Why did Panatta trouble Borg?

Moose Malloy · 04-03-2007, 12:06 PM

Panatta was the only player to ever beat Borg at the French(two times, but one was when Borg was only 16 & unseeded)

Final head to head was Borg 10-6(3 of Panatta's wins were when Borg was 16)

But Panatta did beat Borg in '75 (Borg won his 2nd French that year) 7-5 6-0 6-2 in Madrid on clay.

And in '76 he beat Borg(who was 2 time defending champ) at the French 6-3 6-3 2-6 7-6 in the QF.

In '78 Panatta lost a final at Rome to Borg 1-6 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-3('78 Borg was at his peak, winning the French without losing a set & destroying Vilas in the finals of Monte Carlo & the French)

Out of Borg's 10 wins, 8 were on clay, but Borg was only able to win one of those 8 in straight sets(Borg rarely lost sets on clay to anyone, so extending Borg on clay is no small feat)

anyone have any ideas why he gave Borg trouble? Panatta was a serve & volley type player, I recall.

Panatta was ranked a career high of 4 in '76. He won 9 career titles(out of 25 finals)

Colpo · 04-03-2007, 12:13 PM

I'm going to follow this thread, because I don't have a ready answer and I'm curious. I mean, the usual suspects pop up (athletic, S&V'er, big guy probably played with some pace even on clay), but I don't know. Panatta is generally regarded as one of the bigger "missed" talents...

Trinity TC · 04-03-2007, 12:26 PM

Panatta loved playing the top-ranked players like Borg and Connors but couldn't be bothered trying against all of the others (one exception being Buster Mottram whom he hated). Appearantly, it was tough to get him to leave Italy to play tournaments.

noeledmonds · 04-04-2007, 01:20 PM

Good post. This is a question I planned to start a post on myself. I personally find it baffling. Panatta's game does not obiously match up to clay at all. With S&V and some powerfull stokes and serves I would have expected his success to be elsewhere. I can't really think of a logical explanation for Panatta troubling Borg although I am open to suggestions.

Perhaps we are just picking at nothing here. Pannata beat a 16 year old Borg at the FO first time. With any other player in open-era history that would mean nothing. It really shows Borg's dominance on clay that we point out a loss he had at such a young age. The second victory at the FO is obviously more significant however we must remember that the previous year Borg beat Panatta in the semi-final at the FO.

Trinity TC · 04-05-2007, 11:05 AM

Although Ilie Nastase was considered the most talented player back then, I thought Adriano Panatta was more gifted. Panatta wasn't as fast as Nastase but he had great shotmaking ability and was one of the few that could keep up with and sometimes overpower Connors. Another footnote, Borg had a reputation for tanking matches (even on clay!) before he established himself as a dominant player.

BreakPoint · 04-05-2007, 11:40 AM

Panatta was a madman at the net and dove for passing shots like no other (no, not even Boris Becker), so I guess even Borg had a tough time passing him at net even with his massive topspin shots.

Shaolin · 04-05-2007, 12:31 PM

So...Panatta was a s&v player that also played with heavy topspin? Thats pretty unique, most s&v guys hit flat/slice from the backcourt.

forzainter · 04-05-2007, 12:36 PM

i thought breakpoint was saying that borg had massive topspin shots, i wouldnt know because i wasnt around then and i havent seen videos.

Colpo · 04-05-2007, 12:39 PM

It hasn't been mentioned expressly, but Panatta grew up playing only on red clay, so there was obviously a comfort level on clay despite his being generally viewed as an S & V'er.

BreakPoint · 04-05-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzainter

i thought breakpoint was saying that borg had massive topspin shots, i wouldnt know because i wasnt around then and i havent seen videos.

