PDA

View Full Version : McE really is thick


MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 03:50 PM
picked up this article on tennis.com

http://tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=177914

My favorite paragraph is:

"The game that dominates today was pioneered by one of McEnroe’s great career rivals, Ivan Lendl. “It’s all about dictating play—taking control of a point with a big serve followed with your first shot off the return, preferably a big forehand. Ivan is probably tearing his hair out today, because he would have thrived in this climate,” says McEnroe. “But my way of dealing with that was to take the ball early, not let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms, and I’m not so sure there isn’t room for that strategy anymore.”

What was McE's record against Lendl? Did he EVER win?
Lendl (and Becker) are the only palyer of the 80'd who should be allowed to say anything about modern tennis

joeri888
06-18-2009, 03:53 PM
It's more I think an opinion on what JMac would like esthetically than anything else, and I kind of agree that there was too much attacking play in his days but there's too little now, which makes it a little easier for the very best baseliners.

Also I think that if we are allowed to generate opinions about tennis on this board, a great tennisplayer and one of the best, if not the best, volleyer(s) of all time should be allowed to as well

veroniquem
06-18-2009, 03:56 PM
picked up this article on tennis.com

http://tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=177914

My favorite paragraph is:

"The game that dominates today was pioneered by one of McEnroe’s great career rivals, Ivan Lendl. “It’s all about dictating play—taking control of a point with a big serve followed with your first shot off the return, preferably a big forehand. Ivan is probably tearing his hair out today, because he would have thrived in this climate,” says McEnroe. “But my way of dealing with that was to take the ball early, not let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms, and I’m not so sure there isn’t room for that strategy anymore.”

What was McE's record against Lendl? Did he EVER win?
Lendl (and Becker) are the only palyer of the 80'd who should be allowed to say anything about modern tennis
Yes, he beat Lendl 15 times. I really can't see why he shouln't give his opinion about tactics. Wilander is another guy who played well in the 80s.

MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 04:00 PM
It's more I think an opinion on what JMac would like esthetically than anything else, and I kind of agree that there was too much attacking play in his days but there's too little now, which makes it a little easier for the very best baseliners.

Also I think that if we are allowed to generate opinions about tennis on this board, a great tennisplayer and one of the best, if not the best, volleyer(s) of all time should be allowed to as well

The problem with McE in this article is that he is basically suggesting that modern players replicate a strategy that got him nowhere other than humiliation (against Lendl). How ******** is that?

MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 04:02 PM
Yes, he beat Lendl 15 times. I really can't see why he shouln't give his opinion about tactics. Wilander is another guy who played well in the 80s.

How many times did he win after 1984? How many times did he lose?

gj011
06-18-2009, 04:08 PM
picked up this article on tennis.com

http://tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=177914

My favorite paragraph is:

"The game that dominates today was pioneered by one of McEnroe’s great career rivals, Ivan Lendl. “It’s all about dictating play—taking control of a point with a big serve followed with your first shot off the return, preferably a big forehand. Ivan is probably tearing his hair out today, because he would have thrived in this climate,” says McEnroe. “But my way of dealing with that was to take the ball early, not let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms, and I’m not so sure there isn’t room for that strategy anymore.”

What was McE's record against Lendl? Did he EVER win?
Lendl (and Becker) are the only palyer of the 80'd who should be allowed to say anything about modern tennis

Time to grow up. Nothing wrong with what McEnroe said.

Joseph L. Barrow
06-18-2009, 04:08 PM
McEnroe had a winning record against Lendl until the late '80s, by which time he was substantially past his best.

CyBorg
06-18-2009, 04:09 PM
We're only figuring this out now?

McEnroe has never been particularly bright.

BreakPoint
06-18-2009, 04:10 PM
How many times did he win after 1984? How many times did he lose?
3-13

How many times did Lendl win between 1983 and 1984? How many times did he lose?

2-10

So what's your point? :confused:

McEnroe's career declined after 1984 and he never won another Grand Slam. He also had lots of personal issues and took time off from the tour.

MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 04:17 PM
McEnroe had a winning record against Lendl until the late '80s, by which time he was substantially past his best.

boooh!:-?

It is 11-3 Lendl after 1984, and 10-1 after 1985. McE only won once, on the highly popular carpet.... Once modern tennis came in the form of Lendl and Becker, he folded. The guy has nothing to contribute of any relevance

MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 04:19 PM
3-13

How many times did Lendl win between 1983 and 1984? How many times did he lose?

2-10

So what's your point? :confused:

McEnroe's career declined after 1984 and he never won another Grand Slam. He also had lots of personal issues and took time off from the tour.

Point is that McE has no idea about modern tennis, and should should certainly refrain from offering strategic advice to players who are all vastly superior athletes to what he ever was

Joseph L. Barrow
06-18-2009, 04:22 PM
boooh!:-?

It is 11-3 Lendl after 1984, and 10-1 after 1985. McE only won once, on the highly popular carpet.... Once modern tennis came in the form of Lendl and Becker, he folded. The guy has nothing to contribute of any relevance
So you're saying that only a prime Lendl's record against an over-the-hill McEnroe is relevant?

TennisandMusic
06-18-2009, 04:26 PM
boooh!:-?

It is 11-3 Lendl after 1984, and 10-1 after 1985. McE only won once, on the highly popular carpet.... Once modern tennis came in the form of Lendl and Becker, he folded. The guy has nothing to contribute of any relevance

One of the best, most famous, players of all time (some think THE best) has nothing to contribute of any relevance?

But you and I do?

MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 04:28 PM
[QUOTE=Joseph L. Barrow;3573892]So you're saying that only a prime Lendl's record against an over-the-hill McEnroe is relevant?[/QUOTE

I am saying that clearly over time, as tennis evolved under mostly Lendl and Becker, McEnroe's tactics became increasingly ineffective. The fact that he is neverthelss recommending replicating these tactics against today's modern power baseliners, who make Becker and Lendl loook like the WTA tour, amounts to ******ation.

Fandango
06-18-2009, 04:30 PM
you can take a lot of time from your opponent by rushing to the net-something mac was good at

MarcRosset1992
06-18-2009, 04:34 PM
One of the best, most famous, players of all time (some think THE best) has nothing to contribute of any relevance?

But you and I do?

THE best, pleeeeeaaasse:) someone who is 2-8 against Becker and 1-11 against Lendl is NOT the best, just a very average player once men left the stone age and stopped using wooden sticks to play tennis

dh003i
06-18-2009, 04:46 PM
McEnroe in his prime was a level above Lendl and Becker; clearly the most talented player of the 80s.

bruce38
06-18-2009, 04:48 PM
THE best, pleeeeeaaasse:) someone who is 2-8 against Becker and 1-11 against Lendl is NOT the best, just a very average player once men left the stone age and stopped using wooden sticks to play tennis

Yeah but isn't Borg better than Becker and Lendl? What was Mac's record against the better Borg?

TennisandMusic
06-18-2009, 04:49 PM
THE best, pleeeeeaaasse:) someone who is 2-8 against Becker and 1-11 against Lendl is NOT the best, just a very average player once men left the stone age and stopped using wooden sticks to play tennis

very average. :rolleyes:

zagor
06-18-2009, 04:50 PM
I am saying that clearly over time, as tennis evolved under mostly Lendl and Becker, McEnroe's tactics became increasingly ineffective. The fact that he is neverthelss recommending replicating these tactics against today's modern power baseliners, who make Becker and Lendl loook like the WTA tour, amounts to ******ation.

Eh,LOL? Put prime Becker and Lendl today and they'd still kick *****,no question about it for me.

