Why Sampras considered to be better than Borg

[Drob]

Borg was more consistent in the 1981 Wimbledon final compared to the 1980 Wimbledon final, but Borg did lose his knack of delivering on the big points in the 1981 Wimbledon final, like having 4 set points for a 2-1 sets lead and failing to take any of them. In the 1981 Wimbledon final, it never felt like Borg was outplayed, at least not exactly. In the 1980 Wimbledon final, Borg was outplayed for almost the whole of the first 2 sets, but then struck at the perfect moment when McEnroe was serving at 5-6 in the second set, and suddenly it was 1 set all. Borg controlled the momentum from that point up until serving for the match at 5-4 in the fourth set and having championship points. The rest is well known.

Also odd about 1981 Wimbledon is that it felt like Connors had played to the limits in the semi final against Borg, had a 2 set lead and eventually lost. Borg was pushed so hard, and was on the ropes, yet Borg recovered to win. Borg never felt in any such bother against McEnroe in the final, yet McEnroe beat Borg.

good points. lots going on in '81 F and SF both. Very interesting tournament.

 

[Drob]

number of tournaments won in two wildly different eras is irrelevant, I'm talking about who would actually win, Sampras 96 vs e.g McEnroe 84 with graphite at the Festhalle

So? Madrid plays different but still it is clay, do you really think Vilas was going to win us open on hard or grass?
I AM not saying Borg can't win but I am saying there is a possibility, why Borgs fans don't understand this Point.
Vilas AO wins were weak and Wilander beat good players to win AO.
It is not me, it is Borg fans who were bringing blind hypothetical that he is winning AO this and that.
I am Simply pointing out that like Us open losses ( even on clay) there is a chance he will loose on AO also.
This type of hypothetical Works on Rosewall who in his best 10 years never played Wimbledon but still manage to won other slam atleast once after 33 year of age

well, to extent he would have faced Wily at AO Borg would have taken him to the cleaners - as he did everywhere after 1975

 

[Racquet_smash]

I’m the last guy in the world to defend him, but what’s more impressive, him making 5 RG finals and possibly winning 2 or 3 if you flip a few points, or Nadal making one WTF F in 12 tries and getting destroyed in that one?

Nadal actually came much closer to winning the WTF (2 finals in about 10 appearences if i remember correctly) than Sampras did at RG (1 semifinal in 13 appearences).

Not to say that Nadal was a WTF world beater or anything but to show how poor Pete was in Paris across his career. 1 SF in more than a decade is horrible.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Borg has 11 slams across 3 tournaments. I don't understand why people refuse so much to add context to stats, even a 3 years could read a paper without any thinking.

 

[Drob]

Heck until very deep in his career you could have argued Becker >Nadal on all non clay surfaces but the suggestion Becker was better than Nadal inspite of that would be like a bad April Fools joke. So yeah that logic does not compute.

heck, sure.

i think i can name 20+ players > or arguably > Nadal on 3 of four surfaces, but of these only 3 can i say are overall > Nadal, w 2, maybe 3 at most ≈ Nadal overall. His Gargantuan superiority on 2nd most fundamental surface, it just cannot be overcome, but by three-five players. "No?" as Rafa would say

 

[Drob]

Sampras carpet peak is the highest of all times imho just together with Becker’s. His consistency is not great though. Only 77% matches won, lost to Muster in Essen 95, is 6-7 against Becker, lost a RR match in all his five YECs and is 2-5 in DC. If they played alongside each other I can well see Borg leading the H2H but Pete winning more titles on carpet.
Competition wise it is tough. Borg with Mac, Connors, Lendl. Pete with Becker, Courier, Edberg, Agassi, Stich. I think same as with HC competition, Pete had more depth, Borg had the tougher top opponents.

see your point. think maybe Petros tougher really.

both had tough on carpet. early Borg had late Rocket, Rosewall, peak Ashe. Peak Borg had peak Connors, Mac, early Lendl.

