PDA

View Full Version : Lendl Vs McEnroe


Indiantwist
04-24-2005, 08:26 AM
Most of the discussions seem to put McEnroe in a slightly higher plane than that of Lendl. In their career record Ivand Lendl has a 21-15 lead over McEnroe with Lendl having more titles.

While i agree in terms of natural game and offcourt tantrums ("You cannot be Serious") McEnroe is more reachable and appealing to fans but in terms of sheer gamesmanship and winning Ivan Lendl is no pushover either if not better.

My first window to tennis came when i watched French Open final with Ivan Lendl playing Matts Wilander and ever since i got addicted to tennis though never got a chance to play it until last few years. I never kinda felt the same when watching Mcenroe.

35ft6
04-24-2005, 08:32 AM
Lendl is undoubtedly the most under-appreciated player of the Open era. I put Lendl firmly ahead of Mac. Lendl pretty much drove Mac out of the game the same way Mac may have contributed to Borg's early retirement. Mac was in his prime years and Lendl was owning him.

To me and my friends, when we first started playing, Lendl was the man. He was the guy whose name we called out when we tried to hit really hard. He was the steely assassin. We all wanted his Adidas racket.

Jet Rink
04-24-2005, 08:39 AM
Did you hear about the time an empty limousine pulled up to the gate at the U.S. Open and Ivan Lendl got out?

;)

Jet

Indiantwist
04-24-2005, 08:41 AM
I cannot agree any better. He had everybody's number for a few years. It took someone of Pistol Pete's caliber to beat/match some of Lendl's records. His fitness is amazing.

35ft6
04-24-2005, 08:51 AM
And I think his game wasn't as ugly as some people make it out to be. I think the more commonly used word was "robotic." The problem IMO was that they projected his personality into his whole game, because I actually thought his ground strokes were pretty stylish. Yes, his grass game was labored, and his serve was sort of boring, but his forehand was a whip. His top spin backhand was nice looking, too. His slice was pretty awful, though, I have to admit. More of a chip. Still, very effective, and it helped him get to 2 Wimbledon finals.

Hurray for Ivan.

I read he's gotten fat, though.

Brian Purdie
04-24-2005, 10:33 AM
And I think his game wasn't as ugly as some people make it out to be. I think the more commonly used word was "robotic." The problem IMO was that they projected his personality into his whole game, ...
I read he's gotten fat, though.

Haven't heard about the fat part, but part of the robotic image was his likeness to the Rocky IV russian character from the movie. Dumb comparison, but still a very accurate one given the american representation of the soviet Union at the time. He might as well have been portrayed by Dolph Lungren on the "CBS movie of the week". Mac didn't help. Mac was more a socialist/communist than lendl ( a republican) ever was, yet Mac was portrayed as the good old american rock and roll (wannabe) type.

Truth is, mac was a scum bucket distracted by drugs and women and got beat by the better A+ student that did his homework every night. Mac was too proud of himself and his natural talent to bother working hard. It served him right that he went through the last 8 years of his career without so much as a GS title.

35ft6
04-24-2005, 12:17 PM
Haven't heard about the fat part, but part of the robotic image was his likeness to the Rocky IV russian character from the movie. Dumb comparison, but still a very accurate one given the american representation of the soviet Union at the time. Lendl was Czech, but, yeah, he did get stereotyped as being a kind of commie superman, all brawn, no soul, genetically engineered to destroy democracy.

He got a lot of crapola for being so wooden, boring, whatever, but it was mostly because he didn't speak very good English. I heard he has quite the wicked sense of humor.Truth is, mac was a scum bucket distracted by drugs and women and got beat by the better A+ student that did his homework every night. Great analogy. If you would have said something about Mac being the rich kid and Lendl being the industrious immigrant child, that would have been even more sweetness.

Chadwixx
04-24-2005, 12:34 PM
mac's strokes were ugly, he looked so tight everytime he hit the ball. lendl on the other hand had long fluent strokes. mac is more for the non tennis fans, kinda like willliams-roddick now adays.

driger
04-24-2005, 01:58 PM
mac had his great year in 1984. that was also his swansong of sorts. lendl pretty much had his way with j mac after that.

JohnThomas1
04-24-2005, 04:03 PM
Just as Lendl put up a serious charge to Mac, Mac folded. Lendl TOTALLY dedicated himself to getting to number one. He found a great left handed coach and worked harder than anyone on his fitness, speed and mental toughness. He improved his handling of laft handed serves and improved his volley substancially as well his backhand. Roche taught him second serve targets etc that made it harder for Mac to come in successfully off his second serve. Lendl owned him after this, as well as beating a fading Connors time after time. Connors had been a dificult opponent for Ivan, with his aggression and in your face attitude. In his early years even i will admit Lendl had a certain fragility over him, especially in the biggest arena's. He was prone to tanking on the odd occasion and had a reputation as a choker and a quiter when the going got too much. He lost a handful of slam finals before finally winning the French then had to wait a bit longer to get the monkey off his back at the US Open. Amazingly he obliterated the choker tag and came to be considered as possibly the toughest competitor out there. In his dominant years he was fierce. He is a case of someone definitely getting the rewards they so richly deserved. Don't ever let anyone say it was all hard work and little talent, no one hit the ball like Ivan.

Roforot
04-24-2005, 04:13 PM
Did you hear about the time an empty limousine pulled up to the gate at the U.S. Open and Ivan Lendl got out?

;)

Jet

Is this an inside joke or a pun? How could the limousine be empty if Ivan Lendl was in it?

Jerry Seinfeld
04-24-2005, 04:28 PM
Ivan Lendl was the Grim Reaper of Tennis.

Jet Rink
04-24-2005, 04:33 PM
Is this an inside joke or a pun? How could the limousine be empty if Ivan Lendl was in it?

I withhold all comment.

Jet

driger
04-24-2005, 05:35 PM
Ivan Lendl was the Grim Reaper of Tennis.

Darth Vader maybe.

Rabbit
04-24-2005, 05:48 PM
Lendl won the last six in a row when McEnroe was basically going through the motions. He didn't know if he wanted to play or retire, so he put in mostly half-hearted efforts. Take those six away, and guess what, they're dead even. Lendl has won one more Grand Slam tournament than McEnroe with the count being Lendl - 2 Australian, 3 French, and 3 U.S. Open. McEnroe has seven total with 3 Wimbledon and 4 U.S. Open. It should be noted however that McEnroe really didn't go down to the Oz until his career was basically over. Had he played on grass Down Under, he'd have probably won at least 2 to 3.

I reject in hand the argument that McEnroe was owned by Lendl in his prime. McEnroe's best year was 1984, they played 7 times with McEnroe winning 6. There can't be an argument that Lendl had a bad year because he won his first Grand Slam that year. Through the years:

1980 2 - 0 McEnroe
1981 3 - 0 Lendl
1982 4 - 0 Lendl
1983 3 - 1 McEnroe
1984 6 - 1 McEnroe
1985 3 - 2 Lendl
1986 ***
1987 Lendl 1 - 0
1988 Lendl 1 - 0
1989 Lendl 3 - 1
1990 Lendl 2 - 0
1991 Lendl 1 - 0
1992 Lendl 1 - 0

*** This was the year that McEnroe took off. His comeback attempt past this point, was IMO and in the opinion of many pundits a half-hearted and on again off again at best. If we look at the numbers prior to 1986, McEnroe leads 13 - 12 matches. I call them bascially even throughout their careers and on the same level in the GOATs lists.

Past 1986, the most times they played in any one year was 4, in 1989 which further illustrates the half-heartedness of McEnroe's comeback. He never got into the later rounds to face Lendl. There certainly wasn't a lack of talent on McEnroe's part, simply a lack of desire and work ethic. Lendl was his perfect foil, never a lack of work ethic or desire, but a perceived lack of talent because of his style. I think Lendl was very talented, but not in the same vein as McEnroe.

35ft6
04-24-2005, 08:12 PM
Lendl won the last six in a row when McEnroe was basically going through the motions. He didn't know if he wanted to play or retire, so he put in mostly half-hearted efforts. Take those six away, and guess what, they're dead even. Huh? Take six losses away and they're dead even? Dude, you can do that with just about anybody. I think Lendl's domination WAS the reason Mac seemed only half into it. He simply couldn't accept that Ivan owned him. Read "You've Gotta Be Kidding Me." McEnroe is egomaniacal when it comes to making excuses for his losses. He would love to read your post, though, because his greatest wish is probably that people think he only lost when he wasn't trying.I reject in hand the argument that McEnroe was owned by Lendl in his prime.

1980 2 - 0 McEnroe
1981 3 - 0 Lendl
1982 4 - 0 Lendl
1983 3 - 1 McEnroe
1984 6 - 1 McEnroe
1985 3 - 2 Lendl I said "prime years" because I realize Mac may have hit his prime a bit early. But 25 is about right. You're right, he wasn't dominated in his prime years as much as I thought he did before I saw this statistics. I consider a tennis player's prime years to be 25 - 29, so...*** This was the year that McEnroe took off. His comeback attempt past this point, was IMO and in the opinion of many pundits a half-hearted and on again off again at best. But I think they're putting the cart before the horse? Was it half-hearted because he didn't get the results they thought he should have? Or were they actually monitoring his practices? What I'm getting at is if he did everything the same during the comeback but made it back to number 1, I bet they wouldn't call it half-hearted. From what I vaguely remember about the comeback, he came back all fired up, in better shape than he's ever been, but he couldn't dominate the way he once did, and that really frustrated him.

Jet Rink
04-24-2005, 09:53 PM
... I think Lendl was very talented, but not in the same vein as McEnroe.

Here, here!

Jet

TheNatural
04-25-2005, 12:18 AM
Lendl was good,but he didnt leave me with the impression that he was as talented as Edberg. I used to try to emulate his forehand as well. But I remember Edberg started to beat him most of the time..I just looked up the head to head results and Edberg beat him 8 out of their last 11 matches.

AndrewD
04-25-2005, 12:52 AM
I dont think Lendl was as naturally talented as McEnroe, Becker, Edberg or Sampras but I do think he was a far more talented athlete than any of them, with the possible exception of Pat Cash.

Regardless, my memories of Lendl come from umpiring at the Aus Open and being lucky enough, on a few occassions to actually meet him. A genuinely nice guy and quite funny although he did have a very dry sense of humour and a bit sarcastic so probably suited us more than the Americans. Seemed a bit self-conscious too, which might explain the sarcasm. I also cut Lendl some slack as, of that generation, he was the one player not born into a middle-class -at least- level of comfort (Connors being the only similarity but a little older). Becker, Cash, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander and later Sampras all had a lot less baggage to dispose of before they could become top players. Lendl came from a nation invaded and dispossessed by another so if he seemed to have a chip on both shoulders Id say that's where a lot of it originated.

The Pusher Terminator
04-25-2005, 08:51 AM
All you guys do is look at the numbers.

Firstly Lendl never won Wimbledon the "world series" of Tennis and therefore Mcenroe will always be considered better.

Secondly, You need to look at the numbers pre 1984 and post 1984 (or pre & post drug addict Tatum oneill). In 1984 Mcenroe was virtually unbeatable and should have won the French. Tatum helped to ruin his career. he took some time off and when he came back he was no longer the same player.

Lendl's personality was not the only thing that was boring. His game style was robotic. Mcenroe on the other hand played the game with touch and angles. He was an artist, the likes of which the world has never seen before or after. His service motion was one of a kind. He volleyed standing straight up instead of bending low. he ran closer to the net than anyone I have ever seen. His ground strokes fed off his oppopnents power...he seemed to simply "push" the ball. It was pure art.

Rabbit
04-25-2005, 11:18 AM
Huh? Take six losses away and they're dead even? Dude, you can do that with just about anybody.

Yes, mathmatically, you're correct, but you missed the point of my post. McEnroe was ready to have a fork stuck in him by the time Lendl won the last 6. It clearly wasn't anything physical or strategic as McEnroe raised himself up at the WCT in 89 to beat Lendl. However, McEnroe says himself that Borg's departure from the game was the beginning of the end for him, he saw less reason to play. Is he lying? I don't know, but I do agree that Tatum helped hasten the end of his career along with the vast amounts of money that he acquired.

I said "prime years" because I realize Mac may have hit his prime a bit early. But 25 is about right. You're right, he wasn't dominated in his prime years as much as I thought he did before I saw this statistics. I consider a tennis player's prime years to be 25 - 29, so...

Then we're in agreement, McEnroe was not Lendl's Christie Brinkley hand doll. And, they were, in effect, even.

From what I vaguely remember about the comeback, he came back all fired up, in better shape than he's ever been, but he couldn't dominate the way he once did, and that really frustrated him.

I clearly remember McEnroe saying all the right things and not doing any of them. '89 was his best year after he left in '86 and for all intents and purposes, it was his last hurrah. I distinctly remember him asking Jimmy Connors on an NBC Wimbledon telecast if he would coach him. McEnroe ask Connors for help? It was desparation in its purest form. McEnroe went on to such notable efforts as his Australian Open clash with Pernfors where he was defaulted due to behavior. For all intents and purposes, McEnroe did the same thing Nastase did when he saw he couldn't hack it, he went to the mental game. McEnroe's game was never the same after his leaving the game in 1986.

IMO, McEnroe demonstrates more of the pre '86 attitude now when playing guys 25 years his junior like Ancic. The McEnroe of today is more like the McEnroe that was young, out to prove something to the world. He now wants to prove that he can hack it with the younger generation, and as far as I'm concerned, has demonstrated that fact very well. Could he compete day in and day out? Nope. Connors may well have done him the biggest favor ever by starting the Senior Tour and giving McEnroe something to showcase his game once again.

Dedans Penthouse
04-25-2005, 11:31 AM
Did you hear about the time an empty limousine pulled up to the gate at the U.S. Open and Ivan Lendl got out?

;)

Jet

ROTFLMAO!!!

Colpo
04-25-2005, 11:44 AM
Thanks for laying out the year-by-year's, Rabbit. That breakdown makes it clear that Lendl's periods of success over Mac took place during two separate phases. The first phase was the early '80s, when Ivan maintained a sick tournament schedule and basically overpowered a pre-graphite Mac. His tourney win numbers for those years are ridiculous - he faltered only in the majors. During those years, Lendl beat fast-court players indoors, and Latin ballers on red clay (sometimes in consecutive tournaments!). He was scary. The second phase took place after Mac's peak years of '83 and '84, as Ivan entered his mature peak. Yes, Mac was disinterested by then, but Ivan was entering what would prove to be a 3-year prime period that was concluded by Mats's dramatic '88 season. Suffice it to say, Lendl was one of the most skilled, talented and most of all hard-working male pros of the Open era to the present. His baseline power and precision is paradigm for many of today's pros who carry a big serve that they then use to give them good court position for a closer groundstroke. That "Drago" stuff is just total BS.

wildbill88AA
04-25-2005, 01:23 PM
"wimbledon" the world series of tennis? not hardly. it may be the oldest, and most prestigious, but the us open is probably closer to be the "world series" of tennis. there are many more hardcourt tournaments than grass. mcenroe's comeback half-hearted? jmac was not know for his training even in his prime. and mentally he was just unstable. jmac took some time off and the game left him behind. jmac's big mouth also made it difficult for him to play. people began to show up just to see jmac go off, or try and set him off. lendl just improved and flat kicked jmacs butt. according to statisitics, lendl had an edge on jmac 9 out 12 years. and they were both the same age. and two of those years were in johnny's prime in 81 and 82. lendl had the better singles career not doubt. won more tournaments at 92, and spent 270 weeks at no.1, both many more than jmac.had they played 10 times a year past 1986 lendl would of won 9 of them.

and prime years are usually 21-26 years of age, not 25-29.

and in the "what if" department, suppose the current "code of conducts" rules were in place in 1980. i wonder how many of those 7 slam titles mac won he would have actually won. i can think of at at least three of those titles where would have been disqualified.

gts072
04-25-2005, 01:53 PM
I think Mac was a great gifted player who took his god-given skills for granted. Lendl used good old-fashion hard work to get the job done. In the end Lendl had the last laugh because he got more Slams than Mac.

devila
04-25-2005, 04:07 PM
McEnroe boasted that he had great touch and that Lendl was boring.
McEnroe was later outclassed by younger players and his volleys became ugly & useless.

fleabitten
04-25-2005, 07:49 PM
Rabbit, Thanks for the really well thought out post. I'd never seen their records broken down like that and found it very informative.

