GOAT Discussions

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

For me as a German, one of the most astounding things about Rosewall was, that Germany won the World Cup in Soccer in 1954 and 1974. In 1954, before my time, Fritz Walter captained the German team as heavy underdog against Hungary with Puskas. In 1974, a complete different gerneration was at work, when Beckenbauer's German team, again a heavy underdog against Holland, won over Cruyff's Netherlands. It was a good sign for Germany for the final Sunday, that the Wimbledon final had been played the day before, and the same man, still the same man, had lost the final to Drobny and Connors. In sports, 20 years are an eternity. That the Rosewall of 1974 was the same Rosewall of 1954, boggeled the mind.

And of course we all understand that Rosewall's best years were in between 1954 and 1974 probably in the early 1960's.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's very debatable on whether Nadal is ahead of Borg. Borg won more tournaments, had a higher lifetime winning percentage and was much more dominant at his peak. Borg won over 90% of his games at his peak over a five year period. Nadal had NEVER won 90% of his matches in a single year.

Borg won over 100 tournaments in his career by age 25.

Incidentally Bill Tilden can be argued to be ahead of anyone and of course Ken Rosewall.

pc1, I would still rank Borg ahead of Nadal.

As you cite Rosewall: I have forgotten in my Rosewall achievements that Muscles keeps another fantastic record: He reached 36 consecutive SFs at majors from Wimbledon 1954 to French Open 1968. Of course I concede that the pro majors had only 8 -16 participants. But still awesome.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I would still rank Borg ahead of Nadal.

As you cite Rosewall: I have forgotten in my Rosewall achievements that Muscles keeps another fantastic record: He reached 36 consecutive SFs at majors from Wimbledon 1954 to French Open 1968. Of course I concede that the pro majors had only 8 -16 participants. But still awesome.

My theory is that the top groundstrokers tend to be the most consistent and Rosewall certainly was consistently great. You look at guys like Borg, Connor, Tilden, Lendl, Wilander (for a little while) Budge, Riggs and they rarely had bad losses.

Gonzalez was a serve and volleyer but he didn't mind groundstroking rallies.

Guys like Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Newcombe could occasionally had some bad losses. I think it's because of their high risk game. Just a theory. I could be wrong.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

My theory is that the top groundstrokers tend to be the most consistent and Rosewall certainly was consistently great. You look at guys like Borg, Connor, Tilden, Lendl, Wilander (for a little while) Budge, Riggs and they rarely had bad losses.

Gonzalez was a serve and volleyer but he didn't mind groundstroking rallies.

Guys like Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Newcombe could occasionally had some bad losses. I think it's because of their high risk game. Just a theory. I could be wrong.

pc1, I confess I have never reflected this issue but your theory sounds reasonable.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's very debatable on whether Nadal is ahead of Borg. Borg won more tournaments, had a higher lifetime winning percentage and was much more dominant at his peak. Borg won over 90% of his games at his peak over a five year period. Nadal had NEVER won 90% of his matches in a single year.

Borg won over 100 tournaments in his career by age 25.

Incidentally Bill Tilden can be argued to be ahead of anyone and of course Ken Rosewall.

As I already mentioned I dont even care about tournament win totals for any players before 1980 as it is obvious by the huge disparity in numbers it was far easier to win alot of tournaments then than it is today, not due to the so called weaker fields some believe of the past, but the much more physical nature of the game today.

Of course it is debateable but I would still go with Nadal. Borg never won 3 slams in the same year (and if he didnt play the Australian it is his fault), he never won a slam on hard courts, he never won the U.S Open despite having the chance to win it on 3 different surfaces including even on CLAY for sevearal years he was in or close to his prime. Given all the what ifs that are brought up for Borg regarding the Australian Open, if Nadal had 3 U.S Opens on green clay starting after his first French Open win he probably would have 4 U.S Open titles (or at minimum 3) today, and Borg still has 0. Nadal has won multiple slams on each surface, and even if the has the benefit in that sense of 2 slams being on his weakest of the 3 major surfaces (hard courts) he still managed a U.S Open win, Australian Open title, and Olympic singles gold, all on hard courts. Nadal has won atleast 1 slam for 7 years in a row now, so his longevity already matches or exceeds (probably exceeds) Borg's, and Nadal was ranked #1 or #2 for almost every single week for almost 8 years as well, while Borg didnt even become #2 caliber until about 5 years before he retired.

