tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post496776378431982898..comments2024-03-11T15:46:13.155-04:00Comments on In The Arena: Ruminations About Competition: Debunking Myths About Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Roger FedererDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-27104396287488907772019-01-22T13:16:34.382-05:002019-01-22T13:16:34.382-05:00Pranav:
I do not believe that my article is “bias...Pranav:<br /><br />I do not believe that my article is “biased” but I agree with you that Borg is the greatest tennis player of all-time.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-31994582105048084972019-01-22T09:46:15.150-05:002019-01-22T09:46:15.150-05:00Just came across this write-up while trying to Goo...Just came across this write-up while trying to Google search "Why did Bjorn Borg never play the Australian Open?" Well, now I know that he DID play once, way before he became the best ever!<br /><br />While the first half of your write-up gives some interesting insight about how Borg was still far from over post 1981 U.S. Open final, the second half discusses the GOAT debate with Federer and like all such discussions, is a bit biased! :)<br /><br />Even though since your publication, 2 more players (Nadal and Djokovic) have gone past Borg in the Grand Slam tally, I still feel Borg is the Best Male Tennis Player of All Time ahead of not just Federer but Laver, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras and the rest (McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Lendl, etc)<br /><br />However, my reasoning (bit biased, I declare!) is not statistical. I have 2 primary reasons for feeling he is GOAT.<br /><br />1. His domination of French Open - French is still the most difficult of the 4 GS to win. Partly, due to many players who feel they have a chance to win it. Only two players have dominated it since the Open Era, Borg and Nadal. While Nadal has nearly double the number of Roland Garros titles than Borg, it is the fact that Borg totally dominated the event in the late seventies that makes him different and better. (This is coming from a hardcore Nadal fan!) He also annihilated the great clay court specialist Guillermo Vilas in 2 of those French Open finals and has a 18-5 career head to head record against him! This is even highlighted by the fact that even after having such a dismal record and only 1 French Open win, Vilas is considered a legendary Clay Court Player, probably rated third after Borg and Nadal!<br /><br />2. His adaptation at Wimbledon - While winning on the Clay of Paris was more suited to his playing style, it is at the Grass of South West London that Borg earned his legendary status. Borg was essentially a baseliner and a 5-time winner of Wimbledon which essentially favoured the hard-hitting style of Serve and Volleyers like.. well almost everyone else! Right from Rosewall, Newcombe to Connors and McEnroe, many others were better suited to win Wimbledon than the tall lanky Swede whose game was based on topspin. The fact that they hardly succeeded against him shows his great adaptability!<br /><br />He also played in an era where the grass was "Faster" (An accusation labelled against Nadal, belittling his Wimbledon wins!). For sure, he struggled in the early rounds at Wimbledon on a couple of occasions but did get through and won it 5 straight times, not to forget the 6th final!<br /><br />It is this quality that makes him the best!<br /><br />Federer - Could never win French Open while Nadal was on the other side of the net. And still has a solitary slam to show! Hardly adapting to less favourable surroundings.<br /><br />Nadal - Did win Wimbledon and US Open multiple times but still not as dominant as Borg and has to contend with accusations of Slower surfaces which help his playing style!<br /><br />Djokovic - Has beaten Nadal at French and Federer at Wimbledon. But still only one French Open. Also lost too many finals especially those against Murray and Wawrinka!<br /><br />Sampras / McEnroe / Connors - Never won the French Open, their least favourite slam!<br /><br />Lendl - Replace French with Wimbledon from the above scenario!<br /><br />Agassi - Won all 4 Slams but never really dominated for an era like the others above!<br /><br />Laver - Won the Calendar GS twice! But at that time, 3 out of 4 slams were on Grass! Also Aussie open was more of a national tournament, although aussies were dominating in that era! Is the best contender for GOAT after Borg, but for the non-participation during pre-open era (not his fault, at all!)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Pranav Kulkarnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08936845998529547838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-10193170073303649262017-07-18T18:45:00.256-04:002017-07-18T18:45:00.256-04:00How can we compare someone who played with a wood ...How can we compare someone who played with a wood racket with someone playing today with much larger, more powerful rackets. Can we say Borg was better in his era than Federer was in his?<br />Perhaps. But Federer now has 18 grand slams. And has almost doubled Borg's career. So at the time of this writing, I am sure the nod must go to Federer. BenSarlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06388166017189943010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-62844185257495999002014-07-25T12:05:22.699-04:002014-07-25T12:05:22.699-04:00Anonymous:
