Which player deserved to win the slam they lost most? Borg v. Roddick v. Murray

[Vanilla Slice]

Borg lost four US Open finals in 1976 1978 1980 and 1981 and a sf in 1975.

75' SF - Connors d. Borg 7-5 7-5 7-5
76' F - Connors d. Borg 6-4 3-6 7-6 6-4
78' F - Connors d. Borg 6-4 6-2 6-2
80' F - McEnroe d. Borg 7-6 6-1 6-7 5-7 6-4
81' F - McEnroe d. Borg 4-6 6-2 6-4 6-3

Roddick lost 2004, 2005, and 2009 Wimbledon finals all to Federer and the 2003 sf to Federer.

03' SF - Fed d. Roddick 7-6 6-3 6-3
04' F - Fed d. Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6 6-4
05' F - Fed d. Roddick 6-2 7-6 6-4
09' F - Fed d. Roddick 5-7 7-6 7-6 3-6 16-14

Sir Andy Murray has lost five Aussie Open finals in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016 and lost a sf in 2012.

10' F - Fed d. Murr 6-3 6-4 7-6
11' F - Djok d. Murr 6-4 6-2 6-3
12' sf - Djok d. Murr 6-3 3-6 6-7 6-1 7-5
13' F - Djok d. Murr 6-7 7-6 6-3 6-2
15' F - Djok d. Murr 7-6 6-7 6-3 6-0
16' F - Djok d. Murr 6-1 7-5 7-6

All players extremely accomplished for non-winners at their respective slam.
All players lost to arguably the greatest or one of the greatest players at each tournament ever.
All players played some very tight matches and some matches where they were destroyed.

Which player "deserved" to win more between Borg at the US Open, Roddick at Wimby, and Murray at Australia?

 

[Deon Sanders]

Roddick 2009 deserved to win more than any of the other matches here

Plus it was Wimbledon, against the greatest player of all time

 

[Waspsting]

Borg

To me, "deserve" means either -

a) - the player was the best player in the conditions (surface) for the Slams in question for a particular year(s) or
b) - he was very near to being the best over a period - and with multiple finals (as all the candidates have), law of averages dictates he was unlucky to not win 1

Borg has both a) and b) going for him. He was the best clay courter in the world when he went down in 75 and 76. In 78 on hard, he was injured (at a time when he was beginning to own Connors - it was the last match he lost to him). 80 was a 50-50 affair, I think the first time in about 15 matches Borg had lost a 5th set (not sure) and 81 wasn't far off 50-50 either

It all evens out, I think Borg was more than a little lucky to win 5 Wimbledons in a row

Andy Murray has b) going for him... Djokovic in particular was just better in those conditions, plus mentally stronger. 2013 was his biggest shot... if he'd pulled that off... he could have made a serious play for competing with Djokovic and the other Big 3 guys on their level... there wasn't much in it between them that year, I think the result was largely determined by mental factors

finally Roddick. Just b) going for him... but a lot less than Murray (his h2h with Federer is a lot worse than Murray's is with Djokovic)

(Lendl @ Wimbledon probably had it worse than Roddick - 2 runner ups, 5 semis... losses to McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg & a GOATing Cash, the odd one out)

 

[True Fanerer]

The scoreline for 2009 Wimbledon is the best indicator this. Roddick and Federer really went at it it what seemed to be a never ending affair that he eventually lost. I give the nod to Roddick

 

[MichaelNadal]

"Yeah but you already had 5"

 

[abmk]

Borg lost four US Open finals in 1976 1978 1980 and 1981 and a sf in 1975.

75' SF - Connors d. Borg 7-5 7-5 7-5
76' F - Connors d. Borg 6-4 3-6 7-6 6-4
78' F - Vilas d. Borg 2-6 6-3 7-6 6-0
80' F - Connors d. Borg 6-4 6-2 6-2
81' F - McEnroe d. Borg 7-6 6-1 6-7 5-7 6-4

those are wrong.
Connors beat an injured Borg in straights in 78 USO F.
He lost to Mcenroe in 5 sets in 80 F.
Lost to Mcenroe in 4 sets in 81 F.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

those are wrong.
Connors beat an injured Borg in straights in 78 USO F.
He lost to Mcenroe in 5 sets in 80 F.
Lost to Mcenroe in 4 sets in 81 F.

