Federer=Borg then Connors, Nadal=McEnroe, Djokovic=Lendl, Murray=Wilander [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer=Borg then Connors, Nadal=McEnroe, Djokovic=Lendl, Murray=Wilander

duong
02-03-2012, 01:01 PM
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" :lol: : 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 :lol: If he did it thanks to Lendl's help, it would be very funny ;)

well for fun :lol:

Shirogane
02-03-2012, 01:13 PM
:lol: ahah, violent le poil à gratter.

He did wag his finger like Connors last year.

Vida
02-03-2012, 01:17 PM
connors - fed
borg - nadal
mcnroe - djokovic
lendl - murray

sounds (almost) perfect to me.

duong
02-03-2012, 01:30 PM
Tignor's last article made me think again of that "story" I had "written" on a French blog last year :

Tignor about the difficulty on the popularity front of Nole era overcoming the Fedal one (http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/life-in-the-nole-era.html)

Capuccino
02-03-2012, 01:50 PM
sorry but i just can't connect them in my head

Johnny Groove
02-03-2012, 02:07 PM
connors - fed
borg - nadal
mcnroe - djokovic
lendl - murray

sounds (almost) perfect to me.

Yep, that's what I was gonna say.

sportstennis
02-03-2012, 02:09 PM
lol

never

Myrre
02-03-2012, 02:18 PM
Good post. People who haven't watched McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, won't get it though as already seen in some responses above.

samanosuke
02-03-2012, 02:36 PM
Fed = McEroe, Borg and Connors in one .
McEnroe by the talent, Borg by the invincibility and Connors by the durability

Shirogane
02-03-2012, 02:56 PM
^I gas gonna say, Borg for the ice-cold demeanor and add Lendl for the domination. All four in one. :D

tennis2tennis
02-03-2012, 02:59 PM
connors - fed
borg - nadal
mcnroe - djokovic
lendl - murray

sounds (almost) perfect to me.

in his dreams is win-ugly-two-handed-backhand-work-horse Connors anyway like Federer

finishingmove
02-03-2012, 04:38 PM
The circle is closed when Murray overtakes Djokovic.

Well played.

Vida
02-03-2012, 05:31 PM
in his dreams is win-ugly-two-handed-backhand-work-horse Connors anyway like Federer

grumpy elder statesmen kinda thing.

Sophocles
02-03-2012, 05:48 PM
Good stuff, very plausible.

Action Jackson
02-03-2012, 06:18 PM
Djokovic and Lendl only plausible one.

latso
02-03-2012, 06:23 PM
Whoever reads the article would like it and agree with it.

All who disagree were lazy to read.

Makes perfect sense.

duong
02-03-2012, 06:26 PM
It didn't mean to be "plausible" really.

Only considering some analogies about mostly the stories of these periods, what each player represented in them, also about the characters more than about the styles of play.

mostly a piece of fun :lol:

Although there might be some "logics" inside if you're looking for that :

- the way Borg's and Fed's character and behaviour on court evolved comparing their adolescence and their adult age is quite strange to many people then the similarity shocks me even more and there may be an explanation inside ;

- for instance could a "burning" player like Nadal and McEnroe last at the top for long ? here not considering the physical aspect but rather the character ;

- when a player who feels "invincible" like Federer/Borg meets his nemesis, isn't he condemned to lose this feeling hence a lot of his strength ?

- a player with a "mechanical complete" game and a lot of disciplin like Lendl and Djokovic may potentially last quite long at the top and also inspire more the other players than a freak like McEnroe/Nadal ;

- when your success is partly due to being the nemesis of the former number 1, aren't you condemned yourself finding your own nemesis one day ?

maybe some other things ...

MatchFederer
02-03-2012, 06:28 PM
These sort of threads which are made by truly creative people always reveal the lack of scope and flexible, malleable creative capacities of other people, especially in terms of being able to relate to a myriad of analogous implications surrounding one overarching topic. Sad but true.

Action Jackson
02-03-2012, 06:32 PM
Fed = McEroe, Borg and Connors in one .
McEnroe by the talent, Borg by the invincibility and Connors by the durability

This.

finishingmove
02-03-2012, 06:46 PM
This.

And also by the backhand return.

ballbasher101
02-03-2012, 08:07 PM
Connors is ten times the fighter Federer is. Hats off to the OP though for a great post:hatoff:

Shinoj
07-10-2012, 08:42 PM
Federer would be equal to McEnroe and Borg.. Mc Enroe's Talent and Borg's Calm Demeanour


Nadal would be like Connors. Never giving up and somewhat unpleasant game to the eye.


Djokovic would be like ........ Mc Enroe and Connors. Talented and Does not give up easily.


And Yes Murray could be the Wilander.

BTW Very Good thread.

TennisGrandSlam
07-10-2012, 11:09 PM
Wilander had won GS b4 Lendl did. B4 US Open 1985, Lendl 1-6, Wilander 4-1 in GS final

Motoflou
07-10-2012, 11:56 PM
My god this is stupid.

chenx15
07-11-2012, 12:06 AM
Federer would be equal to McEnroe and Borg.. Mc Enroe's Talent and Borg's Calm Demeanour


Nadal would be like Connors. Never giving up and somewhat unpleasant game to the eye.


Djokovic would be like ........ Mc Enroe and Connors. Talented and Does not give up easily.


And Yes Murray could be the Wilander.

BTW Very Good thread.

Definitely agree with this. Djokovic tends to give up easily in his early days

TennisGrandSlam
07-11-2012, 01:01 AM
connors - fed
borg - nadal
mcnroe - djokovic
lendl - murray

sounds (almost) perfect to me.