Ocean Drive
06-18-2009, 04:52 PM
[QUOTE=Joseph L. Barrow;3573892]So you're saying that only a prime Lendl's record against an over-the-hill McEnroe is relevant?[/QUOTE

I am saying that clearly over time, as tennis evolved under mostly Lendl and Becker, McEnroe's tactics became increasingly ineffective. The fact that he is neverthelss recommending replicating these tactics against today's modern power baseliners, who make Becker and Lendl loook like the WTA tour, amounts to ******ation.

Look at Becker playing Sampras at the Masters in 1995 and tell me Becker is hitting like a WTA.

HunterST
06-18-2009, 04:53 PM
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=L018

that link has their h2h record as well as the results from each match.

veroniquem
06-18-2009, 04:56 PM
THE best, pleeeeeaaasse:) someone who is 2-8 against Becker and 1-11 against Lendl is NOT the best, just a very average player once men left the stone age and stopped using wooden sticks to play tennis
Very average gets you 7 slams and 77 titles? :shock:
(he's 15-21 against Lendl, the head to head with Becker is irrelevant because Becker is much younger)

jimbo333
06-18-2009, 05:24 PM
We're only figuring this out now?

McEnroe has never been particularly bright.

McEnroe was a great player, but has always been a bit stupid.

Benhur
06-18-2009, 05:27 PM
3-13

How many times did Lendl win between 1983 and 1984? How many times did he lose?

2-10

So what's your point? :confused:

McEnroe's career declined after 1984 and he never won another Grand Slam. He also had lots of personal issues and took time off from the tour.

You are leaving out the fact that Lendl totally dominated their head to head prior to 1983 (7-2). In 1981 and 1982, Lendl won all 7 matches they played. This cannot be attributed to an "over the hill McEnroe." Nor can the record in the second half of the 80s be attributed only to that. McEnroe was ranked as high as number 4, as late as 1989, and his tennis was probably as good as ever, or not far from it, except that the competition in the second half of the 80s included Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Lendl, all in their primes. Being ranked 4 in those days was no small feat.

egn
06-18-2009, 05:27 PM
boooh!:-?

It is 11-3 Lendl after 1984, and 10-1 after 1985. McE only won once, on the highly popular carpet.... Once modern tennis came in the form of Lendl and Becker, he folded. The guy has nothing to contribute of any relevance

SO modern tennis magically developed in on year and it was obvious that McEnroe was now suddenly playing from the stone age....lol. How about McEnroe was past his best after 84 and Lendl was approaching his. Besides doesn't prior to 84 mean that Modern Tennis gets trashed by Ancient Tennis so shouldn't ancient tennis know best?

kaiotic
06-18-2009, 06:14 PM
Eh,LOL? Put prime Becker and Lendl today and they'd still kick *****,no question about it for me.

werd!!! crack is wack, rosset92 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

kaiotic
06-18-2009, 06:15 PM
McEnroe was a great player, but has always been a bit stupid. brilliant player but the biggest ******h0 on the court. so annoying to watch.

Devilito
06-18-2009, 06:34 PM
good article thanks for the link. McEnroe is right like usual. It’s nice to have such great commentary and insight.

McEnroe knows more about the modern game than all of the posters in this thread combined including me. He is still actively involved in tennis, hits and talks with today’s pros regularly. Not to mention that everything he says in the article is correct.

Joseph L. Barrow
06-18-2009, 08:22 PM
You are leaving out the fact that Lendl totally dominated their head to head prior to 1983 (7-2). In 1981 and 1982, Lendl won all 7 matches they played. This cannot be attributed to an "over the hill McEnroe." Nor can the record in the second half of the 80s be attributed only to that. McEnroe was ranked as high as number 4, as late as 1989, and his tennis was probably as good as ever, or not far from it, except that the competition in the second half of the 80s included Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Lendl, all in their primes. Being ranked 4 in those days was no small feat.
And obviously you're leaving out that McEnroe beat Lendl 10 out of 12 times in '83-84. Even in '85, it was 3-2 for Lendl with one of those being very tight, meaning that while he was in or near his prime, McEnroe had an overall 14-12 edge on Lendl. He had personal issues and injury problems that put him frequently out of action and sharply lowered his level of play starting in '86, after which Lendl took over their head-to-head, winning nine of their last 10 encounters. It's a pretty serious stretch to claim McEnroe was as good at 30 years old, after a long bout of injuries and personal problems, and when he was losing in the second round of the US Open to a qualifier, as he was when he was world's #1 four consecutive seasons six to 10 years earlier. Lendl did not have the advantage over a prime McEnroe.

MarcRosset1992
06-19-2009, 12:55 AM
good article thanks for the link. McEnroe is right like usual. It’s nice to have such great commentary and insight.

McEnroe knows more about the modern game than all of the posters in this thread combined including me. He is still actively involved in tennis, hits and talks with today’s pros regularly. Not to mention that everything he says in the article is correct.

Wrong, his involvement with pro tennis is pretty limited to the Viagra tour and to the commentary box for such tennis-savvy audiences as NBC's or the BBC's. Most modern players find him either irrelevant or annoying, and frankly it is mostly the latter since the bit of self-promotion around offering to coach Fed earlier this year.

Brned
06-19-2009, 01:29 AM
^^ I agree with the last part.

Mac offering his help to coach federer was really lame...

Has Jmac ever worked as a coach?

gpt
06-19-2009, 01:56 AM
The article is primarily about playing on grass.

Benhur
06-19-2009, 07:50 AM
[QUOTE=Joseph L. Barrow;3574640]And obviously you're leaving out that McEnroe beat Lendl 10 out of 12 times in '83-84.

No. I didn't leave it out. That was mentioned in the quote I posted. I might as well now claim that you are leaving out what you just quoted from me.

while he was in or near his prime, McEnroe had an overall 14-12 edge on Lendl.

If you identify prime as the time when you had your best results, yes. Then you can also say that when he was in his prime, Lendl had a 13-3, or even a 10-1 edge on McEnroe. So if 14-12 is supposed to demonstrate something, then 13-3 or 10-1 demonstrates it even better. It cannot be denied that an important part in McEnroe's decline after 85 has to do with the kind of tennis that people like Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Lendl were playing, not just to the bad influence of Tatum. McEnroe was still very good as late as 1989, else he would not have been ranked 4 against that kind of competition. And he has remained an excellent competitor as he has grown old. The notion that he suddenly grew old at the 85 USO is not quite tenable.

On a side note, Lendl and McEnroe are less than one year apart and had similar length careers, so their overall head to head is definitely more relevant than with players who are clearly of different generations. If you choose to take the results after 84 off the record on the grounds that McEnroe was past his "prime", then you should take Lendl's pre-85 results from the record, on the grounds that he hadn't reached his prime.

In that manner, you will reach the satisfying result that Lendl and McEnroe never really played each other. Their 38 matches are to be dismissed entirely, on the grounds that either one or the other were off their primes.

coloskier
06-19-2009, 08:52 AM
THE best, pleeeeeaaasse:) someone who is 2-8 against Becker and 1-11 against Lendl is NOT the best, just a very average player once men left the stone age and stopped using wooden sticks to play tennis

At his age now, he could probably still double bagel you, so I wouldn't talk too much.

vsbabolat
06-19-2009, 08:57 AM
^^ I agree with the last part.

Mac offering his help to coach federer was really lame...

Has Jmac ever worked as a coach?


McEnroe has coached. McEnroe has coached Bruguera, Becker, and Philippoussis.

MAX PLY
06-19-2009, 10:41 AM
At his age now, he could probably still double bagel you, so I wouldn't talk too much.

I suspect it wouldn't be that close. Mac actually made some very good points about mixing it up with today's players. I think the primary problem is that very few players have the midcourt and improvisational skills it takes to pull it off. There is no question that the technology has (for now) taken some of that out of the game.

MarcRosset1992
06-19-2009, 02:18 PM
At his age now, he could probably still double bagel you, so I wouldn't talk too much.

Not sure I am talking that much, and if I do I use the correct body parts to do it, unlike McE.

