Pat Cash meets tennis legend Björn Borg in his home country for a rare interview about his classic moments and the current state of tennis. Part 1 of 2.
If he played to his 30s no doubt hes gonna win 20 GS by then at least. But the think with Borg and Laver is that at their prime there was no one near their level.. ironically that's why Bjorg got burn out and retired, there was no challenge really. Just imagine how many GS Sampras wouldve won without Agassi there.. imagine how many Fed wouldve won without Nadal or how many Nadal wouldve won without Djokovic there
Him and Andre Agassi... I am reading his autobiography at moment... Iranian father (big bully) & American mother (gentle soul)... He always was a thorough gentleman on and off court... married another tennis gem - Steffi Graf... all great peeps...
There's not much that compares with Borg v Macenroe at Wimbledon. Maybe Federer v Djok or Federer v Nadal. They're on a par, but not higher. Good times in tennis the early eighties.
No he cant. He coudnt adapt to the game. Everyone of the view that Borg era is over by the time he was defeated by Mc Enroe. People are unncecessarily imagining that Borg could have 20 or more slams by looking at todays Big 3 success. Borg won Wimbledon at 17. And he payed till 32 and h could only win 7. He had great serve. Over all his game is no less than any great player. Still he coudnt even reach 10. The era was toughest. And the times were changing. From wooden raquet to metal raquet. Apart from that he was only winning French Open and Wimbledon till then. He appeared in 4 US Open finals and lost everytime. Anyone from big 3 today would have won atleast one of those 4 finals if they were there in Borg place. Its like he has to play another 5 years continuously at Wimbledon and French Open. That is highly unlikely. Even greatest grass player like Federer could only win 3 Wimbledons after turning 26-2009, 2012 and 2017. Just see the gap. Those days 5 years was too long. Borg won his last FO final against Lendl. That was a 5 set matcg. But next year after Borg retirement the champion is 17/18 year old Wilander. Next year Lendl. Those days competition was tough than toady. Today Big 3 has so much variation. Those days there was no much variation from players. May be Borg could have won one or more FOs. Not more than that
@Blood Taker Your comments are so bizarre that I guess you're very unhappy with your penis. No sense of respect, a jumping envy from a hidebound nonperson. Just one more hater behind a screen.
4 years Wimbledon and French opens back to back on really slow clay and fast grass. Incredible feat that has only been achieved twice by Nadal and once by Federer. What is overlooked is how good his first serve was and how tough he was. 4 Us open finals. One of the greatest ever, period.
Of course Federer is the greatest, it should go without saying. Borg himself was magnificent, a pity he retired young but he had his reasons, had lost some enthusiasm and intensity. His dominance at the French Open and 5 consecutive wins on fast grass at Wimbledon was a tremendous feat no-ne has come close to. He also had a great record in the Davis Cup.
Phil Coates yes and no. Nadal had this amount of injuries due to his style of playing and the surface of his choice to do that. Federer never wanted to adjust to that grueling style of playing, that's why he had fewer injuries, but also why he lost a lot during the period when all players started to play like Nadal or Djokovic and they slowed down grass to make it more spectacular.
@@mizofan ofc its not. Federer wasnt the best in era of the best ones. So how can he be called the best ever. 2004-2006 teenager Rafa won 6 out of seven matches. He is not the Goat.
@ Yves M. Just because Borg thinks that Federer is the GOAT male tennis player doesn't make it so! It is just Borg's opinion--nothing more, nothing less. Borg sadly fails to understand that there is no greatest of all-time player in any sport because of changes over time in technology, knowledge of food and nutrition , changes in training methods, etc. You can't make any valid comparison between the wood era in tennis history to the graphite era. The advances in racket technology and string technology have irrefutably cheapened the game of tennis making the graphite era players only appear to be greater than their wood era counterparts. Real tennis is wood racket tennis not the tennis played with graphite equipment!
Doctor Garbonzo I was a very big Bjorg fan as a youngster. Bjorg is still class. Yes, he never played Australia as well. The players have him up there with lever. I have him higher. Bjorg put tennis on the map in the 1970s. Roger is doing the same today.
@ Blood Taker maybe he was a bit of a hippie, and I think that you’re right about him not handling the pressure. I *think* that he talked about that at the time. But a myth? No, not at all.
11 majors before 26 - it was an era of very unorthodox players, Borg being one of the most unorthodox, along with Macenroe, Connors, Nastase, and later Mercier, and plenty of others. Before racquet technology took over and they all played with wooden racquets, it was artistry that didn't return until Federer.
@ Fuz Capp I think that you’re right. And I don’t believe that technology is necessarily good for the game, either. It doesn’t show the talents of the player; it shows the technology, and to my mind, that isn’t what sport is, or should be, about.
Indeed. Federer's ability to play consistently at 60-70%, and still win against the majority of the tour, is what allows him to keep his energy reserves high for those clutch moments in the finals. When Fed hits 100% peaks during a match, there's no player in history that can/could cope with that.
Remember that Borg said that in 2016. Since then, Federer has won 3 more Slams, beaten Nadal 5 times in a row and counting, won one, if not the best Grand Slam final 5th set ever played (OA 2017), became the oldest ever to reach #1, gathered his 100th title...
in his time, there was NO ONE like him...all these years later, I have two very specific memories about him , that speak to how great he was. 1) He was the ONLY player, on clay, that made Guillermo "The Hulk" Vilas, look like a junior player..and Im thinking about that French Open final, where he just took Vilas apart. "Willy" was a monster on clay, during his day..and even guys that competed well against him, HATED playing him. and 2) Borg's speed, was the most vital aspect to how awesome he was. People always talk about the two hander and the big topspin forehand..but those shots were executed by a guy who was so fast, it looked like he was levitating on air. He was an incredible tennis player...a god, really.
Two great players here. I remember watching Pat Cash on a Monday morning win the Wimbledon Junior event - he was exceptionally talented and powerful. Bjorn Borg was an incredible player who left the game way too young. It was his bad luck that new rackets came along that he couldn't adjust to.
No, he was great but he retired too young for top spot, his overall achievement falling short. A pity because he was magnificent, winning on fast grass of Wimbledon as well as clay of Paris
I watched Borg play and I watched Federer play. Federer is the Viceroy for sure, the Gentleman of tennis, the Thor, if you wish... but there's only one Odin and that's Borg.
