Rafael Nadal: A Historical Perspective

[borg number one]

Unfortunately, Mr Lee still doesn't get it with regards to official records. He used quote marks to note Federer has the "official" record as far as # of majors won. Mr Lee at el - NO QUOTE MARKS NEED APPLY.

Roger Federer has the OFFICIAL record for # of majors won.

The "majors" - and YES MR. Lee's interpretations do need quote marks - he references for Rosewall and Laver were professional events. As hard as Mr. Lee tries to make them majors, well, they just aren't. Period. Bottom Line. End of story discussion.

Mr. Lee is also fixated on the percentage rate for # of tournaments won. It's an interesting stat, but one he likes to flaunt since Borg - the guy he considers the best of all-time, has a high rate since Borg up and quit the game at age 25 - and didn't put himself on the line past his prime the way everyone else did.

Also, Lee is smoking crack, or can't do simple arithmetic, if he is still listing Connors with 149 tournament titles won, and Lendl with 146 and Borg with 105. Unless he's adding junior tournaments? Or fantasy events?

Wrong. No one else had or possibly will have that rate that Borg had at 25 (GS % and tournament win rate and overall singles win %, borg leads all categories). How do you explain that? Very same age, not older or younger, but the very same age. What are the percentages of anyone else? Not on par with Borg at that age.

Also, can you explain exactly how you arrived at the conclusions bolded above? What was your analysis as to the numbers for Connors and Lendl cited? Do you know exactly what those numbers are comprised of? I can assure you the author knows exactly how he arrived at those figures. He didn't just "make up" tournaments out of thin air. Some of the unofficial tourneys of the 70's and 80's were extremely competitive with much bigger prize winnings than many other "official" tourneys.

 

[DMan]

That's true, we'll never know how things would have gone for Borg during say 1982 forward. He would have been 25+ years of age competing for majors. Would he and others have started playing the AO Open again? Would he have added FO/Wimbledon/US Open titles? Look at the champions of those tourneys in 1982-1985. He may have won no more majors, but I tend to think he would have likely added some more. One thing is for certain, even what he accomplished until age 25, through 1981 is stunning. He accomplished enough by then to be considered an all time great players. His total wins, total tourneys won, GS winning %, overall singles winning &, majors won, are all staggering.

NOT TRUE. We know exactly how things DID go for Borg post 1982. His record speaks for itself. He quit the game after 1982. Plain and simple - he couldn't hack it.

Would he have won any matches post 1982? Well, you gotta play 'em to win 'em, and Borg didn't even bother to try!

 

[DMan]

Wrong. No one else had or will have that rate at the very same age. How do you explain that? What are the percentages of anyone else? Not on par with Borg at that age. Also, can you explain exactly how you arrived at the conclusion bolded above? What was your analysis? Do you know exactly what those numbers are comprised of, because I can assure you the author knows exactly how he arrived at those figures. Do you?

Why don't you ask Mr Lee to list the 149 tournament titles won by Connors, and why that differs by 40 from the official, yes official records of the ATP - and Mr Lee is by no means an official!

How "convenient"of Borg to skip majors he wasn't going to win. Thus keeping his winning percentage high. Whereas guys like Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, Federer DID play many, many, many more majors. They weren't chicken like Borg, and were willing to put themselves on the line.

105 tournament titles by Borg?

Please, put the pipe down! He quit the game at age 25. Are you indicating that between 1972-1981 Borg won 105 tournaments? Did these include ping pong events with his wife Mariana as the only person in the draw?

 

[borg number one]

Why don't you ask Mr Lee to list the 149 tournament titles won by Connors, and why that differs by 40 from the official, yes official records of the ATP - and Mr Lee is by no means an official!

How "convenient"of Borg to skip majors he wasn't going to win. Thus keeping his winning percentage high. Whereas guys like Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, Federer DID play many, many, many more majors. They weren't chicken like Borg, and were willing to put themselves on the line.

105 tournament titles by Borg?

Please, put the pipe down! He quit the game at age 25. Are you indicating that between 1972-1981 Borg won 105 tournaments? Did these include ping pong events with his wife Mariana as the only person in the draw?

You still haven't listed one player that had the percentages Borg had at 25. I'll wait for an answer, but I suspect that the silence will be deafening. Who is exactly is an "official"? I'm really curious. How long have you been following Tennis by the way? Connors, Lendl, Laver, and Borg won a ton of matches and a ton of tourneys. It's that simple.

 

[borg number one]

NOT TRUE. We know exactly how things DID go for Borg post 1982. His record speaks for itself. He quit the game after 1982. Plain and simple - he couldn't hack it.

Would he have won any matches post 1982? Well, you gotta play 'em to win 'em, and Borg didn't even bother to try!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

Reference my posts above as to 1982 DMan. Also, this thread speaks to Borg in 1982. You are way off. Borg was physically stronger in 1982 than 1981. He couldn't "hack it"? Yeah, boy that Borg, what a wimp. Makes a lot of sense. I'm still waiting to hear what other player had the numbers Borg had at 25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFXnTGqbwsU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=918rp7Omjk0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=227694&highlight=borg+akai (Thanks to TW Poster Borgforever)

 

[pc1]

I think we're moving off topic. The author is essentially saying that Nadal has an excellent chance to move up to the all time greats category and that the numbers do indicate that Nadal is at this early stage right up there with anyone.

The guy has won the last three majors. Who knows how many he can win in a row?

