Whose better, Agassi or Mcenroe?

[pjonesy]

If you compare just singles it would have to be Agassi. But overall as a tennis player, playing doubles and singles it would have to be Mcenroe. I defintely think in both their primes on any surface Agassi would knock Mcenroe off the court, very easily. Too much power and pace, even at Mcenroe's prime. You can even see this since '85 when Lendl finally figured how to beat Mc's volleying by overpowering him and lobbing him. And Agassi was pretty much a clone of Lendl.

Good post. I think if you look at their competitive careers, its about even. McEnroe came up at the perfect time for him to rise to the top with a left handed serve and volley touch game. He just got better and better until he peaked in '84. Up to that point, I feel that he could have beaten any player the world on any surface. Then the power baseline game started to rule the game and McEnroe did not have the means to handle the pace and topspin of the players like Lendl, especially on slower surfaces.

Agassi, also came at the right time. I agree, he adopted Lendl's power baseline template, but took the ball earlier and used the ultra stable 2hbh to control the ball from inside the baseline. His talent from the baseline allowed him to play for 20 years and stay competitive in the sport until he hit his last ball.

McEnroe is still a bigger name in my opinion, as he has continued to stay in the game through broadcasting. McEnroe also had a more unique game than Agassi, that will probably never be forgotten or duplicated. But, Agassi has done more to advance the style of tennis we see currently. 90% of the guys on the tour are playing Agassi's basic power baseline game. Agassi was very influential in that respect.

Competitive career: push
Unique game style: McEnroe
Influential game style: Agassi
Head to Head: Agassi
Historical Value: McEnroe

That's how I see it. I like McEnroe more, so I could say McEnroe is better. But honestly, I see them as dead even.

 

[kiki]

IMO

19. McEnroe
20. Agassi

I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.

 

[kiki]

Good post. I think if you look at their competitive careers, its about even. McEnroe came up at the perfect time for him to rise to the top with a left handed serve and volley touch game. He just got better and better until he peaked in '84. Up to that point, I feel that he could have beaten any player the world on any surface. Then the power baseline game started to rule the game and McEnroe did not have the means to handle the pace and topspin of the players like Lendl, especially on slower surfaces.

Agassi, also came at the right time. I agree, he adopted Lendl's power baseline template, but took the ball earlier and used the ultra stable 2hbh to control the ball from inside the baseline. His talent from the baseline allowed him to play for 20 years and stay competitive in the sport until he hit his last ball.

McEnroe is still a bigger name in my opinion, as he has continued to stay in the game through broadcasting. McEnroe also had a more unique game than Agassi, that will probably never be forgotten or duplicated. But, Agassi has done more to advance the style of tennis we see currently. 90% of the guys on the tour are playing Agassi's basic power baseline game. Agassi was very influential in that respect.

Competitive career: push
Unique game style: McEnroe
Influential game style: Agassi
Head to Head: Agassi
Historical Value: McEnroe

That's how I see it. I like McEnroe more, so I could say McEnroe is better. But honestly, I see them as dead even.

I agree with your perspective and the way you approach.However, I should add that Mac Enroe is one of the very, very, very few geniousses this sport has produced and we cannot compare a genious with a normal mortal.I don´t writte it to praise Mc, it is just that the criteria to compare is, in those cases, very difficult to compare.

But Agassi has never played in his life, even dreamt of like mac played in 1984 and in many other moments (USO 1980,WCT 1979,W 1983,USO 1981).

 

[pjonesy]

I agree with your perspective and the way you approach.However, I should add that Mac Enroe is one of the very, very, very few geniousses this sport has produced and we cannot compare a genious with a normal mortal.I don´t writte it to praise Mc, it is just that the criteria to compare is, in those cases, very difficult to compare.

But Agassi has never played in his life, even dreamt of like mac played in 1984 and in many other moments (USO 1980,WCT 1979,W 1983,USO 1981).

I can't really disagree with you. He is most certainly a genius on the tennis court, but when more athletic power players came on the scene, McEnroe could not adjust. He was beatable and certainly not the perfect tennis player. However, when you look at how competitive he is on the Champions tour, you realize what a genius he really is on the tennis court.

But, for all his accomplishments on the court, he holds a much bigger place in the hearts of all tennis fans. John McEnroe is simply the greatest personality this sport has ever known. I would put him in the same category as Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Pele or Michael Jordan. When I think of tennis, the first image or name that pops in my head is John McEnroe. There have been better tennis players and more popular tennis players, but McEnroe is synonymous with tennis. I'm not saying that he is the greatest representative or that his image is the best for the sport, but he is ingrained in the tennis world like no other.

 

[hoodjem]

I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.

Ok, fine. Not a problem. It's just an opinion.

"We can disagree without being disagreeable."

 

[pc1]

I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.[/QUOTE

Ok, fine. Not a problem. It's just an opinion.

"We can disagree without being disagreeable."

People off the top of my head who I believe may have accomplished more than Agassi or McEnroe--Tilden, Gonzalez, HL Doherty, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, Kramer, Sampras, Federer, LaCoste, Cochet, Budge, Perry, Vines, Hoad.

It's a push. I can see either fitting in among them or below all of them. I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

 

[hoodjem]

I'd pick Mac every time....he beat some of the very best to get his 7 GS (aside from Chris Lewis, LOL)

En route to his 1983 Wimbers title Mac beat Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer, and Lendl. (Connors was beaten by Kevin Curren. Lendl took out Tanner. Vilas, Edberg, Gerulaitis, Wilander were all there but lost in early rounds. )

 

[kiki]

I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.[/QUOTE



It's a push. I can see either fitting in among them or below all of them. I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

They were all greats but we also should put in perspective, not just single records, but the eras and the competition they had in front.I mean, Doherty would only have to give an effort when playing his brother or one more guy.Lacoste,Tilden and Cochet did not have strong fields until the SF there were easy put aways - without diminishing their great talent, but at least, Mc has as much as any of them and probably more-.

If you balance number of big titles ( not just GS but Masters and WCT too) and that competitive context, guys like Mac but also Newcombe,Wilander,becker&Edberg, still Nadal deserve to be spelled in the same breath, at the very least as some of those other names.In tennis, I think, there are many " ex aqueo"

 

[kiki]

En route to his 1983 Wimbers title Mac beat Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer, and Lendl. (Connors was beaten by Kevin Curren. Lendl took out Tanner. Vilas, Edberg, Gerulaitis, Wilander were all there but lost in early rounds. )

Yes, he did beat Lendl easily in his Sf.To me, and I know I may be repeating myself ( it is the last time, promised) his most astonishing perf was beating, one after the other, lendl,Connors and Borg at the 1980 USo.1 Tb and 1 set lost to Lendl, a 5 setter ended in TB vs Connors, a 5 setter with 2 TB against Bjorn...probably one of the greatest feats in any professional sport that one can recall ( it is like winning the world cup beating Italy then Germany then Brazil...with all their top stars in the team¡¡¡)

 

[kiki]

The best or one of the best definitions ever made for Mc´s game was this one from that very smart and literated man called Arthur Robert Ashe:

"When you play top form Borg or Connors, you feel like you are hammered mercilessly.When you play that kid (Mc), you feel like you are cut with a scalp.One slice here, one top spin approach there, one deft volley later...he cuts you into pieces.The wounds aren´t deep, but you bleed to death"

I really love it.


Another one: " He just inventes shots that were not in the textbook, and he writtes them off the textbook afterwards"

 

[CityTennis22]

McEnroe was a great player in the history of power serving and volleying. Agassi was ahead of his time though, because he had to construct points with his groundies. It made tennis fun to watch and gave us an inkling of how entertaining tennis could become with Federer and Nadal. Don't get me wrong. I love watching old tennis, but baseline tennis did give us the greatest match of all time at Wimbledon '08. Between the two, I think McEnroe was a better player in his prime.

 

[Datacipher]

. Agassi was ahead of his time though, because he had to construct points with his groundies. It made tennis fun to watch and gave us an inkling of how entertaining tennis could become .

.....ROFL! ;-)

 

[hoodjem]

I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

Hmmmm.

You might be right. I certainly do respect your opinion. But I have Nadal already ahead of Agassi on my list.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

Nadal is clearly ahead of Agassi. More slams, more Masters titles, an addition year end #1, a 3 slam year, slams on every surface, atleast one slam 6 years in a row. I am a big fan of both but sorry it isnt even close at this point.

 

[Moose Malloy]

En route to his 1983 Wimbers title Mac beat Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer, and Lendl. (Connors was beaten by Kevin Curren. Lendl took out Tanner. Vilas, Edberg, Gerulaitis, Wilander were all there but lost in early rounds. )

Edberg was just some unknown kid ranked in the 300's at the time of 1983 Wimbledon. I wouldn't use his prescence in the field as an indication of the quality of the field.

Yes, he did beat Lendl easily in his Sf

He only broke Lendl twice, not that easy a match. Lendl served great that day(over 70%)

I may be repeating myself ( it is the last time, promised) his most astonishing perf was beating, one after the other, lendl,Connors and Borg at the 1980 USo.1 Tb and 1 set lost to Lendl, a 5 setter ended in TB vs Connors, a 5 setter with 2 TB against Bjorn...probably one of the greatest feats in any professional sport that one can recall

its even more impressive when you hear what his schedule was like the last 4 days of the tournament:

Thursday night: QF with Lendl
Friday: 5 set doubles final
Saturday night: SF with Connors
Sunday final, 4 pm start time: Final with Borg

 

[SusanDK]

Edberg was just some unknown kid ranked in the 300's at the time of 1983 Wimbledon. I wouldn't use his prescence in the field as an indication of the quality of the field.

I was thinking the same thing. What was Edberg, 17 years old at the time? Wasn't 1983 the year that Edberg won the Junior Grand Slam? So did he compete in both the Juniors and main draw the same year?

 

[kiki]

Edberg was just some unknown kid ranked in the 300's at the time of 1983 Wimbledon. I wouldn't use his prescence in the field as an indication of the quality of the field.



He only broke Lendl twice, not that easy a match. Lendl served great that day(over 70%)



its even more impressive when you hear what his schedule was like the last 4 days of the tournament:

Thursday night: QF with Lendl
Friday: 5 set doubles final
Saturday night: SF with Connors
Sunday final, 4 pm start time: Final with Borg

Oh yeah¡¡ what a nightmare schedule.Just after writting that, I realized I should also be fair to Borg.He won the 1979 Masters ( 3 set matches) beating: first Tanner,Next Connors,following mac, closing up with Vitas.it is really amazing and might be the best tennis Borg ever played.He beat nº 5,3,2,4 of the world in 4 consecutive days¡¡¡.His rr vs Connors and Sf vs Mac are considered 2 of the all time great indoor games.

 

[Tennis Dunce]

I love in the new Agassi book that it was actually Mac who had his hands on those denim jeans shorts when a Nike rep was handing out gear and he uttered something to the effect..."what the **** is this ****?" and then handed them to Agassi. The rest is history...

Imagine if Mac had kept them LOL.

 

[kiki]

It´s been just very few years ago that Agassi retired.Mac did so almost 20 years ago.So, in the mind of fans, memories of Andre still weight more than memories on Mac.But, in my opinion, even though both have been players that define or hep define their eras, Mc Enroe will always be of a more special breed than Agassi, he was a bigger personality.

In terms of technichal legacy, however, it is almost impossible to have another JMac, while most of today players look like a modern version of Agassi ( though quite lesser talented than Andre,IMO)

 

[db379]

McEnroe was clearly the better player, and will remain as such in history. When McEnroe was at the top he was dominant, as much as Federer, Nadal or Sampras. He was the main rival of the greatest player of the late 70s and early 80s, Bjorn Borg. These two were really consistently at the top. For 4-5 years in the early 80s, McEnroe was THE man to beat (although his clay game was not that great). McEnroe won 77 singles ATP titles vs. 60 to Agassi, even though Agassi played longer than Mac.

Agassi was a phenomenon and he should have achieved more than he did. The problem with Agassi is that he was too inconsistent, he had the potential to be #1 for longer than he did, but he had so many ups and downs, probably due to his personal demons in his early years. He really should have won his first two French open finals, but just let them get away.

 

[kiki]

Mc Enroe retired in 1992, the year Agassi won his first slam at Wimbledon.

Agassi lasted more years at the top of the echelon ( 1990-2005) but he hardly reached or was able to reach the level a peak Mac offered ( unfortunately for us, he almost went off tennis by 1986)

 

[NadalAgassi]

Agassi for me is greater than McEnroe since he fought back from adversity and downs and kept on going. Once things got tough for McEnroe he just gave up.

Agassi also has 1 more slam despite that McEnroe was a frequent participient at all the slams for many years (even if he skipped some earlier on). Heck Agassi probably skipped or missed more slams in his career than McEnroe and still won 1 more slam. Not to mention McEnroe hasnt won 2 of the 4 slams, compare that to Agassi who of course won all 4. And missing some French or Australians is not an excuse, look at all the Australians and Wimbledons that Agassi skipped and still won at both venues.

 

[ATP100]

Your pick plz, whose the better player, Agassi or Mcenroe, two famous tennis americans.

Steffi Agassi was better.

 

[Datacipher]

Agassi for me is greater than McEnroe since he fought back from adversity and downs and kept on going. Once things got tough for McEnroe he just gave up.

Wow...honestly..you have to be a real fanboy to give Agassi much credit for this. Besides the issue of whether coming back from adversity is a critical measure of "greatness", the VAST MAJORITY of Agassi's "adversity" was simply self-created BS drama.

Agassi also has 1 more slam despite that McEnroe was a frequent participient at all the slams for many years (even if he skipped some earlier on). Heck Agassi probably skipped or missed more slams in his career than McEnroe and still won 1 more slam. .

WHAT?! Agassi had to have played more slams than Mcenroe!! Weird.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Wow...honestly..you have to be a real fanboy to give Agassi much credit for this. Besides the issue of whether coming back from adversity is a critical measure of "greatness", the VAST MAJORITY of Agassi's "adversity" was simply self-created BS drama.

Of course slumps arent a great thing. The difference is Agassi always came back from his slumps and they never lasted more than a couple years max. McEnroe began a bad slump at around age 26 and never left it the remainder of his still long career.

And McEnroe's drug use, crazy wife, wandering motivation, werent self created BS drama as well?

WHAT?! Agassi had to have played more slams than Mcenroe!! Weird.

I am pretty sure Agassi missed or skipped more slams than McEnroe. If he played more it is only because he had an even longer career, staying very competitive until 36, which is not something that should be held against him obviously.

 

[drakulie]

Wow...honestly..you have to be a real fanboy to give Agassi much credit for this. Besides the issue of whether coming back from adversity is a critical measure of "greatness", the VAST MAJORITY of Agassi's "adversity" was simply self-created BS drama.


WHAT?! Agassi had to have played more slams than Mcenroe!! Weird.

agassi missed 22 slams.

mcenroe missed 19 slams, although he played less total slams.

 

[borg number one]

Looking at the numbers, Agassi played in 61 major tournaments and won 8 majors (looking on the ATP site). Meanwhile, McEnroe won 7 majors total, but played in 45 major tournaments. That's a 13.1% win rate for Agassi vs. a 15.6% win rate for McEnroe. McEnroe only played in the Australian Open on five occasions during his career, which spanned from 1977-1992. In 1977, he lost in the second round at the French Open to Phil Dent, father of Taylor Dent. At his last major tournament, in 1992 at the US Open, he lost in the Round of 16 to Jim Courier.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Looking at the numbers, Agassi played in 61 major tournaments and won 8 majors (looking on the ATP site). Meanwhile, McEnroe won 7 majors total, but played in 45 major tournaments. That's a 13.1% win rate for Agassi vs. 15.6% win rate for McEnroe.

Well he could have played until 36 as Agassi did, won none of his remaining slams (obviously) and then his win % would be slightly worse than Agassi.

 

[Datacipher]

Well he could have played until 36 as Agassi did, won none of his remaining slams (obviously) and then his win % would be slightly worse than Agassi.

OR...Mac could have stopped playing in 85 and had a record completely untouchable by Agassi.

No, C'mon now, your argument: slams vs slams played, was already ridiculous (WAY too many variables to make a valid argument)....now with the projected slams played, you're off into silly-land.

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

 

[Chopin]

OR...Mac could have stopped playing in 85 and had a record completely untouchable by Agassi.

No, C'mon now, your argument: slams vs slams played, was already ridiculous (WAY too many variables to make a valid argument)....now with the projected slams played, you're off into silly-land.

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

Data, I might agree that Mac would have had a chance against Andre Medvedev, but I'm pretty sure he'd be out cold against the other Medvedev.

 

[NadalAgassi]

OR...Mac could have stopped playing in 85 and had a record completely untouchable by Agassi.

No, C'mon now, your argument: slams vs slams played, was already ridiculous (WAY too many variables to make a valid argument)....now with the projected slams played, you're off into silly-land.

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

OK lets just stick to the facts then. 8 slams vs 7. Winner of all 4 slams vs a guy who didnt even win 2 of the 4 slams ever. Advantage Agassi. The only reason I brought up all the slams Agassi missed is I was sure that would be brought up as McEnroe's excuse for say not winning the Australian when he played it many times, even if not all in his prime (he failed to win it even on grass vs someone like Wilander in his prime in 1983 though).

 

[abmk]

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

medvedev ? really ? considering how well he was playing and how agassi had to lift his game to come back into the match along with medvedev's level dropping to an extent

 

[NadalAgassi]

Medvedev beat Kuerten in straight sets at that French Open in one of many years Kuerten was heavily favored to win. I dont even want to imagine what he would do with a 30 year old McEnroe who had been past his prime for 4 years plus on clay.

 

[Mustard]

Medvedev won 4 masters titles (1994 Monte Carlo, 1994 Hamburg, 1995 Hamburg, 1997 Hamburg) and lost to eventual champion of the French Open in 1992 (Courier), 1993 & 1994 (Bruguera), 1995 (Muster), 1997 (Kuerten) and 1999 (Agassi).

Medvedev is one of the best clay-court players never to win the French Open.

 

[Datacipher]

medvedev ? really ? considering how well he was playing and how agassi had to lift his game to come back into the match along with medvedev's level dropping to an extent

That's true, he was playing exceptionally well....for a while. In the end...he didn't have it when it really counted...he never did. That's what seperates the great champs...and in that sense....even though Agassi was largely outplayed...it was no surprise that in the end, he was left standing.

But, I wasn't analyzing to the detail of THAT particular match....after all...it's pretty meaningless....even in some strange universe where everything else was exactly equal, who knows how Medvedev might have reacted to going out, and playing against Mcenroe.

Even if I did, I might expect the same small cracks in his zoned play, against a champ like Mac.....then of course there's the issue of style. Mac obviously was not at his best on clay, but man, he could play on it....he certainly was capable of even outplaying a Lendl on clay. In terms of style, it actually helped Med against Agassi. Basically he played the same game, and because he was a bigger man, in the zone, he was outhitting Andre, and Andre didn't really a big way to turn it around....he can vary his groundies....from more top to less....and....that's about it....again...well within Med's baseline bashign comfort zone. Even in the zone, the wily Mcenroe, with his SV, dinks, chips, angles, net rushes, pushing, drops, etc. might have pulled Med out of that zone.....who knows?

In any case, I would always highly favour a Mac or Agassi against Med, no matter how well Med CAN play when in the zone....Mac or Agassi in the zone, is still probably better...and they are more likely to be there....especially when it really counts. Might Med beat them in a particular match? SURE. Is it likely...in his first slam final....NOPE. Really....credit to Med for coming that close, and playing well that long.

 

[Datacipher]

Medvedev beat Kuerten in straight sets at that French Open in one of many years Kuerten was heavily favored to win. I dont even want to imagine what he would do with a 30 year old McEnroe who had been past his prime for 4 years plus on clay.

LOL! Well....this is where we find out who really understands tennis. You're probably one of those kids who thought "Man! Tsonga's going to win this AO!!!" or...."this is Fernando Gonzalez's year!!!" He's going to CRUSH the other guy in the final!!!

 

[Gizo]

For me Agassi should have won the French Open in 1991 (even Courier admits that without the rain delay he would have lost the final), but shouldn't have won it 1999, so his luck balanced out there, and winning one French Open title was exactly right for him.

Of course the quarter-final results in 1999 worked out perfectly for him with Kuerten (the best player on clay that year), Rios (a very bad match-up for him) and Corretja (who was ill) all being eliminated. I've heard a lot of people think that before his illness, 1999 was Corretja's real chance to win the French Open, even ahead of the years when he was a runner-up of semi-finalist.

And despite Agassi's longevity McEnroe only won 6 matches less than him. Mac did have 10 top 10 finishes which means his longevity wasn't exactly bad either, but of course Agassi's 16 top 10 finishes is incredibly impressive. Amazingly Connors effectively had 17 top finishes in a row from from 1972 to 1988 (there was no ATP ranking computer in 1972 but he was clearly a top 10 player that year).

I do think peak McEnroe was better than peak Agassi on grass, indoor and hard courts (Mac played a much higher standard of tennis at the US Open than Agassi did at the Australian Open). Of course Agassi was better on clay. Mac wasn't useless on the surface though. In McEnroe's best years at the French Open he was eliminated twice by Lendl and twice by Wilander, who are the 3rd and 4th best players on clay of the open era.

I think that McEnroe's greater domination of the game at his peak, record at the non-slam events and Davis Cup record outweighs Agassi's one extra grand slam title and career grand slam. Agassi's lack of domination with him only having one year as the best player in the world is why I rank him below Connors, Lendl and McEnroe.

 

[borg number one]

As far as peak performance, I'd give the edge to McEnroe over Agassi. In terms of overall records, see their numbers below.

McEnroe
Majors- 167-38 (81.5%)
Overall- 875-198 (81.5%)
Total Titles-77
Majors-7 (3 W, 4 US Open)

Agassi
Majors-224-53 (80.9%)
Overall-870-274 (76%)
Total Titles-59
Majors-8 (4 AO,1 W, 1 FO, 2 US Open)

 

[borg number one]

I think that McEnroe achieved a level of play that was above anything I ever saw from Agassi. Agassi was a great player, but I would give the edge to McEnroe if I had to choose between the two on every surface besides red clay. Even there, I think McEnroe would have his chances against Agassi on a given day. Through 1985, he had to face off against very tough clay courter greats such as Borg, Vilas, Clerc and Lendl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_bWEg0UuBw ('83 Davis Cup)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-VX_7H0GE&playnext=1&list=PL4E3BD6717BC80760&index=21 ('81 FO QF)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-VX_7H0GE&playnext=1&list=PL4E3BD6717BC80760&index=21 ('84 FO Final)


McEnroe was #1 for three years, which is important to consider. He also faced a ton of competition, starting with Connors, Borg, and Lendl. I have had a chance to watch both of them play live in Houston. In close matches, as far as the mental aspect, I'd give the edge to McEnroe if we consider McEnroe until about 1985.

 

[NadalAgassi]

LOL! Well....this is where we find out who really understands tennis. You're probably one of those kids who thought "Man! Tsonga's going to win this AO!!!" or...."this is Fernando Gonzalez's year!!!" He's going to CRUSH the other guy in the final!!!

Hardly. Federer was a far better hard court player than Nadal in early 2007. I would have been shocked if Gonzalez had beaten Federer in the 2007 final. I felt the 2008 final between Tsonga and Djokovic was close to a toss up with a slight edge to Djokovic, and lo and behold Djokovic won in 4 tough sets so I was about right. So your point is what exactly?

 

[NadalAgassi]

That's true, he was playing exceptionally well....for a while. In the end...he didn't have it when it really counted...he never did. That's what seperates the great champs...and in that sense....even though Agassi was largely outplayed...it was no surprise that in the end, he was left standing.

But, I wasn't analyzing to the detail of THAT particular match....after all...it's pretty meaningless....even in some strange universe where everything else was exactly equal, who knows how Medvedev might have reacted to going out, and playing against Mcenroe.

Even if I did, I might expect the same small cracks in his zoned play, against a champ like Mac.....then of course there's the issue of style. Mac obviously was not at his best on clay, but man, he could play on it....he certainly was capable of even outplaying a Lendl on clay. In terms of style, it actually helped Med against Agassi. Basically he played the same game, and because he was a bigger man, in the zone, he was outhitting Andre, and Andre didn't really a big way to turn it around....he can vary his groundies....from more top to less....and....that's about it....again...well within Med's baseline bashign comfort zone. Even in the zone, the wily Mcenroe, with his SV, dinks, chips, angles, net rushes, pushing, drops, etc. might have pulled Med out of that zone.....who knows?

In any case, I would always highly favour a Mac or Agassi against Med, no matter how well Med CAN play when in the zone....Mac or Agassi in the zone, is still probably better...and they are more likely to be there....especially when it really counts. Might Med beat them in a particular match? SURE. Is it likely...in his first slam final....NOPE. Really....credit to Med for coming that close, and playing well that long.

Reality check, you were talking about a 30 year old McEnroe not a prime McEnroe: Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

McEnroe played the French Open 4 times age 28 or older. He lost 1st round in 3 of the 4 to De La Pena, Nicolas Kulti, and Andrei Cherkasov. Only one he made the 4th round and lost to Lendl in straight sets. Yet this version of McEnroe was going to beat an on fire Medvedev at the French, LOL! Thanks for the laughs.

As for even being certain of beating Clement and Schuettler (who was a top 10 player that year)in slam finals at that age would you like me to post McEnroe's slam results and losses at the other 3 slams by that point too.

 

[Datacipher]

Hardly. Federer was a far better hard court player than Nadal in early 2007. I would have been shocked if Gonzalez had beaten Federer in the 2007 final. I felt the 2008 final between Tsonga and Djokovic was close to a toss up with a slight edge to Djokovic, and lo and behold Djokovic won in 4 tough sets so I was about right. So your point is what exactly?

Unreal. I assume you're a very young man....we're not talking x's and o's here....read my reply to abmk. If you don't get it... you don't get it.

 

[abmk]

That's true, he was playing exceptionally well....for a while. In the end...he didn't have it when it really counted...he never did. That's what seperates the great champs...and in that sense....even though Agassi was largely outplayed...it was no surprise that in the end, he was left standing.

But, I wasn't analyzing to the detail of THAT particular match....after all...it's pretty meaningless....even in some strange universe where everything else was exactly equal, who knows how Medvedev might have reacted to going out, and playing against Mcenroe.

Even if I did, I might expect the same small cracks in his zoned play, against a champ like Mac.....then of course there's the issue of style. Mac obviously was not at his best on clay, but man, he could play on it....he certainly was capable of even outplaying a Lendl on clay. In terms of style, it actually helped Med against Agassi. Basically he played the same game, and because he was a bigger man, in the zone, he was outhitting Andre, and Andre didn't really a big way to turn it around....he can vary his groundies....from more top to less....and....that's about it....again...well within Med's baseline bashign comfort zone. Even in the zone, the wily Mcenroe, with his SV, dinks, chips, angles, net rushes, pushing, drops, etc. might have pulled Med out of that zone.....who knows?

In any case, I would always highly favour a Mac or Agassi against Med, no matter how well Med CAN play when in the zone....Mac or Agassi in the zone, is still probably better...and they are more likely to be there....especially when it really counts. Might Med beat them in a particular match? SURE. Is it likely...in his first slam final....NOPE. Really....credit to Med for coming that close, and playing well that long.

would have agreed if it were prime mac we were talking about, but not 30 year old mac.

agassi had to play more aggressive and really raised his level of play , it wasn't that medvedev had a huge collapse or sth like that, his level came down, but it wasn't a huge drop ....

coming down from 2 sets down in a grand slam final is a fine fine feat ... Just curious, how many have done it in the open era ?

 

[pc1]

coming down from 2 sets down in a grand slam final is a fine fine feat ... Just curious, how many have done it in the open era ?

Besides Agassi in 1999 Borg did it in 1974 against Orantes in the French Open.
Lendl did it against peak McEnroe in 1984 in the French Open.
Gaudio won against Coria in the 2004 French Open.

Aside from Agassi it all seems to be at the French with years ending in four. I suppose we have a good chance to see a two set comeback in the 2014 French Open final. lol.

It's not the Open Era but the most incredible series of comebacks in a major has to be Henri Cochet in the 1927 Wimbledon. Cochet was down by two sets in each of the last three matches and won the tournament.

Cochet's semi against Bill Tilden was incredible. Cochet lost the first two sets and was down 5-1 to Tilden in the third set and won 17 straight points to win the set. He obviously won the last two sets to advance to the final against Jean Borotra.

Cochet as I wrote before lost the first two sets in the final. He won the next two sets to tie the match but was in a major crisis again in the fifth set. He survived 6 match points to win the final 7-5 in the fifth. He was also down 3-5 in the fifth.

 

[krosero]

Besides Agassi in 1999 Borg did it in 1974 against Orantes in the French Open.
Lendl did it against peak McEnroe in 1984 in the French Open.
Gaudio won against Coria in the 2004 French Open.

Aside from Agassi it all seems to be at the French with years ending in four. I suppose we have a good chance to see a two set comeback in the 2014 French Open final. lol.

Hey don't laugh. It could happen and then we'll have to revive this thread! LOL

 

[pc1]

Hey don't laugh. It could happen and then we'll have to revive this thread! LOL

If that happens I could be the first tennis futurian.

 

[krosero]

If that happens I could be the first tennis futurian.

You'll have to study up on the future first. Crack open those books. It's a very, very serious business.

 

[pc1]

You'll have to study up on the future first. Crack open those books. It's a very, very serious business.

It's tough getting those time machines to get future books. And the future books are expensive.

To get a bit on topic, I may just rank McEnroe a little ahead of Agassi in career accomplishments and peak level. Mac won actually around 100 tournaments plus 7 majors. But the thing is that he played in an era when the players played in essentially 3 majors a year, if that. Tournaments like the Year End Masters and the WCT championship were really majors in those days and Mac won 3 Year End Masters plus 5 WCT finals.

Agassi won 60 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. Agassi won 1 Year End Masters also.

 

[krosero]

It's tough getting those time machines to get future books. And the future books are expensive.

To get a bit on topic, I may just rank McEnroe a little ahead of Agassi in career accomplishments and peak level. Mac won actually around 100 tournaments plus 7 majors. But the thing is that he played in an era when the players played in essentially 3 majors a year, if that. Tournaments like the Year End Masters and the WCT championship were really majors in those days and Mac won 3 Year End Masters plus 5 WCT finals.

Agassi won 60 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. Agassi won 1 Year End Masters also.

I'm glad you're mentioning the WCT Finals in Dallas. Mac had some big wins there over Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg (even Agassi in a retirement). You could argue his 5 Dallas titles count more heavily than his 3 Masters, but it's his Masters that are generally remembered today -- because the Masters still exists as a tournament, while Dallas is gone.

McEnroe recalled himself how big an event Dallas was when he won it in '79. Maybe it wasn't as big as in the days that Rosewall and Laver played it, but no doubt it was huge.

Interesting that when Mac won Dallas in '79, he had won the Masters a few months earlier. But Sports Illustrated described the Dallas victory, not the Masters, like the moment when McEnroe really "arrived" at the top of the game.

 

[borg number one]

PC1, I like the futurian idea, that's great, or perhaps you're a tennis futurist? Krosero, that's a good point about the WCT tournament! McEnroe had some great results there, winning 5 of 8 finals. The WCT Finals Tournament was a big money, very prestigious event held in Dallas, Texas as you know. Lamar Hunt was so influential back then. The Masters at Madison Square Garden was another big event, which was treated much like a major back then. For example, Borg did well at the '79 and '80 Masters YEC events, played in Jan. of '80 and '81. He won both of those events indoors, facing Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe and going 5-0. Both he and McEnroe were great indoor players, as was Lendl, and Connors as well of course.

See this info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCT_Finals

1971 Ken Rosewall d. Rod Laver 6–4, 1–6, 7–6, 7–6
1972 Ken Rosewall d. Rod Laver 4–6, 6–0, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6
1973 Stan Smith d. Arthur Ashe 6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4
1974 John Newcombe d. Björn Borg 4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–2
1975 Arthur Ashe d. Björn Borg 3–6, 6–4, 6–4, 6–0
1976 Björn Borg d. Guillermo Vilas 1–6, 6–1, 7–5, 6–1
1977 Jimmy Connors d. Dick Stockton 6–7, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3
1978 Vitas Gerulaitis d. Eddie Dibbs 6–3, 6–2, 6–1
1979 John McEnroe d. Björn Borg 7–5, 4–6, 6–2, 7–6
1980 Jimmy Connors d. John McEnroe 2–6, 7–6, 6–1, 6–2
1981 John McEnroe d. Johan Kriek 6–1, 6–2, 6–4
1982 Ivan Lendl d. John McEnroe 6–2, 3–6, 6–3, 6–3
1983 John McEnroe d. Ivan Lendl 6–2, 4–6, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6
1984 John McEnroe d. Jimmy Connors 6–1, 6–2, 6–3
1985 Ivan Lendl d. Tim Mayotte 7–6, 6–4, 6–1
1986 Anders Järryd d.Boris Becker 6–7, 6–1, 6–1, 6–4
1987 Miloslav Mečíř d. John McEnroe 6–0, 3–6, 6–2, 6–2
1988 Boris Becker d. Stefan Edberg 6–4, 1–6, 7–5, 6–2
1989 John McEnroe d. Brad Gilbert 6–3, 6–3, 7–6