Federer Matched Borg's Major titles in Australia!

[DoubleDeuce]

Sounds odd I know, but this writer, who is writing a book together with PMc, is arguing past great players did not take AO seriously, otherwise each would have 4-6 more Majors:


http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35220742/ns/sports-tennis/

He makes some good points, but the question is, did any of those players show the same level of domination in their time?

 

[bruce38]

Isn't it true?

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Isn't it true?

No, it's not. Borg never dominated hard courts.

 

[FlamEnemY]

^^ Australian Open was played on grass.

 

[borg number one]

Yes, DoubleDeuce, and Federer, though he has 1 French title never DOMINATED on clay courts now did he?

Borg's % of Grand Slams won (40%, 11/27), % of GS singles matches won (~89-90%), and overall match record during his Career (~83%) are all better than any other Open Era player. So the guy should EASILY be in any conversation as to the "Greatest Player" of all time. He was dominant on the once extremely fast courts at Wimbledon (before it was slowed down in about 2001 or so), and on the slow courts at RG. He also won a lot at BIG indoor events (fast carpet), and the guy was "not too shabby on hard courts" either, winning many hard court tournaments. I believe he won 7 ATP hard court titles.

Thinking of him as some sort of "1 surface wonder" is myopic. Why some always want to try and somehow isolate ONLY Laver, Sampras, and Federer doesn't make much sense. Many long time tennis watchers realize that it is very problematic to do so.

 

[kOaMaster]

fed now has 16 GS (4 of them AO), borg has 11.

how is that even "matched"?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Yes, DoubleDeuce, and Federer, though he has 1 French title never DOMINATED clay courts now did he?

Borg's % of Grand Slams won (40%, 11/27), % of GS singles matches won (~89-90%), and overall match record during his Career (~83%) are all better than any other Open Era player. So the guy should EASILY be in any conversation as to the "Greatest Player" of all time. He was dominant on the fast courts at Wimbledon, and on the slow courts at RG. He also won a lot at BIG indoor events (fast carpet), and the guy was "not too shabby on hard courts" either, winning many hard court tournaments. I believe he won 7 ATP hard court titles. Thinking of him as some sort of "1 surface wonder" is myopic.

Why some always want to try and somehow isolate ONLY Laver, Sampras, and Federer doesn't make much sense. Many long time tennis watchers realize that it is problematic to do so.

It's really simple why people leave him out of the conversation. When the going got tough, and McEnroe beat him in 2 straight slam finals, instead of fighting through to elevate his game more, he quit. Could you imagine if Fed quit after the FO and Wimbledon 08?

That along w/ his lack of a USO title is why most leave him out of the discussion. That being said, IMO he still ranks behind Fed and Laver as 3rd all time, definitely ahead of Sampras.

 

[borg number one]

It's really simple why people leave him out of the conversation. When the going got tough, and McEnroe beat him in 2 straight slam finals, instead of fighting through to elevate his game more, he quit. Could you imagine if Fed quit after the FO and Wimbledon 08?

That along w/ his lack of a USO title is why most leave him out of the discussion. That being said, IMO he still ranks behind Fed and Laver as 3rd all time, definitely ahead of Sampras.

How many times is he left out, excluding discussions on the TW boards?

 

[Justdoit10]

Borg had one ugly looking backhand.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

How many times is he left out, excluding discussions on the TW boards?

I was eluding to most ON HERE. Most real experts mention him of course, but still rank him behind Laver and Fed at the least. Though some do think he's the best all time b/c of his remarkable runs at RG and Wimbledon.

 

[TMF]

The trouble here is there’s only 10 AO titles per decade. It doesn’t make sense to assumed Borg, Connors, Mac and co. winning multiple AO titles since there’s not a whole lot to hand out. Anyone can win one, and it doesn’t has to be one of the elite player to win it. And that’s taking credit away from Vilas or Wilander who actually won it.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Yes, DoubleDeuce, and Federer, though he has 1 French title never DOMINATED on clay courts now did he?

Borg's % of Grand Slams won (40%, 11/27), % of GS singles matches won (~89-90%), and overall match record during his Career (~83%) are all better than any other Open Era player. So the guy should EASILY be in any conversation as to the "Greatest Player" of all time. He was dominant on the once extremely fast courts at Wimbledon (before it was slowed down in about 2001 or so), and on the slow courts at RG. He also won a lot at BIG indoor events (fast carpet), and the guy was "not too shabby on hard courts" either, winning many hard court tournaments. I believe he won 7 ATP hard court titles.

Thinking of him as some sort of "1 surface wonder" is myopic. Why some always want to try and somehow isolate ONLY Laver, Sampras, and Federer doesn't make much sense. Many long time tennis watchers realize that it is very problematic to do so.

Borg once himself said: " Either you are good on grass and clay or you are Federer".

Let's look at it this way:

1- AO was grass and stayed grass till today: Borg and Fed would win more Majors, based on their today's results.

