Why I now think Lendl was greater than McEnroe

[sandy mayer]

I used to say that McEnroe was greater than Lendl because McEnroe won Wimbledon 3 times and Lendl never did, and in the 80s Wimbledon was more important than the Australian. Lendl was desperate to win Wimbledon.

I think as well my judgement was influenced by being British (in the 80s in Britain Wimbledon got alot more attention than anything else in tennis) and also the legend of the Borg McEnroe rivalry, which generated far more excitement than any of Lendl's rivalries.

However, we have to look at overall career accomplishments, and because of that I now give the edge to Lendl as a singles player.

Let's look at the areas of comparison:
Grand slams: I actually have it as a tie because 2 of Lendl's wins were Australian Opens. When he won it twice it had grown much in prestige from the early 80s, but it was still the least important of the four slams
Tournament wins: Lendl wins (including year end finals).
Time as number 1: I give this a tie because both had 3 clear year end number 1s
Time as a top three player: Lendl
Time as a top ten player: Lendl
Head to head: Lendl. This is significant because they are similar in age.
Best year: Mac (1984)

Lendl tops most criteria. The reason why is because McEnroe's career after the age of 25 did so little to enhance his career as an all time great.

 

[hoodjem]

Yes. (I've had Lendl ahead for some years now.)

I seem to recall an interview with Mac, who said something to the effect of 'who could have imagined that after 1984, I was basically done.'

 

[Weekendhacker]

Lol, most people already think Lendl is greater. Lendl was able to “hang with” and beat the big hitters like Becker and Agassi who were the next generation after him but Mac would get overwhelmed most of the time by their power.

 

[jrepac]

it's really quite close...when you look at Lendl, Connor and Mac
Really depends how much weight you put on certain components of their respective careers
Like W vs. the FO, multi-surface GS wins, weeks#1, etc
Mac also has a TREMENDOUS doubles career and Davis Cup in there

 

[BTURNER]

it's really quite close...when you look at Lendl, Connor and Mac
Really depends how much weight you put on certain components of their respective careers
Like W vs. the FO, multi-surface GS wins, weeks#1, etc
Mac also has a TREMENDOUS doubles career and Davis Cup in there

how often did Lendl even play doubles or mixed - anywhere outside team play?

Doubles
Grand Slam doubles results
Career record	187–140 (57.2%)
Career titles	6
Highest ranking	No. 20 (May 12, 1986)
Australian Open	3R (1984)
French Open	SF (1980)
Wimbledon	2R (1985)
US Open	3R (1980)

 

[WCT]

I'm surprised he played that much doubles. I didn't remember that and certainly don't remember it in GS events. I would have thought he would have skipped it there to concentrate on singles.

Of course, before he stopped playing it regularly(around 1976) Connors had some real success in doubles. Not Mcenroe type success, but GS title success.

 

[big ted]

lendls numbers are better but id rather have
mcenroe's career than lendls...

 

[Joe Li]

Lendl was greater than McEnroe. He just wasn't very popular and of course McEnroe was a pop culture icon. But in pure tennis terms, Lendl just dominated his era. And of course would have won Wimbledon multiple times with this new "grass."

 

[jorjipy]

They both won the US open 3 times in a row, and they both won their other preferred surface slam 3 times in a 4year period…..both were great indoors and have multiple Masters so they have very similar results …..Lendl only has a better record because his career was longer in that he kept going like a diesel train……I think McEnroe ruined his career with his sabbatical in 1986 so his ‘numbers’ suffered…..but really, Peak McEnroe vs Peak Lendl never happened and I think they would have split those matches 50/50

 

[big ted]

i think one thing mac had over lendl is he took the ranking from borg and connors...
in lendls best years (85-87), connors got old, mac self destructed, and edberg/becker
were still green so lendl fell into the #1 ranking more... in lendls best years his
biggest rival was probly wilander, and then wilander took over in 88..

 

[LOBALOT]

Just my opinion but if I had to sort the guys simply based on my watching them back in the day and how they dominated for an extended period I would have to say Connors > Lendl > Mac. However, if I had to sort them in talent and how much I enjoyed watching them play the list would be reverse Mac (Style, Emotions, etc.) > Lendl (Dark, Head Hunter) > Connors (a total %$#@%).

