Receive access to your FREE Singles Playbook video course by clicking the link below!
bit.ly/3odvkNk
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/culttennis-w...
Ever wonder how Bjorn Borg's career would have panned out had he not decided to retire at just 25 years of age? Well... wonder no longer!
It turns out, Bjorn Borg actually embarked on a formal professional comeback in the early 1990’s, where for three years the Swede played tournament after tournament attempting to re-establish himself as the heavyweight contender and player to fear that he once was, an attempt… that for a multitude of reasons was an absolute disaster.
CULT TENNIS brings you player profiles and analyzes some of the best stories in the world of Tennis! Subscribe to see more content like this, and thank you for stopping by!
--------------------------------------------------------------
/ culttennisyt
/ culttennis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Receive access to your FREE Singles Playbook video course by clicking the link below! bit.ly/3odvkNk
Hey cult tennis, I really enjoy your videos! Thank you for spreading tennis to the world
Damn, this would be funny if it weren't so sad. I used to love watching Borg play. 💔
@@valentinbruhiere4947 Hey Valentin, I'm super sorry about the lack of a response. I just sent you an email so hit me back and I'll get you sorted.
Love the channel. Aligning yourself with internet scams like fuzzy yellow balls debases your content though. Bought their playbook, which added nothing to their videos (which all can be accessed online). Really, I was interested in the bonus content that came with - guess what - they don't grant access to it even though it's promised in the sign-up and payment screens. Emailed them MANY times - scam. There are better sponsors out there @culttennis. Keep making great videos!
Hey everyone watching, just want to say that Fuzzy Yellow Balls is legit despite what others say. I have purchased many of their programs and for my money they are excellent. Having said that, I have to admit I don't like any online selling platform (whatever) that kinda feels scammy because usually scammers use the same method. Just sayin...
I remember when Agassi was making a comeback after his demons. He played on the challenger tour for a while, but worked his way back up to the top. and he hadn't even taken a full break from the sport. After being out of the game for so long it really is important to build confidence in your game, and develop match experience. Seems like Borg just didn't want to do the leg work he had done before to work his way up the ladder, and the game had evolved a lot during his time away.
he was cocky and didn't take it seriously, therefore crashed and burned
Even with his 1980 fitness, it was just a dumb idea trying to play with a wooden racket in 1991. Tennis was a complete other sport 1991 than it was 10 years back. Somehow Borg refused to notice that. Im not sure if Borg - even if he would have done everything right in his comeback - could have had some success. And with everything right i mean brutal fitness and schedule with his old coach, starting with a modern racket and participate in challengers for a few months and testing out waters. He skipped all that and probably just hoped to make some money since his financial situation became worse. I cant think of any worse comeback in sport history than the Borg comeback. I saw the match 1991 vs. Arrese, which ended 2:6 2:6. Arrese was a top 30 to top 50 player. Good player, but by far not one of the best on clay. Arrese basically hold back, he probably could have given Borg even a bigger beating.
At 35 years old he didn't have much time for anything..., but I agree after he started losing he should have played some lower tier tournaments
Agassi played a couple of Challengers over the span of like two months
@@roflmatol agassi was never as dominant as borg.
Borg remains an absolute legend of his time. The 90s post retirement simply weren’t his time, that’s all.
Well said Kofi....
Didn't help with his wooden racquets in the 90's.
Borg never won the US Open
This tennis channel is absolute god-send
Fr I’m not even interested in tennis but this guy is different
it’s better than the real tennis channel
Here for y'all :)
Here in Sweden we basically pretend his comeback never happened.
I think everyone does, I literally never heard of it until now, and I've played tennis since 2005.
Hahaha Edberg was the man in 1991!!
I remember it well. I’m from Norway and we all loved it here😂
😂😂😂
This is the correct approach
I asked Goran Prpić few weeks ago how come he beat Borg so easily in Munich 1992 (6:1 6:0), and he said that he was surprised how Borg’s ball was so slow, he had all the time in the world, and in that match Borg played with modern graphite racquet….
Prpic is a great coach.
The ATP really shot themselves in the foot by rejecting Borg playing 7 tournaments in 1982 and forcing him to qualify for Grand Slams in 1983. Today, a player like Borg could have played as few tournaments as he wants and enter Grand Slams with a Wildcard invitation. Borg coming back slowly in 1982 could have brought back his rivalry with McEnroe and maybe he could have won even more Grand Slams.
The number of GS doesn't matter. The fact that he won RG and Wimbledon back to back for several times, taking into account the extreme differences between them, makes it an unmatchable achievement.
my idea is that the Tour administrators wanted to have a balanced tour. they wanted top players to appear at " lesser" tournaments and thought that forcing all players to play a minimum number would achieve that.
I see nowhere how or that the ATP shot itself on the foot: they did what was right. Tennis moved on just fine and well. You people need to actually think a bit before making such feeble comments.
@@markuse3472 no they didnt, tennis wasnt as big after it took decades for them to get where they are.
