Why Sampras considered to be better than Borg

[Drob]

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.

you forget your best reason:

Borg 38-3 in Davis Cup (majority on foreign courts) and only player to effectively win the DC single-handedly. Versus Sampras 1 CR heroic and otherwise mediocrity.

And this business of "if-he-hadn't-had-to-play-Mcenroe"!!! small-commentators rehash of Junior's invention. Look at last three matches and tell me a mentally motivated Borg would not likely have won their next major match, or at All-England or at USO. 1984 Mac, that is another story, but motivated Borg = Mac & Connors 1982-83.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Another Point Borg failed to maximized his slam numbers, don't forget us open was on clay for three years but Sampras never got this easy slam years. Just think AO change surface for three years from 94 to 96 to grass.

My Point is very simple if Borg failed to win single us open even on clay, I am not going to give him hypothetical AO wins

He came incredibly close to win USO in four finals just losing to two USO GOATs Mac and Connors. In 1978 he was hampered by injury otherwise we wouldn’t know whether he wins. Thing is, Mac and Jimmy had home court advantage there. Borg even received death threats before the 81 final after he had beaten Jimmy in the semi. He also didn’t like the night sessions and the crowd. At the AO, it would have been completely different and I don’t see it as far fetched at all that he wins multiple.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

you forget your best reason:

Borg 38-3 in Davis Cup (majority on foreign courts) and only player to effectively win the DC single-handedly. Versus Sampras 1 CR heroic and otherwise mediocrity.

And this business of "if-he-hadn't-had-to-play-Mcenroe"!!! small-commentators rehash of Junior's invention. Look at last three matches and tell me a mentally motivated Borg would not likely have won their next major match, or at All-England or at USO. 1984 Mac, that is another story, but motivated Borg = Mac & Connors 1982-83.

I think it was “only” 37-3, but all his three losses came before he was 17 and he went on to win 33 single rubbers in a row. Next to Becker the greatest DC player of all times.

 

[Drob]

I think it was “only” 37-3, but all his three losses came before he was 17 and he went on to win 33 single rubbers in a row. Next to Becker the greatest DC player of all times.

it was. it is Becker at 38-3. Thx

 

[nolefam_2024]

Oh people are doing hypothetical lol, as much I respect Borg but he never won single Us open but suddenly he was going to clean all AO.
This single reason alone put Sampras> Borg.

And there is yec, Sampras has 7 yec over Borg 3 .
I will repeat again that if we are playing hypothetical then think of Sampras, Sampras changed all his game plan according to fast surface and grass and this even hindered his growth as a junior ( because of his style change from 2 bh to 1 bh)

Now he started playing and suddenly surface was changed from grass to Slow medium HC and Sampras still managed to win 2 on medium pace HC.
Why not discuss on this hypothetical that if no surface was change then think How many AO Sampras would have cleaned.
So now play hypothetical AO Borg win ( when he failed to win single uso) to Sampras hypothetical grass AO slam( when he also won 2 AO on HC) and for me Sampras again came on top

Agreed 100%

 

[Enceladus]

Oh people are doing hypothetical lol, as much I respect Borg but he never won single Us open but suddenly he was going to clean all AO.

My Point is very simple if Borg failed to win single us open even on clay, I am not going to give him hypothetical AO wins

If Vilas or Wilander (tennis players with a playing style similar to Borg) managed to win the AO twice on slow grass, Borg could certainly do it too if he wanted to.

The US Open was played on clay for three years, but you don't mentioned that it wasn't the classic red clay, but green har-tru clay, known for its hardness and faster balls. So it's clay, but not one that would suit Borg's game.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And there is yec, Sampras has 7 yec over Borg 3 .
I will repeat again that if we are playing hypothetical then think of Sampras, Sampras changed all his game plan according to fast surface and grass and this even hindered his growth as a junior ( because of his style change from 2 bh to 1 bh)

Pete is better than Borg on carpet but not by much. Borg ended his career at 25 and he also played a slightly better carpet field. Borg is light years better on clay, almost equal on grass and even on HC it is not the slam dunk you guys think. Borg simply didn’t have enough chances to prove himself there.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Obviously Sampras comes out ahead on both grass and any sort of hard court.

I don’t find that as obvious to be honest. Pete never managed six or even five consecutive finals at Wimbledon and other than Borg he generally didn’t reach the later stages at the FO so came fresher into Wimbledon. In 1978 Borg destroyed Vilas in the 78 FO final, played DC against Yugoslavia in the two weeks between FO and Wimbledon and then won Wimbledon destroying Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 in the final. While the additional toll the FO took on him doesn’t add to his grass court prowess per se one can wonder how good he would have been had he played grass court warm ups and focus on Wimbledon the same Pete did.
Since we are speaking of grass not of Wimbledon: Pete’s grass court record outside this 9 years span 1992-2000 was pretty unimpressive. He started with two first round age one second round exit, reached a semi, and then went on to start his dominance. Once he lost to Fed, his demise came also very quickly. His Queens record is very mediocre (even though I admit he tanked here from time to time but no reason to give him a free pass for that).
As things stand I have Pete still ahead of Borg on grass, also because as you said, we can’t give Borg a free pass either for ending his career early by his own volition. But they are definitely incredibly close and I wouldn’t argue too much if someone had Borg ahead.
As for HC: Borg reached three finals in four HC slams he ever played (was injured in one final and also in the one where he didn’t reach the final) with Mac and Jimmy as the ultimate road-blocker you can imagine. While I could imagine Pete to win at least one of those finals against Mac if we switch him with Borg it is by no means a given.
Also, this is faster HC which favours Pete. If there had been slower Rebound Ace around during Borg’s time I am very positive he could easily have matched Pete’s two AO.

