Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.
At the end of the day, history looks at the titles. I can't tell you who played Sampras in his finals, but history has judged him as one of the greatest of all time. McEnroe had a losing record agains Ledl, but will go down as the greater player. Its the trophy that matters.
#1 - Sun May 31, 2009 5:09 PM EDTUh, Lendl won more Slams than McEnroe (8 to 7) in more places (3 to 2), made way more finals (11 to 4), won more tour finals (5 to 3), more ATP titles (94 to 77) and spent way longer at number one (270 weeks to 170). He might have won even more French Opens but he wanted Wimbledon so badly that he started skipping them to prepare. He also made 10 straight Slam semifinals and 8 straight US Open finals.
Far and away the more consistently dominant champion. Now pure gifted tennis talent, that's a separate discussion. But on your own criteria, it's not even a discussion.
Its amazing that so many people forget that Lendl won the head-to-head with McEnroe 21-15. He has more titles and more slam wins. He won 3 of the 4 slams, and made the finals in the 4th one twice and the semis 3 times. Mac won 2 of the 4 slams, made the finals of the French Open once and the semi's once. He never reached the final of the Australian Open, reaching the semi's only once.
There is no comparing the two, Lendl had the better career and the better head to head.
Only an american would say that Mac was better than Lendl. In reality, its not even close. Lendl was THE dominant player in tennis of his era (Post Borg, Pre Sampras). While he is missing the Wimbledon title, he was a factor in every slam that he played.
Why is it that only an American would say that Mac is better than Lendl? I'm American and I thought Lendl was far better. I saw him beat McEnroe many times very badly and enjoyed every win. I never liked Mac, his behavior or attitude on court. I even now dislike his commentary on matches for he calls many players "nobodies" which is uncalled for. He never changes and thinks he's god's gift. Don't categorize all Americans thanks.
Silly question. Would anybody deny the legitimacy of Nadal's Wimbledon title if it had come over anybody else in the final rather than Roger?
#2 - Sun May 31, 2009 5:45 PM EDTYes!
Perhaps not the legitimacy of the title, but it certainly would not have been as sweet.
You gotta beat the best to be the best.
Right. All those major victories from players who won while Tiger was out injured aren't nearly as sweet.
Agree with Robert on Fed and winning the French, but disagree on McEnroe going down as the greater player. Mac's best years were among the best ever, but he faded much more quickly from the top tier, whereas Lendl was much more consistent and accomplished overall... more Grand Slam titles, for one. But we can argue this until the cows come home... the Lendl vs. McEnroe partisans are as divided as those who now cheer for Federer or Nadal. Me, I'm grateful to see two singular talents like this on the stage at the same time.
#3 - Sun May 31, 2009 5:51 PM EDTMcEnroe's decline coincided with the introduction of the oversized racket - which in my opinion was the worst thing to ever happen to tennis. Tennis went from a finesse game where McEnroe was the master to a game of pure force. Now instead of a game dominated by lengthy rallies, it is dominated by serve, return, volley, point. The poetry and finesse are largely gone - along with the interest in men's tennis.
But, a tournament is a tournament. The higher seeded player doesn't always win - which is why they play the tournament. If Federer wins the tournament without playing Nadal, it is a moot point. This is much more a failure on Nadal's part than it is Federer's. And, Federer is not a lock to win.
KC, have you watched tennis in the last few years? You are describing the 90's, but tennis has changed. No longer is the game like you described, as very few players serve and volley anymore. There are longer, more constructed points hit with varying degrees of power.
I agree with you about Federer though...it only matters who wins, not who he beats or does not play on the way.
Me too, Jim. We're living in a very lucky time. I really hope Federer pulls this one out, though...arguments about supremacy aside, he wants this so badly that it would be a heartbreaker to see him lose now.
#4 - Sun May 31, 2009 6:04 PM EDTI think Federer is "cursed" at the French Open. I donot see him winning the FO by any stretch of imagination
#5 - Sun May 31, 2009 6:24 PM EDTYes it counts for the very simple reason that, if he wins, he will have reached the final four years on the trot. It is not cut and dried yet though. Andy Murray may have something to say yet.
#6 - Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 PM EDTI like to think of it like boxing, lets see, you've only beaten Nadal a couple of times in the last 2-3 year, vs him beating you about 12 times....pretty hard to argue that he will ever be considered the greatest ever...when one of your contempories owns you.
#7 - Sun May 31, 2009 6:43 PM EDTthat's silly. look up federer's numbers for the last 6 years. even rafa wouldn't take your argument seriously, as he is NOT EVEN CLOSE to fed in terms of career accomplishments. to impose that standard, whether or not you have a winning record against what? every living player? is ignorant
It would be one thing if Rafa did not enter this year's tourney. (If he had an injury, etc.). But Rafa came, he saw, he was conquered. Now Roger is going to play the rightful winner of the top half of the draw if he makes the final (which I am hoping he will if Andy Roddick does not have the miracle fortnight I am really rooting for).