Yet from the info in the video, all the reasons for why the comeback failed were already in place at that time. He didn't have the heart and endurance for it, he didn't have the strictness and the will. He probably would have faded slowly, which would've been worse for his legacy and not all that great for the ATP either.
I remember some matches of Borg´s ill-fated comeback, especially the one against Arrese in Monte Carlo 1991. I recall that I thought Borg´s game looked outdated. And he clearly seemed not to be as fit as in his prime. Borg tried a couple of overheads in that match but couldn´t create the pace and angle, so Arrese ran down *every* single smash. It was really odd.
Loved this. Having been a huge Borg fan, the “comeback” was really bizarre. Glad he seems to be in a good place today.
Agreed Doug, Bjorn could've went the Boris Becker route but thankfully appears to be doing relatively good for himself now! Wish we could've seen what a focused mid 80's Borg would have pulled off
@@CULTTENNIS 6 French open and 5 Wimbledon titles by age 25. His totals could have been huge especially at the French. Studio 54 took him down 😜
I think Borg was right to join the senior's tour in 1994, competing with Connors and the other older guys, without the pressure of competing on the ATP tour. I think Borg once said that he would have joined such a tour in 1991 if it had been there, but Connors started it in 1993.
Don’t think his heart ❤was fully committed. Got some decent appearance fees though.
@@Nocturnbandofficialyes he did say this. After 10 years away, he just wanted to return to playing the sport he loved, and initially did it the only way he knew how with a wooden racquet. He was an odd character but i don’t think he ever thought he’d take the competition by storm when he returned in the 90s, it was all media hype to earn him some extra money. All he wanted was to play tennis again
This dude won 5(yes FIVE) Wimbledon's in a row. He never has to prove himself again.
Pete Sampras went through a similar time late in his career. He hadn't won any tournaments for two years, and was not training as he had in the past. Then in 2002, at age 31 he won his final Slam, the U.S. Open (I believe against Agassi, again). However in Sampras' case, when he had had enough, he retired and stayed retired. He did play some exhibitions and was competitive against the top players, but he knew he couldn't keep it up on the regular tour any longer. He knew he was done.
Sampras was winning a match or two in tournaments though. Borg literally went 0-21 or something in his comeback
Yea the loss to young Fed was a key point
Physically Sampras was still good enough to contend for and win Slams well into his 30's. He just didn't want to put the necessary work in any more, as the big three have. He had his fill.
Sampras didn't play well in 2001-2002 but still was top 10-15 player,played Grand Slam and Masters finals,he was only 30-31 and not retired,Borg was 35 and 10 years retired,not the similar situations at all.
Similar in the sense that both struggled (by their standards) during the final 1-2 years of their career, then retired early with seemingly some gas still left in the tank.
Borg's game was good for when the game was slow and accuracy was an issue because of wooden rackets. Once guys like Agassi, Chang appeared in late 80s and could hit way harder from the baseline and guys like Sampras and Ivanisevic appeared serving lights out, there was no room for a classic guy with weird mechanics.. I doubt even if he continued to play, he would have survived after 1985... McEnroe also declined after 1985
Wilander won the French in 82 with a really slow tennis. Borg could have been competitive on clay through the 80s with a graphite racquet.
Connors held on incredibly well, even into the 90:s
@@Magnus_Loov Yes, graphite racquets gave his style of playing a boost.
@@vanlendl1 He even won US open in 82 and 83 with his early 60:s T2000 racket before switching to graphite in about 85.
@@Magnus_Loov Yes, what is remarkable. But Connors finally did switch.
As a teenager my tennis club gave me free ticket to attend White City, Sydney to watch lawn tennis in 1980. This is a tournament just before Australian Open. In there I watched Vilas, I often thought a heavy duty version of Borg, played. Boy he was strong as a bull. I also watched Martina played in practice and centre court, and stood next to her sheltering from the rain in the practice court. She was a very tall woman. Tracy Austin was there too. Those were the names in Borg era. I also met Ken Rosewall as he presented trophy for my local club competition, he was a very encouraging gentleman.
Martina Navratilova is 5’8”.
I remember this comeback...sad to say b\c of my age. 😄. I recall his clothing line ran into financial trouble. If he didn't squander his money, he would be OK. With $70M all he had to do was sit on it and live off the interest. Same goes with Becker. Both are a cautionary tale to young superstars.
Didn't Becker go to jail?
@@Woodland26 lost most of his money on the way to jail, bad investments and expensive lifestyle
$70million in 1983 is like having $209million today. That's a lot of money to blow!
Huge Borg fan, going back to the '70s...here we were young Americans, but because Borg was Borg we often rooted for him against Connors, McEnroe and Gerulaitas. A great time in tennis. So happy, life has been good to him the last couple decades. The Senior Champion Circuit helped to stop the financial bleeding plus a restructuring of his clothing line helped him recoup some of his estate. He retired in '83 with an estimated 80 million, then an estimated 60 million was squandered due to divorce, bad business deals and such and (he) has slowly built his estate back up (est. 40 million U.S. Dollars)...the main thing is, is he seems genuinely happy with his family life, business life and as of late, serving as an ambassador to tennis. I was fortunately able to briefly meet him in San Francisco in 1983, and he was a nice guy to us college kids.
