Then again the first three wins of Panatta, including the first FO win, all came in 1973 when Borg was 16/17. Not denying that Panatta was a tough match up for Borg, but saying that Borg was scared stretches it.
I cannot see how the competition outside Nadal is so “ridiculous”. Sure Nadal is the biggest obstacle you can get, but apart from him, this era was not exactly known for a lot of strong clay courters, meaning that runner-up trophies were likely easier to achieve than in the 90s. I still have Djokovic behind Lendl and Mats and, depending on the criteria you apply, also behind Kuerten.
Don’t think we have to speculate much here, Borg generally owned Connors once he entered his prime. Connors scored some wins early on until the mid-70s against an already very strong but for most of the times still not prime Borg. Starting from 1978, Borg won the last ten matches until 1981, and given that Jimmy still won Wimbledon and the USO in 82, and had his famous USO 91 run even 10 years after Borg left the game, one can safely assume that Jimmy was not way past his best in those matches. The clay H2H you mentioned was on green clay which is different from FO clay and even here Borg won the last three matches. Connors may have scored a surprise win a la Panatta early on, but no way he beats Borg on red clay in the late 70s. Borg even owned him at Wimbledon during that times where Jimmy was better (and Borg slightly worse) than at the French.
Not that I disagree. I think the only issue I had with your initial post was the wording of “.. in the mid or late 70s”. 74 was Connor’s best year while Borg was still not prime yet, so here I can see Jimmy theoretically having his chances (<50% though imho). In the late 70s however, I cannot see it happening at all.
Especially me bc he's the GOAT
Right to still need more
1978 was not 1976 or 1977.Borg skipped RG 77 to play WTT because WTT offered a sh*tload of money.
Borg beat Pannatta in the most hostile environment in Davis Cup in the 5th set in 1978.
In 1978, Bjorn Borg, the most serene of players, beat Italian idol Adriano Panatta 1-6, 6-3, 6-1, 4-6, 6-3 in the final in Rome. It was a remarkable performance considering he was not only booed and hissed for three hours, but had coins fired at him.
Crowds can cost players games
A men's tennis match in Rome the other day reminded me of the sport's bad old days.www.stuff.co.nz
So please stop making up stuff like Borg was afraid of Panatta.
And this Davis Cup rubber was on clay as well. At the time of 77 FO, they were 5-5 on clay with three of Panattas wins coming in 73 when Borg was 16 years old. Did Panatta give Borg more problems than he should have, given their difference in accomplishments? Yes. Would Borg be hoping for Panatta to be on his side of the draw? No. But he was definitely not scared of him and would have been the big favorite against him in 77. This was maybe something similar to the Nalbandian - Fed rivalry. A tough match up but nothing more.
Forgive my ignorance but what was it about Panatta's game that caused Borg so many problems?
Looks to me like if there was a blue clay slam, Federer would be leading.
Good question actually. He was an attacking/serve and volley player, even on clay, and while this alone is not necessarily an explanation on why he troubled Borg, it would basically be the only strategy that could work against Borg, as nobody could beat him from the baseline on clay. On top, Panatta was in general very talented (also had good ground strokes) and seen as a bit of an underachiever. What is also important is that by his own words, he wasn’t afraid of Borg’s game at all, the two were also very good friends which might have added to his confidence when playing him. This is also a little similar to the Nalby - Federer situation again. I read somewhere, that the fact that Nalby mostly beat Fed in juniors and at the beginning of their careers, had built an inner confidence in him (and likewise respect in Federer), that led to him at least believing in himself that he could win, even when Fed had already established himself as the way better player. The mental aspect shouldn’t be underestimated here especially not when playing ATGs, Krajicek was also said to be one of the few players who played Pete with a lot of confidence that he can win.
Except those who have to play him....Nadal is irrelevant on the majority of the tour. Nobody cares if hes still playing.
Panatta was an atypical clay courter, he served and volleyed a lot, very athletic, Borg didn't like attacking players that didn't give him any rhythm, you gave
Straight setted by Fritz & FAA, lol.
Do you think Fritz and FAA thought that would be the result before the match, or for that matter, during the match? Do you think they were worried in the back of their mind that he might start firing on all cylinders and come back? How many people do you think thought the result of the matches would be what they were?
Don't try and make and argument over 3 wins that even though psychologically counted were not the deciding factor in the fear equation.
A third RG would make it a pretty strong case.
Only as**** and sell-outs oppose the two identities. We are Muslims, no tribalism in our religion.
So Arabs and Nigerians are the same? No tribalism?
As I said it before, Djokovic is still active, and there is no telling what he can accomplish in the next 2 or 3 years.A third RG would make it a pretty strong case.
This is the difference between reading about a subject and living it in everyday life.
