[Johnny Groove]

The two best W/L records in the Open Era (I'm pretty sure).

Each player in a peak year, winning 2 slams and numerous other titles.

2 questions.

1. Which year was better?

and

2. Who would win in a fictional time travel matchup?

 

[stewietennis]

One record has an extra win and one less loss, that one is greater.

Federer 2005 would win in a match. Players now are stronger, fitter and faster than older generations.

 

[Marc23]

McEnroe record was greater,more wins,less losses...

 

[jonathancrane]

1. Which year was better?
McEnroe. Both won 2 GS, but McEnroe also won the Masters

2. Who would win in a fictional time travel matchup?
Impossible to answer this, Federer in 1984 or McEnroe in 2005?
On clay Federer for sure, on carpet McEnroe. Grass & HC should be close. McEnroe is a leftie, maybe that would give him the edge.

 

[Snowwy]

1. Which year was better?
McEnroe. Both won 2 GS, but McEnroe also won the Masters

2. Who would win in a fictional time travel matchup?
Impossible to answer this, Federer in 1984 or McEnroe in 2005?
On clay Federer for sure, on carpet McEnroe. Grass & HC should be close. McEnroe is a leftie, maybe that would give him the edge.

But being a lefty isn't a problem for Roger, he is actually really good against lefties. He is 72 - 11 against lefties not named Rafael Nadal (ie without th big topspin)

 

[Roamed]

McEnroe's was better. If Fed had won one more set against Nalby in the last match of the year, they would've been as good as each other. I'd pick Roger to win most of the time if they had played a series of matches in their primes, but it's obviously difficult to compare.

 

[Roadmap]

The racquet frame should be fifty per cent wood and fifty per cent graphite. The size of the racquet head should be directly in between Mac's 84 racquet head size and Fed's 2005 racquet head size.

 

[SetSampras]

Both Pale into comparison of what Nole was able to do this year all around.. So no matter.


Why not compare someone's season to Laver's '69 year at least? Hell he won the calendar slam. ( yea it was on grass and clay) but despite how dominant Fed, Nole, Mac were etc.. They still couildn't do that.


I thought Fed's 05 year was superior to his 06 though just because of better opposition that year. Which should always play into the "best year" debate. A guy who had to go through the top 1-2 in the world every slam during a year is superior to a guy through a weaker number 1-2 in the world and a host of mugs

 

[Roadmap]

Mcenroe and Feds skill transcends and transcended(in the case of Mcenroe) racquet technology. Mcenroe would have to play on clay surfaces all year round in this era though. Even his beloved Wimbledon is now a claycourt event. He would have a bigger racquet though. I have seen some footage of him in the seniors. He hits the ball bloody hard with up to date racquets. Mcenroe could easily play in this era. If we had peak Fed, Mac, Nadull and Djokovic playing today then Fed and Mcenroe would dominate everything. Nadull might be allowed to win the odd event.

 

[SerialKillerToBe]

It's much tougher to dominate in this era, so obviously Federer.

 

[Adri89]

Actually from my point of view the 2006's season of Federer with a ratio of 92-5 is even more impressive, especially because he lost only agasint two players (Rafa 4 times, which one with a MP), Murray once. 12 titles, 16 finals in 17 tournaments played.
But okay mathematics said that the record of Federer is better in 2005 (95,29% of win against 94,85%)

From 2004 to 2006 Federer won 247 matchs of 262, that's crazy. On the 15 matchs he lost, 7 are against Nadal. 34 titles during those three years, and 39 finals overall (only lost 4 times against Nadal during 2006 and once against Nalbandian at the master cup)

 

[Roadmap]

To be fair. If Mcenroe had grown up with modern racquets then he would not have developed the game that he used so expertly back in the day. If Fed had used retro racquets as a kid then he would not have the penetrative forehand that he is so famous for.

 

[Pirata.]

It's much tougher to dominate in this era, so obviously Federer.

:haha:

 

[Sophocles]

Mac's year was marginally better and his level that year was absurdly high, particularly indoors. Guys were struggling to take games off him. Fed's level in 2005 was similar. As for who would win, it's hard to compare because Mac in 1984 was the last player to excel with an essentially wooden-racquet-tailored game (Edberg's groundstrokes had more pop), but if Fed '05 travelled back in time & played John using a 1984 racquet, he would have found it extremely difficult, particularly on faster surfaces, returning McEnroe's wide lefty swinging serve in the ad court well enough to give Mac any trouble on the volley. Fed was great at getting serves back into play but Johnny Mac wouldn't be waiting Roddick-style on the baseline to hit a powder-puff forehand after the bounce. McEnroe struggled against big servers in the league of Curren & Becker but returned anything slower - such as Federer's - very well. Federer's passing shots in '05 were sublime but with mid-Eighties strings they wouldn't have been quite the same. So I'd give McEnroe a distinct edge on faster surfaces - grass & indoors - with outdoor hard courts about even & clay the edge for Federer.

If Mac came forward in time to 2005 he'd have to play a different gamestyle to be seriously competitive so there's no point speculating about it.

Incidentally, Connors in '74 had a better record than Federer's - 99-4. And he won 3 slams.

 

[heya]

hopefully, mcenroe isn't stupid enough to CLAIM that federer suddenly will come back and win rarely, after hitting one good winner during match point.:devil:

us open:
Federer said, “It’s awkward having to explain this loss because I feel like I should be doing the other (winner’s) press conference. He came back, he played well. I didn’t play so well at the very end. It’s disappointing, but I have only myself to blame. I had it. There’s no more I could do. He snaps one shot, and then the whole thing changes.”

 

[Egreen]

Federer in 2005 was better and would win.

 

[GOAT = Fed]

I'd say Mcenroe's record was better by a bit. Although I'd say that Federer would win most of the time if they were to encounter each other.

 

[Vida]

mcnroe wins and its not even open for debate. john would get pissed at the umpire for some reason and that would rattle mentally fragile fed.

 

[pray-for-palestine-and-israel]

mac had the better year

fed is the (much) better player and would win 9/10 meetings

only surface mac has a chance on is indoors and thats only because fed doesn't have enough experience on it

both would beat nole imo

connors 74 is actually best for numbers
however numbers dont tell everything- connors didnt play rg that year- but connors never won on red clay his entire career anyway- he was a green clay (har tru) specialist

connors won 3 slams but honestly no one gave a shit about the AO anyway back then- and ken rosewall made the wombledon final that year- same ken who made the wimbledon final in 1954 lol

so nole won 3 slams this year- but honestly- his competition was very weak- federer is wayy past his prime
nadal is on his way out-
murray cant play finals-

everyone outside the top 4 are shit- except maybe del potro but he's no where near his best
soderling pays well once a year

totally shit era right now- nole's record is inflated to the max

 

[sexybeast]

Mcenroe 84 ofcourse.