Why I now think Lendl was greater than McEnroe
- Thread starter sandy mayer
- Start date
Karma Tennis
Legend
No typo!
If Borg had won the Wimbledon Title in 1981, I believe he would have extended the count to seven in 1982.
BTW, I don't have to "know" stuff". The "facts" are in the record books. Everything else is "opinion". All "opinions" are equally valid.
Espousing "opinions" and asserting them as "facts" is fraught with danger ... and something I try to avoid doing at all costs.
Wow, Borg losing the 81 Wimbledon final cost him winning 7 Wimbledons in a row! I have heard it all now….it also cost him winning 8 in a row….and 10 in a row…..wow, the thick heads on here are incredible. Just accept you either made a mistake or you are pathetic at expressing yourself.
Karma Tennis
Legend
medieval_remnant
Rookie
Curren beat Connors 1983 Wimbledon with wood racquet. Yes, it was close but Connors was playing better in 1983 than 1985. He had played magnificently at 1983 Queens beating McEnroe.
How much did the 200g help McEnroe? Was it really more powerful than other graphite frames?
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
IMO, it basically comes down to how much you value Wimbledon prestige over everything else. The question is "greater," i.e., overall career accomplishments, not who was more "artistic," flashier, more of a "chess master," more "talented." Those are separate issues from who was greater that TT loves to get bogged down with. Of course there is a strong case for Mac to be considered "greater" than Lendl, but IMO, it has nothing do with the aesthetics of his game.
He was cursed. Connors 3 times and Mac 2x. Wasn't Tanner the other?
Folks, chillax. I never meant to imply that Curren beat Wilander at Wimbledon, to begin with. I'm well aware of who he beat and when. I WAS in fact thinking of Curren with his little wood Jack Kramer Autograph frame, kicking Connors' butt in '83. Admittedly, I did not recall he switched to graphite by '85 when he was in super-ass-kicking mode. So, I was mistaken there. But, my main point is still that he tended to fall short in the finals after beating highly regarded players along the way. Perhaps it was nerves, or just coming down from the high of beating guys like Mac/Connors/Lendl decisively. Wilander was one of the best counterpunchers ever. I thought his AO win in '83 was a bit of a fluke, but became a believer in his all court skills after the '84 AO even more.
DariaGT
Hall of Fame
You are quite right and the Americans Curren with a woody beat, both swung superior graphite sticks before losing to Willy in the 84 AO
Scott Davis Wilson Pro Staff and Ben Testerman Pro Kennex
Ben Testerman, USA, Tennis. December 13, 1984. .
Ben Testerman, USA, Tennis. December 13, 1984. .
www.gettyimages.in
but as for ConMac crushing wins you are right they did not happen until he used KWS yet again a Dunlop 200G on the tensions Macca used
was easily more powerful than most racquet then except the POG but more stable than anything even now.
Last edited:
Lendl dominated till mid-1983 then McEnroe till mid 1985 then Lendl till end of 1992 when McEnroe stopped
Only a year difference in age
ronnie
New User
I think you're forgetting one word there and it's talent which mac had in abundance.
mac was immensely talented...perhaps even more than Borg...magic hands...could make Lendl and Connors look like pikers when he was at his best. Again, not like the others did not have talent, Mac was just otherworldly.
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
I agree Mac was the most talented shot maker, though Borg was the most talented athlete. Mac didn't fulfil his potential as much as Connors and Lendl did, and that's why I think Connors and Lendl are slightly greater than Mac. I think Connors and Lendl had slightly better careers than Mac did, and that's what counts when comparing players. Who had the best career? is the big question.
I agree w/you. Borg was the most fit in his playing days, no question. Arguably, Connors made the most of his talents over his extended career. Lendl pretty close too, and maybe would have surpassed all of them if his back didn't crap out. I tend to put JC a tiny bit ahead of Ivan, then Mac, if I look at overall career success. Of course, with the current Big 3 now, these guys will hold some records for a very, very long time. Many were held by Ivan or Jimmy. Fed's been breaking them and now Djoko. So, you are talking well over 30 years for that to happen.
I think that McEnroe was the best player I have seen in the age of wood (I only put Laver and Gonzalez in front of him).
John had a short career, possibly shorter than Borg.
Lendl was very solid, with the exception of the slam tournaments.
As a career, if we exclude the slams, Lendl has won a few more tournaments than Mac but the tournaments won by Mac are 90% very good, Lendl's a little less (he has too many WCT that were worth little in the 80s), but Ivan was more consisting of unofficial tournaments.
In the Mac slams was >> Ivan.
His 7 slams > Ivan's 8 slams.
The current method is to analyze career and Ivan's looks better. Not for me. I think the two are the same but if I have to choose between the two careers I choose Mac.
The method of the 70-80s was to analyze the peak and Mac was >> of Ivan.
John had a short career, possibly shorter than Borg.
Lendl was very solid, with the exception of the slam tournaments.
