Was Borg the greatest grass court player ever?

[Dan Lobb]

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.

There are some qualifications.

1) Rosewall played the 1970 Forest Hills final on a wet grass surface which was noted for its suitability to the S&V game. In the 1970 Wimbledon final against Newk, Rosewall was clearly suffering from a bout of hay fever and was obviously weary. Rosewall in his earlier days came to net every serve against Gonzales, Hoad, Laver.

2) Sampras may have come in, but as I showed you in the match against Federer at Wimbledon posted above on this page, towards the end of the match he only came in to the service line, not to the net. And that cost him the match. Pete was stranded in no-man's land. Fed took advantage of that in a series of points at the end.

 

[thrust]

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.

What is so bad about winning 6 FO and also 5 Wimbledons? Like it or not, clay is a major pro tennis surface and has been since 1925, at least. Borg was the greatest grass court player of his peak years, Sampras, McEnroe, and Federer of theirs.

 

[abmk]

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.

overall stats wise, yes. But prime years wise, Borg comfortably beats Djokovic on grass/Wimbledon.

 

[thrust]

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.

Rosewall did not have a good enough serve to S/V most of the time yet, still managed to win 6 slams and 3 US pro titles on grass as well as winning 4 French Pro and 5 Wembley titles on fast wood. I think he probably came to the net more often behind ground strokes.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall did not have a good enough serve to S/V most of the time yet, still managed to win 6 slams and 3 US pro titles on grass as well as winning 4 French Pro and 5 Wembley titles on fast wood. I think he probably came to the net more often behind ground strokes.

Rosewall came to net behind both first and second serves when he was playing well on grass, the 1970 U.S. Open final which I posted above is evidence for that. At Wimbledon earlier he was too tired to rush the net.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

overall stats wise, yes. But prime years wise, Borg comfortably beats Djokovic on grass/Wimbledon.

Yes that is my feeling too. The main thing is Djokovic's first 3 Wimbledon titles were reasonably strong, the 4th was pretty good too ousting Nadal in that high quality match which Nadal had more momentum at the time, was favored in and probably should have won but Djokovic was just tougher that day, but the final 3 imparticular were very low quality, both in terms of calibre of play for a winner (I am not judging per age, where he was playing exceptionaly for his age, but not for the expected standard of a winner age aside) and the beyond awful competition. All of Borg's 5 were atleast reasonably strong, as well as the near miss of a title in 81. And factoring in as well that Borg played in a time of true grass and had to completely change his normal baseline game. Djokovic plays at a time of grass that is almost identical to a hard court, the equipment and conditions also being as they are, and has not had to change a thing. Maybe he could have if he had to, but reality is he never had to put to that test even a little bit.

 

[WCT]

Rosewall did not have a good enough serve to S/V most of the time yet, still managed to win 6 slams and 3 US pro titles on grass as well as winning 4 French Pro and 5 Wembley titles on fast wood. I think he probably came to the net more often behind ground strokes.

He had an excellent volley or that was his reputation. Again, prime Rosewall is before my time. I start with later 30s Rosewall. An excellent volley can help offset the serve.

 

[WCT]

There are some qualifications.

1) Rosewall played the 1970 Forest Hills final on a wet grass surface which was noted for its suitability to the S&V game. In the 1970 Wimbledon final against Newk, Rosewall was clearly suffering from a bout of hay fever and was obviously weary. Rosewall in his earlier days came to net every serve against Gonzales, Hoad, Laver.

2) Sampras may have come in, but as I showed you in the match against Federer at Wimbledon posted above on this page, towards the end of the match he only came in to the service line, not to the net. And that cost him the match. Pete was stranded in no-man's land. Fed took advantage of that in a series of points at the end.

NOW, it's only Rosewall on wet US Open grass? And we are putting in qualifiers for fatigue? So, he's got enough energy to rally but not enough to get to the net and end the point quickly? I forgot about the 1970 Sydney match with Laver where he was also staying back on many 2nd serves. A few firsts as well.

This is what, 6-1 now? Face it, that is how he played then. Again, I don't know what he did in earlier years. You will forgive me if I don't take your word for it considering the accuracy of your 70s Rosewall and Sampras opinion.

Waspsting did the stats for the 2001 match and has him s/v on every serve as he does for 22 other grass court matches. Sampras isn't Edberg, he isn't kicking his serve and getting on top of the net. He is hitting his serves mostly hard, first and second. Federer is standing basically at the baseline to return the first serve. And he isn't chipping returns, he is refiling them. Where exactly do you think Sampras is going to be hitting his first volley at? Basically the t. Make no mistake, he gets further in for some of the weaker returns that are floated. Bottom line, Sampras is playing textbook grass court tennis here. What he is doing constitutes serve/volley.

This is from a 25 or so minute truncated video that I watched. Match point was a first serve return winner where Federer was actually a little bit inside the baseline, on a first serve. If it was hit at Federer, where do you expect him to make the first volley from? Mind you, this is 30 year old Sampras, not prime Sampras. I don't think he is as fast getting to the net, but what he is doing definitely constitutes serve/volley.

What you are the master at is shifting the goalposts. You will never lose an argument if you shift your position, ie add qualifiers, to combat the counter argument. It's okay to say, I remembered it wrong. It sure as hell has happened to me. I don't like being wrong, but sometimes you are and it's best to just admit it.

Borg. Early Borg definitely plays differently on grass. Taylor, Armitraj, Ashe, he comes in behind both serves. In the Armitraj match he is hammering returns in a manner he is not later on. He is playing lower % tennis. He also wasn't really contending for the title. Quarterfinals is not my idea of real contention. He was a teenager whose grass game was evolving. He came up with a strategy that got him 5 straight Wimbledons. And while it wasn't textbook grass court tennis, it wasn't winning from the baseline either. No one who plays s/v on every or almost every 1st serve is winning from the baseline. Not, IMO.

I will say that I don't think his peak Wimbledon form matches Mcenroe's. And I do agree with Dan that playing textbook s/v tennis was generally the best way to achieve the highest peak in that era of grass court tennis.

 

[Dan Lobb]

NOW, it's only Rosewall on wet US Open grass? And we are putting in qualifiers for fatigue? So, he's got enough energy to rally but not enough to get to the net and end the point quickly? I forgot about the 1970 Sydney match with Laver where he was also staying back on many 2nd serves. A few firsts as well.

This is what, 6-1 now? Face it, that is how he played then. Again, I don't know what he did in earlier years. You will forgive me if I don't take your word for it considering the accuracy of your 70s Rosewall and Sampras opinion.

Waspsting did the stats for the 2001 match and has him s/v on every serve as he does for 22 other grass court matches. Sampras isn't Edberg, he isn't kicking his serve and getting on top of the net. He is hitting his serves mostly hard, first and second. Federer is standing basically at the baseline to return the first serve. And he isn't chipping returns, he is refiling them. Where exactly do you think Sampras is going to be hitting his first volley at? Basically the t. Make no mistake, he gets further in for some of the weaker returns that are floated. Bottom line, Sampras is playing textbook grass court tennis here. What he is doing constitutes serve/volley.