As for the double bagel, I would actually fancy my chances to do a little better than that:wink:

Joseph L. Barrow
06-19-2009, 02:19 PM
[QUOTE]

No. I didn't leave it out. That was mentioned in the quote I posted. I might as well now claim that you are leaving out what you just quoted from me.



If you identify prime as the time when you had your best results, yes. Then you can also say that when he was in his prime, Lendl had a 13-3, or even a 10-1 edge on McEnroe. So if 14-12 is supposed to demonstrate something, then 13-3 or 10-1 demonstrates it even better. It cannot be denied that an important part in McEnroe's decline after 85 has to do with the kind of tennis that people like Becker, Wilander, Edberg and Lendl were playing, not just to the bad influence of Tatum. McEnroe was still very good as late as 1989, else he would not have been ranked 4 against that kind of competition. And he has remained an excellent competitor as he has grown old. The notion that he suddenly grew old at the 85 USO is not quite tenable.

On a side note, Lendl and McEnroe are less than one year apart and had similar length careers, so their overall head to head is definitely more relevant than with players who are clearly of different generations. If you choose to take the results after 84 off the record on the grounds that McEnroe was past his "prime", then you should take Lendl's pre-85 results from the record, on the grounds that he hadn't reached his prime.

In that manner, you will reach the satisfying result that Lendl and McEnroe never really played each other. Their 38 matches are to be dismissed entirely, on the grounds that either one or the other were off their primes.
There is merit to your point that Lendl had not yet reached his best in the early-to-mid 80s when McEnroe was beating him. Although McEnroe and Lendl were close in age, McEnroe was an early bloomer and Lendl a late one, and so there is more of a sense that they were of different generations than can be seen in most cases. Certainly the matter of examining head-to-head records is far from a precise science, at any rate.

Regardless, if we accept your proposition with regards to a broader acceptance of their overall head-to-head as the relevant figure, then McEnroe's 15-21 record against Lendl is still more than respectable and surely does not disqualify him from sharing his views on the appropriate means for beating Lendl and other players of comparable style.

MarcRosset1992
06-19-2009, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=Benhur;3576359]
There is merit to your point that Lendl had not yet reached his best in the early-to-mid 80s when McEnroe was beating him. Although McEnroe and Lendl were close in age, McEnroe was an early bloomer and Lendl a late one, and so there is more of a sense that they were of different generations than can be seen in most cases. Certainly the matter of examining head-to-head records is far from a precise science, at any rate.

Regardless, if we accept your proposition with regards to a broader acceptance of their overall head-to-head as the relevant figure, then McEnroe's 15-21 record against Lendl is still more than respectable and surely does not disqualify him from sharing his views on the appropriate means for beating Lendl and other players of comparable style.

The "prime" thing is overdone, esepcailly with respect McE. It is not that his level of play dropped that much, but rather that other guys evolved (Lendl, Wilander) or appeared (Becker) and he was simply not capable to cope with the evolution of tennis at the time. He just was under-powered (and under-brained) to deal with the evolution of tennis. His ability to comment with authority on modern tennis has to be viewed in this context.

wilkinru
06-19-2009, 02:50 PM
Watching the 'classic matches' from Tennis channel this week I saw a match in 1975 and a match in 1987.

What a difference! 1975 looks nothing like now - they rarely hit a top spin backhand.

1987 looked much like the current game, just considerably slower. You could see the beginnings of a kick serve even, something that 1975 had not dreamed about.

I would say those years were the biggest years of change for tennis. Today's game is a SUPER spinny and fast version of 1987. Becker I believe was in the 87 match.

McE may not understand today's game really. One could argue that the change from slice to topspin backhand was the one big game changer. A topspin backhand can be placed higher and MUCH faster/deeper in the court. Returning a higher topspin to the backhand at net is one of the hardest shots in tennis.
A slice backhand of course is kept low - but straight and predictable - easy put away for the serve volley player.

vsbabolat
06-19-2009, 05:28 PM
Watching the 'classic matches' from Tennis channel this week I saw a match in 1975 and a match in 1987.

What a difference! 1975 looks nothing like now - they rarely hit a top spin backhand.

1987 looked much like the current game, just considerably slower. You could see the beginnings of a kick serve even, something that 1975 had not dreamed about.

I would say those years were the biggest years of change for tennis. Today's game is a SUPER spinny and fast version of 1987. Becker I believe was in the 87 match.

McE may not understand today's game really. One could argue that the change from slice to topspin backhand was the one big game changer. A topspin backhand can be placed higher and MUCH faster/deeper in the court. Returning a higher topspin to the backhand at net is one of the hardest shots in tennis.
A slice backhand of course is kept low - but straight and predictable - easy put away for the serve volley player.


McEnroe is very familiar playing against guys that had big Topspin like Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, Vilas, and I could go on..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmfKbggEt5s&feature=related

DNShade
06-19-2009, 05:38 PM
Not to mention that Mac plays and beats some of todays current players both in doubles and in singles...

J Mac knows todays game better than any person posting out here by a mile. End of story.

And to the OP - MarcRosset1992 - know what you are talking about before you post something like this. Mac's thoughts on how to attack some of todays players is dead on - and mark my and his words - someone will do it and there will be a new shift in style of play. It's how the game evolves.

netman
06-19-2009, 06:36 PM
For anyone on this board (other than a former Open Tour Pro) to even begin to say they know more about professional tennis, then or now, than John McEnroe, instantly sets their credibility level to 0.

vsbabolat
06-19-2009, 08:45 PM
The "prime" thing is overdone, esepcailly with respect McE. It is not that his level of play dropped that much, but rather that other guys evolved (Lendl, Wilander) or appeared (Becker) and he was simply not capable to cope with the evolution of tennis at the time. He just was under-powered (and under-brained) to deal with the evolution of tennis. His ability to comment with authority on modern tennis has to be viewed in this context.

You are really talking out of your hat. McEnroe has 7-6 winning record against Wilander.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=W023

Benhur
06-19-2009, 09:30 PM
[QUOTE=Benhur;3576359]
There is merit to your point that Lendl had not yet reached his best in the early-to-mid 80s when McEnroe was beating him. Although McEnroe and Lendl were close in age, McEnroe was an early bloomer and Lendl a late one, and so there is more of a sense that they were of different generations than can be seen in most cases. Certainly the matter of examining head-to-head records is far from a precise science, at any rate.

Regardless, if we accept your proposition with regards to a broader acceptance of their overall head-to-head as the relevant figure, then McEnroe's 15-21 record against Lendl is still more than respectable and surely does not disqualify him from sharing his views on the appropriate means for beating Lendl and other players of comparable style.

Oh, my comments had nothing to do with McEnroe's intelligence or understanding of tennis. I never thought McEnroe was dumb, far from it, though I often thought he behaved like an a$s. Two very different things. If you are talking about general intelligence, I think the guy is pretty clever, not a genious by any means, but certainly not "thick". If you are talking about tennis intelligence, I think any player who has reached the top level like he has, must absolutely have plenty of tennis intelligence. In the particular case of McEnroe, due to the nature of his game, he had to have more than the usual share. He certainly makes very valid comments, even though he is a chatterbox. Supposing he does not understand the game is preposterous.

Regarding the "prime" thing, I do believe it is a bit overdone, especially in the case of McEnroe. There is no doubt Mcenroe's prime was in the first half of the 80s, especially 83 and 84, and that Lendl's was in the second half. But my point is that neither of the two were that far off their best tennis in the other half. This is more easily accepted in the case of Lendl, but not in the case of McEnroe, who is often presented as if the 85 USO and the 6-month break he took in 1986 sent his tennis into the gutter. I never thought so. What I do think is that Lendl's career is less bumpy. He was in the top 2 for almost the entire decade and had 5 years with above 90% winning percentages. McEnroe was much bumpier. His domination in 83-84 (especially 84) was shorter but certainly more dazzling and intense. I once compared him to a bright meteor shining briefly but with blinding intensity, while Lendl's passage through the tennis skies would be like a more sedate, steady, massive celestial body, like Jupiter perhaps, revolving majestically over a longer period, but without ever blinding the observer.

