Tired Of Mac's Yackin'...?

#1
...I certainly am;I don't know how he is on ESPN,but on Eurosport,the 'self appointed commissioner of tennis' is highly annoying.
Constantly talking and going on about himself,(even during points)while the other commentators blow smoke up his *** and worship,the mighty YackEnroe.
 
#2
Johnny Mac is one of the better tennis commentators. Informative, articulate, interesting and not worried about being politically correct. When he does talk about himself it's usually in a way that helps the viewer understand what's going on with a specific player or match. He knows what players are feeling. He knows player strategy and tactics. He uses examples from his own experiences to explain what a current player may be going thru/thinking. Mac's the best, or would you rather listen to Lendl?
 

Tenez!

Professional
#5
...I certainly am;I don't know how he is on ESPN,but on Eurosport,the 'self appointed commissioner of tennis' is highly annoying.
Constantly talking and going on about himself,(even during points)while the other commentators blow smoke up his *** and worship,the mighty YackEnroe.
Most irksome is how he pulls numbers and events out of his backside and no one dares contradict him.
Simple example: during the Murray-Nishi quarter, he started raving about Lorenzi's earlier encounter. He claimed, very confidently, that this slam had been Lorenzi's FIRST EVER hard court ATP-level win.
"His first, are you sure?" asks his co-commentator dubiously "Oh yes, I'm certain" "That's unbelievable".

...
Indeed it was "unbelievable": Lorenzi has won 46 ATP-level matches, including 2 first-round slam matches in 2014-2015 (AO & USO).
He won his first round at Olympics this year.
Most of his victories did come on clay, but on the ATP website I counted 14 hardcourt victories since 2011 (incl. QF at Doha 2012). It's modest, but framing Lorenzi like an eternal loser borders on slander.
Lyin' McEnjerk.
 
Last edited:

sportmac

Hall of Fame
#9
Hate him. It's always about him. Over points, over games. He spends more time on what he thinks about other things then the match on the screen. I want analyses and play by play, I don't much care what he thinks about anything but the match I'm watching.
It's ALWAYS about him.
Last year all talk was on Serena and the grand slam. What did he contribute? He said he could beat her.
 
#10
Most irksome is how he pulls numbers and events out of his backside and no one dares contradict him.
Simple example: during the Murray-Nishi quarter, he started raving about Lorenzi's earlier encounter. He claimed, very confidently, that this slam had been Lorenzi's FIRST EVER hard court ATP-level win.
"His first, are you sure?" asks his co-commentator dubiously "Oh yes, I'm certain" "That's unbelievable".

...
The truth is that Lorenzi has won 46 ATP-level matches, including 2 first-round slam matches in 2014-2015 (AO & USO).
He won his first round at Olympics this year.
Most of his victories did come on clay, but on the ATP website I counted 14 hardcourt victories since 2011 (incl. QF at Doha 2012). It's modest, but framing Lorenzi like an eternal loser borders on slander.
Lyin' McEnjerk.
I thought his behaviour in the Nadal/Pouille match was disgusting.
I thought commentators were supposed to be impartial...
 
#11
i understand he gets paid to talk, but there is such a thing as quality over quantity. i distrust anyone who feels compelled to voice their opinions all the time as if they were undeniable facts. you can still have a passionate opinion on something without coming off as a smug, narcissistic pr*ck.

plus, as tenez! said, he comes up with stuff out of nowhere. yesterday during the monfils match he said something to the effect that monfils has to run 40% more than his opponent to win a match, or something like that. first thing i thought was . . . "really?"
 
Last edited:
#12
Yeah everything he says is right or fact;but what annoys me most,is that he feels as though he needs to comment on everything during a match,about the match,about other matches and other players,especially Nadal.
 
#14
The funny thing about Mac, if you bigger than him, his punkass will back down.

These is a story that during a small event back in his heyday, was being typically McEnroe. Berating the linepersons. But one linesperson looked like Mean Joe Greene, in his prime. He made a call John found questionable and all he could muster was "go back to football".
 
#17
Actually, I would. :) Lendl is interesting and funny, in his sadistic way. I would like to hear some of his insights.

