Borg rates himself as one of top 4 tennis players ever [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Borg rates himself as one of top 4 tennis players ever

R.Federer
06-06-2006, 04:03 AM
Along with Laver, Sampras and Federer :yeah:

Tennis great Borg rates himself in top four Stockholm - Swedish tennis great Bjorn Borg, winner of five consecutive Wimbledon titles, rated himself among the world's top four players ever in an interview published Monday, the eve of his 50th birthday.

In an exclusive interview with Stockholm daily Expressen, Borg was asked to rate the world's top five players ever.

After long consideration, he came up with four names: Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and himself, adding it was impossible to compare the quartet.

Borg said current world No 1 Federer would likely master an old-fashioned wooden racquet unlike many other active top players.

'Federer is the master of everything, he has no weaknesses'
"A player like Federer is the master of everything, he has no weaknesses," Borg said.

Earlier this year Borg made headlines after announcing he planned to sell his five Wimbledon trophies and two racquets he used to win the finals.

"There was almost more media attention than when I won my fifth Wimbledon title," Borg said about the hype, noting that his great tennis rival John McEnroe also phoned.

Borg later bought back the trophies and racquets "at a personal loss," he said, adding they are "in a safe place now."

He said his economic situation was fine: "I have enough."

Asked why he drives around in a Ford station wagon instead of something flashier, Borg said he had owned sports cars before, "but they don't have the same attraction. Now, with a family and a dog, comfort is important."

Borg said he was still in good physical shape, weighing only a kilo or two more than when he was a dominant force on the tennis courts.

"I don't feel like 50 anyway. I have a young wife and child, so I have to be alert."

The tennis legend said he often declines invitations to parties and and exhibition events, preferring to spend time with his family, including his wife Patricia, and parents.

Borg married his wife Patricia in 2002 and they have a three-year- old son, Leo, in addition to her two children from a former relationship and Borg's 20-year-old son, Robin.

Patricia organised a surprise party for Borg and invited several close friends to Mallorca to celebrate the anniversary, rival Stockholm tabloid newspaper Aftonbladet reported.

Asked what accomplishment he was most proud of during his first 50 years, Borg said: "Introducing a new style on the tennis court.

At Wimbledon 1973 I made tennis rock 'n' roll. Previously, tennis was an upper class sport."

"And then there was my two-handed backhand and top spin - they were also contributions I made."

Borg retired from the professional circuit at age 26 and went into various business partnerships. He was less successful as a businessman.

His ventures have generated critical headlines and lawsuits from disgruntled former associates.

The retired player touched on the subject, saying among his regrets was being let down by people he regarded as friends: "It seemed they just wanted my money or fame."

ys
06-06-2006, 04:17 AM
He is right. He is Top 4..

tripb19
06-06-2006, 04:25 AM
Who is #5?

Vilas?

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2006, 04:36 AM
Easily top 4.

ys
06-06-2006, 04:40 AM
Easily top 4.

I would say, top 3 at this day.. Federer being in Top 4 is still a serious extrapolation. McEnroe and Wilander had as many Slams at his age, ended up winning no more. Anything can happen. It's tennis.

Jairus
06-06-2006, 05:09 AM
I would say, top 3 at this day.. Federer being in Top 4 is still a serious extrapolation. McEnroe and Wilander had as many Slams at his age, ended up winning no more. Anything can happen. It's tennis.

Both were notable for melting down the year after hitting a dominant stride...Roger has shown that this affliction is unlikely by following up well in 05 and 06.

Scotso
06-06-2006, 05:12 AM
Yes, he's top 4 if we're only counting the men. I'm not sure if I would put Roger Federer ahead of Emerson, Lendl, and a few others yet. He'll eventually get there I'm sure, but not yet.

Scotso
06-06-2006, 05:13 AM
Both were notable for melting down the year after hitting a dominant stride...Roger has shown that this affliction is unlikely by following up well in 05 and 06.

Unlikely, but it's still possible he could never win another major. The point is, you can't declare someone is the best ever until they are the best ever.

Federerhingis
06-06-2006, 05:28 AM
Yes, he's top 4 if we're only counting the men. I'm not sure if I would put Roger Federer ahead of Emerson, Lendl, and a few others yet. He'll eventually get there I'm sure, but not yet.

