PDA

View Full Version : Prime Sampras v Prime Lendl: Who wins?


theagassiman
05-04-2009, 06:32 PM
If Sampras and Lendl both peaked in the same era, and were say, pitted against each other at all the grand slams and other major tournaments, who do you think would come out on top?

grafrules
05-04-2009, 06:36 PM
Australian Open- Lendl wins 6 times out of 10
French Open- Lendl wins 10 times out of 10
Wimbledon- Sampras wins 9 times out of 10
U.S Open- Sampras wins 7 times out of 10

tudwell
05-04-2009, 07:00 PM
What about the Masters/Grand Slam cup? They were both deadly on indoor courts.

CEvertFan
05-04-2009, 07:09 PM
With that small headed racquet Lendl loved using, I think he would have had too much trouble with the Sampras serve everywhere except for clay and possibly the slow hard courts at the AO of the time.

grafrules predictions are pretty good except I don't think Lendl could have beaten Sampras ever on the fast grass of the time.

grafrules
05-04-2009, 07:23 PM
Well I am certainly not thinking Lendl would have ever beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in my hypothetical. It is more like if they played 10 times Lendl would have nabbed a win at Queens, where Sampras played very well and won a number of times but not with Wimbledon esque intensity (note some of his losses there over the years).

crabgrass
05-05-2009, 02:25 AM
lendl was clearly better on clay,
sampras was clearly better on grass,
hardcourts and indoors is a lot closer...i lean towards lendl on both.

pc1
05-05-2009, 08:04 AM
Interesting matchup. Lendl was relatively weak (for a player of his level) on grass but he did win at least one grass tournament and he reached the Wimbledon final several times. His service return wasn't up to par on grass and I think his forehand volley was a little weak.

Lendl was super on clay and on hard court plus indoors.

Sampras was obviously great on grass and better than Lendl.

I don't think Pete in his best years was that bad on clay but because of his stamina problems he would be dead if he lasted to the second week.

Pete was great indoors and on hard court.

Overall if they played a series of matches I would go with Lendl by a slight margin. It all depends because if they played so much that Pete was exhausted I could see Lendl crushing Sampras not because Lendl was better but because Pete would be barely able to move. A very tough call.

Cesc Fabregas
05-05-2009, 08:09 AM
Australian Open- Evenly matched
French Open- Lendl easily
Wimbledon- Sampras easily
US Open- Sampras has the edge

Overall Sampras.

Azzurri
05-05-2009, 09:57 AM
Clay: Lendl
Grass: Sampras
Carpet: Sampras
Hard Court: Even

Sampras gets the edge because he was a better fast court player. Many tourney's were played on carpet in the 80's (something I did not realize until recently). They would not have faced each other much on clay, so Sampras gets the edge.

380pistol
05-05-2009, 10:12 AM
Australian Open- Evenly matched
French Open- Lendl easily
Wimbledon- Sampras easily
US Open- Sampras has the edge

Overall Sampras.

Agreed. Lend could give some resistance on grass, not has bad as people make him out to be, but Pete would stil get him.

tennis-hero
05-05-2009, 11:06 AM
slow wimbledon grass would be a toss up

both at their prime and it would go to 5

same with a 1980 borg VS a 1999 Sampras on slow grass

however, on fast grass i would say sampras destorys lendl, borg, mac, fed, nadal.... anyone

anyone, at petes peak no one was ever going to touch him at wimbledon

Azzurri
05-05-2009, 11:47 AM
slow wimbledon grass would be a toss up

both at their prime and it would go to 5

same with a 1980 borg VS a 1999 Sampras on slow grass

however, on fast grass i would say sampras destorys lendl, borg, mac, fed, nadal.... anyone

anyone, at petes peak no one was ever going to touch him at wimbledon

since neither played slow grass, not sure if your conclusion would be correct.

hoodjem
05-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Yep, I remember when "slow grass" would have been an oxymoron.

Those were the days . . .

Winners or Errors
05-05-2009, 01:55 PM
Clay: Lendl
Grass: Sampras
Carpet: Sampras
Hard Court: Even

Sampras gets the edge because he was a better fast court player. Many tourney's were played on carpet in the 80's (something I did not realize until recently). They would not have faced each other much on clay, so Sampras gets the edge.

Fairly certain Lendl was one of the best carpet players ever, so I'm not sure how you figure Pete gets a walkover there. And how many times did Lendl make the US Open final on hard courts? I'm just sayin'... Lendl-Sampras on hardcourt or carpet would be even, and Lendl would be much closer to Sampras on grass than Sampras would be to Lendl on clay.

thalivest
05-05-2009, 02:08 PM
Lendl was a great indoor player. He was beating Becker frequently indoors in the mid to late 80s when many feel Becker was at his true career peak. One big edge Sampras has on Lendl though is he is truly one of the ultimate big match players. His record in slam finals is an incredible 14-4. This cannot be said of Lendl as easily. If Lendl was the big match player Sampras is he might be atleast the Open era GOAT now with all his achievements and all the finals he reached (including Wimbledon finals) So while Lendl vs Sampras on hard courts and indoors might be even in one sense, I think it becomes less even if the match is a U.S Open final for example. Still Lendl is a cut above any player Sampras faced, including Agassi, so it wouldnt be a free ride for either of them.

Kirko
05-05-2009, 02:16 PM
Fairly certain Lendl was one of the best carpet players ever, so I'm not sure how you figure Pete gets a walkover there. And how many times did Lendl make the US Open final on hard courts? I'm just sayin'... Lendl-Sampras on hardcourt or carpet would be even, and Lendl would be much closer to Sampras on grass than Sampras would be to Lendl on clay.

Lendl was a terrific player on carpet seeing him play thru the yrs.

Azzurri
05-05-2009, 05:52 PM
Fairly certain Lendl was one of the best carpet players ever, so I'm not sure how you figure Pete gets a walkover there. And how many times did Lendl make the US Open final on hard courts? I'm just sayin'... Lendl-Sampras on hardcourt or carpet would be even, and Lendl would be much closer to Sampras on grass than Sampras would be to Lendl on clay.

Let's make one confirmation, Pete is a 7 time Wimbledon Champion. Lendl has ZERO W titles. I really won't bother with you if you make statements like that regarding grass...who cares if Lendl is closer to pete on grass than Pete to Lendl on clay..WTF does that even mean???

Do you even realize Pete made 8 USO fianls and won 5 while Lendl made the same 8 and won 3...gee who would be considered the better HC player??? Seiously, if numbers and FACTS don't matter to you please don't bother with me. I was kind to say Lendl/Sampras even on HC, but its clear Pete was better since GS are really what matters. Again, you don't even know what you are talking about.. lendl 8 finals and Pete 8 finals.

Carpet...Lendl has 33 carpet titles to Pete's 14 so I was wrong to make that a "walk through", but since no GS was played on carpet, we need to look at the overall #'s. I found Pete's winning % was 76 on carpet and he won 148 matches and lost 47. Does anyone have Lendl stats?? I believe there were more carpet tourneys in lendl's day so it won't surprise me if he has more wins (of course), but wondering what his winning % is.

I was being fair and objective in my assessment...somehow you missed that.:confused:

Winners or Errors
05-05-2009, 07:02 PM
Like I said, just sayin'...
Sampras wins against Lendl 9 of 10 at Wimbledon.
Lendl wins against Sampras 10 of 10 at FO, not even close.
Slight edge, maybe, at the US Open, maybe 6 of 10 go to Sampras
On carpet, obviously no majors, but Lendl's record was 267-56 on carpet, which is 83%. I graded them as even, because I think it'd be a good match.

