What If Borg Had Continued Playing?

[britbox]

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.

I'm not even thinking in terms of "keeping it up"... projections at some tournaments propel him way beyond what he was doing at his peak.

Borg never used to play the Australian Open... but somehow we're guessing that if he didn't retire (mainly through burnout to be specific) then he's suddenly going to start giving up his offseason (the AO used to be played in December), pack his bags and head down under every year... and then automatically assume he's going to be winning there with his eyes closed.

I'm not buying he goes... and if he did then nothing is automatic.

Somebody was telling me once that Edberg wouldn't have won the 85 AO if Mac was there... I had to point that actually... McEnroe was there. Mac went there around his peak a couple of times and didn't win it.

I find it unlikely that Borg would play the AO if he stayed "unretired"... he did indicate he would play it if a calendar grand slam was on the cards. Based on some projections, that becomes be an annual opportunity, just not mine.

No reason to think Borg wouldn't have adapted? There are a couple at least... On his comeback he chose not to "adapt" and stuck with a wooden racquet. He did adapt with his coach though, he swapped out Lennart Bergelin for a karate expert. I wouldn't really think of either in positive terms.

I think Borg's best chances to add to his tally would always be at the FO but more generally, I'm thinking along Federberg's line that racquet technology evolving was more of an equalizer for the likes of Mac and Borg than a huge plus.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not even thinking in terms of "keeping it up"... projections at some tournaments propel him way beyond what he was doing at his peak.

Borg never used to play the Australian Open... but somehow we're guessing that if he didn't retire (mainly through burnout to be specific) then he's suddenly going to start giving up his offseason (the AO used to be played in December), pack his bags and head down under every year... and then automatically assume he's going to be winning there with his eyes closed.

I'm not buying he goes... and if he did then nothing is automatic.

Somebody was telling me once that Edberg wouldn't have won the 85 AO if Mac was there... I had to point that actually... McEnroe was there. Mac went there around his peak a couple of times and didn't win it.

I find it unlikely that Borg would play the AO if he stayed "unretired"... he did indicate he would play it if a calendar grand slam was on the cards. Based on some projections, that becomes be an annual opportunity, just not mine.

No reason to think Borg wouldn't have adapted? There are a couple at least... On his comeback he chose not to "adapt" and stuck with a wooden racquet. He did adapt with his coach though, he swapped out Lennart Bergelin for a karate expert. I wouldn't really think of either in positive terms.

I think Borg's best chances to add to his tally would always be at the FO but more generally, I'm thinking along Federberg's line that racquet technology evolving was more of an equalizer for the likes of Mac and Borg than a huge plus.

I noted in your earlier post that you seemed to be taking the tack that Borg didn't stay in the game, but are dealing from the notion of the comeback. It's one way to imagine it, but you don't assume the OP, which is that he never retired.

 

[britbox]

I noted in your earlier post that you seemed to be taking the tack that Borg didn't stay in the game, but are dealing from the notion of the comeback. It's one way to imagine it, but you don't assume the OP, which is that he never retired.

No, I am assuming he was unretired. I just used his behaviour on his comeback to put a question mark against the theory that there was no reason to think he wouldn't have adapted.

However, the unretired meaning seems to have morphed more into a question of "What if Borg had continued playing, completely changed his schedule, never got injured, played at his 22-year-old peak at every tournament until he was 50 with modern racquets..."

 

[Moxie]

No, I am assuming he was unretired. I just used his behaviour on his comeback to put a question mark against the theory that there was no reason to think he wouldn't have adapted.

However, the unretired meaning seems to have morphed more into a question of "What if Borg had continued playing, completely changed his schedule, never got injured, played at his 22-year-old peak at every tournament until he was 50 with modern racquets..."

I appreciate the clarification. Everyone establishes their own criteria for answering the question, as I mentioned in my above. I don't think anyone took it to that extreme, though.

 

[El Dude]

Let me re-phrase. It isn't that I think there is no reason to think that he wouldn't have adapted, but there's no reason to think that he couldn't have. It is very possible he wouldn't for a variety of reasons: burnout lingers, as does the partying; he is resistant to change, can't handle rising young power players, Mac rises to the challenge and is even better than he actually was, making it his personal mission to crush Borg at every turn. It is certainly possible that even if he hadn't retired, he would've struggled for a year or two, maybe done a 2002 Sampras at best and won RG in 1984, then retired later that year.

But I think he could have adapted. Again, as mrzz said, talent finds a way. The true greats are able to adapt. Laver adapted to the early Open Era, won the calendar Slam, and even though he faded out on Slams (only playing eight more from 1970-77--and thus more for political reasons than loss of ability), he continued to dominate on the WCT circuit for a few more years, and was still one of the best players in the world until 1974 or '75, when he was in his mid-30s. Ken Rosewall still amazes me to this day, winning tournaments and hanging out in the top 10 into his 40s. Sampras held onto his #1 ranking in 1998 even as his skills eroded, and even though he was really struggling, still managed to win a final Slam in 2002. Federer, after utterly dominating his own generation, adapted and competed with a stronger younger generation, and the next two generations after that. Rafa looked like he was done but adapted and won three Slams in 2017-18. And of course we see Novak returning to the top.

The reason I started this thread is that Borg's peak was similar to the very best players in the sport. His career is as good or better than anyone's through age 25, and in terms of best five years or so, he's up there with the very best. No other player with "GOAT talent" fizzled out in their 20s, with the exception of McEnroe. Mac didn't retire young but he declined young. All the other "Borg-esque" talents--Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic--were all elite, Slam-winning players into their 30s. I'm not saying he would have, but he could have.

The original post assumes that Borg comes back in 1982 refreshed. People can speculate about different scenarios all they want, but I was suggesting that we start with that supposition. He has an apotheosis, realizes that Mac surpassed him, and didn't accept that and decided to do what it took to return to the top. If that was the case then we can assume that not only was he revived in terms of his interest, but presumably the partying would at least be moderated (most people start slowing down around 25, anyways, when hangovers take longer to recover from...or so I remember). I would also assume that if he was revitalized, he would have been focused on adapting to the game as it was being played.

As for the Australian Open, it made a huge jump in terms of quality of competition in 1983. Before then it was very weak; I mean, in 1981-82 Johan Kriek defeated Steve Denton twice in the finals! If you look at the rest of his record, Kriek is probably the equivalent of someone like Tommy Robredo or Gilles Simon today. In those years, the AO was probably around as deep as your typical ATP 500 today. The field deepened greatly in 1983-85, then there was no tournament in 1986; by 1987 it was a true Grand Slam, and that was also when I think Borg would have fallen far beyond the younger generation. But the point being, any top player would have won it in 1982 (or '81), and he could have been a serious competitor in 1983-85, when it was still skipped by some of the top players.

 

[britbox]

Let me re-phrase. It isn't that I think there is no reason to think that he wouldn't have adapted, but there's no reason to think that he couldn't have. It is very possible he wouldn't for a variety of reasons: burnout lingers, as does the partying; he is resistant to change, can't handle rising young power players, Mac rises to the challenge and is even better than he actually was, making it his personal mission to crush Borg at every turn. It is certainly possible that even if he hadn't retired, he would've struggled for a year or two, maybe done a 2002 Sampras at best and won RG in 1984, then retired later that year.

But I think he could have adapted. Again, as mrzz said, talent finds a way. The true greats are able to adapt. Laver adapted to the early Open Era, won the calendar Slam, and even though he faded out on Slams (only playing eight more from 1970-77--and thus more for political reasons than loss of ability), he continued to dominate on the WCT circuit for a few more years, and was still one of the best players in the world until 1974 or '75, when he was in his mid-30s. Ken Rosewall still amazes me to this day, winning tournaments and hanging out in the top 10 into his 40s. Sampras held onto his #1 ranking in 1998 even as his skills eroded, and even though he was really struggling, still managed to win a final Slam in 2002. Federer, after utterly dominating his own generation, adapted and competed with a stronger younger generation, and the next two generations after that. Rafa looked like he was done but adapted and won three Slams in 2017-18. And of course we see Novak returning to the top.

The reason I started this thread is that Borg's peak was similar to the very best players in the sport. His career is as good or better than anyone's through age 25, and in terms of best five years or so, he's up there with the very best. No other player with "GOAT talent" fizzled out in their 20s, with the exception of McEnroe. Mac didn't retire young but he declined young. All the other "Borg-esque" talents--Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic--were all elite, Slam-winning players into their 30s. I'm not saying he would have, but he could have.