Your comment is interesting and you ma...Anonymous:<br /><br />Your comment is interesting and you may be right that racket stringing preferences affected the results of some players. I know that Borg was very particular about how tightly his rackets were strung but I am not familiar with the stringing preferences of all of the great players so I elected to leave that out of my analysis.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-63477175437998793842014-07-25T02:58:20.715-04:002014-07-25T02:58:20.715-04:00Mr. Friedman, you analysis is thesis quality but o...Mr. Friedman, you analysis is thesis quality but one variable that is missed by most tennis analyzers of Borg's development? <br />His racket. Borg started out with a wooden Slazenger brand, moved to wooden Bancroft variant, then to a semi composite Donnay. Borg used the tightest strung rackets (about 80lbs, for control) hence the famous ping when the ball hit his racket! What would've happen if Borg strung his racket at a lower tension and bigger grip for his US Open games?<br />I theorize, that players like Nadal who would vary the tension of their rackets given the surface would have a wider arsenal to choose. I guess Nadal could beat these bigger server guys on hard court with a lower strung racket or even using a different racket (clandestinely painted to their endorser). Lendl was notorious for favoring his Kneissel branded racket and customizing it with his endorsed racket (i.e. Adidas). Perhaps, Borg would've benefited from having more clandestine racket choices. I guess, Nadal is a prime example who has the funds to play around with those choices?<br />You think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-45020917719236661192014-03-26T22:18:04.190-04:002014-03-26T22:18:04.190-04:00Victor:
Thank you!Victor:<br /><br />Thank you!David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-39745188131311666932014-03-26T13:01:51.730-04:002014-03-26T13:01:51.730-04:00I'd read this before and just wanted to say th...I'd read this before and just wanted to say thanks for posting. If an argument can be made that anyone is better than Borg, it would have to be an argument for Nadal. The statistics however, as well as I what I refer to as the intangibles, still point to the ice man. Enjoyed this piece very much!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06104281206623181195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-68648509208054756612014-02-23T23:37:17.837-05:002014-02-23T23:37:17.837-05:00Anonymous:
Emmitt Smith's career lasted longe...Anonymous:<br /><br />Emmitt Smith's career lasted longer than Jim Brown's and Smith rushed for more yards than Brown but no informed NFL observer would rank Smith ahead of Brown. Federer is tennis' Emmitt Smith, while Borg is tennis' Jim Brown. By the way, Borg won a Grand Slam in eight straight years, which stood as a record for three decades, so he enjoyed a long period of dominance even though his career is considered to be "short."<br /><br />I am not equating Akai with a Grand Slam; my point is that Borg's dominant win over McEnroe in that event debunks the idea that Borg retired because he was befuddled by McEnroe. Borg retired from Grand Slam play because he did not want to deal with the ridiculous rules that forced him to play in a certain number of events per year in order to avoid having to participate in qualifiers at the Grand Slams. <br /><br />While the Grand Slams are the most important events, the Australian Open was not important to non-Australians during Borg's era, so comparing Borg's totals in three Grand Slams to Federer's totals in four Grand Slams is deceptive; Borg was more dominant in the three most important Slams than Federer has been. David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-86762396083230475902014-02-23T01:48:52.780-05:002014-02-23T01:48:52.780-05:00If Roger Federer's achievements were accomplis...If Roger Federer's achievements were accomplished over a longer period than Bjorn Borg's because Borg retired early, then this is another legitimate argument in Federer's claim to be the greatest open player. Success and dominance over a longer career is more impressive than in a shorter career. <br />Mr Friedman's best argument is that Federer is not even the best player of his own era since he has a losing record to Rafael Nadal. I argue that the criteria for judging greatness should not be simply head to head matchings, but success in a sport's most important competitions. Track and field athletes would trade several wins at weekly, summer events for a win at the Olympic Games or World Championships. The best baseball team is not necessarily the one with the most wins in a season, but the one that wins the World Series. In