John McEnroe's views about FEDERER V CONNORS

[tricky]

^ I would like to see more antics in ATP tennis. I would like to see guys showing personality, physically expressing what they're feeling inside.

Yeah, it's something I actually enjoy about the women's game. And often they truly use this random displays of emo as a way to intimidate their opponent across the court. It's one thing for Safin to throw his racket; it's another for McEnroe to effectively suck out his opponent's momentum by taking the game hostage.

And it could be subtle things. How, like Sharapova forces her opponent to serve according to when she's ready. Or how Nadal takes "absent minded" long breaks and bounces the ball a 1000 times before serving. Okay, well, that latter thing is really irritating.

In any case, I love when Hewitt and Nadal charge themselves. I know people find it annoying (and I'd be really ****ed off if somebody did that on a neighborhood court), but to me it works against a public audience.

Just don't think gamesmanship would work on Federer.

I actually don't think Federer's exceptional in the mental strength category. In my opinion, a player is mentally very strong if he can hold his serve fairly well even when unable to break his opponent. Fed seems to switch to that higher gear mostly when he's already out in front.

[NamRanger]

Although I don't agree with the whole "get angry" during a match, it would be nice for a change for Federer's opponents to keep on fighting rather then fold over into the fetal position for a change.

[35ft6]

Originally Posted by tricky

Yeah, it's something I actually enjoy about the women's game.

Totally. It's like life in general -- girls at the top become really catty and competitive, whereas guys just like to get along. I like how the girls talk poop about each other in press conferences. I would love to hear a player before a finals say "I'm going to destroy him... I've never wanted to win a match so badly in my life." A reason why I can see guys NOT saying this is because tennis is such a mentally torturous sport, maybe they just don't want to add any mental pressure to themselves.

I can do without girls' bathroom breaks, though. I cut them some slack because it may be a feminine issue, but undoubtedly a lot of those breaks is simply to disrupt momentum or mess with an opponent's head in some way.

In any case, I love when Hewitt and Nadal charge themselves. I know people find it annoying (and I'd be really ****ed off if somebody did that on a neighborhood court), but to me it works against a public audience.

I like that, too. I can see why a player would get annoyed when Hewitt yells on a double fault, but as a fan, that just adds drama. Great sport is improvised dramatic theater. Same reason why people got more into the tour de france after Lance had cancer. Two guys playing tennis, could be boring, but if somebody tells you that the loser has to wrestle a bear naked, all of the sudden it becomes more interesting even if they're 3.0 players.

I actually don't think Federer's exceptional in the mental strength category. In my opinion, a player is mentally very strong if he can hold his serve fairly well even when unable to break his opponent. Fed seems to switch to that higher gear mostly when he's already out in front.

A telling sign is how Federer always says he's most dying to play the person who beat him last, or Nadal in the finals of clay or something. He's incredibly sure of his talents and, at the same time, I think he's just as curious and intrigued by his abilities as we are and wants to see what he's capable of in the more extreme situations. Against a total nut case, I think he would love to prove that their antics have absolutely no affect on him, and I even think he would find subtle ways to encourage it and after the match, in the interview, he would probably say he loves the guy and that he's a great character and good for tennis. That's what I think.

[tricky]

fold over into the fetal position for a change.

True, but I think it's a unfair characterization too. Take out Federer, and the #2-20 players do battle it out.

For example, let's say Federer was actually able to return Sampras's serve as well as Hewitt did at times. If that were the case, and he was able to break Sampras every set, what would that have done to Pete's mindset?

This kinda goes back to the different mindset between Fed and Sampras. Sampras was all about imposing his will on you, to play such a well-honed expression of his style that you would be awestruck by his power and elegance. And, so, in a sense, Sampras's reign as champion exemplifies the greatness of his pure game over his opponent.

Federer is about breaking the will of his opponent. About taking apart your game, and maybe making you either abandon your Plan A, or make you almost catatonically rigid about your Plan A. Like against Gonzo, he actually took on Gonzo's mighty FH and defended it consistently. And in doing so, brought him out of his original plan, which let Fed start opening fire in later sets. Fed's domination reveals again and again the flaws of the modern game.

You can even see some of both dynamics in their sole H2H. When Sampras was on, you saw the brilliant service, some of that handdog determination, most of all, you saw a person who was clearly not at his peak resources still play big. When Fed was on, you often picked up how slow Sampras was to get/react to the net, or how he simply had no answers for some of the extreme angles Fed was putting on his FH. Or as commentators said, Sampras saw something like a mirror image of his younger self in that match, which is to say that Fed was showing how far Sampras was from his true peak performance of earlier years.

Very different interpretations of classical, all-court tennis. Sampras learned the weapons to demonstrate a completeness, even an aesthetic continuity, in his victories. He'll beat you with his big game; that is, he will beat on you.

Fed's learned strategies, developing his weapons within strategic context, in order to "not lose." It's just that he's taking "not losing" to such a granular level, that it would involve not losing individual points, let alone sets. Blocks everything, defends like crazy, uses a mixture of point construction and unpredictable spin-pace patterns to move the guy out of position, plays more conservative in the beginning to see what his opponent is giving him. Most of all, he reacts very acutely to his own unforced error count. It's almost claylike but with brilliant insights into defense-offense transitioning.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nick Irons

And as nice and classy as Federer is; he still makes those comments:
It's a match for him to forget and for me to remember.

For the umpteenth time, don't let your preconceived notions cause you to draw idiotic conclusions. If you only listened to the whole interview, you would have found that Federer was in fact playing down the significance of the Roddick massacre. He mentioned, essentially, that it was "just one of those magical days" and that Roddick can forget the match and not read too much into it. That statement is almost the very definition of a "nice and classy" response.

Context is everything. Try being a little attentive next time. I'm not implying that Federer is a p-aragon of virtue. He has his requisite egoistic moments. But it is stupid to twist somebody's words so that they fit your warped conclusion.

Someone has to get hungry and ****ed off. All of this boring, wimpy graceful tennis isn't working.

Oh. Just watch Kobayashi eat a hot dog, if that helps. Or perhaps, a bunch of macho specimens wearing dark glasses and playing poker on a table. Zero wimpiness. All red-blooded aggression .


[Funny that TW censors the word p-a-r-a-g-o-n ]

[callitout]

It's so easy for retired guys to say that players of their era were mentally stronger. Hewitt has lots of attitude, and to his credit at least took a set off FEd at USO after getting 2 bagels the year before, but c'mons dont win matches.
Everyone knows Fed is a level above virtually anyone in history (leaving aside for the moment Sampras, Laver, and a select few), so naturally he intimidates guys who cant hold a candle to him. Where's the mystery?

[federerfanatic]

Originally Posted by callitout

It's so easy for retired guys to say that players of their era were mentally stronger. Hewitt has lots of attitude, and to his credit at least took a set off FEd at USO after getting 2 bagels the year before, but c'mons dont win matches.
Everyone knows Fed is a level above virtually anyone in history (leaving aside for the moment Sampras, Laver, and a select few), so naturally he intimidates guys who cant hold a candle to him. Where's the mystery?

Exactly. Players are intimidated by the sexy and classy and overpowering Williams gals when they are in peak form. It does not mean they lack mentally and competitively. It is the same with the Fedster and the other guys. He is so much better then anyone who is not one of the real GOATs that of course they are going to feel super intimidated by him. It just means they have a brain, and they were not able to hire a hypnotist.

[breakfast_of_champions]

i think jmac really speaks for himself, not connors. players today are to rich and few have a standard as being #1 though.

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by breakfast_of_champions

i think jmac really speaks for himself, not connors. players today are to rich and few have a standard as being #1 though.

I think connors will support Mac's statements. Hopefully he will comment ...
I would like to see more of todays players get pumped and really try to attack Fed with some more aggressive tennis and attitude. Atleast Roddick is trying to play allcourt against Fed without much success. It just not natural for him or most of todays players but they can not beat Roger from the baseline. Id like to see a player play a game like Dent with an attitude like Hewitt. That could really add some more excitement to todays tennis.

[breakfast_of_champions]

Originally Posted by joe sch

I think connors will support Mac's statements. Hopefully he will comment ...
I would like to see more of todays players get pumped and really try to attack Fed with some more aggressive tennis and attitude. Atleast Roddick is trying to play allcourt against Fed without much success. It just not natural for him or most of todays players but they can not beat Roger from the baseline. Id like to see a player play a game like Dent with an attitude like Hewitt. That could really add some more excitement to todays tennis.

i think what struck me was mac saying he and connors found reasons to hate their opponents.

[sarpmas]

Perhaps the players are concerned their fate may be worse if they ****ed Federer off!

On a serious note, gamesmanship may work if both players are evenly matched. The gap between Federer and the rest is just too big now. Without saying, not having a defeatist attitude against Federer is a must, and I believe improving their overall game, especially for those up and coming players, is still the way to go.

