Who was greater Lendl or McEnroe or Connors

Connors v Lendl v McEnroe

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Lendl had the most flexible game of the three, which is why he was more consistently dominant in his peak. That said, in their prime, which pre-dated Lendl's, both Mac and Connors were capable of outplaying Lendl. The problem is that the two of them were more mercurial, probably because of their tempers and general attitudes. The other two had greater peaks, but Lendl had more paths to victory and often figured out how to blunt opponents. Mac and Connors just stuck to the plan.
 
John McEnroe won a total of 155 ATP titles, 77 in ATP Tour singles, 77 in men's doubles and 1 mixed doubles.

I could make the argument that McEnroe is the greatest "tennis" player having won doubles titles, too --- but we aren't ready for that conversation with this fawning over singles titles in recent years.
 
Lendl has more slams than McEnroe and did so in stronger era than Connors.

His stats are why we have this.

Weeks at number 1.
Lendl 270
Connors 268 in which most disagree Connors was number 1 for many weeks in 70s. So should be lower
McEnroe 170
 
SamprasisGOAT said:
This has been done to death. At least 6 times since 2013 when I joined but anyway


Connors
Lendl
Then McEnroe
Click to expand...
McEnroe- Peak - Very hard to beat with great wins over: Jimmy, Borg and Ivan.
Connors- More consistent, better longevity than John
Lendl- Very consistent, great ground game
 
Nobody says McEnroe but what is annoying is some of these people propose to care about doubles and use doubles to elevate other players they like further such as Navratilova or Serena. So if you are being consistent and care about doubles enough to even give it say a 10-15% value it is McEnroe as his singles career is close enough to theirs his legendary doubles career pushes him over.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Lendl has more slams than McEnroe and did so in stronger era than Connors.

His stats are why we have this.

Weeks at number 1.
Lendl 270
Connors 268 in which most disagree Connors was number 1 for many weeks in 70s. So should be lower
McEnroe 170
Click to expand...

Lendl and Connor's weeks at #1 are both inflated, so that part is a wash. Like who really believes Lendl was the #1 player nearly all of 88 and 89 as he was on the computer when he won a grand 1 slam (and that a depleted one with almost nobody there at that).

And based on what did Lendl play in a stronger era than Connors, LOL! Is that some April Fools joke. Lendl was dominant when McEnroe was clearly past his prime, Connors was old, and Borg was long gone. Becker didn't become a contender on hard courts until 89, and Edberg's prime was 88-92, so basically Lendl had nobody when he was dominant and won most of his slams in 85-87. Connors faced Borg, McEnroe, Vilas in their primes for years, as well as Lendl himself much closer to his prime than Connors was when Lendl was dominant. It is pretty well known even by Lendl fans he had the weakest competition of all those. Of course his career is still strong enough to give him a case as best of these inspite of the weak competition.
 
grandefrankie said:
Nobody says McEnroe but what is annoying is some of these people propose to care about doubles and use doubles to elevate other players they like further such as Navratilova or Serena. So if you are being consistent and care about doubles enough to even give it say a 10-15% value it is McEnroe as his singles career is close enough to theirs his legendary doubles career pushes him over.
Click to expand...
And, McEnroe's doubles titles indicates an all around mastery of tennis. But I voted for Connors because he holds the most titles as an individual.
 
grandefrankie said:
Lendl and Connor's weeks at #1 are both inflated, so that part is a wash. Like who really believes Lendl was the #1 player nearly all of 88 and 89 as he was on the computer when he won a grand 1 slam (and that a depleted one with almost nobody there at that).

And based on what did Lendl play in a stronger era than Connors, LOL! Is that some April Fools joke. Lendl was dominant when McEnroe was clearly past his prime, Connors was old, and Borg was long gone. Becker didn't become a contender on hard courts until 89, and Edberg's prime was 88-92, so basically Lendl had nobody when he was dominant and won most of his slams in 85-87. Connors faced Borg, McEnroe, Vilas in their primes for years, as well as Lendl himself much closer to his prime than Connors was when Lendl was dominant. It is pretty well known even by Lendl fans he had the weakest competition of all those. Of course his career is still strong enough to give him a case as best of these inspite of the weak competition.
Click to expand...
You realize tennis is not just slams or not. Make it clear first.

88 year will have rolling 52 weeks points from 87. And wilander has weakest 3 slam year ever. Wilander has weak resume for all time great and his 88 is only time he barely squeaked to world number 1.

It's not easy to be dominant.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
You realize tennis is not just slams or not. Make it clear first.