DNShade
06-19-2009, 10:41 PM
[QUOTE=Joseph L. Barrow;3578017]

This is more easily accepted in the case of Lendl, but not in the case of McEnroe, who is often presented as if the 85 USO and the 6-month break he took in 1986 sent his tennis into the gutter. I never thought so. .

Actually as someone who was watching (and playing) tennis live and in person then and seeing JMac play both before and after his six month layoff - he was never anywhere close to where he was before. He had just lost that killer edge, a step and some of his touch - and most importantly he just wasn't there mentally. He was married - in the Hollywood lifestyle, etc. He just wasn't the same. He would still have spurts of his old self - but never got his full game back. That's just what happened period.

MarcRosset1992
06-19-2009, 11:29 PM
You are really talking out of your hat. McEnroe has 7-6 winning record against Wilander.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=W023

The h2h is in Wilander's favor after 84, and they did not play that much against each other as McE would routinely get spanked before reaching the stages of tournaments where he would face Wilander.

Also, Wilander won slams after 84 whereas McE became an entertaining distraction for the time up to the first weekend.

devila
06-19-2009, 11:36 PM
Mc says Lendl had no charisma. Look who's talking. A brat who insulted Arthur Ashe with his BS shameless antics...and now hugs Federer like he's his pitiful crying wife.

MarcRosset1992
06-19-2009, 11:39 PM
Not to mention that Mac plays and beats some of todays current players both in doubles and in singles...

J Mac knows todays game better than any person posting out here by a mile. End of story.

And to the OP - MarcRosset1992 - know what you are talking about before you post something like this. Mac's thoughts on how to attack some of todays players is dead on - and mark my and his words - someone will do it and there will be a new shift in style of play. It's how the game evolves.

Where do you get that from?:? It is complete non-sense. The guy is involved in the Vagra tour, where over half the competitors (and the whole audience) carries a pacemaker or a catheter.

There obviously will be evolutions in tennis tactics (nobody needs to mark your precious words to know that), and this is why this sport is so fascinating to watch and play.

フェデラー
06-19-2009, 11:41 PM
Mcenroe really is thick. What the hell does that mean???

DNShade
06-20-2009, 12:26 AM
Where do you get that from?:? It is complete non-sense. The guy is involved in the Vagra tour, where over half the competitors (and the whole audience) carries a pacemaker or a catheter.

There obviously will be evolutions in tennis tactics (nobody needs to mark your precious words to know that), and this is why this sport is so fascinating to watch and play.

The fact that he won an ATP tournament just two years ago in dubs and still routinely beats players at all kinds of expos and WTT. He spanked Mark Philippoussis in straights a year or so ago right when Mark was starting his comeback. JMac can still hang with most ATP players today for a set or so - even at 50.

You really don't know much of anything about the sport - so you might want to stop posting so much.

To everyone not following MarcRosset1992 posts...he just recently posted that the slice serve is useless. Have you ever stepped on a court? Would you like to? I'm out at UCLA most every day. Come on out and I'll be happy to show you how the slice serve works.

MarcRosset1992 - I'm guessing you're 17?

MarcRosset1992
06-20-2009, 12:33 AM
The fact that he won an ATP tournament just two years ago in dubs and still routinely beats players at all kinds of expos and WTT. He spanked Mark Philippoussis in straights a year or so ago right when Mark was starting his comeback. JMac can still hang with most ATP players today for a set or so - even at 50.

You really don't know much of anything about the sport - so you might want to stop posting so much.

To everyone not following MarcRosset1992 posts...he just recently posted that the slice serve is useless. Have you ever stepped on a court?

oooooh, doubles.... that explains it. what about wheel-chair tennis? is he any good at that? or was philippoussis in the wheelchair?

Suggest that when it comes to tennis you stick to some "doubles" during social afternoon at your local retirement club, maybe between the pottery class and the textile painting workshop. This is a pro tennis board

DNShade
06-20-2009, 12:43 AM
oooooh, doubles.... that explains it. what about wheel-chair tennis? is he any good at that? or was philippoussis in the wheelchair?

Suggest that when it comes to tennis you stick to some "doubles" during social afternoon at your local retirement club, maybe between the pottery class and the textile painting workshop. This is a pro tennis board

Actually this is the furthest thing from a "pro tennis" board - as you are perfectly demonstrating.

I'll meet you anytime, anywhere.

By the way, who was the last pro you hit with?

MarcRosset1992
06-20-2009, 12:45 AM
Actually this is the furthest thing from a "pro tennis" board - as you are perfectly demonstrating.

I'll meet you anytime, anywhere.

By the way, who was the last pro you hit with?

Not sure your doctor would approve this level of agitation. Do you have medical staff on stand-by?

DNShade
06-20-2009, 12:54 AM
Not sure your doctor would approve this level of agitation. Do you have medical staff on stand-by?

If you are trying to make this old vs young - you'll be in for a very rude surprise.

1970CRBase
06-20-2009, 01:11 AM
“But my way of dealing with that was to take the ball early, not let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms, and I’m not so sure there isn’t room for that strategy anymore.”




Mac declined a lot after 84, true, but on his good days in the latter half of the 80's, he could do that to Lendl & even Becker. He just had trouble holding it together for long as he got older. Get a copy of the 89 Paris Open SF between Becker and Mac to see.

urban
06-20-2009, 01:46 AM
I cannot get the whole argument here. McEnroe talks about the homogenization of surfaces and styles, and he is dead right here. Even with or because of the new the new rackets serve and volley became easier since 1984. Not only Mac, who made it to the Wim sf as late as in 1992, was a serve and volleyer, but Becker, Edberg, Cash, Sampras, Stich, Goran too, virtually all Wim champions until Hewitt in 2002 were serve and volleyers. Only exception was Agassi, who met an overweight Becker, an old Mac and a nervous Goran. Why did Lendl lose all the time at Wim, if his baseline game was so efficient.

They don't train serve and volley any more. It is a matter of positional play and the mental will to execute it. I am sure, that in the near future some serve and volleyer will emerge from the pack, and he will dominate all these current baseline folks. Look what Tzonga did for one wonderful week at the AO in 2008.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
06-20-2009, 02:39 AM
[QUOTE=Joseph L. Barrow;3573892]So you're saying that only a prime Lendl's record against an over-the-hill McEnroe is relevant?[/QUOTE

I am saying that clearly over time, as tennis evolved under mostly Lendl and Becker, McEnroe's tactics became increasingly ineffective. The fact that he is neverthelss recommending replicating these tactics against today's modern power baseliners, who make Becker and Lendl loook like the WTA tour, amounts to ******ation.

MarcRosset...I noticed you just joined...care to tell why you know more than
Johhny Mac and the veterans on here....

Becker would completely destroy nadal on any grass....
Lendl would have absolute field mentally with anyone not name fed or nadal.
From today's era...fed would be able to compete with them

MarcRosset1992
06-20-2009, 03:05 AM
[QUOTE=MarcRosset1992;3573909]

MarcRosset...I noticed you just joined...care to tell why you know more than
Johhny Mac and the veterans on here....

Becker would completely destroy nadal on any grass....
Lendl would have absolute field mentally with anyone not name fed or nadal.
From today's era...fed would be able to compete with them

For McE, a few brain cells...

For the veterans, the fact I do not need an artificial bladder....

namui
06-20-2009, 03:23 AM
picked up this article on tennis.com

http://tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=177914

says McEnroe. “But my way of dealing with that was to take the ball early, not let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms, and I’m not so sure there isn’t room for that strategy anymore.”

