 |
| Bjorn Borg - '73-81 |
Bjorn Borg's a former world #1 tennis player from Sweden widely considered to be one of the greatest in tennis history. Between '74 & '81 he became the 1st male pro to win 11 Grand Slam Open Era singles titles: 6 @ the French Open & 5 cons. @ Wimbledon. He won 3 YE Chps. & 15 GP Super Series titles.
Borg set numerous Open Era records that still stand, including winning 41% of the GS singles tourneys he entered & 90% of those matches, winning both the FO & Wimbl. for 3 cons. yrs, and winning 3 GS w/o losing a set. His total career match win rate of 82.74% remains in top 2 of the era.
per wiki: A teenage sensation at the start of his career, Borg's unprecedented stardom and consistent success helped propel the rising popularity of tennis during the 1970s. As a result, the professional tour became more lucrative, and in 1979 he was the 1st player to earn more than $1 million in prize money in a single season. He also made millions in endorsements throughout his career. However, the constant attention and pressure eventually caused burnout & his retirement at the age of 26.
 |
| Navratilova & Evert |
She won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, 31 major women's doubles titles (an all-time rec.), & 10 major MD's titles, marking the Open-Era rec. She won 20 Wimbledon titles, an all-time record. Navratilova holds the records for most singles titles (167) & doubles titles (177) in the Open Era. Her rec. as #1 in singles ('82–86) is the most dominant in pro tennis. She was ranked in the world's top 10 in singles for a rec. 20 cons. yrs ('75-94), a span which included 19 yrs top 5, 15 yrs top 3, & 7 years as #1.
Tennis Channel's Top 100 of all time:
ReplyDelete#10 - BJ King - 12 major titles (mother of the WTA)
# 9 - Chris Evert - 13 straight years winning a major
# 8 - Margaret Court - 62 Majors - (GS '70, 24 singles - 11 AO)
# 7 - Bjorn Borg - 6 FO & 5 straight Wimbledons
# 6 - Nadal - 10 majors incl. the career GS & Olympic Gold
# 5 - Sampras - 14 major titles (7 Wimbledons)
# 4 - Martina Navratilova (59 majors, 9 Wbldns, 167 Sgls,177 Dbls)
# 3 - Steffi Graf - 22 majors and an Olympic Gold Medal
# 2 - Rod Laver - 2 Grand Slams ('62 & '69)
# 1 - Roger Federer - 16 majors w/ a career GS
***Evert and Martina were ranked too high. I'm surprised Borg was ranked as high as he was but he deserved top 10. In those clips of Evert she sorta reminded me of Aggie, but she has more skills. Too bad Aggie wasn't in that era and had Evert been in this one she wouldn't have a slam, IMO.***
I'm hardly an Evert fan, but the reason she made the list and rightfully so was the same reason Martina Hingis made it; max'd out what they had! Their minds were their weapon! So many times Evert played against someone who had tons more talent like Hana Mandlikova, but she won most of their encounters, esp. in the majors losing only 3 or 4 X's in semi's! I never liked Evert and taped every defeat; esp. to Martina Navr.! Their only match I don't have and want desperately is their '81 semi from the USO! I'll catch it one of these days on a classic night; I can only hope! While I'm at it: "ordering '86 USO semi, Mecir over Becker!" Totally missed the comeback in 5!
***Of course Evert in her smug unfunny way said "I should be #1 on the list...just joking."***
In her mind she thinks it; I'm sure! 13 years with a major, 125 straight wins on clay, 18 majors, a few doubles titles w/ Navratilova, and had the most fierce and long rivalry ever in tennis! They played 80 times, a lot of finals, quite a few semi's when one was down in the rankings to Graf, Seles, & Austin, etc! After all is said and done, Martina edges her 43-37! That's historic and both had to be in the top 10!
Navratilova has everyone beat in most categories:
ReplyDelete- 30 odd years in the game, taking off '95-2000
- 167 singles and 177 doubles titles in total (59 majors in singles, dbls, & MD)
- Has the "Box Set" taking all titles at majors - 12 events; her last in MD at '06 USO (month short of 50)
- Won 6 majors in a row ('83 Wimbledon - '84 USO) - in 11 str. major finals
- Won all 3 events at '87 USO & at inaug. Lipton Int'l Chps in '85
- Record 74 matches won in a row (54 & 58 match winning streaks)
- WTA created a best 3 of 5 match to keep her on the court longer - VS Chp. '84
***Navr's overall #'s will prob. never be topped - truly the GOAT in many categories!***
---
When Martina really started dominating the WTA in '83, her matches barely lasted 40-45 min.! To keep her out on the court for at least an hour, they made the '84 VS Chp best 3 of 5 sets! It was a spirited match in the final, but Martina really just toyed with Evert winning fairly easily 6-3, 7-5, 6-1! The 1st couple years it was ok, but by the time Hingis, Seles, Sabatini, & Graf ruled the game, it was almost painful watching them run around for over 3 hrs & 4 or 5 sets!
***As someone born in the late 80's, I do not feel well enough informed to vote on this, Gramps.***
No offense taken! Just trying to learn you youngin's a few things about the history of the game! lol!
***Learn us good....but in all seriousness I wasn't aware those changes in the game (which, obviously, I was aware of) were so closely linked w/ individual players. That is interesting.***
***I do wish the top single players would play more dubs, like in the old days.***
ReplyDeleteIn the old days, it was a lot more common for top players to play doubles; and win! Even Bjorn Borg won some WCT events with G. Vilas! McEnroe obviously ruled for quite a while with Fleming! Raul Ramirez was #1 in singles and doubles at the same time as well; partner Brian Gottfried! You had more of a cast of characters they actually showed if time permitted! Matches weren't lasting 3+ hours routinely so it wasn't unusual to get some doubles exposure! Even though it's been well over 30 years, I have vivid memories of legendary teams like Newcombe/Roche, Hewitt/McMillan, Stewart/McNair, & even Connors/Nastase on occasion! The women were even more renowned w/ Navratilova/Shriver, King/Casals, Court/Wade, and Stove/Durr! We have some classic teams today, but you almost never see them! The singles matches run too long as it is; "no doubles for you!"
***Edberg was another top player who excelled at both singles and doubles. He won AO doubles in his farewell year on tour.***
His partner was the craziest of the Swedes; Anders Jarryd! He was an accomplished singles player taking Boris Becker to the limit in a rain-delayed semi at Wimbledon in '85!
***I really hated Adidas***
When I started out in the 70's, Fila was "The Wear" to have with Borg their top spokesperson! It was rich looking, tight fitting to the body, and was classic just using white, beige, and creme with accented piping & collars of green, red, & blue! Call it old fashioned, but I loved it! Too freakin' expensive though! The tariffs were brutal! Someone I taught tennis with bought me a warm up; such a waste at $235! That was probably on sale! That was a lot of money for something to sweat in and needing to dry clean!
***Damn you were rich in the 70s. My dad took me shopping the summer after we came to Canada, to a thrift store...bought me a blue pair of shorts, red canvas shoes (with traffic signs all over them), and a t-shirt; $11.***
We weren't rich, just comfortable! Back in the mid 70's tennis clothes were the only thing I wore; playing, teaching, and socially! I had a whole closet full of tennis shirts, shorts taking up 2 draws, and another full of wrist bands to match! The clothes lasted a lot longer than the rackets! I would make McEnroe proud with my tirades when I missed a shot! I was also a fan of Bjorn Borg's so for a while I played with his Bancroft racket strung at 76# of pressure! It was stressed enough with that tension in the strings, banging it on the ground didn't help much! lol! I have easily gone through 60 or more rackets over my career! Looked in storage and found a few of the oldies; a wood Garcia, an all fiberglass European model called Volkl (orange with blue zebra stripes), and an old aluminum "tear drop" Head Pro!
***Is novak the most mentally tough player ever?***
ReplyDeleteI'm going old school for my choices! For the men, Bjorn Borg had to be the most unflapable! I can't tell you how many times people thought they had him on the ropes, but even match point down, could come back and beat them; esp. in majors! For the ladies I'll have to go to Chris Evert! She's no favorite of mines with my thinking she almost killed women's tennis with the way little girls were emulating her style of play! Her strength was her mental stamina; willing to out last the best players of her generation; Goolagong, Navratilova, King, Court, Wade, Mandlikova, and others! I thought she was done by '85 with Navrailova "toying" with her, even on clay, but stay with it and won 2 more French Open titles; both over Navrratilova!
***Fiero...my first thought was Borg as well, but that little retirement incident says I just can't go there. How old was he when he retired? same as as Djokovic is now??***
Borg was only 26, but it was time; being on the circuit since he was 15! He won a lot in a very short period of time; sorta like Federer! He was burned out! As a teenager, he had to overcome the career endings of Laver, Newcombe, & Ashe, then peers like Connors, McEnroe, & Nastase reaching the top and staying there until he finally circummed mentally in '81! He didn't have the protection of 32 seeds in majors either taking on all comers on all surfaces, winning 2 Masters, 1 WCT title, 5 Wimbledons and 6 FO's! He did all that with a wood racket; sweet spot the size of a fist, if that at 80+#'s of string pressure!
***As far as mental toughness goes, I'd place Nole ahead of Rafa and Rafa ahead of Federer.***
I proved my impartiality by picking Evert who I loath! lol! I guess I'm more shocked you put Nole ahead of Rafa! That makes sense after '11 with 7 straight wins into '12 AO! - Borg was a fave of mines, but I witnessed some of the greatest escapes of all time including being 2 match points down to Jaime Fillol! In the 2nd round at the US Open in '76, I think Borg was down a couple breaks too and had to overcome best of 3, not BO5 in those early rounds on clay, 7-6 in the 3rd!
***Boris Becker: Federer would've been successful in Serve and Volley era. Nadal, Djokovic definite NO - Serve and volley had it's X, move on.***
Ya better hope it comes back! Tennis is almost unwatchable these days with 3-5 hour contests being routine! The women are no better w/ the constant toweling off, meditation @ the back of the court, & the incessant bouncing of the ball before both serves! Back "in the day" as people say, there was true drama out there on the court! The fans heart rate was up, palms were sweaty living, breathing, & dying on every pt in some matches; i.e. the longest day in '84! I agree baseliners of today would have serious problems w/ players who weren't as health conscience, could have pot-bellies, but playing their game, could still compete with the best of them! Lendl was the best during his reign from the baseline, but he had major heartburn w/ many of the greats; McEnroe, Edberg, & Becker! His only real rival playing him @ his own game was Wilander! Now everyone plays like that, hugging the baseline & taking their X btw pts! (yawn) "Hail Roger" who @ least attacks someX's!
***If you just go by the #'s, Graf, Navratilova, Evert have stronger claim than Federer; esp. Graf/Navr. Granted I would still put asterisk by Graf. I think Serena should be right around Sampras/Laver/Court, not quite with Fed/Navr./Graf/Evert yet. I really don't know where to place Nadal/Bjorg; my 2 faves.***
ReplyDeleteI feel your pain! Growing up in the 70's, Borg was THE MAN, but I softened over time finally giving the nod to Sampras until Federer came along! The women, I always thought Navratilova would be the best and she didn't embarrass that opinion! Even though Evert is no fave of mines, she has to remain above any of the current stars due to her longevity and consistency' winning at least 1 major 13 straight years! She had a lot more rivals over the years including BJK, Goolagong, Navratilova, Court, Wade; ending with Seles and Graf! A big ol' asterisk goes by Graf's name for obvious reasons! I've raised Serena as far as I can; #5 all time behind Navr., Graf, Court, & Evert! The men: Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Connors; imo for now!
---
...Evert was on the way out, Navratilova was in a funk in '88, Sabatini was a head-case, & Seles hadn't arrived yet! For the men, McEnroe was almost done along w/ Connors, Lendl & Wilander were winding down, & Edberg & Becker ruled w/ Agassi in waiting!
***167 single wins. Untouchable! 177 doubles wins. Untouchable! 86-1 in '83 - best single year winning % in history. Longest winning streak in history - 74 matches. 18 grand slam singles titles. 31 GS doubles titles. 8 YEC's. Are you kidding me? Martina Nav's records are Cy Young like. All respect due to Steffi - Most GS wins - 22 including the Golden Slam. Longest at #1 - 377 wks to Martina's 332 wks. But they were 9-9 head to head. 5-4 in GS with Martina having the edge. In terms of body of work and accomplishment, I don't think there is a close 2nd. To rank Martina 4th on this list is the biggest joke I've ever heard. She stands alone. - The GOAT: Martina Nav...***
Agreed! She has records that can't and won't be touched including winning 6 majors in a row, almost toying w/ her closest rival & other opponents in her prime, & winning her last major @ 50 (49 yrs, 11 mo) in MD; '06 USO!
***MARTINA NAVRATILOVA VS STEFFI GRAF - WHO IS THE GREATEST? - Navratilova. Its not even close.***
ReplyDeleteI don't know where those 2 votes came from! Graf has at least 4 titles at each major, but how fewer would she have had if Seles hadn't been stabbed? Martina still outclasses her with all those doubles' titles finishing at 59 GS at 49 years, 11 months at '06 USO Mx Dbl w/ Bryan!
***Doubles titles have NADA to do with singles, Fiero. Where Graf surpasses Navratilova is in the diversity of Slams won. Graf: 7 Wimbys, 6 RGs - Martina: 9 Wimbys, 2 RGs. So it's not even close. - Graf for those who know tennis.***
I wonder will you be consistent w/ your critique when I point out that Navratilova, like Federer was a lot older than her closest rival at the time, but still had a dominance at one major; USO beating Graf 4 of 5 times! By '91, many thought Navr. was past it even losing to Capriati at Wimbledon earlier that year! She came into USO ranked #5, but dropped to #6 in the seedings! She had only played WTT over the summer and didn't look sharp at all, but got thru Manuela Maleeva in 3 sets taking a tie-breaker in R16! Arantxa Sanchez-V had her down a set and a break, but managed to eek out 2 more TB in QF! By the semi's against Graf she was swinging freely, even on her backhand! Martina looked like a kid jumping on Steffi taking the 1 set in a tie-breaker, then breaking early in the 2nd! There was a horrible bad call serving for the match, but again she overcame adversity, mother time, and a much younger opponent winning in 3! In the final she finally ran out of gas losing 1st set TB to Seles, then succumbing 6-1 to finish off a good run for an old lady! I love tellin' that story! I read a magazine interview 20+ years ago with Steffi where she said Navratilova was "extraordinary!" She would know!
