Lendl v McEnroe - who was the greater player?

Mr.Lob

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
Vensai said:
Ivan Lendl reached 19 finals and won 8 of them. He, based on your logic, would have 8 gold medals and 11 silver medals. McEnroe reached 11 finals and won 7 of them. He would have 7 gold medals and 4 silver medals.
I fail to see why you go on with this, if you want to consider both singles and doubles then I would say McEnroe is superior. But just in singles, I would say it's a fair case that Lendl edges out McEnroe significantly.
Click to expand...

Winning Wimbledon would be equal to winning a gold in the Olympics. I think we can all agree to that. Winning the lowly ranked Australian Open, for that time period, would be equal to winning a bronze in the Olympics. The French would equal a silver. Now add them up. Macks on top.
 
R

Ripper014

Hall of Fame
At their best... Mac was a better player than Lendl.

Stats can be skewed anyway you want them. I watch them both at their best and there is no question in my mind that Mac at his best was the better player.
 
B

BTURNER

Legend
Ripper014 said:
At their best... Mac was a better player than Lendl.

Stats can be skewed anyway you want them. I watch them both at their best and there is no question in my mind that Mac at his best was the better player.
Click to expand...


I don't know how you skew all these stats. Lots of folks agree with that 'at their best' caveat but if that level is not consistent enough, for long enough as a percentage of the career, you end up throwing out too sludge in an effort to refine the oil.
 
Mr.Lob

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
max_brat said:
Actually to satisfy both sides (blind stats and opinion), it does come down to the question: How many matches do we remember each player for? I count 8 (if not more) for Mac (79-81 U.S. Open finals, 84 U.S. Open Semis, 80-81 Wimbledon finals, as well as the 83-84 Wimbledon finals). Amazingly, the one match I really remember Lendl for is the 84 French final, and really that was because McEnroe went ape after winning the first two sets. But then again, to compare these two using both blind stats and opinion is like using them to compare what's the better style of play: serve-and-volley or hammering it home from the baseline. I'm a serve-and-volleyer myself, but I can see the advantages to hitting with power from the baseline, so I can see both sides of the who's better argument.
Click to expand...

Which takes more talent to be successful, a serve and volleyer, or a baseline basher?
 
Kalin

Kalin

Legend
Talking about talent.... how much of JMac's superior 'talent' was actually due to being a lefty. Make John a righty where his corkscrew serve goes instead into the other guys forehand and a considerable chunk of his talent disappears. Being a lefty is not a talent, it's a fluke of Nature.

And please stop this hilarity about doubles. Nobody gives a c**p about doubles; not then, not now. How many doubles titles did Borg win in the same era? Borg, BTW, was a better player than both Ivan and John

Same thing about 'peak'. At their 'peak', Richard Krajicek and Joachim 'Pim-Pim' Johansson, just to name a couple, were both unbeatable by anyone. So frickin' what...
 
Mr.Lob

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
Kalin said:
Talking about talent.... how much of JMac's superior 'talent' was actually due to being a lefty. Make John a righty where his corkscrew serve goes instead into the other guys forehand and a considerable chunk of his talent disappears. Being a lefty is not a talent, it's a fluke of Nature.

And please stop this hilarity about doubles. Nobody gives a c**p about doubles; not then, not now. How many doubles titles did Borg win in the same era? Borg, BTW, was a better player than both Ivan and John

Same thing about 'peak'. At their 'peak', Richard Krajicek and Joachim 'Pim-Pim' Johansson, just to name a couple, were both unbeatable by anyone. So frickin' what...
Click to expand...

You got anger issues? Take it somewhere else pal. We only engage in civilized
interaction in this thread. Ask the wanker OP if you don't believe me.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Kalin said:
Talking about talent.... how much of JMac's superior 'talent' was actually due to being a lefty. Make John a righty where his corkscrew serve goes instead into the other guys forehand and a considerable chunk of his talent disappears. Being a lefty is not a talent, it's a fluke of Nature.

