Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

And Nadal won the USO which is something Borg couldn't do despite having multiple chances to do it.

I already mentioned that, didn't I ?

"the main edge nadal over borg is his career slam"

[tlm]

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.

No doubt your name definitely fits you.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

umm, no ... either WCT/Masters was the 4th biggest event and borg won those ....

the main edge nadal over borg is his career slam, but borg's dominance over clay and grass simultaneously are just as good an edge if not better ....
and borg was wayyyyyyy better indoors

nadal still has to a slam outside of clay to equal borg and another to surpass him IMO ...

Your opinion doesn't count because of how blatantly biased it is.

You talk about Borg being way better indoors. Big deal. Let us know when there is a major played exclusively indoors at all times because then it might actually you know, matter.

Also don't forget Nadal was also dominating grass and clay the same time only he had to contend with Federer simultaneously. No easy task at all. The fact that a barely 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Federer to 5 sets in a wim final should speak volumes for how good Rafa is on grass as well as clay.

If Borg had to contend with Federer at Wimbledon do you seriously think he would've won 5 of them? As soon as a challenger came along (McEnroe) he quit with his tail between his legs after losing. Rafa would have 4 if Fed wasn't there, no way anybody else was going to beat Rafa in those 06 and 07 finals.

Not to mention he has made it to 4 HC finals and won 2 of them. An accomplishment that Borg could not match or better.

So looking at it logically, you're full of crap, but I'm not surprised it is normal for you...

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Your opinion doesn't count because of how blatantly biased it is.

You talk about Borg being way better indoors. Big deal. Let us know when there is a major played exclusively indoors at all times because then it might actually you know, matter.

Also don't forget Nadal was also dominating grass and clay the same time only he had to contend with Federer simultaneously. No easy task at all. The fact that a barely 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Federer to 5 sets in a wim final should speak volumes for how good Rafa is on grass as well as clay.

If Borg had to contend with Federer at Wimbledon do you seriously think he would've won 5 of them? As soon as a challenger came along (McEnroe) he quit with his tail between his legs after losing. Rafa would have 4 if Fed wasn't there, no way anybody else was going to beat Rafa in those 06 and 07 finals.

Not to mention he has made it to 4 HC finals and won 2 of them. An accomplishment that Borg could not match or better.

So looking at it logically, you're full of crap, but I'm not surprised it is normal for you...

Yep. And even if Nadal won another slam outside of clay these people would just find something else that they think Nadal has to do to surpass Borg. He will never be good enough no matter what he does in order to surpass Borg(or anyone else for that matter)according to these folks, even if he were to win 50 slams. There will always be something that they will nitpick about that they believe keeps Nadal on weekend warrior level.

[RF20Lennon]

I honestly think he has! hes got the career slam and more variety plus more dominance on clay

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Yep. And even if Nadal won another slam outside of clay these people would just find something else that they think Nadal has to do to surpass Borg. He will never be good enough no matter what he does in order to surpass Borg(or anyone else for that matter)according to these folks, even if he were to win 50 slams. They'll always be something that they will nitpick about that they believe keeps Nadal on weekend warrior level.

Its a stupid argument. Nadal surpassed Borg last year or this year with his French Open win. Resume wise Nadal is superior:

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


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

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

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

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal has beaten Djoker and Federer to get his HC slam titles.. (which is better then continuously losing to Connors, mac and tanner)

Nadal more versatile then Borg.. Bottom line.

lol are you serious? So now Djokovic is better than Connors and McEnroe? They won 9 US Open titles between them, Djokovic has one. You're always going on about how a whole load of past it players in Sampras's era are supposed to be better than Djokovic, but now Djokovic is better than Connors who won the US Open 5 times and Mac who won 4 titles?

Also, hate to explain it again, but you can maybe fault Borg for not winning the US Open on clay, but faulting him for not winning a HC slam when there were only 4 HC slams played in his entire career? This is like faulting Djokovic and Nadal for not winning the AO on rebound ace.

I agree that Nadal has surpassed Borg in achievements, but you can't really compare him and Nadal in terms of HC slams. He also only played one AO, so yes Nadal has achieved more in his career but it's not a failing on Borg's part as a player as much as people make it out to be.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Towser83

lol are you serious? So now Djokovic is better than Connors and McEnroe? They won 9 US Open titles between them, Djokovic has one. You're always going on about how a whole load of past it players in Sampras's era are supposed to be better than Djokovic, but now Djokovic is better than Connors who won the US Open 5 times and Mac who won 4 titles?

Also, hate to explain it again, but you can maybe fault Borg for not winning the US Open on clay, but faulting him for not winning a HC slam when there were only 4 HC slams played in his entire career? This is like faulting Djokovic and Nadal for not winning the AO on rebound ace.

I expect Djoker to definitely surpass BOTH Connors and Mac before its all over and done with. Yes.. I think he will barring injury and he will definitely win some more USO titles in the process.

