Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Both all time greats but who ranks above who for me Sampras because he his longtivty he wons majors in his teens twenties and thirties.
. . as was Tanner and Mac when they peaked -- but look what happened to them...
Three factors to consider, in my opinion. Longevity, peak play, surfaces.
It all depends on how you weigh these.
Three factors to consider, in my opinion. Longevity, peak play, surfaces.
It all depends on how you weigh these.
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.
Longevity- Sampras, Pete won majors in his late 20's and early 30's.
Peak play- Draw, Pete's prime 93-97 and Borg's 78-80 are pretty similar.
Surfaces- Sampras, I would take Pete to beat Borg on grass, hardcourt and indoor and Borg obviously on clay.
So imo thats why Sampras was the better player.
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.
Back then the Australian Open wasnt really valued like a major. Borg would in years like 1978 and 1980 win 2 of the 3 then recognized "majors" and be runner up in the 3rd. That is far more dominant than Sampras who never won more than 2 of 4 currently fully recognized majors, only once ever making 3 finals, and the only year ever making the French Open semis being a year he lost quarters of Wimbledon and 3rd round of the Australian Open.
True but you have to take into account Pete was denied 2 US Open's through injury in 98 and 99 so that would have given Pete more prime years.
True but you have to take into account Pete was denied 2 US Open's through injury in 98 and 99 so that would have given Pete more prime years.
One of the reasons why Sampras was less dominant in his best years than Borg is the impossibility to stay in perfect health all year. So , for me, reasonement like 'if he was healthy with Rafter he would be as dominant as anyone' do not make sense.
Both all time greats but who ranks above who for me Sampras because he his longtivty he wons majors in his teens twenties and thirties.
Titles. Slam ratio. Winning Percentage. Titles on all Surfaces. Consistency.
Borg 1979 - 14 atp titles, 3 non atp titles draw at least 8, title on every surface..including his worst. I don't have the exact record but from what atp lists it appeasr to be 84-6..I might have added in a walkover so its something like 82-85 wins and 5-7 losses roughly. Thats still shaky but that alone is better than every sampras prime year.
Borg 1978 and 1980 are probably better than most of Sampras' years.
Yes -- in Borg's time RG, Wimby, US Open and YEC was the the real majors. In 1980 he won RG for the second time without losing a set, beat Mac at Wimby in one of the greatest matches of all time (what a fifth set!), almost won the US Open although he was injured and uneven and suffered the worst line-call in a fifth and final set in a major in recent memory and crushed everyone at the fast carpet Masters. That's four finals and three supreme wins against supreme opponents who were specialists on their respective surfaces and they played peak even though Borg was incredible.
When did Sampras match this in any way? Borg still has the record of 41 straight Wimby-match wins against fast surface specialists who wasn't tired after a long RG tourney like Borg did and then he quit at 25. To keep such a streak is the toughest. Sampras couldn't match this streak and he had years when his opponents wasn't really that great...
Nope. Streaks are great, so are one year records etc. You can cherry pick the best moments/days/months/year/years of all players and hold them up against others. Borg's are very impressive. But where do you draw the line? There is no logical way. The only thing you can do if you want to make a career judgment is to look at measures of the entire career. Sampras wins.
That's one way to look at it but you could also say that having such amazing domination on both clay and grass which were at that time complete polar opposities(unlike today when clay is faster and grass is slower)is quite possibly the most impressive feat any player had ever done in the history of tennis.Look how long it took for another player to win Wimbledon-FO double once since Borg(and in a time when grass and clay aren't nearly as different as they were in Borg's time)let alone achieve such records as 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 FOs.You could also add that Borg had way better results in his worst slam(USO,4 finals)than Sampras(FO,1 semi),Borg was a contender at USO,Sampras wasn't one at the FO.On the other hand Sampras did win 14 slams,ended 6 years number one,won 7 Wimbledons and had great longevity winning slam as a teenager,in his 20s and in his 30s.
IMO this isn't as clear situation as you make it to be,you could make a case for either one.
