is bjorn borg is the greatest player of all time v federer?

Question

5 wimbledons in a row, 6 french in a row

Answer 1

No, but he is among the greatest players of alltime. The fact of
the matter is, if he was able to win the US Open a few times,
he might not have left the game so early. He could have been
the greatest player ever, since the rate he was winning Slams during his peak years was even better than Sampras. His failure to win the US Open, despite four trips to the final, is what ultimately forced him to retire prematurely. If he had won even once in those four trips, I'm guessing he would have hung around the sport longer. Another factor is he didn't like to play so frequently, and the new rules that were coming into play would
have forced him to do that to retain his world ranking. Those two
factors probably had more to do with anything else for the reasons he didn't retire in his 30s, instead of his mid 20s, when
most players are about to hit their prime, or are in their prime.
No one has able to achieve the French Open-Wimbledon
double in the same year since Borg did it (1976, 1978,1979,1980). Jim Courier (won 1993 French Open, lost in 1993 Wimbledon final), Rafael Nadal (won 2006 French Open and lost in 2006 Wimbledon final) and Roger Federer (lost 2006 French Open final, and won 2006 Wimbledon final) have come the closest in this regard. Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg also came close. Ivan Lendl won the 1987 French Open but lost in the 1987 Wimbledon final to Pat Cash. Stefan Edberg lost in the 1989 French Open final to Michael Chang and the 1989 Wimbledon final to Boris Becker. Bjorn Borg the French Open six times, but it wasn't in 6 consecutive years (1974, 1976, 1978-1981). Manuel Orantes won the French Open in 1975, while
Guillermo Vilas won the 1977 French Open men's singles title.
I think Borg didn't play the French Open in 1975 or 1977, but I'm
not sure. He did win Wimbledon five consecutive years (1976-1980), and made the final in 1981. Roger Federer has a chance
to equal Borg's modern era record in 2007 and has to reach the final in 2008 to equal Borg's mark of 41 consecutive wins at
Wimbledon in the modern era. I forgot about how close John
McEnroe came in 1984 to winning the French Open against
Ivan Lendl. He went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open
that same season. I think his 1984 season is still one of the greatest seasons in tennis history for a male or female player.

Answer 2

Hey, this is some revelation to me...Ive been a Borg follower ever since my college days...But still, i think the reason he's got this high percentage was due to the fact that he retired early than the others. His appearance stats is only half of the others you mentioned. Had he played longer, the numbers would differ as well based on his performance For legends, tennis is a miss or hit thing. If you lose in the finals this year, there's always the next year to look up to....And in my own personal way, i can truly say that Borg was the best ever....

Answer 3

There's a good case for Borg, not only with his record but also his opposition - Borg played in the era of McEnroe, Connors and others, whom in retrospect are considered as great players of their time. Federer in comparison has had nobody in that bracket to compete with, though perhaps Nadal may be the exception. The conveyor belt of American tennis talent that traditionally provided a lot of the competition has largely dried up.

Borg also raised the standard for fitness, dedication and style of play (counter punch, double handed strokes) that have become the blueprint for many modern players. Federer's superhuman skills by comparison don't build on anything that is new to tennis, but he nonetheless employs each element of the modern game to perfection and it is pretty special to watch.

I guess we'll see how Federer's achievements stack up when he eventually retires - you could say that the premature end to Borg's career through burnout is a black mark against him for comparison, but then we don't know how long Federer will play for. In the end, it may just be a subjective view as to how each player's winning record stacks up against the pure enjoyment the fans get from watching them play. For the moment it seems that for Federer, the sky's the limit in terms of what he can achieve.

Answer 4

yes he is the most versatile and quite possibly the greatest but federer also has won hard courts something that bjorn borg has not been able to do. The farthest hes gone in the Australian Open is 3rd round, the farthest he went in US Open is Finals but still arguably the most versatile player to ever play the game

Answer 5

Federer is very young, he has much more to do, He is a master in tennis.
Bjorg did a lot, but I'm sure that Federer will win the 4 grand slam tournamets, he plays well in all the surfaces, look, after loosing in the first rounds on clay (French) he trained a lot, and went to the finals!
I think he is by far, the best player on this century

Answer 6

Im not so sure that Borg was the greatest player of all time. If anything he would be the most Consistent player. I think the greatest player of all time would have to be Pete Sampras.