As a career, if we exclude the slams, Lendl has won a few more tournaments than Mac but the tournaments won by Mac are 90% very good, Lendl's a little less (he has too many WCT that were worth little in the 80s), but Ivan was more consisting of unofficial tournaments.
In the Mac slams was >> Ivan.
His 7 slams > Ivan's 8 slams.
The current method is to analyze career and Ivan's looks better. Not for me. I think the two are the same but if I have to choose between the two careers I choose Mac.
The method of the 70-80s was to analyze the peak and Mac was >> of Ivan.
Ivan has a lot more titles, weeks at #1, etc. There were many solid WCT events...they were not all inferior. I'm not even counting unofficial tourneys. You put those in and Connors will rise to the very top. Mac's peak was sheer genius, no question. But it was a relatively short peak period. You could also claim that his USO/W combo of 7 GS is better than Ivan's mix, simply based on event prestige. But, I'd be hard pressed to say Mac's career overall was better than Lendl's
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
It is all the more interesting because he suffered more or less his great rival's fate, as Borg was pretty much done with tennis at the same age McEnroe continued to play but was no longer a threat in Slams.
Pheasant
Legend
As much as I'd like to put Mac ahead of Lendl, I just cannot do it. There's simply too much of a difference in the stats to justify it.
With that being said, Mac's 1984 season is the best that I've ever seen. That FO loss to Lendl was the worst one as a fan that I've seen and it's not close. To be fair, I was a kid then. So things naturally hurt much more at that age than when I saw Federer lose a couple of epic matches.
With that being said, Mac's 1984 season is the best that I've ever seen. That FO loss to Lendl was the worst one as a fan that I've seen and it's not close. To be fair, I was a kid then. So things naturally hurt much more at that age than when I saw Federer lose a couple of epic matches.
Winners or Errors
Legend
Well, I was on the other side of that one, hoping Lendl would get the monkey off his back. It was a great match. Mac didn't lose. Lendl took it.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Mac says he still has nightmares.
Eh, I don't know....it was such a strange shift in momentum. Mac got distracted, maybe a little tired and it was all downhill from there. Probably one of the more shocking finals in the history of tennis. Next to Nadal's AO comeback, I suppose~
his loss 1982 against connors at wimbledon was at least as bad.
Really? Connors beat him in the Queens final a few weeks before….and Connors beat him in the Queens final in 1983, if anything McEnroe was lucky Curren beat Connors in 1983 Wimbledon, otherwise Connors would have won the Wimbledon/US OPEN double in both 82 and 83….and still probably have been ranked number 2 for both years lol.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Could be.
At the FO final in 1984, Mac was up two sets to zero.
At Wimbledon '82 in the final against Connors, they split the first two sets then Mac won the third, and was in the tiebreak in the fourth set. So he was again close to winning: if Mac had won the fourth set tiebreak, he would have won the match.
I have heard Mac say that he still has nightmares about the 1984 FO final.
I have not heard Mac mention the 1982 Wimbledon final loss, recently. But maybe he does have nightmares about it.
Last edited:
d
the '82 match was nothing like the FO final where Mac was dominant for 2 sets, making Lendl look like a piker. Mac knew Connors was dangerous on grass...and he was having mobility issues in '82. He just lost the Queens final as it was pointed out. So, while maybe he'd see it as one that slipped out of his grasp--after being VERY close in the 4th--would be shocked to hear major regrets from him on it.
big ted
Legend
yea i dont think he'd call 82 W a choke is the bottom line
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I thought Lendl being "greater" was common knowledge, accepted by nearly everyone. Even taking into account the greater importance of Wimbledon and the US Open though (although much lesser than the 70s, both are mainly 80s players, where the disparity is eons less than the 60s or even 70s) McEnroe numbers wise just does not stack up to Lendl. Even in slam titles he is behind 1, albeit with 7 combined Wimbledon and US Opens to Lendl's 3, and far behind in virtually everything else.
Now better player is much more subjective. Many here might side with McEnroe for his higher peak level play, and obviously higher natural talent level. Plus peaking earlier on and succeeding against tougher competition and being part of a more legendary rivalry (Borg) than Lendl was.
Now better player is much more subjective. Many here might side with McEnroe for his higher peak level play, and obviously higher natural talent level. Plus peaking earlier on and succeeding against tougher competition and being part of a more legendary rivalry (Borg) than Lendl was.
I don't think Lendl being better than Mac is a universal truth, at all. Based on singles, I would put Lendl (and Connors) ahead of Mac, BUT, some would also look at dubs and Davis Cup and Mac's accomplishments there are exceptional. In addition to him arguably having the most natural talent.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Lendl there just slowing it down because Connors thrived on pace. Lendl owned Connors.
Also disgusting language, I don't care it was 1992.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Connors afterwards ranted in the press conference about how trying to get Lendl to come to the net was like "pulling teeth" and that Lendl just "bunted the ball". For the first set and a half, it was like Connors had turned the clock back 10 years and was playing excellent tennis. Then the pendulum swung strongly in the other direction and Lendl beat Connors easily.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
No, he wasn't. McEnroe himself has said this, and it's wrong. McEnroe was a break up in the fourth set, at 4-3, and had a game point on serve for 5-3, but Lendl broke back for 4-4.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep. Mac was not a break up in the third set. (Maybe I got this from Mac--not sure.)