***Steffi Graf is the ONE. Martina changed the game for women forever, but she did get a later start on her championship career, and that's why she has less titles. Tennis is all about GS titles, and Graf owns it by a wide margin.***
59 majors is nothing to sneeze at, not to mention 167 singles titles to go along w/ 177 doubles! No one else, male or female is even close! Graf finished w/ 107 singles titles IIRC!
That's well behind Martina! When it comes to wide margins, Navratilova has it all over folks! Like Federer, she owns records that will never be broken!
***Navratilova played doubles &/mixed doubles in virtually every major she participated in. There were some tournaments where Navratilova played EVERY DAY yet still won the title... Playing dubs and MD's involves a different tennis game from playing singles. Navratilova truly mastered all 3 phases. She is one of only 2 tennis players to have the "box set" Grand Slam: all 4 major titles in singles, doubles and mixed doubles.***
***... Claiming the superiority of one by showing the alternatives are inferior as you claimed Martina did in trying to tear down others to inflate her own accomplishments. You are doing the same.***
ReplyDeleteJust proves my impartiality! Even though I think Martina is the GOAT, I'm not blind to her faults as some are on this board about their fave! Not trying to pull or incite anything, but we all know there are ostriches, then there are ostriches! I've been around too long to inflate and bestow greatness on someone I know is not! For a while I was giving it to Sampras, but we've all come to realize that was ridiculous since he didn't even play a FO final! We were looking at the #'s and totally dismissed that even though Laver was forced to miss 4 years in the last amateur days '64-67! He still earned 2 calender slams and a total of 11 majors! Roy Emerson had 12, but wasn't given as much credit for his majors since so many top players had gone pro! He was never in the discussion of Goat'dom even though his total was above Borg, Laver, and Lendl
***Nadal USO Record - Hey, Borg never won the USO either. = 2009: #3 seed: Semi-Final Loss to Del Potro, 2008: #1seed: Semi-Final Loss to Andy Murray, 2007: #2 seed: Fourth Round Loss to Ferrer, 2006: #2 seed: QF Loss to Youzhny, 2005: #2 seed: 3-RD Loss to Blake, 2004: Unseeded: 2-RD Loss to Roddick, 2003: Unseeded: 2-RD Loss to El Aynaoui***
You got it all covered! ITA; both he and Murray will probably be done if either make the semi! I won't write Federer off quite yet! He's saved his season before with a lone win at the USO! Hard to believe he has so many doubters since he is holding onto the AO title! That's more than most out there including Djokovic, Murray, DelPo, Roddick, and Davydenko! Fed may go out in a blaze of glory taking this USO and hanging it up like Sampras! It just depends if he still has the desire! Heaven knows he doesn't need the money! The family is dragging him down; talk about "hanger ons!" Shesshhh!
---
No one can compare to Navratilova! She was out there for 20+ years, winning until her last days on the court taking GS doubles titles! If you gave Serena, Venus, Steffi, or even Monica more years in their prime, they couldn't come close to her record! She was a great singles player, but obviously she's the best in doubles winning with whoever was free at the time! If it weren't for the ridiculous power generated by these new rackets, she could probably take most of these "chippies" now who think they are playing tennis! They aren't! It's something akin to "rollerball!" Just get out the lead balls, motorcycles, and some obstacles to jump!
***Ok, I was with you until you insulted the game. Tennis is a sport that has evolved just like every other sport. The men and women of today are still working hard just like the men and women of yester-year to stay competitive and achieve in the game of tennis as it is played today. So yes, they are playing tennis, not "rollerball". It may not be moon-ball, wooden racket tennis of the early 20th century, but it is still tennis, and you still have to beat the opponent on the other side of the net.
----
Navratilova had it all. Strength, ability, guts, courage, net game, serve, FH, BH, foot work, speed, intelligence, mental toughness,...I think the advantage Graf & Martina had to get better numbers than Serena is based on their physical condition. Graf & Navratilova rarely had injuries while Serena, like Venus, is always struggling with form. I blame it on the modern hard hitting style of today's tennis.***
No time in recent memory have we had the women's ranking hanging by a thread for so long! You had a blip of controversy mid '85 when Evert had won the Aussie Open at the end of '84, then the French Open! By the time of Wimbledon the points were so close they made co-#1's with Evert at the top of the draw and Martina Navratilova at the bottom! Martina was a little shaky playing almost perfect tennis for 3 years, had to start wearing glasses, and was probably just plain tired, but got thru the draw and beat Evert in a 3 set final! We need Henin back to put Serena back in her place! lol!! The rankings will clear itself up soon after! It's funny that so many people were beating up Safina for not winning anything! Well Serena has won those 2 GS's and the YEC, but she's as devoid of good X's as much as Safina was this past year! Have any of you ever seen anything like this? Too weird!
ReplyDelete---
***SW #1 - (11/07 - 3/09)***
Well I've changed my mind about the slams over the years due to how they've evolved! Back in my day, the French and Australian Opens weren't as big as the Masters; or even the WCT Championship! They've both come a long way in stature and have become the best believe it or not! The French actually gave more money back in the late '70's; Vilas & Borg got about $42,000+!! No one liked going down to Australian due to the distance and the court conditions; bad grass, very windy, and of course "bloody hot!" The only real game in town were the big 2, Wimbledon and the US Open!
The Open almost fell out of favor due to their own inconsistency; changing from grass, to clay, then finally to cement within 4 years! That was a real joke! That's the only reason Conners will be remembered for winning on 3 different surfaces during that period; '74 grass (Rosewall), '76 clay (Borg), '78 cement (Borg injured)!! So what I'm going to do is rate them from decades ago to now! The French Open really shows who's great in the long run since it's so hard to win; clay being an equalizer for the hard-hitters and players who are all serve and nothing much else! Wimbledon was always a joke until the last few years! Anyone could win just serving out of their minds back in my day! That's why so many upsets occur, with unseeded people making final!
The old days:
1) Wimbledon
2) U S Open
3) French Open
4) Australian Open
Now:
1) Australian Open
2) French Open
3) Wimbledon
4) US Open
-----
Saw John McEnroe on First Take today! They were asking him about the rivalry btw Federer and Nadal and who's the best of all X! Federer's already there just 1 behind Pete Sampras, but he thinks "Nadal can take over if he continues to play like he is now for a few more years!" He compared him to Borg in winning 4 of 4 French Opens; Borg won 6 of 8! He rates them Laver with 2 Grand Slams, Sampras (14 GS), then Federer(13 GS)! "Nadal can be added to that list soon!" I like that he was honest enough not to place himself in their company! Funny Conners in the conversation even though he's won more tournaments than any other men! He had too many weakness and was really just 'hanging on' those last few years I guess!
----
***List your worst tennis moments!***
1) Borg losing to Conners in 4 sets at '76 US Open (it was on clay; it was his time)
2) Borg losing to McEnroe in 4 sets at '81 Wimbledon ( sent him into retirement)
3) Martina Navratilova losing to Austin at '81 US Open
4) Martina losing to Helena Sukova at '84 AO (it whb 7 GS titles in a row; 6 will have to do I guess) - '83 Wimbledon thru '84 US Open
These were my 2 fave players of all time w/ Martina holding up her end winning more tournaments in the history of the game, men or women; singles and doubles! Bjorn Borg had to settle w/ 6 FO titles & 5 str. Wimbledons!
JMHO - Top 10 (OTTH)
ReplyDelete1. Fed = 18 Majors, 6 YEC's, over 300 wk. @ #1, & most of the recs he holds alone w/ a huge lead
2. Djokovic - 12 Majors & climbing, 5 YEC's, over 200 wk. @ #1, Nole-Slam, & holds most Masters recs.
3. Laver - 1 CYGS's, 5(11) Majors, consensus ATG due to being kept off tour 6 yrs in his prime due to turning pro before '68
4. Sampras - 14 Majors, ruled the Golden Age of Tennis w/ many rivals from the past, present, & future
5. Borg - 11 Majors, did major damage to the recordbk in just 8 pro yrs of play
6. Nadal - 14 Majors, but too many shortcomings of an ATG; too inconsistent over the yrs
7. Lendl - 1 of the most consistent #1 champs, played 8 str. USO finals, won 3 in a row w/ 8 total majors
8. Connors - won over 107 titles including 8 Majors; tenure near the top unprec. in Open tennis
9. McEnroe - wasted many yrs j/b'ing an angry SOB - had great yrs from '80-84 taking 7 Majors
10. Agassi - only b/c he has the CGS; 8 Majors - a huge waste of talent who just didn't give a damn until later in his career
***...- winning 7 or more Slams after 30th BD. That w/b Rosewall, @ least in the Open Era (Tilden won 9, but that was in the 20s & 30s). ...But consider that's the career total of McEnroe after an age in which many greats had already retired.
Open Era players w/ X Slams after turning 30:
7 - Rosewall
4 - Laver
3 - Agassi
2 - Connors, Wawrinka, Federer***
...Borg had been for the most part deified = w/o an AO or USO on his resume! Accomplishing what he did in just 8 yrs was worth such praise w/ 5 str. Wimbl's & 6 overall FO's! That's why the overall # wasn't made a big "to do" until Pete swept past everyone & set a new high @ 14 w/ surprise (Fed-like) win @ USO in '02 over his career pigeon, Agassi! The parallels are amazing except the pigeon won this X "down under!" Also we were ready to ANOINT Sampras as the best ever w/o a FO! ...I still place Laver & Borg up there w/ the "Big 3" due to what they accomplished @ the dawn of OPEN tennis!
***At the X of his retirement, Borg had more majors than any man in tennis history except Emerson & Laver (Borg was tied). Borg's slam count dwarfed that of anyone else in the Open era.
---
When/why in tennis did slams count matter? 1. Sampras was a downer for older fans attached to Laver & Borg. ...If we can say he's on his way, via slam count to being the GOAT... = got Mac to say Pete was the best all X fast court player. 2. Majors raised their payouts to a level where everyone wanted to play all 4 every yr. 3. Pete's 14 became a target. 4. On women's side - Graff's 22 achieved b/c of a stabbing & she played all 4 every yr, unlike Evert & Navratilova.
---
It didn't start w/ Sampras; started w/ Lendl. Lendl gave a famous press conference @ the Stratton Mountain, VT tourney in '86. He had lost early & said openly, "it doesn't matter, all that matters are the slams." He was really the 1st pro to speak of it openly. Sampras trained w/ Lendl in Greenwich preceding the USO of '90 when Pete actually beat him. Sampras has said a few X's over the yrs that Lendl impressed upon him the importance of winning majors.
---
...By that X Lendl was gathering titles everywhere. When he had won the USO in '86 he played Stuttgart on clay the following wk - & won.***
Lendl was the clear #1 & on his way to all X >ness & like Navratilova won the YEC twice that season since date moved for both tours to Nov.!
***The majors have always been the most important. I started playing & watching back in the mid-70s & Connors, Evert, Borg, & later McEnroe all stressed winning majors. Laver gen. attn. by winning all the majors as an amateur in '62 & again as a pro in '69. The AO was ignored a lit'l as some of the top players didn't play it in the 70s, but that changed in the 80s w/ Lendl, Sampras & Agassi.***
***- Most GS titles:
ReplyDelete1. Roger Federer 18* (CS)
2. Pete Sampras 14
= Rafael Nadal 14* (CS)
4. Novak Djokovic 12 (CS)*
5. Björn Borg 11
6. Andre Agassi 8 (CS)
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Jimmy Connors 8
- GS Finals:
1. Roger Federer 28*
2. Novak Djokovic 21*
= Rafael Nadal 21*
4. Ivan Lendl 19
5. Pete Sampras 18
6. Björn Borg 16
- Cons. GS Finals:
1. Federer 10
2. Federer 8
3. Djokovic 6
4. Nadal 5
5. Agassi 4
= Laver 4
= Djokovic 4
- GS SF's:
1. Federer 40*
2. Connors 31
= Djokovic 31*
4. Lendl 28
- Cons. GS SF's:
1. Federer 23
2. Djokovic 14
3. Lendl 10
4. Djokovic 8*
- GS QF's:
1. Federer 49*
2. Connors 41
3. Djokovic 37*
4. Agassi 36
5. Lendl 34
6 Nadal 30*
- Cons. GS QF's:
1. Federer 36
2. Djokovic 27*
3. Lendl 14
= Murray 14
5. Nadal 11
- All 4 Slams/Yr:
Rod Laver '69
- 3 Slams/Yr:
Connors '74
Wilander '88
Federer '04, 06, 07
Nadal '10
Djokovic '11, '15
- All 4 Slam Finals/Yr:
Federer '06, '07, '09
Djokovic '15
Laver '69
- All 4 Slam SF's/Yr:
Laver '69
Lendl '87
Federer '05-09
Nadal '08
Djokovic '11-13, '15
Murray '11
- Most cons. matches won @ 1 GS event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Federer (Wimbledon), 40 (41 if incl. wlk/ov in '07)
= Federer (US Open), 40
4. Nadal (French Open), 39
5. Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
- Most GS match wins:
1. Federer 314*
2. Connors 233
3. Djokovic 229*
Other Stuff
- YE Chps:
1. Federer 6
2. Lendl 5
= Sampras 5
= Djokovic 5
- Most YEC finals:
1. Federer 10
2. Lendl 9
3. Becker 8
4. Sampras 6
= Djokovic 6
- Most Wks @ #1:
1. Federer 302*
2. Sampras 286
3. Lendl 270
4. Connors 268
5. Djokovic 223*
- Cons, Wks @ #1:
1. Federer (1) 237
2. Connors (1) 160
3. Lendl (1) 157
4. Djokovic (1) 122
- YE #1:
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
= Djokovic 4
- Highest Season Winning %:
1. McEnroe ('84) .965 82–3
2. Connors ('74) .959 93–4
3. Federer ('05) .953 81–4
4. Federer ('06) .948 92–5
5. Borg ('79) .933 84–6
6. Djokovic('15) .932 82-6
7. Federer ('04) .925 74–6
= Lendl ('86) .925 74–6
9. Lendl ('85) .923 84–7
10. Lendl ('82) .922 106–9
11. Borg ('80) .921 70–6
= Djokovic ('11) .921 70-6
- Most ATP Titles:
1. Connors 109
2. Lendl 94
3. Federer 89*
4. McEnroe 77
5. Nadal 69*
6. Djokovic 67*
- Most match wins vs top 10: (- http://tennis-strangeforest.rhcloud.com/record?recordId=MatchesVsTop10Won -)
1. Federer 202*
2. Djokovic 180*
3. Lendl 161
4. Nadal 142*
- Most Master Series or =lent win:
1. Djokovic 30*
2. Nadal 28*
3. Federer 24*
4. Lendl 22
- Cons. Match Win Streak:
1. Guillermo Vilas 46 '77
2. Lendl 44 '81–82
3. Djokovic 43 '10–11
4. McEnroe 42 '84
5. Federer 41 '06–07
= Borg 41 '79–80
7. Borg 35 '78
= Muster 35 '95
= Federer 35 '05
10. Connors 33 '74
---
In actual fact, Wimbledon shares w/ the USO the least # of 1 X Slam winners in the Open Era. Both have 4 apiece compared to 6 for the AO & no < than 10 for RG.***
Well both AO & FO were stepchildren in comparison to the other majors where it was more likely to have an out of the imagination winner like Johansson "down under" in '02! I still remember the 1st real upset there when Mark Edmondson took out the defending champion Newcombe in '76! Wilander, Edberg, & Lendl made it fashionable to make the trip & it's been well attended by the top players ever since!
