|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-30-2011, 03:40 PM
|
#1061 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
Borg had match poitns to overcome at Richmond just like JMac had match points to overcome at N Orleans. Boy¡¡¡ those were great indoor maches¡¡ in 1980, Borg beat Mac at Stockholm, but Mac had beaten him in the 1978 Stockholm tourney, when Borg was the first time he lost to a younger player ( untill Lendl beat Borg in the 1980 Basle Indoor tournament)
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
11-30-2011, 03:46 PM
|
#1062 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
I just have my mouth in water thinking how the circle of Borg/Lendl/Connors/Mc would have come to and end with a consistent Borg vs Lendl rivalry DO YOU AGREE?
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2011, 04:07 PM
|
#1063 |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bristol, England
Posts: 18,448
|
Borg leads Lendl 6-2 in head-to-head.
Bjorn Borg 6-2 Ivan Lendl 1979 Montreal SF: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-3, 6-1) 1979 Davis Cup: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-4, 7-5, 6-2) 1980 Monte Carlo R16: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-2, 6-2) 1980 Toronto F: Ivan Lendl def. Bjorn Borg (4-6, 5-4 ret.) 1980 Basel F: Ivan Lendl def. Bjorn Borg (6-3, 6-2, 5-7, 0-6, 6-4) 1981 Masters F: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-4, 6-2, 6-2) 1981 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1) 1981 Stuttgart Outdoor F: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (1-6, 7-6, 6-2, 6-4) Hardcourt: 2-1 to Lendl Clay: 4-0 to Borg Grass: 0-0 Carpet: 1-0 to Borg In Slams: 1-0 to Borg |
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 08:35 PM
|
#1064 |
|
Legend
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,043
|
Thanks for that info Mustard. Kiki, as to your question, I tend to think that it would have been yes perhaps Lendl and Borg, with McEnroe in the mix at the top, but Wilander and Connors would have made things really interesting. If Borg would have been able to play the majors without qualifying after reducing his schedule for a play, and gone to say a Donnay graphite frame developed for him, that would have made for some fascinating tennis. Yet, I cannot expect Borg to have given any more than he did for the sport of tennis. He made such an immense contributions to tennis and he in many ways paid dearly as well for immense sacrifices in many ways as well. To your point though, I do agree that Borg and Lendl could very well have been playing some great matches against each other at the majors and elsewhere.
__________________
Borg never pointed to himself. He never even seemed to care if anyone read the advertisements. — Tom Callahan |
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:20 PM
|
#1065 | |||||
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
Quote:
but in a certain way I maintain what I said “I don’t think that Rafa in 2007 was at his peak because in 2008 and 2010 he was clearly better.” When I claim this I consider these years in their globality and I don’t select a few given matches. The 2007 Wimby final was an exception in Nadal’s year 2007 because it was possibly Nadal’s best match by far that year. Quote:
Quote:
but on outdoor hard courts Fed’s record against Rafa in H2H matches is quite surprising and disappointing. Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:21 PM
|
#1066 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
On fast surfaces Federer is clearly better equipped : a much better serve, a better return by a slight margin, a clearly better volleyer nevertheless Nadal is clearly a threat not to say more : Nadal is clearly more confident or at least make it believe to Fed. In my mind from 2004-2007 Federer should have lost very few sets to Nadal on these surfaces : Fed was clearly impressed by Nadal in Miami 2005, Wimbledon 2007 (and even Wimby 2006). Federer is undoubtedly less confident and has less fortitude than his rival which explains some sets and matches lost which shouldn’t have. The 2011 Masters round robin meeting being an exception to the general trend. Perhaps this time Federer wasn’t afraid to face Nadal but only saw a “simple” opponent on the other side of the net and was fully concentrated on his own play and fully believing in his own potential : I didn’t watch the match (only the few important points on http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/M...ighlights.aspx from 01:19 to 02:47) so I can’t be adamant at all about these assumptions. I only rely on the comments which seem to state that Federer walked on water this day but I suspect that Nadal was clearly out of competitive form. Nadal hadn’t played any single match (ATP tour or even exhibition) in 5 and ½ weeks before facing a diminished (thigh