This is from a 25 or so minute truncated video that I watched. Match point was a first serve return winner where Federer was actually a little bit inside the baseline, on a first serve. If it was hit at Federer, where do you expect him to make the first volley from? Mind you, this is 30 year old Sampras, not prime Sampras. I don't think he is as fast getting to the net, but what he is doing definitely constitutes serve/volley.

What you are the master at is shifting the goalposts. You will never lose an argument if you shift your position, ie add qualifiers, to combat the counter argument. It's okay to say, I remembered it wrong. It sure as hell has happened to me. I don't like being wrong, but sometimes you are and it's best to just admit it.

Borg. Early Borg definitely plays differently on grass. Taylor, Armitraj, Ashe, he comes in behind both serves. In the Armitraj match he is hammering returns in a manner he is not later on. He is playing lower % tennis. He also wasn't really contending for the title. Quarterfinals is not my idea of real contention. He was a teenager whose grass game was evolving. He came up with a strategy that got him 5 straight Wimbledons. And while it wasn't textbook grass court tennis, it wasn't winning from the baseline either. No one who plays s/v on every or almost every 1st serve is winning from the baseline. Not, IMO.

I will say that I don't think his peak Wimbledon form matches Mcenroe's. And I do agree with Dan that playing textbook s/v tennis was generally the best way to achieve the highest peak in that era of grass court tennis.

Rosewall had trouble with hay fever at Wimbledon, but not at Forest Hills, that is also made clear in his different body langugage in the two 1970 events. He was frequently blowing his nose in the 1970 Wimbledon final, but no problems at Forest Hills. To play S&V you need to rush the net, you have to run.

I cannot account for Waspsting, I just use my own eyes, as you should, to see that Sampras does not go to net in the final game of the match, it is easy to see that, and I even gave you the clip above. He stops at the service line and gets nailed on a number of points by Federer, which decided the match. Sampras gets closer to the net in the previous games in this match, so maybe he just runs out of gas? He ends up not at the net but in no-man's land, where the balls dip to his feet, tough to volley those, and Pete flubs them all.

Here it is again, just watch the last game, Pete stops short on every point and gets nailed.

 

[thrust]

Borg needed to develop a second serve and come to net, otherwise he would not have had any chance at Forest Hills.

He had only about half a grass game.

I thought the Wimbledon grass was faster than Forest Hills grass courts, so IMO, Borg must have had a pretty good grass court game to win 5 Wimbledons unless he was playing weak grass court players. I only saw Borg once live and found his game rather boring and wondered how he ever won 5 Wimbledons, as he hardly ever came to the net at Forest Hills. His opponent at Forest Hills was Eddie Dibbs, who I think was primarily a clay court specialist, so Borg did not have to come to the net in order to beat him.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I thought the Wimbledon grass was faster than Forest Hills grass courts, so IMO, Borg must have had a pretty good grass court game to win 5 Wimbledons unless he was playing weak grass court players. I only saw Borg once live and found his game rather boring and wondered how he ever won 5 Wimbledons, as he hardly ever came to the net at Forest Hills. His opponent at Forest Hills was Eddie Dibbs, who I think was primarily a clay court specialist, so Borg did not have to come to the net in order to beat him.

That is playing the opponent. As you said Dibbs was a great clay courter, and hardcore baseliner, who came to net even less than Borg. So Borg would not have bothered to come to the net against him as it wouldn't be neccessary, and at worst for him a standard 4 set win, as he comfortably beats Dibbs even at his own baseline and clay court game. Coming to net and allowing Dibbs the chance to pass would be his only danger of losing and stupid.

 

[buscemi]

I thought the Wimbledon grass was faster than Forest Hills grass courts, so IMO, Borg must have had a pretty good grass court game to win 5 Wimbledons unless he was playing weak grass court players. I only saw Borg once live and found his game rather boring and wondered how he ever won 5 Wimbledons, as he hardly ever came to the net at Forest Hills. His opponent at Forest Hills was Eddie Dibbs, who I think was primarily a clay court specialist, so Borg did not have to come to the net in order to beat him.

Wimbledon was fast than Forest Hills, but Forest Hills had a lower, less consistent bounce than even Wimbledon. So different reasons why you'd want to rush the net at both back in the day.

 

[Dan Lobb]

That is playing the opponent. As you said Dibbs was a great clay courter, and hardcore baseliner, who came to net even less than Borg. So Borg would not have bothered to come to the net against him as it wouldn't be neccessary, and at worst for him a standard 4 set win, as he comfortably beats Dibbs even at his own baseline and clay court game. Coming to net and allowing Dibbs the chance to pass would be his only danger of losing and stupid.

This was the beginning stages of the transformation of the major grass courts into a clay-style game.

Forest Hills had an irregular, bad-bounce surface which made it better for the S&V style game.

 

[WCT]

Rosewall had trouble with hay fever at Wimbledon, but not at Forest Hills, that is also made clear in his different body langugage in the two 1970 events. He was frequently blowing his nose in the 1970 Wimbledon final, but no problems at Forest Hills. To play S&V you need to rush the net, you have to run.

I cannot account for Waspsting, I just use my own eyes, as you should, to see that Sampras does not go to net in the final game of the match, it is easy to see that, and I even gave you the clip above. He stops at the service line and gets nailed on a number of points by Federer, which decided the match. Sampras gets closer to the net in the previous games in this match, so maybe he just runs out of gas? He ends up not at the net but in no-man's land, where the balls dip to his feet, tough to volley those, and Pete flubs them all.

Here it is again, just watch the last game, Pete stops short on every point and gets nailed.

If you don't think what he did in the last game constitutes serve/volley, this conversation has nowhere to go since we are so fundamentally at odds on the definition of it.

 

[Dan Lobb]

If you don't think what he did in the last game constitutes serve/volley, this conversation has nowhere to go since we are so fundamentally at odds on the definition of it.

The classic S&V game means rushing to the net, not to the service line, which is only about halfway to the net.

That is obviously a different style of play.

 

[jrepac]

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 ).

There is some truth to that, but even at his peak of power in the mid to late 80's, he could not capitalize his advantage on grass. there was nearly always someone better than him across the net. Aside from Cash, who was very formidable, he had a murderers' row of ATG's to face off against. And most (but not Cash) were multi-year winners at W. He was unlucky in that respect.

 

[jrepac]

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.

I have to agree. I mean, they were the Big 3 of their era. Lendl was trying to horn his way in. Aged Connors was still an excellent big match player.

 

[jrepac]

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.