Answer 7

If you compare how many sets Borg lost in his five-in-a-row at Wimbledon to Federer's four-in-a-row, Federer appears much more dominant. It is highly unlikely that Federer will lose as many sets as Borg next year when he makes it 5-in-a-row, which I'm sure nobody is doubting. Then, experts can compare their five-in-a-rows, back-to-back, and see that Federer was more of the grass king in taking apart the competition.

Borg DID win, however, his 1976 Wimbledon without dropping
a set. Federer could have matched this last June if it wasn't
for losing a set to Nadal in the final. Still, Borg was never able to duplicate that glorious 1976 run.

However, Federer's record at the French is nowhere nearly-as-superb as Borg. Borg is and will remain for a loooong time, the king of Roland Garros. Four-in-a-row (1978-1981) which was ended by retirement! Unbelievable! Noone doubts that he would have won a fifth or even sixth-in-a-row. He was simply invincible on clay in Paris. Look at how many sets he lost in those years!

Still, when you consider that Federer paired his three Wimbledons of 2004-2006 with three U.S. Opens, that's also
incredible - something that had never been done before in tennis history. Bettering Don Budge and Bill Tilden's double-double years of Wimbledon-US.Open.

You may argue that Borg pulled off the hardest triple-double -
Roland Garros-Wimbledon compared to Wimbledon-U.S.Open, but you must be wondering - if he was able to do Roland Garros-Wimbledon, which is judged even today as being near-impossible, why couldn't he bag a single U.S. Open in four finals?
Why couldn't he go that extra step and make it a triplet of Roland Garros-Wimbledon-US Open? Something that would have irrefutably made him the greatest of all time?

Federer may end up making it to four Roland Garros finals as well without winning....we'll see.

Then, you can compare how many bagels (6-0) and breadsticks (6-1) Borg dealt out in his "triple-double" years of 1978-1980 to Fed's "trible-double" years of 2004-06. Borg blows away Fed. He dealt out close to a 100 bagels.

Borg has a better winning percentage in career matches to Fed.

Fed has a better winning percentage in career finals to Borg.

Borg has a better winning percentage in Grand Slam matches to Fed.

Fed has a better winning percentage in Grand Slam finals to Borg.

Borg has a MUCH better clay-court winning streak.

Fed has THE best grass-court winning streak (48), including his
Halle titles.

Fed ALSO has THE best hard-court winning streak (56).

Borg has only ONE losing head-to-head record (minimum of 3 losses) - that with John Newcombe (1-3). GOOD GOD!

Fed has FIVE losing head-to-head records (minimum of 3 losses) - four of which he will never be able to improve on - Rafter, Bruguera, etc.

Fed has the greatest three-year span in the Open Era - 242-15.
Borg's best three-year-span is something like 219-18.

Let's just say that the Open Era divides itself between Borg and Federer. There is no third.

I think both Bjorn and Roger would agree to that.

Answer 8

No. Pete was even a greater player then Borg. US OPEN Titles Zero. The surface was made for all players to have an equal chance.

Answer 9

You can't compare them because they are from diferent time period. Federer may win a lot of major in his career (9 has already under his belt). But wat Borg had produced is unique. You can't keep him in elite club, you have to create a unique club for him. Federer is phenomena when it comes to dominance. He dominates his oponent with his hostile nature of Game. But Borg was perfect in overcoming dificulties which had been created by his opponents. No matter what surface no matter wat conditions he still won that unique combination no one can adjust his game like he did. Huge improvization he possessed on court. Borg is the greatest of all time.

Answer 10

nope not at all well borg might hav won some , so many times but federer is a class act some thing beyond that da cross court single handed back hand, back hand slice single handed back hand passing shots fore hand passing forehand cross court oooo the list never ends they all r master class u cant get any player of that calibre pete was gud i was a great fan of him his tenins but when i saw federer play for da first time he wud be no 1 any time he has got tat class within him to reach heights.

comin to nadal aaaahhh ya its just runnin here n ther on da court nothin else dont u notice he even struggles with debutants he stuggles a lot to get to finals , even on clay atleast 2 five setter games in 6 aa tats not da way to b look federer into finals to max losin a set n a cup wid dropping a set in last almost 7 grand slams except french tat 2 he had lot of volleys not goin in his way he was unlucky there

aa sampras he was realy gud a bit class act but was never givin 100% just played da game he was never determined from my point of view he just played if he was determined he wud hav been much better player

of all of all ages of all eras federer is class act even if he does not win any grand slams or any events he is a class act i think except richard gasquet n bhagdatis no budy has got that sheer class as federer even these people dont match him but r nearer n play a really realy gud claas game