Vincent-C
Legend
Pretty much this, AFAICS.Borg left the stage because he was burnt out and was not allowed to play a reduced schedule.
Pretty much this, AFAICS.Borg left the stage because he was burnt out and was not allowed to play a reduced schedule.
Any thoughts on what happens when *two* great players meet?Data for everything exists but we dont have access to it. Lot of data analytics companies share with ATP, these are not shared with public. Plus Data is also relative to an era, if you compare across eras then data is never enough to compare, athletes born 10-16 years later always have an advantage over their predecessors when games are evolving, so you should not always do data comparison across eras, the feel is important.
Data for Serve is available, when old Sampras played young federer then young Federer could still not keep up with Sampras in terms of pace.... now if you extrapolate this with current strings nd rcquets then Sampras would be even faster nd harder on his serve, with better control over shots too.
![]()
Sameway there maybe more stats on Breakpoints saved with aces which Sampras would be leading, that kind of stats you wont find on UTS, we should not be searching for stats to compare players across eras. Watching the game, feel is also important you know, if you watch Sampras's matches then you would see how ferocious he was on the run, his athleticism was highest in that era. Sampras was a beast on courts where his Serve is a weapon just like Djokovic and Nadal are beasts on courts where their returns and endurance are weapons. Great players find ways to impose themselves on others.
Any thoughts on what happens when *two* great players meet?
You seem relatively uninformed in this case. Sampy was all of twenty-nine when The Great Man defeated him on Centre Court Wimbledon- hardly "old". He was also- if you ever bother to watch the match, at some point- serving around twenty mph harder than The Great Man, who nonetheless bestedWhen 2 great players meet and they are of the same age then the better player 8-9 out of 10 times wins. Federer was lucky that Sampras was a full 10 years older to him, not the other way around.
You should watch that match sometime.When 2 great players meet and they are of the same age then the better player 8-9 out of 10 times wins. Federer was lucky that Sampras was a full 10 years older to him, not the other way around.
You seem relatively uninformed in this case. Sampy was all of twenty-nine when The Great Man defeated him on Centre Court Wimbledon- hardly "old". He was also- if you ever bother to watch the match, at some point- serving around twenty mph harder than The Great Man, who nonetheless bested
him in serving stats, via precision rather than pace (and, not coincidentally, won the match). Fred was *nails* that day. Kudos to the unequalled eight-time Wimbledon Champion.
Does it need to be?Let me ask, does his argument seem convincing?
It is one of my favorites. One of the most important, "passing of the torch" moments in the game, and surprisingly extremely high quality from the start to the end. Pete missed a lot of shots he shouldn't have, but his quality on second serve and big points (except for ironically the biggest one) shone through. Roger's touch, volleys, returns, and shotmaking were outstanding that day. The fact that Pete's serving was able to keep him in the match, since it was virtually all he did extremely well, says a lot about the quality of that shot.You should watch that match sometime.
He claimed Pete would dominate Fed if they were the same age. I asked him to present a case to support his claim, but he failed to do so and became upset. You can review the exchange yourself to see that my main focus was on challenging his logic and argument.Does it need to be?
He claimed Pete would dominate Fed if they were the same age. I asked him to present a case to support his claim, but he failed to do so and became upset. You can review the exchange yourself to see that my main focus was on challenging his logic and argument.
I refuted your laughable logic and argument, and you can be as angry as you like.It is pointless to convince you of anything if someone has to spell it out loud that Pete has a much better serve than Federer, you even denied that. Apart from a harder and unreturnable serve which is more clutch at hitting aces to bail out of BPs, his BP saved and BP faced rate in slams are both better than Federer despite Federer using better racquets that aide these stats, do you think I will spoonfeed you? Go and open UTS and sing songs of Nole praise all day, thats all that you are capable of, pointless to discuss pre 2011 tennis with you.
It seemed you not only doubted the structure of his argument, but its conclusions, which I find alarming in the case of the challenge to the claim that Pete's serve is superior to Roger's. I say this as a Fedfan.He claimed Pete would dominate Fed if they were the same age. I asked him to present a case to support his claim, but he failed to do so and became upset. You can review the exchange yourself to see that my main focus was on challenging his logic and argument.
Perhaps I didn't articulate it clearly: with his laughable logic and argument, it's quite a challenge for him to substantiate any claim, whether it's about 'serving,' 'Wimbledon and the US Open,' or the 'dominance' of Pete over Fed if they were the same age.It seemed you not only doubted the structure of his argument, but its conclusions, which I find alarming in the case of the challenge to the claim that Pete's serve is superior to Roger's. I say this as a Fedfan.
30 was considered old....up to that point, only Connors had played well into his 30s, with Andre soon to followSampras was a month away from 30 and in those days 30 was very very old in Tennis or athletics or swimming type sports. You cannot call Usain Bolt in 2016 a young sprinter, he is old at 30 for a sprinter, sameway Sampras at almost 30 was old and way past his prime. Had it been prime Sampras then the result would be 1 sided.
