Multi slam years in good/better competition years

[BorgTheGOAT]

How many Wimbledons do you see Borg win in the presence of Mcenroe ? Lets say Mcenroe was also born in 1956 with Borg i.e 3 years earlier, then ? I certainly don't see him winning even 4 wimbledons, let alone 5. Can he win 3 ? I donno.. maybe... 2? .. Ok that could be the case... My original point was that Borg's era was weak and thats how his streak of 5 wimbledons even came to exist. The could apply to Federer as well at the US open, he was extremely great in new york but I cannot imagine Nadal allowing him to win 5 in a row if they were of the same age. Maybe Novak would allow Roger to win but Nadal won't...and if both of them are there then definitely they wont...

That would hold true for every GOAT/ATG in history. If you create some hypothetical where you put two ATGs on a surface in their prime right next to each other, both will suffer in title count. You let Federer being born 10 years earlier and neither he nor Pete get to 8 or 7 Wimbledon titles. Fact is that Borg's era as is was absolutely not weak on grass. If you compare his 5 consecutive titles with Fed's five consecutive titles, you have Nastase, Connors, Tanner, Mac vs Roddick, Hewitt, Scud, Nadal. I cannot see much difference but if forced would lean to Borg having it tougher. Factor in the 16 seeding and more polarized conditions as well as the fact that Borg had to completely change his game after the FO titles, and Borg's 5 peat gets even more impressive than Fed's (and no I do not say Borg is greater at Wimbledon than Fed. Same as with Nadal at the FO Fed beats him in longevity and would have more titles even without Borg's early retirement, but reg the 5 peats as stand-alone achievements Borg wins).

Borg is highly overrated, both of just ignore the fact that Connors was not a serve and volleyer and he was also 4 years older than Borg, this helped Borg.

Mcenroe was better on the faster surfaces than Borg and he being 3-4 younger actually helped Borg,

So Connors being four years older than Borg helped Borg and dismisses Connors as a true rival. However, Mac being four years younger than Borg also helped Borg??? This on top when the two finals between Connors and Borg happened at ages 24/21 and 25/22 while the two finals between Borg and Mac happened ....you guess.... at ages 24/21 and 25/22??? How you can come to this conclusion is completely unknown to me.
That Mac is better on fast surfaces is btw not the slam dunk you think it is. They are 1:1 on grass but Borg has 5 Wimbledon titles to 3. On carpet, sure this is Mac's domain and he leads the big events. But still, Borg is 5-3 in direct matchup on carpet. So overall one can argue they are pretty close (even in I give Mac the notch myself).

Rest of the players were unheard of...

You never heard of Nastase?

you say Mac flopped in 1982 but this is speaking in hindsight

agree with most of that, but Borg would have had no way to know those would be McEnroe's 82 results, nor would he (or anyone else) have not expected better results than that from McEnroe in 82, who was clearly seen as the one to beat going into 82 (outside of clay), even before Borg stepped away. So while I agree Borg did not "run away" from McEnroe, McEnroe's actual eventaul 82 results, surprisingly weaker 82 results, would not be a good rebuttal to that.

What you two ignore is that Borg did NOT retire after USO 1981, he just retired from slams due to his argument with tennis authorities. Right after USO 1981 he played Geneva, he also played Monte Carlo in 1982 and some WCT events. His last tournament before (temporary) retirement was the Suntory Cup 1983 where he beat Mac in the semis. So he observed how Mac performed in 1982 and could at any time have returned to playing. Sure he would have to go through qualies but would that really have made so much difference?? After he saw Mac losing to Connors at Queens and Wimbledon as well as Lendl beating him countless times he should have been very aware that Mac had not become the all dominating force. He could even have thought on trying again at the USO. On top, he also still played Mac in invitational matches in 1982 and 1983 and did not do badly. He also beat Lendl 6:1, 6:4, 6:2 in Sydney AKAI Gold Challenge in November 1982.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Too obvious with 04/05 listed

It's fine counting them imo, not counting 2015 is the hilarious part. 2010, although Fedovic were subpar should be mentioned, they were still 2 and 3 in the world.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

And 2010 excluded.

