Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

[Phoenix1983]

Very even poll as expected.

17-16 in favour of Nadal having surpassed Borg are the results so far.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Very even poll as expected.

17-16 in favour of Nadal having surpassed Borg are the results so far.

Should have made the poll public. Next time dude.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

typically clueless ..... the WCT/Masters were wayyyyy bigger than the AO in borg's time ....

Oh so because it was bigger than AO back then, that should count against Nadal now right? Great logic you dumbass.

IF there was a major exclusively indoor in this era, Nadal would've adapted his game to suit those conditions and won it. Proof is, you look at every major Rafa has won each of them. He doesn't/didn't play the same style at each of those majors he CLEARLY made changes for each of them to give himself a better chance at winning. Unless you want to make the argument that Rafa played clay court style and STILL managed to win each of them because that would be an even more amazing accomplishment.

Originally Posted by abmk

no, nadal wasn't even close to dominating grass as borg did ... that 21 year old nadal's performance in that final was probably his 2nd best performance on grass ( to the 2008 final ) ... so its not like he's put up many performances better than that ...

djoker also defeated him quite convincingly in 2011 final and rosol knocked him out early in 2012 .....

06WIM - Final def by Federer
07WIM - Final def by Federer
08WIM - Final def Federer
09WIM - DNP
10WIM - Final def Berdych
11WIM - Final

So that's 5/5 attempts making it to the final. Nadal would've had 4 WIM titles if not for having to deal with perhaps the greatest grass courter of all time.

Also, full credit to Rosol for beating Rafa, I thought he played incredible considering his ranking and Nadal was clearly not playing anywhere near his best in all his 2012 grass matches. But this doesn't mean Rafa didn't have a very dominant period on grass.

Originally Posted by abmk

first of all do you seriously think rafa would have come close to dominating on the fast low bouncing grass as borg did ????

Who knows? How do you know he wouldn't have? Oh wait, you're going to use the low bouncing HC performances as a guide again aren't you? LOL don't be ridiculous, if a title as important as Wimbledon was still a fast low bouncing surface, Rafa would've adapted his game from probably before turning pro and could've had every chance to dominate it.

Originally Posted by abmk

regarding borg quitting because of mcenroe, what a load of cr*p ........ mcenroe challenged borg in 80 and borg beat him ...

borg quit because of burnout and because he was forced by the rules then to qualify for the majors if he didn't play enough tournaments ..

its unbelievable how many clueless are there who believe he quit because of mac ....

Final H2H was 7 all with zero matches on clay .... mac wouldn't stand a chance on clay vs borg except maybe in 84 .... mac was 3-1 in majors vs him, but borg was 2-0 at the masters and the masters were extremely prestigious at that time ...

connors owned borg far worse initially and he turned it around completely dominating him ...

He quit because he couldn't handle losing to McEnroe, stop being delusional. If he had won WIM in 81 he would've stuck around for longer you could put your house on that.

Originally Posted by abmk

ancic would have a decent shot at beating him in the 06 finals .... 07 , he'd most probably have won though .... and borg would have had 6 in a row if not for mac .... ( their 4-setter in 81 was as close as it gets for a 4-setter )

You say Ancic would've had a chance at beating him in 06 ROFLMFAO! Ancic couldn't carry Nadal's bags.

Originally Posted by abmk

right, because borg had that many chances @ HC slams as nadal did

Who's fault is that? Is that Nadal's fault? Seriously Borg could've had many more chances if he didn't put his tail between his legs and run from the sport. Not that it would've mattered anyway, he was simply not good enough to win the USO in his era anyway.

Originally Posted by abmk

nadal has the edge on HC in terms of accomplishments, but playing level wise, it isn't much different and it isn't a level comparision here as borg played far far less on HC than nadal has .....

lol stop drinking your own bath water. There's no way that you can compare Nadal and Borg's playing level on HC. Rafa has beaten the godly Roger Federer in not only many HC matches, but more importantly he is UNDEFEATED against Federer in grand slam HC matches. Fed would sweep the court with Borg on a HC.

Not to mention that Novak is the best at AO since it switched to plexicushion, hasn't lost a set to Federer at AO IINM, yet Nadal who can only play on clay came within a bee's dick to beating him in the AO12 final.

