I am only 17 so do not remember McEnroe playing (apart from seeing the infamous tie-break). It is said that his GS count does not do his talent justice. Is this purely because of his temperament/commitment?

In terms of talent is he above all? My dad said he had even more control of a ball than Federer does. Does this apply to his volley's or his groundstrokes as well. I can't imagine a better controlled serve than Federer's plus his other shots seems pretty pin-point accurate.

What do you think? Is McEnroe the most talented ever? He should have been up there in the GOAT argument is the general discussion I've heard.

Greatest ever.. probably not...

biggest POTENTIAL... I think so...

The emergence of the power game in the mid 80s was his undoing.. if he'd been born 10 years earlier I think he'd have won 10+ grand slams easily...

Also.. people sometimes forget he's one of the best doubles players of all time.. (and still is).

I agree he had the potential to do more than he did. But is he the most talented of all time?

Hi Federer-Williams,

McEnroe was a real great talent for sure (even if at that period the best shot makers and might with event more talent was Ilie Nastase a (real) "crazy" Romanian :yikes: with a on court behaviour that was even worst that the one of John, BTW: the rule of the time at the serve was precisely introduces, if I remember well, due to the behaviour of Ilie...He was simply taking a lot of time to de concentrate his opponent...Bof).

But let's go back to John: His Tennis was extremely "simple" if we want: I mean the guy (as he is repeating even now) he did not have a baseline game so he was simply always rushing to the net in order to close the point with a volley...And his volley touch I guess was one the finest I never saw B) (well I was a kid but still I remember quite well his way of playing)...

A part from that there was his behaviour: In one side I guess he was due to his never say never attitude but in the other side he was also playing in a period in which the public was accepting this behaviour. Nowadays a player behaving as John or Nastase would be directly shouted by the crowd at that moment the majority of the spectator was appreciating this sort of game...

To conclude: If I was behind him when he did his famous matches versus Borg at Wimbledon I really started to dislike him when he did not pay enough respect to another great player coming at that moment: Ivan Lendl. This is the guy who even more than John has changed the way in which Tennis is played...This man was a great man with develop the aggressive baseline game we now know so well and might be he was his presence at the end one of the factor that lead John to accumuulate less GS titles than expected (Might be ;) )

Anyway John was quite nasty with him during some important finals and he was really a shame.

I hope this is interesting for you..

Ciao

BTW: His most famous year it is the 1984...Win/LOS of 81-3...FED had a 81-4 in 2005 but still the record is in his hands...Please refer here:



BTW: His most famous year it is the 1984...Win/LOS of 81-3...FED had a 81-4 in 2005 but still the record is still in his hands...Refer here:
JOHN

Ciao

In terms of pure shot making ability John is perhaps the best ever and he also is probably one of the greatest underachievers in tennis...although Serena could be taking that title soon :(

But yes lots of unfulfilled potential. I would say not the power game was his undoing but his decision to take a break from the sport while he was IN his prime.

SerenaW19

I still believe that his decision was partially based on the emergence of this new Big power guys from the baseline playing with new rackets (on that side he was a member of the old generation who did not touch the new type of rackets) - I have a doubt but yes it seems this is the case :unsure:

John was smart enough to see that he was becoming really difficult for him and the fact that Borg decided to quite so early left him always with some sadness :(

...He was enjoying so much playing against Borg who was suited for his game because he did not have the power of Lendel and he was mainly a baseline player..

5 cent opinion ;)

Maybe...but he left when he was at his peak though, largely for family reasons, it was only when he came back that he really struggled with the power...as he just wasn't the same player. Afterall he had been beating Lendl most of the time before he retired but then after he came back Lendl owned Mac...

SerenaW19 you spotted the right points...I have to review a little bit this period...Youp. ;)

You are right the famous stand by...Get Married and so on and so forth...

But :rolleyes: if I remember well he was always stressing that he had to support an enormous pression to keep staying at the top...
And for me this pressure was the feeling that something really big was changing in Tennis and he would not be able to cope with that.. :)
Here it was his decision of the "wait and see".

This was the intepretation I build not at that moment but a little bit late ( at the moment I was really young :D ) I should really try to find out more interviews of him at that moment... ;)

In any case it was a pleasure to discuss with you.

