I am not a fan of counting up how many rounds the players won at the Slam events over the course of the year, but if it's done the defeats should count. Borg's record was 17-2. Connors was 11-1.
It is very, very similar to 1975 when Connors had a 17-3 record at the Slams, while Ashe was 10-1. If you use the method that you used for '76, then Connors has 7 more wins than Ashe, and that is the equivalent of a Slam title. But it can't work that way: obviously Connors can't be #1 if he never broke through at a big event.
Similarly in 1983, Lendl won more GS rounds (he was 21-4) than McEnroe (18-3), Wilander (18-3) or Connors (14-2), but I'm sure nobody would choose Lendl as having the best performance in the majors that year (which is what we're debating: whether Connors or Borg had the better performance in the big events in '76; we're agreed that Connors was #1 when you look at everything).
Ah but there is clear difference between 1975 or 1983 and 1976. In 1975, Ashe won a slam and the most prestigious one at that, while Connors didn’t. Plus no title that Connors won was as important as Ashe’s next biggest title.
In 1983 McEnroe won a major and 3 out of the 6 biggest tournaments in 1983, and Connors and Wilander each won a major, while Lendl failed to win each any of the 6 biggest tournaments.
In 1976, we’re comparing players who split the two biggest events, but Borg did better at the event he didn’t win than Connors. He also had a better record at the third biggest event than Connors as well. So when comparing two players that each won major, there records at other majors has to carry some weight, as one of the dividing factors.
I have no problem with saying that Borg won 6 more GS matches than Connors did, but two things have to be added. First, he took one more loss than Connors did, in the Slams (it's the same thing as looking at the win/loss record for the entire year).
Yes Borg suffered one more defeat, but I don’t see how that should count against him when he entered the one extra event in the first place. That would be punishing him for turning up at RG which wouldn’t make sense. Also I don’t think one extra defeat at a major carries the same weight as 6 extra victories, especially additional QF and SF victories.
Also looking at win-loss records and percentages across the entire year is a bit different as that is a way of normalising players vast records adjusted for the total number of events they entered, particularly more minor ones.
However the majors (well the big three in that era) are a more equalised and standardised benchmark for two players, so I think looking at the number of wins accumulated at those events, regardless of participation, makes more sense.
Secondly, Borg got that edge in wins over Connors by entering a tournament that Connors did not enter, and winning four early rounds there -- something that any Top Ten player can do. In a contest between #1 and #2, I don't think winning those extra rounds constitutes any kind of significant edge.
But it’s not Borg’s problem that Connors didn’t enter that event, a very prestigious one at that. No-one forced Connors to skip RG in 1976, it was his own choice, and he said no. That was his problem and Borg (nor the eventual champion Panatta) can’t be penalised for that.
I also think perspective needs to be shown. Winning 4 rounds at major is not some irrelevant achievement. Tennis was and is a tough, competitive and global sport, and not just about the big name players. Those wins shouldn’t be discounted, as Borg won them to reach the last 8 at RG and at least give himself a chance of winning the title before Panatta ended that. Connors didn’t even try to put himself in that position at all. I think every win should be considered in its own merit.
A difference of 4 match wins between two players at a big event is still an edge.
If Borg had at least gone to the RG final, that would be something. Even so it would not be performing up to his seeding (he was top-seeded there), but a final-round appearance at least is significant. A QF finish is something inferior to the level of a #1 or #2 player, which is why I'm finding it strange for it to be used as something that makes one of the top two players superior to the other.
Again perspective needs to be shown. It can be easy to think that getting to the last 8 in a 128 player event is simple, when it actually isn’t. Coming through a succession of best of 5 set matches is not easy. Often players don’t live to up their seedings in tennis events, that happens a lot. It’s an individual sport with tough competition. But it’s not like Borg lost to some unknown player at the event or in his QF. He lost to an elite, world-class clay court player who was in great form (and was a difficult match-up for him). I think it is in incredibly harsh to write off any tournament where a player doesn’t live up to their seeding as a failure, as that is dismissing their competition and the overall field.
TBH I find it strange to write off a QF run as insignificant when it is more difficult than people may think. You have to win 7 matches to win a major, and Borg won more than half of that amount at RG, so solid progress and a decent tournament run. Getting to the last 8 is still a much better feat than losing early, and I think is also a far better achievement than not playing at all.
I think it's right that Federer’s QF and SF streaks received so much praise and attention, as those runs meant he was constantly reaching the latter stages of slams time after time without fail (when a few shock, early round defeats in that period would have been perfectly acceptable and understandable).
I acknowledge that there will be many different opinions on how to judge DNP's. Maybe it should be debated more. As I said, I can't see not playing an event as comparable to a second-round loss.
Well to me it’s quite simple, to try at something and not succeed (in sport or in life for that matter) is to better than not try at all, whether it is due to rage like Jimbo, ambivalence or cowardice. I don’t see how not entering an important tournament out of choice could possibly be better than making the effort to enter it and register some progress.
That’s why I respect someone like Felix Mantilla (one of the biggest fighters I’ve ever seen in the sport) who entered Wimbledon year after year only to lose early, more than a lot of the other clay court players in the 90s who regularly skipped it. Similarly I think that Lendl’s 1982 season and Wimbledon resume would have looked better had he entered Wimbledon and lost in the 1st week to a lower ranked banana skin opponent, than ducking it to play golf.
There were too many voluntary absences from the Slams in this period, such as Laver and Rosewall skipping RG every year -- and I can't see those men as having blemishes on their records comparable to second-round losses.
True but when those players had the opportunity to enter RG in their primes and weren’t banned for one reason or another, they did. I would say that those guys skipping the event when they were past their primes isn’t quite the same as Connors skipping it for 4 years in the heart of his prime.
But again neither Laver or Rosewall should be given any dispensation for choosing not to play at the event if you are comparing certain seasons they compiled with those of other players’.
I do think of course that this is an entirely different situation to the AO of course which struggled badly for numerous years and wasn’t even close to being one of the 4 most important events for a period.
That's not really true, because we're doing the same thing for Borg at RG and Connors at Wimbledon. If it weakens anyone, it weakens both equally; the distance between the two men would remain the same.
Not really. Borg would still have 2 significant major runs that year, at Wimbledon and US Open so both of the 2 biggest events, and Connors only one, at the US Open but not Wimbledon, so that weakens Connors’s case more than Borg’s.
