PDA

View Full Version : Borg Overrated!


Mr Topspin
06-14-2007, 06:33 AM
I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon. I am taking nothing away from his French Open crowns but he clearly would not have won as many Wimbledon crowns if he had a a stronger field to contend with on grass. He first beat Nastatse, who as talented as he was had no mental strength. He later beat Connors, who pushed him to 5 sets and then went down in three. But Connors was not a typical grass court player who always struggled with Borg on non hardcourt surfaces. Then Borg had Tanner, who was the Roddick of the 70's and finally when a true grass court player arrived, called Mcrenroe, Borg was pushed to 5 sets and then lost the following year to Mcenroe signalling the end of his time.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?

bluegrasser
06-14-2007, 06:39 AM
You should of said: " Borg Overrated *?*-(a) = Not ! You're talking about a guy who won 11 slams and quit at 25, avoided the AO, won five straight Wim's, changing his game ( which was brilliant ) to get the crown. Please rethink what you just said - geesh !!

keithchircop
06-14-2007, 06:43 AM
I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon.

poor draws SO MANY TIMES? come on.

his opponents, all one dimensional baseliners in the years of S&V?

borg is the greatest when it comes to on-court mental stability.

FiveO
06-14-2007, 06:54 AM
Um, Nastase won the '72 US Open on grass and finished '73 at #1.

In 1974 Connors won the AO, Wimbledon and US Open, all on grass with draws jammed with grass court specialists and prior grass court major champions.

Tanner had nearly a .700 winning percentage at Wimbledon and in over 20 lifetime matches vs. Hall of Famers on grass was .500.

Methinks this is where the OP may invoke "The Clerici Defense".

Rabbit
06-14-2007, 07:19 AM
^LMAO

Let us not forget that Connors beat Borg on green clay, which is not a hardcourt in the finals of the Open.

Borg also beat a host of other guys who played attacking tennis, knew the transition game, and played more than 2 weeks on grass. In other words, the guys he played knew how to play on grass.

Tell me again about how red clay isn't real clay?


Sometimes, they come back...

CyBorg
06-14-2007, 07:46 AM
Troll post.

Moose Malloy
06-14-2007, 08:22 AM
Borg faced more true grasscourt players in winning Wimbledon any one of the years that he won it than Federer has in the last 4 years combined. Please don't tell me Hewitt & Roddick in any way resemble the average grasscourt player of the 70s, they come to net like once a year, Wimbledon is a hardcourt event today, no one has to worry about hitting 100 passing shots a match, or taking the net away from your opponent, or bad bounces, like Borg had to worry about when he played Wimbledon. If the grass was like it is today in Borg's day, he may have won 8 Wimbledons.

I know there are a lot of kids on this board who are very passionate about Federer & Nadal, since they are probably the only players they've ever seen, but stating blatantly incorrect information without doing any research in order to belittle past greats doesn't really do them any service.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns.

If Federer played in an era with those players, he wouldn't win 4 straight Wimbledons either. Not sure Sampras would win 4 straight either if he had to face Becker & Edberg back to back in the late 80s. You can only beat who's on the other side of the net.

andfor
06-14-2007, 08:28 AM
I seem to remember this bogus argument last year or so. Obvious troll.

Push? Is that you again?

Arafel
06-14-2007, 08:46 AM
Borg BEAT McEnroe in 5 sets in that first match. He lost a tiebreaker in the fourth set, having had 7 championship points in that set, something that might have devastated a lesser player. McEnroe is quoted in his book as saying that after that set, he KNEW he'd won the title, and then Borg just came out and served like crazy, winning his games at love, while McEnroe struggled to hold every time. And it was ultimately McEnroe, the great server, who was broken in the last no-tiebreak set.

I never particularly liked Borg, but to deny his greatness or call him overrated is ludicrous. Tanner was more than a Roddick; the same year he lost to Borg at Wimby he beat him in the US. Tanner also won the Australian and was a devastating grass court player.

One of the interesting facts of 78-80 actually is that Borg came into the US Open those three years chasing a Grand Slam and lost to the southpaws he beat in the Wimbledon finals (Connors in 78, Tanner in 79, and McEnroe in 80).

I think 77 might be Borg's most amazing accomplishment, because he was taken to the limit by Gerulitis in the semis, winning I think 9-7 in the fifth, and then needed 5 sets to beat an injured Connors in the finals (Connors had a broken thumb.) Still, back to back 5 setters by a baseliner against two tough attacking players to capture the title is outstanding.

I've also always felt that McEnroe's win in 81 over Borg owed a lot to the fact that Connors took Borg to 5 sets in the semis in a very tough match that tired Borg out. I also have felt that match was what rejuvenated Connors' career and led to his victories at Wimby and the US in 82.

CyBorg
06-14-2007, 08:54 AM
The 81 Wimbledon semi was a heartbreaking loss for Connors. Borg was playing with fire again - the 80 US Open semi being similar against Kriek, where Borg was down two sets and then steamrolled the guy 6-1 times three.

