tarckbear is one of the contributors who noticed that Laver was nearly 40 when he played this game. I preferred watching the game when the rackets were wooden. The racket is just a parameter. The diversity of shots is wider with the old racket and so tennis was a more complex sport. Also, I prefer to watch small prize matches; there were more laughs when Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and the others played; especially in the doubles. Isn't that what it's for? Entertainment & sport combined.
tarckbear is one of the contributors who noticed that Laver was nearly 40 when he played this game. I preferred watching the game when the rackets were wooden. The racket is just a parameter. The diversity of shots is wider with the old racket and so tennis was a more complex sport. Also, I prefer to watch small prize matches; there were more laughs when Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and the others played; especially in the doubles. Isn't that what it's for? Entertainment & sport combined.
tarckbear is one of the contributors who noticed that Laver was nearly 40 when he played this game. I preferred watching the game when the rackets were wooden. The racket is just a parameter. The diversity of shots is wider with the old racket and so tennis was a more complex sport. Also, I prefer to watch small prize matches; there were more laughs when Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and the others played; especially in the doubles. Isn't that what it's for? Entertainment & sport combined.
Tennis, like any sport, gets better with time, as the bar is constantly raised and new players learn from their idols of the past, who learned from their idols before them. It's like the 4 minute mile. No one thought it could be done. Then someone did it. Then suddenly everyone was doing it, because they knew it could be done. The bar just keeps getting raised by tiny little increments.
But there's no one, NO ONE, in tennis today who'd run backwards and get that lob like Borg did.
@superman11978 Well tennis is very different from 4 min mile. A lot of rules have changed especially during last decade, which includes slowing down surfaces and balls. Grinding strokes from the baseline is better than before but other aspect got worse in my opinion. Have you seen top 10 players volley lately? Most of them look like a club level player. In terms of running mile, if the track is replaced with sand or ice, how would you compare runners from regular tracks?
Laver is one of my favorite players because of his great versatility and variety and touch, but now I know why Borg had a reputation as the greatest ever following his retirement...the guy is just an amazing athlete here, and to get those balls back with a wooden racket takes phenomenal skill. Also, he's got great speed and stamina...not hard to imagine him dominating the French for as long as he felt like playing it.
fifty per cent of the worlds tennis players are faster than NADAL but can any player beat NADAL at the moment i think not thats why he is the worlds # 1
@Mgoblue454 I hate comparing the two. Borg played with a wooden racket with animal hide as strings; Nadal plays with state of the art synthetic strings and a racket made of god knows what. There is no way to accurately compare their serves, groundstrokes, or shot making ability.
The surfaces in tennis have changed a lot as well, and so has the competition, so you can't compare their achievements fairly either.
The only thing you CAN say is that Nadal is in better shape. That's it.
@Aaronthegreatest I will tell you one thing there is no way Nadal could swing like he does with a small wooden raquet, he would be hitting the frame as well as people in the 10th row!
@blitkreig From what I've read and heard, Laver used a continental grip for both strokes. It takes enormous arm strength to do it. Did McEnroe do this as well? I tried it a few times on my forehand, and I felt like I was going to break my arm. One big advantage is you never change grips. In today's game with all the power and spin, it may be impossible to play like that.
@mrbobevans you can hold any grip and never have to change grip. i know people who hold western forehands and never move their dominant hand position when hitting backhand. its all about personal preference.
To posters claiming players have to be bigger today: The year-end number one player in the world has been 6 ft 1 in for almost all of the last 35 years. Sampras (6 ft 1), Federer (6 ft 1), and Nadal (6 ft 1).
While years ago you had Stan Smtih (6 ft 3), Pancho Gonzales (6 ft 3), Goran Ivanesivic (6 ft 5), Richard Krajicek (6 ft 6).
The main reason there are more, tall players now, is that the ball sits up so much on the slower courts with Lux strings giving topspin, not athleticism.
When Borg came on the scene he had all time great Connors to take on. When Borg was at his peak he had super Mac to take on. For the first few years of Federer he simply did not have an all time great to take on. This is a fact. Even when Nadal came on scene it took him a few years to get in his stride. When Nadal did beat him on grass in 2008 he got injured. Fed is great but let's not just count slams
@martynhanson Ok, let's not just count slams, and examine Mcenroe and Connors' tennis, compared to the viciously physical and powerful players of Federer's time. Or, if you like, let's watch Federer play, and compare his grace and talent and athleticism to Borg's.
@martynhanson as an athelete Borg is one of the greats in any sport. Grace is another matter. When he went on Superstars he was wonderful - gym tests, running and he won easily. Now Fed cheekily said recently you can win the French Open without a serve. Lets' reverse that as it works both ways. You can't win Wimbledon without a serve but Borg did. Who is the greatest is hard to say as I think Laver was as good as those two.
Rod Laver 1m,72 cm. Borg 1m,80 cm. In today tennis the players are at least 1m 85cm...most are above 1m,90 cm. Today they wouldn't have done even the ball boys...
@scorreggiadifica Who cares how tall the players are today anyway. They aren't BETTER. But it is good to know, according to your post, that if they are going to bore us to death as individuals with their play that there is at least nearly a couple of meters involved.
@Isawthemwhen If the players are taller they have more useful space for theyr shots (is like the net were lower). Then,with wider arms they cover more space to get the ball. Then,with longer legs they cover the court better and faster. Are physical laws,that's all.
@Isawthemwhen It's like basketb or volley, where the players,Thirty years ago, were between 1m,80 cm and 1m,90cm. Today a player less than 2meters is a miracle.
@scorreggiadifica You were merely making an observation. My mistake--thought you were a troll with yet another comment attempting to marginalize and dethrone the great tennis legends of the past. Could not agree with you more. This reach helped Bill Tilden born in 1893 as well as tennis players of today. But also it doesn't make the player, as Laver demonstrated with his talent and ability to compensate. Had the rackets stayed the same, I don't think height would be as big a factor today.
@Isawthemwhen Have you ever seen the actual ATP ranking? So it's by chance that the average height of the players is 1m,86 cm?!? (The best 100: tallest 2m07, 90 players between 1m83 and 2m,only 10 under 1m 83cm). Federer 1m,86. Djokovic 1m,89. Murray 1m,93. Del Potro 2m. Nadal 1m,85. Cilic 2m03. Soderling 1m93. Tsonga 1m 90.
@signorawallace Interesting stats. But it is not so that the game has superior atheletes playing now or the level of play has been succeded--it is more a matter of the game becoming in my opinion highly mechinized. They might as well use canons on the court and shoot balls at each other. It might be more interesting.
