Why Sampras considered to be better than Borg

[Phenomenal]

I didn't watch both players to begin with only some highlights.
I was thinking this for while, i do think Borg can be considered equal or better than Sampras even statistically?!(rather objectively) Here i will give reasons why i believe this.

I will look mainly from Borg's side about my argument but will give stats for both. I'm also curious what all of you think
As you know AO wasn't a big thing earlier specially from 76 to 82. For top players most other tournaments were more important and they didn't played the AO. For example i wouldn't use this argument for Agassi...

Here my first reason.

1. You can't simpy say Sampras is better because of 14>11 due to Sampras compete at 4 slams to get that 14 whereas Borg 3. This is not fair.

Like i said Borg like many top players didn't compete at AO other than 1974 when he was 17. You might include 1975 but i won't since Connors played although not everyone. For this reason it's tough to rank these players specially Borg and Connors and lesser extent to Mcenroe. I impressed with Lendl's career more than Connors but mainly for this reason i consider Connors better. For me it's tough to imagine Connors not winning atleast 2 AO(more chance than 0 imo).


AO before 77 was played at january like same schedule now. But in 77 AO played in both January and December and after 77 to 82 it's played at the end of the year. In this case Borg wouldn't have chance in 1981. We can make many gymnastics here. Like if Borg knows AO as a 'major' he might play at the end of 1981. He would have chance from 76 to 80, 5 times. Didn't count 77 twice.
Borg almost dominated the tennis at the late 70's and 80 outside of USO. So he was very good at every surface ironically for me HC being his worst. AO was played at grass during those years but it was different from Wimbledon. As popular as Borg was he wouldn't play against home crowd in AO.(Connors/Mac) Obviously you never know he might never win but there is a case that he could dominate the AO too. I'm leaving this up to you guys. Would you guys surprise if Borg wins AO 4-5 times specially who watched those years?

2. In 1977 Borg was banned from playing RG for playing other events. That would not likely to happen nowadays. Someone can correct me here and give more info.
He would be favourite sure it's not given that he wins. But there is also this in 1974 Connors banned from RG too. Other years he choose not to play as far as i know don't think he would beat Borg either.
But in 1974 he would have a chance. I accept both arguments here Borg could have won 1 more but might lost 1974.

3. Borg's versality. He is way more versatil than Sampras. This is not a subjective take i guess. This is also the reason why people can imagine him winning many AO i think. For Sampras one might say if we remove clay he would have still 14. but what if he didn't played at USO. Borg's played 4 final in his least successfull Slam and lost only to Connors and Mac. I'm not sure which other big tournament Borg played many times and couldn't win. Sampras has only 1 SF at RG.

 

[Phenomenal]

4. I will compeletly dismiss this but still mention it also incase if people discuss on this. Borg could have won few more and played 2-3 years might even win USO if he didn't play against Mcenroe. Nowadays i would never buy or can think this but i can imagine Motivation being an issue in his case. I also read that he was already thinking about retirement in 81. He played much less in 81 than earlier years. Some also think he was burning out idk. Btw Borg has tons of 5 sets matches, i was surprised given his short career. I can understand this issue completely if only he won USO. IMO idk those times he could have tried more anyway. Had he win 1 USO for me he would be for sure better than Sampras but it's not the case. Nobody wins everything i guess.
Now some stats about both players and i will have few subjective takes.

Sampras has 14 slams in 18 finals.
6 times Year end No1 286 total weeks at No1.
Sampras won 5 ATP finals in 6 final, 11 Masters in 19 finals. Also won 2 Grand Slam Cup (WTF kind of tournament)
2 Davis cup. His W/L record 19-9 overall, 15-8 singles.
Sampras has 64 singles titles.

Borg has 11 slams in 16 finals.
2 times Year end No1 109 total weeks at No1.
Borg won 2 ATP finals in 4 final, has 15 Masters in 20 finals. 1 WCT(WTF kind)
1 Davis cup. His W/L record 45-11 overall, 37-3 singles. All 3 losses came before 1974 when he wasn't 18.
Borg has 66 singles titles.

I'm most impressed with Sampras's 7 Wimbledon. I think his 7>14 lol like Nadal's 14>22.

About Borg no need to say much not that me impressed with him his career impressed everyone.