@@samkeepintherockaliveand the rest. It’s like 500m
Great video! Thanks for the effort to put this together !
It was a very different game for Borg in the 1990s compared to the 1970s. While he did retire too early, better to retire on top than to stay around for too long. I respect his use of wood and the headband in 1991.
I do too, but I think his game had serious technical flaws he couldn't get away with in the game of the 90s that had become much much faster. Would he have had a backhand like Agassi, Evert of Connors, IMO it would have been a different story.
Why is it better to retire on top than to keep playing if you enjoy it and are still competitive?
Excellent video throughout - great catching up on that confusing period.
Thank you!!
So glad my laptop got its act together to remind me about your channel. Fascinating stuff. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
he still had 11 grand slams in 6 years. Most probably the best percentage. And at that time the clay and grass were drastically different.
Don Budge had 13 in 2 years.
What sets him apart: in most all photographs you see his eyes on the ball, a very rare focus indeed. What people do not remember: 1981-semifinals v Connors, was down 2 set & won next 3 sets while McEnroe won in 3 sets in his semifinal. So Connors wore him out & he was more exhausted. 1981-recall well his body language after loss; was TOTALLY DEFLATED ; time telling that the '81 Wimbledon was the last of Borg. He was my favourite; such a tragic early retirement--
Go pick up a wooden racket and you'll be shocked at how much it changes the way you need to play. The sweet spot is about the size of the ball and the racket flexes so much on any mishits. It's really hard to use topspin since the frame is so close to the sweet spot.
Playing with a wooden racket is like playing another sport. I startet Tennis 1985 with a gift from my grandma, an old McEnroe wood racket. A few months later i got a graphite racket and couldnt believe how big the difference is. I finally won some matches. 😆 That Borg tried his comeback with a wooden racket was a bold move. 1991 it was basically impossible to win a match on the ATP tour with a wooden racket.
@@Bhavyo Even Donnay went out of business - that is telling you the time has passed
So true. The things modern rackets can do aren't nearly as impressive as watching a Borg passing shot or a McEnroe dropshot...I miss the wood racket days.
Agreed. I miss the wood days. The players are so big and strong now, I just can't fathom why they need more power. Two handed back-hands were for smaller men like Connors, Dibbs, Solomon. Why guys over six feet need it is beyond me. I refuse to watch two-handed tennis anymore. It made the game seamless and boring.
@@aaronaragon7838 yes its ungainly and only necessary if you lack strength.
Whats strange is that the ATP seemed to push him away in 82/83. I thought he just walked away but they would not let him play a limited schedule. I think the key statement was, he saw Jimmy doing well and thought, dam, I use to beat that guy regularly so , why not. I saw an interview with Borg last year and he was watching his son play and he seemed happy with his decisions. We can't imagine the amount of women that probably attacked him after every match. I find Borg and Mac to be fascinating people. We like to think that everything is so easy for these star athletes and its not so, they have to work hard and have problems too.
Well, Jimmy Connors would have beaten Borg easily in 1991. He did in a 1986 exhibition, and he beat Borg on the senior's tour most of the time. Borg was burnt out by the end of 1981, and even though he won some exhibition matches against Connors in 1982 (but lost most) and to McEnroe even as late as 1983, I don't think he would have had as much success in 1982 and 1983 as in 1981, even if the ATP had allowed his small schedule. I do think that in 1982 he really was considering to come back, but during 1982 he learned that the absolute will was gone, and so he declared his retirement in early 1983. IF his mind would have been the same as early 1980, he sure would have had a few more succcessful years in him, winning at least a few more French Opens (it's no surprise that he won list last ever grand slam title right there, on clay). But his mind was not the same.
Loved Bjorn Borg and modeled my game after him. Loved his two handed backhand, topspin, and mental toughness. I think it bothered him that McEnroe had surpassed him in 1981. Borg had his share of difficulties post tennis career including the infamous comeback, but don't we all. Life isn't supposed to be easy. Thanks Bjorn for all you have given tennis.
I used to string my Donnay raquets at 90+ lbs and resin my palm as well as wear the pin stripe Filas ..........loved BB.
Yes, it was that final loss to McEnroe at the US open that took the wind out of his sails. It's sad to think that, had he won that tournament, it may well have been enough to keep him in the game to a more reasonable age. Borg will always remain one of the great 'what ifs' when it comes to talking about grand slam totals and the greatest of all time, bearing in mind that he never, like many of his fellow professionals, made the trip to Australia for the open there.
Great video again mate! Always choosing fire topics🔥
Next video, "The Insane Rise of KZhead's Biggest Tennis Commentator... Cam Williams!"