Bjorn is the king but he could still be wrong. What defies GOAT or Best ever ? I keep asking this question on YT to Djokovic fans who have been carrying and raving on like he's the best ever but I can't see any skill in his game whatsover. He is a essentially reactive and defensive player and has mental toughness so OK in that sense alone, he's the best competitor with the number one attitude. But to me it is tennis players who play with more initiative and can take and hit their groundtrokes earlier that are the best ones to watch. Sadly this WEAK era in tennis lacks attacking players and as such variety in this sport because of the slowing down of tennis courts and the balls they use these days. It is also unfortunate that for the past 10-12 years, a lot of promising players have not for one reason or another, been able to reach their potential - Grigor Dimitrov , Richard Gasquet,, maybe Milos Raonic.
tenniscollector oh my lol,the reason i said feds the best ever is because its true,he has won more than any other player ever,plus he makes it look so easy..
and because you are one-eyed Roger fan (nothing wrong with that honey) LOL. But in my earlier post, I am generalizing. 10 seasons ago - the Roger Federer era, there was signs even then that a group of players with potential to be a champion and winning big time, were not reaching it. I think that's very bad for the sport. Today's tennis has lost the chain factor - the chain were a champion is followed by another champion. That's why I call this Djokovic domination era, a truly WEAK one.
He won more than any other player? Win what? Trophies? Ivan Lendl has 94 and Connors has 109. Money? Djokovic has more. ATP 1000 titles? Djokovic is the leader there. The only thing he has won more than the rest is the grand slam count. Be more specific when you make those statements. PS: I am a huge Federer fan.
I don't know how to compare Bjorn Borg with the tenis. But he was the Muhammad Ali or Elvis Presley, maybe The Beatles, or they all together, when he was playing the tenis. BB is a living legend
Bjorn's statement about not taking up coaching roles reveals how mentally exhausting a Physical game can be.a lot of legends have their mental burden exceptionally higher than the Physical work load because of the amount of thought process that goes into every match.if it can happen to an ice cool player like Bjorn it can happen with any one .kudos to these athletes for how they manage mental stress of such magnitude.
If you check the "goat list" at tennis-strangeforest, that balances all the big tournaments, weeks at N°1, finals, semifinals and QF played, and other achievements, Roger is N°1, Nole is N°2, and Rafa is N°3. So, basically, we have the top-3 best players in the history of the sport playing one against the other. I feel really lucky to be able to witness something like this.
he came back approx 8 yrs later at ar 34 yrs old to try again on singles circuit....still with wooden racket in hand...unfortunately it was short lived as the game had moved on alot.
B.Borg-R.Federer-J.McEnroe-R.Lever-I.Lendl--J.Connors-P.Sampras these ones the real legend of tennis. The others Nadal-Djokovic-Agassi-Becker just simply king of tennis are. To be a Legend is all different story. Thx for video
***** This is still an opinion. I agree that the Big Four era (2008-2012) was tougher than 2004-2007 but Fed era was not weak. There are no weak eras at top level sport.
Lets face it Federer Djokovic and Falafel Nadal will still be spoken about in 100 years time. what an Honour !That is worth so much more than any pecuniary benefits they have accrued.
Greatest ever. No-one commanded our attention to the nail-biting, often long, drawn out games as he did. Only comparison in my mind is: Bobby Fisher did for chess what Bjorn did for Wimbledon and tennis. No-one returned a serve like him. He never gave up, no matter how dire the game situation was.
Maybe not be 3-9 vs Nadal in slams and 5-9 vs Djokovic in slams? I still think he's the greatest, but if those records were a little better, there would be no question. Plus, Nadal and Djokovic have time to catch him... If he were 5-8 vs nadal in slams, that would be respectable, given 5 of those matches were on clay. If he were 7-7 vs. Djokovic, that would be very respectable, given many of those matches took place in his 30's and when Djokovic was in his prime (which he still is). Given Djokovic's excellent fitness, he still has a chance to meet, pass, or at least come close to Roger's record.
Head to head records don't mean very much in tennis. I can tell you from personal experience, you can be better than someone and lose to them consistently because your game matches up poorly against them. I'm obviously referring to Nadal here, and most of Novak's wins against Roger occurred when he was playing at his peak and Fed was on his way down. Also, neither Novak, nor Rafa will sniff 18 GS. Fed is an anomaly, seriously, I want to know if he is some kind of alien/human hybrid...ATP needs to test DNA while doing drug tests lol.
I agree with Joy, and Federer can compete with these guys even though he's in his mid 30's. His body seems to lost track of time and just goes about continuing to compete at top levels
If my grandfather had 3 balls, he was a pinball machine... Borg retired at the age of 26, this is a factor that plays against him, it can not be an excuse in the evaluation of his career.
Lorenzo Pasquini Ah, but to win 11 slams and not play Australia and actually retire at 25, not 26, as he never played a tour match after walking out of the US open in 1981. That says alot about him, about how much better he was compared to the rest. He could have played another 10 years and moved easily to the newer racquets. He would still kick Sampras's ass (on clay). They should hold a wooden racquet Wimbledon contest. That would be fun.
Agree 100% the best calm gentleman player ever, then we have Pat cash saying Federer should retire , Pat cash could only dream of ever being as good as federer
I don't know that Federer is the best player or not but for sure I know that he is my favourite player... the other things which I like about Federer is his resilience and ability to bounce back every time he goes down. if he loses the point, match or a championship, he always stays calm and composed, which I think not many other tennis players have been able to do so far... Not even Nadal though he is quite a good player as well so is Djocovic... Well, what Federer has achieved is just like what Sachin Tendulkar has in Cricket. Obviously the records are there to be broken and perhaps Federer's record will also be broken but I am sure its not happening in next ten years.....
Absolutely. I am 59 years old and have followed tennis since the late 1960's ! Bjorn was the coolest of all. A master in grass and clay - not just one, like Fed or Rafa. And mathematical models taking the quality of the competition etc into account have shown Borg to be the best in the Open era. And in 1982 after he retired from the slams, he had a great year beating Mac and the rest of them. Something people tend to forget. There were some murky $ factors afoot in 1982.
Unless these young guys start making some noise Joko will pass Federer. If he wins the US Open he’s just 3 away from tying Roger. It’s getting harder for Roger. Novak has won 4 of the last 5 majors. No one is stringing them together like that. And I don’t see Roger winning 1 a year for the next 3 years
Michael David - did you travel to Time machine in Future to see that Djokovic and Nadal will break record of Federer?? or just Living in Fantasy . 😂 🤣 DJOKERTARDS FAN 💩. 👎. I am sure he will do but he is an absolute Dickhead lol.
@abhay bhardwaj If you’re sure they will do it. I fail to see the reason for your comment. Unless your nose 👃 is so far up Roger’s 🐴 you can see the writing on the wall. You Federer fans act like Nadal and Djokovic have five major titles. Until this past U S Open Djokovic had won 4 out 5 majors. Federer couldn’t even win Wimbledon while serving with 2 match points. Time travel happens in movies. I’m talking about reality. MRGA ! Not....
abhay bhardwaj the guy isn’t incorrect man. As much as I love Roger, I know with current slow paced courts with games of Nadal and Novak if they maintain their fitness both will pass the records. Both age and game of Roger aren’t aligned with pace of courts so current conditions are in favour of Novak and Nadal definitely.
I love how the comments can generate some great debates. But at the end of it all we all know the truth - it shines through very clearly: Roger Federer is the greatest of all time.
