John McEnroe vs. Michael Pernfors...Australian Open 1990

[don_budge]

"Johnny...Johnny. The flesh is weak...only the soul is immortal."

A line from the movie Angel Heart...Robert DeNiro informing Mickey Rourke about the nature of things. John McEnroe seemed to be possessed by some rather troublesome spirits at times and this is a classic example. Actually his behaviour seemed to be a bit constrained by comparison to some of his other tirades. This match against Mikeal Pernfors was an exquisite match up until the point where Johnny Bye Bye was defaulted from the match in a swift combination of a bit of racquet abuse then a "obscene" reply from the bad one.

The year is 1990 and surely McEnroe's reputation preceded him wherever he went. His behaviour in this particular match isn't obviously so bad. The usual grumbling and grousing. But more theatrical than sincerely over the top. The play is pure geometry. Using the court like x and y coordinates. His backcourt play is stellar...he never seems to miss and the depth of shot is beautifully controlled between deep and all points in between the net and the baseline.

His serving is abysmal however. I think that John Yandel might have tried to intervene at some point if I am not mistaken but in this match he has lost the rhythm and just struggles and struggles with the delivery. An obvious kink in the flow is manifested in his backswing and the energy block somehow makes its way to his brain. He loses track of where he is at in the penalty progression and gets defaulted. But the match should have been played out I think. But there is another school of thought that says he was correctly disciplined.

The struggling serve only showcases the rest of his magnificent talents. The volleys and half volleys are just routine part of the McEnroe arsenal. There isn't a single player in the modern game that comes close to this kind of play. "The Living Proof" Roger Federer looks to be a rank beginner when compared to McEnroe. In this match McEnroe may be out matched real estate wise as well. His 80 square inch pales in comparison to Pernfors shiny Prince bazooka. Another example how equipment changes in the sport of tennis really created a SNAFU in the sport that still exists today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0e4...C97C7312E&t=0s

[stotty]

Nice find. I have watched about 30 minutes worth so far. I usually don't like to watch clips of when players are well past their best but this one is interesting. I reckon his game is 20 percent down from his zenith in this clip yet he still strokes and caresses the ball around exquisitely. When you think about it, McEnroe's game was more about taking pace off a ball then putting it on, which is the complete reverse of today's game. His feel and hands are just so, so good.

And yes his serve seems to have all but disappeared in the clip, but as you say, it makes him instead have to rely on other parts of his game, which makes the match all the more entertaining to watch.

[bottle]

Until the stupid end of the match involving the automatized "school of thought" that thinks McEnroe was correctly disciplined that always identifies with referees, officials and whoever holds the reins of power. The school of officaldumb for whom Alles muss in Ordnung sein. McEnroe's little smile, in the end, is the better response. As is M. Pernfors' wish to console John McEnroe. This is another one of the rare times when tennis officials showed poor judgment. But the world could survive it. One hopes the world also can survive poor judgment, so much more common, in the larger arena.

[don_budge]

Nice find. I have watched about 30 minutes worth so far. I usually don't like to watch clips of when players are well past their best but this one is interesting. I reckon his game is 20 percent down from his zenith in this clip yet he still strokes and caresses the ball around exquisitely. When you think about it, McEnroe's game was more about taking pace off a ball then putting it on, which is the complete reverse of today's game. His feel and hands are just so, so good.

And yes his serve seems to have all but disappeared in the clip, but as you say, it makes him instead have to rely on other parts of his game, which makes the match all the more entertaining to watch.

I'm not so sure McEnroe is so well past his prime in this match against Mikael Pernfors. Pernfors himself is probably pretty much in his prime as he had won the NCAA championships in 1984 and 1985. I was impressed with Johnny's physique...he looked pretty buff in the upper body and arms. It would be his mental state that might be somewhat suspect. I don't know if you noticed his wife in the stands. One Tatum O'Neil...that would be enough to drive any sane man crazy. Let alone John McEnroe.