Remember the small headed predominantly wooden racquets being used back then. People actually try and compare power from then to now and have little concept of this!
keeping the basketball motif, lets face it Michael Jordan and Larry Bird were oafish on the court. Dr Julius Irving was always stylin. same is true of Connors, Laver, and even Agassi. federer, borg & sampras look like robots
Very unusual the way Laver does not rest the racquet in his non-hitting arm in between shots. Proves it's non-essential but it certainly feels better to me.
That's true, his forearm was strong and big. You don't notice as much in a video as in person. Also I thought he was extremely fast around the court, here he is older, but the resting arm and casual attitude is a facade--he was always ready to run.
The thing I appreciate about Laver now is watching his footwork. He served, took the split step, hit the volley or half volley, and kept moving in. He was so quick getting back, you couldn't lob over him so you either had to hit a clean passing shot or wrong foot him. Incredible footwork.
No. Federer is the greatest - you're just envious. Even if you grant Laver 19 slams (11 GS + 8 ProTour), Fed will surpass 19 easily. He's at 16 already and raping the competition at a steady pace. He'll probably be at 24+ by the time he's done.
Watched Federer Soderling US Open and my point was obvious. Federer could be beaten with a patern because of the limitations of his backhand grip. Borg and Laver never had this problem and I am putting together a video to prove it. Laver and Borg also changed their game to win where Federer just hits harder. Please do not compare Federer and his weak opponents to Laver and Borg.
Fed changed his backhand also, 2 years ago he used to slice 70% of his backhands. Now he comes over the top 80%. His high backhand strike is improved but is his only weak point, IMO. I will give credence to your opinion about the weak field, only Nadal, Fed, and Hewitt have multiple Slams. Conners, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Newcombe et al had multiples. Tennis mag just had an article on this.
@clu4u I think it is unfair to say that Federer is playing in a weak era because more people don't have multiple slams. With the exeption of Nadal he is just better than everyone else. Hewitt and Roddick won slams before Federer dominated and others like Murray and Djokovic would have won more, but Fed is just better. Sampras was great but he could not even get to one French Open final. Fed is great on every surface and he has tough competition. He is just better!
Sampras didnt make the french for 2 reasons. he strung his racket at 75 - 80 lbs making his backhand tremendously weaker on the slow clay that already diminishes power. Sampras could get away with stringin his racket so tight at the other slams because he generated enough of his own power to make up for it on the faster surfaces. But the French took away too much power at that string tension.
@TheTopspin77 Also, Sampras had an iron deficiency which made him fatigue much quicker, and because of the slow clay, the rallies are much longer at the French
what surface its? , because i say a lot of videos of roland garros and that its so slow compared with this , and what a shot of two player , i didn't know how good they play !
A year later at Hilton Head, Pancho Gonzales said, I think that Borg will go down as probably hitting the ball as hard as any man I have ever seen, even on the serve.
Borg did hit with a lot of pace when needed if you look at the 1976 open match against Connors or the Pepsi Cola series you could watch on The Tennis Channel.
First of all Laver is past it here. Also, Borg only played 3 slams a year for all of his career as Aust open was missed by most top players from 75 till new arena built. The Masters in NY was at the same time and that's why. This is not spoken about now but that is why Borg had highest success rate in slams 62%
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Federer does not have anywhere near the strokes of Laver, Borg or any other past champions for that matter. 15 slams means nothing in a dried up field. Golf is 18 holes, bowling is nine pins so success is measured but tennis is hype as was boxing with Tyson.
Of course Borg and Laver could both have won more than 15 slams, thats not what i was talking about. But to talk about a dried up field is quite ignorant, when tennis experts around the whole world say, that competition never was as big as today. The whole world plays tennis, in the 60ies only a small part of it... And by the way: Its stupid to compare strokes made with woodn rackets and ones made with modern rackets of today. Everything has completely changed.
TV does not carry Tennis anyway near what they use to and as for competition being greater today that is a bunch of bull cause the amount of tournaments has gone down in the USTA listings. 60's to mid 80's there were large lines waiting for a court and now I walk on with no problem. Some areas courts have grass growing out of cracks from neglect. I excuse you for not knowing what you are talking about. You are the ignorant one. The field is mediocre.
Your excuses are dried up. Tennis is so much more of an international sport today. The 60's were dominated by the Aussies, 70 and 80's by Yanks. Even the 90's, Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang. Nowadays, the Spanish and French have strong programs but the field in much more diverse. Not weak by any means.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
International does not mean better, Spanish and French had strong programs in the past who are you kidding, Del Potro plays some tennis against Federer and beats him where Federer should never have dominated he has because of a weak field.
sampras himself says its alot stronger these days. it makes no sense that a sport gets weaker. when you have the advantage of all the knowledge from previous talents. do you think we would have a federer if it werent for borg, laver or sampras. we look up to our idols and they help us get better.
Unfortunately a lot of people don't. I sure didn't till I read a book on him and was made a lifetime fan. I'd say ironically out of all the best ever candidates Borg is the most underrated.
Actually, the surfaces in most of Laver's day were grass and clay. The four slams were -- three on grass (Wimbledon, U.S.,
Australian) and one on clay (French). Of course hard courts existed since forever, but slams were not played on them. Eventually the U.S. went to clay and then to hardcourt, and the Australian went straight to hardcourt (and there are various hardcourt surfaces, just as there are different clay surfaces). Only Wimbledon stayed on grass.
Don't forget 3 out of 4 GS were played on grass. Give that to Sampras or Federer and they'd have 30 GS for sure. I mean 3 GS on grass a year VS 1 grass GS a year. I would multiply Sampras and Federer Wimby titles by 3.
yeah, but the first time Laver did it, he was playing with amateurs, not the best players like Hoad,, Pancho Gonzales, etc...who were in the professional tour...
Right after Lavers grandslam win when he turned pro, he used to lose regularly to Hoad and Gonzales, and Rosewall for the next 4 years...Laver reached his peak a few years later, so I wouldnt put much importance on his amateur grandslams
From stuff I read about him, he didn't seem to be very approachable. I can't remember the quote from Segura, but it was about Gonzalez and his wives.
I was thinking about this the other day. Sampras was more like Gonzalez, utilizing a powerful aggresive S&V game. While Federer is more like Laver, utilizing an all-court game.
mrbobevans rofl what the hell, once again you're wrong! well not technically, many people have referred to the great pancho gonzalez as a 'poor sportsman' before, especially in his era, but at the same time, the man was made of badass- he was a complete loner, is suspected to have been on drugs and spent time with loose woman, constantly smoked cigarettes on and off the court, AND continued a career into his late 40s. he was like a fucking western movie star, playing tennis.
