McEnroe-Borg greatest rivalry
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:02 PM
Is Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal the equal of or superior to the great John McEnroe-Bjorn Borg rivalry?
At present, I answer no, although Federer and Nadal still have time to surpass the now three-decade old battles between the brash New Yorker and stoic Swede.
How much time is very much a question for Nadal after news that he is struggling to overcome tendinitis in both knees. Nadal will travel to London next week, and he hopes the treatment he has been receiving gets him fit enough to play. Nadal says if he is not at 100 percent, he won’t play Wimbledon. Even if he does play, there are questions over his long-term health.
McEnroe and Borg had the personality difference, an external reality, as the two have long been friends. But it played wonderfully in an era when tennis had a high profile. Network television was common; tennis series (paid exhibitions) were created, and general sports fans could name 8-10 players. The sport was incredibly healthy in the United States, but had yet to experience a global explosion.
There were other great players in that era. Jimmy Connors was still a force after his five-year run at No. 1 (1974-78), and would regain the top spot for periods in 1979 and 1982. Ivan Lendl arrived as a future star, Guillermo Vilas was still a force on clay, and Vitas Gerulaitis was at his peak. But Connors was the wild card, the man who could rival McEnroe and Borg in results, and surpassed the Swede in inciting passion. He was the third party who became fierce rivals with McEnroe, meetings in which there often wasn’t a good guy.
Like McEnroe and Borg, Federer and Nadal have a rivalry of respect. It’s clear they like each other. And like McEnroe and Borg, they have played a classic Wimbledon final. The two best matches in tennis history are regarded to be the Wimbledon finals between these sets of rivals. That’s not coincidence as the sport’s greatest stage creates the lasting memories, just as Augusta produces golf’s best moments.
Federer and Nadal have more variety than McEnroe and Borg, contesting their finals over three surfaces and three different Grand Slam events. They play in a more international sport. Who could have ever imagined tremendous players from Mallorca, Scotland, Serbia, Cyprus, and Thailand as well as an utter explosion from Russia (more with the women) and Eastern Europe? That works well in some ways, making players unimagined money traveling the entire globe for events and exhibitions that produce huge paydays, but not in others as tennis in the U.S. has been marginalized denying the Federer-Nadal rivalry the same stage that McEnroe and Borg enjoyed.
And then there is the biggest difference. McEnroe and Borg had the U.S., peaking with their U.S. Open showdowns. Federer and Nadal have yet to play at the U.S. Open, and only twice have they met in tournaments in the United States.
The Federer-Nadal rivalry has the chance to win the longevity battle as Borg’s abrupt retirement in 1981 denied McEnroe more battles with the Swede. But what Federer and Nadal don’t yet have is the platform to fully show their brilliance to the world. Yes, people heard about their Wimbledon final last year, and stumbled into the match at various times. But it still didn’t have the buzz of the much-anticipated 1980 and 1981 Wimbledon finals.
Federer-Nadal doesn’t have America. You want proof? This week Federer makes his first SOLO appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Does the next non-American tennis star need to win 14 majors to earn one cover? Until tennis hurdles the bridge to a broader American audience, McEnroe and Borg is an unchallenged rivalry.
