Now that the G.O.A.T argument is settled, who is the 2nd G.O.A.T behind Federer?

Who is the second greatest of all time behind Federer?


  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .

Chadwixx

Banned
see.. i kinda like you posts and what not, but when it comes to bashing agassi you can drop the worlds biggest load of BS...

if that is how you put it... measure goatness via talent i have all the right to say Hicham Arazi is the GOAT... after all he is\was the greatest natural talent i have seen...

how about it? :twisted:

If you actually watched agassi win those gs's you would see why i say what i do. He beat goran in one of the biggest choke jobs for his wimbledon and the same with medvedev at the french. Look at some of his draws at the AO, they are on par with sampras's 1999 wimbledon. He is probably the most overhyped player to ever play the game, a goal he sought when he put on the wig.

His dominance of the game rivals serenas who finished #1 for the 2nd time in her career last year. It just isnt there, sorry. Only fanboys argue that agassi is top 5 on the goat list when #3 dominated him in grand slam play.

Agassi couldnt even beat a retired pete when he was at his peak in 2002...
 
Do you really consider Krajicek a blemish on Sampras' career? Yes, he beat Sampras, but he didn't destroy Sampras' career.

Also, about the 2 Slams a year thing: Sampras had amazing consistency over the years, completely dominating the USO and Wimbledon. Borg couldn't win at the USO or AO when they were grass, his best surface, and his career spiraled quickly downward after his prime. Laver, although a great champion, did not have as much success in the Open Era as is perceived. Yes, I know the Open Era began during his career, but still, he was dominant for one year.

I don't care how many Grand Slams Agassi won, Sampras made him look like a *****.


Borg played the AO, once in 1976, that's it. The players of that era (top guys didn't play the AO, just look at Borg, McEnroe, and Connors. They didn't win the AO either, except for Connors in 1974. Plus, clay was his best surface, with grass, indoor courts, and hard courts following clay, if you are "ranking his best surfaces". He won a LOT on grass, clay, and on fast indoor courts. He also won hard court (outdoor) titles, despite losing in 3 US Open finals on hard courts to Connors, and McEnroe. During the 1978 US Open final against Connors, he was getting pain injections in his thumb, and he could hardly hold his racquet properly (no feeling). Yet, no excuses, he did not win a US Open, true statement, though 4 GS finals are "not too shabby" when seeing that as Borg's "big failure" in his career, that ended at 25-26 years of age.

As far as Borg's career "spiraling downward", here's the spiral in 1980-1981, his last 2 active years on the Tour: He won the French Open twice (80-81) and Wimbledon once (1980). McEnroe won the US Open twice (80-81) and Wimbledon once (1981). Borg won the in effect 4th major then (Masters in New York, the YEC, in early 1980 and early 1981, beating McEnroe and Lendl in the 2 finals on indoor carpet).

So that's a career "spiraling downward" by age 25? He only won 1 of the 3 slams he played in in 1981, but he made the FINALS of the other two, losing to McEnroe twice. Meanwhile, he was clearly the best clay courter in the World still. So, #2 at the time, yes, career "spiraling downward", no way.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
If you actually watched agassi win those gs's you would see why i say what i do. He beat goran in one of the biggest choke jobs for his wimbledon and the same with medvedev at the french. Look at some of his draws at the AO, they are on par with sampras's 1999 wimbledon. He is probably the most overhyped player to ever play the game, a goal he sought when he put on the wig.

His dominance of the game rivals serenas who finished #1 for the 2nd time in her career last year. It just isnt there, sorry. Only fanboys argue that agassi is top 5 on the goat list when #3 dominated him in grand slam play.

Agassi couldnt even beat a retired pete when he was at his peak in 2002...

well. First i dont think Agassi is top 5 all time.. but no matter what bs comes out of your typing, he is and will always be my favourite. so feel free to call me fan boy...

but i notice you dodge my point very nicely... if you are to claim that talent alone is enough to put many players above Andre, then it's safe to say the real goats are Arazi, Nalbadian, Rios and Safin... lets ignore titles and look at the pure ball striking abilities... how about that? is this ok to you?

oh.. and btw chandwanks... i'm 33 years old... so your "if you actually watched agassi" conjecture is the dumbest thing you wrote so far...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chadwixx

Banned
So where would you put him?

Being pete's whipping boy doesnt go very far on a goat list, alot of guys there actually won and were #1.

So your not debating that agassi got joke draws and choke jobs in the finals? Yet when he had to play the best players in the world he loses?

Talent is a general term. Glad to see you think those guys are better than agassi at what he did best :oops:
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
So where would you put him?

Being pete's whipping boy doesnt go very far on a goat list, alot of guys there actually won and were #1.

So your not debating that agassi got joke draws and choke jobs in the finals? Yet when he had to play the best players in the world he loses?

Talent is a general term. Glad to see you think those guys are better than agassi at what he did best :oops:

NO actually you were the one who claimed talent alone would put many guys above agassi... wich ones... what talent? i like how you dodge my point with the vage "talent is a general term"... nice..

so.. who is it going to be sparky? cant have the cake and eat it at the same time! gotta make choices!

as for where i place him, i will debate that with people who can put thing is perspective and think... i.e. not you!
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
well. First i dont think Agassi is top 5 all time.. but no matter what bs comes out of your typing, he is and will always be my favourite. so feel free to call me fan boy...

but i notice you dodge my point very nicely... if you are to claim that talent alone is enough to put many players above Andre, then it's safe to say the real goats are Arazi, Nalbadian, Rios and Safin... lets ignore titles and look at the pure ball striking abilities... how about that? is this ok to you?

oh.. and btw chandwanks... i'm 33 years old... so your "if you actually watched agassi" conjecture is the dumbest thing you wrote so far...



Rios' talent is legendary when it comes to being overrated. He beat a bunch of 2nd tier players (Agassi when he was just coming out of his slump doesn't count) to win most of his major titles (and got crushed by old man Korda).
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
There is only one form of talent? Agassi fan indeed :)

NO. but there is certainly one single definition of talent (no matter how ou put it in words...) but there certainly are several expressions of it... none showed in your posts..

it takes a very special form of stupidity to post such rubish

now it takes a non-english native speaker to teach you basics logical reasoning?:oops:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Rios' talent is legendary when it comes to being overrated. He beat a bunch of 2nd tier players (Agassi when he was just coming out of his slump doesn't count) to win most of his major titles (and got crushed by old man Korda).

dont ask me.. ask Chandraweenks.. who claims that talent is enought to put many players above agassi...

rios must be one of them... :)
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
Laver,

Borg,

or Sampras?

