Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

ROFLMAO. Did Mac and Connors have to deal with Sampras their entire careers at the USO? Get outta here with that weak crap. Agassi had to deal with Sampras at his peak at the USO and Fed at his peak.

Djoker and Agassi had to contend with arguably the two greatest USO players in HISTORY. Mac and Connors wouldn't have faired well at all if they were in Andre's spot. Andre's career overlapped BOTH Fed and Pete's USO peaks


Hell if Andre didn't have to play Sampras and Fed all those times at the USO he would have a good 6-7 USO titles himself

mac and connors dealt with each other + lendl + borg ....... clueless ....

fact is andre didn't win any of those matches ......his biggest wins @ the two USOs he won were stich and todd martin ......compared to mac/connors conquests there , they pale in comparision ....

at federer's prime, djoker won 1 set in 3 matches @ the USO ....

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by abmk

mac and connors dealt with each other + lendl + borg ....... clueless ....

fact is andre didn't win any of those matches ......his biggest wins @ the two USOs he won were stich and todd martin ......compared to mac/connors conquests there , they pale in comparision ....

at federer's prime, djoker won 1 set in 3 matches @ the USO ....

So Lendl, Connors, Mac the equivalent of dealing with Sampras or Federer all those years? Clueless huh??

I would rather deal with Connors, Mac and Borg any day of the week at the USO then have to deal with Sampras and Fed (in their primes) 7 or 8 times in my career

Sampras and Fed only have TEN USO titles in between them afterall.. Not much right?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

The career grand slam- Yes I understand its probably easier to do now. But still Borg only has won 2 of the 4.

dumb point .. the AO didn't have much significance in borg's time ....

if you say borg didn't win USO, that's fine ...but he did win 3 of the 4 most important tournaments in his time - wimbledon, FO and masters/Dallas

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

SMASHED Borg's clay records and now Nadal is hands down clay GOAT.

and borg has 5 wimbledon's to nadal's 2

he dominated two slams, nadal only one ...

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Has the h2h advantage over his main rivals. (Again something Borg couldn't do)

lol, yeah, mac and borg played each other 14 times , they were 7 all ....none of those matches on clay ... mac wouldn't stand a chance vs borg on clay (except in 84 , but then their matches were before that ) , if they had played 4-5 matches there, h2h would easily be in favour of borg

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

There really is NO CASE for Borg over Nadal now.. NONE!

LOL, no . he has a pretty good case and IMO

borg > nadal ATM

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

So Lendl, Connors, Mac the equivalent of dealing with Sampras or Federer all those years? Clueless huh??

I would rather deal with Connors, Mac and Borg any day of the week at the USO then have to deal with Sampras and Fed (in their primes) 7 or 8 times in my career

yes, sampras and federer are better than mac/lendl/connors on deco II ..

agassi didn't actually win any of those matches vs sampras or federer ( at his prime ) ... if he had, you'd have a point ...

mac, lendl, connors actually beat each other @ the USO ... far better wins than any agassi had at the USO

prime lendl/connors/mac > prime agassi @ the USO ...

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by abmk

yes, sampras and federer are better than mac/lendl/connors on deco II ..

agassi didn't actually win any of those matches vs sampras or federer ( at his prime ) ... if he had, you'd have a point ...

mac, lendl, connors actually beat each other @ the USO ... far better wins than any agassi had at the USO

prime lendl/connors/mac > prime agassi @ the USO ...

He took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years of age (Who else could do that at that age).. Played him tough in 2005 (after playing 3 straight 5 setters), beat Fed in 2001, played Sampras tough a few times (especially in 2001 when they went those 4 TB's).

I think Andre did pretty well for himself considering the circumstances.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years of age (Who else could do that at that age).. Played him tough in 2005 (after playing 3 straight 5 setters), beat Fed in 2001, played Sampras tough a few times (especially in 2001 when they went those 4 TB's).

