I've noticed that Connors and Mac tend to always stress that each other and Borg were their greatest rivals. I think this is very harsh on Lendl: I think both should list Lendl along with Borg and each other. Mac especially: Lendl knocked him off the no.1 spot, is ahead in their head to head record and they are the same age. Lendl beat mac in 2 slam finals, more than either Borg or Connors. Connors' attitude is more understandable than Mac's because his peak and Lendl's peak were at different times: Lendl was at his best 85-90 while Connors was clearly past his prime then. Connors was great in 82-83 but Lendl wasn't quite at his peak then, though very good. However, even so Connors' 2 US victories over Lendl in 82-83 rightly show the greatness of Connors: this greatness is diminished if Lendl wasn't the rival Connors and Mac make him out to be. The huge no. of victories Lendl gathered against Connors shouldn't be totally underplayed. Yes Lendl dominated Connors after Connors turned 32 and was past his best, but nevertheless it was a great achievement to register so many victories against the veteran Connors, who even into his 30s was still formidable. Lendl's career is comparable to the careers of Connors and Mac. I slightly prefer the Americans' careers because in the 70s and 80s Wimbledon and the US Open were definitely the most important slams, but even so Lendl belongs in the same tier as his American rivals. Lendl was a great champion.