Why was Borg's comeback such a disaster?

Bjørn Borg was basically motivated for an economic comeback - not a tennis one. The creditors was on his back all the time.
Back in Sweden he had lost most of his friends, among other things through bad business proposals. He had also divorced Jannike, his wife. The only “friends” he still had, was his party friends and people hanging around him because of his legendary name and fame.
Living in Monte Carlo, he did cocaine and heavy partying - and tried to stay in high society – but personally he was a sad, depressed and lonesome person.
Tennis had improved enormously since he finished his career – so Borg had to be better than ever to succeed. It ended like it was doomed to – when you are motived by all the wrong reasons …

It is written a book on Bjørn Borg’s life: http://www.amazon.com/Bjorn-Borg-Lar.../dp/1857820339 It is written by a former close friend; who got badly burned by Borg’s businesses. I have read it.

[TheNatural]

Just going by what I saw in his game. I was impressed by his fitness, and his backhand was ok by the standards of those days(in the early days not in his comeback days), but his game didnt really amaze me in any way.

By the way John Newcombe beat Borg like a drum 3 times. SO How good was Newcombe?

Originally Posted by Rabbit

The Natural is just another incarnation of a troll who likes to start a thread about how good Borg wasn't. Give him some time and he'll bring up an article by Gianna Clarici about how Borg wasn't that good.

Yeah, Borg beat Wilander at 17 like a drum. That was the same 17-year old Wilander who went on to win the French Open still at 17.

[TheNatural]

My point is some players improve a lot after 20 years of age, so it's not too relevant to take their head to head record agaisnt people at that age in order to prove anything. If you took Federers early head to head record versus hewitt, Rafter etc , he wouldnt look that great. OBviously Lendl improved greatly after 20,just like Federer did, but he still beat borg twice at 20.

Borgs achievements speak for themselves. But I think he retired at a time JUST before mcenroe and lendl and mabe others could start dominating him.

Originally Posted by noeledmonds

It is good to see you have done some research on the players but you twist and minipulate numbers out of context. You make 20 to 25 sound like a massive age gap. This is not the case, Federer and Nadal are more different in age than Borg and Lendl. Borg still has a convincing head to head lead over Lendl of 5 wins to 2 losses. Borg won their most important encouter at the FO final. McEnroe and Borg were fairly well matched on grass and this is reflected with 1 Wimbledon final won each. Borg was at his weakest in the USA so it is not a suprise that McEnroe got the better of Borg there with his home crowd. Borg was good enough to reach finals in the USA and play McEnroe. McEnroe on the other hand was not good enough to reach finals against Borg on the red clay. McEnroe and Borg never even played on Borg's strongest surface and McEnroe's weakest surface. Borg would have been unlikely to lose a set to McEnroe on clay in ten encounters, such was Borg's dominance on the dirt. Borg and Wilander were actually practise partners for a while and Wilander admitted that he would have NO chance of beating Borg when he won his first FO in 1982. Borg was in a different class to Wilander and Wilander was not afraid to admit it.



Interesting Head to Head but actually wrong I belive. Borg BEAT Newcombe at Hilton Head WITC in 1978 in the semi-final 6-4 6-2. You can buy the DVD here if you want:

http://www.geocities.com/ricksasha27560/1970-1980.html

You can't belive everything that ATP website says. It is not up to date and accurate. Talking of beating younger players like Wilander, remember that Borg was just 18 when he lost his first two matches to Newcombe. Borg acutally retired from the other match he lost to Newcombe.

It may interest you that Newcombe is the ONLY player to have a leading head to head against Borg where three or more matches have been played. Effectivly no one holds a greater head to head lead than two match wins against Borg. Borg holds convincing head to head leads against so many great players.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

Just going by what I saw in his game. I was impressed by his fitness, and his backhand was ok by the standards of those days(in the early days not in his comeback days), but his game didnt really amaze me in any way.

By the way John Newcombe beat Borg like a drum 3 times. SO How good was Newcombe?

Well first and foremost, your view of "like a drum" is quite different than the norm. I don't want to confuse you with facts, but here is their record:

1978
Richmond WCT
VA, U.S.A.
Carpet
Q
Newcombe
6-0 1-0 RET

1974
Masters
Australia
Grass
RR
Newcombe
7-6 7-6
1974

Dallas WCT
TX, U.S.A.
Carpet
F
Newcombe
4-6 6-3 6-3 6-2

In 1978, Borg retired from the match. It appears to me that Borg was injured as he didn't win a game.

