Was Borg the greatest grass court player ever?

[Pheasant]

As we all know, Borg was robbed by being forced to enter the qualifiers for slams in 1982. This was highway robbery. I think that had Borg played on, then he would have bagged 7-8 Wimbledon titles on that fast grass. But here’s the kicker. I think that his game would have been just as good on the slow grass with large rackets in the modern era. Borg was a very good volleyer. But more importantly for the modern game, he was goat-contender for baseline play. His backhand was way ahead of its time(beautiful backhand) and his serve, starting in 1978, was quite good. I think that he’s unique in that he would have won 7-8 Wimbledon titles on both the new grass and the old grass with a full career. Now obviously, this is all speculation.

But here’s what he actually did:

41 match winning streak at Wimbledon, the longest in the Open Era.

.927 winning pct at Wimbledon is BY FAR the best winning pct at Wimbledon in the Open Era

Was by far the youngest player to win his 5th title(24 years old and 1 month).

Was 1 of only 2 players to win Wimbledon without dropping a set.

Back in his era, he had 1 less week of rest between the FO and Wimbledon. This meant that he almost always skipped grass tuneup events, due to always going deep at the FO.

All things considered, I think that Borg is a contender for being the greatest grass court player of all time.

What do you guys think?

 

[MeatTornado]

I'm certainly not going to pretend to be an expert on early 80s tennis, but I find it hard to see Borg winning 2-3 more titles.

As his career stands, obviously he's a serious contender to that claim, there's only like 3 or 4 guys you could realistically put ahead of him. He has the accolades to make a case for him, but there's no clear reason to put him at the very top.

 

[bigbadboaz]

I agree he had a very unique, adaptable style and could possibly have done just as well on the slow grass.

I'm curious about your hypothetical total number, though. I'm presuming you don't think McEnroe had "eclipsed" him in finally getting the win, and the next few years would have been a back-and-forth?

 

[Moose Malloy]

'70 to '75 was a tougher grasscourt era than '76 to '80. Yeah Mac was great in '80, but it's safe to say that prime Newcombe would have been a lot tougher for Borg than Connors was (and Ashe and Smith would have been tough outs as well) Newcombe being banned from playing in '72/'73 after winning '70/'71 doesn't get mentioned enough here. '72/'73 is a bigger what if than Borg imo(imagine Newk with with 4 straight Wimbledons?) And '83/'84 Mac was next level stuff on grass. Having trouble seeing Borg being competitive with him those years(esp playing with wood, which you know he would do) Mac was doing things in '84 than I doubt anyone in '81 could dream of(Dan Maskell - not one for hyperbole - sounded like he was seeing something he had never seen before)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

As we all know, Borg was robbed by being forced to enter the qualifiers for slams in 1982. This was highway robbery. I think that had Borg played on, then he would have bagged 7-8 Wimbledon titles on that fast grass. But here’s the kicker. I think that his game would have been just as good on the slow grass with large rackets in the modern era. Borg was a very good volleyer. But more importantly for the modern game, he was goat-contender for baseline play. His backhand was way ahead of its time(beautiful backhand) and his serve, starting in 1978, was quite good. I think that he’s unique in that he would have won 7-8 Wimbledon titles on both the new grass and the old grass with a full career. Now obviously, this is all speculation.

But here’s what he actually did:

41 match winning streak at Wimbledon, the longest in the Open Era.

.927 winning pct at Wimbledon is BY FAR the best winning pct at Wimbledon in the Open Era

Was by far the youngest player to win his 5th title(24 years old and 1 month).

Was 1 of only 2 players to win Wimbledon without dropping a set.

Back in his era, he had 1 less week of rest between the FO and Wimbledon. This meant that he almost always skipped grass tuneup events, due to always going deep at the FO.

All things considered, I think that Borg is a contender for being the greatest grass court player of all time.

What do you guys think?

Given the actual circumstances of his wins (always playing later ends of FO, playing fast grass, having one week less between FO and Wimbledon, playing no grass warm ups) his achievements until his retirement top Federer’s. You are also right that I think Borg would do better on slow grass than Fed on fast grass. For what we know Fed never even won a match on fast grass lol, but I know that was more due to him being pre-prime. With his ATG serve, his still competent volleys and return and passes he would do well on fast grass overall.

I do think one can make a serious case for Borg here.

 

[Pheasant]

I agree he had a very unique, adaptable style and could possibly have done just as well on the slow grass.

I'm curious about your hypothetical total number, though. I'm presuming you don't think McEnroe had "eclipsed" him in finally getting the win, and the next few years would have been a back-and-forth?

I think that he bags 1982, then 1-2 more from the folkowing: 1983, 1985, 1988.

Borg was an absolute legend. His name alone might cause a guy to cramp up like Alcaraz did at the FO semi in 2023. I like Borg’s chances in 1985. I really like his chances in 1982. Mac was off his grass court game that year. And Borg had already figured out Connors. By 1986, Becker is in full form and will not lose that one. 1983 is also a good chance for Borg, although I will call that a maybe. I don’t like betting against my favorite Mac too often. 1984 and 1987 are out. Nobody is beating Mac in ‘84. Cash in 1987 was in a zone. He’s not losing either. 1988 is a maybe. Borg would be very old by then. Maybe, he squeaks one out over a green Edberg. He’d have a puncher’s chance, although Edberg would still be favored.

People forget that Borg beat prime Connors 10 straight times. Borg recognized that his serve wasn’t up to what it needed to me. So at the end of 1977, he practiced 2 hours a day on it. He became a deadly server in 1978.

