On June 9, 2008, I wrote a post titled Fantastic Four: Nadal Matches Borg's French Open Streak that contained this declaration (emphasis added): "For quite some time, people have been trying to anoint Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time but despite his impressive accomplishments it makes no sense to confer that title on him when it is not even certain that he will be considered the best player of the current era: his main rival Nadal owns an 11-6 head to head record against him and has come much closer to beating him on the grass at Wimbledon than Federer has come to defeating him on the clay at the French Open. Considering that Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer it is entirely possible that he will eclipse what Federer has done; after all, five years ago Federer had just won his first Grand Slam, while Nadal already owns four Grand Slam titles, beating Federer along the way each time."
For years, SI has blithely declared that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time, ignoring the mounting evidence to the contrary that I cited in the above post (and in several other posts at this site, dating all the way back to a July 1, 2007 post that asserted that Bjorn Borg should still be considered to be a greater all-around player than Federer).
Now, though, SI has apparently seen the light; in an article titled The Takedown that appears in the May 18, 2009 issue of SI, S.L. Price asks rhetorically, "How can Federer be deemed the best ever when he might not be the best of his own era?"
That is an excellent question and apparently my writing would be more popular in the "mainstream" if I only had the decency to wait to make such rhetorical queries until the rest of the world can figure out that they are valid. Alas, there is little reward for foresight, as Cassandra ruefully discovered many centuries ago.
Thats why SI, ESPN, and everyone else is tough to listen to and watch. They are always into the best ever this and the best that. You cant take it seriously.
ReplyDeleteIts so difficult to compare tennis players from different era. Shouldnt you have a major win on every surface to be the best ever? I know Federer finally beat Nadal on clay yesterday but I dont think he will beat Nadal at the French. Im sure Federer is more confident because of his results yesterday though.
Madnice:
ReplyDeleteIt is OK to try to figure out who the best ever might be but my point is that some kind of rational, objective standards should be used. Since Nadal is younger than Federer and has enjoyed the head to head advantage for quite some time it never made sense to me to crown Federer as the greatest of all-time unless/until he showed that he could best his contemporary Nadal. Frankly, as I've indicated, I would still take Borg as the greatest Open Era player.
I don't know that you have to have a major win on every surface to be the best ever, depending on what else you have on your resume. Borg dominated two completely different surfaces--grass at Wimbledon, clay at French--and that is unprecedented; I find that to be more meaningful than winning the Australian or even the U.S. Open, though the latter failure is the one and only legitimate blemish on Borg's resume.
Perhaps Federer gained some confidence by beating Nadal on clay but Nadal was coming off of a long match and is battling a lingering injury. Anyway, the number two player should be able to beat the number one player once in a while--when Nadal was number two he was beating number one Federer more often than Federer was beating him. Now, if Federer beats Nadal at the French and/or wins that title then that adds something different to the equation but it still does not refute my fundamental point, namely that Federer had been crowned prematurely as the greatest of all-time. In other words, even if Federer goes on to prove this to be the case--which I don't expect him to do--that does not make it right to crown him two or three years ago when Nadal had already established a winning head to head record against him.
Just a little something to think about...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f276c082-46ff-11de-923e-00144feabdc0.html
Borg said: “People say it was because of John coming up, but it was not because of John. It was because I was losing my interest, my fun, my enjoyment. Federer still has the motivation. Even today I regard he is the best tennis player ever to play the game.”
Nice article though
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting article. I have no problem with saying that Federer is a candidate for the GOAT title if he wins the French Open--but he has not won the French Open and he has a losing record against his main contemporary rival; my point all along is that Federer was prematurely crowned, not that he is not a great player or that he could not ultimately earn GOAT status.
First of all, Federer does not need a French Open title to be considered the GOAT. At Roland Garros, he has won 25 (probably soon up to 28) consecutive matches against everyone other than the clay court GOAT (Nadal). Federer has not even been extended to 5 sets during that streak. Prime Federer was a top 10 all-time clay courter without a doubt, probably top 5. Borg understands that. Federer is the only player to beat Nadal twice on clay since Nadal's clay court dominance began.
ReplyDeleteFederer is the best grass court player of all time. The only match Federer has lost in the past six years on grass was the greatest match of all-time while recovering from mono. During Federer's 40 match winning streak at Wimbledon he lost 8 sets (0.2 spm), whereas Borg lost 21 sets (0.5 spm) in his 41 match winning streak. That does not take into account the increased depth and talent of the game today, which I am sure Borg takes into account in his reasoning for Federer as the GOAT.
Hard court GOAT? Federer already has more hard court majors than anyone. Hard courts are a very important and neutral surface, no less important than clay. Borg's US Open woes are much greater than that of Federer at the French when you consider that he fell to four different guys at the US Open during his prime (1977-80) (not all on hard courts, none of whom are legitimate GOAT candidates).