I can see that at times McEnroe definitely has the ability like no other except perhaps Ilie Nastase to "take the air out of the ball" by caressing as you put it. But it looks to me that John is absolutely thumping it when the occasion calls for it. Maybe you are comparing him to the modern day thumpers with their 100 square inch racquets. John was pure Tilden all the way. Every shot was a separate entity and he played it accordingly so. The sheer variety of shots in his repertoire is dazzling. The manner in which he goes from slicing the backhand and the variety of that shot alone...then suddenly he is all over the backhand driving it with uncanny accuracy. His depth of shot is so good...he is really a remarkable individual.

Notice too how he is always creeping in on the baseline. I found myself watching just McEnroe and forgetting about Pernfors altogether. After all Pernfors is so predictable. I could see the influence of Björn Borg all over his game. But McEnroe is always generating a very subtle energy into the ball with very little backswing it seems. But it is the volleys that are just a wonder to behold. There has never been a volleyer or as good a volleyer as John McEnroe after he switched to this Dunlop midsize racquet. He is just uncanny with his ability to pop that ball off his strings with so little backswing.

I remember John Yandel saying or writing an article about how he intervened on the McEnroe serve at some point. I would think this would have been a good point to do so as he has really developed a hitch in his motion that interupted the flow of energy somewhat deep in his backswing. It's very difficult to hold and establish a rhythm with such a hitch day in and day out. On this particular day he really struggled. Even so John's deliver was very unorthodox in the manner he lined up on his serve. I found myself thinking "Brian Gordon Brain" thoughts as I pondered how the side saddle effected the biomechanics of his swing. Could it have been even better?

The combination of that lefty serve backed up by the laser volleys were what made McEnroe so unbelievable tough. His backcourt game was nearly just as stellar if not so. He played them all from the backcourt as well until he had the opportunity to go forwards and he never saw an opportunity that he didn't like. He had the patience and the penetration in combination with unbelievable placement in the backcourt. The courts of the day certainly suited him but it appears to me that in 1990 they were already slowing down the game. He had a lot of problems with the balls...he was complaining that they were dead.

The commentators were talking amongst themselves the whole entire match regarding his temper and gamesmanship. Apparently McEnroe was on the cusp of being suspended because he had already accumulated so many infractions and fines previously in the year. He actually seemed to be tippy toeing on the razor's edge during the match. Looking rather explosive but at the same time restrained. He never really cut loose. I thought his worst infraction was when he was standing in front of a lady linesman doing his little bouncy-bouncy with the tennis ball on his racquet without saying a word. They warned him for intimidation...I wouldn't argue against that assessment. The man certainly had presence and the thought of him doing that to me would make me nervous and I am no shrinking violet.

The rest of it went down as if on cue. Finally he got just a tad too caught up in his own theatrics and carried it a bit too far and I think he knew it. He took it well too. No crazy hysterics and ranting about this not being his fault. He took responsibility and he took his medicine. I thought it curious that he didn't acknowledge Pernfors but in that moment he probably was lost in his own crazy dysfunction and Pernfors wasn't even there in his reality. He wasn't so much ignoring him as he wasn't aware of him.

But it was a beautiful match. One that wasn't finished. I wonder who McEnroe may have played in the next round. His complete control of the geometry of the court was mesmerising in its perspective. His command of the spin on the ball was right out of the book...of Tilden. Tilden too, was also known for his theatrics and maybe it was short of gamesmanship. But McEnroe commanded complete order in his court. At one point there is a baby crying and the mother and child are forced to evacuate. Another fan asked Johnny..."can we breathe now?"

[don_budge]

...he still strokes and caresses the ball around exquisitely. When you think about it, McEnroe's game was more about taking pace off a ball then putting it on, which is the complete reverse of today's game. His feel and hands are just so, so good.

And yes his serve seems to have all but disappeared in the clip, but as you say, it makes him instead have to rely on other parts of his game, which makes the match all the more entertaining to watch.

