Connors or McEnroe?

Stats :-

Grand slams - Connors 8, Mac 7
Connors - 5 US, 2 Wimbys, 1 AO. Didn't play AO or FO that much.
Mac - 4 US, 3 Wimbys. Didn't play AO or FO that much.

Weeks at No. 1
Connors - 268, Mac 170

Total tournaments won
Connors - 109
Mac - 77

Year End Championships
Connors, Masters Cup - 1, WCT Finals - 2
Mac, Masters Cup - 3, WCT Finals - 5

Championship Series (Masters) titles (excluding YEC)
Connors - 15
Mac - 14

Career win-loss
Connors - 81.8%
Mac - 81.5 %

Best year
Connors - 1974, 3 GS, win-loss 93-6
Mac - 1984, 2 GS, win-loss 82-3

H2H Connors 14 - 20 Mac
Grand slam H2H Connors 3 - 6 Mac

Weeks in top 3 (roughly)
Connors - 11 years, 5 months
Mac - 7 years, 1 month
-------------------------------------------------

Overall, Connors seems to nudge the stats, yet most people would place Mac ahead of Connors in the all-time great list. Is that mainly because of their playing style - Mac the wand-waving genius, Connors the relentless, never-say-die warrior? Is it partly because in the UK we place more importance on Wimbledon - is Connors more highly rated in the States? Is it because Mac did better against Borg, and Borg is rated above both of them? Or is it because more people were watching tennis in 1981-1985 than in 1974-1978, so more people remember Mac at his peak than they do Connors?

There's not a lot between them in my mind.

I would consider Mac to have the greater natural talent but Jimmy's longevity counts for a lot. His number of tournament wins is incredible.

Then again, I consider 70+ doubles titles a big argument for Mac.

If you look at their match records, I think both actually have a "touch of the Novaks", i.e. it's really only one stellar season and number of other very-good-but-not-stunning seasons. Neither had the multiple amazing seasons that Federer, Borg and arguably Nadal have had.

If I had to choose, I'd give McEnroe the edge, mainly due to his doubles record.

I'd deliberately left doubles out of it, hoping to judge just singles performance

Connors won a couple of GS doubles, but Mac was supreme at doubles.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'd deliberately left doubles out of it, hoping to judge just singles performance

Connors won a couple of GS doubles, but Mac was supreme at doubles.

If I discount doubles, I can't really separate them. Heart says McEnroe, head says Jimmy.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'd deliberately left doubles out of it, hoping to judge just singles performance

Connors won a couple of GS doubles, but Mac was supreme at doubles.

If I discount doubles, I can't really separate them. Heart says McEnroe, head says Jimmy.

Other way round for me

I have to go with Jimmy. I just think his consistency more than anything is just superior. I have to say this is one of my fav rivalries behind Becker/Edberg.

I think Mcenroe's personality has a little to do with him being rated over Connors by some. He was a larger than life character who used to make the regular news everytime he had a blow up on court.

Myself, I rate Connors higher.

if you take peak vs peak than MacEnroe was better. his 1984 season remains IMO the greatest ever year by a tennis player. However, there's no doubt that his start shone for a shorter time than Connors, whose longeveity is simply extraordinary. I'd go with Connors, just.

If you take doubles into account, than Mac takes it.

beauty vs tenacity again really, its what you prefer that decides your opinion if everyone is honest. McEnroe was a better tennis player, Connors a better athlete

Here we effectively compare Mac up to 25yo vs Connors for a whole lot longer.

That sabbatical Mac took in 85 effectively completely ruined his career, he was never the same afterwards...he should never have stopped. He can blame that one on Tatum O'Neal. Had he carried on I reckon he could have pushed 10 slams, he's that level of player. There's no way 87 Cash was a better player than him.
Connors was an excellent fighter...for me in the top 3 mentally toughest along with Sampras and Nadal. Lets not forget his return is top 3 too.

