Borg beat him 6-2 6-2 6-3 in both 78 and 79 though. And that was a younger, better Jimbo.
I mean Borg won 5 straight and has two more titles, that’s not nothing. I’m actually kind of shocked.
I see a strong case for Borg over Mac for peak. And if we are talking about an extended peak, then it's got to be Borg.
As I understand, the question is about a single performance or a run at Wimbledon, so in that case I still give Mac a (slight) edge due to the nature of his game, it's very hard to defend against a net rusher with a superb volleys and big serve. Still think that Mac can take the racquet out of your hands a bit easier than Borg (on grass), so you are not wrong in that sense.
Very true.
Nice details, thanks for sharing.
I think that’s what made this part of their rivalry at Wimbledon so special. The classic serve and volleyer against the classic baseline, even though Borg served and volleyed a lot, it was a clash of the two styles.
most of us could hit harder than Mcenroe could in 84, he was blown off the court only a year later when real power players arrived. Sampras 99 vs Mac 84 is a no contest
This is about peak McEnroe vs. peak Borg, not peak McEnroe vs. peak Sampras.
And a few others.
Some other big power players from the old era could handle Mac at Wimbledon, I would lay money on Vines 1932, Budge 1937/38, Kramer 1947, Sedgman 1952, even, yes, Trabert 1955, Hoad 1957. Laver 1969.
Don’t forget Gonzales. He did not win Wimbledon but won USO on grass, plus he turned pro early. He certainly had the game to beat Mac at Wimbledon.
Yeah Borg is getting sort of underrated here
Prime to prime it has to be Borg. Mac went down against Connors, who was 0-4 against Borg, even when Connors began to pass his prime. Borg would have beaten up 82 Connors like in any previous matches.
Styles explain why Connors did better against McEnroe than against Borg. Also Connors improved his serve in 82 but didn't face Borg then, and Borg never played Connors at Queen's, only at the end of the Wimbledon fortnight when Borg tended to peak on grass. I don't think we can say peak Borg was better on grass than peak Mac because Borg's record against Connors was better than Mac's. I don't think any version of Borg would beat the graphite wielding 84 Mac at Wimbledon.
Agreed, I was restricting the view to past Wimbledon champions.
I thought about this as well...but, I still tipped to Peak Mac from '84....just devastating.
I've got to chalk that up to Connors' return of serve. Plus, Connors and Borg are more alike then different. Borg had a better serve and was marginally steadier. If Mac's movement was off and/or his 1st serve wasn't firing, he was in danger vs. Connors on grass. Everyone thinks of Mac and Borg as these great grass court players--and they are---but Connors was no piker on the turf--half of his slams came on grass, after all.
'84 Mac could give anyone a run for their money, Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Djoko.....can't do much if you can't return his serve. Plus, the newer GOATs really did not have to face A-level S&V players, EVER. Their minds would be blown by what Mac could do.
This I definitely agree with, especially on grass.
That was about my favorite tennis ever. Nothing to do but be very quiet and luckily watch the artist work.
I'd say there are a couple clear differences between Borg and Connors. And I would not use the word marginal where steadiness is concerned. He is clearly the steadier player. If it comes down to who is going to make the first unforced error then Connors is going to do it more times than not. The 78 US Open was an exception, probably due to the thumb. His other big wins over Borg had little to do with being more, or as steady. Not, IMO.