And please stop this hilarity about doubles. Nobody gives a c**p about doubles; not then, not now. How many doubles titles did Borg win in the same era? Borg, BTW, was a better player than both Ivan and John

Same thing about 'peak'. At their 'peak', Richard Krajicek and Joachim 'Pim-Pim' Johansson, just to name a couple, were both unbeatable by anyone. So frickin' what...
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Mr.Lob said:
You got anger issues? Take it somewhere else pal. We only engage in civilized
interaction in this thread. Ask the wanker OP if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

You are so funny.
Please don't stop posting - where else could I get entertainment like this at no cost.
Wacky, zany, crazy, you've got it all and more. :)
 
Timbo's hopeless slice

Timbo's hopeless slice

Hall of Fame
you love this stuff, don't you mate?

I'm not weighing in to this one other than to suggest JMac lost very few matches to P. Cash, particularly not important ones...
 
H

hawk eye

Hall of Fame
In their playing days, McEnroe was always considered the greatest talent. But then, S&V was still a succesfull style of play.
In the 2000's, where it's all about baseline power and constistency, a young Lendl would be regarded more talented than a young McEnroe for sure. Great touch at net is a nice addition, but on itself it's not gonna win you singles slams anymore.

Apart from the most talented issue, Lendl accomplished more with what he had, and stayed longer at the very top. So to me he was the greater player.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Nobody hit the lines like John.

" Chalk flew up".Glorious, insane superbrat.

I don´t know on court, it can go both ways depending on criteria.But off court, Lendl was the better of the two.
 
S

struggle

Legend
Both great.

Lendl, worked harder, better stats, longevity (open tennis), etc.

Mac, better skill/mastery, less effort, longevity (the guy is STILL a master), etc.

that was some good tennis.

edit: for those that want to make wimbledon the difference, one could also argue the FO
as a tough task. 1983 rings a bell.

doubles, to me, is not a factor in this argument, but i dig that Mac was a more well rounded player
in that respect. no doubt.

I'm a fan of both but i'd give the nod to Lendl for the younger days and a nod to Mac for the lifelong
achievement/overall (dubs included).
 
Last edited:
S

struggle

Legend
heninfan99 said:
Lendl was the better player. He also changed the game. The way players train.
Click to expand...

the way they deal with rackets/strings (with Bosworth).
fresh rackets wrapped in plastic. changing rackets
as new balls are brought into play.

but yes, training was his BIG addition to the game at
that time.
 
J

jrepac

Hall of Fame
there's no simple answer to this...may as well throw Connors into the mix as well...GS singles titles are about comparable in#...each is missing 1 of the 4 majors, Connors at least covered all surfaces. Mac much better in dubs, Davis Cup. Total titles and overall longevity to Connors, Lendl right up there in titles as well. Weeks at #1 to Lendl w/Jimmy right behind. But raw skill and talent? That goes to Mac, who you could put right up there w/anyone on his best day. So, flip a coin, spin a bottle, whatever. The differences are really quite small.
 
B

big ted

Legend
jrepac said:
there's no simple answer to this...may as well throw Connors into the mix as well...GS singles titles are about comparable in#...each is missing 1 of the 4 majors, Connors at least covered all surfaces. Mac much better in dubs, Davis Cup. Total titles and overall longevity to Connors, Lendl right up there in titles as well. Weeks at #1 to Lendl w/Jimmy right behind. But raw skill and talent? That goes to Mac, who you could put right up there w/anyone on his best day. So, flip a coin, spin a bottle, whatever. The differences are really quite small.
Click to expand...

i agree, at the end of they day they were pretty equal. at some points in their career, mac was the better player. then lendl was later on.

interesting about lendl's consistency, gimelstob interviewed lendl on tv and asked him if hes proud of how consistent he was throughout his career. and lendl actually said it could be considered a weakness, because his game never went down too much but on the other hand he couldnt raise his game to a 5th gear in the big moments (ala, becker, sampras, mabye mac, etc..).
 
P

pmerk34

Legend
big ted said:
i agree, at the end of they day they were pretty equal. at some points in their career, mac was the better player. then lendl was later on.

interesting about lendl's consistency, gimelstob interviewed lendl on tv and asked him if hes proud of how consistent he was throughout his career. and lendl actually said it could be considered a weakness, because his game never went down too much but on the other hand he couldnt raise his game to a 5th gear in the big moments (ala, becker, sampras, mabye mac, etc..).
Click to expand...

