Bjorn Borg versus Mats Wilander....

J

JAY1

Semi-Pro
I'm a fan of both of these players, on and off the court and have watched them play many times.
They're very similar in lots of ways but do have differences.
I've been comparing their games and come to the following conclusions....
I would like to hear your views.....

Firstly Mats played in a tougher era - Mac, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg...
Bjorn had Connors and Mac really.

Bjorn had a better 1st & 2nd Serve
Bjorn had a better Forehand (a bigger forehand )
Topspin backhands were pretty even
Mats had a better slice backhand and had better volleys too.
Return of serve was level also
Bjorn was certainly quicker and better athlete
Mentally I would say they were pretty equal
Bjorn had the Rock God persona that Mats didn't
They played each other once on the ATP tour in 1981- Bjorn won 6-1, 6-1 (Mats was 16).
I think overall Bjorn was a greater player, personality, icon.
But I do think Mats is very underrated as a player.
Over to you guys......
 
Quite plausible comparison. Both had great stamina also, because they had lean, athletic, not too muscular bodies, and could outlast anybody. Borg had a few more weapons like his first serve (Mac said, his second serve was a bit short)and the forehand. I saw Mats first in spring 1982 at Duesseldorf on a far away training court at the Rochus Club, when he still was an unknown youngster, who got to fame a few months later at RG. Mats got into Borg's footsteps, but the real Borg clone was Andrej Chesnokov. Maybe Mats was afraid to see a new Borg on the other side, because i think he lost once at RG to Chesnokov.
 
i think borg was a little better in almost every department that mattered. he also put more stick on the ball so his groundstrokes were more penetrating and wilanders were more airy and lofty. borg also had much better passing shots
 
JAY1 said:
So that means you can't try and compare Laver to Federer or even Connors to McEnroe.
You really shouldn't comment in certain threads on here.....
Click to expand...

You're making too much out of my initial post. All I meant when I said "11 slams to 6", which was really 7, a typing mistake on my part,was that Borg was clearly the superior player. And i guess you can compare players with the similar amount of slams like 8 vs 7 in the Connors/McEnroe scenario. I guess I wasn't entirely sure on what your question was asking, but it looked like you wanted opinions on who was a superior player, so I just pointed to the numbers.
 
here are some highlights of what alot of people would say is wilander at his peak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yguDDEXMz70

as opposed to borg, wilander strung his racquet pretty loose, had a shorter backswing, and looked like he more or less guided the ball than really hit it. he was a human backboard that developed slice/volleys to compete with the power hitters like lendl. correct me if im wrong but i dont really remember wilander hitting any winners from the baseline unless his opponent was at net?

heres a old video of borg vs lendl, with borg basically keeping the ball in play but you can tell he had another gear in the baseline power department that he used when felt there was an opportunity. he also moved the ball around alot, as opossed to wilander who usually looked like he was just keeping the ball in play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU
 
I always felt that mats was the better tactician, with more shot variety and a little more imagination in his play. I recall him as more willing to change from a plan A to a plan B and a better sense when to do it. The real question is whether any letter in the alphabet has much of a history of success vs Borg.
 
Last edited:
Wilander hit two types of backhands: a topspin backhand and a slice. Lendl hated his slice. He would also attack the net and volley quite a bit, which made him quite unpredictable.

Like Borg, he would rarely miss with his groundies. Wilander's passing shots weren't as good, so he made up for it by coming in.

Both were very mentally strong and weren't the same once the fire stopped burning.
 
I would see a rivalry between them playing out like today's Murray vs. Djokovic. Murray and Wilander are more tactical players, willing to throw different looks. Neither of their first serves are anything to write home about. Djokovic and Borg bully from the baseline and have more offensive weapons. Maybe they don't change it up as much, but are so consistent and athletic, the Wilanders and Murrays of the world can make little inroads against them.
 
Carsomyr said:
I would see a rivalry between them playing out like today's Murray vs. Djokovic. Murray and Wilander are more tactical players, willing to throw different looks. Neither of their first serves are anything to write home about. Djokovic and Borg bully from the baseline and have more offensive weapons. Maybe they don't change it up as much, but are so consistent and athletic, the Wilanders and Murrays of the world can make little inroads against them.
Click to expand...
Excellent analysis!
I really feel Wilander is underrated, probably because he was
Borg mark 2.
Borg is one of the greats and a level above Wilander but Mats is in the bracket below along with Connors, Mac and Lendl.
Wilander also won Monte Carlo, Rome, Miami and the Davis Cup.
For Borg there was a 7 years gap between his first and last Slam, for Wilander it was 6 & 1/4 years.
After these period's of time both players completely burnt out.
Borg stopped playing, Mats carried on but was a sad shadow of his former self, only winning one very minor tournament in a further 8 years on the tour.
 