Borg was and always will be my favourite player. Too bad he "retired" at 25/26, he could have won a lot more slams, maybe more than what Roger has. Trouble was he had hard time winning u.s open & aussie (which players tended to skip back then).
Sylvia S that's something I admire with Federer. You get so much money winning the tournaments. Borg said he grew tired of the sport, wouldn't be surprised if having all the money was a factor.
In his prime, on his surfaces -- clay or grass -- Borg is unequaled. He still holds the highest winning percentage. I also believe that Jimmy Conners, Rod Laver, Boris Becker and John McEnroe, in their primes, would have a 50-50 chance of defeating Federer on hard surfaces.
Borg was indeed great, but retiring so early means you never reached twilight year in your career and stats never got worse. As for the latter, there's no player from your list that could consistently trouble Roger. Maybe a win here and there but that would be it.
Federer 15 wins Nadal 23 wins And in Grand Slams Federer 3 Nadal 9 And now Roger won't even play on clay as Nadal is so dominant ! But Bjorn Borg was better - unlike Roger and Rafa he dominated on grass and clay - amazing number of Paris/Wimbledon doubles in a year. And he was the coolest player..... but Mac was the artist with his Dunlop Maxply and serve and volley.
Phil, Phil I will try to be objective and yes Nadal who I greatly admire has a far superior record head to head. Rafa plays like an unleashed animal with great effort, grunts and sweat flying all over the place. Roger floats over the court and makes movement look easy even last year with his knee injury. If you are looking at someone who "floats" over the court and makes it look easy then Roger is numero uno. He is the GOAT!! The world would be very boring if we all agreed with each other.
Novak has a chance to pass Federer but he is now 29 and at 29 its very hard to win 1 slam let alone half a dozen. Enjoy these guys while they are still playing.
At 29 he's still playing really well, he just won the French Open a couple of months back. Things might get tougher for him as he ages but at the moment he's fine.
I disagree with the 2nd part. Players are generally peaking later and later. Particularly notably Wawrinka, Ferrer, Lopez having/had their best periods around 29-32. At 29 the best should be dominating the slams, not finding it hard because of age.
+themasterofstealthcj You can point to exceptions but not everyone is the same. There are athletes who will maintain their level into their early 30s but not everyone is like that. Just look at Nadal after the age of 28 and Federer no doubt started to decline after 30 although he has maintained a high level into his mid thirties, as far as Djokovic is concerned though there hasn't been any sign of slowing down yet.
Hard for Djokovic or Nadal to pass Federer style of play counts as well. Fed is probably the most talented bar the Championships he's won and is continuing to do at that. Thus in itself gives credence to that fact his consistency and game is probably the best of all time so far.
I prefer the passion Rafa brings to his game you never know what astounding crazy return hes going to make, technically Feds better but hes too cold for me, all rather mechanical.
Funny, cause usually Nadal is seen as a tennis "machine", and Federer is more relaxed,and effortless, not to mention graceful. Also, he doesn't grunt which is a big advantage because that gets annoying over 3 or 4 hours.
Doesn't matter if he won the G.S.! Nr.1 Frderer, nr.2 Nadal. nr.3 Sampras. etc Novak . Novak is the nr 1 at this period of time but despite his efforts it is very far to has handling ability that Federer Nadal Sampras get.
Bluestin100 Hey, as a kid you believed in Santa Claus, so you merely replaced him with RF. This is the day and age of freedom to choose whatever dumb religion one wants.
It was good...Special in fact. Not better though. Look at the number the 3 greatest today have won. Over double what McEnroe won. ....and he was special.
Yeah thank god Feddie dominated when no one declined and no one had to grow into their peaks right? LOL dumbass fans always. I stick to the one rule that counts:facts. Federer has 17 slams, so he is the greatest. Djokovic surpasses 17? Then Djokovic is the greatest. Simple as that.
They did not 'decline'. More like injuries have been taking their toll as they gotten older. You got to give the mug from Serbia some credit as he has become a super athlete compared to when he started on the tour and has been virtually injury free (if you compare him at the same age as Federer or Nadal) , consistent and with 100 percent mental toughness he brings to the table. But other than that I can't stand his game.
I'm watching the interview and waiiiit a minute, the interviewer is somewhat familiar and I go to the description... Pat Cash! Oh yeah, I remember him defeating Lendl at the Wimbledon final.
Only King Rafa can reach places no other player can,considering Rafa hadn't played for 6 months,Fed was very lucky to have won in Australia ,it was so even, Rafa was playing very well,watch out, The mad bull from Majorca's back!
John Smith, Indeed it was very close, but Fed played some of the best tennis of his life in that last set. His backhand was unbelievable. That wasn't luck; he rose to the occasion.
And now Indian Wells and Miami, is that also by luck ? 3-0 against Rafa this year, is that luck too? Stop dreaming mate and accept that Roger is playing some of the best tennis of his life and at present he is TOO GOOD for anyone, including Rafa.
Roger Federer's style of playing is what sets him apart from the rest in history. His records may eventually be broken (most records do get broken) but nobody can come close to replicating his graceful, liquid like movement on court. Just like his idol Sampras, he never had to grunt his way through a 5 set match. The forehand - the best ever when it comes to hitting clean winners on either wing, the backhand serene and majestic, the serve - the most accurate and dependable ever, the touch at the net as good as any serve and volley master of the past, he can hit any shot from anywhere (tweeners, dunks, half volleys from the baseline, taking balls in the air off the forehand and backhand, lob Ivo Karlovic) and still make it look so easy and graceful. Compare that with some players who try to beat the crap out of the ball or throw in thousands of RPMs on high moonballs or depend on doing some gymnastic like splits or fake an injury when your opponent is on top. They are all just pretenders and can never be a true champion like Roger or Pete before him. Roger's style of play is not limited to any surface, he is the best ever on grass and hard courts and only, I repeat, only Nadal, is better than him on clay. And he did all of this with possibly the smallest racket on tour for a long period. Thousands of rpm's on the ball, doing splits are all fascinating but when it comes to playing with grace and style there's Roger and then there's the rest.
Borg is the greatest player of all time, Really? He retired at 26 with 11 majors. Think he would have won 7 more by the time he was 35? That is less than one major a year for those nine years. He just got bored with the game and wanted to pursue other sides of himself. He was too strong and too fast for the competition.
Art Fix its all speculation.you can maybe call him the greatest talent.but certainly.not the greatest player.he has never won a hard court championship,and he quit young.as a player he isnt as accomplished as many others,he chose that himself.
Borg did say that Federer could win another Wimbledon and he has just surpassed Sampras 7th to record a Historic 8th Title. So Who Knows ? ..... Seems Borg Knows.
Muhd Khaleef Izzaldeen Borg ain't dumb. Besides being a champion player he said he keeps up with tennis and watches the current great players play. He knows who is best.