I think John had the slightly better career but here is an equally difficult question: Both players were unpopular among their fellow players. Who was more disliked in the locker room: John or Ivan?
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
pmerk34 said:
I think John had the slightly better career but here is an equally difficult question: Both players were unpopular among their fellow players. Who was more disliked in the locker room: John or Ivan?
Click to expand...

Mac was much more gregarious although in the leading position while Lendl was a clear individualistic guy.Of course, there were many reasons for that.Not only their own personality but also the fact that the tour was much more US dominated and there was much more common ground for John than there was for Ivan
 
P

pmerk34

Legend
kiki said:
Mac was much more gregarious although in the leading position while Lendl was a clear individualistic guy.Of course, there were many reasons for that.Not only their own personality but also the fact that the tour was much more US dominated and there was much more common ground for John than there was for Ivan
Click to expand...

True. Ivan went out of his way to be rude to his peers. I don't know if John did that. I do know John was disliked by many for his gamesmanship during matches. I.E timing his outbursts ( which always happened when he was losing) in a manner to disrupt his opponents momentum.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
pmerk34 said:
True. Ivan went out of his way to be rude to his peers. I don't know if John did that. I do know John was disliked by many for his gamesmanship during matches. I.E timing his outbursts ( which always happened when he was losing) in a manner to disrupt his opponents momentum.
Click to expand...

John is the typical guy you dislike on court but you can get along fine off.Like Nastase, who was very popular among most of the top players.Not Lendl.He only had Fibak as a real friend and got along well with Mayer,Clerc,Gomez and Edberg but not really close.
 
T

timnz

Legend
Nope

Mr.Lob said:
Lendl had a losing record in slam finals. A lousy 8-11. Ball bashers inordinately to choke in the big events. You aren't greater than Mack with a record like that. Macks winning percentage much better at 7-4 in finals.
Click to expand...

You know that 8-11 is vastly superior to 8-0 don't you? Unless you believe that losing in the first round of a slam is a better performance than making the final. After all if Lendl had instead lost in the first round in those 11 slams - then he would be sitting on a 8-0 ie 100% record! No, losing in the first round isn't better than making the final.

In 1985 McEnroe failed before the final at the french open, in the same tournament Lendl was the losing finalist..but you make that count against Lendl but don't make the inferior result in that tournament count against McEnroe at all.
 
T

timnz

Legend
Paul Murphy said:
Having a debate with a friend - interested in opinions.

The stats say Lendl in my view.

The key ones:

1) 21 v 15 H2H.
2) Majors won 8 v 7.
3) Major finals reached 19 v 11.
4) Major matches won 222 v 167.
5) Singles titles won 94 v 77.
6) Singles matches won 1071 v 875.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

My pick is Lendl.

I will say this though. I think McEnroe has the Lew Hoad factor ie very high peak play. I think Lendl had the superior record, but peak 1984 McEnroe was higher than peak Lendl.

Even though Lendl is my pick...it is worth mentioning their records at the two indoor majors as well.

Lendl - Masters - 5, WCT Finals -2
McEnroe - Masters - 3 WCT Finals - 5
 
B

Blocker

Professional
To me that 1984 FO final match is the key in this topic. Had McEnroe won that (being 2 sets up), the H2H would be closer, 20-16 instead of 21-15 and the slam count would be 8-7 in McEnroe's favour. Plus McEnroe would have won all the important slams in that era, the AO not being considered worthy around that time.

I give the nod to Lendl.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Blocker said:
To me that 1984 FO final match is the key in this topic. Had McEnroe won that (being 2 sets up), the H2H would be closer, 20-16 instead of 21-15 and the slam count would be 8-7 in McEnroe's favour. Plus McEnroe would have won all the important slams in that era, the AO not being considered worthy around that time.

I give the nod to Lendl.
Click to expand...

Slam count is important now, not then.Mac won 8 major indoors and Lend 7.IMO, their number stands equal.In titles that mattered when they played which is the important thing.
 
