I'll say it: Mac Best Ever (on any given day)
- Thread starter Colpo
- Start date
A lot of the debate against McEnroe here is how he couldn't defend against stronger players of today with their better racquets and strings. You need to think of it the other way around too.
Now can you just imagine McEnroe at his prime with this technology. Of course. His serve would be faster and more spin. His volleys would be crisper. (Imagine that). And more pace on his ground strokes. I think the biggest factor would be the improvement on his serves and volleys, which were perhaps the best combo at the time. I cannot think of anyone since McEnroe who has the intimidating wide ad court serve and put away volley, and do it so consistently.
As was mentioned already, some people thought McEnroe had too much of an advantage because he was left handed, and they suggested rule changes to have lefties start on the ad side. You never here that anymore, but this was one of the factors that made him one of the greatest players ever.
Now can you just imagine McEnroe at his prime with this technology. Of course. His serve would be faster and more spin. His volleys would be crisper. (Imagine that). And more pace on his ground strokes. I think the biggest factor would be the improvement on his serves and volleys, which were perhaps the best combo at the time. I cannot think of anyone since McEnroe who has the intimidating wide ad court serve and put away volley, and do it so consistently.
As was mentioned already, some people thought McEnroe had too much of an advantage because he was left handed, and they suggested rule changes to have lefties start on the ad side. You never here that anymore, but this was one of the factors that made him one of the greatest players ever.
The Gorilla
Banned
I'm not british,I'm irish,'nuff said about that.The only reason I suggested britain was because generally speaking these court surface seasons tend to be played in particular regions and because it is the home of wimbledon,and because I could jump on a ryanair flight to some of these games for a few cents.I just think it's a shame that there is no grasscourt season any more,just the odd davis cup game and two or three tournaments.I think australian open should change back to grass.Tim henman is as good as mcenroe,in litreally every way,he has all the same talents,indeed,with todays racquets and power baseline generation it's just as much of an achievement for him to have gotten to the french semi's as it was for mcenroe to get to that final.If you look at it purely objectionally you see that they are pretty much equal in every regard:breathtaking touch at the net,blinding speed and excellent serves which,while not the biggest of their day are are guaranteed to throw a high number of aces and are difficult to deal with,perfect for serve and volleyers.Heman has shown himself to be just as adept at controlling the net as mcenroe,they are two hugely talented individuals,I am not comparing mcenroe unfavourably to him,I think it's fairly obvious that had henman been born 10-15 years earlier he would have a few grand slams under his belt.
But he wasn't.And I'm not fighting his corner or whatever the impression is that I've given you,I just think that mcenroe,as he was pretty much exactly the same player,exactly the same prospect to play,I think we can see how mcenroe would have fared today.I mean,he had a lot of trouble with borgs passing shots,he had even more trouble with lendl's,how do you think he would have fared against the sheer power of tursunov?I saw him play federer a while back,federer figured he'd finish the game quicker at the net,so 3 times he played a deep slice backhand approach.3 times he was passed.I think that,as hard as it is to admit it,there is no was he would have the same impact today as he had in his eighties heyday.
ps:I don't want to get into a debate about lendl on this thread,if you want to start a thread about lendl I'd be happy to contribute but for now lets stick with mcenroe.
pps:sorry about the spelling,I'm mildly dyxlexic and my computer spellcheck can't handle tennis players surnames to well so I just have to do my best.Doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm saying either does it?It strikes me as a little bit petty to raise that up to try and undermine my argument.
But he wasn't.And I'm not fighting his corner or whatever the impression is that I've given you,I just think that mcenroe,as he was pretty much exactly the same player,exactly the same prospect to play,I think we can see how mcenroe would have fared today.I mean,he had a lot of trouble with borgs passing shots,he had even more trouble with lendl's,how do you think he would have fared against the sheer power of tursunov?I saw him play federer a while back,federer figured he'd finish the game quicker at the net,so 3 times he played a deep slice backhand approach.3 times he was passed.I think that,as hard as it is to admit it,there is no was he would have the same impact today as he had in his eighties heyday.
ps:I don't want to get into a debate about lendl on this thread,if you want to start a thread about lendl I'd be happy to contribute but for now lets stick with mcenroe.
pps:sorry about the spelling,I'm mildly dyxlexic and my computer spellcheck can't handle tennis players surnames to well so I just have to do my best.Doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm saying either does it?It strikes me as a little bit petty to raise that up to try and undermine my argument.
Last edited:
Gorilla, I have to hand it to you, every good thread needs a foil, and your continued insistence that Henman is as good as John McEnroe both strains credulity AND adds some needed spice to the topic. Will you at least concede that you're alone in this opinion, and that even Henman himself would have a good, self-deprecating chuckle at the comparison? Yes, we're comparing across eras, but we're talking the difference between multiple singles and doubles Slams and ... NONE on Henman's side. If anything, whatever Henman HAS ACHIEVED with a fraction of Mac's talent just goes to show how this style, when elevated to Mac's levels, would compete very tough today. Thanks for sticking to your guns though.
Re: Lendl's as GOAT, he gets zero credit for any talent, he was all about dominance and acquired skill. That's why people easily forget him despite his owning the men's tour for several years a clip at TWO different career stages (sandwiching Mac's Koufax years). All the GOAT candidates, and I like Mac on his best day, combined inate talent with Slam results. Don't blame me - that's just how the conversation goes down.
Henman is Mayotte, not Mac!
Re: Lendl's as GOAT, he gets zero credit for any talent, he was all about dominance and acquired skill. That's why people easily forget him despite his owning the men's tour for several years a clip at TWO different career stages (sandwiching Mac's Koufax years). All the GOAT candidates, and I like Mac on his best day, combined inate talent with Slam results. Don't blame me - that's just how the conversation goes down.
Henman is Mayotte, not Mac!
You have my apologies. Too many people talk crap about people they don't know, have never seen, and not even being able to spell their names - that's sometimes a clue. Too many other people talk crap in general and expect people to read their garbled BS posts because they're too lazy to write properly / don't take the time to spell check. Nonetheless, you have my apologies. Thanks for taking the time to care about spelling as much as you can, if only others did....
Y'see - that was almost my real guess - all based on the use of the word 'deadly'
. I've lived in both Britain & Ireland, and guessed the Ireland on that but the Britain on the Wimbledon preference. Fair enough, I disagree, but fair enough. Biggest problem with grass in my humble opinion? It's not played on at club level anymore - it's just too expensive to maintain (well, in Australia, and we have good conditions for it). Most clubs struggle to pay for resurfacing as it is (with Synthetic Grass or Hardcourt) and those surfaces are only an every five or ten year expense. Grass? Requires probably a full-time curator. I know of only 1 or 2 major real-grass clubs in East-Coast Australia....
Then - there's the playability. Has to be covered in the rain, or it's useless for hours afterwards. Synth grass - hey - it's not my fave surface at all, but you can be on it only minutes or an hour or two after rain (even during it if it's only light).
So - grass isn't practical at the club level, therefore it's not as relevant. I love W being grass, but don't think 1/4 or 1/3rd of the year should be on a surface no-one can afford to play on!
Rafter is a Serve & Volleyer, from the same era as Henman (two years older, turned pro two years earlier, was even beaten at W by Henman once in 98!).... made MUCH more of Serve & Volleying than Henman ever did. In the same Era. My contention for you is still that Rafter is better than Henman, and Rafter is not nearly as good as McEnroe. Hence:
McEnroe (much better than) > Rafter (much better than) > Henman
Rafter has two GS wins and two GS finals, any one of those four results is better than Henman ever managed! Both S&V players, both playing in the same era, neither massive off the ground (maybe Rafter bigger off the ground than Henman, but still).
Correct. But would he have had the impact of say, at least Rafter? Yes.
I have, a while ago: Would Lendl have won a W in today's conditions?
The Gorilla
Banned
rafter was a beast,henman and mcenroe are weedy but make up for it in the touch department.Rafter was a different kettle of fish to mcenroe,he wasn't the same player at all,and by the way,if rafter was just coming on the scene now,I don't think he would be nearly as successful as he was in the 90's.Mcenroe suffered from the same problems as graphite racquets prospered and the game changed as henman has suffered.Tennis is no longer a game,it's a sport.It is now a physical battle as well as a contest of skill.Henman's fast,mcenroe's fast,henman's an incredible volleyer,so was mcenroe,henman has an excellent serve,not a dominant one but far higher than average,so did mcenroe,rafter was a beast,so was mcenroe.Oh,wait a minute,he wasn't!he was in fact less than 12 stone and never darkened the doors of a gym in his life.You have to admit,there is no place for that type of player in the finals of any grandslam anymore.I remember watching in amazement in '92 as mcenroe seemed to turn back the clock,seeing the draw against agassi in the semi's and mentally pencilling him into the final.Agassi had a crap serve,easily jumped on for the patented macattack giving mcenroe a license to live at the net,he also had HUGE,dmitry tursunov-like groundstrokes,and unfortunately for the spectators,for mcenroe,for tennis
itself,mcenroe's reflexes and touch just weren't enough.It was like groundhog day watching henman against tursunov,the game of tennis has changed,literally.DIfferent attributes are now required to win.Mcenroes talent would ensure that he was a presence in todays game,but never a champion.
itself,mcenroe's reflexes and touch just weren't enough.It was like groundhog day watching henman against tursunov,the game of tennis has changed,literally.DIfferent attributes are now required to win.Mcenroes talent would ensure that he was a presence in todays game,but never a champion.
Amone
Hall of Fame
Just think, Elvis-- you don't have to imagine it: BAM! Senior Tour videos can be gotten off the interwebs with a quick google search, and a bittorrent client!
The Gorilla
Banned
actually,mcenroe played 'til 92 so you could see the improvement back then.His serve was considerably bigger,he was hitting as hard as 130mph,and his volleys were crisper,unfortunately it just wasn't enough in the face of the onslought of power baseliners.
The Gorilla
Banned
I have explained,(sigh),exhaustively,why henman does not have that aura of invincability.It is because the surfaces are slower,the balls are bigger and therefore slower,and the increased importance of a phsical presence.
It's clear, Gorilla, that nothing will change your opinion. That's ok I guess, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but equally, everyone's entitled to be wrong.
I'm yet to see *anyone* agree with you that Henman is as good a serve & volleyer as McEnroe was, I, like most, feel McEnroe is simply a better player (who had better tenacity & a greater will to win, not just more talent & better results!).
So the ball's in your court, so to speak. Totally your decision:
- Stick with your opinion, and know that it's unique
- Think about changing it, given that many people who have interest and knowledge in the same area as you all seem to confidently disagree.
Either way, it's time for me to duck out of this one, as nothing is going to change your stance, and I disagree with it. Thanks for posting in the Lendl thread, good to know 80% of voters think he could have pulled a W or two in the current conditions.
I'm yet to see *anyone* agree with you that Henman is as good a serve & volleyer as McEnroe was, I, like most, feel McEnroe is simply a better player (who had better tenacity & a greater will to win, not just more talent & better results!).
So the ball's in your court, so to speak. Totally your decision:
- Stick with your opinion, and know that it's unique
- Think about changing it, given that many people who have interest and knowledge in the same area as you all seem to confidently disagree.
Either way, it's time for me to duck out of this one, as nothing is going to change your stance, and I disagree with it. Thanks for posting in the Lendl thread, good to know 80% of voters think he could have pulled a W or two in the current conditions.
OK, now it makes sense. Gorilla is from the U.K. That's why he is defending Henman so much. But now that is understandable.
It's OK. Because we in the U.S., defend McEnroe. (at least his skills). I just have been mystified how anyone can think McEnroe and Henman have equal skills. But a fan's love for his countryman is explainable. Henman is a good guy and it is easy to see why the U.K. loves him.
And by the way. As far as tennis skills, Henman doesn't even come close to McEnroe's level. LOL.
It's OK. Because we in the U.S., defend McEnroe. (at least his skills). I just have been mystified how anyone can think McEnroe and Henman have equal skills. But a fan's love for his countryman is explainable. Henman is a good guy and it is easy to see why the U.K. loves him.
And by the way. As far as tennis skills, Henman doesn't even come close to McEnroe's level. LOL.
But i'm not in the UK or US. I'm in Australia, and I'm happy to admit McEnroe was yards in front of both Henman & Rafter. I don't feel the need to put patriotism in front of judgement, partially because I don't even really believe in it!
joe sch
Legend
Average serve ?
His lefty hook often did not even need his volley putaways.
His S/V combination was one of the most effective weapons in tennis, ever.
Tough to support such a poor sport and dirty mouth.
You said it, Joe. I recall how so many of Mac's first volleys were not so much "volleys" but essentially bunts into an open court, so effective was his serve to both the ad and the deuce. I think the best analogy is to think of a doubles net player whose partner is a strong server, and all the net player has to do is just contact the weak return for a clean winner. Mac would basically set up himself with his amazing serve, and with his quickness and court sense, he'd be in perfect position to contact a winning volley again and again. You still see shards of that one-two punch in Mac's Seniors matches - now imagine him in his prime today. There I go, convincing myself of my own point again ...
True, I would not say that Mac couldn't handle Lendl's power. He beat Lendl in '89, one of Lendl's best years, on carpet in the WCT Finals (a close four-set match).
Also you mention Becker as the type of player Mac might not have solved ... but Mac knew how to play against Becker. That Davis Cup match in '87, they were neck-and-neck for 58 games, and Mac was up two sets to one -- only then his endurance failed him. Maybe he might peter out against Federer after 58 games at Wimbledon, but maybe not.
Becker was a modern power player, and Mac knew how to play him (his stamina just wasn't good).
I think one of the reasons McEnroe became so vulnerable in the late '80's was that the game was changing, and his game was not able to withstand the new spin/power play. That's probably why he could lose to the likes of Haarhuis.
Last edited:
McEnroe is capable of playing in this era. His technique will be a bit different.
Also he played in somthing called SuperSet playing a player from this era. Smoked him I believe 6-0.
Has McEnroe's forehand and backhand changed now?
I have never seen the 46 year old McEnroe play.
Also he played in somthing called SuperSet playing a player from this era. Smoked him I believe 6-0.
Has McEnroe's forehand and backhand changed now?
I have never seen the 46 year old McEnroe play.
That was Andy Murray.
PimpMyGame
Hall of Fame
Mac was the best player of his era. His game however could not compete with today's power play. He was the last great tennis player before bigger graphite rackets and bigger players fused together to give us Becker. That guy's got a lot to answer for...
Pretty much ends the discussion.
I would agree that McEnroe did not like facing powerful players. But what do make of his Davis Cup match with Becker in '87, which Becker won 4-6, 15-13, 8-10, 6-2, 6-2? They both were extremely motivated, and Mac seems to have run out of gas, rather than being overpowered in the first three sets.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Check out the rest of the head-to-head, most matches weren't that close, Mac had some serious problems with the Becker power. Heck, Lendl had some serious problems with the Becker power, it was unprecedented.
Mac did not lose to Leconte in 1989. I don't think he ever lost to Leconte.
The reason Mac declined post 1985 was that he hardly played post 1985.
Its not like the guy was losing to Becker or Lendl every week, he hardly played those guys.
He was losing slam matches to Masur, Woodforde, Haarhuis, Annacone. Hardly power players. Mac's issues were mental(considering his wife, understandable that he wasn't focused on tennis) not physical.
I think he may have struggled with playing Lendl, Becker, Edberg back to back, but we'll never know since he wasn't decicated enough to keep his ranking high enough so he could play them in finals, semis, etc.
There was no reason he couldn't have stayed at least a top 5 player throughout the 80s(much older Connors stayed in the top 10, how come the game didn't pass him by?)
borg number one
Legend
On a given day, when McEnroe was playing his very best, it would be difficult for anyone to beat him. The same holds true for many of the all time greats, but McEnroe is certainly unique in that his talent level did not produce more GS titles. Perhaps he lost some of his fire as Borg went away, and he was left with Connors, who he did not get along with at all. That probably put a damper on his spirits somewhat, but that's just a theory.
This is way off, Moose, and the worst part, the most insulting part, is suggesting that Ivan Lendl was the Roddick of the 80s.
The first interesting detail to notice is that, even though 83-84 was McEnroe's best period, and 1984 was, in terms of winning percentage and domination, the strongest year by any player in the open era, he still dropped the number 1 spot to Lendl 5 times during that period (3 of them in 1984) for a total of 32 weeks.
1983
Feb. 28 to May 16
Oct 31 to Dec 12
1984
Jan 9 to March 12
June 11 to June 18
July 9 to August 13
By comparison, once Federer reached the number 1 spot in February 2004, he kept it until August 2008, and during all those years nobody was even close to taking it away. This is not meant to undermine Mac’s achievements in 1984, but to suggest that on a week in week out basis there was someone performing almost as well as him. And that person was Lendl. Strong as Nadal was after 05, he never managed anything close to that during Federer's best years -- let alone Roddick!! !!
The truth is that Federer’s record is overwhelmingly superior to McEnroe's. And even if you reduced the whole thing to one year, Federer’s 2005 is virtually the same winning % as Mac’s 84. The difference is that Federer had three additional years almost as good (or even better if you consider he won 3 of the 4 majors in 04, 06, and 07).
Now to the second part. You may be tired of people suggesting that McEnroe could not handle Lendl’s power. Well, you better get used to getting tired of these suggestions, because he certainly couldn’t handle Lendl for the great majority of their careers, except 83-84. That’s two years out of the 12 they played. And the problem is not reduced to the period after his supposed self-induced demise. He could not handle him in 81-82 either, when Lendl was a relative newcomer and Mac was well established as the top player.
For my part, I am always a bit tired of people reducing McEnroe’s career to one year and somehow suggesting that nothing else really matters. It does.
You say that “then [he] went on a 6 month sabatical, married a crazy movie star, had kids, dabbled in drugs & returned to tour as a part time player” and that “Mac never fully dedictated himself to the game from that point on”
In the first place, you must keep in mind that before those hings happened, not after, Lendl beat him in straight sets at the USO final and took the number one spot from him forever.. This is an important point that fully contradicts the previous notion of a Roddick-like character sneaking onto the top after an imaginary drug sabatical by Federer.
In the second place, “dabbling in drugs” was relatively common in those days and will not necessarily cripple anyone’s game for life, as it didn’t cripple his.
But most of all, the notion that “Mac never fully dedicated himself to the game from that point on” is completely false, and you should know it. If anything, Mac made a more serious attempt at becoming fit and doing whatever it took to make it back to the top AFTER he came back, than at any time before. You yourself mentioned in another post that around 97-88 the tennis news were full with article after article on the latest McEnroe training regimes, and I know it also because I used to read those magazines at that time. It is not true at all that he never tried very hard. He tried harder than he ever had.
Someone at another thread expressed outrage that we should not count the last 15 matches between Lendl and Connors (after 84). There is some point to that, but in the case of Connors-Lendl, it seems to me justified to clip the front and back ends of their encounters because they were clearly of different generations. However, I do not believe any of this is justified in the case of Lendl-McEenroe. They were virtually the same age and played on the tour at the same for about 12 years. I remind you that Lendl dominated heavily their h2h, except during 83-84 period. Now why you want to reduce those 12 years to Mac's best 2 and forget the rest, is understandable. But not very serious for analysis.
The notion that “Lendl's game did not change at all in that time for the better” is also hard to agree with. There was an improvement after 84, and an even bigger one after 85, especially in the head department. The record shows it. Of course he wasn’t miles ahead of what he had been, he was still the same person. But by the same token, even though McEnroe’s game did drop considerably in 86, once he started training seriously to come back, his game did come back up to a level not at all far from what it had been prior to 84. And it kept progressing all the way through 89.
But really, the most astonishing part of your post is your notion that Lendl was sort of a Roddick sneaking in after a Federer imaginary slip with debauchery. You could not dream that stuff up.
Hey did you notice the date on Moose's post?
December 2006.
I've complained before about how threads are allowed to be revived after years of inactivity, and I've made my peace with it. It can be a good thing, in certain limited ways. But at least let's not address what someone wrote three years ago as if he wrote it yesterday.
