The new film on the Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe rivalry (new in India, released a few months earlier abroad), named baldly after their last names, has received a somewhat mixed if overall positive reception. The common complaint seems to be that the film devotes too much time to Borg and too little to McEnroe. One review did reasonably observe that the real or, if you will, the off-court Borg is a story that the audience will find more astonishing…because it shows him to have been a volatile and angry kid and still prone to flying into fits of pure rage against those who, as his coach reminds him, are working hard to help him every step of the way. It is also, in my opinion, interesting because it lifts the curtain and takes a look at the torment of perfectionism.
The film juxtaposes the Wimbledon defending champ Ice-Borg with the hot headed kid who is suspended but attracts the attention of his future coach with glimpses of unusual talent. It shows the kid reaching a veritable dead end with his fury threatening to derail his quest to win (though it is this quest that in fact causes him to be angry when things don’t go his way). He is told by the coach to stop showing any emotion whatsoever if he wants to succeed and he obeys. The rest is history.
What the film does not attempt to do is to tie Borg’s manic perfectionism and obsession with having things the exact way he needs them to be with his back story. No, that exists independent of the boiling volcano that simmers but won’t explode. As Vitas Gerulaitis explains to McEnroe in the film, Borg stays in the same hotel, travels by the same car, has the same number of racquets strung the same way before the match and even has his parents wear the same colour of clothes for the matches as and when they do attend. But this doesn’t have to do with the kid that Borg is trying to hide from public gaze. Alternatively, it could be said the kid is really a metaphor for Borg’s quest for perfection and his acute fear of failure.
For Borg screams at his long time coach for apparently not stringing the racquets the right way (a charge which the coach rejects). Borg is upset when the All England Club allows noisy gawkers to watch his private practice sessions. He observes tellingly that nobody will talk about his four successive Wimbledons if he fails to win this fifth one, reflecting the burden of expectations felt by him. But which is only partly imposed by the world at large. It is also a burden he has willfully inflicted on himself and yet it torments him to the point of pushing him to tears.
We see that to become Ice-Borg for the cameras, Borg needs to sometimes even puke before the match to cope with the pressure. In another short but beautiful passage, Borg is faring badly in an early round match when the infamous English weather grants him a reprieve. As he waits for play to resume, Borg, King of Wimbledon, tells his coach he can’t do this and can he not tell the organisers to push the match to the next day. Can you imagine…the top dog of tennis running away from playing somebody way down the pecking door?
Because (though the film is too sensitively crafted to state this plainly) Borg is now playing himself, fighting to match up to his own self image every day. It is understandably exhausting and when he lost back to back slam finals to McEnroe at Wimbledon and US Open in 1981, Borg did in essence run away from the sport, retiring at a shockingly young age (26) for a healthy athlete.
Know what that’s similar to? Barbra Streisand eschewing live performances for a long time because she forgot the lyrics for part of one song in a long concert she gave at Central Park, New York in 1968. Which is just one rather well known example and in catching up with the backstories of many big rock bands (the ones that filled arenas) on TeamRock website, I found many singers/ musicians resorted to drugs/alcohol to relieve the anxiety and handle the pressure of performing so many shows (when they were selling well, they typically got overbooked by promoters) and having to live up to expectations every time. Even television journalist Elizabeth Vargas admitted to relying on alcohol to handle the fear of having a meltdown on TV, a habit which eventually made her an alcoholic.
What’s common between Borg, Streisand and Vargas? They all had to perform in front of millions of prying eyes and had to develop coping mechanisms to stop their perfectionism from paralysing them. By the by, in the early scenes of the film, we see noisy hordes of fans innocently and overenthusiastically hounding Borg as he travels through France in a car…from the perspective of Borg seated in the car. In an instant, the celebrity life suddenly looks far less inviting and from that moment on, we sympathise with hot favourite Borg rather than underdog McEnroe.
It is not often that so much insight into what a mega entertainer (which Borg was, and arguably the first such in tennis) goes through is revealed within a running length of less than 2 hours, rarer still that it’s depicted through vignettes rather than talky exposition. Perhaps, all of this makes the film too subtle, too, if I may, European for those expecting it to deliver the adrenaline rush of sporting action. But there’s plenty of footage of the actual Borg-McEnroe easily available on youtube for that. This film attempts to go behind Centre Court and unmask Borgman, only to reveal a lonely athlete for whom happiness is far more elusive than sporting success.
– Madan Mohan, recreational tennis hack in the early morning, chartered accountant by day and wannabe writer by night
Baradwaj Rangan 
MANK
December 15, 2017
I marvel at how familiar I have become with my fellow commenters here. The moment I saw the title, I know it’s written by Madan and voila it is Madan 😀 , Ditto with Anjo on the AB piece
I have not seen this film and I usually don’t like sports biopics that much. But Madan makes this sound very exciting, I never thought Borg would be such a volcanic personality. He was the Iceman on court. Makes me wonder what Federer is in like in real life
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
December 15, 2017
MANK, EXACTLY what I was thinking.
😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
December 15, 2017
@ MANK: Thanks. I would say it’s a sports film that film lovers rather than lovers of sports films a la Goal or Remember The Titans will like. It takes its time to etch the other side of Borg so it’s not a very fast paced film. On the other hand, it’s rich in detail so it can be rewarding for the patient viewer.
LikeLike
Madan
December 15, 2017
Yes, it would be interesting indeed to learn what Federer is like in real life. There are differences between his and Borg’s approach. He doesn’t fret about mistakes much seemingly, being an attacking player by temperament. He also adjusts his schedule well to stay fresh. His comeback this year is unparalleled in tennis. Now whether that indicates you-know-what I don’t know but he has to be happy playing tennis to be able to sustain his level for so many years.
LikeLike
Bee
December 15, 2017
That was a good read. Haven’t watched the film but, its on my watchlist now. Always thought McEnroe was the one with a fiery personality. I had heard that he was the one to break racquets, and threaten linesmen. I haven’t watched any matches of those years, just hearsay. To have won back to back slams on clay and grass must have been very difficult those days, and shame he couldn’t play beyond 26.
Every athlete will go through a patch of vulnerability. One of the most endearing moments for me in Tennis was the 2009 AO final when Federer couldn’t hold back his tears and mustered ‘Ah, its killing me’. I can’t imagine how happy he would have been when he overcame Nadal in ao this year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
"Original" venkatesh
December 15, 2017
Et voila , it is Madan.
Very nicely done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
December 15, 2017
McEnroe is the one who glorified ephemerality,having all the celtic powers of quick intuition.
LikeLike
Madan
December 15, 2017
@ Bee: Thanks. Yes, indeed, in their PRO careers, it was McEnroe who smashed racquets and argued, even abused umpires. But as a junior, Borg had problems controlling his temper and would go completely off the rails. Some of what is shown in the film may be fictional liberties but it’s true that he received a six month suspension at one point. He was groomed by Lennart Bergelin who was himself a former tennis player and had reached the quarter finals of Wimbledon. Interestingly, Federer too was a racquet smasher in his early years on tour. He learnt to be stoic like Borg but you can see after wins, he breaks into tears, releasing the pent up emotions. Likewise, he is tearful after losses. The AO 2009 final was an epic weep-fest but even at other times, he has barely held back tears after tough losses. Whereas Borg only closed his eyes for a bit after winning the 1980 Wimbledon final. It’s not a question of a phase of weakness or vulnerability but – and this is more interesting – of masking the vulnerabilities behind a stoic and emotionless exterior at all times, no matter the strain.
It’s no wonder that he gave up once McEnroe had his number…it would have been difficult to continue to wear the mask now that his game itself was no longer invincible. What they don’t discuss in the film is Borg also had issues with the new ranking system on the tour introduced from 81, which forced him to play qualifying rounds in slams, as the no.1. The combined strain from all these developments made him leave the game to which he had given his all. Such a development would be unthinkable today with the power the players command. But it was Borg, Connors and Mc who paved the way for the subsequent stars to enjoy the respect, even reverence of the tournaments.
Lastly, yes, winning slams back to back on clay and grass when it required you to counterpunch through 50 shot rallies on one and play serve and volley on the other is mindboggling. Only Borg could do it, to take nothing away from Nadal/Fed’s own RG-Wimbledon double(s).
