Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

5555 · 11-11-2012, 03:30 AM

What do you think?

jaggy · 11-11-2012, 05:05 AM

A candidate sure but lack of US Open wins hinders him

Ramon · 11-11-2012, 05:17 AM

I think he is. He never won the US Open, but he was close. Just look all the great players he dominated and what happened after he retired. Connors, Vilas, and Gerulaitis all enjoyed more success right after Borg retired.

gavna · 11-11-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramon

I think he is. He never won the US Open, but he was close. Just look all the great players he dominated and what happened after he retired. Connors, Vilas, and Gerulaitis all enjoyed more success right after Borg retired.

Of course Borg is a candidate.....for sure top 3.....but Vilas and Vitas for sure didn't have "more" success after BB retired...both were at their peak in the late 70s.

hoodjem · 11-11-2012, 05:38 AM

His dominance on clay then grass two weeks later for three straight years has not been duplicated.

Rafa did it in 2008, but not again until 2010. Even Fed has done it only once in 2009. (And of course we all know that it's easier now, because the grass has been slowed down.)

borg number one · 11-11-2012, 05:38 AM

Is the Pope Catholic? Borg absolutely revolutionized the sport of tennis, apart from all his accomplishments.

Gizo · 11-11-2012, 05:43 AM

I don't think that he is as great a player as either Laver or Federer, but still he is easily one of the best players to have ever picked up a racket.

I would rank him above Sampras. Borg had the clear edge in terms of surface versatility of course, while Sampras had the clear edge in terms of longevity. I think that Borg was more dominant than Sampras, although I accept that this criteria is far more debatable.

Sure Sampras finished as the year end no. 6 times and Borg twice. However everyone knows that Borg was the real no. 1 in 1978, and Sampras was a very weak and questionable no. 1 in 1998. All 8 of Borg's seasons from 1974-1981 were better than Sampras's 1998.

Looking at quality over quantity, Borg's 1979 and 1980 seasons were superior to any year that Sampras ever had on the tour in my opinion, both in terms of results and standard of play. His 1978 season was probably as good as any year that Sampras ever had as well. Sampras never had a 3 year run that stacks up to Borg's 1978-1980.

I still rank him above Nadal as well due to his superior surface versality and dominance. He was a far better player on hard courts than Nadal has been indoors, despite Nadal benefiting from the elimination of carpet and most indoor tournaments nowadays being played on medium-paced hard courts. Plus Borg was the undisputed best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980, while Nadal has never been the best player in the world in back to back years.

Mustard · 11-11-2012, 05:43 AM

Yes, Borg is certainly a GOAT candidate.

JoelDali · 11-11-2012, 05:57 AM

Is Billie Jean King GOATable?

Gizo · 11-11-2012, 06:01 AM

Borg's 3 consecutive RG-Wimbledon doubles, when the surfaces at those 2 events were far more polarised than they have been over the last 10 years, with him engaging in wars of attrition and regular 50-60 shot rallies at RG, and then serve-volleying and playing aggressively at Wimbledon, was just superhuman.

jaggy · 11-11-2012, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelDali

Is Billie Jean King GOATable?

She did resemble one

chrischris · 11-11-2012, 06:09 AM

Is anthropogenic global warming happening?
Of course Borg is a candidate.
He was an extreme athlete and given his output over the few years he played , he is in a class of his own.No one comes close .

forzamilan90 · 11-11-2012, 06:55 AM

Legendary player held in very high regard, but no GOAT candidate

chrischris · 11-11-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Legendary player held in very high regard, but no GOAT candidate

And why not?

chrischris · 11-11-2012, 07:29 AM

Borg has an output per year as an active player than no one can match in Grand Slam titles.
He is the Beatles of tennis.

BauerAlmeida · 11-11-2012, 07:54 AM

Yes.

Lack of USO hurts him a bit, but he had 4 finals.

Virginia · 11-11-2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrischris

Is anthropogenic global warming happening?
Of course Borg is a candidate.
He was an extreme athlete and given his output over the few years he played , he is in a class of his own.No one comes close .

I have to challenge that one!

I agree about Borg though.

TMF · 11-11-2012, 09:45 AM

From the experts, Borg is in the top 10.

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden

Prisoner of Birth · 11-11-2012, 09:49 AM

Yeah, he's my number 4. Should be top 10 on anyone's list.

TMF · 11-11-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Yeah, he's my number 4. Should be top 10 on anyone's list.

The OP should ask what's the cutoff number to be in goat discussion.

Some people believe top 10 qualify to be in goat discussion and others are more stricter...they only include 5 or 3 players. Whereas some people already have conceded one particular player is a goat and there's no more discussion.

View Poll Results: Is Borg a GOAT candidate?
Yes	39	69.64%
No	17	30.36%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

11-11-2012, 03:30 AM	#1
5555 Professional Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: London Posts: 842	Is Borg a GOAT candidate? What do you think?

11-11-2012, 05:38 AM	#5
hoodjem Legend Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Bierlandt Posts: 9,957	His dominance on clay then grass two weeks later for three straight years has not been duplicated. Rafa did it in 2008, but not again until 2010. Even Fed has done it only once in 2009. (And of course we all know that it's easier now, because the grass has been slowed down.) __________________ The smart man thinks he knows a lot; the wise man is aware that he knows little. Last edited by hoodjem : 11-11-2012 at 05:45 AM.

11-11-2012, 05:38 AM	#6
borg number one Legend Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,041	Is the Pope Catholic? Borg absolutely revolutionized the sport of tennis, apart from all his accomplishments. __________________ Borg never pointed to himself. He never even seemed to care if anyone read the advertisements. — Tom Callahan

11-11-2012, 05:43 AM	#7
Gizo Professional Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,055	I don't think that he is as great a player as either Laver or Federer, but still he is easily one of the best players to have ever picked up a racket. I would rank him above Sampras. Borg had the clear edge in terms of surface versatility of course, while Sampras had the clear edge in terms of longevity. I think that Borg was more dominant than Sampras, although I accept that this criteria is far more debatable. Sure Sampras finished as the year end no. 6 times and Borg twice. However everyone knows that Borg was the real no. 1 in 1978, and Sampras was a very weak and questionable no. 1 in 1998. All 8 of Borg's seasons from 1974-1981 were better than Sampras's 1998. Looking at quality over quantity, Borg's 1979 and 1980 seasons were superior to any year that Sampras ever had on the tour in my opinion, both in terms of results and standard of play. His 1978 season was probably as good as any year that Sampras ever had as well. Sampras never had a 3 year run that stacks up to Borg's 1978-1980. I still rank him above Nadal as well due to his superior surface versality and dominance. He was a far better player on hard courts than Nadal has been indoors, despite Nadal benefiting from the elimination of carpet and most indoor tournaments nowadays being played on medium-paced hard courts. Plus Borg was the undisputed best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980, while Nadal has never been the best player in the world in back to back years. Last edited by Gizo : 11-11-2012 at 05:46 AM.

11-11-2012, 05:57 AM	#9
JoelDali Legend Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 8,945	Is Billie Jean King GOATable? __________________ There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live and too rare to die.