Lendl vs McEnroe - which one is greater?

TT

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 12:59:11 PM10/25/10

to

Here's a fun site:
http://www.aneki.com/greatest_tennis_players.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=Ivan+Lendl&player_2=John+McEnroe

Nice idea there, comparing 2 players in 5 categories:

Head-to-head
Career titles
Career win%
Major titles
Weeks at #1

Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.

Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!

Inglourious Basterd

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:07:15 PM10/25/10

to

Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender. As it is, he is in the
"great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.

TT

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:20:19 PM10/25/10

to

Inglourious Basterd wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 17:59, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
>> Here's a fun site:http://www.aneki.com/greatest_tennis_players.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=Ivan+Lendl&player_2=John+McEnroe
>>
>> Nice idea there, comparing 2 players in 5 categories:
>>
>> Head-to-head
>> Career titles
>> Career win%
>> Major titles
>> Weeks at #1
>>
>> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
>> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>>
>> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
>> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!
>
> Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
> who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
> great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
> tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender.

I sort of disagree here, unless you base that on narrow categories such
as ability to volley. Mac may be a volleying genius but he certainly is
far from genius when it comes to having a complete game, because his
inefficient ground strokes...which of course is seen in his career
achievements.

> As it is, he is in the
> "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
> in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
> impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
> artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
> Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.

Yup.

--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692

Iceberg

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:24:19 PM10/25/10

to

what you're saying is pretty much Mac is the Jimi Hendrix of tennis,
Borg is Eric Clapton. Lendl would be err some thrash metalhead, I
guess.

uly...@mscomm.com

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:27:30 PM10/25/10

to

I always thought Lendl was underrated and he revolutionized tennis
with his power and his off-court training. But his record in slam
finals is a dreadful 8-19... pathetic. Mac's record in slam finals is
exceptional.

Lendl overwhelmed Mac after 1984 with his power. Mac could nto volley
Lendl's heavy ball anymore.

I prefer Lendl as a player, though not his mental game or style.
McEnroe was a genius, Lendl merely worked harder than anyone else to
maximize his talent.

TT

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:34:32 PM10/25/10

to

I'm looking forward to Raja's analogies...

Mac - Hendrix, ok...
Borg - The Beatles
Wilander - Clapton
Lendl - REO Speedwagon

:)

Rodjk #613

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:35:30 PM10/25/10

to

On Oct 25, 12:20 pm, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
> Inglourious Basterd wrote:
> > On 25 Oct, 17:59, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
> >> Here's a fun site:http://www.aneki.com/greatest_tennis_players.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=Ivan+Lendl&player_2=John+McEnroe
>
> >> Nice idea there, comparing 2 players in 5 categories:
>
> >> Head-to-head
> >> Career titles
> >> Career win%
> >> Major titles
> >> Weeks at #1
>
> >> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
> >> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>
> >> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
> >> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!

I pointed out pretty much the same stats recently.
Other than Wimbledon, Lendl leads Mac in every way. And I don't give
Wimbledon as the be-all, end-all of tennis.

> > Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
> > who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
> > great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
> > tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender.
>
> I sort of disagree here, unless you base that on narrow categories such
> as ability to volley. Mac may be a volleying genius but he certainly is
> far from genius when it comes to having a complete game, because his
> inefficient ground strokes...which of course is seen in his career
> achievements.

Some of this has to be taken in context of the times and manner of
play.
Mac's groundstrokes were developed in the wood racquet age. For that
time, they were excellent at:
1. Producing angles
2. Difficult to read
3. Getting Mac to the net.

It is like Pete's backhand. He did not intend to hit 30 shots, he
wanted to hit 4 good ones. Mac probably wanted to hit fewer than that,
and in the late 70's and early 80's his groundstrokes were not
noticeable weaknesses. It is only toward the later 80's that the power
game picked his touch shots apart.

Mac still volleyed well, but his game was not built off power
groundstrokes. His groundies were meant to keep him in points, move
the other guy around with angles and spin until he could get to the
net. In the later days, the other guys were able to keep him back on
the baseline due to the power, and he was forced to make suicidal
trips to the net. The advanced power of other players made him less
efficient there, but I think mainly because he did not *get* there as
effectively as he did before.

Using the Max 200g helped him, but did not make as much of a
difference as it did for other players with more powerful strokes. Mac
took a step ahead with the new racquets, but not as big a step as his
rivals.

>
> > As it is, he is in the
> > "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
> > in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
> > impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
> > artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
> > Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>
> Yup.

Not in the same way. Mac stuck around for years, making a few splashes
in slams. But he could not put together enough big wins to get past a
semi. Borg was already advancing to the burn-out ward. If not for the
idiocy of the ATP he likely would have stuck around longer. But he was
clearly frustrated with his lack of success vs Mac, especially at the
USO.