Your right I looked at the wrong wiki years in the table! Much appreciated for the correction!

What's ur opinion on the topic?

 

[abmk]

I'd go with Roddick for the Wimby 09 final. Wimby 04 was a close affair as well (4-setter)
Borg next. 80 final was a 5-setter vs Mac. 76 final was close as well(4-setter). It turned on that 3rd set tie-break.

Murray never got close to a 5-setter in a AO final. (though his semi vs djoko in AO 12 was a 5-setter and a pretty good performance).

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Roddick 09

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk

 

[Red Rick]

"Yeah but you already had 5"

Gets me every time. Hurt me more than The Netherlands losing the WC final a year later and its noy even close. May seem trivial byt Im Dutch

 

[mike danny]

Roddick was the closest to actually win one of his finals. Borg and Murray were never really that close.

So I go with Roddick.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Roddick easily. What would I give to change the outcome of that 2009 Wimbledon final...

 

[mike danny]

Roddick easily. What would I give to change the outcome of that 2009 Wimbledon final...

I was expecting you here

 

[TheAssassin]

Don't know much about Borg, was he ever close to a 2 sets lead or did he ever have some sort of a lead in the decider? If not, then Roddick easily. Murray didn't make any of the AO finals very tight.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Roddick.

The guy got to 14-15 in the fifth set of the Wimbledon final without having had his serve broken once in the entire match, and still lost.

He was so unlucky to face Fed time and time again.

 

[thrust]

those are wrong.
Connors beat an injured Borg in straights in 78 USO F.
He lost to Mcenroe in 5 sets in 80 F.
Lost to Mcenroe in 4 sets in 81 F.

Always excuses for Borg's losses at the USO. If he was injured, why was he playing? He got to the finals or semi's and then lost to another great player. If one is so injured and doesn't expect to win, then don't enter the tournament

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

the nadal deserved to win all those slams
(and he actually did... morally)

 

[MIRO_1975]

Different topic but I think Ivan Lendl had really deserved to win Wimbledon one time [emoji24]

SF - 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1990
F - 1986, 1987


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

[West Coast Ace]

I vote Borg - because he's Borg.

Roddick doesn't deserve squat showing up on tour with no BH; Murray doesn't deserve the AO because he kept trying to beat Djokovic at his own, clearly superior, game.

 

[NatF]

I vote Borg - because he's Borg.

Roddick doesn't deserve squat showing up on tour with no BH; Murray doesn't deserve the AO because he kept trying to beat Djokovic at his own, clearly superior, game.

Roddick's backhand was firing at Wimbledon in 2009 and also 2004.

Roddick's 2009 final is probably the best losing effort of all of those irrespective of his relative greatness compared to Murray and especially Borg.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

Different topic but I think Ivan Lendl had really deserved to win Wimbledon one time [emoji24]

SF - 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1990
F - 1986, 1987


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Maybe I should have included Lendl in the poll but I thought for Wimbledon no way people would pick him over Roddick.

On a different note, none of the Murray voters wish to give a reason why they think he deserves his major win over the other guys?

 

[Rattler]

My heart says Roddick, but my mind knows it's Borg...the guy was a beast on court

 

[Mainad]

On a different note, none of the Murray voters wish to give a reason why they think he deserves his major win over the other guys?

To be honest, I don't think Murray deserves to have won any of his AO finals. He had real chances to win in 2013 and 2015 (great starts in both) and then either lost focus or choked which is his fault and nobody else's. The rest he just got outplayed by the better player.

Roddick's 2009 Wimby loss is clearly the most poignant and heart-breaking because he fought so hard and came so close and it was his last chance to finally nab a Wimbledon title but always the same guy stood in his way.

