Borg was better than Nadal at the French Open

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Hey sure, go ahead and make one. That's what everyone seems to do around here all day.

I'm not against the concept of comparing eras because these discussions can be interesting within reason. But there's a thin line somewhere when hypotheticals become so real for some, they become circular arguments reinforcing themselves.

It seems you're more offended that Nadal is the subject of this thread, but to me, it doesn't matter whether its Fed, Rafa or Novak. Comparing these guys to a past champions to illustrate "weak eras" is just bias masquerading as rational argument.

I'm a huge Fed fan, but just because Novak is closing in on Roger's Wimbledon record does not mean I will start trashing the former's grass achievements - it is what it is; just accept it gracefully.
The clown has me on ignore, so he wouldn't see it....

I'm not offended at all, everyone knows this was a sarcastic response thread.

Agree with your other points.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Lol no shame in losing to Djokovic, one of the three greatest on clay ever. Who was that Italian guy that beat Borg?
Yeah... and twice...

Panatta was no slouch by any stretch at RG though...

Nadal's losses to Djokovic were more about Nadal than Djokovic anyway... remember the Djokobots saying he figured Nadal out after last year? They all cacked on about how scared Nadal was and how he'd make up some fake injury again.... well they all went into hibernation after Nadal beat him again this year...
 

No_Kwan_Do

Rookie
You would call this a similar level to Nadal’s best?
That almost put me to sleep. I've seen WTA matches in this era played with more urgency and skill.

It looks like they're running through treacle and lazily playing a Sunday-league match. It's not only racquets that have changed over the last 30 years, but attitudes as well by the looks of it.
 
Maybe. Borg had the same record as Nadal when he retired and was considered one the best if not the best athletes on the tour when he played. If he had the new larger rackets and string, there is no reason to think he could not be as good as Nadal. To his credit, Nadal has had a lot longer career. Borg was about 6 feet tall and had a large chest and muscles and speed that was the best in the game, so there is little reason to say he could not compete with Nadal at RG or Djokovic at Wimbledon.
 

T&M Returns

New User
These threads are so dumb. Borg was not better, sorry. Borg was a smaller guy compared to today's top players, and obviously the game has changed so much over the past you know... 25-40 years.

I don't think it will change much more from here, but the better equipment has allowed current players to simply play better tennis. The limitations are gone, and what's left is an extremely athletic, ballistic racquet sport. Would Borg have adapted to the modern game if he were born later? Sure, but his stature is just a bit smaller and I don't think he is as strong as the current top players. Borg would get massacred by Federer at the F.O. IMO, and as we know Fed was never able to beat Nadal. Borg would get beaten by Djokovic as well.

Borg is obviously an all time great, but some people are in serious denial.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
These threads are so dumb. Borg was not better, sorry. Borg was a smaller guy compared to today's top players, and obviously the game has changed so much over the past you know... 25-40 years.

I don't think it will change much more from here, but the better equipment has allowed current players to simply play better tennis. The limitations are gone, and what's left is an extremely athletic, ballistic racquet sport. Would Borg have adapted to the modern game if he were born later? Sure, but his stature is just a bit smaller and I don't think he is as strong as the current top players. Borg would get massacred by Federer at the F.O. IMO, and as we know Fed was never able to beat Nadal. Borg would get beaten by Djokovic as well.

Borg is obviously an all time great, but some people are in serious denial.
Eyyyyy it's my bestie :D about time you logged in lol

 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Lol no shame in losing to Djokovic, one of the three greatest on clay ever. Who was that Italian guy that beat Borg?
Djokovic ain't top 5 on clay (Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander). Anyways Djokovic beat below par versions of Nadal at RG.
Its Sod who deserves the greatest plaudits as does Panatta.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Borg's RG status was legendary. When he won his 6th it was unfathomable. Nobody thought it would be beat.

Nadal's RG status is, they built a freaking statue of him while he's still playing. When he won his 10th it was completely absurd... he went on to win another 4 after that, superlatives don't exist.

Now in terms of who would win if they played... who the hell knows? Wooden racket era vs modern era is impossible to tell and stupid to even try...
I saw Borg play in person several times and a ton on what we used to call "TV." :confused: I don't know how you compare across eras. But if you do, Rafa would beat his arse. :giggle:
 
Last edited:

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Lol no shame in losing to Djokovic, one of the three greatest on clay ever. Who was that Italian guy that beat Borg?
:cry:

Some day people will ask who was that old Swiss guy that took Eggvax to match point at Wimbledon in 2019? Someone else will reply, who's Eggvax.:(
 
Last edited:

Otacon

Hall of Fame
What is certain, though, is that if Borg had been born in the mid-80s, Nadal could not have won 13 or 14 Roland Garros, that's for sure.
 

NeutralFan

Legend
No offense but anyone who thinks Borg would win a single FO in era of big 3 is deluded af. Game was way different and slow back then, ground strokes were not fast.a player is a product of his time and generation. Borg is a great player but he's not gonna make it in modern time, same goes for RL and all other past great , except Agassi, he was kinda unlucky to be a 90s player but even he would need better movement to do better in big 3 era.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
In absolute terms Borg is no where near Nadal's level at the FO (or Djokovic's at Wimbledon), I think this question is more about relative dominance versus his field in his time - on both counts he was right there with them.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
In absolute terms Borg is no where near Nadal's level at the FO (or Djokovic's at Wimbledon), I think this question is more about relative dominance versus his field in his time - on both counts he was right there with them.
This thread was borne out of sarcasm.

