Sampras vs Borg

[hoodjem]

Sampras would take Borg, except on clay.

 

[krosero]

But kros -- you continually avoid the thread question and your opinion -- or?

Sampras vs Borg? Or as I would formulate it Borg vs Sampras...

I wasn't aware of answering or avoiding the thread question one way or another. I just picked up on a post that I found interesting. As to the OP's question of who ranked higher, I tend to find Borg's record to be more compelling than Sampras', but I think it's very close and ultimately comes down to subjective factors (no one will be surprised that I give Borg the slight nod since I'm a Borg fan).

I don't find GOAT lists that interesting to make or to read about; and I've spent enough time on this board to have grown very tired of GOAT threads. I also fall into that camp that finds it practically impossible to say who would win in a direct face-off between players of different generations -- particularly players on opposite sides of the wood/graphite evolution. And I'm just aware of too many other factors that go into it. Yes, it's just a game we play and of course there's no right answer, though I don't really find it a very interesting game (maybe I don't find it that interesting precisely because you can't get a concrete answer). Comparing records is something else, much more concrete. And as I said it's close IMO.

CyBorg's formulation is interesting. For longevity, Sampras decisively. For peak play, I'll give a slight nod to Borg, for his percentages in his best years, his ability to win Slams without dropping sets, etc. But who cannot have the greatest respect for Sampras' peak play?

The third factor, surfaces, I give to Borg decisively. I admire that Borg at his peak could be regarded as the world's best tennis player across the board, without qualification. You wouldn't have to explain, when introducing him, that he's only the best on fast or slow surfaces; he won majors on both fast and slow courts without dropping sets. Like any player, he has particular courts or surfaces that he was less great on; but at his peak everyone knew that Borg was extremely difficult to beat on any cement surface, and that when he was seeded #1 at the USO he fully deserved the seeding; he was, for a time, the man to beat everywhere.

That's my subjective take on it. But I just don't think there's that much to choose between these two. Even majors is pretty close if you make the Masters the true "fourth Slam" of Borg's time, and then Pete leads by 14-13. I don't see any way to really say that either one was head and shoulders above the other.

 

[Borgforever]

I wasn't aware of answering or avoiding the thread question one way or another. I just picked up on a post that I found interesting. As to the OP's question of who ranked higher, I tend to find Borg's record to be more compelling than Sampras', but I think it's very close and ultimately comes down to subjective factors (no one will be surprised that I give Borg the slight nod since I'm a Borg fan).

I don't find GOAT lists that interesting to make or to read about; and I've spent enough time on this board to have grown very tired of GOAT threads. I also fall into that camp that finds it practically impossible to say who would win in a direct face-off between players of different generations -- particularly players on opposite sides of the wood/graphite evolution. And I'm just aware of too many other factors that go into it. Yes, it's just a game we play and of course there's no right answer, though I don't really find it a very interesting game (maybe I don't find it that interesting precisely because you can't get a concrete answer). Comparing records is something else, much more concrete. And as I said it's close IMO.

CyBorg's formulation is interesting. For longevity, Sampras decisively. For peak play, I'll give a slight nod to Borg, for his percentages in his best years, his ability to win Slams without dropping sets, etc. But who cannot have the greatest respect for Sampras' peak play?

The third factor, surfaces, I give to Borg decisively. I admire that Borg at his peak could be regarded as the world's best tennis player across the board, without qualification. You wouldn't have to explain, when introducing him, that he's only the best on fast or slow surfaces; he won majors on both fast and slow courts without dropping sets. Like any player, he has particular courts or surfaces that he was less great on; but at his peak everyone knew that Borg was extremely difficult to beat on any cement surface, and that when he was seeded #1 at the USO he fully deserved the seeding; he was, for a time, the man to beat everywhere.

That's my subjective take on it. But I just don't think there's that much to choose between these two. Even majors is pretty close if you make the Masters the true "fourth Slam" of Borg's time, and then Pete leads by 14-13. I don't see any way to really say that either one was head and shoulders above the other.

Fine response and I agree with the tiredness of some of the GOAT chatter...

 

[Borgforever]

Sampras would take Borg, except on clay. Period.

Hey -- I think you know I really appreciate your input here on pretty much anything -- but here we must agree to disagree to such a degree that you made me laugh...

When John McEnroe switched from wood (and I don't mean this as absolute proof but just as an indicator and a viable view) to a bigger graphite sword his game increased in quality on every level and enhanced his genius skills.

Borg -- who's game was made for todays tech -- never played with graphite but he still nailed it and his consistency would increase even further by a tech update. Then add his speed, super service returns and second to none clutch (take the fifth against Mac in 1980 as an example of Bear Fortress executioner's resolve) and pit him against Pete who never met any player in the Mac/Connors prime class and you say Pete would win everytime?

For me you have a high-quality blindfold as regards to this issue...

And... Ahem... Period!

 

[hoodjem]

Borg would play better with graphite? Mac did; would Borg? Hmmmm.?

Interesting conjecture.

 

[Borgforever]

Borg would play better with graphite? Mac did; would Borg? Hmmmm.?

Interesting conjecture.

Borg with today's tech better on every level? Oh, yes! And repeat that a couple of million times. He repeatedly states that one of his regrets was that the real tech revolution occurred after his departure and that he would've loved the new racquets during his peak because he was so much better (as is everyone I know or ever heard of) with those newer tools...

Why did he stick with his old Donnay during his brief 90s return then? Well, he had practiced about a month before he entered Monte Carlo in 1991 and hadn't even held a racquet at all almost for four-five years prior to this sudden return and he wanted to experiment and he of course changed equipment soon after.

As I'm suspicious and try to be careful about my own Borg-bias I only give a slight, slight edge to Borg on faster surfaces with today's tech against Pete.

For me Borg is/was The Akilles of Tennis with all his versatility and talents...

 

[cristiano]

same question, two different answers, about surfaces.

Hoodjem says: "Sampras would take Borg, except on clay". Maybe he's just not right, and Sampras wouldn't. Maybe he would, but only for a little bit. Maybe it's impossibile to know.

But let's suppose for a moment that he's true. Nonetheless, Krosero's statement 'Borg was the man to beat on every surface, Sampras not' is true as well.

The second answer is about 'their time'. Borg was the best in his time on every surface (or almost the best) Sampras not.

The first answer is avout an 'imaginary matchup'.

I'm probably less wise than krosero (not joking, i believe that ;-)) but i find that game interesting, and i like more the first answer.

To explain that , i don't like the Borg-Sampras example, cause it's true that Pete was bettere on hard courts, but it's not so sure Pete was better on grass. And it's not sure who would have been #1 if playing together.

Let's pick Agassi and Sampras. And imagine that both players played in two different leagues, 7-8 times less competitive than the atp tour. Both would have been #1 of the decade, and Agassi probably would have been #1 on all the 4 surfaces (or almost n. 1). Sampras , on the contrary, wouldn't (on claycourts). So Agassi is the best for 'surfaces'. Ok. But if they play together, in a more competitive field, what happen? Agassi win only one Paris, and Pete is very better than Andre on fast courts.

