Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by forehand_dude, Jan 2, 2012.
Borg isn't even a clay GOAT at this point...
Nadal is more accomplished than Borg on clay at this stage, but matches between those two would be epic. Borg was so much more than a great clay courter. He didn't play the 1977 FO, yet in '78 won the FO while only losing 32 games, so he was a masterful clay courter but he had great surface versatility in that era of varied surface speeds. Rosewall, Borg, and Nadal are the three greatest players on clay in my opinion. Borg won his sixth FO open title in '81 at 25 while skipping it once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ (thanks Krosero)
Wilander won the Australian Open when it was on hard grass. I think Borg could have won several times if he played the tournament. It is surprising he never won the U.S. Open.
longevity does count. had federer retired after 2008 he would not be the GOAT either.
it was borgs own choice to retire.
That's presuming that Federer is the "GOAT", but I agree that longevity is a factor to consider. In my book, you have players such as Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Nadal. Each has big pluses and a few minuses that you can hone in on if you choose to. Longevity is something that you can point to with Rosewall, Gonzalez, Connors, and now Federer for example. Borg played a ton of matches even through 25, winning over 100 total titles and 63 "official" titles. Look at his match totals. Borg played about the same number of total matches as Nadal has (though Nadal is 27 now and has played a heavy schedule from his teenage years). That's not even counting a heavy unofficial schedule filled with invitationals/exos and other such tournaments like AKAI in Australia. Plus, it was Borg's choice to retire just as it was the Tour's choice to demand that he qualify for the majors such as Wimbledon and the French Open in 1982. Suppose they asked Nadal to do that when he was away from the Tour for seven months? That wasn't an option given to him and it was a such a bad decision in many ways. The WCT and ATP split in 1983, so it was a time of political turmoil with the Tour.
Majors Won/Majors played for Borg, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic:
Federer - 17/58
Nadal - 13/36
Anyway, Connors winning 80 Dallas and specially Mac winning 79 Dallas ( crushing both Connors and Borg) are among the greatest achievements of both years.We should respect it as it really happened.
They were great achievements no doubt. Yet, the WCT Finals really peaked in about 1975-1976, and of course Laver-Rosewall was epic. Yet, the Volvo Masters was really gaining momentum. The 1979 and 1980 (played in Jan. 80 and 81) Masters Cup YEC tourneys had deeper fields and were the biggest indoor tourneys in those years with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl chasing those titles in January.
Huge events both Madison and Reunion Arena.it was very exciting, in the middle and at the end of the season to wait for those special showcases.Dallas had the advantage that you could not take a match unseriously since it was a knock out system while there were some unsubstantial rr matches ( with tanks from Borg,Connors,Mc Enroe and Lendl among others) during the Masters tournaments..
The fact that the WCT Finals took part in early May also helped sinc eplayers were just rearing up while, some years, it was tough for the players who played a big non official schedule in December and early January to be eager and ready for the Masters.
The 1979 fields and the 1980 fields were just extremely tough and the fast turf, IMO, helped a lot into visualizing the great variety of styles.
Open Era GOAT he is
Definitely could have been if he would have played longer.
Borgs anticipation and movement around the court was amazing.
Add to that quality ground strokes and a simple, though very effective serve - and it's difficult not to rate him as one of the greats.
Number of slams or tournaments is only part of the story.
The only true measure of any player is how they were rated by those that played with and against them.
In Borgs case he was rated very highly.
Borg holds the magic GOATspray of the 65inch Raquet era.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You go girl!
Borg is clearly better than Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic. The fact that people don't put him above those guys more often is laughable. With his 3 year end titles and skipping the 77 French(which would never happen today) it's fair to give him credit for 14/15 slams. Not to mention that he was shafted of #1 time due to the terrible rankings system. Not to mention that he dominated clay/grass/carpet...insane. If he had won USO and stuck around to win another French or two he would be neck and neck with Federer.
Borg won 41% of his GS events, nobody else is even close.
He won 11 of 27.
For me both me Borg and sampras were the two greatest players of all time. Borg the greatest slow court player and sampras the greatest fast court player. I don't just go off number of slams. Because Borg didn't play in Australia. If he did he'd have probably won it 5 times like he did Wimbledon. That takes him to 16 slams by the time he's 25. Insane player. Far better than nadal on clay imo.
Or maybe Borg won FO/Wimbledon so much because he could solely focus on them w/o Australia muddying the waters. You can't just hand Borg 5 AO titles. That makes no sense.
Love Borg. Need to add: Seles 8/14 GS events entered pre-stabbing 57%. Little Mo 9/11 81%.
Christ almighty, look at some of the crap being written in this thread. Some suggesting that Borg should have hung around for some more slams or at least until he won a USO because that would improve his GOATness or his legacy. GOAT was not even a term when Borg played. Most slams won was not the be all and end all when he played. But idiots on here write it as if it was, because that's all they know because today it's the norm. What Borg did was ****ing phenomenal. Think about it you clowns, FO, slow bouncy clay to W, fast skiddy grass...on 3 occassions he won the FO/W double. FFS, think about that. Okay, he lost 4 USO finals but it took a couple of USO GIAT contenders to beat him there, with the help of an American crowd.
This is why the GOAT can never be determined. Applying what is the metric today to an era where it was not considered critical is just ridiculous.
I do not believe in GOAT but Borg is tier 1 and anyone who disagrees needs a good ***** slapping.
No other great comes close to effectively retiring aged 25 to guarantee his percentages, either.
And btw, I'm a great admirer of Borg (from the distance of around 40 years, his status and mystique in the game persists) but don't like the 'percentages' argument to elevate him.
Phoenix1983, I understand. I think you would have enjoyed watching his game in person if there was a time machine. The crowd so often had an air of anticipation when he played. Even when young he had the reputation of being super clutch. Whether it was deserved is debatable but he was something.
i think if you want to rate borg you have to go by what he actually did, not what he "could" have done..
if mcenroe retired after he won the '84 us open people would probably think he was the GOAT...
or if djokovic retired after the '16 FO...
Tell us how you really feel.
Back then wasn't there less time between the FO and Wimbledon?
Separate names with a comma.