Was Borg the greatest grass court player ever?

[BorgTheGOAT]

You said it yourself, "Borg while staying back on all second serves"...that is the point, which you intially objected to, but now accept.

Case closed.

Yeah in this particular match. In others like Nastase or Vitas he came in on seconds as well. Again, this is highly irrelevant since the tactic of staying back turned out quite well for him and your theory that it was absolutely more necessary to play SnV in second serves at Forest Hills than it was at Wimbledon lacks evidence anyways which destroys your whole line of argument.

Borg at 17 already beat Ashe on USO grass so there is not much to think that he wouldn’t have been able to be successful there as well. AO grass was more baseline-friendly anyways (as you yourself finally conceded), so Borg would likely have excelled on any grass (not really surprising since he excelled on any surface anyways).

 

[Dan Lobb]

You're needlessly throwing away your credibility.

sad

Check how the votes have changed as a result of our discussion.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yeah in this particular match. In others like Nastase or Vitas he came in on seconds as well. Again, this is highly irrelevant since the tactic of staying back turned out quite well for him and your theory that it was absolutely more necessary to play SnV in second serves at Forest Hills than it was at Wimbledon lacks evidence anyways which destroys your whole line of argument.

Borg at 17 already beat Ashe on USO grass so there is not much to think that he wouldn’t have been able to be successful there as well. AO grass was more baseline-friendly anyways (as you yourself finally conceded), so Borg would likely have excelled on any grass (not really surprising since he excelled on any surface anyways).

No, Borg had trouble after the 1980 Wimbledon, never won another grass tournament. The point about Borg being more formidable on Australian grass was my own point, check above.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

No, Borg had trouble after the 1980 Wimbledon, never won another grass tournament. The point about Borg being more formidable on Australian grass was my own point, check above.

He since 1974 didn’t even play other grass tournaments than Wimbledon if I am not mistaken. After Wimbledon 1980 he reached the final in Wimbledon 1981 and then retired so your “never won another grass tournament” doesn’t say much.

 

[Dan Lobb]

He since 1974 didn’t even play other grass tournaments than Wimbledon if I am not mistaken. After Wimbledon 1980 he reached the final in Wimbledon 1981 and then retired so your “never won another grass tournament” doesn’t say much.

It says enough.

 

[Pheasant]

Borg SnV on many second serves in his match against Vitas SF 1977 and I can also remember him SnV on some second serves against Nastase. You are right that he typically stayed back, but how is this relevant anyways? This tactic seemed to be quite right for him, otherwise he would not have won Wimbledon 5 times in a row. He was 4-0 at Wimbledon against former GOAT returner Connors so very likely it was better for him to stay back on second serves instead of mindlessly rushing the net.
In a general view, your assumption, that SnV would be more required on AO or USO grass than on Wimbledon is also wrong. AO was won by baseliner Mats and 1974 Connors was also not exactly known for his strong second serve or excellent SnV game.

Connors and Wilander both used their serves conservatively to start points; not as a weapon. By 1978, Borg’s serve was a serious weapon.

Connors won grass court slams at all 3 slam events(AO, WI, and the USO). Hell, he was 4-3 for his career vs my main guy Mac on grass, which includes 3-3 after Mac hit his prime in 1980, The guy was quite good on all types of grass. And yet, Borg was 4-0 vs Connors on grass.

I honestly see fewer holes in Borg’s grass court resume than anybody else’s. One tight loss to McEnroe doesn’t just magically wash away all of his records. I’m truly dumb-founded by the doubters here.

Edit: Borg “allegedly” has a massive hole in his resume. When he was 17, he only went 12-3 on grass courts. How dare him for winning only 80% of his grass court matches at age 17. And as you said, he beat Ashe as a 17-year-old. Ashe won grass court slams at all 3 slam events. That guy was a baller on grass. He beat peak Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final.

 

[Borgforever]

Yes, Björn Borg is a definite GOAT-contender on grass, his records are so eye-popping.

Borg wins junior Wimbledon 1972, loses at tight four setter as a 16-year-old (!) to double-Wimbledon-champ Emerson in a qualifying round on USO old, slow grass.

1973 is Borg's first real year on the pro-tour as a 16-17 year old. First real grass court tourney he enters asa full pro is Beckenham and reaches the final losing to the finalist at Wimbledon that year Metreveli, reaches the QF at Wimby being up 2 sets to 1 against Taylor. Thereafter he does this at the USO to 1972-finalist Ashe:

Quite a bit of successful and constant 2nd serve volleying from Borg there and ultimate proof of his capability with this tactic on these different grass-surfaces against contemporary champion-level opposition.

In December 1973 he travels to Australia for AO 1974, without any prep and loses in R3 to eventual finalist to Phil Dent. Practicing on Aussie grass his skills improve and he enters Auckland Open 1974, best of five in all rounds tourney and there wins his 1st pro tournament of his career, defeating Onny Parun convincingly.

Also proof of his skills and success on the grass-courts down under. To underline this success he travels to Australia again in late 1974 although Borg has played too much and is burned-out tired for the first time. Yet, he wins on Aussie grass again winning the Adelaide-tourney again beating Parun. In the Commercial Union Masters for 1974 at Kooyong he defeats Parun, loses to World No. 2 Newcombe 7-6, 7-6 (without any breaks) and loses to the ultimate winner Vilas 7-5, 6-1 who was brilliant.

Exhausted he skips AO 1975.

Borg was leading against Ashe in the QF of Wimby 1975 when he injured himself, although he's the first to point out he might've not won anyway.

This is a great record for a 17-19-year-old against the brilliant opponents on the varied grass surfaces of the yearly 70s.

And we all know the next six years when Borg did the triple channel-slam, which burdened him, yet he almost did the channel slam 4-5 times if he had played RG 1977 and slammed Mac's 2nd serve on the 4th set point in the 1981 Wimby-final, for a for a typical FH-winner, going up 2 sets to 1 there. Would Mac mount a new 1980 comeback if that was the case? Maybe.

Be that as it may.

To surpass Borg a player must win his first Wimbledon at 19 or 20, without set-loss of course, against an opponent who also did not lose a set coming into final. Borg had lost to Nastase 4 times in a row starting at the Masters-final 1975 and the Wimby-final 1976 turned everything around in their H2H. After that the challenger must win 6 titles in a row and also do the channel slam, at least 4 times consecutively.

