Yes, McEnroe gave Borg trouble -- Borg won 7 and lost 7 against him -- but McEnroe only beat Borg decisively once (1981 U.S. Open), and Borg had a winning record against just about everyone else. And though Borg never won the U.S. Open, he must have defeated many players of note on his way to four runnerup finishes. In sports a great athlete can have difficulty with one opponent, as Borg did with McEnroe and Federer now does with Nadal, yet dominate all of their common rivals. Borg defeated Ivan Lendl 6 times out of 8, for example, but Lendl won the majority of the times he faced McEnroe.

I understand that tennis enthusiasts will have a difference of opinion or sentiment regarding whom they consider the best player ever, but to rate Bjorn Borg one star out of a possible five because he had a relatively short career, couldn't accept defeat and quit, had some mystique that distorts the estimation that some maintain of his true talent, or had a rather limited repertoire not only seems grossly unfair, but also makes a mockery of this site. Considering what Borg accomplished in 7-8 years, he deserves at least 4 stars.

Yo sé que Borg ha tenido problemas sociales y profesionales: hizo malas inversiones, se divorció un par de veces, y atentó contra su vida. Irónicamente, John McEnroe, él que se comportaba en sus partidos como un niñito consentido, me parece estar mejor adaptado a su vida después de tenis, más capaz en general, y más equilibrado. Sin embargo, como tenista Borg merece ser clasificado entre los cinco mejores. Tres veces él salió campeón del French Open y de Wimbledon en el mismo año, un éxito que Connors, el cual perdió 10 veces consecutivas y 12 de los últimos 13 partidos que jugó contra Borg, nunca pudo lograr. Durante 1981, el último año de Borg y el comienzo de su caída, Borg derrotó a Connors en el semifinal del U.S. Open y del Wimbledon.

El hecho de que yo favorezco a Borg no significa que Connors nunca me impresionara. Si la base de la clasificación fuera el jugador que ha mantenido un espíritu de competencia y un muy alto nivel de desempeño a través de por lo menos diez años, yo nombraría a Connors. (Recuerdo bien la victoria de Connors a los 39 años en el cuarto de final del U.S. Open en 1991 cuando enardeció al público con sus festejos y regañó a un árbitro diciéndole, "Ud. es un aborto!"), o si hubiera otra categoría, tal como el mejor tenista del circuito de los retirados, Connors también recibiría mi voto.

Pero yo creo que la idea aquí es elegir al tenista que, cuando estaba en su cumbre, jugaba mejor que sus rivales y estableció marcas duraderas. De 1974 hasta 1981, una carerra corta pero un período de éxito largo, Borg participó cada año en el final de por lo menos un evento Grand Slam, y cada uno de aquellos años él salió campeón de esos torneos una o dos veces. Su porcentaje de victorias en esos torneos, 89.8%, sigue siendo el más alto. Los números son los números.

People don't understant how great Borg was. He won on 3 different surfaces (hard, grass, clay) multiple times. He even skipped Australian open back then. He quits at the peak of his career. He could have been the holder for most grand slams if he had kept on playing.

Walked away on top.  The greatest tennis machine in history.  The man.

It seems irrefutabel to me that the 1970's to early 80's was the best and most competative era in pro tennis history; and Bjorn Borg dominated it. Sampras may be a close second, but he did not face the consistent level of competition that Borg did. Consider Borg's overall record in light of the fact that he 1)opted out of the Australian Open, 2)never won a US Open,and 3)retired at the very young age of 26. Yet his record at Wimbledon remains second only to Sampras, and his French Open record still stands- more than a quarter century later. In my opinion, his accomplishments alone make him the best player ever. Combine this with what likely would have been, had he not walked away from the game, and he remains in a class by himself. 

Update: In response to san1702's post...First, it is true that Borg never won the US. He did however prove his proficiency there, playing four times in the championship. Contrast that with Sampras and the French Open- Sampras never even made it to the final. Lendl never won on grass, on the list goes. As to McEnroe, he and Borg were 7-7 in majors when Borg retired; but Borg had a winning record against him in all matches. So that does not hold water either.

Very good on Grass but could never come to terms with the US Open Championships. Further, though he did beat McEnroe in the '80s Wimbledon final, I personally feel his reign at Wimbledon would have been shorter if McEnroe had emerged earlier, say '77.

I think people need to seprate Borg the cool guy from Borg the tennis player. He was great but I think the coolness factor is swaying peoples opinions....

it's Borg need anything else be said?!

