Bjorn Borg Aged 17 1973

Borg loses to Britain's Roger Taylor in the W quarter-final 1973

[@VilleIsTheShit]

Thumbs up if you think Björn Borg is the best!

[@DonYang73]

Cant believe it, 1973. The year i was born. Borg remains my fave player of all time. Top class, finesse and style all rolled into one powerful, quick and sharp player. 💪✌️👍

[@robertmalone4161]

I love those wooden rackets. For Wimbledon it should to this day be a requirement!

[@colinbaker3916]

Roger Taylor was the Tim Henman of his day. He reached the Wimbledon semi-final three times and never got any further. In 1967, he lost to the unseeded Wilhelm Bungert. In 1970 he was beaten by Ken Rosewall, having beaten the mighty Rod Laver in the fourth round, and in 1973 he eventually succumbed in a rain interrupted semi-final to Jan Kodes.

[@Ruda-n4h]

Although Borg was essentially a clay court player he was brought up playing a lot on the fast Swedish indoor courts and had learned how to move properly and anticipate, which helped him on the grass at Wimbledon. People forget his speed and footwork were two of his biggest assets not just his passing shots and topspin.

[@dansmith9724]

He has a good volley on him too. He can serve volley better than 99% of modern players👍

[@jm7804]

Jeez, that guy was good looking, and still is.

[@freddiemercury4evr]

Thanks for posting this great-quality footage! Love Borg!!

[@warrenrayledbetter9957]

Crazy to see Borg coming to the net so much.

[@nicholasschroeder3678]

I always rooted for Borg because he wasn't an a...... like Connors and McEnroe

[@jamesy1955]

With the voice of the wonderful Dan Maskell. "Oh, I say. What a shot!" 👍

[@johan5943]

or, "I must say !"

[@MartinHusk]

More classic was 'oh what a peach'

[@slw59]

I like the way they didn't waste time in those days. Nowadays players use a towel between each point which is ridiculous.

[@serenaistheb.o.a.t]

Hey guess what random person on the internet, tennis in the 21st century is a little bit more physical than in the early 70s... just a little bit.

[@johnrobbins917]

Ironically, your words were typed using a device that demands less strength, ie physicality, than that required by the user of a typewriter in 1973. I guess that means the verbiage produced by the typist in 1973 is of greater importance and meaning than the hit-and-run comments made on the web today.

[@kennethmoh9042]

They didn't bounce the ball, so many times before serving, as they do today.

[@emin7540]

Serena is the B.O.A.T Take a look at the court wear then and now to see that there is less court covered today.

[@MrPernell27]

slw59 yea Isner hits an ace and then goes to the towel. Nadal picks his ass for 5 minutes then serves. It’s all ridiculous. Meanwhile Federer holds serve in 70seconds.

[@carlh429]

Notice how close Borg is standing to the baseline when receiving serve compared to a few years on when he had a habit of standing way back.

[@marknewberry8521]

Racquet skill was about finesse and accuracy back then, because it was nearly impossible to consistently hit power ground strokes because of the small racquet head and sweet spot, not to mention the physical toll the heavy wood racquet put on your elbow. Tennis Elbow was quite a common thing back then. So in order to combat these elements, players tried to shorten points via serve and volley, and if the rally continued it was done with placement skill not power.

[@emphryio]

Wrong. Tennis elbow was less common back then and that was exactly because the racquets were heavier thus they had more plow through and less vibration. Also being wooden they were more flexible. Also they played with natural gut which is very soft. In today's game with the poly strings and light stiff racquets, tennis/golfer's elbow is far more common. And plenty of these guys back then were consistent with their groundstrokes. Serve and volley has died out now because they have slowed down the courts to counter the ace fests and also the poly strings give extra topspin which makes volleys harder.

[@JamesHarris-hl2bm]

Mark, you're correct, up to a point. Technology has enhanced things a great deal, but with a price. Since there's no limit to the technology, now, finesse has practically gone from the game. We are going to really miss guys like Roger when he's gone. Power is a good thing, but nothing should be used all of the time. There are times when less is more.