Djoker has some great conquests at the USO. Hes beaten Fed a few times there (could connors and Mac? I doubt it). There aren't many guys that could compete with Roger at the USO. (Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic,Agassi). I dont think Connors or Mac could OR Borg could.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Its a stupid argument. Nadal surpassed Borg last year or this year with his French Open win. Resume wise Nadal is superior:

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


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

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

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

Sure there is. Nadal doesn't excel indoors and has never won the WTF. Forget the fact that Nadal has won all the slams, and beat Borgs record at RG. Forget the fact that the WTF used to mean a whole lot of nothing up until about 20 years ago. All that matters is Nadal isn't good indoors, and has never won it. Forget the fact that Nadal had to contend with the GOAT for years since no one else was good enough to do it.


The lengths that some of the people here will go to discredit Nadal's achievements is unreal. They really believe he is just a product of racket technology and nothing more. Just go read the Muster thread to see how ridiculous these people are.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Your opinion doesn't count because of how blatantly biased it is.

You talk about Borg being way better indoors. Big deal. Let us know when there is a major played exclusively indoors at all times because then it might actually you know, matter.

Also don't forget Nadal was also dominating grass and clay the same time only he had to contend with Federer simultaneously. No easy task at all. The fact that a barely 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Federer to 5 sets in a wim final should speak volumes for how good Rafa is on grass as well as clay.

If Borg had to contend with Federer at Wimbledon do you seriously think he would've won 5 of them? As soon as a challenger came along (McEnroe) he quit with his tail between his legs after losing. Rafa would have 4 if Fed wasn't there, no way anybody else was going to beat Rafa in those 06 and 07 finals.

Not to mention he has made it to 4 HC finals and won 2 of them. An accomplishment that Borg could not match or better.

So looking at it logically, you're full of crap, but I'm not surprised it is normal for you...

Well I think Nadal has surpassed Borg in terms of achievements but Borg in terms of ability could have won more slams than Sampras if he had actually bothered to play the AO and stick around a bit longer. He sometimes gets unfair criticism.

Like you saying Nadal made 4 HC finals. Borg only had 4 HC slams in his entire career. He would have had to make 4 US Open finals in a row from 1978-1981 and win 2 of them against Connors who is probably the greatest US Open champion of all time, and McEnroe who until Sampras had won the most on HC in the Open era with 4. He got the toughest finalists he could get. So yeah Nadal outranks him, I'm not arguing with that, but it's not really a fair comparison. It's like saying Nadal was useless cos he couldn't win the AO on rebound ace.

Also yeah there's no major on indoor hc but maybe someone is just trying to say he could play to a high level in all surfaces/conditions. There is a difference between how good a player you are in ability and how good in achievement. Borg was better than his total achievements suggest.

Nadal has surpassed him but it's unfair to compare all aspects of their career, and at the end of the day Borg still deserves respect.

[DropShotArtist]

Djokovic will surpass both Sampras and Nadal

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Your opinion doesn't count because of how blatantly biased it is.

LOL, ha ha ha !!!!!!

Originally Posted by The_Order

You talk about Borg being way better indoors. Big deal. Let us know when there is a major played exclusively indoors at all times because then it might actually you know, matter.

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

Originally Posted by The_Order

Also don't forget Nadal was also dominating grass and clay the same time only he had to contend with Federer simultaneously. No easy task at all. The fact that a barely 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Federer to 5 sets in a wim final should speak volumes for how good Rafa is on grass as well as clay.

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 .....

Originally Posted by The_Order

If Borg had to contend with Federer at Wimbledon do you seriously think he would've won 5 of them? As soon as a challenger came along (McEnroe) he quit with his tail between his legs after losing.

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

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 ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rafa would have 4 if Fed wasn't there, no way anybody else was going to beat Rafa in those 06 and 07 finals.

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 )

Originally Posted by The_Order

Not to mention he has made it to 4 HC finals and won 2 of them. An accomplishment that Borg could not match or better.

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

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 .....

Originally Posted by The_Order

So looking at it logically, you're full of crap, but I'm not surprised it is normal for you...

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

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Djokovic will surpass both Sampras and Nadal

I doubt that.. But he should passed Connors and Mac in the next few years.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I expect Djoker to definitely surpass BOTH Connors and Mac before its all over and done with. Yes.. I think he will barring injury and he will definitely win some more USO titles in the process.

Djoker has some great conquests at the USO. Hes beaten Fed a few times there (could connors and Mac? I doubt it). There aren't many guys that could compete with Roger at the USO. (Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic,Agassi). I dont think Connors or Mac could OR Borg could.

Yeah and if he surpasses Connors and Mac then he will surpass everyone of Sampras's rivals too. So that makes Federer's competition much tougher than Sampras's. But you will never go for that idea. You're so biased for Sampras's era when the days of Connors, Borg and Mac were much tougher.

