Could Borg have had a second wind in 1982?

[rkelley]

There were lots of guys who hit with topspin back in the 70's..perhaps the difference was that they were not trying to rip the cover off the ball 100pct of the time. I don't see such tremendous athletic supremacy of today's guys over those of generations past. And, there were guys from the 70's/ 80's and 90's who bridged into the more current generations...like Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras. As they aged, their games evolved as did their equipment (aside from Pete, that is). So, I just don't believe this idea that today's guys would completely trample those from generations past. The stroke production is different, perhaps harder, not necessarily superior in results when the end goal is to win points and games. The old counterpunchers, in particular, I think would likely hold their own with superior footspeed and movement. Who was, or ever will be, faster than Borg? Who has the movement and eye/hand coordination of a Connors? Lendl's consistency? Agassi's blistering returns? Very few. these are guys w/very unique attributes that made them successful; same to be said of the top guys today.

The players today, regardless of racquet technology and strings, hit the ball in a fundamentally different way, especially off the fh side. I think the results are significantly superior, so we don't agree there. They generate way more racquet head speed, which results in way more pace and spin. Aside from Borg and Vilas and likely a few others, no one from the 70's was hitting with that kind of spin, which also includes varying amounts of side spin, and Vilas and Borg weren't hitting with the same pace as today's players, even taking the racquets and strings into consideration.

While I never mentioned raw athletic ability, today's players are generally bigger. Modern technique allows these bigger, stronger athletes to take bigger cuts at the ball and still have it land in.

Regarding all the other stuff like eye/hand coordination, foot speed, etc. - of course the best players from years past are equal to today's players. If these players played in the same eras with the same techniques, then things would be interesting. And players from adjacent eras are similar enough to be competitive.

But techniques have advanced IMO. Taking players of similar talent, one using modern technique and one using 70's technique, the modern player wins.

Again, all just my opinion.

 

[jrepac]

The players today, regardless of racquet technology and strings, hit the ball in a fundamentally different way, especially off the fh side. I think the results are significantly superior, so we don't agree there. They generate way more racquet head speed, which results in way more pace and spin. Aside from Borg and Vilas and likely a few others, no one from the 70's was hitting with that kind of spin, which also includes varying amounts of side spin, and Vilas and Borg weren't hitting with the same pace as today's players, even taking the racquets and strings into consideration.

While I never mentioned raw athletic ability, today's players are generally bigger. Modern technique allows these bigger, stronger athletes to take bigger cuts at the ball and still have it land in.

Regarding all the other stuff like eye/hand coordination, foot speed, etc. - of course the best players from years past are equal to today's players. If these players played in the same eras with the same techniques, then things would be interesting. And players from adjacent eras are similar enough to be competitive.

But techniques have advanced IMO. Taking players of similar talent, one using modern technique and one using 70's technique, the modern player wins.

Again, all just my opinion.

one of the biggest changes in the forehand stroke was the shift from a closed to an open stance. You generate significantly more power with the open stance...but back in the day, you were taught to hit with the closed stance, often with an Eastern grip, which you can see quite well when you watch someone like Evert. I "relearned" how to hit my forehand using the open stance and it's quite the difference. Combine that with a western/semi-western grip and you've got the modern power game. still, guys like Connors and Lendl were not exactly hitting powder puff shots and Agassi just amped it up further...but he too had the open stance style.

 

[dmt]

The players today, regardless of racquet technology and strings, hit the ball in a fundamentally different way, especially off the fh side. I think the results are significantly superior, so we don't agree there. They generate way more racquet head speed, which results in way more pace and spin. Aside from Borg and Vilas and likely a few others, no one from the 70's was hitting with that kind of spin, which also includes varying amounts of side spin, and Vilas and Borg weren't hitting with the same pace as today's players, even taking the racquets and strings into consideration.

While I never mentioned raw athletic ability, today's players are generally bigger. Modern technique allows these bigger, stronger athletes to take bigger cuts at the ball and still have it land in.

Regarding all the other stuff like eye/hand coordination, foot speed, etc. - of course the best players from years past are equal to today's players. If these players played in the same eras with the same techniques, then things would be interesting. And players from adjacent eras are similar enough to be competitive.

But techniques have advanced IMO. Taking players of similar talent, one using modern technique and one using 70's technique, the modern player wins.