@@CULTTENNIS nah man you gotta stick with the content people want to see haha
This channel literally has some of the best editing visuals out there.
Always happy to see new videos, I love to watch your videos and rewatch them all the time!
Actually in 1993 he find some kind of form and played extremely competitive matches against top-20 players-Wayne Ferreira and recently gone Alexander Volkov.
As I recall, he had a match point in the Volkov match but Volkov saved it and eventually won the match.
This is a very good content. Thank you 👍 🎾
According to fellow Swedish team mate Borg did his comeback mainly to be back in the locker room again, to talk tennis. There was no veteran circuit around in 91.
And he was a talent, his wins at early age against world top players is not only a question of preparation.
It was for money, let's not be naive here
@@SiLoMixMaster Then he would have toured the world exhibition playing. Taking no risk of losing face playing badly. Out in the first round only gives little money. More need of attention more likely. But it was certainly more profitable than his business that for sure.
Borg retired becuse he was tired and burnout. He should played with a graphite racket in the Comeback in 1991. He should taking back his former coach Lennart Bergelin. Playing many exibition tournament and matches. Before the comeback. But the best was if he had really been motivated in 1982. Then he had winning many more Grand Slams.
McEnroe also used a Dunlop wooden racquet at first.
He never played Australien Open. If he had done, he would have won many more.
@@kennethmoh9042 may or may not
@@kengor8888 The Australian Open was a grass surface back then, so very likely he would have won some or all of them in those years of his prime.
@@malcolmrobertson8941 Grass king J. McEnroe still lost to Clay expert Wilander in 1983 Grass Australian Open.
Very impressive to force Volkov to a deciding tiebreak in 1993, the same year Volkov reached the semifinal in US Open. In 1990 he defeated world no.1 Stefan Edberg in US Open.
Thanks for mentioning this. He was slowly working his way back. Volkov was a very good player in the 90's
Great video, I never knew about the Borg comeback.
Something that is rarely mentioned about Bjorn; in his heyday he was, physically, as strong as a bull.
Yes his sheer athleticism i think won him many games. Very low heart rate, tremendous stamina and iron hard will to win
@@johntate5722 Yes, his resting heartrate was off the charts low.
@@timwilde4200 🙂
borg relied so much on his speed,,,he slowed down due to inactivity and age and lost his speed which was really his big advantage,,,connors never took that much time off and kept his court speed pretty good
That is exactly the reason that Borg failed in his comeback. Borg was the fastest player on tour, before his retirement. He could run down balls and keep getting the ball back. His speed, and mental toughness would wear down all of his opponents other than Mc Enroe and Connors.
This was an informative video for someone like me who never saw Borg play in his prime. I remember as a teenager seeing Borg play during his comeback and how bad he looked. It's pretty much impossible to take 10 years off and comeback and play at a high level. Why did the ATP tell Borg he would have to qualify to play in tournaments? Did they not have wild cards back then?
Best sports documentary channel. And I don’t even play tennis. The narrative is incredibly well written. Not to mention the voice that delivers it! 😊Captivating!
Still my favourite tennis player, of all time.
Absolutely no shame in what he tried to do. He failed to win but it's no way a failure to get out there and try even if he wasn't as dedicated as the 1st time around.
9:38 'the reason for Borg's successes was not an inherited god given tennis talent ...' you can't be serious! Look at the beauty of his groundstrokes from the baseline - especially his backhand, look at his successes already at such a young age (French open - 17 years old) etc. Do you really think, anyone can achieve anything in tennis just by excessive training? Again: You can't be serious!
Lol.Borg changed his backhand later , becaurce such technigue is suited for modern rackets
I mean it’s fairly well documented that practice and training is significantly more important than pure talent.
This is some god tier video editing
god damn your videos are so good
I`ve never seen a player who could glide so elegantly and weightlessly around the court,it was as though he was made of elastic.
One of the many things that made him unbeatable on clay was his light frame and incredible agility. With heavier players, sheer kinetic energy would keep them in a slide longer until they could change direction, whereas Borg recovered much more quickly.
I genuinely had no idea he had a comeback.
No mystery to his failure: he stayed away from the game for far too long. Period.
These videos sneaking in ads is always hilarious to me
It makes no sense, to compare Borg's age at the time of his comeback with the age of players like Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. None of them stopped playing for 10 years. Borg simply waited too long for a serious comeback. A decade is like a century to a sportsman...too many things had changed since he retired; and I couldn't believe my eyes, when I saw him at Montecarlo in 1991, trying to struggle on with his old wooden racket. A bit sad, indeed, but to me Bjorn Borg is still a legend and one of the greatest tennis players ever.
Borg was my favourite player. He should have accepted ATP decision to play 10 events in 1982. He could’ve just tanked the matches as he was prone to in his prime. The 81 ATP finals he lost 6-3 6-0 to Gene Mayer but beat McEnroe , Connors and Lendl in the same tournament. I think he could’ve have added to his 11 Slams
The coolest player ever . I rooted against him when he played McEnroe but loved what he did for the game .