This isn't fair to Borg. I have already stated here that it was Chatrier, then head of the ITF, who largely provoked Borg into leaving professional tennis, as he threatened Borg with having to play Grand Slam qualifiers if he didn't play enough tournaments.Connors was Borg's pigeon, 8-15 H2H ..... When Mac arrived then a real Grass Court rival of Borg's caliber arrived and Borg just ran away like the coward that he was.
This isn't fair to Borg. I have already stated here that it was Chatrier, then head of the ITF, who largely provoked Borg into leaving professional tennis, as he threatened Borg with having to play Grand Slam qualifiers if he didn't play enough tournaments.
Tennis is not a school and the head of the ITF is not a teacher. It was very insensitive of Chatrier to ask the biggest star of tennis at the time to play qualifiers at Grand Slams. Nowadays, Borg would get a bunch of wild cards, much like Venus or Murray.Aww, My teacher asked me to do more homework, so I quit schooll, I am not coward, I am just a genius dropout ? ... LOL .... Is that the logic you are giving?
Who the hell was Borg to ask for special treatment from the head of ITF ? If 4 years older Connors could play all the tournaments then why should Borg ask for special treatment ?
He was too full of himself to think of himself bigger than the game and he ran away, that is how it will be seen !
Tennis is not a school and the head of the ITF is not a teacher. It was very insensitive of Chatrier to ask the biggest star of tennis at the time to play qualifiers at Grand Slams. Nowadays, Borg would get a bunch of wild cards, much like Venus or Murray.
Some legends were elevated by power, while some were oppressed. Perhaps such a simple thing is difficult to comprehend or cope.This isn't fair to Borg. I have already stated here that it was Chatrier, then head of the ITF, who largely provoked Borg into leaving professional tennis, as he threatened Borg with having to play Grand Slam qualifiers if he didn't play enough tournaments.
True.Borg understandably didn't care about going after Roy Emerson's record which was considered to be largely meaningless at the time - I knew about it and it was mentioned, but it was far from a big deal. Sampras on the flip-side put a lot of focus on equalling and then breaking it.
No, you're out. You defend the stubborn attitude of the head of the ITF at the time, which even most of Borg's leading opponents didn't agree with at the time. I understand Borg that he did not want to accept the humiliating condition of playing the RG/Wimbledon qualification, even though he was the 5th player in the world at the time. That would **** off any tennis star, including the Big 3.Venus and Murray are very old for their tennis age, they are just being offered wild cards because they bring audience to the stadium. See nobody is giving Murray wild cards out of the goodwill of their heart, it is business, if they are given then it means they have commercial value. If Borg was not given wild cards or some lateral entry or whatever then that was the decision of the ITF and if other players can adhere to it then so should he. Moreover these wild cards and such things come much later in your career after you are done nd dusted levelwise, however Borg was like 25-26 at that time when he demanded a light schedule, such demands were not met, and so he left, that is his way of chickening out. If he wanted to take a break then he should have taken a break from tennis and returns after an year and started off the hard way nd made his way back to the top, why didn;t he do that ? Didn't Agassi do that in 1998 ? a big break and then return to the top in 1999 ? No excuse man, Borg cannot be defended.
To make Borg play Quallies would have been ludicrous. The ITF took an overly rigid stance. Today we have protected rankings and such. Perhaps he should have just taken a 6 month break. But it became a real p#ssing match which ultimately hurt the game.No, you're out. You defend the stubborn attitude of the head of the ITF at the time, which even most of Borg's leading opponents didn't agree with at the time. I understand Borg that he did not want to accept the humiliating condition of playing the RG/Wimbledon qualification, even though he was the 5th player in the world at the time. That would **** off any tennis star, including the Big 3.
False history. Borg retired from official matches in January 1983, when McEnroe held none of the majors, WCT Finals or YEC Masters. In fact, at that point, McEnroe had been getting badly defeated by Lendl, as Lendl from 1981 to January 1983 beat McEnroe 7 times in a row in official competitions, with Lendl winning 19 out of 20 sets against McEnroe across those 7 matches played against each other in that timeframe.Connors was Borg's pigeon, 8-15 H2H ..... When Mac arrived then a real Grass Court rival of Borg's caliber arrived and Borg just ran away like the coward that he was.
