PDA

View Full Version : why borg 6FO acheivements are not mentioned as often as his 5 conseutive WImbledon


makhan10
05-08-2009, 09:31 PM
winning the same Grand Slam 6 times is not an easy task, an acheivement matched only by Sampras (7 Wimbledon) during open era.

helloworld
05-08-2009, 09:35 PM
Because winning Wimbledon 5 times is more impressive. Heck, winning Wimbledon once can make somebody a legend, eg. Ivanisevic, Stich, Cash, Krajicek, etc.

wow246
05-08-2009, 10:15 PM
Because WIMBLEDON is WAAAY OVER-RATED. In terms of quality of matches you would definitely have to put the AO/UO ahead of wimbledon.

There is only had full of wimbledon matches that ppl remember. But being the oldest tournament it gets more hype.

And for borg's case becsue he had to adapt to grass right after clay which back when the grass courts WERE FAST was quite hard to do.

rafan
05-08-2009, 10:31 PM
Because WIMBLEDON is WAAAY OVER-RATED. In terms of quality of matches you would definitely have to put the AO/UO ahead of wimbledon.

There is only had full of wimbledon matches that ppl remember. But being the oldest tournament it gets more hype.

And for borg's case becsue he had to adapt to grass right after clay which back when the grass courts WERE FAST was quite hard to do.

This is not true. Wimbledon in the past with its weather and unpredicatble surface ( I mean the times we have hot summers) has been by far the hardest tournament to win. If you have ever been there you will know it is also the most impressive and can be extremely intimindating for any newcomer . People will refer to and remember a good Wimbledon final long after it is over. Nadal has now won on all surfaces but look at his reaction to winning Wimbledon - he went over the top. I thought in contrast winning in Australia was very tame

wow246
05-08-2009, 11:27 PM
Only reason it was tame was because nadal knew he had AO in the bag after fed collapsed in final set. So the feeling already sunk in.

Where as at wimbledon 08 he had to fight till the very last point. Remember federer saved number of match points so i guess feelings all the more sweeter when your not sure if your goign to win or not!!!!

BorisBeckerFan
05-08-2009, 11:39 PM
Prestige wise nothing compares to Wimbledon. Unless something unforeseen happens, nothing ever will. Overrated or not that's just how it is. It would take a lot to change that perception among the players and fans.

BreakPoint
05-09-2009, 12:00 AM
Because winning 5 straight Wimbledons is much, much harder and much more impressive and much more recognized the world over than just winning a bunch of French Opens. :shock:

Just ask Federer and Nadal. ;) LOL

Bloodshed
05-09-2009, 01:59 AM
Because Borg won 5 Wimbledon in a row while he won 6 FO on different occassions (4 in row and then 2 in a row)

That's why if Nadal wins RG this year, he will write history for not the amount of RG but for winning 5 in a row.

rafan
05-09-2009, 02:05 AM
Only reason it was tame was because nadal knew he had AO in the bag after fed collapsed in final set. So the feeling already sunk in.

Where as at wimbledon 08 he had to fight till the very last point. Remember federer saved number of match points so i guess feelings all the more sweeter when your not sure if your goign to win or not!!!!

Yes and if it hadn't rained and Fed had time to rest would it have been in 3 straight sets to Nadal

sh@de
05-09-2009, 02:25 AM
Because Wimby >>> FO in most people's opinions. If you ask me as a tennis fan, I would probably say so too, but then, if I were given a choice, I WOULD NOT MIND winning either. Even if it were just once. I wouldn't care whichever slam it were. :p.

Winners or Errors
05-09-2009, 04:26 AM
Because, for some reason, a tournament played on a surface that almost no tournaments are played on anymore garners more nostalgia.

Seriously, I put the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open on the same level. The Australian, well, even with the shift to January to get all the top players there, it still feels like a second tier major... I don't know why.

wow246
05-09-2009, 04:53 AM
Because, for some reason, a tournament played on a surface that almost no tournaments are played on anymore garners more nostalgia.

Seriously, I put the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open on the same level. The Australian, well, even with the shift to January to get all the top players there, it still feels like a second tier major... I don't know why.

I don't know about second tier. I personally believe majority of the funnest matches to watch over the last decade HAVE BEEN PLAYED AT AO!!!

For eg if u grab a non tennis fan make him watch fed vs nadal wimbledon 08 or nadal vs verdasco 09 and ask him which one was more exciting 100% guarantee the would say nadal/verdasco. Obviously tennis fans know what was at steak at wimbledon 08 and that is why it is regarded and probably the greatest match, but to the casual observer or people you are trying to suck into tennis the AO matches would be the one's to show. Also playing in 40degreed heat AO is probably the most physically demanding tournament too!!!

080825
05-09-2009, 06:33 AM
Because nobody has come close to break it, untill Rafa has a chance this year. Borg's Wimbledon record was challenged by Pete (4+3) and Roger (5). So Wimbledon got more hype.
winning the same Grand Slam 6 times is not an easy task, an acheivement matched only by Sampras (7 Wimbledon) during open era.

Pirao
05-09-2009, 06:42 AM
Because nobody has come close to break it, untill Rafa has a chance this year. Borg's Wimbledon record was challenged by Pete (4+3) and Roger (5). So Wimbledon got more hype.

Good point. Records get more on the spotlight when people get close to breaking them.

Andres
05-09-2009, 08:24 AM
Because it's bloody Wimbledon.

And that's all we need to say :)

seffina
05-09-2009, 08:29 AM
Because it's bloody Wimbledon.

And that's all we need to say :)

Basically!

veroniquem
05-09-2009, 08:45 AM
Why do you think that? I've heard about his 6 RG titles many many times. IMO they are mentioned quite a lot.

Arafel
05-09-2009, 08:50 AM
Well, for one, it's because he won five in a row. For another, it's Wimbledon.

More importantly, it was the quality of the finals at Wimbledon and the opposition. Twice against Connors, one of which went to five glorious sets. Once against Nastase. Once against an absolutely on fire Tanner, who took Borg to five sets. Twice against McEnroe, both of which were awesome matches.

Who did he play in his French finals? Orantes, Vilas twice, Gerulaitis, Pecci and Lendl. Orantes and Lendl pushed it to five, though it never seemed in doubt against Lendl. Pecci won one set in a breaker, though the rest were rather pedestrian. Vilas got crushed both times, as did Gerulaitis.

The French finals didn't have the edge-of-your seat tension that his Wimbledon and US Open finals did.

THUNDERVOLLEY
05-09-2009, 09:54 AM
The French finals didn't have the edge-of-your seat tension that his Wimbledon and US Open finals did.

Agreed. I've seen over 30 years of FO finals and not once did the finals compare to even some great semis at Wimbledon and the US Open.

NLBwell
05-09-2009, 09:07 PM
I believe it is because Borg was originally seen as a clay-courter who would have no shot at Wimbledon (like Nadal). He changed his game - improved his serve, came to the net often, etc. and was able to win Wimbledon not using just his natural game (which eluded Lendl). While Nadal hasn't had to change his game, he has made significant improvents in his serve, volleying, and general aggresiveness to become a good enough grass-court player to win it.

egn
05-09-2009, 09:12 PM
simple ask 100 people who know little about tennis to name a tennis tournament..watch how many say wimbledon. It holds the prestige factor..even Nadal wanted to win wimbledon badly.