I doubt there can ever be a 'greatest' in popular sports. That is because every sport constantly evolves, if not in skill, definitely in terms of equipment quality, fitness and power (where relevant). So, though Laver was probably the better player in his time, he would be beaten every time by someone like Sampras on grass or Nadal on clay. There could be an argument that Laver would be able to adapt to competition as well but then again, that is speculation, not fact.
So nice to hear Gonzales speaking so appreciatively of Borg, whose style of play was so far removed from Gonzales' own. I remember that many commentators used to just keep repeating, He should get into the net more often." Same with Graf, but they had pretty successful playing games on their own terms.
um, I don't think Nadal would suddenly forget how to hit a tennis ball if you handed him a wooden racquet...and borg used a western grip with a wooden racquet like somebody else said. some of you old-timers need to wake up and read what you write sometimes.
Fantastic idea. Those who hit through the ball the most would win. Agassi would have been fine. Nadal and others with Western grip forehands would be in big trouble
Not really. He was the first of the modern breed ie. heavy topspin on both sides and he did not hit through the ball as did Laver, Rosewall etal in the sense that you mean. And I was under the impression that he used a full western (frying pan) grip.
Laver is the greatest, but oh my god, borg running back for that lob, shows he's arguably the fastest. I think Borg/Nadal must be the greatest athletically. I've never seen either remotely tired. Borg had a super low resting pulse. Wonder what Nadal's is.
What is just as astounding is that Laver won this tournament the year before, at age 37. (Don't know if Borg played that year.) He could win on any surface.
Sorry but posting an entire match is more than I can do now, with my time and particular equipment. I selected these few points just to illustrate Borg's speed.
Laver's speed here is nothing to sneeze at either. He's almost as fast as Borg and he's twice the age(!). I can see that Borg imitated Laver's feather-light walzing and overall great footwork. Borg said this and it's quite easy to see the similarities here. Two of the fastest players ever on one court. Bliss!
Im not sure he was the quickest. There have bnne a lot of quick players eg Hoad, Connors,. During Borg's day Vitas Gerulaitas was maybe even quicker. Mcenroe was super quick too.
In 1980 McEnroe said "He's faster afoot than I am, and although Vitas is just as quick, he often seems out of position. Borg covers court better than Vitas. You don't catch Bjorn out of position."
Just an observation - show the very same action with a stationary camera, a bit more vertically positioned and with less sound (so you can't hear the ball hitting the racquets as much) and it'll give a completely different impression. I notice this with a lot of the older matches (particularly the black and white ones), which a lot less hi-octaine than current ones, because the way they are filmed is less sophisticated. But here you've got bam-bam-bam, tilt-pan, crack. Quite interesting.
I have a feeling Borg did not enjoy playing this brilliant Rod Laver guy, who could mix up play and chip the ball lower than anyone else I can think of--he was an all time great.
Actually, John Mcenroe said he considered Pete Sampras the greatest serve and volleyer of all time. Laver was a serve and volleyer, so what does that tell you about Laver's comparison to Sampras?
who the hell is mcenroe to decide. If you research a bit deep. There are several players Mcenroe has called the greatest.
Laver wasnt a serve and volleyer. He served and volley when he was above 33. He was an all around player, who had every shot in the book like fed plus demonic speed and power like Nadal.
I know that we've cemented the fact that this is indeed 1976, but now that I look at it you can tell by Borg's hair and clothes that this happened shortly after the 1976 US Open.
Wonderful footage. Is anyone interested if I post a "high-light" reel here on Borg's match against Mac at the AKAI Gold Challenge indoors in Sydney from august 1982? Mac had just lost Wimby to the brilliant Connors but was still ranked No. 1 but Borg had his day. Mac played very good but Borg, everything went in, streams of winner after winner, and the speed was undiminished... 3-6,6-4,7-5,6-2 to Borg in the end in match were Borg totally dominated Mac...
I also hope someone would post footage of Rosewall-Laver from the legendary WCT-final AND (if it exist) soem Rosewall-Laver pro matches from the mid 60's. Does it exist? Would love to see more of Gonzales and Hoad and Laver from 50's and 60's... One cannot talk enough about these players. I'm a self-confessed Borg-man but I don't argue a second with anyone who puts Laver as GOAT or even Gonzales for that matter...
Also, Borg beat Laver in a supposedly amazing five-set match, I guess at WCT in 74 or 75 (?). Have never seen any footage of this but would pay quite a bit to do so. Gotta love the Laver!
I'd love to the this footage. Speaking of which, where did you obtain the footage anyway? I've been looking for this one for some time. I have a collection of matches from the 70s and 80s, but no obscure stuff like AKAI Gold.
Thanks, chapaev36, I respect your judgement. And I agree that the Borg-doc has the defects you point out. Plus that Borg's most uforgettable points hardly was shown. I mean in the 78-final at 5-2 to Borg in the 1st set Connors hammers a smash that Borg scrambles to whack back with a forehand wayyy outside the Court, Connors replies to this save with dream stop-volley that hardly bounces -- Borg, scrambles all the way to net, digs it up cross-ourt JUST inside the side-line. Newc's comment --
"What in the world must Connors do to get the ball away from this guy!" Bud Collins:"Myyy Good!". And it's a pure thrill to hear the Great Gonzales assess:"Look at that speed! Look at THAT!". And Gonzales was a genius tennis-player. And yes -- this weekend I will put together a high-light reel of the Akai match which an absolute treat -- just for you and post it here. I have searched for years after Borg-matches, and little by little the collection becomes more complete...
The AKAI-match I got from a very kind fan from Italy who had some matches who'm I've not heard from since. Sadly. He was a great guy. It has ita-comm but it doesn't distract from the brilliance in this match. In the end Borg practically just continously hit winners no matter how great a stroke or serve Mac threw his way so he just smiles for a long time and shakes his head which is wonderful to see. Borg though, always the poker-face and he has that resolute stare that signify his --
-- appearances from 76-80. Lendl sits court-side fascinated. I will try and inject these tid-bits with the high-light shot-making -- also because I would love to see compressed although the entire match is really too good to compress. Other details worth noting in this match is Borg's new one-handed backhand-slice which he attacks Mac's short-balls with and more importantly his position when returning Mac's serve -- not several meters behind the baseline like before -- but standing --
--on the base-line, like Wilander, Connors and Agassi did, effectively cutting off Mac's angle and just hitting winning return after another. Borg made a serious strategic mistake in standing so far behind on Mac serve from 78-81 letting it slice away from him. Here he neutralized Mac's weapon with remarkable ease. Damn that he lost the motivation! What a year 83-84 could've been. And why doesn't Federer move in closer on Nadal's slice-serve in the ad-court. Same deal here IMHO --
-- Fed would handle Nadal's serve with much more ease if follow this advice IMHO. Also I think I'll post some fine points from Borg's SF 76 with Tanner. Borg's serving here is really off-the-hook. Bergelin said Borg decreased the serve-speed to select moments instead of a constant barrage to avoid the stomach-pull he suffered from this excessive service-speed. He out-serves Tanner easily and Borg's rifle-shot comes principally every time.
Bergelin was firm in his belief that the two-weeks in Wimby'76 was the abolute best he'd ever seen Björn. I have to take his word for it. I would love to see Borg against Lloyd, Dibley, Gottfried and Vilas in the early rounds of 76 because they say he held the same level all the way through. Have you seen Wimby SF 81 Borg-Connors?
It is strange to see a lefty playing one-handed backhand
Pjetoles 2 months ago
Meanwhile somewhere in Switzerland a certain Mr. Federer was carrying the seed of greatness...
aryaldo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tarckbear is one of the contributors who noticed that Laver was nearly 40 when he played this game. I preferred watching the game when the rackets were wooden. The racket is just a parameter. The diversity of shots is wider with the old racket and so tennis was a more complex sport. Also, I prefer to watch small prize matches; there were more laughs when Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and the others played; especially in the doubles. Isn't that what it's for? Entertainment & sport combined.
Ceremare 4 months ago
tarckbear is one of the contributors who noticed that Laver was nearly 40 when he played this game. I preferred watching the game when the rackets were wooden. The racket is just a parameter. The diversity of shots is wider with the old racket and so tennis was a more complex sport. Also, I prefer to watch small prize matches; there were more laughs when Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and the others played; especially in the doubles. Isn't that what it's for? Entertainment & sport combined.
Ceremare 4 months ago
tarckbear is one of the contributors who noticed that Laver was nearly 40 when he played this game. I preferred watching the game when the rackets were wooden. The racket is just a parameter. The diversity of shots is wider with the old racket and so tennis was a more complex sport. Also, I prefer to watch small prize matches; there were more laughs when Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and the others played; especially in the doubles. Isn't that what it's for? Entertainment & sport combined.
Ceremare 4 months ago
Tennis, like any sport, gets better with time, as the bar is constantly raised and new players learn from their idols of the past, who learned from their idols before them. It's like the 4 minute mile. No one thought it could be done. Then someone did it. Then suddenly everyone was doing it, because they knew it could be done. The bar just keeps getting raised by tiny little increments.
But there's no one, NO ONE, in tennis today who'd run backwards and get that lob like Borg did.
superman11978 6 months ago
@superman11978 Well tennis is very different from 4 min mile. A lot of rules have changed especially during last decade, which includes slowing down surfaces and balls. Grinding strokes from the baseline is better than before but other aspect got worse in my opinion. Have you seen top 10 players volley lately? Most of them look like a club level player. In terms of running mile, if the track is replaced with sand or ice, how would you compare runners from regular tracks?
nocode61 1 month ago
They could play like this with that racket. Superb!
aonutube 6 months ago
this could of been federer and nadal
kinkabala 6 months ago
Laver is one of my favorite players because of his great versatility and variety and touch, but now I know why Borg had a reputation as the greatest ever following his retirement...the guy is just an amazing athlete here, and to get those balls back with a wooden racket takes phenomenal skill. Also, he's got great speed and stamina...not hard to imagine him dominating the French for as long as he felt like playing it.
Aaronthegreatest 7 months ago
laver is the best of all time
robertk2007 7 months ago
laver's style is similar to mcenroe.Borg sent laver on his way and mcenroe sent borg down on his way.
rw5791 7 months ago
why are they using badminton rackets lol XD
janjonasappel 7 months ago
With due respect to Borg's speed and greatness, Laver was 38 at that time... nice clip however, thank you.
VicElford 9 months ago
Funny how this game was not recorded on the ATP website
Zozim57 10 months ago
Laver seemed effortless. He was a class act. Borg was the greatest claycourter.
11caulfield 11 months ago 2
i never realized how advanced Bjorn was in his technique and strategy. especially for the time he played
trewdrow 11 months ago
fifty per cent of the worlds tennis players are faster than NADAL but can any player beat NADAL at the moment i think not thats why he is the worlds # 1
porsche86ify 11 months ago
Borg was faster than Nadal for sure
Pitonto 1 year ago
@Pitonto Maybe a bit faster than Nadal, but i still think overall Nadal is the better player
Mgoblue454 1 year ago
@Mgoblue454 I hate comparing the two. Borg played with a wooden racket with animal hide as strings; Nadal plays with state of the art synthetic strings and a racket made of god knows what. There is no way to accurately compare their serves, groundstrokes, or shot making ability.
The surfaces in tennis have changed a lot as well, and so has the competition, so you can't compare their achievements fairly either.
The only thing you CAN say is that Nadal is in better shape. That's it.
Aaronthegreatest 7 months ago
@Aaronthegreatest I will tell you one thing there is no way Nadal could swing like he does with a small wooden raquet, he would be hitting the frame as well as people in the 10th row!
100BABOLAT 7 months ago
@Aaronthegreatest wooden rackets arnt actually that bad. I was expecting them to be much harder to use but i found them to be easy enough!
Dom20002007 5 months ago
Comment removed
MIXMASTAPWN 1 year ago
does laver hit his forehand and backhand with a continental grip? looks very awkward.
blitkreig 1 year ago
@blitkreig From what I've read and heard, Laver used a continental grip for both strokes. It takes enormous arm strength to do it. Did McEnroe do this as well? I tried it a few times on my forehand, and I felt like I was going to break my arm. One big advantage is you never change grips. In today's game with all the power and spin, it may be impossible to play like that.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
@mrbobevans you can hold any grip and never have to change grip. i know people who hold western forehands and never move their dominant hand position when hitting backhand. its all about personal preference.
MIXMASTAPWN 1 year ago
To posters claiming players have to be bigger today: The year-end number one player in the world has been 6 ft 1 in for almost all of the last 35 years. Sampras (6 ft 1), Federer (6 ft 1), and Nadal (6 ft 1).
While years ago you had Stan Smtih (6 ft 3), Pancho Gonzales (6 ft 3), Goran Ivanesivic (6 ft 5), Richard Krajicek (6 ft 6).
The main reason there are more, tall players now, is that the ball sits up so much on the slower courts with Lux strings giving topspin, not athleticism.
jfawcette 1 year ago
@MrRalphNadal
umm no he is not
splendid1000 1 year ago
This cannot be grass!!!
hqthang87 1 year ago
holy crap. borg's footwork is ridiculous.
xridethelightningx 1 year ago
@xridethelightningx ridiculously good you mean???????
ivodsf 1 year ago
I never knew Borg was that quick. On clay he is insane.