Borg was asked about this in 1980, when do you think someone else will win Wimbledon-RG three times running and Borg answered: "A 100 years. No, at least 50."

46 years have now passed and the record still stands...

Borg is definite GOAT-contender on grass.

Yet, Federer is the King of Wimbledon with 12 (!) finals, 7 finals in a row -- six titles, duplicating Borg's 5 in a row, adding 2 titles to 8 and almost a 9th, which he deserved with that brilliant performance. So that is untouchable.

But grass-court prowess is not all grass-court genius, it's about winning. It's a competition.

Yet, Sampras has a strong case for Wimby-GOAT. 7 in 8 years, a triple, followed by a quadruple, never lost a final, maybe the most devastating grass game ever at his peak and super clutch. Sweetest serving-motion ever, sorry Goran. Djokovic is also super-clutch, remember 2019 and the saved USO matchpoints against Federer and defeating old Federer 3 of 3 finals like a Boss. And he has seven titles. So for sheer clutch and success Sampras and Djokovic might be the best.

There's many good arguments...

 

[Hard Court]

He won the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions in 1959 over Gonzales and Rosewall and Anderson. The strongest field in tennis.

I guess that was before your time? Pre-Open Era.

Add that to Hoad's case over Borg.
We all need to remember that in 21 Grand Slam tournaments on grass, Hoad won 3 of them. No way could Borg match that.
Certainly no way that Borg could have matched Hoads 0 for 5 at Forest Hills.
In fact, Hoad almost beat Ham Richardson there!

 

[Vincent-C]

Yes, Björn Borg is a definite GOAT-contender on grass, his records are so eye-popping.

Borg wins junior Wimbledon 1972, loses at tight four setter as a 16-year-old (!) to double-Wimbledon-champ Emerson in a qualifying round on USO old, slow grass.

1973 is Borg's first real year on the pro-tour as a 16-17 year old. First real grass court tourney he enters asa full pro is Beckenham and reaches the final losing to the finalist at Wimbledon that year Metreveli, reaches the QF at Wimby being up 2 sets to 1 against Taylor. Thereafter he does this at the USO to 1972-finalist Ashe:

Quite a bit of successful and constant 2nd serve volleying from Borg there and ultimate proof of his capability with this tactic on these different grass-surfaces against contemporary champion-level opposition.

In December 1973 he travels to Australia for AO 1974, without any prep and loses in R3 to eventual finalist to Phil Dent. Practicing on Aussie grass his skills improve and he enters Auckland Open 1974, best of five in all rounds tourney and there wins his 1st pro tournament of his career, defeating Onny Parun convincingly.

Also proof of his skills and success on the grass-courts down under. To underline this success he travels to Australia again in late 1974 although Borg has played too much and is burned-out tired for the first time. Yet, he wins on Aussie grass again winning the Adelaide-tourney again beating Parun. In the Commercial Union Masters for 1974 at Kooyong he defeats Parun, loses to World No. 2 Newcombe 7-6, 7-6 (without any breaks) and loses to the ultimate winner Vilas 7-5, 6-1 who was brilliant.

Exhausted he skips AO 1975.

Borg was leading against Ashe in the QF of Wimby 1975 when he injured himself, although he's the first to point out he might've not won anyway.

This is a great record for a 17-19-year-old against the brilliant opponents on the varied grass surfaces of the yearly 70s.

And we all know the next six years when Borg did the triple channel-slam, which burdened him, yet he almost did the channel slam 4-5 times if he had played RG 1977 and slammed Mac's 2nd serve on the 4th set point in the 1981 Wimby-final, for a for a typical FH-winner, going up 2 sets to 1 there. Would Mac mount a new 1980 comeback if that was the case? Maybe.

Be that as it may.

To surpass Borg a player must win his first Wimbledon at 19 or 20, without set-loss of course, against an opponent who also did not lose a set coming into final. Borg had lost to Nastase 4 times in a row starting at the Masters-final 1975 and the Wimby-final 1976 turned everything around in their H2H. After that the challenger must win 6 titles in a row and also do the channel slam, at least 4 times consecutively.

Borg was asked about this in 1980, when do you think someone else will win Wimbledon-RG three times running and Borg answered: "A 100 years. No, at least 50."

46 years have now passed and the record still stands...

Borg is definite GOAT-contender on grass.

Yet, Federer is the King of Wimbledon with 12 (!) finals, 7 finals in a row -- six titles, duplicating Borg's 5 in a row, adding 2 titles to 8 and almost a 9th, which he deserved with that brilliant performance. So that is untouchable.

But grass-court prowess is not all grass-court genius, it's about winning. It's a competition.

Yet, Sampras has a strong case for Wimby-GOAT. 7 in 8 years, a triple, followed by a quadruple, never lost a final, maybe the most devastating grass game ever at his peak and super clutch. Sweetest serving-motion ever, sorry Goran. Djokovic is also super-clutch, remember 2019 and the saved USO matchpoints against Federer and defeating old Federer 3 of 3 finals like a Boss. And he has seven titles. So for sheer clutch and success Sampras and Djokovic might be the best.

There's many good arguments...

Thanks for that excellent Borg v Ashe clip!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Connors and Wilander both used their serves conservatively to start points; not as a weapon. By 1978, Borg’s serve was a serious weapon.

Connors won grass court slams at all 3 slam events(AO, WI, and the USO). Hell, he was 4-3 for his career vs my main guy Mac on grass, which includes 3-3 after Mac hit his prime in 1980, The guy was quite good on all types of grass. And yet, Borg was 4-0 vs Connors on grass.

I honestly see fewer holes in Borg’s grass court resume than anybody else’s. One tight loss to McEnroe doesn’t just magically wash away all of his records. I’m truly dumb-founded by the doubters here.

Edit: Borg “allegedly” has a massive hole in his resume. When he was 17, he only went 12-3 on grass courts. How dare him for winning only 80% of his grass court matches at age 17. And as you said, he beat Ashe as a 17-year-old. Ashe won grass court slams at all 3 slam events. That guy was a baller on grass. He beat peak Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final.

Connors was good on grass, just not as good as Newcombe or Becker or Sampras or Gonzales or Hoad. Connors lacked an overpowering serve, although his second serve was about as strong as his first, he didn't take power off his serve like Borg's second.

