Borg Overrated!

[Sunny014]

I checked history and found Bjorn Borg to be extremely overrated !

Reason 1 : He is considered by some experts in the league of Nadal on Clay. If thats the case then why did he lose TWICE in the 1970s at the US Open to Jimmy Connors which was on Clay? This is even more interesting because Connors did not participate during his peak from 1974-1978 and then he came to play French in 79 which was too late, he was making the semis regularly to lose to someone else, did not face Borg or else we never know, he might have beat Borg. So the pre nadal GOAT on Clay was 0-2 against Connors on Green Clay in Slams ?

Reason 2 : Borg never was a HC great, 0 slams, at least not as great as Connors who has 2 grand slams.

Reason 3 : Afraid of people who were 2-3 years older to him and refusal to take them on in the 1980s after his constant defeats to Mcenroe. He retired because he was unable to figure out John Mcenroe


So Bjorn Borg seems like a person who benefitted from no Connors at the French Open, was not great on HCs and afraid to take on Mcenroe who was 2.5 yrs younger + lendl who was 4 yrs younger.

If you are 25 years old and afraid of 21-22.5 year old guys who are coming up then what does that tell about you ? He himself was 4 years younger to Connors but Connors never backed off .... he even fought Lendl-Mcenroe-Wilander into the 80s and won a few slams + constantly reached the final+semis here and there...... why Borg ran away ?

 

[CyBorg]

Green clay is a completely different surface than red clay. Plays much faster.

Connors never won a title on red.

 

[Sunny014]

Green clay is a completely different surface than red clay. Plays much faster.

Connors never won a title on red.

Connors did not play on Red Clay during his peak (banned rather) and thats not his fault but it benefitted Borg.
When he finally played in 79 he was 27, too old for that surface and still he made semis everytime.
Connors at his peak could have maybe beaten Borg during Borg's title run.

Connors also could have made the calender slam in 74 if he played Clay, there is no way he would have lost that year.

 

[Sunny014]

Jimmy Connors was the real rockstar !
World Number 1 for 268 weeks as well....

 

[NonP]

Not only is Borg not overrated, he arguably remains the GOAT to this day:

Just so you teenyboppers know Borg dominated RG more than anyone before or since (in the OE), yes including Rafa. Here's what the carnage looked like in terms of games won:

1974 - 61.7%
1975 - 68.8% (10th highest of OE, though Rafa might have topped it this year)
1978 - 79.9% (#1, at any major)
1979 - 64.7%
1980 - 76.8% (2nd highest, again at all majors)
1981 - 71.1% (6th at RG, 8th overall)
Average - 69.7%

Suffice it to say no combo of Fedalovic's best six runs anywhere comes even close to 69.7%. Something for you jokers to think about when you comically crow that Borg would be lucky to steal one FO from Rafa.

Ah but the guy never reached anywhere near that peak elsewhere, you say? That's technically true as the margin for error on hard and grass is lower and thus not so conducive to such dominance, but this isn't quite the slam dunk in favor of your hero you think it is.

Here's Borg in his Wimbledon runs (I'm adding his '81 % to my earlier list for a more comprehensive overview):

1976 - 65.5% (3rd highest at SW19)
1977 - 58.5%
1978 - 61.3%
1979 - 59.8%
1980 - 61.4%
1981 - 58.8%
Average - 60.7%
Years won - 61.1%

So he actually won a higher % than Pistol, and just barely less than Fed (61.6% in all runs to the final, 62.3% in title runs). This despite S&Ving on almost all 1st serves which is another low(er)-margin tactic that most likely brought down his %s. And as a refresher Wimbledon was his second best major. I've yet to look closely at Pete's or Fed's USO/AO runs but given that '04 Fed barely makes the AO top 10 in OE GW% I'm pretty sure neither bested Borg's %s by much, if at all.

Now we come to the USO, Borg's "worst" major though as you'll see that term is quite relative in his case. Before I start, though, the guy had all of four chances to win a Slam on HC. Give Fedalovic four years to win a Slam on their weakest surface against a Connors or McEnroe and chances are they come up short as well.