Johncar435 1 year ago
the grass was very green
valjean1ful 1 year ago 5
@valjean1ful
It was green clay (Har-Tru).
krosero 1 year ago
@valjean1ful yeah, the grass was greener these days!
lachatseb 6 months ago
What an awesome player was the great Rod Laver...
HijoProdigio 1 year ago
two of the greatest champs......wasnt Laver 39 and Borg 20 in this match...?
fromanotherstar 1 year ago
@fromanotherstar Laver 38....Borg 20....incredible..
gabyhelffhrittz 1 year ago
"Old" King Rod found The Young Pretender just too "Hot".
TheWhitehall 1 year ago
When Borg came on the scene he had all time great Connors to take on. When Borg was at his peak he had super Mac to take on. For the first few years of Federer he simply did not have an all time great to take on. This is a fact. Even when Nadal came on scene it took him a few years to get in his stride. When Nadal did beat him on grass in 2008 he got injured. Fed is great but let's not just count slams
martynhanson 1 year ago
@martynhanson Ok, let's not just count slams, and examine Mcenroe and Connors' tennis, compared to the viciously physical and powerful players of Federer's time. Or, if you like, let's watch Federer play, and compare his grace and talent and athleticism to Borg's.
mikatagahara1212 1 year ago
@martynhanson as an athelete Borg is one of the greats in any sport. Grace is another matter. When he went on Superstars he was wonderful - gym tests, running and he won easily. Now Fed cheekily said recently you can win the French Open without a serve. Lets' reverse that as it works both ways. You can't win Wimbledon without a serve but Borg did. Who is the greatest is hard to say as I think Laver was as good as those two.
martynhanson 1 year ago
Rod Laver 1m,72 cm. Borg 1m,80 cm. In today tennis the players are at least 1m 85cm...most are above 1m,90 cm. Today they wouldn't have done even the ball boys...
scorreggiadifica 1 year ago
@scorreggiadifica Who cares how tall the players are today anyway. They aren't BETTER. But it is good to know, according to your post, that if they are going to bore us to death as individuals with their play that there is at least nearly a couple of meters involved.
Isawthemwhen 1 year ago
@Isawthemwhen If the players are taller they have more useful space for theyr shots (is like the net were lower). Then,with wider arms they cover more space to get the ball. Then,with longer legs they cover the court better and faster. Are physical laws,that's all.
scorreggiadifica 1 year ago
@Isawthemwhen It's like basketb or volley, where the players,Thirty years ago, were between 1m,80 cm and 1m,90cm. Today a player less than 2meters is a miracle.
scorreggiadifica 1 year ago
@scorreggiadifica You were merely making an observation. My mistake--thought you were a troll with yet another comment attempting to marginalize and dethrone the great tennis legends of the past. Could not agree with you more. This reach helped Bill Tilden born in 1893 as well as tennis players of today. But also it doesn't make the player, as Laver demonstrated with his talent and ability to compensate. Had the rackets stayed the same, I don't think height would be as big a factor today.
Isawthemwhen 1 year ago
@Isawthemwhen Have you ever seen the actual ATP ranking? So it's by chance that the average height of the players is 1m,86 cm?!? (The best 100: tallest 2m07, 90 players between 1m83 and 2m,only 10 under 1m 83cm). Federer 1m,86. Djokovic 1m,89. Murray 1m,93. Del Potro 2m. Nadal 1m,85. Cilic 2m03. Soderling 1m93. Tsonga 1m 90.
signorawallace 1 year ago
@signorawallace Interesting stats. But it is not so that the game has superior atheletes playing now or the level of play has been succeded--it is more a matter of the game becoming in my opinion highly mechinized. They might as well use canons on the court and shoot balls at each other. It might be more interesting.
Isawthemwhen 1 year ago
Remember the small headed predominantly wooden racquets being used back then. People actually try and compare power from then to now and have little concept of this!
Laver, not bad for a 38 yr old here.
absolutebore 1 year ago
keeping the basketball motif, lets face it Michael Jordan and Larry Bird were oafish on the court. Dr Julius Irving was always stylin. same is true of Connors, Laver, and even Agassi. federer, borg & sampras look like robots
alapet1 1 year ago
Very unusual the way Laver does not rest the racquet in his non-hitting arm in between shots. Proves it's non-essential but it certainly feels better to me.
Snaurt 2 years ago
I noticed that too about Laver not resting the racquest in his not-hitting arm. I have watched his earlier career matches and did not notice that.
I think Laver was able to do that because his arm was so ridiculously strong.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
That's true, his forearm was strong and big. You don't notice as much in a video as in person. Also I thought he was extremely fast around the court, here he is older, but the resting arm and casual attitude is a facade--he was always ready to run.
People say he was slow--what a lie!
Isawthemwhen 1 year ago
please man be serious, you know ROGER is the greatest!!!!
The0fuck1 2 years ago
i wanna seem them battle it out on the old grass :P
ludtke337 2 years ago
The way Borg could move on clay...there's never been anything like it.
tyruk 2 years ago 11
2 of the greatest! thanks for posting.
dandownunder19 2 years ago
The thing I appreciate about Laver now is watching his footwork. He served, took the split step, hit the volley or half volley, and kept moving in. He was so quick getting back, you couldn't lob over him so you either had to hit a clean passing shot or wrong foot him. Incredible footwork.
xrt199 2 years ago 2
Laver is the greatest. End of discussion.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Agreed....! Wish there were more videos of him out there.
rm1725 2 years ago
No wonder people think Federer is the greatest. Laver supporters arguments last 7 WORDS!!!!
365to173repubsPWNED 2 years ago
No. Federer is the greatest - you're just envious. Even if you grant Laver 19 slams (11 GS + 8 ProTour), Fed will surpass 19 easily. He's at 16 already and raping the competition at a steady pace. He'll probably be at 24+ by the time he's done.
biliev1 2 years ago
Federer may be the greatest. IMHO, Laver had more influence on the game than any player. Federer was influenced by Laver.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 2
wow....i think borg was quicker than nadal at his prime
sweetmrniceguy 2 years ago
That's what McEnroe says also.
clu4u 2 years ago
Watched Federer Soderling US Open and my point was obvious. Federer could be beaten with a patern because of the limitations of his backhand grip. Borg and Laver never had this problem and I am putting together a video to prove it. Laver and Borg also changed their game to win where Federer just hits harder. Please do not compare Federer and his weak opponents to Laver and Borg.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Fed changed his backhand also, 2 years ago he used to slice 70% of his backhands. Now he comes over the top 80%. His high backhand strike is improved but is his only weak point, IMO. I will give credence to your opinion about the weak field, only Nadal, Fed, and Hewitt have multiple Slams. Conners, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Newcombe et al had multiples. Tennis mag just had an article on this.
clu4u 2 years ago
No it's because Federer is so dominant that few others have so few grandslams. He is the MJ of tennis.
biliev1 2 years ago
@clu4u I think it is unfair to say that Federer is playing in a weak era because more people don't have multiple slams. With the exeption of Nadal he is just better than everyone else. Hewitt and Roddick won slams before Federer dominated and others like Murray and Djokovic would have won more, but Fed is just better. Sampras was great but he could not even get to one French Open final. Fed is great on every surface and he has tough competition. He is just better!