Equipment change made it tough after the break ATP made huge mistake not letting Borg play with silly limitations.
o mesmo caso de atletas como, sei lá, Mike Tyson e outros... estavam por cima muito por conta da autoconfiança meio narcisita, e nunca souberam desempenhar por baixo. Mas foram grandes atletas
Woah, he left the trophy ceremony? Imagine the fuse if that happened today.
Interesting take on the matter
One most important fact didn't been mentioned. Borgs incredible speed and swiftness which he had in his youth. After 10 years of non training and with age that speed was lost, just like in all other sports and athletes. He looked to play the same put he was late on ball for quarter of second, short for half of meter, or few centimeters - enough to lose. His style was greatly dependent on that, so he had no chances.
4:07 spelling mistake in the Houston article : "stive" ---> strive.
His technigue was not suited for modern rackets. After his comeback he changed his shots : for example his backhand
As a swede, I've always been dissapointed that Borg has been such a big sucess in Sweden and talked a lot about internationally and stuff, and all we got in Sweden was him being radio silent for 40 years and selling overpriced underwear, and now I guess the money is drying up or he wants his son to succed off his name when he is 18+ now and has been starting to have more public appearences. There is so much tennis and tennisplayers in sweden could learn or learnt from him (mental game etc), but he just decided to sit on his bum and not do anything about his succes to help others succeed in his footsteps, but here, have some Björn Borg underwear.
Firstly, people are all different - nobody is public property save, perhaps, a politician. I mean, in general, Swedes are quite conservative. Secondly, Borg practiced with Wilander in the run-up to his 1982 French Open win. Nobody has been more influential in the game of tennis than Bjorn, and he is definitely not skint these days. I've met him, a true gent. Lastly, in this corrupt, degenerate capitalist system everything is overpriced these days: milk, bread, gas, electricity, meat...!
His case is no worse than Edberg or Wilander.Even the Americans couldn't cultivate new talent after the Sampras-Agassi generation retired.
Borg never made a “ comeback “ ! He was just bored in his 30’s and wanted to travel the tour for the parties and groupies ! But he found being a drunk ,has been ,doesn’t attract the same reverence . The past is never where you left it !😢
It was a disaster for two major reasons. 1. Borg was well past his athletic prime and not match tough. He was also stubborn and stupid about continuing to play with outdated and obsolete technology like his wooden racket. 2. The game and its players had changed drastically since the early 80s. Guys like Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras and Courier made it much more physical and that is a style Borg as an old man couldn’t deal with anymore. Plus I suspect many young players wanted a chance to add Borg’s scalp to their collection by destroying the legend. In the end, Bjorn Borg has himself to blame if he was actually serious about making a comeback to competitive tennis. If he was just out there for some fun and didn’t care if the humiliation of getting massacred would sour his legacy and the myth of his legend, then that is his choice. But I personally think he was stupid in his decision making and should’ve stayed retired or played on the champions tour instead. His time for a comeback should’be happened in 1983, not 93.
1) Borg needed the money, thats why he chose to return in 93, not 83 where he had money; Borg noticed that by the start of the new decade the sport was paying much more than he earned in the seventies 2) Borg´s return was considered a dissapointment not all because he lost the match to Arrese, but because the way he lost it, playing with his old wooden raquet and seing him with the same old looks, plus a worn image of himself and not at all healthy, which was very sad. 3) Happily Borg's comeback went unnoticed after this first match, as he wasn't slaughtered by any top players of the time nor he played on the big stages or televised matches anymore.
Of all the comments you are right. Borg was always considered a great athlete, but completely stupid in all his decisions. Remember the fat chain-smoking chump of a woman he married. After that, he just went downhill. While everyone read books, he would be found in the locker room reading Casper the Friendly Ghost and laughing hysterically. On the court in his time, he was great, but his foolishness with the drugs (cocaine was his favorite) and the lack of real motivation caused him to start losing. Then he retired, rather than really man up and be the greatest. Compare him to Nadal. He won a great many of grand slams, but look at how Nadal comes back from serious injury, to actually win,
As soon as Jimmy Connors started his senior's tour in 1993 (and both met in WTT competition in 1993, too), Borg started reconsidering, and I think he even admitted it himself later: he would have preferred to play on such a senior's tour since 1991. You can see him play against Connors in 1994 on KZhead, and it seems he enjoyed that.
@@Nocturnbandofficial Wilander and Mc Enroe started playing with graphite in late 82 and Borg came back almost a decade later with his old wooden Donnay. Absolute no chance, no chance.
@@rebecalinares5393 ... yeah, Borg playing with a wooden racket in 1991 was a strange and stubborn decision, making it hard to believe that he was serious. Wilander had been using a graphite racket even before late 1982 btw...
