About Laver (compared to Borg)
Then I should have said : “I can pick up many other arguments at random in Laver’s favour”. For instance longevity. Laver was a good or great player from 1959 to 1975 that is 17 years in a row (as opposed to Borg’s 10 years) and in particular in his old days Laver was a threat to anyone while Borg almost didn’t play in his thirties.
You wrote “First of all Rod never retired, got out of tournament shape and had to make a comeback. Rod was always in great tournament shape from a young age to his late thirties while Borg retired for over a decade and when Borg made his comeback, he used a wood racket.” as an argument in Borg’s favour but
here I disagree.
Laver made the effort not to retire while Borg chose the easy option : to retire and not to fight. This is one of the argument I use to say that Borg was not that great while many use that argument to overrate Borg by showing great percentages. In 1962-1963 Rosewall and Hoad were so tired by the pro circuit because it didn’t work financially. They played so often in horrible locations with very small publics. In 1962 there was no long great tours but only some tournaments (from April to July if I’m not wrong, Rosewall didn’t play at all because there was no competition) and the public wasn’t interested : each time I see the terraces empty at the French pro final at Roland Garros in 1962, I’m sick. Apparently their only solution to continue and to improve their economical situation was to hire in the pro ranks the most popular player in the game since Gonzales’ retirement : the winner of the amateur Slam, Laver. Rosewall and Hoad were, at 28 years old, on the verge of retiring but they were even ready to put their own personal money (if the sources are right, they indeed did it) to save the situation and to convince Laver to turn pro.
Rosewall didn’t refuse the obstacle and continued his career. Borg he refused the obstacle in 1982 and retired. Who is the best in this case between Rosewall and Borg ? Rosewall without any hesitation. Yes Borg had much pressure because of the Borgmania and Borgforever thinks rightly that it was one of the reason why Borg retired. About that point McEnroe told later a story very revealing. McEnroe and Borg got to Tokyo in October 1981 and McEnroe revealed that he was (for once rightly) shocked because all the Japanese had eyes only for him and were all around him as “loving” bees while the Japanese completely ignored Borg (though he had won 5 successive Wimby tourneys) and let him all alone. In 1981 Mac was the new champion and the Wimby winner and in the eyes of the Japanese Borg wasn’t a winner anymore and suddenly ignored the ex-idol. It shows that if Borg had continued and probably won less, he would have been perhaps less popular and therefore would have dealt with less much pressure from the public and the media.
So once again Borg’s retirement shouldn’t be used as a good point for him. Though Borg seems to have a great love for tennis (finally he came back many times in exhib's and even in the official circuit and even in the senior tour nowadays),
Rosewall’s and Laver’s love for their sport is greater than Borg’s and so the Australians (and other players) deserve more credit than the Swede on that particular point.
I can’t understand why so many credit Borg for his retirement whereas he shall be debited. To retire is to avoid, to retire is to lose. To retire is certainly not to win or to cope. To retire is negative while to continue is positive. Rosewall had a very different pressure in 1962 from Borg’s pressure in 1982 but I’m not sure Rosewall’s was smaller than Borg’s. What is sure is that Rosewall continued while Borg didn’t so it is unbelievable to credit Borg (and in a sort of way to debit Rosewall because Ken continued).
You also wrote "There are many excellent arguments for Borg being a GOAT candidate. His great winning percentages, lifetime and for a short term period which, for winning percentages may be superior to Laver and Rosewall, his amount of tournaments won in a short span, his majors won as opposed to majors entered, his great Davis Cup record (something I haven't mentioned) and a subjective argument in that he had no stroke weaknesses. The last statement in bold was something Arthur Ashe believed."
I also strongly contradict “There are many excellent arguments for Borg being a GOAT”.
