Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?

L

Leto

Semi-Pro
Russeljones said:
Borg failed to win the USO or AO in any year between 76 and 81. There's no excuse. End of the day we draw the line and find Nadal stands above Borg.
Click to expand...

Borg didn't play the AO from 76 to 81, so "failed" is a pretty strong and almost hostile word to apply in that context, but perfectly reasonable for the USO.

As has been pointed out already numerous times, the AO didn't mean much back in Borg's day, while the YEC's meant a lot more than they do today.

The way I see it, Borg's 3 YEC's are "almost" equivalent to winning 3 AO's in today's era. At the very least, his 3 YEC's offset Rafa's single AO title. But his failure to win the USO is a definite mark against him.

All things considered, I still pick Borg over Rafa, but it's pretty close and I'm pretty sure Rafa will surpass him, in my books, before all is said and done. If it weren't for Rafa's knees, I'd put money on Rafa challenging Laver/Fed for GOAThood. But now it's impossible to say. From my viewpoint, he'll surpass Borg either way, but whether he can topple Samrpas remains to be seen...
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Leto said:
Borg didn't play the AO from 76 to 81, so "failed" is a pretty strong and almost hostile word to apply in that context, but perfectly reasonable for the USO.

As has been pointed out already numerous times, the AO didn't mean much back in Borg's day, while the YEC's meant a lot more than they do today.

The way I see it, Borg's 3 YEC's are "almost" equivalent to winning 3 AO's in today's era. At the very least, his 3 YEC's offset Rafa's single AO title. But his failure to win the USO is a definite mark against him.

All things considered, I still pick Borg over Rafa, but it's pretty close and I'm pretty sure Rafa will surpass him, in my books, before all is said and done. If it weren't for Rafa's knees, I'd put money on Rafa challenging Laver/Fed for GOAThood. But now it's impossible to say. From my viewpoint, he'll surpass Borg either way, but whether he can topple Samrpas remains to be seen...
Click to expand...

Fair comment.
 
T

timnz

Legend
nereis said:
The Australian Open of 2012 is not the Australian Open of 1976. It was equivalent to Queens or Halle and served mainly as the proving grounds for Australian players.

Hence, not an apples to apples comparison.

Borg played exactly one Australian Open in his life, where as Nadal has played eight.

Moreover, Nadal is not the undisputed best player of his era.

Borg dominated the latter half of the 1970s and won the majority of the majors over his rivals and was only stopped at the US Open, where for sponsorship reasons he used an entirely different racquet.
Click to expand...

I dont think nadal achievements at the us open are that much better than borgs.in fact i think you could argue the opposite. Since borg made the top 10 he was in 8 us opens. In 1980 he only lost by the skin of his teeth. He made 4 us open finals. Nadal has been in seven us openS (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.

Re. Australian open, everybody knows that borg didnt take it seriously, hence that is why he only played it once when he was 17. The wct finals was the 4th major for most of the 70s and the masters was the 4th major in the early 80s. Borg got 3 of these tournaments. Hence a realistic equivalency is that borg is on 14 majors and nadal on 11.
 
Last edited:
L

Leto

Semi-Pro
Russeljones said:
I understand the conflicting weight some players give the Olympics (particularly those who have won it as opposed to those who haven't) but when comparing achievemtns we can't close our eyes to trends (if you like) in certain athletes' careers. Nadal set out to win everything humanly possible. Why should we in retrospect denigrate his achievements because an equally amazing and probably infinately more charming athlete chose not to compete at the Australian Open? All I am saying is we should respect Nadal for the sacrifices he has made and the boxes he has ticked. I am well aware of the respetive tournaments' standing at the time. I am not pretending Borg could have won the Olympics. I am saying that it's crazy not to mention the Olympics when its an adornment on an already exquisite and rare achievement - the career slam.
Click to expand...

You can mention the Olympics all you want, but you can't make all tennis fans agree that it's worth all that much at this point in time.