TheTopspin77 1 year ago
@TheTopspin77
Sampras didnt make the french for 2 reasons. he strung his racket at 75 - 80 lbs making his backhand tremendously weaker on the slow clay that already diminishes power. Sampras could get away with stringin his racket so tight at the other slams because he generated enough of his own power to make up for it on the faster surfaces. But the French took away too much power at that string tension.
splendid1000 1 year ago
@TheTopspin77 Also, Sampras had an iron deficiency which made him fatigue much quicker, and because of the slow clay, the rallies are much longer at the French
splendid1000 1 year ago
There were some great points here. Thanks for posting this.
casheasy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
tennis sucks
fatfata 2 years ago
so why the fuck u watching it then?
amzee2 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
u suck ass
sweetmrniceguy 2 years ago
what surface its? , because i say a lot of videos of roland garros and that its so slow compared with this , and what a shot of two player , i didn't know how good they play !
VictimFate 2 years ago
It's clay, but a faster kind called Har-Tru.
krosero 2 years ago
rod was old in 1976; bjorn was in the best moment of his career...that year borg won his 1st wimbledon.....
pablotjob 2 years ago
I've heard Bjorn Borg didn't have as much pace on his shots. This proves that he does have pace especially with the rackets he's using.
JimAsian1 2 years ago
A year later at Hilton Head, Pancho Gonzales said, I think that Borg will go down as probably hitting the ball as hard as any man I have ever seen, even on the serve.
krosero 2 years ago
Borg did hit with a lot of pace when needed if you look at the 1976 open match against Connors or the Pepsi Cola series you could watch on The Tennis Channel.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Laver was always a ball puller
MattyOyola21 2 years ago
First of all Laver is past it here. Also, Borg only played 3 slams a year for all of his career as Aust open was missed by most top players from 75 till new arena built. The Masters in NY was at the same time and that's why. This is not spoken about now but that is why Borg had highest success rate in slams 62%
martynhanson 2 years ago
these guys are alot more interesting to watch then the games nowadays.
Spamsational 2 years ago
I agree, except when federer plays he stands in one row with laver and borg, to me the three best of all times.
ytaddicted 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Federer does not have anywhere near the strokes of Laver, Borg or any other past champions for that matter. 15 slams means nothing in a dried up field. Golf is 18 holes, bowling is nine pins so success is measured but tennis is hype as was boxing with Tyson.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Of course Borg and Laver could both have won more than 15 slams, thats not what i was talking about. But to talk about a dried up field is quite ignorant, when tennis experts around the whole world say, that competition never was as big as today. The whole world plays tennis, in the 60ies only a small part of it... And by the way: Its stupid to compare strokes made with woodn rackets and ones made with modern rackets of today. Everything has completely changed.
ytaddicted 2 years ago 4
TV does not carry Tennis anyway near what they use to and as for competition being greater today that is a bunch of bull cause the amount of tournaments has gone down in the USTA listings. 60's to mid 80's there were large lines waiting for a court and now I walk on with no problem. Some areas courts have grass growing out of cracks from neglect. I excuse you for not knowing what you are talking about. You are the ignorant one. The field is mediocre.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Yeayea blabla, what are you talking about?? Doesn't make much sense...
ytaddicted 2 years ago
Sure it does not make much sense to you who can not spell yeah which shows weak mental effort. Stick to the flash card lessons.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Your excuses are dried up. Tennis is so much more of an international sport today. The 60's were dominated by the Aussies, 70 and 80's by Yanks. Even the 90's, Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang. Nowadays, the Spanish and French have strong programs but the field in much more diverse. Not weak by any means.
clu4u 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
International does not mean better, Spanish and French had strong programs in the past who are you kidding, Del Potro plays some tennis against Federer and beats him where Federer should never have dominated he has because of a weak field.
snoble2k 2 years ago
sampras himself says its alot stronger these days. it makes no sense that a sport gets weaker. when you have the advantage of all the knowledge from previous talents. do you think we would have a federer if it werent for borg, laver or sampras. we look up to our idols and they help us get better.
AceGuitarR7 2 years ago 4
@AceGuitarR7 it happens bub.
look at boxing right now compared to the 70s.
logant44 2 years ago
i had no idea borg was that fast! legend.
dogshouse 2 years ago 10
Unfortunately a lot of people don't. I sure didn't till I read a book on him and was made a lifetime fan. I'd say ironically out of all the best ever candidates Borg is the most underrated.
mulan400 2 years ago 4
pancho gonzalez is suspected to probably be the illegitimate father of chuck norris, too.
risenloudly 2 years ago
Actually, the surfaces in most of Laver's day were grass and clay. The four slams were -- three on grass (Wimbledon, U.S.,
Australian) and one on clay (French). Of course hard courts existed since forever, but slams were not played on them. Eventually the U.S. went to clay and then to hardcourt, and the Australian went straight to hardcourt (and there are various hardcourt surfaces, just as there are different clay surfaces). Only Wimbledon stayed on grass.
CrocFunDee 2 years ago
Laver never won on three different surfaces, something to consider, when he played there was only grass and hard court.
Secondly, different game, still, Laver was winning in his bloody 40s.
TheTruthfulAsshole 2 years ago
French has always been clay, as was the US Open. Conners won the US Open on 3 surfaces.
clu4u 2 years ago
French was actually grass as well for a bit. look it up
thegreatNEb 2 years ago
Rod Laver is the only man that can say "I've won all 4 grand slams in one fucking year." Great player.
federer1116 2 years ago 2
Don Budge too.
krosero 2 years ago 4
the only player to have won all 4 grand slams in one year twice
sweatpatch123 2 years ago
true...
federer1116 2 years ago
Don't forget 3 out of 4 GS were played on grass. Give that to Sampras or Federer and they'd have 30 GS for sure. I mean 3 GS on grass a year VS 1 grass GS a year. I would multiply Sampras and Federer Wimby titles by 3.