 

[Pheasant]

Given the actual circumstances of his wins (always playing later ends of FO, playing fast grass, having one week less between FO and Wimbledon, playing no grass warm ups) his achievements until his retirement top Federer’s. You are also right that I think Borg would do better on slow grass than Fed on fast grass. For what we know Fed never even won a match on fast grass lol, but I know that was more due to him being pre-prime. With his ATG serve, his still competent volleys and return and passes he would do well on fast grass overall.

I do think one can make a serious case for Borg here.

I think so too. And I also think that nobody could duplicate what he did; given his circumstances. I don’t see anybody skipping tuneups after a grinding clay season, then bagging 5 straight Wimbledon titles with less rest between the FO and WI. I love Fed. But he’s not pulling that off.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think that he bags 1982, then 1-2 more from the folkowing: 1983, 1985, 1988.

Borg was an absolute legend. His name alone might cause a guy to cramp up like Alcaraz did at the FO semi in 2023. I like Borg’s chances in 1985. I really like his chances in 1982. Mac was off his grass court game that year. And Borg had already figured out Connors. By 1986, Becker is in full form and will not lose that one. 1983 is also a good chance for Borg, although I will call that a maybe. I don’t like betting against my favorite Mac too often. 1984 and 1987 are out. Nobody is beating Mac in ‘84. Cash in 1987 was in a zone. He’s not losing either. 1988 is a maybe. Borg would be very old by then. Maybe, he squeaks one out over a green Edberg. He’d have a puncher’s chance, although Edberg would still be favored.

People forget that Borg beat prime Connors 10 straight times. Borg recognized that his serve wasn’t up to what it needed to me. So at the end of 1977, he practiced 2 hours a day on it. He became a deadly server in 1978.

Becker would cause problems for old(er) Borg but 1985 Becker was still green (lost 8 sets en route to his win, a "record" shared with Borg FO 1974 and Kuerten FO 1997) so "maybe" that would be possible, but still I see my man Borg here as the heavy underdog against my man Becker. 1982 would be a good chance especially if Connors takes out Mac for him but even then he can very well beat Mac. 1983 may also be possible, so I will say 7 at best. Anywho, 7 under polarized conditions, with the career-length of the 80s, and 16 seeds translates easily into 8-9 in modern era.

 

[Pheasant]

What I like about Borg is that he realized that there were things the he could improve on, despite winning Wimbledon. I love how he really ramped up his serve after 1977, despite being a 2-time champ at Wimbledon. In 1978, he worked diligently on his slice. By 1978, he had 0 weaknesses. As a matter of fact, by 1978, he was considered the best returner in the game and a top-3 server in the game with his elite placement, excellent spin, and above-average pace. His serve and volley was very good; although not elite. But he was easily the best baseliner in the game and arguably the best baseliner ever; although I’d give Nadal a slight edge there. His speed, agility, coordination, and endurance were the best of his era as well. This guy had all of the skills necessary to be a GOAT-contender.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

What I like about Borg is that he realized that there were things the he could improve on, despite winning Wimbledon. I love how he really ramped up his serve after 1977, despite being a 2-time champ at Wimbledon. In 1978, he worked diligently on his slice. By 1978, he had 0 weaknesses. As a matter of fact, by 1978, he was considered the best returner in the game and a top-3 server in the game with his elite placement, excellent spin, and above-average pace. His serve and volley was very good; although not elite. But he was easily the best baseliner in the game and arguably the best baseliner ever; although I’d give Nadal a slight edge there. His speed, agility, coordination, and endurance were the best of his era as well. This guy had all of the skills necessary to be a GOAT-contender.

He definitely had the best return-passing combi which helped him since he was not the very best in the serve-volley one, which he was of course still decent enough in. Borg typically had a heck lot of passing winners in is battles with Mac, sometimes reaching 40+ (including returns). So out of the four most important shots on grass courts back in the day, he was elite in returns, GOAT-level in passes, very strong in the serve and still good enough on the volley (while no other than @Waspsting says that Borg's volleys in general were not really outstanding, he somehow switched it in Wimbledon where he was way better than usual, e.g. 1976 final against Nastase).

 

[buscemi]

'70 to '75 was a tougher grasscourt era than '76 to '80. Yeah Mac was great in '80, but it's safe to say that prime Newcombe would have been a lot tougher for Borg than Connors was (and Ashe and Smith would have been tough outs as well) Newcombe being banned from playing in '72/'73 after winning '70/'71 doesn't get mentioned enough here. '72/'73 is a bigger what if than Borg imo(imagine Newk with with 4 straight Wimbledons?) And '83/'84 Mac was next level stuff on grass. Having trouble seeing Borg being competitive with him those years(esp playing with wood, which you know he would do) Mac was doing things in '84 than I doubt anyone in '81 could dream of(Dan Maskell - not one for hyperbole - sounded like he was seeing something he had never seen before)

This is the tough part of it. I really wish we got to see Borg against the likes of Laver, Newcombe, and Smith on grass. Instead, all we got was one match against Newcombe at WTF in 1974, with Newk beating Borg after he had won his first French Open, but when he was still a bit "green" on grass.

Then, we get the great matchups between Borg and McEnroe in 1980 and 1981, with the two trading the title, followed by the whole qualifying snafu when Borg wanted a reduced schedule, depriving us of 3 possible matchups from 1982-194.

As noted in the OP, there are a lot of reasons to believe Borg could do well against the greats on grass. But I just don't think there's enough evidence to elevate Borg above the other ATGs on grass. In other words, Borg belongs mention among the best, but there's not enough to elevate him above the others.