[@dansmith9724]

Look at the power Lendl and Becker had, although used more modern rackets then 1973 its still old technology. Lendl had scary power from the back of the court then, imagine him now with a more modern racket. A mate of mine used a Lendl racket, it was as heavy as a cricket bat.

[@angelgutierrez-kg5du]

I saw Bjorn on that year.Impressive skyrocketing was forseable

[@karatekid360]

Getting his autograph and meeting Roger on Saturday!

[@Gregoryt700]

Wow, Borg really improved his serve by '76

[@metterklume]

@mikeblair333 Even though the baseline was Bjorn's strength, he did change his game for grass. But it's amazing to see him doing it at age 17!

[@jamesdesch3201]

True grass court tennis. In other words, if you can't serve and volley at a high level you have no chance. Today, baseliners can play the same way they play on clay and be hugely successful. Hence, true grass court players have hardly any advantage. Something is wrong with that IMHO.

[@kennethbrady]

Could not agree more!

[@dansmith9724]

Technology changed the rackets, strings and balls. Players can hit harder with the modern rackets and more topspin to drag the ball into the court. The only way to hit the ball past a player with speed back then was to cut the ball off at the net. Otherwise it was a boring puddly game of tennis until someone made an unforced error or was just runned around the court until they ran out of steam. I actually dont think the pace of the game is that different other than the serve. Might be different standing on the court.

[@pepijnstraatman5730]

and I love Borg's serving technique

[@IvanMacedo]

Parabens pela postagem, Borg fez nome na Historia do Tennis e é muito bom poder ver imagens de todas as epocas deste Grande Idolo... Obrigado...

[@john-boy4283]

I feel Bjorn again! (that's a lousy pun by the way). Loved Borg's style and grace on the court, apparently the girl's did too

[@petergoodwin7182]

It is interesting reading the comments comparing champions of yesteryear to today's. Borg , McEnroe, Connors ,Laver etc had a winning mentality ,a desire to be the best .If they came along now that desire would be there and they would do whatever it takes in today's game to get to the top,it's something inbuilt in the top sport stars that separates them from the rest, just like Djokovic, Nadal and Federer in today's game .

[@annetteelliott1494]

The ladies went gaga over him........still a very handsome man.....

[@pracquet]

Interesting, but you could/should have included the end of the match, surely.

[@pracquet]

@MUFC Why are you telling me this?

[@dansmith9724]

@MUFC soccer most boring game around. How can you sit there and watch a game that ends up nil all, really? Full of C grade actors. Tennis is far more interesting, athletic and skillful than soccer. You cant have a nil all draw in tennis.

[@mmenato]

The King Borg !!

[@benghazikid]

Roger Taylor and Bjorn Borg met only twice on the tennis circuit. This was the first and most memorabel of the two with Taylor winning in five sets. Borg won their second encounter more decisively later.

[@BLACKTREAT]

BORG SERVED AND VOLLEYED ALOT

[@sweeneytodd8318]

As did most players back in the day when you wanted to win and end the point asap to conserve energy. Not like today’s ultra fit athletes

[@purveyoroffinefoodslaszlo9955]

Borg's inherent speed and penchant for baseline game would set him up perfectly for today's game. His only weakness seems to be his volleying which has become virtually obsolete in today's game due to power of racquets and elite fitness of athletes playing. If he came up training the ways today's men do, along with his tennis genetics he'd be poised to be a contender again. That's my humble observation.

[@coerfjoe1]

+purveyoroffinefoods laszlo The volley is never obsolete. The dump-volley is any base-liner's undoing. Rafter used it against Agassi and Sampras for effect. The master, Pancho Gonzales, used it throughout his marathon Pasarell match. Federer hasn't discovered it because he doesn't play much doubles.

[@vanlendl1]

Borg played a really tight stringed racquet, what is not perfect for volleys. His only weakness was to miss the moment of attacking.

[@pepijnstraatman5730]

it is a slower pace of playing, but they do take less time in-between points it seems. and it looks more varied too in playing style.

