The impeccable footwork of Borg and Connors as well as the beautifully contrasting way they hit the tennis ball was a joy to watch over the many years of their great rivalry.
@ Arturo. Connors wasn't known for his footwork on the tennis court? Really???? You obviously were not watching the Jimmy Connors that the rest of the tennis world was watching from the 1970's-1990's! Your power of observation is obviously exceedingly lacking! Connors, Borg and Evert WERE known for their outstanding footwork on a tennis court. If weekend tennis players want to watch flawless footwork on a tennis court , all they have to do is watch any Connors-Borg match! Get yourself a pair of prescription eyeglasses since it is obvious that you desperately need them!
@ Arturo. Once again you prove conclusively to the entire tennis world that your knowledge of tennis is pitifully awful! And Borg's 1st serve percentage absolutely stunk in the 1981 U.S. Open semifinal versus Connors! That's irrefutable fact!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Connors "footwork" was non existent in this match. Far from impeccable on this night. On his back foot this entire match as anyone with a set of eyes and brain can see. Of course he had very good footwork overall, but I don't think it was his strongest trait. Connors was relatively slow as well. But he won with his unique flat, hard groundstrokes off that slingshot racquet, and he had superior court sense and positioning, similar to Djokovic. Until Novak came along, he was the greatest at positional awareness on the court. If that is considered a part of great footwork, so be it. Connors knew how to dictate the match. He could not do it on this evening.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Ooh, you are on that first serve percentage again... No one cares about the first serve percentage if you win in dominant straight sets. You really obsess about that stat, don't you? Totally meaningless since Jimmy was NEVER in this match from the opening points. Borg could have had a 20 percent first serve percentage and he would have still won. The first serves he did get in were almost all winners or led to winners. His second serve was also a thing of beauty on this windy NYC evening. Hitting all the corners and keeping Connors guessing the entire match. His groundstrokes were deep and powerful. Borg's greatest match ever at the Open.
They really need to remaster the videotapes of the 1980 and 1981 U.S. Open Men's semifinals and finals matches so that the picture quality will be sharper and brighter.
It was an instrument of pure bludgeoning at this point in his career. Great velocity on the serve, but more importantly, perfect placement. He was close to 120 miles/hr. on some of them, from a tiny Donnay wood racquet. Not that far off from today's average. Not great first serve percentage, but did not matter one bit in those days.
@@nickmandis6513 Is interesting, because Borg developed that gradually over the years until he became that monster server by the summer of 1981. Unfortunately it was a bit too late, his mind had checked out of top level tennis by then. He certainly was never great at coming in behind that serve up to this point...he never really developed any type of elite net game. If he had, we would be talking about a Federer level player.
What modern tennis fans don't appreciate is just how hard Connors and Borg hit the ball with those small 65 square-inch head-size (Connors' Wilson T2000) and 70 square-inch head-size (Borg's Donnay Borg Pro) metal and wood rackets respectively! In their respective primes, they would have hit the ball even harder if they had had today's graphite rackets!
Borg only started dominating Jimmy at the end of his own short career. Jimmy owned Bjorn in several ways in the earlier years, including being the on the wrong end of some ill timed injuries and bad luck in NYC. Bjorn had tried going back and forth from the baseline with Connors in those years, but Jimmy won most of those pre-1981 battles. Borg finally figured out that he could dominate him with huge first AND second serves to the corners of the service box, setting up his penetrating groundstrokes which Connors could not reach off his back foot. He learned the ability to do it, and he used it to great effect. This is his finest moment in the US Open, and in any match ever in America. So happy I was there to see it..
@@prplhze2000 But he didn't. Connors was a clear #3 at the time. How McEnroe lost to him in the 82' final still mystifised me. Especially, as in the 84' final McEnroe annihilated him.
@@jasonbrooks6562 McEnroe was suffering from an ankle problem in '82 which hampered him throughout the year and he was off form after having had such a great year in 1981, so Connors took advantage. Lendl also destroyed him in the U.S. Open s/.f
@@antonboludo8886 . One of the most amazing things about Bjorn Borg's tennis career is that you never ever saw Borg breathing hard after a long point, whether the surface he was playing on was clay, hard court, grass or indoor supreme court carpet! I remember reading a comment by the pro tennis player Billy Martin (no relation to the famous NY Yankees' player and manager) after he lost a match against Borg. He said, "I don't know how McEnroe beats him"!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Bjorn Borg is naturally super-endurant. He will not get tired over long matches. I think John McEnroe was able to defeat Borg by using artistry and quick reflexes at the net.
Have you ever seen, or dreamed, of Bjorn dominating Connors on the US Open hard courts? You will see it here. This was war, and have never seen Bjorn with more energy and power on all elements of his game. Jimmy was totally intimidated, maybe the only time ever at the US Open, and a rare time in his career. It was more complete than Borg's wins at Wimbledon. Jimmy Connors hits nearly 80 percent of his first serves...Borg half of that, and yet Jimmy gets destroyed! Shows you that first serve was not the factor it was in later years with the more powerful racquets. Bjorn hit 14 aces and ran Jimmy around the edges of the court like a ragdoll. Nearly every Borg serve that was in, was hit with impeccable placement or surprise. And you can count on one hand the times Jimmy came to net and didn't end up with the ball whizzing by his ears. I was there in the 4th row that evening, and as a Borg fan, it was the most memorable live watch of my life. Fun to watch again after all these years.
@@uncletony6210 Yes he did. But everything I have read said that Borg was totally lost in those night lights at the 78 tourney, first time ever under the glare of high lights. He had not figured out Jimmy yet. Jimmy to his credit could play anywhere, anytime, and was unaffected. Bjorn more sensitive to conditions.
@@Arturo-sm1tb I don't know, man. Prior to that match, he had beaten Jimmy 4 consecutive sets without dropping more than 3 games. After that match, he beat Jimmy 9 consecutive sets without dropping more than 3 games. Seems he had figured him out.
I grew up during the Borg-Connors-McEnroe era and it was incredible watching the contrasting styles of play of those 3 tennis giants. My favorite of the three was Borg who rarely showed any emotion which was part of the appeal of watching him play the game, he had such a mystique on the court.
Borg was at the absolute top of his game in this match. With the exception of his first serve percentage, that is. But he came up with huge serves when needed, just like two months earlier at Wimbledon in that epic 5 setter vs Jimmy. Even the windy conditions during the first set didn't slow him down. Connors was actually playing reasonably well. But Bjorn had the goods, yet again, to take Connors down. His sprinting gets, his booming serves when needed, his return of serve....all of these came through and gave him the match. And then, he played well for the most part, in the final. But once McEnroe dominated the last set and a half, Borg knew his time of dominance was over. He just didn't want to put the work in anymore. And he knew he wasn't going to beat Mac no matter what.
Had this Bjorn Borg showed up against John McEnroe in the final he would've won. I watched that final and Borg made so many errors even when McEnroe wasn't pressuring him. I'll never figure out why he played so bad. Unfortunately for Borg, just as his game was staring to come down, McEnroe's was peaking at his best. I would've loved to see them battle each other at their absolute best.
@@SuperPrince1007 Borg just fell under that Classic sporting pressure,he really should have on the US Open that year.Then the following year he was told to qualify for the French Open and Wimbledon if he did not play enough events in 82.That stupid rule made him retire from Grand Slam Tennis forever.Remember he retired as reigning French Open Champion!!
@@SuperPrince1007 Borg did not retire because of tennis skills or physical problems. He was a monster physically on this particular night, and all through this tournament. He snapped mentally in the 3rd set the next day.
I played Donnay Borg Pro racket back then. Switching to bigger graphite rackets was like going from a bike to a race car. The sweet spot was huge on the graphite and the ball came off like a trampoline. Not sure how we even played with those old wooden things.
Probably not very well. I used to play with a wood racket, and it posed no problem because I had good hand eye coordination. That's why pros like Borg and McEnroe could play well with those rackets. Their h/e coordination is on another level.
Wood racket tennis was real tennis. Tennis lost its' beauty when the sport abandoned wood in favor of the high-tech graphite material in racket construction. As the late great Bud Collins (whose writings and astute observations on the game of tennis are sorely missed) stated, "The men's game is not very appealing right now--why? Because we let the tennis manufacturers run away with the game. No one , myself included, saw the lesson to be learned as baseball and cricket did that you must not abandon the wooden implement. In baseball and cricket --the bat. In tennis--the racket. We didn't see that. Everyone said 'Oh graphite is wonderful!'. Graphite is not wonderful for tennis........" He went on to point out that graphite is wonderful for the average weekend tennis player but that there should be a tennis racket of wood for the male pros. He was so right! The graphite technology and the copolyester strings have regrettably and to the detriment of the sport cheapened the game of tennis.
@@drieaz but it wasn't a matter of anyone "letting" the manufacturers run away with the game, ie. innovate. It is what most customers/hackers wanted in a racquet...a way for a slow, out of shape hacker to finally go on the offensive, and the makers made more sales and profit. The Inevitable tide of technology sometimes sucks. Same thing in golf, but it made tennis less attractive to watch...on that I agree..in general.
Absolutely incredible that Borg failed to win the Grand Slam at least once between 1977-1981. He foolishly went waterskiing before the 1977 U.S. Open and injured his right shoulder and as a result, had to retire from his match against Dick Stockton, 1978 he sustained the deep thumb blister on his right hand during the semifinal match against Gerulaitis which cost him a win against Connors in the finals, 1979 he had to play against Roscoe Tanner and Tanner's howitzer serve at night under the floodlights at Louis Armstrong Stadium - had that been a daytime match he would have defeated Tanner - and in 1980 and 1981, he simply lost to McEnroe who was a better player (especially on the lightening fast DecoTurf2 surface). But Borg should have won back-to-back Grand Slams in 1977-1978. Had he won back-to-back Grand Slams in 1977-1978, he arguably might have been regarded as the GOAT male tennis player in history!
Borg just never looked the same secure player in New York as he did at Roland Garros and Wimbledon. I didn't know his injured shoulder in 1977 was due to waterskiing, I assumed he did it during the tournament. That should have been one of his 2 chances to have won it - on the clay at Forest Hills as his game was not set up for the fast cement at Flushing Meadow. He admitted himself that '76 should have been his year as he had 2 sets points in the 3rd for a 2-1 lead in the final. But '77 should also have been his year fresh from beating Connors at Wimbledon.
Borg got a bad line call at 3 all in the 5th vs. McEnroe in 80 final that caused him to lose his concentration. He double faulted twice and got his serve broke and that was the match. He made up his mind later that night to retire and was the never the same player again afterwards.
@@openlotus9558 .Yes the atrociously bad line call Borg got when serving at 3-3 in the 5th set of the 1980 U.S. Open final against McEnroe ultimately cost him that game to give McEnroe the key break of serve in the 5th set of that match, but Borg, according to his ex-wife Mariana Simonescu, had first started talking about retiring from pro tennis as far back as the summer of 1979 which was Borg's best season in terms of matches and tournaments won. So the outcome of that 1980 U.S. Open final was not the cause of his prematurely quiting tennis after the 1981 season (although he played in 1-3 tournaments the next three years in 1982, 1983 and 1984). Borg was sick and tired of having to do all the extra things that a top tennis player needs to do in order to maintain a top-level pro tennis career, such as off-court physical fitness training, attending press conferences, attending meetings with sponsors, traveling from country to country and from hotel to hotel, etc.
@@openlotus9558 .But that bad line call in the 5th set of the 1980 U.S. Open final did not send Borg into retirement. If he was that affected by it to that degree, he wouldn't have played the 1981 season at all except for one or two tournaments like he did in 1982, 1983 and 1984! The reality is that Borg was experiencing mental burn out from the game as early as the summer of 1979 according to Mariana Simonescu. If Borg had won that 1980 U.S. Open, he probably would have gone down to Australia in December of that year to try to complete the Grand Slam (which he could have won in back-to-back years in 1977 and 1978 if not for his shoulder injury prior to the 1977 U.S. Open and deep thumb blister that cost him the 1978 U.S. Open) and then maybe play in the 1980 Masters tournament at Madison Square Garden and then retired from the game, because he would have had nothing left to accomplish in tennis, but after losing that 1980 U.S. Open, he realized that he was never going to win the Grand Slam. If he had won the Grand Slam in 1980, he may have chosen to skip the Masters tournaments since that tournament was "small potatoes" relatively speaking compared to winning the Grand Slam.
@@openlotus9558 .I read the book on Borg by Lars Skarke. Just because a pro athlete has commitments to play in events does not mean that they always honor those commitments. Players on the men's pro tour were well known back then, and undoubtedly at least to some extent even in today's pro tennis, to pull out of tournaments that they had a commitment to play by coming up with bogus injury excuses. So just because Borg had signed contracts/commitments to play a full schedule of tournaments in 1981 does not mean that he would have honored those commitments in 1981 had he won the 1980 U.S. Open and the Grand Slam in 1980. And the reality was that Borg was starting to feel mentally burned out from tennis in 1979 or he would not have started talking about retiring from tennis in 1979 when he was only 24 years old! That's just plain reality!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Not true Michael. Footwork was one of Jimmy's flaws against better players. His serve, however, was his greatest weakness. Jimmy had great court awareness and positioning for his flat groundstrokes. He was brilliant with that unique positioning and shot.
there was a time when mac was loudly advocating a return to wooden rackets. It was never going to happen but if there was a return to wood, i wonder if the three guys would have won 63 slams between them?
watch Borg's footwork...watch him run....it almost looked like he was levitating on air. Dude, was a total one-off. And when he walked away, tennis wasn't even interesting for a few yrs..because his rivalries with the guys in the top 5, were as good as it got.
