Which ATP player in the Open Era had the best 3-peat at the USO?

[Pheasant]

Two of my favorites(Mac, then Federer) and Mac’s nemesis Lendl had outstanding 3-year runs at the USO. It’s tough enough to defend your title there. But a 3-peat is incredible.

Candidates:

1979-81 McEnroe
20-0 record
6-0 vs top 10

2004-2006 Federer
20-0 record
8-0 vs top-10

1985-87 Lendl
21-0 record
8-0 vs top 10

Regarding top-10 opponents:

McEnroe: Connors, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Borg. This is monster competition. Mac won 2 of these in straight sets(Gerulaitis and Connors). I love the fact that Mac beat the dominant Borg in back-to-back years here.

Federer: Agassi, Henman, Hewitt, Hewitt, Agassi, Blake, Davydenko, Roddick. Fed won 3 of these in straight sets(Henman, Hewitt, Davydenko). His most notable win was his straight set double bagel win vs Hewitt, a former champ and a guy that was riding a 16 match hard court winning streak. Hewitt hadn’t lost a set in that USO until Federer kicked him to the curb

Lendl: Noah, Connors, McEnroe, Leconte, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander. This is also monster competition. Lendl won 6 of these in straight sets, including straight set wins over Noah, Connors, Mac, Edberg, Mac, and Connors. His most notable win was the 1985 USO final. Mac was #1 in the world heading into that final vs Lendl. Unfortunately, Lendl won this straight sets to steal the #1 ranking from Mac; which he would hold onto for 157 consecutive weeks until a ton of laundry list of injuries derailed him for 20 weeks.

Who do you guys pick for the best 3-peat?

 

[Gizo]

Lendl's 3 peat was of course impressive, but I do think that McEnroe's was even more impressive.

A big difference is that McEnroe beat a prime Connors at the US Open, while Lendl didn't - clearly the Connors of 1979 and 1980 was noticeably better than the Connors of 1985 and 1987. Also while Connors did have back strain issues during his 1979 semi-final against Mac (he took medication and wore a back brace the night before), he was clearly more hampered during his 1985 semi-final against Lendl when he played the whole match with an ankle injury and was limping between points. I consider Connors to be the US Open king (ahead of Sampras and Federer), so beating him in his prime there (multiple times) is a very big deal IMO.

In 1979 he was fast and fearless. It seemed to me that this young age and relative inexperience was an asset. In the 2nd round clearly an aging Nasty was no match for him. But the way that he handled all the madness, with the crowd booing and heckling him (and him heckling them back after giving some of them the middle finger early on), Nasty's gamesmanship with him trying every trick in the book to delay the match as long as possible, Nasty being defaulted, angry fans throwing garbage on to the court, the cops and tournament director Talbert intervening, the default being overturned and the umpire being replaced etc,. was very impressive.

In 4 consecutive days at the 1980 US Open, Mac won his QF against Lendl (clearly Lendl wasn't exactly at his peak then but he led Czechoslovakia to Davis Cup glory which was as big as a major winning run, and won a lot of titles that year), played in a 5 set doubles final, won his 5 set semi-final against Connors, and then won his 5 set final against Borg (who was going for the grand slam and hadn't lost a 5th set since February 1976). I think those wins over Connors and Borg in back to back days in-particular, are definitely a decisive factor here.

His bid to become the first man since Tilden to win 3 straight US National Championships / Opens in 1981 was hyped up, and he clearly felt the pressure there. I do think that Gerulaitis / Broadway Vitas should have beaten him in their SF that year and really blew his opportunities to do so, but ultimately he didn't. Following Mac's difficult win there and Borg's very dominant and impressive SF win against Connors, a lot of people gave Borg a pretty decent shot of beating Mac in the final.

 

[Pheasant]

Lendl's 3 peat was of course impressive, but I do think that McEnroe's was even more impressive.

A big difference is that McEnroe beat a prime Connors at the US Open, while Lendl didn't - clearly the Connors of 1979 and 1980 was noticeably better than the Connors of 1985 and 1987. Also while Connors did have back strain issues during his 1979 semi-final against Mac (he took medication and wore a back brace the night before), he was clearly more hampered during his 1985 semi-final against Lendl when he played the whole match with an ankle injury and was limping between points. I consider Connors to be the US Open king (ahead of Sampras and Federer), so beating him in his prime there (multiple times) is a very big deal IMO.

In 4 consecutive days at the 1980 US Open, Mac won his QF against Lendl (clearly Lendl wasn't exactly at his peak then but he led Czechoslovakia to Davis Cup glory which was as big as a major winning run, and won a lot of titles that year), played in a 5 set doubles final, won his 5 set semi-final against Connors, and then won his 5 set final against Borg (who was going for the grand slam and hadn't lost a 5th set since February 1976).

His bid to become the first man since Tilden to win 3 straight US National Championships / Opens in 1981 was hyped up, and he clearly felt the pressure there. I do think that Gerulaitis / Broadway Vitas should have beaten him in their SF that year and really blew his opportunities to do so, but ultimately he didn't. Following Mac's difficult win there and Borg's very dominant and impressive SF win against Connors, a lot of people gave Borg a pretty decent shot of beating Mac in the final.

Good post a usual, Gizo. I had a hard time choosing, but ultimately chose Mac. I felt a bit biased making that pick. But your points do a great job explaining my gut feeling.

 

[smoledman]

Federer, with all his bakery products.

