Who had a better career: Borg, Sampras or Nadal ?

[NatF]

Actually it's Fed fans that are butt hurt by the truth. You all know Roddick wasn't a great opponent, but he was Fed's main competition so you live in denial trying your best to prove otherwise.

I like how you ignore how so many times he and others bring Nadal into the conversation when it has nothing to do with it...

Yep and you're not better than they are...

 

[kandamrgam]

Roddick was better competition than Djokovic to Rafa.

3 W finals vs 2 FO finals.

Now, this is reality, now go back inventing fantasy delusions by not dealing with it, this is what you do.

Numbers don't lie : 3 W finals vs 2 FO finals.

Thanks. This is the kind of objectivity we were expecting from you

 

[kandamrgam]

How do you factor in technological advancements when it's impossible to say what exact effect it's had on players? It's not like he has, LOL did you not read his post he says that Borg and Nadal's passing ability is the very same level.

This is a question on who's had the better career, the FACTS are:

Nadal has won all of the important 4 titles of his era.

Sampras failed. Borg failed.

Nadal and Pete however both hold 14 majors, while Borg holds 11 but since the YEC were bigger than AO back then, I think it's sensible to add those to Bord's tally, making it 13.

So they're all VERY close at this stage, but the fact that Nadal has won each of the big 4 tournaments of his era gives his career the edge.

People then say, yeah but Pete and Borg dominated 2 majors, Nadal only 1. Well there's a reason for that:

Nadal was unfortunate that he had to run into Federer at Wimbledon for 3 years, anyone else and he would've won 06 and 07 Wimbledon titles and had 4, but that's the way it goes as much as Nadal was denied by Federer at Wimbledon, Federer has been denied WAY more times at the majors by Nadal.

I simply pose the question, would Borg have dominated 2 majors with Federer around? Would Pete? Probably not.

I am not really arguing with you on who had a better career. My only point was that your point that goes like "Nadal wouldnt have a problem against Mac as he is an excellent passer" is not really right.

Nadal is an excellent passer today. My point that he would be a worse passer is because he wouldnt have the right tools to do that in a technologically disadvantaged period. I can say that because today not just Nadal but almost everyone in top 20 passes well. I really do not know the passing game of the past but can see few like Borg, Evert etc doing well. My idea is that Nadal would be of the same level.

 

[NatF]

Thanks. This is the kind of objectivity we were expecting from you

He's also taken a final to 5 sets too e.g. come closer to winning the title too

Clearly better no? :lol:

 

[kandamrgam]

He's also taken a final to 5 sets too e.g. come closer to winning the title too

Clearly better no? :lol:

Yes yes. And that too without ever touching the net! How awesome is that

I can stand all that if someone really believes that. It's his subjective impression. What is really annoying is the lack of objectivity when someone says "Federer beat WC winner in Hewitt while Nadal beat Djokovic who has won zero RG so ....". jg is an exponent of the idea :lol:

 

[NatF]

Yes yes. And that too without ever touching the net! How awesome is that

I can stand all that if someone really believes that. It's his subjective impression. What is really annoying is the lack of objectivity when someone says "Federer beat WC winner in Hewitt while Nadal beat Djokovic who has won zero RG so ....". jg is an exponent of the idea :lol:

I personally feel Djokovic's superiority at the FO is more a question of longevity than peak play. But that's a question for another thread.

jg just posts this stuff for fun I think, I like him :lol:

 

[kandamrgam]

I personally feel Djokovic's superiority at the FO is more a question of longevity than peak play. But that's a question for another thread.

jg just posts this stuff for fun I think, I like him :lol:

I personally feel it's both

 

[NatF]

I personally feel it's both

That's fair enough.

 

[TMF]

Proves absolutely nothing. So yeah, thanks for raising a worthless point.

Not to mention how many times Nadal faced Novak in SF at RG...

You prove nothing either but rambling about weak competition when there's no win-win situation from both side. At least jg153040 provides the fact that Roddick was a force in Roger's era. Federer reaches #1 in 2012 and was threaten to reach #1 again at the end of 2014. Davydenko gave Nadal fit, Roddick gave Nole fits, and both have positive H2H over them and now are retire.

Whoever Nadal faced against the field, Federer have face them too. However you can't say the other way around, because Federer have faced more array of talent and slam winners than Nadal ever did.

Now stop spewing garbage about weak competition since you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Incognito]

TMF created this thread to put Nadal, Sampras and Borg in the same tier so that everyone would stop comparing them to Fed. LOL, you guys took the bait

 

[TMF]

TMF created this thread to put Nadal, Sampras and Borg in the same tier so that everyone would stop comparing them to Fed. LOL, you guys took the bait

First of all, these three players belongs in the same tier great.

2nd, I still have a thread about Federer vs. Sampras and you are most welcome to continue with the discussion.

Why Federer Is Better Than Sampras


and
Comparing Federer and Sampras

 

[clayqueen]

Why are you talking about Nadal's career in the past tense?

 

[TMF]

Why are you talking about Nadal's career in the past tense?