Pete had Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Safin, Forget, Krajicek, others

 

[Mustard]

No one cared about the slam record until Pete was about to pass Emerson. It’s revisionist history from people who don’t know about the game’s past who put him ahead solely because of that.

It was mentioned by Sports Illustrated when Borg was close to it (i.e. 1981), but far less of a big deal compared to the Sampras era.

The Sports Illustrated article was after Borg's win over Lendl in the 1981 French Open final. It said that Borg had just won his 11th major, that Roy Emerson had the record with 12, and that Wimbledon is coming up fast.

 

[GuyForget]

Borg was racking out lines in the Volkov match..

 

[GuyForget]

It was mentioned by Sports Illustrated when Borg was close to it (i.e. 1981), but far less of a big deal compared to the Sampras era.

The Sports Illustrated article was after Borg's win over Lendl in the 1981 French Open final. It said that Borg had just won his 11th major, that Roy Emerson had the record with 12, and that Wimbledon is coming up fast.

It wasn’t that big a deal in the 90s either, since Emerson was a sham candidate, and only Sampras was anywhere near it

 

[Drob]

Ahem. Rosewall won other slams yes but Borg also won other slams left right and centre while not playing AO. The AO during his time were played on grass so why exactly should his US Open results on clay and hard be more indicative to potential AO results than let’s say Wimbledon. It was not like today where both are played on HC and you can at least draw some conclusions. Of course there is always in every hypothetical the chance that he will win zero, but I find that extremely unlikely to say the least given how dominant he was for some years. Why Rosewall should get a pass and Borg not does not really resonate with me.

Rosewall had opprtunities in 1953-56; then 1968-71; then 1974 (age 39) = 9.

Borg had chances in 1973-81 = 9

for purposes of your argument point is good. i happen to think neither should be much diminished by these results. Put both up to any (virtually) one else and see who is diminished and who shines greatest

 

[Mustard]

It wasn’t that big a deal in the 90s either, since Emerson was a sham candidate, and only Sampras was anywhere near it

Pete Sampras said even in 1993-1994 that he wanted to break Roy Emerson's 12 majors record. Sampras eventually equalled it by winning 1999 Wimbledon, and broke it by winning 2000 Wimbledon.

 

[YellowFedBetter]

Nadal actually came much closer to winning the WTF (2 finals in about 10 appearences if i remember correctly) than Sampras did at RG (1 semifinal in 13 appearences).

Not to say that Nadal was a WTF world beater or anything but to show how poor Pete was in Paris across his career. 1 SF in more than a decade is horrible.

My bad, I always forget about 2010.

 

[Drob]

Sampras and Becker are the best carpet players of the open era (in that order,+it's not even close)

The carpet GOAT is quite clearly McEnroe

Lov'd to argue for Boris as carpet GOAT but you are both wrong.


Rod Laver first played a tournament on carpet at MSG in 1968, just shy of 30th birthday.
He won close on 30 open-era tournaments on carpet, more than a dozen of these M1000 approximates or higher.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Lov'd to argue for Boris as carpet GOAT but you are both wrong.


Rod Laver first played a tournament on carpet at MSG in 1968, just shy of 30th birthday.
He won close on 30 open-era tournaments on carpet, more than a dozen of these M1000 approximates or higher.

I usually talk about open era only players since there clear distinctions between the 2.

That being said Laver is a good mention, more so than Becker or Sampras.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

see your point. think maybe Petros tougher really.

both had tough on carpet. early Borg had late Rocket, Rosewall, peak Ashe. Peak Borg had peak Connors, Mac, early Lendl.

Pete had Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Safin, Forget, Krajicek, others

Now that I think about it I guess you are right. I thought Borg had the tougher top opponents and Pete more depth but Becker and Agassi are more or less on par with Connors/Mac and Lendl played both of them only for a short time. So one can say all in all Pete’s competition was maybe tougher by a hair (he played Becker also more often on carpet than Borg played Mac).