In the other two matches, one went to two tiebreaks and the other went 4 sets. One was on grass and one on carpet. In 1974, John Newcombe was ranked #1 in the world for at least part of the year. Borg was 17 - 18 during that year.

How good was John Newcombe? He won as many Grand Slam titles as John McEnroe and Mats Wilander. He won 3 Wimbledon titles, one of which was the last before Open tennis in 1967 and the other two were during the Open era. So, he was no pushover, but then again, he was no Borg either.

You really are like a terrier. When you get one factoid, you really hang on to it and push it as the only factor in the argument. John Newcombe was one of the best players to ever pick up a racket. He was a great grass court player. The fact that he is 3 - 0 against Borg really doesn't prove anything since Borg was 17 - 18 during the first two matches and retired in the third.

With regard to being impressive,

• Borg was the first player to routinely hit winners from the baseline with his opponent on the other baseline. He did this with a wooden racket.
• Borg's other semi-impressive feat might include winning the French Open 6 times
• and winning the French Open and Wimbledon back to back more than once.
• Borg also had one of the most impressive winning streaks on clay (they really didn't care about that kind of stuff back then, so it wasn't broadcast. Borg himself didn't care about any event save the Grand Slams.)
• and owned the guy who had the best winning streak on clay for 30 something years.
• Borg also continues to have one of if not the highest winning percentages in Grand Slam competition.
• He also holds the record for most consecutive wins at Wimbledon, displacing the previous record holder one Rod Laver, no slouch himself.
• Borg dominated his competiton like no one until one Roger Federer showed up.
• In 1979, Sports Illustrated said the Borg was the most perfectly musculatered athlete in any sport at any time

Your obssesion with how good Borg wasn't only points to your lack of perspective and familiarity with that era of tennis. Borg was considered untouchable by the guys who played against him and pretty much revered by all as the ultimate competitor. Borg's demeanor on court and his reverence for Grand Slams really underscores his greatness.

Finally, pointing to a matchup against John Newcombe is just plain disingenuous and as valid as those who would point to Federer and Sampras' head to head. If Borg had a problem with Newcombe, fine, it may well have been a poor match up for him. However, never think that John Newcombe wasn't a great player. He was.

[dirkgnuf]

Espen, Lars Skarke is the guy who tried to steal Borg's money, taking 25% claim in his company and then suing Borg to get even more money afterwards. His book is pretty much a blatant attack against Borg. I happen to have the SI 1991, "Borg Comeback" edition and a good bit of it is spent on Lars Skarke and how he was considered a con man in Europe etc.
If anything, Borg wasn't as poor as most people think, as according to the article, he still had millions in trust funds.
Rabbit, excellent points!

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Espen

Bjørn Borg was basically motivated for an economic comeback - not a tennis one. The creditors was on his back all the time.
Back in Sweden he had lost most of his friends, among other things through bad business proposals. He had also divorced Jannike, his wife. The only “friends” he still had, was his party friends and people hanging around him because of his legendary name and fame.
Living in Monte Carlo, he did cocaine and heavy partying - and tried to stay in high society – but personally he was a sad, depressed and lonesome person.
Tennis had improved enormously since he finished his career – so Borg had to be better than ever to succeed. It ended like it was doomed to – when you are motived by all the wrong reasons …

It is written a book on Bjørn Borg’s life: http://www.amazon.com/Bjorn-Borg-Lar.../dp/1857820339 It is written by a former close friend; who got badly burned by Borg’s businesses. I have read it.

Sounds trustworthy!

[jelichek]

Can anyone provide a link or way to that Sports Illustrated article from '91. Had the magazine then and it was a fascinating article. Would love to read it again.

[zapvor]

i only read half of the first page, but i read that when he lost at Roland Garros that time to someone who i forgot, he didnt even stay for the trophy presentation. he walked off court, got in a car, went to the airport, and left town. just like that. and within 3 months of that loss he retired. i find him very interesting though,because he was so great, and at the same time he was an idol, especially with the ladies. there are also accounts of him sleeping naked the night before the match, with the temperature kept at exactly some degree, and he would lay out all 50 of his rackets, and order them in tension ,etc etc

[zapvor]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Well first and foremost, your view of "like a drum" is quite different than the norm. I don't want to confuse you with facts, but here is their record:

1978
Richmond WCT
VA, U.S.A.
Carpet
Q
Newcombe
6-0 1-0 RET

1974
Masters
Australia
Grass
RR
Newcombe
7-6 7-6
1974

Dallas WCT
TX, U.S.A.
Carpet
F
Newcombe
4-6 6-3 6-3 6-2

In 1978, Borg retired from the match. It appears to me that Borg was injured as he didn't win a game.