But we still have to go by what actually happened, right? Here's what Borg actually did on USO HCs:

1978 - 61.6%
1979 - 61.9% (lost to Tanner in QF but included due to small sample)
1980 - 58.8%
1981 - 59.5%
Career - 60.1%

So Borg's career Slam average on his worst surface equals Sampras' on his strongest in his title runs. And I can tell you even Novak managed no more than 61.5% in his five RG finals. That's from his very best results; take out his win in '16 and you get 60.7%.

And take all of Borg's runs to Slam finals (so his '79 USO #s are excluded while '75 #s are in) and you get a stupendous career 63.2%. Which one of you wants to bet Fed, Rafa or Novak comes within a passing distance of this milestone even if you take only their best 6, 6 and 4 runs from their 1st, 2nd and 3rd best majors respectively? I thought not, which means, at least when it comes to surface versatility, Borg is the king of the OE, quite possibly ever.

Now it's true clay allows more margin for error than any other surface, but then more than half of these runs came at SW19 and Flushing. Simply put there has been no one quite like Borg before or since, and while the bean counters harp on his early exit from the game real connoisseurs understand there's more to an athlete's legacy than what's listed on his resume.

 

[Sunny014]

^ Nd yet it doesnt change the facts

- Never won a HC slam ever
- Connors was absent on red clay during his peak which enabled Borg to have those dominant runs.
- Borg retired after being sorted out by Mcenroe on all courts and also seeing Ivan Lendl come up (he lost in his 1st ever slam final in 5 close sets and Borg knew that this guy had his number).

 

[CyBorg]

Connors did not play on Red Clay during his peak (banned rather) and thats not his fault but it benefitted Borg.
When he finally played in 79 he was 27, too old for that surface and still he made semis everytime.
Connors at his peak could have maybe beaten Borg during Borg's title run.

Connors also could have made the calender slam in 74 if he played Clay, there is no way he would have lost that year.

You don't have to educate me. I know what happened with Connors.

If he was a much of a red clay player he would have won at least a title. He didn't.

Slow surfaces didn't suit him. Har-tru tennis was very different tennis. It's obvious if you watch the matches.

 

[CyBorg]

he lost in his 1st ever slam final in 5 close sets and Borg knew that this guy had his number).

Seems you're just here to get a reaction out of people.

Lendl couldn't even beat Borg in 1982 when Borg played part-time. This is silly. You should stick to the main board. More suitable for you there.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

The legendary clay field of Ramirez, Barazzutti, Pecci and Gerulaitis

 

[13GATOSNEGROS]

Borg was a true professional in so many ways, he dominated those few "Borg-Years" and influenced generations of players (still does).
During his years he was always the peak in mental and physical fitness.

Of course, you can sit at home on your sofa with a beer and potatochips, checking statistics, thinkin, comparing ... but it wont change anything.
Borg was like a rock back then, the BruceLee of 70s-Tennis. Even rocks get wet from time to time.

PS: "Borg Overrated" is as ridiculous as "Gravity Overrated" or "COVID-19 Overrated".

 

[sandy mayer]

Borg is certainly not overrated. He wasn't as great on clay as Nadal but he is easily the second greatest ever on clay, and it's no insult to a player to say anyone is not as great as Nadal on the red stuff.
I am a big Connors fan but there's no way Connors was as good as Borg on red clay. It's possible Connors might have beaten Borg in 74 or 75 at Roland Garros (though questionable) though Connors had next to no chance of beating Borg at the 78 French. On the other hand I believe Borg would have won the 77 French if he had opted to play. Borg's 6 French Opens aren't tainted by the absence of Connors. I actually believe Borg under achieved in winning 6 Roland Garros titles.
Borg only played 4 HC slams and he got to three finals and a quarter. That is an excellent record. If he had played as many HC slams as are played today he would have won quite a few. Borg was great on all surfaces.
Borg didn't retire because he was scared of Mac. He was simply burnt out. Quitting early means he is not a true contender for GOAT. But he is rarely called the GOAT. Many people say he was the greatest player of the 70s and in the top ten of all time. That is totally fair and uncontroversial in my view. How can anyone win 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons in an era when the difference between the surfaces was massive, and be called overrated? His achievements speak for themselves.

 

[NedStark]

There is no ****ing way Borg could have won 5 straight Wimbledon if he and either Mac (after Borg) or Newcombe (before Borg) emerged in the same period.

Similarly, Becker would have won at least 5 Wimbledon titles without Edberg (88 and 90 at the minimum) - since Lendl to him is like Connors to Borg on grass, noone else could have beaten him at later rounds during that period.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Only in TTW a guy with 6 FO and 5 consecutive Wimbledon all at the age of 25 titles gets the label overrated. Apart from his accomplishments I cannot even see that he is rated particularly highly here. If the consensus here was that he is the undisputed GOAT then maybe I could see why some would see this as overrated but what I usually read here people rate him as top ten all time and very rarely even as top 5, but almost never higher, so he is absolutely not overrated.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

There is no ****ing way Borg could have won 5 straight Wimbledon if he and either Mac (after Borg) or Newcombe (before Borg) emerged in the same period.

Similarly, Becker would have won at least 5 Wimbledon titles without Edberg (88 and 90 at the minimum) - since Lendl to him is like Connors to Borg on grass, noone else could have beaten him at later rounds during that period.

And if Federer emerged at the same time as Sampras neither would he have 8 Wimbledon titles nor would Pete have 7. You play who is in front of you and Borg had to beat Nastase, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Connors (4 times) and Mac himself. His competition was not at all weaker than Pete’s or Feds.

 

[abmk]

I checked history and found Bjorn Borg to be extremely overrated !

Reason 1 : He is considered by some experts in the league of Nadal on Clay. If thats the case then why did he lose TWICE in the 1970s at the US Open to Jimmy Connors which was on Clay? This is even more interesting because Connors did not participate during his peak from 1974-1978 and then he came to play French in 79 which was too late, he was making the semis regularly to lose to someone else, did not face Borg or else we never know, he might have beat Borg. So the pre nadal GOAT on Clay was 0-2 against Connors on Green Clay in Slams ?

Reason 2 : Borg never was a HC great, 0 slams, at least not as great as Connors who has 2 grand slams.

Reason 3 : Afraid of people who were 2-3 years older to him and refusal to take them on in the 1980s after his constant defeats to Mcenroe. He retired because he was unable to figure out John Mcenroe


So Bjorn Borg seems like a person who benefitted from no Connors at the French Open, was not great on HCs and afraid to take on Mcenroe who was 2.5 yrs younger + lendl who was 4 yrs younger.

If you are 25 years old and afraid of 21-22.5 year old guys who are coming up then what does that tell about you ? He himself was 4 years younger to Connors but Connors never backed off .... he even fought Lendl-Mcenroe-Wilander into the 80s and won a few slams + constantly reached the final+semis here and there...... why Borg ran away ?

green clay significantly different from red clay.
anyway borg beat Connors every time on green clay from 77 onwards
we're talking peak to peak or prime to prime b/w nadal and borg - both on same level.

Borg played HC slam only 4 times - 78-81 US Open. made final in 3 of them (losing only to connors/mac) and QF of another (big serving tanner under lights). Also beat Connors in straights in USO 81. its not that he wasn't good on HC, just unfortunate.

borg was 7 all vs Mac in their h2h.

Borg also won the YEC 2 times and was pretty good indoors (unlike Nadal)

Borg retiring early is a definite mark against him

 

[jrepac]

Right. And there is a pig flying outside my window in a snowstorm.
Very few people beat Borg on any form of clay, period.
And, Connors was very good on Har-Tru when he was young, so this is not a blemish on Borg's record; Har Tru played faster.
Connors never really put in the time or effort on red clay and was good at times, but not at Borg's level.
Maybe in '74-76 he'd have a shot at it, but after that, not so much.
Losing to guys like Connors and Mac is not a blemish on anyone's achievements, really.
Silly trolling here.

 

[I get cramps]

Game W/L% - Slam Tournament

Nadal RG 2017 116/29 80.0% https://www.atptour.com/en/players/rafael-nadal/n409/player-activity?year=2017&tournament=520

I'm not waging on the Borg-Nadal debate.

 

[I get cramps]

[QUOTE = "CyBorg, publicación: 15030000, miembro: 17553"]
El tenis de Har-tru era tenis muy diferente. [/ CITA]

Orantes said recently that he played better on Har-Tru due to its characteriscs. Pc1 told me that in his view on Har-Tru his spins were more rewarded than on red clay.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Not only is Borg not overrated, he arguably remains the GOAT to this day:

Borg was never the GOAT. No Grand Slam (since he was never able to win the USO in any case), so that was an impossibility.

 

[Sunny014]

And if Federer emerged at the same time as Sampras neither would he have 8 Wimbledon titles nor would Pete have 7. You play who is in front of you and Borg had to beat Nastase, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Connors (4 times) and Mac himself. His competition was not at all weaker than Pete’s or Feds.

In any era Federer would have taken 7-8 wimbledons.

If he was there in the Sampras era he would have maybe taken 4-5 wimbledons at least in the 90s decade competing with Sampras and then remaining 2-3 would have come in the 2000s against Hewitt, Goran, Roddick etc etc before Nadal emerged in 06.

So there is no doubt that Roger is a legit 8 times Grand Slams winner in any era.

On top of that he would have won the french opens too a few times in the 90s which he could not his time due to the presence of Nadal.

 

[Sunny014]

Borg is overrated because some people consider him the GOAT.

He can be put in the top 10, nobody would raise their eyebrows.
But top 5 ? Questions start to be raised but maybe he has an argument.
Top 3 ? .... No chance.... he is overrated.

GOAT is out of question.

All Time Top 2 now is Federer + Nadal.

3rd spot maybe Novak vs Pete but Novak has an edge overall on the numbers thanks to his HC dominance. .... Borg is not in contention, Pete is greater than Borg...

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In any era Federer would have taken 7-8 wimbledons.

If he was there in the Sampras era he would have maybe taken 4-5 wimbledons at least in the 90s decade competing with Sampras and then remaining 2-3 would have come in the 2000s against Hewitt, Goran, Roddick etc etc before Nadal emerged in 06.

So there is no doubt that Roger is a legit 8 times Grand Slams winner in any era.

On top of that he would have won the french opens too a few times in the 90s which he could not his time due to the presence of Nadal.

I don’t think so to be honest but this is also irrelevant. What I am trying to say is that you can always say put player x into era y and he will win less, Sampras will definitely win less Wimbledon titles if he had to play against Federer, Nadal would not win 13 FO either had he to play alongside Kuerten and Borg, so these discussions are moot. Borg dominated both the FO and Wimbledon during his era like nobody since and before did. in combination. His competition was equally good as Rogers at Wimbledon or Rafas at Paris - that does not mean that he surely would have won less if you out of a sudden throw a peak Mac into the years from 76-79.

 

[Sunny014]

I don’t think so to be honest but this is also irrelevant. What I am trying to say is that you can always say put player x into era y and he will win less, Sampras will definitely win less Wimbledon titles if he had to play against Federer, Nadal would not win 13 FO either had he to play alongside Kuerten and Borg, so these discussions are moot. Borg dominated both the FO and Wimbledon during his era like nobody since and before did. in combination. His competition was equally good as Rogers at Wimbledon or Rafas at Paris - that does not mean that he surely would have won less if you out of a sudden throw a peak Mac into the years from 76-79.

Nadal would win 11-12 French opens in every era, even with Borg and Kuerten in the mix that won't change..

Nadal is Superman
Borg is at best Shazam
Gustavo is Green Lantern

If you think Green Lantern can tire our Superman in the semis so that Shazam can beat Superman in the finals, then not possible.

To tire out Superman you need Doomsday in the semis so that Lord Darkseid can finish off Superman in the final.

You need equals to tire out a champ.

Nadal is a tier above Borg and Gustavo.

 

[Sunny014]

Federer and Nadal are much superior to everyone else on the fastest and the slowest courts respectively, thats why they are the Alpha and Omega of Tennis.

Before 02 Sampras and Borg were the alpha and omega.

Now the tiers have been raised and Fedal are the ceiling of Tennis.

 

[mxmx]

To me Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is overrated due to the fact that they share(d) everything between them. They would have been great in any era but not with the margins they are given. Some circumstances benefitted their achievements. Due to an internet age and recency bias they will naturally be hyped more than they deserve(d).

Most overrated of the 3 is:

1) Nadal. Too much dominance on clay with a weak clay field. Did well on other surfaces due to homogenization.

2) Djokovic. Cannot even hit an overhead. All time great in movement but very erratic mentally. Great professional though and has the hunger.

3) Federer. Great in any era. Gifted in all departments. Weak against main rival. His longevity has proven himself to be the best of the 3 to me. Much like a Serena who has proven herself also in more than one era.

The ultimate h2h rival (in my experience of watching tennis in my life) would have been Federer and Sampras. Not Federer and Nadal or Federer and Djokovic.

As for underrated:
I see someone as Agassi very underrated because Sampras stole his show. He also held his own against someone like atg Federer. He would have done well in the slow and semi-slow courts of today.

 

[Sunny014]

To me Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is overrated due to the fact that they share(d) everything between them. They would have been great in any era but not with the margins they are given. Some circumstances benefitted their achievements. Due to an internet age and recency bias they will naturally be hyped more than they deserve(d).

Most overrated of the 3 is:

1) Nadal. Too much dominance on clay with a weak clay field. Did well on other surfaces due to homogenization.

2) Djokovic. Cannot even hit an overhead. All time great in movement but very erratic mentally. Great professional though and has the hunger.

3) Federer. Great in any era. Gifted in all departments. Weak against main rival. His longevity has proven himself to be the best of the 3 to me. Much like a Serena who has proven herself also in more than one era.

The ultimate h2h rival (in my experience of watching tennis in my life) would have been Federer and Sampras. Not Federer and Nadal or Federer and Djokovic.

As for underrated:
I see someone as Agassi very underrated because Sampras stole his show. He also held his own against someone like atg Federer. He would have done well in the slow and semi-slow courts of today.

Even I feel the same, homogenization helped Nadal and Djokovic a lot.
But how can we blame someone for winning more and saying they had no rivals ? When someone is winning constantly then it all the more shows that they have a very high level.

Nadal's rivals are all baseliners, guys from spain-south american countries even today cannot beat Nadal, people 10 years younger are also not able to overpower him. His court speed and everything we have seen at his peak in 08-09 period, he used to move too fast. Would you bet against him to win at least 10-12 french opens against anyone in any era? nobody would, he can crush everyone back to back and not get tired.

We have seen Nadal do gruelling 5 setters and then come next day and again play another 5 setters and win .... the guy is a anomaly, a freak of nature

I agree to all of your other points, agassi is underrated.... he is like an older version of djokvic...a bit powered down with limited movement u can say.

Agassi on steroids and a bit taller would be Djokovic in the modern era.

 

[Sunny014]

Nadal at 34 is more muscular that all his rivals are at 24.
He needs a 22 year old version of himself to beat him, sadly there is none.

 

[struggle]

Sounds like we have found the ultimate Ralph stroker.

 

[mxmx]

Even I feel the same, homogenization helped Nadal and Djokovic a lot.
But how can we blame someone for winning more and saying they had no rivals ? When someone is winning constantly then it all the more shows that they have a very high level.

Nadal's rivals are all baseliners, guys from spain-south american countries even today cannot beat Nadal, people 10 years younger are also not able to overpower him. His court speed and everything we have seen at his peak in 08-09 period, he used to move too fast. Would you bet against him to win at least 10-12 french opens against anyone in any era? nobody would, he can crush everyone back to back and not get tired.

We have seen Nadal do gruelling 5 setters and then come next day and again play another 5 setters and win .... the guy is a anomaly, a freak of nature

I agree to all of your other points, agassi is underrated.... he is like an older version of djokvic...a bit powered down with limited movement u can say.

Agassi on steroids and a bit taller would be Djokovic in the modern era.

Well...it's the classic "opponents was weak" vs "player is too good" argument. To me the depth of clay players were better and more specialized in the past than what Nadal faced. Would Nadal still dominate clay in the past? Sure.

Djokovic more powerful than Agassi? No way. Better mover, sure.

 

[Sunny014]

Well...it's the classic "opponents was weak" vs "player is too good" argument. To me the depth of clay players were better and more specialized in the past than what Nadal faced. Would Nadal still dominate clay in the past? Sure.

Djokovic more powerful than Agassi? No way. Better mover, sure.

Djokovic hits harder than Agassi, Andre was the fastest returner ever before Djokovic took that title from him.

 

[mental midget]

Djokovic hits harder than Agassi, Andre was the fastest returner ever before Djokovic took that title from him.

i think agassi smoked more returns for winners, generally hit harder--but novak gets way more balls in play and almost every return he hits is deep and puts the server back on their heels...hence more effective over time. connors should be in this discussion too, heck of a returner.

 

[mental midget]

it's pretty crazy that borg was as good as he was on both clay and carpet--the slowest and fastest surfaces. that's one place i think he edges nadal.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

I think he gets away with a lot in the GOAT debate. He's frequently bought up but 'only' won two of the four slams.

 

[jrepac]

i think agassi smoked more returns for winners, generally hit harder--but novak gets way more balls in play and almost every return he hits is deep and puts the server back on their heels...hence more effective over time. connors should be in this discussion too, heck of a returner.

All 3 are excellent returners, but for slightly different reasons, I would suggest:
--Agassi hit the scorching returns right through his opponent
--Connors got back the 'unreturnable' serves at opponents shoestrings
--Djoko doesn't miss and keeps them deep....an underrated skill (not as flashy as Andre or Jimmy)

 

[sandy mayer]

I think he gets away with a lot in the GOAT debate. He's frequently bought up but 'only' won two of the four slams.

I think this is unfair. He only played the Australian Open once, and this was before his peak. The Australian was simply not a major in Borg's days and the big guns generally didn't bother. Borg got to 4 US Open finals and a semi. That is an excellent record. The reasons Borg didn't win all 4 slams has nothing to do with him being weak on some surfaces. It's not like the weakness of Sampras on clay stopped him winning the French. Borg was great on ALL surfaces. There have been few players to match him in ability to play great on all surfaces.

 

[BGod]

If the argument is Borg's competition:

Nastase
Ashe
Connors
Vilas
McEnroe
Orantes

are all Hall of Famers while Pantta & Tanner were solid also rans.

 

[CHillTennis]

I am not in any way trying to demean the efforts of Borg. He was a great champion but i think that the facts show that he benefitted from poor draws and one dimensional baseliners in particular during his triumphs at Wimbledon. I am taking nothing away from his French Open crowns but he clearly would not have won as many Wimbledon crowns if he had a a stronger field to contend with on grass. He first beat Nastatse, who as talented as he was had no mental strength. He later beat Connors, who pushed him to 5 sets and then went down in three. But Connors was not a typical grass court player who always struggled with Borg on non hardcourt surfaces. Then Borg had Tanner, who was the Roddick of the 70's and finally when a true grass court player arrived, called Mcrenroe, Borg was pushed to 5 sets and then lost the following year to Mcenroe signalling the end of his time.

If Borg had played in an era with Becker, Edberg, Stich, or Cash he would not have achieved 5 straight Wimbledon crowns. Borg often struggled in his way to the final and was often 2 sets to 1 down against a whole host of players in 1st or 2nd rounds and frequently played 5 sets early on and in 3 of his 5 Wimbledon finals.

Any thoughts?

Bjorn Borg was not what you would call a conventional grass court player.

He was a baseliner by nature. But he was still gifted enough to be able to adapt the serve and volley style to his game.

From 1976-1980 he was able to win five consecutive Wimbledon Championships.

Even Pete Sampras (as great as he was) wasn't able to match this record.

In regards to his opponents: Connors was a highly credible grass court player.

So was Nastase.

Let's not forget that Nastase won the US Open in 1972 against Arthur Ashe (a former Wimbledon Champion, himself).

Of course that was back during the days when the US Open was played on grass.

Tanner was probably not quite as good as Roddick. But he was still a hell of a good player.

And McEnroe was by far the best grass court player of the early 1980s.

He was already a grand slam champion when they faced off in the finals of the 1980 Wimbledon Championships.

 

[WYK]

Everyone my age knows who Bjorn Borg is. No one can hardly tell me who Djokovic is.
It's not just about wins, it's also the zeitgeist. Right now for most English speakers the zeitgeist is Federer unless you are French or Spanish.
If you are French and a Spanish speaker, it's probably Nadal.
No one who acts like the tool the Joker is owns any zeitgeist other than that of a goat grass-eater.
He is an unpleasant person whom most people enjoy cheering against.

 

[Sunny014]

Everyone my age knows who Bjorn Borg is. No one can hardly tell me who Djokovic is.
It's not just about wins, it's also the zeitgeist. Right now for most English speakers the zeitgeist is Federer unless you are French or Spanish.
If you are French and a Spanish speaker, it's probably Nadal.
No one who acts like the tool the Joker is owns any zeitgeist other than that of a goat grass-eater.
He is an unpleasant person whom most people enjoy cheering against.

It won't be case 10-15 years down the line if he sits on 25 slams, 400 weeks as 1, 7 times year end 1 and winner of 5 WTFs

Sure, Roger's impact and Rafa's (thanks to he too winning a lot of clay and slams overall) also will be there but young tennis players now are all grinders and playing the brand of Tennis Novak plays, so when they will be chasing these records of Novak then he will be more in news.

It is possible....

 

[CHillTennis]

I checked history and found Bjorn Borg to be extremely overrated !

Reason 1 : He is considered by some experts in the league of Nadal on Clay. If thats the case then why did he lose TWICE in the 1970s at the US Open to Jimmy Connors which was on Clay? This is even more interesting because Connors did not participate during his peak from 1974-1978 and then he came to play French in 79 which was too late, he was making the semis regularly to lose to someone else, did not face Borg or else we never know, he might have beat Borg. So the pre nadal GOAT on Clay was 0-2 against Connors on Green Clay in Slams ?

Reason 2 : Borg never was a HC great, 0 slams, at least not as great as Connors who has 2 grand slams.

Reason 3 : Afraid of people who were 2-3 years older to him and refusal to take them on in the 1980s after his constant defeats to Mcenroe. He retired because he was unable to figure out John Mcenroe


So Bjorn Borg seems like a person who benefitted from no Connors at the French Open, was not great on HCs and afraid to take on Mcenroe who was 2.5 yrs younger + lendl who was 4 yrs younger.

If you are 25 years old and afraid of 21-22.5 year old guys who are coming up then what does that tell about you ? He himself was 4 years younger to Connors but Connors never backed off .... he even fought Lendl-Mcenroe-Wilander into the 80s and won a few slams + constantly reached the final+semis here and there...... why Borg ran away ?

I'm not sure that Borg left the game because he felt that he couldn't beat McEnroe (or something to that effect).

For many years he has said that his reason for retiring was due to burn-out.

The ITPC also did him no favors by trying to force him to play the qualies of every event during the 1982 season.

Of course, this just created an even bigger reason for him to retire.

In short, it was politics, and not McEnroe, that put an end to Borg's career.

 

[Sunny014]

I'm not sure that Borg left the game because he felt that he couldn't beat McEnroe (or something to that effect).

For many years he has said that his reason for retiring was due to burn-out.

The ITPC also did him no favors by trying to force him to play the qualies of every event during the 1982 season.

Of course, this just created an even bigger reason for him to retire.

In short, it was politics, and not McEnroe, that put an end to Borg's career.

We retire when we are sure we unable to beat the young rivals in future so we run away.

Sorry to say but everything else is an excuse, who retires at their best with the chance of having years ahead ? Nobody !

Who likes to not keep winning ? Everyone likes to win and be in the limelight!

Even Sampras did not announce his retirement in 02 after the USO Win, if he was so sure that he is the best and had nothing to prove then he would have said it after the win, but not, he was unsure of 03 and later in 03 he announced that he isn't coming back. In Borg's case, sure he had won the french but then there was no guarantee he could win the other slams since he was already beaten, plus even at french there was no certainty because the youngsters were there (Ivan Lendl) .... So he just went away without facing the next gen due to his defeats to Mcenroe and he terms it BURN OUT.

 

[Crazy Finn]

We retire when we are sure we unable to beat the young rivals in future so we run away.

Sorry to say but everything else is an excuse, who retires at their best with the chance of having years ahead ? Nobody !

Who likes to not keep winning ? Everyone likes to win and be in the limelight!

Even Sampras did not announce his retirement in 02 after the USO Win, if he was so sure that he is the best and had nothing to prove then he would have said it after the win, but not, he was unsure of 03 and later in 03 he announced that he isn't coming back. In Borg's case, sure he had won the french but then there was no guarantee he could win the other slams since he was already beaten, plus even at french there was no certainty because the youngsters were there (Ivan Lendl) .... So he just went away without facing the next gen due to his defeats to Mcenroe and he terms it BURN OUT.

You’re basically assigning your own agenda and values on someone else’s decision. Your speculation is just that, and based on nothing more than what you think.

Borg‘s standing in the pantheon of tennis players doesn’t need anything other than what he did during his roughly decade long career. It’s more than enough.