As my past post :devil:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=11035079

I think Muzzy will win GS in the next GS final.

duong
07-11-2012, 02:11 PM
Wilader had won GS b4 Lendl did. B4 US Open 1985, Lendl 1-6, Wilander 4-1 in GS final

not everything can be the same :shrug:

Lendl had much more power than Murray and had reached number 1 1 year before winning a slam.

Besides, I can't imagine Murray dominating tennis for years as Lendl did, but for one year I can, like Wilander 1988.

On the opposite, I really think Djokovic will dominate tennis for years, and after a long time in the shadow of other top-players as Lendl did.

And I can more easily imagine Nadal as fading with time like McEnroe.

Castafiore
07-11-2012, 02:23 PM
I don't think that Federer is as calm as Borg ever was.
Borg was fantastic in hiding his emotions, win or lose.
You can easily see it in Federer's body language if he's winning or losing.

Calling JMac "the talent" is also quite bizarre IMO. It's using a label for the sake of labelling.
All of them (Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl) were amazingly talented or they wouldn't have achieved what they achieved. Simple "hard work" and being a good athlete isn't enough to reach the top and stay there for a while.
JMac was a creative player but his shots were criticised at the time for not being the elegant sort of shot many like to see in tennis (many called his shots ugly, esp. his serve) and he didn't even try to hide his emotions.

duong
07-11-2012, 02:38 PM
Calling JMac "the talent" is also quite bizarre IMO. It's using a label for the sake of labelling.
All of them (Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl) were amazingly talented or they wouldn't have achieved what they achieved. Simple "hard work" and being a good athlete isn't enough to reach the top and stay there for a while.
JMac was a creative player but his shots were criticised at the time for not being the elegant sort of shot many like to see in tennis (many called his shots ugly, esp. his serve) and he didn't even try to hide his emotions.

I precisely wanted to insist on the fact that McEnroe's shots were very strange, very unique, and nobody played like him. Which can be seen as some "talent" (well, when it is effective :lol: ) because it implies that there's no "school" to learn that.

These unique, strange shots are in my eyes, a common point with Nadal, the fact that he has a unique character as well.

I could have called him the "strange guy" but I don't know if you would have found it fair with Nadal and McEnroe :lol: They are more than "strange" because it gives them a huge success :lol:

Now, I think Nadal's shots came a lot from his uncle's choices as well (like the small grip and the light racket, but I don't know if his uncle insisted on the spin for instance : I would be interested in that ;) ), whereas McEnroe's shots were less influenced by somebody, I think (but not sure).

Castafiore
07-11-2012, 02:45 PM
His uncle Toni once said that he first taught Rafa text book shots (so, old school shots) but during his training sessions, he found out that Rafa has great instincts.

If Toni posed him a challenge to achieve a certain thing on court (go stand here, your opponent stands over there, see if you can get the ball precisely there), he realised that, unlike his other students, Rafa could learn to do it on instinct and he would achieve it on his own within 3 attempts or so, whereas his other students needed to learn more techniques to learn before they weree able to get the ball to do what you want it to do.

So, Toni stuck with teaching him the basics and not overdo it on the technique department because he was afraid that Rafa's natural instincts for the ball would diminish if he focused to much on the details of technique. Instead, he nurished Rafa's instincts.

(A French commentator/tennis coach once explained this on tv because he was intrigued by Rafa's unorthodox yet effective shots and he wanted to find out the why and how so he had a chat with Toni)


Back on topic; If you go and look for it, you can find aspects of Borg, JMac, Connors, Lendl in the current top 4, in all 4 :shrug:

duong
07-11-2012, 03:00 PM
His uncle Toni once said that he first taught Rafa text book shots (so, old school shots) but during his training sessions, he found out that Rafa has great instincts.

If Toni posed him a challenge to achieve a certain thing on court (go stand here, your opponent stands over there, see if you can get the ball precisely there), he realised that, unlike his other students, Rafa could learn to do it on instinct and he would achieve it on his own within 3 attempts or so, whereas his other students needed to learn more techniques to learn before they weree able to get the ball to do what you want it to do.

So, Toni stuck with teaching him the basics and not overdo it on the technique department because he was afraid that Rafa's natural instincts for the ball would diminish if he focused to much on the details of technique. Instead, he nurished Rafa's instincts.

(A French commentator/tennis coach once explained this on tv because he was intrigued by Rafa's unorthodox yet effective shots and he wanted to find out the why and how so he had a chat with Toni)

Thanks very much for the infos :D

You see, "instinct" is probably a better word than "talent" but I can see a connection with McEnroe.


Back on topic; If you go and look for it, you can find aspects of Borg, JMac, Connors, Lendl in the current top 4, in all 4 :shrug:

yes of course :lol: , but like in all stories or myths, people choose to concentrate on some aspects which they think are very important/illustrative to relate them.

For instance, the most common tennis mythology/representation has Federer as "the talent" and Nadal as "the hard worker", whereas both have both of them. But that's what people think first.

And when I think of Lendl, the first thought which comes to my mind is "dominant player for long" before thinking "chicken not able to win slam finals for long".

But of course if later Murray becomes dominant as Lendl was, and Djokovic fades, I will surely change my way of looking at them and compare more Murray with Lendl than with Wilander, and I would understand better those who compare Djokovic with McEnroe.

I don't remember but I think I started the thread saying "as people like myths very much in tennis" ... and I wrote one myth.

But myths are always caricatural and sometimes wrong.

EDIT : precisely I wrote :

Comparison is no reason and you will easily find some failures in this comparison,

but tennis commentators like stylized stories and this is mainly for fun.