Another proof that Laver = the best of all times he is really old for a pro here , just like Federer is now , Rod an Roger are the two best Tennisplayers of all times period!!!
Look at how great Laver was here, even at the age of 36. And Borg was already showing that he was a great player. Look at how swiftly he moved about the court, including at net. What a great match this was.
Steve, I think he can. Roger is 34 and is ranked No.2. If Novak slips up, Roger is right there. A dream US Open 2015 final would be..wait for it...Roger vs...RAFA!
2:00 That short slice by Laver. Identical to what Lendl produced in his prime. 3:15 is a mirror image (since Rod's a lefty) of the impossible backhand slice passing shot Federer hit in the 2012 US Open match against Berdych. Sheer class.
Its incredible how much those two remind me of Federer and Novak/Rafa. Especially now, that Roger is 36 as well. Laver has it all just like Roger and Borg is the Baseline Hunter that tracks down even the greatest shots - just like Novak and Rafa. Awesome Tennis, especially Lavers back hand passing shots are unreal.
Interesting that back then even mid-level tournaments like this were 5-set matches. No wonder Borg was burned out by 25 years of age and that's why now you see so many male players still playing at peak form at 29 or 30 because now only the majors are 5 set matches.
The WCT Finals was one of the biggest tournaments at the time, the last tournament in the World Championship of Tennis series. It wasn't a Grand Slam tournament, but was perhaps the most important professional tennis tournament. Only the top right players based on performance throughout the year were invited to the tournament. The five set format was ameliorated somewhat by the introduction of the tiebreaker.
@@christianbuxaderas8319 ....I wasn't making an asertion that the Dallas event didn't warrant a 5-set format, I was merely making the observation that for the past 15 years only major tournaments have this format and that could perhaps explain why there are so many players in their 30's still playing at the highest of levels. Maybe that concept was too subtle for you to understand.
Borg reminds me of Novak, physically like a wall, supremely fit and defence unbelievable. Very sound in all areas, but what he does best is frustrate player forcing them into mistakes because they need to go for more. I still prefer Laver/Federer game, but Novak and Borg are in there prime at this moment and there style if very difficult to overcome.
I'd compare borg more to Nadal Than Novak. Novak is closer to andre than anything really solid on both wings and you know when you played him you were in for the long haul
SILK334 I know there are similarities between Agassi and Novak, but there are differences as well. Agassi was more agressive and played on the baseline, the way Federer does now. Agassi made players run, alot. The similarity is that they preferred slow hard courts and made very few unforced errors.
Nope…not really! The likes of Newcombe, Nastase, Smith and Kodes were the link! Aka the players, who were winning major tournaments and becoming world number one ranked players swapping back and forth because Laver and Rosewall were too old, while Borg and Connors were too young…
Borg, Connors and Vilas (soon to be joined by McEnroe) were already part of the established new order…transitional period ended in 1974…When Connors became the first player in the open era to win 3 grand slams in a season…
so I am a bit curious would there be a way to take old school technique and modernize it. So many things have changed so drastically from the balls to the racquets and so forth. honestly, technique wise, is tennis really better
I would say Federer has modernised 'old school techniques.' He is like a modern day Rod Laver.
7 лет назад
silk@ technique hasnt changed or the balls,,rackets have a bigger sweet spot in the center and more power..I strung the racket for the guy that beat Borg the day before borg quit tennis.He wanted it strung at 80 lbs like Borg, I strung it at 73 lbs,,
Charlton Heston narrated these Dallas Finals films over a number of years and - at our annual party in Cheam, England a few days after Christmas, we watched these spectacular movies on a projector with the top players and press people in attendance. The slow motion scenes were the best. My Dad John McDonald was International Tournament Director for World Championship Tennis, running 35 tournaments a year. Operated out of Dallas by Lamar Hunt and Al Hill Jr. Mr Heston was a close family friend and keen tennis player. Dad recommended him to the AELTC membership committee.