 

[sandy mayer]

I don't think we can say Borg was the greatest grass court player based on hypothetical wins. Players are judged by what they won and didn't win, not hypothetical results. Borg knew in late 1981 that he had to commit to 10 tournaments to get into slams in 1982. He chose not to play enough tournaments. He chose not to play qualifying. We cannot credit him wins because he essentially quit.
Borg's performances in 1982 and onwards suggest to me that he was simply burnt out and therefore was no longer likely to win Wimbledon.

Borg must be judged on his 5 Wimbledon titles: a great achievement. But we have to put Sampras, Djokovic and Federer ahead of him in the Open era because quite simply they won Wimbledon more often. I would place Borg number 4 on grass in the Open era.

It is hard to compare Borg on grass to pre Open players like Laver, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge, Vines, and Tilden, because tennis was so different with pros banned from slams, and the nature of the pro tennis where alot of the time there were 1 vs 1 challenge matches indoors, and there were many years where there don't seem to have been major pro tournaments on grass.

 

[Waves]

Nope. Several players ahead of him. But if you consider him the greatest overall, I can see your perspective, and agree on many levels. But not the grass goat.

 

[Ballmachine87]

I think the Pproblem with calling someone the greatest grass court player is the lack of grass court events. For example, you can make a case for Sampras as the best Wimbledon player, or Federer. But that is the only meaningful grass court tournament they could play.

 

[junkieballer]

He ended his Wimbledon career with a loss (1981). No guarantee he would have won more titles if he kept playing.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I don't think we can say Borg was the greatest grass court player based on hypothetical wins Players are judged by what they won and didn't win, not hypothetical results. Borg knew in late 1981 that he had to commit to 10 tournaments to get into slams in 1982. He chose not to play enough tournaments. He chose not to play qualifying. We cannot credit him wins because he essentially quit.
Borg's performances in 1982 and onwards suggest to me that he was simply burnt out and therefore was no longer likely to win Wimbledon.

Borg must be judged on his 5 Wimbledon titles: a great achievement. But we have to put Sampras, Djokovic and Federer ahead of him in the Open era because quite simply they won Wimbledon more often. I would place Borg number 4 on grass in the Open era.

It is hard to compare Borg on grass to pre Open players like Laver, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge, Vines, and Tilden, because tennis was so different with pros banned from slams, and the nature of the pro tennis where alot of the time there were 1 vs 1 challenge matches indoors, and there were many years where there don't seem to have been major pro tournaments on grass.

The old pros did have some important tournaments on grass, including one at Wimbledon.

Forest Hills frequently hosted pro championships, not always with a major title attached, such as in 1941 and 1966, which were one-off tournaments without any title.

Kooyong and White City were among the Australian sites which often had pro events.

The pros lacked the public appeal to hold events on grass in the 1960s, although the U.S. Pro was held at Longwood from 1964 on grass, and there were occasional tournaments at White City and Kooyong.

Some of the lifetime head-to-head stats show us that there were a number of grass tournaments, with Gonzales leading Rosewall on grass lifetime hth by 24-14, and Hoad leading Gonzales on grass lifetime hth by 21-14. Those numbers probably exceed the lifetime hth numbers for recent players like Federer or Djokovic. Also for Sampras and Becker.

Sampras led Agassi on grass lifetime hth by a total of 2-0, and in all matches by 20-14. That was a pittance compared to, for example, Gonzales/Hoad, who played each other about 182 times.

 

[yama]

If there’s a chance, it would likely be around 82 or 85.
82 is realistically possible, but aging is a concern for 85.

Since Connors defeated McEnroe and won a title at a similar age, it’s not impossible, but Connors’ longevity was phenomenal, so we shouldn’t use him as a benchmark.

 

[Razer]

Mcenroe defeated him, imagine what Sampras would have done to Borg

Borg is not the best by a longshot.

 

[Gattone]

As we all know, Borg was robbed by being forced to enter the qualifiers for slams in 1982. This was highway robbery. I think that had Borg played on, then he would have bagged 7-8 Wimbledon titles on that fast grass. But here’s the kicker. I think that his game would have been just as good on the slow grass with large rackets in the modern era. Borg was a very good volleyer. But more importantly for the modern game, he was goat-contender for baseline play. His backhand was way ahead of its time(beautiful backhand) and his serve, starting in 1978, was quite good. I think that he’s unique in that he would have won 7-8 Wimbledon titles on both the new grass and the old grass with a full career. Now obviously, this is all speculation.

But here’s what he actually did:

41 match winning streak at Wimbledon, the longest in the Open Era.

.927 winning pct at Wimbledon is BY FAR the best winning pct at Wimbledon in the Open Era

Was by far the youngest player to win his 5th title(24 years old and 1 month).

Was 1 of only 2 players to win Wimbledon without dropping a set.

Back in his era, he had 1 less week of rest between the FO and Wimbledon. This meant that he almost always skipped grass tuneup events, due to always going deep at the FO.

All things considered, I think that Borg is a contender for being the greatest grass court player of all time.

What do you guys think?

As for the question posed in the title, I would say that Borg might be the greatest grass court player of all time whose game was not especially tailored for grass (although he was definitely far from a baseline player at Wimbledon - we're not talking Agassi here).

As for the hypotetical scenario...

I think that he bags 1982, then 1-2 more from the folkowing: 1983, 1985, 1988.