 

[borg number one]

I think we're moving off topic. The author is essentially saying that Nadal has an excellent chance to move up to the all time greats category and that the numbers do indicate that Nadal is at this early stage right up there with anyone.

The guy has won the last three majors. Who knows how many he can win in a row?

Absolutely PC1. Agreed. Nadal has a big chance to extend his streak of majors and continue adding majors at a healthy clip. Yes, at this early stage, 24, Nadal is extremely impressive, no doubt about that. He's already at 9 majors. If he wins say 2-3 next year, he'll be at 11-12 majors won already.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Recently, I read a excellent article in TennisNow Magazine by contributing writer Raymond Lee. The article, Rafael Nadal: A Historical Perspective, discusses Nadal's current place among all time great players.

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Featured-News/Rafael-Nadal--A-Historical-Perspective.aspx

Raymond Lee is a respected Tennis Historian, who has also written other excellent articles such as "The Natural: Remembering Pancho Gonzalez" and "Magnificent Seven: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History".

I enjoyed reading the article because it looks at the big picture, in terms of both majors won as well as all tournaments played. Note that a player's tournament "win rate" is determined by total tournaments won divided by total tournaments played. In the article, Mr. Lee compares the tournament win rates of truly great players. At 24 years of age, Nadal now stands behind only Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver in terms of overall win rate.

Meanwhile, in terms of "total tournaments won", he's still got some work to do in order to reach the very top. Nadal's overall record at such a young age is quite impressive, no matter how you analyze it. Yet, while we focus on the performance of players at the four majors, it's also useful and interesting to compare how these players have done overall at all tournaments played.

Open Era Tournament Win Rates
1. Bjorn Borg - 41.8%
2. Rod Laver - 38.5%
3. Rafael Nadal - 31.2%
4. Jimmy Connors - 31.2%
5. Ivan Lendl - 28.3%
6. Roger Federer- 27.9%
7. Ken Rosewall- 26.5%
8. Pete Sampras - 22.8%

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43


Key Excerpts:

There's something not quite right with Laver's numbers. The stats refer to "open era" winning percentage. The text acknowledges that he won a total of 199 events. Certainly most of those wins were prior to 1968. So, if, for example, Laver played 20 events every year for 20 years for a total of 400events, that's almost a 50% winning percentage for his whole career. If he played an average of 25 events for 20 years for a total of 500 events, that's a winning percentage of about 40%. So, I'm just asking, if 38.5% is supposed to apply to all 199 wins, is it possible that Laver played more than 500 events in his career?

 

[Benhur]

However, even the highest open era achiever (Lendl) would have had to win 16 in a row for 12 consecutive years to equal Laver's total number. He won 16 tournaments only one year.

That's how we know there is a huge difference.

It does look like a good number of those tournaments involved very small draws as you go back in time. But the information is scant.

In the Lendl career stats page, they list 52 tournaments that are not listed by the ATP. 37 of these are described as having draws of “at least 8 players,” and the remaining 15 with draws of “less than 8 players.” They say the latter cattegory were usualy 4 men exhibitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics

The Connors page lists 40 tournaments not listed by the ATP, but they don’t say anything about draws. I saw several comments at the former pro section saying that a good number of the tournaments listed by the ATP from the 70s were very small draws and that they would not have been included in the later criteria they used after the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors

The Laver career statistics page also gives no information about draws.

I remember learning with great surprise some time back that in some of the pro majors, you only needed to win one match to get to the semifinals, so that would mean you can win the tournament in 3 matches. And that’s a major!
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3731460&postcount=11

At any rate, it is clear that winning 146 or 149 tournaments is not doable today, let alone 199. Those numbers are indeed extremely impressive no matter what, but today you need to win 5 matches to win a tournament, and 7 to win a major. So that is indeed a big difference.

 

[jackson vile]

NOT TRUE. We know exactly how things DID go for Borg post 1982. His record speaks for itself. He quit the game after 1982. Plain and simple - he couldn't hack it.

Would he have won any matches post 1982? Well, you gotta play 'em to win 'em, and Borg didn't even bother to try!

You are nuts. So on one hand Borg is cited for not playing past his prime so that record does not count? But then since Borg quit early you cite that "to bad so sad"? LOL

So it is all other players fault for playing past their prime, Borg hold the winninger percentages period.

You like to butter both sides of the bread don't you LOL

 

[jackson vile]

If we are not going to count pre-open era, then should we not count the achievment any time the standards were changed?

For example a lot of people like to tout the day at #1. The criteria for judging who qualifies as #1 has changed a lot over the years in just the open era. So should we be counting that at all?

 

[Limpinhitter]

It does look like a good number of those tournaments involved very small draws as you go back in time. But the information is scant.

In the Lendl career stats page, they list 52 tournaments that are not listed by the ATP. 37 of these are described as having draws of “at least 8 players,” and the remaining 15 with draws of “less than 8 players.” They say the latter cattegory were usualy 4 men exhibitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics

The Connors page lists 40 tournaments not listed by the ATP, but they don’t say anything about draws. I saw several comments at the former pro section saying that a good number of the tournaments listed by the ATP from the 70s were very small draws and that they would not have been included in the later criteria they used after the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors

The Laver career statistics page also gives no information about draws.

