From interviews I've heard with players such as Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, and Nastase, they all said Connors was the hardest hitter they ever faced. I believe it; he hammered every shot like only he could. Amazing.
Borgs training was legendary and it paid off ...whatever jimmy threw at him .. he was able to get to it and do damage...to do what he did with a wood racquet was incredible!.. the one and only Bjorn Borg!
Borg's movement and court coverage is ridiculous. He glides instead of runs. I've never seen a guy move side to side across the court so quickly and effortlessly
Borg did approach the net at Wimbeldon, especially in the last three years of his victories, but grass is different than other hard courts. On grass, a short volley dies, on hard court it sits up and you can be passed. I believe that is why Borg had problems at the US Open. He also had bad luck, an injured shoulder one year, forced to play Roscoe Tanner, the fastest sever of his era, at night one year. Still my favourite player of all time.
Playing with a wood racquet,it is amazing that Borg was able to impart so much topspin on the ball.Especially when you consider that he strung his racquets so tightly that they would pop in the middle of the night.
@ jesparza562. If Connors and Borg were playing on the men's tennis tour today at their peak, they would both be ranked in the top 5 in the world. The players of the 1970's could only hit the ball as hard as the smaller wood and metal rackets allowed them to hit the ball. Connors and Borg with modern rackets would hit the ball just as hard as the current pro players.
es mas fácil jugar ahora con raquetas mas grandes, con el centro mas grande. las actuales raquetas ayudan a los jugadores mediocres a levantar su nivel. los nuevos jugadores con el aro mas pequeño no pasarían tantas pelotas sobre la red, ni le darían el efecto, ni despedirían la bola tan fuerte. en los 70s solo los grandes llegaban a ser campeones. hoy cualquier jugador mediocre gana un gran título.
Midsized and oversized racquets of today are extremely forgiving. The conventional-sized racquets of yesteryear (mainly made out of wood but Jimmy's was steel) forced the players to be accurate with the ball placement on the strings lest they hit the racquet frame. That discipline gave the men's game finesse and elegance. Now it's just a power game. No less difficult for today's players, but less interesting to watch.
Connors was amazing but Borg was better. The energy these guys had , it was balls to the wall and hammer and tongs!!!!!!!!!!!!! The shots were full of variety and not just getting it over the net in a slug fest like today. Wow!!!!!!!!
Har-Tru clay was fun to play on, brings back memories. When I was at Yale we had both Har-Tru and Decoturf courts, though the latter was the official surface for matches. This match was around the time Borg started dominating Connors. Connors was the best ball-striker at the time (except for his weaker forehand), but Borg was simply too fast for him
Jimmy's approaches were so short this day, against the finest passing shot maker of all times... I remember he mentionned the same at those time (Fev march 79) This year was Borg's climax, last year Jimmy shared the N1 place, next, John will do. We miss those guys. Badly !
@tlonsinkie You mean Federer has a Borg-like forehand and you're right he is faster than Nadal. It's like putting the two together and it equals Borg, haha.
Besides his hard training and fitness, Borg owed his speed and superb court coverage to his days playing ice hockey. His legs as a power engine and movements developed there.
Great video!! All televised tennis should be shown from that camera angle!!! It would make it so much better to watch! You feel like you are part of the action which makes TV tennis fascinating!
Yes, this is a form of clay called Har-Tru. It plays differently than the red clay used at the French Open. This type of clay is grittier and the ball bounces slightly higher, whereas the clay at the French is more like dirt.
When I was beginning to play the game, I loved both these guys and I was determined to play with a two hander. None of my coaches/instructors even knew how to teach it. I copied Connor's more than Borg's. Even tried to play with those awful T2000's for a while.
@@AlanSmitheeman You're better than me. The Borg Pro was so stiff. The T2000 was way too whippy. I eventually found something in between, the Rossignol Strato, my standard sized wood before moving onto the Rossy F 200 C.