In the other two matches, one went to two tiebreaks and the other went 4 sets. One was on grass and one on carpet. In 1974, John Newcombe was ranked #1 in the world for at least part of the year. Borg was 17 - 18 during that year.

How good was John Newcombe? He won as many Grand Slam titles as John McEnroe and Mats Wilander. He won 3 Wimbledon titles, one of which was the last before Open tennis in 1967 and the other two were during the Open era. So, he was no pushover, but then again, he was no Borg either.

You really are like a terrier. When you get one factoid, you really hang on to it and push it as the only factor in the argument. John Newcombe was one of the best players to ever pick up a racket. He was a great grass court player. The fact that he is 3 - 0 against Borg really doesn't prove anything since Borg was 17 - 18 during the first two matches and retired in the third.

With regard to being impressive,

• Borg was the first player to routinely hit winners from the baseline with his opponent on the other baseline. He did this with a wooden racket.
• Borg's other semi-impressive feat might include winning the French Open 6 times
• and winning the French Open and Wimbledon back to back more than once.
• Borg also had one of the most impressive winning streaks on clay (they really didn't care about that kind of stuff back then, so it wasn't broadcast. Borg himself didn't care about any event save the Grand Slams.)
• and owned the guy who had the best winning streak on clay for 30 something years.
• Borg also continues to have one of if not the highest winning percentages in Grand Slam competition.
• He also holds the record for most consecutive wins at Wimbledon, displacing the previous record holder one Rod Laver, no slouch himself.
• Borg dominated his competiton like no one until one Roger Federer showed up.
• In 1979, Sports Illustrated said the Borg was the most perfectly musculatered athlete in any sport at any time

Your obssesion with how good Borg wasn't only points to your lack of perspective and familiarity with that era of tennis. Borg was considered untouchable by the guys who played against him and pretty much revered by all as the ultimate competitor. Borg's demeanor on court and his reverence for Grand Slams really underscores his greatness.

Finally, pointing to a matchup against John Newcombe is just plain disingenuous and as valid as those who would point to Federer and Sampras' head to head. If Borg had a problem with Newcombe, fine, it may well have been a poor match up for him. However, never think that John Newcombe wasn't a great player. He was.

OWNAGE. Borg is great. so, how do you hit winners from the baseline to the other baseline again

[Mick]

Borg looked pretty good at 34 when he attempted to come back.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by zapvor

i only read half of the first page, but i read that when he lost at Roland Garros that time to someone who i forgot, he didnt even stay for the trophy presentation. he walked off court, got in a car, went to the airport, and left town. just like that. and within 3 months of that loss he retired. i find him very interesting though,because he was so great, and at the same time he was an idol, especially with the ladies. there are also accounts of him sleeping naked the night before the match, with the temperature kept at exactly some degree, and he would lay out all 50 of his rackets, and order them in tension ,etc etc

You're thinking of the US Open, not Roland Garros. But, yes, interesting indeed.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Mick

Borg looked pretty good at 34 when he attempted to come back.

Yes, although I read that his training wasn't nearly as extensive as back in the heyday.

It was funny when Borg was interviewed about his preparation for the recent matches with McEnroe and he said that he was practicing half an hour per day or something like that. The guy clearly stays in shape but tennis has been a recreational thing for quite some time.

[Mick]

I recall that had something to do with a death threat.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

By the way John Newcombe beat Borg like a drum 3 times. SO How good was Newcombe?

How can you possibly have a point of view in this conversation if you do not know the answer to this question?

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

How can you possibly have a point of view in this conversation if you do not know the answer to this question?

An excellent question. Direct and to the point although rhetorical.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

An excellent question. Direct and to the point although rhetorical.

Sometimes some things just need to be said. Too often I see you and others discussing players of the past (with great detail and perspective, by the way)with people who either don't know tennis, or didn't live during the era under debate.

I was one of those guys who wore the Fila red, played with the Donnay Borg, and got up early to watch Borg win Wimbly. That was a fun time to be playing tennis.

[TheNatural]

Bit off topic, but here's a good read on Borg for you Borg fans.

http://www.timpears.com/default.asp?s=4&t=15