From reading your articles on other topics, I can tell that you are a brilliant guy, but your analysis of tennis is not in line with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Laver, Wilander, etc. Not one of them still calls Borg the open era GOAT over both Federer and Sampras. What does that tell you?
Raymond Lee's analyses are purely statistics based. % of career matches won (or more recently % of games won in a year) is a pretty meaningless statistic for more than a handful of reasons. If you want to hear them, then ask.
I think you could definitely be more mainstream, but the Federer-Nadal H2H argument must be dissected. Nadal is and has always been the better clay court player (9-2). Most former players acknowledge that Nadal is the clay court GOAT. But on other surfaces, there have not been enough matches for the stats to be significant. During Federer's prime (2004-07), he won both of the Wimbledon encounters and was 3-2 on hard courts.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIt is more than a little ironic that you have emerged to offer a slight disagreement with me at a time when even SI is conceding the original point that I made, namely that Federer was prematurely crowned.
I don't understand the significance in this discussion of a French Open winning streak against everyone except the one current player who has surpassed Federer; if Federer is not greater than Nadal then how can he be the GOAT?
That pretty much sums up the issue by itself without even getting into Borg, let alone someone like Laver who you did not even mention. Even if my ranking of Borg places me in the minority--and I am not the only person who still considers him to be the greatest Open Era player--I still contend that it has always been premature to elevate Federer before his rivalry with Nadal became more clarified; Nadal is a younger player who has consistently enjoyed a head to head advantage and that advantage has become more pronounced (both in terms of the record and the number of surfaces involved) as time has passed.
I am not convinced that Federer is facing tougher competition today than Borg did. In sheer numbers there may be more pro players but Borg went against arguably two of the top 10 players of all-time (Connors, McEnroe), plus several outstanding players who were specialists on particular surfaces.
Borg's simultaneous dominance of Wimbledon and the French Open is unmatched, his winning percentage in Grand Slams is stupendous and his Davis Cup record is also off of the charts. Borg is far too modest to tout his own accomplishments but he definitely still merits being placed in the conversation with Sampras and Federer.
good article on nadal's loss
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6633578
ST:
ReplyDeleteYes, that was a stunner. This is why I did not crown Nadal as the greatest player, either. People are impatient and want definitive answers now but I still say that Borg is the greatest Open Era player; in his prime he was untouchable at both Wimbledon and the French, a dominance that neither Federer nor Nadal has yet managed to establish.
marcel
ReplyDeletenadal lost know he is still one of the best but he isnt better yet than ferderer he 23 now and in his prime but federer is probably going to get number 14 this year and nadal isnt playing at the same level now he was last year. federer is comeing back nadal is small guy and a little burned out right now
Marcel:
ReplyDeleteNadal still retains his world #1 ranking even after this loss.
The point of my various articles about Federer, Nadal and Borg is not to definitively say that Nadal is better than Federer but rather to say that Federer was prematurely crowned by some people as the greatest of all-time. I consider Borg to still be the greatest player of the Open Era. It is too soon to say whether or not Nadal will surpass Federer's career achievements (in terms of total Grand Slams and week at #1) but Nadal owns the head to head advantage and has already won at both Wimbledon and the French Open.
There is no guarantee that Federer will ever win that elusive 14th Slam. However, Nadal's ouster leaves the path open to Federer to finally win the French, so what he does there this year can either improve or diminish his legacy. Capturing the French title would be a feather in his cap, even though he would not have beaten Nadal--but if Federer cannot win the French even with Nadal out of the field this would diminish Federer's legacy.
marcel
ReplyDeleteyou see the other four guys number 14 for roger nadal is better right now but he is a little burned out and is a small guy by nature.
Marcel:
ReplyDeleteNadal is not a "small guy" for a tennis player. He goes about 6-1, 190 and is muscular.
http://blog.tennisweek.com/?p=594
ReplyDeletein this article, bjorn borg makes the statement that federer is the greatest to ever play the game
ST:
ReplyDeleteI would expect nothing less from the always classy Borg. Do you really think that Borg is going to thump his chest and say, "I am the greatest"? For one thing, if the career Grand Slam mark had been that important to him then he would have played in Australia more than once and he would not have retired when he could have easily won more French Opens and probably more Wimbledons (yes, McEnroe beat Borg at Wimbledon in '81 but it's not like McEnroe dominated Wimbledon after that even without Borg on the scene).