@@carseye1219 I was never a good player. I just liked playing. I even preferred (and still do) just rallying for the enjoyment of hitting the ball. I'm just not a competitive person. The Borg Pro can vibrate a lot at the top of the head but if you get into a groove and hit the ball consistently in the sweet spot, the feeling is effortless and the ball just launches off your strings but still in a controlled way. Bigger racquets are much easier to play with. But sometimes doing things the hard way is enjoyable, if you're just doing it for fun and some exercise. I have other racquets which are 1980s Yonex Rexking models. They are all midsized and very comfortable in the hand. It's all about personal taste. If you still like to play with wooden racquets you may want to check out the Donnay Flex Pro. It is much more flexible than the Borg Pro and is on Ebay now and then for a decent price. Between those two in flexibility are the Donnay Fiber Pro and the Donnay Graphite Pro.
@@AlanSmitheeman I almost bought a couple of Borg Pros because I thought they were cool looking, black was unusual then. I was anomaly then, an American clay courter. After college I went to Europe, playing a season of Bundesliga in Germany while trying to get computer points in ITF's, challengers, and qualies. But I went broke, being a small guy (5'7") as the technology made it almost impossible to win as a retriever with a serve that didn't break 85 mph. It might be fun to hit with wood again so I might take your suggestions. All I want to do is rally now too. Don't want to compete anymore but still too competitive to play "hit & giggle" doubles.
@@carseye1219 Maybe it's nostalgia but I have always loved the look of conventionally-sized wood racquets over all other styles. The Donnay Pro series of racquets being my most favourite. To me, the Borg Pro is the most attractive of all tennis racquets including all the ones of today. I just love the black with orange/red graphics and the mono shaft and two-handed leather grip. I really miss the conventionally sized racquets on the pro tour. It's why I haven't watched it since 1990. I love the elegance and finesse of the game back then. You can always play at the club level. I think conditioning can overcome a lack of reach by being 5'7". You may be in better shape than your age group and could beat players in your range. Good for you pursuing your dream of trying to enter the pro ranks. Better to have tried than never and regretting it.
Koochyman: About Connors being an all-court player who emphasized aggressive baseline play -- I agree with you. About being able to win Wimbledon without being able to serve and volley, I offer this bit of evidence: Bjorn Borg. Five Wimbledons. In a row. :-)
That's because Connors loves to hit his two-hand backhand cross-court to Borg's forehand and come in to net which allows Borg to hit the forehand pass on several occassions.
@BORGCONNORS I'm positive he beat Connors the last 10 times they played and 15-8 overall. Laver was 14-7 against Rosewell. This is why I put little stock in head - head matchups. It makes it look one-sided! Great tennis!
I recall so many of the matches, it was a great time. Ratings were great, much of the time. Jimmy was my guy. in this match I do see why Borg on that surface would usually beat Jimmy. Now, hard courts, that was a little different. When Jimmy was 18 and a UCLA freshman, he beat former number 1 Roy Emerson. A very big deal.
Borg won his 11 Majors at his 25birthday at roland garros only Nadal can matched that feet if he is going to win the Australian & French Open in 2011. Borg played the Australian only once in December 1973 when he was 17 years old.
@pablotjob the pepsi grand slam was a 4 player invitation big money exhibition. i don't remember who else played in all of them, vilas definitely. Connors and borg won their matches and played in the final in 77, 78 and 79. the 77 and 78 matches were tough 3 setters. in this one Borg took his game up a notch.
At this stage Borg was only 22 (23 in june)and he was already all over Connors 26(27 in september).From 1979 to 1981 Borg always beat Connors with the lost of few games; that too bad he retired so early at the end of 1981 at 25.
Borg ran like hell and is lucky as deserved to be according to his determination. Now, not the best of Jimmy, according to what we saw in the USOpen final, six months ago. I've this match and 'll post it soon.
This court plays really fast here as it is really dry. But at the club in Florida where my dad lives, the green clay courts are the slowest courts humanly possibly. Literally, it is like playing in a swamp. They irrigate the courts from the bottom up. I will venture to say there are no red courts slower than those courts.
