The finest ever Wimbledon match

W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
The best matches I've seen were the Rafter-Agassi semis of 00 and 01. Agassi's serve is a bit problematic there, Rafter wasn't stretched at all in returning him (especially later in the matches), which I suppose takes away a bit from "high quality".

There was a 5 set Sampras-Ivanisevic semi (95, I think?), which was naturally serve heavy, but comfortably better quality than their two finals and both guys had chances on return (just 1 tie break if memory serves - amazing for those guys)

Federer-Nadal 08 of course, but that's along way removed from classic grass court tennis and I also felt Federer's inability to take on the 2nd serve was a minus point for his performance.
 
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
I haven't seen the Gerulaitis-Borg match but it sounds great. Playing at a time when serves weren't overwhelming makes it possible to have that kind of a match - high end from both ends while still being entertaining.

-----

You guys are clearly a knowledgable group who've watched a lot of tennis.

What do you think of the following matches -

Becker-Edberg 90
Becker-Lendl 89 (?) Semi, 5 setter
Borg's finals of 77 and 79
Borg-Connors 81 semi (opposite bagels)
Connors-McEnroe 82
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Waspsting said:
I haven't seen the Gerulaitis-Borg match but it sounds great. Playing at a time when serves weren't overwhelming makes it possible to have that kind of a match - high end from both ends while still being entertaining.
Click to expand...
The other night I was watching the 1977 Wimbledon semi Borg-Gerulaitis match on VHS. It was a moderately entertaining match: Vitas had an easy charm and humor, and pursued the S&V strategy pretty relentlessly. Lots of lobs and resulting quickness.

But Gerulaitis missed many first serves and many volleys. Borg could park on the baseline with little liability. Plus Gerulaitis's backhand was always a slice, he had no drive and no topspin. And, Gerulaitis at the net hit way too many volleys right back to Borg. The level of play by both was not that high. Probably the only reason it is regarded as a significant match was that it went to five sets, it was in the semis, and it went to 8-6 in the fifth. It was not a great match in terms of level of play.

I kept thinking Laver would never have missed that volley; Laver would have hit that shot with more power and ended the point; Laver would have rallied stronger.

I concluded that if it went to five sets with the way Gerulaitis was playing (not all that well), with a prime Laver in his shoes it would not have gone to five and Borg (unless he raised his level of play) would not have been the winner.
 
Last edited:
P

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
No love for 81 Final. Was like 80 but not quiet as dramatic, skill level similar.
I quiet like Edberg v Stich 91 SF, very good grass court play.

I have issues with 2008, not sure why anyone considers it great grass court play, its more reminiscent of Med HC with heavy or low pressure balls.
 
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
hoodjem said:
But Gerulaitis missed many first serves and many volleys. Plus his backhand was always a slice, he had no drive and no topspin. And, Gerulaitis at the net hit way too many volleys right back to Borg. I kept thinking Laver would never have missed that; Laver would have hit that with more power and ended the point; Laver would have rallied stronger.

I concluded that if it went to five sets with the way Gerulaitis was playing, then with a prime Laver in his shoes it would not have gone to five and Borg (unless he raised his level of play) would not have been the winner.
Click to expand...

Were they both serve volleying of 1st and 2nd serves?

How was Borg's net play? How was Vitas handling Borg's volleys to Vitas' backhand?

----

On a different topic, what was Laver like?

Watched a clip of 36 year old Laver playing an 18 year Borg on carpet over 5 sets. Borg serve-volleyed constantly while Laver hung back, which seemed odd.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Waspsting said:
Were they both serve volleying of 1st and 2nd serves?

How was Borg's net play? How was Vitas handling Borg's volleys to Vitas' backhand?

----

On a different topic, what was Laver like?

Watched a clip of 36 year old Laver playing an 18 year Borg on carpet over 5 sets. Borg serve-volleyed constantly while Laver hung back, which seemed odd.
Click to expand...
Vitas was coming in on almost any and everything.
Borg volleyed a little and came in on only strong first serves.

Borg-Laver: that is very odd to hear that Borg volleyed constantly, while Laver was hanging back. But Laver did have great ground strokes, and knew that he could use them anytime anywhere. So maybe it fit his strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
B

BorgCash

Legend
DMP said:
I have just been watching a video of the Borg-Gerulaitis Wimbledon semi from 1977.