But I agree with what you said if we were to take the question seriously.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
Nadal's longevity doesn't come from winning some titles in a weak era when being post prime. Already at age 26 (many like to use the argument of Borg retiring at 25) he had more RG titles, and was already the greater player on clay. Djokovic on the other hand won 3 Wimbledon titles during his prime. 4 if you want to include 2018 as prime level. No comparison here.
The Serbian wolf has won more Wimbledon titles in his 30s than in his prime.
Quite an absurd thing.
:confused:
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
Yeah... and twice...

Panatta was no slouch by any stretch at RG though...

Nadal's losses to Djokovic were more about Nadal than Djokovic anyway... remember the Djokobots saying he figured Nadal out after last year? They all cacked on about how scared Nadal was and how he'd make up some fake injury again.... well they all went into hibernation after Nadal beat him again this year...
Slay, bestie!
;)
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
The Serbian wolf has won more Wimbledon titles in his 30s than in his prime.
Quite an absurd thing.
:confused:
Yes in fact it is quite extraordinary that the man has won the majority of his 21 majors after turning 28 when most players are starting to wind down their career, Djesus was just getting started!
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
Yes in fact it is quite extraordinary that the man has won the majority of his 21 majors after turning 28 when most players are starting to wind down their career, Djesus was just getting started!
Endless stamina, too, from Joker!
:cautious:
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic ain't top 5 on clay (Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander). Anyways Djokovic beat below par versions of Nadal at RG.
Its Sod who deserves the greatest plaudits as does Panatta.
Lol Djokovic would eviscerate wilander on clay. Kuerten had a crappy career win percentage on clay. Nadal would have made those guys look helpless and Djokovic one of the very few that have ever mounted real resistance against the KoC…
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Lol Djokovic would eviscerate wilander on clay. Kuerten had a crappy career win percentage on clay. Nadal would have made those guys look helpless and Djokovic one of the very few that have ever mounted real resistance against the KoC…
Wilander would have stood very little chance against Djokovic...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Lol Djokovic would eviscerate wilander on clay. Kuerten had a crappy career win percentage on clay. Nadal would have made those guys look helpless and Djokovic one of the very few that have ever mounted real resistance against the KoC…
that's what they thought Lendl would do to Wilander and yet it was close b/w them on clay/at RG.
Lendl was better than Djokovic on clay.
Kuerten had 85+% won % on clay in his prime 3 years.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Wilander would have stood very little chance against Djokovic...
In terms of playing the percentages, Wilander is among the best ever. He would have strategies in mind to defeat any opponent. 1988 shows that in particular, with the French Open and US Open finals. Wilander got 97% of his first serves in during the 1988 French Open final to stop Leconte getting rhythm off the second serve (Leconte barely saw any second serves in the final, just 2 I think), and Wilander serve and volleyed against Lendl a lot in the 1988 US Open final and making use of the one-handed slice backhand (Wilander's natural backhand was a two-hander).
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
In terms of playing the percentages, Wilander is among the best ever. He would have strategies in mind to defeat any opponent. 1988 shows that in particular, with the French Open and US Open finals. Wilander got 97% of his first serves in during the 1988 French Open final to stop Leconte getting rhythm off the second serve (Leconte barely saw any second serves in the final, just 2 I think), and Wilander serve and volleyed against Lendl a lot in the 1988 US Open final and making use of the one-handed slice backhand (Wilander's natural backhand was a two-hander).
Yeah I don't think his style would translate well against Djokovic mate. With all due respect, Leconte's return ability is not like Djokovic's and he would handle that Wilander serve no problem. He's not going to be able to S&V his way to victory against Djokovic at RG.

I'm sure he'd try different tactics, but Nadal and Federer also adapt and try different things. We have to face the facts, Djokovic is very, very difficult as we all know. You need to have serious fire power to trouble him unless you catch him on a bad day.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Ozymandias from Watchmen?
@Nadalgaenger is a poet.

"One of Shelley’s most famous works, “Ozymandias” describes the ruins of an ancient king’s statue in a foreign desert. All that remains of the statue are two “vast” stone legs standing upright and a head half-buried in sand, along with a boastful inscription describing the ruler as the “king of kings” whose mighty achievements invoke awe and despair in all who behold them."

"The poem's depiction of the destruction of Ozymandias and his tyranny isn’t entirely fictional: Ozymandias is the Greek name for the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II"

I think it's commentary on the transience of power and position. Even Ozymandias the “king of kings” -- FEDR in our time -- may one day be forgotten or the brand name for a condom.
 
Last edited:

LuckyR

Legend
He had 6 FO titles with NO POLY and a sub-90 sq in WOODEN racquet!

Give Borg modern equipment and Nadal would lose more than half of his inflated RG record.
Borg likely wouldn't have made it past Roger in the semis to even play Rafa.
 
Top