Also he was robbed a slam by being ridiculously banned from entering FO74 which he would have almost certainly won given he won the others that year when he was on fire. Prior to FO74 if memory serves me well he beat Borg routinely at Rome Masters just beforehand. In which case he would have had a CYGS and we'd be lauding him amongst the best ever. Plus he won slams on 3 surfaces don't forget.

For these and other reasons I put them both ahead of Agassi, Wilander and Lendl.

Well, the article seems to be suggesting we're talking purely in singles terms here, in which case it has to be Connors, for me. His peak didn't quite coincide with McEnroes, so the one stat above all which really bolsters Mac's claims (head to head record) loses a wee bit of sway in that regard. Connors hit his peak around '74 to '78, with McEnroe doing so between '81 and '84. That's a considerable length of time in tennis.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it yet, but what really does it for me is that Connors, unlike McEnroe, won Slams on three surfaces (one of his US Open triumphs being on clay). No French Open, but he did win a big one on the red stuff, whereas McEnroe didn't, albeit he came extremely close. That's a big embellishment of Connors' credentials and combined with his longevity, marginally better Slam count and phenomenal consistency - even when competing with a prime Borg - it gives him the decisive edge here, in my eyes.

Er, I mentioned it in the post before yours some 42 mins ago...

And it wasn't red stuff, I think it would have been green-ish.

Correct.

Sorry Lydian, must have missed that! And you're nowt but a pedant, Julius!

Was there a difference in the clay apart from the colour?

edit: OK, forget the question. I just read that green clay is faster than red clay. Which probably explains why Borg never won the US Open even when it was played on green clay.

88Chris05 wrote:Sorry Lydian, must have missed that! And you're nowt but a pedant, Julius!

No, it was actually a different type of clay, not just the colour. The manufacturing process is different and it's slightly harder and faster.

I jest, mate. Although I only know that the clay used in the US Open played slightly differently, can't say I know how or why.

...these Moderators from other sections turn up, jesting left, right and centre...

Becker vs edberg was hardly a rivalry. 35 meetings, Becker won 25! Never realised just how much Becker dominated over the years

Have you seen their GS meetings head to head? Much closer, I even think Edberg edges it.

That may be true but I think they only met I'm 3-4 slams. 25-10 is a huge gap overall. Clearly Becker had his number. Both great players but Becker was definitely superior

Connors wins it for longevity and overall career achivement. At their peak, it's more even.

So what's next one, Rosewall vs Laver? Or is that too far back for many opinions?

for some reason mcenroe is much more rated in spain

but seing spanish dominant tennis (relentless bassliners) we should like connors more

Yeah, I also do not quite know why McEnroe is typically rated higher than Connors.  I certainly prefer McEnroe's tennis and he may perhaps still be my all-time favorite player, but when one looks at cold hard numbers, Connors's numbers seem to look better, or at the very least very very competitive.

I have a few theories:

- McEnroe's style was more popular.  Connors was viewed as more of a grinder (does he not say somewhere in his autobiography something to the effect that he was viewed as one-dimensional - having good groundstrokes but not much else?).

- McEnroe's era coincided with the rise in popularity of tennis; and he ended up benefitting from it.

- Connors was more of an outsider; not quite so popular in tennis circles.

I'd also say a part of it is that McEnroe has to some extent 'rehabilitated' himself in the eyes of the public in his role as a commentator and pundit (and general all round celebrity - he even popped up in Curb Your Enthusiasm!).

I suspect that many who couldn't stand his attitude and antics as a player have softened in their view of him over the years.

I get the impression that Connors is still viewed as a belligerent brat.

Very tough to call but I give the edge to Connors on titles and slam count. However, would say Mac probably reached a higher standard of play over a short space of time but Connors longevity wins out.

It is odd as both have come full circle since their playing days. Especially at Wimbledon if there was a Connors V Mac match Jimmy was always the crowds favourite with Mac being the bad boy. Now, after their careers, I'd say Mac is very popular as people have been able to see his real self come across whereas Jimbo is far more closed and less popular.

Mac. Just. Connors did win a lot of events just before the boom of the late seventies

In the US, Connors was largely responsible for the boom of the mid/late 70s, with Borg bringing the sport more popularity in Europe.

Connors for me. H2H was more or less even when they were both aged between 20-30. Jimmy overall had a better career for me and his longevity was incredible.

Whose talent would I like? McEnroe's.

Whose career would I like? Connors'.

Having been an observer of both during their careers I have to admit that Connors I favoured at the time over McEnroe purely because I loathed Macs on court behaviour. In retrospect however I recognise the greatness that was JMc and having read his autobiography I think we all know that if he had shown the dedication that Connors had he would have achieved even more than he did. He wasted so much of the talent he had. He was in his way a genius an immature kid who couldn´t harness the God given natural ability he had. That being said.. albeit that Connors was not and still not the nicest person I could name  he was enormously  talented
and hugely entertaining but I think he had to work harder for his success ..it came so easy to McEnroe and I think this was a thorn in Jimbo´s side.

Interesting....and reading the pots by Atila, and Mad for Chelsea - then it was easy for me.

Take out the characters, looking only at results....Connors has it, hands down for me.

Peak v Peak - no question here, and the only person I think that would be in the "mix" for Peak v Peak versus McEnroe - is Federer. But between McEnroe and Connors - McEnroe has it easy.

But I believe that it's the body of work over a complete career that "puts" a player into the "list of standings," and for that alone, think Jimmy takes it.

Another "approach:"
You have one player who's going to play one match, with your Life on the line - who you gonna take between McEnroe and Connors? Without getting into, opponent, surface, location of match....?? Hard isn't it?!

My feeling is Connors on this one. All abstract mind you....but thanks for the thread, this one's gonna rattle around my mind for a while! LOL!

You have one player who's going to play one match, with your Life on the line - who you gonna take between McEnroe and Connors? Without getting into, opponent, surface, location of match....?? Hard isn't it?!


---------------------------------

Yes i have to go with you on that one. Jimbo was a fighter,  as I say  JMck found it all so damned easy and at times i felt (I believe Jimbo did too) that he never took the sport as seriously as he could have done. As he got older however I think he took a reality check and eventually came up with the goods.

Yes I like JCk now but Connors was the one I favoured in their day.

Another interesting one is Connors vs Lendl, or Connors vs Agassi.
Or indeed Agassi vs any of the 7-8 slam guys.

Infact the ultimate question is who was/is the best sub 10 slam guy?

It may end up as Diokovic (until he perhaps goes 10+), but in the past I'd have to vote Agassi.

Interesting Lydian. I would put Connors & Lendl ahead of agassi and McEnroe maybe ahead as well just for his lack of dominance, agassi that is.

Personally I would put Lendl only behind Federer Sampras Borg Nadal and Laver, he dominated for years and years and set so may records and probably had the biggest influence on the game

lydian wrote:Another interesting one is Connors vs Lendl, or Connors vs Agassi.
Or indeed Agassi vs any of the 7-8 slam guys.

Infact the ultimate question is who was/is the best sub 10 slam guy?

It may end up as Diokovic (until he perhaps goes 10+), but in the past I'd have to vote Agassi.

The greatest of them in my mind is Lendl because of his consistent top notch dominance of a very tough period on tour. Lendl was the best player of a strong pack that included Edberg, Becker, and Wilander. Plus his influence on the modern game through his heavy spinning forehand and fitness training gives him the edge as a pioneer of the modern power baseline game as well. Mcenroe was the most talented, Connors the fiercest competitor, and Djokovic still is the only one with an open account. It is interesting to see how it will pan out.

lydian wrote:Infact the ultimate question is who was/is the best sub 10 slam guy?

Tricky. I think McEnroe and Agassi are the most talented of that bunch but both had careers that I think fell short of their talent.