It's on clay and while Sampras, if he wasn't exhausted was good on clay, you can't serve and volley regularly on clay. Borg was almost unbeatable on clay, especially in 1978 when this match was played.
@tlonsinkie I have heard several comments on RUclips that Borg had a Federer like forehad or vice versa. I don't see it. Borg's forehand is more circular in its motion. Federer takes the racket back more with his left hand.
Green Clay (tenneco) is the best surface in tennis. Rewards patience and aggression and isn't dirty like red clay. It is also the easiest surface on the body. It's a shame a major tennis tournament is not played on it. Today's green clay is slower than the surface shown in this match.
Well no, the Masters already existed then (though it was played in January). The Pepsi Grand Slam only ran for a few years. It has no equivalent today.
Yes but I remember Jimmy's comments at that time, he was disapointed with the shortness of his approaches... That's true, even if Borg caught superbly sometimes even long ones, generaly, this precise Jimmy came to the net without shoe, in socks behind mid-court approaches...then got punishment.
True but Borg did that to Connors on many different surfaces. But you are right, clay was Borg's surface. However I wouldn't say that Connors didn't love clay. Connors could win on any surface and he won the U.S. Open in 1976 over Borg on that same Har Tru surface.
Hey that's bloody great stuff dude! Greetings from Australia. I know the yanks have a tennis channel. Anyone got footage of the Borg-Connors 1977 final that was also aired? Could I suggest a number of Yanks shoot off an e-mail to the tennis channel in order to see if TTC can screen complete re-runs of the 1982 and 1983 Dallas (WCT) McEnroe vs Lendl finals? PA-LEE-EE-ZE!
Let's start with Nadal using that tiny piece of aluminium Connors used. Put him on an old Wimbledon court with not much bounce and have him compete on faster hard courts unlike today, you'll soon find out plenty!
borg seems to enjoy playing against connors...connors persistently hit the ball hard and flat..yet it seems the harder connors hit the ball the better borg borrowed the ball's momentum to overpower him
@ Samprasisthebest. Of course Federer makes it look even easier than Borg did because Federer has had the advantage of playing with much larger,much lighter, and more powerful rackets than Borg played with in his era.
@ siegeperilous. There were numerous moments during Borg's five consecutive title streak at Wimbledon when Borg did serve-and-volley, but obviously most of the time he played from the baseline.
How many times conners got passed??? More than 10 times .you know why ??? All his approach shots were cross court . Great Arthur Ash once said " Never make cross court approach shot " hossein from Iran
@ ampiciline. Although Connors may have gotten passed at the net numerous times in this match by Borg, Connors throughout his career was known for having superb down-the-line approach shots. His flat approach shots on forehand and backhand were among the best in tennis history.
@ jesparza562. Djokovic would not defeat Connors and Borg at the peak of their prime in 3 straight sets! Connors was a better all-around player than Djokovic, and Borg with his tremendous foot speed, stamina, excellent first serve and superbly consistent groundstrokes would win at least 50% of his matches against Djokovic if they were to play against each other in their prime. Borg and Connors demonstrated much better mental toughness in their tennis careers than Djokovic has demonstrated in his career. Just look at Djokovic's loss at this year's U.S. Open tournament in the semifinals to Nishikori , a player who most tennis fans had never heard of prior to his defeat of Djokovic in that tournament. Borg and Connors never lost to a previously unknown player in the semifinals of a major tournament during their tennis careers.