I remember learning with great surprise some time back that in some of the pro majors, you only needed to win one match to get to the semifinals, so that would mean you can win the tournament in 3 matches. And that’s a major!
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3731460&postcount=11

At any rate, it is clear that winning 146 or 149 tournaments is not doable today, let alone 199. Those numbers are indeed extremely impressive no matter what, but today you need to win 5 matches to win a tournament, and 7 to win a major. So that is indeed a big difference.

I'm sure some of Laver's wins were barnstorming events, more intended to make money than anything else. But, remember that at that time, the pro tour had a high concentration of major champions. As soon as an amature made a name for himself by winning majors, Jack Kramer would make him an offer he couldn't refuse. So, even if you're playing 8 or 16 man events, you're playing against a field who would all be seeded in a major, many of whom were major champions. Winning under those conditions had to be tougher than winning today, although there were more opportunities to collect titles if you could do it.

 

[DMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

Reference my posts above as to 1982 DMan. Also, this thread speaks to Borg in 1982. You are way off. Borg was physically stronger in 1982 than 1981. He couldn't "hack it"? Yeah, boy that Borg, what a wimp. Makes a lot of sense. I'm still waiting to hear what other player had the numbers Borg had at 25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFXnTGqbwsU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=918rp7Omjk0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY




http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=227694&highlight=borg+akai (Thanks to TW Poster Borgforever)

Darling, dearest

What was Borg's match record in 1982?

(I am afraid it doesn't matter if you think Borg was....ahem..."stronger" in 1982 than 1981. I am talking wins and losses. For that matter, could you tell me the number of matches won in majors in 1982? 1983? number of tournaments won in 1982? 1983?

I'll patiently await your answers.

As for what other player had the same nunbers as Borg at age 25, I am not disputing that. What I do point out that Borg, unlike Sampras, Connors, Lendl, Federer, and many, many others, DID NOT play in majors all the time. In fact, only once in his entire career did he play in all 4 majors in one year. Once! Uno! Hence, his percentage of winning majors is high. And Borg, unlike all the other greats, quit at age 26 cause he couldn't hack it on the pr tour.

 

[borg number one]

Darling, dearest

What was Borg's match record in 1982?

(I am afraid it doesn't matter if you think Borg was....ahem..."stronger" in 1982 than 1981. I am talking wins and losses. For that matter, could you tell me the number of matches won in majors in 1982? 1983? number of tournaments won in 1982? 1983?

I'll patiently await your answers.

As for what other player had the same nunbers as Borg at age 25, I am not disputing that. What I do point out that Borg, unlike Sampras, Connors, Lendl, Federer, and many, many others, DID NOT play in majors all the time. In fact, only once in his entire career did he play in all 4 majors in one year. Once! Uno! Hence, his percentage of winning majors is high. And Borg, unlike all the other greats, quit at age 26 cause he couldn't hack it on the pr tour.

Your logic is way off. If he would have played AO tourneys his % numbers MAY have been higher, lower, or about the same. Plus, he may very well have added to his major total. He only had 3 shots in effect each of his years, while Sampras and Federer, for example, played in 4 majors per year. Again, different times. He and others didn't play the AO which makes his major total (11) by 25 even more impressive. Are you saying he couldn't handle playing 4 majors when he played tourneys like this instead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU (Bjorn Borg beats Lendl in straight sets to win the Masters)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuEu_axZIw (Borg in the SF vs. Connors. Thanks to TW Poster Borgforever)

(Borg won the year end Masters tourneys in Jan. 80 and Jan. 81, winning those big money, very prestigious events, going 5-0 indoors vs. Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl at New York's MSG, before huge crowds. That's what he and the other top players were doing instead of playing the AO, which was around the Christmas holidays. I suppose players could have played both, but they didn't as has been discussed here so often.)

You mentioned Connors "playing all the majors" in your post. Yet, how did Connors play in majors "all the time" during the late 1970's? In fact, I think he played the AO twice and he skipped the FO left and right, so that's inaccurate. As to Borg in 1982, and his prospects for more wins/majors, note that Mats Wilander practiced with Borg before winning the FO in 1982 against Lendl. He said in interviews that year, when asked about Borg, that he "could not win a set" off of Borg in practice.

 

[Dilettante]

If we are not going to count pre-open era, then should we not count the achievment any time the standards were changed?

For example a lot of people like to tout the day at #1. The criteria for judging who qualifies as #1 has changed a lot over the years in just the open era. So should we be counting that at all?

It's not about "not counting it", but about putting it in perspective.

Open Era has been a major, critical change in the sport. A turning point between old tennis and new tennis. That settled the new standards. The standards haven't changed dramatically since and I don't think they will.

And no need to compare players from different generations to see what achievements are harder. Just compare everything surrounding the tennis world in pre-Open and Open eras and the answer pops up unequivocally.

 

[urban]

But even the numbers for open era alone are quite astounding in Laver's case. Pc 1 has noted them in his previous post. The ATP webside is not solid here, Lucio (poster q and m here) frequently has asked them to change the stats, and they are beginnig to do it. In open events since 1968, when he was 30 years of age, Laver won 54 titles (all at least 32 draws), has a winning average of 80%, and won around 16 masters equivalents. That all at the age of 30-38. If we project this production rate on his previous career with his prime years, we easily get a production of around 150 titles in his career. All the wins and finals are noted on wikipedia.

 

[Dilettante]

Right about the numbers, but the problem is that Laver's last great years already in Open Era, were difficult to interpret, because everything was still a bit uncertainly undefined.

