OE top 6 at Wimbledon if we only look at prime level
- Thread starter StefanV
- Start date
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
I’ve had posters here tell me that if young Borg could travel in time and had to face Novak at Wimbledon in modern conditions (so not just grass but racquet tech and strings as well) he would adapt in just a few weeks and beat him.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
What about if Novak had to travel back in time to the 80s and use a tiny wooden racquet, wear god awful shoes, and play on tricky low bouncing grass in a time where SnV was the main strategy? No egg either and tough to find gluten free food. Why don’t we go the other way? How would the modern guys do when subjected to the older conditions?I’ve had posters here tell me that if young Borg could travel in time and had to face Novak at Wimbledon in modern conditions (so not just grass but racquet tech and strings as well) he would adapt in just a few weeks and beat him.
Look at this ****ing racquet man! Look at it! They didn’t even have color back then!
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
That’s why comparisons across time make no sense
And Stich and Cash.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea I agree. Comparisons across time don't make sense, especially when you're comparing a guy from the 70s and 80s to one in the 2010s. Let's just stick to relative levels. In his time, Borg barely survived players like Amaya and Amritraj in the early rounds during his Wimbledon romp and I don't think his competition was on the level of Sampras, Federer, Djokovic or Becker's.
He struggled against a lot of players so we can say mentally he was really tough because he won those matches, but at a playing level stand point what makes his level higher than some other guys, relatively? Once McEnroe came along, he barely escaped in 1980, got beat in 1981, and then retired so we really never got to see the ending of that saga. So out of all the Wimbledon legends, Borg is the most overrated imo.
He struggled against a lot of players so we can say mentally he was really tough because he won those matches, but at a playing level stand point what makes his level higher than some other guys, relatively? Once McEnroe came along, he barely escaped in 1980, got beat in 1981, and then retired so we really never got to see the ending of that saga. So out of all the Wimbledon legends, Borg is the most overrated imo.
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Semi-Pro
If it’s peak/ Prime level then it’s Sampras and everyone else miles back and left in the dust. No one else is even in the same conversation peak for peak. From there I would say Becker narrowly Then Fed. Then Djoker or Borg then Nadal. But 2008 Nadal peak wise is probably better than Djoker and Borg on grass. But his overrall prime level wasn’t
If we are taking prime/peak levels that is
The only greater peak/prime level force on a surface than Pete on grass was Nadal on clay.
If we are taking prime/peak levels that is
The only greater peak/prime level force on a surface than Pete on grass was Nadal on clay.
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Semi-Pro
Agassi was deceptively great on grass too bbWould have had 3 Wimbledons if not for PETE. His ‘92 run was awesome
Roddick was legit on grass. His only weakness was his movement and net ability
Roddick was legit on grass. His only weakness was his movement and net ability
Razer
Legend
No GOAT candidate in their peak years loses to anyone in their 30s. Nole is the only fella who lost to 31 year old Federer and an inferior guy like Murray.... what a shame !!!
Sonny ... your hero is not as great on grass as you think kid.... Federer was at his peak in 2000s, he was declined in 2010s.
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Semi-Pro
Everyone has a bad day at the office. Losing to 08 Nadal isn’t that bad neither is losing to a on fire kraijcek who would win the tournament.
I don’t know about losing to Murray straight sets though LOL. I don’t give Djoker much leeway there. That’s pretty bad stuff. No disrespect to Murray. He was a good player but he doesn’t exactly have a game that’s gonna just bludgeon off the court
even past prime roddick beat Murray.
I don’t know about losing to Murray straight sets though LOL. I don’t give Djoker much leeway there. That’s pretty bad stuff. No disrespect to Murray. He was a good player but he doesn’t exactly have a game that’s gonna just bludgeon off the court
even past prime roddick beat Murray.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Federer has three 1st round losses at Wimbledon and Sampras has two 1st round losses, before they both figured out the surface. Sampras flat out hated grass and said it publicly until the epiphany happened and he realized it was the best surface for him. I don't think that adds up to them being more natural than Djokovic on it who made the 3rd and 4th rounds in his 1st two tries at it, and was challenging top guys. Djokovic earned his Wimbledon stripes.
Razer
Legend
Your boy was a peasant with 1 wimbledon title on his 27th birthday
Federer had 5 and Sampras had 5 as well on their 27th birthdays, so lets not worry about figuring out surfaces.