Just a couple of more things...to illustrate a point.

I really get what you are getting at about the seeming lack of brute strength in McEnroe's strokes. But I always go back to my definition of power. I ask the student...what is power? Then I answer my own question...power is the combination of three elements. Speed, spin and placement. John McEnroe is the true best representative of my theory that I can think of. The thing is that he never overhits. Many times he uses the element of placement over the emphasis of speed. His subtle ability to spin the ball is also a huge factor in his ability as a player and what makes him a real handful for any given player. He has the ability to subtly adapt his game to that of his opponents. One huge factor of his play that separates him from the rest of the field is his ability to take the ball early. I was wondering today how he might take time away from todays players that tend to retreat behind the baseline.

One other thing that I found very fascinating about this particular match on a very, very hot day way down under in Australia...neither player ever went for a towel during a game. Maybe once...maybe twice. But ballboys were doing what ballboys had always done to this point in tennis history. They were responsible for the balls. I think it should be a rule that the players are not entitled to make the ballboys their personal gophers. You want a towel? Get you ass over there and get it yourself.

Neither player asked for four or five balls either to sort through before they put the ball in play. McEnroe was doing a lot of complaining about the balls but he wasn't sorting through them on every single point. This match was before the crazy idea that you had to change your racquets when the balls were changed too. A lot of nonsense has crept into the professional game. All this BS about the physicality (hate that word) being more demanding nowadays. What a load of you know what. That game of going forwards to the net was and still is the more physically demanding way to play the game.

On to McEnroe and Connors in 1984. One of my favourite matches of all time.

[stotty]

For me, McEnroe was all about timing and simplicity. I loved the way he steered the ball around. In no way whatsoever do I see him and as a big hitter in the way players are today. The game was different back then. Essentially he was still a wooden racket player using a more modern racket. No one back then had yet learned to take full advantage of a big frame because to do that all the classic players had to be excised from the game, and that takes time, basically until they all gradually retire. It was the new kids on the block that really started to take advantage of the big frames by eventually developing the techniques those big frames allowed.

As Fred Perry famously once said, "...you can't force it with wood". He was right. Wooden rackets were much more about timing and guile and finding solutions. You couldn't hit opponents off.

I think McEnroe made himself just so awkward to play against, in a way that made opponents feel inept. McEnroe had a couple of years, in the early eighties, where he was unplayable, but he never came close to recapturing that post his AWOL sabbatical. He was so exceptional at that point I think young Mr Pernfors would have struggled to win more than a couple of games a set.

The drop volley was my favourite shot of McEnroe's. I loved the way he cradled the ball and dropped it over the net. I have never seen anyone do that in anything like the same way. I have seen players nail volleys much harder than McEnroe, but McEnroe has his own way of doing the job, through deft hands, timing and the ability to engineer spaces, sometimes just enough space, to volley the ball into...amazing.

[bottle]

Postscript

Until the stupid end of the match involving the automatized "school of thought" that thinks McEnroe was correctly disciplined that always identifies with referees, officials and whoever holds the reins of power. The school of officaldumb for whom Alles muss in Ordnung sein. McEnroe's little smile, in the end, is the better response. As is M. Pernfors' wish to console John McEnroe. This is another one of the rare times when tennis officials showed poor judgment. But the world could survive it. One hopes the world also can survive poor judgment, so much more common, in the larger arena.

Any one of the major's highchair umpires would make a better president than Donald Trump. The decision-making umpire might be equally boring but not in Trump's oh so banal way. For starters there would be no internment camps for children along our borders and the world would soon be a better place.

[don_budge]

For me, McEnroe was all about timing and simplicity. I loved the way he steered the ball around. In no way whatsoever do I see him and as a big hitter in the way players are today. The game was different back then. Essentially he was still a wooden racket player using a more modern racket. No one back then had yet learned to take full advantage of a big frame because to do that all the classic players had to be excised from the game, and that takes time, basically until they all gradually retire. It was the new kids on the block that really started to take advantage of the big frames by eventually developing the techniques those big frames allowed.