Seriously, why so upset about this? I just pointed out that Lendl was great on carpet and a pretty darned good hard court player. Also, the fact that Lendl actually has a record of semifinal and final appearances at Wimbledon, as opposed to Sampras' pathetic record at the French Open, is the reason I mentioned the grass/clay thing.

crabgrass
05-05-2009, 10:40 PM
In regards to indoor carpet i'm not quite sure people are aware of how incredible lendl was on this surface, imo the indoor GOAT.
At the end of year masters he was within 1 match of making the final for 10 years straight, losing in the '89 semis to edberg....if he'd won that match it would have been the entire decade of the 80's in the final...if that's not a mindboggling record i don't know what is.....as it is he finished with 5 YEM titles and 4 runners up, also ended up with 12 consecutive appearences in the semis or better from 1980-91, it should be pointed out also that unlike the occasional grand slam there is no easy draw at this event,all the top guys are there and in lendl's era that means borg,mac,connors,vilas,becker,edberg,wilander etc.

In addition lendl also holds the record for consecutive match wins indoors with 66 straight between october '81 and january '83.
lendl's record in the other major indoor events of his time is also vastly impressive, 2 times champion at wct dallas, 5 times champion at the seiko tokyo indoor, 5 times champion at the european comunity championship in antwerp, 2 times champion at the us pro indoor, 1 time champ at the us national indoor, 3 times champ at the benson & hedges london indoor at wembley, 3 times champ at aussie indoor etc.

while lendl is my pick as indoor GOAT i do recognise sampras as being among the greatest indoor players also and would rank him with mac and becker as the main contenders for the no.2 spot.

380pistol
05-05-2009, 10:42 PM
Let's make one confirmation, Pete is a 7 time Wimbledon Champion. Lendl has ZERO W titles. I really won't bother with you if you make statements like that regarding grass...who cares if Lendl is closer to pete on grass than Pete to Lendl on clay..WTF does that even mean???

Do you even realize Pete made 8 USO fianls and won 5 while Lendl made the same 8 and won 3...gee who would be considered the better HC player??? Seiously, if numbers and FACTS don't matter to you please don't bother with me. I was kind to say Lendl/Sampras even on HC, but its clear Pete was better since GS are really what matters. Again, you don't even know what you are talking about.. lendl 8 finals and Pete 8 finals.

Carpet...Lendl has 33 carpet titles to Pete's 14 so I was wrong to make that a "walk through", but since no GS was played on carpet, we need to look at the overall #'s. I found Pete's winning % was 76 on carpet and he won 148 matches and lost 47. Does anyone have Lendl stats?? I believe there were more carpet tourneys in lendl's day so it won't surprise me if he has more wins (of course), but wondering what his winning % is.

I was being fair and objective in my assessment...somehow you missed that.:confused:

Well said except carpet. It's hard to say based on titles, as many more events were held on carpet in the 80's than the 90's and even less today. What Paris Indoor, Lyon and maybe one or 2 others. Shangahai was carpet offically (Indoor Taraflex) and many said it was more of a hardcourt anyway.

Iterchange them Sampras gets more carpet titles playing in the 80's, and Lendl less in the 90's. Not a slight just the way the game has changed.

CARPET
Lendl 267-56 33 titles
Sampras 144-44 15 titles

INDOOR
Lendl 344-71 42 titles
Sampras 213-61 23 titles

grafselesfan
05-05-2009, 10:48 PM
Lendl really should have won more U.S Opens. He was a bit of a choker in big finals, especialy early in his career. Then again that doesnt bode well for him playing prime Pete in big matches, one of if not the ultimate big match player.

crabgrass
05-05-2009, 10:56 PM
In regards to indoor carpet i'm not quite sure people are aware of how incredible lendl was on this surface, imo the indoor GOAT.
At the end of year masters he was within 1 match of making the final for 10 years straight, losing in the '89 semis to edberg....if he'd won that match it would have been the entire decade of the 80's in the final...if that's not a mindboggling record i don't know what is.....as it is he finished with 5 YEM titles and 4 runners up, also ended up with 12 consecutive appearences in the semis or better from 1980-91, it should be pointed out also that unlike the occasional grand slam there is no easy draw at this event,all the top guys are there and in lendl's era that means borg,mac,connors,vilas,becker,edberg,wilander etc.

In addition lendl also holds the record for consecutive match wins indoors with 66 straight between october '81 and january '83.
lendl's record in the other major indoor events of his time is also vastly impressive, 2 times champion at wct dallas, 5 times champion at the seiko tokyo indoor, 5 times champion at the european comunity championship in antwerp, 2 times champion at the us pro indoor, 1 time champ at the us national indoor, 3 times champ at the benson & hedges london indoor at wembley, 3 times champ at aussie indoor etc.

while lendl is my pick as indoor GOAT i do recognise sampras as being among the greatest indoor players also and would rank him with mac and becker as the main contenders for the no.2 spot.

i should also add here that head to head indoors reads 3-1 for lendl and all meetings took place from 90-93.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 03:28 AM
Like I said, just sayin'...
Sampras wins against Lendl 9 of 10 at Wimbledon.
Lendl wins against Sampras 10 of 10 at FO, not even close.
Slight edge, maybe, at the US Open, maybe 6 of 10 go to Sampras
On carpet, obviously no majors, but Lendl's record was 267-56 on carpet, which is 83%. I graded them as even, because I think it'd be a good match.

Seriously, why so upset about this? I just pointed out that Lendl was great on carpet and a pretty darned good hard court player. Also, the fact that Lendl actually has a record of semifinal and final appearances at Wimbledon, as opposed to Sampras' pathetic record at the French Open, is the reason I mentioned the grass/clay thing.

Because the grass/clay thing has nothing to do with anything. Pete is the better player on grass, HANDS DOWN. Who cares if Lendl is the better player on clay HANDS DOWN. One has nothing to do with the other..its a seperate playing surface. Here is your quaote:

"Lendl-Sampras on hardcourt or carpet would be even, and Lendl would be much closer to Sampras on grass than Sampras would be to Lendl on clay."

Again, what does that even mean? What??? How many FO does Lendl have? Unless he has 7 (which he does not) then your arguement is very childish. By any chance are you a teen? If so, please don't bother me with your nonsense.

Even though I proved Pete has a much better USO record you still think they are near even???? What a joke. A prime Pete would beat a prime Lendl at the USO 8/9-10 times. Lendl was a great player, but he was not Pete.

Lendl was a great carpet player and I would call them even...thanks for clearing that up.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 03:30 AM
In regards to indoor carpet i'm not quite sure people are aware of how incredible lendl was on this surface, imo the indoor GOAT.
At the end of year masters he was within 1 match of making the final for 10 years straight, losing in the '89 semis to edberg....if he'd won that match it would have been the entire decade of the 80's in the final...if that's not a mindboggling record i don't know what is.....as it is he finished with 5 YEM titles and 4 runners up, also ended up with 12 consecutive appearences in the semis or better from 1980-91, it should be pointed out also that unlike the occasional grand slam there is no easy draw at this event,all the top guys are there and in lendl's era that means borg,mac,connors,vilas,becker,edberg,wilander etc.

In addition lendl also holds the record for consecutive match wins indoors with 66 straight between october '81 and january '83.
lendl's record in the other major indoor events of his time is also vastly impressive, 2 times champion at wct dallas, 5 times champion at the seiko tokyo indoor, 5 times champion at the european comunity championship in antwerp, 2 times champion at the us pro indoor, 1 time champ at the us national indoor, 3 times champ at the benson & hedges london indoor at wembley, 3 times champ at aussie indoor etc.

while lendl is my pick as indoor GOAT i do recognise sampras as being among the greatest indoor players also and would rank him with mac and becker as the main contenders for the no.2 spot.

What about McEnroe? He won 43 carpet tourney's. I go with Mac as the best carpet player.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 03:32 AM
Well said except carpet. It's hard to say based on titles, as many more events were held on carpet in the 80's than the 90's and even less today. What Paris Indoor, Lyon and maybe one or 2 others. Shangahai was carpet offically (Indoor Taraflex) and many said it was more of a hardcourt anyway.

Iterchange them Sampras gets more carpet titles playing in the 80's, and Lendl less in the 90's. Not a slight just the way the game has changed.

