How about playing against this Davis Cup team and holding your shorts up while at it?

Agassi knew what was coming, so he grew them as long as he could. Glad they didn’t show even with his short shorts.

Gerard has some more points to back his Borg GOAT theory. Thanks.

GERARD

Well I am incredibly impressed with the responses, the logic, knowledge and passion in each of the responses all done with courtesy and positivity is much appreciated, because as I stated at the start I am no authority in the slightest, just a tennis tragic for the last 35 years. I can not fault or dismiss any of the seven responses so far provided and I value the feedback and interest on this topic. So, whether I have an opinion that differs is irrelevant to this discussion.

I would like to humour you all and apologetically add some further snippets of support for my opinion that through reading and digesting the views of each of you, it made me realise I had not given consideration or credit to other factors that to me respond in kind to the differing opinions of the order and validity of the GOAT of which there can only be one. So from my forgetfulness, please allow me to add some further weight to these pointers and support for Borg being undeniably (with the utmost respect to you all) the greatest tennis player of all time and is likely to never be overtaken, and to say so with Federer being the sublime talent and champion that he is and has proven to be, the difference therefore does not lie in the fact as to whether one or the other has a superior mastery of the game and over their respective rivals that is irrefutably true for both Borg and Federer (but with some reservations in Federer’s case due to the rise and rise and domination of Nadal), but it lies in the the two areas that only true champions possess and separates them from other great players and that is the amount of mental toughness and an identifiable lack of any suspected weakness. Borg cannot be denied superiority in either of these facets over Federer.

Borg retired with a better for and against record against all players he played on more than 6 occasions, which would allow for the departure and emergence of players leaving or entering the game during Borg’s reign. Only 1 player equalled Borg in head-to-head meetings and that was McEnroe, their head-to-head stands at 7 a piece. But with respect to what you wrote above Mike, it is certainly not my belief that Borg retired because of McEnroe, unless you have some authoritative quote that you could refer to in support of that claim and that such a statement was in fact made, I would like to read or see that if it exists. You may or not be aware that at the time of the 1981 US Open, Borg en-route to his 4th US Open final, it was reported in the media that he had been made aware of a death threat against his father, which understandably and to me noticeably, but without providing excuses (which Borg never did), did put enormous stress once again on Borg and would have had an unsettling effect on his game which against McEnroe had to be on every occasion he played against him needed to be at its very honed best. Borg announced his retirement not long after as you could imagine almost understandably. The cult following that Borg received was rock-star like and he had to contend with this adulation and distraction at every tournament he entered, which was unprecedented at the time and the likes of which has never been repeated since, the closest exception being Agassi in his pre Brooke Shields days when his hair was long, blonde and flowing and I think mullet like too. Such extra pressure was dealt with by Borg along with the expectation of winning every tournament he entered as the true champion he was.

It was essentially just through Borg’s reign and a little either side that the Australian Open in his day was the last of the 4 Grand Slam titles, if it was the first as it has been since the late 1980’s then Borg would have made the trip to Australia and more than likely (and it would be inconceivable that he wouldn’t, like it would be inconceivable that one could say Tiger Woods will never win a major golf tournament again) have held aloft the Australian Open trophy on more than 1 occasion, considering his dominance of the game and the fact the Australian Open was played on grass at Kooyong during Borg’s era a conservative guess would have been 4 to 5 times at least and sadly we will never know that. As Laver was denied many more chances to win Grand Slam titles due to the hiatus caused when tennis went through the 6 years it took for the professional emergence of tennis as a game from amateurism, one can similarly consider or cogitate as to how many Grand Slam titles Laver was denied in adding to his 11 Grand Slam titles he did win and the 2 Grand Slams he did win, the same could be said for the number of titles Borg could have amassed if he had played at the Australian Open if it had been the first Slam of the year as it is now and especially as it was played on grass back then. So in other words Sampras’s 14 titles would not be the record Federer is trying to beat if the playing fields were the same for Laver and Borg as they are today. Also, with no disregard to Laver’s 2 Grand Slams rather more of an historical aside, the surfaces and venues for both the US Open and The Australian Open were clay at Flushing Meadows and grass at Kooyong. So he won his grand slams on 2 types of surfaces not the 4 they have to win on today, or the 3 in Borg’s day.

