He regularly missed the Australian Open.

If he played to his 30s no doubt hes gonna win 20 GS by then at least. But the think with Borg and Laver is that at their prime there was no one near their level.. ironically that's why Bjorg got burn out and retired, there was no challenge really. Just imagine how many GS Sampras wouldve won without Agassi there.. imagine how many Fed wouldve won without Nadal or how many Nadal wouldve won without Djokovic there

italo azurro he could have won several more.

and remember that was when in reality there were only three slams. The Australian was ignored by the elite players.

Good list. I would rate Laver higher, perhaps third and Sampras ahead of Djokovic in fourth but overall a good list

Him and Andre Agassi... I am reading his autobiography at moment... Iranian father (big bully) & American mother (gentle soul)... He always was a thorough gentleman on and off court... married another tennis gem - Steffi Graf... all great peeps...

No he cant. He coudnt adapt to the game. Everyone of the view that Borg era is over by the time he was defeated by Mc Enroe. People are unncecessarily imagining that Borg could have 20 or more slams by looking at todays Big 3 success. Borg won Wimbledon at 17. And he payed till 32 and h could only win 7. He had great serve. Over all his game is no less than any great player. Still he coudnt even reach 10. The era was toughest. And the times were changing. From wooden raquet to metal raquet. Apart from that he was only winning French Open and Wimbledon till then. He appeared in 4 US Open finals and lost everytime. Anyone from big 3 today would have won atleast one of those 4 finals if they were there in Borg place. Its like he has to play another 5 years continuously at Wimbledon and French Open. That is highly unlikely. Even greatest grass player like Federer could only win 3 Wimbledons after turning 26-2009, 2012 and 2017. Just see the gap. Those days 5 years was too long. Borg won his last FO final against Lendl. That was a 5 set matcg. But next year after Borg retirement the champion is 17/18 year old Wilander. Next year Lendl. Those days competition was tough than toady. Today Big 3 has so much variation. Those days there was no much variation from players. May be Borg could have won one or more FOs. Not more than that

Maybe, but you have to remember new better players emerged in late 80s and early 90s

MUFC Nobody gives a shit. This is a Tennis vid.

@MUFC dumbass there aren’t even 200 countries in the world🧐🧐🧐🤓

He said he was too tired & too many injuries!

There's not much that compares with Borg v Macenroe at Wimbledon. Maybe Federer v Djok or Federer v Nadal. They're on a par, but not higher. Good times in tennis the early eighties.

and also humble

​@Blood Taker Your comments are so bizarre that I guess you're very unhappy with your penis. No sense of respect, a jumping envy from a hidebound nonperson. Just one more hater behind a screen.

Blood Taker my friend Björn Borg is ranked as one of the best tennis players ever.

@snag66 - too bad nobody knows who you're talking to ...

RedPilled - But never won the US Open. Never a grand slam.

I don't have the hair, nor the money! so unfair :P

"Magical days"....They were indeed.

Of course Federer is the greatest, it should go without saying. Borg himself was magnificent, a pity he retired young but he had his reasons, had lost some enthusiasm and intensity. His dominance at the French Open and 5 consecutive wins on fast grass at Wimbledon was a tremendous feat no-ne has come close to. He also had a great record in the Davis Cup.

But didn't win as many trphies! He was lucky Federer caught glandular fever in 2008!

Phil Coates yes and no. Nadal had this amount of injuries due to his style of playing and the surface of his choice to do that. Federer never wanted to adjust to that grueling style of playing, that's why he had fewer injuries, but also why he lost a lot during the period when all players started to play like Nadal or Djokovic and they slowed down grass to make it more spectacular.

@@mizofan ofc its not. Federer wasnt the best in era of the best ones. So how can he be called the best ever. 2004-2006 teenager Rafa won 6 out of seven matches. He is not the Goat.

@ Yves M. Just because Borg thinks that Federer is the GOAT male tennis player doesn't make it so! It is just Borg's opinion--nothing more, nothing less. Borg sadly fails to understand that there is no greatest of all-time player in any sport because of changes over time in technology, knowledge of food and nutrition , changes in training methods, etc. You can't make any valid comparison between the wood era in tennis history to the graphite era. The advances in racket technology and string technology have irrefutably cheapened the game of tennis making the graphite era players only appear to be greater than their wood era counterparts. Real tennis is wood racket tennis not the tennis played with graphite equipment!

Doctor Garbonzo I was a very big Bjorg fan as a youngster. Bjorg is still class. Yes, he never played Australia as well. The players have him up there with lever. I have him higher. Bjorg put tennis on the map in the 1970s. Roger is doing the same today.

@ Blood Taker maybe he was a bit of a hippie, and I think that you’re right about him not handling the pressure. I *think* that he talked about that at the time. But a myth? No, not at all.

maybe you will be bald

I'm 46 and don't have that much hair 😀

Bjorn is the king but he could still be wrong. What defies GOAT or Best ever ? I keep asking this question on YT to Djokovic fans who have been carrying and raving on like he's the best ever but I can't see any skill in his game whatsover. He is a essentially reactive and defensive player and has mental toughness so OK in that sense alone, he's the best competitor with the number one attitude. But to me it is tennis players who play with more initiative and can take and hit their groundtrokes earlier that are the best ones to watch. Sadly this WEAK era in tennis lacks attacking players and as such variety in this sport because of the slowing down of tennis courts and the balls they use these days. It is also unfortunate that for the past 10-12 years, a lot of promising players have not for one reason or another, been able to reach their potential - Grigor Dimitrov , Richard Gasquet,, maybe Milos Raonic.

tenniscollector oh my lol,the reason i said feds the best ever is because its true,he has won more than any other player ever,plus he makes it look so easy..

and because you are one-eyed Roger fan (nothing wrong with that honey) LOL. But in my earlier post, I am generalizing. 10 seasons ago - the Roger Federer era, there was signs even then that a group of players with potential to be a champion and winning big time, were not reaching it. I think that's very bad for the sport. Today's tennis has lost the chain factor - the chain were a champion is followed by another champion. That's why I call this Djokovic domination era, a truly WEAK one.