@Venkatesh: Thanks.
LikeLike
therag
December 16, 2017
Federer had his own “break racquet, cuss wildly” phase in the early 2000s when he was an up and coming player. By 2004 or so the outbursts mostly stopped but even then the old Raging Fed would make a comeback from time to time.
In 2005/06 it was clear he was the generation’s celebrity player, so he probably took a business decision to project a more milquetoast and charismatic persona. And Nadal, the scrawny Spanish kid with his sleeveless shirts was the perfect foil to Fed. The ATP recognized the golden goose and played up the rivalry, not that it needed playing up.
Federer adopts a humble, pollyannaish attitude during his press conferences while Nadal is more forthright. This contrasts with their playing styles since on an average, Federer is the aggressive shotmaker while Nadal is the grinder.
LikeLike
Madan
December 16, 2017
“Federer adopts a humble, pollyannaish attitude during his press conferences while Nadal is more forthright” – Interesting take. I feel it’s the other way round. Federer can at times be unguarded and reveal his true feelings, lol. Like when he suggested Djokovic’s return at 40-15 match point in the USO 2011 final was a ‘lucky shot’; that’s the most outrageous claim for a tennis player to make of a well connected forehand return. He has also protested Nadal not being penalised for time violations, typically when he loses. It’s Nadal who takes pains to be polite to a fault in the press conference. Nadal is very vocal and intense on the field, so he lets it all out and is able to be composed off court. I feel Federer is fairly extroverted and has to put up a polite face in order to please the sponsors.
LikeLike
therag
December 17, 2017
Relative to Nadal, Federer is not a very good loser, not in absolute terms of course. The comment about Djoker was after what must have been one of Federer’s most excruciating losses. He also has a losing H2H with Nadal, and to be fair Nadal definitely flouts the rule openly. It was only in AO17 that Federer took his first frivolous time-out whereas the likes of Djoker had long perfected the art of destroying the opponent’s momentum with it. So federer does not tolerate rule breaking that well, and that makes him prone to criticisms against Nadal and Djoker who treat rules as if they were guidelines. But with the other players, he usually doesn’t go that far.
The “putting up a polite face to please sponsors” attitude is so frustrating. Makes a player like Kyrgios that much more entertaining. If only he would get a coach and some discipline…
LikeLike
Madan
December 17, 2017
“that makes him prone to criticisms against Nadal and Djoker who treat rules as if they were guidelines” – Yeah. I am not saying he is unjustified in criticising their time violations but that he doesn’t mind calling a spade a spade from time to time. Like when he took down Tomic. It was well deserved. I don’t agree with his lucky shot comment but I also know it’s common for tennis players to make excuses and curse their luck when they lose, so it’s actually more ‘realistic’.
“The “putting up a polite face to please sponsors” attitude is so frustrating.” – Indeed. Remember that Ivanisevic-Woodforde tussle?
https://www.tennis-prose.com/articles/recalling-the-ivanisevic-woodforde-feud/
LikeLike
MANK
December 17, 2017
I feel Federer is an emotional guy. he is not a cold warrior as say a Sampras, whom i believe is a pretty cold person in real life as well. You could see a flood of emotions from him, at the end of a match, especially a grand slam final, whether he wins or loses
But the thing to admire most is that Fed is totally in control of himself and his game on the court. as opposed to Nadal or more irritatingly Djoker, who looks to his camp or his coach for reassurance or directions after every shot , he is almost like a whining , crying child. federer is very much his own man, i don’t hink he even bothers to look at his coach or his family during a match
LikeLike
Madan
December 17, 2017
“Federer is very much his own man, i don’t hink he even bothers to look at his coach or his family during a match” – Yeah. The ‘Last of the Mohicans’. I don’t remember anybody looking at their camp in the 90s. We didn’t even know much about who was coaching whom, except for the big names like Gullikson or Annacone. Even Serena doesn’t look at her camp very much at all though she does scream and gesticulate a lot during intense matches. It’s an interesting point that while players have become polite to a fault and don’t disrespect umpires/opponents, at least not as much as they used to in the 80s and 90s, (even Graf was famous for not shaking hands with any umpire whom she believed to have given her too many bad calls in the match), they have become sort of infantile in other ways. Since Ljubicic’s arrival, Federer does seem to make eye contact with him along with a silent fist pump. The most annoying that way is, no prizes for guessing, Murray and I bet it’s a big part of why he had to part ways with good coaches.
