How many more Slams should the games legends really have won?

[Gizo]

I think that Connors should have won 1977 Wimbledon against Borg as others have argued here, but Borg should have won the 1978 US Open.

He played the final against Connors with a painful thumb injury and had taken a cortisone injection just before. That final was effectively a walkover, and I doubt Borg would have even played in it had it been at a smaller tournament.

He had clearly overtaken Connors in the pecking order of men's tennis by then, and had no fear of him any more. I think a healthy Borg would have a great chance of winning that elusive US Open title and the third leg of the grand slam in 1978.

Plus around that time his close friend Ronnie Peterson died from a pulmonary embolism following the 1978 Italian Formula One Grand Prix at Monza, so that was a tough time for him.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Gizo

I think that Connors should have won 1977 Wimbledon against Borg as others have argued here, but Borg should have won the 1978 US Open.

Possible about '77, though I tend to doubt it. Sports Illustrated actually said the thumb was no excuse, since the errors that cost Connors the match came off his forehand; and the injured thumb was on his non-dominant hand. They also said that with all the talk about his thumb, he took everyone by surprise in the final, right from the start, hitting 21 clean winners in the first set.

When I see that match I don't see him affected by his thumb. I'm no expert, but I don't recall any expert observing Connors' play affected.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL at the "your game" comments. I was just giving my opinion in what the spirit of this thread is for. You are likewise entitled your own opinion. As it is I disagree with some of those. There was nothing more he could have done to win the 2005 Australian Open, he played his best and still lost. Novak was flat out too good at the 2008 Australian Open, he would have beaten Federer no matter what.

I think that everything in your post about Nadal, and everything in my post about Federer, is questionable; that's my actual opinion. I'm surprised you missed my mimicry of your post.

[SusanDK]

Stefan Edberg -

Should have won the 1990 Australian Open when he retired to Lendl due to a stomach muscle injury, but had been playing an incredible tournament, dropping only one set up to the final, including total destruction of Mats Wilander in the semi-finals.

Also I believe he should have won the 1989 French Open against Chang when he was two points away from serving for the match in the 4th set, and let it slip away.

With those two wins, he would have had the career grand slam plus a total of 8 singles slam titles, forever putting to rest the "who is better - Wilander, Becker, Edberg" debate. I happen to already place Edberg as the best of those three, but most rate Becker or Wilander (or both) above him.

[jean pierre]

Vilas should have won FO 1982. He had a second set point, and his return was out for one millimetre. If he won the set, he won the match.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by SusanDK

Stefan Edberg -

Should have won the 1990 Australian Open when he retired to Lendl due to a stomach muscle injury, but had been playing an incredible tournament, dropping only one set up to the final, including total destruction of Mats Wilander in the semi-finals.

Also I believe he should have won the 1989 French Open against Chang when he was two points away from serving for the match in the 4th set, and let it slip away.

With those two wins, he would have had the career grand slam plus a total of 8 singles slam titles, forever putting to rest the "who is better - Wilander, Becker, Edberg" debate. I happen to already place Edberg as the best of those three, but most rate Becker or Wilander (or both) above him.

Good point Susan.He should have defeated Lendl and won his third Aussie Open.But, with seven slams and a Masters ( which Wilander never won) he´d be ranked along Boris Becker...so the debate contiunes.Becker was the best of the three.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

Vilas should have won FO 1982. He had a second set point, and his return was out for one millimetre. If he won the set, he won the match.

he just run out of fuel and Wilander was the fair winner of the tournament.Vilas had a magnificient 1982, possibly his best year since 1977 and I agree it would have been fair to him to win at last one slam title more before retiring.However he was judged by drugs problems...what do you know about Vilas selling drugs?

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by kiki

he just run out of fuel and Wilander was the fair winner of the tournament.Vilas had a magnificient 1982, possibly his best year since 1977 and I agree it would have been fair to him to win at last one slam title more before retiring.However he was judged by drugs problems...what do you know about Vilas selling drugs?

Never heard anything about that.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

Never heard anything about that.