Brian Purdie
04-25-2005, 08:15 PM
I distinctly remember him asking Jimmy Connors on an NBC Wimbledon telecast if he would coach him.

That was 91. I actually have it on tape somewhere. I recall it because mac was interviewed by Connors and Dick Enberg after his loss to stefan edberg. It was significant because 2 days later mac would have a huge fine levied against him for the edberg match video tape of him calling a line judge a F#$@@^ several times. It was also weird because connors would go on to the semi's of the open later that summer

big ted
04-25-2005, 08:39 PM
i think lendl had the overall better singles career winning 8 gs tournaments and 94 singles titles, but with mcenroe on the other hand almost as well in those numbers, but also winning the big W wimbeldon as somebody else mentioned 3 times, and last but not least his 75+/- doubles titles won which included gs victories and finally a remarkable davis cup record and most memorable matches i might have to consider giving the nod to mcenroe

theace21
04-25-2005, 09:03 PM
I hated to watch Lendl play. I always enjoyed when he lost, or skipped the Big W to play golf, allergic to grass...I even hated that stupid adidas racket of his...

Gary Britt
04-25-2005, 09:09 PM
On the basis of their total career results I would rate both Lendl and Connors above McEnroe. Both won more slams and both were ranked number one in the world for a much longer period of time. I can't remember if it was Lendl or Connors who, prior to Pete, had the longest number of consecutive year end world #1 rankings. I think it was Connors at 5 times in a row. Later broken by Pete at 6 years in a row. It may be that nobody will catch Connors total number of tournaments won which is far higher than number 2 on that list. Connors beat Mac in '83 Wimbeldon final when Mac was at his peak and Connors was supposed to be too old. Mac did come back and give him a thumping in '84, I believe, which was Mac's peak year.

Gary Britt

JohnThomas1
04-25-2005, 11:01 PM
A couple of facts on Lendl vs Edberg and Becker. Lendl's prime never coincided with these guy's. At his peak they were both short of their best and at their peak Ivan was fading. I'm pretty sure Ivan beat them in early head to heads most often, then it flattened then they had the edge. All at their primes Lendl beats them every time on clay, they most likely beat him every time on grass, and Ivan for mine pips them elsewhere, just.

Indiantwist
04-26-2005, 04:42 AM
Lendl to me was the player to copy. I wish i can copy Federer's game but i dont have that natural ,inbuilt instincts and skills. Lendl's was pure hardwork and was more easier to mimick (it is more like hit a few buckets of balls everyday ). In some ways Sampras and Lendl had similarities. They let their game speak more than their mouth.

He never won wimbledon but he was 2 best so many times. Atleast better than what Mcenroe has managed on other surfaces.

Rabbit
04-26-2005, 06:12 AM
One other interesting note. If you look at their win/loss records, they are both very impressive:

Lendl 1070 - 238
McEnroe 867 - 192

Looking at their winning percentages, Lendl has 81.804% and McEnroe has an 81.869% which means that McEnroe's percentage was .065% better than Lendl's. I'd call that roughly even...

federerhoogenbandfan
04-26-2005, 08:50 AM
If I was held at gunpoint and forced to choose between these two, I would go with Lendl as the superior player. McEnroe is the more talented player I agree. Lendl though had more wins over McEnroe in his prime than McEnroe did against Lendl in his, so his overall head to head edge is valid. Personaly I think McEnroe's true prime was 80-84, Lendl's 85-90. Keep in mind Lendl would have been 0-5 in slams finals in 81-84 had it not been for McEnroe's choke in that French Open final, so it is hard to think he was in his prime at that point.

With his one additional slam win, but many more slam finals and semis, and superior longevity near the top I couldnt see putting McEnroe above unless it is based on the pure genius of his game.

Jack the Hack
04-26-2005, 09:44 AM
OK, this was the era that I fell in love with tennis, so I had to jump in...

First off, McEnroe was a great tennis player who was blessed with outstanding hands and speed. When motivated, he was a fighter that was fun for people to either root for or hate (depending on whether you were a fan), and he put on a very entertaining show. However...

In my opinion, not only was McEnroe less than Lendl, but he wasn't even in the top 4 players of the late 70s through 80s!

Here is my ranking of the best players in that generation (with my rationale in parenthesis):

1. Bjorn Borg (Played in 16 Grand Slam finals, won 11. He ruled the French Open and Wimbledon back to back several times, which is one of the most amazing accomplishments ever... never to be duplicated.)

2. Ivan Lendl (Played in 19 Grand Slam finals, won 8. He was a finalist in all Slams, and could win on any surface. He changed the way pros looked at fitness, and set the pattern for power baseliners.)

3. Jimmy Conners (Played in 15 Grand Slam finals, won 8. He is only one of three players to win a Slam on all three surfaces - grass, clay, and hard court.)

4. Mats Wilander (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 7. Along with Conners and Andre Agassi, he is one of only three players to win a Slam on all three surfaces. Note, the '83 and '84 Australians were on grass... and he also won a Wimbledon doubles title with Joakim Nystrom in '86. He could play on fast courts or rule on clay.)

5. John McEnroe (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 7. Tremendous artistry with the game, along with fiery outgoing personality made him a star, but he never recovered after his 12 month absence in '86 - other competitors passed him by with increased fitness, power, and desire.)

6. Stefan Edberg (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 6. Was a finalist at all of the Slams, and could be argued as better than McEnroe. However, he won 1 less Slam in the same amount of finals, so he gets bumped to #6.)

Earlier, someone mentioned that McEnroe could have won a bunch of Australians if he had taken them seriously earlier in his career. The same could be said of Agassi, Connors, Borg, or any number of other players. Nothing was stopping McEnroe from getting on a plane to compete... but he didn't, and now his record is where it is.

If we want to argue about coulda', woulda', shoulda'... then lets talk about:

- How many Slams would Laver had won if they were open to the pros between '63 and '67?

- How many Slams would Sampras have won if 3 out of the 4 were played on grass, like in Laver's era?

- How many (more) Slams would Agassi have won if he had taken his career seriously earlier on? (And would he be playing today?)

By the way, Wilander was my favorite out of the bunch I listed. One of my earliest memories was watching Wilander and McEnroe's epic 6 hour Davis Cup quarterfinal match in '82. Wilander was only 17 years old at the time, but gave McEnroe all he could handle. A couple months later, he won his first French Open, and officially took over as the heir apparent to Borg. I always loved his grace under pressure, and styled my baseline game after Wilander...

Kevin Patrick
04-26-2005, 11:53 AM
I'm a huge McEnroe fan, but I honestly can't see how anyone could say that he had a better career than Lendl or that they are even.
Also, disregarding all of Mac's play post 1985 is absurd. He played from '86 to '92, had many great wins & many more bad losses. I watched the Mac-Lendl matches from the '87 US Open & '88 French Open recently. Mac was as fired up as I've ever seen him, he was not "going through the motions." The atmosphere was like a Grand Slam final, Mac played very well, Lendl just played on another level. Yes, Mac beat Lendl at the '89 WCT's, but that was a very close affair, with Lendl getting an undeserved game penalty while Mac got away with much worse in that match.
Even if we disregard their rivalry post '85, Lendl was 7-0 vs Mac in '81 & '82, years in which Mac ended the year #1.
Lendl had more longevity than Mac & was consistently ranked in the top 5 for over 10 years. For the last 7 years of his career, Mac could only finish one year ('89) in the top 10.

Also, Lendl's lack of a Wimbledon title shouldn't be held against him. It's a myth that Lendl couldn't play on grass. He was more capable on grass than Mac was on clay, IMO. Lendl reached 2 wimbledon finals & 5 semifinals. He won Queen's twice. He has grasscourt wins over Edberg, Becker, & McEnroe.
I think part of the reason Lendl's greatness is forgotten is that he hasn't remained in the spotlight, while Mcenroe has. Most of the posters here are in high school or college & are unfamilar with tennis in the '80s, but they see so much of McEnroe doing commentary, talk shows & clips of his outbursts. When have espn/usa/nbc/cbs showed any clips of Lendl playing?

federerhoogenbandfan
04-26-2005, 02:21 PM
Not that I think this should be considered in any way, just interesting to recall that Lendl probably would have won Wimbledon in 1989 had it not been for the rain delay in his semi against Becker. I think most observers agreed at the time he would have won that match without the delay, then he would have been able to play a badly off-form Edberg in the final making it almost a gimme. Also in 1990 he smoked Becker in the final of Queens, after Becker had beaten Edberg in the semis, but could not duplicate that form at Wimbledon, where as Edberg and Becker stepped it up big time for the big W.

big ted
04-26-2005, 03:30 PM
mcenroe made the hall of fame first because he has a better davis cup record, more doubles titles (including 10 gs tournaments), and the 2 biggest tournaments of the year at least 3 times each.

he is one of the greatest singles players in history and arguably the greatest doubles player in history

Gary Britt
04-27-2005, 07:04 AM
OK, this was the era that I fell in love with tennis, so I had to jump in...

First off, McEnroe was a great tennis player who was blessed with outstanding hands and speed. When motivated, he was a fighter that was fun for people to either root for or hate (depending on whether you were a fan), and he put on a very entertaining show. However...

In my opinion, not only was McEnroe less than Lendl, but he wasn't even in the top 4 players of the late 70s through 80s!

Here is my ranking of the best players in that generation (with my rationale in parenthesis):

1. Bjorn Borg (Played in 16 Grand Slam finals, won 11. He ruled the French Open and Wimbledon back to back several times, which is one of the most amazing accomplishments ever... never to be duplicated.)

2. Ivan Lendl (Played in 19 Grand Slam finals, won 8. He was a finalist in all Slams, and could win on any surface. He changed the way pros looked at fitness, and set the pattern for power baseliners.)

3. Jimmy Conners (Played in 15 Grand Slam finals, won 8. He is only one of three players to win a Slam on all three surfaces - grass, clay, and hard court.)

4. Mats Wilander (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 7. Along with Conners and Andre Agassi, he is one of only three players to win a Slam on all three surfaces. Note, the '83 and '84 Australians were on grass... and he also won a Wimbledon doubles title with Joakim Nystrom in '86. He could play on fast courts or rule on clay.)

5. John McEnroe (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 7. Tremendous artistry with the game, along with fiery outgoing personality made him a star, but he never recovered after his 12 month absence in '86 - other competitors passed him by with increased fitness, power, and desire.)

6. Stefan Edberg (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 6. Was a finalist at all of the Slams, and could be argued as better than McEnroe. However, he won 1 less Slam in the same amount of finals, so he gets bumped to #6.)

Earlier, someone mentioned that McEnroe could have won a bunch of Australians if he had taken them seriously earlier in his career. The same could be said of Agassi, Connors, Borg, or any number of other players. Nothing was stopping McEnroe from getting on a plane to compete... but he didn't, and now his record is where it is.

If we want to argue about coulda', woulda', shoulda'... then lets talk about:

- How many Slams would Laver had won if they were open to the pros between '63 and '67?

- How many Slams would Sampras have won if 3 out of the 4 were played on grass, like in Laver's era?

- How many (more) Slams would Agassi have won if he had taken his career seriously earlier on? (And would he be playing today?)

By the way, Wilander was my favorite out of the bunch I listed. One of my earliest memories was watching Wilander and McEnroe's epic 6 hour Davis Cup quarterfinal match in '82. Wilander was only 17 years old at the time, but gave McEnroe all he could handle. A couple months later, he won his first French Open, and officially took over as the heir apparent to Borg. I always loved his grace under pressure, and styled my baseline game after Wilander...


A solid post imho. Why did Wilander retire so young. It seemed he quit when he had many more possible wins ahead of him?

Gary Britt

35ft6
04-27-2005, 08:04 AM
Wilander at his best played about the most cerebral tennis I've ever seen. And I'm not talking just "high percentage," because in most ways high percentage tennis is about thinking LESS. Wilander's game took a lot of thought, steadfast commitment, and incredible focus and versatility. Federer probably surpasses him in terms of versatility, but it's such a different situation, because Federer is beating players he's probably better than every day. Wilander was beating players that were arguably "better" than him on sheer strategy.

I doubt anybody understood patterns better than him.

Jack the Hack
04-27-2005, 08:35 AM
Some say that Wilander retired young because he played a counter-puncher baseline game and was physically burned out by the effort he had put in to win big matches. However, I don't think the physical aspect of his matches was the biggest factor...

Rather, after 1988, when Wilander won the Australian, French, and US Opens (and just missed the Grand Slam by losing to Mecir in the quaterfinals of Wimbledon), I think he felt that there was nothing left for him to accomplish. Mentally, he was satisfied at reaching the peak of the game and had other things in life to look forward to. He was married in '87, got heavy into music and charity after '88, and then started having children - all of which seems to have given him as much (or more) pleasure than being a top ranked tennis player.

I think that this is very similar to what happened to McEnroe after '84-'85 (his best years), or what happened to Borg. There is nothing physical that was keeping them from continuing their high level of play - they were all young - but had reached a point where they had become satisfied with their accomplishments. Interestingly, I think they later missed the game and they all tried comebacks but were never able to return to anywhere near their previous level (except for McEnroe).

I think the key ingredient to being a legendary champion (aside from the talent) is having a burning hunger for success that isn't easily quenched.

Guys like Lendl and Sampras seemed to have this gnawing edge inside of them that kept driving them to work harder and keep winning, like the trophies were the only thing that kept them alive. I think all of the great players in the past have had this same desire, but everyone either reaches a level where they are finally satisfied/happy (Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras), or they just can't do it anymore physically (Lendl, Rosewall, Laver, Connors).

It seems that Federer falls into the Sampras/Lendl/(Agassi?) category and won't be happy until he has double-digit numbers of Slam trophies (note the way he coached himself to an historical year last season - tremendous self motivation) or can no longer perform... time will tell as other players rise up to the challenge and the years progress. Contrast him with Safin, who seems to have equal talent, but whenever he gets a big win... he starts partying at the discos and filling his player box with new chicks (I really hope that Lundgren can curb this, but only Safin can muster the desire to keep working hard and want to become a legend).

By the way, I agree with earlier posts that described how McEnroe did take his comeback very seriously. He did come into '87 with a vengence and was in the best shape of his life. His game was good enough to win another Grand Slam or two, but Lendl, Becker, Wilander, and Edberg had improved to reach near the top of their games and they kept McEnroe from achieving any further greatness.