Rodjk #613

reilloc

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 1:39:14 PM10/25/10

to

On 10/25/2010 11:59 AM, TT wrote:
> Here's a fun site:

> http://www.aneki.com/greatest_imaginary_beings.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=link&player_2=gannon
>
>
> Nice idea there, comparing 2 figments in 5 imaginary ways:
>
> coolest graphic rendering
> bossosity
> hotter to Zelda
> beloved by the people
> most rad weaponry
>
> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although name of char
> should be included as well...plus intangible Cheeto factor.
>
> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better imaginary guy
> Gannon wins in all five categories!

Nice post, Fan. How's your dad?

Woof!

LNC

Carey

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 2:10:31 PM10/25/10

to

Rodjk #613 wrote:

Good post- thanks.

TT

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 2:14:05 PM10/25/10

to

There's some truth about what you say considering playing style and
equipment - yet I can't fully accept that as an excuse: There were many
strong baseliners in wood-era, dating back even to great Tilden...

Also, I believe Mac wouldn't have had great ground strokes if he
would've been born later...that's of course speculation but there's no
evidence to claim contrary.

Lendl on the other hand would be strong in any era.

>>> As it is, he is in the
>>> "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
>>> in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
>>> impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
>>> artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
>>> Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>> Yup.
>
> Not in the same way. Mac stuck around for years, making a few splashes
> in slams. But he could not put together enough big wins to get past a
> semi. Borg was already advancing to the burn-out ward. If not for the
> idiocy of the ATP he likely would have stuck around longer. But he was
> clearly frustrated with his lack of success vs Mac, especially at the
> USO.
>
> Rodjk #613
>

I firmly believe that it was Mac's loss to Lendl at -85 USO which made
Mac to take a time-off in -86 and never being the force he was after
that. Lendl had moved past him.

Pelle Svanslös

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 2:14:54 PM10/25/10

to

Federer - Milli Vanilli

--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous

Inglourious Basterd

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 2:28:37 PM10/25/10

to

very good post.

TT

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 3:01:19 PM10/25/10

to

Federer is Boy George - singing Crying Game

Pelle Svanslös

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 3:18:20 PM10/25/10

to

You have a point there. Do you really want to hurt me?

I kind of like the Milli Vanilli fraudster angle.

TT

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 3:57:54 PM10/25/10

to

Or as Mark would tell us, George Michael.

Nadal on clay...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xctmwp_pat-benatar-invincible_music

Scott

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 4:40:55 PM10/25/10

to

Lendl of course is
> in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
> impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
> artistry, and changed tennis in the long run.

i thought during the time it was happening that Mac was victim to the
onset of the graphite racquet. he had to abandon the wood and start
using it. the new racquet elevated Lendl artificially, imo.

Sakari Lund

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 6:26:46 PM10/25/10

to

Federer leads Nadal in three categories. Nadal leads in two. The win%
is close, but it should be expected it is going more for his favour in
the future. The H2H will stay for his favour, barring a miracle.

But then he has a lot of work to do catching Federer in the other
three categories. Career titles is the easiest, but the two most
important categories of these, major wins and weeks at #1, are a long
way away. Interesting to follow in the next few years.

topspin

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 6:26:44 PM10/25/10

to

On 25 Oct, 18:27, "ulys...@msomm.com" <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> I always thought Lendl was underrated and he revolutionized tennis
> with his power and his off-court training. But his record in slam
> finals is a dreadful 8-19... pathetic. Mac's record in slam finals is
> exceptional.

I have never understood this sort of analysis. You could just as
easily say that Lendl's record in getting to slam finals is fantastic
- 19 of them and spread across all surfaces and majors. Only bettered
in the Open Era by one player.

In comparison McEnroe's final record is pathetic and heavily biassed
by playing on his own turf.

Raja, The Great

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 6:54:58 PM10/25/10

to

This is just an obvious attempt to get me to start posting again in
rst, isn't it? ;-)

Well if I were to do comparision....

Connors = The Who+Rolling Stones (street ruffian+ delusions of
grandeur)
Borg = Beatles (clean cut sage like image)
McEnroe = Pink Floyd (at best... sublime, but not always at best)
Lendl = Led Zeppelin (went down in flames as soon as they aged)
Becker = Black Sabbath (scarily good at times)
Edberg = Yes (perenially underrated but always beautiful to watch/
hear)
Wilander = Deep Purple (crashed and burned pretty quickly after rising
to the top)
Sampras = U2 (always self promoting)
Agassi = Metallica (exciting early on, predictably boring later)
Federer = Radiohead (loved for the artistry)
Nadal = Pearl Jam (loved for the persistence)

bob

unread,

Oct 25, 2010, 7:12:08 PM10/25/10

to

mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 5:25:39 AM10/26/10

to

A guy as talented as McEnroe woud've grown up adapating to whatever
was the measure of the day. The guy is pretty much unique and would've
been no matter what era he was in.

