Lendl v McEnroe

[Paul Murphy]

Lendl in my view dominated his era, McEnroe did not. (Though his success in 1985 was sensational).

Lendl dominated the head to head.

At McEnroe's beloved Wimbledon Lendl made two finals and several semis.

At Lendl's French Open backyard, McEnroe made one final (1984 - lost to Lendl).

Lendl created a record for most number of weeks at number one, easily surpassing McEnroe.

Lendl won 8 Grand Slams to McEnroe's 7.

Lendl has been described as the "father of modern tennis" by introducing the power game.
He revolutionised fitness and training.

Lastly, he achieved all this without resorting to abuse, gamesmanship (or cheating as some players have called it).

That is, he was not an obnoxious brat.

 

[timnz]

Sometimes hard work can beat talent

I think you mean 1984 not 1985 as being McEnroe's best year. As I said above the hard work of Lendl won out over the superior talent of McEnroe. When you say several Wimbledon Semi's for Lendl, it actually was 5, meaning he made the semi's or better 7 times! (2 Finals). Not bad for your worst surface.

1980's surface leaders
----------------------
Indoor - Lendl was the best, followed closely by McEnroe. Lendl had 5 Masters, McEnroe 3 Masters

Clay - Tie Lendl and Wilander

Hard - Lendl - 8 US Open finals

Grass - McEnroe or Becker - 3 Wimbledon's each.

 

[Paul Murphy]

No I meant 1985. McEnroe had a win/loss record of 82/3 I believe.

McEnroe was a superb serve and volleyer but he was found wanting against a wonderful baseliner such as Lendl.

You can claim he had more talent as much as you like (that's what McEnroe supporters do when confronted with the facts).

Lendl dominated his era and passed the baton to Sampras. McEnroe's impact was far less. He changed nothing about his era.

And by the way McEnroe played for another 8 years after he won his last Grand Slam (1985) and his ranking declined accordingly.

Sad to see it but true - he just wasn't able to compete with the "big boys" anymore.

Of course he joked he was on an ice cream diet. Pity it showed on the court.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Apologies. It was 1984. His major blemish of course was losing the French Open final to Lendl after being two sets to love up.
I stand behind everything else however.
One guy made a lasting impact on the game - the other didn't.

 

[thalivest]

Sheer dominance: McEnroe by a bit
Consistency: Lendl by a bit
Longevity: Lendl by alot
Versatility: Lendl did more on grass than McEnroe on clay

Overall: Lendl

I am not sure if McEnroe even had harder competition overall. He did from 1979-1981 with Borg and Connors at the top with him. From 1982-1984 though Connors was atleast 29 years old, Borg was gone, and Lendl wasnt the same player as from 85-1990. Lendl was an up and comer in that 1982-1984 period too, and from 1985-1990 he dealt with Becker and Edberg at their peaks, and Wilander at his peak (well until the end of 88 atleast).

I do think it is also telling Lendl before his prime in 1981-1982 did so well vs McEnroe in part of his prime, while at no point when Lendl was in his prime and McEnroe was past his could McEnroe have any real success vs Lendl. Yeah I know McEnroe turned it around and dominated Lendl in 1983-1984, but the fact remains Lendl had a 7 match win streak vs McEnroe that lasted 2 full years when McEnroe was in his prime and Lendl wasnt in his. Once Lendl was in his prime McEnroe never won more than 2 straight matches, and that was in 1985 before McEnroe began his bigger fade from the top.

I still see them very close in terms of all time greatness, but I think Lendl just barely gets the nod. It doesnt matter much to me that he is the one perceived to have had "less talent". Most people consider Safin more talented than Nadal, but would anyone think of ranking Safin higher all time.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Lendl in my view dominated his era, McEnroe did not. (Though his success in 1985 was sensational).

Lendl dominated the head to head.

At McEnroe's beloved Wimbledon Lendl made two finals and several semis.

At Lendl's French Open backyard, McEnroe made one final (1984 - lost to Lendl).

Lendl created a record for most number of weeks at number one, easily surpassing McEnroe.

Lendl won 8 Grand Slams to McEnroe's 7.

Lendl has been described as the "father of modern tennis" by introducing the power game.
He revolutionised fitness and training.

Lastly, he achieved all this without resorting to abuse, gamesmanship (or cheating as some players have called it).

That is, he was not an obnoxious brat.

I think you mean 1984 when Johnny Mac only lost 4 matches.
In 1983-84 Mac beat Lendl in 10 out of 12 Finals due to his new tactice against Lendl received from Don Budge,attack to Lendls backhand all the time and serve on his forehand. I wouldnt say that Lendl dominated their Head to Head, 21-15 is not dominating.

 

[Rabbit]

Apologies. It was 1984. His major blemish of course was losing the French Open final to Lendl after being two sets to love up.
I stand behind everything else however.
One guy made a lasting impact on the game - the other didn't.

McEnroe did make a lasting impact on the game. He ended the Borg era, Lendl didn't. Lendl was owned by Borg. Borg considered McEnroe much the better player and a rival. This is evidenced by the EXOs he and McEnroe put on. To my knowledge, Borg never did an EXO with Lendl.

Prior to the 1984 French Open final, Lendl was considered a perpetual loser in every Major. The press labeled him always a bridesmaid and never a bride. He was tagged as a choker.

Even worse than this was his label as a sandbagger. In 1980 in the Masters tournament, he threw a match to Jimmy Connors 6-7, 1-6. He did this because had he won the match, he'd have played Borg in the semis, losing he was guaranteed to play Gene Mayer and Connors would play Borg. His plan backfired because Borg routined him in the finals 4, 2, and 2. After his match, Jimmy Connors called him a coward. Connors reinforced the fact that every time he (Connors) went on court it was to win.

Lendl was also not quite the well behaved, gentile player you portray him to be. Lendl was prone to whining on court and while he never broke a racket, his whining did strain a few ear drums. He also started the practice of beaning players early in the match to intimidate them. Lendl would actually go at his opponent to make them think about coming to net. This practice was never in play before or since.

Lendl and McEnroe's head to head argument really doesn't hold water either. It is true that Lendl won the last 6. However, it is also as clear that McEnroe was just going through the motions at this point in his career. He played as though he thought he had nothing else to do and might as well be on court. If you throw these 6 out, they are 15 - 15.

The comparison of Major titles really isn't a slam (pun intended) to McEnroe either as both are in the top 15 historically in Major count. Lendl never won Wimbledon. McEnroe never won the French. I'd call that a push.

 

[thalivest]

Lendl in my view dominated his era, McEnroe did not. (Though his success in 1985 was sensational).

I would say McEnroe dominated an era. In 1980 he and Borg were the 2 dominant player, in 1981 McEnroe was by far the dominant player, in 1982 he was eclipsed by an aging Connors and even Lendl perhaps, but in 1983 he was again the worlds best, and in 1984 he was even more dominant than 1984. I would say the 1981-1984 period was the McEnroe era for sure, puncuated by extreme dominant at the start and at the end of it especialy.

I would say Lendl also had his own era of course. Both were players who had an era of dominance.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

I would say McEnroe dominated an era. In 1980 he and Borg were the 2 dominant player, in 1981 McEnroe was by far the dominant player, in 1982 he was eclipsed by an aging Connors and even Lendl perhaps, but in 1983 he was again the worlds best, and in 1984 he was even more dominant than 1984. I would say the 1981-1984 period was the McEnroe era for sure, puncuated by extreme dominant at the start and at the end of it especialy.

I would say Lendl also had his own era of course. Both were players who had an era of dominance.

Lendl dominated more, Lendl had back to back outstanding years in 86 and 87whilst McEnroe was never able to put back to back great years.

 

[thalivest]

Lendl dominated more, Lendl had back to back outstanding years in 86 and 87whilst McEnroe was never able to put back to back great years.

True there. As I said I rate Lendl just a bit higher personally.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Imo guys like Connors,McEnroe and Agassi are overated they were never able to have back to back great years (In Agassi's case he never had 2 great years) they are great players but overated.

 

[thalivest]

I dont think Connors and McEnroe are overrated. Connors had amazing longevity and consistency, 2 amazing years 8 years apart, and while he didnt win a slam after his career 1974 year he was in all the finals of all 3 slams he played. Connors missed out on his best potential years at the French Open from ages 21 to 25 from 1974 to 1978, and yet from ages 26 to 30 was performing better at the French Open than Sampras was able to at ages 21 to 25 from 1993 to 1997 (and light years better than Sampras did from ages 26 to 30 himself from 1998 to 2002). I am not saying I would rate Connors over Sampras of course, just pointing out even his versatility is pretty good. Agassi is definitely overrated, especialy compared to Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl who should all clearly rate over him. His biggest strengths are his versatility and longevity, but his consistency and dominance are horrible compared to pretty much any other great you can think of.

 

[egn]

Lendl and McEnroe's head to head argument really doesn't hold water either. It is true that Lendl won the last 6. However, it is also as clear that McEnroe was just going through the motions at this point in his career. He played as though he thought he had nothing else to do and might as well be on court. If you throw these 6 out, they are 15 - 15.

You can't simply throw out matches because you feel like it? I am sure McEnroe face Lendl in matches before he was really developed, you can't simply be like oh well he felt like their was nothing else to do. No excuses Lendl is 21-15 thats it.

However on comparision both are great but neither are outstanding is all how you look at it. Both were dominant to an extent, but McEnroe was inconsistent at times look at 1982 still not sure how he held that number 1 ranking. Lendl was also a choker constantly, players he could beat anywhere he would lose to in a slam final. So its a tough comparision Lendl made 8 USO finals but only was able to win 3 but in his prime from 85-87 he was truly a force to be reckoned with. McEnroe 84 was impressive but Lendl put up two great years back to back in 86 and 87 and 85 was probably just as good as most of McEnroe's prime. However its really hard to compare the two as both couldn't dominate all three surfaces, both had their flaws, McEnroe inconsistent Lendl was a choker and although Lendl has one more slam 8-7 in slams I guess just has to give Lendl a slight edge. Sure McEnroe took down Borg, but didn't Lendl take out McEnroe and had to deal with guys like Wilander, Becker and Edberg etc. So my slight edge goes to Lendl..but barely.

 

[big ted]

longevity and dominance ?
i think it is closer then you think...
mcenroe won 70+ singles tournaments but also 70+ doubles tournaments as well...
also most say he is the one responsible for putting borg into retirement after the usopen final '81.., like rabbit said..
and finally mcenroe beat mark phillpousis and sampras last year as a 50 year old and also won a regular tour doubles title a couple years back w/bjorkman...

i think if u are comparing lendl and macs singles careers on the regular tour, then i think lendl wins by an edge, and lendls star burned longer, but macs burned brighter but died sooner...
but overall, adding macs doubles, senior events, AND his epic davis cup matches/wins, at the very least it is EVEN in my opinion...

 

[crabgrass]

i really have to laugh when i see this comment constanly trotted out
'mcenroe was more talented"...mac had better touch and was a superior serve & vollyer, no arguments here but lendls groundstrokes were on another level to mcenroe's...but apparently being able to hit that awesome running forehand down the line isnt a talent.
here are the facts, unlike people facts have no bias:

grand slam titles: lendl 8 mac 7
grand slam finals lendl 19 mac 11
career titles lendl 94 mac 77
weeks at number 1 lendl 270 mac 170
head to head lendl 21 mac 15
also lendl won 3 out of the 4 slams while mac won 2 out of 4.

 

[big ted]

i really have to laugh when i see this comment constanly trotted out
'mcenroe was more talented"...mac had better touch and was a superior serve & vollyer, no arguments here but lendls groundstrokes were on another level to mcenroe's...but apparently being able to hit that awesome running forehand down the line isnt a talent.
here are the facts, unlike people facts have no bias:

grand slam titles: lendl 8 mac 7
grand slam finals lendl 19 mac 11
career titles lendl 94 mac 77
weeks at number 1 lendl 270 mac 170
head to head lendl 21 mac 15
also lendl won 3 out of the 4 slams while mac won 2 out of 4.

more facts -
wimby wins : lendl 0, mac 3 (+5 in doubs)
(The Championships, Wimbledon, or simply Wimbledon, is the oldest tennis tournament in the world and is widely considered the most prestigious.)

usopen wins : lendl 3, mac 4 (+4 in doubs)

 

[crabgrass]

i'm looking at the overall record, having a superior wimbledon record doesnt make you a better player...or is pat cash better than say guillermo vilas or mats wilander.
despite 1 less usopen title lendl's record there overall is far more consistent then mac...8 consecutive finals.
having to bring doubles into the equation tells me you don't have much of an argument, lendl like most of the top players of his era rarely played doubles.

 

[big ted]

i'm looking at the overall record, having a superior wimbledon record doesnt make you a better player...or is pat cash better than say guillermo vilas or mats wilander.
despite 1 less usopen title lendl's record there overall is far more consistent then mac...8 consecutive finals.
having to bring doubles into the equation tells me you don't have much of an argument, lendl like most of the top players of his era rarely played doubles.

ah, but lendl did play alot of doubles his record is -
187-140 w/L with 6 career titles,
meaning he played in 146 doubles tournaments...

mac is 530-103 w/L with 70 doubles titles
meaning he played in 173 doubles tournaments...

both played in ballpark similar # of tournys w mac winning alot more...

 

[Wuornos]

Lendl in my view dominated his era, McEnroe did not. (Though his success in 1985 was sensational).

Lendl dominated the head to head.

At McEnroe's beloved Wimbledon Lendl made two finals and several semis.

At Lendl's French Open backyard, McEnroe made one final (1984 - lost to Lendl).

Lendl created a record for most number of weeks at number one, easily surpassing McEnroe.

Lendl won 8 Grand Slams to McEnroe's 7.

Lendl has been described as the "father of modern tennis" by introducing the power game.
He revolutionised fitness and training.

Lastly, he achieved all this without resorting to abuse, gamesmanship (or cheating as some players have called it).

That is, he was not an obnoxious brat.

I agree that Lendl's peak standard of play was probably higher than McEnroe's, but the reference to an 'obnoxious brat' is a little to much in my honest opinion.

McEnroe was a passionate player who's competitive edge was buit around this aspect of his personality.

Yes he could be argumentative and took things to heart but I don't believe he ever challenged a call that he truly didn't believe was wrong.

Tim

 

[Paul Murphy]

crabgrass: Brilliant stuff. You have said it all. Well done. Case closed.

Wuornos: Ask Bill Scanlon and John Fitzgerald (to name two players) who called McEnroe's disgusting gutter antics what they were - cheating, pure and simple.

 

[Rabbit]

You can't simply throw out matches because you feel like it? I am sure McEnroe face Lendl in matches before he was really developed, you can't simply be like oh well he felt like their was nothing else to do. No excuses Lendl is 21-15 thats it.

However on comparision both are great but neither are outstanding is all how you look at it. Both were dominant to an extent, but McEnroe was inconsistent at times look at 1982 still not sure how he held that number 1 ranking. Lendl was also a choker constantly, players he could beat anywhere he would lose to in a slam final. So its a tough comparision Lendl made 8 USO finals but only was able to win 3 but in his prime from 85-87 he was truly a force to be reckoned with. McEnroe 84 was impressive but Lendl put up two great years back to back in 86 and 87 and 85 was probably just as good as most of McEnroe's prime. However its really hard to compare the two as both couldn't dominate all three surfaces, both had their flaws, McEnroe inconsistent Lendl was a choker and although Lendl has one more slam 8-7 in slams I guess just has to give Lendl a slight edge. Sure McEnroe took down Borg, but didn't Lendl take out McEnroe and had to deal with guys like Wilander, Becker and Edberg etc. So my slight edge goes to Lendl..but barely.

Good post.

I didn't throw out the remaining 6 matches. They stand. However, as one who watched McEnroe from the time he came on the scene until his departure, I can speak to the state of his game. McEnroe was simply not the player he was earlier. This is not to disparage Lendl who clearly had made improvements, but we were not seeing a peak McEnroe. Before anyone starts discounting McEnroe's performance further, he and Lendl are roughly the same age so both should have been physically at their respective peaks.

And honestly, I don't dispute that Lendl wound up with a better career, but only by the slightest of margin. But, in any list of where players stand, I put Lendl and McEnroe on even footing. Lendl was a much harder worker than McEnroe and when evaluating both, there is a rough analogy to two later players, Sampras and Agassi. Sampras, like Lendl, was more consistent over a longer period, however Agassi, like McEnroe, had periods when he was untouchable but overall inconsistent.

 

[thalivest]

Sampras, like Lendl, was more consistent over a longer period, however Agassi, like McEnroe, had periods when he was untouchable but overall inconsistent.

Wow I guess I cant quite see that myself. I agree on your Lendl and McEnroe comparision in this case. However Agassi never had periods he was untouchable ala Sampras or Federer, and Sampras was not only far more consistent over a longer period than Agassi, but in addition reached peak levels of performance and play far higher than Agassi ever could as well.

 

[Rabbit]

Wow I guess I cant quite see that myself. I agree on your Lendl and McEnroe comparision in this case. However Agassi never had periods he was untouchable ala Sampras or Federer, and Sampras was not only far more consistent over a longer period than Agassi, but in addition reached peak levels of performance and play far higher than Agassi ever could as well.

The period I'm referring to with Agassi started in 1999 with the French. Agassi won the French, made the finals of Wimbledon, won the US Open, and then won the 2000 Australian. During that period, he beat:

1999 - French d Medvedev
1999 - Wimbledon lost to Sampras
1999 - US d Martin
2000 - Aus d Kafelnikov

It was at this time that Agassi appeared to have turned the corner and was going to become a real force again in tennis. But, he dropped off again and then made another comeback.

 

[TsongaEatingAPineappleLol]

Lendl is the man. I hate McEnroe.

I am extremely glad to hear that he dominated the head to head, because they were big-time rivals and hated each other.

 

[thalivest]

The period I'm referring to with Agassi started in 1999 with the French. Agassi won the French, made the finals of Wimbledon, won the US Open, and then won the 2000 Australian. During that period, he beat:

1999 - French d Medvedev
1999 - Wimbledon lost to Sampras
1999 - US d Martin
2000 - Aus d Kafelnikov

It was at this time that Agassi appeared to have turned the corner and was going to become a real force again in tennis. But, he dropped off again and then made another comeback.

I see what you are saying but I doubt very much he would have won the U.S Open had Sampras been able to play when Sampras was coming in off a 20+ match win streak which included 3 straight set wins over Agassi, and always raised his game for Wimbledon and the U.S Open anyway. Even Agassi's very narrow and exciting Australian Open semifinal win over Sampras was with Sampras having incurred an injury that he even said may have forced him to default the final vs Kafelnikov and forced him to miss the next 5 weeks. Agassi still lost 4 of 6 matches to Sampras during this period, and 1 of the 2 wins was in the RR of the year end Championships where Sampras would go on to crush Agassi in the finals itself. It was still an incredible stretch of tennis by Agassi no doubt, and he deserves alot of praise for it, but it still felt like Sampras was the one in control even during that period.

 

[Rabbit]

I see what you are saying but I doubt very much he would have won the U.S Open had Sampras been able to play when Sampras was coming in off a 20+ match win streak which included 3 straight set wins over Agassi, and always raised his game for Wimbledon and the U.S Open anyway. Even Agassi's very narrow and exciting Australian Open semifinal win over Sampras was with Sampras having incurred an injury that he even said may have forced him to default the final vs Kafelnikov and forced him to miss the next 5 weeks. Agassi still lost 4 of 6 matches to Sampras during this period, and 1 of the 2 wins was in the RR of the year end Championships where Sampras would go on to crush Agassi in the finals itself. It was still an incredible stretch of tennis by Agassi no doubt, and he deserves alot of praise for it, but it still felt like Sampras was the one in control even during that period.

There is no doubt that Sampras got the better of that rivalry. IMO, Sampras was just a bad matchup for Agassi. Still, during the aforementioned period, Agassi did win and was a consistent performer.

I remember their two encounters in the Masters at the end of the year. In the finals, Sampras adopted a tactic of hitting his second serve nearly as hard as his first. It proved to be devastating for Agassi. It was an awesome performance for sure.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Also Lendl was a far better player than Mcenroe with the graphite racquet he had one of the best forehands of all time and a great topspin backhand. The reason people always put Mcenroes, Connors and Agassi's ahead of Lendl is because they hated him (I like the guy a lot) they found him boring and Mcenroe said in his book that Lendl had no talent and this all of a sudden became gospel just because Mcenroe said it, Lendl is the most underappreated and underrated great of all time.

 

[Paul Murphy]

crabgrass: Fantastic reply mate - end of story - the stats say it all.

Wuornos: several players including Bill Scanlon and John Fitzgerald accused McEnroe of cheating through his antics.
They broke the concentration of his opponents - they were deliberate - and obnoxious and hardly the way a decent person/player would conduct themselves.

Do you condone all that?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Lendl has been described as the "father of modern tennis" by introducing the power game.
He revolutionised fitness and training.

Lastly, he achieved all this without resorting to abuse, gamesmanship (or cheating as some players have called it).

Comments like these make me wonder if you saw Lendl play much(I have quite a few of his matches on dvd, so I'm not relying on 20 year old memories like most in this thread probably are) He was suspended several times for exceeding the fine limit on the ATP tour. And in terms of playing to his 'own' pace, he has no equal(makes Nadal & Djokovic look like speedy players)

He was accused of gamesmanship, stalling, etc many, many times, by other players, commentators, media.

And he could abuse umpires with the best of them(ask Richard Ings or Gerry Armstrong)

While he wasn't on Mac's level as far as outrageousness(he wasn't a racquet breaker, just a verbal abuse sort of guy) the idea that Lendl was a "good guy" who was well liked by his peers couldn't be farther from the truth. He probably received more code violations in one year than Roddick has in his entire career. Lendl could complain & whine as well as anybody(& he called for the supervisor many, many times, often resulting in long delays in the middle of a match - much like you know who)

The big criticism of mens tennis in the 80s by the media was that it wasn't good for the sport to be ruled by TWO whiners(Lendl & Mac) Look it up.

I watched the '85 Canadian Open Final between Mac & Lendl recently, I don't think I've ever seen a match where both players were on the umpire this much(RIP Jeremy Shales)
Lendl & Mac actually seemed to sympathize with each other at one point (making comments to each other across the net about how bad calls were for both players) Lendl had a hissy fit early in the match & waited until the supervisor came out to start play again(& he threatened not to continue if Shales was left in the chair. there were a lot more similarites between mac & lendl than you think)

Check out Miloslav Mecir mocking Lendl's annoying habits at the '87 Lipton(& Lendl responding with an F-U)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1zkNyxSrzE&feature=channel_page

Pretty much none of the top players except Edberg & Wilander behaved all that well in the 80s, Mac was not unique at all(cash could be as vulgar as anyone, & Becker was also a master at gamesmanship. Even the guy that won the sportsmanship award multiple times -Noah - let loose with F bombs in arguments with umpires)

Ask Bill Scanlon and John Fitzgerald (to name two players) who called McEnroe's disgusting gutter antics what they were - cheating, pure and simple

You should ask them what they thought of Lendl, judging by some of their post match comments when they played him in the 80s, not much.
But todays fans wouldn't know that since Scanlon knows Lendl's name won't sell books today (apparently Mac was one of the best things that ever happened to Scanlon - "Bad News For McEnroe" probably helped him pay off that mortgage)

 

[Paul Murphy]

crabgrass: well said - couldn't put it any better.

Wuornos: Several players including Bill Scanlon and John Fitzgerald accused McEnroe of cheating - they weren't wrong.
His antics put other players off their game - do you condone them?

 

[Rabbit]

I read Scanlon's book. He was one of Lendl's hitting partners. I wonder if that had any influence on his take on McEnroe.

 

[Tennis Dunce]

Imo guys like Connors,McEnroe and Agassi are overated they were never able to have back to back great years (In Agassi's case he never had 2 great years) they are great players but overated.

100 singles titles and Connors is overrated?Sure thing

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

100 singles titles and Connors is overrated?Sure thing

And you don't think some of those were walkovers?

 

[Tennis Dunce]

Just the fact that it's close between them tells me Mac was better. Lendl had to have elite fitness level and a power game while Johnny Mac could sit in his room and eat cheeseburgers until 20 minutes before the match and never practice.

Mac>Lendl

 

[Tennis Dunce]

And you don't think some of those were walkovers?

It doesn't matter what I think. Dude was the first man to win 100 singles titles.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Just the fact that it's close between them tells me Mac was better. Lendl had to have elite fitness level and a power game while Johnny Mac could sit in his room and eat cheeseburgers until 20 minutes before the match and never practice.

Mac>Lendl

Lendl put together years of dominace Mac couldn't Lendl was better on more variety of surfaces Lendl>Mac

 

[Paul Murphy]

crabgrass: Fantastic stuff. The stats say it all well done.

Wuornos: Other players such as John Fitzgerald and Bill Scanlon weren't so fond of McEnroe's "passion".
They thought his antics were simply designed to put his opponents off their game and break their concentration.

Hardly good sportsmanship and not much of an example was it.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Moose Molloy: I'm 48, watched them at the time and I imagine I've seen more Lendl matches than you have.

I also have a DVD library which contains 37 of them so I've got plenty to jog my memories with.

Rabbit: Have a look at that vision of McEnroe destroying the courtside equipment in Scandinavia - very decent.
By the way John Fitzgerald wasn't Lendl's doubles partner and he effectively called McEnroe a cheat after they played at Wimbledon - I i'll take Fitzy's word any day. He was a classic Aussie player of the time - a ******* of decency and sportsmanship unlike McEnroe.
Also can't remember Lendl being defaulted out of a tournament can you?
Australian Open. Bye bye McEnroe.

tennis dunce: If you look at the stats provided by crabgrass you'll see it that it's not "close between them".

You should read the stats, you might learn something.

 

[crabgrass]

Comments like these make me wonder if you saw Lendl play much(I have quite a few of his matches on dvd, so I'm not relying on 20 year old memories like most in this thread probably are) He was suspended several times for exceeding the fine limit on the ATP tour. And in terms of playing to his 'own' pace, he has no equal(makes Nadal & Djokovic look like speedy players)

He was accused of gamesmanship, stalling, etc many, many times, by other players, commentators, media.

And he could abuse umpires with the best of them(ask Richard Ings or Gerry Armstrong)

While he wasn't on Mac's level as far as outrageousness(he wasn't a racquet breaker, just a verbal abuse sort of guy) the idea that Lendl was a "good guy" who was well liked by his peers couldn't be farther from the truth. He probably received more code violations in one year than Roddick has in his entire career. Lendl could complain & whine as well as anybody(& he called for the supervisor many, many times, often resulting in long delays in the middle of a match - much like you know who)

The big criticism of mens tennis in the 80s by the media was that it wasn't good for the sport to be ruled by TWO whiners(Lendl & Mac) Look it up.

I watched the '85 Canadian Open Final between Mac & Lendl recently, I don't think I've ever seen a match where both players were on the umpire this much(RIP Jeremy Shales)
Lendl & Mac actually seemed to sympathize with each other at one point (making comments to each other across the net about how bad calls were for both players) Lendl had a hissy fit early in the match & waited until the supervisor came out to start play again(& he threatened not to continue if Shales was left in the chair. there were a lot more similarites between mac & lendl than you think)

Check out Miloslav Mecir mocking Lendl's annoying habits at the '87 Lipton(& Lendl responding with an F-U)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1zkNyxSrzE&feature=channel_page

Pretty much none of the top players except Edberg & Wilander behaved all that well in the 80s, Mac was not unique at all(cash could be as vulgar as anyone, & Becker was also a master at gamesmanship. Even the guy that won the sportsmanship award multiple times -Noah - let loose with F bombs in arguments with umpires)




You should ask them what they thought of Lendl, judging by some of their post match comments when they played him in the 80s, not much.
But todays fans wouldn't know that since Scanlon knows Lendl's name won't sell books today (apparently Mac was one of the best things that ever happened to Scanlon - "Bad News For McEnroe" probably helped him pay off that mortgage)

don't know where you'd get the idea that scanlon or fitzgerald would have bad things to say about lendl....from what i heard of scanlons book he seems to like lendl...fitzgeralds been commentating for years in australia and i never recall a bad word directed at lendl....thumbs up for jim courier also, he pointed out a few times during the australian open what an underated champion lendl was and many dont rate him just for the fact they never liked him.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Rabbit on McEnroe: "thought he had nothing else to do and might as well be on court. If you throw these 6 out, they are 15 - 15".

I stand by my comment. The statement above is rubbish.
Why don't you take some others out - like the other 15 McEnroe didn't win.

I mean really, the guy was a professional tennis player and can only be judged by results, not the fact that his second career (whatever that may be) hadn't started yet or whatever other excuse you are presenting.

I have a collection of more than three dozen Lendl dvds (and about 120 overall).
I grew up watching these guys play (I have seen most of their matches) and know what I am talking about.
What I would never do is seek to "throw out" matches Lendl lost in trying to make my case.
The Lendl case is compelling as crabgrass and I have pointed out. We haven't "thrown out" or not counted any matches.
You should try it sometime - gives one a little more credibility in mounting an argument.
Cheers.

 

[bluetrain4]

thumbs up for jim courier also, he pointed out a few times during the australian open what an underated champion lendl was and many dont rate him just for the fact they never liked him.

I think the tide is starting to turn a little with Lendl with more people viewing his place in tennis history more favorably and speaking of him like the true Champion he was.

I really got into watching tennis in 1985, the year Lendl won his first USO. At the time, I didn't know of all of this lost Slam finals or that he was known as a bit of a choker. For me, Lendl was a scary, dominant champion who was really intimidating.

It always surprised me that Edberg of all people had a winning record over Lendl (14-13), maybe an overlooked rivalry. And, they played in a lot of big matches, not just at run-of-the-mill tour events.

 

[Rabbit]

Rabbit on McEnroe: "thought he had nothing else to do and might as well be on court. If you throw these 6 out, they are 15 - 15".

I stand by my comment. The statement above is rubbish.
Why don't you take some others out - like the other 15 McEnroe didn't win.

I mean really, the guy was a professional tennis player and can only be judged by results, not the fact that his second career (whatever that may be) hadn't started yet or whatever other excuse you are presenting.

I have a collection of more than three dozen Lendl dvds (and about 120 overall).
I grew up watching these guys play (I have seen most of their matches) and know what I am talking about.
What I would never do is seek to "throw out" matches Lendl lost in trying to make my case.
The Lendl case is compelling as crabgrass and I have pointed out. We haven't "thrown out" or not counted any matches.
You should try it sometime - gives one a little more credibility in mounting an argument.
Cheers.

OK....my response was to the OP, in which you attempt to deify Lendl which certainly wasn't the case. Lendl, as others have attempted to point out, was just as guilty as McEnroe.

You then went on to try and point out how dominate Lendl was when in fact he was 3 - 8 in US Open finals and prior to the 1984 French was 0 - 4 in finals. Overall, Lendl was 8 - 11 in Major finals. By contrast, McEnroe was 7 - 4 in Major finals. Lendl was a choker, something else I pointed out. He simply was not a clutch player.

You bash McEnroe for his French Open failure. What about Lendl? He succombed to a 17-year old Chang who resorted to all kind of tactics.... Again, Lendl wasn't clutch.

You then try to glorify Lendl's Wimbledon record. Yeah, he was an habitual loser at the tournament. McEnroe made 3 semis, one at 17 and one at 33 and 5 finals.

I don't dispute that McEnroe was a b@stard and that his behavior was and still is terrible. But Lendl was never going to win any sportsmanship awards himself. He was as bad, in a different way, as McEnroe.

And really, if Lendl was so much more dominate than McEnroe, shouldn't have have many more Major titles? If you wanna go with records, he's 1 better than McEnroe.....1

 

[Paul Murphy]

Hi Rabbit, back again?

I see you have wisely abandoned the old "well if you just don't count those five pesky Lendl wins then the head to head is even at 15-15". Wise move - you and I both know you were on a loser with that one!

Instead let's discuss this other quote from you:

"And honestly, I don't dispute that Lendl wound up with a better career, but only by the slightest of margin. But, in any list of where players stand, I put Lendl and McEnroe on even footing."

"Slightest of margin"???? "Even footing"???

Okay, a test for you.

How about you ask anyone at random if they would rather:

1) Win 8 slams (Lendl) or 7 (McEnroe).
2) Make 19 slam finals (Lendl) or 11 (McEnroe).
3) Have 94 career titles (Lendl) or 77 (McEnroe).
4) Spend 270 weeks at world number one (Lendl) or 170 (McEnroe).
5) Have a head to head of 21 (Lendl) to 15 (McEnroe).
6) Win three of the four slams (Lendl) or two (McEnroe).

Slightest of margin??? Even footing???

You have got to be kidding. I'll take Lendl's "slightest of margin" and "even footing" anytime old mate.

And I reckon any sane person would agree.
Thanks for the quote by the way - great stuff.
Cheers.

 

[krosero]

How about you ask anyone at random if they would rather:

1) Win 8 slams (Lendl) or 7 (McEnroe).
2) Make 19 slam finals (Lendl) or 11 (McEnroe).

I might take McEnroe's 3 Wimbledon and 4 USO's over Lendl's Slams. I'm not saying I would take it at the drop of a hat, because they're comparable careers. But ultimately you can't just throw out the stats and expect everyone to take the career with the higher numbers. People don't think that way because they know that champions are not ultimately remembered for their numbers but rather their performances on the big stages -- and who they're linked with. Sure, Lendl can say he dethroned McEnroe, but John can say he dethroned Bjorn Borg, at Wimbledon, and is involved with that man in one of the best-remembered rivalries (and best-remembered moments, particularly that 18-16 tiebreak). I wouldn't blame anyone who wanted John's career over Lendl's (especially if they cared about Davis Cup, as John did to an exceptional degree).

Now, I happen to like Lendl somewhat more than McEnroe, and I know full well that he had his great moments, too. If someone wanted Lendl's career instead of McEnroe's, no sweat. But this idea of yours that you can just throw out Lendl's higher numbers and strong-arm everyone with them, is entirely wrong. It's not going to work.

Even the numbers are not as simple as you would like to paint them. Sure, 19 finals is higher than 11. It's an achievement and no doubt Lendl takes pride in them. But it's not a simple picture. 19 finals and 8 victories means 11 losses. A losing record in Slam finals -- something for which Lendl will always be remembered. Lendl overcame his early immaturity, sure; but if you just want to use the cold numbers without any intangibles, then the 8-11 record is going to stand as it is, a technically losing record.

The way that Lendl overcame his early failures in Slam finals is one of the great things about his resume. But to know that, you need to appreciate more than his numbers; you have to look at his whole story, especially his hard work.

So if you want a strategy that will backfire on you, feel free to stick to cold numbers, without any context or intangibles or explanation. Bring those in, and you have to admit that they can be brought in for McEnroe as well.

 

[Rabbit]

I might take McEnroe's 3 Wimbledon and 4 USO's over Lendl's Slams. I'm not saying I would take it at the drop of a hat, because they're comparable careers. But ultimately you can't just throw out the stats and expect everyone to take the career with the higher numbers. People don't think that way because they know that champions are not ultimately remembered for their numbers but rather their performances on the big stages -- and who they're linked with. Sure, Lendl can say he dethroned McEnroe, but John can say he dethroned Bjorn Borg, at Wimbledon, and is involved with that man in one of the best-remembered rivalries (and best-remembered moments, particularly that 18-16 tiebreak). I wouldn't blame anyone who wanted John's career over Lendl's (especially if they cared about Davis Cup, as John did to an exceptional degree).

Now, I happen to like Lendl somewhat more than McEnroe, and I know full well that he had his great moments, too. If someone wanted Lendl's career instead of McEnroe's, no sweat. But this idea of yours that you can just throw out Lendl's higher numbers and strong-arm everyone with them, is entirely wrong. It's not going to work.

Even the numbers are not as simple as you would like to paint them. Sure, 19 finals is higher than 11. It's an achievement and no doubt Lendl takes pride in them. But it's not a simple picture. 19 finals and 8 victories means 11 losses. A losing record in Slam finals -- something for which Lendl will always be remembered. Lendl overcame his early immaturity, sure; but if you just want to use the cold numbers without any intangibles, then the 8-11 record is going to stand as it is, a technically losing record.

The way that Lendl overcame his early failures in Slam finals is one of the great things about his resume. But to know that, you need to appreciate more than his numbers; you have to look at his whole story, especially his hard work.

So if you want a strategy that will backfire on you, feel free to stick to cold numbers, without any context or intangibles or explanation. Bring those in, and you have to admit that they can be brought in for McEnroe as well.

Great post and what I was trying to get across.

For sheer greatness, McEnroe's 1984 is probably the greatest performance of the Open era edging Roger Federer's best year by only the slightest margin.

And, contextually, I stand by the head to head of Lendl and McEnroe. When both were at their best, there was nothing separating them. They were even.

I also stand by the statement that Lendl was as poorly behaved as McEnroe albeit in a different vein. Lendl was as poor a sport and had his own less desirable traits and tactics. To state otherwise is to be blind to his performances or just plain disingenuous. Neither of these guys were going to win the Stefan Edberg award for sportsmanship.

I personally would rather watch John McEnroe play tennis. But, if you want drama, I'd rather watch them play each other.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Rabbit: You are an okay guy after all.
At least my post stimulated debate about two of the greatest players to walk the Earth.

I don't agree with most of what you have said but I heartily agree with your last line which was beautifully put: "If you want drama, I'd rather watch them play each other."

I yearn for those wonderful confrontations which offered so much feeling, tension and drama.
Ah, those were the days. I really miss them.

Thanks for a fun debate. Cheers.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Rabbit: Correct. I am an Aussie. Are you English by any chance?
I think you may well be but whatever you are you have closed this debate with class, humour and elegance.

I am a television journalist and was sent to interview McEnroe in 1991.
He was as you'd expect (rude, arrogant and unaware it seemed of his rapidly fading powers) but that's got nothing to do with my arguments here - as brilliant as he was at times I really don't think he dominated an era as Lendl did.
Anyway, that's just an opinion.

By the way, you may just be a legend after all.

Hope we run into each other again - maybe we'll be on the same side next time - that could be fun.

All the best.

 

[Moose Malloy]

fitzgeralds been commentating for years in australia and i never recall a bad word directed at lendl....

Well, it would sorta be odd for anyone to talk about about how annoyed they were with someone they played 20 years ago wouldn't it? Commmentary is a light hearted affair in general, players have moved on, are having a good time, etc, what would would be the point of mentioning it? I really doubt Fed would blast Djokovic or his family in 2028 while doing commentary for Swiss TV or something. He'd sound like a complete nutter.

I think a post match interview from 1987 is a more accurate reflection of how a player felt in 1987 than listening to them talk today. I'm amazed how often players get so much wrong when they reminisce today. I also think these old interviews are often more accurate than recent books a player may write(again 20 years later, your feelings often change or have faded)

thumbs up for jim courier also, he pointed out a few times during the australian open what an underated champion lendl was and many dont rate him just for the fact they never liked him.

Gee, I wonder why so many didn't like him? Could it be he wasn't the nicest guy, greatest sport etc (like the op is trying to claim)

Check out the '89 USO SF - Lendl vs Agassi. A ballgirl fell ill due to the heat & limped off the court behind Lendl. Lendl then demanded 2 serves due to the delay between 1st & 2nd serve. That should tell you all you need to know about lendl's 'character.' Tony Trabert & John Newcombe(2 pretty fair, objective commentators) were doing commentary for CBS & were pretty apalled.

How about you ask anyone at random if they would rather:

1) Win 8 slams (Lendl) or 7 (McEnroe).
2) Make 19 slam finals (Lendl) or 11 (McEnroe).
3) Have 94 career titles (Lendl) or 77 (McEnroe).
4) Spend 270 weeks at world number one (Lendl) or 170 (McEnroe).
5) Have a head to head of 21 (Lendl) to 15 (McEnroe).
6) Win three of the four slams (Lendl) or two (McEnroe).

You should ask Lendl himself if he would rather have 3 Wimbledons, 4 USOs, or his resume - 2 AOs, 3 FOs, 3 USOs. I have a feeling he would take Mac's career over his(& I doubt Mac would feel the same vice versa) In the early 90s, Lendl said he would trade all of his FOs for one Wimbledon. I doubt Mac would trade any of his USOs for one FO.
And its funny you mentioned Lendl's 19 slams finals. He gave a recent interview for TC in which he mentioned that he was sort of perplexed by the fascination some have with his 8 straight USO finals. He said, "I'd rather be known for winning 3 USOs, than for losing 5 finals."


Any way, this topic has been talked about A LOT here over the years. Some good stuff in these threads by chaognosis, krosero & others who are probably burned out about this subject(I know I am) And just to reiterate what I wrote in one of these threads, I would rank Lendl higher. But I don't think anyone who ranks Mac higher is a biased fool or anything.

a good post by chaog on this:

here are just a few of the most recent testimonies by players, journalists, and other writers that I could quickly come up with (Moose has already named some others); I will add to it when I have access to more materials (others could add to it as well if they know of particular lists or polls I've left out). You'll notice that two recent rankings (by Drucker and Fein), do favor Lendl, albeit by a hair. The other writers, and the two major polls, favor McEnroe by varying degrees.

1999 AP poll (panel including Ted Schroeder, Barry MacKay, Fred Stolle, Virginia Wade, Wendy Turnbull, and Pam Shriver) : McEnroe #6, Lendl not ranked (outside top 10)
2006 TennisWeek all-time fantasy draw (determined by many expert ballots, including Stolle, Segura): McEnroe #8, Lendl not ranked (outside top eight)

E. Digby Baltzell (1995): McEnroe and Borg among all-time top 10, Lendl not included
Bud Collins (2006): McEnroe #7, Lendl #10
Joel Drucker (2006): Lendl #9, McEnroe #10
Paul Fein (2003): Lendl #9, McEnroe #10
Steve Flink (2006): McEnroe #9, Lendl #10
Bruce Jenkins (2006): McEnroe #5, Lendl not ranked (outside top 10)
Dan Maskell (1988*): McEnroe #6, Lendl not ranked (outside top 10)

*The ranking from Maskell's book was obviously done before the completion of Lendl's career, so his list may have changed later. However, Lendl's best years (1985-87) were already behind him at that point, and if anything should have been especially fresh in the author's memory; I highly doubt that what happened later would have significantly altered Maskell's opinion here.

There was also a very large poll conducted by Inside Tennis in 1986, which I haven't included for obvious reasons, though the most interesting thing about it is that it ranked McEnroe second behind only Laver! Obviously Mac's stature has declined somewhat in retrospect, but it's remarkable that observers at the time were so impressed by him--ranking him ahead of Borg, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge, Tilden, etc. Lendl was never held in such high esteem, even at the very height of his powers.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=136097&page=3


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195435

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=193920

 

[Rabbit]

Rabbit: Correct. I am an Aussie. Are you English by any chance?
I think you may well be but whatever you are you have closed this debate with class, humour and elegance.

I am a television journalist and was sent to interview McEnroe in 1991.
He was as you'd expect (rude, arrogant and unaware it seemed of his rapidly fading powers) but that's got nothing to do with my arguments here - as brilliant as he was at times I really don't think he dominated an era as Lendl did.
Anyway, that's just an opinion.

By the way, you may just be a legend after all.

Hope we run into each other again - maybe we'll be on the same side next time - that could be fun.

All the best.

Nope, I'm American and Southern by the Grace of God.

I hope you stick around, and I'm sure we'll be on the same side of most of these discussions.

 

[crabgrass]

Well, it would sorta be odd for anyone to talk about about how annoyed they were with someone they played 20 years ago wouldn't it? Commmentary is a light hearted affair in general, players have moved on, are having a good time, etc, what would would be the point of mentioning it? I really doubt Fed would blast Djokovic or his family in 2028 while doing commentary for Swiss TV or something. He'd sound like a complete nutter.

I think a post match interview from 1987 is a more accurate reflection of how a player felt in 1987 than listening to them talk today. I'm amazed how often players get so much wrong when they reminisce today. I also think these old interviews are often more accurate than recent books a player may write(again 20 years later, your feelings often change or have faded)



Gee, I wonder why so many didn't like him? Could it be he wasn't the nicest guy, greatest sport etc (like the op is trying to claim)

Check out the '89 USO SF - Lendl vs Agassi. A ballgirl fell ill due to the heat & limped off the court behind Lendl. Lendl then demanded 2 serves due to the delay between 1st & 2nd serve. That should tell you all you need to know about lendl's 'character.' Tony Trabert & John Newcombe(2 pretty fair, objective commentators) were doing commentary for CBS & were pretty apalled.




You should ask Lendl himself if he would rather have 3 Wimbledons, 4 USOs, or his resume - 2 AOs, 3 FOs, 3 USOs. I have a feeling he would take Mac's career over his(& I doubt Mac would feel the same vice versa) In the early 90s, Lendl said he would trade all of his FOs for one Wimbledon. I doubt Mac would trade any of his USOs for one FO.
And its funny you mentioned Lendl's 19 slams finals. He gave a recent interview for TC in which he mentioned that he was sort of perplexed by the fascination some have with his 8 straight USO finals. He said, "I'd rather be known for winning 3 USOs, than for losing 5 finals."


Any way, this topic has been talked about A LOT here over the years. Some good stuff in these threads by chaognosis, krosero & others who are probably burned out about this subject(I know I am) And just to reiterate what I wrote in one of these threads, I would rank Lendl higher. But I don't think anyone who ranks Mac higher is a biased fool or anything.

a good post by chaog on this:



http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=136097&page=3


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195435

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=193920

i don't think whether lendl was or wasnt a nice guy had anything to do with his overall popularity...the media was on lendl's back almost from day 1.
never underestimate the influence the media can have on the general public...i know people that think david beckham is the worlds best footballer,
enough said.
The fact lendl was from an eastern bloc country during the cold war era and his main rivals were all american boys mac and jimbo didnt help his cause.