4 grand slams on grass might at least rate a "very good". Much better than most of his contemporaries. And a winning record versus Mac, a grass GOAT

 

[Dan Lobb]

4 grand slams on grass might at least rate a "very good". Much better than most of his contemporaries. And a winning record versus Mac, a grass GOAT

Connors had a good record in grass slams, but the field for the 1974 Australian was unusually weak, even for that event.

Connors was 0 and 2 against Newcombe on grass in the slams, Borg had the decisive edge over Connors at Wimbleon.

 

[Mustard]

Three days after Rafael Nadal's 40th birthday, it's Bjorn Borg's 70th birthday today.

 

[jrepac]

Connors had a good record in grass slams, but the field for the 1974 Australian was unusually weak, even for that event.

Connors was 0 and 2 against Newcombe on grass in the slams, Borg had the decisive edge over Connors at Wimbleon.

you can only play against who shows up. Certainly, I'd put Borg ahead. But I think "good" is not representative of his record at W which is 84 and 18, over 80% win rate. And overall on grass is 170 and 34, so a bit more than merely good. it's a little tricky to judge since he started in the era of 3 slams out of 4 on grass, winning 3 in close succession. Then not again until 82, when grass events were minimal at best. But he was typically in SF round at W. But, I do think for his era, winning 4 slams on grass and multiple finals is no mean feat.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Regarding Connor's comments on Lendl I will say while not agreeing with him at all, I can atleast see where his logic is coming from to a minor extent. Yes he had success against McEnroe (and to a much lesser extent Connors, honestly not really much vs Connors) while they were still in their primes and on top, and never really got the chance against Borg, apart from a pre prime Lendl taking a prime-ish Borg to 5 sets in his first ever slam final at RG. However I think what Connors means, and it is true, is Lendl did not actualy win hardly any of his slams while McEnroe, Connors, or Borg were around or in their primes. Lets say Connors prime was 74-82, even add 83 to be generous although that is dubious at best. Lendl won 0 slams during Connor's prime. Obviously 0 in Borg's. McEnroe's prime ended in either 84 or 85 depending who you talk to. So Lendl won only 1 or 2 of his slams during McEnroe's prime, none in the others. And that 1 against McEnroe was through McEnroe blowing a large lead on CLAY.

So in a certain sense I can see where he is coming from . However that is only true through a very narrow lens on all the things that qualify as competition. As BorgtheGOAT said, the competition that denied you slams is an important element too. Lendl was denied many slams by prime Connors, prime McEnroe, and 1 by prime Borg from 81-84, plus Wilander too, who is no slouch. Then when Lendl was winning so many slams he had Becker, Edberg,Wilander all as competition. Players who achievement wise are only a small notch behind Connors and McEnroe in singles anyway. And in fact a really good field especialy as all 4 of those were at or near their best at the same time for quite awhile, which as Connors himself points out was hardly true of him, McEnroe, Borg, and Lendl, in fact rarely more than 2 of those at once. Making it arguably an even stronger field as you had those 4 great players peaking together from 85-89 for the most part. He also had an aging but still very dangerous Connors and McEnroe who had success vs literally everyone at times, minus only Lendl himself. For instance Connors slaughtered Edberg at the US Open in 89, and Becker beat McEnroe at the Australian in his last year on tour in 92. Only against Lendl where even their aging versions completely inept. Also he had a young Agassi who was a real threat (in fact more dedicated, consistent and fit than he would be ever until late 94) already, and who he had to fend off to advance in the draw several times. And then in his later years he had Becker again, Sampras, Edberg again, Courier, Chang (who denied him another RG title in 89, as no way is Edberg or anyone else in the draw beating him there), Agassi, Ivanisevic, Stich, and others in his path while past his prime but still an outside contender for slams, probably winning a couple with a few less of those guys all in his way. So I do see Connors point but only from a very narrow perspective on "competition (which prime greats you were beating or didn't beat while dominating) which is just one segment, but not the entire picture of competition. And even that is overlooking how great of players Becker, Edberg, Wilander, all who Lendl faced for years prime on prime while dominant, and whilst he did not beat Becker often in slams he outdueled him for 2 YEC titles despite Becker being a carpet beast, and for the #1 ranking continously. It isn't Lendl's fault Becker did not make it to the end on clay and even hard courts more often, and Lendl did continously on grass, his worst surface, to face Becker.

It is similar to Steffi Graf in that some wrongly say had weakish competition since she didn't face fully prime Navratilova and fully prime Evert while on top, then had the Seles stabbing, then barely had anytime back against the really deep late 90s/early 2000s field, then retired. However Graf is similar to Lendl then in totality when you think of coming up against a still very strong Navratilova, strong Evert, being denied some possible slams in 85/86 when Navratilova for sure and arguably Evert were still prime, when Hana was still on top, with her fellow then hugely touted phenom Sabatini who many saw (even if wrongly) as a fellow 8+ slam winning talent, then later facing and being denied often by a peaking Seles, facing a still strong Navratilova, peaking Sabatini, Sanchez, then later on a returning Seles, still peaking Sanchez, and up and coming Hingis, and at the very end Hingis, Davenport, Venus in their primes and outdueling them for a slam title and another slam final. And on the whole it is a really strong field on average in her career, with only the exception of some of 93-95. Even if through a limited scope, like the one Connors is looking at Lendl's through, it could be seen as weak from a perspective.

Some say something like Evert denied Navratilova so many slams, while Seles got stabbed. Well in reality Seles probably denied Graf as many slams (3- 90 French Open, 92 French Open, 93 Australian, maybe 99 Australian Open), as Evert denied Navratilova (82 Australian, 85 French, and 1 of 75 French or 86 French), and Navratilova even probably denied Graf as many or more slams (86 US Open, 87 Wimbledon, 87 US Open, possibly 91 US Open) as Evert did Navratilova, LOL! The number of slams combined all 6+ slam winning players and legit ATGs Becker, Edberg, Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Wilander, Sampras (he almost for sure denied Lendl the 90 US Open), is collectively an enormous number. Almost certainly higher than anyone else in history. Maybe he didn't face a true GOAT like Federer, Sampras or Borg to win his slams, nor did he face someone possibly playing the highest calibre/most dominant tennis of the Open Era like 84 McEnroe while winning his slams, but that does not mean his competition was in anyway weak.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Regarding Connor's comments on Lendl I will say while not agreeing with him at all, I can atleast see where his logic is coming from to a minor extent. Yes he had success against McEnroe (and to a much lesser extent Connors, honestly not really much vs Connors) while they were still in their primes and on top, and never really got the chance against Borg, apart from a pre prime Lendl taking a prime-ish Borg to 5 sets in his first ever slam final at RG. However I think what Connors means, and it is true, is Lendl did not actualy win hardly any of his slams while McEnroe, Connors, or Borg were around or in their primes. Lets say Connors prime was 74-82, even add 83 to be generous although that is dubious at best. Lendl won 0 slams during Connor's prime. Obviously 0 in Borg's. McEnroe's prime ended in either 84 or 85 depending who you talk to. So Lendl won only 1 or 2 of his slams during McEnroe's prime, none in the others. And that 1 against McEnroe was through McEnroe blowing a large lead on CLAY.