OreoCookieOreo 2 years ago
yeah, but the first time Laver did it, he was playing with amateurs, not the best players like Hoad,, Pancho Gonzales, etc...who were in the professional tour...
Right after Lavers grandslam win when he turned pro, he used to lose regularly to Hoad and Gonzales, and Rosewall for the next 4 years...Laver reached his peak a few years later, so I wouldnt put much importance on his amateur grandslams
Toblakai81 2 years ago
Pancho is an asshole. Great player but not a great sportsman
mrbobevans 2 years ago
I know nothing about him, what makes you say that?
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
From stuff I read about him, he didn't seem to be very approachable. I can't remember the quote from Segura, but it was about Gonzalez and his wives.
I was thinking about this the other day. Sampras was more like Gonzalez, utilizing a powerful aggresive S&V game. While Federer is more like Laver, utilizing an all-court game.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
mrbobevans rofl what the hell, once again you're wrong! well not technically, many people have referred to the great pancho gonzalez as a 'poor sportsman' before, especially in his era, but at the same time, the man was made of badass- he was a complete loner, is suspected to have been on drugs and spent time with loose woman, constantly smoked cigarettes on and off the court, AND continued a career into his late 40s. he was like a fucking western movie star, playing tennis.
risenloudly 2 years ago
And Gonzales was completely self-taught. Never took a lesson. A bunch smoked, Laver, Newcombe, et al. Harry Hopman must be turning over...
clu4u 2 years ago
1:53 .... Oh my God! He's the fastest tennis player to ever live.
modem09 2 years ago 2
ya i like hoad and gonzales
preciousjey 2 years ago
Laver is the greatest. His backhand is the best shot of all time.
I wish there were more videos of Lew Hoad and Pancho Gonzalez.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
I doubt there can ever be a 'greatest' in popular sports. That is because every sport constantly evolves, if not in skill, definitely in terms of equipment quality, fitness and power (where relevant). So, though Laver was probably the better player in his time, he would be beaten every time by someone like Sampras on grass or Nadal on clay. There could be an argument that Laver would be able to adapt to competition as well but then again, that is speculation, not fact.
shardstab 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
his "backhand"? are you insane?
laver's "backhand" is shit! the thing is horrible and it is in no way at all "one of the greatest"
my 1 handed bh is a million times better than that thing.
Nekrohol 2 years ago
stfu you noob nekrohol
lobextomy 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey kiss my ass, l eat your shit!
Nekrohol 2 years ago
"my 1 handed bh is a million times better than that thing."
Probably not, but it's probably a million times prettier to watch.
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
Laver is awesome on green clay. Amazing
mrbobevans 2 years ago
So nice to hear Gonzales speaking so appreciatively of Borg, whose style of play was so far removed from Gonzales' own. I remember that many commentators used to just keep repeating, He should get into the net more often." Same with Graf, but they had pretty successful playing games on their own terms.
dasglasperlenspiel10 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
laver was a mug, nadal would murder him easy.
stealthpakfa 2 years ago
amazing how good Laer was, he's at least 38 here. strong, quik and crazy good hands
tlp26atx 2 years ago
um, I don't think Nadal would suddenly forget how to hit a tennis ball if you handed him a wooden racquet...and borg used a western grip with a wooden racquet like somebody else said. some of you old-timers need to wake up and read what you write sometimes.
turdferguson2 2 years ago
vow.
laver reminded of nadal at 2:04 with that smash shot.
amazing yeah, just for fun there should be one tournament in the entire year where only wooden rackets are allowed.
reusername 2 years ago
Fantastic idea. Those who hit through the ball the most would win. Agassi would have been fine. Nadal and others with Western grip forehands would be in big trouble
Snaurt 2 years ago
Borg had a western forehand and used a wooden Donnay raquet so that pretty much makes your statement look ridiculous.
sledge999 2 years ago
Semi-Western. Big difference.
Snaurt 2 years ago
Not really. He was the first of the modern breed ie. heavy topspin on both sides and he did not hit through the ball as did Laver, Rosewall etal in the sense that you mean. And I was under the impression that he used a full western (frying pan) grip.
sledge999 2 years ago
most players can adapt to different grip without much trouble
i know i swit it around time to time and so does some of m friends
hellomonkey302 2 years ago
where they playing on clay? Such a strange color...
scrubs215 2 years ago
Holy shit!
BRING BACK THE WOOD!
tyruk 2 years ago
HAHA
djrighthand 2 years ago
Laver is the greatest, but oh my god, borg running back for that lob, shows he's arguably the fastest. I think Borg/Nadal must be the greatest athletically. I've never seen either remotely tired. Borg had a super low resting pulse. Wonder what Nadal's is.
Snaurt 2 years ago 3
Laver at 38 yrs of age was an astounding player ! (Borg was 20 years old at the time.)
KANGAJAZZ 3 years ago 3
What is just as astounding is that Laver won this tournament the year before, at age 37. (Don't know if Borg played that year.) He could win on any surface.
bassidol 3 years ago
Rod Laver, one of my favorite players of all time. His play style ceases to amaze me.
IllnezzBD 3 years ago
I love Laver's one handed backhand, so smooth and fluid.
stell29 3 years ago 2
laver has to be at least 38 here.
tlp26atx 3 years ago
Hi, could you please post the entire match.
Thanks.
jkygogo 3 years ago
Sorry but posting an entire match is more than I can do now, with my time and particular equipment. I selected these few points just to illustrate Borg's speed.
krosero 3 years ago
Man, the first impression this video makes on me is Federer vs. Nadal. Federer hits great shots but Nadal gets to everything.
Bobby61189 3 years ago 2
Laver's speed here is nothing to sneeze at either. He's almost as fast as Borg and he's twice the age(!). I can see that Borg imitated Laver's feather-light walzing and overall great footwork. Borg said this and it's quite easy to see the similarities here. Two of the fastest players ever on one court. Bliss!
