PDA

View Full Version : To people who so fondly remember the Borg era


Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 05:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

I'm glad racquet technology so drastically improved. I've watched many matches from that era, but the clay court tennis was incredibly boring. How can anyone pine for those days? Borg-Lendl 81 was coma-inducing.

ChanceEncounter
06-25-2009, 05:13 PM
I agree here. It's a slew of interchangeable 50 shot rallies with players walking up to hit the ball. Whoever can lull the opponent to sleep first wins.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 05:16 PM
I agree here. It's a slew of interchangeable 50 shot rallies with players walking up to hit the ball. Whoever can lull the opponent to sleep first wins.

Grass court tennis was a different matter, since there was a bit more variety. I just can't imagine watching clay court tennis like that these days, though.

It's obviously not the players' fault. I'm more intrigued by why people so fondly remember that era.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 05:18 PM
Someone posted this before, but it's worth posting again. This is what I call great, entertaining tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_c9LfnDKBQ&feature=related

LttlElvis
06-25-2009, 05:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ

Ok, it's only one point, but this was exciting.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 05:43 PM
Someone posted this before, but it's worth posting again. This is what I call great, entertaining tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_c9LfnDKBQ&feature=related



Becker/Sampras are boring on any surface when serving like that.

Grass_for_cows
06-25-2009, 05:57 PM
I do not fondly remember the era as I was barely out of infancy but by the same token I do not get my self-esteem from disparaging a beautiful game played by two of the greatest tennis players ever to pick up the racket because Borg is not ripping winners with his wooden racket from the baseline on red clay.

I would say I have a healthy respect for an era I know only from occasional reruns and from reading about the personalities, and what I despise are smug, short-sighted people who appreciate nothing outside of their immediate surroundings and deprecate the past just because it's not the present.

Lendl rules by the way.

nfor304
06-25-2009, 06:35 PM
how bout this borg video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY

tacou
06-25-2009, 06:36 PM
I do not fondly remember the era as I was barely out of infancy but by the same token I do not get my self-esteem from disparaging a beautiful game played by two of the greatest tennis players ever to pick up the racket because Borg is not ripping winners with his wooden racket from the baseline on red clay.

I would say I have a healthy respect for an era I know only from occasional reruns and from reading about the personalities, and what I despise are smug, short-sighted people who appreciate nothing outside of their immediate surroundings and deprecate the past just because it's not the present.

Lendl rules by the way.

completely uncalled for. OP is asking what exactly people find attractive about such a slow game. I respect Borg to the moon but I still find modern clay tennis much more entertaining.

AndrewD
06-25-2009, 06:38 PM
I'm glad racquet technology so drastically improved.

Why? The players have become utterly one-dimensional and the games are just feeble-minded and tedious baseline exchanges.

If Sampras and Becker had grown up in the wood era they might have developed the mental strength necessary to win the French Open. Instead, they grew up with equipment which, normally, allowed them 2 or 3 free points in every game. Once those free points were taken away, due to the pace of clay, they didn't have the mental strength, discipline or artistry to compensate.

Same thing, to a degree, today. When the players are thrown anything which deviates from the norm they don't know how to compensate. They're so used to sameness that they have no idea how to function when there's any fluctuation. Even the alleged greatest, Federer and Nadal, have no concept of a 'Plan B'.

Winners or Errors
06-25-2009, 07:12 PM
Why? The players have become utterly one-dimensional and the games are just feeble-minded and tedious baseline exchanges.

If Sampras and Becker had grown up in the wood era they might have developed the mental strength necessary to win the French Open. Instead, they grew up with equipment which, normally, allowed them 2 or 3 free points in every game. Once those free points were taken away, due to the pace of clay, they didn't have the mental strength, discipline or artistry to compensate.

Same thing, to a degree, today. When the players are thrown anything which deviates from the norm they don't know how to compensate. They're so used to sameness that they have no idea how to function when there's any fluctuation. Even the alleged greatest, Federer and Nadal, have no concept of a 'Plan B'.

Agreed on Sampras and Becker. No free points = no performance for either.

Plan B: this is what makes Murray so interesting. He varies his style by opponent. I hope he develops into a super-star and forces others to do the same. It'd be pretty interesting to not know what two players are going to do when they face each other, to have someone come in with a gameplan to neutralize Murray's plan to neutralize their game, for example.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 07:38 PM
completely uncalled for. OP is asking what exactly people find attractive about such a slow game. I respect Borg to the moon but I still find modern clay tennis much more entertaining.



Borg was an extremely cerebral player. If you seriously think all Borg is doing is putting the ball back into play on clay, you are sorely mistaken.

EtePras
06-25-2009, 07:56 PM
This is what passed for tennis in the old days? What a joke, those guys would not beat D2 players of today.

bolo
06-25-2009, 08:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

I'm glad racquet technology so drastically improved. I've watched many matches from that era, but the clay court tennis was incredibly boring. How can anyone pine for those days? Borg-Lendl 81 was coma-inducing.

what's funny is that while that clip is wildy boring, the laver/rosewall RG clips from 1969 RG are very entertaining.

tudwell
06-25-2009, 08:43 PM
This video gets thrown around a lot, and usually the ones doing the throwing don't bring up any of the context surrounding the video.

