History repeating: Borg and Federer

robin7

Hall of Fame
Do you believe, like George Santayana, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it? Or do you believe, as did George Bernard Shaw, that all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history?

If Roger Federer wins the 2008 Wimbledon men’s singles he will claim his sixth consecutive Championship. Five consecutive Wimbledon titles is an improbable achievement. Pete Sampras — the most successful player in Grand Slam history — could only win four in a row.

Only one other player has done it: Bjorn Borg, who won five from 1976 till 1980.

Borg claimed his fifth Wimbledon title by beating John McEnroe. Federer claimed his fifth Wimbledon title by beating Rafael Nadal.

Borg took five sets to beat McEnroe. Federer took five sets to beat Nadal. Borg played right-hand, Federer plays right-handed. Borg was the Ice Man, Federer unflappable.

McEnroe was a leftie, Nadal is a leftie. In 1980 Borg was 24 and McEnroe 21. In 2007 Federer was 25 and Nadal 21.

Heading into Wimbledon 1981 Borg was clearly not at his best. He had been troubled by a shoulder injury earlier in the year and suffered shock losses to Victor Pecci and Rolf Gehring.

Heading into Wimbledon 2008 Federer WAS clearly not at his best. He revealed in March that he had been diagnosed with glandular fever and suffered shock losses to Mardy Fish and Radek Stepanek.

If you read the newspaper clippings from 1981, the same phrase keeps re-appearing. It is the idea that Borg has to lose eventually. That the juggernaut cannot roll on. That was certainly McEnroe’s line of thought. Anyone who has read an article this year about Federer will recognise the theme.

History will show that Borg could not win that sixth title. The Swede had already endured a gruelling five-set semi-final against Jimmy Connors just to reach the final. Against McEnroe this time round the results were reversed, the American winning the first of his three Wimbledon titles 6-4 6-7 6-7 4-6.

McEnroe would later recall of the final: “Borg no longer had the same fire, it was like he needed to be relieved of the pressure. I think it had all got too much for him after five years. It seemed as if it was ok in his mind to lose to me.”

Borg would later say: “I was not really that disappointed. Of all the Wimbledon finals I have played that’s the one I should have won. John didn’t play well and if I had been a little more focused I could have won in straight sets. But afterwards I wasn’t upset. I didn’t care. That felt strange. All the other players wanted to beat me and people expected so much of me. I had to be motivated everyday of the week.”

That is the crux of this argument. The crucial similarity, or difference, between Borg and Federer that will decide the fate of the latter’s bid for six Championships. How does Federer deal with every player wanting to beat him and with the high expectations?

As Borg said after watching Federer equal his record: “If he continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think the motivation is the key thing.”

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2008-07-05/200806051212678371720.html

=======================================================
What an interesting article!
 
That's the difference, Borg had a gruelling 5 setter with Connors before the final with McEnroe. Fed had an easy semifinal against Safin. Djokovic failed to play his part in the story!
 
That's the difference, Borg had a gruelling 5 setter with Connors before the final with McEnroe. Fed had an easy semifinal against Safin. Djokovic failed to play his part in the story!

And what makes you think Djokovic would push Fed to five sets on grass? Remember we're talking about grass,not hardcourt.I'll say this again,IMO grass may well be Djokovic's worst surface from what I've seen.
 
History is not repeating itself. Borg was a wimp who walked away from the game because he could not take it anymore. If anything, his style of play is more like Rafa than Roger.
 
Either history repeats, or Federer repeats. We will find out which. That's what they mean when they say, "Be history, or make history".
 
borg doesn't compare to fed

no history, its time for the records to be broken

nadal will win wimbledon eventually anyway

(i still wish sampras had done it, i still consider him as the GOAT on grass no matter what)
 
the pressure is in federer..... he knows nadal is capable to beat him in grass...
and nadal is a better player in grass than previous years....
VAMOS RAFA...
 
Well the part about the pressure on Federer building up is certainly similar. After his AO loss he already mentioned he had created a monster by winning everything 3 years in a row. I doubt however he would stop if he loses the final. He will probably continue just to break Sampras' record and who knows win RG one day.
 
And what makes you think Djokovic would push Fed to five sets on grass? Remember we're talking about grass,not hardcourt.I'll say this again,IMO grass may well be Djokovic's worst surface from what I've seen.
Djoko played very well at Queens. Did you watch his matches there? I have no idea if Djoko would have pushed Fed to 5 sets but he would have made the match more competitive than Safin IMO. (Safin looked like he was wondering what he was doing there! Lol)
 
History is not repeating itself. Borg was a wimp who walked away from the game because he could not take it anymore. If anything, his style of play is more like Rafa than Roger.

Borg's forehand was just like Roger's. I bet if he had played in the modern game, he'd be like Federer except an even better athlete.
 
Borg's forehand was just like Roger's. I bet if he had played in the modern game, he'd be like Federer except an even better athlete.

Very interesting comments. I think Borg had a loopy forehand to keep the ball in without going for winners. Federer has a more aggressive forehand going for winners. However, racquest and strings have changed. It is hard to say what Borg would be like today. Obviously he would have to play aggressive. He would probably have to bulk up too.