Iceberg

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 5:26:48 AM10/26/10

to

yes, he says this in his book.

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 5:57:24 AM10/26/10

to

"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gl3cc614v0a9sl28h...@4ax.com...

Rubbish, Mac demise has a lot to do with Lendl. Lendl was well disciplined
athlete
and it was his attitude towards improving physical and fitness training that
lift the
other players of his generation to train harder in order to compete with
him. Mac never
had the fitness and strength of Lendl, it wasn't long before the likes of
Edbeg and Becker
adopt similar trainning regime to Lendl and moved ahead of Mac.
>
> bob

Whisper

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:57:18 AM10/26/10

to

On 10/26/2010 8:57 PM, john wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
>>>> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
>>>> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!
>>>
>>> Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
>>> who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
>>> great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
>>> tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender. As it is, he is in the
>>> "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
>>> in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
>>> impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
>>> artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
>>> Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>>
>> mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.
>
> Rubbish, Mac demise has a lot to do with Lendl. Lendl was well disciplined
> athlete
> and

So what happened in '84?

Wait I know - mono!

wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:09:50 AM10/26/10

to

In article
<99d6f23a-4bdf-4da4...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
uly...@mscomm.com () wrote:

> I prefer Lendl as a player, though not his mental game or style.
> McEnroe was a genius, Lendl merely worked harder than anyone else to
> maximize his talent.

It's a lot harder to do that than to be a genius. I have enormous respect
for Lendl.

wg

Yama

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:03:34 AM10/26/10

to

Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
: what you're saying is pretty much Mac is the Jimi Hendrix of tennis,

: Borg is Eric Clapton. Lendl would be err some thrash metalhead, I
: guess.

Lendl was Guitar George. "Mind he's strictly rhythm he doesn't want to make it cry or sing..."

Yama

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:11:23 AM10/26/10

to

bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
: mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.

I think Borg's retirement sorta hurt Mac. He must have lost some
motivation without the Iceborg at the other side of the net. He
was a genius, and they become easily bored.

Iceberg

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:25:10 AM10/26/10

to

On Oct 26, 12:11 pm, Yama <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:

yes yes yes :)

john

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:41:22 AM10/26/10

to

"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

news:OdWdnU2UztxrLlvR...@westnet.com.au...

What happened after 84 ? What happened in 84 has nothing to do with Lendl's
improvement after
that year ? Now can you tell me when was Mac ranked outside top 50 since
you said he was
ranked outside top 50 most of the time after 84?

Rodjk #613

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:44:02 AM10/26/10

to

On Oct 26, 4:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 4:07 AM, Inglourious Basterd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Oct, 17:59, TT<do...@email.me> wrote:
> >> Here's a fun site:http://www.aneki.com/greatest_tennis_players.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=Ivan+Lendl&player_2=John+McEnroe
>
> >> Nice idea there, comparing 2 players in 5 categories:
>
> >> Head-to-head
> >> Career titles
> >> Career win%
> >> Major titles
> >> Weeks at #1
>
> >> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
> >> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>
> >> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
> >> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!
>
> > Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
> > who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
> > great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
> > tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender. As it is, he is in the
> > "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
> > in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
> > impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
> > artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
> > Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>
> Of course that's bullshit. Why didn't Lendl 'overpower' him in 1984?

He did in 82.

> The wins for Lendl post '84 tell us nothing as Mac was ranked out of the
> top 50 most of the time & had it with tennis. He proved he was far
> better than Lendl & simply got bored after '84.

What about Lendl's wins before? Lendl dominated Mac in 81 and 82. At
one point he won 7 in a row. Do those wins not count?

Reality is, the Mac/Lendl rivalry went back and forth in momentum
until Lendl pulled away.

Rodjk #613

Pelle Svanslös

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:09:19 AM10/26/10

to

Here's an interesting story in itself. It might or might not have
anything to do with Lendl pulling away from Mac.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TZ6zUnvBQ3gC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=yandell+mcenroe+serve&source=bl&ots=UPaImu7LHk&sig=eFG50qtG6te74snS8Bk5XM2o7TI&hl=en&ei=-8LGTL_AN8icOqT7iMUB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=yandell%20mcenroe%20serve&f=false

--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous

Iceberg

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:31:01 AM10/26/10

to

On 26 Oct, 10:48, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

great to see this got a 5 stars, poor old Raja would do anything for
that hahaha

Whisper

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:48:48 AM10/26/10

to

Why?

He was only in it for the money. I have very little respect for
mercenaries.

Whisper

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:51:48 AM10/26/10

to

On 10/26/2010 10:44 PM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> Reality is, the Mac/Lendl rivalry went back and forth in momentum
> until Lendl pulled away.
>

That would only be true if Mac was ranked no.2 post '85.

