borg number one
Legend
That was pretty common as part of the the 70's-80's nightlife, yet I don't think either had a real problem with that any more than the majority of their peers. I'm sure each faced a lot of temptations during their careers.
Bjorn Borg versus Mats Wilander....
- Thread starter JAY1
- Start date
That was pretty common as part of the the 70's-80's nightlife, yet I don't think either had a real problem with that any more than the majority of their peers. I'm sure each faced a lot of temptations during their careers.
I was waiting for you to rear your ugly head like a little girl in a school playground stirring things up.
Borg number one is not an enemy, as I stated earlier I like a lot of things he writes, but his bias towards Borg is incredibly annoying.
It's no better than all the fanboys on General Pro Player Discussion.
I just wish some of you guys on here could take 'I' out of the discussion
more and look at things clearly and objectively without any bias......
NonP
Legend
Yes, how outrageous for him to see his all-time favorite player in a favorable light. In case you haven't noticed lots of people tend to do that.
(And in case it wasn't clear, the point was that your focus on b#1 is unwarranted.)
The problem on here is that there are too many older fanboys that are trying to live their lives through their favourite player and jumping to his defence at the slightest thing.
If someone asks who has the best forehand....
Someone says its Sampras because of so and so, then there is a reply saying the best forehand is Laver because he was left handed and ginger. And then you get someone else saying its Borg "because I love him"!
It just reflects human weakness again.
We say and do what's right for us, not what's right!
I think there are quite a few of you on here that need to 'man-up'!
NonP
Legend
You need to chill a little bit.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
I heard many stories about Borg in the early 1990s, while I was in Stockholm. He lived like a monk during his early tennis career, and then went a bit wild during the 1980s. Mats mostly liked beer, but did hang out with guys like Keith Richards.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
I got to see Wilander courtside several times in the 1990s, but only saw Borg in 1991. If I could go back in time and watch any match in history from courtside, it would be Borg's match against McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final.
Wilander had a wily game with looping shots, and he was a great athlete. Borg was just on another level.
Wilander had a wily game with looping shots, and he was a great athlete. Borg was just on another level.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You're overreacting. Borg Number One doesn't get ridiculous in his praise for Borg. He makes no secret that he likes Borg but imo he is not out of line. There are some posters who claim their favorite is near the best in EVERY STROKE which is so ridiculous I cannot believe it. Yet these favorites despite having the best strokes (according to the posters) manage to lost a decent amount of time. Borg Number One is very reasonable in what he writes I believe.
I agree with you.
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
Thanks very much PC1, Mike B., Carsomyr, NonP, and Kiki for your nice posts. I appreciate it very much. It's fine for us to have differing opinions on this forum. Healthy debate on the merits of various arguments to and for various great tennis players is a very healthy thing for our mutually shared passion, tennis. We all think it's the greatest sport and we all know it has as rich a history as any sport there is. I do know that the era during the 70's-early 80's which included Connors, Borg through '81, McEnroe, and later Lendl in 80-81 was truly special and pivotal for the sport. We would not have the Tour we have today were it not for these three tennis greats, that's for sure.
So, let's embrace healthy discussion, on the merits of each player. They all have certain minuses, yet the all time great all end up doing something special. They tend to have some phenomenal accomplishments. So, we can and will make comparisons. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, yet it's far more challenging and frutiful to disagree without being disagreeable.
Mike B., that's interesting that you were at those awesome tennis venues in those years. I've see Borg, Wilander, and Vilas at River Oaks here in Houston over the years. Vilas and Wilander in the 80's were brilliant to watch on red clay live.
So, let's embrace healthy discussion, on the merits of each player. They all have certain minuses, yet the all time great all end up doing something special. They tend to have some phenomenal accomplishments. So, we can and will make comparisons. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, yet it's far more challenging and frutiful to disagree without being disagreeable.
Mike B., that's interesting that you were at those awesome tennis venues in those years. I've see Borg, Wilander, and Vilas at River Oaks here in Houston over the years. Vilas and Wilander in the 80's were brilliant to watch on red clay live.
Lol, I sure don't have that problem!!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Neither do I. Kiki's had some major discussions over the greatness of his favorite.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Wilander won the French Open in 1982, the year after Borg last won it. Wilander practiced with Borg in 1982 leading up to the French Open. Wilander told me that he could not (and did not) ever win a set against Borg in those practice matches on red clay in 1982.
Wilander won the 1982 French Open dropping six sets. Two of those were to the #2 seed, Ivan Lendl. One set was to the #3 seed, Vilas.
