Which of these three players had the best 2-slam season?

[Pheasant]

Here are the candidates:

1979 Borg:
84-6, .933 overall
17-3, .850 vs top-5
20-3, .870 vs top-10
13-1, .929 in finals

1984 McEnroe
82-3, .965 overall
15-1, .938 vs top-5
26-2, .929 vs top-10
13-1, .929 in finals

2005 Federer
81-4, .953 overall
6-2, .750 vs top-5
15-2, .882 vs top-10
11-1, .917 in finals

Note: I cannot find dominance ratios for Mac and Borg. But I found this mind-blowing with Fed:
Hard courts: Fed was 51-0 in dominance ratio
Clay courts: Fed was 15-1 in dominance ratio
Grass courts: Fed was 12-0 in dominance ratio
Carpet: Fed was 3-2 in dominance ratio. Keep in mind that Fed was on crutches 3 weeks prior to the Masters Cup, which is where all of his carpet matches were played.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Here are the candidates:

1979 Borg:
84-6, .933 overall
17-3, .850 vs top-5
20-3, .870 vs top-10
13-1, .929 in finals

1984 McEnroe
82-3, .965 overall
15-1, .938 vs top-5
26-2, .929 vs top-10
13-1, .929 in finals

2005 Federer
81-4, .953 overall
6-2, .750 vs top-5
15-2, .882 vs top-10
11-1, .917 in finals

Note: I cannot find dominance ratios for Mac and Borg. But I found this mind-blowing with Fed:
Hard courts: Fed was 51-0 in dominance ratio
Clay courts: Fed was 15-1 in dominance ratio
Grass courts: Fed was 12-0 in dominance ratio
Carpet: Fed was 3-2 in dominance ratio. Keep in mind that Fed was on crutches 3 weeks prior to the Masters Cup, which is where all of his carpet matches were played.

It is Mac. Between Borg and Fed it is close. One has to keep in mind that Borg (and Mac) only played three slams on the respective years, so two-slam season here is not the same as with Fed. I would rank it
1. Mac 2. Borg 3. Fed

 

[Kralingen]

McEnroe clearly

 

[Pheasant]

It is Mac. Between Borg and Fed it is close. One has to keep in mind that Borg (and Mac) only played three slams on the respective years, so two-slam season here is not the same as with Fed. I would rank it
1. Mac 2. Borg 3. Fed

That's very true about slams. This is why I don't believe that a 3-slam season is necessarily better than a 2-slam season. I wanted to look at the overall body of work. Mac was simply too dominant in 1984. I'd be curious to see if any stat gurus have a better breakdown of Mac's and Borg's stats, like percentage of games won, or even more in-depth than that.

Growing up, Borg was a god. My sister was an all-conference player in the 1970s. They all loved Borg. He was like a rock star in the women's world of tennis; at least from what I witnessed. But as a kid, I had to root for fellow-American McEnroe.

 

[RS]

I expect the winner of the poll will be Mac closely followed by Fed but lets see.

 

[Gizo]

Mac's 1984 is still one of the greatest seasons I've seen from any player full stop. I've never been so amazed by a player's overall level of play, as I was by Mac's in 1984. His ability to venomously return 1st serves and then come to the net (rip and charge as labelled by Newcombe) was a fundamental part of that, requiring incredible hand-eye coordination. That was alongside his combination of power and touch and the net, dropshots, ability to mix the up spins and the pace of his shots to keep his opponents off balance and guessing, ability to take the ball early and on the rise, tremendous angles and placement etc. I count myself very lucky that I was able to witness that in real-time.

His level of play to demolish Lendl in the Brussels final that year, winning almost twice as many points as Lendl (i.e. one of the greatest indoor / carpet players of all-time in his own right) did, is one of the very best performances I've ever seen from any player on any surface.

