Match Stats/Report - McEnroe vs Borg, Wimbledon final, 1981

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe beat Bjorn Borg 4-6, 7-6(1), 7-6(4), 6-4 in the Wimbledon final, 1981 on grass

It was the first of McEnroe’s 3 titles at the event and Borg’s last match at it. Borg had won the previous 5 editions. The two had played the final the previous year also. The two would shortly after play the US Open final, with McEnroe again winning

McEnroe won 160 points, Borg 154

McEnroe serve-volleyed off all bar 3 serves (1 first, 2 seconds) , Borg off vast majority of first serves

(Note: I’ve deduced or confidently, carefully guessed serve type for a large number of points)

Serve Stats
McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (101/164) 62%
- 1st serve points won (77/101) 76%
- 2nd serve points won (31/63) 49%
- Aces 9 (1 second serve, 1 not clean - bad bounce related), Service Winners 2 (1 bad bounce related)
- Double Faults 10
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (57/164) 35%

Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (78/150) 52%
- 1st serve points won (54/78) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (44/72) 61%
- Aces 10 (1 possibly not clean)
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (36/150) 24%

Serve Patterns
McEnroe served...
- to FH 36%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 4%

Borg served...
- to FH 18%
- to BH 73%
- to Body 8%

Return Stats
McEnroe made...
- 110 (35 FH, 75 BH), including 16 runaround FHs, 1 runaround BH & 16 return-approaches
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 26 Errors, comprising...
- 12 Unforced (1 FH, 11 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 4 return-approach attempts
- 14 Forced (3 FH, 11 BH)
- Return Rate (110/146) 75%

Borg made...
- 97 (34 FH, 63 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 10 Winners (2 FH, 8 BH)
- 46 Errors, all forced...
- 46 Forced (22 FH, 24 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- Return Rate (97/154) 63%

Break Points
McEnroe 2/15 (7 games)
Borg 2/15 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
McEnroe 64 (7 FH, 11 BH, 16 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 22 BHV, 7 OH)
Borg 47 (9 FH, 18 BH, 10 FHV, 8 BHV, 2 OH)

McEnroe had 40 from serve-volley points -
- 23 first volleys (10 FHV, 12 BHV, 1 OH)
- 17 second 'volleys' (5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 7 BHV, 4 OH)

- 3 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

- 14 'passes' - 2 returns (2 BH) & 12 regular (4 FH, 8 BH)
- BH returns - 2 dtl
- regular FHs - 3 cc, 1 dtl
- regular BHs - 4 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out/dtl, 1 lob, 1 net chord dribbler

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 net chord dribbler return
- regular BH - 1 cc slice (bad bouncing)

Borg had 11 from serve-volley points -
- 7 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 4 second volleys (2 FHV, 2 BHV)

- 28 passes - 10 returns (2 FH, 8 BH) & 18 regular (6 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- FH returns - 2 dtl
- BH returns - 2 cc, 3 dtl, 3 inside-in
- regular FHs - 3 cc (1 net chord clipper), 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 dtl/inside-out at net
- regular BHs - 4 cc, 3 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-out/dtl, 1 longline/down-the-middle (that opponent left)
- both volleys were inside-out from no-man's land - the FHV a swinging shot

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
McEnroe 61
- 25 Unforced (3 FH, 10 BH, 6 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)
- 36 Forced (9 FH, 12 BH, 9 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 Back-to-Net)... the back-to-net was at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.8

Borg 35
- 12 Unforced (4 FH, 1 BH, 5 FHV, 2 BHV)... with 1 BH at net
- 23 Forced (10 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50.8

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
McEnroe was...
- 110/168 (65%) at net, including...
- 96/140 (69%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 66/90 (73%) off 1st serve and...
- 30/50 (60%) off 2nd serve
---
- 9/16 (56%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated

Borg was...
- 55/84 (65%) at net, including...
- 39/58 (67%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 38/57 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 0/2 forced back

Match Report
The best of the Borg-McEnroe Slam finals; both players hovering around their best and match stays neck and neck from start to finish. As such, there’s very little in the result. Something between a point here,a point there and the odd crucial game go into determining the result. McEnroe serves and volleys beautifully, Borg makes some fantastic passes from poor looks. The flip Borg volley vs McEnroe pass contest is less glamourous but ends up just as even as the other. Borg dominates baseline rallies. McEnroe is clutch, but plain old luck is as much a factor in his getting over the line

Mac wins 6 more points, while serving14 more. Or Mac wins 50.96% of points, serving 52.2% of them
In words, virtually same number of points won, Mac serving significantly more - suggesting an edge for Borg. That’s not really true. The gap in points served is due to outlier 18 point game, the important part of of which is Mac holds. Make that ‘critical’ rather than merely ‘important’. The 4 break points he saves are also set points for the third set

Earlier in the set, Borg is up a break. McEnroe breaks back in time in a game where he has winners from a net chord dribbling ‘pass’ and a BH slice that takes a bad bounce. Those common phrases don’t’ do justice to the shots in question. The first winner doesn’t just dribble, it completely dies on the ground and the the second doesn’t just take a bad bounce, it shoots along the ground and if there were a line of ants in its path, would have squashed the lot of them. The lucky part

Mac also plays 2 virtually flawless tiebreaks. His best serving, his best passing. The clutch thing

Break points - both 2/15 (Mac has them in 7 games, Borg 6). By set -
First - Mac 0/4, Borg 1/4 (both 1 game)
Second - Mac 0/5 (3 games), Borg 0/3 (2 games)…. Mac serves a 10 point game besides
Third - Mac 1/2 (1 game), Borg 1/6 (2 games)… with 4 of Borg’s being set points
Fourth - Mac 1/4 (2 games), Borg 0/2 (1 game)
Neck and neck

There are both similarities and differences between this and the more celebrated ‘80 final between the pair.
While this is neck & neck all through, the ‘80 final featured 1 or the other player having clearly better of things over different parts of match
The two matches are similar in featuring tense, long games (usually, ends up as a hold) with both players elevating their game
The quality of tennis is better here, particularly the volleying

Mac serve-volleys virtually always and his serve is the most important positive shot in the match. High in count of 62% and he’s got Borg hopping and lunging about on the return. He backs it up with beautiful volleying, dispatching winners off both wings at will. 46 of them, to be exact - just 1 less than Borg has from all shots (passes, volleys, groundies in baseline rallies). Borg though ekes out counter-play with some amazing passing shots from bad positions and some punishing second returns

Borg serve-volleys off first serves, stays back on seconds. Low 52% first serves in but he wins bulk of points behind both serves
His volleying doesn’t inspire confidence. If Borg the passer met Borg the volleyer, it’d be the former that was licking his lips, but just as Borg’s no Mac on the volley, Mac is no Borg on the pass

Remarkably, net points winning rate are identical 65% - Mac 110/168, Borg 55/84

And Borg dominates baseline rallies at about the same rate. He wins 61% second serve points. Sans small 4 doubles, exactly 65% - same as both players success at net. Sans Mac’s chip-charge returns and a sole serve-volley, 71%. Mac missing a lot of second returns plays big part in that
4 baseline UEs for Borg. Mac has 13. Borg hitting hard, not missing, pinning Mac back and able to take net via his hitting advantage (he rallies to net 26 times, Mac 12). Mac keeping the rallies going for some time, mixing up his shots but some combo of beaten down and outlasted in the baseline game

Gist - things are very close, the tennis is excellent, both players are clutch. With things so finely balanced, a drop or two of luck is enough to tilt things Mac’s way

McEnroe’s serve game
Mac serve-volleys off 99% first serves (all but once) and 96% off second (all but twice)
62% first serves is very good for him

Borg returns substantially different against the two serves, unlike previous year
He’s well back to take first serve. Coupled with Mac hitting wide spots, that leaves Borg lunging about to return and/or dragged well outside court. Lot of get-return-back-anyway-how going on
He hops forward to take second serves and looks to hit flatter. Often pointedly going for dtl or otherwise wide winners. He’s still good 2-3 paces behind baseline at point of contact. Mac takes first returns earlier by contrast

Its Borg’s general way of returning serve-volleyers; well back position, pointedly looking for wide winners when he’s thoroughly covered the ball and when he hasn’t, content to put the return in play over the net down the center. He tends to prioritize consistency over force, giving server room to mess up on routine volleys - and he’s a great scamperer to pass against any imperfect volley

Not powerful return to draw weak volley and yield good look pass
But normal return to leave routine volley (when he's doing well, tricky) and wait for the UEs and make do with running passing shots
Here, he’s a little more aggressive with the second return. By his standard, taking it ‘early’ and hitting flat. Still puts a good few cozily above the net

 

[Waspsting]

Mac with 10 aces/service winners from first serves (2 are bad bounce related) or 9.9% of first serves and 10 double faults or 16% second serves
Serve-volleying, wins 73% first serves, 60% seconds
The aces bump first serve points won to 76%, the doubles knocks second serve points down to 49% (he also has 1 ace)
The aces not doing much (Borg has same amount at higher rate of 13% first serves), the doubles though substantial (Borg has 6% rate)

For starters, the placement of Mac’s serve has pushed Borg beyond his well-back comfort zone. Well-back against first serves, he’s lunging sideways for almost everything. Very rarely can he get a good return off. So much so that it’d be worth considering moving up to return and cut off the angles Mac uses expertly
That would be so outside Borg’s norm that only God knows how he’d do at it. He’s returned second serves quite well, but still lost 60% serve-volley points on those. And the firsts would still be better placed