Also, my articles about Borg, Federer and Nadal did not say that under no circumstances should Federer ever be considered the greatest Open Era player; I merely argued that he was crowned prematurely and I stand by that point. Federer certainly added to his resume by winning the French but let's be honest: we all know that Nadal was not at full strength and we also can be pretty sure that Federer would not beat Nadal at full strength in the French Open. Kudos to Federer for finally winning the French Open and tying Sampras' mark but the elephant in the room is still the question of how can Federer be the greatest of all-time when he has a losing record against a contemporary player?
What do you think of Pat Cash's dissent in the June 15, 2009 SI? How can Federer be the GOAT, when he is the 2nd GOAT to Nadal on clay and the 2nd GOAT to Sampras on grass? Do you think it is fair for everyone to be calling him the GOAT now or does he need to equal the seven Wimbledons of Pete Sampras? So far, he has yet to equal Pete at Wimbledon, the most prestigious major. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTufts Doc:
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what Cash said, though I am not convinced that Federer is the second greatest clay player of all-time. Borg completely dominated that surface for years and I see no reason to believe that Federer could touch him on that surface. When Borg retired at 26 he had won the last four French Opens and likely could have kept that streak going for some time.
Federer has obviously already accomplished a lot during his career but the GOAT stuff is premature. If Federer is the GOAT then he should be able to beat Nadal when Nadal is fully healthy and we have not seen Federer do that in quite some time; it is clear that Nadal was not 100% when he lost in the French Open or when he lost to Federer in a tournament shortly before the French Open.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/nick-bollettieri-holy-goat-he-is-the-greatest-of-all-time-1732783.html
ReplyDeletei think it's pretty clear now that fed is the greatest player since the open era. Each era is distinct with a difference in racket technology, and surfaces, but it's definitely not premature now to claim that fed is the greatest player since the open era. All the legends and former players have stated it, and even the great nick bollettieri, who has coached champions, has made the claim. There's nothing left for federer to accomplish now, besides possibly winning all 4 grandslams in the same calendar year. He has now won the French, and the French and Wimbledon back to back. The fact that Nadal is injured and couldn't participate, shouldn't take anything away from Federer's accomplishments. Injuries are part of any sport, and the fact that Nadal is injured to the extent that he couldn't participate in the most prestigious grandslam, illustrates how serious the injury is, and that too, at the young age of 23. Like Bud Collins said recently, " i don't think we will see the same nadal again" This is troubling, as it would be devastating for the sport. But this also further highlights how spectacular the statistic of reaching 21 consecutive semifinals in grandslams is. Most players don't even participate in that many consecutive grandslams.
Bjorn borg never won the US Open, and he reached the finals a countless amount of times. That in my opinion, diminishes his legacy. He never won a grandslam on hard courts. The fact that he retired at the age of 26, shouldn't accentuate his feats, but rather, in my view, diminish his legacy further since he didn't have the required motivation to succeed at that level. In my opinion, having the motivation, is the makeup of a truly great player. Speculating that Borg would have won more grandslams if he had not retired, is weak analysis, because these hypotheticals do not validate anything. To speculate that Rod Laver would have won more grandslams makes more sense, since he did the grandslam before the 5 year break, and did the grandslam again after the 5 year break, so for Mats Wilander to comment that "if laver had played during those 5 years, he possibly could have won 10 more grandslams" makes more sense.
ST:
ReplyDeleteIn the little article that you cited, all Bollettieri does is gush like a fan. I don't question his expertise about tennis but in that particular piece he hardly provided any real analysis to prove that Federer is the greatest player of all-time.
I think that it is very classy for the legendary players to praise Federer--but what would it sound like if those guys answered these leading questions by saying, "No, I am the greatest of all-time"? Those players are in a "no win" situation because everyone is praising Federer, so they don't want to sound like they are stuck up or living in the past.
Clearly, Federer deserves to be mentioned in any discussion of the greatest players of the Open Era. However, although winning the French and capturing a 15th career Slam title are both impressive accomplishments, the massive elephant in the room is the undeniable fact that Federer has been dominated by a contemporary, a player who repeatedly beat him in Grand Slam Finals last year and took away the number one ranking. Do you honestly think that a healthy Nadal would not have beaten Federer in both the French and Wimbledon this year? Federer was literally reduced to tears after playing Nadal last year. How can Federer be the greatest player of all-time when his main contemporary rival dominates him?
You can call Federer the most "accomplished" player of all-time because he holds the career Grand Slam mark but that is not the same as being the best player. Borg played in an era when the Australian Open was an afterthought for most of the top players. In Borg's prime he dominated the two most prestigious Slams and he had to face two of the greatest players of all-time, Connors and McEnroe.