[@Paranoiaaak]

Dude.. Tennis surfaces were much faster back then (especially grass), and the ball bounced much lower. Guys like Nadal or Djokovic (who are wonderful players btw) wouldn't have stood a chance against guys like Borg, McEnroe or else. At least on these surfaces.

[@predescudragos2011]

It is actually the other way around. However, they are different sports, you cannot compare the training methods, rockets, balls and surfaces from 50 years ago with whatever they have nowadays.

[@willnill7946]

DRAGOS STEFAN Predescu yes the balls would bounce lower and go faster because they were not pressurized as well, not an expert I confess

[@jesusapolicarpio-delacruz3851]

I TRULY AGREE W/YOU, DRAGOS, DUE TO DIFFERENT METHODS, PARAPHERNALIA AND WHAT HAVE YOU!

[@martynhanson]

By the way, Taylor was no mug. He reached the semi final in 67 and 70 - in the latter he famously knocked out defending champ Rocket Rod in the 4th round

[@jdee8267]

1973 was the year of the ATP ban hence most top players were missing. That explains why Jan Kodes won it

[@benghazikid]

Roger Taylor was in at least two or three semi finals. After defeating Borg here in 1973, aged 32, he lost in five sets to eventual wimbledon champion, Jan Kodes in the semi final that year. Kodes himself lost in five sets to the Australian John Newcombe later the same year at the US Open.

[@Tastyichigo]

how is this quality better than some of the quality i see in the 21st century?

[@jackkitchen737]

I had no idea how close Taylor came to choking away this match.

[@anaihilator]

judging by nadal and djoko's results in madrid, and djoker's result in dubai...doubtful they could have hung in the 90's with fast courts everywhere.

[@stevewildasin6726]

Why didn't you show the end of the match?

[@Logans3Run]

Bjorn is only 17 here but looks as though, he's in his 20's!

[@newmark401]

Yes, it's surprising to see Borg approaching the net so much. He probably did it too much in this match, though he was still very inexperienced then, just 17 years of age.

[@kjetin99]

Correct! A little bit too much!

[@TheTruthfulAsshole]

I have Borg's hair....exactly...

[@arzn253]

i turned 17 today

[@lexy18uk]

roger taylor is my dad

[@coerfjoe1]

Roger Taylor won the match but Borg had two close calls near the end. Taylor was one of the cockiest players to reach the quarters, with a deadly lob. Those players presumed obsolete were more complete as players than today's players because they usually competed in singles and doubles and there were no 3 min breaks; no sitting down on change-overs. And they could hit topspin balls with wooden rackets, folks. Borg introduced the longer-handled racket with higher tension. He was no base-liner in '73-'74. He only baffled those who could not rush the net and use the whole court for placements.

[@jbprice387]

+Pit O'Maley - I have heard Roger Taylor say that he was a much lesser player than those currently playing. He pointed out that he was an amateur until age 26 and hardly had any coaching in his life.

[@coerfjoe1]

+JB Price Today, players are 'coached' endlessly. Taylor, and other naturals, would have had 2 yrs. of coaching in their teens and then tournament-bound. Players were more finely self-tuned, seasoned with doubles, singles and mixed-doubles simultaneously played. Today, not so. Back then, there were no time-outs, sit-downs or tie-breakers, playing until a victor took the set by 2 games. Consider this: some of those great players were denied grand slams (i,e, Ken Rosewall) because they went all-out in doubles play stretched to a 5-set challenge on the same day of their semi- or final singles.

[@jbprice387]

+Pit O'Maley - I wouldn't argue with much of what you say, but I was just going on the interview I saw with Taylor. He was very critical of his own game and clearly thought he would have been much better technically if he played in the modern era. He said the only coaching he ever had was a one week course run by Dan Maskell.

[@coerfjoe1]

+JB Price About fading from sight, if you got to Wimbledon on your skills you kissed the ground, because the players were not subsidized (only under the table) and in a short time had to take a job or marry. Most turned pro to earn money. They were gentlemen of the game, skilled and never forgotten for the personal sacrifices.