[Gizo]

Borg not winning the Australian Open during his career means about as much as Nadal failing to win the title at Rotterdam during his (and Nadal has played at Rotterdam more times than Borg played at the Aussie Open).

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Borg not winning the Australian Open during his career means about as much as Nadal failing to win the title at Rotterdam during his (and Nadal has played at Rotterdam more times than Borg played at the Aussie Open).

Yes but he also isnt awarded fantasy slams there either. Evert isnt awarded fantasy slams at the Australians and French Opens she would have won in the 70s, otherwise she would be the female GOAT today, rather than viewed largely as inferior to Graf, Navratilova, Court, and even now Serena. If we do all the what ifs possible, if the Australian Open were on hard courts like today, and if everyone played it like today, he might well still have failed to win it, just like he failed to win the U.S Open in many tries despite it being played not only on hard courts (his worst surface) but on clay for several years, during his relative prime years.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes but he also isnt awarded fantasy slams there either. Evert isnt awarded fantasy slams at the Australians and French Opens she would have won in the 70s, otherwise she would be the female GOAT today, rather than viewed largely as inferior to Graf, Navratilova, Court, and even now Serena.

Of course, Borg's career shouldn't be judged on the Australian Open at all.
Saying he failed to win 2 out of the 4 slams is completely irrelevant when their were only 3 meaningful majors during his prime.

The problem is that many people mistakenly judge the careers of Borg, Connors etc using modern day 21st century glasses. That is silly of course as their careers need to be judged based on the context of their actual eras, i.e. when the grand slam title count was completely meaningless and non-official invitational tournaments were very important.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

As I already mentioned I dont even care about tournament win totals for any players before 1980 as it is obvious by the huge disparity in numbers it was far easier to win alot of tournaments then than it is today, not due to the so called weaker fields some believe of the past, but the much more physical nature of the game today.

Of course it is debateable but I would still go with Nadal. Borg never won 3 slams in the same year (and if he didnt play the Australian it is his fault), he never won a slam on hard courts, he never won the U.S Open despite having the chance to win it on 3 different surfaces including even on CLAY for sevearal years he was in or close to his prime. Given all the what ifs that are brought up for Borg regarding the Australian Open, if Nadal had 3 U.S Opens on green clay starting after his first French Open win he probably would have 4 U.S Open titles (or at minimum 3) today, and Borg still has 0. Nadal has won multiple slams on each surface, and even if the has the benefit in that sense of 2 slams being on his weakest of the 3 major surfaces (hard courts) he still managed a U.S Open win, Australian Open title, and Olympic singles gold, all on hard courts. Nadal has won atleast 1 slam for 7 years in a row now, so his longevity already matches or exceeds (probably exceeds) Borg's, and Nadal was ranked #1 or #2 for almost every single week for almost 8 years as well, while Borg didnt even become #2 caliber until about 5 years before he retired.

NadalAgassi, Borg won at least one major for eight consecutive years. Not too bad.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Gizo

The problem is that many people mistakenly judge the careers of Borg, Connors etc using modern day 21st century glasses. That is silly of course as their careers need to be judged based on the context of their actual eras, i.e. when the grand slam title count was completely meaningless and non-official invitational tournaments were very important.

if we compare Borg and Nadal only by the French, Wimbledon, and U.S Open, and overall seasons beyond those, I would still favor Nadal. Nadal has won all of those unlike Borg who as I already mentioned failed to win a U.S Open despite the benefit of it being played on a form of his favorite surface for several years, and Nadal's French Open record is better than Borg's record anywhere. Borg's Wimbledon record is better than Nadal's, but Nadal has only 1 less final at this point, and Borg wasnt forced to deal with Federer or anyone like him at Wimbledon. Nadal was overall one of the two dominant players at all times from the start of 2005 to about the middle of 2012, so 7.5 years. Borg was overall one of the two dominant players at all times from about the spring of 1976 to basically quitting right after the 1981 U.S Open so about 5.5 years. Both were only dominant on their own for about 2 years, so no difference there.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalAgassi, Borg won at least one major for eight consecutive years. Not too bad.