2- AO was hard at Borg's time and stayed hard till today: Fed would win more majors than Borg, based on their major results today.

 

[borg number one]

Borg had one ugly looking backhand.

Really? I must disagree:

 

[decades]

this is very true. australian open just became a serious slam in the 90s.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

this is very true. australian open just became a serious slam in the 90s.

TMF actually makes a good point. Let's add to that even if they took it seriously, neither of them could accumulate 15 majors.

 

[Justdoit10]

Really? I must disagree:

"Really ugly" was harsh and unfair wording on my part. Borg, I taught had a really sweet followthrough with one hander after making contact. I just wished he had used the one hander completely.I bet bjorn can hit a mean one hander if he wanted to.

Sorry about the wording, borgnumberone. Btw, I really enjoy reading your posts. You are a highly knowledgeable and intelligent poster.

 

[borg number one]

The trouble here is there’s only 10 AO titles per decade. It doesn’t make sense to assumed Borg, Connors, Mac and co. winning multiple AO titles since there’s not a whole lot to hand out. Anyone can win one, and it doesn’t has to be one of the elite player to win it. And that’s taking credit away from Vilas or Wilander who actually won it.

This is a good argument. Adding 5 more titles at the AO for Borg is stretching it, in my opinion, because if he went there, say after winning a US Open, Connors and McEnroe would have followed to try and stop him. By the way his 7-7 record vs. McEnroe is his WORST head to head record, and they only played on hard courts, indoor courts, and grass courts. Yet, what is stunning, is that he did all this by 25! Leaving several years of competition on the shelf, when he was still as fit as a fiddle. So, you have "body of work" versus peak performance arguments as well.

 

[borg number one]

"Really ugly" was harsh and unfair wording on my part. Borg, I taught had a really sweet followthrough with one hander after making contact. I just wished he had used the one hander completely.I bet bjorn can hit a mean one hander if he wanted to.

Sorry about the wording, borgnumberone. Btw, I really enjoy reading your posts. You are a highly knowledgeable and intelligent poster.

Thanks JustDoIt, no problem, if you think it's ugly that's your opinion. The thing is though that 2 hander made his DEFENSE especially at the French outstanding. You COULD NOT attack his backhand simply with high topspin to the bh wing. He'd simply reach up with two hands and the guy was STRONG, so he could generate plenty of power even outstretched. So, you had to try and hit through him to cut down on time. So, he would shorten the swing at times on the faster courts. He could make lots of adjustments, like serve and volleying a lot at Wimbledon. Yes, he did have a sweet 1 handed follow through. Quite unique.

 

[Carsomyr]

Instead of laughably awarding players ghost trophies for events they didn't play in, how about we instead hypothetically take away Federer's four AO trophies? That still leaves him with 12 majors compared to Borg's 11, at least one on each surface while Borg only had major titles on clay and grass.

It's silly to say such-and-such would have won a tournament because they were successful at another tournament with the same surface; it's not like Borg was invulnerable to upsets, either, losing to Panatta at the FO and not being able to take a title in New York despite the fact it was played on clay (though not red) three years in a row.

What Borg accomplished in his career was incredible, but as a great a player as he was, it is downright foolish to make that kind of assumption.

 

[kishnabe]

Sucks Borg Quited tennis at such a young age, it a lot of fun seeing his old matches and he had so many matches where he struglled on grass yet he won 5 wimbledons. I think his motivations for Wimbledon was what allowed him to win so many Grass Slams, Many of his competaries believed they could beat him on grass. Obviously only Pannata has a chance to beat him on clay. Because many people thought Borg wasn't so great on grass, it was that much insane that he won 5 wimby titiles. That is remarkable as Federer's 23 consecutive semi streak. In the first two weeks before the Wimby, Borg would miss the balls a lot. He would completely suck on grass, but by constantly hitting the ball 6 hours a day before wimby for two weeks. He got the timing down, and even when he was into wimbedon, there has been many times he should have lost. Like that Australian guy, and Vijay Amritaraj.
Assuing he played Australia, I think he might run away with the maximum of 2 titles. It all about motivation, and borg only had it for the other 3 slams. Plus he needs timing for the grass to even win, it would be hard to prepare for this slam considering that it started in december after indoor hard court season!

 

[borg number one]

Sucks Borg Quited tennis at such a young age, it a lot of fun seeing his old matches and he had so many matches where he struglled on grass yet he won 5 wimbledons. I think his motivations for Wimbledon was what allowed him to win so many Grass Slams, Many of his competaries believed they could beat him on grass. Obviously only Pannata has a chance to beat him on clay. Because many people thought Borg wasn't so great on grass, it was that much insane that he won 5 wimby titiles. That is remarkable as Federer's 23 consecutive semi streak. In the first two weeks before the Wimby, Borg would miss the balls a lot. He would completely suck on grass, but by constantly hitting the ball 6 hours a day before wimby for two weeks. He got the timing down, and even when he was into wimbedon, there has been many times he should have lost. Like that Australian guy, and Vijay Amritaraj.
Assuing he played Australia, I think he might run away with the maximum of 2 titles. It all about motivation, and borg only had it for the other 3 slams. Plus he needs timing for the grass to even win, it would be hard to prepare for this slam considering that it started in december after indoor hard court season!