[@alanchong7513]

JB Price Dan Maskell, the British commentator? He's what you call a stiff brit with that posh accent. Perfect for covering Wimbledon. Haha. He probably coached Taylor wearing his long white trousers. He probably showed Taylor some outdated grips and techniques. Hahaha. I'm just takin' the p _ss.

[@KingCast65]

Dude the courts are SLOWER now. They changed the grass and that's a FACT.

[@johnrobbins917]

True. Wimbledon changed their grass after 2001. The new rye grass allows for a higher bounce, which begat slower play and rallies.

[@michaelbarlow6610]

@ Christopher King. Your absolutely right that the grass courts at Wimbledon today are slower than the fast grass courts of the wood era in tennis. Starting with the 2001 Wimbledon tournament the AELT&CC changed the composition of the grass courts at Wimbledon from the former composition of 70% rye grass and 30% Red Creeping Fescue (or Creeping Red Fescue) to 100% rye grass. 100% rye grass courts make the ball rebound slower and higher off the court than the ball did on the previous fast grass courts. The only reason that Rafael Nadal has 2 Wimbledon titles is because he benefited from the change in the composition of the grass courts to 100% rye grass which slowed down the speed of the Wimbledon tennis courts.

[@kennethbrady]

@Stork Legs You are a jerk and an imbecile.

[@VienneseDelights]

Borg served better when he was 17 than later on? That´s unbelieveable! Here he even bends his knees when he was serving. Something he didn´t do later on. Anybody got an explaination for that?

[@fundhund62]

It´s actually not uncommon for players (especially the talented ones) to do a few things better early on in their careers. For example, I prefer McEnroe´s overall technique of, say, 1979 to that of his later years (pretty conservative groundstrokes.. and hell, he even had an actual backhand passing shot back then, not that blocked nonsense he developed with a composite frame). I noticed something similar in Hingis (she never again looked like the genius who won the Australian Open singles and doubles in 1997!) and Steffi Graf (her topspin backhand became less and less natural the longer she played). The most striking example I have ever seen, though, was Daniela Hantuchova. When I saw her in the 2002 AO doubles final, she looked like a real talent! She had power, variety.. and she could volley! Six or seven years later, hardly any of those things were left in her game (apart from the power)! A clear case of "overcoaching", if you ask me.

[@diablorockersz555]

they are fast runners.

[@mikeblair333]

Borg? Serve and volleying??? What is this tom-foolery?

[@valeriocostantini1959]

Borg serve and volleyed on grass for his entire career.

[@jameshajdu9271]

Serve and volley is the best tennis strategy ever . That's why he won wimbledon five times in a row

[@dansmith9724]

@MUFC soccer sucks

[@KaitainCPS]

@O0otenniso0O They were home-made.

[@acebunny17]

I wish I was a tennis player but know that im almost 19 I don't think I'll ever become a proffessional,should've started practicing much earlier =(

[@abdiver12]

I can't believe they used to allow people on the court like that to hound players for autographs!

[@betwes]

@VilleIsTheShit I think Bjorn Borg is the best for many reasons...

[@rowag001]

Björn ftw!

[@tamarexxe]

I'm not a dude, and grass is grass. I know exactly how they supposedly "slowed" down grass, by changing the variety of grass, mowing it differently, and by altering the way its aligned. I play tennis. But still grass is grass and that's a fact. The real difference is the slow wooden raquets and the fact that these guys are tiny little men (Borg was no more than 5 foot 10) compared to today's far more athletic tennis stars.

[@dansmith9724]

The strings they have used in the last 10yrs or so make a big difference. It really grips the ball so they can really whip the top spin on the ball. The topspin helps keep the ball in the court.

[@peterpeterxxo]

colour film in 1973 ? theyll be inventing compact discs next.

[@simoncoppin8915]

IHmm. Colour film!? That's BBC videotape.

[@marianpalko2531]

0:32 Borg serve

[@BirdBop]

yes.

[@tamarexxe]

tiny is definitely an exaggeration. sorry about that :) I'll check it out just to be fair.

[@pablotupone4190]

roger Taylor then dedicated to music as the drummer of Duran Duran hahaha

[@colinbaker3916]

... or Queen

[@O0otenniso0O]

what make is their racquets

[@MelodyMaker]

In the latter stage of Borg's career, he played "Donnay". Don't know what this racquet was.