Although I fear that if he did it too long, he might end up sounding like Mac himself.
When it comes to tennis broadcasting, Mac has more talent in his little finger than Lendl does in his whole body. :D
 
#20
I actually like Johnny Mac but he does talk too much sometimes. It's like he gets going and can't stop. With that being said, his knowledge is lightyears ahead of Wilander even though they both won 7 Slams. That is odd to me. The thing I like about Mac is that during a match he can pinpoint what's going on in a player's head or explain why they start faltering all of a sudden. He also is pretty good at judging and predicting momentum shifts during a match. He doesn't come off biased as well which I like.
 
Last edited:
#21
Johnny Mac is one of the better tennis commentators. Informative, articulate, interesting and not worried about being politically correct. When he does talk about himself it's usually in a way that helps the viewer understand what's going on with a specific player or match. He knows what players are feeling. He knows player strategy and tactics. He uses examples from his own experiences to explain what a current player may be going thru/thinking. Mac's the best, or would you rather listen to Lendl?
The only thing that annoys me with him is he actually knows very little when it comes to rackets.
 
#23
I think he is a big fan of the game, and I believe he was excited to see a young player in Pouille who could run and get to Nadal's shots. I think he has improved and gotten better at what he is doing.

I mean we have one of the best players of all time commentating and half the people here are grousing? U can never please everyone. It seems.
 
#24
MAC is an all time GREAT and he talent his immense , however, I grew up watching him and his antics and behavior was utterly appalling to the extreme... even on the senior tour he has had a huge number of childish but violent outbursts
 
#26
I think he is a big fan of the game, and I believe he was excited to see a young player in Pouille who could run and get to Nadal's shots. I think he has improved and gotten better at what he is doing.

I mean we have one of the best players of all time commentating and half the people here are grousing? U can never please everyone. It seems.
Agree with this. This guy could be doing anything else with his retirement, but he remains passionate about the game. From commentary, Davis Cup captain gig, his academy and finding talent, playing exhibitions and charity events, Macs passion and excitement about the game is real. Yes he mouths off about players, yes his commentary can get a bit windbag, but you can't deny his love of the sport and commitment to it.

Also, he isn't stuck in the annoying mode that some older players get into (Connors) who believe that in their prime they could beat current top guys. Mac has some humility ands understands it's a totally different level now.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
#27
Agree with this. This guy could be doing anything else with his retirement, but he remains passionate about the game. From commentary, Davis Cup captain gig, his academy and finding talent, playing exhibitions and charity events, Macs passion and excitement about the game is real. Yes he mouths off about players, yes his commentary can get a bit windbag, but you can't deny his love of the sport and commitment to it.

Also, he isn't stuck in the annoying mode that some older players get into (Connors) who believe that in their prime they could beat current top guys. Mac has some humility ands understands it's a totally different level now.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
I know he loves the sport and wishes to still be out there competing;but he's overbearing with his fanaticism.
It's like,John,calm down,relax,lay off the prozac or something.
I'll admit sometimes his insight is interesting,especially at Wimbledon,but other times he comes across as arrogant,self-important and biased.
 
#28
And to carry on, Wilander as well seems hugely excited to be around the sport as well. In his possible case, he might be excited about being paid for it as well. John I would imagine probably has done quite well with his money, strikes me as a guy who would be pretty good at protecting his wealth.

Both are super passionate imo. Passion can lead to emotion at times, which can grate on certain viewers...

On the other hand, in Toronto. we have two ex baseball players calling the Blue Jays, two ex Jays actually, who do a great job and 30% of their audience, go nuts about them, wanting them turfed. Just goes to show once more. Different strokes for different folks.

The best of Mac for me, is that he occasionally goes quite deep, giving inside insight into the thoughts and vibrations of what an actual player is thinking and plotting in terms of strategy, and what he or she is going through.
 

THE MAN

Professional
#29
I think his comments are refreshing and entertaining. He has great passion for the sport he loves and it comes across in his comments. Sometimes the truth hurts.
At least he does not sugarcoat anything.
 
#30
I think his comments are refreshing and entertaining. He has great passion for the sport he loves and it comes across in his comments. Sometimes the truth hurts.
At least he does not sugarcoat anything.
He does sugarcoat and sensationalize about a lot of things;for example,he described Nole as having 'excellent volleying skills'.
 
Top