Björn Borg great at AKAI nov 1982

[WCT]

Originally Posted by pc1

WCT,

I don't think Connors was unbeatable in New York. But as a person who view Connors numerous times in New York, at Forest Hills and Flushing Meadow at the US Open I understand the tough tasks that await his opponents when they play him. In Flushing especially Connors was very well loved by the New York crowd. I was near courtside for the 1983 US Open Final and I could see Lendl very closely. You could see he was disturbed by the noisy crowd which was against him. It's very tough to play against that and the very strong play of Jimmy Connors.

I understand that, I've seen him play there as well. I'm not claiming it doesn't exist, I just think it's overblown sometimes. That you get Connors and another player in that almost gladiator like atmosphere, raucous crowd going crazy for Connors, and he's going to come out on top. Sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't. For every Lendl you've got an Agassi or a Mcenroe or an 81 Borg. This didn't start until 79 or 80. The 74, 76 and 78 crowds were not heavily pro Connors.

Noone here has to tell me about Jimmy Connors. He was my favorite player for a lot of years. I just think the atmosphere's effect on the other player might sometimes be a bit overblown. A few months back it was speculating Connors against Federer. Let Federer deal with Connors at the open and let's see how he would do in that enviroment etc. etc. aybe he wouldn't have won, but maybe he would have. All I'm saying is a bunch of players faced it and won. That doesn't mean I'm saying there is nothing to it. That was not an easy place to play Connors. I'm guessing that if someone like Borg had his choice that he would choose Wimbledon instead.

The 1980 Wimbledon final to me was exciting but it had too many errors and frankly the first set was horribly played by Borg. The first set was very one sided in favor of McEnroe at 6-1 I believe. The second set wasn't any great shakes either in my mind. It's the tiebreak and the close final set that people remember.

Next time it's on I'll watch it. First set was all Mac, though. No doubt about that.

[quote]
Borg was injured when he played the 1980 Wimbledon final. According to Bill Scanlon Borg had a torn stomach muscle. I am not certain if the stomach muscle was torn but Borg clearly wasn't at top level.
[/quote}

Did he? I'm blanking on that. Surprised I have no recollection of it. Obviously, different people sometimes view the matches differently.
Like the 82 Wimbledon final. Ashe thought neither of them played particularly well.

The 1977 Wimbledon match against Gerulaitis to me was high quality for five sets.

We agree on that.

Mcenroe and the 84 French. He was crushing clay court specialists on clay that year. WCT in New York. The World Team Cup. All the way up to 2 sets up in the French final. I'm not sure what happened, perhaps fatigue, and I give Lendl credit for sticking in there. But I think if they had [played again a week later that Mcenroe would have won. They won 5 more times, I think he would have won 3 or 4 of them. I'm not talking any year, I'm talking THAT YEAR.

As a Connors fan, that was as hopeless as I ever was. Specifically after that Wimbledon final. He was so completely and throughly dominated, and I've seen him play a lot worse than he played that match. It was like Mcenroe toyed with him. When I think of the pinnacle of mens tennis that I saw back then, I think of Mcenroe in that match.

All that said, Mcenroe was not a great clay court player in totality. It used to irk me to read how he drove Borg out of the game because Borg knew he couldn't beat him anymore. You don't own somebody until you beat them on their surface. It wasn't Borg's fault that neither Mcenroe or Connors played him in the French finals. he did his part, he got there every year. I do think it would have been intersting to see the 84 Mcenroe play Borg at the French.
He might have given him quite a tussle.

[borg number one]

Good posts WCT. Connors at the US Open was something special, although I will say this, the crowds were pretty fair to Borg in New York. They loved him there too. He had a lot of American fans, so yes, Connors may have had a slight "crowd edge", but not by much really, in my opinion.

The US Open atmosphere is different, no doubt, and I do think that overall you are right in that he preferred Wimbledon the most. He always emphasized winning at Wimbledon as most important to him. Yet, Borg was no stranger to loud crowds either, given all the situations he had faced over the years. Connors loved the US Open though. That was where he liked to dig in and take on all comers.

I also agree with you about McEnroe. A 1984 final at the FO against Borg would have been special. Borg would have most likely been playing with a graphite frame too. Given that, I would still go with Borg in that scenario. You are right though, Borg was always there at the FO. Laver made that point in 1981, when he pointed out that basically, McEnroe had the recent edge over Borg on hard courts, but he mentioned that they were basically even on grass courts, and that Borg was clearly still the best clay courter in the world. Furthermore, Borg had won the Masters indoors in Jan. 81, beating McEnroe and Lendl in the process (he was 5-0 in Jan. 80 & Jan. 81 against Lendl, McEnroe and Connors), so he was arguably the best indoor player in 1981 as well.

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Originally Posted by urban

There was another theory on Borg's loss in those days: That his close friend, the F1 race-driver Ronnie Peterson had died in an accident the day before at Monza, and that Borg was shocked about this loss.

Originally Posted by borg number one

Interesting Urban, that adds some more context to that '78 final. Thanks for your insight into that. It says on a Ronnie Peterson website (he was a Swedish F1 driver, neighbor of Borg's in Monte Carlo) that Peterson died on Sept. 11, so that would have been right near the end of the tournament. That's tough to deal with for any player, but I suppose you have to try and block something like that out, which would not be easy. Then, you have the thumb problem. Of course, Bjorn Borg, being the player he was, did not make a big deal about either of these things after the final. He gave Connors all the credit and basically said well, Connors played too well.
...
http://www.ronniepeterson.se/subc/eng/orframe.html

Hello both gentlemen

I had previously a problem about the dates and couldn’t understand why Borg could be shocked by Peterson’s death before his final match ? Peterson died on Monday, Sept. 11, 1978 as suggested by http://www.ronniepeterson.se/subc/eng/orframe.html while Connors and Borg had already played their final on Sunday, Sept. 10 the day before.
But now I have the answer : Borg had probably been warned of Ronnie Peterson’s accident at the start of the race which occurred on Sept. 10.
So Peterson died the next day : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Peterson.