It's gonna start to seem that I try to take something from Laver, but that's not the case at all! Aside from numbers he was a genius and a GOAT candidate, but IMO many of his achievements are less impressive (though still impressive) when put in the time and situation context.

For example, Borg's FO/Wim domination or Connors' tournament career impress me more than the Laver's two Grand Slams. Also Lendl's achievements on all surfaces fotr another example (he missed some titles but improved until being a contender even on hostile surfaces). Not to say Nadal improving and winning on hostile surfaces and, most of all, Federer's domination on every surface (on clay too if you take Nadal from picture) for several years in a time with a level of professionalism that seemed science fiction even in the first 2-3 years of Open Era.

Just think, if 3 of 4 majors were still played on grass, how many majors would've Pete Sampras won even having more professional and wider competition? And I'm not a friend of "what if" arguments, but I guess you get my point.

It's not Laver fault having played in the times he played and it's not Federer's or Borg's or Sampras' merit having played in the modern era, but it is what it is.

 

[borg number one]

But even the numbers for open era alone are quite astounding in Laver's case. Pc 1 has noted them in his previous post. The ATP webside is not solid here, Lucio (poster q and m here) frequently has asked them to change the stats, and they are beginning to do it. In open events since 1968, when he was 30 years of age, Laver won 54 titles (all at least 32 draws), has a winning average of 80%, and won around 16 masters equivalents. That all at the age of 30-38. If we project this production rate on his previous career with his prime years, we easily get a production of around 150 titles in his career. All the wins and finals are noted on wikipedia.

That's a very good point Urban. Those numbers are real, no question about it. You've got his Open Era numbers and the numbers before 1968 as well. Laver was impressive during before and after 1968, though of course he was playing well into his 30's during the 1970's. So, it's a very complete record of performance. He produced a splendid record during the 1960's and kept playing great tennis well into the 1970's.

 

[borg number one]

Dilettante, that's a good observation that "It's not Laver fault having played in the times he played and it's not Federer's or Borg's or Sampras' merit having played in the modern era, but it is what it is." It's interesting to think about how different great players would do if they were presented with changed circumstances. Federer in Laver's era...Sampras in Laver's era (faster grass courts at Wimbledon, 3 majors on grass courts), or Borg's era (3 tough guys on top, varied surfaces, technology?)...Borg in Laver's era or Federer's/Nadal's era (slower grass courts at Wimbledon), etc. I do tend to think that these all time greats would make adjustments in order to gain winning results, but your central point is a very good one.

 

[Dilettante]

I agree, talent is talent in every era. Maybe Laver (as he has said himself) could have more problems in a more physical era, but other than that he would have the same talent and it would have showed.

Talent is basically the capacity to adapt and use the tools you have, so yes, a #1 player at one moment could be #3 at worst in other moment but he would never be a regular player.

As my father used to say, "if Mozart lived today he probably would play rock & roll, but it would be the best rock & roll around".

 

[borg number one]

I agree, talent is talent in every era. Maybe Laver (as he has said himself) could have more problems in a more physical era, but other than that he would have the same talent and it would have showed.

Talent is basically the capacity to adapt and use the tools you have, so yes, a #1 player at one moment could be #3 at worst in other moment but he would never be a regular player.

As my father used to say, "if Mozart lived today he probably would play rock & roll, but it would be the best rock & roll around".

Good one! I completely agree.

 

[pc1]

I agree, talent is talent in every era. Maybe Laver (as he has said himself) could have more problems in a more physical era, but other than that he would have the same talent and it would have showed.

Talent is basically the capacity to adapt and use the tools you have, so yes, a #1 player at one moment could be #3 at worst in other moment but he would never be a regular player.

As my father used to say, "if Mozart lived today he probably would play rock & roll, but it would be the best rock & roll around".

That's an excellent post and a great line by your dad.

 

[The-Champ]

If Mozart lived today..he would be "fat boy slim".

 

[DMan]

Your logic is way off. If he would have played AO tourneys his % numbers MAY have been higher, lower, or about the same.

OK, but he didn't play them, so we'll never know!

Plus, he may very well have added to his major total.

SPECULATION. You're OVERRULED!

He only had 3 shots in effect each of his years, while Sampras and Federer, for example, played in 4 majors per year.

What does that mean? THERE have always and always been (save 1977 when Borg had a chance to win 2 Australian Opens on grass!!!, Yet didn't bother to play!) 4 majors every year! Every year. 4, count 'em!

Are you saying he couldn't handle playing 4 majors when he played tourneys like this instead?

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!!!

YES, I am saying Borg couldn't handle it.

Funny, because that guy Federer not only was able to play in 4 majors a year, he also played and won the season ending Masters Cup, in a tennis season much shorter than Borg had. So obviously, it makes Federer's accomplishments (like winning 3 majors in one year on more than one occasion - something Borg never accomplished!) much more impressive, n'est ce pas?!

As to Borg in 1982, and his prospects for more wins/majors, note that Mats Wilander practiced with Borg before winning the FO in 1982 against Lendl. He said in interviews that year, when asked about Borg, that he "could not win a set" off of Borg in practice.

HA! So if Borg was "so good" just why didn't he play? I mean why? And are you really touting what happens in a practice match t make conclusions about real tournament results?

 

[borg number one]

OK, but he didn't play them, so we'll never know!





SPECULATION. You're OVERRULED!



