Bjorn Borg is the GOAT

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I was watching the 1979 Wimbledon final between Borg and Tanner the other day. An amazing match which Tanner was very unfortunate to lose, and one of the Australian commentators said that if Borg won, he would surely be recognised as the greatest player of all time. Laver didn't seem to be in the equation anything like he seems to be these days.

Of course, there's the fact that Borg was just 23 at that stage, about to win his 8th major, and potentially had many, many years at the peak of the game. Many people were saying the same about Federer long before he got near Sampras' 14 majors.

I found that remark somewhat odd too. A few things come to mind about that time period (the late 70s).

1) Wimbledon may have been regarded as more important, relative to the other Slams, than it is today. Of course it has top prestige today, but back then it was still called the unofficial world championship -- a title which by tradition it had held for a long time. For example in '77 when Borg won Wimbledon, Sports Illustrated referred to his winning "the world championship."

So the streak that Borg was putting together at Wimbledon was already taking on mythical proportions. The longest previous streak since the Challenge Round was abolished was 3 in a row by Fred Perry. Borg was doing something that had not been done in 40 years, going back to Perry, and when he got 4 in a row with the win over Tanner it became the longest streak since 1906. When records that old get toppled, it takes on mythical proportions.

2) Laver's "lost" career in 1963-67 was not as well understood in 1979 as it is now. Of course people knew that he kept on winning in those years, but the picture of what he did was unclear. A lot of it was forgotten, or just plain unknown. (And what was known was definitely under-appreciated!)The historical research that uncovered all of his titles and laid it out in a clear picture is much more recent. In '79 what the pros had done before the Open Era was still looked upon as the dark ages of tennis.

3) And I think there was just some hyperbole in the moment. That announcer may just have felt the excitement of an unheard-of record about to be made, and jumped the gun about what its importance was going to be in the GOAT debate.

Not saying that explains the remark fully, but those things come to mind.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by netlets

He would have won at least 4 Australian Opens without question before he had retired at 26.

He could have won 4, but no way is it without question. In '77 Connors could have pushed him to the limit (as he did in the Wimbledon final) or beaten him. In '78, yes, Borg would have had a great chance. In '79, '80 and '81 he would have faced strong challenges from McEnroe -- with Connors still in the mix.

[borg number one]

Krosero, I agree that Wimbledon may have been a bit more prestigious back then than it is today, relatively speaking. I think it's still quite comfortably the "biggest tournament" of the year, though the other majors aren't too far behind perhaps. Borg equaling Perry's 3 in a row was big and then when he won four in a row, that was huge. I recall that after the epic '81 final, the commentator said something like..Bjorn Borg now has an "absolutely unique place in the history of the Game" (referring to his five titles in a row). Also, he said that he was "King of the world of tennis without a doubt..."an absolutely monumental place in the Game". Around 1980-1981, when discussions about the "greatest" player were going on, I recall that Borg, Laver, and perhaps Tilden also were discussed. I believe that in a World Tennis article, Budge said something about Tilden being able to take Borg's shots simply take them on the fly (volley them). Though I disagreed, it was interesting to think about. On the AO question, no doubt, Connors and McEnroe would be his primary rivals of course, just like they were at Wimbledon and the US Open, but not at the FO.

[nikdom]

Borg's ugly game and clay court achievements were upended by Nadal's ugly game. If Borg wasn't even the greatest clay court player, how can he be GOAT?

[borg number one]

Nikdom, as to Borg and Nadal, there's also indoors, Wimbledon and hard courts, plus influence on the Game in many respects. So, it's not just clay dominance. Borg and Nadal are basically both way up there in the history of clay courters, of course. In addition, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Plus, I don't find Nadal's game to be ugly either. I generally find many styles of tennis to be quite pleasing to the eye, whether it's S&V, all court, or primarily baseline play.

This is some beautiful tennis play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk
(Borg vs. Lendl indoors in Jan. 1981 at the Masters YEC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY
(Borg vs. Connors on rubico in '79, Pepsi Grand Slam, 4 man invitational, only for players that had won a major, big money event played in FLA back then)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jGn0ZIZtaM
(Borg vs. Pecci, 1979 FO final)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugw-pjROUQ
(Borg vs. Nastase, 1976 W final)

Thanks for the videos Borgforever and Krosero.

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by nikdom

Borg's ugly game and clay court achievements were upended by Nadal's ugly game. If Borg wasn't even the greatest clay court player, how can he be GOAT?

I have no problem with your subjective statement regarding ugliness, but to presume that being the GOAT means you must be the GOAT on clay is silly.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by borg number one

I recall that after the epic '81 final, the commentator said something like..Bjorn Borg now has an "absolutely unique place in the history of the Game" (referring to his five titles in a row). Also, he said that he was "King of the world of tennis without a doubt..."an absolutely monumental place in the Game".