CARPET
Lendl 267-56 33 titles
Sampras 144-44 15 titles

INDOOR
Lendl 344-71 42 titles
Sampras 213-61 23 titles

I guess Mac should be thrown into the mix then. He won 43 carpet titles (I was recently informed much to my surprise). So Mac has 10 more than Lendl..IMPRESSIVE.

Winners or Errors
05-06-2009, 08:32 AM
Because the grass/clay thing has nothing to do with anything. Pete is the better player on grass, HANDS DOWN. Who cares if Lendl is the better player on clay HANDS DOWN. One has nothing to do with the other..its a seperate playing surface. Here is your quaote:

"Lendl-Sampras on hardcourt or carpet would be even, and Lendl would be much closer to Sampras on grass than Sampras would be to Lendl on clay."

Again, what does that even mean? What??? How many FO does Lendl have? Unless he has 7 (which he does not) then your arguement is very childish. By any chance are you a teen? If so, please don't bother me with your nonsense.

Even though I proved Pete has a much better USO record you still think they are near even???? What a joke. A prime Pete would beat a prime Lendl at the USO 8/9-10 times. Lendl was a great player, but he was not Pete.

Lendl was a great carpet player and I would call them even...thanks for clearing that up.

We'll have to agree to disagree about hard courts. There's simply no way Sampras would have beaten Lendl 8/9-10 times at the USO. Look at the list of players Lendl lost to, then look at the list of players Sampras beat. There is a big difference in the quality of opponents. We can agree to disagree about that as well, after all, this is just a speculative exercise.

As for clay, let me reiterate that Sampras' record was demonstrably pathetic at Roland Garros. Lendl, on the other hand, played in many finals and won three of them.

As for grass, I happen to think that if the stars aligned Lendl could have beaten Sampras. Sure, he didn't win at Wimbledon, but he did make it to two finals and I forget how many semifinals. We'll never know.

Lots of ways to look at this. I happen to think that, where Sampras is concerned, you are overly defensive though I'm not sure why, but it is clearly indicated by the fact that you've gotten so emotional and inserted personal jabs into your retorts.

There is no doubt that Sampras was a great player, perhaps the best of all time on hard courts and grass, but it's far from conclusive. Differences in the level of competition alone are enough to insert gray into this debate where you want to see black and white.

Arafel
05-06-2009, 09:03 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree about hard courts. There's simply no way Sampras would have beaten Lendl 8/9-10 times at the USO. Look at the list of players Lendl lost to, then look at the list of players Sampras beat. There is a big difference in the quality of opponents. We can agree to disagree about that as well, after all, this is just a speculative exercise.

As for clay, let me reiterate that Sampras' record was demonstrably pathetic at Roland Garros. Lendl, on the other hand, played in many finals and won three of them.

As for grass, I happen to think that if the stars aligned Lendl could have beaten Sampras. Sure, he didn't win at Wimbledon, but he did make it to two finals and I forget how many semifinals. We'll never know.

Lots of ways to look at this. I happen to think that, where Sampras is concerned, you are overly defensive though I'm not sure why, but it is clearly indicated by the fact that you've gotten so emotional and inserted personal jabs into your retorts.

There is no doubt that Sampras was a great player, perhaps the best of all time on hard courts and grass, but it's far from conclusive. Differences in the level of competition alone are enough to insert gray into this debate where you want to see black and white.

Depends on the type of grass. If it's late 80s early 90s grass, then no, Lendl wouldn't have had a chance in hell. Lendl couldn't beat Pat Cash on grass. In fact, in the Wimbledon final, Cash beat Lendl in straight sets. Now, I always liked Cash and saw him as a dangerous floater, but Cash was nowhere close to being as good as Sampras on grass.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 10:07 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree about hard courts. There's simply no way Sampras would have beaten Lendl 8/9-10 times at the USO. Look at the list of players Lendl lost to, then look at the list of players Sampras beat. There is a big difference in the quality of opponents. We can agree to disagree about that as well, after all, this is just a speculative exercise.

As for clay, let me reiterate that Sampras' record was demonstrably pathetic at Roland Garros. Lendl, on the other hand, played in many finals and won three of them.

As for grass, I happen to think that if the stars aligned Lendl could have beaten Sampras. Sure, he didn't win at Wimbledon, but he did make it to two finals and I forget how many semifinals. We'll never know.

Lots of ways to look at this. I happen to think that, where Sampras is concerned, you are overly defensive though I'm not sure why, but it is clearly indicated by the fact that you've gotten so emotional and inserted personal jabs into your retorts.

There is no doubt that Sampras was a great player, perhaps the best of all time on hard courts and grass, but it's far from conclusive. Differences in the level of competition alone are enough to insert gray into this debate where you want to see black and white.

personal jabs?? did I call you a moron? Did I call you a fool? Did I say you were abrainless twit? None of that was said. But I will say this, you know little about tennis making those comparisons. the clay/grass debate you insist on has absolutely NO BEARING on how Lendl would play Pete at Wimbledon. You see, this is where you miss the point and your ignorance shines...you actually think since Lendl was a better grass player than Pete was a clay court player (no duhhh) then he would have a better chance beating Pete in Wimbledon..WHATEVER. What you don't get is Pete is a 7 time champ, only one man has as many titles and that was like 100 years ago. your "if the planets line up" retort shows your immaturity and lack of understanding. Lendl could not win Wimbledon, yet you think he could beat Pete...whatever.

Lendl would have had some issues with a prime Pete at the USO. Pete's monster serve and return game would be too much for Lendl. okay, mayb 7/10.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 10:09 AM
Depends on the type of grass. If it's late 80s early 90s grass, then no, Lendl wouldn't have had a chance in hell. Lendl couldn't beat Pat Cash on grass. In fact, in the Wimbledon final, Cash beat Lendl in straight sets. Now, I always liked Cash and saw him as a dangerous floater, but Cash was nowhere close to being as good as Sampras on grass.

now this is a logical post. it shows a level of understanding the game of tennis. great point, Cash could not touch Pete on grass and Cash nowhere near the weapons Pete had..hence his 7 titles. Not sure if w&e will get it though.

today's slower grass is still a "fast" surface, but Lendl would just keep it closer, I still don't think he would beat Pete just like Pete would not beat Lendl at the FO.

Winners or Errors
05-06-2009, 04:29 PM
now this is a logical post. it shows a level of understanding the game of tennis. great point, Cash could not touch Pete on grass and Cash nowhere near the weapons Pete had..hence his 7 titles. Not sure if w&e will get it though.

today's slower grass is still a "fast" surface, but Lendl would just keep it closer, I still don't think he would beat Pete just like Pete would not beat Lendl at the FO.

That's like saying Rafter could not touch Pete on hard courts. Cash was plenty capable when he was on of beating any player in his era. Sampras was significantly more consistent, but c'mon. Where do you come up with this stuff? You are truly delusional where Sampras is concerned.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 04:52 PM
That's like saying Rafter could not touch Pete on hard courts. Cash was plenty capable when he was on of beating any player in his era. Sampras was significantly more consistent, but c'mon. Where do you come up with this stuff? You are truly delusional where Sampras is concerned.

Guess I have to make you look bad..again.

Pete's record vs. Rafter on HC is 10-3. Its well known Pete owned Rafter. However, I was NOT talking about Rafter. I happen to think rafter was a better player than Cash, so again...you just don't get it.

crabgrass
05-06-2009, 06:04 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree about hard courts. There's simply no way Sampras would have beaten Lendl 8/9-10 times at the USO. Look at the list of players Lendl lost to, then look at the list of players Sampras beat. There is a big difference in the quality of opponents. We can agree to disagree about that as well, after all, this is just a speculative exercise.

As for clay, let me reiterate that Sampras' record was demonstrably pathetic at Roland Garros. Lendl, on the other hand, played in many finals and won three of them.

