Lendl v McEnroe - who was the greater player?

[big ted]

lendl probably had the better career and more consistency but im sure if you asked mcenroe or even a few other people, they would rather have mcenroes career achievements. people talk about wimbledon but didnt mcenroe have more usopen titles as well? would you rather have
3 usopens
3 french
2 aus
- or -
3 wimb
4 usopens

 

[Mr.Lob]

lendl probably had the better career and more consistency but im sure if you asked mcenroe or even a few other people, they would rather have mcenroes career achievements. people talk about wimbledon but didnt mcenroe have more usopen titles as well? would you rather have
3 usopens
3 french
2 aus
- or -
3 wimb
4 usopens

Any tennis pro, or anyone that knows anything about tennis, would take Macs slam record.

Even by today's standards, where slams more equal in status, Macs slamS carry more weight.

A.O not even a worthy of major status when Mac and Lendl played. A.O gets half slam credit, French gets 3/4th credit. U.S and Wimbledon 1.
So Lendl ends up singles at 6.25 real-life slamS, Mac 7.So Mac wins singles slam count.

 

[big ted]

i agree about wimbledon and usopen being bigger tournaments imo. in all fairness though when lendl won the aus opens in 89 and 90 i think it gained its prestige by then, most all the players played it (except agassi then), they had a new surface and excellent venue and prize $ and the scheduling was better than before. i think it also matters where youre from. im american so i think wimbledon and the usopen are the biggest

 

[kiki]

lendl probably had the better career and more consistency but im sure if you asked mcenroe or even a few other people, they would rather have mcenroes career achievements. people talk about wimbledon but didnt mcenroe have more usopen titles as well? would you rather have
3 usopens
3 french
2 aus
- or -
3 wimb
4 usopens

what is so good about US Open?

I mean, other than mere patriotism

 

[kiki]

Any tennis pro, or anyone that knows anything about tennis, would take Macs slam record.

Even by today's standards, where slams more equal in status, Macs slamS carry more weight.

A.O not even a worthy of major status when Mac and Lendl played. A.O gets half slam credit, French gets 3/4th credit. U.S and Wimbledon 1.
So Lendl ends up singles at 6.25 real-life slamS, Mac 7.So Mac wins singles slam count.

why the US open is better than the FO?

US O and FO are just the same distance behind Wimbledon¡¡¡

 

[Paul Murphy]

Lendl didn't think so, as he played quite a bit of doubles.

Lendl's career doubles record was 187-140, a lousy 57.2 winning %. With only 6 titles to show for all the effort.

McEnroe' s doubles record was an amazing 530-103. An astounding 83% record. McEnroe won 77 doubles titles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mac total of 144 titles (includes 7 Wimbledon s) far exceeds Lendls.

Add all of Macs Davis Cup victories, and even a blind man could see Mac was greater. More wins, more prestigious wins, more prestigious titles, I.e WIMBLEDON, better in his prime, far better in doubles.

Lendl ushered in the era of mindless baseline ball bashing,and overtraining. Which has resulted in a less entertaining game with more injuries. Thanks a lot Lendl.

And Happy Valentimes Day to Johnny Mac!

For the fourth or fifth time: I don't care about doubles - most of the players don't care about doubles - then - and now.
The only reason you keep mentioning them is because your case is so weak.

Let me summarise your "argument" for you:

1) Wimbledon is the only tournament that matters.
2) Doubles is as important (or more so if they're Wimby titles) than singles.
3) McEnroe said in his book that he was great and a better player and if he says so then it must be true.

It's schoolyard stuff and more properly belongs on the pro player thread where the crazy fanboys live.
You'd fit right in over there.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Any tennis pro, or anyone that knows anything about tennis, would take Macs slam record.

Even by today's standards, where slams more equal in status, Macs slamS carry more weight.

A.O not even a worthy of major status when Mac and Lendl played. A.O gets half slam credit, French gets 3/4th credit. U.S and Wimbledon 1.
So Lendl ends up singles at 6.25 real-life slamS, Mac 7.So Mac wins singles slam count.

The question I posed with this thread was "who was the greater player?"

You ignore all the other Lendl achievements because of course you have to - because the gulf between the two players is so very wide:

1) 270 weeks at No1. v 170.
2) 21 v 15 H2H.
3) Major finals reached 19 v 11.
4) Major matches won 222 v 167.
5) Singles titles won 94 v 77.
6) Singles matches won 1071 v 875.

You keep stating with total certainty what "players" would rather have - assumption, after assumption, after assumption.
I don't need to do that when the stats above and the majors won tally are all in my favour.
But just this once I will for fun and it's this:

I can't imagine that any player in his right mind wouldn't rather spend half a decade at No.1 versus just three years.
But hey, that's just an assumption isn't it? And not cold, hard fact.
And I don't need to make assumptions - I just need to state the facts.

One of the other "inconvenient" facts for you is the H2H.
If McEnroe is the greater player why did Lendl beat him more often than the other way around?
Must have been a lot of "loud buzzing noises" on the courts back in those days. lol

 

[PMChambers]

There wasn't much of a difference b/w his level in 80 and 81 in the Wimbledon finals at all.

so connors taking him to 5 sets at Wimbledon 81 ( which was an excellent match btw ) is indicative of his level in 81, but not borg beating him in straights at the USO in the semi ?

The USO 81 final is a different story. There was news about death threats to him and that was a distraction to him in that match.

he did not decided to retire at the end of 81 by any means. In fact, he wanted to play in 82 as well --- a reduced schedule, but the GS tournaments needed a min of tournaments to allow entry.

I might go back and watch the 81 Wim final again if I can work out how to play a DVD in a DVD free house. I never saw the Conners SF so see if I can get hold of it.

In the 81 USO he just seem not to be there, just went through the motions. Having said that he never won USO and stated he did not like playing in the arena. I'm not sure if he meant just the Flushing Meadows & Forrest Hills.

The lack of game play is a bad sign to me. In interviews he stated he discussed his retirement with his family at the end of 80 and decided to play one more year. From what I can scrap together he only played FO, Wim & USO, Monte Carlo and Tokyo. Compared to previous year 3 GS, 1 Master, 5 Grand Prix. Considering he lost 2x tie breakers in the Wim final 81 a slightly better game state both metal and physical "might" have pushed him over the line.

My original point was he was effectively retired at the end of 80, as indicated by lack of matches and match practise. The level of play is another question, though I believe it was hampered by lack of preparation and mental state which is evident at the end of the USO.

 

[big ted]

what is so good about US Open?

I mean, other than mere patriotism

like i said i think alot of it has to do with where you come from, since im american im probably biased since theres more news and coverage of it here. more all time greats seem to win wimb and usopen though imo, as opposed to the other two where it can be more open. i guess theres always exceptions though