What If Borg Had Continued Playing?

[El Dude]

It is probably the biggest What If question in men's tennis: what if Bjorn Borg hadn't retired after 1981, his age 25 season, but continued on and played through the 80s? Technically he didn't retire, of course, and played a single tournament in each of the next three years (1982-84), and then his "comeback" attempt in the early 90s, but for all intents and purposes he was done with the tour after 1981, when he had the most Slams (11) and titles (64) of any player in tennis history through age 25 (Slams, at least, titles may only be Open Era).

The big caveat, of course, is that we have no idea. All of this is speculation. The point of this thread is to have a bit of fun playing make-believe. So if you don't like such exercises, no need to tell us about it.

A few preliminary thoughts. The only way this hypothetical works is if Borg comes back reinspired in 1982. Let's say he does some soul-searching at the end of 1981 and is refreshed to start 1982, back to his old icey self.

The big question, though, is how--and even if--he would have adapted to the game of the mid-to-late 80s. I think we can safely say that he would have probably been able to maintain peak form at least for a few more years, through age 28 or so (1984). We can look to John McEnroe for some inclination of what might have happened. McEnroe's peak was 1980-84, with 1985 still very good but slipping. By 1986 McEnroe was done as an elite player, but still managed to play through 1992 as a top 10-20ish player. Of course Mac was a good three years younger, but the point in that comparison is looking at how he competed against the changing field.

Now Borg was a very different player than Mac, not to mention that part of Mac's decline was because of personal issues; he missed most of 1986 and when he came back was never the same. But I do think that some of the explanations around Mac's retirement--racquet technology and the rise of the power game--are somewhat over-blown. First of all, both elements were relatively gradual shifts in the 80s. There was no real before and after date for the graphite racquet, for instance, which had already been around for years. Plenty of finesse players (e.g. Wilander in 1988) were still remaining quite effective into the late 80s, so the power game didn't really take hold until the 90s. We can assume that Borg would have adapted to newer racquets as he played into the 80s, and I'm assuming he would have retired by around 1990 or so, so would have had to deal with Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc, minimally.

So let's assume the following pattern:

1982-84 (age 26-28, still prime form)
1985-87 (age 29-31, still very good, but slipping)
1988-90 (age 32-34, decline and retirement)

A further complication--and where such a speculative exercise is revealed as truly being impossible--is how Borg would have fared against other players. In other words, even if we assume he maintained prime form for a few years, and very good for another three, how would he have fared against a prime Lendl? A young Wilander, Edberg, and Becker? We know how he played against McEnroe, Connors, and to a lesser degree Lendl, but he didn't have to face the mid-80s version of Lendl, who took him to five sets at Roland Garros in 1981, when Lendl was still several years from his prime. My guess is that he would have struggled with peak Lendl and young Becker, especially given that he would have been entering his 30s as Becker showed up on the scene. But I do think he would have dominated Wilander and probably at least held his own against Edberg.

With all that said, what might we have expected for the second half of Borg's career? Remember that he had the best career through age 25 of anyone in Open Era history, possibly men's tennis history. He won 11 Slams and 64 titles; compare that to other Open Era greats through their age 25 season:

Connors (through 1977): 4 Slams, 61 titles
McEnroe (through 1984): 7 Slams, 59 titles
Sampras (through 1996): 8 Slams, 44 titles
Federer (through 2006): 9 Slams, 45 titles
Nadal (through 2011): 10 Slams, 46 titles
Djokovic (through 2012): 5 Slams, 34 titles

Borg also played more tournaments than later players through that age 25, and a ton more exhibitions. That factor might be an unspoken factor in why today's players are lasting longer: they play fewer exos, as far as I know. So while I want to say that he would have played well into his late 20s and early 30s, it is far from a foregone conclusion. Even if he had refreshed mentally, the wear and tear on his body would have started to hit him at some point.