At the end of the match Dan Maskell says it was a fabulous match one of the greatest matches he has ever seen at Wimbledon, possibly the greatest ever. Since Dan Maskell was always very careful with his praise, and had probably seen just about every significant match since Perry's time, that is praise indeed. Interestingly I have also been watching the Borg-McEnroe final from 1980 here


and at the end Maskell does not make the same compliment.

So...after 1977, which matches at Wimbledon can be considered 'the greatest ever at Wimbledon'? I assume it means both players playing well and consistently for the whole match.

Two additional comments.

1) I always have that (Borg-Gerulaitis) match down as the just about the best quality match I ever saw. It is certainly the touchstone for me.
2) at the end of the 5th set it is worth watching Borg's speed around the court and reactions at the net. Both are lightning fast.
Click to expand...
`
Great match! Btw, what shoes Vitas used then?
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Waspsting said:
Three performances stand out to me -

- Sampras vs Becker 95 final
- Federer vs Roddick 03 semi
- Federer vs Roddick 05 final

With a shout out to Sampras vs Agassi 99 final (Agassi's relatively small serve limits Sampras' scope a bit in that one)
Click to expand...

Interjecting to refute the characterization of Agassi's serve as "small." Even "relatively small," is an unfair downgrade in my view. It wasn't a major weapon, like his return. But it was a very good serve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
The other night I was watching the Borg-Gerulaitis match. It was an entertaining match: Vitas had an easy charm and humor, and pursued the S&V strategy pretty relentlessly. Lots of lobs and resulting quickness.

But Gerulaitis missed many first serves and many volleys. Plus his backhand was always a slice, he had no drive and no topspin. And, Gerulaitis at the net hit way too many volleys right back to Borg. I kept thinking Laver would never have missed that; Laver would have hit that with more power and ended the point; Laver would have rallied stronger.

I concluded that if it went to five sets with the way Gerulaitis was playing, then with a prime Laver in his shoes it would not have gone to five and Borg (unless he raised his level of play) would not have been the winner.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think peak Laver would have beaten the Borg of 1977 on grass but let's give Borg credit in that he did play the much more powerful and better groundstroker in Connors in the final and defeated him.

I think peak Laver against peak Borg on any surface would be a match for the ages.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Waspsting said:
Watched a clip of 36-year-old Laver playing an 18-year-old Borg on carpet over 5 sets. Borg serve-volleyed constantly while Laver hung back, which seemed odd.
Click to expand...
1975 WCT Dallas semis. Good one. Laver was up two sets to one, but the youngster fought back (7-6, 3-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-2).
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
I agree. I think peak Laver would have beaten the Borg of 1977 on grass but let's give Borg credit in that he did play the much more powerful and better groundstroker in Connors in the final and defeated him.

I think peak Laver against peak Borg on any surface would be a match for the ages.
Click to expand...

I would give peak Laver the edge over peak Borg on grass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Sure. Although, I think Laver vs. Borg on clay would be even more interesting. Laver vs. McEroe on grass would be a great match too.
Click to expand...
Borg and Laver had a number of interesting matches in the short time they play each other. Laver was past his best and Borg was a number of years from his best. I can only imagine the fabulous matches they would have had!

Both were incredibly fast with great power and variety. Excellent serves, top net play, varieties of spin etc. Could have been up there with any rivalry.

I agree, McEnroe vs Laver would have been dazzling too.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Sure. Although, I think Laver vs. Borg on clay would be even more interesting. Laver vs. McEroe on grass would be a great match too.
Click to expand...

Laver against Borg on clay would be fascinating in how Laver would attempt to break up Borg's baseline game on clay. Clearly even Laver would not be able to stay on the baseline with Borg. The first time they met, Laver played Borg on clay in 1974 and lost 6-1 6-1. A few weeks later, also on clay Laver showed his great variety and beat Borg in a super match 7-6 6-2. I saw that match and both sides played great. I think Borg would win the majority on red clay but it would be an interesting match in watching how Laver would try to break up the Borg baseline patterns. I think Laver could win his share just as I think Borg would win his share against Laver on grass.