Bjorn Borg records 41 straight matches won in Wimbledon (Roger Federer also won 5 straight titles before losing to Nadal in the final of 2008 but had one walk over and only reached 40 match wins in a row) Highest winning percentage in matches going to 5 sets - 81.8% (27-6) Career win/lose record all matches - 83.1% (639-130) Won 3 Grand Slams without losing a set (shared with Rafael Nadal, Richard Sears and Tony Trabert) 89.81% win/lose record in Grand Slams (141-16) Grand Slam Tournament won with less games lost - 32 games in French Open 1978 3 consecutive Channel Slams (French Open + Wimbledon) 1978-1980 92.73% win/lose record at Wimbledon (51-4) 88.9% match record in Grand Slam five set matches (24-3) Borg held the record for most consecutive match wins in Davis Cup (33) until 2016 when Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis reached 36 straight match wins in Davis Cup singles matches. Borg also held the record as the youngest Grand Slam champion after his win at the French Open 1974. Seven years later fellow Swede Mats Wilander broke that record winning his first French Open and 1986 Boris Becker won Wimbledon and broke Wilanders record. Bjorn Borg Titles 64 ATP Titles won 100 Titles won in total 1 Davis Cup 11 Grand Slams (16 finals) 5 Wimbledon titles 6 French Open titles
Alacaraz has the potential to do the exact same thing as Borg. Patterns and periods always repeat via someone or some situation. Borg was as revolutionary as Alacaraz is today. Everyone thinks that if you have x amount of fame and greatness, then you want 2x, and 3x and x squared amount. I think it's a fair assumption to say from history, this is not really a correct assumption. Once you have enough of x, then to balance the life you need to have y, z, and rho and will search for it until it's all there.
A suggestion for another tennis video would be how Lendl developed his game to get over McEnroe. I didn't start paying attention to tennis until the mid 80s and was a bit surprised to find out later that earlier in their careers Lendl was considered a bit of a light weight while McEnroe was the top guy.
this should inspire roger to make a comeback in 2030
Great video! Say what you want about the comeback but the fact that he brought back the wooden racket in -91 is such a goat thing to do!
Many still miss the wooden racquets, it made for a totally different game, much more tactical. One could argue the rise of pickleball is a result of a dislike of power tennis.
I respect the Big 3 and their 60 slams, but I haven't watched tennis since Safin tore up the landscape. Safin and del Potro showed what ultimate power tennis could be. Alas, take me back to wood and Dunlop Maxply.
Anything at the very highest cutting edge level is always evolving and improving. Hyper competitive with a lot at stake. Impossible to just show up and have success.
Wooden racquet?!?!? LMAO
I still have a Borg Donnay Pro that I never use!
Wooden Racquets are SUPERIOR to the "MODERN" racquets!!! 💯💯💯
For me and being an Argentine fan of Vilas, I consider that Borg was undoubtedly the best tennis player in history and together with Guillermo they were the inventors of the top spin and other effects, he was an advance
For someone who stayed 10 years without practising, the Monte Carlo comeback was great. No practice, no exhibition matches and he still scored 5 games with outdated equipment. But the following year was indeed bad as he was practising, embracing new modern rackets and didn't win a single match.
Just before his 18th birthday he was the youngest winner of the Italian Championship, and two weeks later he was the youngest winner of the French Championship (a record lowered by Mats Wilander, 17, in 1982, and subsequently by Michael Chang, a younger 17 in 1989). Eighteen months later, at 19, he climaxed a Davis Cup-record winning streak of 19 singles by lifting Sweden to the 1975 Cup for the first time in a 3-2 final-round victory over Czechoslovakia. His Cup singles streak of 33 was intact at his retirement, still a record. Although Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall were a few months younger in 1953 when they won the Davis Cup for Australia, both were beaten during the final round. But Borg won both his singles in straight sets, over Jiri Hrebec and the clincher over Jan Kodes, after teaming with Ove Bengtson for the doubles win. Borg's Davis Cup debut at 16 in 1972, as one of the youngest ever in that competition, was phenomenal: A five-set win over seasoned pro Onny Parun of New Zealand. Borg was also the youngest winner of the oldest professional championship, the U.S. Pro, whose singles he took in 1974 at 18 over Tom Okker (and, subsequently, 1975 and 1976). Aaron Krickstein, 16, lowered that record in 1984.
He was also older and had not continued to play all the years prior. That needs to be emphasized.
