If Mac had won FO84
- Thread starter GuyForget
- Start date
NAS
Hall of Fame
No, he was certainly not going above Borg, but we may have seen a attempt for CYGS in AO.
That RG final is what if for CYGS case
NAS
Hall of Fame
No, as nobody rate Andre above borg and He won all four and Olympics in same type of era
However, we would see a huge change in that Lendl would have remained a non-Slam winner.
Lendl would have entered 1985 USO with 0 Slam under his belt (and very likely with a teen boy winning a Slam before him). In such case the USO final outcome might have changed and well, in that case Mac pushes it to 10 to Borg’s 11. His (and Lendl’s) career after 1985 would have also changed a lot, and Becker or Wilander might have ended up as the Slam leader of the 1980s.
NAS
Hall of Fame
Depends upon Lendl take his fitness seriously like he did from 1984, Mac trajectory will not change, only slam number will add
NAS
Hall of Fame
But why do you think Mac will win 1985 us open, Lendl became more fit from 1984 and Mac got distracted after 1984, it has nothing to do with French Open win or loss.
Lendl was committed for better fitness, he will become fit after 1984
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Even had Mac won 8 slams, he's nowhere near the other stats of Lendl, like weeks at #1 and winning 94 tournaments. And even though I believe Mac to be the superior player to Connors, Jimmy still would be ahead of him too on the ATG list.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Thing is McEnroe very likely plays the 84 Australian if he had won the 84 French, wins it, and completes the Calendar Grand Slam that year. Of course that is a what if, and unproveable, but this entire thread is based on pure speculation anyway. If this happens he not only has 9 slams to 7, but a Calendar Slam vs Lendl who does not even have a Career Slam or Wimbledon. And 8 slams at the 2 most prestigious slams- Wimbledon and the US Open, vs only 3 for Lendl. I do think in that case most would rank McEnroe ahead, regardless of Lendl's other advantages.
Mac already had a huge ego, but it would have been off the charts had he won that title, and even more so that he gone on to complete the grand slam which clearly would have been enormous and the holy grail. So I've always thought Lendl did the tennis world a big favour by beating him in that final in Paris ! It' still one of the best major finals I've ever seen in terms of quality tennis, drama and excitement, and Mac's long-standing bitterness about that result (I remember he looked furious when Lendl ribbed him about it when they were both interviewed ahead of a seniors exho more than 25 years after it was played) was also funny.
However I personally think there is already a good case to argue that Mac ranks ahead of Connors and Lendl, just as there is also a good case to argue that either or both of them rank ahead of him. I think that many people who argue that both Connors and Lendl ranking above Mac is absolutely indisputable and an open and shut case, tend to make the mistake of judging the players through a 90s or even 21st century lens, and not through the context of when they were actually active and had their best years.
However I personally think there is already a good case to argue that Mac ranks ahead of Connors and Lendl, just as there is also a good case to argue that either or both of them rank ahead of him. I think that many people who argue that both Connors and Lendl ranking above Mac is absolutely indisputable and an open and shut case, tend to make the mistake of judging the players through a 90s or even 21st century lens, and not through the context of when they were actually active and had their best years.
Last edited:
Note that even in 1985 USO IRL, Mac was serving for the set in the 1st. A non-Slam winning Lendl probably would have lost that set and most likely the match.
The thing about the Mac-Lendl rivalry is that, most of the times the winner of the 1st set flattened the other guy in the rest of the match. So, had Mac won the 1st set, he would have had a more than 50% chance of taking the match.
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
Remember Mac flamed out due to not liking the pressure of being at the top. If he gets the French (and probably the Grand Slam), that pressure only increases disproportionately and nothing likely changes with his career arc. He ends up with maybe 8-9 Slams and gets an even higher (exponentially) pedestal with the GS claim, but I can't see that achievement leading him to stick around and be motivated for a drastically longer career.