Thing is, Djokovic's serve is a bit better than Connors' serve, so in the battle of the two flat-hitting guys with great backhands and returns of serve, I'd probably give Novak the nod there (also, Novak's forehand is more consistent than Jimmy's forehand). I agree that Connors' volleys are better than Djokovic's. But, since time travel is impossible, it's very hard, if not impossible, to make accurate comparisons of this type (Laver or Pancho Gonzales with modern training/gear/diet? Nadal with a wood racquet? Who can say). To win, I think Jimmy would really have to work the crowd over to his side to rattle Novak. Nishikori has been well known to serious fans of the game for quite some time before his 2014 US Open final. And the overall level of the Tour in general, not just the top players, is a LOT harder than it was in the McEnroe/Connors/Borg era, with everyone having access to "modern training methods". Back then you would have some real flakes floating around in the Top 100 who lost 1st rounds in the Slams -- nowadays, even the qualifying matches are super intense. Professional tennis has become a much more competitive sport overall, nowadays, with more people around the globe playing tennis than ever before (thus, increasing the "talent pool" of pro players). One can make a case for Borg being just as good as the top guys playing now, but not at the lower levels, where nowadays there are a TON of excellent players that are capable of beating even the top guys (as Querrey did against Djokovic at Wimbledon 2016).
Nonsense. Djoker has one of the best 2 nd serves in tennis (the casual fan doesn't know this). Connors had a weak forehand Djoker would take apart, and he's pretty much as fast as Borg in court coverage. What nonsense you write.
I think this is the stage when Borg was in Connors' head. I think Jimmy wasn't sure he could beat Bjorn at this time. I really like Connors' forehand topspin. He should have used it more often, especially to change the pace.
@ Justin Peterson. Connors was never a great serve-and-volleyer. His volleying ability was good, but never great. His superb, deep approach shots ( especially his down-the-line approach shots) allowed him to get into a good position at the net to win a point with an overhead smash or a volley.
Yes, Borg is great. But look at his strange and fluid backhand, it is not a pure two-handed backhand. It is some kind of mutation of one-handed and two-handed. He starts with two hands, but the follow through is with one hand.
From interviews I've heard with players such as Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, and Nastase, they all said Connors was the hardest hitter they ever faced. I believe it; he hammered every shot like only he could. Amazing.
Borgs training was legendary and it paid off ...whatever jimmy threw at him .. he was able to get to it and do damage...to do what he did with a wood racquet was incredible!.. the one and only Bjorn Borg!
I believe Borg is the only one perfect tennis player of all-time. His play is now my dream.
Borg's movement and court coverage is ridiculous. He glides instead of runs. I've never seen a guy move side to side across the court so quickly and effortlessly
Borg, McEnroe, Connors, the Golden Trilogy of those times!
Borg did approach the net at Wimbeldon, especially in the last three years of his victories, but grass is different than other hard courts. On grass, a short volley dies, on hard court it sits up and you can be passed. I believe that is why Borg had problems at the US Open. He also had bad luck, an injured shoulder one year, forced to play Roscoe Tanner, the fastest sever of his era, at night one year. Still my favourite player of all time.
Borg was an absolutely incredibly fit athlete. I remember hearing that his resting heart rate was in the low 40s.
ran 8- to 10 miles daily BEFORE his practice sessions.
BB's passing shots were wonders to behold
At 3:50 Connors almost stops playing, thinking he has won the point...but Borg speeds up to finish...incredible...
Incredible Borg passing shots..I was 10 and hat the Donnay Allwood and the Fila shits..what an era..thanx for the images
Emmanuel -Paris (France)
Borg did have a Federer like forehand and he was faster then Nadal.
Playing with a wood racquet,it is amazing that Borg was able to impart so much topspin on the ball.Especially when you consider that he strung his racquets so tightly that they would pop in the middle of the night.
I was at this match. Connors played very good, but Borg is a human backboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no ones ever gonna have a backhand like borg
It was actually a hockey shot.
Love Borg's backhand.
Borg: GOAT
Interesting to compare this match with their 1977 match at Boca Raton. Borg getting so much more depth on his groundstrokes here.
