Björn Borg great at AKAI nov 1982

[newmark401]

"If the wiki stats are correct, from that point on, Jimbo lost 10 straight to Bjorn. Of those, 6 were straight set wins while the others were not. So, while it was a painful streak of losses for Connors, it was not exactly like he was not competitive."

I think the stats speak for themselves. The fact that Bjorn Borg won his last ten matches (fourteen of the last sixteen, in fact) against Jimmy Connors, when Connors was still in his twenties, says a lot for Borg. According to the ATP website, Ivan Lendl beat Connors in their last seventeen encounters, but Connors was about 32 when that run began, while Lendl had won only one of his majors and still had his best years ahead of him.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by jrepac

I think it best to let the numbers speak for themselves and everyone can reach their own idea of when Borg was most dominant. To me, that would mean an unbroken streak of wins over your opponent, which really did not happen in this rivalry until the calendar turned to 1979....

Those numbers do speak for themselves, and there's wide agreement about some basic things. Borg starting beating Connors in '77. He started having dominating wins in '78. The period that he won every single match was 1979-81.

I tend to look at the '78 Wimbledon as the point when the dominance began. Everyone expected a close final -- and Connors played pretty well -- but of course it wasn't close.

Same thing at the '79 Pepsi. Tony Trabert said there was no reason the match shouldn't go to three sets like their previous finals there, so the result took him by surprise. Then go to Wimbledon, and Maskell said he didn't expect a blowout like '78. But it was the same.

So it took a little while for it to sink in. For a time the '78 W final could be regarded as a one-time result, but eventually (and certainly with hindsight) it was clear that something had changed in their rivalry.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by jrepac

A very interesting article but kind of useless rumination....Jimmy was a no-show and had no one to blame but himself for not winning in Paris. Those 3 years, he could've been out there competing. And, maybe, he would've won....not a definite. I think (?) most agree that the red clay and the green clay are slightly different...and having seen Borg, Connors, Mac, etc., etc. all play on both, I'd say Jimmy's game was much better suited to the Har-Tru. That little extra bit of speed made a lot of difference, IMHO. Jimmy had his chances at RG and lost to some guys playing hot tennis, no? Like Vitas for instance...and, he had a good shot against Mac in '84, but shockingly got blown away. Certainly, clay was not John's best surface, but his play that year was stellar. Nonetheless, the article is a good reminder that Connors was no slouch on clay...which is forgotten to time...but, Bjorn's record does not need/want/merit or deserve an asterik, let's get real.

Yeah man, I agree.

[Borgforever]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Oh, how perfect. You won't "destroy" krosero's arguments, because you're in your ivory tower; you're too perfect; too nice a guy. You're doing him a favour.

Incredible douchebaggery is what this is.

Pointing out a strawman is not an attack. He is saying that you committed a logical fallacy and then explaining how you did it. You don't respond with an elaboration, instead opting to cry foul about being "attacked".

Pathetic.

Classy guy.

CyB -- and you're the classiness yourself I presume -- great comments by you here -- nuanced, well-thought out, filled with the milk of human kindness and impressively diplomatic -- and if that's your view of me -- fine. There's ample evidence to the contrary of my credibility and contributions on this site from many people.

CyBorg -- a vast majority of your posts include denigrating other posters points. I think classiness in debates isn't your forte and you certainly can't claim to be an authority on class.

I would never respond to you the way you've done to me. And I still won't. I still respect you too much for that. And I still consider you a friend and I like you. You may hate me -- think I am a monster. So be it. I don't think that about you. I think very highly of you.

There's no secret I can lash out sometimes and all things I've said about krosero lately needs nuance. So let me provide me with some:

I am extremely busy right now -- working 12-14 hours a day, getting well paid to produce a 2 hour H. L. Doherty-documentary and work hard to make this as good as it can get.

It's my fault for being unclear and stating things here against krosero that's everything he said was poor -- that's not entirely true IMO.

I don't have time to elaborate in detail -- for which I of course should.