Way he goes about things, he’s largely relying on double faults and volley UEs to make inroads. For every difficult first volley Mac has to make, there are 3-4 routine or easy ones above net. The difficult ones are wide more than low, which is also Borg’s general way. Mac plays virtually 0 first half-volleys all match (probably literally so)

Double faults come, tanking second serve points won figure. Just the price of strong enough second serving to come in behind. The UEs are rarer. Mac volleys with beautiful precision and good enough consistency

Statistically, Borg seems to have a bad FH return day
Faces 36% serves to FH, 60% to BH
Has 19 FH FEs (+ 3 runraound ones), 24 BH
Also just 2 FH return winners, 8 BHs
Its not really true. Serves to Borg’s FH are particularly wide, while BH gets disproportionately high lot of the readily coverable ones. If FH received similar serves, would expect it to strike better returns than BH does

Standing closer than usual for second serves cuts down Borg’s scope to runaround FH return and he’s only got 3
35% unreturend serves for Mac. With typical return being above net, that’s good to be holding

Mac on the ‘volley’ -
- 46 winners (16 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 22 BHV, 7 OH)
- 12 UEs (6 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)
- 15 FEs (9 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 Back-to-net)

Borg on the pass -
- 10 return winners (2 FH, 8 BH) at 63% return rate
- 18 winners in play (6 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 19 FEs (10 FH, 9 BH)

The volley winners stand out for being high. Of those from serve-volley, 22 are first volleys, 17 seconds

Of the UEs, 3 are attacking shots, 9 winner attempts. Sign of facing pretty easy stuff. Mac doesn’t strain to be pointedly aggressive with the volley, but much of what he’s faced with is cozily above net and there to be putaway. The contrast with Borg’s volleying is stark (more on that later). Borg unable to present tricky passes dipping down to net level or just below, but usually, above net
The FEs tend to be wide volleys more than low ones
BHV better than FHV but both good

Not a bad lot of return winners from Borg and his winners to FEs ratio would be great for good look passes. As Mac volleys, he gets bad look ones, so its doubly great. Some amazing, unlikely passes by Borg on the move or with the smallest gap to go through, and good lot of his FEs are close to hopeless

Still, Mac’s volley winners dominates all things. Some anticipation involved in moving sideways for second volleys, but mostly, routine stuff. And very neatly efficient in dispatching volleys. Both punches them away to corners and drops them dead. Typical, high end volleying from Mac

Mac’s serve games in a few nutshells -
- good in count, great placement of first serves. He’s got Borg going sideways with almost every one
- Borg, by his uniquely low standard, taking second returns early. About 2-3 paces behind baseline and hitting them flat
- Borg taking on return-winners dtl much of the time when he’s got the serve covered. Otherwise, looking to put it in play without undue force (especially height) and make Mac put it away
- Mac putting them away beautifully and with variety. The testing ones are wide more than low. He’s not great at making those, but they’re minority. Putting away what’s there to putaway is more important
- Borg scampering about to pass against strong, aggressive volleys. Low percentage looks and he makes some fabulous winning passes from them. In context of a bulk of points ending with Mac dismissing routine stuff away for winners

Borg's serve game
Borg serves overall average, there’s good and bad to Mac’s returning, the volley-pass contest that follows is not high end and Borg dominates baseline rallies

Mac returns all serves from around the baseline. Borg with powerful first serves. More powerful than Mac’s, though not as well placed. Second serves are average, with low double faults the positive for Borg

Just 52% first serves in is potentially problematic
Healthy 10 aces or 13% of first serves. For Borg a good figure. He needs good first serves and delivers them, but probably not worth that low an in count. Power and Mac’s early position leads to jarred returns, even with ball covered
Just 4 double faults or 6% of second serves

Borg serve-volleys 84% off first serves
Wins 67% serve-volleying, 55% staying back
Second serve-volleys just once and wins the point. Wins 61% second serve points in all, which largely averts the potential problem of low in count

24% unreturned rate is low, given substantial aces

Mac doing well of return consistency against first serves. Which is promising, given Borg’s less than confidence inspiring volleys. Unlike other way around, making Borg make the volley is likely to lead to good look passing chances (and draw a few UEs)
Mac not doing so well on same front against second serves

His missed returns breakdown is interesting
- aced 10 times
- 14 return FEs
- 12 return UEs (10 of them second serves)

Having UEs and FEs so close speaks to him either returning the tough stuff well, not doing so against the ordinary stuff or some combo of the two
The return UEs might be worth it if he’s aggressive. Which he is choosily is, but most of the actual UEs come are normal returns, not aggressive ones

Borg on the volley -
- 19 winners (9 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 8 UEs (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH at net)… 6 attacking, 2 winner-attempts
- 4 FEs (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH)

Mac on the pass -
- 2 BH return winners, and in play…
- 12 winners (4 FH, 8 BH)
- 19 FEs (7 FH, 12 BH)

Strange mix to Borg’s volleying. He doesn’t face much that’s difficult but is good at making them. Low stuff and more powerful stuff, he usually manages to put in play
Makes some very nice, aggressive volleys from slightly under net
Its on the easy stuff above net that he’s not convincing. Including even putaway easy stuff
He punches them down center of court, leaving fair look passes
It’s a step up from the ‘80 final, when he’d been plonking them to leave easily lined up passes
8 UEs is considerable, about 2 winners for each UEs isn’t good either. Contrast to Mac with about 4 winners per UE. Some of those UEs are terrible

To add to weirdness, Mac’s passing somewhat mirrors Borg’s volleying
That’s a pretty good winners to FEs ratio on the pass. Made up of making the more difficult passes and tending to miss the better looks
Given routine, net high volley first up, Mac gets about as good passing looks as he can hope for. Including when Borg hits groundstroke for his first ‘volley’. Balls not slow, but he can cover it readily around center of court and take his shot

In baseline rallies -
- Winners - Mac 4 (3 FH, 1 BH)
- Errors forced - Borg 2
- UEs - Mac 13 (3 FH, 10 BH), Borg 4 FH

2 of Mac’s winners are a net chord dribbler and the critical, no bounce shot mentioned earlier, so luck aside, both with 2 aggressively ended point

UEs get to how pure baseline rallies go. They’re good length rallies for grass. Borg’s powerful and leads with FH cc’s to Mac’s BH. Strong enough to keep Mac in reactive, bordering on defensive position. Mac pushing, slicing, driving… in a word, mixing up his shots, but whatever he does, he’s the one more likely to give up the error eventually. In nutshell, Borg commanding and strong in bossing action

Rallying to net points - Mac 5/12, Borg 16/26
Not just bossing baseline, but making use of that bossing to take net and finish aggressively from Borg. While importantly, keeping Mac from doing the same

Not much Mac can do when baseline rally gets underway. Borg’s just better than him from the back
What he can do is attack with the return, and Borg’s low in count opens door wide for it
Mac’s 9/16 return-approaching and has 4 further return errors trying. That comes to trying on 29% of Borg’s live second serve points
29% is high for wooden racquet Mac (it’d be a drop in the lake for graphite Mac). Higher than ‘80 and ‘82 finals and the ‘80 semi

He’s on look out for chances. Moves over and up to push return in play and doesn’t come in if he gauges return isn’t deep enough. Depth is the key here. His return-approaches are firm pushes, not chips

9/16 points won is high when one is losing just 39% second return points. Even 9/20 (that is, with the return errors counted) is. He’s good enough baseliner that wouldn’t feel absolute need for it. Just so happens Borg is pointedly better from the back

 

[Waspsting]

Would probably have done Mac good to look to return-approach more. Winning rate would go down, but as baseline rallies go, he doesn’t have much to lose. Mac finishing the match with 2 perfectly played return-approaches ending with winners (a little unfairly) brings home the point, but noting that constant return-approaching wasn’t part of wooden racquet Mac’s game. Its easier said than done too - and Borg’s passing is formidable obstacle. More formidable than rallying with him? - probably not

Gist - hefty first serving from Borg at low in count, serve-volleying off first serves, staying back on seconds
- He handles the powerful and low stuff well on the volley, without facing much of it
- He’s not convincing on the routine stuff (fails to putaway volleys, leaves fair look pass chances, and not small number of misses), but mostly good enough over Mac’s pass
- Borg bosses the baseline action
- Mac’s return-approaches are potential game changer. He’s not overly adventurous with it, but it proves to be his most effective weapon in return games

Match Progression
Match starts as it continues: closely contested. Borg with just 37% first serves in in the first set (Mac has 64%), but bossing the baseline on his second serve points, while winning perfect 11/11 first serve ones
Comfy holds for both players, bar one game each
Mac serves 28 points, Borg 30 in the set and break points read Mac 0/4, Borg 1/4 (both players having them in 1 game)

On his first return point of the match, Mac chip-charge returns nicely but completely misjudges the high pass rejoinder, leaves it and it land well in for Borg’s first winner
A much more precise BH cc pass winner from Borg in his second service game, with Mac taking net

Borg breaks for 3-2 in a deuce game and its mostly due to Mac wobbling. A double and 2 easy BHV misses from Mac. Borg helps with a brilliant running BH dtl pass winner from ankle height and a runaround FH return that he dips wide to Mac’s feet low to force BHV error

Borg second serve-volleys for only time in match to putaway a first ‘volley’ FH at net winner in holding for 5-3