The Connors semi was again Borg coming out without requisite energy, having owned the guy for so long and underestimating his resolve. It was a great comeback though. Interestingly, Borg was ready for Connors in the later US Open, handing him a straight sets defeat.

Overall, it wasn't just that match that rejuvenated Connors. It was Borg's retirement (correction: semi-retirement).

Kirko
06-14-2007, 09:04 AM
Never! Borg is the "Gold Standard" when comes to playing on the slowest surface to the fastest surface.

stormholloway
06-14-2007, 09:17 AM
Ridiculous claim.

Federer has played Roddick in two of his Wimbledon finals. Maybe Federer is overrated too?

Jonnyf
06-14-2007, 09:36 AM
I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon. I am taking nothing away from his French Open crowns but he clearly would not have won as many Wimbledon crowns if he had a a stronger field to contend with on grass. He first beat Nastatse, who as talented as he was had no mental strength. He later beat Connors, who pushed him to 5 sets and then went down in three. But Connors was not a typical grass court player who always struggled with Borg on non hardcourt surfaces. Then Borg had Tanner, who was the Roddick of the 70's and finally when a true grass court player arrived, called Mcrenroe, Borg was pushed to 5 sets and then lost the following year to Mcenroe signalling the end of his time.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?


Doesn't that just prove his ability.? The match results early on when he had just come over from winning the French.?
Sure he'd be two sets to one down but he'd usually win the next two sets conceding like 2 or 3 games tops (ie. 6-1 6-1,6-2 6-0) That's just incrediable, to be able to seriously swing the momentum in his favour like that.

keithchircop
06-14-2007, 09:42 AM
he'd be two sets to one down but he'd usually win the next two sets conceding like 2 or 3 games tops (ie. 6-1 6-1,6-2 6-0) That's just incrediable, to be able to seriously swing the momentum in his favour like that.

borg was an iceman. you never saw him give up or get demoralized. he never let up the pressure on his opponents. best mental stability ever.

Moose Malloy
06-14-2007, 09:46 AM
Oh and one other thing about Connors(since some seem to think he must have been a joke on grass)

Guess who has won the most grasscourt titles in the open era? Connors.

He won 4 of his 8 slams on grass, maybe he knows a bit how to play on it?

Leaders in Grasscourt slams(open era)

Sampras 7
Borg 5
Newcombe 5
Federer 4
Connors 4
Edberg 4
Laver 4
McEnroe 3
Becker 3

War, Safin!
06-14-2007, 09:50 AM
I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon. I am taking nothing away from his French Open crowns but he clearly would not have won as many Wimbledon crowns if he had a a stronger field to contend with on grass. He first beat Nastatse, who as talented as he was had no mental strength. He later beat Connors, who pushed him to 5 sets and then went down in three. But Connors was not a typical grass court player who always struggled with Borg on non hardcourt surfaces. Then Borg had Tanner, who was the Roddick of the 70's and finally when a true grass court player arrived, called Mcrenroe, Borg was pushed to 5 sets and then lost the following year to Mcenroe signalling the end of his time.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?
Can't see why:

1974
Roland Garros bt: Orantes

1975
Roland Garros: bt Vilas (plus Panatta)
5 Masters titles (clay and hardcourt)

1976
Wimbledon: bt Nastase (plus Gottfried, Vilas and Tanner)
5 Masters titles

1977
Wimbledon: bt Connors (plus Edmondson, Nastase, Gerulaitis)
10 Masters titles (clay and hardcourt)

1978
Roland Garros: bt Vilas
Wimbledon: bt Connors
7 Masters titles (clay and hardcourt)

1979
Roland Garros: bt Pecci
Wimbledon: bt Tanner (plus Connors...again)
10 Masters titles (clay and hardcourt)

1980
Roland Garros: bt Gerulaitis
Wimbledon: bt McEnroe
6 Masters titles (clay and hardcourt)

1981
Roland Garros: bt Lendl

Plus, no-one got the better of him in multiple head-to-heads.
The only blemishes?
6 failures at the US Open: Semi-final, Final, Final, Quarter-final, Final, Final.

stormholloway
06-14-2007, 04:59 PM
Doesn't that just prove his ability.? The match results early on when he had just come over from winning the French.?
Sure he'd be two sets to one down but he'd usually win the next two sets conceding like 2 or 3 games tops (ie. 6-1 6-1,6-2 6-0) That's just incrediable, to be able to seriously swing the momentum in his favour like that.

Interesting scoreline. Apparently one of Borg's qualities was his ability to endure best of seven set matches.

Mr Topspin
06-15-2007, 06:15 AM
Um, Nastase won the '72 US Open on grass and finished '73 at #1.

In 1974 Connors won the AO, Wimbledon and US Open, all on grass with draws jammed with grass court specialists and prior grass court major champions.

Tanner had nearly a .700 winning percentage at Wimbledon and in over 20 lifetime matches vs. Hall of Famers on grass was .500.

Methinks this is where the OP may invoke "The Clerici Defense".