So, there's a big difference, and the difference is a result of two factors

1. the two players play in the same league
2. the league is way more competitive

When we compare to former champions, I think it's the same. It's totally useless to compare them in their era. It would be useful to imagine the two players playing together in a very more competitive field of opponents. It's impossible? Probably yes. But I think it's 'the way'.

So, Sampras vs. Borg in Surfaces. For me, the fact that Borg is better on his less favourite surface is not important. Pete would win an 'alltime major on clay', but Borg would win, never , an 'alltime major on hardcourts'. If you play in the same year, a quarterfinal and a second round are not so big differences for #1 race.

For me Borg is better than Pete in 'surfaces' for another reason: on clay he would have few opponents also in an alltime field. Sampras on fast courts is one of the best ever, but he simply would have more good opponents. Borg is better , for me, not because he was better on his worst surface, but because he was more dominant on his best one.

In any goat debate, for me, peak play is way more important that to be complete.

but it's just a (probably impossible) game to play, i know ;-)

c.

 

[cristiano]

* wouldn't and wouldn't, sorry, of course

 

[saram]

Both all time greats but who ranks above who for me Sampras because he his longtivty he wons majors in his teens twenties and thirties.

Bjorg quit too soon. We will never know.

 

[380pistol]

True that Sampras played for Slams -- that's why his percentages are lower than Borg's. Playing that way maximized his Slams and meant fewer titles during the season. You gain something, you lose something.

Agreed.

Not sure what you mean here, what do you mean by deeper?

I think Borg went to Australia once, in '74.

By "deeper" I mean one can just say Sampras gets the nod based on 14 slams to 11. There are circumstances one being Borg rarely going to Austrailia. Don't know the exxact ammount (unles I look it up), but we all agree he could have gone a few more times.

Borg was injured for the U.S. Open in '77 and '78, and if he'd won the latter we might be talking about a calendar Grand Slam. That puts him up at 14 Slams; and getting the USO monkey off his back, I can see him playing better at his remaining USO's; we might even speculate about him retiring a little later. However -- I don't really agree with this way of thinking, anymore than I agree with giving Sampras extra Slams for the times he was injured. I just want to be perfectly clear that if we're going to speculate about what might have been, and bring injuries into it, then it should be done for both players.

As you might know I just don't see injuries the way a lot of posters do (we debated this a little in the long Borg AKAI thread). I think each player wins as much as his mental and physical strength allowed (the exceptions being external circumstances, like players in their primes being banned from the Slams, or being unable to play due to war). I think it's fine if we want to imagine Sampras or Borg as not having this or that injury -- of going through their careers without having any injuries for the Slams -- but in principle this is as much a fantasy as having Sampras and Borg meet in their primes. It's all fantasy -- and fine as a fantasy -- but players incur injuries from hitting the tennis ball. Injuries are often called "bad luck", but there's no way to avoid them if you're going to play. True, some players get more injured than others, but that's a part of the game and all due to a decision to train and play.

So as I said, the only way I'd give a player a bye in a fantasy like this, is if they were healthy and willing to play but unable to do so because of some external barrier (or some injury that didn't come from hitting the tennis ball; something like a car accident). otherwise, they won what they were capable of winning; give them a higher total and it's not them anymore.

I factor in injuries, but it has to be taken in context. As far as Borg being injured in 1977 and 1978 US Opens, I'm not fully aware, so I'm not in a position to speak.

As far as Sampras in 1994 he won 34 straight on hardcourts (a record then), which was ended when he got injured in Davis Cup. The loss to Yzaga is telling in that Sampras didn't play a tournament that sumer due to said leg injury. I'm not saying hand him the title, but I would really like his chances if not for leg injury.

Same in 1998, he was leading Rafter 7-6,4-6,4-2, when he injured his quad faded and went down in 5 sets. Nothing against Rafter who played well and even better vs P'sis in the final (39 winners, 5 unforced), and capped of an excellent summer, but if not for injury Sampras may have taken him out in SF.

I'm not saying hand this player this and that, but if not for circumstance, not relevant to ones ability, we'll never know.

Borg contested just 1 USO final on clay, and 3 on hard court.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you're asking is how many French Opens Pete would have won if he could play it on his best surfaces. Well, since hard and grass are much faster than clay, that just avoids the issue of Pete's weakness on a slow surface. Yes, I see him winning the FO, if all the Slams are on fast surfaces. That's not particularly saying anything.

I think you're getting at a good question, though I would ask it differently. Borg played one USO final on his best surface, clay. It wasn't red clay, it was Har-Tru (green clay) -- so really it was something like his second-best surface. And the final he played was in '76, the year before he first reached #1 on the computer, and two years before he really became the indisputable #1. Something comparable for Pete would be a hard court final in Paris in 1991 or '92 -- against anyone of comparable skill to Connors on green clay in '76 (Courier and Edberg make some interesting comparisons).

Borg lost 3 finals on hard court. There's some debate about it, and while I think Borg was weaker on hard court than on grass or clay, it was still a surface he did well on. He could have won the USO on that surface. I don't think his USO failure comes down merely to surface. With Sampras it was clearly just the surface that stopped him. Borg had other issues that he never overcame, including his issues with night play, American crowds, his own expended energy that late in the season (something we talked about in that AKAI thread).

So the question you ask about Pete and the FO is interesting, but in the end it's too easy. I can easily see Pete winning the FO if it's just another grasscourt tournament in June, right next to Wimbledon. The comparison doesn't really say much about Borg's experience at the USO and, by making it all about surface, it completely gives Pete a bye on his Achilles heel (letting him play all the Slams on fast surfaces).

Borg was great -- or at least very good -- on all surfaces, and his 4 USO finals attest to that. His failure to win one is a failure -- but the fact that he made these finals and played his chief rivals at the USO only a little less strongly than he did at Wimbledon is to his credit, as far as surface goes. Certainly that's true in comparison to Pete who never made the FO final.

All I was saying is that Borg twice played the US Open on grass(1974-75) and clay (1976-77), albeit green clay. Give Sampras 2 chances at the French on grass and and 2 more on hard, and I can damn near gurantee he'll will win at least 2.

As far as surfces, it's tricky. Like I said head to head Borg will dominate Sampras on clay unlike Pete could to do him on any other surface. And performance wise Borg did perform better at his worst slam (US Open) than Sampras (French Open). But head to head Pete is the better player on grass (though very close), hard and carpet.

Borg was really #1 for three years (1978-80). And the total weeks are just a mess because of those very inconsistencies you mention (though you do it just in passing). However, I will say that even if the computer rankings had made more sense in the 70s, Borg would still end up with fewer total weeks than Sampras, no problem there.

Borg wasn't #1 in 1978 (Connors) though he should have been, so the computer rankings have proven that they aren't always the most accurate. But if we base it strictly on performance Borg can definitely get 3 yrs as the best player (1978-80), and one is up for debate (1976). 1977 goes to Vilas, despite Borg skipping the French, which I beleive he would have won if he went, but that translates to 1999 for Sampras. If not for missing Aus and US Open that is possibly 7 consecutive years and 300+ weeks at #1.