IMO, it's Laver>Borg>Sampras.

Although Laver's grand slams were completed mainly on grass, weren't true grand slams on 3 different surfaces (as Federer and Agassi career slams) his ability to have won 2 separate grand slams years apart is truly remarkable, he deserves his place ahead of Borg and Sampras.

Laver, Sampras, Borg

I don't see how anybody would put Borg ahead of Sampras...
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Laver is waay above Sampras by comparing their accomplishments. That's my opinion. Having read about Laver, I think it's unfair to compare him to Federer and Sampras and their GS records. If he knew it's so important to collect 20 Slams, he would have done it.

Btw, was there a GOAT debate when Sampras beat Emerson's record?
 
Ubermeyer, as far how anyone could place Borg ahead of Sampras, it's not difficult. I'll start with Borg being a lot better on hard courts versus Sampras on clay (looking at the weakest surface for each and surface versatility). Meanwhile, Borg won a ton at both Wimbledon and at the French Open and faced off against McEnroe and Connors regularly. That's a starting point for any debate as to Sampras vs. Borg. Then compare "bad losses", not just late in Sampras' career, but "early losses" to. The only players Borg ever lost to in GS finals, were named either Connors or McEnroe, and in the case of Connors, that was only at the US Open.

Anyway, I'll address some of the previous posts now. I'd put Borg ahead of all three, including Federer even today. It's very hard to decide between those 4 players, and it's objective/subjective, but I still consider Borg being ahead of Federer, Laver, and then Sampras, with Borg ahead of the other 3, but not by much at all.

Yet, having said that I think it's VERY difficult to really separate that "top tier" of all time Greats as there are pluses and minuses for each of them. It's a very subjective and objective analysis that you have to go through, especially with varied competition and massive technology changes when looking at Sampras/Federer vs. Laver/Borg. Equalize for technology and make them face each other on all surfaces, in "peak form" if you want to look at say "post 2003 Federer" for example and you'd likely see many wins/losses for all 4 with none of the 4 being much above 60% or so in terms of overall winning %. Borg is tops on the ATP tour with about a ~83% singles percentage, 89-90% of GS singles matches won, and a win rate of 41% of the GS tourneys he ever played in. He is #1 on all those measures ahead of all other players. He retired at 25, could have won more GS titles, but left the Game for many reasons, and if you think he left because he was "washed up" and would have started losing a "lot" from age 25-28 or so, I suggest you watch this 1982 clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

He retired after playing the full year in 1981 still very much near the peak of his Game, injury free, burned out to an extent, and fighting with Tour Organizers who insisted on a 10 tournament/year schedule for all players and who stated that Borg would have to "qualify" for the majors if he chose to curtail his schedule below the 10 tournament minimum, in defiance of Tour Leadership. That was the single biggest reason for him leaving the Tour and starting to pursue life away from the "bubble" and a "business career". I'm glad that he has bounced back after so many rough years after his premature departure from the Game, as he is now at least financially secure once again and seems very happy, even playing on the Champions Tour. Nadal is still chasing Borg at the FO, and Federer ultimately matched Borg at Wimbledon (though now he and Sampras have 1 and 2 more titles than Borg respectively over longer tenures there), gives you sense of how great Borg really was.
 
Last edited:

Chadwixx

Banned
dont ask me.. ask Chandraweenks.. who claims that talent is enought to put many players above agassi...

rios must be one of them... :)

Id put mac over agassi on the goat list. Everyone would agree mac was more talented.

"but there is certainly one single definition of talent"
Please elaborate.

Agassi also beat 2nd tier players to win his majors, your not making his case any stronger.

Ubermeyer, sampras dominated two tournaments much like borg did. Borg had much stronger competition in route to winning his titles and did take nearly as long.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
So where would you put him?

Being pete's whipping boy doesnt go very far on a goat list, alot of guys there actually won and were #1.

So your not debating that agassi got joke draws and choke jobs in the finals? Yet when he had to play the best players in the world he loses?

Talent is a general term. Glad to see you think those guys are better than agassi at what he did best :oops:

Pete's whipping boy. If a 20-14 Head to Head is considered whipping, then i dont know what you would call Federer's record against Hewitt, Soderling, Davydenko, Ferrer,Verdasco, ....You get the point.

Pete lost to Agassi in a Slam final as well. So much for whipping boy!
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Chadwixx

Banned
so now i have to teach you to google your way tru life...:oops:

what next.. your derreire washed with rose water...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent

ps: please notice the similar concept, despite being writen using different words..
-----------------------------------------------------

as for where you place mac, i could care two bags of nice baked sheize...
8>7

You need to look up the term "generic" and take another look at your posts. Your not making any points because no one knows what your talking about in reguards to tennis.
 

Markov

Semi-Pro
cute.. so it's safe to assume neither Fed nor Nadal are the Goats as i'm pretty sure they will be replaced someone who will be better then them in every espect fo tennis...
Yes, they will 100% certainly be replaced by someone more advanced, just like they are supposed to. But they are the GOATs as of now. The best that I have seen yet.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Yes, they will 100% certainly be replaced by someone more advanced, just like they are supposed to. But they are the GOATs as of now. The best that I have seen yet.

ok.. fair enough. it's you view and i will respect it!
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
You need to look up the term "generic" and take another look at your posts. Your not making any points because no one knows what your talking about in reguards to tennis.

Chad... you are officially my favourite intellectually challenged poster... can we be friends?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chadwixx

Banned
Chad... you are officially my favourite intelectually challenged poster... can we be freinds?

Im still curious as to where you would rank agassi on the goat list and your definition of "talent"

Btw its "intellectually"
Not the google master you hyped youself up to be are you :) Kinda funny though, you post two dictionary links then mispelled a word :oops:
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Im still curious as to where you would rank agassi on the goat list and your definition of "talent"

Btw its "intellectually"
Not the google master you hyped youself up to be are you :) Kinda funny though, you post two dictionary links then mispelled a word :oops:

so now you resort to the spelling card towards a non-native english speaker...what a champ you are!

e se eu te manda-se para o caralhoto que te monte em bom português, oh meu paneleirote de trampa... ?

would this be correctly spelled?
 

myalterego

Rookie
Borg played the AO, once in 1976, that's it. The players of that era (top guys didn't play the AO, just look at Borg, McEnroe, and Connors. They didn't win the AO either, except for Connors in 1974. Plus, clay was his best surface, with grass, indoor courts, and hard courts following clay, if you are "ranking his best surfaces". He won a LOT on grass, clay, and on fast indoor courts. He also won hard court (outdoor) titles, despite losing in 3 US Open finals on hard courts to Connors, and McEnroe. During the 1978 US Open final against Connors, he was getting pain injections in his thumb, and he could hardly hold his racquet properly (no feeling). Yet, no excuses, he did not win a US Open, true statement, though 4 GS finals are "not too shabby" when seeing that as Borg's "big failure" in his career, that ended at 25-26 years of age.

