Pat Cash meets tennis legend Björn Borg in his home country for a rare interview about his classic moments and the current state of tennis. Part 1 of 2.
If he played to his 30s no doubt hes gonna win 20 GS by then at least. But the think with Borg and Laver is that at their prime there was no one near their level.. ironically that's why Bjorg got burn out and retired, there was no challenge really. Just imagine how many GS Sampras wouldve won without Agassi there.. imagine how many Fed wouldve won without Nadal or how many Nadal wouldve won without Djokovic there
Him and Andre Agassi... I am reading his autobiography at moment... Iranian father (big bully) & American mother (gentle soul)... He always was a thorough gentleman on and off court... married another tennis gem - Steffi Graf... all great peeps...
There's not much that compares with Borg v Macenroe at Wimbledon. Maybe Federer v Djok or Federer v Nadal. They're on a par, but not higher. Good times in tennis the early eighties.
No he cant. He coudnt adapt to the game. Everyone of the view that Borg era is over by the time he was defeated by Mc Enroe. People are unncecessarily imagining that Borg could have 20 or more slams by looking at todays Big 3 success. Borg won Wimbledon at 17. And he payed till 32 and h could only win 7. He had great serve. Over all his game is no less than any great player. Still he coudnt even reach 10. The era was toughest. And the times were changing. From wooden raquet to metal raquet. Apart from that he was only winning French Open and Wimbledon till then. He appeared in 4 US Open finals and lost everytime. Anyone from big 3 today would have won atleast one of those 4 finals if they were there in Borg place. Its like he has to play another 5 years continuously at Wimbledon and French Open. That is highly unlikely. Even greatest grass player like Federer could only win 3 Wimbledons after turning 26-2009, 2012 and 2017. Just see the gap. Those days 5 years was too long. Borg won his last FO final against Lendl. That was a 5 set matcg. But next year after Borg retirement the champion is 17/18 year old Wilander. Next year Lendl. Those days competition was tough than toady. Today Big 3 has so much variation. Those days there was no much variation from players. May be Borg could have won one or more FOs. Not more than that
@Blood Taker Your comments are so bizarre that I guess you're very unhappy with your penis. No sense of respect, a jumping envy from a hidebound nonperson. Just one more hater behind a screen.
4 years Wimbledon and French opens back to back on really slow clay and fast grass. Incredible feat that has only been achieved twice by Nadal and once by Federer. What is overlooked is how good his first serve was and how tough he was. 4 Us open finals. One of the greatest ever, period.
Two great players here. I remember watching Pat Cash on a Monday morning win the Wimbledon Junior event - he was exceptionally talented and powerful. Bjorn Borg was an incredible player who left the game way too young. It was his bad luck that new rackets came along that he couldn't adjust to.
Doctor Garbonzo I was a very big Bjorg fan as a youngster. Bjorg is still class. Yes, he never played Australia as well. The players have him up there with lever. I have him higher. Bjorg put tennis on the map in the 1970s. Roger is doing the same today.
@ Blood Taker maybe he was a bit of a hippie, and I think that you’re right about him not handling the pressure. I *think* that he talked about that at the time. But a myth? No, not at all.
Of course Federer is the greatest, it should go without saying. Borg himself was magnificent, a pity he retired young but he had his reasons, had lost some enthusiasm and intensity. His dominance at the French Open and 5 consecutive wins on fast grass at Wimbledon was a tremendous feat no-ne has come close to. He also had a great record in the Davis Cup.
Phil Coates yes and no. Nadal had this amount of injuries due to his style of playing and the surface of his choice to do that. Federer never wanted to adjust to that grueling style of playing, that's why he had fewer injuries, but also why he lost a lot during the period when all players started to play like Nadal or Djokovic and they slowed down grass to make it more spectacular.
@@mizofan ofc its not. Federer wasnt the best in era of the best ones. So how can he be called the best ever. 2004-2006 teenager Rafa won 6 out of seven matches. He is not the Goat.
@ Yves M. Just because Borg thinks that Federer is the GOAT male tennis player doesn't make it so! It is just Borg's opinion--nothing more, nothing less. Borg sadly fails to understand that there is no greatest of all-time player in any sport because of changes over time in technology, knowledge of food and nutrition , changes in training methods, etc. You can't make any valid comparison between the wood era in tennis history to the graphite era. The advances in racket technology and string technology have irrefutably cheapened the game of tennis making the graphite era players only appear to be greater than their wood era counterparts. Real tennis is wood racket tennis not the tennis played with graphite equipment!
Indeed. Federer's ability to play consistently at 60-70%, and still win against the majority of the tour, is what allows him to keep his energy reserves high for those clutch moments in the finals. When Fed hits 100% peaks during a match, there's no player in history that can/could cope with that.
Remember that Borg said that in 2016. Since then, Federer has won 3 more Slams, beaten Nadal 5 times in a row and counting, won one, if not the best Grand Slam final 5th set ever played (OA 2017), became the oldest ever to reach #1, gathered his 100th title...
in his time, there was NO ONE like him...all these years later, I have two very specific memories about him , that speak to how great he was. 1) He was the ONLY player, on clay, that made Guillermo "The Hulk" Vilas, look like a junior player..and Im thinking about that French Open final, where he just took Vilas apart. "Willy" was a monster on clay, during his day..and even guys that competed well against him, HATED playing him. and 2) Borg's speed, was the most vital aspect to how awesome he was. People always talk about the two hander and the big topspin forehand..but those shots were executed by a guy who was so fast, it looked like he was levitating on air. He was an incredible tennis player...a god, really.
11 majors before 26 - it was an era of very unorthodox players, Borg being one of the most unorthodox, along with Macenroe, Connors, Nastase, and later Mercier, and plenty of others. Before racquet technology took over and they all played with wooden racquets, it was artistry that didn't return until Federer.
@ Fuz Capp I think that you’re right. And I don’t believe that technology is necessarily good for the game, either. It doesn’t show the talents of the player; it shows the technology, and to my mind, that isn’t what sport is, or should be, about.
he came back approx 8 yrs later at ar 34 yrs old to try again on singles circuit....still with wooden racket in hand...unfortunately it was short lived as the game had moved on alot.
Bjorn is the king but he could still be wrong. What defies GOAT or Best ever ? I keep asking this question on YT to Djokovic fans who have been carrying and raving on like he's the best ever but I can't see any skill in his game whatsover. He is a essentially reactive and defensive player and has mental toughness so OK in that sense alone, he's the best competitor with the number one attitude. But to me it is tennis players who play with more initiative and can take and hit their groundtrokes earlier that are the best ones to watch. Sadly this WEAK era in tennis lacks attacking players and as such variety in this sport because of the slowing down of tennis courts and the balls they use these days. It is also unfortunate that for the past 10-12 years, a lot of promising players have not for one reason or another, been able to reach their potential - Grigor Dimitrov , Richard Gasquet,, maybe Milos Raonic.
tenniscollector oh my lol,the reason i said feds the best ever is because its true,he has won more than any other player ever,plus he makes it look so easy..
and because you are one-eyed Roger fan (nothing wrong with that honey) LOL. But in my earlier post, I am generalizing. 10 seasons ago - the Roger Federer era, there was signs even then that a group of players with potential to be a champion and winning big time, were not reaching it. I think that's very bad for the sport. Today's tennis has lost the chain factor - the chain were a champion is followed by another champion. That's why I call this Djokovic domination era, a truly WEAK one.
He won more than any other player? Win what? Trophies? Ivan Lendl has 94 and Connors has 109. Money? Djokovic has more. ATP 1000 titles? Djokovic is the leader there. The only thing he has won more than the rest is the grand slam count. Be more specific when you make those statements. PS: I am a huge Federer fan.
No, he was great but he retired too young for top spot, his overall achievement falling short. A pity because he was magnificent, winning on fast grass of Wimbledon as well as clay of Paris
I watched Borg play and I watched Federer play. Federer is the Viceroy for sure, the Gentleman of tennis, the Thor, if you wish... but there's only one Odin and that's Borg.
Bjorn's statement about not taking up coaching roles reveals how mentally exhausting a Physical game can be.a lot of legends have their mental burden exceptionally higher than the Physical work load because of the amount of thought process that goes into every match.if it can happen to an ice cool player like Bjorn it can happen with any one .kudos to these athletes for how they manage mental stress of such magnitude.
Greatest ever. No-one commanded our attention to the nail-biting, often long, drawn out games as he did. Only comparison in my mind is: Bobby Fisher did for chess what Bjorn did for Wimbledon and tennis. No-one returned a serve like him. He never gave up, no matter how dire the game situation was.
If you check the "goat list" at tennis-strangeforest, that balances all the big tournaments, weeks at N°1, finals, semifinals and QF played, and other achievements, Roger is N°1, Nole is N°2, and Rafa is N°3. So, basically, we have the top-3 best players in the history of the sport playing one against the other. I feel really lucky to be able to witness something like this.
I don't know how to compare Bjorn Borg with the tenis. But he was the Muhammad Ali or Elvis Presley, maybe The Beatles, or they all together, when he was playing the tenis. BB is a living legend
If my grandfather had 3 balls, he was a pinball machine... Borg retired at the age of 26, this is a factor that plays against him, it can not be an excuse in the evaluation of his career.
Lorenzo Pasquini Ah, but to win 11 slams and not play Australia and actually retire at 25, not 26, as he never played a tour match after walking out of the US open in 1981. That says alot about him, about how much better he was compared to the rest. He could have played another 10 years and moved easily to the newer racquets. He would still kick Sampras's ass (on clay). They should hold a wooden racquet Wimbledon contest. That would be fun.
