To fill that off-season void for you junkies, I’m reviewing a You Tube tennis clip each day for the next two weeks. We’re starting—where else?—with a trip through the career of Bjorn Borg.
Today we rejoin Borg three years after we last saw him, with two videos from 1976. The first is a highlight reel taken from a German broadcast of his win over Roscoe Tanner in the Wimbledon semis; the second is a too-brief interlude from his loss to Jimmy Connors in the final at Forest Hills later that summer, one of the classic matches of the Open era.
Beware the You Tube highlight montage. It might lead you to believe that a player’s career consisted of nothing but glorious, improbable winners. And that’s true here with Borg: If this clip is an accurate indication, he was in absolute top form on this day. Maybe he was. ’Scoe and his sonic serve typically gave Borg trouble, but not this time; the Swede beat him 6-4, 9-8, 6-4. Here’s what stuck out to me while watching this elegant drubbing.
—Borg is noticeably fiercer as a 20-year-old than he was at 17. It was Bud Collins, I believe, who dubbed him the Angelic Assassin, and you can see why here. The soft boyishness is long gone, replaced by a champion’s purposeful strut. He had won the French Open in 1974 and ’75 and was now stalking his first Wimbledon title. In fact, with the beard, long hair, and serene self-possession, it’s hard to believe he’s just 20, the age of a college junior.
—I love the dissolves. It's like a silent movie.
—The legend is that Borg spent the short period between the French and Wimbledon in 1976 working on his serve, and in that brief time made it into a career-changing weapon. From what I remember, his coach, Lennart Bergelin, suggested that he change his stance slightly, and five straight Wimbledon titles followed—could it really have been that easy? He is serving brilliantly against Tanner, moving him off the court on the deuce side, setting himself up for volleys close to the net—the way he moves forward, Borg looks like a natural serve-and-volleyer—and even belting a howitzer-like ace down the middle.
—The first point is an eye-opener: Borg digs out a forehand volley as if he’s John Newcombe, then ranges back to crack a confident overhead into the corner. I seem to remember Borg’s overhead not being this good later in his career. Just speculating, but maybe his early retirement, at 26, shouldn’t have been that surprising. He seems to be at the peak of his powers at age 20. Incredible that he would rise even farther in 1978, when he began his run of three straight French-Wimbledon doubles. I wonder if, percentage-wise, Borg played the most winning points of any great champion. He packed a lot of victories into his nine years on tour.
—Borg may look like a natural serve-and-volleyer, but not quite a natural volleyer. He has a little, unneeded, upward flourish at the end of his punch.
—Tanner’s serve, like Goran’s later, was entertaining to watch in itself. The low toss must have made it virtually unreadable.
—Do they still use chalk at Wimbledon? Or a different type? You can see it fly—“chalk flew up!"—on a Tanner ace here. I don’t think it does that anymore.
—Borg’s racquet is a Donnay Pro, I believe. It's about halfway to the famous signature black-and-orange model he used later, and which I used as kid. Loved the all-black individual racquet covers that came with them. But this Donnay from ’76 looks just as cool.
—Like the southern-boy Tanner hair? He looks like he could have been the quarterback for Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide.
—Tanner had some touch, as you can see on a dink volley and a lob that he almost gets over Borg’s head. The Swede shows off real improvisatory athleticism to reach back and direct it crosscourt for a winner.
—Borg had to have the best passing shots in history. By the last games, he’s in full flight, putting the ball past Tanner every way possible. Check out the way he anticipates a Tanner second serve wide in the ad court, runs all the way around it to get a forehand, and rolls it nicely up the line for a winner. Remind you of anyone?
—Despite the poor quality of this clip, this is one I’ll go back to when I want to remember just how good Borg was at all parts of the sport, and at remaking his own game for grass.
Now we jump ahead a few months, to a very different atmosphere. This is the U.S. Open final, between native son Jimmy Connors and a less-sure-of-himself Borg. The old horseshoe stadium at Forest Hills has a more chaotic atmosphere; when the camera pans upward, it looks a mob has gathered to watch a killing in the coliseum. A mob of ladies in nice hats.