As far as Borg's career "spiraling downward", here's the spiral in 1980-1981, his last 2 active years on the Tour: He won the French Open twice (80-81) and Wimbledon once (1980). McEnroe won the US Open twice (80-81) and Wimbledon once (1981). Borg won the in effect 4th major then (Masters in New York, the YEC, in early 1980 and early 1981, beating McEnroe and Lendl in the 2 finals on indoor carpet).

So that's a career "spiraling downward" by age 25? He only won 1 of the 3 slams he played in in 1981, but he made the FINALS of the other two, losing to McEnroe twice. Meanwhile, he was clearly the best clay courter in the World still. So, #2 at the time, yes, career "spiraling downward", no way.

Well, Borg should have won the AO the one time he was in it, considering how dominant he was on grass...


Pete Sampras did play in all four Slams a year; imagine if he took months off for tournaments on which he wanted to pass what he could have done.

And yeah, Borg had his run, but it ended. He was dominant for a while, while Sampras was dominant over a decade of playing at a high level. Sampras revitalized tennis and didn't take **** from anyone, and really was quite the champ. Agassi was his only real rival, and yet, throughout both men's careers, Sampras is the one with 14 Slams...
 
MyAlterEgo, I would not consider Sampras as "dominating" for a decade, if you consider his results between 2000-2002, though his 2002 US Open win was great (one of my favorite Tennis moments).

After the 1990 US Open win, he didn't win another slam until 1993. So, his period of real dominance was 1993-2000 (7-8 years). Borg started his Wimbledon run and top notch winning percentages from 1976 and that extended until 1980, and 1981 (considering he won the FO and made 2 other GS finals, and of course no AO, but he won the Masters in early 1981 indoors vs. Lendl).

So that's 5-6 years for Borg of "dominance" so to speak, with an early retirement and Sampras at 7-8 years. So you have more years playing, which led to a larger total slam count, but Sampras was never a threat at the FO really, while Borg made 4 US Open finals on his worst surface.

So, look at these losses below at each of the Slams during their careers below. Borg's "bad loss" track record is superior to either Sampras or Federer, though one could argue that Borg would have had more bad losses late in his career. Maybe, maybe not, but he definitely left the Game with plenty of more great tennis left, although of course, if he played until he was say 29-30+, the inevitable physical decline would have occurred. Yet then, you'd also have likely seen more GS titles.

So, Sampras really didn't "dominate" much longer than Borg, and even with 4 slams played every year, he also won no more than 2 slams in any given year. I've posted this before, but let's look at the GS losses of Borg, Federer, and Sampras now, since we always tend to focus ONLY on GS titles when analyzing players. When trying to analyze the greatest of all time on each surface, it is useful to look at LOSSES as well as WINS/TITLES. So, I have looked up the track records of Borg, Federer, and Sampras at the 3 biggest Grand Slams. The Australian Open is catching up, but of course, the tournament was not really the same during the era of Borg and Sampras as it is now, even though by the late 1980's it had regained some past glory and Sampras did get 2 of his 14 GS titles at the AO. Borg's track record especially as far as "bad losses" is one reason I give him the slight nod over both Sampras and Federer as the greatest player overall.

Of course, for all 3, many of these losses were while they young and "upcoming stars", and I'm sure some occurred primarily due to injury (Sampras at the US Open, Borg retired vs. Stockton and was not well for 2 US Open matches vs. Connors, antibiotics 1 year, and a bad thumb injury in 1978 before the final).

This list of losses is illustrative of the fact that even these 3 greats get beat by lesser mortals from time to time. In my estimation, Borg was the most consistently dangerous/dominating player, considering all the surfaces, and he is underrated on grass/hard courts, relative to both Sampras and Federer. Also, consider his primary competitors, Connors and McEnroe (his 7-7 record vs. McEnroe was his worst head to head record, with no clay matches).

There is a dearth of bad losses (big upsets) against Borg even on the fastest surfaces. Of course, he and Nadal should be considered tops in terms of prowess on red clay. See the losses compiled below by Sampras, Federer, and Borg at what I'll call the "Big 3" Slams.

Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton
(retired in 1977 due to shoulder injury), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Roger Federer:

US Open:
J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S. Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.
 
Last edited:

myalterego

Rookie
First off, however cool the FO might be, no top player besides Borg did that well in it, so the threat of Connors, Ashe, McEnroe wasn't that intense and enabled Borg to win it nearly every year. So big deal if Borg didn't play the AO except once; it's not like he had much pressure to beat anyone but Ilie Nastase and Guillermo Vilas (great players, I might add, but not quite as good as the others mentioned in my opinion). Sampras pretty much took care of everyone at the two most prestigious tournaments that attracted the best players for as long as tennis has been around: The US Open and Wimbledon. Borg needed at least a US Open victory really to be the 2nd GOAT imo.
 

anointedone

Banned
So that's 5-6 years for Borg of "dominance" so to speak, with an early retirement and Sampras at 7-8 years. So you have more years playing, which led to a larger total slam count, but Sampras was never a threat at the FO really, while Borg made 4 US Open finals on his worst surface.

5-6 years of dominance for Borg? Borg was not considered even arguably the best player in the World until 1977 (it was clearly still Connors in 1976 and in 1975 it was either Ashe or Connors). So at most you would have 4 years of dominance for Borg- 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980. As for the early retirement Borg should not get any extra consideration for his choice for an early retirement. If anything it is an additional mark against him, just like I have said for Henin and others who people bring up that what if with. Also there is no reason to assume an automatic extension of dominance anyway when the younger McEnroe had clearly overtaken him as the best player in the World in 1981 (after seriously challenging Borg for that position in 1980).
 
Borg was still clearly the best player on red clay in 1981, and he had beaten McEnroe in early 1981 at the Masters (indoors, huge tourney, in effect the 4th most important tourney at the time), while McEnroe had outperformed him on grass and on hard courts in 1981. That's not much separation. Borg was still the best on clay, and you could argue that McEnroe was better than him on hard courts and grass courts that year.