How would Laver do against the McEnroe from 1984? Anyone would have problems with McEnroe's serve of course but Laver also wasn't used to playing lefties so that would be in McEnroe's favor. McEnroe's lefty serve on the ad court goes to Laver's powerful forehand so it would be interesting to see how Laver hits the returns from there. Laver faced a lot of great volleyers but McEnroe would perhaps be the most unique volleyer Rod ever faced and arguably the best volleyer.
 
Last edited:
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
I'll take the final of the 1974 Houston River Oaks International Tennis Tournament on clay; Laver wins 7-6, 6-2
Click to expand...

I remember watching that match on TV thinking how amazing it was to see Laver, probably the most hyper-aggressive player of all time, play a more patient, conservative game, rallying from the back court and waiting for opportunities, in order to win against Borg on clay. I suspect that Borg was probably the only player who could have forced Laver to tone down his ultra-aggressive style of play to have a chance to beat Borg on clay.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
I remember watching that match on TV thinking how amazing it was to see Laver, probably the most hyper-aggressive player of all time, play a more patient, conservative game, rallying from the back court and waiting for opportunities, in order to win against Borg on clay. I suspect that Borg was probably the only player who could have forced Laver to tone down his ultra-aggressive style of play to have a chance to beat Borg on clay.
Click to expand...
One of the dumbest decisions I ever made was when I had a chance to see the Bjorn Borg against Rod Laver match at the U.S. Open in 1975 on har tru and decided not to because a friend kept nagging me to play him in tennis that day. He wasn't even that good a player! Literally in hundreds of matches against him he won one game against me. It was probably the last major that Laver played that he had a legitimate chance to win the tournament. Borg won that match in four sets. I believe it was just a few months after Borg played Laver in that fabulous WCT championships match in which Borg defeated Laver in five sets.
 
Last edited:
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
One of the dumbest decisions I ever made was when I had a chance to see the Bjorn Borg against Rod Laver match at the U.S. Open in 1975 on har tru and decided not to because a friend kept nagging me to play him in tennis that day. He wasn't even that good a player! Literally in hundreds of matches against him he won one game against me. It was probably the last major that Laver played that he had a legitimate chance to win the tournament. Borg won that match in four sets. I believe it was just a few months after Borg played Laver in that fabulous WCT finals match in which Borg defeated Laver in five sets.
Click to expand...

Ah, the regrets of past youthful errors in judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
B

BringBackWood

Professional
Moose Malloy said:
I guess quality of a play is a subjective thing. Going by winner to error ratios both the 80 and 08 finals were very high quality matches(there are threads on them)
I didn't do full stats, but have watched the 77 match multiple times and am fairly certain the unforced error rate was higher in that match than in the other 2. Also there were a lot more service breaks in that match(one of the factors for a high quality match for me is low amount of breaks)
Still overall the points were probably more fun in 77(so much lobbing retrieving, etc) that I can see why its remains so highly regarded. But does anyone think borg was a better player in 77 than 80? Imo almost everything about his game was better in 80, volleying, serving etc. the fifth set in 80 was probably the best set of serving by anyone in the 5th set of a major final in history, borg went to another level that I'm not sure he ever equaled. Kudos to mac for even keeping that set close. I watched the Borg Vitas match from the 4th round of 81 Wimbledon a while back and thought the quality was higher than their 77 match from both players and Borg won in straights. he was pretty much unbreakable that day. And volleyed like pat cash that day so there was very little of the cat and mouse like lobbing from 77, since balls at net were just put away more easily.
Dan Maskell also loved Lewis Curren, nice to see that mentioned, I also did stats for that one.
Click to expand...

I've got to take you up on this because it's factually incorrect. The 1st 3 sets of the 80 final were actually quite indifferent quality wise. Certainly Borg was nowhere in the 1st, and the 2nd and 3rd sets were full of scrappy play & unforced errors. The reason it is hyped up so much is the tiebreak, which of course in superbly unique . In fact the whole 4th was a big step up in quality and winners from the 1st 3 sets. And McEnroe's nerve and skill in breaking back in the 4th set is as iconic for me as the tiebreak.