IMO -- krosero and I misunderstand each other a lot. Sadly. I misread his posts and he misreads mine which leads to sparks flying.

I deeply apologize for my comments about your father krosero. That was uncalled for.

But for the record: When you quoted me in the 1976-debate you took a piece of my quote instead of quoting my entire statement. That wasn't PhD-thesis stuff cherry-picking. I thought that was uncalled for.

Then krosero attack many facts I provide, or at least put question-marks around my statements. Borg served 27% against Tanner at USO 1979, that was called into doubt by krosero -- the list goes on. I have remained silent. I don't have time. Sorry. There's only 24 hour days and I am not getting paid for this so I am not going to go 10 hour masters thesis level work just support this with empirical evidence to show that a few figures are correct.

If some doubt me -- or don't agree -- fine by me. Isn't it supposed to be free world?

My entire point for instance with H. L. and Tilden wasn't to prove conclusively that Doherty would dominate Tilden -- just to provide evidence that they were very close and who's to know who would've won. Both had weapons that was effective against the other.

I can't spend much time here on TW as some others -- therefore I can't respond at length or not at all often.

I am perfectly fine with with being insulted or dismissed. That's life and the only thing I can control somewhat is my own behavior.

And verybody is entitled to their opinion and I deeply respect that.

I am not hurt whatsoever what people think of me. They don't know me. Never met me. Don't know what I've done or who I am.

This is just a debating-forum and nothing else -- this is the key to belief:

IF...

by Rudyard Kipling


IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

That's it...

[Borgforever]

As regards to the fantastic Wimby SF 1981 I compiled these quotes from the end of the match. Now you can confirm my credibility for yourselves in the match I've linked to in the posts above. Isn't it strange that Jimbo lost the two five-setters they had a Wimby. Only luck? Or that one was slightly better than the other. Barrett and Maskell signed on to the latter viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Borgforever

During the amazing Wimby SF battle in 1981 between Fortress and Jimbo the atmosphere were hysterical and exciting to say the least – even the hardcore, composed high-priests of the hallowed centre court; Dan Maskell and John Barrett, famous for their understatements, ventured into high praise almost after each and every change over.

This titanic blood-bath ended 0-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4 in Fortress’ favor.

Only match before who had seen two bagels between top players in one match was at Wimby in the 1920s. A must see match and I was even sad to see Jimbo lose this one since I thought he was stronger than Mac that year IMO – and there were no losers in this match IMO either. A credit to both figthers indeed!

The incomparable John Barrett is IMO (and I am not alone) a man with a talent for chiseling the most astute, concise and well-phrased comments on the fly I ever heard anyone compose without notice. Mr. Barrett’s observations are always like polished, classic prose - even when he makes seemingly throwaway, off the cuff, remarks.

John Barrett had to chime in on Borg’s unmatched clutch prowess in the end of the fifth set and I will quote directly from my copy of this classic encounter.

Connors goes ahead 2-3 in the fifth set (with Borg’s numbers first) and in the change-over:

Barrett: ”There is hardly an inch of space. They’re climbing all over everything to get a glimpse of this most exciting match. One that is turning itself into an epic I think. For sheer sustained excitement and sustained aggression on Connors part, one has to admire him…”

Connors five set record up to this date July 1981 is visible on screen – 22 wins 3 losses – UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Then Borg finally breaks Jimbo’s serve to go ahead 4-3 in the fifth after blowing 8 (!) breakpoints in the fifth set alone – but on the ninth Bear clutched.

And in the change-over:

Maskell:
”That’s incredible John. I really thought Jimmy was going to come back from the dead for a third time and this is the first time that Borg is ahead, by a game, in the match...”

Barrett:
”…After three hours and four minutes of the most intense physical combat you’d wish to see…

Bjorn Borg seems to me to have been born for this moment...

I take my mind back, to when he was fifteen years old (1972) playing his first Davis Cup-match. Two sets to love down he was against Onny Parun.