 

[abmk]

Always excuses for Borg's losses at the USO. If he was injured, why was he playing? He got to the finals or semi's and then lost to another great player. If one is so injured and doesn't expect to win, then don't enter the tournament

"The swelling began on Saturday night, shortly after Bjorn Borg mastered Vitas Gerulaitis in the semifinal. It grew like a small bubble of pain beneath the callus on the joint of his right thumb. Borg phoned his New York physician late that night and took an oral anti-inflammatory drug. But when he woke up on Sunday morning, the thumb had worsened; the pain increased. When Borg tied to hold a racquet with his customary grip, he found that the pain made it impossible. Once more he called his doctor, who gave the player an injection of Marcaine, a strong anesthetic, at 3:30 in the afternoon, less than three hours before the match.
Borg did not consider defaulting. An international television audience waited. The stadium was sold out. The dim vision of a Grand Slam still flickered before him."

http://tennis-buzz.com/1978-us-open-jimmy-connors-defeats-bjorn-borg/

Borg lost on grass in 74 at the USO when he was young. 75 lost to Connors - he wasn't as good as Connors on har tru and still young then. 76 - was a tight match that Connors edged.
79 - upset by Tanner in 4 sets. 80 - lost to mac in 5 -sets, 81- lost to mac in 4 sets

77- he retired from the match vs Stockton at 1 set all due to injury. I suppose that is an excuse as well :
78 - already shown above.

Mind you Borg did beat Connors in straight sets at 81 USO semi-final.

Basically, Borg was pretty good at the USO and didn't win one mostly because he was facing 2 of the best US Open champions of all time - Connors and Mcenroe.

I chose Roddick in this poll btw, not Borg.

If you are bitter because Borg is regarded as better and more highly than your favorite Rosewall, that's your problem.

 

[-NN-]

Borg.

 

[killerboi2]

Lmao, why on Earth is Roddick smashing the poll? He doesn't deserve to win anything with his worthless head to head against Fed.

 

[mike danny]

Lmao, why on Earth is Roddick smashing the poll? He doesn't deserve to win anything with his worthless head to head against Fed.

Roddick was much closer to winning Wimb than Borg was to winning USO and Murray was to winning AO. That's why he is smashing the poll, irrespective of his H2H with Federer.

 

[killerboi2]

Roddick was much closer to winning Wimb than Borg was to winning USO and Murray was to winning AO. That's why he is smashing the poll, irrespective of his H2H with Federer.

Why should Roddick be so far ahead based on one match and probably the only argument in his favour? Murray and Borg both done better against their main rivals and both have made more finals in the slams they lost most in.

 

[mike danny]

Why should Roddick be so far ahead based on one match and probably the only argument in his favour? Murray and Borg both done better against their main rivals and both have made more finals in the slams they lost most in.

Doing better against your main rivals matters very little in this context. If they did so well against their main rivals, how come they have no titles at their missing slam to show for it?

Roddick hasn't done that much worse than Borg though. Borg has 4 finals and 1 SF at the USO. Roddick has 3 finals and 1 SF at Wimb, losing all those matches to Federer.

 

[BeatlesFan]

There's no such thing as "deserving" anything in life, but within the parameters of the question, Borg "deserves" the USO. He's an ATG champion of the sport and remains an icon. Roddick is a one-slam winner, Murray has won three. To even mention either of these guys in the same sentence as Borg is cringe worthy. It's like mentioning Courier alongside Federer, though Courier won four slams and was a great player.

 

[Zara]

Murray made the AO finals 5 times so I am not sure how Roddick coming very close to winning in 2009 is greater than Murray's 6 final attempts. As it see it, it's goes like this for me:

Borg and Murray (5 finals therefore greater effort and emotion involved for losing all 5)

Roddick (3 finals)

 

[mike danny]

Murray made the AO finals 6 times so I am not sure how Roddick coming very close to winning in 2009 is greater than Murray's 6 final attempts. As it see it, it's goes like this for me:

Borg and Murray (5 finals therefore greater effort and emotion involved for losing all 6)

Roddick (3 finals)

Murray has made the AO final 5 times, not 6.

Watch each one of Murray's AO finals. He wasn't close to winning any of them.

 

[killerboi2]

There's no such thing as "deserving" anything in life, but within the parameters of the question, Borg "deserves" the USO. He's an ATG champion of the sport and remains an icon. Roddick is a one-slam winner, Murray has won three. To even mention either of these guys in the same sentence as Borg is cringe worthy. It's like mentioning Courier alongside Federer, though Courier won four slams and was a great player.