Leeyton Hewitt is a modern day Borg.
 
nice article, thanks for sharing it here........it's almost the same situation except that semifinal Borg has to endure as compared to Fed's.......anyway, it's amazing how their path has almost been the same.......
 
Bugs Bunny could walk on air until he learned about gravity.

The moral of the story is, if you don't know about history or if you can ignore it, you can aim for greater things and not be tethered by failures of the past.
 
The difference is that Borg went down relatively easily to Mcenroe while Fed fought untill the end.
 
And a big difference that is. Federer has won me as a true fan today

I was always his fan but yeah I was proud to be his fan with the way he fought like a lion today.It's not always if you lose,it's how you lose as well and Fed fought like a true champion that he is today.I just hope he still has slams left in him,I really do.
 
The difference is that Borg went down relatively easily to Mcenroe while Fed fought untill the end.

did you see the '81 W final? It was very close(Borg had set points for a 2 sets to 1 lead)

I wouldn't automatically assume any match that doesn't go 5 is 'easy'

Had Fed lost in 4, I wouldn't have said that he didn't 'fight until the end.'

Very interesting comments. I think Borg had a loopy forehand to keep the ball in without going for winners.

Realtive to his peers, Borg had a very big forehand(many said that it felt like trying to hit a brick wall) The big serve/big forehand putaway was a very common play for him during his reign at Wimbledon.
 
ya know, the strange thing is, Bjorn Borg's history is corelated into both Federer and Nadal. Federer tied Borg's 5-in a row Wimbledons. and Fed was trying to break Borg's record tonite. (but he failed)
Nadal was trying to win back to back French Open and Wimbledon. the last man to do that feat was Bjorn Borg. (and Nadal succeed)

another thing... i want to tie in John McEnroe with Nadal and Federer too.
McEnroe was the man that dethroned Borg, and prevented him from winning his 6th straight Wimbledon(before losing to Borg the year before). Nadal was the man who prevented Federer from winning his 6th straight Wimbledon(before losing to Fed the year before).
therefore, McEnroe can relate more to Nadal than Fed, after this match.

McEnroe/Borg, Nadal/Federer. you're right, history does repeat itself.
 
Do you believe, like George Santayana, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it? Or do you believe, as did George Bernard Shaw, that all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history?

If Roger Federer wins the 2008 Wimbledon men’s singles he will claim his sixth consecutive Championship. Five consecutive Wimbledon titles is an improbable achievement. Pete Sampras — the most successful player in Grand Slam history — could only win four in a row.

Only one other player has done it: Bjorn Borg, who won five from 1976 till 1980.

Borg claimed his fifth Wimbledon title by beating John McEnroe. Federer claimed his fifth Wimbledon title by beating Rafael Nadal.

Borg took five sets to beat McEnroe. Federer took five sets to beat Nadal. Borg played right-hand, Federer plays right-handed. Borg was the Ice Man, Federer unflappable.

McEnroe was a leftie, Nadal is a leftie. In 1980 Borg was 24 and McEnroe 21. In 2007 Federer was 25 and Nadal 21.

Heading into Wimbledon 1981 Borg was clearly not at his best. He had been troubled by a shoulder injury earlier in the year and suffered shock losses to Victor Pecci and Rolf Gehring.

Heading into Wimbledon 2008 Federer WAS clearly not at his best. He revealed in March that he had been diagnosed with glandular fever and suffered shock losses to Mardy Fish and Radek Stepanek.

If you read the newspaper clippings from 1981, the same phrase keeps re-appearing. It is the idea that Borg has to lose eventually. That the juggernaut cannot roll on. That was certainly McEnroe’s line of thought. Anyone who has read an article this year about Federer will recognise the theme.

History will show that Borg could not win that sixth title. The Swede had already endured a gruelling five-set semi-final against Jimmy Connors just to reach the final. Against McEnroe this time round the results were reversed, the American winning the first of his three Wimbledon titles 6-4 6-7 6-7 4-6.

McEnroe would later recall of the final: “Borg no longer had the same fire, it was like he needed to be relieved of the pressure. I think it had all got too much for him after five years. It seemed as if it was ok in his mind to lose to me.”

Borg would later say: “I was not really that disappointed. Of all the Wimbledon finals I have played that’s the one I should have won. John didn’t play well and if I had been a little more focused I could have won in straight sets. But afterwards I wasn’t upset. I didn’t care. That felt strange. All the other players wanted to beat me and people expected so much of me. I had to be motivated everyday of the week.”

That is the crux of this argument. The crucial similarity, or difference, between Borg and Federer that will decide the fate of the latter’s bid for six Championships. How does Federer deal with every player wanting to beat him and with the high expectations?

As Borg said after watching Federer equal his record: “If he continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think the motivation is the key thing.”

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2008-07-05/200806051212678371720.html

=======================================================
What an interesting article!

Threre is nothing in common between both of them and their careers.Much less for those who lived Borg' s era
 
Back
Top