Thoughts:
—I wish it were longer. Is this match available anywhere else? It’s one of the first that I remember watching. The whole thing hinged on the third-set tiebreaker, which Connors won 11-9. I recall a very charged scene, where a ball boy informed the chair umpire that the players had to change sides a second time. Am I remembering that correctly?
—Borg is playing more passively. I can only assume he’s trying to use the sofball game that had become the accepted strategy against Connors, and which Ashe and Orantes had used the year before to beat him in two major finals. It doesn’t work this day, as you can see that Connors is on his game and hitting big. When you see a player jump back and put away an overhead the way Connors does here, you know he’s sharp.
—Love the Borg pass again. First the snap of the forehand that goes back to Connors, then a crosscourt backhand, then finally a beautiful backhand down the line winner. Show that to a young player if you want them to learn how to get down for a ball. Borg bends low but stays completely balanced.
—Like the little sliver of orange sun you can see at the top of the stands. Night is creeping in. Borg didn't like to play at night. Connors, of course, owned the New York night.
—Notice that neither guy could hit outright winners on returns or from deep in the court. They pretty much had to end points at the net, even on clay.
—Connors indeed hit a heavy ball; you can see where it would have been a shock at the time.
—My favorite moment is seeing Borg scramble to his backhand side, flip back a low backhand pass, slide all the way to the other side to send up a forehand lob, and still lose the point on the aforementioned Connors overhead. Looking back, you might wonder how Borg could have lost the Open to Connors on clay. But sometimes the other guy is just too good.
Tomorrow we look at Borg in his lair, grinding a helpless opponent into the dust at Roland Garros.
In the first clip, Borg's running around the backhand down the line forehand return winner reminded of Federer a lot. And the way he passed Tanner left and right when he was at the net reminded me of Nadal's passing shots, the Spaniard is Borg re-born but -to me- even better.
Enjoyed those clips and your thoughts. Wondering, though, what you mean when you say Borg was at the peak of his powers at 20. Wasn't he still losing all of his matches to Connors at that time and not hitting the ball quite as hard as he would just a few years later?
We have to remember that eventhough Jimbo never won RG he won this USO playing o green clay in '76 (so he could have probably pulled off in '74 should he had played it), was this the only year the event was held on that surface? The need to finish points at the net even on clay is pretty much due to the fact that both players were so speedy and good defensively that they had to find a way to put the ball past each other, green clay though runs faster than the red European/South American clay.
Equipment might change to make a difference in the way the ball is hit but athleticism?? Borg sliding from side to side in the same way Nadal scrambles today is just unbelievable and Connors volleying technique is much better than I can recall it, even when volleying with 2 hands.
—Do they still use chalk at Wimbledon? Or a different type? You can see it fly—“chalk flew up!"—on a Tanner ace here. I don’t think it does that anymore.
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure when the switch was made, but now a titanium paste is used in place of chalk. The paste naturally sticks to the surface, not allowing it to shoot up off the court.
In your opinion, was Borg a better grass or clay courter?? That is a tough one to call. He is one of the 2 best clay courters (Nadal being the other) of all time and one of the 3 best grass courters of all time (Sampras and Federer being the others).
sm: i think you'll be pretty impressed with his clay-court skills when we get there. i'd have to say that was his best surface. not that he was too bad on grass, either, but the guy was born to play on clay
I think so too. On another subject, it is shocking to see how much faster the grass courts at Wimbledon were back then, that's what makes Borg's achievements all the more impressive.
i've never been sure how much slower they are now. somewhat, but watching from up close last year, they still looked pretty quick; the ball still skids through. there are fewer bad bounces, that's for sure
How about the way the ball bounces so high and sits up today? I remember a commercial clip during Wimbledon from Rolex featuring Roger Federer, as he backpedals to wait for the ball to bounce so he can put it away you can see the bounce is so incredibly high the ball goes off the screen as he follows it with his head, I really don't believe you could have seen than kind of bounce back in the day.
Even my brother who is not much of a tennis fanatic noticed it. It could also be the players getting faster and fitter.
Thank yoiu, Steve, for this one, too. I think you're really onto something here, and I look forward to more of the same. If only we had some really good clips of Pancho Gonzales or Lew Hoad, or some of the other notable GOATs.
