Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

[Goosehead]

id say maybe borg is in the discussion yes ..a shame he didnt win us open in 1980 when he came back from 2 sets down in final v supermac and was 4-4 in the 5th..also they say the grass at the australian open back then was slower than wimby was then. so its again a shame borg didnt, play as a slower grass would be even more ideal for borg seeing how great he was on clay and fast grass..

borg would have surely hoovered up several aust opens..but he didnt..anyway winning 11 majors in 27 majors entered and reaching final of 6 others is amazing, plus the 15 ish masters and 2 world tour finals he won..i think, (the ones they used to play in january of the next year, which is what we playing in the o2 arena at the moment).

[Nathaniel_Near]

He was certainly a good player. He is a candidate for sure as evidenced by the fact that he is often talked about as one of the greats, thus it may be so.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Capt. Willie

Who are these experts and what are their credentials? How does this list have any credibility when Pancho Gonzales is not on it? And with all do respect Rafa is not the 4th greatest player of all time.

Experts from the tennis channels. These are not a public poll where you get anonymous fan, but the experts who knows the history of the sport(eg Flink, Collins, Laver)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Experts from the tennis channels. These are not a public poll where you get anonymous fan, but the experts who knows the history of the sport(eg Flink, Collins, Laver)

"Experts" who rank Gonzales that low on the list?

[PrimeChoice]

yes, I can't beleive this is a question.

[TheNatural]

Borg is the open era Natural surface Goat with his 11 Natural surface slams. Nadal has 9 , Federer 8, Sampras 7.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

"Experts" who rank Gonzales that low on the list?

Ok Mr. expert, you know more than any of those experts.

Happy now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Experts from the tennis channels. These are not a public poll where you get anonymous fan, but the experts who knows the history of the sport(eg Flink, Collins, Laver)

Actually Collins and Flink rank him in the top few. I am sure Laver does also.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually Collins and Flink rank him in the top few. I am sure Laver does also.

Flink ranked these top 10 players.

"with Federer at No. 1, Graf at No. 2, Sampras at No. 3, Laver at No. 4, and Navratilova at No. 5. But I put Evert at No. 6, Jack Kramer at No. 7, Helen Wills Moody Roark at No. 8, Bill Tilden at No. 9, and Court at No. 10."

Mustard probably don't agree Kramer, Tilden is ahead of Gonzales.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Mustard probably don't agree Kramer, Tilden is ahead of Gonzales.

Kramer and Tilden are both up there, but they both did things in the amateurs to make them stand out more to the modern day analysts. Tilden's amateur career was ridiculous dominance, and at a time when the best players in the world were amateurs. Kramer was the dominant amateur player in the immediate aftermath of WW2, particularly in 1947.

Gonzales was a solid amateur player, and I think the best amateur player of 1949 (narrowly ahead of Schroeder), but his amateur career was too brief and nowhere near as dominant as either Tilden or Kramer.

I rate him behind Nadal at this point and I do not believe Nadal is a GOAT candidate right now, so no. Gonzales, Laver, and Federer are probably the only 3 serious GOAT candidates. I guess Rosewall could be for people who value longevity a huge amount, but he could be barely in or right out of the top 10 entirely for those who dont. Sampras could be for those who have high regard for fast court record and subjective views on peak level of play worth on faster courts. Tilden could be as well for some I suppose. That would be it.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I rate him behind Nadal at this point and I do not believe Nadal is a GOAT candidate right now, so no. Gonzales, Laver, and Federer are probably the only 3 serious GOAT candidates. I guess Rosewall could be for people who value longevity a huge amount, but he could be barely in or right out of the top 10 entirely for those who dont. Sampras could be for those who have high regard for fast court record and subjective views on peak level of play worth on faster courts. Tilden could be as well for some I suppose. That would be it.

Nadal/Agassi, Even if one does not value longevity, he or she can hardly omit Rosewall from the top ten. Muscles keeps too many records to be omitted. I just mention most majors won, most majors won in a row (9) among others.

[krosero]

As far as Nadal/Borg, the AO makes the comparison difficult, because Nadal has gotten to play in a time period in which attending the AO is no cost to him at all (doesn't cut into his off-season) and carries every incentive to attend it and to win it (ranking points, prestige, prize money, competition, etc.). That is very different from Borg's time when the AO was all cost and no benefit. If you played it you would lose much of your off-season, and even if you won it, some of the same modern fans who would fault you for skipping it would then fault you anyway for winning a Mickey Mouse tournament. That's an unwinnable situation. The AO in that era came with a heavy cost and little benefit.

You could either adjust the comparison for the AO by speculating, or make no adjustment at all and simply compare Nadal and Borg according to their titles as they stand.

Either way Borg comes out with a lead.