Yes indeed, but Nadal has already matched it and obviously has a good chance to surpass it, and Nadal never won any of his majors when they were basically cheese majors with depleted fields like the 74 and to an extent the 75 French Opens were. Would Borg have ever won the 74 French had Connors been allowed to play? I know Connors is not some GOAT on red clay, but Borg was his b*tch of slaves at that point.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes indeed, but Nadal has already matched it and obviously has a good chance to surpass it, and Nadal never won any of his majors when they were basically cheese majors with depleted fields like the 74 and to an extent the 75 French Opens were. Would Borg have ever won the 74 French had Connors been allowed to play? I know Connors is not some GOAT on red clay, but Borg was his b*tch of slaves at that point.

Well Connors lost in the 1st round at RG in 1973 so it's difficult imagine him improving so drastically on his worst surface in one year. Plus he only ever beat Borg once in an official match in Europe/outside the US. Their European h2h played out a lot differently to their American h2h, and Borg had already beaten him before in 1973. Borg never had the same fear playing Connors in Europe as he did playing him in the US during the mid 70s.

Manuel Orantes and Vilas who Borg beat in the 1974 and 1975 finals were far better players on red clay than Connors was.

Similarly we could debate what Nadal's grand slam title count would be if the grand slams awarded terrible prize money and there were many non-slam events and exhos around that were offering a lot more $$$. Maybe Nadal, Federer would skip some slams if no-one was counting how many they won, they had no crystal ball to predict that people would actually care about that 30 years later, and could make a lot more money elsewhere. Really it's small wonder that Borg took events like the Pepsi Grand Slam so seriously.

Really the only easy cross-era comparisons are between players from the 90s and later.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

if we compare Borg and Nadal only by the French, Wimbledon, and U.S Open, and overall seasons beyond those, I would still favor Nadal. Nadal has won all of those unlike Borg who as I already mentioned failed to win a U.S Open despite the benefit of it being played on a form of his favorite surface for several years, and Nadal's French Open record is better than Borg's record anywhere. Borg's Wimbledon record is better than Nadal's, but Nadal has only 1 less final at this point, and Borg wasnt forced to deal with Federer or anyone like him at Wimbledon. Nadal was overall one of the two dominant players at all times from the start of 2005 to about the middle of 2012, so 7.5 years. Borg was overall one of the two dominant players at all times from about the spring of 1976 to basically quitting right after the 1981 U.S Open so about 5.5 years. Both were only dominant on their own for about 2 years, so no difference there.

Nadal has been the best player in the world twice, in 2008 and 2010, so never in back to back years. Borg was the clear best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980 so Borg was more dominant.

Plus Nadal was a lot weaker indoors than Borg was on any surface, despite benefiting from indoor courts between slowed down considerably. In fact I'm not sure if Nadal has been any better indoors than Sampras was on clay. . Borg was outstanding on clay, grass and carpet and still very good on hard courts. Nadal has been outstanding on clay, grass and hard but has just 1 title win indoors so far. So Borg was more versatile across all surfaces (and he played in more polarised surface conditions as well) than Nadal.

And Borg didn't quit right after the 1981 US Open. That's one of the biggest tennis myths that has developed over the years. He played a lot of exhos and invitations in 1982, but the regulatory bodies wanted him to play more official tournaments and eventually said he had to qualify for Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Unsurprisingly Borg pretty much told them to shove it.

Considering the governing bodies covered up Agassi's failed drugs tests in 1997, it's safe to say that they learnt from the whole Borg saga and realised that in a niche sport like tennis, they desperately needed to protect the few stars that they had (not that I'm saying that's right or anything).