 

[Gizo]

Good post a usual, Gizo. I had a hard time choosing, but ultimately chose Mac. I felt a bit biased making that pick. But your points do a great job explaining my gut feeling.

His Herculean feat of beating a prime Connors (of course very much in his element at Flushing Meadows) and then a peak Borg in back to back days to defend his title in 1980 (in 5 set battles no less), was particularly amazing.

During all 3 of Mac's title runs from 1979-1981, he reached the doubles final with Fleming as well, with them winning the title together in both 1979 and 1981.

Regarding Federer, I do think that his feat of winning 5 straight US Open titles was from 2004-2008 was a huge deal. It seemed to me that it received less attention than his 5 in a row at Wimbledon from 2003-2007. But in the 00s tennis was already very much hard-court centric, and there was clearly more depth in competition on hard courts compared to either clay or grass IMO (though I'd say it's clearly even more hard-court centric nowadays with wafer thin competition on grass in-particular).

Winning a major 5 times in a row on the dominant surface of the era, is just hugely impressive. He also had a streak of 5 consecutive hard court major titles from the 2005 US Open to the 2007 US Open inclusive (while he won 8 hard court majors out of 10 from 2004-2008).

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Once again it's time for me to prevaricate and then not pick a winner. It's all down to the fact that I'm struggling to view the given years purely in isolation.


The two three things I'm having a hard time ignoring, are (a) Lendl's three-peat was part of his eight-in-a-row finals streak, (b) Fed's three-peat was only the start of a five-peat, and also part of a combined Wimbledon/US four-peat, and (c) JMac's doubles success at the same time; singles/doubles sweeps > just singles (thanks to @Gizo for reminding me of that).

I'd say that Roger perhaps faced the weakest opposition, comparatively speaking. But then again his '04 demolition of Hewitt, when the Aussie was in great hard-court form, was properly historic stuff and reminiscent of JMac's best form in '84. It's a rare thing to face top quality opposition and make them look as utterly helpless as Fed did that day. And as I said, I cannot ignore the fact that after his three-peat he continued to win it two more times; 40 matches in a row versus Ivan's 27 and JMac's 25 is a significant gap.

If I could isolate the three given years for each player, I'd probably go for JMac based on the level of competition and the bonus doubles victories. But instead I'm going to call it a tie between the Basel Dazzle and the Superbrat.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Federer, with all his bakery products.

There's a funny thing. I remembered that in 1987 Lendl had a triple bagel in R1. So I went back and counted through the three-year windows for each player:

• McEnroe dished out two bagels but received one from Connors in the '80 SF.
• Federer dished out six, including that double bagel in the '04 final.
• Ivan Lendl dished out eight including his triple, and won at least one 6–0 set in all three years. Rog missed out that feat in 2005.

(All three players had nine breadsticks too, although only Lendl received one, from Leconte in the '86 QF.)


I'd say if that's your deciding criteria, overall Lendl is the best baker.

 

[Gizo]

Talking of Mac and Connors at the US Open, I always thought that it was a huge shame that they never faced each other in at least one final there, given that they ruled the tournament with 9 titles between them in 11 years including 7 in a row from 1978-1984.

A US Open final between those 2 kings of New York (although to Mac's annoyance only one of those 2 kings was well liked at Flushing Meadows and it wasn't him the local boy), would have been very fitting, and certainly a far bigger sporting occasion than any of the Sampras-Agassi finals there were in later years.

Also in New York, it was also a shame IMO that they only faced each other twice at the Masters, both in RR matches, and never in a final (or even semi-final). After Borg's final appearance at that tournament, it was clear that officials were very keen to see a Mac-Connors Masters final, but Lendl was the main barrier there beating Connors in 3 consecutive Masters semi-finals from 1982-1984 with Mac always waiting for him in the final.

 

[socallefty]

I’m always picking the modern player - Federer.

 

[Pheasant]

Talking of Mac and Connors at the US Open, I always thought that it was a huge shame that they never faced each other in at least one final there, given that they ruled the tournament with 9 titles between them in 11 years including 7 in a row from 1978-1984.

A US Open final between those 2 kings of New York (although to Mac's annoyance only one of those 2 kings was well liked at Flushing Meadows and it wasn't him the local boy), would have been very fitting, and certainly a far bigger sporting occasion than any of the Sampras-Agassi finals there were in later years.

Also in New York, it was also a shame IMO that they only faced each other twice at the Masters, both in RR matches, and never in a final (or even semi-final). After Borg's final appearance at that tournament, it was clear that officials were very keen to see a Mac-Connors Masters final, but Lendl was the main barrier there beating Connors in 3 consecutive Masters semi-finals from 1982-1984 with Mac always waiting for him in the final.

The trio of Connors/Mac/Lendl bagged 12 USO titles in a 14 year span. That is truly ridiculous. That to me was the golden era of tennis. Borg, as great as he was, couldn’t crack the Connor/Mac code.

 

[Gizo]

The trio of Connors/Mac/Lendl bagged 12 USO titles in a 14 year span. That is truly ridiculous. That to me was the golden era of tennis. Borg, as great as he was, couldn’t crack the Connor/Mac code.

Borg was particularly unlucky at the USO in both 1977 and 1978.

In 1977 he injured his shoulder when jet-skiing, and then aggravated that injury during a practice session before the tournament started. He really struggled when he tried to serve and hit overheads, and was forced to retire from his 4th round match against Stockton. That was his only defeat in 56 matches counted in the ATP website from about late-March to late-November that year, across tournaments on red clay in Europe, har-tru, grass, and indoor carpet and hard. He was projected to face Vilas in the semis, who he had beaten in Nice and Monte-Carlo (comfortably) earlier that year during that period.

In 1978 he injured his thumb during his SF win agaisnt Gerulaitis, took anti-inflammatory medication and a pain-killing injection before the final (struggling during his practice session in-between), and played the whole final with that very painful injury. His racket flying out of his hand as he served during the 2nd set symbolised that. John Newcombe very much subscribed to the 'if you play you're healthy' mantra, but readily acknowledged the impact of that injury. After Borg's destruction of Connors at Wimbledon, and with Connors already loving the switch from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows and hell-bent on revenge, it could have been an intruiging final, but Borg's injury eliminated any possibility of that.

And I completely agree about that being the golden era of tennis !

 

[jrepac]

Talking of Mac and Connors at the US Open, I always thought that it was a huge shame that they never faced each other in at least one final there, given that they ruled the tournament with 9 titles between them in 11 years including 7 in a row from 1978-1984.

A US Open final between those 2 kings of New York (although to Mac's annoyance only one of those 2 kings was well liked at Flushing Meadows and it wasn't him the local boy), would have been very fitting, and certainly a far bigger sporting occasion than any of the Sampras-Agassi finals there were in later years.

Also in New York, it was also a shame IMO that they only faced each other twice at the Masters, both in RR matches, and never in a final (or even semi-final). After Borg's final appearance at that tournament, it was clear that officials were very keen to see a Mac-Connors Masters final, but Lendl was the main barrier there beating Connors in 3 consecutive Masters semi-finals from 1982-1984 with Mac always waiting for him in the final.

might've happened in '82, but Lendl spoiled that or in '81 when Borg prevented it. I think mostly due to Mac coming into prime alongside Borg...with Connors at #3 he seemed to wind up more on Mac's side of the draw

 

[jrepac]

Borg was particularly unlucky at the USO in both 1977 and 1978.

In 1977 he injured his shoulder when jet-skiing, and then aggravated that injury during a practice session before the tournament started. He really struggled when he tried to serve and hit overheads, and was forced to retire from his 4th round match against Stockton. That was his only defeat in 56 matches counted in the ATP website from about late-March to late-November that year, across tournaments on red clay in Europe, har-tru, grass, and indoor carpet and hard. He was projected to face Vilas in the semis, who he had beaten in Nice and Monte-Carlo (comfortably) earlier that year during that period.

In 1978 he injured his thumb during his SF win agaisnt Gerulaitis, took anti-inflammatory medication and a pain-killing injection before the final (strugglig during his practice session in-between), and played the whole final with that very painful injury. His racket flying out of his hand as he served during the 2nd set symbolised that. John Newcombe very much subscribed to the 'if you play you're healthy' mantra, but readily acknowledged the impact of that injury. After Borg's destruction of Connors at Wimbledon, and with Connors already loving the switch from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows and hell-bent on revenge, it could have been an intruging final, but Borg's injury eliminated any possibility of that.

And I completely agree about that being the golden era of tennis !

Borg was a little unlucky, though I'd say he faced a highly motivated, top form Connors in '75, '76 and '78. Having watched the '78 match online, Borg is not playing that badly, really. It's closer than the score suggests. The 1980 match may have been his best performance and best chance, but credit Mac for grabbing the brass ring. '76 is quite close as well, and it was on clay, so that was another lost opportunity, but all credit to Connors.

 

[jrepac]

The trio of Connors/Mac/Lendl bagged 12 USO titles in a 14 year span. That is truly ridiculous. That to me was the golden era of tennis. Borg, as great as he was, couldn’t crack the Connor/Mac code.

Connors and Mac owned the joint for a DECADE. It was pretty amazing. And no one figured Lendl would win '85.

 

[Mustard]

Probably Lendl. He was the underdog against McEnroe in the 1985 final, survived set points in the first set, and won in straight sets. Lendl dropped only 1 set in each of the three years of the US Open from 1985-1987, to Yzaga in 1985 (future conquerer of Sampras at the event), to Leconte in a 4-setter in 1986 (a tough matchup for Lendl) and to Wilander in a marathon 1987 final that lasted 4 hours and 47 minutes for a 6-7, 6-0, 7-6, 6-4 scoreline (Lendl had been set points down in the third set).

An amazing overall dominance, really. And he also reached 8 US Open finals in a row from 1982-1989, although Lendl didn't particularly like that to be mentioned (as he lost 5 of the 8 finals), saying that he'd prefer people to mention that he won 3 US Open titles in a row.

 

[Mustard]

One of the greatest US Open matches of all time, is the 1980 semi final between McEnroe and Connors. The swings of momentum were extraordinary after McEnroe failed to take his set point that would have put him 2 sets up. McEnroe had a set point at 6-4, 5-4 for a 2 set lead, failed to take it, and lost 11 games in a row, as Connors ran rampant to lead 4-6, 7-5, 6-0, 2-0. McEnroe came back strong from this, though, coming from behind to win the fourth set 6-3, went a break up in the fifth set, and then served for the match. Connors then broke McEnroe's serve in extraordinary fashion as the crowd went nuts, and then held to love on his own serve. McEnroe then stayed calm under pressure to hold serve and play brilliantly in the last set tiebreak. McEnroe won 6-4, 5-7, 0-6, 6-3, 7-6.

Connors famously had a beard during this match, as he did from around July 1980 (post-Wimbledon) up to around February 1981.