tennis, the "World Series" are the Grand Slam events, at least in the modern, Open era. Those are the events the Open era tennis community has always cared about and the ones we care about today. The draw of prize money may have motivated some players toward some events, just as unseen appearance money may have motivated too, but that should not lift the Akai event to the status of a Grand Slam event. No, victories in Grand Slam events are what it's all about. That's why we watch those and care so much. Roger Federer will continue to be regarded by many as the greatest because of his consistent and long lasting success in Grand Slam events. Others may pick Nadal because he will win nearly as many Slams as Federer before he's done and seems to have dominated Federer in his own time. Sampras and Borg will be regarded just behind those two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-68963839025228354762012-06-12T15:14:24.119-04:002012-06-12T15:14:24.119-04:00Athang:
I wrote this article three years ago, so ...Athang:<br /><br />I wrote this article three years ago, so even if my opinion subsequently changed would that make this article incorrect?<br /><br />I still rank Borg ahead of Nadal because during his era Borg simultaneously held the record for most Wimbledon titles (five) and most French Open titles (six). No player before or since has simultaneously dominated grass and clay the way that Borg did.<br /><br />Borg is the greatest Open Era player, followed by Nadal--who has a better Grand Slam winning percentage than Federer, won the career Grand Slam at 24 (Federer was nearly 28 when he achieved this) and an 18-10 head to head advantage versus Federer--and Federer. Sampras, who was inept on clay compared to the aforementioned three, ranks fourth.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-47503383249430004802012-06-12T09:07:15.381-04:002012-06-12T09:07:15.381-04:00what do you think of the greatest of all time deba...what do you think of the greatest of all time debate now? after nadal having eclipsed borg's 6 french open titles.Athanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09547861961949923224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-47541670249962825362011-06-06T16:27:01.791-04:002011-06-06T16:27:01.791-04:00Great thread, how did Borg fare at the 1977 french...Great thread, how did Borg fare at the 1977 french open near his prime? He didn't play, he was contracted to WTT with the cleveland nets, can the Borg sceptics not chalk (titanium oxide) up another GS for Bjorn. Such was the drive for GS's in that era. The players then chased the money, a modern player does not have to think about finance now, just GS's, so it distorts this arguement somewhat.<br /><br />Borg would score higher on looks as well, Rafa is popular with the ladies but not as much as Bjorn..<br /><br />Like Rafa, Borg has only been beaten at the FO by one player, Panatta.<br /><br /><br />BB was great over 5 sets which made his GS record so impressive. In deciding 3 or 5 set stats he ranks above Nadal... (so far)<br /><br />As for the US, the Americans did like scheduling him late on in the lights in their desire a USA winner...<br /><br />If Rafa retired tomorrow, he would not be ranked the GOAT, he needs a few more years/titles if Novac doesn't win everything from now on.....<br /><br />Fed has a bad record against Murray and another Brit, Tiger Tim Henman.<br /><br /><br />Seanseanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03107742931345733484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-36104834217713389102011-06-06T04:53:02.144-04:002011-06-06T04:53:02.144-04:00Anonymous:
If Borg had kept playing on tour it is...Anonymous:<br /><br />If Borg had kept playing on tour it is hardly certain that he would have been "number two for years." McEnroe did not dominate the tour after Borg left the scene; McEnroe, Connors and Lendl each took turns at number one from 1981-1985, when Lendl grabbed the top spot for the next three years. Borg was clearly capable of being in the mix with those three players if he had been willing to follow the tour's rules pertaining to frequency of play.<br /><br />As I mentioned in the article, the prize fund for the Akai Gold Challenge was larger than the prize fund at Slam events so I highly doubt that McEnroe and Lendl suffered from insufficient motivation when they faced Borg.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-2677395214758499062011-06-05T16:48:57.491-04:002011-06-05T16:48:57.491-04:00That's not how I recall it. Bjørn was dethrone...That's not how I recall it. Bjørn was dethroned and lost his nerve in late 1981. He didn't want to be no. 2 for some years. We all hoped for a comeback in '82 but it didn't happen. Sydney '82 was invitational and probably meant less to John and Ivan. Trying to blame his goodbye on tournament rules is pleasant, but he had the ending in himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-70679529852953330412010-07-15T20:13:52.847-04:002010-07-15T20:13:52.847-04:00Anonymous:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. M...Anonymous:<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful reply. My main goal here is to provide intelligent, objective and logical commentary and it is clear that you responded to my post in the spirit that it was written.