That's one way to look at it but you could also say that having such amazing domination on both clay and grass which were at that time complete polar opposities(unlike today when clay is faster and grass is slower)is quite possibly the most impressive feat any player had ever done in the history of tennis.Look how long it took for another player to win Wimbledon-FO double once since Borg(and in a time when grass and clay aren't nearly as different as they were in Borg's time)let alone achieve such records as 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 FOs.You could also add that Borg had way better results in his worst slam(USO,4 finals)than Sampras(FO,1 semi),Borg was a contender at USO,Sampras wasn't one at the FO.On the other hand Sampras did win 14 slams,ended 6 years number one,won 7 Wimbledons and had great longevity winning slam as a teenager,in his 20s and in his 30s.
IMO this isn't as clear situation as you make it to be,you could make a case for either one.
Even if he had won the U.S Open his 98 and 99 would not have been as dominant or strong overall in the slams as his best years of 93, 94, or 95 even, let alone more than Borg's most dominant years. So in that regard it would have made no difference. Also while I agree on 99, the 98 U.S Open is harder to tell for certain as Rafter had beaten Sampras in a warm up Masters final and was the hottest player on hard courts that summer.
Thus, while you may be more impressed with some of Borg's feats (and that is certainly your right), I don't think that there is any logical or strong way to get around the 3 slam deficit.
BUT what I really was objecting to, and the bulk of my post is addressing, is the illogic of Borg defenders who will argue "well if Borg had kept playing THEN.....". You can see clear evidence of that here, even in the posts I was responding to. Borg didn't. He gave up. Because there is a lot of hero-worship with Borg, people tend to overlook that, but it is the same as saying, "hey! If Safin had always tried, he'd have 16 slams, therefore he's the GREATEST!!". Again, Safin didn't have any more slams in him and neither did Borg, neither have any excuse other than themselves for that!
Overall it's close, but I may give the slight nod to Sampras.
Surface wise, the biggest advantage goes to Borg on clay. While Sampras won't dominate Borg on any surface like Borg could get him on clay, Sampras is better on grass, hard and carpet.
Longevity is obviously Sampras, as Borg retired early. Dominance is close, Borgs percenatges may be higher as some noted, but Sampras never really played for that he played for slams. Speaking of slams it's deeper than the 14-11 lead Pete has, as Borg only went to Australa 2 or 3 times. Likewise Sampras may have lost some slam opportunities to injuries and circumstance. The both have holes, Borg (US Open) and Sampras (French Open), and though Borg reached 4 US Open finals, I think it's a bigger hole for him. Borg had the chance to contest the US Open twice on hard, and twice on green clay. What if Sampras got 2 chances on each grass and hards in Paris???
As close as it is what gives Sampras the slight nod is that despite the inconsitencies of the ranking system Sampras had 6 consecutive years at #1, while Borg had just 2, as well as 286 weeks at #1 for Sampras to 109 for Borg. And Borg lost 3 of 4 slam F to McEnroe, and I find it hard to see anyone doing that to Sampras.
Many of you Sampras-lovers here obviously doesn't read many of the serious debates about what a major consisted of during all eras. The GS-tourney final tally is not a complete argument that settles the question.
You disregard that RG is the toughest tourney physically as well as psychologically win -- your dead after a RG win and then change to superfast grass in two weeks and for three years running defeat a rested and peak Tanner, Mac, Connors and beat them too on their more favored turf for five years in a row (and six straight finals) then to go to HC US Open and reach more finals than either Mac and Connors (when Borg was even more tired) then continue on having amazing results on carpet and cap it off by going undefeated at YEC against Mac, Connors and YEC-master Lendl is just waaaaaaaaaay more versatile and impressive and tougher than Sampras. Borg was the most complete player -- period.
You just seem to forget that Pete sucked on clay. Sucked. He couldn't regularly handle great, peak playing clay-courters while Borg beat master grass and HC and indoor masters regurlarly.
And Borg had greater competition. And as far as racking up majors there's a lot of great, great players from all eras who's far more successful than Pete in this area.
Laver and Rosewall each had around 20 majors waaaaay beyond Pete's 14 plus that they had greater versatility which Pete lacked. Pete was a fast court specialist -- while Borg was slow court King plus has one of the most impressive records on faster surfaces as well as still having the greatest Wimby streak -- still unbeaten (41-4 at Wimby already at only 25!).