If anything, it seems like having hit the absolute pinnacle would make him feel he had no reason to continue on.
If anything, it seems like having hit the absolute pinnacle would make him feel he had no reason to continue on.
Pheasant
Legend
Man, I'd like to put Mac ahead of Lendl. Had he won, then he's at 8 slams and Lendl is at 7. However, I don't use the slam count all by itself for rankings. Lendl was far too dominant for too long. I'd still put Lendl ahead of Mac, even with a 1 slam deficit.
Had Mac won the CYGS, then it'd be a much different argument. The CYGS is legendary. But IIRC, Mac was injured around the time of the AO. So I highly doubt that this happens anyway.
Had Mac won the CYGS, then it'd be a much different argument. The CYGS is legendary. But IIRC, Mac was injured around the time of the AO. So I highly doubt that this happens anyway.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
above lendl/connors...yeah i think so, having won all 4 majors would be a huge deal...and would have given him an 85-2 record on the year, even more insane.
Lendl was not dominant for longer than Mac, he was only in the top 3 longer than Mac.
Lendl was only dominant in 86 and 87 (like Mac in 81 and 84). In 85 he was only No.1 from USO onwards, in 88 Wilander was the clear top dog (3 Slams and more overall titles than Lendl), in 89 it was a contest with Becker, in 90 Edberg dethroned him for good (should have denied Lendl his last Slam without being injured IMO).
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Would Lendl in that scenario remain at 7 slams or do we assume he would win another one instead and stay at 8? Assuming the first, Mac would maybe be above, assuming the second, I still would have a tough time. Both with 8 slams, but Lendl with 100 more weeks at No.1, 17 more tournaments, more slam finals, the H2H. At YEC they are roughly equal, so even on his strongest turf, Mac does not have an advantage. Winning all three big slams would be huge but does not cut it for me. Mac on top has doubles and DC, but even with that I would still say Lendl. Of course if we consider follow-effects and assume Mac goes to Australia and wins the CYGS, then yes, he would be above Lendl imho.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Would he 83-2. His real record in 84 was 82-3.
MissileBackHand99
Semi-Pro
THIS is what people love to forget. Mac did NOT like the expectations/relentless pressure of being on top, which is why he took a break from the game in '86. If he wins the French in '84 (and possibly a GS if he plays Australia)....i see it playing out just as you said. He would be even more ready to take a break from the sport...especially with all that attention going into Australia to win the GS
King_olaf_the_hairy
Semi-Pro
I think we need to dial back the conjecture a bit here.
JMac was never winning the CYGS in 1984. He picked up a wrist injury in training a few days before the Australian Open began, and had to withdraw. He returned at the Davis Cup final, and his level there shows he wasn't going to win at Kooyong had he risked participating. So even if we give him FO '84, he doesn't then get AO '84 as well. (In fact I'd argue that losing the CYGS opportunity would maybe have an even more detrimental effect on his form the following year.)
And I don't know why we're giving him USO '85, that was a year later. Because Lendl wasn't a slam champ so he didn't have confidence? Winning the US in '85 wasn't the continuation of a winning streak at the majors for Ivan. After FO '84 the Czech went 0–2 in slam finals, losing to JMac at Flushing Meadows and Wilander at Roland Garros in '85. And in the summer of '85 the Superbrat had beaten him twice on North American hardcourts, at Stratton Mountain and Montreal. But Curren's demolition job in their Wimbledon QF proved the American wasn't the same force who'd dominated the tour the previous season. And in New York, McEnroe had a really tough four-hour SF against Mats on Super Saturday which probably took a little out of him for the championship match. And remember, he's still married to Tatum as well. None of these factors would be influenced by changing one result fifteen months prior.