As for grass, I happen to think that if the stars aligned Lendl could have beaten Sampras. Sure, he didn't win at Wimbledon, but he did make it to two finals and I forget how many semifinals. We'll never know.

Lots of ways to look at this. I happen to think that, where Sampras is concerned, you are overly defensive though I'm not sure why, but it is clearly indicated by the fact that you've gotten so emotional and inserted personal jabs into your retorts.

There is no doubt that Sampras was a great player, perhaps the best of all time on hard courts and grass, but it's far from conclusive. Differences in the level of competition alone are enough to insert gray into this debate where you want to see black and white.

lendls grasscourt record was fairly solid it's just that on clay,hardcourts and indoors his record places him among the greatest ever so it gets a little overlooked and people tend to underate his abilities on that surface.
Besides his 2 wimbledon finals he made another 5 semifinal appearences,
also made the final at kooyong in '83 and was twice champion at queens.
Had wins over becker,edberg and tanner.
there's plenty of wimbledon champions like cash,krajicek,stich who's overall record is nowhere near as consistent as lendl's was on grass.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 06:34 PM
lendls grasscourt record was fairly solid it's just that on clay,hardcourts and indoors his record places him among the greatest ever so it gets a little overlooked and people tend to underate his abilities on that surface.
Besides his 2 wimbledon finals he made another 5 semifinal appearences,
also made the final at kooyong in '83 and was twice champion at queens.
Had wins over becker,edberg and tanner.
there's plenty of wimbledon champions like cash,krajicek,stich who's overall record is nowhere near as consistent as lendl's was on grass.

let me get this straight, you would rather have a team (say the Buffalo Bills) go to 4 Super Bowls and lose them all instead of say win one like the Jets? It's all about winning championships. Pete obviously got that. No one said Lendl was a bad grass court player, but he would not touch Pete. Could I be wrong..sure, but I am going by history and history tells me Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles, never lost a final while Lendl never won a single Wimbledon title. Anyone could beat anyone on any given day, but if that was the point, then who cares about these discussions?? In other words, you can't have it both ways. Cash, Stich and Kraijek are Wimbledon champs and your post is trying to take that away when you claim Lendl is a better or more consistent grass court player. If anything, you should argue Lendl grass court record with other good grass court players that also never won Wimbledon..now that would be fair.

crabgrass
05-06-2009, 06:57 PM
let me get this straight, you would rather have a team (say the Buffalo Bills) go to 4 Super Bowls and lose them all instead of say win one like the Jets? It's all about winning championships. Pete obviously got that. No one said Lendl was a bad grass court player, but he would not touch Pete. Could I be wrong..sure, but I am going by history and history tells me Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles, never lost a final while Lendl never won a single Wimbledon title. Anyone could beat anyone on any given day, but if that was the point, then who cares about these discussions?? In other words, you can't have it both ways. Cash, Stich and Kraijek are Wimbledon champs and your post is trying to take that away when you claim Lendl is a better or more consistent grass court player. If anything, you should argue Lendl grass court record with other good grass court players that also never won Wimbledon..now that would be fair.

i'm not taking anything away from cash,krajicek or stich....i said what i meant, lendl was more consistent...this isnt an opinion just facts.
btw personally i think the bills were better than the jets, that last second norwood field goal goes in and now we have a SB champion with 3 runners up compared to a team that had one SB win and no runners up.
of course he missed it so history records it differently, even thurman thomas got screwed out of the mvp because of that miss despite having the better game than oj anderson...thomas was better but the glory always goes to the winners whether its justified or not.

Azzurri
05-06-2009, 07:33 PM
i'm not taking anything away from cash,krajicek or stich....i said what i meant, lendl was more consistent...this isnt an opinion just facts.
btw personally i think the bills were better than the jets, that last second norwood field goal goes in and now we have a SB champion with 3 runners up compared to a team that had one SB win and no runners up.
of course he missed it so history records it differently, even thurman thomas got screwed out of the mvp because of that miss despite having the better game than oj anderson...thomas was better but the glory always goes to the winners whether its justified or not.

wha if, what if, what if.....

crabgrass
05-06-2009, 07:40 PM
wha if, what if, what if.....

well it works for seles fans

380pistol
05-06-2009, 10:45 PM
That's like saying Rafter could not touch Pete on hard courts. Cash was plenty capable when he was on of beating any player in his era. Sampras was significantly more consistent, but c'mon. Where do you come up with this stuff? You are truly delusional where Sampras is concerned.

This is from someone who loves Cash and thinks injuries cost him a couple of slams. But when "they're on". Cash's best vs. Pete's best?? Are you really making that comparison??? Are you??

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 04:12 AM
well it works for seles fans

LOL...yes it does.:)

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 04:13 AM
This is from someone who loves Cash and thinks injuries cost him a couple of slams. But when "they're on". Cash's best vs. Pete's best?? Are you really making that comparison??? Are you??

I guess you noticed he does not make much sense...yea, me too.

PERL
05-07-2009, 04:15 AM
Cash, Krajicek and Stich at their peak were far better than Lendl on grass at his peak. And thatís why they were able to win Wimbledon once. I always thought we were talking about players at their peaks when making those fantasy matchups. Bottom line is Lendl was consistent but he was never good enough to beat the best grass specialists at Wimbledon. His best wins there : a 32 years old Tanner, Tim Mayotte twice, Zivojinovic, a 29 years old and far past his prime Johan Kriek, an 18 years old Pat Cash, a 21 years old Edberg who was still improving and not at his best on grass, heís tied with Leconte 1/1.
His best wins stand at the Queens but who cares about the Queens ? Certainly not Sampras. Sampras beat Lendl in straights at Wimbledon if both are at their peak.
I know that Lendl may be underrated by some but heís overrated by others, probably as a reaction.

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 06:01 AM
Cash, Krajicek and Stich at their peak were far better than Lendl on grass at his peak. And thatís why they were able to win Wimbledon once. I always thought we were talking about players at their peaks when making those fantasy matchups. Bottom line is Lendl was consistent but he was never good enough to beat the best grass specialists at Wimbledon. His best wins there : a 32 years old Tanner, Tim Mayotte twice, Zivojinovic, a 29 years old and far past his prime Johan Kriek, an 18 years old Pat Cash, a 21 years old Edberg who was still improving and not at his best on grass, heís tied with Leconte 1/1.
His best wins stand at the Queens but who cares about the Queens ? Certainly not Sampras. Sampras beat Lendl in straights at Wimbledon if both are at their peak.
I know that Lendl may be underrated by some but heís overrated by others, probably as a reaction.

exactly. like I said before, winning is the only thing that matters and Lendl never won Wimbledon. I don't care if he made 10 straight SF, he still never won. Someone made it seem as if even though Lendl never won W, he was a betetr grass court player than some of the one time winners....clueless poster.

Winners or Errors
05-07-2009, 09:07 AM
This is from someone who loves Cash and thinks injuries cost him a couple of slams. But when "they're on". Cash's best vs. Pete's best?? Are you really making that comparison??? Are you??

Hold on there. We're not talking about both of them playing the match of their lives. We're talking about them at their peaks, which is far different. If Cash was on, he could beat anyone. Nowhere did I say Cash in the zone was better than Sampras in the zone. Cash plays great, Sampras has an average day, Cash wins. In the end, that's my opinion.

Those weren't 7 straight Wimbledons, were they?

Winners or Errors
05-07-2009, 09:16 AM
exactly. like I said before, winning is the only thing that matters and Lendl never won Wimbledon. I don't care if he made 10 straight SF, he still never won. Someone made it seem as if even though Lendl never won W, he was a betetr grass court player than some of the one time winners....clueless poster.

No. You are twisting that poster's words. I believe the poster said Lendl was "more consistent." That's not better on a given day, it's better over the course of a career. Lendl lost to many players who were having great tournaments because he wasn't at his best on grass courts. I suspect Lendl would have traded that consistency for one Wimbledon title, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a threat to go deep in the draw at Wimbledon for many years and almost never lost a match he was supposed to win there, while most one win wonders were quite inconsistent in their performance.