#8 - Sun May 31, 2009 6:56 PM EDTWhoever said that McEnroe was better than Lendl should have their head examined. Also, I think it is Federer's title to lose but Andy Murray has beaten him the last four times they have played. If Murray can keep his nerves together, I think he can win.
#9 - Sun May 31, 2009 8:18 PM EDTDoes anyone else see that Nadal looks like there is something physically wrong with him in the last couple of months? He is not playing with the same, "every point is the last point" kind of intensity we are so used to seeing. We're wondering if he may have something like the "Mono" that struck Roger last year. He just looks tired to us....same as Roger did.
Anyone else?
#10 - Sun May 31, 2009 8:28 PM EDTi think that nadal has too much pressure on him, perhaps from his team. i don't think he wanted to play madrid, but i think that he was pressured to.
Winning a tournament is about playing well consistently and getting through the early rounds, not just about beating your rival in the final round. Otherwise we should just have the number 1 ranked player go head-to-head with the number 2 player.
#11 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 1:24 AM EDTFor Sure.. If we start counting the merit of titles by final oponent standings, we need to revisit the whole history.. May be Pete would not have won 10+ titles if Rafa or Roger was around when he was playing.. I would still like to see Rafa and Roger tee off 20 more finals and see who can sustain it.. but as per the title of this discussion, which is the TITLE - it counts for sure -:)
#12 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 1:43 AM EDTRemember how devastated Federer was when he was beaten by Nadal in the Australian final? Now Nadal is feeling the same. Must be terribly difficult for them emotionally.
#13 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 2:06 AM EDTRemember how devastated Federer was when he was beaten by Nadal in the Australian final? Now Nadal is feeling the same. Must be terribly difficult for them emotionally.
#14 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 2:20 AM EDTNadal is having fun these days...and that too lots of fun. thats why he is losing now on clay as well and looks tired on the court. He needs to pull his act together. I have a feeling that Roger might get overcautious and lose to roddick or Murray..... lets see.... but if roger does win the french....he is the greatest ever and his record of 14 slams although equal to pete's would be more than that because that includes all the 4 slams....
#15 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 2:27 AM EDTReally, what kind of fun has he been having?? It seems like he's always playing tennis to me.
Mark, one thing that gets forgotten in the Nadal-Federer rivalry. The majority of their matches have been played on Nadal's favorite surface and Federer's weakest. That skews the head-to-head significantly. Not Fed's fault that he's been in the finals of the USO five years running and Rafa can't get there. Not Fed's fault that he was in the Wimby final five years running and beat Rafa two of those three years. Has Rafa caught him and earned the #1 ranking? Undoubtedly. But statistics lie, and this is a perfect example. What gets lost in all the numbers is that, even on his worst surface, Fed is easily the 2nd best player in the world, as shown by his French Open results: semi and three final losses to possibly the best clay-courter ever. I love watching both players and am a fan of both. Just wish fans (and media pundits) would drill down into the statistics more disciminatingly. Had Ali and Foreman fought two or three more times, in a smaller ring without slack ropes that allowed Ali to do his rope-a-dope, I'd take George to win his share of the other fights. And so it goes.
#16 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:40 AM EDTjim nails it. the greatness of this rivalry cannot be told by numbers alone, although anyone interested in fed's astonishing stats can check out wiki's "federer records" page. the scope of his accomplishments is too much to grok in one reading. I won't rehash the argument jim makes, but I'll add that anyone who accuses fed of underachieving because it's not rafa he's facing in the final needs to put that idea and his likely continuing belief in santa clause in the dustbin. it would of course be cinematically perfect if to win the title fed had to face only the very top seeds, beat each in 3, not drop a game, and beat nadal in the final in 5 tie-break sets in the longest match on record, in front of the largest recorded crowd, as a golden chariot hurtles across the sky amid blaring trumpets... you get the idea. fed beat the players in front of him, often winning after overcoming huge deficits, and whether or not he had to face rafa is not up to him. if it was, he'd no doubt want to play him
I didn't see any devastation in Nadal's comments or body language. Where are you getting that from? He sounds refreshingly even-keeled about his loss... it was bound to happen after four charmed years without a loss at Roland Garros. Only one other male has approached that standard. Hardly a devastating loss. Now losing in five sets to one of his major rivals in the semis or finals... THAT might've left some scars. This only gives Rafa time off to prep for Wimbledon, which will make him more formidable (and hungry) on the grass.
#17 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:43 AM EDTTell TRACY AUSTIN, she should revise his article :No player can topple Nadal in Paris
#18 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 6:07 AM EDTI hope Roger F. can and will win the French.
#19 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 11:17 AM EDTIt diminishes the accomplishment a bit with Nadal losing, but when you think how close he has been to winning this for the last 4 years, I am glad he may have a chance. But, Monfils is really good on clay, and if (more like when) he beats Roddick today, Federer has to play a very good match to beat Monfils. I am not really sure Federer can do it. The French crowd will be behind Monfils.
#20 - Mon Jun 1, 2009 11:29 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
If he wins that will be enough to solidify his greatness as an all-court player, years down the line no one will care who he beat