Calm down and stop yelling. You know that I'm comparing them at this point.

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

Lol look how Nadal's achievements can drive some people nuts on this board :lol: fascinating

At least those people have something to talk about tennis history. What's a pointless quote from you, tipsa's fanboy :lol::lol:

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Most dominant on peak

1) Borg
2) Nadal
3) Sampras

Better Career numbers

1) Nadal
2) Sampras (close one but nadal has much more m1000 and olympic singles gold and much less atp 250, also has more slam finals, sampras only lead in wtf)
3) Borg ( due to shorter career)


By surface...

Clay
1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Sampras

Grass
1) Sampras
2) Borg
3) Nadal

HC
1) Sampras
2) Nadal
3) Borg

Nadal .........1 - 3 - 2
Sampras ... 3 - 1 - 1
Borg............2 - 2 - 3

However it doesnt measure much anything.... Sampas at his worst surface was far worse than NAdal or Borg at their worst respective ones.


If we could put some qualification fo level and performance by surface? ( we talk by peak years of course)

HC:

Sampras: 9.0
Nadal: 8.5
Borg: 7.0-7.5

Clay:

NAdal: 10.0
Borg: 9.5
Sampras: 6.5

Grass:
Sampras: 9.5 - 10
Borg: 9 - 9.5
Nadal: 8.5 - 9

 

[NatF]

Most dominant on peak

1) Borg
2) Nadal
3) Federer

Better Career numbers

1) Nadal
2) Sampras (close one but nadal has much more m1000 and olympic singles gold and much less atp 250, also has more slam finals, sampras only lead in wtf)
3) Borg ( due to shorter career)


By surface...

Clay
1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Sampras

Grass
1) Sampras
2) Borg
3) Nadal

HC
1) Sampras
2) Nadal
3) Borg

Nadal .........1 - 3 - 2
Sampras ... 3 - 1 - 1
Borg............2 - 2 - 3

However it doesnt measure much anything.... Sampas at his worst surface was far worse than NAdal or Borg at their worst respective ones.


If we could put some qualification fo level and performance by surface? ( we talk by peak years of course)

HC:

Sampras: 9.0
Nadal: 8.5
Borg: 7.0-7.5

Clay:

NAdal: 10.0
Borg: 9.5
Sampras: 6.5

Grass:
Sampras: 9.5 - 10
Borg: 9 - 9.5
Nadal: 8.5 - 9

I assume Federer being in there is a typo.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

I assume Federer being in there is a typo.

Sorry I type so often the name federer that it evento appear un unrelated threads... I meant sampras

 

[TMF]

At least those people have something to talk about tennis history. What's a pointless quote from you, tipsa's fanboy :lol::lol:

Some people just can't have a meaningful discussion except derailing the thread.

 

[beast of mallorca]

TMF created this thread to put Nadal, Sampras and Borg in the same tier so that everyone would stop comparing them to Fed. LOL, you guys took the bait

TMF is insecure about Rafa. That's all there is to it..........:twisted:

 

[The_Order]

I am not really arguing with you on who had a better career. My only point was that your point that goes like "Nadal wouldnt have a problem against Mac as he is an excellent passer" is not really right.

Nadal is an excellent passer today. My point that he would be a worse passer is because he wouldnt have the right tools to do that in a technologically disadvantaged period. I can say that because today not just Nadal but almost everyone in top 20 passes well. I really do not know the passing game of the past but can see few like Borg, Evert etc doing well. My idea is that Nadal would be of the same level.

And wouldn't saying something like: "Mac is an excellent volleyer and would place balls where Rafa couldn't track" fall along the same lines then?

I mean we've seen Federer place some incredibly well played volleys against Nadal and we've seen Nadal track them and return them with interest. I'm not sure what Mac would be doing better than some of the volleys Fed played against Nadal, but I think Mac would be more consistent with his volleys which is why he's better at it than Federer.

 

[The_Order]

You prove nothing either but rambling about weak competition when there's no win-win situation from both side. At least jg153040 provides the fact that Roddick was a force in Roger's era. Federer reaches #1 in 2012 and was threaten to reach #1 again at the end of 2014. Davydenko gave Nadal fit, Roddick gave Nole fits, and both have positive H2H over them and now are retire.

Whoever Nadal faced against the field, Federer have face them too. However you can't say the other way around, because Federer have faced more array of talent and slam winners than Nadal ever did.

Now stop spewing garbage about weak competition since you don't have a leg to stand on.

Roddick a force? LOL.

Fed threaten to reach #1 this year because this year was the weakest in years with Novak's level clearly dropping, Nadal being plagued by injuries, Muzza not back to his best after surgery, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga all drop form, Stan only show up for a handful of tournaments LOL this year was p*** weak, only Roger made an improvement over last year out of the big 4.