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-7153814535535777172010-07-15T16:30:07.283-04:002010-07-15T16:30:07.283-04:00Love this thread, having read the whole thing over...Love this thread, having read the whole thing over the past hour. Great arguments on all sides (if a bit edgy at times!). <br />I definitely feel like I'm a bit biased towards Borg/Nadal but Federer has been (to use a cliche) awesome.<br />I agree with David in that:<br />1. The de-emphasis of the AO and "collecting majors" in general in the 70's and early 80 is a HUGE factor. Not just for Borg but for Connors, Mac and others (and I always rooted against those 2!)<br />2. I always found simply "counting championships" as the only measure of who is the best to be lazy and boring. So now Coach K at Duke is twice as good a hoops coach as Dean Smith was? I really liked the subtleties (sp?) of most of the posts. The main point of the the initial post is simply: Fed is not even close to CLEARLY being the best.<br /><br />I also agree with the use of Fed's losing record to Nadal as important, but I think it is minor compared to 1. and 2.<br /><br />As far as the pre-open era, if you count pro major titles, which were just as difficult to win but not as historically prestigious, vastly under-rated Ken Rosewall would have 23 majors (8 GS and 15 pro majors) or, more fairly, 19 majors (subtracting his 4 amateur grand slam victories in the '50s when he did not have to beat Gonzalez, Sedgman, Kramer, Segura,and the other best players in the world at that time...)<br /><br />Good stuff Mr Friedman!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-67190542429375066722010-07-06T00:42:45.007-04:002010-07-06T00:42:45.007-04:00Anonymous:
In the comment thread I said that I th...Anonymous:<br /><br />In the comment thread I said that I thought that a healthy Nadal would have had an excellent chance to pull off the French/Wimbledon double in 2009. This year, a healthy Nadal did in fact pull off that double, becoming the second youngest Open Era player to win eight Grand Slam singles titles (trailing only Borg) and becoming the only player other than Borg to twice accomplish the French/Wimbledon double; Borg did it from 1978-80 and he retired as the Open Era leader in both French Open titles (six) and Wimbledon titles (five), a distinction that no one player is likely to match (i.e., Federer broke the Wimbledon record after Sampras surpassed Borg and Nadal may break Borg's French Open record but no one player is likely to ever hold both records simultaneously).<br /><br />It is becoming increasingly obvious just how right I was to question the way that so many people were insisting that Federer be declared the greatest player of the Open Era.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-40807054877500996352010-07-05T15:11:57.696-04:002010-07-05T15:11:57.696-04:00David. Very nice call that Nadal could win the Fre...David. Very nice call that Nadal could win the French Open-Wimbledon double this year at a time when nobody thought he could. Impressive!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-88309635752381768062010-02-08T05:02:24.070-05:002010-02-08T05:02:24.070-05:00FedFan:
As I have indicated repeatedly, Federer n...FedFan:<br /><br />As I have indicated repeatedly, Federer needs to demonstrate that he can consistently beat a healthy Nadal. If Federer never does that then he has not proven "definitively" that he is the greatest player of the Open Era--Federer is of course on the short list with Borg and Sampras but I don't see how anyone can objectively say that Federer is "definitively" the greatest when he has a contemporary who has dominated him. That should be obvious but far too many people act like it is complicated.<br /><br />I once again challenge you--and anyone else--to name anyone who is considered to be "definitively" the best in his/her field despite being dominated by a contemporary of his/hers. It just would not make sense to make such a claim. Federer's strong overall record certainly can be compared with Borg's and with Sampras' but it is not "definitively" better than theirs.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-25432007293628256422010-02-08T03:29:14.291-05:002010-02-08T03:29:14.291-05:00I'd like to go down a tangential path, and pos...I'd like to go down a tangential path, and pose a question:<br /><br />In your opinion, what (more) would Federer need to do to be the definitive greatest player of the Open Era (i.e. be definitively, even if by the slightest of margins, ahead of Borg in this respect)?<br />In fact, is there anything that he can do, or has that ship already sailed given current win/loss percentages and the possibility of Nadal never returning to the heights he reached near the '09 Aus Open....?FedFannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-16058503402050303412010-02-05T08:31:53.672-05:002010-02-05T08:31:53.672-05:00FedFan:
I did not say that something that happene...FedFan:<br /><br />I did not say that something that happened nine times was a fluke; I said that it could be considered a fluke that Borg did not win a single U.S. Open title in light of some of the circumstances that happened to him in that event. Those are two very different statements (i.e., not every single loss was a fluke but based on Borg's play on clay and hard courts and his record versus his U.S. Open opponents it is a bit unusual that he did not capture a single title there).<br /><br />In contrast, Nadal has been dominating Federer for years and in 2008-early 2009 that dominance became more pronounced and spread to more surfaces. That hardly looks like a fluke but rather seems to represent Nadal's continued evolution as a player. Nadal's unfortunate recent spate of injuries do not change that history or alter that evaluation.<br /><br />It is a fact that the Wimbledon/French double is much more rare than the Wimbledon/U.S. Open double. Again, this points to the fact that it is fluky that Borg never won a U.S. Open title; Borg did not have a specific surface weakness or matchup problem that would explain his failure to win that event, particularly in light of how he evolved from a clay court specialist to become the dominant grass court player of his generation.<br /><br />Why is Federer's "greater total tally" so impressive to you? Borg won 11 Slams in 27 tries. He never played the Australian during his prime and he retired from Slam play at 25. There is every reason to think that he could have pushed his Slam total to 15-20 by either playing in the Australian or simply extending his career for a few more years. Does Emmitt Smith's "greater total tally" impress you more than Jim Brown's absolute dominance for a nine year period?<br /><br />Why should any objective person cherry pick which winning percentages to count? If you suggest that we don't count Federer's early years and only count his years of dominance then I will counter that we should only count winning percentages in the two most prestigious Slams, Wimbledon and the French Open: Borg went five for nine at Wimbledon and six for eight at the French, while Federer has gone six for 11 at Wimbledon and one for 11 at the French. No, the only sensible thing is to count the total Slam percentages: 11/27 for Borg, 16/43 for Federer.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-50069384906691894592010-02-05T05:34:30.685-05:002010-02-05T05:34:30.685-05:00I'm not sure how many people would agree that ...I'm not sure how many people would agree that something that happened on 9 separate occasions can be considered a 'fluke'...<br />If you really want to push that argument, then we embark on a rather slippery slope.<br />Perhaps I could contend that Federer's 9 losses against Nadal on clay can be considered a 'fluke' considering his overall record on clay (141:42), and his dominance over Nadal on all other surfaces combined (Fed:Nadal, 2:9 on clay, 5:4 on all other surfaces combined). And in fact, at least Federer has 2 wins against Nadal on clay to prove he wasn't completely unable to do it...<br /><br />Also, you consistently argue that the FO/Wimb double is a lot more difficult to achieve than the Wimb/USO double (mainly because more people have achieved the latter than the former), and yet Borg never managed the so called 'easier' double. So either Borg wasn't so 'great' after all (seeing as he couldn't even master the easy stuff), or both doubles are equally difficult, with different players having success with one or the other for whatever particular reasons.<br /><br />Nonetheless, in this department, Federer has, as of 2009, managed both the 'doubles' - something Borg never did.<br /><br />It is the fact that Federer has completed the wider variety of difficult achievements (and a greater total tally) that gives me reason to believe that he now, by the smallest of margins (but nonetheless definitively), can be considered the greatest player of the Open Era (again, I make no representations regarding 'all time')<br /><br />Lastly, as I have contended in previous posts, I consider Federer to be a late blooming master (and in fact quite liked your metaphor of being like a good wine that takes time to age).<br />Thus the career percentages are not what I feel should be compared, but rather the percentages that cover the respective periods of dominance.<br />Not having the pertinent figures to hand (for either Borg or Federer), I make no assertions in this regard.FedFannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-44512063407345240682010-02-04T03:43:27.312-05:002010-02-04T03:43:27.312-05:00Tennis:
I disagree. Borg not winning the U.S. Ope...Tennis:<br /><br />I disagree. Borg not winning the U.S. Open can be looked upon as a fluke considering his overall record against the two players (Connors and McEnroe) who defeated him in his four Finals appearances. On the other hand, Nadal has dominated Federer for years and on a multitude of surfaces/events. Consider an example from auto racing: Mario Andretti "only" won the Indy 500 once but because of his versatility and the large number of races he won in various formats he has been honored as the Driver of the Century, best driver of the past 25 years, etc, best American driver, etc. Andretti raced very well at Indy and he led more laps there than many of the drivers who won the event multiple times but something always seemed to go wrong. Likewise, Borg played well at the U.S. Open but something always seemed to go wrong, whether it was an injury, a questionable line call or something else and Borg ended up losing to great players who he did well against throughout the rest of the tennis season (in contrast to Federer's world tour of losing to Nadal at various venues and on various surfaces). <br /><br />Federer has a contemporary who owns a decisive advantage against him and yet many people are not merely content to say that Federer is in the discussion with Borg to be considered the greatest Open Era player but that Federer should be considered the greatest player hands down; I reject that premise.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-30186447162367957432010-02-03T19:54:25.844-05:002010-02-03T19:54:25.844-05:00borg's inability to win the us open out of 9 t...borg's inability to win the us open out of 9 tries, is for me, more of a gaping hole on his resume than fed's record against nadal. borg's record in the us open is 0-9, whereas, atleast fed has won 7 times against nadal, he's on the scorecard.tennisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-85727821075218761422010-02-03T15:20:57.508-05:002010-02-03T15:20:57.508-05:00FedFan:
Forgive me if I don't consider someon...FedFan:<br /><br />Forgive me if I don't consider someone named "FedFan" to be an unbiased source of objective commentary on this subject.<br /><br />I have already refuted most of your contentions in various posts at this site--including the very post about which you are commenting--but I will make one last effort to clarify matters:<br /><br />1) Federer has a decisively losing record against a contemporary who he has played in a significant number of matches. Just in 2008 and the early part of 2009 alone we saw Nadal whip Federer at the French, Wimbledon and Australian. I again challenge you--or anyone else--to name any athlete who is considered the greatest ever in his sport who has lost so frequently to a top rival. <br /><br />2) Borg absolutely did not have a particular surface weakness. In fact, his dominance on two completely different surfaces--Wimbledon's grass and the French Open's clay--is unprecedented. All a player can do is dominate his contemporaries and Borg retired at 25 as the career record holder at both events. That is a remarkable feat, as is Borg's "triple double" (winning both events in the same year for three straight years). Borg lost at the U.S. Open on clay (his best surface) and on hard courts. Whatever reasons you want to list/believe for why he did not win the U.S. Open, a specific surface weakness does not fly: Borg was clearly a clay court master and he won significant events on hard courts (for instance, Borg beat Connors at the Pepsi Grand Slam--a big money tournament at that time--on a hard court). According to the ATP website, Borg had a 117-37 match record on hard courts and won five hard court singles titles. It is worth noting that hard courts were much less common in Borg's time than in Federer's (Federer has played nearly 500 hard court matches), which is yet another reason why it is difficult to compare players from different eras other than by assessing how they did against their contemporaries (which is why Federer's failures versus Nadal are more significant than Borg not winning the U.S. Open). Furthermore, Borg did beat Connors at the U.S. Open in 1981, while Federer has yet to beat Nadal at the French Open. It is worth noting that during Borg's career he faced two players who would be on virtually everyone's all-time top 10 list (Connors and McEnroe), while Federer has not faced similar dual competition. <br /><br />3) The total Slam count is basically meaningless when comparing players from different eras. The Australian Open was a minor event for non-Australians during Borg's time and such players regularly skipped it entirely. Furthermore, even with the Slams that Federer picked up in Nadal's absence--a luxury that Borg did not enjoy vis a vis Connors or McEnroe--Borg still has the better Grand Slam winning percentage: Borg won 11 of the 27 Slams that he entered (.407) while Federer has won 16 of 43 Slams that he entered (.372). <br /><br />Comparing Borg to Federer on the basis of total Slams won is like comparing Jim Brown to Emmitt Smith. <br /><br />I agree that in some sense Federer is "gaining ground" on Borg because Federer is still winning Grand Slams but considering what we have already seen of Federer versus Nadal it would be difficult for me to rank Federer ahead of Borg unless I see Federer beat Nadal at full strength more consistently.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.com