Yes, I agree with this and that's why I can't comprehend how Roddick can possibly deserve it more than Borg. There has to be other factors based on just who done better in one match in the final. I can't really think of much else that Roddick has going for him.

 

[Zara]

Murray has made the AO final 5 times, not 6.

Watch each one of Murray's AO finals. He wasn't close to winning any of them.

Yes - that's what I meant as you can see in my next line I mentioned 5 times.

He doesn't need to be close when he made 5 finals - 2 more than Roddick. If a player lost 5 finals then that player deserves more than the player who made 3 finals.

I feel people are confusing with the impact of losses to deserving - which are two different things.

 

[Mustard]

I doubt anyone tried to win a major more than Ivan Lendl at Wimbledon. It had even his detractors feeling sorry for him.

 

[Purplemonster]

Borg lost four US Open finals in 1976 1978 1980 and 1981 and a sf in 1975.

75' SF - Connors d. Borg 7-5 7-5 7-5
76' F - Connors d. Borg 6-4 3-6 7-6 6-4
78' F - Connors d. Borg 6-4 6-2 6-2
80' F - McEnroe d. Borg 7-6 6-1 6-7 5-7 6-4
81' F - McEnroe d. Borg 4-6 6-2 6-4 6-3

Roddick lost 2004, 2005, and 2009 Wimbledon finals all to Federer and the 2003 sf to Federer.

03' SF - Fed d. Roddick 7-6 6-3 6-3
04' F - Fed d. Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6 6-4
05' F - Fed d. Roddick 6-2 7-6 6-4
09' F - Fed d. Roddick 5-7 7-6 7-6 3-6 16-14

Sir Andy Murray has lost five Aussie Open finals in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016 and lost a sf in 2012.

10' F - Fed d. Murr 6-3 6-4 7-6
11' F - Djok d. Murr 6-4 6-2 6-3
12' sf - Djok d. Murr 6-3 3-6 6-7 6-1 7-5
13' F - Djok d. Murr 6-7 7-6 6-3 6-2
15' F - Djok d. Murr 7-6 6-7 6-3 6-0
16' F - Djok d. Murr 6-1 7-5 7-6

All players extremely accomplished for non-winners at their respective slam.
All players lost to arguably the greatest or one of the greatest players at each tournament ever.
All players played some very tight matches and some matches where they were destroyed.

Which player "deserved" to win more between Borg at the US Open, Roddick at Wimby, and Murray at Australia?

Borg, no brainier. One of the greats of the game. Deserved a US Open simply for being Borg. Still don't know to this day how Roddick ever won a major. Murray has perfected the art of losing major finals so he doesn't deserve anything more.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Why should Roddick be so far ahead based on one match and probably the only argument in his favour? Murray and Borg both done better against their main rivals and both have made more finals in the slams they lost most in.

Roddick is only ahead because a) most fanboys think tennis started in 2002; b) TW is US based. As I and others have said, mentioning Roddick with Borg is an atrocity; Roddick had a solid career, certainly mazximizing his potential and had one very hot stretch and parlayed it into 1 USO title. Borg was a tennis god and on top of the game for many years. He was a rock star.

 

[abmk]

Roddick is only ahead because a) most fanboys think tennis started in 2002; b) TW is US based. As I and others have said, mentioning Roddick with Borg is an atrocity; Roddick had a solid career, certainly mazximizing his potential and had one very hot stretch and parlayed it into 1 USO title. Borg was a tennis god and on top of the game for many years. He was a rock star.

all not relevant to which player most deserved to win the slam they couldn't win.

what is relevant is :

how they did at those venues ( no of slam finals, semis) -- murray has 5 finals+1 semi, borg has 4 finals+1 semi, roddick has 3 finals+1 semi.
how close they got to winning in a slam final --- this is Roddick, Borg and Murray in that order

For all of his rock star status and how good he was, the closest borg got to winning the USO was in 80 where he had to come back from 2 sets to love down to take it to 5. Roddick got much closer in 09 , 16-14 in the 5th set.