Roddick and Davydenko are nowhere near the players that Federer and Djokovic are. Only Davydenko got lucky to meet Nadal twice in late 09 where Nadal was in terrible form losing to every top 10 player apart from Tsonga LOL and another cheap victory in Doha 2011 when Nadal was coughing on the court. Another victory where Nadal retired, clearly went in injured and bravely tried to compete still unlike Federer who pulls out of finals.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

chico mode on....

1) Djokovic = aka GOD
2) Borg
3) Sampras......
..........
.........
Murray
Iniesta
Messi
Bryan Brother 2
Chico
Barak Obama
Parera Family
........
........
Nadal

Chico Mode off..

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Borg for mine. Nadal second. Sampras third.

 

[kandamrgam]

And wouldn't saying something like: "Mac is an excellent volleyer and would place balls where Rafa couldn't track" fall along the same lines then?

I mean we've seen Federer place some incredibly well played volleys against Nadal and we've seen Nadal track them and return them with interest. I'm not sure what Mac would be doing better than some of the volleys Fed played against Nadal, but I think Mac would be more consistent with his volleys which is why he's better at it than Federer.

1. Yes that would be stupid too.

2. Here's my point. You say Nadal tracking down Federer volley and passing with interest. Mac can volley like Federer even back then, arguably even better. Can Nadal make the same passing shot back then? A clear no is my answer. Not only athleticism was lesser then, the racquets wouldnt have helped him either.

This is not to say we can expect Nadal to play the same brand of tennis in 80s, but clearly his "approach of the game" today is no indicator of how he would match up with former greats. Instead his "level of game" today is a great indicator - ie, Nadal is a great player today, so he would be a great player even back then.

 

[kandamrgam]

Roddick a force? LOL.

Fed threaten to reach #1 this year because this year was the weakest in years with Novak's level clearly dropping, Nadal being plagued by injuries, Muzza not back to his best after surgery, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga all drop form, Stan only show up for a handful of tournaments LOL this year was p*** weak, only Roger made an improvement over last year out of the big 4.

Roddick and Davydenko are nowhere near the players that Federer and Djokovic are. Only Davydenko got lucky to meet Nadal twice in late 09 where Nadal was in terrible form losing to every top 10 player apart from Tsonga LOL and another cheap victory in Doha 2011 when Nadal was coughing on the court. Another victory where Nadal retired, clearly went in injured and bravely tried to compete still unlike Federer who pulls out of finals.

1. OK agreed Federer benefited from few external factors. But I still give all the credit. Would Nadal be at the same level in ranking had all these factors favoured him at the age of 33? I am doubtful.

2. Nadal was thoroughly outplayed in Doha 2010. He was playing really great.

 

[abmk]

Hey you're the one that brought up that Pete dominated 2 majors whereas Nadal only one.

I'm only trying to put things into perspective, why can't you answer the question? Is it because you know Pete would not dominate 2 majors, or any major if he had to first deal with peak Federer and then peak Novak comes along?

Which would make your point invalid...

no, you can't just remove federer from wim 06 and 07 and not put any decent opponent in place. nadal would probably lose to a very good quality grass courter in 2006 and probably win 07. so he'd probably have 3 wimbledons without federer.

that's still not near borg's wimbledon record or pete's USO record ( the 2nd slam they dominated )

Yeah I like the way Novak's level dipped when he hit that deep return at Nadal's feet when Nadal was down 0-40. Or when Novak hit the ace for him at 30-40.

Novak made a couple errors, but it was mainly Nadal raising his level of play when he was in trouble that got him the set.

no, it wasn't just nadal raising his level of play ... an example of that would be RG 2013 SF where djokovic's level didn't dip

in USO 13, Novak's level dipped considerably. one particular error I remember was that he hit a simple fh into the net

It's not like the 07 final where Novak fell apart with those set points and Federer had to do nothing.

it was only one set and it was somewhat understandable given it was his first major final. No such excuse in 13 when he's supposed to be a strong era guy !

I am real. Which is why I said similar fate, not same. I can only go by what Nadal has had to deal with to draw my conclusions, not some fairy tale crap like you.

Fed has hit tremendous volleys against Nadal over the course of their battles and Nadal still usually finds a way to return them with interest or pass him. Look at AO12 for an example. Fed could not have hit that bh volley any better, Nadal was near the player's entrance and STILL he was able to track it down and hit a CC FH winner.

I know Mac overall is a better volleyer than Fed, but S&V just doesn't work against Nadal apart from very rare occasions. With the form Nadal was in at USO10 and 13, he wasn't going to lose to anyone with S&V tactics.

uhh, no , you are downright delusional ..

Mac is a considerably better volleyer than federer and would put considerably and consistently more pressure on rafa.

its downright silly to think that mac who handled borg's passing shots couldn't handle rafa's.

Oh they're at the very same level are they? And tell me, where is your proof of this? They played in different eras with different equipment, courts etc but that doesn't matter, you can still magically draw the conclusion that they're at the very same level :lol:

yes, you make a judgement call based on the matches they played, taking into account the equipment

Not as much as Roddick in pretty much every Fed encounter at the majors.

hah, the level of butthurt is strong in this one ...

Or Baghdatis at AO06 final, or Davydenko AO10 QF and a boat load of others who fell apart mentally against your lover boy.

but isn't djokovic supposed to be the super strong era guy ? :lol:

Yeah against Gottfried, 15th Seeded McEnroe, Harmon, Vilas, Teltscher and Scanlon. LOL those guys sure strike fear don't they. How did Connors do it?

Borg was having an off day in that 78 final and Lendl was the guy he beat in the other 2 when Lendl was losing every final LOL.

lendl was losing those finals in major part because he had to face the likes of borg, mac and connors.

I'm not comparing Nadal to Borg at Wimbledon, why do you insist on doing that? Why can't you just admit that Borg would not be winning Wimbledon anywhere near 5 times with Federer around LOL is it too hard for you to admit it?

If Fed was around for Borg, Borg would have 1 WIM title and Nadal would have 4.

why can't you admit nadal would have zero or one wimbledons in borg's era ? :lol:

whereas put borg in place of nadal -- he'd win wim 10, wim 11 and have a good shot at wim 08 as well , even wim 07 he'd have a decent shot.

face it, Bjorn Borg on grass >>> nadal on grass

 

[MichaelNadal]

1. OK agreed Federer benefited from few external factors. But I still give all the credit. Would Nadal be at the same level in ranking had all these factors favoured him at the age of 33? I am doubtful.

2. Nadal was thoroughly outplayed in Doha 2010. He was playing really great.

Agree with both statements. (though Nadal should have converted a match point) from then on, he was outplayed, while playing great tennis still.

 

[forehand fan]

no, you can't just remove federer from wim 06 and 07 and not put any decent opponent in place. nadal would probably lose to a very good quality grass courter in 2006 and probably win 07. so he'd probably have 3 wimbledons without federer.





no, it wasn't just nadal raising his level of play ... an example of that would be RG 2013 SF where djokovic's level didn't dip

in USO 13, Novak's level dipped considerably. one particular error I remember was that he hit a simple fh into the net



it was only one set and it was somewhat understandable given it was his first major final. No such excuse in 13 when he's supposed to be a strong era guy !



uhh, no , you are downright delusional ..

Mac is a considerably better volleyer than federer and would put considerably and consistently more pressure on rafa.

its downright silly to think that mac who handled borg's passing shots couldn't handle rafa's.





yes, you make a judgement call based on the matches they played, taking into account the equipment




hah, the level of butthurt is strong in this one ...



but isn't djokovic supposed to be the super strong era guy ? :lol:





lendl was losing those finals in major part because he had to face the likes of borg, mac and connors.






why can't you admit nadal would have zero or one wimbledons in borg's era ? :lol:

whereas put borg in place of nadal -- he'd win wim 10, wim 11 and have a good shot at wim 08 as well , even wim 07 he'd have a decent shot.

face it, Bjorn Borg on grass >>> nadal on grass

prove that nadal wouldn't have won any wimbledon in borg's era

 

[abmk]

Roddick and Davydenko are nowhere near the players that Federer and Djokovic are. Only Davydenko got lucky to meet Nadal twice in late 09 where Nadal was in terrible form losing to every top 10 player apart from Tsonga LOL and another cheap victory in Doha 2011 when Nadal was coughing on the court. Another victory where Nadal retired, clearly went in injured and bravely tried to compete still unlike Federer who pulls out of finals.

hilarious.

davydenko beat federer, delpo , soderling in YEC 09. He'd have probably beaten any version of nadal there.

he beat a peak nadal in doha 10 as well.

given the court conditions, davydenko would be favored in shanghai anyways.

11 doha is the only valid 'excuse' you have

and the last point just shows how butthurt you are :lol:

# of retirements for Mr. Rafael nadal = 10+
# of retirements for federer = ZERO, yes, ZERO.

 

[Gary Duane]

# of retirements for Mr. Rafael nadal = 10+
# of retirements for federer = ZERO, yes, ZERO.

You are playing with words. When you walk out on court and tell everyone why you won't play - injury - the result is the same.

That's not against Fed - but it is also a way to ignore what happened this year in the WTF.

 

[The_Order]

no, you can't just remove federer from wim 06 and 07 and not put any decent opponent in place. nadal would probably lose to a very good quality grass courter in 2006 and probably win 07. so he'd probably have 3 wimbledons without federer.

that's still not near borg's wimbledon record or pete's USO record ( the 2nd slam they dominated )

LOL so you STILL can't answer it :lol:

Would Sampras and Borg have dominated 2 majors with peak Federer and then peak Djokovic around???

As for replacing Federer with another decent grass courter, that's hgwash. There's no rule that say she MUST be replaced. If Federer was not born into the Nadal era he would not be participating at WIM06. Nadal would end up with either Bjorkman or Ancic in the final who he'd have soundly beaten.