He dammaged Peter Mc Namara, reputation

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by JAY1

Yes I agree from a score point of view, but the first set v Vilas he dominated to such an extent he was going to walk through the match, then he let the crowd get to him.
But after reading 'Dan's' post, I did'nt realise he was injured v Borg in 77 Wimb final.
The reason I posted this was when I used to play full-time I could look at past matches and think "Ok that was a close match and it was 50 - 50 but that's the way the cookie crumbles". But with other matches i could objectivly look back at them and think, "If I hadn't had been injured, been put off by a few bad line calls, choked etc etc", I should have won this match"! It does'nt mean i'm right, but it's a feeling every player has!

Yes, Connors was practising against Newcombe the day before the Wimbledon final in '77, when Connors threw down his raquet and said that he would not play the final because his thumb was bothering him, injured against Tanner (?). Newk talked him into continuing. Connors nearly won the final, but perhaps his hand prblem was the difference.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by JAY1

Seriously Dan, how do you know so much? The mind boggles, I thought I knew a bit?

I used to watch tennis a lot on TV in the 1970's and used my university library to further my tennis education. This was before I entered grad school in economics, and had no further time for such research.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Where did you read or hear that these injuries took place just prior to the finals?

Connors fractured his right thumb three weeks before the '77 Wimbledon final against Borg. He injured his leg in his first match of the '75 Wimbledon, two weeks (of course) before the final (and he went through to the final without dropping a set).

There's no point in bringing up injuries if they're not described correctly.

What's your source for this?

Danzig mentions nothing about an injury in his report in the NY Times. In fact when he describes Newcombe's play in the second set he says that Newk was serving love games and returning better than Stolle.

I was using Newk's TV interview as a source, but it looks like you have better sources here.
As for the 1966 Forest Hills final, this was mentioned for sure in the media of the time. Danzig almost never mentioned injuries or health issues.
Newk won the first set, and was doing well in the second, when he clearly sprained his ankle. One reporter said, Fred had found himself on the losing end of finals so many times, that it was good to see him get a break for a change.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Possible about '77, though I tend to doubt it. Sports Illustrated actually said the thumb was no excuse, since the errors that cost Connors the match came off his forehand; and the injured thumb was on his non-dominant hand. They also said that with all the talk about his thumb, he took everyone by surprise in the final, right from the start, hitting 21 clean winners in the first set.

When I see that match I don't see him affected by his thumb. I'm no expert, but I don't recall any expert observing Connors' play affected.

I think that everything in your post about Nadal, and everything in my post about Federer, is questionable; that's my actual opinion. I'm surprised you missed my mimicry of your post.

What you say makes sense, but Newk made a big deal of it on the TV broadcast.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

As for the 1966 Forest Hills final, this was mentioned for sure in the media of the time. Danzig almost never mentioned injuries or health issues.
Newk won the first set, and was doing well in the second, when he clearly sprained his ankle. One reporter said, Fred had found himself on the losing end of finals so many times, that it was good to see him get a break for a change.

Sports Illustrated also did not mention the sprained ankle. Here's one newspaper that mentioned it: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=844%2C2812150. They wrote:

"Newcombe said later he hurt his right ankle when he fell going for a ball in the last game of the second set, but said he didn't think the injury affected the outcome. Stolle, however, said he thought the injury hampered Newcombe's play."

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Sports Illustrated also did not mention the sprained ankle. Here's one newspaper that mentioned it: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=844%2C2812150. They wrote:

"Newcombe said later he hurt his right ankle when he fell going for a ball in the last game of the second set, but said he didn't think the injury affected the outcome. Stolle, however, said he thought the injury hampered Newcombe's play."

Most interesting. The article I read was by someone else, name escapes me.
Note that Stolle turned down a $60,000 guarantee to turn pro (Emmo turned down $80,000). This was below the $125,000 Hoad accepted in 1957, and the $100,000 Laver accepted in 1962.
This shows that the top amateurs were making good money.

[urban]

Actually, Stolle did turn pro after the Davis Cup challenge round 1966.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

Actually, Stolle did turn pro after the Davis Cup challenge round 1966.

Yes, Stolle did, but not Emerson or Santana, the two biggest amateur names. Presumably, they were making too much out of amateur tennis to sacrifice the celebrity and lifestyle they enjoyed for the obscurity and reduced income of professional tennis.