All true. Lendl was clobbering Mac at that point. It took a change in tactics to start to turn that around...rushing Lendl, keeping the ball up the middle on the approach. Shocking difference. Connors game was more suited to Lendl's power, no question. How Mac stayed #1 in 1982 for so long was simply beyond me, given what Connors and Lendl accomplished. Made no sense. Connors did get to #1 after the USO I believe (so says Wiki) and got the Player of the Year award.False history. Borg retired from official matches in January 1983, when McEnroe held none of the majors, WCT Finals or YEC Masters. In fact, at that point, McEnroe had been getting badly defeated by Lendl, as Lendl from 1981 to January 1983 beat McEnroe 7 times in a row in official competitions, with Lendl winning 19 out of 20 sets against McEnroe across those 7 matches played against each other in that timeframe.
Connors made a famous quote to Lendl at the time "I won't run away from you like McEnroe does".
McEnroe at that time struggled to deal with Lendl's powerful groundstrokes, while Connors seemed to thrive on Lendl's game. It took Don Budge to pull McEnroe aside and tell him to aggressively attack the net against Lendl on a consistent basis, and then McEnroe started turning things around against Lendl in the 1983-1985 period. McEnroe getting a graphite racquet to replace his wooden racquet also helped.
The fact is, people who say "Borg ran away from McEnroe" seem to forget that once Borg was arguing with the tennis authorities and sat out nearly all official matches in 1982, McEnroe had huge problems with Lendl, while Connors won Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. A lot of it is probably down to the dodgy world rankings of the time that absurdly have McEnroe as number 1 for 1982, when he clearly wasn't in reality. Connors won the two biggest events in 1982 (i.e. Wimbledon and the US Open, and won 7 tournaments that year), while Lendl dominated that year outside the majors (winning 15 tournaments that year, which included winning the Masters and WCT Finals, both of which were much bigger than the Australian Open that year). McEnroe won 5 tournaments in 1982, the biggest being Philadelphia, Tokyo Indoor and Wembley.
I think Mcenroe finished 1982 number 1 on the ATP computer. He did win a bunch of tournaments later in the year. Maybe 4, but I think he'd only won 1 before that. Anyway, that puzzled me how he finished 1st. Maybe if he'd won a slew of tournaments. Somehow I think Connors was quite content to win the big 2 and let Mcenroe have the number 1 ranking.All true. Lendl was clobbering Mac at that point. It took a change in tactics to start to turn that around...rushing Lendl, keeping the ball up the middle on the approach. Shocking difference. Connors game was more suited to Lendl's power, no question. How Mac stayed #1 in 1982 for so long was simply beyond me, given what Connors and Lendl accomplished. Made no sense. Connors did get to #1 after the USO I believe (so says Wiki) and got the Player of the Year award.
Were there ATP computer rankings in '82?I think Mcenroe finished 1982 number 1 on the ATP computer. He did win a bunch of tournaments later in the year. Maybe 4, but I think he'd only won 1 before that. Anyway, that puzzled me how he finished 1st. Maybe if he'd won a slew of tournaments. Somehow I think Connors was quite content to win the big 2 and let Mcenroe have the number 1 ranking.
Yes, but I don't pay them much attention until 1985 really, when Lendl beat McEnroe at the US Open.Were there ATP computer rankings in '82?
Thanks.Yes, but I don't pay them much attention until 1985 really, when Lendl beat McEnroe at the US Open.
Cani blame Borg cause his rivals where older,,, hahaBorg's top rivals with whom he played most matches ( 38 out of 40 of them were older than him)
- Connors 23 matches played [ 4 years older to Borg]
- Vilas 22 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Nastase 18 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Gerulatis 18 matches played [2 years older to Borg]
- Ashe 17 matches played [13 years older to Borg]
- Orantes 16 matches played [7 years older to Borg]
- Tanner 16 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Panatta 16 matches played [6 years older to Borg]
- Solomon 15 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Mcenroe 14 matches played [3 years young to Borg]
- Ramirez 14 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Dibbs 14 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Gottfried 12 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Higueras 12 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Okker 11 matches played [12 years older to Borg]
- Barazutti 10 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Lendl 8 matches played [4 years younger to Borg]
- Laver 8 matches played [18 years older to Borg]
- Mayer 8 matches played [1 month older to Borg]
- Kodes 8 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Parun 7 matches played [9 years older to Borg]
- Smith 7 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Riessen 7 matches played [15 years older to Borg]
- Stockton 7 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Pecci - 7 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
- Fillol - 7 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Zugarelli - 7 matches played [6 years older to Borg]
- Feling - 6 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
- Fibak - 6 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Taroczy - 6 matches played [2 years older to Borg]
- Cox - 6 matches played [13 years older to Borg]
- Amritraz - 6 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Moore - 6 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Pattinson - 6 matches played [7 years older to Borg]
- Lloyd - 6 matches played [2 years older to Borg]
- Newcombe - 5 matches played [12 years older to Borg]
- Noah - 5 matches played [4 years younger to Borg]
- Mcnamara - 5 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
- Alexander - 5 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Pecci - 5 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
BORG only faced 14% guys younger to him, he ran away like a coward that he was. @nolefam_2024
Player ... % of matches played vs older rivals vs % of matches played vs younger rivals
Federer - 31% vs 69 %
Djokovic - 61% vs 39%
Nadal - 48% vs 52%
Sampras - 52% vs 48%
Agassi - 29% vs 71%
Borg - 86% vs 14 %
Mcenroe - 46% vs 54%
Connors - 34% vs 66 %
Lendl - 30% vs 70%
Becker - 69% vs 31%
Wilander - 60% vs 40%
Edberg - 52% vs 48%
Sampras was a month away from 30 and in those days 30 was very very old in Tennis or athletics or swimming type sports. You cannot call Usain Bolt in 2016 a young sprinter, he is old at 30 for a sprinter, sameway Sampras at almost 30 was old and way past his prime. Had it been prime Sampras then the result would be 1 sided.