It is a great injustice to Borg to say that he lacked motivation. You don't know tennis history. Borg wanted to play primarily in the Slams, the way that Tiger Woods plays a limited schedule built around his sport's majors; Borg always felt that the year round tennis schedule was too grueling and that players needed a break. The fools who ran the sport said that if Borg did not play in enough smaller events then he would have to participate in qualifiers in order to play in the Slams. Can you imagine making Borg play in qualifiers as if he were some kind of amateur? That stupid ruling played a big role in Borg's retirement. As I said in an earlier post, Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis; Koufax is not the most accomplished pitcher ever in terms of career statistics but he is viewed as arguably the greatest left hander of all-time.
In Borg's last full year on the tour he won the French--for the fourth straight year and sixth time overall--and reached the Finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. As usual, he did not even play in Australia. Had Borg played for a few more years he certainly would have added more French Open titles to his resume and possibly more Wimbledon titles as well (Borg had been dominating Connors, who won the 1982 Wimbledon when Borg did not play). Much like Federer finally won the French this year, Borg could have eventually won the U.S. Open, too. When Borg retired he had won more Slams by age 25 than anyone in history. Do you really think that if he had kept playing he would not have won multiple Slams? That is just silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/skills/6221710.stm
ReplyDeleteI do know my tennis history. Read the article, clearly you haven't been following borg's comments. He clearly stated, not just in this article, but many other times, when asked why he retired, that the reason why he retired is because he lacked the required motivation to succeed at the top level. Scroll down to the very end of the article, and borg reinforces my point:
"I lost my motivation a little bit when I lost to John McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.
I still played good tennis but I did not have the same focus that I had for many years. I always gave 100% and loved to win and hated to lose but if you lose that little bit of an edge it is very difficult to do well.
Something was missing and for me as a person that is not right"
Similarly, Federer could have also retired after last years wimbledon final or this years australian open final after two major losses to a contemporary player, like Borg did against Mcenroe, but he didn't, he maintained his focus and rebounded, and as a result, has won the French-Wimbledon back to back. Like I mentioned in the previous post, having the required motivation after a critical juncture in your career is what separates Federer from Borg.
Secondly, the fact that Borg did retire and not continue his career, should not accentuate his feats like i said. It's silly to extrapolate his achievements and conclude that he would "eventually win a grandslam on hardcourts" when he clearly struggled to win the US Open, after reaching the finals countless amount of times. Federer eventually won the french because he persevered, unlike Borg who did not. So claiming that Borg would "eventually win" is like saying "kobe bryant would have eventually won 3 or 4 more championships with shaq if they had stayed together" It can't be proven, and it is just pure speculation, so it should not be used when making an honest evaluation of a player's accomplishments. As a basketball analyst, can you honestly say that you would use "kobe would have won more championships with shaq if they had stayed together" to argue that Kobe is a great player?
Thirdly, I would take Nick Bollettieri's expertise, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, John Mcenroe, Boris Becker, Andre Agassi, Tim Henman, and Greg Rusedsksi's understanding of the game over any sport journalist. No disrespect to you or SL Price, but they are coaches, legends and former players who know more about the game than me, you, or any sport journalist for that matter. So it's not a coincidence that all of them have consistently stated that Federer's the best player of the open era.
ST:
ReplyDeleteThe reference to knowing tennis history specifically meant the situation regarding having to play in qualifiers. Without that stipulation it is likely that at the very least Borg would have played in some Slams in 1982. Borg feuded with the tennis leadership over that issue. There is also the matter of the death threat that he received during the 1981 U.S. Open, which is why he rushed off of the court and did not stay for the awards ceremony.
Did Michael Jordan's 1993 retirement reflect poorly on his motivation? When Jordan first talked to Phil Jackson about retiring, Jordan said that he wanted to only play in the playoffs and not go through the regular season grind, much like Borg simply wanted to play in a few select tournaments; of course, it is much more reasonable and realistic for a tennis player (or a golfer like Tiger Woods) to play a shorter schedule than for someone in a team sport to do this.
Federer won the French and Wimbledon back to back because Nadal is hurt--period. I will not believe otherwise until Federer defeats a healthy Nadal. Nadal beat Federer in their last three Grand Slam Finals and owns a crushing head to head advantage (the Borg-McEnroe rivalry stood at 7-7).
It certainly makes more sense to think that Borg could have eventually won a U.S. Open--given his all-time best winning percentage in Grand Slam events--than to think that Federer would have won the French and Wimbledon this year versus a healthy Nadal. Borg won events on hard courts; he did not have a problem playing on any particular surface.
Do you really think that it is reckless speculation to say that Borg would have been a huge favorite to win the 1982 French, considering that Borg was the four-time defending champion there when he retired?