Slow learners learn slowly, fast learners learn fast.... a fast learner is always ahead of a slow learner since he is a natural talent.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It doesn't really matter where you start but where you end up. He has legit great wins at Wimbledon and some easy wins, just like they do. He made his 1st Wimbledon semi when he was 20, before they did. Everyone's road to glory isn't the same but that doesn't make it less.
Razer
Legend
Road to glory in 20s matters.... the wins in 30s don't have the same power
Federer's wins in 2012 and 2017 will never be as glorious as his 03-07 ones...
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
In your mind, sure. It's harder to win in your 30s than your 20s. You've even said testosterone decreases in 30s so why is it easier or has less power? Lol. That's a contradiction. Not everybody can dominate in their 30s. Djokovic and Laver were the rare exceptions. So trying to qualify it as easy when not many could do it doesn't add up.
Federer's win in 2012 is rated by UTS as his hardest win. Take that or leave it depending on how valid you think their ratings are but I don't see how 2012 and 2017 are on the same level.
Razer
Legend
As if Djokovic won his wimbledons in 30s by beating young ATGs?
Federer winning in 2012 was by beating Novak and Murray which is admirable, but has Novak beaten anyone young and great in his 30s? The answer is there is none great in the 1990s gen and thats why he won so many wimbledons without any opposition.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
He beat nadal in 2018 when he had been off the radar. So because they were 31 and 32, it doesn't count? Sinner in 2022? I see this guy getting to the 5 or 6 Slam mark if he can stay healthy. If we give retroactive ATG wins to Federer from beating Djokovic and Nadal in 2006 and 2007, then we have to do the same there.
So many Wimbledons without opposition? He got 5 from beating Fedal. Djokovic got his easier wins. So did Sampras and Federer. I don't see how it's any different.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Some people grasp at any excuse for the sake of coping, whether it's winning as a teenager, in their 30s, while sick, injured, with thalassemia, mononucleosis, or any other reason—must be discounted, LOL.
Razer
Legend
Sampras and Federer won 7 and 6 wimbledon in their 20s while Djokovic won only 3, so he cannot be rated as good as them. Level of play is higher in 20s than in 30s.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
There's some hidden agendas, yes. Lol
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Sampras was a Wimbledon god. He has a higher winning percentage than Djokovic or Federer, and won 7/8 during his romp. That's absurd. It took a peaking Krajicek to interrupt his run. I can't put Djokovic above that but he definitely deserves to be in that group. There's some legit coaches on Youtube who put Djokovic above Federer though for reasons already known. They don't care about this 30s vs 20s stuff.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Imagine you could offer a pro player a chance to jump directly to a Wimbledon final and they get to choose from two hypothetical opponents. If they win they are Wimbledon champions. One is young (pre 2010) Roddick and the other is old (2014,15, 19) Federer. Do you think anyone would pick Federer as the “easier” competition? I don’t.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Why don’t you apply the same principle of “winning slams after 30 does not count equally” in the Graf vs Serena debates?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Which is strange as Fischer trained him explicitly to win Wimbledon. The whole purpose of changing to a one handed at an advanced age was to win Wimbledon.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Didnt Krajicek straight set peak Sampras at Wimbledon?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I didn't know that but yea he said he just didn't get the surface at 1st. Didn't like playing on it.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Adapting from inferior to superior equipment is not as tough as you make it. Agassi publicly stated that it felt like cheating when he first played with poly because it was so easy. I disagree about few weeks, but Borg could definitely adapt more quickly as one might think.I’ve had posters here tell me that if young Borg could travel in time and had to face Novak at Wimbledon in modern conditions (so not just grass but racquet tech and strings as well) he would adapt in just a few weeks and beat him.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
It’s not just the tech but what you can do with it. Changing tech so radically requires changing how you play. You can’t expect someone who mostly SnVd to just easily change to mostly baseline at higher ball speeds. And Borg famously couldn't adapt to playing without a wooden racquet.
Pro players will tell you (I’ve heard Novak on this topic) that even something as small as adding a few grams of weight to their racquet requires a long process of adaptation. We know how well Borg did with the conditions he grew up in. We have no way of knowing how he’d do if those conditions changed dramatically.
Razer
Legend
I would have if Graf's resume was clean like Serena's.
Sadly Graf's entire resume is polluted, she has only 11 slams which are legit, remaining 11 of her resume is an abomination created by a crime committed by a madman. Graf ain't responsible for this but that doesn't mean we cannot take her fake resume seriously.
Razer
Legend
Losses in 4th rounds or Qfs don't count much in my book, players can have losses in 1st week or even in 4R/QF due to lapse of form, when someone reaches the final or even the SF then all eyes are on you as you are in form and you are then judged by how good you are.
So Sampras's loss to Krajicek is not as big of a deal as Federer losing to Nadal in Final or Nadal getting straight setted by Djokovic at the Aus open 2019 or Novak getting straight setted to Murray at Wimbledon in 2013, such losses are a black mark on your resume. Nadal's losses before the QF from 2012-2017 are not something which people take as losses at his peak unlike the losses in finals which raise eyebrows.
Beating 30s Fed is still tougher than beating 2005 Roddick or 2006 Nadal or 2003 Roddick but I wouldn't say beating 2019 Federer is tougher than beating 2009 Roddick.... Roddick was a tougher opponent in 09 that Fed was in 2019.
Borg is extremely overrated.
messiahrobins
Hall of Fame
Becker over McEnroe for me. Edberg over Djokovic as well. Murray as well arguably given Djokovic never got a set off him on grass i think is correct?
messiahrobins
Hall of Fame
Borg overrated? Lmao. Had he won the USO he would have a legit argument to be outright GOAT!
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Ok take Nav or Court then. You said you have Serena as GOAT. Applying the logic of slams won at 30+ count less that should not be the case.
Razer
Legend
Serena is a more evolved athlete than them, so I just place her ahead. However if someone placed them ahead I dont think I would be interested to argue with them. As long as that Graf is put below all of them I am good.
Borg ran away from Mcenroe, so his arguments to be GOAT are thin. He should have collected more Slams ( & titles in general) and not retired so early if he wanted his so called goathood to stand the test of time. Plus Borg played in the wooden era, he is not evolved enough to be compared with current player. Becker and players who came after him can be compared to Big 3, not Borg, however out of respect to him we place him in Tier 1 but is he Goat? Nope...
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Borg did not SnV so much outside Wimbledon but was primarily a baseliner so would have fit well in today’s game. If you allude to his failed comeback, that was mostly due to being inactive (and didn’t live the most healthy life style during that time to put it mildly) as well as trying with wood at first. Once he changed to graphite, he did a little better and at least had match points against No.17 Volkov. Definitely better than Muster’s comeback.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
we can debate the details. My point is that for all the talk of weak and strong eras there isn’t that much difference in the players Fed and Novak beat to win their Wimbys. Both had instances of beating stronger and weaker opponents.
Razer
Legend
Yes but that loss to Murray is a big black mark.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
messiahrobins
Hall of Fame
Borg was significantly better than McEnroe as McEnroe himself would admit. Graf is the GOAT of tennis. Undisputably. 22 slams and a Golden calendar Slam puts here way ahead of anyone else.
You dont get to penalise players because they had a disadvantage of poorer equipment! if anything it is the opposite and we could say 11 slams back then with that equipment is equivalent to 22 Slams now.
Borg is the exact example of why GOAThood is more than just statistics. Mike Tyson another example, Senna another. Peak level if achieved over a number of years is very important.
Razer
Legend
Novak was being generous to his buddy!
If Novak had converted 2013 one and lets say lost in 2022 to someone... his resume would look very impressive despite same number of wimbledons.... even Fed fans would not be able to raise question marks
2011 - W
2012 - Loss to Fed
2013 - W
2014 - W
2015 - W
2018 - W
2019 - W
2021 - W
2022 - L
2023 - L
Much better looking now.
Last edited:
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
not at all. For some players it will be easier to play with “old” equipment and for others with “new” equipment.
all we can do is compare outcomes vs their competition
Razer
Legend
Mike Tyson should not have lost to Holyfield and Lennox Lewis......
Serena should have won more slams in her 20s when she could/should have, later she ran out of time in her 30s due to pregnancy and such needs...
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Even with Seles out, Graf’s competition is not worse than Serena’s. Had the stabbing never occurred, then Steffi’s competition would have been considerably better than Serena’s and that does not yet take into the account the age shift you are an avid supporter of. Steffi’s last two slams she played where W-F.
messiahrobins
Hall of Fame
Serena i think stagnated due to no real long term rival bar her sister which doesnt really count in terms of pushing oneself. Graf had the late years of Martina and Evert then Seles came along then Hingis etc then at the end of her career the williams sisters.
alexio
G.O.A.T.
or maybe hes just overrated, as some serious boxing experts tend to think