I don't believe anyone can really beat Borg from the baseline. He's just too consistent. I will admit there are two who can challenge him from the baseline...Connors and Lendl. If Laver wants to beat Borg, he has to mix it up and ultimately get to the net. Who agrees with me?
i think that BIG BILL TILDEN,DON BUDGE,ROD LAVER,JACK KRAMER,PANCHO GONZALES,LEW HOAD,BORG ,PETE SAMPRAS,MC ENROE REMAIN BEST TENNIS PLAYERS OF ALL TIMES.
+roberto sittaro ... and Nastase too. I admire Federer increasingly with age. All players at the top in all eras are amazing. Eras do crossover sometimes, like in this match.
20 years:SUZANNE LENGLEN,HELEN MOODY WILLS- 30 YEARS BILL TILDEN,DON BUDGE,ELLINGSWORTH VINES,HELEN JACOBS.40 YEARS. PANCHO GONZALES,JACK KRAMER. 50 YEARS. LEW HOAD,KEN ROSEWALL,MAUREEN CONNOLLY,ALTHEA GIBSON. 60 YEARS. ROD LAVER,JOHN NEWCOMBE,BILLIE JEAN KING,MARGARET COURT,MARIA BUENO, 70 YEARS. CONNORS,BORG,EVERT,GOOLAGONG,ASHE. 80 YEARS: MC ENROE,LENDL,BECKER,NAVRATILOVA,90 YEARS. SAMPRAS,AGASSI,EDBERG,GRAF,SELES 2000 YEARS FEDERER,DIOKOVIC,MURRAY,NADAL,SERENA WILLIAMS. EVERY PLAYER IS A CHAMPION IS HIS OWN TIME,NO POSSIBLE SAY WHO WAS MORE STRONG.
Borg was mentally a very tough player and very consistent from the back of the court. However Laver was a more complete player and also mentally tough. Tennis is a mental game. The reason Borg started to lose from McEnroe was because his game was too one dimensional solely based on his groundstrokes and reslience. I think that the generation of Laver with guys like Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Okker and Rosewall were more then a match for Borg when they were in their prime. All these guys were extremely talented and more complete then Borg, they all knew how to volley. Borg still deserves the admiration what he accomplished as a tennis player before his 25th bithday.
+Bob Van Der Weele Borg played a lot of volley at faster surfaces, more than Wilander did for example which btw won more matches than he lost against Mcenroe. Borg beat both Rosewall and Laver already when he was 17 years old. Additionally Borg had better forehand and Serve than WIlander who did resonably well until 89 at least in GS.. Rosewall could not master topspin at all and Okker more complete player? Did he win a slam ever? Borg never lost to him even when he was 18 and yet far from his prime. Borg beat Ashe also well before his(Borg) prime in 1973. Even record between them but they never played on Borgs best surface and not after 75. Ashe from the baseline was much worse than Borg at the net. But you are right that tennis is a mental game, Borg started to loose when his motivation dropped.
Borg was amazing in his early twenties, almost unbeatable. Mentally tough. My opinion is that he couldn't deal with loss. That is the reason I admire guys like Gonzales, Rosewall and Connors. They player till the end and could deal with loss. Tennis is only a game and shouldn't be an obsession!
+Bob Van Der Weele You can't play such a demanding sport without letting out your emotions. Maybe, Borg won too much to fast. Many players, which had an exceptionel footwork or stamina, had only a short period at the top. Muster, Courier, Chang, Wilander are all very similiar.
