Who is the better player on all 5 surfaces? Prime Borg vs Prime Lendl?
- Thread starter ctbmar
- Start date
I have watched Lendl when he was in his prime. Lendl has a winning record against players like McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Wilander, Courier, Chang. If you notice Lendl's head-to-head against these players, he is dominating and relentless like what Federer is doing to Hewitt, kept winning in streaks. Lendl was also on par with Sampras until 1994 when he lost twice at the age of 34, making his head-head vs Sampras as 5-3. Lendl is also 13-14 against Edberg and 2-5 vs Borg. But Lendl was not in his prime when he played Borg. Lendl was able to play on all surfaces since he reached the finals of Wimbledon twice. A prime Lendl was mentally tough against his peers that are in their prime but he tends to be complacent or a nervous wreck against lesser ranked opponents at that time, Becker, Cash and Chang. But Lendl has a 18 finals winning streak and had a 232-20 win/loss in 3 years when he was no. 1, similar to what Federer is doing now. Lendl has also career win/loss of 1070 - 238, 2nd to Connors.
As for Borg, I did not watch him when he was in his prime, but did watch him when he was off his best. Borg was able to capture 5 Wimbledons in a row, and 6 French Opens in 20 Majors attempt. Borg's court coverage, consistency and mental strength were the reasons why he was so dominating. Borg has a winning record against Connors, Lendl and tied with McEnroe 7-7 in Head to Head. Just checked and found that a 25 year old Borg beat Wilander, then 17 years old 6-1, 6-1 on clay. Borg won the sport with a wooden racket. So I am not sure whether Borg could have matched Lendl and Beckers who played more powerfully in the mid-80s to early 90s if he did not retired so early. So although Borg was mentally tough in the big stage, but by deciding to retire from tennis because McEnroe was starting to get the better of him, makes me wonder whether he could take the pressure if he stayed on in the late 80s with better graphite racket technology. So if your life is at stake and you need either a prime Borg or a prime Lendl to represent you, who will you pick to play these 10 matches on all 5 surfaces?
As for Borg, I did not watch him when he was in his prime, but did watch him when he was off his best. Borg was able to capture 5 Wimbledons in a row, and 6 French Opens in 20 Majors attempt. Borg's court coverage, consistency and mental strength were the reasons why he was so dominating. Borg has a winning record against Connors, Lendl and tied with McEnroe 7-7 in Head to Head. Just checked and found that a 25 year old Borg beat Wilander, then 17 years old 6-1, 6-1 on clay. Borg won the sport with a wooden racket. So I am not sure whether Borg could have matched Lendl and Beckers who played more powerfully in the mid-80s to early 90s if he did not retired so early. So although Borg was mentally tough in the big stage, but by deciding to retire from tennis because McEnroe was starting to get the better of him, makes me wonder whether he could take the pressure if he stayed on in the late 80s with better graphite racket technology. So if your life is at stake and you need either a prime Borg or a prime Lendl to represent you, who will you pick to play these 10 matches on all 5 surfaces?
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
How do you define prime vs prime? Lendl in 1986-87 form with graphite racquet vs Borg 1977-78 form with wood racquet?
There is no comparison, Lendl 10-0.
Every 10 years, tennis has improved dramatically. The later dominating player will dominate the dominating player from 10 years ago playing at that level.
If you are comparing prime vs prime as if Lendl and Borg are from same era playing at same condition. No one knows because it's all conjucture.
There is no comparison, Lendl 10-0.
Every 10 years, tennis has improved dramatically. The later dominating player will dominate the dominating player from 10 years ago playing at that level.
If you are comparing prime vs prime as if Lendl and Borg are from same era playing at same condition. No one knows because it's all conjucture.
I wish we could've gotten to see it, but Borg left the game just as Lendl started to become great. In their primes, I'd take Borg on grass and clay, Lendl on hard and indoor carpet. This one's not brain surgery; I've got to believe that most of us who saw them both back then would come down this way...
Mick
Legend
in my opinion, Lendl in his prime would beat Borg in his prime. Here's why:
In his prime, Borg's greatest adversaries were Connors and McEnroe. His matches against them were always really close.
In his prime, Lendl would beat both Connors at McEnroe handily. Since Borg's net game was not as good as McEnroe's and his groundstrokes were not as powerful as Lendl's, I think Lendl would end up winning most of the matches. Just my opinion.
In his prime, Borg's greatest adversaries were Connors and McEnroe. His matches against them were always really close.
In his prime, Lendl would beat both Connors at McEnroe handily. Since Borg's net game was not as good as McEnroe's and his groundstrokes were not as powerful as Lendl's, I think Lendl would end up winning most of the matches. Just my opinion.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Colpo said:
Borg would win with wood racquet against Lendl on clay and grass with graphite racquet? I watched both of them back then, don't think Borg has a chance with wood racquet.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
35ft6 said:
I have no idea why people keep thinking like that.
I understand if they talk about achievment. But level of play in absolute term? Any top 100 (I give a low number here) today would beat the likes of Borg, Connors, McEnroe with wood racquets playing at their highest level from their prime.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Don't agree. I've seen these matches recently & Borg had no trouble with Lendl's adidas graphite racquet in '80/'81, while he played with wood, the game didn't change that much in Lendl's prime from Borg's prime.
1980 Basel Final Lendl d Borg 6-3 6-2 5-7 0-6 6-4
1980 Masters final Borg d Lendl 6-4 6-2 6-2
Lendl was the #6 player in 1980, I think he hit harder then, compared to 1986Lendl. He was just inconsistent in 1980. He became more conservative & hit with a lot more spin when he finally became #1.
Lendl owned Mac in 1981, yet Mac was clearly #1 that year & Borg was clearly #2.
Borg owned Connors, yet when Borg retired, Connors was able to beat Lendl in 2 US Open finals.
Only Becker noticably hit the ball harder than Connors or Borg as far as mid 80s players comapred to mid 70s players. Lendl was not hitting that much harder than Borg. Lendl isn't that much younger than Borg either, certainly not a new generation like Edberg/Becker.
Watch Borg-Connors 1976 US Open final & watch Lendl-Wilander '87 US Open final, the pace in the '87 match is slower.
Borg was infinitely more talented/versatile than Lendl. And really never had trouble with choking like Lendl did. He was just as fit & certainly faster. I don't think Lendl would have fared well vs him over 10 matches. Wilander was a weaker version of Borg & yet he was able to beat Lendl in 3 grand slam finals.
There is a considerable age difference with Connors & Lendl. Both Connors & Mac had better peak years than Lendl.
Lendl was a great player, but took advantage a little bit of others players decline when he became #1. Imagine if Federer got married to an actress, took 6 months off, came back & started losing regularily to Roddick. That's what happened with McEnroe vs Lendl. He completely owned the guy(& they are the same age & had a long history), it makes no sense that he would suddenly have trouble with a guy that wasn't playing any differently.
Now Becker, he was something very new in the mid 80s, basically Sampras before Sampras. Too bad he was Mac like in his discipline as well. Still managed to beat Lendl in 3 slam finals when Lendl was #1.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Borg beat Lendl 3 times playing with wood, while Lendl had graphite. The game didn't change overnight with graphite, that took a bit longer. Evert was still playing with wood in 1983, while almost every other top player was playing with graphite. She still won the French & made the US Open final.
1981 Stuttgart Outdoor
Germany Clay F Borg 1-6 7-6 6-2 6-4
1981 Roland Garros
France Clay F Borg 6-1 4-6 6-2 3-6 6-1
1980 Masters
NY, U.S.A. Carpet F Borg 6-4 6-2 6-2
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Moose Malloy said:
I am not talking about change over night. I understand early 80s graphite didn't make much difference, but 1986-87 is farther down the road from 1980-1981.