Playing level wise on outdoor HC, Rafa OWNS Borg there's no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by abmk

actually you are the one who is delusional ........ but then whatever suits you

my rating of borg over nadal isn't because I'm biased or something like that, its because I have a much better perspective of history than you do ...

I rate borg only slightly behind sampras , would have rated him above him if he had won just one more slam ...

borg was no 1 for 4 years 77 to 80 ( 77 is debatable , agreed ) ( scr*w the stupid ATP rankings at that time ) , nadal only for two ..

purely open era alone, IMO, federer > ( some gap ) sampras >(marginally ) borg > (some gap ) nadal

LOL there is some gap between Nadal and Borg alright, but you've got it the wrong way around.

Anybody playing in Federer's era would've been behind him in the rankings. The fact that a 22 year old Nadal took that ranking away from Federer should be enough evidence alone of how good he is OFF clay.

Nadal owns a winning h2h against any top 10 player, more importantly in majors he owns the remaining "big 4" players apart from maybe Novak where it could be considered closer. Nadal leads that too btw 6-3.

He has beaten Federer, Novak and Murray on all 3 surfaces that the majors are played on. Those 3 cannot say the same regarding Nadal as they've NEVER beaten him on clay at RG and grass too in Murray's case since he has never beaten him at WIM either.

So Nadal has the versatility to beat the other 3 major contenders of his era at any one of those slams whereas the same cannot be said about his rivals. They cannot beat him at RG (unless he's injured of course, but I'm talking if they're all healthy) and it seems Fed can't beat him at any major at all anymore.

Now tell me Borg could beat his rivals at any major and I'll kindly point you towards Borg's failed USO campaigns lol.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh so because it was bigger than AO back then, that should count against Nadal now right? Great logic you dumbass.

IF there was a major exclusively indoor in this era, Nadal would've adapted his game to suit those conditions and won it. Proof is, you look at every major Rafa has won each of them. He doesn't/didn't play the same style at each of those majors he CLEARLY made changes for each of them to give himself a better chance at winning. Unless you want to make the argument that Rafa played clay court style and STILL managed to win each of them because that would be an even more amazing accomplishment.

no , clueless, I'm not saying it should count against nadal, rather than it should count in favour of borg, but all you can think of is rafa , rafa, rafa .... blah, blah , blah .......

you are talking about rafa's adjustments to win all the majors ? jeez, borg went from slow, grinding rallies @ the FO to SnVing frequently @ wimbledon 2 weeks later ...... this isn't to downplay rafa's adjustments to win off-clay, they were very impressive, no doubt, but borg's adjustments were far more drastic/impressive ...... he didn't adjust just to win wimbledon once or twice , he won it 5 times in a row and made the final for a 6th time !

Originally Posted by The_Order

06WIM - Final def by Federer
07WIM - Final def by Federer
08WIM - Final def Federer
09WIM - DNP
10WIM - Final def Berdych
11WIM - Final

So that's 5/5 attempts making it to the final. Nadal would've had 4 WIM titles if not for having to deal with perhaps the greatest grass courter of all time.

Also, full credit to Rosol for beating Rafa, I thought he played incredible considering his ranking and Nadal was clearly not playing anywhere near his best in all his 2012 grass matches. But this doesn't mean Rafa didn't have a very dominant period on grass.

compared to borg's 6 finals in a row ( including 5 wins ), that is not "dominant"

Originally Posted by The_Order

Who knows? How do you know he wouldn't have? Oh wait, you're going to use the low bouncing HC performances as a guide again aren't you? LOL don't be ridiculous, if a title as important as Wimbledon was still a fast low bouncing surface, Rafa would've adapted his game from probably before turning pro and could've had every chance to dominate it.

you don't even understand the word dominate ....... rafa may have a won a wimbledon or two by adapting there, but he sure as hell wouldn't have dominated as borg has ... he hasn't shown that level of adaptability at all ....

hell, even on the current grass, which favors him a lot more than the old, slick grass, he hasn't come close to matching borg's achievements on grass

even hypothetically, take fed out for nadal and mac out for borg, nadal has at max 4 wimbledons, borg has 6 wimbledons .... still quite some distance ......