So Lendl keeps his 1985 USO title and the YE #1 ranking regardless, as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
If Mac had won that RG final in 1984, then everything else turned out exactly the same (clearly there's absolutely no guarantee at all of that), in terms of his match results, him missing the Australian Open due to his wrist injury (that bit I'm not convinced about as I'll come to later) etc. then his 1984, which I'd already rank as one of the greatest seasons I've ever seen from any player, would unquestionably be the single best season from any player in my life-time. Laver's 1969 was before my time, and I think it would very clearly top any individual season compiled by any of the modern day big 3 under that scenario.
In that season he'd then have won the biggest tournaments around on clay (Roland Garros), grass (Wimbledon plus Queen's), hard courts (the US Open plus the Canadian Open) and carpet (the Masters, plus the WCT Finals, Philadelphia and Stockholm alongside numerous others). Plus he'd have a high quality tournament win on har-tru (Forest Hills), and World Team Cup success on clay in Dusseldorf (thumping Lendl in the final) to go with it.
Now during the final stretch in 1984, after his crazy and famous outbursts in Stockholm, he was handed a 42 day suspension which would have ruled him out of the AO plus the Davis Cup final in Gothenburg. However it was reduced to 21 days (a condition was that he didn't play in any exhibitions during those 21 days), allowing him to play in both. When he received the suspension, he made it clear that the Davis Cup final was unsurprisingly far more important for him than the AO which took place shortly beforehand, and so that his priority was to be free to play in Gothenburg.
Clearly many of his suspensions, including that one most likely, were by choice. When he wanted a break, such as near the end of 1984 ahead of the Davis Cup final and Masters in MSG when he was getting tired, he'd behave badly on purpose to exceed the fine limit and trigger the resulting suspension. That saved him the hassle of withdrawing from tournaments he couldn't be bothered to play in.
The wrist injury that caused him to miss the AO in 1984 was picked up in training and not when in match action. But I think had the grand slam been on the line, clearly the AO now becomes more important to him than the Davis Cup final He'd have to be seriously incapacitated, not to fly to Melbourne and play there. That injury, alongside the huge pressure on his shoulders and mental burden, could well have prevented him from achieving tennis immortality (and emulating Laver) in Kooyong. But he inevitably would have had at least shown up and had a go regardless of wrist pain.
On the back of his US Open triumph, he played in an exhibition vs. Borg at Syracuse a few days later, and then travelled coast to coast to play in San Francisco.
BTW a hugely underrated part of his 1984, was when in February, in-between his title win in Richmond and a Davis Cup tie in Bucharest, he travelled to Sydney for the AKAI Gold Challenge, and won 4 best of 5 set matches against Vilas (6-2 2-6 6-3 4-6 6-3), Wilander (6-1 6-2 6-2), Lendl (7-5 6-2 6-1) and Vilas again (6-3 6-3 6-3) in consecutive days.
In that season he'd then have won the biggest tournaments around on clay (Roland Garros), grass (Wimbledon plus Queen's), hard courts (the US Open plus the Canadian Open) and carpet (the Masters, plus the WCT Finals, Philadelphia and Stockholm alongside numerous others). Plus he'd have a high quality tournament win on har-tru (Forest Hills), and World Team Cup success on clay in Dusseldorf (thumping Lendl in the final) to go with it.
Now during the final stretch in 1984, after his crazy and famous outbursts in Stockholm, he was handed a 42 day suspension which would have ruled him out of the AO plus the Davis Cup final in Gothenburg. However it was reduced to 21 days (a condition was that he didn't play in any exhibitions during those 21 days), allowing him to play in both. When he received the suspension, he made it clear that the Davis Cup final was unsurprisingly far more important for him than the AO which took place shortly beforehand, and so that his priority was to be free to play in Gothenburg.
Clearly many of his suspensions, including that one most likely, were by choice. When he wanted a break, such as near the end of 1984 ahead of the Davis Cup final and Masters in MSG when he was getting tired, he'd behave badly on purpose to exceed the fine limit and trigger the resulting suspension. That saved him the hassle of withdrawing from tournaments he couldn't be bothered to play in.