But then again even though Borg comes up short here, I don't know how important the rankings were (weeks and years) back then, but I think Borg would have done more to be and stay #1 rather than play exhibitions, challenges, and other events that garnered him zero points on the computer.

People also had a hard time seeing that happen to Borg, before McEnroe actually did it. For a comparable situation we'd need to have Sampras burning out at age 25 and facing McEnroe's skill and consistency of '80 and '81. When Sampras was 30 and tiring -- not burning out, but comparable -- he ran into some hot players on single days, but they either lacked McEnroe's consistency (Safin, Federer) or his skill set (Hewitt); and Sampras himself was not making every W and USO final as Borg was. So the opportunity to lose 3 Slams finals to one player just wasn't there.

This is something I somewhat disagree with. A tennis players peak genrally spans 4-6 years. 1976-81 (or 1975-80) for Borg , and 1993-98 for Sampras, give or take.

Safin, Federer and Hewitt got a 30+ Sampras, who was on the downslide. He could barely win tournaments. Borg won the French and mae 3 straight slam finals. While in 2001 Sampras went 4th, 2nd, 4th in slams before reaching the US Open final. I do agree when Sampras started to fade (or even lose consistency) there was no one fresh like McEnroe ready to dominate. But there's just something about Pete in big matches. Look at 2001-02 US Opens, he played like garbage those years, but when he faced Agassi, Rafter, Safin and Roddick he somehow summoned his greatness. Hewitt was fortunate Pete was gassed in that final.

 

[abmk]

Safin, Federer and Hewitt got a 30+ Sampras, who was on the downslide. He could barely win tournaments. Borg won the French and mae 3 straight slam finals. While in 2001 Sampras went 4th, 2nd, 4th in slams before reaching the US Open final. I do agree when Sampras started to fade (or even lose consistency) there was no one fresh like McEnroe ready to dominate. But there's just something about Pete in big matches. Look at 2001-02 US Opens, he played like garbage those years, but when he faced Agassi, Rafter, Safin and Roddick he somehow summoned his greatness. Hewitt was fortunate Pete was gassed in that final.

Pete was 29 and not 30+ when he faced safin at the 2000 U.S.O. F. Won the wimbledon that year about 2 months ago. Very few really expected safin to beat sampras , much less in straights. Pete was heavily favoured.

Pete was not far away from his prime that time. Face it, he just got pummeled by safin playing at his best and safin really made him look clueless.

 

[GameSampras]

Pete got an old fashioned beating from Safin at USO in 00, no doubt about that. Pete returned the favor to Safin the following year. Pete began dipping around early 00 if you look at the history books. Yes he won Wimbeldon but not in the great dominating fashion we previous year. Its no secret, once Sampras met Bridgette his focus on tennis decreased and he had little interest to play the grind anymore. Pete was only focusing on the slams by 99 or so after 6 years on top. He even admitted that. He was more or less becoming part time player at times, (Only worrying about winning the slams) and this resulted in his consistency and focus was declining and I think it carried over into some of his losses at the slams around that time.

Its very difficult to maintain that top position in tennis if you arent 365 24/7 tennis all the time. Well unless your Serena in todays WTA.

Pete said, "Keep my wife out of this" when the naysayers were stepping in saying Pete is through. But in a sense its true. Its not a coincidence he just started to dip when he met that chick in 99. No doubt she took Petes focus off of tennis

 

[380pistol]

Pete was 29 and not 30+ when he faced safin at the 2000 U.S.O. F. Won the wimbledon that year about 2 months ago. Very few really expected safin to beat sampras , much less in straights. Pete was heavily favoured.

Pete was not far away from his prime that time. Face it, he just got pummeled by safin playing at his best and safin really made him look clueless.

Please. Taking nothing away from Safin, but Pete hobble to Wimbledon on one leg, and couldn't even walk in dress shoes. Not to mention other injuries from earlier that year (torn hip flexor in Melbourne). Yes Sampras was favoured and should have won that match, But Safin played the match of his life that day, so our point would be....????

 

[krosero]

All I was saying is that Borg twice played the US Open on grass(1974-75) and clay (1976-77), albeit green clay.

Actually the USO was played on grass through 1974 only. From 1975-77 it was clay.

Despite clay being Borg's best surface, there is little chance that he could have won in '75, with Orantes and Connors playing so well. In '76 he was better and that final-round loss is important. '77 doesn't even come in because he defaulted injured in the 4th round, as the top seed; he had started to beat Connors and a lot of people feel that year would have been his best chance to win the USO.

Give Sampras 2 chances at the French on grass and and 2 more on hard, and I can damn near gurantee he'll will win at least 2.

But what years are you thinking? Borg was not going to win on Forest Hills grass up through '74 (or even '75 if grass had stayed there that long). His grasscourt game did not mature till the '76 W. The only comparable years for Sampras are when Pete's grasscourt game had not matured, meaning before 1993. His chances of winning a grasscourt Slam before then are not out of the question, but they're not good.

If you're thinking of Sampras post-1993, then let's imagine Borg playing the USO on clay or grass after 1976. Like I said, his chances on clay in '77 were excellent (and he would have been practically undefeatable on clay in '78-'81); his chances on grass in '78 or '79 were not much less; and in '80 his chances on grass would still have been great.

That's all I'm saying about this comparison: peak should be compared against peak, non-peak against non-peak.

Also, and this is really key, I'm not sure why we're putting Sampras on a grasscourt at Roland Garros when it was his absolute best surface, just because Borg happened to play the USO on grass when he was very young and had no chance of winning. I thought you meant, let's put Sampras on his best surface at RG because Borg lost the USO on his best surface (clay) in '76. That makes some sense and it was the interesting part of the comparison. However as I said, his chance to win '76 was not yet that good (which is why the parallel should be with Sampras before 1993, on grass or hard court). He came close that year, but if Forest Hills had stayed on clay he would have won at least starting in '79 (presuming he's still injured in '77 and '78), no problem with 1980 or even 1981.

Safin, Federer and Hewitt got a 30+ Sampras, who was on the downslide. He could barely win tournaments. Borg won the French and mae 3 straight slam finals.

I understand your point here, that Borg seems closer to his peak when he lost 3 finals to McEnroe, than Sampras was in 2000-02. But you're looking just at age and not burnout. The real question is whether Pete, starting to burn out and already looking to end his career, at age 25, faces McEnroe in three straight finals and loses to him.

(Incidentally I don't want this to become about whether John McEnroe himself would have translated well to the 90s game; just imagine a player capable of doing in the '90s game -- however you see that game -- what McEnroe did in '80-81.)

Since that situation obviously never happened, the closest comparison we have is Sampras' downslide in 2000-02. That downslide occurred for very different causes and there's no reason it should produce the same results as Borg's burnout in 1980-81. In fact all this has to vary from one player to another. Maybe in one player burnout manifests as early round losses, like Pete's; for Borg who was known for his consistency, that is less likely.