Newcombe, Becker, Sampras, Gonzales or Hoad followed their second serves to the net, they had the confidence to do that. Gonzales had two first serves, not a first and second, and often served aces on second serve. For Borg, the second serve was merely to put the ball into play, it was a powder puff to start a rally of groundstrokes.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes, Björn Borg is a definite GOAT-contender on grass, his records are so eye-popping.

Borg wins junior Wimbledon 1972, loses at tight four setter as a 16-year-old (!) to double-Wimbledon-champ Emerson in a qualifying round on USO old, slow grass.

1973 is Borg's first real year on the pro-tour as a 16-17 year old. First real grass court tourney he enters asa full pro is Beckenham and reaches the final losing to the finalist at Wimbledon that year Metreveli, reaches the QF at Wimby being up 2 sets to 1 against Taylor. Thereafter he does this at the USO to 1972-finalist Ashe:

Quite a bit of successful and constant 2nd serve volleying from Borg there and ultimate proof of his capability with this tactic on these different grass-surfaces against contemporary champion-level opposition.

In December 1973 he travels to Australia for AO 1974, without any prep and loses in R3 to eventual finalist to Phil Dent. Practicing on Aussie grass his skills improve and he enters Auckland Open 1974, best of five in all rounds tourney and there wins his 1st pro tournament of his career, defeating Onny Parun convincingly.

Also proof of his skills and success on the grass-courts down under. To underline this success he travels to Australia again in late 1974 although Borg has played too much and is burned-out tired for the first time. Yet, he wins on Aussie grass again winning the Adelaide-tourney again beating Parun. In the Commercial Union Masters for 1974 at Kooyong he defeats Parun, loses to World No. 2 Newcombe 7-6, 7-6 (without any breaks) and loses to the ultimate winner Vilas 7-5, 6-1 who was brilliant.

Exhausted he skips AO 1975.

Borg was leading against Ashe in the QF of Wimby 1975 when he injured himself, although he's the first to point out he might've not won anyway.

This is a great record for a 17-19-year-old against the brilliant opponents on the varied grass surfaces of the yearly 70s.

And we all know the next six years when Borg did the triple channel-slam, which burdened him, yet he almost did the channel slam 4-5 times if he had played RG 1977 and slammed Mac's 2nd serve on the 4th set point in the 1981 Wimby-final, for a for a typical FH-winner, going up 2 sets to 1 there. Would Mac mount a new 1980 comeback if that was the case? Maybe.

Be that as it may.

To surpass Borg a player must win his first Wimbledon at 19 or 20, without set-loss of course, against an opponent who also did not lose a set coming into final. Borg had lost to Nastase 4 times in a row starting at the Masters-final 1975 and the Wimby-final 1976 turned everything around in their H2H. After that the challenger must win 6 titles in a row and also do the channel slam, at least 4 times consecutively.

Borg was asked about this in 1980, when do you think someone else will win Wimbledon-RG three times running and Borg answered: "A 100 years. No, at least 50."

46 years have now passed and the record still stands...

Borg is definite GOAT-contender on grass.

Yet, Federer is the King of Wimbledon with 12 (!) finals, 7 finals in a row -- six titles, duplicating Borg's 5 in a row, adding 2 titles to 8 and almost a 9th, which he deserved with that brilliant performance. So that is untouchable.

But grass-court prowess is not all grass-court genius, it's about winning. It's a competition.

Yet, Sampras has a strong case for Wimby-GOAT. 7 in 8 years, a triple, followed by a quadruple, never lost a final, maybe the most devastating grass game ever at his peak and super clutch. Sweetest serving-motion ever, sorry Goran. Djokovic is also super-clutch, remember 2019 and the saved USO matchpoints against Federer and defeating old Federer 3 of 3 finals like a Boss. And he has seven titles. So for sheer clutch and success Sampras and Djokovic might be the best.

There's many good arguments...

Valiant apologetics, but "almost won" counts for nothing in tennis. It just translates as a close loss, and the big points usually go to the winner in the clutch.

Nastase was usually substandard at Wimbledon, he lacked the big punch on points against Smith in the 1972 final, and his career was slowing down in 1976. I watched him tank the final at the Canadian Open in 1975 when a close line call went against him. He watched his opponent's shots go past him without attempting to return them after that, and lost in straight sets. Difficult to draw any conclusions about Nastase.

The classic grass players who relied on S&V were Kramer, Gonzales, Hoad, Laver, Newcombe, Smith, McEnroe, Becker, all of whom followed their second serve to net. Sampras came along when technology changed and did not usually follow his second serve to net.

The technology of the game changed with the doubling in size of the racquet sweet spot and the dominance of baseline play everywhere.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Add that to Hoad's case over Borg.
We all need to remember that in 21 Grand Slam tournaments on grass, Hoad won 3 of them. No way could Borg match that.
Certainly no way that Borg could have matched Hoads 0 for 5 at Forest Hills.
In fact, Hoad almost beat Ham Richardson there!

Well, Hoad started at 17 years of age, so you could look instead at prime time Hoad to get a better picture, from 1956 to 1960 where he won seven majors. Seven majors in four seasons out of a possible 17 majors is a good percentage (7/17= 41%). The competition for Hoad was probably superior to that for Borg.

Hoad won the 1959 Forest Hills pro against the top players, tougher competition than Borg faced. Not bad.

Borg's prime years were 1976 to 1980. The same length as Hoad, but against weaker competition.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Looks like the voting is still 2 to 1 against Borg as an all-time GOAT grass player, I guess the drive to validate the proposition has not succeeded.

Come on, guys, you can do better than that!

 

[NonP]

I provided you with the video for the 1980 Wimbledon final, where Borg refused to follow his second serve to net.

Did Rosewall follow his second serve to net? Well, I gave you the video above of the 1970 Forest Hills final...yes, he did.

Case closed, buddy.

We're not debating your worthless definition of S&V, Lobb. Everyone knows Borg rarely followed his 2nd serves to the net, so you can stop beating that straw man to try to make your howler look less asinine.

Rather, what we're smacking you around for is your clueless contention that one must S&V on both 1st and 2nd serves to be a grass GOAT. Vines among others has corrected you on this matter, and since you're a useless armchair critic by your own criteria your comically wrong opinion on this or anything else is irrelevant.

Try again!

Yes, Björn Borg is a definite GOAT-contender on grass, his records are so eye-popping.