Yet, look what happened at the 1982 Wimbledon final. Connors, who Borg did very well against, took the title from McEnroe didn't he? Connors won in 5 sets, to claim a second Wimbledon title. Then Connors claimed the US Open title in 1982 as well. So had Connors clearly "overtaken" McEnroe by then and become the "new" best player, after Borg, and THEN McEnroe? No. The fact is that in 1981, you had three all time great players fighting it out, and Lendl was on the move towards the top. A very tough top 4, that was tougher than today's top 4. So, you now had Borg, Connors, and now McEnroe joining them at the top of the Game. Borg was not somehow "gone off the radar", far from it. Yes, he lost 2 GS finals, but he also left the Game as the reigning FO champ, the Masters champion (indoors, New York) and a finalist at both the US Open and Wimbledon, at 25 years of age.

Some try and downplay red clay and the French Open, but Borg was clearly a more versatile player than Sampras. Federer and Laver also have greater surface versatility than Sampras. Of the three on red clay, Borg is head and shoulders above Sampras, and far ahead of Federer as well. The FO is a very important Slam and requires a much different skill set than any of the other Slams.

As far as 1977, you had the player boycott of the FO (Borg and others skipped it), but he repeated at Wimbledon, and had to retire against Stockton at the US Open due to an injury. The rankings at that time were very strange at the time, but many considered him to be the top player then, not Connors (who he beat in 5 sets in the Wimbledon Final). So, he was a dominant player in 1977, as he had a very high total winning % (as he did every year actually).

Also, note the bad losses above for Federer, Sampras, and Borg. That also counts in terms of overall performance, not just titles at Wimbledon and/or the US Open. Then, why should clay results be downplayed? Clay tests a player in ways the fast surfaces do not. It is a very important surface, though many seem to want to downplay it.

When trying to analyze these Greats, these are all factors, not just the recent "Slam count" focus. The point about Emerson is apt. Is Emerson greater than McEnroe and Connors? If not, why isn't he? I know there were amateurs/pros when he won many of his titles, but the point is that you have to look a little bit deeper than purely total Slam Count. Even Connors and McEnroe, rarely played the AO, though Connors did win it once. Plus, they had to face 2 other all time Greats through 1981, and then each other, plus Wilander and Lendl from 1982 onwards.

Pure Slam counts, are an easy metric, especially if a player has bad clay court results. You can't be the best player ever if you can't even threaten the field on clay. Laver, Borg, and now Federer were either great or very good clay courters. Sampras was not, which in my opinion, puts him fourth on my list. On fast surfaces, the guy was Great, no doubt about it. Yet, so were the other three, Laver, Borg, and Federer. Sampras is a great player though, with very few being his equal. In this group though, it's tough going all the way around, when trying to compare them.
 
Last edited:

TheFifthSet

Legend
Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton
(retired in 1977 due to shoulder injury), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Roger Federer:

US Open:
J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S. Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.

That really is a bit unfair, IMO. Sampras had a very noticeable decine period near the end of his career whereas Borg was still a top 3 player when he retired.
 
^^Well, TheFifthSet take out the late career losses then, for Sampras then. Yet, shouldn't the early losses for Federer and Sampras play a factor? We always only think about all these "wins" for the top guys, but for any player, bad losses, and not just the losses to other Greats, should be considered as well. This tends to be forgotten.

I mentioned that yes, Borg was 25, and he was a solid #2 when he retired, and FO champ, so he did not have that "normal decline" by say 29-30 or so, but there are some wild losses in there, primarily for Sampras and Federer at these 3 Slams. So, if Borg is going to be criticized heavily for his losses to Connors and McEnroe in GS Finals, shouldn't Sampras and Federer have their losses also closely examined, along with Borg to make a comparison? It's just information, in black and white, so one should look at it and analyze each loss really. My point is that even through age 25, when looking at the three of them, Borg's record was very impressive.

Borg may have had bad losses from say 25-29, or 25-31 too, but he had a remarkable quick climb to the top and if you say he is "missing bad losses" because he had no late career, then one should also acknowledge that he also did so much in a short span of years, mainly 18-25, since he won his first FO at 18, and then his first Wimbledon at 20. You can't have one without the other, that is also "not fair", in my opinion.
 
Borg was still clearly the best player on red clay in 1981, and he had beaten McEnroe in early 1981 at the Masters (indoors, huge tourney, in effect the 4th most important tourney at the time), while McEnroe had outperformed him on grass and on hard courts in 1981. That's not much separation. Borg was still the best on clay, and you could argue that McEnroe was better than him on hard courts and grass courts that year.

Yet, look what happened at the 1982 Wimbledon final. Connors, who Borg did very well against, took the title from McEnroe didn't he? Connors won in 5 sets, to claim a second Wimbledon title. Then Connors claimed the US Open title in 1982 as well. So had Connors clearly "overtaken" McEnroe by then and become the "new" best player, after Borg, and THEN McEnroe? No. The fact is that in 1981, you had three all time great players fighting it out, and Lendl was on the move towards the top. A very tough top 4, that was tougher than today's top 4. So, you now had Borg, Connors, and now McEnroe joining them at the top of the Game. Borg was not somehow "gone off the radar", far from it. Yes, he lost 2 GS finals, but he also left the Game as the reigning FO champ, the Masters champion (indoors, New York) and a finalist at both the US Open and Wimbledon, at 25 years of age.

Some try and downplay red clay and the French Open, but Borg was clearly a more versatile player than Sampras. Federer and Laver also have greater surface versatility than Sampras. Of the three on red clay, Borg is head and shoulders above Sampras, and far ahead of Federer as well. The FO is a very important Slam and requires a much different skill set than any of the other Slams.

As far as 1977, you had the player boycott of the FO (Borg and others skipped it), but he repeated at Wimbledon, and had to retire against Stockton at the US Open due to an injury. The rankings at that time were very strange at the time, but many considered him to be the top player then, not Connors (who he beat in 5 sets in the Wimbledon Final). So, he was a dominant player in 1977, as he had a very high total winning % (as he did every year actually).

Also, note the bad losses above for Federer, Sampras, and Borg. That also counts in terms of overall performance, not just titles at Wimbledon and/or the US Open. Then, why should clay results be downplayed? Clay tests a player in ways the fast surfaces do not. It is a very important surface, though many seem to want to downplay it.