Could connors or Mac beat Federer? well Connors took a young agassi to 5 sets there when he was 37 years old. He made the semis of the US Open the year after Sampras won it for the first time, and he was 39. Weak era? It's hard to compare eras but if we're going to suppose Laver would have a chance against Federer, then Connors and Mac certainly would.

Gotta laugh at Djokovic being compared to a 5 times and 4 times USO champion. No he doesn't compare to them, he hadn't even won it when Nadal faced him. Also bear in mind that the only times Djokovic has beaten Federer at the US Open, he had to save match points and against a 29 and 30 year old Federer, but for which he would be 0-5 at the event. He has always struggled there vs Fed.

[FedererDropShot]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Djokovic will surpass both Sampras and Nadal

Doubt it.

If Murray is there, he won't surpass any of them in terms of slams. (Since they'll share slams equally among each other I'd think in the next few years while Nadal is the FO guardian)

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by FedererDropShot

Doubt it.

If Murray is there, he won't surpass any of them in terms of slams. (Since they'll share slams equally among each other I'd think in the next few years while Nadal is the FO guardian)

Why not? He's got another 4 good years left. 16 slams up for grabs in that time. Say Murray takes a few and Delpo a couple. Djoker has 10 for him to give him 15. Fedal are done.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Yeah and if he surpasses Connors and Mac then he will surpass everyone of Sampras's rivals too. So that makes Federer's competition much tougher than Sampras's. But you will never go for that idea. You're so biased for Sampras's era when the days of Connors, Borg and Mac were much tougher.

Could connors or Mac beat Federer? well Connors took a young agassi to 5 sets there when he was 37 years old. He made the semis of the US Open the year after Sampras won it for the first time, and he was 39. Weak era? It's hard to compare eras but if we're going to suppose Laver would have a chance against Federer, then Connors and Mac certainly would.

Gotta laugh at Djokovic being compared to a 5 times and 4 times USO champion. No he doesn't compare to them, he hadn't even won it when Nadal faced him. Also bear in mind that the only times Djokovic has beaten Federer at the US Open, he had to save match points and against a 29 and 30 year old Federer, but for which he would be 0-5 at the event. He has always struggled there vs Fed.

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.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I expect Djoker to definitely surpass BOTH Connors and Mac before its all over and done with. Yes.. I think he will barring injury and he will definitely win some more USO titles in the process.

Djoker has some great conquests at the USO. Hes beaten Fed a few times there (could connors and Mac? I doubt it). There aren't many guys that could compete with Roger at the USO. (Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic,Agassi). I dont think Connors or Mac could OR Borg could.

lol, you are a massive joke .......

any decent player could've beaten federer who played cr*p at USO 2010 SF ...

fair play to djoker for the USO 2011 one, but he still had to save MPs ....I'd give an in-form mac a good shot at defeating 2011 fed and connors a decent shot as well ...

lol @ the agassi mention ... connors and mac were by some distance better at the USO ... connors won in 78 , beating borg, in 82 & 83 beating lendl ... and even at 30+ years went toe-to-toe with peak mac in 84 ...

mac of course won 4 USOs, 79,80,81 and 84 .... by some distance better than agassi, not even close .....

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by abmk

lol, you are a massive joke .......

any decent player could've beaten federer who played cr*p at USO 2010 SF ...

fair play to djoker for the USO 2011 one, but he still had to save MPs ....an in-form mac and connors could have done that too ....

lol @ the agassi mention ... connors and mac were by some distance better at the USO ... connors won in 78 , beating borg, in 82 & 83 beating lendl ... and even at 30+ years went toe-to-toe with peak mac in 84 ...

mac of course won 4 USOs, 79,80,81 and 84 .... by some distance better than agassi, not even close .....

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

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Well I think Nadal has surpassed Borg in terms of achievements but Borg in terms of ability could have won more slams than Sampras if he had actually bothered to play the AO and stick around a bit longer. He sometimes gets unfair criticism.

Like you saying Nadal made 4 HC finals. Borg only had 4 HC slams in his entire career. He would have had to make 4 US Open finals in a row from 1978-1981 and win 2 of them against Connors who is probably the greatest US Open champion of all time, and McEnroe who until Sampras had won the most on HC in the Open era with 4. He got the toughest finalists he could get. So yeah Nadal outranks him, I'm not arguing with that, but it's not really a fair comparison. It's like saying Nadal was useless cos he couldn't win the AO on rebound ace.

Also yeah there's no major on indoor hc but maybe someone is just trying to say he could play to a high level in all surfaces/conditions. There is a difference between how good a player you are in ability and how good in achievement. Borg was better than his total achievements suggest.

Nadal has surpassed him but it's unfair to compare all aspects of their career, and at the end of the day Borg still deserves respect.

yes and no .......

yes to the point regarding playing level ...

no to the point regarding accomplishments

if we are comparing by today's standards only, you'd think nadal has surpassed borg ...

but if you take into consideration that the situation was completely different in the 70s when borg played, no .... borg's accomplishments are better some distance - when you factor in the 2 YECs and his Dallas win ......