 

[medieval_remnant]

Borg was more consistent in the 1981 Wimbledon final compared to the 1980 Wimbledon final, but Borg did lose his knack of delivering on the big points in the 1981 Wimbledon final, like having 4 set points for a 2-1 sets lead and failing to take any of them. In the 1981 Wimbledon final, it never felt like Borg was outplayed, at least not exactly. In the 1980 Wimbledon final, Borg was outplayed for almost the whole of the first 2 sets, but then struck at the perfect moment when McEnroe was serving at 5-6 in the second set, and suddenly it was 1 set all. Borg controlled the momentum from that point up until serving for the match at 5-4 in the fourth set and having championship points. The rest is well known.

Also odd about 1981 Wimbledon is that it felt like Connors had played to the limits in the semi final against Borg, had a 2 set lead and eventually lost. Borg was pushed so hard, and was on the ropes, yet Borg recovered to win. Borg never felt in any such bother against McEnroe in the final, yet McEnroe beat Borg.

In 1981 Connors primed Borg for the final as Connors had primed McEnroe for the 1980 final

 

[jrepac]

Sampras and Becker are the best carpet players of the open era (in that order,+it's not even close)

that's not quite true when you look at it more closely...depends which stats you lean on

 

[Waves]

Don’t see Sampras as better than Borg. Both goats, and in addition Borg was a rockstar, though I think they have similar traits, Borg was just in the right place at the right time…or wrong, if that’s your perspective, lol.

 

[jrepac]

Don’t see Sampras as better than Borg. Both goats, and in addition Borg was a rockstar, though I think they have similar traits, Borg was just in the right place at the right time…or wrong, if that’s your perspective, lol.

It's really hard to choose....toss up! But 5 USOs for Pete, plus the W's? pretty hard to argue against that

 

[GuyForget]

that's not quite true when you look at it more closely...depends which stats you lean on

I don’t lean on stats, I lean on who would actually win

 

[jrepac]

I don’t lean on stats, I lean on who would actually win

and that's part of the story, but not the whole story.

 

[GuyForget]

8:38

 

[Drob]

8:38

candidate for greatest match in history - among matches recorded and watchable i mean

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Heck until very deep in his career you could have argued Becker >Nadal on all non clay surfaces but the suggestion Becker was better than Nadal inspite of that would be like a bad April Fools joke. So yeah that logic does not compute.

The scenario in which one player is better than the other on clay and the other is better on HC, grass and carpet is not particularly unusual.

Sampras is probably better than Nadal on outdoor/indoor HC, grass and carpet while Nadal is better "only" on clay but it's safe to say Nadal > Sampras.

 

[Drob]

Hope you chaps might still be interested in the Carpet sub-discussion.

Interesting to "seed" carpet competitors in a hypothetical Carpet Slam - pretty easy. Tournament not open to any player before Open era or to anyone after 2006.

I spent a few hours thinking and double checking tourney records.



I came up w suggested seedings up to 8 and possibilities to round out the 16 seeds. i don't believe in 32 seeds . . . i mean really don't believe that 32 seeds exist for any tournament.

Herewith Carpet Slam seedings annotated partly:

 

[Drob]

well i fu____ up transferring/copying from iPhone Notepad to this post and lost a lot of annotations.

1. Laver - approx 30 open era titles on carpet, mid-1968 to mid-1974; a good dozen at M1000-approx level or higher. (Higher would be Slam-like TCC and 2 or 3 of his US Pro Indoor were like

"the rocking pneumonia, I need a shot of rhythm and blues (woo)
I think I caught off the writer sitting down by the rhythm revue
Roll over, Beethoven, rocking in two by two"

Probably won a few on the then brand-new surface in '66-'67. The 2 or 3 guys who might actually know about carpet at any late Pro tourneys do not follow these threads anymore.)

2. Becker

3. Sampras

(Boris over Petros ???)


