Federer, Nadal, Djokovic...Borg, McEnroe, Lendl

The similarities in the two eras are uncanny.

Borg was the undisputed Number 1 but was beginning to get tested by a new up and comer in John McEnroe, someone who had no fear in defeating the Swede. Sound familiar? They had battles at Wimbledon before the new kid took to the throne, and then after another defeat to the American in a Major final at the US Open to solidfy the crown, Borg knew he was no longer the alpha dog. Equivalent of Federer calling it a day after losing the French and then Wimbledon title. Except unlike Borg he carried on. Had Borg carried on, their head to head would have been perhaps much like the 18-9 of Federer Nadal, not 7-7 (3-1 to McEnroe in Majors)

There was also a even younger man in Lendl who was always on the coat tails of the top two but could have never make the final breakthrough, did quite well against McEnroe but couldn't get the hang of Borg. Just like Federer handled Djokovic. Just like Lendl doing better against McEnroe, Djokovic did better against Nadal early on.

The great mysteries in tennis for me was would peak Lendl have handled Borg? Borg handled a young Lendl just like Federer did Djokovic. Maybe we are finally getting the answer in Federer and Djokovic, for me the most compelling rivalry out of the top 4. Djokovic clearly struggles more with Federer, even at his age. Lendl and Borg could have been fascinating.

McEnroe did have his time just like Nadal did in 2010, but they never really had an era. Because behind them were Lendl and Djokovic who even early on showed signs of having their number, and once they got hold of them they never really let go. And both may be more remembered as part of a double act (McEnroe/Borg Federer/Nadal) than having their own place in history.

Very interesting parallels which may provide the key for the mechanics in tennis intraeral discussions (wow, I've just created a new adjective ) .

Steve Tignor mentioned in one of his recent writings that tennis is much more a relational sport (a nicer word for match-ups) than some mechanical, rigid mould.

Even Lady Di famously said that there were three in the relationship and it was "busy", so the number is kind of unnatural and difficult to sustain, quite amazing, actually that it has to be two.

Interestingly Nadal should've done what Borg done and quit on a high, now I fear he's going to be the first and last man to lose 4 straight slam finals to the same player.

Yes good parallel....but nature never quite repeats itself.

The LHander of the past was the creative and talented player. This time around, the LHer is the physical player while the right hander is the creative talented one.

Djokovic could be the new player certainly but I doubt he will last as long as Lendl. We'll see.

Good post CAS, it is certainly a different perspective. Of course it is an incredibly difficult thing to predict the future direction of the sport we will have to wait and see. Lendl certainly was the longterm defining player of his generation although never as respected as Borg or as talented as Mcenroe. Mac I remember was quoted as saying that he had more talent in his pinky than Lendl had in his own body. But in the end the tortoise caught the hare and never looked back. Talent is hard to quantify and Lendl through hardwork dominated the tour as long as anyone.

If it continues in the same way, Djokovic will have more slams than Nadal and a winning head to head record. Putting to bed the argument over the head to head between Federer and Nadal. There trivalry much like Borg, McEnroe and Lendl has a rock paper, scissors feel to it.

I hope what you say is true, 10 is a big number of slams. I definetly think he can do it. The biggest indicator I believe of what the future will hold is the RG final this year. If Novak can get to the final and again beat Nadal, then really the sky is the limit and there is no telling what he will accomplish in the near future.