This tennis rivalry has gone down as one of the greatest in history but I belive it was flawed in several ways. The reason people loved it was because of the massive contrasts in playing styles and tempermants however these are my issues. There was a career gap. Now although Borg and McEnroe are relativly similar in age Borg flourished much earlier as a player. Borg also burnt out much earlier, and even if he had been able to continue mentally it would have only been a small number of years before the physical style of play was too much of a strain on his body for him to continueing playing effectivly. In terms of Grand Slam rivalries the players did not meet in a grand slam until Wimbledon 1980. By this time Borg had already won 7 grand slams and was nearing the end of his best playing years. Their lack of many different surface battles. This is defenitley my biggest problem with the rivalry. Now everyone remember the classic Wimbledon confrentations, particularly the 4th set teibreak in the 1980 final, however this is really as far as the grand slam rivarlry went. Consider that Borg always struggled with the noisy American crowds and the night sessions under the lights. This really meant that McEnroe was always going to prevail here. Then there is the clay. The two never met at the French Open (or on clay at all). However it is very clear who would win over 95% of the time. Borg was near untouchable on clay, and McEnroe was very vunerable there. Many people state that McEnroe would have gone on to take a Head to Head lead against Borg if his career had continued. This is probabely true, but it would not be reflective of their greatness. Consider that Nadal holds a lead against Federer as they have met mostly on Nadal's strongest surface (clay) and this is Federer's weakest. Borg's Head to Head with McEnroe would be nowhere near as even if they had played as many matches on European clay as they played on American hard court and carpet. This is almost soley a Wimbledon rivalry in terms of grand slam contests (a rivalry which only extended to two matches). I don't belive that the greatest tennis rivalry in history can be one in which the players (lets say players A and B) never played on player A's strongest playing conditions or on player B's weakest playing conditions while playing many matches on player B's strongest playing conditions and on player A's weakest playing conditions. Note I am using playing conditions to cover the surface and the crowds and any scheduling issues.