Still there are interesting parallels. Sampras stopped making W finals after 2000, but he continued making the USO final every year. Borg lost two straight USO finals to Mac, and Pete also lost two straight -- though to different players (which was my point about Pete facing players with some of McEnroe's qualities but not his consistency). What if Pete made the '01 and '02 Wimbledon finals against McEnroe's equivalent? Maybe that results in 3 straight Slams losses. I don't think Sampras in his actual situation of 2000-02 would have let that happen, because Sampras still had enough mentally for one last effort, and it's not at all clear that Borg had that much left in terms of physical and mental burnout in '81.

I'll sum it up by agreeing with you that I have a hard time seeing Sampras losing 3 straight finals to anyone. Of course I do. But I have an easier time seeing it if he faces the equivalent of McEnroe and shares Borg's burnout. I have a hard time seeing Borg himself lose 3 straight finals without those two factors in place. A fully motivated Borg, still fully in love with the game at age 25, is probably not going to lose 3 straight to McEnroe, not when Borg and McEnroe contested so many close matches and were so close in skill.

 

[380pistol]

Actually the USO was played on grass through 1974 only. From 1975-77 it was clay.

Despite clay being Borg's best surface, there is little chance that he could have won in '75, with Orantes and Connors playing so well. In '76 he was better and that final-round loss is important. '77 doesn't even come in because he defaulted injured in the 4th round, as the top seed; he had started to beat Connors and a lot of people feel that year would have been his best chance to win the USO.

That would be my mistake, I always thought the US Open moved to clay in 1976. I agree throw out 1977, I do recall Borg retiring or pulling out from the US Open, but honestly couldn't remember the year off the top of my head.

But what years are you thinking? Borg was not going to win on Forest Hills grass up through '74 (or even '75 if grass had stayed there that long). His grasscourt game did not mature till the '76 W. The only comparable years for Sampras are when Pete's grasscourt game had not matured, meaning before 1993. His chances of winning a grasscourt Slam before then are not out of the question, but they're not good.

If you're thinking of Sampras post-1993, then let's imagine Borg playing the USO on clay or grass after 1976. Like I said, his chances on clay in '77 were excellent (and he would have been practically undefeatable on clay in '78-'81); his chances on grass in '78 or '79 were not much less; and in '80 his chances on grass would still have been great.

That's all I'm saying about this comparison: peak should be compared against peak, non-peak against non-peak.

Also, and this is really key, I'm not sure why we're putting Sampras on a grasscourt at Roland Garros when it was his absolute best surface, just because Borg happened to play the USO on grass when he was very young and had no chance of winning. I thought you meant, let's put Sampras on his best surface at RG because Borg lost the USO on his best surface (clay) in '76. That makes some sense and it was the interesting part of the comparison. However as I said, his chance to win '76 was not yet that good (which is why the parallel should be with Sampras before 1993, on grass or hard court). He came close that year, but if Forest Hills had stayed on clay he would have won at least starting in '79 (presuming he's still injured in '77 and '78), no problem with 1980 or even 1981.

You pose a good question asking what years would Sampras play RG on what urfaces in reference Borg. It would come down to what you measure as someone's peak. Tennis players generally peak from 22-27(5 -6 yrs give or take). But the problem is some peak earlier (Borg, WIlander, Nadal), some later (Lendl, Agassi), and some at that age point (Edberg, Sampras, Federer).

It depends what you consider Borg's peak in comparison to Sampras'. I was just throwing it out there that Borg did get chances to play the US Open on surfaces other than grass, while Sampras didn't play the French outside of clay. Anyway, if we do get ino this deeper, the only year I can see Sampras doing any damage on grass/hard before his peak would have been 1992. I can see him beating Courier and Agassi, but Edberg would have been a strugle.

I understand your point here, that Borg seems closer to his peak when he lost 3 finals to McEnroe, than Sampras was in 2000-02. But you're looking just at age and not burnout. The real question is whether Pete, starting to burn out and already looking to end his career, at age 25, faces McEnroe in three straight finals and loses to him.

(Incidentally I don't want this to become about whether John McEnroe himself would have translated well to the 90s game; just imagine a player capable of doing in the '90s game -- however you see that game -- what McEnroe did in '80-81.)

Since that situation obviously never happened, the closest comparison we have is Sampras' downslide in 2000-02. That downslide occurred for very different causes and there's no reason it should produce the same results as Borg's burnout in 1980-81. In fact all this has to vary from one player to another. Maybe in one player burnout manifests as early round losses, like Pete's; for Borg who was known for his consistency, that is less likely.

Still there are interesting parallels. Sampras stopped making W finals after 2000, but he continued making the USO final every year. Borg lost two straight USO finals to Mac, and Pete also lost two straight -- though to different players (which was my point about Pete facing players with some of McEnroe's qualities but not his consistency). What if Pete made the '01 and '02 Wimbledon finals against McEnroe's equivalent? Maybe that results in 3 straight Slams losses. I don't think Sampras in his actual situation of 2000-02 would have let that happen, because Sampras still had enough mentally for one last effort, and it's not at all clear that Borg had that much left in terms of physical and mental burnout in '81.

I'll sum it up by agreeing with you that I have a hard time seeing Sampras losing 3 straight finals to anyone. Of course I do. But I have an easier time seeing it if he faces the equivalent of McEnroe and shares Borg's burnout. I have a hard time seeing Borg himself lose 3 straight finals without those two factors in place. A fully motivated Borg, still fully in love with the game at age 25, is probably not going to lose 3 straight to McEnroe, not when Borg and McEnroe contested so many close matches and were so close in skill.

2000 wasn't a peak year for Sampras, but wasn't a bad one. SF in Australia (tore hip flexor in SF), won Wim and F of US, and it took Safin playing the match of his life to beat Pete.

2001 Sampras went 35-16 with ZERO titles, 0-4 in finals, and outside of the US Open went 4th, 2nd and 4th in slams. Borg's 1981 > Sampras' 2001. The 2001 US Open F is misleading. Pete got hot for a week, made the final, so it makes it seem that he was still making slam F, and still playing well, when he wasn't. Take out the 2nd week of the 2001 US Open and analyze the rest of 2001 for Sampras, not good at all. I mean he started the year #3 and finished #13. While Borg started 1981 #1 and finished #2.

2002 is even worse. He was 20-17 (barely .500) going into the US Open. In 2001-02 Pet played well for what... 3 week?? Take away those US Opens and Sampras went 49-32 with 0 titles. Borg was doing better than that in 1981.

Now like I said before there was no one rivaling McEnroe around for Sampras, and if Sampras was burned out like who's to say how he'd perform. Possibly similar to Borg, although Pete had a differen mindset. He wasn't trying to be #1, or the best player on tour, he just wanted one more slam, he knew for 2 weeks he could be the best player on the planet. Borg likely could've done the same, but just didn't know it, or didn't believe it. What's telling is that I watched a documentary on Borg and he said after losing the 1981 Wimbledon F, he wasn't sad, hurt, he had no feeling. A year prior ater losing the epic tie break, he was worried and nervous and that's when he said he knew it was time to go. Sampras on the other hand after losing to Bastl (and Mathieu in Long Island to a certain extent), came to Flushing with a purpose. Like he had something to prove. Their mindsets were different. Borg really didn't have the desire, while Sampras was determined for one more.