LikeLike
MANK
December 17, 2017
yeah. The ‘Last of the Mohicans’, both in temperament and technique. he seems to be the only player (There is Gasquet also) who hits single handed shots , especially the backhand, otherwise everybody out there is hitting double handeds, the game has lost a lot because of that IMO, resembling more of cricket. its more of a power game than of technique and skill
Look at this, wonder we will ever get to see backhand play like this ever again
even Graf was famous for not shaking hands with any umpire whom she believed to have given her too many bad calls in the match
Really?, i thought she was the most well behaved of them all
LikeLike
Madan
December 17, 2017
MANK: One handed backhand is alive and well,though fewer and fewer of the younger players use it. But there’s Dominic Thiem and also Denis Shapovalov among the younger lot who hit it one handed. Of Fed or even Gasquet’s generation, there are a fair few who hit it one handed. Dimitrov is another.
“i thought she was the most well behaved of them all” – In general, but once in 1991/92 against Sabatini (probably at Tokyo) and also against Kournikova at Eastbourne in 1998, she refused to shake hands with the chair umpire just because the umpire gave a lot of bad calls. There may have been other instances but these are two I can remember off the top of my head. I understand feeling hard done by bad calls in the pre Hawk Eye age, but it wasn’t as if the umpire had any axe to grind against her and dispensing with a basic courtesy of tennis was just churlish. Also, Graf was famous for the ‘drive-by’ handshake; when she lost, she would usually be in a tearing hurry to leave and barely make eye contact with the winning player as she offered her hand for a fraction of a second. Not ALL the time, but very often this was the case. While purists despised Seles, she, on the other hand, was usually graceful in defeat.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
December 18, 2017
@Madan : Man, please give us Fed fans, some trigger warnings before talking about THAT USO 2011 return. Having said that, the shot was indeed lucky lol. How many times do we see a cross court return winner on match point – even Djokovic didn’t celebrate much, guess he assumed Fed will eventually serve out the match – until Fed started cracking up. But honestly, what a shot that was – like Tendulkar’s upper cut @ Centurion. The bugger has denied Fed 3 USOs this decade. Pfft.
Fed can be a real arsehole at times though, with his take on the other players. At times, I feel he kicks himself for building this role model image, that is holding him back, from being a bad boy in the tour. I have never heard Fed praise any player wholeheartedly, especially after losing. Rafa’s praise goes to the other extreme of humble brag “Look, Fed is the best player in the Milky Way, I was somehow lucky enough to beat him”, sort of like Uriah Heep – we can give Rafa the benefit of doubt as English is not his first language. Djoker keeps it straight but for his horrible forced post-match celebration with the ball kids – I just hope one of them doesn’t file a case with CPS for mental harassment.
I will be watching the movie pretty soon. Borg is a real enigma – how does one walk away from all the adulation and success, just like that ? Although Borg-Mac are similar to Fed-Nadal , Borg didnt suffer as many traumatic losses as Fed did. This is one of the most underrated qualities of Fed – to come back from FO08,W08, AO09 and even face Rafa across the net, requires enormous Bahubalian mental fortitude. I didn’t have the guts to watch, after Nadal went up in the 5th set of AO17, sitting 1000s of miles away but Fed held his nerve. I’m not judging Borg – I always felt he could have been a genuine GOAT contender, and I’m sure he too might have felt this more than once.
PS: How can we not talk about Mirka’s shenanigans when talking about players boxes? For all the love and adoration Mirka gets from Fed fans, she more than compensates Fed’s “genteelness” with her boorish behavior.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Srinivas R
December 18, 2017
UVY, +1 to everything you said, esp.. Federer’s ability to come back from traumatic losses. I thought, it will be impossible for him to face Rafa after W08. Also wish Rafa stops that humble brag, annoys the hell out of me
LikeLike
Jai
December 19, 2017
Madan, very well written piece. I haven’t watched the film yet but loved reading your analysis. I’ve watched Wimbledon highlights of that memorable 1980 final numerous times, the ebb and flow of momentum make this one of the classics. Nice to know that the movie captures the persona behind the “Ice man” Borg.