 

[NAS]

If Vilas or Wilander (tennis players with a playing style similar to Borg) managed to win the AO twice on slow grass, Borg could certainly do it too if he wanted to.

The US Open was played on clay for three years, but you don't mentioned that it wasn't the classic red clay, but green har-tru clay, known for its hardness and faster balls. So it's clay, but not one that would suit Borg's game.

So? Madrid plays different but still it is clay, do you really think Vilas was going to win us open on hard or grass?
I AM not saying Borg can't win but I am saying there is a possibility, why Borgs fans don't understand this Point.
Vilas AO wins were weak and Wilander beat good players to win AO.
It is not me, it is Borg fans who were bringing blind hypothetical that he is winning AO this and that.
I am Simply pointing out that like Us open losses ( even on clay) there is a chance he will loose on AO also.
This type of hypothetical Works on Rosewall who in his best 10 years never played Wimbledon but still manage to won other slam atleast once after 33 year of age

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I am Simply pointing out that like Us open losses ( even on clay) there is a chance he will loose on AO also.
This type of hypothetical Works on Rosewall who in his best 10 years never played Wimbledon but still manage to won other slam atleast once after 33 year of age

Ahem. Rosewall won other slams yes but Borg also won other slams left right and centre while not playing AO. The AO during his time were played on grass so why exactly should his US Open results on clay and hard be more indicative to potential AO results than let’s say Wimbledon. It was not like today where both are played on HC and you can at least draw some conclusions. Of course there is always in every hypothetical the chance that he will win zero, but I find that extremely unlikely to say the least given how dominant he was for some years. Why Rosewall should get a pass and Borg not does not really resonate with me.

 

[Gizo]

Sampras reaching one semi-final at RG in 13 attempts, during which he won 8 games and had 0 break points, while Borg competed in 4 finals and an additional semi-final (in 1975 during which he put up a better fight than Sampras did vs. Kafelnikov at RG in 1996) at the US OPen, is IMO the biggest tiebreaker in Borg's favour here. While Sampras never looked likely to even reach a final at RG in the first place, Borg in contrast played in US Open finals during which he lost 2 fewer points than the eventual winner (1976 vs. Connors) and served at 3-3 in a 5th set (1980 vs. McEnroe).

But as I said previously, given how drastically different the landscape of the men's tennis was before and after the big 1990 dividing line, these comparisons are difficult.

Borg played in an era when grand slam counting wasn't important, numerous other tournaments including invitationals paid out greater prize money to winners and finalists than any of the majors, and the set-up of the sport including scheduling was far more chaotic and far more less conducive to allowing players to peak at the majors.

Sampras played in an era when grand slam counting became far more important as he approached Emerson's record, the prize money at the majors had been massively ramped up (there were large increases between 1989 and 1990 specificially and then throughout the 90s), and the overall set-up and schedule was far more conducive to allowing players to peak at the majors.

 

[RS]

With Borg there will always be a what if he played AO or played on after 26 element.

 

[pierceforehands]

I don’t find that as obvious to be honest. Pete never managed six or even five consecutive finals at Wimbledon and other than Borg he generally didn’t reach the later stages at the FO so came fresher into Wimbledon. In 1978 Borg destroyed Vilas in the 78 FO final, played DC against Yugoslavia in the two weeks between FO and Wimbledon and then won Wimbledon destroying Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 in the final. While the additional toll the FO took on him doesn’t add to his grass court prowess per se one can wonder how good he would have been had he played grass court warm ups and focus on Wimbledon the same Pete did.
Since we are speaking of grass not of Wimbledon: Pete’s grass court record outside this 9 years span 1992-2000 was pretty unimpressive. He started with two first round age one second round exit, reached a semi, and then went on to start his dominance. Once he lost to Fed, his demise came also very quickly. His Queens record is very mediocre (even though I admit he tanked here from time to time but no reason to give him a free pass for that).
As things stand I have Pete still ahead of Borg on grass, also because as you said, we can’t give Borg a free pass either for ending his career early by his own volition. But they are definitely incredibly close and I wouldn’t argue too much if someone had Borg ahead.
As for HC: Borg reached three finals in four HC slams he ever played (was injured in one final and also in the one where he didn’t reach the final) with Mac and Jimmy as the ultimate road-blocker you can imagine. While I could imagine Pete to win at least one of those finals against Mac if we switch him with Borg it is by no means a given.
Also, this is faster HC which favours Pete. If there had been slower Rebound Ace around during Borg’s time I am very positive he could easily have matched Pete’s two AO.