 

[abmk]

Please. Taking nothing away from Safin, but Pete hobble to Wimbledon on one leg, and couldn't even walk in dress shoes. Not to mention other injuries from earlier that year (torn hip flexor in Melbourne). Yes Sampras was favoured and should have won that match, But Safin played the match of his life that day, so our point would be....????

He was fine during the U.S.O . He also played tournaments after wimbledon and before U.S.O. All I am saying is your statement made it look like you were taking credit away from safin.

 

[anointedone]

Sampras won Wimbledon, won Miami (the unoffical 5th major back then), lost an amazing match to Agassi in the Australian Open semis otherwise would have won there too, and made the U.S Open final. Talking about a 2001 and 2002 Sampras being well past it makes sense, but talking about the 2000 Sampras as being some doddering old man way past it already is plain stupidity. I guess we have to try and make people believe that though given how badly Safin whooped his butt. Also the wildy erratic Safin has played like that other times, just that was the biggest match he played it in (only had 4 chances to do so in such a big match as the underachieving Safin made only 4 finals). The second biggest match he ever played like that in was vs Federer in a slam semifinal of course.

As for Federer's match with Sampras at Wimbledon, Federer was even further from his prime than Sampras at the time of that match. He wouldnt even make another slam quarterfinal for another two full years.

 

[krosero]

You pose a good question asking what years would Sampras play RG on what urfaces in reference Borg. It would come down to what you measure as someone's peak. Tennis players generally peak from 22-27(5 -6 yrs give or take). But the problem is some peak earlier (Borg, WIlander, Nadal), some later (Lendl, Agassi), and some at that age point (Edberg, Sampras, Federer).

It depends what you consider Borg's peak in comparison to Sampras'.

This would be fine in general but there's also the question of when a player matures on a particular surface. Those three players you mentioned who peaked early are all great claycourters, and on clay players mature early. A grasscourt game generally takes longer to mature. Sure, Borg starting winning RG at his 18th birthday. But he had no chance of winning the USO that year on grass.

I was just throwing it out there that Borg did get chances to play the US Open on surfaces other than grass, while Sampras didn't play the French outside of clay.

You did more than that, if you're going to be perfectly frank. You didn't just mention Borg playing the USO on clay; you said that he played it on grass twice, and then took the concrete step of having Sampras play twice on grass at RG.

Let me add that the whole concept of playing "the French outside of clay" is tailor-made for giving Sampras a bye. No one ever gets to the play the French outside of clay, and hopefully no one ever will. It makes no sense to take out the only slow surface of the majors. It tests fast court players in a way that the others don't.

2000 wasn't a peak year for Sampras, but wasn't a bad one. SF in Australia (tore hip flexor in SF), won Wim and F of US, and it took Safin playing the match of his life to beat Pete.

2001 Sampras went 35-16 with ZERO titles, 0-4 in finals, and outside of the US Open went 4th, 2nd and 4th in slams. Borg's 1981 > Sampras' 2001. The 2001 US Open F is misleading. Pete got hot for a week, made the final, so it makes it seem that he was still making slam F, and still playing well, when he wasn't. Take out the 2nd week of the 2001 US Open and analyze the rest of 2001 for Sampras, not good at all. I mean he started the year #3 and finished #13. While Borg started 1981 #1 and finished #2.

2002 is even worse. He was 20-17 (barely .500) going into the US Open. In 2001-02 Pet played well for what... 3 week?? Take away those US Opens and Sampras went 49-32 with 0 titles. Borg was doing better than that in 1981.

Pete's drought was of course a serious one, but I think there's often an inconsistency here when it's mentioned in his defense. For example when you say that Pete would lose to you in Cincinnatti but beat you at Flushing Meadow -- essentially saying that how he did in smaller events was no true guide to how he would do in the big ones. To some extent that's true of all the greats but it's particularly true for Sampras. However then we move to his later years, and the fact that he won "0 titles" and "couldn't win tournaments" is brought in as a strong indicator of how his peak play had dropped -- when it should make just as much sense to continue to say that Pete was still picking his spots and still capable of bringing out far better play at the Slams (like holding his serve 87 consecutive times at the '01 USO, something he'd never done there before -- and he did it against three former champions).

In fact I think the contrast between small events and Slams becomes even more pronounced then. In his book he starts saying in after the 2000 AO that, more than ever, he was picking his spots. It's no coincidence that the drought started then. In the first half of 2000 he wins only Miami, then Wimbledon, and then his long drought begins.

And it makes sense that this particular drought ended at a major. On paper it looks wildly improbable that such a drought would end with one last hurrah at a Slam, but looking back, it kind of makes sense that Sampras did it, in that he geared himself up for the Slams. It was, after all, his goal -- to win another Slam. He wasn't trying to be a regular force on the tour anymore.

Nor was Borg in '81, who apart from RG won only two titles on clay, where in some sense he could still breeze along because of his mastery over the competition on that surface; something Sampras did not have the luxury of doing on fast surfaces.

So I don't see that much difference between Borg's 1981 and Sampras' 2001. The huge difference is there at Roland Garros but we know why that is. Otherwise, they both made the USO, and Sampras lost a close five-setter in the fourth round at Wimbledon to a very hot player. If he had gotten through that match is there some reason he wouldn't have beaten Henman and gotten to face (and possibly beat) Goran in the semis?

No one, by the way, can say that Sampras' age had nothing to do with his drought. Of course it did. I just wonder why, when Sampras performs less well at small events at his peak, his habit of bringing his best to the majors is always brought up, but in 2000-01 it's no longer brought up -- even with Sampras telling us that by then he was consciously, and more than ever, choosing his spots. He wanted Wimbledon and the USO and surely felt that his best chances were there, so in a way the AO, and certainly RG, got less effort from him after he broke Emerson's record at the 2000 Wimbledon. No knock on him, either: he knew that his best chances for one last Slam were not in Australia or France.

So comparing his self-belief against Borg's (which you brought up), I also don't see that much difference. Borg lacked some confidence against McEnroe in '81, partly because with so little competitive play, confidence is hard to come by. And an equally strong reason is that McEnroe looked like his equal, more or less, on fast surfaces. Sampras went into these USO's knowing that he was still the best on that court, given his record over Agassi; but at AO you could say that he felt what Borg did at Wimbledon and the USO, that he knew there was someone there equal to him. So he didn't put as much effort into it and really geared himself up for W and the USO. So he didn't make the finals there, whereas Borg met McEnroe in the W and USO finals because he felt the same about those two tournaments that Pete did -- they were the two biggest prizes in tennis, and impossible to downgrade in significance.