Wilander won the 1982 French Open dropping six sets. Two of those were to the #2 seed, Ivan Lendl. One set was to the #3 seed, Vilas.
Wilander told me the same thing. But I asked him how '88 Wilander would do against Borg. His respond was he would beat Borg. He elaborated by saying '88 Mats was miles a head of '82 Mats and it "wasn't even close." Also, he said that every 6-8 years the game moves forward. He could only judge Borg's game with the wood racquet, that said '88 Mats would beat prime Borg. Mats made sure to let me know that he doesn't think historically he was a better player then Borg or guys like Laver but the level of tennis just continues to increase. His thought more or less agrees with most astute posters, you just can't compare different eras.
NonP
Legend
You know, I've seen people (not referring to anyone in particular) mention this in an attempt to show that young or even peak Wilander would be no match for Borg, and that's really giving Mats an unfair shake, for two reasons.
First, this is just an anecdote, and if you pay close attention to match stats and post-match pressers you should already know that players' memories tend to be unreliable and embellished. And keep in mind, they're just recalling events that just happened a moment ago. Imagine how much further from the truth their recollections must be years after the fact.
But more importantly, history has shown time and again that past or even recent events aren't always good indicators of the future. For a perfect example look no further than this year's AO final: going into the match Stan had yet to win a single set in 12 previous tries against Rafa, but we all know who came out on top in this one. Also nobody had expected Guga to win the '97 FO, which was not only his very first pro title but also the first time he had ever reached the final of a tour-level event. For less dramatic examples we can name Pete's '90 USO run or... Mats' own '82 FO breakthrough!
Now I do agree that Borg would be a favorite against Wilander on clay, or on any other surfaces for that matter. What I'm objecting to is this seemingly widespread notion that Mats would be lucky to win a single match in a hypothetical 10-match series. Mats was simply too great a player to be swept aside like that, especially on his best surface (granted clay was Borg's best one as well).
Mick
Legend
Borg impersonator vs Wilander
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG7NpUvNBFg
This guy is good. His strokes resemble Borg's old strokes more than Borg's strokes today :shock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG7NpUvNBFg
This guy is good. His strokes resemble Borg's old strokes more than Borg's strokes today :shock:
borg number one
Legend
He is a really nice guy as well. Great player here in Houston. He was about #40 in the world at one point.
borg number one
Legend
Yes, Mats was a better player in later years as he matured. Over 10 matches, I think he could win some, yet it would be quite one sided in my opinion. Borg was 26 in 1982. Of course there are ebbs and flows during careers as well. I think that when great players face off, you're going to see some wins and losses on both sides, with surface strengths and matchup issues playing a role as always. I don't agree that you'd see very lopsided results. Wilander was also a great player on red clay especially. Mats was using that Rossignol for years. Of course if Borg had been playing he would have adapted as well in 1982 and beyond. The Tour was moving to graphite frames by 1983-1984, which changed the game quite a bit. Borg would add considerable power, as did other players, with a graphite Donnay by 1983. Lendl adopted a graphite frame relatively early, by around 1980. Besides clay, Borg holds a record win streak on the old Wimbledon courts, has won 23 official indoor titles (including the Jan. 80 and Jan. 81 Masters events), and made 3 of 4 finals in the 4 hard court majors he played on the faster hard courts at the U.S. Open.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's always hard to figure how players would do against each other. If Roger Federer never played Andy Roddick you would figure that while Federer would be favored on any surface that Roddick would win much more than he did in reality.
Mat Wilander, in his prime is one of the great baseliners in history as is Borg. Mats however imo did not have any real killer shots to hurt players which on paper would be tough against Borg. Borg also was known to be virtually invincible against baseliners that really couldn't hurt you that much. For example Borg was 15-0 against Solomon, 13-0 against Dibbs, 17-5 against Vilas, 15-8 against Connors, 6-2 against Lendl, 10-3 against Orantes for a total of 76-18. This seems great but it's more one sided once Borg reached his prime. Connors for example was at one 6-1 against Borg and ended up behind 15-8. One of the wins was over an injured Borg in the 1978 US Open final. Another was legit in the Masters in early 1978 but considered the season of 1977. Borg's peak started in 1978 imo but he raised his level above Connors in my opinion in 1977. From 1978 on Connors rarely won a set against Borg.
Now Connors, Lendl and even Orantes could hurt even top baseliners with their weapons but against a peak Borg it was almost always ineffective.
On paper Borg seems to be a very tough match for Wilander but Mats is also one of the smartest players I've seen so perhaps he would have found a way. I just don't see where Mats can hurt Borg. Mats had a good volley but it certainly isn't a great volley.