What was McE's record against Lendl? Did he EVER win?
Lendl (and Becker) are the only palyer of the 80'd who should be allowed to say anything about modern tennis

I guess that you know how Stefan Edberg and Patrick Rafter played and how successful they were.

Based on what McEnroe said (taking the ball early, not to let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms), Edberg and Rafter did just that. Both of them might not play with the same technique as McEnroe, but their strategy in term of aggression as opposed to power shots was even more pronounced than Mc's.

And they had played for decades AFTER 1984.

MarcRosset1992
06-20-2009, 04:54 AM
I guess that you know how Stefan Edberg and Patrick Rafter played and how successful they were.

Based on what McEnroe said (taking the ball early, not to let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms), Edberg and Rafter did just that. Both of them might not play with the same technique as McEnroe, but their strategy in term of aggression as opposed to power shots was even more pronounced than Mc's.

And they had played for decades AFTER 1984.

Both Edberg and Rafter were amazing players, and so was Henman in the same vein. Edberg and Rafter made up for their lack of power with almost alien-like movement on the court and touch at the net. But since Rafter and Edberg, the pace of the game has accelrated even further, so it is debatable whether even their movement and ball-feel would be enough for modern tennis.

FiveO
06-20-2009, 06:00 AM
Not to mention that Mac plays and beats some of todays current players both in doubles and in singles...

J Mac knows todays game better than any person posting out here by a mile. End of story.

And to the OP - MarcRosset1992 - know what you are talking about before you post something like this. Mac's thoughts on how to attack some of todays players is dead on - and mark my and his words - someone will do it and there will be a new shift in style of play. It's how the game evolves.


IMO it's actually more simple than even that. The game, through history, Post WWII, in all its permutations, in terms of successful style of play, is not so much evolution as it has remained a cycle.

Players prior to Jack Kramer were predominantly baseliners. From Tilden to Budge the most successful players were predominantly baseliners. Kramer played high percentage serve and volley and started a shift towards that style, which really lasted and dominated through the early '70's. Then came Borg, Connors and Vilas. Connors overwhelming dominance in '74, particularly the way he demolished Rosewall in the finals of both Wimbledon and US Open had pundits espousing how serve and volley was dead. But in the seventies, the only person to make an impression on Borg at RG was the all-court attacker Adriano Panatta. Serve and volley was found to still have a heartbeat when McEnroe arrived. Through the mid-eighties it remained viable with the top baseliners. Mid to late eighties Edberg and Becker showed that it was a style that could once again dominate. Then Courier found Edberg's number and with the early emergence of Chang and Agassi baselining was seen to have at least held its own by 1990 and by that time the AO had changed to gummy hardcourts and with the varied speeds througout the calendar from slow harcourts, to clay, to grass, to fast hardcourts, to sometimes ridiculously fast carpet there were spots in the calendar for the best practitioners of every style to flourish. Agassi was the favorite at AO speeds, the devout clay courters on clay, Sampras at Wimbledon and US Open, and several fast courters whacked up the carpet season. Then the homogenization of surfaces changed everything, and combined with the retirements of the best practitioners of other forward attacking style players, baselining became all dominant. In the big picture right back to Tilden and Budge.

It will change again. There will be more, true all-court attackers good enough to throw a monkey wrench into the top of the pyramid's success accented by a couple high end, more devout serve and volleyers who will present something that the top hasn't dealt with in a while and there will be a shift again. Why? Because that's how its been, through history, over and again. To think that cycle will suddenly stop is to ignore what's come before. But IMO its not so much an evolution, which connotes something new, as it is a cycle repeating itself through the history of the sport.

5

pmerk34
06-20-2009, 06:19 AM
Watching the 'classic matches' from Tennis channel this week I saw a match in 1975 and a match in 1987.

What a difference! 1975 looks nothing like now - they rarely hit a top spin backhand.

1987 looked much like the current game, just considerably slower. You could see the beginnings of a kick serve even, something that 1975 had not dreamed about.

I would say those years were the biggest years of change for tennis. Today's game is a SUPER spinny and fast version of 1987. Becker I believe was in the 87 match.

McE may not understand today's game really. One could argue that the change from slice to topspin backhand was the one big game changer. A topspin backhand can be placed higher and MUCH faster/deeper in the court. Returning a higher topspin to the backhand at net is one of the hardest shots in tennis.
A slice backhand of course is kept low - but straight and predictable - easy put away for the serve volley player.

So McEnroe, who hits with the top guys such as Nadal, and is at dozens of major matches live each year from the booth knows less about "modern tennis" then you? Ok......

FiveO
06-20-2009, 06:54 AM
Also, for those looking at McEnroe and Lendl's record h2h vs. Mc, as an indication that he somehow was rendered irrelevant, is to ignore the history.

I'll preface this by saying I was far, very far from being his biggest fan. But what's been left out of the conversation that perhaps as a part of his homelife being in a spin, McEnroe became so disenchanted with tennis that he actually retired in 1986 after losing to Brad Gilbert in the RR of the 1985 Masters (YEC). It became described as a "six month break" as it is Wikipedia, only after the fact when he decided to come back and tried to play himself back into form.

It is a testament to god given talent that he was a successful as he was, but anyone watching it as it occurred will tell you that he never regained his best form again.

He took another "7-month break" in 1987.

While Mc had prior to that, dedicated himself to fitness when he dominated Lendl and the tour in '84-'85, he was never a natural physical specimen. He was past his physical prime at 28 and with the distractions and disenchantment he had lost his mental edge prior to that. His physical gifts and game were not markedly enhanced by switching equipment much like Rafter would later say poly did absolutely nothing for his style. It doesn't mean these players became obsolete its that the playing field became slightly biased, they would still dominate the field, but the edge at the very top, which is razor thin to begin with becomes even more narrowed or reversed.

As far as the young gun-old guy debates, and statements about non-competitiveness ascribed to chronology go. I actually wonder how many people making those statements have ever been around the game and/or these players because nothing can be further from the truth. When McEnroe was at the top of the game, he worked out locally with juniors and seniors in the northeast who would give him hard workouts. From promising juniors like Marcel Freeman, high level teaching pros, to seniors like Gene Scott and King Van Nostrand these are the players Mc would get a workout from on the court and this was when he was at his competitive prime.

Guys coloring Mc's less than best as poor just simply don't know tennis. Was it poor compared to his lofty standards? Yes. As compared to the greats of his generation and the next? Not really. He still largely dominated almost anyone but the very best players from his generation and the next at much less the HIS best.

5

vsbabolat
06-20-2009, 08:33 AM
The h2h is in Wilander's favor after 84, and they did not play that much against each other as McE would routinely get spanked before reaching the stages of tournaments where he would face Wilander.

Also, Wilander won slams after 84 whereas McE became an entertaining distraction for the time up to the first weekend.

Again you are talking out of you hat.

After 1984 it was 2-3 for Wilander. The last time McEnroe played Wilander was the 1989 Wimbledon Quarter Finals McEnroe won 7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4.

McEroe has won 77 career singles titles and 71 career doubles titles.

McEnroe has won the U.S. Open Singles 4 times and Wimbledon 3 times in Singles. While in Doubles McEnroe has won the U.S. Open in 1979, 1981, 1983, 1989. At Wimbledon McEnroe won the Doubles in 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1992.

McEnroe understands modern tennis very well while at the Grand Slams he routinely hits with guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and so on.

McEnroe has even Coached Sergi Bruguera, Boris Becker, and Mark Philippoussis.

McEnroe discovered Donald Young when Young was 10 years old.

You may not like McEnroe's personality which is understandable. But to say McEnroe does not understand tennis is a joke. And only shows that MarcRosset1992 does not understand tennis.

chico9166
06-20-2009, 10:07 AM
McEnroe clearly had some of the best hands and feel for taking the ball early. But to suggest that he could, step into the court and hit the balls of today on the rise is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't like his chances if he played on top of the baseline, and tried to take Fed's forehand, or Nadals spin on the rise, bunt it, and come in.