Actually your points on grass are interesting. I guess I meant in line that it is pretty clear Sampras would be ranked as greater or higher than Borg on clay just due to the 7 Wimbledons vs 5, which is true. However an honest evaluation beyond that there is a good case for Borg to be as good or beter. He did win 5 in a row in one try, which Sampras couldn't do in basically 2 seperate tries (the 93 onwards one, then the 97 onwards one). He was arguably more dominant in his Wimbledon runs/wins. Competition wise? I am not sure who had it tougher, but there isn't a big difference either way. Borg had Connors, then McEnroe in 80 and 81 only. Depth was not great, there were definitely some other strong challengers like Tanner, Vitas, but not great depth. Sampras though only had a still formidable but past his prime Becker, and Agassi was in a slump most of Sampras's Wimbledon run (all except 95, 99, 2000) and not that great on grass anyway, definitely behind Connors. Also Ivanisevic who is quite formidable at Wimbledon, and likely a numerous time Wimbledon champion without Sampras. And the depth in that period was ok, again not great. I wouldn't fault Sampras that much for his non Wimbledon grass performances, since being this is the more subjective point of view to begin with, to me it was obvious watching him at events like Queens, he simply didn't care much. Just as the slams weren't everything in Borg's day, the grass season is basically just Wimbledon in Sampras's. Almost no grass circuit, no Masters events on grass, so the couple other grass tournaments they have the players mostly treated as warm ups or a game.

Hard courts though I have no doubt Sampras is superior overall. I do agree if there was an Australian Open on slow hard courts Borg could atleast match Sampras's 2 there however. Sampras was definitely the best hard court player of his era (Agassi even really has no case) and I don't see Borg being that either in his own, or another. He would always be no better than 2nd or 3rd best of an era on hard courts, even if he could win several hard court slams potentially. The gap on hard courts would still be nowhere near the stratsophere as the gap on clay though.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Actually your points on grass are interesting. I guess I meant in line that it is pretty clear Sampras would be ranked as greater or higher than Borg on clay just due to the 7 Wimbledons vs 5, which is true. However an honest evaluation beyond that there is a good case for Borg to be as good or beter. He did win 5 in a row in one try, which Sampras couldn't do in basically 2 seperate tries (the 93 onwards one, then the 97 onwards one). He was arguably more dominant in his Wimbledon runs/wins. Competition wise? I am not sure who had it tougher, but there isn't a big difference either way. Borg had Connors, then McEnroe in 80 and 81 only. Depth was not great, there were definitely some other strong challengers like Tanner, Vitas, but not great depth. Sampras though only had a still formidable but past his prime Becker, and Agassi was in a slump most of Sampras's Wimbledon run (all except 95, 99, 2000) and not that great on grass anyway, definitely behind Connors. Also Ivanisevic who is quite formidable at Wimbledon, and likely a numerous time Wimbledon champion without Sampras. And the depth in that period was ok, again not great. I wouldn't fault Sampras that much for his non Wimbledon grass performances, since being this is the more subjective point of view to begin with, to me it was obvious watching him at events like Queens, he simply didn't care much. Just as the slams weren't everything in Borg's day, the grass season is basically just Wimbledon in Sampras's. Almost no grass circuit, no Masters events on grass, so the couple other grass tournaments they have the players mostly treated as warm ups or a game.

Hard courts though I have no doubt Sampras is superior overall. I do agree if there was an Australian Open on slow hard courts Borg could atleast match Sampras's 2 there however. Sampras was definitely the best hard court player of his era (Agassi even really has no case) and I don't see Borg being that either in his own, or another. He would always be no better than 2nd or 3rd best of an era on hard courts, even if he could win several hard court slams potentially. The gap on hard courts would still be nowhere near the stratsophere as the gap on clay though.

Agree with most but not with this one:

Sampras was definitely the best hard court player of his era (Agassi even really has no case) and I don't see Borg being that either in his own, or another.

If we switch Borg for Pete I am not so sure why he shouldn’t be able to be the best HC player of the era. Pete basically only had Agassi to deal with, there was great depth with dangerous floaters like Korda, Rafter, Safin (at the end), Chang, Ivanisevic, Courier, Edberg (at the beginning) but let’s face it, nobody close to Mac or Jimmy who Borg had to face. Being so proficient on the most opposite surfaces fast grass and slow clay makes me believe that Borg may well have a better balance between slow HC and fast HC than Pete (who was great himself but clearly better on fast HC). Given that, he may challenge Agassi more at the AO than Pete did (especially given that Andre missed a few), while maybe being a little less dominant at the USO. However, given how he pushed Connors and Mac (even straight setting the former 6-2, 7-5, 6-4), doesn’t make it impossible for me that he could also get the better of Agassi (he would never go 4-0 though).
Long story short: if we replace Sampras by Borg, all Borg needs to do to be the best HC of the era is being better than Agassi which I don’t see as completely out of the realm of possibility.