I think Andre did pretty well for himself considering the circumstances.

not quite, I think he should've taken out sampras once , either 95 or 2001 ....95 even more so , if he had done so, then would have rated him on par with mac/connors/lendl on deco II ....

you think agassi played sampras tough there ???

watch connors-mac at 84 .... connors at 30+ plays one of finest matches vs peak mac ... mac served at ~65% and yet his winning % at the net was only close to 50% ....

only in 2001 did agassi play close to his very best - that was a classic match ; in the other 3 matches, nope ... the 90 final was a poor performance , 95 and 2002 finals were just decent performances

as far as taking fed to 5 in 2004, the heavy wind was a major factor , otherwise, match would probably have been over in 4 IMO ... still give him quite a bit of credit for stretching federer there and even in the 2005 final ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Sampras and Fed only have TEN USO titles in between them afterall.. Not much right?

and connors/mac/lendl have 12 USOs between them (with 10 of them on deco II ) .... not much right ?

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

ROFLMAO. Djoker isn't a real Fed "contemporary rival". There is a 6 year difference there.. Nice try though. Fed was already working on slam #10 or something by the time Djoker reached his real potential

And do you seriously not think Nole will not grab some more USO titles? He will get in the 3-5 vicinity before its all said and done. You can count on that.

And yet when Djokovic hit his prime he still had to come back from 2 sets to 0 down and save match points vs a 29 year old Federer. Anyway my point is, you're the one always going on about how Djokovic doesn't compare to an old Becker, Courier etc, but he's better than prime Connors and Mac? ROLMFAO, you samptards will say anything. Mac and connors are much better than Becker and Courier Djokovic might grab some more US Open titles but will he get to 5? Was Nadal facing TWO players who were already on their way to 4-5 titles? Even if Murray wins 4 and Djokovic wins 5, both players started winning the US Open after Nadal won his. Borg was dealing with established champions.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

ROFLMAO. Did Mac and Connors have to deal with Sampras their entire careers at the USO? Get outta here with that weak crap. Agassi had to deal with Sampras at his peak at the USO and Fed at his peak.

Djoker and Agassi had to contend with arguably the two greatest USO players in HISTORY. Mac and Connors wouldn't have faired well at all if they were in Andre's spot. Andre's career overlapped BOTH Fed and Pete's USO peaks


Hell if Andre didn't have to play Sampras and Fed all those times at the USO he would have a good 6-7 USO titles himself. NO ONE had more bad luck then Agassi did at the USO. He had to deal with the arguably the two greatest players of all time at their peaks there

They had to deal with EACHOTHER. Connors won it as many times as Sampras and yet Mac still managed to win 4 times. Even when Mac was the young guy and Connors was getting old, both guys won. Agassi had enough chances to win 4 titles as well, he had enough years where sampras wasn't an issue. He didn't though. And news for you but Connors is arguably the greatest US Open player too.

And wait, Djokovic had to contend with Federer? But Fed is not a "real contempoary rival"

As for agassi winning 6-7 US Open titles, no. In 1990 with no Sampras lendl would probably have won, in 1995 Agassi probably would have won, in 2001 vs Hewitt and Safin it's 50/50 and in 2002 Agassi probably would have won. So 4, maybe 5 US Open's at the most.

Another point, Agassi had to deal with prime Fed as well? Why does that even matter when he was old broken back, hobbling Agassi? Who cares if you have to deal with God when you are old and broken and stand no chance of winning? No Borg was more unlucky.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

So Lendl, Connors, Mac the equivalent of dealing with Sampras or Federer all those years? Clueless huh??

I would rather deal with Connors, Mac and Borg any day of the week at the USO then have to deal with Sampras and Fed (in their primes) 7 or 8 times in my career

Sampras and Fed only have TEN USO titles in between them afterall.. Not much right?

Yeah and Mac and Connors have NINE between them, that's not that much different. Difference is Borg had to deal with both of them in his PRIME year (in other words the years where he had the best chance of winning) Agassi dealt with only Sampras in his prime. He dealt with prime Federer from 2004 when he was 34 and had a broken back etc... who cares who you are facing in the years when you're too old to win anyway?

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He took Fed to 5 sets at 34 years of age (Who else could do that at that age).. Played him tough in 2005 (after playing 3 straight 5 setters), beat Fed in 2001, played Sampras tough a few times (especially in 2001 when they went those 4 TB's).

I think Andre did pretty well for himself considering the circumstances.

Connors took Agassi to 5 sets at the USO at the age of 37 and finished just out of the top 10. In 1991 he retired at 2 sets all agaisnt chang at RG.. a 39 year old taking a RG champion to 5 on clay? Yeah some would say Connors was good as an oldie too.