 

[Mustard]

Talking of Mac and Connors at the US Open, I always thought that it was a huge shame that they never faced each other in at least one final there, given that they ruled the tournament with 9 titles between them in 11 years including 7 in a row from 1978-1984.

I remember Sue Barker asking Jimmy Connors what the biggest regret of his tennis career was, and Connors said "Losing to McEnroe in 3 out of 4 US Open semi finals".

 

[martinezownsclay]

If you are talking overall playing level, averaging out the 3 years, it is almost certainly Federer.

Most impressive I would say McEnroe though. He won in 1979 beating Connors in the semis, and Gerulaitis (who although his only slam was a little attended Australian was a super dangerous player in the late 70s), Connors again in 1980, then peak Borg in the final, and Borg again to win in 1981. Beating Connors and Borg, both in their primes, each twice for his 3 US Opens makes it the most impressive.

 

[Third Serve]

Mac probably faced the toughest competition but Fed put together two masterclasses in 2004 and 2006 and didn’t really fall that far from a masterclass in 2005. Maybe I should give Mac another look but I don’t know if he hit those heights.

 

[Gizo]

Borg was a little unlucky, though I'd say he faced a highly motivated, top form Connors in '75, '76 and '78. Having watched the '78 match online, Borg is not playing that badly, really. It's closer than the score suggests. The 1980 match may have been his best performance and best chance, but credit Mac for grabbing the brass ring. '76 is quite close as well, and it was on clay, so that was another lost opportunity, but all credit to Connors.

I think Borg would have defaulted the 1978 final, had it not been at a major. He had a similar thumb injury at Dallas earlier that year, and defaulted the final against Gerulaitis.

Trabert, like Newk, also wasn't one to dwell too much on injuries, but he also acknowledged the impact of Borg's thumb injury as well.

In addition to his racket flying out of his hand a couple of times (which also happened when he tried to practice between his semi-final win and the final), him switching his racket to his left hand in-between points also stood out. From the 2nd set onwards, it was clear that he was merely going through the motions - everything felt completely flat with barely any noise from the crowd.

Borg not having a single break point was also telling and highlighted that he basically was a non-participant in the match. I've seen a lot of stats for big Connors matches (largely thanks to the hard work of numerous posters here), and this was the only one I recall that he didn't face any break points in - he faced 11 vs. Rosewall in the 1974 Wimbledon final and 3 against him in their even more one sided USO final a couple of months later.

I think that this match, much like the Lendl-Connors SF in 1985, was effectively a walkover. Borg was a good sport, giving Connors credit and playing down the significance of his injury. But I'd say that was one of the most disappointing major finals I can recall - it had the makings of an interesting and exciting contest, but Borg's injury prevented that from materialising, and also Connors himself seemed pretty restrained.

I won't say that Borg was unlucky in the 1976 and 1980 finals though, as in both those finals the better player on the day deservedly prevailed (Connors only won 2 more points than Borg in the 1976 final but was far more aggressive and Mac won 23 more points than him in the 1980 final).

 

[toth]

I dont understand this thread
Federer won 5 US Open 2004-2008

 

[Pheasant]

I dont understand this thread
Federer won 5 US Open 2004-2008

It's simple. This isn't a USO GOAT thread, which has been done several times. Those usually go 1. Connors(3 different surfaces) 2. Sampras(more finals than Fed. 3. Fed(the most recent guy to bag 5 titles there).

I was looking for the most impressive 3-year run at the USO. It's that simple. And so far, the votes are 4-4-3.

 

[socallefty]

It's simple. This isn't a USO GOAT thread, which has been done several times. Those usually go 1. Connors(3 different surfaces) 2. Sampras(more finals than Fed. 3. Fed(the most recent guy to bag 5 titles there).

I was looking for the most impressive 3-year run at the USO. It's that simple. And so far, the votes are 4-4-3.

Does he fact he won five in a row make any of his three 3-year stretches more impressive? You can pick 123, 234 or 345.

 

[thrust]

Two of my favorites(Mac, then Federer) and Mac’s nemesis Lendl had outstanding 3-year runs at the USO. It’s tough enough to defend your title there. But a 3-peat is incredible.

Candidates:

1979-81 McEnroe
20-0 record
6-0 vs top 10

2004-2006 Federer
20-0 record
8-0 vs top-10

1985-87 Lendl
21-0 record
8-0 vs top 10

Regarding top-10 opponents:

McEnroe: Connors, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Borg. This is monster competition. Mac won 2 of these in straight sets(Gerulaitis and Connors). I love the fact that Mac beat the dominant Borg in back-to-back years here.

Federer: Agassi, Henman, Hewitt, Hewitt, Agassi, Blake, Davydenko, Roddick. Fed won 3 of these in straight sets(Henman, Hewitt, Davydenko). His most notable win was his straight set double bagel win vs Hewitt, a former champ and a guy that was riding a 16 match hard court winning streak. Hewitt hadn’t lost a set in that USO until Federer kicked him to the curb

Lendl: Noah, Connors, McEnroe, Leconte, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander. This is also monster competition. Lendl won 6 of these in straight sets, including straight set wins over Noah, Connors, Mac, Edberg, Mac, and Connors. His most notable win was the 1985 USO final. Mac was #1 in the world heading into that final vs Lendl. Unfortunately, Lendl won this straight sets to steal the #1 ranking from Mac; which he would hold onto for 157 consecutive weeks until a ton of laundry list of injuries derailed him for 20 weeks.

Who do you guys pick for the best 3-peat?

