Do you put Andy Murray at same tier as Edberg/Wilander/Becker?

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Andy Murray
- Same # of Grand Slam finals as McEnroe/Edberg/Wilander
- more semifinals than McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Borg/Wilander
- more quarterfinals than Sampras/McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Wilander
- more Grand Slam matches won than Edberg/McEnroe/Becker/Wilander/Borg
- Year end #1 once - same as Wilander, Becker never achieved this
 

Sunny014

Legend
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors & Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
Only Marat Safin is/was capable of being in the Becker-Wilander-Edberg Tier

But he isn't on performance
 

Sunny014

Legend
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
Is Pete Sampras worthy of being in Tier 1 along with the big 3 ??? @NonP @RaulRamirez @Gary Duane @BeatlesFan @Fiero425 @Karma Tennis

or should Fed and Novak be in a higher tier of their own?
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
i dont becuz i think they were all mentally tougher than murray
murray was too much of a self destructive hot head
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
You make me laugh lol
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
Andy Murray
- Same # of Grand Slam finals as McEnroe/Edberg/Wilander
- more semifinals than McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Borg/Wilander
- more quarterfinals than Sampras/McEnroe/Edberg/Becker/Wilander
- more Grand Slam matches won than Edberg/McEnroe/Becker/Wilander/Borg
- Year end #1 once - same as Wilander, Becker never achieved this
Murray is nowhere near Becker, Edberg and Wilander. Murray isn't even an ATG, he was just a decent player in a very weak era and managed to snatch a couple of slams when like the 2/3 other good players were injured.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Assuming a level of play on a scale of 0 to 10.

10 to be GOAT level performance
9 to be Great performance capable of winning slams with a dominant display
8 to be a mediocre/okayish slam win / finalist if opponent is playing really good
7 to be an extremely weak slam win (similar to slams wons in 2002 by johansson and hewitt) / finalist level in moderate eras / semi finalist in strong eras
6 to be semi finalist level in all eras
5 to be Qfs-Semi range


01. Federer operates at 9 on an avg with his highest gear being 10 (on Grass)
02. Djokovic operates at 8.5 on an avg with his highest gear being 10 (at the AO)
03. Nadal operates anywhere between 8 to 11, on clay his avg gear itself is 9.8 and highest 11+
04. Safin operates at an avg of 5.5 with his highest gear being 10, fluctuates a lot in between
05. Hewitt operates at an avg of 6.5 and his highest gear is 8.5
06. Roddick operates at avg of 6 but his highest gear is 8.5 (on grass).
07. Murray operates at an avg of 7 but his highest gear is only 8.5 which is why he is no better than Hewitt/Roddick, in the finals one needs close to 9 to take home slams regularly.
08. Stanimal operates at 5.5 on an avg with his highest gear being 9+


^^^ This is why Murray has only 3 slams, his base level is high enough to go past Qfs/Semis always but not enough to take home slams.

@Adv. Edberg whats wrong with my prev post ? please explain where the flaw exist in my tier system ?
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Based on Achievements no. Granted...he had to deal with Fed, Novak and Rafa. He was also for a while usually the last one standing next to them at majors and able to challenge them. I think if you took one of them out of the equation (more so Fed or Novak) Murray probably wins a lot more. But we cannot put him up there based on would have and could have. I give him credit though for being the most consistent guy left standing with the Big 3. There was a big 4 for a time and Murray was named among it for a reason.
 
Sir Andy is not even close--he should play dubs with his bro Jaime and mxed with Emma. He needs to stay in front of the cameras to advertise his clothing brand and other endeavors--he does really good for a guy with a new hip--watching how that goes for him function and longevity wise--give him a lot of credit for being the poster child for bionic parts.
 
Last edited:

BlueB

Legend
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
Pretty solid list... Few comments:
Goat remark has noting to do with the tiers. It's most likely not the one you want, anyhow.
Sampras and Borg are probably in a tier of their own. Likewise with Courier, Kuerten and Murray.
As much as I wanted to put Muster one tier up, he really underachieved in slams, so it is what it is. Medvedev is likely to move up, but still the work in progress...
 