What does that mean? THERE have always and always been (save 1977 when Borg had a chance to win 2 Australian Opens on grass!!!, Yet didn't bother to play!) 4 majors every year! Every year. 4, count 'em!



Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!!!

YES, I am saying Borg couldn't handle it.

Funny, because that guy Federer not only was able to play in 4 majors a year, he also played and won the season ending Masters Cup, in a tennis season much shorter than Borg had. So obviously, it makes Federer's accomplishments (like winning 3 majors in one year on more than one occasion - something Borg never accomplished!) much more impressive, n'est ce pas?!



HA! So if Borg was "so good" just why didn't he play? I mean why? And are you really touting what happens in a practice match t make conclusions about real tournament results?

DMan, did Connors, McEnroe or Borg play the AO frequently during the 1970's? No. Did Connors play in the AO all the time or the FO? No. So, it wasn't just Borg, but also the other top players of the day who did not play in the AO during those times. Also, if you want to talk about the ability to play more tournaments, who played more by 25, Borg or say Federer? Who played more total matches? Yes, Borg did. So, please don't try and waste your time by trying to prove that Borg could not play as much tennis as Federer. You're wrong about that issue, along with so many others I have already pointed out.

As to Borg, yes he stopped playing majors after 1981 and retired. Each player has criticisms that can be levied against him. Federer does, certainly. So does Laver, or Sampras, etc. As for 1982, you're speculating that Borg WOULD NOT have been able to compete. What are you basing your conclusions on? I'm basing it on video of how he played when he beat McEnroe at the 1982 Akai event (Lendl also played), first hand accounts of his training, and what Wilander said about Borg on red clay in 1982. It wasn't a "practice match" they played. They trained for many days together. Again, you're way off the mark. The fact remains that Borg's major % numbers (11/27 tourneys and his singles winning %) are better than any other player's numbers in those categories. He also has the best singles record of any player in the Open Era, as well as the best tournament "win rate" as mentioned in Mr. Lee's article. As much as you are trying to take away from his accomplishments, his accomplishments are simply unassailable. His worst head to head? 7-7 vs. McEnroe on all fast surfaces, no clay matches. Let's look at Federer. What's his worst head to head? How is Sampras on clay? How many major did Sampras or Federer play in before getting to 11 majors won? Borg took 27, losing 5 finals and winning 11 of them from 1973-1981, at least one for eight straight years. In my opinion, Borg is in the very top tier of all time greats. When you look at peak performance, he was as good as any player that has ever lived. You can make an argument for several great players and he's one of them. Here's a clip of him in stellar form in 1979, in case folks have never seen this. Here's another example of Borg's greatness, with the wood frame, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (1979 vs. Connors, Pepsi Grand Slam. Thanks to TW Poster Krosero.)

As for the topic Nadal from a historical perspective, he actually reminds me of Borg in several ways. I expect Nadal to be among the all time greats by the time he's done.

 

[borg number one]

SPECULATION. You're OVERRULED!

Borg MAY have very well added to his total of majors after the age of 25? The operative word I used was may .Meanwhile you seem to be quite convinced that he definitely would not have have won any more. How is that not speculating then? Before you claim "overruled", read more carefully. Regardless of what Borg may or may not have done after 25 he did more by 25 than most other great players ever do. The Game is far better off for having had Bjorn Borg.

 

[jamec9869]

Urban, great post. Thanks very much for your excellent perspective on this topic and the author Mr. Lee Urban. I agree, this broad perspective on Tennis is often lacking. It is very important to recall and note the context of each player's accomplishments.

 

[TheTruth]

It does look like a good number of those tournaments involved very small draws as you go back in time. But the information is scant.

In the Lendl career stats page, they list 52 tournaments that are not listed by the ATP. 37 of these are described as having draws of “at least 8 players,” and the remaining 15 with draws of “less than 8 players.” They say the latter cattegory were usualy 4 men exhibitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics

The Connors page lists 40 tournaments not listed by the ATP, but they don’t say anything about draws. I saw several comments at the former pro section saying that a good number of the tournaments listed by the ATP from the 70s were very small draws and that they would not have been included in the later criteria they used after the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors

The Laver career statistics page also gives no information about draws.

I remember learning with great surprise some time back that in some of the pro majors, you only needed to win one match to get to the semifinals, so that would mean you can win the tournament in 3 matches. And that’s a major!
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3731460&postcount=11

At any rate, it is clear that winning 146 or 149 tournaments is not doable today, let alone 199. Those numbers are indeed extremely impressive no matter what, but today you need to win 5 matches to win a tournament, and 7 to win a major. So that is indeed a big difference.

This is so true. I'm always amazed at how people who weren't there automatically jump on a bandwagon because "so and so" said so.

We don't know how history will record this era, but we can bet there will be a lot of bias and misrepresentation of the facts, along with omission.

You support your posts so well, allowing others to see how you came to a logical conclusion.

 

[DMan]

if you want to talk about the ability to play more tournaments, who played more by 25, Borg or say Federer? Who played more total matches? Yes, Borg did. So, please don't try and waste your time by trying to prove that Borg could not play as much tennis as Federer. You're wrong about that issue, along with so many others I have already pointed out.[/B]

Regarding who played more tournaments/matches by age 25, why is that relevant? Borg started much earlier than Federer, so obviously he played more by age 25.

My issue is why Borg couldn't play much after age 25. I mean, Why?

As to Borg, yes he stopped playing majors after 1981 and retired. Each player has criticisms that can be levied against him. Federer does, certainly.

