Good points. I agree with you that we can't make ssumptions that if Borg continued to play he would still have dominated Connors just because he WAS dominating him before. But, hear me out, here's my logical on it. It seems like everyone here on the forum would say Borg is a superior Wilander, right? Now look at Wilander's head to head with Connors. He never lost to him. So, logically we could make a pretty good assumption that Borg would still dominate Connors if he continued to play and wasn't Burnt out. If you don't agree then you would have to admit that Wilander would beat Borg cause he was beating Connors. Almost no one believes this notion. I know different match ups may favour different players but Wilander's style is very similars to Borg's minus Borg's ground stroke power and serve so you can draw you own conclusions. I can use the same example above to logically deduce that Borg would still have done well against Mac if he continued to play.