Because, apparently, facing in the US Open 2010 final the GOAT Novak Djokovic that had just beaten in 5 sets 29 years old Federer in the SF, is somehow less impressive than facing in the US Open 2004 final the pigeon Lleyton Hewitt, who's not even an ATG and was easily bagelled by Federer.

Yep, subpar versions of the big 3 are still better players than almost everyone else since Agassi/Sampras before Sinner/Alcaraz. Djokovic and Federer had poorish years in 2010 but were still ranked 2 and 3, this wasn't 2017 Djokovic or 2013 Federer.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

2015 should be in the good year territory, IMO

Obviously. Nadal was crap but it had a pretty strong version of Federer and peak Murray and Wawrinka who are the best non big 3 players between Sampras/Agassi and Sinner/Alcaraz.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I remember reading one of Pat's interviews where he stated that choosing the S&V as his predominant playing style was not an easy decision and that he received many advices to simply embrace a more "safe" approach, but he decided to have it his own way as he simply enjoyed it. He also added that the serve and volley requires you to learn how to deal with the fact that your opponent will pass you numerous of times, but you have keep coming regardless.

He also added that due to this style he was relatively unsuccessful as a kid and junior because before growth spurt and larger reach it was tough to succeed as a kid with that style. Speaks for a tough mentality to endure consecutive losses as a kid/teenager and nevertheless stick to the style you enjoy.

 

[mike danny]

Obviously. Nadal was crap but it had a pretty strong version of Federer and peak Murray and Wawrinka who are the best non big 3 players between Sampras/Agassi and Sinner/Alcaraz.

Wouldn’t call that peak Murray by any stretch

 

[Razer]

That would hold true for every GOAT/ATG in history. If you create some hypothetical where you put two ATGs on a surface in their prime right next to each other, both will suffer in title count. You let Federer being born 10 years earlier and neither he nor Pete get to 8 or 7 Wimbledon titles. Fact is that Borg's era as is was absolutely not weak on grass. If you compare his 5 consecutive titles with Fed's five consecutive titles, you have Nastase, Connors, Tanner, Mac vs Roddick, Hewitt, Scud, Nadal. I cannot see much difference but if forced would lean to Borg having it tougher. Factor in the 16 seeding and more polarized conditions as well as the fact that Borg had to completely change his game after the FO titles, and Borg's 5 peat gets even more impressive than Fed's (and no I do not say Borg is greater at Wimbledon than Fed. Same as with Nadal at the FO Fed beats him in longevity and would have more titles even without Borg's early retirement, but reg the 5 peats as stand-alone achievements Borg wins).


So Connors being four years older than Borg helped Borg and dismisses Connors as a true rival. However, Mac being four years younger than Borg also helped Borg??? This on top when the two finals between Connors and Borg happened at ages 24/21 and 25/22 while the two finals between Borg and Mac happened ....you guess.... at ages 24/21 and 25/22??? How you can come to this conclusion is completely unknown to me.
That Mac is better on fast surfaces is btw not the slam dunk you think it is. They are 1:1 on grass but Borg has 5 Wimbledon titles to 3. On carpet, sure this is Mac's domain and he leads the big events. But still, Borg is 5-3 in direct matchup on carpet. So overall one can argue they are pretty close (even in I give Mac the notch myself).

You never heard of Nastase?


What you two ignore is that Borg did NOT retire after USO 1981, he just retired from slams due to his argument with tennis authorities. Right after USO 1981 he played Geneva, he also played Monte Carlo in 1982 and some WCT events. His last tournament before (temporary) retirement was the Suntory Cup 1983 where he beat Mac in the semis. So he observed how Mac performed in 1982 and could at any time have returned to playing. Sure he would have to go through qualies but would that really have made so much difference?? After he saw Mac losing to Connors at Queens and Wimbledon as well as Lendl beating him countless times he should have been very aware that Mac had not become the all dominating force. He could even have thought on trying again at the USO. On top, he also still played Mac in invitational matches in 1982 and 1983 and did not do badly. He also beat Lendl 6:1, 6:4, 6:2 in Sydney AKAI Gold Challenge in November 1982.

Connors' peak was from 74-78 while Borg's was from 76-80, you cannot saw that Jimmy was not at a disadvantage in 77-78 because he was already 25-26 then and hey thats the age when Borg himself was retired, so why are ignoring the fact that if Jimmy was of Borg's age then he could have put up a better fight? Ok Connors beat Mac in 82, so what? This still doesn't change the fact that he was at a disadv.