[Elenkov]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

Exactly. Players are intimidated by the sexy and classy and overpowering Williams gals hypnotist.

sexy? ummm..

anyways, i have this to say about the matter. it seems to me that in tennis, when it comes to mental attitudes, cooler beats cool. before you start throwing examples of goran or others breaking raquets while winning tournaments, i want to point out that these incidents are just ways to vent out frustration (which helps keep cool). during the point itself i believe that even goran keeps a clear focused mind.

even in my personal experience, i find myself performing better by just keeping my chin up, and staying calm. ofcourse i give 100% effort in the point, but i don't juggle "motivating" thoughts in my head when i'm trying to focus.

conclusion: to beat fed you need to match his game(i don't think he is THAT much better than everyone else) and beat his focus/cool. persistance! so who will be the one?

[MaxT]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

Hewitts "me against the world" attitude does him a LOT of good against Federer. Histrionics can only take you so far, no matter who you are.

Like two bagels at a GS final in front of 1 billion people?

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by tricky

I actually don't think Federer's exceptional in the mental strength category. In my opinion, a player is mentally very strong if he can hold his serve fairly well even when unable to break his opponent. Fed seems to switch to that higher gear mostly when he's already out in front.

Interesting point. Since his reign 2003, his mental strength was never really
tested except by Safin and Nadal. From those 4, 5 setters with Nadal and
Safin, he actually showed that he might not be mentally strongest player
out there.

And the Federer's serve. In a closely contested set like 6-6, his serve often
gets broken and he relys on his return game to break back. It's somewhat
insecure thing, if you know what I mean. Federer relys on return game heavily...

Becker said something like "5th set is about the desire" but it helps
if you have huge shots like Becker's or Sampras' serve at the end of 5th
set. By the time you reach the end of 5th set, you have used and tried
all the varieties and there is no surprise. Your desire and bottom line
only. I'm not sure Federer's accuracy serve can hold it value at the end
of 5th set..

[rwn]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

Interesting point. Since his reign 2003, his mental strength was never really
tested except by Safin and Nadal. From those 4, 5 setters with Nadal and
Safin, he actually showed that he might not be mentally strongest player
out there.

And the Federer's serve. In a closely contested set like 6-6, his serve often
gets broken and he relys on his return game to break back. It's somewhat
insecure thing, if you know what I mean. Federer relys on return game heavily...

Becker said something like "5th set is about the desire" but it helps
if you have huge shots like Becker's or Sampras' serve at the end of 5th
set. By the time you reach the end of 5th set, you have used and tried
all the varieties and there is no surprise. Your desire and bottom line
only. I'm not sure Federer's accuracy serve can hold it value at the end
of 5th set..

Sampras lost many more sets than Federer at his peak, when he got broken he lost the set. And Federer has a better tiebreak record than Sampras, so you don't know what you're talking about.

[rwn]

Yeah, it's something I actually enjoy about the women's game. And often they truly use this random displays of emo as a way to intimidate their opponent across the court. It's one thing for Safin to throw his racket; it's another for McEnroe to effectively suck out his opponent's momentum by taking the game hostage.

And it could be subtle things. How, like Sharapova forces her opponent to serve according to when she's ready. Or how Nadal takes "absent minded" long breaks and bounces the ball a 1000 times before serving. Okay, well, that latter thing is really irritating.

In any case, I love when Hewitt and Nadal charge themselves. I know people find it annoying (and I'd be really ****ed off if somebody did that on a neighborhood court), but to me it works against a public audience.

Originally Posted by tricky

I actually don't think Federer's exceptional in the mental strength category. In my opinion, a player is mentally very strong if he can hold his serve fairly well even when unable to break his opponent. Fed seems to switch to that higher gear mostly when he's already out in front.

Maybe you should check Federer's tiebreak record in the last couple of years.
A clear sign of mental strength.

[tricky]

And the Federer's serve. In a closely contested set like 6-6, his serve often gets broken and he relys on his return game to break back. It's somewhat insecure thing, if you know what I mean. Federer relys on return game heavily...

Yeah, I want to be careful with the wording here. When I say Federer is not exceptional in mental strength, I'm saying he's not a Sampras, Connors, or Borg in the way they impose their will on a game. A guy like Nadal seems at times emotionally impervious to the scoreboard; he's a counterpuncher in the most mental sense of the word. Most pros play much better up a break. Most players will wilt if they can't break their opponents. Sampras built his whole strategy on this very thing.

But it's also divergence in tennis philosophy. Federer's game is about taking away your game. If he can't do that to you -- and usually it's because he can't control his skillset -- you can keep playing with him. People always say that his competition is mentally weak, but he's actually trying to destroy your game. At Oz, he took on Gonzo's FH strategy and was able to successfully defend Gonzo's shots, which NOBODY else could do. He took on Roddick's inside-out to Fed's BH strategy, and traded DTL shot after DTL shot until Roddick went into a strange tunnel vision. Like he looked so confused out there that he mentally locked into Plan A when it was already failing.