Again, all just my opinion.

fair enough. I was wondering what do you think of an older Conners doing well on tour with modern rackets vs new generation of players? How about Lendl? He grew up with wooden rackets i believe, and yet become a champion with modern ones.

 

[jrepac]

fair enough. I was wondering what do you think of an older Conners doing well on tour with modern rackets vs new generation of players? How about Lendl? He grew up with wooden rackets i believe, and yet become a champion with modern ones.

Hard to say about Lendl; I think he quit earlier than expected because of his bad back, whereas, Connors was able to recover from his various injuries, even the blown out wrist. Both of the guys were very fit and pretty much kept playing continuously throughout their careers. I do think that made a difference; no long sabbaticals away from the game, like Mac took.

According to Connors, it was less about will and fitness as he got older, but more about aged legs. At some point, the wheels just are not going to keep up anymore. And, he was pretty sharp nonetheless in his early 40's. But, both guys had more of a power game and could slug it out. connors liked pace, no question. They, along w/Agassi playing well into his mid 30's were relatively unique cases. Andre too, valued fitness late in his career, but a bad back was also his downfall.

So, yeah, certain kinds of games, could transition between generations.

 

[dmt]

Hard to say about Lendl; I think he quit earlier than expected because of his bad back, whereas, Connors was able to recover from his various injuries, even the blown out wrist. Both of the guys were very fit and pretty much kept playing continuously throughout their careers. I do think that made a difference; no long sabbaticals away from the game, like Mac took.

According to Connors, it was less about will and fitness as he got older, but more about aged legs. At some point, the wheels just are not going to keep up anymore. And, he was pretty sharp nonetheless in his early 40's. But, both guys had more of a power game and could slug it out. connors liked pace, no question. They, along w/Agassi playing well into his mid 30's were relatively unique cases. Andre too, valued fitness late in his career, but a bad back was also his downfall.

So, yeah, certain kinds of games, could transition between generations.

This is the point i was trying to make. Connors was a 70's player, the idea that any modern player could simply destroy a prime Connors just doesn't make any sense when even an older Connors was giving guys like Agassi problems. I have no doubt Borg could transition easily

 

[Pebbles10]

Would a 1981 borg beat a 1988 wilander?

 

[hoodjem]

This is the point i was trying to make. Connors was a 70's player, the idea that any modern player could simply destroy a prime Connors just doesn't make any sense when even an older Connors was giving guys like Agassi problems. I have no doubt Borg could transition easily

True, but Connors did do pretty well in 1982 and 1983.

 

[PrinceMoron]

If he used a bigger head size ...........oh, wait, that is a different (pointless) thread.

 

[CyBorg]

70s-era players cannot be expected to master graphite racquet groundstrokes when they never played with graphite racquets.

Criticizing them for not hitting with massive spin is a little ignorant considering that my grandma can hit with spin with the equipment available today.

 

[jrepac]

70s-era players cannot be expected to master graphite racquet groundstrokes when they never played with graphite racquets.

Criticizing them for not hitting with massive spin is a little ignorant considering that my grandma can hit with spin with the equipment available today.

there was more variety in the ground-stroking techniques back then, aside from the rackets. S&V game allowed for more variety in spins....that plus 3/4 of the GS events were on grass.

 

[rkelley]

fair enough. I was wondering what do you think of an older Conners doing well on tour with modern rackets vs new generation of players? How about Lendl? He grew up with wooden rackets i believe, and yet become a champion with modern ones.

Been on vacation - just saw this.

I remember when the modern racquets came out in the early 80's. They clearly increased the power level of everyone's game and pretty much all of the pros switched over between 82 and 84.

Connors was a great player and loved to play, so a lot of talent and desire. He hit hard and used his opponent's power, and was crafty about coming in and ending points. He could also impose his will on mentally weaker players. He was not going to give up. It's pretty amazing that he was competitive for as long as he was. In the latter part of the 80's, on a younger set of legs, who knows. But the power level was going up even then. Big hitters like Lendl could dominate Connors if they kept their head together, in the same way Connors had dominated a guy like Rosewal a decade before. But with Agassi, Courier, and Sampras, you saw a real change in the game. Those guys hit everything hard and with more topspin. They were really slinging their racquets at the ball, and they had loads of talent. Even with young legs, I think these guys would have been too much for Jimbo. Certainly an old Jimmy could not handle them.

