Nitish , As I said I was doing everything off the top of my head. Now you say Borg Mcenroe has a three year difference . Fedal is only 5 years difference and barely because I think Nadal is now actually 28. So the difference is 4 years versus 3 ....am I right ? All i care about is slams and i refuse to treat all matches equally because they are not equal .... And in slams mcenroe leads 2-1 and not 8-2 ( more like 8-0 in my book ). Connors is older and I'm not sure how much older he was than the rest . I do know however that the older Connors beat the younger Borg on clay at the us open. Older Connors also beat younger Mcenroe at Wimbledon . In fact Older Borg beat younger Lendl on clay AND Lend was using a graphite racquet and Borg only a wood......what do you have to say to that one ? But never before has the te #1 player been soooooo dominated by the #2......not by this margin ......NEVER. So it's not the age as you can see. The best answer I think for this occurrence is because a guy like ferrero who was #1 in the world was just not strong enough competition. I'm sorry to say but it's obvious .....painfully obvious . This is why this anomaly exists for the first time on history .