Borg reached his 11th Slam earlier than anyone in the history of the sport. Borg aged 25 years and 1 day when he won his 11th. Roger was the closest with 25 years and 324 days, Nadal was 26 years and 8 days. Borg did this with only playing 3 slams instead of 4. Thats insane! I'm not sure if this record will ever get broken. For me player needs to reach 13-14 before Borg's 11 to considered better than Borg.

Obviously comparing era's is tough and not ideal. Competition,draws etc. i'm leaving all that. Specially players from 70's and 80's since there were much less HC tournaments.

Lastly i want to mention the years when Sampras end WN1 his W/L record was quite low compared to other greats.
His highest W/L record was %87 then 86, 84. He was probably unlucky in few of this due to injuries though but still it's low.

Borg in 77-78 has %92 win rate with 3 slams and still ranked 3 and 2. In 77 he ranked 3 probably because of he banned from RG.
About Sampras due to some stats i never feel like he dominated the tennis outside of slams in a way like Borg or many other greats did. He dominated WTF though.

I find his master titles quite low also his total titles. Even Mcenroe has 77 singles titles with less longevity than Sampras i think.
These are my feelings obviously he doesn't need all this to pass Borg. His career very well might be ahead.

 

[Phenomenal]

What do you guys think if Borg has 14 slams(Assuming he plays AO and wins 3 lets say) Everything remains same just adding 3 titles.

I'm curious whose career will you consider better in this case?


Their stats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras_career_statistics

Björn Borg career statistics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bigbadboaz]

It's definitely recency bias, along with the modern obsession (simple-mindedness) towards counting majors.

As you detail, there are any number of points someone could make that indicate Borg is at least an equal. I tend to agree that if you analyze the careers with any sort of nuance, it's hard to put one above the other. In a general sense, I certainly hold similar respect for what Borg achieved.

Pete benefited from the modern media being able to craft its narrative around his pursuit of a record, his achievement of that record building the image of a consummate winner, and Borg's early retirement (both in the sense that it capped his numbers and also casts him as a bit of a quitter, which happens to be in direct contrast to how Pete closed out).

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Both are at the same level but I give a slight edge to Borg if I have to choose. They are for sure the best player in the Open Era outside the Big 3.

 

[Break To Win]

Borg is bigger than Sampras. The Swede won Slams with completely different conditions, at the time, they were the slowest Slam (French Open) and the fastest Slam (Wimbledon).

Sampras never won a Slam on clay, in fact, he never came close.

But the American media was very strong in the 1990s-2000s.

I think that's it.

 

[Break To Win]

And I say more.

Agassi is in the same Status as Pete Sampras.

 

[Kralingen]

Yeah, Borg and Sampras are both squarely Tier 1 in the all time great pantheon for me.

To put it another way, the difference between the two players is basically the difference between one Big 3 player and another - minor differences that can lead to arguments favoring one of the other, but close enough profiles that the differences are ultimately de minimis in the big picture of things.

 

[austintennis2005]

And I say more.

Agassi is in the same Status as Pete Sampras.

No

 

[nolefam_2024]

Comparing Sampras to Borg is not going to be apples to apples comparison.

When rest of the things are ignored, Pete just dominated for longer time than Bjorn and he was true alpha to stick through even when going got tough.

Borg retiring after losing a bunch of times to Mac is not even a good sportsmanlike behavior. We can't give him hypothetical wins.

 

[nolefam_2024]

When you look at Pete, you can see he commands respect. Only thing he didn't achieve was RG. He was pretty much complete resume wise.

 

[Kemitak]

Sampras > Borg
Because Sampras destroyed the man who made Borg quit tennis altogether.

Bonus points for retiring right after winning his home major when everyone said he was finished, instead of an embarrassing comeback after a decade of tennis progress and zero preparation.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sampras > Borg
Because Sampras destroyed the man who made Borg quit tennis altogether.

Bonus points for retiring right after winning his home major when everyone said he was finished, instead of an embarrassing comeback after a decade of tennis progress and zero preparation.

Borg retiring early is not a good look. Especially when he found a worthy opponent. If not for racket technology change, hopefully McEnroe would have won double digit slam to really hammer the point to Borg fans.

