Excerpt from Spadea's book

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
"Hey Vince," Alex says, "I'm going to hit with John McEnroe tomorrow. Why don't you two just hit instead." I said that sounds like a great plan. My brother-in-law, married to my sister, Luanne — together they live in the city with their young son — comes to my hotel and gives me plenty of cash for expenses. So the following morning I cab it out to Tennisport for the big practice with Mr. Manhattan.

I arrive a few minutes early to stretch and not long after the main entrance to the club opens and through the door steps a salt gray-haired man with a bag of tennis rackets in a backpack. He looks like an older man ready to go to school only with rackets and not books in his bag. He greets me with a confident smirk on his face, shaking hands in a manly arm-wrestling grip, like we've known each other for a while and have been through some great experiences together. Which is not the case, but I know John to be cool, frank, intelligent and opinionated. Yet he still comes off as generous and warm.

"What bring you to New York? A rap video?" he asks sarcastically as he likes to tease me about my rapping interests. I tell him I’m here to hit with him and he says, "You want to hit a few balls and grind? I’ll move you around and give you a good workout." I grin and say, "Sure man, bring it on. I'm going to hit the ball heavy today. It’s the clay court season."

He laughs and moves off into the locker room for a few minutes. We start off by hitting down the middle, but hitting in any fashion with John is intense. He goes for every ball, even if I hit the ball outside the lines. He's digging, coming to net, starting a new rally from any part of the court, hardly taking any breaks; it’s non-stop hitting. He goes for a forehand, down-the-line winner and misses long, "No! Make that shot!" he bellows. But he says it with a smirk almost as if he’s mocking his own famous reputation for being a perfectionist.

A few shots later he misses another and says, "Can someone tell me what I did wrong on that shot?" His comment is directed at the eight or so people who have gathered in the bleachers to watch us hit. They chuckle, but no one responds, as they assume correctly that it’s purely a rhetorical question on John’s part.

Does John McEnroe really want theirs or my thoughts on the state of his tennis game or is he just frustrated after missing a simple shot? You don’t have to be Jim Loehr to come up with the right answer.

I can still see the competitiveness in his eyes. His footwork has slowed, but his will hasn’t. His shots still have pace, depth and consistency. His volleys are crisp, effortless and efficient, though he misses more than he used to. Even so, his reflexes are still second to none. I’m hitting fierce heavy- spinning ground strokes in a grunting tireless mode and he could have a Pina Colada in one hand as he easily responds to my shots at his body without a flinch. His volleys cut into the court with minimal bounce and hurry away from me as if I’m trying to run them down on a treadmill.

His serve is as accurate and consistent as ever. His classic stance, with his back facing me as he manipulates his left arm and slices his serve out wider and wider into the service box, gives me a déjà vu feeling of watching the video tape of his brilliant 1980 Wimbledon Finals match against Borg.

John floats into the net smiling as he swats one of my duck-like, returns away with an angled volley that paints the lines. Thirteen years after his last year on tour, I still can't get a lob over his racquet — McEnroe was famous for his lightening first step when scooting back for an overhead. His conditioning is at a high level especially for someone 46-years-old. His running out wide for balls isn't vintage anymore, but something’s got to give.

He’s generous and helpful with tips as we play, complimenting me—saying, "nice shot" — on my winners. On our water breaks we talk about tennis in general. I ask him, "How many majors will Federer win? Will he beat Sampras’ record of 14?" Mac responds, "If he stays healthy, he can win 10 maybe 11."

Interesting, Johnny Mac doesn't think Federer can break the record, but he does think highly of him. "Ten ain’t too shabby if he stays healthy," he says again. I ask him about his television talk show, The John McEnroe Show on CNBC, that was cancelled at the beginning of the year not even six months after it debut on July 4, 2004. He says the problem was that he had sat through thousands of interviews, but he had been the person receiving the questions and responding. He had never been in the position of asking the questions and listening for the responses. He says that he was just getting the hang of it when they canned him and the show.

"Maybe I should have had you rapping on the show," McEnroe says.