Sunny014

Legend
Pretty solid list... Few comments:
Goat remark has noting to do with the tiers. It's most likely not the one you want, anyhow.
Sampras and Borg are probably in a tier of their own. Likewise with Courier, Kuerten and Murray.
As much as I wanted to put Muster one tier up, he really underachieved in slams, so it is what it is. Medvedev is likely to move up, but still the work in progress...
Borg was excellent but how can Mcenroe be below Borg? Mac was amazing in doubles too during the same period when he was ruling singles, plus he had a more dominant display over Borg on Grass and also at the USO. ...

Sampras was a force to be reckoned for a decade, so I placed him with Big 3, are you asking me to place him lower in a seperate tier below big 3 ?
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Kids, Boris was the real #1 of '89. Just how many times do I have to remind you jokers ATP ranking were often crap, especially before the '90s?

A couple more things:

No! If anything, I'd keep Becker with Mac and lendl
I probably wouldn't go that far but Becker's top 10 record is truly extraordinary: 65.1% which is comparable to the Big 3's (64.6%, 64.3% and 68.6% for Fed, Rafa and Novak respectively), Pete's (63.6%) and Lendl's (64.3%). My 1st tennis hero might have loved the good life a tad too much, but when he was focused he could hang with anyone.

Is Pete Sampras worthy of being in Tier 1 along with the big 3 ??? @NonP @RaulRamirez @Gary Duane @BeatlesFan @Fiero425 @Karma Tennis

or should Fed and Novak be in a higher tier of their own?
Not only does Pistol belong in tier 1 I'd also put Borg and even Mac up there. The YEC was arguably the de facto 4th major in their heyday which means (setting aside the WCT for now) Borg's actual Slam count is closer to 13. And while Mac probably doesn't hit (adjusted) double digits his '84 season remains the most statistically dominant of the OE, eclipsing even Fed's '06 and Novak's '15 by a healthy margin, and you've got his formidable doubles achievements to boot... including his and Fleming's Wimby and YEC in '84!

There has been no one quite like these two before or since, Borg with his unparalleled surface versatility and Mac with his sui generis game which probably makes him the toughest matchup for the whole field at his peak. To me those are fully legit GOAT credentials, and since I'm right about everything the duo belong at the top of the list.

Of course one could take this line of thinking further, arguing say for Agassi who took the ball earlier than anyone else in history, but his resume is a bit too thin compared to Borg's and Mac's so I draw the line there.
 

Adman

Rookie
Assuming a level of play on a scale of 0 to 10.

10 to be GOAT level performance
9 to be Great performance capable of winning slams with a dominant display
8 to be a mediocre/okayish slam win / finalist if opponent is playing really good
7 to be an extremely weak slam win (similar to slams wons in 2002 by johansson and hewitt) / finalist level in moderate eras / semi finalist in strong eras
6 to be semi finalist level in all eras
5 to be Qfs-Semi range


01. Federer operates at 9 on an avg with his highest gear being 10 (on Grass)
02. Djokovic operates at 8.5 on an avg with his highest gear being 10 (at the AO)
03. Nadal operates anywhere between 8 to 11, on clay his avg gear itself is 9.8 and highest 11+
04. Safin operates at an avg of 5.5 with his highest gear being 10, fluctuates a lot in between
05. Hewitt operates at an avg of 6.5 and his highest gear is 8.5
06. Roddick operates at avg of 6 but his highest gear is 8.5 (on grass).
07. Murray operates at an avg of 7 (sounds impressive, right?) but his highest gear is only 8.5 which is why he is no better than Hewitt/Roddick, in the finals one needs close to 9 to take home slams regularly.


^^^ This is why Murray has only 3 slams, his base level is high enough to go past Qfs/Semis always but not enough to take home slams.

@Adv. Edberg whats wrong with my prev post ? please explain where the flaw exist in my tier system ?
Assuming a level of zero to ten Nadal operates at eleven? You're so funny man!
 