Like i said, Connors and Mcenroe aside who were great players in their own right cannot be compared to Tanner and even Nastase. Nastase despite all his precocious talent was well known for tanking matches and should have achieved a lot more. I said that Tanner was the Roddick of his day; I was wrong! I am actually insulting Roodick who has contested 4 Grand slam finals compared to Tanners 2 and Roddick has a US Open title in his kitty plus maybe one or two more slams in his locker. The truth be told, Borg was a fantastic player who had the ability to adapt to completely alien surfaces in a matter of weeks but he was fortunate to meet players that were not the finest proponents of the grass court game.

Mr Topspin
06-15-2007, 06:22 AM
Borg faced more true grasscourt players in winning Wimbledon any one of the years that he won it than Federer has in the last 4 years combined. Please don't tell me Hewitt & Roddick in any way resemble the average grasscourt player of the 70s, they come to net like once a year, Wimbledon is a hardcourt event today, no one has to worry about hitting 100 passing shots a match, or taking the net away from your opponent, or bad bounces, like Borg had to worry about when he played Wimbledon. If the grass was like it is today in Borg's day, he may have won 8 Wimbledons.

I know there are a lot of kids on this board who are very passionate about Federer & Nadal, since they are probably the only players they've ever seen, but stating blatantly incorrect information without doing any research in order to belittle past greats doesn't really do them any service.



If Federer played in an era with those players, he wouldn't win 4 straight Wimbledons either. Not sure Sampras would win 4 straight either if he had to face Becker & Edberg back to back in the late 80s. You can only beat who's on the other side of the net.


Who were the great grass court players of the Borg Era then? Please educate me? I could easily say Taylor Dent, Max Mirnyi, J Bojorkman and I Karlovic are grass court players in 2007 but are any of them great players that when analysed individually their records and successess can be compared i think not. The fact is Connors was Borg's main rival on grass untill Mcenroe showed up and Connors was not exactly a grass court specilaist. The other so called ' true grass court players were good but not great players.

bluegrasser
06-15-2007, 06:31 AM
Give it up ' Topspin ' Borg ate everybody for lunch, he's a hall of famer, in the top ten all time & this is coming from a Connors fan.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 08:45 AM
Who were the great grass court players of the Borg Era then? Please educate me? I could easily say Taylor Dent, Max Mirnyi, J Bojorkman and I Karlovic are grass court players in 2007 but are any of them great players that when analysed individually their records and successess can be compared i think not. The fact is Connors was Borg's main rival on grass untill Mcenroe showed up and Connors was not exactly a grass court specilaist. The other so called ' true grass court players were good but not great players.

I think the onus is on you to look at the draws and weed out a coprehensive argument as to why Borg's grass court opponents were not effective players on the surface in relation to other eras.

Otherwise, your basic shtick operates like this: "Borg is overrated on grass because his opponents stink compared to today's era. Prove me otherwise!"

Prove yourself.

Rick_Olson
06-15-2007, 09:49 AM
Any thoughts?No picturs in this hyar thread.



http://outhouserag.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/redneck_1.jpg

laurie
06-15-2007, 10:08 AM
I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon. I am taking nothing away from his French Open crowns but he clearly would not have won as many Wimbledon crowns if he had a a stronger field to contend with on grass. He first beat Nastatse, who as talented as he was had no mental strength. He later beat Connors, who pushed him to 5 sets and then went down in three. But Connors was not a typical grass court player who always struggled with Borg on non hardcourt surfaces. Then Borg had Tanner, who was the Roddick of the 70's and finally when a true grass court player arrived, called Mcrenroe, Borg was pushed to 5 sets and then lost the following year to Mcenroe signalling the end of his time.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?

Don't you just love how guys like Mr Topspin and Tennis Maestro come on here and attempt to belittle the achievements of great players, players who have dedicated their life to their profession to be the best they can be.

Does Mr Topspin and Tennis Maestro wish to satisfy their own egos? What is the purpose of this so called argument? Trying to prove that Bjorn Borg wasn't that good? That Tennis was only worth watching in the graphite era?

Would anyone here pay to watch "Mr Topspin" play a Tennis match? Thought so.

Pay some more respect to past players - even if they played before you started watching the game.

FiveO
06-15-2007, 10:23 AM
Like i said, Connors and Mcenroe aside who were great players in their own right cannot be compared to Tanner and even Nastase. Nastase despite all his precocious talent was well known for tanking matches and should have achieved a lot more. I said that Tanner was the Roddick of his day; I was wrong! I am actually insulting Roodick who has contested 4 Grand slam finals compared to Tanners 2 and Roddick has a US Open title in his kitty plus maybe one or two more slams in his locker. The truth be told, Borg was a fantastic player who had the ability to adapt to completely alien surfaces in a matter of weeks but he was fortunate to meet players that were not the finest proponents of the grass court game.

For the umpteenth time, go look at the draws, and look at who the guys advancing in majors during Borg's era had to beat to get there.