And he came back to win the match and set himself – launch himself on a professional career without equal.

The man who sat beside him on the chair in that Davis Cup tie – there he is – Lennart Bergelin – the man who’s done so much to produce a champion that Borg now is.

And in the crowd now – even the police are about to try and help keep the peace although everybody now, on their edges of their seats – with the break, 4-3, Borg to serve…”

Borg immediately smokes a 120 mph ace wide for 15-0.

Maskell:
”Ace number 14 for Borg…”

Borg saves, incredibly, two breakpoints on serve here as well before cannonballing ace # 15 and # 16 before going ahead 5-3 in the final set. That’s three aces in one game at clutch.

Connors holds his serve easily punishing Borg with King Kong-shots to inch himself closer to Borg – 5-4 and in the change-over:

Maskell:
”And a majestic effort there by Connors to get himself out of trouble with a love service game.”

Barrett:
”And I am sitting here wondering if I ever seen a better fifth set than this – and I really can’t think of one…

Of its type; an absolutely epic match. This fifth set – for sheer sustained excitement – unequaled in my memory.

In five of the service games there have been breakpoints.

Dozens of them…

Four against Connors in the third game. Two against Borg in the next game. Three against Connors in the following game and it wasn’t until the seventh game that Borg finally did break to give him this slim lead – that’s looked slimmer the way Connors just held serve. And Borg – again – in his last service game was twice a breakpoint down.

And the release and courage – the sheer guts of both men – simply have to be admired!”

Defeaning roars from the sardine-packed crowd in the stands accompany the players as they resolutely march out on the battlefield when Borg makes himself ready to serve himself into his 6th straight Wimby-final and achieving his 41 straight victory at this tourney – still the standing record – bettering Federer with 40.

Barrett: ”Well they are pouring in on every hand. They are fainting in the crowds. There are people being attended to by the St. John’s ambulance men.

Small wonder they are having heart-attacks. 5-4, Borg, serving for the match…”

Borg finishes with stunning clutch play, as always it seemed, and wins at 15 with great attacking serves and volleys.

A five minute standing ovation from 16 000 people follows…

Maskell:
”If ever two men deserve a standing ovation – Connors and Borg certainly deserve it tonight after one of the greatest matches of its kind I’ve ever seen in my Wimbledon experience!”

Remember Dan Maskell had played Tilden and Cochet and was Captain of the DC-team during Fred Perry 1930s days…

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

IMO -- krosero and I misunderstand each other a lot. Sadly. I misread his posts and he misreads mine which leads to sparks flying.

I deeply apologize for my comments about your father krosero. That was uncalled for.

But for the record: When you quoted me in the 1976-debate you took a piece of my quote instead of quoting my entire statement. That wasn't PhD-thesis stuff cherry-picking. I thought that was uncalled for.

Then krosero attack many facts I provide, or at least put question-marks around my statements. Borg served 27% against Tanner at USO 1979, that was called into doubt by krosero -- the list goes on. I have remained silent.

I'm ready to let this go, but one thing about stats. I'm a stats guy, always posting about stats, commenting about other people's stats -- and maybe in the future I'll comment again on stats you provide. So just a brief clarification.

I did call that stat into question, but I didn't think of it as your stat, or your statement. You said it came from Swedish television and the Swedish newspapers. I compared those figures to the ones I had found, and said why I was skeptical of the 27% figure.

The figures you found for aces were also different from the ones I had found.

Nothing surprising about that. Tennis stats -- especially in the 1970s, I think -- contradict each other all the time. We've got no choice but to point out how they contradict, and then to try to judge which ones look more plausible. I never ruled out the figures you found (I've kept them in my notes), I was just skeptical of them.

Too bad we don't have a video of the match, so we could find out for sure.