Um, what does criticism of Federer, or any other player have to do with Borg's decision to up and quit the pro game at age 26, because he couldn't hack it? I mean if he could have played, why didn't he?

As for 1982, you're speculating that Borg WOULD NOT have been able to compete. What are you basing your conclusions on?

Um, the FACT that Borg didn't compete on the tour in 1982, apart from 2 pathetic tournament appearances!!!

I'm basing it on video of how he played when he beat McEnroe at the 1982 Akai event (Lendl also played),

That was an exo. And had no bearing on anything, other than Borg's bank account, which was still rapidly diminished after his playing days.

first hand accounts of his training,

So what does training have to do with actual matches played and won?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

Because if Borg was so amazing in practice, then he would have put himself on the line, and played tournaments, right???

and what Wilander said about Borg on red clay in 1982. It wasn't a "practice match" they played.

Then what was it? A real match? What tournament? What were the scores?

If it wasn't a real match, then it was a practice match. Did you want to use practice results to argue a player's stature?

They trained for many days together. Again, you're way off the mark.

I'm off the mark because Wilander practiced with Borg 28 years ago, and you think that adds to Borg's status somehow? Because Wilander - who was only age 17 - said Borg was really good???

The fact remains that Borg's major % numbers (11/27 tourneys and his singles winning %) are better than any other player's numbers in those categories.

Yes, his winning % is very high. Because unlike every other great player, Borg quit the game at an early age!

 

[borg number one]

Yes, his winning % is very high. Because unlike every other great player, Borg quit the game at an early age!

Again, your logic is way off. Note the bolded portion, you state that his winning % is very high....because "he quit the game at an early age"...incorrect. What's Nadal's % even now or Federer's at 25 or so? Lower than Borg's numbers. So, obviously it wasn't just "because he quit the game at an early age". As to 1982, my point is that he was very capable of playing if he chose to. It was not as if he was physically declining. Everything points to that. I know he didn't choose to play. Why didn't he play? He would be the one to answer that question not me, but I've posted my thoughts on the matter, since I've followed his career closely since the 70's. The new 10 tourney rule when there was a lot of change on the Tour and at a time when Borg was looking to focus on majors for at least a while was a huge reason (see the articles back then). This is after he played a lot of Tennis until 25. Also, you mentioned Borg starting earlier, why was he able to do that? Why was he able to win so early? Also, during several years, I'm sure he played many more matches than even top players play these days. His schedule was often extremely heavy week in, week out. As for Wilander, he was very young in 1981-1982, but here's what happened when they played on clay in 1981 at an official event. Borg won 6,1, 6-1. Wilander was not Borg's equal on clay and he won the '82 FO. Borg was the FO champ in 1981. Borg never played it after 1981.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=W023

 

[borg number one]

Back on the central topic. How might Nadal move on these 2 lists over the course of the remainder of his career?


Open Era Tournament Win Rates
1. Bjorn Borg - 41.8%
2. Rod Laver - 38.5%
3. Rafael Nadal - 31.2%
4. Jimmy Connors - 31.2%
5. Ivan Lendl - 28.3%
6. Roger Federer- 27.9%
7. Ken Rosewall- 26.5%
8. Pete Sampras - 22.8%

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43

 

[pc1]

I figure Nadal's percentage of winning tournaments has a good chance to go up the next few years or so. Eventually age obviously will bring it down I would think.

 

[bolo]

Come on, we don't need raymond lee to write an article like this. TMF types are good enough for this kind of exercise.

 

[DMan]

Back on the central topic. How might Nadal move on these 2 lists over the course of the remainder of his career?


Open Era Tournament Win Rates
1. Bjorn Borg - 41.8%
2. Rod Laver - 38.5%
3. Rafael Nadal - 31.2%
4. Jimmy Connors - 31.2%
5. Ivan Lendl - 28.3%
6. Roger Federer- 27.9%
7. Ken Rosewall- 26.5%
8. Pete Sampras - 22.8%

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43

The numbers are BOGUS (and yes, please check the ATP website for OFFICIAL records as far as # of tournaments won, and not Mr. Lee!!!!!!!!)

 

[TheLoneWolf]

I've read far better "historical perspectives" and analyses in the Former Pro subforum..

1. The very fact that you can read is a miracle.
2. Nobody cares what you think, so shut your trap already.

Excellent post, by the way, borg number one. (As always.)

 

[krosero]

Raymond Lee wrote several articles on tennis week online, maybe the best webline on tennis, which sadly is gone from the internet. Collaborating with experts like Robert Geist, he always brings in a broader perspective on the game. The numbers of course don't tell the whole story, if we compare different eras. We have to contextualize them. That works in both ways. The pro majors (3 every year) are not identical with the Grand Slam majors, but for some time - between 1948 and 1967 - the Wembley tournament in particular was the real World Championship of the era, and not Wimbledon. The older players played (and won) more tournaments than modern players, but far fewer Grand Slam majors. So the percentage of tournaments resp. majors played and won is worth to be noted. Tilden won 10 out of 23 played, Borg 11 out of 27 played. Laver in the 60s, in his ten years prime, won 11 out of 19 played, banned for 21 majors in his best 5 years. Rosewall was out of the majors for 11 years, Gonzalez even longer. What they would have ammassed in open competition, is speculative, but from the real won majors in open competition since 1968 we can assume, that they would have won around 20 majors. So while the total numbers are not an absolute indication of a players rank in history, also the pure majors numbers are not an absolute parameter. It is also noteworthy, that players like Laver or Rosewall won tons of Master-like events (with great and big 32 or 64 draws), even in open competition, when past their primes.