One should point out that the tennis racket technology changed! Jimmy Connors with his Wilson T 200 and the new oversized rackets changed the game of tennis significantly! Borg was still using single throat wood rackets and when he attempt to use the new rackets his style of playing would not optimize the use of the new technology! Playing with the wood rackets in my opinion made watching playing tennis more interesting ! I have nostalgia from the tennis of the 1970 70’s 😢
I love your content cult keep it up
7:06... The excerpt from the article: To Swedish radio, after his protege had lost, Professor Binocs said, " (he) is not upset, he feels sorry for all of you..." Of course, theres a photo just below... Gotta love the way these pages are composed, eh? He had his time and it obviously passed. Coming back at 35 with his patented undersized, wooden racquets, i remember him saying, " the game is much faster ". His initial comeback match was on clay, which is the slowest surface...Bjorn Borg and Abba basically held court the last half of the 70s. Much adored and loved even still, it does point to simpler times, where the borders of belief were somewhat removed from the present ones. Western Europe and Skandanavia have likely experienced less hardship amid the changes in relativity to most everywhere else. I can far easier appreciate this ill-fated comeback far better than a spectacle like when Bobby Riggs teamed up with Vitas Guerralitis ( prolly mispelled-sorry ) against the top womens pair-Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver...remember his mea culpa...? I thought Vitas had more range...! That is far more pathetic and cringe-worthy if we re gonna scrutinize someone being out of their league for no good reason.
I've always said it once Bjorn got beat by Mac he was done. Wins came pretty easy for Bjorn but once it came down to who had the bigger heart Bjorn folded like a deck of cards. I love Bjorn he was my idol and I looked like him and that was a good thing back in the day trust me. Bjorn was the man of mystery, the iceman. Bjorn literally changed the sport overnight he was a walking billboard, and he had a two-handed backhand, and he had the good looks.
I saw the thumbnail first and I thought it was Steffi Graff. 😅
I have two of these rackets. One is a huge racket used for advertisements in the 1980s.
Guy in the stands at 4:11 got duplicated 😂
Borg's was a great player because of natural talent. He was, at times, the best player in the world because of dedication and proper preparation. It should be noted, however, that schoolyards are full of kids who are more than willing to dedicate themselves to a sport, sometimes for nothing more than a $50 trophy. Of course, there are also those with tremendous natural athletic talent who squander it away.
Be interested in seeing Tracey Austin’s ‘94 return too
Interesting, wasn't previously aware of this
I just so happen to know about it. It was 93-94. It wasn't a comeback per se. Her back was feeling pretty good and she wanted to get out there and play again for fun. Tracy played 25 matches in total. She won 11 and lost 14. Three of the wins were over seeded players. By comparison, Borg lost all 12 of his comeback matches.
@@jm7804 have you ever seen any footage? I’ve never been able to find anything
@@Ineddiblehulk Not that I can recall, but if I find something I'll post the link. You're best bet is probably the match she won against Katrina Maleeva, who was probably hovering around the top 10 at the time.
I saw him play doubles in a tennis tournament in Newton, MA in about 1995. Him and his partner lost to two younger men whom were not ranked better than in the top 100.
Borg left Tennis because he was burned out. His last big goal was to win the US Open, but try as he must, he could not pull it off, leading to more dismay and burn out. As for the come back I really believe it was a combination of things, but the biggest was the Sports Transition Period. All sport have them around every decade. Borg tried his comeback when the sport was changing with new better equipment break throughs and faster, stronger, athletes. But he will always be remembered for his dominance and swag in the mid and late 70's. John McEnroe also went through this transition when Agassi, Sampras, and many others hit the scene, Although Johnny Mac hung in there as long as he could.
This is the best tennis-related channel out there. Also, your next video should be on Sam Querrey fleeing Russia when he had COVID. Would love to hear more about what went down, and I’m sure many others would.
Covid!
Would make for an interesting short!
No one will ever care enough about Sam Querry to watch it, like any of his matches in his career.
the fact that he came back without any preparation or real coach/trainer, after years of partying, and had match point against the 17th ranked player in the world is kind of amazing!
If you want to be a serious athlete, then you have to compete in serious events on a consistent basis. Borg didn't do that, so his comeback was doomed from the start. You can't be out of the game for THAT length of time and expect anything good to happen.
My sense is that even had Borg been better prepared and more disciplined in the course of his comeback, he would not have won many matches. His style of play belonged to another era, as did McEnroe's. Contrary to what many people argue, I think he made a reasonable decision to retire when he did, though perhaps another 2 or 3 years of play would have been fine too. Could he have stopped McEnroe's winning streak? Maybe, but unlikely. I think Mac would have continued winning fairly regularly, just as Lendl regularly defeated McEnroe from 85 onward, often overpowering him. Tennis slowly but surely became a highly rigorous, professional, power game.
Tennis became a power game due to one thing - the rackets. Try picking up a wooden racket and see what you can accomplish with it compared to a modern version. Never mind how much larger the sweet spot is on modern rackets as well. People like to point to more modern players as some sort of freaks of nature slugging the ball back and forth - particularly women. The major factor that's contributed to the power surge is the rackets - period. Players from days gone by, like Borg or Laver or Gonzales, would have equally benefited from the improvements, especially lighter framed players like Borg and Laver. And anyone who thinks players from the past were any less fit than those of today never saw Borg or Laver in their prime.
If Borg's game was outdated already in the early 80-s, then how could Wilander, Borg light, have so much success until 88?
