Bjorn Borg v Ivan Lendl | You Say, We Play | Eurosport 

Here, here.

I think that US Open final was what really killed him. He felt that he was playing well and had a good chance to win, but McEnroe played better.

Why wouldn’t the atp let him continue?

1981 Borg played only 9 events. In 1982 their was a new rule where players had to commit to 10 events. Borg refused to sign it in September 81. He told McEnroe he was quitting. He played numerous exhibitions in 82 but only 2 ranking events .

@@markanderson8006 so they allowed him to play 2 ranking events but no more than that??

@@markanderson8006 no, he had to play something other than exhibitions or he would have to qualify for the majors. He thought he was above everyone

​@@willnill7946 No, ATP want him to play a certain number of tournaments and Borg refused it, he simply wanted calm down, but they didn't come to an agreement, so in 1983, Borg simply quit to play tennis. That exhibitions where only an "patch" for his sponsors, because nobody even thought, he wouldn't play tennis in 1982, so he has to fulfil, somehow his business commitments.

rackets got lighter and more powerful

Lendl then became the fittest on tour by the mid 80s. Anything he considered weak he went away and worked on. Borg had incredible stamina due to his hill running and intervals, Lendl was the first to combine stamina with strength and cross-training. By this point, Borg had sadly retired.

He was here....but it would not be long before a young hellion would beat him down, and worst of all expose him as a quitter who ran away when he knew he was longer #1. Bjorn to John in private "if you're not #1 you're nothing...."

@@datacipher Borg lost to mcenroe because he was tired & through with Tennis! He was tired of being a champion!

McEnroe was just the final straw. Borg was tiring of tennis long before that Wimbledon.

Borg was tired & he had some kind of burnout! He was also divorcing with his wife Marianna & he had problems with his coach..... just he wanted to have some break!

In più, c'è da dire che il primo Lendl andava soggetto a crolli fisici al quinto set...

Borg hits two hands on the backhand. Don't really understand what you are saying.

Really? It was only '86 to '89. That he was definitely #1. Mac ran him close in 1985 and Wilander in grand slams owned 1988.

@@jasonbrooks6562 Well, Lendl was entrenched in the top 4 by 1982, I think. He started winning lots of tournaments. You could even see from 1981 that he was going to be a force. He impressed me a lot in this 1981 French Open.

Yeah. With a wooden racquet and sheep gut strings made in a glorified shed. He'd absolutely slaughtered - like Roscoe Tanner was on clay.

Slow it may be in comparison to 21 century tennis but back then, Borg was king. We can scoff today and talk about how slow it was but it doesn't demean the accomplishments of these guys. People who know tennis will appreciate the place in history that these guys hold.

@@capricornmagic63 Of course, I totally agree, just seems strange by today standards, but it is like comparing, i don't know, Formula 1 racing of 50 years ago to today. Of course in both cases guys today profit from technological evolution (some more, some less) but also the technique and strategies change. It is interesting, in my opinion.

@Jim Magnet Man And managing to put so much topspin with that small wooden racquet, whereas players today have larger head synthetics and string designed to grab the ball to do it.

@Jim Magnet Man And regarding the racquet, he used the Donnay one painted black when he played in Europe, but the one he played with in the US had different cosmetics.

I think it would be worth mentioning that what we're seeing here is recorded using old tech, so lots of things look and seem slower, etc. I would guess it was a bit slower though, but how much...? I'm sure there may be some measurables that were recorded at the time. Here Borg strung his racquet at 80lbs., Lendl 72.5lbs. Lendl came on the scene known to have a big forehand, and that's what you see here on old tech. And I'm sure Roscoe Tanner would be a fairly big server today a he was probably the biggest server back then. Be careful what you see on old video...

Have you ever played with a wooden raquet?

This isn't the players fault, its simple racquet technology. Same reason serve and volley as a play style is virtually extinct these days. The clay looks boring though back in those days. Too slow for serve and volley like at wimbledon but the racquet technology means baseline shots aren't as powerful either

Have any of the big three changed the way tennis has been playing since Borg appeared? They are a copyright of Borg technique, the forehand of Federer is exactly the same to Borg forehand, the style of Rafa in RG is a copy of Borg.

simply racquet technology, are you aware of the surface changes since 2001? ATP only interest is money, the change on surfaces killed the serve and volley players, the sponsors request a 3 hours TV show wiht artificial gladiators, they need to sell shirts and Tennis shoes and they want icons to wear their products, it's happening in all sports and you can blame Borg for that @@benhesford175

Different era plus the games shifted. Clay is faster today and pays off to make opponent run.

Las raquetas eran mas pesadas y pequeñas y se nota

Por Dios lo que comparas una época en la que el tenis no ok estaba tan desarrollado co no o ahora, en esa comparacion estúpida nadal en esa época no hubiera podido jugar como el juega ponele lógica men la velocidad de juego, las bolas, las raquetas, la técnica era otra época men🤦

Paragone totalmente illogico ed infantile.

If Nadel had to play with a wood racquet, he wouldn’t even play college let alone pro tennis.

Se ve que nunca jugaste con una raqueta de madera.

This match was a year shy of 40 years ago. If fed , nadal and joka played with small wooden racquets theyd probably beat borg and lendl 6-2 . But borg and lendl would both absolutely destroy the 1970 french winner jan kodes 60 60 . The increase in performance over 11 years 70 to 81 is bigger than the increase in performance over 39 years 81 to 2020 , if you corrected for equipment, ie of fed joka and nadal had to use a small headed raquet

@@iang8169 Um, based on what would Borg and Lendl "destroy" Kodes? That's nonsense. Although Kodes is not among the greatest of French Open champions, that's largely due to the fact that some of the best players at the time skipped the event. For example, neither Rosewall nor Laver played there that year. But this doesn't take away from the fact that Kodes was an excellent player. Besides, are you suggesting that Rosewall and Laver weren't as good as Borg? Because that's absurd.

@@JD-jc8gp kodes beat nastase in the final who by then was the best clay courter in the world, better than laver 33 yrs old and rosewall 36yrs old on clay, so kodes was the legit winner . And let me clarify what i mean by using the sprinting analogy. Up until usain bolt , jessy owens was regarded as the best sprinter of all time . Justin gatlin wasnt even rated top 10 all time . But in a mythical head to head match up gatlin would have destroyed owens based on their best times , yet owens was the greatest of all time ( now regarded as second greatest after bolt ) . Now just my opinion , but the gap in absolute level of play beteen joko and nadal and 40 yrs back with borg and lendl is smaller than the gap in absolute level between borg and lendl in 81 and 10 yrs back with kodes, newc , stan smith etc ..

@@iang8169 No, no. This is completely wrong. Nastase is not even close to Laver's and Rosewall's level in 1970. The rest you write is also nonsense.

With wooden racquet neither Nadal or Djoko would beat Borg