 

[Hard Court]

Don't get the point about racquet technology hurting Mcenroe. Have heard things like this before and it really wasn't true. The game suddenly being dominated by power players in the mid-1980s simply didn't happen.
McEnroe never was the same for various reasons, chief among them being him committing fully to the sport.

Yes, Borg retired early. He still won more tournaments than Sampras.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Don't get the point about racquet technology hurting Mcenroe. Have heard things like this before and it really wasn't true. The game suddenly being dominated by power players in the mid-1980s simply didn't happen.
McEnroe never was the same for various reasons, chief among them being him committing fully to the sport.

Yes, Borg retired early. He still won more tournaments than Sampras.

The MM during his time is why Majors was a chief deal in GOAT conversation. Borg can play in many half strength draws.

 

[jrepac]

Yeah, Borg and Sampras are both squarely Tier 1 in the all time great pantheon for me.

To put it another way, the difference between the two players is basically the difference between one Big 3 player and another - minor differences that can lead to arguments favoring one of the other, but close enough profiles that the differences are ultimately de minimis in the big picture of things.

Borg was such a unique phenomenon. I tend to think of them as fairly equal, but no question Borg was a God on clay. He was a bit unlucky at USO, but look who he lost to...2 other greats.
BUT, if I look at their entire careers, it's hard not to pick Sampras above Bjorn. 7 W and 5 USO is one big trophy haul. That's kind of like putting Borg and Connors together. It's super impressive, even if some would argue "weak competition" during the 90s (yes and no).

 

[netlets]

Borg I believe has the highest winning percentage in Slams in history. He is the equal of the big 3 in terms of dominance. Slams were not the measure of greatness then so you can’t use that when comparing a player from that era. Plus, the big 3 played more than 50 slams than Borg! Borg also played at RG and won while destroying his opponents and not dropping sets. He only came to net on clay to shake hands and would follow it up by serve and volleying at Wimbledon one week later on super fast grass and winning it 5 times in a row. While Fed would have been great on fast surfaces, Rafa and Djokovic benefited in a huge way by having all the surfaces essentially homogenized so they could play from the baseline anywhere. No way do they win Wimbledon on super fast low bouncing grass without serve and volleying every point. Borg only lost two matches at RG - to the same person and it’s too bad he retired so young - no doubt he would have won the US Open. He was only 25 when he played his last full year - but had 11 Slams while playing 3 or sometimes only 2 a year.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sampras is not greater than Borg, both of them are from different eras and hence cannot be compared. Sampras started that "slam record being the most important metric of all" doctrine, had it been around during Borg's time, Borg would likely not have skipped all those AOs and also not retired one slam short of the record. His versatility was fare better than Pete's, the 5W-6FO under polarized conditions maybe the most impressive feat in tennis history. Where he lacks is weeks at No.1 (109 vs 286) but we should not forget, that rankings were still very flawed during his time. 2 vs 5 in YEC is also a point against him, but Borg played alongside carpet greats like Mac, Connors, Lendl (tbf, Pete had Becker to deal with but overall I would still value Borg's competition higher).
As things stand, both are from different eras and dominated their eras so one cannot really compare them. What I am sure about though is that if Borg had played under the same conditions as Pete (four slams per season, slam record being the be-all-end-all, more sophisticated ranking system, no need to play too heavy schedule) he would have beaten Pete statistically.

P.S. the usual ignoramuses again out with that hundred-times-debunked nonsense that Borg ran away from Mac. That canard should die a slow death rather sooner than later.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg retiring early is not a good look. Especially when he found a worthy opponent. If not for racket technology change, hopefully McEnroe would have won double digit slam to really hammer the point to Borg fans.

He still beat Mac in 82 and even in his very last tournament the Suntory Cup in 1983. You are completely clueless about the history of tennis and the circumstances around Borg's retirement but only mindlessly copy-paste and parrot the same non-sense over and over again.

 

[Pheasant]

Borg’s peak was arguably the best of all time. He is unique, due to the fact that he completely dominated 2 completely opposite surfaces. Sure, we know that Pete dominated grass and hard courts. But those two surfaces aren’t so far apart. Case in point, McEnroe, despite being done winning slams at age 25, bagged 3 Wimbledons and 4 USO titles. Some dude named Federer won a few Wimbledons and hard court slams. However, Borg’s domination at both the FO and Wimbeldon has never been done to that extreme. Case in point, grass was his 2nd best surface, despite him winning 5 straight Wimbeldon titles.

Here’s another thing. I looked up full time seasons(70+ wins or more) among several Open Era greats. Borg was the only win to put up 4 straight .900 seasons(min 70 wins). And he did that while playing .870 ball vs the top-5. Toss in 3 consecutive Channel Slams and you get a ridiculous peak.

Honestly, this becomes a peak vs career debate. I have to give Sampras credit for playing 6 years longer. That will ultimately cause me to choose him over Borg in a squeaker. But I might eventually change my mind here. I saw both players. At their best, Borg was better across all surfaces. He was more dominant. The numbers bear that out.

 

[Gizo]

Borg understandably didn't care about going after Roy Emerson's record which was considered to be largely meaningless at the time - I knew about it and it was mentioned, but it was far from a big deal. Sampras on the flip-side put a lot of focus on equalling and then breaking it. The landscapes when they both were active / in their primes were very different. During Borg's time, numerous tournaments paid out greater prize money than the majors. Clearly a fundamental reason why the major count has become more important over time, is the fact that the majors have significantly increased their prize money relative to other tournaments.

I always thought that Sampras's ultimate goal / dream during his junior and then early pro days was to emulate Laver and win the grand slam, with the focus shifting to trying to break the record for the most major titles after he realised that the former would not be possible (especially given his relative difficulties at RG). Also I felt at the time that his 'pursuit' of Emerson's record was hyped up to try to drum up more interest in the sport; in the US the popularity of tennis noticeably declined in the 90s compared to in the 80s, and there were numerous articles about how the sport was dying, in a bad state etc.

 

[Phenomenal]

Comparing Sampras to Borg is not going to be apples to apples comparison.

When rest of the things are ignored, Pete just dominated for longer time than Bjorn and he was true alpha to stick through even when going got tough.

Borg retiring after losing a bunch of times to Mac is not even a good sportsmanlike behavior. We can't give him hypothetical wins.

What?? I'm not giving him any hypothetical wins after 81, not accepting my 4th argument as i said since he didn't win USO. Point about Australia is %100 legit this is not even hypothetical(he has 11 in 3 slams).

I didn't mention few more points due to post becoming even longer.

Borg-Mcenroe H2H is 7-7. First match was in 78 (Indoor HC) where Mcenroe won, all other matches played between 79-81. During those years Mac won 3 straight USO. I would say only his 1984 was better.

Their h2h on Carpet was 5-3 to Borg. Mac considered to be the greatest player on carpet together with Lendl. Look how great Borg was.
They never played on clay just imagine how would h2h will be.

Idk but i really don't think Borg retired due to Mac at all.

 

[borg number one]

Sampras likely played twice as many majors total as Borg did. Borg had a significantly higher win rate at the majors. He played the Australian only once due to how the tour was set up back then. Borg made the finals four times at his “worst” major, while Sampras never challenged at the French Open. Borg had great surface versatility. Borg was also the more influential/consequential player. He reshaped how the game was played and popularized it very significantly. It’s Borg>Sampras. Both are Tier 1 all time greats.

 

[RS]

I have seen Borg ranked higher a lot too. Maybe not as much.

 

[mcs1970]

Sampras is my favorite player. I have no problems with anyone who feels Borg was better just like many older will feel Laver was better.

IMO comparing greats across eras is pointless and recency bias or personal bias starts creeping in. Each era had/has its challenges and advantages.

Someone recently put up the clay court match where Sampras came from 2 sets down to beat a 2 time FO champion in Courier. So when some folks claim Sampras was a one trick pony they are missing that he he had the tools to be an all court player. It’s just that stamina wise, be it due to thalassemia or stamina work off the court, Pete always seemed to be gasping the longer a match went. So that was definitely one weakness in his game which Borg or the Big 3 don’t have.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Sampras was great but Borg was something else…

 

[Mustard]

Sampras never had a win-loss dominance like some of Borg's years.

 

[Phenomenal]

I have seen Borg ranked higher a lot too. Maybe not as much.

It's like 2/10. Honestly i only saw 1 out of 10 site i searched, most were recent.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Borg is NOT ranked higher than Sampras on goat list. The hypothetical wins mean very less. Sampras got to 14 slams. He got the the year end ranking 6 straight times.