It's just that if you play in this manner, you must have very fine control of your own abilities. That is, he doesn't take the stance of "I must outhit Federer" or "I must play my game to the 100%") (which is what 99% of all other opponents try against Federer. Instead, he thinks "If I know myself (i.e. have complete control of his game), I can know my opponent's game and expose it."

Maybe you should check Federer's tiebreak record in the last couple of years. A clear sign of mental strength.

Federer has arguably the best defensive game and inarguably the best transition game. In a tiebreak, those elements create significant leverage. I actually think Federer's mental strength is perhaps the weakest part of his game. With that said, that element is well above average for a top-50 player, especially given the cerebral intricacy of his game.

[caulcano]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

Interesting point. Since his reign 2003, his mental strength was never really
tested except by Safin and Nadal. From those 4, 5 setters with Nadal and
Safin, he actually showed that he might not be mentally strongest player
out there.

It just shows FED is human. He'll lose, but lose a close 5-set match.

Originally Posted by fastdunn

And the Federer's serve. In a closely contested set like 6-6, his serve often
gets broken and he relys on his return game to break back. It's somewhat
insecure thing, if you know what I mean. Federer relys on return game heavily...

I don't know about relying on his return game heavily, but I do know he's got a very good ratio in tie-breaks.

Originally Posted by fastdunn

Becker said something like "5th set is about the desire" but it helps
if you have huge shots like Becker's or Sampras' serve at the end of 5th
set. By the time you reach the end of 5th set, you have used and tried
all the varieties and there is no surprise. Your desire and bottom line
only. I'm not sure Federer's accuracy serve can hold it value at the end
of 5th set..

Unfortunately, FEDs winning in 3 or 4 sets, so he needs to be taken to more 5-setters to determine that.

[Lambsscroll]

"and that Federer often looks as though he is just taking a quiet afternoon stroll through the Alps".

That was funny he he.

[Moose Malloy]

I think a lot of you misunderstand what Mac means by gamesmanship, or you may not have seen him play much. His gamesmanship covered a lot of territory, some it of over-the-top(arguments, etc) & some of it subtle.

He played the game to his own pace better than any player in history. It wasn't like Nadal where he was in danger of getting time violations, it was very calculated & used not on every point, but at appropriate times to rattle opponents. This would get under the skin of his opponent, without Mac directly breaking any rules. It could consist of him holding up his hand, when a player was on a roll & ready to serve, him taking a walk to back the court, towelling off, tying shoelaces, etc. And he intimidated linesman as well, without arguing just by looking at them constantly, etc. Or taking an extra second to stare at a line when he's about to swing, thereby getting a late line call in his favor sometimes.

An as far as his tantrums, its well documented that he played better after most of them. They weren't a sign of him "losing it" but a way to throw his opponent off & for him to regroup mentally(like a timeout) Don't forget, he would often not just argue with the umpire, but demand that the supervisor come out(which would take a while) & then argue some more(knowing fully well he wasn't going to get any point overturned) It would often be a full 10 minute break in play, which would annoy even the most stoic guys. This was no different than injury timeouts in the womens game(sometimes men) today & we've seen examples of that working.

and don't forget these tantrums, arguments, could get the most genteel tennis crowd riled up to davis cup levels, that sort of crowd involvement doesn't exist today, players aren't mentally equiped to deal with tennis crowds acting like nfl crowds.

I think connors will support Mac's statements. Hopefully he will comment ...

this was from last summer(pre Roddick)

Tennis Week: Are you in accord with all the other tennis experts and legends of the game who believe Federer could be on his way to become the best ever?

Jimmy Connors: Well, what does that mean, 'best ever'? I mean, best ever of this time. And the best ever, is that a...how do you figure out what the "best ever" is when you haven't played against...I haven't played...I didn't play Laver in his prime. I didn't play Pete in his prime. He didn't play me in my prime. McEnroe didn't play Gonzales in his time. So how do you know what the "best ever" is? I think a lot depends on who you're brought up with, what kind of rivalries you've had, and who you played along the way, that's gotten in your way from winning. I mean, if I was Federer, I'd be very pleased with the position that he's in. Because his counterparts seem to be feeling that they're happy enough just to tag along on the number one's tail [smiles]. And so instead of stepping up and putting forth the right kind of effort, to try and overtake him and beat him and move him down, as opposed to just let him run away with it. I wish I would see more of that.

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennis...e&newsid=15282

This sounds a lot like most boxing analysts when comparing greats. I never hear people say Frazier or Ali couldn't compete with Klitchko & the other 'modern' fighters of today, like I do with tennis.