So yes, Sampras had a different mindset going into those last USO's; he knew he could beat the competition there; he didn't have McEnroe's equivalent there (someone capable of winning three straight USO's).

Now like I said before there was no one rivaling McEnroe around for Sampras, and if Sampras was burned out like who's to say how he'd perform.

Ultimately we're in agreement because, yes, it's impossible to say for sure how something like that would affect a person. Making one player truly walk in another's shoes, we're talking uncertain territory, by definition.

 

[Bretto]

Sampras Sampras Sampras

 

[Tennis Dunce]

The fact that Borg won 6 French Open titles and 5 Wimbledon titles proves to me that Borg>Sampras. You can't get more disparity in court surfaces than grass and clay.

 

[380pistol]

This would be fine in general but there's also the question of when a player matures on a particular surface. Those three players you mentioned who peaked early are all great claycourters, and on clay players mature early. A grasscourt game generally takes longer to mature. Sure, Borg starting winning RG at his 18th birthday. But he had no chance of winning the USO that year on grass.

Agreed. That's why I said if hypothetically Pete played the French on grass or hard before his peak (like the US Open on grass for an 18 yr old Borg), it wouldn't make difference.

You did more than that, if you're going to be perfectly frank. You didn't just mention Borg playing the USO on clay; you said that he played it on grass twice, and then took the concrete step of having Sampras play twice on grass at RG.

Let me add that the whole concept of playing "the French outside of clay" is tailor-made for giving Sampras a bye. No one ever gets to the play the French outside of clay, and hopefully no one ever will. It makes no sense to take out the only slow surface of the majors. It tests fast court players in a way that the others don't.

All I was noting is that the arguments vs each no US for Borg and no US for Sampras, fine. But many note the 4 finals Borg played in New York, and the zero for Sampras, without noting the surface discrepancies. And one of those finals, came on green clay in 1976. That's all.

Pete's drought was of course a serious one, but I think there's often an inconsistency here when it's mentioned in his defense. For example when you say that Pete would lose to you in Cincinnatti but beat you at Flushing Meadow -- essentially saying that how he did in smaller events was no true guide to how he would do in the big ones. To some extent that's true of all the greats but it's particularly true for Sampras. However then we move to his later years, and the fact that he won "0 titles" and "couldn't win tournaments" is brought in as a strong indicator of how his peak play had dropped -- when it should make just as much sense to continue to say that Pete was still picking his spots and still capable of bringing out far better play at the Slams (like holding his serve 87 consecutive times at the '01 USO, something he'd never done there before -- and he did it against three former champions).

In fact I think the contrast between small events and Slams becomes even more pronounced then. In his book he starts saying in after the 2000 AO that, more than ever, he was picking his spots. It's no coincidence that the drought started then. In the first half of 2000 he wins only Miami, then Wimbledon, and then his long drought begins.

And it makes sense that this particular drought ended at a major. On paper it looks wildly improbable that such a drought would end with one last hurrah at a Slam, but looking back, it kind of makes sense that Sampras did it, in that he geared himself up for the Slams. It was, after all, his goal -- to win another Slam. He wasn't trying to be a regular force on the tour anymore.

Nor was Borg in '81, who apart from RG won only two titles on clay, where in some sense he could still breeze along because of his mastery over the competition on that surface; something Sampras did not have the luxury of doing on fast surfaces.

So I don't see that much difference between Borg's 1981 and Sampras' 2001. The huge difference is there at Roland Garros but we know why that is. Otherwise, they both made the USO, and Sampras lost a close five-setter in the fourth round at Wimbledon to a very hot player. If he had gotten through that match is there some reason he wouldn't have beaten Henman and gotten to face (and possibly beat) Goran in the semis?

No one, by the way, can say that Sampras' age had nothing to do with his drought. Of course it did. I just wonder why, when Sampras performs less well at small events at his peak, his habit of bringing his best to the majors is always brought up, but in 2000-01 it's no longer brought up -- even with Sampras telling us that by then he was consciously, and more than ever, choosing his spots. He wanted Wimbledon and the USO and surely felt that his best chances were there, so in a way the AO, and certainly RG, got less effort from him after he broke Emerson's record at the 2000 Wimbledon. No knock on him, either: he knew that his best chances for one last Slam were not in Australia or France.

So comparing his self-belief against Borg's (which you brought up), I also don't see that much difference. Borg lacked some confidence against McEnroe in '81, partly because with so little competitive play, confidence is hard to come by. And an equally strong reason is that McEnroe looked like his equal, more or less, on fast surfaces. Sampras went into these USO's knowing that he was still the best on that court, given his record over Agassi; but at AO you could say that he felt what Borg did at Wimbledon and the USO, that he knew there was someone there equal to him. So he didn't put as much effort into it and really geared himself up for W and the USO. So he didn't make the finals there, whereas Borg met McEnroe in the W and USO finals because he felt the same about those two tournaments that Pete did -- they were the two biggest prizes in tennis, and impossible to downgrade in significance.

So yes, Sampras had a different mindset going into those last USO's; he knew he could beat the competition there; he didn't have McEnroe's equivalent there (someone capable of winning three straight USO's).

Two things.....
1) It's not that Sampras perfromed less than stellar at smaller events, his winning % was down, his titles and finals were down. Even in a inconsistent year [1998] for Sampras he still won 4 titles and 3 other finals. And if not for leg injury in SF, he may have won the US Open. I noted in 2002 he was barely .500 going into the US Open. That's not playing well no matter how you reason it.

In 2001 he started the year #3 and finished #13. That's his playing level dipping, age catching up to him, certainly not him playing well.

2) I dint say confidence thing for Borg I said mindset. In 1980 he was concerned after losing the tie break. He didn't know how he could let a match he was in control of temporarily slip away. After losing the 1981 final he said he wasn't even sad. It just tennis at that point wasn't to him what it once was. If Bor had been determned to come back, I believe he could, but for whatever reason he was ready to go.

Sampras wasn't ready to go. He fel he had one more slam in him, and wanted to get. Borg on the other hand didn't care. Borg wasn't thinking I've lost my Wimbledon title, I coming back to regain what's mine, it just wasn't important to him at that point. If it was, his story may have ended differently. he said himself, he felt nothing after losing his Wimbledon strangelhold. Pete felt he to get one more before he left. He was going to whatever he could t get it, while it didn't seem to matter to Borg. Not a confidence thing, or a character thing, it's their respective personalities and lives at those respective points in time.

Ultimately we're in agreement because, yes, it's impossible to say for sure how something like that would affect a person. Making one player truly walk in another's shoes, we're talking uncertain territory, by definition.

True. If they switched places I don't know how it would have played out for each. I know if Borg wanted to come back in 1982 and even 1983 and win 1,2,3 or whatever slams he probably could have. For whatever reason he didn't want to, or seem to be bothered in doing so.

 

[krosero]

But many note the 4 finals Borg played in New York, and the zero for Sampras, without noting the surface discrepancies. And one of those finals, came on green clay in 1976.

True statement, although the year is part of the context, too, along with the surface (and I think we agree on that).

