When Mac got his 1st serve above 60%, I felt he was basically unstoppable. Best returning vs. Mac may have been Connors in the '84 US semi. Mac was crushing it in the 60% range and Jimmy was shooting back bullets. Andre also clobbered him at W '92, but he was much older then and the serve lost its punch IMHO. Still, you are talking A+ level returners here and still very tough to stop Mac. The other thing, generationally speaking, is his ability to approach the net....Mac's generation had that down. Of the current crop, not so much. Fed was good at it. A combination of instinct and skill in knowing when to come in and hitting a superb approach. Another lost art due to baseline bashing and much slower courts in 2023
Who was actually better peak for peak at Wimbledon: Borg or McEnroe?
- Thread starter Kralingen
- Start date
Borg was definitely steadier....but Connors could hang with him pretty well...he just needed to end the point at the right time. '78 USO not indicative of Borg's level...perhaps more of Connors, if anything. I always ponder the Connors serve....he lost a lot of close ones, and a few not so close, but was never feeling the serve was a big factor. But it wasn't a weapon, to your point. He served pretty well in many grass court matches, so a bit of a puzzle why he could not do it consistently. He was simply hammering it in the '74 USO final....like WTH happened to THAT serve?
I agree about that 60% number. He got that high and he was very tough to beat.
I should have qualified earlier with this. I think later on they got closer. Connors wasn't coming in as much and Borg was coming in more. But matches like the 76 US Open, the Pepsi Grand Slam matches, Wimbledon 77? Connors comes in far, far more, hits far, far more winners and makes far, far more unforced errors. And I mean winners that exclude passing shots. That's a counterpunch as opposed to aggression, forcing the play.
Now, the 77 Wimbledon didn't have a huge net point difference, but Connors had way more winners. Look in the stat thread. This isn't to call Connors unsteady, but I never saw him as brick wall like as some of these baseliners. He can't hit 30 balls a point. Didn't have that margin for error.
The serve was where Borg was no doubt more aggressive. Good question about the Connors serve. Another match as an example. The Newcombe challenge match in 75. The last set is up on youtube, Watch it and tell me Connors isn't serving bigger than he did later on. These stats are from memory. I believe he had maybe 11 unreturned serves in maybe 27 points. Wasp had him with 12 in 5 sets in the 77 Wimbledon final. He served 5 games in that set and won 2 or 3 at love.
It was the harder hit one down the middle that I noticed. It's all relative, of course. He is not serving like Tanner, but I think clearly. bigger than later on.
Who, Connors or Borg? Connors didn't on both serves all the time. Maybe low 60s to 65% of both serves. However, it wasn't like Borg later on where it was s/v on every first serve and never on second. Connors was more often on 1st, but only by a bit. He was s/v over half the time on the second. Not much over, still over though. At least in the Rosewall and Tanner matches. In the Australian vs Newcombe the overall % was about the same, but the 1st was higher and the second not as high.
In the 73 and 74 grass court partials we have of Borg, he is s/v on both serves. Probably still evolving his grass court strategy. However, he isn't contending for the titles doing that. Quarterfinals at best. Connors won the title and made finals s/v a lot.
GuyForget
Semi-Pro
are you 110?
As in...?
chrischris
G.O.A.T.
Borg in '78 and Mac in' 84. Even.
76 was a great year for Borg as well. I don't think he lost a set that year. Beat Tanner and Nastase in straight sets. Tanner took out Connors for him. That said, I'll still take 84 Mcenroe.
If only Tanner had good volleys (hint: he did not especially for a serve-and-volleyer, that’s why he never ascended to the next tier)
I would think he didn’t need to be all that good/great of a volleyer especially with that serve of his, mind you he would’ve came in when other opportunities were there as well.
I’m sure there are stats out there that could cast further light on that.
Well, watching Wimbledon 1979 final, I think he definitely needed a good volley (unless he was as tall as Goran and thus could find crazier angles). I mean, someone like Krajicek had a monster serve but was also an excellent volleyer - the same could not be said with Tanner regarding volleying.
Vitas Gerulaitis was the opposite case, he had very good volleys, but his serves were essentially one of the worst among the well-known serve-and-volleyers.
Last edited:
Interestingly both Ivanisevic and Krajicek weren’t all that great from the back and needed to get in a little more. They were both much taller, if memory serves, than Tanner too. As you say, that extra height would benefit them both at the net.