"You know, that would have changed your ratings, John," I say. Actually, the producer for his show came to the 2004 U.S. Open looking for possible guests and I told my agent to try to get me on the show, but his producer said they were only looking for semifinalists or better. That was low, and guess what? Now there’s no more show. Because John wasn’t the CEO of flow. I’ve got more dough. My name’s Edgar Allan Poe.

"Hey John," I ask him in all seriousness, "How can I develop a big weapon at the age of 30?"

He doesn’t hesitate in responding, "You're better off honing what you have. Consistency is rare in today’s game. But go ahead, try to prove me wrong. You already did by coming back from your losing streak and making a great comeback. The youngsters can learn from that."

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14402&bannerregion=
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
Thanks for the post Kevin...anyone find it odd mac would say consistency is missing in the modern game, when that's pretty much how the game is played today i think..consistent grinding (a fitness grind) and not very many UE's
 

@wright

Hall of Fame
Interesting read - thanks for posting it. McEnroe is fascinating - I wish I could follow him around for a day.
 

35ft6

Legend
I know which of 2 courts they were probably playing on. I've watched Mac beating up on a guy on those same courts. Mac once watched me play for like 20 seconds. He was upstairs getting a massage and I don't know if he was waiting for the masseuse or what, but he was pacing around, and he came up to the window and looked out right over my court. Dude's got the nastiest drop shot I've ever seen. It gets to where it's going to die on the court so quickly, that's the difference between his drop shot and a regular one, what makes it nasty. Most drop shots are like mini-lobs so they land straight down right over the net, but John's looked like a regular slice backand, with a lot of forward momentum, but then it would just suddenly, abruptly change direction and crash right into the court. Sick.
 

Tchocky

Hall of Fame
I can't believe McEnroe doesn't think Federer can surpass Sampras' record. He thinks Roger only has 4 or 5 slams left in him....we'll see.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
He may be right though, although Federer is a complete player, he doesn't have a "big" shot like Sampras did.
 

Deuce

Banned
Dear Lord, Spadea's written a book.

If this ain't proof the apocalypse is right around the corner, I don't know what is.
 

dmastous

Professional
I think Mac's right about Federer's chances to break Sampras' record. There's more competition than there was in Sampras' day. Sampras had more competition that Mac's & Conner's day. Every generation seems to bring more talented players to the table than the last.
Maybe someone can dominate the game like Sampras did or Federer does now, but it won't be for as long as Sampras did. 7 years is a long time. Someone, may Nadal, maybe Donald Young, maybe someone who hasn't hit his stride yet will come on like Federer did, will come along and knock Federer off his perch soon enough, if the injury bug doesn't do it first.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
wings56 said:
He may be right though, although Federer is a complete player, he doesn't have a "big" shot like Sampras did.

Yeah but he he also has more variety than Sampras and better groundstrokes. He returns better than Sampras did, his serve might not be as good--but its still a weapon during the important stages of a match. Why would Federer need any "big" weapon (whatever that means)?--he hasn't need it thus far to win majors.
 

prostaff1

Rookie
"There's more competition than there was in Sampras' day."- Dmastous

Umm- what planet was this on?

Sampras had Courier, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Chang, Rafter and even the aging guys like Mac and Lendl still around- just to mention a few.

Who exactly does Federer have that is bothersome? Look to the Masters Series winners and Grand Slams of the past few years for the answers. There is NO competition-that's why he dominates.

Also- Sampras finished the year number six times consecutively- but he wasn't number one for the entire calendar year as Federer has been.
 

35ft6

Legend
wings56 said:
He may be right though, although Federer is a complete player, he doesn't have a "big" shot like Sampras did.
His forehand is pretty "big." Like Sampras' "big" serve, it's not just about sheer pace. Federer can put that forehand anywhere, it's deceptive, and when he opens up he can crank it as hard as anybody.
 

35ft6

Legend
prostaff1 said:
Who exactly does Federer have that is bothersome? Look to the Masters Series winners and Grand Slams of the past few years for the answers. There is NO competition-that's why he dominates.
This is begging the question. By definition, to dominate means, basically, that you have no competition.
 

bluegrasser

Hall of Fame
I like Spadea, he's a guy that works hard and makes use ( through hard work ) of the talent he has, a good example for us hackers + his book probably give a more honest insight into the inner world of tennis, than somebody in the limelight.
 

