Originally Posted by Sanya
Still comparison mainly must be based on figures. Because you can go too far from reality. Personally I think that Rios, for example, was underachiever because of bad luck, he had everything to win all the Majors apart from Wimbledon for a few times and be at least in TOP-30 here.
On this level of historical "competition" one-two points > one-two wins > one-two titles decide almost everything in grading, IMO. A lot of players are extremely close.
yes but there's a huge huge difference between being very near many times and "underachieving" : Rios only played one grand slam semifinal (he went to the final) and didn't lose to an all-time great, it was Korda !
Extending it to "he should have won multiple slams" is completely different from what I said about Borg, Becker and Connors who were very near many years in a row.
Rios and Nalbandian didn't have what was needed to win those, Borg, Becker and Connors very clearly had it for the ones who use their memories and brain and don't keep their eyes only on figures (and don't hate these players