By Michael Mewshaw
Neither Maria Sharapova nor Roger Federer will play at Roland Garros this year. The towering Russian, despite her multiple Grand Slam titles, was denied a wild card by the French Tennis Federation after serving a suspension for a drug violation. The elegant Swiss, after winning the Australian Open and major events at Indian Wells and Miami, chose to skip the entire clay court season and conserve his energy for the grass courts at Wimbledon.
The absence of these stars recalls a poignant piece of tennis history and suggests that the game has the capacity to learn from the past and improve at the administrative level. In 1982, Bjorn Borg, the defending champion and holder of six French Open titles, was refused direct entry into Roland Garros. If he cared to compete, he was told he’d have to qualify for the tournament. While there’s little doubt that he would have won his way into the main draw, he declined to do so. “Stubborn as a square-headed Swede,” as the saying goes, Borg dug in his heels and as a point of pride wouldn’t participate in the qualies. He did the same thing at Wimbledon, convinced that as the winner of five titles and a finalist for the sixth straight year in 1981, he deserved a direct route to Centre Court, which he virtually owned.
It’s crucial to recall what crime Bjorn Borg had committed to get banned from the Grand Slams. He wasn’t guilty of a doping offense. He hadn’t spat in an opponent’s face, a la Ilie Nastase. He hadn’t thrown histrionic conniption fits a la John McEnroe. No, he had simply done what Roger Federer is now doing. As a reigning champion and future Hall of Famer, he decided that he preferred to limit his schedule and play only those tournaments that suited him. But a bunch of bureaucratic suits decreed that he had to compete in a minimum of ten tournaments in addition to the Grand Slams. When he wouldn’t bend to this dictate, he found himself faced with an ultimatum – take it or leave it.
Borg left it! You can’t really say that he retired. Pig-headed tennis authorities ran him out of the game. They accused him of selfishness, as did some players and many journalists who wrote that he demanded preferential treatment so that he could go on a shopping expedition for Grand Slam titles.
All of this sounds woefully stupid and unfair now. Borg received the worst punishment; his career was cut short in mid-stream. But tennis fans also suffered, and never got a chance to see one of history’s greatest competitors continue his confrontations with McEnroe and Connors. The game was poorer for his absence, and one can only ponder the imponderable. How many major titles would the Swede had won if he had played on till 35 like Roger, or 31 like Rafa? To put it slightly differently, consider Roger’s and Rafa’s records. If they had been shouldered aside at the age of 26, tennis history would have been dramatically different.
I’d like to believe that the Borg imbroglio forced tennis to reevaluate its inflexibility and begin to accommodate the needs of its top players. Similarly, Sharapova may have learned a significant lesson. Like Borg, she has a champion’s pride. But she has agreed to play the Wimbledon qualies. Hats off to her for that. As for Bjorn Borg, a belated apology is in order. He deserved better. But then perhaps the game’s changes are some small compensation for the unfairness he suffered.
MICHAEL MEWSHAW is the author of 21 books. His most recent, AD IN AD OUT, a collection of his articles about tennis, is now available online.
