Has Nole surpassed Borg in all time great?

[Ricardo]

And whether Borg retire early at the age of 26 irrelevant. The fact is he has achieved more than Nole right now who will be 29 soon.

My word, Borg achieved more in a shorter amount of time than Novak that's just a fact. But don't tell Nole fans that, they go bananas. Though we all know you can't give player 'ghost' titles, Borg was by far the best clay courter when he retired but what do you do when you get death threat? we all know its very achievable given the level of security (or lack of) players get. Fans can just come down and 'message' players head (Federer), or stab them if they wanted to (Seles).

 

[Mastoor]

Not only Borg, even Sampras looks like an amateur or a semi pro at best comparing to any Big 3 player and I will write about it on this forum in more details. No Laver, no Borg, no Sampras, no past player can compare to Big 3.

 

[Ricardo]

Not only Borg, even Sampras looks like an amateur or a semi pro at best comparing to any Big 3 player and I will write about it on this forum in more details. No Laver, no Borg, no Sampras, no past player can compare to Big 3.

ok i get you, they are all rubbish and only the present top players are any good. When did you really start following tennis?

 

[Mastoor]

ok i get you, they are all rubbish and only the present top players are any good. When did you really start following tennis?

In 1980 or 1981 (is that years before you were born?) and even if I didn't, data is there for everyone to see and compare.

I didn't say past one are rubbish, I said they can't compare to Big 3. This era is so much better that no past player can compare to them. Whoever says otherwise is just too lazy to be objective.

 

[Ricardo]

In 1980 or 1981 (is that years before you were born?) and even if I didn't, data is there for everyone to see and compare.

I didn't say past one are rubbish, I said they can't compare to Big 3. This era is so much better that no past player can compare to them. Whoever says otherwise is just too lazy to be objective.

what data? Borg won 11 slams when he was 25. or you mean the speed of shots? the technical stuff? why would you compare players who use modern equipment and define their 'quality' of shots that way? it isn't remotely fair by any stretch of imagination.

now what data were you referring to?

 

[Rides]

I definitely have a soft spot for Borg. I do keep him higher on the list than Nole for a couple of reasons. One: he dominated on 2 significantly different surfaces for several years. We have not seen that since. Two: he elevated the profile of the sport far beyond anything it had known up to that time. Borg was a rock star. He was in unchartered territory for those years with no real guidance to help him manage. Nole isn't really breaking new ground right now. He's in a groove and capitalizing on a field in transition. And good for him.

Even if (likely when) Novak breaks Borg's Slam count, he will still rank behind Borg (for me). If Nole gets to 14 Slams (or more) then I will start to move him up my list.

 

[Federberg]

It's the impossible question. Comparing a former all time great on the basis of current measures. Has Novak achieved more than Borg yet? Possibly, it's very close. But there will never be another tennis player who accumulates so much so quickly. Then again he flamed out early. I guess if he was a construct of this era he would have considered his legacy, but I really don't think he did. None of those guys back then did. Which is why it's so odd to compare them..

 

[EdbergsGhost]

With almost forty years between when they played, I don't think you can base it on slam count alone. Borg did as much as any player to bring the sport to the rest of the non-tennis public. He made them watch, made them want to watch. It was incredible. He also amassed his 11 slams in a shorter period of time.

Djokovic was regularly beaten by both Nadal and Federer. He seemed permanently stuck at #3. Since 2011, he's won 10 slams in six years. Let's see where his count is at the end of this year. If he wins a few more, I would move him past Borg.

 

[Ricardo]

With almost forty years between when they played, I don't think you can base it on slam count alone. Borg did as much as any player to bring the sport to the rest of the non-tennis public. He made them watch, made them want to watch. It was incredible. He also amassed his 11 slams in a shorter period of time.

Djokovic was regularly beaten by both Nadal and Federer. He seemed permanently stuck at #3. Since 2011, he's won 10 slams in six years. Let's see where his count is at the end of this year. If he wins a few more, I would move him past Borg.

true. Nobody before Sampras was chasing 'slam counts' as if it was the most important measuring stick. Players were going after GS, almost impossible to do so Pete magnified the importance of slam counts when he knew he simply couldn't do it on clay. Borg was genuinely capable on all courts, so is Nole, but Borg was able to dominate a good 5 years against the most all time greats compared to any other era (Connors, Lendl, Mac, Vilas etc); where as Nole really flourished after Fed has grown old and Rafa really lost his game (after 2014).

 

[Moxie]

true. Nobody before Sampras was chasing 'slam counts' as if it was the most important measuring stick. Players were going after GS, almost impossible to do so Pete magnified the importance of slam counts when he knew he simply couldn't do it on clay. Borg was genuinely capable on all courts, so is Nole, but Borg was able to dominate a good 5 years against the most all time greats compared to any other era (Connors, Lendl, Mac, Vilas etc); where as Nole really flourished after Fed has grown old and Rafa really lost his game (after 2014).

Very interesting point about Sampras and the Slam chase. I have also vaguely thought this without analyzing it. I also think the notion of a tennis GOAT kind of began with Sampras and the acquiring of Major hardware. Good points also about Borg. He probably packed more than anyone into 10 years.

 

[Ricardo]

Very interesting point about Sampras and the Slam chase. I have also vaguely thought this without analyzing it. I also think the notion of a tennis GOAT kind of began with Sampras and the acquiring of Major hardware. Good points also about Borg. He probably packed more than anyone into 10 years.

Borg was the greatest on grass and clay, two of the most important surfaces. Of course on clay he was surpassed by Rafa and grass by Pete and Fed, we don't know how he would've fared on hard but being one of the very greatest in history on both clay/grass is just ridiculous. Pete is arguably the greatest on grass (along with Fed who actually won a bit more), yet has nothing to show for on clay which is a big knock. While Nole is the greatest on slow hard but 'only' great on other surfaces...so he's got to be behind Borg still. Borg could possibly rank above as a player of all surfaces, when all is said and considered.

a bit of comparison for me

clay, Rafa > Borg
grass, Fed/Pete > Borg
slow hard, Nole > Fed > Agassi
fast hard, Fed/Pete

of the players mentioned here.

 

[Moxie]

No one in the Open Era has dominated both clay and grass like Borg, the two most disparate surfaces, so that stands as a testament. He won the Channel Slam 3 times. Nadal is second with 2, and Roger did it once. Two weeks to get over the grind that is winning 7 matches on clay, transition to grass, and another 2 weeks to have won 7 more matches on grass. All in best-of-5, against the best competition. It's the toughest Majors combo in tennis, even with the added week.

 

[britbox]

true. Nobody before Sampras was chasing 'slam counts' as if it was the most important measuring stick. Players were going after GS, almost impossible to do so Pete magnified the importance of slam counts when he knew he simply couldn't do it on clay. Borg was genuinely capable on all courts, so is Nole, but Borg was able to dominate a good 5 years against the most all time greats compared to any other era (Connors, Lendl, Mac, Vilas etc); where as Nole really flourished after Fed has grown old and Rafa really lost his game (after 2014).

Yup. It was a media invention when Sampras started zoning in on Emerson's count... Not that anybody thought Emerson was the GOAT in the first place.

I don't remember anybody mentioning total slam counts much in the 80s or early 90s or paying that much attention to it... people talked about the number of times you had won Wimbledon, USO and maybe the French but never really seemed to group them together for an overall count. The Calendar Year Grand Slam was the holy grail though and always will be.

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. And that's essentially my point. If the guys from back then weren't focussing on slam count it seems weird to make comparisons across eras on that basis. The things that one might compare across eras are, number of weeks at number 1, number of titles won. And even then there are problems, there wasn't just the ATP tour in the 70s, and ranking calculation methodologies have changed so there isn't consistency. All this talk of who's better X or Y from different eras has the feeling of playground chatter to me

 

[britbox]

Now that Novak has won Roland Garros, added another slam AND completed the career grand slam, any different views on this?

 

[Fiero425]

Now that Novak has won Roland Garros, added another slam AND completed the career grand slam, any different views on this?

- http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - For the Nole fans! Enjoy!

 

[Moxie]

I could see why people would put Novak over Borg now, but there are a lot of interesting arguments above for each. I don't really think it's possible to get a perfect list, and Bjorn and Nole are a compelling example because their careers and their impacts are so different. Every player that plays now rides on the coattails of tennis's first super-athlete, and it's first rockstar. They have Borg to thank for their emphasis on fitness, and the prominence of tennis that gives them their big pay days. Has Novak done more now? He has. But he's specifically chasing things that Borg wasn't even thinking about in the 70s and 80s. I find them especially difficult to compare.

They both have about an 83% winning percentage, and Borg has 64 titles to Novak's 66. However, Borg won his first Major his 2nd year on tour, and won all 11 of his within 8 years. Novak won his first in his 5th year on tour, and all the rest from his 8th year onward. Djokovic took time to develop, but there is the argument that he had to wait for Fedal to fade. Borg was the competition when he played. Tough call.