McEnroe, definitely had the toughest competition, then Lendl, then Federer.

 

[Pheasant]

Let's take a look more in-depth look at how these 3 heavyweights dominated top-10 ranked players during their 3-year runs.

stats vs players ranked in the top-10:

McEnroe
Matches: 6-0, 1.000, 50% of these were won in straight sets
Sets won: 18-6, .750
games won: 137-107, .561

Federer:
Matches: 8-0, 1.000, 37.5% of these were won in straight sets
sets won: 18-6, .750
games won: 172-115, 599

Lendl:
Matches: 8-0, 1.000, 75% of these were won in straight sets
sets won: 21-2, .913
games won: 156-91, .607

Straight set wins over top-10 players that won at least 1 slam title:

McEnroe's straight set wins vs top-10 players with a slam title
Connors - 8 slam titles
Gerulaitis -1 slam title

Federer's straight set wins vs top-10 players with a slam title
Hewitt- 2 slam titles

Lendl's straight set wins vs top-10 players with a slam title
Connors - 8 slam titles
McEnroe - 7 slam titles
Edberg - 6 slam titles
McEnroe - 7 slam titles
Connors - 8 slam titles.

I'm still taking McEnroe. But Lendl is very close. The dude was dominant.

 

[Waspsting]

I won't say that Borg was unlucky in the 1976 and 1980 finals though, as in both those finals the better player on the day deservedly prevailed (Connors only won 2 more points than Borg in the 1976 final but was far more aggressive and Mac won 23 more points than him in the 1980 final).

I agree about '76, less so '80

In '80, 2 iffy line calls at crucial junctures in 1st and 5th set, both potentially settling the sets in question (and hence the match), went against Borg
Borg looks (and almost undoutledly is) fresher player in the deciding set, looks more capable of breaking

Mac did have big overall points lead, but that can happen when you lose a set 1-6.
What struck me about the '80 final is Borg played so badly at times - think he failed to serve out a set 3 or 4 times, and his serve was harmless - that one almost thinks "this guy doesn't deserve to win this"

Still, choking and screwing up is on him, getting the line calls right isn't

I supsect the wholly out of character protest that cost him 2 penalty points at the Masters in New York against Mac short time later was due to these calls at the US Open

 

[jrepac]

Let's take a look more in-depth look at how these 3 heavyweights dominated top-10 ranked players during their 3-year runs.

stats vs players ranked in the top-10:

McEnroe
Matches: 6-0, 1.000, 50% of these were won in straight sets
Sets won: 18-6, .750
games won: 137-107, .561

Federer:
Matches: 8-0, 1.000, 37.5% of these were won in straight sets
sets won: 18-6, .750
games won: 172-115, 599

Lendl:
Matches: 8-0, 1.000, 75% of these were won in straight sets
sets won: 21-2, .913
games won: 156-91, .607

Straight set wins over top-10 players that won at least 1 slam title:

McEnroe's straight set wins vs top-10 players with a slam title
Connors - 8 slam titles
Gerulaitis -1 slam title

Federer's straight set wins vs top-10 players with a slam title
Hewitt- 2 slam titles

Lendl's straight set wins vs top-10 players with a slam title
Connors - 8 slam titles
McEnroe - 7 slam titles
Edberg - 6 slam titles
McEnroe - 7 slam titles
Connors - 8 slam titles.

I'm still taking McEnroe. But Lendl is very close. The dude was dominant.

As great as Mac was in '84 and most of '85, I have to say Lendl was darn near unbeatable from '85 USO through '87. 3 years of hard court dominance. He couldn't dominate on grass, but pretty much everywhere else. If not for him, Mac or Jimmy might have grabbed at least one more USO.

 

[NedStark]

As great as Mac was in '84 and most of '85, I have to say Lendl was darn near unbeatable from '85 USO through '87. 3 years of hard court dominance. He couldn't dominate on grass, but pretty much everywhere else. If not for him, Mac or Jimmy might have grabbed at least one more USO.

Mac, maybe the 1985 one. Connors, nope. He got injured/physically compromised in 1985 SF.

None of them would have had any chance after 1985. Wilander would have taken it in 1987, and 1992 would have been Edberg as in real life.

 

[jrepac]

Mac, maybe the 1985 one. Connors, nope. He got injured/physically compromised in 1985 SF.

None of them would have had any chance after 1985. Wilander would have taken it in 1987, and 1992 would have been Edberg as in real life.

Mac should have won the '85 final, but I think he was spent, plain and simple. Mats did Ivan's work for him in the semis. That will always be my POV on that one. There was no reason to think Ivan would suddenly turn it around after losing several hard court matches vs. Mac in recent months. The semi w/Connors was no contest due to the ankle injury, as you point out.

I think '87 could have turned out differently....Ivan stopped both Mac and Jimmy back to back. Not saying either would be a lock, but I'd pick Mac over Mats. Mats vs. Jimmy in a USO final would have been a real dogfight.

 

[Pheasant]

Mac should have won the '85 final, but I think he was spent, plain and simple. Mats did Ivan's work for him in the semis. That will always be my POV on that one. There was no reason to think Ivan would suddenly turn it around after losing several hard court matches vs. Mac in recent months. The semi w/Connors was no contest due to the ankle injury, as you point out.

I think '87 could have turned out differently....Ivan stopped both Mac and Jimmy back to back. Not saying either would be a lock, but I'd pick Mac over Mats. Mats vs. Jimmy in a USO final would have been a real dogfight.

I wish I could believe that Mac would have won that 1985 USO final as a huge Mac fan. I remember watching the 1985 USO final and being worried for the very first time that Mac wouldn't prevail in a slam match vs Lendl. Prior to that, I always thought that Mac would destroy Lendl in a major. I even expected Mac to win the 1984 FO match(as a fan, worst loss of my life). I expected a 5 set classic in that USO final. However, Lendl showed up a completely different person in 1985 after he fixed his diet at the doctor's office at the end of the 1984 season. He complained, because he was sick and tired of getting exhausted in the middle of matches. His cholesterol levels were sky-high. I remember him being interviewed about his terrible ways in 1984 and earlier. He ate a ton of fatty red meat for dinner, along with potatoes and a highcarb dessert. And he washed it down with 4-5 bottles of Coca Cola. Well no wonder why he was getting gassed during matches. To me, he looked like a machine when he showed up at the USO in 1985. He was more cut and more muscular. I forget which magazine that I read, but they compared him to a cornerback in the NFL. They noticed massive changes.

 

[Gizo]

I agree about '76, less so '80

In '80, 2 iffy line calls at crucial junctures in 1st and 5th set, both potentially settling the sets in question (and hence the match), went against Borg
Borg looks (and almost undoutledly is) fresher player in the deciding set, looks more capable of breaking

Mac did have big overall points lead, but that can happen when you lose a set 1-6.
What struck me about the '80 final is Borg played so badly at times - think he failed to serve out a set 3 or 4 times, and his serve was harmless - that one almost thinks "this guy doesn't deserve to win this"

Still, choking and screwing up is on him, getting the line calls right isn't

I supsect the wholly out of character protest that cost him 2 penalty points at the Masters in New York against Mac short time later was due to these calls at the US Open

I do think that the 23 point differential, i.e. almost 6 games worth of points, is hugely significant. So far during the open era, 45 singles finals in majors have gone to 5 sets. I'm going to exclude the 4 non-Wimbledon finals that went to 5 sets from 1968-1974 (but will include the 3 straight 5 set Wimbledon finals from 1970-1972), plus the second Australian Open final in 1977 between Gerulaitis and Lloyd, as I simply don't have a clue about the differentials in any of those 5 matches. I assume it was very large in Borg's favour vs. Orantes at RG in 1974, given the nature of the last 3 sets plus the fact that Orantes only won 4 points during the final 5 games. So looking at the remaining 40, the 1980 US Open final had the 3rd largest points differential, after the 1981 RG final (Borg won 32 more points than Lendl) and 2018 Australian Open final (Federer won 24 more points than Cilic).

McEnroe decisively winning the 2nd set 6-1, with Borg failing to hold his serve at all in it, is a major reason why I thought that he was the better player on the day overall, and I can't consider Borg to be unlucky. To me that easily overrides any misfortune with line calls.

Plus while I agree that he got a bad call in the during the decisive game that he was broken in during that 5 set, it was 'only' in the first point of the game, and him following that up with 2 double faults (even if still rattled) was poor going. In general his serving was so shaky during crunch moments, in contrast to his insanely clutch serving during the 5th set in the Wimbledon final. Plus he really struggled returning Mac's lefty serve out wide, and hit more 60 return errors in total. That's another reason why I can't say that he was unlucky. 1977 and 1978, when he was clearly hindered by injuries (in 1977 there was already plenty of talk about his shoulder injury as the tournament got underway and during the early rounds), were the years in which he was genuinely unlucky IMO.

 

[Moose Malloy]

@Gizo I have stats on 73 USO final if you're interested in the points differential (will have to look for it though). Shame there doesn't seem to be a complete copy of 72 USO final available.

 

[Gizo]

@Gizo I have stats on 73 USO final if you're interested in the points differential (will have to look for it though). Shame there doesn't seem to be a complete copy of 72 USO final available.

Thanks ! That would be great, as long as it's not too much work for you to dig them out.

I agree about the 1972 USO final - I've watched what's available of it, and really enjoyed it. Wonderful tennis from both players, with Nasty displaying his full range of all-court skills, superb volleying from Ashe etc.

From the 40 open era 5 set major finals where I know the differentials (give or take the odd point here and there), I think there were 5 in which the champion didn't win more points than the runner-up; at Wimbledon in 1982 (Connors and Mac both won 173 points), RG in 1999 (Medvedev won 7 more points than Agassi), the AO in 2009 (Federer won 1 more point than Nadal), Wimbledon in 2019 (Federer won 14 more points than Djokovic) and AO in 2022 (Medvedev won 7 more points than Nadal).

And I think the only other 5 set major final from those 40 with a 20+ point differential was Wimbledon in 1977, with Borg winning 22 more points than Connors.

 

[Mustard]

From the 40 open era 5 set major finals where I know the differentials (give or take the odd point here and there), I think there were 5 in which the champion didn't win more points than the runner-up; at Wimbledon in 1982 (Connors and Mac both won 173 points), RG in 1999 (Medvedev won 7 more points than Agassi), the AO in 2009 (Federer won 1 more point than Nadal), Wimbledon in 2019 (Federer won 14 more points than Djokovic) and AO in 2022 (Medvedev won 7 more points than Nadal).

This just shows that it isn't about how many points you win, but about which points you win. Some points are more important than others.

A version of tennis where every point is equal would need something like a race to 100 points, with scheduled sitdowns (say every 10 points), and switching servers with every point.