From ‘79-‘81 Borg beat Connors something like 11 straight matches. By that time Borg had finally learned how to handle Connors’ hard flat groundstrokes and not only get them back but actually push Connors around the court. And, on top of that, the fact that Connors’ serve was nowhere near the weapon that Borg’s serve was put Connors in truly a ‘no margin for error’ situation every time he faced Borg by that point. Became a very bad matchup for Jimbo.
Yes. I also remember the '81 Wimbledon semi with Borg very well. It was a match one felt Connors felt he had to win. Informed by a reporter beforehand that Borg said he never shaves during Wimbledon as it was his lucky charm, Jimbo replied "he'll be shaving tonight".
@@Gammonsworstnightmare Great line, but poor playing on Jimmy's part during the match. Jimmy was not known for the clever quip, but give him credit there.
Connors forehand was a liability. You're right a bad matchup for Connors. Borg was better with 2 strokes forehand and serve and could match Connors in the heart an guts department. Connors counted on the intangibles to carry him through against most players. Borg had to enjoy the later matchups with Connors. He knew that all things being equal he was going to win and the fans were still going to get a good show.
@@gregoryphillips3969 Correct. He was with ultimate confidence facing Jimmy in the later years, he could pick him apart with his SERVE by this time, not just the groundies. That why he was so devastating on this night. It was a thing of beauty.
This was tennis: an unparalleled spectacle. Borg, in his best time, was an impassable wall, an unstoppable force of nature. Something happened in his mind: soon, too soon. As far as I'm concerned and having seen him play, as well as everyone else to this day, he remains the strongest tennis player ever.
I think Borg got demoralized by his losses to McEnroe in three consecutive Slam Finals. With Borg gone, Connors was able to re-claim the #1 spot for parts of 1982 and 1983. Then McEnroe in 1984 had the best season of any player ever. A shame he lost to Lendl in the RG final. I think McEnroe gassed out. Lendl and Borg had the best endurance for long matches.
@@antonboludo8886 Anton, true and its hard to believe that Mac had a down period in those years, right in his prime, but then you must consider the fact his personal life was a mess. With the early success he had enjoyed since 1979, he had a couple of subpar years, a mini-burnout, if you will. However, he came back with a vengeance in 1984 and Connors was forever doomed when they played from that point on.
@@antonboludo8886 I didn't really feel sorry for Connors. We remember that he had treated a lot of people with disrespect through the years, and he had already hit his peak and won millions by then. He was still making millions, just not winning any more Majors. But he was so stubborn to let the game's technology started to pass him by in 1984....even Mac had moved to the graphite midsize (as did I in 84), while Jimmy stayed put with the ancient and tiny metal battering ram.
Amazing match...Connors came in having dominated the US summer tour. Borg coming off his monumental Wimbledon loss. if one was to look at the totality of the raw stats of this match, you might say it was a close one. but then look at Aces...14-1 Borg. Borg was such an assassin on all the key points, and served those blazing lighting bolts with perfect placement, and ripping laser beam passing shots. Total aggression and intimidation against the guy who invented it. Rarely hit a short ball for Jimmy to pounce on. Incredible footwork and speed of movement along the baseline. Jimmy was on his back feet at least 80 percent of the time, even though he had a very high first serve percentage, proving that stat meaningless in the wood and metal era when the difference between first and second serve didn't mean as much. This was Borg's greatest US Open match ever, and his greatest serving match ever I think. I would call it a slow bludgeoning. He had Jimmy figured out on this court, finally. This was his last hurrah in a grand slam, but what a glorious way to peak. So thankful a good video of this match is here on CZcams finally, even if its in French...:)
@ Arturo. Although Borg played very well against Connors in the 1981 U.S. Open Men's Singles Semifinals , he did not serve well at all in that match. At one point during the 3rd set of that straight sets win by Borg, the CBS-TV telecast showed a statistic which stated that Borg's first serve percentage up to that point in the third set in the match was 47 or 48 percent which is a bad first serve percentage. Borg was at his peak in 1979 , which was his best single season in terms of match wins and and tournaments won in his career.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Every book and commentary on this match (including Borg himself) talks about this as Borg's greatest serving match in a major tournament. I was there that day, I saw it. Connors was on the defensive all day, shaking his head with no way to grab back the momentum. Never seen him so intimidated. First serve percentage? Doesn't matter to a baseline master in 1981 with a wood racquet. Connors was nearly 80 percent on first serve and was never in the match! That tells you all you need to know. In fact Borg noticed Jimmy's weak second serve and came in on it a couple times. Bjorn's game plan was to be super aggressive on his first, but his SECOND serves were also sharp, deep, and effective. Borg hit some absolute lasers on the Donnay, up to 117MPH, in an era when 126 was the record. Look at Borg's confidence off the ground, look at the depth of his shot making. Do you see Jimmy at any point looking like he was taking charge? Never. Jimmy couldn't even intimidate the umpire that day...he was whimpering to himself most of the night. He lost his mojo early on, and he knew he couldn't intimidate Borg like he did in his previous Open matches. After all his disappointments of the past, Borg came out to dominate Jimmy from the beginning, and he won every key point in this match with superior pace and accuracy. A Slow Bludgeoning. In the peak years, Connors only lost more decisively than this once in his Majors career, the 1984 Wimbledon. No one could possibly foresee what came after this amazing night. McEnroe looked absolutely horrible against Vitas earlier in the day, and every person in that stadium expected this was going to be Bjorn's year to grab his Open. But the darkening twilight atmosphere of this match was the perfect metaphor for what was to come on Sunday... The End of the Borg Era
@ Arturo. First, the fact that Borg served poorly in that 1981 U.S. Open semifinal against Connors is indicated by his first serve percentage in that match being in the 40's which clearly indicates that the authors of the books you talk about failed to check Borg's first serve percentage for the match! Had they checked that , they would have realized how poorly he served that night despite his 13 or 14 service aces against Connors in that match! And it is also obvious that Borg didn't realize that he served poorly overall that night and based his opinion of his serving that night on the number of service aces he hit just like the authors of those books did! I to like most tennis fans after watching that match that night erroneously believed that Borg served well in that match until I saw his first serve percentage statistic for the match which clearly proves he served poorly in that match despite the number of service aces he hit that night. It just goes to prove how misleading impressions can be! Second, throughout his career, Borg had a relatively weak, attackable second serve. Borg realized that he could get away with poor serving against Connors because Connors was not going to attack Borg's weak second serve like McEnroe did so successfully against Connors, Borg and Lendl by chipping the return of serve and rushing to the net to put instant pressure on Borg! If you want to see clutch serving by Borg then look at his serving against Connors in the 5th set of their 1981 Wimbledon semifinal. Every time Connors had a break point against Borg's serve in that 5th set of that match, Borg came up with a big first serve to save the break point and send the game score back to deuce. I would have to check Borg's first serve percentage for the entire match but in that 5th set he came up with great , clutch serves when he needed them!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Good god man, you have become irrational in your silly defense of a meaningless stat. Do you realize what a tool you appear to be to the commenters? No one, NO ONE, cared about Borg's first serve percentage in this wooden racquet era, when two baseliners could dominate a match like this. Timely laser serves and penetrating groundies at the right time was what matterd. Borg destroyed his opponent in the face of his supposed subpar "first serve percentage" He dominated and intimidated Jimmy. Jimmy had his tail between his legs, shaking his head from effects of the Borg serves. Watch the match and stop the nonsense. You seem like you think you know a lot about tennis, so what are you even arguing about? Jimmy did nothing off Bjorn's brilliant first, or second serves. Jimmy was completely beaten after that first set, he knew it and he played like it the rest of the match.
In September 1981 I was 17 years old in London, England watching clips from this match. All I can remember clearly is that the commentator was talking about Borg's astonishing serving. I at the time took that to mean Borgs super punishment for his near miss v Jimmy when the latter very nearly beat him at Wimbledon. As for summer 81 hard court season, I remember reading "Connors summer slump continued..." which I took to mean the psychological effects of Borg beating him at Wimbledon from 2 sets down the month before (July).
This was Borg’s 10th consecutive win against Connors. Also his last win in a grand slam tournament. What must Borg have thought watching Connors winning Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. I think if Borg hadn’t quit at 25 he would’ve gone on to win many more grand slam titles.
Borg had never beaten Connors at the US Open, losing to him in 1975, 1976 and 1978. After winning this match, it made losing the final all the more painful for Borg.
Borg avait littéralement atomisé Connors, ce jour là...dommage que Connors n'ait pas battu McEnroe en demi-finale de Flushing en 80,comme il aurait dû le faire ,car en finale, c'était le titre assuré pour Borg..là en 81,Bjorn joua à la perfection face à un bon Jimmy, mais craqua étrangement face à John en finale
Borg was 25 here in his last slam. He had won 11 slams by then. Connors would go on to beat Lendl in 1982 here at the US open. He had no Borg to face. I would have liked to see Borg transition to a graphite racquet in 1983. I think he would have picked up a few more slams, and possibly more. Though Lendl did revolutionise tennis in the mid 1980s as a result of more powerful racquets.
Very good comments. McEnroe brought something new to the game. I wished Borg had found another notch to hang in. Poetic justice ? Lendl would later take out McEnroe in 1985 bringing in the power forehand. Wished Borg could see it is possible to pass McEnroe at the net if you elevate your game and give it time. (Before '85 McEnroe basically clobbered opponents left and right.)
Borg could've come back but he was just burnt out and that's why he was unable to do what Lendl did when it came to playing John McEnroe. After John McEnroe dominated Ivan Lendl for a brief time Lendl worked on a strength conditioning program and figured out to dominate him once again. Bjorn Borg had accomplished so much in his great tennis career that he didn't have to come back to prove anything. Ivan Lendl did because he had not won a Grand Slam tournament yet. I would've loved to have seen a young hungry up and coming Bjorn Borg vs John McEnroe in 1981 and thereafter.
the lack and/or absence of line judges in this match is stunning. i'm amazed that the players agreed with having this few line judges in such important matches. nobody down the center service line???
An interesting error that CBS Sports made during its' telecast of the first set of the 1981 U.S. Open semifinal between Borg and Connors, is when it showed an erroneous statistic which stated that this was Connors' sixth U.S. Open Final which it was not nor was it a final! Connors' 6th U.S. Open Final didn't occur until the 1982 final versus Lendl.
@haroldsmyth6685. If Borg had been permitted to play the 1977 French Open which he was prohibited from playing because the French Tennis Federation did not allow male or female players back then to play in that major if they were contracted to play World Team Tennis, Borg not Vilas would have won the 1977 French Open and then had Borg not foolishly gone waterskiing prior to the 1977 U.S. Open (and if his coach Lennart Bergelin had kept his big mouth shut and not informed sportswriters of Borg's injured right shoulder), Borg not Vilas would have won the 1977 U.S. Open and then with 3 legs of the Grand Slam under his belt, he would have traveled down to Australia in December 1977 to try to complete the Grand Slam at Kooyong Stadium. And then in 1978, had he not developed the deep thumb blister on his right hand against Gerulaitis in the semifinals of the 1978 U.S. Open, he would have defeated Connors in the final and then traveled down to Australia in December 1978 to try once again to complete the Grand Slam, thereby having an excellent chance to win the Grand Slam in back-to-back years making him arguably the GOAT male tennis player in history!
Another thing no one talks about - the shame of Borg retiring in 1982 is - this was the exact time of the entry point to New Racquet Technology Changing Tennis. By 83' many players finally switched over to Graphite, away from wood (or aluminum like connors) - Had Borg hung in there, and then accepted CHANGE and worked with the new stronger lighter racquet technology which made it easier to hit the ball faster, and easier to spin the ball - one has to think, this would only have Helped a BaseLiner like Borg compete better - it's a shame he didn't keep playing thru the 80's and re-dedicated himself and really worked with the new Racquet Tech, updating his game - I bet he could have won a US Open, and another French Open or two..
I think that size and power became more important with graphite racquets. The next gen of players were built more like Boris Becker. Speed and stamina would lose to power with graphite racquets.
You are correct about the coincidental timing, but Bjorn would not have benefited from the technology. He had perfected wild spin and movement with that insane tension on his wooden weapon, and there is NO WAY he could duplicate that with graphite/composite. His arm motion had been perfected for that tension on wood. He would have struggled mightily in the new era of the 1982-1989 era. Mightily. Technology is not the reason he quit the game at the top, but it certainly was on his mind at the time.
Il match ( il gioco sviluppato dai due tennisti ... ) dimostra ampiamente , in un'analisi congiunta con la semifinale di Wimbledon svoltasi tra i due nel medesimo anno , come Borg non sia mai stato superiore a Connors ( seppur abbia vinto le ultime 10 sfide nel 1979/1980/1981 ... ) . Borg nel match in questione si e` salvato con il sevizio ( tirare fuori 8 aces su 8 palle break e` un caso unico . Connors nel secondo set ha avuto 4 palle break per andare sul 5 a 1 , analoga sorte nel terzo set ... ) : facendo una media tra servizi vincenti e aces , Borg nella semi open usa 1981 ha giocato ogni turno di servizio partendo con un vantaggio di 30 o 40 a zero . Nonostante cio` il match e` stato tirato per chi il tennis tra le righe . Certamente Connors , nella semifinale us open 1981 , ha pagato un doppio scotto psicologico : dovuto in primis dall'aver perduto in 5 set a Wimbledon 2 mesi prima contro Borg ( dopo aver dominato i primi 2 set , e , affaticato non riuscendo a chiudere al terzo set e perdendo in un quinto set al cardiopalma . Non dimentichiamoci che Connors nel 1981 aveva 29 anni , Borg 25 . Il divario di eta` a questi livelli , dove un anno di ativita` agonistica e` alquanto logorante , e` determinante nel computo delle energie psicofisiche attivabili nei momenti topici di un un incontro . Quale conferma di quanto asserisco Borg a 25 anni e 4 mesi , dopo l'pen usa 1981 , spossato , si e` ufficiosamente ritirato , ufficializzando la propria decisione nel 1983 - ma di fatto non si e` presentato al master nel gennaio 1981 e nel 1982 e` stato assente dal circuito professionistico , quindi in buona sostanza ha chiuso la propria carriera con l'open usa 1981a 25 e 4 mesi ... ) ; in secondo luogo , se Connors , nel 1981 , nel secondo set della semi us open 1981 fosse andato 5 a 1 si sarebbe verificato un diverso andamento dell'incontro .
At this point in time it looked like Connors would never win another slam - then Borg retired. It didn't take long for Mac to lose his mojo. As Mac himself said Borg retiring affected him too.
Jimmy was cowering in the face of that Borg power on his serve and groundies. No one has ever intimidated Jimmy like this...even when he got blown out by Mac in 1984 Wimbledon. That Wimbledon match was a surgical operation by Mac. Quick and clean. This 1981 match was a pure bludgeoning of the highest order.
Marty, I don't know what it was, but Mac always rose to the occasion in Queens...the hometown comfort zone. Mac did not have a great 1981 at all, and looked HORRIBLE against Vitas in the other semi final....perhaps the WORST played Semi Final in US Open history. God it was horrible, I had to sit through that mistake filled death march. Then Tracy Austin beat Martina in a GREAT match leading up to the Borg Connors finale that evening.
For me Bjorn Borg is superior player than Jimmy Connors,John McEnroe Dominating Wimbledon and French open like that is not easy at all which is held 2 weeks between both majors and reaching finals at US Open also it is tough actually. He could easily win US Open title if he played till age 30 also. He wasted his talent actually. John McEnroe can't maintain the same level for long also The point is Bjorn Borg able to reach US Open finals easily but Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe not able to reach finals in French open like Bjorn Borg also that is a fact actually. He have 11 major titles with him at the age of 25 in short period itself which is incredible achievement bro
Bjorn Borg came extremely close to win US Open title in 1980 and John McEnroe came extremely close to win French open title in 1984. Jimmy Connors have 3/4 majors But Bjorn Borg have 2/4 majors with him as he never played Australian open.
Not even he would have thought so. He wanted to make a short break and return in mid 82...after that he planned to come back in 83 - but for some reason it never happened.....
@@markmauk8231 Indeed, but you certainly saw Borg-McEnroe - the movie. There were a lot of answers, why. On the other hand, his decision was a sad moment for a lot of people and for tennis too.
@@michaelm7717 Thank you, sir. At last a gentleman telling the truth. Borg had all the intention of coming back on the tour, prior to the French in ´82. Hell, he even trained with that year´s future F.O. winner Wilander. But then the deeply corrupt ITF started working against Borg and demanding him play 10 pro tournaments instead of the (by Borg) proposed seven tournaments. My guess is that they wanted more american players winning slams and not "just" Borg. Sad but true: ITF stopped Borg´s comeback:(:(:(
Borg won with ease of course, but have to admit that Connors was the victim of a really bad line call at 1:44:46. He had benefited from many like that for years by intimidating linespersons. These were years before technology clearly improved the fairness of a match.
There were TONS of mistakes by Pat Summerall in those days, he was drunk much of the time in that era, finally got himself straightened out some time later.
Au vue de sa forme durant cet USOPEN 81,Bjorn Borg aurait dû faire des ravages à la fin de cette année là. ..malheureusement sa motivation disparut totalement
Oui c'est bien dommage car borg n'avait qu'à étoffer son programme 1982 , pour retrouver sa place de numéro un...en 82,McEnroe stagnait et Connors n"était pas spécialement irrésistible durant les six premiers mois...seul Lendl aurait pu l'inquiéter cette année là...mais pour cela,il aurait fallu une motivation à tte épreuve pour le suédois...
Un borg du niveau de 1980 aurait remporté Roland Garros 82 sans trop de problème..par contre, à Wimbledon,je pense que Bjorn n'aurait pas pu contrer Connors,ni même 2 mois plus tard à Flushing..mais bon , bien évidemment,je peux me tromper..
McEnroe fut bien plus résistant qu'on ne le pense..il n'y a qu'a se souvenir de son incroyable Flushing 80..le jeudi 4 septembre 80 en nocturne,il bat en 4 sets disputés le jeune et fort prometteur tchécoslovaque de 20 ans Ivan Lendl,le lendemain,il perd une demi finale de double, avec son compère Peter Fleming,face à Smith et Lutz,en 5 sets.. samedi,il bat Connors en 5 sets et le dimanche, John fait subir le même sort à Borg,en 5 sets également 😊😊😊😊
justement je pense que tu te trompe car Borg avait l'ascendant sur Connors qui ne l'a plus battu depuis 1978 même si il y a eu des rencontres accrochés à Wimbledon en 1981 par exemple. McEnroe a stagné justement parce que Borg n'était pas là en 1982 si Borg aurait continué ça l'aurait motivé par contre Lendl l'aurait inquiété sérieusement
@@briangottfried8533 C'est vrai que McEnroe jouait très bien en 1980 et 1981 , mais il faut aussi reconnaître qu'il a eu beaucoup de chance face à Connors , face à Borg et même face à Gerulaitis ces 2 années-là et qu'il s'en est fallu de peu pour qu'il n'aille jamais en finale ! Quant à Borg , je crois que celui-ci faisait un "complexe" face à McEnroe . Je crois qu'il s'est beaucoup trop compliqué la vie face à lui car quand on le voyait jouer face à McEnroe , il commettait des erreurs totalement inhabituelles , comme monter fréquemment au filet alors qu'il n'était pas un voleyeur , donc il gâchait beaucoup de points à cause de ça , ou ne plus penser à faire ses superbes lobs liftés lorsque McEnroe montait au filet alors que les rares fois où il y pensait il faisait systématiquement le point , etc ... ! Oui il aurait dû gagner toutes ses finales face à McEnroe car il en avait largement les capacités . Je n'ai d'ailleurs pas compris comment Borg a-t-il fait pour ne pas gagner la finale de US Open en 1980 et la finale de Wimbledon en 1981 face à McEnroe alors que c'est lui , Borg , qui dominait ... Enfin bon ^^ En tout cas ils nous ont offert de superbes matchs inoubliables !
@ Arturo. Although books may claim that Borg's best serving was in that 1981 U.S. Open semi-final win over Connors, Borg's poor first serve percentage in that match clearly refutes that notion. Borg knew that he could serve as aggressively as he wanted against Connors and get away with a lousy first serve percentage because he knew that Connors was not a chip-and-charge player who would attack Borg's weak second serve by getting to the net behind a well-placed return-of-serve! If Borg had had to play against McEnroe that night in that semi-final match , McEnroe would have chipped-and-charged to the net behind return of serve to put instantaneous pressure on Borg's weak second serve! Knowledgeable tennis fans and knowledgeable Borg fans knew that Borg's play against Connors in that match was in no way an indication of Borg's chances against McEnroe in the finals the next day! And Borg failed to serve well enough in the finals the next day to have a realistic chance of defeating McEnroe in that 1981 U.S. Open final. Borg also never learned the futility of standing 10-15 feet behind the baseline to return McEnroe's serve which enabled McEnroe to get in close to the net against Borg for McEnroe's first volley. It was only after Borg had retired from the men's pro tennis tour that during a meaningless exhibition match in Portland, Oregon that Borg decided to try standing right at the baseline to return McEnroe's serve and thereby deprive McEnroe of the chance to get in tight to the net for his first volley. I remember watching that totally meaningless exhibition match on TV and saying to myself, "You (Borg) pick now in a meaningless match to return McEnroe's serve from the baseline! Why the hell didn't you do that when you played against McEnroe all those years on the pro tour?!!".
They really need to remaster the videotape of the 1981 U.S. Open semi-final match between Connors and Borg in order to make the picture quality sharper and the color more vivid.
this is a great analysis. Borg moving up to receive serve in the exhibition is akin to what Federer finally started doing with his backhand against Nadal in the past few years; take it very early, on the hop, before it bounces up to shoulder height!
Michael, his first serve percentage didn't matter, I will say it again. Borg said this was his greatest serving match of his career, first serve percentage be damned. This was domination by Bjorn, end of story. Connors was almost 80 percent, and do you see him ever really in the match? These are two primary baseliners. If you serve 50 percent, but hit 14 aces, to Connors 1, who is going to win the match? Those 50 percent hit with power and placement are far superior to 80 percent with nothing behind it. I was at this match, very close to the court through a friend of a friend.... Bjorn had Jimmy on his backfoot all night. I was a huge Borg fan, but it was literally surreal to see Connors dominated and blown off the court like this, in his own house before his crowd. It was a weird weekend all around. That really strong, warm breeze, that darkness, that full moon was so eery to be a part of. I left Queens that night feeling WEIRD, even though I expected Mac to pose no threat on Sunday. No one knew. Bottom line is that in the era of wood racquets and baseliners, the first serve percentage stat was incredibly overrated. It meant nothing on this night. Borg bludgeoned Jimmy. The match on Sunday was played under completely different conditions for Borg. You know the story. The two matches are not even comparable, nor is Borg's first serve percentage.
@ Arturo. First any tennis fan who says that in the wood/metal rackets era of tennis that first serve percentage was overrated or meant nothing clearly has no real understanding of tennis and the importance of getting a good percentage of first serves in! Second, for you or any tennis fan to say that you didn't expect McEnroe to pose any problem for Borg in the 1981 U.S.Open final based upon how Borg played against Connors in the semifinals the previous night clearly indicates that your knowledge of tennis is severely limited! Every knowledgeable ( and the word knowledgeable cannot be emphasized enough here) tennis fan and expert knew that no matter how well Borg played against Connors in that semifinal match, his play against Connors was going to not be in any way , shape or form a reliable indicator of how Borg would play the next day against McEnroe in the finals! I knew and every objective ( and the word objective cannot be emphasized enough here) Borg fan knew that McEnroe was going to beat Borg in that final because McEnroe's serve-and-volley was superior to Borg's baseline game , especially on the fast DecoTurf2 hard courts at Flushing Meadow's National Tennis Center! Even though at one point during the 3rd set of that final, CBS Sports showed a statistic indicating that Borg's 1st serve percentage up to that point in the 3rd set was 60%, Borg was serving too many double faults as CBS Sports broadcaster and former great tennis champion John Newcomb stated during that 3rd set in that match.
You make it sound as if McEnroe dominated Borg. He did not. They were 7-7 lifetime against each other...and they never met on clay, Borg's best surface. Borg handled McEnroe's serve in some of their other matches.
Borg, même en déclin, a facilement vaincu Connors. Connors a eu tort de ne pas avoir participé à Roland Garros durant les années 1974-1978. Il l'aurait peut-être remporté.
Après cet us Open 81,Borg remporta son dernier tournoi ATP à Genève face à Smid,puis sombra complètement à Tokyo, où il ne fut que l'ombre de l'immense joueur qu'il fut en étant écrasé par Tim Gullikson au second tour 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Connors come gioco e` stato ben superiore a Borg nella semi open usa 1981 , eccetto che per il risultato . Borg e` rimasto in piedi esclusivamente grazie al servizio e ad una decina di ottimi passanti . Il vento ha penalizzato molto di piu` Connors rispetto a Borg , in quanto Jimmy giocava piatto , talvolta con un leggero taglio , e talvolta - ma piu` raramente - con un leggero lift sul dritto , cosa che fara` molto di piu` a fine carriera per aumentare il margine di errore sul dritto . Un Dritto piatto o con taglio verso l'esterno che ritengo stupendo a vedersi , inoltre e` alquanto rischioso giocare a 5/10 cm. sopra il net ) . Giocare super liftsto come Borg con il vento e` un vantaggio perche` sbatti l'avversario fuori dal campo oltre il normale , infatti chi osserverà bene il match notera` che Connors era costretto ad arrampicarsi per non indietreggiare . Una Considerazione : Mariana Simionescu inquadrata dalla TV americana e` chiaramente sotto gli effetti della cocaina , osservare la mandibola digrignata e gli occhi spiritati classici di chi usa questa sostanza . Ne consegue che Borg nel 1981 faceva uso di cocaina e non e` da escludersi che l'abbia assunta nella semi contro Connors o qualche ora prima con la bella rumena , da cio` si spiegherebbe la concentrazione fuori dal comune del campione svedese nei punti topici contro Connors in questa partita ( una dozzina di aces di Borg su altrettante palle break di Connors ha del sovrumano , mai vista una cosa simile ... ) . Concludendo , ad ogni modo Borg ha giocato un ottimo match , l'ultimo della sua carriera a livelli elevatissimi , e in finale era completamente svuotato contro Mcnroe , l'ultimo set della finale dimostra che Borg ormai era assente , lontano dallo stress psicofisico della competizione ai massimi livelli .