I agree with much of this. 5 AO titles would be really pushing it. That said, there is a reason for the difficult "timing". The grass courts during that time were MUCH faster than they are now. So, if they were as fast as they were then NOW, we could have seen Andy Roddick winning a couple of W titles. It's a slower grass court now which was largely a response to "boring" big servers with the more powerful frames. Plus, the new grass installed made the W courts much more durable. So, you have Borg relying on his athleticism to play on very fast grass courts, where his ability to make quick adjustments served him well.

 

[bruce38]

Don't forget Borg also quit at 25. It's not like "injury" drove him out of the game like it may do Nadal. Add 5 more years of playing time to Borg + a few AO wins on grass, and who knows how many slams he would have.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Don't forget Borg also quit at 25. It's not like "injury" drove him out of the game like it may do Nadal. Add 5 more years of playing time to Borg + a few AO wins on grass, and who knows how many slams he would have.

Again, you can't give guys credit for things they didn't do. With the emerging young talent of the early-mid 80s (Lendl, Edberg, Wilander), along w/ McEnroe and Connors still being factors in a big way, it's impossible to say Borg would have remained as successful as he was. Of course he could have won 4-5 more slams, but he just as easily could have gone slamless for the rest of his career. Who knows if he could have bounced back from consecutive defeats to Mac in slam finals. (Irrelvant question to ask really, since he flat out retired instead of playing on.) Ultimately, Borg's lack of more slams is no one's doing but his own for retiring at such a young age. Nothing wrong with that, we just shouldn't give him credit for 'what could have been' since he retired on his own, no one forced him out.

 

[nfor304]

^^

You would have to say he would have won at least 1 slam in 1982 though, the year in which he didn't compete on the tour as a protest to new regulations. The new regulations were definitely a factor in forcing him into early retirement imo. He played only 1 tour event that year and mainly played non sanctioned events where he was still beating guys like McEnroe.

The new rules said that if he didn't play the required number of events he would be forced to qualify for the grand slams, which he didn't think he should have to, and just didnt play them.

 

[edmondsm]

I remember reading somewhere John McEnroe saying "if I had known they were going to be counting the Australian Open as a major I would have been playing it."

Oh well, sucks for them I guess. It's further proof that Laver's "calender slams" weren't really anything of the sort by today's standards.

 

[Carsomyr]

^^

You would have to say he would have won at least 1 slam in 1982 though, the year in which he didnt compete on the tour as a protest to new regulations

Why would you have to say that? You simply can't, because you can't give him credit for Slams he didn't compete in. As JBF said, he wasn't forced off the tour, he chose not to compete.

I'm not sure what your basis for "he would have won a Slam" is, anyway. He lost in four sets at Wimbledon and played an abysmal match in New York against a pretty flat McEnroe in 1981. He just wasn't the same player anymore. True, lot of his "retirement" had to do with his struggle with the demand for a regular schedule, but Borg was pretty burned out at that point, too. He did well against McEnroe in exhibitions in 1982, but exos are exactly that: exos. They have almost nothing in common with seven best-of-five set matches on the biggest stages of the world.

 

[bruce38]

Again, you can't give guys credit for things they didn't do. With the emerging young talent of the early-mid 80s (Lendl, Edberg, Wilander), along w/ McEnroe and Connors still being factors in a big way, it's impossible to say Borg would have remained as successful as he was. Of course he could have won 4-5 more slams, but he just as easily could have gone slamless for the rest of his career. Who knows if he could have bounced back from consecutive defeats to Mac in slam finals. (Irrelvant question to ask really, since he flat out retired instead of playing on.) Ultimately, Borg's lack of more slams is no one's doing but his own for retiring at such a young age. Nothing wrong with that, we just shouldn't give him credit for 'what could have been' since he retired on his own, no one forced him out.

Who's giving credit? Just considering what was potentially and realistically possible.

 

[bruce38]

For example, let's consider that in 2015 they introduce 4 new slams for a total of 8 since obviously slams make a lot of money. And of course greed is behind everything that happens nowadays. All of a sudden guys will be racking up so many more slams and somebody is bound to surpass Fed. Surely we will put an asterisk beside anyone who passes the mark. But in principle it's the same thing as there being only 3 'real' slams in the 80s.

 

[BalletTennis]

I agree there is no reason to assume Borg would have won more then 2-3 AO for 13-14 slams in total. No matter which way you slice it Roger comes up aces.

 

[malakas]

Who cares?woulda coulda shoulda..