[@dansmith9724]

I couldnt get a good look at it but thought it my be a slazenger??

[@Robspiffery]

I agree Tamara, I'm so much more impressed by Federer beating Fernando Gonzalez, Marcos Bagdatis, and 2 guys from the era before him, Andre Agassi and Mark Phillapousis in slam finals..... Those guys are impressive victories...hahaha... =\

[@dansmith9724]

Most devastating win i saw in a wimbledon final was 1987 when Cash smashed poor old Lendl. Lucky Cash had a great serve and volley and didnt let the ball hit the ground as his ground strokes sucked lol. It was just awesome power tennis over a power ground stroker like Lendl.

[@pascalliodripity]

Roger who?

[@paulnodead]

Nadal is undeniably one of the greats. But he gets that "power" from a racket technology that was unavailable in Borg's era. Transport Nadal back to Borg's time, give him a wooden racket, and I think he would be no better than any of the best of that time. Borg is generally acknowledged to be one of the most athletic tennis players of all time. To say that today's guys are more athletic is just a joke. To me, today's game is too quick with too much emphasis on power. Grow up Tamara.

[@NLLeFa]

You can't speak like that for Nadal. You never know if he would adjust his game back in the days. Players are given some conditions and it depends on them to be able to give their best. Nobody knows what would happen with Sampras in today's tennis or with Djokovic in the 60s.

[@vanlendl1]

+NLLeFa You have to consider then also the issue of money. In the 60s or 70s, it was impossible to have a personal physician, fitness coach and a head coach.

[@johnrobbins917]

The pro game in 2018 is punctuated with long pauses between points, first and second serves and after odd numbered games. In a sense, the rules of tennis have evolved to allow for "non-continuous" play. These intervals allow for 'resting', which, in turn, allows for a game of intermittent energy releases, ie 'sprints', that uses more powerful. In comparison, the game of yesteryear was one where play, according to the rules, was supposed to be 'continuous'. Indeed, you will see in videos such as the one above that there was less time between points, serves and odd numbered games...and, no chairs were provided to the combatants during changeovers.

[@SquidDesign]

I have to disagree. While Borg is a great athlete, easily the best of his generation, I think the bar has been raised with each generation. Don't forget that back in those early days, some of these professionals would sip cokes during the changeovers and have a beer and some smokes after their matches. Nowadays they optimize every single advantage they can, physically and mentally. Remember when Yannick Noah hit a tweener one year and they replayed that shot over and over as a highlight of the year... now almost every pro hits a tweener once in a while. It's no longer even really a highlight unless its particularly good.

[@dansmith9724]

Read old books on Laver or Borg and they say things like, it looks lime the put magic on the ball the way it dips and bounces from their topspin. Today they'd both be classed as flat hitters lol

[@oncall21]

So you have a junior tennis player from Sweden playing in the main drawer and he loses in 5 sets in the quarter final. What a legend!!! Look at the shit we have here in Australia like Tomic and Kyrious????? They're over 5 years plus on Borg. At their age Borg was winning French, Italian and French open titles!!!!

[@JamesHarris-hl2bm]

Yes, the very next year he was the French open champion.

[@fundhund62]

That´s true, but it seems a bit unfair to compare those young guns to a legend like Borg.

[@dansmith9724]

Borg could beat those 2 tomorrow with his little wooden donnay racket.

[@videoarchiveman]

oh. it's 1973 so it can't compare to today's tennis! WRONG!!!!!!!!!

[@laurentoutang8273]

Don't even try too compare tennis our days and 40 years ago. Same rules but not the same sport

[@SuperHammaren]

I agree! Tennis was must harder then with the wooden rackets. To play extrem topspin with them was very difficult.

[@JamesHarris-hl2bm]

It is the same game. The difference is the rackets do most of the work for todays players.

[@fundhund62]

Tennis is much easier these days, and that´s why it has become much less skillful. Back in those days, you had to have actual talent to succeed. Today, it´s good enough to be a top athlete. If you happen to have tennis talent on top of it, you are virtually unbeatable, like Federer (the one-eyed man in the land of the blind).