***Edmondson remains, to this day, the last Aussie to win the singles title @ the AO!***
***That was the aggressive case vs Borg & you've balanced it nicely. Borg won a couple smaller events over McEnroe & Connors on HC's, but did not play a lot of those events.
ReplyDelete---
...You don't really examine a lot of the arguments you present vs Borg; it's mostly surface-level stuff. He only competed in 42 HC tourneys in his career. 7 of 42 (76.0 match winning %) is pretty good when you consider that it's his worst surface, & 5 of those tourn. were during his absolutely ridiculous early-90's comeback. Borg didn't duck HC's, they just weren't around much back then. Out of the 193 ATP-recognized tourneys he played in, 21.7% were on HC's. If you look at tennis' surface timelines, about 24% of the tourneys from '72-81 were HC. Also bear in mind that HC's were nonexistent @ the majors for much of BB's career... only 14.8% of the GS tourneys he played were HC, bringing the overall % down.
...Borg's a lot like Djokovic of the past 5 yrs in the sense that he rarely played non-essential tourneys in his prime. ...To flatly state that Borg wouldn't win any HC majors today b/c he was blanked on a mere 4 attempts is very unconvincing.
---
Exactly. Lavers the Yoda of tennis. Rog's Anakin Skywalker, the only 1 w/ potential to surpass him. But potential does not mean he actually will. Fed, Laver, Borg, Gonzalez & Sampras comprise my tier 1 GOAT candidate list. By that I mean that there's a reasonable argument that any 1 of them c/b the single >est player of all X. Djokovic & Nadal are not quite in that tier, in my view.
---
...Laver, Lendl, Wilander & Kuerten were all >er on clay for sure, but I'm not sure if they were >er on clay. ...then we're just left w/ those boys being above Fed period & him not winning over them ever @ the FO. I don't think that's an entirely reasonable thing to say for sure. - Borg was a great athlete, extremely consistent, & could outlast most opps in his era on every surface...except HC's! That combined w/ his lack of size & power suggests that he couldn't be as successful in the modern era as say Nadal or Djokovic.***
No Borg? Only lost to 1 person in 8 FO runs winning 6! He was the Clay God before Nadal was = born!
***Borg was also clearly >er than Federer @ the FO & better. However, I don't think Borg would have completely shut out Fed @ the FO, but that's just me. Nadal had a unique shot not possible in the era of wood rackets that really troubled Fed. It's difficult to say if Borg would have Nadal's level of topspin in the modern era or if Fed playing in the 80s whh just as much trouble vs Borg's <er spin w/ wooden rackets. I think = adjusting for racket tech, Federer had a superior offensive game than any of the players Borg beat in his FO finals & probably comparable defense. - - Serena on her WAY to becoming the GOAT?
---
Connors had a nightmare run vs Borg from '79-81 that's why. - ...The double standards are strong. How's Fed not being punished in the H2H dept. for being 5 yrs older & consistent on his worst surface?
Connors was = in that rivalry til '78; you can forget about bringing up the entire H2H stories regarding how Borg 'turned it around' & reasons trying to convince me that Jimmy was playing his best tennis during that period when it's obvious that he was past his prime.***
Call me when Serena approaches 59 MAJORS which Navratilova owns in singles, dubs, & MxD! Same when it comes to tourneys won since w/o looking, Serena's 100 events behind in singles alone! We really need to get off the Serena bandwagon b/c she wasted so many yrs like Agassi; a lack of passion & not thinking of the consequences of slacking off during their careers! Serena can hang on as long as Martina, but she won't ever achieve 1/2 of what she did in the 70's, 80's, & 90's!
***Which ATG's w/b great champions across the board?
ReplyDelete-My short list is:
Sampras: Serve, athleticism, strong all court game, & well-oiled volleys vs a field that hit comparably hard as the current.
Federer: Gazelle like movement, GOAT hands, & no weaknesses except for a BH on clay v Nadal.
Laver: GOAT hands, easy movement, perfect volleys, every shot ITB - in fact he helped write the book. Give this guy a modern racket & his young legs & be wowed.
Nadal: Yes. Really. One of the best athletes tennis has ever known. He'll dominate RG in any era, & snag a Wimbledon or 2.
Bjorn Borg: Will win RG's in any era, may not dominate it if Nadal is in the field. Won Wimbledon in an era where S&V was the dominant style. He'll win a Wimbl. or 3 in any era. Immense speed, revolutionary FH, solid volleys, & anticipation make him a danger anywhere.
Becker: Pete-lite, w/ surprisingly great groundstrokes- a better BH than Petros - IMO. He'd snag X Wimbls & USO's in any era w/ that game.
...Lendl's BH would get shredded in either the S&V of the 50s/60s or the modern game. Djokovic's returns won't translate w/ a wooden racket, and Agassi's lack of mobility is going t/b a major hindrance in the early eras.
---
Borg & Federer are no-brainers as I would believe Tilden w/b.
Laver IMO w/b excellent b/c of his huge left arm & wrist strength. I do have some reservations about his height @ about 5'9," but he could handle high bouncing kick serves w/ his great wrist strength.
Pancho Gonzalez already had all the shots & @ about 6'3 1/2 in., he was a very good height for tennis & the high topspin of today. He was very mobile & agile w/ excellent movement. ...
===
Wimbledon '77 - Borg Vs Connors***
I never thought Borg had a chance against Connors' attacking game on that choppy, slick grass! When Bjorn won Wimbledon the yr before, it was only Nastase in the final & Borg took the tourney w/o the loss of a set! Everything just fell his way including his comp.; Connors upset by Tanner in the Qtrs! In '77, Borg skipped the FO & went into private seclusion practicing! It obviously did the trick since he got to the final vs Jimmy barely getting past Vitas in the semis in 5 grueling sets! In the final Bjorn got up 2 sets to 1 & I thought he'd be ok! Then there was a sea-change & Connors stole the 4th set! IIRC, Borg went up 4-0 in the 5th, but Connors charged back to tie it up! Connors double faulted @ 15-all & never won another pt, Bjorn closing him out 6-4! Bud Collins complimented Borg on returning all but 2 of Connors' serves & committed only 5 FH UFE's! In 5 sets on grass? I'm starting to think maybe I'm not remembering correctly & it mhb the following yr where Borg annihilated Connors in straights!
***They played 13 X's after that Wimbledon match in official matches - Borg winning 11 of them, including 9 str. after '78:
'81 USO SF Hard - Borg d Connors 6-2 7-5 6-4
'81 Wimbl. SF Grass - Borg d Connors 0-6 4-6 6-3 6-0 6-4
'81 ATP WTF's SF Carpet - Borg d Connors 6-4 6-7 6-3
'80 ATP WTF's 10 Carpet - Borg d Connors 3-6 6-3 7-6
'79 WCT Challenge Cup F Carpet - Borg d Connors 6-4 6-2 2-6 6-4
'79 Tokyo Indoor F Carpet - Borg d Connors 6-2 6-2
'79 Wimbledon SF Grass - Borg d Connors 6-2 6-3 6-2
'79 Las Vegas F Hard - Borg d Connors 6-3 6-2
'79 Pepsi GS CUP F Clay - Borg d Connors 6-2 6-3
'78 USO F Hard - Connors d Borg 6-4 6-2 6-2
'78 Wimbl. F Grass -n Borg d Connors 6-2 6-2 6-3
'78 Pepsi GS CUP F Clay - Borg d Connors 7-6 3-6 6-1
'78 ATP WTF's F Carpet - Connors d Borg 6-4 1-6 6-4
'77 Wimbl. F Grass - Borg d Connors 3-6 6-2 6-1 5-7 6-4
'77 Pepsi GS CUP F Clay -n Borg d Connors 6-4 5-7 6-3
'76 USO F Clay - Connors d Borg 6-4 3-6 7-6 6-4
'76 Palm Springs SF Hard - Connors d Borg 6-4 6-1
'75 USO SF Clay - Connors d Borg 7-5 7-5 7-5***
***..."Back in the day" everyone played whatever they liked & met each other < frequently. I've always been astonished that the Borg-McEnroe H2H is 7-7. They're considered a great rivalry?***
ReplyDelete...There were also X tours if you remember; ITF, WCT, & the GP Series! ...The FO went to NBC in '83! The women continued t/b delayed until noon here in Chgo! Those '85 & '86 finals killed me allowing w/ Martina allowing Evert 2 more majors after being owned for yrs!
***I'd rank Borg ahead of Lendl & Connors, = if every single statistical system I've seen ranks him below them. Actually, late last yr. I did an Open Era top 20 blog for "TF," & I had Borg ranked just behind Rafa, Pete & Novak, & just ahead of Lendl, McEnroe, & Connors.***
= w/ 4 extra FO's, I'd still put Borg ahead of Nadal due to his ability to leave the comfort of his best surface in Paris & w/ no tourney warmup, won 5 str. Wimbl.! Fedal's managed it 3 X's btw them, = w/ the homogenized courts! The imbalance continues in the rankings w/ Nadal woefully behind others @ #1 & no YEC's! ...I'd still place Rafa behind Nole w/ 3 < majors, but makes up for it w/ Masters 1000 dom., being #1 more consistently, & owning X YEC's!
***It really is a classic case of >er peak (Borg) vs. >er longevity (Lendl), but Lendl's peak was also very high. I also think Lendl played in a harder era; his prime overlapping sev. gens of greats in their prime yrs. Borg had to face a Connors & Vilas on one side, McEnroe/Lendl on the other, but Lendl had to face Connors/Vilas, Borg/McEnroe, but also Wilander/Edberg/Becker & Agassi/Courier/Sampras.***
I felt the same way about Nadal & Djokovic; Rafa w/ a few extra majors, but woefully behind Nole in other stats including titles, wks @ #1, & ability to defend off "dirt!" As Brit may have commiserated w/ me that Nole's past yr has really hurt the argument, but he still has X to recover; just as he did after '13!
===
The homogenized courts is why Borg's a legend & so revered by people in the know of tennis! The man was playing w/ a wood racket that had no real feel since the string tension made it a pane of glass! Borg also had to deal w/ grass that was lightning quick, choppy, & gave big servers a distinct advantage! He had to survive many like Tanner, V. Armitraj, & Dibley! Then there were the S & V specialist like McEnroe, Nastase, & Gerulaitis to overcome! He wound up owning the most relentless baseliner of his era, Connors in SF's & finals! Borg had to defeat these people X X's on terrible grass conditions, but survived making up his own immortality by winning 5 in a row; playing 6 finals str.!
***You made me nostalgic. Some of my earliest tennis memories are Borg fan-girling in '77 or so. ...I was someone who liked Pete so it didn't bother me that much, but man, there were a lot of snippy tennis purists who crapped all over the courts being too fast.***
Borg's 1st "Chan'l Slam" was in '78 after he skipped FO in '77 to allow his good buddy Vilas to have that bone! He completed the FO/SW19 combo 2 more X's in '79 & '80! It's still a rare feat since most great players seem to have a tough X winning in Paris! Connors & Sampras never played a final, McEnroe, Edberg, and others were always 1 match short! Yeah, the matches c/b boring, but it all depended on the players! Nothing was more entertaining than Gerulaitis & Borg in the '80 semi, going 5 gloriously long sets!
***In which era did Helen Moody play? How many GS singles titles did she win?***
ReplyDeleteNot enough to make me care! If people want to discount Court who straddled the am. & Open eras w/ a CYGS & was queen in her day, why would Moody's name come up? Moody was only invoked due to her Wimbledon rec. being surpassed or tied by BJK & Navratilova respectively! One by one, players were regarded "greater;" Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams! So forgive us who really don't regard Moody as influential; more in line w/ Lenglen who dominated, nary losing a set, much < a match! The >est today loses to a doubles' specialist when going for a CYGS 2 yrs ago! You have to say the level of athleticism's obviously superior to past eras!
***Agree w/ Fiero - can't really put Helen Wills Moody above Margaret Court. ...maybe a tad unfair, as there never really was the impact of a split pro/am tour in the women's game like there was in the men's. Court was indisputably the best player of her era.
Steffi Graf was always the GOAT for me, until Serena won her last major. It's close, but I'd edge toward Serena now.
1. S. Williams
2. S. Graf
3. M. Navratilova
4. C. Evert
5. M. Court
...I don't think anyone else warrants serious consid.***
1) Fed - 18 majors, CGS, 300+ wks @ #1, 7 Wimbl. & 5 str. USO's
2) Nadal - Won 10 FO's, 15 majors & OGCGS (OG in singl. & dubs)
3) Laver - 2 CYGS (1 am. 1 pro) - should have more majors (11) but for am. rules
4) Sampras - Held #1 ranking 6 yrs & won 7 Wimbl., 5 USO's, 2 AO's
5) Djokovic - Won Nole-Slam, 6 AO's, 12 majors, 5 YEC's, more TBD
6) B. Borg - Won 5 str. Wimbl. & 6 FO's (4 str.)
7) Agassi - OGCGS includ. 8 majors & OG in singles
8) Lendl - 8 majors & won 94 titles includ. 3 USO, 3 FO's, & 5 YEC's
9) Connors - Won 107 titles includ. 5 USO on 3 surfaces, 2 Wimbls., 1 AO
10) McEnroe - Won 7 majors includ. 3 Str. USO's, 4 overall - 3 Wimbl.