Urban, yes, I think what's important and valuable about the Raymond Lee article is that it attempts to bring in all the numbers from the wider historical perspective. Once everything is on the table, of course, it can be debated what the numbers represent: the formats of the various competitions, how the various tournaments should be weighted, etc. Thanks for your particular comment about Wembley being the most important tournament of the postwar, pre-Open era -- that is very interesting.

Nothing like that would be found in the official ATP numbers. Nothing of any kind is in the ATP records if it occurred before 1968 (other than the Slams). Laver and Rosewall started playing in the 1950s; and of course even older players have nothing at the ATP, so there is no choice but to go to the work of historians.

If I'm not mistaken, Urban, the numbers reported in the Lee article are the collaborative effort not of just one man but a number of historians working together?

In any case I'm glad that these historians have laid out on the table entire decades worth of tennis that would otherwise have remained forgotten/invisible.

Of course once everything is on the table, we can debate at length what the various titles are and how much they should be weighted. But it can't be debated at all if it's not on the table. Obviously the ATP records comprise just a slice of tennis history.

 

[DMan]

[/B]

Again, your logic is way off.

Ah, I am used to the same old, same old. As I make perfect sense, others resort to the name calling. Or the 'your logic is way off.'

Note the bolded portion, you state that his winning % is very high....because "he quit the game at an early age"...incorrect. What's Nadal's % even now or Federer's at 25 or so? Lower than Borg's numbers. So, obviously it wasn't just "because he quit the game at an early age".

NO, my logic isn't off. How come Federer, Nadal, Sampras, everyone has a worse W-L % than Borg at age 25? First, besides you, WHO CARES? Second, Federer, Laver, Sampras, Connors, et al DIDN'T QUIT the game at age 25!

True champions keep going, even past their prime.

WINNERS NEVER QUIT, and QUITTERS NEVER WIN!

As to 1982, my point is that he was very capable of playing if he chose to. It was not as if he was physically declining. Everything points to that. I know he didn't choose to play.

Borg QUIT the pro tour in 1982! Plain and simple. No getting it around. No matter how hard you try, and it's obviously you're desperately trying hard, Borg QUIT in 1982! QUIT. You say he wasn't physically declining. Tennis isn't all physical. The mental battle is a significant part. Anyone can be in shape, and be physically ready. Borg couldn't hack it ont he pro tour! Plain and simple!

Why didn't he play? He would be the one to answer that question not me, but I've posted my thoughts on the matter, since I've followed his career closely since the 70's. The new 10 tourney rule when there was a lot of change on the Tour and at a time when Borg was looking to focus on majors for at least a while was a huge reason (see the articles back then).

Oh, let me throw a pity party for Borg. Poor dear. Unlike Connors, who played well more than 10 tournaments a year, into his 30s. As did many other top players!

This is after he played a lot of Tennis until 25. Also, you mentioned Borg starting earlier, why was he able to do that? Why was he able to win so early? Also, during several years, I'm sure he played many more matches than even top players play these days. His schedule was often extremely heavy week in, week out.

Not true. But Borg did travel and play LOTS OF EXOS - meaningless exhibition events designed to rake in boatloads of cash - which Borg later squandered!!!!! Borg didn't even play enough tournaments to qualify for the Grand Prix Masters in 1976, because he spent too much time in exos! He was 20 at the time, and ranked #2!

As for Wilander, he was very young in 1981-1982, but here's what happened when they played on clay in 1981 at an official event. Borg won 6,1, 6-1. Wilander was not Borg's equal on clay and he won the '82 FO. Borg was the FO champ in 1981. Borg never played it after 1981.

1982 is AFTER 1981. And I am not talking 1981. 1982 is the issue. If #2 ranked Borg couldn't beat a 16 year old junior 6-1,6-1 in 1981, then it's no wonder Borg saw the handwriting on the wall!

Is your whole argument n how great Borg is based on a 1981 match win over Wilander?

The historical perspective on Borg grows thinner every day. Since Borg's retirement, Sampras, and Federer easily surpassed him, and most likely Nadal will surpass him too. More and more folks will only remember Borg as the guy who QUIT the game by age 26.....and then made these PATHETIC comeback attempts nearly a decade later!

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Ah, I am used to the same old, same old. As I make perfect sense, others resort to the name calling. Or the 'your logic is way off.'



NO, my logic isn't off. How come Federer, Nadal, Sampras, everyone has a worse W-L % than Borg at age 25? First, besides you, WHO CARES? Second, Federer, Laver, Sampras, Connors, et al DIDN'T QUIT the game at age 25!

True champions keep going, even past their prime.

WINNERS NEVER QUIT, and QUITTERS NEVER WIN!



Borg QUIT the pro tour in 1982! Plain and simple. No getting it around. No matter how hard you try, and it's obviously you're desperately trying hard, Borg QUIT in 1982! QUIT. You say he wasn't physically declining. Tennis isn't all physical. The mental battle is a significant part. Anyone can be in shape, and be physically ready. Borg couldn't hack it ont he pro tour! Plain and simple!



Oh, let me throw a pity party for Borg. Poor dear. Unlike Connors, who played well more than 10 tournaments a year, into his 30s. As did many other top players!