In some way, Lendl was a bit of a conservative player. He didn't take many risks, and that played sometimes out against him. In the clay matches with Borg and Wilander, he let himself drag into long exhausting baseline rallies, especially backhand to backhand, without bringing up his big forehand to finish points. Similar happened in his big matches with Becker on hard courts. Often, he went out very dominant in the first set, only to get conservative, prohibitive, and give up momentum and initiative. On clay, Borg was the more natural athlete, quicker, more mobile and with more stamina. On grass, Borg was more versatile with his racket head, could adapt more to the bad bounces of grass courts. On hard and indoor carpet, Lendl was very tough in his prime. I remember his best matches in London and MSG finals against Becker on carpet. Without wind, sun or weather change, he was in his comfort zone, then he could even hit original, creative shots like vicious topspin lobs, with them he beat Becker once at Wembley, London in a great 5 setter in 1986.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
We're still talking about the same player-Lendl. He was using the exact same racquet in 86/87 as he was 80/81. And we are only talking 5 years not 10 years.
I really don't think Lendl would fare well against Borg any way you cut it.
You should watch some Lendl-Wilander & compare to Borg-Connors if you get a chance. The pace isn't any different(actually looks harder in Borg-Connors) & the quality of play is certainly lower(very little variety with Lendl-Wilander, while Borg-Connors were using the entire court, coming to net, etc)
There are other factors in why player A beats player B, not just power or racquet. It is still a skill sport & a thinking sport, & Borg had a much better mind than Lendl.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. And you probably think the '91 Bulls would get destroyed by the '06 Miami Heat. That Michael Jordan/Scottie Pippen of 10 years ago couldn't dream of competing with todays players. Whatever.
Funny how the least(relatively) athletic sport supposedly changes the most over only a 10 year period than any of the real sports. It is still played by a bunch of white guys that couldn't dream of playing any other sport professionally, just like in the 70s/80s. If todays top 10 players resembled guys like Reggie Bush I'd agree, tennis has evolved to a much higher level. But they don't, they look like Federer, Davydenko, Nalbandian.
I really wish the top 10 every year was timed in a 40 yard dash, then we'd see that the players haven't changed, just the equipment.
I have trouble believing anyone today is faster(maybe as fast) than Borg, Nastase, Gerulaitis were 30 years ago. Or that anyone today generates more racquet head speed on the serve than Roscoe Tanner.
If anyone said that Nolan Ryan or Bob Gibson throw slower than todays pitchers, they'd be laughed at by any knowledgable baseball fan.
Man, those tennis players must be so amazing, constantly changing their sport every year. Wonder how much it would have changed had they never allowed graphite. Or luxillon string.
Moose Malloy said:
My first thought was it was no contest for Lendl but this point gives me pause. It's unbelievable that Wilander could beat Lendl in 3 finals. Lendl had the power game to blow people away (he demolished Courier and Agassi in his end years) but was very conservative (like Urban said) and/or timid.
anointedone
Banned
I dont know who would win between these 2 all time greats but I do know both would have blown Federer off the court in straight sets every single time they played him, if all were in their primes together.
anointedone
Banned
Mick said:i think most people would agree with this assessment
I would like to think you are right.
Unfortunately it seems even some of the former greats, like John McEnroe for instance, have gone head over heels for the Fed, and dont even realize he is just a good player taking advantage of the worst mens field in history.The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Moose Malloy said:
I am talking about individual sport, not team sport.
Moose Malloy said:
We are talking about something completely different. Equipement is part of the game, equipement changes the game. What I am talking about is absolute term of tennis, every 10 years, new dominating players beat dominating players from 10 years ago playing with their era's equipment at their best level at that time, not hypothetical match up of if the condition were the same.
I just don't agree tennis players can't play other professional sports. Tennis players start very early in age, at that time, no one knows whether they can make it in other sports or not. Those good enough stay in the sports, those not good enough drop out. It's not like professional tennis players just decide to choose tennis because they can't make it in other sports. Many of them are very good in other sports, like soccer (No. 1 sports in the world), but have to choose in early teens. Those super athletes you talked about from other sports won't dominate tennis if they just started to play tennis at 10-12 years old.