@ jesparza562. If Connors and Borg were playing on the men's tennis tour today at their peak, they would both be ranked in the top 5 in the world. The players of the 1970's could only hit the ball as hard as the smaller wood and metal rackets allowed them to hit the ball. Connors and Borg with modern rackets would hit the ball just as hard as the current pro players.
es mas fácil jugar ahora con raquetas mas grandes, con el centro mas grande. las actuales raquetas ayudan a los jugadores mediocres a levantar su nivel. los nuevos jugadores con el aro mas pequeño no pasarían tantas pelotas sobre la red, ni le darían el efecto, ni despedirían la bola tan fuerte. en los 70s solo los grandes llegaban a ser campeones. hoy cualquier jugador mediocre gana un gran título.
Midsized and oversized racquets of today are extremely forgiving. The conventional-sized racquets of yesteryear (mainly made out of wood but Jimmy's was steel) forced the players to be accurate with the ball placement on the strings lest they hit the racquet frame. That discipline gave the men's game finesse and elegance. Now it's just a power game. No less difficult for today's players, but less interesting to watch.
@@AlanSmitheeman Modern Racquet technology has ruined Tennis!
Connors was amazing but Borg was better. The energy these guys had , it was balls to the wall and hammer and tongs!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The shots were full of variety and not just getting it over the net in a slug fest like today.
Wow!!!!!!!!
Borg had an amazing amount of top-spin considering the small headed racquet.
Imagine how much more penetrating Borg's groundstrokes would be if he played with modern racquet!
Har-Tru clay was fun to play on, brings back memories. When I was at Yale we had both Har-Tru and Decoturf courts, though the latter was the official surface for matches. This match was around the time Borg started dominating Connors. Connors was the best ball-striker at the time (except for his weaker forehand), but Borg was simply too fast for him
Jimmy's approaches were so short this day, against the finest passing shot maker of all times...
I remember he mentionned the same at those time (Fev march 79)
This year was Borg's climax, last year Jimmy shared the N1 place, next, John will do.
We miss those guys. Badly !
@tlonsinkie You mean Federer has a Borg-like forehand and you're right he is faster than Nadal. It's like putting the two together and it equals Borg, haha.
Besides his hard training and fitness, Borg owed his speed and superb court coverage to his days playing ice hockey. His legs as a power engine and movements developed there.
I agree with you 100%. Connors was great at the net and was truly an all-court player. He came to the net a great deal on the right opportunities.
borg el mejor jugador sobre arcilla y uno de los mas grandes de todos los tiempos en cualquier superfcie
Great video!! All televised tennis should be shown from that camera angle!!! It would make it so much better to watch! You feel like you are part of the action which makes TV tennis fascinating!
Borg has a much more fluid and natural game than Rafa. Also, Borg's serve is way better than Rafa.
Borg is a better player than Nadal!
the best tennis video i've seen so far......Borg was awesome here
Awesome!! That get by Borg was incredible, amazing speed
I think I saw a Nadal passing shot at 1:19. I love this sport, no matter the era! Thanks for uploading.
why is it a nadal shot when borg did it decades before
Yes, this is a form of clay called Har-Tru. It plays differently than the red clay used at the French Open. This type of clay is grittier and the ball bounces slightly higher, whereas the clay at the French is more like dirt.
Borg and Federer both had amazing speed, footwork, makes a difference
Awesome upload! Thanks!
of course , he is playing against six times french open champ .
imagine the spin Borg would hit with today's equipment
sería imbatible
Borg THE BEST
When I was beginning to play the game, I loved both these guys and I was determined to play with a two hander. None of my coaches/instructors even knew how to teach it. I copied Connor's more than Borg's. Even tried to play with those awful T2000's for a while.
I played with the Borg Pro. I still have it. Great racquet. Nobody I knew ever had or played with the T2000. It just looked cheaply constructed.
@@AlanSmitheeman You're better than me. The Borg Pro was so stiff. The T2000 was way too whippy. I eventually found something in between, the Rossignol Strato, my standard sized wood before moving onto the Rossy F 200 C.