 

[pierceforehands]

Agree with most but not with this one:

If we switch Borg for Pete I am not so sure why he shouldn’t be able to be the best HC player of the era. Pete basically only had Agassi to deal with, there was great depth with dangerous floaters like Korda, Rafter, Safin (at the end), Chang, Ivanisevic, Courier, Edberg (at the beginning) but let’s face it, nobody close to Mac or Jimmy who Borg had to face. Being so proficient on the most opposite surfaces fast grass and slow clay makes me believe that Borg may well have a better balance between slow HC and fast HC than Pete (who was great himself but clearly better on fast HC). Given that, he may challenge Agassi more at the AO than Pete did (especially given that Andre missed a few), while maybe being a little less dominant at the USO. However, given how he pushed Connors and Mac (even straight setting the former 6-2, 7-5, 6-4), doesn’t make it impossible for me that he could also get the better of Agassi (he would never go 4-0 though).
Long story short: if we replace Sampras by Borg, all Borg needs to do to be the best HC of the era is being better than Agassi which I don’t see as completely out of the realm of possibility.

If we assume Borg still retires at 25/26 there is no chance he surpasses Agassi, even with his inconsistency, as top hard court player of that era. If he has a much longer career, I guess it isn't impossible, especialy with Agassi's inconsistent career, but is there a particular reason to assume he isn't still likely retire at 25/26? Not that I can see. Again we are presuming what is most likely, not everything that is possible.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If we assume Borg still retires at 25/26 there is no chance he surpasses Agassi, even with his inconsistency, as top hard court player of that era. If he has a much longer career, I guess it isn't impossible, especialy with Agassi's inconsistent career, but is there a particular reason to assume he isn't still likely retire at 25/26? Not that I can see. Again we are presuming what is most likely, not everything that is possible.

Let’s make him roughly the same age as Pete then 18 years old Borg will appear in 1989 and he will play until 1996. He will have many years without Agassi at the AO but has to deal with Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Courier. Can he win some of those, definitely. This is a guy who straight setted prime Connors at the USO and went toe to toe with Mac while we have to keep in mind AO HC will likely suit his grinder playing style better. 1992/93 will be tough, 1994 in the absence of Pete will very likely be his. I give him very good chances in 1996 as well, 95 tougher but also not impossible. 1990/91 he will maybe be too young. 4 is not completely impossible albeit tough. At the USO, in the absence of Pete I don’t see why two shout be completely out of reach. Starting from 1991 he has realistic chances in all of them with 1996 being the most likely. All in all I agree that it is a tough task for him matching Agassi’s career wgen retiring at 25. But let’s not forget, this would mean that Borg is one year younger than Agassi and will retire in 1996 when Agassi only had two HC slams. Of Borg retires at let’s say 5, I don’t think people will have Agassi as the greater HC because he wins 4 more after Borg’s retirement.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Let’s make him roughly the same age as Pete then 18 years old Borg will appear in 1989 and he will play until 1996. He will have many years without Agassi at the AO but has to deal with Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Courier. Can he win some of those, definitely. This is a guy who straight setted prime Connors at the USO and went toe to toe with Mac while we have to keep in mind AO HC will likely suit his grinder playing style better. 1992/93 will be tough, 1994 in the absence of Pete will very likely be his. I give him very good chances in 1996 as well, 95 tougher but also not impossible. 1990/91 he will maybe be too young. 4 is not completely impossible albeit tough. At the USO, in the absence of Pete I don’t see why two shout be completely out of reach. Starting from 1991 he has realistic chances in all of them with 1996 being the most likely. All in all I agree that it is a tough task for him matching Agassi’s career wgen retiring at 25. But let’s not forget, this would mean that Borg is one year younger than Agassi and will retire in 1996 when Agassi only had two HC slams. Of Borg retires at let’s say 5, I don’t think people will have Agassi as the greater HC because he wins 4 more after Borg’s retirement.

not sure how you're saying Agassi would have only 2 HC slams by '96 when he lost the '90 and '95 USO Fs to Sampras (and then 2 more matches in '01 and '02!) who you're removing in this hypothetical... also not sure why you have Wilander instead of Lendl in the AO competition list, or how you think 8 > 7 is a meaningful point for Agassi over McEnroe but 6 > 5 (and realistically 8 or 9 in this hypothetical) wouldn't be for Agassi over Borg lol

 

[GuyForget]

It's super hard for me to choose...I might switch my vote on any given day...by surface, Pete better on hard, Borg better indoors/carpet, Borg supreme on clay. Grass? Maybe a toss up. Borg retiring early always makes this conversation tricky. I've never been a huge Sampras fan, I like to root for underdogs, but his game was immense when he was "on". But if you look at a common window...accomplishments through age 25 (when Borg essentially quit), I lean torwards him over Sampras.