Borg won more five-setters than Pete too against peak opposition -- came back 1-2 and 0-2 so many times a thing Pete didn't do. Borg had even greater clutch than Pete against the best, proven.
And it is harder to achieve this domination, maturity and all-round skill at such a young age. It's the toughest skill -- ask anybody.
And Pete never dominated fast surfaces with the prowess that Borg did on clay. Borg won three Majors without losing a set -- even on superfast grass at Wimby 1976 (it's only been done three times since 1877 and never against a final opponent like Ilie Nastase who also, like Borg hadn't dropped a single set reaching the final -- just maddeningly impresssive by "The Ice Man" and in tropic 41 degree Celsius heat too) -- something that's never been done since either by Laver, Fedex and Pete who never, ever did it ever even against weaker opponents. Doesn't that tell you anything?
There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...
And WCT 1976, YEC 1979 and 1980 ranked as the unofficial fourth major during Borg's era making his final tally 14 (when he was only 25) as with Pete (and that on all different surfaces) plus that Borg had several YEC finals and US Open-finals (while severely injured and tired several times) to boot and he quit when he was 25.
Also take in to account Borg's career and majors winning percentage into this debate also it's settled in Borg's favor. I mean I could go on and on. It's arguable that Krajicek of 96 is what Tanner was in 1979. Wimby was Pete's church, tailor-made for his game and fave tourney (like RG for Borg) and Krajicek blew Pete off the court. Tanner played out of this world in the Wimby 1979 final and had a heavy lead -- but who won that match?
Borg was/is the real tennis Houdini.
And Borg even bageled more players than Fed or anybody did. I mean the records go on and on in Borg's favour...
So I rest my case...
Many of you Sampras-lovers here obviously doesn't read many of the serious debates about what a major consisted of during all eras. The GS-tourney final tally is not a complete argument that settles the question.
You disregard that RG is the toughest tourney physically as well as psychologically win -- your dead after a RG win and then change to superfast grass in two weeks and for three years running defeat a rested and peak Tanner, Mac, Connors and beat them too on their more favored turf for five years in a row (and six straight finals) then to go to HC US Open and reach more finals than either Mac and Connors (when Borg was even more tired) then continue on having amazing results on carpet and cap it off by going undefeated at YEC against Mac, Connors and YEC-master Lendl is just waaaaaaaaaay more versatile and impressive and tougher than Sampras. Borg was the most complete player -- period.
You just seem to forget that Pete sucked on clay. Sucked. He couldn't regularly handle great, peak playing clay-courters while Borg beat master grass and HC and indoor masters regurlarly.
And Borg had greater competition. And as far as racking up majors there's a lot of great, great players from all eras who's far more successful than Pete in this area.
Laver and Rosewall each had around 20 majors waaaaay beyond Pete's 14 plus that they had greater versatility which Pete lacked. Pete was a fast court specialist -- while Borg was slow court King plus has one of the most impressive records on faster surfaces as well as still having the greatest Wimby streak -- still unbeaten (41-4 at Wimby already at only 25!).
Borg won more five-setters than Pete too against peak opposition -- came back 1-2 and 0-2 so many times a thing Pete didn't do. Borg had even greater clutch than Pete against the best, proven.
And it is harder to achieve this domination, maturity and all-round skill at such a young age. It's the toughest skill -- ask anybody.
And Pete never dominated fast surfaces with the prowess that Borg did on clay. Borg won three Majors without losing a set -- even on superfast grass at Wimby 1976 (it's only been done three times since 1877 and never against a final opponent like Ilie Nastase who also, like Borg hadn't dropped a single set reaching the final -- just maddeningly impresssive by "The Ice Man" and in tropic 41 degree Celsius heat too) -- something that's never been done since either by Laver, Fedex or Pete who never, ever did it ever even against weaker opponents. Doesn't that tell you anything?
There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...
And WCT 1976, YEC 1979 and 1980 ranked as the unofficial fourth major during Borg's era making his final tally 14 (when he was only 25) as with Pete (and that on all different surfaces) plus that Borg had several YEC finals and US Open-finals (while severely injured and tired several times) to boot and he quit when he was 25.