So, one of the main points I want to add here on top of the other historical points added above is the fact that Borg fell of favour with the tennis authorities (ATP) and the media due to his steadfast insistence that he restricted the number of tournaments to I believe it was 11 or 12 per year and played Exhibition matches and World Team tennis events in between, so to Claire who quoted from a James Martin article, his assertion that the determination of greatness will be based on how many Grand Slams a player ultimately wins is myopic at best and gives little credit to the factors in the previous paragraph or the fact that Borg’s schedule was self-restricted and had he played more his records would have even been more imposing and his number of wins would make him even more insurmountable, so his article by insinuation therefore leap frogs Borg above the players he refers; Federer and Sampras. And as I said before Borg regrettably received poor and denigrating press over the last few years of his career because of this stance he took on his availability and restrictions to less tournaments a year than they wanted and expected of him and that is why so called media experts and pundits always tried to down play and diminish his records which facts thankfully and righteously can and never do. I have kept many of the magazines and articles of that era and still have them to see this tainted image they portrayed of Borg.

It is very interesting to note that all the records Federer has amassed have been in surpassing or equaling Borg and his contemporaries, eg. Connors 160 continuous weeks as number 1. If one studied this amazing achievement of Connors one could reflect back to this period and his number 1 ranking was due to his many tournaments he played which kept him at number 1, at the same time he held that number 1 ranking, he only beat Borg on 2 occasions I believe and Borg had 6 or 7 victories over Connors. It is also a salient point to note that a stir was often caused at Wimbledon during this 160 week reign of Connors that Borg was always seeded no 1 at Wimbledon which was never previously done or has it been done since. So for those of us who followed tennis as close as we follow todays circuit, Connors number 1 ranking was suspect and contentious for the fact that Borg was acknowledged as the greater player as the seedings reflected at Wimbledon. Now in light of that being a worthy consideration, couple the number of weeks Borg was number 1 either side of Connors reign and you will get a figure greater than Federer’s current 235 weeks, it is a contentious but salient point to note.

As for no competition to compare with Federer’s rivalry with Nadal in Borg’s case, what an insult to Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, the late Geraulitis and so many others. Again, it was Vilas’s record on clay that Nadal surpassed as the number of matches won in succession on clay and he is hailed as a clay court maestro. Again Vilas was one of Borg’s contemporaries to which we had to look to for Nadal to break a record of note. Guess what with 6 French Open crowns and 4 of them in a row, a year in which he did not play at the French in 1977 and 1 loss to Adriano Panatta in 1976 and in his ever Grand Slam appearance as a 16 year old where he bowed out in the 4th round, again to Adriano Panatta in 1973, Borg won 49 from 51 matches at Roland Garros. Nadal currently has won 28 straight matches from 28, another 21 wins and will have beaten Borg. I dare say he is more likely to give Borg’s record a shake with his dominance he shows at the moment, but 21 is a lot more matches to win. Now concluding on this point, is that whilst Nadal broke Vilas’s clay record, Vilas never had a superiority over Borg on clay as their head-to-head records will attest. So the point here is that the records both Federer and Nadal are trying to break between them belong to one player. It is taking the greatnesses of both of them to try to emulate what Borg achieved individually. Isn’t it spine tingling stuff to see that both Nadal and Federer were presented with their Wimbledon and French Open trophies by the one and only person who has done what both of them are doing and that is Borg, surely that resonates as an honour for them both to know that they are following in the footsteps of one person, not trailblazing unchartered waters.

I can contemplate that Nadal may be on the cusp of greatness maybe even beyond Borg if he keeps winning and dominating as he is and he will thoroughly deserve that rarefied space as the GOAT if he can maintain this dominance. But Federer as he has proven in 2008 is not on the way up anymore, regrettably he is on the decline and with Nadal and Djokovic raising their levels, 14 Grand Slams may prove regrettable elusive for Federer, I would be extremely happy and actually hope he can break Sampras’s record of 14 Grand Slam’s, but the hands of time tell me a different story and the changing of the guard has happened.

