Jump to content
lichtie23

Wimbledon and the grass court season

Recommended Posts

It would be fantastic if he overtook Federer at Wimbledon and told all of Centre Court to go f**k themselves while doing an Alex Marshall. 
He's every chance of at least levelling. Your Thiems and Tsitsipas' of the world aren't going to beat him on grass anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Borg and Laver have to come into any serious debate.

Personally they will be an unquestionable best of the three, when they have all retired. Me personally I think Djokovic, then Federer and then Nadal. I fully expect both Nadal and Djokovic to overtake Federer’s slam count.

But you must always factor in Borg and Laver. Laver with two calendar grand slams and being banned for five years being a professional.

Borg played Australia once and won 11 slams and promptly retired at 25. He transcended the game way beyond Federer’s current popularity.

They’ll always be a debate, in the event that Nadal eclipses them all, I would still have him below Federer and Djokovic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving my point.

There will be an unquestionable GOAT once they all retire. History has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for proving my point.
Explain to me what history has to do with deciding which of the 3 is the greatest of all time considering the 3 are ehmm, the best the game has ever produced ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. Borg and Laver have to come into any serious debate.

Borg retired early and wasn't a master of all surfaces. If he had played on he would no doubt be considered but he didn't.

The game wasn't professional for a good amount of time that Laver played the game.

Besides none of them had to compete with 2 top 5 all time greats their entire career plus Murray.

It's not even close.

The top 100 is by far the best it's ever been as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Borg retired early and wasn't a master of all surfaces. If he had played on he would no doubt be considered but he didn't. The game wasn't professional for a good amount of time that Laver played the game.
Besides none of them had to compete with 2 top 5 all time greats their entire career plus Murray.
It's not even close.
The top 100 is by far the best it's ever been as well.


You do realise that the US Open and Australian Open were grass courts until 1978 and 1988? Hard Courts is a very recent thing, so to say he wasn’t a master of all surfaces, is misleading.

Borg lost five US Open finals on three different surfaces. Jimmy Connors won the US Open on grass, clay and hard court.

The advances in technology mean that their past achievements look moderately tame. You can’t just forget about them when it comes to the GOAT debate.

I agree the top 100 is the strongest it has ever been. Mainly because of professionalism and more training gets done. But that was started by Borg and that directly influenced Lendl.

When judging the greatest of all time you have to look at more factors than just trophy count. Borg transcended the sport almost as much as Ali did with boxing.

Borg is the reason that TV companies went gaga for tennis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 You do realise that the US Open and Australian Open were grass courts until 1978 and 1988? Hard Courts is a very recent thing, so to say he wasn’t a master of all surfaces, is misleading.

 

Borg lost five US Open finals on three different surfaces. Jimmy Connors won the US Open on grass, clay and hard court.

 

The advances in technology mean that their past achievements look moderately tame. You can’t just forget about them when it comes to the GOAT debate.

 

I agree the top 100 is the strongest it has ever been. Mainly because of professionalism and more training gets done. But that was started by Borg and that directly influenced Lendl.

 

When judging the greatest of all time you have to look at more factors than just trophy count. Borg transcended the sport almost as much as Ali did with boxing.

 

Borg is the reason that TV companies went gaga for tennis.

 

He still couldn't win them all or even 3 out of 4. He was a great tennis player and was very popular but he retired early and is still comfortably in the top 5. His early retirement means he can't be considered in the top 3. Federer and Nadal took it to another level and Djokovic stepped it up even further. My point is all 3 are comfortably top 5 and have had to play each other most of the time. That's why Ali is considered the greatest heavyweight. It was the era he was in and the level of opposition.  Of Djokovic 17 slams he has had to beat Murray, Federer or Nadal in 14 of them. The other 3 were Tsonga, Anderson and Delpotro and 2 out of 3 of them he has had to beat Federer and Nadal in the semis.

 

7 out 11 of Borg's slam final wins he's had to beat Orantes,Vilas twice, Pecci, Nastase, Tanner and Gerulatis or however you spell it. In the semis of those 7 the best name is Connors once.

 

It's not even close. The fact the big 3 has had to compete with each other cements them above everyone else and it's precisely why a visibly great tennis player such as Andy Murray only has 3 slams and a fucked hip.

 

ETA Vilas and Nastase were great players tbf but even so, the argument of top 3 isn't and argument imo.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/07/2019 at 10:56, AUFC90 said:

He still couldn't win them all or even 3 out of 4. He was a great tennis player and was very popular but he retired early and is still comfortably in the top 5. His early retirement means he can't be considered in the top 3. Federer and Nadal took it to another level and Djokovic stepped it up even further. My point is all 3 are comfortably top 5 and have had to play each other most of the time. That's why Ali is considered the greatest heavyweight. It was the era he was in and the level of opposition.

 

Of Djokovic 17 slams he has had to beat Murray, Federer or Nadal in 14 of them. The other 3 were Tsonga, Anderson and Delpotro and 2 out of 3 of them he has had to beat Federer and Nadal in the semis.

 

7 out 11 of Borg's slam final wins he's had to beat Orantes,Vilas twice, Pecci, Nastase, Tanner and Gerulatis or however you spell it. In the semis of those 7 the best name is Connors once.

 

It's not even close. The fact the big 4 has had to compete with each other cements them above everyone else and it's precisely why a visibly great tennis player such as Andy Murray only has 3 slams and a fucked hip.

 

ETA Vilas and Nastase were great players tbf but even so, the argument of top 3 isn't and argument imo.

Vilas was a tremendous player, robbed of World Number One status as some chump in the ATP couldn't work their own ranking system.  Nastatse too.  We can agree on that for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...