So in a certain sense I can see where he is coming from . However that is only true through a very narrow lens on all the things that qualify as competition. As BorgtheGOAT said, the competition that denied you slams is an important element too. Lendl was denied many slams by prime Connors, prime McEnroe, and 1 by prime Borg from 81-84, plus Wilander too, who is no slouch. Then when Lendl was winning so many slams he had Becker, Edberg,Wilander all as competition. Players who achievement wise are only a small notch behind Connors and McEnroe in singles anyway. And in fact a really good field especialy as all 4 of those were at or near their best at the same time for quite awhile, which as Connors himself points out was hardly true of him, McEnroe, Borg, and Lendl, in fact rarely more than 2 of those at once. Making it arguably an even stronger field as you had those 4 great players peaking together from 85-89 for the most part. He also had an aging but still very dangerous Connors and McEnroe who had success vs literally everyone at times, minus only Lendl himself. For instance Connors slaughtered Edberg at the US Open in 89, and Becker beat McEnroe at the Australian in his last year on tour in 92. Only against Lendl where even their aging versions completely inept. Also he had a young Agassi who was a real threat (in fact more dedicated, consistent and fit than he would be ever until late 94) already, and who he had to fend off to advance in the draw several times. And then in his later years he had Becker again, Sampras, Edberg again, Courier, Chang (who denied him another RG title in 89, as no way is Edberg or anyone else in the draw beating him there), Agassi, Ivanisevic, Stich, and others in his path while past his prime but still an outside contender for slams, probably winning a couple with a few less of those guys all in his way. So I do see Connors point but only from a very narrow perspective on "competition (which prime greats you were beating or didn't beat while dominating) which is just one segment, but not the entire picture of competition. And even that is overlooking how great of players Becker, Edberg, Wilander, all who Lendl faced for years prime on prime while dominant, and whilst he did not beat Becker often in slams he outdueled him for 2 YEC titles despite Becker being a carpet beast, and for the #1 ranking continously. It isn't Lendl's fault Becker did not make it to the end on clay and even hard courts more often, and Lendl did continously on grass, his worst surface, to face Becker.

It is similar to Steffi Graf in that some wrongly say had weakish competition since she didn't face fully prime Navratilova and fully prime Evert while on top, then had the Seles stabbing, then barely had anytime back against the really deep late 90s/early 2000s field, then retired. However Graf is similar to Lendl then in totality when you think of coming up against a still very strong Navratilova, strong Evert, being denied some possible slams in 85/86 when Navratilova for sure and arguably Evert were still prime, when Hana was still on top, with her fellow then hugely touted phenom Sabatini who many saw (even if wrongly) as a fellow 8+ slam winning talent, then later facing and being denied often by a peaking Seles, facing a still strong Navratilova, peaking Sabatini, Sanchez, then later on a returning Seles, still peaking Sanchez, and up and coming Hingis, and at the very end Hingis, Davenport, Venus in their primes and outdueling them for a slam title and another slam final. And on the whole it is a really strong field on average in her career, with only the exception of some of 93-95. Even if through a limited scope, like the one Connors is looking at Lendl's through, it could be seen as weak from a perspective.

Some say something like Evert denied Navratilova so many slams, while Seles got stabbed. Well in reality Seles probably denied Graf as many slams (3- 90 French Open, 92 French Open, 93 Australian, maybe 99 Australian Open), as Evert denied Navratilova (82 Australian, 85 French, and 1 of 75 French or 86 French), and Navratilova even probably denied Graf as many or more slams (86 US Open, 87 Wimbledon, 87 US Open, possibly 91 US Open) as Evert did Navratilova, LOL! The number of slams combined all 6+ slam winning players and legit ATGs Becker, Edberg, Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Wilander, Sampras (he almost for sure denied Lendl the 90 US Open), is collectively an enormous number. Almost certainly higher than anyone else in history. Maybe he didn't face a true GOAT like Federer, Sampras or Borg to win his slams, nor did he face someone possibly playing the highest calibre/most dominant tennis of the Open Era like 84 McEnroe while winning his slams, but that does not mean his competition was in anyway weak.

It’s also a little with Djokovic and Fedal. Some people here (Fedal fans) say that Djokovic had to wait until Fedal were old. Fed was past prime in 2011 already and Nadal apart from 2011 was allegedly as well in all of the years where Djoko won big. Of course I disagree with that but it’s a little the narrative.

 

[Mustard]

Lendl beat Borg in 5 sets in the 1980 Basel final.

Lendl at that time did find Connors a nightmare. He kept hitting at Connors with pace, which is the worst thing that you can do against Connors. Connors won their first 8 matches without losing a set.

 

[Borgforever]

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

WCT,

I don't see the negative.

Rosewall was a tough contender for anybody and to, twice, convincingly defeat him, in the way Jimmy did, was still quite the feat. And it wasn't just Rosewall, Jimmy had to beat 6 guys before him, some really dangerous, in-form grass-specialists, battling beautifully through all of the toughest dilemmas, with a dominating finish. Both Wimbledon and US Open. The video footage speaks for itself. Rosewall might've been tired -- but Connors produced two of the finest performances ever in major finals. His Mickey Mouse-wins wasn't that bad, and he still had to win all of the matches -- all 97 of of 101 or what was it?! A lot of matches, and regular schedule baked in, makes this just remarkably impressive.

1974 is one of the great seasons by a male tennis player.

The brilliance, consistency and the frequent power of his tennis, at the time, was new, combined with one of the most outstanding competitive talents ever to produce the amazing shot at clutch.

Connors almost never lost either, even in 1975...

I have revised my previous opinion regarding the issue if Connor's could've won RG in 1974 and, thus, The Grand Slam of 1974. I think Jimmy had a 70-90% of doing that, basically as high a chance as can reasonably be presented.

Why is this? Well, Borg said as much in his recent book. He feared Connors even in 1974, despite actually having won over him in Stockholm in November 1973. That victory came from an extremely tough battle where Jimbo impressed Borg with his relentless, limitless fighting spirit.

So Borg said that Jimmy was just the better competitor and would probably defeat him in the RG-final of 1974. Just for his better playing level and his superior mental strength.

Borg also said that, even if he would've reached the Wimby-final 1975 against Jimmy, he would've 100% lost.

Connors was more confident, mature and, clearly, much better.

Borg lost his clay court matches to Jimbo in 1974 and 1975 to confirm Borg's statement. I've never seen those matches. I thought Borg was playing Connors at that time, the way Newcombe and Ashe had done previous , the Jimbo-medicine with junk and mixing it up to unsettle The Great C.

Nope.

When I said I had never seen those matches it was true. Until today.

Over an hour of the end of the second and the whole third set of their US Open SF 1975 turned up.