The wrist injury that caused him to miss the AO in 1984 was picked up in training and not when in match action. But I think had the grand slam been on the line, clearly the AO now becomes more important to him than the Davis Cup final He'd have to be seriously incapacitated, not to fly to Melbourne and play there. That injury, alongside the huge pressure on his shoulders and mental burden, could well have prevented him from achieving tennis immortality (and emulating Laver) in Kooyong. But he inevitably would have had at least shown up and had a go regardless of wrist pain.
On the back of his US Open triumph, he played in an exhibition vs. Borg at Syracuse a few days later, and then travelled coast to coast to play in San Francisco.
BTW a hugely underrated part of his 1984, was when in February, in-between his title win in Richmond and a Davis Cup tie in Bucharest, he travelled to Sydney for the AKAI Gold Challenge, and won 4 best of 5 set matches against Vilas (6-2 2-6 6-3 4-6 6-3), Wilander (6-1 6-2 6-2), Lendl (7-5 6-2 6-1) and Vilas again (6-3 6-3 6-3) in consecutive days.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
People give Navratilova that credit, which is the only reason she is contention with Graf and Serena still, but don't give it to McEnroe. Which is what I mean about double standards depending who it is. McEnroe's doubles are never even mentioned in discussions with Connors, Lendl, Agassi (although most rank him above Agassi inspite of that), and probably wouldn't even if his singles career were a bit more and gave him more of a case.
I am on the fence how much doubles should be valued but the inconsistency which players are given credit for it (eg Navratilova, Laver, Newcombe, Hingis, King) and which are not (Court, Serena, McEnroe, Venus) always make me laugh.
Would Mac have rescheduled his plan in this scenario, especially after winning the channel Slams? I mean, once he won both RG and Wimbledon, the CYGS would have been clearly on target.
Cutting back on other events (especially smaller ones) to pursue this achievement could have prevented that wrist injuries.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I think with doubles we have to differentiate. Court and also to some extent Nav and Mac won their doubles slams during a time, where doubles were still valued highly and all or at least many top players regularly played them. Serena’s doubles I would give as much credit as Kyrgios’ and Kokkinakis’ AO title. As for Nav being in contention with Graf, the reason I hold her in that high esteem is not her doubles but more that she played alongside a fellow (borderline) GOAT candidate her whole career and had to deal with another upcoming one at the end of it. Competition wise that sets her apart from Graf/Court/Serena.
If he’d won the first 3 majors of the year, it's difficult to say what his scheduling should have been to maximise his chances of winning the Australian Open 2-3 months later, striking a balance between sufficient rest and sufficient match action to keep sharp. There were no grass court tune-ups for the AO, with Sydney held the week after (the same week as the Davis Cup final). There were indoor tournaments in Australia in Sydney (a highly regarded tournament) and Melbourne in October, but then then 5 a week gap until the AO started, and so he couldn't have spent all that time Down Under.
There was a 3 week gap between Stockholm where he played and the AO, so there was enough time to head back home, rest and recharge (inevitably with some partying in there), and then fly out to Melbourne to get some practice in. On the back of the US Open, he played in that exho vs. Borg, then in San Francisco, and then in a Davis Cup SF vs. Australia in Portland, and then seemed jaded. Clearly he wasn't going to miss a home Davis Cup SF, but skipping San Francisco and resting between the USO and Davis Cup SF, and maybe instead adding in another tournament later on in Europe like Wembley, seems sensible, if he’s now obsessed about peaking for the AO.
At the time, the wrist injury was considered to be pretty mild, but travelling all the way to Melbourne for the AO on grass, and then travelling all the way to Gothenburg for a Davis Cup final on clay straight afterwards, wasn’t practical unless the grand slam was on the line.