injury) Fish and then Federer. Besides Rafa met Roger, in the least favourable conditions for him, considering the court surface given that it is his least preferred one whereas it is Federer’s most liked. However I recongnize that, for once, Federer fulfilled the expectations against Nadal : on a fast court the Swiss is technically better than Rafa and this time Fed won and without any problem. According to L’Équipe (the French daily sports newspaper) Federer would have said “J'ai bien tenu en revers”(rough translation = “My backhand was solid” but, as Federer explained, the court pace helped him a lot : “The quicker the court, the more I favour myself. Maybe Rafa didn't play his very best tonight. But on an indoor court, it all happens very quickly as we saw at the end.” (in http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...rer-Nadal.aspx) and masked his usual backhand weakness. L’Équipe also claimed that Nadal’s shots didn’t spurt as usual suggesting that Rafa didn’t play well as suggested by Fed’s comment above. And you could note that Federer hit many backhands at hip or waist level and not at shoulder level as usual on slower surfaces when he meets Nadal so it was clearly easier for Federer this time. Federer would have also rated his performance against Rafa as one of his best ever along for instance his 2004 US Open final against Lleyton Hewitt. Off subject I watched the Masters (I hate the official name “World ATP Tour Finals”) final from start to end. I noticed that Federer has not played very well in this match because, after leading Tsonga 6-3 5-3, Roger suffered a clear let-down (faulting very often on his 1st delivery). So, if I believe L’Équipe’s comments which stated that Federer had been awesome throughout his Nadal match, I guess that this round-robin match has been Federer’s very best performance in the London event. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:22 PM
|
#1067 | ||||||
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and a likely score would be for instance 64 75 36 63 in favour of the Swede. I can only say likely given that in my opinion very peak Borg and very peak Connors probably never faced each other at the same time (for instance I don’t know if both players were at their very peak in the 1981 Wimby clash). I found two comments from Borg about his meeting with Connors, on October 3, 1982 in the Molson Light Challenge Cup, held at Montréal (Canada), on indoor Carpet, won by Jimbo 6-4 6-3 : a) The first one is the more evident because it confirmed Borg’s clear decline between 1981 and 1982 : “Borg ... said “I made too many errors and I was not really serving well. A year ago, I never made these kind of errors.”. See The Vancouver Sun, Oct. 4, 1982, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...ors+borg&hl=en. b) the second comment (mixing a Borg comment with an appreciation of the journalist)was less evident but seemed to confirm that Connors was better on fast courts in 1982 than in 1981 : “Borg ... said Connors was playing with more confidence than ever . “He’s trying a lot of different things and he’s confident of making the shots,” said Borg. “Jimmy played well. He was hitting the ball very well from the backcourt.” Connors, now 30 and seemingly improving with age, attributed his steady success rate this season to his tournament schedule. See The Gazette (a newspaper from Montréal), Oct. 4, 1982, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...ors+borg&hl=en. Of course as with any Borg’s comment one has to be careful because a) Borg has often been a gentleman and has often over-praised his opponent (as in the 78 USO final for instance when he claimed that even healthy he would have certainly lost which many doubt) b) even though he was sincere, his bad form then could have biased his opinion of Connors’s level that day. I would be very interested in your own percentage (“a bit better than 65%”), pc1, and your rough fantasized score between a healthy very peak Borg and a healthy very peak Connors. Quote:
The problem with these won-lost percentages is that they aren’t weighed according to the importance of the events. Imagine a player A who won the 4 majors in a calendar year and lost all his other matches and a player B who won all his matches of the year except each 1st round match of the 4 Slams. There is a great probability that I will still consider A as better than B though B’s win-loss percentage will be considerably better. Quote:
Quote:
Once again you can have a player who wins only 80% of his matches but in these 80% you can have for instance 28 matches won in Slams (and so a Grand Slam under his bet) and another player whom percentage is 90% but with only 0 win in 4 Slams. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:23 PM
|
#1068 | ||
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
Quote:
but since the 1973 US Pro, Connors has become one of the very top (Top5 if not better) players in the world : a few months later, at the 1973 South African Open, Okker, after his loss to Connors in the semis, would have stated that nobody had ever played against him as well as Connors did this very day (see Arthur Ashe’s “Portrait in Motion”). This means that even Laver, Ashe or Newcombe, who were Okker’s nemeses, had never played against Okker as well as Jimbo did in this match, at least in Okker’s opinion. It gives an indication of Connors’s level that day on his favourite surface (but Okker’s opinion can be very subjective). So yes since July 1973 Connors was a pretty good player. It is likely that at Wimbledon 1973 he was less good than in the next half of the year and in particular in the US Open (that in your quote you are referring to). It is probable that Metreveli wouldn’t have beaten Connors at Forest Hills whereas he did it at Wimby two months before. Concerning Rosewall, yes I agree with you that Connors in the second half of 1973 was already possibly better than Kenny at the same period. I haven’t seen Ken’s match against Newk but only read comments which stated that Rosewall looked his age (nearly 39 years old) and after all Connors apparently offered a better resistance to Newk than Kenny did (Connors lost 46 67 ... 67 while Rosewall lost 46 67 ... 36. These scores don’t prove that Connors would have beaten Rosewall (there are many examples, in tennis history, contradicting this assumption) in a hypothetical semifinal but are another indication of Connors’ level then but as you claim we will never know. However in the second half of 1973 only Nastase and Newcombe (and Okker ??) were better (had better records) than Connors. About Kodes I am more confused. Kodes was clearly an unconsistent player throughout his career : losing very often in early rounds of “minor” tournaments and having his better results in majors. He was consistent in the sense that you could be almost sure that he would lose very quickly in the tournament following one of his great performance in a Slam tourney. In 1970 he lost every clay tournaments he entered and besides to obscure players, the exceptions being a very depleted tournament in Saint-Petersburg (USA Florida) and Roland Garros where the only Top20 player he met and beat was Franulovic (the 32 contract pros weren’t allowed to play and Kodes was lucky not to face his nemesis among the independent pros, Richey, who offered Franulovic the match (Richey led Zeljko 46 64 61 and 51 but blew missed one or two match points in his semifinal encounter with Zeljko. After this success at Roland, Kodes lost in a Davis Cup tie on clay to Metreveli and then in the 1R of Wimby on grass to ... Metreveli again. In 1971 Kodes did almost nothing until the Italian Open (a true open tourney with all the great claycourters except Rosewall on holidays and Nastase who stupidly followed Tiriac in Madrid) where he overcame successively Stolle Roche, Newcombe, Okker (pretty good performances) before succumbing to Laver at his best. Then for once Kodes confirmed his temporary high level in the next tourney, by winning the French “semi-”open (16 WCT players didn’t enter). Then as usual Kodes did nothing until ... the USO, where he defeated 5 Top20 players (Newcombe, Barthès, Lutz, Froehling, Ashe). And once again he recorded a run of bad results (except in the Stockholm indoor tournament). 1972 is perhaps an exception in Kodes’s best years because his results in majors weren’t better than his results in minors. In 1973 Kodes was a failure in the WCT circuit (not able to qualify for the play-offs in Dallas). He won the famous depleted Wimby though Nastase and Taylor were supposed to be better than the Czech at the time, and above all he made his superb run at the USO, beating Pilic and Smith and extending Newcombe to five sets while handicapped by a very short night between his semifinal and final matches. Then once again Kodes was an invisible ghost for 9 months until the 1974 WCT Finals : he was the last qualified for this event (#8 ) but, at Dallas, he beat Nastase, the #2 on the WCT regular circuit. To come back to a theoretical 1973 USO what would have happened in a fantasized meeting between Kodes and Connors. Yes it’s true that Kodes always lost to Connors in later years : 1974 Wimbledon England Grass Q Connors, Jimmy 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-8, 6-3 1974 US Open NY, U.S.A. Grass R16 Connors, Jimmy 7-5, 6-3, 5-7, 6-2 1975 Hampton VA, U.S.A. Carpet F Connors, Jimmy 3-6, 6-3, 6-0 1975 New York NY, U.S.A. S Connors, Jimmy 7-5, 3-6, 6-1 1976 US Open NY, U.S.A. Clay Q Connors, Jimmy 7-5, 6-3, 6-1 and also the year before, 1972 Masters Barcelona Spain Carpet RR Connors, Jimmy 6-4, 6-3. About the 1972 Masters meeting I don’t remember the surface pace (it was an indoor