Not true. But Borg did travel and play LOTS OF EXOS - meaningless exhibition events designed to rake in boatloads of cash - which Borg later squandered!!!!! Borg didn't even play enough tournaments to qualify for the Grand Prix Masters in 1976, because he spent too much time in exos! He was 20 at the time, and ranked #2!



1982 is AFTER 1981. And I am not talking 1981. 1982 is the issue. If #2 ranked Borg couldn't beat a 16 year old junior 6-1,6-1 in 1981, then it's no wonder Borg saw the handwriting on the wall!

Is your whole argument n how great Borg is based on a 1981 match win over Wilander?

The historical perspective on Borg grows thinner every day. Since Borg's retirement, Sampras, and Federer easily surpassed him, and most likely Nadal will surpass him too. More and more folks will only remember Borg as the guy who QUIT the game by age 26.....and then made these PATHETIC comeback attempts nearly a decade later!

This sentence alone shows a very insightful and unbiased perspective: "Folks will only remember Borg as the guy who QUIT the game by age 26......"

I didn't know Connors was a member of the forums. LOL.

 

[urban]

Yes Krosero. Its a collaborative effort of tennis historians, to lay out the numbers above the ATP records. When i started out on the internet, all that could be found were overall numbers like 39 tournament wins for Laver on the ATP webside. They were and are highly suspect even for the early open era. Greg Sharko, the leading historian of the ATP has changed it now a bit, thanks to guys like Lucio. Its a sort of irony, that the ATP had sponsored a book by the French tennis journalist Michel Sutter, who in 1991 edited a book "Winners" about all tournaments played since 1946. His source base was the archive of the famous French sports newspaper L'Equipe. The turning point for better evaluation of the lost professional years was the book of Joe McCauley, who collaborated with Robert Geist, an Austrian, who wrote some low published, self edited books about Nüsslein and Rosewall. McCauley used the archives of World Tennis, where many professional players had written accounts of the pro tour. Those findings were noted, but not fully incorporated in Bud Collins Tennis Histories. On the internet a small community came together, in particular on the wikipedia pages, and tried to put together all numbers available. The best numbers you can find, are those by Andrew Tas. He has access to all Australian news sources and other newspaper sources of the day and has by far the most complete records.

 

[borg number one]

Good posts Urban, Krosero, and PC1. It is great to have "all the tournaments on the table" to be discussed and analyzed, as Krosero mentions just above. Without such an overview, so many matches/tournaments would simply get overlooked, especially as years pass. Thanks to Urban for that great perspective as well on how historians have worked together to compile such numbers and analyze them. I'm sure it must be a labor of love and we fans are the ones that ultimately get the benefit of gaining a better understanding of the Game and its players. Seeing all the tournaments played instead of just the ones deemed "official" provides the "rest of the story", so to speak.

 

[borg number one]

Thanks TLW, glad you liked the thread! As to Nadal, I tend to agree with PC1, his "tournament win rate", in my opinion, may actually go up during the next 2-3 years or so, as I could see him winning close to 40% of tourneys he plays for a year or two. Yet, then perhaps it starts declining some again. So, he may very well end up in the 30-35% range, which would translate to him staying at the top of that list along with Laver, Borg, and Connors. In terms of total tournaments won, I think that he may reach 60-70 tournaments won, which is very impressive. The way Federer is playing in Shanghai, who knows? Maybe he has another 5-10 tournament wins in him as well. Meanwhile, Federer just recently tied Borg's total of "offical" ATP events when he won his 63rd title.

See this links on Borg and Federer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2315095/Borg-sees-Federer-as-a-kindred-spirit.html

 

[krosero]

Yes Krosero. Its a collaborative effort of tennis historians, to lay out the numbers above the ATP records. When i started out on the internet, all that could be found were overall numbers like 39 tournament wins for Laver on the ATP webside. They were and are highly suspect even for the early open era. Greg Sharko, the leading historian of the ATP has changed it now a bit, thanks to guys like Lucio. Its a sort of irony, that the ATP had sponsored a book by the French tennis journalist Michel Sutter, who in 1991 edited a book "Winners" about all tournaments played since 1946. His source base was the archive of the famous French sports newspaper L'Equipe. The turning point for better evaluation of the lost professional years was the book of Joe McCauley, who collaborated with Robert Geist, an Austrian, who wrote some low published, self edited books about Nüsslein and Rosewall. McCauley used the archives of World Tennis, where many professional players had written accounts of the pro tour. Those findings were noted, but not fully incorporated in Bud Collins Tennis Histories. On the internet a small community came together, in particular on the wikipedia pages, and tried to put together all numbers available. The best numbers you can find, are those by Andrew Tas. He has access to all Australian news sources and other newspaper sources of the day and has by far the most complete records.

This is the probably the single most helpful summary I've seen concerning the work on the pre-68 pros. I knew the names of these historians and that they had done their work on the pros, but this gives me a clearer picture than ever of when and how the work was done.

And I’m sure tennis fans in general who are interested in the subject will always appreciate hearing as much as possible of those details: the names of the historians, how they did their work, the nature of their sources, etc.

There is certainly no going back to the time when all those years in tennis were invisible, and by now many tennis fans know that there are new numbers that restore the “lost years”, so to speak, of Laver, Rosewall, etc. But the average tennis fan – maybe even the average fan with an interest in the past – may not have a clear idea of who ultimately is the source for the new numbers. So all details are appreciated!