FitzRoy
Professional
Moose Malloy said:
Moose, I agree with you entirely on all counts, except where you start to say that tennis players aren't as athletic. Also, I don't know what "resembling" Reggie Bush has to do with anything. Honestly he'd be more agile if he weighed around 180 (like Federer) or 185ish (like Nadal), but he has to have the added bulk to absorb hard collisions running out of the backfield. Steve Smith is probably the most agile player in the NFL, and his realistic weight is about 180. Nalbandian may not look it, but he's a very athletic guy. I too wish they were timed in a 40 yard dash, because I think tennis players would do much better than you'd think. Really though, a lot of NFL experts would rather measure players with a 15 or 20 yard dash, since that's the range at which explosive speed matters most during plays - and I think the tennis pros would do even better at those distances than at 40. I'm with you, though, that Borg/Nastase/Gerulaitis were as fast as anyone playing currently.
superman1
Legend
Tennis has evolved a lot more than sports like basketball where they are still using the same ball (though I guess they're changing it now). Back in the old days, there wasn't that mentality of being on Cloud Nine and fighting your heart out for each point. Back then you could get away with hitting it short or without much pace. Just serve and run to the net and play badminton. Tennis these days is more brutish. You stay back and you pound the ball and sprint side-to-side, hoping to come up with angles and wear your opponent down. It's a different game, and the current generation is better at it than any previous generation. Give these guys wooden racquets and they'll be able to figure it out, because today's baseline tennis would work against yesterday's serve/volley, even with wooden racquets. Today's players often don't get much respect. With their speed and endurance, they'd do well in any era.
oiler90
Rookie
No question about it, Lendl would dominate Borg on any surface if they were both playing in their prime. The Lendl of 85-87 was so steady and hitting the ball so consistently deep in the court that he would have eventually gotten the short ball or mid-court ball that he would have pounded with the FH. He did it to Borg many times, he did it to Wilander too. I'm not saying Borg wouldnt have ever won in prime vs. prime, but it would be up to Lendl to win or lose, not Borg.
Great players adapt to the era that they play in.
A lot of people when comparing athletes do the error of comparing them as static figures or as "frozen in their time".
A lot of people say today's players are stronger not just in tennis but in all sports across the board. Well, a lot of that has to do with better training techniques and fitness technology as well as the fact that the sports themselves often have a stronger fitness requirement to compete. Human biology last I checked has not evolved in the last several decades.
Are you telling me that players of the past won't take advantage of the innovations today's players have in order to remain competitive if they played today?
They might not be as dominant as they were but athletes are not statues.
That is why comparing players/athletes of different eras is difficult. If we were to compare them "as they were" then of course considering the many innovations many sports have today we would definitely have to give an edge to today's players regardless what of what sport they play.
A lot of people when comparing athletes do the error of comparing them as static figures or as "frozen in their time".
A lot of people say today's players are stronger not just in tennis but in all sports across the board. Well, a lot of that has to do with better training techniques and fitness technology as well as the fact that the sports themselves often have a stronger fitness requirement to compete. Human biology last I checked has not evolved in the last several decades.
Are you telling me that players of the past won't take advantage of the innovations today's players have in order to remain competitive if they played today?
They might not be as dominant as they were but athletes are not statues.
That is why comparing players/athletes of different eras is difficult. If we were to compare them "as they were" then of course considering the many innovations many sports have today we would definitely have to give an edge to today's players regardless what of what sport they play.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Gilgamesh said:
There are two different types of comparison of players from different eras. One is what I said, just the level of tennis played frozen in time - it is easier to compare this way (my opinion is level of play changes dramatically in 10 year period of time in the past 25 years); the other is what you said, you assumed what would happen if they were playing under same condition - a lot of conjucture this way.
So, you need to say how you compare players from different era. What type of player Borg would be in today's condition? No one knows. Maybe he would be injury prone with all the hardcourts thus not achieving as much, maybe he would achieve even more with help of training and technology.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
I agree with what you added. I would limit to individual sport though. Team sport has different dynamic involved.
The tennis guy said:
Team sports do have added and different dynamics but I would in the end pretty much say the same thing regarding individual players on teams as long as we are not arguing about their team success. To argue about team success we also have to then take into account other components and variables that concern with team performance such as pace, teammates and so forth. It ends up being an even more complex debate but even so in the end those arguments tend to come down to individual players.
But I understand what you are saying. Comparing players in team sports has more variables like for example would MJ score as much as he did if he played on the 80s Celtics? Therefore, should statistical basis really be used as enough jusitification to justify that MJ is really a better scorer than Bird?
Similar threads
- Poll
