Which ATG would have struggled the most during the Big 3 era: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras

[FrontHeadlock]

As in, if you added ONLY that player to the Big 3 era (i.e., not adding all the ATG's on the list), which of the ATGs would have done the worst?

I think the easy choice is Wilander. He'd have a tough time against Nadal on clay, and would likely not be that big of a factor on hardcourt.

I also have a hard time imagining how successful Edberg would be, and I view Edberg as a worse version of McEnroe anyway.

Given his versatility, Agassi seems like someone who would do well, but the consistency of the Big 3 + Murray would really wear on Agassi. Very few easy draws in this era.

However, I think there is a case to made that given Borg's stature with 11 Majors and 3 Channel Slams he'd lose the most value. He'd have a tough time on clay with Nadal and Djokovic, and, even though he might do okay on grass, it's hard to imagine him winning 5 titles in this era. I could easily see Borg winning only 3-4 Majors in this era.

Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 788697]

I'd love to see the results of a poll for this subject.

 

[Krish872007]

Now this is actually a new / less frequently discussed hypothetical.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Everyone who's not a strong baseliner would struggle against the 3 of the best baseliners of all time..
That leaves us with Connors, Johnnu, Edberg & Becker.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wilander is the clear choice for sure. He has the least power or finesse among OE ATGs; his strength was outlasting and outfoxing by precision striking with clutch aggressive play thrown in on important points. Stands to reason he's the least of the greats, if only by a little.

 

[Entername]

I think it has to be Wilander. He'd struggle mightily against Federer's variety, and he wasn't nearly as strong from the baseline as Djokodal in terms of being able to hit deep shots and winners so he'd struggle to beat them too. In terms of who would be most successful retired ATG would be in today's era I'd say:

- Lendl (basically Djokovic of the 80s, many consider him the founder of the modern game)
- Borg (basically Nadal of the 70s/early 80s, his career would likely play out similar to Rafa's but with much less longevity)
- Agassi (he'd be the best ballstriker on Earth but struggles with serve/movement could cost him at times)
- Connors (tremendous baseliner but he does lack the power big 3 have)
- Becker (his athleticism and explosiveness would make him incredibly dangerous)
- Sampras (homogenized courts could really dent his slam total tbh)
- Edberg (lack of a deadly FH could cost him some slams like it has for Murray)
- Mac (greatest hands in the game but modern equipment could make his net play slightly less effective)
- Wilander (see above)

Then again, these guys are ATGs for a reason, they'd find a way to win in any era (big 3 included of course)

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I'd love to see the results of a poll for this subject.

I can add one, however, I was looking to facilitate more discussion like my Borg point.

 

[Kralingen]

I always say it's a little unfair to predict hypotheticals from 30-40 years ago. Edberg, McEnroe, Borg, Connors etc. never trained to win hypothetical 2020s majors with slower high bouncing HCs and poly strings from the baseline, they trained to win with wooden/graphite rackets, no poly, and in their era only.

Thus I want to avoid dinging ATGs for having a playstyle that wouldn't mesh today, just as it's unfair to ding Djokovic and Nadal for not playing SnV for example.

All that said... I feel like there are clear tiers here:

Obviously would still be great, playstyle would work today:

PETE
Andre
Lendl
Borg
Connors

Different style but likely would still be excellent WB/indoor players:

Mac
Becker
Edberg

Odd one out:

Wilander (though he may have the best tennis brain and adaptability of anyone on this list)

 

[TheNachoMan]

Agassi’s game has aged the best.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I always say it's a little unfair to predict hypotheticals from 30-40 years ago. Edberg, McEnroe, Borg, Connors etc. never trained to win hypothetical 2020s majors with slower high bouncing HCs and poly strings from the baseline, they trained to win with wooden/graphite rackets, no poly, and in their era only.

Thus I want to avoid dinging ATGs for having a playstyle that wouldn't mesh today, just as it's unfair to ding Djokovic and Nadal for not playing SnV for example.

All that said... I feel like there are clear tiers here:

Obviously would still be great, playstyle would work today:

PETE
Andre
Lendl
Borg
Connors

Different style but likely would still be excellent WB/indoor players:

Mac
Becker
Edberg

Odd one out:

Wilander (though he may have the best tennis brain and adaptability of anyone on this list)

I agree with your sentiment. My thought here is to "project" a bit, as though each of these ATGs grew up in this era.

Funnily enough, I see Andre and Borg perhaps doing worse in the Big 3 era, whereas I see Becker doing quite well. In some respects, I can see Becker winning more Wimbledon titles in the Big 3 era, and he'd also play very well at the WTF and would have a chance at grabbing 1-2 Majors on hardcourt. I feel like Becker would do better at Wimbledon in the Big 3 era whereas I could see Borg/Mac/Edberg doing worse, though reasonable minds can differ here.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I also have a hard time imagining how successful Edberg would be, and I view Edberg as a worse version of McEnroe anyway.

The amount of ignorance and dismissiveness about Edberg on TTW continues unabated. He was an undisputed ATG and the second-greatest volleyer in the history of tennis after McEnroe himself. While it's true he was "a worse version of McEnroe," it's still dismissive, as if he was a second-tier player and can easily be shunted aside.

Never mind Stefan won 41 singles titles and was ranked #1, he also won 18 doubles titles and was ranked #1 in doubles as well. Your comment is sort of like saying "Lendl is a worse version of Federer" or "Borg on clay was a worse version of Nadal." Both technically true, but still putting ATG's in a basket of garbage.

Your hypothetical also doesn't address surfaces. Put any current player on 1980's grass or carpet against Edberg and he wins pretty effortlessly. And yes, that includes Djokovic or Nadal.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

The amount of ignorance and dismissiveness about Edberg on TTW continues unabated. He was an undisputed ATG and the second-greatest volleyer in the history of tennis after McEnroe himself. While it's true he was "a worse version of McEnroe," it's still dismissive, as if he was a second-tier player and can easily be shunted aside.

Never mind Stefan won 41 singles titles and was ranked #1, he also won 18 doubles titles and was ranked #1 in doubles as well. Your comment is sort of like saying "Lendl is a worse version of Federer" or "Borg on clay was a worse version of Nadal." Both technically true, but still putting ATG's in a basket of garbage.

Your hypothetical also doesn't address surfaces. Put any current player on 1980's grass or carpet against Edberg and he wins pretty effortlessly. And yes, that includes Djokovic or Nadal.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but the question I'm asking is who would struggle the most in this era, and it's clear that the S&V guys would have had a harder time on average. And since Edberg wasn't as good as McEnroe, he's a fair answer to this question.

Interestingly I view Djokovic as a very similar player to Lendl, with the difference being that Lendl played his career into Edberg/Becker/Agassi/Courier/Sampras, whereas Djokovic played his into an old Nadal and the NextGen.

 

[Bambooman]

All of them except Agassi. He played two out of the three and did just fine despite being just past his best.

 

[Kralingen]

I agree with your sentiment. My thought here is to "project" a bit, as though each of these ATGs grew up in this era.

Funnily enough, I see Andre and Borg perhaps doing worse in the Big 3 era, whereas I see Becker doing quite well. In some respects, I can see Becker winning more Wimbledon titles in the Big 3 era, and he'd also play very well at the WTF and would have a chance at grabbing 1-2 Majors on hardcourt. I feel like Becker would do better at Wimbledon in the Big 3 era whereas I could see Borg/Mac/Edberg doing worse, though reasonable minds can differ here.

I can't really comment on Borg as he was so long ago.

In all seriousness, the wooden racquet he was using is closer in taxonomy to a wooden spatula used in the kitchen or a ping pong paddle than it is to Rafa's Babolat. I'm not even joking.

As for Andre, my guy, there are two minds about him. one is that part of his advantage in the 90s is that his returning and preference from the baseline was unique, he drew players out of their comfort zones, and that his precise, clean ballstriking would not necessarily be dominant traits on slower courts like today where everyone plays his style. the other is that even in his older version in '04/05 he was hanging with prime Fed/Safin/etc. from the baseline rather easily and without having to face his utter worst matchup imaginable (Pete's huge serve on lightning fast courts), he would be unbelievably good once rallies started.

