PDA

View Full Version : McEnroe: 75 matches streak on carpet??


Andres
05-12-2007, 06:26 AM
ESPN LA broadcasters just said McEnroe had a 75 matches streak on carpet between 83 and 85, which would be the longest streak on ANY surface... and if Nadal beats Davydenko today, he'll have the all-time record for consecutive wins in a surface...

Anyone knew about it? Can anyone confirm?
I gotta check the ATP activity on carpet for those years...

Moose Malloy? Anything? :D

Andres
05-12-2007, 06:29 AM
http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=es&q=mcenroe+%2B+75+matches+%2B+carpet&meta=

Wow! Apparently it's true! (or it's well known, at least)

SgtJohn
05-12-2007, 09:38 AM
It's actually a streak on indoors, not carpet (including indoor hard), so technically it's not a single surface...I think the longest on carpet was 66, by McEnroe too..

John

diegaa
05-12-2007, 09:57 AM
Clarin.com said the exact same thing. I didnt know. And actually, it doesnt really matter.

Andres
05-12-2007, 10:16 AM
He broke the streak anyway, so doesn't matter anymore :D

noeledmonds
05-13-2007, 03:15 PM
It's actually a streak on indoors, not carpet (including indoor hard), so technically it's not a single surface...I think the longest on carpet was 66, by McEnroe too..

John

I belive, although I may be wrong, that Lendl holds the 66 match indoor streak. However I feel there is a more important point here. Few know who holds these records until they are broken. Winning streaks have only become important recently. Winning streaks were almost completely irrelevant back before the 90s. There was very little importance in keeping streaks going before then. For example Borg ended his longest winning streak on clay by retireing while leading 4 games to 1 in the 1st set of a match at Hamburg.

krosero
05-14-2007, 06:49 PM
I belive, although I may be wrong, that Lendl holds the 66 match indoor streak. However I feel there is a more important point here. Few know who holds these records until they are broken. Winning streaks have only become important recently. Winning streaks were almost completely irrelevant back before the 90s. There was very little importance in keeping streaks going before then. For example Borg ended his longest winning streak on clay by retireing while leading 4 games to 1 in the 1st set of a match at Hamburg.It might be too strong to say that they were completely irrelevant before the 90s. Surface-specific streaks, maybe. General streaks were in the contemporary press, weren't they? Vilas knew he was on a winning streak in '77, which was part of the reason for his anger at Nastase for using the spaghetti racket. I recall Borg getting press for streaks stopped at the 1978 and 79 U.S. Opens (I'm thinking of the World Book Year Book but possibly also some New York Times reports). Certainly Navratilova's 74-match winning streak in 1984 got press before it ended.

But even surface-specific streaks got press. I can't recall finding any contemporary articles on Chris Evert losing her 125-match streak on clay in 1979, but there was a contemporary report on Borg's clay-court winning streak stopped by Vilas at the 1980 Nations Cup. (I wish I still had these articles, I'm going by memory; and my ability to get archived articles right now is limited).

One that I do remember clearly is from 1987: the press knew that Navratilova's loss at Eastbourne stopped a winning streak, not just on grass, but British grass.

Maybe most of these streaks were in fact discovered only when they ended. That might be, I don't know.

noeledmonds
05-15-2007, 07:53 AM
It might be too strong to say that they were completely irrelevant before the 90s. Surface-specific streaks, maybe. General streaks were in the contemporary press, weren't they? Vilas knew he was on a winning streak in '77, which was part of the reason for his anger at Nastase for using the spaghetti racket. I recall Borg getting press for streaks stopped at the 1978 and 79 U.S. Opens (I'm thinking of the World Book Year Book but possibly also some New York Times reports). Certainly Navratilova's 74-match winning streak in 1984 got press before it ended.

But even surface-specific streaks got press. I can't recall finding any contemporary articles on Chris Evert losing her 125-match streak on clay in 1979, but there was a contemporary report on Borg's clay-court winning streak stopped by Vilas at the 1980 Nations Cup. (I wish I still had these articles, I'm going by memory; and my ability to get archived articles right now is limited).

One that I do remember clearly is from 1987: the press knew that Navratilova's loss at Eastbourne stopped a winning streak, not just on grass, but British grass.

Maybe most of these streaks were in fact discovered only when they ended. That might be, I don't know.

I said ALMOST completely irrelevant, not completely irrelevant. I agree that Vilas's streak accross all surfaces was recognised at the time and perhaps streaks accorss all surfaces can be excluded from this category as they are more relevant. However noone made a big deal of Borg's grass streak, Vilas's clay streak or Lendl's indoor streak. Even if the media recognised them this did not mean it meant anything much to the players. Vilas is not greater than Borg despite his supiror streaks. Players did not have an empysis on attempting to continue streaks, hence why some were ended by retirement from matches.

Q&M son
04-19-2008, 02:25 PM
Vilas is not greater than Borg despite his supiror streaks.

Who says a different thing?
What's the relation with winning streak? None.

Greetings.

Lucio.

krosero
04-19-2008, 02:32 PM
[QUOTE=noeledmonds;1445748]Vilas is not greater than Borg despite his supiror streaks. QUOTE]

Who says a different thing?
What's the relation with winning streak? None.If you want a discussion you'd have much better luck entering one where the posters are still talking, a live discussion. Bumping old threads to add new information is okay, but I'm not sure anyone's going to be interested in defending a comment they made months ago, in a dead conversation.

Note to Tennis Warehouse: it would be nice to have dates on the threads. I thought all these threads were new and had to open each one to check and see if they were old.

Q&M son
04-19-2008, 02:38 PM
If you want a discussion you'd have much better luck entering one where the posters are still talking, a live discussion. Bumping old threads to add new information is okay, but I'm not sure anyone's going to be interested in defending a comment they made months ago, in a dead conversation.

Note to Tennis Warehouse: it would be nice to have dates on the threads. I thought all these threads were new and had to open each one to check and see if they were old.

Good point, but if you post in an old thread, it would be on top to get a response. So poeple can "actually" see it, like you.
I disagree fore example with Tennis Old Man, who copy an old thread an put it like a new one.
I'm new in TT, so I'm learning about the old conversations, avoiding repeating threads.

Regards.

Lucio.