Who had the better peak at Wimbledon, Borg or Federer?

[Pheasant]

Fed and Borg are the only two men in the Open Era to win 5 straight Wimbledon titles. They are also the only two men in the Open Era to win Wimbledon without dropping a set.

I would define their peaks as the following:
Borg: 1976-1981
Federer: 2003-2009

Breaking down their peaks at Wimbledon further, we get:

Federer:
47-1 overall
9-1 vs top 10
4-1 vs top 3

Borg:
41-1 overall
9-1 vs top 10
7-1 vs top 3

Federer has the extra title. So I am going to take him. But Borg has some things in his favor.

Peak Borg won a title without dropping a set and peak Fed didn’t. Peak Borg also faced more top-3 opponents. The year Borg didn’t drop a set, he beat two top 10 opponents and 4 top 20. Borg also knocked out the world #1 ranked player 3 years in a row, Two of those wins were in straight set blowouts.

Unfortunately, Borg retired. But 1982 looked a like a year for him to bag another title. Borg’s competition was tougher, IMHO.

I think that their peaks are quite close. What do you think?

 

[PerilousPear]

Fedr.

6>5

And he only lost 2008 because he had mono.

 

[Lleytonstation]

How should I know. I was not born when Borg played.

 

[Tenez101]

Nadal’s Wimby peak is higher than Fed’s, but was much shorter.

 

[Lew II]

2014-19 Djokovic won 4 wimbledon beating 3 times Federer (all finals) and 1 Nadal.

Should be taken into account as one of the highest grass peaks.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Nadal’s Wimby peak is higher than Fed’s, but was much shorter.

How did Rafa get into this? But I would take longevity as a fan over the better "peak" any day, as long as the "peak" is still really good.

 

[Krish872007]

Nadal’s Wimby peak is higher than Fed’s, but was much shorter.

Federer's peak is the lowest of any Slam winner that I've seen to be honest. It's just lasted for such a crazy length of time that he's been able to outlast everyone so far when they dipped (maybe not for much longer).

I think Murray has had the highest peak on the slower grass in this era, but difficult to say whether Borg / Sampras were higher due to fundamental differences.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

2014-19 Djokovic won 4 wimbledon beating 3 times Federer (all finals) and 1 Nadal.

Should be taken into account as one of the highest grass peaks.

would be funny to watch this peak grass djokovic playing against fed wimby 2006

 

[Tenez101]

How did Rafa get into this? But I would take longevity as a fan over the better "peak" any day, as long as the "peak" is still really good.

Rafa and Fed are inextricably tied, especially when talking about Wimbledon.

 

[Krish872007]

would be funny to watch this peak grass djokovic playing against fed wimby 2006

I fail to see how a Djoker routining an opponent in under 90 mins can be considered entertaining.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Rafa and Fed are inextricably tied, especially when talking about Wimbledon.

I like that, I like them being tied together. It is sad that we dont embrace this as a good thing. Hopefully when it all settles, it will be embraced as a positive.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Fedr, more natural game. But amazing how much Borg achieved on grass despite his basic game being built for clay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

According to top minds, Federer doesn't even make top 10 all-time on grass anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Breakpointerer]

According to top minds, Federer doesn't even make top 10 all-time on grass anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Just another average player who lucked his way into 20 slams

 

[Deleted member 758560]

According to top minds, Federer doesn't even make top 10 all-time on grass anyway, so it doesn't matter.

universal lew of statistics believes fed wimby 2006 has no chance against peak djok on grass

 

[Rafa.the.Magnificent]

One thing that stands out in Borg's career is winning the channel slam three times. I'm no tennis historian but I believe that's a record unbeaten?

Edit: I don't think that's off topic because I've often heard it said that winning Wimbledon after winning the French just previous is a feat like no other in tennis.

 

[Breakpointerer]

One thing that stands out in Borg's career is winning the channel slam three times. I'm no tennis historian but I believe that's a record unbeaten?

Yep. Next is Rafa with two.

 

[Rafa.the.Magnificent]

Federer and Laver one each......and that's it! No one else has achieved it. Wow.

