If Djokovic wins 6th Wimbledon title, will he be a greater Wimbledon legend than Borg?

[Enceladus]

At first glance, it's clear that Nole would be greater legend due to more number of Wimbledon titles in such a situation, 6 > 5. But, Borg has a stunning series of 5 consecutive titles in the 1976-1980, a record he shares with Federer. Another thing is that Borg had to make a greater effort to adapt to the grass, in his time the differences between the surfaces were greater than today.

Do you think one Wimbledon title is enough to make Nole a greater legend in Wimbledon history than Borg? Or do any of you think Nole is already greater now and why?

 

[InsideOut900]

It's pretty hard to consider Djokovic a greater grass courter than Borg as it stands.
If he won 2012 and 2013 for 5 in a row, then a 6th title past his prime in any year out of 2018-2021 I would probably put him ahead.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

I voted no, but this is a much harder question than it may seem. Sure, Nole didn't win five in a row on fast grass against Connors and Mac but he did beat the slow grass GOAT 3 times playing near/peak tennis once.

I think being "first" of something always gives you a certain prestige, like Petr being the "first" guy to break and set all the GOAT records, Roger being the "first" GOAT contender to be dominated by his rivals, etc. so Borg will always be a high mark regardless of whether he's surpassed in titles. I mean PETE has 7, and is regarded as the better grasscourter but somehow Borg's mystique never left him.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

I say Djokovic because I don't want my threads deleted.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I’d keep them tied at 6-5, no option for that? I voted no but I would have them tied.

Novak has the 3-0 in finals over Wimbledon statistical GOAT, and complete domination of his big 3 rivals there, battling the crowd too.

Borg has the 5 in a row, winning it 2 weeks after polarised conditions at RG.

Nole needs 7 IMO to jump into tier 1 with Pete and Fed.

 

[Enceladus]

It's pretty hard to consider Djokovic a greater grass courter than Borg as it stands.
If he won 2012 and 2013 for 5 in a row, then a 6th title past his prime in any year out of 2018-2021 I would probably put him ahead.

So since Djoker didn't win Wimbledon 2012-13, does he have to win at least two Wimbledon titles to place him ahead of Borg? Or one Wimbledon title with one Queens' title perhaps?

 

[Biotic]

Is Federer a greater Wimbledon legend than PETE?

 

[Enceladus]

I’d keep them tied at 6-5, no option for that? I voted no but I would have them tied.

Good note, I added an option "A tie between them".

 

[InsideOut900]

So since Djoker didn't win Wimbledon 2012-13, does he have to win at least two Wimbledon titles to place him ahead of Borg? Or one Wimbledon title with one Queens' title perhaps?

It's mostly Borg having 5 prime level titles and another tough final loss in 1981.
That's kind of hard to match, since half or more than half of Novak's Wimbledon titles are going to be won past prime in this scenario.

I guess 2 more titles, displaying a high level in both would make up for the lower quality title in 2019. The question is if Djokovic is still capable of a high level on grass at 34.

 

[Sudacafan]

This is too early in the morning for me to answer such a sensitive question.
I may look into this later on.

 

[K-H]

Firstly, forget the surface change from clay to grass argument for borg. We're talking just about Wimbledon and nothing else.

We can't talk about how the grass has been slowed down now because federer also played in slow grass and his fans say he's better than Sampras at Wimbledon. Even though sampras was more dominant in the sense that he never lost a final there. And federer has lost 4 now. And I agree, Federer is a greater Wimbledon player than sampras.

So really, if Djokokic wins 6, how can we not say djokovic. Age aside, Federer played really well in 2014 and 2019. Djokovic just better than him.
Nadal in 2011 was still in his prime years even though he didn't play his best and Djokovic beat him. So he did play some top players.

 

[Biotic]

Firstly, forget the surface change from clay to grass argument for borg. We're talking just about Wimbledon and nothing else.

We can't talk about how the grass has been slowed down now because federer also played in slow grass and his fans say he's better than Sampras at Wimbledon. Even though sampras was more dominant in the sense that he never lost a final there. And federer has lost 4 now. And I agree, Federer is a greater Wimbledon player than sampras.

