Border vs Waugh (as batsmen) is such a difficult case. I often wonder how many people truly realise the magnitude of Stephen Waugh's achievements.
Before 1993, Waugh was a batsman of no great class, being dropped at least twice, and relying in his bowling to keep him in the side for much of the time he did play. His only achievement of note before Australia visited New Zealand in early 1993 was in England in 1989 - exclude this and he averaged just 26 with the bat, over the course of nearly 50 Tests.
However, for the next 8 years he stood alongside anyone, including even Sachin Tendulkar - though Tendulkar was obviously a better player, as he had come in at an age 4 years younger than Waugh and taken only a few months to come to terms, whereas Waugh took 8 years.
Something that's always interested me is how would Waugh be perceived if he'd been picked for the first time much later in his career - in 1991, say, and had a much briefer poor period.
Because between 1993 and English summer 2001, Waugh averaged 61.06, equable to Tendulkar at the same time. And he played 90 Tests, conquering all-comers. And being easily the best batsman as Australia ascended from the team who was fairly obviously the best in The World to one at absolutely indisputable hedgemony.
He then went on for another 2-and-a-half years, batting reasonably but nowhere near the level he had previously been at.
Border, on the other hand, was a truly remarkable species. He came into the side midway through the Packer Schism and was a rare case in that he stayed in the side after the reunion. Deduct performances in Packer games and it makes no difference at all to his career record (he didn't cash-in on equally depleted teams).
Post-Packer, Border just kept on and on scoring runs, he simply never failed. He played 100 more Tests before his average started to go down a little (but not much - he averaged 42 in his last 44 Tests). The most impressive thing about Border, of course, was how he was master batsman and captain of Australia at their lowest ebb - he was often the difference between defeat and humiliation. Kind of the Andy Flower of his day.
All in all, Border may not quite have matched Stephen Waugh's performances in their (very, very long in both cases) heydays, but there's little in it, and Border was unquestionably the more durable. If I had the choice of an exact repeat of the career of one, I'd have to go for Border.