That's right. I was referring to Borg's massive topspin shots which usually caused lots of trouble for opponents trying to volley them at the net since they dip like crazy which allowed Borg to hit with tremendous angles and still keep the ball in. And even when he didn't hit angles, the ball would dip right at the feet of the incoming net rusher making for very tough low volleys or half-volleys which the net rusher had to hit up to get over the net.

jaykay · 04-05-2007, 02:26 PM

Because Borg is super-jealous of Moya? Oh crap - I thought you meant Pennetta (Flavia). Sorry!

rjkardo · 04-06-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Panatta was the only player to ever beat Borg at the French(two times, but one was when Borg was only 16 & unseeded)

Final head to head was Borg 10-6(3 of Panatta's wins were when Borg was 16)

But Panatta did beat Borg in '75 (Borg won his 2nd French that year) 7-5 6-0 6-2 in Madrid on clay.

And in '76 he beat Borg(who was 2 time defending champ) at the French 6-3 6-3 2-6 7-6 in the QF.

In '78 Panatta lost a final at Rome to Borg 1-6 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-3('78 Borg was at his peak, winning the French without losing a set & destroying Vilas in the finals of Monte Carlo & the French)

Out of Borg's 10 wins, 8 were on clay, but Borg was only able to win one of those 8 in straight sets(Borg rarely lost sets on clay to anyone, so extending Borg on clay is no small feat)

anyone have any ideas why he gave Borg trouble? Panatta was a serve & volley type player, I recall.

Panatta was ranked a career high of 4 in '76. He won 9 career titles(out of 25 finals)

Panatta had a all court game, and he was able to change up the pace and move the ball around enough to give Borg, especially a young Borg, a lot of problems. Panatta was very talented but quirky. Maybe a comparison today would be Safin, but certainly he shared some traits with Nastase.

In his autobiography, "My Life and My Game" Borg discusses Panatta and how much he hated Panatta's sliced backhand approach shots.

Rod

Rabbit · 04-06-2007, 05:53 AM

Borg did tank, but never in Grand Slams. He realized their value in the game and always gave his all.

I agree with rjkardo. Panatta, as I remember him, was physically the equal of Nastase. I think they were both around the same size.

I agree that their games were similar, but Nastase's natural gift of anticipation was what made him a better player than Panatta. Both were head cases. Both had great topspin forehands and sliced backhands they used to approach with (down the line, Roddick, down the line). And both were very fleet of foot. It's interesting that Nastase holds a 7 - 3 edge over Panatta and he was 5 - 3 over Panatta on clay.

Prior to 1977, Panatta did have a 6 - 5 record over Borg and was 5 - 4 over Borg on clay. Borg turned the corner on Panatta after that and won the series out. Panatta's all court game on clay may have bothered Borg.

In 1978, Borg played Panatta in the now infamous finals of the Italian Open. Back then, it any player playing an Italian to get a fair call. Borg and Panatta agreed prior to the match that they would over rule any call that was clearly in error. (Back then, I think even the chair was from Italy.) During the match, the crowd got a little out of control and started throwing coins at Borg. Borg walked up to the chair and said "One more coin, and I walk." The crowd's "enthusiasm" subsided and Borg went on to win in 5 sets. I really don't think Panatta's game was the cause of the 5 setter, I think it was more the Davis Cup-like atmosphere that the two were playing under.

Two more side notes, Panatta won the French Open against American Harold Solomon. That was one of the best recounts I've ever read in Tennis Magazine. Even the title was great (I may be paraphrasing slightly) "The Antelope vs The Armadillo". There were never two better monikers hung on two guys competing. Panatta was an antelope on court and exuded class and style. Solomon just dug in. The other story was kind of a trivia deal. There was one shot at the US Open the Connors was famous for. In 1978 against Panatta at the US Open, Connors hit a winning two-handed backhand from an impossible position. The ball had almost gone by him and he basically hit the ball with his body completely turned from the net. His opponent was Adriano Panatta. That was a classic match.

snapple · 04-06-2007, 06:27 AM

Great post Rabbit, you bring back lots of memories.