+vanlendl1 Whitout any doubt Borg was an exceptional good tennis player. His greatest strength was his menthal toughness in combination with his stamina. When he was still winning he once said that he wanted to be remembered as the best tennis player who had ever lived. Tennis became an obsession for him. In a way he was lucky because when he rose to power the old generation were in their thirties and beyond their prime. This was an exceptional strong generation of at least 10 players who could beat one another. Ashe has beaten Borg many times when he was in his thirties. Borg even had problems beating a 36 years old Rod Laver. Newcombe had beaten Connors in the Australian Open in 1975. Okker had beaten Connors and Borg twice . Roche has beaten McEnroe in Nottingham in 1978. The only real competition Borg faced was from only three guys, Connors, McEnroe and later Lendl who had not reached his prime yet. I agree Borg won too much too early because he didn't face real competition and when he faced McEnroe who could really challenge him he decided to quit! What is very strange that he continued to play lucrative exhibition matches. Laver faced competition from at least 10 players who could match his talent, he only won because he was mentally tougher. He once said that tennis is a menthal game. Laver and Rosewall also played grand slam finals at the age of 18 but they continued playing till the end and had to cope with defeat!
+Bob Van Der Weele I saw that complete match between Newcombe and Connors a while ago here on YT. Laver still had an amazing footwork when he was 35. Too bad, that Borg quit that early. It would have been interesting to see, if he could adopt to the new racquets.
+vanlendl1 I fully agree. It was a major loss for tennis when Borg quited tennis that early. Now we never know how he would have played the upcoming generation to start with the great Ivan Lendl.
+Bob Van Der Weele In fact, Borg did play Lendl on several occasions, like in the masters final 1980. Lendl was already very strong. But it felt like he couldn't hurt Borg in any way. Borg's only problem was motivation. He was burned out, mentally.
I think the record should be put straight here as some seem to be unaware of Borg's history. He was a clay courter but he adapted his game to grass. He didn't solely win from the back of the court in any of his Wimbledon's. Even in his first one against Nastase he was going to the net on his first serve. However, by McEnroe in 1980 he was practically a serve volleyer. He knew volleying wasn't his strongest point but I suppose he thought 'if I am at the net my opponent isn't' . To win five Wimbledon's and six French, with that credo in mind, makes him in my top three in the Open era.
No way Borg was a serve volleyer on grass by 1980! He stayed back against Tanner (1979) and Mac (1980). I recall him winning Wimbledon by staying back and passing, not coming in.
+Alan Chong I have just watched the first two service games of borg in the nastase final of 76. Out of the two games Borg got his first serve in the majority of times and he came in every time on his first serve. It was only on his second serve he stayed back, and this was in 76. I suggest you go and look yourself
martynh Ok. But what about 1979 and 1980? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. I just remember Borg winning Wimbledon primarily as a baseliner. Especially against Tanner and McEnroe. I wilk check it out again.
martynh Nastase vs Borg. Was Borg serving and volleying the rest of the match? I don't know. I will have to check that out. Borg's not a strong serve and volleyer. I would doubt he would play that tactic most of the match. His serve is good. His volleys are only ok. His baseline game is...well...incredible! He doesn't miss!
+Alan Chong I have watched a few spaced out sections and every time Borg got his first serve in he came to the net. Also, even when his second serve was played back to him he went in after a few shots, or whenever he thought the moment was there. I think the tactic he devised with Berglin was if he is at the net his opponent isn't. Of course his volleying was as good as the rest of his game but that is what I think.
Bob van der Weele says. Okker has beaten Borg on two occasions. In 1975 in Rotterdam and in 1974 in Stockholm. At that time Okker was 31 years old and well past his prime. Borg was 19 years old at that time. Borg started to quit tennis because in 1981 he couldn't figure out how to beat McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US Open. Had he won both matches he woud have continued playing tennis. He was obsessed with winning. Retirering from tennis at the age of 26 is a menthal weakness. Ashe has beaten Borg many times when he was well past his prime.