I'd rank Borg's 1979 over Federer's 2005 (still incredible), as he won the Masters (beating both Connors and Mac) and won the 2nd of his 3 RG-Wimbledon doubles when there were of course very polarised conditions and he adopted significantly different styles at both events. Both Borg in 1979 and Federer in 2005 were of course excellent across all surfaces - Borg had good quality title wins at Las Vegas and the Canadian Open on outdoor hard courts in 1979 to go win his big triumphs on clay, grass and carpet.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I would say McEnroe and part of the reason (atleast compared to Federer) is it was only a 2 slam season in the era many players skipped the Australian, which he almost certainly would have won if he played in the form he was in that year. Federer straight out played all 4 slams (in an era that was expected anyway) and failed to reach the finals of 2. And then adding in the YEC and Federer failed to win 3 of the 5 most important events of the year, despite an immaculate record otherwise. It is a shame otherwise as it could have been a really historic year as was his overall level of play that year; and of course that applies to McEnroe if he just won the French he was so close to winning, in which case he probably plays Australia now.

I might even have to put Borg of 79 above Federer of 2005 too, since as I said he lost 3 of the 5 biggest matches. 3 of his 4 losses that year, but really costly ones, and Borg you would have to say won 3 of the 4 biggest events that (YEC at that point was one of the biggest events over Australia easily in practical terms) vs Federer's 2 of 5. I think 2006 and possibly even 2004 (despite the far inferior W-L record and general dominance) have to be over Federer's 2005.

And of course Federer was so incredibly close (match point on his serve, serving for the match up 30-0) to winning both the Australian and YEC. I assuming the hypothetical Australian final vs Hewitt is a virtual gimme just given how awful that match up was for Hewitt post 2003.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

John McEnroe

If a British player brought home that record, we would be talking about it for days, years, months, centuries.

But even so, he isn't British, and it is still an absolutely, oh, absolutely, fantastic record. The cream of the proverbial crop.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I might even have to put Borg of 79 above Federer of 2005 too, since as I said he lost 3 of the 5 biggest matches. 3 of his 4 losses that year, but really costly ones, and Borg you would have to say won 3 of the 4 biggest events that (YEC at that point was one of the biggest events over Australia easily in practical terms) vs Federer's 2 of 5. I think 2006 and possibly even 2004 (despite the far inferior W-L record and general dominance) have to be over Federer's 2005.

The YEC sails it for Borg over Fed imho. The FO-W-YEC clay-grass-carpet triple also shows again his great versatility.

 

[RS]

John McEnroe

If a British player brought home that record, we would be talking about it for days, years, months, centuries.

But even so, he isn't British, and it is still an absolutely, oh, absolutely, fantastic record. The cream of the proverbial crop.

No quotation marks.

 

[Vincent-C]

The Great Man, in a walk. Barely lost to Nalby (injured), and Safin.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I took a deep dive into the UTS stats and came up with the following numbers:

	Matches won vs top 5​	Sets won pct vs top 5​	Games won pct vs top 5​	Games won pct vs players outside top 10​
Iceman '79	17-3 vs Connors, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Tanner​	33-10 (76.7%)​	305-208 (59.5%)​	988-503 (66.2%)​
Superbrat '84	15-1 vs Connors, Lendl, Wilander​	39-9 (81.25%)​	273-157 (63.5%)​	817-396 (67.4%)​
Basel Dazzle '05	6-2 vs Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Safin​	19-8 (70.4%)​	154-128 (54.5%)​	1038-645 (61.7%)​

I already believed JMac's year was better because (a) he was more dominant, and (b) his top 5 opposition was the toughest. But if that's not enough for you, take in those numbers in red in the chart above.

Against "journeymen" players outside the top ten, Federer won a lower percentage of games than McEnroe did against Connors, Lendl, and Wilander.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

No quotation marks.

Because it's my quote, sir.

 

[mike danny]

Mac easily. No contest, IMO.