Also take in to account Borg's career and majors winning percentage into this debate also it's settled in Borg's favor. I mean I could go on and on. It's arguable that Krajicek of 96 is what Tanner was in 1979. Wimby was Pete's church, tailor-made for his game and fave tourney (like RG for Borg) and Krajicek blew Pete off the court. Tanner played out of this world in the Wimby 1979 final and had a heavy lead -- but who won that match?
Borg was/is the real tennis Houdini.
And Borg even bageled more players than Fed or anybody did. I mean the records go on and on in Borg's favour...
So I rest my case...
You don't call winning 7 Wimbledon's in 8 years dominating a surface, Pete played 7 Wimbledon finals winning all 7. Sampras was injured in the USO 94,98 and 99 in which if he wasn't he would have won all 3 imo that would have left Pete with 8 USO's that proves that Pete was equally dominate on the fast surfaces as Borg was on clay.
Who were the amazing grass courters of Pete's era vs Borg's anyway. Becker and Edberg were already past their prime when Pete's Wimbledon dominance began, their primes were really 85-91/92. Ivanisevic probably has one of the greatest serves of all time but not much else consistently good (he had some very dangerous other shots but definitely not consistent), and he was an enormous headcase who could have beaten Sampras 2 other times at Wimbledon with even decent mental strength. He isnt much different than Roscoe Tanner in Borg's day and Tanner was certainly not the 2nd greatest of the Borg generation on grass as Ivanisevic is of the Sampras generation. Agassi was a baseliner without a great serve, without even close to the athletic ability of even Federer or Nadal today let alone Borg, with hardly an transition or net game, without a decent slice backhand, and who was so inconsistent in and out of his career during Pete's prime.
Borg had prime Connors and prime McEnroe for the last few years which already gives him more competition on grass than Sampras had even before getting into the supporting cast of challengers.
I agree that Borg's era > Sampras's era > Federer's era as far as competition. It is early to tell with Nadal's era but early indications are it will be tougher than Federer's era but likely weaker than Borg's era in that regard.
I never said if he kept playing...and a number is a number. .
A lot of times numbers don't reflect for example Connors had 5 straight years number 1 and Borg only had two? Though I am still unsure of how Connors had 77 and 78 over Borg? (77 should be villas though...) But then there were other rankings that gave it to Borg and Villas it was very confusing back then. .
Anyway Borg was clearly the best player on the tour from 77-80 Sampras might have 6 years as number 1, but during Sampras time we had some of the weakest number 1's ever. Marcelo Rios, Kalfenikov, Moya, Muster..tons of strictly clay court players took stranglehold on that top spot..Borg had intense competition also Connors, Villas, McEnroe, Lendl 3 of 4 in prime. He also had Ille Nastate, Arthur Ashe, Vitas Gerulatis and Roscoe Tanner to deal with. His field was tight. Connors and Lendl each won 8 slams, McEnroe 7, Villas 4, Ashe 3, Nastate 2, Gerulatis and Tanner had 1. .
His field at times was rough. Borg deserves a nod for what he went up against and what he did. He practically invented the modern baseline game and dominated two surfaces consistently and assembled some remarkable seasons during that time period. You can believe who you want to be better but saying it is impossible to get around a 3 slam deficit is very extreme....
Please don't compare the Borg thing to the Safin thing. It's not right for Borg fans to be like he could have won 3 more slams if he did this..but saying it is like saying Safin would be at 16 is extreme...
\Borg probably could have got to 14..Safin probably not. ...
I will never use the Borg could have in an argument, but please don't compare it to the Safin theory.
There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...
Again, Borgforever, your statements are not fair. There a lot of tennis experts and former champions who said that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg, and you know it. Maybe they're wrong, sure. But you always seem to say that people who put Pete before Bjorn are lacking in knowledge of tennis, or they are too young.
While what you say is true the fact of the matter is that even many tennis experts and former champions are biased towards and favor the more recent players. How else to explain all the Federer GOAT talk even when he hasnt achieved anywhere near enough for this title. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, probably Nadal, are all currently overrated to some extent due to their being so recent. The fact there are as many who rates Agassi above players like Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors who all showed far more dominance, far more consistency, had far more success in the context of what were the biggest tournaments in their respective times, is yet another example of how recent players are overrated at the expense of more former ones, not just by tennis fans. The further back in time players are the more prone they are to being underrated, even by many tennis experts and former champions.
