helloworld
Hall of Fame
Take out Australian Open, and Pete still has 12 majors, which is more than Borg. Nadal has 10 majors, which is very close to Borg. He's right. You should worry about Nadal overtaking Borg rather than Borg being above Pete.
Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?
- Thread starter Razoredge
- Start date
Take out Australian Open, and Pete still has 12 majors, which is more than Borg. Nadal has 10 majors, which is very close to Borg. He's right. You should worry about Nadal overtaking Borg rather than Borg being above Pete.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Or we could just look at those 3 slams and compare players.
Borg - 11 (6 FO, 5 W)
Nadal - 10 (7 FO, 2 W, 1 US)
Borg has one more slam than Nadal, but Nadal won the US which Borg, despite it being played on multiple surfaces, could never manage. Hence they are about even.
I agree, his most impressive achievement.
Not at all - win one more slam (or the YEC) and he is ahead of Borg.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Feather
Legend
Why don't you ignore the fact that back in 90s the courts were quick in USO and it suited Pete while playing Agassi. Today the courts are considerably slowed down and they suit more Murray, Djokovic, Nadal etc more while playing Roger.
Sampras had an advantage that Roger didn't have..
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Agassi, as well as many players in the 90s were also fast court players. They modeled their games to suit the fast conditions just as the current players modeled their games to suit the current slow conditions. Neither Sampras or Roger has the advantage on each other in this regard. They simply played the opponents which has the most suitable games in their respective eras.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
Take out Australian Open, and Pete still has 12 majors, which is more than Borg. Nadal has 10 majors, which is very close to Borg. He's right. You should worry about Nadal overtaking Borg rather than Borg being above Pete.
Hey, If nadal can double his non clay resume, then he deserves to be ahead of borg. Until that time, borg > nadal.
as for pete, dominating clay and fast grass > dominating fast HC and fast grass. hence, now that both players have retired, Borg will always be ahead of pete.
Or we could just look at those 3 slams and compare players.
Borg - 11 (6 FO, 5 W)
Nadal - 10 (7 FO, 2 W, 1 US)
Borg has one more slam than Nadal, but Nadal won the US which Borg, despite it being played on multiple surfaces, could never manage. Hence they are about even.
I agree, his most impressive achievement.
Not at all - win one more slam (or the YEC) and he is ahead of Borg.
So now, the YEC is equivalent to a slam? Borg won that twice, so that puts borg at 13 majors minimum even discounting the AO and not normalizing his slam count.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
- Pete dominated grass more than Borg (7 > 5 W's)
- He finished the year No 1 six straight times and spent 280+ wks as No 1, compared to Borg's two years (which should have been three if ATP rankings worked properly).
- Pete won 5 YEC's to Borg's 2.
- Pete was not dominated by any major rival unlike Borg by Mac.
- Pete won slams in his teens, twenties and thirties, thus displaying longevity as well as dominance.
- Pete did not mentally burn himself out by his mid-20s and thus have to leave the sport because he demanded to play fewer tournaments and the ATP would not accommodate him.
Please understand I have great respect for Borg and in particular, his Channel slams, I think he is a GOAT contender but I put Sampras ahead of him.
It's not equivalent to a slam but it is the only major hole in Nadal's resume. If he wins that and is tied with Borg on slams, I will consider him fractionally ahead of Borg as they will both have 11 slams and yet Nadal will have no gaps in his resume.
The one handed bh is easier for Federer playing on a faster surface and an atttacking game. Sampras had a weaker bh but the condition was more forgiven in the 90s, with points are shorter, more volley. There isn't much pressure on his weak bh. Today, trying to generate power from the baseline consistently during a rally is much suitable for a two handed backhand. It's clear that Roger had to deal with a tougher condition, was more tested, as the court continue to slow down, even the grass.
I don't think it's fair to say that Borg was dominated by Mac at all. Their official head to head is 7-7, but look at the surface distribution of those 14 matches; 8 on carpet, 4 on hard courts, 2 on grass, but 0 on US green clay, and 0 on European red clay. Thus Borg was good enough to get far enough to face Mac on his weakest surfaces, but Mac was not good enough to get far enough to face Borg on his
In 1980 and 1981, Borg and Mac split their two matches at Wimbledon, while Mac won their two matches at the US Open. However in those 2 years at RG, Mac lost in the 3rd round to Paul McNamee (not exactly a clay court specialist) in 1980, and in straight sets in the quarters to Lendl in 1981. Borg was able to push Mac to 5 sets at New York in 1980 and 4 sets in 1981. Had Mac actually been good enough to reach Borg at RG in the first place, he would have been struggling to avoid straight sets defeats.
Even on US green clay which Mac was brought up on, Borg would have been the clear favourite to beat him on that surface in those years as well.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
If Mac had to face borg 14 times on red clay the H2H would have been 14-0 in favor of Borg. :lol:
Similar threads