Never happened.

Iceberg

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:59:03 AM10/26/10

to

> http://books.google.com/books?id=TZ6zUnvBQ3gC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=yan...

good link, thanks

john

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 10:12:59 AM10/26/10

to

"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

news:oImdnQeS7bNQU1vR...@westnet.com.au...

Then you are admitting it is true. Mac was ranked No.2 until April 86.

>
> Never happened.

It happened and please check your facts before posting.
>

john

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 10:49:18 AM10/26/10

to

"Iceberg" <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c02887ab-04cd-4252...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

If Mac could adapt he would have done so after 85 but he could not do it in
his own
era. So the problem is if he could not adapt to Lendl's play then why he
would in any
other eras ?

Rodjk #613

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 11:17:25 AM10/26/10

to

What does that have to do with the rivalry with Lendl?
The H2H shows that after that US Open Lendl won 9 of their 10 matches.

>
> Never happened.

Well, it did happen, as John has already pointed out.
Heck he was in the top 10 as recently as 1990. For the early part of
that year he was as high as #4.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mc/J/John-Mcenroe.aspx?t=rh

Rodjk #613

TT

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 11:56:11 AM10/26/10

to

Nope. He couldn't hack it nowadays...as he couldn't do it with improved
equipment. His groundies were too puny.

--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692

TT

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 11:59:48 AM10/26/10

to

That means it's not true then.

TT

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 12:10:38 PM10/26/10

to

Yama wrote:
> bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> : mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.
>
> I think Borg's retirement sorta hurt Mac. He must have lost some
> motivation without the Iceborg at the other side of the net.

Borg's retirement had nothing to do with it, Borg retired in -82 while
Mac was on top of his game to end of -85...and played many years
afterwards still.

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 1:53:48 PM10/26/10

to

Stars and stripes are for basement geeks like you.

drew

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 3:31:36 PM10/26/10

to

McEnroe has always had an inflated opinion of himself. He was also
surrounded by freaks who told
him he was the king and this only made him more of an asshole than he
already was.

It is always difficult for 'geniuses' when they are defeated by
somebody who excels because of hard work and
persistence.

McEnroe had a short time at the very top. He had great successes
against Borg and Connors. It was clearly
very difficult for him and his fans to accept that all of his genius
was not enough to defeat the Lendl power game.

I remember this very clearly and the statement "I have more talent in
my little finger than you have in your whole arm".

There's absolutely nothing like answering such a statement with your
racquet and Lendl did this again and again to McEnroe.

If Mac hadn't been such a knob it would have been sad to see. Lendl
was just half a knob.

Patrick Kehoe

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 4:46:03 PM10/26/10

to

Right. And all the gloss that some Macfan-anatics around here spread
doesn't change what actually happened... good god if just 'being
talented' were the final measure we would be EVEN more awash in coulda
woulda around here than we currently are... Lendl just had the power
game, fitness, fighting spirit and point to point commitment to rip up
JMac... that's just the way it was... Lendl certainly LOOKED like his
game and personality was getting to JMac as their careers
progressed...

P

Raja, The Great

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 5:38:19 PM10/26/10

to

Lendl became a smarter player starting 1985. Before that we used to
just hammer the ball and was more of a hit or miss player. He also
added variety and fitness to his game in 1985. He was one of the late
bloomers.

Yama

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 5:42:06 PM10/26/10

to

TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
: > He

: > was a genius, and they become easily bored.
: >

: Apparently he was bored in 81-82 too when Lendl beat him 7 times in a
: row slap bang in middle of Mac's peak.

Well, on the other hand, Mac beat Lendl 10 times in 83-84 when Lendl was supposed to be
"catching up"...

: And he was not a genius, but rather a complete moron.

Which are not mutually exclusive.

Rodjk #613

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 5:48:08 PM10/26/10

to

Specifically, Lendl added a better topspin lob and learned to change
the pace up, especially off his serve and backhand. His off pace wide
serve in the deuce court and his soft slice cross-court helped vs guys
like Connors and against net rushers. He gave Becker fits with that
shot...no pace, dying at the shoes.

Rodjk #613

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:33:49 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:48:48 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

he was probably more in it for the money than any player i ever saw,
no doubt. the only tournament that i believe he really wanted (and who
knows, maybe because it'd pay off the most) was wimbledon.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:37:14 PM10/26/10

to

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:49:18 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

he wasn't committed to tennis form 85 onward, anywhere near what a top
player should be.