But anyway that's what stat discussions are. Fact-checking. I wish other people would proof my stats the way I do theirs. The other day Borg Number One re-checked some stats I did on Borg and I really appreciated the effort. Stats have GOT to be checked, especially when they contradict each other. What I said about Tanner-Borg was not meant to reflect on you and it was not an "attack" (please don't use that word so freely), I was just talking stats.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

CyB -- and you're the classiness yourself I presume -- great comments by you here -- nuanced, well-thought out, filled with the milk of human kindness and impressively diplomatic -- and if that's your view of me -- fine. There's ample evidence to the contrary of my credibility and contributions on this site from many people.

CyBorg -- a vast majority of your posts include denigrating other posters points. I think classiness in debates isn't your forte and you certainly can't claim to be an authority on class.

I would never respond to you the way you've done to me. And I still won't. I still respect you too much for that. And I still consider you a friend and I like you. You may hate me -- think I am a monster. So be it. I don't think that about you. I think very highly of you.

Well, I don't think very highly of you. Not anymore.

I don't mince words, nor let loose with logical fallacies. I think you have issues.

[Borgforever]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Well, I don't think very highly of you. Not anymore.

I don't mince words, nor let loose with logical fallacies. I think you have issues.

Aight -- time for you CyBorg to face the music.

There's so many people here who think your the worst and most insulting poster in TW-history. Whatever krosero's and my conflicts have been -- they are none of your business and krosero writes mostly great stuff while you are mediocre at best but you talk like your in the know.

What lame-duck joke you are CyBorg.

You're not witty, full of yourself, accuse people of the things you are yourself all the time -- people here think you're the most disrespectful poster ever. Josh Dragon, the list is endless. If I tell you how many who write to me asking me how in the whole wide world I can support you in a any way whatsoever you'd be shocked.

But I don't think you can be shocked frankly. You're too dumb too...

You embarrass yourself here each and every day. It's no surprise that the moderators warn you time and again with your curses, abuses and overall bottom-dwelling behavior.

I think -- when you're in a a good mood -- you're a good man. But you're a bully and a person who doesn't know very much about tennis, yet you sit there contributing nothing but "doouchebaggery" -- well, I don't mince words either CyB -- well, you, of all should really know what doouchebaggery is of the highest order for you are the GOAT in that category.

You have issues. You're not a balanced man. There is help and please spare me your lame response. You once wrote a private e-mail to me explaining how you kicked yourself every time you lambasted someone -- which is five times a day -- hating yourself for being so full of bile and vitriol. Yet you continue -- even in discussions that doesn't involve you.

You're only talking about yourself. Anyway -- you don't exist for me from now on. You are a very destructive personality -- including towards yourself. What a tragic little man you are.

Have a nice life and seek help...

You're like my friends dog -- dumb as a fence-post -- but you make me laugh!

[Nathaniel_Near]

I was hoping that providing nobody truly interfered here in any sort of obtuse manner, that it would allow for the various circumstances to be resolved, which it appears Borgforever and Krosero are on the cusp of doing. But now there is a new fight.

Can't these rifts be taken elsewhere, such as somewhere private like private messaging or email?

Quite frankly this thread has turned into a quagmire of incredulity recently.

I enjoy reading many of your folks posts; you know at least 20 times more than I do and I can learn much. However, there is a lot of ego here. Ultimately nobody is perfect and everybody has flaws. Regardless, I think the remainder of these disagreements should be taken to somewhere more private.

I've definitely been known to be a complete p*i*k from time to time but to continue arguing, I'd say life is too short.

[Borgforever]

Nathaniel -- I agree totally. I don't claim to be entirely innocent lately at all. And I will adhere to your suggestion from here on in.

I've decided to try and be more specific towards krosero from here on in -- instead of hastily assembling my impressions off the cuff that I now regret since they come off as too forceful and disrespectful. I was brought up with the view that if you perceive someone insults you or display disrespect one should remain silent and not sink to their level if a response is called for. I am human so I've made my share of mistakes in this department.

But Nathaniel -- point taken!

IMHO Krosero is such a great a poster, regardless of our disagreements, that he demands my respect or I would think I would make a mistake.

