Four more years have gone by and Borg has only become more dominant. It's June 1980, he’s in the middle of a 20-week run at No. 1, and he’s going after his fifth French Open against Vitas Gerulaitis, a close friend and a guy who would never beat him. I’m sure you know the American’s quote, “Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row,” which he said after finally conquering Jimmy Connors. Maybe not, but another guy, Bjorn Borg, did beat him 16 times in row (and maybe more, depending on how the records are kept).
Here are some thoughts on Borg’s 6-4, 6-1, 6-2 demolition of Gerulaitis, and the subsequent interview and awards ceremony that are also shown in this clip.
—I don’t know how the match as a whole went, but these highlights make it look like the most grueling 4, 1, and 2 in history. So many different shots—forehand drops, backhand chip lobs, passes and approaches to each corner—from so many places on the court. Clay-court tennis is often thought to encourage a one-dimensional baseline game, but it’s not necessarily the case—it may even do the opposite. Borg, like Nadal today, shows how skilled he was at the cat-and-mouse game around the net, which is a big part of winning on dirt. He slides forward well, gets to the ball in time to use his touch, makes up for his awkward volleys by angling them sharply, and is agile enough to get back for pretty much any overhead.
—Love the Borg backhand, but does he come up out of it just a little early, straightening his front leg and losing some power? If so, he makes up for it by keeping his head down on the ball all the way through—very Federer-esque. Borg’s forehand looks perfectly measured on clay, great shoulder turn, head on the ball, rolling it just inside the baseline a hundred times in a row.
—For Gerulaitis, the drop shot seemed to be not a change of pace, but the only option available. What else was he going to do? I like the Gerulaitis game, which was darting and opportunistic at its best, but he’s not getting any opportunities here. The modern viewer must wonder how a guy with those short, chippy strokes ever reached the final at Roland Garros and won the Italian Open. I’m wondering myself.
—Borg's feet barely seem to come off the ground at times.
—Is that a yelp we hear from Borg after match point? I don’t think I ever heard that from him.
—Funny that he says winning a fifth French Open was “very important” to him. Must be nice to have that as a major life concern.
—Funny again that Borg says his one goal—now that, as the French interviewer informs him, he has “everything”—is to win Roland Garros one more time. Did he know he was going to call it quits within two years? Or was he just keeping his public goals modest? He certainly seems confident it's going to happen.
—The Roland Garros trophy has changed, obviously. I like the current one.
—Sounds like one of the people presenting the trophy is Henri Cochet. Very cool.
—After watching the clips at Wimbledon, it’s interesting to see Borg back in his element. As impressive as it was to watch him leave his comfort zone to dominate on grass, it’s mind-boggling to see how fully he had mastered the clay game. This was the last time anyone won the French without dropping a set until Nadal this year. But Borg is right in his post-match interview. He won by easy scores, but you can see from these points that it was still a grueling job. To be able to wear down other guys, to stay with them and then make one more shot, to show that kind of concentration and physical prowess six times in eight years is one of tennis’ great achievements.
The fact that we can mention Rafael Nadal’s name in the same breath as Borg’s on clay seems unbelievable after watching this. But we can. Click below for the proof, and for a comparison of dirtball 1980 and 2008. Clay tennis is faster and more explosive now, but it could never be any more demanding than it was in Borg’s day. By ’80, judging from Gerulaitis’ tactics and reaction at the end, it wasn’t just that no one could beat Borg on clay. I don’t think anyone even believed it was possible, or had the slightest idea how to begin. That’s dominance.
On Monday: The inevitable but still stunning fall of Bjorn Borg.
I firmly believe that clay-court (and green composition) tennis encourages and rewards great tactics and a complete repertoire of shots. The more you bring to the table, the better your chances, including stamina and speed, but mostly shot placement and variance of spin, pace and depth. It's truly the tennis player's surface, IMO.
Having said that, I love the grass-courts of Wimbledon. And not just for the aesthetics, as the orange clay of Roland Garros is a beautiful sight. But the grass demands a very different sort of athleticism (agility and balance over sheer speed), shot-making and mental approach.
What strikes me in this video clip is how Gerulaitis seemed content to stay back with Borg, employing the tactic of moving the ball around to try to draw an error from his long-time friend and rival. Obviously, there was no way Gerulaitis would out-steady Borg, so one must wonder whether Vitas had ever seriously devised a game plan that had a prayer of working. Of course, coming in was also suicide, unless your name was John McEnroe. I think it would have been better to draw Borg into the net and also to take his first mid-court loop and drill it into the corners or directly down the middle at his feet.
Must have felt like an impossible task to win a single game against Borg on the red dirt, let alone an entire match.
Posted by omar
12/05/2008 @ 12:09 PM
Borg's comment about only wanting to win "one" more French Open is odd, considering he was only 23 at the time. Can you imagine a 23 year old Sampras or Federer saying they only want to win Wimbeldon "one more time"? Or Nadal at next years French when he turns 23 making that same statement.