Borg better than Sampras indoors, thx for the laugh, jfc . Would love to see any version of Borg get a point on Sampras serve in Hannover 96

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

not sure how you're saying Agassi would have only 2 HC slams by '96 when he lost the '90 and '95 USO Fs to Sampras (and then 2 more matches in '01 and '02!) who you're removing in this hypothetical... also not sure why you have Wilander instead of Lendl in the AO competition list, or how you think 8 > 7 is a meaningful point for Agassi over McEnroe but 6 > 5 (and realistically 8 or 9 in this hypothetical) wouldn't be for Agassi over Borg lol

That Mac/Lendl/Pete discussion seems to have gone over you head it seems, lol. Unfortunately still lacking some reading comprehension but let me answer it:

not sure how you're saying Agassi would have only 2 HC slams by '96 when he lost the '90 and '95 USO Fs to Sampras (and then 2 more matches in '01 and '02!) who you're removing in this hypothetical

Because I add Borg here now instead of Pete. 1975 Borg can well beat Agassi in 1990 who played a **** poor final (provided he reaches him ofc as Pete’s draw was very hard). In 1995, if we follow the hypothetical we would have 1980 peak Borg who went to five with Mac at the USO. Very good chances to win the whole thing.
At the AO, who would likely suit his game-style even better, I can also see him with 50/50 to beat Andre. So yeah, 2 HC slams are still realistic for Andre, give him 3 if you want wouldn’t make a difference to what I said. 01 and 02 is irrelevant for the number of slams he will have at 1996 but yeah he could end up with more than 6 by the end of his career if he wins those.

also not sure why you have Wilander instead of Lendl in the AO competition list,

I just named some off the top of my head but yeah Lendl of course as well, have changed my post.

list, or how you think 8 > 7 is a meaningful point for Agassi over McEnroe but 6 > 5 (and realistically 8 or 9 in this hypothetical) wouldn't be for Agassi over Borg lol

I won’t explain that again go back to the posts and read properly. Those are two completely different scenarios, 8>7 is meaningful in the sense that it basically rules out that Mac is “clearly” better than Agassi if the latter has the better slam career.

 

[pierceforehands]

Let’s make him roughly the same age as Pete then 18 years old Borg will appear in 1989 and he will play until 1996. He will have many years without Agassi at the AO but has to deal with Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Courier. Can he win some of those, definitely. This is a guy who straight setted prime Connors at the USO and went toe to toe with Mac while we have to keep in mind AO HC will likely suit his grinder playing style better. 1992/93 will be tough, 1994 in the absence of Pete will very likely be his. I give him very good chances in 1996 as well, 95 tougher but also not impossible. 1990/91 he will maybe be too young. 4 is not completely impossible albeit tough. At the USO, in the absence of Pete I don’t see why two shout be completely out of reach. Starting from 1991 he has realistic chances in all of them with 1996 being the most likely. All in all I agree that it is a tough task for him matching Agassi’s career wgen retiring at 25. But let’s not forget, this would mean that Borg is one year younger than Agassi and will retire in 1996 when Agassi only had two HC slams. Of Borg retires at let’s say 5, I don’t think people will have Agassi as the greater HC because he wins 4 more after Borg’s retirement.

I just think we are going too far into ultra subjective and hypothetical territory now. I know you agree with me the people who do that on the Monica Seles stabbing are too much, but this is now veering into that territory, and it isn't even for someone who was stabbed. Maybe there is a universe Borg has a hard court record approaching Sampras, but what exists is this. Borg never won a hard court slam, and while he only got to play 4 hard court slams, that was a)a lot the bad luck of only one hard court major, but also by his own choice to retire very early, b)he lost the US Open on clay all of 75, 76, 77, so since this is now purely subjective to begin with I think we can agree we can safely assume he loses all 3 of those if they were a hard court slam too, so basically he could have gotten to play the US Open on hard courts 7 straight years and lost all 7. I have often said Borg is very underrated on hard courts and 0 hard court slams don't reflect his true ability on the surface at all, but imagining a universe he is near or close to equal to Sampras on the surface, while I guess possible to happen in certain hypotheticals is too much when none of the evidence of things that did happen lead us even close to that conclusion. As I said it is veering into the Seles hypotheticals territory at this point, and I know from reading your comments you also consider that ridiculous, as do I. This would be even moreso as again it isn't for someone who got stabbed or had a tragic event.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I just think we are going too far into ultra subjective and hypothetical territory now. I know you agree with me the people who do that on the Monica Seles stabbing are too much, but this is now veering into that territory, and it isn't even for someone who was stabbed. Maybe there is a universe Borg has a hard court record approaching Sampras, but what exists is this. Borg never won a hard court slam, and while he only got to play 4 hard court slams, that was a)a lot the bad luck of only one hard court major, but also by his own choice to retire very early, b)he lost the US Open on clay all of 75, 76, 77, so since this is now purely subjective to begin with I think we can agree we can safely assume he loses all 3 of those if they were a hard court slam too, so basically he could have gotten to play the US Open on hard courts 7 straight years and lost all 7. I have often said Borg is very underrated on hard courts and 0 hard court slams don't reflect his true ability on the surface at all, but imagining a universe he is near or close to equal to Sampras on the surface, while I guess possible to happen in certain hypotheticals is too much when none of the evidence of things that did happen lead us even close to that conclusion. As I said it is veering into the Seles hypotheticals territory at this point, and I know from reading your comments you also consider that ridiculous, as do I. This would be even moreso as again it isn't for someone who got stabbed or had a tragic event.

