| Saturday, 5 July 2008 Written by Byron Vale Do you believe, like George Santayana, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it? Or do you believe, as did George Bernard Shaw, that all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history? If Roger Federer wins the 2008 Wimbledon men’s singles he will claim his sixth consecutive Championship. Five consecutive Wimbledon titles is an improbable achievement. Pete Sampras — the most successful player in Grand Slam history — could only win four in a row. Only one other player has done it: Bjorn Borg, who won five from 1976 till 1980.
Borg claimed his fifth Wimbledon title by beating John McEnroe. Federer claimed his fifth Wimbledon title by beating Rafael Nadal. Borg took five sets to beat McEnroe. Federer took five sets to beat Nadal. Borg played right-hand, Federer plays right-handed. Borg was the Ice Man, Federer unflappable.
McEnroe was a leftie, Nadal is a leftie. In 1980 Borg was 24 and McEnroe 21. In 2007 Federer was 25 and Nadal 21. Heading into Wimbledon 1981 Borg was clearly not at his best. He had been troubled by a shoulder injury earlier in the year and suffered shock losses to Victor Pecci and Rolf Gehring. Heading into Wimbledon 2008 Federer was clearly not at his best. He revealed in March that he had been diagnosed with glandular fever and suffered shock losses to Mardy Fish and Radek Stepanek.
If you read the newspaper clippings from 1981, the same phrase keeps re-appearing. It is the idea that Borg has to lose eventually. That the juggernaut cannot roll on. That was certainly McEnroe’s line of thought. Anyone who has read an article this year about Federer will recognise the theme.
History will show that Borg could not win that sixth title. The Swede had already endured a gruelling five-set semi-final against Jimmy Connors just to reach the final. Against McEnroe this time round the results were reversed, the American winning the first of his three Wimbledon titles 6-4 6-7 6-7 4-6. McEnroe would later recall of the final: “Borg no longer had the same fire, it was like he needed to be relieved of the pressure. I think it had all got too much for him after five years. It seemed as if it was ok in his mind to lose to me.” Borg would later say: “I was not really that disappointed. Of all the Wimbledon finals I have played that’s the one I should have won. John didn’t play well and if I had been a little more focused I could have won in straight sets. But afterwards I wasn’t upset. I didn’t care. That felt strange. All the other players wanted to beat me and people expected so much of me. I had to be motivated everyday of the week.”
That is the crux of this argument. The crucial similarity, or difference, between Borg and Federer that will decide the fate of the latter’s bid for six Championships. How does Federer deal with every player wanting to beat him and with the high expectations?
As Borg said after watching Federer equal his record: “If he continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think the motivation is the key thing.”
| 