Going into 1976 these were the rankings:

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA)***
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)***
3 Borg, Björn (SWE)***
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA)***
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP)
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS)***
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROM)**
8 Alexander, John (AUS)
9 Tanner, Roscoe (USA)*
10 Laver, Rod (AUS)***
11 Okker, Tom (NED)
12 Roche, Tony (AUS)+
13 Ramirez, Raul (MEX)
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA)+
15 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)*
16 Fillol, Jaime (CHI)
17 Solomon, Harold (USA)
18 Dibbs, Eddie (USA)
19 Kodes, Jan (TCH)**
20 Newcombe, John (AUS)***
21 Smith, Stan (USA)***
22 Lutz, Bob (USA)
23 Gottfried, Brian (USA)
24 Riessen, Marty (USA)
25 Cox, Mark (GBR)

Red denotes accomplished S & V'er.

+ Slam winner-Both Roche and Panatta won the RG; Roche also reached one Wimbledon Final and two US Open Finals.

* denotes single grass court major winner

** denotes multi-major winner with one grass court major

*** denotes multi-grass court major winner

Other notables:

Raul Ramirez the leading prize money winner in 1976. Yes, over everyone. He and Brian Gottfried also formed one of the most formidable doubles pairings of the era. (From Total Tennis-by Bud Collins)

Brian Gottfried- In 1976 he reached 15 singles finals, winning 5, and was runner-up at the French Open. He won the men's doubles at the French Open in 1975 and 1977. In 1976 he won the men's doubles at Wimbledon. He finished his career ranked tied for 22nd in the 50 all-time open era singles titles leaders (16), and tied for 12th in the doubles leaders. His game was viewed as technically flawless, particularly his potent forehand volley, considered one of the best in the game. (From Wikipedia)

Two notables were missing from the '76 Wimbledon draw Laver and Rosewall, other than that, on quick inspection, all played.

The seeds:

1. Ashe
2. Connors
3. Nastase
4. Borg
5. Panatta
6. Vilas
7. Tanner
8. Ramirez
9. Okker
10. Newcombe
11.
12. Roche
13. Fillol Jr.
14. Gottfried
15.
16. Smith

Other more than capable serve and volleyers on grass or any fast court that were in the Wimbledon draw that year were Amritraj, Dent, Stockton, Metreveli, Case, Carmicheal, Warwick, Alexander, Pilic, Riessen, Lutz, Gorman, Gullickson, Stone, Edmondson, Ruffels, Meiler, Cox, Taylor, etc. (oh yeah, and Borg himself became effective at the style as well). Also in the draw just plain enormous servers Dibley, Amaya and Dupre (not that John Alexander wasn't).

If you have trouble identifying game styles someone here will be glad to help you out.

sandy mayer
06-18-2007, 12:26 AM
The 81 Wimbledon semi was a heartbreaking loss for Connors. Borg was playing with fire again - the 80 US Open semi being similar against Kriek, where Borg was down two sets and then steamrolled the guy 6-1 times three.

The Connors semi was again Borg coming out without requisite energy, having owned the guy for so long and underestimating his resolve. It was a great comeback though. Interestingly, Borg was ready for Connors in the later US Open, handing him a straight sets defeat.

Overall, it wasn't just that match that rejuvenated Connors. It was Borg's retirement (correction: semi-retirement).

I think this is unfair. Connors was beating Mac, who had become a stronger player than Borg, so nothing should be taken away from Connors. Borg andConnors played exhibitions in 82 which unusually were taken seriously. Connors won them all. I think if Borg had played Connors in competition from 82 onwards the rivalry was about to change.

fridrix
06-18-2007, 05:18 AM
borg was an iceman. you never saw him give up or get demoralized. he never let up the pressure on his opponents. best mental stability ever.

I would like some a that mental stability stuff. :-o

CyBorg
06-18-2007, 05:32 AM
I think this is unfair. Connors was beating Mac, who had become a stronger player than Borg, so nothing should be taken away from Connors. Borg andConnors played exhibitions in 82 which unusually were taken seriously. Connors won them all. I think if Borg had played Connors in competition from 82 onwards the rivalry was about to change.

Borg barely played in 82. In fact, he barely played in 81. Not playing is usually not a good way to maintain one's peak.

This doesn't mean that Connors is undeserving of his later grand slam titles. If anything, he was unlucky to have such tough competition in the years leading up to 82.

MacKenzie
06-18-2007, 01:04 PM
I totally disagree. Borg was great. Ask McEnroe. Ask Connors. And then watch the long finals he was in.

This little stonefaced, wood racquet player was awesome for h is time! :-D

stormholloway
06-18-2007, 01:36 PM
I think this is unfair. Connors was beating Mac, who had become a stronger player than Borg, so nothing should be taken away from Connors. Borg andConnors played exhibitions in 82 which unusually were taken seriously. Connors won them all. I think if Borg had played Connors in competition from 82 onwards the rivalry was about to change.

Are we really bringing up exhibitions again regarding this matchup?

Didn't Roddick beat Federer at Kooyong this year? And did you see what he did to him in Melbourne?

fgbowen33
06-18-2007, 02:04 PM
Yes the current thought is that there were no great s/v. But you have to give Borg his due, the reason he had so many 5 setters is the the s/vs could win set but Borg would figure out how to return the serve and win in the long run. It is very hard to come back from 2 sets down. I also submit if McEnroe had been right handed he would not have beaten Borg.