 

[hoodjem]

I have Lendl just a fraction ahead of Connors, and both much ahead of Mac.

 

[recreationalplayer]

Becker said the reason Lendl didn't win Wimbledon is because Lendl didn't believe he could do it, he put too much pressure on himself to win it. McEnroe was like a Grand Master of chess on the tennis court, working points and shots well in advance or even in a split second. Lendl didn't have that court presence; few have had it. Lendl was a grinder, McEnroe an artist. Take your pick.

 

[BTURNER]

Nobody cares about dubs at the pro level because most top pros rarely play dubs. If they did they would win constantly.
Watched young gun Alcaraz play dubs with semi retired Mark Lopez today , guess what ? They won .

I'm not interested in the opinion of the pros today. I note for the record, that contemporaries like McEnroe, Leconte, Connors, Wilander, Edberg, Cash, Noah definitely did.

 

[jrepac]

I'm not interested in the opinion of the pros today. I note for the record, that contemporaries like McEnroe, Leconte, Connors, Wilander, Edberg, Cash, Noah definitely did.

Doubles also requires a slightly different skill set. Mac was amazing at it. Connors, not too bad. Lendl, not so good. Sure, dubs was much more popular in the 80's. Seems like it's fallen out of favor, sadly. It's fun to watch a good doubles match. Mixed too.

 

[big ted]

Why?

well id rather have 3xWs & 4xUSOs than what lendl got

 

[TennisLurker]

I think Lendl was much better and an underachiver. He should have ended up with career slam and a number of majors closer to Sampras than just 8.

 

[hoodjem]

Nobody cares about dubs at the pro level because most top pros rarely play dubs. If they did they would win constantly.
Watched young gun Alcaraz play dubs with semi retired Mark Lopez today , guess what ? They won .

Yep. They should do more.
It’s good for your net game.
And a good net game complements the ground game.

 

[Waves]

Mac>Lendl. Not by much, but there is a definitive separation in these two for me…and I liked Lendl much much more, then and now.

 

[Mainad]

Becker said the reason Lendl didn't win Wimbledon is because Lendl didn't believe he could do it, he put too much pressure on himself to win it. McEnroe was like a Grand Master of chess on the tennis court, working points and shots well in advance or even in a split second. Lendl didn't have that court presence; few have had it. Lendl was a grinder, McEnroe an artist. Take your pick.

Interesting that Lendl never made another Wimbledon final after 1987 but would go on to win back to back titles at Queen's (1989-90) beating Becker in straights in the 1990 final (who had beaten Lendl in straights in the Wimbledon final 4 years earlier).

 

[Karma Tennis]

Both incredible players. Both ATGs.

But both very different. Peak McEnroe's game was most suited to grass. Peak
Lendl's game was more about Clay and Hard Court.

McEnroe played in the traditional vein.
Borg was the proto-type for the modern player.
Lendl basically took that to the next level.
And since then, we have seen an evolution which currently presents as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Becker said the reason Lendl didn't win Wimbledon is because Lendl didn't believe he could do it, he put too much pressure on himself to win it.

Becker said a lot of things and most of them were bunkum.

You don't make seven Wimbledon Semi-Finals and two Wimbledon Finals and win back-to-back titles and Queen's Club if you don't know how to play on grass.

Lendl's main challenge was that he was always going to have a hard time beating grass court specialists. Pat Cash is one of the most under-rated grass court players in history. He accounted for Lendl quite easily at Wimbledon in 1987.

 

[sandy mayer]

i think one thing mac had over lendl is he took the ranking from borg and connors...
in lendls best years (85-87), connors got old, mac self destructed, and edberg/becker
were still green so lendl fell into the #1 ranking more... in lendls best years his
biggest rival was probly wilander, and then wilander took over in 88..

I think you are underplaying Lendl's achievements. He was no transitional champ in between Connors/Mac's decline and the rise of Edberg/Becker/Wilander. And Wilander didn't 'take over' from Lendl. After Wilander's best year in 88 Lendl was better than Wilander until Lendl retired.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think you are underplaying Lendl's achievements. He was no transitional champ in between Connors/Mac's decline and the rise of Edberg/Becker/Wilander. And Wilander didn't 'take over' from Lendl. After Wilander's best year in 88 Lendl was better than Wilander until Lendl retired.