Gerulaitis had very good hands at the net and moved so much better than the much taller Krajicek and Ivanisevic. He was a very gifted player and was exciting to watch.
You must have never seen Mac live then. Mac was certainly overpowered by the new generation but that doesn't mean "most of us could hit harder." I got to see him live near the end of his career in 1993. He consistently hit much harder than any 5.0 of this era. The screen makes everything look much slower.
Last edited:
Mcenroe was hitting the ball plenty hard in 84. Doesn't look like it because he has no backswing on the forehand. He would just take Connors first serve and come in behind it. And put Connors in major trouble with the approaches which were hit really hard and deep. Sometime outright winners. He wasn't doing that with touch.
Tanner was not a poor volleyer. I didn't say he was elite, but look at that 20 minutes of 79 US Open semi footage against Gerulaitis. Sure looks like he can volley there. The 1976 Wembley final vs Connors is up. Makes a lot of good volleys there.
Also, this guy hits the ball really hard off the ground. I think Connors did more running in the rallies than him. You don't see that very often with Connors. Win or lose, the other player usually does more running. In that US Open match, he handcuffs Gerulaitis a couple times. He hits the ball very hard.
If you look at the stats that Wasp did, Mcenroe gets higher unreturned serve % against Borg, in both Wimbledon matches, 1 of the US Open finals, 1 of their Masters matches. I mean higher than Tanner did against Borg in their Wimbledon final. Tanner didn't just trouble him because of a big serve.
Hey, I'm not saying there are no flaws or he would have won a lot more. He might hit the ball hard, but that doesn't mean he is a consistent. He certainly didn't move as well as Borg, Connors, Mcenroe or Gerulaitis. But while he may not have beaten Connors and Borg much there were a lot of close losses.
One of the Borg Tanner matches that impressed me was their 78 French Open match.
He lost in straight sets maybe 6, 4 and 2. Borg absolutely massacred everyone else he played that year. Even on red clay he was at least competitive. Mind you, I've never seen the match. I'm going by the score.
Watch that Wembley match and see the running Connors does. On his serve, Tanner s/v on all his serves. Connors wins more of the big points on his serve, not by outrallying Tanner, but by coming to the net.
Tanner was not a poor volleyer. I didn't say he was elite, but look at that 20 minutes of 79 US Open semi footage against Gerulaitis. Sure looks like he can volley there. The 1976 Wembley final vs Connors is up. Makes a lot of good volleys there.
Also, this guy hits the ball really hard off the ground. I think Connors did more running in the rallies than him. You don't see that very often with Connors. Win or lose, the other player usually does more running. In that US Open match, he handcuffs Gerulaitis a couple times. He hits the ball very hard.
If you look at the stats that Wasp did, Mcenroe gets higher unreturned serve % against Borg, in both Wimbledon matches, 1 of the US Open finals, 1 of their Masters matches. I mean higher than Tanner did against Borg in their Wimbledon final. Tanner didn't just trouble him because of a big serve.
Hey, I'm not saying there are no flaws or he would have won a lot more. He might hit the ball hard, but that doesn't mean he is a consistent. He certainly didn't move as well as Borg, Connors, Mcenroe or Gerulaitis. But while he may not have beaten Connors and Borg much there were a lot of close losses.
One of the Borg Tanner matches that impressed me was their 78 French Open match.
He lost in straight sets maybe 6, 4 and 2. Borg absolutely massacred everyone else he played that year. Even on red clay he was at least competitive. Mind you, I've never seen the match. I'm going by the score.
Watch that Wembley match and see the running Connors does. On his serve, Tanner s/v on all his serves. Connors wins more of the big points on his serve, not by outrallying Tanner, but by coming to the net.
Good post.
Yes, you are right in that Tanner wasn't a poor volleyer and he definitely had a good enough volley to trouble Borg many times during their matches. Tanner's used his potent serve to set up opportunities at the net and dictate play. There were many times he had an easy put away at the net due to this. He didn't need to do much with some of the volleys, mind you that was the way it was for many of the great serve and volleyers. Players like Sampras made it look easy. It would be nice to have more of Tanner's matches available so we could make a better assessment of his abilities.