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Originally Posted by abmk

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni ColussiPerhaps I’m too harsh but I don’t think.Federer began his domination in 2004 (in fact since the Masters 2003) and as soon as he became the clear #1 (remember that in 2004 Federer made the Little Slam and lost only 6 matches) he was beaten by a very young Nadal in the Miami tourney on hard, a surface that favoured Fed (and not on clay). In 2005 in that same tournament Fed admitted that he had been overwhelmed by Nadal’s game in the first part of the match : Nadal was two points from a straight sets victory (though he lost in the end). And in early 2006 though Nadal had been away for 4 months because of injury, in his second tournament of the year Nadal once again beat Federer on hard courts at Dubai.So right from the very start a pretty young Nadal was already a threat if not more on hard courts (which favoured the Swiss) to Federer during the latter’s very peak years. And as soon as July 2006 Nadal was able to rival Federer on grass for two sets (Fed won 60 76 67 63). Federer was clearly superior to Nadal in direct confrontations only on indoor fast surfaces as his 2006-2007 Masters wins proved. And I recall that Federer was aged 23 to 26 years old in these years (2004-2007) : he was not old and not unlucky as you suggest. This situation is comparable to that of Connors and Borg in the mid-70’s : Connors was at his peak and beat Borg, who was not “mature”, most of the time and only in 1977 Borg reversed the trend. Federer should have dominated Nadal in most of their meetings until 2007 and only since 2008 (and not 2004) Nadal should have led Roger in head-to-head stats.whereas Federer was dominated in H2H meetings by Nadal as soon as 2004 when Federer was only 23 years old and besides had just began his reign.However I recognize that the stats favour Nadal because most of his matches against Federer were on clay.If we consider the ATP stats for the 2004-2007 periodNadal led Federer 8-6 (6-1 on clay, 2-1 on outdoor hard, 0-2 on grass, 0-2 on indoor hard).Federer’s less glorious stats being his deficit on outdoor hard, a surface which I repeat should have favoured him.
2004-2007, fed was 5-2 vs nadal outside clay, 2-0 in slams outside clay ... dubai 2006, fed was too dominant in the first set, but then let the match slide away ..so are you suggesting that if he'd won that one match , his place in the list of greats would've been secure according to you ????? really ???

I think that the 2004 Miami-2005 Miami-2006 Dubai matches all on played on outdoor hard courts have been very important matches in Federer’s career because they set the template of the future Nadal-Federer matches. In those years (it isn’t the case anymore) the outdoor hard surface should have hugely favoured Federer’s game when at the time he was possibly at his peak while Nadal was just an apprentice especially on non-clay courts. However the Spaniard extremely threatened Federer to say the least : in 3 meetings he beat Federer twice and in the 3rd occasion Nadal was just two points short from winning once again.
On one hand these 3 matches gave a pretty huge confidence to Nadal while they planted seeds of fear in Federer’s mind and 5 months after the Dubai meeting, Nadal, except in the first set, was almost Federer’s equal on (XXIst century “slow”) grass in the 2006 Wimby final. At the time Nadal shouldn’t have won any single set from Federer on grass given their technical abilities then.
In fact Federer has always too much feared Nadal and except possibly in the 2006&2007 Masters held on fast surface,
Federer has never played his best against Nadal though they met frequently.
A confident Federer should have won against Nadal all the matches on non-clay surfaces until 2007 at the possible exception of the 2004 Miami meeting when Fed’ was ill.
From the start Federer had a complex against Nadal.

Originally Posted by abmk

…
oh and as far as the miami 2004 match is concerned, federer was sick with flu before miami and his participation in the tournament itself was in doubt.
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/3316
you can google it yourself, you will get more results if you want ...
nadal played brilliantly that day no doubt, but that match was nowhere indicative of a prime federer ...
…

I perfectly know that Federer was sick and out of form (it was well publicized at the time, don’t be afraid)
but coincidentally it happened when Nadal played, according to himself, his best match of the year 2004.
And in the future it happened several times again : Nadal has played often his best tennis against Federer while the reverse occurred very rarely.
Incidentally I regret that Federer didn’t meet Nadal at the 2010 Australian Open (some said that Federer played there as well as ever if not better).
Perhaps we could have watched for once Federer at his best against Nadal however I am not sure because I am convinced that Fed’ usually overrates Nadal which put the trend of many of their past (and possibly future) encounters. The last example being the 2011 Roland Garros final : there Federer lost 7 successive games including 3 successive service games. Do you really think that the only reason for this big failure is Federer’s technical weakness on the left side ? I don’t. Federer is clearly mentally less strong than some think. Just look at Roger’s attitude to understand that in some critical moments he clearly shows his submission to his opponent : he clearly makes understand that he doesn’t believe in himself whereas Nadal always behaves like a matador when he faces Federer even when the latter leads 5-1 or 5-2 in a set. Nadal has won sets against Federer in such situations whereas Federer never has (perhaps in a close future, Nadal, against Djokovic, will behave as Federer does against the Spaniard).

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Originally Posted by abmk

…
oh and the connors-borg rivalry is not similar :
1.federer actually beat an in-form rafa in a slam ( wimb 2007 ) something which connors didn't do once borg hit his peak ...
2. borg had a mental block against jimmy till 77, rafa never had a mental block against fed
3. jimmy was dominated in quite a few matches by borg once borg hit his peak, fed-rafa matches with the exceptions in RG 2008 (rafa )and TMC 2007 (fed ) matches were/are pretty competitive ( incl on clay ) …

Given your answer I understand that I should have been very more precise by comparing the Connors-Borg and Federer-Nadal rivalries. These rivalries were comparable because of the players’ difference of age and their respective rankings. Connors was almost 4 years older than Borg and Federer is almost 5 years older than Nadal which is comparable. At the start of each rivalries the former player (Connors, Federer) was the #1 playing at his peak and the latter (Borg, Nadal) was an ascending very promising player. This is what I meant as comparable rivalries.
But before continuing my argument here I will answer to your 3 points.
1 I don’t think that Rafa in 2007 was at his peak because in 2008 and 2010 he was clearly better.
2 I agree with it. Yes Borg had a mental block while Rafa hadn’t
but there is another difference also :
On one hand Federer, though older, in his prime and endowed with a more complete game, wasn’t confident in the 2004-2007 years against Nadal, younger, not in his prime (especially a mean serve at the time) and with a less varied game. So it was easier for Nadal not to suffer from a mental block because Federer simply feared the Spaniard.
On the other hand Connors with a huge self-confidence (not to say much arrogance and lack of respect) against everyone in 1974-75-76, without any exception, including Nastase and Orantes against whom he won several matches though both Mediterranean players had clearly showed to the world Connors’ technical weaknesses.
So it explains in part why Borg had a mental block.
The Swede then had to compete a rival clearly more confident
than the Spaniard had.
3 I also agree with the fact that Federer was more competitive than Connors when both faced respectively Borg at his peak and Rafa at his peak.
But here too there is a difference in my opinion :
Rafa even in 2010 was less complete than Borg at his peak, especially at the net where the Swede was truly more efficient than the Spaniard.
So it is easier to Fed to rival Nadal than it was to Connors to threat Borg.
However I completely agree that Federer has clearly a better stroke equipment than Connors, explaining in part why Federer is more competitive than Jimbo ever was.
What I meant by comparing Connors-Borg and Federer-Nadal
is that Connors “made the job” while Federer didn’t.
As long as Connors was “potentially” better than Borg (until more or less 1976) the American won almost all his matches against the Swede
Whereas Federer (“potentially” better than Nadal until 2007) didn’t and lost more often than he won.
If Federer, in Rome 2006, had had Connors’ confidence in 1974, Roger would have won one of the two match points in the final.
Connors was able to beat Borg on slow courts as har-tru clay (Indianapolis 74, USO 75, USO 76) which wasn’t of course as slow as European red clay but clearly slower than in particular the Miami or Dubai hard courts
however even on those latter medium or medium-fast Federer couldn’t dominate Nadal (Rafa won, as said before, 2 out of 3 meetings and almost won the third one).
This is why I think Federer didn’t fulfil the expectations in his meetings with Nadal until 2007.