Look at WIM02, Hewitt made the final and across the net was a young Nalbandian. There wasn't some "great grass courter" there to replace Nalbandian was there?

no, it wasn't just nadal raising his level of play ... an example of that would be RG 2013 SF where djokovic's level didn't dip

in USO 13, Novak's level dipped considerably. one particular error I remember was that he hit a simple fh into the net

Yeah he made that one bad error. Now go watch it again and tell me the others...

it was only one set and it was somewhat understandable given it was his first major final. No such excuse in 13 when he's supposed to be a strong era guy !

No he had SP in both of the first sets, blew most of them. He doesn't need an excuse for 13 because it was Nadal who denied him.

uhh, no , you are downright delusional ..

Mac is a considerably better volleyer than federer and would put considerably and consistently more pressure on rafa.

its downright silly to think that mac who handled borg's passing shots couldn't handle rafa's.

No it's downright silly to think Borg and Nadal are at the very same level when it comes to passing ability especially considering they played in completely different eras with different technology, courts etc. Only an arrogant fool like you who thinks he knows everything would come up with a way to compensate such major differences.

I know Mac is a better volleyer than Fed, but I've seen Fed hit volleys against Nadal that couldn't have been hit better, yet Nadal was still able to track them and return with interest. No doubt he'd be able to do that to Mac on HC as well especially given his form in the 2010 and 2013 US Opens.

S&V has proven to be ineffective against Nadal. LOL look at Hewitt v Sampras, Nadal has better passing shot ability and more firepower than Lleyton...

yes, you make a judgement call based on the matches they played, taking into account the equipment

You can't take the equipment into account because you don't know how much it would affect someone's game. Borg played with a wooden racket LOL, you can't possibly determine that he'd have the same skill with modern rackets you clown.

hah, the level of butthurt is strong in this one ...

Yeah that's all you can say because you know Roddick was a mental midget v Federer, far worse than what Novak has shown v Nadal...

but isn't djokovic supposed to be the super strong era guy ?

Yeah, you're right he's weak, if only he had the mental strength of the real super strong era guys like Roddick and Hewitt with results like this in majors:

6-0 7-6 6-0
4-6 6-3 6-0 6-4
6-1 6-7 6-0 6-4
6-4 6-0 6-2

Yeah they're super strong after eating all those bagels in major matches :lol:

lendl was losing those finals in major part because he had to face the likes of borg, mac and connors.

So what? He wasn't mentally strong enough to beat them when it mattered. I supposed you want to give Murray a pass as well? Oh yeah, I forgot he lost most of his major finals to Federer so he must be mentally strong...

why can't you admit nadal would have zero or one wimbledons in borg's era ?

Because I disagree. Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nearly twice. I'm sure if the guy can give Fed extremely tough matches at Wimbledon then he'd definitely be able to beat Borg and Mac who were both not at Federer's level.

whereas put borg in place of nadal -- he'd win wim 10, wim 11 and have a good shot at wim 08 as well , even wim 07 he'd have a decent shot.

face it, Bjorn Borg on grass >>> nadal on grass

Yeah Borg is better on grass than Nadal, I'm not denying that so you might as well tell everyone the sky is blue during the day captain obvious.

So funny how you bring up 07 and 08 but skip 09 :lol:

If Borg is capable of winning 07 and 08, he sure as hell has 09 sewn up, taking 3 Wimbledons away from Federer and now Fed has just over half of Sampras WIM titles...

Add WIM10 and WIM11 to Borg's total and he has 5 to Fed's 4. Interesting stuff...

 

[The_Order]

hilarious.

davydenko beat federer, delpo , soderling in YEC 09. He'd have probably beaten any version of nadal there.

he beat a peak nadal in doha 10 as well.

given the court conditions, davydenko would be favored in shanghai anyways.

11 doha is the only valid 'excuse' you have

and the last point just shows how butthurt you are :lol:

# of retirements for Mr. Rafael nadal = 10+
# of retirements for federer = ZERO, yes, ZERO.

Fed's chickened out of big finals more than Nadal, because Nadal's never done it.

He got injured in AO14 final and still kept playing unlike your hero needs to pull out because he's scared that Novak's going to slaughter him.

All the reasons I gave were valid. At least, more valid than your bs choking excuse for Federer losing Dubai 06 :lol:

 

[Bukmeikara]

Fed's chickened out of big finals more than Nadal, because Nadal's never done it.

He got injured in AO14 final and still kept playing unlike your hero needs to pull out because he's scared that Novak's going to slaughter him.

All the reasons I gave were valid. At least, more valid than your bs choking excuse for Federer losing Dubai 06 :lol:

Nadal chickened big time in Australia, after the MTO he realisied that he has to play the injury card so he can keep his reputation intact. Rafalito has 5-6-7-8 MTOs when being behind in the score, that says a lot. For a player who is that frequently injuried you would think that he should get injuried at least a couple of times when being ahead in the score .... but no which is strange ...... strange in the same why like coming back back after 6 months of painfull injury and becoming number 1 with someone like Djokovic present.

 

[TMF]

Roddick a force? LOL.