Yes. Those comments were made by Dan Maskell after the 1980 Wimbledon final, Borg's fifth Wimbledon title in a row. Maskell had said it was one of the most dramatic matches that he had ever seen, and considering that he had been involved in the tennis world for about 6 decades by that point (since he was a kid), that is saying something. He carried on commentating until the end of 1991 Wimbledon, when he was 83 years old.

[nikdom]

Sorry. Still pissed that this in the general pro player section. I don't know enough about Borg to do anything but troll. Please carry on; I won't interject.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

I have no problem with your subjective statement regarding ugliness, but to presume that being the GOAT means you must be the GOAT on clay is silly.

How is Borg the GOAT when he isn't even GOAT on his favourite surface(ala clay)?

[borg number one]

Nikdom, no worries. It's just tennis talk. For me, Borg, Laver, Tilden, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Tomic..it's all interesting. When you know about all the history of the Game, it really makes even today's AO matches more interesting to watch and appreciate, but that's my opinion. My first coach played on the Tour along guys like Kramer, so even during my first lesson in the late 1970's I was immediately immersed in tennis history. He wouldn't even let me play with an oversized Prince when those first came out. I still talk to him to this day about Laver, Murray, Nadal, Borg, Federer, Donnay frames, etc...

[nikdom]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Nikdom, no worries. It's just tennis talk. For me, Borg, Laver, Tilden, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Tomic..it's all interesting. When you know about all the history of the Game, it really makes even today's AO matches more interesting to watch and appreciate, but that's my opinion. My first coach played on the Tour along guys like Kramer, so even during my first lesson in the late 1970's I was immediately immersed in tennis history. He wouldn't even let me play with an oversized Prince when those first came out. I still talk to him to this day about Laver, Murray, Nadal, Borg, Federer, Donnay frames, etc...

I admire your passion for everything Borg and respect your history with the sport - watching it, playing the game and witnessing all the changes that have happened. Sorry if I have been disrespectful. The internet makes us all *******s sometimes.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by monfed

How is Borg the GOAT when he isn't even GOAT on his favourite surface(ala clay)?

Some arguments in Borg's favour:

1. He only once played the Australian Open, yet managed to win 11 majors and play his last match at a major aged just 25.
2. He has a positive head-to-head against all his majors rivals, except 7-7 with McEnroe, who never played against Borg on clay.
3. He holds the record for the most consecutive match wins at Wimbledon with 41 in a row.
4. 3 times he won a major without dropping a set, including the most dominant major win in history at the 1978 French Open with just 32 games lost in 7 matches, with a victory over the defending champion Vilas in the final by 6-1, 6-1, 6-3.
5. 3 years in a row he won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same calendar year.

Of course, the biggest negative is Borg's failure to win the US Open, despite getting to 4 finals. He had his best chance in 1976 against Connors on clay, in my opinion, with 4 set points in the third set tiebreak while it was 1 set all, but Connors saved them all and won the match in 4 sets.

[borg number one]

^^Mustard, good rundown there. Good reasons for and against Borg. Every great player has perhaps has a few "chinks in the armor", but that's tennis for you. That '76 US Open final was a close one no doubt. Borg was still a bit "wet behind the ears" though at 20. Great win by Jimmy though, no doubt. It's interesting that Orantes and Vilas won that event in '75 and '77 respectively, and then you have the switch to hard courts for the US Open in '78 when it moved from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows. Yet, I would also submit that the '80 US Open final was a nail biter, with Borg having a break point in the fifth set, having won sets 3 & 4. A funny moment during that match is this one. Recall that this was just a couple of months after the epic on Centre Court in 1980. I guess McEnroe and Borg have played some soccer too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK45lDHc8yw

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by nikdom

I admire your passion for everything Borg and respect your history with the sport - watching it, playing the game and witnessing all the changes that have happened. Sorry if I have been disrespectful. The internet makes us all *******s sometimes.

Thanks Nikdom, that's very nice of you, no need to apologize. I'm sure I've made some posts that were a bit rough on others too. The internet can be a strange place sometimes no doubt, lol, but all in all, I really like this site.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Nikdom, as to Borg and Nadal, there's also indoors, Wimbledon and hard courts, plus influence on the Game in many respects. So, it's not just clay dominance. Borg and Nadal are basically both way up there in the history of clay courters, of course. In addition, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Plus, I don't find Nadal's game to be ugly either. I generally find many styles of tennis to be quite pleasing to the eye, whether it's S&V, all court, or primarily baseline play.

This is some beautiful tennis play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk
(Borg vs. Lendl indoors in Jan. 1981 at the Masters YEC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY
(Borg vs. Connors on rubico in '79, Pepsi Grand Slam, 4 man invitational, only for players that had won a major, big money event played in FLA back then)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jGn0ZIZtaM
(Borg vs. Pecci, 1979 FO final)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugw-pjROUQ
(Borg vs. Nastase, 1976 W final)

Thanks for the videos Borgforever and Krosero.