There is virtually unanimous agreement across the board, as to the value of the Slams, but a gazillion different opinions when it comes to the Olympics.

This recent era is really the first one that has seen a solid interest amongst the top players, yet my gut feel is that they'd all take winning a slam over winning an Olympic gold (unless cornered into having to say something patriotic, for love of country :)).

But either way, I think Rafa's Olympic Gold has potential significance when comparing him to his current peers and future players, but very limited significance when trying to compare him to earlier eras.

There was talk not so long ago about adding a 5th Official Grand Slam event in Asia. If that were to happen eventually, sometime after Fed or Rafa retired, would they be lesser players because, obviously, they would have never won it?
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Leto said:
You can mention the Olympics all you want, but you can't make all tennis fans agree that it's worth all that much at this point in time.

There is virtually unanimous agreement across the board, as to the value of the Slams, but a gazillion different opinions when it comes to the Olympics.

This recent era is really the first one that has seen a solid interest amongst the top players, yet my gut feel is that they'd all take winning a slam over winning an Olympic gold (unless cornered into having to say something patriotic, for love of country :)).

But either way, I think Rafa's Olympic Gold has potential significance when comparing him to his current peers and future players, but very limited significance when trying to compare him to earlier eras.

There was talk not so long ago about adding a 5th Official Grand Slam event in Asia. If that were to happen eventually, sometime after Fed or Rafa retired, would they be lesser players because, obviously, they would have never won it?
Click to expand...

No, but please don't try to belittle Nadal's USO and AO titles because Borg couldn't win one and couldn't be bothered with the other. As I said earlier, YECs are shiny badges on Borg's resume, but the 2 missing Slams are hard to compensate for.
 
C

CMM

Legend
timnz said:
Nadal has been in seven us openS (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.
Click to expand...
He won in 2010 and made the final in 2011.
 
T

timnz

Legend
nereis said:
The Australian Open of 2012 is not the Australian Open of 1976. It was equivalent to Queens or Halle and served mainly as the proving grounds for Australian players.

Hence, not an apples to apples comparison.

Borg played exactly one Australian Open in his life, where as Nadal has played eight.

Moreover, Nadal is not the undisputed best player of his era.

Borg dominated the latter half of the 1970s and won the majority of the majors over his rivals and was only stopped at the US Open, where for sponsorship reasons he used an entirely different racquet.
Click to expand...

I dont think nadal achievements at the us open are that much better than borgs.in fact i think you could argue the opposite. Since borg made the top 10 he was in 8 us open finals. In 1980 he only lost by the skin of his teeth. He made 4 us open finals. Nadal has been in seven us open finals (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.
 
L

Leto

Semi-Pro
Russeljones said:
No, but please don't try to belittle Nadal's USO and AO titles because Borg couldn't win one and couldn't be bothered with the other. As I said earlier, YECs are shiny badges on Borg's resume, but the 2 missing Slams are hard to compensate for.
Click to expand...

I don't belittle Rafa's AO or USO (or Olympic Gold) in any way shape or form!

Just saying that in context of Borg's day, the AO can be offset by Borg's YEC's, which were MORE than just a shiny badge back then. And the Olympic Gold just didn't exist, so let's compare it to something else perhaps, such as the number of indoor titles Borg won? But no need to go there unless you really want to dig into the details of all of the things that have changed in importance, since the 70's versus today.

But for the USO, this is an indisputable achievement that Rafa has over Borg, NO MATTER HOW MANY FINALS Borg made it too, or how close he got to actually winning one.
 
T

timnz

Legend
nereis said:
The Australian Open of 2012 is not the Australian Open of 1976. It was equivalent to Queens or Halle and served mainly as the proving grounds for Australian players.

Hence, not an apples to apples comparison.

Borg played exactly one Australian Open in his life, where as Nadal has played eight.

Moreover, Nadal is not the undisputed best player of his era.