Borg wanted to come back to the tour in 1982 or 1983 after taking a break but didn’t want to then play qualifiers to get back into tournaments. How stupid were the tour then not to grant him a protected ranking?
Nadal has a genetic foot problem thats why he keeps getting injured. Nadal was injured in 2009 and 2016 on the Clay court season and Clay courts can be easier on the knees. your Federer bias becomes more and more predictable.
sportsfreak FREAK And your Nadal bias, lol. Well, if he does have a genetic condition, why doesn't he adapt his playing style to stay injury free then? You do know his playstyle is really taxing on his body right? If he were worthy of the GOAT title he would be able to adapt his game on a whim, and still be able to compete on the top level. I'm sorry but Nadal will never be anything but the King of Clay, which is an amazing title to have to your name regardless.
Pranaya Rana Has nothing to do with play style. His foot will need a rest regardless of play style. Nada also actually does adapt his play style. Now at 30 he is hitting the ball flatter and shortening points. Yeah and Federer isn't the best ever too. Cuz no body is we cannot compare from different eras.
Funny that so many people rate Federer as the best player ever when Nadal holds a very strong- and positive- record against Federer despite being out of the circuit for several long spells. I would rate McEnroe as the very best, followed by Nadal and perhaps Federer third. However, we will never know what would have happened if these players had also competed against Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors and the like.
Best looking style of all time and the forehand model of the future. Also if Borg would have met Federer with the high tech rackets of now he would have beat him I believe
Borg understands what a Grand Slam is.....now everyone who won a Major is a Grand Slam champion....everything is so hyped nowadays..... By the way, Nasty is the GOAT!!!
Please don't tell that to Bud Collins. But you have to understand how that cheapens the term Grand Slam, for example I am a Grand Slam champion because i won the mixed doubles in Australia in 1953 etc. So BUDGE CONNOLLY LAVER COURT LAVER GRAF fin
11 slams and retired at 26 years old, one of the greatest, no doubt
He regularly missed the Australian Open.
If he played to his 30s no doubt hes gonna win 20 GS by then at least. But the think with Borg and Laver is that at their prime there was no one near their level.. ironically that's why Bjorg got burn out and retired, there was no challenge really. Just imagine how many GS Sampras wouldve won without Agassi there.. imagine how many Fed wouldve won without Nadal or how many Nadal wouldve won without Djokovic there
italo azurro he could have won several more.
and remember that was when in reality there were only three slams. The Australian was ignored by the elite players.
Good list. I would rate Laver higher, perhaps third and Sampras ahead of Djokovic in fourth but overall a good list
One and only. The best and classiest tennis player ever!.. He never complained, never argued, just played great tennis.
Him and Andre Agassi...
I am reading his autobiography at moment...
Iranian father (big bully) & American mother (gentle soul)... He always was a thorough gentleman on and off court... married another tennis gem - Steffi Graf... all great peeps...
Borg, such a legend!!! I was 12 at the time, but I remember him playing so well, so focused, good memories I have, unforgetable!!! Borg forever!!!
There's not much that compares with Borg v Macenroe at Wimbledon. Maybe Federer v Djok or Federer v Nadal. They're on a par, but not higher. Good times in tennis the early eighties.
If Borg played till 35 he would've probably won 20GS
No he cant. He coudnt adapt to the game. Everyone of the view that Borg era is over by the time he was defeated by Mc Enroe.
People are unncecessarily imagining that Borg could have 20 or more slams by looking at todays Big 3 success.
Borg won Wimbledon at 17. And he payed till 32 and h could only win 7. He had great serve. Over all his game is no less than any great player. Still he coudnt even reach 10.
The era was toughest. And the times were changing. From wooden raquet to metal raquet.
Apart from that he was only winning French Open and Wimbledon till then. He appeared in 4 US Open finals and lost everytime. Anyone from big 3 today would have won atleast one of those 4 finals if they were there in Borg place.
Its like he has to play another 5 years continuously at Wimbledon and French Open. That is highly unlikely. Even greatest grass player like Federer could only win 3 Wimbledons after turning 26-2009, 2012 and 2017. Just see the gap.
Those days 5 years was too long. Borg won his last FO final against Lendl. That was a 5 set matcg. But next year after Borg retirement the champion is 17/18 year old Wilander. Next year Lendl.
Those days competition was tough than toady. Today Big 3 has so much variation. Those days there was no much variation from players. May be Borg could have won one or more FOs. Not more than that
Maybe, but you have to remember new better players emerged in late 80s and early 90s
MUFC Nobody gives a shit. This is a Tennis vid.
@MUFC dumbass there aren’t even 200 countries in the world🧐🧐🧐🤓
He said he was too tired & too many injuries!
wow 11 major titles .... retired at the age of 26!!!
and also humble
@Blood Taker Your comments are so bizarre that I guess you're very unhappy with your penis. No sense of respect, a jumping envy from a hidebound nonperson. Just one more hater behind a screen.
Blood Taker my friend Björn Borg is ranked as one of the best tennis players ever.
@snag66 - too bad nobody knows who you're talking to ...
RedPilled - But never won the US Open. Never a grand slam.
Federer may be the best technical player but Borg is the most exiting champ of all times. All without being verbal or anything. He's just a classic.
I became a tennis player in 81 because of Bjorn.
Me too.
I think Borg is the GOAT. A guy who dominated both grass and clay in his time.
4 years Wimbledon and French opens back to back on really slow clay and fast grass. Incredible feat that has only been achieved twice by Nadal and once by Federer.
What is overlooked is how good his first serve was and how tough he was. 4 Us open finals.
One of the greatest ever, period.
The Bjorn Borg era was a magic parenthesis for Tennis. For me Bjorn is the King. The Viking.
The man is still handsome at 60, that's for sure. I wish more players today had his manners. Edberg was the same way.
In my opinion and proportionately for the years he played tennis B,Borg was the best ever!!!
Bjorn has perfect hair even at hes 60 lol!
I don't have the hair, nor the money! so unfair :P
One of the best tennis players of all time calling Federer the GOAT. There you have it!
Of course Federer is the greatest, it should go without saying. Borg himself was magnificent, a pity he retired young but he had his reasons, had lost some enthusiasm and intensity. His dominance at the French Open and 5 consecutive wins on fast grass at Wimbledon was a tremendous feat no-ne has come close to. He also had a great record in the Davis Cup.
But didn't win as many trphies! He was lucky Federer caught glandular fever in 2008!
Phil Coates yes and no. Nadal had this amount of injuries due to his style of playing and the surface of his choice to do that. Federer never wanted to adjust to that grueling style of playing, that's why he had fewer injuries, but also why he lost a lot during the period when all players started to play like Nadal or Djokovic and they slowed down grass to make it more spectacular.
@@mizofan ofc its not. Federer wasnt the best in era of the best ones. So how can he be called the best ever.