When trying to analyze these Greats, these are all factors, not just the recent "Slam count" focus. The point about Emerson is apt. Is Emerson greater than McEnroe and Connors? If not, why isn't he? I know there were amateurs/pros when he won many of his titles, but the point is that you have to look a little bit deeper than purely total Slam Count. Even Connors and McEnroe, rarely played the AO, though Connors did win it once. Plus, they had to face 2 other all time Greats through 1981, and then each other, plus Wilander and Lendl from 1982 onwards.

Pure Slam counts, are an easy metric, especially if a player has bad clay court results. You can't be the best player ever if you can't even threaten the field on clay. Laver, Borg, and now Federer were either great or very good clay courters. Sampras was not, which in my opinion, puts him fourth on my list. On fast surfaces, the guy was Great, no doubt about it. Yet, so were the other three, Laver, Borg, and Federer. Sampras is a great player though, with very few being his equal. In this group though, it's tough going all the way around, when trying to compare them.

You can't really objectively say that Borg is far ahead of Fed on clay, at least in terms of ability. If it wasn't for Nadal (who is arguably better on clay than Borg), Fed would probably have 5 Frenches by now, just 1 fewer than Borg. And remember that Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed, especially on clay, largely due to his extremely heavy LEFTY fh. If Nadal were a righty, Fed would not have nearly as much trouble with Nadal, although they still probably would have great matches.

Can you objectively say that Borg was better on clay than Fed? Of course. Can you say that he was a LOT better? No.

Federer is now 2-9 against Nadal on clay, even with the bad matchup issues. If prime Fed were to play 11 clay matches against prime Borg, I think it's almost certain that Fed would win more than 2 matches, although Borg might still win the majority. In any case, I don't think there's any way Borg would dominate Fed on clay the way Nadal does.
 
Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton
(retired in 1977 due to shoulder injury), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Roger Federer:

US Open:
J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S. Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.

Fed's list is definitely misleading. Since he became #1 in 2004, he's only lost to THREE players among the US, Wimby, and French: Nadal, Delpo, and Kuerten. And all three players, of course, range from excellent (Delpo, for now) to all-time great.

Borg's list is amazing as well. Sampras is really the outlier here :)
 

1Sampras

New User
Laver and Borg are imo, debatable for being equal at best with Roger. Sampras has no business for qualifying for GOAT status as compared to Roger for these reasons:

1) Even Pete himself said he never completely dominated the field the way Roger did from 04-07.

2) Pete was by and large ineffectual on clay which proves ...

3) Pete's ground game was not as good or as versatile as Roger's. When Pete's serve was rendered less effective on the slower courts he wasnt nearly the unbeatable force he was on HC/Grass. Roger's complete all court surface domination was stopped by a man who was seemingly tailor-made by the Tennis Gods to keep him from utter domination.

4) IMHO, Ive watched the prime of Pete's and Roger's careers. I had never seen a shotmaker like Roger til well...Roger. When Pete retired I though't Id never see his like again in 20-30 yrs. Roger blew that out of the water in less than 5.

5) Roger has the FO title, Pete doesnt.

6)Even tho it's been argued ad nauseum....the 'weak era' theory. Most by now concede that a) the great hangovers from the 80's(Edberg, Becker, etc) were on the decline when Pete started to dominate the field( '93-98 ). b) Yes there were more clay court specialists when Pete was around, but as he was not much of a factor on clay, it hardly matters c) Nadal > all those clay court specialists of Pete's day d) I do not believe Chang, Courier, , Kafelnikov Rios, etc were *light years* better than Hewitt, Safin, Haas, Roddick etc e) Since '04 in the GS, Roger either won them or lost to the eventual winner, if that isnt dominant consistency I dont know what is

7) 16 GS and counting...

Sampras could take Federer or anyone out of their comfort zone. He would not allow Federer to hit those spectacular shots by overwhelming him with pace and mixing up his shots and figuring out what works and what doesn't work. Pete was great at figuring out his opponents and raising his game when needed. Court speeds now a days are all similar and players are very similar. Sampras won a famous davis cup match on clay and was not a bad clay court player either. I think we all can measure Federer and Sampras based on the wimbledon match and the exos we saw how very close they were and pete winning one and nearly 2 matches. Wimbledon would be the best measure of the 2 head to head but that was only one match and Pete didnt play as well as he did in previous wimbledons.1999 for example he moved better and his backhand was working better. I thought Federer played the match of his life and Sampras did very well to earn a break point chance to serve out the match. He had a good look at the pass just didnt hit it well enough. They were 10 years apart.
 

1Sampras

New User
LOL, how anyone wants to claim that Federer can't attack is beyond me. One might as well claim that Sampras couldn't serve.

And bringing Safin into the discussion doesn't make sense either. It was Sampras who got schooled very badly in that US Open final 10 years ago, Federer on the other hand has a good records against him. Only one of Safin's best ever performances was good enough to win a big match against Federer, and he still faced match-point.
Federer can attack yes but obviously not enough to beat Nadal
He can do everything well but sampras was better at attacking and taking a player out of his comfort zone. Petes defense is underrated. He isnt too far behind Federer in that department. Yeah safin schooled Sampras in the 2000 us open final but notice what happened next year in the semis. REVENGE Sampras took Safin to school by adjusting his strategy a bit and Safin was playing very very well again. Federer is the same each time always playing the same game and thats why he cant beat Nadal. he just cant adjust and lets Nadal control the points for the majority. I guarantee sampras wouldnt have continued to lose to the same player in back to back big matches. I can name several matches where Pete overcame his rivals in grand slam play.
 

dropshot winner

Hall of Fame
Sampras could take Federer or anyone out of their comfort zone. He would not allow Federer to hit those spectacular shots by overwhelming him with pace and mixing up his shots and figuring out what works and what doesn't work. Pete was great at figuring out his opponents and raising his game when needed. Court speeds now a days are all similar and players are very similar. Sampras won a famous davis cup match on clay and was not a bad clay court player either. I think we all can measure Federer and Sampras based on the wimbledon match and the exos we saw how very close they were and pete winning one and nearly 2 matches. Wimbledon would be the best measure of the 2 head to head but that was only one match and Pete didnt play as well as he did in previous wimbledons.1999 for example he moved better and his backhand was working better. I thought Federer played the match of his life and Sampras did very well to earn a break point chance to serve out the match. He had a good look at the pass just didnt hit it well enough. They were 10 years apart.

Countering Federer's game with pace has not worked well historically. What you need is either heavy spin and/or amazing defense. Pace is exactly what allows Federer to hit those amazing shots with his backhand, when he only has to redirect the ball instead of generating all the pace on his own.