I think Lendl was one of the architects of today's game in a couple of ways. Huge serve and fh, and a power baseline player. On his fh, though not exactly modern in the swing path, he was clearly whipping the racquet into the ball way more than most of his contemporaries and generating huge power. Still he didn't generate the spin off his forehand that modern players do, and he didn't attack his backhand generating neither the spin or pace the way modern players do. I don't think even Lendl, without some stroke changes, would be a grand slam winner in today's game.

 

[bcrd500]

Borg and 1982

The legend that Borg took his racket and walked away from tennis after McEnroe beat him at the US Open, in 1981, makes for a good story but is far from the truth.

After the US Open, Borg took a five month break from tennis but had every intention of playing the tour, in 1982. However, the ATP had passed a new rule that required players to add two tournaments to their schedule to keep their seeding (if any) for the grand slams.

Since Borg had not played, in January and February, to meet the 12 tournament rule, Borg would have to drop a couple of high paying exhibitions and play longer after the US Open. He chose to ask for a waiver to be seeded at the grand slams.

Borg entered the Monte Carlo warmup tournament (for the French) in April and played two qualifying matches since he was unseeded. He lost in the final to Noah. The ATP rejected his waiver right before the final, which may have affected his attitude about that match, and Borg chose not to play any grand slams, in 1982.

However, he did play the exhibitions and posted a 3-1 record against McEnroe, 2-4 with Connors, and 2-0 against Lendi. The most famous of the exhibitions was played in Southwest Asia, in the fall of 1982 where he beat McEnroe and Lendi rather easy. It was obvious he had bulked up his upper body that added power to his serve and ground strokes.

Despite announcing his retirement, in January 1983, Borg continued to play the high dollar exhibitions into 1984 but finally stopped playing any tennis by 1985.

The ATP rule change came at a bad time for Borg since he was on the edge about his tennis future and it gave him a chance to jump off the merry-go-round. If Borg had played the tour, in 1982, he would have won another 5-7 slams since everybody starting playing the Australian Open and none of the winners of the French during that period could have beaten Borg on clay

 

[kiki]

as so often mentioned in past posts of mine, Borg should have signed WCT and play relatively comfortable 16 men fields over 4 days a week
He could be ranked by WCT but not ATP, still those tourneys had 300.000 ~dollars prize money vs max 200.000 ~dollars on the Grand Prix circuit.

He could have played as many as he wished.Mac was invited to the WCT Finals with just one tournament entered ( he didn´t even enter it because he WO by injury at Strasbourg)

But, of course, Lendl was beasty on that WCT tour, winning 10 regular titles+ the three finals (Spring,Autumn and Winter)

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

Borg was potentially great in 1982. Borg defeated both Lendl and Mac, won the AKAI Gold Challenge in November.

Hamilton Jordan literally stabbed the tour in the back by not being flexible in Borg's case. Borg had no intention to quit in 1981, and did not decide to retire until January 1983, announcing that Monte-Carlo would be his last tournament. In fact, both McEnroe and Wilander said that in 1982 Borg was training harder and serving better than he ever had in his career. Once he saw that the governing body was remaining rigid and that he was going to have to qualify at every tournament, he decided he has had enough.

Having Borg, McEnroe, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander in 1982-1985 would have been just great. It would be the ''Diamond'' era of tennis. I would love to see Borg compete against them with graphite frame, since he was already in talks with Donnay.

 

[eldanger25]

I've wondered if this was the moment when the organizers took the sport back from the stars after a brief insurrection starting in the early 70s. Borg wanted to sell his services to the highest bidder and compete at the events he deemed interesting - the ITF etc. called his bluff and the sport moved on without him.

Five years earlier, Borg could break a contract with Hunt's WCT, skip a major or two to go off and play WTT and some exos etc. At the time, there were enough entities out there competing with each other to where he had that freedom and could play the bosses off each other.

A few years later, as the sport was re-coalescing around an ATP/ITF monopoly, Borg couldn't just puddle jump b/w tours and events without ruffling the wrong feathers.

I guess I'm wondering: does anyone think he was made an example of in 1982? Nobody's bigger than the sport etc. etc.?