Last edited:
Carsomyr
Legend
Like I mentioned previously, Djokovic is technically superior to Murray in almost every facet of the game. But he has a craftiness that's hard to quantify. It earned him a number of wins over Djokovic, over Federer, and a few over Nadal, too.
This is absolutely not an apples to apples comparison, but I think, however you want to parse where and when they would meet, Borg would lead the H2H, probably comfortably, but Mats would get a fair share of wins, too.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Didn't say he wouldn't but on paper imo it is a tough matchup for Mats. Incidentally one of my favorite all time matches in Mats win over Lendl in the 1988 US Open. Very smart intelligent match played at a very high level. I often play that match in the background while working.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Not really against peak Clay court Borg. I think of peak cc Borg from 1978 onward and I think peak Borg never lost to them. Borg won the last 7 matches against Nastase and did not lost to him from 1977 and afterwards unless you include a withdrawal by Borg. Borg also won the last five matches against Panatta and did not lose to him from 1977 to the end of Borg's career.
Up to 1976 these two had decent success against Borg. Panatta was 3-0 against a young Borg in 1973 and won 3 of 8 afterwards until 1976. Nastase. Nastase won 2 of 3 against a kid Borg in 1972 and 1973. Nastase won 3 of 7 against Borg after that until 1976. After 1977 both Panatta and Nastase never beat Borg.
To be fair Nastase was getting older but he still was top ten until 1977 and top twenty in 1979. Nastase has called Borg the best player of all time.
My guess would be that Laver at his best (eliminating current players like Nadal) would have the best shot against peak clay court Borg because of his combination of variety and power. Perhaps Pancho Gonzalez because his serve would keep him in the match and he enjoyed the groundstroke rallies. Lew Hoad also from the same reasons as Laver.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
None of the players you mentioned ( bar Laver) had the cc artristy and tactics of Panatta and Nastase.Gonzales was Ok but his serve wouldn´t help him much on a slow red clay court against one of the best ever cc returners ( possibly the best of all time on clay)
I´ll never buy what peak Borg means when conveniently used...by 76 he had two FO, Rome,Boston, Barcelona and all the big cc events...that is peak IMHO
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I mean that Borg reached his highest level imo when I wrote his peak. I've done a lot of research on this. For example in 1978 Borg won the French and lost only 32 games for the whole tournament. He destroyed Connors at the French and he also won the Italian over Panatta in five sets with judges that was very partial to be nice about it to Panatta. Borg from 1977 on was winning over 90% of his matches which he did not do prior to that.
Panatta and Nastase were true super gifted players, perhaps among the top ten on my list for talented players and of course at their best they could give peak Borg trouble but my point was that one Borg reached his best, even top players like Nastase and Panatta couldn't beat him.
That being said I get your viewpoint and at their best Panatta and Nastase could beat anyone on clay.
kiki
Banned
Only a S&V with cc expertise like Pecci or Panatta ( later on Noah) would ever beat Borg on clay
And only a very talented shotmaker like Nastase or Orantes ( and Laver in Houston 1974) could beat Borg on clay
Not big hitters like Clerc,Lendl,Kodes,Vilas,Connors.Not a big server with little cc feel like Newcombe or Tanner; not a very good all court player with no special weapons like Vitas Gerulaitis.
The match we missed was Mc Enroe vs Borg on clay.Yes, Mac had the S&V and touch but...he didn´t like clay courts too much.The slowest court they played was Stockholm in 1980 and Borg won convincingly.
And only a very talented shotmaker like Nastase or Orantes ( and Laver in Houston 1974) could beat Borg on clay
Not big hitters like Clerc,Lendl,Kodes,Vilas,Connors.Not a big server with little cc feel like Newcombe or Tanner; not a very good all court player with no special weapons like Vitas Gerulaitis.
The match we missed was Mc Enroe vs Borg on clay.Yes, Mac had the S&V and touch but...he didn´t like clay courts too much.The slowest court they played was Stockholm in 1980 and Borg won convincingly.
borg number one
Legend
Yes, Borg vs. Pecci was a nice final in 1979. Pecci would take the net a ton and he had so much reach. By 1976, Borg was 20 and starting to round out his serve and game in general. He was already a force on all surfaces. Having said that, Borg was playing at even a higher level in 1978-1980. Borg at 22-24 was even tougher to overcome for any player. This is true of most any player, as they reach their early 20's, whether it's Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander or a host of other great players. Borg, Wilander, Nadal, and Becker were extremely prodigious, yet there's a difference between a top player in his early 20's vs. a player that's 19 or 20.
kiki
Banned
Yes, true.