My contention stands. Sampras would not have trashed Lendl 10 of 10 on grass. As I recall, I said 9 of 10 and that just wasn't good enough for you. That's 90%. Why not good enough?

Azzurri
05-07-2009, 10:32 AM
No. You are twisting that poster's words. I believe the poster said Lendl was "more consistent." That's not better on a given day, it's better over the course of a career. Lendl lost to many players who were having great tournaments because he wasn't at his best on grass courts. I suspect Lendl would have traded that consistency for one Wimbledon title, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a threat to go deep in the draw at Wimbledon for many years and almost never lost a match he was supposed to win there, while most one win wonders were quite inconsistent in their performance.

My contention stands. Sampras would not have trashed Lendl 10 of 10 on grass. As I recall, I said 9 of 10 and that just wasn't good enough for you. That's 90%. Why not good enough?

i was just making a point, but you and I were discussing hardcourt and the USO.

grafselesfan
05-07-2009, 10:59 AM
Cash, Krajicek and Stich at their peak were far better than Lendl on grass at his peak. And that’s why they were able to win Wimbledon once. I always thought we were talking about players at their peaks when making those fantasy matchups. Bottom line is Lendl was consistent but he was never good enough to beat the best grass specialists at Wimbledon. His best wins there : a 32 years old Tanner, Tim Mayotte twice, Zivojinovic, a 29 years old and far past his prime Johan Kriek, an 18 years old Pat Cash, a 21 years old Edberg who was still improving and not at his best on grass, he’s tied with Leconte 1/1.
His best wins stand at the Queens but who cares about the Queens ? Certainly not Sampras. Sampras beat Lendl in straights at Wimbledon if both are at their peak.
I know that Lendl may be underrated by some but he’s overrated by others, probably as a reaction.

I agree with this. His best win at Wimbledon by far was Edberg in 1987 and even that wasnt the same Edberg as 1988-1992. He doesnt have a 2nd win that even comes close to that. Like you said comparing Krajiceck, Stich, Ivanisevic to Lendl on grass is hard because:

Lendl consistent performance level on grass > Stich and Krajicek especialy on grass
Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic peak performance level on grass > Lendl on grass

The bottom one is why those 3 could win Wimbledon and Lendl couldnt though.

Winners or Errors
05-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Good points and very true. To win Wimbledon, Lendl would not only to have been playing well, but would have had to get lucky enough to meet an opponent in the final who was not having a spectacular day.

Sampras, in comparison, could potentially pull it off even on a relatively bad day, as good a grass-courter as he was.

Lendl was not good enough on grass to handle a grass-court specialist peaking at Wimbledon. Sampras was.

380pistol
05-07-2009, 10:54 PM
Hold on there. We're not talking about both of them playing the match of their lives. We're talking about them at their peaks, which is far different. If Cash was on, he could beat anyone. Nowhere did I say Cash in the zone was better than Sampras in the zone. Cash plays great, Sampras has an average day, Cash wins. In the end, that's my opinion.

Those weren't 7 straight Wimbledons, were they?

You keep saying if "Cash was on", but what if Sampras "is on"??? This it what it comes down to.....

Cash when "he's on" vs Sampras when "he's on". If Sampras has an off day hell anyone can beat him, so what's your point?? Anyone can beat anyone when that person's off?? Hell Sampras can beat Lendl at Roland Grros if Lend has an "average day"... what does that mean???

hoodjem
05-08-2009, 03:25 AM
Back to the OP: Lendl wins at RG, Sampras on Wimby. Pretty even at USO (maybe Sampras by a hair, 7-6 in the fifth).

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 04:50 AM
Back to the OP: Lendl wins at RG, Sampras on Wimby. Pretty even at USO (maybe Sampras by a hair, 7-6 in the fifth).

Here is why I think it would not be as close at the USO between them (not so much a specific mathc, but over all H2H at the USO). Pete beat Lendl in 90 as Lendl was coming in with 8 straight final appearances. Pete was no where near the player he would become, yet Lendl was still extremely good. Lendl was closer to being Lendl in 90 then Pete was being Pete. Pete has been noted as saying he was extremely green when he won the USO and was just on an incredible hot streak. His serve actually began to be the force it was just prior. It took Pete 3 more years to win another GS title, so I just think even a green Pete beat a very good Lendl (who won the AO that year, got to the SF of Wimbledon and then made the SF of the USO in 1991 (I believe). Then Lendl just dropped. But in 1990, young and inexperienced Pete beat a very good experienced Lendl.

Some may not get my point, but think of it this way. When Safin beat Pete in 2000, was Safin a much better player 3 years later and then did he dominate tennis for 6 years?? No. Same with a lot of players. Not many players won a major then reached their peak years later and dominated for years after. Federer won a major and dominated right after. Nadal won a major and dominated along w/Fed right after. I am not talking about all major winners because not all major winners domianted their sport. There are only a handful of guys since 1968 that won a major and then dominated for a few years. Pete won a major, played good tennis for 3 years and then dominated for another 6 years. That is rare and shows how much better he was as he got older and how talented he was at age 19.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 04:56 AM
Good points and very true. To win Wimbledon, Lendl would not only to have been playing well, but would have had to get lucky enough to meet an opponent in the final who was not having a spectacular day.

Sampras, in comparison, could potentially pull it off even on a relatively bad day, as good a grass-courter as he was.

Lendl was not good enough on grass to handle a grass-court specialist peaking at Wimbledon. Sampras was.

you may want to read your own statement, because its not what you were saying earlier. your opening statement in this post is pointless and what does it matter. So anyone that beat Lendl was having a spectacular day and Lendl was just "unlucky" not to win. You don't get it, Lendl was not meant to win Wimbledon during that era. Too many good grass court players and always someone better than he was...hence he never won. Cash is/was a better grass court player and had nothing to do with him playing "spectacular tennis" on a given day...he was better.

I noticed you keep harping on grass, I assume you have waved the white flag on the USO issue?

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 04:59 AM
You keep saying if "Cash was on", but what if Sampras "is on"??? This it what it comes down to.....

Cash when "he's on" vs Sampras when "he's on". If Sampras has an off day hell anyone can beat him, so what's your point?? Anyone can beat anyone when that person's off?? Hell Sampras can beat Lendl at Roland Grros if Lend has an "average day"... what does that mean???

Its not just him, but lots of people make that claim when talking about beating Sampras on grass. its as if Pete only won whe players were not "on"..I know for a fact that Pete beat players in majors when they were playing the best tennis of their life (Pioline) and when they ran into Pete it was lights out.

hoodjem
05-08-2009, 05:15 AM
I am inclined to agree. At Wimby, when Sampras was really on his A+ game (e.g. 1999 final), anyone else (including Agassi, Connors, and Cash) could play their A+ game and still lose.

Winners or Errors
05-08-2009, 06:25 AM
you may want to read your own statement, because its not what you were saying earlier. your opening statement in this post is pointless and what does it matter. So anyone that beat Lendl was having a spectacular day and Lendl was just "unlucky" not to win. You don't get it, Lendl was not meant to win Wimbledon during that era. Too many good grass court players and always someone better than he was...hence he never won. Cash is/was a better grass court player and had nothing to do with him playing "spectacular tennis" on a given day...he was better.

I noticed you keep harping on grass, I assume you have waved the white flag on the USO issue?

No, I just think Lendl could take 4 of 10 from Pete at the USO, and maybe 5. I believe you disagree.

As for grass, when he played finals his opponents were better than Lendl was on that day. I readily admit that for Lendl to win it would have taken some luck at Wimbledon, because there were better grass courters, and that Sampras did not require luck because he was a great grass courter. Others have won Wimbledon with that kind of luck, but it was not Lendl's fate. I still don't think Pete takes 10 of 10 at Wimbledon, and I do think that Lendl would have had to have almost the worst day of his entire career to lose to Pete on clay at RG.