DNShade
06-20-2009, 04:57 PM
McEnroe clearly had some of the best hands and feel for taking the ball early. But to suggest that he could, step into the court and hit the balls of today on the rise is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?


Not a stretch at all - considering he's done it and continues to do it. Heck, I do it - and yes - I have hit with top ATP pros - many known to all. Remember who Rafa chose to work out with before his semi at W this last year? That's right - John. And I seem to remember that Rafa hits a decent "ball of today".

I think some of you out there have this misconception that the shots of todays pros are so huge that they will blow any "human" off the court. It's just not true. They are much more about consistency and placement than power. And today's pros aren't hitting any harder than ten years ago or even more. Pete hits a much heavier ball than most ATP players right now. Boris, Andre, etc...all much heavier hitters than all but a few of todays guys.

The only change has been with the strings and some of the stroke mechanics causing the ball to dip more than it did. But once you get your head used to that kind of ball - not that big of a change and you can adjust accordingly. Actually with all the topspin most players hit today - it actually makes taking the ball on the rise easier to do and an even better tactic.

2ndServe
06-20-2009, 06:51 PM
Mc's problem was tatum o'neal. Once he hooked up with her drugged up *** he was done. What he says is very true but but his idea of taking it on the rise was almost a half volley. Also if you're a pure serve and volleyer hitting a ball 1 foot closer to the net is a huge thing.

Taking the ball earlier means 2 things. 1st you give the opponent less time, and you gain more kinetic energy but also if you back up 10 ft behind the baseline you're actually giving up 20ft. 10ft coming to you and 10ft more once you hit it. Backing up is a womens, or juniors tennis strategy.

Benhur
06-20-2009, 11:23 PM
[QUOTE=FiveO;3580146]Also, for those looking at McEnroe and Lendl's record h2h vs. Mc, as an indication that he somehow was rendered irrelevant, is to ignore the history.

I don't believe anyone is doing that. He is clearly the second best player of the 80s, after Lendl. And his peak year (84) is arguably the most dominant year by any player ever, at least going by winning percentage. What does happen is that his record against Lendl is often dismissed on dubious grounds.

While Mc had prior to that, dedicated himself to fitness when he dominated Lendl and the tour in '84-'85, he was never a natural physical specimen. He was past his physical prime at 28 and with the distractions and disenchantment he had lost his mental edge prior to that.


I think it is important to keep facts straight. McEnroe did not dominate Lendl in 85. The only years where he clearly dominated Lendl were 83 and 84 (and even then, there is the big business of the 84 RG). You can also add 1980 if you wish. But in 1981 and 1982 Lendl completely owned him. And in 82 Lendl also had a clearly better record. And of course Lendl leads both in h2h and in performance after 84 – and he leads by a large margin.

So that’s 2 (or at most 3) years, of domination by McEnroe over Lendl, out of a 12 year span where they met on tennis courts. Lendl dominated the remaining years (except perhaps 85 where it was only 3-2 Lendl).

I am sure “disenchantment” is a valid emotion in human life. I am not sure it is a good argument to reverse those facts.

It is also a fact that McEnroe did try pretty hard to make it back to the top after 85. And he succeeded somewhat, if you consider that making it to number 4 is not far from the top. In 87 he engaged the services of both Tony Palafox and Peter Flemming in order regain the form that brought him to number one. Those were Mac’s stated goals. And he tried to pursued them as best he could, to his credit. He never wandered too far or too long from tennis. The fact that he did not quite manage to attain those goals was no doubt “disenchanting,” but again, that is the effect, not the cause of the failure. And even if it were the cause… it would not change the record.

MarcRosset1992
06-20-2009, 11:49 PM
Not a stretch at all - considering he's done it and continues to do it. Heck, I do it - and yes - I have hit with top ATP pros - many known to all. Remember who Rafa chose to work out with before his semi at W this last year? That's right - John. And I seem to remember that Rafa hits a decent "ball of today".

I think some of you out there have this misconception that the shots of todays pros are so huge that they will blow any "human" off the court. It's just not true. They are much more about consistency and placement than power. And today's pros aren't hitting any harder than ten years ago or even more. Pete hits a much heavier ball than most ATP players right now. Boris, Andre, etc...all much heavier hitters than all but a few of todays guys.

The only change has been with the strings and some of the stroke mechanics causing the ball to dip more than it did. But once you get your head used to that kind of ball - not that big of a change and you can adjust accordingly. Actually with all the topspin most players hit today - it actually makes taking the ball on the rise easier to do and an even better tactic.

Let's start by clarifying one thing: McE has got some serious limitations when it comes to tennis, but not about self-promotion, and judging by the following he gets from this board he still seems to carry a certain target market, especially among US and other Anglo over 40's. Most of the alleged "hits" with current ATP tours are photo-ops for this target market. As previously stated, for most pros (although in fairness it might be different in the US), the guy is somewhere between irrelevant and mildly annoying, but when sponsors call in for a hit with McE, the pros oblige.

Of the other points of the thread, I think all are very interesting, and obviously having never played with 90's pros (although I have hit with a number of current top 100 Spanish pros), it is difficult to compare myself. One thing is certain: the modern game uses all areas of the court much more extensively than 90's tennis ever did (before that, forget it!), On the issue of power, I am happy to take the point but it still feels like a stretch to say that the only difference between modern and 90's tennis is the "dip" in the shots made possible by string technology: surely players like Muster, Kuerten and (especially) Corretja had (close to) the same amount of work on their balls.

DNShade
06-21-2009, 02:06 AM
Let's start by clarifying one thing: McE has got some serious limitations when it comes to tennis, but not about self-promotion, and judging by the following he gets from this board he still seems to carry a certain target market, especially among US and other Anglo over 40's. Most of the alleged "hits" with current ATP tours are photo-ops for this target market. As previously stated, for most pros (although in fairness it might be different in the US), the guy is somewhere between irrelevant and mildly annoying, but when sponsors call in for a hit with McE, the pros oblige.

Of the other points of the thread, I think all are very interesting, and obviously having never played with 90's pros (although I have hit with a number of current top 100 Spanish pros), it is difficult to compare myself. One thing is certain: the modern game uses all areas of the court much more extensively than 90's tennis ever did (before that, forget it!), On the issue of power, I am happy to take the point but it still feels like a stretch to say that the only difference between modern and 90's tennis is the "dip" in the shots made possible by string technology: surely players like Muster, Kuerten and (especially) Corretja had (close to) the same amount of work on their balls.

Mac has serious limitations when it comes to tennis huh? A guy who at 50 can still hang with the best players in the world. Yeah - quite limited. Wow. You are something...

Really? You hit with all kinds of Spanish pros? Care to name which ones? Since I have as well and can get them on the phone to verify. Tommy, Fer, Lopez, Rafa? Which ones? I find it hard to believe after reading some of your other posts (slice serve comments) that you play tennis at all.

And second, as for the hits with JMac and current pros you deem as "photo ops" arranged by sponsors - you again demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the sport. Would you like to know how the Nadal/Mac warm up at W came to be? Not a photo op at all. How do I know? Would you like me to get Toni or Rafa on the phone to confirm that too?

You have a very myopic and young view of the game and you are very young I would guess. Oh, and I'm not over 40 so I guess I'm not in the the demo who cares about JMac or any other player that played before 2002 right?

Forget it...you're right. JMac is and always was a terrible, talentless player with sever limitations when it comes to tennis.

devila
06-21-2009, 02:27 AM
Funny. Didn't Mc say "Roddick, Djokovic's too talented for you. Admit it"? Mc, a Federer troll who couldn't wait to say "Federer has a sh-t eating grin" ...and then declare how special Federer was. What a genius.

chico9166
06-21-2009, 03:41 AM
Not a stretch at all - considering he's done it and continues to do it. Heck, I do it - and yes - I have hit with top ATP pros - many known to all. Remember who Rafa chose to work out with before his semi at W this last year? That's right - John. And I seem to remember that Rafa hits a decent "ball of today".