Borg was an absolute legend. His name alone might cause a guy to cramp up like Alcaraz did at the FO semi in 2023. I like Borg’s chances in 1985. I really like his chances in 1982. Mac was off his grass court game that year. And Borg had already figured out Connors. By 1986, Becker is in full form and will not lose that one. 1983 is also a good chance for Borg, although I will call that a maybe. I don’t like betting against my favorite Mac too often. 1984 and 1987 are out. Nobody is beating Mac in ‘84. Cash in 1987 was in a zone. He’s not losing either. 1988 is a maybe. Borg would be very old by then. Maybe, he squeaks one out over a green Edberg. He’d have a puncher’s chance, although Edberg would still be favored.

People forget that Borg beat prime Connors 10 straight times. Borg recognized that his serve wasn’t up to what it needed to me. So at the end of 1977, he practiced 2 hours a day on it. He became a deadly server in 1978.

... I find it mostly plausible, but there are many variables at play.

Do we think that he would/could have kept playing at the same level of 1980 and 1981 for more years to come? Age was on Mac side, and after that 1981 final Borg was always going to be the underdog in their grass matches - I'm not saying that he would never have beaten Mac again at W, but that it would be as surprising as, say, Becker defeating Agassi in the 1995 USO SF. He would still have the edge over Connors, based on their previous Wimbledon matches and on their H2H being 12-1 between 1978 and 1981, but Connors in 1982 had one of his best seasons, so it might have been closer than those numbers suggest.

And, perhaps more importantly: who would have he played against, to reach those finals? It wasn't just Mac, Jimbo, or later Boris and Stefan (oh, how I would have loved to see Borg vs. Becker at Wimbledon!): you had Cash (even outside 1987), Curren, or even someone like Mayotte or Jarryd, whom I think could have given him a hard time. Not to mention Lendl - they never met on grass, but I certainly wouldn't rule out Ivan in the 1980s against anyone, on any surface, at any event.

Of course you could branch out even further outside Wimbledon: driven and focused as he was, it's plausible to think that, after winning 5 W and 6 RG, Borg would set his eyes firmly on the US Open. So, let's say Borg finally manages to win one, perhaps in 1982 or 1983 - at that point, he might even choose to play Australia (still on grass). Let's say he completes CGS - at that point, he has already surpassed both Laver and Emerson. How motivated would he have to be, to keep playing after that? Maybe 1982 could have been just a transitional year for him, but the clock doesn't turn back, so to me it's more likely that he would have had many problems both in recapturing the hunger of the years before, and in adapting to the upcoming players - who happened to include not one, but maybe four of the ATGs (Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg) -, while still struggling with McEnroe.

 

[urban]

I don't like those hypothetical scenarios. Some point to Borgs wins over Mac at Exos in Japan and Australia, but at the tame time, Borg always lost to Connors. If some will include those exos ( I will not), then Connors turned around their hth. Borg was certainly one of the greatest clay courters ever, alongside Nadal,, and to his credit he built up a great record at Wimbledon, with his fitness, quickness and mental strength, with his first serve, his return game, and a solid, but not great volley..

As said before, between 1976-1981 not so many competent serve and volley players were around. Richard Evans spoke about a window for Borg at Wimbledon. Good people , who were over the hill, like Okker, Pilic or Pasarell still did well at Wimbledon. Tanner had a big serve, but his groundies were erratic. Gerulaitis was very fast and mobile, but lacked penetration on all his shots. I recently saw his serve on slow mo, it reminded me of Rosewalls serve, good placement, but not enough leverage, Nastase was a great all around player on his day, but his volley lacked penetration too. The Aussies had good journeymen like Edmondson or Frawley. MacNamara was more a clay courter, grew up on French clay courts. The Americans also had Dick Stockton, who reached the semi in 1974, then never went deep on grass, Brian Teacher, big serving Vic Amaya and Pat Dupree, not so familiar names. RG winner Adriano Panatta, who could play volleys, never was a serious factor on Wim grass. Vijay was smooth and very talented, but never could quite reach the predictions. Quick Johan Kriek came up in the early 1980s. Since the mid 80s, after Mac dominated, some new fine serve and volleyers, now the the biiger rackets, emerged, like Becker, Edberg, Cash and later Stich. Also lefty Leconte would trouble Borg imo.

 

[GuyForget]

What I like about Borg is that he realized that there were things the he could improve on, despite winning Wimbledon. I love how he really ramped up his serve after 1977, despite being a 2-time champ at Wimbledon. In 1978, he worked diligently on his slice. By 1978, he had 0 weaknesses. As a matter of fact, by 1978, he was considered the best returner in the game and a top-3 server in the game with his elite placement, excellent spin, and above-average pace. His serve and volley was very good; although not elite. But he was easily the best baseliner in the game and arguably the best baseliner ever; although I’d give Nadal a slight edge there. His speed, agility, coordination, and endurance were the best of his era as well. This guy had all of the skills necessary to be a GOAT-contender.

“a slight edge” lol

 

[jrepac]

A lot of maybes here. I still see Fed as the best grass player overall, but the grass is just not the same as when Borg played. Sampras may be the more apt comparison. But would Borg have dominated in the 80's if he only played sporadically, maybe just slams and a few big events? Not certain. I mean, 81 was not a great year by his standards. Barely squeaked in the French win, lost to Mac at W. Barely got by Connors at W, for that matter. So, I don't know what 82 or 83 might have looked like for him. Probably a lot of it was psychological, not physical. But the longer he stayed away, the less sharp he became...you can see that in some of the lucrative exos he played in those years. Not that he was bad by any stretch, but not playing on the tour week in week out. If anything, I could see a few more FOs in there.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

If we mean GOAT as one of the greatest of all time then yes but if we are talking about strictly greatest ever at the tip top of the mountain than absolutely not.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If we mean GOAT as one of the greatest of all time then yes but if we are talking about strictly greatest ever at the tip top of the mountain than absolutely not.