THE ONE WHO DOMINATE THE MOST DIFFICULT DOUBLE IN TENNIS THAT IS ROLAND GARROS AND WIMBLEDON. BORG IS THE ONLY PLAYER IN THE TENNIS HISTORY THAT GOT 3 STRAIGHT TITLES ON THE ABOVE 2 GRANDSLAMS. HE RETIRED AT 25, WITH 11 MAJOR GRANDSLAM TITLES IN HIS CAREER. HE IS THE UNDISPUTED TENNIS MACHINE!!!

To me what stood out with Borg was his aura and mentality..very ice cold. Great physical stature.Overall his style was very un orthodox, his backhand was akward, his volley and serve were poor.His poor decision not to play the Aus Open more often , and make more of a effort to win the U.S shows bad character and very egotistic.Could of been the best..but simply chose not to!!!

Too much achieved in so little time. Simply the best and most intriguing player in history.

One of the best ever. Won 5 straight Wimbledons and that will more than likely never happen again.

Played when everyone sucked. Now players are way better.

Borg's a good candidate, and I truly appreciate the post below involving quite a bit of research. But McEnroe seemed to have his number towards the end, and beat him in every US Open match that I remember. Borg quit as McEnroe was on the ascent. Also, didn't Gerulaitis finally beat Borg at some point? Maybe it was just an exhibition match.

Borg at his prime was like a machine, just the way he won at Roland Garros for 6 times (4 in a row 1978-79-80-81) especially in the 1978 and 1980 without losing a set and after 2 weeks he won wimbledon 5 times in a row: 1976-1977-1978-1979-1980. He won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same years for three times in the rows:1978-79-80 Between Wimbledon and French Open he won 100 matches and 6 lost in his entire carrier: (49 won and 2 lost at roland garros and 51 won and 4 lost at Wimbledon) From 1977 to 1981 against Jimmy Connors he won 14 times against 2 lost. Final Boca Raton 77(green clay)+ Connors 6/4 5/7 6/3 Final Wimbledon 77(grass)+Connors 3/6 6/1 6/2 5/7 6/4 Final Masters 78 (carpet)-Connors 6/4 1/6 6/4 Final Wimbledon 78 (grass)+Connors 6/2 6/2 6/3 Final Boca Raton 78 (green clay)+Connors 7/6 3/6 6/1 Final U.S.Open 78 (hard court)-Connors 6/4 6/2 6/2 (he was injured) Final Boca Raton 79 (hard court)+Connors 6/2 6/3 Final Las Vegas 79 (hard court)+Connors 6/3 6/2 Semifinal Wimbledon 79 (grass)+Connors 6/2 6/3 6/2 Final Tokyo 79 (carpet)+Connors 6/2 6/2 Final Challenge Cup 79 (hard)+Connors 6/4 6/2 2/6 6/4 Round Robin Masters New York 80(carpet)+Connors 3/6 6/3 7/6 Round Robin Salisbury Wct 80 (carpet )+Connors 6/3 6/1 Semifinal Masters New York 81(carpet)+Connors 6/3 5/7 6/2 Semifinal Wimbledon 81 (grass)+Connors 0/6 4/6 6/3 6/0 6/4 Semifinal Us Open 81(hard)+Connors 6/2 7/5 6/4 He didn't play ever against Connors or McEnroe(probably the only player that can break into borg's game they were 7-7 in won-lost matches) on red clay and the damaged will have been way greater if either Connors and McEnroe made the finals in Paris. The way he beat Vilas or Gerulaitis was sometimes speechless and they were number 3 or 4 in the world. Borg won-lost against Gerulaitis was 18-0 and Gerulaitis was number 4 in 1977-78-79 top ten in 1980-81 and number 5 in 1982. Gerulaitis was a very good player on clay with 2 victories at Rome 1977 1979,2 at Forest hills 1978 1980,Kitzbuhel 1979,Stuttgard 1980 and Florence 1982 Some matches : Final Montecarlo 79 (red clay)+Gerulaitis 6/1 6/2 6/3 Semifinal Roland Garros 79 (red clay)+gerulaitis 6/2 6/1 6/0 Semifinal Montecarlo 80 (red clay)+Gerulaitis 6/0 6/2 Final Roland Garros 80 (red clay) +Gerulaitis 6/4 6/1 6/2 In the Year 1977 Vilas was considered the best player in the World But every time he encontered Borg lost: Final Nice 77(Red Clay) +Vilas 6/4 1/6 6/2 6/0 Semifinal Montecarlo 77(red Clay) +Vilas 6/2 6/3 and others matches on red clay: Final roland garros 75 (red Clay)+ Vilas 6/2 6/3 6/4 Final roland Garros 78 (red Clay)+Vilas 6/1 6/1 6/3 Final Montecarlo 80(red Clay )+Vilas 6/1 6/0 6/2 Didn't go at Roland 1977 for preparing Wimbledon and Vilas won that year in Paris. I think Borg was the only player that never lost a match in his carrier when was leading 2 set to zero and many comebacks when he was losing 2 set to zero and best five setter. The players considered him "the best of the Year" from 1976 to 1980 and he didn't finished number 1 1977-78 because the atp computer sistem didn't count some tournaments. I would like to see Borg against Sampras on red Clay with wooden rackets. It's hard to make comparison to others Players on different "era" and Borg retired pratically very early in his carrier at 25 years old but his carrier was fenomenal anyway.