Pecci beat Borg at Montecarlo; when Borg was 25 yrs old.Noah beat him also in Mc next year.Those two were ( like Panatta) a very rare breed of S&V players for their natural background was clay court.That makes a big difference to other S&V greats such as Newcombe,Smith,Tanner or Ashe who were not able to beat Borg on clay.
borg number one
Legend
That's what made Borg's era rough in terms of clay courters, besides players like tough baseliners such as Vilas, Orantes, Clerc, and Lendl, he had to also face down dangerous players that relied on winning points at net. Noah went on to take that FO title in 1983 and Pecci did well to get to the FO final in 1979. Borg was able to dominate at the FO, winning there in 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981, so he won the biggest clay tourney the last five years he played it, which is no mean feat.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I was at Orantes QF match against Borg. Fantastic match. I thought Orantes was out of it once Borg led two sets to one and 4-0 in the fourth but the amazing Orantes found a way to beat Borg in the fourth and Borg held on to win in the fifth. Orantes was amazing imo on clay at his best. I think he was better than Vilas when he was playing well. By that I mean his best clay court game was better than Vilas. Vilas of course had the better career clay court record.
Pecci was very gifted but I never thought he had the fluidity of Panatta or Nastase so in terms of talent I rate the latter two higher.
kiki
Banned
Orantes was more of a baseline artist, but yes, I see your point because he was really steady from the ground.He could volley very well, as well.
I was thinking who else did trouble Borg at RG, other than the names we already poured on.
Raul Ramirez is the other name, I think his Teheran win against Borg was on clay but I am not sure.The guy was certainly a very good cc player who excelled on fast surfaces because of his very complete all round game and his great quickness and reflexes.
Nastase,Panatta,Laver,Orantes,Ramirez,Pecci,Noah and Jimmy Connors on US soil.
a very exclusive club
I was thinking who else did trouble Borg at RG, other than the names we already poured on.
Raul Ramirez is the other name, I think his Teheran win against Borg was on clay but I am not sure.The guy was certainly a very good cc player who excelled on fast surfaces because of his very complete all round game and his great quickness and reflexes.
Nastase,Panatta,Laver,Orantes,Ramirez,Pecci,Noah and Jimmy Connors on US soil.
a very exclusive club
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I respect the game of Orantes very much. A lot of the posters who have only seen youtube clips of Orantes don't understand why I have such high esteem for him but I believe that Orantes is one of the all time great touch players on clay, better imo than Nastase and Rosewall. I'm not saying Orantes was a better clay court player than Rosewall of course but I actually think his touch was better. He had one of the best drop shots I've seen and his angles and changes of pace were excellent. His lob was terrific and he was strong on both sides.
kiki
Banned
kiki
Banned
Raul Ramirez was one of my all court faves of that era.He beat Orantes to win the Italian and reached the semis or qf at the rest of majors.In doubles, he and Gottfried were one of the finest teams of the decade.
He was nimble, quick, schrewd and had no liability but lacked a bit of firepower to become an even better player.he gave nightmares to all players, scoring wins over all the great names of that era.
Got to know him, nice and straightforwarded fellow.
He was nimble, quick, schrewd and had no liability but lacked a bit of firepower to become an even better player.he gave nightmares to all players, scoring wins over all the great names of that era.
Got to know him, nice and straightforwarded fellow.
borg number one
Legend
Nice game. I recall his Adidas too! I saw him indoors at the WCT in Birmingham, Alabama in about 1978. Jose Luis Clerc was another of course. Clerc I think was above say David Ferrer on red clay. Remember that tough FO sf between Clerc and Lendl in 1981?
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Clerc´s peak on clay was really high, even if too short.Only four years, but still won the US cc minislam ( the four summer events) and gave Lendl a run for his money, including the match you did mention.
One of the most underrated rivalries was Lendl vs Clerc.There was a spark when they played because each other took the best off the other.High, very high quality matches.
borg number one
Legend
Borg, Noah, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Clerc, Vilas, Orantes, Dibbs, Solomon, Panatta, Higueras, Pecci and Nastase were among the great clay courters between 1976-1981. That's why Connors and McEnroe were up against it at the French Open. It was a minefield for them each year. That was a time when clay courters knew that all other surfaces were really fast unlike today, plus you had a variety of playing styles, with net rushers but also very tough baseliners such as Lendl, Vilas or Clerc.
kiki
Banned
Orantes won the 76 Masters at Houston' s Summit,the biggest indoor hall in tennis history. His final vs Fibak remains legendary.