However, statistically it cannot be denied the 77 match is a substantially higher quality match. They played about 25 less points in the 77 match, & yet hit 25 more winners. Yes of course winners is not everything, but this is a big big gulf & I would be highly suspicious of any claim that the 80 match is better from this stat. But to make sure, we have to watch both matches. And to my mind, it is so obvious the 77 match is higher quality. It is, put simply, astonishing, what these two produced. It wasn't like Gerulaitis was feeding Borg easy passing shots or Borg feeding Gerulaitis easy volleys. It was just sensational play for all 5 sets. How on earth are there more UE's in this match?

Borg hit amazing passing shots & his volleying was very good throughout, unlike in the 80 final where he couldn't volley for a set and a half. Borg should have been down 2 sets in the 80 final but for poor and careless shots by Mac. No way he would have got away with that in the 77 semi. Gerulaitis's volleying was better than Mac's, and against better returns (partly because Vitas didn't have Mac's serve). And he also hit some spectacular passing shots, shots which the 80 final just didn't contain. You say Borg was a better player in 80, but that is not relevant when we are talking about individual matches. It is clear Borg played better in the 77 match.

And of course I am just talking about quality here, as you were. I think you agree this match is simply more entertaining, with many excellent rallies rarely seen on fast grass. To me this match is the best I have ever seen period. Certainly quality wise, I think most would be hard pressed to find better.
 
Carsomyr

Carsomyr

Legend
For me, it's definitely when Zenzo Shimidzu barely outlasted Randolph Lycett in the fifth of a legendary QF Golden Wool Pants Era match in the 1921 Championships. Lycett did his best to stay hydrated on a sweltering late June day by having a trainer-cum-garçon serve him champagne starting in the fourth, doubling his tennis fuel intake with a flask of either brandy or gin in the fifth.

Shimidzu did his best to get balls by a stumbling and frequently falling Lycett, but there's nothing quite like the doggedness of a drunk. Zenzo finally eked out a win in the decider, 10-8, against a 35 year-old who had consumed an entire bottle of champagne and a flask of spirits.

Bill Tilden won Wimbledon that year, the last of the Challenge Round era, coming back from two-sets down to best Brian Norton in the final match. Norton went the distance in the penultimate match against Manuel Alonso, who needed five to take down Shimidzu, who required a fifth against a man who was at one point crawling on all fours, on the All England Club's legendary rye and red fescue lawns, desperately searching for his misplaced tennis racquet.

Bill Tilden is considered by some to be the greatest tennis player of all time.
 
Last edited:
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
How do you guys rate Borg's volleys in general?

Guy serve-volleyed his way to 5 Wimbledon titles, yet I never hear too much about it... kinda like, "oh yes, he was ok but not a natural".

From watching plenty of videos, I'd say he was ugly of style - stabby and snappy. Even his approach looked harried, like he was chasing down a drop shot, not coming in to lord over the net.

I'd speculate it's this ungainly style that had McEnroe and Gerulaitis have a less than high opinion of Borg's volleys - i'm more interested in how effective they were.

But how effective were they? How well did he cover the net? Long volleys and drop volleys the same? How often did he come in on hard courts?
 
B

BringBackWood

Professional
Moose Malloy said:
Also there were a lot more service breaks in that match(one of the factors for a high quality match for me is low amount of breaks)
.
Click to expand...

Have you changed your view on this Moose because in my opinion that's a very simplistic criterion? It could just mean the returning was bad or vice versa. Two counter examples would be Isner-Mahut & Edberg-Mecir.

Borg probably had more UE's in the first set of the 80 final than he did in the entirety of the 77 SF. I think Vitas's play was of much higher quality than in the 81 match you allude to. For example in 81, he simply spinned his 2nd serves in and let Borg dominate the rally, whearas in 77 he was coming in behind them. His (or perhaps anybody's) volleying was never better. The art of volleying is not just about 'putting them away', because that inevitably leads to more errors. I agree Borg was playing more aggresvely in 81, but that was in part due to less pressure being applied by his opponent.
 
M

Mareel

New User
I don't care what anyone says, the Borg-Gerulaitis 77 SF is really entertaining, one of the great matches for sure. Plenty of errors and maybe not the highest quality grass court play in the classical sense of the term, but almost every game you also saw something fantastic. That's why it's so re-watchable.