1988 is literally the only year ever Wilander was better than Lendl. Despite winning a major in 82 and 83, when Lendl won none, I wouldn't say Wilander was likely better overall either year.

 

[BillKid]

overwhelmed most of the time by their power.

A sad thing actually.

 

[jrepac]

1988 is literally the only year ever Wilander was better than Lendl. Despite winning a major in 82 and 83, when Lendl won none, I wouldn't say Wilander was likely better overall either year.

Wilander clearly had the POTENTIAL to be better than Ivan, if he had not essentially walked away from the game after 1988. These guys were very close competitors, no question.

 

[Ducky Lucky]

well id rather have 3xWs & 4xUSOs than what lendl got

2xFO 2xAO and 3xUSO? Each to their own.

 

[jrepac]

2xFO 2xAO and 3xUSO? Each to their own.

some people feel that W is more prestigious than both FO and AO.
in the 70's/early 80's , that POV is understandable given weaker FO and AO fields
Doesn't Ivan have 3 FO's , by the way?

 

[martinezownsclay]

Wilander clearly had the POTENTIAL to be better than Ivan, if he had not essentially walked away from the game after 1988. These guys were very close competitors, no question.

While anything is possible, I don't think it was that likely. Grinders primes usually ended mid 20s back then. Even Lendl's prime more or less ended around that time, even though he snuck out a couple late Australian Opens with easy-ish draws.

And Wilander didn't technically "walk away" from the game after 88. He played mostly full time another couple years, but just was burnt out/non motivated, and the power game began taking over even more.

I don't deny they were very close competitors the entire 82-88 period. Just the only year I would say Wilander really eclipsed Lendl was 1988.

 

[jrepac]

While anything is possible, I don't think it was that likely. Grinders primes usually ended mid 20s back then. Even Lendl's prime more or less ended around that time, even though he snuck out a couple late Australian Opens with easy-ish draws.

And Wilander didn't technically "walk away" from the game after 88. He played mostly full time another couple years, but just was burnt out/non motivated, and the power game began taking over even more.

I don't deny they were very close competitors the entire 82-88 period. Just the only year I would say Wilander really eclipsed Lendl was 1988.

Eh, I think Wilander mentally checked out after '88. He could've been the top guy for at least 2 more years....let's say '89 and '90, before Sampras ascended. Ironically, it was Sampras who famously knocked him out of the USO in '89. But, this was not the same Wilander. Mats had a good strategy against Ivan....the outcome depended on how well he executed it. I don't consider him a grinder, like Chang. More of an all courter like Connors.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Eh, I think Wilander mentally checked out after '88. He could've been the top guy for at least 2 more years....let's say '89 and '90, before Sampras ascended. Ironically, it was Sampras who famously knocked him out of the USO in '89. But, this was not the same Wilander. Mats had a good strategy against Ivan....the outcome depended on how well he executed it. I don't consider him a grinder, like Chang. More of an all courter like Connors.

Lendl leads Wilander 15-7 in head to head. I wouldn't say the outcome of their matches was mainly dependent on how well Wilander executed his plan.

And Wilander took 7 years as a top player to finally have his first ever year as the top player. I wouldn't say he had a high likelihood of bieng the top guy atleast another 2 more years.

I agree Wilander mentally checked out after 88, but a lot of it was his playing style that led to burn out, and the effort it took to reach where he finally did in 88.

 

[DariaGT]

Lendl leads Wilander 15-7 in head to head. I wouldn't say the outcome of their matches was mainly dependent on how well Wilander executed his plan.

And Wilander took 7 years as a top player to finally have his first ever year as the top player. I wouldn't say he had a high likelihood of bieng the top guy atleast another 2 more years.

I agree Wilander mentally checked out after 88, but a lot of it was his playing style that led to burn out, and the effort it took to reach where he finally did in 88.

His playing style was Hewitt like but with less pace and never made for fast grass as It was so boring to watch his clay efforts that his style must have bored him as well
apart from passing shots or forcing others into errors I can only remember a good swinging center serve ace but no other types of clean winners from the baseline.

How Lendl dominated with hat little heavy racquet vs a 200g and other bigger more powerful racquet swingers was really amazing, similar to Connors Tin racquet in the 80s

Look at the effort back then on clay it was like they were practicing to conserve energy for every shot

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

His playing style was Hewitt like but with less pace and never made for fast grass as It was so boring to watch his clay efforts that his style must have bored him as well
apart from passing shots or forcing others into errors I can only remember a good swinging center serve ace but no other types of clean winners from the baseline.