11) Emerson - Hon. mention winning 12 majors - (pre-Open era)
***Obviously talking all-X's problematic, b/c it's impossible to truly compare Wilding to Laver to Nadal. ...Greatness can only ever be relative to what the field is; we can't penalize them either - we can only compare them relative to their own eras.
...Chronological order:
10 Greatest of All Time
Tony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
B. Borg/J. McEnroe
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Honorable mentions to Lendl, Connors, Josiah Ritchie, Laurence Doherty, Riggs, & sev. others
---
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Rosewall
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
6. Djokovic
7. Lendl
8. Borg
9. McEnroe
10. Connors
I'd be happy ranking Lendl, Borg, & Mac in any order, but ahead of Connors & below Novak.
Agassi w/b next, then a drop to Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Murray, Vilas, Nastase, Ashe, & Courier to round out the top 20.
If Roger wins 2 more Slams, he passes Laver. They're already a close 1-2, but Laver's overall record & dominance is still >er.
Nadal may deserve t/b ahead of Rosewall, but his record is marred by inconsistency as it shows up in his relative low wks @ #1. But if he wins another Slam this yr &'s YE #1, I'd push him past Muscles. Novak also has a chance of surpassing Pete & Rosewall, but needs to bounce back in a big way. If I were to + Gonzales to this list, he'd be btw Fed & Rosewall.***
***- Open Era leaders after '18 Wimbl. -
ReplyDeleteMost GS titles: - player total
1 S. Williams 23
2 S. Graf 22
3 M. Navratilova 18
3 C. Evert 18
5 M. Court 11
6 M. Seles 9
7 B.J. King 8
8 J. Henin 7
8 E. Goolagong-C. 7
8 V. Williams 7
Most GS finals: - Rank Name Total
1 Evert 34
2 Navrátilová 32
3 Graf 31
4 S. Williams 30
5 Goolagong 18
6 V. Williams 14
7 Seles 13
8 Court 12
8 Hingis 12
8 King 12
Cal. Yr. GS:
Margaret Court ('70)
Steffi Graf ('88)
Cons. GS finals:
1. S. Graf 13
2. Navratilova 11
3. M. Court 6
3. C. Evert 6
3. M. Seles 6
6. S. Graf 5
6. M. Hingis 5
8. Navratilova 4
8. C. Evert 4
8. Sánchez 4
8. S. Williams 4
8. V. Williams 4
8. J. Henin 4
Most single titles: - Singles
1 Navratilova 167
2 C. Evert 157
3 S. Graf 107
4 M. Court 101
5 S. Williams 72
6 E. Goolagong 68
7 B.J. King 67
8 V. Wade 55
= L. Davenport 55
10 M. Seles 53
Most wks @ #1:
1 S. Graf 377
2 Navratilova 332
3 S. Williams 319
4 C. Evert 260
5 M. Hingis 209
6 M. Seles 178
7 J. Henin 117
8 L. Davenport 98
9 C. Wozniacki 67
10 V. Azarenka 51
Cons. wks @ #1:
1 S. Graf 186
= S. Williams 186
3 Navratilova 156
4 C. Evert 113
5 M. Seles 91
6 Navratilova 90
7 S. Graf 87
8 M. Hingis 80
9 C. Evert 76
10 M. Hingis 73
YE #1 players:
1 S. Graf 8
2 Navratilova 7
3 C. Evert 5
= S. Williams 5
5 L. Davenport 4
6 J. Henin 3
6 M. Hingis 3
6 M. Seles 3
9 C. Wozniacki 2
10 J. Jankovic 1
10 V. Azarenka 1
YE Chps:
1. M. Navratilova 8
2. S. Graf 5
= S. Williams 5
4. C. Evert 4
5. M. Seles 3
6. K. Clijsters 3
7. G. Sabatini 2
8. M. Hingis 2
9. E. Goolagong 2
10. J. Henin 2
All surface singles win %: - Rank Player W-L Win %
1 Court 593-56 91.37
2 Evert 1304-144 90.05
3 Graf 900-115 88.67
4 Navratilova 1442-219 86.82
5 Williams 794-133 85.65
6 Seles 595-122 82.98
7 Henin 525-115 82.03
8 King 695-155 81.76
9 Goolagong 704-165 81.01
Most singles won: - Player Wins
1 Navratilova 1442
2 Evert 1304
3 Graf 900
4 Wade 839
5 Williams 794
6 Williams 763
7 Sánchez-V. 759
8 Davenport 753
9 Martínez 739
10 Goolagong 704
Most match win streak (all): - Rank Player Matches
1 Navratilova 74
2 Graf 66
3 Navratilova 58
4 Court 57
5 Evert 55
6 Navratilova 54
7 Graf 46
8 Graf 45
9 Graf 44
10 Navratilova 41
Most cons. singles titles:
1. 13 - Navratilova ('84)
2. 12 - Court ('72-73)
3. 11 - Graf ('89-90)
4. 10 - Evert ('74)
5. 9 - Navratilova ('86)
5. 9 - Court ('70)
7. 8 - Graf ('88 )
7. 8 - Navratilova ('83)
Best Yr. singles win %:
1 Navratilova 98.9
2 Graf 97.7
3 Navratilova 97.5
4 Graf 97.4
5 Navratilova 96.8
6 Navratilova 96.7
7 Graf 96
8 Court 95.3
9 S. Williams 95.1
10 Evert 94.9
Most cons. yrs w/ @ least 1 Sing. title:
1. 21 - Navratilova ('74-94)
2. 18 - Evert ('71-88 )
3. 14 - Graf ('86-99)
4. 11 - Sharapova ('03-13)
4. 11 - Goolagong-C. ('70-80)
4. 11 - V. Wade ('68-78 )
7. 9 - S. Cecchini ('84-92)
7. 9 - M. Court ('68-76)
7. 9 - L. Davenport ('93-01)
7. 9 - C. Martinez ('88-96)
7. 9 - Sanchez-V. ('88-96)
Most sing. titles in a yr:
1. 21 - Court ('70)
2. 18 - Court ('69, '73)
3. 17 - B.J. King ('71)
4. 16 - Evert ('74, '75)
4. 16 - Navratilova ('83)
6. 15 - Goolagong-C. ('70)
6. 15 - Navratilova ('82)
8. 14 - Court ('68 )
8. 14 - S. Graf ('89)
8. 14 - Navratilova (1986)
11. 13 - Navratilova ('84)
12. 12 - C. Evert ('73, '76)
12. 12 - Goolagong-C. ('71)
12. 12 - Navratilova ('85)
12. 12 - M. Hingis ('97)
16. 11 - T. Austin ('80)
16. 11 - C. Evert ('77)
16. 11 - S. Graf ('87, '88 )
16. 11 - Navratilova ('78, '79)
16. 11 - S. Williams ('13)***
Thx!
***Borg was admittedly burned out after the '81 USO, but it doesn’t seem as if @ 1st he thought it was > than just an extended sabbatical. People forget Borg was winning DC matches @ the insane age of 15/16 & was playing on the tour soon afterward. He beat Ashe @ the USO on grass by age 17, then won the French by 18. He won 5 str. Wimbls. by age 24. He had like 11 yrs on the tour by age 25.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened was he decided he wouldn’t return to a full sched. Borg wanted to play MC & the tennis powers insisted that if he didn’t commit to their mandatory x # of tourns. entered he would have to play the friggin qual. Rds of the tournaments. Borg said “screw that” & THEN the sabbatical became permanent.
There are a lot of ironies in the Borg/McEnroe saga; not the least was Mac bemoaning Borg retiring early @ 25 & depriving them of future matches/motivation, & yet Mac himself never won a Major past the age of 25. Both players were dogged for yrs of rumors of drug/coke usage, to which Mac subsequently admitted to. Borg did invest in a struggling clothing line named after himself that ate millions of $$$; don’t know if he did spend a lot on drugs/Coke, but you can certainly lose your shirt on bad business deals.***
Thanks! People need to know this is why Borg retired early! Besides being just plain burned out after so many yrs of winning, the ATP were being real a-holes & wouldn't grant him much needed X off! He would've likely won sev. more FO's alone! He was the un??'ed King of clay; only 1 person having the game to defeat him on his home court @ RG, Adriano Panatta! He was Borg's Soderling! Some had the notion McEnroe ran him off the tour after defeating him in '81's Wimbl. & USO; total BS! They were rivals & friends! IIRC they were like Graf & Navratilova & were "even-Steven" (7-7) in their recs vs one another! I also remember that clothing line was on a ship that sunk & wasn't insured which also contributed to his financial difficulties! They didn't make real $$ on tour or w/ endorsements the way they do now! If in the top echelons of tennis back in the 70's, you were lucky to gross $200,000 on the tour! He should've done like Connors & "whored" himself out for "winner take all" exh., but didn't @ the X! I still haven't seen the Borg/McEnroe movie, so had no idea he had a drug problem! I thought his infatuation w/ an Italian singer (Loredana Bertè) was what sent him spiraling out of control, but I may never really know all, contributing to his mystique!
***Who had a >er prime, Borg or Federer? - Federer has the CGS, while Borg never won any single GS on HC's. But apparently, the CGS is irrelevant since "trolls" here are suggesting that Nadal doesn't have a >er prime than Borg. Fed has a far longer period of dom. But Borg doesn't have a losing H2H vs younger ATG rivals like McEnroe.
ReplyDelete---
Prime to Prime:
- Borg by a significant margin on clay
- Federer by a significant margin on USO/faster HC
- Federer indoors, clear enough margin, though not big
- Federer grass, small margin
---
The ?? is prime vs prime, not accomplishments. Keep in mind that their eras were completely different in terms of surface polarization, priorities regarding tournaments, etc. At the time of his retirement Borg was slightly more accomplished than Nadal @ the French & every bit as accomplished as Fed @ Wimbl. when they were the same age. This in itself is ridiculous, then factor in polarized conditions & you'll understand what kind of beast Borg was. As for his “failure” in winning a HC slam, I see no big difference to Fed on clay. Both were very good & consistent, but couldn’t win vs the GOAT candidates. Federer won his elusive clay slam, but he also had way more attempts. Had Borg caught a yr. w/o having to face Connors nor Mac, he very well could've won the USO as well. To compare them @ the AO is as pointless as saying Borg won more WCT Finals or any other tournament Federer never played.
All in all I think they are dead = in terms of domination during their prime if we neglect things like comp., surface polarization etc for the moment. Of course Federer had a more successful career, but this is largely due to his longevity & Borgs early retirement, not that he had a higher prime.
---
I think the last X Borg & Mac played, the American was barely 22 & started having the upper-hand in their encounters. Borg quit when their H2H was tied. I'm confident enough to bet my mortgage, had Borg kept playing, McEnroe would've passed & kept extending the H2H over Borg right up until '85. After which, Borg whb way past his best, so wouldn't really matter that JM fell off the cliff by then.
---
Have to keep in mind however that they never, not = once played on clay which would most likely be a Borg wins. They still played a couple of invit'l matches in '82 & Borg was very capable of holding his own, so it isn't likely that Mac would've won every match had Borg continued playing.
---
People, please. Borg was something ... Diff. X's. You can't really compare them. Borg was a reason I started watching tennis. Winning RG & Wbl. was amazing. How many X's he did it? Too many. People who do love tennis should watch his old matches & read about him. Had he played the AO on a reg. basis, well it could have been a different story. He could've won 22 majors. Everything was diff.. It was too much hassle to go to Australia. He was too young to retire, but it was his decision. You always talk about goats & cows, whatever ... Borg was very unique.
---
Borg was dominant when he played - I believe his GS winning % is the highest of any player - about 90%. His Slam rec. was 141-16 . He had 11 Slams by the X he was 25 & that was playing 3 or fewer slams a yr. Twice he wasn't allowed to play RG b/c he hadn't played enough tournaments up to that pt.; '77 & '82 when he wanted to come back. Unlucky @ the USO in '78 - played Connors in the final @ Flushing when he owned him, but had severe blisters on his hand & couldn't hold his racquet.
---
Borg was a tennis rockstar. Only other player to come close to that was Agassi. He burned out b/c that kind of following is just hard on someone. Otherwise I think he'd have put up some amazing career #'s. At his peak Borg was in almost every slam final from '78-81. Just like Fed from '04-07. So I think you'd have to consider them =ly dom. @ their peaks. Borg just doesn't have AO credentials.***
***While @ Wimbl. & RG some important all X stars are missing among the winners (history of AO's a joke), only Borg's missing from USO. From my POV, the history of USO's >er.***
ReplyDeleteBesides the skills of Borg's contemporaries, he was just very unlucky w/ the USO! So many things went against him there; the distractions of people & planes, the 1st Major to go to night play, & injuries from the shoulder in '77 & the thumb in '78! He couldn't keep from slamming his racket to the ground on serves & OH's in '78 final vs Connors! The actual court surface had gone thru so many metamorphosis during that period; from grass in '74, to Har-Tru clay '75-77, then to a "pain of glass" HC in '78! He was legitimately stopped by McEnroe in '80 & '81, but putting him vs the serve of Tanner in a night match, an official was looking for an upset in '79 QF!
***ITA w/ everything you write about Borg-USO. He was particularly unlucky. But I think w/ Wimbl., Bjorn was lucky to win 5 X's in a row. IDK if the misfortune USO v luck Wimbly is =. Wimbl. is the most famous & important tourn. of all.
---
Fed's playing style's nothing new. …***
Borg was the 1st player to exploit massive topspin. (Gonzales also used a heavy topspin FH, but wasn't consistent.)
Borg was the 1st player to use a predominantly Baseline style of play to consistently win vs traditional S & V players.
Borg was the 1st player to sign multi-million $$ endorsement contracts w/ tennis equipment & tennis clothing manufacturers.
Borg was pretty much responsible for bringing an entirely new group of younger fans - esp. younger women to the sport.
Borg's "Aura?" LOL! No other player in the history of the sport attracted as much attention & mystery as Borg.
And if you don't believe me, just watch the Borg / McEnroe movie. While the producers have dramatised a lot of the story, the character aspects of Borg are pretty much spot on. The way he's portrayed in that movie is very similar to the way he was viewed in real life.
