Match Stats/Report - McEnroe vs Lendl, Forest Hills 1984

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-2 in the final at Forest Hills 1984 on green clay/har tru surface.

(Note: I'm missing one point on Lendl's serve which was won by McEnroe. At other points, it isn't always clear whether the first point of a game is a 1st or 2nd serve - I've used my judgement to fill in the uncertain data in such cases)

McEnroe won 64 points, Lendl 52

Service Stats
McEnroe -
-first serve percentage 30/54 (56%)
-first serve points won 21/30 (70%)
-second serve points won 11/24 (46%)
-aces 7, double faults 5
-unreturned serve percentage 17/49 (35%)

Lendl -
- first serve percentage 38/60 (63%)
- first serve points won 20/38 (53%)
- second serve points won 13/22 (59%)
- aces 4 (1 off a 2nd serve), service winners 2, double faults 2
- unreturned serve percentage 15/54 (28%)

Service Pattern
McEnroe served -
- to the forehand 39%
- to the backhand 49%
- to the body 12%

Lendl served -
- to the forehand 41%
- to the backhand 53%
- to the body 5%

Return Stats
McEnroe returned 43 serves (20 FH, 23 BH). He had 1 Return Winner - a Chip-Charge Forehand

Lendl returned 31 serves (17 FH, 14 BH... 5 times he ran around the BH to hit a FH). He had 3 winners (2 FH, 1 BH - including 1 1 run-around FH)

McEnroe made 9 return errors - 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH) and 7 Unforced (2 FH, 5 BH)

Lendl made 10 return errors - 8 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH) and 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)

Break Points
McEnroe 4/11
Lendl was 1/3

Winners (including return of serves)
McEnroe 22 (3 FH, 2 BH, 6 FHV, 9 BHV, 2 OH)
Lendl 11 (6 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)

- McEnroe's 3 FH winners comprised 1 drop shot, 1 pass and 1 previously mentioned Chip-Charge return

- With one exception, all of Lendl's groundstroke winners were passes (including 1 FH lob). The exception was a FH struck from around the service line

- McEnroe struck the only baseline-to-baseline rally winner, a powerful BH down the line that he set up with an even more powerful, deep BH cross court the previous shot

Errors (excluding double faults and return errors)

McEnroe had 21
- 8 Forced (1 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
- 13 Unforced (7 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV)

Lendl had 22
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV)
- 10 Unforced (4 FH, 6 BH)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
McEnroe won 43/58 (74%) net points, including 26/35 (74%) serve-volleying

He serve-volleyed 100% of the time on first serve and 26% on second (5/19)

The breakdown of McEnroe's approaches is -

- 24/30 S/V off first serve 80%
- 2/5 S/V off second serve 40%
- 4/9 off chip-charge returns 44%
- 13/14 rallying his way to approach 93%

Lendl won 4/7 net points (57%). He had 0 serve-volley points

 

[Waspsting]

Match Report

The match began with a sublime, guided backhand return of first serve passing winner from Ivan Lendl. It ended with a double fault by the same man. There's something poetically appropriate about that

The first set featured a very high level of play from both men. McEnroe looked to attack as was his wont while Lendl held steady and was consistent from the back. Twice he let fly with his notorious power passing shots straight at Mac from close range... a statement of intent

I was struck by Mac's baseline play. By no means was he outdone in baseline-to-baseline scenarios. From his backhand side in particular, he demonstrated a wide variety of shots - drives, slices, dinks, topspin - to hang tight with the reputed powerhouse Lendl

The elephant in the court, so to speak, was the danger of Mac taking the net.

Lendl had a high first serve percentage but seemed to take a bit off the delivery - both in power and placement - from his semi final double bagelling demolition of Jimmy Connors the previous day (you can find stats and a report on that here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...stats-lendl-connors-forest-hills-1984.607455/ )

He was also less passive off the ground against Mac, probably for fear of the American snatching the forecourt

McEnroe for his part served excellently and earned many an easy point by way of the big 1st serve.

His returning was more of a treat though

Seemingly reading the serve well, Mac made few errors on return and occasionally chip-charged it to take the net. He often stood inside the court to take the return but was even more dangerous when returning normally and working the point to find the best way to claim the net.