Borg dominated the latter half of the 1970s and won the majority of the majors over his rivals and was only stopped at the US Open, where for sponsorship reasons he used an entirely different racquet.
Click to expand...

I dont think nadal achievements at the us open are that much better than borgs.in fact i think you could argue the opposite. Since borg made the top 10 he was in 8 us open finals. In 1980 he only lost by the skin of his teeth. He made 4 us open finals. Nadal has been in seven us open finals (did he play in 2008. - i cant remember) and made 1 final only, which he won. Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.
 
T

timnz

Legend
Russeljones said:
LOL! Are you kiki in disguise?
Click to expand...
Not at all. But we are two compare players from two different eras we need to understand what was the important tournaments of those eras. In borgs era every tennis historian will tell you that the australian open wasnt taken as seriously by alot of players compared to now. The wct finals in the 70s and themasters in the early 80s were regarded as defacto majors. So 14 is a reasonable figure for borg.
 
J

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
Best slowcourt player ever. 1 AO plexi, 2 W's slow grass, 7 FO's.

on fast courts, I rate him around Roddick and Hewitt.
 
T

tank_job

Banned
Borg and Nadal are equal cuz they have equal slams, duh.

When Nadal wins one more he will be greater than Borg.

Simple.
 
L

Leto

Semi-Pro
tank_job said:
Borg and Nadal are equal cuz they have equal slams, duh.

When Nadal wins one more he will be greater than Borg.

Simple.
Click to expand...

Maybe...maybe not. Time will tell.

And to make your life even more of a living hell, I don't think Rafa needs to actually win 14 slams, to overtake Pete.

Some folks already have Borg/Nadal ahead of Pete, even though I double-checked that 11 is less than 14 :shock:

Oh well, it's absolute lunacy in the first degree, but not everyone has a spreadsheet handy :)
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
tank_job said:
Borg and Nadal are equal cuz they have equal slams, duh.

When Nadal wins one more he will be greater than Borg.

Simple.
Click to expand...

You mean, if he wins one more, he will be greater than Borg or Laver, and will become the equal of Emerson? Wow! Sure looks like an efficient way of seeing things. ;)
 
Last edited:
M

MTF07

Semi-Pro
Leto said:
Maybe...maybe not. Time will tell.

And to make your life even more of a living hell, I don't think Rafa needs to actually win 14 slams, to overtake Pete.

Some folks already have Borg/Nadal ahead of Pete, even though I double-checked that 11 is less than 14 :shock:

Oh well, it's absolute lunacy in the first degree, but not everyone has a spreadsheet handy :)
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't Nadal need to win AT LEAST 14 slams to overtake Pete, when you consider Pete's considerable advantages in weeks at #1, WTF titles (5-0), and dominance at two majors, compared to dominance at one major?
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
MTF07 said:
Why wouldn't Nadal need to win AT LEAST 14 slams to overtake Pete, when you consider Pete's considerable advantages in weeks at #1, WTF titles (5-0), and dominance at two majors, compared to dominance at one major?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider Nadal greater than Pete even if he equals Pete's 14 majors. Nadal was never the dominant world #1 in his era. He spent most of his time at #2 despite the fact that he owns the world #1 of his generation(Federer). Nadal needs to prove a lot more in terms of dominance and consistency to hold the top spot.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
helloworld said:
I wouldn't consider Nadal greater than Pete even if he equals Pete's 14 majors. Nadal was never the dominant world #1 in his era. He spent most of his time at #2 despite the fact that he owns the world #1 of his generation(Federer). Nadal needs to prove a lot more in terms of dominance and consistency to hold the top spot.
Click to expand...

Of course he can't be the dominant #1 simply because he had Federer. It's easy for Pete because he had Agassi instead. Had Pete was playing along with Federer, he would be spending most of the time ranked #2. Now that Nadal has Nole to deal with, Pete didn't have anyone to challenge him. Clearly, Nadal was in a much tougher position than Pete.
 