It is very much easier to have great winning percentages in a short period than in the long period. When Borg was burnout he retired so of course he didn’t lost but we can also count this absence of loss in another way : that is
the absence of victories. Borg had planned to play until 1985 if I believe Borgforever before choosing to retire. So Borg has a great winning percentage because of course he was very good but also because he avoided to play from 1982 to 1985. Borg has great percentages because statistically the people count 0 loss from 1982 to 1985 but why people don’t count in another way ? For instance we also could say that Borg missed 16 majors in 4 years (based on 4 majors each year, 16 = 4*4 years). If we consider that in 1982 the Masters was a major (with 5 matches possible) and that the Australian was the major next years (with 6 matches possible in those years) then Borg has won 0 match out of 107 ( = (3*7+5) + (3*7+6)*3) ).
In that case if you had his 1982-1985 record in majors then his new winning percentage is pretty much lower.
In an overall winning percentage, suppose if he hadn’t retire, he would have played about 50 matches a year in these 4 years. Then his winning percentage win-loss record could be counted as 0 win out of 200 matches (1982 is a very strange year because even though Borg played very little in the official circuit, I consider he was in the Top10 or even the Top5 so eventually I can grant him with a about 40-10 win-loss record and even in 1983 he was still good enough good, well I could give him a 25-25 W-L record). So perhaps he should deserve a 75-200 win percentage record for those years . Add it to his truly counted winning percentage and then the new percentage is clearly lower.
Laver and Rosewall, them, didn’t stop their career at their top or close to their top and they continued long after. So their winning percentages are of course less good than Borg’s. And their peak years where in the pre-open era for Ken (and in part for Rod) when Ken and Rod had to face pretty good players in the preliminary rounds : they could be beaten as early as the 1st round by players such as Buchholz, Anderson, or even old Gonzales or Sedgman. And when Ken or Rod won a tournament his win-loss record was only 2-0 or 3-0 or 4-0. Borg, he, in the open era when he won a tourney had a 5-0 or 6-0 or 7-0 win-loss record and in the first rounds he faced pretty ordinary players. Shall I list you all the unknown players he beat in the first rounds of his peak years while beaten players by Ken or Rod in the first rounds were most of the time Top20 or Top10 or even better players ?
So Borg’s winning percentages strongly overrate him and underrate pro players of the pre-open era (and I could recall Vines’ “ridiculous” percentage of 50% in 1937).
Yes
Borg had won many tournaments in a short time period but he
would have very few more tournaments had he played longer because he hadn’t much petrol in his tank after his 10-year career (this is why he retired).
Exactly same remark : once again Borg is overrated when one looks at his percentage in Slam events.
Had he played a “normal” career that is
about 15 years (and not 10)
his Slam percentage would be much lower because he would have lost most of the next majors (had he been able to won them he wouldn’t have retired).
Yes Borg's Davis Cup is great but the only very great player he beat in all these years was Orantes in 1975 (I consider Orantes as a very great player in 1975 because he won a major and was in the Top4) and besides Orantes had a complex since 1975 when he faced Borg. But who else did Borg beat in that Cup : old Kodes in 1975 not in the Top10 and Ashe in 1978 (close to the Top10) but not very great players ?
Since the open era there have been very few summits between very greats in Davis Cup. See Mac's apparently superb record in Davis Cup but in reality he never beat a very great in an important match (he lost to Lendl, he lost to Becker, he beat a pretty young Wilander in 1982 and though in 1984 Wilander was clearly better than two years before Mac beat him again but in a dead rubber).
The true summits in Davis Cup were before WWII and in the amateur ranks until the end of the amateur era but since 1968 count them and you will see that they are very rare : no contract pro until 1972. 1973 was a good year. Some sparse summits since.
However I agree that peak Borg had no stroke weaknesses but I suppose you also agree that Laver too. Even Borgforever who is such a Borg's fan, once wrote that Laver at his best could be unattainable and even extraterrestrial : see
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2912059&postcount=450 where he even suggested (but wasn't adamant at all) that peak Laver could beat peak Borg 61 62 62 on grass (I however think that Borgforever was bold and for once underrated Borg).