 

[mike danny]

I took a deep dive into the UTS stats and came up with the following numbers:

	Matches won vs top 5​	Sets won pct vs top 5​	Games won pct vs top 5​	Games won pct vs players outside top 10​
Iceman	17-3 vs Connors, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Tanner​	33-10 (76.7%)​	305-208 (59.5%)​	988-503 (66.2%)​
Superbrat	15-1 vs Connors, Lendl, Wilander​	39-9 (81.25%)​	273-157 (63.5%)​	817-396 (67.4%)​
Basel Dazzle	6-2 vs Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Safin​	19-8 (70.4%)​	154-128 (54.5%)​	1038-645 (61.7%)​

I already believed JMac's year was better because (a) he was more dominant, and (b) his top 5 opposition was the toughest. But if that's not enough for you, take in those numbers in red in the chart above.

Against "journeymen" players outside the top ten, Federer won a lower percentage of games than McEnroe did against Connors, Lendl, and Wilander.

That's mental, I have to admit.

 

[Pheasant]

I took a deep dive into the UTS stats and came up with the following numbers:

	Matches won vs top 5​	Sets won pct vs top 5​	Games won pct vs top 5​	Games won pct vs players outside top 10​
Iceman	17-3 vs Connors, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Tanner​	33-10 (76.7%)​	305-208 (59.5%)​	988-503 (66.2%)​
Superbrat	15-1 vs Connors, Lendl, Wilander​	39-9 (81.25%)​	273-157 (63.5%)​	817-396 (67.4%)​
Basel Dazzle	6-2 vs Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick, Safin​	19-8 (70.4%)​	154-128 (54.5%)​	1038-645 (61.7%)​

I already believed JMac's year was better because (a) he was more dominant, and (b) his top 5 opposition was the toughest. But if that's not enough for you, take in those numbers in red in the chart above.

Against "journeymen" players outside the top ten, Federer won a lower percentage of games than McEnroe did against Connors, Lendl, and Wilander.

That is absolutely obscene; those numbers against the top-5.

 

[Pheasant]

@King_olaf_the_hairy , thanks for posting those stats. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

I'm now convinced that McEnroe's 1984 season was the greatest season ever. The guy completely butchered top opponents, which to me, is the key indicator of pure dominance.

 

[NatF]

Mac hands down.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

@King_olaf_the_hairy , thanks for posting those stats. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

I'm now convinced that McEnroe's 1984 season was the greatest season ever. The guy completely butchered top opponents, which to me, is the key indicator of pure dominance.

Definitely the best of those three, definitely the best two slam season and arguably better than all three slam seasons (Djoko 2011 maybe for tougher competition?). Tough though to say greatest season ever when we had CYGS seasons (even though that was still with three slams on grass).

 

[Pheasant]

Definitely the best of those three, definitely the best two slam season and arguably better than all three slam seasons (Djoko 2011 maybe for tougher competition?). Tough though to say greatest season ever when we had CYGS seasons (even though that was still with three slams on grass).

I did think about Laver too. And to be fair to Laver, he beat a lot of Hall of Famers en route to that CYGS.

I just love how Mac destroyed 6+ slam legends while they were ranked in the top-3. He didn't just beat them. He embarrassed them. On grass, he murdered Connors 6-2 6-2 in Queens. Then, to prove that was no fluke, he met Connors in the WImbledon final and stomped him even worse at 6-1 6-1 6-2.

Lendl? Ha. He stomped him in straight sets 5 times, all in finals. And that was across 3 surfaces.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I did think about Laver too. And to be fair to Laver, he beat a lot of Hall of Famers en route to that CYGS.

I just love how Mac destroyed 6+ slam legends while they were ranked in the top-3. He didn't just beat them. He embarrassed them. On grass, he murdered Connors 6-2 6-2 in Queens. Then, to prove that was no fluke, he met Connors in the WImbledon final and stomped him even worse at 6-1 6-1 6-2.

Lendl? Ha. He stomped him in straight sets 5 times, all in finals. And that was across 3 surfaces.