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
BauerAlmeida said:
Agree with all this you mentioned. Specially that line, that is one of the reasons I think Borg is not only better than Nadal but also better than Sampras (and I think it could also be considered better than Federer, I don't think so, but I wouldn't think it's "wrong" if people think that).

Winning 6 Roland Garros titles (a record untill a month ago) and 5 Wimbledon in a row (record) during that time (toughest era, surfaces where really different) it's impressive. Besides a few of USO finals too.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

What Borg did on clay and grass was incredible. I have no doubt he would have won several AO titles if he had played more often and if it were looked at as an important event, and I also feel he was very unlucky to have Connors and McEnroe to deal with at the US Open. 2 of the Greatest US Open champs pretty much in the same era (the later years of connors and the earlier years of Mac fell into borg's heyday)
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
TMF said:
Of course he can't be the dominant #1 simply because he had Federer. It's easy for Pete because he had Agassi instead. Had Pete was playing along with Federer, he would be spending most of the time ranked #2. Now that Nadal has Nole to deal with, Pete didn't have anyone to challenge him. Clearly, Nadal was in a much tougher position than Pete.
Click to expand...

As much as I do not compare players from different eras, it is just plain foolish to assume that one player from one era will completely dominate the other. In this case, you are assuming that Federer will dominate Pete in the top spot without any proof. Do you have a time machine? Can you really predict something that will never happen? The answer is you can't, and to assume that you can is just plain irrational. Nadal spending most time at #2 though is the simple truth that diminish his legacy.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
abmk said:
I LOL'ed at placing borg in tier2. Actually he's better than your 'crush' Sampras in so many ways it isn't even funny .... One can easily argue Borg > Sampras ...
Click to expand...

Borg quit and took his ball and went home like a baby after Mac handed him his butt a ton of times. That counts against Borg IMO.

I'm not going to put someone on my tier list of greats who retired from the game at only 25-26 years old. Borg had a great career but the top tier guys pressed on and had success even into their 30s some cases 40s like Rosewall and Pancho.

Borg still has arguably a better career then Nadal because he maintained his #1 spot longer then Nadal can do.. But Nadal continues to press on and if Nadal can win some slams during his late 20s or even early 30s, to me that will put Nadal over Borg because of the longevity issue which I find very important.

Laver dominated into his 30s.. Pancho had success even into his 40s. Rosewall was hugely successful into his 30s and 40s. Sampras won slams 12 years apart which is insane. These guys all had success past their primes, while Borg QUITS!!
 
Last edited:
L

Leto

Semi-Pro
90's Clay said:
Borg quit and took his ball and went home like a baby after Mac handed him his butt a ton of times. That counts against Borg IMO.

I'm not going to put someone on my tier list of greats who retired from the game at only 25-26 years old. Borg had a great career but the top tier guys pressed on and had success even into their 30s some cases 40s like Rosewall and Pancho.

Borg still has arguably a better career then Nadal because he maintained his #1 spot longer then Nadal can do.. But Nadal continues to press on and if Nadal can win some slams during his late 20s or even early 30s, to me that will put Nadal over Borg because of the longevity issue which I find very important.

Laver dominated into his 30s.. Pancho had success even into his 40s. Rosewall was hugely successful into his 30s and 40s. Sampras won slams 12 years apart which is insane. These guys all had success past their primes, while Borg QUITS!!
Click to expand...

I don't hold Borg's early retirement against him, though understandable if some people do.

To me, his achievements are what really matter, and by retiring early, he will simply pay the price in a GOAT discussion because he lost the opportunity to achieve even more.

Nadal is the perfect case in point, as I too think Nadal will overtake him quite soon on a majority of people's lists.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
90's Clay said:
Borg quit and took his ball and went home like a baby after Mac handed him his butt a ton of times. That counts against Borg IMO.
Click to expand...

That is not the reason Borg retired. This myth that McEnroe "drove Borg into retirement" continues to persist.
 
