The legendary Bjorn Borg backhand - analysed!
Let’s face it, the vision of Bjorn Borg falling to his knees to pray to the gods as he won yet another Wimbledon title, is etched in the memories of many tennis fans from over the years. The striped Fila shirt, the headband, the black Donnay racquet, the long blonde hair and the perfect match temperament were all part of what made the ‘Ice Borg’ so special. 
The Bjorn Borg backhand
None of the above would mean anything without great tennis shots and his backhand was a great shot. His unique backhand technique evolved from his days as a young ice-hockey player in Sweden, to become one of the most effective backhands of all time.
The topspin
At the heart of Borg’s backhand was the immense topsin generated from his loose slap-shot style. This loose style enabled him to produce the most incredible angles and passing shots as he wrapped the racquet-head around the ball with amazing ease. Borg could improvise his follow-through in an instant due partly to the way he removed his non-racquet hand so quickly after striking the ball. This was particularly evident in his breath-taking passing shots which he continuously produced when all seemed lost. The flicks, rolls and whips were all there and were a nightmare for his opponents to deal with. His unique style also allowed him to naturally disguise his backhand making his shots tough to read.
The stance
Borg generally employed a closed-stance with his right foot forward and across. Having said that, an open-stance was used whenever it was more suitable and he also had fabulous knee bend on his low backhands.
The footwork
Borg’s footwork and speed around the court was second to none and was a major factor in his remarkable career. His speed was backed-up with incredible stamina and Borg was always safe in the knowledge that nobody would ever outlast him in a long match. This athleticism and fitness gave Borg an almost invincible aura, easpecially on clay.
Clay v Grass
Borg won six French opens and five Wimbledons - three times he won the French and Wimbledon in the same year. This was particularly impressive because in those days there was only one week separating the two events, making the job of adjusting to the grass even more challenging. Borg was virtually unbeatable on clay (apart from two important losses to Italy’s Adriano Panatta at the French Open) and always seemed to have the upper-hand against the next best clay-courter in the world, Guillermo Vilas. Ion Tiriac, the coach of Vilas once said, ‘Bjorn does everything that Guillermo does but just a bit better’. A human ball-machine, a brick wall, call him what you will, Borg very rarely made an unforced error on a clay court. Borg initially surprised everone with his grass-court success. His ability on clay was there for all to see but his ability on grass was not so obvious at first. Whilst Borg didn’t volley well, he served superbly, and crucially, loved the target at the net that grass gave him. Opponents were naturally charging the net against this baseline legend, only too often to be greeted by a flicked winning passing shot or a topspin lob winner.
Slice
Borg’s slice backhand was functional but not special. It did the job but at times was a touch flimsy. However, it became a useful contrast to his heavy topspin shot as the slice was often struck without much pace and authority.
Borg’s backhand in today’s game
In my opinion Borg’s backhand technique may have struggled in the modern game, especially on faster surfaces. His exagerated loose style does not lend itself to the early sharp hitting style of today’s game. If you look at how far up the court Agassi was striking his backhand with his uncomplicated swing, you can’t help but think that Borg’s style might have struggled with this. On the other hand, this isn’t such a factor on clay and maybe Borg’s technique would have evolved in the way that was required. We’ll never know! John Key
Bjorn Borg, bjorn borg grand slam titles, borg backhand, borg tennis, borg topspin backhand analysed
October 22, 2007 at 7:05 pm
41 Comments
Comment by don
the idea that borg didn’t volley well is crazy.if you look at his victories at wimbledon he always served and volleyed.it maybe true that his strong first serve made his volleys look better than they really were but he was solid.his groundies were obviously his strength followed by his quickness and first serve.but to say he couldn’t volley well is like saying mcenroe didn’t have solid groundies because he serve and volleyed so well.
Comment by john key
Sorry Don but I stand by what I say. I have not said that Borg ‘couldn’t volley’ but in my professional opinion Borg did most things brilliantly apart from volley.
His technique on his volley was fragile, especially on low volleys where he’d just drop his racket head rather than bend (just compare Pat Cash to Bjorn on this to see who volleys well).