Serve out on the next go around gets difficult. 4/12 first serves from Borg and for once, Mac makes most of it. Winners from FH cc, OH and a winning BH dtl pass gets him to 15-40
Borg controls the baseline rally to draw a BH UE on the move. He ends up having to save 3 more break points (2 with strong first serves, 1 by outlasting Mac for another BH UE), before finally wrapping up with a second volley FHV winner

No breaks in the second set, but it features the closest contest in the match between server and returner for both players. Both servers clutching to hold throughout, the two staying neck and neck. Borg’s indecisive volleying opens doors for Mac

5/13 break point games of the match occur in the set, and break points read Mac 0/5 (3 games), Borg 0/3 (2 games). With Mac having a 10-point hold besides. Mac serves 43 points for his 6 holds, Borg 45

Trade long holds to open. Borg quick as flash to run-down-drop-volley at net and and dab a FH inside-out pass winner away from up court to reach 0-30 to start. Mac stays one step ahead of facing break point, but a couple of doubles later on takes the game to 10 points. Borg missing 2 second returns, going for wide winners to end it

Borg’s first hold takes 14 points and he has to save 2 break points. Mac, who didn’t have a pass winner in first set, has 4 in the game (BH lob, BH cc, FH cc and BH dtl return), but Borg still dominating the baseline (both to draw errors or come in)

Another trade of tough holds in moving from 2-1 to 3-2
Borg saves a break point with a FH cc pass winner against a chip-charge return; if it was in, it was in by a hair. He holds in 8 points
Mac escapes 15-40 next game. Average serves on both break points (1 first, 1 second), Borg unable to make strong return to one and missing the next

A third trade of tough holds in moving from 3-3 to 4-4
Mac saving break point with a very wide, winning serve
He’s got Borg staying back off first serve for first time game after and more importantly, 2 break points
Seems to have got the winning, wide volley away chip-charging returning on the first, but Borg with a desperate, lunge pass that goes wide enough to force FHV error
Mac works his way to net on the second and has good look at a drop FHV winner, but nets it

No more break points, but not easy holds either til the tiebreak
Flawless one from Mac. All first serves, 2 drawing errors and 2 setting up easy first volley winners. Borg’s low in count finally catches up with him. Just 1/4 in the ‘breaker, misses a putaway easy FHV on his only serve-volley point, Mac takes net to win 2 other return points (once after lobbing Borg back to baseline. 7-1 Mac and all square

Set 3 is the maker-breaker of the ultimate result; Borg has better of it and combo of luck and clutch play sees Mac hang in before snagging another exquisitely played tiebreak

Borg breaks for 3-1, despite a bad call where what should be a return winner being called out. Knocks away BH cc pass winner, forces wide BHV error, while Mac misses routine FHV to start game and double faults to end it

Mac breaks back for 3-4 by same 30 scoreline, despite missing a high putaway BHV chip-charge returning to start the game. Its difficult to describe rest of game as anything other than lucky for Mac. Net chord roll over ‘pass’ and no-bouncing (forget ‘bad bouncing’) BH slice go for winners for him. Borg not helping with 1/6 first serves

Mac’s next 2 holds take 12 and 18 points. He faces 4 break/set points on the latter. Great game from both players, with just 1 volley UE and a double fault and remaining 16 points ending aggressively. Borg’s best look on break point is a routine second return that puts in play well above net and not wide, and Mac easily dispatches the BHV winner

Highlights of the game include a running, wrong footing BH cc pass winner from Borg early on, and a lively open baseline rally which sees Borg take net and come away with a FHV winner
His 4 break/set points all come before Mac has a game point, but Mac keeps his nose ahead after

Tiebreak soon after. Borg better in this one forces Mac to be - and Mac’s up to it
On serve at 4-3, Mac pulls off 2 of his best passes of the match. Shots Borg himself would be proud of. A running, perfectly angled FH cc to ball that had got low and a inch perfect BH inside-out/dtl one, with no room to work with. Both go for winners to leave Mac 6-3 up with 2 serves to come. He takes the second of them with routine second FHV winner. He serves 59 points in the set to Borg’s 39

Borg continues making returning in-roads at start of the fourth. Gets to 30 in opening game with 2 passing winners (BH cc return and no-man’s land inside-out BHV)

And has 15-40 on next go around (back to back BH return-pass winners and winningly wide FH return getting him there)
Can’t make the return against ordinary first serve on first break point
Mac with a couple of neat volleys to thwart the next, off an above average first serve serve

Set stays on serve, with both players playing well as we reach business end of it
Borg survives 15-40 to hold for 4-4. Horrendous putaway FHV miss from him early in the game
On first break point, Mac’s return dribbles over the net chord and Borg’s cat quick to dab it up with delicately and comes away with a second BHV winner, with Mac also at net. Mac’s got an even look at FH pass on the second, but misses. Mac with a poor pair of volleys chip-charge returning to end the game (not doing much with easy FHV and missing a smash)

It’s a half-&-half game that ends things next go around
From 30-0 up, Borg makes a hash of a BH at net first ‘volley’. Its almost the only one he’s faced all match that bounces up nicely for him. The ones under net, he’d eased over the net around middle of court, but he tries to lash this one wide for winner and misses. And he misses a routine BHV point after

Mac raises break/match point with a chip-charge return, with Borg having an even look at BH pass
Typical, central volley from Borg on it that’s enough to win the point
Mac wraps up with 2 more chip-charge returns - dismissing winners with OH and a lovely dtl FHV on them

Summing up, high end tennis, fair counter-play for returners and two great players staying neck & neck from stop to start. Not much more one could ask for

McEnroe with excellent placed first serves at high in count. And he volleys beautifully behind all his serves. Uphill work for Borg to gain counter-play but he manages, with above personal norm aggressive second returning and some amazing passing shots from bad positions

Borg with with bigger first serve, but not as well placed and at low in count. His volleying and McEnroe’s passing are a couple categories below the other way around, but the contest remains just as close as the other. Borg dominating baseline rallies, McEnroe threatening with choice return-approaches

All comes out virtually even. Clutch play and serving from McEnroe stand out - but even then, he needs a shot or two of luck to gain the result

Stats for Borg’s semi-final with Jimmy Connors - Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Connors, Wimbledon semi-final, 1981 | Talk Tennis
Stats for Borg’s first round with Peter Rennert - Duel Match Stats/Reports - Connors vs Stockton & Borg vs Rennert, Wimbledon first rounds, 1981 | Talk Tennis

 

[JasonZ]

borgs tiebreak record in slam finals is really bad and no way he was a mental giant with such a record.

 

[Slingshot]

Never watched this match. I definitely should.

 

[BringBackWood]

Yep, never understood why the previous year's final got all the praise, and 81 is basically forgotten. Here we got 4 excellent high quality sets. In 80 you got 2 such sets, the other 3 ranged from very poor to not good. You would think Mr Mcenroe, not exactly known for being modest or shy, would have corrected this long ago. For consistent quality including in pressure moments, I rank this as amongst the best Wimbledon finals of all time. I remember reading that Borg said he thought Mac played better the previous year. Given that Borg isn't the type to gratuitously belittle his opponents, I think this shows how one spell-binding period of play can warp people's view of an entire match.

 

[WCT]

Another match I was wondering when you'd do. The winners to ue stats sure seem to support your view that this was their highest quality Slam final. Very surprised to see that Borg stayed back on 11 first serves. Maybe not against Connors, but against just about anyone else, Mcenroe included. Another case of memory not matching reality. Damn, that is a lot of net winners from Mcenroe. I mean for a 4 set match. Interesting how you feel Borg's returns were not particularly low. And Mcenroe 10% higher on serve I don't think would bode well for Borg.

Given how high your regard is, I may have to check this one out again. One of my more vivid memories, after the match is Bud Collins attempting to talk to Borg. Borg walks past him telling Collins to talk to the champion. Pretty much what Mcenroe did the next year.

 

[Mustard]

borgs tiebreak record in slam finals is really bad and no way he was a mental giant with such a record.

Borg was a mental titan at Wimbledon, until the 1981 final when he lost his knack of winning the crucial points on that particular day. Borg had 4 set points in the third set, and failed to take any of them.

 

[Mustard]

Yep, never understood why the previous year's final got all the praise, and 81 is basically forgotten. Here we got 4 excellent high quality sets. In 80 you got 2 such sets, the other 3 ranged from very poor to not good. You would think Mr Mcenroe, not exactly known for being modest or shy, would have corrected this long ago. For consistent quality including in pressure moments, I rank this as amongst the best Wimbledon finals of all time. I remember reading that Borg said he thought Mac played better the previous year. Given that Borg isn't the type to gratuitously belittle his opponents, I think this shows how one spell-binding period of play can warp people's view of an entire match.

Because the 1980 Wimbledon final has a lot more drama. McEnroe was outplaying Borg for nearly 2 whole sets, and then Borg struck at the perfect moment and suddenly it was 1 set all. Borg then takes control, leads 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 4-4, and then breaks the McEnroe serve. Borg serves for the match, goes up 40-15 and 2 championship points only for McEnroe to win 4 straight points. It goes to the tiebreak in the fourth set, with Borg failing with another 5 championship points (7 in total), while McEnroe wins the tiebreak 18-16 and makes it 2 sets all on his 7th set point. Borg started the first game of the fifth set still thinking about the fourth set tiebreak, and went 0-30 down. From that point on, Borg only lost 1 more point on his serve, a volley error that he hit long and had 5 love service games in that fifth set. McEnroe got out of a 0-40 and an advantage on one of his service games. Then, McEnroe serving at 6-7, goes down 15-40, an eighth championship point for Borg, which Borg takes and sinks to his knees.