There was no fixed pattern to his method of working his way to net. He seemed to make it up on the fly like, like a true artiste

Once at the net, he lived up to his reputation with a combination of delicate touches, firm pushes and few mistakes on the volley

The stats show how he was most successful when following this course, winning 13/14 such points - even more than when serve-volleying off the first serve

Lendl went into his shell a bit at crunch time in the opening set, just as Mac turned up the heat even more. Serving to stay in the set, the Czech initiated a moonballing rally, as he'd done successfully against Connors in the semi

McEnroe played along, spotted the oppurtune moment to come forward and finished the point with two measured smashes. He continued to press forward as Lendl faltered with an unforced error, before being finished off by a brilliant foray to the net to give up the set

The second set saw Lendl retreat still further. He took a deep position on return. As McEnroe became almost over aggressive, Lendl shrunk to out and out passive.

Down two breaks, he grabbed one back to love as Mac played a horror game serving for the match. It was to no avail as Mac responded with a third break to close out an impressive win

The match in a nutshell - high quality stuff from McEnroe in all areas and the hint of mental frailty from Lendl when the pressure was on

 

[Moose Malloy]

If a player misses the return while they are attempting a chip/charge do you still count it as a chip/charge attempt?

Interesting that Lendl has a better % on 2nd serve than 1st. I have stats on a lot of their matches vs each other, curious how often that happened.

It is annoying when points are missing, or when they come back late and you can't tell if it is a first or second serve. Happened in so many matches I've tracked.

 

[KG1965]

McEnroe won 60 points, Lendl 52

There is little point gap, despite Mac's overwhelming victory.

- first serve points won 20/38 (53%)
- second serve points won 13/22 (59%)

The explanation could be that Lendl that turn does not force the first serves not to be attacked by John on the second, while in the second Mac perhaps forced some return.

McEnroe had 21
- 8 Forced (1 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)
- 13 Unforced (7 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV)

Lendl had 22
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV)
- 10 Unforced (4 FH, 6 BH)

It's quite interesting that the two have the same unforced. Mac84 was super.

 

[Waspsting]

There is little point gap, despite Mac's overwhelming victory.

Nice catch, KG

I've corrected the figure - it should be Mac 64 points - the 4 extra points are all volley winners, 2 FHV and 2 BHV (also corrected). Lendl's numbers are ok

Thanks!

It's quite interesting that the two have the same unforced. Mac84 was super.

Some difference in the nature of them though

A fair few of Mac's came from trying to be aggressive, while most (possibly all) of Lendl's were just him muffing regulation groundstrokes

Interesting that Lendl has a better % on 2nd serve than 1st. I have stats on a lot of their matches vs each other, curious how often that happened.

The explanation could be that Lendl that turn does not force the first serves not to be attacked by John on the second, while in the second Mac perhaps forced some return.

Bit odd. Probably more common on clay than any other surface

The difference in serving pattern for Lendl on 1st and 2nd serves is interesting

On first serve, he went to FH 21 and BH 17.
On second serve, he went to FH 4 and BH 14 (plus 2 to the body, which on second serve were possibly intended to be extra safe serves to the BH)

His only hold to love had 4 second serves (first point, not sure but that was my judgement of it), while the tougher holds had high 1st serve percentages

It was in that love hold that he let rip a 2nd serve ace out wide on game point - that one was basically a 2nd 'first' serve

If a player misses the return while they are attempting a chip/charge do you still count it as a chip/charge attempt?

I did

Only happened 1/9 times in this match

I included it as a "net point".... but can see it being interpreted differently

It's akin to serving a fault - which isn't a net point - but also an approach shot attempt which turns out to be an error. Would that be a net point?

If I perceive the intent of the shot to be about approaching the net, I'm ok with slotting it in the 'net point' category

Makes as much sense as calling a 140 mile an hour ace right on the T corner a 'serve-volley' point because the server seemed to intend to come forward

In this match, interpreting McEnroe is not straight forward. He frequently took the return early and hopped forward a step or two then hopped back

I don't think he was faking Lendl out with stuff like that. It seemed to me he was making split second decisions, based on how well he'd hit the return, on whether to approach or not

 

[jaggy]

Did Forest Hills ever have red clay too or am I spacing?

 

[abmk]

I did

Only happened 1/9 times in this match

I included it as a "net point".... but can see it being interpreted differently

It's akin to serving a fault - which isn't a net point - but also an approach shot attempt which turns out to be an error. Would that be a net point?

If I perceive the intent of the shot to be about approaching the net, I'm ok with slotting it in the 'net point' category

Makes as much sense as calling a 140 mile an hour ace right on the T corner a 'serve-volley' point because the server seemed to intend to come forward

In this match, interpreting McEnroe is not straight forward. He frequently took the return early and hopped forward a step or two then hopped back

I don't think he was faking Lendl out with stuff like that. It seemed to me he was making split second decisions, based on how well he'd hit the return, on whether to approach or not

that's not called a serve&volley point.

 

[big ted]

Did Forest Hills ever have red clay too or am I spacing?

only green from what i know

 

[Torben]

John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-2 in the final at Forest Hills 1984 on green clay/har tru surface.

I thought the US Open changed venues in 1978 from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadow?

I also thought it was played on a hardcourt?

 

[WCT]

This isn't the US Open. They placed another tournament at Forest Hills the same year they moved the US Open to Flushing.

 

[Torben]

This isn't the US Open. They placed another tournament at Forest Hills the same year they moved the US Open to Flushing.

Ah that explains it.

Thanks WCT!

 

[Vincent-C]

Lendl serving at 63% and losing is a little surprising, but it was Mac's '84 (minus FO, heh).
He missed first serves so routinely then that I used to wonder why he bothered with
the big, missed first one.

 

[mental midget]

Match Report

The match began with a sublime, guided backhand return of first serve passing winner from Ivan Lendl. It ended with a double fault by the same man. There's something poetically appropriate about that

The first set featured a very high level of play from both men. McEnroe looked to attack as was his wont while Lendl held steady and was consistent from the back. Twice he let fly with his notorious power passing shots straight at Mac from close range... a statement of intent

I was struck by Mac's baseline play. By no means was he outdone in baseline-to-baseline scenarios. From his backhand side in particular, he demonstrated a wide variety of shots - drives, slices, dinks, topspin - to hang tight with the reputed powerhouse Lendl

The elephant in the court, so to speak, was the danger of Mac taking the net.

Lendl had a high first serve percentage but seemed to take a bit off the delivery - both in power and placement - from his semi final double bagelling demolition of Jimmy Connors the previous day (you can find stats and a report on that here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...stats-lendl-connors-forest-hills-1984.607455/ )

He was also less passive off the ground against Mac, probably for fear of the American snatching the forecourt

McEnroe for his part served excellently and earned many an easy point by way of the big 1st serve.

His returning was more of a treat though

Seemingly reading the serve well, Mac made few errors on return and occasionally chip-charged it to take the net. He often stood inside the court to take the return but was even more dangerous when returning normally and working the point to find the best way to claim the net.

There was no fixed pattern to his method of working his way to net. He seemed to make it up on the fly like, like a true artiste

Once at the net, he lived up to his reputation with a combination of delicate touches, firm pushes and few mistakes on the volley

The stats show how he was most successful when following this course, winning 13/14 such points - even more than when serve-volleying off the first serve

Lendl went into his shell a bit at crunch time in the opening set, just as Mac turned up the heat even more. Serving to stay in the set, the Czech initiated a moonballing rally, as he'd done successfully against Connors in the semi

McEnroe played along, spotted the oppurtune moment to come forward and finished the point with two measured smashes. He continued to press forward as Lendl faltered with an unforced error, before being finished off by a brilliant foray to the net to give up the set

The second set saw Lendl retreat still further. He took a deep position on return. As McEnroe became almost over aggressive, Lendl shrunk to out and out passive.

Down two breaks, he grabbed one back to love as Mac played a horror game serving for the match. It was to no avail as Mac responded with a third break to close out an impressive win

The match in a nutshell - high quality stuff from McEnroe in all areas and the hint of mental frailty from Lendl when the pressure was on

two things that don't get talked enough about mac are his ground game and his returning. his strokes might have looked a little wonky but he was no slouch off the ground...and at his best his returning was pretty incredible, picked the ball up so early and made excellent contact.

there's a vid i've posted a few times of a 60-something mac playing against a no joke, big-hitting satellite touring pro. mac holds his own, but what's most impressive is his ability even at his 'advanced age' to stand on the baseline and catch/redirect 120mph bombs like it was nothing. in the match he has trouble chasing down really well-placed wide deliveries, but anything near his strike zone, he basically doesn't miss and clocks it. he really is a special talent.

 

[Vincent-C]

two things that don't get talked enough about mac are his ground game and his returning. his strokes might have looked a little wonky but he was no slouch off the ground...and at his best his returning was pretty incredible, picked the ball up so early and made excellent contact.

You betcha. I saw him up close in an exo with Connors that was an eye-opener.. those who think Mac didn't
have superb groundies are mistaken- while always looking to move forward (!) in the court. My idea of great tennis.

 

[WCT]

Ah that explains it.

Thanks WCT!

No problem. It may not have had much prestige initially, but it had big prize money. I believe 100k to the winner. It started as a round robin after Wimbledon and most of the top players didn't come. In 1980 they moved it to May and made it a regular tournament format. They got better fields in May.

That is some stat about Lendl's serve. That was a high % for him and to do better on second serves than first. Maybe if he was just spinning his first serve in. Doesn't look like he was doing that with 4 aces and a good unreturned serve % for clay.

Mcenroe was just on another level that year. Killing players on clay who had always given him problems there. If memory serves, the 1983 tournament was the first that Mcenroe won on clay.

 

[HBK4life]

You betcha. I saw him up close in an exo with Connors that was an eye-opener.. those who think Mac didn't
have superb groundies are mistaken- while always looking to move forward (!) in the court. My idea of great tennis.

I know a teaching pro that hit with him well after he retired and he said anyone that thinks he had weak strokes was crazy.

 

[Waspsting]

Lendl serving at 63% and losing is a little surprising, but it was Mac's '84 (minus FO, heh).
He missed first serves so routinely then that I used to wonder why he bothered with
the big, missed first one.

There's a clear pattern with Lendl's serve percentages

Against guys who he knows won't be attacking his second serves (that is, return off of it), he out and out bangs down the firsts. Its his 'free hit' - he'll win whatever he gets in, and he can handle anyone in rallies on his second serve points, which are baseline rallies. He served this way to guys like Connors and Wilander

But against guys who he knows will be attacking his second serves, he dials down on how big he sends down the first serves to keep a higher first in count and not have to play so many third ball passing shots. He does this against guys like Mac and Edberg

two things that don't get talked enough about mac are his ground game and his returning. his strokes might have looked a little wonky but he was no slouch off the ground...and at his best his returning was pretty incredible, picked the ball up so early and made excellent contact.

He has great variety of return, which you see when he's up against serve-volleyers. crosscourt, down the line, inside-in, inside-out... he has the lot, off both sides. All the doubles play probably helps the less commonly seen ones

I think what sets his returning apart is the ferocity with which he attacks second serves. It started with 'only' chip-charges and by '84, he was just charging and hammering the return. Sometimes even against the first serves of decent servers (like Lendl)

In their '83 Philly match, which is where the rivalry turned, he chip-charges all but 1 of Lendl's second serves!

I saw him up close in an exo with Connors that was an eye-opener.. those who think Mac didn't
have superb groundies are mistaken-

I know a teaching pro that hit with him well after he retired and he said anyone that thinks he had weak strokes was crazy.

How would you guys differentiate between his FH and his BH (if at all) in terms of strength?

To me, his FH always looked good and sturdy. Better than Connors' I think. BH less so.

Rarely, he'll let rip with a BH cc, which comes out of the blue and surprises opponents. But his stock BH looks just a push back into court. The main danger in it is when he pushes it dtl and approaches behind it

Would like to hear your impressions - first or second hand

 

[jrepac]

I know a teaching pro that hit with him well after he retired and he said anyone that thinks he had weak strokes was crazy.

That should be on the greatest myths string: John McEnroe had lousy groundstrokes

Not sure how anyone w/sense would think that since he beat 3 of the best baseliners ever to win some of his GS titles...

 

[mental midget]

There's a clear pattern with Lendl's serve percentages

Against guys who he knows won't be attacking his second serves (that is, return off of it), he out and out bangs down the firsts. Its his 'free hit' - he'll win whatever he gets in, and he can handle anyone in rallies on his second serve points, which are baseline rallies. He served this way to guys like Connors and Wilander

But against guys who he knows will be attacking his second serves, he dials down on how big he sends down the first serves to keep a higher first in count and not have to play so many third ball passing shots. He does this against guys like Mac and Edberg



He has great variety of return, which you see when he's up against serve-volleyers. crosscourt, down the line, inside-in, inside-out... he has the lot, off both sides. All the doubles play probably helps the less commonly seen ones

I think what sets his returning apart is the ferocity with which he attacks second serves. It started with 'only' chip-charges and by '84, he was just charging and hammering the return. Sometimes even against the first serves of decent servers (like Lendl)

In their '83 Philly match, which is where the rivalry turned, he chip-charges all but 1 of Lendl's second serves!




How would you guys differentiate between his FH and his BH (if at all) in terms of strength?

To me, his FH always looked good and sturdy. Better than Connors' I think. BH less so.

Rarely, he'll let rip with a BH cc, which comes out of the blue and surprises opponents. But his stock BH looks just a push back into court. The main danger in it is when he pushes it dtl and approaches behind it

Would like to hear your impressions - first or second hand

honestly i think it's fair to say he 'bunted' his groundstrokes, just going by stroke mechanics. but his bunts were precise, penetrating, and designed to maneuver his opponents to set up everything else. another way to think about it, i always felt like mac's groundstrokes were almost like playing a disembodied, floating racket that just did the minimum mechanics necessary to send the ball back. very 'video game' in their simplicity.

 

[Waspsting]

That should be on the greatest myths string: John McEnroe had lousy groundstrokes

Not sure how anyone w/sense would think that since he beat 3 of the best baseliners ever to win some of his GS titles...

In my experience, everybody save beginers (who are just happy to keep the ball in play) 'eye-test' evaluate strokes on how had they're hit. Because its easy - you can watch a guy for a couple of minutes and see he hits harder than most, or not

Evaluating how often they miss isn't so easy. You have to watch for a long time and probably keep count before a pattern emerges

But far more baseline points end in errors than they do winners, so the skill of not missing' is more important than the skills of hitting hard, doing damage, hitting winners etc. ... but it always gets lost in quick takes

To give a hypothetical example, say del Potro plays Ferrer. All other things being equal, on the FH, Delpo has 11 winners, 13 UEs, Ferrer has 3 winners, 2 UEs

Ask 10 people who watch that who had "stronger FH". I'm sure at least 9 of them will say Delpo - and probably all 10

I always enjoy when a player has been straight setted, thrashed and he comes and tells the press he was the better player, the match was on his racquet, the other guy didn't do anything, I lost the match he didn't win it etc. ... and its not just hacks who do it. The best of the best do too - I've read comments from Connors, Federer etc. along these lines

Mac... wasn't an elite power hitter, but he stayed steady from the back regularly. He gets the better of Connors on this front more often than not and I've seen him get the better of Borg even at '81 US Open

 

[jrepac]

In my experience, everybody save beginers (who are just happy to keep the ball in play) 'eye-test' evaluate strokes on how had they're hit. Because its easy - you can watch a guy for a couple of minutes and see he hits harder than most, or not

Evaluating how often they miss isn't so easy. You have to watch for a long time and probably keep count before a pattern emerges

But far more baseline points end in errors than they do winners, so the skill of not missing' is more important than the skills of hitting hard, doing damage, hitting winners etc. ... but it always gets lost in quick takes

To give a hypothetical example, say del Potro plays Ferrer. All other things being equal, on the FH, Delpo has 11 winners, 13 UEs, Ferrer has 3 winners, 2 UEs

Ask 10 people who watch that who had "stronger FH". I'm sure at least 9 of them will say Delpo - and probably all 10

I always enjoy when a player has been straight setted, thrashed and he comes and tells the press he was the better player, the match was on his racquet, the other guy didn't do anything, I lost the match he didn't win it etc. ... and its not just hacks who do it. The best of the best do too - I've read comments from Connors, Federer etc. along these lines

Mac... wasn't an elite power hitter, but he stayed steady from the back regularly. He gets the better of Connors on this front more often than not and I've seen him get the better of Borg even at '81 US Open

Yes, my point exactly. Ideally, he did not look to play Connors or Borg from the baseline, but he could hang with them pretty darn well and win his fair share, maybe more. Similar to Sampras, when he played Agassi. I actually think Sampras relished beating Andre from the baseline. Mac's strokes look meek....but nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Vincent-C]

Mac's tennis has a brilliance that still shines through when watching the old matches. I have never seen anything like it. I'd rather have Eddy volleying
if my life depended on it, but Mac's was just electrifying.