@@carseye1219 I was never a good player. I just liked playing. I even preferred (and still do) just rallying for the enjoyment of hitting the ball. I'm just not a competitive person. The Borg Pro can vibrate a lot at the top of the head but if you get into a groove and hit the ball consistently in the sweet spot, the feeling is effortless and the ball just launches off your strings but still in a controlled way. Bigger racquets are much easier to play with. But sometimes doing things the hard way is enjoyable, if you're just doing it for fun and some exercise. I have other racquets which are 1980s Yonex Rexking models. They are all midsized and very comfortable in the hand. It's all about personal taste. If you still like to play with wooden racquets you may want to check out the Donnay Flex Pro. It is much more flexible than the Borg Pro and is on Ebay now and then for a decent price. Between those two in flexibility are the Donnay Fiber Pro and the Donnay Graphite Pro.
@@AlanSmitheeman I almost bought a couple of Borg Pros because I thought they were cool looking, black was unusual then. I was anomaly then, an American clay courter. After college I went to Europe, playing a season of Bundesliga in Germany while trying to get computer points in ITF's, challengers, and qualies. But I went broke, being a small guy (5'7") as the technology made it almost impossible to win as a retriever with a serve that didn't break 85 mph. It might be fun to hit with wood again so I might take your suggestions. All I want to do is rally now too. Don't want to compete anymore but still too competitive to play "hit & giggle" doubles.
@@carseye1219 Maybe it's nostalgia but I have always loved the look of conventionally-sized wood racquets over all other styles. The Donnay Pro series of racquets being my most favourite. To me, the Borg Pro is the most attractive of all tennis racquets including all the ones of today. I just love the black with orange/red graphics and the mono shaft and two-handed leather grip. I really miss the conventionally sized racquets on the pro tour. It's why I haven't watched it since 1990. I love the elegance and finesse of the game back then. You can always play at the club level. I think conditioning can overcome a lack of reach by being 5'7". You may be in better shape than your age group and could beat players in your range. Good for you pursuing your dream of trying to enter the pro ranks. Better to have tried than never and regretting it.
Koochyman:
About Connors being an all-court player who emphasized aggressive baseline play -- I agree with you.
About being able to win Wimbledon without being able to serve and volley, I offer this bit of evidence: Bjorn Borg. Five Wimbledons. In a row. :-)
That's because Connors loves to hit his two-hand backhand cross-court to Borg's forehand and come in to net which allows Borg to hit the forehand pass on several occassions.
i saw this on tennis channel too last giving day of thanks ha ha
@BORGCONNORS I'm positive he beat Connors the last 10 times they played and 15-8 overall. Laver was 14-7 against Rosewell. This is why I put little stock in head - head matchups. It makes it look one-sided! Great tennis!
I recall so many of the matches, it was a great time. Ratings were great, much of the time. Jimmy was my guy. in this match I do see why Borg on that surface would usually beat Jimmy. Now, hard courts, that was a little different. When Jimmy was 18 and a UCLA freshman, he beat former number 1 Roy Emerson. A very big deal.
The great rivalry of the 70's
Borg won his 11 Majors at his 25birthday at roland garros only Nadal can matched that feet if he is going to win the Australian & French Open in 2011. Borg played the Australian only once in December 1973 when he was 17 years old.
The amazing thing about this match is that I don't think Connors could play any better and he still only won five games.
I thought the level would have been worse. Pleasantly surprised =)
@pablotjob the pepsi grand slam was a 4 player invitation big money exhibition. i don't remember who else played in all of them, vilas definitely. Connors and borg won their matches and played in the final in 77, 78 and 79. the 77 and 78 matches were tough 3 setters. in this one Borg took his game up a notch.
thanbks for those rare imanges . remember me at his best the player who changed this sport. actually every tennis player is a borg s son
At this stage Borg was only 22 (23 in june)and he was already all over Connors 26(27 in september).From 1979 to 1981 Borg always beat Connors with the lost of few games; that too bad he retired so early at the end of 1981 at 25.
Borg ran like hell and is lucky as deserved to be according to his determination. Now, not the best of Jimmy, according to what we saw in the USOpen final, six months ago. I've this match and 'll post it soon.