Considering that the Australian was played on grass for at least part of Borg's career, do you really think that it is reckless speculation to say that the man who dominated Wimbledon in that era would not have won multiple Australian titles had he cared to do so? Sampras and Federer both padded their Grand Slam totals by winning an event that was deemed insignificant during Borg's era. Borg's winning percentage--11 victories in 27 Grand Slam events entered--is unparalleled, as is his record for making it to at least the quarterfinals in 21 of those events and his match winning percentage of 89.8 in Grand Slam events.
Borg's sparkling Davis Cup record also should not be ignored.
I mean no disrespect to Federer, who is obviously a great champion. All I have said--and will continue to say until Federer improves his results against a healthy Nadal--is that there has been a rush to judgment to proclaim Federer to be the greatest Open Era player and/or the greatest player of all-time. Borg's accomplishments, winning percentages (particularly in Grand Slams) and skill set all place him ahead of Federer. Look at it this way: Pete Rose is the all-time hits leader but does anyone believe that he is the greatest baseball player--or even the greatest hitter--of all-time? Federer has set the record for most Grand Slam titles but that does not mean that he is better than Borg--or Laver, for that matter.
I agree with those who think that it was wrong of McEnroe to delve into the "greatest ever" discussion with Borg, Sampras and Laver right after the Federer-Roddick match. Was it really necessary to "decide" the issue right at that moment? For that matter, does struggling to beat Roddick--holder of one career Slam title--really change Federer's place in history?
I am really sorry to ask this, because I am a fan of your articles, but have you ever actually watched tennis?
ReplyDeleteAndy Roddick is an incredible tennis player. If not for playing with the GOAT he would have 6 or 7 slams right now.
Not that Roddick is greater than Borg from a historical standpoint, but if they were to play at Wimbledon in their primes with the modern equipment, Roddick would kill him. Borg was not even 6 feet tall, which is now a necessity to be in the top 5 in the world.
Roddick is a definite hall of famer. Please do not disrespect one of the all-time greats. Before this Wimbledon, I held Sampras and Federer on equal footing at Wimbledon, but Federer took down three monsters in Soderling, Karlovic, and Roddick with nearly unbreakable serves on this year's grass. Roddick played the best match of his career against Federer and Federer still won playing subpar.
Borg says Federer is the GOAT even when nobody asks him and he is not required to say anything... and so do 70-80 percent of people on most worldwide polls. The physically strongest tennis player ever in Nadal had to sacrifice his knees and shorten his career in order to compete with a mono-plagued, bad backed Federer at majors other than the French Open. Fans pray that Nadal will even be able to be able to compete at Federer's age (27).
Most of the 20-30 % of people who do not consider Federer the GOAT by now are just die-hard Laver, Sampras, or Borg fans.
Tufts Doc:
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that changed in the past two months is that Nadal got hurt and Federer won two Slams that he would not have won had Nadal been healthy. There is no reason yet to say that Nadal has "shortened" his career or to say that playing Federer specifically has "shortened" Nadal's career. Nadal has been dominating Federer almost from the beginning and he thoroughly dominated Federer last year; he literally had Federer in tears.
Federer is a great player but he has not even proven that he is the best player of the current era, let alone the greatest player of the Open Era or the greatest player of all-time. Federer has yet to match Borg's winning percentage in majors or to even come close to achieving the multi-surface dominance that Borg attained from 1978-80 by winning Wimbledon and the French Open each year. When Borg retired he held the record for Wimbledon titles and French Open titles--and he was just 26 years old! As I wrote in an earlier post, Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis.
For most of his career, Roddick has been a one dimensional player. In fact, although the bottom portion of the draw is deeper now than it was in the 1970s, you can make a good case that Borg faced better players at the top of the draw (Ashe, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, etc.) than Federer has during his career (other than Nadal, of course).
I don't really care what the "polls" say. SI is hilarious--first they prematurely crown Federer years ago, then they recant (as I noted in this post), then Nadal gets hurt, Federer wins two titles that he never would have won versus a healthy Nadal and now Federer is suddenly the GOAT again.
As for Roddick playing Borg, if you put them against each other in their primes in the same era with the same equipment (either in the 1970s with Borg's equipment or in the 2000s with modern equipment), Borg would kill Roddick--Borg was savvier, had better shots, was in much better shape and was much more mentally tough (check out Borg's career record in five set matches).
My last reply:
ReplyDelete"The only thing that changed in the past two months is that Nadal got hurt and Federer won two Slams that he would not have won had Nadal been healthy."
That is a very bold hypothetical statement with no backing. Sampras picked Federer to win Wimbledon even prior to the French Open. I trust his opinion more and it is based on actual tennis knowledge.
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-05/22/content_7928094.htm
"Federer has yet to match Borg's winning percentage in majors."