No doubt, someone, someday will make a movie about the Fed / Nadal rivalry. But it'll prob. be Nadal that gets the "Mystery" treatment. Fed's very much an open book. I don't recall ever seeing Roger being treated like he was a member of The Beatles. Of course that's not Roger's fault. The modern world, social media, the internet, & everything that goes w/ it makes it very difficult for high profile sportspeople to have much of a private life now. It was a lot easier to maintain privacy in Borg's X. And that would've certainly helped + to his Aura!***
***What if Bjorn Borg hadn't retired after '81 season? He played a tourn. in next 3 yrs ('82-84), & then his "comeback" attempt in the early 90s. He had the most Slams (11) & titles (64) of any player in tennis history thru age 25 (Slams, @ least, titles may only be Open Era).
ReplyDelete...I think he would've prob. been able to maintain peak form @ least for a few more yrs thru age 28 or so ('84). ...1st of all, both elements were relatively gradual shifts in the 80s. There was no real before & after date for the graphite racquet, which had already been around for yrs. The power game didn't really take hold until the 90s.
So let's assume ...:
'82-84 (age 26-28, still prime form)
'85-87 (age 29-31, still very good, but slipping)
'88-90 (age 32-34, decline & retirement)
...how'd Borg have fared vs a prime Lendl, a young Wilander, Edberg, & Becker? We know how he played vs McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, but he didn't have to face the mid-80s version of Lendl who took him to 5 sets @ RG in '81, when Lendl was still sev. yrs from his prime. My guess is that he'd have struggled w/ peak Lendl & young Becker, esp. given that he whb entering his 30s as Becker showed up on the scene. But I do think he would've dom. Wilander & prob. @ least held his own vs Edberg.
...Borg - 11 Slams & 64 titles:
Connors (thru '77): 4 Slams, 61 titles
McEnroe (thru '84): 7 Slams, 59 titles
Sampras (thru '96): 8 Slams, 44 titles
Federer (thru '06): 9 Slams, 45 titles
Nadal (thru '11): 10 Slams, 46 titles
Djokovic (thru '12): 5 Slams, 34 titles
...Would Borg ever have played the AO? McEnroe did in '83, '85, & later on in '89-90, & '92. After a couple X's in the 70s, Connors never did.
Speculate ...
AO: I think he would've played it a couple X's & won it at least once, esp. given the relatively weak comp. of the 1st 1/2 of the 80s. Let's + +1 Slam.
RG: Borg's bread & butter. Not only would he have played it 8 or 9 more X's, but would've remained the fave @ least for the 1st few yrs. I like his chances over Wilander & Noah in '82-83, although the surging Lendl in '84 becomes more problematic. But let's say he wins 2 in those 3 years, & 1 more after. +3 Slams.
Wimbl.: Borg's 2nd best Slam, but Mac had overtaken him. I don't think we should assume that their rivalry wouldn't have re-balanced. Connors won the next one, w/ McEnroe winning 2 more, & then Becker 2 after that. I'd like to give Borg more, but I think he only wins 1 more Wimbl. +1 Slam.
USO: Borg's White Whale. Connors won the next 2, then Mac, then Lendl 2. I think Borg would've wrestled 1 away from Jimmy. +1 Slam.
So that's +6 Slams, bringing his total to 17 for his career. I'd say there's an over/under of 1-2, w/ a likely range of 15-18 Slams. + in 30-40 more titles & finish w/ 15-18 Slams, around 100 titles, & the best career resume other than Fed (so far).
...The 3 players prob. most -ly impacted by Borg continuing to play w/b Connors, Wilander, & Noah. I figure that Connors & Wilander would've @ least 2 fewer Slams, & Noah lose his 1 Slam. I don't see Lendl or Becker all that impacted, maybe Edberg, & presumably not Agassi or Sampras @ all. How'd Borg's 2nd act have looked?
---
I think Borg would win 7 more slams, mostly from RG & Wimbl.***
***Pos. H2H @ 10+ matches
ReplyDelete1) Djokovic 100.0%
2) Sampras 95.0
3) Federer 94.5
4) Laver 94.1
5) Borg 93.7
6) Nadal 92.0
7) Lendl 91.3
8) Rosewall 85.7
9) Murray 84.2
10) McEnroe 83.3
11) Connors 82.1
12) Vilas 72.0
13) Ashe / Newcombe / Wilander / Agassi 71.4
17) Okker 68.7
18) Stich 66.7
19) Roddick 64.7
20) Edberg 63.6
Pos. H2H @ 5+ matches
1) Borg 97.6
2) Djokovic 96.9
3) Nadal 95.8
4) Borg 95.5
5) Connors 92.6
6) Federer 92.5
7) Sampras 92.1
8) Murray 91.5
9) Laver 90.0
10) Becker 89.5
11) McEnroe 89.1
12) Lendl 89.0
13) Agassi 83.3
14) Roddick 82.0
15) Vilas 81.8
16) Edberg 81.0
17) Ashe / Nastase 79.7
19) Okker 79.6
20) Newcombe / Hewitt 78.0
---
Weakest comp. was Navratilova in '82-84. '83 was still bar none the worst yr. in women's tennis history.***
It was hardly Martina's fault that she trained into a level the women had never seen! ...OTTH w/ those 18 single majors, you can't avoid her dom. in doubles acquiring = > of those as #1 for = > wks! How does one overlook 167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, 59 majors (the last @ age 50 @ USO w/ Bryan Bro), w/ a list of comp. right out of the HOF? She had to overcome & get thru some of the best no matter what any of you say! MN had to battle Court, Evert, BJK, Goolagong early as a kid, then had to get past the next wave w/ Graf, Seles, Sabatini, & a host of other phenoms!
***Steffi played vs Chrissy, Martina, Serena, & many others. I dont think people realize she played Martina Navr. 18 X's (9-9)
---
Graf & Navratilova are 13 yrs apart. Hardly contemporaries by any massive stretch. Saying Graf faced Navr.a is the =lent of saying Serena faced Graf. The only reason they played many < X's is Graf didn't opt to play until 37 & test herself well past her prime vs fellow greats the way Martina did. Or you might as well say Agassi & Fed were contemporaries, they are closer in age than Graf & Navratilova after all.
Chris & Serena are = > obvious, although under the ridiculous logic Graf gets credit for Serena as a contemporary, Serena would get the exact same credit, so in comparing the 2 or the 2 & their comp., it's moot.
---
If you look @ Nole's last 4 wins @ W.'14, he was pushed to the brink by Cilic early on B4 Fed took him the distance in the final. In '15, Anderson was on the edge of beating him in the 4th Rd. ...Had he not pulled off the clutch crossct. pass vs both of them, he could've lost both Wimbl. matches. It was that close. No such danger in his last 4 AO wins rel. to these Wimbl.***
Borg was just as much under the gun; > so since he played w/ wood on unforgiving, choppy grass! Champs survive & go on to win the title all the X! Becker in '89 was on the brink early in the USO & if not for a net cord that jumped over Rostagno's racket, Lendl might have an extra major listed in his column!
***...Most of the greats in the Open era until the 90s skipped AO for a long per. of X. You have to + the WCT finals winner which was way > important than AO. That's why comparing slam winners from Borg & Mac's era is unfair. You should also look at Slam win %. I believe Borg is #1.
ReplyDelete---
I agree w/ a lot about what you said, but I do have to + talking about Borg having the best Slam win % when he retired @ 25 basically & never exper. age & the natural decline that goes w/ that, is a totally meaning< stat for comparison. Lets say him play well into his 30s like Fedal, Djokovic, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, & = Sampras & see what his win % is. Heck let him = play until = 30 & see.
And of course due to Borg's decision to retire so young, there's no way he has the most slams, = if all 4 slams were fully attended by everyone, & he would still have been passed by the Big 3 all in slam ct. by now regard<. Although I do agree slam ct. is not everything, the reason he's not tops there is not the era, it is his extremely early retirement which was self imposed. Of course = if he had a much longer career, he prob. doesn't have a mark as high as people like Fedal now, & that w/b partly the < focus on the slams then, & everyone not = playing all 4 slams thing, but that did not = play out as far as it did.
While I do think Borg is very underrated these days by some people, it s/b noted the best aspects of his career are his sheer dom. of the overall game @ this peak including some intangibles, his dominance of the polar opposites of clay & grass, & his slam ct. So in his case there is only so much you can say it is only about slam ct., as his slam wins are one of his biggest strengths anyway. If it is not his slam wins & dom. @ his peak for sev. yrs, what else is it? It certainly is not his X @ #1- a mere 109 wks which is < 1/2 of his chief rival Jimmy Connors; PS- I def. do rate Borg over Connors all X, & only 2 YE #1's. And yes I know the rankings were fk'd up & didn't truly reflect the best player much of that X, but they're still a fact. It certainly isn't longevity for him, LOL! Despite his amazing joint Wimbl./FO feats which still haven't been matched by any player in history, it isn't mastering all surfaces or venues w/ his failure to win a HC slam (only 4 attempts) or a USO = w/ it being on his beloved clay 3 yrs. It is certainly not tourn. wins w/ only 64, again much < Connors or Lendl who I still rank as his clear inferior, despite them both trouncing Borg in many stats. In fact almost all stats except for ironically slam wins & best yr. performances. The "it isn't all about slam ct." is a far > convincing argument for say Navratilova or Evert than it is for Borg sadly. That is what happens when you retire @ 25.
---
Rankings were screwy back then. You make a lot of good pts. My pt. is that Slam ct. for players in that era is unfair as they only played 3. I agree w/ the slam % w/ Borg, but it is what it is. Most male players in the past were done competing for slams by 31 & 27 was their prime. As for Borg - the most under apprec. feat in tennis may be his RG titles on slow red clay while staying back all tournament & then going to Wimbl. on fast grass & S&V to 5 str. titles.***
The Rankings were a freakin' mess in the early days of Open tennis due to so many ruling bodies/authos include. the ITF, The WCT, USTA, & an indep. tour headlined by players like Connors & Nastase! I remember a guy was trying to calc. pts for Borg in the 70's, but he was missing 10 pts. from somewhere! It was a total guess on my part when I told him to look at "The Nations Cup;" > an exh./warm-up for the FO w/ the 8 top countries having a RR like Hopman Cup w/ 2 singles & a doubles match! Borg played & beat Vilas in 3 sets & he was given 10 pts = though all players didn't have a chance w/ the limited draw!
***Fed beat Nadal twice @ SW19. And Nadal's a >er player > anyone Borg faced. Borg also faced Nastase & Tanner.***
ReplyDeleteBorg got an early start preparing for Wimbl. due to his upset in Paris by Panatta! Bjorn ended up str.-setting the field thru the final vs Ilie in '76! The match w/ Tanner in '79 is what made "Breakfast @ Wimbledon!"
***But isn't that same for Fed in '06,'07,'08,'09? J/b he lost the final apart from '09 doesn't mean he got the Xtra X. He was there @ the RG til the end & then played the grass warmup B4 Wimbl.***
...Borg won FO, then traveled directly to Wimbl. to start training! He had "DAYS" until his 1st opening match! Most FO players who did well were in desp. strs. so soon trying to change surfaces on the fly! They were often upset @ Queens, then "gone too soon" in the 1st Rd. @ Wimbl., but somehow Borg escaped when grass was treacherous! Fed's had every brk poss. btw FO & Wmbl. w/ his very own "warm-up" event so I call BS on the comparison. Borg wins over Fed in the turnaround debate!
***GS Pts/ Slam:
1. Borg 1145
2. Laver 1057
3. Djokovic 995
4. Nadal 959
5. Federer 879
6. Rosewall 786
etc...
I like the article's descrip. of Borg as "Sandy Koufax in Wimbl. whites." Clearly this metric goes the other direction, biasing those who didn't play many Open Era Slams. Laver barely played 8 Slams after his great '69 season, despite being prob. the best player on tour for another 2 yrs, top 10 thru '75, & playing a few titles thru '79. We also haven't seen Rafa & Novak go thru a real decline phase yet, so their avgs will likely go down un< they retire soon. But they'll almost certainly remain > dom. > Roger by this metric.
---
McEnroe was red hot & had arrived in '79-81. Lendl had also arrived to win clay. He lost in 5 sets @ age 21 to Borg in RG. I saw him winning next FO if they played each other. Why Borg retired @ 25-26? Peaks of players = in those days ended @ 27-28. He literally ran away b/c people >er > him arrived & he knew he'd lose everything.***
He wasn't running away! He was burned out & the ATP wouldn't give him a brk as done w/ Fedalovic who w/ seniority can come & go as they please! They should thank BORG! He's the reason certain rules are now on the books!
***How can he be burned out @ 25-26? Connors played til 39. Why couldn't Borg take a brk from tennis? ...There's no excuse for being burned out @ 26 & then throwing tantrums & retiring.***
You pretend t/b so knowledgeable about tennis & its history! I shouldn't have to give you info already evidenced by Nadal in the same state! Borg was out there playing vs men @ 14-15 yo, playing Rafa's game w/o the tech! He was overcoming insurmountable odds in winning @ the X w/ the best SnV's of all X dogging his every step since he was the face of tennis! He was having to come back from the dead so many X's to win playing a very defensive style that was unusual! After a Borg 5 setter, you could feel the pain of the players who did none of the training they do today! Borg won 11 Majors in lit'l > > 8+ yrs which makes him one of the BOAT to this day! He was having troubles behind the scenes only touched on in that movie I still haven't seen w/ McEnroe! He was lit. burned out psychologically & it's amazing you can't see that = after all these yrs!
***Yes! Teenage prodigies do burnout early, but then the mark of a champ. is also to re-invent when new challenges arise. He shm modifications to his game, trained double hard & m/b taken a bit of a brk of a few months & returned w/ double vengeance.***
***Navratilova is superior to Graf for 2 reasons:
ReplyDelete01. Navratilova @ her peak never had any rivals who owned her, unlike Graf who struggled a lot w/ Monica Seles.