Borgforever 3 years ago 4
Remember they said Borgs heart rate was in the 30's and he beat out sprinters and other professional athletes in a challenge during the seventies.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Borg was the quickest player in the game,but Laver was no slouch even though he's pushing 40 here.
tomloft2000 3 years ago
Im not sure he was the quickest. There have bnne a lot of quick players eg Hoad, Connors,. During Borg's day Vitas Gerulaitas was maybe even quicker. Mcenroe was super quick too.
notthelastword 3 years ago
In 1980 McEnroe said "He's faster afoot than I am, and although Vitas is just as quick, he often seems out of position. Borg covers court better than Vitas. You don't catch Bjorn out of position."
krosero 2 years ago
SHIT Borg was fast! Mayyyn!
tyruk 3 years ago
Just an observation - show the very same action with a stationary camera, a bit more vertically positioned and with less sound (so you can't hear the ball hitting the racquets as much) and it'll give a completely different impression. I notice this with a lot of the older matches (particularly the black and white ones), which a lot less hi-octaine than current ones, because the way they are filmed is less sophisticated. But here you've got bam-bam-bam, tilt-pan, crack. Quite interesting.
chapaev36 3 years ago
Is that Pancho Gonzales commentating. The announcer keep saying things to someone named Pancho
AlexW264 3 years ago
Yup, that's him.
krosero 3 years ago
Pancho Gonzales - probably the best tennis player of all time.
Boudosaved 3 years ago
Self taught too!
IricForset 3 years ago
Huh...yeah right.
Samprasisthebest 3 years ago
You must be his self-promoting wife. Ok, explain why.
Boudosaved 3 years ago
Quando vedo Borg sembra di rivedere quel dopato di Nadal
santroger 3 years ago
I have a feeling Borg did not enjoy playing this brilliant Rod Laver guy, who could mix up play and chip the ball lower than anyone else I can think of--he was an all time great.
vgoodperson23 3 years ago
Maybe Laver was THE all time great...right up there with Sampras, Federer, Borg and Mcenroe.
Samprasisthebest 3 years ago
loolz. are you a amateur. Laver is considered by all to the the ultmiate greatest of all time.
Stupid. where did federer and mcenroe come into this.
fcshahzaib 3 years ago
Actually, John Mcenroe said he considered Pete Sampras the greatest serve and volleyer of all time. Laver was a serve and volleyer, so what does that tell you about Laver's comparison to Sampras?
Samprasisthebest 3 years ago
who the hell is mcenroe to decide. If you research a bit deep. There are several players Mcenroe has called the greatest.
Laver wasnt a serve and volleyer. He served and volley when he was above 33. He was an all around player, who had every shot in the book like fed plus demonic speed and power like Nadal.
fcshahzaib 3 years ago
I know that we've cemented the fact that this is indeed 1976, but now that I look at it you can tell by Borg's hair and clothes that this happened shortly after the 1976 US Open.
chapaev36 3 years ago
Wonderful footage. Is anyone interested if I post a "high-light" reel here on Borg's match against Mac at the AKAI Gold Challenge indoors in Sydney from august 1982? Mac had just lost Wimby to the brilliant Connors but was still ranked No. 1 but Borg had his day. Mac played very good but Borg, everything went in, streams of winner after winner, and the speed was undiminished... 3-6,6-4,7-5,6-2 to Borg in the end in match were Borg totally dominated Mac...
Borgforever 3 years ago
I also hope someone would post footage of Rosewall-Laver from the legendary WCT-final AND (if it exist) soem Rosewall-Laver pro matches from the mid 60's. Does it exist? Would love to see more of Gonzales and Hoad and Laver from 50's and 60's... One cannot talk enough about these players. I'm a self-confessed Borg-man but I don't argue a second with anyone who puts Laver as GOAT or even Gonzales for that matter...
Borgforever 3 years ago
Also, Borg beat Laver in a supposedly amazing five-set match, I guess at WCT in 74 or 75 (?). Have never seen any footage of this but would pay quite a bit to do so. Gotta love the Laver!
Borgforever 3 years ago
I'd love to the this footage. Speaking of which, where did you obtain the footage anyway? I've been looking for this one for some time. I have a collection of matches from the 70s and 80s, but no obscure stuff like AKAI Gold.
chapaev36 3 years ago
Thanks, chapaev36, I respect your judgement. And I agree that the Borg-doc has the defects you point out. Plus that Borg's most uforgettable points hardly was shown. I mean in the 78-final at 5-2 to Borg in the 1st set Connors hammers a smash that Borg scrambles to whack back with a forehand wayyy outside the Court, Connors replies to this save with dream stop-volley that hardly bounces -- Borg, scrambles all the way to net, digs it up cross-ourt JUST inside the side-line. Newc's comment --
Borgforever 3 years ago
"What in the world must Connors do to get the ball away from this guy!" Bud Collins:"Myyy Good!". And it's a pure thrill to hear the Great Gonzales assess:"Look at that speed! Look at THAT!". And Gonzales was a genius tennis-player. And yes -- this weekend I will put together a high-light reel of the Akai match which an absolute treat -- just for you and post it here. I have searched for years after Borg-matches, and little by little the collection becomes more complete...
Borgforever 3 years ago
The AKAI-match I got from a very kind fan from Italy who had some matches who'm I've not heard from since. Sadly. He was a great guy. It has ita-comm but it doesn't distract from the brilliance in this match. In the end Borg practically just continously hit winners no matter how great a stroke or serve Mac threw his way so he just smiles for a long time and shakes his head which is wonderful to see. Borg though, always the poker-face and he has that resolute stare that signify his --
Borgforever 3 years ago
-- appearances from 76-80. Lendl sits court-side fascinated. I will try and inject these tid-bits with the high-light shot-making -- also because I would love to see compressed although the entire match is really too good to compress. Other details worth noting in this match is Borg's new one-handed backhand-slice which he attacks Mac's short-balls with and more importantly his position when returning Mac's serve -- not several meters behind the baseline like before -- but standing --
Borgforever 3 years ago
--on the base-line, like Wilander, Connors and Agassi did, effectively cutting off Mac's angle and just hitting winning return after another. Borg made a serious strategic mistake in standing so far behind on Mac serve from 78-81 letting it slice away from him. Here he neutralized Mac's weapon with remarkable ease. Damn that he lost the motivation! What a year 83-84 could've been. And why doesn't Federer move in closer on Nadal's slice-serve in the ad-court. Same deal here IMHO --
Borgforever 3 years ago
-- Fed would handle Nadal's serve with much more ease if follow this advice IMHO. Also I think I'll post some fine points from Borg's SF 76 with Tanner. Borg's serving here is really off-the-hook. Bergelin said Borg decreased the serve-speed to select moments instead of a constant barrage to avoid the stomach-pull he suffered from this excessive service-speed. He out-serves Tanner easily and Borg's rifle-shot comes principally every time.
Borgforever 3 years ago
Bergelin was firm in his belief that the two-weeks in Wimby'76 was the abolute best he'd ever seen Björn. I have to take his word for it. I would love to see Borg against Lloyd, Dibley, Gottfried and Vilas in the early rounds of 76 because they say he held the same level all the way through. Have you seen Wimby SF 81 Borg-Connors?
Borgforever 3 years ago