Fed threaten to reach #1 this year because this year was the weakest in years with Novak's level clearly dropping, Nadal being plagued by injuries, Muzza not back to his best after surgery, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga all drop form, Stan only show up for a handful of tournaments LOL this year was p*** weak, only Roger made an improvement over last year out of the big 4.

Roddick and Davydenko are nowhere near the players that Federer and Djokovic are. Only Davydenko got lucky to meet Nadal twice in late 09 where Nadal was in terrible form losing to every top 10 player apart from Tsonga LOL and another cheap victory in Doha 2011 when Nadal was coughing on the court. Another victory where Nadal retired, clearly went in injured and bravely tried to compete still unlike Federer who pulls out of finals.

Whatever dude. Your biased opinion isn't going to change other fans opinion. This is all subjective and my opinion the 2004-2009 period was stronger than 2010-present.

And since you truly believe Federer and Nadal are playing against a weak field, I suggest that you don't consider Nadal is a clay goat at all, because that title belongs to Borg since he won all of his title in a strong era.

 

[TMF]

Fed's chickened out of big finals more than Nadal, because Nadal's never done it.

He got injured in AO14 final and still kept playing unlike your hero needs to pull out because he's scared that Novak's going to slaughter him.

All the reasons I gave were valid. At least, more valid than your bs choking excuse for Federer losing Dubai 06 :lol:

Federer has zero retirement to Nadal's 7, who is 5 years younger than him.

Fed has never retired from a match​

Federer have played a total of 1251 matches in his career, about 300 more than any active player, has never retired in the middle of a match. No other player in the top 25 has fewer than three career retirements, according to data on tennisabstract.com.

Federer’s non-retirement streak is still an impressive feat of durability, toughness and stubbornness, like Cal Ripken’s 2,632 consecutive games played. Call it another impressive statistic on a resume filled with them.

Read more

 

[abmk]

LOL so you STILL can't answer it :lol:

Would Sampras and Borg have dominated 2 majors with peak Federer and then peak Djokovic around???

As for replacing Federer with another decent grass courter, that's hgwash. There's no rule that say she MUST be replaced. If Federer was not born into the Nadal era he would not be participating at WIM06. Nadal would end up with either Bjorkman or Ancic in the final who he'd have soundly beaten.

Look at WIM02, Hewitt made the final and across the net was a young Nalbandian. There wasn't some "great grass courter" there to replace Nalbandian was there?

nadal wasn't even soundly beating kendrick. Ancic would have more than a decent shot vs him.

wim02, hewitt did also face Henman in the semi.

No it's downright silly to think Borg and Nadal are at the very same level when it comes to passing ability especially considering they played in completely different eras with different technology, courts etc. Only an arrogant fool like you who thinks he knows everything would come up with a way to compensate such major differences.

I know Mac is a better volleyer than Fed, but I've seen Fed hit volleys against Nadal that couldn't have been hit better, yet Nadal was still able to track them and return with interest. No doubt he'd be able to do that to Mac on HC as well especially given his form in the 2010 and 2013 US Opens.

S&V has proven to be ineffective against Nadal. LOL look at Hewitt v Sampras, Nadal has better passing shot ability and more firepower than Lleyton...

that's a load of rubbish. nadal's return for one is clearly inferior to hewitt's, especially vs net-rushers ...the first volley for mac/sampras vs nadal is definitely much easier than vs hewitt

and on faster, low bouncing surfaces like the USO/indoors, hewitt's passing is a tad better

and I've seen federer have considerable success vs nadal on some occasions at the net - even on some of the slower surfaces vs nadal at the net - see rome 06 final ...even in AO 09 , he was at ~75% at the net IIRC...

mac would do better

You can't take the equipment into account because you don't know how much it would affect someone's game. Borg played with a wooden racket LOL, you can't possibly determine that he'd have the same skill with modern rackets you clown..

LOL, you clown, going by these stupid arguments of yours, then you can't say nadal has the best passing ability of all time ...Talk about hitting oneself on the foot with the hammer :lol:

Yeah that's all you can say because you know Roddick was a mental midget v Federer, far worse than what Novak has shown v Nadal...



Yeah, you're right he's weak, if only he had the mental strength of the real super strong era guys like Roddick and Hewitt with results like this in majors:

6-0 7-6 6-0
4-6 6-3 6-0 6-4
6-1 6-7 6-0 6-4
6-4 6-0 6-2

Yeah they're super strong after eating all those bagels in major matches :lol:

no, its just that federer's game totally neutralizes theirs on top of him being that much superior. it doesn't have to do that much with mental strength

So what? He wasn't mentally strong enough to beat them when it mattered. I supposed you want to give Murray a pass as well? Oh yeah, I forgot he lost most of his major finals to Federer so he must be mentally strong...

uhh, I've always said murray played cr*p in USO 08 and AO 11. He played decent in AO 10 and very well in wim 12.

Never said murray was that mentally strong.

Lendl put in more fight in the finals he lost ( except for the 4th set in USO 83 ) than murray did in his first 3.