 

[Waspsting]

McEnroe decisively winning the 2nd set 6-1, with Borg failing to hold his serve at all in it, is a major reason why I thought that he was the better player on the day overall, and I can't consider Borg to be unlucky.

I agree Mac better player overall, without question - and mainly for that reason, the blowout second set (that, and Borg playing very poorly at times, in all the ways you've mentioned)

The matter of luck though I see a little bit differently. starting with...

I do think that the 23 point differential, i.e. almost 6 games worth of points, is hugely significant.

Mac won 23 more points, but he also served 15 more, which I think under-cuts the clear significane of such a big lead in points

Usually when this happens (winner serving significantly more points than loser), its because winner held off being broken in long games. Which is true here, but gets confounded by Borg getting broken a bunch of times in short games (reducing the number of points he served). In other words, Borg playing badly has hand in his having serve a lot fewer points, on top of Mac holding some long games

Still, winning 8 more points than he's served over 5 sets... not the craziest of things
To compare, in the Wimby final, Borg actually won 4 fewer points than he served (while winning 8 more points overall). Borg skating through service games to love in 5th set undoing getting breadsticked in the 1st set there

Beyond that, the way I see it, Mac takes a set (the breadstick) - and now there's 4 to play for. They all end up close. Mac needs to win 2 of them, Borg 3 - so prospects favouring Mac
Borg wins 2 fair and square, now 2 to play - Mac needs 2, Borg needs 1. Prospects favouring Borg

Close sets can go this way or that because 1 guy plays better than the other, clutching, choking - or just plain ol' someone has to win 'em

I'd say Borg won his 2 sets because 'someone has to win them' - not because he outplayed Mac
How did Mac end up winning his 2? He doesn't outplay Borg, he doesn't clutch, Borg doesn't choke. He wins them same way Borg does... in both cases though, with an 'iffy line call nudging things his way


The only reason I'm not in complete "Borg was robbed" and "Mac was lucky" territory on this is... because I don't know for sure the calls were wrong. It think they were, but wouldn't bet my house on it

All other things things remaining the same, with excpetion of the calls - 1st set TB stands 6-5 to Mac. Still favour Mac to win that
And Borg holds in 5th set (despite his best efforts not to) and we stay on serve. He looks better player in that set, and if I had to put money on it, I'd favour Borg whose fresher and looking better at that stage

I'd call that a little unlucky

What are some matches where you thought the loser had been unlucky to lose?

 

[Gizo]

I agree Mac better player overall, without question - and mainly for that reason, the blowout second set (that, and Borg playing very poorly at times, in all the ways you've mentioned)

The matter of luck though I see a little bit differently. starting with...



Mac won 23 more points, but he also served 15 more, which I think under-cuts the clear significane of such a big lead in points

Usually when this happens (winner serving significantly more points than loser), its because winner held off being broken in long games. Which is true here, but gets confounded by Borg getting broken a bunch of times in short games (reducing the number of points he served). In other words, Borg playing badly has hand in his having serve a lot fewer points, on top of Mac holding some long games

Still, winning 8 more points than he's served over 5 sets... not the craziest of things
To compare, in the Wimby final, Borg actually won 4 fewer points than he served (while winning 8 more points overall). Borg skating through service games to love in 5th set undoing getting breadsticked in the 1st set there

Beyond that, the way I see it, Mac takes a set (the breadstick) - and now there's 4 to play for. They all end up close. Mac needs to win 2 of them, Borg 3 - so prospects favouring Mac
Borg wins 2 fair and square, now 2 to play - Mac needs 2, Borg needs 1. Prospects favouring Borg

Close sets can go this way or that because 1 guy plays better than the other, clutching, choking - or just plain ol' someone has to win 'em

I'd say Borg won his 2 sets because 'someone has to win them' - not because he outplayed Mac
How did Mac end up winning his 2? He doesn't outplay Borg, he doesn't clutch, Borg doesn't choke. He wins them same way Borg does... in both cases though, with an 'iffy line call nudging things his way


The only reason I'm not in complete "Borg was robbed" and "Mac was lucky" territory on this is... because I don't know for sure the calls were wrong. It think they were, but wouldn't bet my house on it

All other things things remaining the same, with excpetion of the calls - 1st set TB stands 6-5 to Mac. Still favour Mac to win that
And Borg holds in 5th set (despite his best efforts not to) and we stay on serve. He looks better player in that set, and if I had to put money on it, I'd favour Borg whose fresher and looking better at that stage

I'd call that a little unlucky

What are some matches where you thought the loser had been unlucky to lose?

That's a fair point about there being 15 more points on Mac's serve than Borg's. But then again Mac won 68 points on Borg's serve, compared to Borg winning 64 points on his serve, so I think that still points to him being the better player on the day. Also Borg did have an extra service game during the match than McEnroe, thanks to serving first and last in the 2nd set, though he spectacularly failed to capitalise on serve there. Mac held 21 times in his 26 service games (80.8%), while Borg held 19 times in his 27 service games (70.4%), which while not a gargantuan difference, is also another solid lead for Mac.

Also on the line call front, Mac felt that he had a bad line call against him in the 3rd set tie break, when he was 3-2 up and with Borg serving. I also didn’t see that clearly, but he clearly had a better view of it than either Borg or the umpire, and he remonstrated with the umpire in-between the 3rd and 4th sets. I’m inclined to think that he would have let it go if he didn’t genuinely feel that he was hard done by there. Maybe that point could have swung the 3rd set tiebreak, with him aiming to wrap up a straight sets win in the face of an increasing pro-Borg crowd, in his favour.

