Borg keeps a French Open record

In 1978 the great man lost just 32 games on his way to winning title.

Rafa Nadal looked on course to run that close - the El Mugro match probably put paid to challenging it - and by dropping 18 games in the final he slipped to 53. Amazing to think that dominant as he was, even if he'dnown the final love, love & love he'd not have lost as few as The Borg.

I mean, 32 games. Think about it, that's four and a half a match, through the whole tournament.

He also lost just 36 games two years later.

I'm glad about that. Borg was the machine of his time. He'd have loved this era.

Yep, I loved Borg...back then he was streets ahead of others on clay. And he won the RG-SW19 double 3 times...when the surfaces were truly different. After RG...he would do intense training on his serve and volley because he had to adjust his game so much. Kudos to the guy.

...and he inspired me to pick up a racquet.
He was a hero to me as a kid

But........even he tips his hat to what Nadal has achieved now. The ridiculous clay W:L %, the 8 MCs on a bounce, 7 Barca's (would have been 8 on bounce if not pulled out one year), 6 Rome's and now 7 RGs. Plus he won the "clay slam" as well (3 clay Masters and RG). Ridiculous achievements.
And did Borg have a Federer to beat in winning 5 of his 7 titles?
Yes Borg dominated individual RGs...absolutely...but he never dominated the whole clay season for 7-8 years as Nadal has done.

Did I mention that Borg's closest rival, world No 1 and clay court slam winner, J. S. Connors, was absent from the French Open during his peak years of 1974 - 1978?

Good point JHM...a check on the records shows Connors was up 3-2 on clay matches vs Borg between 74-79...inc. 2 x 5 setters at USO (one won in straights, the other in 4).
So might have nicked the odd RG or two?
Which maybe makes Nadal's record all the more amazing....?

True Julius, though he was there in 1980 I assume?

I think to be fair back in those days there were more specialists too.

I do believe Borg would absolutely love to be playing in this era, it's made for him.

I love this when the surfaces were truely different stuff, if the surfaces aren't that different why is that Nadal has 7 RGs and 1 USO, why not a more even distribution I mean all the surfaces are the same. They are maybe more similar but to claim that there isn't a massive difference still is a bit mind boggling.

Connors played the FO from 1979 onwards, but never played Borg there.
Not sure he'd have won vs Borg, but would have taken more than a few games off him, for sure!

Connors was due to play an ATP Champions tour event earlier this year, against the likes of Henman and Safin, but pulled out for hip surgery. I reckon he'd still be playing in this era if he could.

It's right to say that the surfaces are more similar than they've ever been, but there is still a big difference on them. As socal says, Nadal is almost unbeatable at RG yet has only 2 hard court slams. Murray has 22 career titles yet has never reached a final on clay. Roddick is a hard court slam winner and has been great on grass over the years, yet awful on clay.

There is still a big difference between the surfaces in my opinion. It's just not as huge as it was back in the day.

Good points. The surfaces are converging in speed but not necessarily in playing conditions. The bounce levels and way balls grip or slide through at AO, USO, RG and Wimb are still very different.

Re: Connors...it is openly considered that had he entered FO in 1974 he would have won...giving him a calendar year grand slam. But he was unable to enter due to political reasons.

lydian wrote:Re: Connors...it is openly considered that had he entered FO in 1974 he would have won...giving him a calendar year grand slam. But he was unable to enter due to political reasons.

If the internet had been around then....imagine all the ifs, buts, would'ves, could'ves. As it is, it's little more than a footnote in tennis history. Hopefully, in 30 years time, the same will be true of all the ifs, buts, would'ves, could'ves on this forum. Over-analysis is rarely a good thing.

But socal, they were. Honestly, they really were. I watched tennis back then. RG and Wimbledon were like chalk and cheese and what Borg did was mind-boggling.

John & Pete really did rule Wimbleon with S&V. Ivan really did fail because he couldn't volley. Boris really did dive his way to the title. Pat Cash won a Slam there; a man who couldn't carry a baseline game to save his life.

Do you truly think they've not converged? If not how do you explain that? And if you do, why do you keep writing posts suggesting you don't?

It is hardly the same as back then anyway. The fact is the game has changed. New dumbed down racquets for starters.

Opinions are based on analysis...who is to say what is over-analysis?

All progress can be deemed "dumbing down" if we care to. In truth the game has simply evolved...Borg played with a 75sq.in racquet, the guys play with 95-100sq.in today...so what? Its all relative. If Federer wants to keep using a 90 rather than 95sq.in racquet thats his choice.

Perhaps they should discount Tiger Woods talent and majors for using modern graphite shafts and large head drivers too? Or Lionel Messi's talent and achievements with Adidas Predators and non-medicine balls, or Indurain/Armstrong's multiple Tour wins with their 15 lb carbon fibre bikes rather than the penny-farthing that Eddy Merckx rode.

All sports equipment moves on and I dont have an issue with that. WHere I have an issue is that slowing surfaces encourage more similar styles of play - not completely, but more similar than 15 years ago. HOWEVER....I dont know what effect the latest racquets and strings, as well as todays athletes and their movement, would have had on the quicker surfaces as they were. It may be that they may well have made those old surfaces unplayable. But thats just my over-analysis.

When something is made far easier... I say dumbed down. Today, the world number 1 and 2 are both primarily baseline players. Djokovic at least comes to the net and attacks more. Nadal is just a plain and simple retriever moonballer who pulls the trigger now and then. He is as 1-dimensional as it gets. I have nothing against this on clay, but to see him deploy those same tactics with ease and success on Grass and hardcourts makes me sick to the stomach.

The whole game has changed, and not for the better. It is now a boring, endless rally, where genius is superseded by moonball retrievals.