This court plays really fast here as it is really dry. But at the club in Florida where my dad lives, the green clay courts are the slowest courts humanly possibly. Literally, it is like playing in a swamp. They irrigate the courts from the bottom up. I will venture to say there are no red courts slower than those courts.
At 3:49 , lucky Borg but incredible speed to catch the ball and win the point..unbeliviable
Is it only me or Borg hits his all winners as forehand passing shots?
It's on clay and while Sampras, if he wasn't exhausted was good on clay, you can't serve and volley regularly on clay. Borg was almost unbeatable on clay, especially in 1978 when this match was played.
@tlonsinkie I have heard several comments on RUclips that Borg had a Federer like forehad or vice versa. I don't see it. Borg's forehand is more circular in its motion. Federer takes the racket back more with his left hand.
hey howabout's uploading the 1977 Borg-Connors Pepsi final highlights?! Make it quick!
Green Clay (tenneco) is the best surface in tennis. Rewards patience and aggression and isn't dirty like red clay. It is also the easiest surface on the body. It's a shame a major tennis tournament is not played on it. Today's green clay is slower than the surface shown in this match.
Well no, the Masters already existed then (though it was played in January). The Pepsi Grand Slam only ran for a few years. It has no equivalent today.
Yes but I remember Jimmy's comments at that time, he was disapointed with the shortness of his approaches... That's true, even if Borg caught superbly sometimes even long ones, generaly, this precise Jimmy came to the net without shoe, in socks behind mid-court approaches...then got punishment.
True but Borg did that to Connors on many different surfaces. But you are right, clay was Borg's surface. However I wouldn't say that Connors didn't love clay. Connors could win on any surface and he won the U.S. Open in 1976 over Borg on that same Har Tru surface.
Hey that's bloody great stuff dude!
Greetings from Australia. I know the yanks have a tennis channel.
Anyone got footage of the Borg-Connors 1977 final that was also aired?
Could I suggest a number of Yanks shoot off an e-mail to the tennis channel in order to see if TTC can screen complete re-runs of the 1982 and 1983 Dallas (WCT) McEnroe vs Lendl finals? PA-LEE-EE-ZE!
back in the day when people didnt hit so hard, its no wonder that someone as fast as borg would dominate. he would just get everything
didnt hit hard?????? you mean they didnt have the huge racquets they have today to speed up their shots.. just as hard then as now.
3:28 Watch Borg's speed passing shot at 3:48
I always thought Borg and Connors were well suited to play each other.
Let's start with Nadal using that tiny piece of aluminium Connors used.
Put him on an old Wimbledon court with not much bounce and have him compete on faster hard courts unlike today, you'll soon find out plenty!
or with borgs small headed wooden raquet
borg seems to enjoy playing against connors...connors persistently hit the ball hard and flat..yet it seems the harder connors hit the ball the better borg borrowed the ball's momentum to overpower him
@ Samprasisthebest. Of course Federer makes it look even easier than Borg did because Federer has had the advantage of playing with much larger,much lighter, and more powerful rackets than Borg played with in his era.
you are right.
Sampras was a lousy clay court. No French titles, no finals, 1 semi. The Goat knows how to play all surfaces, especially a major one like clay
exactly
Djokovic Won 5 slams and Borg Won 11 slams. There is no comparison beteween 1979 and 2011
Is that green clay? Wow, it really plays different from normal, red clay. Just look at videos from Roland Garros 79 and 80.
Green Clay surface is a bit faster!
Borg 1979 too strong for everybody, he beat Connors 6 times that year & Connors finished at number 2.
@robelans1 Yeah, I agree about Borg's backhand. Today he doesn't release his his left - holds it all the way thru the stroke.
Exactly Federer vs Nadal in modern times.
@pablotjob The Pepsi grand slam was a 4 player big money inivitation exhibition.
sarantakis:
And now Nadal...