The 1981 Wimbledon final was consistently good, and Borg was never really outplayed in it at any point, unlike nearly all the first 2 sets the year before. The 1981 final was a close, edgy match that McEnroe just won by a fraction because he won the key points on the day. McEnroe won 4-6, 7-6, 7-6, 6-4, and McEnroe broke Borg's serve in the last game of the match to win the title.

 

[JasonZ]

Borg was a mental titan at Wimbledon, until the 1981 final when he lost his knack of winning the crucial points on that particular day. Borg had 4 set points in the third set, and failed to take any of them.

he was just superior to his opponents, then it is easy to appear as a mental giant. against an equal opponent, he won one very close final and lost the very close one. and was 0-3 in tiebreaks.

 

[Waspsting]

never understood why the previous year's final got all the praise, and 81 is basically forgotten. Here we got 4 excellent high quality sets. In 80 you got 2 such sets, the other 3 ranged from very poor to not good.

For generalized takes, just the 5 sets vs 4 sets thing would do it,
How many 4 or 3/5 set matches can you think of that's generally been praised as a GOAT candidate match? going the distance is almost a prerequiste for that
Extended 5th set helps
And of course, the tiebreak. Must be the most memorable passage of play in Wimby history and that part deserves its reputation

I understand that virtually no one watches matches in the way I do, and most takes will be (by standard of what I do) a quick, flimsy impression

US Open's youtube channel posted a video not long ago about the 5 greatest finals at their event
1 of them was the '12 final between Murray and Djokovic

'Greatness' is an abstract concept and different people will have different opinions surrounding it
But the 2012 final as one of the 5 greatest finals at US Open??? - unless your Andy Murray's wife or mother, I find that a really odd take. Its one of the worst matches I've ever seen

There's a lot of Emperor's New Clothes psycholgoy going on with the '80 Wimby finals reputation - name value, scoreline, the timing of the high points, the contrast in personalities - almost all stuff I consider irrelevent, contributing
If Borg and Gerulaitis had played the same match, no one would be calling it the greatest match ever played, even with the tiebreak as it was
You take out the tiebreak, I doubt anyone would even remember it with Vitas in Mac's place

Very surprised to see that Borg stayed back on 11 first serves. Maybe not against Connors, but against just about anyone else, Mcenroe included. Another case of memory not matching reality

Think he got a bit spooked - for good reason, and its not a bad adjustment, though turns out not too well statistically

Had won all his first serve points in first set and Mac doesn't have a pass winner in it

Early games of second though, Mac gets 7 passing winners off from Borg's first 15 first serve points
Funnily enough, first stay back first serve points ends with a net chord dribbling return winner
Serve volleys right after, and misses routine FHV

Stays back a bit after that - including to win the last 2 points of that particular game, where he was down 15-40

that is a lot of net winners from Mcenroe. I mean for a 4 set match. Interesting how you feel Borg's returns were not particularly low

Generally (that is, beyond this match) shoelace returns aren't his thing and I can't think of a single match where he's dished out a lot of them, with norm being small to not at all

He choosily takes on the wide return winner. And is very good at making it
Otherwise, he puts the return in play above the net, granting routine or easy volley

Contrast to someone like Connors, who goes for pointed heat with the return-pass

Connors' way is -
- powerful, early taken return down low
- force weak, shoelace volley
- have crack at good look pass

Borg's is more -
- late taken, looped return above net (dropping with top spin, but above net)
- routine volley (you'll get a lot of winners if opponent knows what he's doing, like in this match)
- make do with what you get on the pass

some guys don't volley decisively - and he'll get fair/good look passes. If he returned against his own game, he'd love have a ball
some guys do (like Mac) - and he's quite the scampering passer

Other understated value in Borg's way is by making server play, he'll get more volley UEs. With returns to balls that someone like Connors would probably miss going for too much force

In this match, he's largely relying on Mac volley UEs to make inroads.
Mac wouldn't have that mountain of volley winners if Borg were returning low

Mcenroe 10% higher on serve I don't think would bode well for Borg.

First serve percentage is a tightrope for Borg to walk

He biffs them full force, in count suffers
If he doesn't, Mac will put the returns in play. 16 first return errors is small, given Borg has 10 aces - and that's with well biffed first serving
And Borg's volleying doesn't inspire confidence to keep handling even routine stuff indefinately, so the returns coming back is a potential problem for him
10 return errors to second serves from Mac is a bit sloppy and largely kept Borg in this match

Given how high your regard is, I may have to check this one out again

The best of their matches I've seen is '79 Masters, but this one is very good one too, and worth a re-watch
I'd be interested in your thoughts right after watching it

 

[Mustard]

There's a lot of Emperor's New Clothes psycholgoy going on with the '80 Wimby finals reputation - name value, scoreline, the timing of the high points, the contrast in personalities - almost all stuff I consider irrelevent, contributing
If Borg and Gerulaitis had played the same match, no one would be calling it the greatest match ever played, even with the tiebreak as it was
You take out the tiebreak, I doubt anyone would even remember it with Vitas in Mac's place

Well, I've long thought that the 1977 Wimbledon semi final between Borg and Gerulaitis was even better than the 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and McEnroe.

 

[WCT]

The best of their matches I've seen is '79 Masters, but this one is very good one too, and worth a re-watch
I'd be interested in your thoughts right after watching it

Well, I watched it. Almost all of it, anyway. One of the Borg service games only has 1 point of it shown. I don't see it on YouTube. Watched it on Dailymotion, with too many ads for my tastes.

Far be it for me to question your numbers, and I didn't take stats. However, it seemed to me that Borg stayed back on more than 11 first serves. It wasn't a strategy change, either. He was doing it from the start. Staying back on some of them. I thought he might have had 11 in the first 2 sets.

He stayed back on 2 of them in the third set tiebreak. He stayed back on another in the last game. Early on, it seemed he stayed back only on softer first serves, but the twice in the tiebreak, those were big serves. Also, there were a good maybe half dozen times where the first serve didn't go in, but it was clear that he was not following it in Obviously, those don't count in the stats. Still, he was staying back.

To be clear, I'm not saying he stayed back 2 or 3 times what you have. I'm thinking more 5-6 times. Again, just my impression, I took no stats. In any case, way more than I would have thought from memory. Which was that he came in on all of them.

Borg's volleying. I think it's good to very good. He misses a few easy ones, one of them in the last game. He also makes a bunch of difficult volleys, Maskell comments on several of them. There were a couple times that he gave Mcenroe second, and third, looks at passes, but nothing consistent. It's the old Lendl Wimbledon argument. Just because he doesn't volley like Mcenroe doesn't mean he isn't volleying well.

Borg's returning. I didn't see it as strategic to the same degree as you did. A whole lot of Mcenroe serves are very hard, very deep, and very close to the lines. Borg isn't getting very good swings at a lot of these balls. That generally doesn't lead to low and hard returns. When he gets a good swing, a good amount of the are low. Maybe not shoetop low, but low. A decent amount of Mcenroe net winners are on followup volleys set up by first volleys that are not what I'd call easy or . If they are routine, it is only by Mcenroe's caliber as a volleyer.

Borg does move up on the second serves, but he is still a tad behind the baseline. He's never, in a little, inside the baseline. Unlike Mcenroe, of course. One of the times that Borg clearly gets his return way too high is on one of the set points Mcenroe faces in the third set. McEnroe takes A LOT off a first serve to make sure he gets it in. Borg has a very good look at it and simply returns it too high for someone like Mcenroe.

Agree, totally, with your take on Borg and is ability to pass on the run, from difficult positions. My memory of the closeness of the match I think was pretty spot on. It was a couple points here or there. People who insist that Mcenroe drove Borg out of the game because he didn't think he could beat him anymore? Please.

Regarding Borg's returning style. These are my observations from one match. You have done stats on a number of their matches. Perhaps if I rewatched them, I would agree with your take of low risk returning being a strategic choice. Mind you, I wholeheartedly agree that Connors is clearly the more aggressive returner. Just not to the degree that you feel, at least not in this match. I've only done Borg stats in Connors matches and he wasn't returning against much s/v there.

 

[medieval_remnant]

there's a point where Borg misses a routine pass and bows his head in despondency. The very next point Borg hits a tremendous running forehand

 

[Mustard]

In major finals, Borg was 1-8 in tiebreaks. The only tiebreak that Borg won in a major final was the third set of the 1980 US Open final against McEnroe.

The 8 tiebreaks that Borg lost in major finals were the second set to Orantes in the 1974 French Open final, the third set to Connors in the 1976 US Open final, the third set to Pecci in the 1979 French Open final, the first set to Tanner in the 1979 Wimbledon final, the fourth set to McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final, the first set to McEnroe in the 1980 US Open final, and the second and third sets to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.

I remember that Sampras had a bad tiebreak record in 1995 for a while, after being so good with it in 1994.

 

[jrepac]

Yep, never understood why the previous year's final got all the praise, and 81 is basically forgotten. Here we got 4 excellent high quality sets. In 80 you got 2 such sets, the other 3 ranged from very poor to not good. You would think Mr Mcenroe, not exactly known for being modest or shy, would have corrected this long ago. For consistent quality including in pressure moments, I rank this as amongst the best Wimbledon finals of all time. I remember reading that Borg said he thought Mac played better the previous year. Given that Borg isn't the type to gratuitously belittle his opponents, I think this shows how one spell-binding period of play can warp people's view of an entire match.

I thought this was a very exciting match...maybe because my guy won, I enjoyed it more.

 

[jrepac]

In major finals, Borg was 1-8 in tiebreaks. The only tiebreak that Borg won in a major final was the third set of the 1980 US Open final against McEnroe.

The 8 tiebreaks that Borg lost in major finals were the second set to Orantes in the 1974 French Open final, the third set to Connors in the 1976 US Open final, the third set to Pecci in the 1979 French Open final, the first set to Tanner in the 1979 Wimbledon final, the fourth set to McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final, the first set to McEnroe in the 1980 US Open final, and the second and third sets to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.

I remember that Sampras had a bad tiebreak record in 1995 for a while, after being so good with it in 1994.

that US Open one was pretty pivotal. If he had won that, he probably would've taken the match in 4.

 

[Mustard]

that US Open one was pretty pivotal. If he had won that, he probably would've taken the match in 4.

You mean 1976 against Connors?

 

[WCT]

In major finals, Borg was 1-8 in tiebreaks. The only tiebreak that Borg won in a major final was the third set of the 1980 US Open final against McEnroe.

The 8 tiebreaks that Borg lost in major finals were the second set to Orantes in the 1974 French Open final, the third set to Connors in the 1976 US Open final, the third set to Pecci in the 1979 French Open final, the first set to Tanner in the 1979 Wimbledon final, the fourth set to McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final, the first set to McEnroe in the 1980 US Open final, and the second and third sets to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.

I remember that Sampras had a bad tiebreak record in 1995 for a while, after being so good with it in 1994.

Was unaware of that. That's pretty anemic. This match and the 76 US Open are the ones that I at least very possibly costing him.

 

[JasonZ]

In major finals, Borg was 1-8 in tiebreaks. The only tiebreak that Borg won in a major final was the third set of the 1980 US Open final against McEnroe.

The 8 tiebreaks that Borg lost in major finals were the second set to Orantes in the 1974 French Open final, the third set to Connors in the 1976 US Open final, the third set to Pecci in the 1979 French Open final, the first set to Tanner in the 1979 Wimbledon final, the fourth set to McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final, the first set to McEnroe in the 1980 US Open final, and the second and third sets to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.

I remember that Sampras had a bad tiebreak record in 1995 for a while, after being so good with it in 1994.

thats an awful tiebreak record in slam finals and disqualifies borg any mental giant status.

 

[jrepac]

You mean 1976 against Connors?

yes

 

[Mustard]

thats an awful tiebreak record in slam finals and disqualifies borg any mental giant status.

Not really, because most of them were random tiebreaks, like first set against Tanner in the 1979 Wimbledon final.

I mentioned that Sampras started 1995 with a terrible tiebreak record, like being 0-5 in tiebreaks at the 1995 Australian Open.

 

[JasonZ]

Not really, because most of them were random tiebreaks, like first set against Tanner in the 1979 Wimbledon final.

I mentioned that Sampras started 1995 with a terrible tiebreak record, like being 0-5 in tiebreaks at the 1995 Australian Open.

what do you mean: random tiebreaks? a first set tiebreak in a wimby final is very important, no matter what happened in the next sets.

and we talk about borgs entire career here, not one slam tournament like sampras ao 1995.

 

[Mustard]

what do you mean: random tiebreaks? a first set tiebreak in a wimby final is very important, no matter what happened in the next sets.

It's not exactly like the third set in the 1976 US Open final. That's what I meant.

Borg had 4 set points for 2-1 sets lead against Connors in the 1976 US Open final, lost the third set tiebreak 9-11, and then lost in 4 sets. Borg said years later in a Sports Illustrated interview that this was the match where he was the most angry after a loss.

 

[NedStark]

Reading this makes me wonder how a hypothetical Borg-Edberg matchup would have gone, because Borg’s deep returning position feeds into Edberg’s gameplan of quickly closing the net.

 

[Waspsting]

Far be it for me to question your numbers, and I didn't take stats. However, it seemed to me that Borg stayed back on more than 11 first serves.

This video is heavily (and very, very smoothly) editted to cut out a large lot of missed first serves, so what looks like first serves are actually second serves. the BBC, God bless 'em

Usually, when a video does this, you can both see and hear the cut
Not here. Its done smooth as silk

One give away is when the server asks for 2 balls after an apparent first serve, which you'll see throughout this copy
If it were a first serve, he'd have a ball in his pocket and ask for 1 ball, not 2

Strong hints are when a player doesn't take a ball out his pocket right after what appears to be a first serve. Contrary to both players habit
There are other ways to guesstimate serve type for each point and other hints. For example, if video cuts moves off the servers as he's about to serve and goes to the crowd or the returners face... that's when they've editted out the missed serve (there are also instances of this happening but the serve is just what it appears to be)

You'll notice in an early game, after what appears to be a 4/5 first serve game from Borg, Dan Maskell says "just 1 first serve for Borg in that game". That's the editting at work. And if those serves very obviously look like safe second serves (and you'll see Borg take 2 balls for the next point on at least some of them)

I statted this match twice a week apart
First time focussing on gauging serve type for points
Second time, a little less so, but without consulting first time sheets. That is, blind statting as far as knowing what I'd marked the first time
And came up with exact same call for every point across both watchings

The final figures I have are 1 Borg service point different from those presented by Krosero years ago from watching a full copy of the match (that is, without having to guesstimate). He gave just in counts per set, so I don't know if we marked every point the same, but the totals are 1 point shy of identical
Its a pity he's not around anymore. I'd be interested to see which point we differ on. I gave the set in question another rewatch and would be surprised if I misjudged a Borg serve in it. Borg's serve isn't too hard to tell apart

And of course, I checked his stats only after twice watching the match and conjuring my own, so as not to be influenced by whatever he had

He stayed back on another in the last game.

Yes
point 2 - draws FH dtl return error

He stayed back on 2 of them in the third set tiebreak

Yes
Point 4, draws BH return error
Point 9, approaches net and gets passed BH inside-out/dtl

Early on, it seemed he stayed back only on softer first serves,

Those would be second serves, with the missed first serves editted out

One of the times that Borg clearly gets his return way too high is on one of the set points Mcenroe faces in the third set. McEnroe takes A LOT off a first serve to make sure he gets it in.

I have him with 8/18 first serves for that game
I know the one you mean, the last one. That's a second serve

---
The guy who editted this video deserves a medal. And once he gets it, I can think of another fun thing we can do which involves him with medal penned and a hook on the ceiling

Jokes aside, really enjoyed parsing this match out (though I'd never choose to have to do this). Never watched a match more closely - and how I usually watch matches while I'm statting would I'm pretty sure give a normal persona a headache after an hour, tops

I'm not sure if this is the only such BBC production
In the '75 final, late in the match, Ashe delivers a very slow, seeming first serve that he stays back on
His staying back would make it stand out, but the serve is very slow too

That's a second serve. He takes 2 balls for the next point. And just as he's about to serve, camera cuts to Connors' face (which is when they editted out the missed serve and which they weren't doing during this match. By contrast, they're doing it all through this '81 copy because they're constantly editting out missed serves)
That got me in a jiffy. If they've editted out 1 serve like that, maybe they've editted others? Especially in light of Ashe seeming to serve 70%+ first serves in

I gave that a random check back and think that was the only point, which is just weird

Reading this makes me wonder how a hypothetical Borg-Edberg matchup would have gone, because Borg’s deep returning position feeds into Edberg’s gameplan of quickly closing the net.

There's not a player in history who'd have it easy against Edberg on grass, and Borg's no exception

Still, I think Mac has it better than Edberg hypothetically would

Mac hits his spots with the serve beautifully and forces lunging returns
Edberg was not a good spot server by contrast. Borg's returning does offer up routine first volleys much of time - but he's also one of the best in striking wide return winners
With typical Edberg serve placement, he'd get a healthy dose of that (along with a good yield of first volleys to putaway). More than Mac does here in all liklihood

 

[WCT]

This video is heavily (and very, very smoothly) editted to cut out a large lot of missed first serves, so what looks like first serves are actually second serves. the BBC, God bless 'em

Usually, when a video does this, you can both see and hear the cut
Not here. Its done smooth as silk

One give away is when the server asks for 2 balls after an apparent first serve, which you'll see throughout this copy
If it were a first serve, he'd have a ball in his pocket and ask for 1 ball, not 2

Strong hints are when a player doesn't take a ball out his pocket right after what appears to be a first serve. Contrary to both players habit
There are other ways to guesstimate serve type for each point and other hints. For example, if video cuts moves off the servers as he's about to serve and goes to the crowd or the returners face... that's when they've editted out the missed serve (there are also instances of this happening but the serve is just what it appears to be)

You'll notice in an early game, after what appears to be a 4/5 first serve game from Borg, Dan Maskell says "just 1 first serve for Borg in that game". That's the editting at work. And if those serves very obviously look like safe second serves (and you'll see Borg take 2 balls for the next point on at least some of them)

I statted this match twice a week apart
First time focussing on gauging serve type for points
Second time, a little less so, but without consulting first time sheets. That is, blind statting as far as knowing what I'd marked the first time
And came up with exact same call for every point across both watchings

The final figures I have are 1 Borg service point different from those presented by Krosero years ago from watching a full copy of the match (that is, without having to guesstimate). He gave just in counts per set, so I don't know if we marked every point the same, but the totals are 1 point shy of identical
Its a pity he's not around anymore. I'd be interested to see which point we differ on. I gave the set in question another rewatch and would be surprised if I misjudged a Borg serve in it. Borg's serve isn't too hard to tell apart

And of course, I checked his stats only after twice watching the match and conjuring my own, so as not to be influenced by whatever he had


Yes
point 2 - draws FH dtl return error


Yes
Point 4, draws BH return error
Point 9, approaches net and gets passed BH inside-out/dtl


Those would be second serves, with the missed first serves editted out


I have him with 8/18 first serves for that game
I know the one you mean, the last one. That's a second serve

---
The guy who editted this video deserves a medal. And once he gets it, I can think of another fun thing we can do which involves him with medal penned and a hook on the ceiling

Jokes aside, really enjoyed parsing this match out (though I'd never choose to have to do this). Never watched a match more closely - and how I usually watch matches while I'm statting would I'm pretty sure give a normal persona a headache after an hour, tops

I'm not sure if this is the only such BBC production
In the '75 final, late in the match, Ashe delivers a very slow, seeming first serve that he stays back on
His staying back would make it stand out, but the serve is very slow too

That's a second serve. He takes 2 balls for the next point. And just as he's about to serve, camera cuts to Connors' face (which is when they editted out the missed serve and which they weren't doing during this match. By contrast, they're doing it all through this '81 copy because they're constantly editting out missed serves)
That got me in a jiffy. If they've editted out 1 serve like that, maybe they've editted others? Especially in light of Ashe seeming to serve 70%+ first serves in

I gave that a random check back and think that was the only point, which is just weird



There's not a player in history who'd have it easy against Edberg on grass, and Borg's no exception

Still, I think Mac has it better than Edberg hypothetically would

Mac hits his spots with the serve beautifully and forces lunging returns
Edberg was not a good spot server by contrast. Borg's returning does offer up routine first volleys much of time - but he's also one of the best in striking wide return winners
With typical Edberg serve placement, he'd get a healthy dose of that (along with a good yield of first volleys to putaway). More than Mac does here in all liklihood

Those sneaky devils at BBC, I had no idea. I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I did think of editing. Why? There was one so called Borg 1st serve that was so obviously not. It did not have a smooth edit and what stood out for me ridiculously was how far Mcenroe was inside the baseline. Like halfway between it and the service line and no way that was a 1st serve.

So, I was looking for that again and I rechecked several of the points thinking that they may have edited out a serve attempt. Clearly I was not looking with your attention to detail, though, because I came to the conclusion that those were all 1st serves he was staying back.

I take it that this is the first match that you have seen such blatant editing? Makes me wonder why they did it. How much could leaving all those serves in add to the broadcast time? Or maybe they did it to cut out parts where there were glitches in the video?

With the discussion of Borg's volleying, I watched a video of just the 5th set of 81 semi vs Connors. Mainly because I remembered him making some great volleys in that match. Sure enough, he makes half a dozen of them. Not off his shoetops, but those returns are low and hard. Well, 5 of them. The other was a reflex volley in a net to net exchange. The other 5 were wide to the backhand serves, in the deuce court. He makes beautiful, low angled, firm volleys to the open court.

 

[Waspsting]

I take it that this is the first match that you have seen such blatant editing? Makes me wonder why they did it. How much could leaving all those serves in add to the broadcast time? Or maybe they did it to cut out parts where there were glitches in the video?

I can't think of any sensible reason for it

Cutting out every first serve - I understand (though would be horrified by) to save time
Cutting out some and leaving others in - what does that achieve??? - beyond tricking the watcher. The paying watcher, I'll add, because they solid DVDs of this copy

I can only imagine the time and energy to edit something that smoothly. Just synchonizing the sound and commentary to the cuts must have been surgical matter

I counted at least 2 points where the camera doesn't leave the server for an instant - you see him taking 2 balls, put 1 in pocket, and serve.... but its a second serve point and he takes 2 balls right after. How did they even do that???
There's an absolute beauty of a point, the editting precision for which is nothing short of genuis. Mac, seemingly about to serve a first serve, is bouncing the ball. They change camera angles as he's doing it and on the new one, he's perfeclty in synch bouncing the ball. And somehow, they cut out a missed first serve there

Borg in particular, but Mac also, take next to no time between missing first serve and starting second point. How much time did they save cutting out 30 or so first serves from the video?
Does it gain them anything, in terms of cost of production by shortening the video a few minutes? especially since the original has all the time in between games in there? I doubt it, but if so, is it more than whatever it cost to edit it like this? - I'd imagine a job like this wasn't cheap

I can only speculate that it was product of someone's sense of humour
Forget wanting money back by people who bought DVD of this 'full match', which is how BBC product is advertised. I'd think a law suit for false advertising and intentional deception or something like that is on the cards and justifiable. But other than someone using it to stat, like me (or Krosero), how many people give enough of a damn? - and how many people like that are there anyway

The removal of a single missed first serve from the '75 final is even weirder
In light of things going on in that match (seeingly, Ashe serving 70%+ first serves in, and Connors' first serves getting roundaround FH returned and chip-charged) and my knowledge of this '81 abomination, you can imagine how set off I got. Did they do the same thing there?
I didn't give it a full look, but thorough enough and I don't think they did. And you won't see them cutting away from the server and onto the returner or the crowd anywhere near as often there and you can see the player take a ball out of pocket (or not) and how many balls they take for next point

 

[Waspsting]

With the discussion of Borg's volleying, I watched a video of just the 5th set of 81 semi vs Connors. Mainly because I remembered him making some great volleys in that match. Sure enough, he makes half a dozen of them. Not off his shoetops, but those returns are low and hard. Well, 5 of them. The other was a reflex volley in a net to net exchange. The other 5 were wide to the backhand serves, in the deuce court. He makes beautiful, low angled, firm volleys to the open court.

regarding Borg's volleying, my main critique isn't how he handles the tough stuff, its how little he does with the routine and easy stuff

do you remember out discussion in '77 Grand Slam Cup final thread -

stuff to keep an eye out for (for judging UE and FE on volley)
- height
- width
- power of pass

height which is usually the most prominent one, and most pertinent for looking at Borg. There are -

a) low volleys, including half-volleys... balls right to the feet. These are almost always FEs. rare exceptions are when pass is so slow that they volleyer had times to take a step back and hit a groundstroke
good volleying on this is putting as many balls in play

b) low-ish volleys... balls significantly below net but not to feet. These are overwhelming bulk of times FEs. Odd exceptions when ball is slow, including when its dropping slowly
good volleying on this is putting as many balls in play as possible. The best volleyers tend to do so placing the ball wide or/and deep too, but everyone misses a few of these

c) the regulation volley.... net high, a bit higher or a bit lower. These are usually UEs, exceptions being when the ball is particularly hard hit
good volleying on this is putting away winners or putting ball in corners.... this is the staple for volleying for anyone (for simplicity sake, will skip over drop volleys)

d) easy volley, comfortably over net.... These are virtually always UEs
should be putaway or into corners at a minimum

e) the putaway, high volley... chest, shoulder high stuff. Always UEs
should be putaway
---

regarding Borg's volleying... first, outside of Wimbledon, its almost always bad. As in, regularly misses easy volleys and occasionally, putaways let alone regulation ones
At Wimbledon, he doesn't miss much but he also doesn't do much with the volley

What are some things players typically do with the regulation volley?

i) put it away... this is very high calibre volleying, and risky. Even the Mac's and Edberg's forego it as often as not and instead go for....
ii) put it in a corner... leaving a hopeless, running pass
iii) volley wide, but short of into a corner... leaving a pass that baseliner has to move to at least or hit on the move
iv) systematically volley to BH, whether that leaves a running pass or is near the baseliner

Also noting extent to which volleys are punched through, crossed with all of the above (leaving aside touch volleys for simplicity's sake)

Borg doesn't do much of any of that stuff
he puts the ball in court. usually down middle of court, often not punched through. The baseliner can reach the ball without trouble and take his shot
On grass in particular, even from that scenario, the net guy is favourite to win point from there. But from baseliners point of view, that's as good as he can hope for (other than the net player missing volleys)
That's what Borg typically does when he's volleying well (i.e. not missing volleys). Leaves the passer best possible shot

you can see this statistically in low volley winner numbers relative to approaches in his matches. In my stats, you also see low rates of first volley winners
I don't have stats for how many volleys were made to draw errors but can say with confidence the one's Borg draws tend not to come immediately. 2 or 3 volleys to force the error... and most of them from stationary passes (not necessarily from the BH)

He doesn't punch the regulation volley through or get it particularly deep.