Zimbo
06-18-2007, 09:13 PM
I think this is unfair. Connors was beating Mac, who had become a stronger player than Borg, so nothing should be taken away from Connors. Borg andConnors played exhibitions in 82 which unusually were taken seriously. Connors won them all. I think if Borg had played Connors in competition from 82 onwards the rivalry was about to change.

Maybe, but I highly doubt it. Seems like everyone agrees that Borg was a better version of Wilander. Look at Wilander's h2h with Connors post '82. Wilander owned him. So, we could reason Borg would still own him.

fgbowen33
06-28-2007, 11:29 PM
By your very name you should know that Borg invented the heavy topspin w/ a nasty piece of wood that is why he why he won so much. that is why he won so much and I also the mind of steel trap

Rabbit
06-29-2007, 06:22 AM
For the umpteenth time, go look at the draws, and look at who the guys advancing in majors during Borg's era had to beat to get there.

Going into 1976 these were the rankings:

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA)***
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)***
3 Borg, Björn (SWE)***
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA)***
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP)
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS)***
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROM)**
8 Alexander, John (AUS)
9 Tanner, Roscoe (USA)*
10 Laver, Rod (AUS)***
11 Okker, Tom (NED)
12 Roche, Tony (AUS)+
13 Ramirez, Raul (MEX)
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA)+
15 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)*
16 Fillol, Jaime (CHI)
17 Solomon, Harold (USA)
18 Dibbs, Eddie (USA)
19 Kodes, Jan (TCH)**
20 Newcombe, John (AUS)***
21 Smith, Stan (USA)***
22 Lutz, Bob (USA)
23 Gottfried, Brian (USA)
24 Riessen, Marty (USA)
25 Cox, Mark (GBR)

Red denotes accomplished S & V'er.

+ Slam winner-Both Roche and Panatta won the RG; Roche also reached one Wimbledon Final and two US Open Finals.

* denotes single grass court major winner

** denotes multi-major winner with one grass court major

*** denotes multi-grass court major winner

Other notables:

Raul Ramirez the leading prize money winner in 1976. Yes, over everyone. He and Brian Gottfried also formed one of the most formidable doubles pairings of the era. (From Total Tennis-by Bud Collins)

Brian Gottfried- In 1976 he reached 15 singles finals, winning 5, and was runner-up at the French Open. He won the men's doubles at the French Open in 1975 and 1977. In 1976 he won the men's doubles at Wimbledon. He finished his career ranked tied for 22nd in the 50 all-time open era singles titles leaders (16), and tied for 12th in the doubles leaders. His game was viewed as technically flawless, particularly his potent forehand volley, considered one of the best in the game. (From Wikipedia)

Two notables were missing from the '76 Wimbledon draw Laver and Rosewall, other than that, on quick inspection, all played.

The seeds:

1. Ashe
2. Connors
3. Nastase
4. Borg
5. Panatta
6. Vilas
7. Tanner
8. Ramirez
9. Okker
10. Newcombe
11.
12. Roche
13. Fillol Jr.
14. Gottfried
15.
16. Smith

Other more than capable serve and volleyers on grass or any fast court that were in the Wimbledon draw that year were Amritraj, Dent, Stockton, Metreveli, Case, Carmicheal, Warwick, Alexander, Pilic, Riessen, Lutz, Gorman, Gullickson, Stone, Edmondson, Ruffels, Meiler, Cox, Taylor, etc. (oh yeah, and Borg himself became effective at the style as well). Also in the draw just plain enormous servers Dibley, Amaya and Dupre (not that John Alexander wasn't).

If you have trouble identifying game styles someone here will be glad to help you out.


Well, it had to happen sooner or later. FiveO, I take serious issue with this post. In 1973 at a tennis tournament in Fort Worth Texas at 4 all in the 3rd against Brian Gottfried, Eddie Dibbs served and volleyed.

It was a very accomplished effort. Eddie went on to win that match and the tournament. While Fast Eddie never serve and volleyed again, or before for that matter, the one time he did was very smooth and while he did not win that point, he did look like he was born to serve and volley. There really is no telling how far Mr. Dibbs would have gone had he continued the experiment.

FiveO
06-29-2007, 10:47 AM
Rabbit,

Thanks for the correction.:grin:

5

Rabbit
06-29-2007, 10:52 AM
Man, I hated to take you down like that, but the legend of Fast Eddie Dibbs was at steak. The 2nd in command of the Bagel Brothers. The guy who'd "Hold the Fort" against anybody.

You just can't stain the legend.

Borat72
07-16-2007, 09:25 AM
You should of said: " Borg Overrated *?*-(a) = Not ! You're talking about a guy who won 11 slams and quit at 25, avoided the AO, won five straight Wim's, changing his game ( which was brilliant ) to get the crown. Please rethink what you just said - geesh !!


Borg has by far the highest winning rate in slams, winning 11 of 27 tournaments he played. To win several FO/Wimbledons back-to-back is simply outstanding. He is right up there with Laver, Sampras and Federer.
One of the 4 best ever.

