My Problem with the Borg vs. McEnroe Rivalry

[halbrikj]

I was calling the idea stupid, not you per se. I apologize if I came across as harsh ...

no, mac did NOT know he could handle bjorn , he had lost in 5 to bjorn at wimbledon because bjorn played better , especially clutch in the 5th ....


before USO 80 final, borg had won their last 3 matches ( including wimbledon 80 )
after USO 80 final, borg won their next 2 matches ...

and again, you haven't seen the wim 81 final, it was on thin margins and a close match

you need to give up the notion that borg was easy for mcenroe to handle ... its completely wrong ...

their h2h was 7 all, this without any matches on clay, borg's best surface ....
granted mcenroe had the edge on outdoor HC, but indoors and grass it was a dog-fight b/w them and clay, borg was clearly superior and they never met there ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg–McEnroe_rivalry

sheer speculation on my part, but in closing I will add a couple of things: 1) you are correct that their h2h was seven all, however, they also played a lot of exhibitions, where there was often an agreement, for example, to split sets one and two and play out the third. I am by no means suggesting there were any such agreements between the two in any grand prix or grand slam matches, however, from that universe - letting up in sets doesn't seem like that far of a stretch. 2) Considering that JM came out with an underwear line called "Bjorn Loves John," acts of benevolence between the two, e.g. letting up in sets, doesn't seem like that far of a stretch. They apparently liked each other an awful lot...

 

[krosero]

I don't think he deliberately let Borg back in the match, but I do think he might have let up a little because I think a part of him enjoyed the drama. Also, if you hear him talk even today, losing to Bjorn in the 80 W final didn't seem to bother him that much, rather, he was just happy to be a part of that match.

With regard to my comparison to the Connors Agassi match, just as Andre knew he could handle Connors, I think Mac knew he could handle Bjorn, which is what he did in set 5, and the 81 W final, and the 81 USO final, i.e. after losing those 2 sets, Mac went on to beat Borg 7 of their next 9 sets.

Lastly, no need for name calling, abmk. After all, you're a "G.O.A.T." right? You should know better than that, now shouldn't you?

I agree he would not ever have deliberately let Borg back in, but there was some kind of letdown in sets 3 and 4. Lot of it was sheer exhaustion, from all the tennis he'd played since the quarters. I think after the final he said he thought early in the fifth that his body was going to fall off.

 

[timnz]

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.

My problem with the rivalry, is that they didn't play on clay. Obviously Borg would have dominated on that surface.

The most surprising thing about the rivalry IMHO is that Borg leads the H2H indoor. Given that McEnroe was the co-number 1 for the decade of the 1980's indoor (with Lendl) that is pretty impressive from Borg.