[BLOG] Open Era Generations, Part Seven: Gen 5 (1954-58) - Borg and Some Other Guys

Riotbeard

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,810
Reactions
12
Points
38
Great post dude!

Am I right in thinking that in one of Borg's failed comebacks, he was still using the old school racket? I think they said this in the Fire and Ice documentary HBO did about Borg and McEnroe.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,596
Reactions
6,439
Points
113
I vaguely remember that, Riot. This is just based on memory but I think he played with a wooden racket the first few matches and then switched to metal.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,596
Reactions
6,439
Points
113
Another thought about Borg is how much his retirement impacted tennis in the early 80s.

Let's have a bit of fun and imagine if Borg hadn't retired when he did. To start, let's say he took a breather from the 1981 US Open to the 1982 French Open, but then came back refreshed and ready to play. Maybe he had a spiritual epiphany and realized he loved the game and wasn't ready to fully relinquish his crown to that uncivilized New Worlder.

Chances are the 17-year old Mats Wilander wouldn't have been able to beat Borg at the French Open, so there's one off Maty's record. I'm then wondering if McEnroe would have been more focused and with Borg there, I'm guessing Jimmy Connors wouldn't have won Wimbledon and the US Open - there's two off of his record. Let's say Borg takes the FO and he and McEnroe split Wimbledon and the US Open. This changes total Slam tallies to: Borg 13, McEnroe 8, Connors 6, Wilander 6 (career totals, but through 1982 changes). Its also conceivable that Bjorn could have taken the #1 ranking back.

Moving to 1983, I think we would have seen more of the Borg-McEnroe rivalry, with McEnroe taking back (and probably keeping) the edge. But I still think Borg takes the FO, so Yannick Noah loses his one Slam. Then maybe Borg and McEnroe split Wimbledon and the US Open again. So the tallies go to Borg 15, McEnroe 8, Connors 5, Noah 0.

In 1984, we probably start seeing some slippage from Borg - he's turning 28. Maybe he finally loses the FO, which goes to Lendl. We'll let Johnny Mac keep his two, so Borg goes slamless for the first time since 1973. No change in tally from above.

In 1985, Borg wins one more - defeating Boris Becker at Wimbledon. But McEnroe wins the US Open, so Lendl loses a Slam (remember, we're assuming Mac would have been a bit more focused with Borg still in it). Borg 16, McEnroe 9, Lendl 7.

In 1986 Borg goes slamless again and retires. Johnny Mac also goes slamless, but comes back and wins one more in 1987 - maybe taking Pat Cash's lone Slam at Wimbledon.

So the final tallies in this imaginary scenario would be Borg 16, McEnroe 10, Lendl 7, Wilander 6, Connors 5, Noah 0, Cash 0.

Later on Sampras isn't able to pass Borg, so Federer's #17 is all the more meaningful.

All just a made-up story, but kind of fun to think about!
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,637
Reactions
2,634
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
I like the scenario and it's worth saving to my blog! Thanks! It makes total sense to me; but of course I'm a Borg sycophant from "way back!" :p :angel: :dodgy: :ras: :rolleyes:
 

amicitia81

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
33
Reactions
0
Points
0
"2015: The climax of Novak Djokovic". An article summarizing the season of the Serbian, the Big-4 and the future promises of world tennis by thetennisbase. www.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=noticias&accion=detalle&codigo=1051
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,343
Reactions
7,583
Points
113
El Dude said:
Another thought about Borg is how much his retirement impacted tennis in the early 80s.

Let's have a bit of fun and imagine if Borg hadn't retired when he did. To start, let's say he took a breather from the 1981 US Open to the 1982 French Open, but then came back refreshed and ready to play. Maybe he had a spiritual epiphany and realized he loved the game and wasn't ready to fully relinquish his crown to that uncivilized New Worlder.

Chances are the 17-year old Mats Wilander wouldn't have been able to beat Borg at the French Open, so there's one off Maty's record. I'm then wondering if McEnroe would have been more focused and with Borg there, I'm guessing Jimmy Connors wouldn't have won Wimbledon and the US Open - there's two off of his record. Let's say Borg takes the FO and he and McEnroe split Wimbledon and the US Open. This changes total Slam tallies to: Borg 13, McEnroe 8, Connors 6, Wilander 6 (career totals, but through 1982 changes). Its also conceivable that Bjorn could have taken the #1 ranking back.

Moving to 1983, I think we would have seen more of the Borg-McEnroe rivalry, with McEnroe taking back (and probably keeping) the edge. But I still think Borg takes the FO, so Yannick Noah loses his one Slam. Then maybe Borg and McEnroe split Wimbledon and the US Open again. So the tallies go to Borg 15, McEnroe 8, Connors 5, Noah 0.

In 1984, we probably start seeing some slippage from Borg - he's turning 28. Maybe he finally loses the FO, which goes to Lendl. We'll let Johnny Mac keep his two, so Borg goes slamless for the first time since 1973. No change in tally from above.

In 1985, Borg wins one more - defeating Boris Becker at Wimbledon. But McEnroe wins the US Open, so Lendl loses a Slam (remember, we're assuming Mac would have been a bit more focused with Borg still in it). Borg 16, McEnroe 9, Lendl 7.

In 1986 Borg goes slamless again and retires. Johnny Mac also goes slamless, but comes back and wins one more in 1987 - maybe taking Pat Cash's lone Slam at Wimbledon.

So the final tallies in this imaginary scenario would be Borg 16, McEnroe 10, Lendl 7, Wilander 6, Connors 5, Noah 0, Cash 0.