+Robert W I fully agree with your comments on the retirement of Borg. For me it is very strange that a person who is mentally that tough quits tennis at 26 and then tries a come back at 35! This doesn't sound very stable. Laver and Rosewall also played excellent tennis in their late teens. I have to admit that untill now Borg was the best teenage tennis player of all time. Rosewal played professional tennis till his early forties and he had to quit because he was getting too old to compete! This guy loved the game. For me the two best tennis players who have ever lived were Laver and Rosewall. They were more complete then Borg and Connors. McEnroe belongs talent wise in the same bracket as Rosewall and Laver but he was mentally unstable and wasted his talent. In the past players knew how to lose because it was a part of sportmanship. Nowadays winning is an obsession. Another thing, Laver and Rosewall also won mayor titles in doubles. Except for Connors, the modern generation can't say that! I have to admit that I also admire the fighting spirit and longevity of play of Connors. He also belongs to the greatest of all time.
Bob Van Der Weele Bjorg was just burned out from the tour. There was no break then, and many tournaments were best of five sets. Also he had bedn going hard since he was 16. He needed 6 months out and a much reduced schedule, which the tour would not allow. A shame.
So .ucking true,too many do not know this,plus when Wilander won the 82 French,he practiced with Borg leading up and never won a set in 10 matches!!! Plus later that year in 82 Borg smashed Lendl and Mac down under in a special big money clash.McEnroe never forgot that
Bob van der Weele says. Okker has beaten Borg on two occasions. In 1975 in Rotterdam and in 1974 in Stockholm. At that time Okker was 31 years old and well past his prime. Borg was 19 years old at that time. Borg started to quit tennis because in 1981 he couldn't figure out how to beat McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US Open. Had he won both matches he woud have continued playing tennis. He was obsessed with winning. Retirering from tennis at the age of 26 is a menthal weakness. Ashe has beaten Borg many times when he was well past his prime.
Borg was probably mentally exhausted from tennis. To say retiring from tennis at age 26 was mentally weak is a bit harsh. That's like a comment from an armchair tennis fan. Borg was in the trenches of the tennis battles for years! The flame was probably extinguished.
Another proof that Laver = the best of all times he is really old for a pro here , just like Federer is now , Rod an Roger are the two best Tennisplayers of all times period!!!
Look at how great Laver was here, even at the age of 36. And Borg was already showing that he was a great player. Look at how swiftly he moved about the court, including at net. What a great match this was.
Did you see Lew Hoad standing-up when Rod L won a superb point movíng ahead? A lot of tennis legends in first and second row. Great tennis!!!
Two of the greatest players of all time squaring off. Thanks for the upload!
Alan Chong Lets see if Federer can get to the semi of any major tournament at 36
Steve Klurfeld Roger could do it
Steve, I think he can. Roger is 34 and is ranked No.2. If Novak slips up, Roger is right there. A dream US Open 2015 final would be..wait for it...Roger vs...RAFA!
Steve Klurfeld 19th major as a 35 year old at Wimbledon. Only a couple weeks from 36 years
Belligerent Truck And Roger plans to play for at least 2 more years and possibly 4.
2:00 That short slice by Laver. Identical to what Lendl produced in his prime. 3:15 is a mirror image (since Rod's a lefty) of the impossible backhand slice passing shot Federer hit in the 2012 US Open match against Berdych. Sheer class.
Borg with modern training/rackets would be well suited to today's attritional style of tennis.
Its incredible how much those two remind me of Federer and Novak/Rafa. Especially now, that Roger is 36 as well. Laver has it all just like Roger and Borg is the Baseline Hunter that tracks down even the greatest shots - just like Novak and Rafa. Awesome Tennis, especially Lavers back hand passing shots are unreal.
WHATT? COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
Borg Laver are simply a pleasure to watch.
Rod Laver was the first pro athlete to win or earn over $100,000 in a single year. amazing now huh?
yep and he is still the best! advantage Laver...
"Rocket Rod"
Funny…thats how much the winner of one ATP500 tournament usually gets these days…
100k in a season versus 5-9 million these days! Lol That’s what i call - feel the difference!