I think some of you out there have this misconception that the shots of todays pros are so huge that they will blow any "human" off the court. It's just not true. They are much more about consistency and placement than power. And today's pros aren't hitting any harder than ten years ago or even more. Pete hits a much heavier ball than most ATP players right now. Boris, Andre, etc...all much heavier hitters than all but a few of todays guys.

The only change has been with the strings and some of the stroke mechanics causing the ball to dip more than it did. But once you get your head used to that kind of ball - not that big of a change and you can adjust accordingly. Actually with all the topspin most players hit today - it actually makes taking the ball on the rise easier to do and an even better tactic.

Dn,

Understand your points. Mcenroe was the best "one grip" player I've ever seen. However, my feeling is, that it would just be too big of a liability in today's game. There is a reason nobody plays continental. In the final analysis though, it's all speculation.

Not sure, Mcenroe's ego would ever allow him to make objective assesments. At least, when it pertained to him. So I wouldn't put much stock in what he says on the subject.

FiveO
06-21-2009, 03:47 AM
[QUOTE]

I don't believe anyone is doing that. He is clearly the second best player of the 80s, after Lendl. And his peak year (84) is arguably the most dominant year by any player ever, at least going by winning percentage. What does happen is that his record against Lendl is often dismissed on dubious grounds.




I think it is important to keep facts straight. McEnroe did not dominate Lendl in 85. The only years where he clearly dominated Lendl were 83 and 84 (and even then, there is the big business of the 84 RG). You can also add 1980 if you wish. But in 1981 and 1982 Lendl completely owned him. And in 82 Lendl also had a clearly better record. And of course Lendl leads both in h2h and in performance after 84 – and he leads by a large margin.

So that’s 2 (or at most 3) years, of domination by McEnroe over Lendl, out of a 12 year span where they met on tennis courts. Lendl dominated the remaining years (except perhaps 85 where it was only 3-2 Lendl).

I am sure “disenchantment” is a valid emotion in human life. I am not sure it is a good argument to reverse those facts.

It is also a fact that McEnroe did try pretty hard to make it back to the top after 85. And he succeeded somewhat, if you consider that making it to number 4 is not far from the top. In 87 he engaged the services of both Tony Palafox and Peter Flemming in order regain the form that brought him to number one. Those were Mac’s stated goals. And he tried to pursued them as best he could, to his credit. He never wandered too far or too long from tennis. The fact that he did not quite manage to attain those goals was no doubt “disenchanting,” but again, that is the effect, not the cause of the failure. And even if it were the cause… it would not change the record.

Sorry, I meant to say 83-84. In '85 they played to a veritable push until the US Open with Lendl taking the only two clay court meetings and Mc taking the two preceding matches on hardcourts. '86-'87 Mc missed more time than he played, playing 11 of those 24 months. The disenchantment I refered to is when he announced that after the '85 Masters that if he couldn't beat Brad Gilbert he didn't want to play any more. He had been #1 from '81 through '84 and dropped to #2 in '85. He "retired" in 1986, albiet for 6 months. He unretired and played six months of '86 and between a two months suspension and another "break" he played on 5 months of '87.

I guess someone could choose to debate McEnroe's disenchantment with tennis as a chicken-egg thing if they want. IMO there's no debate as to which was cause and which was effect.

5

Benhur
06-21-2009, 08:48 AM
[QUOTE=Benhur;3582734]

[QUOTE]The disenchantment I refered to is when he announced that after the '85 Masters that if he couldn't beat Brad Gilbert he didn't want to play any more.

Yes, losing to Gilbert probably felt disenchanting, but again I don't know what is suppposed to explain.

He had been #1 from '81 through '84

You should write more accurately. He was by no means ranked #1 continuously through those years, as one may imply by reading your sntence. Lendl was ranked #1 many times in both 83 and 84 - they kept switching positions (which by the way is very revealing considering these are McEnroes very best years.) And of course in 82 both Connors and Lendl had clearly better records than him. There was a big schism that year in the tennis world, with many tournaments (WCT) not being counted at all in the rankings, for no reason. The year end ranking for 82 is clearly screwed. Connors should have been the year end number 1 in 82, and Lendl should have been second.

He "retired" in 1986, albiet for 6 months. He unretired and played six months of '86 and between a two months suspension and another "break" he played on 5 months of '87.

Again, let's be accurate with words. There is no reason to use the word "retirement" even with quotation marks, other than for rhetorical effect. McEnroe did not retire in 1986. He never announced any retirement. He made it very clear he was only taking a break from tennis for a short while. Which is what he did. McEnroe retired in 1992.

FiveO
06-21-2009, 11:20 AM
Benhur,

If your intent is to prove Lendl the better overall player of the era, I for one wouldn't argue that, as I have always felt that career for career Lendl proved to be just that.

To emphasize the absurdity of mincing words I'll point out that your use of the phrase "back and forth" applying it to the rankings in 1984. "Back and forth" as to imply what? As if it was nip and tuck? Forgetting that the rankings were based on a 52 week cycle at the that for the moment and had to do as much with the prior year's results as they had to do with current form, Lendl spent 15 weeks of '84 in the top position, McEnroe spent 37.

However you want to characterize "taking a break" with no defined point of return, he left after losing to Brad Gilbert in The Masters RR on 11/10/1985 and didn't play again until 08/04/1986. He played three months, through October 1986 and one more match between then and February of 1987. He then played 8 months through the '87 US Open and didn't play again April 11 of 1988.

So from that match with Brad Gilbert on 11/10/1985 through 4/11/1988 he played 11 of 30 months and just 20 events in almost two and a half years.

If you are engaged in an exercise to mince words, knock yourself out.

5

Benhur
06-21-2009, 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=FiveO;3584068]Benhur,

If your intent is to prove Lendl the better overall player of the era, I for one wouldn't argue that, as I have always felt that career for career Lendl proved to be just that.

To emphasize the absurdity of mincing words I'll point out that your use of the phrase "back and forth" applying it to the rankings in 1984. "Back and forth" as to imply what? As if it was nip and tuck?

No, simply as in switching positions several times during 83 and especially 84. No doubt McEnroe had the better record in those years. By far. 84 in particular, he had a phenomenal year. Perhaps the most dominant ever. So my mentioning this is not meant as a detriment to what he accomplished, but rather as a tribute to Lendl's performance. Think of it for a while. How often do you see a year as dominant as McEnroe had in 84? Very seldom, if ever. How often do you see a player having a year as dominant as that, and yet losing the number one position on and off several times to the number 2 player? I'd say never. As good as Nadal was in 05, 06 and 07, he never came close to taking the number one position. Which, to me, shows that even at the very peak of McEnroe's career, Lendl's week in week out performance was good enough to keep right at his heels and even take the lead for short stretches now and then. I'd say that's quite something. No detriment to McEnroe, however.

However you want to characterize "taking a break" with no defined point of return, he left after losing to Brad Gilbert in The Masters RR on 11/10/1985 and didn't play again until 08/04/1986. He played three months, through October 1986 and one more match between then and February of 1987. He then played 8 months through the '87 US Open and didn't play again April 11 of 1988.

So from that match with Brad Gilbert on 11/10/1985 through 4/11/1988 he played 11 of 30 months and just 20 events in almost two and a half years.

If you are engaged in an exercise to mince words, knock yourself out.

Mincing words is better than deforming them and blowing them in puffs of smoke into people's faces. And sometimes mincing is necessary if the blowing gets out of hand. I repeat: McEnroe did not retire in 1986, nor did he ever even hint he was retiring. He said he was taking a break. And then he went and took a break. And then came back. If you don't like mincing, don't blow smoke. Don't say he retired.