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

For example, let's consider that in 2015 they introduce 4 new slams for a total of 8 since obviously slams make a lot of money. And of course greed is behind everything that happens nowadays. All of a sudden guys will be racking up so many more slams and somebody is bound to surpass Fed. Surely we will put an asterisk beside anyone who passes the mark. But in principle it's the same thing as there being only 3 'real' slams in the 80s.

Not the same at all. Australia's always been a slam, it's just that most of the guys weren't willing to make the effort to travel down there back in those days for various reasons. It's not like it only became a slam in 1985 - it's just that guys started treating it as a slam.

Not like if ITF for some reason made YEC and Cincinnati count as slams.

Also take into consideration that only recently has the slam total even been though of as a major record - when Emerson held it, it wasn't nearly as important of a record. That's another reason why guys like Borg and Mac weren't compelled to go to AO to compete.

 

[borg number one]

Why would you have to say that? You simply can't, because you can't give him credit for Slams he didn't compete in. As JBF said, he wasn't forced off the tour, he chose not to compete.

I'm not sure what your basis for "he would have won a Slam" is, anyway. He lost in four sets at Wimbledon and played an abysmal match in New York against a pretty flat McEnroe in 1981. He just wasn't the same player anymore. True, lot of his "retirement" had to do with his struggle with the demand for a regular schedule, but Borg was pretty burned out at that point, too. He did well against McEnroe in exhibitions in 1982, but exos are exactly that: exos. They have almost nothing in common with seven best-of-five set matches on the biggest stages of the world.

There was a death threat as well after the Connors win that may have impacted him in that 1981 US Open New York final. Very strange circumstances with Borg racing out of the Stadium with no ceremony presentation. He was facing some burn out, which is why he was lobbying Tour Organizers, asking to play less than 10 tourneys a year, focusing on Slams. Yet, they refused. That was pivotal in his choice to say goodbye to the Tour. So, all those things factored in to his decision quite likely.

To think he had "no good tennis" at 25, with no significant injuries at all is casting what happened back in 1981 in the wrong light. It's more complicated than that. I'm sure that all that winning from about 18 at the slams did take a toll, but the guy had plenty left in the tank and never went back on the Tour with say an extended break and a graphite frame. So, to say he was somehow "definitely" done is also speculation.

 

[JennyS]

Instead of laughably awarding players ghost trophies for events they didn't play in, how about we instead hypothetically take away Federer's four AO trophies? That still leaves him with 12 majors compared to Borg's 11, at least one on each surface while Borg only had major titles on clay and grass.

It's silly to say such-and-such would have won a tournament because they were successful at another tournament with the same surface; it's not like Borg was invulnerable to upsets, either, losing to Panatta at the FO and not being able to take a title in New York despite the fact it was played on clay (though not red) three years in a row.

What Borg accomplished in his career was incredible, but as a great a player as he was, it is downright foolish to make that kind of assumption.

Plus, the conditions in Australia are totally different than at Wimbledon. Not to mention, the grass at Kooyoung was apparently pretty crappy.

 

[bruce38]

Not the same at all. Australia's always been a slam, it's just that most of the guys weren't willing to make the effort to travel down there back in those days for various reasons. It's not like it only became a slam in 1985 - it's just that guys started treating it as a slam.

Not like if ITF for some reason made YEC and Cincinnati count as slams.

Also take into consideration that only recently has the slam total even been though of as a major record - when Emerson held it, it wasn't nearly as important of a record. That's another reason why guys like Borg and Mac weren't compelled to go to AO to compete.

If Fed, NAdal and other top players decided the FO was not worth playing, trust me it would slowly lose its appeal despite technically being called a 'slam'. What you call it and what it actually is are two different things. The rules have changed.

 

[Carsomyr]

There was a death threat as well after the Connors win that may have impacted him in that 1981 US Open New York final. Very strange circumstances with Borg racing out of the Stadium with no ceremony presentation. He was facing some burn out, which is why he was lobbying Tour Organizers, asking to play less than 10 tourneys a year, focusing on Slams. Yet, they refused. That was pivotal in his choice to say goodbye to the Tour. So, all those things factored in to his decision quite likely.

To think he had "no good tennis" at 25, with no significant injuries at all is casting what happened back in 1981 in the wrong light. It's more complicated than that. I'm sure that all that winning from about 18 at the slams did take a toll, but the guy had plenty left in the tank and never went back on the Tour with say an extended break and a graphite frame. So, to say he was somehow "definitely" done is also speculation.

I'm aware of the death threat, and if that had any impact on Borg, he honestly needed to grow some thicker skin. Athletes of Borg's prowess sometimes receive death threats; sadly a part of life as a great one. Almost a decade earlier, on the verge of breaking one of sports greatest records, Hank Aaron was getting death threats every week. It didn't stop him from breaking the record by a considerable margin. And after the Seles tragedy, people getting on the court is no joke; didn't really seem to phase Federer during perhaps the most pivotal moment of his career.