Higueras won his first important title at River Oaks,in 1979.Beat Tanner and Gene Mayer,who also played there his first final.
Lendl won his first important title,also at River Oaks just one year after,in 1980.Beat titleholder Higueras and Eddie Dibbs,in a one sided final.
young Sammy Giammalva played his first tour final,one yr afterwards,in 81,but Vilas was too much for him.We never heard again of him.
Adriano Panatta beat fellow countryman,Corrado. Barazutti in the 77 Houston final.The only event Panatta ever took on US soil.
So Houston and its nice River Oaks Country Club has been a milestone for many
Higueras won his first important title at River Oaks,in 1979.Beat Tanner and Gene Mayer,who also played there his first final.
Lendl won his first important title,also at River Oaks just one year after,in 1980.Beat titleholder Higueras and Eddie Dibbs,in a one sided final.
young Sammy Giammalva played his first tour final,one yr afterwards,in 81,but Vilas was too much for him.We never heard again of him.
Adriano Panatta beat fellow countryman,Corrado. Barazutti in the 77 Houston final.The only event Panatta ever took on US soil.
So Houston and its nice River Oaks Country Club has been a milestone for many
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
River Oaks is beautiful and serene. It's a great venue to watch tennis up close. When I'm there, I can feel the history everywhere, with players such as Laver, Borg, Sampras, Becker, Vilas, Connors and Wilander having played there. I like watching the practice courts as well before and during the tournament. It's great for us in Houston that the U.S. Clay Court Championships are there now. By the way, I was thinking of Corrado Barazzutti and then Thierry Tulasne as well among the formidable clay courters from that era. Tulasne was just 18 in 1981, yet became very good by the mid 1980's. Baruzzutti was always dangerous on clay.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
All of these players were top flight clay court players capable of beating anyone. It was also a nice variety of styles as you wrote with guys like Noah, Panatta, Pecci and Gerulaitis often venturing to the net while players like Orantes and Nastase had the super touch but also were excellent volleyers. Vilas was the ultimate grinder who never seemed to tire yet he had relentless topspin forcing shots. His strength used to amaze me but he didn't hit as hard as players like Connors, Lendl or Borg. It was fun watching these guys play with their unique styles.
borg number one
Legend
You got it PC1! That's the thing, you couldn't just camp out and play the very same style and face the same style of play, tourney after tourney either. Plus, on the red clay, you at times had to stave off net rushers/more offensive minded clay courters, with different technology dynamics than today too. When a player was at net in good position, and you have a wood frame with gut in your hands, you have to really lace some passing shots like Borg or Vilas to win a majority of those type of points when you are trying to win from the baseline. Of course, it's not easy to keep charging the net for five sets on clay either. It all makes for some really challenging matches over the course of a long French Open. Borg was still able to win the last five French Opens he ever played (1976-1981), yet he did register some losses on red clay at other tourneys between 1976-1981 as mentioned. There were several very dangerous players around that had the ability to garner the big upset.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Mind you that Wilander himself related this to me, along with the major he was most proud of. It was his doubles title with Nystrom at Wimbledon. Wilander was very detailed in his recount of the match. He seemed to have a great recount of any of those days.
Nastase was very critical of River Oaks. He said in his book Mr. Nastase that he wouldn't play there because they refused entry to Gottfried and Solomon because they were Jewish.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Agree 100%.
borg number one
Legend
Gotcha on Nastase and River Oaks. If true, that's a huge issue with private clubs. I wouldn't blame him Rabbit. The years from 1981-1989, when Wilander really played very well was a time when racquet technology was changing big time, from wood, metal, and graphite to basically all early generation graphite. All these players, from Connors to McEnroe and Lendl transitioned to graphite by 1984, so that really changed the way tennis was played even by 1983-1984. Borg just had too much raw ability for Wilander over a series of matches in my opinion and if you equalize for equipment, it would be very tough sledding for Wilander. So, for him to simply say "you can't compare eras" in terms of him relative to Borg is a bit simplistic, although there is a lot of truth to that general sentiment. He probably got a bit fed up hearing of how no players matched Borg from Sweden. Each "era" does have it's own particular conditions to contend with, even when you look year to year. With the racquet technology, you can see the boost in power that Lendl got by 1980, that McEnroe got by late 1983 and Connors did in 1984 with that Pro Staff. Of course, Wilander stuck with that Rossignol, yet he was an early mover to a graphite frame. We do know that he couldn't win sets off of Borg in 1982 though and that's a Borg Pro vs. his Rossignol.
Last edited:
Similar threads
