Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Phoenix1983, Dec 7, 2012.
Personally I think he needs another slam to do it.
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.
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.
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.
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 surfaces in Borg's time had a lot more contrast though. He didn't win the US Open you're right, but he did win other big hardcourt events. But I think you're correct in saying Nadal's resume is greater than Borg's. I'm not sure if Nadal should be considered a greater force than Borg off clay despite winning the US Open though. But Nadal's complete domination of clay is a massive mark for putting him ahead of Borg.
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.
I think if you are to compare their stats as of now:
Slams - 11 each
Weeks at no 1 - Borg 109 , Nadal 102
Career Win % - Borg 0.827, Nadal 0.827
Titles - Borg 64, Nadal 50
Borg has 3 WTFs while Rafa has the career grand slam and an OG
So at this point it looks incredibly close. I do expect Nadal to eventually surpass Borg with more slams, more titles and potentially more weeks at no 1.
But still incredibly close. At this point I would give the edge to Borg simply because of his incredible streaks at both FO and Wimby (vs only FO for Nadal).
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.
Completely off topic but, what is the point of this?, is it to allow for very short posts?.
But he has pretty much the same amount as Nadal.
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.
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.
So you give the edge to Borg for years at #1 based on what ifs?
No not yet. Borg was more dominant overall than Nadal, as he was the undisputed best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980, while Nadal has never been the best player in the world in back to back years. Also Borg was more versatile than Nadal as he was a much better player on his weakest surface hard courts, than Nadal has been on his weakest surface/environment indoors. That is despite the fact that Nadal has benefited from carpet being eliminated from the tour and the indoor courts slowly down dramatically. That is also despite the fact that in Borg's time all the big hard court events were on fast hard courts, and not slow hard courts like today which would have suited his game a lot more. Apart from Sampras on clay, Nadal has probably been weaker on his worst surface than any other genuinely great player in the open era.
Of course Borg had the disadvantage of playing in a time when the grand slam title count was meaningless, and next to no-one including Borg himself cared that he was closing in on Emerson's record. When Borg is compared to players like Nadal, what do people focus on the most? The number of grand slam titles. Thus Borg's career, like those of Connors, McEnroe, Lendl etc, is unfairly judged according to modern day standards and criteria that didn't exist in his era. None of those players had a crystal ball to predict that in future decades this 'only slams matter' attitude would become so prevalent in the sport.
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.
True, but Sonicare is a Nadal hater to the extreme and would pick any back alley weekend warrior to be better than him. Don't waste your time.
Yes, because Borg would beat Federer every time they play on clay or hardcourts.
Nadal has definitely surpassed Borg on clay, but I don't think so overall. Borg has extra weeks at no 1 and the WTF. Nadal may have won an equal amount of slams, but we must take into consideration that the Australian Open was not really a big deal (even if it was shortsighted and foolish of the players). Borg played it once and probably would've had won it at least once.
That being said Nadal has won a slam on every surface and won every slam. Borg failed to win the US open and this is a blight on his career. Funny enough, I would still say Borg was the better all round player on every surface.
It's very close and an extra 2 slams for Nadal and 10 more weeks at no 1 will make Nadal clearly the greater player.
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.
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.
I guess that's true.
I am just saying, it would certainly not be a cakewalk for Federer over Borg. Borg was a very tough competitor and one of the greatest ever in the game. Borg would be a tough opponent for Federer on any surface. On clay for sure Borg > Federer. On grass it would be close and on HC I think Federer is the better player.
Yes Nadal has. Hes gotten the best of his main rivals more times then not (Borg couldn't do it with Mac). Hes got the same amount of slams and has won the career grand slam. (Borg only winning 2 of the 4 slams).. And he overtook Borg's record 6 French Open titles and has SHATTERED clay records left and right.
Nadal isn't up there yet with Roger, Sampras, Rosewall, Laver and Pancho but hes right below them right now.
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 personally do not think he is done yet but I can't predict what will happen a year or two from now and I certainly don't know what has been going on with him for the past 6 months. I don't believe he is as injured as he wants us to believe, let me put it that way. Is that delicate enough, lol.
Borg > Nadal
Simple as that.
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.
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
NadalAgassi, good list, but I cannot understand why you rank Nadal (11 majors) ahead of Rosewall (23 majors). Rosewall also won much more tournaments than Nadal (137:50).
True but Borg only had one slam on HC in those days - in fact only on HC for 4 years during Borg's career (so that's 4 chances to bag a HC slam in his entire career compared to 16 chances for Nadal at the same point in his career - literally 4 times as many) and in every final he was up against Connors who won 5 US Opens and McEnroe who won 4, where as Nadal got Djokovic who had never won the US Open. Maybe Borg should have won it on green clay, that's probably a bigger failing than not winning a HC slam but can't blame him for not winning a HC slam when HC was so new as a slam surface. So overall I don't think Nadal has really distanced himself from Borg as a hc player that much. Really Borg only needed to get lucky one year to win the US Open. He also dominated 2 surfaces that in those days were as different as can be.
Nadal has got the most versatile achievements but Borg was probably more adaptable (he's one of the most adaptable players of all time, I mean come on 6 RG titles and 5 Wimbledons!) he just didn't have any luck at the US Open, but with the us Open being on 3 surfaces during his career, the AO being on grass and him only playing it once, it's hard to draw parallells between Borg and Nadal. It was a different game with different distribution of surfaces and different priorities.
I also wonder if Borg could have won a 7th RG title or not.It's a shame he quit because nadal is born just 3 days short of exactly 30years after Borg (amazing when you consider Federer is almost exactly 10 years after Pete Sampras) so Borg in 1981 on 6 RG titles, Nadal in 2011 on 6 too. Borg retired. Nadal is overall the clay GOAT and RG GOAT too, but borg put himself out of the running in terms of RG Goat (still wouldn't match nadal's overall clay status though)
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 ....
And Nadal won the USO which is something Borg couldn't do despite having multiple chances to do it.
Borg was such a mercurial and path-breaking player whereas Nadal seems like a small improvement on the offensive baseline style with more topspin, but also a left handed stroke.
If Nadal's comeback sees a return to form he will have a better career, but at the moment theyre quite even on the numbers, but not I think on a qualitative assessment.
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.
umm, do you just pretend to be obtuse ?
borg also beat connors @ the USO, in dominating fashion, in straights in 81 ....
he also beat tanner in 80 after losing to him in 79 ....
he wasn't losing continuously to everyone ...
oh and a red-hot tanner, in-form mac, connors >> just decent form djoker in 2010 ...
federer/red-hot verdasco in AO 2009 were on that level agreed, but then borg beat an in-form tanner in 80 USO and ripped apart connors in 81 ...so qualitatively its not that much of a difference tbh ....
I already mentioned that, didn't I ?
"the main edge nadal over borg is his career slam"
No doubt your name definitely fits you.
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. There will always be something that they will nitpick about that they believe keeps Nadal on weekend warrior level.
I honestly think he has! hes got the career slam and more variety plus more dominance on clay
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!
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.
I agree that Nadal has surpassed Borg in achievements, but you can't really compare him and Nadal in terms of HC slams. He also only played one AO, so yes Nadal has achieved more in his career but it's not a failing on Borg's part as a player as much as people make it out to be.
I expect Djoker to definitely surpass BOTH Connors and Mac before its all over and done with. Yes.. I think he will barring injury and he will definitely win some more USO titles in the process.
Djoker has some great conquests at the USO. Hes beaten Fed a few times there (could connors and Mac? I doubt it). There aren't many guys that could compete with Roger at the USO. (Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic,Agassi). I dont think Connors or Mac could OR Borg could.
Sure there is. Nadal doesn't excel indoors and has never won the WTF. Forget the fact that Nadal has won all the slams, and beat Borgs record at RG. Forget the fact that the WTF used to mean a whole lot of nothing up until about 20 years ago. All that matters is Nadal isn't good indoors, and has never won it. Forget the fact that Nadal had to contend with the GOAT for years since no one else was good enough to do it.
The lengths that some of the people here will go to discredit Nadal's achievements is unreal. They really believe he is just a product of racket technology and nothing more. Just go read the Muster thread to see how ridiculous these people are.
Well I think Nadal has surpassed Borg in terms of achievements but Borg in terms of ability could have won more slams than Sampras if he had actually bothered to play the AO and stick around a bit longer. He sometimes gets unfair criticism.
Like you saying Nadal made 4 HC finals. Borg only had 4 HC slams in his entire career. He would have had to make 4 US Open finals in a row from 1978-1981 and win 2 of them against Connors who is probably the greatest US Open champion of all time, and McEnroe who until Sampras had won the most on HC in the Open era with 4. He got the toughest finalists he could get. So yeah Nadal outranks him, I'm not arguing with that, but it's not really a fair comparison. It's like saying Nadal was useless cos he couldn't win the AO on rebound ace.
Also yeah there's no major on indoor hc but maybe someone is just trying to say he could play to a high level in all surfaces/conditions. There is a difference between how good a player you are in ability and how good in achievement. Borg was better than his total achievements suggest.
Nadal has surpassed him but it's unfair to compare all aspects of their career, and at the end of the day Borg still deserves respect.
Separate names with a comma.