He won more than any other player? Win what? Trophies? Ivan Lendl has 94 and Connors has 109. Money? Djokovic has more. ATP 1000 titles? Djokovic is the leader there. The only thing he has won more than the rest is the grand slam count. Be more specific when you make those statements. PS: I am a huge Federer fan.

samy29987 hes best ever (federer)

and his creativity and graceful play style.

yeah and his forehand too.

Indeed. Federer's ability to play consistently at 60-70%, and still win against the majority of the tour, is what allows him to keep his energy reserves high for those clutch moments in the finals. When Fed hits 100% peaks during a match, there's no player in history that can/could cope with that.

@@georgemavrides3434 Nadal says hi

Still quite hunky too!!

together with Rod Laver

And now it's reality!

Me too.

No, he was great but he retired too young for top spot, his overall achievement falling short. A pity because he was magnificent, winning on fast grass of Wimbledon as well as clay of Paris

I watched Borg play and I watched Federer play. Federer is the Viceroy for sure, the Gentleman of tennis, the Thor, if you wish... but there's only one Odin and that's Borg.

@@TheSpookyDuke I have watched both Borg and Federer and I much prefer Federer's style .

@ Fuz Capp I think that you’re right. And I don’t believe that technology is necessarily good for the game, either. It doesn’t show the talents of the player; it shows the technology, and to my mind, that isn’t what sport is, or should be, about.

Denis Daly 19 and counting..... Probably will be 20 at the end os the year

Abdullah Amin or at the end of the week 😁 OA 18

Or today~!!!

20!

This is February 2018, and yes, we are seeing a prime Federer now. 20 slams, world number one. And hopefully more to come.

Koullex, He certainly seems so. So.Smart, to retire young with a great record, and reputation.

His clothing line is super successful

Did they changed order of players brotha

Criticising Federer has been a long-time obsession of his.

Pat Cash is a fucking moron that needs to stop talking.

Maybe not be 3-9 vs Nadal in slams and 5-9 vs Djokovic in slams? I still think he's the greatest, but if those records were a little better, there would be no question. Plus, Nadal and Djokovic have time to catch him... If he were 5-8 vs nadal in slams, that would be respectable, given 5 of those matches were on clay. If he were 7-7 vs. Djokovic, that would be very respectable, given many of those matches took place in his 30's and when Djokovic was in his prime (which he still is). Given Djokovic's excellent fitness, he still has a chance to meet, pass, or at least come close to Roger's record.

Head to head records don't mean very much in tennis. I can tell you from personal experience, you can be better than someone and lose to them consistently because your game matches up poorly against them. I'm obviously referring to Nadal here, and most of Novak's wins against Roger occurred when he was playing at his peak and Fed was on his way down. Also, neither Novak, nor Rafa will sniff 18 GS. Fed is an anomaly, seriously, I want to know if he is some kind of alien/human hybrid...ATP needs to test DNA while doing drug tests lol.

I agree with Joy, and Federer can compete with these guys even though he's in his mid 30's. His body seems to lost track of time and just goes about continuing to compete at top levels

By weeks at number 1 and number of Majors its 1. Federer 2. Sampras 3. Nadal 4. Djokovic, etc. Everyone has their own opinion.

***** There are no "weak" eras.

The era we have now is weaker than the Federer one. Everyone has their ow opinion.

***** This is still an opinion. I agree that the Big Four era (2008-2012) was tougher than 2004-2007 but Fed era was not weak. There are no weak eras at top level sport.

***** Laver's and Borg's opinions that Federer is #1 haven't changed.

If my grandfather had 3 balls, he was a pinball machine... Borg retired at the age of 26, this is a factor that plays against him, it can not be an excuse in the evaluation of his career.

I was a Borg fan but he didn't though, did he? He had grown tired of tennis and would have increasingly struggled.

Depends on aging. Federer's fitness is in another level. Also considering how 35 year olds play like 30 year old today than 20 years ago.

Leo Reimer Racket technology changed. When Borg tried to make a comeback in his thirties he still used an old school wooden racket.

Lorenzo Pasquini Ah, but to win 11 slams and not play Australia and actually retire at 25, not 26, as he never played a tour match after walking out of the US open in 1981. That says alot about him, about how much better he was compared to the rest. He could have played another 10 years and moved easily to the newer racquets. He would still kick Sampras's ass (on clay). They should hold a wooden racquet Wimbledon contest. That would be fun.

Yeaaah let's just forget about his attempted comeback in the 90s. Honestly, let's pretend it didn't happen.

Parth Kaul Done. LETS DO 20.

Novak Djokovic

KH I agree Roger is a natural talent and it is remarkable how he loves the game .

You make a very good point...

Absolutely. I am 59 years old and have followed tennis since the late 1960's ! Bjorn was the coolest of all. A master in grass and clay - not just one, like Fed or Rafa. And mathematical models taking the quality of the competition etc into account have shown Borg to be the best in the Open era. And in 1982 after he retired from the slams, he had a great year beating Mac and the rest of them. Something people tend to forget. There were some murky $ factors afoot in 1982.

It was good...Special in fact. Not better though. Look at the number the 3 greatest today have won. Over double what McEnroe won. ....and he was special.