N

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
I don't think it's fair to call Federer GOAT and then argue that Nadal's #2 (after Federer) in this era somehow diminishes his position against Borg.

The fact that we are arguing shows that Nadal and Borg are currently equal. However, Nadal is still active so by the end of his career I am sure he will surpass Borg to the same extent Federer will have surpassed Sampras.

He will have more majors, more Masters, AO and USO titles, clay GOAT status - all of that in Federer's era. I don't think Borg stands a chance.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
90's Clay said:
Borg quit and took his ball and went home like a baby after Mac handed him his butt a ton of times. That counts against Borg IMO.

I'm not going to put someone on my tier list of greats who retired from the game at only 25-26 years old. Borg had a great career but the top tier guys pressed on and had success even into their 30s some cases 40s like Rosewall and Pancho.

Borg still has arguably a better career then Nadal because he maintained his #1 spot longer then Nadal can do.. But Nadal continues to press on and if Nadal can win some slams during his late 20s or even early 30s, to me that will put Nadal over Borg because of the longevity issue which I find very important.

Laver dominated into his 30s.. Pancho had success even into his 40s. Rosewall was hugely successful into his 30s and 40s. Sampras won slams 12 years apart which is insane. These guys all had success past their primes, while Borg QUITS!!
Click to expand...

he is in his perfect right to quit when he wants to.He just won 6 FO, 5 Wimbledon IN A ROW (against all time great grass courters like Nastase,Connors and Mc Enroe), wins 2 back to back Masters beating, day in day out the world´s nº2,3,4,5 ( in 79) and the world´s nº2,3,4 ( in 80)...and you even criticize him¡¡¡¡
 
G

Gizo

Hall of Fame
It's interesting that in the preview to the Lendl-McEnroe US Open 1982 semi-final, when listing both players' major titles, their Masters and WCT titles were mentioned. Of course Lendl hadn't won any slam titles by that stage, but McEnroe's 2 WCT Finals titles and 1 Masters title at the time were listed alongside his 1 Wimbledon title and 3 US Open titles.

Just goes to show how big those tournaments were back then.

Borg, Connors and McEnroe had no-way to know during their careers then tennis would become far more grand-slam centric in later decades, and that their careers would be judged on new standards that didn't exist during their primes.
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
kiki said:
I am the real Kiki and Timinz has made a very good point - again-.He just happen to have been watching Borg when the swede was at his peak, something that you recent comers will never know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the generalisation. What we saw of Borg does not equate to what we've seen from Nadal. That's all.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Gizo said:
It's interesting that in the preview to the Lendl-McEnroe US Open 1982 semi-final, when listing both players' major titles, their Masters and WCT titles were mentioned. Of course Lendl hadn't won any slam titles by that stage, but McEnroe's 2 WCT Finals titles and 1 Masters title at the time were listed alongside his 1 Wimbledon title and 3 US Open titles.

Just goes to show how big those tournaments were back then.

Borg, Connors and McEnroe had no-way to know during their careers then tennis would become far more grand-slam centric in later decades, and that their careers would be judged on new standards that didn't exist during their primes.
Click to expand...

Completely right.Masters and WCT titles were far above AO in the 70´s and till the mid 80´s.Just to show how big tennis was back then.
 
MariaRafael

MariaRafael

Banned
Just fun reading all these posts where Nadal is placed lower than Borg and Sampras. Nadal has a career slam, neither of them do. Nadal is an Olympic champion. Neither of them are. Nadal wom more masters-equivalent tourneys than both of them taken together. How come they are more accomplished then Nadal? Wishful thinking and sour grapes in one bottle.
 
MariaRafael

MariaRafael

Banned
timnz said:
Dont know that 1 win in only 1 final is hugely better than 4 finals.
Borg got 3 of these tournaments. Hence a realistic equivalency is that borg is on 14 majors and nadal on 11.
Click to expand...

But of course you do know: four losses are much much better than one win. If you ask Borg to confirm it, he'll gradly exchange US Open title for four losses. He enjoyed them.