35ft6
04-27-2005, 08:43 AM
Rather, after 1988, when Wilander won the Australian, French, and US Opens (and just missed the Grand Slam by losing to Mecir in the quaterfinals of Wimbledon), I think he felt that there was nothing left for him to accomplish. I think you're right. Not just because it SEEMS right, but I think I've read something. But unlike other greats who had similar seasons, I think Wilander really had to work for it. He had to plan, prepare, and try much harder than Borg, Mac or Federer.I think that this is very similar to what happened to McEnroe after '84-'85 (his best years), or what happened to Borg. There is nothing physical that was keeping them from continuing their high level of play - they were all young - but had reached a point where they had become satisfied with their accomplishments. Interestingly, I think they later missed the game and they all tried comebacks but were never able to return to anywhere near their previous level (except for McEnroe). I think it was slightly different with McEnroe. Part of the problem was a new generation of players with lighter and more powerful rackets bashing returns and passing shots at him. I think the evolution of the game really took its toll on his serve and volley, finesse style of play. I think he was pushed off the tour against his will more than the others.

Wilander would be a great coach for Nalbandian.

Arafel
04-27-2005, 08:49 AM
I hated to watch Lendl play. He was a gifted player, no doubt, but I'll never forget when he tanked a match to Connors in I think the 1980 or 81 Masters at the end of the round robin so he wouldn't have to play Borg in the semis. Combine that with giving up in the fourth set of the 1983 Open final to Connors, and I could never respect Lendl. Connors has always been my favorite player, because even when he was down you could never count him out, and he carried that attitude all through his career, including his remarkable run at the 91 Open, when he was down 2 sets to Patrick McEnroe in the first round and came back to win then charged into the semis. After Connors, I like J Mac, because he was so beautiful to watch.

wildbill88AA
04-27-2005, 09:55 AM
OK, this was the era that I fell in love with tennis, so I had to jump in...

First off, McEnroe was a great tennis player who was blessed with outstanding hands and speed. When motivated, he was a fighter that was fun for people to either root for or hate (depending on whether you were a fan), and he put on a very entertaining show. However...

In my opinion, not only was McEnroe less than Lendl, but he wasn't even in the top 4 players of the late 70s through 80s!

Here is my ranking of the best players in that generation (with my rationale in parenthesis):

1. Bjorn Borg (Played in 16 Grand Slam finals, won 11. He ruled the French Open and Wimbledon back to back several times, which is one of the most amazing accomplishments ever... never to be duplicated.)

2. Ivan Lendl (Played in 19 Grand Slam finals, won 8. He was a finalist in all Slams, and could win on any surface. He changed the way pros looked at fitness, and set the pattern for power baseliners.)

3. Jimmy Conners (Played in 15 Grand Slam finals, won 8. He is only one of three players to win a Slam on all three surfaces - grass, clay, and hard court.)

4. Mats Wilander (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 7. Along with Conners and Andre Agassi, he is one of only three players to win a Slam on all three surfaces. Note, the '83 and '84 Australians were on grass... and he also won a Wimbledon doubles title with Joakim Nystrom in '86. He could play on fast courts or rule on clay.)

5. John McEnroe (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 7. Tremendous artistry with the game, along with fiery outgoing personality made him a star, but he never recovered after his 12 month absence in '86 - other competitors passed him by with increased fitness, power, and desire.)

6. Stefan Edberg (Played in 11 Grand Slam finals, won 6. Was a finalist at all of the Slams, and could be argued as better than McEnroe. However, he won 1 less Slam in the same amount of finals, so he gets bumped to #6.)

Earlier, someone mentioned that McEnroe could have won a bunch of Australians if he had taken them seriously earlier in his career. The same could be said of Agassi, Connors, Borg, or any number of other players. Nothing was stopping McEnroe from getting on a plane to compete... but he didn't, and now his record is where it is.

If we want to argue about coulda', woulda', shoulda'... then lets talk about:

- How many Slams would Laver had won if they were open to the pros between '63 and '67?

- How many Slams would Sampras have won if 3 out of the 4 were played on grass, like in Laver's era?

- How many (more) Slams would Agassi have won if he had taken his career seriously earlier on? (And would he be playing today?)

By the way, Wilander was my favorite out of the bunch I listed. One of my earliest memories was watching Wilander and McEnroe's epic 6 hour Davis Cup quarterfinal match in '82. Wilander was only 17 years old at the time, but gave McEnroe all he could handle. A couple months later, he won his first French Open, and officially took over as the heir apparent to Borg. I always loved his grace under pressure, and styled my baseline game after Wilander...

interesting, but i think you have to give credit to connors for winning 109 singles titles, the most ever, and spending 5 years continuous(except for one week) at the number 1 spot. and lendl as well, for winning 92 tournaments and spending some 270 weeks at number one. mcenroes doubles achievements and four years at #1, would also put him well ahead of mats.

TommyGun
04-27-2005, 11:56 AM
Okay, none of you guys get it. Mac beats Lendl going away, and loved to watch Ivan play:

1. Lendl refused to play on grass, mostly because he got his arse handed to him by nobodies early on. If you don't play or at least compete honestly at the Big W, your dance card gets less points.

2. Mac was competitive on every surface, even clay. Lendl couldn't do it on grass. So, four surfaces versus three...

3. ALL OF YOU ARE NEGLECTING THE FACT THAT MAC PLAYED SINGLES AND DOUBLES! AND HE WON A TON OF DOUBLES TITLES, ESPECIALLY AT SLAMS. Having played in some pro tournaments in my younger days, it is way harder to play and win when you are playing 6 hours a day versus one match of maybe 2 hours. Lendl could barely play one match.

So, try this again. Who is better?

Kevin Patrick
04-27-2005, 01:10 PM
1) Lendl only missed one Wimbledon in his career(1982) because he wasn't comfortable playing it at the time. I'm not sure why so many are preoccupied with that, it's not like he skipped it for 3 straight years like Agassi from '88-'90 because Agassi didn't want to wear white.
McEnroe skipped the French 6 times. So who's more afraid of playing on their weaker surface?

2) Lendl wasn't competitive on grass? From '83 to '90, he made 5 Wimbledon semifinals & 2 finals. His only early round loss in that span was to that "nobody" Henri Leconte. He won Queens in '89 & '90. He beat Edberg in the '87 W SF. Edberg had won the Aussie Open on grass earlier in the year & was Lendl's main rival for the #1 ranking in '87.
Lendl beat McEnroe & Becker(the reigning W champ) to win Queen's in 1990. Lendl is 81-25 on grass for his career,a 76 winning %, I call that very competitive. McEnroe had a 74% winning percentage on clay. Mac only reached one French Open Final & one semi.

3) Yes, Mac's doubles career is impressive, but irrelevant. Once Lendl dethroned him in '85, Mac virtually gave up doubles for the rest of his career. Having more left physically in the tank for singles certainly didn't help him against the top players for the last 7 years of his career.

I loved watching Mac, hated watching Lendl, but facts are facts. Lendl had the better career. He won more slams, played better at all 4 slams, won more tournaments, was ranked #1 for more weeks, was a top 5/10 player for a longer period of time & had the clear edge head-to-head.

Mac was an amazing talent, but his peak was a very short time. I believe longevity is the most important criteria when discussing these 2 greats. Lendl had it, Mac didn't.

Jack the Hack
04-27-2005, 01:45 PM
35ft6,

Interesting that you mention Nalbandian… he’s the one guy on the current tour that reminds me most of Wilander. I love watching him play, and wish he hadn’t had so many injuries in the past year so we could see his full potential. However, I’m not sure if he has the same drive that Wilander had, and he certianly doesn’t have the same level of strategic prowess or mental toughness. Your right, Wilander could probably coach him well in those areas!

Wildbill88AA,

You are absolutely correct that Lendl and Connors put up unbelievable numbers in tournament championships and overall match wins. That’s why they are in my top 3 (on this list) and they certianly stack up better than McEnroe’s record historically. Both of those guys were a level above…

Regarding Wilander vs McEnroe, I do not want to belittle McEnroe’s doubles achievements or his dominant years from ’79-84. However, consider that Wilander also won a Wimbledon doubles title in ’86 and that he was one of only three people in history to win a Grand Slam singles title on all three surfaces. In addition, winning 3 out of 4 Slams in one year is a rare accomplishment that has only occurred 4 times in the Open era (Laver in ’69, Connors in ’74, Wilander in ’88, and Federer in ’04). This is why I put Wilander ahead of Mac…

TommyGun,

I think that Kevin gave a pretty good rebuttal. I would only add a couple things:

First, Lendl not only made two Wimbledon finals, but he also made it to the 1983 Australian Open final on grass. That’s 3 Slam finals on grass for Lendl to McEnroe’s 1 French final on clay.

Second, I disagree with Kevin that McEnroe’s doubles career was over after ’85 (he won the’89 US Open and ‘92 Wimbledon doubles titles), but agree that this is irrelevant to whether he was a more accomplished player than Lendl. Since the mid-70s, the top players in the world rarely have played doubles as well as singles, so this shouldn’t be held against Lendl. History is made by singles players… or Pam Shriver and Todd Woodbridge would be on everyone’s best ever list.

Kevin Patrick
04-27-2005, 02:51 PM
Well saying mac's doubles career "was over" after 1985 may have been a little extreme on my part. But he did stop playing doubles fulltime after '85. That he was able to win those doubles slams while rarely playing doubles speaks volumes about his abilities in that arena.

I'm surprised that you regard Wilander higher than Mac, though. Wilander had a great, underrated career. But I never felt he was a dominant player at any time in his career like Lendl, Mac, & Connors were. I believe he was ranked #1 for a short time(end of '88 US Open to end of '89 Aussie Open)

Jack the Hack
04-27-2005, 03:26 PM
Kevin,

I think I may be a little biased with Wilander (with him being my favorite of all time and all...), but I put a lot of stock in his ability to win a Slam on all three surfaces (Connors and Agassi are the only other two to do this) and to win 3 out of 4 Slams in one year. '88 was pure domination (he also won the Lipton - the "5th Slam" that year), but you are right that he did not have an extended run at the #1 ranking.

Also, I did a little research and McEnroe had a 7-6 head to head advantage, and won 76 career tournaments to Wilander's 33. Based on this, you could definitely argue putting Mac ahead of Wilander... but certainly not above Connors, Lendl, or Borg in this era.

By the way, when researching the head to heads, I saw that Wilander beat Mac in the semifinals of the Australian in '83... on grass... in the height of Mac's career. What's up with that? Pretty amazing win if you ask me...

need2paint
04-27-2005, 06:09 PM
The name of this thread is Lendl vs McEnroe.

If we base our response on numbers, Lendl wins.
If we base it on grace and the ballet which tennis can be, McEnroe was better.

I like Mac.

35ft6
04-27-2005, 07:25 PM
If we base our response on numbers, Lendl wins.
If we base it on grace and the ballet which tennis can be, McEnroe was better. Okay, so Lendl was the better player and Mac the more graceful player. Can't argue with that.

need2paint
04-27-2005, 08:55 PM
For those of you who are into boxing like me, you how frustrating it can be when someone says that so and so was better than so and so, and they say this based on stats. Stats don't tell the whole story in sports.

I saw them both play, and at their peak, Mac was better. Mac at his best was better than Lendl at his best, that's what I'm saying.

Jack the Hack
04-27-2005, 09:59 PM
need2paint,

When comparing two competitors from different eras, I think stats are useless - different times, different opponents, different training, different techniques... it's impossible to compare. Also, in team sports, I think stats can lie. (Just because someone averages more points for one team doesn't necessarily mean they are better than someone with a lower average on another team.)

However, Lendl and McEnroe both turned pro in 1978 and played through the same years. Their matches were head to head, so we know directly who had the better hand. Lendl had a 21-15 advantage over Mac. Does this mean that Mac wasn't trying his best when Lendl kicked his @ss those 21 times? I think the scoreboard doesn't lie!

I can go on and on with how Lendl stacked up better in just about every historical category, but I can respect an opinion... if you think that Mac was the better player "on his best day" verses Lendl at this best, so be it. I just respectfully disagree.

Max G.
04-27-2005, 11:20 PM
Okay, so Lendl was the better player and Mac the more graceful player. Can't argue with that.

Yes I can... Lendl skipped out on half of the game, doubles! :) How can Lendl be considered better than Mac when he only played half the game??? ;-)

sandro
04-28-2005, 12:20 AM
my vote to Lendl.

AndrewD
04-28-2005, 06:01 AM
I really dont think arguments regarding who played doubles and who skipped which tournament has anything to do with who was actually the 'better' player. I think the only thing that matters in saying who was better is deciding who you think would win most often, in their respective primes, on all surfaces. Personally, I think its a line ball made all the more difficult by the fact that we didn't see them at their best at the same time.

If the Lendl of 86-90 had been playing the McEnroe of 82-85 then we might have a good idea. I think McEnroe would have won each time on English grass (Aus Open grass had a much higher bounce, hence Wilander winning twice), Lendl most times on clay -every time if the conditions were heavy and them splitting most matches on hardcourt. If I had to give anyone the edge then, despite disliking the guy intensely, Id give it to McEnroe.

The Pusher Terminator
04-28-2005, 07:33 AM
Haven't you guys noticed that in almost every matchup , the younger player has a better record against the older player.

This general rule also holds true for Mcenroe vs. Lendl as it does for almost every other rivalry.

In this case however there is only one year seperating the two players. But you must also take into consideration that Mcenroe came on the seen significantly earlier than the graphite wielding lendl. When mcenroe made it to the finals of Wimbledon....no one even knew who Lendl was. Therefore this matchup is no different than almost any other matchup and the younger player has once again beten out the older one.

There are exceptions....Becker vs Lendl. Their record is 11-10; however, their grandslam record is Becker 5 and Lendl only 1! So I think the rule still holds true. Becker definoitely had the edge on Lendl. Becker was able to beat lendl at the Us open and the Australian...which are lendls best surfaces. Thats still not including lendls losing to becker three times at Wimbledon.

35ft6
04-28-2005, 07:49 AM
Yes I can... Lendl skipped out on half of the game, doubles! :) How can Lendl be considered better than Mac when he only played half the game??? ;-) No, you raise a fair point, but when people talk simply about the "greatest player," they're talking singles. That's the unmistakable implication. We can add all types of qualifiers to the "greatest player" label, like "greatest overall player," which would probably make a person pause to wonder why the "overall" is in there.

A few people have brought up the doubles thing with McEnroe, but I don't recall anybody ever making this an issue with Borg, Sampras, Connors, Agassi, or Federer. If people really believe doubles means something, than be consistent and say that McEnroe is not only greater than Lendl, but Sampras, Agassi, Borg, and everybody else also.

Oh yeah.

35ft6
04-28-2005, 07:54 AM
2. Mac was competitive on every surface, even clay. Lendl couldn't do it on grass. So, four surfaces versus three... Lendl has a better grass record than Mac does clay record. I'm sure somebody already pointed this out.3. ALL OF YOU ARE NEGLECTING THE FACT THAT MAC PLAYED SINGLES AND DOUBLES! AND HE WON A TON OF DOUBLES TITLES, ESPECIALLY AT SLAMS. Having played in some pro tournaments in my younger days, it is way harder to play and win when you are playing 6 hours a day versus one match of maybe 2 hours. Lendl could barely play one match. Mac was different. He did NOT like to practice, and part of the reason he could play doubles is because he didn't bust his b$tt off court the way some other players did. For him, playing doubles was his way of practicing for singles.

Jack the Hack
04-28-2005, 08:54 AM
"If people really believe doubles means something, than be consistent and say that McEnroe is not only greater than Lendl, but Sampras, Agassi, Borg, and everybody else also.

Oh yeah."

AMEN Brother!!! :D

The Pusher Terminator
04-28-2005, 09:53 AM
1..Lendl did not win Wimbledon. Which is the most important tournamnet of our sport.

2. lendl played the game like a robot and basically had a one dimensional game. Mcenroe was an artist who played the game differently than anyone else ever has or ever will.