 

[borg number one]

The racquets are key. Not just so much more power and spin are easily accessible, it’s width of frame. In the early 1980s players transitioned to larger racquets, wider racquets and also graphite. Borg was trying a Donna graphite frame in the early 1980s which he would have likely used if he kept playing. What’s underreported is the battle he had with Tour officials who insisted that he would have to qualify for majors if he dropped below 10 “official tournaments”. So for Borg if he wanted time off, he’d have to qualify at majors. That was a non-starter for him. He didn’t have the option of say taking 4-5 months off and then entering say Wimbledon 1982 without having to qualify. It was a dumb power game played by the Tour officials at the time. The Tour was facing upheaval, which led to the ATP and WCT splitting by 1983. Watchers today make the mistake of not factoring in technology. Borgs strokes laid the groundwork for all players to follow and the talent he had to generate those strokes with a tiny wood frame was off the charts. Put the racquets of today in his hands and it would be something to see.

 

[jrepac]

The racquets are key. Not just so much more power and spin are easily accessible, it’s width of frame. In the early 1980s players transitioned to larger racquets, wider racquets and also graphite. Borg was trying a Donna graphite frame in the early 1980s which he would have likely used if he kept playing. What’s underreported is the battle he had with Tour officials who insisted that he would have to qualify for majors if he dropped below 10 “official tournaments”. So for Borg if he wanted time off, he’d have to qualify at majors. That was a non-starter for him. He didn’t have the option of say taking 4-5 months off and then entering say Wimbledon 1982 without having to qualify. It was a dumb power game played by the Tour officials at the time. The Tour was facing upheaval, which led to the ATP and WCT splitting by 1983. Watchers today make the mistake of not factoring in technology. Borgs strokes laid the groundwork for all players to follow and the talent he had to generate those strokes with a tiny wood frame was off the charts. Put the racquets of today in his hands and it would be something to see.

Some jerky things happened on the Tour and this was one of them. That and WTT in the mid '70s....politics at their worst. But, making Borg qualify to play the slams in '82 was absurd. Simply assinine. But, I think it was pretty clear he was burned out...so who knows what might've happened if he played. Probably would've helped Mac win in '82, I suspect. His departure changed the Borg/Mac/Connors dynamic there in big way...allowing JC to get to the final w/out having to beat BOTH of those guys. Same could be said for Mac, but it just made for a different kind of final in '82. Sloppy, scrappy, intense...all rolled into one. Not the elegance of the Borg v. Mac matches of the last few years.

 

[flanker2000fr]

The racquets are key. Not just so much more power and spin are easily accessible, it’s width of frame. In the early 1980s players transitioned to larger racquets, wider racquets and also graphite. Borg was trying a Donna graphite frame in the early 1980s which he would have likely used if he kept playing. What’s underreported is the battle he had with Tour officials who insisted that he would have to qualify for majors if he dropped below 10 “official tournaments”. So for Borg if he wanted time off, he’d have to qualify at majors. That was a non-starter for him. He didn’t have the option of say taking 4-5 months off and then entering say Wimbledon 1982 without having to qualify. It was a dumb power game played by the Tour officials at the time. The Tour was facing upheaval, which led to the ATP and WCT splitting by 1983. Watchers today make the mistake of not factoring in technology. Borgs strokes laid the groundwork for all players to follow and the talent he had to generate those strokes with a tiny wood frame was off the charts. Put the racquets of today in his hands and it would be something to see.

This is very well written. I own a vintage Donnay Borg Pro, all 400g of it in a 68 sq. in. frame, and to hit as hard and with the level of spin Borg did beggars belief. If you look at his strokes mechanics (open stance / semi-western on the FH, two handed BH), he would easily have been able to play today's game with an oversized graphite racquet + poly strings. The only caveat is that he would have had to learn to properly execute a sliced OHBH in today's game. Even with his speed, he couldn't have hit his BH two handed all the time given the pace of the game now. Physically, he was as naturally gifted as any of Fed, Nadal or Djokovic, so with modern conditioning techniques he would have been one of the fittest players on tour. Not sure he would have been number 1, but easily he would have been in the top 10.

 

[jrepac]

This is very well written. I own a vintage Donnay Borg Pro, all 400g of it in a 68 sq. in. frame, and to hit as hard and with the level of spin Borg did beggars belief. If you look at his strokes mechanics (open stance / semi-western on the FH, two handed BH), he would easily have been able to play today's game with an oversized graphite racquet + poly strings. The only caveat is that he would have had to learn to properly execute a sliced OHBH in today's game. Even with his speed, he couldn't have hit his BH two handed all the time given the pace of the game now. Physically, he was as naturally gifted as any of Fed, Nadal or Djokovic, so with modern conditioning techniques he would have been one of the fittest players on tour. Not sure he would have been number 1, but easily he would have been in the top 10.