Borg wins junior Wimbledon 1972, loses at tight four setter as a 16-year-old (!) to double-Wimbledon-champ Emerson in a qualifying round on USO old, slow grass.

1973 is Borg's first real year on the pro-tour as a 16-17 year old. First real grass court tourney he enters asa full pro is Beckenham and reaches the final losing to the finalist at Wimbledon that year Metreveli, reaches the QF at Wimby being up 2 sets to 1 against Taylor. Thereafter he does this at the USO to 1972-finalist Ashe:

Quite a bit of successful and constant 2nd serve volleying from Borg there and ultimate proof of his capability with this tactic on these different grass-surfaces against contemporary champion-level opposition.

In December 1973 he travels to Australia for AO 1974, without any prep and loses in R3 to eventual finalist to Phil Dent. Practicing on Aussie grass his skills improve and he enters Auckland Open 1974, best of five in all rounds tourney and there wins his 1st pro tournament of his career, defeating Onny Parun convincingly.

Also proof of his skills and success on the grass-courts down under. To underline this success he travels to Australia again in late 1974 although Borg has played too much and is burned-out tired for the first time. Yet, he wins on Aussie grass again winning the Adelaide-tourney again beating Parun. In the Commercial Union Masters for 1974 at Kooyong he defeats Parun, loses to World No. 2 Newcombe 7-6, 7-6 (without any breaks) and loses to the ultimate winner Vilas 7-5, 6-1 who was brilliant.

Exhausted he skips AO 1975.

Borg was leading against Ashe in the QF of Wimby 1975 when he injured himself, although he's the first to point out he might've not won anyway.

This is a great record for a 17-19-year-old against the brilliant opponents on the varied grass surfaces of the yearly 70s.

And we all know the next six years when Borg did the triple channel-slam, which burdened him, yet he almost did the channel slam 4-5 times if he had played RG 1977 and slammed Mac's 2nd serve on the 4th set point in the 1981 Wimby-final, for a for a typical FH-winner, going up 2 sets to 1 there. Would Mac mount a new 1980 comeback if that was the case? Maybe.

Be that as it may.

To surpass Borg a player must win his first Wimbledon at 19 or 20, without set-loss of course, against an opponent who also did not lose a set coming into final. Borg had lost to Nastase 4 times in a row starting at the Masters-final 1975 and the Wimby-final 1976 turned everything around in their H2H. After that the challenger must win 6 titles in a row and also do the channel slam, at least 4 times consecutively.

Borg was asked about this in 1980, when do you think someone else will win Wimbledon-RG three times running and Borg answered: "A 100 years. No, at least 50."

46 years have now passed and the record still stands...

Borg is definite GOAT-contender on grass.

Yet, Federer is the King of Wimbledon with 12 (!) finals, 7 finals in a row -- six titles, duplicating Borg's 5 in a row, adding 2 titles to 8 and almost a 9th, which he deserved with that brilliant performance. So that is untouchable.

But grass-court prowess is not all grass-court genius, it's about winning. It's a competition.

Yet, Sampras has a strong case for Wimby-GOAT. 7 in 8 years, a triple, followed by a quadruple, never lost a final, maybe the most devastating grass game ever at his peak and super clutch. Sweetest serving-motion ever, sorry Goran. Djokovic is also super-clutch, remember 2019 and the saved USO matchpoints against Federer and defeating old Federer 3 of 3 finals like a Boss. And he has seven titles. So for sheer clutch and success Sampras and Djokovic might be the best.

There's many good arguments...

Good to see you back, bud! Just a couple points:

1) Love Goran but I doubt even his die-hard devotees would argue his service motion was just as easy on the eyes as Sampras', haha.

2) Djoker's BP conversion rate in notable (read: charted by Tennis Abstract contributors) matches is actually a bit lower than Fedal's or Pete's:

Post in thread 'Down MP, who you gonna call?'

May 27, 2026

I see you glory-hounding mugs are sticking to your old scripts no matter what. So I did y'all favor and looked at Raz's and Carrot's own "under pressure" #s (click if you have no clue what I'm talking about).

On serve (total SPs followed by BPSvds and the win % differential):

Alcaraz - 66.6% (16,072/24,121), 64.1% (1048/1635), -2.5%
Sinner - 68.2% (27,367/40,156), 66.0% (1362/2063), -2.2%

So neither transcends the usual handicap on SBPs, which makes sense cuz Raz was never an elite server and Carrot is only starting to come along.

On return (total RPs followed by...

• NonP

• 

Maybe that order would change a bit if we looked at the majors only, but kinda hard to argue for him over his peers as the Clutch King based on these numbers, no?

P.S. Your guy wasn't half bad himself:

Post in thread 'Who is the best under pressure player'

Nov 28, 2022

The BOAT, of course. He's the only stud who, per TA's charting data, wins a higher % of his BPs on serve than all SPs by almost 2 percentage points (believe @Sysyphus was the 1st one to notice this).

In fact let's take this up a notch and look at all multi-Slammers w/at least 25 charted matches - so excluding the Aussies (Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe), Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase, Vilas (who didn't win multiple majors w/a full draw to begin with) and Kriek (ditto) - and not just their SPs but RPs as well. Starting w/their clutchness on serve, total SPs...

• NonP

• 

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

We're not debating your worthless definition of S&V, Lobb. Everyone knows Borg rarely followed his 2nd serves to the net, so you can stop beating that straw man to try to make your howler look less asinine.

Borg played SnV on second serve more at the beginning of his career. Against Taylor in 73 he comes in quite frequently on seconds (almost always in this short clip):

Against Nastase in 1976 he comes in on seconds 5 times, in 1977 against Vitas he comes in on seconds 20 times. It is more in the Connors matches (understandably since Connors is a strong returner) and in the later matches against Tanner and Mac where he exclusively stays back on seconds. It typically brings him around 60% of second serve points though (in the Tanner and the two Mac matches), so the tactic seems to work quite well for him and Lobb's nonsense that you NEED to play SnV on seconds is easily debunked. Maybe he should/could use it a little more as a surprise tactic, but that's it.