In terms of competition nobody beats Djoko 2011, going 10-1 against prime/peak Fedal. I give Mac the edge since Djoko disappeared after USO due to fatigue.

Lendl? Ha. He stomped him in straight sets 5 times, all in finals. And that was across 3 surfaces.

But still lost the most important match.

 

[Gizo]

@King_olaf_the_hairy , thanks for posting those stats. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

I'm now convinced that McEnroe's 1984 season was the greatest season ever. The guy completely butchered top opponents, which to me, is the key indicator of pure dominance.

It's definitely one of the top 3 seasons ever in my opinion, helped by the huge number of beatdowns that he dished that year, as highlighted by his insane 195-23 set W/L record (a 89.4% success rate) and 1279-678 game W/L record (a 65.4% success rate). That's including the Masters tournament in January 1985, rather than in January 1984 for clarification.

During the Masters in January1985 to conclude the 1984 season, he capped it off with another demolition of Lendl in the final (and clearly drubbing a prime Lendl in a big final in Madison Square Gardens for a second year in a row, and without being broken again, was an outstanding feat). He had a sequence of winning 11 games in a row, more than matched Lendl from the baseline for long periods, and also Lendl couldn't handle his 2nd serve kickers.

 

[thrust]

In terms of competition nobody beats Djoko 2011, going 10-1 against prime/peak Fedal. I give Mac the edge since Djoko disappeared after USO due to fatigue.

But still lost the most important match.

True, but in some respects, John helped Ledl beat him due to his temper tantrums when line calls did not go his way. Still, I am glad Lendl won that match because John had an arrogant attitude that he was supposed to win.

 

[Hard Court]

To play the Devils Advocate, you coiuld makr a good arguemnt that Borg's competion was better than Mcenroe's and certainly Federer. McEnroe didn't have to deal with Borg in 1984, while Borg had to deal with McEnroe in 1979!

Look at the guys ranked right behind Borg in 1979: Connors, McEnroe, Gerulitas, Tanner, Vilas. That's hard to top.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

To play the Devils Advocate, you coiuld makr a good arguemnt that Borg's competion was better than Mcenroe's and certainly Federer. McEnroe didn't have to deal with Borg in 1984, while Borg had to deal with McEnroe in 1979!

Look at the guys ranked right behind Borg in 1979: Connors, McEnroe, Gerulitas, Tanner, Vilas. That's hard to top.

One could also argue that Connors in 79 was better than in 84. However, Mac had Lendl and Wilander to deal with which Borg had not.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

The YEC sails it for Borg over Fed imho. The FO-W-YEC clay-grass-carpet triple also shows again his great versatility.

And two big titles on HC (his worst surface) in Las Vegas and Canada (over Connors and McEnroe respectively, on their best surface). Borg also went 10-2 vs Mac and Jimbo combined that season, which is sick. His 1979 is up there with Djoko's 2015 and Fed's 2006 imo.

 

[Gizo]

1979 was a golden year with excellent competition at the top. And I'd rank Borg's 1979 as one of the 10 greatest seasons I've seen without question.

I think the sheer scale of dominant wins by Mac in 1984, puts it on a higher level though.

Mac dropped a combined total of 3 sets en-route to his 2 major title wins in 1984 (1 at Wimbledon, and 2 at the US Open in that tremendous SF against Connors), while Borg dropped a combined total of 9 sets en-route to his 2 major title wins in 1979 (3 at RG and 6 at Wimbledon).

In the 2nd round at Wimbledon in 1979, Borg found himself 2 sets to 1 down and then 3-1 down in the 4th set against Amritraj, of course a dangerous opponent who was 2 sets to love up against Connors there in 1981 and of course beat Mac in 1984, and then was 2 sets to 1 down against Tanner in the final. A one sided Borg win was widely expected in the final, so the fact that we got a 5 setter instead was a pleasant surprise for many people. Now of course the fact that he recovered and won that title, against a tough and varied grass court field, including having to face sterner competition in the early rounds intensified by there being 16 seeds instead of 32, to wrap up his 2nd straight RG-Wimbledon double was hugely impressive. But I don't think the Mac of 1984 would found himself in that level of trouble in a 2nd round match against anyone, or 2 sets to 1 down in a Wimbledon or US Open final. We're comparing the best of the best and ultra-high standards here.

Also Mac was 5 points away from winning the title at RG in 1984, while Borg was 5 points away from then merely being 7 sets away from winning the US Open title in 1979, going down in 4 sets in his US Open quarter-final against Tanner. He needed to save 2 match points on Tanner's serve at 3-5 in the 4th set before taking it to a tiebreaker which he ultimately lost 7-2. Lennart Bergelin was often a big whiner (I quite liked Borg but disliked Bergelin), and that was especially evident during the 1979 US Open - Peter Fleming said he thought that Bergelin's constant complaining about conditions, scheduling etc. during the tournament psyched Borg out, and I agreed with that.

The other major loss that Borg suffered in 1979 was against Mac in the Dallas final - that was a big breakthrough for Mac, destroying Connors in the semis (his first win over Connors converting match point) and before beating Borg in 4 sets. Borg had chances to take into a 5th set, but Mac at times, especially in the 3rd set, made him looked pretty helpless and effectively 'rushed' him. That was their 4th sanctioned match in 1979, in the first Mac had 8 match points in Richmond but Borg fended them all of and utltimately won that SF and the title. In the 2nd in New Orleans, there was the incident that Mac has regularly brought up, when Borg called Mac (who had been behaving like, well Mac) over and advised him to enjoy himself.

 

[Neptune]

Achievements:
Mac > Borg ≈ Fed (Borg YEC is a plus over Fed)

Competition and intensity:
Mac ≈ Borg > Fed (see table)

So: 1. Mac 2. Borg 3. Fed

​	McEnroe​	Borg​	Fed​
Total matches​	85​	92​	85​
Ave opp rank​	22​	26​	30​
Ave Elo​	2044​	2046​	1997​
​	​	​	​
Top5 matches​	16​	20​	8​
Ave rank​	3​	3​	4​
Ave Elo​	2389​	2368​	2235​
​	​	​	​
Top10 matches​	28​	23​	17​
Ave rank​	4​	3​	6​
Ave Elo​	2266​	2347​	2197​
​	​	​	​
Season peak Elo​	2570​	2547​	2503​
vs Elo>2250​	16​	19​	3 (only Hewitt)​
vs Elo>2350​	15​	11​	0​

 

[Pheasant]

Achievements:
Mac > Borg ≈ Fed (Borg YEC is a plus over Fed)

Competition and intensity:
Mac ≈ Borg > Fed (see table)

So: 1. Mac 2. Borg 3. Fed

​	McEnroe​	Borg​	Fed​
Total matches​	85​	92​	85​
Ave opp rank​	22​	26​	30​
Ave Elo​	2044​	2046​	1997​
​	​	​	​
Top5 matches​	16​	20​	8​
Ave rank​	3​	3​	4​
Ave Elo​	2389​	2368​	2235​
​	​	​	​
Top10 matches​	28​	23​	17​
Ave rank​	4​	3​	6​
Ave Elo​	2266​	2347​	2197​
​	​	​	​
Season peak Elo​	2570​	2547​	2503​
vs Elo>2250​	16​	19​	3 (only Hewitt)​
vs Elo>2350​	15​	11​	0​

Good stats. Yeah, it has to be Mac>Borg>Federer.

Worst loss as a fan ever was when Lendl came back from 2-0 to win that 1984 FO final. Mac was undefeated in 1984 heading into that match(something like 42-0). And he had just destroyed Lendl in straight sets in 2 previous clay court finals. This looked like a done deal. Nope. Dammit!!

 

[Vincent-C]

Good stats. Yeah, it has to be Mac>Borg>Federer.

Worst loss as a fan ever was when Lendl came back from 2-0 to win that 1984 FO final. Mac was undefeated in 1984 heading into that match(something like 42-0). And he had just destroyed Lendl in straight sets in 2 previous clay court finals. This looked like a done deal. Nope. Dammit!!

To his credit, Mac scratched and clawed to the very end. I sure wish he had gotten that one.

 

[Pheasant]

To his credit, Mac scratched and clawed to the very end. I sure wish he had gotten that one.

He pushed very hard, and even had a 4-2 lead in the 4th set. But unfortunately, he couldn’t quite close the deal. This is the biggest would-coulda question that I still have. Could he have gotten the Holy Grail of tennis awards that year? Would he have had enough gas in the tank to complete the CYGS, he just won that stupid 1984 FO final? Man, would that have shaken up the tennis world. Martina was going for the CYGS that same exact year, but fell 2 matches short.

 

[Vincent-C]

He pushed very hard, and even had a 4-2 lead in the 4th set. But unfortunately, he couldn’t quite close the deal. This is the biggest would-coulda question that I still have. Could he have gotten the Holy Grail of tennis awards that year? Would he have had enough gas in the tank to complete the CYGS, he just won that stupid 1984 FO final? Man, would that have shaken up the tennis world. Martina was going for the CYGS that same exact year, but fell 2 matches short.

I've said this before, but I think Mac could feel it slipping away at the business end of the third, when
he started the standard ruckus. Credit to Lendl for keeping focus! As for '84 CYGS: heck, I don't know.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Gonna have to go with Mac in '84 by a hair over Borg in '79. Mac's utter domination that year was insane. Starting out with the 42-match win streak, going 12-1 vs Connors and Lendl, storming to another Wimby and USO titles, and winning both the WCT Finals and the Grand Prix Finals at MSG

Borg turning that FO/Wimby double for the 2nd straight year (of eventually 3 in a row), was ridiculous. Also that was his 4th consecutive title at SW19. As was also mentioned up thread, he won Vegas and Canada, two of the other biggest events. Then won the Grand Prix Masters for the first time, beating Mac in a tough Semi and Vitas in the Finals

As for Fed's 2005, folks talking about his Slam losses that year--one was in an all time classic against Safin (eventual champ) in Australia, the other against Nadal in the semis in Paris. Oh and Nalbandian (who could play like an all time great when he wanted to) beat him in a grrat match at the YEC Finals. Those were 3 of the 4 losses that entire season...not like he was dropping 2nd round matches to randoms

 

[jrepac]

@King_olaf_the_hairy , thanks for posting those stats. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

I'm now convinced that McEnroe's 1984 season was the greatest season ever. The guy completely butchered top opponents, which to me, is the key indicator of pure dominance.

well, that was it exactly. The loss to Lendl sucked, but everywhere else he ruled. Connors gave him a run for it at the Open, but after that, he cruised over Lendl.

 

[urban]

Mac had an unbelievable 1984, no doubt. I did see him personally at the WTC at Düsseldorf that year, and he was on a different level with his block game. That said, his Paris RG 1984 run deserves a closer look. I think, he had a good draw, with Testermann, Purcell, Arias, and Connors 4 US players, who were not exactly clay court specialists, not even young Jimmy and old Jimmy, who took out Sundstrom, who later at DC beat Mac The only big hurdle for Mac was Higueras, who made it pretty close and had his chances for a surprise win. Lendl had a good run, too, with better clay specialists in his draw, including Gomez and Wilander. So it was a pretty good path before the final, without clay experts like Wilander, Noah, Gomez, Sundstrom in his way..
At Düsseldorf on faster clay, Lendl had problems with the chip and charge tactics, and could counter only with the backhand down the line, where Mac was waiting for the deadly volley. During the RG match, Lendl made an important change, when he suddenly played a cross court backhand, to great effect, because Mac had to stretch for the volley. The match was close from the beginning on, and Lendl took advantage of the best of 5 format. While Mac hadn't a heatstroke, which some supporters as Richard Evans claimed, he got into a tiring typical clay battle. He had his chances to the end, but Lendl prevailed. Lendl won the match more, than Mac lost it.