88 year will have rolling 52 weeks points from 87. And wilander has weakest 3 slam year ever. Wilander has weak resume for all time great and his 88 is only time he barely squeaked to world number 1.

It's not easy to be dominant.
Click to expand...

Well tennis being not just about slams also justifies Connors time at #1 too. Every argument you make for Lendl regarding weeks at #1 can be equally applies to Connors, and vice versa. Both had some amount of time at #1 they weren't viewed as the real #1, so that aspect is no different, both their official and unofficial (so called opinion based) weeks at #1 would be roughly the same. That is all that matters. And Connors has more YE#s than Lendl does.
 
grandefrankie said:
Well tennis being not just about slams also justifies Connors time at #1 too. Every argument you make for Lendl regarding weeks at #1 can be equally applies to Connors, and vice versa. Both had some amount of time at #1 they weren't viewed as the real #1, so that aspect is no different, both their official and unofficial (so called opinion based) weeks at #1 would be roughly the same. That is all that matters. And Connors has more YE#s than Lendl does.
Click to expand...
Connors has stolen weeks from Guillermo Vilas. It's both in and out of grand slams results.
 
Winners or Errors said:
Lendl had the most flexible game of the three, which is why he was more consistently dominant in his peak. That said, in their prime, which pre-dated Lendl's, both Mac and Connors were capable of outplaying Lendl. The problem is that the two of them were more mercurial, probably because of their tempers and general attitudes. The other two had greater peaks, but Lendl had more paths to victory and often figured out how to blunt opponents. Mac and Connors just stuck to the plan.
Click to expand...
Lendl had the most flexible game? Nah, I think that's Mac. All 3 were very dominant #1s, and at one stage were trading off the ranking between them. It's a bit of a coin flip, depending on what you put weight on. Maybe Connors by a nose, just on singles play.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Lendl has more slams than McEnroe and did so in stronger era than Connors.

His stats are why we have this.

Weeks at number 1.
Lendl 270
Connors 268 in which most disagree Connors was number 1 for many weeks in 70s. So should be lower
McEnroe 170
Click to expand...
Huh? Stronger era? That's baloney.
 
jrepac said:
Lendl had the most flexible game? Nah, I think that's Mac. All 3 were very dominant #1s, and at one stage were trading off the ranking between them. It's a bit of a coin flip, depending on what you put weight on. Maybe Connors by a nose, just on singles play.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I don't think it's Mac, though he did have more solid groundies than anyone gives him credit for. If Mac's first serve wasn't clicking, he wasn't winning. Also, when did he ever pursue any kind of strategic change like the one Lendl used against Connors? Gifted, but not that flexible = Mac. Connors was just a bludgeon. I very much think Lendl was more likely to implement strategies that went againt his core game.
 
jrepac said:
Huh? Stronger era? That's baloney.
Click to expand...
Of course Lendl played in a stronger era than Connors. Connors was irrelevant after 1984 – and Lendl had to deal with not just Connors, Borg and Mac, but also Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Noah, Mecir – and later on Sampras, Stich, Chang, Courier while still being competitive.
 
I love how people always think the eras before their time were never as strong. (The comment about the highest competition being mid 2000s comment was pretty funny.)
Of course, Lendl had to deal with some great players, and a lot of very good ones.
So did Connors. Connors had Newcombe, Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, Ashe, smith, Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Wilander. Good players like Gerulitas, Okker, Clerc, Tanner, Mayer etc. Like Lendl, some of these guys longer periods of time than others.

I think Connors was a hair better than Lendl, but it is certainly debatable. Had McEnroe had two or more great years than maybe he would be ahead of Connors and Lendl. But he didn't.
 
Hard Court said:
I love how people always think the eras before their time were never as strong. (The comment about the highest competition being mid 2000s comment was pretty funny.)
Of course, Lendl had to deal with some great players, and a lot of very good ones.
So did Connors. Connors had Newcombe, Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, Ashe, smith, Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Wilander. Good players like Gerulitas, Okker, Clerc, Tanner, Mayer etc. Like Lendl, some of these guys longer periods of time than others.

I think Connors was a hair better than Lendl, but it is certainly debatable. Had McEnroe had two or more great years than maybe he would be ahead of Connors and Lendl. But he didn't.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the Connors era wasn't strong, but you don't have to mention Smith and Nastase twice to prove your point.
 
I vote McEnroe, he won most of his important matches/finals against his biggest rivals if I remember correctly, overall the more consistent of the bunch. And as someone said earlier, he was way past his prime when Lendl began dominating.

He would have had more slams than Lendl if he didn’t choke French Open 1984 away bahahahha
 
Career records vs top-5.