 

[NonP]

Borg played SnV on second serve more at the beginning of his career. Against Taylor in 73 he comes in quite frequently on seconds (almost always in this short clip):

Against Nastase in 1976 he comes in on seconds 5 times, in 1977 against Vitas he comes in on seconds 20 times. It is more in the Connors matches (understandably since Connors is a strong returner) and in the later matches against Tanner and Mac where he exclusively stays back on seconds. It typically brings him around 60% of second serve points though (in the Tanner and the two Mac matches), so the tactic seems to work quite well for him and Lobb's nonsense that you NEED to play SnV on seconds is easily debunked. Maybe he should/could use it a little more as a surprise tactic, but that's it.

Yes, all-out S&V on grass had become virtual gospel by then, hence Vines' tsk-tsking in his book. Like you said it's rather doubtful that S&V on all 2nd serves was ever a smart strategy unless you happened to be a Kramer/Newk/Pistol. I definitely think Lendl for one should've stayed back more!

One more thing:

Again Dan Lobb against everyone. One could think that always having all others objecting his opinion and literally nobody agreeing with him would make him think at least once in a while whether there was even the smallest possibility that he could be wrong (at least you would expect that from any guy with even a scintilla of ability of self-criticism), but seems that there is zero chance. It is the toddler-reaction all others are stupid and I am always right.

I dig how he's taking a victory lap over the poll results as if they prove anything, haha. I mean in his own words we're all irrelevant armchair critics who should defer to pros like Vines and Kramer who himself bemoaned how younger players blindly adopted full-time S&V to the detriment of their groundies, but we're apparently supposed to take his worthless drivel over their real expertise. The joke truly writes itself, LOL.

 

[abmk]

Borg is 3rd after Fed and Sampras in the open era

 

[abmk]

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.

don't see Borg 83 beating Mac in Wim 83.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes, all-out S&V on grass had become virtual gospel by then, hence Vines' tsk-tsking in his book. Like you said it's rather doubtful that S&V on all 2nd serves was ever a smart strategy unless you happened to be a Kramer/Newk/Pistol. I definitely think Lendl for one should've stayed back more!

Lendl got return passed on second serves 17!!! times by Becker in Wimbledon 89. Lendl is superior to Becker from the baseline and while Becker might have done a lot Chip charging (and Lendl is not a Borg on the pass), I can hardly imagine Lendl not winning more than 42% second serve points had he stayed back at least half of the time.

I dig how he's taking a victory lap over the poll results as if they prove anything, haha. I mean in his own words we're all irrelevant armchair critics who should defer to pros like Vines and Kramer who himself bemoaned how younger players blindly adopted full-time S&V to the detriment of their groundies, but we're apparently supposed to take his worthless drivel over their real expertise. The joke truly writes itself, LOL.

Lol yeah too funny. I mean Borg being the best of all times on grass is a controversial topic to begin with (like all good thread topics otherwise thread would be over soon), since his stats/results don’t support it also due to his early retirement. @Pheasant ‘s interesting point however is more a what-if (like in most Borg debates) that Borg could well have been the most versatile grass courter who would be the best overall on all different grass courts. Given that he is likely the most versatile player of all times anyways and while being a beast from the baseline still won 5 Wimbledon SnVing it is not an absurd take.

Anyways, stat wise Pete and Fed are better it is what it is. THIS AND ONLY THIS leads to the poll results and not that Lobb convinced the masses of TTW voters with his cogent arguments here lol (he may however really think so).

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes, all-out S&V on grass had become virtual gospel by then, hence Vines' tsk-tsking in his book. Like you said it's rather doubtful that S&V on all 2nd serves was ever a smart strategy unless you happened to be a Kramer/Newk/Pistol. I definitely think Lendl for one should've stayed back more!

One more thing:


I dig how he's taking a victory lap over the poll results as if they prove anything, haha. I mean in his own words we're all irrelevant armchair critics who should defer to pros like Vines and Kramer who himself bemoaned how younger players blindly adopted full-time S&V to the detriment of their groundies, but we're apparently supposed to take his worthless drivel over their real expertise. The joke truly writes itself, LOL.

Kramer never claimed that every tennis player should adopt S&V, where do you get that idea? That is just another stereotypical blunder.

Kramer said that a player should maximize his own strengths, whatever those were. If a player had no decent second serve, then he should aim for accuracy and make his own strategy.

Same with net-rushing, if a player was all thumbs at the net, he should play back.

However, the most successful grass players beginning with Kramer all were net rushers, and even Segura and Rosewall with their softer serves came to net every second serve. Their own choice. Vines was irrelevant, because, as I pointed out to you, he retired in 1940, a good eight years before Kramer developed the net-rushing tactics which made him famous.

Borg became successful as a grass champion after he began to stay back on second serve, so that was his own choice and his own game.

Did it work? Yes, for a while, although McEnroe and Becker reached higher levels on grass using the net rushing approach on second serve. Borg would have dominated them on clay, and done better on Australian grass, but the age of jumbo racquet heads was decades after Borg retired. Sampras was already staying back on second serve in the 1990s when the racquet sizes began to increase, the game was changing. Before long the clay brigade baseliners had taken over on Wimbledon grass.

 

[NonP]

Kramer never claimed that every tennis player should adopt S&V, where do you get that idea? That is just another stereotypical blunder.

Kramer said that a player should maximize his own strengths, whatever those were. If a player had no decent second serve, then he should aim for accuracy and make his own strategy.

Same with net-rushing, if a player was all thumbs at the net, he should play back.

However, the most successful grass players beginning with Kramer all were net rushers, and even Segura and Rosewall with their softer serves came to net every second serve. Their own choice. Vines was irrelevant, because, as I pointed out to you, he retired in 1940, a good eight years before Kramer developed the net-rushing tactics which made him famous.

Borg became successful as a grass champion after he began to stay back on second serve, so that was his own choice and his own game.

Did it work? Yes, for a while, although McEnroe and Becker reached higher levels on grass using the net rushing approach on second serve. Borg would have dominated them on clay, and done better on Australian grass, but the age of jumbo racquet heads was decades after Borg retired. Sampras was already staying back on second serve in the 1990s when the racquet sizes began to increase, the game was changing. Before long the clay brigade baseliners had taken over on Wimbledon grass.

Nice try Lobb, but you're grasping at straws again. The point was that Kramer - you know, THE exponent of the Big Game - did NOT think coming in on 2nd serves would serve everyone well!

And Vines is certainly relevant here cuz, well, he actually knew what he was talking about unlike armchair grandpas like you. And you don't even have your history right. Maurice McLoughlin for one was practicing S&V well before Kramer was even born! Jack merely perfected and popularized it.