carpet) but I don’t remember if it was “fast” or “slow” : one should ask to Toni Nadal (Rafa’s uncle and coach who became a Nastase’s huge fan when he watched Ilie winning in Barcelona), but Kodes has rarely been good on fast indoor courts while it was perhaps Connors’s favoured surface. About the post-1973 meetings one can say that Kodes was slightly over the hill however one can note that on grass at Wimby in 1974, when Kodes was supposed to be slightly less good than 10 months before at the ’73 USO, whereas Connors had perhaps slightly ... improved during this period (I fully agree with you that Connors’s improvement between 1973 and 1974 is not that great, far from that and I will develop later), Kodes was able to extend Connors to five sets. Even two months later? at the USO 1974, Kodes wasn’t ridiculous. You have to wait for 1976, to see a Jimbo’s clear and even crushing win over Kodes. So a ’73 USO meeting between both players when Kodes was at his very best (possibly slightly better than in Wimby 1974), and Connors was slightly less good than in ’74, could have been very very close. Though Connors was close to Newcombe in their quarterfinal match, Jimbo was never able to grab a single set while Kodes took 2 sets from Newcombe in the final during which the Czech played unreal tennis as Newk himself confessed in his 2002 autobiography. Had Kodes met Connors in any tournament except the USO (and on clay even har-tru) in the second half of 1973 I would have bet on Connors without any doubt. But at this ’73 USO the odds were perhaps 50-50 between Kodes and Connors while I would have favoured Connors against Rosewall. Last remark about Kodes and Connors : though their games and strokes were quite different, they had similar strengths and weaknesses : both had a great fighting spirit, a great backhand, a great return both had a less good forehand than backhand, a good volley but not extraordinary and both had an average serve. So it’s not surprising that, in 1974-1975 when Connors was at his best and Kodes slightly over the hill, Connors beat Kodes in close matches. That Connors was more consistent than Newcombe is undoubted but Newk has never been consistent. In fact Newcombe was a “super-Kodes” : both were often average in minor events and clearly better in great events. The difference is that Newcombe reached several times the level of a winner of true open Slam tourneys, that is with most of the best players (victories at Wimby 1970 & 1971, USO 1973) while Kodes was a potential runner-up in these events (final at the ’73 USO and eventually I can also consider his ’71 USO final (though Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Drysdale and Gimeno were absent which is not negligible but all the other greats were present)). In terms of consistency Newcombe’s best run was his 1974 WCT performances : he was the #1 on the regular WCT circuit from January to April (besides Newk also won the ATP tournament in Tucson) and in May he stayed the WCT #1 by winning the climax event, the play-offs. The first half of 1974 is an exception, in terms of consistency, in Newcombe’s career. |
||
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:24 PM
|
#1069 | ||
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
In reality the Connors of 1974 has been clearly hugely overrated. That year Connors wasn’t as dominant as a simple interpretation of the facts could suggest. Many thought that he deserved the Grand Slam whereas in reality he was clearly dominant only during the summer (and eventually the autumn). Look chronlogically at what he’s done : First he won the Australian held from Dec. 26, 1973 to Jan. 1, 1974. Among the Top20 players only 3 of them entered in that Slam tourney : Newcombe, Connors, Borg. In other words, were missing 17 out of the world Top20 players : Nastase, Smith, Okker, Kodes, Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Orantes, Gorman, Emerson, Riessen, Panatta, Pilic, Taylor, Fillol, Borg, Richey, Bertolucci. So not an impressive Connors win given that very depleted field for a so-called major event. Then Connors played the US Indoor circuit, managed by his agent William Riordan, with no other great player, except on two occasions (the US Open Indoor in Salisbury and the US National Indoor in Hampton ) where Nastase entered (in particular at Hampton Connors beat Nastase in the final). But the true dominant player during this period was Newcombe who, as said before, won the WCT circuit (with 8 of the Top10 players, Connors and Rosewall being the absentees), the ATP¨tourney, and the WCT Finals. Then the European clay spring season which Connors missed in part due to Chatrier (I guess that if the WTT feud hadn’t occurred, Connors would have perhaps, besides the French, also played the Italian in Rome) : Borg, as Italian then French champion, was the dominant player. Then the summer