Yes agree 100% It is a smaller sample size which is why I don't consider him the GOAT. It's a what could have been. He achieved way more than any of the Big Three when he retired. That's without ever playing (once at 17) in the Aussie open. Collecting slams wasn't that important back then. If I do recall the Aussie open paid peanuts back in the day. Wasn't worth going there to play. I've said this before, but I think what Borg did winning on slow clay and fast grass (before the 2001 change to slower the grass) is the most incredible feat in tennis! (His won-loss record in Paris same as Nadal when he retired. Had that one loss at 16!) And I'm not a Borg fan, Agassi was my favourite by a mile! That's what sucks about tennis, once your guy retires, it's not same.
Yes agree 100% It is a smaller sample size which is why I don't consider him the GOAT. It's a what could have been. He achieved way more than any of the Big Three when he retired. That's without ever playing (once at 17) in the Aussie open. Collecting slams wasn't that important back then. If I do recall the Aussie open paid peanuts back in the day. Wasn't worth going there to play. I've said this before, but I think what Borg did winning on slow clay and fast grass (before the 2001 change to slower the grass) is the most incredible feat in tennis! (His won-loss record in Paris same as Nadal when he retired. Had that one loss at 16!) And I'm not a Borg fan, Agassi was my favourite by a mile! That's what sucks about tennis, once your guy retires, it's not same.
Nadal Vs Fed/Nole at RG -- won 13 of 14 matches. Crazy shit , and most of those matches were easy. Keep in minid fed and nole have winning % Vs TOP 10 players that were 2nd and 3rd of all time-- their resumes are significantly better than lendl, vilas, wilander. In addition they both were excellent clay courters (btw, wilander had little serve threat, he takes a set over nadal tops bro lol-- likelt thankful to not have played vs nadal ha!!!!)
Nole vs Borg if played 6 matches at RG what is your call?
Fed vs Borg if played 6 matches at RG what is your call?
FORGET THE STATS for a second-- did Borg have the same dominating game on clay as Nadal? Id take Borg's serve over Nadal, but id take Nadal's baseline groundstrokes , wear-down city.
Nole vs Borg if played 6 matches at RG what is your call?
Fed vs Borg if played 6 matches at RG what is your call?
FORGET THE STATS for a second-- did Borg have the same dominating game on clay as Nadal? Id take Borg's serve over Nadal, but id take Nadal's baseline groundstrokes , wear-down city.
I can't forget the stats! Borg was the wear-down city groundstroke king back in the day! He was the fitness freak back in the day, never tired rarely broke a sweat. Crazy low resting heartrate. (Not 29, that has been debunked!) He by far was the fitness King. That's what he was know for! Stop with the Fed as an all-timer on clay. I'll give you Nole but Fed come on. He played in 6 FO before meeting Nadal in the semis. He already had a few slams under his belt at 23 going on 24, and he couldn't win. Fed faced 3 top ten opponents in his FO finals run from 2006-2008, Robredo, Davydenko, Nalbandian. Only one single masters clay tourney won between the 3 of them!! And that was Robredo in Hamburg, with the top two seeds pulling out due to fatigue! (Fed Nadal) Numbers don't lie, greater clay court competition in Borg's day than Nadal. Borg would crush Fed on clay!
I got Agassi's autograph at one of his first ATP tour events in the mid 80's. He was an unknown, but made a splash at this event when McEnroe commented
that this 16 year old kid hit harder than anyone he'd ever seen.
I was playing (low-level) tournaments at the time, and was also a big fan.
It was this event, played in Stratton, Vermont at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_International
I sold the autograph on Ebay a while back... lol
robredo? nalbandian? Davydenko?
Fed Vs robredo /Nalbandian/davydenko on clay -- 9-1 for Fed. Yeah the numbers dont lie
lol, what the fuck are u talking about?
Fed not top 10 on clay? why casue he didnt play Muster? Nastase?
he won 80% of his matches at RG. And im not buying 'he had no competition'. Sorry
What don't you understand??? The only top ten guys he faced in his run to the FO finals from 2006-2008 are Robredo, Davydenko and Nalbandian. And those guys won SHIT on clay!! They were not good on clay hence the lack of clay titles!! And they played a full five before Nadal starting owning the master series clay court titles! Six years of playing at the French without Nadal and not even a finals appearance. Don't know how you get argue that Fed is an all-timer on the clay!
lol, again not buying he 'had no competition'. Fed, Nole, and Nadal are that good and this stat is evidence--- also, this is done over a long period of time (below chart). You are choosing to diminish the clay accomplishemnts of fed and nole based on winning % stats lol and the silly he has no competition,
even if i point out Fed and Noles winning % at RG (which are outstanding) u choose to diminish-- that is , they played no one, lol....whatever
also; fed vs Nole on clay?