Lendl: 95-63, .601
McEnroe: 65-73, .471
Connors: 57-92, .383

Lendl was greater for longer. But Lendl was a jerk back in the day. I couldn’t stand Lendl. So, I will objectively take Mac. Why Mac? Simply because Lendl was a d***head.

McEnroe > Lendl > Connors.
 
grandefrankie said:
Lendl was dominant when McEnroe was clearly past his prime, Connors was old, and Borg was long gone. Becker didn't become a contender on hard courts until 89, and Edberg's prime was 88-92, so basically Lendl had nobody when he was dominant and won most of his slams in 85-87.
Click to expand...
from RG '84-89, Lendl had Connors (18x); Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, and Wilander (all 12x); and Gilbert, Gomez, Leconte, Mayotte, Jarryd, Mecir, Nystrom, and Cash (all 6+x)

from YEC '84 (starting in Jan '85) - YEC '87, Lendl had Connors (14x); Gilbert, Becker, Wilander, and Edberg (9+x); and Leconte, McEnroe, and Gomez (7x)

from AO '74 (starting in Dec '73) - YEC '78 (played in Jan '79), Connors had Borg (15x); Ramirez, Nastase, Tanner, Dibbs, Gerulaitis, Stockton, Gottfried (10+x); Alexander, Smith, Solomon, Fibak, Panatta, and Meiler (8+x); and Orantes, Rosewall, Mayer, Dibley, Dent, and Bengston (6+x)

from AO '74 - Las Vegas '76, Connors had Tanner (9x); Gerulaitis, Ramirez, and Meiller (8x); and Nastase, Borg, Mayer, Gottfried, and Dibbs (6-7x)

to me Connors had strength through variety of opponents, while Lendl had strength through reliability of opponents. i would struggle to say confidently that peak Connors' competition was comparable, let alone outright better - for example, were prime Nastase and pre-prime Borg more difficult than prime Wilander and late-prime McEnroe?
 
Angrybirdstar said:
for example, were prime Nastase and pre-prime Borg more difficult than prime Wilander and late-prime McEnroe?
Click to expand...

Pre prime Borg was considerably better than post prime (not late prime) McEnroe. Borg was hands down one of the 3 best players in the world starting in 74, which McEnroe definitely never was after 85. McEnroe fell off hard and massively after 84, it wasn't even slight. Also remember Connors won 3 slams in 82-83. That McEnroe while not quite as strong as 80, 81, and especialy 84, was so much better than the McEnroe that Lendl faced after 84, especialy after 85, it isn't even funny.
 
Voted Mac and it's super close, but this bears mentioning: Lendl isn't better than Mac because Lendl won a couple of Australians -- an event Mac mostly didn't attend. Some good points were also made here about #1 rankings. Different system then, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
 
grandefrankie said:
Pre prime Borg was considerably better than post prime (not late prime) McEnroe. Borg was hands down one of the 3 best players in the world starting in 74, which McEnroe definitely never was after 85.
Click to expand...
6/7 Lendl-McEnroe matches in the period i was referring to ('85-'87) happened in '85, and i think '85 was at least comparable to McEnroe's '82
grandefrankie said:
Also remember Connors won 3 slams in 82-83. That McEnroe while not quite as strong as 80, 81, and especialy 84, was so much better than the McEnroe that Lendl faced after 84, especialy after 85, it isn't even funny.
Click to expand...
Lendl was 8-3 against '81-83 McEnroe so...
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Yes, McEnroe was always such a gentle, friendly man towards everyone.
Click to expand...
Lendl had a strong accent and shaky english. And few friends and family. But the press took to him.. if not reflected in the media/image is everything.
Lendl wasnt verbally abusive or physically intimidating like mcenroe or connors.. maybe he didnt need to be as he was a bigger guy.
 
Pheasant said:
Career records vs top-5.

Lendl: 95-63, .601
McEnroe: 65-73, .471
Connors: 57-92, .383

Lendl was greater for longer. But Lendl was a jerk back in the day. I couldn’t stand Lendl. So, I will objectively take Mac. Why Mac? Simply because Lendl was a d***head.

McEnroe > Lendl > Connors.
Click to expand...

Connors > Lendl > JMac >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pmac

Jmac was an order of magnitude bigger d***head than Lendl. In fact, Lendl wasn’t a d**head at all. Some people didn’t care for his personality (I liked him. He always had a dry sense of humor I found funny) or were indifferent. I’m curious what you think Lendl did that was dickish or anything near JMac’s absolute DBaggery? The only thing I can think of is hitting a short ball directly at the opponent. But it was a legit strategy back before everyone on tour were buddies and carefully crafted player social media brands the norm. JMac was abusive to officials, opponents, fans, photographers — everyone. Connors was a real piece of work as well.