Yes, Borg was still playing exceptional tennis in 1982 - in exhibitions. It's impossible to equate that with Grand Slam play.

 

[borg number one]

I'm aware of the death threat, and if that had any impact on Borg, he honestly needed to grow some thicker skin. Athletes of Borg's prowess sometimes receive death threats; sadly a part of life as a great one. Almost a decade earlier, on the verge of breaking one of sports greatest records, Hank Aaron was getting death threats every week. It didn't stop him from breaking the record by a considerable margin. And after the Seles tragedy, people getting on the court is no joke; didn't really seem to phase Federer during perhaps the most pivotal moment of his career.

Yes, Borg was still playing exceptional tennis in 1982 - in exhibitions. It's impossible to equate that with Grand Slam play.

I want to also mention Borg's Davis Cup Streak of 33 matches, which still stands, if I'm not mistaken. He won his first Davis Match at 15 in 1972! See many of his accomplishments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg

As to your post, are you comparing the 2009 FO incident to what happened to Borg at the 1981 US Open when there were security personnel placed around the edge of the court and when Borg was checking in with Lennart B. (coach) as to how the security was in that chaotic environment? (TW Poster Borgforever filled me in on some of these details, but I had heard about the death threat years ago). Those details get lost over time and then folks, especially some fans of his rivals, play up the "Borg quit" because he couldn't play anymore stuff. No comparison. It's not NEARLY the same, if that's what you are contending. There you had a wild fan. As far as "thick skin", where was Federer's "thick skin" when he was about to lose to Nadal at the 2008 Wimbledon Final and he said "Hawkeye" is wrong and it's "killing me" and then he said "it's too dark"? So, let's not go overboard with the "thin skin/thick skin" stuff. Borg faced matches when they were throwing things on the court at him (coins) and his expression barely changed. He NEVER broke his racquet on the Court, shouted at officials, or screamed when he lost points. The same cannot be said of Federer or just about any other player. So, he was definitely not a "thin skinned player", but you are talking about his response to the 1981 US Open Death Threat after he beat Connors handily in the semifinal (probably a Connors or McEnroe fan, or just some plain nutjob, who knows?)

Also, to say he couldn't win at the slams by 1982 is a huge stretch. He may not have wanted to play a full schedule, but that's different than him not being capable of winning Slams. He wanted to only focus on the Slams for at least a while, BUT he did not want to play a full schedule and a lot of small tournaments at the same time, at least for a while. Those tourneys had lost their appeal for him.

Anyway, as I noted it wasn't just that. The players of today, are much more insulated from the public than they were at that time, plus Borg had the "groupie" effect and a lot of people mobbing him in hotels, etc, unlike any other player I can think of. It was just quite a different scene. The chaos around him was unlike what any other player has faced, including Federer, who has a much more cushioned environment around him, due to the He was the FIRST truly international tennis star. Per Borg, he CHANGED the Game more than ANYONE before him and probably anyone SINCE then. He revolutionized pro tennis, period, from endorsement money, to bringing in "casual fans", etc. . He did not have the insulation from the public that exists in the modern tennis scene and non of the advantages that that the Tour has instituted over these years for its top players. It was "rougher" back then, and not as "cushy" you could say.

Also, as to Aaron, yes that was impressive, but quite a different. There, you have a whole team around you, but regardless, I agree Aaron faced a lot of threats, which was impressive. Anyway, Borg made the choice to leave the Game, and I think there was a lot of "blowback" from tennis folks that were frankly angry at him for having the "nerve" to say to the Tour: goodbye, if you won't even play a reduced schedule for a while, I'm done and will leave on my terms. There was a "backlash" of sorts when Borg quit so abruptly and shock. Then many speculated that he was just a "quitter", which is so unfair to him, given all that he gave to the Game, and due to all the sacrifices he made from the time he was a teenager, playing TONS of official and unofficial events that helped grow the Game to heights it had never reached before. McEnroe said "he caused such CHAOS". You may have already watched these, but for some other posters who haven't, check these clips out that describe what I am talking about.

As Becker says, he was one of the first POP stars in international sports. See these Video Segments on Borg at Wimbledon to give you a sense of that:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694076/5681964 (hear Becker on Borg)

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694418/5686082 (Borg as pop idol and watch Becker talk about Borg becoming a star)

Also See Borg on Winning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLVoUl4OVGc

1982 Borg (Thanks TW Poster Borgforever):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

 

[Carsomyr]

I want to also mention Borg's Davis Cup Streak of 33 matches, which still stands, if I'm not mistaken. He won his first Davis Match at 15 in 1972! See many of his accomplishments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg

As to your post, are you comparing the 2009 FO incident to what happened to Borg at the 1981 US Open when there were security personnel placed around the edge of the court and when Borg was checking in with Lennart B. (coach) as to how the security was in that chaotic environment? No comparison. It's not NEARLY the same, if that's what you are contending. There you had a wild fan. As far as "thick skin", where was Federer's "thick skin" when he was about to lose to Nadal at the 2008 Wimbledon Final and he said "Hawkeye" is wrong and it's "killing me" and then he said "it's too dark"? So, let's not go overboard with the "thin skin/thick skin" stuff. Borg faced matches when they were throwing things on the court at him (coins) and his expression barely changed. He NEVER broke his racquet on the Court, shouted at officials, or screamed when he lost points. The same cannot be said of Federer or just about any other player. So, he was definitely not a "thin skinned player", but you are talking about his response to the 1981 US Open Death Threat after he beat Connors handily in the semifinal (probably a Connors or McEnroe fan, or just some plain nutjob, who knows?)

First of all, get your facts straight. The Federer incident you are referring to was Wimbledon 2007, the year in which he won. Second, it was not my intention to insult Borg - he was possibly the toughest player mentally on court ever. The thing is, I don't think he was at all rattled by some arbitrary death threat. I think that's a cop out by Borg fans to explain his loss. After losing Wimbledon, I just don't think he was prepared to play the US Open (what kind of preparation is a clay court tournament prior to the US Open?).

Also, to say he couldn't win at the slams by 1982 is a huge stretch. He may not have wanted to play a full schedule, but that's different than him not being capable of winning Slams. He wanted to only focus on the Slams for at least a while, BUT he did not want to play a full schedule and a lot of small tournaments at the same time, at least for a while. Those tourneys had lost their appeal for him.

Even if Borg succeeded, what was his goal? A four or five tournament schedule? To me that just doesn't sound feasible from a preparation standpoint. It's not that I question his ability to win a Slam in 1982 (although there certainly were doubts after '81), but to automatically spot him a major like someone already suggested is idiotic.

Anyway, as I noted it wasn't just that. The players today, are much more insulated from the public than they were at that time, plus Borg had the "groupie" effect and a lot of people mobbing him in hotels, etc. It was just quite a different scene. The chaos around him was unlike what any other player has faced, including Federer, who has a much more cushioned environment around him, due to the modern tennis scene and all the changes that the Tour has instituted over these years.

This is very true. But there are points when every athlete is at least a little vulnerable, including modern ones. Again, I don't question Borg's toughness. The death threat just seems to get tossed around as the principle reason why Borg lost despite Borg having lost the previous US Open final (as well as two others) and the Wimbledon final both to McEnroe when the impact it had is probably minimal.

 

[borg number one]

You are right about the Federer incidents: 2007 Hawkeye and 2008, "darkness" at Wimbledon. I only put in 2008, my mistake. I know that, just mistyped there, but ok 2 incidents of "thin skin" as to Federer. By the way, didn't you think Nadal was going to take that 2007 final by the 4th set? The guy was playing like a monster until that "knee injury". Perhaps that was one of the first signs of his later knee trouble. There, do I have my facts right enough for you now, lol...?

On the death threat, I don't mean to imply that was the only reason he lost, but it explains a lot as to how he played that 3d and 4th set at least. He looked like a guy that wanted to "get out of there", so I would not conclude that it was "no big deal" and he could just block it out. He very well could have felt very uncomfortable and distracted.

As to his schedule, if he played the 3 slams, then perhaps a few more tourneys, then you'd have say 6-8 or so, which is what I recall him wanting to do for a while at least. Yet, Tour Organizers were pushing for a 10 tourney/year minimum for the pros, so that was the dispute he was having. Organizers held firm and asserted that he would have to qualify for the Slams if he reduced his schedule severely, etc. Yet, I would not have put it past Borg to have practiced, taken time off, cut back on schedule and excelled at the Slams still. That is not far fetched at all, but he chose to partly say, forget this, I've had it if they force me to do these things. The guy was one stubborn and tough dude underneath that "Ice Borg" /nice guy exterior. He was also very much a "rebel" so to speak. He didn't exactly "listen" to others very much and wanted to do things "his way", no doubt.

 

[anointedone]

Again, you can't give guys credit for things they didn't do. With the emerging young talent of the early-mid 80s (Lendl, Edberg, Wilander), along w/ McEnroe and Connors still being factors in a big way, it's impossible to say Borg would have remained as successful as he was. Of course he could have won 4-5 more slams, but he just as easily could have gone slamless for the rest of his career. Who knows if he could have bounced back from consecutive defeats to Mac in slam finals. (Irrelvant question to ask really, since he flat out retired instead of playing on.) Ultimately, Borg's lack of more slams is no one's doing but his own for retiring at such a young age. Nothing wrong with that, we just shouldn't give him credit for 'what could have been' since he retired on his own, no one forced him out.