Bottom line, Pete wins more, but I don't think he'd win more than 60% of his matches against Lendl on hard courts, that he'd win more than 90% of his matches against Lendl on grass, or that he'd win more than 5% of his matches against Lendl on slow red clay.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 07:02 AM
No, I just think Lendl could take 4 of 10 from Pete at the USO, and maybe 5. I believe you disagree.

As for grass, when he played finals his opponents were better than Lendl was on that day. I readily admit that for Lendl to win it would have taken some luck at Wimbledon, because there were better grass courters, and that Sampras did not require luck because he was a great grass courter. Others have won Wimbledon with that kind of luck, but it was not Lendl's fate. I still don't think Pete takes 10 of 10 at Wimbledon, and I do think that Lendl would have had to have almost the worst day of his entire career to lose to Pete on clay at RG.

Bottom line, Pete wins more, but I don't think he'd win more than 60% of his matches against Lendl on hard courts, that he'd win more than 90% of his matches against Lendl on grass, or that he'd win more than 5% of his matches against Lendl on slow red clay.

look at it this way, in the 8 years of Pete's prime at Wimbldeon he won 54/55 matches against all sorts of players. More than a few were better grass court players than Lendl and some even won Wimbledon. Considering Pete lost only one in 8 years makes me fully believe he would beat Lendl 10/10 at Wimbledon.

6/10 and 7/10 is not much of a difference at the USO...fine with me.

I don't think a prime Sampras could beat a prime Lendl at the FO unless the dirt happenes to play fast like in 1996, but that still is not good enough.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-08-2009, 07:23 AM
well i think sampras too outside of clay...but aussie open would be very close given it's slow nature...and for all it's critics
Rebound Ace has a record not many slams have...lots of great
players winning it exactly twice.

but back to the point....on a neutrl surface like Aussie Open
i give lendl 6 or 7 wins outta ten...but once again pete would
say something like "well which ones the most important match the last one? and win that.

Pete was smart and mental giant, he raised his game for the bigger occasion against the best, an amazing achievement in itself...lendl had a 8-11 record in slam finals.

one final on each surface:

aussie and french to lendl, wimby and us to pete.

pc1
05-08-2009, 09:12 AM
Since everyone is arguing the relative merits of Lendl and Sampras and also how clutch they are in the final. I'd like to put this question out and let's say stamina is not much taken into account but simply average level of play on each surface. If they both played 100 matches on each surface (the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open), who would win the most overall? Slightly different question since we are not talking about finals and neither player is going to sweep 100 matches on any of the surfaces against each other.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 09:36 AM
Since everyone is arguing the relative merits of Lendl and Sampras and also how clutch they are in the final. I'd like to put this question out and let's say stamina is not much taken into account but simply average level of play on each surface. If they both played 100 matches on each surface (the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open), who would win the most overall? Slightly different question since we are not talking about finals and neither player is going to sweep 100 matches on any of the surfaces against each other.

Pete wins 75/100.

Winners or Errors
05-08-2009, 12:47 PM
Pete wins 75/100.

No way that happens. The 25 matches on clay would likely all go to Lendl. Are you saying the other 75 on USO hard courts, Wimbledon grass, and AO Rebound Ace would go to Sampras?

Let's say all 25 go to Sampras on Grass, and 15 go to him at USO (6 of 10), 10 go to him at AO (4 of 10 - slower surface). That's 50. How'd you get to 75?

thalivest
05-08-2009, 02:46 PM
Lendl could never beat a "prime" Sampras at Wimbledon, even if they played 20 times. He could possibly beat him on grass though, but it would be a smaller event like Queens. I could see that happening at some point. He could even beat him at Wimbledon if it were years like 1990, 1991, 2001, 2002. Beating Sampras of 1992-2000 at Wimbledon though? No way of him ever doing it IMO.

Lendl at Wimbledon has never beaten Becker, never beaten the 88-92 version of Edberg who reached all his Wimbledon or U.S Open finals and spent all his weeks at #1 or #2 during that span. He has never beaten beaten McEnroe or Connors and couldnt even take his chance to beat a nearly 32 year old Connors in the 84 semis, even fresh off his French Open triumph. If he couldnt beat any of these players I see no way of him ever beating a prime Sampras at Wimbledon.

helloworld
05-08-2009, 03:32 PM
14 >>>>>>> 8, period!!!

grafrules
05-08-2009, 03:34 PM
14 >>>>>>> 8, period!!!

Even moreso when it is a 14-4 record in slam finals vs a 8-11.

helloworld
05-08-2009, 03:52 PM
We're talking about Prime right?? Pete is the ultimate player in his prime. His prime level is matched by none. Sampras wins all except clay.

GameSampras
05-08-2009, 03:56 PM
Even moreso when it is a 14-4 record in slam finals vs a 8-11.

How about 6 slams by a player (Nadal) who has won all 6 by defeating his rival with 13 slams (Fed) on every surface?

pc1
05-08-2009, 04:00 PM
How about 6 slams by a player (Nadal) who has won all 6 by defeating his rival with 13 slams (Fed) on every surface?

I wonder what would result if the same question was asked but the players were Nadal and Federer. :) lol.

RoddickAce
05-08-2009, 04:35 PM
In my opinion, Lendl vs Sampras would be similar to Lendl and McEnroe, but not exactly the same because Sampras had a bigger serve and ground game but McEnroe had better vollies. So basically, I based my estimation on the McEnroe-Lendl h2h with some modifications.

Current h2h between mac and Lendl
Hard: Lendl 9 - McEnroe 4
Grass:1 all
Clay:Lendl 5 - McEnroe 2

On grass, I'd definitely give Sampras the edge, as Lendl was never really a huge threat on grass.
All grass:Sampras wins 9/10
Wimbledon:Sampras wins 10/10

On clay, seeing as how McEnroe was able to win twice against Lendl, and how Sampras had a bigger ground game, I'd Sampras might sneak a few wins from against Lendl in some smaller clay tournaments.
All clay: Lendl wins 7/10
French Open: Lendl wins 10/10

On hard courts, I think this is where Sampras's ground game really differentiates his supposed "prime" h2h with Lendl from McEnroe's h2h against Lendl.
All hard courts: Even
Australian Open: Lendl wins 6/10, with the slower AO courts, Lendl could use his big forehand and amazing backhand down-the line more. Lendl would pin Sampras to his backhand corner and then when Pete runs around his backhand to hit his inside out forehands (as he usually does, he doesn't go inside-in as often), Lendl would rip his backhand down the line. As good as Sampras's running forehand was, I think if given time to set up the shot, Lendl's backhand down the line would beat an out of position Sampras slightly more often than not.
US Open:Sampras wins 7/10, faster courts, huge serve, exceptional vollies clearly favours Sampras. Pete wouldn't give Lendl much rhythm and would put a lot of pressure on Lendl's serve by holding serve easily with that big serve and volley game of his.

Overall h2h, depends on how often then meet on each surface, they probably wouldn't meet much on clay or grass, so it will be decided on hardcourts. Both were proficient on slow or fast hardcourts and will probably meet equally as much on both types. So slight edge to Sampras.

Azzurri
05-08-2009, 04:53 PM
No way that happens. The 25 matches on clay would likely all go to Lendl. Are you saying the other 75 on USO hard courts, Wimbledon grass, and AO Rebound Ace would go to Sampras?

Let's say all 25 go to Sampras on Grass, and 15 go to him at USO (6 of 10), 10 go to him at AO (4 of 10 - slower surface). That's 50. How'd you get to 75?

ok, I change my mind based on your post. I say Pete wins 85/100 matches.

grafrules
05-08-2009, 04:57 PM
All clay: Lendl wins 7/10


I agree with the rest of your post except for that. That is exceedingly generous to Sampras.

martin
05-08-2009, 06:12 PM
ok, I change my mind based on your post. I say Pete wins 85/100 matches.

Didn't Krajicek say something similar about overweight women players??