Sad to think this was Borg's second last match before essentially retiring at 25. If he'd continued playing for another 10 years like the Big 3 today, he'd likely have 20 or more slams.
@ Jonathan 916. Although Borg essentially quit playing the men's pro tennis tour after his loss to McEnroe in the 1981 U.S Open final, he played in 1 tournament in 1982 losing to Noah at the Monte Carlo tournament. His last official match prior to his unsuccessful comeback at the 1991 Monte Carlo tournament against Jordi Arresi, was the Stuttgart tournament in Germany in July, 1984. His last official match in 1993 was at the Kremlin Cup tournament in Moscow.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Yeah, I guess I should have written "essentially" or "unofficially" in the post and will do so now. A very sad day for tennis that his heart was no longer in the game.
@@abdiver12 . Borg was one of tbe greatest overall athletes in the history of sports, not because he played more than one sport professionally - which he obviously did not, but because he is the only pro tennis player to have ever won the European version of the Superstars Competition in which athletes compete against each other in a number of events which are not their specialty. It is really a shame that Borg never improved his volley or ever added a great topspin lob to his game in order to keep McEnroe from getting too close to the net in their matches. Borg would occasionally hit a successful lob against McEnroe, but most of his attempted topspin lobs against McEnroe resulted in lost points. He also, unfortunately, never improved his second serve to turn it into a more offensive weapon in his game.
@@michaelbarlow6610 If he had continued to play, I'm sure he would have added these things to his game, just as the Big 3 have added to theirs over the years to improve. A huge shame. On a side note, Ash Barty just retired about an hour ago at the age of 25, saying her heart was no longer in it. Reminds me a bit of the man we're talking about.
Bjorn BORG : The greatest tennis player of all time. The noise of planes and spectators are not the only problem. At mealtimes, hamburger and fried chicken flavors invade the stands. "When you play, people are leaning on the balustrades, pulling out sandwiches and chips can fall on the court". There are only Americans to play in these conditions.
Bjorn Borg is NOT the greatest player of all times (although could be for a while all until Federer at least if not for this stupid "burnout", that killed his motivation! But whatever...i am not going to step into this "woulda-coulda-shoulda" purely hypothetical territory!) Now as it currently stands he isn't even top-5! Those would be Federer, Laver, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras! And yes - it goes beyond them just winning more GS title, than he did (in Laver's case he won 8 Pro Slams as well back in 60's on top of his 6 amateur slams and 5 open era slams, both which as we know include callendar year grand slam achievements!) In Sampras' case he finished the year as world number one record 6 times (the feat that is now as of 2019 repeated by Djokovic! And it looks like it has great chance to be finally bested!), Borg on another hand despite his dominance at both RG and Wimbledon had hard time keeping up with Connors in terms of rankings and even though he did eventually stolen top spot number of times it is nowhere nearly as much as Connors been ranked as #1 player in the world! If you claim to be the best player of all times, you have to be ranked world number one more than anyone else in history in combination of having won more slams than anyone else as well! (This is why for a long while i ranked Sampras higher than Nadal, until Nadal broke his slam record back in 2017! And also why i rank now Djokovic higher than him as well in 2019!)
What is Borg's place in history of tennis?! Easy! 6th place! Right after the aforementioned gentlemen! My ATG top-10 ranking all-time: 1.Federer 2.Laver 3.Djokovic 4.Nadal 5.Sampras 6.Borg 7.Rosewall 8.Gonsalez (Pancho off course!) 9.Budge 10.Tilden The last four are because of their Pro Slam records for the most part! Open Era Only: 1.Federer 2.Djokovic 3.Nadal 4.Sampras 5.Borg 6.Lendl 7.Connors 8.Agassi 9.McEnroe 10.Laver Honorable mentions: Wilander, Becker, Edberg and Newcombe
@ Summon256. First, Federer is not the GOAT male tennis player! I have pointed out in many other comments on tennis videoclips on CZcams the numerous underlying reasons why Federer's achievements in his pro tennis career are grossly inflated. One of the many reasons is that Federer during his dominant years from 2003--2008 on the men's pro tennis tour faced exceeding few serve-and-volley players and no great serve-and-volley players at all! As Boris Becker remarked to Federer at Wimbledon just before the start of that tournament during one of Federer's dominant years (after Federer responded to Becker's question asking Federer how he planned to play Wimbledon that year), when Federer said that he would play the first week of the tournament from the baseline and then come into the net the second week of the tournament, "That's a nice luxury to have!". Boris was absolutely right that it is a helluva nice luxury to be able to pick and choose your moments when you feel like coming into the net at Wimbledon because none of your opponents are serve-and-volleying to put enormous pressure on you to get to the net before they do! Second, it is an absurdity of Olympian proportions to consider even for a moment that Nadal is a greater player than Sampras. The reality is that Nadal is a clay court, baseline defending, retrieving specialist as the enormous disproportion of his French Open titles to his other major titles clearly proves! Sampras , in contrast, was an excellent serve-and-volley player who possessed a solid baseline game and the greatest running cross court forehand in the graphite era of tennis! Although it is true that Sampras' French Open record is absolutely abysmal for such a great player, there is nonetheless no question whatsoever that Sampras was a more talented and better player than Nadal! Knowledgeable tennis fans and experts would never rank Nadal ahead of Sampras on the all-time great list! Third, to rank John McEnroe as "only" the 9th greatest player of the Open Era in tennis history is laughable! Although McEnroe should have won more major singles titles during his career when one considers his enormous talent, at his absolute peak in 1984, McEnroe was without question the greatest male player of the graphite era! Fourth, Borg was not and is not a greater player than Don Budge and Bill Tilden. Tilden and Budge possessed complete games (although they were both primarily baseline players who would get to the net by creating an opportunity to shorten points by moving into the net) whereas Borg's volleying was only adequate at best!
I don’t know who is the greatest of all time but if they had a tournament with all the top 16 who ever played then my money would always be on Borg to come out on top
@@Summon256 No, if you can't win Wimbledon (Lendl), you're not ranked above Connors and McEnroe, who both won multiple times and more US Open titles. No excuses for Lendl because grass was his weakness.
True, but how strange the rankings were that year. Connors was nearly untouchable, and undefeated all summer, and only up to number 4. The rankings were much more heavily weighted to the Majors in those days. Connors did not play well at Wimbledon or Paris.
Nobody ever solved, all the speculation about why Borg walked away at his physical peak where he Easily had 5 more years in his Prime- yes I know some say McEnroe demoralized Borg in 1981- but I don't really buy that. I think Borg was more personally lost, plus I think he started having Marriage problems in early 80's, which will shut down the best of them. He got divorced only a few years later.
Physically Bjorn was fine. All mental. The purest example of burnout in pro tennis history. He was literally done after that weekend in Queens, after acting like a trained robot for a couple decades with Lennart. The Mac final in 1981 was simply a bizarre set of circumstances that made Bjorn finally snap. The end could have happened a year later if circumstances were different. But NYC and Bjorn was never a great combination for whatever reason. Too much stuff swirling around in NYC for the quiet Swede.
he didn't walk away.he was taking a planned 6 month break,and planned to rejoin the tour.the ATP screwed him by forcing him to play a minimum number of tournaments or qualify for them(even Wimbledon that he'd won 5 times).it was then that he decided not to play the official events again.
@@tomloft2000 Sorry Tom- Bjorn himself, and those around him, said the Mac match changed everything for him in his mind. Of course he was planning a break, but yes he did snap after that weird weekend, and the ATP thing was icing on the cake.
Borg's style of play took a lot out of him mentally and physically and required more practice than other players. By 1983 he just wasn't prepared anymore to put in 5 hours a day of practice when he wasn't playing a tournament and when an athlete at the highest level takes a year off they lose that small edge that kept them at the top. The same thing happened to Jim Ryun the miler - he was burnt out in 1969 and when he made his comeback he was never the same.
The 1981 U.S. Open semifinal match between Connors and Borg was the only match out of the 4 times they played against each other at the U.S. Open that Borg defeated Connors. Although Borg would have probably defeated Connors in the 1978 U.S. Open final had he not been severely hampered by the deep thumb blister that he developed in his semifinal match win over Gerulaitus.
@ Matthew Harris. First , Connors left thumb was not "severely bruised" as you mischaracterize it. It was a fractured thumb! Second, as I stated in another comment on CZcams, Connors was able to play very well despite his fractured thumb in the '77 Wimbledon Men's Singles Final whereas Borg could not play effectively at all in the 1978 U.S. Open Men's Singles Final because of the major difference in the style of which they hit their forehands! When Connors hit a forehand , the racket handle would press forward against all his fingers of his left hand not upward against his fractured thumb, whereas when Borg hit a forehand , the racket handle would press upwards against his deeply-blistered right thumb which is why Borg experienced much more pain when hitting a forehand in the '78 U.S. Open Final than Connors experienced when hitting a forehand in the '77 Wimbledon Final! The 2 different forehand swing techniques made all the difference in the world in how effectively they were able to play in those 2 major finals!
@ Matthew Harris. I must point out that at no time in Connors' '77 Wimbledon Final against Borg did Connors' racket fly out of his hand because of any pain he was experiencing in his left thumb, whereas at least twice during Borg's match against Connors in the 1978 U.S. Open Men's Singles Final the racket flew out of Borg's hand because of the severe pain he was experiencing during that match from his deeply-blistered right thumb.
Borg a très bien joué ce jour la mais connors a ete victime de grosses fautes d’arbitrage sui lui ont coute le set2. CONNORS a attendu 1982 pour améliorer son service.
Chuck Smith - Connors wasn't just acting like an ass; he truly WAS an ass way down deep inside. What kind of person shows up at his ex-fiancée's grand slam semi-final with a new woman in tow? What kind of person publishes in a biography that his ex-fiancée had an abortion without having discussed it with her first? Once a dick always a dick
@@pjesf Mostly true about Jimmy. Just ask Mac.. LOL. Connors was really a sad sack of a man. A skinny coward who faked a tough guy persona to intimidate lesser opponents. Low rent all the way. At least in this 1981 match he took his bludgeoning and went home with his tail between his legs.
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
The impeccable footwork of Borg and Connors as well as the beautifully contrasting way they hit the tennis ball was a joy to watch over the many years of their great rivalry.
Yes, the contrasting styles, along wit McEnroe's, made things more interesting.
@ Arturo. Connors wasn't known for his footwork on the tennis court? Really???? You obviously were not watching the Jimmy Connors that the rest of the tennis world was watching from the 1970's-1990's! Your power of observation is obviously exceedingly lacking! Connors, Borg and Evert WERE known for their outstanding footwork on a tennis court. If weekend tennis players want to watch flawless footwork on a tennis court , all they have to do is watch any Connors-Borg match! Get yourself a pair of prescription eyeglasses since it is obvious that you desperately need them!
@ Arturo. Once again you prove conclusively to the entire tennis world that your knowledge of tennis is pitifully awful! And Borg's 1st serve percentage absolutely stunk in the 1981 U.S. Open semifinal versus Connors! That's irrefutable fact!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Connors "footwork" was non existent in this match. Far from impeccable on this night. On his back foot this entire match as anyone with a set of eyes and brain can see. Of course he had very good footwork overall, but I don't think it was his strongest trait. Connors was relatively slow as well. But he won with his unique flat, hard groundstrokes off that slingshot racquet, and he had superior court sense and positioning, similar to Djokovic. Until Novak came along, he was the greatest at positional awareness on the court. If that is considered a part of great footwork, so be it. Connors knew how to dictate the match. He could not do it on this evening.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Ooh, you are on that first serve percentage again... No one cares about the first serve percentage if you win in dominant straight sets. You really obsess about that stat, don't you? Totally meaningless since Jimmy was NEVER in this match from the opening points. Borg could have had a 20 percent first serve percentage and he would have still won. The first serves he did get in were almost all winners or led to winners. His second serve was also a thing of beauty on this windy NYC evening. Hitting all the corners and keeping Connors guessing the entire match. His groundstrokes were deep and powerful. Borg's greatest match ever at the Open.
Duthu le mythique commentateur des nuits New yorkaises ayant bercée mes soirées de teenager
Pareil...👍
Une autre époque du tennis.
Je ne crache pas sur l'actuelle mais c'était vraiment autre chose.
They really need to remaster the videotapes of the 1980 and 1981 U.S. Open Men's semifinals and finals matches so that the picture quality will be sharper and brighter.
Borg's serve was such an underrated weapon.
It was an instrument of pure bludgeoning at this point in his career. Great velocity on the serve, but more importantly, perfect placement. He was close to 120 miles/hr. on some of them, from a tiny Donnay wood racquet. Not that far off from today's average. Not great first serve percentage, but did not matter one bit in those days.
@@Arturo-sm1tb in all these years I never realised he had such a powerful serve. Interesting.
@@nickmandis6513 Is interesting, because Borg developed that gradually over the years until he became that monster server by the summer of 1981. Unfortunately it was a bit too late, his mind had checked out of top level tennis by then. He certainly was never great at coming in behind that serve up to this point...he never really developed any type of elite net game. If he had, we would be talking about a Federer level player.
What modern tennis fans don't appreciate is just how hard Connors and Borg hit the ball with those small 65 square-inch head-size (Connors' Wilson T2000) and 70 square-inch head-size (Borg's Donnay Borg Pro) metal and wood rackets respectively! In their respective primes, they would have hit the ball even harder if they had had today's graphite rackets!