This reminds me of all the speculation what Henin would have done if she hadnt retired and people trying to say she would have had more slams by now than Serena, etc....Players dont deserve any additional credit who retire at a premature age. Players generally dont even really get additional credit for injuries which forced layoffs or potentially cost them titles, as those are part of the game; and even those who had a tragic occurence beyond their control like the Seles stabbing seem to get limited benefit of doubt (this is the only case some could be appropriate). So players who volunteeringly retire either temporarily or for good do not deserve any benefit of doubt to what they might have achieved as far as evaluating their careers and greatness goes. If anything it is a mark against them.

 

[Tennis_Stringman]

Borg had one ugly looking backhand.

WTF are you talking about. His backhand was a thing of beauty.

 

[drakulie]

Too bad so sad for those who refused to play the AO.

Can't give them credit. For all we know, Borg shows up his first year, and blows out his knee. Career over, and we aren't talking about him right now.

 

[borg number one]

WTF are you talking about. His backhand was a thing of beauty.

Thank you very much! I agree, of course, and love his strokes, and to express my thanks, you'll enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IY...1A958E98&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=35 (Borg/Federer forehand comparison. It must be a swede/swiss thing!! What do they put in the water over there???)

Another Borg Backhand Photo:

 

[crackbillionair]

Yes, DoubleDeuce, and Federer, though he has 1 French title never DOMINATED on clay courts now did he?

Borg's % of Grand Slams won (40%, 11/27), % of GS singles matches won (~89-90%), and overall match record during his Career (~83%) are all better than any other Open Era player. So the guy should EASILY be in any conversation as to the "Greatest Player" of all time. He was dominant on the once extremely fast courts at Wimbledon (before it was slowed down in about 2001 or so), and on the slow courts at RG. He also won a lot at BIG indoor events (fast carpet), and the guy was "not too shabby on hard courts" either, winning many hard court tournaments. I believe he won 7 ATP hard court titles.

Thinking of him as some sort of "1 surface wonder" is myopic. Why some always want to try and somehow isolate ONLY Laver, Sampras, and Federer doesn't make much sense. Many long time tennis watchers realize that it is very problematic to do so.

The 2 most important championships are Wimbledon and the US Open. Sorry to everyone in the clay contingent, but that is the way it is. Throughout tennis history, Wimbledon has been considered the mens world championship, and the USO, because of it's timing, and because it was the last major of the season (as it is today and was when Laver played), put's added importance on it.

Sure Borg would have won some AO's, and so too would have McEnroe. But nobody cares. And the only reasons they cared so much about McEnroe winning RG was because he had already won Wimbledon and the USO in his career, and because an american had not won in Paris, since someone like Donald Dell, maybe, or Tony Trabert, in the 50's...

Guys like Courier and Kafelnikov, who only won the lesser slams (RG and the AO) are lesser legends. Guys like Kriek and Johansson who only won down under are barely after thoughts. Guys like Costa and JCF...please.

Borg's 7 ATP hardcourt wins is paltry. To cement himself even further as a great--to move up a notch or two on the list of legends, he needed to win the US Open, the same way McEnroe needed to win RG. Mac says so himself in his book.

To paraphrase, John John says 'now I am mentioned among the greatest to ever play. Had I won that FO I would have BEEN one of the greatest, conclusively.'

It's hard to fully credit Borg when he has not won the 2nd most important slam, arguably (I prefer it to Wimbledon. It's more demanding, it's at the end of the season, and the finals and semifinals are played back to back, unlike any other slam). But no matter how you figure it, Wimbledon and the USO are 1 and 2.

 

[malakas]

RG is not important??Accordint to whom exactly???

 

[drakulie]

RG is not important??Accordint to whom exactly???

Many people mention how AO was not important back in the 70's, 80's and yada, yada, yada. Fact is, the same could be said for the French. Plenty of top players skipped that event as well. In fact, attandance ws so dismal at the FO, that it nearly shut down, and it was common place for tourney organizers to give away tickets for free (especially for finals), so the TV audience would see the stadium full.

 

[crackbillionair]

RG is not important??Accordint to whom exactly???

It's the 3rd most important, according to Rod Laver, among others. Obviously some Europeans may have an over inflated opinion of RG, and that isn't crazy. But since the USO is the last slam, it is way more important than RG. Guys are feeling way more pressure to perform at the last slam, than at the 1st or second major...more is on the line.

That's a fact. And Wimbledon is obviously number one, as was previously explained. That said, they are all important. But RG is in June and the USO in September. Timing is everything. Also, since it's a hardcourt tour, the USO winner is more indicative of who the best player is than the FO winner.

Federer won 5 in a row, and was more or less the best player all those yrs but the mono year. Nadal was the second best player, with his FO titles. Got it? Second best as opposed to first best.

The year Nadal ended number one he won Wimbledon and the French, which is a very different story than just winning the French (Nadal 05-07, 2nd best) or just winning the AO (09, 2nd best).

 

[nfor304]

Why would you have to say that? You simply can't, because you can't give him credit for Slams he didn't compete in. As JBF said, he wasn't forced off the tour, he chose not to compete.