when Connors won the two greatest Slams (the British Open and the US Open), and the US Clay Court Champs as well, beating, on har-tru, the two French Open finalists in succession. In the autumn Connors won the PSW, the Dewar Cup (Billington & London), the South African Open but lost in San Francisco and above all refused to play the Grand Prix Masters. In my opinion the majors that year were in order Wimby, the USO, and more or less tied in third position, the WCT Finals and the French Open (I perfectly know that we disagree on this notion of major events) but in order to rate Connors and the other players in 1974 I think that to claim that Connors won only 2 majors while Newcombe and Borg each won 1 (instead of stating that Connors won 3 majors, Borg 1 and therefore Newcombe 0), relates better the true opposing strengths that year. Newcombe won 10 tournaments (inc. the WCT Finals) in 1974 and Borg 9 (7 ATP + 2 non-ATP events) so both players weren’t that far from Connors that year. So in terms of record Connors was not as dominant as his “Little Slam” suggests. In my opinion Connors was clearly the best player in the world in 1974 but didn’t rule the circuit as many thought and still think. Yes he did have a very good win-loss record but so many of his wins came from very depleted events. Now let’s have a look at the opposition. For me the great difference between 1973 and 1974 is Nastase’s decline Nastase’s true peak career was from July 1972 to June 1973 when in particular in a 9-month interval he won the USO on grass and the French on clay, and many other tournaments on every possible surface. In 1974 Nastase was clearly less confident, which helped a lot Connors that year. To give an indication of Nastase’s low confidence that year : before playing WCT Monte Carlo 1974, Nastase asked Andras Adam-Stolpa (an ancient Davis Cup player for Hungary and then a pro teacher), for some help because, then, Nastase’s service was bad : his first serve percentage was low and he often double-faulted. Nasty didn’t recover his confidence before the autumn clay season when he won in succession the Melia Trophy in Madrid and the Spanish Open in Barcelona. If we consider 1973 and 1974 in their entirety, I don’t think that Newcombe declined in 1974 so Newk didn’t alter the strength of the opposition during these years : Newk was the #1 in the second half of 1973 and still the best in the first half of 1974. Smith’s case is different from Newcombe’s : Smith clearly declined in 1974 whereas previously, he had been, with Nastase, the world #1 in the first half of 1973. Though I don’t think Kodes was a very top player in 1973 (as Nastase, Newcombe and Smith) he was a player to greatly consider (as is 1973 US performance showed) while in 1974 he was a declining player. Rosewall is not easy to rate but it is possible that age was the cause of a very slight decline between 1973 and 1974. On the other hand, between 1973 and 1974, other players improved, mainly Borg and Vilas and their followers. Borg clearly improved though he still recorded many defeats in 1974 and Vilas became a dominant force in the second half of the year. Besides both players made progress mostly on clay, and not on grass (with the exception of Vilas’s victory in the Grand Prix Masters at Kooyong on Australian grass) the surface where Connors established his 1974 domination. So I think that in 1973 the opposition was stronger than in 1974 given that the declines of Nastase, Smith, Kodes, Rosewall were clearly greater in my opinion than Borg and Vilas’s (mostly on clay) improvements. So in conclusion in 1974 a) Connors’s record was not as good as it suggests and b) the opposition was weaker than in the previous year. So given these statements I think that Connors’s level in 1974 was, very likely, ONLY slightly better than in the second half of 1973 and in particular at the ’73 USO Therefore I fully agree with you on that point though I don’t know if our shared conclusion comes from shared arguments. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:25 PM
|
#1070 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
perhaps they didn’t think it was an important fact given that almost two years later both players had evolved : one has declined while the other has improved. Besides, in these times you couldn’t find information in one click as today, so possibly only Kenny and Jimbo (and Segura ?) were aware of this 1972 result. Another info for you (and the others) : in 1974 the WTT matches a) confirmed the results in Slam tourneys (Connors defeating Rosewall defeating Newcombe) and b) Newcombe’s domination over Connors in head-to-head matches between 1973 and early 1975 : a) May 28, 1974, Pittsburgh, Rosewall d. Newcombe 64 then July 11, 1974, Baltimore (5 days after their Wimby final), Connors d. Rosewall 75 b) July 29, 1974, Houston, Newcombe d. Connors 76 (Newk winner as previously in the 1973 USO and, as later, in the 1975 AO held in Melbourne on January 1, 1975 (so still Dec. 31, 1974 in local hour in the USA). |