Borg won 14 real majors while Wilander won 7.I agree Mats competition was probably a bit tougher.

Borg had very tough competition in Mac and Connors, a lesser one in Nastase,Lendl and Vilas and. ocasionnally, could be beaten by artists like Panatta and Orantes, and a humming server such as Ashe,Newcombe,Tanner.He never got beaten by an all rounder like Gerulaitis, but Vitas was also one of Bjorn´s tough rivals.

Wilander had to contend against peak Mac,Lendl,Becker,Edberg and a still very competitive Jimmy Connors.And he also had Noah,Cash and Mecir who could beat him if they were in the right day.
 
Last edited:
kiki said:
Borg won 14 real majors while Wilander won 7.I agree Mats competition was probably a bit tougher.

Borg had very tough competition in Mac and Connors, a lesser one in Nastase,Lendl and Vilas and. ocasionnally, could be beaten by artists like Panatta and Orantes, and a humming server such as Tanner.He never got beaten by an all rounder like Gerulaitis, but Vitas was also one of Bjorn´s tough rivals.

Wilander had to contend against peak Mac,Lendl,Becker,Edberg and a still very competitive Jimmy Connors.And he also had Noah,Cash and Mecir who could beat him if they were in the right day.
Click to expand...

What is a real major?
 
big ted said:
here are some highlights of what alot of people would say is wilander at his peak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yguDDEXMz70

as opposed to borg, wilander strung his racquet pretty loose, had a shorter backswing, and looked like he more or less guided the ball than really hit it. he was a human backboard that developed slice/volleys to compete with the power hitters like lendl. correct me if im wrong but i dont really remember wilander hitting any winners from the baseline unless his opponent was at net?

heres a old video of borg vs lendl, with borg basically keeping the ball in play but you can tell he had another gear in the baseline power department that he used when felt there was an opportunity. he also moved the ball around alot, as opossed to wilander who usually looked like he was just keeping the ball in play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU
Click to expand...

The 2nd link above which is the 1981 masters final between Borg and Lendl is an excellent example showing the power of Bjorn who IMO was better than Mats in every physical and mental aspect except for maybe tactics. Bjorn could usually outhit, outlast and/or outspeed most any opponent, Mats could not outhit his opponents. Lendl was probably the hardest hitter and Bjorn could hit pretty even with Ivan and this was using his wood donnay pro vs a fiberglass/graphite adidas racket. The sound of those hits was just amazing in that match as they both played really high tension gut setups.
 
Borg played with extremely difficult competition from 73 to 81. The list is long, yet his biggest rivals were Connors,Lendl, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, and Vilas. He faced great players on the Tour from the time he burst on the scene as a 16-17 year old prodigy. From Rosewall, Laver to Lendl, with Connors and McEnroe in between, he had to win during a Golden Era for tennis.
 
what made Borg so tough to beat was he kept it simple.

But he made big improvements in his game, mostly his serve, which turned out to be instrumental vs Nastase and also his court reading, which determined his domination over Connors since 1978.
 
borg number one said:
Borg played with extremely difficult competition from 73 to 81. The list is long, yet his biggest rivals were Connors,Lendl, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, and Vilas. He faced great players on the Tour from the time he burst on the scene as a 16-17 year old prodigy. From Rosewall, Laver to Lendl, with Connors and McEnroe in between, he had to win during a Golden Era for tennis.
Click to expand...
Borg also had the nicest hair, legs and smile too
He had an IQ of 579 and won the Nobel Peace Prize on 5 occasions.
He was also better at tennis left-handed, but played right-handed to give all the other players a chance....
 
JAY1 said:
Borg also had the nicest hair, legs and smile too
He had an IQ of 579 and won the Nobel Peace Prize on 5 occasions.
He was also better at tennis left-handed, but played right-handed to give all the other players a chance....
Click to expand...