I admire your open-mindedness.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Krosero, I agree that Wimbledon may have been a bit more prestigious back then than it is today, relatively speaking. I think it's still quite comfortably the "biggest tournament" of the year, though the other majors aren't too far behind perhaps. Borg equaling Perry's 3 in a row was big and then when he won four in a row, that was huge. I recall that after the epic '81 final, the commentator said something like..Bjorn Borg now has an "absolutely unique place in the history of the Game" (referring to his five titles in a row). Also, he said that he was "King of the world of tennis without a doubt..."an absolutely monumental place in the Game".

Yes that was Dan Maskell, who had been around for decades and had a keen sense of history. He knew how revered Wimbledon had always been, so for someone to post 5 titles in a row -- well, that was utterly unique in the history of the game. No one had ever won 5 in a row playing straight through, without the benefit of the Challenge Round system. Maskell was acknowledging that.

But I think it's possible that a streak of 5 in a row did not happen until the Open Era because so many of the great amateurs of the past would go into the pro game without ever getting the chance to post such a streak. Now everyone plays Wimbledon until retirement, and Sampras posted streaks of 3 and 4, and Federer tied Borg's 5.

Which is not to diminish Borg's streak. It still stands up there with the greatest records in history. But it is no longer absolutely unique as Maskell called it, since one player has tied it and another nearly tied it.

On the other hand, Borg's three channel Slams seem to be more highly regarded today than they were in his time. I mean of course everyone knew then how difficult it was to go from clay to grass, and he got kudos for it. But maybe now with the changes to Wimbledon's grass, there's more appreciation for what Borg did, annihilating baseliners on really slow clay and two weeks later beating all the serve-and-volleyers on a really fast grass.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by monfed

How is Borg the GOAT when he isn't even GOAT on his favourite surface(ala clay)?

Whether or not he is the GOAT he is clearly better than nadal. He achieved more majors at a younger age and also he had a far better range of surface ability. He was one of the top indoor carpet payers along with being the best clay player...whereas nadal doesnt have quite the same ability at the fast end of the spectrum.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by borg number one

In 1980, Connors lost to Borg at the WCT-Maryland event 6-1,6-3 (indoors). At the 1980 Masters Cup (YEC) event, played in Jan. 1981, he lost a close three setter to Borg. So, as far as calendar year 1980, you have that 1 Connors Borg meeting, with two wins by Borg if you look at the Jan. 81 Masters event as the 1980 YEC. What a trio of great players, reminding me a bit of Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer now, of course with some differences. Connors was the oldest of the three. Here, you have Federer as the oldest of the three. Nadal represented a big challenge for Federer. For Connors, it was first Borg and then later McEnroe. Now, you have Djokovic that has reached the top ranking. Will he hang on? How long? That's sort of like what McEnroe did in 1981, when he took over #1 from Borg. Yet, look at 1981 more closely. McEnroe did win the W and US Open encounters against Borg, but Borg was no slouch that year. he took out McEnroe at the Masters event indoors on McEnroe's home turf (MSG) and of course he won FO #6, whereas McEnroe was nowhere near Borg on red clay. I remember Laver talking about how though McEnroe was a tough matchup for Borg on fast surfaces by 1981 (though their H2H stood at 7-7 on all fast surfaces), Borg still had a big advantage on clay. Then came 1982, and Connors pulled ahead of McEnroe at both W and the US Open. Currently, what will happen with Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer? Can Djokovic hold on to the top spot, and hold off the "older guard" (though Nadal only about a year older than Djokovic). Should be fascinating to watch.

Connors deefated Mc in their only 1981 calendar match (a classic 5 setter at the Wembley pool, in November).If we consider, as it should, 1982 Masters as part of 1981, then Mc darws it because of his MSG win over Connors ( who also beat Mc in another torrid 5 setter, in Chicago, prior to the MSG event).

Borg also felt to Mac at the Milan Indoors in 1981.Mac clearly dominated Borg in 1981, same way as Borg dominated Mac in 1980 ( Borg handled easily the new yorker in the 1980 Stockholm Indoors, a tournament of the same importance as the Wembley event I mentioned before).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

McEnroe was getting repeatedly battered by Lendl in 1982. It was certainly a factor in damaging his confidence.

True.Even an injuried Lendl dominated JMac in 1982 ( Mac´s only win would come at the beginning of the year, in an exhibition event held at Chicago)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Very true. Look at 1980-1981 too. Lendl had the edge there versus him, though Connors and Borg were winning most of the time versus Lendl. In 1981, Borg prevailed almost always versus Connors, and most of the time versus Lendl, with McEnroe he was basically even H2H, but McEnroe won at W and the US Open, while Borg did take the Jan. 81 Masters and the FO.

Milan 1981: Mc Enroe takes the final beating Borg 7-6,6-4.