I'd like to see the 1981 US Open match they had with the three tie breakers. The pressure Borg must've felt would've been enormous. I had read an article after the match where Borg had stated that winning a match like he did really helped him. It gave him more belief. There were so many close matches between the two and the 12-4 advantage to Borg doesn't show just how close some of the matches were. A break here and there is all the separated them.
If their 79, 80 and 81 US Open matches exist I've never seen them. They were not shown in the US. This was before cable coverage and CBS had no weeknight coverage. They had their half hour late night highlight show. Most of that show is up on youtube, The entire 4th set tiebreaker is there. Tanner won 2 sets 6-2 in that match and also broke Borg's serve in the 4th set because he served for the match before the tiebreaker and lost. That is at least 5 times he broke Borg's serve. That's more than just Tanner having a great serve.
Difference with 80 and 81, those were day matches, which Borg preferred. They were very close, 3 years in a row is no fluke. Tanner troubled him. In the Wembley match Tanner gets a lot of unreturned serves, but the ones Connors gets back are often low and hard. Now, Tanner did miss some. He also made a bunch. Difficult volleys. Again, what caught my eye is how often he is running Connors in the backcourt rallies. BTW, Connors was SUCH a better sport back then.
Another btw ,about 15 minutes of the Connors Lendl 83 Queens match is up. About the last 4 games. Connors level is fantastic here. Lendl has maybe 1 volley above the level of the net.
If I remember correctly, the US Open was shown here on CBS on the weekends and Wimbledon was always on NBC. There was no weekday coverage at all that I can remember. Who could forget the eccentric Bud Collins interviewing for them year after year. I remember having to wait for the football to end on CBS and then they would show the matches. I do remember the late night highlight show you are talking about. I'm very surprised that it wasn't shown there. Now you have me questions myself...lol.
I started to watch the 1979 Wimbledon final between them yesterday and I've only got half way through the first set. So much comes back to me, especially the way Tanner would crouch when waiting for serve and get right down for his volleys. I didn't agree with the poster who said he couldn't volley. He would've been a decent/good volleyer in his day. I'm not about other parts of his game because it was a long time ago. It would only be natural for a player to move into the net for easy volleys. You also have to remember who was hitting from the other end too. Borg's groundies were loaded with top spin and very difficult to handle. The few games I've watched of that Wimbledon final is testament to that. Tanner is very aggressive and Borg is on it from the beginning.
I'll have a look at the Wembly match you mentioned. I'm thinking for Jimmy to be able to hit that kinda ball with his flat strokes shows just how precise he was against Lendl in those last few games you mention. I'll have a watch when I'm done the other match I'm watching. It's about 3 hours so will take a while. Thanks for that.
Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Tanner, Wimbledon final, 1979
Bjorn Borg beat Roscoe Tanner 6-7(4), 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon final, 1979 on grass It was Borg's 4th consecutive title at the event. Tanner was the 5th seed and this would be his sole final Borg won 167 points, Tanner 152 Borg serve-volleyed more than half the time off...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Warpsting had a quite critical review of Tanner’s volleying in the 1979 Wimbledon final. I mean, even though his unreturnable rate was not as high as Mac in 1980, he got loads of sitter and floating volleys and fumbled on way too many of them - the likes of Pete, Becker, or even Stich & Krajicek, would have eaten them for lunch. I mean, regulation volleys were on the hard side of what Tanner received from Borg in terms of first volleys.
The key here is that Borg’s returns in that match generally did not dip downwards, instead most of them stayed high above the net - anyone with actually good volleys should have been able to put them away.
And what I mean is not that Tanner was a poor volleyer - what I mean is that Tanner was not a good volleyer for a serve-and-volleyer. These are very different things. He could have better volleys than say, Jim Courier (who was far from a crap volleyer for a baseliner), but compared to Pete or even Krajicek he was a weak volleyer.
I wasn't implying in any way Borg's return. I was merely passing on what I had watched after a few games in the 1979 Wimbledon final. Tanner was coming in on Borg's serve and he was having to deal with Borg's ground strokes. Nothing to do with Tanner's serving. I understand that we do need to clarify ourselves at times and I guess this is one of those times for me.
I understand and agree with you on your point about Tanner not being a great serve and volleyer. Maybe I shouldn't have brought Sampras into the conversation. Anyways...Tanner had a very potent serve and one would have to be a fool not to follow that up with net play. Tanner is in no way to be classified as a great serve and volleyer, great server yes, but not a great serve and volleyer. He was adequate in that regard.