I think this provides another clue that mentally Borg already had an early retirement in the back of his mind. All he was waiting for was the right opportunity to quit, and he got it in 81 when he lost to McEnroe and fell to No. 2...Which is why IMO subconsciously Borg WANTED to lose to Mac in 81, cause there's no way you can quit if you've won 6 Wimbledons in a row and are still ranked No. 1. Guess we'll never know for sure, but speculating is all the fun.
Posted by twist serve
12/05/2008 @ 12:34 PM
"The modern viewer must wonder how a guy with those short, chippy strokes ever reached the final at Roland Garros and won the Italian Open."
I think it shows how difficult it was to put the ball away with those tiny racquets, so a guy like Vitas G. was able to stay in rallies even with people like Borg and Connors.
Posted by twist serve
12/05/2008 @ 12:56 PM
Speaking of those old wooden racquets, anybody care to guess what would happen if Nadal and Federer were dropped back into 1980 and played the French Open most likely with wooden racquets? Since Nadal is used to playing with a 100 square inch racquet, I think his level of play would fall more.
The change in racquets makes these comparisons almost impossible. Exactly what was the head size of a typical wooden racquet anyway?
twist serve, the average head size of a wooden Wilson, Bancroft, Tad Davis, Slazenger, Spaulding or Donnay racquet back in the day was 65 sq.in.
I've actually played against some Europeans who had racquets with even smaller heads -- probably in the mid- to upper-50s. Ridiculous.
Posted by Kenneth
12/05/2008 @ 1:44 PM
Sweet, sweet, sweet.
I'm cosigning Slice's idea that clay is the ultimate player's surface, and to master it requires much more tennis acumen than is given credit. That McEnroe, whom to my limited historical opinion was the best at touch tennis (just watch the guy NOW, in the Outback series for a sample of his incredible feel) failed to win a Roland Garros title is all the evidence I need for that presumption.
And have any two champions, worlds apart as Borg and Nadal are, ever resembled so closely? You would think Borg actually coached Nadal (or perhaps Uncle Toni is a bigger Borg fan than he reveals). Steve, in your last paragraph you say "...it wasn’t just that no one could beat Borg on clay. I don’t think anyone even believed it was possible, or had the slightest idea how to begin. That’s dominance." After the total domination Nadal evinced at RG this year, that is true of him as well on the clay. The question is, will Nadal have as equally a successful stay at Wimbledon as his formidable predecessor?
By watching the clip it is not hard to realize the clay games is much faster today as the top players actually are looking to end the point rather than wait for their opponents to miss.
"...it wasn’t just that no one could beat Borg on clay. I don’t think anyone even believed it was possible, or had the slightest idea how to begin."
Except for one guy: Adriano Panatta. In one of those spells of undefeated greatness Borg went 95-3 on clay, he lost once by default and twice to the Italian. I very much doubt it was the kind of "second mistake" Simon was talking about when he was addressing the fact that he beat Federer for the second time this year at the RR stage in Shanghai.
As someone mentioned before, if you have to hit a 3rd and 4th volley against a clay court master such as Borg, you are doomed. In my mind someone like McEnroe would have put more than half of those 1st and 2nd chances away rather easier.
Also, in my honest opinion I think Nadal and Federer both would have gotten the best of Borg anytime on any surface. These guys are just too adept at going for the lines with reckless abandon. They hit with more depth and pace and their passing shots are as acurate as they have ever been; plus I don't think there has ever been a weapon as fearsome as Nadal's forehand when it comes down to playing on clay.
Posted by twist serve
12/05/2008 @ 2:45 PM
SwissMaestro:
The size of today's racquets make it worth it to go for the lines with reckless abandon. We have to keep in mind that Nadal is playing with a 100 square inch composite racquet; Borg played with a 65 square inch piece of wood. Gigantic difference.
Alright, I'll give you that, but what about the fact that more sting could have been put in Borg's strokes? a flattened out inside-out forehand maybe?? It does not have to hit the line to make it look like he would have been going for a winner instead of just keeping the ball in play, don't you think?
I would only caution you to be careful in evaluating how our top players today (Nadal and Federer, and others) would fare against Borg (or Lendl, McEnroe and others) o their best surfaces, because the wooden racquets severely limited the degree of combined power and accuracy that today's players enjoy.
Just last evening I was working out with a guy who had played at Duke in the early 80s, just a year or two after I played in college, and we were both commenting on the tremendous amount of pace we were able to generate from the baseline, with balls routinely landing deep in the court and exploding up into the backdrops. This kind of thing was rarely experienced in the good old days of wooden racquets. Also, when my sparring partner charged the net behind a good shot to the corner, I routinely passed him -- either straight up the line or sharply cross-court -- something too that seemed counter-intuitive and that happened very rarely in those days of wood.