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Lendl beat Connors the last 17 times they played, all of their matches from 1984 on.
Connors was clearly frustrated and angry, already 40 years old, and growing tired.
Connors's shots were mostly flat, so he had little margin for error. At his age he needed short points. He knew he couldn't win if Lendl just kept the ball in play, (which was smart play by Lendl).
The best way to beat Connors (at this stage of his career) was to let him get impatient, and allow him to overhit.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Connors already was 40. He beat Oncins in the first round of the 1992 US Open on his 40th birthday. Oncins had beaten Lendl in the second round of the 1992 French Open from 2 sets down, which Connors noted.
There's some truth in all of what's said here, but as someone who watched 'real time
- Lendl only dominated Connors from '85 onwards, when he was in his prime and Jimmy was not, being past 32 years old. Even then, they had a few doozies in the mix in the late 80s
- Lendl's game against Jimmy then was in fact 'pushing'....no shame in it, that's the reality. He hit a steady stream of slice backhands to Jimmy's forehand, took off pace unless he had a clear winner. In the '92 match, Connors came out firing on all cylinders, serving and volleying. Took Lendl off guard honestly. But, he couldn't quite keep up the pace and Lendl started playing better for one and took everything off the ball. If Jimmy had won that second set (he was up a break), who knows, he might've found the energy reserves to pull it out. But, neither of these guys had the A game level in '92, Lendl himself was only months away from retiring COMPLETELY due to his back and Connors went off and did his Senior Tour thing and made $$$$$$.
- In many of their early matches, particularly through '83, Ivan played Jimmy like he did everyone else. Power baseline hitting, monster serves. He won some matches, but lost more....and 2 big ones at the USO. Anyone who thinks Lendl "owned" Connors based on H2H should go watch those matches and learn something. Because Connors, in many of those rallies, outhit Lendl. Classic counterpunching where he took Lendl's pace and sent it back even harder, particularly on his 2 hander to Lendl's forehand. Ivan started to wise up I think in '84/85, recognizing 'less was more,' particularly in the rallies.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
They had their 1986 Boca West match, when Connors walked out during the fifth set after a big blowout with umpire Jeremy Shales, and was defaulted, fined, banned.
That was 2 years later with Lendl. Lendl retired in December 1994 with a persistent back injury, having played his last match at the 1994 US Open against Karbacher. I believe Lendl blew 9 set points against Karbacher. 1992 was the last time that we properly saw Lendl as a consistent threat near the top of tennis. 1993-1994 was Lendl's big decline. Lendl went big into golf for years after retiring from tennis.
Yeah, I'm a couple of years early on Ivan's retirement I suppose. But, he was already declining in '92, clearly. The Lipton match was something else. Connors just lost it. But Shales was a bozo of an umpire. There was another match, maybe it was Mac and Lendl, where Ivan just went off on him. I believe they took him out of umpiring men's matches based on several incidents. The call in the Lipton match was really close--hard to believe Shales could see it one way or another. Having the challenge replay nowadays eliminates all of that drama, thankfully.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Lendl had to retire from his 1992 Wimbledon fourth round match against Ivanisevic because of his bad back, and we know how desperate Lendl was to win Wimbledon, so it must have been bad for him to retire from that match. That was around the start of the injury problem.
Have you seen the 1985 Canadian Open final in Montreal between McEnroe and Lendl, with Shales umpiring? It was chaos at times, both players taking the mick out of Shales, and Lendl nearly totally lost it. At one point, after McEnroe served to the deuce court wide and Lendl waited for the obvious call (linesman was unsighted), Shales said he didn't see it out. Lendl then exploded "The ball was right here, this far out right under your nose! WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING HERE IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE BALL? WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THEN?". At 7-5, 3-3 to McEnroe, Shales said "new balls", and McEnroe said "What do you mean, new balls? 12 plus 6 is 18, right?". Lendl then said "Don't worry, John. He doesn't know how to count anyway, so it doesn't matter", to laughs from the audience.
YES, that's the one! OMG, it was wild. You had Lendl AND Mac vs. Shales. It was unbelieveable. Really rare for Lendl to go off on an ump like that....I was really shocked by it.
There's no 'hmmm' about it. The 17 match win streak basically started at the end of 1984, which was Connors last really good year. He was 32, past his very best years. Very good--2nd by year end--but not great at that stage. He had a few wins over Lendl in '84, but also a few bad losses like Forest Hills, which a was a real rope-a-dope match. But, if you watch their earlier matches, they are quite different, IMHO. Lendl not slicing so much, trying to hit through it....which is how he played Mac, frankly. Lendl was more fit, but also smarter in how he approached opponents by 1985Hmmmm...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Aha. Yes, thanks. The USO was a later one that year, being held held from 31 August to 13 September 1992. Connors birthday is 2 September 1952.
