View Single Post
Old 12-08-2012, 11:34 PM   #127
abmk's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S
Posts: 15,583

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Not true at all, it's just another one of your stupid assumptions. I hardly post on here, yet somehow all I've got on my mind is Rafa. LOL. then I look at your post count and see you spend the majority of your life on here and yet again LOL. Then I realise that the majority of your "discussions" are anti-Nadal and ROFLMAFAO. Keep it up.

Face it Borg couldn't adjust his game to defeat his rivals at the USO. Rafa did. And he adjusted to defeat his rivals at the AO and at WIM as well.
clueless, majority of my discussions are pro-federer, not anti-nadal ...... and majority of your posts are pro-nadal

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Yes genius I was talking about ALL the majors, you know something Mr.Borg failed to do? If you find it more impressive to win 2 out of 4 majors than to win 4/4 than all you're doing is revealing your stupid logic and anti-Nadal agenda. Seriously did Nadal steal your goat when you were a kid?
lol @ making it 2 out 4 like the australian was highly regarded back then ...... just putting that time and again just makes you look highly dense

borg won 3 of the 4 major events of his time - Wimbledon, FO, Masters ( also WCT Dallas in 76 when the field was better than the Masters )

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Again Borg didn't have to play against Federer did he? so that including 5 wins in your brackets there means sfa. He wouldn't have had 5 wins in a row if he had to meet Fed in the finals 3 years in a row lol.

So Borg's 6 finals in a row vs Nadal 5 finals in a row (and yes it was 5 in a row in terms of when he played). They are both dominant periods on grass.

If he didn't have to meet Fed in the finals he would've had 4 Wimbledon titles and been only 1 behind Borg, just like if Borg had to play Fed 3 years in a row he would've most likely lost 2/3 to him and been left with 3 WIM titles instead of 5.

Point is Rafa was still very young and he had to deal with probably the greatest grass courter of all time when he was in his prime and he STILL almost won 2 out of those 3 encounters. Go and ask Federer how bad Nadal is on grass.
like, I said, take away fed for nadal and mac for borg, nadal ends up with max of 4 majors there, borg with 6 .... that's still quite a lot of difference

and nadal almost lost all 3 on 3 vs federer @ wimbledon, let's not forget that ... and an older rafa was losing to lukas rosol and djokovic .......

@ the part of 5 finals in a row ( for nadal when he played ) vs 6 for borg... I don't consider it that way, nadal not playing in 2009 does go against him ..(roddick and to a lesser extent would have a fair shot at defeating him before the finals )

even if we do agree to that for a moment , lets take a look at their semi opponents, shall we ?

borg :

76 : a red-hot tanner who had beaten connors in the previous round
77 : gerulatis at his finest, an all time classic match
78: okker
79 : connors
80 : gottfried
81 : connors

4 of those 6 are formidable ones

for nadal :

2006 : baghdatis
2007 : djokovic (who retired )
2008 : schuttler
2010 : murray
2011 : murray

that's 2 formidable opponents ...murray in 10,11

pales in comparison to borg's both quantity and quality wise ...

before you bring in the floaters like haase/petzschener etc, borg also faced the likes of amaya, amritraj, edmundson ......

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Now let's do the fair thing and add Fed to Borg's path and we'll add McEnroe to Nadal's path from 2011 onwards. Rafa has 4 WIM's and Borg has at most 3.

BTW we add McEnroe from 2011 onwards because he wasn't a threat until later on in Borg's WIM run.
lol, why from 2011 onwards, why not 2010 ... nadal has 3 then, 2006,07,08 ....

add fed to borg's path, fed beats him two times out of 3, remove mac, borg still has 4 at wimbledon ..

it took an all time great on grass, mac in an extremely close match and a great clutch performance to finally dethrone borg ...

nadal on the other hand was losing to djoker ( who is very good, but not great on grass ) and then to lukas rosol .....

and finally this is on presnt day grass that favours rafa more than the old slick, low bouncing grass ......he'd have it much tougher on the grass in the olden years ...

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
But Wimbledon was to him "his home" and losing there is what tore him apart.
yeah, he was so devastated that he absolutely dominated and straight-setted connors @ the USO later and reached the finals there ....

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
WTF are you on about? Blake, Youhzny and Gonzalez ALL had good records against Nadal at the time Ancic's only win against Nadal came on carpet. LOL and not only that Rafa beat Ancic at WIM in 2003 when he was like barely 17 but somehow in 06 Ancic would've beaten him? You fail so bad hahahahahaha.
because ancic was much better at 2004 and 2006 wimbledon than he was at 2003 wimbledon .........

your point of nadal beating ancic in 2003 is like saying roddick at 2009 wimbledon would have no chance vs murray @ wimbledon because a younger murray beat him in straights in 2006 ...... oh wait

roddick was in terrible form in first half of 2006 and in good form in 2009, which is why that happened

that was blake's 1st meeting with nadal - no prior record

that was the 3rd match b/w gonzo and nadal ... one in 2004 , one in 2006, 2004 one shouldn't be taken that seriously as rafa wasn't in top 30 back then , so only one match that can be taken seriously and that isn't much of a sample ...

rafa was actually 3-1 vs youzhny before that US Open match

so you fail majorly with this so called argument as well ......

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
I did not mention the AO at all in this instance, I was talking purely about the USO which he failed to win because he couldn't put it together like Nadal did. Sure he might've had the ability, but I didn't say he didn't, again you highlight your poor comprehension and reading skills. I said he was not good enough to win it and the history books agree with me
being good enough to win it meaning having the ability to win it ... doesn't mean they've actually accomplished it ... otherwise one would directly use the records and wouldn't even argue about whether one had the ability to win it or not ....

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post

And your response is with

a) excuse #1
b) excuse #2

Why did well past his prime Fed beat Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2012? That was in fact a year and a half later than their AO11 encounter.
because even a well past prime federer can put in great performances ? just that the consistency and the ability to grind it out is lesser ... those qualities are more essential at the AO than at wimbledon .... add to it the fact that djoker is by some distance better at the AO than at wimbledon ....... jeez, it isn't rocket science ...

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Let me guess, because Nadal and Murray nearly beat him this time? Mustn't have had anything to do with the level Murray and Nadal played...
oh no doubt, both murray and nadal played well, but djoker was well below his best ... I'm saying it because I watched it

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
I also like how you conveniently like to say Borg only had 4 tries to win the USO on HC well less chance to be dominated too then, you see it works both ways lol.
fair enough, but borg didn't have a propensity to get dominated when he lost at the other HC or indoor events as well ...... that is the case with nadal ........ and then I burst out laughing at the below statement of yours

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Also back then there weren't as many power hitters that could belt you off the court since the racquet technology wasn't there.
lol , ha ha ha ..... so power-hitting is the only way to dominate a player scoreline wise ?????? yeah, just shows how narrow your thinking and experience of tennis is ........

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Hogwash, Borg wouldn't have taken the #1 ranking off Federer. No way he was going to beat him in 3 major finals consecutively to take it away. I'd even make the case that Fed would've beaten Borg at RG at least once which would further reduce Borg's chances of taking the ranking away.
umm, borg wouldn't need to beat federer thrice to get the no 1, just twice, he could definitely at the FO,and he would have a chance at wimbledon as well ...

and unlike rafa, he was darn good indoors as well, so he'd pick up more points there ...

Last edited by abmk; 12-08-2012 at 11:46 PM.
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote