Borg, Sampras, and Nadal, how do those 3 rank vs each other

[helloworld]

Petros GOAT? Federer who has the most similar style career has him beat in every area so that isn't even possible for him.

You might want to recheck your facts. Federer didn't break all the records that Sampras holds.

 

[helloworld]

Nadal>Sampras>Borg

Nadal owns all main rivals. Sampras pretty much did as well. Pete's got the YE#1s and time at #1 but nadal had the career slam and Masters record which I favor over Pete's time at #1 record.

Borg isn't even part of the equation. Only managed 2 of the 4 slams and was ran off the tour by Mac

Pretty much this. Nadal has few more slams in him plus the fact that he owns his main rival Federer so much puts him slightly above Sampras IMO.

 

[Tennis sensation]

Petros is GOAT so you might as well take him out of this discussion. Nadal vs Borg? It's close

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Tennis sensation]

1. Sampras (GOAT candidate)
2. Borg (GOAT candidate)
3. Nadal (great clay courter)

Nice try...

 

[Tennis sensation]

Sampras=Nadal>Borg

 

[Russeljones]

Sure it can. 3 channel slams speaks for itself. Winning 6 titles at the biggest clay court event of the year in an era where you had players who were raised on and basically spent all of their time playing on the stuff, and then within a matter of weeks being able to switch and win the biggest grass court event of the year against an era of players raised on that stuff, doing that at a time when winning on those two surfaces required entirely different skill sets is far more impressive to me than a guy who won so much because the majority of courts he played on favoured his style of game.

If people like to belittle a guy like Nadal, and all the players today because they accomplish all they do playing on slow surfaces then you can't think all THAT much of Sampras who basically accomplished everything that he did playing on quick ones.

Sampras has a competitive spirit like few in the history of the game, and if we want to talk fierceness of mentality between he and Borg then that's a conversation worth having, but as far as I'm concerned when it comes to the complete package there is nobody comparable with Borg. Certainly not from the eras that have come after him.

Why not just post the bolded part once and be done with the pretense of having an argument?

 

[70後]

Sampras/Borg

.

 

[FanOfLu]

Nadal>Sampras>Borg.
Sampras has done absolutely nothing on clay and Borg has no US Open titles. While Nadal has won all four in his career. Borg has played four US Open finals but has won zero, that is not something that can be excused like skipping AO, while Sampras had just one FO semi (not even a final). So obviously Nadal > Sampras>Borg.

 

[Russeljones]

Nadal>Sampras>Borg.
Sampras has done absolutely nothing on clay and Borg has no US Open titles. While Nadal has won all four in his career. Borg has played four US Open finals but has won zero, that is not something that can be excused like skipping AO, while Sampras had just one FO semi (not even a final). So obviously Nadal > Sampras>Borg.

How is it obvious if Nadal would struggle to win a set against Sampras on hard court? That is 3 Slams Nadal would never win in a 1v1v1 scenario.

A lot of people on this thread post just to reiterate their belief that their preferred player should be ahead of the other two. How about actual analysis?

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Nadal>Sampras>Borg

Nadal owns all main rivals. Sampras pretty much did as well. Pete's got the YE#1s and time at #1 but nadal had the career slam and Masters record which I favor over Pete's time at #1 record.

Borg isn't even part of the equation. Only managed 2 of the 4 slams and was ran off the tour by Mac

Disingenuous. He didn't play Australia. What you think Sampras or Nadal's numbers would look like only playing 3 slams a year til 25?