1970-1979 "The Decade": 1° Connors, Borg 2nd

[KG1965]

We are in March 1979. The most important decade in the history of tennis is ending and Jimmy Connors is firmly number one in the world having won earlier this year the three most important events of the indoor season: Birmingham (US International), Philadelphia (US indoor) and Memphis (National Indoor). But Bjorn Borg prepares overtaking all'Alan King Classic where it destroys the opponent 6-3 6-2 in the concrete of Las Vegas. It will exceed at Wimbledon. Forever, until the withdrawal of Swedish. 1979 Borg is science fiction. But it is the last year of the decade.

The 70s were the decade much more influential, more important, what really brought tennis to become modern tennis. Filled stadiums, the players have become stars. And Borg and Connors the two stars who brought tennis to the next level. Tennis became a sport from the first page.

We start from 1972. Borg is too young and Connors is 20 years old and he won the first tournament discrete, the Quenn's, Cincinnati and especially in San Francisco (Albany) the Pacific Coast Ch.
But 1973 is the year that Connors brings to the fore, becomes number 3 but at the end of the year is actually number one by winning the first BIG TITLE at the US Pro Boston where beats Ashe to 5th.
It ends the year by winning one of the first five tournaments of the 73: the Pacific Southwest Ch. To Los Angeles in the final vs Tom Okker.
Borg explodes like a bomb in 1974 in Rome by winning against Nastase and repeating in Paris and Boston. But Connors is away.

Connors at the end of 1976 he won twice BIG TITLES Borg taking advantage of the young age of the Swedish phenomenon.
Against Borg he never loses.

It's 1977 and after an unbroken series of defeats in previous years, Borg beat Connors 6-4 to 5th in the finals at Wimbledon for the first time to become the number one.
After Wimbledon Bjorn goes into hibernation, in the second half of the season it gives a crash recovery of a supersonic Vilas. And it takes the crown beating Connors in the sprint final 6-4 in the third set in the final of the GP Masters played at Madison Square Garden.

Borg in 1978 makes the same mistake. After retrieving the disadvantage of the usual frantic start to Connors, the American indoor season, he exceeds Jimmy, with the Roland Garros-Wimbledon double, then lost again. And Connors not distracting, joined him in the summer of har tru American wins in Washington, and the US Open Clay Indianapolis.
Then tearing in the pit of Flushing Meadows.
1978 is over and Connors is always first. And Borg second.

 

[paolo2143]

I think you will find that the majority of tennis historians and former players do not agree with you.There is no doubt Connors was a superb player and a great champion but Borg was in most people's mind the player of the decade.

When it came to the really big tournaments he had the edge ,Connors won 5 slams but Borg managed 8,also whilst Connors used to dominate Borg between 74 to 76 that was whilst Borg was still growing as a player and he was still in his teens until June 76 .After this Borg pretty much owned Connors I think he won 16 of their next 19 matches a lot of them easily and only 1978 was a close year

 

[KG1965]

I think you will find that the majority of tennis historians and former players do not agree with you.There is no doubt Connors was a superb player and a great champion but Borg was in most people's mind the player of the decade.

When it came to the really big tournaments he had the edge ,Connors won 5 slams but Borg managed 8,also whilst Connors used to dominate Borg between 74 to 76 that was whilst Borg was still growing as a player and he was still in his teens until June 76 .After this Borg pretty much owned Connors I think he won 16 of their next 19 matches a lot of them easily and only 1978 was a close year

I think the two observations not hit the mark :
1 ) the only major that really mattered were Wimbledon and US Open .
This is demonstrated by the fact that Connors jumped 6 Australian + 5 Rg .
Borg jumped 6 Australian + 1 Rg .
It's why Borg and Connors does not arrive in 14 majors .

2 ) in front H2H Borg it is only because he plays seven times in 1979. If they played seven times in 1973-74-75-76-77-78 Connors was ahead 32-18 30-20 . It was too strong Borg until 1976. He never lost a match . It was unbeatable for Borg .

 

[CyBorg]

Who cares about all of those Wimbledons - Jimmy won Memphis and Birmingham.

Borg was so bothered about those events he didn't even bother showing up.

 

[KG1965]

CyBorg you have not realized

Who cares about all of those Wimbledons - Jimmy won Memphis and Birmingham.

Borg was so bothered about those events he didn't even bother showing up.

You have not yet realized that here we talk about who was the best between Connors and Borg in the years 1972, 1973 , 1974, 1975 , 1976, 1977 , 1978, 1979 ( 70s ) and not who was the better of the two in Wimbledon !!

They are two different planes .

Borg was a phenomenon , a legend , an icon , the best player I've seen in 18 years and 23 years.

But Connors in those years was simply stronger , and just won more . Simply .

I understand that it is difficult to conceive and explain. I'll explain , I'm here on purpose .

 

[Arafel]

No no and no. Borgs dominance at SW19 and RG alone have him over Jimbo easy. And your discounting of the WCT tour and events like Rome and Monte Carlo is a joke.

Borg #1
Jimbo #2

Every tennis historian has it like this.

Look, I would give Borg the edge, but talking about dominance at RG ignores history, or looks at it through a modern lens. The fact is most people didn't care too much about the French until around 79. Borg himself skipped the French in 77 to play WTT. Many of the best players skipped the French. Heck, Chris Evert skipped three French Opens in a row at a time when she was unbeatable on clay.