4. Lendl - won a good 45 carpet titles, some 30 or so "official" ATP acknowledged, but that is BS.
Won 5 YEC, the carpet Slam until early this century. 3 of these at 5-0 in RR, SF, F format, and 4-1 in 1988, losing F to Becker in arguably greatest match ever played that we can watch (like 1996 F that was posted but different style); in addition , about 15 of his ATP carpets were M1000-like or shade below. Plus, crucially, probably

HERE IS WHERE I LOST my stats. Was about Lendl's enormous carpet titles in HUGE BUCKS, TOUGH FIELDS independent tournaments.

i will carry on w seeds w/o the written summaries.

5. McEnroe
6. Rosewall

(Junior over Muscles ???)

7. Borg
8. Connors
9. Stich
10. Agassi
11. Ashe
12. Safin


Among To consider for last four seeds

Okker
Newk
Nasty
Smith
Mayotte
Edberg
Forget
Krajicek
Ivanisevic
Rafter

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg leads the h2h against all, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl on carpet. Given Connors and Mac are usually considered the best carpet players of the open era this swings things a lot in Bjorn's favour.

I think you mean Lendl here, right?

 

[Racquet_smash]

I think you mean Lendl here, right?

Borg barely played Lendl on carpet but i tought it was still worth pointing out.

Connors is definitely one of the very best carpet players tough.

 

[RS]

Why is Football considered to be better than Tennis.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg barely played Lendl on carpet but i tought it was still worth pointing out.

Connors is definitely one of the very best carpet players tough.

Connors is never rated as the best carpet player of the OE. It is typically Mac and Lendl as the most successful ones and Sampras and Becker for peak maybe.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Connors is never rated as the best carpet player of the OE. It is typically Mac and Lendl as the most successful ones and Sampras and Becker for peak maybe.

Connors is tied with McEnroe as far as overall haul goes.

McEnroe is #1 in terms of peak or archievements either way.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Connors is tied with McEnroe as far as overall haul goes.

McEnroe is #1 in terms of peak or archievements either way.

Borg is 5-3 against Mac on carpet. I don’t really see how his peak level was so high. What Pete showed in the 94 and 96 YEC finals against Becker, the 99 YEC final against Agassi or the 97 GSC against Rafter is a level I cannot see any version of Mac matching.

As for Connors: not sure what you mean he matches Mac’s overall haul. He has 33 titles on carpet while Mac has 43 and Lendl has 45. Connors has one YEC and two WCT, so he is even with Borg in titles at the two most important carpet tournaments of the era. He also trails most of the other greats in H2H, so no, he is far away of being anywhere near GOAT discussion on carpet.

 

[buscemi]

Borg is 5-3 against Mac on carpet. I don’t really see how his peak level was so high. What Pete showed in the 94 and 96 YEC finals against Becker, the 99 YEC final against Agassi or the 97 GSC against Rafter is a level I cannot see any version of Mac matching.

As for Connors: not sure what you mean he matches Mac’s overall haul. He has 33 titles on carpet while Mac has 43 and Lendl has 45. Connors has one YEC and two WCT, so he is even with Borg in titles at the two most important carpet tournaments of the era. He also trails most of the other greats in H2H, so no, he is far away of being anywhere near GOAT discussion on carpet.

I think most people would place Borg's peak on carpet as from early 1978 (just after he lost to Connors in the Masters final, when he won Birmingham)-early 1981 (when he won the Masters and before he lost to Gehring in Brussels). Borg was 5-2 against McEnroe during this period.

I think most people would place McEnroe's peal on carpet as from March 1981 (just after he lost 4 straight carpet matches at the Masters/Memphis, when he won Milan)-April 1985 (just after he won Chicago and before he lost in the WCT Finals to Nystrom). McEnroe was 1-0 against Borg during this period.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Borg is 5-3 against Mac on carpet. I don’t really see how his peak level was so high. What Pete showed in the 94 and 96 YEC finals against Becker, the 99 YEC final against Agassi or the 97 GSC against Rafter is a level I cannot see any version of Mac matching.