Gerulaitis is coming in behind just about everything and it's so good to see. Probably the big difference between this and the few other matches I've seen him play, is that here he seems to have a ton of faith in his second serve (maybe because he is volleying so well), especially considering how well Borg is returning and passing.

He did choke a bit when he was a break up in the 5th, underplaying a couple of volleys (also Borg's ridiculous speed around the court makes them look even worse) when throughout the rest of the match he was taking risks, always trying to put away his shots at net. At least he didn't let it get him down, and in fact some of the best tennis was played over the next 5 games (the game on Borg's serve at 5-5, despite having no break points, is a classic). Also, the game at 4-5, with Gerulaitis serving to stay in the match for the first time, and 0-15 down, he puts away 4 of the best volleys you're ever likely to see in a single game.

In short, would totally recommend!
 
B

BringBackWood

Professional
Mareel said:
I don't care what anyone says, the Borg-Gerulaitis 77 SF is really entertaining, one of the great matches for sure. Plenty of errors and maybe not the highest quality grass court play in the classical sense of the term, but almost every game you also saw something fantastic. That's why it's so re-watchable.

Gerulaitis is coming in behind just about everything and it's so good to see. Probably the big difference between this and the few other matches I've seen him play, is that here he seems to have a ton of faith in his second serve (maybe because he is volleying so well), especially considering how well Borg is returning and passing.

He did choke a bit when he was a break up in the 5th, underplaying a couple of volleys (also Borg's ridiculous speed around the court makes them look even worse) when throughout the rest of the match he was taking risks, always trying to put away his shots at net. At least he didn't let it get him down, and in fact some of the best tennis was played over the next 5 games (the game on Borg's serve at 5-5, despite having no break points, is a classic). Also, the game at 4-5, with Gerulaitis serving to stay in the match for the first time, and 0-15 down, he puts away 4 of the best volleys you're ever likely to see in a single game.

In short, would totally recommend!
Click to expand...

The 'plenty of errors' is a myth. Look at this http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/19770702-M-Wimbledon-SF-Vitas_Gerulaitis-Bjorn_Borg.html. Even if they were being generous, it shows this is a supreme high quality match by any measure.
 
M

Mareel

New User
I'm sorry, thanks for the link, but those error stats are way off - 1 unforced error (even being generous with the term) for Gerulaitis in the 5th set is a joke and a half. He missed 3 volleys in the last game alone.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Mareel said:
I'm sorry, thanks for the link, but those error stats are way off - 1 unforced error (even being generous with the term) for Gerulaitis in the 5th set is a joke and a half. He missed 3 volleys in the last game alone.
Click to expand...

Lacking video quality makes judgment difficult, looks like Sackmann only marked obvious errors there. The volley misses you speak of are all listed as forced, the second one at least should be unforced I suppose. Notable since usually it's the other way over there, less lenient but that depends on who took the stats, too.

Most volley errors are always going to be forced though, such stats don't cover shotmaking quality directly. It was at least a good quality top match, that much is clear; coupled with how excitingly hard-fought it was, I see no problem believing the 'best 70s grasscourt match' legend.
 
M

Mareel

New User
Absolutely. A fantastic match. One of the very best.

But I stand by my opinion that those error stats don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I mean, there's one unbelievable forehand volley error by Gerulaitis in the 4th set (so stupid and careless that it caused Dan Maskell to almost lose his temper). And all that's listed is a bh error.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Mareel said:
Absolutely. A fantastic match. One of the very best.

But I stand by my opinion that those error stats don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I mean, there's one unbelievable forehand volley error by Gerulaitis in the 4th set (so stupid and careless that it caused Dan Maskell to almost lose his temper). And all that's listed is a bh error.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think Jeff did a quickie on the match, not bothering with error differentiation, just to get it in the database (ignoring errors there's a good lot of info to take), presuming no one else would - for sure, there are few who would enjoy taking stats for a match this old when you plainly struggle to see the ball.