I have heard McEnroe say in an interview that one of the reasons Borg’s volley was effective on the grass of Wimbledon and not on the higher bouncing surfaces of the US and French Opens, was that as he didn’t volley particularly well, the nature of the softer grass surface (much softer in those days) meant that very quick reactions and suspect length volleys could be effective when following-up the some of the best serves and groundies in the game . He didn’t venture to the net as often at the US Open because the higher bouncing surface meant that he didn’t get away with his volleys, the hard surface being far less forgiving.
Borg’s volleys were certainly not bad, but compared to the likes of: Roche, Cash, McEnroe, Edberg, Henman, Sampras etc… he did not volley as well. If he had, he would have been even more invincible.
Comment by don
i’m sorry john but i thought your original statement was borg didn’t volley well. i didn’t recall you stating he didn’t volley well in comparison to great volleyers like mac or edberg. i can understand why you would be critical of his technique but sometimes volleying has more to do with other things like quickness and anticipation.i certainly wouldn’t wouldn’t want my son to imitate mcenroe’s technique on the volley because he often kept his raquet head too low. but he compensated for it with quickness, great footwork and anticipation.regarding your statement about borg’s performance at the u.s. open i have another theory on why he was less successful on that surface and it has nothing to do with his volleys. grass and clay are difficult surfaces to move effectively on and borg’s ability to move quickly on those surfaces were rewarded. especially on grass. tracking down approach shots to hit winners on grass is no easy feat.but on a hard court superior movement is more or less neutralized. the hard court was a an equalizer and took away one of his best assets.
Comment by john key
As I say, I don’t believe that volleying is something that Borg did well and this point is backed up by comparing him to great volleyers such as Edberg & Co.
Yes he anticipated brilliantly, yes he moved superbly for the volleys, but time and again he flapped and fiddled at his volleys with suspect and risky technique.
I witnessed Borg play the odd, vary rare doubles match and his volley struggled immensely in this situation.
By the way, Vilas and Borg were my two favourite players of all time. I sat and watched these guys practice their groundies and volleys hour after hour and loved every minute.
p.s. Your say you would’t want your son to imitate McEnroe’s volley - I feel he’d be way better off imitating McEnroe’s volley than Borg’s!
Comment by don
i too was a huge borg fan and it’s possible that my love of borg’s game is blinding me to the flaws in his net game. i simply don’t buy the argument that someone doesn’t do something well because they don’t do it as well as others.i was a huge fan of the lendl forehand but i would never say that wilander’s forehand wasn’t a great shot because he didn’t hit it as well as lendl.also, there is this to consider; some players rely so heavily upon certain aspects of there game that other spects simply have to be functional. take for example the groundstrokes of john mcenroe.could he win rallies against borg, conners, lendl, clerc or vilas. yes, of course.were his groundstrokes as good as these guys. absolutely not. does that mean he didn’t hit his groundstrokes well. i don’t believe so.my point is , as you stated before, borg did so many other thing great that all he needed from his net game was to be able to put shots away. and that he did well.but i’m willing to concede the point as I only saw borg live twice and those were the year before he retired.
Comment by john key
I feel that the difference with your examples are that Wilander did possess a great forehand and Lendl an even better one - McEnroe did possess great groundies and some of the others you mentioned had better. Borg on the other hand (in my opinion) didn’t have great volleys.
I guess we’ll beg to differ on this one.
Don, I have enjoyed your valued input and thank you for it. I’m sure there are as many people who will see this your way as mine.
Comment by don
thanks for debating the issue with me. your knowledge of the game is obviously equal if not superior to mine and i enjoyed the back and forth.take it light.
Comment by don
hi john, how are you? i have a question for you; in your opinion can roger federer be considered the greatest to ever play the game if he does not regain the number one ranking from nadal? my brother is of the opinion that the honor belongs to sampras even if federer passes him in majors because in his prime sampras surpassed all rivals.can federer be the best of all time if he finishes his career with a losing record to nadal? it’s not as if nadal only has wins on clay.there is now a grass court victory and a few hardcourt wins.interested to read your opinion. thanks.
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
Mmm, a very good question and a tricky one to answer.
I guess it all boils down to what criteria makes a player the greatest player ever. Is it the number of Grand Slam titles won - Federer is fast gaining on Sampras? Or is it winning the actual Grand Slam (winning each Grand Slam title in the same tennis year) as Laver did twice? There is also an argument for Borg as he retired at only 25 years old with a great Grand Slam and ATP title record.