D

dominikk1985

Legend
mac had a better peak and looked like he was on pace to be greater but then came his break after which he never won a major again at age 25 or so.

I give the nod to lendl because he kept winning majors till he was 30. mac could have been greater but lendl had a better work ethic and thus just edged mac out. lendl also has 100 weeks more at no.1.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
As opposed to Lendl´s one more slam ( equalized by John´s one more indoor slam) and more weeks and tournaments won, Mac brings to table his amazing DC and doubles record.

Closest race.I´d say Mac dominated the first half of the 80´s ( with Borg and Connors ) while Lendl dominated the second half, with Becker, Wilander and Edberg.But when Mac peaked Lendl was there and when Lendl peaked Mac wasn´t there...
 
B

Blocker

Professional
kiki said:
Slam count is important now, not then.Mac won 8 major indoors and Lend 7.IMO, their number stands equal.In titles that mattered when they played which is the important thing.
Click to expand...

My point was, that FO final was a pendulum swinger for both McEnroe and Lendl in the context of their respective careers.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Blocker said:
My point was, that FO final was a pendulum swinger for both McEnroe and Lendl in the context of their respective careers.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with that.I´d say however the turning point was the 1985 US Championships.

In any case, even if Mac had won that US Open, he´d have gone the way he did in 1985-1987.That is my belief.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
You know that 8-11 is vastly superior to 8-0 don't you? Unless you believe that losing in the first round of a slam is a better performance than making the final. After all if Lendl had instead lost in the first round in those 11 slams - then he would be sitting on a 8-0 ie 100% record! No, losing in the first round isn't better than making the final.

In 1985 McEnroe failed before the final at the french open, in the same tournament Lendl was the losing finalist..but you make that count against Lendl but don't make the inferior result in that tournament count against McEnroe at all.
Click to expand...

So very true.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
My pick is Lendl.

I will say this though. I think McEnroe has the Lew Hoad factor ie very high peak play. I think Lendl had the superior record, but peak 1984 McEnroe was higher than peak Lendl.

Even though Lendl is my pick...it is worth mentioning their records at the two indoor majors as well.

Lendl - Masters - 5, WCT Finals -2
McEnroe - Masters - 3 WCT Finals - 5
Click to expand...

I agree with you here too.
1984 for Mac was an extraordinary year but overall it's Lendl for all the reasons I've given.
 
K

Kirijax

Hall of Fame
Are we talking about better peak player or better overall career? There was no question McEnroe had something special and that 1984 year was amazing. He could do things with a tennis ball that no one else could. So if we 're talking about better peak player, it would have to be McEnroe.
Lendl didn't have the talent McEnroe had but he more than made up for it with hard work. His career achievements outweigh McEnroe's I think.
Also someone mentioned that they remember McEnroe's big matches more than Lendl's. That's because McEnroe had the worst on court manners of anyone and he made everything that much more flamboyant.
 
D

degrease

Rookie
Obviously the stats say a lot but maybe because i am in uk with is wimbledon focussed but wen j talk greatest player from each era Mcenroe's name comes up before lendl's.. dont know if same in other countries.

Macenroes S and V frequency gets talked about with misty eyed reverance.

Btw i too young to remember either at the time
 
Mr.Lob

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
You know that 8-11 is vastly superior to 8-0 don't you? Unless you believe that losing in the first round of a slam is a better performance than making the final. After all if Lendl had instead lost in the first round in those 11 slams - then he would be sitting on a 8-0 ie 100% record! No, losing in the first round isn't better than making the final.

In 1985 McEnroe failed before the final at the french open, in the same tournament Lendl was the losing finalist..but you make that count against Lendl but don't make the inferior result in that tournament count against McEnroe at all.
Click to expand...

How unfortunate you missed the point. Lendl was known as a "choker". Not just by me, but everyone else on the tour. Except for the French Open that McEnroe gifted to Lendl, Mack was by far stronger mentrally (hint greater) than Lendl.

Mcenroe admired Lendls work ethic and dedication to fitness. But thought Lendl a stiff talentless mug who often would tank matches, calling Lendl a @u$$y on one occasion for not trying in an exhibition match in which they were paid a lot of money.
 
Kalin

Kalin

Legend
So we've determined that Mac thought he was a better player than Lendl. What a surprise!

I wonder what Lendl thinks about all this...
 
B

big ted

Legend
i think its hard to say whos greater since these 2 players both had two different careers pre-'85 and post-'85. lendl really got his mind and body together in 85 with the fitness, training, haas diet, new coach, strategy, etc.. and that helped him mentally too. mac on the other hand, you could say he suffered burnout from 85 on though he tried to get it together and did have some flashes of brilliance every now and then after.

i remember macs last usopen win in 84 when he dominated lendl in the final and held his finger "no1" to the tv camera. this was the year he dominated everyone. its funny nobody in their right mind would have thought that was going to be his last grandslam win.
 
Vensai

Vensai

Professional
Mr.Lob said:
How unfortunate you missed the point. Lendl was known as a "choker". Not just by me, but everyone else on the tour. Except for the French Open that McEnroe gifted to Lendl, Mack was by far stronger mentrally (hint greater) than Lendl.

Mcenroe admired Lendls work ethic and dedication to fitness. But thought Lendl a stiff talentless mug who often would tank matches, calling Lendl a @u$$y on one occasion for not trying in an exhibition match in which they were paid a lot of money.
Click to expand...
I never thought McEnroe really "choked" the French Open final. I always thought Lendl simply found his game and outplayed him. Though I suppose that's up to interpretation.
 
Mr.Lob

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
Vensai said:
I never thought McEnroe really "choked" the French Open final. I always thought Lendl simply found his game and outplayed him. Though I suppose that's up to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Just finished reading Macs book, "You Cannot Be Serious." Mac wrote several times that he felt like he choked the match away. Says he was cruising, up two sets and a break in the third, when a cameramas headset started making a buzzing noise. Said it distracted his train of thought, he became agitated and let negative thoughts and doubt enter his mind.

Mack wrote: "But he didn't beat me. I beat myself. Lendl got his first major, and I took his title, Choker-in-chief , away from him. Temporarily."

Mack did give Lendl credit "grudgingly" for being fit enough to raise his level of play as the match progressed.

Mack also said that Lendls parents use to "leash" young Ivan to a fence when they played tennis, and that Lendl was a locker room bully.

Really enjoyed Macks book, which was much more enjoyable reading than Connors semi-boring book.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Mr.Lob said:
Just finished reading Macs book, "You Cannot Be Serious." Mac wrote several times that he felt like he choked the match away. Says he was cruising, up two sets and a break in the third, when a cameramas headset started making a buzzing noise. Said it distracted his train of thought, he became agitated and let negative thoughts and doubt enter his mind.

Mack wrote: "But he didn't beat me. I beat myself. Lendl got his first major, and I took his title, Choker-in-chief , away from him. Temporarily."

Mack did give Lendl credit "grudgingly" for being fit enough to raise his level of play as the match progressed.

Mack also said that Lendls parents use to "leash" young Ivan to a fence when they played tennis, and that Lendl was a locker room bully.

Really enjoyed Macks book, which was much more enjoyable reading than Connors semi-boring book.
Click to expand...

If only that pesky "buzzing noise" wasn't there then he would have won!
Damn buzzing noise!
How dare the French allow a "buzzing noise"!
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Mr.Lob said:
How unfortunate you missed the point. Lendl was known as a "choker". Not just by me, but everyone else on the tour. Except for the French Open that McEnroe gifted to Lendl, Mack was by far stronger mentrally (hint greater) than Lendl.

Mcenroe admired Lendls work ethic and dedication to fitness. But thought Lendl a stiff talentless mug who often would tank matches, calling Lendl a @u$$y on one occasion for not trying in an exhibition match in which they were paid a lot of money.
Click to expand...

But I thought McEnroe was "far stronger mentally" (or "mentrally").
Must have been a very, very loud "buzzing noise".
Poor John.
So unfair.
Boo hoo.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Mr.Lob said:
Just finished reading Macs book, "You Cannot Be Serious." Mac wrote several times that he felt like he choked the match away. Says he was cruising, up two sets and a break in the third, when a cameramas headset started making a buzzing noise. Said it distracted his train of thought, he became agitated and let negative thoughts and doubt enter his mind.