02. Navratilova @ her peak in singles was also a champ. doubles player, can't say the same about Graf. Now don't say that doubles don't have any bearing on GOAT. It does when we are discussing @ the >est level as to how good a tennis player's coordination was on court @ her peak w/ other teammates in a team match. This also matters.***
It begins & ends w/ Navratilova as far as I'm concerned! We can't just say her doubles rec. doesn't ct. toward her "owning" the OE w/ 59 Majors, winning 9 Wimbls., 167 Single titles, 177 in doubles, taking 6 majors in a row over her closest rival, & spanned a career @ the top from BJK & Goolagong to holding off the young 'uns Graf & Seles! Winning her last major @ 50 can't ever be surpassed!! Graf's rec. will always have an * behind it due to Seles being stabbed! Serena just doesn't have the body of work coming & going; lit. holding the women's tour hostage @ X's waiting for her to return after another extended, vol. absense! No other top pro ever did such a thing! How can she be thought the "GOAT" w/ 1/2 the rec. of Navratilova & Evert outside of Single Majors? Martina prob. would've won > singles majors if she wasn't so busy playing into the night in doubles to the very end of her career! It had to of taken a toll on her mental & physical energy over 30 yrs!
***True, Navratilova's hands down the GOAT. Serena isn't = close in doubles & that's a big gap. I just separated Serena b/c athleticism has gone up in the 21st Century & Serena stands tall in the modern era, so she too stands out in her own w/ the #'s & longevity. But no doubt Navratilova @ peak was quick w/ her hands. She's the GOAT if everything taken into acct., all IFs & BUTs considered.
We can def. make a case for Navratilova. What I'd like to + is that out of all the women we are talking here she's the only one who had to face another (borderline) GOAT candidate in Evert for almost all her career (on top of a young, but already very good Graf towards the end). Neither Graf nor Court nor Serena had anything comparable. Would Graf have won fewer slams w/ a healthy Monica around? Sure, but this holds true for every player if you throw another ATG in one of her best slam winning periods. Would that have reduced Graf to a 15 slam winner? Hell no.
---
On a pure technique level Hingis is "the one." Rarely misses BH's, & can place it anywhere from on the court. Martina has exquisite lobs (prob. the best along w/ Murray). & redirection abilities DTL the best. If you have to consider pace too, then Novak.***
Thinking back, I can still see Hingis hitting some "sky high" lobs that dropped on the baseline frustrating the best of them by being able to stay in a pt. when Amazons started to take over in the late 90's; The Wms, Capriati, Seles, Graf, & Davenporte OTTH!
***I think Djokovic's BH is the best. Not the > aesthetically pleasing, but that thing is efficient as Hell.***
That down the line wrist shot DTL over the >est part of the net is a thing of beauty &'s "$$," embarrassing the best of them standing there looking w/o a play!
***...Graf reached only 1 SF in her 1st 3 yrs on the tour & was able to make up so much ground w/ phenomenal #'s from '86 on.***
ReplyDeleteThe reversals of fortune comes into play w/ Graf & Navratilova! Steffi took out Martina 2 of 3 X's @ Wimbl., while MN def. SG 4 of 5 @ the USO! Strange; esp. their meeting in '91 when Martina was all but done! She hadn't played any WTA matches all Summer doing WTT after dropping QF to Capriati @ Wimbl.! It was a wonder she = got to that SF, but prevailed magnificently over Graf!
***Part of that was simply the luck of the draw & age. At USO, Steffi happened to meet Martina 2 X's B4 she gained her adult physique 15-16 yrs., but she never met MN @ Wimbl. B4 17. As for '91, Martina was by then a very rare anamoly. She was virtually the only S/V left in the game. Nobody played like her & if her 1st serve was going in, by the X a player in the 90's got a groove on their dipping return & passing shots/lobs she had the set.
---
The rel. importance of doubles in the era ***
All the top players competed; esp. the women! Evert got down & dirty partnering w/ the best to keep her from embarrassment! I can recall seeing her w/ Casal, Durr, Navratilova, & Morozova! Her teaming w/ Martina broke down when she started losing to her & admits it half-heartedly!
***Sukova was actually the kind of player that troubled Martina > Chris. Martina took a long X to get her passing shots & return grooved. Her BH pass was 'readable' so the tall, heavy hitting serve/ volleyers like Shriver, Sukova, & Mandlikova always got victories over Navratilova B4 they got 1 over Chris. ...Graf's 1st victory may fit the parameters, depending on whether she had reached her full adult ht. @ 16 in April of '86. ...Court's last win was B4 Evert's RG. Sukova's 1st was 6 months after Evert's last. Shriver got her's in '87 as did Hanika after they got any vs Martina.***
That Sukova match still makes me SMH! IIRC Martina took the 1st set 6-1, though it was highly contested! M. Court = said she left after the 1st set thinking "it's all over!" That ruined Martina's run of 6 Majors in a row & a comp. of her CYGS unfort.! Martina lost on that court many X's! Btw the choppy courts, trains, bugs, & wind, I guess she was lucky to win 3 X's!
---
Going back to '87 hurts! After Borg's retirement @ the end of '81, thinking of Martina going out so soon was disturbing! After a sensational run from the end of '81 thru'86, in '87 she was only getting to finals, but wasn't able to close them out! She finally won Wimbl. over Graf! It was so bizarre! ...Grass was no guarantee of sucess as she dropped a 1st set lead of 5-1, @ Eastborne losing to Sukova 6-7, 3-6! It could't be explained! Her season was salvaged by def. Graf again @ the USO, but was never the same player!
***MN was getting on in yrs. It’s always hard to watch these old warriors lose something in themselves. Martina once said that as players get older, they become > nervous. She said she found that strange, as if the opp. s/b the case & a players exper. should boost them, but as always, she was right. Only took her game t/b off a smidge, < assertive & sure, < athletic too, & players exploited it.
---
Martina was the ult. 'confidence' player. Everything about her game depended on her being confident that her first serve worked for her. So when her 2nd serve began t/b > & > 'defensive' landing short, & having virtually nothing on it, her service games lost potency, & that in turn put a lot of pressure on her return of serve to stay deep vs these hard hitting baseliners, which was never her great strength in the 1st place. In her era, depth on the return was not that vital b/c there wasn't enough power out there to take full advantage. Once Graf & then Seles hit the tour those days were over!***
***In the 90s, people didn't talk about McEnroe or Connors in this reverential way. That was reserved for 2 guys: Borg & Laver. Guys who weren't just impressive, but inspirational.
ReplyDeleteThen Pete kind of joined that group, but his lack of expressiveness prevented him from truly connecting. We never really felt like we 'knew' Pete & he didn't help that by becoming a near hermit after retirement. Laver & Borg still show up to way > stuff & they're > older (esp. Rocket).
And then Roger came along, taking "The Beautiful Game" to new athletic hts., while bringing some of Sampras' stoicism, but balancing it w/ a full range of human emotions that we all experienced along w/ him. That's why ppl idolize him & that's not going to change for a while. I can't see anyone filling his shoes for a long X, m/b ever @ffw2 @vive le beau jeu!
---
The only guy who transcended the sport > Fed was Borg. A supreme winner w/ style, class, & rockstar status. He was a huge cultural icon. Fed's the only guy who get's close. Thing about Borg is, this per. of X was actually pretty short. He walked away from the game very early, then tried to come back...and was terrible.
---
Fed never did anything like that. He only built on his successes, & when he couldn't, he re-doubled his efforts & never stopped trying. And for the > part, he was a top player to the end.
---
Sorry — Borg is obviously a legend, but he w/b but a footnote compared to Fed’s legacy.
---
Fed def. had a much >er career & >er impact on the game, but Borg, although short-lived, created a media frenzy wherever he went, he was a rockstar. There was also a per. where the players lost the match = B4 walking onto the court. They were in awe.
---
The awe factor @ RG was strong, but @ Wimby it was quite diff. Oddly enough, his 1st of his 5 str. title runs was the smoothest. From '77, his 1st defense, he had to go 5 in 6 of his 28 matches. Victor Amaya was almost a precursor to Ivo Karlovic, trying to oust a def. champion in 1R in '78, just one set away B4 Borg rallied to win in 5. In '76, B4 he had est. surface versatility, Borg did not drop a set. That was prob. a combo of overconfidence on the part of his opps & a fairly weak draw. When '77 rolled around, there was no overconfidence & he started to play a succession of players not intimidated to a level they weren’t ready to make Bjorn work for the wins.
---
Comparatively no, Borg was on the cover of all the fashion mags, had an entourage whenever he went, high sec., & screaming fans, >ly young girls following him wherever he went. It was always a circus w/ tons of media coverage.
---
Rosstour, don't get me wrong, but no, not @ the same level.
Federer had a long career, in his 1st 10 yrs., he was big, huge, in the tennis world, but not beyond that.
Later on he became what he is today, an icon.
Borg didn't take 15 yrs to become an icon, he was one from the get go.
Borg got invited to places w/ strict dress codes, & he showed up wearing jeans, & allowed in b/c he was Borg.
When Borg played, the place w/b swarmed w/ young females going crazy about him.
That never happened w/ Fed.
Both are icons, but w/ Fed there was never the frenzy that surrounded Borg, 2 diff. things.***
Thanks! ;-)
***With Serena's career over, we're left w/ a 3-headed GOAT: Navratilova, Graf, Serena, w/ Evert & Court a hair behind.
ReplyDeleteSuch a huge gap btw. those 4 (or 5) & everyone else.
...Serena, ...when she was on her game. Her career, while long, was erratic w/ lots of ups & downs. A > consistent Serena w/b the easy GOAT, but I don't think we can ignore the fact that she won < 1/2 the titles of Chris & Martina, & it took her longer to complete her Slam ct. > all of them:
Serena: 23 Slams in 19 yrs ('99-17)
Steffi: 22 Slams in 13 yrs ('87-99)
Martina: 18 Slams in 13 yrs ('78-90)
Chris: 18 Slams in 13 yrs ('74-86)
In Serena's 1st 13 yrs (w/ her 1st Slam), she won "only" 13.
Or we can parse it this way:
Serena: 23 Titles of 81 Slams played (28.4%)
Steffi: 22 Titles of 54 Slams played (40.7%)
Martina: 18 Titles of 67 Slams played (26.9%)
Evert: 18 Titles of 56 Slams played (32.1%)
Seles: 9 Titles of 31 Slams played (29.0%)...or 8 of her 1st 14 (57.1%)
And that's just Slams. Serena's low title total works vs her, & the other 3 match up well in rankings - & all were far > consistent.
...Steffi's flaws are 2-fold: A slightly shortened career, & the M. Seles prob. Meaning, how can she be the GOAT when she had been surpassed by another player in the middle of her peak? Does anyone actually think that '93-96 whh if tragedy hadn't struck Seles? In that case, we m/b talking about a Big 5.
OTOH, Seles' dom. over Steffi is a bit over-stated. She was 3-1 vs her in Slams in '90-92, but Steffi's win was a blowout & Seles' wins were all very close matches.
It is tempting to give it to Martina, but I think at their best, Steffi and Serena were more dominant.
So if I combine overall career rec. & peak dom., I've got to go w/....damn:
1. Steffi
2. Martina
3. Serena
4. Chris
5. Court
6. Seles
...and then King, Goolagong, Henin, Venus, Hingis in some form or fashion.
I don't like having Serena 3rd, but I can't imagine Steffi not in the top 2, & I don't want to slip Martina down to 4th. So I'm going w/ that for now.
---
ITA, esp. about Martina, but the CYGS's confined to a single cal. yr.; makings it so difficult. It was shocking to me when she lost that SF in '84, & I think her 6-in-a-row is one of the > achievements ever, certainly an evidence of how great & dom. she was @ her peak. The lack of a CYGS hasn't diminished her in any way.
---
At the X, though, Martina's Dec.'83 - AO'84 USO was widely considered a CYGS. It was only yrs. later that people retroactively removed the desig. I won't b/c to me, the def. of a CYGS is winning the AO, FO, Wimbl., & USO in that order. J/b the AO was moved to Dec. in the late 70s doesn't shift the start of the tennis yr. to FO for those yrs ('77 a "long" yr. & '86 a "short" yr.). To me, the tennis GS yr. begins w/ the AO & ends w/ the USO. I'll always consider the Dec. AO t/b the following GS yr. For me:
Jan.'77 AO = '77 GS yr.
Dec.'77 AO = '78 GS yr.
Martina's Dec.'83 AO win = '84 GS yr.
Martina's Dec.'84 AO loss = '85 GS yr.
Here's why:
1. In '77, if a player had won the Jan. AO, FO, Wimbl., & USO, but not the Dec. AO, should that negate the CYGS = though the player had won all 4 events during the yr.?
2. In '86, if a player had won the FO, Wimbl., & USO, but lost the AO B4 (Dec.'85) & after (Jan.'87), should that be considered a CYGS = though the player didn't win the AO?
---
The AO was only played in Dec. back then, there was no “Jan.'77 AO.” They wisely switched the tourn. back to to Jan. in '87.
...Martina’s achievements are so grand that she doesn’t need the CYGS t/b considered as great or >er > anyone who ever played. She’s fairly remarkably unique as it is.***
Thanks! ;-)
***I'm unimpressed w/ Martina's #'s below.
ReplyDeleteSlam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2. Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1. Court 83% 2. Graf 73.1% 3. Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2. Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
SF's conversion 1. Court 86.6% 2. Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QF's conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%
*Here a low # is a >er #
* % of slam losses - Rds 1-3 1. Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%
Martina's NEVER in the top 2 in any of these categories while Evert's among the top 2, 5 X's. Evert does substant. >er in every category, but 2 to win the same 18 slams & reach 2 > finals. Martina doesn't excel in any of these stats. I think you have to conclude that both Evert & Graf have >er GS success in singles > Martina.***
Many factors made Martina's development taking longer! Besides being exposed to the Western world & eating herself into oblivion, she was trying to overcome getting asylum, separation from her family, & subsequent citizenship in '81! She was terribly talented, but mentally she wasn't there until much later! When she got there, she ruled like few others in the past, delivering bread sticks & bagels to every match poss.! She was the reason they took the VS CHP to BO5 just to keep her on the court longer > an hr.! By '84, Navratilova was = toying w/ Evert on clay! I think what hurt her the > was overplaying! She played every poss. event, winning all 3 USO events in '87! It mhb worth it to have 377 total titles (167 sing., 177 doub.)! She has a BOX SET, finishing it up w/ '03 MxD win "down under!" (59 Majors in Pro Era won't ever be beat)
***Martina has 3 problems w/ these slam #'s above. 1. She took her sweet X getting her game & brain together from '73-77 reaching 2 slam finals in '75, & then nothing for 2 > yrs.
2. She has a major slump in '80 thru the early Summer of '81 dropping from #1 to #4 in the world & goes 7 cons. slams reaching only 1 final B4 she finally wins the Aussie of '81.