WRT Federer & Nadal and the way they come across in their post match pressers. I think this whole question of whether they are “humble” or not, and whether it is “fake modesty” or not, is in a way, extrapolating their style of play into expectations of how their persona “ought to rationally be”, off court.
Federer, of course, plays a singular brand of artistic tennis that is dazzling, gifted and timeless; and he has backed it up with winning more Grand Slam titles than any other man. His deft touch and artistry probably lead to expectations of a genteel, old world demeanor off court, and Federer has plugged into that with pressers that, on the whole, come across as Presidential and Majestic. A snarky ego does peep in now and again, however; like the jibe about Djokovic’s “lucky shot” which erased Federer’s match point at the USO 2011. This sour grapes comment was really jarring— Federer wasn’t just carping about that “lucky shot” alone; he went on to comment about how Djokovic had probably grown up “slapping shots” unlike Federer himself, who believed in hard work. 🙂 I think he perhaps forgot that Djokovic did have to win 3 more games in a row after breaking Federer back in that game! 🙂
A little further back, of course, after that unforgettable 2008 Wimbledon Final, Federer did comment that he had lost the match owing to poor light— prompting a very rare (though mildly worded) retort from Nadal that the light was the same for both of them.
Basically, Federer does have an ego— it is just skillful marketing and the “halo effect” of matching off court persona to on court performance, to believe otherwise. And equally obviously, Ego is not always a bad thing. It is likely a big part of his being such a successful champion. To Federer’s credit, it doesn’t exactly or always boil down to the entitlement attitude of “I’m owed…”, or “he was lucky to win…” — although it has come to that in a few cases.
Nadal, on the other hand, plays matches like a Gladiator. All unbridled aggression and never say die fortitude; and probably one expects his off court persona to be confrontational and aggressive as well. So when he comes across as modest and unassuming, it “seems” fake to some people. It may or may not be; none of us who don’t know him personally could ever know for sure. But he has consistently been modest and deferential (especially when speaking about Federer), right from the time they first started squaring off around 2005. He has always insisted that Federer is a more complete player, despite having a favorable H2H against him (his domination pre 2017 was really one sided in Nadal’s favor). Now that Federer has staged such a remarkable renaissance to beat Nadal 4 times in a row in 2017, Nadal’s assessment does not seem so far off the mark, or reflective of “fake modesty”.
Djokovic: I can’t help but feel sorry for the guy. Some of the criticism coming his way is well deserved; he has displayed poor sportsmanship in the past, withdrawing from matches that were going against him. And yes, he (as well as Nadal) take their time in between points. But in general, he gets hit with far worse critique than seems warranted, especially since he has shown a much better attitude and play post 2011. It sometimes seems that he gets criticized no matter what he does; his post match celebratory ripping off of his T shirt gets called out as being “too in-your-face”; but then his style of play gets criticized as metronomic and borderline-dull in its unrelenting consistency. What’s the guy supposed to do, when his choices are to be either condemned as being too dull, or attacked for being too flashy? There was even a borderline racist article (IIRC, in the Guardian) a few years back, which linked Djokovic’s match-victory celebrations to his “Balkan roots” and the supposed Serbian aggressiveness!
Very convenient and reductive slots for the “Big 3”, no? Swiss sophistication; Spanish matador, Serbian aggressor? IMO, All 3 of them have shown too many facets to be conveniently pigeon holed like that.
@ therag…wrt “It was only in AO17 that Federer took his first frivolous time-out….” No, this is not accurate. I will agree with you that Federer has, on the whole, played by the rules most of the time, but he has also taken the odd questionable/ borderline gamesmanship infused break before. You would find plenty of articles about his well timed bathroom break in the 2010 Australian Open against Davydenko, when he ambled leisurely to the rest room and then strolled back, breaking Davydenko’s momentum in the process. BTW, this is what Federer himself said, verbatim, at the post match presser:
“You’re allowed to have two toilet breaks and I never use them, and I figured maybe the sun goes by 1 centimeter to 3 centimeters … maybe it’s that one point that makes a difference.” 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
ramitbajaj01
December 19, 2017
Watching the movie, I felt Borg to be equivalent to Nadal. Same manner of speaking, same restrained temperament, same shying away from appreciation, same life-long coach, same dependence on family.