3. Lendl was younger than Mac and younger players almost always have a better head-head record than older players. Even though the difference is only a year...Mcenroe had put in a lot more tennis by the time lendl began his rise on the Tour. During the Mcenroe-Borg final at Wimbledon, lendl was nowhere.

4. Mcenroe had a very unstable personal life with tatum Oneal which caused him quite a few problems. In fact after taking sometime off the tour , he learned that he had lost his serve by as much as 20 mph (read visual tennis by John Yandell)! Mcenroe, upon his return was forced to videotape his serve in slow motion to see why exactly he lost his greatest weapon. He was just not the same Mcenroe anymore.

5. Ultimately, Lendl was a coward. He simply gave up even trying to win Wimbledon . He came up with a lame excuse that he was allergic to grass....the truth is that he is a semi-pro golfer and grass has never bothered him. Lendl did not have the heart of a champion...he just gave up.

wildbill88AA
04-28-2005, 12:20 PM
1..Lendl did not win Wimbledon. Which is the most important tournamnet of our sport.

2. lendl played the game like a robot and basically had a one dimensional game. Mcenroe was an artist who played the game differently than anyone else ever has or ever will.

3. Lendl was younger than Mac and younger players almost always have a better head-head record than older players. Even though the difference is only a year...Mcenroe had put in a lot more tennis by the time lendl began his rise on the Tour. During the Mcenroe-Borg final at Wimbledon, lendl was nowhere.

4. Mcenroe had a very unstable personal life with tatum Oneal which caused him quite a few problems. In fact after taking sometime off the tour , he learned that he had lost his serve by as much as 20 mph (read visual tennis by John Yandell)! Mcenroe, upon his return was forced to videotape his serve in slow motion to see why exactly he lost his greatest weapon. He was just not the same Mcenroe anymore.

5. Ultimately, Lendl was a coward. He simply gave up even trying to win Wimbledon . He came up with a lame excuse that he was allergic to grass....the truth is that he is a semi-pro golfer and grass has never bothered him. Lendl did not have the heart of a champion...he just gave up.

i believe mac and lendl were both the same age. mac was unstable before he met tatum. sorry to see they removed your sharapova thread. quite a thread, with about 250 posts and then gets yanked by tw staff.

Kevin Patrick
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Pusher, I love how you have all these strong opinions about an era in which when you weren't even alive.

Your last comment about Lendl being a "coward" & "giving up" on Wimbledon is particularly absurd. You should double check facts with your dad before posting.

If you look up both Lendl & Mac's records(or my previous posts) you will see that Lendl only missed Wimbledon once in his career(1982).The excuse he gave was obviously a joke. McEnroe skipped the French 6 times during his career.

You want to hold Lendl's lack of a Wimbledon title against him, fine. But it wasn't for lack of trying. Lendl became so obsessed with winning Wimbledon he installed grass courts at his home. He skipped the French in 1990(when he was still ranked #1) just in order to give himself a better shot at Wimbledon. His gamble failed & he lost his #1 ranking because of it. He reached 2 finals & 5 semis. He served & volleyed every point he played there, even though he never did the rest of the year.

IMO, Mac is much more of a "coward" for not putting more effort into the game, especially in the last 7 years of his career when he wasn't even contending for major titles. Mac was very proud of how much he achieved with very little work ethic. He should have been ashamed. Mac took a 6 month sabbatical when things got tough in '86. Lendl never quit, even when he was a choker early in his career & even when he started to experience back problems in '93. Sounds like he did have the "heart of a champion."

35ft6
04-28-2005, 01:58 PM
:| For real. Lendl a coward? Absurd. Very few people had his courage. It takes guts to so visibly go out of your way to win the tournament on the surface that you weren't "born" to play on, to so publicly want a Wimbledon crown, to open yourself to such disappointment, to change your game, to put everything on the line and to fail, only to try again. That's courage, dude.

A coward is somebody who doesn't express and/or try to go after the things he wants most in life because he/she decides it's better to have not tried and failed, then to risk everything to be truly happy. Or something.

You know what I'm saying. I don't see how anybody can rip on Lendl. His career is practically a blueprint on heroic living.

Jack the Hack
04-28-2005, 02:25 PM
Kevin and 35ft6,

Can I get another AMEN? :D

I was going to respond to Pusher, but thought my initial reaction would get me banned from the site! You guys both summarized the reality of Lendl's courage, heart, and achievement up perfectly... and managed to leave out the expletives that I almost used! ;)

Kevin Patrick
04-28-2005, 02:31 PM
35ft6,
please email me, I wanted to ask you something.

UpTheT
04-28-2005, 03:06 PM
I think a players performance in doubles says alot about his/her abilities above that of just singles. Great doubles players are normally faster (hands) and more competitive in style (agressive/attacking) than singles players.
I've seen alot of great singles players that couldn't play doubles to save their life because they just didnt have the hands and shot making abilites. Service return is a perfect example --- In singles, any pro player can get a return serve, They can swing away without having to worry about a net man. Doubles is a different story- not only do you have to hit it crosscourt - you have to get it low. The thing that made Mac so great is that he could kill the other team from anywhere on the court. If they were both at net - he didn't have to lob- he'd put one at there feet and come in for a kill volley.

For him to succeed the way he did in both singles and doubles speaks volumes about how great a player he was.

I determine who is the better player by asking this question.

Who would you want on your DAVIS CUP Team

MAC for me.

rlbjr
04-28-2005, 03:50 PM
Pusher/Terminator

Take one comment out of context and build an entire philosophy on it? Lendl did more to try to win Wimbledon than nearly anyone in the open era. That he did not succeed is not a comment on his level of intent and desire. He transformed his game from pure baseline power and serve to serve/volley and chip charge, mostly with the help of Tony Roche who was his coach for years. Through much of his career he came to net more than anyone playing today outside the pure serve/volleyers, including Fedex. Check your facts, watch some video before you spout off.

RE Lendl VS McEnroe, Lendl came on the scene and just blew Mac away. Had Mac on the baseline trying to junk ball him. After one of those pathetic losses Don Budge (any of you youngsters out there know who he was?) approached Mac and berated him for abondoning his A game and trying to beat Lendl with something less. His advice to Mac? Get to net as often as humanly possible and force Ivan to pass 200 times a match if he can. That was when Mac went on a two year run against Lendl. Mac then took his celebrated hiatus and was never the same player again.

JohnThomas1
04-29-2005, 01:06 AM
Bravo to Kevin Patrick, perfect summation mate.

Jet Rink
04-29-2005, 09:30 PM
This thread has been on my mind a lot this week.

I got to see a lot of Mac and Lendl live, back in the day (as they say), and have a pretty darn solid understanding of each of their games/career arcs.

SO!

To make a fair, apples-to-apples comparison of two players - of the SAME era (not one of these Tilden v. Fed things ;) ), I went to the source...

I just finished watching the Mac/Lendl '84 USO. I believe this single match provides the answer to who is the better player.

Why? I'll tell you: Mac was absolutely dominant in '84. No bones about that. He had Lendl in the bag earlier that year at Roland Garros - and lost it. Credit to Lendl. A win's a win.

Mac then goes on to crush Jimmy at Wimby just a few weeks later.

Then the USO - just a few more weeks removed from RG - and admittedly Mac's career-worst defeat. Devastating. One that still haunts the guy to this day. So, in context, Mac surely wasn't thrilled about meeting Lendl in a Slam final so soon.

During this match, I believe both players are at their peaks. Tactically and physically they are giving each other all they can handle. Very few unforced errors.

Their head-to-head at this point was separated by ONE match, with Mac holding the upper hand (Note: Mac won most all of their early matches; Lendl took the next segment; Mac dominated again and so on - so the fact that they were both adapting and simultaneously challenging one another - and rising to the challenges - was self-evident).

The difference in this match - and I believe what finally separates the two - is McEnroe's superior tactical play. His ability to make points and force (rare) errors and to simply put Lendl under consistent pressure is what gets him the breaks and therefore the match.

To talk about heroics/cowardice is just ludicrous in this context. The argument is who is the better player. Based on the above - head-to-head match play in a Slam final with all the marbles riding on it and with both guys at their peaks - it's Mac by a neck.

Jet

big ted
04-30-2005, 12:05 AM
the first 5 years , mcenroe was the better player. the last 5 years lendl was the better player

wildbill88AA
04-30-2005, 06:30 AM
during macs prime(80-84), lendl and mac were close, during lendl's prime you could put the grand canyon between the two.

Captain Haddock
04-30-2005, 06:50 AM
When I was a Mac-idolizing teenage boy, these matches between Mac and Lendl seemed like confrontations between good and evil. It had nothing to do with political stereotypes (in fact, both players strike me as conservative), but with the fact that these matches were conflicts between touch and power, subtlety and blunt force, finesse and strength, etc. Mac's strokes ugly??? You cannot be serious!!! In 1983-84, watching Mac charge the net on Lendl's FIRST serve, then drop a feathery touch volley parallel to the net was just as impressive aesthetically as watching Federer today. I was lucky enough to be at ********* during their 1984 Brussels Indoor final, which Mac won in 58 minutes, and still can hear the sound of that Max 200g strung at 44 pounds with yellow Pacific gut. Yes, the game passed McEnroe by, and yes, Lendl became the prototype of the new power game. But in 84, there is no doubt that Lendl was nowhere near Mac's level of sheer tennis ability, imagination, and effectiveness. One has to admire Lendl for his dedication to improvement, but in 84, Mac was Van Gogh, and Lendl was an industrial painter.

Brian Purdie
04-30-2005, 10:23 AM
in 84, Mac was Van Gogh, and Lendl was an industrial painter.

way to use art history in a BURN!

The Pusher Terminator
04-30-2005, 01:44 PM
during macs prime(80-84), lendl and mac were close, during lendl's prime you could put the grand canyon between the two.


Thanks for the compliment. I thought that post would never end....that was completely unexpected. Furthemore Lendl and Mcenroe are not the same age. There is just about a full year sepersting them. lendl was born on 3/7/1960 and Mcenroe was born on 2/16/1959. Therefore the rule of the older player always haveing a losing record against the younger player rings true. Just so I dont get misunderstood , here is waht I had said:
Haven't you guys noticed that in almost every matchup , the younger player has a better record against the older player.

This general rule also holds true for Mcenroe vs. Lendl as it does for almost every other rivalry.

"In this case however there is only one year seperating the two players. But you must also take into consideration that Mcenroe came on the seen significantly earlier than the graphite wielding lendl. When mcenroe made it to the finals of Wimbledon....no one even knew who Lendl was. Therefore this matchup is no different than almost any other matchup and the younger player has once again beten out the older one.

There are exceptions....Becker vs Lendl. Their record is 11-10; however, their grandslam record is Becker 5 and Lendl only 1! So I think the rule still holds true. Becker definoitely had the edge on Lendl. Becker was able to beat lendl at the Us open and the Australian...which are lendls best surfaces. Thats still not including lendls losing to becker three times at Wimbledon."


Finally Rblj....I think it is you who should get your facts right. Lendl did not simply come on the scene and blow mac away. In fact prior to 1984 Mcenroe owned Lendl and in 1984 mcenroe was virtually unbeatble (he really should have won the French that year). Furthermore, Borg owned Lendl and Ivan was very lucky that Bjorn retired at 26 because Lendl would have lost every tournament he faced Borg. In any, event...to support my contention that Lendl did not simply come on the scene and destroy Mcenroe please be advised as follows :

1980 Mac #2 & Lendl #6
1981 Mac #1 Lendl #2
1982 Mac#1 ,...Lendl #3
1983 Mac #1 and Lend #2
1984 Mac #1 and Lendl a distant #2
1985 Lendl #1, Mac #2
1986 Lendl #1 ...Mac quit tennis.

the next years marked Mcenroes downslide. Notably Lendl only made it to number 1 four more years and one of those years Mcenroe had quit tennis. When Mac made his "comeback" he was never really the same player. I really dont think that Lendl dominated Mcenroe....in fact in Mcenroe's glory days Lendl could not even win a grandslam. The Mcenroe that Lendl beat was only a shadow of the player he was during the pre drugs and pre Tatum days. Lendl really had no answer to the Mcenroe of 1984 and prior.

wildbill88AA
04-30-2005, 02:11 PM
pusher-lendl was born in 1960, mac in 1959. basically they were the same age.

The Pusher Terminator
04-30-2005, 07:42 PM
pusher-lendl was born in 1960, mac in 1959. basically they were the same age.

I went through all the trouble of cut and pasting my response about the one year difference. For the third time , please read it:


"In this case however there is only one year seperating the two players. But you must also take into consideration that Mcenroe came on the scene significantly earlier than the graphite wielding lendl. When mcenroe made it to the finals of Wimbledon....no one even knew who Lendl was. Therefore this matchup is no different than almost any other matchup and the younger player has once again beten out the older one."

In 1977 Mac was ranked in the top 20 and in 78 & 79 Mcenroe was already in the top 10 and Lendl was really unknown. Thats at least 3 extra years of serious tournamnet play.Furthermore, Mcenroe had put far more wear and tear on his body and had a diet of cheeseburgers and hershey bars. On the other hand Lendl trained like a wildman. He was simply stronger than Mcenroe and outlasted him. In any event almost evry older player loses in head to head battles to the younger player amd this rivalry is no exception. Prior to 1984 Lendl could not touch Mcenroe....from 1977-1884 Lendl was ranked lower than Mcenroe. Mcenroe dominated Lendl for almost a full decade before he turned to cocaine and spiraled downwards. Mcenroe in his prime owned Lendl. Just see the rankings below:


1977...Mcenroe...top 20...Lendl ...who knows?
1978...Mcenroe#4....Lendl...who knows?
1979 Mcenroe #3 ,...Lendl....whio knows?
1980 Mac #2 & Lendl #6
1981 Mac #1 Lendl #2
1982 Mac#1 ,...Lendl #3
1983 Mac #1 and Lend #2
1984 Mac #1 and Lendl a distant #2
1985 Lendl #1, Mac #2
1986 Lendl #1 ...Mac quit tennis.

federerhoogenbandfan
05-01-2005, 07:07 AM
There are exceptions....Becker vs Lendl. Their record is 11-10; however, their grandslam record is Becker 5 and Lendl only 1! So I think the rule still holds true. Becker definoitely had the edge on Lendl. Becker was able to beat lendl at the Us open and the Australian...which are lendls best surfaces. Thats still not including lendls losing to becker three times at Wimbledon."

Lendl was only in his prime in one his losses to Becker, the 89 U.S open. It would seem he was slightly past his prime by the 91 Australian, and three of the losses were on grass which completely favored Becker. Lendl's favorite surface might have been clay, or atleast it was his best surface to play Becker on, Becker would have had no chance had they played at the French yet Lendl has to play Boris 3 times at Wimbledon, and Boris never Lendl at the French. Lendl also beat Becker at the 92 U.S open, when Lendl was past his prime and Becker was still in his. Lets say had they played 3 times at the French instead of 3 times at Wimbledon, the 85 and 86 U.S opens, and the 89 Australian Open, as their only matches; which would make the circumstances about as favorable to Lendl as they were to Becker. Lendl would probably be 6-0, or atleast 5-1. I dont think Becker proved he has the edge on Lendl head to head in slam matchups given the circumstances they met under.


Finally Rblj....I think it is you who should get your facts right. Lendl did not simply come on the scene and blow mac away. In fact prior to 1984 Mcenroe owned Lendl and in 1984 mcenroe was virtually unbeatble (he really should have won the French that year). Furthermore, Borg owned Lendl and Ivan was very lucky that Bjorn retired at 26 because Lendl would have lost every tournament he faced Borg. In any, event...to support my contention that Lendl did not simply come on the scene and destroy Mcenroe please be advised as follows :

1980 Mac #2 & Lendl #6
1981 Mac #1 Lendl #2
1982 Mac#1 ,...Lendl #3
1983 Mac #1 and Lend #2
1984 Mac #1 and Lendl a distant #2
1985 Lendl #1, Mac #2
1986 Lendl #1 ...Mac quit tennis.

Lendl himself was still maturing, and looking to gain the killer instinct he would have from 85-89/90 during the years McEnroe was ranked above him.
Secondly Lendl actually dominated McEnroe head to head in both 82 and 83. McEnroe's #1 was also a farce in 82, he should have been no better than #2 behind Wimbledon and U.S open champ Conners; and in 83 several guys could have been year-end #1, Lendl was still right in the running until the end of the year .

Furthermore, Borg owned Lendl and Ivan was very lucky that Bjorn retired at 26 because Lendl would have lost every tournament he faced Borg.


Get real, Borg last played Lendl in 81, where was Lendl in his career in 81? Lendl still managed to take Borg to 5 sets at the French in 81. There is insufficent evidence Lendl would have been unable to challenge Borg in his prime, if anything the matured Lendl might have been exactly the kind of player Borg would have liked to avoid; super consistent like Borg, very quick
(although not as much as Borg), killer hunger to win, extreme fitness and work ethic, and far more firepower than Borg ever had.

the next years marked Mcenroes downslide. Notably Lendl only made it to number 1 four more years and one of those years Mcenroe had quit tennis. When Mac made his "comeback" he was never really the same player. I really dont think that Lendl dominated Mcenroe....in fact in Mcenroe's glory days Lendl could not even win a grandslam. The Mcenroe that Lendl beat was only a shadow of the player he was during the pre drugs and pre Tatum days. Lendl really had no answer to the Mcenroe of 1984 and prior.

McEnroe quit tennis temporarly because he was frusterated with the power hitters like Curren, Becker, and Lendl, that were blasting him off the court in 85. He says so in his book.

wildbill88AA
05-01-2005, 10:42 AM
so mcenroe had edge on lendl only 3 0f 12 years. case closed. and those years from 1986 on, where they didn't play much, was probably because jmac was making the finals.

1980 2 - 0 McEnroe
1981 3 - 0 Lendl
1982 4 - 0 Lendl
1983 3 - 1 McEnroe
1984 6 - 1 McEnroe
1985 3 - 2 Lendl
1986 ***
1987 Lendl 1 - 0
1988 Lendl 1 - 0
1989 Lendl 3 - 1
1990 Lendl 2 - 0
1991 Lendl 1 - 0
1992 Lendl 1 - 0

federerhoogenbandfan
05-01-2005, 11:03 AM
Even though I dont agree with Pusher Terminator, I like that he is willing to be in the
minority and stick by all his opinions even when nobody agrees with them. I go on other threads nobody agrees with me, but I always stick by my own points, I dont want to be a
rebot who just follows the crowd. :)

The Pusher Terminator
05-01-2005, 03:52 PM
Lendl was only in his prime in one his losses to Becker, the 89 U.S open. It would seem he was slightly past his prime by the 91 Australian, and three of the losses were on grass which completely favored Becker. Lendl's favorite surface might have been clay, or atleast it was his best surface to play Becker on, Becker would have had no chance had they played at the French yet Lendl has to play Boris 3 times at Wimbledon, and Boris never Lendl at the French. Lendl also beat Becker at the 92 U.S open, when Lendl was past his prime and Becker was still in his. Lets say had they played 3 times at the French instead of 3 times at Wimbledon, the 85 and 86 U.S opens, and the 89 Australian Open, as their only matches; which would make the circumstances about as favorable to Lendl as they were to Becker. Lendl would probably be 6-0, or atleast 5-1. I dont think Becker proved he has the edge on Lendl head to head in slam matchups given the circumstances they met under.




Lendl himself was still maturing, and looking to gain the killer instinct he would have from 85-89/90 during the years McEnroe was ranked above him.
Secondly Lendl actually dominated McEnroe head to head in both 82 and 83. McEnroe's #1 was also a farce in 82, he should have been no better than #2 behind Wimbledon and U.S open champ Conners; and in 83 several guys could have been year-end #1, Lendl was still right in the running until the end of the year .



Get real, Borg last played Lendl in 81, where was Lendl in his career in 81? Lendl still managed to take Borg to 5 sets at the French in 81. There is insufficent evidence Lendl would have been unable to challenge Borg in his prime, if anything the matured Lendl might have been exactly the kind of player Borg would have liked to avoid; super consistent like Borg, very quick
(although not as much as Borg), killer hunger to win, extreme fitness and work ethic, and far more firepower than Borg ever had.



McEnroe quit tennis temporarly because he was frusterated with the power hitters like Curren, Becker, and Lendl, that were blasting him off the court in 85. He says so in his book.

Becker picked up where Mcenroe left off. While Wilander was Borg reincarnated.


1. becker vs. Lendl.....Becker beat lendl 5-1 in grandslam events, Lendl's favorite surface was hard courts...which Becker beat him on. Becker is living proof of what Mcenroe would have done to Lendl had he still been in his prime. Becker simply continued where Mcenroe left off. The mantle was passed to Becker and Edberg. In any event my only point was that the younger player always edges out the younger player in head to head competition. Although Lendl lead becker 11-10 all around.....Becker had the edge in grandslams 5-1! The younger player wins again!

2/. Actually wilander is living proof that Borg would have destroyed Lendl. Wilander was ranked #1 in the world in 1988 and won three out of four grand slams that year. Wilander was also shockingly 4 years older than Lendl. He had a losing record against the younger Lendl but in 1988 he owned Lendl and Borg was a far better player than Wilander although they both played very similarly. Therefore if Borg had not retired at only 26 ...Lendl would have been destroyed mentally and physically.

The Pusher Terminator
05-01-2005, 04:04 PM
so mcenroe had edge on lendl only 3 0f 12 years. case closed. and those years from 1986 on, where they didn't play much, was probably because jmac was making the finals.

1980 2 - 0 McEnroe
1981 3 - 0 Lendl
1982 4 - 0 Lendl
1983 3 - 1 McEnroe
1984 6 - 1 McEnroe
1985 3 - 2 Lendl
1986 ***
1987 Lendl 1 - 0
1988 Lendl 1 - 0
1989 Lendl 3 - 1
1990 Lendl 2 - 0
1991 Lendl 1 - 0
1992 Lendl 1 - 0


First of all its quality not quantity! Lendl did not win any grand slams until 1984 and he almost lost that to Mcenroe at the French! In 1984 Lendl had merely one grand slam under his belt...Mcenroe had 7! In any event the younger Lendl held true to my theory: "younger players always have a better head to head record than older players". Mcenroe was already playing in 77,78,and 79 while Lendl was no where to be found. This rivalry is no different than any other...the younger player always has a better head to head record.

Furthermore, after 1984 Mac was just old and tired and druuged out. Mac had already been playing for 8 years!!! Lendl could not beat mac from 1977 to 1984, when Mac had the fire in his eyes. After 1984 Mcenroe experienced life....he quit tennis for a year, and he was busy playing rock and roll in a touring band with Gerulaitis, snorting coke and screwing the hell out of the hot Tatum Oneal. Lendl simply lifted weights everyday and practiced everyday. Mcenroe had more natural talent in his little pinky than Lendl did in his whole body.

The Pusher Terminator
05-01-2005, 07:39 PM
Your last comment about Lendl being a "coward" & "giving up" on Wimbledon is particularly absurd. You should double check facts with your dad before posting.

If you look up both Lendl & Mac's records(or my previous posts) you will see that Lendl only missed Wimbledon once in his career(1982).The excuse he gave was obviously a joke. McEnroe skipped the French 6 times during his career.


Listen grandpa, I think maybe you should check out the facts because your memory is failing you old man. You know they say that the memory is the first thing to go!

It was no joke! Lendl skipped Wimbledon because he said he was allergic to grass. That was his official reason. It was no joke old man! In fact I fail to see the humor in the statement. Do you think its funny?

The only thing funny about his allergic to grass statement is what a pathetic lie it actually was. Thats why all the tabloids caught him playing golf after he said his idiotic lie.

As to whether Lendl was a coward for making up such a silly excuse for running away from Wimbledon is an opinion. I feel that it was a cowardly statement. You are entitled to think that it was a brave statement...but please don't insult everyones intelligence by saying it was a joke....sheesh you make Clinton look good! I am scared to ask you if you define oral sex as sex or not!

JohnThomas1
05-02-2005, 04:04 AM
@Jet Rink - to say Lendl and McEnroe were at their peaks in the 84 US Open is absurd, and backed up by stats against. Mac's best year was undoubtably 84 for mine, while Lendl's big improvements and best form STARTED in 85. The 85 US was the turning point of his whole career, take a look at his record for the next few years after. Mac was within a whisker of beating Lendl in the 84 French on Lendl's best surface and his own worst. Trust me when i say he wasn't exactly shaking in his boots when he met Ivan in that final. As you say, he bounced back to thrash Jimmy in what might have been a career peak performance. There was also more of a gap from the French until the US than you state. You say the difference in the 84 USO was Mac's superior tactical play and you are spot on. Even truer would be that the diference in the 85 USO was LENDL'S tactical play. He had teamed with Roche and learnt a lot about the art of playing Mac and lefties in general. His tactics were perfect. Take particular notice of where he was hitting his second serve so as to open angles if Mac came to net. Notice also his much improved confidence at taking the net away from Mac when given a short ball. He was also more agressive from the ground in rallies, seldom slicing a backhand which all in all helped Mac from ever being able to venture forward successfully. He had also undergone a rigorous new training routine which showed. This match is close to Lendl's finest ever considering the occasion, the opposition, and the sheer professionalism he exibited. One thing i will say tho, which was also observed by Lendl is that Mac is a step slow due to his gruelling semi against Mats. If only Mac had been training like Lendl :)

The Pusher Terminator
05-02-2005, 05:34 AM
@Jet Rink - to say Lendl and McEnroe were at their peaks in the 84 US Open is absurd, and backed up by stats against. Mac's best year was undoubtably 84 for mine, while Lendl's big improvements and best form STARTED in 85. The 85 US was the turning point of his whole career, take a look at his record for the next few years after. Mac was within a whisker of beating Lendl in the 84 French on Lendl's best surface and his own worst. Trust me when i say he wasn't exactly shaking in his boots when he met Ivan in that final. As you say, he bounced back to thrash Jimmy in what might have been a career peak performance. There was also more of a gap from the French until the US than you state. You say the difference in the 84 USO was Mac's superior tactical play and you are spot on. Even truer would be that the diference in the 85 USO was LENDL'S tactical play. He had teamed with Roche and learnt a lot about the art of playing Mac and lefties in general. His tactics were perfect. Take particular notice of where he was hitting his second serve so as to open angles if Mac came to net. Notice also his much improved confidence at taking the net away from Mac when given a short ball. He was also more agressive from the ground in rallies, seldom slicing a backhand which all in all helped Mac from ever being able to venture forward successfully. He had also undergone a rigorous new training routine which showed. This match is close to Lendl's finest ever considering the occasion, the opposition, and the sheer professionalism he exibited. One thing i will say tho, which was also observed by Lendl is that Mac is a step slow due to his gruelling semi against Mats. If only Mac had been training like Lendl :)

A lot of what you say is true....except that Lendl's best surface was hard courts by far. Lendl won forty of his 88 titles on hard courts. I don't know why everyone on this board keeps saying his best surface was clay.

Secondly, lendls best year may have been 85 ; however it was also coincidentally the beginning of the end for Mcenroe . He was going down fast! The combination of playing in a rock & roll touring band, snorting coke, and screwing Tatum proved too much and he was froced to quit tennis for a year. When he returned he found out that he was not the same Mcenroe anyomore. He had lost his service motion! In John Yandels book "Virtual Tennis" he talks about how Mcenroe lost 20 MPH on his serve and was forced to try and relearn his service motion through slow motion videotape. Unfortunately, his serve never truly came back and thus neither did his game. Lendl's success is due in large part to Mcenroe slide down hill. From 1977 to 1984 Mcenroe won seven grandslams and Lendl barely even won a single grandslam. The Mcenroe of 1984 was virtually unbeatable. The 1984 Mcenroe should have beaten lendl at the French. He was up two sets to love and had a commanding lead in the third; however, Mcenroes poor conditioning and low resistance to the hot sun proved to be just too much. He should have worked out and practiced because Lendl probably would have been toast for at least another 5 years.

Mcenroe passed the serve and volley torch on to younger players like becker and Edberg. Lets take a look at their records aginst Lendl. Becker beat lendl in 5 grand slams to one for Lendl. Becker beat Lendl at the US open and the Australian which was Lendls best surface.

Now lets take a look at Edberg, who continued to pick up where Mcenroe and Becker left off. Edberg beat Lendl 11-10 overall and was tied with grand slam wins 4-4. However what is very interesting is that he beat Lendl three times on hard courts at the US open twice, and the Australian once. Therefore, its safe to follow that Mcenroe at his peak would have done at least as well as Becker & Edberg and most probably even better!

Kevin Patrick
05-02-2005, 10:25 AM
Son, you have an unfortunate habit of twisting words in order to prove your point. I'm not defending Lendl for not playing Wimbledon in 1982, but you seem to think that one act defines his entire career(coward, no heart of a champion, etc.)

I remember Lendl not playing Wimbledon that year & that quote. I think it was said to the press, not the tournament(not sure if an excuse was required at that time) Considering Lendl's sense of humor, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a joke, he played the event from '79 to '81, so I don't think he thought people would honestly believe him.

This is what you intitially said:
"Ultimately, Lendl was a coward. He simply gave up even trying to win Wimbledon . He came up with a lame excuse that he was allergic to grass....the truth is that he is a semi-pro golfer and grass has never bothered him. Lendl did not have the heart of a champion...he just gave up."

In context of your entire post, you make it sound like Lendl had that attitude about Wimbledon his entire career, not just 1982, which you know isn't the case.

This is what Lendl said after the 1986 season(one of the best seasons in the Open era, he won both the French & the US Opens):

"If I could win Wimbledon & lose every match the rest of the year, I would take it."

Here's what he said after losing the '87 Wimbledon Final:
"I'm going to keep coming back here until I win it or die."

Still think Lendl is a quitter because he skipped Wimbledon once?

Jet Rink
05-02-2005, 11:51 AM
Kevin - you're dead on.

Lendl's comment about grass was made in a joking and facetious manner. I know, because I heard it myself. He had success on grass at the tuneups and played Wimbledon many times - but felt as if not winning was an albatross, of sorts.

Jet

35ft6
05-02-2005, 12:22 PM
Becker picked up where Mcenroe left off. While Wilander was Borg reincarnated. This argument is ridiculous. It's fine to use numbers discriminately to make your point, but to now use another player and their numbers to represent another player is interesting, I'll give you that, but it doesn't mean balls.

