How did Borg do the channel double three times?

[fluffyyelloballz]

My question is:

If the surfaces were so much more different in the 70s and 80s, how was Borg able to win both the French and Wimbledon back to back with his baseline game?

Personally, having watched tennis from 88 onwards, I do believe surfaces have been slowed down in general but I am interested to hear opinions about Borg's game and how he was able to defy the surface difference back then while players such as Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Mc Enroe, Connors, all legends, all failed.

[Wooly]

maybe the courts were "more" different, but the Game itself was much slower then today ... watch games of that time on Youtube, its like there playing in slow motion.

Also even today players can win both ... so it still possible ...

[fluffyyelloballz]

Originally Posted by Wooly

maybe the courts were "more" different, but the Game itself was much slower then today ... watch games of that time on Youtube, its like there playing in slow motion.

Also even today players can win both ... so it still possible ...

Thanks. I guess the game was slower back then even if the courts were faster. I am going to watch some youtube clips now
Do you think Fed and Nadal were able to do it because now the game is faster but the courts slower? So, there is a balance. Maybe after Borg and pre Nadal the game got faster and Wimbledon was still fast while Roland Garros was still slow and so the double was harder to complete?

[gavna]

Well he was able to adjust his game at Wimby.......he worked to improve his serve in the mid 70s and it became a weapon after 1976.....he always had solid volleys (he did fairly well in doubles in his early career and in Davis Cup) and if you watch the old matches from 1976 on at Wimby Borg didn't just stay back but attacked the net when it counted.

Also the key at Wimby for Borg was getting thru the early rounds, he has some huge scares in 77, 78 and 79 in the first week of the Toury and much of it was due to the grass. The early week the courts were fast, slick and in great shape by the 2nd Monday it's looked like clay courts on the baseline and the balls began to bounce higher and slower.

As for Paris it's simple......BB was the greatest clay courter ever and RG was his baby. He could park himself at the baseline an no one could touch him (except Panatta who was the only guy to attack BB on clay and win). If Borg had stuck around he could have won 10 RG's in a row.

[kiki]

It is one of the most difficult feats to achieve.RG and W were far more different than now, so it is much easier now to do it than in Borg´s time.Nothing to see at all.

Bjorn explained in his book that some factors helped:

1/ He had an amazing footwork which allowed him to reach amd make great passings even off low and por bouncing balls
2/He got menthally prepared as nobody else.His superb concentration would not allow him to get angry or frustrated over low bouncing or non bouncing balls
3/He was not a natural volleyer.He just " put" the racket but, on that grass, his drop volleys wouldn´t come back.The other way round, at the hard courts of Flushing, those drop volleys would be easy to chase down by a Mc Enroe or a Connors, to name a few.

4/ His fantastic body would not get too tired or spent at all at Roland Garros, so he never reached the Wimbledon courts too tired or burnt out.

5/He had great help from amaya,Edmondosn,Teacher or Amritraj, the guys that almost beat him in the eralier rounds at Wimbledon.By that I mean he just had to concentrate on from the beggining and those guys helepd him peak at the end of the first week.usually, Borg played his best grass court tennis in the third, fourth round and quarterfinals.If you look at his stats, that is a fact.He overwhelmed anybody in round three, fourth and five, while he suffered in round 1 and 2.In the semis and final, of course, he was tunned up but so was his opponent and, depending on style of playing, he could be troubled or not.Mac Enroe,Tanner,Ashe,Gerulaitis, had the kind of game to trouble him and put him to the limit.Nastase,Connors,Vilas and Okker not.

[timnz]

What some people don't understand about Borg, when he is compared to Nadal so much, is that he was always good at fast surfaces. At 18 he was beating Laver at the WCT finals semi final round. From earliest times he was playing against guys indoors. He played (and got killed) by Pancho Gonzales when he was just 16! In other words he was unafraid of putting himself out there (not saying for a moment that Nadal is afraid - but I am emphasising that Borg was working on fast court skills from the beginning). At the same time he was this amazing athlete who could run at speed all day - which made him such a great on clay. Nadal is been somewhat lucky because fast court tennis is no longer present in the world - there is just medium and slow court tennis.

Hence, the main difference between Borg and Nadal is that Borg could play on fast surfaces. And because of that he was able to grab the channel double - he nearly did it 4 times a row (if he had taken that second set tie break against McEnroe in Wimbledon in 1981 he would have done it).

[urban]

In Scandinavia, the indoor game was at home, the Kings Cup was one of the oldest tennis competitions, always played indoors on fast carpet in Sweden or Denmark. So its not so surprising that Borg had to play indoors since his junior days. He also learned quick reflexes by playing bandy.
Indoor too has fast and slower courts. I thought that Dallas always had a quite slow indoor court, seing the long rallies in the matches between Laver, Rosewall or Borg. Also Vilas did win Dallas one year, and a grinder like Eddie Dibbs did pretty well at Dallas too. The Nadal poor indoor showing has imo two sides: Maybe he is lucky, that carpet is gone, maybe he would play better, if he had more experience und time to build up his game on fast indoor courts.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by urban

In Scandinavia, the indoor game was at home, the Kings Cup was one of the oldest tennis competitions, always played indoors on fast carpet in Sweden or Denmark. So its not so surprising that Borg had to play indoors since his junior days. He also learned quick reflexes by playing bandy.
Indoor too has fast and slower courts. I thought that Dallas always had a quite slow indoor court, seing the long rallies in the matches between Laver, Rosewall or Borg. Also Vilas did win Dallas one year, and a grinder like Eddie Dibbs did pretty well at Dallas too. The Nadal poor indoor showing has imo two sides: Maybe he is lucky, that carpet is gone, maybe he would play better, if he had more experience und time to build up his game on fast indoor courts.

To me these are telling statistics about Borg indoor:

1/ he had a superior head to head against Mcenroe on this surface and McEnroe probably was co. Number 1 with Lendl indoors for the decade of the 1980s

2/ his masters wins were against top indoor competition andcertainly madison square gardens was a quick surface.

[urban]

Agree, those MSG wins were extremely fine wins for Borg. I think, Philadelphia, Wembley, Stockholm were quite fast indoor courts. In those days, people laid down carpets like Laycold, Supreme Court, Plexi-Turf and other typs, which played differently, also the underground was decisive, how fast the courts played. In the 70s, a not fully matured Borg had some problems at Philly and also at Stockholm, although it was his home tournament.

[McEnroeisanartist]

By being one of the top 5 greatest players of the open era.

[Tennis Dunce]

just because the game was slower back then doesn't mean that other factors don't neutralize that dynamic. Borg wore cheap paper shoes and swung a 16 oz racquet with a 60sqin hoop. Imagine Borg wearing brand new Adidas Barricades! Dude probably coulda played barefoot.