I will re-read the main points between myself and krosero and try my very best be exact in my responses in all aspects -- so that my future posts will remain positive and filled with constructive debate that, hopefully, could be illuminating for others.

And I will, from here on in, pledge to respond without hostility or anything that could interpreted as insulting -- whatever anyone writes to me.

I won't answer CyB however. I've been silent when he's unleashed tornadoes of ad hominem attacks towards me and other posters before -- but enough is enough -- and that's why I answered him just once above.

The only tit for tat-showdowns I enjoy are the ones performed by Laurel and Hardy...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Can't these rifts be taken elsewhere, such as somewhere private like private messaging or email?

I second this.

[BTURNER]

I usually accentuate the positive. these are fine wonderful posters from whom I have taken a lot. Tempers get sharp, fatigue takes its toll and mistakes get made. Any man who incapable of apologizing hasn't become one yet.
The line that matters is right here "I deeply apologize for my comments about your father krosero. That was uncalled for. " Can't be clearer than that. No one else needs to rubbing salt in here or stirring the pot. Let's get back to the tennis

[Borgforever]

Was Borg cosidered boring?

Of course! Borg is the word for boring in Swedish! Just kidding of course!

I think the question is too unspecific -- like; "Is chess boring? or American Fotball? Or the 100 m sprints?" etc. etc.

Such an unspecific question would, in a majority of cases, IMO only produce personal opinions as regards to taste -- and depending on your personal taste in -- combination with how many full matches you've seen of Borg -- will likely be the the basis of your particular personal opinion.

To be a s brief as I possibly can manage -- without the benefit of rewriting this post because of time -- I will try I summarize -- in bullet-points if you will allow me:

* 70s super-slow red clay, combined with less forgiving, smaller size, vibration-filled wood-racquets produced endurance battles to an extreme degree. Even in my mind Borg's red clay matches could -- sometimes -- bore me to tears -- unless he faced a great clay-courter like Orantes, Panatta, Vilas and some others (Pecci anyone?) in great form. I love the 1981 RG-final. Even if Borg's red clay matches could stretch the patience of a person with an attention span of a horse-fly -- I still would never tire of studying his composure, calm, serene, confident composure and eyes -- radiating granite-hard determination that was exuded in all his movements, his majestic sportsman-like attitude -- but first and foremost -- the flowing poetry of his swift movements around the court. Arguably the fastest player who ever stepped on a tennis court was a always breathtaking to see for me. To see this in its full effect Borg needed an peak Orantes, Vilas, Nastase and Panatta to force him to show the world his best in the super-slow red clay of the day. The surfaces back in the 70s was so different that Wimby and RG was so different in characteristics in the surface speed that it had to seen to be believed. It was like marathon-race and 100 m sprint finals separated by only two weeks in the summer. Not so today...

* As an extreme contrast -- Borg's mastery of old grass at Wimby in its various forms (fast hard-baked, humid lower bounce slower version and slippery, all the bad bounces -- but always a kill or be killed surface) was one of the greatest experiences in studying tennis in my life. Just two weeks after the relentless trench-warfare at RG Bear was at SW19 just showering his opponents with an extraordinarily aggressive game. Borg's versatility is arguably the greatest ever when the surfaces were so polarized, and the experts on these different surfaces couldn't be more different either, yet he steamrolled on with his characteristic serene sportmanlike behavior -- and what krosero states -- his respectful yet astonishingly calm confidence in his composure and movements.

* You can make the same comparisons to indoor carpet and old Deco Turf II too -- where Borg was able to tranform his game-style seemingly at will -- according to the respective demands and still dominate even the greatest on these surfaces as well -- season after season after season.