Borg has a few records which Sampras could match like dominating 2 slams. But Sampras owned an entire decade at slams, ATP finals and number 1 ranking.

 

[InsuranceMan]

Borg is NOT ranked higher than Sampras on goat list. The hypothetical wins mean very less. Sampras got to 14 slams. He got the the year end ranking 6 straight times.

Borg has a few records which Sampras could match like dominating 2 slams. But Sampras owned an entire decade at slams, ATP finals and number 1 ranking.

Found the Djokovic fan

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Borg is NOT ranked higher than Sampras on goat list. The hypothetical wins mean very less. Sampras got to 14 slams. He got the the year end ranking 6 straight times.

Borg has a few records which Sampras could match like dominating 2 slams. But Sampras owned an entire decade at slams, ATP finals and number 1 ranking.

Hypotheticals are not needed.

Sampras got to 14 playing 4 slams a year while Borg was playing 3 a year. So they are pretty even in that regard.

Borg was much better at the USO than Sampras at RG, even if Sampras on clay was better than he is sometimes given credit for.

Borg at RG and W was as good as Sampras at W and USO. And he is superior in some statistics that don't require hypotheticals. It can go either way.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Hypotheticals are not needed.

Sampras got to 14 playing 4 slams a year while Borg was playing 3 a year. So they are pretty even in that regard.

Borg was much better at the USO than Sampras at RG, even if Sampras on clay was better than he is sometimes given credit for.

Borg at RG and W was as good as Sampras at W and USO. And he is superior in some statistics that don't require hypotheticals. It can go either way.

Aren't you giving Borg hypothetical wins at AO already?

 

[martinezownsclay]

The Borg vs Sampras comparision has always been tricky to me, and I don't firmly settle on one side or another.

I do think one reason people might give Sampras the edge (beyond the flawed slam centric thinking and 14 majors to 11, and stuff like that) is Sampras is probably ahead of Borg on every surface but clay. And to be clear I do think that is a valid argument in Sampras's favor. However the clay gap is HUGE, and far, far bigger than the gap on any other surface. In fact Sampras's edge on Borg on every other surface is probably just slight. Well on outdoor hard courts you could strongly argue Sampras is considerably ahead, but even there while it is sort of true, Borg IMO is a very underrated hard court player, in large part ash he had limited opportunities to prove himself (only played 4 hard court slams in his career, limited number of outdoor hard court tournaments compared to today in his already shorter career); and regardless even the hard court gap is still only a fraction of the clay gap. Also that kind of rationalization can be flawed and can contradict depending what players you are comparing. Like for instance Nadal is clearly, beyond any dispute, behind Federer on every surface but clay (and almost all by wider margins than Borg vs Sampras), but there is atleast good argument he is ahead of Federer (PS- I personally rank Federer above, but not interested in starting a long argument that is out of place here on that). Heck until the very end of his career there have been a good argument Becker and Edberg were above Nadal on every surface but clay and well....Another way to look at it is Borg on clay is arguably > Sampras on every surface (you could make an argument for Sampras on grass vs Borg on clay, but would still go with Borg on clay), Borg on every surface >>>> Sampras on clay, Borg on carpet (probably his 3rd best surface) even arguably > Sampras on whatever his 3rd best surface is (something like indoor hard or faster outdoor hard, carpet would clearly be Sampras's 2nd after grass).

Looking at them in general? I think Borg was definitely more dominant over a 3 year period (78-80) than Sampras ever was, and it isn't particularly close. Sampras's best ever year (1994) is still clearly below Borg's best year ever, maybe his 2 or 3 best years ever, and he doesn't have a year in probably his best 3 year stretch (93-95) that comes that close to 94 either. Borgnot having a 3 slam year is a fluke and mostly meaningless stat, as it is entirely his not playing the Australian Open any of his prime year, not even playing the French either in 77, etc..While Sampras it is a legit stat in that he was trying to win at all 4 majors in his career, and still could not win 3 in a year even once. Even without a single consistent true ATG as a rival, considering Becker and Edberg were past their primes, and the most consistent stretch of play of Agassi's entire career was oddly 99-2003 (mid 94-95 was probably his best, so credit to Sampras for overcoming Agassi at the Open and for the #1 ranking in 95, but that was literally his only true test ever his entire reign of a near peer, which while not his fault is a pretty fortunate situation he should have taken better advantage of it than he did really). Contrast that to Borg who atleast had Connors near his best his entire reign, then later a prime-ing McEnroe his final few years of being the #1 or #2 player. Sampras obviously has a big edge in longevity, even though Borg did have roughly 7 years of very top level play.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Sampras likely played twice as many majors total as Borg did. Borg had a significantly higher win rate at the majors. He played the Australian only once due to how the tour was set up back then. Borg made the finals four times at his “worst” major, while Sampras never challenged at the French Open. Borg had great surface versatility. Borg was also the more influential/consequential player. He reshaped how the game was played and popularized it very significantly. It’s Borg>Sampras. Both are Tier 1 all time greats.