I'm very surprised that it wasn't shown there? I'm not sure what you mean by that. The highlights show? It was shown where I lived in the US. They showed it nationwide.
Here is an idea of coverage when I started watching the US Open closely. 1975 and 76 zero coverage of the women's semis. 75 men's semis. CBS came on the air in the 3rd set of Connors Borg. IIRC, at earliest halfway through the set. Maybe a bit later. Then showed the women's final and showed none of the other men's semi. Their coverage pretty much ended with the women's match.
1976 came on the air as the 3rd set of Nastase Borg. Showed that set and the women's final, which was a route. Because of that they had time to kill and showed maybe a set of taped delayed Connors Vilas, which had been the first match played that day.
1977 was the first year, that I know of, for Labor Day coverage. And extensive second Saturday coverage. They joined the first mens' semi and hour in, showed the other semi in it's entirety and the womens' final.
NBC's Wimbledon coverage was even more scarce.
I don't agree about Borg. He hit tons of low dipping returns with that topspin. Maybe not in that 79 match with Tanner. I mean in general. Same with Tanner's volleying. You are not a poor volleyer because you can't volley like Mcenroe or Edberg. There are different levels. This guy is playing s/v every serve, 1st and 2nd, against Connors.Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Tanner, Wimbledon final, 1979
Bjorn Borg beat Roscoe Tanner 6-7(4), 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon final, 1979 on grass It was Borg's 4th consecutive title at the event. Tanner was the 5th seed and this would be his sole final Borg won 167 points, Tanner 152 Borg serve-volleyed more than half the time off...
Warpsting had a quite critical review of Tanner’s volleying in the 1979 Wimbledon final. I mean, even though his unreturnable rate was not as high as Mac in 1980, he got loads of sitter and floating volleys and fumbled on way too many of them - the likes of Pete, Becker, or even Stich & Krajicek, would have eaten them for lunch. I mean, regulation volleys were on the hard side of what Tanner received from Borg in terms of first volleys.
The key here is that Borg’s returns in that match generally did not dip downwards, instead most of them stayed high above the net - anyone with actually good volleys should have been able to put them away.
And what I mean is not that Tanner was a poor volleyer - what I mean is that Tanner was not a good volleyer for a serve-and-volleyer. These are very different things. He could have better volleys than say, Jim Courier (who was far from a crap volleyer for a baseliner), but compared
Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Tanner, Wimbledon final, 1979
Bjorn Borg beat Roscoe Tanner 6-7(4), 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon final, 1979 on grass It was Borg's 4th consecutive title at the event. Tanner was the 5th seed and this would be his sole final Borg won 167 points, Tanner 152 Borg serve-volleyed more than half the time off...
Warpsting had a quite critical review of Tanner’s volleying in the 1979 Wimbledon final. I mean, even though his unreturnable rate was not as high as Mac in 1980, he got loads of sitter and floating volleys and fumbled on way too many of them - the likes of Pete, Becker, or even Stich & Krajicek, would have eaten them for lunch. I mean, regulation volleys were on the hard side of what Tanner received from Borg in terms of first volleys.
The key here is that Borg’s returns in that match generally did not dip downwards, instead most of them stayed high above the net - anyone with actually good volleys should have been able to put them away.
And what I mean is not that Tanner was a poor volleyer - what I mean is that Tanner was not a good volleyer for a serve-and-volleyer. These are very different things. He could have better volleys than say, Jim Courier (who was far from a crap volleyer for a baseliner), but compared to Pete or even Krajicek he was a weak volleyer.
Pete or even Krajicek he was a weak volleyer.i
You don't do that if you only have marginal volleying skills.
Go watch that Gerulaitis US Open footage. He's playing difficult volleys galore. I would never use the word elite or excellent. I have no problem using good, though.
Like Borg had a very good serve. I don't diminish it because it's not Tanner's serve.
Honestly, my memory of specific Tanner matches I watched back then don't tell me exactly how good a volleyer he was back then. And there are not that many of his matches online. I will say during that Wembley match both Maskell and Barrett talk about the improvement in the Tanner volley. Maybe he was relatively poor at one point. My stronger opinion is based on the overall footage I have seen of him online .