McEnroe is highest calibre volleyer - who putsaway regulation volleys or puts them in corners - and not a reasonable basis of comparison for a non-natural volleyer. But even by a normal standard of volley away from the baseliner or to his BH... Borg's conservative in what he does with his volleys

Connors does not fool around on the volley. He gets in close and swats them away

Aesthetically too, Borg makes everything in forecourt look hard work to my eye. How a player appears superficially is first cue on judging FEs an UEs
Mac makes everything look easy. He'll miss a volley looking so natural, you think it must be a UE... only the ball was at his feet
Borg's the opposite. He'll miss a volley looking harried and you think it must be a FE... only the ball was a regulation, net high ball

For baseline play in particular, I'm a big advocate of looking at consistency as well as shot-making in assessing quality. Rarity of UEs isn't naturally eye catching and often overlooked and guys who hit great shots for winners but make UEs of regulation balls regularly are often applauded, while guys who barely miss a ball aren't... I do my best to avoid this

On the volley, which is inherently an aggressive shot, there's less scope for a clean distinction between consistency and 'shot making'. Borg's volleying seems to me to best be understood in those terms though

There are ways to explore this statistically. Also, my impression of Borg's returning relatively safely and not averse to leaving easy/routine volley
Generally or specific to this match

For how decisive Borg's volleying is - a look at his breakdown of first and post-first volley winners serve-volleying
For Borg's returning - a look at breakdown of his opponents breakdown of first and post-first volley winners serve-volleying (and comparison with said players patterns against other opponents)


first volley heavy yield would suggest decisive volleying and/or conservative returning from opponent

One of the beautiful things about this '81 final is this -

Remarkably, net points winning rate are identical 65% - Mac 110/168, Borg 55/84

which makes comparison of volley and pass quite simple

Mac on the ‘volley’ -
- 46 winners (16 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 22 BHV, 7 OH)
- 12 UEs (6 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)
- 15 FEs (9 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 Back-to-net)

Borg on the pass -
- 10 return winners (2 FH, 8 BH) at 63% return rate
- 18 winners in play (6 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 19 FEs (10 FH, 9 BH)
...

Borg on the volley -
- 19 winners (9 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 8 UEs (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH at net)… 6 attacking, 2 winner-attempts
- 4 FEs (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH)

Mac on the pass -
- 2 BH return winners, and in play…
- 12 winners (4 FH, 8 BH)
- 19 FEs (7 FH, 12 BH)

----
re-arraning those numbers

On the 'volley' -
Mac has 46 winners, forces 19 passing errors
Borg has 19 winners, forces 19 passing errors

... with exact same winning rate at net and Mac at net exactly twice as often

19 winners, forcing 19 passing errors are not killer volleying figures at all, by any standard not just Mac's killer one. Lendl I'm sure significantly higher lot of winners to errors forced ratio than 1:1

Some of the above is happening because Mac's particularly good at finishing volleying - but to that extent? what are other reasons for it?

Is the above going on because Mac's passing (including return) is so much hotter than Borg's? that is, Borg's facing tougher volleys, so he can't put them away?
If that's so, it'd support my take on Borg being quite conservative with his return-passes and willing to leave easy-routine volley to putaway. Do you think that's a more plausible explanation than Mac returning & passing very hot, making high volley winners difficult?

Non-statistically, I don't think Mac's that destructive a returner or passer - and reason for such high passing errors drawn by Borg is that he doesn't put the volleys away that are there for it
And those passing errors he draws aren't even particularly difficult ones

Mac pass grants routine or easy volley ---> Borg volleys it conservatively (not putting it away, not even leaving very difficult pass look) ----> Mac's passing is what it is to yield what he has there

is how I see it

(We can look at the same thing from passer's point of view via volley UEs, volley FEs and passing winners - it'll give the mirror image picture. Like 2 guys sitting on opposite sides of a table looking at a figure that can be a '6' or a '9')

 

[WCT]

I can't think of any sensible reason for it

Cutting out every first serve - I understand (though would be horrified by) to save time
Cutting out some and leaving others in - what does that achieve??? - beyond tricking the watcher. The paying watcher, I'll add, because they solid DVDs of this copy

I can only imagine the time and energy to edit something that smoothly. Just synchonizing the sound and commentary to the cuts must have been surgical matter

I counted at least 2 points where the camera doesn't leave the server for an instant - you see him taking 2 balls, put 1 in pocket, and serve.... but its a second serve point and he takes 2 balls right after. How did they even do that???
There's an absolute beauty of a point, the editting precision for which is nothing short of genuis. Mac, seemingly about to serve a first serve, is bouncing the ball. They change camera angles as he's doing it and on the new one, he's perfeclty in synch bouncing the ball. And somehow, they cut out a missed first serve there

Borg in particular, but Mac also, take next to no time between missing first serve and starting second point. How much time did they save cutting out 30 or so first serves from the video?
Does it gain them anything, in terms of cost of production by shortening the video a few minutes? especially since the original has all the time in between games in there? I doubt it, but if so, is it more than whatever it cost to edit it like this? - I'd imagine a job like this wasn't cheap

I can only speculate that it was product of someone's sense of humour
Forget wanting money back by people who bought DVD of this 'full match', which is how BBC product is advertised. I'd think a law suit for false advertising and intentional deception or something like that is on the cards and justifiable. But other than someone using it to stat, like me (or Krosero), how many people give enough of a damn? - and how many people like that are there anyway

The removal of a single missed first serve from the '75 final is even weirder
In light of things going on in that match (seeingly, Ashe serving 70%+ first serves in, and Connors' first serves getting roundaround FH returned and chip-charged) and my knowledge of this '81 abomination, you can imagine how set off I got. Did they do the same thing there?
I didn't give it a full look, but thorough enough and I don't think they did. And you won't see them cutting away from the server and onto the returner or the crowd anywhere near as often there and you can see the player take a ball out of pocket (or not) and how many balls they take for next point

No wonder why I didn't catch on with editing this precise. Clearly, you have a far greater eye for detail than I because I didn't catch any of that while looking for it, After that one pretty obvious edit, I was looking. However, what I was looking for when Borg served, was mostly Mcenroe court positioning. If he is a step or two behind the baseline, that is a 1st serve. If he is inside the baseline, noticeably, it's a 2nd serve. In my mind, anyway.

Like you, I'm puzzled by why they did this and really disapprove of it if these are sold DVDs. The match should be complete. And with changeover with BBC because that is where they do the most analysis.

 

[WCT]

regarding Borg's volleying, my main critique isn't how he handles the tough stuff, its how little he does with the routine and easy stuff

do you remember out discussion in '77 Grand Slam Cup final thread -


There are ways to explore this statistically. Also, my impression of Borg's returning relatively safely and not averse to leaving easy/routine volley
Generally or specific to this match

For how decisive Borg's volleying is - a look at his breakdown of first and post-first volley winners serve-volleying
For Borg's returning - a look at breakdown of his opponents breakdown of first and post-first volley winners serve-volleying (and comparison with said players patterns against other opponents)


first volley heavy yield would suggest decisive volleying and/or conservative returning from opponent

One of the beautiful things about this '81 final is this -


which makes comparison of volley and pass quite simple

Mac on the ‘volley’ -
- 46 winners (16 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 22 BHV, 7 OH)
- 12 UEs (6 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)
- 15 FEs (9 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 Back-to-net)

Borg on the pass -
- 10 return winners (2 FH, 8 BH) at 63% return rate
- 18 winners in play (6 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 19 FEs (10 FH, 9 BH)
...

Borg on the volley -
- 19 winners (9 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 8 UEs (5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BH at net)… 6 attacking, 2 winner-attempts
- 4 FEs (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH)

Mac on the pass -
- 2 BH return winners, and in play…
- 12 winners (4 FH, 8 BH)
- 19 FEs (7 FH, 12 BH)

----
re-arraning those numbers

On the 'volley' -
Mac has 46 winners, forces 19 passing errors
Borg has 19 winners, forces 19 passing errors

... with exact same winning rate at net and Mac at net exactly twice as often

19 winners, forcing 19 passing errors are not killer volleying figures at all, by any standard not just Mac's killer one. Lendl I'm sure significantly higher lot of winners to errors forced ratio than 1:1

Some of the above is happening because Mac's particularly good at finishing volleying - but to that extent? what are other reasons for it?

Is the above going on because Mac's passing (including return) is so much hotter than Borg's? that is, Borg's facing tougher volleys, so he can't put them away?
If that's so, it'd support my take on Borg being quite conservative with his return-passes and willing to leave easy-routine volley to putaway. Do you think that's a more plausible explanation than Mac returning & passing very hot, making high volley winners difficult?

Non-statistically, I don't think Mac's that destructive a returner or passer - and reason for such high passing errors drawn by Borg is that he doesn't put the volleys away that are there for it
And those passing errors he draws aren't even particularly difficult ones

Mac pass grants routine or easy volley ---> Borg volleys it conservatively (not putting it away, not even leaving very difficult pass look) ----> Mac's passing is what it is to yield what he has there

is how I see it

(We can look at the same thing from passer's point of view via volley UEs, volley FEs and passing winners - it'll give the mirror image picture. Like 2 guys sitting on opposite sides of a table looking at a figure that can be a '6' or a '9')

I am not equipped to debate this with you because you have given it far more detailed thought than I. You also have all this statistical data to support your view.
Whereas with me it is mostly eye test. With Connors, I'd be more inclined to debate because I think I know him better. Not Borg, though. I'll be the first to say eye test can be wrong, a lot. You think something is one way and the stats show you that the eye test was wrong.

I stand by my opinion of Borg's volleying is set 5 of the 81 semi. I just watched that and he does a lot with difficult volleys, not routine, In fairness, though, there are multiple volleys, not easy, routine difficulty, and he does very little with them. More like your general view of his volleying.

One question about your criteria. I have noticed some occasional unforced 1/2 volley errors in your stats. What is your criteria for that. When is a 1/2 volley, generally considered a very difficult volley, an unforced error in your view?

 

[jrepac]

It's not exactly like the third set in the 1976 US Open final. That's what I meant.