Almost. Borg won 11 of 27 in his career, Sampras won 14 of 52.

In Pete's defence, during his dominant peak from Wimbledon '93 to Wimbledon '99, he won 12 in 27 attempts (or 11 in 23 attempts up to W '98). But then again, if you cherry-pick only their peak years, Bjorn won his 11 in only 21 attempts.

Sampras won more over a longer timescale, Borg won in more dominant fashion, and at a faster rate. Seven Wimbledons is better than five, but five-in-a-row is better than four- or three-. Borg was the more impressive teen, Sampras had the better career finalé. I'm happy to treat them as equals. I said so on Reddit four years ago,[source] and I've said so on here as well.[source]


As for the nonsensical 'Borg quit because he was scared of McEnroe' chestnut... posters need to be a bit more careful what they throw around in the Former Players' section. You can get away with that rubbish in the GPPD and nobody will put you right, but when you start writing that stuff here your credibility basically goes to zero immediately.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Almost. Borg won 11 of 27 in his career, Sampras won 14 of 52.

In Pete's defence, during his dominant peak from Wimbledon '93 to Wimbledon '99, he won 12 in 27 attempts (or 11 in 23 attempts up to W '98). But then again, if you cherry-pick only their peak years, Bjorn won his 11 in only 21 attempts.

Sampras won more over a longer timescale, Borg won in more dominant fashion, and at a faster rate. Seven Wimbledons is better than five, but five-in-a-row is better than four or three. Borg was the more impressive teen, Sampras had by far the better career finalé. I'm happy to treat them as equals. I said so on Reddit four years ago,[source] and I've said so on here as well.[source]


As for the nonsensical 'Borg quit because he was scared of McEnroe' chestnut... posters need to be a bit more careful what they throw around in the Former Players' section. You can get away with that rubbish in the GPPD and nobody will put you right, but when you start writing that stuff here your credibility basically goes to zero immediately.

Five in a row is not better than a four and a three. People are giving in a row too much importance then.

 

[Phenomenal]

Borg is NOT ranked higher than Sampras on goat list. The hypothetical wins mean very less. Sampras got to 14 slams. He got the the year end ranking 6 straight times.

Borg has a few records which Sampras could match like dominating 2 slams. But Sampras owned an entire decade at slams, ATP finals and number 1 ranking.

Nobody(none from the top) was playing AO back then. Stop saying the same nonsense. You are just biased. Mention Sampras's other stats like no1. He has 14 in 4. Borg has 11 in 3.

If there was no AO today Djokovic would have had 14 slams with tier below than Nadal. You see?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nobody(none from the top) was playing AO back then. Stop saying the same nonsense. You are just biased. Mention Sampras's other stats like no1. He has 14 in 4. Borg has 11 in 3.

If there was no AO today Djokovic would have had 14 slams with tier below than Nadal. You see?

What do you mean 14 in 4? What is nonsense?

Borg didn't play AO. So there is no point in speculating. Even Sampras didn't play AO for some years. Why are you giving hypothetical win not to Pete then?

Borg has great percentage but as a member already posted Sampras played in an era with far more variety. The 70s conditions might be more polarizing than 2010s. But 90s might be even more polarizing when grass required very high powered first strike game. I am surprised no one mentioned this.

 

[Phenomenal]

What do you mean 14 in 4? What is nonsense?

Borg didn't play AO. So there is no point in speculating. Even Sampras didn't play AO for some years. Why are you giving hypothetical win not to Pete then?