* What separated him from other popular tennis-stars was that it was not any kind of premeditation on his part as concerned his looks or playing style. His style -- the wind-shield-wiper FH for instance and his DH BH was considered so unorthodox he ushered in a new style of tennis even though he was continually lambasted for this from every direction -- like teflon he was untouchable to other's opinions. He was a man of absolute integrity, for better or worse, always going his own way. He looked like a wild hippie and ushered in the "rebel" kind of look in a tennis universe dominated by players with a clean-cut fraternity-like appearance. Unlike Agassi -- Borg was never creating his look and nobody could tell him how he should look. The scrufty beard at Wimby, the same clothes, the superstitions -- no money in the world could persuade him to change how he wanted to be. Like Frank Sinatra famously sang "I did it my way..."

* Then came his remarkable ability to turn matches around from the brink of certain defeat (not a single five-setter lost between 1976 and 1980 and too boot not many even before or after these years either) with such dignity and serene calm that baffled even such seasoned experts like Kramer, Maskell, Barrett, Hellberg (the list never ends). This was proven so many times that he was arguably the greatest clutch-player who ever lived. Throughout my studies I've never seen clutch-stats that match Björn Borg. Even H. L. Doherty has lower percentage in close matches (although H. L. leads Borg in most other categories including being undefeated for three straight years and with two singles losses in almost 7 years straight before retiring undefeated). Borg's astonishingly rare ability to always to be able to pull games out from seemingly impossible situations proved a knock-out combination for tennis-fans. Like the mythological Baron Münchausen he was, time and time again, able to seemingly exctricate himself -- pull himself up by the hair (or his boot-straps) -- out of the deepest lake -- intact -- for real in front of TV cameras, billions of people in real time and still keep his humility.

* Finally -- Borg didn't intellectualize all these traits -- this created such popularity that it suffocated his life. He didn't expect this at all -- being a man seemingly springing out of nature without any artificiality -- made him so popular that it prematurely ended his unmatched career up until that point. Tennis couldn't keep sufficient control on his popularity -- he was with Muhammad Ali the most famous man on the planet earth -- and a tennis-player to boot. The first and only one yet sharing this questionable "privilege". Being an inetnsely private man -- the constant intrusion on his privacy and the isolation it demanded was a major, if not the fundamental, reason for his early exit from the the tennis elite at 25 years of age.

Björn relished the perks of his success of course -- hanging out with -- among others -- Jack Nicholson, Ingrid Bergman, Peter Sellers, instructing Mick Jagger in his hotel-room his specific, soundless foot-work et al -- but he was an intensely private man -- shunning being over-praised -- for which he doubtlessly thought he was. He said sincerely "I am just a silly tennis player. How in the world could anyone be even remotely interested in me?".

All these above mentioned unique personal qualities was like nitro-glycerin for his popularity.

For the record -- while I think Borg's look was/is the THE ICONIC LOOK in the history of tennis, just because of the lack of manipulation -- these aspects are the least I care about in my admiration for him. His clutch, original game-style details and movement and his seemingly unbreakable psychological strength topped off by the most humble and gentleman-like behavior similar to the great Aussies like Laver and Rosewall made him one of the most exciting players to study of all time...

And it seems I was not alone...

As a postscript -- lately Nikolai Davydenko is incredibly exciting to watch for me. He doesn't look like Brad Pitt but man he moves like a laser-beam and can produce shots that make me gasp. I was always disappointed at his lack of clutch and nerves (even at AO this year) but I never miss anyone of his matches nowadays. A player's look should -- IMO -- never interfere with ones appreciation of said player...

I will elaborate further on Borg's mystique/look on March 1st -- when I will post the second clip and final clip of Borg vs Connors at USO SF 1981 and the last two remaining clips (1 and 3) from Borg unmatched perf at Wimby 1976 F against the mercurial genius Nastase in peak form (check Nasty's stats for that match -- far better stats than Jimbo against Borg at Wimby 1978 or Jimbo against Mac at Wimby 1984 or Agassi against Pistol at Wimby 1999) embellished and guilded by Kramer's genius analysis all the way through.

If one thinks those clips display anything boring as far as Borg and his abilities is concerned -- well, it's their taste rather than judgement that rules their opinions...