Borg had 4 set points for 2-1 sets lead against Connors in the 1976 US Open final, lost the third set tiebreak 9-11, and then lost in 4 sets. Borg said years later in a Sports Illustrated interview that this was the match where he was the most angry after a loss.

great match...Borg could probably taste it...he was close...probably the best match played by Connors on clay...though he had some dramatic ones at RG where he lost...

 

[BringBackWood]

Ha I was wondering if the sneaky edits of the official BBC DVD release would be noticed. The only explanation I can think of is to fit the match onto one disc, which combined with the meticulous nature of the edits, demonstrates a terribly cheapskate mindset. And someone who doesn't understand or care that it robs the viewer of a lot of comprehension of the point, particularly on a grass court.

 

[Waspsting]

One question about your criteria. I have noticed some occasional unforced 1/2 volley errors in your stats. What is your criteria for that. When is a 1/2 volley, generally considered a very difficult volley, an unforced error in your view?

when its a a pointedly slow ball, particularly looping of arc - and especially if the court is wide open
Also, when I judge that the player has other shot choices. Specifically, they can hang back, let the ball bounce and play a groundstroke, but choose to move ahead and play the 1/2volley instead. In such situations, ball is invariably a slow one

I rarely give out a UE for any kind of 1/2volley. I remember Federer made one early in the second set of '04 US Open final and commentators were implying it was a UE. That was about as easy a 1/2volley as you'll get and I still marked it an FE

I stand by my opinion of Borg's volleying is set 5 of the 81 semi. I just watched that and he does a lot with difficult volleys, not routine,

To be clear, I'm not disputing this view. This is what I said in the match report for this match -

He doesn’t face much that’s difficult but is good at making them. Low stuff and more powerful stuff, he usually manages to put in play
Makes some very nice, aggressive volleys from slightly under net

There's multiple aspects of volleying. One way I look at any players volleying is to differentiate their skills in two areas -
- handling the difficult volley (mostly referring to height - pace and width come into it too, but mostly height. The low stuff)
- handling the routine stuff (net high, little over or under)

Some players are significantly better at one than the other. For example, Connors is a fierce routine volleyer, but more shakey on the low stuff. Sampras was deft at the low stuff, and his low 'volleying' was more impressive than his routine volleying (which isn't bad, it just didn't stand out as much)

We seem to be talking about two different things regarding Borg's volleying - your bringing up his handling tough stuff well in specific part of a match (which I agree with), I'm referring to how he handles the routine stuff (not very well, he leaves fair look passes to balls that are there to be put away) -

Its on the easy stuff above net that he’s not convincing. Including even putaway easy stuff
He punches them down center of court, leaving fair look passes
It’s a step up from the ‘80 final, when he’d been plonking them to leave easily lined up passes

 

[jrepac]

when its a a pointedly slow ball, particularly looping of arc - and especially if the court is wide open
Also, when I judge that the player has other shot choices. Specifically, they can hang back, let the ball bounce and play a groundstroke, but choose to move ahead and play the 1/2volley instead. In such situations, ball is invariably a slow one

I rarely give out a UE for any kind of 1/2volley. I remember Federer made one early in the second set of '04 US Open final and commentators were implying it was a UE. That was about as easy a 1/2volley as you'll get and I still marked it an FE



To be clear, I'm not disputing this view. This is what I said in the match report for this match -


There's multiple aspects of volleying. One way I look at any players volleying is to differentiate their skills in two areas -
- handling the difficult volley (mostly referring to height - pace and width come into it too, but mostly height. The low stuff)
- handling the routine stuff (net high, little over or under)

Some players are significantly better at one than the other. For example, Connors is a fierce routine volleyer, but more shakey on the low stuff. Sampras was deft at the low stuff, and his low 'volleying' was more impressive than his routine volleying (which isn't bad, it just didn't stand out as much)

We seem to be talking about two different things regarding Borg's volleying - your bringing up his handling tough stuff well in specific part of a match (which I agree with), I'm referring to how he handles the routine stuff (not very well, he leaves fair look passes to balls that are there to be put away) -

Valid and interesting points.

 

[WCT]

when its a a pointedly slow ball, particularly looping of arc - and especially if the court is wide open
Also, when I judge that the player has other shot choices. Specifically, they can hang back, let the ball bounce and play a groundstroke, but choose to move ahead and play the 1/2volley instead. In such situations, ball is invariably a slow one

I rarely give out a UE for any kind of 1/2volley. I remember Federer made one early in the second set of '04 US Open final and commentators were implying it was a UE. That was about as easy a 1/2volley as you'll get and I still marked it an FE



To be clear, I'm not disputing this view. This is what I said in the match report for this match -


There's multiple aspects of volleying. One way I look at any players volleying is to differentiate their skills in two areas -
- handling the difficult volley (mostly referring to height - pace and width come into it too, but mostly height. The low stuff)
- handling the routine stuff (net high, little over or under)

Some players are significantly better at one than the other. For example, Connors is a fierce routine volleyer, but more shakey on the low stuff. Sampras was deft at the low stuff, and his low 'volleying' was more impressive than his routine volleying (which isn't bad, it just didn't stand out as much)

We seem to be talking about two different things regarding Borg's volleying - your bringing up his handling tough stuff well in specific part of a match (which I agree with), I'm referring to how he handles the routine stuff (not very well, he leaves fair look passes to balls that are there to be put away) -

when its a a pointedly slow ball, particularly looping of arc - and especially if the court is wide open
Also, when I judge that the player has other shot choices. Specifically, they can hang back, let the ball bounce and play a groundstroke, but choose to move ahead and play the 1/2volley instead. In such situations, ball is invariably a slow one

I rarely give out a UE for any kind of 1/2volley. I remember Federer made one early in the second set of '04 US Open final and commentators were implying it was a UE. That was about as easy a 1/2volley as you'll get and I still marked it an FE



To be clear, I'm not disputing this view. This is what I said in the match report for this match -


There's multiple aspects of volleying. One way I look at any players volleying is to differentiate their skills in two areas -
- handling the difficult volley (mostly referring to height - pace and width come into it too, but mostly height. The low stuff)
- handling the routine stuff (net high, little over or under)

Some players are significantly better at one than the other. For example, Connors is a fierce routine volleyer, but more shakey on the low stuff. Sampras was deft at the low stuff, and his low 'volleying' was more impressive than his routine volleying (which isn't bad, it just didn't stand out as much)

We seem to be talking about two different things regarding Borg's volleying - your bringing up his handling tough stuff well in specific part of a match (which I agree with), I'm referring to how he handles the routine stuff (not very well, he leaves fair look passes to balls that are there to be put away) -r

when its a a pointedly slow ball, particularly looping of arc - and especially if the court is wide open
Also, when I judge that the player has other shot choices. Specifically, they can hang back, let the ball bounce and play a groundstroke, but choose to move ahead and play the 1/2volley instead. In such situations, ball is invariably a slow one

I rarely give out a UE for any kind of 1/2volley. I remember Federer made one early in the second set of '04 US Open final and commentators were implying it was a UE. That was about as easy a 1/2volley as you'll get and I still marked it an FE



To be clear, I'm not disputing this view. This is what I said in the match report for this match -


There's multiple aspects of volleying. One way I look at any players volleying is to differentiate their skills in two areas -
- handling the difficult volley (mostly referring to height - pace and width come into it too, but mostly height. The low stuff)
- handling the routine stuff (net high, little over or under)

Some players are significantly better at one than the other. For example, Connors is a fierce routine volleyer, but more shakey on the low stuff. Sampras was deft at the low stuff, and his low 'volleying' was more impressive than his routine volleying (which isn't bad, it just didn't stand out as much)

We seem to be talking about two different things regarding Borg's volleying - your bringing up his handling tough stuff well in specific part of a match (which I agree with), I'm referring to how he handles the routine stuff (not very well, he leaves fair look passes to balls that are there to be put away) -

Regarding volleying overall, and I know you listed this, pace is a real factor, When Connors is really rifling a return at you, one that's only a bit under net level is not necessarily routine. Certainly not easy, in my mind.

Also, like you said, what is the court position of the other player. On some of those 81 volleys I mentioned, Connors was pulled off the court on his two hander, Also, as you mentioned, is the player stretching wide. I factor all these things. Routine volleys count as well. I mentioned the half dozen difficult volleys because I think it's a more impressive feat when touting how well I think a player volleyed. As opposed to 6 volley winners that were more routine or easy.

I agree with your general assessment on Connors's volleying. He could be savage sometimes on higher or routine volleys. In the 75 Borg US Open match, you can hear Trabert and Bill Talbert sort of like oh and ah at 3 or 4 volleys that he just crushed. But Connors the volleyer would be in deep you know what against Connors the returner if he tried too much s/v and those rockets started coming back at his feet.

Your comments on Sampras are interesting. I see comments that denigrate his volleying and shake my head. I thought Sampras was a great volleyer. Not very good, great. Not creme de la creme, a notch, maybe two below. However, I have not rewatched a ton of Sampras matches and I certainly haven't examined them with the fine tooth comb you use. It's strictly eye test.

I have half a mind to watch that 81 final again. Even though I just watched it last week. Watch it again with your comments and stats in mind. I can't dispute the stats. All I can say is I was watching it looking for how Borg volleyed the routine ball and I didn't come away thinking he did relatively little with routine volleys. Problem is I watched it on Dailymotion and they had a lot of ads. I mean like maybe ever 10 minutes a couple of ads. And not ads you could skip like many of the YouTube ads.
However, your comments do leave me generally curious to how I would feel watching it again with those comments in mind.