I agree that Sampras was not at his career-best in his match against Federer (although he was serving as good as he ever has), but neither was Federer.
The exibitions on the other hand are completely meaningless.
 

dropshot winner

Hall of Fame
Federer can attack yes but obviously not enough to beat Nadal
He can do everything well but sampras was better at attacking and taking a player out of his comfort zone. Petes defense is underrated. He isnt too far behind Federer in that department. Yeah safin schooled Sampras in the 2000 us open final but notice what happened next year in the semis. REVENGE Sampras took Safin to school by adjusting his strategy a bit and Safin was playing very very well again. Federer is the same each time always playing the same game and thats why he cant beat Nadal. he just cant adjust and lets Nadal control the points for the majority. I guarantee sampras wouldnt have continued to lose to the same player in back to back big matches. I can name several matches where Pete overcame his rivals in grand slam play.

Federer can't hit backhand winners from shoulder height balls with extreme topspin. Almost no one can do this except maybe Kuerten, who had a lot more extreme grip suited for those kind of shots. No idea how that translates into "Federer can't attack".

Sampras would struggle in similiar fashion, probably even more so on the backhand side. Get yourself the 97 Miami match between Bruguera and Sampras if you don't believe it.
In those days the surface was faster than it is now, and Sampras still struggled a lot with the spin to his backhand. Bruguera obviously isn't nearly as good as Nadal on hardcourt.

I wouldn't call the 2001 match at the US Open a schooling. It was a good and convincing win for Sampras, but both had almost the same amount of breakpoints (3 to 4), the difference was that Safin converted none while Sampras converted twice.
Not to mention that Sampras got crushed by Hewitt in his very next match (where was his offense there?).
 
Last edited:

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
Sampras could take Federer or anyone out of their comfort zone. He would not allow Federer to hit those spectacular shots by overwhelming him with pace and mixing up his shots and figuring out what works and what doesn't work. Pete was great at figuring out his opponents and raising his game when needed. Court speeds now a days are all similar and players are very similar. Sampras won a famous davis cup match on clay and was not a bad clay court player either. I think we all can measure Federer and Sampras based on the wimbledon match and the exos we saw how very close they were and pete winning one and nearly 2 matches. Wimbledon would be the best measure of the 2 head to head but that was only one match and Pete didnt play as well as he did in previous wimbledons.1999 for example he moved better and his backhand was working better. I thought Federer played the match of his life and Sampras did very well to earn a break point chance to serve out the match. He had a good look at the pass just didnt hit it well enough. They were 10 years apart.

Bull. Fed played the match of his life ? He was at least 3 years away from his prime. If that match showed you anything, it was that baby-Fed with all his mental issues, and a game that was not mature, took out Sampras who had one of his best serving days in any Grand-Slam. One or two points here ? Sure -- one or two points in 3 matches here and there and Fed would have been 10-10 against Nadal.

Sampras was the best player of his time -- he has serious issues on clay and that will remain a blemish, no matter what the ****s say.

Fed is the best player of his time -- and his H2H with Nadal will remain a blemish - no matter what the ****s say.

I don't expect ****s to see sense, but the amount of nonsense that gets written in these forums is ridiculous.
 

davey25

Banned
Can you objectively say that Borg was better on clay than Fed? Of course. Can you say that he was a LOT better? No.

While borg number one is clearly a delusional Borg fanatic (and Federer hater given his comments in other threads) your statement here is just wrong. Borg was far superior to Federer on clay without doubt.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Federer can attack yes but obviously not enough to beat Nadal
He can do everything well but sampras was better at attacking and taking a player out of his comfort zone.

as if sampras' BH would've held up against nadal on the slower surfaces of today !

Petes defense is underrated. He isnt too far behind Federer in that department.

umm, not even close !

Yeah safin schooled Sampras in the 2000 us open final but notice what happened next year in the semis. REVENGE Sampras took Safin to school by adjusting his strategy a bit and Safin was playing very very well again.

safin was playing garbage in 2001 US Open and had struggled to reach the semis actually. BTW safin again beat sampras in Aussie Open 2002

Federer is the same each time always playing the same game and thats why he cant beat Nadal. he just cant adjust and lets Nadal control the points for the majority. I guarantee sampras wouldnt have continued to lose to the same player in back to back big matches. I can name several matches where Pete overcame his rivals in grand slam play.

pete faced no one in his prime who was threatning to him match-up wise and consistently doing well in the slams ( ala krajicek,stich, safin ) and mentally strong (ala hewitt )

federer has tried different strategies against nadal, its just that nadal is a bad match-up for him + more than half of their matches have been on clay ....
 
Last edited:
While borg number one is clearly a delusional Borg fanatic (and Federer hater given his comments in other threads) your statement here is just wrong. Borg was far superior to Federer on clay without doubt.

Exactly. Borg was superior to both Federer and definitely Sampras on clay.

Yet, if you want to focus on "bad matchups", I could say, well, McEnroe was a "bad matchup" for Borg, though his head to head was even with him and they never played on clay.

Also, I could say, Borg would have won US Open titles, the Grand Slam and more Wimbledon titles, etc., so the Nadal argument should not be used to bolster Federer's clay court results either. There's no guarantee that Federer would have won the 4 FO finals that he lost versus Nadal, but he may have very well added more FO titles.

I am a Borg fan (short for fanatic), but so are most other posters here. They are either Federer or Sampras fans. The losses I pointed out are fact, and not "delusional". Borg outperformed both Federer and Sampras in the early portion of their careers. That's just a fact, and should be recognized, especially if one wants to downplay his dearth of truly "bad losses".

This gets glossed over, but it's why his winning percentage is so high (better than either Federer's or Sampras'). If one assumes that he would have had more "bad losses" in later years that's possible, but then one also has to acknowledge that he achieved so much very quickly and may have won even more later in his career. Both scenarios are possible, not only one.

As far as me being a "fed hater", sorry, it's not that easy. I love Federer's game, but I also love Nadal's game. Feel free to reference any information that shows that I am a "Fed Hater". Where's your evidence of that? Or is that something you are wrongly assuming? You're VERY WRONG about that.

Are you a Borg hater? I very much doubt it. These are just great players and overall very good people and nice guys, ALL OF THEM. Why should there be animosity as to these players that give so much to the Game, including Nadal?