He definitely is not by numbers there is no way arguing against it. But nevertheless @Pheasant made an interesting point. One has to keep in mind, that one can well argue that given the circumstances, Borg's grass feats are more impressive or tougher to achieve than anyone else's. He has the longest winning streak at Wimbledon (41 matches), is the youngest who won five titles, played under polarized conditions with 16 seeds (Fed did not and Pete never won 5 in a row). On top, unlike Pete and to a smaller extent Fed, Borg always reached the later rounds of the FO, had one less week rest until Wimbledon (in which he once even played DC), played no warm-ups and actually had to change hos freaking game to SnV.
I cannot see either Fed or Pete replicating those feats.

Also we are not talking only Wimbledon here but all forms of grass and Borg having a GOAT baseline game would very likely transcend well to other slower grass courts in the sense that he has the perfect mix to perform well on all forms of grass (not surprising as he generally performed well on all kinds of surfaces).

Of course those are all what-ifs, so we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is nevertheless interesting to speculate.

 

[RS]

Probably not but might be closer to being true than some may think.

 

[Pheasant]

Borg bagged his 5th Wimbledon title 2 years earlier than Federer did and 3 years earlier than Pete did. Borg went against grass court specialists with no grass court tuneups. And in 1978, a rusty Borg almost lost the 1st round by falling behind 2 sets to 1. But by R16, he was done losing sets, which includes crushing a prime Connors in straights in the championship. As @BorgTheGOAT pointed out, Borg somehow squeezed in a couple of
Davis Cup matches in between the FO and WI in 1978. That is absolutely insane. It’s no wonder why he entered the 1978 Wimbledon tourney flat. So he used week 1 of Wimbledon to sharpen up his grass court game. All of this is truly insane and will never happen again.

Borg’s unparalleled versatility on natural surfaces probably hurt his grass court stats. Had Borg lost early at the FO each year, then he could have had more time to sharpen up his volleying skills for Wimbledon with an event. But instead, the dummy went and bagged 6 FO titles by the time he was only 25 years old.

 

[ErnestoVillanuevaCagliate]

Borg is the greatest clay courter of all time, altho on grass the title is still for Federer and Sampras. Then Borg.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I do agree that Bjorn's actual resumé is top tier, especially given the proximal circumstances of the French as well. Five consecutive Wimbledon titles is better than Sampras, 41 consecutive Wimbledon match wins is better than Fed, and three successive channel slams is better than... well, everyone.

However, where I think OP's argument breaks down is the "what if?" portion. When Borg made his ill-advised comeback in 1991, he insisted on swinging his old Donnay despite a decade of evidence that wood was obsolete. I think he'd have been just as intransigent if he'd stuck around in the early '80s, and against graphite-wielding players like McEnroe, Becker, et al he'd have been undone. So aside from a couple more Roland Garros titles -- I'd have him as favourite in Paris in both '82 and '83 -- I don't believe he left any majors on the table. Certainly not from as late as 1988, by which time he'd have been 32 years old. From Arthur Ashe in 1975 to Petr Korda in 1998, slam winners aged 30 or above were extremely thin on the ground; only Connors (twice) and Andres Gomez in that 23 year window. And teen prodigies (like Borg himself, Becker, and Wilander) were even less likely to survive that long.

So his unique and incredible CV certainly puts him in the mix, but given the subsequent achievements of Pete (seven wins from eight finals) and Roger (eight wins from 12 finals, 19 grass titles altogether), I can't put Bjorn above either of them.

 

[Dan Lobb]

He definitely is not by numbers there is no way arguing against it. But nevertheless @Pheasant made an interesting point. One has to keep in mind, that one can well argue that given the circumstances, Borg's grass feats are more impressive or tougher to achieve than anyone else's. He has the longest winning streak at Wimbledon (41 matches), is the youngest who won five titles, played under polarized conditions with 16 seeds (Fed did not and Pete never won 5 in a row). On top, unlike Pete and to a smaller extent Fed, Borg always reached the later rounds of the FO, had one less week rest until Wimbledon (in which he once even played DC), played no warm-ups and actually had to change hos freaking game to SnV.
I cannot see either Fed or Pete replicating those feats.

Also we are not talking only Wimbledon here but all forms of grass and Borg having a GOAT baseline game would very likely transcend well to other slower grass courts in the sense that he has the perfect mix to perform well on all forms of grass (not surprising as he generally performed well on all kinds of surfaces).

Of course those are all what-ifs, so we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is nevertheless interesting to speculate.

Borg performed well at Wimbledon on the grass there, but that was a different grass surface than prevailed in Australia, where the grass was drier, the surface harder, and the serve-and-volley game essential.

Borg won exactly zero events on Australian grass, which tells us something about his favourite grass surface.

However, Borg won some exhibitions on Australian grass, according to AI,

" Björn Borg absolutely won matches on Australian grass against John McEnroe.

While he famously skipped the official Australian Open, he traveled down under in February 1981 to play in a highly publicized, three-day exhibition event against John McEnroe called the "Bjorn and John Show".

The matches were played on the classic grass courts of Kooyong Stadium in Melbourne (the historical home of the Australian Open). Here is how those grass exhibitions played out:
Night 1: Borg dominated McEnroe, winning comfortably 6-0, 6-4
Night 2: Borg won again in straight sets, defeating McEnroe 6-2, 6-4.
Night 3: McEnroe salvaged the final match of the series, winning a rain-interrupted five-setter 6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 6-4.

What about Jimmy Connors?