I believe all of those players from 70's and 80's would've done fine w/modern tech in the modern game. Mac, Connors, Lendl all transitioned to graphite just fine. Borg's technique on the BH was a little unusual, i do agree. But he would've figured it out. He was the fleetest of foot out there...perhaps of all time. Great players adjust.

 

[borg number one]

Players my age all adapted from wood to early graphite and now we play with the modern frames. The frames of today are just so much more forgiving, with huge sweet spots and so much more easy power and spin. I kid you not but the first time I went from wood/metal to graphite in my teens I said to my friends , this is like cheating! Players like Borg or Lendl would be fearsome if you put their talent together with today’s frames. Not all players playing from the past would transition easily but I’d say Borg, Lendl and Laver would do great with the new frames/strings/shoes conditions. Look at playing style..players tend to play much like Borg and Lendl did in those older conditions which had faster courts and tons of net rushers. The conditions then did not favor the playing styles they utilized to transform the game into what it is today.

 

[jrepac]

Players my age all adapted from wood to early graphite and now we play with the modern frames. The frames of today are just so much more forgiving, with huge sweet spots and so much more easy power and spin. I kid you not but the first time I went from wood/metal to graphite in my teens I said to my friends , this is like cheating! Players like Borg or Lendl would be fearsome if you put their talent together with today’s frames. Not all players playing from the past would transition easily but I’d say Borg, Lendl and Laver would do great with the new frames/strings/shoes conditions. Look at playing style..players tend to play much like Borg and Lendl did in those older conditions which had faster courts and tons of net rushers. The conditions then did not favor the playing styles they utilized to transform the game into what it is today.

yes, very true. As a teen, I was excited to buy my Donnay Midsize wood racket...which supposedly was "reinforced" with graphite. I tried an aluminum frame for a bit...never cared for it. Racket I loved was a midsize Donnay graphite composite...CGX 25 or some name like that. Played it to death. Then Donnay went away for awhile....later frames were just so-so. Lacking the "feel" of their earlier models. But, the best baseliners--and some serve & volleyers-- of the day all transitioned similarly...and did just fine.

 

[flanker2000fr]

yes, very true. As a teen, I was excited to buy my Donnay Midsize wood racket...which supposedly was "reinforced" with graphite. I tried an aluminum frame for a bit...never cared for it. Racket I loved was a midsize Donnay graphite composite...CGX 25 or some name like that. Played it to death. Then Donnay went away for awhile....later frames were just so-so. Lacking the "feel" of their earlier models. But, the best baseliners--and some serve & volleyers-- of the day all transitioned similarly...and did just fine.

Similar story here. As a kid I went from a traditional wood frame to a Donnay Mid 25 Wood Graphite in the late 70's, played it for a couple of years and cracked the frame. Then I went to a Donnay Pro 25 in Graphite. That was a great racquet. Eventually went with Adidas GTX Pro / Boron / Pro T.

Back on topic: Lendl / Laver / Borg could have easily adjusted to today's racquet as they were all using decent amount of spin (even Laver, though he was using his wrist a lot to that effect). Connors is the one I'd question, given how flat he was hitting his shots as a function of his strokes mechanics. Not sure modern frames / poly would have helped his game as much.

 

[hoodjem]

Players my age all adapted from wood to early graphite and now we play with the modern frames. The frames of today are just so much more forgiving, with huge sweet spots and so much more easy power and spin. I kid you not but the first time I went from wood/metal to graphite in my teens I said to my friends, this is like cheating!

You’re in good company.

That’s what Rosewall and Laver said, also.

 

[Thomas195]

Roscoe Tanner was a big server and Borg could handle him. I know that Tanner was nowehere near the player that Roger is but i doubt Borg would struggle to return Rogers serve. I very much doubt Roger could serve harder than Tanner

Roscoe Tanner was a servebot. Essentially a Roddick of his time but without a ferocious non-serve weapon like Rod forehand.