Because I disagree. Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon. Nearly twice. I'm sure if the guy can give Fed extremely tough matches at Wimbledon then he'd definitely be able to beat Borg and Mac who were both not at Federer's level.

and I'm saying peak mac and borg on older grass were better than peak nadal on modern grass and closer to federer's level on modern grass.

nadal-federer in 07-08 was closer than their respective peak levels on grass because of the matchup factor.

put nadal back on to the older, slicker grass and he's in a lot more trouble than he's in the first week of wimbledon on the modern grass.

hilarious how you sidestep that part

Yeah Borg is better on grass than Nadal, I'm not denying that so you might as well tell everyone the sky is blue during the day captain obvious.

So funny how you bring up 07 and 08 but skip 09 :lol:

If Borg is capable of winning 07 and 08, he sure as hell has 09 sewn up, taking 3 Wimbledons away from Federer and now Fed has just over half of Sampras WIM titles...

Add WIM10 and WIM11 to Borg's total and he has 5 to Fed's 4. Interesting stuff...

I didn't take 09 because nadal didn't play in that one.

since when did I say borg would win 07 and 08 ? I didn't. I'm definitely taking federer for 07, 08 would be close and could go either way.

also 09 federer ~ 08 federer at wimbledon. In fact, some ways he was better in wim 09 tbh...

 

[abmk]

Fed's chickened out of big finals more than Nadal, because Nadal's never done it.

no, he only ran away for months after those loses to soderling and Rosol :lol:

He got injured in AO14 final and still kept playing unlike your hero needs to pull out because he's scared that Novak's going to slaughter him.

you mean the AO 14 where he was scared after the beating wawrinka was giving him when he was perfectly fine in the 1st set ? :lol:

and his bogus MTO/breaks ala federer in hamburg 08, petzschener in wim 10, federer in IW 12 etc etc ..?

no wonder the Aussie crowd booed him in the AO 14 final !

All the reasons I gave were valid. At least, more valid than your bs choking excuse for Federer losing Dubai 06 :lol:

whatever helps you sleep better at night :lol:

 

[abmk]

Fed's chickened out of big finals more than Nadal, because Nadal's never done it.

no, he only ran away for months after those loses to soderling and Rosol :lol:

He got injured in AO14 final and still kept playing unlike your hero needs to pull out because he's scared that Novak's going to slaughter him.

you mean the AO 14 final where he was scared after the beating wawrinka was giving him when he was perfectly fine in the 1st set ? :lol:

and his bogus MTO/breaks ala federer in hamburg 08, petzschener in wim 10, federer in IW 12 etc etc ..?

no wonder the Aussie crowd booed him in the AO 14 final !

yeah, federer was so afraid of djokovic after beating him in straights in shanghai !

All the reasons I gave were valid. At least, more valid than your bs choking excuse for Federer losing Dubai 06 :lol:

whatever helps you sleep better at night :lol:

 

[TMF]

Not exactly

You are playing with words. When you walk out on court and tell everyone why you won't play - injury - the result is the same.

That's not against Fed - but it is also a way to ignore what happened this year in the WTF.

If a player was injured and knows that he can't physically go out and play a complete match, then don't play. It would look even worse had he made a bad decision by playing and end up retiring in the middle of the match.

However, a player chose to retire during the match is another story. Once a player decided to play, he's saying to himself that he's capable of completing the match(win or lose). Some players take an easy route by throwing in the towel because he/she knows that defeat was inevitable.

 

[mccarthy]

Nadal is a notch up on the other two IMO.

Sampras and Borg is a virtual toss up and hard to call.

In some regards Sampras had the best career of the three, but his terrible (relatively speaking) clay court record is a huge hole, and his dominance of various fast surfaces does not compare to Borg's dominance of the polar opposites of clay and grass. Something that Sampras, and Nadal for that matter, could only dream of managing. Even Federer has not and could not manage that.

Against Borg in comparision to the others though is never winning a hard court major (as for his limited chances, he helped limit them by retiring so early, his own fault), and never winning a US Open even with it on his beloved clay for 3 years. Along with the statistical drawback of only 11 majors, even if softened somewhat by the Australian Open situation.

 

[mccarthy]

Whatever dude. Your biased opinion isn't going to change other fans opinion.

It isn't most peoples opinion Federer had the toughest competition of any player. That seems to be something you have convinced yourself of. It isn't necessarily most peoples opinion he had the poorest, but certainly not the best.

And since you truly believe Federer and Nadal are playing against a weak field, I suggest that you don't consider Nadal is a clay goat at all, because that title belongs to Borg since he won all of his title in a strong era.

This part is laughable. Borg a strong clay era? The 2nd best clay courter of that era was Vilas who is probably a weaker clay courter than both Federer and Djokovic, and 3rd best (whoever the heck that was) was another country mile behind that. Borg is the last man who played a "strong clay era". Despite that his achievements are miles behind Nadal on clay.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Nadal is a notch up on the other two IMO.

Sampras and Borg is a virtual toss up and hard to call.