@3:10: the greatest shot of all time?
The Federer v Sampras of its time.
+Alex Gray Can't completely agree as there was an 18 yr age difference between Borg and Laver.
mrbobevans 18 years!!! Massive age difference!
Laver, 37 yrs...Borg, 19
crazy good for a 19 year old
Do you have the full match of this gem?
Interesting that back then even mid-level tournaments like this were 5-set matches. No wonder Borg was burned out by 25 years of age and that's why now you see so many male players still playing at peak form at 29 or 30 because now only the majors are 5 set matches.
The WCT Finals was one of the biggest tournaments at the time, the last tournament in the World Championship of Tennis series. It wasn't a Grand Slam tournament, but was perhaps the most important professional tennis tournament. Only the top right players based on performance throughout the year were invited to the tournament. The five set format was ameliorated somewhat by the introduction of the tiebreaker.
+Robert Kekuna *top eight players
CLUELESS..DALLAS WAS THE BIGGEST EVENT AFTER WIMBLY AND FOREST HILLS THEN
@@christianbuxaderas8319 ....I wasn't making an asertion that the Dallas event didn't warrant a 5-set format, I was merely making the observation that for the past 15 years only major tournaments have this format and that could perhaps explain why there are so many players in their 30's still playing at the highest of levels. Maybe that concept was too subtle for you to understand.
You clueless
Borg reminds me of Novak, physically like a wall, supremely fit and defence unbelievable. Very sound in all areas, but what he does best is frustrate player forcing them into mistakes because they need to go for more. I still prefer Laver/Federer game, but Novak and Borg are in there prime at this moment and there style if very difficult to overcome.
I'd compare borg more to Nadal Than Novak. Novak is closer to andre than anything really solid on both wings and you know when you played him you were in for the long haul
MrYoumitube yes. They can play offense but win with. Defense.
MrYoumitube Bjorg was more agressive than Novak and a better volleyer. But ya, apart from that there are strong similarities.
SILK334 I know there are similarities between Agassi and Novak, but there are differences as well. Agassi was more agressive and played on the baseline, the way Federer does now. Agassi made players run, alot. The similarity is that they preferred slow hard courts and made very few unforced errors.
Bazarov I agreeish. I think Lendl was more offensive than Novak.
Borg is the link player between the Classic and Modern era of tennis.
Nope…not really! The likes of Newcombe, Nastase, Smith and Kodes were the link! Aka the players, who were winning major tournaments and becoming world number one ranked players swapping back and forth because Laver and Rosewall were too old, while Borg and Connors were too young…
And also Ashe off course! Forgot about him! He was also part of that link in early 70’s…
Borg, Connors and Vilas (soon to be joined by McEnroe) were already part of the established new order…transitional period ended in 1974…When Connors became the first player in the open era to win 3 grand slams in a season…
The true transitional player from classic to modern style was Lendl.
They were the greatest two players at that time. A Nadal/Borg match on clay would have been interesting.
Laver in '75 was well past his prime...
Nadal/Lendl on clay would be a better match up
so I am a bit curious would there be a way to take old school technique and modernize it. So many things have changed so drastically from the balls to the racquets and so forth. honestly, technique wise, is tennis really better
I would say Federer has modernised 'old school techniques.' He is like a modern day Rod Laver.
silk@ technique hasnt changed or the balls,,rackets have a bigger sweet spot in the center and more power..I strung the racket for the guy that beat Borg the day before borg quit tennis.He wanted it strung at 80 lbs like Borg, I strung it at 73 lbs,,
I've never seen Borg come to the net so much ..
***** These are classic matches I'd love to see how these guys would play with modern equipment and nutrition and modern training methods ...
He actually volleyed a lot. Pretty much all players did back then. People think of him as a baseliner, but he was an all court player.
Something seems a bit strange when Borg is coming to net more than Laver
Well... this event was played on carpet... Borg's worst surface.