In terms of that bad line call in the game in which Mac broke in the 5th set, I still think it’s overblown, given that it led to Borg going down 0-15. If it led to him going 0-30, (before getting to the stage when it directly led to him facing break points), I’d have more sympathy, but not in the very first point of a game. Borg serving 2 double faults on the back of that (to then face break points) was poor IMO and his own fault and just ‘suck it up' territory. I don’t really have a great deal of sympathy there or think that counts as him being hugely unlucky.

In terms of players being unlucky to lose, excluding when crucial injuries surfaced, Haas vs. Safin in their 2002 Australian Open semi-final could count, with him outplaying Safin during the first 3 sets, before the rain delay, decision to close the roof instead of waiting for the rain to clear, and then Safin returning to outplay him indoors to wint he match.

I would disagree with suggestions that Nadal for example was unlucky to lose the 2012 Australian Open final, given that Djokovic was clearly superior that day per my eyes, and per most major metrics (winning 17 more points, breaking 3 more times, hitting more winners, hitting fewer unforced errors etc.). In my opinion, Djokovic ‘should’ have won that in 4 sets.

And on the flipside, I would also disagree with suggestions that Djokovic was unlucky to lose their ‘mirror image’ 2013 Roland Garros semi-final, given that Nadal was clearly superior per my eyes, and per most major metrics (winning 19 more points, breaking 3 more times, hitting more winners, hitting fewer errors etc.). Again, I think that Nadal ‘should’ have won that in 4 sets.

Of course the 2019 Wimbledon final is one of the most blatant examples of when a one player (Federer) was on top for the majority of the proceedings, supported by many metrics, i.e. 14 more points, far more winners, a better winner-UE differential, breaking serve 4 more times, winning 4 more games, better serving stats across the board etc., but then still somehow lost. Djokovic was ultimately better during the big points, and my sympathy does wane somewhat when a player has multiple championship points on serve as Federer did, but doesn't get the job done.

 

[Vincent-C]

Once again it's time for me to prevaricate and then not pick a winner. It's all down to the fact that I'm struggling to view the given years purely in isolation.


The two three things I'm having a hard time ignoring, are (a) Lendl's three-peat was part of his eight-in-a-row finals streak, (b) Fed's three-peat was only the start of a five-peat, and also part of a combined Wimbledon/US four-peat, and (c) JMac's doubles success at the same time; singles/doubles sweeps > just singles (thanks to @Gizo for reminding me of that).

I'd say that Roger perhaps faced the weakest opposition, comparatively speaking. But then again his '04 demolition of Hewitt, when the Aussie was in great hard-court form, was properly historic stuff and reminiscent of JMac's best form in '84. It's a rare thing to face top quality opposition and make them look as utterly helpless as Fed did that day. And as I said, I cannot ignore the fact that after his three-peat he continued to win it two more times; 40 matches in a row versus Ivan's 27 and JMac's 25 is a significant gap.

If I could isolate the three given years for each player, I'd probably go for JMac based on the level of competition and the bonus doubles victories. But instead I'm going to call it a tie between the Basel Dazz

Borg was particularly unlucky at the USO in both 1977 and 1978.

In 1977 he injured his shoulder when jet-skiing, and then aggravated that injury during a practice session before the tournament started. He really struggled when he tried to serve and hit overheads, and was forced to retire from his 4th round match against Stockton. That was his only defeat in 56 matches counted in the ATP website from about late-March to late-November that year, across tournaments on red clay in Europe, har-tru, grass, and indoor carpet and hard. He was projected to face Vilas in the semis, who he had beaten in Nice and Monte-Carlo (comfortably) earlier that year during that period.

In 1978 he injured his thumb during his SF win agaisnt Gerulaitis, took anti-inflammatory medication and a pain-killing injection before the final (struggling during his practice session in-between), and played the whole final with that very painful injury. His racket flying out of his hand as he served during the 2nd set symbolised that. John Newcombe very much subscribed to the 'if you play you're healthy' mantra, but readily acknowledged the impact of that injury. After Borg's destruction of Connors at Wimbledon, and with Connors already loving the switch from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows and hell-bent on revenge, it could have been an intruiging final, but Borg's injury eliminated any possibility of that.

And I completely agree about that being the golden era of tennis !

Great stuff- thank you.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

I wanted to say that Lendl had the toughest competition....but I'm gonna go with Mac. Facing peak Connors and peak Borg year-in and year-out in the SFs and Finals (along w/ Geuralaitis, Lendl, etc) and managing to win the title 3 years in a row is mind boggling

 

[BTURNER]

I know that the OP is very specific about ATP and a three peat, but I do have to derail to mention a 4 peat. 1975-1978 Evert won on two surfaces. She lost a total of one set (Goolagong 1976) and 108 games in 25 consecutive matches. She also played and won the only tiebreaker in 1977 over Turnbull

She won over half the sets (26 of 51 played) over those four years, with the loss of one game or no games ( by 6-1 or 6-0 scores).

1976 was one of the most dominant performances of any woman finalist in a slam. In the entire tournament she lost only 9 games. The semfinalist and finalist opponent each took 3 of those games between them for a total of 6 of those 9.

Its impossible to compare with 3 of five set matches among the men ( when they played them as opposed to 2 of three in some years in early rounds) and it has to be said the depth on clay specifically was pretty damn weak, but its impressive statistically and Evert still had to sustain her most lethal levels of concentration, and consistent stroke production to make these numbers happen over four years in one tournament.