 

[ibbi]

I think Borg is the greatest ever, but I think it's unlikely. With Lendl only getting better, and better, and Mac growing in confidence for at least 2/3 years after Borg went, the chances of him dominating beyond the point he quit seem slight. You have to consider the kind of player that he was, and that such players tend to be better younger than older, they're not really built to have long careers (Nadal's comeback the last couple of years is pretty much the single exception in the history of the game).

 

[jrepac]

Similar story here. As a kid I went from a traditional wood frame to a Donnay Mid 25 Wood Graphite in the late 70's, played it for a couple of years and cracked the frame. Then I went to a Donnay Pro 25 in Graphite. That was a great racquet. Eventually went with Adidas GTX Pro / Boron / Pro T.

Back on topic: Lendl / Laver / Borg could have easily adjusted to today's racquet as they were all using decent amount of spin (even Laver, though he was using his wrist a lot to that effect). Connors is the one I'd question, given how flat he was hitting his shots as a function of his strokes mechanics. Not sure modern frames / poly would have helped his game as much.

Yet, Connors did OK w/graphite. He was the one who launched the Wilson Pro-Staff...along w/Evert. Not Sampras as many assume. But, he foolishly (IMHO) abandoned it after about a year to return to the T2000, saying he had control issues w/the frame. I think many observers didn't agree, but hey, it was his call. But, he then went to the Slazenger Pro Ceramic (white frame) in '87 and I think the Slazenger Phantom (black frame) after that. Seemed to play pretty well w/both of those. And, then of course, that yellow Estusa frame that went globally viral at the USO in 1991. Lordy-- it was bright and "loud"...kind of like him, actually!

 

[suwanee4712]

I think we have seen examples of players who left the tour for an extended break and were able to regain their form and prominence. But we've also seen players who could not for various reasons. It looked like to me that Borg was in fine physical condition and I think he could've come back and remained in the upper tier with Mac, Lendl, and Connors. I don't know what the introduction of extra power would have done to his results, especially when guys like Becker hit the tour.

A lot of it comes down to motivation. Clearly he did not want to have to play as often as the rules would have required him to play. I understand why the rules were set up the way they were in that this is still the beginning of the "money" era of the game and tournaments needed stars for sponsorships, tv, and ticket sales. The tour needed players who would do a certain level of promotion for their cause. Borg had been around for a while by then and probably felt like the tour needed him more than he needed the tour, and should have the right to make his own schedule.

Personally, I think it would have been better to have Borg sometimes rather than not at all.

 

[hoodjem]

Roscoe Tanner was a servebot. Essentially a Roddick of his time but without a ferocious non-serve weapon like Rod forehand.

Or a Rod backhand.
Or a Rod volley.
Or a Rod lob.
Or Rod quickness.
Or Rod footwork.

 

[Thomas195]

Or a Rod backhand.
Or a Rod volley.
Or a Rod lob.
Or Rod quickness.
Or Rod footwork.

Tanner also lacked these traits, if we compare him to ATG-tier serve-and-volley players. And Roddick forehand was a bigger weapon during 2001-2005 than Tanner volley during the 1970s. Roddick FH was top 3 during his prime, the same cannot be said with the Tanner volley (Tanner was a S&V player so I should talk about his volley first when it comes to non-service strokes).

On the other hand, Vitas, a slice-and-dice player, possessed much of these qualities but lacked power.

A guy like Laver, Newcombe or even Ashe/Smith (Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Stich, Krajicek...) possessed both Vitas and Roscoe's strengths.

 

[Q&M son]

Borg could win RG 1977 and 1982. Fact.

 

[Q&M son]

Could have, sorry

 

[Drob]

Borg was potentially great in 1982. Borg defeated both Lendl and Mac, won the AKAI Gold Challenge in November.

Hamilton Jordan literally stabbed the tour in the back by not being flexible in Borg's case. Borg had no intention to quit in 1981, and did not decide to retire until January 1983, announcing that Monte-Carlo would be his last tournament. In fact, both McEnroe and Wilander said that in 1982 Borg was training harder and serving better than he ever had in his career. Once he saw that the governing body was remaining rigid and that he was going to have to qualify at every tournament, he decided he has had enough.

Having Borg, McEnroe, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander in 1982-1985 would have been just great. It would be the ''Diamond'' era of tennis. I would love to see Borg compete against them with graphite frame, since he was already in talks with Donnay.