My favourite tournament is Monte Carlo. And it's big in Europe. I think I'll add 8 Rafa's MC titles, and let them be a 19 slam champ.
 
nadal_ownz_fedjok

nadal_ownz_fedjok

Banned
MariaRafael said:
But of course you do know: four losses are much much better than one win. If you ask Borg to confirm it, he'll gradly exchange US Open title for four losses. He enjoyed them.

My favourite tournament is Monte Carlo. And it's big in Europe. I think I'll add 8 Rafa's MC titles, and let them be a 19 slam champ.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, because its like the tennis gods asking Murray "do you mind if we substitute your finals losses for a slam title? Sorry to do this to you, I know you loved those finals losses", I mean can you imagine Murray's reaction?
 
The-Champ

The-Champ

Legend
Who cares where the world ranks Nadal. For me it's Pete and Rafa over everyone else. No nagging ******* can change that.
 
Zarfot Z

Zarfot Z

Professional
MariaRafael said:
But of course you do know: four losses are much much better than one win. If you ask Borg to confirm it, he'll gradly exchange US Open title for four losses. He enjoyed them.

My favourite tournament is Monte Carlo. And it's big in Europe. I think I'll add 8 Rafa's MC titles, and let them be a 19 slam champ.
Click to expand...

The idiocy is stunning.
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Netspirit said:
I don't think it's fair to call Federer GOAT and then argue that Nadal's #2 (after Federer) in this era somehow diminishes his position against Borg.

The fact that we are arguing shows that Nadal and Borg are currently equal. However, Nadal is still active so by the end of his career I am sure he will surpass Borg to the same extent Federer will have surpassed Sampras.

He will have more majors, more Masters, AO and USO titles, clay GOAT status - all of that in Federer's era. I don't think Borg stands a chance.
Click to expand...

The fact that Nadal played in the Federer Era is not very important because Federer didn't prevented to achieve a lot more than he did. Apart two Wimby, maybe a couple of WTF and few master 1000, Federer wasn't the one responsible for Nadal failure in some event (Nole hurted him more), although Fed is repsonsible for the #2 of Nadal.

Anyway for me Nadal did achieve enough to be one of the greatest all time great :)

11 Slams are 11 slams.
 
nadal_ownz_fedjok

nadal_ownz_fedjok

Banned
MariaRafael said:
Yes, he is. Even if you use the number of slams as the only criterion.

1. Federer - 17
2. Sampras - 14
3. Emerson - 12
4. Laver-Borg-Nadal - 11.

BTW if it's the only criterion, Emerson is bigger than Laver.
Click to expand...

That 12th Nadal slam is sure going to be an interesting day for the Feds, ain't it?
 
roysid

roysid

Hall of Fame
Nadal is definitely below Fed and Pete. Lacking in slams, No.1's etc.

He is definitely ahead of Agassi, Mcenroe, Emerson.

Is he ahead of Lendl : Tough to decide. Nadal has more slams and has won all 4. But Lendl was No.1 for so long (270 weeks). Won so many titles in the era of Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg etc.

Is he ahead of Connors : Again tough to decide. Connors leads in titles and No. 1 but in those days it was a bit easier to win titles.

Is he ahead of Borg : Maybe not at this moment. Both are at 11 slams. But Borg didn't care for AO. Plus Borg has the holy grail of slams (W) five times
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Where will Nadal rank on your GOAT list if he beats Djokovic in the final?
2
Replies
66
Views
5K
monfed
M
D
Nadal embarrassed himself
Replies
28
Views
2K
Attila_the_gorilla
A
granddog29
  • Poll
Where does Nadal rank all time currently.
2 3
Replies
111
Views
7K
Russeljones
Russeljones
Dechizen
Goat List
Replies
30
Views
3K
Raiden
Raiden
conway
Borg, Sampras, and Nadal, how do those 3 rank vs each other
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Anti-Fedal
A
Top