Other thing about Federer which I wasn’t aware until now :
In http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/...131542434.html it is claimed that
“Federer … has never come back from two-sets-to-love down against a top 20 opponent”.
It is perhaps another indication of Federer’s mental “weakness”.

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Originally Posted by Benhur

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni ColussiPancho changed it to “z” because in Spanish “Gonzalez” is more “noble” or something like that, if I’m right. So until his mid-30’s Gonzales was with a “s”.So honestly that his family now prefers the “z” I really don’t care because it’s a sort of denial of his true original name.You could then say that I should use for instance “Franciszek Andrzej Pajkowski” instead of “Frank Andrew Parker” but it’s another matter. Parker’s parents probably need to americanize their name in order to make their life much easier (because of racism, etc …).But Gonzales was snobbish willing to change just a letter in order to spell better. I completely understand that someone calling “bitc*” changes his name in “Martin” for instance but Gonzales to Gonzalez is laughable.
Gonzalez and Gonzales are simply variant spellings of the same name. All the "ez" and "es" endings simply come from the equivalent of "son of". In this case "son of Gonzalo", a common Spanish name. The pronunciation of the s and the z is exactly the same in the vast majority of the Spanish speaking world, so it is hard to see how this can be compared to your preposterous examples. The "ez" endings are generally more common, and in most cases they changed to s somewhere along the line due to transcription by ear. It is highly likely that if you could track down Pancho's ancestors you will eventually get to the ez ending, maybe even within one or two generations.
So I don't see what is "laughable" or "snobbish" in any of this, except your own snobbish and laughable desire to spot snobbishness. In any case, if the guy wanted his name to be written Gonzalez, who the hell are you to tell him what his name should be?
Do you remember what Ali asked Patterson while he tortured him much longer than he needed to, just for the sake of reminding him?

As often in your replies to some of my posts you are condescending and wrong, Benhur.
You are behaving as such since the beginning when I told you that 1977 doesn’t CLEARLY belong to Vilas as you claim
My examples aren’t preposterous
and I maintain that whenever anyone wanna slightly change his name into a so-called more noble patronymic it is snobbish.
In other words I don’t see why “Gonzales” had to be changed because in principle it isn’t a pejorative name.
Given that I read somewhere that Gonzalez was supposed to be more noble than Gonzales then I rightly thought it was snobbish to change this name because I don’t understand why Gonzales would be pejorative and so I don’t see the reason to change it into Gonzalez with a z.
So on the substance I was and still am right and unlike what you say I’m not snobbish at all.
However since your answer I have tried to find where I had previously read this supposed difference of nobleness between Gonzales and Gonzalez
but without success
so perhaps my memory was wrong and I have no competence at all in Spanish so I can’t claim if that difference is a reality or not.
Nevertheless I found something else about Gonzales’s motivations :
in a book called “Richard “Pancho” Gonzalez Tennis Champion” written by Doreen Gonzales who has no family connection with the tennis player.
Pages 9-10 it reads like this :
“… Manuel Gonzales (Richard’s father). In Mexico his name was spelled with a z at the end – Gonzalez. In the United States, though the spelling became Gonzales. Manuel Gonzales used the new spelling his entire life and passed down to each of his children. Richard, therefore grew up spelling his last name Gonzales. But around 1970, Richard returned to the Spanish version of his name as an expression of pride in his heritage”
So apparently (but I’m not so sure) Richard Gonzales decided to recover his father’s name before the latter was “americanized”.
I also discovered that Gonzales changed his name to Gonzalez at least in 1966 if not earlier
(and not around 1970 as claimed by Doreen Gonzales)

And about what Ali asked Patterson I don’t know and frankly I don’t mind because Ali wasn’t the best spirited human being on earth, far from that.

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Originally Posted by pc1

Carlo,
To try to answer your questions, of course no one can be 100% certain that any player can defeat another player? If you asked me if Rod Laver at his peak is a 100% certainty to defeat Eddie Dibbs at his peak at Wimbledon on grass I would say no. However the odds of Laver defeating Eddie Dibbs in this situation imho is extremely high.
So to try to answer your question to the best of my ability, understanding that it is impossible to have a totally 100% certain answer I would say that the evidence in my opinion points heavily that Borg would have probably defeated Connors at the 1978 US Open final if both were healthy. I cannot be totally sure of course but evidence like the 1981 US Open semi and the fact I believe Borg was at his best in 1978 and 1979 would lead me to believe that. I decided to show all of their head to head matches from the beginning of the 1978 Tennis Season to the 1981 Tennis Season. I believe Borg had some injuries in 1981 but nevertheless this time frame indicates the level of play between Borg and Connors.

Hello pc1,
I didn’t mean that.
In a Laver-Dibbs match at Wimby on their peak there were 99,9999999….% of chances that Laver was the winner
whereas in a dream match between a healthy Borg and Connors at the USO 1978 I would have favoured Borg with, I don’t know, a percentage of about 65%. This means that in my opinion Connors would have, of course 35% of winning.
In every case I think that Connors would have won at least one set and would have rivalled Borg in most of the other sets,
while a top Dibbs would have been very probably crushed by a top Laver on grass.
It is likely that Connors played truly better at the USO ’78 than in 1979 (or at Wimby ’78 ) when Borg used to beat Connors in straight sets. I also think that at the 1982 USO final Connors in the first two sets played better than in 1979, etc…
Unfortunately Borg didn’t meet Connors in both USO finals.
I claim that in the 1978 USO final or the 1982 USO final Connors was at his very best on outdoor hard courts, slighltly better than anytime between 1979 and 1981 in particular. I therefore think that this peak Connors could have won at least one set (or more ?) from a peak Borg.
That a peak Borg would have been a clear favourite in that ’78 USO final I don’t contradict at all.
What I do not believe is that Borg would have been a heavy favourite with a straight-set win.
If I had had to bet money before these two USO finals with a Borg healthy (physically in 1978 and mentally in 1982 (not burnt-out))
of course I would have put it on Borg because as I have always said I think that Borg at his very peak was superior to Connors at his very best. But I guess that if both would have been at their very best the match would have been a close fight and not an easy Borg win as for instance in Las Vegas 1979.

