Originally Posted by obsessedtennisfandisorder
If he had beaten connorsin81? doyou thinkhecouldhave won aslam?
was he just unlucky tobe era where borg/connors/mac hogging slams?
Hard to say that, if Mac,Borg or Connors werenīt there, Vijay would have, at least a GS title under his belt.I honestly think he could, and his best chance would have been the Australian Open, where not many top players ventured in the 70īs.He could beat Vilas,Gerulaitis or Tanner, who were AO champs in the 70īs, but none of them were much greater talents than Vijay, at his prime.
Amritraj was one of the best grass courters of the 70īs, having reached the QF at FH twice ( beating a great player like Rosewall) and also reaching the W QF twice ( he beat Borg in one of those W).
He grew up on grass, and developed the instincts and movements that are of an expert on that surface, such as we know it was on that time ( sliding, fast, not like today).In an era of specialists ( 70īs and 80īs ), he clearly was one of the best on grass.Borg and Connors had to play their best to beat him at a 5 setter at Wimbly; he was one of the 3 players to beat Mac during his magic 84 season ( the other 2 being all timers like Lendl and Wilander)
Vijayīs only real problem, and may be the reason he never fulfillded his promsies, was he came up a very rich indian family and was never hungry enough to sacrifice anything to the will of winning, as was the case with Borg and Connors, i.e.If he had had the same drive as Bjorn or Jimmy, we could now talk about an all time great.