Sunny014

Legend
Assuming a level of zero to ten Nadal operates at eleven? You're so funny man!
I know Scale should be at 10 with Nadal being the peak, Fed, Novak should all be at 9ish at their best, others lower .... I get it
But I just put 11 to show how outwardly his dominance is, there is no beating him on clay as his base level itself is what would be highest for any other player, hence the 10 to 11 thing :p
 

BlueB

Legend
Assuming a level of play on a scale of 0 to 10.

10 to be GOAT level performance
9 to be Great performance capable of winning slams with a dominant display
8 to be a mediocre/okayish slam win / finalist if opponent is playing really good
7 to be an extremely weak slam win (similar to slams wons in 2002 by johansson and hewitt) / finalist level in moderate eras / semi finalist in strong eras
6 to be semi finalist level in all eras
5 to be Qfs-Semi range


01. Federer operates at 9 on an avg with his highest gear being 10 (on Grass)
02. Djokovic operates at 8.5 on an avg with his highest gear being 10 (at the AO)
03. Nadal operates anywhere between 8 to 11, on clay his avg gear itself is 9.8 and highest 11+
04. Safin operates at an avg of 5.5 with his highest gear being 10, fluctuates a lot in between
05. Hewitt operates at an avg of 6.5 and his highest gear is 8.5
06. Roddick operates at avg of 6 but his highest gear is 8.5 (on grass).
07. Murray operates at an avg of 7 (sounds impressive, right?) but his highest gear is only 8.5 which is why he is no better than Hewitt/Roddick, in the finals one needs close to 9 to take home slams regularly.


^^^ This is why Murray has only 3 slams, his base level is high enough to go past Qfs/Semis always but not enough to take home slams.

@Adv. Edberg whats wrong with my prev post ? please explain where the flaw exist in my tier system ?
And then, there's the curious case of Stanimal, who is similar to Safin. Operates at 5, his highest level being 9.5, with anything in between, plus occasional outbursts of 10.5.
 

BlueB

Legend
Borg was excellent but how can Mcenroe be below Borg? Mac was amazing in doubles too during the same period when he was ruling singles, plus he had a more dominant display over Borg on Grass and also at the USO. ...

Sampras was a force to be reckoned for a decade, so I placed him with Big 3, are you asking me to place him lower in a seperate tier below big 3 ?
Yup, Pete and Borg in their own Tier below big 3 and above Mac and Co.
Borg has too big of slam advantage over Mac.
Also, Pete and Bjorn are in double digits...
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
Yup, Pete and Borg in their own Tier below big 3 and above Mac and Co.
Borg has to big slam advantage over Mac.
Also, Pete and Bjorn are in double digits...
But back in those days Tour Finals were effectively the 4th slam as said in the above post by @NonP
Mcenroe has like 8 tour final trophies (official+unofficial) and those put him close to Borg in numbers, plus his 1984 season which had a dual dominance of Singles+Doubles should place him on par with Borg, I am not saying Mac is higher than Borg but they are equals, their H2H is also 7-7
 

BlueB

Legend
But back in those days Tour Finals were effectively the 4th slam as said in the above post by @NonP
Mcenroe has like 8 tour final trophies (official+unofficial) and those put him close to Borg in numbers, plus his 1984 season which had a dual dominance of Singles+Doubles should place him on par with Borg, I am not saying Mac is higher than Borg but they are equals, their H2H is also 7-7
Couldn't quite play well on clay. Slam is a slam, no matter how you twist it. I actually rank both Landl and Agassi slightly over Mac.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Couldn't quite play well on clay. Slam is a slam, no matter how you twist it. I actually rank both Landl and Agassi slightly over Mac.
Agassi was a huge failure in the 90s, a terrible underperformer and a beta male (in performance) to Sampras who was Alpha