As Fred Perry famously once said, "...you can't force it with wood". He was right. Wooden rackets were much more about timing and guile and finding solutions. You couldn't hit opponents off.

I think McEnroe made himself just so awkward to play against, in a way that made opponents feel inept. McEnroe had a couple of years, in the early eighties, where he was unplayable, but he never came close to recapturing that post his AWOL sabbatical. He was so exceptional at that point I think young Mr Pernfors would have struggled to win more than a couple of games a set.

The drop volley was my favourite shot of McEnroe's. I loved the way he cradled the ball and dropped it over the net. I have never seen anyone do that in anything like the same way. I have seen players nail volleys much harder than McEnroe, but McEnroe has his own way of doing the job, through deft hands, timing and the ability to engineer spaces, sometimes just enough space, to volley the ball into...amazing.

The Dunlop graphite "midsize" that John McEnroe is using against Mikael Pernfors is 82 square inches compared to the pretty much standard 100 square inches that modern players use. McEnroe used this racquet exclusively since 1984 or late 1983. Much of what you see is an illusion when you compare players that are using less real estate. One needs to look no further than "The Living Proof" Roger Federer to realize what the additional 7 square inches did for his game overnight...practically overnight. He honed his "new" strokes no doubt but it certainly transformed him from being an easy out for the likes of Nadal and Djokovic to a formidable opponent. Even with the disparity in years and miles on the legs.

Size does matter no matter what she says. It matters in tennis too...at least I say so. McEnroe got a jump start on Jimmy Connors at the 1984 Wimbledon when he had switched to the midsize and Connors was still spinning his wheels with the old Wilson T2000. What a thumping McEnroe gave him and just literally blew him off of the court. After that Wimbledon shellaking Connors meanwhile had switched to the midsize Wilson and the results at the U. S. Open which I will be discussing shortly were telling. Those classic players could pick up on the racquet switch like a light switch. It might appear that these "New Kids" know how to take advantage as you say...but that is more illusion than anything else. There are no new techniques. There is nothing new under the sun. The fact is they have somehow managed to "lose" techniques and tactics along with it. Not a single player seems to be able to make use of the going to the net option...except one. One who is way past his prime.

There is much political here and reinventing of truth. But you have to have been cognizant long before 1984 to realize just what exactly has been going on. Tennis metaphoring the illusions being cast over the unsuspecting. The oblivious.

[gzhpcu]

Yet, there is some hope. Watch this Hopman cup match...

[stotty]

The Dunlop graphite "midsize" that John McEnroe is using against Mikael Pernfors is 82 square inches compared to the pretty much standard 100 square inches that modern players use. McEnroe used this racquet exclusively since 1984 or late 1983. Much of what you see is an illusion when you compare players that are using less real estate. One needs to look no further than "The Living Proof" Roger Federer to realize what the additional 7 square inches did for his game overnight...practically overnight. He honed his "new" strokes no doubt but it certainly transformed him from being an easy out for the likes of Nadal and Djokovic to a formidable opponent. Even with the disparity in years and miles on the legs.

Size does matter no matter what she says. It matters in tennis too...at least I say so. McEnroe got a jump start on Jimmy Connors at the 1984 Wimbledon when he had switched to the midsize and Connors was still spinning his wheels with the old Wilson T2000. What a thumping McEnroe gave him and just literally blew him off of the court. After that Wimbledon shellaking Connors meanwhile had switched to the midsize Wilson and the results at the U. S. Open which I will be discussing shortly were telling. Those classic players could pick up on the racquet switch like a light switch. It might appear that these "New Kids" know how to take advantage as you say...but that is more illusion than anything else. There are no new techniques. There is nothing new under the sun. The fact is they have somehow managed to "lose" techniques and tactics along with it. Not a single player seems to be able to make use of the going to the net option...except one. One who is way past his prime.

There is much political here and reinventing of truth. But you have to have been cognizant long before 1984 to realize just what exactly has been going on. Tennis metaphoring the illusions being cast over the unsuspecting. The oblivious.

I think I need to explain my modern racket theory better. When McEnroe laid down his wooden racket and picked up a graphite of course his game got a little better, and without altering his technique one iota. The racket gave him a little bit more without doing anything.

But my earlier comment was more about the impact of modern rackets over the span of time. You don’t get from a classic forehand to a Roger Federer forehand overnight, just by switching rackets. That was a drawn-out process - stumbled upon probably - as players discovered more optimal ways to hit forehands as rackets changed, ways a wooden racket could never provide.

Modern rackets probably opened up the door and culminated in the ATP forehand. I don’t think that could ever have happened with wood. Borg and McEnroe likely took wooden racket tennis as far as it was ever going to go.

[stroke]

I'm not so sure McEnroe is so well past his prime in this match against Mikael Pernfors. Pernfors himself is probably pretty much in his prime as he had won the NCAA championships in 1984 and 1985. I was impressed with Johnny's physique...he looked pretty buff in the upper body and arms. It would be his mental state that might be somewhat suspect. I don't know if you noticed his wife in the stands. One Tatum O'Neil...that would be enough to drive any sane man crazy. Let alone John McEnroe.

I can see that at times McEnroe definitely has the ability like no other except perhaps Ilie Nastase to "take the air out of the ball" by caressing as you put it. But it looks to me that John is absolutely thumping it when the occasion calls for it. Maybe you are comparing him to the modern day thumpers with their 100 square inch racquets. John was pure Tilden all the way. Every shot was a separate entity and he played it accordingly so. The sheer variety of shots in his repertoire is dazzling. The manner in which he goes from slicing the backhand and the variety of that shot alone...then suddenly he is all over the backhand driving it with uncanny accuracy. His depth of shot is so good...he is really a remarkable individual.

Notice too how he is always creeping in on the baseline. I found myself watching just McEnroe and forgetting about Pernfors altogether. After all Pernfors is so predictable. I could see the influence of Björn Borg all over his game. But McEnroe is always generating a very subtle energy into the ball with very little backswing it seems. But it is the volleys that are just a wonder to behold. There has never been a volleyer or as good a volleyer as John McEnroe after he switched to this Dunlop midsize racquet. He is just uncanny with his ability to pop that ball off his strings with so little backswing.

I remember John Yandel saying or writing an article about how he intervened on the McEnroe serve at some point. I would think this would have been a good point to do so as he has really developed a hitch in his motion that interupted the flow of energy somewhat deep in his backswing. It's very difficult to hold and establish a rhythm with such a hitch day in and day out. On this particular day he really struggled. Even so John's deliver was very unorthodox in the manner he lined up on his serve. I found myself thinking "Brian Gordon Brain" thoughts as I pondered how the side saddle effected the biomechanics of his swing. Could it have been even better?

The combination of that lefty serve backed up by the laser volleys were what made McEnroe so unbelievable tough. His backcourt game was nearly just as stellar if not so. He played them all from the backcourt as well until he had the opportunity to go forwards and he never saw an opportunity that he didn't like. He had the patience and the penetration in combination with unbelievable placement in the backcourt. The courts of the day certainly suited him but it appears to me that in 1990 they were already slowing down the game. He had a lot of problems with the balls...he was complaining that they were dead.

The commentators were talking amongst themselves the whole entire match regarding his temper and gamesmanship. Apparently McEnroe was on the cusp of being suspended because he had already accumulated so many infractions and fines previously in the year. He actually seemed to be tippy toeing on the razor's edge during the match. Looking rather explosive but at the same time restrained. He never really cut loose. I thought his worst infraction was when he was standing in front of a lady linesman doing his little bouncy-bouncy with the tennis ball on his racquet without saying a word. They warned him for intimidation...I wouldn't argue against that assessment. The man certainly had presence and the thought of him doing that to me would make me nervous and I am no shrinking violet.

The rest of it went down as if on cue. Finally he got just a tad too caught up in his own theatrics and carried it a bit too far and I think he knew it. He took it well too. No crazy hysterics and ranting about this not being his fault. He took responsibility and he took his medicine. I thought it curious that he didn't acknowledge Pernfors but in that moment he probably was lost in his own crazy dysfunction and Pernfors wasn't even there in his reality. He wasn't so much ignoring him as he wasn't aware of him.

But it was a beautiful match. One that wasn't finished. I wonder who McEnroe may have played in the next round. His complete control of the geometry of the court was mesmerising in its perspective. His command of the spin on the ball was right out of the book...of Tilden. Tilden too, was also known for his theatrics and maybe it was short of gamesmanship. But McEnroe commanded complete order in his court. At one point there is a baby crying and the mother and child are forced to evacuate. Another fan asked Johnny..."can we breathe now?"

I think you have a splendid assessment of McEnroe here. Ha Tatum, copy that. Shades of Agassi with Brooke and her mother in his box. Tennis is hard enough.

[don_budge]

I think you have a splendid assessment of McEnroe here. Ha Tatum, copy that. Shades of Agassi with Brooke and her mother in his box. Tennis is hard enough.

Ah stroke...so few words but always making the point. "Tennis is hard enough". When I write I am always trying to get into the head of the player. As a competitor that is the way that I learned to play. I was really into his head from the beginning. By the time the warmup was over I knew his game. His strokes. The grips on his racquet. His tendencies. His tactics. The whole shebang. I even knew the brand of racquet, the size, the outfit, the shoes and I believe I could have made a good guess at the underwear. Many years later I haven't forgotten those lessons. The instincts. I get to know you really quick. A sizing up process which most often ends in a quick dismissal. Most people are well...sort of disappointing. But not you stroke. You deliver. Thank you..coming from you I treasure your comment.

This match down under in Australia was profoundly historical. Twenty-five years after the event John McEnroe gave an interview and strangely enough you will see that my assessment was very good and close to the reality of that day. Including his reaction to the end of the match. I'm not bragging...it's just what I do. It comes naturally. I see what I see. I assess the situation. I don't need a second opinion.

But here is the interview with a guy who in many ways is a hero. You'll see in my discussion of him in the U. S. Open thread if I can find the stream of consciousness that I am looking for to write about the events of that day. I loved the "old" John McEnroe. By that I mean the young and evolving young man. I first saw him play at age 16 or 17 at his first U. S. Open qualifying in !975 I believe it was. It was clay at an outside venue from Forest Hills. He played Zan Guerry in a match that will long live infamously. John McEnroe is a man. One of immense talent yet there is a weakness in his psyche that he has cleverly actually turned into a strength. While at times it seems to destroy him and everyone around him...in reality it was uplifting to see the struggle of the human spirit right out there in front of an audience of thousands. A man struggling with the demons. The demons we all know and who would possess us if they get their claws into our souls. But Johnny flirted on the edge of disaster so often yet he found a way to win. In this match it might appear that the demons had finally won and his antics betrayed him. But the reality is much more complicated and he curiously in the shape of a shaman turns it into a win somehow. You see...a man like McEnroe can be beaten but he can never be defeated.

To stroke, stotty and gzhpcu. The rest. God Bless you all. A public shout out to 10splayer...thanks man. This is John McEnroe:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/s...lian-open.html

Like a shaman he cloaked himself in a mystery that was impenetrable. He was an enigma. He was as bewildered by himself as often as we were. Sort of like you and I.

[gzhpcu]

Happy New Year friends!

[bottle]

Sort of like you and I.

Sort of like you and me?

[don_budge]

Happy New Year friends!

Back at you Phil...Happy 2019! Here in Europe we are already there on the other side.