While Borg played several high-profile exhibition matches against Jimmy Connors throughout his career, records indicate they did not face each other on Australian grass. Their most notable Australian exhibition happened later, in November 1982 at the AKAI Gold Challenge in Sydney, but that event was played on indoor custom carpet rather than grass. "

---

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Borg performed well at Wimbledon on the grass there, but that was a different grass surface than prevailed in Australia, where the grass was drier, the surface harder, and the serve-and-volley game essential.

Borg won exactly zero events on Australian grass, which tells us something about his favourite grass surface.

It was due to people skipping the AO back then... Borg only ever attended the event in 1974, two years before he even won a single Wimbledon title.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg performed well at Wimbledon on the grass there, but that was a different grass surface than prevailed in Australia, where the grass was drier, the surface harder, and the serve-and-volley game essential.

The other way round. Australian grass was slower so baseline game would have been more important than in Wimbledon. Australian grass would have suited Borg's playing style even better.

Borg won exactly zero events on Australian grass, which tells us something about his favourite grass surface.

Ahem. You do realize that Borg played the AO exactly once? In 1974 when he was at the ripe young age of 16. Players back then all skipped it. Connors only played in 1974 and 1975 and Mac started playing as late as 1983.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The other way round. Australian grass was slower so baseline game would have been more important than in Wimbledon. Australian grass would have suited Borg's playing style even better.

Ahem. You do realize that Borg played the AO exactly once? In 1974 when he was at the ripe young age of 16. Players back then all skipped it. Connors only played in 1974 and 1975 and Mac started playing as late as 1983.

Its like the chicken and egg, did he avoid Australian events because the grass was different? However, he did well at Kooyong in Australia against McEnroe in 1981, so perhaps Borg missed his chance to add some grass majors to his resume.

The greatest grass players have shown the ability to play on all three types of grass, the dry, hard Australian, the rougher Wimbledon, and the wet, soggy mud at Forest Hills.

It was like three different surfaces, and the greatest grass players could handle all three. I doubt that Borg would have been comfortable at Forest Hills.

Similarly, I doubt that Federer and Djokovic would have been comfortable at Forest Hills, which was usually won by a serve and volley game.

In the end, Borg just did not play very much on grass, so I could not rank him among the greatest grass players.

He was a visitor on grass rather than a resident.

As per AI,

"Björn Borg did not play much on grass. In fact, he rarely played on the surface outside of Wimbledon.
A prototypical clay-court specialist, Borg skipped grass-court tune-up tournaments and generally only spent about two weeks practicing in England after Roland Garros before competing at Wimbledon. Because he always went deep into the clay season at the French Open, he skipped lead-up events like the Queen's Club Championships."

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Its like the chicken and egg, did he avoid Australian events because the grass was different? However, he did well at Kooyong in Australia against McEnroe in 1981, so perhaps Borg missed his chance to add some grass majors to his resume.

Most players chose to neglect the AO, it wasn't important to them. At the time major count wasn't nearly as important as it is now anyways.

The greatest grass players have shown the ability to play on all three types of grass, the dry, hard Australian, the rougher Wimbledon, and the wet, soggy mud at Forest Hills.

McEnroe never won AO either. Are you suggesting JMac and Borg were not grass GOATS despite winning the pinnacle of grass?

It was like three different surfaces, and the greatest grass players could handle all three. I doubt that Borg would have been comfortable at Forest Hills.

Similarly, I doubt that Federer and Djokovic would have been comfortable at Forest Hills, which was usually won by a serve and volley game.

Likewise I don't think Jmac and Connors would fare very well in today's Wimbledon grass which is dominated by aggressive baselining so they can't be grass GOATs either.

In the end, Borg just did not play very much on grass, so I could not rank him among the greatest grass players.

He was a visitor on grass rather than a resident.

This is just silly.

As per AI,

"Björn Borg did not play much on grass. In fact, he rarely played on the surface outside of Wimbledon.
A prototypical clay-court specialist, Borg skipped grass-court tune-up tournaments and generally only spent about two weeks practicing in England after Roland Garros before competing at Wimbledon. Because he always went deep into the clay season at the French Open, he skipped lead-up events like the Queen's Club Championships."

AI is an egregious tool in sports analysis, only used by amateurs.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

As per AI,

"Björn Borg did not play much on grass. In fact, he rarely played on the surface outside of Wimbledon.
A prototypical clay-court specialist, Borg skipped grass-court tune-up tournaments and generally only spent about two weeks practicing in England after Roland Garros before competing at Wimbledon. Because he always went deep into the clay season at the French Open, he skipped lead-up events like the Queen's Club Championships."

You should change your AI if it comes up with such nonsense. You should avoid using AI in general tbh in these discussions it failed you badly already.

Its like the chicken and egg, did he avoid Australian events because the grass was different? However, he did well at Kooyong in Australia against McEnroe in 1981, so perhaps Borg missed his chance to add some grass majors to his resume.

IT was around Christmas time, had bad facilities, did not give much prize money and none of the great played it. Borg could have won precious little in those depleted fields and only planned to go if CYGS had been on the line.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Most players chose to neglect the AO, it wasn't important to them. At the time major count wasn't nearly as important as it is now anyways.

McEnroe never won AO either. Are you suggesting JMac and Borg were not grass GOATS despite winning the pinnacle of grass?

Likewise I don't think Jmac and Connors would fare very well in today's Wimbledon grass which is dominated by aggressive baselining so they can't be grass GOATs either.

This is just silly.

AI is an egregious tool in sports analysis, only used by amateurs.