Of course Mac being younger also helped Borg because Borg does not have to face him in 77-79, isn't it ?

Anyway, the whole world knows Borg retired because of Mcenroe. These excuses like argument with authorities are just myths spun to establish his aura and mystique with a WHAT IF ... but in reality he ran away.. no honour in that. Connors who was 4 years old and a very old man retired in the early 90s and Borg could not even play till the late 80s? weird !!!

 

[Razer]

It’s more like coping mechanism from some Fed fans after he lost slam race. They are yet to make peace with reality and as a result suffering.

Coping is pointless.

@abmk - I know you have blocked me but let me write a quote in hindi which you will understand ... " Jo jeeta wahi sikander.... " ... this means he who wins is the conqueror... so now Federer lost his throne and Djokovic sits on it, this makes Djokovic the new Sikander... you better bow down and accept it instead of coping... lol

 

[mike danny]

Good versions of Hewitt / Roddick those years. Also Safin AO 05 obviously. Claydal in 05 obviously. Dinosaur Agassi in 2004. Ferrero in 2004.

I'd say 2005 qualifies, but it is pretty questionable to include 2004 and not, say, 2010 or 2013 or 2015. Unless you have a Murray hateboner or something. The latter two have some great Wawa appearances too.

Fed’s draws in 2004 alone make it a good year above 2010 and 2015

 

[abmk]

Ehhh Nadal’s prime level is up there with Borg / Sampras tbh. As I have said before to defend prime Fed, just because competition could have been “greater” in a given year doesn’t mean the ATG in question wouldn’t have been able to handle that step up. Eg Fed 05/06 would have handled 2011 Djokovic tier competition just fine (as we saw from Old Fed vs Djoker) so it doesn’t matter even if you think that year was “weak”…

So it goes sort of for 2010 Nadal. He still gets 2 slams with his 2010 level against 08 level competition (RG, USO), and his Wim 10 level post QF was very good. Essentially Ned had elite levels at 2+ slams - multi surface too - in 5 years in his prime (2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013; for Djoker it would be 4 years with 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016). PETE I would say had that in 5 years too (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000), so they’re not far off each other. Add to that I think Ned’s peak levels across the 4 slams are the best alongside Fed’s - 09/12 AO, 08/12 RG, 07/08 Wim and 10/13 USO are a hell of a collection

Fed obviously had the most Yuge Years with all 6 years having multiple elite slam levels from 2004-2009, plus his combined level across all 4 slams in each year from 04-07 was simply ridiculous in a way that I doubt anyone will repeat for decades. He basically didn’t miss or dip apart from AO 06

yeah, I agree on the part about weakness.
nadal 10 gets atleast 2 slams in most other years, so does fed 06 and so does djoko 15.
sampras 97 and Borg 77 also , though nnot as strong as the above.

took so long for someone to make this point though.

not necessarily true for nadal 07/12 or djoko 13/16 though even if they had 2 great slam performances.
even edberg did in 91 (Wim and USO) and would've in 90 if not for injury affecting in AO final (AO and Wim)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Connors' peak was from 74-78 while Borg's was from 76-80

So the two Wimbledon finals in 1977 and 1978 were with both at their peaks then. Only in their 1979 match Borg was at an advantage because in 1981 neither was at their peak according to this.

Jimmy was not at a disadvantage in 77-78 because he was already 25-26 then and hey thats the age when Borg himself was retired

You said Connors in 77-78 was at his peak. Borg was also an early bloomer and Connors had incredible longevity. I do not really see why 1974 Connors should have been so much better against 1977/78 Borg. 24/25 is not post-prime age especially not for a guy who wins Wimbledon still at 29/30 and reaches an US Open semi at age 39.

Anyway, the whole world knows Borg retired because of Mcenroe

Frankly I have never heard that anywhere outside of internet forums. No player in the history of tennis who was close to beating all the records ever retired because of an opponent who did not even dominate him but just played him closer than he was used to. Again, Borg could have come back playing slams in 1982/83 at any time. If ONLY fear of Mac was holding him back, then Mac's constant losses to Lendl and Connors should have taken that fear away and give Borg the incentive to try again to win the elusive USO title.