A further question: would Borg ever have played the Australian Open? McEnroe did in 1983, 1985, and later on in 1989-90, and 1992. After a couple times in the 70s, Connors never did. After a real low point in the early 80s (when Johan Kriek won his two AOs), by the mid-80s, the AO was starting to catch up to the other Slams, but I don't think really got there until sometime in the 90s (Agassi didn't play it at all until the mid-90s). We can assume he might have given it a shot once or twice, however.

But let's take a look and speculate some more...

Australian Open: I think he would have played it a couple times and won it at least once, especially given the relatively weak competition of the first half of the 80s. Let's add +1 Slam.
Roland Garros: Borg's bread and butter. Not only would he have played it 8 or 9 more times (assuming health), but would have remained the favorite, at least for the first few years. I like his chances over Wilander and Noah in 1982-83, although the surging Lendl in 1984 becomes more problematic. But let's say he wins two in those three years, and one more after. +3 Slams.
Wimbledon: Borg's second best Slam, but Mac had over-taken him. But I don't think we should assume that their rivalry wouldn't have re-balanced. Connors won the next one, with McEnroe winning two more, and then Becker two after that. I'd like to give Borg more, but I think he only wins one more Wimbledon. +1 Slam.
US Open: Borg's White Whale. Connors won the next two, then Mac, then Lendl two. I think Borg would have wrestled one away from Jimmy. +1 Slam.

So that's +6 Slams, bringing his total to 17 for his career. I would say there's an over/under of 1-2, with a likely range of 15-18 Slams. Add in 30-40 more titles and he'd finish his career with 15-18 Slams, around 100 titles, and the best career resume other than Federer (so far).

We also don't know how Borg's continued play would have impacted other players psychologically. If Borg was adding to his Slam count (which wasn't as emphasized back then, but still important), would McEnroe have been more focused and remained in peak form for another two or three years?

The three players probably most negatively impacted by Borg continuing to play would be Connors, Wilander, and Noah. I figure that Connors and Wilander would have at least two fewer Slams, and Noah probably lose his one Slam. I don't see Lendl or Becker all that impacted, maybe Edberg, and presumably not Agassi or Sampras at all.

Anyhow, that's it. What do you think? How would Borg's second act have looked?

 

[Moxie]

You have exhaustively put out your argument. But I'm willing to bite on the broad strokes, as I was a big Borg fan. It was crushing to me when he left the game so suddenly. One thing I will point out about your comparison list of players by title and age: the closest is Nadal. I know you'll say, "Oh, here comes Moxie with comparisons with Nadal," but for many reasons, they are often compared. (Starting young, FO, Channel Slams, athleticism, OCD, etc.) I'd say you use Rafa as a meter, or at least this is one attempt. Bjorn stopped for more reasons than that he lost the USO. He was burnt out, and I think we all know that partying and cocaine were involved. The 70s/early 80s was hard on new super-stars in tennis, and not really any place for athletes, if you got caught up in the fame and the Studio-54 ness of it.

So your exercise is if Borg stayed in the game and righted the ship, correct? He'd already won 6 RG in 8 attempts. You give him +3. I think that's minimum. His athleticism and focus suited that Major, as Nadal's does. Remember that his 6 at RG was better than anyone, by a lot, until Nadal topped him.

It's hard to see that he wouldn't have won Wimbledon again, and one has to think that he'd have stayed in the game to win the USO. And had he done that, he'd have gone to Australia, and likely won it, given that so few went. Remember that Connors said, "If Borg wins the USO, I'll go to Australia just to prevent him from getting the CYGS." I don't know how many Slams Borg might have won, if he'd stayed in the game, but I do think, if he had, he was the most likely to have gotten the CYGS, of everyone since Laver and until now.