he disapoint me!

have a good moments in 1979 and 1980, but he left the sport at the most competitif moment....

He was definately the greatest

This man was the reason I started watching tennis in 76 as a 7 year old. In those days, all we say on tv was Wimbledon once a year. I can still see the shot McEnroe hit to beat him in 1981. This was very difficult for an 11 year old to take. Borg doesn't lose! When all is said and done, there is a case to be made for Bjorn being called the greatest of all time. On clay, there is no question. Nobody in tennis dominated a surface like Borg did the red stuff. His Wimbledon record speaks for itself. 11 slams by the age of 25 is astounding. I know McEnroe had taken the top spot in the rankings, but Borg would have won stacks more slams had he not retired when he did. The best mind in the game without a doubt and the best athlete - perhaps in any sport at any time. The greatest in my mind to have played the game. Watch out for Federer, though. He's not greater yet, but he's BETTER than everyone before him.

I don't thing anybody can win for three years in a row 1978-79-80 Roland Garros on red clay and Wimbledon on grass after two weeks. Between the 2 tournaments he won 100 matches and lost 4 matches at wimbledon and just 2 at roland garros.When he was playing at roland garros he just destroyed the opponents living them maybe one on two games a set for average. Mcenroe and Connors played against him only on fast courts because they never reach the final to play against him on red clay.Between 1979 and 1980 when vitas Gerulaitis or Vilas they were the number 3 or 4 in the world every time they meet borg on red clay they lost very badly making every time just few games.One time I saw vitas gerulaitis praying on his knees because he didn't know what to do in semifinal at montecarlo and lost 6-0 6-2 and in final beat guillermo vilas 6-1 6-2 6-0.But Borg was the best in the toughest situation like nobody when he was down 2 sets or was playing the fifth set because of his coolness and body.He was just a guy from another planet until he turned 25 years old.

Probably the best of all time. Tremendous with the heavy old wooden rackets.

Borg was the man! He had such an aura; very mysterious and calculating on the court. The '80 Wimbledon Final when he dropped to his knees is a timeless moment. It's a shame he did not play longer.

I GIVE HIM HIS DUE! WISH HE WOULD HAVE KEPT PLAYING TO SEE MORE OF HIME VS MCENROE!

This bloke right here oozes champion quality. He is to me one of the true greats of the game.

Borg and Mcenroe. So opposite in style and temperament. So alike in their greatness.

I don't really want to talk about Borg. He was one of the best ever, but what a joke this list is. Don Budge isn't ever listed. He won the grandslam in 38 and had the best topspin backhand ever. This is a list of just the current generation and reflects the arrogance each generation feels about its place in history

A very good player who dominated Wimbledon like no one except Martina.

good

Since the nature of the game has changed constantly it is difficult to say if it is the best player of all time : what is sure is he won 12 tournaments before retiring by the age of 25 (1981 - he only played a few matches in 1982 & 1983) and against big guns/legendary players like McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Lendl. He won constanly on both the slowest and fastest surface to a level nobody has ever done : others players either dominated ratther faster surfaces (Wimbledon/US opens) or rather slower surfaces (US Open/French Open). Remenber you have only one month to adapt to wimbledon after the french open. He has the best record of matches won in 5 sets : his motto could have been NEVER SURRENDER ! The players of that era used to say that when you reached the fifth set you knew your chance was over : this guy would never bend. It was my hero : mental strength like you could never imagine, humble and kind outside the court : greatness in and out. Last but not the least, HE made the game of tennis what it is today : a popular sport. Before him, Tennis was a game viewed as an elitist past-time (especialy where I live : France) TOP CLASS

Godlike. Pure pleasure to behold. WYK

Granted an impressive player, incredible resolve an concentration. But his game was limited and had he stayed on the tour longer I think he would have been beaten by younger players more and more. In my opinion, he is slightly overrated because, since he retired early, he never had to face a mounting generation of new players.