As for Connors: not sure what you mean he matches Mac’s overall haul. He has 33 titles on carpet while Mac has 43 and Lendl has 45. Connors has one YEC and two WCT, so he is even with Borg in titles at the two most important carpet tournaments of the era. He also trails most of the other greats in H2H, so no, he is far away of being anywhere near GOAT discussion on carpet.

McEnroe peaked after Borg retired. The 1984 season speaks for itself.

Also Connors has 43 titles, not 33 on carpet.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think most people would place Borg's peak on carpet as from early 1978 (just after he lost to Connors in the Masters final, when he won Birmingham)-early 1981 (when he won the Masters and before he lost to Gehring in Brussels). Borg was 5-2 against McEnroe during this period.

I think most people would place McEnroe's peal on carpet as from March 1981 (just after he lost 4 straight carpet matches at the Masters/Memphis, when he won Milan)-April 1985 (just after he won Chicago and before he lost in the WCT Finals to Nystrom). McEnroe was 1-0 against Borg during this period.

I know it wasn’t necessarily peak Mac whom Borg beat. But even in the unofficial matches from 82 on he still was only 2-3 against Mac on carpet and winning the very last one in the Suntory Cup in 83. Mac’s peak doesn’t strike me as much better than Borg’s. At their very best, I don’t think anyone can match Pete or Boris.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

McEnroe peaked after Borg retired. The 1984 season speaks for itself.

Also Connors has 43 titles, not 33 on carpet.

Still could match him until even 1983. What is your take on my Connors points?

 

[buscemi]

Mac’s peak doesn’t strike me as much better than Borg’s. At their very best, I don’t think anyone can match Pete or Boris.

I agree on the first point. The second point is tough to say b/c Pete and Boris had such better tech than the likes of McEnroe and Borg at their peaks. In terms of absolute level, yeah, Pete and Boris hit the highest highest. In the context of their eras, it's a closer call.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Still could match him until even 1983. What is your take on my Connors points?

I think you are vastly understimating Borg's level on carpet courts and overstimating Sampras'. Borg won 23 titles despite a relatively short career and had h2h advantage against pretty much every one of his major opponents on the surface. If anything him winning the h2h against Mac is a tastement of how good he was not the other way around. Sampras on the other hand had a quite poor winning % on carpet at only ~77% and won only 15 titles despite a decently long career.

As for Connors, as i said in other posts i value overall title haul a lot more than i do on other surfaces as there is no major tournament as there is on grass or clay. Here Connors has more tournaments won than Sampras and Becker put together.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

looked through Connors and Sampras' indoor records and was surprised to find that even with Connors' early career statpadding and long career, the raw big title rate favors Connors - 11 big titles/42 entries vs 9/38. it's even better for Connors when you only use the period when both were making finals - 11/34 vs 9/32. i wouldn't put too much stock in Connors' overall title count though - 18 of his 56 indoor titles were won without beating a top 20 opponent (only 4 of 23 for Sampras)

 

[Drob]

Junior over Muscles ???)

It is typically Mac and Lendl as the most successful ones

McEnroe is #1 in terms of peak or archievements either way

when i wondered if i had it right bet. The Brat and The Master, i weren't kidding or being capricious.

what secures 5th Seed to Junior is 23-1 Davis Cup singles on carpet.


Mac's tournament achievements are overrated and misunderstood i believe.

Remember that WCT Finals after 1977 was just a good tournament. it had no Slam-like aura, and no season-ending significance. Each of Mac's 5 WCT Finals titles are much lower in import/quality than the titles between 1971-77.

WCT as an independent entity and as a parallel, and at times, superior circuit ceased in 1978. After that WCT is just a little sliver of the Pro tour. It gets to hold a handful of tournaments that are one-offs. There is no WCT. The WCT Finals after 1977 is just a name for a tournament.