How Lendl dominated with hat little heavy racquet vs a 200g and other bigger more powerful racquet swingers was really amazing, similar to Connors Tin racquet in the 80s

Look at the effort back then on clay it was like they were practicing to conserve energy for every shot

He was a clever player. Maybe the smartest ever. He was very good at mixing up his game and change tactics. Just check out the US Open final in '88. Also, he mainly played S/V on grass after '86, so he was pretty good on the green stuff, but just not quite as good as a couple of the other top guys.

 

[jrepac]

His playing style was Hewitt like but with less pace and never made for fast grass as It was so boring to watch his clay efforts that his style must have bored him as well
apart from passing shots or forcing others into errors I can only remember a good swinging center serve ace but no other types of clean winners from the baseline.

How Lendl dominated with hat little heavy racquet vs a 200g and other bigger more powerful racquet swingers was really amazing, similar to Connors Tin racquet in the 80s

Look at the effort back then on clay it was like they were practicing to conserve energy for every shot

Yeah, but you have to watch him on AO grass in '83 and '84 to get a better sense of what was possible. Watching him on clay against guys like Vilas and Lendl is a totally different portrayal of his skill set. I would never call him a grinder or believe his playing style caused some sort of physical burn out. He had plenty of energy on reserve. He was incredibly steady and could mix it up...more than Lendl could, IMHO. Again, a bit more like Connors or Borg, but w/out one explosive shot. Just a range of very solid ones and smart playing tactics. Lendl did upgrade to a mid size racquet eventually, but he could really crack it with his original one. The T-2000 was truly magical for one player only, which was due to his excellent eye/hand coordination in order to get to that little trampoline sweet spot. It's a fun racket to fool around with...could not imagine playing with it on any regular sort of basis. Weighed a ton too.

 

[Ducky Lucky]

some people feel that W is more prestigious than both FO and AO.
in the 70's/early 80's , that POV is understandable given weaker FO and AO fields
Doesn't Ivan have 3 FO's , by the way?

Oopsie, yes 3 French, thanks.
Some people do feel that re Wimbledon, but I have never understood why from a tennis perspective. Was winning the French easier, lots of top players never won it, some didn't come close? Given Lendl's consistency and longevity compared with McEnroe's and that he probably does lose sleep over Wimbledon, I would pick Lendl's career.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Some people do feel that re Wimbledon, but I have never understood why from a tennis perspective. Was winning the French easier, lots of top players never won it, some didn't come close?

The whole Wimbledon mindset is a bit of a throwback to decades gone by.

Remember, up until the mid 1970s, three of the four Major Tournaments had always been played on grass courts. The outlier was the French Open that was always played on red clay.
Fans of tennis in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia traditionally favoured grass court tennis.

Winning the French Open has never been easy.

The true greats of the sport have ben able to achieve at least one Wimbledon Singles title and one Roland Garros Singles title. The rare few (greatest of the greats) have won both titles at least two times each. The even rarer (greatest of all) have achieved the Channel Slam at least twice.

 

[DariaGT]

Yeah, but you have to watch him on AO grass in '83 and '84 to get a better sense of what was possible. Watching him on clay against guys like Vilas and Lendl is a totally different portrayal of his skill set. I would never call him a grinder or believe his playing style caused some sort of physical burn out. He had plenty of energy on reserve. He was incredibly steady and could mix it up...more than Lendl could, IMHO. Again, a bit more like Connors or Borg, but w/out one explosive shot. Just a range of very solid ones and smart playing tactics. Lendl did upgrade to a mid size racquet eventually, but he could really crack it with his original one. The T-2000 was truly magical for one player only, which was due to his excellent eye/hand coordination in order to get to that little trampoline sweet spot. It's a fun racket to fool around with...could not imagine playing with it on any regular sort of basis. Weighed a ton too.

I watched him on AO grass vs KCurren and RG clay vs Noah and can add that the advantage of the graphite racquet was huge versus the little wood thing Kevin swung.
Also Kevin was not of the level Noah was and few top players went Down Under those days where even Johan Kriek won 2 AOs and even Vilas one.