Yup, it's still too early to include him there. He's inching into top 8 all time. :worship:

Jairus
06-06-2006, 05:31 AM
Yes, he's top 4 if we're only counting the men. I'm not sure if I would put Roger Federer ahead of Emerson, Lendl, and a few others yet. He'll eventually get there I'm sure, but not yet.

Emerson...the whole titles during the non-Laver years sorta dissuades me from picking him. Its like the Graf question, but made worse because it was an institutional factor. I mean, what if the Slams had a period of time where they were only open to people of that country or some other restriction? The Federers and Borgs of the world would have been kept out and surely then the results wouldn't be weighted as highly. Restricting the tournament to Amateurs only seems to be a similar negative factor.

I'm torn on the whole at-what-point-does-someone-become-a-GOAT-question, but hopefully it won't matter in a few years. :)

Scotso
06-06-2006, 05:36 AM
There are a lot of what-ifs. What if another player had come along the same time as Federer but better, and beaten Roger in every grand slam final he reached. Would Roger still be regarded as one of the best ever having no slam titles?

The only thing you can really measure across generations like this is the titles they won.

Jairus
06-06-2006, 05:40 AM
Was this about Emerson? Because in that case, I don't think it applies, because he wasn't playing the best of his generation when he won, and after tennis became open, he proceeded to lose.
But in general, yes, these best ofs are quite arbitrary, especially when its just a random player being asked a spur of the moment question, even if that random player is Borg.

JeNn
06-06-2006, 06:04 AM
It's funny to me, because I disagree with the methodology, that all those who claim the supremacy of slams will never rank Court or Emerson (before Sampras took the record) as the number one player of all time.

Surely if it was as simply as slams = best then they would be ranked very highly.

But lest, Navratilova has 6 less GS titles than Court and 4 less than Graf and is often said to be the best, and Laver has less titles than Emerson and Sampras and is said to the best.

Makes you question the logic of people who tell you that slams are the only things that matter.

jacobhiggins
06-06-2006, 06:36 AM
Borg as with most great tennis players know a great player when they see one.

He knows Federer is probablly just as talanted or even more talanted then him and the other greats and he probablly knows he wouldn't be able to beat him that often. That's why Federer is already included in his list. An extra slam or two isn't going to make Federer harder to beat, it might make him greater in tennis accomplishments but if Federer were to leave tennis tommarrow, the greats would still rate him as one of the best even if his accomplishments is far far less then theres.

Well if that's the case shouldn't Marat Safin be rated as one of the best ever? No he should not, there is a double standard for Roger Federer, he's that talanted!

megadeth
06-06-2006, 06:52 AM
i just realized that it's good that no one ranks the top players ever to play in the game in terms of number of titles won...

if that were the basis, connors wins no contest... hmmmm... i wonder if anyone will be able to top that? i don't think even fed would win a total of 100+ singles titles by the time he ends his career. maybe it's possible, but it would mean he needs to consistently win 10 titles a year for 6 more yrs...

just brooding

Jairus
06-06-2006, 06:56 AM
It's funny to me, because I disagree with the methodology, that all those who claim the supremacy of slams will never rank Court or Emerson (before Sampras took the record) as the number one player of all time.

Surely if it was as simply as slams = best then they would be ranked very highly.

But lest, Navratilova has 6 less GS titles than Court and 4 less than Graf and is often said to be the best, and Laver has less titles than Emerson and Sampras and is said to the best.

Makes you question the logic of people who tell you that slams are the only things that matter.

Those are two different cases. Again, Emerson is a strange case because he was unable to win during the open era. Clearly, he was winning in a pool that did not include the best. Court on the other hand (like Laver) won a lot in both eras, so she has a more legit claim on being the GOAT over Graf and Nav. In other words, I think usually its ok to hold off on debating and say something like "generations are totally different" but Emerson clearly is a unique case, and I think his supporters can't use that excuse, because he wasn't even beating the best of his generation.

Btw, maybe I'm totally wrong and Emerson had some debilitating thing that prevented him from being at the same level that happened just as the open Era started, but in my mind, his winning happened when Laver wasn't around.

Jairus
06-06-2006, 06:57 AM
Borg as with most great tennis players know a great player when they see one.

He knows Federer is probablly just as talanted or even more talanted then him and the other greats and he probablly knows he wouldn't be able to beat him that often. That's why Federer is already included in his list. An extra slam or two isn't going to make Federer harder to beat, it might make him greater in tennis accomplishments but if Federer were to leave tennis tommarrow, the greats would still rate him as one of the best even if his accomplishments is far far less then theres.

