Nadal vs Borg on hard courts

Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
A discussion on the Former pro player forum has brought up the comparison of Nadal vs Borg on hard courts. I'm of the opinion that Nadal is clearly superior to Borg on hard courts, although Borg was obviously no slouch and had only a very limited number of hard court slams to work with. Some, however, don't agree.

What does everyone else think? Is there good reason to have Borg above Nadal in this area given Nadal's 4 slams to Borg's 0?
 
There is clearly no reason to place Borg above Nadal in this category.

However, there is good reason to question the relevance of the hard-court metric to rank these two players. HC was far less important in Borg's era. He played a total of four slam events on it (USOs 1978-1981). How about Nadal on carpet?
 
Very interesting thread and it's a pity there is only one reply.

I agree with JMR, Nadal is clearly above Borg when it comes to achievements on hard court. However, let's not forget that hard court was a relatively new surface and not as mainstream as grass, clay or carpet when Borg was dominating men's tennis.
Unlike Nadal, he didn't have two chances every year to win a HC slam and had only four opportunities in his career (for comparison, Nadal had played 10 HC slams before winning his maiden AO in 2009). It should be also mentioned that almost all hard courts were fast back in the day, it would be interesting to see Bjorn competing on today's slower courts which definitely suit his game more.

Borg was one of the most versatile players ever, the way he managed to transform his grinding/heavy topspin game and adapt it for grass, only two weeks after usually dominating the players at Roland Garros, and then turned into a hard hitter during the indoor season, hitting the balls very early by injecting fair amount of pace is something that hadn't been seen in tennis until Federer arrived with his own versatility.
 
Rafa would have won somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 hardcourt slams in a non Djokerer era
 
JMR said:
However, there is good reason to question the relevance of the hard-court metric to rank these two players. HC was far less important in Borg's era. He played a total of four slam events on it (USOs 1978-1981). How about Nadal on carpet?
Click to expand...
I totally agree that you can't compare on achievements alone given Nadal has had far more opportunities to win hard court slams. The main thing for me is that he actually managed to win a slam whereas Borg, unlucky as he was, wasn't able to
 
Towny said:
A discussion on the Former pro player forum has brought up the comparison of Nadal vs Borg on hard courts. I'm of the opinion that Nadal is clearly superior to Borg on hard courts, although Borg was obviously no slouch and had only a very limited number of hard court slams to work with. Some, however, don't agree.

What does everyone else think? Is there good reason to have Borg above Nadal in this area given Nadal's 4 slams to Borg's 0?
Click to expand...
Borg only competed in 4 Hard Court slam events period. And 3 of them he made the final. We just don't have enough data to access his ability.

There are Borg's results in the first 4 Hard court slams (in fact the only Hard court slams) he competed in:

Runner-up, Quarter-Final, Runner-up, Runner-up

Here are Nadal's first 4 Hard Court slam results:

2nd Round, 3rd Round, 2nd Round, 4th Round

Now to be fair Nadal was 17/18 years old whilst competing in these events.

If we compare Nadal at the same age as Borg started his 4 above (22 years old):

Semi-final, Win, Semi-final, Quarter-final

So not a lot in it....

Watching the Borg 1981 US open semi-final against Connors though, should give you an idea of what Borg was capable of.
 
Last edited:
If we count carpet as an equivalent of HC in Borg's day then it's him at least at peak as he dominated carpet over a 2-3 span. As said above, tough to compare strictly on HC as Borg played only 4 slam events on HC all at the same venue which didn't really suit him.
 
timnz said:
Borg only competed in 4 Hard Court slam events period. And 3 of them he made the final. We just don't have enough data to access his ability.

There are Borg's results in the first 4 Hard court slams (in fact the only Hard court slams) he competed in:

Runner-up, Quarter-Final, Runner-up, Runner-up

Here are Nadal's first 4 Hard Court slam results:

2nd Round, 3rd Round, 2nd Round, 4th Round

Now to be fair Nadal was 17/18 years old whilst competing in these events.

If we compare Nadal at the same age as Borg started his 4 above (22 years old):

Semi-final, Win, Semi-final, Quarter-final

So not a lot in it....

Watching the Borg 1981 US open semi-final against Connors though, should give you an idea of what Borg was capable of.
Click to expand...
Following your logic, we have no data to compare Borg with ANYBODY, not only with Nadal. We cannot compare Borg on hard courts with Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, Federer or Djokovic.
 
On point, I am sorry but Borg did not demonstrate his level on hard courts, so Nadal is obviously above him in the ATG list on hard courts.

Otherwise, we would have to say that "it is not clear whether Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are above Borg on hard courts, because Borg did not play enough on hard".
 
timnz said:
Borg only competed in 4 Hard Court slam events period. And 3 of them he made the final. We just don't have enough data to access his ability.

There are Borg's results in the first 4 Hard court slams (in fact the only Hard court slams) he competed in:

Runner-up, Quarter-Final, Runner-up, Runner-up

Here are Nadal's first 4 Hard Court slam results:

2nd Round, 3rd Round, 2nd Round, 4th Round

Now to be fair Nadal was 17/18 years old whilst competing in these events.

If we compare Nadal at the same age as Borg started his 4 above (22 years old):

Semi-final, Win, Semi-final, Quarter-final

So not a lot in it....

Watching the Borg 1981 US open semi-final against Connors though, should give you an idea of what Borg was capable of.
Click to expand...

But they keep saying Federer is greater than Rod Laver who skipped Slams for 5 years during his PEAK and Rosewall who skipped Slams for 10 years (!!!).

Not to mention nutrition & health technology, living, training & traveling conditions...
 
axlrose said:
But they keep saying Federer is greater than Rod Laver who skipped Slams for 5 years during his PEAK and Rosewall who skipped Slams for 10 years (!!!).

Not to mention nutrition & health technology, living, training & traveling conditions...
Click to expand...
Some tennis historians keep putting Ken Rosewall as the GOAT, based on the fact that he won 23 Majors (8 GS + 15 Pro Slams). But of course, the predominant opinion is to put Federer as the GOAT.
 
King No1e said:
Literally any era is a weak era compared to the one Nadal's had to play in.
Click to expand...

I know, but guys like Fed and Nole (even Sampras and Murray sometimes) get slammed a lot for having played in a weak era. My comment was intended as a subtle jab at that way of thinking. I don't put too much stock in era comparison and to me it wouldn't make a difference whether Nadal wins against a tough field or a weak one. He deserves all the titles he wins, period (but let's not give him "moral" wins, come on!).

It was pretty cryptic, if I'm being honest, but I hope you get the point.

Fed wins? Baby Nadal, Injured Djokovic, mugs in slam finals.
Nole wins? Fed was old, Nadal was injured, Murray in another slam final.
Rafa wins (outside of clay)? Cakewalk draw.

Rant over

P.S: Mostly agree with your comment, but I think Murray's results suffered more in terms of "era"
 
Sport said:
Following your logic, we have no data to compare Borg with ANYBODY, not only with Nadal. We cannot compare Borg on hard courts with Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, Federer or Djokovic.
Click to expand...
Correct. We can’t compare Borg with anyone in the list of people you list. I attempt to compare Borg with Nadal because that is the subject of the thread.
 
Well this question first isn't precise enough. Borg played very little outdoor HC, ATP has him at 106 wins and 35 losses with 3 titles won, but he also has a much nicer 188-40 W/L ratio on carpet with 24 titles.

Borg winning a USO on hard court would have looked better on his resume, even if he only had 3 chances in his career to do so. But there's no way you can compare him with Nadal who has won almost every important outdoor HC tournament there is to win out there today.
I think it's fair to say Nadal > Borg fairly easily on outdoor HC but Borg is better on indoor HC (also an easy call).
 
Last edited:
Borg would be lucky to get more than one game per set. /
 
How would Borg have fared on hard court if he could see the ball? It might be self serving but Borg attributed his relative lack of success at the USO to difficulty with reflection from the lights (I think he wore contact lenses) not a problem with the surface. It seems plausible given he won 6FO and 5 Wimbledons that it was something other than a surface problem that stopped him at the USO.
 
Nadal's winning% is a almost 2% higher. He loses like 8% less on HC despite playing in a time period where HC is the most played surface.
 
Red Rick said:
Nadal's winning% is a almost 2% higher. He loses like 8% less on HC despite playing in a time period where HC is the most played surface.
Click to expand...
2013 I’ll never forget he played so well on hardcourts he’s no where as good now lacks speed plus stands too far back on baseline to be a threat to Djokovic
 
giphy.gif


YetAnotherFedFan said:
Borg would be lucky to get more than one game per set. /
Click to expand...
 
Towny said:
A discussion on the Former pro player forum has brought up the comparison of Nadal vs Borg on hard courts. I'm of the opinion that Nadal is clearly superior to Borg on hard courts, although Borg was obviously no slouch and had only a very limited number of hard court slams to work with. Some, however, don't agree.

What does everyone else think? Is there good reason to have Borg above Nadal in this area given Nadal's 4 slams to Borg's 0?
Click to expand...
Borg never won a hard court slam even in his prime years, therefore, Nadal has the superior record to Borg on hard courts.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Then why did he reach three finals in the four tournaments he played? If Borg played multiple Australian Open and US open tournaments on slower modern hard courts he would have more hard court titles than Nadal.
Click to expand...
If = untestable claim, thus not valid.

But I agree that we know Borg was substantially better on hard than Sampras on clay.
 
Sport said:
Some tennis historians keep putting Ken Rosewall as the GOAT, based on the fact that he won 23 Majors (8 GS + 15 Pro Slams). But of course, the predominant opinion is to put Federer as the GOAT.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone calls Rosewall the GOAT, just that he won 23 major tournaments. Ken lost 11 years playing slams, yet still manged to win eight, 4 between 18-23 and 4 between ages 33-37. Laver won his first major at 22, his last at 31. Gonzalez won his last pro major at 31. Rosewall's problem was that he had losing records against Laver and Gonzalez, overall, but did better against them in the biggest events.
 
You can't compare these two on accomplishments due to huge differences in the eras in question. It would be a great H2H match up IMO, and it's just a shame Borg never did win the USO on HC because it would've been huge for him all these years later.
 
Red Rick said:
That's more due to how much tennis changed than due to the difference in merit of either player.

IIRC, Borg has the highest winning% of any player without HC Slam.
Click to expand...

I understand that, I just don't like those kinds of statements. Any pro player would crush Borg if he was using his wooden racquet. So his statement was accurate to a point but does a disservice to the talent of Borg.
 
Obviously accomplishment wise Nadal is on a whole other level, but like you say you have to consider how relatively few major tournaments were played on hard courts in Borg's time (and he did win some) and secondly you have to consider the kinds of hard courts they were playing on. How well would Nadal fair on lower bouncing courts where his opponents are rushing the net? Borg would love to play on the hard courts of today, they'd play right into his hands.
 
Borg.

JMR said:
There is clearly no reason to place Borg above Nadal in this category.
Click to expand...

3 Finals in 4 Years losing to only McEnroe and Connors. Nadal was 24 and in his 8th Slam season when he reached his first.
 
EloQuent said:
Borg was not great on HC. Pete-on-clay.
Click to expand...
Lol, no. Borg made three (of four) hard court slam finals, including pushing Mac to a fifth set in 1980, and also won (according to Wikipedia) 4 Masters-equivalent titles, plus 7 overall.

That's compared to Sampras's 0 slam finals, 1 Masters title, and 3 titles overall on clay. Sampras's career W/L on clay was 63%, compared to 75% for Borg on hard.

But as for the OP, Nadal's achievements dwarf Borg's on hard court. Would have been interesting to see what Borg could have achieved had the tour been laid out like today's tour. Borg was never the dominant hard court player, but he was always in the mix, competing for big titles.
 
helterskelter said:
I mean, perhaps it makes him an all-time great on hard, but he's clearly a long way off contending for the title of greatest of all time on hard courts.
Click to expand...

I am not sure, his 2-1 h2h lead over Djokovic, probably the greatest ever on hard courts I think is very significant. Problem is hard courts vary alot and Nadal is outstanding on certain hard courts, but can be exposed by the best on lower bouncing onces, like we saw 2 months ago.
 
Pantera said:
I am not sure, his 2-1 h2h lead over Djokovic, probably the greatest ever on hard courts I think is very significant. Problem is hard courts vary alot and Nadal is outstanding on certain hard courts, but can be exposed by the best on lower bouncing onces, like we saw 2 months ago.
Click to expand...

Federer had 10 HC slams, Djokovic 9 HC slams....Nadal 4 HC slams. Nadal doesn't even have half their numbers. He is ATG HC territory, but not GOAT HC territory. Sampras has a bigger claim.
 
helterskelter said:
I mean, perhaps it makes him an all-time great on hard, but he's clearly a long way off contending for the title of greatest of all time on hard courts.
Click to expand...
I think he meant Nadal is one of the all-time greats on hard courts in general. No way Nadal is THE greatest of all time on hard courts. That title belongs to Djokovic, as soon as he overtakes Federer's 11 Slams on hard.
 
Hitman said:
Federer had 10 HC slams, Djokovic 9 HC slams....Nadal 4 HC slams. Nadal doesn't even have half their numbers. He is ATG HC territory, but not GOAT HC territory. Sampras has a bigger claim.
Click to expand...

Look who Nadal beat in finals to get his. That is my point. Sampras Is definitely in the mix btw. Im a massive Sampras admirer.
 
Pantera said:
Look who Nadal beat in finals to get his. That is my point. Sampras Is definitely in the mix btw. Im a massive Sampras admirer.
Click to expand...

He still had a losing record in HC slam finals. 4 won 5 lost, you simply cannot be the HC GOAT with a negative conversation rate. ATG, yes, he is, HC GOAT candidate? Not with a less than 50% conversion rate in finals.
 
Hitman said:
He still had a losing record in HC slam finals. 4 won 5 lost, you simply cannot be the HC GOAT with a negative conversation rate. ATG, yes, he is, HC GOAT candidate? Not with a less than 50% conversion rate in finals.
Click to expand...

Depends how much weight you apply to Australia v US Open. Is Australia a proper traditional hard court? it has a softer base and is rubberised on top to protect from the heat so vastly different to deco turf hard court, which is a traditional hard court with a harder base. Not saying US Open the bigger event btw, Australian Open is now the biggest Major, both Nadal and Djokovic stated that.
 
Pantera said:
Depends how much weight you apply to Australia v US Open. Is Australia a proper traditional hard court? it has a softer base and is rubberised on top to protect from the heat so vastly different to deco turf hard court, which is a traditional hard court with a harder base. Not saying US Open the bigger event btw, Australian Open is now the biggest Major, both Nadal and Djokovic stated that.
Click to expand...

A hard court is a hard court. Are you telling me ONLY USO counts? Hard court is defined as a surface which gives a true bounce, both AO and USO do this.

Overall, Nadal has a losing record against two players in HC slam finals, and he is tied 1-1 with the third, he doesn't have a winning H2H against anyone in HC slam finals, add to that a less than 50% conversation rate in finals, and I am baffled how anyone would think Nadal is HC GOAT. Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl all rank higher.
 
Hitman said:
A hard court is a hard court. Are you telling me ONLY USO counts? Hard court is defined as a surface which gives a true bounce, both AO and USO do this.

Overall, Nadal has a losing record against two players in HC slam finals, and he is tied 1-1 with the third, he doesn't have a winning H2H against anyone in HC slam finals, add to that a less than 50% conversation rate in finals, and I am baffled how anyone would think Nadal is HC GOAT. Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl all rank higher.
Click to expand...
I agree with your comment that Nadal cannot be the hard court GOAT. But come on, the losing H2H against Wawrinka in GS finals cannot be counted against Rafa. He was injured during that match. It is like counting the losing H2H of Djokovic with Chung on hard courts, when Djokovic was clearly subpar in early 2018.
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
I agree with your comment that Nadal cannot be the hard court GOAT. But come on, the losing H2H against Wawrinka in GS finals cannot be counted against Rafa. He was injured during that match. It is like counting the losing H2H of Djokovic with Chung on hard courts, when Djokovic was clearly subpar in early 2018.
Click to expand...

If you step on court, they all count. You cannot take that win away from Wawrinka. You can say Rafa was not at his best, but it still counts in the loss column when looking at the numbers.
 
Hitman said:
If you step on court, they all count. You cannot take that win away from Wawrinka. You can say Rafa was not at his best, but it still counts in the loss column when looking at the numbers.
Click to expand...
Then Djokovic's loss to Chung also counts when looking at the numbers. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennisaddict
Is Nadal really better than Borg and Sampras ?
Replies
25
Views
5K
Legend of Borg
Legend of Borg
C
GOAT: Either Nadal or Borg!
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
FeroBango
F
R
Better FO record: Borg vs Nadal
Replies
7
Views
2K
Deleted member 3771
D
granddog29
  • Poll Poll
Nadal vs Borg vs Sampras at this point
2
Replies
70
Views
10K
Bender
Bender
6
Federer <-> Borg <-> Nadal
Replies
3
Views
946
tennis-hero
tennis-hero
Back
Top