Mac was Alpha in the first half of the 1980s

You cannot put a beta above alpha

Lendl dominated second half of 80s after Mac went down so Lendl was also an alpa

Agassi is definitely below them
 
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
I would at least put Borg in the same tier with Sampras if not above-bigger dominance,fewer weakness,more consistent-Sampras was absolutely terrible on clay
And you have to write you were talking only about Open era
 

alexio

Hall of Fame
I would at least put Borg in the same tier with Sampras if not above-bigger dominance,fewer weakness,more consistent-Sampras was absolutely terrible on clay
And you have to write you were talking only about Open era
yea, borg shouldn't be lower than petros, (or an alternate ending is.. petros shouldn't be in the same company with big 3 guys)
 

Sunny014

Legend
I would at least put Borg in the same tier with Sampras if not above-bigger dominance,fewer weakness,more consistent-Sampras was absolutely terrible on clay
And you have to write you were talking only about Open era
Sampras > Borg on Grass
Sampras > Borg on HCs
Sampras > Borg on Carpets

Sampras was rank 1 for a world record 286 weeks

How was Borg more dominant than Sampras?

Borg ran away at 26 when youngsters with more athleticism & diverse style of play arrived, instead of training harder he found some excuse of ATP not allowing him to pick tournaments to stay in the rankings?? Some weird excuse, instead of training double hard and rising to the challenge he ran away, Mac was 1 from 81 to 84 after dethroning Borg. Plus while Borg's clays slams are all legit, his grass slams are weak, if Mac was same as age as Borg and started in 1976 then Borg could have had 2-3 wimbledons only....

Highly overrated player. He is great but the way he is rate everywhere is as if he is on par with Big 3 and Sampras, LOL, he was never gonna beat Pete if they both played together
 
Last edited:

Sir Weed

Professional
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
Peter? Petros Sampras, please.
 

spottishwood

Semi-Pro
I probably wouldn't go that far but Becker's top 10 record is truly extraordinary: 65.1% which is comparable to the Big 3's (64.6%, 64.3% and 68.6% for Fed, Rafa and Novak respectively), Pete's (63.6%) and Lendl's (64.3%). My 1st tennis hero might have loved the good life a tad too much, but when he was focused he could hang with anyone.
Good that ya pointed that out. I actually mistakenly wrote mac,I was thinking about Agassi(who inflated his slam count somewhat in early 00s:unsure:). Mac's slam count's somewhat deceiving. He was good enough to win as many slams as borg.
 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
Where is Laver?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Where is Laver?
Sorry, this is open era only

I have no idea where to place Laver, Pancho, Emerson, Rosewall etc etc......no idea who was greater in all this .... all of them have good numbers that cannot be compared to modern era...
 

Diminic D'Coco

New User
8 Tennis Tiers as on today (GOAT in BOLD)

Tier 1 : FEDERER, Djokovic, Peter Sampras & Nadal
Tier 2 : Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors & Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc
Tier 5 : Gaudio, Thiem, Medvedev, Muster etc etc
Tier 6 : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas etc etc
Tier 7 : Top 50 players who are journeymen

Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100
So, no Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Smith.... this forum is full of edgelords...
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
But back in those days Tour Finals were effectively the 4th slam as said in the above post by @NonP
Mcenroe has like 8 tour final trophies (official+unofficial) and those put him close to Borg in numbers, plus his 1984 season which had a dual dominance of Singles+Doubles should place him on par with Borg, I am not saying Mac is higher than Borg but they are equals, their H2H is also 7-7
Even most diehards have no clue just how otherworldly '84 Mac's 65.32% of GW is so I'll try to provide more perspective.

Even on clay, the surface with the highest margin for error and thus most conducive to dominance (for the right guy/gal), a seasonal 65% (excluding DC, Olympics and exos) is exceedingly rare. Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten and Djokovic all failed to crack it ('92 Jim does boast an impressive 66.1% if you exclude his meaningless postseason L at Kitzbuhel). In fact Nadal is the only guy since '91 who has pulled it off, and even if you limit the GW%s to RG only you can count all the 65% Club members (OE champs only) on the fingers of two hands:

Kodes - '70 (67.1%)
Nastase - '73 (70.1%)
Borg - '75 (68.8%), '78 (79.9%), '80 (76.8%), '81 (71.1%)
Vilas - '77 (74.9%)
Noah - '83 (67.5%)
Lendl - '85 (66.5%), '86 (71.1%)
Courier - '92 (67.5%)
Bruguera - '93 (68.8%)
Nadal - '07 (66.5%), '08 (75.7%), '12 (71.0%), '14 (70.3%), '17 (76.8%), '18 (67.3%), '19 (69.2%), '20 (70.9%)

Again those runs came on clay, and for a fortnight only. One could exclude '70 Kodes and '73 Nastase for lackluster fields due to politics ('77 Vilas' % is too high to ignore altogether), but however you slice these %s you can see that apart from Borg and Rafa topping the 65% mark at RG is a rare achievement even for elite dirtballers.

At this point no one should be surprised that this feat is even rarer on faster surfaces, and indeed UTS tells us Borg is the only other guy in the OE who can claim it for a whole year, with 65.54% in '78 and 65.50% in '80 (give or take a few decimal points - UTS doesn't include TBs). And even Borg's %s come with the caveat that much of his dominance stems from the CC season. Or put another way, '84 Mac's 65.32% is even tougher to achieve for most players without Borg's and Rafa's insane CC skills.

So Mac really stands alone in the OE, and perhaps ever. And y'all dare to tell me the guy isn't GOAT material? Not so fast, Jose!

I would at least put Borg in the same tier with Sampras if not above-bigger dominance,fewer weakness,more consistent-Sampras was absolutely terrible on clay
And you have to write you were talking only about Open era
Pistol was "absolutely terrible on clay" only after '97. You're talking about a guy who won 60% or more of his games in two CC seasons ('93 and '94), while the same can't be said of Chang, Kafelnikov, Moya, Costa, Gaudio, Wawrinka and other 1-time FO champs (though '95 Mike and '05 Gaston do make the grade if you round up). And even Ferrero and Fed did it only once, in '01 and '05 respectively (add '03 for JCF and Fed and also '04 for TMF if you again round up).

There aren't many guys who could get past prime Bruguera and Courier at RG (see above) and Pete had the bad luck of running into them in his two best CC seasons and also coming down with a sprain in '95 and a stomach bug in '97. His post-'97 suckitude on dirt is inexcusable, yes, but that's only half of his CC career.
 
Based on Achievements no. Granted...he had to deal with Fed, Novak and Rafa. He was also for a while usually the last one standing next to them at majors and able to challenge them. I think if you took one of them out of the equation (more so Fed or Novak) Murray probably wins a lot more. But we cannot put him up there based on would have and could have. I give him credit though for being the most consistent guy left standing with the Big 3. There was a big 4 for a time and Murray was named among it for a reason.
It is kind of funny, but almost every slam Murray didn't win I can think of 2 atleast who probably would have beaten him, including the ones he loses in finals. So I am not sure if even just removing 1 of the Big 3 makes a big difference or not.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
It is kind of funny, but almost every slam Murray didn't win I can think of 2 atleast who probably would have beaten him, including the ones he loses in finals. So I am not sure if even just removing 1 of the Big 3 makes a big difference or not.
Preach!
 
Sampras > Borg on Grass
Sampras > Borg on HCs
Sampras > Borg on Carpets

Sampras was rank 1 for a world record 286 weeks

How was Borg more dominant than Sampras?

Borg ran away at 26 when youngsters with more athleticism & diverse style of play arrived, instead of training harder he found some excuse of ATP not allowing him to pick tournaments to stay in the rankings?? Some weird excuse, instead of training double hard and rising to the challenge he ran away, Mac was 1 from 81 to 84 after dethroning Borg. Plus while Borg's clays slams are all legit, his grass slams are weak, if Mac was same as age as Borg and started in 1976 then Borg could have had 2-3 wimbledons only....

Highly overrated player. He is great but the way he is rate everywhere is as if he is on par with Big 3 and Sampras, LOL, he was never gonna beat Pete if they both played together
Well despite what you said, which I agree with, Borg's 79 and 80 were probably better years than any one year Sampras had. So in that sense I can see the argument of Borg being more dominant at his peak.

That does not mean I rank Borg higher all time mind you, I don't.
 
Top