[gavna]

Answer to the original question....No

Borg = tennis God..........nuff said

[cork_screw]

Didn't know this was even a question. Nadal is much more dominant than Borg.

You also need to take note I am guessing the majority of people on this forum have never even seen a full borg match or any number of his matches, you kids were still in utero when borg was spooging all the super models. If you knew borg, you knew that as well as being a sure hand at just overall doing things well from ball striking, and being very consistant; he was most famous for just being the quickest guy on the court. You couldn't get anything past him. He was a jack rabbit and that's how he earned most of his wins. That and versatility. But Nadal is just a beast. He is like a cyborg with just intensity, strength, power and spin. His ball lands and shoots up in the air with all the spin, his shots curve in mid air. He drags you out so wide that there is no way for you to get the back into the court while he's at net. Nadal is well able to win the FO and other grandslams past the age of 25. That is one BIG note that you need to understand that Borg could never do. He retired and came back at 25 and was still playing with a woodie, while everyone else converted to graphite and aluminum and he could no longer win any matches. In fact, he lost some really embarrassing matches too. His style was more of a old school style with slicing and flat hitting. The power that came with the new technology outlasted him. Nadal on the other hand is like granite. He is almost unbreakable.

How can you even compare Borg to Nadal. His accomplishments will be overtaken even more as time goes on, but I would say 2 slams ago, Nadal was much foreseeable as the more dominant force.

[The Bawss]

Who's this Borg guy people speak about?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by cork_screw

Didn't know this was even a question. Nadal is much more dominant than Borg.

You also need to take note I am guessing the majority of people on this forum have never even seen a full borg match or any number of his matches, you kids were still in utero when borg was spooging all the super models. If you knew borg, you knew that as well as being a sure hand at just overall doing things well from ball striking, and being very consistant; he was most famous for just being the quickest guy on the court. You couldn't get anything past him. He was a jack rabbit and that's how he earned most of his wins. That and versatility. But Nadal is just a beast. He is like a cyborg with just intensity, strength, power and spin. His ball lands and shoots up in the air with all the spin, his shots curve in mid air. He drags you out so wide that there is no way for you to get the back into the court while he's at net. Nadal is well able to win the FO and other grandslams past the age of 25. That is one BIG note that you need to understand that Borg could never do. He retired and came back at 25 and was still playing with a woodie, while everyone else converted to graphite and aluminum and he could no longer win any matches. In fact, he lost some really embarrassing matches too. His style was more of a old school style with slicing and flat hitting. The power that came with the new technology outlasted him. Nadal on the other hand is like granite. He is almost unbreakable.

How can you even compare Borg to Nadal. His accomplishments will be overtaken even more as time goes on, but I would say 2 slams ago, Nadal was much foreseeable as the more dominant force.

not sure if serious

[gavna]

Originally Posted by cork_screw

Didn't know this was even a question. Nadal is much more dominant than Borg.

You also need to take note I am guessing the majority of people on this forum have never even seen a full borg match, let alone any number to compare him to Nadal. If you knew borg, you knew that as well as being a sure hand at just overall doing things well from ball striking, and being very consistant; he was most famous for just being the quickest guy on the court. You couldn't get anything past him. He was a jack rabbit and that's how he earned most of his wins. That and versatility. But Nadal is just a beast. He is like a cyborg with just intensity, strength, power and spin. His ball lands and shoots up in the air with all the spin, his shots curve in mid air. He drags you out so wide that there is no way for you to get the back into the court while he's at net. Nadal is well able to win the FO and other grandslams past the age of 25. That is one BIG note that you need to understand that Borg could never do. He retired and came back at 25 and was still playing with a woodie, while everyone else converted to graphite and aluminum and he could no longer win any matches. In fact, he lost some really embarrassing matches too. His style was more of a old school style with slicing and flat hitting. The power that came with the new technology outlasted him. Nadal on the other hand is like granite. He is almost unbreakable.

How can you even compare Borg to Nadal. His accomplishments will be overtaken even more as time goes on, but I would say 2 slams ago, Nadal was much foreseeable as the more dominant force.