Charlton Heston narrated these Dallas Finals films over a number of years and - at our annual party in Cheam, England a few days after Christmas, we watched these spectacular movies on a projector with the top players and press people in attendance. The slow motion scenes were the best. My Dad John McDonald was International Tournament Director for World Championship Tennis, running 35 tournaments a year. Operated out of Dallas by Lamar Hunt and Al Hill Jr. Mr Heston was a close family friend and keen tennis player. Dad recommended him to the AELTC membership committee.
I don't believe anyone can really beat Borg from the baseline. He's just too consistent. I will admit there are two who can challenge him from the baseline...Connors and Lendl. If Laver wants to beat Borg, he has to mix it up and ultimately get to the net. Who agrees with me?
Alan Chong Rod had every shot. He could threaten , and beat Borg some. Especially if he was younger lol. Give him credit. Still playing at 36
Federer and Laver are very similar...except Laver is more complete. That's scary.
Farid Damasio except he isnt.
Alan Chong I disagree. You forgot Novak and Rafa. Both are better baseliners than Connors and Lendl. Borg might be on the same Level.
i think that BIG BILL TILDEN,DON BUDGE,ROD LAVER,JACK KRAMER,PANCHO GONZALES,LEW HOAD,BORG ,PETE SAMPRAS,MC ENROE REMAIN BEST TENNIS PLAYERS OF ALL TIMES.
+roberto sittaro ... and Nastase too. I admire Federer increasingly with age. All players at the top in all eras are amazing. Eras do crossover sometimes, like in this match.
Per descomptat que sí : Billie Jean King , Chris Evert , Martina Navratilova , Steffi Graf !!
20 years:SUZANNE LENGLEN,HELEN MOODY WILLS- 30 YEARS BILL TILDEN,DON BUDGE,ELLINGSWORTH VINES,HELEN JACOBS.40 YEARS. PANCHO GONZALES,JACK KRAMER. 50 YEARS. LEW HOAD,KEN ROSEWALL,MAUREEN CONNOLLY,ALTHEA GIBSON. 60 YEARS. ROD LAVER,JOHN NEWCOMBE,BILLIE JEAN KING,MARGARET COURT,MARIA BUENO, 70 YEARS. CONNORS,BORG,EVERT,GOOLAGONG,ASHE. 80 YEARS: MC ENROE,LENDL,BECKER,NAVRATILOVA,90 YEARS. SAMPRAS,AGASSI,EDBERG,GRAF,SELES 2000 YEARS FEDERER,DIOKOVIC,MURRAY,NADAL,SERENA WILLIAMS. EVERY PLAYER IS A CHAMPION IS HIS OWN TIME,NO POSSIBLE SAY WHO WAS MORE STRONG.
Borg was mentally a very tough player and very consistent from the back of the court. However Laver was a more complete player and also mentally tough. Tennis is a mental game. The reason Borg started to lose from McEnroe was because his game was too one dimensional solely based on his groundstrokes and reslience. I think that the generation of Laver with guys like Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Okker and Rosewall were more then a match for Borg when they were in their prime. All these guys were extremely talented and more complete then Borg, they all knew how to volley. Borg still deserves the admiration what he accomplished as a tennis player before his 25th bithday.
+Bob Van Der Weele Borg played a lot of volley at faster surfaces, more than Wilander did for example which btw won more matches than he lost against Mcenroe. Borg beat both Rosewall and Laver already when he was 17 years old. Additionally Borg had better forehand and Serve than WIlander who did resonably well until 89 at least in GS.. Rosewall could not master topspin at all and Okker more complete player? Did he win a slam ever? Borg never lost to him even when he was 18 and yet far from his prime. Borg beat Ashe also well before his(Borg) prime in 1973. Even record between them but they never played on Borgs best surface and not after 75. Ashe from the baseline was much worse than Borg at the net. But you are right that tennis is a mental game, Borg started to loose when his motivation dropped.