The rest of your post is actually not that ridiculous but you're still assuming that even weak servers like Rosewall did the right thing by following all serves to the net on grass. Again, old lions like Vines and Kramer questioned that strategy, not to mention that, given the advice Segura gave Connors himself as coach, I doubt Little Pancho rushed the net nearly as much as you say. Think I'll take their word over yours, thanks.

Also Sampras did NOT stay back on most 2nds. Not on grass, anyway. And with that GOAT 2nd serve he's one of the precious few for whom that risky strategy did make sense. Time to hit the books again, Lobb!

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Borg is 3rd after Fed and Sampras in the open era

Stats wise he is definitely and clearly behind Djokovic, but I would go with this and him ahead of Djokovic) inspite of that. Amongst other reasons and the CIE padded stats for Djokovic aside, one reason is Borg was a baseliner who had to completely change his game on true fact grass, while Djokovic did not, and was just able to comfortably play his baseline game on today's rye grass and ultra baseline centric game, equipment, courts players, everything. I am split on who I have higher between Sampras and Federer.

If Djokovic had gotten to 9 or 10 Wimbledons i would have had to give him the #1 spot but if he stays at 7
(which seems super likely now) I would have him only 4th at best considering the terrible field for have of those and the super baseline and hard court friendly grass and conditions.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Nice try Lobb, but you're grasping at straws again. The point was that Kramer - you know, THE exponent of the Big Game - did NOT think coming in on 2nd serves would serve everyone well!

And Vines is certainly relevant here cuz, well, he actually knew what he was talking about unlike armchair grandpas like you. And you don't even have your history right. Maurice McLoughlin for one was practicing S&V well before Kramer was even born! Jack merely perfected and popularized it.

The rest of your post is actually not that ridiculous but you're still assuming that even weak servers like Rosewall did the right thing by following all serves to the net on grass. Again, old lions like Vines and Kramer questioned that strategy, not to mention that, given the advice Segura gave Connors himself as coach, I doubt Little Pancho rushed the net nearly as much as you say. Think I'll take their word over yours, thanks.

Also Sampras did NOT stay back on most 2nds. Not on grass, anyway. And with that GOAT 2nd serve he's one of the precious few for whom that risky strategy did make sense. Time to hit the books again, Lobb!

Actually, Kramer did think that following the 2nd serve to net was the optimum strategy on grass, he simply acknowledged that some players would have difficulty doing that.

I don't see where you found some visual support for your claim that Segura did not rush the net, what we have suggests exactly the opposite, for example the clips from 1957 White City. Plus Kramer's comment that prior to Segura's tour against Kramer in 1951, Segura "did not know how to play tennis." Sounds like Segura learned a lot about net play on that tour.

 

[Hard Court]

Well, Hoad started at 17 years of age, so you could look instead at prime time Hoad to get a better picture, from 1956 to 1960 where he won seven majors. Seven majors in four seasons out of a possible 17 majors is a good percentage (7/17= 41%). The competition for Hoad was probably superior to that for Borg.

Hoad won the 1959 Forest Hills pro against the top players, tougher competition than Borg faced. Not bad.

Borg's prime years were 1976 to 1980. The same length as Hoad, but against weaker competition.

No idea where you are getting your 7 for 17 numbers from, but I know how creative you can be. i.e it counts as a major as long as Hoad won it. Often doesn't when he didn't.
wonder what Borg's numbers would be on your creative system. Noticed that they were not mentioned.
Not sure why Borg's opponents are considered so weak. Connors, McEnroe were halfway decent players, and I hear Nastase, Vilas, Gerulitas etc. weren't too bad.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

No idea where you are getting your 7 for 17 numbers from, but I know how creative you can be. i.e it counts as a major as long as Hoad won it. Often doesn't when he didn't.
wonder what Borg's numbers would be on your creative system. Noticed that they were not mentioned.
Not sure why Borg's opponents are considered so weak. Connors, McEnroe were halfway decent players, and I hear Nastase, Vilas, Gerulitas etc. weren't too bad.

Borg had really good competition. Vilas, Lendl, Orantes, Panatta, Pecci on clay. Tanner, Vitas, Nastase, Connors, Mac on grass. Only Becker and Lendl faced clearly better competition, other than that no ATG can make such a claim.

 

[CyBorg]

As we all know, Borg was robbed by being forced to enter the qualifiers for slams in 1982. This was highway robbery.

I don't think Borg was robbed. He needed to play consistently on the tour in order to be in optimum shape for the big events. Borg's real problem was that he lost his love for the game and he finally came to terms with his feelings by 1983.

 

[CyBorg]

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

Always love it when the AI users identify themselves, so I can put them on ignore

 

[buscemi]

I don't think Borg was robbed. He needed to play consistently on the tour in order to be in optimum shape for the big events. Borg's real problem was that he lost his love for the game and he finally came to terms with his feelings by 1983.

Borg planned to play 12 tournaments in 1982, the same number that Federer played in 2017 when he won 2 Majors.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No idea where you are getting your 7 for 17 numbers from, but I know how creative you can be. i.e it counts as a major as long as Hoad won it. Often doesn't when he didn't.
wonder what Borg's numbers would be on your creative system. Noticed that they were not mentioned.
Not sure why Borg's opponents are considered so weak. Connors, McEnroe were halfway decent players, and I hear Nastase, Vilas, Gerulitas etc. weren't too bad.

Did Borg play on the old pro circuit? I don't recall seeing his name listed there.

The old pros had major tournaments, designated by Kramer as Forest Hills, L.A. Tennis Club, Kooyong, and White City. Hoad won three of those, plus four amateur majors.
That makes 7 for 17.

Borg from 1976-1980. That would be 8 for 15.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Borg had really good competition. Vilas, Lendl, Orantes, Panatta, Pecci on clay. Tanner, Vitas, Nastase, Connors, Mac on grass. Only Becker and Lendl faced clearly better competition, other than that no ATG can make such a claim.

I would not rank Connors above the greatest grass players in history. He was great on rubber and hard clay. Good on grass, but not among the elite.

McEnroe matured in late 1979, winning the U.S. title. He gradually developed above Borg on grass. Tanner and Gerulaitas not among the elite on grass. Nastase was unpredictable, usually weak in the majors.