Borg has great percentage but as a member already posted Sampras played in an era with far more variety. The 70s conditions might be more polarizing than 2010s. But 90s might be even more polarizing when grass required very high powered first strike game. I am surprised no one mentioned this.

As usual you have no clue or insisting. Do your research or just read my first post. I didn't said same for Agassi. Eventhough i think he might win maybe more years like 1994. Because in Sampras and Agassi's time top players were playing AO. That's not the case in Borg's time.

For me no problem you can have Sampras>Borg but Sampras cannot be better than Borg due to 14-11.

 

[Gizo]

Borg's Davis Cup record is also a big part of his legacy. For a period, including the span of his career and throughout the 80s, it was a huge deal, with Davis Cup finals often on a par with major finals in terms of importance.

He had a 28-3 in live Davis Cup singles rubbers, with 2 of his 3 defeats coming before his 16th birthday and the 3rd coming before his 17th birthday, while Sampras had a 12-8 record, so a 90% W/L record from a larger set of matches compared to a 60% record. I tend to discount dead rubbers, and I don't like to compare them alongside genuinely meaningful live rubbers.

Admittedly the Davis Cup did clearly decline in importance during the 90s, so it would be unfair on Sampras to place the same 'weighting' on the competition when he was active compared to when Borg was. Though that’s another reason why it’s difficult to compare them and why they played under such different landscapes.

The Davis Cup schedule was brutal during Borg's time. During their title run in 1975, Sweden played 6 ties, with Borg winning all 12 of his singles matches and 3 doubles matches, including perfect hat-tricks in the semi-final and final. In 1978 and 1980, he played in Davis Cup matches in-between his title runs at RG and Wimbledon.

Factoring in that Davis Cup scheduling, the WCT Finals on carpet finishing 3 weeks before RG got underway, the lousy scheduling of the Australian Open over the Christmas and / or New Year period for quite a while including the entire span of Borgs major winning years (a notable reason why he and others avoided the tournament in their droves) etc,. the set-up of the sport was considerably less conducive to peaking at the majors during Borg's time compared to Sampras's as well.

 

[Holmes]

Yeah, Borg and Sampras are both squarely Tier 1 in the all time great pantheon for me.

To put it another way, the difference between the two players is basically the difference between one Big 3 player and another - minor differences that can lead to arguments favoring one of the other, but close enough profiles that the differences are ultimately de minimis in the big picture of things.

While Roger is nowhere to be seen on court with Bjorn, Pete, Nole or Rodney, as long as tennis is discussed by true fans, he will always be mentioned besides the Edbergs, the Couriers, the Beckers etc. Guys who were a key part of their eras.

 

[Holmes]

Borg is NOT ranked higher than Sampras on goat list. The hypothetical wins mean very less. Sampras got to 14 slams. He got the the year end ranking 6 straight times.

Borg has a few records which Sampras could match like dominating 2 slams. But Sampras owned an entire decade at slams, ATP finals and number 1 ranking.

In other words, common sense.

 

[Holmes]

Nobody(none from the top) was playing AO back then. Stop saying the same nonsense. You are just biased. Mention Sampras's other stats like no1. He has 14 in 4. Borg has 11 in 3.

If there was no AO today Djokovic would have had 14 slams with tier below than Nadal. You see?

Pete still has 12 if you take away his 2 Aussies.

 

[thrust]

And I say more.

Agassi is in the same Status as Pete Sampras.

WRONG! Borg and Pete are very close, in a tier above Agassi. If McEmrpe could have overtanen Borg, outside of clay, certainly Pete could as well.

 

[borg number one]

Almost. Borg won 11 of 27 in his career, Sampras won 14 of 52.

In Pete's defence, during his dominant peak from Wimbledon '93 to Wimbledon '99, he won 12 in 27 attempts (or 11 in 23 attempts up to W '98). But then again, if you cherry-pick only their peak years, Bjorn won his 11 in only 21 attempts.

Sampras won more over a longer timescale, Borg won in more dominant fashion, and at a faster rate. Seven Wimbledons is better than five, but five-in-a-row is better than four- or three-. Borg was the more impressive teen, Sampras had the better career finalé. I'm happy to treat them as equals. I said so on Reddit four years ago,[source] and I've said so on here as well.[source]


As for the nonsensical 'Borg quit because he was scared of McEnroe' chestnut... posters need to be a bit more careful what they throw around in the Former Players' section. You can get away with that rubbish in the GPPD and nobody will put you right, but when you start writing that stuff here your credibility basically goes to zero immediately.