Two things.....
1) It's not that Sampras perfromed less than stellar at smaller events, his winning % was down, his titles and finals were down. Even in a inconsistent year [1998] for Sampras he still won 4 titles and 3 other finals. And if not for leg injury in SF, he may have won the US Open. I noted in 2002 he was barely .500 going into the US Open. That's not playing well no matter how you reason it.

In 2001 he started the year #3 and finished #13. That's his playing level dipping, age catching up to him, certainly not him playing well.

2) I dint say confidence thing for Borg I said mindset. In 1980 he was concerned after losing the tie break. He didn't know how he could let a match he was in control of temporarily slip away. After losing the 1981 final he said he wasn't even sad. It just tennis at that point wasn't to him what it once was. If Bor had been determned to come back, I believe he could, but for whatever reason he was ready to go.

Sampras wasn't ready to go. He fel he had one more slam in him, and wanted to get. Borg on the other hand didn't care. Borg wasn't thinking I've lost my Wimbledon title, I coming back to regain what's mine, it just wasn't important to him at that point. If it was, his story may have ended differently. he said himself, he felt nothing after losing his Wimbledon strangelhold. Pete felt he to get one more before he left. He was going to whatever he could t get it, while it didn't seem to matter to Borg. Not a confidence thing, or a character thing, it's their respective personalities and lives at those respective points in time.

Again here I don't have a major disagreement, because I was not arguing that Sampras was playing well. If you're in a drought, you're not playing well; and we agree that age was catching up to him. My point was to put the drought in context -- to put some meat on the bare bones of the drought's statistics. Before this debate it had not occurred to me, but his drought began immediately upon breaking Emerson's record at the 2000 W. His main goal was attained, and after that, what motivation could he have had, at that age, having attained practically everything, to really reach back and win smaller events? How could that have held much appeal to him? Certainly he was still entering the events and still trying. But at this stage the only thing left to do -- the one thing that would really get his best energy and effort -- was one more Slam victory. And in due time he broke his drought at a Slam.

So of course he was in a drought and not playing well. But what were the reasons? It wasn't just age -- if by age we mean just the physical. Aging also means a later stage in your career and changing motivations (though individuals still differ; just glance at Jimmy Connors, for example).

What was the documentary on Borg that you mentioned?

 

[Rabbit]

The fact that Borg won 6 French Open titles and 5 Wimbledon titles proves to me that Borg>Sampras. You can't get more disparity in court surfaces than grass and clay.

I tend to equate Sampras and Borg on any GOAT list as equals. That said, when you reduce it down to a baseline level, I agree with you.

 

[380pistol]

True statement, although the year is part of the context, too, along with the surface (and I think we agree on that).

Understood. I see where you're coming from abut the French on hard and grass ( a little bit of strtch), but they don't play on anything else (carpet then, but not anymore). Year is important as well. As prior to 1993 whether they played the French Open on ice the only resonable chance he may have had anyway would be 1992, and still he wouldn't be favoured.

Again here I don't have a major disagreement, because I was not arguing that Sampras was playing well. If you're in a drought, you're not playing well; and we agree that age was catching up to him. My point was to put the drought in context -- to put some meat on the bare bones of the drought's statistics. Before this debate it had not occurred to me, but his drought began immediately upon breaking Emerson's record at the 2000 W. His main goal was attained, and after that, what motivation could he have had, at that age, having attained practically everything, to really reach back and win smaller events? How could that have held much appeal to him? Certainly he was still entering the events and still trying. But at this stage the only thing left to do -- the one thing that would really get his best energy and effort -- was one more Slam victory. And in due time he broke his drought at a Slam.

So of course he was in a drought and not playing well. But what were the reasons? It wasn't just age -- if by age we mean just the physical. Aging also means a later stage in your career and changing motivations (though individuals still differ; just glance at Jimmy Connors, for example).

What was the documentary on Borg that you mentioned?

Agreed here except for 2000. I don't think Pete was playing that badly, but his body failed him (torn hip flexor at Aus Open, shin at Wimbledon, and little things in between). Safin playing a brilliant final didn't help, but many forget Pete regained the #1 ranking after US Open,, but then got married and took two months off. So you're right motivations do change.

The Documentary, I'm inclined to say Tennis Legends Of Wimbledon but I'm not 100%. But I recall him saying after losing his crown in 1981 it didn't seem important to him (or something to that extent), while in 1980, he was going to make you pry that trophy from his cold, dead hands.

 

[krosero]

The Documentary, I'm inclined to say Tennis Legends Of Wimbledon but I'm not 100%. But I recall him saying after losing his crown in 1981 it didn't seem important to him (or something to that extent), while in 1980, he was going to make you pry that trophy from his cold, dead hands.

I thought it might be that one because some of the things you said were in the documentary, for instance how he felt after losing the '81 final. But I've never heard Borg say that losing the tiebreak in '80 was a factor in his decision to go, or that he'd lost control of that match. In the doc he seems to say he lost control of the '81 final. And he says that he felt terrible, of course, after losing the '80 tiebreak -- and elated after winning the match. The narrator says that the '80 final made it clear that Borg's successor had arrived, but that was obvious. Borg says nothing blaming himself for losing all the match points; he says that he made good shots and that McEnroe just kept coming up with greater ones.

A year prior ater losing the epic tie break, he was worried and nervous and that's when he said he knew it was time to go.

In 1980 he was concerned after losing the tie break. He didn't know how he could let a match he was in control of temporarily slip away.

 

[thalivest]

Pete was 29 and not 30+ when he faced safin at the 2000 U.S.O. F. Won the wimbledon that year about 2 months ago. Very few really expected safin to beat sampras , much less in straights. Pete was heavily favoured.

Pete was not far away from his prime that time. Face it, he just got pummeled by safin playing at his best and safin really made him look clueless.

It is amazing that Sampras fanboys who argue heavily for him as the GOAT like to potray him as an ancient old man at 28 and 29 years old even. Even his longtime rival Agassi won over half of his slams at age 29 or older. Rod Laver won the calender slam at age 31! If Sampras was really some doddering old man already at 29 as they wish one to believe to conveniently cover any of his losses at that time, then he really is pretty far from GOAT material anyway in that case.

 

[abmk]

It is amazing that Sampras fanboys who argue heavily for him as the GOAT like to potray him as an ancient old man at 28 and 29 years old even. Even his longtime rival Agassi won over half of his slams at age 29 or older. Rod Laver won the calender slam at age 31! If Sampras was really some doddering old man already at 29 as they wish one to believe to conveniently cover any of his losses at that time, then he really is pretty far from GOAT material anyway in that case.

Well, it ( peak time ( years) ) is different for different players. But it was downright silly to make an "excuse" in this case. Not anything new anyways .

 

[Mick]

the way i see it: borg had a problem when he faced mcenroe and to me, sampras is like a mcenroe with a better serve and more powerful groundstrokes. thus, i don't see how borg could have a winning record against sampras, if they played.