Mr Topspin
07-17-2007, 05:02 AM
For the umpteenth time, go look at the draws, and look at who the guys advancing in majors during Borg's era had to beat to get there.

Going into 1976 these were the rankings:

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA)***
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)***
3 Borg, Björn (SWE)***
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA)***
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP)
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS)***
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROM)**
8 Alexander, John (AUS)
9 Tanner, Roscoe (USA)*
10 Laver, Rod (AUS)***
11 Okker, Tom (NED)
12 Roche, Tony (AUS)+
13 Ramirez, Raul (MEX)
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA)+
15 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)*
16 Fillol, Jaime (CHI)
17 Solomon, Harold (USA)
18 Dibbs, Eddie (USA)
19 Kodes, Jan (TCH)**
20 Newcombe, John (AUS)***
21 Smith, Stan (USA)***
22 Lutz, Bob (USA)
23 Gottfried, Brian (USA)
24 Riessen, Marty (USA)
25 Cox, Mark (GBR)

Red denotes accomplished S & V'er.

+ Slam winner-Both Roche and Panatta won the RG; Roche also reached one Wimbledon Final and two US Open Finals.

* denotes single grass court major winner

** denotes multi-major winner with one grass court major

*** denotes multi-grass court major winner

Other notables:

Raul Ramirez the leading prize money winner in 1976. Yes, over everyone. He and Brian Gottfried also formed one of the most formidable doubles pairings of the era. (From Total Tennis-by Bud Collins)

Brian Gottfried- In 1976 he reached 15 singles finals, winning 5, and was runner-up at the French Open. He won the men's doubles at the French Open in 1975 and 1977. In 1976 he won the men's doubles at Wimbledon. He finished his career ranked tied for 22nd in the 50 all-time open era singles titles leaders (16), and tied for 12th in the doubles leaders. His game was viewed as technically flawless, particularly his potent forehand volley, considered one of the best in the game. (From Wikipedia)

Two notables were missing from the '76 Wimbledon draw Laver and Rosewall, other than that, on quick inspection, all played.

The seeds:

1. Ashe
2. Connors
3. Nastase
4. Borg
5. Panatta
6. Vilas
7. Tanner
8. Ramirez
9. Okker
10. Newcombe
11.
12. Roche
13. Fillol Jr.
14. Gottfried
15.
16. Smith

Other more than capable serve and volleyers on grass or any fast court that were in the Wimbledon draw that year were Amritraj, Dent, Stockton, Metreveli, Case, Carmicheal, Warwick, Alexander, Pilic, Riessen, Lutz, Gorman, Gullickson, Stone, Edmondson, Ruffels, Meiler, Cox, Taylor, etc. (oh yeah, and Borg himself became effective at the style as well). Also in the draw just plain enormous servers Dibley, Amaya and Dupre (not that John Alexander wasn't).

If you have trouble identifying game styles someone here will be glad to help you out.



I am well aware of the rankings in 1976. I don't know what this proves at all. Many of the guys in the top 20 were coming to end of their careers and were past their prime. Ken Rosewall, Laver were form the 60's era. I could compile a list of the 1990 ratings in which Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg were still active and reaching deep into slams. The fact remains that the players you are relying on to show this so called depth were either past their primes or just average players anyway. In 2027 some people might say Federer had it easy and there was no competition and someone might say there was a ton of good players like Nalbandian that hada great h2h over Fed and pushed him hard. Yes but what did Nalbandian achieve i would reply?

Mr Topspin
07-17-2007, 05:20 AM
Don't you just love how guys like Mr Topspin and Tennis Maestro come on here and attempt to belittle the achievements of great players, players who have dedicated their life to their profession to be the best they can be.

Does Mr Topspin and Tennis Maestro wish to satisfy their own egos? What is the purpose of this so called argument? Trying to prove that Bjorn Borg wasn't that good? That Tennis was only worth watching in the graphite era?

Would anyone here pay to watch "Mr Topspin" play a Tennis match? Thought so.

Pay some more respect to past players - even if they played before you started watching the game.



My ego does not need massaging! Thank you for asking! The thread is not about Mr Topspin's tennis acumen or lack therof but about my views, ideas and opinions on former tennis players. I put forward an argument and supported it with my hypothesis. If you agree, disagree or are indifferent then that is your choice.

Rabbit
07-17-2007, 05:32 AM
I am well aware of the rankings in 1976. I don't know what this proves at all. Many of the guys in the top 20 were coming to end of their careers and were past their prime. Ken Rosewall, Laver were form the 60's era. I could compile a list of the 1990 ratings in which Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg were still active and reaching deep into slams. The fact remains that the players you are relying on to show this so called depth were either past their primes or just average players anyway. In 2027 some people might say Federer had it easy and there was no competition and someone might say there was a ton of good players like Nalbandian that hada great h2h over Fed and pushed him hard. Yes but what did Nalbandian achieve i would reply?