And although Lendl won 'only' 8 slams, I would say his overall record actually puts him not far off the Federer-Borg-Sampras-Nadal-Laver group.

In this group, head says Lendl, heart says Agassi.

I suppose when "greatest" comes into question, your ulitimate influence on the game needs to also be factored. I think its mighty close between Connors and Lendl. I'll probably just about hand it to Connors, winning Wimbledon eight years apart, and 109 tournament wins being the swing votes.

The problem is many haven't seen Connors play let alone Peak Connors play, by stats Connors win by huge margin , Mac always gets the mention coz of his style of play and the way he handled Borg rivalry.

I haven't seen both play so I go by stats and Connors win for me.  

invisiblecoolers wrote:The problem is many haven't seen Connors play let alone Peak Connors play, by stats Connors win by huge margin , Mac always gets the mention coz of his style of play and the way he handled Borg rivalry.

I haven't seen both play so I go by stats and Connors win for me.  

I feel priviledged to have seen both.. but have to say Connors wins it for me too but not by such a huge margin as you might believe.

Maybe peak vs peak was closer than some of you think? Connors peak was 1974, winning all three of the slams he played and being barred from entering the 4th, and with a 99-4 win lost record that stands above the best season of Roger Federer, and I think well above Agassi, Sampras, Nadal etc's best, and most others, and level % wise with the best season of Mcenroe.

But perhaps he took advantage of a weak year or weak period. His Wimbledon final was against a 39-year old Rosewall. Same again at the US open and the draws were not exactly full of hall of famers if you have a look.

Mcenroe's 82-3 year featured slam final wins against Connors and Lendl and also losing to Lendl at the FO.

I read Sampras's book and said there are two tiers of legends, Federer Laver himself Borg and Lendl, then Nadal Agassi Connors and McEnroe. Of course this was around 2007 he said this

Haddie-nuff wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:The problem is many haven't seen Connors play let alone Peak Connors play, by stats Connors win by huge margin , Mac always gets the mention coz of his style of play and the way he handled Borg rivalry.

I haven't seen both play so I go by stats and Connors win for me.  

I feel priviledged to have seen both.. but have to say Connors wins it for me too but not by such a huge margin as you might believe.

Thats nice to know you are fan of the game for such a long time, Lendl inspired all my cousins to take up the sport seriously but I was too young to understand the game and my first visit to Tennis match was the legendary Jim Courier, I instantly fell in love with his game and never turned back, its sad Jim never fulfilled his potential, one of the greatest raw talents.

Then came the dull phase of Sampras period, while I have to admit Sampras dominance on his time but I never liked him as a person and found to be a heel character up top but unfortunately there weren't many heroes who could defeat him, few I could remember are Rafter, Guga, Brugera, didn't like Agassi either but loved the matches of Rafter- Agassi for the contrasting styles, soon became a fan of Rafter only to become a fan of Federer since 2001 until I saw Del Po in action in 2008, then became a fan of Murray in 2012 Wimbledon loss. However i did like Rafa but never liked his style of play and hence avoided his matches unless its against Fed or some raw talents like Gonzales, Tsonga etc,..

My perspective of the game multipled when Fedal dominance started, I just can't believe how come two great rivals can be that friendly with each other specifically since it came after Sampras-Agassi era which was full of attitude. Now Tennis is full of face characters which makes the game boring again, we need some real top heel characters, I tought Djoko could provide that but even he started to move towards the other direction.  

In many respects I agree about Lendl and wrote about him years ago on BBC606, e.g. in this article I wrote here from 2008 called "GOTEs and GOATs" I acknowledged Lendl as the greatest player of the 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A37228269

OK, but you day Rosewall was the best of the 50s. Poor Pancho Gonzales. That guy has been seriously forgotten.

As an aside, is GOAT pronounced "Goat", or "go-the"?

meant "go-the" Predictive typing and all that.