4-4
and 1-1 at RG
the numbers dont lie
[FONT=roboto_regular]Best Winning Percentage vs. Top 10 In History[/FONT]
<tbody>
</tbody>
even if i point out Fed and Noles winning % at RG (which are outstanding) u choose to diminish-- that is , they played no one, lol....whatever
also; fed vs Nole on clay?
4-4
and 1-1 at RG
the numbers dont lie
[FONT=roboto_regular]Best Winning Percentage vs. Top 10 In History[/FONT]
| Player | Record | Winning Percentage |
| 1. Bjorn Borg | 64-27 | 70.3% |
| 2. Novak Djokovic | 184-89 | 67.4% |
| 3. Roger Federer | 214-111 | 65.8% |
| 4. Rafael Nadal | 160-84 | 65.6% |
| 5. Boris Becker | 121-65 | 65.1% |
<tbody>
</tbody>
digging a little deeper into numbers. Moya won 16 clay titles, in his day certainly a horse on clay and won the French Open. Kuerten, generally, makes most top 10 clay courters of all-time list, won 14 titles and the French Opne
on clay
Fed Vs Moya -- 3-0
Fed Vs Kuerten -- 1-1
anyway, Mats Wilander had this to say last April.
[h=1]Mats Wilander: 'When Roger Federer retires, we will lose the greatest of all time'[/h]
on clay
Fed Vs Moya -- 3-0
Fed Vs Kuerten -- 1-1
anyway, Mats Wilander had this to say last April.
[h=1]Mats Wilander: 'When Roger Federer retires, we will lose the greatest of all time'[/h]
digging s little deeper with Fed on clay @)
, for phd, the numbers guy
Fed career on clay, keep in mind he played into his late 30's lol. Good luck improving your win % on that demanding surface whilst in your 30s
Fed career win % on clay- 76%
cherry picking his prime ; 2005-2009
86-14, a stunning 86% and 7 of those loses were to Nadal. Can yuo imagine what his numbers/titles would be like if Nadal wasnt around? ...but but...he didnt play nastase and muster , lol
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/fed...t=Federer is 214-68 lifetime,Swiss was 84-5 (.
2. Federer's Four Consecutive Roland Garros Finals
[FONT=roboto_regular]Federer fell short in three of them, but the consistency he showed by reaching four consecutive [/FONT]Roland Garros[FONT=roboto_regular] finals puts him in select company. Only four other players since 1924 have reached four or more consecutive [/FONT]Roland Garros[FONT=roboto_regular] title matches.
[/FONT][FONT=roboto_regular]Consecutive Roland Garros Final Appearances[/FONT]
<tbody>
</tbody>[FONT=roboto_regular]
did Muster or nastase do that? .....cmon man...[/FONT]
, for phd, the numbers guyFed career on clay, keep in mind he played into his late 30's lol. Good luck improving your win % on that demanding surface whilst in your 30s
Fed career win % on clay- 76%
cherry picking his prime ; 2005-2009
86-14, a stunning 86% and 7 of those loses were to Nadal. Can yuo imagine what his numbers/titles would be like if Nadal wasnt around? ...but but...he didnt play nastase and muster , lol
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/fed...t=Federer is 214-68 lifetime,Swiss was 84-5 (.
2. Federer's Four Consecutive Roland Garros Finals
[FONT=roboto_regular]Federer fell short in three of them, but the consistency he showed by reaching four consecutive [/FONT]Roland Garros[FONT=roboto_regular] finals puts him in select company. Only four other players since 1924 have reached four or more consecutive [/FONT]Roland Garros[FONT=roboto_regular] title matches.