Borg was amazing in his early twenties, almost unbeatable. Mentally tough. My opinion is that he couldn't deal with loss. That is the reason I admire guys like Gonzales, Rosewall and Connors. They player till the end and could deal with loss. Tennis is only a game and shouldn't
be an obsession!
+Bob Van Der Weele You can't play such a demanding sport without letting out your emotions. Maybe, Borg won too much to fast. Many players, which had an exceptionel footwork or stamina, had only a short period at the top.
Muster, Courier, Chang, Wilander are all very similiar.
+vanlendl1 Whitout any doubt Borg was an exceptional good tennis player. His greatest strength was his menthal toughness in combination with his stamina. When he was still winning he once said that he wanted to be remembered as the best tennis player who had ever lived. Tennis became an obsession for him. In a way he was lucky because when he rose to power the old generation were in their thirties and beyond their prime. This was an exceptional strong generation of at least 10 players who could beat one another. Ashe has beaten Borg many times when he was in his thirties. Borg even had problems beating a 36 years old Rod Laver. Newcombe had beaten Connors in the Australian Open in 1975. Okker had beaten Connors and Borg twice . Roche has beaten McEnroe in Nottingham in 1978. The only real competition Borg faced was from only three guys, Connors, McEnroe and later Lendl who had not reached his prime yet. I agree Borg won too much too early because he didn't face real competition and when he faced McEnroe who could really challenge him he decided to quit! What is very strange that he continued to play lucrative exhibition matches. Laver faced competition from at least 10 players who could match his talent, he only won because he was mentally tougher. He once said that tennis is a menthal game. Laver and Rosewall also played grand slam finals at the age of 18 but they continued playing till the end and had to cope with defeat!
+Bob Van Der Weele I saw that complete match between Newcombe and Connors a while ago here on YT.
Laver still had an amazing footwork when he was 35. Too bad, that Borg quit that early.
It would have been interesting to see, if he could adopt to the new racquets.
+vanlendl1 I fully agree. It was a major loss for tennis when Borg quited tennis that early. Now we never know how he would have played the upcoming generation to start with the great Ivan Lendl.
+Bob Van Der Weele In fact, Borg did play Lendl on several occasions, like in the masters final 1980. Lendl was already very strong. But it felt like he couldn't hurt Borg in any way. Borg's only problem was motivation. He was burned out, mentally.
Federer v Djokovic of the 70s
Borg was really quick. Borg's footwork was gone, as he tried his comeback in 1991 with 35 years of age.
vanlendl1 nobody can be out of the game for as long as Bjorg was and come back. Just not possible. He was still the quickest player I have ever seen.
Borg was very quick, though I think Nastase was actually quicker.
Who was that announcer ? I cant think of his name.
dks13827 Charleton Heston, Actor
+Steve Klurfeld Is it really?
+dks13827 Ah yes, it is indeed. He was good at many things.
Chris Shenkel, I think. He was the commentator in several different sports.
I think the record should be put straight here as some seem to be unaware of Borg's history. He was a clay courter but he adapted his game to grass. He didn't solely win from the back of the court in any of his Wimbledon's. Even in his first one against Nastase he was going to the net on his first serve. However, by McEnroe in 1980 he was practically a serve volleyer. He knew volleying wasn't his strongest point but I suppose he thought 'if I am at the net my opponent isn't' . To win five Wimbledon's and six French, with that credo in mind, makes him in my top three in the Open era.
No way Borg was a serve volleyer on grass by 1980! He stayed back against Tanner (1979) and Mac (1980). I recall him winning Wimbledon by staying back and passing, not coming in.
