Borg on grass and clay

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Plus the Australian still wasn't highly regarded by the players from '83-'85. After Edberg won the Australian in '85, his 1st major win, he was asked how important it was to his career, & he said, "off course its not as big as the other slams, but its still important." That should tell you a lot, its unfathomable that someone would say that after winning the AO today(& Edberg is a nice guy, not the type to ruffle feathers, & no one took offence at his comment, since he was just telling the truth)
Also, I saw the '83 final between Wilander & Lendl, there were an inordinate amount of baseline rallies(esp considering Lendl & Wilander always S&Ved at Wimbledon) After the final, in the trophy presentation, Lendl said "I'm not sure I'll be back next year, maybe I can fit it in my schedule, but it was nice to play this year." Again this shows the stature of this event at the time, can you imagine players not able to fit a slam in their schedule? No wonder Wilander didn't feel much pressure there, it wasn't anywhere near as important as Wimbledon. McEnroe was actually offered apperance money to play the Australian some years, so I doubt he was 100% motivated when he played it. No one needed to motivate him for Wimbledon.

Regarding the importance of the AO during some years, it's telling how little it's mentioned in autobiographies by Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, etc. In Nasty's I don't remember reading about it, McEnroe's has it that prior to his first trip to the AO he used to feel that traveling all that way for a relatively 'minor major' was too much effort. And Borg didn't even regard it as a major; when cutting back his schedule in 1980 he said his main career goal remained to win as many majors as possible (and then went on to list only three (!): the French, Wimbledon and the US). During the Aussie Open he would rest and he wouldn't ever think about playing there until he managed to win the first three legs of the Grand Slam. He complains about the long schedule which back then streched to a thirteenth month with the Grand Prix Masters held in January.

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Keep in mind the Australian Open grass was different than that of Wimbledon (like the diff between rebound ace & the US Open today)

Your comparison between various types of hard courts now a days and the grass courts of former days makes perfect sense to me. Maybe there is even more variation possible on grass because of the effect the weather can have on natural surfaces (just as we see these days on clay). The most clear cut description of the differences in surfaces of the three grass court majors I saw in Gene Scott in his "Tennis, A Game of Motion". For accuracy's sake I'll quote him literally:
Aussie grass is different from the lushness of Wimbledon or the brittleness of Forest Hills. It is low and as hard as a roadbed, producing lightningfast but flawless bounces. The Meeri Creek river irrigates the soil that produces Kooyong's green, the equal of turf anywhere. A sturdy combination of Kentucky blue, rye and creeping bent, the turf is almost indestructible, even to a determined toedragger. By April, the end of the tennis season, the courts are worn and soiled to a green-brown stubble that resembles a three-day beard. Nonetheless, the surface stays even and gives a true bounce, even after a succession of tournaments. The surface is as hard as cement, but there are still no ruts. At Forest Hills, because of a weak subsoil, the courts become sponge like after the first rain. There, a ball's first bounce is likely to be its last. But after a deluge at Kooyong, the rich river earth combines with the rain to form a pastelike mud. As the grounds dry, they can be rolled and manicured into the same resilient, even pitch as before. The pros continually complain about the uneven turf at the West Side. The grass there has subsoil problems that cause the pitch to become uneven after a heavy rain.

[Rosebud]

In his autobiography Mac mentions something that I found curious: he says that to fascilitate drainage, the courts at Kooyong, from baseline to net sloped uphill somewhat on each side, which in his view (apart from the hard ground) also helped baseliners like Villas defeat serve and volleyers. I'm trying to see how they would have benefited from that?

[Zimbo]

Here's a link written by Pete Bodo comparing Borg and Nadal on clay. Thought some of you would like to read it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...72&name=tennis

[dommod]

Originally Posted by Zimbo

Here's a link written by Pete Bodo comparing Borg and Nadal on clay. Thought some of you would like to read it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...72&name=tennis

Appreciate article. It appear unlikely that Nadal can ever equal the mighty Borg.

[fgbowen33]

Borg stood way back on the return. On grass he could return the serve at servers feet with a very low dipping heavy topspin shot making the server hit the first volley up. Then the server was dead.