Some thoughts:

A very intense, high-quality encounter, promising that the full-match probably was classic level like their 1976 US Open final. Particularly for Connors astonishing display of clutch brilliance and overall tennis-mastery of consistently pounding deep bullets into all corners!

Main tactic for Jimbo against Borg on clay, was at this stage it seems; from the baseline, mostly, to push Borg back, way behind the baseline, with occasional high, topspin-FH moonballs, but mostly with raw force, clocking the corners to, at worst, get a short putaway.

The tactic to be successful demands superb execution, especially at clutch, on any clay surface.

And Jimbo delivers in spades. Like the 1976-final, in the 1975 SF, Jimmy just swings those groundstrokes with jaw dropping accuracy, again and again.

What's also remarkable is Jimmy's occasional serve and volley, but generally he works himself in.

Borg is not at his best, but he's very still very good. He plays really well but when Jimmy rips all those deep approaches Björn lacks serious responses.

Borg doesn't at all seem to hold back in any stroke it seems, slugs many first-serves really hard almost like its grass, almost all the time he pounds his groundstrokes so much harder than he did in 1976-final, where he junked-around a lot.

So this is normal Borg against Connors in 1975. Not holding back on power at all, and still being dominated and losing. Jimmy really hammers some hard first serves here, especially an ace down the T, which he normally didn't do with frequency, but it proved is ability.

Also, unforgettable, notice Connors generosity to Borg here -- when Borg slugs an ace at one time, called out, Connors walks to the mark and signals he accepts it as on the line, so Borg gets a let 1st serve. Jimbo showed some respectful sportsmanship not only to Newcombe during these times.

Lots of interesting discussions during the match from Trabert, Summerall et al.

Hope, you WCT, and everybody else enjoys this piece of classic history on Borg's 70th birthday, and remember TRUE BLUE LIFETIME GUARANTEE-battteries, you still have them?!

 

[Dan Lobb]

you can only play against who shows up. Certainly, I'd put Borg ahead. But I think "good" is not representative of his record at W which is 84 and 18, over 80% win rate. And overall on grass is 170 and 34, so a bit more than merely good. it's a little tricky to judge since he started in the era of 3 slams out of 4 on grass, winning 3 in close succession. Then not again until 82, when grass events were minimal at best. But he was typically in SF round at W. But, I do think for his era, winning 4 slams on grass and multiple finals is no mean feat.

"Good" meaning, of course, within the context of Connors career overall. Not his best surface by any means, Connors was at his best on rubber and carpet.

 

[WCT]

WCT,

I don't see the negative.

Rosewall was a tough contender for anybody and to, twice, convincingly defeat him, in the way Jimmy did, was still quite the feat. And it wasn't just Rosewall, Jimmy had to beat 6 guys before him, some really dangerous, in-form grass-specialists, battling beautifully through all of the toughest dilemmas, with a dominating finish. Both Wimbledon and US Open. The video footage speaks for itself. Rosewall might've been tired -- but Connors produced two of the finest performances ever in major finals. His Mickey Mouse-wins wasn't that bad, and he still had to win all of the matches -- all 97 of of 101 or what was it?! A lot of matches, and regular schedule baked in, makes this just remarkably impressive.

1974 is one of the great seasons by a male tennis player.

The brilliance, consistency and the frequent power of his tennis, at the time, was new, combined with one of the most outstanding competitive talents ever to produce the amazing shot at clutch.

Connors almost never lost either, even in 1975...

I have revised my previous opinion regarding the issue if Connor's could've won RG in 1974 and, thus, The Grand Slam of 1974. I think Jimmy had a 70-90% of doing that, basically as high a chance as can reasonably be presented.

Why is this? Well, Borg said as much in his recent book. He feared Connors even in 1974, despite actually having won over him in Stockholm in November 1973. That victory came from an extremely tough battle where Jimbo impressed Borg with his relentless, limitless fighting spirit.

So Borg said that Jimmy was just the better competitor and would probably defeat him in the RG-final of 1974. Just for his better playing level and his superior mental strength.

Borg also said that, even if he would've reached the Wimby-final 1975 against Jimmy, he would've 100% lost.

Connors was more confident, mature and, clearly, much better.

Borg lost his clay court matches to Jimbo in 1974 and 1975 to confirm Borg's statement. I've never seen those matches. I thought Borg was playing Connors at that time, the way Newcombe and Ashe had done previous , the Jimbo-medicine with junk and mixing it up to unsettle The Great C.

Nope.

When I said I had never seen those matches it was true. Until today.

Over an hour of the end of the second and the whole third set of their US Open SF 1975 turned up.

Some thoughts:

A very intense, high-quality encounter, promising that the full-match probably was classic level like their 1976 US Open final. Particularly for Connors astonishing display of clutch brilliance and overall tennis-mastery of consistently pounding deep bullets into all corners!

Main tactic for Jimbo against Borg on clay, was at this stage it seems; from the baseline, mostly, to push Borg back, way behind the baseline, with occasional high, topspin-FH moonballs, but mostly with raw force, clocking the corners to, at worst, get a short putaway.

The tactic to be successful demands superb execution, especially at clutch, on any clay surface.

And Jimbo delivers in spades. Like the 1976-final, in the 1975 SF, Jimmy just swings those groundstrokes with jaw dropping accuracy, again and again.

What's also remarkable is Jimmy's occasional serve and volley, but generally he works himself in.

Borg is not at his best, but he's very still very good. He plays really well but when Jimmy rips all those deep approaches Björn lacks serious responses.

Borg doesn't at all seem to hold back in any stroke it seems, slugs many first-serves really hard almost like its grass, almost all the time he pounds his groundstrokes so much harder than he did in 1976-final, where he junked-around a lot.

So this is normal Borg against Connors in 1975. Not holding back on power at all, and still being dominated and losing. Jimmy really hammers some hard first serves here, especially an ace down the T, which he normally didn't do with frequency, but it proved is ability.

Lots of interesting discussions during the match from Trabert, Summerall et al.

Hope, you WCT, and everybody else enjoys this piece of classic history on Borg's 70th birthday, and remember TRUE BLUE LIFETIME GUARANTEE-battteries, you still have them?!

Thanks for posting that match. I got it last year before tennis pro history deleted all their stuff. I waited 50 years to see that again. It was joined in progress by CBS. THIS is Segura's Connors. That ball lands at the service line or in, damn straight he's coming to the net.

Borg is definitely hammering away here and definitely is mixing in more of the slice backhand later on. When he passed Connors, though, he did away with that. Except for the backhand approach shot. In rallies, he didn't employ the slice unless stretched out and by necessity.

Borg is definitely not passing as well as later. A bunch of times, on not really penetrating approaches, Connors doesn't have to hit a volley. To be clear, Connors has a lot of very penetrating approaches, but there are more than a few that aren't.
Match point is an example. Floats a backhand chip and says, pass me. Connors does not come in on that ball in 5 years vs Borg.