2004-2006 teenager Rafa won 6 out of seven matches. He is not the Goat.
@ Yves M. Just because Borg thinks that Federer is the GOAT male tennis player doesn't make it so! It is just Borg's opinion--nothing more, nothing less. Borg sadly fails to understand that there is no greatest of all-time player in any sport because of changes over time in technology, knowledge of food and nutrition , changes in training methods, etc. You can't make any valid comparison between the wood era in tennis history to the graphite era. The advances in racket technology and string technology have irrefutably cheapened the game of tennis making the graphite era players only appear to be greater than their wood era counterparts. Real tennis is wood racket tennis not the tennis played with graphite equipment!
Borg was always my favorite as a kid back in the day
Such a wonderful player and human
Borg easily could have won 3-4 more slams if he wouldn't have retired at 26, Seems like the popularity of game left with him back in 81'
Doctor Garbonzo I was a very big Bjorg fan as a youngster. Bjorg is still class. Yes, he never played Australia as well. The players have him up there with lever. I have him higher. Bjorg put tennis on the map in the 1970s. Roger is doing the same today.
@ Blood Taker maybe he was a bit of a hippie, and I think that you’re right about him not handling the pressure. I *think* that he talked about that at the time. But a myth? No, not at all.
I was in the UK as a student in the 70s and I was quite crazy about Björn Bjorg. Summer and Wimbledon, those were magical days.❤️
"Magical days"....They were indeed.
11 majors before 26 - it was an era of very unorthodox players, Borg being one of the most unorthodox, along with Macenroe, Connors, Nastase, and later Mercier, and plenty of others. Before racquet technology took over and they all played with wooden racquets, it was artistry that didn't return until Federer.
@ Fuz Capp I think that you’re right. And I don’t believe that technology is necessarily good for the game, either. It doesn’t show the talents of the player; it shows the technology, and to my mind, that isn’t what sport is, or should be, about.
Hard to argue. Federer's consistency in my opinion is what separates him from the rest.
and his creativity and graceful play style.
yeah and his forehand too.
Indeed. Federer's ability to play consistently at 60-70%, and still win against the majority of the tour, is what allows him to keep his energy reserves high for those clutch moments in the finals. When Fed hits 100% peaks during a match, there's no player in history that can/could cope with that.
@@georgemavrides3434 Nadal says hi
Federer truly is the GOAT and one of the best overall sportsmen of all time in my eyes
Remember that Borg said that in 2016. Since then, Federer has won 3 more Slams, beaten Nadal 5 times in a row and counting, won one, if not the best Grand Slam final 5th set ever played (OA 2017), became the oldest ever to reach #1, gathered his 100th title...
in his time, there was NO ONE like him...all these years later, I have two very specific memories about him , that speak to how great he was. 1) He was the ONLY player, on clay, that made Guillermo "The Hulk" Vilas, look like a junior player..and Im thinking about that French Open final, where he just took Vilas apart. "Willy" was a monster on clay, during his day..and even guys that competed well against him, HATED playing him. and 2) Borg's speed, was the most vital aspect to how awesome he was. People always talk about the two hander and the big topspin forehand..but those shots were executed by a guy who was so fast, it looked like he was levitating on air. He was an incredible tennis player...a god, really.
Borg, as thoughtful and humble as ever.
Still quite hunky too!!
Both Bjorn Borg & Roger Federer are the real gems of lawn Tennis....both are phenomenal character's in their own way....I love them both.......!!!
Borg.....the best tennis player in history, followed closely by Federer. 👏👏👏
Two great players here. I remember watching Pat Cash on a Monday morning win the Wimbledon Junior event - he was exceptionally talented and powerful. Bjorn Borg was an incredible player who left the game way too young. It was his bad luck that new rackets came along that he couldn't adjust to.
Never knew that was one of the reasons. He knew he was tired, said he had lost the fight in him, and that he wanted a life.
King Bjorn knows Very well who is the greatest tennis player of all time : himself !!
No, he was great but he retired too young for top spot, his overall achievement falling short. A pity because he was magnificent, winning on fast grass of Wimbledon as well as clay of Paris
I watched Borg play and I watched Federer play. Federer is the Viceroy for sure, the Gentleman of tennis, the Thor, if you wish... but there's only one Odin and that's Borg.
@@TheSpookyDuke I have watched both Borg and Federer and I much prefer Federer's style .
LOL, Borg BEL18VED
together with Rod Laver
And now it's reality!
borg is right,federer best player ever..
Bjorn is the king but he could still be wrong. What defies GOAT or Best ever ? I keep asking this question on YT to Djokovic fans who have been carrying and raving on like he's the best ever but I can't see any skill in his game whatsover.
He is a essentially reactive and defensive player and has mental toughness so OK in that sense alone, he's the best competitor with the number one attitude. But to me it is tennis players who play with more initiative and can take and hit their groundtrokes earlier that are the best ones to watch. Sadly this WEAK era in tennis lacks attacking players and as such variety in this sport because of the slowing down of tennis courts and the balls they use these days. It is also unfortunate that for the past 10-12 years, a lot of promising players have not for one reason or another, been able to reach their potential - Grigor Dimitrov , Richard Gasquet,, maybe Milos Raonic.
tenniscollector oh my lol,the reason i said feds the best ever is because its true,he has won more than any other player ever,plus he makes it look so easy..
and because you are one-eyed Roger fan (nothing wrong with that honey) LOL. But in my earlier post, I am generalizing.
10 seasons ago - the Roger Federer era, there was signs even then that a group of players with potential to be a champion and winning big time, were not reaching it. I think that's very bad for the sport.
Today's tennis has lost the chain factor - the chain were a champion is followed by another champion. That's why I call this Djokovic domination era, a truly WEAK one.
He won more than any other player? Win what? Trophies? Ivan Lendl has 94 and Connors has 109. Money? Djokovic has more. ATP 1000 titles? Djokovic is the leader there. The only thing he has won more than the rest is the grand slam count. Be more specific when you make those statements. PS: I am a huge Federer fan.
samy29987 hes best ever (federer)
Loved Borg in the ‘70s and still do.
I don't know how to compare Bjorn Borg with the tenis. But he was the Muhammad Ali or Elvis Presley, maybe The Beatles, or they all together, when he was playing the tenis. BB is a living legend
Hope my hair looks this good when I am his age.
maybe you will be bald
I'm 46 and don't have that much hair 😀
Bjorn's statement about not taking up coaching roles reveals how mentally exhausting a Physical game can be.a lot of legends have their mental burden exceptionally higher than the Physical work load because of the amount of thought process that goes into every match.if it can happen to an ice cool player like Bjorn it can happen with any one .kudos to these athletes for how they manage mental stress of such magnitude.
If you check the "goat list" at tennis-strangeforest, that balances all the big tournaments, weeks at N°1, finals, semifinals and QF played, and other achievements, Roger is N°1, Nole is N°2, and Rafa is N°3. So, basically, we have the top-3 best players in the history of the sport playing one against the other. I feel really lucky to be able to witness something like this.