I meant I was surprised it wasn't shown in the US. You explained that a little further and mention that they did show some of the US Open on the weekends. I'm presuming that they only showed it on the weekends. I live in Canada, so we may have had different coverage BUT I'd think we'd definitely get what you guys get there with CBS being an American network. I remember that the coverage would start about 1 pm on the west coast, which would be 4 pm in New York. The early NFL games would start in the morning and be done about 1 pm and then the tennis would begin. It was a long wait sometimes but the tennis did come on when the NFL was done.
The NBC coverage for Wimbledon was very good! I'm just wondering if you were able to see any of the 1980 or 1981 Wimbledon finals on NBC?
All the men's finals were on NBC as long as I watched. They were tape delayed until 1979. So, I saw the 75-78 matches on tape delay. Starting in maybe 1978 they had a 15 minute highlight show. The second week I believe it was. CBS' started with the first night of the tournament.
I do remember NBC showing edited versions of Connors and Borg's 79 and 81 semis. I think an hour long at about 130 in the morning. I remember staying up to watch them even though I knew Connors lost.
IIRC, the NFL season didn't start until the second Sunday of the tournament. So, the first Sunday was generally free for tennis. I remember in 83 the football ran long where I live. They didn't join Connors Lendl until pretty late in the first set.
Weeknight coverage was out. No weeknight coverage on CBS. Under normal circumstances. The 74 finals were shown on a weekday because the tournament ran a day late. While that has happened a lot in the 2000s, it didn't in the 70s and 80s. It was rarer then.
Under normal circumstances the first time I remember is when they started showing the womens' semis on Friday. That may have been 1982? I know I've seen a lot of footage from the Austin Evert 1980 semi. There was sound, but no announcer. I don't know if the original source is CBS. They had to tape matches to show points for the highlights show. Maybe it was saved.
Same with Connors Gerulaitis' January 80 Masters match. Definitely not shown in the US, but it exists the same way, with no announcers. This is my long winded way of saying maybe some or all of those Borg Tanner US Open matches exists somewhere in the USTA or CBS archives.
One last thing. I retract using those Tanner Gerulaitis highlights as strong evidence of Tanner's volleying ability. It's not that he doesn't volley very well. He does, but it's an edited match. Not a partial, an edit. An edit where they were only showing good points. Basically the points end with winners. We aren't seeing any of the unforced errors. They are edited out. I retract it because it's not a fair example, it's not showing the complete picture. With Wembley it's all there, good and bad.
I do remember NBC showing edited versions of Connors and Borg's 79 and 81 semis. I think an hour long at about 130 in the morning. I remember staying up to watch them even though I knew Connors lost.
IIRC, the NFL season didn't start until the second Sunday of the tournament. So, the first Sunday was generally free for tennis. I remember in 83 the football ran long where I live. They didn't join Connors Lendl until pretty late in the first set.
Weeknight coverage was out. No weeknight coverage on CBS. Under normal circumstances. The 74 finals were shown on a weekday because the tournament ran a day late. While that has happened a lot in the 2000s, it didn't in the 70s and 80s. It was rarer then.
Under normal circumstances the first time I remember is when they started showing the womens' semis on Friday. That may have been 1982? I know I've seen a lot of footage from the Austin Evert 1980 semi. There was sound, but no announcer. I don't know if the original source is CBS. They had to tape matches to show points for the highlights show. Maybe it was saved.
Same with Connors Gerulaitis' January 80 Masters match. Definitely not shown in the US, but it exists the same way, with no announcers. This is my long winded way of saying maybe some or all of those Borg Tanner US Open matches exists somewhere in the USTA or CBS archives.
One last thing. I retract using those Tanner Gerulaitis highlights as strong evidence of Tanner's volleying ability. It's not that he doesn't volley very well. He does, but it's an edited match. Not a partial, an edit. An edit where they were only showing good points. Basically the points end with winners. We aren't seeing any of the unforced errors. They are edited out. I retract it because it's not a fair example, it's not showing the complete picture. With Wembley it's all there, good and bad.
Interesting post. That was pretty much the way it was here too.
It's very hard to accurately remember the coverage but I'v always associated the Borg era for me with CBS at the US Open and NBC with Wimbledon. Those were good days watching the tennis.
