Get his point that he doesn't think hitting a ball makes you a star but whether he likes it or not, Nadal is a star. And don't get me started on not having the success of Lendl.
Borg one can debate as Borg was the first real tennis superstar. But Nadal's definitely a bigger star than Lendl.
On the last sentence, I don't think he said Lendl was a bigger star than Nadal. He contended that Lendl had more success. He said success which is ambiguous and can be taken several ways.
Success in terms of tennis results:
– Rafael may be on par with Borg (equal majors, close weeks at #1)
– Compared to Lendl it's probably debatable. Lendl has more weeks at #1, more majors finals appearances, more YEC titles, more Masters (equivalent) titles, more titles overall. Whereas Nadal has three more majors. Personally, I believe Rafa has had more success but Toni may view it the other way.
Success in terms of fame and cash:
Borg at the time was a superstar. Lendl was a foil to McEnroe during the era of the cold war. Both of them were very well known. Due to technology, Nadal is probably better known on a global scale. In terms of cash, Nadal clearly has had more success.