Connors or McEnroe?

First topic message reminder :

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?

How much animosity is there between Mac and Connors these days?

The Special Juan wrote:How much animosity is there between Mac and Connors these days?

I think there is an uneasy peace but how much of it is for the tv camera Im not too sure.
I have always believed that Connors would cheerfully throttle him given the chance: :

Would pick Mac every time. Basically achieved everything (at the highest of levels, rather than run-of-the mill events) in eight years that Connors did in two and a half times longer. I put Mac only a tiny bit behind Borg - Connors at a more respectable distance. Mac could touch heights that Connors could only dream of; longevity is undoubtedly an admirable quality, but I'm not putting Rosewall at McEnroe's level, either.

Connors may have performed herculean feats of endurance past 1983, but he didn't win a lot that mattered and I dare say that if Mac had got his kicks from being the Grand old Man of the sport, winning minor events and reaching plenty of GS quarter-finals, he'd have been able to manage it too. John always did have an intelligence, and interests to match, beyond tennis.

In my opinion, Wimbledon '84 really settled the argument for good. Only one match, but underlined the difference between the great and the genius.

   Maybe some of us are fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to remember  and witness more than most  Thus opinions will inevitably differ.

That's the truth, Haddie. I will say that I was actually at Centre Court for McEnroe-Connors '84 and it left a lasting impresson; I still don't think that I've seen the game of tennis played better by one person in a single match, bearing in mind the occasion and the quality of the opposition.

I can understand your opinion of JMc.. however I have always felt he was a talent wasted... he had so much more potential and even  more to give  to the sport if he had been more committed. God knows what he could have achieved had he really put his mind to it.  . Having read Macs autobiography he more or less admits it. For that reason I have a great deal of respect for Connors.. he gave everything he had and then some in order to achieve what he did ..he worked hard where Mac found it all so damned easy. But thats what so often  comes  with being a genius.

What Mac didn't achieve was quite as many slams or anywhere near as long at No 1.
Like H-N, I think the lack of focus actually counts against him rather than for him.

I also think to judge on just one match is a little narrow. Connors was nearly 32 at that time, and even Mac reckons he just played poorly on the day.

If people think that today's ranking system is imperfect, then the one which allowed Connors to reign for all of 1977 (bar one week) and 1978, not to mention the first four months of 1979, at the top of the charts at Borg's expense was iniquitous. In no way was Jimmy the best player in the world for most of those two years.

As for '84, I was too busy drinking in the glory of Mac's shot-making to wonder how well Connors was playing. Could have been his best day - he still wouldn't have had a hope.

Some of the best matches I watched in those bygone days were between Connors and McEnroe.. possibly because they brought out the best and worst in each other.They produced brilliant tennis, and were enormously entertaining.
Borg was my hero of the day but Macs whole demeanour changed on court when he played the Iceman .. sometimes affording him too much respect..He was a different player all together.

I respect your opinion captain.. but it is YOUR opinion and frankly I believe you are not  giving Connors the credit he deserves.

But thats what makes fans what they are. No different to Naldal/Djokovic/Federer today... we see different things in different players.

As a Connors fan I can accept that Mac's best was better than Connors best.
I can also probably accept that Nalbandian's best might be better than Federer's best.
But that's not how I personally measure greatness - it's an accumulation of achievements.
But even as a Connors fan, I still lean towards Mac as being the greater of the two, although the arguments on this thread have made it closer in my mind than it was previously.

It is, of course, just my opinion, Haddie. And you may be right that I don't give Connors the respect he merits, although I would stand by my opinion that McEnroe was the better player with an almost identical haul of swag that counts in a shorter time.

I suppose it's because I always felt that Mac couldn't help himself when he acted the fool and was in fact a decent bloke beneath it all, which, his commentary work would seem to suggest, isn't so far from the truth. Connors, on the other hand, always struck me as a braggart and a blowhard, a bit like Nastase, but without the charm. The public utterances I've heard from him since he retired, plus the snippets of his autobiography that I've read, also seem to confirm that impression.

No doubt I'm a horrid curmudgeon, but the sides you take as a kid/teenager seem to matter quite a bit more than anything that you see later on in life.

Thanks for producing the stats, but it's McEnroe for me.

OK, Connors with 1 more Slam, 1 more Masters title, but win/loss basically the same even though Connors played more years than Mac and although sometimes quoting a H2H is like saying a dirty word, Mac comes out on top here. Because on the times they met, he was the better player.

In 1984 - for me anyway - I've never seen such high quality tennis played like it since. He was amazing, and I still regret the fact that he didn't take that FO title from being 2 sets up. His 1984 Wimbledon victory was almost nothing short of a tennis masterclass, just awesome. I think it was Lydian who mentioned earlier about the Tatum O'Neal affect and really, from 1985 he lost it. He got embroiled in this relationship, had his first child in 1986, took time out, had sporadic periods playing again, took further time out, tried another comeback in something like 1989 and by this time, the tennis world had completely passed him by. I can remember stories of him still using a wooden racquet when technology had moved on. It's a bit sad really. He took himself out of the game when he was at his peak and we never saw the like from him again. Had he remained dedicated to his sport, applied more of a work ethic to his great talent, then perhaps he would have achieved more.

But it's not about ifs and maybes, however, for me he remains one of the greatest tennis players I have ever seen, and for all Connors' achievements, I still rate McEnroe higher.

Groucho - For me its quite simple, greatness is simply a matter of achievements. Of course a guy like McEnroe was a tad lazy... but so many of the time, pro-athletes are doing what they can to stay upright, but I always think the "at his best" argument is overrated. At his best, Yohan Blake could have beaten Bolt in last years Olympic games, didnt happen, and there is thus no reason to pretend otherwise

Connors is a greater player than McEnroe... I dont subscribe to the Syed school of thought, I think talent is very real, but at the upper end of the scale, The differences in talent are more miniscule than fans of the more flambouyant players would like to admit.

mcenroe is way better than connors

  I love these player debates...one man´s fish is anothers........!!
I think they both had an enormous amount to contribute to this wonderful sport (Mac a little less than he should have his greatness would have known no bounds).  But the memories of both of them are forever etched in my mind along with "my Bjorn" of course and even he was not without a "little" criticism. Because despite what is written about Borg he was not perfect as a person... but he was magical as a player.

Given the Cillic case, Im suprised the pitchforks havent come out yet for McEnroe using steroids for six years "unknowingly"