So, I'm not going to say that anyone "hates Borg". Hate is a very strong word. I don't "hate" anyone. I love Tennis, that's the bottom line, and I simply recognize that this Game is not just about Roger Federer.
There are Greats that came before him,and there will be Greats after him. Why some Federer fans get so irritated when others speak highly of other players BESIDES FEDERER is a real mystery, because it does not diminish Federer. It's not a zero sum game. There's plenty of praise to go around for all these players, so let's take that approach.

Yet, he is undoubtedly in the "top tier" of all time Greats and his Game is splendid, but I also acknowledge how great Laver, Sampras, and Borg were. You have to be able to praise and criticize all these players if you are trying to objectively dig deep and go past a "surface analysis" of only looking at Sampras and Federer's total Slam counts. Doing so, does not take into account several aspects of the careers of both Laver and Borg, as has been previously discussed (not an "apples to apples comparison". Personally, I do think it's very hard to separate these 4. They each have strengths and weaknesses.

Pointing that out does not make me a "Fed Hater". You definition of a "Fed Hater" seems to be someone that criticizes Federer in any way. That's easy, but it won't work, especially when there is no truth to it. I have greatly admired him and his Game ever since he came on the scene.

I want more great matches between Nadal an Federer, because it'll be good for Tennis. One must ask, why does it seem many Federer "fans" don't want that? Are they Nadal haters then? Or, are they wary of Federer being pressed by the one player in recent years that has had great results versus Federer? Anyway, we'll know more later in terms of Nadal vs. Federer and how that'll play out this season, and hopefully both Nadal and Federer will be in great form starting at the FO.
 
Last edited:

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
As far as me being a "fed hater", sorry, it's not that easy. I love Federer's game, but I also love Nadal's game. Feel free to reference any information that shows that I am a "Fed Hater". Are you a Borg hater? Probably not. So, I'm not going to say that. Hate is a very strong word. I don't "hate" anyone. I love Tennis, that's the bottom line, and I simply recognize that this Game is not just about Roger Federer. There are Greats that came before him,and there will be Greats after him. Yet, he is undoubtedly in the "top tier" of all time Greats and his Game is splendid, but I also acknowledge how great Laver, Sampras, and Borg were. You have to be able to praise and criticize all these players if you are trying to objectively did deep and go past a "surface analysis" of only looking at Sampras and Federer's total Slam counts. Doing so, does not take into account several aspects of the careers of both Laver and Sampras, as has been discussed. Personally, I do think it's very hard to separate these 4. They each have strengths and weaknesses.

.
I admire your attitude.I've said before your posts make me want to learn more about Borg.Of course my dad himself was a Borg fan so part of it comes from there as well.Its good to have posters like you around,actually.
:wink:
 
I admire your attitude.I've said before your posts make me want to learn more about Borg.Of course my dad himself was a Borg fan so part of it comes from there as well.Its good to have posters like you around,actually.
:wink:

Thanks Mandy01, I appreciate that very much. If some of my posts have made you want to learn more about Borg, then my work here is done. That's all I ask. Don't throw these Guys away without really trying to understand their careers in FULL CONTEXT. As for me being a Borg fan, yes, I am very passionate about his impact on the Game. I owe him that much, because he changed the Game forever, as has these other Greats. Yet, yes, I acknowledge that I am zealous in my defense of him, because I truly believe many of the criticisms of him are a but unwarranted and over the top. All he did was give his all to the Game from the time he was a teenager and then he won so much, and stayed a true Gentleman on the Court and off of it really. He then struggled when he no longer had the Game to focus on.

He gave so much, so folks should not quickly criticize him for not giving even more to the Game and fall back on certain "stereotypes/assumptions" especially if they didn't follow his career closely. "Don't believe the Hype" always. Do your own thinking about each of these players and draw your own conclusions, because it's really not as simple as many would make it out to be. None of these players is head and shoulders above ALL the others, for various reasons. Just look at Laver for starters. Amazing. Then Borg, also AMAZING. Sampras? Unbelievable player. Now Federer, also "out of this world"!

Borg's choice to leave early was his choice to make, but that shouldn't somehow taint all his accomplishments through age 25. He worked his behind off on the Court from his early teens until age 25 and all he knew really was excellence, and that's all he would ever stand for, much like Laver, Sampras, and Federer. Thanks for recognizing that I actually LOVE all these players. They are each splendid in their own way.
 
Last edited:

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
While borg number one is clearly a delusional Borg fanatic (and Federer hater given his comments in other threads) your statement here is just wrong. Borg was far superior to Federer on clay without doubt.

I'd take borg number_one's post over yours any day. His posts are informed and balanced most of the time. Yes, he leans towards Borg, but IMHO that's better than leaning towards Sampras.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Exactly. Borg was superior to both Federer and definitely Sampras on clay.

Yet, if you want to focus on "bad matchups", I could say, well, McEnroe was a "bad matchup" for Borg, though his head to head was even with him and they never played on clay.

It is a good point however the rivalry was seemingly going Mcenroe's way(beat Borg at Wimbledon and USO and became new #1,was riding on a 3 slam final win streak against Borg,right?)when Borg retired so he might have still become a Nadal like player for Borg if their rivalry wasn't cut short then.

Also, I could say, Borg would have won US Open and more Wimbledon titles, etc., so the Nadal argument should not be used to bolster Federer's clay court results either. There's no guarantee that Federer would have won the 4 FO finals that he lost versus Nadal, but he may have very well added more FO titles.

With this I agree completely.Nadal was the opposition Fed needed to beat at FO in 2005,2006,2007 and 2008 in order to get the title and Fed failed to overome that obstacle so he deservingly didn't get the title in those years.

However the same applies when Fed finally got the FO title in 2009,that time Nadal wasn't good enough to be an obstacle and Fed took his opportunity and won it against whomever was in front of him.

Following the same logic that Fed's clay legacy shouldn't be bolstered by the fact that he lost to Nadal 4 times at FO so too his clay legacy should not be denigrated and asterisk be put next to his FO title because he beat Soderling or whomever to win it.That's my opinion atleast.

I am a Borg fan (short for fanatic), but so are most other posters here. They are either Federer or Sampras fans. The losses I pointed out are fact, and not "delusional". Borg outperformed both Federer and Sampras in the early portion of their careers. That's just a fact, if one wants to downplay his dearth of truly "bad losses". This gets glosses over, but it's why his winning percentage is so high (better than either Federer's or Sampras'). If one assumes that he would have had more "bad losses" in later years that's possible, but then one also has to acknowledge that he achieved so much very quickly.

Agree completely,especially with the bolded part.