 

[Third Serve]

no, it was relatively weak, just like 2006 and 2010. not adding any one of them.

We’ve argued about this before but honestly I think 2016 is a better match for 2006 and 2010. 2015 had the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals which I thought were pretty good, and Novak was halted by a good performance from Stan at RG. It wasn’t a very deep field but I think Fed and Stan provided an appropriate challenge when it mattered.

Though you could argue 2006 Nadal was good comp for Fed too.

 

[Third Serve]

Yep, subpar versions of the big 3 are still better players than almost everyone else since Agassi/Sampras before Sinner/Alcaraz. Djokovic and Federer had poorish years in 2010 but were still ranked 2 and 3, this wasn't 2017 Djokovic or 2013 Federer.

Sure but Nadal wasn’t playing them to win his Slams or big tournaments. The only times he ever ran into them on the way to a title were Madrid and the U.S. Open. The remainder of the season was just him rolling over the rest of the field, which wasn’t very good.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Sure but Nadal wasn’t playing them to win his Slams or big tournaments. The only times he ever ran into them on the way to a title were Madrid and the U.S. Open. The remainder of the season was just him rolling over the rest of the field, which wasn’t very good.

Yeah, but you had Murray, Soderling, Berdych, Ferrer, Roddick, Verdasco, Tsonga, Cilic, etc. It was a strong top 10/20 in terms of depth even if there no ATG playing great aside from Nadal. Not too different from 2004/2005.

 

[Third Serve]

Yeah, but you had Murray, Soderling, Berdych, Ferrer, Roddick, Verdasco, Tsonga, Cilic, etc. It was a strong top 10/20 in terms of depth even if there no ATG playing great aside from Nadal. Not too different from 2004/2005.

Those guys had a couple of good runs but they pretty much never delivered against Nadal, except for Roddick and Murray in that one match. All three of the Slams Nadal won that year were among his weakest, and his opposition in the clay season was weaker than usual.

 

[abmk]

We’ve argued about this before but honestly I think 2016 is a better match for 2006 and 2010. 2015 had the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals which I thought were pretty good, and Novak was halted by a good performance from Stan at RG. It wasn’t a very deep field but I think Fed and Stan provided an appropriate challenge when it mattered.

Though you could argue 2006 Nadal was good comp for Fed too.

yeah well obv 2006 nadal for fed

roddick/blake in USO 06 and davy/haas/baggy in AO 06

not sure we argued per se

Thread '2006 and 2015 similar level years, 2006 a little better IMO'

Mar 13, 2021

2006 vs 2015:

At the slams:

AO 2006 > AO 2015 (little better)

Federer, Baghdatis, Davydenko, Haas, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Roddick > Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych, Nishi, Kyrgios, Raonic

Federer < Djokovic (by a little, Djoko more consistent, but did have the worst performance among the two - SF vs Wawrinka)
Baghdatis <~ Murray (Baggy had the considerably tougher path to the final, a little worse performance in final because of the tough draw)
Davydenko > Wawrinka (better by a little atleast. Wawrinka tougher opponent on paper, but he played significantly worse in the semi...

• abmk
• Replies: 244
• Forum: General Pro Player Discussion

• 

16 definitely worse than 06.

 

[Hard Court]

Connors in 1974 should be listed. The fields were loaded at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. He won the final very convincingly both times.

Lendl for 1986 should be considered. The fields were strong at both the French Open and the U.S. Open. There were a lot of upsets each time and Lendl did not have to beat as many top players as 1986. Does that count against him? He did win the final very easily in both tournaments.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

So the two Wimbledon finals in 1977 and 1978 were with both at their peaks then. Only in their 1979 match Borg was at an advantage because in 1981 neither was at their peak according to this.

You said Connors in 77-78 was at his peak. Borg was also an early bloomer and Connors had incredible longevity. I do not really see why 1974 Connors should have been so much better against 1977/78 Borg. 24/25 is not post-prime age especially not for a guy who wins Wimbledon still at 29/30 and reaches an US Open semi at age 39.

Frankly I have never heard that anywhere outside of internet forums. No player in the history of tennis who was close to beating all the records ever retired because of an opponent who did not even dominate him but just played him closer than he was used to. Again, Borg could have come back playing slams in 1982/83 at any time. If ONLY fear of Mac was holding him back, then Mac's constant losses to Lendl and Connors should have taken that fear away and give Borg the incentive to try again to win the elusive USO title.