 

[Towny]

Borg was taken to 5 a whole bunch of times during 76-81. 8 times, not including his loss in 81 to McEnroe which was in 4 sets. Outside of Fed's 5 set loss to Nadal in 2008, he was only taken to 5 sets twice. It's not the only important factor, but it looks to me that Borg was less natural on the surface (understandably) and may not have had the highest peak level, but was extremely clutch. I think Fed likely had the higher peak level

 

[BeatlesFan]

One thing that stands out in Borg's career is winning the channel slam three times. I'm no tennis historian but I believe that's a record unbeaten?

Edit: I don't think that's off topic because I've often heard it said that winning Wimbledon after winning the French just previous is a feat like no other in tennis.

But it was monumental in Borg's day since he played on super fast, slick grass. The transition now from the FO to Wimbledon is fairly minimal since the grass has been slowed down to a virtual crawl.

The entire discussion is moot since Borg won a career total of 5 grass titles. Fed has 19.

 

[Yugram]

Fedr.

6>5

And he only lost 2008 because he had mono.

Every single match Fred lost in his career is because he had mono, no?

 

[RS]

2014-19 Djokovic won 4 wimbledon beating 3 times Federer (all finals) and 1 Nadal.

Should be taken into account as one of the highest grass peaks.

He was shaky this year though. 2015 defo for that final which was top notch.

 

[PerilousPear]

Every single match Fred lost in his career is because he had mono, no?

No way he'd lose on a hard court grand slam in straight sets or get bageled period, if he was fully healthy while still practically in his prime.

 

[DSH]

Federer and Laver one each......and that's it! No one else has achieved it. Wow.

Jean Borotra, Rene Lacoste, Jack Crawford, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Budge Patty, Tony Trabert, Lew Hoad and Rod Laver won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year before the Open Era.

Since the beginning in the Open Era, only Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg (3 years in a row), Rafael Nadal (twice) and Roger Federer won RG and Wimbledon in the same season.

 

[ForehandRF]

Every single match Fred lost in his career is because he had mono, no?

What an amazing trolling attempt dude.You should receive some awards for this.

 

[Mainad]

How should I know. I was not born when Borg played.

You're making me feel old.

 

[Breakpointerer]

How should I know. I was not born when Borg played.

You mean, you were not "Bjorn"

 

[Mainad]

But it was monumental in Borg's day since he played on super fast, slick grass. The transition now from the FO to Wimbledon is fairly minimal since the grass has been slowed down to a virtual crawl.

The entire discussion is moot since Borg won a career total of 5 grass titles. Fed has 19.

He actually won 7 (including Auckland and Adelaide in 1974, the only year he played the AO).

 

[Nadal_Django]

Borg was taken to 5 a whole bunch of times during 76-81. 8 times, not including his loss in 81 to McEnroe which was in 4 sets. Outside of Fed's 5 set loss to Nadal in 2008, he was only taken to 5 sets twice. It's not the only important factor, but it looks to me that Borg was less natural on the surface (understandably) and may not have had the highest peak level, but was extremely clutch. I think Fed likely had the higher peak level

Put Borg instead of Federer in the 2003 -07 era, alongside Roddick, Hewitt, Ancich, Bjorkman and fetus, clay court specialist Nadal, and he doesn't lose a set for that whole period of time.

 

[Mainad]

You mean, you were not "Bjorn"

Alas, I was missing the all-important 'j' and the umlaut over the 'ö'.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Borg. In 1980 when he defeated McEnroe.

Federer has never beaten an all-time grass court great at Wimbledon in a final.

 

[ibbi]

All I know is you can't just directly compare numbers when you're comparing 6 years of Borg's with 7 of Federer's.

Anyway, I think your paragraph about what Borg did (excluding the bit about knocking out the world number 1 on 3 occasions, something Federer as world number 1 pretty much the whole time could not do) tips it his way for me.

 

[RS]

Borg. In 1980 when he defeated McEnroe.

Federer has never beaten an all-time grass court great at Wimbledon in a final.

Nadal is for peak level.

