Who is your pick Borg, Lendl, Connors or Mcenroe?

First topic message reminder :

Starting with
Connors,
won 8 slams,
held the record for 160 weeks at number 1,
won a staggering of 149 titles

Mcenroe
won a total of 7 slams out of the 11 finals

Lendl
19 slam finals but 8 slams and no Wimbledon

Borg
11 slams but no US open or Aussie open

Going by the response on this topic, it seems quite clear that despite of so few tournaments played on grass, it is the most important tournament of the year.
Lendl being such a dominant player failed to stamp his authority because of his lack of Wimby titles on the other hand Borg despite of not winning us open still rated one of the best.

Eric, there was a good saying back in mac's day that the best doubles player in the world was john Mcrenoe the second best double player in the world was whoever Mcrenoe's partner was on that day. What people forget about Mac was that he not only was good serve and volleyer but maybe the most underrated areas of his game was his return and his speed. He was the master of the chip and charge but he could step up and whack the return real well also. He was also very quick in his youth, both side to side and no one ever has been quicker from the baseline to the service line.

Wow, wimby is definetly the signature slam, I don't think that was lendl's biggest reason for not being rated goat however. The biggest thing is that he lost most of his grandslam finals I think more people would think of him as a goat candidate if he had a better winning percentage in his 19 slam finals.

I remember Lendl's playing days as that was the time when Becker, Edberg were making their marks. Every year, it used to be the same question as whether Lendl will be able to break his duck at Wimby, although he came very close but couldn't cross that threshold which has eluded Murray as well so far.

I preferred Becker and Edberg to Lendl as their game had more flair than Lendl. I also remember Chang's first FO in which he surprised everyone with his court ocverage and phenomeonal pace.

If Lendl is included, why is Mats Wilander not included?

Glad that not many fell for Connors record. 5 of his 8 slams were on home soils and that his no coincidence as his owes the crowd a big share of his wins.

Also the his weeks at number 1 like his finishing the year at number one were at a time where slams counted no more points than the equivalent of today's Estoril.

And finally his 109 tounament wins contained many of 8 or 8 player-entry only...and even some where he only had to play the semi and the final at a time the depth of field was very poor.

I was of a big fan of the other 3 at different stage of their career.
I can't place one above the other.
Maybe Borg cause he gave me the passion for the game....but at the same time, he was probably the less talented of the 3. So difficult choice.

Lendl was not robotic.

I'd say McEnroe looked the more talented by far but Lendl's talent was in the flick of his wrist. Being able to paint the lines like he did certainly required lots of talent but it was less obvious than Mc....expect when you consider their H2H.

Agassi got a lot of bad press about his revelations on CM abuse (not going to open them can'O'worms) from his book, which I must say I enjoyed immensely, but as much as I liked his flair and talent, and Borg's skills and artistry, I really liked Llendl who was the antithesis of showy, play acting, in ya face tennis

He was a great player who could get out of trouble with his forehand, his backhand was pretty good too and I seem to remember him drop-shotting many times, if his net-play had been better, aka his volleying and half-volleys in no mans land, then he may have got a Grassy or two.

But he didn't like to commit to going forward to the net, he could have got quite a few cheap points that way, as his deep backhand into the corners were very effective. And that was really where he was beaten easy sometimes, getting drawn into the net from short or drop shots then getting passed.

I liked him a lot and his small racquet head size amazed me, that he could connect with the ball at such high speeds and get it in the middle every time.

Wonderful player, who I preferred as the serious player, rather than the pantomimers and the shouters who spoilt a good game of tennis sometimes.

Tenez, Connors was a player who was competitive for so long at the highest levels. He held the record for most consecutive grandslam quarters until Fed just broke that record at RG. I rate Connors equal with Lendl, then I would go Borg and finally Mac. If you look at Borg I think what hurts him in my book, is that he 1. the game sort of passed him by at a young age and he quickly retired 2. Unlike the other three he was never able to transition to the modern graphite racquet effectively. Mac, Connors, and Lendl all one slams with new racquet while Borg in my mind is the last great solely wooden racquet champion. Mac is the most talented of the 4 but the player who had the lowest level of dedication to physical fitness of all of these players.

gboycottnut wrote:If Lendl is included, why is Mats Wilander not included?

Wilander won only 5slams. Lendl reached 19 finals and 8 slams.

Wilander won 7 slams and in one year he won 3 slams in a single year only Rafa, Laver, Sampras, and Fed have accomplished in the open era. Yet Wilander in my mind is clearly below the connors, borg, Mac, and Lendl category. He was always second or third fiddle and had only one year end #1. I think why wilander wouldn't be included would be because the rest of these players had multiple year #1 finishes. And wilander was kind of a perenial #2 or #3 guy.

Socal - I know Connors longevity record...but that to me is due to the much poorer depth of field of the time (still early open era) and the fact he was intimidating many players on the court who did not have the experience to play in front of huge crowds.

He stole 2 USO GSs to Lendl by alienating the crowd against him for no reason. He was a bully to all players in the changing room and hated by all players at the time.

He did the same thing in his last 4th rund or 1/4F at the USO v young Kristein.

He was a gladiator but not in the same league as teh other 3 in terms of tennis talent.

And out of teh 4, Lendl was the only one who could cope with the young generation who grew up with large racquet frames that was Becker, Edberg and even Agasi, Courier and Sampras....running the latter pretty close even at 34!

That makes him better than his record would suggest.

Borg and McEnroe made most of their slams when Lendl was still young. We can however say that Lendl made his 8 slams while facing the best of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker, Courier and even Agassi and Sampras.


Once can really say he was born at the wrong time!

I have no qualms at all about rating Lendl at the top of the list, he was a dominant #1 in a period that had a great depth of talent at the very top of the game. But I respectively disagree on your appraisal of Connors. i would agree that connors didn't have the same type of talent as borg, Mac, and even lendl. And frankly, I am a connors fan, and even I agree that he was a grade pr***. And he certainly did intimidate his lesser opposition at NY, where he will always be seen as the king no matter who else came before or after. Talent is one thing, but results are what we are talking about and the true measuring stick. And if you look at Jimmy's records, how many weeks he was at #1, the tournaments he won, the grandslams he won, the consecurtive Qfs appearances he was as accomplished as any of the other four. And he was able to make the transition from wooden to graphite racquets that borg was never able to. And you can't just chalk up his successes to a weaker era in the 70s. He stayed relevant often beating younger pros all the way till the early and mid 90s. In fact, if you want to measure the talent that Connors faced over the course of his career from Ashe, Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Vilas, Nastase, Mac, Borg, and all the way to courier, agassi, and sampras; it is remarkable. And since he was a contemporary of borgs, if you want to knock the competition he faced you are also going to have to make the same adjustments to Borg's resume since they peaked at approximately the same time. In my mind the fact that connors has as good a resume as any of the 4 greats mentioned and that he lacked their talent adds to his mystique and does not take away from it. Again if I was ranking these 4 this is how I would rank them

1t. Lendl and Connors
3. Borg
4. Mac

Mac for sure. Great player, great champion even his tamtrums were great to watch.

Welcome to the forum Pomar

Pomar, he was really entertaining when he got upset and he was one of the few tennis players I have ever seen that would go on a rampage after he was angry. Some of his best tennis came after one of his tantrums. The best was when he would sit in his chair and refuse to play until the tournament supervisor would come down and listen to his grievances.

Thank you legendkillar. I'm sure that when I post you will pardon my English, my grammar in that language can be awful.

Pomar no problem your english seems good to me, I grew up speaking the language and my posts are chalked full of typos and grammatical errors.

Connors doesn't do well in this probably because he lacks an FO title but I think two points need to be mentioned about this:-

1:- 1974 was his best year when won all slams apart from the FO. Which he was banned from, as he'd signed to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and the FO organisers were opposed to.

2:- He did manage to win USO 76 which was held on clay at that time, beating a Mr Bjorn Borg in the final. Making him one of only 5 men to have won slams on hard, clay and grass others being Wilander, Agassi, Federer and Nadal.

Wiki:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors

Eric very telling statistic there, Connors accomplished quite a feat by winning a grandslam on all surfaces something that neither Borg, lendl, or Mac have accomplished. His consistency and his ability to play in different eras, with different equipment, on all surfaces is truely remarkable. Also the guy won more tournaments than any man that has ever played, and until recently held the record for most grandslam QFs in a row. In my mind the fact that Jimmy didn't have a great serve, was not the natural tennis genius of mac or the athlete borg or lendl were and still managed to compete and often beat these greats is a testament to the kind of competitor Jimmy was and is. Certainly beating borg over 5 sets on clay itself is an accomplishment.