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2011, 10:54 PM
|
#1071 |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,735
|
Hello Carlo,
nice informations on the WTT tour. Indeed, they seem significant because they seem to confirm the head to head structure of the 3 players, Newk, Rosewall, Connors in that period. Somewhat odd, that Ken and Jimbo met again so shortly after Wimbledon. Ken held it much closer at Baltimore than at Wim, and much closer than a few weeks later at Forest Hills. Agree about the ambivalences of Connors 1974. There were much rumors then in tennis circles, that Connors did avoid the stronger WCT tour, while Newcombe played himself tired in the first half of the year. Incidentily, Newk played better at the big events in 1973, when he didn't play WCT (he was of course awful at the European spring tournaments, losing to guys like Peter Szoeke). Also Ken played better at the majors in 1974, when he didn't play WCT. That imo makes Ashe's 1975 quite interesting, because he won WCT playoff at Dallas, had a very good season on the WCT tour, and nevertheless won Wimbledon (and did quite well later in the year at LA, and even on har tru wasn't that bad). |
|
|
|
12-08-2011, 12:40 AM
|
#1072 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
Other great top ten were in the early 80´s: Borg,Mac,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Cle rc,kriek and Noah and early 90´s with, in no particular order: Edberg,Becker,Sampras,Agassi,Courier,Bruguera,Chan g,Stich,Ivanisevic and Rafter or Krajicek. Oh¡ early 60´s: Laver,Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Emerson,Fraser,Gimeno ,Santana,Trabert and ageeing Kramer?
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2011, 12:48 AM
|
#1073 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
He clearly couldn´t compete with the top players in 1982, even if he could ocassionally beat them. Lendl-Borg would be the greatest clay court rivalry, better than Borg vs Wilander or Lendl vs Wilander, which was a great rivalry, but not so good on clay
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2011, 12:56 AM
|
#1074 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
1900-1920: Doherty L & R,Brookes,Wilding 1920: Tilden and the 3 Mousketeers 1930: Perry,Budge,Crawford and Vines 1950: Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales and Trabert (Patty and Drobny follow) 1960: Laver,Rosewall,Hoad,Gonzales (Emmo and Santana follow) 1970: Newcombe,Ashe,Nastase and Kodes (Smith and Rosewall behind) 1980: Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl (Vilas and Vitas behind) 1990: Sampras,Agassi,Becker and Edberg (Courier and Rafter behind) 2000: Kuerten,Hewitt,Safin and Sampras or Agassi (Ferrero and Agassi or Sampras behind) 2010: Nadal,Federer,Del Po and Djokovic (Murray and Roddick behind)
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2011, 04:18 AM
|
#1075 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,043
|
Quote:
__________________
Borg never pointed to himself. He never even seemed to care if anyone read the advertisements. — Tom Callahan |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2011, 04:20 AM
|
#1076 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,043
|
Quote:
__________________
Borg never pointed to himself. He never even seemed to care if anyone read the advertisements. — Tom Callahan |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2011, 01:06 PM
|
#1077 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
Connors was the man that Borg couldn´t beat on exos ( from 1982), even if he pulled up some wins against Lendl,Mac and others
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2011, 03:35 PM
|
#1078 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,043
|
Quote:
__________________
Borg never pointed to himself. He never even seemed to care if anyone read the advertisements. — Tom Callahan |
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2011, 12:57 AM
|
#1079 | |
|
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,501
|
Quote:
Exos were the only opportunity for Borg tot est himself against his old time rivals, he did pretty well but, to compete with them, he had to give much more than just an ocassional show up at the Slams.You could see a big difference.
__________________
" I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian |
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2011, 05:29 AM
|
#1080 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,043
|
Quote:
__________________
Borg never pointed to himself. He never even seemed to care if anyone read the advertisements. — Tom Callahan |
|
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:53 AM.