So really, if Djokokic wins 6, how can we not say djokovic. Age aside, Federer played really well in 2014 and 2019. Djokovic just better than him.
Nadal in 2011 was still in his prime years even though he didn't play his best and Djokovic beat him. So he did play some top players.

Because Fedr?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Well, I have Borg ahead of Djokovic at Wimbledon atm due to 5 in a row. But if Djokovic wins the 6th title, then he is simply greater.

And I don't care about prime stuff. It's not Novak's fault Borg retired so early.

 

[Beckerserve]

At first glance, it's clear that Nole would be greater legend due to more number of Wimbledon titles in such a situation, 6 > 5. But, Borg has a stunning series of 5 consecutive titles in the 1976-1980, a record he shares with Federer. Another thing is that Borg had to make a greater effort to adapt to the grass, in his time the differences between the surfaces were greater than today.

Do you think one Wimbledon title is enough to make Nole a greater legend in Wimbledon history than Borg? Or do any of you think Nole is already greater now and why?

Lol. Borg was a far far better grass court player than Djokovic. Djokovic has never won a set off Murray.
Djokovic got to play a past it Federer in 3 Wimbledon finals. Borg had to contend with a young prime Mcenroe.

 

[TheAssassin]

It's close either way. Can't penalise Djokovic for changes that he had no control over, or pretend that he didn't have some stunning triumphs at Wimbledon himself.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic will become a greater legend over time if he wins his sixth title there.

He already has several iconic matches there, and the W 2019 is one that will be talked about for a very very long time. At moment, I give the slightest edge to Borg, but if Djokovic wins number six he is greater.

 

[Enceladus]

I voted no, but this is a much harder question than it may seem. Sure, Nole didn't win five in a row on fast grass against Connors and Mac but he did beat the slow grass GOAT 3 times playing near/peak tennis once.

I think being "first" of something always gives you a certain prestige, like Petr being the "first" guy to break and set all the GOAT records, Roger being the "first" GOAT contender to be dominated by his rivals, etc. so Borg will always be a high mark regardless of whether he's surpassed in titles. I mean PETE has 7, and is regarded as the better grasscourter but somehow Borg's mystique never left him.

A positive argument for Djoker is that with each triumph at Wimbledon, he defeated one of his two biggest rivals - Nadal in 2011 & 2018 and Federer in 2014, 2015 & 2019. Borg didn't face Connors or McEnroe (who was not a professional at the time) in 1976.

Wimbledon 2021 will be crucial, because Novak could win not only the 6th title, but also the Wimbledon hat-trick (3 titles in a row), which he could do as fourth player in the Open era at Wimbledon and the fifth since 1922, when the era began in which the defending champion, like the other participants, must participated the main draw.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Djokovic has 5 Wimbledon titles and the next slam is RG.

 

[Enceladus]

Lol. Borg was a far far better grass court player than Djokovic. Djokovic has never won a set off Murray.
Djokovic got to play a past it Federer in 3 Wimbledon finals. Borg had to contend with a young prime Mcenroe.

Djoker can't blame Fed and Dimitrov for knocking out Murray.
The argument with Murray against Djoker on the grass seems overrated to me, because the same analogy can be used against Sampras - "Sampras was overrated on grass, because he don't beat Krajicek at grass."

 

[Enceladus]

Djokovic will become a greater legend over time if he wins his sixth title there.

He already has several iconic matches there, and the W 2019 is one that will be talked about for a very very long time. At moment, I give the slightest edge to Borg, but if Djokovic wins number six he is greater.

Especially if Nole wins this year, because that would give him a hat-trick. Since the beginning of the Open era, only Borg, Sampras and Federer have won a hat-trick at Wimbledon. It would also be his third grandslam hat-trick, winning two at the AO in 2011-13 and 2019-21.

 

[beard]

Novak is at least already leveled with Borg... He won against Fed in 3 finals... So already better...
And 5 in the row... I don't understand that argument (not in this case solely)... It's kind of being great some period and wanish... I preference longevity and bigger time span. Look at Feds 2003/2017 time span, isn't it great?