Later on Sampras isn't able to pass Borg, so Federer's #17 is all the more meaningful.

All just a made-up story, but kind of fun to think about!

Interesting alternate world stuff, I like it! Of course, since it's an alternate world, Pete may well have reached more than seventeen. But I often think on the fact that Navratilova struggled at the US Open and lost a heartbreaking final in 1981. I thought at the time that she and Borg were doomed to never win it. Borg retired but Martina committed herself even more, and in 1982 we saw Martina 2.0, which transformed her career, and the women's game.

Going back to your hypothesis and thinking about Borg returning to the game in 1991 with a wooden racket, I think he'd have struggled at Wimbledon against Becker, Edberg, Mac, all of whom were great natural attacking grass court players. Borg was fortunate to one extent in his career: his Wimbledon victories were sandwiched between the dying of the great Australian grass court game, and the coming of the great resurgent in serve-volley tennis in the 80's. To an extent, Borg and Connors success from the baseline were signs of a crisis in natural grass court play until McEnroe arrived. I wouldn't see Borg winning five in a row against the great serve-volleyers of the mid-80's. But your hypothesis isn't about that, it's one of the great "what-ifs" of the game: what if Borg hasn't gone all Greta Garbo on us?

He comes back in 1982 rejuvenated but I agree, this has an energising effect on Mac, so I think they'd split the slams because I think finally Borg would go to Oz, chasing the #1 ranking, and add this to his seventh FO. In 1983 I think Connors would still be a factor, Lendl might have been under less pressure and do I'd have him surprise the Swede at Paris, but lose to Mats in the final. Okay, I just made that bit up, it gets too complicated to imagine. :snicker

The big question would be: does Borg win in New York? I'm like brother Fiero, I'm a Borg baby from way back, but an underestimated part of his Norse myth is the fact that he chucked it in. In tennis terms, he died young, and stayed young. If he'd played on, even fell in love with the game once more, I think the legend would have been tarnished by success at Flushing Meadows. I think he would have retired on 13 slams, maybe 14 if he went to Oz again in 1983...
 

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,597
Reactions
1,294
Points
113
I like the end of Kieran's thought there--makes me want to cue the Forever Young by Bob Dylan and The Band!!!!
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,596
Reactions
6,439
Points
113
Nice post, Kieran. Your comment about Borg being fortunate to play between two different grass eras made me think that maybe an aspect that all, or most, of the greats share is that they are able to maximize and even exploit the context in which they play. We can see that with the current three greats. Roger was part of a relatively talented group, but unlike his peers had a more complete game than some (Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero) and the mind-set to actualize it, unlike others (Safin, Nalbandian). Not only was (is) he an elegant player of unsurpassed skills, but he was able to harness his ability in a way that his peers could not, and the fact that it all gelled together made him virtually (or almost) unbeatable for a few years.

Or with Rafa, he jumped into a relatively weak clay-court field as the prior era of strong clay players was fading away or gone (Kuerten, Agassi, Coria, Moya, Ferrero). Plus he played a style of tennis that made him probably the most frustrating opponent in the history of the game, at least until things came together for Novak. Now we have Novak who is maintaining a late and long peak at a time when Fedal aren't what they were and the new elite have not yet emerged.

This isn't to take away anything from them, but to point out that they filled a gap in the game that presented itself and, unlike some of their peers (Safin, Nalbandian, Murray, Monfils, Tsonga, etc), they had the mentality to exploit it.
 

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,597
Reactions
1,294
Points
113
Now, I love Dude's post, but take issue with the idea that Connors would not have won the events he did. I was an old fan of Jimbo and I thought he retooled his game and came back with 1981-1984 with a slightly bigger serve (he won more free points off of it during those years) and new focus. I don't think you can overlook that Connors only started losing regularly to Borg after the Pepsi Grand Slam in early 1979--at that point Jimbo led the H2H, but would lose something like 9 or 10 in a row until 1982 when he beat Bjorn a couple of times. Connors got married in 1979 and that seemed to have an impact on him, along with that guy from Queens. I do not concede Borg would have won the titles Connors did in 1982-83.

On the other hand, Borg would have absolutely and without any doubt whatsoever (barring injury) won the 1982 French Open. Mats Wilander himself is my source; he played his very best in warming up for the French two weeks before the event against Borg and was schooled via two straight breadsticks!! He has said publicly that Bjorn not playing allowed him to win it. I take him at his word and I myself have no doubts Borg would have won it. It is hard to see him not winning it again in 1983 as well. As for New York, it may have always been the tough won for him, coming at the end of the year, night tennis, the boisterous crowds, Connors and/or McEnroe, etcetera. His best days at SW19 may have been behind him as well, but one never knows does he. He is the great mythical figure of tennis history--the most compelling and mysterious of all the great champions, for he remains ... Forever Young.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,596
Reactions
6,439
Points
113
OK, fair enough, shawn. Thanks for the "inside" take on Connors. I was just a wee lad at the time so have no memory of tennis, other than a vague sense that I liked Borg and didn't like this upstart McEnroe!

But yeah, we just cannot know with Borg. He could have won 5+ more, or he could have stalled out and won maybe a Slam or two more at most. I suspect he would have won somewhere in the 2-6 range, towards the higher end if he had decided to play in Australia. Actually, Borg playing in Australia might have accelerated the timeline for the AO being a "legit" and equal Slam. It wasn't really until 1987 that the AO had a similar field to the other Slams. Before that it was more like an ATP 500 (harsh I know, but true).
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,596
Reactions
6,439
Points
113
Unsticked in preparation for the next installment.