Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG
The Career Grand Slam suddenly counts for nothing.
And Nadal being the only man in history to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year counts for nothing? And 21 masters shields? Borg somehow overcomes all this?
Nadal's AO title counts for next to nothing in a comparison with Borg, since Borg hardly ever played there. His USO title and managing to win this in the same season he won on grass and clay as well, certainly does count in his favour. His Masters shields are close to irrelevant in a comparison of all-time greats, they are not the highest level of competition in tennis.
In Borg's favour he has two YECs on carpet (where Nadal has been very poor and has only reached one final), more time at No 1, more total tournaments, an even higher winning percentage at the slams (won 11/27 which he contested), all-time record Davis Cup winning streak (33 matches).
But most importantly, he dominated on two incredibly polarised surfaces (clay and old grass) simultaneously. This combined with winning on carpet and coming very close to winning the US on hard means I consider him marginally more versatile than Nadal, despite the latter winning slams on grass, clay and hard.
As I said it is very, very close between them and I certainly wouldn't find it ridiculous that someone ranks Nadal ahead. But I personally rank Borg above - just - at this stage.