Personally I think head to head matches are less important.
If Federer surpasses Sampras’ Grant Slam tally it will surely put the Sampras/Federer debate to bed but what about the ‘Rocket’ - Laver fans will always have a very convincing argument. Let’s also keep one eye fixed on Nadal’s increasing Slam record.
I’ll let you and your brother fight this one out.
All the best.
John
Comment by don
good points. given the fact that the rocket wasn’t allowed to compete for majors for seven years then immediately won the the grand slam the first year he was allowed to compete i think i will go with laver.i think if borg would have one just one u.s. open the argument for him would have been stronger.my brother’s reply to your answer about laver was had 3 of the four majors been on grass for sampras as they were for laver sampras would have had 20-25 majors.who knows, right? thanks for your input. as always you are as clear as you are insightful.
Comment by don
i’m sure you have heard that lennart bergelin has passed away.thoughts?
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
I had only just heard this sad news when your post arrived.
This is indeed a real shame. The relationship between Bjorn and Lennart was without doubt special. It kind of set the trend for the essential, close, player coach relationship, that all of todays players try to have. These realationships are built on huge mutual respect and trust. Bjorn and Lennart definitely had that.
The site of Lennart in the players box at Wimbledon supporting his champion, will be seen every time there is a re-run of Bjorn falling to his knees or throwing his racket in the air as the Wimbledon champion.
Great memories.
John
Comment by don
thanks john. as always your thoughts and comments are appreciated. borg was my absolute favorite player growing up and it wasn’t until later on did i find out how much lennart bergelin was a part of that magic. i remember how cool bergelin was during the battle of 1816 and it made me wonder if that was why borg was so cool. anyway thanks again.
Comment by Arkwell
Great analysis of the Borg backhand but don’t forget that he
experimented with different grips on his backhand. If you look at
pictures when he first came on tour he had a ‘baseball grip’ with one
hand on top of the other, then for a while he had an interlocking
backhand grip where the ring & pinky of the left hand rested on top of
the index and middle of the right hand. With the interlocking grip his
backhand was very defensive and he did more running around his
backhand. Then he went back to his baseball grip and made his backhand
more of a weapon. Yup I’m a fan and a collector(Not a big one though)
and as a kid I got one important instruction from Lennart at a central
park clinic with Bjorn years ago, he said to make your passing shots
more effective hold your shot till the player stops or commits to one
side.
I still do consider his as the most beautiful two handed
backhand of all times and strangely enough if you look at Lindsey
Davenport’s backhand it’s quite close at times to Borgs in that she
sometimes lets go of the racket with the left hand after contact with
the ball. I got my two handed backhand from playing golf so it was
very similar.
Peace.
Comment by john key
Thanks Arkwell,
This is very informative and extremely interesting.
All the best .
John
p.s. Do you have any other Borg gems to share?
Comment by don
in your opinion, is nadal’s two handed backhand so superior to federer’s backhand that it gives him the decisive advantage in their meetings? nadal has 3 straight grand slam final victories over a player who has no weaknesses. what is he doing right or federer wrong? oh, by the way, how have you been john?
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
It’s always good to hear from you and yes, I’m well thank you - I hope you are too.
Once again you have posted a very interesting question.
In my opinion Nadal’s backhand is now superior to Federer’s, but not by much. Federer definitely has an issue at times dealing with the high, heavy topspin from Nadal. At the Aussie Open, Nadal’s backhand seemed to my eyes to have improved yet again. Let’s not lose sight of what an unbelievably great backhand Federer possesses, it’s just that we are comparing him to Nadal who really is quite amazing.
Is the slight difference in backhands the reason why Nadal seems to beat Federer regularly now? I’m not so sure that this is the sole reason but part of the whole picture. Nadal definitely seems to mentally have a large advantage. I think beating Federer at Wimbledon in the manner he did rocked Federer to the core. It’s a very strong player both physically and mentally who feels that he could take out Nadal over a long 5 setter - just look at what Verdasco looked like at the end of his Aussie semi and for days after. Nadal just wasn’t affected by it. I also feel that Nadal’s incredible work ethic on the practice court means that every part of his game seems to be a little better.
Having said all this - it’s a brave man who bets against Federer at Wimbledon.
All the best.
John
Comment by JJ
The way players stroked with a racket in ‘wooden’ times had much to do with the ‘balance’ of a racquet. Wooden racquets were specified as head heavy, head light and even balance basically. Some players whipped and flicked the ball (Nastase a good example) and probably preferred head light balance - especially at the net. It would seem that way with Borg but I suspect he used head heavy balance because he hit so solid. His second hand helped propel the (heavier) racquet head (a Donnay) and generate racquet head speed and spin then he released on the follow through instead of holding on with 2 hands. Being a 1HBH myself I used to call Borg’s shot a ‘power-assisted’ 1HBH. That’s my theory anyways. Note, ‘balance’ doesn’t matter much these days with materials and technology. Even Borg strokes differently today and volleys better.
Comment by JJ
BTW, Great site, analysis and commentary!
Comment by john key
Some interesting observations JJ.
The pros of the past and today tinker with the balance to get it spot on. Tiny slithers of lead tape placed in different places on the racket frame get things just right.
You are right about the Borg technique of today being different and I’m sure the modern-day racket plays a big part in this evolution.
Thanks for the positive words about the site.
John
Comment by don
i recently read an article by a sportswriter and he was of the opinion that the wimbledon final last year between federer and nadal surpassed that of mac and borg in 1980. i disagree so strongly it makes my head hurt. make me feel better and tell me you agree with me.
Comment by john key
The Federer v Nadal final was undoubtedly a classic, but I have to say I’m with you on this one Don. There was that little bit of angel dust sprinkled on the Borg v Mac epic that makes it stand out. Having said that, I am influenced by the fact that to me, the Borg, Mac, Vilas, Connors years were the glory years.
The other important point about the two finals is that there were in my opinion, more unforced errors in last years final.
I hope that helps your head a bit!
Comment by cks
when BB played in 1981 and lost to JM, he already made a record 5 to 3 Perry’s at Wimbledon and 6 at Roland Garros. At that time, no more record needs to be made by him. So, his mojo stopped there, 25 yrs retired. It is different with RFor RN playing right now. The record have been there, either 5 — W’s + 6 F’s by BB or 14 W US & Au by PS. If they want to be considered greater than RL, BB or PS they need to set new record. That’s what we are waiting for.
Comment by Arnold
If anybody gets to see the Akai tournament in 1982 played in Australia and the final between Borg and Mcenroe,then people might change their perception of how good he was becoming His game kept on getting better.That final shows a tremendous improvement in his game,Borg serving many aces which is something rare, real power shots, great return of service with tremendous power and his forehand as well.Mcenroe was completely outclassed in that match and looked lost for most of the match,and had Borg continued from then ,i believe he would have really dominated worl tennis at least for the next 5 years.Go to youtube to view this match.
Comment by don
hi john, how goes it? my brother and I were talking about justine henin retiring and how her not playing the french has opened the women’s draw there for the next 3-4 years. anyway it made me think of borg because at the time of his retirement many people thought it was because he couldn’t deal with john mcenroe breathing down his neck at wimbledon.but he was still the man on clay and would have had a great shot at 3 or 4 more french titles. seeing as he would have at the very least still competed for majors what is your opinion on why he retired? i have heard everything from burnout to depression.
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
I hope you’re well.
Interesting one and difficult to know the real reasons. I have always felt that it was a mixture of things: motivating himself to the high levels he was used to seemed to be a slight issue towards the end, the urge to do something with his life other than practicing, matches and hotels, I think there were also personal issues and as you say McEnroe. I think the Wimbledon final that Borg lost to Mac put a dent in him for good.
I absolutely agree that Borg had many more French Opens in him but I guess he made a choice which was right at the time. He may have later regretted the amount of time he had out before his ill-fated Monte Carlo comeback. Too much time had passed and it was really sad to see him, his wooden racket and a strange guru in tow, attempting in vein to re-live the glory years.
All the best.
John
Comment by don
thanks john. as always your answers give me alot to think about.to me,tennis is the best sport to analyze because it is such an intense one on one (singles of course). your insights as usual are wonderful. take care.