+Alan Chong I have just watched the first two service games of borg in the nastase final of 76. Out of the two games Borg got his first serve in the majority of times and he came in every time on his first serve. It was only on his second serve he stayed back, and this was in 76. I suggest you go and look yourself
martynh Ok. But what about 1979 and 1980? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. I just remember Borg winning Wimbledon primarily as a baseliner. Especially against Tanner and McEnroe. I wilk check it out again.
martynh
Nastase vs Borg. Was Borg serving and volleying the rest of the match? I don't know. I will have to check that out. Borg's not a strong serve and volleyer. I would doubt he would play that tactic most of the match. His serve is good. His volleys are only ok. His baseline game is...well...incredible! He doesn't miss!
+Alan Chong I have watched a few spaced out sections and every time Borg got his first serve in he came to the net. Also, even when his second serve was played back to him he went in after a few shots, or whenever he thought the moment was there. I think the tactic he devised with Berglin was if he is at the net his opponent isn't. Of course his volleying was as good as the rest of his game but that is what I think.
Bob van der Weele says. Okker has beaten Borg on two occasions. In 1975 in Rotterdam and in 1974 in Stockholm. At that time Okker was 31 years old and well past his prime. Borg was 19 years old at that time. Borg started to quit tennis because in 1981 he couldn't figure out how to beat McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US Open. Had he won both matches he woud have continued playing tennis. He was obsessed with winning. Retirering from tennis at the age of 26 is a menthal weakness. Ashe has beaten Borg many times when he was well past his prime.
+Robert W I fully agree with your comments on the retirement of Borg. For me it is very strange that a person who is mentally that tough quits tennis at 26 and then tries a come back at 35! This doesn't sound very stable. Laver and Rosewall also played excellent tennis in their late teens. I have to admit that untill now Borg was the best teenage tennis player of all time. Rosewal played professional tennis till his early forties and he had to quit because he was getting too old to compete! This guy loved the game. For me the two best tennis players who have ever lived were Laver and Rosewall. They were more complete then Borg and Connors. McEnroe belongs talent wise in the same bracket as Rosewall and Laver but he was mentally unstable and wasted his talent. In the past players knew how to lose because it was a part of sportmanship. Nowadays winning is an obsession. Another thing, Laver and Rosewall also won mayor titles in doubles. Except for Connors, the modern generation can't say that! I have to admit that I also admire the fighting spirit and longevity of play of Connors. He also belongs to the greatest of all time.
What? McEnroe has 9 Grand Slam doubles titles. John Newcombe has 17.
Bob Van Der Weele Bjorg was just burned out from the tour. There was no break then, and many tournaments were best of five sets. Also he had bedn going hard since he was 16. He needed 6 months out and a much reduced schedule, which the tour would not allow. A shame.
So .ucking true,too many do not know this,plus when Wilander won the 82 French,he practiced with Borg leading up and never won a set in 10 matches!!! Plus later that year in 82 Borg smashed Lendl and Mac down under in a special big money clash.McEnroe never forgot that
Damn that commentator sounds like Charlton Heston!
Double thr age and could have won 36 Yrs VERSUS 18Yrs..A FAIR CONTEST ..RIGHT!
Rod " Rocket" Lever.
semifinals
tare
Definitely the Malaysian is ruining he Tennis World
Bob van der Weele says. Okker has beaten Borg on two occasions. In 1975 in Rotterdam and in 1974 in Stockholm. At that time Okker was 31 years old and well past his prime. Borg was 19 years old at that time. Borg started to quit tennis because in 1981 he couldn't figure out how to beat McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US Open. Had he won both matches he woud have continued playing tennis. He was obsessed with winning. Retirering from tennis at the age of 26 is a menthal weakness. Ashe has beaten Borg many times when he was well past his prime.
Borg was probably mentally exhausted from tennis. To say retiring from tennis at age 26 was mentally weak is a bit harsh. That's like a comment from an armchair tennis fan. Borg was in the trenches of the tennis battles for years! The flame was probably extinguished.
Borg's style drove opponents mad. It ultimately drove himself into retirement. No cheap points for Borg playing the way he does.