Did they changed order of players brotha
Borg...hands down the most genuinely good looking guy in tennis.
he came back approx 8 yrs later at ar 34 yrs old to try again on singles circuit....still with wooden racket in hand...unfortunately it was short lived as the game had moved on alot.
B.Borg-R.Federer-J.McEnroe-R.Lever-I.Lendl--J.Connors-P.Sampras these ones the real legend of tennis. The others Nadal-Djokovic-Agassi-Becker just simply king of tennis are. To be a Legend is all different story. Thx for video
By weeks at number 1 and number of Majors its 1. Federer 2. Sampras 3. Nadal 4. Djokovic, etc. Everyone has their own opinion.
***** There are no "weak" eras.
The era we have now is weaker than the Federer one.
Everyone has their ow opinion.
*****
This is still an opinion. I agree that the Big Four era (2008-2012) was tougher than 2004-2007 but Fed era was not weak. There are no weak eras at top level sport.
***** Laver's and Borg's opinions that Federer is #1 haven't changed.
I had the pleasure of meeting him. Couldn’t be a nicer guy.
Borg is smart.
Koullex, He certainly seems so. So.Smart, to retire young with a great record, and reputation.
His clothing line is super successful
and now Federer is number 1 again and won his 20th GS, demigod!!!
2017. 8th Wimbledon. 19th Grand Slam.
Lets face it Federer Djokovic and Falafel Nadal will still be spoken about in 100 years time. what an Honour !That is worth so much more than any pecuniary benefits they have accrued.
This is February 2017. I think Federer is coming into his prime. 18 and counting!
Denis Daly 19 and counting..... Probably will be 20 at the end os the year
Abdullah Amin or at the end of the week 😁 OA 18
Or today~!!!
20!
This is February 2018, and yes, we are seeing a prime Federer now. 20 slams, world number one. And hopefully more to come.
A star and a champion in every way. Borg might not have a many grand slams as Federer but, IMO he's the best player ever.
Roger Federer is the best tennis player of all time. Roger Federer has been at the top for over 15 years , which I think is pretty amazing. :)
Greatest ever. No-one commanded our attention to the nail-biting, often long, drawn out games as he did. Only comparison in my mind is: Bobby Fisher did for chess what Bjorn did for Wimbledon and tennis. No-one returned a serve like him. He never gave up, no matter how dire the game situation was.
what a time for tennis in the 80's. Borg McEnroe,Lendl Becker and Conners
I love him very much. He is one of my sport idols. He is very handsome. He looks great today!!!!!!
What the fuck is up with Pat Cash? There is no opinion about it, Fed is the greatest of all time. What more does the guy have to do?
Criticising Federer has been a long-time obsession of his.
Pat Cash is a fucking moron that needs to stop talking.
Maybe not be 3-9 vs Nadal in slams and 5-9 vs Djokovic in slams? I still think he's the greatest, but if those records were a little better, there would be no question. Plus, Nadal and Djokovic have time to catch him...
If he were 5-8 vs nadal in slams, that would be respectable, given 5 of those matches were on clay. If he were 7-7 vs. Djokovic, that would be very respectable, given many of those matches took place in his 30's and when Djokovic was in his prime (which he still is).
Given Djokovic's excellent fitness, he still has a chance to meet, pass, or at least come close to Roger's record.
Head to head records don't mean very much in tennis. I can tell you from personal experience, you can be better than someone and lose to them consistently because your game matches up poorly against them. I'm obviously referring to Nadal here, and most of Novak's wins against Roger occurred when he was playing at his peak and Fed was on his way down. Also, neither Novak, nor Rafa will sniff 18 GS. Fed is an anomaly, seriously, I want to know if he is some kind of alien/human hybrid...ATP needs to test DNA while doing drug tests lol.
I agree with Joy, and Federer can compete with these guys even though he's in his mid 30's. His body seems to lost track of time and just goes about continuing to compete at top levels
Im more jealous of his hair than his tennis accomplishments.. he is really cool,, no stress..
If Borg played until like 34 he would have like 20 grand slam
If my grandfather had 3 balls, he was a pinball machine...
Borg retired at the age of 26, this is a factor that plays against him, it can not be an excuse in the evaluation of his career.
I was a Borg fan but he didn't though, did he? He had grown tired of tennis and would have increasingly struggled.
Depends on aging. Federer's fitness is in another level. Also considering how 35 year olds play like 30 year old today than 20 years ago.
Leo Reimer Racket technology changed. When Borg tried to make a comeback in his thirties he still used an old school wooden racket.
Lorenzo Pasquini Ah, but to win 11 slams and not play Australia and actually retire at 25, not 26, as he never played a tour match after walking out of the US open in 1981. That says alot about him, about how much better he was compared to the rest. He could have played another 10 years and moved easily to the newer racquets. He would still kick Sampras's ass (on clay).
They should hold a wooden racquet Wimbledon contest. That would be fun.
Agree 100% the best calm gentleman player ever, then we have Pat cash saying Federer should retire , Pat cash could only dream of ever being as good as federer
I am a Rafa fan, however, Roger Federer has the body for tennis, he is a natural. And when nature makes something perfect who should doubt it?
Novak Djokovic
KH I agree Roger is a natural talent and it is remarkable how he loves the game .
A true icon and ambassador for Sweden
Greatness recognises greatness.
Borg won the French/Wimbledon double three years in succession in 78, 79 and 80. Not even Federer or Nadal have achieved that. Great player.
Roger won :) time for grandslam no.19
Parth Kaul Done. LETS DO 20.
Read somewhere that his eyesight was incredible and this, coupled with his intense concentration ability, gave him the edge
5:17.. He doesn't wanna equal Sampras Bjørn. He wants to overtake him ;)
I don't know that Federer is the best player or not but for sure I know that he is my favourite player... the other things which I like about Federer is his resilience and ability to bounce back every time he goes down.
if he loses the point, match or a championship, he always stays calm and composed, which I think not many other tennis players have been able to do so far... Not even Nadal though he is quite a good player as well so is Djocovic...
Well, what Federer has achieved is just like what Sachin Tendulkar has in Cricket. Obviously the records are there to be broken and perhaps Federer's record will also be broken but I am sure its not happening in next ten years.....
Bjorn is simply polite,as always, give RF+Co. wooden racquets + condition as in 70's and than we can talk who is the best ever...
You make a very good point...
Absolutely. I am 59 years old and have followed tennis since the late 1960's ! Bjorn was the coolest of all. A master in grass and clay - not just one, like Fed or Rafa. And mathematical models taking the quality of the competition etc into account have shown Borg to be the best in the Open era.
And in 1982 after he retired from the slams, he had a great year beating Mac and the rest of them. Something people tend to forget. There were some murky $ factors afoot in 1982.