Yeah you are right let’s not get further into this. My whole point was that it is not as “clear” as someone may think given the circumstances and that Borg is very underrated on HC (which you said you agree with). I mean let’s switch it the other way round and Pete play the 4 USO Borg played, I could also see him winning zero if he gets injured in 78. Anywho you are right too much hypotheticals here.

 

[pierceforehands]

Yeah you are right let’s not get further into this. My whole point was that it is not as “clear” as someone may think given the circumstances and that Borg is very underrated on HC (which you said you agree with). I mean let’s switch it the other way round and Pete play the 4 USO Borg played, I could also see him winning zero if he gets injured in 78 and 79. Anywho you are right too much hypotheticals here.

I agree, and on Pete one issue I always had with him is he never truly had a rival even anywhere near his level, other than arguably Agassi, but Agassi was out of sorts more than 50% of Pete's prime. Becker was past his prime during Pete's prime, and Edberg even moreso. It was actualy a fairly deep field so his competition was good in that respect, but no true consistent top end rival. He did mostly face down Agassi in 95 and 99 when confronted with it, but that doesn't mean he gets credit for consistently facing this. Not Pete's fault of course, and I imagine on some level it is frustrating to him as he was very competitive and welcomed a challenge, but just the way it is. Facing McEnroe and Connors with regularlity is already a big step up on what he actually faced in real life, plus those two are superior US Open performers to even a good Agassi.

 

[Racquet_smash]

I don't think anyone could argue Borg was on the same level as Petros on hard courts. But there's nowhere near the astronomical difference difference there is on clay between the 2.

 

[Hard Court]

That is kind of where I am at as well. Borg was a much better hard-court player than Sampras was a clay court player. Which is why Borg should be rated slightly higher, but it is obviously close.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I don't think anyone could argue Borg was on the same level as Petros on hard courts. But there's nowhere near the astronomical difference difference there is on clay between the 2.

I mean 7-0 is a simplistic argument. It is still fun to think about how Borg could have done with a normal length career, two HC slams over his whole career and the same competition as Sampras.

 

[buscemi]

That is kind of where I am at as well. Borg was a much better hard-court player than Sampras was a clay court player. Which is why Borg should be rated slightly higher, but it is obviously close.

I think we can all agree that the gap between Borg and Sampras on clay was bigger than the gap between Sampras and Borg on hard courts.

But that leaves grass and carpet. I think there's solid arguments on both surface, but I can certainly see a case for Sampras being better than Borg on both, which would make him better on 3/4 surfaces. But I can also see the case for Borg on both grass and carpet.

Overall, it's a pretty close call, and I'm not 100% sure which way I lean.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Borg leads the h2h against all, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl on carpet. Given Connors and Mac are usually considered the best carpet players of the open era this swings things a lot in Bjorn's favour.

Borg also has 2 wins over Nastase who was definitely another all time great on indoor carpet courts.

 

[Racquet_smash]

I mean 7-0 is a simplistic argument. It is still fun to think about how Borg could have done with a normal length career, two HC slams over his whole career and the same competition as Sampras.

Well Borg had 3 finals with barely any hc slam appearences, Sampras got to the SF only once in a decade. Not much of a comparison.

 

[buscemi]

Borg leads the h2h against all, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl on carpet. Given Connors and Mac are usually considered the best carpet players of the open era this swings things a lot in Bjorn's favour.

Borg also has 2 wins over Nastase who was definitely another all time great on indoor carpet courts.

OTOH, Borg "only" won 2 WTF titles + 1 WCT Finals title vs. Sampras winning 5 WTF titles + 2 Grand Slam Cups.

So, Borg's H2Hs against carpet greats are huge for him, but Sampras's top title haul on carpet is huge for him.

 

[GuyForget]

Borg leads the h2h against all, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl on carpet. Given Connors and Mac are usually considered the best carpet players of the open era this swings things a lot in Bjorn's favour.

Borg also has 2 wins over Nastase who was definitely another all time great on indoor carpet courts.

Sampras and Becker are the best carpet players of the open era (in that order,+it's not even close)

 

[Racquet_smash]

OTOH, Borg "only" won 2 WTF titles + 1 WCT Finals title vs. Sampras winning 5 WTF titles + 2 Grand Slam Cups.

So, Borg's H2Hs against carpet greats are huge for him, but Sampras's top title haul on carpet is huge for him.

That's fair, but in Borg's favour goes the overall title haul, as he won 23 titles vs 15 despite a much shorter career.

Without a slam on carpet courts i'd put a bit more emphasis on overall title count than i would on other surfaces. Obviously the Finals were a very big tournament but clearly behind the top 4 especially after the AO became a very relevant tournament.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Sampras and Becker are the best carpet players of the open era (in that order,+it's not even close)

The carpet GOAT is quite clearly McEnroe. Not only was he stupidly dominant he also won more tournaments than Becker and Sampras combined on the surface.