I also remember watching matches in the mid-seventies on the PBS station that was affiliated with the WGBH Network in Boston I believe. That was where I first saw and heard of Bud Collins. I've been a fan of his from that time until his death sadly. I believe the telecast originated in Boston but was shown on the local PBS station out of Seattle back in the day.
Lol...sometimes the long winded explanation are best! I guess we're stuck with bits and pieces from various sources for some of their older matches.
As for the Tanner matches, I did finish watching the 1979 Wimbledon Final on Youtube and there is plenty of evidence of his volleying ability. I think we all can agree on the fact that he wasn't as good a volleyer as Edberg, Becker or Rafter but he wasn't a slouch either. I think the important thing is that he knew what he had to do and was aggressive and moving forward when given the opportunity, whether that was due to his serve or him taking a short ball.
Looking forward to watching the Wembley match.
It's very hard to accurately remember the coverage but I'v always associated the Borg era for me with CBS at the US Open and NBC with Wimbledon. Those were good days watching the tennis.
I also remember watching matches in the mid-seventies on the PBS station that was affiliated with the WGBH Network in Boston I believe. That was where I first saw and heard of Bud Collins. I've been a fan of his from that time until his death sadly. I believe the telecast originated in Boston but was shown on the local PBS station out of Seattle back in the day.
Lol...sometimes the long winded explanation are best! I guess we're stuck with bits and pieces from various sources for some of their older matches.
As for the Tanner matches, I did finish watching the 1979 Wimbledon Final on Youtube and there is plenty of evidence of his volleying ability. I think we all can agree on the fact that he wasn't as good a volleyer as Edberg, Becker or Rafter but he wasn't a slouch either. I think the important thing is that he knew what he had to do and was aggressive and moving forward when given the opportunity, whether that was due to his serve or him taking a short ball.
Looking forward to watching the Wembley match.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Damn, just watched that 16 mins from the Queens semi. Pretty rare to see Connors dominate Ivan so thoroughly. The returns were killer....he was even serving extremely well. Handcuffed him. I can only imagine what the 1st set looked like. Seeing something like this should remind folks just what he was capable of in top form. re: Tanner, '79 W final was the 1st GS final I watched--had not even picked up a racket yet--and was pretty mesmerized. Anyone who thinks Tanner is a lousy volleyer is smoking a crack pipe. He had game....I was rooting for him to win...and he came close. He probably would have picked up a couple more majors if his competition was not so stiff. I know Borg did not like playing Tanner; he dreaded those USO night matches. Got to think it's really hard to pick up that bullet serve under the lights...which back then maybe weren't as good as what we have today.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I think the answer is clearly McEnroe. He played the classic grass game, Borg did not. Borg didn't often follow his second serve to the net, for instance. He wasn't a natural volleyer either. Mac's 1984 Wimbledon level is greater than anything Borg delivered at Wimbeldon.
PBS was great back then. They spent the entire summer showing events. Some big events as well. The Canadian Open, The US Clay Courts, The US Pro in Boston. The finals were not on Sunday, they were on Monday night, They'd show the semis on Sunday and the final Monday. A lot of times they'd show doubles. The players, even the top ones like Connors, would go up in the booth and talk to Collins and Dell. And they'd spent a good amount of time there. Maybe 10 plus minutes.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
While you are right in principle, he still lost a set in the first round in 1984, Borg won 1976 without losing a set and 1978 in very dominant fashion as well. Mac gets the edge peak for peak but they are closer than one might think.
It was a pretty big deal at the time because it was the first time NBC did the finals live. Donald Dell says that he asked Tanner to find a way to delay coming out. The All England Club wanted to start at exactly 9 which was when NBC came on. Dell wanted him to delay things maybe 5 minutes. I think Tanner did it by staying in the bathroom or something like that.
Then in 82 when they moved the mens' final to Sunday, the womens' final went to Saturday and they started showing both live.
I agree. While I'll take 84 Mcenroe, it's not by a lot. You can name multiple players who have had great success on surfaces that would not appear to ideally suit their game. However good a natural fit grass looked to be for his game this guy won 5 straight Wimbledons.
As one cranky old man to another, I hear ya.
I am sorry, but he wouldn’t have won Slams in any era. The early 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were just as tough if not tougher, especially on fast courts.