You definition of a "Fed Hater" seems to be someone that criticizes Federer in any way. That's easy, but it won't work, especially when there is no truth to it. I have greatly admired him and his Game ever since he came on the scene.

Not that I agree with Davey that you're a Fed hater but bolded is not true either as Davey himself still puts Sampras over Fed despite Fed eclipsing many/most Pete's records from what I've seen.

I want more great matches between Nadal an Federer, because it'll be good for Tennis. One must ask, why does it seem many Federer "fans" don't want that?

Great matches? You can scratch another RG meeting between Fed and Nadal then off your wish list then because their RG matches don't really fall into that group.Heck the ever so ridiculed(not by me,I respect him for various reasons)Roddick pushed Fed more in Wimbledon than Fed ever did Nadal on RG clay.

Their Wimbledon matches were great,no question about it so I wouldn't mind another Wimbledon final.HC slam matches? Not enough samples,would be nice to see them square off at USO for once though,play on Nadal's worst surface for a change.

As for why some(you could say most I guess)Federer fans do not want him to face Nadal? The answer is very simple,because Nadal owns Fed.They know if Fed meets Nadal in a slam he has very little chance of winning.Same reason Roddick fans want him to avoid Fed if possible so he can shed that one slam wonder label,Nadal fans want him to avoid Delpo/Novak/Kolja/Sod on HC etc

As for what will be good for tennis and that "true" tennis fans want another Fed-Nadal slam final,I'm getting a little tired of that shtick.If I for example primarily want Kolja,Nalbo or Cilic to win a slam it doesn't make me any less of a tennis fan than someone who wants to see Nadal's beatdown of Fed at RG #5.

Heck many so called true tennis who want another Fed-Nadal final want that precisely because Rafa has the best chance out of anyone to stop Fed from piling up slams rather because some grand tennis involved.
 
It is a good point however the rivalry was seemingly going Mcenroe's way(beat Borg at Wimbledon and USO and became new #1,was riding on a 3 slam final win streak against Borg,right?)when Borg retired so he might have still become a Nadal like player for Borg if their rivalry wasn't cut short then.



With this I agree completely.Nadal was the opposition Fed needed to beat at FO in 2005,2006,2007 and 2008 in order to get the title and Fed failed to overome that obstacle so he deservingly didn't get the title in those years.

However the same applies when Fed finally got the FO title in 2009,that time Nadal wasn't good enough to be an obstacle and Fed took his opportunity and won it against whomever was in front of him.

Following the same logic that Fed's clay legacy shouldn't be bolstered by the fact that he lost to Nadal 4 times at FO so too his clay legacy should not be denigrated and asterisk be put next to his FO title because he beat Soderling or whomever to win it.That's my opinion atleast.



Agree completely,especially with the bolded part.



Not that I agree with Davey that you're a Fed hater but bolded is not true either as Davey himself still puts Sampras over Fed despite Fed eclipsing many/most Pete's records from what I've seen.



Great matches? You can scratch another RG meeting between Fed and Nadal then off your wish list then because their RG matches don't really fall into that group.Heck the ever so ridiculed(not by me,I respect him for various reasons)Roddick pushed Fed more in Wimbledon than Fed ever did Nadal on RG clay.

Their Wimbledon matches were great,no question about it so I wouldn't mind another Wimbledon final.HC slam matches? Not enough samples,would be nice to see them square off at USO for once though,play on Nadal's worst surface for a change.

As for why some(you could say most I guess)Federer fans do not want him to face Nadal? The answer is very simple,because Nadal owns Fed.They know if Fed meets Nadal in a slam he has very little chance of winning.Same reason Roddick fans want him to avoid Fed if possible so he can shed that one slam wonder label,Nadal fans want him to avoid Delpo/Novak/Kolja/Sod on HC etc

As for what will be good for tennis and that "true" tennis fans want another Fed-Nadal slam final,I'm getting a little tired of that shtick.If I for example primarily want Kolja,Nalbo or Cilic to win a slam it doesn't make me any less of a tennis fan than someone who wants to see Nadal's beatdown of Fed at RG #5.

Heck many so called true tennis who want another Fed-Nadal final want that precisely because Rafa has the best chance out of anyone to stop Fed from piling up slams rather because some grand tennis involved.

Good analysis Zagor. I agree almost completely with all of this. As as aside, TW Poster Borgforever has uploaded footage of Borg-Connors from the 1981 US Open (straight set semifinal win). This footage dispels two "myths". Remember Jimmy Connors won Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. The first myth is that Borg was "on the decline" or "washed up" by 1981, though only 25. The second myth was that he really "was not a good hard court player". Check this out and don't forget the racquets.

TW Poster Borgforever will upload Part 2 in a few weeks, and I thank him again for providing this. See Borg when he has in that "zone":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUb8m6-lH0

Note 2 things that Borgforever points out on the YouTube Upload:

Not only did Connors win Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. Yet, Connors won ALL his matches versus McEnroe in 1981, and guess what? Lendl was 4-0 versus McEnroe in 1981. So, it's just not true that McEnroe was head and shoulders above Connors, Borg, or Lendl. It was a 4 man race by 1981, with Borg right in the thick of things, with him and McEnroe at the very top.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
It is a good point however the rivalry was seemingly going Mcenroe's way(beat Borg at Wimbledon and USO and became new #1,was riding on a 3 slam final win streak against Borg,right?)when Borg retired so he might have still become a Nadal like player for Borg if their rivalry wasn't cut short then.

This ...Borg quitting is the only reason I can't put him above sampras. It hurt him in 2 ways : longevity and earned him the tag of a 'quitter' ( even though in his playing years, he was one of the , if not the most, mentally toughest players ) . Otherwise his achievements/play impresses me more than that of sampras
 
This ...Borg quitting is the only reason I can't put him above sampras. It hurt him in 2 ways : longevity and earned him the tag of a 'quitter' ( even though in his playing years, he was one of the , if not the most, mentally toughest players ) . Otherwise his achievements/play impresses me more than that of sampras

Very true, that "tag" has caused him to be docked "points" so to speak. Unfairly or not, that is true. It's as if the Tennis Community said, "how dare you walk away from the Game" when you were so good? The guy was a "rebel", no doubt about it, and he basically told the Tour, I've had enough, if you won't let me even cut back my schedule a bit at least for a year or so (they were insisting on at least 10 official tourneys for all players, especially because players like Borg were playing a lot of very high $ exhibitions as well as official ATP tourneys.)
 
Top