Robbie wrote:> The top 3 in modern era (1974-2004) are pretty clear in both (Borg,> Lendl, Sampras - and - Evert, Graf and Navratilova) in any order you> like.
Just wondering... what makes 1974 the start of the modern era? Why not 1973 or 1975? Or 1968? What makes 1974 the year that started modern tennis?
Bink B <dungwad@disney.com> wrote in news:d1gsce$d0k$1@zook.lafn.org:
Robbie wrote:>> The top 3 in modern era (1974-2004) are pretty clear in both (Borg,>> Lendl, Sampras - and - Evert, Graf and Navratilova) in any order you>> like.>
Just wondering... what makes 1974 the start of the modern era? Why not> 1973 or 1975? Or 1968? What makes 1974 the year that started modern> tennis?
Probably because it was the year Connors, Evert, and Borg all won their first Grand Slam titles? ___________________________
"Robbie" <robvanzant@email.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:1111194833.405515.101400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> The top 3 in modern era (1974-2004) are pretty clear in both (Borg,> Lendl, Sampras - and - Evert, Graf and Navratilova) in any order you> like.>
Quite reasonable. Though depending on current mood, I keep constantly switching the order of Lendl, Mac and Connors. They all have their strenghts and weaknesses which never seem to settle in my lists (now I feel Connors is the best of those three but it can change within a minute). Sampras is #1 very closely followed by Borg...
Federer definitely passes Wilander soon (if gets another yearend #1 or another GS this year) and is probably near to Agassi within a year....
If he was really that good on red clay, he would have made at least the>finals of FO all those years from 1979-84, when he was making the>finals of Wimbledon and USO.
It was a kind of fluke he never got FO final (84-85 he had enourmous hurdles to pass at semis)
I repeat. Connors was great. Mac was great. Lendl was great. Someones can compare oranges to apples. I can not decice which one of those three are greater...sometimes I feel Lendl sometimes Mac, sometimes Connors....
If he was really that good on red clay, he would have made at least
finals of FO all those years from 1979-84, when he was making the> >finals of Wimbledon and USO.>
It was a kind of fluke he never got FO final (84-85 he had enourmous
hurdles> to pass at semis)>
I repeat. Connors was great. Mac was great. Lendl was great. Someones
compare oranges to apples. I can not decice which one of those three
greater...sometimes I feel Lendl sometimes Mac, sometimes Connors....
Look at the head to heads,
Connors vs Vilas 5-4 ( a narrow lead) Connors vs Nastase 8-12 Connors vs Newcomnbe 2-2 Connors vs Borg 8-10 Connors vs McEnroe 13-20 Connors vs Lendl 13-22 Connors vs Wilander 0-5 Connors vs Becker 0-6 Connors vs Ebderg 6-6
Probably you can forget the Wilander/Edberg/Becker ones, but the others are major losses. He was always a bridesmaid type of player. The one year he truly dominated was 1974 when most of his rivals were oldie Aussies playin prehistoric sissy tennis and waiting admission into geriatric hospital
Mac 77 tourneys, Lendl 94> Mac 7 slams, Lendl 8> Mac 3 YEC, Lendl 5> Head-head Lendl leads Mac> Matches won - Lendl is way ahead> Weeks as No.1 Lendl 270, Mac 170>
Lendl was overall much more dominant during his time. He was dominant> in 85, 86 and 97. Mac only in 81 and 84. Lendl also also the leading> tourney winner in 81,82, 85, 86, 87, 89 (a record 6 years). Mac only in> 1980.>
Lendl leads in almost every category against Mac. There is no reason to> even think Mac is > Lendl.>
This is the easiest to split - Mac won 7 Wim/USO v 3 for Lendl. Mac is alltime tier 2 with 7 blue-chips, including healthy 3 Wimbledons. Lendl just misses tier 2 status - surprising he came close to making tier 2 given 0 Wimbledons, so that's a compliment to his consistency.
Mikko Ämmälä wrote:>>Lendl was overall much more dominant during his time. He was dominant>>in 85, 86 and 97. Mac only in 81 and 84. Lendl also also the leading>>tourney winner in 81,82, 85, 86, 87, 89 (a record 6 years). Mac only in>>1980.>
Lendl was great but so were Connors and Mac. Tough call IMHO.>
.mikko
Mac/Jimbo have 7 blue-chips including multi Wim/USOs. Lendl has 6 blue-chips but significantly none at the biggest title in the game. I'm comfortable rating him tier 3 as he looks inferior next to bigtime Wimbledon champs.
compare oranges to apples. I can not decice which one of those three>
greater...sometimes I feel Lendl sometimes Mac, sometimes Connors....>
I understand your position. But I feel that Connors is the worst of the> lot. >
.mikko
I think Mac/Jimbo are very hard to split - Mac slightly better at Wimbledon, Jimbo slightly better at USO - both won 7 combined. Jimbo 5 straight yrs No.1, Mac 4. Jimbo has an AO so if we have to rate them on achievement he gets a slight nod. But in terms of absoluteness, Mac is greater as he sent Borg packing (very rare for alltime tier 1 great to be surpassed at his peak). At any rate they are both very solid tier 2 guys. Both guys spanked Lendl at Wim/USO at peaks. Lendl got some back when they were old & done winning slams, but it was clear he never got to their level.
Lendl also had 4 yrs no.1, but actually won 7 slams (gifted 1), & lost an astonishing 11 slam finals (woulda been 12 had Edberg not busted back).
If he was really that good on red clay, he would have made at least>
finals of FO all those years from 1979-84, when he was making the>>>finals of Wimbledon and USO.>>
It was a kind of fluke he never got FO final (84-85 he had enourmous>
hurdles>
to pass at semis)>>
I repeat. Connors was great. Mac was great. Lendl was great. Someones>
compare oranges to apples. I can not decice which one of those three>
greater...sometimes I feel Lendl sometimes Mac, sometimes Connors....>
Look at the head to heads,>
Connors vs Vilas 5-4 ( a narrow lead)> Connors vs Nastase 8-12> Connors vs Newcomnbe 2-2> Connors vs Borg 8-10> Connors vs McEnroe 13-20> Connors vs Lendl 13-22> Connors vs Wilander 0-5> Connors vs Becker 0-6> Connors vs Ebderg 6-6>
Probably you can forget the Wilander/Edberg/Becker ones, but the others> are major losses. He was always a bridesmaid type of player. The one> year he truly dominated was 1974 when most of his rivals were oldie> Aussies playin prehistoric sissy tennis and waiting admission into> geriatric hospital>