Winners or Errors
05-09-2009, 04:35 AM
ok, I change my mind based on your post. I say Pete wins 85/100 matches.

Last word. There. ;-)

hoodjem
05-09-2009, 05:16 AM
Even moreso when it is a 14-4 record in slam finals vs a 8-11.


That's why I have Sampras at no. 6 and Lendl at no. 10 on my GOAT-list. 14 is better than 8, but 8 is nothing at which one should turn up one's nose.

pc1
05-09-2009, 05:23 AM
Just a stat for all of you, Sampras in his BEST year in 1994 won about 86.5% of his matches at 77-12 against all players. This was the best winning percentage of his career.

380pistol
05-09-2009, 08:09 AM
Just a stat for all of you, Sampras in his BEST year in 1994 won about 86.5% of his matches at 77-12 against all players. This was the best winning percentage of his career.

And your point would be..... ???

pc1
05-09-2009, 08:13 AM
Just information. I don't think Lendl or Pete would crush the other by overwhelming margins if they played on all four surfaces 100 matches apiece but it's just my opinion. No one will win 400 out of 400. They both were too good in their prime.

Here's their head to head according to the ITF website.

1990 Milan SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 3-6 6-0 6-3
1990 U.S. Open QF Hard (O) P.SAMPRAS 4-6 6-7 6-3 6-4 2-6
1991 Philadelphia FR Carpet (I) I.LENDL 5-7 6-4 6-4 3-6 6-3
1991 ATP Finals SF Carpet (I) P.SAMPRAS 2-6 3-6
1992 Cincinnati FR Hard (O) P.SAMPRAS 3-6 6-3 3-6
1993 Philadelphia SF Hard (I) I.LENDL 7-6 6-4
1994 Sydney FR Hard (O) P.SAMPRAS 6-7 4-6
1994 Australian Open 16 Hard (O) P.SAMPRAS 6-7(5) 2-6 6-7(4)

None of the matches were played in the latter's weakeest surfaces, clay for Pete and grass for Ivan. In the first few matches, Pete wasn't at his prime yet and Ivan was past his prime.

In big finals however, it's clear Sampras handled it much better than Lendl. And I guess that's why a lot of people would pick Pete overwhelmingly if it was just big tournament finals.

Azzurri
05-09-2009, 04:52 PM
Last word. There. ;-)

so you agree??? I win???:)

hoodjem
05-10-2009, 04:35 AM
Yay, Azzy wins!!! Yippee.

We can all go home now. It's time for supper.

Winners or Errors
05-10-2009, 04:36 PM
so you agree??? I win???:)

Yes. I agree Sampras would lose 10 of 10 at RG, win 10 of 10 (still think it'd be 9, but...) at Wimbledon, win 6 of 10 at the USO, and win 4-5 of 10 at the AO against Lendl. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'm pretty sure this is in line with what both of us said. The disagreement, really, was rather small after all.

Azzurri
05-11-2009, 05:57 AM
Yes. I agree Sampras would lose 10 of 10 at RG, win 10 of 10 (still think it'd be 9, but...) at Wimbledon, win 6 of 10 at the USO, and win 4-5 of 10 at the AO against Lendl. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'm pretty sure this is in line with what both of us said. The disagreement, really, was rather small after all.

good, I win.

helloworld
05-12-2009, 02:29 AM
Yes. I agree Sampras would lose 10 of 10 at RG, win 10 of 10 (still think it'd be 9, but...) at Wimbledon, win 6 of 10 at the USO, and win 4-5 of 10 at the AO against Lendl. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'm pretty sure this is in line with what both of us said. The disagreement, really, was rather small after all.
Sampras would still have a much better H2H anyway since they would rarely meet on clay, and Lendl would get destroyed by Pete at Wimbledon in the semis or finals regularly.

anointedone
05-12-2009, 02:48 AM
Sampras would still have a much better H2H anyway since they would rarely meet on clay, and Lendl would get destroyed by Pete at Wimbledon in the semis or finals regularly.

I am not sure Lendl would even get to the semis or finals of Wimbledon regularly during Pete's era to play Pete either. More likely than Pete on clay of course but still hard to say. From the mid to late 80s there wasnt as many good grass court players as the late 60s, throughout the 70s, early 80s, and certainly the 90s. Lendl made his fist ever Wimbledon semi when he lost to a nearly 32 year old Connors who had already won the last of his 8 slam titles. He reached his first ever Wimbledon final by beating Tim Mayotte 9-7 in the 5th set in the quarters (a player he would destroy on all other surfaces) and dangerous floater Zivojinovic in five sets in the semis. There was really only Becker in the mid to late 80s, and Edberg in the late 80s once he mature, along with injury prone Cash I suppose.

hoodjem
05-12-2009, 03:14 AM
So did Lendl ever win any important tournaments on grass (e.g. Queen's Club)?



On that note, did Sampras ever win Monte Carlo or Rome, or the like?

Winners or Errors
05-12-2009, 04:05 AM
So did Lendl ever win any important tournaments on grass (e.g. Queen's Club)?



On that note, did Sampras ever win Monte carlo or Rome, or the like?

Yes to both.

theagassiman
05-12-2009, 07:59 PM
So did Lendl ever win any important tournaments on grass (e.g. Queen's Club)?



On that note, did Sampras ever win Monte Carlo or Rome, or the like?

Sampras did win the 1994 Rome Masters (which was called the Italian Open in his day), beating Boris Becker in straight sets: 6-1 6-2 6-2.

And Lendl did win the 1990 Queens Club defeating Boris Becker: 6-3 6-2.

Hmmm, spooky both Sampras and Lendl triumphed over Becker at their least favourite surface to notch their only tournament on their least favourite surface.

I wonder why?

msunderland71
05-15-2009, 04:41 AM
Who were all these grass court players of the 1990's who were better than Becker/Edberg/Cash? Sampras yes, but Henman no way, Rafter/Stich/Krajicek only on a par with Cash. Help me out!

I am not sure Lendl would even get to the semis or finals of Wimbledon regularly during Pete's era to play Pete either. More likely than Pete on clay of course but still hard to say. From the mid to late 80s there wasnt as many good grass court players as the late 60s, throughout the 70s, early 80s, and certainly the 90s. Lendl made his fist ever Wimbledon semi when he lost to a nearly 32 year old Connors who had already won the last of his 8 slam titles. He reached his first ever Wimbledon final by beating Tim Mayotte 9-7 in the 5th set in the quarters (a player he would destroy on all other surfaces) and dangerous floater Zivojinovic in five sets in the semis. There was really only Becker in the mid to late 80s, and Edberg in the late 80s once he mature, along with injury prone Cash I suppose.

380pistol
05-15-2009, 11:11 PM
Who were all these grass court players of the 1990's who were better than Becker/Edberg/Cash? Sampras yes, but Henman no way, Rafter/Stich/Krajicek only on a par with Cash. Help me out!

What makes you think Cash's peak is above Rafter's and that Lendl could beat him (Rafter)?? Becker was also around in the 90's, Ivanisevic was a problem, Stich beat a #1 Edberg at SW19. Not saying Stich and Krajicek were better, but Lendl would still have his hands full.

msunderland71
05-16-2009, 12:08 AM
I don't think Cash's peak was higher than Rafter, they are similar. The late 80's had 2 great grass court players (Becker/Edberg) whereas the in the 90's seemed to only have one great at any one time. Edberg was just past his peak when Sampras started winning in 1993 (only won 1 tourni I could see on ATP website). I think Becker was still reasonably close to peak, although I only remember him playing Sampras at Wimbledon in 1995. Have to admit I forgot Ivanisevic. Lendl had a slightly better Wimbledon record than Rafter - both runner up twice, but Lendl lost in 5 semifinals. Lendl beat Edberg in 1987 Wimbledon semi, and Edberg was no slouch on grass then having won the previous 2 Australian Opens on grass. So I think Lendl could have made a couple of Wimbledon finals in the 1990's but he would have lost to a peak Sampras.

