Borg might be 1-3 in slams but we should also keep in mind that their rivalry favors Mac in the sense that they only ever played on grass/hard and carpet which are Macs preferred surfaces. Had they played a couple of times on clay and at the French he would be leading this H2H. I really think Borg comes closest to what OP is asking.
Oh, certainly, I think this is unfairly skewed in Mac's favour. He would have had no chance at RG against Borg, even in 1981. But because McEnroe was younger and they never played on clay, the H2H is even and the slam H2H favours McEnroe. So Borg doesn't have a dominant head to head against all his main rivals, as per OP. However, you may be right that he probably comes closest, given almost no one had a positive H2H against him.
I think he isn’t trailing any H2H which has at least 5 meetings or so. Considering that he had to play a lot of ATGs this is actually very impressive. I need to admit however, that his early retirement is also heavily responsible for this. An older Borg against peak Becker wouldn’t have ended well for Borg I guess.
Yes Borg was certainly impressive in this respect. In my book, he's a top tier ATG with his surface adaptability being perhaps his most impressive attribute. But had he stuck around, McEnroe would have likely led the H2H, and Becker too, as you suggested, given his level on grass as well as indoors.
I think his best chance would have been had he met Becker and Mac a couple of times on clay. He was way more competitive on their preferred surfaces (carpet and grass) than they were on clay. Djokovic is also a very good example. He only really trails Roddick, however let’s say for how much time he will stick around and how it will turn out once he gets older.
Agreed. Borg was an all rounder, who was better than both Mac and Becker on his worst surface than they were on theirs (and I would argue better on his best than they were on theirs). If he managed to meet them a couple of times on clay, he may have stayed ahead. Who knows?
A careful reading says something else: Pete has a much lower percentage of wins than the other ATGs, this means he has just won a lot of matches, but has lost a large number of matches, just a little.
The truth is that between Sampras and the world number 15 the distance was small compared to other ATGs.
Although it has to be said, that he largely was clutch in conditions that favored him, at WIM and the USO. He is 12:3 in finals there, which is great obviously. But then, Federer until 2012 is 12:2 at the same tournaments and does not get that recognition. For all his greatness, I feel, that Sampras was a bit lucky with Agassi not putting up a sustained challenge. If they would have played consistently against each other at all 4 majors, the h2h might look quite different for example. Long story short, conditions and circumstances helped Sampras in his “domination”.