And that's where you make your mistake. How do you know they were average? Was it because Borg was winning everything in sight (ala Federer)? Maybe, just maybe the reason they looked average was because Borg was so good. Those of us who watched Borg remember it that way. I don't ever remember watching tennis from the mid 70s on thinking "Gee, that guy couldn't win our club championship". You've got a big misconception on your hands. What evidence do you have that the players of Borg's time were "average"?

How do you get the "past their prime" knock as well? Rosewall was not only from the 60s, but the 50s as well. He won a Grand Slam in the 70s. Do you make the same knock against other pros who've had extremely long careers, namely Connors and Agassi? Laver continued to win until his mid to late 30s. Those of us that watched him play know it wasn't because of "average" players he was competing against, but because he was that good. The same applies to Borg.

avmoghe
07-17-2007, 09:33 AM
For the umpteenth time, go look at the draws, and look at who the guys advancing in majors during Borg's era had to beat to get there.

Going into 1976 these were the rankings:

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA)***
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)***
3 Borg, Björn (SWE)***
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA)***
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP)
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS)***
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROM)**
8 Alexander, John (AUS)
9 Tanner, Roscoe (USA)*
10 Laver, Rod (AUS)***
11 Okker, Tom (NED)
12 Roche, Tony (AUS)+
13 Ramirez, Raul (MEX)
14 Panatta, Adriano (ITA)+
15 Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA)*
16 Fillol, Jaime (CHI)
17 Solomon, Harold (USA)
18 Dibbs, Eddie (USA)
19 Kodes, Jan (TCH)**
20 Newcombe, John (AUS)***
21 Smith, Stan (USA)***
22 Lutz, Bob (USA)
23 Gottfried, Brian (USA)
24 Riessen, Marty (USA)
25 Cox, Mark (GBR)

Red denotes accomplished S & V'er.

+ Slam winner-Both Roche and Panatta won the RG; Roche also reached one Wimbledon Final and two US Open Finals.

* denotes single grass court major winner

** denotes multi-major winner with one grass court major

*** denotes multi-grass court major winner

Other notables:

Raul Ramirez the leading prize money winner in 1976. Yes, over everyone. He and Brian Gottfried also formed one of the most formidable doubles pairings of the era. (From Total Tennis-by Bud Collins)

Brian Gottfried- In 1976 he reached 15 singles finals, winning 5, and was runner-up at the French Open. He won the men's doubles at the French Open in 1975 and 1977. In 1976 he won the men's doubles at Wimbledon. He finished his career ranked tied for 22nd in the 50 all-time open era singles titles leaders (16), and tied for 12th in the doubles leaders. His game was viewed as technically flawless, particularly his potent forehand volley, considered one of the best in the game. (From Wikipedia)

Two notables were missing from the '76 Wimbledon draw Laver and Rosewall, other than that, on quick inspection, all played.

The seeds:

1. Ashe
2. Connors
3. Nastase
4. Borg
5. Panatta
6. Vilas
7. Tanner
8. Ramirez
9. Okker
10. Newcombe
11.
12. Roche
13. Fillol Jr.
14. Gottfried
15.
16. Smith

Other more than capable serve and volleyers on grass or any fast court that were in the Wimbledon draw that year were Amritraj, Dent, Stockton, Metreveli, Case, Carmicheal, Warwick, Alexander, Pilic, Riessen, Lutz, Gorman, Gullickson, Stone, Edmondson, Ruffels, Meiler, Cox, Taylor, etc. (oh yeah, and Borg himself became effective at the style as well). Also in the draw just plain enormous servers Dibley, Amaya and Dupre (not that John Alexander wasn't).

If you have trouble identifying game styles someone here will be glad to help you out.


Thank you for this wonderful post.

Is it just me or has does the top 10/25 from this period seem FAR more impressive than the chumps from the Sampras or Federer eras?

I make no claims about whether the competition was tougher... but the list certainly *looks* inspiring.....

FiveO
07-17-2007, 10:58 AM
Thank you for this wonderful post.

Is it just me or has does the top 10/25 from this period seem FAR more impressive than the chumps from the Sampras or Federer eras?

I make no claims about whether the competition was tougher... but the list certainly *looks* inspiring.....

Let's look:

1993 Wimbledon:

1. Sampras
2. Edberg
3. Courier
4. Becker
5. Ivanisevic
6. Stich
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. Krajicek
10. Medvedev
11. Korda
12. Chang
13. Ferreira
14. Washington
15. Novacek
16. Muster

The first 9 seeds had either won or would end up winning Wimbledon or be multi-major winners by the end of their careers.

7 did or would win Wimbledon.

By the end of their careers 14 of the 16 would have finaled in at least one major and 12 of the 16 would have won at least one.

There were only 6 identifiable accomplished serve and volleyers among the 16 seeds, 3 absolutely magnificent ones but, Rusedski and Rafter both Q'd in that year with Greg stretching Edberg to 4 sets and 3 tie breaks in 1R and Rafter reaching the 3R before bowing to Agassi.

All in all not too shabby.