Originally Posted by The_Order

He quit because he couldn't handle losing to McEnroe, stop being delusional. If he had won WIM in 81 he would've stuck around for longer you could put your house on that.

as usual , typical ignorance ( or deliberating ignoring the facts to put down borg to pump up rafa in the comparison ) ....not surprising ....

he was getting beaten worse by connors from 74-76 and turned it completely around ...he didn't have problems handling losses ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

You say Ancic would've had a chance at beating him in 06 ROFLMFAO! Ancic couldn't carry Nadal's bags.

typical ******* ......suppose would be saying the same about 2005 USO blake, 2006 USO youzhny or 2007 AO gonzalez, 2012 wimbledon rosol etc .... if those wins over rafa didn't didn't actually happen

Originally Posted by The_Order

Who's fault is that? Is that Nadal's fault? Seriously Borg could've had many more chances if he didn't put his tail between his legs and run from the sport. Not that it would've mattered anyway, he was simply not good enough to win the USO in his era anyway.

the AO wasn't on HC till 88 .... oh and yes, he definitely had the ability to win the USO in his era , just about missed out in 80 ..... he dominated and beat connors in straights in 81 ( connors took winner mac to 5 in 80 and would win the 82 and 83 USOs )

Originally Posted by The_Order

lol stop drinking your own bath water. There's no way that you can compare Nadal and Borg's playing level on HC. Rafa has beaten the godly Roger Federer in not only many HC matches, but more importantly he is UNDEFEATED against Federer in grand slam HC matches. Fed would sweep the court with Borg on a HC.

Not to mention that Novak is the best at AO since it switched to plexicushion, hasn't lost a set to Federer at AO IINM, yet Nadal who can only play on clay came within a bee's dick to beating him in the AO12 final.

Playing level wise on outdoor HC, Rafa OWNS Borg there's no doubt about it.

LOL, typical ignorance ... djoker's wins over fed @ the AO were with

a) 2008 - mono
b) 2011 - well past his prime federer

mind you, both matches were with djoker at his very best

he was sub-par by those standards in AO 2012 ...

borg took 4 time USO winner mac to the brink in 1980 final ( just as close as nadal did vs djoker in AO 2012 final )

and dominated connors , 5 time USO winner including thrice on HC ) winning in straights in 81 USO final

not much of a difference in playing level on HC at all ....

let's talk about some of nadal's losses in HC slams as well, shall we ?

Let's take it from 2007 onwards only - gets ripped apart by gonzo in the AO 2007 QF, ferrer beats him convincingly in USO 2007, tsonga rips him apart in AO 2008, murray defeats him convincingly in USO 2008, delpo rips him apart in USO 2009, murray defeats him convincingly in AO 2010, ferrer defeats him convincingly in AO 2011 (got injured on court, so maybe excuse this one ) , djoker defeats him convincingly in USO 2011 ... .

see a lot of domination/thrashings there !

only time borg was dominated like that in a HC slam was 78 USO final ( where he was injured ) ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

lLOL there is some gap between Nadal and Borg alright, but you've got it the wrong way around.

umm, no .....

Originally Posted by The_Order

Anybody playing in Federer's era would've been behind him in the rankings. The fact that a 22 year old Nadal took that ranking away from Federer should be enough evidence alone of how good he is OFF clay.

oh, he is pretty good off clay , no doubt , but he isn't better than borg off clay ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nadal owns a winning h2h against any top 10 player, more importantly in majors he owns the remaining "big 4" players apart from maybe Novak where it could be considered closer. Nadal leads that too btw 6-3.

He has beaten Federer, Novak and Murray on all 3 surfaces that the majors are played on. Those 3 cannot say the same regarding Nadal as they've NEVER beaten him on clay at RG and grass too in Murray's case since he has never beaten him at WIM either.

So Nadal has the versatility to beat the other 3 major contenders of his era at any one of those slams whereas the same cannot be said about his rivals. They cannot beat him at RG (unless he's injured of course, but I'm talking if they're all healthy) and it seems Fed can't beat him at any major at all anymore.

Now tell me Borg could beat his rivals at any major and I'll kindly point you towards Borg's failed USO campaigns lol.

yes, borg was capable of beating his rivals at any major, he beat connors and was very close to winning vs mac in 80 ..

and plainly he'd have an even better chance @ the AO on rebound or plexicushion ....

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I think he already has, and most in the real World believe this as well, but since Nadal is the most hated player on this forum Borg will obviously win this poll, just as Federer is certain to win every poll even ones anywhere outside this forum he would lose. I rate Nadal #5 all time behind Laver, Gonzales, Federer, and Sampras, and Borg at about #7 behind Rosewall as well.