> So the problem is if he could not adapt to Lendl's play then why he
>would in any other eras ?

he adapted to lendl's play just fine, so long as he was playing his
own best tennis. but after his drug use and semiretirement, of course
he fell off a cliff.

i ask, how come borg couldn't come back and play competitive tennis
when he briefly tried, after long layoff? because nobody can do that
of course.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:39:59 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 2:09�am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:10:05 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great"

>> >> mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.
>>

>> >Since you are such a big Lendl fan, I wonder why you are always anti-
>> >Lendl.
>>
>> only recognizing what i saw. mac had huge off court issues that lead
>> to his demise. if not for those issues, his results might've
>> diminished due to poor fitness, etc anyhow - but staying with reality,
>> his actual (not hypothetical) demise was his own doing.
>
>yes, he says this in his book.

mcenroe was never a hard trainer, never fit, and his prep intensity
was maybe 1/5 of lendl's. yet when mac was young and focused and
trying, he was mopping the floor with lendl. lendl mopping the floor
with a post 85 mcenroe who was giving *nothing* to tennis isn't very
relevant. shame cause i liked lend.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:50:44 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:41:22 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

>news:OdWdnU2UztxrLlvR...@westnet.com.au...

>> On 10/26/2010 8:57 PM, john wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although
>>>>>> Career/Grand/Golden
>>>>>> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
>>>>>> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!
>>>>>
>>>>> Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
>>>>> who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
>>>>> great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
>>>>> tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender. As it is, he is in the
>>>>> "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
>>>>> in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
>>>>> impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
>>>>> artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
>>>>> Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>>>>
>>>> mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.
>>>

>>> Rubbish, Mac demise has a lot to do with Lendl. Lendl was well
>>> disciplined
>>> athlete
>>> and
>>
>>
>> So what happened in '84?
>
>What happened after 84 ? What happened in 84 has nothing to do with Lendl's
>improvement after
>that year ? Now can you tell me when was Mac ranked outside top 50 since
>you said he was
>ranked outside top 50 most of the time after 84?

if it was only lendl's improvement, mac would've been losing solely to
lendl in say 85-90. clearly not the case. mcenroe was losing to
everybody after USO 85, or not even playing.

86-92: mac won 0, had 2 slam SF, 1 slam QF out of 28 available events.
only 3 of those were losses to lendl.
mcenroe's clear peak was 80-84, a couple yrs shy of normal.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:51:05 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:11:23 +0000 (UTC), Yama
<tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:

>bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>: mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.
>
>I think Borg's retirement sorta hurt Mac. He must have lost some

>motivation without the Iceborg at the other side of the net. He

>was a genius, and they become easily bored.

spot on.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:52:03 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:42:06 +0000 (UTC), Yama
<tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:

>TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
>: > He
>: > was a genius, and they become easily bored.
>: >
>
>: Apparently he was bored in 81-82 too when Lendl beat him 7 times in a
>: row slap bang in middle of Mac's peak.
>
>Well, on the other hand, Mac beat Lendl 10 times in 83-84 when Lendl was supposed to be
>"catching up"...

he brutalized lendl in 83-84. if it were a fight they would've stopped
it.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:55:14 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:17:50 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

>news:0eydnaevy-cvBVvR...@westnet.com.au...

>> On 10/26/2010 4:07 AM, Inglourious Basterd wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct, 17:59, TT<do...@email.me> wrote:
>>>> Here's a fun
>>>> site:http://www.aneki.com/greatest_tennis_players.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=Ivan+Lendl&player_2=John+McEnroe
>>>>
>>>> Nice idea there, comparing 2 players in 5 categories:
>>>>
>>>> Head-to-head
>>>> Career titles
>>>> Career win%
>>>> Major titles
>>>> Weeks at #1
>>>>

>>>> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
>>>> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
>>>> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!
>>>
>>> Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
>>> who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
>>> great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
>>> tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender. As it is, he is in the
>>> "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
>>> in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
>>> impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
>>> artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
>>> Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>>
>>

>> Of course that's bullshit. Why didn't Lendl 'overpower' him in 1984?
>>

>> The wins for Lendl post '84 tell us nothing as Mac was ranked out of the
>> top 50 most of the time & had it with tennis. He proved he was far better
>> than Lendl & simply got bored after '84.
>

>Mac was never ranked outside top 50 until after he retired at 1992 USO.
>So what you posted above is absolute rubbish.

he was ranked in top 10 once after 85 - and that was 89 when he had 1
short attempt at focusing on salvaging a yr or two of tennis again.

funny - he beat lendl at dallas WCT that yr. lendl must've been on the
decline, eh? lol.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:57:35 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:44:02 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 4:01�am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>> On 10/26/2010 4:07 AM, Inglourious Basterd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 25 Oct, 17:59, TT<do...@email.me> �wrote:
>> >> Here's a fun site:http://www.aneki.com/greatest_tennis_players.php?c[]=w&c[]=m&c[]=t&c[]=c&c[]=h&player_1=Ivan+Lendl&player_2=John+McEnroe
>>
>> >> Nice idea there, comparing 2 players in 5 categories:
>>
>> >> Head-to-head
>> >> Career titles
>> >> Career win%
>> >> Major titles
>> >> Weeks at #1
>>
>> >> Pretty much agree with this sort of system, although Career/Grand/Golden
>> >> Slam should be included as well...plus holding tournament records.
>>
>> >> Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious who is the better player considering
>> >> Lendl-Mac...Lendl wins in all five categories!
>>
>> > Lendl is ahead of Mac in pretty much all objective measures. People
>> > who are huge Mac fanboys try to lift him even higher than his (already
>> > great) place in the history books. If players were ranked on pure
>> > tennis genius, Mac would be a GOAT contender. As it is, he is in the
>> > "great players" range but not in the very top tier. Lendl of course is
>> > in the same range as Mac, but marginally higher if we are being
>> > impartial observers. It's clear that Lendl's game overpowered Mac's
>> > artistry, and changed tennis in the long run. Just as Mac hastened
>> > Borg's demise, Lendl hastened Mac's.
>>
>> Of course that's bullshit. �Why didn't Lendl 'overpower' him in 1984?
>

>He did in 82.

>
>> The wins for Lendl post '84 tell us nothing as Mac was ranked out of the
>> top 50 most of the time & had it with tennis. �He proved he was far
>> better than Lendl & simply got bored after '84.
>

>What about Lendl's wins before? Lendl dominated Mac in 81 and 82. At
>one point he won 7 in a row. Do those wins not count?

good point: they DO count. but the problem is that mcenroe turned it
around, it was on mcenroe's racket, not lendl's. mcenroe made a
strategy change and beat lendl badly for next 2 yrs, and they played a
LOT those 2 yrs. lendl didn't get WORSE in 83, 84 by any means.
difference is mac was FAR worse 85 onwards against everybody, not just
lendl.

>Reality is, the Mac/Lendl rivalry went back and forth in momentum
>until Lendl pulled away.

sure lendl, and rest of tour, pulled away 85 onwards, as mcenroe had
car in reverse, full speed no less.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 6:59:53 PM10/26/10

to

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:12:59 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:oImdnQeS7bNQU1vR...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 10/26/2010 10:44 PM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>> Reality is, the Mac/Lendl rivalry went back and forth in momentum
>>> until Lendl pulled away.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That would only be true if Mac was ranked no.2 post '85.
>
>Then you are admitting it is true. Mac was ranked No.2 until April 86.

mac yr end rankings 86 - 92:
14 10 11 4 13 28 20

bob

Raja, The Great

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 7:05:10 PM10/26/10

to

Wrong Lendl wasn't playing his best tennis in 83 and 84. He was much
better in 1982. When he trashed beat Connors/McEnroe about 9 times,
losing only once.

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:36:07 PM10/26/10

to

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:17:27 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

i gave yr end rankings. april 86 is not "year end" but simply has
carryover from 05 still. mac ended 86 at 14.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:38:07 PM10/26/10

to

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:13:34 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

no - while lendl's level did not diminish in 83, 84 - mac's clearly
diminished from 85 onwards. not only "relative to lendl" but "relative
to everybody."

bob

Superdave

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:46:24 PM10/26/10

to

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:09:50 -0500, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>In article
><99d6f23a-4bdf-4da4...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>uly...@mscomm.com () wrote:
>
>> I prefer Lendl as a player, though not his mental game or style.
>> McEnroe was a genius, Lendl merely worked harder than anyone else to
>> maximize his talent.
>
>It's a lot harder to do that than to be a genius. I have enormous respect
>for Lendl.
>
>wg

me too

Yama

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 8:47:53 PM10/26/10

to

bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
: he was probably more in it for the money than any player i ever saw,

: no doubt. the only tournament that i believe he really wanted (and who
: knows, maybe because it'd pay off the most) was wimbledon.

US Open usually had slightly bigger prize money purse than Wimbledon.

But according to this: http://www.stevegtennis.com/res-96.htm

In 1988-89 Wimbledon indeed had the most prize money. FO pulled ahead in 1990.

bob

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 9:13:42 PM10/26/10

to

i was talking more about the huge endorsements after wimbledon, much
higher than the prize $ only. either way, no doubt lendl was money
driven more than other top players.

bob

Raja, The Great

unread,

Oct 26, 2010, 9:17:42 PM10/26/10

to

On Oct 26, 8:13 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:47:53 +0000 (UTC), Yama
>
> <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:

> >bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >: he was probably more in it for the money than any player i ever saw,
> >: no doubt. the only tournament that i believe he really wanted (and who
> >: knows, maybe because it'd pay off the most) was wimbledon.
>
> >US Open usually had slightly bigger prize money purse than Wimbledon.
> >But according to this:http://www.stevegtennis.com/res-96.htm
> >In 1988-89 Wimbledon indeed had the most prize money. FO pulled ahead in 1990.
>
> i was talking more about the huge endorsements after wimbledon, much
> higher than the prize $ only. either way, no doubt lendl was money
> driven more than other top players.
>

Being such a big fan of Lendl, how ironic that you spew so much of
garbage against him, isn't it, boobsie?

