The 1984 French Open tennis final between John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl. Most commentators say that John McEnroe gave away the match including McEnroe himself. However with the exception of Ivan Lendl and his circle, I believe Lendl did win the match through his own volition. How he got that maybe due to his training? He was the first to use a sports psychologist about thinking positive thoughts when situations didn't go his way. Likewise, he got on a heavy physical regimentation and kept himself in top condition at all times. Lendl in previous finals always seemed to fold in tough situations where things didn't go his way. He did it once against Borg, twice against Connors and once against Wilander. McEnroe thought he would do the same after leading 4-2 in the 4th set but Lendl refused to fold and got stronger. McEnroe played well despite some errors but it was Ivan's day. I think credit needs to be given where its due. The better player won.
McEnroe will talk about yelling at the cameraman and ticking off the French crowd. However, it was his first final on a clay surface. Whereas, Lendl played a French Open final against one of the best clay court players of all time in Bjorn Borg and took him to 5 sets. Likewise, he lost to eventual champions the next two years before meeting McEnroe. He won a lot of clay court titles before the 84 final but he couldn't win the French because Wilander and Noah were better athletically and larkish in the big moments. It was more of a hit and miss effect where they didn't built up a reputation as great players before hitting the big stage. They were not target players for opponents to aim at unlike Lendl. McEnroe, on the other hand, was a target player because he was No. 1 with a loud, bratty personality and often a target of media and fans as well as players. As a result, both players came in to the final with expectations and burdens to deal with.
McEnroe didn't win or play many clay court tournaments like Lendl did. Ivan was very confident and commading when playing on a clay surface. However, McEnroe did play on it as a youngster, won tournaments on that surface, and proved that he could beat the best on that surface. Yet, Mac's game was fast surface oriented and tended to avoid the slower surfaces such as clay. Likewise, John didn't play in Europe much due to his commitment to Davis Cup and the indoor tennis season that took place mostly in America. To win the French, you had to beat Ivan. Therefore, inexperience was on his side due to Ivan's established prowess as a clay court player and that no American had won the French since 1955.
Reputation is one thing but he had game to back it up. Ground strokes from both wings like that inside out forehand, the backhand slice (probably better than Rosewall), top spin (which Ken never had) from both sides as well as that crushing forehand (running or stand-still) that could explode at any point unexpectedly to the surprise of the opponent. Oh, I forgot to mention about his serve, power and slice. But the most important: is his anticipation of where the ball was going to be when he made contact due to his ability to scout and take notes of player's tendencies of their swings, movements, and strategies from the start, middle, and end. In short, he prepared like a coach for all his opponents like fellow Czech, Bill Belichick. Likewise, he practiced himself to death on all his strokes to make sure they were perfect. The ability was there to win but not the belief.
If you look at the match between points, during changeovers, or court positioning, Lendl had a commanding presence. He never seemed to lose control even when he was down. Yes, he was a bit worried and a bit anxious but he didn't have the lumpy, dopey, mopey feel like he did against Connors, Borg, Wilander, or even Noah. It looked as if he kept saying this my time and he just not going to stop me. I think sports psychology helped but his experience on clay and playing in Europe really helped because he maintained an even keel throughout the match. He really worked the surface and his opponent. Whereas, McEnroe's emotions were in check for the most part but very volatile and ready to erupt over anything. He didn't want to be there the point where he had to work the court and Lendl. McEnroe took the "I came, I saw, I conquered and I'm out of here" approach.
The first two sets, McEnroe really outplayed him. It looked like Lendl just got out of bed. I noticed in the second set that Lendl started to work the court and got just a little teeth in the match though he was being thoroughly outclassed by McEnroe. I thought it was too late with McEnroe leading and serving 4-2 but he started to slow things down, moving into a saunter rhythm. McEnroe made an error here in there but would back it up with a service ace or an incredible volley. But, I noticed McEnroe started to reach more for his volley and seemed to be a bit off balanced on Lendl's shots. I thought McEnroe would hold on but he didn't. The Ivan Lendl machine game was on.
McEnroe will tell you that he was tired after the third but I don't really buy that because he didn't quit or start the countdown of losing the match in 4th and 5th set. It was just that Lendl figured out what McEnroe was going to do on his serve and his shots. Lendl was a bit of a slow starter but he was really into the match in the last two sets. Lendl should have finished McEnroe quickly but he was trying too hard to finish the match. McEnroe had no chance against the Lendl machine because it was clicking on all cylinders. He really hit a zone. I don't think he hardly made an unforced errors except when he was trying to finish. McEnroe did a great job of hanging in there. I thought, Lend's machine would eventually crash or slow down but never did especially in tough situations.
Of course, Mac really behave badly during the trophy presentation and all (running off the podium). He blamed himself for the loss and felt that he let his country down. But to conclude, I really think McEnroe should give himself more credit of playing well in that match. He just lost to a better opponent who had more experience and a better game suited for clay. Lendl would also prove that his machine game would work on other surfaces like hard courts, carpet and grass but it wasn't enough to win Wimbledon. Likewise, McEnroe's game was good enough to win on clay but not good enough to win the French.
Final conclusion: Lendl wins without dispute.
No comments:
Post a Comment