I Iove the project and have been happily contributing to it myself, but have to recognise the one issue it has are outlier error counts like this one; mostly early charts before a common feel was established, but a few oddities persist later too. That still means a few hundred, which doesn't spoil the whole database much with its 5000+ matches and counting, but messes with specific comparisons. Contributors parse errors a bit different between each other as well, that should be fine within sense though, it can never be an exact science (unless machines take over the process eventually) and actual tournament statisticians differ as well, tournament to tournament or year to year.

The stray charts should need redoing at some point, that's a massive job though so no one is interested at the moment, but I don't think we'll let it stand forever.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
On topic, the 1981 final seriously needs more love, completely skimmed over because it was 4 sets while both played better than in 1980. The drama and closeness were there, 4-6 7-6 7-6 6-4 with both saving about a dozen BPs and a pivotal game when Mac saved four SPs serving to stay in the third set; if Borg went two sets to one up he'd have likely won.
 
M

Mareel

New User
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to have a go at anyone. I have a lot of respect for people who take the time to go through matches and record statistics. And yes, there's a ton of useful information there.

Anyway, the point of my original post was that the match is so entertaining that you don't really care about the missed volleys, stray passes, missed 2nd serve returns etc. :)
 
M

Mareel

New User
I'll need to re-watch the 81 final but I thought it was way better than the 80 final - they both seemed to play well through the whole match. Also, Borg's speed! I still remember a point (in the 4th set I think) where he runs down a McEnroe volley and it's one of the most incredible things I've seen.
 
B

BringBackWood

Professional
Mareel said:
I'll need to re-watch the 81 final but I thought it was way better than the 80 final - they both seemed to play well through the whole match. Also, Borg's speed! I still remember a point (in the 4th set I think) where he runs down a McEnroe volley and it's one of the most incredible things I've seen.
Click to expand...

yes that was brilliant. The 81 match is great tennis for all 4 sets. Mcenroe great clutch play in the tiebreaks.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Mareel said:
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to have a go at anyone. I have a lot of respect for people who take the time to go through matches and record statistics. And yes, there's a ton of useful information there.

Anyway, the point of my original post was that the match is so entertaining that you don't really care about the missed volleys, stray passes, missed 2nd serve returns etc. :)
Click to expand...

No problem, it's good to have errors within a consistent range so pointing out outliers is proper, meanwhile we can still use a great deal of info there besides just the W-UE count, as well.

You should hit 'reply' to reply to a particular message btw, makes conversation tidier.

And yeah, lapses in quality are forgiven when the dramatic factor keeps you glued. My favourite grasscourt match is the '85 AO semi between Lendl and Edberg (bit partial here since I love Stefan), which I rationally wouldn't dream of nominating for best ever quality as it was fairly up and down, but the drama was absolutely off the charts, momentum shifts aplenty and you never knew who'd win any set until its end (except the third, obviously).
 
M

Mareel

New User
AnOctorokForDinner said:
No problem, it's good to have errors within a consistent range so pointing out outliers is proper, meanwhile we can still use a great deal of info there besides just the W-UE count, as well.

You should hit 'reply' to reply to a particular message btw, makes conversation tidier.

And yeah, lapses in quality are forgiven when the dramatic factor keeps you glued. My favourite grasscourt match is the '85 AO semi between Lendl and Edberg (bit partial here since I love Stefan), which I rationally wouldn't dream of nominating for best ever quality as it was fairly up and down, but the drama was absolutely off the charts, momentum shifts aplenty and you never knew who'd win any set until its end (except the third, obviously).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. Kinda new here.

Great choice! I'm a big fan of both players and that was a huge win for Edberg, especially since Lendl was in the best phase of his career too. Personally, I've always thought Lendl at his best had a technically excellent volley (especially executing low volleys). I think he just lacked some athleticism & instincts at net. And as good a serve and returner as he was, on grass he was just a little bit below the very best.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
My fave Wimbledon match is the Pete-Goran '95 semi though. Astonishing how Ivanisevic could blast right through Sampras - he literally didn't lose a single service point in the 2nd set (and only two in the fourth), that's up there with the best of Sampras himself. Incredible talent. But of course, Goran could never be as steady as Pete, and a momentary loss of concentration/attack of nerves cost him every odd set. Well, there's a limit for everyone - if he could maintain that godly level consistently, he'd be Sampras instead.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Mareel said:
Thanks for the tip. Kinda new here.