3. She plays 7 yrs from '87-94 only winning 1 slam the entire X.
I thought considering how often she beat Chris in slam finals that her conversion rate w/b excel., but it's not that > >er >than Evert's. That's b/c of course Evert takes her share of bites & Steffi takes her share, w/ Hana, Tracy, Goolagong, Seles, & Martinez nibbling as well. My pt.'s that Evert's singles slam rec.'s def. >er > Martina's. Martina didn't achieve anything > Evert & sustained a whole lot > losses & > of them earlier to do it. You have to include doubles & mixed in slams to get Martina up there, & then of course she soars w/ only Court in her league. but if you do that, then you might end up pushing Evert & Graf below King & Bueno.
---
Showing my age, but there were 2 matches in the same tourn. -Wimbl.'77. First was Evert playing Austin - ...1st intro. to the bane of any tennis fans life was men's match that went on 4ever! Then of course the Final & excitement of Virginia Wade winning.***
I couldn't have been happier for a player! I lived "Our Ginny's" public life where the British press was brutal & outrageous! Mentally, her people put her thru it! Then a challenge by some newbie called Sue Barker; all big FH! Her nerves being in chk began after her haircut! Usually in a bad bun for as long as recalled, but all of a sudden, she comes into Wimbl. w/ a whole new Doo! She cut & just let it blow & bounce in the wind like Steffi Graf later! ....Wade got thru to final & overcame "nerves of the moment" w/ the Queen onlooking, serenely came back in 3 sets to def. Navr.'s dubs's ptnr., Betty Stove!
***Slam results:
ReplyDeleteGS W-F-SF-QF (total Slams)
Evert: 18-16-18-2 (56)
Navratilova: 18-14-12-9 (67)
Graf: 22-8-6-5 (54)
Serena: 23-10-7-14 (81)
Now let's convert those to pt. values, using 10 pts. for a Slam win, 5 for a final, 3 for SF, & 1 for QF. We get:
Evert: 316
Nav'ova: 295
Graf: 283
Serena: 315
Now let's divide them by Slams played:
Evert: 5.6
Nav'ova: 4.4
Graf: 5.2
Serena: 3.9
In other words, Evert comes out ahead in both categories, in terms of how deep she went in Slams. It's absol. crazy that she reached the SF or >er in 52 of 56 Slams she played in...one of the > remarkable recs. in tennis history. ...in this regard, Evert shines.
---
Funny how dear @Fiero425 -- aka Captain Hyperbole (love you, Fiero) -- never gets on Martina about her being rel. mediocre for the last 7 yrs -- ...not to mention her brief lit'l comeback in the 2000s. Meaning, he doesn't extend the same "courtesy" he does to Roger (& prob. Rafa, c. '15-16).
More seriously, it is interesting how different their careers are, and how they mostly peaked at diff. X's. Monica was by far the > accomp. thru '92. She peaked as a teenager...although for specific, tragic reasons.
Chris prob. peaked in the 19-21 range, but had a very high plateau for a dec. after. Martina was slow to build up & didn't really peak until the latter 1/2 of her 20s. Steffi also peaked in the 19-21 range, but then again @ age 24-27.
Serena is all over the place. That early peak @ age 20-21, but then again in her late 20s, then again in her mid-30s.***
Players develop @ diff. rates; esp. when under the thumb of the USSR @ the X! IDK why you guys do this! It just embarrasses you when I pt. out the oppr. & what Eastern Euros had to deal w/ back in the early pro days! I also think her playing doubles so much hurt her in some of those longer major finals! She lit. sabotaged herself by overplaying!
***Well I'll give you that...being raised in the Czechoslovakia of the 1950s-60s is quite diff. > the US. But, wealth is wealth, to some degree, & > tennis players were born & raised wealthy.
Anyhow, Martina was still a very good singles player until the end. The 90s had some really good female players - not just Graf & Seles, but Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Capriati, etc. She was holding her own, finishing #8 = in her last yr. 1988-94 for her was pretty similar to Roger from '14-21.***
Martina had to overcome sev. waves of > players! Early on it was the est. stars like BJK, Court, Wade, & Goolagong w/ a newbie in tow, Evert! For a while it was just Chris & Martina w/ the next wave of Czech players in Mandlikova, Sukova, & Novotna! Then along comes Graf, Sabatini, then Seles @ the end of the 80's! It's a wonder Martina wasn't run off long B4 that last Wimbl. final in '94, just 20 yrs. after her debut vs Evert in Akron! Her doubles play kept her relevant to the last! No one will ever come close to Nav'ova's #'s! OTTH w/ 59 Major titles, 167 single chp., 177 in doubles, 7 YE #1's, a Box Set, & 2 CGS (6 majors in a row), & being the only player over 200 wks @ #1 in both singles (332 wks) & doubles!
***Limiting to under 25 as Borg retired @ the end of '81. Their careers are remarkably similar though - born 30 yrs. apart almost exactly (3 June vs 6 June 3 day diff.) - youth prodigies who were unbeatable on clay yet also saw success on grass & other surfaces, & had iconic rivalries w/ other ATGs @ the X.
ReplyDeleteBorg from '74-81: 11 Slams - 6 RG, 5 WB, 3 YECs, 2 YE #1s, 109 wks. @ #1
Nadal from '04-12: 10 Slams - 6 RGs, 2 WB, 1 AO, 1 USO, 2 YE #1s, 102 wks. @ #1
Borg was forced into retirement by a much diff. set of circumstances > a player'd see today. However his early career stacks up w/ anyone’s accomplishments @ age 25 in tennis history. If we limit to just 25 & under w/ Nadal who w/b regarded as the >er player?
---
Borg competed in 3 slams per yr. only, as the AO was as prestigious & important as Beijing is today. He still managed to end up w/ > majors.
He was also the real #1 in '78 and had a monstrous season, regardless of that idiotic computer ranking system back in the day, so YE #1s s/b 3 for Borg.
What separates them is the >est diff. is Borg's ability to dom. the tour for 3 cons. yrs., Nadal never had such a streak in his career.
BTW, Bjorn won the Masters twice (b2b), so YECs s/b 2 for Borg. You were prob. counting the WCT Finals he won in '76, but that's a diff. tourn.
---
Borg won 3 end of yr. chps. - 2 End of YE Masters chps. + 1 WCT final. I think Borg had a bit > breadth in terms of surface adaption - truly fast surfaces like fast grass & fast indoor carpet to Clay. Whereas Nadal has won on slow medium HC's & medium-paced grass & clay.
I think it is very telling that Borg has a superior H2H over McEnroe on Indoor (of which it was mostly indoor carpet then) when McEnroe was prob. the co-#1 of Indoor (w/ Lendl) for the '80's. Borg could play really well on very fast surfaces.
We don't know enough about Borg on outdoor hard, except to say he beat McEnroe on outdoor hard in Canada in '79 & of the 4 Slam HC tourns. he entered (USO '78, '79, '80, '81), he made the final in 3 of them.***
***The Retirement of Bjorn Borg:
ReplyDeleteIn 1982, Bjorn Borg, the defending champion and holder of six French Open titles, was refused direct entry into Roland Garros. If he cared to compete, he was told he’d have to qualify for the tournament. While there’s little doubt that he would have won his way into the main draw, he declined to do so. “Stubborn as a square-headed Swede,” as the saying goes, Borg dug in his heels and as a point of pride wouldn’t participate in the qualies. He did exactly the same thing at Wimbledon where the All England Club were just as Draconian as the French, convinced that as the winner of five titles and a finalist for the sixth straight year in 1981, he deserved a direct route to Centre Court, which he virtually owned.
It’s crucial to recall what crime Bjorn Borg had committed to get banned from the Grand Slams. He wasn’t guilty of a doping offense. He hadn’t spat in an opponent’s face, a la Ilie Nastase. He hadn’t thrown histrionic conniption fits a la John McEnroe. No, he had simply done what Roger Federer is did. As a reigning champion and future Hall of Famer, he decided that he preferred to limit his schedule and play only those tournaments that suited him. But a bunch of bureaucratic suits decreed that he had to compete in a minimum of ten tournaments in addition to the Grand Slams. When he wouldn’t bend to this dictate, he found himself faced with an ultimatum – take it or leave it.
Borg left it! You can’t really say that he retired. Pig-headed tennis authorities ran him out of the game. They accused him of selfishness, as did some players and many journalists who wrote that he demanded preferential treatment so that he could go on a shopping expedition for Grand Slam titles.
All of this sounds woefully stupid and unfair now. Borg received the worst punishment; his career was cut short in mid-stream. But tennis fans also suffered, and never got a chance to see one of history’s greatest competitors continue his confrontations with McEnroe and Connors. The game was poorer for his absence, and one can only ponder the imponderable. How many major titles would the Swede had won if he had played on til 35 like Roger, or 31 like Rafa? To put it slightly differently, consider Roger’s and Rafa’s records. If they had been shouldered aside at the age of 26, tennis history would have been dramatically different.***
Thanks! I lived it though! I was watching '82 YE Masters Chp. in NY when it was announced by a shocked Tony Trabert & Pat Summerall that Borg had retired! Those idiots actually allowed him to walk away! In 1990 the rules changed so that Sr. players had the option of skipping Majors & Masters events! Too little, too late for Bjorn, but Heaven knows the Big 3 has taken advantage of it! ;-)
***Did Borg actually care about Laver's 11 Slams (or other recs., pro slam dom., etc)?***
ReplyDeleteBack in the 70's I can tell in the new pro ranks starting in '68, they just didn't think of a major's ct. being important or they all would've played the FO & AO! Many top players like Connors, Borg, & McEnroe skipped AO until Lendl, Wilander, & Edberg started going "down under!" There was so much going on w/ WTT, lucrative exhs., & the fragmented indep. tours! Evert & Navratilova started going to AO as well in the 80's!
***Hard to explain to people today, but Borg winning 5 Wimbls. in a row on a fast, slick, bad, un= grass surface AND winning 6 FO's on slow as molasses red dirt clay. It's hard to quantify how impressive that is. From winning DC matches @ age 15/16 to being like a rock star icon w/ his public image, there hasn't been anyone comparable to him in men's tennis.***
Well we all know Nadal w/b the last of the BIG 3 t/b able to complete the Channel Slam! You had 1 warm-up event @ QUEENS & that was it B4 the 6 days btwn. the FO end & Wimbledon start! After a few yrs. > X was given & > events created to prepare! Borg won the Channel Slam 3 str. yrs. & no one's been able to = that = w/ the extra X & improvement of the grass surface!
***Bjorn was a beast. A slight challenge to the Borg myth suggests that in those yrs. he faced no grass court specialists until he beat McEnroe in '80. That's not to diminish his achievement, which is stuff of the very >est level, & I think he’d have beaten McEnroe every season until McEnroe peaked, but Bjorn had his great Wimbl. run btwm. > eras of grass court players - the Aussies had flown & the 1st gen. pros had yet to give us the > players it gave us in the 80’s.
It's worth comparing all this w/ nowadays, where Novak has 7 Wimbl. titles & Rafa has 2, & I think they’d struggle to reach finals back in the wild days of tennis in 80’s & 90’s…***
What'd you call the 1st "Breakfast At Wimbledon" in '79 w/ Roscoe Tanner? He = def. Connors once or twice on grass! Borg in 5!
***Was Roscoe a grass court specialist? I know he had a huge serve, still fast by todays reckoning, but did he have much behind it? That was one of the >est finals, tense all the way. Why do you call it "Breakfast at Wimbl. in '79? The TV channels started showing tennis then? Jimbo was a baseliner, good low flat shots, but once Bjorn came of age it was grist to the mill beating Jimbo. BTW, I always suffered nightmares thinking of how the lads he beat in his last 3 Wimbl. finals all got revenge in NYC that same yr. It still hurts!***
Roscoe was all S & V! Like > players of his X, his groundstokes were serviceable to keep him in a pt. until able to attack the net! In '79, this was t/b the 1st X Wimbl. w/b televised here in the States LIVE; 8 AM in Chgo! Throughout the 70's & early 80's, we got taped footage only! ...Back then the women's final was on Fri., while the men played Sat. to stay w/ deal not to play on Sun.! ,,,Borg should've won that '76 final over Connors when played on Har-Tru clay! That TB still haunts me! He had 2 set pts., but Connors stole it w/ 2 line skippers! Borg just had really bad luck in NY along w/ planes flying over constantly, a shooting, & dilapidating facility!
***So was Vitas Gerulaitus, but they weren’t > in the way McEnroe, Becker, Laver, & Sampras were > grass court specialists. Roscoe was a one-off that season. That’s interesting about '79. Tennis was only starting to get going then, eh, w/ regards to TV. We were lucky, we grew up w/ the BBC. I think '79 & '80 were the best yrs. for Bjorn to get that CYGS. McEnroe still hadn’t peaked in '79, Borg owned Jimmy, & he lost to Roscoe? In '80, he choked a lit'l I think, in that game @ 3-all, 2 DFs. Still hurts! - Not completely accurate Jelefan. There were @ least 2 yrs. w/ a wk. btwn. them; someX's 3 wks. until '77, when it became fixed @ 2 wks.***
***'73 had a 3 wk. brk. (boycotting Wimbl.?). '74 -76 was only a 1 wk. brk., interesting enough '76 Borg lost to Panetta @ the FO & then won Wimbl. & then in '77 he won Wimbl., but didn't play the FO. Thus, his 3 Channel doubles were w/ a 2 wk. brk., as was Rod Lavers ('69), Nadal ('08 & '10), Fed ('09), & Djokovic had 3 wk. brk. ('21). The only player to accomplish the Channel double w/ only a 1 wk. brk. was Evert ('74 & '76).
ReplyDelete---
Kieran, you're absol. right. Fiero, your memory isn't bad enough to quite put you in the Home, or m/b I'll join you there! - Traditionalists have NEVER accepted that Borg could've won Wimbl. 5 X's w/ his game since he proved them wrong w/ all their predictions. As Fiero can attest, the grass was so much > un= than today; very slick & hardly an “advantage” for Borg b/c big servers could blow you off the court. Groundstrokers were @ a huge disadvantage. Ashe used to claim it was >er to hit a “bad” volley on grass than a good one b/c the bounce w/b = > erratic. IIRC, Victor Amaya, a huge server 1 yr. came close to upsetting Borg.
