Johnny Mac vs Federer

spirit

Rookie
What about it? How would Johnny Mac - a lefty with a good serving game - in his prime have done against the Fed? I don't think he could have unnerved Fed, since for the most part the Fed appears to keep his cool and goes about his business no matter what (though he did slam his racquet down against Nadal). I might give the edge to the Mac. But by the time Fed gets done with his career, he may make me change my mind.
 
actually i asked jonny mac my self once when i was at his show as a studio audiance. I asked himt he same question. He said that he would have no chance against fed but he also said that he would do better then what hewitt had done at last US open (2004). so there you go answer from jonny mac himself.
 
Have posted on this a few times before Spirit. Suffice it to say, for those who have seen both at their best, it's a very very tough call. I'm going to give it to Fed in 5 sets BUT, it'd be interesting to see if Mac's unorthodox style and feel could would find a way around Fed. I suspect that Fed would find the combination of attack and weird nullifying groundstrokes and touch shots rather troubling. Mac's the one guy who can out maestro him around the court.
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
Pre, or post, wood racquets?

John would have held serve, and then when receiving Federer, he would wait for that one shot, on that one point, in that one game, and break. In the "old days" winning 6-4 was expected, as at that time adult men were expected to hold their serves.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
fed solved nadals odd left handed unorthodox spins and strokes and nadal has much much more power and consistency from the backcourt than jmac could ever dream of. fed would dust jmac in his prime in my opinion...jmac angles would only create better angles for fed....it wouldnt be much of a contest. fed is beating everyone in the world for a couple of years now almost..why would you think it would be any contest with a player from an era gone by? i think a more fair question would be, could jmac in his prime beat the nadal of today..i doubt that too, but that is at least less certain and is at least debatable.
 

edge

Banned
Mac would have killed Nadal. Rafa returns high loopy returns from a very deep court position. Mac would have smothered him.
 

Fedubai

Semi-Pro
BbD, do you have something against mens tennis today? You sound like you are saying that today's men are boys because they don't hold serve every time?
 

Brettolius

Professional
bigboydan is an old man living in the past and he doesn't understand that returns are WAAAY better than they were in 1984. forgive him for his ignorance. he could beat fed if he wanted to. he knows the SECRET. all you have to do is ask him.
 
H

Haka Boy

Guest
Every player has their day in history.

Arthur Ashe, the late tennis champion, summed up his style in an interview with Sports Illustrated's Curry Kirkpatrick, "Against Connors and Borg, you feel like your being hit with a sledge hammer, but McEnroe is a stiletto."
 

Nyl

Rookie
u can't compare a player of the past generations to the current players... that's for sure.

people say Rod Laver is the best all time... yes, he was, in his day. the game got better over time n i dun think it's fair for the retired-players to compare themselves to federer even to hewitt.

if u wanna stick w/ the original question, then i'd say even nadal is better the J.mac
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
I don't agree with that. JMac came VERY close to beating Ancic last year. He's also beatn Courier on the seniors tour at 45.

I've seen with my own two eyes from a few feet away, JMac nearly beating Goldstein at almost 45 years of age in a very seriously played match.

You guys are seriously underestimating him.

If you have hand-eye coordination and the talent, you WILL compete.
 
I dont know if any of you caught the 81' Borg/Mac match on ESPN the other day. It had been awhile since Id seen it and Id forgotten how amazing Johnny was with his hands. Talk about a guy LOADED with talent. Just think how good he would have been if he would have actually trained hard and not been partying so much. Talent wise the sky was the limit, but I dont think he was designed for todays game of off the court conditioning requirements. He's admitted so much himself.
 

35ft6

Legend
Big Bill Tilden would have destroyed Federer AND Nadal one after another AFTER eating a huge steak and lobster dinner. He's the best player I'd ever seen. His slice drives would have given Federer fits, and his continental forehand would have been producing winners non stop. People from the past are always better, that's my motto. :p
 

Type40

Semi-Pro
Does anyone have a link to the web site that scientifically calculated McEnroe played the highest quality peak tennis of any player ever?
I read this about a year ago, and now can't find the link to it.
It ranked Federer as number 2, but not far behind, possibly federer is developing into a player capable of eqully high or higher peak tennis as McEnroe, but it's a very close thing. Definitely McEnroe was never as consistent as Federer, but on his good days maybe played a higher level. All personal opinion and conjecture of course.
 
35ft6 said:
Big Bill Tilden would have destroyed Federer AND Nadal one after another AFTER eating a huge steak and lobster dinner. He's the best player I'd ever seen. His slice drives would have given Federer fits, and his continental forehand would have been producing winners non stop. People from the past are always better, that's my motto. :p

Speaking of Tilden, didnt he do time for child molestation? Thought I saw that on a biography of him. He ended up homeless and died prematurely from alcoholism. :(
 

spirit

Rookie
!Tym said:
I don't agree with that. JMac came VERY close to beating Ancic last year. He's also beatn Courier on the seniors tour at 45.

I've seen with my own two eyes from a few feet away, JMac nearly beating Goldstein at almost 45 years of age in a very seriously played match.

You guys are seriously underestimating him.

If you have hand-eye coordination and the talent, you WILL compete.
At this point I agree. Each playing in their primes (has the Fed hit his prime yet :?: ) the Mac would take the Fed 7 out of 10 times. As I said previously though, the Fed isn't finished yet. He'll most likely get even better. Then I might have to change my mind. As far as conditioning, if the Mac were playing the competition of today, he would be in the gym and on the track - not to build biceps (he hardly had any - just like the Fed) but to keep up on the court. Anyway, his strength was his hand/eye coordination. And by the way, the Fed isn't known to be in the gym much, as I understand it.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
!Tym said:
I don't agree with that. JMac came VERY close to beating Ancic last year. He's also beatn Courier on the seniors tour at 45.

I've seen with my own two eyes from a few feet away, JMac nearly beating Goldstein at almost 45 years of age in a very seriously played match.

You guys are seriously underestimating him.

If you have hand-eye coordination and the talent, you WILL compete.
I agree here as well. I saw McEnroe in person last year playing a former ATP pro who was 8 years younger than McEnroe. To make give the guy a chance, McEnroe stayed back and didn't serve and volley. McEnroe still won 6-1, 6-2.

Stinkdyr said:
6-0,6-1 to Federer. ask J.Mac, and I will bet he would agree.
It is proper form for old pros to defer to current pros in a public forum. McEnroe would get more than one game from Federer in two sets. I'm not saying that he'd win, but in both their respective primes, McEnroe would win his share.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
!Tym said:
I don't agree with that. JMac came VERY close to beating Ancic last year. He's also beatn Courier on the seniors tour at 45.

I've seen with my own two eyes from a few feet away, JMac nearly beating Goldstein at almost 45 years of age in a very seriously played match.

You guys are seriously underestimating him.

If you have hand-eye coordination and the talent, you WILL compete.
I agree here as well. I saw McEnroe in person last year playing a former ATP pro who was 8 years younger than McEnroe. To make give the guy a chance, McEnroe stayed back and didn't serve and volley. McEnroe still won 6-1, 6-1.

Stinkdyr said:
6-0,6-1 to Federer. ask J.Mac, and I will bet he would agree.
It is proper form for old pros to defer to current pros in a public forum. McEnroe would get more than one game from Federer in two sets. I'm not saying that he'd win, but in both their respective primes, McEnroe would win his share.
 

joe sch

Legend
Federer has faced very few great serve/volley players !
I believe his win/loss and record pace run at the history books would not be the same if he had to face the variety of champions that Pete Sampras Faced. Too bad there are no more Boris Beckers, Stephan Edbergs, John McEnroes, Patrick Rafter and some of the many other S/V'ers that are not being trained by todays tennis coaches. This is one of the reasons you really cannot compare champions from different eras and I believe the current field that Federer is completing againt is weak compared to the allcourt play of yesteryears champions. It would be soo exciting to see Roger get to play the kind of competition that Bjorn Borg had to face, as a baseliner.
 

Jet Rink

Semi-Pro
joe sch said:
Federer has faced very few great serve/volley players !
I believe his win/loss and record pace run at the history books would not be the same if he had to face the variety of champions that Pete Sampras Faced. Too bad there are no more Boris Beckers, Stephan Edbergs, John McEnroes, Patrick Rafter and some of the many other S/V'ers that are not being trained by todays tennis coaches. This is one of the reasons you really cannot compare champions from different eras and I believe the current field that Federer is completing againt is weak compared to the allcourt play of yesteryears champions. It would be soo exciting to see Roger get to play the kind of competition that Bjorn Borg had to face, as a baseliner.
Could not agree more - this is the defining point - tacticians and variety. All of these (endless? pointless? fun?!) discussions about "Who'd Beat Who," usually focus on purely physical attributes - but not variet and tactics.

Acknowleging how diverse the game used to be has to be taken into account. In the case of Mac/Fed, I'd go with Johnny Mac - don't forget - he could get in and slug with Bjorn and Lendl.

If we're talking about both players at their peak - who cares who'd win!?! They're both tough mentally, strong in many facets of the game, adaptable and tactically nearly unmatched for their eras.

The technology question really screws this up though ...

Jet
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
i think it works the other way Rabbit..i think out of respect for an old legend, the young guns dont fuly load their guns and they go easy on the old timers. thats why you see one close set between an ancic and a mcenroe,plus mcenroe is a lefty and i suppose in one set anything can happen until a current atp pro gets his bearings and gets comfortable playng a living legend. as to mac beating courier in a seniors event...well..they're both seniors and that is irelevant and i bet courier might not even play that much these days i think mac still does. and courier couldnt still compete on the atp and he is younger than mac anyway. to think that a guy like mac could compete against an ATP pro seriously for something other than a set in an exhibiton just doesnt seem realistic to me..if this was the case, one might think that martina would get a few more games when she played singles last year on the wta once and got thumped by a very lesser known pro...and if it was the case, and mac was still that good, he would be playing some atp doubles as much as he demands the limelight
 

spirit

Rookie
NoBadMojo said:
and [if] mac was still that good, he would be playing some atp doubles as much as he demands the limelight
Wouldn't that be something, the Mac and Navritalova playing mixed doubles at Wimbledon! I'd like to see that.

Seriously though, we should remember that Mac is sometimes considered the best doubles player of all time, and that he played a lot of doubles. Does Fed play any doubles?
 

35ft6

Legend
NoBadMojo said:
i think it works the other way Rabbit..i think out of respect for an old legend, the young guns dont fuly load their guns and they go easy on the old timers.
Word. I don't know why people don't understand this. It seems like the more popular interpretation is "why would they want to be embarrassed by an old man?... they would try HARDER!" I totally disagree. It's like if Lebron played a game of one on one against an old timer, he wouldn't CARE if he was necessarily embarrassed, and if he tried his best and got all into it people would think he was a jerk.

I think players want to win every match, but with that said I think the try harder for certain events. For a clay courter, they try hardest for the French. Gaudio will try hard at Wimbledon but not as hard as the French. Sampras cared more about Wimbledon than, say, the LA Open. Agassi wasn't exactly dogging it against Ljubicic at Davis Cup, but I was there for that match and I don't think he cared as much about that match as the ones at Nasdaq and Pacific Life. Roddick tries harder in Davis Cup than he does in a WTT match against Agassi. And so on. Why is this so hard to believe?

Aside from the fact that I think there's a bit of match fixing going on in the Senior Tour. I mean, McEnroe is a marvel. He's the freakin' man. But sometimes I think it's understood among all especially during the round robin matches that they're going to give the audience the most competitive matches possible, and if that means one player lets up a bit to make the score tighter than so be it. It's the Senior tour for duck's sakes. It's not life or death out there. Those guys are looking for every opportunity to clown around. Mac argues line calls like it's part of the script. It's all in good fun.

The real test for Mac would be is how he would do at the Grand Slams when all the players are trying. I think he could have a good day and beat a clay courter in the first round of Wimbledon. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he was hit and run right off the court. I wouldn't read too much into how he does against Roddick in WTT or some other semi-exhibition, or how he does against Ancic at Superset Tennis. I've been in matches where I took somebody lightly and I had to muster everything I had to eke out a win against a player I would beat 6-2 on a day I took him seriously.

What I would really love to see is Mac playing Serena, Clijsters, or Sharapova. He would school them so bad. They would feel like they're playing somebody from a different planet.
 
Rabbit said:
It is proper form for old pros to defer to current pros in a public forum. McEnroe would get more than one game from Federer in two sets. I'm not saying that he'd win, but in both their respective primes, McEnroe would win his share.
Undoubtedly, Rabbit. If Mac said "I was much better, I'd have killed him..." Imagine the fire he would come under then! I've heard a few old time pros say things like that(Kramer, Vines etc. and everybody thinks they're egomanical crackpots.) Mac has at least taken one class lesson from Laver in that Laver was always overly generous and humble to the subsequent generations.

On the subject of Courier, who snuck into this thread. Recently, I believe it was Kevin Patrick who posted an interview with Jim who said something to the effect of "nothing I've seen out there today, save a Federer at full flight, leads me to think that I couldn't hang with the current guys." That's a nice candid statement and he also pointed out he had played and practiced with many of them. Remember that even though Courier had Mac's number in the last few years of Mac's career, I also remember an interview with Jim after he had blown Mac off the court at the USO in 92, in which he reminisced about how lopsidedly Mac had spanked him when he was a young punk, new to the tour(Mac was still past his prime then!). So you can bet, he knows Mac could play.
 
35ft6 said:
Word. I don't know why people don't understand this. It seems like the more popular interpretation is "why would they want to be embarrassed by an old man?... they would try HARDER!" I totally disagree. It's like if Lebron played a game of one on one against an old timer, he wouldn't CARE if he was necessarily embarrassed, and if he tried his best and got all into it people would think he was a jerk.

The real test for Mac would be is how he would do at the Grand Slams when all the players are trying. I think he could have a good day and beat a clay courter in the first round of Wimbledon. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he was hit and run right off the court. I wouldn't read too much into how he does against Roddick in WTT or some other semi-exhibition, or how he does against Ancic at Superset Tennis. I've been in matches where I took somebody lightly and I had to muster everything I had to eke out a win against a player I would beat 6-2 on a day I took him seriously.

.
I hear what you're saying 35, but I really don't thik this was the case in that exhibition, for one thing, Andrew Murray who wants to establish himself as a tour player certainly wouldn't want to be killed by Mac in 20 min! I doubt that Ancic, in a winner take all, big money match would be genererous enough to let the set go that far! Sure, if Mac sucked he might give him 6-2 or 6-3....but pushing it to the wire and extending the set? I doubt it! I'm not saying Ancic was intense like a tour match, but I don't think he was playing down either, especially after he realized Mac was a genuine threat(or at least a small danger).

Especially for Mac who has publicly said repeatedly, that he could still play with these guys. In fact, one of our Canadian players, Daniel Nestor not that long ago, said he would love to kick Mac's ass. He was upset that Mac thought he could still play doubles with the current pros and he wanted to teach him a lesson! I do think that if say Rod Laver or some other older and/or more beloved legend came out, then of course, they'd take it easy. But Mac has always thrown out more trash talk than ever before and during these events, so he sets it up to be competitive and it often becomes apparent when a player declines to the point where he needs to be played down to.

I certainly doubt Mac could compete on the tour in grand slams singles now, I agree, with a very good draw, he could potentially win a match, certainly he might take a set or 2 at any time, but he'd lose most of the time, and he knows that. But if at 46, he has a chance to win a set against a tour player, well that says something about him, no?

I do think that he could play pretty good doubles. It would be fun to see an old timers, Martina/Mac team. Remember when retired Mac played with Graf at Wimbly, they had a real chance at winning before Graf weasled out on him.

Mac/Martina would have a real chance at winning a few rounds here and there.

Maybe Mac and a Williams could team to win a Mixed title with the understanding that after the final they would then play a singles match for winner take all the prize money. I'll bet Mac would agree to that! ;-)
 

Chadwixx

Banned
federer hits a much different ball than these guys hit. mac would lose the first set 6-2, it would take fed a few games to adjust then he will tear it up. federer has a nice return of serve and is fast enough and capable enough to make the pass. lendl may give fed some problems but mac wouldnt.
 

theace21

Hall of Fame
I wonder if Federer ever hit with a wood racket...The game has change because of the techonlogy. You guys in your early 20's probably never owned a wood racket. Can't compare era's - training, equipment, competition all are completely different...
 

PJVA

Rookie
It's obvious that JMac wouldn't have stood a chance against Federer. The players of JMac's era weren't as athletic as they are now. They didn't hit as hard, they didn't even bother to train off court. The majority were much smaller guys than they are now also.
 

PJVA

Rookie
Another thing the top 100 was nothing like the top 100 of today. That means that in JMac's era the top guys had a free pass to get to the SF and F of tournaments. There was not much chance of a top 5 guy getting knocked out early.
 

Coria

Banned
People need to remember that from '79-'84, Johnny Mac was one of the greatest players ever. His dusting of Connors in the '84 Wimbledon was one of the greatest matches ever played by anybody. His '81 Wimbledon win over Borg was incredible, as was his '84 US Open win over Lendl.

Mac was almost as talented as Federer--even better hands. He didn't have Federer's ground game but his serve was probably better overall. Mac in his prime would have given Federer a handlful, but Fed would wear him down.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
NoBadMojo said:
if this was the case, one might think that martina would get a few more games when she played singles last year on the wta once and got thumped by a very lesser known pro...and if it was the case, and mac was still that good, he would be playing some atp doubles as much as he demands the limelight
Let's never confuse the women's game with the men's. There is not one doubt in my mind that Ancic gave a player 20 freaking years his senior anything! Ancic wasn't used to the tactics or the spins, something I can see even at my level versus youngsters.

pvja said:
It's obvious that JMac wouldn't have stood a chance against Federer. The players of JMac's era weren't as athletic as they are now. They didn't hit as hard, they didn't even bother to train off court. The majority were much smaller guys than they are now also.
Yep....Federer is all of 2 inches taller than McEnroe? I see that Federer is way more muscled up than McEnroe too. Give me a break. McEnroe at his best on grass would've given Federer all he could handle. I'm not saying that McEnroe would've won the majority, but you take the McEnroe of 84 and stack him against the Federer of 2004 and we're talking 5 long sets. Trained harder now? Than Lendl? Nope, and Lendl did what he had to do to compete or best McEnroe. Hard work versus talent, nothing makes for a better match up, just ask Navratilova and Evert.

Coria said:
Mac was almost as talented as Federer--even better hands. He didn't have Federer's ground game but his serve was probably better overall.
To this point in your post, I say absolutely.

DatacipherGreat points as usual and ones that I agree with, which probably makes them great points.

The one thing I never understand and usually if not always have a problem with is the prediliction of the current obsession to diminish the accomplishments of the past. To say with absolution that any current player would demolish and player in the past is at best, disingenuous. To be honest, you put Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, and Federer all in an all-time Masters in their prime, and let them play 20 times, you'd have 10 different two-time winners. They're all that close and all that good.

I was really tempted to post a thread called a genius' genius. For two sets and damn near a 3rd, Burro Boy, Nadal, made Federer look like he didn't know what he was doing. All of those who clamour about Federer being the best ever had probably ought to look over their collective shoulders. This kid Nadal is 18 years old, five or six years younger than Federer. He is moving up quickly, and once he wins a Slam, which is not in doubt, he'll gain the last part of what he needs....confidence. Add to that a fact that I didn't know, he wants to win Wimbledon more than any other Grand Slam, and you have a real threat to the throne.

Give Nadal a couple of years and let's see if Federer is still in charge. Remember that it was only a couple of years ago that no one thought the Williams would ever lose a match. It was only a couple of years ago that these boards were touting Sampras as the GOAT. Now, these same boards are discounting Sampras' achievements just like these boards did McEnroe's, Lendl's, Laver's, and other former greats. The true fact is that the current number one is always considered for GOAT, and the other fact is that there is always someone who comes along and takes his lunch money. My bet is that Nadal, or some other youngster as of yet unknown, will come along and take Federer's milk money in the next two to three years.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
Um, not as athletic? Borg was maybe the greatest athlete tennis has had ever. This is a guy who resting heart rate was insane and who outsprinted an Olympic hurdler...and was the man in the superstars challenge events between pro athletes from all sports.

How is that not athletic?

Also, as for Navratalova, that's not a completely fair comparison. Navratalova was the Borg of female players athletically. It's amazing to me that at this late in the game and so many years off tour that she gave Hantouchova a good match and destroyed a player who was ranked around the top 20 at the time in Panova.

And she's STILL one of the best doubles players out there.

She's also not a completely comparable comparison to McEnroe either in my opinion. I think players who rely on athleticism are more likely to not be as good in later years (see Chang or Borg when he got to the seniors tour), since that's the first thing that goes with age and if that's what you rely significantly on then you're going to suffer more.

McEnroe was never considered Borg's equal athletically. What he had were hands like pillows, that is less likely to degrade with age.

Navratalova had great hands too, but to me she was more like a hybrid of an Edberg/Cash type serve and volleyer in that she swarmed the net with her athleticism yet combined it with incredible STICK on her volleys.

Did she have great hands too? Sure, but compared to McEnroe? Her hands were stone.

In short, Navratalova's level is going to suffer in old age more than McEnroe. If anything, McEnroe's bunt shots are the perfect foil to heavy power.