Great choice! I'm a big fan of both players and that was a huge win for Edberg, especially since Lendl was in the best phase of his career too. Personally, I've always thought Lendl at his best had a technically excellent volley (especially executing low volleys). I think he just lacked some athleticism & instincts at net. And as good a serve and returner as he was, on grass he was just a little bit below the very best.
Click to expand...

Lendl was impressive on grass, just didn't have the natural feel for the grasscourt game like Edberg or Becker (or Cash at his best). I have to think Lendl still underperformed though, in the sense that knowing he was less natural impacted his focus and led to extra DFs and volley misses under pressure. He always seemed ill at ease in late rounds of grasscourt AO or Wimbledon. With bigger confidence, Lendl may have won 1-2 AO on grass and maaaybe 1989 Wimbledon considering he stretched Becker to five sets and Edberg did have a terrible start in the final (bagelled on grass, wtf?).
 
J

JasonZ

Hall of Fame
AnOctorokForDinner said:
My fave Wimbledon match is the Pete-Goran '95 semi though. Astonishing how Ivanisevic could blast right through Sampras - he literally didn't lose a single service point in the 2nd set (and only two in the fourth), that's up there with the best of Sampras himself. Incredible talent. But of course, Goran could never be as steady as Pete, and a momentary loss of concentration/attack of nerves cost him every odd set. Well, there's a limit for everyone - if he could maintain that godly level consistently, he'd be Sampras instead.
Click to expand...

Yes this was the best grass court of the 1990s. The two best grasscourters at that time at their absolutely best.
 
Carsomyr

Carsomyr

Legend
excellent post
Carsomyr said:
For me, it's definitely when Zenzo Shimidzu barely outlasted Randolph Lycett in the fifth of a legendary QF Golden Wool Pants Era match in the 1921 Championships. Lycett did his best to stay hydrated on a sweltering late June day by having a trainer-cum-garçon serve him champagne starting in the fourth, doubling his tennis fuel intake with a flask of either brandy or gin in the fifth.

Shimidzu did his best to get balls by a stumbling and frequently falling Lycett, but there's nothing quite like the doggedness of a drunk. Zenzo finally eked out a win in the decider, 10-8, against a 35 year-old who had consumed an entire bottle of champagne and a flask of spirits.

Bill Tilden won Wimbledon that year, the last of the Challenge Round era, coming back from two-sets down to best Brian Norton in the final match. Norton went the distance in the penultimate match against Manuel Alonso, who needed five to take down Shimidzu, who required a fifth against a man who was at one point crawling on all fours, on the All England Club's legendary rye and red fescue lawns, desperately searching for his misplaced tennis racquet.

Bill Tilden is considered by some to be the greatest tennis player of all time.
Click to expand...
 
T

The Shape-shifter

Rookie
KG1965 said:
2 brief reflections:
1) Borg and McEnroe were 2 of the top 5 most interesting players to see in the whole history of Wimbledon (the others being Laver, Sampras and Federer);
2) Vitas Gerulaitis was an extraordinary player, the merit of that beautiful match was not only of Borg. Many people forget.
Click to expand...
2) Vitas lacked power, and he also seemed to lack a big weapon. On the other hand, another S&V player during Borg's era, Tanner, lacked his finesse and touch. Guys like Sampras or Becker had both.
 
forzamilan90

forzamilan90

Legend
2007 final was incredible. 2008 final is in my opinion the best and most dramatic level. 2009 was also really gripping. Back to back to back great finals and some of the best ones I have seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Stats for 1977 Wimbledon SF (Borg-Gerulaitis)
2
Replies
68
Views
13K
JoelSandwich
JoelSandwich
B
Mcenroe's poor attitude in Wimbledon 1982 final
Replies
24
Views
3K
Gizo
G
Ronaldo
Rainy Day Wimbledon matches
Replies
5
Views
1K
PureCarlosMoyaDrive
PureCarlosMoyaDrive
Carsomyr
Roddick's finest hour? Losing 2009 Wimbledon Final
Replies
12
Views
949
CEvertFan
CEvertFan
Phoenix1983
The greatest matches ever played at Wimbledon
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Phoenix1983
Phoenix1983
Top