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 4:31:41 AM10/27/10

to

"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:jtlec654jvuurdh4h...@4ax.com...

You forgot apart from Lendl there was also emerging young players like
Becker
and Edberg both were talented and had even better games than Mac.

>
>> So the problem is if he could not adapt to Lendl's play then why he
>>would in any other eras ?
>
> he adapted to lendl's play just fine, so long as he was playing his
> own best tennis. but after his drug use and semiretirement, of course
> he fell off a cliff.

Certainly not with a record of losing the last 10 out 11 times they played.
To
most people apart from few Mac fanatics Lendl did add a few more tools to
his
game, he was a better volleyer, had a better return than his earlier days
and he
hired Roche who was left hander himself to help him to develop a game that
could
beat Mac. Lendl of 82-84 was still a player who was developing his skills
and he
matured slowly as a player. He was a late bloomer.

>
> i ask, how come borg couldn't come back and play competitive tennis
> when he briefly tried, after long layoff? because nobody can do that
> of course.

What Borg got to do with Mac and Lendl ?
>
> bob

john

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 4:40:39 AM10/27/10

to

"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:v6mec6pqg53181prk...@4ax.com...

We also had Edberg and Becker who were building their game and also
gradually approaching
their peak. Wilander was also in the picture for most part of 85-90. When
Mac was dominating
in 84 Edberg was just one year out of junior and Becker was still playing
junior tennis.

>
> 86-92: mac won 0, had 2 slam SF, 1 slam QF out of 28 available events.
> only 3 of those were losses to lendl.
> mcenroe's clear peak was 80-84, a couple yrs shy of normal.

Lendl's peak wasn't exactly 80-84 but 85-87.
>
> bob

john

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 4:42:31 AM10/27/10

to

"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

news:dNGdnQbibdkXf1rR...@westnet.com.au...

He wasn't a great player but good enough to beat Mac in slams than the other
way round.
>
>

Whisper

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 4:44:50 AM10/27/10

to

On 10/27/2010 8:48 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Oct 26, 4:38 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 3:46 pm, Patrick Kehoe<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 12:31 pm, drew<d...@technologist.com> wrote:

>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 12:26 pm, "ulys...@msomm.com"<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, 100% wrong.
>>
>>>>> Mac explained all that in his autobiography. Tatum was pushing him for
>>>>> the time off, he was into drugs and she was pregnant with Sean. Those
>>>>> were the reasons, not Lendl's thrashing of him in the '85 USO final.
>>

>>>> McEnroe has always had an inflated opinion of himself. He was also
>>>> surrounded by freaks who told
>>>> him he was the king and this only made him more of an asshole than he
>>>> already was.
>>
>>>> It is always difficult for 'geniuses' when they are defeated by
>>>> somebody who excels because of hard work and
>>>> persistence.
>>
>>>> McEnroe had a short time at the very top. He had great successes
>>>> against Borg and Connors. It was clearly
>>>> very difficult for him and his fans to accept that all of his genius
>>>> was not enough to defeat the Lendl power game.
>>
>>>> I remember this very clearly and the statement "I have more talent in
>>>> my little finger than you have in your whole arm".
>>
>>>> There's absolutely nothing like answering such a statement with your
>>>> racquet and Lendl did this again and again to McEnroe.
>>
>>>> If Mac hadn't been such a knob it would have been sad to see. Lendl
>>>> was just half a knob.
>>
>>> Right. And all the gloss that some Macfan-anatics around here spread
>>> doesn't change what actually happened... good god if just 'being
>>> talented' were the final measure we would be EVEN more awash in coulda
>>> woulda around here than we currently are... Lendl just had the power
>>> game, fitness, fighting spirit and point to point commitment to rip up
>>> JMac... that's just the way it was... Lendl certainly LOOKED like his
>>> game and personality was getting to JMac as their careers
>>> progressed...
>>
>>> P
>>
>> Lendl became a smarter player starting 1985. Before that we used to
>> just hammer the ball and was more of a hit or miss player. He also
>> added variety and fitness to his game in 1985. He was one of the late
>> bloomers.
>
> Specifically, Lendl added a better topspin lob and learned to change
> the pace up, especially off his serve and backhand. His off pace wide
> serve in the deuce court and his soft slice cross-court helped vs guys
> like Connors and against net rushers. He gave Becker fits with that
> shot...no pace, dying at the shoes.
>
> Rodjk #613

er, 3-0 in slam finals to Becker, 5-1 overall.

Whisper

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 5:12:47 AM10/27/10

to

You'd think this was the most obvious of tennis facts.