 

[Mainad]

Borg. In 1980 when he defeated McEnroe.

Also defeated Connors (twice) and, unlike Mac, he already had a Wimby title.

Federer has never beaten an all-time grass court great at Wimbledon in a final.

He did beat 2 future multiple champions (Nadal twice and Murray once).

 

[Towny]

Put Borg instead of Federer in the 2003 -07 era, alongside Roddick, Hewitt, Ancich, Bjorkman and fetus, clay court specialist Nadal, and he doesn't lose a set for that whole period of time.

So you think Nadal is garbage on grass? Got it

Yeah, Borg was busy losing sets to titans such as Amritraj and Amaya. Definitely wouldn't have dropped sets to slam champions like Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt

 

[Sabrina]

I think Sampras has the highest peak level at Wimbledon. His level in 1999 Wimbledon final was scary.

 

[clout]

2014-19 Djokovic won 4 wimbledon beating 3 times Federer (all finals) and 1 Nadal.

Should be taken into account as one of the highest grass peaks.

Both Djokovic and Nadal have underrated peaks on grass. Novak’s won 4 of the last 6 Wimbledon’s including two separate back-to-backs, beat Federer thrice and Nadal once, while Nadal once made 5 straight finals, winning 2 titles, went on a 20-match win streak at Wimby (topped by only 3 other players in history), only lost to Fed/Djoker at their ultimate peaks, and was the only player to beat Federer at Wimbledon from 2003-2009

 

[tonylg]

You can't compare pre and post 2001.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Third Serve]

Borg. In 1980 when he defeated McEnroe.

Federer has never beaten an all-time grass court great at Wimbledon in a final.

I thought we shouldn't compare between pre and post 2001.

 

[tonylg]

I thought we shouldn't compare between pre and post 2001.

Yeah, I'd agree that puts Borg in front because he beat all court players on proper grass.

 

[SaintPetros]

Sampras

 

[Third Serve]

Yeah, I'd agree that puts Borg in front because he beat all court players on proper grass.

We don't know what players post-2001 would have done on old surfaces, so it's a biased comparison.

 

[Xavier G]

Federer, but Borg was great for his day. The Swede sometimes struggled in the early rounds at Wimbledon, but once he got into his stride, he usually won it.

Novak has yet to complete a Channel Slam, so that's one target to aim.

 

[zvelf]

One thing that stands out in Borg's career is winning the channel slam three times. I'm no tennis historian but I believe that's a record unbeaten?

Edit: I don't think that's off topic because I've often heard it said that winning Wimbledon after winning the French just previous is a feat like no other in tennis.

You might have heard that, but you're wrong because obviously a Grand Slam or even a NCYGS is a greater feat.

 

[Rafa.the.Magnificent]

You might have heard that, but you're wrong because obviously a Grand Slam or even a NCYGS is a greater feat.

If a NCYGS is holding all four majors in one year then you are absolutely right! Poor reasoning by me (won’t be the last time either LOL).

 

[DSH]

 

[tonylg]

We don't know what players post-2001 would have done on old surfaces, so it's a biased comparison.

It's not biased. If anything, I am biased towards Federer because although he doesn't really play it any more, he is just about the last player capable of what I consider beautiful tennis.

The fact remains, he now goes to Wimbledon and grinds and most of his titles were won by beating grinders. Fair enough, he hasn't had the opportunity to do what Borg did (and I think he could have done it even better), but that doesn't change the fact he hasn't done it.

It's really sad that we have a generation of young tennis fans who have really only seen one type of game style.

 

[tonylg]

OMG .. I'm going to go save that for the big screen later.

 

[swordtennis]

So let me get this straight the old time athletes would have wiped out all the new big man super athletes but if these new super robo athletes went back to the old courts and rackets they would be inept and invalids?
Ok got it.
Stopped reading esp after the statement "federer was not a premier grass court player after 2006".
The bias and convoluted circle jerk double standard. Bleeding from the eyes and ears now. Call 911.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Fedr.

6>5

And he only lost 2008 because he had mono.

And leprosy.

And the Black Plague.