Ciao Serena and see you soon :P

McEnroe never really recovered from being overpowered by Curren at Wimbledon in 1985. Later thast year he lost to Lendl at the US. He had a sort of resigned air at the presentation, as if he knew he could no longer cope with the new power game.
He took his break not long afterwards, after losing to Brad Gilbert.
He never won another major.
In 1984 he was awesome and looked like dominating for a long time.

Yes you're right he was very intense...perhaps only ice cool people like Fed and Sampras can stay at the top for extended periods...

I have said before that he took wooden racket tennis to it's height,and was the last Wimbledon Champion to play with one,and kind of ironic that he produced probably the finest display anyone has seen with wood at Wimbledon.

People marvelled at his economical style,his feel,and his pick-ups on the half volley are sublime.He had great posture and used his body to create his power,particulary on the volley.He had a straight takeback with his racket,and it was very compact,not like Roddick who looks like he's trying to start an aeroplane.

Also his body frame was very slight,much like Henman,similar build.So when the change came to graphite,he was lost especially as Lendl then took the game on to new power,and incredible physical conditioning.His muscles had muscles.

Mac talked about resting on his laurels,combined with his break,and lack of power,all valid reasons for his slip down.My guess is he couldn't bulk up enough,and really being an artist of the game probably didn't like to change for more power.So he got left behind.

Oh yeah,and he had the best lefty serve ever.If you see clips of him,notice his side-on stance and the wideness in his legs.Beautiful serve,and he got amazing movement on the ball because of it.

That is so true . Although you gotta love Mac . He is a legend.

Actually, McEnroe's main problem was his attitude to practicing: he himself said that he's working out more these days than he did in his prime. He really was quite lazy, he just didn't want to put in the hard work, he wanted to party (cocaine etc.)

That's the main difference between him and Federer: Fed is the hardest working, most focused player in the ATP, just like Lendl was (I've compared Fed to Lendl already in another post), his fitness level and dedication are off the chart.

McEnroe's true succesor was Rios: just as talented, just as lazy.

I'm not sure about the last bit, but definitely he used to get most of his practice out of playing doubles, rather than in the gym etc.

McEnroe and Rios?!?!?!? If McEnroe was as lazy and talented as Rios we wouldn't be speaking about him 20+ years on from his achievements! I am sure you were joking when writing that!

Dont forget though, he played an awful lot of doubles. That took the place of his practising. Obviously the game (especially his) was a lot less physical in those days so he didnt feel the nedd to work out much. He thrived on beer and burgers, when Lendl had a computer diet and trained incredibly hard. He even went for a ten mile run on Christmas day once. ;)

I feel Scvangils is being a little unfair to McEnroe. Up until 1985, McEnroe has absolutely nothing to apologise for. But then when the game changed and evolved, he either wouldn't or couldn't adapt. Is that laziness? Perhaps, but when you have enjoyed five years culminating in 1984 (and not just in singles but doubles as well), I feel you are perhaps entitled to relax! I don't think Rios's career can be seen in the same light.

I think Mcenroe's game just couldnt adapt after a point. His game was based around great touch, variety and net rushing at every oppurtunity. For all his guile, there has to be a shelf-life for that type of game especially as the power game started to usher in with the likes of Becker, Edberg, Wilander all making their moves up the echelons of the game.

It happened to Laver as well with the likes of Newcombe, Connors and Gerulatis all coming through. Its not a matter of Mcenroe not willing to evolve, but the game evolving without him.

The thing was though McEnroe was still within his physical prime in 85/86 whereas by the time Laver was overtaken he was well into his 30's. I think people are just surprised and still are that he never got anywhere near the top again. His head to head with Lendl is the most interesting as he 'figured out' a way to dominate him in his prime and then late 80's he just completely fell off and often lost to Lendl.

It's a shame really; we saw flahshes of brilliance from John post 84 but he never seemed to be able to do what he had to, consistently to beat the best.

You are right though dl, his heavily reliant net game was always going to suffer with Lendl and more powerful ground strokes all the time. But of course the baseline game wasn't overly prominant at that time.

I may have been a bit harsh on Mac, whose tennis I love to watch, but the fact remains that he was in his physical prime and still completely lost his mojo. The problem he faced, I think, is that you constantly need to improve to stay on top. Just look at what Fed's doing now and Agassi did before him.

McEnroe loved to win, but at least in those days (unlike today, I believe) I don't think he liked the game of tennis itself enough to improve his physique when he needed to. Federer is the greatest example of someone who really loves the sport and therefore is willing to fulfil his potential to the maximum by constantly looking for new ways to improve.