But even if we just compare the 80s and the 90s, it was clear that the tennis calendar was far more suited to allowing players to peak for the majors in the 90s, compared to the more chaotic 80s - the formation of the ATP tour in 1990 and the impact of that on the sport really cannot be underestimated.
Last edited:
I have to think it would have had a big impact on Lendl's state of mind. Mac surely would've been regarded a bit above both Connors and Lendl if he won an FO. His overall #s are better than Andre's to begin with. Borg is in a unique place....FO and W dominant, but with 0 USO. Plus, he has that mystique from retiring early!
It's a tough call...in singles, perhaps...overall career, Mac's pretty special with the dubs and Davis Cup. I think it's a close call. Lendl and Connors definitely had the longer, more consistent careers, however.
I don't think that's true at all...Mac was a pretty strong #1...super competitive with his peer group. I think if he won the FO and then AO at year end, well, that would be super special and put him up there near Borg
I think in Mac's era, doubles was held in higher regard. It's definitely gone down over the years. And, while I know Serena and Venus had some doubles successes, I never felt their play to be at the caliber of MN or BJK for instance. It's a lost art, particularly with S&V tennis having declined. Mac was a genius in dubs (and in general, really)
MissileBackHand99
Semi-Pro
THIS is what alot of the fans of the last 10 years or so don't seem to take into account. The 70s and 80s were pure chaos in terms of the schedule players played--between the events on the WCT, ATP, and Grand Prix tours, to the very lucrative exos, to Davis Cup, etc...players were running themselves ragged. To travel all the way Down Under at the end of the year for a "Slam" that wasn't near the regard of Wimbledon or the USO, was too much for most top players. The re-organizing of things under the ATP umbrella in early early 90s was huge--and definitely made it mucb more possible for players to win the CYGS
Venus and Serena have had more than just "some doubles successes". They've won 14 GS titles, the career Slam in Doubles (twice over), and 3 Gold Medals at the Olympics. One of those years (2009 or 2010) they almost won the CYGS in Doubles as well. I get it that they didn't play doubles regularly, year-in and out, but they are one of the greatest pairings ever
Not denying their wins, but having seen them play, never all that impressed relative to the teams from the past. And, was the competition all that good? Doubles isn't even getting covered any longer and then you have best of 3 w/tiebreaker 3rd sets. It's at an all time low.
Yes 1990 is a huge, and generally very overlooked, dividing line in men’s tennis.
I sort of wonder whether it even makes sense to compare the likes of Sampras and Agassi with the likes of Borg, Connors and Mac, given that they played / had their prime years when the tennis landscape, priorities etc. were so radically different to each other.
And also on a general note, the total number of weeks spent at as world no. 1, was really not a serious or important metric before the 90s and that ATP tour formation, especially with numerous big tournaments not awarding any ranking points before then. Therefore it really doesn’t make sense to focus on that metric when comparing the likes of Connors, Mac and Lendl.
MissileBackHand99
Semi-Pro
Being that Venus and Serena played the Lion's Share of their Doubles from 1998-99 through the mid 2010s...you can't take their record away from them. And they both have fantastic reflexes at net (Venus even more so IMO). No, the top singles players don't play doubles anymore...but let's not pretend they were facing schleps from the local country club when they played in all those GS Doubles and Olympic finals
Not taking anything away from them, and yes, Venus is very good at net (Serena not so much). But, I do think the general caliber of doubles play gradually declined/diminished over time. And when top players skipped, that didn't help so much. In fact, give the sisters much credit for sticking with it.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I know he dominated the 84 USO. But if he wins the FO and Wimbledon leading up to it, is there more pressure, does he necessarily win? Probably.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I do agree with this yes. However as we see in a thread like this, by how so many are insistent there is literally no way McEnroe could possibly rank above Lendl, even if he added the French to his own already excellent singles career, in conjucition with his stellar doubles career, very few give McEnroe any credit for his doubles. Despite all he achieved as you said in a time doubles was still very prominent. Lets put it this way, if you were someone who gave a lot of credit to doubles, and you added the French Open to McEnroe's current singles career, not only would there be a good case for him to rank above Lendl, but in fact it would now be virtually impossible to make a case for Lendl to be ahead. BTW I am not even saying that should be the case as I am on the fence at best if doubles should get much credit at all, even in the era it was much more competitive, and in fact I tend to lean towards not giving it that much myself (a bit which is more than some but not nearly as much as the ones who argue it for the fan favorites who excelled in doubles like Navatilova, King, Goolagong, Newcombe, Laver, Williams for some, etc...) I am just saying one should be consistent in their beliefs.
Yet all (not neccessarily referring to you, but others) want to give someone like Navratilova (super popular and beloved) immense credit for hers. Don't want to give Court who you also mentioned virtually any credit for hers. Want to give Newcome (also beloved) a lot of extra credit for his, which I see brought up in any discussions on him. Then Serena it wildly flucuates depending whether it is her supporters or those who can't stand her, generally you are one or the other as she is very polarizing by nature, LOL! So my point about the double standards depending who is really liked and who isn't still applies.
sounds like there is a double standard when it comes to doubles!
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
There definitely is. And it is easy to have when the value of doubles is extremely subjective in the first place. I don't give doubles as much credit as many do (while more than many others do which is exactly nothing) but I atleast try and be consistent in what that is. And I am totally fine with whatever value one wants to give doubles or the Australian Open, another very subjective thing, as long as it is consistent across different players (when I say the Australian Open I mean during its pre fully legit years which began sometime in the 80s).
It was very notable how when Mac became the first man since Bill Tilden to win 3 consecutive USO titles from 1979-1981, he also reached the doubles final during all 3 of those years. Beating Lendl, Connors and Borg in succession to win his 1980 title was monumental enough. but he also had a 5 set doubles final sandwiched in there as well just to make it even more impressive / his schedule even more demanding.
I also struggle to decide what 'weighting' to give doubles success, even during eras like Mac's when it was clearly more important compared to modern times.
In more modern times, I've thought that the 3 biggest stages in doubles tennis in no particular order have been the Olympics, the Davis Cup (under the traditional form until 2018 when it was always live and often crucial) and Wimbledon. Within the realms of doubles tennis, it has been clear that Wimbledon, throughout the entire time that I've followed tennis, has been far more important than any of the other 3 majors, and to far greater extent than in singles at any point. The facts that doubles events have traditionally treated with far more respect and general enthusiasm at Wimbledon, and that the men's doubles event was best of 5 sets in every round until 2023 (while the other 3 majors had long since switched to best of 3 sets in every round), were big contributing factors.
To be honest though, even discounting his doubles success, I think there are still strong arguments in Mac's favour over both Connors and Lendl anyway.
I also struggle to decide what 'weighting' to give doubles success, even during eras like Mac's when it was clearly more important compared to modern times.
In more modern times, I've thought that the 3 biggest stages in doubles tennis in no particular order have been the Olympics, the Davis Cup (under the traditional form until 2018 when it was always live and often crucial) and Wimbledon. Within the realms of doubles tennis, it has been clear that Wimbledon, throughout the entire time that I've followed tennis, has been far more important than any of the other 3 majors, and to far greater extent than in singles at any point. The facts that doubles events have traditionally treated with far more respect and general enthusiasm at Wimbledon, and that the men's doubles event was best of 5 sets in every round until 2023 (while the other 3 majors had long since switched to best of 3 sets in every round), were big contributing factors.
To be honest though, even discounting his doubles success, I think there are still strong arguments in Mac's favour over both Connors and Lendl anyway.
Setting aside doubles, I have a hard time slotting JMac ahead of Lendl and Connors...they just had longer, more prolific careers. Even if Mac was the greater talent, relatively speaking as the other 2 were far from inept. Doubles needs more coverage and some teams we can rally for. I saw Fritz and Shelton were supposed to play together....that could be a fun combo.
It would amaze me how Mcenroe kept playing full doubles at the slamd with some of the scheduling scenarios he endured. It used to be said that since he hated practicing that the doubles sort of served that purpose.
I do think that Mac has some very big factors in his favour vs. the other two - as I said before I think they also both have some very big factors in their favour vs. him as well.
He was the only one of the 3 players that was dominant at the biggest tournament around, Wimbledon. Therefore he was the only one of the 3 that was dominant at both of the two most important majors at the time (even Wilander regarded the USO as more important than RG in the 80s which was telling), and the two that all 3 players clearly cared about the most.
He is the only one of the 3 players that would be considered as a Davis Cup legend, even though Lendl was brilliant in leading Czechoslovakia to the title in 1980. We know that the Davis Cup was hugely important during the span of their prime years, IMO no less important than RG before it declined in importance during the 90s, so that is significant.
Indoor / indoor carpet tennis made up a very large % of the tour in the 70s and 80s (especially until the mid to late 80s when outdoor hard court events became more common) and so was very important. It’s close between Mac and Lendl under a roof, but clearly as impressive as Connors was in the big indoor events, Mac beats him there.
In both cases Connors and Lendl both winning 1 more major than him isn’t really that significant IMO, even beyond the fact that slam counting only became a huge deal when Sampras closed in on Emerson’s record in the 90s. Connors and Mac both won 7 Wimbledon / USO titles with the difference essentially Connors’ lightweight 1974 AO title - I regard his own 1976 Philly title more highly than that for example. And Connors had a pretty lucky break facing an injured Borg in the 1978 USO final which was basically a walkover (after going 1-6 in his last 7 major finals). His 1976 USO title though, destroying Vilas then beating Borg on har-tru, is a very big factor in his favour.
And Lendl would much rather have ended up with Mac’s major haul, with 3 more Wimbledon titles and 1 more USO title, than his own. Him saying that he would trade in all 3 of his RG titles for a Wimbledon title, wasn’t particularly shocking. On flipside some commentators laughed about the idea of Mac wanting to trade in any of his Wimbledon titles for a RG title, as an absurdity. Lendl not winning Wimbledon was clearly a bigger deal than Mac not winning RG, as we know that Wimbledon was clearly more important in the 80s. Plus Lendl had a pretty lucky break facing an injured Edberg in the 1990 AO final.
30 years ago, I recall Mac was commonly ranked ahead of Lendl, based on the conditions and priorities when they were both active / in their primes. The tide has turned in modern times, with more people instead wrongly judging them based on 90s or 21st century conditions, but also to be fair more of Lendl’s impressive accomplishments rightly coming to light as internet access became more common.
Last edited:
I really cannot agree w/this part of your statement:
"He was the only one of the 3 players that was dominant at the biggest tournament around, Wimbledon. Therefore he was the only one of the 3 that was dominant at both of the two most important majors at the time (even Wilander regarded the USO as more important than RG in the 80s which was telling), and the two that all 3 players clearly cared about the most."
While he won one more W than Connors, I don't see how he was more dominant there. Connors was consistently in the later rounds, albeit often the runner up to some blond haired dude! And certainly not at the USO. I could perhaps say it's a "wash" between them at the 2 biggest events...JMac w/an extra W, Connors w/an extra USO. Still, Connors won more matches than him at both events and was much more consistent at both over the course of his career. Connors spent more time at the top, as did Lendl, and both of them won more events than Mac. Also keeping in mind I'm purposely not including Davis Cup or Doubles here, just tournament singles. During his reign, I thought Mac was the best player ever (and at the time, he probably was), but history does bring a somewhat different perspective. Particularly, re: Lendl, who was kind of pilloried to be honest. Still, I will always put Mac ahead of Agassi until my dying breath....LOL
Similar threads
- Poll