McEnroe felt like Djoko. Energy, behavior, antics.
LikeLike
Madan
December 19, 2017
All: Thanks for the comments.
UCY: As Jai said, the thing about the lucky shot comment wasn’t just about calling it lucky (which it’s NOT, miraculous maybe for someone to go for it facing match point and pull it off, but I have seen Agassi hit even more unbelievable return winners). That whole lecture on how Fed apparently grew up learning to work hard was very grating. Djoko played it to perfection in the press conference, refusing to be drawn into an argument. At the same time, I am sure it didn’t go down well and was possibly what Becker was referring to when he brought out the Fed-Djoko cold war out into the open, only for both parties to vehemently deny it. I also agree with him that it may not be humble brag in Rafa’s case. He just likes to play down expectations so that there’s no pressure on him, something Fed has been emulating this year incidentally. In 2016, he said cockily that he had come to taste the winning champagne in AO. Nothing wrong with that, every player in the draw would love to win it all, but this year he kept saying let’s see and played brilliantly.
Jai: Agree strongly about Djokovic and I do believe there’s some anti-Serb prejudice driving some of the criticism leveled at him. Connors used to do a full fledged pelvic thrust during the match, just to distract opponents. Surely Djokovic should be allowed to celebrate however he wants after the match. Now he does sometimes let rip at his camp which I don’t like but it’s also a lot less often than Murray, to say nothing of the WTA barring exceptions like Serena. Speaking of gamesmanship, Fed has even vaguely justified reaching for the towel. But ok, he’s within the limits 99% of the time so perhaps feels entitled to criticise rivals whose infractions are more frequent and flagrant.
ramitbajaj01: Borg was in many ways the forerunner to Nadal, though the parallel seems implausible to many because they associate Nadal with loud grunting and in-your-face fist pumps. But he’s also kind of obsessive, has set patterns of play which he hates deviating from, has among the best wheels in the sport. And, like Borg, won Wimbledon even though he wasn’t initially thought of as a contender. Wouldn’t really compare Djokovic to McEnroe in that Djokovic seems to be a lot calmer and lot more focused than McEnroe. If there is one thing other than athleticism that the older players envy in the Big Three, it’s probably their focus and, in turn, their consistency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
December 20, 2017
@ Madan: Completely agree that for Federer to characterize that Djokovic winner as just a fluke “lucky shot” was really unwarranted. True, the shot landed just within the line. But surely, Djokovic had the courage to let rip a daring shot at match point down, taking full opportunity to go for the ball off a short 100-mph serve. In the end, it comes down to split-second timing. The way Djokovic hit it was surely a combination of skill and daring. The fact that the ball stayed in was perhaps luck, in a fortune-favors-the-brave kind of fortuitousness. 🙂 Surely nothing for Federer to turn up his nose at.
I guess part of Federer’s intense pique was the fact that Djokovic had come back to win against him at the US Open Semis 2 years in a row (2010 and 2011), erasing 2 match points in each of those matches. In 2010 when Djokovic nullified 2 Fed mp’s, Djokovic was the one serving. In 2011, those mp’s were on Federer’s own serve, and that loss must have stung even more.
Curiously, Federer himself has said that one of the reasons for his resurgence over the past year, is deciding to go for his shots at important moments. 🙂
BTW, as an aside, which would be your pick on the 5 best men’s singles matches that you have watched? Maybe narrowed down to grand slam matches for sake of convenience.
LikeLike
Madan
December 20, 2017
@Jai Keeping it strictly to matches I watched more or less entirely during the live telecast, I’ll go with Ivanisevic-Rafter W 01, Fedal AO 17, Djokodal RG 12, Wawrinka Djokovic AO 14, Kuerten Norman RG 00.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
December 22, 2017
I think my comment on luck was misinterpreted – to generate that kind of luck you need loads of talent and hard work.
@Madan : Even I acknowledged that Fed can be a bit bombastic – a put off.@PseudoFed on Twitter, perfectly captures this.
LikeLike