 as well ... nadal was only for 2 years (2008 and 2010)

And finally while borg's lack of US Open definitely hurts him, that wasn't because he was weak on decoturf, he was still pretty good there, just that he faced 2 of the greatest players at the USO there - connors/mac , and another loss was against a hot tanner , whom he did beat next year , also beat connors in straights in 81 ( connors had taken the winner mac to a close 5-setter in 80 and would go on to win the 82 and 83 US Opens )

certainly by some distance better than nadal indoors ...

Borg's versatility in winning RG/wimbledon back to back thrice when surfaces were more different than they are now is a major plus ...

just as nadal winning all 4 slams is for him ....

Last edited by abmk; 11-24-2012 at 08:16 PM.
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote