Now I was too young to remember the triumverate of Connors,Borg,and Mcenroe,but the general consnsus seems to be that it was a genuine three way rivalry,although it could be argued that by the time Mcenroe came along who was the youngest of the three,Connors dominating days had gone.

Having said that the H2H of each man with other reveals that they played plenty of times to consider it a three way thing

Borg-Connors 13-8
Mcenroe-Connors 20-14
Mcenroe-Borg 7-7

Could we now if possible have the beginnings of another three way tussle.Can all the main protagonists stay at a peak long enough to lift this into any league near these past champs?

There was a similar thing towards the end of the 80's between Edberg, Becker and Lendl (and add Wilander to that for good measure) and they were exciting times.

I think we have the potential for a definite and exciting three way battle at the top. The rest of the season will confirm that and I think all three have a good few seasons left in them, with possibly someone else joining in. Finally an exciting tussle in the ATP beyond Roger and Rafa. :ok:

I hope it can ammount to the three way rivalry of Borg-Connors-McEnroe it certainly has the potential and they have the talent.

Kind of similar too....

Fed is nearest to McEnroe kind of all court game
Nadal the great claycourter like Borg (but Borg was better on grass than Nadal)
Fed like Borg mentally
Djoko has a big personality and great bh like Connors better on hardcourts

I was going to mention those 3.The numbers are very tight in those H2H's.

Becker and Edberg have very tight confrontations with Lendl.The one that bemused me was Becker-Edberg which is quite weighted in Becker's favour,but then again Becker had more power in his game and a better forehand.

With Lendl for both men it's the battle for the net and Lendl to return well and keep his man back on the baseline with huge forehands.

I think it's on par with the previous era,although those who can remember the late 70's battles may disagree.

What puts in my view Lendl in a different league than Edberg and Becker is that he may well have been part of the Borg/Connors/McEnroe rivalry too. We could also add Sampras, Courier and Agassi! he never looked like outdated till the day he retired.

Lendl definitely had more about his game than Becker and Edberg and many people will talk about the late 80's as the "Lendl" Era. He was indeed nestled somewhere around the McEnroe/Borg/Connors Era and also when Sampras and Agassi were kicking about.

If only the guy could have converted more of his GS Final appearences, he was in more than Sampras was....but his winning ratio in them is less than 50%. Also he was in 7 straight US Open finals winning just 3.

EDIT:- But I'd disagree on the outdated bit.... he looked a shadow of himself from 92 onwards really.

I think that comment was aimed about Agassi :bow:

Ahhh yes, I think I read it wrong. Apologies Tenez.

Funnily enough Gav, it was Lendl who first got me into tennis. I thought he was like superman when i was a kid :bow: His failure to win wimbledon hurt me more than Tims, because he REALLY should have, especially in 1987 imo. It was the Sampras dominance and the rise of Seles and Pierce that swayed me to the WTA :)

I too was gutted by Lendl's inability to win Wimbledon. I was so torn when he played Boris there. My loyalties always lay with Boris, yet I felt so sorry when he lost. I was utterly gutted when he lost to Pat Sharp....oops I mean Cash....(it's the mullets that confuse me).... in straight sets back in 87. :( :(

I used to like Lendl, then his disrepect of grass annoyed me and I coudln't really give a toss if he won wimby or not now. What was amusing was that back in about 1984/5( approx, as I used to work in a shop around then and remember it being discussed in the canteen) Connors took care fo Lendl in a semi at Wimby I think. And Connors had been around for ages at that point, most people felt that Lendl ought to win that macth fi he was fgonna prove himself at Wimby but he didn't. I wish I coudl remember the exact year, all I could say is 83-5.

On having a 3 way rivalry bewteen Fed, Djoko and Nadal that reflects the Golden days of tennis - I doubt it. Firstly on talent and longevity - Nadal surely won't last that long and Djoko whilst he will grow in confidence will have other rivals I think besides Federer - at the moment I don't see Djoko as so supreme that he won't get challenged by others, And Nadal is being challenged by others all ready - he's never got to a hard court final - then again I don't think Borg ever did either but he was quite much more exceptional in his dominance at the French and Wimbledon. I think much will depend on how Fed plays from now on - will he go back to his usual self and if so how long will that last? And what kind of challenge will Djoko present on clay - with many clay court speciallists around? :shrug: And how many injuries is he gonna have? He's had a few already. And of course now he's wona GS the pressure is really on him. Lots of players don't cope well with that.

I think what enabled the 3 way rivalry with Mac, Borg, Connors was Connor's longevity enabling this to happen and his never say die attitude. .Nadla has that but not the longevity potential. His game relies too much on speed and strength.

I think also for the rivalry to seem great we have to have great personalities involved with great slam hauls. Now Borg was the ice man, so Fed can have that rolle, but Connors and Mac were hardly shrinking violets and although Nadal and Djoko might have more personality on the court than many they simply don't have the Mac and Connors factor. Esp Nadal off court - really says nothing contraversial or adverserial at all. Djoko maybe :shrug: And in terms fo slam wins, well Borg had 11 Connors 8 or 9 maybe, Mac 7 or 8? Sorry don't remember stats! Now obviously Fed has the credentials, and he's met Nadal in a few GS finals which helps. But so far just the FOs for Nadal, he's never gonna do a Borg 5 Wimbys and 6 FOs. He has too much competition on hard, and I guess he could win Wimby but in my mind that would be some fluke adn helped by the surface favouring his type. He woudl struggle surely to reach the number of slams that Connors won say. And Djoko - well who knows? I won't say never just in case but he doesn't look to me like an exceptional player that will accumulate GOAT stats like we thought Fed woudl, and still could.

Anway sorry to wafflel just my thoughts. :)

I'm too young to remember Borg as a player, but I saw him on TV in the stands at Wimbledon (or was it the US Open?). Anyway he still has that steely stare that I'm sure intimidated many opponents!! :D

Problem is though that they just don't match up as personalties however you try to bend it. And I don't see Fed as Mac. In soem ways yep, maybe, esp when eh started but he doesn't play the genius style as often as Mac - much more defensive. And obviously no cpmparison personality wise. That's the things with the Golden era - we will NEVER eb able to compare personalities as they were unique and nowadays personality is dying.

It's amazing because though we clearly have 3 distinguished players at the top, I am not convinced about the rivalry between those 3 Brakkus chose.I have mentioned it before, we have not enough data to really assess Nadal's competitiveness outside clay. The results on hard can easily be interpreted two ways. He is a fighter and will always manage to reach the later stage of tournments. True! but that is as long as he manages to avoid proven HC players in earlier round like Murray experienced a few weeks ago. I don't think he has had a real challenger over the last 6 or 7 months in the early rounds and therefore can only judge his performance on HC when he faced the better players.....and there results can be surprising.

Toronto - Semi beaten by Djoko 75 63 before 3 setters versus Dancevic and PHM in previous rounds.

Cincinatti - 2 round loss/injured v Monaco 76 4/1 w.o.

USO - 4th round lost to Ferrer in 4 tight sets.

Madrid - 1/4 F lost to Nalbandian 61 62!

Paris - lost to Nalbandian in the final 6/4 60

Shanghai - loses to Ferrer again in RR and 64 61 in the semi v Fed!

Chennai - 61 60 loss in Final v Youzhny

And finally AO 62 63 62 v Tsonga in semi.

As said a mixture of going far in tournies but also being creamed in the final rounds. So the question remains whether he will have consistent result at Wimbledon and clay this year. To be continued.

I personally see the 3 way rivalry with Nalbandian if he can maintain health and motivation. Let's not forget that he was nber 3 for a long time and never had the luck of meeting Nadal when Nadal was nber 2 and therefore believed that somehow could have flawed the ranking then.

Anyway, Should Nadal defend his Miami/IW , Clay and Wimbledon points this year, I'll shut up for ever regarding his place in the top 3 :P !

I see what you mean SB but to be fair, in today's tennis, there woudl be no room for Mc's game. I am sure if we were to transfer Fed in the 70/80s, he would have been able to pick up half volleys and go to the net often. On the other hand, Federer is a bit more of a swiss banker and though he has brio, he is not going to compromise a slam for aesthetic reasons like McEnroe did on a few occasions. McEnore has one style and executed beautifully, Federer adapts his game to his opponent!