NOTE: you're negatively commenting on some dude's age, and I don't know how old you are, but this is clearly an instance where your age is working against you... 1. becker vs. Lendl.....Becker beat lendl 5-1 in grandslam events, Lendl's favorite surface was hard courts...which Becker beat him on. 3 of those victories on grass, the surface Lendl supposedly sucks on even though his record on it is better than Tim Henman's. And since we're throwing out arbitrary statistics, Lendl has a 100% winning record against Becker on clay, and has a 7-4 winning record against Boris on carpet. And an 11-10 winning record against him overall!!! The older guy prevails unless we're ruling out certain matches, and if we insist on staying on that path, well Lendl has a 7-3 edge against McEnroe in the Grand Slams.Becker is living proof of what Mcenroe would have done to Lendl had he still been in his prime. Becker simply continued where Mcenroe left off. Dude, this is absolutely ridiculous. Becker and McEnroe's games were very much different. But if you're really in the mood to bend over backwards and perform mental acrobatics, feel free to fabricate a similarity between these two.In any event my only point was that the younger player always edges out the younger player in head to head competition. Although Lendl lead becker 11-10 all around.....Becker had the edge in grandslams 5-1! The younger player wins again! See above. Ridiculous. Lendl had a 11-10 winning record, and a 4-3 edge in the 90's, and even won their last two matches. Becker owned Ivan for a while in the late 80's, winning 5 matches in a row, four of them on fast surfaces, 2 on grass.2/. Actually wilander is living proof that Borg would have destroyed Lendl. Lendl has 15 - 7 winning edge, so even if I take 4 ****** pills and suddenly agree that Wilander somehow completely represents Borg, your point still doesn't stand. Lendl has a 5 - 4 in Grand Slams, too, so there goes the younger guy always wins argument.

Aside from that, at least in a few of their matches, Wilander played some intelligent to the point of sheer tennis genius all-court matches that I don't think Borg could have ever come close to approximating. Yes, they were both Swedes with two-handed backhands and steady baseline games, but steady tennis wouldn't have gotten it done in 1988 against Lendl in the US Open. I think you're trivializing Wilander's unique claim to greatness by implying that Borg could have done the same. Remember, Borg never won a US Open, and Lendl is the most consistently excellent US Open player of the modern era.Wilander was ranked #1 in the world in 1988 and won three out of four grand slams that year. Wilander was also shockingly 4 years older than Lendl. He had a losing record against the younger Lendl but in 1988 he owned Lendl. Wilander was 4 years YOUNGER....and Borg was a far better player than Wilander although they both played very similarly. See above. Saying Borg played like Wilander (of 88) is like saying Bruguera played like Escude.Therefore if Borg had not retired at only 26 ...Lendl would have been destroyed mentally and physically. Insane.

But anyway, here's some good stuff (http://www.1stserve.com/legacy.asp) on Lendl: The first time I heard the name Ivan Lendl was in 1979, during the US Open, my favorite tennis hero of the time, Bjorn Borg was being interviewed after an early round win, the announcer asked him who he thought is a new up and coming star that we should be looking out for, without hesitation, the tennis God of the time said, "Ivan Lendl, he's very good and will get even better". That year Ivan lost in the 2nd round to the hard serving Roscoe Tanner in straight sets. I Wonder if Bjorn knew the extent that Ivan would later dominate the tournament that he tried so hard to win and never did. No other player in the Open era has dominated the US Open like Ivan Lendl.

...

At 6'2" 175lbs, he was the prototype of the modern tennis player, he was not going to pushed around.

Bjorn Borg never had an easy match, his style of play did not allow him to take the initiative, with Ivan the approach was, if you're not going to hit it, I will, as a matter of fact, I'm going to hit it no matter what you do.

Look at the men's a game, and to some extent, the women's game, what you will see are players, using the above formula perfected* by Ivan Lendl to earn millions of dollars and entertain* fans all over the world.

Next time you see Pete Sampras (whom Lendl took under his wing and spent time observing and learning how to be a champion at Ivan's home) hit his famous patented running cross-court monster forehand, think of Ivan he did it first and intimidated anyone standing across the net. - Approach with caution!

Next time you hear how fit Jim Courier & Thomas Muster used to be (two players whom Lendl has a 9-1 record against) keep in mind that they were following the example of the innovator of tennis fitness. Let's not forget Andre Agassi, whom Lendl called "A forehand and a haircut" during Andre's coming out year, he is now number one and the fittest tennis player on the planet but he too is following in the footstep of Ivan Lendl. To be a champion, one must work harder than work itself.

...

Next time you see players changing racquets during ball changes, next time you see racquets being delivered in plastic bags, next time you hear of players having their own personal stringers, next time you hear how precise each racquet is customized, think of Ivan Lendl, he started the whole thing, which at the time fed the fuel of him being called a machine, but instead he was well on his way to being the first true professional tennis player the world had ever seen. Lendl is the most Under-appreciated player of all times.

The Pusher Terminator
05-02-2005, 02:09 PM
3526,

Your reply is all ovr the place. You need to make it shorter and to the point. There were only two comments worth replying to:

A) Becker , Edberg and Mcenroe do have similar games in that they are serve and volleyers. Therefore, following that line of logic it is fair to compare these players.

B) Lendl is NOT the most unappreciated player, for several reasons:

1. Wilander is far less apreciated. Did you Know that mats was able to win the French, The US, and the Australian all in the same year! He was also ranked #1 that year and has 7 grand slams under his belt.

2. Lendl could not contend with Mcenroe, Connors or Borg at the height of their careers as far as grandslams. In fact it was not until 1984 that he finally lucked out and won the French...mcenroe had already won 7 grandslams by that time! In 1984 Mcenroe & Lendls head to head record were Mac..6...Lendl 1 (and was his lucky to win at the French that ). You go try snorting some coke, screw tatum and play in a rock and roll band and then go out and play some tennis.
.
3. Lendl showed that he was a coward when he said that he could not play Wimbledon because he was allergic to grass.

4. You are kind of right about my younger guy always wins argument failing. But it depends how you look at it. Wilander has beaten Lendl 5-4 in grand slam matches...mostly in Finals. I would rather have more grand slam wins than measly small tournaments. So the younger guy winning the head to head matches still holds true if you only count grand slams. Becker had 6-1 grand slam record against lendl and an all round loss of 11-10. But I wopuld rather be in beckers shoes! All tournaments are not created equal! Grand slams are worth more.

35ft6
05-02-2005, 03:01 PM
3526,

Your reply is all ovr the place. You need to make it shorter and to the point. Actually, I'm pretty sure my word count is less than that of your above replay. It's just that I'm quoting your post to address stuff point by point.A) Becker , Edberg and Mcenroe do have similar games in that they are serve and volleyers. Therefore, following that line of logic it is fair to compare these players. No, that logic doesn't stand any more than saying Lendl, Agassi, and Safin all have the same game in that they're baseliners. McEnroe was finesse... Becker was power... Edberg was serve and volley... Becker more of an all court player... and so on.B) Lendl is NOT the most unappreciated player, for several reasons:

1. Wilander is far less apreciated. Did you Know that mats was able to win the French, The US, and the Australian all in the same year! Yes, I knew that, and this is a fair statement. But you talking up Wilander while talking down Lendl is case in point in favor of my argument.2. Lendl could not contend with Mcenroe, Connors or Borg at the height of their careers as far as grandslams. You're being very arbitrary with that "height of careers" comment. Connors is 8 years older than Lendl. When Connors was at his peak, Lendl was still in his formative years. It would be equally unfair to say Connors couldn't hang with Lendl when Lendl was at his peak. From 1984 on, Lendl never lost to Connors again, beating him 14 consecutive over a span of 8 years. Overall, Lendl leads 22 - 13. You are continuously disregarding statistics and whole years in order to make your case. It would sort of be like me saying "if you don't count the first four games, and the last eight, I won the match."In fact it was not until 1984 that he finally lucked out and won the French...mcenroe had already won 7 grandslams by that time! Yeah, so McEnroe hit his peak earlier. If Lendl got lucky, then it's the most incredible string of luck ever because he really started kicking ash after that. And if McEnroe was conversely UNlucky in that match, his BAd luck was equal to Lendl's GOOD luck because he never won a French, and I don't think he ever even reached another French final. It's hard to argue "luck" when a pattern emerges. Usually people consider things as being "luck" when it's isolated, with no precedent or follow up. You're redefining the term.In 1984 Mcenroe & Lendls head to head record were Mac..6...Lendl 1 (and was his lucky to win at the French that ). Yeah, Mac had a magical year that year. Clearly better than Lendl then. See, to me it's not an all or nothing proposition.You go try snorting some coke, screw tatum and play in a rock and roll band and then go out and play some tennis. I'd like to do the screw Tatum part. Well, maybe not. She's old now.3. Lendl showed that he was a coward when he said that he could not play Wimbledon because he was allergic to grass. I can see why he would say this, and he's not the only player who says this. There are still players today who think grass court tennis is a waste of time. It really is an anomaly. If Lendl is a coward, than so is Agassi and Safin.LONDON -- Volatile Russian Marat Safin said he has had enough of Wimbledon after he was knocked out in the first round by compatriot Dmitry Tursunov on Tuesday.

"I give up on Wimbledon," said the former world No. 1 after his 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 7-6 (7-1) defeat. "It is definitely not the tournament for me. I give up on spending time on these courts. I give up on practicing before the tournament." But after making that comment, Lendl went on to carve out one of the best records on grass in the open era.4. You are kind of right about my younger guy always wins argument failing. But it depends how you look at it. Wilander has beaten Lendl 5-4 in grand slam matches...mostly in Finals.Okay, this is interesting. You're WRONG, you see, it's Lendl that has the 5-4 edge. Now, presented with this new info, I'm pretty sure you're still going to stick to your original point. Because it seems like you don't really care what the evidence is. You being with a feeling then go out of your way to make the evidence fit your pre-determined conclusion instead of the other way around.I would rather have more grand slam wins than measly small tournaments. So the younger guy winning the head to head matches still holds true if you only count grand slams. Becker had 6-1 grand slam record against lendl and an all round loss of 11-10. But I wopuld rather be in beckers shoes! All tournaments are not created equal! Grand slams are worth more. Then Lendl is better than Wilander, and you just said it yourself. He leads 5-4. Look it up.

You're right that Becker outperformed Lendl in their Grand Slam match ups, though.

The Pusher Terminator
05-02-2005, 06:56 PM
35ft6

1. How do you do that Quote thing. Its really bothersome....but I can see its usefulness.

2. Actually it is fair to say that Agassi and lendl at least are similar. I think it is very logical to say that Edberg , Becker and Mcenroe are serve and volleyers. Of course they were not exactly the same , but they were all serve and volleyrs and used the same strategy. Therefore, following that line of logic, it is fair to say that Mcenroe passed the torch to these younger serve and volleyrs. Just because one had more power than the other doesn't change the fact that they all played a similar style of game. Mcenroe, for example was not all finesse as you say....he had a huge serve and he was a lefty to boot. They all used the serve as their approach shots and used the volley as a put away. Their serves may have differed but it was always the same result...big serve ...followed by a great volley. I am right on this point dude ...just give it to me.

3. The undeniable fact however is that Lendl simply could not win a grand slam during the glory years of Borg, Mcenroe, Connors...(Except of course Lendl's Lucky win at the french in 84...Borg had retired as well by 84). Anything after 1984 simply doesnt matter....these guys were worn out by then!~ Do i really need to bring up Mcenroes sex drugs and rock and roll argument again? Furthermore Borg had long since retired and Connors was a grandpa. By 1984 Borg,Mcenroe , Connors had reached the sunset of their careers by 1984.....Lendl simply outlasted them due to superior training. But while these guys were hot, Lendl didnt do very much at all.

4. come on ! Lendl saying he was skipping Wimbledon because he was allergic to grass was pathetic. If you continue to defend him on this then its obvious that you are not looking at this situation fairly and that you are simply a blind Lendl fan. Safin's statement was truthful, and I actually respect that...lendl on the other hand was a liar.

5. I actually read the Wilander and Lendl record incorrectly. i thought Wilander lead in the grandslam matchups 5-4. I will have to look it up and recount; however, if what you are saying is true then I stand corrected. Bravo.

6. Finally, we have forgotten what this post is all about. Its about why is Mcenroe regarded higher than Lendl and not whether Lendl was a great player. Lendl absolutely was one of the greatest players of all time....he just wasn't better than Mcenroe or more exciting. Lendl seemed like Darth Vader on the courts. There was always something very dark about him. Furthermore he worked like a dog while Mcenroe partied it up big time. Mcenroe simply had more raw talent and was able to win Wimbledon the grand slam of tennis. If you can't win Wimbledon then you will never be in the class of the top elite players IMO. Borg, Mcenroe, Connors will always be regarded above Lendl because Lendl just could not win Wimbledon.

Datacipher
05-02-2005, 07:28 PM
4. come on ! Lendl saying he was skipping Wimbledon because he was allergic to grass was pathetic. If you continue to defend him on this then its obvious that you are not looking at this situation fairly and that you are simply a blind Lendl fan. Safin's statement was truthful, and I actually respect that...lendl on the other hand was a liar.
.

Pusher, I really think you're going off the deep end on this point. I like others, remember Lendl as saying that silly statement as a pseudo-jest. It's nonsensical, Lendl would probably say, if you believe that then you deserve to be lied to! If Lendl really wanted to lie, he could have simply manufactured an injury like all the other players do, or any number of other plausible excuses. If he really wanted to trick people, he wouldn't say something so outrageous.

A similar situation was Agassi not playing because "they wouldn't let me wear my clothes..". Some of the media played that angle up and turned it into a bit of an urban legend but most didn't believe him, I never saw Agassi say it with a straight face, I did see him say it slyly with a smile a few times and when further pushed say he actually just needed a rest after the clay court season and more training time. The "resting" excuse was actually meant to be serious and was a lie, which Agassi has subsequently admitted and Bollettieri has verified. He didn't play because he was afraid of the grass. He didn't play for 3 years!

If you want to judge Lendl so negatively for this one year skip(which I agree is terrible, but not in the grand scheme of his entire career), remember Agassi and many other clay courters have done much worse than Lendl's 1 year skip.

West Coast Ace
05-02-2005, 08:58 PM
Pusher, I really think you're going off the deep end on this point. I like others, remember Lendl as saying that silly statement as a pseudo-jest. It's nonsensical, Lendl would probably say, if you believe that then you deserve to be lied to! If Lendl really wanted to lie, he could have simply manufactured an injury like all the other players do, or any number of other plausible excuses. If he really wanted to trick people, he wouldn't say something so outrageous.

A similar situation was Agassi not playing because "they wouldn't let me wear my clothes..". Some of the media played that angle up and turned it into a bit of an urban legend but most didn't believe him, I never saw Agassi say it with a straight face, I did see him say it slyly with a smile a few times and when further pushed say he actually just needed a rest after the clay court season and more training time. The "resting" excuse was actually meant to be serious and was a lie, which Agassi has subsequently admitted and Bollettieri has verified. He didn't play because he was afraid of the grass. He didn't play for 3 years!

If you want to judge Lendl so negatively for this one year skip(which I agree is terrible, but not in the grand scheme of his entire career), remember Agassi and many other clay courters have done much worse than Lendl's 1 year skip.Datacipher, I'll back you up on this - Lendl was just being ridiculous and no one could take that comment seriously. And I'm by no means a huge Lendl fan - although I respect the way he got over the hump against JMac in Paris, made it to and stayed at #1 for a while, and definitely got the most out of his abilities.

Agassi also said he didn't like the Spring/Early Summers in Europe because "they don't have Taco Bells." Too bad he didn't meet Gil Reyes about 6 years earlier. He'd probably have a few more Slam trophies.

