Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Personally I think he needs another slam to do it.
Hard to say, Borg's 11 slams are evenly spread between two entirely different surfaces. Nadal's not as versatile in my mind despite winning the US Open (not counting the AO).
Nadal is definately the greatest clay courter ever though, no doubt about that.
I agree, Nadal has also done so in a harsher era, where potentially the best man to have played the game has been in his way several times and he's still come through. Let's see Borg cope with Federer the same way Nadal has for the last eight or nine years.But Nadal's slams are spread between 3 different surfaces. He also won the USO which Borg never managed to do. I want to retract my previous post and say that I do think Nadal has surpassed Borg. When you compare their achievements as a whole I think Nadal has him beat.
But Nadal's slams are spread between 3 different surfaces. He also won the USO which Borg never managed to do. I want to retract my previous post and say that I do think Nadal has surpassed Borg. When you compare their achievements as a whole I think Nadal has him beat.
No.
10nos
The only thing really keeping me from bumping Nadal up above Borg is his time at number one. Borg had three, arguably four, years in which he was the best player. Nadal's had two. That's not a huge difference, though, and one I see Nadal making up in 2013. Nadal also has more Masters events and arguably the better slam record. He has the career slam, of course, which is something Borg lacks (though really I don't penalize him at all for not winning the Australian - it's those U.S. Open finals that kill him), but Borg also dominated two separate slams, while Nadal has managed that with only one. It's a bit of a toss-up, but I go with Borg for now. I expect Nadal to rise above by the time his career is over.
But he has pretty much the same amount as Nadal.
The Australian Open still existed, many players just didn't make the trek. So, it's a choice not to play in the Australian Open, not that they didn't get a chance to.Nadal needs to double his non-clay resume to clearly surpass Borg.
Borg has 11 slams in a 3 slams/year era unlike nadal who is in a 4 slams/year era.
If 20 years from now, there are 6 slams in a year, it would be unfair to say that the player at that time with 17 majors = roger because roger competed in a 4 slams/year era.
Well, the ranking system in the 70s was pretty awful. Borg was indisputably the best player of 78, 79, 80, and arguably 77 as well, even though Connors finished 77 and 78 ranked as the number one player. Under today's ranking system, Borg would have had a lot more time at number one.
I agree, Nadal has also done so in a harsher era, where potentially the best man to have played the game has been in his way several times and he's still come through. Let's see Borg cope with Federer the same way Nadal has for the last eight or nine years.
The Australian Open still existed, many players just didn't make the trek. So, it's a choice not to play in the Australian Open, not that they didn't get a chance to.
Yes, because Borg would beat Federer every time they play on clay or hardcourts.Borg would have done just fine against Federer.
With that said however, I do feel that Nadal has surpassed Borg now. It is very close though.
In career achievments, yes by some margin. In terms of ability, it's a harder question. I think Borg is a better player than Nadal in some ways, such as the ability to dominate clay and grass when they were polar opposites.
Nadal no doubt has the better career but people often put down borg for not winning the Us Open or the AO. The thing is with Borg, first he went up many times against Connors and McEnroe at the US open - 2 of the greatest US open champions. Nadal has never played Federer there (not saying he would not be able to beat him though, just that he didn't deal with a US Open great like Borg did) and has at the moment one title there. Considering Borg lost in 5 sets one year and was playing one of the best US Open champions, there's not that much to say Nadal is a better HC player. In fact Borg probably was the better HC Player. In terms of the AO, he hardly played it, even though it was on grass so even if he did win it he wouldn't have a HC slam. So it's only that one US Open that puts Nadal above Borg in HC slams. Also it wasn't that much of a deal to complete a career slam back then.
Don't get me wrong, I put Nadal above borg now (especially for his dominance of clay - Nadal is better on clay, borg the better player off clay) but it's because of what Nadal has won. In terms of who is a better player, it's much closer. I think Borg is the better natural player, Nadal is the better fighter. Borg just walked away from the game where as Nadal has never given up.
I agree except for the Nadal is the better fighter part. Borg was as tough as nails and the fact that he walked away from the game early does not mean he wasn't a good fighter. He was mentally burned out, that is a whole other thing.
Yes, because Borg would beat Federer every time they play on clay or hardcourts.
I guess that's true.
Nadal hasn't surpassed Borg, and neither has Federer. Federer would have been Borg's pidgeon in all surfaces. Nadal would have given Borg a run for his money on clay, but not on grass. And Mac would have owned Fed on hardcourt (using 80s technology) and plain destroyed Nadal.
Let's just see how Nadal is in the next couple of years. Nadal could be burned out too for all we know but he has not pulled a Borg yet. Who knows what is really going on with Nadal right now.
This is what I have been saying, but you disagreed with me when I said Nadal is done. Lol.
I dont care how many RG's, Ralph uses to pad his slam count but at the end of the day he can't surpass Borg in versatility. I think its unfair to Ralph himself to compare him to a great like Borg, he should be satisfied with what he's achieved with his limited talent.
I think he already has, and most in the real World believe this as well, but since Nadal is the most hated player on this forum Borg will obviously win this poll, just as Federer is certain to win every poll even ones anywhere outside this forum he would lose. I rate Nadal #5 all time behind Laver, Gonzales, Federer, and Sampras, and Borg at about #7 behind Rosewall as well.