Admittedly Borg was among the elite on clay. But that is not the subject of this thread.

Other ATG had tougher fields, including Gonzales, Hoad, Laver.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Also Sampras did NOT stay back on most 2nds. Not on grass, anyway. And with that GOAT 2nd serve he's one of the precious few for whom that risky strategy did make sense. Time to hit the books again, Lobb!

I will help you with your research, NonP.

Here is Pete on grass, and he does not usually follow his second serve to net, just to the halfway, service line.

That costs him this match, where he gets stranded at the service line in the final game for several points. He would have been better at the net.

 

[Dan Lobb]

don't see Borg 83 beating Mac in Wim 83.

Many are reluctant to admit this obvious point.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Borg had really good competition. Vilas, Lendl, Orantes, Panatta, Pecci on clay. Tanner, Vitas, Nastase, Connors, Mac on grass. Only Becker and Lendl faced clearly better competition, other than that no ATG can make such a claim.

You mention Lendl but ironically enough Connors mocked Lendl's competition in the 92 US Open documentary. I mostly agree with you but competition will always be subjective and many biased in their assessment. There are many Djokovic fans who still insist he had strong competition in the 2020s. And Navratilova fans who believe 1982-1984 was actualy a strong field.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You mention Lendl but ironically enough Connors mocked Lendl's competition in the 92 US Open documentary. I mostly agree with you but competition will always be subjective and many biased in their assessment. There are many Djokovic fans who still insist he had strong competition in the 2020s. And Navratilova fans who believe 1982-1984 was actualy a strong field.

Sure but objectively speaking Lendl started with Borg, Connors and Mac as older ATGs, then he had the misfortune to get Becker, Edberg and Mats right when he got the better of the oldies, and even at the tail end of his career he had small battles with Pete and Andre. In between besides those ATGs, he had guys like Cash, Mecir, Chang, Courier and all kind of other dangerous floaters on grass and clay where the 16seed system made it even more difficult. I cannot really see how anyone can scoff at this competition or how it can be subjective. Lendl and Becker imho faced the strongest competition of all times.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Sure but objectively speaking Lendl started with Borg, Connors and Mac as older ATGs, then he had the misfortune to get Becker, Edberg and Mats right when he got the better of the oldies, and even at the tail end of his career he had small battles with Pete and Andre. In between besides those ATGs, he had guys like Cash, Mecir, Chang, Courier and all kind of other dangerous floaters on grass and clay where the 16seed system made it even more difficult. I cannot really see how anyone can scoff at this competition or how it can be subjective. Lendl and Becker imho faced the strongest competition of all times.

Connors claimed Lendl's competition was easy since he didn't start winning until McEnroe, Borg, Connors were all either declining, aging, or gone. And that he should have gotten his act together sooner and made it a square rather than a triangle. Not saying I agree, just relaying what he said in the referenced documtary. Of course not exactly a secret Connors is not fond of Lendl (especially while on a 7 year losing streak to Lendl at that point ).

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Connors claimed Lendl's competition was easy since he didn't start winning until McEnroe, Borg, Connors were all either declining, aging, or gone. And that he should have gotten his act together sooner and made it a square rather than a triangle. Not saying I agree, just relaying what he said in the referenced documtary. Of course not exactly a secret Connors is not fond of Lendl (especially while on a 7 year losing streak to Lendl at that point ).

Connors won his first three slams against Phil Dent and a 39 year-old Ken Rosewall, and racked up multiple titles on the risible US Indoor Tour organized by his manager. People in glass houses...

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

@Pheasant you have to give it to @Dan Lobb he creates traffic in your Borg threads.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Connors won his first three slams against Phil Dent and a 39 year-old Ken Rosewall, and racked up multiple titles on the risible US Indoor Tour organized by his manager. People in glass houses...

Yes very true. And that was Connors only year ever as a "dominant" player it turned out. I do believe he was the rightful #1 of 82, and has a good argument for 76, but he was not dominant either year either.

 

[Hard Court]

Did Borg play on the old pro circuit? I don't recall seeing his name listed there.

The old pros had major tournaments, designated by Kramer as Forest Hills, L.A. Tennis Club, Kooyong, and White City. Hoad won three of those, plus four amateur majors.
That makes 7 for 17.

Borg from 1976-1980. That would be 8 for 15.

No Borg did not play in the old pro circuit. Good question though.
Still don't get how Hoad was 7 for 17 in major tournaments. It seems like he had a lot more tournaments than that from 1956-1960. Oh, I know now. You accidentally overlooked the US Pro, Wembley Pro, and French Pros that Hoad played during that time. He played in those a total of 8 times in that time period. He never won any of them though.

So really Hoad was 7 for 25 in major tournaments in that time period. Which would put him at 28%. Which certainly still is pretty good.
And Borg was not 8 for 15 as you listed earlier. He did not play in the 1977 French Open.
So Borg won 8 of 14, which puts him at about 57%. Which is way better than Hoad's 28%.
So your system of ranking players has Borg well above Hoad.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Connors claimed Lendl's competition was easy since he didn't start winning until McEnroe, Borg, Connors were all either declining, aging, or gone. And that he should have gotten his act together sooner and made it a square rather than a triangle. Not saying I agree, just relaying what he said in the referenced documtary. Of course not exactly a secret Connors is not fond of Lendl (especially while on a 7 year losing streak to Lendl at that point ).

Lendl already beat Mac 7 times in 1982 which was prime but still pre-peak Mac, so much for having to wait until Mac declined lol. Lendl won his very first slam by beating the peakest of peak Mac. Sure Lendl never beat Borg at any prime-version, but Borg retiring early is a special case.
As for Connors: Lendl already beat him twice in 1982, the year Connors won two slams (his most successful one after 74). Also, the question here is who faced the toughest competition, winning or losing aside. Lendl would have won a lot more slams if he had not had to face Borg/Connors/Mac at the beginning of his career.

 

[Dan Lobb]

@Pheasant you have to give it to @Dan Lobb he creates traffic in your Borg threads.

You are no stranger, either.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No Borg did not play in the old pro circuit. Good question though.
Still don't get how Hoad was 7 for 17 in major tournaments. It seems like he had a lot more tournaments than that from 1956-1960. Oh, I know now. You accidentally overlooked the US Pro, Wembley Pro, and French Pros that Hoad played during that time. He played in those a total of 8 times in that time period. He never won any of them though.