 

[Sport]

Edberg.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

As for Andre, my guy, there are two minds about him. one is that part of his advantage in the 90s is that he was so competent from the baseline that he drew players out of their comfort zones, and that his precise, clean ballstriking would not necessarily be dominant traits on slower courts like today where everyone plays his style. the other is that even in his older version in '04/05 he was hanging with prime Fed/Safin/etc. from the baseline rather easily and without having to face his utter worst matchup imaginable (Pete's huge serve on lightning fast courts), he would be unbelievably good once rallies started.

I agree. I actually tend to favor the latter for Agassi, but mentally I think he would have struggled with the consistency and grit of the Big 3 (even Murray as well). I don't want to say Agassi was a vulture, but he wasn't a consistent player either. How would he have handled playing at least 2 of the Big 3 at every Major?

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Now this is actually a new / less frequently discussed hypothetical.

Btw, there is a corollary to this question, which is which member of the Big 3 would have been most affected by the ATG at issue?

For example, we might say that Sampras would have done slightly worse (10-12 Majors) but that Federer and Djokovic would have done a lot worse (each minus about 4 Majors, and perhaps Nadal minus a couple as well).

Or we might say that Lendl would have done better and that he would have most hampered Nadal, followed by Djokovic.

 

[Kralingen]

I agree. I actually tend to favor the latter for Agassi, but mentally I think he would have struggled with the consistency and grit of the Big 3 (even Murray as well). I don't want to say Agassi was a vulture, but he wasn't a consistent player either. How would he have handled playing at least 2 of the Big 3 at every Major?

Agassi would have played Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray better than he played Pete Sampras on fast courts. That I am 100% sure of. Though many of his other slip ups (to Courier and Chang for example) are harder to explain. Mental issues played a larger role in his career than probably any other ATG's.

Btw, there is a corollary to this question, which is which member of the Big 3 would have been most affected by the ATG at issue?

For example, we might say that Sampras would have done slightly worse (10-12 Majors) but that Federer and Djokovic would have done a lot worse (each minus about 4 Majors, and perhaps Nadal minus a couple as well).

Or we might say that Lendl would have done better and that he would have most hampered Nadal, followed by Djokovic.

They all would have done worse results wise, lol. Much worse in fact if there were 5-6 ATGs present instead of just the Big 3.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Agassi would have played Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray better than he played Pete Sampras on fast courts. That I am 100% sure of. Though many of his other slip ups (to Courier and Chang for example) are harder to explain. Mental issues played a larger role in his career than probably any other ATG's.

100% agree, but from a pure probability perspective I'm not sure what is worse for Agassi: playing Pete or playing 2 of the Big 3. I don't think beating Federer and Djokovic back to back at the USO is any easier.

They all would have done worse results wise, lol. Much worse in fact if there were 5-6 ATGs present instead of just the Big 3.

Sorry, the question assumes that only ONE of the ATGs is added to this era, not all of them.

Yes, everyone would do a lot worse if all of them were added!

 

[Chanwan]

I always say it's a little unfair to predict hypotheticals from 30-40 years ago. Edberg, McEnroe, Borg, Connors etc. never trained to win hypothetical 2020s majors with slower high bouncing HCs and poly strings from the baseline, they trained to win with wooden/graphite rackets, no poly, and in their era only.

Thus I want to avoid dinging ATGs for having a playstyle that wouldn't mesh today, just as it's unfair to ding Djokovic and Nadal for not playing SnV for example.

All that said... I feel like there are clear tiers here:

Obviously would still be great, playstyle would work today:

PETE
Andre
Lendl
Borg
Connors

Different style but likely would still be excellent WB/indoor players:

Mac
Becker
Edberg

Odd one out:

Wilander (though he may have the best tennis brain and adaptability of anyone on this list)

This

 

[Chanwan]

Agassi would have played Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray better than he played Pete Sampras on fast courts. That I am 100% sure of. Though many of his other slip ups (to Courier and Chang for example) are harder to explain. Mental issues played a larger role in his career than probably any other ATG's.


They all would have done worse results wise, lol. Much worse in fact if there were 5-6 ATGs present instead of just the Big 3.

100 % sure of Fed as well? Once Fed won a match vs Andre, he won the rest of them iirc. Against Fed, there was nowhere to go, as Agassi said in his book

 

[Bambooman]

I do believe Wilander had the potential to be a more complete modern style player if he was born ten years later. He was stuck as a sort of transitional Borg. He did up his power and pace but was limited as Borg was with the racquet change.

The match versus teenaged Agassi at the FO in '88 was a very good one.

 

[Kralingen]

100 % sure of Fed as well? Once Fed won a match vs Andre, he won the rest of them iirc. Against Fed, there was nowhere to go, as Agassi said in his book

Yes 100% sure he would have an easier time vs. Fed than he did vs. Pete.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Would love to hear your elaboration.

 

[Antonio Puente]

As in, if you added ONLY that player to the Big 3 era (i.e., not adding all the ATG's on the list), which of the ATGs would have done the worst?

I think the easy choice is Wilander. He'd have a tough time against Nadal on clay, and would likely not be that big of a factor on hardcourt.

I also have a hard time imagining how successful Edberg would be, and I view Edberg as a worse version of McEnroe anyway.

Given his versatility, Agassi seems like someone who would do well, but the consistency of the Big 3 + Murray would really wear on Agassi. Very few easy draws in this era.

However, I think there is a case to made that given Borg's stature with 11 Majors and 3 Channel Slams he'd lose the most value. He'd have a tough time on clay with Nadal and Djokovic, and, even though he might do okay on grass, it's hard to imagine him winning 5 titles in this era. I could easily see Borg winning only 3-4 Majors in this era.

Thoughts?

High marks for originality. It's rare to see something on the front page you haven't already read 50 times.

 

[NeutralFan]

Everyone except Aggassi , he's the only ATG from past that was ahead of his time as far as his game was concerned and could have even won more in 2000s than he did in 90s.

 

[The Blond Blur]

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Borg. He wouldn’t have had power to hurt players with his pusher game

 

[JoelSandwich]

Borg. He wouldn’t have had power to hurt players with his pusher game

Bruh

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Bruh

Where would Borg win today? Does he beat peak Fed or Djokovic on grass with a much weaker serve? His grinder style lacked the punch to hurt Nadal on clay. He was fitter than everyone in his day but modern training and sports science have made that the general standard for ATP play. De Minaur, Schwartzman, and Ferrer are modern Borgs.

 

[Mustard]

I wouldn't underestimate Wilander. He can adapt better than any of them, and nobody was better at playing percentages to gain an advantage when he was mentally on. However, Wilander's game is mentally draining, so he wouldn't be consistent, or at least not consistent for too long. Wilander would be the opposite to Zverev, i.e. in that Wilander would deliver in the majors most.

 

[Gt86]

As in, if you added ONLY that player to the Big 3 era (i.e., not adding all the ATG's on the list), which of the ATGs would have done the worst?

I think the easy choice is Wilander. He'd have a tough time against Nadal on clay, and would likely not be that big of a factor on hardcourt.

I also have a hard time imagining how successful Edberg would be, and I view Edberg as a worse version of McEnroe anyway.

Given his versatility, Agassi seems like someone who would do well, but the consistency of the Big 3 + Murray would really wear on Agassi. Very few easy draws in this era.

However, I think there is a case to made that given Borg's stature with 11 Majors and 3 Channel Slams he'd lose the most value. He'd have a tough time on clay with Nadal and Djokovic, and, even though he might do okay on grass, it's hard to imagine him winning 5 titles in this era. I could easily see Borg winning only 3-4 Majors in this era.

Thoughts?

Wilander is so far below those players he should not be on the list. But as he is my vote goes to Wilander

 

[buscemi]

Wilander is so far below those players he should not be on the list. But as he is my vote goes to Wilander

Wilander won one more Major than Edberg and was 11-9 against him (3-2 at Majors). Sure, Stefan has a lot in his favor, but it's tough to say that Mats is "so far below" him.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Wilander won one more Major than Edberg and was 11-9 against him (3-2 at Majors). Sure, Stefan has a lot in his favor, but it's tough to say that Mats is "so far below" him.

Wilander also won Majors on all 3 surfaces at least twice, whereas Stefan lost his one RG final to a 17 year old.

 

[droliver]

Obviously would still be great, playstyle would work today:

PETE
Andre
Lendl
Borg
Connors

Other then Agassi, I don't see any of those players able to compete in their prime with the best today.

Lendl and Connors stroke mechanics are obsolete, while Borg doesn't have the power or physicality to be a peer to the big 3.

Sampras is a a fairly modern player, but he wouldn't be able to impose his game on current court conditions the same way he could 25-30 years ago and would suffer mightily h2h against a lot of players today with longer points being the norm. When you have one of the 2-3 best serve games ever you always have a puncher's chance, but the game evolved away from what was his strength

 

[Kralingen]

Other then Agassi, I don't see any of those players able to compete in their prime with the best today.

Lendl and Connors stroke mechanics are obsolete, while Borg doesn't have the power or physicality to be a peer to the big 3.

Sampras is a a fairly modern player, but he wouldn't be able to impose his game on current court conditions the same way he could 25-30 years ago and would suffer mightily h2h against a lot of players today with longer points being the norm. When you have one of the 2-3 best serve games ever you always have a puncher's chance, but the game evolved away from what was his strength

PETE would be just fine today. Maybe not as good as he was in the 90s. But still, absolutely no one could handle his serve. And those stroke mechanics are as late 80s as it gets. He'd be a completely different player today. His raw athleticism and power with 90s/00s upbringing would have guaranteed an ATG.

Since when was Borg underpowered btw?

 

[droliver]

Where would Borg win today?

This.

He just didn't have the firepower or physicality to imagine him to compete with Nadal, Novak, Murray, etc.... People forget how small he was. Something like 5' 11 165lbs. He's closer in size to David Goffin or Gilles Simon then Federer er al

 

[droliver]

PETE would be just fine today. Maybe not as good as he was in the 90s. But still, absolutely no one could handle his serve. And those stroke mechanics are as late 80s as it gets. He'd be a completely different player today. His raw athleticism and power with 90s/00s upbringing would have guaranteed an ATG.

Since when was Borg underpowered btw?

There's a lot of good servers though, and the top guys get more ball snack in play then ever. He was special to be sure, but he wasn't built for the grinding style the game moved to. He would not be able to be successful with his lower % play/serve dominant style game. The courts are too slow and the defense is too good by top players. His forehand and backhand we're certainly not " late 80's" (that would be be the Agassi/Krickstein mechanics by then) but more classic. I struggle to think of anyone who resembles his forehand on tour today. To project Sampras, you have to imagine on whether he could force his style of play on someone. I think that ends badly for him in current conditions other then as a change up play.


Have you watched a clip of Borg playing? He is a small guy and not a very big hitter. He'd be overmatched.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Where would Borg win today? Does he beat peak Fed or Djokovic on grass with a much weaker serve? His grinder style lacked the punch to hurt Nadal on clay. He was fitter than everyone in his day but modern training and sports science have made that the general standard for ATP play. De Minaur, Schwartzman, and Ferrer are modern Borgs.

This is what I was getting at in my OP. Borg is in pretty rarefied air in tennis, probably one of the top 5-6 guys in the open era and at one time had the records at BOTH RG and W, and still has the most ever Channel Slams, yet he could be decimated in the Big 3 era. He might have the biggest fall of all.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I wouldn't underestimate Wilander. He can adapt better than any of them, and nobody was better at playing percentages to gain an advantage when he was mentally on. However, Wilander's game is mentally draining, so he wouldn't be consistent, or at least not consistent for too long. Wilander would be the opposite to Zverev, i.e. in that Wilander would deliver in the majors most.

How many majors would he take from Big 3? Very few imo.

 

[Santis]

It's kind of funny, when I looked at the list of names, it seemed all of them would struggle in one way or another...some would struggle more than the others off course...Wilander seems to be one of them, doesn't really seem to have that one lethal aspect that can trouble the big 3 on a consistent basis...with all due respect, there is no way he can be holding on to those 7 majors if he was born, say, in the mid 80s...

 

[DSH]

100 % sure of Fed as well? Once Fed won a match vs Andre, he won the rest of them iirc. Against Fed, there was nowhere to go, as Agassi said in his book

Agassi was 11 years older than Federer, come on!
Just as die-hard fans of the Swiss like to imagine what would have happened if he were Nadal or Djokovic's age or younger than them, imagine if it was the American who was the young and Federer the veteran.
The result would have been proportionally inverse between the two.