IMG-9228.jpg
 
Last edited:
There were accounts of Lendl bullying lower ranked players during his career. Mac, Connors and Lendl were all jerks during their playing careers.

And of course Lendl also regularly argued with umpires and officials during his career. The 1985 Canadian Open final, with Lendl and Mac taking it in turns to berate the umpire Jeremy Shales, and even sympathising with each other at times, was hilarious.

They were all hugely important jerks though, as Mac and Connors transcended tennis and were huge, global superstars, and while Lendl while not a transcendent figure was a revolutionary figure within the sport.

The big difference between the 3 of them, was that after retiring Lendl seemed to mature a lot and transform into a great guy, while Mac and Connors didn't and continued to act like jerks.
 
Regarding this question, I give the narrow edge to Mac, even without considering his doubles accomplishments.

- He was the only one of the trio that was dominant at the biggest and most important major / tournament around, Wimbledon. All 3 of them were dominant at the second most important major the US Open, so Mac is the only of the trio that was dominant at both of the big 2. Amongst the majors, there was a clear Wimbledon > US Open > Roland Garros > Australian Open hierarchy then.

- Davis Cup tennis was hugely important during the 70s and 80s and certainly no less important than RG at a minimum, and Mac was a Davis Cup legend. Connors is the only all-time great that played exclusively or at least won the bulk of their biggest titles (i.e. Newcombe) in the open era, that didn't play a major role in a Davis Cup winning run. That stands out.

- Indoor and indoor carpet tennis was hugely important during those decades (though admittedly the power shift from indoor carpet to outdoor hard events started from the mid-80s), and made up a sizeable percentage of both the overall circuit and the most lucrative tournaments around. All 3 were great under a roof / on carpet, but I'd give the edge to Mac over Lendl, with both of them ranking ahead of Connors there.

Total weeks spent as world no. 1 was an irrelevant metric before the ATP tour formation and standardisation in 1990. All 3 players were genuinely the best in 3 different seasons, Connors in 1974, 1976 and 1982, Mac in 1981, 1983 and 1984, and Lendl in 1985, 1986 and 1987. Clearly Mac's 1984 is widely considered to be the greatest individual season compiled by any of the 3.

Overall grand slam counting wasn't a big deal until Sampras closed in on Emerson's record in the late 90s, which was previously considered to be meaningless with Borg not caring about going after it.

Connors having 1 more major than Mac is pretty much irrelevant as the difference is basically his lightweight 1974 AO title - his Indianapolis title from later that year for example should carry far more weight than that. Plus he got a lucky break with Borg's thumb injury rendering the 1978 USO final an effective walkover.

Lendl having 1 more major than Mac is also irrelevant, given that both players would have clearly preferred to end up with Mac's distribution over Lendl's (3 more Wimbledon titles and 1 more US Open title). Plus he also got a lucky break with Edberg's abdominal injury throughout the 1990 AO final (and Edberg still served for a 2 sets to love lead).
 
Last edited:
I think the additional major counts, so Mcenroe is last. But in terms of talent and ability - it's Mcenroe but a distance. Also the best to watch out of the bunch, he's like the only player before the 90's I don't get bored watching. Cracking little player.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Based on what.

He could not even win Wimbledon/USOpen or finish year at number 1.

This is baseless.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think out of all the 8x slam winners, Agassi stands alone. He had to face the specialists of specialists in the 90's, then was still facing Federer/Nadal in the mid 00's still making it competitive with them.

There is no way Lendl, Connors or Mcenroe are hanging with Federer of 04 at Agassi's age, or Federer/Nadal of 05 at Agassi's age.
 
I've posted before that I think all three are about equal. Connors' dominance was perhaps the best (in statistical terms at least, i.e. slam wins/finals as a proportion of slams entered, and time at #1); Lendl's was almost as good and was against what I consider the toughest opposition in the Open Era; and McEnroe, while having slightly fewer singles accomplishments and less dominance, had the highest peak of all in '84, and more combined singles + doubles success. You can easily make a case for each of them.

As for who was an a***hole? Ivan has his own opinions... ;)

 
Agassi was 0-6 vs Lendl while Lendl was still ranked in the top-10.
Agassi was 0-8 vs Federer while Federer was ranked in the top-10.