Now, it is a very good tournament most years. And combining the cachet of the name, a good purse and frequently strong fields, the WCT Finals 1978-89 should be seen as an M1000-approximate. But it no longer is quasi slam or even roughly equal to YEC.

Bringing me to YEC. Mac has one (1) 5-0 YEC. His other two were 3-round tournaments. The format was changed for a few years, not using the RR. Mac won two of his three YECs under this weak format.

In contrast Lendl only 1 YEC under candy-ass format, w four at undefeated 5-0 records.

Interestingly, all of Pete's five YEC and all Boris' three YEC came on 4-1 records. Neither managed to go undefeated.

the point however is Mac has 3 season-ending, not 8.

Then, counting the WCT Finals of Mac as M1000 approximates, counting other ATP- recognized carpets that deserve to be considered approximates, and adding a couple of his indy titles as equivalents, i get to 13 M1000-type carpet titles. One could argue for 2 or 3 more for sure.

So 13 + 3 YEC. = 16 BIG carpet titles.

That, as opposed to the last man any rational contender would choose to face in a major tournament? So i thought to give Rosewall the 5 spot. But the Mac DC carpet record is so impressive that it is worth at least two undefeated YEC, or two "Slams" on carpet. At least. So now Mac is back to very close w Lendl for the four seed.

But, the headline here is that most of the posters seem to assuming Mac's five WCT Finals are = 5 YEC when they definitely not.

The WCT Finals that deserve special status (quasi Slam or simply "major") are Rosewall (2); Smith, Newk, Ashe, Borg, Connors.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

when i wondered if i had it right bet. The Brat and The Master, i weren't kidding or being capricious.

what secures 5th Seed to Junior is 23-1 Davis Cup singles on carpet.


Mac's tournament achievements are overrated and misunderstood i believe.

Remember that WCT Finals after 1977 was just a good tournament. it had no Slam-like aura, and no season-ending significance. Each of Mac's 5 WCT Finals titles are much lower in import/quality than the titles between 1971-77.

WCT as an independent entity and as a parallel, and at times, superior circuit ceased in 1978. After that WCT is just a little sliver of the Pro tour. It gets to hold a handful of tournaments that are one-offs. There is no WCT. The WCT Finals after 1977 is just a name for a tournament.

Now, it is a very good tournament most years. And combining the cachet of the name, a good purse and frequently strong fields, the WCT Finals 1978-89 should be seen as an M1000-approximate. But it no longer is quasi slam or even roughly equal to YEC.

Bringing me to YEC. Mac has one (1) 5-0 YEC. His other two were 3-round tournaments. The format was changed for a few years, not using the RR. Mac won two of his three YECs under this weak format.

In contrast Lendl only 1 YEC under candy-ass format, w four at undefeated 5-0 records.

Interestingly, all of Pete's five YEC and all Boris' three YEC came on 4-1 records. Neither managed to go undefeated.

the point however is Mac has 3 season-ending, not 8.

Then, counting the WCT Finals of Mac as M1000 approximates, counting other ATP- recognized carpets that deserve to be considered approximates, and adding a couple of his indy titles as equivalents, i get to 13 M1000-type carpet titles. One could argue for 2 or 3 more for sure.

So 13 + 3 YEC. = 16 BIG carpet titles.

That, as opposed to the last man any rational contender would choose to face in a major tournament? So i thought to give Rosewall the 5 spot. But the Mac DC carpet record is so impressive that it is worth at least two undefeated YEC, or two "Slams" on carpet. At least. So now Mac is back to very close w Lendl for the four seed.

But, the headline here is that most of the posters seem to assuming Mac's five WCT Finals are = 5 YEC when they definitely not.