Grimjack

Banned
prostaff1 said:
"There's more competition than there was in Sampras' day."- Dmastous

Umm- what planet was this on?

Sampras had Courier, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Chang, Rafter and even the aging guys like Mac and Lendl still around- just to mention a few.

Who exactly does Federer have that is bothersome? Look to the Masters Series winners and Grand Slams of the past few years for the answers. There is NO competition-that's why he dominates.

Fed faces no less competition than Pete did. It's just that Pete's very existence skews things in retrospect. Let me explain:

To take into account the "old guys" still hanging around, consider for an ad-lib list of "greats" those players who won slams 2 or more times during the period from ten years before Pete's first slam (so, starting with the '80 US) till his last slam title ('02 US). During that period, 13 (other) players gathered two or more slams. That list: McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Rafter, and Hewitt. Now, it's not necessarily true that Sampras had a long and storied history against each of these players, but somehow, he gets credit for thriving in an era when they all played tennis. It was "a golden age!"

Now, look at that same list extending back 10 years from Roger's first slam (thus starting with '93 Wimbledon) and up through present day. During that time, only 6 other players have won multiple slams...

...But guess why? I'll give you a hint using bold font. Those players: SAMPRAS, Agassi, Kuerten, Rafter, Safin, and Hewitt.

The reason there are so many fewer? Because Sampras himself hogged 13 of the trophies during that period that defines the greats of Roger's era. It's not that there weren't as many great players, it's that they never had a chance to prove it, because there was an even bigger dog on the top step. Sampras reigned after an era of relative parity, and had the laundry list of successful foes to prove it. Federer reigns after a monarchy.

Yet to say that the past champions from Pete's era suggest better tennis from Pete himself is logically absurd...because the past champions from Roger's era are mostly Pete himself. You're essentially saying Pete's run was better than Roger's because Pete took over from players who were bigger names in tennis history than Pete.

In addition, I don't see how you can toss the name of a one-slam wonder like Chang around as if he's a major conquest, yet diminish Fed's accomplishments in doing the same. The one-slammers make for a wash. They fill in gaps when the dominant player in an era of dominance can't win every slam. Fed faces Roddick and Nadal and Fererro and Gaudio just like Sampras faced Goran and Chang and Krajicek and Korda.

And as to the other "greats" (more-than-1-slammers) on the Fed list? Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Kuerten, and Agassi? I doubt even Pete would disparage that list, since it reads like a who's who of those who kept Pete from hoisting even more slam trophies.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
Its SPAY-DEE-UH, Im a like a create-uh, im a like a gladiat-uh, and I ain't afraid-ah-ya....so lets get it straight-ah-ya
 
Each of these threads comes down to, 'degenerates' to who was better, Roger or Pete. Nobody will ever fairly be able to answer this question. The only thing we know for sure is that these are two of the leading GOAT candidates, that only players such as Laver, Hoad, Budge, Tilden (and maybe a few others) can 'compete' with them.

The poster who listed the 'names' in Roger's 'era' and matched them with the (old) names in Pete's era makes a valid point. Pete didn't exactly face McEnroe in his prime. He was a young protege of Lendl's, and let's use Ivan as an example. He was ready for golf, with a bad back, when Sampras really came into his own. When was that? '93, not before. Lendl was done then. How would a 'time machine' Lendl - the Lendl of '86-88 - fare against the Sampras of HIS prime (93-96, or 93-99, depending).

Nobody knows. I'll make an educated guess and claim that Lendl 'youngerized' and facing Pete, young Agassi, Jim, Boris, etc., in the mid-90s, would do pretty well. I could see him playing Sampras in several Major finals. I could see him slipping out a US Open or an Oz Open, but not winning the majority of matches.

So, to the age-old, if fairly young question of who's the GOAT, Pete or Roger, nobody knows. Some people say Laver, but some old-timers scoff and say it was Budge...or Hoad...Tilden, however was unbeatable. And so on.
 

prostaff1

Rookie
Grimjack-

Not turning this into another Pete vs. Roger thread.

Clearly the top players of post-Sampras, pre-Roger (Hewitt) era were WEAK!!! I mean Hewitt was number one for two years before Rog got his sh*t together, now he can barely take a set off him. That proves quite a bit.