I have seen a longer French documentary, where the 1984 final was pitted against a later RG match in the late 1980s, when Lendl was already the dominant Nr. 1 player. The match started late in the afternoon, Mac played excellent in the early stages, with fine touch, and upset Lendls rhythm, but the match was suspended by darkness (and Lendls complaints). When it was resumed the next day, Mac had lost his touch, and Lendl had no big problems anymore.

 

[Gizo]

Lendl's run to the 1984 RG final was very impressive, notably his straight sets SF win over Wilander (the most convincing / dominant win by either playing during any of their 4 matches at RG from 1982-1987). Wilander was pinned to the baseline, relentlessly targeted Lendl's backhand without success, and ultimately Lendl's ability to amp things up with his forehand was decisive. And to Wilander's credit he learned from that match when they battled it out in the final there next year, and was far more aggressive and came to the net more often and at the right moments.

The 84 RG is one of the best major finals I've ever seen - it had everything in terms of high quality tennis (and peaks and troughs over a long 5 setter are inevitable), excitement and drama. Lendl was clearly outplayed during the first 2 sets, although he did have game points in all the games that he was broken in. He smartly began to chip his returns low to force Mac to volley up (he received this treatment from the likes of Becker and Cash on his 2nd serves at Wimbledon), found his range, grew in confidence and began to pass and lob Mac more and more effectively. It was also pretty unrealistic to expect Mac to maintain his high level of serving from the first 2 sets, and it was inevitable that his first serve % was going to dip. But I still thought that overall he played pretty well in those last 3 sets.

Lendl needed IV and fainted from heat exhaustion after the match and post-match ceremony was over. He had nothing left in the tank for Queen's the following week, and lost his 1st round match there against Leif Shiras a couple of days after that final. Mac on the other hand recovered (though he will have ran a lot less than Lendl did) to come through 6 matches (notably a demolition of Connors in the semis) to win the Queen's title.

BTW, I'd say that the 1984 US Open final was actually more important all things considered than the 1984 RG final, despite the legacy and excitement of the former. The US Open was a simply bigger deal for both players than RG was. Lendl's single biggest career goal was to win the US Open title. Clearly while he would have greatly appreciated any major win in 1984, if he could have chosen one at the start of the year, it would have been the USO without any hesitation. And as badly as Mac wanted to win that RG title and as painful as that defeat was for him, a 3rd Wimbledon title overtaking Connors there was still an (even) bigger deal for him (commentators laughed at the idea of him wanting to trade in any of his Wimbledon titles for a RG one as an absurdity). I think that a 4th USO title (he was a New Yorker after all) would also have been an even bigger deal for him as well. There was clear hierarchy in terms of the importance of the majors then (Lendl saying that he'd trade in all 3 of his RG titles for a Wimbledon title wasn't exactly shocking). Wilander also values his USO title (though as a Swede triumphing where Borg didn’t clearly was significant and he became world no.1 on the back of it) above any of his 3 RG titles.

 

[urban]

Agree with many points, especially about Lendls fine performance at RG. The final indeed was one of the best matches i have seen, given the technical, tactical and mental performance of both players, and the intense battle for all 5 sets.. On the other hand, Mac often and much later said, that this RG loss hurt him most, even in his dreams, giving him nightmares to the present days.

 

[BeatlesFan]

1984 Mac for me is the greatest season ever. Sure, Fed and Djoker had multiple three slam seasons, but Mac's 1984 level was absolutely insane. The only bad match he played was in December in Davis Cup in Sweden and that was because he just met Tatum. 1984 FO final was not played poorly by Mac, he ran out of gas - different thing.