In terms of volleying, while he was not lousy, he was definitely weaker at the net than other well-known serve-and-volleyers in the Open Era.
To beat Borg as a serve-and-volleyer, you need to be a John Newcombe, who had great serve AND great volleys - among those S&V players who played against Borg between 1975 and 1981, only two guys met that criteria, Ashe and McEnroe.
Different people, even pros, have different assessments. In his book, OFF THE COURT, Ashe flat out said that Laver wasn't a great volleyer, that he flubbed a lot of volleys. Year or two later, TENNIS magazine does on article on greatest strokes of all time. A panel of experts, I don't remember the names. Voted Laver as having the best volley in history on one of the wings. So, even experts could see him very differently. Although Ashe is the only expert I ever recall downplay his volley like that.
Same with Ashe. I saw his forehand volley called a flat out weakness a number of times. Be pretty hard to be a "great' s/v player if that was the case. Ashe was a huge hitter off the ground,
There is no denying that the players who gave Borg those near miss matches, in the early rounds at Wimbledon, Amaya, Edmondson and Armitraj, were all s/v players.
Same with Ashe. I saw his forehand volley called a flat out weakness a number of times. Be pretty hard to be a "great' s/v player if that was the case. Ashe was a huge hitter off the ground,
There is no denying that the players who gave Borg those near miss matches, in the early rounds at Wimbledon, Amaya, Edmondson and Armitraj, were all s/v players.
Borg won 5 Wimbledon titles in a row, enough said...
As i remember it, Tanner had some good volleys. What was missing at Wim 1979 in crucial stages, was his groundgame, especially his backhand, which was wild and erratic. At the end of the match, Borg became nervous and had problems to close it out, which he did very seldom, but Tanner didn't take the opportunities, and had many wild mishits of makable returns and passings.
Well, IMO still better at the net than the late-1970s guys, including Tanner. Plus, Ashe was someone we could say have all the shots (can’t say that about Tanner and Gerulaitis). Definitely not as good at the net as Newcombe, though. But then, Newcombe won the largest share of non-clay Slams in 1970-1974 for a reason (he would likely have won even more had he played Wimbledons in 1972 and 1973).
You know, Ashe at one point called Sampras volley garbage, and it aged like milk.
Boy, do I agree about Borg and the nerves. Tanner could run hot and cold off the ground, but he was a bog hitter. When he was on he had more than a serve.
Newcombe was a great volleyer. I'm certainly not putting Tanner with him, but there is a big gap between Newcombe level and so so or average. Tanner vs Ashe I think is pretty close. Ashe, if he was on, could hit you off the court, besides his serve and volley. Like Tanner, not always consistent.
Ashe said that about Sampras? Was it early on or after he peaked? Like with Laver, I would disagree. Still, it's a learned opinion and shows how much they can differ. I have no hesitancy calling Sampras a great volleyer. IMO, a clear level below the creme de la creme, but meets the level of my idea of great.
Um he DID win a slam.....maybe you didn't notice? He also got up to #4 in the world. So, give the guy some credit.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Tanner was good enough to win one full strength major, but not more than that IMO.
I'm talking about open era from 1969 to 2015.
of course he'd win multiple in 16-23, even more so in 20-23.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Borg did have a scare vs Amaya in 78 Wim, but he was indeed dominant from 4R onwards. the final in particular was tremendous stuff from him vs Connors.
Tanner sure could run hot and cold. It was his inconsistency that was his weakness. He would’ve won so much more had he been more consistent with his ground strokes.
I remember reading an article some time ago on that Wimbledon final with Tanner. Borg was saying that he wasn’t moving his legs due to the nerves he was feeling in that fifth set and that he felt tremendous pressure to hold serve. That was the way it was playing Tanner because it was so difficult to break him.
Also, Tanner was quick around the court too.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yes I know. Didn’t mean he won 78 without losing a set, but as you said, all in all still very dominant. Not quite as much as Mac in 85, but destroying Connors as he did was impressive especially given that I would argue Connors in 78 > Connors in 84.
Big time scare. He was down 2 sets to 1, a break and was facing break point for another break. He went for a big 2nd serve, made it and it changed the match.
People tend to remember the finals in terms of dominance. Connors in 74 is a good example. He certainly wasn't dominant in either tournament before the finals. But that match is what they tend to remember.
Similar threads
- Poll