Borg never won 6 out of 7, 8 out of 10, 10 out of 14, or 11 out of 16 slams. He won 11 in a stretch of 21 played, while Federer won 13 out of 21. If you look over any number of matches (best 50 match period, best 100 match period, best 150 match period...) at majors, Federer has a much higher winning percentage than Borg. Federer was a late starter, but more dominant in majors at his best. i.e. Since Federer won his first major he has been 154-10 in slams. Borg was never quite as dominant at the majors.
Multi-surface dominance? Federer has won majors on four surfaces (grass, clay, DecoTurf, and rebound ace), whereas Borg won on two.
"When Borg retired he held the record for Wimbledon titles and French Open titles--and he was just 26 years old! As I wrote in an earlier post, Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis."
True. Is Sandy Koufax your pick for baseball GOAT then?
"As for Roddick playing Borg, if you put them against each other in their primes in the same era with the same equipment (either in the 1970s with Borg's equipment or in the 2000s with modern equipment), Borg would kill Roddick--Borg was savvier, had better shots, was in much better shape and was much more mentally tough (check out Borg's career record in five set matches)."
How about we take the opinion of Rosewall on this one?
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/tennis/whos-the-greatest-laver-or-federer-who-better-to-ask-than-muscles-rosewall--20090703-d6od.html
"I believe the players of days-gone-by would find it very, very difficult to compete against the players of today even with this new equipment."
"But, on the other hand, if you gave Roger Federer the old wooden racquets we used, I think he would still be very, very good. I would say the level of his play at the moment is at the highest standard you could hope to get."
No more from me. If you actually watched footage of Borg playing on a screen next to Roddick like I have, you would probably laugh at your comment. Tennis is a far more athletic game now. There weren't nearly as many players over 6 feet tall in Borg's day and players are much stronger now. But regardless, I put Borg in the top four players in history because he was ahead of his time. The real debate is over 2nd between Laver, Sampras, and Borg.
I see you say the French Open was the second most prestigious slam when Borg played. That is simply not true. The US Open is the second most prestigious slam.
ReplyDeletehttp://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/columns/story?columnist=drucker_joel&id=4166600
Federer has dominated the two most prestigious slams like no one (5 consecutive at each). He is the GOAT. But please, he should let an Andy win the US Open this year. Borg was great though, I saw him play.
Tufts Doc:
ReplyDeleteMy backing for my "bold statement" is that a healthy Nadal beat Federer in 2008 in both the French and Wimbledon Finals. Nadal owns a significant head to head advantage over Federer already. Assuming that Nadal fully recovers, do you really expect the older player (Federer) to gain ground on a younger rival who has been beating him like a drum for years? If that is what you think, then you are the one who is being "bold."
Borg is still the youngest male player in history to win 11 Slams (age 25, nearly a full year younger than Federer was when he won his 11th Slam--and by that age Federer had played in 10 Australian Opens, winning three, while Borg only played in Australia once).
Borg won 11 out of the 27 Slams he entered (.407, an Open Era record). He won seven of the final 12 Slams that he entered and made the Finals in 11 of his final 12 Slams. His career match record in Slams is 141-16 (.898), the best such winning percentage in the Open Era. Borg's "triple double" (winning the Wimbledon and French titles in the same year three years in a row) is unprecedented in tennis history and will not likely be duplicated. Borg won three different Slam titles without losing a set, something no other player has done more than once.
At one time, Borg held the record for being youngest French Open champion, youngest Wimbledon champion, youngest Italian Open champion and youngest player to win a Davis Cup match (he still holds the latter record).
Borg is not a self promoter and he retired nearly three decades ago, so it is unfortunate that people do not really understand just how great he was--but you cannot call yourself a student of the game if you are either (1) ignorant of the facts cited above or (2) willfully ignoring these facts.
I don't want to go off on a baseball tangent when you still don't have the tennis info straight, but, yes, many people do indeed consider Koufax to be the greatest left handed pitcher of all-time based on his dominance over a short but illustrious career. That is precisely why I made the analogy between Borg and Koufax.
Roddick is not more athletic than Borg was. Roddick serves harder than Borg, thanks to changes in racquet technology. Put Borg in a time machine and give him the chance to play with the same equipment and he would beat Roddick just like he beat Roscoe Tanner back in the day.
Borg is 5-11, Roddick is 6-2, Federer is 6-1 and Sampras is 6-1. Do you really think that two-three inches in height makes that much difference? Borg in his prime was quicker, more athletic and in better condition than any of those players.
Federer holds the all-time record with 15 Grand Slam titles but he has played in 41 Slams, for a .366 winning percentage (and he was stuck on .333 before Nadal got hurt). His career match record in Slams is 182-26 (.875).