Mack wrote: "But he didn't beat me. I beat myself. Lendl got his first major, and I took his title, Choker-in-chief , away from him. Temporarily."

Mack did give Lendl credit "grudgingly" for being fit enough to raise his level of play as the match progressed.

Mack also said that Lendls parents use to "leash" young Ivan to a fence when they played tennis, and that Lendl was a locker room bully.

Really enjoyed Macks book, which was much more enjoyable reading than Connors semi-boring book.
Click to expand...


"I took his title, Choker-in-chief , away from him. Temporarily"

Of course he did - poor Ivan only managed to win seven more Majors from this point and spend a measly five years as World No.1.
Poor guy.
 
B

big ted

Legend
lendl did have a 'choker' reputation early in his career but i think the press misused the term or exagerated it a bit. alot of it had to do with losing so many gs finals up until the french, similar to andy murray. people thought he didnt give it his all and he couldnt win the big ones, esp after the usopen losses to connors. when he got fitter he got mentally stronger. i do remember him being really rattled against chang though at the french that one year where it looked like he mentally collapsed.
 
P

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
Lendl in my experience watching them both live on several occasions, though I missed pre-84 Mac live as he did not like leaving the US.
Lendl started as a base liner and developed into a great all rounder, Mac was extremely reliant on his volleying game which was problematic as the game developed away from the wooden racquet era into the graphite era.
I don't believe their peaks where based purely on ability rather the state of the game at the time. Mac best was during the wooden (65") era though his best year was with the 200G (80") plastic noodle (sorry never like the limp feel), where as Lendl was better in the graphite era. To me this meant Mac was better when the net game was king, once the racquets became more rigid and powerful with larger head size for additional spin potential he was at a disadvantage benifiting Lendl all round game. The courts also assisted as Wim was a sand pit at the end of 2nd week in the early 80's. So if Mac at his physical and mental best played Lendl in 87 Lendl would win on all but Wim, and vise versa if they met in 83 for Mac except FO.
I think Lendl's natural talent is heavily underestimated and Mac over exaggerated. Lendl had a hole in his game early on which was net play and he still performed great. He had the talent to develop the skill to a very high level to the point where he was RU in the most important volleying competition twice, though his volley never came close to Mac. Mac's base line game was no where near Lendl's. Mac got away with a pokey pushy baseline game during the low power era which was exposed when the game sped up. In the late 80's I'd never seen a player ever hit a ball as sound and as consistent as Lendl, that takes talent it's not bashing it's countering spin and feeling the power and touch needed to ensure the shot consistently lands deep. This in my opinion is where people misunderstand men's vs woman's tennis believing the woman have more touch because they play slower, not so in my book.
Doubles does not count, doubles was meaningless when Mac played it. Doubles became meaningless in the 70's when top players stopped playing it. It's a different game and should be classed as such, same for mixed double where Mac also played well.
A slight downside of Mac was he won nearly all his major event's in US, as one of the all time S&V he should have a better Wim record. Having the Masters in NY also helped as is evident when he won one year against Lendl hitting a ball through the net!

Having said all of that there is nearly nothing in it, just one GS in my option. Both are great players who brought much joy to many people and still do. Lendl had chance to firm his record and Mac also had many chances as well. Both left great matches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Lendl v McEnroe
2 3
Replies
104
Views
10K
kiki
kiki
F
  • Poll
Who is the greater player? Mcenroe or Wilander?
2 3
Replies
125
Views
9K
Pheasant
Pheasant
W
Meta Match Stats/Reports - Lendl vs McEnroe, Masters finals '82, '83 & '84
Replies
40
Views
3K
WCT
W
noeledmonds
  • Poll
Who is the greater grass-courter, Becker or McEnroe?
2
Replies
67
Views
8K
srinrajesh
S
R
  • Poll
Poll Lendl or Becker: who was greater
Replies
33
Views
3K
drgnpride
drgnpride
Top