Quote:

In 1978 against Panatta at the US Open, Connors hit a winning two-handed backhand from an impossible position. The ball had almost gone by him and he basically hit the ball with his body completely turned from the net.

Ahh, the wonders of the T-2000!

sandy mayer · 04-07-2007, 10:57 AM

i remember reading an out of print autobiography of Borg in which he said Panatta had great groundstrokes, good enough to trouble anyone even Borg himself and Connors. Borg felt panatta was an underachiever and was very afraid of his game.

haerdalis · 04-07-2007, 01:03 PM

Panatta was like Noah, an athletic attacking player who grew up on clay. I think that Borg really had problems against all attacking players of good quality. He was superior from the back, especially on clay, so the only ones who could give him problems were players like Panatta. When Borg won FO in 78 the player who troubled him the most (not much but still) was Tanner.

Moose Malloy · 04-09-2007, 09:40 AM

Muster was troubled by attacking players on clay as well-he lost matches at the French to Sampras, Rafter & Stich. And he lost to Edberg on clay several times.

Also, Henman took a set off Coria in '04 FO semis & Rafter pushed Bruguera in the '97 FO semis.

S&V can work on clay sometimes.

urban · 04-10-2007, 05:24 AM

Panatta had quite flat groundstrokes, not overpowering or with heavy topspin. I saw him a few times live, and he played serve and volley even on clay. Was a bit of a crowd player, needed the stimulus of the crowd to get into a match, then became very dangerous. Ate too much pasta, was too heavy in the upper body, like Leconte, who imo was technically more sound from the baseline. Became famous for his goalie like jumping saves at the net (inspired Becker). With his diving jumps, he saved one of 8 matchpoints in his first match to his Rome win in 1977, and one in his first match at Paris that year (against ambidextrous Hudka). As Rabbit said, at Rome it was always difficult against a local player, against Pietrangeli or Panatta it was amost the lions vs. the christians. Borg never played again at Rome after his 79 expierience. By the way, Borg had the most difficulties in a Paris final against Victor Pecci, was was a serve-and volleyer, too.

Rabbit · 04-10-2007, 06:19 AM

urban, let's not forget the Pasta Kid, Corrado Barrazzuti, who was also a local favorite and current Fed Cup Captain for Italy. Anyone who drew him at the Italian had a handful from the crowd.

Trinity TC · 04-10-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabbit

urban, let's not forget the Pasta Kid, Corrado Barrazzuti, who was also a local favorite and current Fed Cup Captain for Italy. Anyone who drew him at the Italian had a handful from the crowd.

I loved watching him play because he was a methodical tactician. Carrado wasn't the most elegant player out there but he was great at hitting the ball just far enough away from his opponent so that they couldn't do much with it.

04-03-2007, 12:06 PM	#1
Moose Malloy Legend Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 7,470	Why did Panatta trouble Borg? Panatta was the only player to ever beat Borg at the French(two times, but one was when Borg was only 16 & unseeded) Final head to head was Borg 10-6(3 of Panatta's wins were when Borg was 16) But Panatta did beat Borg in '75 (Borg won his 2nd French that year) 7-5 6-0 6-2 in Madrid on clay. And in '76 he beat Borg(who was 2 time defending champ) at the French 6-3 6-3 2-6 7-6 in the QF. In '78 Panatta lost a final at Rome to Borg 1-6 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-3('78 Borg was at his peak, winning the French without losing a set & destroying Vilas in the finals of Monte Carlo & the French) Out of Borg's 10 wins, 8 were on clay, but Borg was only able to win one of those 8 in straight sets(Borg rarely lost sets on clay to anyone, so extending Borg on clay is no small feat) anyone have any ideas why he gave Borg trouble? Panatta was a serve & volley type player, I recall. Panatta was ranked a career high of 4 in '76. He won 9 career titles(out of 25 finals) Last edited by Moose Malloy : 04-03-2007 at 12:11 PM.

