McE really is thick

MarcRosset1992 said:

picked up this article on tennis.com

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

My favorite paragraph is:

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

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

Click to expand...

joeri888 said:

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

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

Click to expand...

veroniquem said:

Yes, he beat Lendl 15 times. I really can't see why he shouln't give his opinion about tactics. Wilander is another guy who played well in the 80s.

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

picked up this article on tennis.com

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

My favorite paragraph is:

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

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

Joseph L. Barrow said:

McEnroe had a winning record against Lendl until the late '80s, by which time he was substantially past his best.

Click to expand...

BreakPoint said:

3-13

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

2-10

So what's your point?

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

boooh!:-?

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

boooh!:-?

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

Click to expand...

Joseph L. Barrow said:

So you're saying that only a prime Lendl's record against an over-the-hill McEnroe is relevant?[/QUOTE

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

Click to expand...

TennisandMusic said:

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

But you and I do?

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

Joseph L. Barrow said:

So you're saying that only a prime Lendl's record against an over-the-hill McEnroe is relevant?[/QUOTE

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

CyBorg said:

We're only figuring this out now?

McEnroe has never been particularly bright.

Click to expand...

BreakPoint said:

3-13

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

2-10

So what's your point?

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

boooh!:-?

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

Click to expand...

zagor said:

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

Click to expand...

jimbo333 said:

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

Click to expand...

Benhur said:

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

Click to expand...

Devilito said:

good article thanks for the link. McEnroe is right like usual. It’s nice to have such great commentary and insight.

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

Click to expand...

Joseph L. Barrow said:

And obviously you're leaving out that McEnroe beat Lendl 10 out of 12 times in '83-84.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

Brned said:

^^ I agree with the last part.

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

Has Jmac ever worked as a coach?

Click to expand...

coloskier said:

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

Click to expand...

coloskier said:

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

Click to expand...

Benhur said:

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



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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Joseph L. Barrow said:

Benhur said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

wilkinru said:

Watching the 'classic matches' from Tennis channel this week I saw a match in 1975 and a match in 1987.

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

MarcRosset1992 said:

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

Click to expand...

Joseph L. Barrow said:

Benhur said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Benhur said:

Joseph L. Barrow said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

vsbabolat said:

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

Click to expand...

DNShade said:

Not to mention that Mac plays and beats some of todays current players both in doubles and in singles...

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

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

Click to expand...