When do players peak? (The Definitive Answer - with Charts!)

[Kieran]

Traditionalists have NEVER accepted that Borg could have won Wimbledon 5 times with his game, since he proved them wrong with all their predictions. As Fiero can attest, the grass was so much more uneven then today, very slick, it was hardly an “ advantage” for Borg, because big servers could blow you off the court. Groundstrokers were at a huge disadvantage. Arthur Ashe used to claim it was better to hit a “bad” volley on grass than a good one because the bounce would be even more erratic. IIRC Victor Amaya, a huge server one year came close to upsetting Borg.

Borg beat in his finals, Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors ( twice) Roscoe Tanner & Johnny Mac. The first four players had all won Slams on grass prior to playing Borg so it wasn’t as if they were patsies. Tanner was considered to have the most monster of all serves. Nastase had lost a classic 5 set W final match to Stan Smith previously, and Connors hit the ball so much on the rise he was considered the best ROS until Agassi, and lest we forget he subsequently beat Mac at Wimbledon in 1983.

Borg was the original Iceman, nerves of steel, an underrated serve, and unflappable on the court who ran like a gazelle. Sorry but my blood boils when others try to rationalize that Borg won because of a “weak” era. Borg could have won that 6th Wimbledon & had he not retired would have been on par with Johnny Mac in future years IMO.

No, now let’s pay attention here: I didn’t say he won because of a weak era. I said it was ‘a slight challenge to the Borg myth’. Not a definitive argument, but it’s certainly true that he didn’t face any great grass court specialists of the order of the Aussies who came before, and the players of the 80’s.

Does that make it a weak era? In general, not necessarily, but it makes it better for him to achieve what he achieved. Remember, I’m a Borg man. I rate him as high as anyone in the game, higher than most. He faced great players to win those Wimbledons and astonishingly, he dug himself out of every hole he found himself in, and in the early rounds he found himself in many holes. The grass back then famously took care of his weak volleys and relatively weak serves. They became better due to the surface. But his five in a row was one of the greatest records in any sport…

 

[Jelenafan]

No, now let’s pay attention here: I didn’t say he won because of a weak era. I said it was ‘a slight challenge to the Borg myth’. Not a definitive argument, but it’s certainly true that he didn’t face any great grass court specialists of the order of the Aussies who came before, and the players of the 80’s.

Does that make it a weak era? In general, not necessarily, but it makes it better for him to achieve what he achieved. Remember, I’m a Borg man. I rate him as high as anyone in the game, higher than most. He faced great players to win those Wimbledons and astonishingly, he dug himself out of every hole he found himself in, and in the early rounds he found himself in many holes. The grass back then famously took care of his weak volleys and relatively weak serves. They became better due to the surface. But his five in a row was one of the greatest records in any sport…

I hear you, but keep in mind that uneven slick grass also negated some of his groundies.

I do laugh a bit when ( cough..cough.. Federer fans..cough..cough..) claim the grass has slowed down enough that it’s homogenized to mean the grass is interchangeable with other surfaces. Such BS, other than Rafa We don’t see clay counters excelling on the grass do we?

 

[Fiero425]

I hear you, but keep in mind that uneven slick grass also negated some of his groundies.

I do laugh a bit when ( cough..cough.. Federer fans..cough..cough..) claim the grass has slowed down enough that it’s homogenized to mean the grass is interchangeable with other surfaces. Such BS, other than Rafa We don’t see clay counters excelling on the grass do we?

And Borg came back "from the dead" in early round matches with a wooden stick and strings so tight Bud Collins called the racket surface a "pane of glass!" I actually utilized 76# of pressure in my rackets for a couple years, but had to compensate by taking more vicious swings since it was a dead feel! It was great for indoor tennis though! The serve sounded as if a canon had gone off! Many of those wooden rackets I played w/ just collapsed! I didn't have to smash it on the ground!

 

[Kieran]

I hear you, but keep in mind that uneven slick grass also negated some of his groundies.

I do laugh a bit when ( cough..cough.. Federer fans..cough..cough..) claim the grass has slowed down enough that it’s homogenized to mean the grass is interchangeable with other surfaces. Such BS, other than Rafa We don’t see clay counters excelling on the grass do we?

Well that’s true. The surfaces haven’t completely homogenised, the evidence being that Roger has 8 Wimbos and only 1 FO and Rafa has 14 FO and only 2 Wimbo…