Leublu tennis
06-22-2009, 01:48 AM
3-13

He also had lots of personal issues and took time off from the tour.

Yah, like he was married to a dru*gie.

Leublu tennis
06-22-2009, 01:52 AM
picked up this article on tennis.com

http://tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=177914

My favorite paragraph is:

"The game that dominates today was pioneered by one of McEnroe’s great career rivals, Ivan Lendl. “It’s all about dictating play—taking control of a point with a big serve followed with your first shot off the return, preferably a big forehand. Ivan is probably tearing his hair out today, because he would have thrived in this climate,” says McEnroe. “But my way of dealing with that was to take the ball early, not let a guy like Lendl dictate the terms, and I’m not so sure there isn’t room for that strategy anymore.”

What was McE's record against Lendl? Did he EVER win?
Lendl (and Becker) are the only palyer of the 80'd who should be allowed to say anything about modern tennisThis article was posted on another thread and received mainly positive comments. And you think McE is thick? Maybe to you, but his knowledge of tennis is so much greater than yours that you should not speak. Get it?

MarcRosset1992
06-22-2009, 03:55 AM
This article was posted on another thread and received mainly positive comments. And you think McE is thick? Maybe to you, but his knowledge of tennis is so much greater than yours that you should not speak. Get it?

Instead of stating relatively uninteresting, questionable half0-truths, would you care to explain the basis of your position?

GET IT?

GameSampras
06-22-2009, 08:37 AM
Long gone are the days of the attacking agressive, forcing the issue style players. Players are not trained to play that way anymore. Its a shame but its just how things have evolutionized in the game. I preferred the days of the mix. Not homogenzied play where everyone is a baseline ball basher but a mixture of both serve-volleyers and baseliners

Dedans Penthouse
06-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Not sure your doctor would approve this level of agitation. Do you have medical staff on stand-by?Amusing 'trolling' there Marky'92...

Funny, but right after DNShade called ya out--challenged you to play--you went from bragging-to-bagging-it in a flash and went back to your clueless (very obvious) attempt at trolling. Besides that (and btw, I ain't biting), as far as YOUR tennis goes, why are you suddenly dodging DNShade's offer to play????

....er, lemme guess: yer another 'wannabe' Internet bullsh*t artist? :rolleyes:


And what's with the MarcRosset1992 moniker? As we talking about:

--the same Marc Rosset who former chair umpire Bruno Rebeuh used to cheat on behalf of?

--and the same MarcRosset who once tried to get Roger Federer to leave his girlfriend Mirka?
http://tribuneindia.com/2003/20030407/sp6.jpg

What happened between you and Marc Rosset in '92? is this maybe a 'private lil' joke' just between you two? ;-)


As for the "Stone Age," what are your impressions of say, a Rod Laver? A Poncho Gonzalez? ;-)

SandV
06-22-2009, 08:36 PM
IMO it's actually more simple than even that. The game, through history, Post WWII, in all its permutations, in terms of successful style of play, is not so much evolution as it has remained a cycle.

Players prior to Jack Kramer were predominantly baseliners. From Tilden to Budge the most successful players were predominantly baseliners. Kramer played high percentage serve and volley and started a shift towards that style, which really lasted and dominated through the early '70's. Then came Borg, Connors and Vilas. Connors overwhelming dominance in '74, particularly the way he demolished Rosewall in the finals of both Wimbledon and US Open had pundits espousing how serve and volley was dead. But in the seventies, the only person to make an impression on Borg at RG was the all-court attacker Adriano Panatta. Serve and volley was found to still have a heartbeat when McEnroe arrived. Through the mid-eighties it remained viable with the top baseliners. Mid to late eighties Edberg and Becker showed that it was a style that could once again dominate. Then Courier found Edberg's number and with the early emergence of Chang and Agassi baselining was seen to have at least held its own by 1990 and by that time the AO had changed to gummy hardcourts and with the varied speeds througout the calendar from slow harcourts, to clay, to grass, to fast hardcourts, to sometimes ridiculously fast carpet there were spots in the calendar for the best practitioners of every style to flourish. Agassi was the favorite at AO speeds, the devout clay courters on clay, Sampras at Wimbledon and US Open, and several fast courters whacked up the carpet season. Then the homogenization of surfaces changed everything, and combined with the retirements of the best practitioners of other forward attacking style players, baselining became all dominant. In the big picture right back to Tilden and Budge.

It will change again. There will be more, true all-court attackers good enough to throw a monkey wrench into the top of the pyramid's success accented by a couple high end, more devout serve and volleyers who will present something that the top hasn't dealt with in a while and there will be a shift again. Why? Because that's how its been, through history, over and again. To think that cycle will suddenly stop is to ignore what's come before. But IMO its not so much an evolution, which connotes something new, as it is a cycle repeating itself through the history of the sport.



Very thorough, incisive historical analysis, Five-0!

I would slightly diverge at "Then the homogenization of surfaces (balanced by lighter or heavier balls) changed everything", continuing: Federer is the final champion in the lineage whose patriarch is Jack Kramer. Influenced as a junior by Edberg and Sampras, he trained to be a serve-volleyer, never more in evidence than in his 2001 match with Sampras. Then to quote him, "Things slowed down, all surfaces became slower and the polyester strings allowed players to hit winners from any defensive position." In the wake of the 2-shot tennis of Sampras, Ivanisevic, and Kracijec, Wimbledon changes the grass allowing the ball to sit up in 2002, and Douglas Robson's research has revealed that the U S Open added more sand to its hardcourt paint in 2000 after Safin won, and again in 2002 after Sampras won...stopping in 2003 after server Roddick met baseliner Ferrero--supposedly establishing that either style could be successful.

Now Fed serve-volleys only occasionally, so who does a junior or coach see
succeeding with the style?

Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, and Soderling are all tall enough to serve hard and power-drive a ball that bounces up to them. If the ball never skids into the returner, he never has to block or chip the return back. In the long run, serve-volleying loses more points than it wins.


Unless they make courts faster, 100 years from now tennis textbooks will have a chapter called "The Age of Serve and Volley--from Kramer to Federer."

MarcRosset1992
06-26-2009, 11:19 AM
Amusing 'trolling' there Marky'92...

Funny, but right after DNShade called ya out--challenged you to play--you went from bragging-to-bagging-it in a flash and went back to your clueless (very obvious) attempt at trolling. Besides that (and btw, I ain't biting), as far as YOUR tennis goes, why are you suddenly dodging DNShade's offer to play????

....er, lemme guess: yer another 'wannabe' Internet bullsh*t artist? :rolleyes:


And what's with the MarcRosset1992 moniker? As we talking about:

--the same Marc Rosset who former chair umpire Bruno Rebeuh used to cheat on behalf of?

--and the same MarcRosset who once tried to get Roger Federer to leave his girlfriend Mirka?
http://tribuneindia.com/2003/20030407/sp6.jpg

What happened between you and Marc Rosset in '92? is this maybe a 'private lil' joke' just between you two? ;-)


As for the "Stone Age," what are your impressions of say, a Rod Laver? A Poncho Gonzalez? ;-)

Your girlfriend DNS is welcome anytime over on the beautiful White Island if he can afford a tix (easy) and can convince immigration and health authorities that he is not a danger to the local population (that will be more difficult). Will you guys travel together, and if so, can we combine room service?

As for Marc, he is the one who let it be known to Tom Gorman during the doubles rubber of DC final 1992, that if McE continued his little thuggish display (such as spitting over the net and shout f*ck you at every change of side), he was going to spend the rest of his life eating (sorry, sippping) his meals from a straw in a wheelchair and have someone dig up his backside with a spoon instead of visiting a toilet. Jako and Marco lost the match, but McE did shut up, small satisfaction.