To 1974, how much can you knock him with that record? However, when comparing him to what other players had to face to win multiple GS titles in a year, I think he falls short. According to the ATP site,which I believe lists the player's ranking when he played Connors, he faced 1 top 10 player in Wimbledon and the US Open. In 76, he had to be at Kodes and Gerulaitis, top 20, and Borg and Vilas, top 5.

Now, while he did win a bunch of tournaments on Riordan's tour, that tour ended pretty early. He won the US Clay Courts, Pacific SouthWest, Wembley, South African Open. They weren't the Riordan tour. Again, it's a great, I just don't see it as a real contender for best ever. There are too many competition issues. That said, you can only play who is on the schedule. And Connors beat just about everyone he was scheduled against in 1974.

I think 70-90 % is too high for the French. He won 1 clay court event in 74 and it wasn't Europe red clay. There was more than Borg in the field. There were multiple players who could have troubled/beaten him. I always feel like a yo yo saying that since I so often extol his clay court record. Since I have so often insisted that he would have at least some red clay titles, in Europe, if he played multiple events consistently. However, the reality is he never won one. He never won a French despite returning to play there at 26 years old. So, for me, there is too much of an element of doubt to rate his chances, in 1974, at 70-90%. The word I use is reasonable. He played there 74-78 and I think he has a reasonable chance at a title.
His US clay record is too outstanding for me to not give him at least a reasonable shot.

 

[Borg Number One]

Borg’s Wimbledon dominance really propelled pro tennis in terms of worldwide popularity during a Golden Age. Tennis had never had so much attention as a sport. Borg’s run of five straight Wimbledons caught the public’s imagination. Yet Borg was not only one of the greatest grass court players, see his results on indoor carpet. Look at 1980-1981 with Borg, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. Fans overlook Borg’s success at the Masters indoors when it was the fourth biggest tournament on the Tour.

Borg was the best clay courter, winning two French Opens, while he and McEnroe were the best grass court players, each winning one Wimbledon. Borg was also the best player indoors winning the Volvo Masters in January 1980 and January 1981 at New York City’s Madison Square Garden, where he went 5-0 versus McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. On hard courts, he was second to McEnroe, losing two US Open finals, but he did win in straight sets against Connors in the ‘81 SF. So Borg was the best clay courter, the best indoor player, tied with McEnroe on grass, and the second best hard court player. Very impressive surface versatility by Borg. If you look at 1980-1981 at the four biggest tournaments including the Masters indoors, Borg comes out ahead of his top three rivals.

 

[jrepac]

Borg’s Wimbledon dominance really propelled pro tennis in terms of worldwide popularity during a Golden Age. Tennis had never had so much attention as a sport. Borg’s run of five straight Wimbledons caught the public’s imagination. Yet Borg was not only one of the greatest grass court players, see his results on indoor carpet. Look at 1980-1981 with Borg, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. Fans overlook Borg’s success at the Masters indoors when it was the fourth biggest tournament on the Tour.

Borg was the best clay courter, winning two French Opens, while he and McEnroe were the best grass court players, each winning one Wimbledon. Borg was also the best player indoors winning the Volvo Masters in January 1980 and January 1981 at New York City’s Madison Square Garden, where he went 5-0 versus McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. On hard courts, he was second to McEnroe, losing two US Open finals, but he did win in straight sets against Connors in the ‘81 SF. So Borg was the best clay courter, the best indoor player, tied with McEnroe on grass, and the second best hard court player. Very impressive surface versatility by Borg. If you look at 1980-1981 at the four biggest tournaments including the Masters indoors, Borg comes out ahead of his top three rivals.

Certainly in 1980. But Mac was ascendant in '81.

 

[Mustard]

Certainly in 1980. But Mac was ascendant in '81.

Borg beat McEnroe at the January 1981 Masters, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, and went on to win the tournament.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Borg beat McEnroe at the January 1981 Masters, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, and went on to win the tournament.

Was it on grass?

 

[Mustard]

Was it on grass?

Indoor carpet at Madison Square Garden.

On grass, the 1981 Wimbledon final was very close. In fact, Borg was more consistent than the previous year's final but had lost the knack of winning the most important points.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Certainly in 1980. But Mac was ascendant in '81.

Yes but I think his point was Borg was best in 80, McEnroe was best slightly above Borg in 81, but combining the two years it was still Borg overall, which goes against the often taught narrative. And as we saw McEnroe's form collapsed in 82. We have no idea what would have happened with Borg, or for that matter if McEnroe's form still collapses in 82 if Borg continues, but the setting would be there for Borg to make a comeback (as much as a still extremely strong 81 season for anyone but Borg is something to come back from). One factor in Borg's favor, and in Connor's favor as we saw, is young Lendl is a MUCH tougher opponent for McEnroe than he was for either Connors or Borg. I think he had something like 7 wins against McEnroe in late 80-82 alone, contrasting his complete ineptitude for awhile vs Connors that others have spoke of. Thus Lendl was able to take McEnroe out of the way sometimes, or if not soften him up. This was another factor in Connor's totally unexpected great year in 82, and would have been a helpful component for Borg as well if he was able to re motivate to atleast his 81 form, if not slightly refreshed and higher.

 

[Borg Number One]

Certainly in 1980. But Mac was ascendant in '81.

Yes but remember that in January 1981, Borg won the Masters indoors beating McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. In 1981 he also won the French, so he won 2 of the 4 biggest events, as did McEnroe in 1981. McEnroe was not competitive at that time at the French Open. Also, folks overlook the big indoors event that Borg won in early 1980 and again in early 1981, the Volvo Masters. The Masters was the fourth biggest tournament on the Tour in those years. Good point about Lendl in those years. He was doing well against McEnroe. He reached the final at the Volvo Masters where Borg beat him in straight sets in the final.

 

[Mustard]

Yes but remember that in January 1981, Borg won the Masters indoors beating McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. In 1981 he also won the French, so he won 2 of the 4 biggest events, as did McEnroe in 1981. McEnroe was not competitive at that time at the French Open. Also, folks overlook the big indoors event that Borg won in early 1980 and again in early 1981, the Volvo Masters. The Masters was the fourth biggest tournament on the Tour in those years. Good point about Lendl in those years. He was doing well against McEnroe. He reached the final at the Volvo Masters where Borg beat him in straight sets in the final.

McEnroe at the 1981 French Open lost in the quarter finals. Lendl beat him 6-4, 6-4, 7-5.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Indoor carpet at Madison Square Garden.

On grass, the 1981 Wimbledon final was very close. In fact, Borg was more consistent than the previous year's final but had lost the knack of winning the most important points.

Those winning points will kill you every time.

 

[Dan Lobb]

McEnroe at the 1981 French Open lost in the quarter finals. Lendl beat him 6-4, 6-4, 7-5.