Yes, it was a big mistake. But Hamilton Jordan was not involved, I don't think. I think he went to work for ATP after his failed Senate bid in 1986. He was famous for helping lead the ATP to take over practically the entire organization of tennis. Also, it was probably the ITF, not the ATP, that prohibited Borg from playing the Slams without playing 10 tournaments. But I am by no means sure of that.

Borg was foolish to announce his intention in early 1982. Just don't play the tournaments if you don't want to. If he had not said anything, he would have been at Roland Garros, where he might have won. He could have played Wimbledon and USO also, and whatever few other tournaments he wanted. Then, the earliest the ITF could impose its rule on him is 1983 after he did not play 10 tournaments in 1982.

At any rate, you and others are correct that Borg was playing pretty well in the non-sanctioned tournaments in 1982 and that he had put on some extra muscle.

I think there are a lot of ways Borg could have remained an important player. I agree that it is a "myth" (in this sense meaning false) that he just quit. I also think it is a myth that he quit because he could not beat John McEnroe, but some people say this.

It appears that during 1982, he intended to come back. At some point, however, he unfortunately fell into a very destructive lifestyle, which lasted for several years.

 

[Drob]

He was mentally burned out. I watched an interesting documentary about it the other day:

In terms of chronicling Borg's post-1982 downfall, the best treatment is the Folke Ryden documentary, Bjorn Borg: The Saga.

 

[Drob]

Yes, if he would have been allowed to play the majors without qualifiers. As Mike B. mentioned, Wilander could not get a set off of Borg as they worked out prior to the 1982 French Open. Wilander beat a lot of good players to take his first French Open in 1982. Mats got some good practice in! Bjorn Borg had played a heavy schedule for years and was facing mental burnout, wanting to really focus on the majors primarily going forward. The Tour would not allow that to happen and it was a big mistake. He had played a very heavy official and unofficial (ATP and WCT, exos, majors, big money tourneys) since he was 17 while spreading the game all over the world. Many of those unofficial tourneys were very competitive, with big money and someone like Connors on the other side of the net. This is Borg at Roland Garros in 1982 about to turn 26.

If you look at the 8 biggest tourneys played during the calendar years 1981-1982, Borg won 5 of those 8 tournaments and made the finals in the other three (Masters YEC, Wimbledon, French Open and the US Open. McEnroe won 3 of those 8 tourneys and reached 1 more final. Borg took the Masters YEC played in both Jan. 80 and Jan. 81 indoors, Wimbledon 1980, and the French Open in both 1980 and 1981. So he won both of those indoor tourneys, 1 Wimbledon title and two red clay majors during those years. He made the finals at 1 Wimbledon and two US Opens. This looks surreal. Maybe he's checking out a Wilander match in this picture below. He was the defending champion having won his sixth title there in 1981.

Very good chance he would have won the 1982 French. Beyond that, hard to say. It isn't the time off, or even playing few tournaments (Budge and Kramer did not like to play a lot of tournaments). It is desire. Winning a tennis match requires a lot of desire. It seems he was a bit ambivalent (and resting, and maybe building up his body) in 1982. It seems he really lost the desire in 1983, and, then, gradually his life went off the rails.

Your point about 1980 and 1981 is absolutely right. Check out the Stockholm final in November 1980. His play versus McEnroe is masterful, and then he beat Mac soundly again at the YEC. His comeback versus Connor in 1981 Wimbledon semi is one for the ages (and the BBC commentators were unanimous that Borg was the favorite in the final). His drubbing of Connors at 1981 semi was amazing. If he had served in the final the way he served in the semifinal, he would have won the 1981 USO. He definitely still had it all. Something changed mentally. It was no longer life and death out there for him. Borg himself made some comments to this effect after the 1981 Wimbledon final, and his actions after the USO spoke louder than any comments.

I think if the desire had been there, he was capable of beating McEnroe at Wimbledon or USO in 1982 at least. Arthur Ashe commented at the time that Borg was still capable of winning USO.

 

[Pheasant]

The 1980’s featured Murderer’s Row for competition. I think that Borg might have squeezed out 5 more majors for a total of 16, had he kept playing. The guy was Mr. Clutch. I am still blown away by his 6 FO titles and 5 Wimbledon titles before his age-26 season. That type of versailtity May never be seen again.

Borg is a true legend of the game. It is a shame that we was done playing slams at age 25.

 

[hoodjem]

Borg should have played the WCT tour: big money, 16 men drafts, possibility to pick up the spots, lamr Hunt unfolding the red carpet for him . . . big mistake.