 

[adil1972]

all of them either american or european

LOL

 

[Chanwan]

Yes 100% sure he would have an easier time vs. Fed than he did vs. Pete.

Agree to disagree. You could be right, I just don't think it's set in stone in any way.

 

[Chanwan]

Agassi was 11 years older than Federer, come on!
Just as die-hard fans of the Swiss like to imagine what would have happened if he were Nadal or Djokovic's age or younger than them, imagine if it was the American who was the young and Federer the veteran.
The result would have been proportionally inverse between the two.

Massive age advantage for Fed, sure - no two ways about that. I just don't think Andre matches particularly well up against Fed. Especially a Fed that moves well and can defend, when he needs to (i.e. peak Fed). If the age difference was reversed, needless to say, Andre would win more, but I don't see him dominating mid 30's Fed either (even Djoko didn't and Rafa only got a clay win against Fed since AO 2014 iirc).
Imo, Fed would be able to do more damage on Andre's serve than the other way around, but they would have some pretty epic battles.

 

[Chanwan]

There's a lot of good servers though, and the top guys get more ball snack in play then ever. He was special to be sure, but he wasn't built for the grinding style the game moved to. He would not be able to be successful with his lower % play/serve dominant style game. The courts are too slow and the defense is too good by top players. His forehand and backhand we're certainly not " late 80's" (that would be be the Agassi/Krickstein mechanics by then) but more classic. I struggle to think of anyone who resembles his forehand on tour today. To project Sampras, you have to imagine on whether he could force his style of play on someone. I think that ends badly for him in current conditions other then as a change up play.


Have you watched a clip of Borg playing? He is a small guy and not a very big hitter. He'd be overmatched.

What you are forgetting is that there's been a racquet and string revolution since Borgs time. Your local club pro hits a bigger ball than Borg did because of this.
Does that mean Borg wouldn't stand a chance at the club level either, because he's be "overmatched"?

He might very well have been a fairly big hitter today. People tend to get taller as well, so who knows if Borg would have grown to be 6'1 had he been born 30 years later.

 

[helterskelter]

Nice post. And while I am biased - as an Edberg fan - I think there were a few things he did better than McEnroe (which isn’t the same as saying he was better overall):

1) chip and charge better.
2) second serve better from the point of view of getting to net.
3) punch volleys better (though touch volleys worse).

The amount of ignorance and dismissiveness about Edberg on TTW continues unabated. He was an undisputed ATG and the second-greatest volleyer in the history of tennis after McEnroe himself. While it's true he was "a worse version of McEnroe," it's still dismissive, as if he was a second-tier player and can easily be shunted aside.

Never mind Stefan won 41 singles titles and was ranked #1, he also won 18 doubles titles and was ranked #1 in doubles as well. Your comment is sort of like saying "Lendl is a worse version of Federer" or "Borg on clay was a worse version of Nadal." Both technically true, but still putting ATG's in a basket of garbage.

Your hypothetical also doesn't address surfaces. Put any current player on 1980's grass or carpet against Edberg and he wins pretty effortlessly. And yes, that includes Djokovic or Nadal.

 

[Kralingen]

Agree to disagree. You could be right, I just don't think it's set in stone in any way.

well of course it's a hypothetical, I was obviously not being serious with the 100% thing. How could I be 100% sure.

I will say that the court speed and racquet technology that enabled the dominant playing style of the 90s was a big factor as well.

Perhaps Agassi would be better against Pete if they both played in the 2010s. But the reason I said what I said is, Fed lets Andre rally. Pete, for the most part, didn't.

 

[mike danny]

100 % sure of Fed as well? Once Fed won a match vs Andre, he won the rest of them iirc. Against Fed, there was nowhere to go, as Agassi said in his book

Old Andre's USO matches vs Fed show that he'd have an easier time vs Fed than vs Pete.

 

[California]

Nice post. And while I am biased - as an Edberg fan - I think there were a few things he did better than McEnroe (which isn’t the same as saying he was better overall):

1) chip and charge better.
2) second serve better from the point of view of getting to net.
3) punch volleys better (though touch volleys worse).

Plus he was taller, faster, quicker, with a better backhand both topspin and slice. I see him as an improved version of the McEnroe game, not inferior.