Now granted, this wasn't close to peak Agassi by any means. But let's not pretend that non-prime Agassi was super-competitive with good versions of Federer and Lendl. Agassi scored his 5 wins vs those two while both were ranked outside the top-10. Fed was ranked outside the top-300 in one of those matches.
nolefam_2024 said:
I would watch both , but 30% is not even close to 30mph

Even 30% looks shockingly high. I need evidence.
Click to expand...
Lendl in 1991, which is when his back pain started creeping into his game(he finished world #5 that year, the first year he didn't end the year in the top-3 since 1980, was still hitting 112mph serves with a small flimsy racket in the Philly championship vs Sampras(hopefully, that 1991 Philly final is still on Youtube). Before that title match, writers said that whoever served better would win. That matchup was all about the serves in their minds.

What happened? Lendl out-aced Sampras 23-14 while winning that title in 5 sets. Two years later, those two met in Philly again. This was only the semis. What happened? #9 Lendl took out #2 Sampras in straights while out-acing him 11-7 in two sets. Hell, even in 1994, Lendl's last year on tour when he could barely move, he played Sampras twice on hard courts. He lost both matches in straights. But 3 of the 5 sets they played went to tiebreakers. And the crappiest version of Lendl out-aced peak Sampras 26-25 in those two matches.

Now granted, Sampras was better than Lendl, especially at serving and volleying. But I would have loved to see those two battle on hard courts and carpet during their peak(grass and clay would be massacres). But guys like Sampras and Agassi certainly weren't outhitting guys like peak Lendl by 30%. Hell, the 6 foot 4 Sinner doesn't outhit women by 30%. And yet, 5 foot 11 Agassi, will outhit a ripped 6 foot 2 peak Lendl by 30%? That is pure comedy right there.

As far as Lendl being a d***head, I only jokingly said that because Lendl was 7-3 vs Mac in their HTH at slams, which really ticked me off. As much as I like Mac, I clearly recognize that he was never Mr. Manners on a tennis court.
 
Pheasant said:
Agassi was 0-6 vs Lendl while Lendl was still ranked in the top-10.
Agassi was 0-8 vs Federer while Federer was ranked in the top-10.

Now granted, this wasn't close to peak Agassi by any means. But let's not pretend that non-prime Agassi was super-competitive with good versions of Federer and Lendl. Agassi scored his 5 wins vs those two while both were ranked outside the top-10. Fed was ranked outside the top-300 in one of those matches.

Lendl in 1991, which is when his back pain started creeping into his game(he finished world #5 that year, the first year he didn't end the year in the top-3 since 1980, was still hitting 112mph serves with a small flimsy racket in the Philly championship vs Sampras(hopefully, that 1991 Philly final is still on Youtube). Before that title match, writers said that whoever served better would win. That matchup was all about the serves in their minds.

What happened? Lendl out-aced Sampras 23-14 while winning that title in 5 sets. Two years later, those two met in Philly again. This was only the semis. What happened? #9 Lendl took out #2 Sampras in straights while out-acing him 11-7 in two sets. Hell, even in 1994, Lendl's last year on tour when he could barely move, he played Sampras twice on hard courts. He lost both matches in straights. But 3 of the 5 sets they played went to tiebreakers. And the crappiest version of Lendl out-aced peak Sampras 26-25 in those two matches.

Now granted, Sampras was better than Lendl, especially at serving and volleying. But I would have loved to see those two battle on hard courts and carpet during their peak(grass and clay would be massacres). But guys like Sampras and Agassi certainly weren't outhitting guys like peak Lendl by 30%. Hell, the 6 foot 4 Sinner doesn't outhit women by 30%. And yet, 5 foot 11 Agassi, will outhit a ripped 6 foot 2 peak Lendl by 30%? That is pure comedy right there.

As far as Lendl being a d***head, I only jokingly said that because Lendl was 7-3 vs Mac in their HTH at slams, which really ticked me off. As much as I like Mac, I clearly recognize that he was never Mr. Manners on a tennis court.
Click to expand...
To be honest , it seems a crime that Lendl has just as many slams as Andre Agassi. Lendl is Pete/Fed/Nole level dominant player.

Andre is number 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

grafselesfan
Connors vs McEnroe vs Lendl vs Agassi
2
Replies
80
Views
10K
Borgforever
B
Mayonnaise
  • Poll Poll
Who is greater? Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl?
6 7 8
Replies
393
Views
179K
Tshooter
Tshooter
C
"Big" Matches: Connors/Borg/McEnroe and Connors/McEnroe/Lendl
Replies
9
Views
3K
chaognosis
C
M
Is it accurate that McEnroe and Agassi are always ranked behind Connors and Lendl
Replies
38
Views
1K
bigbadboaz
B
M
What order do you rank Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi in as far as greatness
2
Replies
82
Views
3K
jrepac
J
Back
Top