I'm watching the interview and waiiiit a minute, the interviewer is somewhat familiar and I go to the description... Pat Cash! Oh yeah, I remember him defeating Lendl at the Wimbledon final.
B.Borg-R.Federer-J.McEnroe-R.Lever-I.Lendl--J.Connors-P.Sampras these ones the real legend of tennis. The others Nadal-Djokovic-Agassi-Becker just simply king of tennis are. To be a Legend is all different story. Thx for video
***** This is still an opinion. I agree that the Big Four era (2008-2012) was tougher than 2004-2007 but Fed era was not weak. There are no weak eras at top level sport.
Lets face it Federer Djokovic and Falafel Nadal will still be spoken about in 100 years time. what an Honour !That is worth so much more than any pecuniary benefits they have accrued.
Agree 100% the best calm gentleman player ever, then we have Pat cash saying Federer should retire , Pat cash could only dream of ever being as good as federer
Borg wanted to come back to the tour in 1982 or 1983 after taking a break but didn’t want to then play qualifiers to get back into tournaments. How stupid were the tour then not to grant him a protected ranking?
Maybe not be 3-9 vs Nadal in slams and 5-9 vs Djokovic in slams? I still think he's the greatest, but if those records were a little better, there would be no question. Plus, Nadal and Djokovic have time to catch him... If he were 5-8 vs nadal in slams, that would be respectable, given 5 of those matches were on clay. If he were 7-7 vs. Djokovic, that would be very respectable, given many of those matches took place in his 30's and when Djokovic was in his prime (which he still is). Given Djokovic's excellent fitness, he still has a chance to meet, pass, or at least come close to Roger's record.
Head to head records don't mean very much in tennis. I can tell you from personal experience, you can be better than someone and lose to them consistently because your game matches up poorly against them. I'm obviously referring to Nadal here, and most of Novak's wins against Roger occurred when he was playing at his peak and Fed was on his way down. Also, neither Novak, nor Rafa will sniff 18 GS. Fed is an anomaly, seriously, I want to know if he is some kind of alien/human hybrid...ATP needs to test DNA while doing drug tests lol.
I agree with Joy, and Federer can compete with these guys even though he's in his mid 30's. His body seems to lost track of time and just goes about continuing to compete at top levels
Absolutely. I am 59 years old and have followed tennis since the late 1960's ! Bjorn was the coolest of all. A master in grass and clay - not just one, like Fed or Rafa. And mathematical models taking the quality of the competition etc into account have shown Borg to be the best in the Open era. And in 1982 after he retired from the slams, he had a great year beating Mac and the rest of them. Something people tend to forget. There were some murky $ factors afoot in 1982.
I don't know that Federer is the best player or not but for sure I know that he is my favourite player... the other things which I like about Federer is his resilience and ability to bounce back every time he goes down. if he loses the point, match or a championship, he always stays calm and composed, which I think not many other tennis players have been able to do so far... Not even Nadal though he is quite a good player as well so is Djocovic... Well, what Federer has achieved is just like what Sachin Tendulkar has in Cricket. Obviously the records are there to be broken and perhaps Federer's record will also be broken but I am sure its not happening in next ten years.....
Hard for Djokovic or Nadal to pass Federer style of play counts as well. Fed is probably the most talented bar the Championships he's won and is continuing to do at that. Thus in itself gives credence to that fact his consistency and game is probably the best of all time so far.
It's so hard comparing champions thru the generations, regardless of sport...anyway (I follow all sports) 'saw him in person playing Connors in an exhibition match in San Francisco. I wanna say '82 or '83, when Borg and the ITF were butting heads as to how many tournaments Borg was required to play ea season and still qualify for the 'slam-titles'...anyway I was struck by his appearance in person, not quite as tall in person (definitely not short though), lean and mean, and all shoulders and legs, it was rather extraordinary...his side profile reminded me of a greyhound, yet from behind he looked like a sleek fullback in American football. Even stranger was that Connors (quite fit as well) was roughly the same size yet his proportions we're different than the great Borg.
It was good...Special in fact. Not better though. Look at the number the 3 greatest today have won. Over double what McEnroe won. ....and he was special.
I love how the comments can generate some great debates. But at the end of it all we all know the truth - it shines through very clearly: Roger Federer is the greatest of all time.
Phil, Phil I will try to be objective and yes Nadal who I greatly admire has a far superior record head to head. Rafa plays like an unleashed animal with great effort, grunts and sweat flying all over the place. Roger floats over the court and makes movement look easy even last year with his knee injury. If you are looking at someone who "floats" over the court and makes it look easy then Roger is numero uno. He is the GOAT!! The world would be very boring if we all agreed with each other.