 

[jrepac]

have not seen this match since the day it was on TV. I just recall Mac playing some amazing tennis. I thought Lendl would have an edge coming in, he was so perfect against Connors in the semis (who was off form, to be honest), but Mac was in full control that day. He showed how a S&V game could dominate on clay, which ain't so easy to do. And, he ALMOST did it again in Paris the following month....almost.

 

[paolo2143]

McEnroe was a beast in 1984

 

[big ted]

one thing mac did so well he didnt waste one shot... i dont think ive ever seen him hit the ball back just to hit the ball back like alot of players do now

 

[jrepac]

one thing mac did so well he didnt waste one shot... i dont think ive ever seen him hit the ball back just to hit the ball back like alot of players do now

Mac was a genius.....only Fed even comes close, IMHO. Stuff he did was just very unique and he made it look like nothing. His touch was insane, but I always remember those wild half-volleys he would hit, sometimes in the form of an approach shot. No one else could do that...a half-volley approach....can't even teach that.

 

[WCT]

Just magical hand/eye coordination. He makes it look easy and it's not. I commented in the thread about Borg Mcenroe and their 1978 Stockholm. On match point against him, Borg tries to take a second serve on the rise, almost a half volley, and fails miserably. That's REALLY hard to do and Mcenroe could make it look easy at times.
That's a form of genius.

 

[Vincent-C]

Just magical hand/eye coordination. He makes it look easy and it's not.

Yea, verily. The FH drive half-volley winner that Federer hit against Roddick in the Wimbledon 2003 SF is in the same league. He pounced on that ball in a heartbeat.

 

[WCT]

Yea, verily. The FH drive half-volley winner that Federer hit against Roddick in the Wimbledon 2003 SF is in the same league. He pounced on that ball in a heartbeat.

It would amaze me how he could consistently half volley balls, from the baseline, that were smoked. But he would not back up. He'd plant on the baseline and just half volley the ball like it was simple when it takes amazing hand/eye. I'm not saying he did it all the time, but he did it a bunch of times. Balls that were rocketed at him. Like Mcenroe, he would make it look easy, it is not or a lot more players would do it.

 

[jrepac]

It would amaze me how he could consistently half volley balls, from the baseline, that were smoked. But he would not back up. He'd plant on the baseline and just half volley the ball like it was simple when it takes amazing hand/eye. I'm not saying he did it all the time, but he did it a bunch of times. Balls that were rocketed at him. Like Mcenroe, he would make it look easy, it is not or a lot more players would do it.

Really enjoyed watching Fed for these reasons. Djoko may have accomplished more, but there was a beauty in Fed's style of play.

 

[WCT]

VERY aesthetically pleasing player to watch. Almost like he glided.

 

[NedStark]

On match point against him, Borg tries to take a second serve on the rise, almost a half volley, and fails miserably. That's REALLY hard to do and Mcenroe could make it look easy at times.
That's a form of genius.

Borg felt more comfortable when returning from the deep. With hindsight, another player who could have really troubled him on fast courts is Edberg - to beat Edberg, you *have* to take his serves on the rise, and this is outside the comfort zone of Borg (and Lendl).

 

[Vincent-C]

have not seen this match since the day it was on TV. I just recall Mac playing some amazing tennis. I thought Lendl would have an edge coming in, he was so perfect against Connors in the semis (who was off form, to be honest), but Mac was in full control that day. He showed how a S&V game could dominate on clay, which ain't so easy to do. And, he ALMOST did it again in Paris the following month....almost.

I was rooting for Mac at the FO, and when he started one of his tirades up two sets and 5-3 (?) I started to worry a little. He sensed what was happening, IMO.

 

[WCT]

The entire year was magic up until 2 sets up in the final. He spent the spring spanking players, on clay, who had previously given him fits on that surface.

 

[Vincent-C]

.. but the big one got away. Damn. Pushed that FH volley wide on MP, as I recall. He kept fighting until the end.