Oh yeah, and that si exactly why tennis will a. never have the greats it had and b.never repeat the golden era. I seriously do not believe tennis will ever been seen as great again as ti was back then. :(

This is the perception of two old fans like us SB ;) , but I am sure today's youngsters will have the same feeling when Paolo de la Rubisha and john Moonballer will be respectively 1 and 2 in 2025!

roflmao roflmao

The 70's and the 80's were also probably helped by the fact that Tennis stars hung out with rock stars.Cash &Mcenroe,Gueralitas,and Nastase.These guys knew how to have a good time.

Lots of them lived to the excess,but this obviously has given way to a more professional approach,much like other sports.This has probably created a similar kind of almost cloning of the modern sports star.

This is I think a problem across many sports.Were a demanding lot us fans,because we want total dedication,and our heroes to be able to have huge personalities.Doesn't happen like that.

Modern day case Safin.

You are right. This is a problem experienced by other sports but also by any art or simply anything that has got to do with the cult of the icon be it Pop stars, actors and actresses, head of states etc...

If we consider today's recent actors, we are not doing them a favour by comparing their aura with Marlon Brando, james Dean, Monroe, Peck, etc.... I could not put today's top pop groups or solo singers in the same league as the Rollingstones, Beattles or Presley. Same goes with Churchill, Roosevelt or DeGaulle.

So the question is why? I think there is more than one answer to that but I would say the main reason is us not them! It is for some reasons extremely diificult to dislodge icons in our psyche, the longer they stay in our mind the more they grow and develop a "magic" image, and the harder it is to replace them. I would say it all started with the development of the audio and video media: essentially Movies and TVs. The first to take stage will impress our clean, immaculate minds like their predecessors won't be given the chance as the more it goes the more our minds become filled up with too many of them: "been there, seen it, done it"!

It is best illustrated with SB’s example. Borg and McEnroe! certainly two great characters, but who can we compare them with before???? They are, with Connors, simply the first tennis stars available to the large audience thanks to the development of TV at about the same time. The 1980 Wimbledon final was the first tennis final that “impressed” our minds. Laver, Roswall for instance, may well have had as much charisma as Borg but besides a few rare clips watched well after the “battle” is over; there is no chance for them to have been part of the Star system.

Take Borg again, who was the first to have pushed the physicality of the game to the first extremes, if he had had to compete with today’s players, there is not guarantee he would have been able to distinguish himself like he did then. In fact he could have been eclipsed by Canas! Now I know for having discussed similar subjects a few times on those boards that it hurts every time I mix up names carrying such different image. Borg chance was that he was the first to develop his strength enough to separate himself from the other players who where just about starting to take this sport as a job.

There is a lot more to be said on this subject but for me Nadal and Federer have done an excellent job of getting me interested in this sport again. I had given up on watching a player with huge talent being also a winner. Before Federer, players had talent but were generally losers, or they were hard workers and winners. Now we have one who runs and wins like Borg and has McEnroe’s genius. I have been watching tennis over those 30 years but I don’t think we have had such a combination of great tennis AND characters on the court. Nadal is clearly a phenomenon and his image would have worked marvel in the 70/80s. Fed on the other hand is extreme in is “classy” form and simply at the opposite end of the spectrum when compared with Nadal and appeal to a different but wide audience. I love it now but to appreciate it fully, we have to clear our minds of those icons that have overgrown and been clogging our objective perception of the sport. We can't blame the players.

:lmaao: :lmaao: :lmaao:

Paolo de la Rubisha! :lol: Moonballer! :lol: I love your names. What was the other one? Boremetodeathovic? :lol: And mine was Crapvolleysivic and Thumptheballova or something. :D


Yeah we are just Golden Era oldies! :lol: But i don't care cos I loved it.

Thumptheballova :D - Excellent!

I know, and it's affected other sports as you say. I'm nto into football but remember Georgie Best? And now we have clean living Beckham drinking mineral water and always looking squeaky clean and sometimes wearing skirts :lol:

Snooker was the same - we had Higgins and White for example. Big personalities, big party goers. Exciting players. I scarecely watch snooker now because I can't relate to the personalities and it just doesn't excite like it used to. Stephen Hendry changed the game and much as I respect him is is boring as f*ck!

Yep sport did seem more rock and roll then, and it wasn't just the partying with rock stars but the outifts. Borg caused a sensation when he walked on court looking more rock star than tennis player. My mum's eyes were on stalks! :lol: Everyone used to fancy Borg. Maybe the 70s was just a more rock n roll era? :shrug: Even music today isn't very rock n roll is it? The old bands have had to clean up their act after years of drug abuse (Status Quo, Stones, Paul McCartney) and the last decent band I can think of that were truly rock n roll was Oasis (don't quote me, there may be others). I do remeber in the 70s and 80s people being more into msuic and R&R lifestyles seeming cool. So mayeb social attitudes towards this have changed, orr maybe it is just simply that sports has become more professional - you simply can't compete at top level and win the cash these day sif you are a party animal. I think there might be a bit of both in it though becuase if you look accross society, although we apparently drink more and do more drugs than we ever did, thsi does seme to be more heavily scrutinised and deemd inapproprite in certain situations. I remember ti beign perfectly acceptable to get drunk every Friday lunchtime, with yoru boss, and go back to work and coast. Nowadays many employers don't allow drinkign in workign hours at all. Just a few thoughts :)

:D

Bashthelinesovic, Wotzanetovic? :D

I want to creat one for a boring baseline rallier with a Spanish South American sound but am struggling there!

The players nowadays make more money from sponsorship than from winning tournaments and you've got to imagine that sponsors would not be overly impressed with a star player being found drunk in a gutter somewhere, or at a Hollywood party snorting lines of cocaine. The players are expected to behave like professionals - and in actual fact when they have random outbursts on courts, or are disrespectful in post-match interviews or whatever, it tends to turn fans off :shrug: However, i don't doubt for a second that these guys go out drinking with their friends (except Fed....i get the feeling he's a stay in with a glass of wine, the missus and a movie kinda guy.....or go to a fashion show :rolleyes: ) - I found a pic of Djoko the other day looking kind of inebriated singing karoke with a slightly drunk looking Sharapova :blink: I suspect they just find it easier to keep their drunken escapades out of the press than footballers do....... :unsure:

Well I guess the sposorship issue has an effect.

Actually one of the first professionals I ever heard about who was very discipline din terms of diet, fitness etc was Navratilova. She would not eat read meat I recall, and had a very set diet. She used to even have special matresses and things to ensure she kept her back healthy. I saw he ron an interview last year and she was sayign that she was very obsessed with it all back then. Even now if she eats chips or drinks alcohol, she knows the next day becuase her body is so finely tuned that she reacts to 'bad' things!

Yes, but now there is 'Rocket Ronnie' with his dubious past/present and future lurking. He once made the most hilarious comment I've ever heard:

"people say I am the Mozart of snooker, and I know who he is - cos I've seen the film"

:D

Backofthecortez? Bit weak - but I liked the Cortez bit :)


I don't know - it's always nice to have an extrovert character who is a bit of rule breaker, but it seems you're damned if you do - and damned if you don't. Look at those players who were hauled over the coals by the LTA for drinking beer and eating pizza? :shrug:

To be at the top of your profession nowadays, there is no room for any trip up - diet wise, drinking wise etc etc. May make it seem bland on one hand, but I guess the tennis we see is the product of these 'fitness' machines.

Ideally, I'd like 90% of those players and 10% total off the wall wild cards for entertainment value!

Lendl was another who didnt eat red meat and had a computer diet, trained incredibly hard, didnt drink and slept 12 hours a night etc.etc.
while Mac enjoyed his beer and burgers but what a difference in personality there. Lendl ended up the better player , but his lack of charisma could be why he hardly gets talked about now except in a derogatory way now being remembered for matches he lost .