These two guys, Borg and Lendl, are deep in the fifth set of the French Open final. Lendl is about to fall over, as you can see, barely moving his feet in between shots, so all Borg does is get the ball back - that's all he has to do. Lendl could be very aggressive when he wanted to be, especially on hard courts, but he was just too darn tired in this video to do much of anything.

Lion King
06-25-2009, 09:00 PM
how bout this borg video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY

Borg's speed is amazing! As well as his precision.

Lion King
06-25-2009, 09:03 PM
Agreed on Sampras and Becker. No free points = no performance for either.

Plan B: this is what makes Murray so interesting. He varies his style by opponent. I hope he develops into a super-star and forces others to do the same. It'd be pretty interesting to not know what two players are going to do when they face each other, to have someone come in with a gameplan to neutralize Murray's plan to neutralize their game, for example.

Completely agree about Murray. He's not my favorite player, but his game is extremely intelligent and relies on making his opponent uncomfortable. In other words, he doesn't just play tennis, he plays a specific opponent. His match with Gulbis showed that very well.

AndrewD
06-25-2009, 09:57 PM
Plan B: this is what makes Murray so interesting. He varies his style by opponent. I hope he develops into a super-star and forces others to do the same. It'd be pretty interesting to not know what two players are going to do when they face each other, to have someone come in with a gameplan to neutralize Murray's plan to neutralize their game, for example.

At the moment I think Murray plays most like Miloslav Mecir but I think he needs to throw in a bit more Mats Wilander. Mecir had the sheer talent to beat you with his own game. It just happens that his game was full of chips, spins, off-pace shots and touch - things other players hated. However, it wasn't premeditated. On the contrary, it was more inspirational than calculated. Wilander, on the other hand, could beat you with his own game but realised that, against the very best, he needed to throw in some variety and be more attacking. Murray, I think, needs to do the same.

35ft6
06-25-2009, 10:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

I'm glad racquet technology so drastically improved. I've watched many matches from that era, but the clay court tennis was incredibly boring. How can anyone pine for those days? Borg-Lendl 81 was coma-inducing.Prepare to get flamed. You're not allowed to post videos of what the game was like in the past, we're supposed to ignore that stuff and rely exclusively on more objective evidence like first hand accounts of the 4.0 players who post here. Borg could outrace a cheetah on rocket roller skates while eating a burrito and his heart beat only 2 times a week.

Clydey2times
06-26-2009, 12:00 AM
I do not fondly remember the era as I was barely out of infancy but by the same token I do not get my self-esteem from disparaging a beautiful game played by two of the greatest tennis players ever to pick up the racket because Borg is not ripping winners with his wooden racket from the baseline on red clay.

I would say I have a healthy respect for an era I know only from occasional reruns and from reading about the personalities, and what I despise are smug, short-sighted people who appreciate nothing outside of their immediate surroundings and deprecate the past just because it's not the present.

Lendl rules by the way.

I wasn't disparaging the players. Learn to read before you start foaming at the mouth and go on a rant.

I simply said that it was boring. That's not Borg or Lendl's fault, though.

Clydey2times
06-26-2009, 12:05 AM
Why? The players have become utterly one-dimensional and the games are just feeble-minded and tedious baseline exchanges.

If Sampras and Becker had grown up in the wood era they might have developed the mental strength necessary to win the French Open. Instead, they grew up with equipment which, normally, allowed them 2 or 3 free points in every game. Once those free points were taken away, due to the pace of clay, they didn't have the mental strength, discipline or artistry to compensate.

Same thing, to a degree, today. When the players are thrown anything which deviates from the norm they don't know how to compensate. They're so used to sameness that they have no idea how to function when there's any fluctuation. Even the alleged greatest, Federer and Nadal, have no concept of a 'Plan B'.

I am talking purely about entertainment value, not ability.

I find it pretty astounding that you could watch that video and then say about the modern game, "...the games are just feeble-minded and tedious baseline exchanges." If today's tennis is monotonous, what on earth do you call that?

Clydey2times
06-26-2009, 12:07 AM
Prepare to get flamed. You're not allowed to post videos of what the game was like in the past, we're supposed to ignore that stuff and rely exclusively on more objective evidence like first hand accounts of the 4.0 players who post here. Borg could outrace a cheetah on rocket roller skates while eating a burrito and his heart beat only 2 times a week.

Post of the week. :lol:

Cesc Fabregas
06-26-2009, 12:07 AM
Someone posted this before, but it's worth posting again. This is what I call great, entertaining tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_c9LfnDKBQ&feature=related

Great match is that.

Blinkism
06-26-2009, 12:12 AM
First match I ever saw (or can remember seeing). Much more entertaining than Borg-Lendl 81 FO.

Agassi def. Sampras Canadian Masters Final 1995 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dT9S1fnajY&feature=related)

Great stuff, does this remind anyone else of Federer vs. Nadal?

tahiti
06-26-2009, 12:48 AM
Not so...it was always exciting to see if Lendl could beat Borg.....two fine great players in their day and entertaining exciting matches.....where the outcome was never certain.

MordredSJT
06-26-2009, 12:51 AM
If Sampras and Becker had grown up in the wood era they might have developed the mental strength necessary to win the French Open.

Not to point out the obvious here...but Becker and Sampras DID "grow up" in the wood era!!!! They learned to play with wood racquets when they were kids.

Gorecki
06-26-2009, 12:58 AM
the splendor of Clidey on the grass...