"I was playing a level above everyone" - John McEnroe's epic 1984 run | Undeniable with Joe Buck 

Mac's return of serve was right up there with Jimmy's but people don't talk about it much. Just look at that match point...he's already up 0-40 on Jimmy's serve, then he just blocks Jimmy's first serve to a place where Jimmy i s lucky to bloop it back. Mac's ability to take opponents' serves early and drive the ball into the corners was terriffic...then he'd follow the ball to the net, and ....well they didn't have much of a chance at that point.

This was the best I've ever seen McEnroe play. Like he said, it all came together that day and was the crowning performance of an almost perfect year of tennis.

Yeah, just the sound the ball made when he hit it, not many players have reached that level of perfect co-ordination - he did it all 3 sets. He never lost more than 2 points in any service game. I think he had a break point at 4-1 in 3rd so could have been 61 61 61

@@whisper2441 yes well said. It pleases me when people like yourself appreciate how special moments like that were, not just because of the score but the beautiful way and level of play that was attained by John on that day. Vintage McEnroe.

Not to take anything away from Johnny Mac (my favorite player of all time not named Djokovic) but Connors was injured during that final. Mac knew that before the match and tells a story of how Jimmy Connors (of all people) taught him a very valuable lesson about being a professional with class. In the interview after the match he never once mentioned the injury. He gave John his moment in the sun…despite the fact that they were bitter enemies because that’s what professionals do.

True. To beat Mac that year was a real accomplishment.

Lendl had been under a cloud and was starting to be known as a choker in grand slams, so a big comeback like the 1984 FO , opened the door for Lendl and let his grand slam beast out.

The same thing happened on the women's side with Martina. Switching to a graphite racquet finally gave her the advantage over Evert but it'd only be a few years before Graf began blowing her off the court even on Grass.

That i he started not moving as well.. probably because of training… if today straining he would play long and keep the speed longer

not really, maybe your favourite...

No really - the best - if you ever played tennis at a high level, you would understand.

Le meilleur de tous les temps ⌛️

Mainly?! No. Being in his absolute most confident prime was the reason. That still wan't a major jump for racket technology, he was just too good for virtually everybody at that moment.

He did come across to me as that once in a generation pure, raw talent. He did not look fit at all - probably was but he never came across as a player doing 10k runs everyday or sit ups. I am sure he said he played doubles to keep fit! Only a gut feeling but I always felt it was his lack of fitness that cost him the 5th set against Borg in THAT 1980 final. He had just won that incredible tie break, had Borg at 0-30 in the 1st game, but then seemed to fade quite dramatically. I seem to recall reading Mac say it did indeed bother him that when the 5th started, he could see and he knew Borg was physically as fresh as at the start of the 1st. Is very possible the lower fitness levels compared to his opponent cost him v Lendl in 1984, too.

@@eddieingalls534 I agree fully. He relied on his pure magic wand of a racket and fitness was key for 5 setters…even on grass

I'm still amazed how great he played with a wooden frame.

Mac is the most talented player ever. If you know tennis and play tennis to any level you can appreciate his hands all day long. A genius.

​@danschannel16 he was playing with a graphite racquet 😮9

@@MrBjorn6 I meant overall.

If only there was a time machine and you could get players back in their prime from the pre oversized racket era, I'd bring back Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Borg, McEnroe, Connors. That would be a sensational round robin tournament.

Martina Navratilova went three years with only 6 losses once

on what planet? lol

You're right, although I'd go further and say that the game today is plain BORING. Everyone plays the same way, men and women... it's all about power. I switched off from it years ago.

I could not agree more, the game really switched after 2002@@SMSJSC

Not really @aBeatleFan4ever if you remember the final Us open 1974 at Forest Hills played on the grass when the younger, at that time ,James Scott Connors (22 years old) outclassed ;with no mercy; this old australian opponent Ken Rosewall (40 years old) who was, in fact, pretty tired, 6/1 6/0 6/1 Don't forget also the French open final in 2008 when " the terminator "ruthless out of touch spaniard Rafael Nadal destroyed literally the number one swiss Roger Federer 6/1 6/3 6/0

@@davidnottet726 - David, Thanks for those updates on other beatdowns. Poor Ken having to play Jimmy in 1974 at age 40... Not an easy task.

@@aBeatleFan4ever At the first sight, your assessment seems to be true about the assumed elderly Ken Rosewall's troubles to overcome Connors' hindrance But at the second look I don't think so even if Connors, two month before soundly beaten Rosewall in the Wimbledon final 6/1 6/1 6/4 . Forty years old ,in those days ,were, indeed very old for a tennis professional player. But you have to remember that the Aussie Rosewall had succeeded to win in the semi-final in five sets the gruelling match against his John Newcombe's countryman which the latter, three months later prevent James Scott Connors to win the Australian open twice in a row John Newcombe, number two in top seed prevailed this match in four sets. All this to say that Ken Rosewall , despite of his advanced age was an old-classic very tough competitor

-@@davidnottet726 - Connors was the best player on the planet in 1974, going 93-4, winning 96% of his matches. He also won every Grand Slam match he played that year... and also won 15 of the 16 tournament finals that he played in 1974. I doubt Ken felt he had much of a shot at beating Jimmy in 1974. And the results of the two GS finals he had vs. Jimmy that year - show it was a mis-match from the first ball served.

@@aBeatleFan4everObviously,, its' a matter of fact, you are absolutely right. No doubt about that. However, Ken Rosewall was likely exhausted in this Forest hills us open final. In the quarter- final and in the sem-i final, Rosewall had to play each time five sets against Amritraj and Newcombe . Its' pretty harsh for recovery at that time and at this age. But I honestly must admit that the aussie seems not to have the game to overthrow the arrogant brash american . Arthur Ashes, against all odds in the Wimbledon' final 1975 understood the right game'plan to annihilate Connors.Ken Rosewall, has got a very good slice backhand in order to give dead balls no pace, no rhytm on the forehand of his opponent James Scott Connors was,, in 1974, the absolute dominant player he had, more precisely, 99-4 record when you think about it twice, it's a pretty insane .Only the super brat John Mc Enroe, in 1984 did a little bit better than this depiscable countryman opponent 82-3.

Well if your going to also include doubles with singles slams, there's a few that equal or surpass him, Laver, Rosewall and Emerson. All great singles players and all very accomplished doubles players with multiple slams. All 3 have more total slams than Mac who had 17 singles, doubles and mixed. Roy Emerson had a total of 28 slams, 16 in doubles, surprisingly most of his dbls slams were at the French Open. Mac was one of the last great singles players who also played doubles regularly. The only other top singles player I can recall in recent history that won a few singles and doubles slams was Edberg, but not to the same degree as Mac. Otherwise players just started specialising in singles or doubles only, which is a shame. Playing doubles is probably what made Mac such a master at the net.

Ironically his dominance faded fast as graphite racquets meant the power game became more important and his ground strokes were never his strong point