Is Borg the "Elusive"?

Question

I mean everyone is trying to equal his accomplishments, but no one can seem to better them.

1) Federer equalled Borg's 5 Wimbledons in a row, but could not beat it.

2) Federer was unable to beat Borg's Wimbledon 41-match win streak.

3) Nadal equalled Borg's feat of winning Wimbledon and the French Open back to back - something Borg did 3 times.

4) Nadal equalled Borg's 4 French Opens in a row.

Is Borg the elusive?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

No ! I believe Rafa will break Borgs records :) !

Answer 3

If you watch the old Borg matches, you'll be amazed to find an athlete that was even more physically fit than Rafael Nadal, which is saying a lot.  Borg was a physical specimen, that won't be matched anytime soon.  His accomplishments are elusive (actually unachievable) to anybody playing professional tennis today.  There's no way Nadal is going to win both Wimbledon & the French Open for the next 2 years.  That said, it's impressive that both Federer and Nadal have been the finalists in both Tournaments for the past 3 years.

Answer 4

Of which "Borg" are you referring?

Tennis player Bjorn Borg or Locutus of Borg?  ;)

Seriously, though, I have never heard of anyone trying

to pin a particular label on any tennis player,

much less by someone not in the media

and using a peculiar, semantically incorrect, word to do so

(i.e., what does "elusive" have to do with someone having

seemingly unbeatable sports records?

Shall we label Federer as "Roger the Disappointed"

following his loss to Nadal at both the

French and Wimbledon?).

If I say, "Yes, he's elusive" (aforementioned misuse, aside),

then what does that mean to anybody?

Similarly if I say, "No, he's not elusive".

So, I would deign to ask: What's the point of your question???

(I hope that being "Top Contributor" hasn't gone to your head!)

Answer 5

After reading all the answers above, I can't help but think that judging players by titles is at times tedious and unnecessary. I'm sure that Borg, with his records, is an impressive player on paper, but that's not why we appreciate him. When we watch tennis, be it on the tv or a courtside, we watch the two players on the court as athletes.

To judge by records is fine as long as we respect the players for their love of the game. As spectators, we have the habit of tossing aside players who we see do not have as many titles. We are excited when we think that someone is close to breaking a record. But does it do US any good? No. It actually throws off the performance of players- such as Roger Federer(performance at Wimbledon 2008). When we get wrapped up in records- a chat about them here and there is okay- we become aggressive; this, in my mind, is simply pointless. Why fight about something that we, as individuals, have no control over?

Here's my logic. Can we really have tennis with the top 10  players in the world? Is it really "Tennis" when we compare           records between former and current greats? When the media are talking about the top players, they neglect the people outside of the top 100. Hardly do I ever hear of these athletes. But for them, tennis is their livelihood.

Do we ever compare the top engineers in the field in this manner? I would certainly hope not; after all, if the other 49,900+ no-namers were not employed, the country would be in shambles. Such is the same for tennis. IF we adopt the mentality that only the top players are worth mentioning, then tennis has DIED as a sport. I play tennis regularly, perhaps you do too. Do we ever think about the records of the greats when we play? Nope, probably not.  

Federer and Nadal are great players. They play very well consistently. But I don't like or admire them based on their rank and record. I value their tennis. If Borg's play was that good or better, I'd respect that too. Eventually, his records might or might not be broken- who can predict the future?    

No tennis player is truly "elusive".