Originally Posted by pc1

As far as the Federer enigma theory, well I’m not sure it’s an enigma at all. There are a number of excellent players with whom their styles do not match well with others. Arthur Ashe with Rod Laver, Gerulaitis with Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer with Frank Kovacs. Nadal’s lefty serve and topspin is annoying to all but it seems to be very frustrating to Federer and of course we know what a fantastic player Nadal is to boot. A lot of the early matches were on clay but it is interesting to note that three of the first four were on hard court and Nadal won two of them. I don’t know how you can say Federer can truly be an enigma when he has won so much in recent years. He has problems with one player and that player is tough to beat on virtually any surface, even when he was younger. Federer has no easy answer to Nadal's lefty forehand topspin to his backhand and Nadal's great consistency, counterpunching and retrieving.

I’m not convinced by your arguments.
Federer is possibly the only “long era world #1 player” (5 years including 4 consecutive years, 2004-2007, 2009) in tennis history who was regularly dominated in head-to-head confrontations by his supposed rival (in those years except 2004 Nadal was always the only second to Federer) this is why I don’t subscribe with your examples.
Ashe was perhaps the #1 only in 1975 and even this is debatable so his case isn’t comparable with Federer and besides Ashe’s game had much more weaknesses than Fed : Ashe’s forehand side, be it groundstroke or volley was weak, much weaker than Federer’s backhand (the Swiss’ weakest or “less strongest” side). In other words it is true that Ashe’s weaknesses were directly exposed to Laver’s strengths however Rocket was a much more complete player than Ashe even though Laver’s forehand volley was slightly vulnerable.
Gerulaitis was a good player but never a #1 and even less a long reign #1 (in my book his best ranking was #3 in 1978 behind Björn and Jimmy but ahead young Mac).
And Gerulaitis had a major weakness : a poor serve essentially because Vitas could make many double-faults. Yes he has beaten players such as McEnroe, Connors or Lendl but on occasions when these players were not at their very best.
So again a case different from Fed’s.
The Kramer-Kovacs example is also singular : if my memory is good Kovacs has always beaten Kramer when both were amateurs that is until 1941 included. In the professional circuit I have very few information. McCauley gave stats about both players in his 1951 section results but it isn’t clear at all if it was whole careers’ stats or professional circuit’s stats or year’s stats. The only professional results I know are those of the 1951-1952 Philadelphia’s Inquirer world indoor pro championships where Kramer beat Kovacs 3 times out of 3 meetings (once in 1951 and twice in the 1952 double round robin event). Kramer was possibly (debatable) #1 from 1948 to 1951 and apparently didn’t meet Kovacs during this era before 1951. So at best (given the few information available) Kovacs possibly (but without any certainty at all) dominated in H2H a #1 Kramer in 1951 and besides Kovacs wasn’t the true rival of Kramer (as was Nadal to Federer) in 1951 (Segura and Gonzales were).
I can cite other examples such as yours : for instance Borg and Newcombe or Connors and Nastase.
Newcombe has a positive head-to-head record against Borg however the Aussie has not regularly dominated Björn when the latter began his reign as #1 (from 1978 Newk met Borg only once and in that occasion Newk’s win was made very easy because the Swede retired in the second set due to injury).
In 1976 Nastase led Connors something like 4-1 (+ 1 tie) but this is the only year when Nastase dominated a top Connors (in 1972-1973 Nastase usually beat Connors but the American wasn’t the world #1 whereas in 1974-75 and 1982 Connors never lost to Nasty).
Etc …

In conclusion of that first part I don’t think that you can find a #2 who has regularly dominated a #1 for at least two years in a row, other than the Federer-Nadal example.

Other point : many (I would say “too many”) praise Federer’s so-called super complete game.
However I have always suspected his backhand as crumbly.
How many times I have heard or read that his backhand was magnificent (though everyone admits it isn’t worth his better forehand)
however whenever a great player is able to put pressure on Fed’s left side the Swiss backhand breaks down sooner or later : not only Nadal proved it but also Nalbandian or Djokovic in the last Australian Open.
Federer has a good backhand, not doubt about it, but not as great as some commentators often claim.
In fact never his backhand is sure or deadly effective whenever he faces a great player when the latter plays well with confidence.
If we consider both groundstrokes (forehand and backhand) in my opinion Laver, Borg or even Rosewall, all at their very peak, were better than Federer. When Laver was highly confident you couldn’t hope much from his “weak” forehand. Many used to attack young Borg’s backhand (as Newk did) but since 1978 (till 1981) Björn’s backhand was possibly as good (or very slightly less good) as his forehand and about Rosewall some think than in his best years, the early 60’s, Kenny’s forehand was much more reliable than in his ascending or declining years. And nowadays Nadal (and Djokovic but the Novak is not the subject here)is also better than Federer at the back of the court. You wrote

Originally Posted by pc1

…Federer has no easy answer to Nadal's lefty forehand topspin to his backhand

and I would say why Federer doesn’t annoy Nadal as much on the other side ? Why Nadal can reply easier with his own backhand to Federer so-called legendary forehand than Federer can answer to Nadal’s forehand ? Possibly in the end because Nadal’s backhand is perhaps better than Federer’s though Nadal’s stroke length can be sometimes very short.

To conclude with Federer
his negative stats against his rival Nadal, caused in part by his “suspect” backhand
slightly downgrade his record.
This is why I think Federer is an enigma for me because I can’t easily rate him with the other very greats
simply because the latter, when they were #1, dominated their nearest rival in head-to-head encounters which isn’t Federer’s case, possibly unique case in men’s tennis history.

However do not be afraid I have also many problems to rate many other greats but for different reasons.

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Originally Posted by pc1

…Let’s discuss some of the tours that Budge played. … In his earlier tours, Budge defeated a Vines who was more interested in golf than tennis plus he had some minor injury problems …The score was close at 21 to 18. Budge said it was 22 to 17 but I’ve noticed that Budge tends to “remember” the scores as more in his favor in many cases.
Budge defeated Perry 18 to 11 on tour, not the 28 to 8 that he "remembered."
… However it’s odd to me that Riggs jumped off to a huge lead (13 matches to 1) and then barely hung on to win the tour.
…, We come to the problem of how we can view Budge’s career in view of the fact he couldn’t enter many tournaments due to the war. Well actually in some way Budge benefited by the war. What I mean is that it’s quite possible he may have been dethroned by a player like Riggs anyway and the war may have delayed the inevitable. I believe Borgforever mentioned once that Budge, in a Wimbledon video mentioned that he (Budge) felt he would have won an lot of Wimbledons in a row if not for the war. It’s possible of course but I would think doubtful but no one can say the statement is incorrect because of the war. The thing is, from the records I have, even in his five BEST years I have Budge winning only .815 of his matches
even in his five BEST years I have Budge winning only .815 of his matches …

Yes Vines was more interested in golf that in tennis in these years (since about 1935) however this is perhaps because he was aware that he couldn’t improve in tennis while in golf, given that he was a pure beginner, he could of course make huge progress. And yes he was perhaps a little injured. It doesn’t change the fact that Budge’s game bothered Vines a lot, especially Don’s backhand. Budge, at the very beginning of his pro career, was already able to beat both top pros on indoor courts whereas he had previously played most of the time, if not entirely, on outdoor courts as an amateur.
Before Budge, Perry and even Vines were led in their first pro matches series whereas Budge led from the very beginning both against Vines and Perry, then old seasoned pros and used to indoor play and touring from city to another city every night.
Many new pro rookies have lost their first batch of matches while Budge not and he conquered the world pro crown from the very beginning contrary to the majority.

Unfortunately I have not the full record of the 1939 Budge-Vines and Budge-Perry tours
however I would trust Bowers’s claim (22-17 and 28-8 respectively in FORGOTTEN VICTORIES: History of the Pro Tennis Wars 1926-1945, Chapter X: Budge's Great Pro Year, 1939, http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_11_22.html)
more than your own stats.

About the 1946 Riggs-Budge tour you have the complete record at http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=284782
(slight correction Riggs led 12-1 but not 13-1) :
I am not so surprised that Budge lost most of the first encounters of that tour.
Budge, as many others including Riggs, hadn’t truly trained since 1942. Besides Budge had injured his shoulder in 1943.
Given that Budge had lost his last 5 matches to Riggs (3 in the Marshall series during the summer 1945, then the final of the Word Pro Hard Courts in Dec. 1945 and finally the challenge match on Jan. 22, 1946)
Budge wisely thought to get some intense training from his old coach, Tom Stow.

About Budge and the war I have never claimed that Budge has completely dominated the game during the whole war as Budge himself mentioned in that Wimbledon video (I don’t remember where I read these stupid Budge’s comments). I have always said that in my opinion Budge was the best in 1940 and 1942, that the years 1943 and 1944 can almost not be rated because so many top players (including Budge) could play very little (or not at all). And about the left years, 1941 and 1945 I have always claimed that Budge wasn’t the best (in 1941 amateur Riggs was #1, possibly tied with pro Perry, and in 1945 Riggs without any doubt).
However it doesn’t change the fact that WWII prevented Budge (and all the other greats of the time) from winning many tournaments due to the evident lack of competitions, especially in Budge’s case in 1940 and 1942 when he was the best.

Finally about his percentage of won matches (.815) once again I repeat some matches are very much important than others and these stats shouldn’t be simple means but weighted means according to the importance of these matches. Rino Tommasi used these simple means without weighting them for many years to rank players : for instance in 1973 he placed Connors #2 just behind Nastase whereas Jimbo was at best #5 (and at worse #9) which, in my opinion, is not good. In later years, Tommasi changed a little his simple methodology and added bonus points.
So even though Budge’s win-loss percentage wasn’t so good in 1938 he won what counted and lost what almost didn’t :
yes he lost to Asboth in a team competition but this is almost nothing compared to the fact that he won Wimby.
Yes McEnroe had a superb win-loss percentage in 1984 but however he lost Roland Garros, he “lost” the Australian given he was injured (I recall that his 21-day “Stockholm” suspension was over before the AO began so Mac could have entered in it) and he lost the Davis Cup so finally Mac’s record in 1984 is not as impressive as some claim. He wasn’t able to make a “Little Slam” (except if one considers that the Masters was then still more important than the Australian). Mac was defeated only 3 times but 2 defeats occurred in very great events and as I said before he also pulled out of the Australian.
So I think that you favour too much win-loss percentages in your ratings and not enough majors wins.

Originally Posted by pc1

...I will ask you a question. How do you feel the great Pancho Gonzalez stands with regard to the other greats like Rosewall, Laver, Tilden?

Afew years ago I rated Tilden and Gonzales more or less equal, and a little step above Rosewall and Laver both more or less equal too. But now I have no clear opinion, I can’t easily compare these four players. Perhaps in the future I have will have a clearer idea.

[pc1]

Carlo,

Very well written posts. I will discuss it with you in further detail later. I don't have the time now.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

But before continuing my argument here I will answer to your 3 points.
1 I don’t think that Rafa in 2007 was at his peak because in 2008 and 2010 he was clearly better.

I have to disagree strongly with this. Rafa in the 2007 Wimbledon final was better than probably just about any match in wimbledon in either 2010 or 2011. The only match on grass in which he was better was wimbledon 2008 final IMO. He wasn't that impressive before the finals in 2007, but he just raised his level in the finals .....

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

2 I agree with it. Yes Borg had a mental block while Rafa hadn’t
but there is another difference also :
On one hand Federer, though older, in his prime and endowed with a more complete game, wasn’t confident in the 2004-2007 years against Nadal, younger, not in his prime (especially a mean serve at the time) and with a less varied game. So it was easier for Nadal not to suffer from a mental block because Federer simply feared the Spaniard.
On the other hand Connors with a huge self-confidence (not to say much arrogance and lack of respect) against everyone in 1974-75-76, without any exception, including Nastase and Orantes against whom he won several matches though both Mediterranean players had clearly showed to the world Connors’ technical weaknesses.
So it explains in part why Borg had a mental block.
The Swede then had to compete a rival clearly more confident
than the Spaniard had.

fair enough, but then the case might have been a bit different if connors to face borg so many times on red clay early on .....

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

3 I also agree with the fact that Federer was more competitive than Connors when both faced respectively Borg at his peak and Rafa at his peak.
But here too there is a difference in my opinion :
Rafa even in 2010 was less complete than Borg at his peak, especially at the net where the Swede was truly more efficient than the Spaniard.
So it is easier to Fed to rival Nadal than it was to Connors to threat Borg.
However I completely agree that Federer has clearly a better stroke equipment than Connors, explaining in part why Federer is more competitive than Jimbo ever was.
What I meant by comparing Connors-Borg and Federer-Nadal
is that Connors “made the job” while Federer didn’t.
As long as Connors was “potentially” better than Borg (until more or less 1976) the American won almost all his matches against the Swede
Whereas Federer (“potentially” better than Nadal until 2007) didn’t and lost more often than he won.
If Federer, in Rome 2006, had had Connors’ confidence in 1974, Roger would have won one of the two match points in the final.
Connors was able to beat Borg on slow courts as har-tru clay (Indianapolis 74, USO 75, USO 76) which wasn’t of course as slow as European red clay but clearly slower than in particular the Miami or Dubai hard courts
however even on those latter medium or medium-fast Federer couldn’t dominate Nadal (Rafa won, as said before, 2 out of 3 meetings and almost won the third one).
This is why I think Federer didn’t fulfil the expectations in his meetings with Nadal until 2007.

well in outdoor HC matches, yes, but he did win 4/4 matches on grass and indoor HC ..... overall H2h was 5-2 outside clay, which isn't that bad by any means IMO

rome 2006 was surely one of the turning points in their rivalry.

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

Other thing about Federer which I wasn’t aware until now :
In http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/...131542434.html it is claimed that
“Federer … has never come back from two-sets-to-love down against a top 20 opponent”.
It is perhaps another indication of Federer’s mental “weakness”.

Coming down from 2 sets down to love against a top 20 opponent is not that frequent an occurence. Anyways since 2003 , these are the 4 times that federer came down from 2 sets down to love:

2010 Alejandro Falla (Wimbledon) - almost lost in the first round at wimbledon. A loss here would've been embarrassing.

2009 Tommy Haas (French Open) - 4R match. A loss here would've probably

2009 Tomas Berdych (Australian Open) - was in 4R

2005 Rafael Nadal (Miami) - this was the one outdoor match vs rafa he won.

The first 2 matches in particular were hugely significant IMO .

In the falla match, nothing was clicking for him. His footwork was all over the place , wasn't hitting with confidence at all. But he somehow hung on and won.

The haas match, his forehand was misfiring totally for the first half, but on breakpoint at 4 all in the 3rd set, he hit an inside-out FH that just clipped the line. The courage and ability to do that on such an important point IMO showed his mental strength.

There have been times when it has been lacking ( rafa rome 2006, rafa FO 2007, rafa AO 2009, delpo USO 2009, djoker USo 2010 and 2011 etc .... ) , but there are many occasions where he's come through on the basis of his mental strength .

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

I think that the 2004 Miami-2005 Miami-2006 Dubai matches all on played on outdoor hard courts have been very important matches in Federer’s career because they set the template of the future Nadal-Federer matches. In those years (it isn’t the case anymore) the outdoor hard surface should have hugely favoured Federer’s game when at the time he was possibly at his peak while Nadal was just an apprentice especially on non-clay courts. However the Spaniard extremely threatened Federer to say the least : in 3 meetings he beat Federer twice and in the 3rd occasion Nadal was just two points short from winning once again.
On one hand these 3 matches gave a pretty huge confidence to Nadal while they planted seeds of fear in Federer’s mind and 5 months after the Dubai meeting, Nadal, except in the first set, was almost Federer’s equal on (XXIst century “slow”) grass in the 2006 Wimby final. At the time Nadal shouldn’t have won any single set from Federer on grass given their technical abilities then.
In fact Federer has always too much feared Nadal and except possibly in the 2006&2007 Masters held on fast surface,
Federer has never played his best against Nadal though they met frequently.
A confident Federer should have won against Nadal all the matches on non-clay surfaces until 2007 at the possible exception of the 2004 Miami meeting when Fed’ was ill.
From the start Federer had a complex against Nadal.


I perfectly know that Federer was sick and out of form (it was well publicized at the time, don’t be afraid)
but coincidentally it happened when Nadal played, according to himself, his best match of the year 2004.
And in the future it happened several times again : Nadal has played often his best tennis against Federer while the reverse occurred very rarely.
Incidentally I regret that Federer didn’t meet Nadal at the 2010 Australian Open (some said that Federer played there as well as ever if not better).
Perhaps we could have watched for once Federer at his best against Nadal however I am not sure because I am convinced that Fed’ usually overrates Nadal which put the trend of many of their past (and possibly future) encounters. The last example being the 2011 Roland Garros final : there Federer lost 7 successive games including 3 successive service games. Do you really think that the only reason for this big failure is Federer’s technical weakness on the left side ? I don’t. Federer is clearly mentally less strong than some think. Just look at Roger’s attitude to understand that in some critical moments he clearly shows his submission to his opponent : he clearly makes understand that he doesn’t believe in himself whereas Nadal always behaves like a matador when he faces Federer even when the latter leads 5-1 or 5-2 in a set. Nadal has won sets against Federer in such situations whereas Federer never has (perhaps in a close future, Nadal, against Djokovic, will behave as Federer does against the Spaniard).

Agree with most , but not all your points ..... Its a combination of the BH weakness and mental weakness vs nadal and not just one of them.

@ the bold & underlined part: He almost did, except for dubai 2006, he won the 4 other matches , 2 at wimbledon and 2 at the TMC. Aren't you putting too much of focus on the dubai match ?

He's shown mental weakness vs nadal too often but there have been occasions where's he's held on well ...

Wimbledon 2007 final being the best of them all, saving 2 BPs twice in the final set .

Miami 2005 - coming from being down 2 sets to love.

nearly came from being down 2 sets to love in wimbledon 2008 as well .........

2006 wimbledon final, federer took the 4th set rather easily as well ....The third set, nadal had 20 winners to 3 UEs and only won it in the TB.I wouldn't read too much into losing a set to someone playing at that level in a set ..

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

Hello pc1,
I didn’t mean that.
In a Laver-Dibbs match at Wimby on their peak there were 99,9999999….% of chances that Laver was the winner
whereas in a dream match between a healthy Borg and Connors at the USO 1978 I would have favoured Borg with, I don’t know, a percentage of about 65%. This means that in my opinion Connors would have, of course 35% of winning.
In every case I think that Connors would have won at least one set and would have rivalled Borg in most of the other sets,
while a top Dibbs would have been very probably crushed by a top Laver on grass.
It is likely that Connors played truly better at the USO ’78 than in 1979 (or at Wimby ’78 ) when Borg used to beat Connors in straight sets. I also think that at the 1982 USO final Connors in the first two sets played better than in 1979, etc…
Unfortunately Borg didn’t meet Connors in both USO finals.
I claim that in the 1978 USO final or the 1982 USO final Connors was at his very best on outdoor hard courts, slighltly better than anytime between 1979 and 1981 in particular. I therefore think that this peak Connors could have won at least one set (or more ?) from a peak Borg.
That a peak Borg would have been a clear favourite in that ’78 USO final I don’t contradict at all.
What I do not believe is that Borg would have been a heavy favourite with a straight-set win.
If I had had to bet money before these two USO finals with a Borg healthy (physically in 1978 and mentally in 1982 (not burnt-out))
of course I would have put it on Borg because as I have always said I think that Borg at his very peak was superior to Connors at his very best. But I guess that if both would have been at their very best the match would have been a close fight and not an easy Borg win as for instance in Las Vegas 1979.

Essentially we agree. I actually think a healthy Borg may be a bit better than 65% favorite but that doesn't matter. Connors is obviously one of the all time greats and would be a problem against anyone.

