Most of Nole's fans want to make us believe that Nole has moved ahead of Borg on the list of all time great because each has 11 slams and Nole has better numbers on other stats. I disagree. Borg played in an era when he doesn't compete at the AO, which means he only competed 3 slam events in a year. Nole competed 4 slams/year, the additional 12 slam appearances at the AO made it possible for him to matched Borg's 11 slams. It's unfair to say their 11 slams are equally impressive. There's no doubt that Borg would have racked up more slam had the AO in the 70s was as prestigious as today, and it was played on grass. In addition, Borg has won many other tournaments that weren't listed on the ATP websites. Borg's officially has 64 ATP single titles(Nole has 61), but historians have documented that Borg have won some 30+ additional titles, competing with some of the best players - McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Nastase, etc..
Has Nole surpassed Borg in all time great?
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
I think it's close... very close... but I'm just edging toward the man from Serbia on this one.
Borg didn't play the AO... apart from the one time when he lost in the 3rd round... sure, he may have won it... and there is a strong possibility, but Mac also went a couple of time in 83 and 85 and came back empty handed.
If Novak wins the French then it's beyond doubt in my opinion... Borg never won the USO, even when it was played on green clay.
If it's in doubt now then I don't think it will be in a couple of years time.
Borg didn't play the AO... apart from the one time when he lost in the 3rd round... sure, he may have won it... and there is a strong possibility, but Mac also went a couple of time in 83 and 85 and came back empty handed.
If Novak wins the French then it's beyond doubt in my opinion... Borg never won the USO, even when it was played on green clay.
If it's in doubt now then I don't think it will be in a couple of years time.
EdbergsGhost
Masters Champion
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2015
- Messages
- 729
- Reactions
- 154
- Points
- 43
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 44,058
- Reactions
- 15,169
- Points
- 113
If Djokovic walked away from tennis tomorrow, I would still have Borg ahead of him, for what he did in such a short span of time, and within the norms of the era. But that's not happening, and it will be very soon that you have to put Djokovic ahead. (Ideally, not before Wimbledon. 
) The great Swede walked away at 26. I wish he hadn't, but that was his choice. What's surprising is how long it has taken 3 other players in the Open Era to pass him or tie him. This is why some people say there are only "Greatest of Their Era," not one GOAT. However, Djokovic will pass Borg on the list.
) The great Swede walked away at 26. I wish he hadn't, but that was his choice. What's surprising is how long it has taken 3 other players in the Open Era to pass him or tie him. This is why some people say there are only "Greatest of Their Era," not one GOAT. However, Djokovic will pass Borg on the list.
I am not sure I understand the topic. If Borg couldn't compete at all slams in his time, how on earth he would have fared nowadays? Maybe the reason he did so well in 2 slams is because he didn't expend too much energy on the other two? Ever thought of that. If anybody thinks it is easy to get to slam finals and semi finals in every single one of them for years without being tired or outplayed in some of them, then I don't know what sport people are watching.
:scratch:
:scratch:
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 44,058
- Reactions
- 15,169
- Points
- 113
It's not that Borg couldn't compete. He didn't go to Oz, nor did many. It was far, it was at the end of the year then, and they didn't think as much of it. That's why eras are hard to compare. Maybe one of the cleverest decisions that the AO made, as transportation got easier, was moving the Australian Open to the beginning of the year, making it more compelling and urgent. I don't think you need to underrate Borg. He was a great athlete, a great tennis player, and a great competitor...for as long as he was willing to be. He played in the norms of his time. What his also did was quit young.I am not sure I understand the topic. If Borg couldn't compete at all slams in his time, how on earth he would have fared nowadays? Maybe the reason he did so well in 2 slams is because he didn't expend too much energy on the other two? Ever thought of that. If anybody thinks it is easy to get to slam finals and semi finals in every single one of them for years without being tired or outplayed in some of them, then I don't know what sport people are watching.
I am not sure I understand the topic. If Borg couldn't compete at all slams in his time, how on earth he would have fared nowadays? Maybe the reason he did so well in 2 slams is because he didn't expend too much energy on the other two? Ever thought of that. If anybody thinks it is easy to get to slam finals and semi finals in every single one of them for years without being tired or outplayed in some of them, then I don't know what sport people are watching.
oh my, let me break your entire post down and you judge for yourself how stupid it is.
"if Borg couldn't compete", who said he couldn't? every tennis fan in the world knows the Ice man didn't want to, just like heaps of other greats back then. Even in more recent times Agassi missed the first 8 or 9 times when he started his career, and still bagged 4 AOs.
"he did well in RG/Wimb is because he didn't expend energy on the other two", now thats beyond silly. AO was scheduled like 5 months away from either RG or Wimbledon, what makes you think the guy couldn't get enough rest to prepare for any slam if he wanted to?
You certainly don't know what sport you've been watching, total lack of knowledge it's just ridiculous... and stupid you would sell the great man so short.
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
I give Borg the very slight edge (at the moment) as he dominated two slams and was the best player for several years continuously, in an era one could argue was the most competitive. It didn't actually bother me if he was in fact higher or not, but nobody in his/her right mind would undermine a champion in such thoughtless manner.... "he couldn't compete" " he "didn't expend energy on the other two", must be joking right? Borg made 4 USO finals losing to the very greatest players, and AO was months apart from any other slams; just didn't like to see djoko fans twist facts like that.
isabelle
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,673
- Reactions
- 634
- Points
- 113
Borg retired early, nobody can say how many titles he 'ld have won if he had continued to play till 30 or 35
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
Why did he quit so young? I understand that they didn't want to travel to Australia and it was not a prestigious event at the time, but it is now and it is hard to travel all over the world and play every big tournament the way they have done it for years now.
I am not the one to compare players from different eras. Never liked it because it is impossible. I was not the one starting this thread, nor I claimed first anywhere that Nole's is better than Borg. They are great in their own way. I do think that it is harder to play tennis in this modern and super physical times, so much that young players really don't stand a chance until they are physically strong and get some valuable experience. Nole at 18 wouldn't stand a chance now if he tried to make his way through the rankings.
I am perfectly fine for you to express your opinions, regardless if I agree with them or not. But it looks like that when I do it, I am the craziest person just because I am a Nole fan? Borg was a great athlete for his time, but the fact is that he did retire at a young age (and it wasn't because of injuries). Who is to say that if he played for few years longer he wouldn't have more defeats and his record wouldn't look so impressive? He could have won more titles also? All speculations. To think that it is actually more impressive to last longer and be successful for more years than less, I am crazy. LOL
I prepared all the advantages that Nole has over Borg but it really doesn't matter. Even if he wins all 4 slams this year, or 10 more, there will be always some who will demean his achievements. Nobody is talented now and everybody is old and there is no competition today anyway so nothing he does is impressive. I understand.
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 44,058
- Reactions
- 15,169
- Points
- 113
Why did he quit so young? I understand that they didn't want to travel to Australia and it was not a prestigious event at the time, but it is now and it is hard to travel all over the world and play every big tournament the way they have done it for years now.
I am not the one to compare players from different eras. Never liked it because it is impossible. I was not the one starting this thread, nor I claimed first anywhere that Nole's is better than Borg. They are great in their own way. I do think that it is harder to play tennis in this modern and super physical times, so much that young players really don't stand a chance until they are physically strong and get some valuable experience. Nole at 18 wouldn't stand a chance now if he tried to make his way through the rankings.
I am perfectly fine for you to express your opinions, regardless if I agree with them or not. But it looks like that when I do it, I am the craziest person just because I am a Nole fan? Borg was a great athlete for his time, but the fact is that he did retire at a young age (and it wasn't because of injuries). Who is to say that if he played for few years longer he wouldn't have more defeats and his record wouldn't look so impressive? He could have won more titles also? All speculations. To think that it is actually more impressive to last longer and be successful for more years than less, I am crazy. LOL
I prepared all the advantages that Nole has over Borg but it really doesn't matter. Even if he wins all 4 slams this year, or 10 more, there will be always some who will demean his achievements. Nobody is talented now and everybody is old and there is no competition today anyway so nothing he does is impressive. I understand.
Billie, don't confuse me with Ricardo, first of all. The reason the question comes up is understandable, I would say: both stand at 11 Majors. The only 2. An obvious moment to compare them. As I said before, Novak will surely pass that soon, and the question will become moot. But Borg is an all-time great. He had the most Major wins in the Open Era for some years until Pete passed him. As Djokovic moves up on the list, he's going to get compared. You shouldn't take that as demeaning...it's inevitable.
And why did Borg quit so young? *sigh* Hard to say. Personally, I think it was the pressures of being the first tennis rock-star. I think they all partied a bit too much. (Good thing no one was testing for cocaine back then.) He couldn't take the loss of one more USO. And, when he tried to come back, with his wooden racquet, the game and the technology had passed him by. A victim of his era, perhaps, but also the best in his prime for his era, which will always be counted as a very top level. That's where the inclination to comparison comes from.
Why did he quit so young? I understand that they didn't want to travel to Australia and it was not a prestigious event at the time, but it is now and it is hard to travel all over the world and play every big tournament the way they have done it for years now.
I am not the one to compare players from different eras. Never liked it because it is impossible. I was not the one starting this thread, nor I claimed first anywhere that Nole's is better than Borg. They are great in their own way. I do think that it is harder to play tennis in this modern and super physical times, so much that young players really don't stand a chance until they are physically strong and get some valuable experience. Nole at 18 wouldn't stand a chance now if he tried to make his way through the rankings.
I am perfectly fine for you to express your opinions, regardless if I agree with them or not. But it looks like that when I do it, I am the craziest person just because I am a Nole fan? Borg was a great athlete for his time, but the fact is that he did retire at a young age (and it wasn't because of injuries). Who is to say that if he played for few years longer he wouldn't have more defeats and his record wouldn't look so impressive? He could have won more titles also? All speculations. To think that it is actually more impressive to last longer and be successful for more years than less, I am crazy. LOL
I prepared all the advantages that Nole has over Borg but it really doesn't matter. Even if he wins all 4 slams this year, or 10 more, there will be always some who will demean his achievements. Nobody is talented now and everybody is old and there is no competition today anyway so nothing he does is impressive. I understand.
As usual, you Novak fan would play the victim. Who said he isn't impressive? now who demeans his achievements? and 'if he wins 10 more GS'? i bet everyone would agree he's the best ever. Get a clue Billie, people are a little more objective than you Nole fans want to be, we compare both players who are sitting at 11 slams and as soon as we don't side with Nole, we 'demean' him... sigh!!
Yes Borg did retire young not because of injuries, but he made his choice as he wanted to move on. There were death threats made against him, as many people who followed tennis back then would know, when did you start watching tennis?
But you are right, it's true that both Rafa and Federer are past their prime. Are you saying they are not? and if Fed isn't old, who is? (by tennis standard of course). You better hope that some day when Nole turns 34 and still plays, someone won't beat him many times....
Lastly, nobody is giving Borg ghost titles, for what he didn't win. In case you don't know (i doubt you do actually), Borg was still the best player on clay and that was obvious. He didn't retire because he was done winning titles, it was his personal choice.
so i said something wrong? Billie demeaned Borg and you know it, i had to straighten her out with facts.
For someone who claims it's harder to play tennis now, can someone explain why it's more frequently occurring that a player would dominate the sport? sure it's more physical, as the surfaces have slowed down and the ball is also different, which logically explains that it suits a particular brand of tennis - namely the baselines, especially those who would grind out long rallies after long rallies with marathon like stamina. There is a reason why in the last 15 years only one true shot-maker flourished (Federer), while other dominant players were quite similar in that they engage in long or extra long rallies match in and match out, with supreme fitness and defensive play (Nadal, Djoker, Hewitt etc). It also explains why Fed, given he was talented both as a net rusher and baselined, would abandon net play for years and just camped at the baseline.
Who knows which era is really the hardest to play in, but in an era where Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl competed fiercely against each other, nobody can say Borg had it easier, any doubt about that Billie?
Who knows which era is really the hardest to play in, but in an era where Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl competed fiercely against each other, nobody can say Borg had it easier, any doubt about that Billie?
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 44,058
- Reactions
- 15,169
- Points
- 113
I was just nicer about it. Billie defends Novak at all costs. I think she misunderstood (her words) the comparison.
Of course she does, yet i remember that she claimed to be a reasonable and objective fan, now i see what she meant. Fans defend their players naturally, some would go into ignoring facts and even demean other players; I have no beef in this actually as I'm not fan of anyone but talking rubbish about Borg to jack up Novak is unjustifiable. Talking rubbish about other era is similarly stupid, Connors, Borg, Mac and Lendl took away slams from each other and the latter 3 were within 3 years age difference, unlike now, when a player who got the most wins against the top player is 6 years his senior and at an age past usual retirement age.
Then again, that 34 yo is at his peak no?
Last edited:
No, they have stated that Borg have won many single titles apart from his 64 official ATP titles. Many fans relate only to 64 when in fact he has achieved more than that, and one of many reasons why some Nole fans place their favorite player above Borg.