You seem to be uncomfortable with the lack of grass play today. There were actually three different types of grass during the height of the art.

Being good on only one of them is just part of where grass court play is. Grass courts still exist, but some players avoid them.

The entire pro tour is shifting away from grass with only Newport still played on grass in the U.S.

There can be no great grass players today because the grass game has been avoided by the tour.

And no, I do not see Fed or Djokovic playing well at Forest Hills on grass.

 

[Dan Lobb]

You should change your AI if it comes up with such nonsense. You should avoid using AI in general tbh in these discussions it failed you badly already.

IT was around Christmas time, had bad facilities, did not give much prize money and none of the great played it. Borg could have won precious little in those depleted fields and only planned to go if CYGS had been on the line.

How could the CYGS be "on the line" when the Australian was the first slam of the year?

 

[hoodjem]

Borg played on grass in 1972, 1973, and 1974 at the USO.

In 1972 he lost to Roy Emerson in the prelims (before the first round).
In 1973 he lost in the fourth round to Niki Pilic.
In 1974 he lost in the second round to Vijay Amritraj.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

How could the CYGS be "on the line" when the Australian was the first slam of the year?

It was played in December during Borg's career. Connors wanted to follow him down to Australia to prevent him from winning the CYGS had he come through at the USO once.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg played on grass in 1972, 1973, and 1974 at the USO.

In 1972 he lost to Roy Emerson in the prelims (before the first round).
In 1973 he lost in the fourth round to Niki Pilic.
In 1974 he lost in the second round to Vijay Amritraj.

Given that he was 16-18 at that time it is not too shabby. He was not considerably better at Wimbledon during those years either. In 1973 he had already beaten 3rd seed Ashe.

 

[hoodjem]

There is a video somewhere (maybe part of a Wimbledon champions series), in which Lennart Bergelin talks about Borg training for Wimbledon in the two weeks after the French.

They would go to some private grass courts north of London, (I believe).

He says that in that first week of retooling Borg’s game, he was awful—just awful on grass.
He also says that his greatest worry for Borg at Wimbledon was in the first rounds in the first week. If Borg could get through those, because he just kept getting better at it—he might go on to win it.

 

[Debraj]

I don't like those hypothetical scenarios. Some point to Borgs wins over Mac at Exos in Japan and Australia, but at the tame time, Borg always lost to Connors. If some will include those exos ( I will not), then Connors turned around their hth. Borg was certainly one of the greatest clay courters ever, alongside Nadal,, and to his credit he built up a great record at Wimbledon, with his fitness, quickness and mental strength, with his first serve, his return game, and a solid, but not great volley..

As said before, between 1976-1981 not so many competent serve and volley players were around. Richard Evans spoke about a window for Borg at Wimbledon. Good people , who were over the hill, like Okker, Pilic or Pasarell still did well at Wimbledon. Tanner had a big serve, but his groundies were erratic. Gerulaitis was very fast and mobile, but lacked penetration on all his shots. I recently saw his serve on slow mo, it reminded me of Rosewalls serve, good placement, but not enough leverage, Nastase was a great all around player on his day, but his volley lacked penetration too. The Aussies had good journeymen like Edmondson or Frawley. MacNamara was more a clay courter, grew up on French clay courts. The Americans also had Dick Stockton, who reached the semi in 1974, then never went deep on grass, Brian Teacher, big serving Vic Amaya and Pat Dupree, not so familiar names. RG winner Adriano Panatta, who could play volleys, never was a serious factor on Wim grass. Vijay was smooth and very talented, but never could quite reach the predictions. Quick Johan Kriek came up in the early 1980s. Since the mid 80s, after Mac dominated, some new fine serve and volleyers, now the the biiger rackets, emerged, like Becker, Edberg, Cash and later Stich. Also lefty Leconte would trouble Borg imo.

Off topic,so pardon me Sir,but what was the difference between grass in us open and grass in Wimbledon?

 

[urban]

From what i have read, the Wimbledon grass was generally better, although it changed through the fortnight. In the first week it was softer, more wet and the bounce lower, In the second week, especially when it was hot, it often played more like a hard court. Even today one can see the dirty, brown parts on the baseline, in the old days those brown parts were also around the net. The grass keepers at Wim, as a Mr. Tym had a good name, they were called to seed out and cure the grass in the Halle Tournament. The US grass courts were worse, the surface was uneven, and often had bad bounces, if bounces at all. The Forest Hills grass worked to spin in different way. For instance, Laver, who relied on a wide slice serve at Wim, had to serve more a kick serve at Forest Hills, because the ball stopped more than gliding through. In 1969, through rain, the Forest Hills grass became really mud, and in 1972 the bounce was so bad, that Newcombe could not get a ball into play against Fred Stolle. The top players did nor like to play at Forest Hills, and so they changed to har tru in 1975..

 

[hoodjem]

The US grass courts were worse, the surface was uneven, and often had bad bounces, if bounces at all. In 1969, through rain, the grass became really mud,

Yes.
Laver said that in 1969, because of the substantial rain, the USO finals court played like a “swamp.”

In the video from the match, you can view the tournament authorities using a helicopter to attempt to dry out the court.

 

[urban]

Yes, also the shoes were so so good in those times. Laver and others used spikes on wet grass, some like Ted Schroeder sometimes played barefoot.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Borg played on grass in 1972, 1973, and 1974 at the USO.

In 1972 he lost to Roy Emerson in the prelims (before the first round).
In 1973 he lost in the fourth round to Niki Pilic.
In 1974 he lost in the second round to Vijay Amritraj.

That was not a great record, although he was very young.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

That was not a great record, although he was very young.