Oh please. Stop acting like the injured party and talking about the "real" world for god's sake. From what I've seen on this forum I will agree that Nadal gets the short end of the stick so to speak more times than not (Sampras and Hewitt are others IMO), but you know this poll is not a clear cut case for Nadal, and if you don't then I can't help you. You seem to have a bad habit of talking about "****s" and "Planet TW" and generalizing a bunch of people as well, but I digress. I think everybody has that problem on this forum actually.

See this is the problem with this tennis forum (and probably many others). You get people like 90's clay or sonicare or myself or yourself who give an honest opinion (sometimes) and just get branded as a fan of some player, and/or a hater of another. Sometimes people are actually right, or they have enough believable facts to back up their opinions regardless of who they like or don't like. Take sonicare for example. He's been called a "Nadal hater" in this thread, and he might very well be, but that doesn't mean his opinion that Nadal hasn't surpassed Borg yet is "wrong" or counts for nothing.

As for my opinion, well I wish there was an even option in the poll, but if I was forced to give an answer I'd give a slight edge to Borg (funny hey ). Now if you asked me if someone like Djokovic, Agassi, or Connors was better in terms of pure acheivements than Nadal then I would say no everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. This is clear cut to me, and I'm pretty sure to a large majority of people. The Olympics and the AO are basically moot points. I don't think Nadal would choose to play the AO if it was the equivalent of a 500 or a 250, and Borg never played the Olympics. So he basically had 3 slams to win 11 whereas Nadal has 4. Nadal is better on clay, but Borg is better on grass by a larger margin IMO, and he had to deal with much larger differences in the surfaces. In Nadal's favour he has 21 MS titles compared to Borg's 15 equivalents. The other thing Nadal has over Borg is a USO, but it's not as if Borg was a total scrub there, and he has 2 (3?) YEC to Nadal's zero. Just my two cents.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by monfed

I dont care how many RG's, Ralph uses to pad his slam count but at the end of the day he can't surpass Borg in versatility. I think its unfair to Ralph himself to compare him to a great like Borg, he should be satisfied with what he's achieved with his limited talent.

Who shouldn't be satisfied is Fed, who lacked the talent to respond to someone of as limited talent as you claim Nadal is. Good for Fed to pack his slam count with victories against old men and irrelevant third rate fluke finalists.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by tlm

No doubt your name definitely fits you.

My name is merely an hommage to the master. Prove any of my statements wrong. Take Fed's class away and his ability to win slam finals against nobodies or washed out, have-beens, and you end up with somebody who, despite his class, is far from being what some pretend he is.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

My name is merely an hommage to the master. Prove any of my statements wrong. Take Fed's class away and his ability to win slam finals against nobodies or washed out, have-beens, and you end up with somebody who, despite his class, is far from being what some pretend he is.

Hahaha,add to that, the talentless Ralph had the gall to humiliate the elegant and graceful Fed, and take away numerous Slams from the GOAT. How arrogant of Rafa. Now that's funny............oooops wrong thread.....

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

My name is merely an hommage to the master. Prove any of my statements wrong. Take Fed's class away and his ability to win slam finals against nobodies or washed out, have-beens, and you end up with somebody who, despite his class, is far from being what some pretend he is.

No you're name still fits you when you say things like "Federer would've been Borg's pigeon on all surfaces." You got any proof of this? Perhaps he would've dominated Federer, but based on the facts we have this is a terrible assumption to make. Federer is most likely better on today's grass, and he would probably have a fair shot against Borg on the faster stuff. He's also arguably a better HC player. As such you're assumption may not be wrong, but it is a bad one given the facts we have. QED.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

No you're name still fits you when you say things like "Federer would've been Borg's pigeon on all surfaces." You got any proof of this? Perhaps he would've dominated Federer, but based on the facts we have this is a terrible assumption to make. Federer is most likely better on today's grass, and he would probably have a fair shot against Borg on the faster stuff. He's also arguably a better HC player. As such you're assumption may not be wrong, but it is a bad one given the facts we have. QED.

When you compare two players of different eras who have never played each other, and who competed in completely different conditions and against completely different fields, all you have is assumptions. This whole thread (and more than 50% of this whole site) is just a bunch of assumptions, like the GOAT discussion.