 

[Borgforever]

the way i see it: borg had a problem when he faced mcenroe and to me, sampras is like a mcenroe with a better serve and more powerful groundstrokes. thus, i don't see how borg could have a winning record against sampras, if they played.

Yes, Björn had "problems" with the Mac and that type of play. Just problems. In 1980 -- after the thundering encounters of 1979 between Borg and Mac -- Björn won all their match-ups, except the US Open-final -- and we all know what a strange context and development that match had and Borg almost won that too.

So in the early spring of 1981(before their first "official" meetings of 1981) Borg could've had an 8-3 lead H2H instead of 7-4. They only met on Mac's fave surfaces (since Mac didn't have Björn's skill on the slower courts so he lost early in those tourneys and was markedly, consequently less dranied both psychologically and physically during the later, faster court-season).

In 1981 Borg's mind had retired already -- hardly played. Still almost beat Mac on Mac's favorite surfaces even more than he did before without any serious focus whatsoever.

Add that Sampras had the ability to appear more thundering thanks to 15 years of graphite evolution making every stroke, spin and powershot easier to pull-off -- not to mention that the very smack of the ball has more "thunk"-quality...

So -- slight edge to Borg IMO on all fronts against Pete...

 

[380pistol]

I thought it might be that one because some of the things you said were in the documentary, for instance how he felt after losing the '81 final. But I've never heard Borg say that losing the tiebreak in '80 was a factor in his decision to go, or that he'd lost control of that match. In the doc he seems to say he lost control of the '81 final. And he says that he felt terrible, of course, after losing the '80 tiebreak -- and elated after winning the match. The narrator says that the '80 final made it clear that Borg's successor had arrived, but that was obvious. Borg says nothing blaming himself for losing all the match points; he says that he made good shots and that McEnroe just kept coming up with greater ones.

No it you misunderstood or I worded it incorrectly. The 1980 tie break wan't a factor in his decision to go, I was using that as a reference to show the difference in Borg's mindset, as to the way it was 1981.

In 1980 after the tie break, Borg was worried that he was possibly letting match he was in control of (he served for the title at 5-4 in the 4th set), start to slip away. He came out in the 5th fighting. But in 1981, after losing the match that same fire wasn't there. He wasn't upsetor anything according to him. If Borg had the mindset of 1980 Bjorn in 1981, he would have definitely came back in 1982, and there's a good chance Connors would not have won the Wimbledon/US Open double.

 

[thalivest]

Well, it ( peak time ( years) ) is different for different players. But it was downright silly to make an "excuse" in this case. Not anything new anyways .

Yeah it is true peak time is different for different players but this is conveniently ignored when Agassi's age is brought up to mock any present day players he ever beat or even ever took sets off sometimes (the most he ever did vs prime Federer or baby Nadal of course). The fact that Agassi's career from 22-28 when a players typical prime is was mostly a huge hole filled up with Brooke Shield's panties and Taco Bell wraps, that was needed to be filled up in his "older" years is conveniently ignored when it is pointed out he was 30-something. If Agassi didnt have another prime which began at age 29 he would be even lower than say Jim Courier all time right now (when he turned 29 only 3 slams, never a year end #1, never 2 majors in the same year, only back to back consistent years, etc...) so the whole dismissal of his later years becomes bogus in his case.

In Sampras's case he was not exactly a teen phenom ala Borg, Nadal, Becker, and others. Yeah he won that shock U.S Open at 19 but didnt win his 2nd slam until he was 22, and didnt even reach his 2nd slam final until he was almost 22. So in his case it is pretty bad to supposably be a doddering old man at only 28 or 29 as Sampras GOAT pushers seemingly would like you to believe to erase some of his unwelcome losses or performances.

 

[krosero]

Yes, Björn had "problems" with the Mac and that type of play. Just problems.

One of them being McEnroe's left-handedness.

 

[GameSampras]

Yeah it is true peak time is different for different players but this is conveniently ignored when Agassi's age is brought up to mock any present day players he ever beat or even ever took sets off sometimes (the most he ever did vs prime Federer or baby Nadal of course). The fact that Agassi's career from 22-28 when a players typical prime is was mostly a huge hole filled up with Brooke Shield's panties and Taco Bell wraps, that was needed to be filled up in his "older" years is conveniently ignored when it is pointed out he was 30-something. If Agassi didnt have another prime which began at age 29 he would be even lower than say Jim Courier all time right now (when he turned 29 only 3 slams, never a year end #1, never 2 majors in the same year, only back to back consistent years, etc...) so the whole dismissal of his later years becomes bogus in his case.

In Sampras's case he was not exactly a teen phenom ala Borg, Nadal, Becker, and others. Yeah he won that shock U.S Open at 19 but didnt win his 2nd slam until he was 22, and didnt even reach his 2nd slam final until he was almost 22. So in his case it is pretty bad to supposably be a doddering old man at only 28 or 29 as Sampras GOAT pushers seemingly would like you to believe to erase some of his unwelcome losses or performances.

Well Pete went 6 years on top as Number 1. And another 2 years he could have ended as number 1. 1999 he was injured and Andre took from him.. 2000 he got married and didnt play the championships at the end of the years. Realistically he could have had 8 years as number 1. Thats a pretty long time to handle the grind not to mention he suffered various injuries which could accel someone's decline. Andre went MIA for 3 years which is why he held on longer and was winning slams into his early 30s. If Andre played his peak years and at top notch I would have imagine he would have retired around the same pete did. But he dipped to 100 or 200 in the rankings and got recommitted to the game. Whereas, Pete maintained his dominance for years on end.

Roger's best years lasted only 4-5 years. Hes already becoming burned out and he isnt the same Roger we saw 3 years ago.. The grind takes its toll on any player. Especially these days with the ridiculous amount of tournaments to be played. i dont think Nadal will maintain 6 or more years of Number 1 and top dominance either.

 

[Borgforever]

Yeah it is true peak time is different for different players but this is conveniently ignored when Agassi's age is brought up to mock any present day players he ever beat or even ever took sets off sometimes (the most he ever did vs prime Federer or baby Nadal of course). The fact that Agassi's career from 22-28 when a players typical prime is was mostly a huge hole filled up with Brooke Shield's panties and Taco Bell wraps, that was needed to be filled up in his "older" years is conveniently ignored when it is pointed out he was 30-something. If Agassi didnt have another prime which began at age 29 he would be even lower than say Jim Courier all time right now (when he turned 29 only 3 slams, never a year end #1, never 2 majors in the same year, only back to back consistent years, etc...) so the whole dismissal of his later years becomes bogus in his case.

In Sampras's case he was not exactly a teen phenom ala Borg, Nadal, Becker, and others. Yeah he won that shock U.S Open at 19 but didnt win his 2nd slam until he was 22, and didnt even reach his 2nd slam final until he was almost 22. So in his case it is pretty bad to supposably be a doddering old man at only 28 or 29 as Sampras GOAT pushers seemingly would like you to believe to erase some of his unwelcome losses or performances.

I'm impressed by you consistently. IMO you continually display great knowledge, convincing arguments and wit all presented in an elegant package that is called great writing, Sir...