 

[Federberg]

I should just ignore these woulda coulda threads, as they generally do my head in. But I'll bite... Mac often talks about how Borg leaving the game left him uninspired. We could see Mac becoming a tougher and tougher out for Borg at Wimbledon, what makes us think that would have turned around? I can't see how Borg was ever going to win the US Open as the competition there was fierce without an emerging Lendl. The problem with these fantasies is that it neatly disregards the abilities of all time great players. We're not talking about the likes of Johanssen here. We're talking Lendl, Mac, Wilander. I mean... really! In a woulda coulda world, it's entirely possible that the real consequence of Borg not leaving would have been an extended period of Mac dominance. But the truth is that Borg left when he did, and trying to fantasise about what would have happened is pointless. I mean... we might as well wonder what would happen if Rafa didn't get injured all the time or pick his butt so much. Or what would have been if Federer didn't get Mono, or focussed more exclusively on solving the Rafa match up problem. Things are the way they are because that's the way they are.. sorry

 

[britbox]

Borg would have probably played the French in 82 if they didn't tell him to go through qualifying. He only committed to seven of the grand prix events and they wanted him to play ten. Thus he couldn't play the majors without going throught the qualifiers. Kind of ludicrous when you think about it.

How would he have done?

Well he'd have been a huge threat at the French for sure. Maybe 2 more would be my guess.

Zero Australian Opens... I don't think he'd have gone and times were a changing... All the top swedes started going and then others followed.

Zero Wimbledons... You could argue for one but I'd favour Mac at his absolute best on grass. Mind you, Connors took out Mac in one final so you couldn't categorically rule out another one.

US Open... the one he never won. I'll stay on zero.

Borg was still competing with Mac and Connors in big money invitationals and exhos after he stopped playing on the main tour. He held his own, especially with Mac. Some of these had bigger purses than grand slam events at the time, so they must be considered as serious matches.

I don't know why you're thinking Edberg's particularly vulnerable. I don't think Borg would have liked playing prime Stefan so much on grass.

 

[Federberg]

Borg would have probably played the French in 82 if they didn't tell him to go through qualifying. He only committed to seven of the grand prix events and they wanted him to play ten. Thus he couldn't play the majors without going throught the qualifiers. Kind of ludicrous when you think about it.

How would he have done?

Well he'd have been a huge threat at the French for sure. Maybe 2 more would be my guess.

Zero Australian Opens... I don't think he'd have gone and times were a changing... All the top swedes started going and then others followed.

Zero Wimbledons... You could argue for one but I'd favour Mac at his absolute best on grass. Mind you, Connors took out Mac in one final so you couldn't categorically rule out another one.

US Open... the one he never won. I'll stay on zero.

Borg was still competing with Mac and Connors in big money invitationals and exhos after he stopped playing on the main tour. He held his own, especially with Mac. Some of these had bigger purses than grand slam events at the time, so they must be considered as serious matches.

I don't know why you're thinking Edberg's particularly vulnerable. I don't think Borg would have liked playing prime Stefan so much on grass.

not sure he's old enough to have watched Edberg live. Best proponent of serve and volley I've ever seen. He was a wall. I simply can't see how Borg would have been able to handle him at his peak. Particularly as his peak would have been right at the age when Borg would probably have been in terminal decline if the normal tennis life cycle at that time is what is trying to be applied to him.

 

[atttomole]

I think Borg could have won 7 more slams, mostly from RG and Wimbledon.

 

[El Dude]

I don't know why you're thinking Edberg's particularly vulnerable. I don't think Borg would have liked playing prime Stefan so much on grass

Not sure where you got this from the original post. All I said in regards to Edberg is that Borg would have "probably at least held his own" and that "maybe Edberg" would have been impacted. The players I cited as "particularly vulnerable" were Connors, Wilander, and Noah - at least as far as their Slam counts.

As for Borg vs. prime Stefan, I agree, but that's partially because of the ten-year age difference. As I mentioned, Borg's best window of opportunity for padding his legacy would have been 1982-84, when Edberg was very young and still developing; Edberg broke out as an elite player in 1985 and probably wasn't at his best until 1987. It is really hard to say, but I think Borg would have had the edge in 1982-84ish, "held his own" in 1985-86ish, but really struggled by 1987 as he entered his 30s and Edberg his prime.

 

[El Dude]

I should just ignore these woulda coulda threads, as they generally do my head in. But I'll bite... Mac often talks about how Borg leaving the game left him uninspired. We could see Mac becoming a tougher and tougher out for Borg at Wimbledon, what makes us think that would have turned around? I can't see how Borg was ever going to win the US Open as the competition there was fierce without an emerging Lendl. The problem with these fantasies is that it neatly disregards the abilities of all time great players. We're not talking about the likes of Johanssen here. We're talking Lendl, Mac, Wilander. I mean... really! In a woulda coulda world, it's entirely possible that the real consequence of Borg not leaving would have been an extended period of Mac dominance. But the truth is that Borg left when he did, and trying to fantasise about what would have happened is pointless. I mean... we might as well wonder what would happen if Rafa didn't get injured all the time or pick his butt so much. Or what would have been if Federer didn't get Mono, or focussed more exclusively on solving the Rafa match up problem. Things are the way they are because that's the way they are.. sorry

The big caveat, of course, is that we have no idea. All of this is speculation. The point of this thread is to have a bit of fun playing make-believe. So if you don't like such exercises, no need to tell us about it.

Do you go to Christmas parties, Federberg, and tell people you don't believe in Christmas? Do you go to a Lord of the Rings fan club and tell those attending that they're doing fun wrong and that fantasy is stupid and childish?

But thanks for bringing the cold, hard sword of reason and reality. Now back to fun and speculation...that's the point of this thread....sorry.

 

[Federberg]

Do you go to Christmas parties, Federberg, and tell people you don't believe in Christmas? Do you go to a Lord of the Rings fan club and tell those attending that they're doing fun wrong and that fantasy is stupid and childish?

But thanks for bringing the cold, hard sword of reason and reality. Now back to fun and speculation...that's the point of this thread....sorry.

oooooooh…. burn

PS, more of a Wheel of Time fanboy

 

[mrzz]

Do you go to Christmas parties, Federberg, and tell people you don't believe in Christmas?

Wait, wait, wait... you actually had a doubt about that? He is the last guy I would like to see on an hospital wing full with terminal patients.

Now, seriously, about the thread topic itself. I think yours and BB's assessments are equally plausible, even if with different levels of "optimism". I confess I do not know those guys games (and neither their stats) close enough to try my hand at a "prediction". So I am bound to stay in a meta-discussion, so to speak.

Quoting Rush's lyrics from Tom Sawyer (He knows changes aren't permanent, but change is, that they stole from Heraclitus), I fall back to a point a made recently in other discussion, which is that great players find a way. Both analysis above are fair, but somewhat bounded to what actually happened (BB's more than yours). Considering that Borg stopped on his own, that it was nothing external that got in the way (like a really unfortunate odd injury, or being stabbed or something like that), you really need to find some rupture in the narrative, because those ruptures, in the long run, most of the times do happen. Most great players have actually more than one of those on their history, at least in general. And, sometimes, the triggering event could be something apparently negative. Some are obvious:

1) Nadal's injury prior to 2013;

2) Federer's prior to 2017 (actually I think the "lucky one" was the one he had at home, as crazy as it seems);

One a bit different but which I believe was important was Djokovic loss to Wawrinka at RG. Everyone knew Wawrinka was dangerous (having already won one major), but no one expected that monster showing. I believe that "accident" (in the sense that Wawrinka played at an once in a lifetime level) really spurred Djokovic to new level of perfection.

It is even easier if you think the other way around.

What if Federer stopped at the end of 2007? Would anyone think that he would be so (relatively) irrelevant on the next five years, winning just 5 majors, two in the absence of Nadal? That is a sharp change in history's course there (maybe mostly be Nadal's merit, but still). Much worst: What if Nadal had stopped by the end of 2010? Or some other point in the future? There were a lot of moments were people were completely sure he would surpass Federer. he still has a shot, yes, but even if it happens (and I don't think it will) it would be close. Or Djokovic, after RG 2016? Everyone was talking about 20, even 25 majors. My point is, sharp changes in history's course happen, and sometimes we barely understand the reason.

Back to Borg, he was probably smart enough to understand he would have to change something, and, hell, he did maybe the most radical one. But he could well have tried something radical within the game, from some change of tactics, to a new shot, to screaming on the court again. Maybe he could be able to adapt better than McEnroe to changes in the game that were about to come. Or, even simpler, maybe he would simply win their next big final... how many unexpected results like that have happend? What would be less likely, Borg beating McEnroe in Wimbledon in 83, or Federer beating Nadal in AO 2017? It is a no-brainer, honestly...

All of this to say that I really would like to be able to catch some smart tinny detail and build a nice alternative narrative from there... but unfortunately my culture is not enough for that...

I can only bet, and my bet is that he would have won at least 4 more.

 

[El Dude]

oooooooh…. burn

PS, more of a Wheel of Time fanboy

Ah, WoT! I read it years ago, although got bogged down around book 8...but I loved that series early on.

 

[El Dude]

Good post, @mrzz . Yeah, great players find a way. In fact, it is one of the things that separate the true greats from the lesser greats. For instance, if Roger had retired after 2007, he'd essentially be Borg II: as dominant as anyone ever was for a relatively short period of time, but with no second act, and therefore without the resume that makes him the default GOAT. Even though 2008-18 was lesser than 2003-07, it has cemented his GOAT resume.

 

[Ricardo]

Too many unknowns but mainly it’s too difficult to predict how Bjorn would’ve aged. Would he have been like Wilander or Federer? If like latter then it’s hard not to give him 4-5 more just at RG. Probably would’ve bagged a couple more Wimbledon’s and even two USO as it was definitely overdue and there was some bad luck for him there. Also no way would he have been miserable at AO if he ever made effort to play there.

However without assuming the best scenario in terms of longevity but still reasonable he should’ve been close to Federer in slam count. It’s ridiculous how some wheelchair fans just think the champ just didn’t have to keep up with the next gen.

 

[britbox]

This is all hypothetical of course, and I was a Borg fan back in the day... but I'm reading predictions of 7-9 extra slams... really? Given the way the game changed... particularly handing out US Opens like cookies... considering he never won the event at his peak.

 

[El Dude]

This is all hypothetical of course, and I was a Borg fan back in the day... but I'm reading predictions of 7-9 extra slams... really? Given the way the game changed... particularly handing out US Opens like cookies... considering he never won the event at his peak.

I just find it refreshing that even you aren't exempt from Ricardo's mockery (his "wheelchair fan" comment implies you, as you're the only one suggesting he wouldn't have been able to keep up).

But seriously, most seem to have settled in the 6-7 range. I think Ricardo's 8-9 is based upon the hypothetical that he would have aged more like Federer, as opposed to Wilander. I personally think something more in-between would have been likely, considering that both Federer and Wilander are outliers to the norm. Fed's last Slam (so far) being at age 36, and Mats being at age 24.

Here are the ages at which every 6+ Slam winner ("all-time great") of the Open Era won their last Slam (includes all 6+ Slam winners who won their last Slams in the Open Era):
(Active in bold)

24, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31, 31, 31, 32, 32, 36, 37

(That would be Borg, Wilander, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Newcombe, Laver, Connors, Sampras, Djokovic, Agassi, Nadal, Federer, Rosewall).

The median age is 31, the average is 28.5.

Now obviously every player is different, and different eras yield different degrees of longevity. Players generally maintained prime form later in the 70s and more recently, with younger aging curves in the 80s to early 00s. But that at least gives us a sense of how to approach "The Borg Question." I would suggest that ages 24-25 (comprised of Wilander, Borg, and McEnroe) as well as 36-37 (Federer, Rosewall) are outliers, and the Open Era norm is age 27-32. On the other hand, it is worth noting that all of the young outliers are close to Borg's era, so maybe they need to be factored in. But cutting them out, the median of that range is also 31, but the average is 30.2. That is a good over/under age for when an all-time great "should" win his last Slam in the Open Era.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to imagine Borg's range of outcomes as Wilander to Connors. Wilander means he wouldn't have won any more Slams - that seems terribly pessimistic, but I suppose is possible (although my initial post suggest we approach the question as if he came back refreshed in 1982, when he was age 25-26). Connors means he would have won his last at age 31, so in 1987-88. Optimistic but also possible.