Yeah me too :D I like to see humans playing not machines, with emotions and normal reactions. I have no sporting ability at all, but if I did I'd do crap cos a. I'd be shouting and yellign on court and get code violatiosn and b. I'd be in the papaer every week pissed or something :lol:

Btw I like the Cortez idea :D :ok:

And yes, Ronnie is the only great character really, and he is so funny. :lol: Love that quote. Ronnie is priceless, love him :D

I served a tennis ball at the back of someone's head once, because I was losing and felt aggrieved because I felt there had been some poor calls, and I should have been easily in the lead (I was, of course, totally wrong) Got a bit of a laugh, but also got the biggest telling off I think, to this day, I've ever had. And in public.

Like Federer, I stopped the outbursts. Unlike Federer, I didn't become a tennis genius ;)

Good point on Lendl cos I was trying to remember a man to compare with Martina. :ok: Yes when he emerged the game was full of personaitites and he showed very little outgoingness and charisma on court, and I think that put folk off. I personally though he made a good contrast playing the likes of say Connors, in the same way Borg was the quiet one and Mac was the loud one. But Borg had his image, clothes, looks on court and charisma of it so people liked that. Still think Ivan was good to watch playing more charismatic players though, but sadly nowadays we have mroe Lendl types.

On today's players who have personality, I think it's a shame Baghi can't do better cos he really does have the air of a golden era player about him. The smile, the emotion and passion, charm, plenty of expression and a bit 70s looking I guess. He shares some characteristics with Agassi I think. :ok: And I don't get why everyone has a go at Hewitt cos he has Connors stamped all over him, and if folk think he is nasty then look at Nastase. :lol: Of course Murray has shown plenty of attitude, and he gets slated! :rolleyes: I like it, makes a refreshing change.

Of the others, I guess Djoko is considered a character but it does not come through as much on court as I would like, and with Nadal I find that he does show the fighting spirit well like Connors and Hewitt, but it doesn't seem as authentic to me. Federer is fine as he is because we need an ice man and his flair along with his ability to stay cool and up it on thr big points is enough. Different game but he reminds me of Borg a bit on court. Roddick is generally quite amusing, in fact he probably has more wow factor in charisma than his game. Were his game better and more varied, then he'd probably be nearign golden era status. I can't think of any others really.

:lmaao:

I've only ever played cue sports really to an great sucess and in competitions. I was told off, albeit jokingly, a few times though for cue violation. Like when I potted 6 balls in a row that weren't easy and missed the easy bit with the black and smashed my cue onto the floor. I also did similar when some stupid guy yelled whilst I was taking a shot, to put me off cos his team mate wa slosing. And nto onyl that I called him a nasty 4 letter word. He didn't do it again. :lol:

:lmaao:

It's competitive natures - even playing Monopoly, I've been known to throw the cards around in a fit of temper.

I've no right to criticise Murray, or anyone else, the way I do... :D

I think in his own way, Lendl represented a charismatic player. You either liked him or hated him. As Courier said, I know I am repeating myself, "Lendl can silence half of Arthur Ash centre court crowd at the blink of an eye". When I watch old tapes of Mc/Lendl, now, I am a bit disappointed by Mc's attitude, though I'll always love his tennis, his mannerism is clearly outdated. We can still watch Lendl though, without feeling embarrassed for him.

Me neither! :blush:

I once had a fun game of poker at my house and these two guys who had never met didn't get on and used it as a tool to have an argument. They started theiving each others' pots, now the funny thing was that we were only playing for clothespegs and oen guy calle dthe other a cheat and they were literally fighting and fpullign pegs! :lmaao:

I love the fake names guys :lmaao: ! I've got a funny personal story about Lendl. I was watching one of his matches with my mother, who in addition to enjoying his tennis had been checking out his back end and she had commented that she "didn't think he wore underwear, just an athletic supporter" :yikes: :D ! I can't think of the man without hearing this go through my head!!!!

:lol:

I have the similar thought every time I think fo Lynford Christie and hsi lunchpack!

Yes Lendl's appearance and his icy personality did lend a certain fascination about him . Especially with the way he played , he was once called Ivan the Terrible . Maybe charisma is the wrong word as it implies charm but he did have a big prescence on the court .
I was always a big fan of his especially seeing him beat McEnroe B)