Arafel
05-02-2005, 09:15 PM
<Lendl is the most consistently excellent US Open player of the modern era.>

Actually, I think Connors is the most consistently excellent US Open player of the modern era. He won the tournament on three different surfaces, 5 times overall, and lost in the finals in 75 and 77. Between 74 and 83, Connors played in 7 finals in 10 years, winning 5. He also almost made the final in 80, losing a heartbreaker of a fifth set tiebreaker to McEnroe, who went on to beat Borg. I think if Connors wins that tiebreak, he takes Borg in the final. But winning on 3 different surfaces it what really sets Connors apart: grass in 74, clay in 76 (over the great clay courter Borg), and hard courts in 78, 82 and 83.

The whole Lendl grass thing is being overblown. If you want to argue about Lendl being a coward, the best argument is the 80 masters, where he tanked a match to Connors at the end of the round robin so he wouldn't have to play Borg, who had been upset in one match in the other round robin, in the semis, leaving that task to Connors.

Also, the way he gave up in the fourth set of the 83 US Open final to Connors was criminal. It was so bad that fans were outright booing and heckling him.

The grass thing at Wimbledon was one year, was probably a joke, and to Lendl's credit he really did everything he could after that to win it. However, his game just wasn't enough to overcome the great grass court players like McEnroe, Edberg and Becker.

35ft6
05-03-2005, 02:14 AM
35ft6

1. How do you do that Quote thing. Its really bothersome....but I can see its usefulness. Look for "vB code is ON" and click on it. It'll explain everything you need to know.2. Actually it is fair to say that Agassi and lendl at least are similar. I think it is very logical to say that Edberg , Becker and Mcenroe are serve and volleyers. So Mirnyi and Dent has the same game as McEnroe, too? And Rafter played like Becker? Come on.Therefore, following that line of logic, it is fair to say that Mcenroe passed the torch to these younger serve and volleyrs. That's an incredibly subjective interpretation. I would understand your point a bit more if Mac actually mentored either of these two.Just because one had more power than the other doesn't change the fact that they all played a similar style of game. Mcenroe, for example was not all finesse as you say....he had a huge serve and he was a lefty to boot. I don't know if his serve was considered huge in the late 70's, but his serve wasn't considered huge in the 80's. Becker and Lendl had huge serves, Mac's forte was incredible placement, variety, and using his left handed-ness to maximum advantage.

Another difference: Mac, especially early on, could actually hang with almost anybody from the baseline, which wasn't necessarily true of Edberg. I actually think this is why Mac's play went downhill, because for a while he could outplay anybody from just about anywhere, but as baseliners quickly became more powerful, he couldn't match them shot for shot from the baseline anymore. Also, I don't consider Becker a true serve and volleyer. An all court player for sure.Their serves may have differed but it was always the same result...big serve ...followed by a great volley. I am right on this point dude ...just give it to me. Mac and Edberg didn't have big serves, but they were pure serve and volleyers. Becker had a huge serve, and came to the net to put away easy volleys, but his volleys were nowhere near Edberg or Mac level. His technique was actually pretty suspect. He tended to slice his backhand volleys way too much and I think he may have actually used an eastern forehand grip on his forehand volleys.

Anyway, your attempt to "prove" that Mac was better than Lendl by designating Becker and Edberg as updates of Mac isn't holding water with me.3. The undeniable fact however is that Lendl simply could not win a grand slam during the glory years of Borg, Mcenroe, Connors...(Except of course Lendl's Lucky win at the french in 84...Borg had retired as well by 84). Anything after 1984 simply doesnt matter... Then let's not extend this all the way to Sampras, too. It's so arbitrary, why not!? Sampras would not have won any Grand Slams if Borg, McEnroe, and Connors were still kicking butt.

On one hand, you say it's "undeniable" that Lendl couldn't win a big one when these 3 were on top, but then you say everything after 1984 "simply doesn't matter." Do you see how intellectually dishonest this is? If the records don't lie before 1984, if it's "undeniable," then why do the records suddenly become deniable and up for interpretation AFTER 1984?Do i really need to bring up Mcenroes sex drugs and rock and roll argument again? You give Lendl such a hard time for cracking a joke about being allergic to grass, and yet you use McEnroe's sex, drugs, and rock and roll ways in his defense. Even for a tennis message board your inconsistency is exceptional.Lendl simply outlasted them due to superior training. But while these guys were hot, Lendl didnt do very much at all. Talk about coward, Borg retires in 1982 arguably because he couldn't win the US Open. Lendl is 4 years younger than Borg, and 8 years younger than Connors. 4 years is a generation in tennis (e.g. you can say Nadal is the next generation after Roddick...), it wasn't simply superior training, he was just plain younger. Same thing with Becker and Sampras. You can't fault Sampras for not having been younger, as if he was ducking Becker by not jumping out of his dad's ###s sooner and jumping into his mom's egg.4. come on ! Lendl saying he was skipping Wimbledon because he was allergic to grass was pathetic. If you continue to defend him on this then its obvious that you are not looking at this situation fairly and that you are simply a blind Lendl fan. Safin's statement was truthful, and I actually respect that...lendl on the other hand was a liar. First, how do you feel about Agassi's dress code statement.

If Lendl said that about grass and never played on grass again, I would totally agree with you. But that's not what he did. You have the unforunate habit of being willfully ignorant, intentionally denying the existence of things that run counter to your preconceived notions. After making that comment, Lendl embarked on arguably the most courageous quest in tennis history, doing everything in his power to win the Wimbledon, a tournament played on a surface that rewarded everything Lendl's game was naturally not about.

Who's the real coward? Lendl failed early on but then took it upon himself to dedicate his life, to work harder, in order to contend on grass, eventually ending his career with one of the best records on grass in the Open era. Mac never had to work hard, and when his natural talent wasn't enough to keep on him top in a ATP tour that was becoming more powerful and athletic by the week, he simply gave up. That's the definition of a coward right there, giving up. Lendl fought back, harder than anybody else in tennis, and in my mind, and in the mind of most reasonable people, the person who reacts to adversity by trying harder, fighting back, by refusing to conceded to nature, is the hero, not the coward. The coward is the person, like Mac, who gives up.

Put another way, lets say that in a 10 years you have a son, and one day the son says he's allergic to chlorine because he's afraid of swimming. So maybe he'll never swim for the rest of his life, and will always be making excuses at the beach or whenever he's near a pool. OR maybe he realizes he's being a chicken and teach himself to swim, forcing himself to overcome his fears, and lets say he goes on to become a star swimmer in high school. If you persist on calling your son a coward at that point, you'd be considered a nut by most people.

I think after his losing at the US Open in 91, Sampras expressed what a relief it was not being defending champion any more. If we never won another Grand Slam again, Sampras could rightfully be accused of being a coward. But he, like Lendl, went on to do great things. Everybody makes mistakes. You shouldn't judge people by their mistakes, but by how they respond to their mistakes. In the case of Lendl and Sampras, I don't think they could have responded any more spectacularly.6. Finally, we have forgotten what this post is all about. Its about why is Mcenroe regarded higher than Lendl and not whether Lendl was a great player. Lendl absolutely was one of the greatest players of all time....he just wasn't better than Mcenroe or more exciting. Lendl seemed like Darth Vader on the courts. There was always something very dark about him. The dark and darth vader comments are completely irrelevant. This is a tennis contest, not a personality one.Furthermore he worked like a dog while Mcenroe partied it up big time. And that makes him lesser how...? By this logic Safin and Phillipousis are way better than Courier, Agassi, and Sampras, because as they were partying and banging hot chicks, the latter three losers were working on their games.Mcenroe simply had more raw talent and was able to win Wimbledon the grand slam of tennis. Mac certainly had more talent. And I've never heard Wimbledon be described as "the" grand slam of tennis. Interesting.If you can't win Wimbledon then you will never be in the class of the top elite players IMO. Borg, Mcenroe, Connors will always be regarded above Lendl because Lendl just could not win Wimbledon.Borg never won the US Open, and Sampras never won the French. And how about Kraijceck, Stich, and Pat Cash, are they all greater than Lendl, too? To me, I don't give a poop about the appeal to tradition argument, and I consider hard and clay courts way more indicative of true greatness in the modern game. Lendl's record speaks for itself.He was ranked No. 1 in the world for 270 weeks, including 157 straight from September 9, 1985 through September 12, 1988, just three weeks short of Jimmy Connors' all-time record. Lendl is the holder of 94 career singles titles, including his 1980 feat, winning three tournaments in successive weeks on three different surfaces.

35ft6
05-03-2005, 02:25 AM
<Lendl is the most consistently excellent US Open player of the modern era.>

Actually, I think Connors is the most consistently excellent US Open player of the modern era. There's a reason why I said "consistently excellent" instead of "greatest" or "most successful." Semantics. Still, you're probably right about Connors. I was factoring in Lendl's amazing at least the semi's run there.

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 03:48 AM
Pusher, I really think you're going off the deep end on this point. I like others, remember Lendl as saying that silly statement as a pseudo-jest. It's nonsensical, Lendl would probably say, if you believe that then you deserve to be lied to! If Lendl really wanted to lie, he could have simply manufactured an injury like all the other players do, or any number of other plausible excuses. If he really wanted to trick people, he wouldn't say something so outrageous.

A similar situation was Agassi not playing because "they wouldn't let me wear my clothes..". Some of the media played that angle up and turned it into a bit of an urban legend but most didn't believe him, I never saw Agassi say it with a straight face, I did see him say it slyly with a smile a few times and when further pushed say he actually just needed a rest after the clay court season and more training time. The "resting" excuse was actually meant to be serious and was a lie, which Agassi has subsequently admitted and Bollettieri has verified. He didn't play because he was afraid of the grass. He didn't play for 3 years!

If you want to judge Lendl so negatively for this one year skip(which I agree is terrible, but not in the grand scheme of his entire career), remember Agassi and many other clay courters have done much worse than Lendl's 1 year skip.


I don't blame Lendl for skipping...I blame him for lying...and that was no joke, he was very serious. Do you think sayig you are allergic to grass is funny?...I am still in stiches laughing my brains out ...ho ho ho...ha ha ha hee hee he.

If you want to raise an Agassi example, I've got a better one. remeber when he staged his "fall down on his knees after winning Wimbedon"....They showed Bolleteri in the crowd giving him hand gestures on how to celebrate. That was equally dishonest as Lendl.

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 04:37 AM
1. Thanks for the Vb code is on pointer...but where is the vb code?

2. No Dent and Myrinyi are not the same as Mcenroe. They are inferior to him. Since becker, Edberg, and Mac all employed serve and volley against Lendl I think it is fair to compare them and to deduce that Mcenroe passed the "Serve and volley" torch on to these younger players. Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant ...who made you the judge? In any event it is a logical argument: The younger serve and volleyers (Becker & Edberg) picked up where the older one left off (Mcenroe). Did they all play exactly the same ...of course not!!!! But they all employed the same strategy to beat Lendl.

3. Lendls record against Mac after 1984 is irrelevant because he was no longer playing against the "real" Mac! He was , by that time a shadow of his former self. You simply ignore Yandels book visual tennis...."MCENROE LOST 20 MILES ON HIS SERVE!!! He had to relearn how to serve again!!!

4. Again a fact is a fact...lendl could do nothing against Borg,Mac, Connors prior to 1984. During that period he barely even had one grand slam. Your arguiment that lendl was younger than Borg and Connors doesnt hold water because this debate is about Mac Vs. lendl. There is one year seprating these two players....where was Lendl when mac won seven grand slams? I will tell you where....he was getting his butt kicked.

5. lendl seeming like darth Vader is very relevant. He was very dark with no personality and so was his game....it was one dimensional,and robotic. This is just one more reason why Mac is regarded as a better player.

5. Mac was honest about why he gave up...Lendl was a liar.

6. Lendl is one of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet. You will not get an argument from me. But he never won Wimbledon....and quite frankly he did not have the variety and raw talent that Mac had. This is the reason that Mcenroe is placed on a higher plane than LendL.

35ft6
05-03-2005, 05:18 AM
2. No Dent and Myrinyi are not the same as Mcenroe. They are inferior to him. Since becker, Edberg, and Mac all employed serve and volley against Lendl I think it is fair to compare them and to deduce that Mcenroe passed the "Serve and volley" torch on to these younger players. Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant ...who made you the judge? If it's irrelevant than why are you trying to convince me? And the "who made you judge is" comment is possibly the most pathetic one you've made yet, which is saying a lot.In any event it is a logical argument: The younger serve and volleyers (Becker & Edberg) picked up where the older one left off (Mcenroe). Did they all play exactly the same ...of course not!!!! But they all employed the same strategy to beat Lendl. Lendl versus Edberg 14-15. Lendl versus Becker 11-10. Lendl versus Mac 21-15. Overall, Lendl leads 46-40. Yes, they beat Lendl, but don't forget that Lendl beat them.3. Lendls record against Mac after 1984 is irrelevant because he was no longer playing against the "real" Mac! He was , by that time a shadow of his former self. You simply ignore Yandels book visual tennis...."MCENROE LOST 20 MILES ON HIS SERVE!!! He had to relearn how to serve again!!! And before 1984 it doesn't count because Lendl wasn't as fit... or hadn't conquered choking... or because he simply hadn't hit his stride yet. Two can play this game.

Perhaps he was only a shadow of his former self relative to Lendl's newfound brilliance?

BTW, before 1985, Mac leads 12-9. It's not like he exactly dominated. 1985 and on, Lendl leads 12-3. So like an astute poster already stated, during the years Mac was better, he was only better by a slim margin, but during the years Lendl was better, the difference was VAST.4. Again a fact is a fact...lendl could do nothing against Borg,Mac, Connors prior to 1984. Here's an interesting fact: Lendl beat Mac 7 times in a row during 1981-82. Some more facts: 1984 and pre-1984, Lendl against Connors is 7-13. After 1984, Lendl is 15-0. He loses 4 sets to Connors in 15 meetings spanning 8 years.

Does that mean Connors suddenly sucked? No, it meant he was getting older and the next young great was just getting his act together. It happens to everybody. All players' records are generally weaker in the beginning (when they're getting used to playing ATP level...) and at the end (when age, injuries, and maybe even apathy starts taking their toll..). I take nothing away from Lendl for losing a lot to Connors at the beginning of his career, just as I take nothing away from Jimmy to losing to Ivan at the end of his career.During that period he barely even had one grand slam. So what? You're making such a strange argument. On one hand, you're saying Mac, Connors, and Borg were freakin' incredibly great, yet you rip on Lendl for losing to them? You can't have it both ways. They were either great, in which case Lendl can't be faulted (for losing to players who he would completely OWN once he found his game...), or they SUCK, in which case you could put down Lendl for losing to scrubs. But you can't have both.Your arguiment that lendl was younger than Borg and Connors doesnt hold water because this debate is about Mac Vs. lendl. I can go back and find numerous instances of you bringing up Borg, Connors, and Mac, but I'm going to save time and request that you simply look up at what your wrote a few sentences earlier. Dude, you've gotta take your medication.There is one year seprating these two players....where was Lendl when mac won seven grand slams? I will tell you where....he was getting his butt kicked. Haha. And where was Mac when Lendl won his 8 Slams?5. lendl seeming like darth Vader is very relevant. He was very dark with no personality and so was his game....it was one dimensional,and robotic. This is just one more reason why Mac is regarded as a better player. Who cares? Sampras was equally robotic on court and nobody begrudges him for that. If you really don't see how Lendl's personality doesn't mean jack, then send me a private message, because there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.5. Mac was honest about why he gave up...Lendl was a liar. Please. Read You Can't Be Serious. McEnroe is a pathological truth stretcher. The dude has an excuse for almost every major match he's lost.6. Lendl is one of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet. You will not get an argument from me. But he never won Wimbledon....and quite frankly he did not have the variety and raw talent that Mac had. True, true, and true.This is the reason that Mcenroe is placed on a higher plane than LendL. By you. And I'm sure by a lot of other people. Mac was a singular genius, no doubt. I like watching him play. I've had the pleasure of watching him play and practice several times in Queens at a club I used to be asked to come play at with the tougher players.