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

As I already mentioned I dont even care about tournament win totals for any players before 1980 as it is obvious by the huge disparity in numbers it was far easier to win alot of tournaments then than it is today, not due to the so called weaker fields some believe of the past, but the much more physical nature of the game today.

Of course it is debateable but I would still go with Nadal. Borg never won 3 slams in the same year (and if he didnt play the Australian it is his fault), he never won a slam on hard courts, he never won the U.S Open despite having the chance to win it on 3 different surfaces including even on CLAY for sevearal years he was in or close to his prime. Given all the what ifs that are brought up for Borg regarding the Australian Open, if Nadal had 3 U.S Opens on green clay starting after his first French Open win he probably would have 4 U.S Open titles (or at minimum 3) today, and Borg still has 0. Nadal has won multiple slams on each surface, and even if the has the benefit in that sense of 2 slams being on his weakest of the 3 major surfaces (hard courts) he still managed a U.S Open win, Australian Open title, and Olympic singles gold, all on hard courts. Nadal has won atleast 1 slam for 7 years in a row now, so his longevity already matches or exceeds (probably exceeds) Borg's, and Nadal was ranked #1 or #2 for almost every single week for almost 8 years as well, while Borg didnt even become #2 caliber until about 5 years before he retired.

In your first paragraph you refuse to judge the current era by the standards of Borg's era. But then you go on to judge Borg by the standards of the current era. Olympic gold by Nadal? Tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport in Borg's time. And Borg not playing 4 Slams a year, you put down merely as his fault. You well know that virtually nobody played the Australian, and the fault lies with the tournament organizers who scheduled it during the holidays and couldn't offer the same prize money as the other Slams were offering. That was part of the tour structure at the time -- a weak AO -- and you don't take that into consideration, simply putting it down to the fault of the players.

I mean, if you're going to criticize the players for choosing not to play the AO, then why don't we criticize them today for their choices. Nadal has bad knees. Well, why not say it's his own fault, for playing so much on hard courts? Couldn't he choose to play on clay courts and skip more hard court tournaments?

Of course, Nadal shouldn't be faulted for that, because the hardcourt tournaments are well-attended, and important, and well-paying. He's just going where the money and the players are going: same thing that Borg did. They do exactly the same thing, but Nadal gets credit while Borg gets faulted.

You've been saying that Borg should get no credit for speculatory AO wins (which is correct, I agree with that), and when you do speculate you say he might not have won any. But you speculate about how Nadal would have fared if he had gotten to play the USO on clay, strengthening his case by speculating that he'd have three extra USOs. Why one speculation and not the other?

Obviously you're speculating about Nadal winning green-clay USO's as a way to show his superiority over Borg. But then why not allow that Borg could have won a few AO's on grass, given how many Wimbledons he won? Seems to me both speculations are reasonable, if you're going to speculate.

Nadal and Borg each have 11 Slams, each winning those 11 in an 8-year period. In that span, Borg played only 4 hardcourt majors, making 3 finals. In the same eight-year timespan, Nadal has won 2 hardcourt majors in 14 attempts: he has the hardcourt win that Borg doesn't have but his overall record in hardcourt majors is filled with early-round losses before '09 and is relatively weak.

And you said nothing about the year-end championships, where Borg has a clear edge.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by krosero

In your first paragraph you refuse to judge the current era by the standards of Borg's era. But then you go on to judge Borg by the standards of the current era. Olympic gold by Nadal? Tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport in Borg's time. And Borg not playing 4 Slams a year, you put down merely as his fault. You well know that virtually nobody played the Australian, and the fault lies with the tournament organizers who scheduled it during the holidays and couldn't offer the same prize money as the other Slams were offering. That was part of the tour structure at the time -- a weak AO -- and you don't take that into consideration, simply putting it down to the fault of the players.

I mean, if you're going to criticize the players for choosing not to play the AO, then why don't we criticize them today for their choices. Nadal has bad knees. Well, why not say it's his own fault, for playing so much on hard courts? Couldn't he choose to play on clay courts and skip more hard court tournaments?