I'm not sure what your basis for "he would have won a Slam" is, anyway. He lost in four sets at Wimbledon and played an abysmal match in New York against a pretty flat McEnroe in 1981. He just wasn't the same player anymore. True, lot of his "retirement" had to do with his struggle with the demand for a regular schedule, but Borg was pretty burned out at that point, too. He did well against McEnroe in exhibitions in 1982, but exos are exactly that: exos. They have almost nothing in common with seven best-of-five set matches on the biggest stages of the world.

I'm not saying he should be credited with another slam for 1982, I'm just pointing out that this myth that he walked away completely shattered after losing the '81 Usopen never to return to top form again is just flat out wrong.
He was indeed the same player in 1982 as he was in 1981, or extremely close to it, its just most people dont know it because he only played the WCT events rather than any main tour events. He played McEnroe 4 times that year and won 3. These exo's aren't exactly Federer Vs Sampras in Macau, they were more like the championships that were played during the professional era.

 

[malakas]

if we go by what is last then we might as well count the YEC as more important than all the slams.

Anyway,which slam is more important is all very subjective.Who didn't participate it's their loss and no asterisks should be put.Maybe in 10 years from now Cinci becomes more important than AO and there are new posters here arguing that Fed didn't win enough etc etc.

 

[borg number one]

The 2 most important championships are Wimbledon and the US Open. Sorry to everyone in the clay contingent, but that is the way it is. Throughout tennis history, Wimbledon has been considered the mens world championship, and the USO, because of it's timing, and because it was the last major of the season (as it is today and was when Laver played), put's added importance on it.

Sure Borg would have won some AO's, and so too would have McEnroe. But nobody cares. And the only reasons they cared so much about McEnroe winning RG was because he had already won Wimbledon and the USO in his career, and because an american had not won in Paris, since someone like Donald Dell, maybe, or Tony Trabert, in the 50's...

Guys like Courier and Kafelnikov, who only won the lesser slams (RG and the AO) are lesser legends. Guys like Kriek and Johansson who only won down under are barely after thoughts. Guys like Costa and JCF...please.

Borg's 7 ATP hardcourt wins is paltry. To cement himself even further as a great--to move up a notch or two on the list of legends, he needed to win the US Open, the same way McEnroe needed to win RG. Mac says so himself in his book.

To paraphrase, John John says 'now I am mentioned among the greatest to ever play. Had I won that FO I would have BEEN one of the greatest, conclusively.'

It's hard to fully credit Borg when he has not won the 2nd most important slam, arguably (I prefer it to Wimbledon. It's more demanding, it's at the end of the season, and the finals and semifinals are played back to back, unlike any other slam). But no matter how you figure it, Wimbledon and the USO are 1 and 2.

I don't know about that. It's oversimplifying things some. You can make that argument, but I think it's hard to separate the French and the US Open. You can't take the biggest slow court tourney out of the running as it has certain demands that the others do not. It is arguably the MOST physical tournament of all the Slams. In many ways (sheer stamina) it is. Regardless, by that logic, Del Potro beat Federer last year in the US Open and does that title really surpass any and all of Nadal's FO titles?

I don't think there is much separation between the two tournaments in terms of prestige, but now it is more of a "hard court" dominated Tour than ever before really. The US Open does have the highest "attendance" figures of all 4 slams and a rich history, but I would not consider it far and away more "important" than the French Open. It went through lots of changes too, from the grass courts at Forest Hills through the early 1970's, to rublico courts, and then finally to hard courts only in 1978, and that was all in Borg's time. He lost to Connors there on hard courts 1 year, and twice to McEnroe, while also losing the 1976 final to Connors on rublico. He was up in a fifth set vs. McEnroe in the 1980 final, but McEnroe pulled out that match.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying as far as it being the "last slam", but also remember that back then, unlike the YEC/AO combo, the WCT Championship and then the Masters or WCT tourney was in effect the "4th Slam" tourneys. Those were the real "year end" duels and the players wanted those titles BAD. They were talked about nearly as much as some of the slams.

McEnroe won the WCT championship a few times. As far as Borg, he beat McEnroe indoors in the 1980 Masters final in New York, indoors, at that tourney and then Lendl in early 1981. At the time, THAT was considered the "capper" to top off the last year, MUCH more important than going down to the AO. So, it wasn't like the guy couldn't play on a fast court, that's my main point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALjSXspCpko (Borg vs. Lendl)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpgAKQ3dQfg (Borg vs. McEnroe)

 

[davey25]

Too bad so sad for those who refused to play the AO.

Can't give them credit. For all we know, Borg shows up his first year, and blows out his knee. Career over, and we aren't talking about him right now.

Funny but werent you the one of thsoe trying to give Agassi credit for extra Australian Opens because of all the years he skipped it? (none of which he was even favored for either) When Agassi was playing it wasnt even compulsory for players to skip anymore, in fact it was very bizarre.