 

[abmk]

Why should Roddick be so far ahead based on one match and probably the only argument in his favour? Murray and Borg both done better against their main rivals and both have made more finals in the slams they lost most in.

Borg won 4 sets in 4 USO finals ( 1 set in 76, 2 sets in 80, 1 set in 81)
Murray won 2 sets in 5 AO finals ( 1 set in 13, 1 set in 15)
Roddick won 3 sets in 3 Wimbledon finals. (1 in 2004, 2 in 2009)

so no, Murray has definitely done worse in AO finals, its not even close.
Roddick/Borg have won a set on an average in their finals, so same rate.

Borg had 2 close finals - 76, 80
Same for Roddick - 04,09
Zero for Murray

 

[deacsyoga]

Roddick was the closest to actually win one of his finals. Borg and Murray were never really that close.

So I go with Roddick.

The 1980 final with McEnroe was very close. And Borg almost certainly wins the 76 final over Connors if he converts one of his 3rd set tiebreaker set points.

 

[killerboi2]

Borg won 4 sets in 4 USO finals ( 1 set in 76, 2 sets in 80, 1 set in 81)
Murray won 2 sets in 5 AO finals ( 1 set in 13, 1 set in 15)
Roddick won 3 sets in 3 Wimbledon finals. (1 in 2004, 2 in 2009)

so no, Murray has definitely done worse in AO finals, its not even close.
Roddick/Borg have won a set on an average in their finals, so same rate.

Borg had 2 close finals - 76, 80
Same for Roddick - 04,09
Zero for Murray

Ok, so how does he deserve it more than Borg, who won more sets than him and got to more finals? Then when you consider other factors like Borg's 11 slams and Borg doing better against his main rivals, it's not even close. Whether he deserves it more than Murray is more debatable.

 

[abmk]

Ok, so how does he deserve it more than Borg, who won more sets than him and got to more finals? Then when you consider other factors like Borg's 11 slams and Borg doing better against his main rivals, it's not even close. Whether he deserves it more than Murray is more debatable.

Borg got to 1 more final and won 1 more set.
That is more than balanced by Roddick getting closer to winning vs Federer in 2009 final than Borg in USO 80.

Also roddick lost to eventual winner, Federer in wim 03.
Connors did not win 75 final after beating Borg in the semi.

The other factors don't really matter much here.

Murray is not really that debatable considering he didn't even come close to what Roddick did in both 04 and 09.

 

[deacsyoga]

I picked Borg on the poll, but Borg on hard courts which is the pre dominant surface of the U.S Open, is not significantly better, if at all, than Roddick on grass or Murray on slow hard courts. Yes overall Borg is miles ahead, but that isnt really relavent to those particular slams. Then again Borg had the U.S Open on clay 3 years, but that in a way is why he doesnt deserve it more, since he had the easiest situation, a U.S Open on clay 3 years, and still failed to win it, losing twice to Connors even (yes I know not his absolute prime and not red clay, but still).

 

[West Coast Ace]

all not relevant to which player most deserved to win the slam they couldn't win.

We'll agree to disagree. The 'closeness' of matches means nothing to me. Fed usually read Roddick's serve well. So 1 match where he didn't and it turned out to be a very close match doesn't move the needle for me.

I'm not a huge fan of the phrase but the guy who is a '1 slam wonder' over a legend of the game does not make a shred of sense. And what about some sympathy for Borg? You mentioned the 79 upset to Tanner - don't forget it was all or partially played at night; Borg couldn't get onto Tanner's booming 1st serve. He was 10-1 otherwise against Tanner.

Borg had an 89.81% win percentage in the majors. Roddick 74.4%

Ok, so how does he deserve it more than Borg, who won more sets than him and got to more finals? Then when you consider other factors like Borg's 11 slams and Borg doing better against his main rivals, it's not even close. Whether he deserves it more than Murray is more debatable.

Well said.

 

[Xavier G]

I don't know who "deserved" it more, but I wanted Roddick to win the Wimbledon 2009 final and I'm a Federer fan primarily.
Roger had just won the French and I kinda like these things to go around. Andy had lost so many big Slam matches to Roger. I don't think he ever really recovered from going so close in '09 and not winning.