Borg was not recharging in 1981, and he seems to have lost the desire to win the biggest tournaments at Wimbledon and Flushing. He needed to step aside for a while, and he never got it back, partly due to personal problems.

 

[Mustard]

Borg was not recharging in 1981, and he seems to have lost the desire to win the biggest tournaments at Wimbledon and Flushing. He needed to step aside for a while, and he never got it back, partly due to personal problems.

The 1981 Wimbledon final was basically as close as a 4-set match gets. The 1981 US Open final was a bad loss for Borg after winning the first set.

Also, it's strange, but it felt like Borg was pushed to the limit by Connors in the 1981 Wimbledon semi final. That was a match of very high intensity, while the final against McEnroe was much calmer.

And what personal problems did Borg have in 1981? His marriage to Mariana Simionescu was a year long at that point. Business issues? I know it got bad for him in the mid and late 1980s, culminating in an alleged suicide attempt in Milan in February 1989 when Borg needed his stomach pumped, which Borg denied was a suicide attempt.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The 1981 Wimbledon final was basically as close as a 4-set match gets. The 1981 US Open final was a bad loss for Borg after winning the first set.

Also, it's strange, but it felt like Borg was pushed to the limit by Connors in the 1981 Wimbledon semi final. That was a match of very high intensity, while the final against McEnroe was much calmer.

And what personal problems did Borg have in 1981? His marriage to Mariana Simionescu was a year long at that point. Business issues? I know it got bad for him in the mid and late 1980s, culminating in an alleged suicide attempt in Milan in February 1989 when Borg needed his stomach pumped, which Borg denied was a suicide attempt.

Borg was already reducing substantially the number of matches he was playing in 1981, his motivation was dropping.

 

[Mustard]

Borg was already reducing substantially the number of matches he was playing in 1981, his motivation was dropping.

Borg was burned out a bit, yes. He wanted to keep playing that reduced schedule that he did in 1981, but the ITF were objecting, hence Borg sat out nearly all of 1982 apart from exhibition stuff, and then retired from full-time tennis in January 1983 during the Masters tournament.

It's clear to me that the tennis authorities know that they drove Borg out of tennis, but that would be a very bad look for them if it was the official narrative, so they do all this stuff of "Borg was tired, fed up" or "Borg ran away from McEnroe".

 

[Dan Lobb]

Borg was burned out a bit, yes. He wanted to keep playing that reduced schedule that he did in 1981, but the ITF were objecting, hence Borg sat out nearly all of 1982 apart from exhibition stuff, and then retired from full-time tennis in January 1983 during the Masters tournament.

It's clear to me that the tennis authorities know that they drove Borg out of tennis, but that would be a very bad look for them if it was the official narrative, so they do all this stuff of "Borg was tired, fed up" or "Borg ran away from McEnroe".

The rules were the same for everyone.

 

[buscemi]

Borg was already reducing substantially the number of matches he was playing in 1981, his motivation was dropping.

Wasn't this simply due to a shoulder injury? According to this piece, "Borg said he was slowing down, playing less to rest his injured wing."

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes but I think his point was Borg was best in 80, McEnroe was best slightly above Borg in 81, but combining the two years it was still Borg overall, which goes against the often taught narrative. And as we saw McEnroe's form collapsed in 82. We have no idea what would have happened with Borg, or for that matter if McEnroe's form still collapses in 82 if Borg continues, but the setting would be there for Borg to make a comeback (as much as a still extremely strong 81 season for anyone but Borg is something to come back from). One factor in Borg's favor, and in Connor's favor as we saw, is young Lendl is a MUCH tougher opponent for McEnroe than he was for either Connors or Borg. I think he had something like 7 wins against McEnroe in late 80-82 alone, contrasting his complete ineptitude for awhile vs Connors that others have spoke of. Thus Lendl was able to take McEnroe out of the way sometimes, or if not soften him up. This was another factor in Connor's totally unexpected great year in 82, and would have been a helpful component for Borg as well if he was able to re motivate to atleast his 81 form, if not slightly refreshed and higher.

Exactly. Lendl in 1981/82 won 7 consecutive times against Mac, 5-0 in Bo5 and 19-1 in sets!!! At the same time Borg beat him at the FO 1981 which was only a close match on paper (140-108 points for Borg, you will not find many so lopsided 5-setters), beat him in Stuttgart in 4, and even in 1982 where he was already semi-retired he gave Lendl his only loss indoors that season by beating him 6-1, 6-4, 6-2 at Sydney. The only 'real' win Lendl ever had against Borg in a regular match was Basel 1908, his other win came by Borg's retirement in Toronto while being a set down.
Borg would definitely have benefited from Lendl taking Mac out here and there same as with Connors. At this point Borg completely owned Connors at Wimbledon and overall, so if Connors takes Mac out in 1982 Wimblie, I see Borg winning his sixth title had he played and been anywhere in form.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Exactly. Lendl in 1981/82 won 7 consecutive times against Mac, 5-0 in Bo5 and 19-1 in sets!!! At the same time Borg beat him at the FO 1981 which was only a close match on paper (140-108 points for Borg, you will not find many so lopsided 5-setters), beat him in Stuttgart in 4, and even in 1982 where he was already semi-retired he gave Lendl his only loss indoors that season by beating him 6-1, 6-4, 6-2 at Sydney. The only 'real' win Lendl ever had against Borg in a regular match was Basel 1908, his other win came by Borg's retirement in Toronto while being a set down.
Borg would definitely have benefited from Lendl taking Mac out here and there same as with Connors. At this point Borg completely owned Connors at Wimbledon and overall, so if Connors takes Mac out in 1982 Wimblie, I see Borg winning his sixth title had he played and been anywhere in form.

The Lendl factor is a big one in general for sure as I would say difficulty for Lendl goes Connors > Borg >> McEnroe. So this is a big help to Connors potentially and a help to Borg comparatively to McEnroe. The Lendl factor is borderline meaningless at Wimbledon mind you where Lendl was a threat to any of those 3, atleast not in 82 (he was such a bad opponent for Mcenroe at that point, I guess who knows in that few period, but I still really doubt him beating him at Wimbledon, and Lendl even skipped Wimbledon altogether in 82, LOL). More for the other events on tour, and the US Open. A lot forget how much Lendl owned McEnroe early in their rivalry, since peak of peak McEnroe's overall took back temporary control in 84 (even if still suffering from Lendl, as the huge RG final loss shows).

I agree with you about Wimbledon 82. The one element to consider is if McEnroe's level declined because of Borg leaving. He claims it did, and it is certainly possible, but I would say it is really a 50/50 guess. McEnroe is one to always spin things in his favor, even if only subconsciously. There are numerous plausible reasons his level declined in 82 that were not related to Borg leaving, including the sophomore slump one, where a player after a great year often tails off unless they are Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, or Borg. Granted in McEnroe's case you could argue this would be his 3rd hypothetical huge year after 80 and 81, but 81 was his first year truly on top and often the sophomore slump kicks in at that point for people before a recovery. Nadal I would say even had one in 2009, after his first year truly on top in 2008, even if you want to argue there were other factors including injury, and a confidence crushing defeat at RG, amongst others, in play too.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

including the sophomore slump one, where a player after a great year often tails off unless they are Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, or Borg.