One last point on Nadal is that I cannot help but wonder is whether his game being such a violent physical game will take its toll on his supremely fit body at some stage? The next 2 years will reveal some secrets there I reckon, let’s hope that he can maintain his game and continue to raise the bar as Federer and he have done for the last 4 years and Djokovic has proven he can match a la maybe not as consistently.

I apologise for the verbosity of this response, but I cannot give credit to this discussion on the GOAT that is Borg, unless recognition is detailed and not just glossed over and left open for ridicule for lacking facts which I have painstakingly tried to get right and with an obvious passion that I have for the game. So, feel free to unpick or dispel the contents as you please but as long as you have the same passion as I do for tennis, no one’s opinion is better than another’s, so hence I have tried to fill many possible unknowns in to the mix for people to either add to or take on board and realise that the statistics are all in Borg’s favour and the behind the scenes influences carry weight to bolster the claim … am I a loyal Borg fan …. yes for sure … but am I myopic … no way …. am I open to be accepting of considerations greater and more factual than I have delved into for a rethink … I sure am ….. so outside of the comments and opinions already offered, what more does Borg have to do to be the GOAT, nothing in my eyes … facts and records speak for themselves …. McEnroe’s opinion does count and I have heard him say similar comments as to his opinion on this topic, which did surprise me knowing the rivalry and intensity that he was a part of with Borg but never experienced himself first hand, so all I can do is respect his opinion but disagree … I also know that if McEnroe was around in the same era as Federer with his sublime magician’s touch game, he would not have readily or easily bowed down to Federer and he himself would have, I am sure, had a rivalry that would have been evenly contested with his fair share of wins. So unless you think McEnroe was a no chance against Federer in the primes than you will see that his opinion is thus blown out of he water. He is prone like all of us to just marvel at Federer and the now factor is a stronger point of reference than history in all facets of life.

Cheers
Gerard

Pathetic career of Darren Cahill, the self proclaimed ‘expert’ on tennis.

He won just two freaking insignificant titles in his entire freaking career – Gstaad and San Francisco. And once a finalist ever at another Mickey mouse crap – Newport. He never even won a Masters Series title ONCE, forget about a Grand Slam.

At the Australian Open, his home event, he never got past the third round. Was taken in the first round thrice in his nine attempts over all.

At Wimbledon, he never got past the second round. Was eliminated in the first freaking round twice in five attempts. Probably didn’t even qualify for other years.

Roland Garros? Ridiculous. Four attempts, three in first round and once in second round.

US Open: Five attempts. First round: 1, Second round: 2, Fourth round: 1, Semifinal: 1.

No wonder there’s a dearth of great tennis players when these are the morons teaching the basics of the game to youngsters.

Sampras saves one record, can the other still stand?

Ending the year as No. 1 six straight years is not going anywhere anytime soon. But what about No. 14 that was so certain to fall just few months ago?

Federer has to forget about every freaking thing and concentrate on that number. How freaking meaningless will all those records look without clinching the biggest one of them all, after having a run like that?

Sampras must be thrilled to be still on top with the likelihood of probably staying there forever. I don’t think even he thinks that Nadal can even come close, with who is nipping at his heels and his physical vulnerability.

That last Grand Slam Sampras squeezed out is providing him the much needed cushion to still have some hope. Federer needs three to beat him, which doesn’t look like a possibility any more. So now Sampras wish list has been upgraded from being surpassed, to being tied, to being alone at the top.

These two records – six straight years at No. 1 and No. 14 – lend great credibility to his status as arguably the greatest player of all time. Federer cannot hope to get there without at least one of them in his bag. Either that or Roland Garros, which is so beyond reach that it’s not even on the table any longer.

Sampras got saved by a whisker. Borg may not be as happy with his No. 11 trounced and No. 5 equalled, but it could have been worse if Nadal had not won this year.

Can Federer get the second wind to surprise everyone, or he is already too far down the tubes?