Would you agree that Borg was the best all around tennis player of all times?

Question

-6 French Open Championships.

-Longest winning streak at the French Open

-5 Wimbledon titles (second only to Sampras)

-highest winning percentage in Grand Slam tournaments at 89.8%

-Retired at 26.

Most physically gifted athlete to ever play the game.

Answer 1

One of the top 5, but I don't consider him the greatest. He was brilliantly ahead of his time, though. Look at how players hit today, with semi-Western grips and open forehand stances. Look at how their baseline games dominate the net game. Borg did this 25 years ago, with wooden racquets that used to snap under all the pressure. His technique foreshadowed what folks do today, but he lacked the right equipment. Furthermore, he modified his game in a brilliant way to win at Wimbledon. Not comfortable at the net, he learned a great first serve (and paid for it with a torn stomach muscle in his first Wimbledon win). He put in a 2 handed slice backhand approach shot to beat Jimmy Conner's on grass. He learned how to volley. As unorthodox as his style was back then, his fundamentals (racquet back really early, eyes glued to the ball) were timeless and way ahead of everyone else. Does he top Sampras and Federer? Well, he never won the US Open. I'm not sure he won in Australia. And once McEnroe beat him consistently, he simply quit. So, I'm not sure.

Answer 2

I say it's either Borg or Federer. We'll have to see what Roger does with the rest of his career before making that judgment, but with Roger turning 26, Borg has still accomplished more at his age and would take the cake if Roger retired now. Otherwise, Federer has the opportunity to win the most grand slams of all-time and the debate between Federer and Borg will be a long standing one for years to come.

Smart fans talk sports at the brand new RootZoo..com. Ask this question there and you'll get a great discussion going. Head on over.

Answer 3

He has to be one of the best ever, but who knows what he could have done had he not retired at 26. It's not just his wins, but how he played, his style and techniques and approach to the game. Not many "top" players are noted for this. Most "top" players in the history were usually put there by their wins and achievements, not their style or approach.

Answer 4

Absolutely, Federer and Sampras never played and had such a record with 4-5 other soon to be or once were number one players. Borg played against McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, and Vilas to name a few. Sampras only had Andre and Federer only has Nidal (who may or may not make it to number one).

Answer 5

Yeah, Borg was probably the best. But it amazes me that everyone tends to overlook Agassi and go right to Sampras and Federer.

For a long time he got by on raw talent.....and then made his comeback with a work ethic that was second to no one.

So, to answer your question...based off on stats Borg was the best.

Answer 6

He should be Year NO.1 of 1977 and 1978.

ATP was corrupted organization which dominated by USA.

Answer 7

Yes, definitely.

Answer 8

No.