Until this post I had not realized just how eerily similar are the the career paths of Borg and Nadal. Borg won two French crowns BEFORE he ever won a Wimbledon. Funny how it seemed almost inevitable, at the time, that he would walk away with at least a couple of Wimbledons. That he ended up garnering five is truly astonishing. Nadal's first Wimbledon felt inevitable, too, didn't it? I remember Borg himself predicting a Nadal victory, as did you.
I think where the two men differ most is in their builds and in their serves. Nadal is more massive than Borg was. Although Borg was an extremely fit athlete, he had more of a swimmer's build with the wide shoulders and severe V-cut torso and rather thin legs. This may account for why the hard courts were not as punishing on his body, although of course he never mastered the U.S. Open. Still, even more than the brutally long European clay-court season leading up to the French, I believe it is the pounding his body takes on the summer hard-court series that is exacting the greatest toll on Nadal's body and perhaps his playing longevity.
As far as the serve goes, Borg's slight shifting of position at the start so that he faced the court more directly allowed him to flatten out his delivery, which clearly helped on the grass courts. It also may have helped him to get to the net more quickly. I'd like to see Nadal continue to play with his serve, although as a lefty he must keep his can-opener, for it is what truly gives lefties their greatest advantage over the rest of the field.
One of the many things that Federer has demonstrated to us is that superior movement (not speed, per se, but the mechanics of motion)--being light on one's feet--can mean a longer career and the ability to recover more rapidly from tournament to tournament. No doubt his training must be brutal on his leg and core muscles, but it is to the benefit of his ankle, knee and hip joints.
Posted by mad about fed
12/04/2008 @ 4:37 PM
love the title. back to read.
Posted by Pierre
12/04/2008 @ 6:13 PM
I think Youtube tends to make any tennis match look kind of "dinky".
Roscoe Tanner seems to have a very aggressive serve but kind of a passive net game. When you are hitting your third and fourth volley against Bjorn Borg, you are pretty much screwed.
People talk a lot about the effect of polyester strings on the game. But I don't hear much about whether it has affected the serve. You can swing harder, and put more spin on the ball...you would think that would help on the serve.
But why are servers really no better now than they were back then? Does anyone today serve as well as Sampras or Ivanisevic did?
Borg had undergone another phase shift by the time of these matches: he'd gone from the Slazenger Challenge No. 1 of your first in this series, Steve, to this Donnay, strung at god knows what incredible string tension. The racquet was stiff stiff stiff, and making anything happen with it off that string job was, as I recall, a significant feat for mere mortals.
Conversely, we have Connors using the T2000. Hit 3 balls with it and you feel like, "Hey, this thing rocks!" Then you try to hit a fourth ball, and a 24th, and the 104th, and realize that the damn thing is like a fiery thoroughbred: exhilarating for seconds at a time, but unbreakable for the long haul. It's a marvel that Connors managed to control that racquet. And, Yes, his laser-like strokes were an epiphany at the time. No one had ever hit like that, time and time again. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame simply for playing that way, with that racquet.
I think the Wimbledon clip with Tanner illustrates how much more the game was an up-and-back game then, most especially on grass. The fact that the ball died on the bounce, and that that was exploited by volleyers in a way they cannot today, meant that you couldn't camp at the baseline, confident that hitting a pass was simply a matter of having the ball come *to* you, waiting to be hit. It also meant that dinks were more effective as volleys – you could keep it short knowing it wouldn't stand up, and the guy passing had to lift it, giving you a high volley to hit – and in passing shots, too, or as the One part of a One Two passing shot combo – incoming volleyers didn't want a dink to hit the ground and die, so they rushed forwards for a low low volley, leaving them unbalanced for your 2nd shot. Tanner and Borg both close the net more aggressively than we tend to see today, which made the lob more effective, too, and only made the up-and-back movement more critical.
Re: "chalk flew!" That's interesting to note that they use titanium paste rather than chalk now. There's a big difference (I never see it fly up on TV now like it did in this clip), but it still does make a little puff of smoke. I remember watching Wimbledon in recent years and the commentators would mention chalk flying, and I'd think "eh, what?". I was lucky enough to go to Wimbledon 2 years ago and saw a match on Centre Court, and distinctly remember seeing a little smoke puff when Federer hit the line on a wide serve to the deuce side. I thought that it looked like someone had just shot the ground ;)
