Comparison is no reason and you will easily find some failures in this comparison (Fed is the attacking player, Nadal the defensive, Djokovic is much funnier than Lendl, etc.)
but tennis commentators like stylized stories and this is mainly for fun.
In the end of 2008, I thought that Nadal might be to Federer what McEnroe was to Borg and thought (hoped ?) that Djokovic might be to Nadal what Lendl was to McEnroe.
Djokovic was disappointing in 2009-2010 but I didn't think it was his "real level" : I thought that one day, we would see an "improved 2008 Djokovic" although I didn't think he would be THAT good : he surprised me in 2011-2012, esp physically, and also Nadal did surprise me : no more knee injury especially and still a great level.
So here's the "story" :
- Federer=Borg : "the invincible"
: both were emotionally disturbed in their childhood, making their parents/coach angry, but one day quite suddenly, they "decided" to be calm ; later during their dominance they exhaled an aura of "invincibility" : they played better because they felt certain they would win and the other guys would feel that. They felt invincible then they won. Also quite embodies class and elegance, the player who fits perfectly with the etiquette.
- then came Nadal=McEnroe : "the freak"
: a young freakish talented leftist player, his game looked like no other one, his personality as well, looks obsessed and crazy, and even later no player played like him even though he had proved the efficiency of this game (see noone uses the spin as Nadal does in modern game). This player is fire, and needs burning to be effective. He looks completely like the opposite of Borg/Federer (although it will constantly seem that he owes him a strange respect, much more than for the other players). And at a young age he does the impossible : outplaying the "invincible" . First meeting he beats the invincible (Stockholm 1978 for McEnroe). Then he beats him again in his garden (carpet, hardcourts and US Open for McEnroe, clay and Roland-Garros for Nadal). And then finally in Wimbledon : their 1980 outstanding final is eventually won in 5 sets by Borg as Federer finally won 2007 final, but in 1981-2008 McEnroe-Nadal gets his revenge.
In the end of 1981 (2008) Borg-Federer is broken, Nadal-McEnroe seems to have taken the power for years, even if has emerged in 1980/1981 2007/2008 a young promising guy from the East : Lendl/Djokovic.
- this is where Federer changes into Connors in my story : "the old guy not surrendering"
: to the world of tennis's surprise in 1982-2009 McEnroe-Nadal is surprisingly weak and the old guy coming from nowhere comes back : Connors in 1982 ... and Federer in 2009 ! From my view, Federer has become more like Connors since then : the old guy who's not as good as Nadal/Djokovic and McEnroe/Lendl but who loves the game and refuses to give up and still acts as a "hitching powder" (we say that in French, not sure in English) using his experience against the young guys, and especially against Lendl/Djokovic. Keeps on reaching semifinals or quarterfinals with an unbelievable regularity, is usually beaten but can still make the odd surprise win. And in 1982-2009 that's his year : not his greatest one but still wins two slams and is "world champion" for that year. It's the final one but he will still be there for many years, and be more loved during his old days than during his young ones.
1984-2010 (yes I know there's 2 years between 1982 and 1984, one between 2009 and 2010
: ) McEnroe-Nadal's triumphing year.
- but here is Djokovic=Lendl : "the complete mechanics" "the player of the future"
: he's the champion who comes from the East, who has had a tougher childhood than his competitors and has learnt hardworking and tough mental. He has suffered from the dominance of McEnroe-Connors and earlier Borg for years, some thought "forever", but here comes his time. He had some health problems (cholesterol for Lendl, allergies and intolerances for Djokovic) but one day manages to cure them (end of 1984 for Lendl, of 2010 for Djokovic). He's now perfectly prepared to beat McEnroe-Nadal, triumph from his fire by opposing a great consistency with no weaknesses. He carries an aura of invincibility as well but quite different from Borg's one : less elegance, more mechanical "invincible" impression, less magical aura, it looks more possible to beat him. He will now dominate for years. Even if well, Nadal will not take free time out from the Tour to enjoy other aspects of life as McEnroe did. Djokovic-Lendl's game is much more an image of tennis's future than McEnroe-Nadal was.
- and what about Murray-Wilander ? the "tactician"
he's the "tactician player" who looks clever and talented but lacks strong shots, he plays a defensive game in his early years and he's dominated by the power of the previous ones for years. He needs to change his tactics, be more active than reactive, add even more variety, he has enough talent to learn how to play a new way ... and maybe he will find it one day as Wilander did in 1988
If he did it thanks to Lendl's help, it would be very funny
well for fun