I would say this effect was really strong for Djoko. After 2008 with a first slam and a YEC, his 2009 and 2010 were really disappointing. After his absolute breakthrough year 2011, he had three consecutive years which, while great in general standards, were a big step back compared to 2011.

 

[Pheasant]

I remember seeing a TV interview of Mac in early 1982. He said that the stress of being world #1 was absolutely immense. He complained about it. He had just dethroned the most popular player of all time. So now, he got a lot of attention. I don’t think that Mac handled that attention well at all;at least not in 1982. By 1984, he had it all under control. Circling back, I think that had Borg been around in 1982 to play slams, then he would have won Wimbledon that year. I was not impressed with either Mac or Jimmy that year at all. I thought that they both looked a bit sloppy.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The Lendl factor is a big one in general for sure as I would say difficulty for Lendl goes Connors > Borg >> McEnroe. So this is a big help to Connors potentially and a help to Borg comparatively to McEnroe. The Lendl factor is borderline meaningless at Wimbledon mind you where Lendl was a threat to any of those 3, atleast not in 82 (he was such a bad opponent for Mcenroe at that point, I guess who knows in that few period, but I still really doubt him beating him at Wimbledon, and Lendl even skipped Wimbledon altogether in 82, LOL). More for the other events on tour, and the US Open. A lot forget how much Lendl owned McEnroe early in their rivalry, since peak of peak McEnroe's overall took back temporary control in 84 (even if still suffering from Lendl, as the huge RG final loss shows).

I agree with you about Wimbledon 82. The one element to consider is if McEnroe's level declined because of Borg leaving. He claims it did, and it is certainly possible, but I would say it is really a 50/50 guess. McEnroe is one to always spin things in his favor, even if only subconsciously. There are numerous plausible reasons his level declined in 82 that were not related to Borg leaving, including the sophomore slump one, where a player after a great year often tails off unless they are Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, or Borg. Granted in McEnroe's case you could argue this would be his 3rd hypothetical huge year after 80 and 81, but 81 was his first year truly on top and often the sophomore slump kicks in at that point for people before a recovery. Nadal I would say even had one in 2009, after his first year truly on top in 2008, even if you want to argue there were other factors including injury, and a confidence crushing defeat at RG, amongst others, in play too.

Yeah while typing my post I also had that in mind to address, but to be honest I do not really buy that from Mac. The trend against Lendl had already started in 1981. He got straight-setted at the FO (ok Lendl is also clearly the better clay courter), got straight-setted at their DC match (and Mac is a borderline DC GOAT) and got also soundly beaten at the Masters. All in all he was 0-8 in sets against Lendl in 1981 which was his first year as the very best. Given that Lendl was 21 in 1981 so still very young and clearly on an upwards trend, him being 3-0 in 1981 with 8-0 in sets makes a 4-0 of him in 1982 as an one year older slightly improved version not unrealistic but actually the logical expectation even if Mac does not decline one bit.
As for Connors: Mac and him split their meetings in 1982 with 2:2 and in 1981 with 1:1, with Jimmy winning the Bo5 match in Wembley.

So at least in his matches against his two biggest rivals outside of Borg, Mac did almost exactly same in 1982 as he did in 1981 so I cannot see how the retirement of Borg from slams would have affected his level so much.

Overall, his winning percentage in 1982 was 88.8% while in 1981 it was slightly below at 88.4%. All these numbers actually show that in 1981 he was lucky to not run into Connors and Lendl more often and that Borg had to take care of Jimmy in both the semis at Wimbledon and the USO. Let Mac play Connors in the USO SF in 1981 and I can very well see Borg winning the whole thing.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I would say this effect was really strong for Djoko. After 2008 with a first slam and a YEC, his 2009 and 2010 were really disappointing. After his absolute breakthrough year 2011, he had three consecutive years which, while great in general standards, were a big step back compared to 2011.

Yeah I forgot him. For sure, his 2007 was his 2nd best year, atleast quality of tennis wise, until 2011.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Wasn't this simply due to a shoulder injury? According to this piece, "Borg said he was slowing down, playing less to rest his injured wing."

Possible, good point. But he seemed to be unwilling to commit to returning to his usual schedule in the future after the healing process.

 

[Mustard]

The Lendl factor is a big one in general for sure as I would say difficulty for Lendl goes Connors > Borg >> McEnroe. So this is a big help to Connors potentially and a help to Borg comparatively to McEnroe. The Lendl factor is borderline meaningless at Wimbledon mind you where Lendl was a threat to any of those 3, atleast not in 82 (he was such a bad opponent for Mcenroe at that point, I guess who knows in that few period, but I still really doubt him beating him at Wimbledon, and Lendl even skipped Wimbledon altogether in 82, LOL). More for the other events on tour, and the US Open. A lot forget how much Lendl owned McEnroe early in their rivalry, since peak of peak McEnroe's overall took back temporary control in 84 (even if still suffering from Lendl, as the huge RG final loss shows).

I agree with you about Wimbledon 82. The one element to consider is if McEnroe's level declined because of Borg leaving. He claims it did, and it is certainly possible, but I would say it is really a 50/50 guess. McEnroe is one to always spin things in his favor, even if only subconsciously. There are numerous plausible reasons his level declined in 82 that were not related to Borg leaving, including the sophomore slump one, where a player after a great year often tails off unless they are Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, or Borg. Granted in McEnroe's case you could argue this would be his 3rd hypothetical huge year after 80 and 81, but 81 was his first year truly on top and often the sophomore slump kicks in at that point for people before a recovery. Nadal I would say even had one in 2009, after his first year truly on top in 2008, even if you want to argue there were other factors including injury, and a confidence crushing defeat at RG, amongst others, in play too.

At 1982 Wimbledon, Borg was in dispute with the ITF. Borg was expected to be back in due course. It was in January 1983, during the Masters, that Borg said that he was retiring from full-time tennis, and it was a shock. Lendl was asked about Borg's retirement, following Lendl's 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 win over McEnroe in the final.

History has been rewritten on this. As I said earlier, I think it's because the tennis authorities know that they drove Borg out of tennis, and it isn't a good look for them if that truth is said, so they come up with alternate narratives. The "Borg ran away from McEnroe" narrative is silly, because McEnroe didn't win any of the majors/YEC/WCT Finals in 1982 (Philadelphia, Tokyo and Wembley were the biggest tournaments that McEnroe won in 1982), and Lendl from 1981 to January 1983 was battering McEnroe, 7-0 in matches and 19-1 in sets. Lendl in 1982 is possibly the greatest year without a major won, 15 tournaments won by Lendl that year.