Nadal won all 4 slams all surfaces. While Borg NEVER won a hard court slam title. Thats not versatility? Thats more versatility then Borg
Nadal won all 4 slams on all surfaces. While Borg never won a hard court slam title. Thats not versatility? Thats more versatility then Borg. Nadal has been the most versatile (outside or Roger) since Agassi
umm, no ... either WCT/Masters was the 4th biggest event and borg won those .... the main edge nadal over borg is his career slam, but borg's dominance over clay and grass simultaneously are just as good an edge if not better ....
and borg was wayyyyyyy better indoors
nadal still has to a slam outside of clay to equal borg and another to surpass him IMO ...
umm, borg had just 4 shots at HC slams - he made 3 finals and a QF - losing to connors, mac and a red-hot tanner ... none of them bad losses ( he did beat connors, tanner, gerulatis etc at the USO ) ..
nadal since 2005 ( after he won his first slam ) got his first HC slam in his 7th attempt and his first USO title in his 6th attempt ....
Nadal has beaten Djoker and Federer to get his HC slam titles.. (which is better then continuously losing to Connors, mac and tanner)
Nadal more versatile then Borg.. Bottom line.
And Nadal won the USO which is something Borg couldn't do despite having multiple chances to do it.
Nadal hasn't surpassed Borg, and neither has Federer. Federer would have been Borg's pidgeon in all surfaces. Nadal would have given Borg a run for his money on clay, but not on grass. And Mac would have owned Fed on hardcourt (using 80s technology) and plain destroyed Nadal.
umm, no ... either WCT/Masters was the 4th biggest event and borg won those ....
the main edge nadal over borg is his career slam, but borg's dominance over clay and grass simultaneously are just as good an edge if not better ....
and borg was wayyyyyyy better indoors
nadal still has to a slam outside of clay to equal borg and another to surpass him IMO ...
Your opinion doesn't count because of how blatantly biased it is.
You talk about Borg being way better indoors. Big deal. Let us know when there is a major played exclusively indoors at all times because then it might actually you know, matter.
Also don't forget Nadal was also dominating grass and clay the same time only he had to contend with Federer simultaneously. No easy task at all. The fact that a barely 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Federer to 5 sets in a wim final should speak volumes for how good Rafa is on grass as well as clay.
If Borg had to contend with Federer at Wimbledon do you seriously think he would've won 5 of them? As soon as a challenger came along (McEnroe) he quit with his tail between his legs after losing. Rafa would have 4 if Fed wasn't there, no way anybody else was going to beat Rafa in those 06 and 07 finals.
Not to mention he has made it to 4 HC finals and won 2 of them. An accomplishment that Borg could not match or better.
So looking at it logically, you're full of crap, but I'm not surprised it is normal for you...
Yep. And even if Nadal won another slam outside of clay these people would just find something else that they think Nadal has to do to surpass Borg. He will never be good enough no matter what he does in order to surpass Borg(or anyone else for that matter)according to these folks, even if he were to win 50 slams. They'll always be something that they will nitpick about that they believe keeps Nadal on weekend warrior level.
Nadal has beaten Djoker and Federer to get his HC slam titles.. (which is better then continuously losing to Connors, mac and tanner)
Nadal more versatile then Borg.. Bottom line.
lol are you serious? So now Djokovic is better than Connors and McEnroe? They won 9 US Open titles between them, Djokovic has one. You're always going on about how a whole load of past it players in Sampras's era are supposed to be better than Djokovic, but now Djokovic is better than Connors who won the US Open 5 times and Mac who won 4 titles? :lol:
Also, hate to explain it again, but you can maybe fault Borg for not winning the US Open on clay, but faulting him for not winning a HC slam when there were only 4 HC slams played in his entire career? This is like faulting Djokovic and Nadal for not winning the AO on rebound ace.
Its a stupid argument. Nadal surpassed Borg last year or this year with his French Open win. Resume wise Nadal is superior:
The career grand slam- Yes I understand its probably easier to do now. But still Borg only has won 2 of the 4.
SMASHED Borg's clay records and now Nadal is hands down clay GOAT.
Has the h2h advantage over his main rivals. (Again something Borg couldn't do)
There really is NO CASE for Borg over Nadal now.. NONE!
Your opinion doesn't count because of how blatantly biased it is.
You talk about Borg being way better indoors. Big deal. Let us know when there is a major played exclusively indoors at all times because then it might actually you know, matter.
Also don't forget Nadal was also dominating grass and clay the same time only he had to contend with Federer simultaneously. No easy task at all. The fact that a barely 21 year old Rafa pushed peak Federer to 5 sets in a wim final should speak volumes for how good Rafa is on grass as well as clay.
If Borg had to contend with Federer at Wimbledon do you seriously think he would've won 5 of them? As soon as a challenger came along (McEnroe) he quit with his tail between his legs after losing. Rafa would have 4 if Fed wasn't there, no way anybody else was going to beat Rafa in those 06 and 07 finals.
Not to mention he has made it to 4 HC finals and won 2 of them. An accomplishment that Borg could not match or better.
So looking at it logically, you're full of crap, but I'm not surprised it is normal for you...