The WCT Finals that deserve special status (quasi Slam or simply "major") are Rosewall (2); Smith, Newk, Ashe, Borg, Connors.

yeah when i looked through Lendl and McEnroe's records i was surprised to see that Mac had only 3 Grand Prix YECs compared to Lendl's 5, with how people talk about them. even when we look at the WCT Finals, the 5 vs 2 edge in the main editions is weakened a bit by Lendl's 2 seasonal wins in '82. especially with that stat about the undefeated runs, feel like people just don't comprehend how fearsome peak Lendl was, especially indoors

 

[Dropshot777]

And I say more.

Agassi is in the same Status as Pete Sampras.

No, Dampras is exponentially better. I would put Borg/Sampras at the same level. Closely behind them in the all time goat list would be Laver at 6th and some combination of Connors/Lendl at 7th and 8th. Here is a rough idea of my top 10:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras & Borg tied
6. Laver
7. Connors
8. Lendl
9. McEnroe
10. Controversial pick, Edberg

 

[Drob]

especially with that stat about the undefeated runs, feel like people just don't comprehend how fearsome peak Lendl was, especially indoors

i was looking for that. Lendl won 62 consecutive indoor matches, something like that? is that about right? do you have details on it? Date range? do we know how many were on carpet? thx

 

[Dropshot777]

Lol what??

IDK but i feel like Mac's 1984 competition was not good. I think his dominant win against Connors looks overrated to me. Connors is way old(32) back then and don't think Connors best surface was grass. But credit to him he still beat Mac in 82 final and twice at Queens.

Borg crushed way better Connors twice in a row in Wimbledon. Obviously Match up are also important.

What Borg did to Connors i'm not sure any great ATG did to each other in all big events tournaments. I say this as i feel Connors is one of the most underrated player, bit unlucky too for both AO and lack of big outdoor HC imo. Probably one of the best HC player of all time.

For me Borg is one of the most unique, versatil and probably the most important tennis player of all time.

Agreed, the Borg/McenRoe/Connors/Newcome? era was one of the three best eras tennis has ever seen along with 90s and 2010s, and thank you for declaring Connors as underrated. He deserves so much more praise than he gets.

 

[pierceforehands]

looked through Connors and Sampras' indoor records and was surprised to find that even with Connors' early career statpadding and long career, the raw big title rate favors Connors - 11 big titles/42 entries vs 9/38. it's even better for Connors when you only use the period when both were making finals - 11/34 vs 9/32. i wouldn't put too much stock in Connors' overall title count though - 18 of his 56 indoor titles were won without beating a top 20 opponent (only 4 of 23 for Sampras)

Yes I think a lot of us, myself included, are sleeping on just how formidable Connors was on carpet or indoors. We are all talking about Sampras, Becker, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, but not really Connors which is a mistake.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

i was looking for that. Lendl won 62 consecutive indoor matches, something like that? is that about right? do you have details on it? Date range? do we know how many were on carpet? thx

"officially" it's 66 wins indoors (51 on carpet), and 14 titles (11 on carpet) before the Jan/Feb '83 loss in Philly to McEnroe, starting in Oct '81 in Basel (Jan '82 at YEC for carpet)

 

[Drob]

"officially" it's 66 wins indoors (51 on carpet), and 14 titles (11 on carpet) before the Jan/Feb '83 loss in Philly to McEnroe, starting in Oct '81 in Basel (Jan '82 at YEC for carpet)

Amazing. At that time especially. 51 straight carpet?

we always knew Ivan let the sun and wind bother him too much, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Drob]

officially" it's 66 wins

are you able to add on indy tournaments or other non-recognized-by-ATP to give a higher figure?

 

[Angrybirdstar]

are you able to add on indy tournaments or other non-recognized-by-ATP to give a higher figure?

unfortunately not, but wanted to account for possibility of Lendl playing/winning in unrecognized but relevant/prestigious tourneys given the era

 

[Drob]

probably the most important tennis player of all time.

curious as to why you say this. i actually agree. and there are but a handful of players you can call "most important" - as opposed to "best" or "most outstanding": Lenglen, Tilden, Kramer, Gibson, Borg . . . who else?

Why do you say Borg?

and who else?

Thanks.