Just because you don't like my assumption it doesn't make it terrible. Borg was a beast in clay and grass when grass was actual grass, and Fed has lost slams in clay (and fake grass) to somebody "of limited talent". LOL

And it's "YOUR", not "YOU'RE". That's my "assumption" anyway.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Hahaha,add to that, the talentless Ralph had the gall to humiliate the elegant and graceful Fed, and take away numerous Slams from the GOAT. How arrogant of Rafa. Now that's funny............oooops wrong thread.....

LOL. Yeah.

Oh, and I know the answer to your riddle. What happened to that noble user?

[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.

To expand a bit on my previous reply, Borg was considered the best of 1978 by not just the ATP but also the ITF and other sources like Tennis Magazine. Did all of these organizations have it out for Connors? There is no person or entity knowledgeable on tennis history who has said Connors was in fact the best player of that year, so yes, I think it is a landslide in Borg's favor. That makes it definitively three years of being the best player for Borg compared to two for Nadal, so not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless. And Borg also has the arguable 1977, which puts Nadal even further behind. And that's all I really meant when saying Borg had more time at the top (although I still expect Nadal to match or surpass Borg's three years).

Additionally, Borg was a dominant force on three surfaces: clay, grass, and indoor carpet. Nadal, while a contender on every surface, has been dominant really only on clay. This is reflected in Borg's domination of two separate slams, while Nadal has dominated only one. Not a definitive argument in Borg's favor, but certainly something to be thought about.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Who shouldn't be satisfied is Fed, who lacked the talent to respond to someone of as limited talent as you claim Nadal is. Good for Fed to pack his slam count with victories against old men and irrelevant third rate fluke finalists.

Umm listen here ****, the only reason why Ralph(who is indeed a player with limited talent) ever beats Fed is because he's matchup issue for Fed,this was established in their very first encounter back in friggin 2004 when Ralph was roaming around in his diapers and Fed was in his prime.
You and your kin will continue to deny this because your argument completely falls apart,but I'm not gonna get into an argument as to why a bad matchup is extremely hard to overcome,doesn't matter if your'e GOAT/not. The biggest reason why Fed is considered the GOAT by most experts is because they believe he's the most versatile and the most complete player the game has ever seen(he was called GOAT by some when he infact won only 5 slams)
Your mancrush Ralph got his *** kicked from Alaska to Texas against Djokovic 7 consecutive times on 4 different surfaces spanning 3 consecutive slams whilst both players being in their prime all because Ralph's moonballing tactics didn't work against Djokovic's incredible 2 hander. Ralph couldn't change a thing, that showed how limited he is as a player. When Djokovic's level fell through the floor in 2012, Ralph finally got some wins THAT too on his beloved clay.

FWIW moonballing the s**t out of Fed's BH with 5000+ rpm ain't a sign of inventive tennis,he's just lucky to have this massive matchup advantage,got it good.

[_skunk_]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

I agree, Nadal has also done so in a harsher era, where potentially the best man to have played the game has been in his way several times and he's still come through. Let's see Borg cope with Federer the same way Nadal has for the last eight or nine years.

Disagree completely, every era is harsh, probably the era of feeder/nadal is the weakest one considering that apart those 2 the rest, before djoko and murray raise, wasn't really a serious danger.

Players like federer and nadal exist now because 30 years ago existed people like Borg, connors, lendl etc etc. People that at their time they were the best because they we're bringing to tennis something new or something more than the others setting standards and inspiring players of the future generations like us, including the big champions of the tour.
You can't compare champions of different eras, of course the actual ones are stronger, that is due because of course 30 years more of history much more money around therefore much more involvement of professionalism.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by monfed

Umm listen here ****, the only reason why Ralph(who is indeed a player with limited talent) ever beats Fed is because he's matchup issue for Fed,this was established in their very first encounter back in friggin 2004 when Ralph was roaming around in his diapers and Fed was in his prime.
You and your kin will continue to deny this because your argument completely falls apart,but I'm not gonna get into an argument as to why a bad matchup is extremely hard to overcome,doesn't matter if your'e GOAT/not. The biggest reason why Fed is considered the GOAT by most experts is because they believe he's the most versatile and the most complete player the game has ever seen(he was called GOAT by some when he infact won only 5 slams)
Your mancrush Ralph got his *** kicked from Alaska to Texas against Djokovic 7 consecutive times on 4 different surfaces spanning 3 consecutive slams whilst both players being in their prime all because Ralph's moonballing tactics didn't work against Djokovic's incredible 2 hander. Ralph couldn't change a thing, that showed how limited he is as a player. When Djokovic's level fell through the floor in 2012, Ralph finally got some wins THAT too on his beloved clay.

