Submitted by troy blake, Jul 8, 2007 03:30

to me bjorn borg was a player that reacted very well to situations on the court.......he is in the same style as say bruce lee's jeet kune do.......react to things....do not have a fixed plan....be free to do what has to be done. i think bjorn had better grass court players to overcome than federer...that's my opinion. federer is beatable, but watch what most players do to him....the hit in straight lines to him....they should hit in curves thru the side of the court......like nadal can do. i think the new raquets allow more consistency of pure stroke making......but if roger had to play with wood, well it may be a lot different. to me , i don't see the great contemparies around rodger as i did around bjorn....and i do not see the players that can change their game as players did with borg.......my opinion only.....to my eyes at least, roger is made to look better than maybe he is cos of the fact that the standard of depth( and i mean real depth....which means tennis brains and not how hard you can hit a ball with modern raquets)...is not that great. so you have to ask yourself this question....where is federers connors and mcenroe?......nadal can be the player to push roger on the right surfaces and i predict may well win wimbledon this year(2007).....as i look at the top 100 match streaks of the best players.....borg has the best of all and he did not bother to play the aussie open , so that means he had that hurdle to overcome in his tally of grand slams........he was very unlucky in 1980 not to win the us open ........he was under done bu injury in the canadian open, where he was leading lendl and should have won it....but he had to retire.......now to the us open where he had not been able to practice very much....he had mac in the first set and should have won it in 4 sets. then we go to 1981.....where he won the french but looked sluggish at wimbledon...the zest was gone(as he admitted later that it had).....he was leading 4 games to 1 in the fourth set at wimbledon .....but you could see him just sbout give up.....it was not that important(he stated so much years later)......he just did not care that much in 1981.....his love of the game was gone and once that drive goes, then thats the time to stop...he should have won wimbledon in 1981....but i can see why he did not....simple...........i checked his schedule for early 1981.....and to my shock he had played so few tournaments....that he gifted mac the titles that borg a year earlier would never have...he was so rusty and mac had played a lot more.....take a look for yourself to see that he was not putting his all into it after his marriage in 1980. to me borg at his best and with the right amount of playing and being injury free.....should have taken the 1980 canadian open.....taken the us open in 4 sets and then had a crack at the aussie open for the slam......he should have won the wimbledon final of 1981 (he states that it was the won he should have won the most easily)....he just ran out of steam and mac got lucky.....if borg had won the 1980 us and aussie opens and the 1981 wimbledon , he would have been sitting on 14 well b4 sampras did at 30/ 31 yrs old.....borg would have been 25........but he did not.......and i can see why not....he had the ability to do so, but not the will..........i mean mac did give up his title to connors in 1982(i believe he lost both the us open and wimbledon that year and borg was kicking connors arse in those days)........ now i agree federer is up in the top 5, but is he the best ...well laver was robbed of at least trying to gather more titles in his best years ....so it is hard to tell. borg could have been the greatest and should have been, he needed another 5 yrs to prove it.....but year for year at the age of 25 he already had a third more titles than federer....that says something to me, bjorn borg lost in 1981 slams he should have won becos he hardly played and mac did........not becos of ability

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.