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

I’m not convinced by your arguments.
Federer is possibly the only “long era world #1 player” (5 years including 4 consecutive years, 2004-2007, 2009) in tennis history who was regularly dominated in head-to-head confrontations by his supposed rival (in those years except 2004 Nadal was always the only second to Federer) this is why I don’t subscribe with your examples.
Ashe was perhaps the #1 only in 1975 and even this is debatable so his case isn’t comparable with Federer and besides Ashe’s game had much more weaknesses than Fed : Ashe’s forehand side, be it groundstroke or volley was weak, much weaker than Federer’s backhand (the Swiss’ weakest or “less strongest” side). In other words it is true that Ashe’s weaknesses were directly exposed to Laver’s strengths however Rocket was a much more complete player than Ashe even though Laver’s forehand volley was slightly vulnerable.
Gerulaitis was a good player but never a #1 and even less a long reign #1 (in my book his best ranking was #3 in 1978 behind Björn and Jimmy but ahead young Mac).
And Gerulaitis had a major weakness : a poor serve essentially because Vitas could make many double-faults. Yes he has beaten players such as McEnroe, Connors or Lendl but on occasions when these players were not at their very best.
So again a case different from Fed’s.
The Kramer-Kovacs example is also singular : if my memory is good Kovacs has always beaten Kramer when both were amateurs that is until 1941 included. In the professional circuit I have very few information. McCauley gave stats about both players in his 1951 section results but it isn’t clear at all if it was whole careers’ stats or professional circuit’s stats or year’s stats. The only professional results I know are those of the 1951-1952 Philadelphia’s Inquirer world indoor pro championships where Kramer beat Kovacs 3 times out of 3 meetings (once in 1951 and twice in the 1952 double round robin event). Kramer was possibly (debatable) #1 from 1948 to 1951 and apparently didn’t meet Kovacs during this era before 1951. So at best (given the few information available) Kovacs possibly (but without any certainty at all) dominated in H2H a #1 Kramer in 1951 and besides Kovacs wasn’t the true rival of Kramer (as was Nadal to Federer) in 1951 (Segura and Gonzales were).
I can cite other examples such as yours : for instance Borg and Newcombe or Connors and Nastase.
Newcombe has a positive head-to-head record against Borg however the Aussie has not regularly dominated Björn when the latter began his reign as #1 (from 1978 Newk met Borg only once and in that occasion Newk’s win was made very easy because the Swede retired in the second set due to injury).
In 1976 Nastase led Connors something like 4-1 (+ 1 tie) but this is the only year when Nastase dominated a top Connors (in 1972-1973 Nastase usually beat Connors but the American wasn’t the world #1 whereas in 1974-75 and 1982 Connors never lost to Nasty).
Etc …

In conclusion of that first part I don’t think that you can find a #2 who has regularly dominated a #1 for at least two years in a row, other than the Federer-Nadal example.

Other point : many (I would say “too many”) praise Federer’s so-called super complete game.
However I have always suspected his backhand as crumbly.
How many times I have heard or read that his backhand was magnificent (though everyone admits it isn’t worth his better forehand)
however whenever a great player is able to put pressure on Fed’s left side the Swiss backhand breaks down sooner or later : not only Nadal proved it but also Nalbandian or Djokovic in the last Australian Open.
Federer has a good backhand, not doubt about it, but not as great as some commentators often claim.
In fact never his backhand is sure or deadly effective whenever he faces a great player when the latter plays well with confidence.
If we consider both groundstrokes (forehand and backhand) in my opinion Laver, Borg or even Rosewall, all at their very peak, were better than Federer. When Laver was highly confident you couldn’t hope much from his “weak” forehand. Many used to attack young Borg’s backhand (as Newk did) but since 1978 (till 1981) Björn’s backhand was possibly as good (or very slightly less good) as his forehand and about Rosewall some think than in his best years, the early 60’s, Kenny’s forehand was much more reliable than in his ascending or declining years. And nowadays Nadal (and Djokovic but the Novak is not the subject here)is also better than Federer at the back of the court. You wrote and I would say why Federer doesn’t annoy Nadal as much on the other side ? Why Nadal can reply easier with his own backhand to Federer so-called legendary forehand than Federer can answer to Nadal’s forehand ? Possibly in the end because Nadal’s backhand is perhaps better than Federer’s though Nadal’s stroke length can be sometimes very short.

To conclude with Federer
his negative stats against his rival Nadal, caused in part by his “suspect” backhand
slightly downgrade his record.
This is why I think Federer is an enigma for me because I can’t easily rate him with the other very greats
simply because the latter, when they were #1, dominated their nearest rival in head-to-head encounters which isn’t Federer’s case, possibly unique case in men’s tennis history.

However do not be afraid I have also many problems to rate many other greats but for different reasons.

I understand why you call Federer an enigma. I believe I know the answer but I don't think I will discuss it here.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

Yes Vines was more interested in golf that in tennis in these years (since about 1935) however this is perhaps because he was aware that he couldn’t improve in tennis while in golf, given that he was a pure beginner, he could of course make huge progress. And yes he was perhaps a little injured. It doesn’t change the fact that Budge’s game bothered Vines a lot, especially Don’s backhand. Budge, at the very beginning of his pro career, was already able to beat both top pros on indoor courts whereas he had previously played most of the time, if not entirely, on outdoor courts as an amateur.
Before Budge, Perry and even Vines were led in their first pro matches series whereas Budge led from the very beginning both against Vines and Perry, then old seasoned pros and used to indoor play and touring from city to another city every night.
Many new pro rookies have lost their first batch of matches while Budge not and he conquered the world pro crown from the very beginning contrary to the majority.

Unfortunately I have not the full record of the 1939 Budge-Vines and Budge-Perry tours
however I would trust Bowers’s claim (22-17 and 28-8 respectively in FORGOTTEN VICTORIES: History of the Pro Tennis Wars 1926-1945, Chapter X: Budge's Great Pro Year, 1939, http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_11_22.html)
more than your own stats.

About the 1946 Riggs-Budge tour you have the complete record at http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=284782
(slight correction Riggs led 12-1 but not 13-1) :
I am not so surprised that Budge lost most of the first encounters of that tour.
Budge, as many others including Riggs, hadn’t truly trained since 1942. Besides Budge had injured his shoulder in 1943.
Given that Budge had lost his last 5 matches to Riggs (3 in the Marshall series during the summer 1945, then the final of the Word Pro Hard Courts in Dec. 1945 and finally the challenge match on Jan. 22, 1946)
Budge wisely thought to get some intense training from his old coach, Tom Stow.

About Budge and the war I have never claimed that Budge has completely dominated the game during the whole war as Budge himself mentioned in that Wimbledon video (I don’t remember where I read these stupid Budge’s comments). I have always said that in my opinion Budge was the best in 1940 and 1942, that the years 1943 and 1944 can almost not be rated because so many top players (including Budge) could play very little (or not at all). And about the left years, 1941 and 1945 I have always claimed that Budge wasn’t the best (in 1941 amateur Riggs was #1, possibly tied with pro Perry, and in 1945 Riggs without any doubt).
However it doesn’t change the fact that WWII prevented Budge (and all the other greats of the time) from winning many tournaments due to the evident lack of competitions, especially in Budge’s case in 1940 and 1942 when he was the best.