True that Sampras played for Slams -- that's why his percentages are lower than Borg's. Playing that way maximized his Slams and meant fewer titles during the season. You gain something, you lose something.Overall it's close, but I may give the slight nod to Sampras.
Surface wise, the biggest advantage goes to Borg on clay. While Sampras won't dominate Borg on any surface like Borg could get him on clay, Sampras is better on grass, hard and carpet.
Longevity is obviously Sampras, as Borg retired early. Dominance is close, Borgs percenatges may be higher as some noted, but Sampras never really played for that he played for slams.
Not sure what you mean here, what do you mean by deeper?Speaking of slams it's deeper than the 14-11 lead Pete has, as Borg only went to Australa 2 or 3 times.
Likewise Sampras may have lost some slam opportunities to injuries and circumstance.
Borg was injured for the U.S. Open in '77 and '78, and if he'd won the latter we might be talking about a calendar Grand Slam. That puts him up at 14 Slams; and getting the USO monkey off his back, I can see him playing better at his remaining USO's; we might even speculate about him retiring a little later. However -- I don't really agree with this way of thinking, anymore than I agree with giving Sampras extra Slams for the times he was injured. I just want to be perfectly clear that if we're going to speculate about what might have been, and bring injuries into it, then it should be done for both players.He won the US Open in 1993 and 1995. If not for leg injury in 1994 that's 3 slams for Pete that year and straight opens (1993-96).
Borg contested just 1 USO final on clay, and 3 on hard court.The both have holes, Borg (US Open) and Sampras (French Open), and though Borg reached 4 US Open finals, I think it's a bigger hole for him. Borg had the chance to contest the US Open twice on hard, and twice on green clay. What if Sampras got 2 chances on each grass and hards in Paris???
Borg was really #1 for three years (1978-80). And the total weeks are just a mess because of those very inconsistencies you mention (though you do it just in passing). However, I will say that even if the computer rankings had made more sense in the 70s, Borg would still end up with fewer total weeks than Sampras, no problem there.As close as it is what gives Sampras the slight nod is that despite the inconsitencies of the ranking system Sampras had 6 consecutive years at #1, while Borg had just 2, as well as 286 weeks at #1 for Sampras to 109 for Borg.
People also had a hard time seeing that happen to Borg, before McEnroe actually did it. For a comparable situation we'd need to have Sampras burning out at age 25 and facing McEnroe's skill and consistency of '80 and '81. When Sampras was 30 and tiring -- not burning out, but comparable -- he ran into some hot players on single days, but they either lacked McEnroe's consistency (Safin, Federer) or his skill set (Hewitt); and Sampras himself was not making every W and USO final as Borg was. So the opportunity to lose 3 Slams finals to one player just wasn't there.And Borg lost 3 of 4 slam F to McEnroe, and I find it hard to see anyone doing that to Sampras.
Borgforever, i have my opinions on Borg and Sampras but I prefer not to speak about Sampras, cause i was one of their fans.
Antoine is right when he says also experts overrate the present. But another thing is very dangerous and happens very often: also experts overrate the players they know better, their favourite players, or their former opponents, or the players who were playing when they started to be tennis fans. (i.e., Kramer, one of the better former players analysts of the game, overrate Riggs, and maybe also Vines and Budge).
To answer to another question, i know it's easier for a fast court player to have 3 fast court majors. It' s also easier to win for a player, let's say, who is allergical to australian air than for a player who can play only in Australia fo healthy reason. But tennis has 4 majors (or three, some years ago), and if tha majoritu of them is on fastcourt it's just the game, and we have to accept it. Today it's more difficult to win for a serve and volley player. But if a serve and volley player win his 'Everest' and two slams today playing serve and volley, he doesn't become better than Nadal. Ok, Nadal has the perfect tennis for today. But he plays today, so that's fine. If you play in an era where the fast courts are more important, you have to play well there. The important is 'who win more' (not more majors, it's too simplicistic) not who does the more difficult things for him.
Anyway, I think you can speak a lot about that comparison, two great players, two champions, not a great difference between them. If i have to play for my life, in a single match, i chose Sampras on three surface of four. But I was a Sampras fan, so my opinion doesn't matter.
c.