Connors does also have a very strong argument, probably a stronger one than either Sampras or Becker.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

OTOH, Borg "only" won 2 WTF titles + 1 WCT Finals title vs. Sampras winning 5 WTF titles + 2 Grand Slam Cups.

So, Borg's H2Hs against carpet greats are huge for him, but Sampras's top title haul on carpet is huge for him.

Sampras carpet peak is the highest of all times imho just together with Becker’s. His consistency is not great though. Only 77% matches won, lost to Muster in Essen 95, is 6-7 against Becker, lost a RR match in all his five YECs and is 2-5 in DC. If they played alongside each other I can well see Borg leading the H2H but Pete winning more titles on carpet.
Competition wise it is tough. Borg with Mac, Connors, Lendl. Pete with Becker, Courier, Edberg, Agassi, Stich. I think same as with HC competition, Pete had more depth, Borg had the tougher top opponents.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think we can all agree that the gap between Borg and Sampras on clay was bigger than the gap between Sampras and Borg on hard courts.

But that leaves grass and carpet. I think there's solid arguments on both surface, but I can certainly see a case for Sampras being better than Borg on both, which would make him better on 3/4 surfaces. But I can also see the case for Borg on both grass and carpet.

Overall, it's a pretty close call, and I'm not 100% sure which way I lean.

I am not a big fan of this better on 3/4 surfaces argument as it completely leaves aside the gap on the particular surfaces. For instance you can well argue Mac being better on 3/4 surfaces than Nadal but no sane person would argue Mac>Nadal.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Everyone had better numbers until 1990 when the tour started getting formalized.

Sampras was 20 years old in 1990. And he played much higher number of top 5 and top 10 players.

pre1990 did the top players have less competition in the early and mid-rounds?

 

[nolefam_2024]

pre1990 did the top players have less competition in the early and mid-rounds?

I am not expert on this for slams. But I will say yes to outside of slams where ATP is formalized.

 

[medieval_remnant]

you forget your best reason:

Borg 38-3 in Davis Cup (majority on foreign courts) and only player to effectively win the DC single-handedly. Versus Sampras 1 CR heroic and otherwise mediocrity.

And this business of "if-he-hadn't-had-to-play-Mcenroe"!!! small-commentators rehash of Junior's invention. Look at last three matches and tell me a mentally motivated Borg would not likely have won their next major match, or at All-England or at USO. 1984 Mac, that is another story, but motivated Borg = Mac & Connors 1982-83.

I thought Borg looked stronger than Mac at the 1981 Wimbledon final

 

[Mustard]

I thought Borg looked stronger than Mac at the 1981 Wimbledon final

Borg was more consistent in the 1981 Wimbledon final compared to the 1980 Wimbledon final, but Borg did lose his knack of delivering on the big points in the 1981 Wimbledon final, like having 4 set points for a 2-1 sets lead and failing to take any of them. In the 1981 Wimbledon final, it never felt like Borg was outplayed, at least not exactly. In the 1980 Wimbledon final, Borg was outplayed for almost the whole of the first 2 sets, but then struck at the perfect moment when McEnroe was serving at 5-6 in the second set, and suddenly it was 1 set all. Borg controlled the momentum from that point up until serving for the match at 5-4 in the fourth set and having championship points. The rest is well known.

Also odd about 1981 Wimbledon is that it felt like Connors had played to the limits in the semi final against Borg, had a 2 set lead and eventually lost. Borg was pushed so hard, and was on the ropes, yet Borg recovered to win. Borg never felt in any such bother against McEnroe in the final, yet McEnroe beat Borg.

 

[jrepac]

Borg was more consistent in the 1981 Wimbledon final compared to the 1980 Wimbledon final, but Borg did lose his knack of delivering on the big points in the 1981 Wimbledon final, like having 4 set points for a 2-1 sets lead and failing to take any of them. In the 1981 Wimbledon final, it never felt like Borg was outplayed, at least not exactly. In the 1980 Wimbledon final, Borg was outplayed for almost the whole of the first 2 sets, but then struck at the perfect moment when McEnroe was serving at 5-6 in the second set, and suddenly it was 1 set all. Borg controlled the momentum from that point up until serving for the match at 5-4 in the fourth set and having championship points. The rest is well known.

Also odd about 1981 Wimbledon is that it felt like Connors had played to the limits in the semi final against Borg, had a 2 set lead and eventually lost. Borg was pushed so hard, and was on the ropes, yet Borg recovered to win. Borg never felt in any such bother against McEnroe in the final, yet McEnroe beat Borg.

such different dynamics across the Big 3 of that era, eh? Connors-Mac matches were typically messy affairs. Love watching Borg-Connors though.

 

[pierceforehands]

I am not a big fan of this better on 3/4 surfaces argument as it completely leaves aside the gap on the particular surfaces. For instance you can well argue Mac being better on 3/4 surfaces than Nadal but no sane person would argue Mac>Nadal.

Heck until very deep in his career you could have argued Becker >Nadal on all non clay surfaces but the suggestion Becker was better than Nadal inspite of that would be like a bad April Fools joke. So yeah that logic does not compute.