04-05-2007, 12:36 PM	#8
forzainter Semi-Pro Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 764	i thought breakpoint was saying that borg had massive topspin shots, i wouldnt know because i wasnt around then and i havent seen videos. __________________ Amala Pazza Inter Amala-a-a-a

04-06-2007, 05:53 AM	#13
Rabbit G.O.A.T. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: at the bottom of every hill I come to Posts: 11,115	Borg did tank, but never in Grand Slams. He realized their value in the game and always gave his all. I agree with rjkardo. Panatta, as I remember him, was physically the equal of Nastase. I think they were both around the same size. I agree that their games were similar, but Nastase's natural gift of anticipation was what made him a better player than Panatta. Both were head cases. Both had great topspin forehands and sliced backhands they used to approach with (down the line, Roddick, down the line). And both were very fleet of foot. It's interesting that Nastase holds a 7 - 3 edge over Panatta and he was 5 - 3 over Panatta on clay. Prior to 1977, Panatta did have a 6 - 5 record over Borg and was 5 - 4 over Borg on clay. Borg turned the corner on Panatta after that and won the series out. Panatta's all court game on clay may have bothered Borg. In 1978, Borg played Panatta in the now infamous finals of the Italian Open. Back then, it any player playing an Italian to get a fair call. Borg and Panatta agreed prior to the match that they would over rule any call that was clearly in error. (Back then, I think even the chair was from Italy.) During the match, the crowd got a little out of control and started throwing coins at Borg. Borg walked up to the chair and said "One more coin, and I walk." The crowd's "enthusiasm" subsided and Borg went on to win in 5 sets. I really don't think Panatta's game was the cause of the 5 setter, I think it was more the Davis Cup-like atmosphere that the two were playing under. Two more side notes, Panatta won the French Open against American Harold Solomon. That was one of the best recounts I've ever read in Tennis Magazine. Even the title was great (I may be paraphrasing slightly) "The Antelope vs The Armadillo". There were never two better monikers hung on two guys competing. Panatta was an antelope on court and exuded class and style. Solomon just dug in. The other story was kind of a trivia deal. There was one shot at the US Open the Connors was famous for. In 1978 against Panatta at the US Open, Connors hit a winning two-handed backhand from an impossible position. The ball had almost gone by him and he basically hit the ball with his body completely turned from the net. His opponent was Adriano Panatta. That was a classic match. __________________ Wilson Steam 99S poly Luxilon 4G 1.25 @ 45

04-07-2007, 01:03 PM	#16
haerdalis Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 1,597	Panatta was like Noah, an athletic attacking player who grew up on clay. I think that Borg really had problems against all attacking players of good quality. He was superior from the back, especially on clay, so the only ones who could give him problems were players like Panatta. When Borg won FO in 78 the player who troubled him the most (not much but still) was Tanner. __________________ Donnay Gold 99.

04-10-2007, 05:24 AM	#18
urban Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,735	Panatta had quite flat groundstrokes, not overpowering or with heavy topspin. I saw him a few times live, and he played serve and volley even on clay. Was a bit of a crowd player, needed the stimulus of the crowd to get into a match, then became very dangerous. Ate too much pasta, was too heavy in the upper body, like Leconte, who imo was technically more sound from the baseline. Became famous for his goalie like jumping saves at the net (inspired Becker). With his diving jumps, he saved one of 8 matchpoints in his first match to his Rome win in 1977, and one in his first match at Paris that year (against ambidextrous Hudka). As Rabbit said, at Rome it was always difficult against a local player, against Pietrangeli or Panatta it was amost the lions vs. the christians. Borg never played again at Rome after his 79 expierience. By the way, Borg had the most difficulties in a Paris final against Victor Pecci, was was a serve-and volleyer, too. Last edited by urban : 04-10-2007 at 07:25 AM.