Dude, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being unreasonable because you've simply decided, consciously or unconsciously, that you're not going to budge an inch, that claiming to be right to you is the same as actually being right. And I'm also assuming, to your benefit, that you're 17 or younger. We're just repeating ourselves at this point. You're amusing, I'll give you that as well. :mrgreen:

Brettolius
05-03-2005, 05:25 AM
amusing? infuriating is more like it! but that's all this dude's posts. well done 35ft6. you can really only prove someone so wrong in so many different ways, and if they continue to be obstinate,well then...what can ya' do?

35ft6
05-03-2005, 05:33 AM
you can really only prove someone so wrong in so many different ways, and if they continue to be obstinate,well then...what ca ya' do? Hahaha. So true. On the internet, running into a person who's willing to change their stance on anything is like having a bigfoot sighting. But if I can't convince a person that evolution is not "just a theory," I don't see why I'd ever hope to convince a person of anything. (apologies to any creationists here) ;)

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 06:50 AM
Prior to 1984 did Lendl have a different game? Did he do anything differently? He had the same boring one dimensional game his entire career.

Now lets take a look at mcenroe....the man lost 20 mph on his serve alone after 1984! You yourself have already admitted that Mcenroes game went downhill after 1984. Is it really fair to compare a worn out and tired player like Mac to one the is fit and robust? You live Mcenroes lifestyle and see how well you can hold up!

In 1984 Mcenroe beat Lendl 6-1. Lendls only win came at the French open final on clay in five sets.

Here is what we have all agreed on:

1. Mcenroe dominated Lendl from 1977- 1984.

2. Mcenroes game deteriorated after 1984.

Therefore, for these reasons it is safe to say that Mcenroe at the height of his career was the better player.

Furthermore...I have also watched mcenroe and I have actually hit with him.. The Queens club you refer to is the Tennisport.

Finally thank you for finally admiting that Mac was the superior player:

"Lendl is one of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet. You will not get an argument from me. But he never won Wimbledon....and quite frankly he did not have the variety and raw talent that Mac had. "...pusherterminator

"True, true, and true."...32ftL

Game set and match...Mr terminator.

Brettolius
05-03-2005, 07:11 AM
i wish i were you. i would just deny any and all problems with the world, and i would ALWAYS be right! sounds like paradise. never has the saying "ignorance is bliss" rang more true!

35ft6
05-03-2005, 07:48 AM
Prior to 1984 did Lendl have a different game? Did he do anything differently? He had the same boring one dimensional game his entire career. What does this have to do with anything? Most players play the same way throughout their whole careers. Lendl may have always played the same way, but he took it up to a whole new level. That's the way it goes. In fact, Lendl probably went through a more profound metamorphosis than most players in that he forced himself to serve and volley on every point at Wimbledon, even though it was completely unnatural to him.Now lets take a look at mcenroe....the man lost 20 mph on his serve alone after 1984! Links please.You yourself have already admitted that Mcenroes game went downhill after 1984. I've never said this. And if I have, you only have to cut and paste it.Is it really fair to compare a worn out and tired player like Mac to one the is fit and robust? You live Mcenroes lifestyle and see how well you can hold up! I remember Mac getting into the best shape of his life during his comeback, and not really doing much. I think you're putting the cart before the horse, son. You seem to believe that only when Mac was winning was he at his best, discounting all his losses. You refuse to consider the possibility that Mac was still good post 1985 but that others just overtook him.In 1984 Mcenroe beat Lendl 6-1. Lendls only win came at the French open final on clay in five sets. I'll try one of your techniques: no, see, Lendl had cancer that year... chemo was making him weak, but he kept playing because he didn't want to alarm his accountant.Here is what we have all agreed on:

1. Mcenroe dominated Lendl from 1977- 1984.

2. Mcenroes game deteriorated after 1984. I thought you were dishonest before, but now I'm beginning to think you're just dumb. Okay, you win pity points. Show me where I said Mac got worse after 1984.

2 should actually read: 2. Lendl owned Mac from 1985 - present.Therefore, for these reasons it is safe to say that Mcenroe at the height of his career was the better player. Maybe, maybe not. If we pretended you didn't write anything else except that -- that Mac at his best was better than Lendl at his best -- your point would be understandable.Furthermore...I have also watched mcenroe and I have actually hit with him.. The Queens club you refer to is the Tennisport. Yup. Nice place.Finally thank you for finally admiting that Mac was the superior player:

"Lendl is one of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet. You will not get an argument from me. But he never won Wimbledon....and quite frankly he did not have the variety and raw talent that Mac had. "...pusherterminator

"True, true, and true."...32ftL No, Lendl doesn't have the variety and raw talent of Mac, but I never said he was a better player. At this point I'm responding not to point out your dishonesty but in hopes of educating you, since I no longer believe you understand what you're writing.

Let's put it this way: Arazi has more talent than Roddick... Escude has more talent than Hewitt... Rios had more talent than just about everyone... I'm admitting that Mac was supremely talented, but unfortunately in sports talent isn't everything. In fact, having too much talent can actually hurt you. See: Xavier Malisse. And Agassi before he met Brad.

So Lendl may not have been as talented as Mac, but arguably nobody was or has been since. Sampras wasn't, but I definitely think Pete is the greater player. And Lendl IMO is slightly the greater player. Not the more talented, but greater in terms of accomplishment.

It's like that scene in Indiana Jones were the flashy swordsman starts spinning his sword around, showing off his martial skills, only to have Indiana shoot him dead with a gun. Mac could do some crazy stuff with his Dunlop, but Lendl just physically overpowered him.

Tennis magazine is counting down the 40 greatest players of the Open era. Should be interesting to see how they place these two. Could go either way.

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 08:20 AM
1. for I believe the third time about Mcenroe losing 20 mph on his serve: Please read John Yandels book "visual tennis". John Yandel had to video tape mcenroes service motion to try and get him back to where he was in 1984. Please stop ignoring this.

2. I have never made one single verbal attack against you personally. Not one! I guess when you get beat and frustrated in an argument you must resort to personal attacks. Its so sad...but at least I know that I have won.

3. Yes you did admit that Mcenroes play went downhill. read it and weep (without calling me stupid please):

"I actually think this is why Mac's play went downhill, because for a while he could outplay anybody from just about anywhere"

4. finally , please stop nitpicking on semantics. You admitted that mac is better. Stop crying about it and just admit that you lost. Do I predict another verbal attack because you can't respond intelligently??...umm....yes I do!! Now just for all you new viewers out there here was the finishing blow to this string:


"Lendl is one of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet. You will not get an argument from me. But he never won Wimbledon....and quite frankly he did not have the variety and raw talent that Mac had. "...pusherterminator

"True, true, and true."...32ftL

Game set and match...Mr terminator.

35ft6
05-03-2005, 08:51 AM
1. for I believe the third time about Mcenroe losing 20 mph on his serve: Please read John Yandels book "visual tennis". John Yandel had to video tape mcenroes service motion to try and get him back to where he was in 1984. Please stop ignoring this. I'll take your word for it.2. I have never made one single verbal attack against you personally. Not one! I guess when you get beat and frustrated in an argument you must resort to personal attacks. Its so sad...but at least I know that I have won. I apologize. I do think your thinking if fuzzy but oh well...3. Yes you did admit that Mcenroes play went downhill. read it and weep (without calling me stupid please):

"I actually think this is why Mac's play went downhill, because for a while he could outplay anybody from just about anywhere" Here's my entire statment: Another difference: Mac, especially early on, could actually hang with almost anybody from the baseline, which wasn't necessarily true of Edberg. I actually think this is why Mac's play went downhill, because for a while he could outplay anybody from just about anywhere, but as baseliners quickly became more powerful, he couldn't match them shot for shot from the baseline anymore. I think it's pretty clear that what I meant was HE didn't get worse, it's just that OTHERS got better.4. finally , please stop nitpicking on semantics. You admitted that mac is better. Stop crying about it and just admit that you lost. Do I predict another verbal attack because you can't respond intelligently??...umm....yes I do!! Ha ha. I retract the earlier apology. No hard feelings, but not only did I not admit Mac was better, but I outright said Lendl was greater."Lendl is one of the greatest players to ever wield a racquet. You will not get an argument from me. But he never won Wimbledon....and quite frankly he did not have the variety and raw talent that Mac had. "...pusherterminator

"True, true, and true."...32ftL You have serious reading comprehension problems. Lendl is one of the greatest: true. Never won W: true. Mac had more variety and talent: true. Mac was greater: not true.

Again, I'm only responding because I sincerely believe you're confused, not because you have a good point. Was Mac at his best better than Lendl at his best? Maybe. But I also think Federer at his best is better than Sampras, yet he still has a ways to go before I'll call him GREATER than Sampras. Do you understand this? Step out of the darkness by shivering friend, and bask in the warm glow of grey that is our world.

Well, at least I got you to admit that Wilander didn't have the edge over Lendl in Grand Slams. That's gotta count for something. ;)

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 09:25 AM
Whew...im glad thats over. I had anticipated your next move...so I ran and got Yandels book. Even though this debate is over , I think it would be interesting to quote Yandel. I was surprised to learn that people on this board were unaware that John had seriously lost many of his abilities. Here is the story according to John Yandel:

"John McEnroe had a problem..... he was convinced he can still compete with the world's top players..... but his serve, the dominating shot that made him one of the most electrifying players in the late 1970s and early 1980s, was consistently the weak link in his play. His average first serve percentage had dropped to less than 50%. The first serves he did get in were registering ball speeds in the mid-90 mph range on the tour radar guns.

The result was that John had to work hard on his service games, was under constant pressure to hit difficult volleys, and was often broken twice or three times a set. Though his legendary mental toughness kept him in many matches, he seemed to have lost the firepower to win against the top players.

Working with John in making the winning edge instructional video, I had spent many hours studying his technique, particularly his serve. After watching John play, however, it became clear to me that he had developed a technical problem in his service backswing that was the cause of his loss of consistency in power. We agree to analyze the changes in his motion and compare it to the glory days of the mid-1980s. We believed that if he could recover the original biomechanics of his motion, he could restore his serving effectiveness and again compete successfully at the highest levels of the game."...John Yandell...Visual tennis (awesome book!!!)

Can you believe he was serving only in the 90 mph range? Damn...I could even hit a serve at that speed! No wonder he was having problems! I think that the fact he was in the top 10 with players like Lendl and only hitting 90mph serves just show how truly a great player Mcenroe was.

federerhoogenbandfan
05-03-2005, 11:34 AM
Wow, the passion is sure flowing in this thread. :) Pusher Terminator is an appropriate name since he sure knows how to push peoples buttons.

gully
05-03-2005, 11:38 AM
Yeah, since this has ebbed down to a conversation between two or three folks, would help, PT, if a few more of us told you that nearly everything your colleagues said -- eg 35ft6 -- makes sense and that very very little (astonishingly little, really) of what you've tried to argue here holds up?

Or would you just prefer to continue to think you "won" something?

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 12:15 PM
Yeah, since this has ebbed down to a conversation between two or three folks, would help, PT, if a few more of us told you that nearly everything your colleagues said -- eg 35ft6 -- makes sense and that very very little (astonishingly little, really) of what you've tried to argue here holds up?

Or would you just prefer to continue to think you "won" something?

Well what do we have here? A sore losing Lendl fan who needs to hide behind someone elses skirt. Bring it on girly man....in the meantime, given your choices I think I would prefer to think that I have won. Thanks.

I am bored of ths and you have not proven yourself worthy...you are a pusher and therefore i must terminate you and this string. Adios amigo.

35ft6
05-03-2005, 12:30 PM
Here's my final thought (http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg).

BigboyDan
05-03-2005, 12:30 PM
The Pusher Terminator,

Not his left-handed ad-court serve you could'nt, twelve feet past the doubles sideline - and even if you did get his ad-court serve back, he'd be waiting on your return at the net, and put it away, while yawning. :)

McEnroe always had a great chance of injury due to his back-arched service motion that he used; he did develope a major flaw in his basic service motion AFTER his back injury in mid-1985 (which led to an even greater injury that would put him out of competition in 1986 - and really ended his career at the top-level).

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 12:35 PM
The Pusher Terminator,

Not his left-handed ad-court serve you could'nt, twelve feet past the doubles sideline - and even if you did get his ad-court serve back, he'd be waiting on your return at the net, and put it away, while yawning. :)

McEnroe always had a great chance of injury due to his back-arched service motion that he used; he did develope a major flaw in his basic service motion AFTER his back injury in mid-1985 (which led to an even greater injury that would put him out of competition in 1986 - and really ended his career at the top-level).

Agreed. THANK YOU! Finally a Mcenroe supporter ...where have you guys been...sheesh.

and 35ft6....you have indeed proven your self worthy....you are no pusher. Those were some bullets baby!

Jack the Hack
05-03-2005, 12:39 PM
Yeah PT... you're a real "winner" alright...

Brettolius
05-03-2005, 12:53 PM
you should change your name to "logic terminator" or "common-sense terminator" would be fitting...

The Pusher Terminator
05-03-2005, 01:05 PM
you should change your name to "logic terminator" or "common-sense terminator" would be fitting...


Good one!!!!....That sure defeated my argument. Next why don't you tell me that your daddy can beat up my daddy....you bore me. Ahhh...so many pushers so little time.

Brettolius
05-03-2005, 04:53 PM
i wasn't really arguing with you but...you have humbled me with your outstanding debating skills. another pusher....terminated.

montx
05-03-2005, 05:19 PM
I think though 'Ice Maiden' is a title Chris Evert might have deserved, 'Ice Man' surely would be an appropriate name for lendl. He was all about control whereas Macenroe seemed more about personality.

The Pusher Terminator
05-04-2005, 02:51 AM
i wasn't really arguing with you but...you have humbled me with your outstanding debating skills. another pusher....terminated.

Bravo! Great comeback! You really are the sharpest knife in the draw aren't you? So Einstein, are you now going to try and draw me into an "insultfest". Boy, i didnt see that coming...great plan! I guess thats what people have to do when they are frustrated. I always know that I have won an argument when someone has nothing else to say other than insults. In any event if you have something intelligent to say then I am all ears....otherwise have a nice day my dear friend.

Brettolius
05-04-2005, 04:53 AM
i wasn't ever even trying to argue with you (which would be futile) i'm just saying you're a moron and you apparently enjoy making an ***** out of yourself all the time. it's amusing really. comical.

The Pusher Terminator
05-04-2005, 05:23 AM
i wasn't ever even trying to argue with you (which would be futile) i'm just saying you're a moron and you apparently enjoy making an ***** out of yourself all the time. it's amusing really. comical.

I am very hurt. Somehow, though I will try and get over it. I know that it will be hard...but somehow I hope to someday get over this great pain that you have caused me. This is the man who has put forth some of the greatest points known to man....how can we ever forget some of his greatest arguments ranging from "your a moron" to "your stupid". Wow! What genious. Lets not forget the great and inciteful strings he has posted, like the memorable..."Whats your favorite beer" or the inciteful "free cone day at Ben & Jerry's"...Bravo Brett!!!! You are a pure genious and I will somehow have to forge on even though you have such a low opinion of me.

Brettolius
05-04-2005, 06:26 AM
uh...those weren't my threads, but i'm sure sure you have some way of winning that argument as well. thanks for the laughs!

The Pusher Terminator
05-04-2005, 07:49 AM
Brett,

Your welcome .