Now - more than ever - I'm convinced most posters here are genuinely
retarded.

Whisper

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 5:15:03 AM10/27/10

to

Bottom line Mac dropped 50% of his '84 form by march '85.

Whisper

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 5:23:53 AM10/27/10

to

On 10/27/2010 11:38 AM, bob wrote:
>>> good point: they DO count. but the problem is that mcenroe turned it
>>> around, it was on mcenroe's racket, not lendl's. mcenroe made a
>>> strategy change and beat lendl badly for next 2 yrs, and they played a
>>> LOT those 2 yrs. lendl didn't get WORSE in 83, 84 by any means.
>>> difference is mac was FAR worse 85 onwards against everybody, not just
>>> lendl.
>>
>> Good point, but the problem is Lendl turned it around in 85 and dominated
>> mac and then it was on Lendl's racquet to dominate their matches. So Rodjk was correct.
>
> no - while lendl's level did not diminish in 83, 84 - mac's clearly
> diminished from 85 onwards. not only "relative to lendl" but "relative
> to everybody."
>
> bob

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 6:00:31 AM10/27/10

to

In Majors: Mac 3, Lendl 7.
Overall: Mac 15, Lendl 21.

In Majors or by any other measure, at any time in their respective
careers,
Mac was never ahead of Lendl. It's poignant to have to point this
out, as
JMac was my favorite player of that era (for his veritable genius; I
couldn't
stand his gamesmanship and the outright cheating he got away with by
virtue of being an American Star), but he knew, as did Lendl and
everyone
who was watching, that genius *per se* meant little under the
onslaught of
a disciplined and very talented opponent, as Lendl was. This is why
JMac
*needed* to throw those tantrums, which he was a master at..

still awaiting Lisperbob's analysis (read rewriting) of the Lendl/Mac
record pre
'84...

Even the ego'd out JMac says the game passed him by.
The Lisper and his boy bob know better, however..

john

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 6:07:29 AM10/27/10

to

"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:c2mec61hivv5fp07q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Iceberg
> <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 26, 2:09 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:10:05 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Oct 25, 6:12 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Inglourious Basterd

>>> >> mac's demise had nothing to do with lendl.
>>>

>>> >Since you are such a big Lendl fan, I wonder why you are always anti-
>>> >Lendl.
>>>
>>> only recognizing what i saw. mac had huge off court issues that lead
>>> to his demise. if not for those issues, his results might've
>>> diminished due to poor fitness, etc anyhow - but staying with reality,
>>> his actual (not hypothetical) demise was his own doing.
>>
>>yes, he says this in his book.
>
> mcenroe was never a hard trainer, never fit, and his prep intensity
> was maybe 1/5 of lendl's. yet when mac was young and focused and
> trying, he was mopping the floor with lendl. lendl mopping the floor
> with a post 85 mcenroe who was giving *nothing* to tennis isn't very
> relevant. shame cause i liked lend.
>
> bob

You forgot Lendl was even younger than Mac and if he was mopping the floor
with
Lendl why did he lost to him 7 times in 82 when Lendl was still trying to
win his
first grand slam ?

Pelle Svanslös

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 6:37:09 AM10/27/10

to

MBDunc wrote:
>
> We love to point out how transitional someones like Courier/Hewitt
> feel now but in truth at their (semi)dominating periods they looked as
> great as anyone.

As far as Hewitt goes, I'll have to raise an objection. His reaching #1
was considered an abomination then and it still is.

--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous

Carey

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 6:54:50 AM10/27/10

to

Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> >
> > We love to point out how transitional someones like Courier/Hewitt
> > feel now but in truth at their (semi)dominating periods they looked as
> > great as anyone.
>
> As far as Hewitt goes, I'll have to raise an objection. His reaching #1
> was considered an abomination then and it still is.

Your use of the passive voice "..was considered.." is interesting.
By whom? You (or your nym) wouldn't be Swedish, by any chance? :)

Hewitt was #1 for two years and deserved it eminently. Too bad he was
*also an asshole* and got into a tangle with the ATP, his coach, and
pretty
much everyone else att... I doubt you, as with the Lisper play, or
have played
tennis- otherwise you'd know what kind of formidable opponent someone
like Hewitt could be. Sampras knew, and mentioned it in his book.

Yama

unread,

Oct 27, 2010, 9:39:26 AM10/27/10

to

Pelle Svansl�s <pe...@svans.los> wrote:

: MBDunc wrote:
: >
: > We love to point out how transitional someones like Courier/Hewitt
: > feel now but in truth at their (semi)dominating periods they looked as
: > great as anyone.

: As far as Hewitt goes, I'll have to raise an objection. His reaching #1
: was considered an abomination then and it still is.

Hewitt was dominant #1 for quite long period, with 1000+ lead over #2 player over
most of that.