And to mention guys like Kuerten and Rafter- do so if you must, but I could mention Sergi Bruguera and Michael Stich or Goran. The point remains that Pete was competing with guys who were number one for quite a while and who won many more tournaments- not just slams. And look who they had to beat to win tournaments!

The fact that guys like Gaudio are in the top 10 is a strong statement about the shape of today's game- like it or not.

Rios, Kuerten, Rafter, and all of these other clowns are not exactly the match of Boris and Stefan and Courier.
 

dmastous

Professional
In some circles a server's ability can be better established by his second serve and his ability to be effective with the second serve, so too I determine the overall talent of Sampras' era with the current era in tennis.
I think the weaker players in Sampras' era were weaker in ability than the weaker players now. In Sampras' time it seemed more rare for a player ranked out of the top 50 to beat a player in the top 10. Now you see players ranked below 100 competing much more evenly with the top players.
So while Federer dominates more completely than Sampras did (second only to McEnroe in his prime in his dominance) there are more lower ranked players who are able to push him than were able to push Sampras, and the same goes for Sampras vs those in McEnroe's time.
 
L

Lee

Guest
"Uncharacteristic for a model, she exhibits a voluptuous rump region, too." :)

ah Vincent is such a character. I'll be first in line to buy his new book
 

Grimjack

Banned
prostaff1 said:
Clearly the top players of post-Sampras, pre-Roger (Hewitt) era were WEAK!!! I mean Hewitt was number one for two years before Rog got his sh*t together, now he can barely take a set off him. That proves quite a bit.

Do you not understand why this says a great deal more about the quality of Federer than the quality of Sampras and those of his era?

By the time Hewitt came into his own, Sampras was just edging past his prime years, and should, theoretically, have had several more years of dominance akin to those he saw in his early 20's as he slid down the back side of the performance bell curve. But by this time, he was not merely unable to compete with Hewitt any more -- he was Hewitt's pigeon. Pete took one set off Hewitt their last four matches, and many sets were of the 6-0 or 6-1 variety.

Hewitt looks to history like a second-rate champion compared to the Edbergs and Beckers only because he has the misfortune of being a perpetual also-ran in an era with at least one player far greater than any of them. Put Edberg, Becker, et al into todays game, and neither of them hoists anywhere near the same amount of slam trophies, if any at all -- those guys built their resumes on Fed's stomping grounds, after all. You're calling that era great because you remember it fondly, but retrospect shows that it was an era devoid of a dominant, multi-surface champion, which allowed these players to thrive in a tennis climate of mediocrity and parity. Today's tennis is far superior in every aspect except media coverage.
 

Grimjack

Banned
And please understand that this isn't "Hewitt love." I find the man's game and his personality repugnant, and root against him virtually every time he steps on the court.

And I understand that ultimately, "great" and "best" are concepts that stem from completely different achievements. "Greatness" is a measure of trophies hoisted. "Best-ness" (why not?) is a measure of talent and tennis ability.

Hewitt, owing to historical circumstance, is nowhere near the second greatest tennis player of all time. But I contend he just might be the second best. The greatest players in any sport almost never come from the modern era (unless we're in the midst of a period of unparalleled dominance). The best always do -- virtually without exception. And we can see this when we peek through the curtains where eras overlap, such as where an emerging Hewitt had no more trouble with 30-ish GOAT-contender Sampras than you or I would with a player a full rating point below us.
 

prostaff1

Rookie
"Today's tennis is far superior in every aspect except media coverage."- Grimjack

This is such a misguided statement (in my opinion). I find it interesting that you see it this way, when I feel just the opposite. A bunch of top-spinning baseliners who are afforded the advantage of more powerful racquets and string can hardly wipe out the display of skill and variety from the 90's players.

Please don't get me wrong, I love the tennis of today, as I like the way the professional game changes, but I certainly don't agree that Hewitt may be the "second-best player", in terms of talent and ability as you so state. I actually like that Hewitt is such a thorn in people's sides, and I don't find him boring. I would never root for the guy, but I am certainly glad he is around.

But the Paul Henri- Mathieu's and Gilles Muller's of the modern game offer nothing to make me a believer of your initial statement posted above.
 

prostaff1

Rookie
Grimjack,

In addition, while Hewitt may have started, to defeat Sampras due to the difference in age, you must not forget that Lleyton and Roger are of the exact same era and closely related in age. That's my point- Hewitt reigned in a horrible time of men's professional tennis. And now you see he is paying the price.

Do you see a big difference between the game/career of Safin and Ivanisevic?
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
I don't want to get into a Fed-Sampras debate. Both were great players & had to beat great players. But I don't understand this comment:

"In Sampras' time it seemed more rare for a player ranked out of the top 50 to beat a player in the top 10. Now you see players ranked below 100 competing much more evenly with the top players."

I could understand that statement in regards to the 80s, but any 2-3 year period in the 90s had far more upsets than happen on average the last 2-3 years. It's not just due to Fed dominating. Hewitt & Roddick win far more often today than a top player in the 90s. Federer, Hewitt, & Roddick are the first group of 3 players to be ranked in the top 5 every week of the year since 1995. The top seeds at every tournament hold their seeding more often than the 90s. The 90s were a decade of nothing but upsets. All the records for most seeds losing at the slams were set & broken repeatedly in the 90s.
Longshots were winning slams more often than top players(Kuerten, Rafter, Stich, Krajicek, Courier, Moya, etc were all longshots or virtually unknown when they won their first slams)
Just looking up the records of many top players from the 90s & comparing them to Hewitt & Roddick, I see that players were more tested by lower ranked players(outside the top 50/100) than today.
Also players were much bigger in the 90s than today(the average height of the top 100 today is the lowest it's been since the 80s) and surfaces were much faster. You had many low ranked huge servers capable of beating anyone on any day. The tour today is mostly composed of claycourters/counterpunchers.

Statistics show that the depth in today's game is no greater today than 10 years ago.
 

MonkeyPox

Semi-Pro
Regarding Vince's book, which this thread is supposed to be about, I guess you have to hand it to him to try and captialize on something. Though frankly to me that excerpt was sort of a desperate way of saying I know MacEnroe, sort of, and he told me some stuff. Spadea just comes off sort of squirrely to me. I'd sooner buy Roscoe Tanner's book, but I'd never buy either of them.
 

prostaff1

Rookie
"The tour today is mostly composed of claycourters/counterpunchers."

Kevin Patrick makes a quality argument to support this statement. It's very true.
 

bertrevert

Legend
Spadea is a spiky funny character and from the excerpt, ghost-written or not, I can tell it'll be an entertaining read. I really like it that it's written from a player's view, not a journalist's angle. To talk about Mac's dying lob, his volleys sliding, and his work-ethic is what's unique here.

And it doesn't seem to be locker-room confessional, it just really might give us some tips - who here trains like that (non-stop hitting) at 40 years old?

I look forward to reading this book...
 

AndrewD

Legend
I dont really know about the depth in men's tennis in last 20 years but it is interesting when you look through the record books at the winner and runner-up finishes at Wimbledon and the US Open.
WIMBLEDON
99-SAMPRAS/AGASSI 98-SAMPRAS/IVANISEVIC 97-SAMPRAS/PIOLINE 96-KRAJICEK/WASHINGTON 95-SAMPRAS/BECKER 94 SAMPRAS/IVANISEVIC
93 SAMPRAS/COURIER 92- AGASSI/IVANISEV 91 STICH/BECKER 90-EDBERG/BECKER
US OPEN
99-AGASSI/MARTIN 98 RAFTER/PHILLIPOUSSIS 97-RAFTER/RUSEDSKI 96-SAMPRAS/CHANG 95-SAMPRAS/AGASSI 94-AGASSI/STICH 93-SAMPRAS/PIOLINE 92-EDBERG/SAMPRAS 91-EDBERG/COURIER 90-SAMPRAS/AGASSI
WIMBLEDON
89-BECKER/EDBERG 88-EDBERG/BECKER 87-CASH/LENDL 86-BECKER/LENDL 85-BECKER/CURREN 84-MCENROE/CONNORS 83-MCENROE/LEWIS 82-CONNORS/MCENROE 81-MCENROE/BORG 80-BORG/MCENROE
US OPEN
89-BECKER/LENDL 88-WILANDER/LENDL 87-LENDL/WILANDER 86-LENDL/MECIR 85-LENDL/MCENROE 84-MCENROE/LENDL 83-CONNORS/LENDL 82-CONNORS/LENDL 81-MCENROE/BORG 80-MCENROE/BORG

Those are the two premier 'fast-court' tournaments in the world and I know which decade I'd rather have been playing in.
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
Grimjack said:
Hewitt, owing to historical circumstance, is nowhere near the second greatest tennis player of all time. But I contend he just might be the second best. The greatest players in any sport almost never come from the modern era (unless we're in the midst of a period of unparalleled dominance). The best always do -- virtually without exception. And we can see this when we peek through the curtains where eras overlap, such as where an emerging Hewitt had no more trouble with 30-ish GOAT-contender Sampras than you or I would with a player a full rating point below us.

I have absolutely no idea what you said here or what point you've tried to convey. Maybe I'm STOOPID, or maybe you should give it another shot.
 

joe sch

Legend
NoBadMojo said:
Thanks for the post Kevin...anyone find it odd mac would say consistency is missing in the modern game, when that's pretty much how the game is played today i think..consistent grinding (a fitness grind) and not very many UE's
I also found that very odd since todays game is all about consistent baseline blasting. I give Spadea alot of credit for having a personality and trying to become a celebrity. Very few of todays players are willing to write books and Vince surely has a different perspective :)
 

edmondsm

Legend
wings56 said:
He may be right though, although Federer is a complete player, he doesn't have a "big" shot like Sampras did.

Yeah, that Federer forehand isn't that "big". Come on now, I saw him hit one 100mph+ at the Aussie Open.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Grimjack said:
Do you not understand why this says a great deal more about the quality of Federer than the quality of Sampras and those of his era?

By the time Hewitt came into his own, Sampras was just edging past his prime years, and should, theoretically, have had several more years of dominance akin to those he saw in his early 20's as he slid down the back side of the performance bell curve. But by this time, he was not merely unable to compete with Hewitt any more -- he was Hewitt's pigeon. Pete took one set off Hewitt their last four matches, and many sets were of the 6-0 or 6-1 variety.

Hewitt looks to history like a second-rate champion compared to the Edbergs and Beckers only because he has the misfortune of being a perpetual also-ran in an era with at least one player far greater than any of them. Put Edberg, Becker, et al into todays game, and neither of them hoists anywhere near the same amount of slam trophies, if any at all -- those guys built their resumes on Fed's stomping grounds, after all. You're calling that era great because you remember it fondly, but retrospect shows that it was an era devoid of a dominant, multi-surface champion, which allowed these players to thrive in a tennis climate of mediocrity and parity. Today's tennis is far superior in every aspect except media coverage.

That is the most intelligent thing that I've read on this site. I couldn't agree more. Your argument goes even further to show how great Nadal is for giving Feds so much trouble. I bet if you put Guga and Nadal in the same era we have the greatest clay court rivalry of all time.
 

Surecatch

Semi-Pro
wings56 said:
He may be right though, although Federer is a complete player, he doesn't have a "big" shot like Sampras did.


The way he can paint the lines, in my mind, is his "big shot." Honestly, I've never seen anyone like Federer...he's as close to "no weakness" as I've ever seen. I don't think of it in terms of how many more he can win, I think of it in terms of how many years does he have left to dominate. I think he has 3-4 years left of the superior footwork that sets him apart if he doesn't get injured. Before that time is up, others will have surged closer to him than they are now...it happens whenever someone dominates because the others are forced to raise their game. If he has that 3-4 years left, he could get 6-7 more and then maybe even a couple more in his "twilight" years. He's well on his way...I wouldn't be all that suprised to see him sweep the slams next year.
 

Surecatch

Semi-Pro
35ft6 said:
His forehand is pretty "big." Like Sampras' "big" serve, it's not just about sheer pace. Federer can put that forehand anywhere, it's deceptive, and when he opens up he can crank it as hard as anybody.

Also, his crosscourt backhand from the left corner is filthy....devastating. I wince when I see him unleash that sucker.
 
Top