I might add I tried to but thus far have not got a reply. Don't expect to either.
@ siegeperilous. There were numerous moments during Borg's five consecutive title streak at Wimbledon when Borg did serve-and-volley, but obviously most of the time he played from the baseline.
How many times conners got passed??? More than 10 times .you know why ??? All his approach shots were cross court . Great Arthur Ash once said " Never make cross court approach shot " hossein from Iran
@ ampiciline. Although Connors may have gotten passed at the net numerous times in this match by Borg, Connors throughout his career was known for having superb down-the-line approach shots. His flat approach shots on forehand and backhand were among the best in tennis history.
@ jesparza562. Djokovic would not defeat Connors and Borg at the peak of their prime in 3 straight sets! Connors was a better all-around player than Djokovic, and Borg with his tremendous foot speed, stamina, excellent first serve and superbly consistent groundstrokes would win at least 50% of his matches against Djokovic if they were to play against each other in their prime. Borg and Connors demonstrated much better mental toughness in their tennis careers than Djokovic has demonstrated in his career. Just look at Djokovic's loss at this year's U.S. Open tournament in the semifinals to Nishikori , a player who most tennis fans had never heard of prior to his defeat of Djokovic in that tournament. Borg and Connors never lost to a previously unknown player in the semifinals of a major tournament during their tennis careers.
Thing is, Djokovic's serve is a bit better than Connors' serve, so in the battle of the two flat-hitting guys with great backhands and returns of serve, I'd probably give Novak the nod there (also, Novak's forehand is more consistent than Jimmy's forehand). I agree that Connors' volleys are better than Djokovic's. But, since time travel is impossible, it's very hard, if not impossible, to make accurate comparisons of this type (Laver or Pancho Gonzales with modern training/gear/diet? Nadal with a wood racquet? Who can say). To win, I think Jimmy would really have to work the crowd over to his side to rattle Novak.
Nishikori has been well known to serious fans of the game for quite some time before his 2014 US Open final. And the overall level of the Tour in general, not just the top players, is a LOT harder than it was in the McEnroe/Connors/Borg era, with everyone having access to "modern training methods". Back then you would have some real flakes floating around in the Top 100 who lost 1st rounds in the Slams -- nowadays, even the qualifying matches are super intense. Professional tennis has become a much more competitive sport overall, nowadays, with more people around the globe playing tennis than ever before (thus, increasing the "talent pool" of pro players). One can make a case for Borg being just as good as the top guys playing now, but not at the lower levels, where nowadays there are a TON of excellent players that are capable of beating even the top guys (as Querrey did against Djokovic at Wimbledon 2016).
Nonsense. Djoker has one of the best 2 nd serves in tennis (the casual fan doesn't know this). Connors had a weak forehand Djoker would take apart, and he's pretty much as fast as Borg in court coverage. What nonsense you write.
@@Gregoryt700 The joker has great coverage, more about anticipation and his ability to read a shot. As fast as Borg? Not even close.
@pablotjob pepsi grand slam was a 4 player big money inivitation exhibition.
Clay, that is not Clay its Sand
amazing . WOW..Thanks
pepsi grand slam??? is this the same that master nowadays???
No
I think this is the stage when Borg was in Connors' head. I think Jimmy wasn't sure he could beat Bjorn at this time.
I really like Connors' forehand topspin. He should have used it more often, especially to change the pace.
@pablotjob pepsi grand slam was a 4 player big money inivitation exhibition
@ Justin Peterson. Connors was never a great serve-and-volleyer. His volleying ability was good, but never great. His superb, deep approach shots ( especially his down-the-line approach shots) allowed him to get into a good position at the net to win a point with an overhead smash or a volley.
Cyborg
Hes like a CyBORG ;)
Resistance is futile
Yeah because Federers opponents are awful.
Yes, Borg is great. But look at his strange and fluid backhand, it is not a pure two-handed backhand. It is some kind of mutation of one-handed and two-handed. He starts with two hands, but the follow through is with one hand.