Also, it wouldn't make sense for Borg to retire because nobody would be able to challenge him at RG, Lendl took him to 5 in '81 but Borg won his sets very comfortably. Basically, even if it was a given that he wouldn't be able to beat Mac at the USO and Wimbledon ever again (which is not the case at all, given the Wimbledon '81 final was fairly close), Borg would easily beat Mac at Roland Garros. In fact, Borg would be far closer at Wimbledon than Mac would be at a potential RG meeting, even at the USO he'd be considerably closer. Not to mention that Mac didn't win either Wimbledon or USO in '82, so he could have very well avoided him potentially if they were on different sides of the draw and Mac lost a SF to Connors/Lendl, etc.

 

[jrepac]

A lot of junk in your comment of course, but to talk about a weak competition when there were actually surface experts competing at Wimbledon is pretty hilarious I must admit.

Borg had a record of 4-0 (at Wimbledon) against one of the top 3 returners in Open Era while playing serve and volley tennis, which just shows how absurd your attempt to discredit his abilities on the surface is.
Honestly, I think you know very little (if anything) about the sport during that period judging by your statements.

Borg's era was far from weak, when it came to grass court players. Just the opposite, IMHO. Borg barely got out alive in some of his matches, let's be honest. And the grass back then was both fast and erratic.

 

[Martin J]

Borg's era was far from weak, when it came to grass court players. Just the opposite, IMHO. Borg barely got out alive in some of his matches, let's be honest. And the grass back then was both fast and erratic.

And it makes perfect sense, there were multiple Majors played on grass during his playday, so the players logically developed their games to be effective on the surface.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

What about the women?

 

[jrepac]

Connors' peak was from 74-78 while Borg's was from 76-80, you cannot saw that Jimmy was not at a disadvantage in 77-78 because he was already 25-26 then and hey thats the age when Borg himself was retired, so why are ignoring the fact that if Jimmy was of Borg's age then he could have put up a better fight? Ok Connors beat Mac in 82, so what? This still doesn't change the fact that he was at a disadv.

Of course Mac being younger also helped Borg because Borg does not have to face him in 77-79, isn't it ?

Anyway, the whole world knows Borg retired because of Mcenroe. These excuses like argument with authorities are just myths spun to establish his aura and mystique with a WHAT IF ... but in reality he ran away.. no honour in that. Connors who was 4 years old and a very old man retired in the early 90s and Borg could not even play till the late 80s? weird !!!

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but most of it is flawed. The 4 year age difference between Borg and Connors was real, but I never saw that as a big deal. Maybe Mac had the advantage of youth, but that did not always pan out for him (see 1982). Connors (and Borg) certainly did S&V on grass on just about all first serves, so that's a wash when it came to their H2H at W. Not to mention 2 very close matches in 77 and 81 that could have gone either way. No one thought Borg was retiring in '82...just that he was taking a sabbattical. Really, it wasn't until late '83 that is started to feel real....he wasn't coming back. He had been playing very lucrative exos with Mac and Jimmy all along the way, lining his pockets. His retirement seemed to benefit Connors, more than anyone, who surged back like a forgotten phoenix from the ashes. Lastly, the thing to recognize is that Borg stopped playing ATP events while Jimmy was playing all the way through the mid-90's, even after he moved to the Seniors circuit. That makes a huge difference. He stayed sharp, whilst Borg was away for a very long time. So, when he did try to come back, he was far too rusty/out of practice.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

The OPs list including Fed 2004 but not Rafa's 2010 or Lendl's 1986 (9 titles, including 2 Slams and the YEC) is kinda baffling. It is a subjective list though, and I love the detailed convo being had about each year listed. I thought for sure Fed's 2006 year would be listed instead of his 2005 or 2004 (as I thought Fed played tougher competition in the Finals of the Slams in 2006 than in 2004)

 

[Hard Court]

I mentioned Lendl in 1986 as well. Thought maybe Lendl was being penalized for the many upsets that took place in the 1986 French open and US Open. Maybe the OP was saying that the "competition" was not as good because Lendl did not face some of the other top players who lost early.