OMG where to begin.........are you sure you ever saw Borg play? Borg was not a flat ball hitter....he started using his slice more and more as it become stronger but he was all heavy topspin. His balls would pass 2 to 2 1/2 meters over the net and kick up just as much. Yes he was one of if not the fastest players on tour and his freaky metabolism and lower heart rate allowed him to outlast just about anyone. But he played damn smart percentage tennis and had excellent tactics and with Bergelin he worked his but off learning his opponents. Maybe you need to revisit the 1976 Wimby final, 1978 Wimby semi or 1980 Wimby final - or the 78 Panetta match in Rome......Borg was a shot maker period.

[beast of mallorca]

[QUOTE=cc0509;7052038]Let's just see how Nadal is in the next couple of years. Nadal could be burned out too for all we know but he has not pulled a Borg yet. Who knows what is really going on with Nadal right now.[/quote]

I'm shivering with excitement dude with that statement in bold......oooops,
must be that the heater is not on, and is damn cold!!! .......

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

So you give the edge to Borg for years at #1 based on what ifs?

Uh, no. The ATP awarded Borg player of the year in 1977 and 1978, even though Connors was ranked number one. So even the ATP recognized how awful their computer rankings were and knew Borg was the best player in those years. The ITF also called Borg World Champion in 1978. He was indisputably the best player of 1978 and arguably the best in 1977 along with Vilas (Connors being a distant third despite holding the number one ranking). No what-ifs involved.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Uh, no. The ATP awarded Borg player of the year in 1977 and 1978, even though Connors was ranked number one. The ITF also called Borg World Champion in 1978. He was indisputably the best player of 1978 and arguably the best in 1977 along with Vilas (Connors being a distant third despite holding the number one ranking). No what-ifs involved.

The ATP hated Connors with a passion at the time so they are hardly a reliable source. 1977 Vilas was the real #1 of the year anyway, not Borg. 1978 was probably Borg, but it wasnt a landslide, and if it were a landslide he would have surely atleast managed it on the computer and didnt. Also funny to see you say it like this when you actually said Serena Williams wasnt best player in the World a few months again only since she isnt ranked #1, lol! The other posters point is correct, as far as time spent actually ranked #1, Borg and Nadal are virtually the same in every aspect- 2 year end #1s, almost same weeks, Borg had a longer consecutive span ranked #1, but one could say Nadal spending large parts of 4 straight years ranked #1 is more impressive.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The ATP hated Connors with a passion at the time so they are hardly a reliable source. 1977 Vilas was the real #1 of the year anyway, not Borg. 1978 was probably Borg, but it wasnt a landslide, and if it were a landslide he would have surely atleast managed it on the computer and didnt. Also funny to see you say it like this when you actually said Serena Williams wasnt best player in the World a few months again only since she isnt ranked #1, lol! The other posters point is correct, as far as time spent actually ranked #1, Borg and Nadal are virtually the same in every aspect- 2 year end #1s, almost same weeks, Borg had a longer consecutive span ranked #1, but one could say Nadal spending large parts of 4 straight years ranked #1 is more impressive.

I don't think there's any parallel between the ATP in the 70s and the modern WTA. The tour was still in flux in the 70s. Borg played lots of tournaments that didn't count toward his ATP ranking.

I don't know what you mean by landslide, but I'm pretty sure no respectable tennis source would argue Connors was actually the best player of 1978. It's definitely Borg's year. I agree, though, that Vilas was the best player of 1977.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tudwell

I don't think there's any parallel between the ATP in the 70s and the modern WTA.

Indeed, the WTA ranking system of the last decade is by FAR worse and more controversial than the ATP's ranking system ever was, making it far less credible than the ATP ranking system while not always perfect or irrefutable, at all times was. Speaking of Players of Year only 4 times in the last 15 years did the WTA year end #1 even win WTA Player of Year. Those being Serena twice and Henin twice, the only credible #1 ranked women players (considering others who at times were the credible #1s like Venus and Clijsters hardly ever spent any time ranked there by the silly WTA computer) of the last 12 years atleast.

[Netspirit]

The fact that you are arguing means it's extremely close.

The fact that Nadal has not retired yet makes his odds of clearly, unquestionably surpassing Borg pretty good.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

The fact that you are arguing means it's extremely close.

The fact that Nadal has not retired yet makes his odds of clearly, unquestionably surpassing Borg pretty good.

Nadal's career will also be longer than Borg's.