 

[Nostradamus]

sampras is better than djokovic

 

[GuyForget]

The carpet GOAT is quite clearly McEnroe. Not only was he stupidly dominant he also won more tournaments than Becker and Sampras combined on the surface.

Connors does also have a very strong argument, probably a stronger one than either Sampras or Becker.

number of tournaments won in two wildly different eras is irrelevant, I'm talking about who would actually win, Sampras 96 vs e.g McEnroe 84 with graphite at the Festhalle

 

[Vincent-C]

number of tournaments won in two wild different eras is irrelevant, I'm talking about who would actually win, Sampras 96 vs e.g McEnroe 84 with graphite at the Festhalle

Sampras, though I'd prefer it be JMac.

 

[buscemi]

Heck until very deep in his career you could have argued Becker >Nadal on all non clay surfaces but the suggestion Becker was better than Nadal inspite of that would be like a bad April Fools joke. So yeah that logic does not compute.

This is a fair point by both of you, but I'll offer a counterpoint, which is the combination of more Majors + being better on 3/4 surfaces is difficult to overcome. Even when Becker was arguably better than Nadal on 3/4 surfaces (complicated by Nadal barely playing on carpet), Nadal had the lead in total Majors won.

OTOH, if Sampras is better than Borg on 3/4 surfaces (and that's a big "if"), he also has 14 Majors vs. 11 for Borg. That said, as has been noted, Borg didn't play the Australian Open other than in 1974 when he was 17.

Overall, I'm still firmly on the fence on the Sampras vs. Borg debate. I haven't seen an irrefutable argument on either side yet.

 

[GuyForget]

ok but in any universe, how is 7 HC slams (plus 4 finals) trumped by 0 HC slams (+ 3 finals) if we're just looking at that surface. Don't think Borg would have won a US even if had continued, mentally he was f**cked by that point. Sampras exited in the best possible way (+beating his main rival), + Borg exited in the worst (with his main rival owning him on 2 o3 surfaces)

 

[YellowFedBetter]

No one cared about the slam record until Pete was about to pass Emerson. It’s revisionist history from people who don’t know about the game’s past who put him ahead solely because of that.

Doing a 1-1 comparison is pretty much impossible, and is why I don’t mix eras, but if we’re just looking at accomplishments vs time played it’s Borg easily. It’s safe to say he wins at least a couple of AO’s if he’d played it, and only 2 equally great legends in their primes stopped him from winning multiple USO’s. As is, he was the only player in the entirety of the Open, pre-poly era to win the channel slam even once, and he did it FIVE times.

To me being CLOSE and consistent is almost, if not as important, as actually winning. That’s why I rate Pete lower than most. It’s not that he didn’t win the French, it’s that he was never close (see also: Rafa at the WTF). Even guys like Edberg and Becker whose games were obviously not built for clay came closer. In fact, as this site’s biggest Fed hater in the past, I remember how I used to give him crap for only winning RG when Rafa was out, but I’ve matured enough to realize that critique was ridiculous, however I may still feel about him.

This general bean-counting attitude the public has annoys me heavily.

 

[GuyForget]

"To me being CLOSE and consistent is almost, if not as important, as actually winning", sounds like a Fed press conference from 08W or US11

 

[YellowFedBetter]

"To me being CLOSE and consistent is almost, if not as important, as actually winning", sounds like a Fed press conference from 08W or US11

I’m the last guy in the world to defend him, but what’s more impressive, him making 5 RG finals and possibly winning 2 or 3 if you flip a few points, or Nadal making one WTF F in 12 tries and getting destroyed in that one?

 

[GuyForget]

no agree, that's main low blow in the Fed>Nad argument (+Fed way more HC slams), countered by Fed not beating Nad in a slam for 10 years

 

[pierceforehands]

This is a fair point by both of you, but I'll offer a counterpoint, which is the combination of more Majors + being better on 3/4 surfaces is difficult to overcome. Even when Becker was arguably better than Nadal on 3/4 surfaces (complicated by Nadal barely playing on carpet), Nadal had the lead in total Majors won.

OTOH, if Sampras is better than Borg on 3/4 surfaces (and that's a big "if"), he also has 14 Majors vs. 11 for Borg. That said, as has been noted, Borg didn't play the Australian Open other than in 1974 when he was 17.

Overall, I'm still firmly on the fence on the Sampras vs. Borg debate. I haven't seen an irrefutable argument on either side yet.

Very valid, but the counter to that is the slam count total has to be taken with a grain of salt, as that was the era the Australian was not a legit major and Borg's 11 was in an era he (and most of the tour) consistently skipped the Australian Open. It is the same reason some debate Navratilova and and to a lesser extent Evert with Serena and Graf, despite the large deficit in slam titles, and that is even with how Evert and Navratilova did play the Australian most of their careers, unlike Borg.

If Borg played in an era all 4 majors were regularly played in, or he himself regularly played the Australian and maybe even vultured it (eg Court), and still was behind in majors AND arguably behind in 3 of 4 majors I would see the point, but this is not the case here. Borg's 11 is roughly equal to Sampras's 14 in the context of a 3 slam era vs a 4 slam era.