As for the two articles you cited, it is well known that Sampras and Federer are good friends, so naturally Sampras would pick his good friend over his arch rival Nadal. In the other article, Rosewall made a general statement about older players trying to play with the new equipment but you missed the main theme of the story: despite being pressed repeatedly, Rosewall refused to say that Federer is greater than Laver--though, interestingly enough, that did not stop the writer from drawing that conclusion and trying to make it sound like Rosewall agreed. In fact, that article is precisely the kind of nonsense that got me started on this whole issue in the first place: why is everyone in such a rush to crown Federer as the greatest of all-time? That is all McEnroe wanted to talk about during the Wimbledon Finals. Federer is a great champion; no one is denying that--but he has not really matched (let alone surpassed) Borg in the key areas mentioned above and he has a contemporary player who owns a decided head to head advantage. Let's allow history to play itself out instead of rushing to judgment after every single match.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a very American-centric opinion. A while ago, some guy from Australia passionately insisted in some comments here that the Australian Open is just as prestigious as Wimbledon and the French. I think that you are on more solid ground than he was--top pros skipped the Australian for years--but from a global perspective the French is a bit more prestigious than Wimbledon, though those are clearly the "Big Three" while the Australian is not nearly as significant.
could you please explain how "borg's skill set is superior to federer's"?
ReplyDeleteST:
ReplyDeleteBorg was more mobile, more fit and better able to adapt his game to both the grass at Wimbledon and the clay at the French Open.
marcel
ReplyDeletefederer best ever if nadal played last tournament he would of been a tougher opponet but nadal wasnt playing as well now then he was last year david so you have to take that in account and injuries is poart of the game 15 slams since 03 21 straight semifinals he is the best ever without uestio borg was more of a clay court grass where federer all surfaces and is much stronger than borg is and was better striker.
federer rank number 1 againg he back expect 19 20 21 slams
What do you have to say for Borg's comeback in 1991-3? Probably the most humiliating thing in sport's history. Going 0-12 certainly puts both of Jordan's comebacks to shame. Borg was fit for the 70s when players like McEnroe never spent a day in the gym... just ask McEnroe. Borg was one of the all-time great wood racquet players but could not generate nearly enough power to play the modern game.
ReplyDeleteSome research might help you see the light. Grand Slam prestige correlates with the age of the Slam. No culture bias.
1. Wimbledon- 1877
2. US Open- 1881
3. French Open- 1891
4. Aussie Open- 1905
1. Federer
2. Gonzalez
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Sampras
Enough said
Marcel:
ReplyDeleteNadal was not playing well early this season because he was hurt, which is why eventually he stopped playing completely. I agree that injuries are part of the game but if we are talking about who is actually better--in terms of who would win a head to head showdown with all things being equal--Nadal clearly surpassed Federer last year and, in fact, owns a significant lifetime head to head advantage. Federer has not proven that he is the best player of the post-Sampras era, so it is more than a little premature to say that Federer is the greatest player of the Open Era or of all-time.
Federer has the career Slams record now but no one thinks that Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back ever or that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter ever just because Smith rushed for the most career yards and Rose tallied the most career hits. Borg has the best career Slams winning percentage--11 Slams won out of 27 entered. Borg's "triple double" (winning Wimbledon and the French in 1978-80) is unprecedented and will not likely ever be matched.
Federer's semi-final streak is nice but look at the whole record: Borg made the semis in 17 out of 27 Slams, made the quarters in 20 out of 27 and never lost in the first round; Federer made the semis in 23 out of 41 Slams, made the quarters in 25 out of 41 and lost in the first round six times. Federer's career Slams record is not nearly as dominant as Borg's.
Borg also had a sterling Davis Cup record.
Tenn Hist:
ReplyDeleteI say that Borg's short lived comeback has nothing whatsoever to do with what he accomplished during his prime, when he had a resting pulse rate in the 30s and was outperforming track stars in the multi-sport "Superstars" competitions. Borg's fitness level was extraordinary for any era. Maybe you know Tennessee history but you sure don't know tennis history if you really believe that Borg was not superbly conditioned.
The "power" of the modern game has a lot to do with the current equipment. If Borg were coming up as a youngster in this era then he would be comfortable with the equipment--but how would today's players do in the 1970s and 1980s if they actually had to hit good strokes and set up points strategically as opposed to just bombing away? If Federer is frustrated by dealing with Nadal--a fit, mobile player who is not intimidated by him--then just imagine the "fun" that Federer would have had with "Ice" Borg, the man who did not flinch if an opponent hit one good shot because he felt that you had to hit "2000" good shots to beat him; Nadal literally reduced Federer to tears last year and Borg would have done much the same.