Noah was 4-0 to Curren, not to say Willy was not good he had awesome speed and stroke making but the racquet in that era was a big deal
for him to be able to have such quick improvised swings for quick passing shots from anywhere. He would not achieve that with Curren's racquet
when watching that AO final.

Head To Head Matches - Chat About The Yannick Noah vs Kevin Curren Head To Head

Year	Name	Round	Surface	Winning Player	Losing Player	Score
1986	Wembley	SF	Carpet	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	7-5 6-3
1986	Philadelphia	QF	Carpet	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	6-3 7-6
1982	US Open	R128	Hard	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	6-3 7-6 6-3
1981	Richmond	R32	Carpet	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	6-7 6-3 6-4

 

[Quaichang]

Lendl leads Wilander 15-7 in head to head. I wouldn't say the outcome of their matches was mainly dependent on how well Wilander executed his plan.

And Wilander took 7 years as a top player to finally have his first ever year as the top player. I wouldn't say he had a high likelihood of bieng the top guy atleast another 2 more years.

I agree Wilander mentally checked out after 88, but a lot of it was his playing style that led to burn out, and the effort it took to reach where he finally did in 88.

Wilander’s game lacked the pace compared to power base liners like Lendl and Agassi. He was the equivalent of Hingis on the men’s tour.

 

[Winners or Errors]

2xFO 2xAO and 3xUSO? Each to their own.

Bet Mac would trade one of those US Opens for a 1984 FO…

 

[jrepac]

Oopsie, yes 3 French, thanks.
Some people do feel that re Wimbledon, but I have never understood why from a tennis perspective. Was winning the French easier, lots of top players never won it, some didn't come close? Given Lendl's consistency and longevity compared with McEnroe's and that he probably does lose sleep over Wimbledon, I would pick Lendl's career.

Setting aside doubles, I tend to go with Connors>Lendl>Mac, but it's all very debatable. I just think Lendl would readily give up those FO titles for a couple of W's. There's just a lot of prestige in winning a W, not to mention wining it more than once. Both the French and AO in the 70's were a bit problematic, with major players skipping 1 or both for varied reasons. WTT drama with the FO was simply ridiculous, but that's tennis politics for you.

I watched him on AO grass vs KCurren and RG clay vs Noah and can add that the advantage of the graphite racquet was huge versus the little wood thing Kevin swung.
Also Kevin was not of the level Noah was and few top players went Down Under those days where even Johan Kriek won 2 AOs and even Vilas one.

Noah was 4-0 to Curren, not to say Willy was not good he had awesome speed and stroke making but the racquet in that era was a big deal
for him to be able to have such quick improvised swings for quick passing shots from anywhere. He would not achieve that with Curren's racquet
when watching that AO final.

Head To Head Matches - Chat About The Yannick Noah vs Kevin Curren Head To Head

Year	Name	Round	Surface	Winning Player	Losing Player	Score
1986	Wembley	SF	Carpet	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	7-5 6-3
1986	Philadelphia	QF	Carpet	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	6-3 7-6
1982	US Open	R128	Hard	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	6-3 7-6 6-3
1981	Richmond	R32	Carpet	Yannick Noah	Kevin Curren	6-7 6-3 6-4

Curren was always a mystery to me....he could not deliver in the home stretch (finals) but was a giant killer in quarters or semis. Guy crushes Mac and Connors and then can't take out Wilander at the AO? Huh???? He fell way short there and of course against Becker in '85 W. Nonetheless, Mats played very well in that AO final w/guile and steadiness. Noah was a very fine player, but I'm a bit surprised Curren had 0 wins against him. Re: the racket, yah, he played with that tiny thing, but that did not stop him from crushing Mac and Connors in succession. And Mac had his 200g graphite racket in hand by then. When his serve was on, the guy was a terror.

 

[jrepac]

Wilander’s game lacked the pace compared to power base liners like Lendl and Agassi. He was the equivalent of Hingis on the men’s tour.

Oh, please. He handled Lendl's power relatively well. Guy was an all-court counter-puncher. He wasn't hitting cream puffs. But, he did not have one 'big' shot. 7 GS is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[jrepac]

Bet Mac would trade one of those US Opens for a 1984 FO…

Hhhmm.....I'm not so sure. Maybe. Connors surely would not. Mac w/3 USOs straight is a pretty sweet claim to fame. Multi-year USO and W winners tend to stand apart from the rank and file, no question. I think lack of a W win haunts Lendl more than he'd ever admit (or perhaps he might admit). And, would Borg trade an FO for a USO? He's too reserved and respectful to ever go there.

 

[jorjipy]

Lendl would have traded an AO AND AN FO for a Wimbledon……just as Borg would have given a couple of French for a US….. that’s just the way it is, Borg had so many chances to win the US but an American lefty kept on spoiling the party, for 6 years out of 7 I think.

 

[DariaGT]

Curren was always a mystery to me....he could not deliver in the home stretch (finals) but was a giant killer in quarters or semis. Guy crushes Mac and Connors and then can't take out Wilander at the AO? Huh???? He fell way short there and of course against Becker in '85 W. Nonetheless, Mats played very well in that AO final w/guile and steadiness. Noah was a very fine player, but I'm a bit surprised Curren had 0 wins against him. Re: the racket, yah, he played with that tiny thing, but that did not stop him from crushing Mac and Connors in succession. And Mac had his 200g graphite racket in hand by then. When his serve was on, the guy was a terror.

Kevin relied on his serve on the day, he could crush anyone but Noah had that awesome reach like Monfils does playing Isner and Karlovic who both went aceless once or twice in their encounters.

It was very hard for many players to transition to graphite due to the pure feel of the wood but for Mac the 200g was the muscle and springboard like a magic wand, still his 125-5 match streak is legendary.
Matts was like Hewitt sure more respectful, but similar speed no killer shot but gritty and rabbit like. Hewitt, Willy and even Nadal would have suffered using Kevin Curren, Borg or Jimmy Arias sized sticks.

Jimmy Arias was that kind of Mats and Hewitt like player that couldnt get into graphite racquets like Kevin Curren but due to his scrawny size Arias was totally gassed and useless after winning any long match
swinging wildly with spin you can see his head jolted heavily on every stroke it was comical he put that much effort swinging that Donnay where today Rafa uses a light APD like a slap and a whip.

The 80s was like a bigger transition period for tennis equipment than the 90s but the 90s was the era when there were more characters and styles than ever even more than the 70s.

 

[jorjipy]

This is in relation to the post by jrepac:

What are you talking about? Kurren used the Kneissl White Star when he beat McEnroe and Connors at Wimbledon, a racquet more powerful than either of their racquets. He didn’t then lose to Wilander, he lost to Becker

Yes he beat Connors at Wimbledon in 83 with a wood racquet but then lost to Lewis who was using the most powerful and biggest racquet in pro tennis, the Prince Graphite Pro

yes he beat Lend at the 84 AO with a wood racquet but was then beaten handily by Wilander in the final

just setting the record straight, because you seem very confused

 

[DariaGT]

What are YOU babbling about!??
I think you are the totally confused and even contused as we were talking about Curren wood days which were pre 1985 Wimbledon!
plus Becker was a disruptor in the game with his Puma and all round power game never lost to Curren even with the Kneissl and
Becker would never lose to Curren both swinging tooth picks either if they played.

Even so Kevin Curren with a small wood racquet never beat Macca or Connors so convincingly as he did with the Kneissl WS.
He beat Connors 6-2 6-2 6-1 and Macca 6-2 6-2 6-4, Curren's best wins ever over them thanks to a better stick.

Even Dr Ivo beat Federer and other top players when in the serve-botting zone. Curren lived by his serve just like Karlovic or Isner does.

Curren not Kurren could not win that AO in 84 serve-botting vs the best returner counterpuncher that Willy was with that graphite Rossignol.
There were also Wilander like counterpunch no big shot players like Ferrer and Hewitt that owned serve bots like Isner and Karlovic.

Maybe the nerves didnt help his serving in the Finals but he had no problems dispatching ConMac so easily with that Kneissl at 85 wimby as you noted.
You also confirmed Curren lost to Lewis with the superior powerful Prince stick BUT FYI a lowly strung 200g is more powerful than tightly strung KWS even in Curren's hands.

Noah could out play Curren due to unmatched reach, speed, athletic ability only later seen in Becker, Sampras and Monfils etc.
What is interesting is that Becker was more developed physically than older Edberg who lost only once to Curren also in that 85 wimby.

 

[jorjipy]

Oh please forgive me, I barely have an eye on this thread. And truly, I know nothing about tennis. Just babbling as you say. You are quite right.

 

[jorjipy]

This is the quote I was replying to:

Guy crushes Mac and Connors and then can't take out Wilander at the AO?

please tell me how I am wrong, I need an education……the crushing wins are with graphite, the Wilander loss with wood. And that quote implies he beat the Americans and then lost to the Swede in the same tournament.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Bet Mac would trade one of those US Opens for a 1984 FO…

No way. McEnroe is on the record as saying the worst loss of his career was losing that French Open Final to Lendl. McEnroe was up two sets to love after an hour and was cruising. McEnroe had been undefeated in matches that season to that point. And Lendl had never won a Major Title to that point. McEnroe was NEVER going to get a better opportunity to win a French Open Title. He was likely to win several more US Open Titles. No question in my mind McEnroe is a "Great" of the sport. But a Roland Garros Title would have made him a true All Time Great.

Hhhmm.....I'm not so sure. Maybe. Connors surely would not. Mac w/3 USOs straight is a pretty sweet claim to fame. Multi-year USO and W winners tend to stand apart from the rank and file, no question. I think lack of a W win haunts Lendl more than he'd ever admit (or perhaps he might admit). And, would Borg trade an FO for a USO? He's too reserved and respectful to ever go there.

I think even Connors would love to have a French Title in his kit-bag. But his lack of one is made up for by the fact he is the only player in the history of tennis to win the US Open on grass, clay and hard court. That feat will never be repeated. (Evert is the only female player to win it on clay and hardcourt. Again a feat that will probably never be repeated.)

Keep in mind that if Connors had played and won the 1974 French Open, he would have completed the GRAND SLAM. So I guess he would happily swap one of his Wimbledon or US Open Titles for the 1974 RG Title

Lendl would have traded an AO AND AN FO for a Wimbledon……just as Borg would have given a couple of French for a US….. that’s just the way it is, Borg had so many chances to win the US but an American lefty kept on spoiling the party, for 6 years out of 7 I think.

Borg would never have traded any of his RG Titles for a US Open Title. He has always said that Wimbledon was the main game, followed by Roland Garros. He only ever bother with the AO one time. And the US Open was always at the end of a long exhausting season. Fact is, if he really cared for the US Open, he would have focused on it one or two seasons - perhaps skipping RG - to give himself the best shot at it. Alternatively he could have played a couple more years totally focused on the US Open. I have little doubt he would have eventually cracked that nut. But it obviously wasn't that important to him to do so.

Lendl, on the other hand, I think certainly would have traded one or two other Major Titles (inc. one US Open title) for the Wimbledon title he craved so much. Yet more proof of how highly regarded Wimbledon was in those days by ALL of the players, except for the true clay court specialists (mainly Spanish and Portuguese) who lived and breathed the red dirt.

 

[jorjipy]

Anyone alive then knows that Borg wanted that USO more than anything at the end of his career. Karma Tennis isn’t an idiot, he knows stuff. But wow, so wrong on that topic…..the USO was everything to him because he hadn’t won it……

 

[Karma Tennis]

Anyone alive then knows that Borg wanted that USO more than anything at the end of his career. Karma Tennis isn’t an idiot, he knows stuff. But wow, so wrong on that topic…..the USO was everything to him because he hadn’t won it……

"Tennis - Swede Bjorn Borg is one of the greatest players to play the game. But in spite of winning 11 Grand Slams, the Swede does have some regrets. In an interview to Pat Cash on the CNN programme 'Open Court', Borg says he wish he had won the US Open tournament.""

"Borg reached the finals of the US Open on four occasions but failed to win any of those matches. "I wish I'd won the U.S. Open. I was in the final four times and maybe two of those finals I should have won. But I would never change any Wimbledon for a U.S. Open." While Borg won 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledon titles, he never won the other two slams - in New York and Australia, which he said he skipped in part due to its scheduling in December. "

Of course Borg wishes he would have won a US Open Title. He clearly stated he would not swap a Wimbledon title for a US Open one. Interesting that he did not mention his Roland Garros Titles. Perhaps out of respect? Who knows?

(And personally, I think he would have preferred to win the 1981 Wimbledon Final over anything else. Seven Wimbledon Singles Titles in a row would have been something very very special!)