Lol, he was truly unique. He had an aura about him, without even trying to create some sort of public image. He just continually went with his own instincts and was not easily packaged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbvmPjYA5CA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul60XPzyUP4
 
borg number one said:
Lol, he was truly unique. He had an aura about him, without even trying to create some sort of public image. He just continually went with his own instincts and was not easily packaged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbvmPjYA5CA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul60XPzyUP4
Click to expand...

I think Borg's versatility is severely underrated. He could serve and volley on grass, play long and patience rallies on clay and could play powerful baseline tennis. Although he was known for his heavy topspin off both sides, he had a very good slice backhand and slice forehand. He was perhaps the best defensive player ever with excellent topspin and slice lobs. Almost everyone knows about his stamina and speed around the court. Of course his return was fantastic.

I've seen Borg play in so many different ways. People talk about McEnroe's versatility but could McEnroe even attempt to play in some of the ways Borg could on different surfaces? Yes McEnroe was super versatile but Borg was also. Both were among the most versatile players I've seen, but in different ways.

He also was a far better volleyer than given credit for imo. He was very successful approaching the net against players with super passing shots like Connors. Some said Borg had the fastest hands in the game.
 
I'll take Borg. Quite simply one of the most athletic players to ever play the game. The depth and consistency of his groundstrokes were amazing. You might as we have been playing against a wall. Wilander's peak seemed pretty small to me. He hit a zone at one point where he was machine like in his ability to rally but I don't think I ever considered him on par with Borg (even during his peak). He may have been like a Borg-Lite version of Borg when Mats was at his best.
 
Wilander would win 3 out of 10 hard court matches, 2 or at most 3 out of 10 clay court matches and 0 out of 10 fast grass court matches and fast indoor carpet matches.Maybe 2 out of 10 Kooyong grass matches.

It is obvious to all who followed closely tennis in the 70´s and 80´s.Damnly very obvious.
 
JAY1 said:
I'm a fan of both of these players, on and off the court and have watched them play many times.
They're very similar in lots of ways but do have differences.
I've been comparing their games and come to the following conclusions....
I would like to hear your views.....

Firstly Mats played in a tougher era - Mac, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg...
Bjorn had Connors and Mac really.

Bjorn had a better 1st & 2nd Serve
Bjorn had a better Forehand (a bigger forehand )
Topspin backhands were pretty even
Mats had a better slice backhand and had better volleys too.
Return of serve was level also
Bjorn was certainly quicker and better athlete
Mentally I would say they were pretty equal
Bjorn had the Rock God persona that Mats didn't
They played each other once on the ATP tour in 1981- Bjorn won 6-1, 6-1 (Mats was 16).
I think overall Bjorn was a greater player, personality, icon.
But I do think Mats is very underrated as a player.
Over to you guys......
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said, except I don't think Borg was quicker / better athlete - I think they were equal in that regard, and, I would give the edge to Borg in mental toughness, e.g. I don't think Mats would've pulled out the 80 Wimbledon final, or come back two sets to love in the 81 semi, etc. Mats on the other hand lost quite a few of those tough matches, e.g. 82 davis cup McEnroe, 85 us open McEnroe, etc
 
One of the reasons Borg pulled out the 1980 Wimbledon final is because, in his prime, he was a great server. He could use the serve as a weapon. Mats never had that. With him it was all about outlasting the opponent in rallies.

Mats did however have a very accurate serve, so that didn't hurt.
 
Yes, Borg was quite a bit better as an athlete than Mats Wilander. Mats was quick and had great stamina, yet Borg was a couple of levels above him in that respect. He was stronger, quicker, faster, and with more stamina. Having said that, Wilander was no slouch as an athlete either. Borg, Nadal, and now Djokovic are widely considered among of the greatest athletes in tennis history for good reason.
 
CyBorg said:
One of the reasons Borg pulled out the 1980 Wimbledon final is because, in his prime, he was a great server. He could use the serve as a weapon. Mats never had that. With him it was all about outlasting the opponent in rallies.

Mats did however have a very accurate serve, so that didn't hurt.
Click to expand...
borg number one said:
Yes, Borg was quite a bit better as an athlete than Mats Wilander. Mats was quick and had great stamina, yet Borg was a couple of levels above him in that respect. He was stronger, quicker, faster, and with more stamina. Having said that, Wilander was no slouch as an athlete either. Borg, Nadal, and now Djokovic are widely considered among of the greatest athletes in tennis history for good reason.
Click to expand...