We can all agree that Wimbledon is the most prestigious Slam and that the Australian is the least prestigious. I doubt that the U.S. Open is more prestigious than the French anywhere except for here in America; the toughest thing to do in tennis is to win both the Wimbledon and French yet Borg retired with the career record for titles in both events (five and six respectively; he still holds the French Open record). While Borg's record would be impeccable if he had managed to win at least one U.S. Open, he still set a standard that is unmatched in the Open Era, as I detailed in my previous comment.
marcel
ReplyDeletebjorg didnt do it on all surfaces and federer 21 straight semi is more im pressive then 20 out of 27 he didnt make 7 fed made all 21 david 15 majors in 41 is incorrect 15 in 26 since he won his first in wimbledon 03 thats more impressive dominant than bjorg as well. federe is better career than nadal and sampras they werent as dominant as federer ive never seen a tennis player this good ever and i watched sampras and agassi not connors bjorg or mcenroe
federer is the best of his time without question and probavly all time bjorg had a short carrer he did a move soon as john mcenroe started to own in 81 82 so his percentage is better becuase he played less.
nadal was hurt now not at french or australian when he won that title going into the french he wasnt playing well anyway so fed had a good chance of winning both anyway fed beat rafa the week before french.
Marcel:
ReplyDeleteBorg won six French Opens in eight appearances and five Wimbledons in nine appearances, setting the career record for titles in both events (he still holds the French record). From 1978-80 he won both events in the same year, an unprecedented "triple double." That simultaneous mastery of clay and grass will not likely ever be equaled. Borg also won tournaments on carpet and on hard courts. He did not have a particular surface weakness; grass was supposedly his "weaker" surface but he shot that theory down by his record-shattering performances at Wimbledon.
It does not matter what is "more impressive" to you; Borg's Grand Slam percentages are better than Federer's in all categories: better winning percentage (11/27 versus 15/41), better semifinals ratio (17/27 versus 23/41), better quarterfinals ratio (20/27 versus 25/41) and better overall match winning percentage (.898 versus .875). Borg was more dominant than Federer in Grand Slam tennis--period.
At just 23 years old, Nadal already has won six Grand Slams and owns a vastly superior head to head record versus Federer, who had won just three Slams by age 23 (Borg won seven Grand Slams by age 23 and won 11 by age 25, which is still the all-time record for that age).
Nadal had been dominating Federer and the tennis circuit in general until knee tendinitis shut him down. You really think that Soderling would have beaten a healthy Nadal? Nadal tried to play through the injury at the French and that obviously did not work. There is absolutely no objective reason to think that Federer can beat a healthy Nadal on any surface; Nadal is younger, stronger and has been dominating Federer for years, to the point that he clearly got in Federer's head, so much so that Federer was crying after their matches.
Borg remains the best player of the Open Era, while Nadal has already accomplished more by age 23 than Federer did. Federer is a great player but I have never understood this rush to crown him as number one. It reminds me of when people insisted that Larry Bird was the greatest basketball player ever, even though he was not better than Chamberlain or Russell (or even Kareem) and even though Bird had a contemporary rival (Magic Johnson) who consistently enjoyed head to head superiority versus him; of course, by the time Jordan won six rings even Bird's most fervent advocates had to give up the ghost.
fact of the matter is, is that borg failed to win the US Open, and he participated in the grandslam many times. He never won a grandslam on hardcourts, and that will always be a major hole when looking at his accomplishments, end of discussion.
ReplyDeleteTennis:
ReplyDeleteOK--and the "fact of the matter" also is that Borg has better overall Grand Slam statistics (as I demonstrated above) than Federer in every meaningful category: tournament winning percentage (11/27), percentage of appearances in the semifinals, percentage of appearances in the quarterfinals and match winning percentage. Borg also never lost in the first round, while Federer has lost in the first round six times. How can the supposed greatest player of all-time lose six times in the first round of Grand Slam events?
for some reason, you are always comparing him to federer, i never mentioned federer in my post. All i said is that not winning a grandslam on one of the major surfaces, is a gaping hole in his resume.
ReplyDeleteTennis:
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of this thread is that it is premature to crown Federer as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone the greatest player of all-time. Borg has a better Slams resume than Federer (and a better Davis Cup record). I agree that Borg's resume would be even better had he won the U.S. Open but even without a U.S. Open title Borg has a better Grand Slam resume than Federer.
like i said, not comparing him to anyone, just saying that it is a gaping hole. He won many grandslams on grass and clay, but was unable to win a grandslam on the hard court surface.
ReplyDeleteTennis:
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this is a "gaping hole." Obviously, Borg's resume would be even better if he had won just one U.S. Open title but his simultaneous Wimbledon/French dominance is unparalleled.
The fact that Federer has been dominated by a contemporary player is a far bigger "gaping hole" in Federer's resume, as is the fact that Federer lost in the first round at a Slam six times, while Borg never suffered a first round loss at a Slam.