Navratalova herself said that if she were in her physical prime she could compete with today's top guns. If you consider that she took Hantouchava the distance at her age in really only her second singles match back? Yes, Dulko creamed her on grass, but that still doesn't discount other results. How long has Hrbaty been around? He's still dangerous today as he was yesterday. He took Safin out recently, and I thought Safin was the greatest of all time since he bet Federer...you can't take isolated results and assume that they're indicative as blanket statements, particularly when talking about bad losses in my opinion. EVERYONE has bad losses.

Medvedev had a million of them before knocking Guga out in straight sets at the French and making Agassi look like an absolute little boy against a man for two and a half sets...then, he went right on back to sucking and getting destroyed by everyone again, including Jamie Delgado at Wimbledon the next year.

What does that say? I tend to look at it like this, if we're going to make blanket assumptions based on isolated incicidents, do so in favor of the *competitive* score lines and NOT the blowouts.

Why? Put it this way, anyone including you and I can lose to a top pro love and love. Well guess what, so too can none other than the current, latest and greatest, annointed "PYT", Maria Sharapova. She just lost to Davenport by the same score that ANY of us can achieve as well. Heck, I bet Navratalova could roll out of a rest home and do better than that. Does that mean she's currently better than Sharapova? Of course not.

HOWEVER, just how many can take it to three sets?

And lest we forget, Gene Mayers...how do you explain that one away?

Again, it's not the blowouts, it's the competitve scores.

If Mac at 45 can hang for one set but got blown out in the next ten, that's all we need to know. Joe Blow off the street in the prime of his youth wouldn't be able to hang in one set if his life depended on it. Mac, however, has excuses. Excuses which are valid, because on any given day he can still hang in there. If you're good enough one day, you were good enough on that day period. You can't expect Mac at his age to be good for a rigorous year of non-stop travel and competition now would you? THAT is not a fair comparison.
 

35ft6

Legend
Datacipher said:
I hear what you're saying 35, but I really don't thik this was the case in that exhibition, for one thing, Andrew Murray who wants to establish himself as a tour player certainly wouldn't want to be killed by Mac in 20 min!
I agree. I watched that match and there's no doubt in my mind that Andrew didn't want to get smoked like that.
Especially for Mac who has publicly said repeatedly, that he could still play with these guys.
I enjoy Mac's comments but sometimes he's nuts. Did you read his book? Homeboy has an excuse for every loss he's ever had. He can still play with these guys under the right conditions (one or two sets... fast surface... moderate temprature...), and he's an inspiration to 45 year olds everywhere, and to younger guys like me, but sometimes his ego gets the better of his claims. But I pretty much agree with you.
Maybe Mac and a Williams could team to win a Mixed title with the understanding that after the final they would then play a singles match for winner take all the prize money. I'll bet Mac would agree to that! ;-)
I would pay good money to see him play Serena. I would be as giddy as a nerd waiting for Episode III if that were scheduled to go down. The Mac's were supposed to play doubles against the Williams sisters a few years back, but I think the girls realized they had nothing to gain from such a match and pulled out.
 
35ft6 said:
I agree. I watched that match and there's no doubt in my mind that Andrew didn't want to get smoked like that. I enjoy Mac's comments but sometimes he's nuts. Did you read his book? Homeboy has an excuse for every loss he's ever had. He can still play with these guys under the right conditions (one or two sets... fast surface... moderate temprature...), and he's an inspiration to 45 year olds everywhere, and to younger guys like me, but sometimes his ego gets the better of his claims. But I pretty much agree with you. I would pay good money to see him play Serena. I would be as giddy as a nerd waiting for Episode III if that were scheduled to go down. The Mac's were supposed to play doubles against the Williams sisters a few years back, but I think the girls realized they had nothing to gain from such a match and pulled out.
Yes, I did read the book and I cannot disagree with you. I have come to respect Mac off the court in the sense that I believe he is reasonably sincere and a fairly decent person deep down....but he does suffer from extreme foot in mouth disease. He'll fire out some comments or cheap shots off the top off his head, contradict his own statements 6 months later, then go back to the original story....I find his claims amusing and entertaining, but you definitely cannot be serious when listening to them.

I had heard the Williams finally backed down when they realized they had much to lose and Mac insisted on some serious money being involved. It would be a fun novelty, but I suppose it's just as well we dont' have another Connors/Navratilova farce. If the Connors/Mac vs Agassi/unknown partner goes down, I'd love to watch it as well, even though the purist may hate it. Especially if the partner was named Pete......would be fun to watch Mac/Agassi vs Connors/Sampras as well, 1 baseliner, 1 attacker, 1 oldie, 1 less oldie on each team.
 
Top