1997 Wimbledon:

1. Sampras
2. Ivanisevic
3. Kafelnikov
4. Krajicek
5. Chang
6.
7. Philippossis
8. Becker
9. Rios
10. Moya
11. Kuerten
12. Rafter
13. Medvedev
14. Henman
15. Ferreira
16. Korda
17. (replaced the #6) Bjorkman

10 major winners, 5 multiple major winners plus 2 more major finalists. 1/2 of the 16 were accomplished serve and volleyers, 3 more not seeded, a major winner and two other major finalists, Stich, Rusedski and Pioline, all reached the QF that year.

4 had or would win Wimbledon + Stich.

Keep in mind too that this was the last year they seeded only 16 and wouldn't go to 32 seeds until 2001, making guys like Stich and Rusedski dangerous floaters. In fact Rusedski took out Flipper in the 1R that year.

FiveO
07-17-2007, 11:43 AM
2003 Wimbledon:

1. Hewitt
2. Agassi
3. Ferrero
4. Federer
5. Roddick
6. Nalbandian
7. Rios
8. Schalken
9. Schuettler
10. Henman
11. Novak
12. Srichaphan
13. Grosjean
14. Malisse
15. Clement
16. Youzhny
17. Kuerten
18.
19. Gonzalez
20. Kafelnikov
21. Verkerk
22. Mantilla
23. Calleri
24.
25. Robredo
26. Blake
27. El Aynaoui
28. Ferreira
29. Gaudio
30. Nieminen
31. Spadea
32. Chela
33. Davydenko
34.
35. Stepanek

Of the 32 seeds there were 5 multi major winners, 2 other single major winners and 4 other finalists. Flipper was unseeded and reached his only major final. There a 3 prior or future Wimbledon winners in the draw. 2 accomplished serve and volleyers.

FiveO
07-17-2007, 12:03 PM
2007 Wimbledon:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Roddick
4. Djokovich
5. Gonzalez
6. Davydenko
7. Berdych
8.
9. Blake
10. Baghdatis
11. Robredo
12. Gasquet
13. Haas
14. Youzhny
15. Ljubicic
16. Hewitt
17. Ferrer
18. Nieminen
19. Bjorkman
20. Ferrero
21. Tursanov
22. Canas
23. Nalbandian
24. Chela
25. Moya
26. Safin
27. Kohlschreiber
28. Soderling
29. Calleri
30. Volandri
31. Hrbaty
32. Monaco

6 major winners, 4 multiple major winners, 3 other major finalists. 2 Wimbledon winners. 2 accomplished serve and volleyers.

Federer and Nadal have skewed the numbers a bit and it is very early in some other young guns careers.

stormholloway
07-17-2007, 01:38 PM
Saying that the lists are filled with Wimbledon winners could simply be a testament to the lack of dominance in the game, rather than a talented field. Borg simply didn't allow anyone else to win it. It's a testament to him, not a detriment.

FiveO
07-17-2007, 03:11 PM
Saying that the lists are filled with Wimbledon winners could simply be a testament to the lack of dominance in the game, rather than a talented field. Borg simply didn't allow anyone else to win it. It's a testament to him, not a detriment.

I believe Borg's '76 draw, at the very least, holds its own with the other eras mentioned:

Of the 14 seeds-
10 were major winners, 2 others were major runner-ups
8 won majors on grass
7 were multiple major winners
6 were multiple grass court major winners
5 won Wimbledon and all five won multiple grass court majors

not bad at all!

JohnnyF
07-17-2007, 03:51 PM
Last time I looked Connors was a great grass court player. Taking the ball on the rise with flat compact strokes, coupled with an awesome return serve. He was a two time Champion who appeared in six Wimbledon finals. (including a 5 set win over McEnroe in 1982.)
So to allege that Borg's 5 in a row is diminished in any way by his competition is ridiculous.
True, on paper his game is not suited for grass, but in my mind that shows you how great he really was. Borg is top 5 all time, easy. Also even more impressive since in those days the ball hardly bounced at all on grass. (unlike today)

old_school_tennis
07-17-2007, 08:29 PM
I think most people's views of Borg are right as they should be--that he is an icon and among the game's all-time elite.

gonzo2000
07-17-2007, 10:44 PM
I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon. I am taking nothing away from his French Open crowns but he clearly would not have won as many Wimbledon crowns if he had a a stronger field to contend with on grass. He first beat Nastatse, who as talented as he was had no mental strength. He later beat Connors, who pushed him to 5 sets and then went down in three. But Connors was not a typical grass court player who always struggled with Borg on non hardcourt surfaces. Then Borg had Tanner, who was the Roddick of the 70's and finally when a true grass court player arrived, called Mcrenroe, Borg was pushed to 5 sets and then lost the following year to Mcenroe signalling the end of his time.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?

Say What ????

BTURNER
07-29-2007, 05:21 PM
It is simply not possible to overrate Borg. You can't drag up anyone who can follow up on a RG win with a wimbledon. How about finding someone who did it twice, or thrice. There were plenty of fine dirtballers and plenty of fine S&V in these events. No, Borg didn't just have 11 lucky tournaments.

migjam
07-29-2007, 05:24 PM
If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?

My thoughts. Thats a ridiculous statement. You can't even compare players from that era to a more modern era. What if.. What if... its stupid.