You are spot on. Look at 1980-1981. If you take the 4 biggest tourneys they were the French Open, Wimbledon, the US Open and the Masters Year End Championship at Madison Square Garden. Of those 8 total tourneys, Borg won 5 and made the finals of the other three. Recall that the hard courts and grass courts were faster then too compared to now and those courts heavily favored big servers and those that rushed the net. McEnroe only won 3 of them. Their head to head ended at 7-7, with no matches played on clay. Then, when Borg wanted a break, facing burnout after many years grinding away at official and unofficial tournaments around the globe, Tour organizers insisted that he’d have to play qualifiers to play the majors. Can anyone imagine that happening to the Big 3. As for the ‘81 US Open, many don’t know about the death threats after the SF and on the day of the final. Borg never discusses it.

Bjorn Borg received a second death threat during his... - UPI Archives

Bjorn Borg received a second death threat during his match with John McEnroe Sunday and was immediately escorted home from the U.S. Open Tennis Championships...

www.upi.com

“NEW YORK -- Bjorn Borg received a second death threat during his match with John McEnroe Sunday and was immediately escorted home from the U.S. Open Tennis Championships by a unit of New York City police.”

 

[medieval_remnant]

Don't get the point about racquet technology hurting Mcenroe. Have heard things like this before and it really wasn't true. The game suddenly being dominated by power players in the mid-1980s simply didn't happen.
McEnroe never was the same for various reasons, chief among them being him committing fully to the sport.

Yes, Borg retired early. He still won more tournaments than Sampras.

Yes! His game declined massively from 1987 on. (He actually game back strong in 1986.) He was barely a top 10 player. He hasn't been sufficiently criticized for that.

 

[Phenomenal]

Pete still has 12 if you take away his 2 Aussies.

It was just my response. AO was not his best 2 slam. We don't know how much Borg would win that's why it is difficult to compare. But during his time Borg was winning most big titles, reaching almost every final.

 

[Hard Court]

Statistically, Sampras won 14 Grand Slams. Borg won 11.
Remember when everyone said that Roy Emerson was the best of all time because he won the most Grand Slams? Me neither.

Overall, Borg won.82.% of his matches.
Sampras won 77.4% of his matches.

In Grand Slam play, he won 89.2% of his matches.
Sampras won 84.2% of his.

Borg won 39.3 % of Grand Slams that he entered.
Sampras won 26.9 % of his Grand Slams that he entered.

Borg won 66 tournaments.
Sampras won 64 tournaments.

 

[thrust]

Statistically, Sampras won 14 Grand Slams. Borg won 11.
Remember when everyone said that Roy Emerson was the best of all time because he won the most Grand Slams? Me neither.

Overall, Borg won.82.% of his matches.
Sampras won 77.4% of his matches.

In Grand Slam play, he won 89.2% of his matches.
Sampras won 84.2% of his.

Borg won 39.3 % of Grand Slams that he entered.
Sampras won 26.9 % of his Grand Slams that he entered.

Borg won 66 tournaments.
Sampras won 64 tournaments.

Statistically, Borg probably is the best of the open era. His advantage tough is that he peaked early and retired early which at least, somewhat boosts his % advantage over others? Though they are of slightly different eras, I do think Pete would have had the advantage over Borg on grass and faster hard courts. No doubt Borg would have had a big advantage over Pete on clay and perhaps a slight advantage or even on slower hard courts. In the end, they are about even as to their greatness, tennis wise.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Statistically, Borg probably is the best of the open era. His advantage tough is that he peaked early and retired early which at least, somewhat boosts his % advantage over others? Though they are of slightly different eras, I do think Pete would have had the advantage over Borg on grass and faster hard courts. No doubt Borg would have had a big advantage over Pete on clay and perhaps a slight advantage or even on slower hard courts. In the end, they are about even as to their greatness, tennis wise.

You mean statistically he has highest percentage in open era right ?

Percentage is not same as absolute.

 

[thrust]

You mean statistically he has highest percentage in open era right ?

Percentage is not same as absolute.

If you are asking if I think Borg was absolutely the greatest of the open era, the answer is NO.