[@markmauk8231]

@@fundhund62 Wow, I have never read such bullshit in a long time. Tennis hasnt got easier, it got harder. First off, the density of Top players is a lot higher then 40 years ago and second of all, you need to be a lot more athletic and also more skillful today to have the slightest chance of competing on a professional level. You think the advanced raquet technology made it easier to succeed? You should play and see for yourself how "easy" it has become to play good tennis. Of course the strokes are heavier with the "new" raquets, of course you can create more spin but that doesnt make it easier, that just makes it different because it creates other difficulties player didnt have to face 40 years ago. Winners from the baseline as an example. Nothing you could see 40 years ago, but nowadays you have to defend so well, have to have so much control to stay in the rallies. Also you mentioned that tennis needs less skill today - which is absolutely ridiculous. Go out and play, try to serve 120 mph constantly, try to play with a baseline percentage like Nadal or the pace of Agassi. You think Federer is a one eyed man compared to Borg? I tell you what: You are an Idiot.

[@purplefishies]

@@fundhund62 Complete bs. Just using the law of large numbers you realize that many more people play tennis now so that the top tennis level is that much higher than it was back then. Modern tennis players have 40 years of improved tennis theory under their belts. This includes how to hit better spin serves, how to hit with more top spin using Western grips straight arms at contact, snapping the wrist and knowing how to generate more pace by jumping into the shots. Just like modern female swimmers could destroy men from the 70s ( they have better times) so could modern female tennis players with all of this increased theory of tennis plus improved conditioning easily crush these male players even with wood rackets.

[@michaelorr9253]

compared to today's tennis it kinda looks like they are playing ping pong

[@MrJeepsters]

Borg était bien meilleur que des joueurs comme wilander, Arias ou Chang au même age.

[@floydian2007]

A British player squandering set/match/break points, not getting 1st serves in. 40 years on no change there, eh lol!

[@Stigmaru]

I love this classic tennis, but you all are completely disregarding one important element. No doubt these guys were the greats of the time, but you have to admit they are totally not even close to matching the physicality of the modern athlete. You can see this throughout the match where they are either tired or lack the agility to even attempt to go for balls that a modern tennis player can easily save. Nutrition and physical training is far more advanced today than in the 70's or even 80's.

[@gumballrally427]

+Stephen You're an idiot.

[@MalphasMikaelson]

+Gumball LastRally He's actually completely correct.

[@gumballrally427]

Noctis Caelum With regard to Borg, he's completely incorrect. Borg would be competitive today ... easily,

[@MalphasMikaelson]

Gumball LastRally Competitive ye I don't doubt it, but a slam win? Doubt it. 0:45 was a really easy volley with little pressure and he hit it out quite easy. The high level players will passing shot you, or just hit extremely hard.

[@alanchong7513]

Steven, why do you even say something like that. I will give you an analogy. Cro-magnon man, with his ancient spear, really has not a lot of weapons compared to today's man with his hand grenade and semi automatic handguns. The point I am making, is the whole sport leaps ahead. Training, diet, technology, recovery. Everything moves ahead. C'mon. You can't compare a 1970s player with today's player. That's not fair.

[@RevAlKhemy]

resisance is futile

[@peterpeterxxo]

hmmm a brit with black hair keeps failing at the semi final stage..didnt know tim henman was playing in 1973 lol,

[@Iwastherein1969]

yeah buddy that Roger Taylor is a name we all remember......not !

[@tamarexxe]

How the hell do you know? I hate people like you who say ignorant things like that. Grass looks as slow as molasses back then with wooden raquets. I love all tennis but Nadal with his power would blow these two away. Seriously an era where Borg wins a Wimbledon title against ROGER TAYLOR does not impress.

[@montaflb]

you are really too simple

[@LordStanley94]

She has no clue about tennis

[@PumaIndigo]

omg tennis was soooo crap back then...no rallies with more than 3 shots, didn't they realise they'd defend points better with baseline rallies... The amount of effort one had to put in then to be good was nothing compared to today