The original post assumes that Borg comes back in 1982 refreshed. People can speculate about different scenarios all they want, but I was suggesting that we start with that supposition. He has an apotheosis, realizes that Mac surpassed him, and didn't accept that and decided to do what it took to return to the top. If that was the case then we can assume that not only was he revived in terms of his interest, but presumably the partying would at least be moderated (most people start slowing down around 25, anyways, when hangovers take longer to recover from...or so I remember). I would also assume that if he was revitalized, he would have been focused on adapting to the game as it was being played.

As for the Australian Open, it made a huge jump in terms of quality of competition in 1983. Before then it was very weak; I mean, in 1981-82 Johan Kriek defeated Steve Denton twice in the finals! If you look at the rest of his record, Kriek is probably the equivalent of someone like Tommy Robredo or Gilles Simon today. In those years, the AO was probably around as deep as your typical ATP 500 today. The field deepened greatly in 1983-85, then there was no tournament in 1986; by 1987 it was a true Grand Slam, and that was also when I think Borg would have fallen far beyond the younger generation. But the point being, any top player would have won it in 1982 (or '81), and he could have been a serious competitor in 1983-85, when it was still skipped by some of the top players.

Here is my counter argument to that... what if McEnroe had retired after the 84 season or Wilander after the 88 season? We would be having a thread discussing how many provisional majors they would have won. History shows us they didn't win any.

Also, I think a better way of looking at it would be to assume the tennis bodies changed their mind on demanding that Borg play the 10 grand prix events and he carried on playing, rather than assuming he'd come back revitalized, clean and raring to go.

I don't buy that he starts playing the AO in that scenario. If he starts playing it in 87 then I doubt he wins it anyway. Also, there is going to be a sliding doors effect... I'd imagine Borg's continued involvement would have had an impact on McEnroe... maybe spurred him on to even greater heights. He's on the record saying Borg's departure left a huge void and his competitive juices weren't the same without him around.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If Borg had continued playing, one nice thing would be that this thread would not exist.

 

[El Dude]

Here is my counter argument to that... what if McEnroe had retired after the 84 season or Wilander after the 88 season? We would be having a thread discussing how many provisional majors they would have won. History shows us they didn't win any.

Also, I think a better way of looking at it would be to assume the tennis bodies changed their mind on demanding that Borg play the 10 grand prix events and he carried on playing, rather than assuming he'd come back revitalized, clean and raring to go.

I don't buy that he starts playing the AO in that scenario. If he starts playing it in 87 then I doubt he wins it anyway. Also, there is going to be a sliding doors effect... I'd imagine Borg's continued involvement would have had an impact on McEnroe... maybe spurred him on to even greater heights. He's on the record saying Borg's departure left a huge void and his competitive juices weren't the same without him around.

Well again, the original idea was contingent on him being revitalized. Or rather, we could follow two lines of thought:
1. What if Borg had come back in 1982 revitalized (more specific)
2. What if Borg had come back in 1982 (more open-ended)

You seem to want to use 2 to negate, but they're two separate lines of inquiry. I agree with you that if we're considering 2 only, then the "likely range" of Slams for Borg is rather wide: It could be 6-7, or it could be 0-2, and there's a good possibility that it would have been 0-2. But if we start with the idea that he came back revitalized, then a lot of the other concerns would be at least partially addressed (willness to adapt, competitiveness vs McEnroe, etc).

As for the Mac and Mats questions, those are interesting to consider, but in a reverse way: If they had retired after their best years, what would their legacies be? How would be they be considered differently than they are now?

I tend to take the view that a player can't really hurt his legacy, only not add to it. Mats' legacy is essentially 1983-88; everything after doesn't tarnish it, it just doesn't add anything. Hewitt is similar. And of course McEnroe.

 

[Federberg]

Here is my counter argument to that... what if McEnroe had retired after the 84 season or Wilander after the 88 season? We would be having a thread discussing how many provisional majors they would have won. History shows us they didn't win any.

Also, I think a better way of looking at it would be to assume the tennis bodies changed their mind on demanding that Borg play the 10 grand prix events and he carried on playing, rather than assuming he'd come back revitalized, clean and raring to go.