I heard once Wilander say that Borgs greatest strength was his ability to track down every I mean every ball graphite rackets hadn't yet come along and even top players couldn't hit through Borg on court to break him down enough to win games and sets Borgs unrivalled athleticism and steady l mean a 100 ground strokes without missing, every point type of steady was an impossible problem to crack in that 1972 to 1981era, thats what made him near impossible to beat but of course by the early 1990s all pros used the modern rackets and all had considerable power as a result.
I think it is a fair point that Borg had devoted his entire childhood and youth to playing tennis and being the best, so he was totally unprepared for being out of the limelight. The great matches, the wins and yes the attention and girls drooling over him - he liked it, it was all part of his identity. Alas, this did mean he was not very streetwise so to speak. He had little experience of 'real' life and that is why I think he made the outrageously naive decision to play again with the same look and even same raquet - his world had never changed before when he played, so why would it when he came back? What tends to happen with such megastars is they have so many fake friends and advisers wanting money, few if any dare say to them 'look, this is not a good idea'. It was also possible Borg would not have listened anyhow, to be fair. He was still an amazing player and athlete, so great we all tend to skip the 'comeback' when we think of him !
perfect channel to watch with your food
I think the issue that plagued Borg was that he believed that if he practiced and prepared harder than anyone else he would win. But that was debunked by McEnroe and Bjorn second guessed himself. So he did the opposite by stepping away from the game and living a life of excess and even when he returned he still played under that cloud of doubt i.e.that hard work and practice wasnt 100% a guarantee of success and so he tried a different ,relaxed approach.In a way it gave him an out..if he failed he could always rationalise that he wasn't really practicing that much.Thats easier mentally than preparing like crazy and losing,feeling self doubt that one isn't good enough.
Curieux en 1994, contre connors dans un match de vétéran sur ciment il jouait pas trop mal,en attaquant du fond du court et avec un bon service aussi.Dans les deux derniers jeux du 3 ème set il s écroule.
Retiring and leaving tennis behind meant age, fitness, and match sharpness all had to be overcome when he returned. It seems as though he received poor advice, or didn't seek a tough coach. I imagine if he had continued to play he would have remained competitive until 85/86. Lets remember he still had a remarkable career.
I usually don't comment on videos but I can tell how much effort you put into editing so I'm just doing this to push the vid to be more favored by the algorithm
It’s sad to see someone so great in his day look so ordinary on his comeback.
Comebacks are never easy..look what happened to henin, capriati or clisters... Borg was super cool but once he left, it was curtains... He still has achieved what 3 goats couldn't do.. Win 5 or more rg and wimbledon
Probably, Arrese 1991, with his new racquet , was also able to defeat 1981 Ivan Lendl. The spanish, player ,in 1992 ,won over Lendl , on clay court.
Why didn't he played the Australian Open in his time? Was it more difficult to travel thi far?
Can’t believe he got to match point against a top 15 player in 1993 then gave up. He was obviously improving a lot
5:58-6:03 that’s David Nalbandian 😂
One thing that every promising young jock must, _must,_ MUST get through his head from day one is that once age catches up to him, that's it _forever._ If working your butt off and keeping a goody-two-shoes lifestyle is what it takes to keep the cash and trophies rolling in, suck it up and take it like a man. Once your career is over you have literally the entire rest of your life to indulge in moronic vices and self-destructive behavior. Thankfully, after countless cautionary tales, it looks like this lesson is finally sinking in.
people forget Bjorn Borg only played once of the Australian open, which could have had a huge effect on how many Grand Slam he could have ended he ended up win.
Many top players never or rarely played there, it was not considered a serious major tournament -- far away with low prize money. Jimmy Connors only played there twice -- winning once and reaching the final the next year. Players of that era just weren't thinking about how many major titles they had.
@@PaulWolfe1 it also doesn't help, until the early 80s Australian open with actually played in December, and end the same week as Christmas.
@@PaulWolfe1 Borg was really the main cause of the demise of the men's Australian Open during the late '70s and early '80s (the best female players still showed up). He couldn't win the US Open so he was never motivated to play the Australian Open to complete the slam. Plus it was on grass back then. Probably not his favourite surface. Shifting the AO to be the first slam of the year made a big difference.
@@noahbody9782 Not at all true. Many skipped it, including women, many of whom were more interested in building up the Virginia Slims tour than going to Australia. Billie Jean King only went there 4 times in her long career. Chris Evert went once from 1971-1980. Navratilova went once 1973-1979.
I don't think he ever played the Australien Open. What year did he play?
Only McEnroe could've helped Bjorn since John understood everything and was still beating Becker at that time (1992). Age and physical attrition aside, Bjorn had hit with a virtual log strung at 90 lbs ..totally eccentric. Only he could play with it. He needed to incorporate the new gift of velocity (coefficient of restitution) over his old 'machine' control base and speed afoot. IE. put away winners. Also, work on the serve .. free velocity there. I think John could've made that simple for Bjorn. Problem is that there were great volleyers, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Martin .... and baseliners Agassi, Chang, Rios. Tough era, top down to the top 100.