 

[The Blond Blur]

Greater, yes. Better grass court player, no.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I don't know how to assess who would be the greater legend.
If you put a premium on a single stretch of domination (wins in 1976-80 and a final in W), then Borg may still get the edge. In this case, at what point do Novak's titles (6? 7/ 8? 9?) bring him even with or past Borg?
If it's simply a case of who wins more titles, then of course, Novak's 6th title will eclipse Borg's 5.

As per the legend, it may be that the way in which Novak squeaked by Fed in 2019 adds more to his legend than if he beat him more routinely.

 

[BeatlesFan]

The OP used the word “legend,” so Borg wins any comparison since he’s a legend and Djokovic isn’t. That’s not even debatable outside Serbia. But if Djoker manages to win a sixth Wimbledon, he will have had a greater career at Wimbledon than Borg.

 

[Waves]

Novak is living in the penthouse, but Borg has the bigger bedroom with the ensuite.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

I’d keep them tied at 6-5, no option for that? I voted no but I would have them tied.

Novak has the 3-0 in finals over Wimbledon statistical GOAT, and complete domination of his big 3 rivals there, battling the crowd too.

Borg has the 5 in a row, winning it 2 weeks after polarised conditions at RG.

Nole needs 7 IMO to jump into tier 1 with Pete and Fed.

I think Nole gets to seven and he's above Fed tbh. 7 Titles won in molasses conditions against Fedal>8 titles in Molasses conditions against Roddick, Philippousis, Injured Cilic, ancient Bjorkman, giddy Grosjean, etc.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I think Nole gets to seven and he's above Fed tbh. 7 Titles won in molasses conditions against Fedal>8 titles in Molasses conditions against Roddick, Philippousis, Injured Cilic, ancient Bjorkman, giddy Grosjean, etc.

True. Fed’s record is seriously suspect. The guy lost almost 2/3 of the biggest matches to his main rivals.

You simply can’t lose so much and be called the greatest of all time.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

Because Fedr?

Because Srichaphan

 

[ron schaap]

Lol. Borg was a far far better grass court player than Djokovic. Djokovic has never won a set off Murray.
Djokovic got to play a past it Federer in 3 Wimbledon finals. Borg had to contend with a young prime Mcenroe.

Borg was better when he was playing but when he stopped so early it was a big disappointment. Maybe because he felt he could not win another grandslam anymore. Nadal, Fed and Nole give themself a chance to win again by taking the risk of even losing first week. That is much more goat like.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

The OP used the word “legend,” so Borg wins any comparison since he’s a legend and Djokovic isn’t. That’s not even debatable outside Serbia. But if Djoker manages to win a sixth Wimbledon, he will have had a greater career at Wimbledon than Borg.

Djokovic is not a legend?

 

[ron schaap]

Djoker can't blame Fed and Dimitrov for knocking out Murray.
The argument with Murray against Djoker on the grass seems overrated to me, because the same analogy can be used against Sampras - "Sampras was overrated on grass, because he don't beat Krajicek at grass."

so kraai was better om grass. i say this as his countryman, lol

 

[Enceladus]

The OP used the word “legend,” so Borg wins any comparison since he’s a legend and Djokovic isn’t. That’s not even debatable outside Serbia. But if Djoker manages to win a sixth Wimbledon, he will have had a greater career at Wimbledon than Borg.

This is a completely absurd BS claim, Djoker is a Wimbledon legend, thanks to five triumphs and several iconic matches.
Try to write to the organizers of Wimbledon and ask them if Djokovic is a legend. They would laugh at you and say how you can say the opposite about such undoubted fact, LOL.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

Djokovic is not a legend?

That was my morning laugh as well

 

[Enceladus]

Djokovic is not a legend?

@BeatlesFan has long been known for its tendency / bias / non-objective.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

True. Fed’s record is seriously suspect. The guy lost almost 2/3 of the biggest matches to his main rivals.

You simply can’t lose so much and be called the greatest of all time.

10-21 does not lie. Stats are brutal.

 

[Enceladus]

so kraai was better om grass. i say this as his countryman, lol

Do you understand what I mean? That the argument "Djokovic never won a set against Murray at grass" is weak, because it can be used against Sampras (in match up against Krajicek) and Sampras was the undisputed king of grass in the 1990s. Djokovic is a strong grass player, despite the fact that he never beat Murray on the grass, Djoker was not given the opportunity to retaliation after 2013.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

10-21 does not lie. Stats are brutal.

Lmao. Can’t use age excuse either as he was utterly dominated by Nadal in his 20s, followed by Djokovic in 30s.

 

[InsideOut900]

The OP used the word “legend,” so Borg wins any comparison since he’s a legend and Djokovic isn’t. That’s not even debatable outside Serbia.

 

[ron schaap]

Do you understand what I mean? That the argument "Djokovic never won a set against Murray at grass" is weak, because it can be used against Sampras (in match up against K

Do you understand what I mean? That the argument "Djokovic never won a set against Murray at grass" is weak, because it can be used against Sampras (in match up against Krajicek) and Sampras was the undisputed king of grass in the 1990s. Djokovic is a strong grass player, despite the fact that he never beat Murray on the grass, Djoker was not given the opportunity to retaliation after 2013.

your argument is valid but not your example. Kraichek not only stopped Pete, moreover Pete never became dominant on grass anymore too. Also Pete never won in Paris so this makes Nole and Nadal much bigger allround champions. and Borg too .

 

[Mainad]

I voted for Borg because 3 of his Wimbledon wins came straight after winning Roland Garros (1978-80). Only 3 other players in the open era have ever completed the Channel Slam ie. Nadal twice (2008,2010), Laver (1969), Federer (2009). Djokovic has yet to accomplish this.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

I voted for Borg because 3 of his Wimbledon wins came straight after winning Roland Garros (1978-80). Only 3 other players in the open era have ever completed the Channel Slam ie. Nadal twice (2008,2010), Laver (1969), Federer (2009). Djokovic has yet to accomplish this.

Ah, that is a fair point actually.

 

[Deleted member 781040]

Lmao. Can’t use age excuse either as he was utterly dominated by Nadal in his 20s, followed by Djokovic in 30s.

A drillmaster for every decade. Rafter, Rafa, Nole, and Thiem.

 

[Street]

At first glance, it's clear that Nole would be greater legend due to more number of Wimbledon titles in such a situation, 6 > 5. But, Borg has a stunning series of 5 consecutive titles in the 1976-1980, a record he shares with Federer. Another thing is that Borg had to make a greater effort to adapt to the grass, in his time the differences between the surfaces were greater than today.

Do you think one Wimbledon title is enough to make Nole a greater legend in Wimbledon history than Borg? Or do any of you think Nole is already greater now and why?

Murray is better than both.

 

[SonnyT]

He's already a greater legend than Borg, by some measure. Borg's greatest Wimbledon victories: McEnroe, Connors (2). Djokovic's: Federer (3), Nadal (2).

 

[blablavla]

So since Djoker didn't win Wimbledon 2012-13, does he have to win at least two Wimbledon titles to place him ahead of Borg? Or one Wimbledon title with one Queens' title perhaps?

two questions:

1. how many Wimbledon titles did Nole win by S&V?
2. how many Wimbledon titles did Nole win few weeks after lifting RG trophy?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

two questions:

1. how many Wimbledon titles did Nole win by S&V?
2. how many Wimbledon titles did Nole win few weeks after lifting RG trophy?

Blablavla at it again.

 

[blablavla]

Lol. Borg was a far far better grass court player than Djokovic. Djokovic has never won a set off Murray.

Lol, Borg also never won a set off Murray

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Blablavla at it again.

We need Lewie back now.

 

[blablavla]

We need Lewie back now.

you have Petros, as a new iteration of a banned troll with new account
I'd be really surprised if this user was never banned here in the past

 

[Visionary]

Had Borg continued playing rather than retiring at 26, he would have won a few more titles regardless the coming competition of John McEnroe etc. But it would've been interesting to see how Djoker would have dealt with Borg, had they played/met in the same era together. Unfair comparison, given that Borg did not have a full life in pro tennis.