Of course, Nadal shouldn't be faulted for that, because the hardcourt tournaments are well-attended, and important, and well-paying. He's just going where the money and the players are going: same thing that Borg did. They do exactly the same thing, but Nadal gets credit while Borg gets faulted.

You've been saying that Borg should get no credit for speculatory AO wins (which is correct, I agree with that), and when you do speculate you say he might not have won any. But you speculate about how Nadal would have fared if he had gotten to play the USO on clay, strengthening his case by speculating that he'd have three extra USOs. Why one speculation and not the other?

Obviously you're speculating about Nadal winning green-clay USO's as a way to show his superiority over Borg. But then why not allow that Borg could have won a few AO's on grass, given how many Wimbledons he won? Seems to me both speculations are reasonable, if you're going to speculate.

Nadal and Borg each have 11 Slams, each winning those 11 in an 8-year period. In that span, Borg played only 4 hardcourt majors, making 3 finals. In the same eight-year timespan, Nadal has won 2 hardcourt majors in 14 attempts: he has the hardcourt win that Borg doesn't have but his overall record in hardcourt majors is filled with early-round losses before '09 and is relatively weak.

And you said nothing about the year-end championships, where Borg has a clear edge.

Borg basically hasn't won the US Open, which was at the time the 2nd most prestigious tournament in the world, which means he must have wanted it pretty badly. But he didn't win it. Nadal did. The number of attempts doesn't matter. Nadal could've played the US Open a 100 times for all I care, he still won it. Not having played is not better than making even the 2nd Round. If Borg didn't give himself enough chances to win the US Open, he only has himself to blame. No point in handing him phantom trophies. And it's not like he didn't have his shots and chances. 4 finals is a lot. And he quit at 26. Doesn't matter why, he quit. No phantom trophies after that, either. Nadal, right now, is equal to Borg, I'm not saying he's higher. But given time, it seems inevitable that he will top him since Nadal, unlike Borg, doesn't seem to be a quitter. I guess time will tell.

[NadalAgassi]

If Borg couldnt even win the U.S Open from 75-77 on clay it is clear he wouldnt have ever won it those same years had it been played on hard courts instead. I laugh outloud at anyone who would even try and argue otherwise. The same goes for when he played it on grass in 73-74. The only reason he isnt 0 for 9 in winning hard court majors as opposed to 0 for 4 is the event was on other surfaces which actually greatly HELPED his chances to win the U.S Open, and he still failed.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Borg not winning the Australian Open during his career means about as much as Nadal failing to win the title at Rotterdam during his (and Nadal has played at Rotterdam more times than Borg played at the Aussie Open).

I think you're harsh on Nadal, because Australian Open is a tough place to win, and when he won 2009 AO took a lot out of him physically. You're equating a small Rotterdam to the AO in terms of meaningful event, but that doesn't take away how hard it is to win. AO arguably the hardest of all the 4 slam, it's taxing on the body, and dealing with the heat wave. Basically, Nadal did something special that he doesn't deserve, because Borg didn't play back then. Could Borg have won the AO had he played? Maybe he could, but still the AO is no where near as competitive as today(as you stated that it wasn't meaningful). Nadal face all adversity in 2009, I'm not sure if Borg could've done given a same exact situation.

With that being said, if Nadal's AO win isn't the standard hold against Borg, some people shouldn't take Laver's 69 GS and hold against Federer and modern players, because it isn't applicable to today either. But somehow Federer always get slighted because he can't win the GS. It's a double standard.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by TMF

I think you're harsh on Nadal, because Australian Open is a tough place to win, and when he won 2009 AO took a lot out of him physically. You're equating a small Rotterdam to the AO in terms of meaningful event, but that doesn't take away how hard it is to win. AO arguably the hardest of all the 4 slam, it's taxing on the body, and dealing with the heat wave. Basically, Nadal did something special that he doesn't deserve, because Borg didn't play back then. Could Borg have won the AO had he played? Maybe he could, but still the AO is no where near as competitive as today(as you stated that it wasn't meaningful). Nadal face all adversity in 2009, I'm not sure if Borg could've done given a same exact situation.