Finally about his percentage of won matches (.815) once again I repeat some matches are very much important than others and these stats shouldn’t be simple means but weighted means according to the importance of these matches. Rino Tommasi used these simple means without weighting them for many years to rank players : for instance in 1973 he placed Connors #2 just behind Nastase whereas Jimbo was at best #5 (and at worse #9) which, in my opinion, is not good. In later years, Tommasi changed a little his simple methodology and added bonus points.
So even though Budge’s win-loss percentage wasn’t so good in 1938 he won what counted and lost what almost didn’t :
yes he lost to Asboth in a team competition but this is almost nothing compared to the fact that he won Wimby.
Yes McEnroe had a superb win-loss percentage in 1984 but however he lost Roland Garros, he “lost” the Australian given he was injured (I recall that his 21-day “Stockholm” suspension was over before the AO began so Mac could have entered in it) and he lost the Davis Cup so finally Mac’s record in 1984 is not as impressive as some claim. He wasn’t able to make a “Little Slam” (except if one considers that the Masters was then still more important than the Australian). Mac was defeated only 3 times but 2 defeats occurred in very great events and as I said before he also pulled out of the Australian.
So I think that you favour too much win-loss percentages in your ratings and not enough majors wins.


Afew years ago I rated Tilden and Gonzales more or less equal, and a little step above Rosewall and Laver both more or less equal too. But now I have no clear opinion, I can’t easily compare these four players. Perhaps in the future I have will have a clearer idea.

Carlo,

I actually rank majors as very important but we must keep in mind how important won-lost percentages are and how they relate to how strong a player is. If Budge cannot totally dominate a weaker amateur field how can we conclude he is a GOAT candidate? Many players like Tilden, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert totally dominated the amateur field, winning majors and almost never losing. Budge won majors but also lost somewhat frequently plus as with the others who dominated the amateurs, many of the top players like Vines, Perry, Nusslein and Tilden were not in the field when Budge won his amateur majors. I believe you don't rank Budge as a GOAT candidate anyway.

Let's use the example of Jimmy Connors. In 1973 he was an extremely strong player but was beaten at Wimbledon and defeated in a close match with John Newcombe at the US Open. In retrospect if Connors defeated Newcombe I may have favored him to win the tournament even with Ken Rosewall waiting in the semifinal and Kodes in the final. One thing that Connors did better than John Newcombe in my opinion is that he rarely was upset by lesser players. In that way he was similar to Ken Rosewall, with whom he has been often compared to. Consistency is an important indicator of tennis strength.

To state the obvious, if you have two players playing a field of similar strength, the player who wins 90% of the matches is probably stronger than the player who wins 80% of his matches, assuming both are healthy.

Tilden and Gonzalez were both brilliant players and I believe either one has great credentials to be the GOAT. I often have them switching positions in where I rank them as you do. Both had better records in some areas than the other and it is hard to see what areas to value over the others.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Let's use the example of Jimmy Connors. In 1973 he was an extremely strong player but was beaten at Wimbledon and defeated in a close match with John Newcombe at the US Open. In retrospect if Connors defeated Newcombe I may have favored him to win the tournament even with Ken Rosewall waiting in the semifinal and Kodes in the final.

He did have excellent records against both of them.

Connors 6-1 vs. Rosewall
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=C044&oId=R075

Connors 6-0 vs. Kodes
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=C044&oId=K049

(Keeping in mind of course that the ATP website often is missing some matches in this time period.)

[urban]

I must say i never looked it up. But i am really surprised that Rosewall beat Connors once, even in 1972. Interesting, that Connors went into their Wim final with a 0-1 deficit. I cannot remember, that someone commented on it at the time.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

I must say i never looked it up. But i am really surprised that Rosewall beat Connors once, even in 1972. Interesting, that Connors went into their Wim final with a 0-1 deficit. I cannot remember, that someone commented on it at the time.

In 1973, at the US Open Connors was great. I am of that opinion in watching him at the US Open that year. I am not sure if his level of play was much better in 1974 than it was at the US Open in 1973.

So I would tend to favor Connors in a potential matchup with Rosewall at the 1973 US Open semi. Of course Rosewall was a year younger so we don't know and never will know.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Good posts WCT. Connors at the US Open was something special, although I will say this, the crowds were pretty fair to Borg in New York. They loved him there too. He had a lot of American fans, so yes, Connors may have had a slight "crowd edge", but not by much really, in my opinion.

The US Open atmosphere is different, no doubt, and I do think that overall you are right in that he preferred Wimbledon the most. He always emphasized winning at Wimbledon as most important to him. Yet, Borg was no stranger to loud crowds either, given all the situations he had faced over the years. Connors loved the US Open though. That was where he liked to dig in and take on all comers.

I also agree with you about McEnroe. A 1984 final at the FO against Borg would have been special. Borg would have most likely been playing with a graphite frame too. Given that, I would still go with Borg in that scenario. You are right though, Borg was always there at the FO. Laver made that point in 1981, when he pointed out that basically, McEnroe had the recent edge over Borg on hard courts, but he mentioned that they were basically even on grass courts, and that Borg was clearly still the best clay courter in the world. Furthermore, Borg had won the Masters indoors in Jan. 81, beating McEnroe and Lendl in the process (he was 5-0 in Jan. 80 & Jan. 81 against Lendl, McEnroe and Connors), so he was arguably the best indoor player in 1981 as well.

I don´t think Borg was a better indoor player than Mac, who won more indoor titles than Borg, altough he certainly belonged to the top indoors...

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by kiki

I don´t think Borg was a better indoor player than Mac, who won more indoor titles than Borg, altough he certainly belonged to the top indoors...

Kiki, I wasn't making the general statement that "Borg was a better indoor player than McEnroe". I was referencing the 1980-1981 time period in particular which were the last years that Borg was competing full time on the Tour. Borg beat McEnroe at the Masters in both Jan. 1980 and Jan. 1981. He went 5-0 to win both of those events (YEC) against Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe. If you look back at the entire decade, and their careers in total, I would agree with you and say that McEnroe is the superior indoor player in terms of accomplishment. So, we really need to decide on a year, racquets, everything before I would pick a winner between the two. Suffice it to say that both could play great indoors. No question about that and on that I think we agree. Many people don't realize just how many indoor titles Borg won and that's just the "official" tally. He won 23 "official" indoor titles (among 64 total).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5a_dNrkUvo (Jan. 80 Masters SF)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9WAP...eature=related
(Jan. 81 Masters, when Borg made the now famous "protest" of a call and McEnroe later threw a point to make a point to the crowd's surprise. Very interesting.)

[Nadal_Power]

Basel 1980 final between Borg and Lendl was also great Indoor match

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by Nadal_Power

Basel 1980 final between Borg and Lendl was also great Indoor match

Absolutely. Lendl won that in five sets Basel final in 5 sets, but that was not nearly as big an occasion. The Masters (YEC) during those years (Jan. 80 and Jan. 81 Masters YEC tourneys) should be regarded as the 4th biggest tournament. Great tennis with the top players going at it in New York, with lots of prize money, T.V. coverage, and big crowds at Madison Square Garden. Borg never seemed to allow Lendl in the Jan. 1981 match at MSG, winning 6-4,6-2,6-2.