[Borgforever]

NOTE: For the record -- I've written a revised version of my opinion above here -- so I prefer you read this one instead on the rough text included in the "Was Borg boring?"-thread...

[newmark401]

I like how Borg bounced around the baseline as if he had springs on the soles of his tennis shoes. I also like his judicious use of serve-and-volley (or just the volley), especially at Wimbledon in his later years. I say ‘later years’ while realizing that he left the game at the age of 25.

The only ‘mystery’ for me was/is his inability to win the US Open. Recently I was watching some of his 1976 US Open final against Jimmy Connors, and was struck by how ill-at-ease Borg looked. He had a lot of chances that day…

People used to wonder how it was that two players as great as Bjorn Borg and Martina Navratilova were unable to win the US Open, but Navratilova found a way in 1983, when she won for the first of what would be four times. Then again, she had significantly improved her game, her strategy, her body/diet, her mind… What did Borg ever have to improve?

I know the great champions always believe that they can play better, and that they work hard in order to do so, but this did not help Borg at the US Open. Strange.

[Borgforever]

Newmark -- I first want to point out that the giants Borg lost to at the USO were no toddlers -- no Chris Lewis or a tired 40-year-old like Rosewall (after six draining rounds at Wimby and USO) for Björn when he finally arrived there.

In 1976 -- thanks to his stomach injury he had to refrain from practicing for three weeks after his sensational Wimby-triumph -- this was vital -- since Borg needed several months regain his form. For his 1983 comeback he aimed at peaking his form for new years 1982-1983 but hit it at AKAI in Sydney already in November of 1982.

In 1976 -- IMO -- Borg had a much tougher draw than Jimbo, facing Nastase again and peak Orantes. If you listen to the commentary in the 1976 USO F -- Arthur Ashe plainly says early in the 4th set (I'm paraphrasing) "I think this match is over. I've played Borg so many times and I've seen it a few times before. He doesn't try so hard..." and so forth.

In my mind -- the closest he ever came was in 1980 when he was three games away from triumph. The RG back in the day was a marathon -- then the ultimate contrast Wimby -- suffering from late season tiredness -- and yet he still reached 4 finals at the USO out of 6 starts between 1976-1981. The most consistent performer at the USO during his peak.

Both Pancho Gonzalez and Arthur Ashe where convinced that Borg could win USO several times and it wasn't anything in his game that was too deficient to deprive him of triumph.

We all need a little luck. And that's why I compiled the study of Borg as he routs a prime/peak five-time USO-champ Jimbo at the USO 1981 SF -- just to prove that the hard-court cement or a super-champ wasn't an unattainable goal.

He dominated Jimbo in straights at USO 1981...

[Borgforever]

Here we go -- finally -- part 1 of the 1976-final (new upload with Jack Kramer and Dan Maskell insights interspersed with the Japanese commentary):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb3AJSca5xg

Part 2 of the 1976 Wimby F (rest of first set and second set and start of third):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugw-pjROUQ

Part 3 of the 1976 Wimby F (new upload with Kramer and Maskell comments like the 1st clip):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bPsEi3UxWo

Part 4 of the 1976 Wimby F (finish of the match):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU0SG-ZkUA4