Borg beat in his finals, Nastase, Connors (twice), Tanner, & Johnny Mac. The 1st 4 players had all won Slams on grass prior to playing Borg so it wasn’t as if they were patsies. Tanner was considered to have the > monster of all serves. Nastase had lost a classic 5 set W final match to Stan Smith previously, & Connors hit the ball so > on the rise, he was considered the best ROS until Agassi, & least we forget he subsequently beat Mac @ Wimbl. in '82.
Borg was the original Iceman, nerves of steel, an underrated serve, & unflappable on the court who ran like a gazelle. Sorry, but my blood boils when others try to rationalize that Borg won b/c of a “weak” era. Borg could've won that 6th Wimbl. & had he not retired, been on par w/ Johnny Mac in future yrs. IMO.
---
I didn’t say Borg won b/c of a weak era. I said it was ‘a slight challenge to the Borg myth’. Not a definitive argument, but it’s certainly true that he didn’t face any > grass court specialists of the order of the Aussies who came B4, & the players of the 80’s.
Does that make it a weak era? In gen., not necess., but it makes it better for him to achieve what he achieved. Remember, I’m a Borg man. I rate him as high as anyone in the game, >er > >. He faced > players to win those Wimbls. & astonishingly, he dug himself out of every hole he found himself in, & in the early Rds. he found himself in many holes. The grass back then famously took care of his weak volleys & relatively weak serves. They became >er due to the surface. But his 5 in a row was one of the >est recs. in any sport.
---
Keep in mind that un=, slick grass also negated some of his groundies. I do laugh a bit when Fed fans claim the grass has slowed down enough that it’s homogen. to mean the grass' interchangeable w/ other surfaces. Such BS, other > Rafa, we don’t see clay courters excelling on the grass do we?
---
Well that’s true. The surfaces haven’t completely homogenised; the evidence being that Roger has 8 Wimbos & only 1 FO & Rafa has 14 FO & only 2 Wimbos.***
And Borg came back "from the dead" in early Rd. matches w/ a wooden stick & strings so tight Bud Collins called the racket surface a "pane of glass!" I actually utilized 76# in my rackets for 2 yrs., but had to compensate by taking > vicious swings since it was a dead feel! It was > for indoor tennis though! The serve sounded as if a canon had gone off! Many of those wooden rackets I played w/ just collapsed! I didn't have to smash it on the ground!
***Martina Navratilova: She won 18 GS titles, but the qualification, like Evert, is that she skipped the AO 10 X's & the FO 10 X's during her career, 1/2 of those X's in yrs. she either won other slams or @ least reached slam finals. Like Evert, if slams mattered > in the 70s when the AO & FO had weak draws, Navratilova could very well have had 23 major wins.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing about Evert & Navratilova is that, unlike these other GOAT-contenders, they had each other as their >est rivals throughout the primes of their career. They played each other 80 X's, 60 X's were in finals, & 14 X's in slam finals. Yes, their era didn't have as > depth as later on, but they had to deal w/ waning, but still strong Court, BJK, & Wade early on, a very comp. Goolagong, Austin, & Mandlikova in the middle, & an ascendant Graf & Seles @ the end.
It’s one thing to have to play another good player many X's. It’s another to have to play another GOAT-contender 80 X's in their prime. Any weaker comp. in the early Rds. for Evert & Navratilova were compensated for by far stronger comp. in the later Rds. Btwn. Evert (80 X's), Graf (18 X's), & Seles (17 X's), Navratilova played them 115 X's. Between Davenport (14), Hingis (13), Venus (30), Henin (14), Clijsters (9), & Sharapova (20), Serena played them 100 X's, & prime Graf, Evert, & Seles are >er > ALL of Serena’s strongest comp., some by a signif. margin. Navratilova played a pre-stabbing Seles > X's > Serena has played anyone other > Venus, Azarenka, & Sharapova.
The only area in which Serena surpasses Navratilova is w/ majors, but Navratilova played Evert in 14 major finals & Graf in 6. That’s 20 X's vs a fellow GOAT-contender. Evert played Navratilova 14 X's, Graf once ('88 Graf won GS), & Court once ('73 Court won 3 majors) in SF's. Serena has never had to play another GOAT-contender @ any stage of a slam, > < a final.
Here are some #'s:
Major wins:
Court 24
Williams 23
Graf 22
Evert 18
Navratilova 18
Major finals:
Evert 34
Williams 33
Navratilova 32
Graf 31
Court 29
Wks @ #1:
Graf 377
Navratilova 332
Williams 319
Evert 260 (but this s/b >er as official rankings only began when Evert was already the current #1)
Court – not applicable
Career winning %:
Court 91%
Evert 90%
Graf 89%
Navratilova 87%
Williams 85%
YE Chps:
Navratilova 8
Graf 5
Williams 5
Evert 4
Court – not applicable
Premier titles won:
Navratilova 32
Graf 31
Evert 25
Williams 22
Court 3, but really not applicable
Titles won:
Court 192
Navratilova 167
Evert 157
Graf 107
Williams 73
Longest winning streaks:
Navratilova 74
Graf 66
Court 57
Evert 55
Williams 34
My conclusion: There is no GOAT in women's tennis, not b/c there aren't supremely > players, but b/c their achievements are too close to differentiate one as clearly superior.***
Thx! ;-)
***Martina Navratilova: She won 18 GS titles, but the qualification, like Evert, is that she skipped the AO 10 X's & the FO 10 X's during her career, 1/2 of those X's in yrs. she either won other slams or @ least reached slam finals. Like Evert, if slams mattered > in the 70s when the AO & FO had weak draws, Navratilova could very well have had 23 major wins.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing about Evert & Navratilova is that, unlike these other GOAT-contenders, they had each other as their >est rivals throughout the primes of their career. They played each other 80 X's, 60 X's were in finals, & 14 X's in slam finals. Yes, their era didn't have as > depth as later on, but they had to deal w/ waning, but still strong Court, BJK, & Wade early on, a very comp. Goolagong, Austin, & Mandlikova in the middle, & an ascendant Graf & Seles @ the end.
It’s one thing to have to play another good player many X's. It’s another to have to play another GOAT-contender 80 X's in their prime. Any weaker comp. in the early Rds. for Evert & Navratilova were compensated for by far stronger comp. in the later Rds. Btwn. Evert (80 X's), Graf (18 X's), & Seles (17 X's), Navratilova played them 115 X's. Between Davenport (14), Hingis (13), Venus (30), Henin (14), Clijsters (9), & Sharapova (20), Serena played them 100 X's, & prime Graf, Evert, & Seles are >er > ALL of Serena’s strongest comp., some by a signif. margin. Navratilova played a pre-stabbing Seles > X's > Serena has played anyone other > Venus, Azarenka, & Sharapova.
The only area in which Serena surpasses Navratilova is w/ majors, but Navratilova played Evert in 14 major finals & Graf in 6. That’s 20 X's vs a fellow GOAT-contender. Evert played Navratilova 14 X's, Graf once ('88 Graf won GS), & Court once ('73 Court won 3 majors) in SF's. Serena has never had to play another GOAT-contender @ any stage of a slam, > < a final.
Here are some #'s:
Major wins:
Court 24
Williams 23
Graf 22
Evert 18
Navratilova 18
Major finals:
Evert 34
Williams 33
Navratilova 32
Graf 31
Court 29
Wks @ #1:
Graf 377
Navratilova 332
Williams 319
Evert 260 (but this s/b >er as official rankings only began when Evert was already the current #1)
Court – not applicable
Career winning %:
Court 91%
Evert 90%
Graf 89%
Navratilova 87%
Williams 85%
YE Chps:
Navratilova 8
Graf 5
Williams 5
Evert 4
Court – not applicable
Premier titles won:
Navratilova 32
Graf 31
Evert 25
Williams 22
Court 3, but really not applicable
Titles won:
Court 192
Navratilova 167
Evert 157
Graf 107
Williams 73
Longest winning streaks:
Navratilova 74
Graf 66
Court 57
Evert 55
Williams 34
My conclusion: There is no GOAT in women's tennis, not b/c there aren't supremely > players, but b/c their achievements are too close to differentiate one as clearly superior.***
Thx!
***The ATP Player of the Yr. award introduced in '75, but the ATP ranking YE pts. leader wasn't always awarded the honor:
'75 - Ashe (ATP PotY)
- Connors (ATP YE pts. leader)
Rankings:
Connors finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings, w/ Vilas #2, Borg #3, & Ashe #4.
Ashe awarded the inaugural ATP PotY.
- Connors ranked #1, w/ Vilas #2.
Ashe ranked #1 by all other sources. Borg #2; Orantes #2; World Tennis & Tennis Mag. ranked Connors #2.
Yr. Sum.
Ashe won Wimbl. def. Connors & Borg (SFs) Orantes def. Connors on Har-tru @ the USO (Connors def. Borg in SFs; Vilas also made SFs; & Năstase won the Masters over Borg & Vilas (Borg beat Ashe in SFs. Ashe won 9 tourns. (out of 29) includ. the WCT Finals over Borg. Ashe was 97–18 includ. 4–3 vs. Borg, 1–1 vs. Vilas & 1–2 vs. Orantes. Borg beat Vilas (was 3–1 vs. Vilas on the yr.) to win the FO. Connors made the finals of the AO losing to Newcombe & won 9 tourns., w/ an 82–8 rec. Orantes won 8 tourns., & 87–18 (4–0 vs. Vilas & 1–0 vs Connors).***
cont...
***'76 Bjorn Borg (SWE) (ATP PotY)
ReplyDelete- Connors (ATP YE pts. leader)
Rankings:
Connors finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings, w/ Borg #2.
Borg awarded ATP PotY.
Connors ranked #1 by World Tennis, Tennis Mag. etc. All ranked Borg #2.
Yr. Sum.
Borg won Wimbl. over Năstase. Connors won the USO over Borg. Connors won 12 tourns., includ. 3 top-tier (GP) events of 6 entered, + the U.S. Pro Indoor over Borg & the non-tour affil. Palm Springs, compiling a 90–8 rec. (4–0 vs. Borg). Borg won 7 titles includ. 1 top-tier GP event (U.S. Pro) of 2 entered, & the WCT Finals over Vilas compiling a 63–14 rec.
'77 B. Borg (ATP PotY)
- Connors (ATP YE pts. leader)
Vilas (ARG) (World Tennis PotY)
Rankings:
Connors finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings, w/ Vilas #2, Borg #3.
Borg awarded ATP PotY.
Borg ranked #1 by Tennis Mag. Vilas ranked #1 by World Tennis. The Int'l Tennis HOF inscription for Vilas stated "it was gen. considered Vilas the real #1 for 77"
Yr. Sum.
Borg won Wimbl. over Connors. Vilas won the USO over Connors, & FO over Gottfried. Borg won 13 of 20 tourns. for an 81–7 match rec., includ. 3–0 vs Vilas, & 2–1 vs. Connors. Vilas won 17 out of 32 tourns. for a 145–14 rec. + won 50 matches in a row. For the yr. Borg was 16–3 vs Top 10 players; Vilas 13–6. Vilas 2–0 vs Connors & made the finals of the Jan. AO losing to Tanner.
The ITF World Champs were 1st named in '78. Any players listed in the #1 column are ATP Pt. leaders, ATP PotY, & ITF World Chps. only.
'78 Borg (ATP PotY & ITF World Chp.)
- Connors (ATP YE pts. leader)
Rankings:
Connors finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings, w/ Borg. #2.
Borg awarded ATP PotY & named the 1st ITF World Chp.
Tennis Mag. (Fr) ranked Borg 1st & Connors 2nd.
Tennis Mag. (U.S.) ranked Connors 1st, Borg 2nd.
Yr. Sum.
Borg won Wimbl. def. Connors & the FO. Connors won the 1st HC USO def. Borg. Borg won 9 titles out of 17 ATP events entered compiling a 70–7 ATP rec. Connors won 10 titles, includ. the US Pro Indoor, in 16 ATP events entered for a 66–6 rec. Borg had an 18–3 rec. vs top 10 players while Connors was 14–3 vs top 10 players. Borg was 3–2 vs Connors.
'79 B. Borg
Rankings:
Borg finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings w/ McEnroe #3.
Borg awarded ATP PotY & named ITF World Chp.
World Tennis, Tennis Mag. (US)(Fr) ranked Borg 1st, McEnroe 2nd.
Yr. Sum.
Borg won 3 of the 4 > important events: Wimbl. def. Connors, the FO; & the Masters def. McEnroe. McEnroe won the USO & the WCT Finals def. Borg. Borg won 4 of the 5 SS events he played & 13 titles out of 20 tourns. for an 84–6 rec. McEnroe won 2 of 6 SS he played for 10 titles total w/ a 91–14 rec. Borg was 4–0 vs Connors & 4–2 vs McEnroe while McEnroe-Connors were 2–2.
'80 B. Borg
Rankings:
Borg finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings, w/ McEnroe #2.
Borg awarded ATP PotY.& ITF World Chp.
World Tennis, Tennis Mag. (U.S.)(Fr) ranked Borg. 1st & McEnroe 2nd.
Yr. Sum.
Borg won 3 of the 4 > important tourns. & lost in 5 sets in the finals of the 4th, the USO. At Wimbl. he def. McEnroe; @ the Masters he def. Connors (SFs) (McEnroe 0–3); & won the FO. Borg also won 3 of the 5 SS events he entered & 9 titles in total in 14 events for a 70–6 rec. McEnroe won the USO over Borg, 2 of the 8 SS he entered (includ. the U.S. Indoor over Connors) & 9 titles in total for an 84–18 rec. Borg 3–1 vs McEnroe.
'81 McEnroe (USA)
Rankings:
McEnroe finished top of the ATP YE pt. rankings, w/ Borg #4.
McEnroe awarded ATP PotY, named the ITF World Champ.
World Tennis, Tennis Mag. (Fr) (U.S.), ranked McEnroe 1st, Borg 2nd.
Yr. Sum.
McEnroe won Wimbl. & the USO def. Borg in the finals of both. Borg captured the FO def. Lendl. McEnroe won the WCT Final, + 2 of the 5 SS tourns. he entered for 10 titles w/ a 76–10 rec, includ. 7–1 in the DC. McEnroe was 4–0 vs. Borg (includ. an invit'l event), 1–1 vs. Connors, but 0–3 vs. Lendl. Borg played a reduced sched. winning 3 titles in the 9 events w/ a 35–6 rec. (2–0 vs. both Lendl & Connors) & semi-retired in Oct.***
Thanks!