If I see a post this old, I at least ask myself if the opinion has modified since then. I've certainly seen Moose give props to Lendl since then (he has said, in a debate between all of us, that he ranks Lendl higher than McEnroe). I have no idea whether he's "gotten used" to hearing about Lendl's power and I wouldn't presume to tell him that he needs, in the present tense, to get used to it. As I say, if years pass by you've got to think twice how you're going to restart a debate (or if it's worth restarting at all).
And you know what? You say this:
But in that same post you're replying to, Moose wrote this:
So I don't know if you read either the date or the full content of the post.
Finally, you're repeating what you said once in a debate you and I had on this: that McEnroe couldn't handle Lendl except for two of the 12 years they played (1983-84). But I'll say it again: McEnroe won the H2H in another one of those twelve seasons (1980).
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
I reiterate that McEnroe could have beaten any of the greats of the game on "any given day" (key phrase of this thread topic). Yet, I don't think his game would have translated as well to the current technology as say some other players such as Borg and perhaps even Lendl.
In my opinion, many overlook just how different the frames used by such players as McEnroe, Lendl, and Borg were from the frames of today. For example, his Dunlop of the 1980's is MUCH different than the most modern frames. In his prime, if he played witn say a modern, perhaps a 100 sq. inch face or so, that may have really helped his S&V game. Yet, I think that others he faced, such as Borg and Lendl, would have been even more dangerous, given their ability to play games that many top players of today simply could not match, given that Borg and Lendl would have adjusted and played very dangerously with the latest racquets. Fitness is also somewhat of a concern in McEnroe's case, but the key phrase is "on a any given day". His S&V game, when on, could have given anyone real difficulty, especially at Wimbledon, or front of his home crowd at he US Open. In terms of older players playing the greats of today,I do think Borg would have been the most dangerous, followed closely by Lendl, McEnroe/Connors. This is not open and shut debate though, as it's very tough to know for sure. The one thing I am certain of is: there's no easy answer to these questions, hence the fun of debating such issues in this forum.
In my opinion, many overlook just how different the frames used by such players as McEnroe, Lendl, and Borg were from the frames of today. For example, his Dunlop of the 1980's is MUCH different than the most modern frames. In his prime, if he played witn say a modern, perhaps a 100 sq. inch face or so, that may have really helped his S&V game. Yet, I think that others he faced, such as Borg and Lendl, would have been even more dangerous, given their ability to play games that many top players of today simply could not match, given that Borg and Lendl would have adjusted and played very dangerously with the latest racquets. Fitness is also somewhat of a concern in McEnroe's case, but the key phrase is "on a any given day". His S&V game, when on, could have given anyone real difficulty, especially at Wimbledon, or front of his home crowd at he US Open. In terms of older players playing the greats of today,I do think Borg would have been the most dangerous, followed closely by Lendl, McEnroe/Connors. This is not open and shut debate though, as it's very tough to know for sure. The one thing I am certain of is: there's no easy answer to these questions, hence the fun of debating such issues in this forum.
Last edited:
My bad I didn't look at the date, as Moose's post appeared just above the new post from yesterday. Most of my comments would have been as applicable in December 06 as they are now.
On the evolution of Moose's perception of Lendl -I wasn't aware he had once been a despiser of Lendl. I myself have seen a spectacular evolution in my own perception of McEnroe and Connors. Their peronalities were so repugnant to me when they were playing that they often prevented me from frully enjoying their great tennis. Now that they have both grown more civilized, I have come to appreciate their tennis a lot more. I still think McEnroe's unearthly greatness is very exaggerated in the sense that it is so carefully constructed around one year of his career, and the presentation of his decline after that year as a kind of accident of nature. But yeat, he a great pleasure to watch. And so is Connors.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It was harder to enjoy McEnroe's great play because of his behavior. You're right.
Nowadays one of my favorite matches to watch is the 1984 semis at the US Open between Connors and Mac. What a fantastic match and such contrasting styles! Both played beautifully that day and I was amazed at the amount of times Connors passed McEnroe off the service return that match.
The movement by both players was great to watch. Super tennis.
Last edited:
