Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

[Phoenix1983]

Personally I think he needs another slam to do it.

[Clarky21]

No.


10nos

[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.

[NatF]

Hard to say, Borg's 11 slams are evenly spread between two entirely different surfaces. Nadal's not as versatile in my mind despite winning the US Open (not counting the AO).

Nadal is definately the greatest clay courter ever though, no doubt about that.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by NatF

Hard to say, Borg's 11 slams are evenly spread between two entirely different surfaces. Nadal's not as versatile in my mind despite winning the US Open (not counting the AO).

Nadal is definately the greatest clay courter ever though, no doubt about that.

But Nadal's slams are spread between 3 different surfaces. He also won the USO which Borg never managed to do. I want to retract my previous post and say that I do think Nadal has surpassed Borg. When you compare their achievements as a whole I think Nadal has him beat.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

But Nadal's slams are spread between 3 different surfaces. He also won the USO which Borg never managed to do. I want to retract my previous post and say that I do think Nadal has surpassed Borg. When you compare their achievements as a whole I think Nadal has him beat.

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.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

But Nadal's slams are spread between 3 different surfaces. He also won the USO which Borg never managed to do. I want to retract my previous post and say that I do think Nadal has surpassed Borg. When you compare their achievements as a whole I think Nadal has him beat.

The surfaces in Borg's time had a lot more contrast though. He didn't win the US Open you're right, but he did win other big hardcourt events. But I think you're correct in saying Nadal's resume is greater than Borg's. I'm not sure if Nadal should be considered a greater force than Borg off clay despite winning the US Open though. But Nadal's complete domination of clay is a massive mark for putting him ahead of Borg.

[tudwell]

The only thing really keeping me from bumping Nadal up above Borg is his time at number one. Borg had three, arguably four, years in which he was the best player. Nadal's had two. That's not a huge difference, though, and one I see Nadal making up in 2013. Nadal also has more Masters events and arguably the better slam record. He has the career slam, of course, which is something Borg lacks (though really I don't penalize him at all for not winning the Australian - it's those U.S. Open finals that kill him), but Borg also dominated two separate slams, while Nadal has managed that with only one. It's a bit of a toss-up, but I go with Borg for now. I expect Nadal to rise above by the time his career is over.

[kragster]

I think if you are to compare their stats as of now:

Slams - 11 each
Weeks at no 1 - Borg 109 , Nadal 102
Career Win % - Borg 0.827, Nadal 0.827
Titles - Borg 64, Nadal 50
Borg has 3 WTFs while Rafa has the career grand slam and an OG

So at this point it looks incredibly close. I do expect Nadal to eventually surpass Borg with more slams, more titles and potentially more weeks at no 1.

But still incredibly close. At this point I would give the edge to Borg simply because of his incredible streaks at both FO and Wimby (vs only FO for Nadal).

[sonicare]

Nadal needs to double his non-clay resume to clearly surpass Borg.

Borg has 11 slams in a 3 slams/year era unlike nadal who is in a 4 slams/year era.

If 20 years from now, there are 6 slams in a year, it would be unfair to say that the player at that time with 17 majors = roger because roger competed in a 4 slams/year era.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

No.


10nos

Completely off topic but, what is the point of this?, is it to allow for very short posts?.

Originally Posted by tudwell

The only thing really keeping me from bumping Nadal up above Borg is his time at number one. Borg had three, arguably four, years in which he was the best player. Nadal's had two. That's not a huge difference, though, and one I see Nadal making up in 2013. Nadal also has more Masters events and arguably the better slam record. He has the career slam, of course, which is something Borg lacks (though really I don't penalize him at all for not winning the Australian - it's those U.S. Open finals that kill him), but Borg also dominated two separate slams, while Nadal has managed that with only one. It's a bit of a toss-up, but I go with Borg for now. I expect Nadal to rise above by the time his career is over.

But he has pretty much the same amount as Nadal.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

But he has pretty much the same amount as Nadal.

Well, the ranking system in the 70s was pretty awful. Borg was indisputably the best player of 78, 79, 80, and arguably 77 as well, even though Connors finished 77 and 78 ranked as the number one player. Under today's ranking system, Borg would have had a lot more time at number one.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Nadal needs to double his non-clay resume to clearly surpass Borg.

Borg has 11 slams in a 3 slams/year era unlike nadal who is in a 4 slams/year era.

If 20 years from now, there are 6 slams in a year, it would be unfair to say that the player at that time with 17 majors = roger because roger competed in a 4 slams/year era.

The Australian Open still existed, many players just didn't make the trek. So, it's a choice not to play in the Australian Open, not that they didn't get a chance to.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Well, the ranking system in the 70s was pretty awful. Borg was indisputably the best player of 78, 79, 80, and arguably 77 as well, even though Connors finished 77 and 78 ranked as the number one player. Under today's ranking system, Borg would have had a lot more time at number one.

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

[Gizo]

No not yet. Borg was more dominant overall than Nadal, as he was the undisputed best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980, while Nadal has never been the best player in the world in back to back years. Also Borg was more versatile than Nadal as he was a much better player on his weakest surface hard courts, than Nadal has been on his weakest surface/environment indoors. That is despite the fact that Nadal has benefited from carpet being eliminated from the tour and the indoor courts slowly down dramatically. That is also despite the fact that in Borg's time all the big hard court events were on fast hard courts, and not slow hard courts like today which would have suited his game a lot more. Apart from Sampras on clay, Nadal has probably been weaker on his worst surface than any other genuinely great player in the open era.

Of course Borg had the disadvantage of playing in a time when the grand slam title count was meaningless, and next to no-one including Borg himself cared that he was closing in on Emerson's record. When Borg is compared to players like Nadal, what do people focus on the most? The number of grand slam titles. Thus Borg's career, like those of Connors, McEnroe, Lendl etc, is unfairly judged according to modern day standards and criteria that didn't exist in his era. None of those players had a crystal ball to predict that in future decades this 'only slams matter' attitude would become so prevalent in the sport.

[cc0509]

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.

Borg would have done just fine against Federer.

With that said however, I do feel that Nadal has surpassed Borg now. It is very close though.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

The Australian Open still existed, many players just didn't make the trek. So, it's a choice not to play in the Australian Open, not that they didn't get a chance to.

True, but Sonicare is a Nadal hater to the extreme and would pick any back alley weekend warrior to be better than him. Don't waste your time.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by cc0509

Borg would have done just fine against Federer.
With that said however, I do feel that Nadal has surpassed Borg now. It is very close though.

Yes, because Borg would beat Federer every time they play on clay or hardcourts.

[roberttennis54]

Nadal has definitely surpassed Borg on clay, but I don't think so overall. Borg has extra weeks at no 1 and the WTF. Nadal may have won an equal amount of slams, but we must take into consideration that the Australian Open was not really a big deal (even if it was shortsighted and foolish of the players). Borg played it once and probably would've had won it at least once.

That being said Nadal has won a slam on every surface and won every slam. Borg failed to win the US open and this is a blight on his career. Funny enough, I would still say Borg was the better all round player on every surface.

It's very close and an extra 2 slams for Nadal and 10 more weeks at no 1 will make Nadal clearly the greater player.

[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.