Borg was a physical specimen in much the way Nadal is today, and McEnroe had the kind of balance and graceful, quick movements and deft control that Federer displays today. It was really when Lendl arrived, with his heavy graphite stick and his training regimen, that the game began to speed up significantly from the baseline. But really none of this would have come about without the advents in racquet and string technology.
The other day, I caught a bit of Ashe v. Orantes on the composition at Forest Hills on The Tennis Channel, and I was shocked at how softly they both were hitting their groundstrokes and especially their second serves. The average 5.0 playerof today would run around those weak second deliveries and clock winner after winner. It's almost all in the racquet material, because Orantes stuck the ball much the way Nadal does, though lower in the strike zone and with less ferocity.
And there's the rub: in order to generate the pace we experience today, one neds to take a ferocious swipe a the ball, the racquet head accelerating through the contact point and beyond, never slowing down. If you did that with a wooden frame, unless you hit the ball perfectly in the sweet spot with perfect form and balance, the ball would sail 8 ft. out or more. Hence, almost all players decelerated their racquet heads shortly after making contact with the ball. Even players like Navratilova employed that old-school stroke mechanic. Today's racquets and strings allow us to play with much more physical abandon. And we are rewarded by seeing the ball land in!
I'm convinced that if a player like Tom Gorman was using his old wooden stick and I was able to use my braided-graphite composite with my multifilament synthetic gut strings, I'd give him a run for his money. And obviously, I am not nearly the player he was.
sm: true about panatta, but not after, what, 1976? by '81 borg was as invincible in paris as any player has ever been anywhere. it's crazy that nadal has matched that over the last four years.
Posted by Syd
12/05/2008 @ 3:30 PM
Steve,
Thank for this very interesting column, and he clip.
As someone who knows less than little about the technical aspects of tennis!—but love to spectate nevertheless, I am in complete agreement: ""The modern viewer must wonder how a guy with those short, chippy strokes ever reached the final at Roland Garros and won the Italian Open."
In comparison with what I'm seeing today, Borg and Gerulaitis seem to be 'tapping' the ball. The former seemed very undecided in his drop shots—which Borg got to easily.
It's a pleasure to come to this side of the thread and read the comments of the guys who really know what they're talking about. One can actually learn something here. Thanks.
Posted by Kenneth
12/05/2008 @ 3:53 PM
SM,
Looks are deceiving when comparing racquets, but sounds are not. The very satisfying 'thumps' both men in this clip get from their racquets should tell you a little about how hard they're actually swinging. From my experiences with older racquets, and I own a few, is that I'm able to swing really, really hard but the transfer of energy is limited and pretty constant due to the racquet's composite makeup; the 'deadwood' squelches any forward momentum. So I'm guessing here that the pros back then knew that it was a waste of energy up to a point in their swing, and so conserved. Borg's take-back on both sides are equivalent to any current pro, but it's the follow through that differs and allows for fantastic inside-out bhs and fhs.
Ok, the technology/material of the modern racquets has enhanced the game, increased its speed and power and sharpened its accuracy and still today is hard as hell to put a ball past Federer or Nadal so compared to what a guy moved like based on the speed/power/accuracy the old wooden racquets provided these 2 guys are a couple of notches ahead... Yes, Borg had the stamina of a dingo but I'm pretty sure he would have been able to do a lot less with the kind of game the modern racquet are capable of cotributing with.
Steve - Nadal being able to replicate what Borg did today just gives more credit for what I tried to point out. I just simply think that an athlete that can deal with today's game would have been more than capable of dealing with the kind of game that was played 30 years ago.
Again, it could all be part of a revolution/evolution of the sport.
Posted by NP
12/05/2008 @ 4:12 PM
Slice-n-Dice, props to you for that perspective and analysis. Like many other young tennis fans today, I've never swung a wooden racquet in my life, so it's instructive for us to be reminded of the vast advantages offered by modern racquet technology. Hopefully more folks will stop and think about this important point before shouting, "Federer and Nadal would've owned Borg and McEnroe! Just look at the clips!"
A crucial, but easily forgotten detail in any discussion about How They Played Then versus How They Play Now is that they were using pressureless balls: Dunlops, Slazengers, Tretorns or, heaven forbid, Pirellis. Jeez, talk about lead. You could have used a Babolat Titanium Helium Powered Magna Flux and the balls still wouldn't have gone anywhere.
So Kennth's comment above about how everyone recognized the limitations of the racquets, and balls, and played accordingly, is very much to the point, I think. Even if you could have swung at the ball like you do today, with yesterday's equipment, and kept the ball in the court, your arm would have fallen off after your first 5 set match.
Not a pretty picture, but accurate.
Posted by Markic
12/05/2008 @ 5:05 PM
Steve, thanks so much for putting together this amazing series - it's like the distance learning course I always dreamed of! I think the new trophy is much, much nicer. What was so special about the matchup with Panatta that ennabled him to beat Borg? Was he just fearless net-rushing?