Beating Ashe at 17 on grass. Nothing special I agree.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Beating Ashe at 17 on grass. Nothing special I agree.

His loss to Amritraj in 1974 at Forest Hills was revealing, I doubt that Borg could have won at Forest Hills on grass.

Grass was not one surface, but several surfaces, and the Forest Hills variety required a classic serve-and-volley game, which Borg never developed.

Borg needed to retool his second serve and follow it to net at Forest Hills, otherwise he would be at a disadvantage to McEnroe, Sampras, Laver, Hoad, Gonzales, Kramer.

Borg never developed a second serve net game, staying back on his second serve.

As per AI,

"Björn Borg rarely followed his second serve to the net on grass, instead preferring to stay back and play from the baseline after a missed first serve.
While Borg famously adapted his game to Wimbledon by serving-and-volleying on virtually 100% of his first serves, his second-serve strategy and the quality of the serve itself featured distinct characteristics:

The Second Serve Strategy

• Baseline Preference: After hitting a second serve, Borg would almost always stay back. This allowed him to utilize his legendary heavy-topspin groundstrokes and elite movement to grind opponents down from the back of the court.
• The Early Career Exception: Very early in his career (such as his 1973 Wimbledon
• quarterfinal loss to Roger Taylor), a teenage Borg would occasionally rush the net on both first and second serves. However, as his tactical approach matured under coach Lennart Bergelin, he completely abandoned this high-risk tactic against elite returners like Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe.
• Was His Second Serve "Weak"?
  • A Relative Weakness: Peer legends like John McEnroe noted that Borg’s second serve was the most attackable part of his game. It lacked the overwhelming power or extreme kick of his contemporary rivals, making it a relative weakness in an otherwise flawless skillset.
  • The "Swiss Army Knife" Serve: Despite not being a powerhouse delivery, sports writers and peers often described his serve as highly practical and reliable.
  • The 1976 Evolution: Prior to winning his first Wimbledon title in 1976, Borg radically
• overhauled his service motion to make it much faster and smoother. While this significantly "beefed up" his first serve into a weapon, his second serve remained a conservative, depth-focused tool designed to safely start a baseline rally rather than win an immediate point."

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

His loss to Amritraj in 1974 was at Forest Hills was revealing, I doubt that Borg could have won at Forest Hills on grass.

Grass was not one surface, but several surfaces, and the Forest Hills variety required a classic serve-and-volley game, which Borg never developed.

Borg needed to retool his second serve and follow it to net at Forest Hills, otherwise he would be at a disadvantage to McEnroe, Sampras, Laver, Hoad, Gonzales, Kramer.

Borg never developed a second serve net game, staying back on his second serve.

As per AI,

"Björn Borg rarely followed his second serve to the net on grass, instead preferring to stay back and play from the baseline after a missed first serve.
While Borg famously adapted his game to Wimbledon by serving-and-volleying on virtually 100% of his first serves, his second-serve strategy and the quality of the serve itself featured distinct characteristics:

The Second Serve Strategy

• Baseline Preference: After hitting a second serve, Borg would almost always stay back. This allowed him to utilize his legendary heavy-topspin groundstrokes and elite movement to grind opponents down from the back of the court.
• The Early Career Exception: Very early in his career (such as his 1973 Wimbledon
• quarterfinal loss to Roger Taylor), a teenage Borg would occasionally rush the net on both first and second serves. However, as his tactical approach matured under coach Lennart Bergelin, he completely abandoned this high-risk tactic against elite returners like Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe.
• Was His Second Serve "Weak"?
  • A Relative Weakness: Peer legends like John McEnroe noted that Borg’s second serve was the most attackable part of his game. It lacked the overwhelming power or extreme kick of his contemporary rivals, making it a relative weakness in an otherwise flawless skillset.
  • The "Swiss Army Knife" Serve: Despite not being a powerhouse delivery, sports writers and peers often described his serve as highly practical and reliable.
  • The 1976 Evolution: Prior to winning his first Wimbledon title in 1976, Borg radically
• overhauled his service motion to make it much faster and smoother. While this significantly "beefed up" his first serve into a weapon, his second serve remained a conservative, depth-focused tool designed to safely start a baseline rally rather than win an immediate point."

Nothing in that word-salad has anything to do with what I wrote. My point is Borg showed great promise by beating Ashe at 17. His record at that age at Wimbledon was not so much better than at the USO and later he won it 5 times in a row. So it is absolutely not wrong to assume he could well have won multiple USOs on grass had it stayed on that surface.

And please for the love of God stop throwing that AI nonsense at me.

 

[Dan Lobb]

From what i have read, the Wimbledon grass was generally better, although it changed through the fortnight. In the first week it was softer, more wet and the bounce lower, In the second week, especially when it was hot, it often played more like a hard court. Even today one can see the dirty, brown parts on the baseline, in the old days those brown parts were also around the net. The grass keepers at Wim, as a Mr. Tym had a good name, they were called to seed out and cure the grass in the Halle Tournament. The US grass courts were worse, the surface was uneven, and often had bad bounces, if bounces at all. The Forest Hills grass worked to spin in different way. For instance, Laver, who relied on a wide slice serve at Wim, had to serve more a kick serve at Forest Hills, because the ball stopped more than gliding through. In 1969, through rain, the Forest Hills grass became really mud, and in 1972 the bounce was so bad, that Newcombe could not get a ball into play against Fred Stolle. The top players did nor like to play at Forest Hills, and so they changed to har tru in 1975..

After Newcombe, many of the top players were not grass specialists but came from a ground-stroking background.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Yes he obviously is