I loved watching Jimmy at the time,but Borg very much had his number. It took mcenoe with his serve and guile to finally overcome. Him.. Great days.
Borg only started dominating Jimmy at the end of his own short career. Jimmy owned Bjorn in several ways in the earlier years, including being the on the wrong end of some ill timed injuries and bad luck in NYC. Bjorn had tried going back and forth from the baseline with Connors in those years, but Jimmy won most of those pre-1981 battles. Borg finally figured out that he could dominate him with huge first AND second serves to the corners of the service box, setting up his penetrating groundstrokes which Connors could not reach off his back foot. He learned the ability to do it, and he used it to great effect. This is his finest moment in the US Open, and in any match ever in America. So happy I was there to see it..
Connors should’ve had him a few months earlier at Wimbledon
@@prplhze2000 But he didn't. Connors was a clear #3 at the time. How McEnroe lost to him in the 82' final still mystifised me. Especially, as in the 84' final McEnroe annihilated him.
@@Arturo-sm1tb Borg dominated Connors from start of 1977 onwards. He had a winning record over Connors every year from then, 77 through to 1981
@@jasonbrooks6562 McEnroe was suffering from an ankle problem in '82 which hampered him throughout the year and he was off form after having had such a great year in 1981, so Connors took advantage. Lendl also destroyed him in the U.S. Open s/.f
I saw Borg play an exhibition in Scottsdale, a few years after this. His speed was unbelievable!!!!!! You can't see it on TV all that well.
McEnroe still says today that Borg is the fastest man he's ever seen on a tennis court.
@@abdiver12 . Arthur Ashe also stated that Borg was the fastest player he ever played against.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Yes, Borg was fast around the court, plus he had (and probably still has) incredible endurance.
@@antonboludo8886 . One of the most amazing things about Bjorn Borg's tennis career is that you never ever saw Borg breathing hard after a long point, whether the surface he was playing on was clay, hard court, grass or indoor supreme court carpet! I remember reading a comment by the pro tennis player Billy Martin (no relation to the famous NY Yankees' player and manager) after he lost a match against Borg. He said, "I don't know how McEnroe beats him"!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Bjorn Borg is naturally super-endurant. He will not get tired over long matches.
I think John McEnroe was able to defeat Borg by using artistry and quick reflexes at the net.
Have you ever seen, or dreamed, of Bjorn dominating Connors on the US Open hard courts? You will see it here. This was war, and have never seen Bjorn with more energy and power on all elements of his game. Jimmy was totally intimidated, maybe the only time ever at the US Open, and a rare time in his career. It was more complete than Borg's wins at Wimbledon. Jimmy Connors hits nearly 80 percent of his first serves...Borg half of that, and yet Jimmy gets destroyed! Shows you that first serve was not the factor it was in later years with the more powerful racquets. Bjorn hit 14 aces and ran Jimmy around the edges of the court like a ragdoll. Nearly every Borg serve that was in, was hit with impeccable placement or surprise. And you can count on one hand the times Jimmy came to net and didn't end up with the ball whizzing by his ears. I was there in the 4th row that evening, and as a Borg fan, it was the most memorable live watch of my life. Fun to watch again after all these years.
Borg won their last ten matches and at one point one 9 straight sets with Jimmy getting no more than 3 games per.
@@uncletony6210 Yes, and this was the finale. Sadly, Bjorn finally figured out Jimmy at Flushing Meadow when it was too late to matter.
@@Arturo-sm1tb Borg had an injured hand in the 78 final.
@@uncletony6210 Yes he did. But everything I have read said that Borg was totally lost in those night lights at the 78 tourney, first time ever under the glare of high lights. He had not figured out Jimmy yet. Jimmy to his credit could play anywhere, anytime, and was unaffected. Bjorn more sensitive to conditions.
@@Arturo-sm1tb I don't know, man. Prior to that match, he had beaten Jimmy 4 consecutive sets without dropping more than 3 games. After that match, he beat Jimmy 9 consecutive sets without dropping more than 3 games. Seems he had figured him out.
I grew up during the Borg-Connors-McEnroe era and it was incredible watching the contrasting styles of play of those 3 tennis giants. My favorite of the three was Borg who rarely showed any emotion which was part of the appeal of watching him play the game, he had such a mystique on the court.
But I ended up mad at Borg for depriving us of 5 more years of the threesome. Not even 26. Insane.
Exactly!
Borg was at the absolute top of his game in this match. With the exception of his first serve percentage, that is. But he came up with huge serves when needed, just like two months earlier at Wimbledon in that epic 5 setter vs Jimmy. Even the windy conditions during the first set didn't slow him down. Connors was actually playing reasonably well. But Bjorn had the goods, yet again, to take Connors down. His sprinting gets, his booming serves when needed, his return of serve....all of these came through and gave him the match. And then, he played well for the most part, in the final. But once McEnroe dominated the last set and a half, Borg knew his time of dominance was over. He just didn't want to put the work in anymore. And he knew he wasn't going to beat Mac no matter what.
Had this Bjorn Borg showed up against John McEnroe in the final he would've won. I watched that final and Borg made so many errors even when McEnroe wasn't pressuring him. I'll never figure out why he played so bad. Unfortunately for Borg, just as his game was staring to come down, McEnroe's was peaking at his best. I would've loved to see them battle each other at their absolute best.
@@SuperPrince1007 Borg just fell under that Classic sporting pressure,he really should have on the US Open that year.Then the following year he was told to qualify for the French Open and Wimbledon if he did not play enough events in 82.That stupid rule made him retire from Grand Slam Tennis forever.Remember he retired as reigning French Open Champion!!
I agree Peter but it really was at this point where Borg really was declining.
@@SuperPrince1007 Borg did not retire because of tennis skills or physical problems. He was a monster physically on this particular night, and all through this tournament. He snapped mentally in the 3rd set the next day.
@@SuperPrince1007 There is a huge story behind the loss to Mac the next day. Many great books recount the situation.
I played Donnay Borg Pro racket back then. Switching to bigger graphite rackets was like going from a bike to a race car. The sweet spot was huge on the graphite and the ball came off like a trampoline. Not sure how we even played with those old wooden things.
I had a Wilson T2000 and my twin brother had a Borg Pro as you said it was a revolution with the over/mid sized rackets
Probably not very well. I used to play with a wood racket, and it posed no problem because I had good hand eye coordination. That's why pros like Borg and McEnroe could play well with those rackets. Their h/e coordination is on another level.
Wood racket tennis was real tennis. Tennis lost its' beauty when the sport abandoned wood in favor of the high-tech graphite material in racket construction. As the late great Bud Collins (whose writings and astute observations on the game of tennis are sorely missed) stated, "The men's game is not very appealing right now--why? Because we let the tennis manufacturers run away with the game. No one , myself included, saw the lesson to be learned as baseball and cricket did that you must not abandon the wooden implement. In baseball and cricket --the bat. In tennis--the racket. We didn't see that. Everyone said 'Oh graphite is wonderful!'. Graphite is not wonderful for tennis........" He went on to point out that graphite is wonderful for the average weekend tennis player but that there should be a tennis racket of wood for the male pros. He was so right! The graphite technology and the copolyester strings have regrettably and to the detriment of the sport cheapened the game of tennis.
@@michaelbarlow6610 true. everything you just said
@@drieaz but it wasn't a matter of anyone "letting" the manufacturers run away with the game, ie. innovate. It is what most customers/hackers wanted in a racquet...a way for a slow, out of shape hacker to finally go on the offensive, and the makers made more sales and profit. The Inevitable tide of technology sometimes sucks. Same thing in golf, but it made tennis less attractive to watch...on that I agree..in general.
Absolutely incredible that Borg failed to win the Grand Slam at least once between 1977-1981. He foolishly went waterskiing before the 1977 U.S. Open and injured his right shoulder and as a result, had to retire from his match against Dick Stockton, 1978 he sustained the deep thumb blister on his right hand during the semifinal match against Gerulaitis which cost him a win against Connors in the finals, 1979 he had to play against Roscoe Tanner and Tanner's howitzer serve at night under the floodlights at Louis Armstrong Stadium - had that been a daytime match he would have defeated Tanner - and in 1980 and 1981, he simply lost to McEnroe who was a better player (especially on the lightening fast DecoTurf2 surface). But Borg should have won back-to-back Grand Slams in 1977-1978. Had he won back-to-back Grand Slams in 1977-1978, he arguably might have been regarded as the GOAT male tennis player in history!
Borg just never looked the same secure player in New York as he did at Roland Garros and Wimbledon. I didn't know his injured shoulder in 1977 was due to waterskiing, I assumed he did it during the tournament. That should have been one of his 2 chances to have won it - on the clay at Forest Hills as his game was not set up for the fast cement at Flushing Meadow. He admitted himself that '76 should have been his year as he had 2 sets points in the 3rd for a 2-1 lead in the final. But '77 should also have been his year fresh from beating Connors at Wimbledon.
Borg got a bad line call at 3 all in the 5th vs. McEnroe in 80 final that caused him to lose his concentration. He double faulted twice and got his serve broke and that was the match. He made up his mind later that night to retire and was the never the same player again afterwards.
@@openlotus9558 .Yes the atrociously bad line call Borg got when serving at 3-3 in the 5th set of the 1980 U.S. Open final against McEnroe ultimately cost him that game to give McEnroe the key break of serve in the 5th set of that match, but Borg, according to his ex-wife Mariana Simonescu, had first started talking about retiring from pro tennis as far back as the summer of 1979 which was Borg's best season in terms of matches and tournaments won. So the outcome of that 1980 U.S. Open final was not the cause of his prematurely quiting tennis after the 1981 season (although he played in 1-3 tournaments the next three years in 1982, 1983 and 1984). Borg was sick and tired of having to do all the extra things that a top tennis player needs to do in order to maintain a top-level pro tennis career, such as off-court physical fitness training, attending press conferences, attending meetings with sponsors, traveling from country to country and from hotel to hotel, etc.
@@openlotus9558 .But that bad line call in the 5th set of the 1980 U.S. Open final did not send Borg into retirement. If he was that affected by it to that degree, he wouldn't have played the 1981 season at all except for one or two tournaments like he did in 1982, 1983 and 1984! The reality is that Borg was experiencing mental burn out from the game as early as the summer of 1979 according to Mariana Simonescu. If Borg had won that 1980 U.S. Open, he probably would have gone down to Australia in December of that year to try to complete the Grand Slam (which he could have won in back-to-back years in 1977 and 1978 if not for his shoulder injury prior to the 1977 U.S. Open and deep thumb blister that cost him the 1978 U.S. Open) and then maybe play in the 1980 Masters tournament at Madison Square Garden and then retired from the game, because he would have had nothing left to accomplish in tennis, but after losing that 1980 U.S. Open, he realized that he was never going to win the Grand Slam. If he had won the Grand Slam in 1980, he may have chosen to skip the Masters tournaments since that tournament was "small potatoes" relatively speaking compared to winning the Grand Slam.
@@openlotus9558 .I read the book on Borg by Lars Skarke. Just because a pro athlete has commitments to play in events does not mean that they always honor those commitments. Players on the men's pro tour were well known back then, and undoubtedly at least to some extent even in today's pro tennis, to pull out of tournaments that they had a commitment to play by coming up with bogus injury excuses. So just because Borg had signed contracts/commitments to play a full schedule of tournaments in 1981 does not mean that he would have honored those commitments in 1981 had he won the 1980 U.S. Open and the Grand Slam in 1980. And the reality was that Borg was starting to feel mentally burned out from tennis in 1979 or he would not have started talking about retiring from tennis in 1979 when he was only 24 years old! That's just plain reality!
borg did have amzing foot wotwork
the BEST footwork of all time.
So did Connors have flawless footwork on the tennis court.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Not true Michael. Footwork was one of Jimmy's flaws against better players. His serve, however, was his greatest weakness. Jimmy had great court awareness and positioning for his flat groundstrokes. He was brilliant with that unique positioning and shot.
This is Borg’s last significant win in his careers.
Yes. It was truly the swansong. I was there, 4th row. Surreal.
there was a time when mac was loudly advocating a return to wooden rackets. It was never going to happen but if there was a return to wood, i wonder if the three guys would have won 63 slams between them?
watch Borg's footwork...watch him run....it almost looked like he was levitating on air. Dude, was a total one-off. And when he walked away, tennis wasn't even interesting for a few yrs..because his rivalries with the guys in the top 5, were as good as it got.
From ‘79-‘81 Borg beat Connors something like 11 straight matches. By that time Borg had finally learned how to handle Connors’ hard flat groundstrokes and not only get them back but actually push Connors around the court. And, on top of that, the fact that Connors’ serve was nowhere near the weapon that Borg’s serve was put Connors in truly a ‘no margin for error’ situation every time he faced Borg by that point. Became a very bad matchup for Jimbo.
Yes. I also remember the '81 Wimbledon semi with Borg very well. It was a match one felt Connors felt he had to win. Informed by a reporter beforehand that Borg said he never shaves during Wimbledon as it was his lucky charm, Jimbo replied "he'll be shaving tonight".
@@Gammonsworstnightmare Great line, but poor playing on Jimmy's part during the match. Jimmy was not known for the clever quip, but give him credit there.
@@Gammonsworstnightmare One of the best matches I've ever seen.
Connors forehand was a liability. You're right a bad matchup for Connors. Borg was better with 2 strokes forehand and serve and could match Connors in the heart an guts department. Connors counted on the intangibles to carry him through against most players. Borg had to enjoy the later matchups with Connors. He knew that all things being equal he was going to win and the fans were still going to get a good show.