If you drop Nadal's AO by speculating that he doesn't play a tournament with all cost and no benefit, Borg is leading in Slams by 11-10. Or if you speculate that Borg would have played the AO if it had been a Slam on par with the other majors, Nadal would stay at 11 Slams and Borg would have whatever number of AO's you picture him winning back then. He would have had a good chance to win at least a couple, but just one AO victory for him in the late 70s and early 80s would be enough to put him past Nadal.

The second way is to do without speculating at all. Leave both players in the conditions and circumstances that they played in, and just count the titles. Borg and Nadal are then tied at 11 Slams apiece. But Borg has two year-end championships, to Nadal's none. Borg also has far more tournament victories overall: 64 to 50 if you use the ATP's numbers. Other counts have Borg at 77 victories (see Wikipedia), and he's over 100 if all his titles are counted.

Of course you could say that Borg, due to circumstances in his era, got to rack up titles in a way that Nadal, due to current circumstances, could never do. But if you make that sort of adjustment then some kind of adjustment has to be done for the different circumstances regarding the AO. To do one without the other is an unfair comparison.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by krosero

You could either adjust the comparison for the AO by speculating, or make no adjustment at all and simply compare Nadal and Borg according to their titles as they stand.

Either way Borg comes out with a lead.

If you removed the AO and assumed that Nadal focus on other smaller tournament instead, there's no way he could have won as much title as Borg, because not only he can play 1 event to replace AO, but we all know it's much more difficult to rack up title today. There are 4 slams, 9 MS and WTF in a year. That's 14 tournaments that are very competitive and difficult to win. And Nadal can only play 20 tournaments a year, which leaves him only a few mickey mouse tournaments. Borg's 77 titles is not better than Nadal 50 titles. Sorry, not everything carry the same weight.

Originally Posted by krosero

Either way Borg comes out with a lead.

LOL I see nothing about your long winded post that proved this in anyway. Fact is they both have 11 slams. Speculation beyond that can go either way for both so becomes meaningles. You can say what if the Australian Open was a real slam then and Borg had played all those years, and if he did play all those years and if it were a real slam played on grass like it was then he probably would have won a few more slams. 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TMF

If you removed the AO and assumed that Nadal focus on other smaller tournament instead, there's no way he could have won as much title as Borg, because not only he can play 1 event to replace AO, but we all know it's much more difficult to rack up title today. There are 4 slams, 9 MS and WTF in a year. That's 14 tournaments that are very competitive and difficult to win. And Nadal can only play 20 tournaments a year, which leaves him only a few mickey mouse tournaments. Borg's 77 titles is not better than Nadal 50 titles. Sorry, not everything carry the same weight.

Yes one time I agree with you. People in the FPPT always try to compare regular tournament title counts of players from the 60s and 70s directly to today when it should be increasingly evident you cant do that. Even by the 90s it was far harder, Graf won 107 tournaments vs the 199 Court won and 167 Navratilova own, are they that much better than her. Federer will likely never win as many tournaments as Connors or Lendl, but everyone knows he is a big level above both of them as a player, so how can that tournament count be realistic. Meanwhile Laver is reported to have 144, Federer might not reach 60% of that but is he really that much worse, even for those who feel Laver is better. I dont concur with your beliefs that tennis competition was always better now than then, however I would agree the game is far more physically demanding and the requirements of the players to all meet at major events outside the slams with everyone present is much more than in the past too. So winning as many tournaments as back in the days some events you only needed 3 or 4 rounds to win one, and the game was far less physically taxing with far fewer injuries, and when players arent going to last until their last 30s like they often did now, is simply impossible.

[Mustard]

Regarding the Australian Opens of 1970, 1972-1973 and 1976-1982, my view is one of players who missed it should not be blamed, but also that those players who participated (particularly if they won) deserve full credit for doing so at a difficult time of the year.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you removed the AO and assumed that Nadal focus on other smaller tournament instead, there's no way he could have won as much title as Borg, because not only he can play 1 event to replace AO, but we all know it's much more difficult to rack up title today. There are 4 slams, 9 MS and WTF in a year. That's 14 tournaments that are very competitive and difficult to win. And Nadal can only play 20 tournaments a year, which leaves him only a few mickey mouse tournaments. Borg's 77 titles is not better than Nadal 50 titles. Sorry, not everything carry the same weight.

There were like 10 masters equivalents during Borg´s time.he also had to fight for a WCT title which is no more at stake.

of course, with much tougher opposition than Nadal ever dream to face.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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

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

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 ....

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

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 ....

Yes Rafa's career Slam is a plus. But Borg's "Channel Slams" are more impressive than Nadal's, not just because he won 3 and Rafa 2, but because Borg's involved doing something unheard of today: winning RG from the baseline and winning Wimbledon with regular, frequent SV (even if not the SV-on-all-serves of the past). Increasingly this is becoming one of Borg's most appreciated accomplishments, even more so than his 5 straight Wimbledons which used to be his "calling card."