Still remember buying the "Borg Pro" Tennis racquet when it came out.
Novak will be someday. Rafa could possibly. Their careers are not over.
Unless these young guys start making some noise Joko will pass Federer. If he wins the US Open he’s just 3 away from tying Roger. It’s getting harder for Roger. Novak has won 4 of the last 5 majors. No one is stringing them together like that. And I don’t see Roger winning 1 a year for the next 3 years
James Sohn - hahahahaa 🤣 🤣 IN YOUR DREAMS . 💤 😴 😂 it won’t Happen. Just go to sleep you dumbass .🛏. 💤 💤
Michael David - did you travel to Time machine in Future to see that Djokovic and Nadal will break record of Federer?? or just Living in Fantasy . 😂 🤣 DJOKERTARDS FAN 💩. 👎. I am sure he will do but he is an absolute Dickhead lol.
@abhay bhardwaj
If you’re sure they will do it. I fail to see the reason for your comment. Unless your nose 👃 is so far up Roger’s 🐴 you can see the writing on the wall. You Federer fans act like Nadal and Djokovic have five major titles. Until this past U S Open Djokovic had won 4 out 5 majors. Federer couldn’t even win Wimbledon while serving with 2 match points. Time travel happens in movies. I’m talking about reality. MRGA ! Not....
abhay bhardwaj the guy isn’t incorrect man. As much as I love Roger, I know with current slow paced courts with games of Nadal and Novak if they maintain their fitness both will pass the records. Both age and game of Roger aren’t aligned with pace of courts so current conditions are in favour of Novak and Nadal definitely.
I love how the comments can generate some great debates. But at the end of it all we all know the truth - it shines through very clearly: Roger Federer is the greatest of all time.
Borg was and always will be my favourite player. Too bad he "retired" at 25/26, he could have won a lot more slams, maybe more than what Roger has. Trouble was he had hard time winning u.s open & aussie (which players tended to skip back then).
Sylvia S that's something I admire with Federer. You get so much money winning the tournaments. Borg said he grew tired of the sport, wouldn't be surprised if having all the money was a factor.
PJ I'm a sentimental person, my favourite of all time is this ,and, Borg. I know federer racks up the stats but always liked Borg. Rafa is 2nd. :)
4:16 Watch Federer’s back hand in slow motion .. see his follow through .. simply amazing
In his prime, on his surfaces -- clay or grass -- Borg is unequaled. He still holds the highest winning percentage. I also believe that Jimmy Conners, Rod Laver, Boris Becker and John McEnroe, in their primes, would have a 50-50 chance of defeating Federer on hard surfaces.
Borg was indeed great, but retiring so early means you never reached twilight year in your career and stats never got worse. As for the latter, there's no player from your list that could consistently trouble Roger. Maybe a win here and there but that would be it.
unequaled on clay? Ever heard of Nadal? Google him
Federer 15 wins Nadal 23 wins
And in Grand Slams Federer 3 Nadal 9
And now Roger won't even play on clay as Nadal is so dominant !
But Bjorn Borg was better - unlike Roger and Rafa he dominated on grass and clay - amazing number of Paris/Wimbledon doubles in a year. And he was the coolest player..... but Mac was the artist with his Dunlop Maxply and serve and volley.
Couldn't agree more!
Phil, Phil I will try to be objective and yes Nadal who I greatly admire has a far superior record head to head. Rafa plays like an unleashed animal with great effort, grunts and sweat flying all over the place. Roger floats over the court and makes movement look easy even last year with his knee injury. If you are looking at someone who "floats" over the court and makes it look easy then Roger is numero uno. He is the GOAT!! The world would be very boring if we all agreed with each other.
Novak has a chance to pass Federer but he is now 29 and at 29 its very hard to win 1 slam let alone half a dozen. Enjoy these guys while they are still playing.
At 29 he's still playing really well, he just won the French Open a couple of months back. Things might get tougher for him as he ages but at the moment he's fine.
It depends on the other player will they stay down or they will rise their level to pass him
I disagree with the 2nd part. Players are generally peaking later and later. Particularly notably Wawrinka, Ferrer, Lopez having/had their best periods around 29-32. At 29 the best should be dominating the slams, not finding it hard because of age.
+themasterofstealthcj You can point to exceptions but not everyone is the same. There are athletes who will maintain their level into their early 30s but not everyone is like that. Just look at Nadal after the age of 28 and Federer no doubt started to decline after 30 although he has maintained a high level into his mid thirties, as far as Djokovic is concerned though there hasn't been any sign of slowing down yet.
Yeah at 29 Nadal is pretty much done. But I think Djokovic can win a few more so who knows.
Hard for Djokovic or Nadal to pass Federer style of play counts as well. Fed is probably the most talented bar the Championships he's won and is continuing to do at that. Thus in itself gives credence to that fact his consistency and game is probably the best of all time so far.
I prefer the passion Rafa brings to his game you never know what astounding crazy return hes going to make, technically Feds better but hes too cold for me, all rather mechanical.
Funny, cause usually Nadal is seen as a tennis "machine", and Federer is more relaxed,and effortless, not to mention graceful. Also, he doesn't grunt which is a big advantage because that gets annoying over 3 or 4 hours.
He was my hero!!! lovely to see him
I think every swedish man has atleast one pair of Björn Borg underwear 😀
I think at one time most women in the world wanted to get into Bjorns underwear too lol
Before we go to the pastures, I would like to see the player retire first, and then take their achievements into perspective of greatness.
Bjorn, Novak DID win THE grand slam - a few weeks ago. Calendar or not calendar is utterly irrelevant.
Doesn't matter if he won the G.S.! Nr.1 Frderer, nr.2 Nadal. nr.3 Sampras. etc Novak . Novak is the nr 1 at this period of time but despite his efforts it is very far to has handling ability that Federer Nadal Sampras get.
Bipe Beppe
Is this dumb conclusion based on your personal bias and sexual attraction toward RF or on actual provable facts?
Ignore him he is to buthurt and cant accept a quality tennis player. For me Roger is still the GOAT but Nole has a real chance of catching him.
Bluestin100
Hey, as a kid you believed in Santa Claus, so you merely replaced him with RF. This is the day and age of freedom to choose whatever dumb religion one wants.
Joker is the most boring tennis player ever.
5:50 still playing 5 years later
4:15
The rivalry between Borg and McEnroe or Connors or Ivan Lendl were every bit as good if not better than the ones now
with Roger, Rafa and Novak.
It was good...Special in fact.
Not better though. Look at the number the 3 greatest today have won. Over double what McEnroe won. ....and he was special.
federer is the best and remains the best......
He said federer would retire next year (2017)
But federer actually retires this year (September-2022)
And everyone is crying...
Roger is the greatest EVER!
Nady U hhhhhahahaha, you see after 4 years :))) start counting , Novak rules again 😋
The best of his era. Just as Borg was the best of his era.