So really Hoad was 7 for 25 in major tournaments in that time period. Which would put him at 28%. Which certainly still is pretty good.
And Borg was not 8 for 15 as you listed earlier. He did not play in the 1977 French Open.
So Borg won 8 of 14, which puts him at about 57%. Which is way better than Hoad's 28%.
So your system of ranking players has Borg well above Hoad.

Not an accident, Kramer designated the four pro majors as Forest Hills, L. A. Tennis Club, Kooyong, and White City. Three of those four events were on grass, which were the most prestigious locations of the time. US Pro did not exist in the late fifties, and Kramer did not include either Roland Garros or Wembley Arena in his elite group of events. Kramer did not even include the Cleveland World Pro in his tournament series at all in either 1959 or 1960.

Small wonder that Hoad and Gonzales dominated Kramer's four majors, Gonzales winning five of them, Hoad winning three, Segura winning two. Rosewall was runnerup at Forest Hills in 1958 and Kooyong in 1960, Sedgman runnerup at White City in 1957 Forest Hills in 1957.

That still makes it 7 for 17 for Hoad, or 41%. Borg was 8 for 14, skipping or missing about 6 of 20 majors during his prime years. Hoad played all 17 pro majors for which he was qualified, skipping none, Gonzales played 17 pro majors, skipping only the 1959/1960 Kooyong.

The level of competition was higher in the earlier circuit.

 

[Hard Court]

The US Pro did exist in the late 1950s. You can look it up on the Internet. They are listed in Bud Collins book. (Though the Forest Hills Pro tournament, LA Tennis Club, Kooyong and White City are not. hmm.)
In 1957, Gonzales beat Segura in it. Trabert, Rosewall, Parker, Riggs, Pails and even the great Frank Kovacs played in it.
In 1958, Gonzales won it. He beat guess who in the final? Lew Hoad!
In 1959, Gonzales won it again. He beat Lew Hoad again!

The US Pro, the Wembley Pro, and the French Pro were major tournaments. Just because Kramer didn't include them on his points system doesn't mean they weren't majors. Lew Hoad just didn't win them.

I do admire your creativity in trying to say that Hoad was better than Borg.

First, you narrow it down to what you determine as their primes, 1956-1960 for Hoad and 1976-1980. That way we don't have to include three of Borg's Grand Slam titles.
Second, you don't count the Majors that Hoad didn't win because it would hurt him in the % system that you came up with.
Third, even with all that, Borg still beats Hoad in your own system, though it's closer than since you rigged it. So you decided that Hoad's competition must have way better!
Brilliant!

 

[Dan Lobb]

The US Pro did exist in the late 1950s. You can look it up on the Internet. They are listed in Bud Collins book. (Though the Forest Hills Pro tournament, LA Tennis Club, Kooyong and White City are not. hmm.)
In 1957, Gonzales beat Segura in it. Trabert, Rosewall, Parker, Riggs, Pails and even the great Frank Kovacs played in it.
In 1958, Gonzales won it. He beat guess who in the final? Lew Hoad!
In 1959, Gonzales won it again. He beat Lew Hoad again!

The US Pro, the Wembley Pro, and the French Pro were major tournaments. Just because Kramer didn't include them on his points system doesn't mean they weren't majors. Lew Hoad just didn't win them.

I do admire your creativity in trying to say that Hoad was better than Borg.

First, you narrow it down to what you determine as their primes, 1956-1960 for Hoad and 1976-1980. That way we don't have to include three of Borg's Grand Slam titles.
Second, you don't count the Majors that Hoad didn't win because it would hurt him in the % system that you came up with.
Third, even with all that, Borg still beats Hoad in your own system, though it's closer than since you rigged it. So you decided that Hoad's competition must have way better!
Brilliant!

There was no U. S. Pro in the fifties at Cleveland after 1950. Read the coverage in the contemporary media. Read tennis journals such as World Tennis, Sports Illustrated, New York Times, all the major media.

It was officially known as the Cleveland World Professional Tennis Championships.

Kramer designated the top four as L.A., Forest Hills, Kooyong, White CIty. See World Tennis, Nov.1958

I gave you the real numbers for their prime years, which were 1976-1980 for Borg, and 1956-1960 for Hoad.

 

[Vincent-C]

oh, dear..

 

[hoodjem]

Nastase was usually substandard at Wimbledon, he lacked the big punch on points against Smith in the 1972 final, and his career was slowing down in 1976. I watched him tank the final at the Canadian Open in 1975 when a close line call went against him. He watched his opponent's shots go past him without attempting to return them after that, and lost in straight sets. Difficult to draw any conclusions about Nastase.

You’re right.
Nasty would rather lose a match with flamboyant histrionics than win by concentrating on playing good, solid tennis.
A nutcase.

 

[Dan Lobb]

You’re right.
Nasty would rather lose a match with flamboyant histrionics than win by concentrating on playing good, solid tennis.
A nutcase.

He was the most frustrating player for any fan to watch.

Sometimes he would produce great tennis against a tough opponent, other times (usually in majors) he would apparently tank against a lesser opponent in a nonchalant manner. I don't know what his problem was.

 

[hoodjem]

He was the most frustrating player for any fan to watch.

Sometimes he would produce great tennis against a tough opponent, other times (usually in majors) he would apparently tank against a lesser opponent in a nonchalant manner. I don't know what his problem was.

Yes.
At times he could be brilliant.
At times he could be a joke, and his own worst enemy.

 

[WCT]

Connors won his first three slams against Phil Dent and a 39 year-old Ken Rosewall, and racked up multiple titles on the risible US Indoor Tour organized by his manager. People in glass houses...

As a Connors fan, pains me to say it, but there is a lot of truth in this statement.

 

[WCT]

I am not going to search the quotes for this. I know I read them when I couldn't post.
Rosewall did not serve and volley on every serve all the time. He didn't do it in the 2 Connors matches. He didn't do it in the hour of the Cliff Richey Wimbledon match that is up. He didn't do it in the Newcombe Wimbledon final that is up. He may have done it vs Roche, but that is 1 out of 5. His prime certainly predates me, but what is up on YouTube doesn't say he played textbook grass court tennis.

Sampras. Waspsting did stats on a bunch of Sampras Queens and Wimbledon matches. Every single one of them he came in behind every serve. That is how he played on grass. Textbook grass court tennis.