"The Ice Man storms ahead -- dominating a brilliantly playing Nastase achieving one of the Holy Grails of tennis -- going 21-0 in sets at the world's greatest tennis tournament -- a feat never matched before or since in tennis history when both professional and amateur players have been allowed to compete in the draw. This record being made even more remarkable considering that Ilie also hadn't lost a set arriving into the final -- even that a circumstance that has never never occurred before or since. Borg went on scoring 41 straight -- on-court -- victorious matches at Wimbledon at only 25 years of age -- also an unmatched record to this day -- made even more mind-boggling when one considers that he was ultimately seen as primarily a clay court master during a time filled with some of greatest grass-court serve and volleyers and aggressive players the world has ever seen -- among them John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. The ATP pro tennis players in a great majority -- and many experts -- voted Borg as the No. 1 tennis player player in the world of 1976, an honor also awarded to him in 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 -- scoring the highest game-winning percentages in the Open Era during his reign -- unmatched still to this day and achieving such unsurpassed domination when the surface-speeds where more polarized than ever before or since and despite being challenged by great specialized experts on both the fastest and the slowest surfaces. Note how sharply Jack Kramer points out Björn's remarkable clutch and brilliance when playing the most crucial points -- traits that's on display already here and was The Ice Man's trademark throughout his prime. Out of the total 220 points in this final: 89 of them ended with clean winner by either player -- or 40.5% out all points played -- 24,1% for Borg (or 43.44 % out of his own 122 points) and Nastase made 16.4% -- 36.7% of his 98 points won. In only 34 games and only armed with his tiny wood-racquet Borg hammered 53 clean winners (including service aces) past Ilie Nastase, who clocked 36 clean winners including service aces) and played a great match here -- served and volleyed marvelously himself (both players nailing 62% of their first serves) , consistently rocketed venomous returns at the Swede and, most surprisingly, made fewer errors than Borg in rallies -- 39 to Björn's 41 (total errors ended at 62 for Borg -- making 19 return errors and 2 DF's -- and 69 errors for Nastase -- making 27 return errors and 3 DF's) yet Nastase was routed -- decisively -- in straight sets by what many believe are still the greatest, fastest and most surface versatile player who ever walked onto a tennis court... "

[Borgforever]

Björn Borg vs Jimmy Connors USO SF 1981 Part 1 highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUb8m6-lH0

Björn Borg vs Jimmy Connors USO SF 1981 Part 2 highlights (new upload):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_aYm-PyfA

[pc1]

Excellent new videos to enjoy. Thanks Borgforever.

[WORLDWITHINAWORLD]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Yes, Rabbit, you certainly make a very good and convincing point.

But when Borg, at his peak on clay, had a stamina second to none in history, purposefully extending the rallies to drain your energy.

I can see Gonzalez and Laver pushing Borg to five at RG with a supremely executed attacking game (as only they could) I still hold they (vague, unprovable) view-point that Borg's stamina, rock of Gibraltar-psyche and clay-court mastery would define the end. Many, if not all, players said when you played Borg (especially if you were a serve-and-volleyer) his crazy, high, twitch-bouncing topspin groundies and his speedy ability to keep the ball in play way longer than anything else would ground you to dust on any surface.

Mark Edmondson, who was close to beating Borg in Wimby 77 R2, still say that Borg was the only player you had to be prepared to play eight sets against to win. As Edmondson said: "And how often do you play eight good sets?"...

But I don't see any wrong in your reasoning. You may be absolutely correct. We will never know...

I dont have the player knowledge or history of the game knowledge demonstrated by the posts on this subject.But,i have an observation on the physical side of these greats- Borg,McEnroe,Conners,Rosewell and Laver. Harry Hopman would give names to Aussie players to point out their weaknesses. Rosewell was "muscles" because he had none.Laver was "the rocket" because ,apparently he was not world class fast. So, I see Rosewell and Conners as very similar-fast,but not strong.Neither had big serves. Laver was reputed to have a very strong forearm. It was obvious that Borg was both very strong and very fast-no question. McEnroe grew up playing basketball, which develops both strength,speed,footwork and good "hands". McEnroe seemed almost as strong as Borg (serving arm strength) and almost as fast.McEnroe seemed to play with better "hand skill " than Borg.John"s touch and feel at the net (and baseline) were always admired by announcers and tennis experts. Ivan lendel was strong and tended to stay baseline due to not having the fine touch at the net,like McEnroe.So, to put this together, I would bet on Borg to win a Decathalon over these other great players.that would give him a slight edge, in my opinion.My point is that someone with greater knowledge of these great players, might take these physical characteristics in mind. And fine-tune the subject of G.O.A.T. Please note, I never saw Hoad, Gonzales or others play ,so have no opinion on their qualifications. Thank you.