Of course we'll never know, but that is part of the allure of Bjorn Borg. No one knows whether he should be grouped with the best of the best (Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras), or more in the next group down with Connors, Lendl, and Mac. His peak suggests the former, while his overall career resume suggests the latter. Maybe framing it that way suggests the obvious: he's in-between.

 

[Federberg]

This is all hypothetical of course, and I was a Borg fan back in the day... but I'm reading predictions of 7-9 extra slams... really? Given the way the game changed... particularly handing out US Opens like cookies... considering he never won the event at his peak.

Like cookies! Love it. Folks seem to forget that Borg left just as wood was giving way to graphite. We all know what happened to Mac. Granted Borg was a double hander, but the simple fact is that the youngsters adapted fully to the technology and most of the oldies fell by the wayside. It is simply unreasonable to fantasise about how Borg would have transitioned. It's unknowable. Speculate if you want regarding how a player would do if they hadn't retired at a time when the tech was relatively stable but in the early to mid-80s? Nah... not having it

 

[El Dude]

I'll just ignore your insistence on chastising people for playing make-believe, @Federberg, and instead address the racquet/racket issue. John McEnroe transitioned to graphite in 1983 and had his best year in 1984. I don't think his decline in 1985 and beyond had much to do with rackets. There were a lot of other factors, and even if it played a part, it was not a primary issue.

As @mrzz said, great players find a way. They adapt. I don't know why Borg would have been different. Maybe some hiccups, but he would have (probably) been just transitioning.

 

[Federberg]

Oh stop whining and focus on the points will you. It gets tiresome. Yes Mac transitioned, but he couldn't cope with the power of the youngsters who came. It's not just the technology but how well do you use it relative to others. Mac had a window and he used it. Who knows if Tatum hadn't come along he might have been able to figure out how to adapt to the power game better, but she came along, and he didn't

 

[El Dude]

Funny you should complain when all I did was "focus on the points." Who is whining now, big guy?

The "power of the youngsters" might be more of an issue. But again, Mac was great in 1984 and still very good in 1985. No reason to think that Borg couldn't have adapted and been prime for a few more years. Even if he, also, couldn't handle the power of new generation, that wasn't a huge factor until 1985 and on. I'll reiterate my view that he chould have remained in prime form for about three more years, 1982-84, and then started slipping starting in 1985. Who knows, of course, but that's the best estimate I can think of.

 

[Moxie]

Like cookies! Love it. Folks seem to forget that Borg left just as wood was giving way to graphite. We all know what happened to Mac. Granted Borg was a double hander, but the simple fact is that the youngsters adapted fully to the technology and most of the oldies fell by the wayside. It is simply unreasonable to fantasise about how Borg would have transitioned. It's unknowable. Speculate if you want regarding how a player would do if they hadn't retired at a time when the tech was relatively stable but in the early to mid-80s? Nah... not having it

Of course, all of this is an impossible exercise. but Borg is one of tennis's great "what-if's." He was wildly popular, and accomplished, so we can't resist. It's as if Fed had walked away at 26, being frustrated by Nadal. But there are a lot of factors at play, of which racquet technology advancement is a considerable one, you're right to say. The biggest one I would say, though, is to put aside the burn-out and assume, for the sake of the exercise, that he gets over it without a big pause. For myself, I decided to make that assumption. In my personal scenario for him, he regains his drive, loses the "distractions," (*sniff* #nightlife,) and focuses on his tennis. This is already a huge assumption. But if he did, he was a superb athlete, it should be remembered. With commitment, I think he'd have adapted to the new racquet. I haven't put a number on potential other Majors, but more at the French and Wimbledon don't seem unreasonable, as most have said. I do think that if he'd stayed in the game, a goal would have been to finally conquer the USO, so I'd give him that "cookie." I'd also assume he'd go to Oz again. Was it still grass in those days? No idea how that may have gone.

However, there will always be the reality that Borg fell in the thrall of his rock-star status and its 1970s temptations. He "died early," in terms of his tennis, and left a beautiful corpse. So we'll always wonder.