I had a post about a year ago about this, where I listed all the players who skipped Roland Garros. EVERY major player skipped it, even clay courters like Orantes. I think Vilas may have been the only one who played it every year.

In the 70s, there were two majors: Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Borg dominated at Wimbledon, and won four there, which gives him the edge over Connors, who won three U.S. Opens and made five consecutive finals there.

 

[Tshooter]

We're doing this again ? Really. :???:

OK, I'll vote, again.

Connors > Borg.

 

[KG1965]

We're doing this again ? Really. :???:

OK, I'll vote, again.

Connors > Borg.

Tshooter hello , I guess it's been discussed in previous years of the duel but I was not done well compared to the 70s and the two are understated compared to the current champions .
I think in the 70s all hell broke loose , and was born the modern tennis . All thanks to the two superhumans .
Borg won more majors , but he has won a few , simply because it has skipped 6. Connors jumped 10 ! ( only in the 70s ) . Why RG was cheap and Australia .. nothing .

It should re-discuss giving the right value to the tournaments of 70s .

Rigurdare in the 70s I realized that Borg was a monster , but Connors more .

It makes the cost even Supermac , the third superhuman .

 

[KG1965]

.....
Covering the '70s I realized that Borg was a monster , but Connors more .

Not forgetting Supermac , the third superhuman .

 

[hoodjem]

1970—Laver
1971—Newcombe
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg (4)

 

[KG1965]

1970—Laver
1971—Newcombe
1972—Smith, but Connors > Borg
1973—Nastase, but Connors >> Borg
1974—Connors >>> Borg
1975—Ashe, I also think but Connors > Borg
1976—Connors >> Borg
1977—Borg/Vilas.. it was a bad year for Borg . Viva Vilas but Connors > Borg
1978—Borg.. not for me, but ok
1979—Borg


1980—Borg (4) no, it's not 70s. It's 80s.

 

[kiki]

1970—Laver
1971—Newcombe
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg (4)

Quite the right thing ( although I give 1976 to Borg and 1977 to Vilas)

 

[KG1965]

Quite the right thing ( although I give 1976 to Borg and 1977 to Vilas)

As usual, the 70s do not agree with you , but no matter ... are extremely happy to read you .

 

[kiki]

As usual, the 70s do not agree with you , but no matter ... are extremely happy to read you .

Thanks.I am not injuried anymore....

How they don´t agree with me? I followed tennis right from 1970 onwards if you talk about the decade.I have already made clear why Borg in 1976 and VIlas in 1977 should be given the real number one of the season title.My arguments are as debatabe as they are reasonable.

And I think Vilas was a clearer number one in 1977 than Borg was in 1976 ( I agree that Connors has a solid claim at number one that year).

1978 is clearly Borg´s.No contest here.

 

[KG1965]

Thanks.I am not injuried anymore....

How they don´t agree with me? I followed tennis right from 1970 onwards if you talk about the decade.I have already made clear why Borg in 1976 and VIlas in 1977 should be given the real number one of the season title.My arguments are as debatabe as they are reasonable.

And I think Vilas was a clearer number one in 1977 than Borg was in 1976 ( I agree that Connors has a solid claim at number one that year).

1978 is clearly Borg´s.No contest here.

I repeat , my post was just because pleased that write back .
The 70s do not agree at all with you , is the same , no problem .

The important thing is that you show me your truth . I read it . And I continue to make it in writing my truth .

 

[kiki]

I repeat , my post was just because pleased that write back .
The 70s do not agree at all with you , is the same , no problem .

The important thing is that you show me your truth . I read it . And I continue to make it in writing my truth .

Thanks again.No one has the truth, otherwise this forum would be non sense.

If you consider it well, while Borg was the most dominant player of the decade, Connors was the one who dominated for longer time as he was 4 years older than Borg.Eppure, se non e vero, e ben trovato.

 

[pc1]

Thanks again.No one has the truth, otherwise this forum would be non sense.

If you consider it well, while Borg was the most dominant player of the decade, Connors was the one who dominated for longer time as he was 4 years older than Borg.Eppure, se non e vero, e ben trovato.

What he doesn't realize is that it's like a race. You can lead almost all the way until the last second and lose.

Borg was far more dominant in the 1970s. You could even make an argument that Borg was number one in 1976 because he won Wimbledon and WCT while Connors only won the US Open.

Borg was better in 1977 to 1979 and by a large margin. Overall Borg was FAR BETTER in the 1970s.

 

[kiki]

It actually is closer than it looks.I know most of their big finals happened on US soil, yet Connors beat Borg at two USO finals plus one Masters final while Borg beat Connors at two Wimbly finals.Connors also won their 75 USO sf.Borg won their 79 Masters match so I think it is quite close.Now, had Connors played RG and Rome before 1979 that could have really changed things around.

In terms of majors, Borg won 10 titles in the 70´s and Connors won six ( seven if you give the Australian major status which is debatable during the 70´s).OTOH, Newcombe won 4 ( 6 if we include the two Australians he won , including beating Connors in their two only slam matches), so the difference between the first and second is more or less the same as between the second and third.

To question that is a mindboogling game, as one can state that, if Connors was on par with Borg, then Newk was on par with Jimmy and so forth.

 

[CyBorg]

 

[KG1965]

5000 posts , so much quantity . Little quality .

 

[KG1965]

Borg much quantity much quality.
Cyborg only much quantity.