Well if that's the case shouldn't Marat Safin be rated as one of the best ever? No he should not, there is a double standard for Roger Federer, he's that talanted!

Actually, regarding "what if Federer stopped playing" I think the best response (Becker's maybe?) is that he would be the greatest underachiever of all time.

Jairus
06-06-2006, 07:00 AM
i just realized that it's good that no one ranks the top players ever to play in the game in terms of number of titles won...

if that were the basis, connors wins no contest... hmmmm... i wonder if anyone will be able to top that? i don't think even fed would win a total of 100+ singles titles by the time he ends his career. maybe it's possible, but it would mean he needs to consistently win 10 titles a year for 6 more yrs...

just brooding

I've actually heard that there was some dispute over Connor's record because a new tour was forming and so things got weird in terms of tournament win count. + there is the whole thing with the field being diluted into 2 different tours, causing an imbalance. I don't really know the details, but its irrelevant, beause Lendl's much more established record of 94 titles is already probably untouchable. Realistically, if Roger played at this level for the number of years it would take for him to get 95 titles, he would also have something like 30 Grand Slams, and he would be the undisputed best.

megadeth
06-06-2006, 07:01 AM
maybe there should be credit given also to those who rivaled these men the most during their dominance...

agassi, mcenroe, nadal, and (i can't remember a rival for laver... was it budge?)

Action Jackson
06-06-2006, 07:12 AM
Well the guy won RG/Wimbledon double three times in a row. How many have done that?

Magical Trevor
06-06-2006, 09:12 AM
maybe there should be credit given also to those who rivaled these men the most during their dominance...

agassi, mcenroe, nadal, and (i can't remember a rival for laver... was it budge?)
Budge was considerably earlier than Laver... though he might well be the in the top 5 as well.

For Laver, you'd look at Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Hoad, Smith...

Hoad is one that was an underachiever.... many say he was the most talented of all.... but sort of like Safin he never seemed to care that much unless he was in DC or Grand Slam finals. When he finally found a challenge that inspired him (Gonzales on the pro tour) and started actually beating Pancho and living up to his potential, he got killed by back and groin problems, and never recovered.

Richard Evans tells an amazing story about Hoad just before the first Open Wimbledon in 1968. A group of Aussies were in Ricahrd's apartment, and Hoad had been having his injury problems, and was really downplaying his chanes of having any impact on the tournament at all. And Roy Emerson, who had aspirations of winning the tournament himself, actually offered to coach Lew, and try and get him back in shape, just because he realised the potential Lew had and knew he himself could never be as good.

bad gambler
06-06-2006, 09:36 AM
Pick any of the top Australians during the 50's & 60's

TheMightyFed
06-06-2006, 09:51 AM
Borg is top 3 now for sure.

vincayou
06-06-2006, 12:16 PM
Since the mid 70s, I would put Borg, Sampras and Federer ahead of the pack. McEnroe just behind. I think that MacEnroe was the most talented of all, but was too lazy in training to fulfill his potential.

betterthanhenman
06-06-2006, 12:18 PM
Easily top 4.
Easily. :)

MisterQ
06-06-2006, 01:21 PM
Budge was considerably earlier than Laver... though he might well be the in the top 5 as well.

For Laver, you'd look at Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Hoad, Smith...

Hoad is one that was an underachiever.... many say he was the most talented of all.... but sort of like Safin he never seemed to care that much unless he was in DC or Grand Slam finals. When he finally found a challenge that inspired him (Gonzales on the pro tour) and started actually beating Pancho and living up to his potential, he got killed by back and groin problems, and never recovered.

Richard Evans tells an amazing story about Hoad just before the first Open Wimbledon in 1968. A group of Aussies were in Ricahrd's apartment, and Hoad had been having his injury problems, and was really downplaying his chanes of having any impact on the tournament at all. And Roy Emerson, who had aspirations of winning the tournament himself, actually offered to coach Lew, and try and get him back in shape, just because he realised the potential Lew had and knew he himself could never be as good.

Thanks for the anecdote. :)

I have noticed that players of that generation often talk glowingly about Hoad.

atheneglaukopis
06-06-2006, 03:18 PM
Actually, regarding "what if Federer stopped playing" I think the best response (Becker's maybe?) is that he would be the greatest underachiever of all time.
It was Agassi.