I don't buy that he starts playing the AO in that scenario. If he starts playing it in 87 then I doubt he wins it anyway. Also, there is going to be a sliding doors effect... I'd imagine Borg's continued involvement would have had an impact on McEnroe... maybe spurred him on to even greater heights. He's on the record saying Borg's departure left a huge void and his competitive juices weren't the same without him around.

This....

The problem with speculations is that they never seem to pay much attention to the unintended impacts on other actors. The idea that we can disregard the motivations of other players particularly when you are talking about all time greats like Wilander, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe and Lendl is amusing to me

 

[Federberg]

If Borg had continued playing, one nice thing would be that this thread would not exist.

Amen brother!

 

[El Dude]

Next time I start a thread, I'll make sure I OK it with Federberg and GameSetAndMath.

Or...you could just choose not to participate in threads you're not interested in. Its like going to a party and saying "this party sucks." The mature and wise thing to do would be to leave or, better yet, never go in the first place.

 

[tented]

Next time I start a thread ...

I’m glad you’re thinking this way, vs. not starting other threads. You begin discussions worth having — that’s what’s important.

 

[Federberg]

Next time I start a thread, I'll make sure I OK it with Federberg and GameSetAndMath.

Or...you could just choose not to participate in threads you're not interested in. Its like going to a party and saying "this party sucks." The mature and wise thing to do would be to leave or, better yet, never go in the first place.

Lol! I have no objection to the broad strokes of your thread mate, most of them are very interesting and worthy of debate. It's where you post stuff like this...

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.

… it's just begging to be shot at That type of stuff and of course your "statistical analysis". Your Elo stuff was a real beauty by the way..

 

[El Dude]

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." ~ Mark Twain.

With that I'll opt out of this delightful back and forth.

 

[Moxie]

Don't let the bastards discourage you. I don't. If it weren't for the push-pull and irritating each other, there'd be no reason to do this at all. Sometimes, (not often,) the best part of my day is arguing with Darth. #kindasad. Anyway, I like your posts and your putting up things for us to debate. I've said my bit on Borg, but I do agree that he's an irresistible "what if."

 

[Ricardo]

Don’t know logic for attracting criticism while speculating which is what this thread is for. Sure I tried to shine a bright light on the prediction, making assumption that Borg would have been able to adapt and age well. People say he was burnt out totally, well he didn’t seem that way when he still beat the best players in big money tournaments. Also if your counter argument was that he didn’t have a good comeback, I would say no tennis player ever made a successful comeback at all after six years away. In fact it was pure madness that he even tried, there was zero reasonable preparation, starting with decision to use a wood racquet. I think he was in OD condition, and only did it due to his financial woes.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Or...you could just choose not to participate in threads you're not interested in. Its like going to a party and saying "this party sucks." The mature and wise thing to do would be to leave or, better yet, never go in the first place.

So, does that mean you like all the parties that you attend. I surely have gone lot of parties where I felt "this party sucks". Often, after I tell some likeminded folks in the party leave with me to find a better alternative.

 

[El Dude]

So, does that mean you like all the parties that you attend. I surely have gone lot of parties where I felt "this party sucks". Often, after I tell some likeminded folks in the party leave with me to find a better alternative.

Then leave. Don't hang around and tell people that the party sucks. And if it is a specific-themed party that you don't like the theme of, don't bother going in the first place.

 

[El Dude]

Don't let the bastards discourage you. I don't. If it weren't for the push-pull and irritating each other, there'd be no reason to do this at all. Sometimes, (not often,) the best part of my day is arguing with Darth. #kindasad. Anyway, I like your posts and your putting up things for us to debate. I've said my bit on Borg, but I do agree that he's an irresistible "what if."

LOL, that is kind of sad! For the life of me I don't know why you keep going back for more re: the Fedal Wars, but to each their own. I suppose we all have our own version of masochism .

 

[Moxie]

LOL, that is kind of sad! For the life of me I don't know why you keep going back for more re: the Fedal Wars, but to each their own. I suppose we all have our own version of masochism .

Nah, it's not sad. You know I love Darth. If you don't take it too seriously, it's good, clean fun. Spices up our tennis viewing with a bit of boxing. :lulz2: