JOHN MCENROE Compares 80s Tennis to NOW

Excerpt from Served with Andy Roddick Episode 53 – Recorded LIVE on 12.13.24 at the Baha Mar Resort.

Andy Roddick and John McEnroe talk about the incredible advancements in tennis since their careers as professional tennis players. McEnroe compares his experiences to what he is seeing from current players such as Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner, and more.

Watch the full episode here: https://youtu.be/gI5yGL4p5zA

44 Comments

  1. American’s will never have another men’s major champion until there are enough top American athletes playing tennis to generate coaches who can coach a top American athlete and create a new American play style/tactics for the super athletic players ala Alcarez.

  2. in slow motion? John, you do the era disservice. You actually played faster, more imaginative or creative, and defended the entire court. It was the era of quick or the dead.

  3. Motor racing today much faster today compared to racing in the 80s, it is not slow-motion, it is just better technology.

    Golf & pickleball are abominations to sports.

    Also bowling.

  4. Sinner will become the Borg of this gen's big 2 with 26-27 GS whilst Alcaraz will become the McEnroe of this gen's big 2 with 15-16 GS.

  5. I really appreciate Andy’s Edberg references. He drops them every once in a while and they’re like these understated sleeper references the same way Edberg was an understated sleeper player because of his calm and stoic nature, but a total legend in his own right, which (I think) Andy is himself making a point of acknowledging with the deliberate little Edberg nuggets he drops every few months. Piece of relatively obscure tennis trivia. Edberg is the only junior player ever to win all 4 slams in a calendar year – 1983.

  6. Novak playing Sinner/Alcaraz in earlier rounds might actually work out for him…He'll be fresher when facing them, while still being able to take out the rest of the field.

  7. The 6'5''+ players are unwatchable. ATP needs to do something about the first serve. Alcaraz-Paul is amazing; as interesting as the NBA, but something like Isner-Opelka? I'd literally, unironically, rather watch Jack Sock dink a whiffle ball around.

  8. I’m surprised players don’t volunteer or tend to talk much about the raquets and the love they have for them. Maybe they are indifferent to the equipment because the top companies all make great sticks. But it would be cool to hear them talk in more detail on why they prefer one brand or model over another.

  9. Nalbandian is 5'11 or 1m80. No idea why he came up as the example of a short guy. Ferrer is 1m75 and indeed a much better example.

  10. One guy said it in the comment and I will reiterate – Novak having to face Alcaraz and/or Sinner earlier in tournaments might work great for him, since he will be fresher, yet enough in tournaments to build his form. Lets see 🙃

  11. The best player in the world right now is Jannik Sinner, and he receives barely a mention. Gee. What a surprise.🙄

  12. I think Yannick Noah was the last to win a major with a wooden racquet in 1983…Laminated with carbon fiber but wood was still the main component….

  13. Don't really think height is key to the argument. The reason Alcaraz may struggle as time develops is not because of his height, but because of his playing style. In particular his free swing style on the forehand. Those big guys mentioned. Are one off trends in a period where the game is in transition.

    The only one that has shown actual major consistency is Medvedev. If this was basketball or swimming where reach was detrimental in winning then it is key to be over 6ft. However, in tennis – where you hit a ball just over a metre sized net doesn't require height. Being tall can be an advantage when serving, but often the tall guys lack any athleticism or agility or technical purity to dominate. They are slow. Against a good returner that serve can easily be nullified. You need more than just size.

    Back in the 90s there were a ton of big guys, but the one that stood out was Sampras – why? He had the whole complete game. But it was his movement that mattered the most. Federer said it the best – '"The best movers are the best players". I think that is what tennis comes down to. Technique, athleticism and movement.

    In regards to Murray. What he will bring to Djokovic is his ability to study his opponents. His analytical ability – I think Novak wants Murray's view on how to tactically dismantle Sinner more than Alcaraz in Australia. Sinner is the real threat to Djokovic due to his level of consistency. Right now at the Australian Open Sinner is the man to beat; not Djokovic for the first time in more than a decade. Djokovic knows this based on his results last season against him.

  14. Federer in his Prime
    untouchable only one could beat him
    was only on Clay was Rafa, and I’m a RAFA fan, but the truth be tow Federer the greatest of all time, the truth be told Federer the greatest of all time go back and look at his matches look at the Andre Agassi match at the U.S. Open against him in the final think 2005 just one of how many also Federer beat Djokovic at the French Open final or was it semifinal in jokers
    prime that was a masterful match Federer was older, but that was a glimpse of his greatness that was slipping away, as he got older, which happens to all athletes.

  15. We are unlucky we didnt saw Pete sampras to play with new equipment ,after the history would be different,discrase that not mention Pete….

  16. I enjoy the best of Mac. Let him sit in comfortably and say what's in his intuitive nature. He was an artist and has good insight seldom matched except by maybe the less talkative but equally insightful Ivan Lendl.

  17. The last tennis player to win a Grand Slam singles title using a wooden racket was Yannick Noah. He achieved this feat at the 1983 French Open, where he defeated Mats Wilander in the final. This victory marked the end of the wooden racket era, as graphite and composite rackets became the standard in professional tennis shortly thereafter.

  18. Level of Difficulty to play average to well 0-5
    Tennis: 4- 5
    Padel Tennis: 4 – 5
    Racquet Ball: 3 – 4
    Pickle Ball: 2 – 3
    Squash: 4 – 5

  19. The one thing Michael Chang showed was the pitiful level of consistency for the players of his era. Michael had no serve or any real strength besides commitment to not give up. Other than that no special skills and he won tournaments. It speaks volumes to the real abilities of the players in his era. In the modern era michael would not break through number 32. My opinion.

  20. What kills me is nowadays tennis means being surrounded by an army of greedy people for one champ:trainers,psychologists,massage specialists(one for the knees,one for the back,one for the ears even..)..dads and moms too..etc etc.there is so much money flowing around that theyr'e here to pick up as much as possible!…

Write A Comment