Question I wasn't around enough tennis courts growing up to be a competent participant but I was sold on the game as a fan when I watched John MacEnroe play Bjorn Borg in a classic. It has been very interesting to follow the progress of both the men's and the women's game since then with also the parade of personalities - fleeting and lingering contenders and champions who've enjoyed prominence over the years. This brings me to my question, which is directed to the educated and hopefully opinionated fan in you. How would the head-to-head career series standing be between two great champions "Pistol" Pete Sampras and the "Iceman" Bjorn Borg if their respective eras were perfectly aligned. I think the Swede would've tought Pete a few lessons on grass and therefore log most of his wins there but move from blackboard to notebook on clay. Speculate on this for me if you will, and thanks in advance.
Answer Hello. I am not sure what you mean if their eras are perfectly aligned, it is still like asking is the X-1 (flown by Yaeger to break sound barrier for first time) better than the space shuttle.
Borg used a wooden racket, used heavy topspin, but did not hit hard at all. He was smart, court savvy, and knew the game while having shots to back it up. His weapons were consistency and court presence, with good passing shots off the ground and competant volleys.
Sampras, my favorite player ever, has one of the best serves, first and second, ever to play the game. He has, or had, one of the best forehands in the game. He has one of the best backhand volleys ever and good forehand volley as well as good touch on both sides. He has one of the best overheads ever. His intellegence on the court is hardly even necesary with his game, but he is not a mindless brute either. Usually attacking players and serve an volleyers do not need to "think" as much as baseliners.
Now, if we had both players play their best with wooden rackets, I would so it would be a close match because Sampras would hold his serve still most of the time (since I would say he still has a better overall serve than McEnroe did) and Borg would have the advantage from the baseline. However, Sampras would still have the ability to chip and charge almost at will off Borg's serves, so I have to give a slight advantage to Sampras.
If they both used graphite rackets, Borg would improve in his server return and can hit heavier groundstrokes, although neither of those ever deterred Pete from playing his game. Borg's serve may improve nominally since he did not consider his serve his major weapon. We all know how Pete plays with the current racket, so I give a major advantage to Pete here.
When you average those two, Pete still comnes out on top. At the top of their games, Pete is still stronger physically and quicker, although fitness was not viewed then as it is now, but Pete should not be handicapped because of that because maybe that was Borg's max potential as far as physical ability, ie, maybe even if he trained harder, he might not have improved much within his game. Pete at his prime is one of the quickest players and has some of the most powerful weapons ever in the game.
Think of the players like Borg currently who have played Pete. None really come to mind. The only players Pete ever had troubles with were other big hitters like Krajicek and Phillipoussis, and he has been able to stay on top of them as well. Agassi is special and in no way hits the ball like Borg ever did. Borg could never dream of hitting the ball like Andre no matter what rackets he uses.
So I do not say this out of being a Sampras fan, I say this realistically, that Pete has the WEAPONS that would work in any era, ie, his only weakness was the backhand and maybe serve return, but then again, you do not win 7 Wimbledons with no return game. What did Borg have? Good ground strokes, still inferior to come players today, a great head and court presence. However you have to realize that court presence and smarts takes you only so far in todays game. Even in women's tennis, Hingis is the best analogy to Borg, and now even at her best, she cannot retain a top 3 ranking when she is so obviously the most skilled and smart player on the court. This concept is true 100 times over in the men's game. You dont have GAME, you dont win, bottom line.