Yes, good point. Borg played WCT 1974-1976, and 1978-1979.

Borg would have been a bigger draw than Fibak, Smid, or Scanlon.

Lots of money, good quality tennis.

 

[KG1965]

Yes, good point. Borg played WCT 1974-1976, and 1978-1979.

Borg would have been a bigger draw than Fibak, Smid, or Scanlon.

Lots of money, good quality tennis.

It seems that Borg for example made some of them but it's hard to decide now if a top player made strategic programming mistakes in 1982.
In 1982 Lamar Hunt had again quarreled with ATP and GP and put on a real Tour, to part, detached and in fact ATP did not recognize points (but recognized the titles).
Lots of money and poor participation: only Clerc, Vilas, Fibak ... and Lendl that dominated these tournaments with prize money from Masters1000 but the value of Masters 250. It was a failure because nobody interested in a circuit like that.
But Borg would have little competition and probably would have won again for a while. He preferred to earn even more on tour exhibitions v Connors, Mac, Tanner, and Genulaitis.

 

[BGod]

He wins 1982 French and probably 83 as well. ITF were dum dums.

 

[bcrd500]

He would've been owned by Mac and later Lendl if he stuck around. Maybe could've snuck in another French or Wimbledon. Still wouldn't have won USO.

 

[bcrd500]

Borg did play McEnroe four times in 1982 and posted a 3-1 record. He also beat Lendi along with McEnroe in the famous Golden Racket in the Fall of 1982. He had been doing weight work and beefed up his upper to the point his serve overwhelmed both McEnroe and Lendi. If he had been allowed to play the majors in 1982 and continue his career til he was 30 (1986) he would have won five French and probably 2-3 Wimbledon's. He also would have begun playing the Australian since most players started playing it in 1983. He would have won at least one of those between 1983-86.

People seem to think losing to McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US Open in 1981 somehow destroyed his ability to play tennis. It unnerved him to a degree but if the tennis gods had given him a pass to the majors in 1982 (which he had earned) he would won the French and surely defeated Conners (who won Wimbledon in 1982). It is reasonable to think Borg would have won 9-10 majors between 1983-86 and perhaps more if he had continued to play past the age of 30. Borg was not a lucky player he dominated tennis from 1977-1981 in a similar style to Federer in the mid 2000s with one difference he did not have a Nadal who could beat him at a 3-1 rate. Remember, he finished with a 7-7 record against McEnroe and 23-11 with Connors. All of the rest of the tour was lucky to have 2 wins over Borg, which is a record Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have posted. Like Laver, he played under different rules than today's players, who have played their careers playing four majors every year while Laver could not play them during prime years of his career and Borg only played three majors a year because the top players refused to travel to Australia to play during November to early December depending on the yearly changing of the tournament dates. The Australian Open normally was played over Thanksgiving (not an Australian holiday) and in 1977 had two tournaments.

I saw the end of Laver's career (he played until 1977 but no majors after 1971-72) and Borg's entire career and my opinion is they share the GOAT title based on Laver's two career slams plus a pro slam in 1966 along with 9 pro major wins added to the 11 he gets credit for. Borg would be 1B ;based on stats and short career. He also holds record for percentage of wins against total entered (11/20) and nobody is close to that stat. I didn't see Laver play during the 1960s when he won 20 majors and three slams but I don't believe he totally dominated the tour like Borg did 77-81.

 

[hoodjem]

Borg beat Mcenroe at the Suntory Cup in 1983. So, it would appear that he could still play at a high level as late as that.

 

[KG1965]

and 23-11 with Connors

??

Borg did play McEnroe four times in 1982 and posted a 3-1 record.

and 2-7 v Connors (and 0-4 in 1983).

 

[Drob]

I think Borg is the greatest ever, but I think it's unlikely. With Lendl only getting better, and better, and Mac growing in confidence for at least 2/3 years after Borg went, the chances of him dominating beyond the point he quit seem slight. You have to consider the kind of player that he was, and that such players tend to be better younger than older, they're not really built to have long careers (Nadal's comeback the last couple of years is pretty much the single exception in the history of the game).

Nole is much like Borg in the nature of his game - a deliberate, stamina oriented base, out of which to hit the big winner when the opening shows itself. He has been at it for 14-15 years with only a temporary, short burn-out, then back to championship tennis.