Mats was amazingly consistently but Borg had more power than him in every stroke. I've seen Borg hit laser beams off his forehands that could barely be seen. When Nastase played Borg at the 1976 US Open he hit a pretty decent second serve that Borg just crushed with his forehand. The crowd almost in unison muttered in awe at the power.
 
borg number one said:
Yes, Borg was quite a bit better as an athlete than Mats Wilander. Mats was quick and had great stamina, yet Borg was a couple of levels above him in that respect. He was stronger, quicker, faster, and with more stamina. Having said that, Wilander was no slouch as an athlete either. Borg, Nadal, and now Djokovic are widely considered among of the greatest athletes in tennis history for good reason.
Click to expand...
It's very hard to take any of your Borg posts seriously, as you bias is unbelievable. I think you should stick to non Borg posts, as at least then you may be objective. You write a lot of good stuff but it's hard to know what is correct and what isn't because of your overwhelming favouritism towards Borg.
 
JAY1 said:
It's very hard to take any of your Borg posts seriously, as you bias is unbelievable. I think you should stick to non Borg posts, as at least then you may be objective. You write a lot of good stuff but it's hard to know what is correct and what isn't because of your overwhelming favouritism towards Borg.
Click to expand...

Jay1, Borg NumberOne may like Borg but I do find he's pretty objective about the qualities of Borg's play. I frankly agree with his last post in this thread. I'm a big fan of Vilas but I know Borg could destroy him on any surface.
 
JAY1 said:
It's very hard to take any of your Borg posts seriously, as you bias is unbelievable. I think you should stick to non Borg posts, as at least then you may be objective. You write a lot of good stuff but it's hard to know what is correct and what isn't because of your overwhelming favouritism towards Borg.
Click to expand...

I just call it as I see it. I've played a lot of tennis as well, from wood frames to the current Wilson frames. There's not a poster alive that is not biased Jay1. Would you stop posting on certain players? Of course not. I admire many great players, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Gonzalez, etc. I like to post on Borg quite a bit and that'll continue. I've watched tennis for a long time, continually since 1978 or so, so it's always fascinating to compare and contrast players from that era in the late 1970's all the way to the present. Who's your favorite player or favorite players? Often, fans of player X label other fans as "biased" instead of actually discussing the merits and flaws in a proposed argument. So, there will be plenty of posts on Borg and company from me in the future, just as others are free to post on their favorite players.
 
Last edited:
pc1 said:
Jay1, Borg NumberOne may like Borg but I do find he's pretty objective about the qualities of Borg's play. I frankly agree with his last post in this thread. I'm a big fan of Vilas but I know Borg could destroy him on any surface.
Click to expand...

Thanks PC1, Wilander was a great player and I think he was an underrated athlete. He was quick and had loads of stamina on red clay especially. Beautiful game in many ways. If you asked Wilander himself as to this topic, he would concur.

Here's McEnroe on Borg as an athlete, and then Borg himself on what tends to make a great player and his strengths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul60XPzyUP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0jP590fIDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGh4p0dyIk
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
I just call it as I see it. I've played a lot of tennis as well, from wood frames to the current Wilson frames. There's not a poster alive that is not biased Jay1. Would you stop posting on certain players? Of course not. I admire many great players, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Gonzalez, etc. I like to post on Borg quite a bit and that'll continue. I've watched tennis for a long time, continually since 1978 or so, so it's always fascinating to compare and contrast players from that era in the late 1970's all the way to the present. Who's your favorite player or favorite players? Often, fans of player X label other fans as "biased" instead of actually discussing the merits and flaws in a proposed argument. So, there will be plenty of posts on Borg and company from me in the future, just as others are free to post on their favorite players.
Click to expand...
I think there is nothing worse than an 'older' fanboy.
And you demean your points by jumping to Borg's defence at every opportunity. I'm actually a Borg fan but distance myself from you because of your overwhelming bias towards him.
I love the whole era of Borg, Vilas, Connors, Mcenroe, Gerualitis et al, but find you insufferable because of your bias.
Take Kiki, even after his many posts I still have no idea who his favourite player is, he writes intelligently and objectively and therefore I respect his points of view because he has no bias.
But with you you're always coming from the 'Borg angle'.
It's actually very sad for you that you feel the need to do this.....
 
JAY1 said:
I think there is nothing worse than an 'older' fanboy.
And you demean your points by jumping to Borg's defence at every opportunity. I'm actually a Borg fan but distance myself from you because of your overwhelming bias towards him.
I love the whole era of Borg, Vilas, Connors, Mcenroe, Gerualitis et al, but find you insufferable because of your bias.
Take Kiki, even after his many posts I still have no idea who his favourite player is, he writes intelligently and objectively and therefore I respect his points of view because he has no bias.
But with you you're always coming from the 'Borg angle'.
It's actually very sad for you that you feel the need to do this.....
Click to expand...

Well, I don´t mention too often Kodes to hide my huge biass for him:).But thanks for your accolade, anyway.

Jay, now seriously, you, Pc1,Borg numberone and myself (Urban and Gizo are also great supporters of Golden Era) find common groove in our passion for the so called Golden Era.Which stretches further the likes of Borg ( Borg numberone´s fave) and Connors( your fave, I suspect) even if both players are absolutely instrumental on that, since they took tennis to unprecedented levels in the second half of the 70´s.

I think you are a very enjoyable poster to read and so is certainly Borgnumber one because, even if you may have a favourite player ( who doesn´t?), you still have the whole picture of that era and that makes it interesting to debate with you.

I have a lot of " favourites" of that era, starting with Laver and ending up with young Sampras, still, even if at some points of their careers, I " rooted against them", it is impossible to explain the success of that era without the huge presences of Bjorn Borg and James Scott Connors.
 
Last edited:
JAY1 said:
I think there is nothing worse than an 'older' fanboy.
And you demean your points by jumping to Borg's defence at every opportunity. I'm actually a Borg fan but distance myself from you because of your overwhelming bias towards him.
I love the whole era of Borg, Vilas, Connors, Mcenroe, Gerualitis et al, but find you insufferable because of your bias.
Take Kiki, even after his many posts I still have no idea who his favourite player is, he writes intelligently and objectively and therefore I respect his points of view because he has no bias.
But with you you're always coming from the 'Borg angle'.
It's actually very sad for you that you feel the need to do this.....
Click to expand...

Feel free to say the same to Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Rosewall fans. Kiki has favorite players just like anyone else. I have actually played a lot of tennis and watched a lot of tennis, at a competitive level as well. So, when I discuss players or era comparisons, I speak from those experiences. I make no apologies for thinking that Borg is the greatest player ever, in that top tier of players. Yet, if others favor other players, I have no hesitation in allowing that this is all a necessarily subjective discussion. I see no shortage of posters on this forum without (a) any actual playing experience or (b) not much actual experience closely watching the players they comment on. I have both played a lot of tennis and watched a lot of tennis, on a daily basis for thirty plus years. It was my life from about 10-20, really, so I'm passionate on the topic. If that dissuades you from reading my posts, now that's the only thing that's sad. Passion for tennis in general, and admiration for great players is commonplace. Kiki is a great poster, with his own opinions as well. We share a admiration for Led Zeppelin and the Golden Era of tennis. If you don't know his favorite players, you haven't been paying attention. He also has a fascinating English vocabulary as we all know. He is quite creative in that regard and always has some interesting opinions on these topics.
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
Feel free to say the same to Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Rosewall fans. Kiki has favorite players just like anyone else. I have actually played a lot of tennis and watched a lot of tennis, at a competitive level as well. So, when I discuss players or era comparisons, I speak from those experiences. I make no apologies for thinking that Borg is the greatest player ever, in that top tier of players. Yet, if others favor other players, I have no hesitation in allowing that this is all a necessarily subjective discussion. I see no shortage of posters on this forum without (a) any actual playing experience or (b) not much actual experience actually watching the players they comment on. I have both played a lot of tennis and watched a lot of tennis, on a daily basis for thirty plus years. It was my life from about 10-20, really, so I'm passionate on the topic. If that dissuades you from reading my posts, now that's the only thing that's sad. Passion for tennis in general, and admiration for great players is commonplace. Kiki is a great poster, with his own opinions as well. We share a admiration for Led Zeppelin and the Golden Era of tennis. If you don't know his favorite players, you haven't been paying attention. He also has a fascinating English vocabulary as we all know. He is quite creative in that regard and always has some interesting opinions on these topics.
Click to expand...

Thank you¡ what an elegant way of saying¡¡¡
 
Borg had a special aura, like him or not.I don´t know if he looked more like a Scandinavian God coming from Vahala or a misterious angel with that total silent behaviour and that strange power of concentration.There were many times I watched him wondering if he really was a human like me or my dad or my friend who were also watching his match with me, for example.

Borg was a mistery for many players and for most journalists.That adds a lot, IMO, to his charismatic force.he was the first modern player with rock and roll kind of groupies behind him.He is probably the most enigmatic of all tennis players and it was a blessing to have him, and those other legends when tennis took off.
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
Feel free to say the same to Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Rosewall fans. Kiki has favorite players just like anyone else. I have actually played a lot of tennis and watched a lot of tennis, at a competitive level as well. So, when I discuss players or era comparisons, I speak from those experiences. I make no apologies for thinking that Borg is the greatest player ever, in that top tier of players. Yet, if others favor other players, I have no hesitation in allowing that this is all a necessarily subjective discussion. I see no shortage of posters on this forum without (a) any actual playing experience or (b) not much actual experience actually watching the players they comment on. I have both played a lot of tennis and watched a lot of tennis, on a daily basis for thirty plus years. It was my life from about 10-20, really, so I'm passionate on the topic. If that dissuades you from reading my posts, now that's the only thing that's sad. Passion for tennis in general, and admiration for great players is commonplace. Kiki is a great poster, with his own opinions as well. We share a admiration for Led Zeppelin and the Golden Era of tennis. If you don't know his favorite players, you haven't been paying attention. He also has a fascinating English vocabulary as we all know. He is quite creative in that regard and always has some interesting opinions on these topics.
Click to expand...
The overwhelming problem with human nature is we say and do what's right for us, not what's right!
 
JAY1 said:
The overwhelming problem with human nature is we say and do what's right for us, not what's right!
Click to expand...

Jay, I like what you write but frankly I don't understand the annoyance with Borg Number One. Why shouldn't he rush to Borg's defense if others are writing incorrect information about him? I've also seen him rush to the defense of Laver, Rosewall and others. I find him to be very articulate and logical in his writings.
 
pc1 said:
Jay, I like what you write but frankly I don't understand the annoyance with Borg Number One. Why shouldn't he rush to Borg's defense if others are writing incorrect information about him? I've also seen him rush to the defense of Laver, Rosewall and others. I find him to be very articulate and logical in his writings.
Click to expand...
Because I think it's incredibly important to take 'I' out of the equasion and look at things clearly objectively and not just keep banging on about what governs us personally.
 
JAY1 said:
The overwhelming problem with human nature is we say and do what's right for us, not what's right!
Click to expand...

What's "right" can and will differ for each person though, so who's "right" are we discussing? So what is truly "objective" especially when folks try and compare across eras. Even "major count" tallies necessarily involve subjectivity do they not? How else do you and try and compare say Gonzalez and Rosewall to current players in terms of even the raw numbers? I've watched Wilander play live, as well as Borg and Vilas. I've been amazed watching Vilas play on red clay well past his prime, along with Wilander and some other greats from the mid 1980's, so I do admire both Wilander and Vilas as well, especially as clay courters.
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
What's "right" can and will differ for each person though, so who's "right" are we discussing? So what is truly "objective" especially when folks try and compare across eras. Even "major count" tallies necessarily involve subjectivity do they not? How else do you and try and compare say Gonzalez and Rosewall to current players in terms of even the raw numbers? I've watched Wilander play live, as well as Borg and Vilas. I've been amazed watching Vilas play on red clay well past his prime, along with Wilander and some other greats from the mid 1980's, so I do admire both Wilander and Vilas as well, especially as clay courters.
Click to expand...

Out of almost anyone on this board, you're the last I expected to make enemies.

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
How would a player with the best shots of the 80s do today?
Replies
11
Views
987
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
B
Did Wilander do anything better than Borg?
2 3
Replies
149
Views
11K
CyBorg
CyBorg
kiki
Thierry Tulasne
Replies
2
Views
1K
kiki
kiki
M
Greats of All Time and Dominance at Grand Slams
Replies
4
Views
1K
tennis-hero
tennis-hero
B
A Mats point.
Replies
3
Views
176
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Back
Top