Comment by don
my brother and i were arguing about who had the biggest forehand ever with a wood racquet and as usual we disagreed. he says hands down it was borg but i said jimmy arias.in your opinion, who’s wood racquet forehand could take control of and/or end a point quicker? i thank you in advance for agreeing with me john. take care.
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
You and your brother love to test each other…and me!
I have a slight mental blank on this one as far as throwing some other big wooden racket forehands in the pot. I certainly saw Jose Luis Clerc nailing his forehand with a wooden racket and also Thierry Tulasne of France could spank it.
I would agree that Jimmy Arias possessed a huge forehand which was bigger than Borg’s, BUT…I think you’ll agree that Borg’s forehand was ultimately a better shot. Better passes, consistency, lobs, returns and so on - but I do think Arias hit it harder!
Would Borg have won all those Slam titles if he had the Arias forehand and not his own…? I’ll leave you with that one.
All the best to you and your bro.
John
Comment by don
thanks john! you are the coolest. my brother and both started playing tennis before we were ten so it’s a huge part of our lives and relationship.we grew up watching guys win wimbledon by serve and volleying (imagine that)!we are both old enough to have seen clerc play in his prime and since you mentioned someone other than borg and arias you actually made us think of players we forgot about.by the way, though way before my time i have heard it said that laver had a way sweet forehand.anyway as long as you keep coming up with the informative answers my brother and i can supply you with off the wall questions. take it easy john.
Comment by don
hey john,how goes it? you know those really silly tennis arguments my brother and i get into often? well most of the time i don’t feel a need to drag you into it. but sometimes my brother makes a statement i find so ridiculous a third party is needed. sorry. anyway, this time he said that when determining the greatness of a player you have to consider the competition of the player. in his opinion mcenroe and borg are better than federer and sampras because they faced hall of famers on a regular basis. i do agree that it’s would be harder for mac to win a particular major as he would have to possibly face connors, borg, lendl,vilas,clerc then later becker,wilander,edberg,noah, to name just a few. where i disagree is that sampras and federer should not penalized for when they were born. i think that all an athlete can do is dominate the competion of there era and if they do that there greatness is without question.where do you come down on this?look forward to your answer.
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
I’ll be a bit brief as I’m away at present and hence using a fiddly iPhone.
I have to say that I’m all with you on this one - 100%! Whether it’s Fred Perry, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Nadal etc. in my opinion all of these players should be judged on an even playing field.
Sorry to be short. All the best,
John
Comment by don
thanks. hope you are enjoying your trip.bye for now.
Comment by don
hi john! how goes it? anyway got a question for you but for once not from an argument with my bro. anyway, i’m trying to find out if any player, male or female, has ever lost a pro match without getting their serve broken?i know i’m a little weird but i think about things like that.thanks for your help.
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
Good question but I’m not sure of the answer.
I bet this has happened in many tournaments where tie breaks are played in every set and big servers are holding service games for fun.
Sorry I can’t dig out any examples.
All the best Don.
John
Comment by lcs
Didn’t Edberg lose at Wimbledon without getting his service broken shortly before he retired?
Comment by lcs
ahhhhhh… it was Edberg vs Stich Semifinal Wimbledon 1991. Edberg lost the match 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-7. He wasn’t broken the entire match.
Comment by john key
Well done for looking that one up. I don’t suppose Edberg felt too great after that loss.
John
Comment by don
hey john, how goes it.before i ask my question i would like to thank lcs for that edberg info. thanks! anyway, my brother, father and myself were arguing over which male player in history was or is equally dangerous from the forehand and backhand side. my brother says nadal, my dad votes for aggasi and borg gets my nod. your opinion please.
Comment by john key
Hi Don,
Another interesting one from you. I bet family dinners are great fun for you with all this debating going on.
The first names that came into my head were Willander, Borg (like you) and Agassi (like your dad). If I think longer about it…Boris in those early Wimbledon finals looked equally fearless and effective off both wings. You’ve got me thinking now!
All the best.
Comment by don
wow,i actually forgot about mats. he could certainly hurt you from both wings in terms of rallying and passing.thanks john. actually the debates are fun.my father likes to remind us that since he’s seen all the greats his opinion is far superior to that of my brother and myself.he maybe right.
post a comment
Please leave a comment below.