@@gregoryphillips3969 Correct. He was with ultimate confidence facing Jimmy in the later years, he could pick him apart with his SERVE by this time, not just the groundies. That why he was so devastating on this night. It was a thing of beauty.
Le fameux "et bien Voila c'est terminé " de Duthu enfin de match
Herve Duthu excellent commentateur Le meilleur de tous a mon avis
@@stephaneamady1745 oh oui
This was tennis: an unparalleled spectacle. Borg, in his best time, was an impassable wall, an unstoppable force of nature. Something happened in his mind: soon, too soon. As far as I'm concerned and having seen him play, as well as everyone else to this day, he remains the strongest tennis player ever.
Watching this, hard to believe that this was basically the end for Borg and Connors would win next two years.
I think Borg got demoralized by his losses to McEnroe in three consecutive Slam Finals.
With Borg gone, Connors was able to re-claim the #1 spot for parts of 1982 and 1983.
Then McEnroe in 1984 had the best season of any player ever. A shame he lost to Lendl in the RG final. I think McEnroe gassed out. Lendl and Borg had the best endurance for long matches.
The last match Borg ever won 😢!
@@antonboludo8886 Anton, true and its hard to believe that Mac had a down period in those years, right in his prime, but then you must consider the fact his personal life was a mess. With the early success he had enjoyed since 1979, he had a couple of subpar years, a mini-burnout, if you will. However, he came back with a vengeance in 1984 and Connors was forever doomed when they played from that point on.
@@Arturo-sm1tb Yes, I felt sorry for Connors after that...
@@antonboludo8886 I didn't really feel sorry for Connors. We remember that he had treated a lot of people with disrespect through the years, and he had already hit his peak and won millions by then. He was still making millions, just not winning any more Majors. But he was so stubborn to let the game's technology started to pass him by in 1984....even Mac had moved to the graphite midsize (as did I in 84), while Jimmy stayed put with the ancient and tiny metal battering ram.
1981, Borg hit an amazingly hard topspin drive/lob; landing flat and distorted against the ground, as if shot out of a cannon. Wow!
He was a monster that evening. totally confident he could toy with Jimmy almost at will with his power from all parts of the court.
thanks for posting.
@SuperSmerdiakov. Thanks for tthe compliment!😀.
Amazing match...Connors came in having dominated the US summer tour. Borg coming off his monumental Wimbledon loss. if one was to look at the totality of the raw stats of this match, you might say it was a close one. but then look at Aces...14-1 Borg. Borg was such an assassin on all the key points, and served those blazing lighting bolts with perfect placement, and ripping laser beam passing shots. Total aggression and intimidation against the guy who invented it. Rarely hit a short ball for Jimmy to pounce on. Incredible footwork and speed of movement along the baseline. Jimmy was on his back feet at least 80 percent of the time, even though he had a very high first serve percentage, proving that stat meaningless in the wood and metal era when the difference between first and second serve didn't mean as much. This was Borg's greatest US Open match ever, and his greatest serving match ever I think. I would call it a slow bludgeoning. He had Jimmy figured out on this court, finally. This was his last hurrah in a grand slam, but what a glorious way to peak. So thankful a good video of this match is here on CZcams finally, even if its in French...:)
@ Arturo. Although Borg played very well against Connors in the 1981 U.S. Open Men's Singles Semifinals , he did not serve well at all in that match. At one point during the 3rd set of that straight sets win by Borg, the CBS-TV telecast showed a statistic which stated that Borg's first serve percentage up to that point in the third set in the match was 47 or 48 percent which is a bad first serve percentage. Borg was at his peak in 1979 , which was his best single season in terms of match wins and and tournaments won in his career.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Every book and commentary on this match (including Borg himself) talks about this as Borg's greatest serving match in a major tournament. I was there that day, I saw it. Connors was on the defensive all day, shaking his head with no way to grab back the momentum. Never seen him so intimidated. First serve percentage? Doesn't matter to a baseline master in 1981 with a wood racquet. Connors was nearly 80 percent on first serve and was never in the match! That tells you all you need to know. In fact Borg noticed Jimmy's weak second serve and came in on it a couple times. Bjorn's game plan was to be super aggressive on his first, but his SECOND serves were also sharp, deep, and effective. Borg hit some absolute lasers on the Donnay, up to 117MPH, in an era when 126 was the record. Look at Borg's confidence off the ground, look at the depth of his shot making. Do you see Jimmy at any point looking like he was taking charge? Never. Jimmy couldn't even intimidate the umpire that day...he was whimpering to himself most of the night. He lost his mojo early on, and he knew he couldn't intimidate Borg like he did in his previous Open matches. After all his disappointments of the past, Borg came out to dominate Jimmy from the beginning, and he won every key point in this match with superior pace and accuracy. A Slow Bludgeoning. In the peak years, Connors only lost more decisively than this once in his Majors career, the 1984 Wimbledon.
No one could possibly foresee what came after this amazing night. McEnroe looked absolutely horrible against Vitas earlier in the day, and every person in that stadium expected this was going to be Bjorn's year to grab his Open. But the darkening twilight atmosphere of this match was the perfect metaphor for what was to come on Sunday... The End of the Borg Era
@ Arturo. First, the fact that Borg served poorly in that 1981 U.S. Open semifinal against Connors is indicated by his first serve percentage in that match being in the 40's which clearly indicates that the authors of the books you talk about failed to check Borg's first serve percentage for the match! Had they checked that , they would have realized how poorly he served that night despite his 13 or 14 service aces against Connors in that match! And it is also obvious that Borg didn't realize that he served poorly overall that night and based his opinion of his serving that night on the number of service aces he hit just like the authors of those books did! I to like most tennis fans after watching that match that night erroneously believed that Borg served well in that match until I saw his first serve percentage statistic for the match which clearly proves he served poorly in that match despite the number of service aces he hit that night. It just goes to prove how misleading impressions can be! Second, throughout his career, Borg had a relatively weak, attackable second serve. Borg realized that he could get away with poor serving against Connors because Connors was not going to attack Borg's weak second serve like McEnroe did so successfully against Connors, Borg and Lendl by chipping the return of serve and rushing to the net to put instant pressure on Borg! If you want to see clutch serving by Borg then look at his serving against Connors in the 5th set of their 1981 Wimbledon semifinal. Every time Connors had a break point against Borg's serve in that 5th set of that match, Borg came up with a big first serve to save the break point and send the game score back to deuce. I would have to check Borg's first serve percentage for the entire match but in that 5th set he came up with great , clutch serves when he needed them!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Good god man, you have become irrational in your silly defense of a meaningless stat. Do you realize what a tool you appear to be to the commenters?
No one, NO ONE, cared about Borg's first serve percentage in this wooden racquet era, when two baseliners could dominate a match like this. Timely laser serves and penetrating groundies at the right time was what matterd. Borg destroyed his opponent in the face of his supposed subpar "first serve percentage" He dominated and intimidated Jimmy. Jimmy had his tail between his legs, shaking his head from effects of the Borg serves. Watch the match and stop the nonsense. You seem like you think you know a lot about tennis, so what are you even arguing about? Jimmy did nothing off Bjorn's brilliant first, or second serves. Jimmy was completely beaten after that first set, he knew it and he played like it the rest of the match.
In September 1981 I was 17 years old in London, England watching clips from this match. All I can remember clearly is that the commentator was talking about Borg's astonishing serving.
I at the time took that to mean Borgs super punishment for his near miss v Jimmy when the latter very nearly beat him at Wimbledon.
As for summer 81 hard court season, I remember reading "Connors summer slump continued..." which I took to mean the psychological effects of Borg beating him at Wimbledon from 2 sets down the month before (July).
This was Borg’s 10th consecutive win against Connors. Also his last win in a grand slam tournament. What must Borg have thought watching Connors winning Wimbledon and the US Open in 1982. I think if Borg hadn’t quit at 25 he would’ve gone on to win many more grand slam titles.
Borg had never beaten Connors at the US Open, losing to him in 1975, 1976 and 1978. After winning this match, it made losing the final all the more painful for Borg.
Watching this again since I saw it live ....I remember why I love Bjorn,and despise Jimmy.....Class vs crass......God Bjorn was so fast
Borg avait littéralement atomisé Connors, ce jour là...dommage que Connors n'ait pas battu McEnroe en demi-finale de Flushing en 80,comme il aurait dû le faire ,car en finale, c'était le titre assuré pour Borg..là en 81,Bjorn joua à la perfection face à un bon Jimmy, mais craqua étrangement face à John en finale
Borg serving 6-2 1-4 0-40 serves 3 consecutive aces and eventually holds. That was where this match was eventually won so decisively.
Ça me rappelle les soirées flushing avec Duthu au commentaire ..j'avais 13 ans ..mythique !!!
Moi j'avais 14 ans...ce fut encore plus extraordinaire en 80, avec l'incroyable McEnroe Connors
Borg was 25 here in his last slam. He had won 11 slams by then. Connors would go on to beat Lendl in 1982 here at the US open. He had no Borg to face. I would have liked to see Borg transition to a graphite racquet in 1983. I think he would have picked up a few more slams, and possibly more. Though Lendl did revolutionise tennis in the mid 1980s as a result of more powerful racquets.
Sure, only problem was that Björn was done at 25, he wanted a "normal" life and to hang with the stones at 54, chase models and pouder his nose lol
Very good comments. McEnroe brought something new to the game. I wished Borg had found another notch to hang in. Poetic justice ? Lendl would later take out McEnroe in 1985 bringing in the power forehand. Wished Borg could see it is possible to pass McEnroe at the net if you elevate your game and give it time. (Before '85 McEnroe basically clobbered opponents left and right.)
Borg could've come back but he was just burnt out and that's why he was unable to do what Lendl did when it came to playing John McEnroe. After John McEnroe dominated Ivan Lendl for a brief time Lendl worked on a strength conditioning program and figured out to dominate him once again. Bjorn Borg had accomplished so much in his great tennis career that he didn't have to come back to prove anything. Ivan Lendl did because he had not won a Grand Slam tournament yet. I would've loved to have seen a young hungry up and coming Bjorn Borg vs John McEnroe in 1981 and thereafter.
Lendl also brought up the level of fitness to the men's game as Martina Navratilova elevated it in women's tennis.
Borg wouldn't do anything further as mentally he had expired.
Jimmy Connors in his autobiography falsely stated that Borg never beat him at the US Open. He conveniently erased this match from his memory bank 😂😂😂
the lack and/or absence of line judges in this match is stunning. i'm amazed that the players agreed with having this few line judges in such important matches. nobody down the center service line???
There is a judge on the center line. After the serve lands, the center line judge moves over to the vacant outside line.
An interesting error that CBS Sports made during its' telecast of the first set of the 1981 U.S. Open semifinal between Borg and Connors, is when it showed an erroneous statistic which stated that this was Connors' sixth U.S. Open Final which it was not nor was it a final! Connors' 6th U.S. Open Final didn't occur until the 1982 final versus Lendl.
@haroldsmyth6685. If Borg had been permitted to play the 1977 French Open which he was prohibited from playing because the French Tennis Federation did not allow male or female players back then to play in that major if they were contracted to play World Team Tennis, Borg not Vilas would have won the 1977 French Open and then had Borg not foolishly gone waterskiing prior to the 1977 U.S. Open (and if his coach Lennart Bergelin had kept his big mouth shut and not informed sportswriters of Borg's injured right shoulder), Borg not Vilas would have won the 1977 U.S. Open and then with 3 legs of the Grand Slam under his belt, he would have traveled down to Australia in December 1977 to try to complete the Grand Slam at Kooyong Stadium. And then in 1978, had he not developed the deep thumb blister on his right hand against Gerulaitis in the semifinals of the 1978 U.S. Open, he would have defeated Connors in the final and then traveled down to Australia in December 1978 to try once again to complete the Grand Slam, thereby having an excellent chance to win the Grand Slam in back-to-back years making him arguably the GOAT male tennis player in history!
Another thing no one talks about - the shame of Borg retiring in 1982 is - this was the exact time of the entry point to New Racquet Technology Changing Tennis. By 83' many players finally switched over to Graphite, away from wood (or aluminum like connors) - Had Borg hung in there, and then accepted CHANGE and worked with the new stronger lighter racquet technology which made it easier to hit the ball faster, and easier to spin the ball - one has to think, this would only have Helped a BaseLiner like Borg compete better - it's a shame he didn't keep playing thru the 80's and re-dedicated himself and really worked with the new Racquet Tech, updating his game - I bet he could have won a US Open, and another French Open or two..
I think that size and power became more important with graphite racquets. The next gen of players were built more like Boris Becker. Speed and stamina would lose to power with graphite racquets.
He's gotten fed up and burnt out at that point. No advance in racket technology was going to give him renewed motivation.
You are correct about the coincidental timing, but Bjorn would not have benefited from the technology. He had perfected wild spin and movement with that insane tension on his wooden weapon, and there is NO WAY he could duplicate that with graphite/composite. His arm motion had been perfected for that tension on wood. He would have struggled mightily in the new era of the 1982-1989 era. Mightily. Technology is not the reason he quit the game at the top, but it certainly was on his mind at the time.
Il match ( il gioco sviluppato dai due tennisti ... ) dimostra ampiamente , in un'analisi congiunta con la semifinale di Wimbledon svoltasi tra i due nel medesimo anno , come Borg non sia mai stato superiore a Connors ( seppur abbia vinto le ultime 10 sfide nel 1979/1980/1981 ... ) .
Borg nel match in questione si e` salvato con il sevizio ( tirare fuori 8 aces su 8 palle break e` un caso unico .
Connors nel secondo set ha avuto 4 palle break per andare sul 5 a 1 , analoga sorte nel terzo set ... ) :
facendo una media tra servizi vincenti e aces , Borg nella semi open usa 1981 ha giocato ogni turno di servizio partendo con un vantaggio di 30 o 40 a zero .
Nonostante cio` il match e` stato tirato per chi il tennis tra le righe .
Certamente Connors , nella semifinale us open 1981 , ha pagato un doppio scotto psicologico :
dovuto in primis dall'aver perduto in 5 set a Wimbledon 2 mesi prima contro Borg ( dopo aver dominato i primi 2 set , e , affaticato non riuscendo a chiudere al terzo set e perdendo in un quinto set al cardiopalma .
Non dimentichiamoci che Connors nel 1981 aveva 29 anni , Borg 25 .
Il divario di eta` a questi livelli , dove un anno di ativita` agonistica e` alquanto logorante , e` determinante nel computo delle energie psicofisiche attivabili nei momenti topici di un un incontro .
Quale conferma di quanto asserisco Borg a 25 anni e 4 mesi , dopo l'pen usa 1981 , spossato , si e` ufficiosamente ritirato , ufficializzando la propria decisione nel 1983 - ma di fatto non si e` presentato al master nel gennaio 1981 e nel 1982 e` stato assente dal circuito professionistico , quindi in buona sostanza ha chiuso la propria carriera con l'open usa 1981a 25 e 4 mesi ... ) ;
in secondo luogo , se Connors , nel 1981 , nel secondo set della semi us open 1981 fosse andato 5 a 1 si sarebbe verificato un diverso andamento dell'incontro .
At this point in time it looked like Connors would never win another slam - then Borg retired. It didn't take long for Mac to lose his mojo. As Mac himself said Borg retiring affected him too.
Jimmy was cowering in the face of that Borg power on his serve and groundies. No one has ever intimidated Jimmy like this...even when he got blown out by Mac in 1984 Wimbledon. That Wimbledon match was a surgical operation by Mac. Quick and clean. This 1981 match was a pure bludgeoning of the highest order.
Marty, I don't know what it was, but Mac always rose to the occasion in Queens...the hometown comfort zone. Mac did not have a great 1981 at all, and looked HORRIBLE against Vitas in the other semi final....perhaps the WORST played Semi Final in US Open history. God it was horrible, I had to sit through that mistake filled death march. Then Tracy Austin beat Martina in a GREAT match leading up to the Borg Connors finale that evening.
For me Bjorn Borg is superior player than Jimmy Connors,John McEnroe
Dominating Wimbledon and French open like that is not easy at all which is held 2 weeks between both majors and reaching finals at US Open also it is tough actually.
He could easily win US Open title if he played till age 30 also. He wasted his talent actually. John McEnroe can't maintain the same level for long also
The point is Bjorn Borg able to reach US Open finals easily but Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe not able to reach finals in French open like Bjorn Borg also that is a fact actually.
He have 11 major titles with him at the age of 25 in short period itself which is incredible achievement bro
Bjorn Borg came extremely close to win US Open title in 1980 and John McEnroe came extremely close to win French open title in 1984.
Jimmy Connors have 3/4 majors
But Bjorn Borg have 2/4 majors with him as he never played Australian open.
What language is this french dude speaking?
Amazing what Borg did with a wooden racquet, silly old sheeps gut strings, plimsolls etc
Arthur Ashe 42:23 :o
Federer was 1 month old
after the thrashing that Borg administered to Connors here, who would have believed that this was the last grand slam match victory of Borg's career?
Not even he would have thought so. He wanted to make a short break and return in mid 82...after that he planned to come back in 83 - but for some reason it never happened.....
@@markmauk8231 It never happened, because Borg didn't want to play the minimum amount of tournaments, which ITF wanted him to play.
@@michaelm7717 I know, but its still strange.....
@@markmauk8231 Indeed, but you certainly saw Borg-McEnroe - the movie. There were a lot of answers, why. On the other hand, his decision was a sad moment for a lot of people and for tennis too.
@@michaelm7717 Thank you, sir. At last a gentleman telling the truth. Borg had all the intention of coming back on the tour, prior to the French in ´82. Hell, he even trained with that year´s future F.O. winner Wilander. But then the deeply corrupt ITF started working against Borg and demanding him play 10 pro tournaments instead of the (by Borg) proposed seven tournaments. My guess is that they wanted more american players winning slams and not "just" Borg. Sad but true: ITF stopped Borg´s comeback:(:(:(
At the age of 25, Bjorn Berg's final Grand Slam victory 😢
Last match they played against each other.
Borg won with ease of course, but have to admit that Connors was the victim of a really bad line call at 1:44:46. He had benefited from many like that for years by intimidating linespersons.
These were years before technology clearly improved the fairness of a match.
17:35 "Jimmy Connors playing in 6th US Open final" Come on, CBS!
There were TONS of mistakes by Pat Summerall in those days, he was drunk much of the time in that era, finally got himself straightened out some time later.
Au vue de sa forme durant cet USOPEN 81,Bjorn Borg aurait dû faire des ravages à la fin de cette année là. ..malheureusement sa motivation disparut totalement
Oui c'est bien dommage car borg n'avait qu'à étoffer son programme 1982 , pour retrouver sa place de numéro un...en 82,McEnroe stagnait et Connors n"était pas spécialement irrésistible durant les six premiers mois...seul Lendl aurait pu l'inquiéter cette année là...mais pour cela,il aurait fallu une motivation à tte épreuve pour le suédois...
Un borg du niveau de 1980 aurait remporté Roland Garros 82 sans trop de problème..par contre, à Wimbledon,je pense que Bjorn n'aurait pas pu contrer Connors,ni même 2 mois plus tard à Flushing..mais bon , bien évidemment,je peux me tromper..
McEnroe fut bien plus résistant qu'on ne le pense..il n'y a qu'a se souvenir de son incroyable Flushing 80..le jeudi 4 septembre 80 en nocturne,il bat en 4 sets disputés le jeune et fort prometteur tchécoslovaque de 20 ans Ivan Lendl,le lendemain,il perd une demi finale de double, avec son compère Peter Fleming,face à Smith et Lutz,en 5 sets.. samedi,il bat Connors en 5 sets et le dimanche, John fait subir le même sort à Borg,en 5 sets également 😊😊😊😊
justement je pense que tu te trompe car Borg avait l'ascendant sur Connors qui ne l'a plus battu depuis 1978 même si il y a eu des rencontres accrochés à Wimbledon en 1981 par exemple. McEnroe a stagné justement parce que Borg n'était pas là en 1982 si Borg aurait continué ça l'aurait motivé par contre Lendl l'aurait inquiété sérieusement
@@briangottfried8533 C'est vrai que McEnroe jouait très bien en 1980 et 1981 , mais il faut aussi reconnaître qu'il a eu beaucoup de chance face à Connors , face à Borg et même face à Gerulaitis ces 2 années-là et qu'il s'en est fallu de peu pour qu'il n'aille jamais en finale !
Quant à Borg , je crois que celui-ci faisait un "complexe" face à McEnroe . Je crois qu'il s'est beaucoup trop compliqué la vie face à lui car quand on le voyait jouer face à McEnroe , il commettait des erreurs totalement inhabituelles , comme monter fréquemment au filet alors qu'il n'était pas un voleyeur , donc il gâchait beaucoup de points à cause de ça , ou ne plus penser à faire ses superbes lobs liftés lorsque McEnroe montait au filet alors que les rares fois où il y pensait il faisait systématiquement le point , etc ... ! Oui il aurait dû gagner toutes ses finales face à McEnroe car il en avait largement les capacités . Je n'ai d'ailleurs pas compris comment Borg a-t-il fait pour ne pas gagner la finale de US Open en 1980 et la finale de Wimbledon en 1981 face à McEnroe alors que c'est lui , Borg , qui dominait ...
Enfin bon ^^ En tout cas ils nous ont offert de superbes matchs inoubliables !
@ Arturo. Although books may claim that Borg's best serving was in that 1981 U.S. Open semi-final win over Connors, Borg's poor first serve percentage in that match clearly refutes that notion. Borg knew that he could serve as aggressively as he wanted against Connors and get away with a lousy first serve percentage because he knew that Connors was not a chip-and-charge player who would attack Borg's weak second serve by getting to the net behind a well-placed return-of-serve! If Borg had had to play against McEnroe that night in that semi-final match , McEnroe would have chipped-and-charged to the net behind return of serve to put instantaneous pressure on Borg's weak second serve! Knowledgeable tennis fans and knowledgeable Borg fans knew that Borg's play against Connors in that match was in no way an indication of Borg's chances against McEnroe in the finals the next day! And Borg failed to serve well enough in the finals the next day to have a realistic chance of defeating McEnroe in that 1981 U.S. Open final. Borg also never learned the futility of standing 10-15 feet behind the baseline to return McEnroe's serve which enabled McEnroe to get in close to the net against Borg for McEnroe's first volley. It was only after Borg had retired from the men's pro tennis tour that during a meaningless exhibition match in Portland, Oregon that Borg decided to try standing right at the baseline to return McEnroe's serve and thereby deprive McEnroe of the chance to get in tight to the net for his first volley. I remember watching that totally meaningless exhibition match on TV and saying to myself, "You (Borg) pick now in a meaningless match to return McEnroe's serve from the baseline! Why the hell didn't you do that when you played against McEnroe all those years on the pro tour?!!".
They really need to remaster the videotape of the 1981 U.S. Open semi-final match between Connors and Borg in order to make the picture quality sharper and the color more vivid.
this is a great analysis. Borg moving up to receive serve in the exhibition is akin to what Federer finally started doing with his backhand against Nadal in the past few years; take it very early, on the hop, before it bounces up to shoulder height!
Michael, his first serve percentage didn't matter, I will say it again. Borg said this was his greatest serving match of his career, first serve percentage be damned. This was domination by Bjorn, end of story. Connors was almost 80 percent, and do you see him ever really in the match? These are two primary baseliners. If you serve 50 percent, but hit 14 aces, to Connors 1, who is going to win the match? Those 50 percent hit with power and placement are far superior to 80 percent with nothing behind it. I was at this match, very close to the court through a friend of a friend.... Bjorn had Jimmy on his backfoot all night. I was a huge Borg fan, but it was literally surreal to see Connors dominated and blown off the court like this, in his own house before his crowd. It was a weird weekend all around. That really strong, warm breeze, that darkness, that full moon was so eery to be a part of. I left Queens that night feeling WEIRD, even though I expected Mac to pose no threat on Sunday. No one knew.
Bottom line is that in the era of wood racquets and baseliners, the first serve percentage stat was incredibly overrated. It meant nothing on this night. Borg bludgeoned Jimmy.
The match on Sunday was played under completely different conditions for Borg. You know the story. The two matches are not even comparable, nor is Borg's first serve percentage.
@ Arturo. First any tennis fan who says that in the wood/metal rackets era of tennis that first serve percentage was overrated or meant nothing clearly has no real understanding of tennis and the importance of getting a good percentage of first serves in! Second, for you or any tennis fan to say that you didn't expect McEnroe to pose any problem for Borg in the 1981 U.S.Open final based upon how Borg played against Connors in the semifinals the previous night clearly indicates that your knowledge of tennis is severely limited! Every knowledgeable ( and the word knowledgeable cannot be emphasized enough here) tennis fan and expert knew that no matter how well Borg played against Connors in that semifinal match, his play against Connors was going to not be in any way , shape or form a reliable indicator of how Borg would play the next day against McEnroe in the finals! I knew and every objective ( and the word objective cannot be emphasized enough here) Borg fan knew that McEnroe was going to beat Borg in that final because McEnroe's serve-and-volley was superior to Borg's baseline game , especially on the fast DecoTurf2 hard courts at Flushing Meadow's National Tennis Center! Even though at one point during the 3rd set of that final, CBS Sports showed a statistic indicating that Borg's 1st serve percentage up to that point in the 3rd set was 60%, Borg was serving too many double faults as CBS Sports broadcaster and former great tennis champion John Newcomb stated during that 3rd set in that match.
You make it sound as if McEnroe dominated Borg. He did not. They were 7-7 lifetime against each other...and they never met on clay, Borg's best surface. Borg handled McEnroe's serve in some of their other matches.
Too bad that Borg couldn't beat Connors at The US Open finals. He lost to him at least once, maybe twice.
Donnay Borg Pro
Wilson T200
Iconic racquets!
Borg, même en déclin, a facilement vaincu Connors.
Connors a eu tort de ne pas avoir participé à Roland Garros durant les années 1974-1978. Il l'aurait peut-être remporté.
Funny, the french guy is not able to speak Connors, but only his french version: Conneur :-))))
Après cet us Open 81,Borg remporta son dernier tournoi ATP à Genève face à Smid,puis sombra complètement à Tokyo, où il ne fut que l'ombre de l'immense joueur qu'il fut en étant écrasé par Tim Gullikson au second tour 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Nastase at 46:16 with beauty
Connors come gioco e` stato ben superiore a Borg nella semi open usa 1981 , eccetto che per il risultato .
Borg e` rimasto in piedi esclusivamente grazie al servizio e ad una decina di ottimi passanti .
Il vento ha penalizzato molto di piu` Connors rispetto a Borg , in quanto Jimmy giocava piatto , talvolta con un leggero taglio , e talvolta - ma piu` raramente - con un leggero lift sul dritto , cosa che fara` molto di piu` a fine carriera per aumentare il margine di errore sul dritto .
Un Dritto piatto o con taglio verso l'esterno che ritengo stupendo a vedersi , inoltre e` alquanto rischioso giocare a 5/10 cm. sopra il net ) .
Giocare super liftsto come Borg con il vento e` un vantaggio perche` sbatti l'avversario fuori dal campo oltre il normale , infatti chi osserverà bene il match notera` che Connors era costretto ad arrampicarsi per non indietreggiare .
Una Considerazione :
Mariana Simionescu inquadrata dalla TV americana e` chiaramente sotto gli effetti della cocaina , osservare la mandibola digrignata e gli occhi spiritati classici di chi usa questa sostanza .
Ne consegue che Borg nel 1981 faceva uso di cocaina e non e` da escludersi che l'abbia assunta nella semi contro Connors o qualche ora prima con la bella rumena , da cio` si spiegherebbe la concentrazione fuori dal comune del campione svedese nei punti topici contro Connors in questa partita ( una dozzina di aces di Borg su altrettante palle break di Connors ha del sovrumano , mai vista una cosa simile ... ) .
Concludendo , ad ogni modo Borg ha giocato un ottimo match , l'ultimo della sua carriera a livelli elevatissimi , e in finale era completamente svuotato contro Mcnroe , l'ultimo set della finale dimostra che Borg ormai era assente , lontano dallo stress psicofisico della competizione ai massimi livelli .
John Denver congratulates Borg at 2:00:00
Denis Lalanne a la voix de Christian Quidet :)
Vincent Ducasse
Ça m a l air d être Christian quidet.Denis lalane n a pas la même voix je pense Holtz est là aussi au début.
C'est Hervé Duthu, à la fin du match son acolyte dit Hervé.
Sad to think this was Borg's second last match before essentially retiring at 25. If he'd continued playing for another 10 years like the Big 3 today, he'd likely have 20 or more slams.
@ Jonathan 916. Although Borg essentially quit playing the men's pro tennis tour after his loss to McEnroe in the 1981 U.S Open final, he played in 1 tournament in 1982 losing to Noah at the Monte Carlo tournament. His last official match prior to his unsuccessful comeback at the 1991 Monte Carlo tournament against Jordi Arresi, was the Stuttgart tournament in Germany in July, 1984. His last official match in 1993 was at the Kremlin Cup tournament in Moscow.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Yeah, I guess I should have written "essentially" or "unofficially" in the post and will do so now. A very sad day for tennis that his heart was no longer in the game.
@@abdiver12 . Borg was one of tbe greatest overall athletes in the history of sports, not because he played more than one sport professionally - which he obviously did not, but because he is the only pro tennis player to have ever won the European version of the Superstars Competition in which athletes compete against each other in a number of events which are not their specialty. It is really a shame that Borg never improved his volley or ever added a great topspin lob to his game in order to keep McEnroe from getting too close to the net in their matches. Borg would occasionally hit a successful lob against McEnroe, but most of his attempted topspin lobs against McEnroe resulted in lost points. He also, unfortunately, never improved his second serve to turn it into a more offensive weapon in his game.
@@michaelbarlow6610 If he had continued to play, I'm sure he would have added these things to his game, just as the Big 3 have added to theirs over the years to improve. A huge shame. On a side note, Ash Barty just retired about an hour ago at the age of 25, saying her heart was no longer in it. Reminds me a bit of the man we're talking about.
@@abdiver12 .Is Ash Barty the player who retired from a recent match in tears because she said she felt sick?
Laughing at the fact that Jimmy had to beat John Lloyd in the first round. IYKYK
oops I thought it was Wimbledon 81 sf
Bjorn BORG : The greatest tennis player of all time. The noise of planes and spectators are not the only problem. At mealtimes, hamburger and fried chicken flavors invade the stands. "When you play, people are leaning on the balustrades, pulling out sandwiches and chips can fall on the court". There are only Americans to play in these conditions.
Bjorn Borg is NOT the greatest player of all times (although could be for a while all until Federer at least if not for this stupid "burnout", that killed his motivation! But whatever...i am not going to step into this "woulda-coulda-shoulda" purely hypothetical territory!) Now as it currently stands he isn't even top-5! Those would be Federer, Laver, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras! And yes - it goes beyond them just winning more GS title, than he did (in Laver's case he won 8 Pro Slams as well back in 60's on top of his 6 amateur slams and 5 open era slams, both which as we know include callendar year grand slam achievements!) In Sampras' case he finished the year as world number one record 6 times (the feat that is now as of 2019 repeated by Djokovic! And it looks like it has great chance to be finally bested!), Borg on another hand despite his dominance at both RG and Wimbledon had hard time keeping up with Connors in terms of rankings and even though he did eventually stolen top spot number of times it is nowhere nearly as much as Connors been ranked as #1 player in the world! If you claim to be the best player of all times, you have to be ranked world number one more than anyone else in history in combination of having won more slams than anyone else as well! (This is why for a long while i ranked Sampras higher than Nadal, until Nadal broke his slam record back in 2017! And also why i rank now Djokovic higher than him as well in 2019!)
What is Borg's place in history of tennis?! Easy! 6th place! Right after the aforementioned gentlemen!
My ATG top-10 ranking all-time:
1.Federer
2.Laver
3.Djokovic
4.Nadal
5.Sampras
6.Borg
7.Rosewall
8.Gonsalez (Pancho off course!)
9.Budge
10.Tilden
The last four are because of their Pro Slam records for the most part!
Open Era Only:
1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Nadal
4.Sampras
5.Borg
6.Lendl
7.Connors
8.Agassi
9.McEnroe
10.Laver
Honorable mentions: Wilander, Becker, Edberg and Newcombe
@ Summon256. First, Federer is not the GOAT male tennis player! I have pointed out in many other comments on tennis videoclips on CZcams the numerous underlying reasons why Federer's achievements in his pro tennis career are grossly inflated. One of the many reasons is that Federer during his dominant years from 2003--2008 on the men's pro tennis tour faced exceeding few serve-and-volley players and no great serve-and-volley players at all! As Boris Becker remarked to Federer at Wimbledon just before the start of that tournament during one of Federer's dominant years (after Federer responded to Becker's question asking Federer how he planned to play Wimbledon that year), when Federer said that he would play the first week of the tournament from the baseline and then come into the net the second week of the tournament, "That's a nice luxury to have!". Boris was absolutely right that it is a helluva nice luxury to be able to pick and choose your moments when you feel like coming into the net at Wimbledon because none of your opponents are serve-and-volleying to put enormous pressure on you to get to the net before they do! Second, it is an absurdity of Olympian proportions to consider even for a moment that Nadal is a greater player than Sampras. The reality is that Nadal is a clay court, baseline defending, retrieving specialist as the enormous disproportion of his French Open titles to his other major titles clearly proves! Sampras , in contrast, was an excellent serve-and-volley player who possessed a solid baseline game and the greatest running cross court forehand in the graphite era of tennis! Although it is true that Sampras' French Open record is absolutely abysmal for such a great player, there is nonetheless no question whatsoever that Sampras was a more talented and better player than Nadal! Knowledgeable tennis fans and experts would never rank Nadal ahead of Sampras on the all-time great list! Third, to rank John McEnroe as "only" the 9th greatest player of the Open Era in tennis history is laughable! Although McEnroe should have won more major singles titles during his career when one considers his enormous talent, at his absolute peak in 1984, McEnroe was without question the greatest male player of the graphite era! Fourth, Borg was not and is not a greater player than Don Budge and Bill Tilden. Tilden and Budge possessed complete games (although they were both primarily baseline players who would get to the net by creating an opportunity to shorten points by moving into the net) whereas Borg's volleying was only adequate at best!
I don’t know who is the greatest of all time but if they had a tournament with all the top 16 who ever played then my money would always be on Borg to come out on top
@@Summon256 No, if you can't win Wimbledon (Lendl), you're not ranked above Connors and McEnroe, who both won multiple times and more US Open titles. No excuses for Lendl because grass was his weakness.
Connors was #4 here, Borg was #2, Lendl was #3.
McEnroe was #1.
True, but how strange the rankings were that year. Connors was nearly untouchable, and undefeated all summer, and only up to number 4. The rankings were much more heavily weighted to the Majors in those days. Connors did not play well at Wimbledon or Paris.
@@Arturo-sm1tb That's right, but he did play well in the Wimbledon SF against Borg, even though he lost. Here Borg won easily.
Nobody ever solved, all the speculation about why Borg walked away at his physical peak where he Easily had 5 more years in his Prime- yes I know some say McEnroe demoralized Borg in 1981- but I don't really buy that. I think Borg was more personally lost, plus I think he started having Marriage problems in early 80's, which will shut down the best of them. He got divorced only a few years later.
Physically Bjorn was fine. All mental. The purest example of burnout in pro tennis history. He was literally done after that weekend in Queens, after acting like a trained robot for a couple decades with Lennart. The Mac final in 1981 was simply a bizarre set of circumstances that made Bjorn finally snap. The end could have happened a year later if circumstances were different. But NYC and Bjorn was never a great combination for whatever reason. Too much stuff swirling around in NYC for the quiet Swede.
he didn't walk away.he was taking a planned 6 month break,and planned to rejoin the tour.the ATP screwed him by forcing him to play a minimum number of tournaments or qualify for them(even Wimbledon that he'd won 5 times).it was then that he decided not to play the official events again.
@@tomloft2000 Sorry Tom- Bjorn himself, and those around him, said the Mac match changed everything for him in his mind. Of course he was planning a break, but yes he did snap after that weird weekend, and the ATP thing was icing on the cake.
Borg's style of play took a lot out of him mentally and physically and required more practice than other players. By 1983 he just wasn't prepared anymore to put in 5 hours a day of practice when he wasn't playing a tournament and when an athlete at the highest level takes a year off they lose that small edge that kept them at the top. The same thing happened to Jim Ryun the miler - he was burnt out in 1969 and when he made his comeback he was never the same.
one of the very few times Borg got over on Connors at the US Open
The 1981 U.S. Open semifinal match between Connors and Borg was the only match out of the 4 times they played against each other at the U.S. Open that Borg defeated Connors. Although Borg would have probably defeated Connors in the 1978 U.S. Open final had he not been severely hampered by the deep thumb blister that he developed in his semifinal match win over Gerulaitus.
@@michaelbarlow6610 just like Connors probably would have won W 77 if he not had a severly bruised thumb in that final!
@ Matthew Harris. First , Connors left thumb was not "severely bruised" as you mischaracterize it. It was a fractured thumb! Second, as I stated in another comment on CZcams, Connors was able to play very well despite his fractured thumb in the '77 Wimbledon Men's Singles Final whereas Borg could not play effectively at all in the 1978 U.S. Open Men's Singles Final because of the major difference in the style of which they hit their forehands! When Connors hit a forehand , the racket handle would press forward against all his fingers of his left hand not upward against his fractured thumb, whereas when Borg hit a forehand , the racket handle would press upwards against his deeply-blistered right thumb which is why Borg experienced much more pain when hitting a forehand in the '78 U.S. Open Final than Connors experienced when hitting a forehand in the '77 Wimbledon Final! The 2 different forehand swing techniques made all the difference in the world in how effectively they were able to play in those 2 major finals!
@ Matthew Harris. I must point out that at no time in Connors' '77 Wimbledon Final against Borg did Connors' racket fly out of his hand because of any pain he was experiencing in his left thumb, whereas at least twice during Borg's match against Connors in the 1978 U.S. Open Men's Singles Final the racket flew out of Borg's hand because of the severe pain he was experiencing during that match from his deeply-blistered right thumb.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Borg racket flew out of this hand in ´80 Wimbledon Final.
1:29:27 - fine point.
Xd les commentateurs qui pensent mieux voir que les juges de ligne si la balle est faute alors qu'on arrive à peine à suivre les échanges.
Borg a très bien joué ce jour la mais connors a ete victime de grosses fautes d’arbitrage sui lui ont coute le set2. CONNORS a attendu 1982 pour améliorer son service.
M
Grande,
1:45:07 - La balle était bonne.
Connors sporting his ridiculous chili bowl haircut.
Hejbjörn way this firstagilites
Why do they speak in such a funny way. You dont understand one singel Word.
Ha ha. It didn't take Connors 2 games to start acting like an a*s.
Chuck Smith - Connors wasn't just acting like an ass; he truly WAS an ass way down deep inside. What kind of person shows up at his ex-fiancée's grand slam semi-final with a new woman in tow? What kind of person publishes in a biography that his ex-fiancée had an abortion without having discussed it with her first? Once a dick always a dick
@@pjesf Mostly true about Jimmy. Just ask Mac.. LOL. Connors was really a sad sack of a man. A skinny coward who faked a tough guy persona to intimidate lesser opponents. Low rent all the way. At least in this 1981 match he took his bludgeoning and went home with his tail between his legs.
@@Arturo-sm1tb : "Sad sack of a man" says it all
Jimmy Connors seems to display a lot of traits of a narcissist.
Borg's finally found an opponent that he couldn't beat when he found cocaine.....
Borg won rather easily, which is impressive since he must have been quite dejected after losing to McEnroe at Wimbledon.