In some regards Sampras had the best career of the three, but his terrible (relatively speaking) clay court record is a huge hole, and his dominance of various fast surfaces does not compare to Borg's dominance of the polar opposites of clay and grass. Something that Sampras, and Nadal for that matter, could only dream of managing. Even Federer has not and could not manage that.

Against Borg in comparision to the others though is never winning a hard court major (as for his limited chances, he helped limit them by retiring so early, his own fault), and never winning a US Open even with it on his beloved clay for 3 years. Along with the statistical drawback of only 11 majors, even if softened somewhat by the Australian Open situation.

After Borg's 3 channelslams.. Comes rafa with 2 channels slams in (2008, 2010) he also won Rg and played wimbledon final also in 2006,2007 and 2011.

So you statement about "dream of" only applies to sampras.

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

It isn't most peoples opinion Federer had the toughest competition of any player. That seems to be something you have convinced yourself of. It isn't necessarily most peoples opinion he had the poorest, but certainly not the best.



This part is laughable. Borg a strong clay era? The 2nd best clay courter of that era was Vilas who is probably a weaker clay courter than both Federer and Djokovic, and 3rd best (whoever the heck that was) was another country mile behind that. Borg is the last man who played a "strong clay era". Despite that his achievements are miles behind Nadal on clay.

Borg was one of the best contributor to tennis. You obviously didn't old enough to watch Borg play. Borg played extreme tough era, he had to win in the Golden era of tennis, most of his opponents are one of the GOAT nowadays. I can list you over ten extreme tough opponents that Borg faced during his career

Borg retired at age 26 with 11 Slam, he's unlucky to continue his career, he burned out early and had issues with the ATP tour, that took away a lot of his greatness

 

[mccarthy]

I agree Borg played in a great era overall, but certainly not on clay. The guys of his era that made it a great era like Connors and McEnroe were not clay courters. Same with Ashe, Newcombe, and some other top players of the early part of Borg's time on top. Or barely crossed paths with Borg at all, like Lendl who was just coming to prominence as Borg was going out. Connors didn't even play the French Open for years as well.

I know just as much about Borg as you might, and never disputed his greatness. I chose him over Sampras on this poll which already makes that claim on your part laughable. I simply mock the idea he played "strong clay era". He clearly did not.

 

[borg number one]

I think you can make arguments for all three players. They are all Tier 1 greats in my opinion. As to Borg, he had to face a slew of great clay courters, many of whom would really focus on Roland Garros, knowing that Wimbledon was not their province. Connors lost some big matches at the French Open and so did McEnroe, which stopped both from reaching Borg. Borg did not play the FO due to his participation in WTT, which meant that he was disqualified from playing it. He chose to play WTT regardless. Besides a young Lendl, Vilas is one of the greatest clay courters ever. See his clay totals, if one weighs resume and win totals as strong assets, you can't then discount Vilas as a clay courter. Look at his win streaks. Borg did win the '78 FO with the loss of only 32 games the whole tourney, yet he was just that great. Besides Vilas, players like Clerc, Gerulaitis, Noah, Higueras, Orantes, and Pecci were all extremely good clay courters for example. Borg also had to play on rubico (har tru) or green clay in the U.S. That's a fast clay surface, quite different than red clay. Connors played better on that surface, relative to his peers. So, it's just not accurate that Borg faced no real clay court competition. He was simply too good for players such as Clerc, Vilas, and a young Lendl. Keep in mind that in 80-81, Lendl was beating McEnroe routinely so it's not as if he was not already an extremely good player.

 

[mccarthy]

In the case Borg faced a strong clay era, Nadal did as well. To those who say Nadal faced a weak clay era, Borg obviously did too. In no way was Borg's clay competition any better than Nadal's.

Federer => Vilas
Djokovic >>>> Panatta

Anyone remaining is of little significance (Ferrer, Clerc, Ramirez, Del Potro, all purely mediocre in the grand scheme of things at best).

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

In the case Borg faced a strong clay era, Nadal did as well. To those who say Nadal faced a weak clay era, Borg obviously did too. In no way was Borg's clay competition any better than Nadal's.

Federer => Vilas
Djokovic >>>> Panatta

Anyone remaining is of little significance (Ferrer, Clerc, Ramirez, Del Potro, all purely mediocre in the grand scheme of things at best).

Ferrer mediocre? he did a RG final... Ferrer could beat 80%+ of those 90's claycourt specialists....

 

[tennis_commentator]

Ferrer may well have beaten Borg at Roland Garros.
Ferrer would probably have won Roland Garros a couple of times in the 80s and 90s.
Ferrer can outlast just about everyone in history (and can match the fitness of prime Muster).

 

[borg number one]

Ferrer may well have beaten Borg at Roland Garros.
Ferrer would probably have won Roland Garros a couple of times in the 80s and 90s.
Ferrer can outlast just about everyone in history (and can match the fitness of prime Muster).

Ferrer would be toast versus Borg, much like Vilas was in 1978 and Lendl was in 1981. He's solid, yet Borg did most everything better.

 

[thedunster]

If I could play like any of those three I'd want to play like Borg.

He had it all.