Recent content by jrepac

a lot of the top guys/gals did not transition well to the broadcasting booth. Borg was one of the least effective. Connors was kind of dull too...better than Bjorn tho'. Mac is probably the most entertaining. Martina, not so much. I happen to like Chris and Tracy Austin as commentators...

She also did very well against Serena, IMHO. Her career is a frustrating riddle for most of us. The talent was there, no question. Consistency and the mental game, maybe not so much. But, when she was on, she was impressive. Olympic gold over Steffi as well, on clay, if memory serves me...

the Connors-driven seniors tour in the mid-to-late 90's was pretty entertaining. But it pretty much collapsed by 2002; post 9/11 and a brief recession. they played semi-seriously..at least in the semis and finals. Had lots of TV coverage too....people were eager to watch Borg, Mac and Connors...

that's not quite true....it took some time for Steffi beat Chris...you are talking late 80's when Steffi got the upper hand over her...not long before she retired really

Arantxa was a tough competitor on any surface. And did very well at doubles. It' s a bit unfair to call her a pusher, however, there were matches where she hit the ball awfully short and got herself into the wrong end of an exchange. When she kept the depth, she was tough. Her backhand was...

he was simply overpowered by others....

wimbledon used to sell matches on something called videotapes! I'm guessing there's a streaming service now. USO used to 30 minute highlight reels that were a very nice synopsis.

Well, there are two trains of thought...Borg wanted a break OR Borg couldn't beat Mac, and gave up. The USO final obviously was a heart breaker. But, my sense at the time, was that Borg truly wanted a more relaxed schedule in '82 and that was problematic for the tennis officials. I think he...

I don't agree w/that POV at all. Mac vs. Borg at Wimbledon was not a foregone conclusion. Mac was not as dominant as you seem to believe (in 84 perhaps). His matches on grass v. Borg, even Connors, were usually very competitive.

Connors did not hit 30 until 83' USO. It likely would have depended on Mac's mindset. Plus, he was having problems w/mobility (ankle, I believe). Still, I would've like Borg's chances against Connors in '82 or '83. But, might've Lendl been a spoiler to that match up? He seemed to have Mac's...

Martina's PR is not the greatest...you have to admit. I think that hurts her, as it does Court for different reasons. If you take doubles into account, I think you can make a case for MN as GOAT, quite honestly. She was a fantastic dubs player w/that S&V of hers, even in her 40's. Court's...

OK...but, first off, these are all time greats who on a given day, can beat one another, REGARDLESS of surface. Connors beat Borg on clay...would I ever claim he was better on the surface---no, no way. Fed and to a lesser extent, Djokovic, are great all court, all surface players. sure, Fed...

Recency factor....Djokovic and Fed SEEM better on clay.....I'd put Lendl, Kuerten and Wilander ahead of both those fellows...tho Wilander v. Djoker might be close. Or not.

I think the big question is around USO...would he have finally won it? His departure changed the dynamics big time....Lendl came forward to fill the gap, Connors had a resurgence, Mac was somewhat arguably "bummed" that Borg left the game. I think it's fair to say he would've won a few more GS...

I'm not sure why Steffi is on the list either. She was not a poor passer, but not near the level of Evert or Seles. Perhaps not even Capriati, for that matter. Steffi sliced the backhand 9 times out of 10...