FWIW moonballing the s**t out of Fed's BH with 5000+ rpm ain't a sign of inventive tennis,he's just lucky to have this massive matchup advantage,got it good.

Don't be such a silly boy. Nadal has 11 GS titles and he didn't accomplish those by "moonballing" Fed's backhand, did he? I mean, didn't he have to play all sorts of players besides Fed?

Regardless, the fact Fed cannot respond to Rafa's "simple" tactics show he is of limited talent himself. You would think somebody "touched by the tennis Gods" like Fed would come up with some countermeasure to such a predictable tactic, right? LOL

And Nadal has had his revenge against Djoker. Something Fed will never have against Nadal. Suck on that lemon for a while.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

When you compare two players of different eras who have never played each other, and who competed in completely different conditions and against completely different fields, all you have is assumptions. This whole thread (and more than 50% of this whole site) is just a bunch of assumptions, like the GOAT discussion.

Just because you don't like my assumption it doesn't make it terrible. Borg was a beast in clay and grass when grass was actual grass, and Fed has lost slams in clay (and fake grass) to somebody "of limited talent". LOL

And it's "YOUR", not "YOU'RE". That's my "assumption" anyway.

Oh look the grammar police are here. Sorry I made a typing mistake master. I do know the difference between you're and your, I just never proofread my post. Btw it's "on" clay not "in" clay. You're assumption is still a bad one. If you had said Federer would be Borg's pigeon on clay, that I would've agreed with, but across all surfaces, I don't think so. I think a fair majority of educated people would say McEnroe's famous phrase back to your face.

[underground]

No, Nadal hasn't achieved as much in Wimbledon.

And he lost to Lukas Rosol.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by abmk

let's talk about some of nadal's losses in HC slams as well, shall we ?

Let's take it from 2007 onwards only - gets ripped apart by gonzo in the AO 2007 QF, ferrer beats him convincingly in USO 2007, tsonga rips him apart in AO 2008, murray defeats him convincingly in USO 2008, delpo rips him apart in USO 2009, murray defeats him convincingly in AO 2010, ferrer defeats him convincingly in AO 2011 (got injured on court, so maybe excuse this one ) , djoker defeats him convincingly in USO 2011 ... .

see a lot of domination/thrashings there !

only time borg was dominated like that in a HC slam was 78 USO final ( where he was injured ) ....

If you’re going to take into consideration Borg being injured, or Fed's mono, you have to for Nadal as well. You only mention AO 2011?, there have been many others. He’s won what he has (more or less equal to what Borg won) while having withdrawn from 6 slams and played injured many others (you mentioned AO 2011, there's also AO 2010, USO 2007, USO 2009...).
He's also had to withdraw several times from the WTF.

Also, that the AO wasn’t as important back then shouldn't count against Nadal. Borg still could have played it if he chose to. Laver did and it counts high on his achievements. Same thing with having retired so early. It was his choice. All the slams Nadal has missed it hasn't been because he’s chosen to.

I think it's very close anyway, not only between them two but among all really great players.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Nadal hasn't surpassed Borg, and neither has Federer. Federer would have been Borg's pidgeon in all surfaces. Nadal would have given Borg a run for his money on clay, but not on grass. And Mac would have owned Fed on hardcourt (using 80s technology) and plain destroyed Nadal.

Borg disagree with you.

"For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game"
-Borg

Borg is listed at #5 by The Tennis Channel

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

[TMF]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

When you compare two players of different eras who have never played each other, and who competed in completely different conditions and against completely different fields, all you have is assumptions. This whole thread (and more than 50% of this whole site) is just a bunch of assumptions, like the GOAT discussion.

Having assumption but at least have some facts to back up, and you have nothing. That's just like saying JMac is not ahead of Roddick and would get killed by him at Wimbledon and the USO.

So why do Phelps, Gretzky, Rice or Jordan are considered the greatest player to their respective sport? Because that's the consensus by general public. Federer is widely considered the greatest tennis player, so he deserve the equal respect. Capiche ?