With that being said, if Nadal's AO win isn't the standard hold against Borg, some people shouldn't take Laver's 69 GS and hold against Federer and modern players, because it isn't applicable to today either. But somehow Federer always get slighted because he can't win the GS. It's a double standard.

No I'm not equating Rotterdam to the Australian Open in Nadal's time. I'm equating Rotterdam now to the Australian Open in Borg's time. There's a big difference there.

Imagine now if there was a slam that offered considerably less ranking points and prize money than the other 3 majors (and many non-slam tournaments for that matter), had absolutely terrible facilities, and was held at such an inconvenient time (so close to Christmas and for several years so soon before the more important Masters event). There would be withdrawals left, right and centre. That was the situation with the Aussie Open in Borg's time. Player's ranked outside the top 200 were getting direct entries into the Aussie Open during the mid to late 70s (despite the fact that it had a significantly smaller draw size to the other majors).

So using the Australian Open as some sort of yardstick when discussing Borg's career is stupid, as that ignores the context of his era. And yes many historians make an equally big mistake and judge Federer based on 60s and 70s standards (comparing Laver's overall title count to Federer's for instance is a utterly stupid).

Borg's career needs to be judged on the context of his era, i.e. when non-slam and invitational events were very lucrative and hence very important, when absolutely nobody cared about the grand slam title count including the players themselves, when there were only 3 proper majors a year, when the Masters and WCT Finals were hugely important tournaments etc.

Federer and Nadal's careers needs to be judged on the context of their eras, i.e. when grand slam counting is very important, when there are 4 equally important majors a year, when the non-slam events don't mean so much any more etc.

The players from the 70s and 80s like Borg and Connors probably get the worst deal. Some older historians judge them based on the context of the 60s Laver/Rosewall era and even previous eras, while some younger tennis fans judge them based on the context of the Sampras/Federer 90s and 00s era. i.e. looking at slams and nothing else. They are pretty much stuck in the middle.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Gizo

No I'm not equating Rotterdam to the Australian Open in Nadal's time. I'm equating Rotterdam now to the Australian Open in Borg's time. There's a big difference there.

Imagine now if there was a slam that offered considerably less ranking points and prize money than the other 3 majors (and many non-slam tournaments for that matter), had absolutely terrible facilities, and was held at such an inconvenient time (so close to Christmas and for several years so soon before the more important Masters event). There would be withdrawals left, right and centre. That was the situation with the Aussie Open in Borg's time. Player's ranked outside the top 200 were getting direct entries into the Aussie Open during the mid to late 70s (despite the fact that it had a significantly smaller draw size to the other majors).

So using the Australian Open as some sort of yardstick when discussing Borg's career is stupid, as that ignores the context of his era. And yes many historians make an equally big mistake and judge Federer based on 60s and 70s standards (comparing Laver's overall title count to Federer's for instance is a utterly stupid).

Borg's career needs to be judged on the context of his era, i.e. when non-slam and invitational events were very lucrative and hence very important, when absolutely nobody cared about the grand slam title count including the players themselves, when there were only 3 proper majors a year, when the Masters and WCT Finals were hugely important tournaments etc.

Federer and Nadal's careers needs to be judged on the context of their eras, i.e. when grand slam counting is very important, when there are 4 equally important majors a year, when the non-slam events don't mean so much any more etc.

The players from the 70s and 80s like Borg and Connors probably get the worst deal. Some older historians judge them based on the context of the 60s Laver/Rosewall era and even previous eras, while some younger tennis fans judge them based on the context of the Sampras/Federer 90s and 00s era. i.e. looking at slams and nothing else. They are pretty much stuck in the middle.

However Borg stands in comparison with Nadal, I rank him among the five best players regarding peak level, the others being Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez (no order). Hoad was less consistent than the other ones but maybe the strongest for one match or a short series of matches....

[Mustard]

In regard to the Australian Open in those days (1970, 1972-1982), I say this, Borg shouldn't be blamed for not playing, but those players who played and won the titles in that period deserve the full credit for doing so.