Borg was a little unlucky at the US Open.
He was young and pre-prime 74 (on grass) and 75, he lost a close one to Jimmy in 76 and when Jimmy dominated him H2H still, again went down early in '77 to Stockton when he may not have been 100%, lost heavily to a top form Jimmy in '78 when he had a blister on his hand, was bombed out by big-serving lefty Roscoe Tanner in a night match in '79 and lost 2 finals to a peaking McEnroe '80 (probably his best chance) and '81.
If Borg had got to play the later finals against Mac on Har Tru instead of hard court, it's very possible he could have won a US Open at last. Instead he got to play the Har Tru Opens a little early in his career when Connors was a little better than him. I never felt sorry for Bjorn though. He had won enough...

Murray has come pretty close at the AO, but is always second-best on finals day. I think the occasion gets to him and Federer/Djokovic have just been a little better than him too.He might still win it one year.

 

[metsman]

Ah yes basic logic fails galore from the fed haters. Lovely stuff

 

[BeatlesFan]

Borg was a tennis god and on top of the game for many years. He was a rock star.

Agreed, but Sampras and Borg are both relegated to non-existent status by 70% of the people here. They never saw them play, so they're nothing of note and they dismiss everything they did.

 

[abmk]

We'll agree to disagree. The 'closeness' of matches means nothing to me. Fed usually read Roddick's serve well. So 1 match where he didn't and it turned out to be a very close match doesn't move the needle for me.

well, if the actual closeness of final of a slam doesn't matter that much to you, what the hell does when talking about winning a slam ?
and roddick played federer close in the 04 final as well, even if it didn't go to 5 sets.

I'm not a huge fan of the phrase but the guy who is a '1 slam wonder' over a legend of the game does not make a shred of sense. And what about some sympathy for Borg? You mentioned the 79 upset to Tanner - don't forget it was all or partially played at night; Borg couldn't get onto Tanner's booming 1st serve. He was 10-1 otherwise against Tanner.

I'd rather have more sympathy for a clear underdog who took his absolute nemesis and the greatest grass court player of all time at his prime to 16-14 in the 5th set and was unbroken until the very last game.

As far as sympathy for Borg is concerned, see post #24. I do have sympathy for the injuries in 77/78 , not so much for the 79 loss to Tanner.

Borg had an 89.81% win percentage in the majors. Roddick 74.4%

not so relevant when talking about Wimbledon for Roddick and USO for Borg.

 

[Waspsting]

On a different note, none of the Murray voters wish to give a reason why they think he deserves his major win over the other guys?

I voted Borg, but I'll try to make a case here

A bigger part of winning a Slam is reaching the final than winning it

Murray did it 5 times - the most of the candidates - he gave himself maximum chances

One could also look at losing to Djokovic on those slow hard courts as akin to losing to Nadal at French (it's a stretch but it can be argued)

You left the OP open to interpretation - and most people have interpreted as who got closest to winning once at any given single installment

If such was at the heart of what you're asking, then the strongest candidate is Coria, French Open 2004, who led the final 2 sets to love and even had a match point if memory serves ... to hell with Borg, Roddick and Murray

It's natural to give greater weight to the final than any other match, but IMO, the overwhelming support for Roddick is going overboard in this regard

I don't consider Federer's 09 French outing any less epic/tough because the final was one sided, just as I don't consider the final any less dominant because of the epic/tough road there

Roddick lost 6 sets en route to 09 final

Murray in reaching 5 finals lost 1, 2, 2, 2 and 4 respectively

Why should Roddick be so far ahead based on one match and probably the only argument in his favour? Murray and Borg both done better against their main rivals and both have made more finals in the slams they lost most in.

I agree

The case for Roddick is based mostly on the one final

But by and large, he was getting obliterated by Federer in all their matches, at Wimby and out

In that light, the logical conclusion is he played above himself (or Federer played below himself) and he was "lucky" to get so close, not unlucky to lose

 

[abmk]

@Waspsting :

Roddick was hardly obliterated in the Wim 04 final. It was a tough, fierce contest.

He's won 3 sets in 3 wimby finals.
Murray has won 2 sets in 5 AO finals.

guess which one is getting "obliterated" in finals ?