[/FONT][FONT=roboto_regular]Consecutive Roland Garros Final Appearances[/FONT]
| Final Appearances | Player | Years |
| 6 | Rene Lacoste | (1924-29) |
| 5 | Rafael Nadal | (2010-2014) |
| 4 | Bjorn Borg | (1978-81) |
| 4 | Roger Federer | (2006-09) |
| 4 | Ivan Lendl | (1984-87) |
| 4 | Rafael Nadal | (2005-08) |
<tbody>
</tbody>
did Muster or nastase do that? .....cmon man...[/FONT]
You mention Moya and 16 clay titles. Let's look at all the players that won 20 or more clay titles, nine of them to be exact. Borg has faced all of them except for Nadal and Muster. Nadal hasn't faced a single one. Fed beat Moya once on clay when he was a seeded player. The other two victories Moya was past his prime.
I don't care if every pundit or ex-player says Fed is one of the greats at clay! The evidence, results does not back it! Fed is 12th in career win %, 40th in career wins, and 27th in career tournament wins! Now if that's the resume of an all timer on clay, it is pointless to debate this. He is not an all timer on Clay! Every single player with 20 or more tournament wins on clay except for Nadal, and Muster played in Borgs era! 9 men with twenty or more tourney wins, Borg faced all of them save Nadal and Muster. Nadal hasn't faced any of the career clay greats, based on victories not opinions, Nole being the soul exception!
Again Federer 12th in career winning percentage on clay, 40th in career wins, 27th in career tournament wins!! That is not the resume of an all time great!! And he stopped playing on clay as he got older so most of those numbers occurred in his prime. Change the name attached to these numbers and that player becomes a footnote in history!
you lack any common sense, bro. You stick to numbers as if they are gospel. The world can be telling you Nadal is the all-time great but then yuo'll look at some stat and say-- hey look!! look at the winning % , he played no one!!
Fed was an all court player. His schedule incloded all surfaces, not just playing 80% of tournaments entered on clay like what 'clay specialists' would do-- they needed to make a living and playing on grass or HC meant not getting deep into tournaments.
Fed laregly passed on Brasil Open, The Argentinian Open, Estoril, UMAG, Mexico City, Buchaesrt ...etc..these second tier clay events that clay specialists inhabit. If he played in them do you THINK he'd have won more clay tournaments?
Muster record at RG ;
14 times entered . could NOT get passed the 3rd round in 8 of them, LMFAO. reached the semis once, won once
stop man
Fed was an all court player. His schedule incloded all surfaces, not just playing 80% of tournaments entered on clay like what 'clay specialists' would do-- they needed to make a living and playing on grass or HC meant not getting deep into tournaments.
Fed laregly passed on Brasil Open, The Argentinian Open, Estoril, UMAG, Mexico City, Buchaesrt ...etc..these second tier clay events that clay specialists inhabit. If he played in them do you THINK he'd have won more clay tournaments?
Muster record at RG ;
14 times entered . could NOT get passed the 3rd round in 8 of them, LMFAO. reached the semis once, won once
stop man
Actually you're lacking in common sense and reading skills! I never said Nadal isn't an all time great, I'm saying FEDERER IS NOT ON CLAY! It's not just winning % but career wins and tourney wins. What else or you supposed to look at? I don't know why you keep bringing up Muster, (reading comprehension?) he wasn't in Borg's era. Like I said before I don't care what people say, numbers don't back it up. Borg in the time he played was Nadal's equal on clay, I give him a slight edge because better clay court players in that era based on winning percentage, wins and tournament wins and not based on opinions.
And those clay court greats were not just clay specialists. Nastase made more slam finals on grass than clay,
Lendl made 8 straight US finals hardly a clay specialist
Wilander won two grass, two hard, and three clay. They did not just play on the clay!
'Vilas has 240 more wins on clay than Nadal! Orantes has 120 more wins than Nadal. Vilas, Orantes, Nadal, Nastase and Muster are the only players with over 400 wins on clay'
lol, you forgeting what yuo're writing ?
oh, here's Nastase , Mr Numbers
RG
14 times entered , did NOT get passed the 3rd round in 9 of them, lol, what a great clay courter he was @)
. He did win once Robredo's best surface was clay- he reached the qtrs at RG 5 times, won 12 titles in his career, 11 of whcih were on clay
Davydendo- won 21 titles in his career, reached the semis at RG twice, won 10 clay court titles
Nalbandian- won 11 titles in his career inclduing a slam at flushing meadows, reached the semis at RG twice in his career
they were not shit on clay, anyone who follows tennis knows this .....u didnt look at their numbers?