Borg won the Masters twice, and won the WCT Finals, and won 22 titles overall on carpet. There weren't that many hardcourt tournaments, I think he won 5 of them, including beating Connors in Las Vegas and beating McEnroe at the first Canadian Open on hardcourt in Montreal. Borg famously never won the US Open, on grass, clay or hardcourt, despite being runner-up 4 times (3 of those on hardcourt).err indoor and hard? same argument probably goes for Bill Tilden or someone, doesn't mean he could beat Sampras hitting 30mph faster than him
Definitely not the best player on hard courts. That would be:Bumping this thread.
To me Borg was definitely better as he was the best player in the world on every surface.
Fair enough as far as hard courts go, Borg never really reached his top level there as he did elsewhere. He was still a top tier hard courter either way and he was as much of a beast on slower and faster surfaces unlike Sampras who definitely does not crack the top 50 on clay.Definitely not the best player on hard courts. That would be:
1974: Connors1975: Connors1976: Connors1977: Connors1978: Connors1979: McEnroe1980: McEnroe1981: McEnroe
BOOMDefinitely not the best player on hard courts. That would be:
1974: Connors1975: Connors1976: Connors1977: Connors1978: Connors1979: McEnroe1980: McEnroe1981: McEnroe
Served harder, AND had a banner % day, above his usual stats. i am a 'pete believer,' think he's probably top 3 overall athlete/shotmaker we've seen...but fed's skillset is definitely suited to get the edge on him, matchup favors the maestro imo.You seem relatively uninformed in this case. Sampy was all of twenty-nine when The Great Man defeated him on Centre Court Wimbledon- hardly "old". He was also- if you ever bother to watch the match, at some point- serving around twenty mph harder than The Great Man, who nonetheless bested
him in serving stats, via precision rather than pace (and, not coincidentally, won the match). Fred was *nails* that day. Kudos to the unequalled eight-time Wimbledon Champion.
Everyone had better numbers until 1990 when the tour started getting formalized.I give Borg the slight edge over Sampras. He was far more dominant. Also, 14 > 11 slams is rather meaningless when you consider that Borg didn’t play the AO. Had he played it, he probably bags 3-4 of those to equal or pass Sampras’ slam count by the age of 25. But that’s a big if. I will toss that out for now.
Borg had 4 consecutive 70-win, .900 seasons. That is pure dominance. He won 3 slam titles without dropping a set. What’s ridiculous is that he did that on 2 of the most polar opposite surfaces. He had 3 consecutive Channel Slams. He had 14 Masters titles (equivalent to) by the end of his age-25 season. This cat had a great career for somebody that played his last slam at age 35; let alone at 25.
Sampras has the slight edge in career achievements. But IMHO, Borg’s superior peak is what moves him ahead of Sampras by a paper-thin margin.
It's super hard for me to choose...I might switch my vote on any given day...by surface, Pete better on hard, Borg better indoors/carpet, Borg supreme on clay. Grass? Maybe a toss up. Borg retiring early always makes this conversation tricky. I've never been a huge Sampras fan, I like to root for underdogs, but his game was immense when he was "on". But if you look at a common window...accomplishments through age 25 (when Borg essentially quit), I lean torwards him over Sampras.I give Borg the slight edge over Sampras. He was far more dominant. Also, 14 > 11 slams is rather meaningless when you consider that Borg didn’t play the AO. Had he played it, he probably bags 3-4 of those to equal or pass Sampras’ slam count by the age of 25. But that’s a big if. I will toss that out for now.
Borg had 4 consecutive 70-win, .900 seasons. That is pure dominance. He won 3 slam titles without dropping a set. What’s ridiculous is that he did that on 2 of the most polar opposite surfaces. He had 3 consecutive Channel Slams. He had 14 Masters titles (equivalent to) by the end of his age-25 season. This cat had a great career for somebody that played his last slam at age 35; let alone at 25.
Sampras has the slight edge in career achievements. But IMHO, Borg’s superior peak is what moves him ahead of Sampras by a paper-thin margin.