What more can be said about the greatest tennis player that ever lived? Bjorn is definitely the king of the game for all time, noone compares! I agree had he not retired so early, his records would have been just crazy phenomenal. i guess he may have become bored with his gripping dominance and may have begun to let up. Bjorn would accept nothing else but the best, so his loss to Mac in 81 may have convinced him that he no longer has enough passion for the game to carry on. My favourite tennis player by far!

Best player of the 70ies. Winning the most important tournament 5 times in a row. No chances for Connors and co.

WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT BJORN WAS THE BEST EVER PLAYER. THE SUPREME ATHLETE WHO COULD PLAY ALL DAY AND NOT EVEN RAISE A SWEAT. CLASS, COURAGE, AND COOLNESS WERE HIS CALLING CARD. I STILL MISS YA BJORN, YOUR BACKHAND IS STILL MAKING WINNER AFTER WINNER IN MY MEMORY.

Classic player second to one (Laver).

Bjorn was the best player in the 1970's and early 1980's. Though not as gifted as Mac or Nastase he made up for it with determination. If this guy was down two sets and 5-0 in the third, bet the family farm that he would win. Too bad he retired early.

Winning 6 French, 5 Wimbledon, 4 runner up finish at US Open. He didnt played at Australian open except once. He retired at age 26. To me that is the greatest.

How can there be anything negative to say about Bjorn? His shots were unorthodox, but what did it matter? His fitness was beyond belief, his emotions were unshakeable, and his shot consistency was amazing. To make the transition from clay to grass like he was able to do so many times, is, I think, his most incredible accomplishment.

When one considers that he quit at the age of 27 (in his prime) it is amazing what he accomplished. It is not inconceivable that if he played 5 - 6 more years, he may have won 10 - 12 more grand slam tournaments. No question the greatest tennis player that ever lived.

without a doubt one of the all time greats as well as being the complete sportsman in his demeanour.He wasn't as naturally talented as mcenroe or even connors but he was able to match mcenroe and surpass connors more often than not whenever they played at their peaks.He was probably the greatest match player ever in a tight situation and his fitness,speed and concentration were amazing.

Best Classical Player

He won 11 grand slam titles before the age 25,he won 5 consecutive wimbledon and 4 consecutive french open(total of 6).He was almost invicibile on red clay because he lost 2 or 3 matches in 5 years and he won different titles on hard court and sintetic beating connors badly,mcenroe and lendl.He was better player than sampras.

definitely a 5, probably the second best player of all time

Bjorn Borg had beautiful top-spins. His character was incredible: never giving up, never showing what was happening within him. Hardships during the matches only gave him ocasion to consolidate himself even more. The Wimbledon final of 1980, in which he defeated John McEnroe to win the unprecedented 5th in-row title, is one of the finest in the history of Tennis.

At the height of his success, Borg's popularity reached rock star proportions. He had the good looks, and was an incredible athlete. His mental toughness was second to nobody's. I read somewhere that his pulse rate was something around 35 beats a minute. That's less than half a regular human being's. He probably couldn't have breathed hard if he wanted to! And if he and Connors played a match at their very best, Borg would have smoked him good.

Borg was pretty cool and a good plyer for a while. All my girlfriends were super gaga over this guy, 15 years ago. Anyone sponsoring a brand of cologne has turned lame. His racquet should be shoved up his hole for that disgraceful move.

slotted in between two great fighters and entertainers nastase and connors. Not very entertaining although did admire his skill and range of shots - always wanted connors to beat him though!

Ah, Bjorn you gotta give Bjorn a 5 star rating. This guy was great! Mister serious and modest on the tennis court (something greatly missed in today's professional athletes) the whole while packing a mighty wallop! I saw him play as a boy in the U.S. Open and it made the whole tournament.

Bjorn Borg: there haven't been more than 2 other men's players more entertaining: Ashe, Conners perhaps.

Way way way overrated. Had a great stretch of 5 years at Wimbledon.

Wonderful player of the 20th century. Sylish. Graceful if sober.