Of course he is. Better than glass Rafa or Djokovic who started his dominance when Fed and Nadal started declining.
Yeah thank god Feddie dominated when no one declined and no one had to grow into their peaks right? LOL dumbass fans always.
I stick to the one rule that counts:facts. Federer has 17 slams, so he is the greatest. Djokovic surpasses 17? Then Djokovic is the greatest. Simple as that.
djoko can't be greater than fed mate.
jerrybronham So that makes me Serbian? LOLLL you're a disgrace to your idol.
Liamnerfdude1 keep saying that, sometimes it's good to believe in dreams.
They did not 'decline'. More like injuries have been taking their toll as they gotten older. You got to give the mug from Serbia some credit as he has become a super athlete compared to when he started on the tour and has been virtually injury free (if you compare him at the same age as Federer or Nadal) , consistent and with 100 percent mental toughness he brings to the table. But other than that I can't stand his game.
Federer the best of all time! Borg the legend of all time!
Borg could have been GOAT but he burned out at 26
ed then he is not GOAT, you can say that for Monica Seles she was stopped by knife she was GOAT for both man and women side.
I'm watching the interview and waiiiit a minute, the interviewer is somewhat familiar and I go to the description... Pat Cash! Oh yeah, I remember him defeating Lendl at the Wimbledon final.
Only King Rafa can reach places no other player can,considering Rafa hadn't played for 6 months,Fed was very lucky to have won in Australia ,it was so even, Rafa was playing very well,watch out, The mad bull from Majorca's back!
Both of them hadn't played for 6 months, if anything.
John Smith, Indeed it was very close, but Fed played some of the best tennis of his life in that last set. His backhand was unbelievable. That wasn't luck; he rose to the occasion.
And how about Indian Wells, was that luck?
And now Indian Wells and Miami, is that also by luck ? 3-0 against Rafa this year, is that luck too? Stop dreaming mate and accept that Roger is playing some of the best tennis of his life and at present he is TOO GOOD for anyone, including Rafa.
OK, LET US SEE HOW HE PLAYS AGAINST RAFA ON CLAY
Roger Federer's style of playing is what sets him apart from the rest in history. His records may eventually be broken (most records do get broken) but nobody can come close to replicating his graceful, liquid like movement on court. Just like his idol Sampras, he never had to grunt his way through a 5 set match. The forehand - the best ever when it comes to hitting clean winners on either wing, the backhand serene and majestic, the serve - the most accurate and dependable ever, the touch at the net as good as any serve and volley master of the past, he can hit any shot from anywhere (tweeners, dunks, half volleys from the baseline, taking balls in the air off the forehand and backhand, lob Ivo Karlovic) and still make it look so easy and graceful. Compare that with some players who try to beat the crap out of the ball or throw in thousands of RPMs on high moonballs or depend on doing some gymnastic like splits or fake an injury when your opponent is on top. They are all just pretenders and can never be a true champion like Roger or Pete before him. Roger's style of play is not limited to any surface, he is the best ever on grass and hard courts and only, I repeat, only Nadal, is better than him on clay. And he did all of this with possibly the smallest racket on tour for a long period. Thousands of rpm's on the ball, doing splits are all fascinating but when it comes to playing with grace and style there's Roger and then there's the rest.
Well said!
Very well said .
Borg is the greatest player of all time, Really? He retired at 26 with 11 majors. Think he would have won 7 more by the time he was 35? That is less than one major a year for those nine years. He just got bored with the game and wanted to pursue other sides of himself. He was too strong and too fast for the competition.
Art Fix its all speculation.you can maybe call him the greatest talent.but certainly.not the greatest player.he has never won a hard court championship,and he quit young.as a player he isnt as accomplished as many others,he chose that himself.
Roger is still playing and this year isn't gonna be his last i think
No. Djoke is the best. Period.
If Björn Borg says Roger's the best, he, indeed, is the best. Period.
GOATKOVIC
Borg did say that Federer could win another Wimbledon and he has just surpassed Sampras 7th to record a Historic 8th Title. So Who Knows ? ..... Seems Borg Knows.
Muhd Khaleef Izzaldeen Borg ain't dumb. Besides being a champion player he said he keeps up with tennis and watches the current great players play. He knows who is best.
Federer never won any of his legacy matchups.
2012 wimbledon.... 2011 french open.... 2007 us open..... 2008 us open.................... 2006 wimbledon................. nigga please
+zimbebe he didn't win 2011 french
+zimbebe he got his ass beat by rafa
Didn't he?
2017 Aus open :D
Borg wanted to come back to the tour in 1982 or 1983 after taking a break but didn’t want to then play qualifiers to get back into tournaments. How stupid were the tour then not to grant him a protected ranking?
Sorry Rafa is the best... Think about all his injuries.
49fiori Ah yeah having a lot of injuries means you're the best you're right..
Nowhere near the best, and his "injuries" have kept happening in his weaker half of the year and when losing.
Nadal has a genetic foot problem thats why he keeps getting injured. Nadal was injured in 2009 and 2016 on the Clay court season and Clay courts can be easier on the knees. your Federer bias becomes more and more predictable.
sportsfreak FREAK And your Nadal bias, lol. Well, if he does have a genetic condition, why doesn't he adapt his playing style to stay injury free then? You do know his playstyle is really taxing on his body right? If he were worthy of the GOAT title he would be able to adapt his game on a whim, and still be able to compete on the top level. I'm sorry but Nadal will never be anything but the King of Clay, which is an amazing title to have to your name regardless.
Pranaya Rana Has nothing to do with play style. His foot will need a rest regardless of play style. Nada also actually does adapt his play style. Now at 30 he is hitting the ball flatter and shortening points. Yeah and Federer isn't the best ever too. Cuz no body is we cannot compare from different eras.
Funny that so many people rate Federer as the best player ever when Nadal holds a very strong- and positive- record against Federer despite being out of the circuit for several long spells. I would rate McEnroe as the very best, followed by Nadal and perhaps Federer third. However, we will never know what would have happened if these players had also competed against Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors and the like.
borg was the greatest I ever saw and unlike most didn't keep playing past his sell by date
Yeaaah let's just forget about his attempted comeback in the 90s. Honestly, let's pretend it didn't happen.
My Favourite Player Was and Still Is BJORN BORG.
Best looking style of all time and the forehand model of the future. Also if Borg would have met Federer with the high tech rackets of now he would have beat him I believe
Borg understands what a Grand Slam is.....now everyone who won a Major is a Grand Slam champion....everything is so hyped nowadays..... By the way, Nasty is the GOAT!!!
Grand Slam is just another name that Major goes by.
Please don't tell that to Bud Collins. But you have to understand how that cheapens the term Grand Slam, for example I am a Grand Slam champion because i won the mixed doubles in Australia in 1953 etc. So
BUDGE CONNOLLY LAVER COURT LAVER GRAF fin