What makes you think Cash's peak is above Rafter's and that Lendl could beat him (Rafter)?? Becker was also around in the 90's, Ivanisevic was a problem, Stich beat a #1 Edberg at SW19. Not saying Stich and Krajicek were better, but Lendl would still have his hands full.

grafselesfan
05-16-2009, 02:49 AM
What makes you think Cash's peak is above Rafter's and that Lendl could beat him (Rafter)?? Becker was also around in the 90's, Ivanisevic was a problem, Stich beat a #1 Edberg at SW19. Not saying Stich and Krajicek were better, but Lendl would still have his hands full.

Lendl is a much greater player than Stich, Krajicek, and Ivanisevic overall but those 3 guys are all better grass court players on their best day. Stich and Krajicek perhaps consistently not as strong as Lendl on grass, but on their best days better than Lendl on his best on grass. On other surfaces Lendl is on another planet from those 3, but just on grass at Wimbledon in a late round any of those guys playing well I would like over Lendl. Even Becker, a great player, is still an inferior player to Lendl on every surface except grass (although not by much on fast hard courts and carpet) but on grass he is clearly Lendl's superior.

Rafter I am not as sure. Rafter was a consistent and late blooming player who got a bit lucky to peak in the late 90s and early 2000s when the depth of the mens game was spiralling downhill fast. Sampras began to gradually decline after 97 although he was still an amazing player who was winning Wimbledon often of course. Becker and Edberg were retired/retiring altogether, Courier was toast and soon to retire, Stich retired in 97, Ivanisevic was never a consistent performer again after 96 season, Chang was finished after the 97 U.S Open heartbreak. I have seen Cash play and I think his best is better than Rafter's, especialy on grass. He just couldnt stay as healthy or he would have had a better career than Rafter I think. Rafter's game isnt imposing enough, even with his great volleying, his serve is attackable for a big hitter, I think Lendl could have taken him even on grass.

That being said there are already more than enough people to stop Lendl from winning Wimbledon in the 90s he probably still would have lost. If he couldnt take chances vs nearly 32 year old Connors in the Wimbledon semis or Cash in the Wimbledon final I dont think he was ever destined to win Wimbledon. Even today on the slowed grass he would lose to either Federer or Nadal. I also think Agassi is better than Lendl on grass. Lendl is probably better than Agassi on the other surfaces, well clay, fast hard courts, and carpet he is easily. However on grass Agassi would probably win with both in their primes, although Lendl would still much rather play Agassi than a big serve/volley player on grass.

EtePras
05-16-2009, 10:27 AM
Lendl wins easily on every surface. Is this even a question?

380pistol
05-16-2009, 11:42 PM
Lendl is a much greater player than Stich, Krajicek, and Ivanisevic overall but those 3 guys are all better grass court players on their best day. Stich and Krajicek perhaps consistently not as strong as Lendl on grass, but on their best days better than Lendl on his best on grass. On other surfaces Lendl is on another planet from those 3, but just on grass at Wimbledon in a late round any of those guys playing well I would like over Lendl. Even Becker, a great player, is still an inferior player to Lendl on every surface except grass (although not by much on fast hard courts and carpet) but on grass he is clearly Lendl's superior.

Rafter I am not as sure. Rafter was a consistent and late blooming player who got a bit lucky to peak in the late 90s and early 2000s when the depth of the mens game was spiralling downhill fast. Sampras began to gradually decline after 97 although he was still an amazing player who was winning Wimbledon often of course. Becker and Edberg were retired/retiring altogether, Courier was toast and soon to retire, Stich retired in 97, Ivanisevic was never a consistent performer again after 96 season, Chang was finished after the 97 U.S Open heartbreak. I have seen Cash play and I think his best is better than Rafter's, especialy on grass. He just couldnt stay as healthy or he would have had a better career than Rafter I think. Rafter's game isnt imposing enough, even with his great volleying, his serve is attackable for a big hitter, I think Lendl could have taken him even on grass.

That being said there are already more than enough people to stop Lendl from winning Wimbledon in the 90s he probably still would have lost. If he couldnt take chances vs nearly 32 year old Connors in the Wimbledon semis or Cash in the Wimbledon final I dont think he was ever destined to win Wimbledon. Even today on the slowed grass he would lose to either Federer or Nadal. I also think Agassi is better than Lendl on grass. Lendl is probably better than Agassi on the other surfaces, well clay, fast hard courts, and carpet he is easily. However on grass Agassi would probably win with both in their primes, although Lendl would still much rather play Agassi than a big serve/volley player on grass.

You seem to understand what I'm saying. Lendl is superior to most of the players mentioned, just not on grass.

Rafter to me is no different from Cash. Cash always had injuries, and Rafter was a late bloomer, yet Cash straight setted Lendl in the final. Rafter had a better serve than Cash. He was never the greatest baseliner, but his groundstrokes brought him 2 US Open titles.

I would also favour Fed and Nadal over Lendl on grass. He was good on grass, but he played someone who vas a great graasscourter, or had a game more suited for grass, he would tend to come up short.

380pistol
05-16-2009, 11:47 PM
I don't think Cash's peak was higher than Rafter, they are similar. The late 80's had 2 great grass court players (Becker/Edberg) whereas the in the 90's seemed to only have one great at any one time. Edberg was just past his peak when Sampras started winning in 1993 (only won 1 tourni I could see on ATP website). I think Becker was still reasonably close to peak, although I only remember him playing Sampras at Wimbledon in 1995. Have to admit I forgot Ivanisevic. Lendl had a slightly better Wimbledon record than Rafter - both runner up twice, but Lendl lost in 5 semifinals. Lendl beat Edberg in 1987 Wimbledon semi, and Edberg was no slouch on grass then having won the previous 2 Australian Opens on grass. So I think Lendl could have made a couple of Wimbledon finals in the 1990's but he would have lost to a peak Sampras.

So if you don't think Cash's peak is higher than Rafter's then why the comparison of Rafter to Edberg/Becker, as Lendl was destroyed by Cash.

Becker played Sampras at Wimbledon 3 times (1993,1995 and 1997), and in the last 2 matches Sampras had 68 winners and 7 unforced and 70+ winners and 10 unforced. Becker never broke Pete at SW19.

Lendl was more consistent, but not necissarily better on grass than Rafter. Lendl is a great player, but grass changes so much. Lendl is above Edberg, Becker and Cash, but just not when they're playing on grass. I don't doubt Lendl making the finals of Wimbledon in the 1990's, I just said he'd still have to put in work.

380pistol
05-16-2009, 11:48 PM
Lendl wins easily on every surface. Is this even a question?

No the question is at what point in the future will your IQ exceed the single digit range??

msunderland71
05-17-2009, 11:54 PM
Becker/Edberg were "greats" on grass, although as you showed in the 2nd paragraph it could/would have been a different story if their careers had overlapped more with Sampras. Rafter cannot be considered as great on grass as Becker/Edberg simply because of his results. I think Lendl played below his ability in the '87 final, but the sort of form he showed in '89 might have given him a chance. So his top level on grass may have been close to Rafter. Agree with your last paragraph.

So if you don't think Cash's peak is higher than Rafter's then why the comparison of Rafter to Edberg/Becker, as Lendl was destroyed by Cash.

Becker played Sampras at Wimbledon 3 times (1993,1995 and 1997), and in the last 2 matches Sampras had 68 winners and 7 unforced and 70+ winners and 10 unforced. Becker never broke Pete at SW19.

Lendl was more consistent, but not necissarily better on grass than Rafter. Lendl is a great player, but grass changes so much. Lendl is above Edberg, Becker and Cash, but just not when they're playing on grass. I don't doubt Lendl making the finals of Wimbledon in the 1990's, I just said he'd still have to put in work.

380pistol
05-18-2009, 12:12 PM
Becker/Edberg were "greats" on grass, although as you showed in the 2nd paragraph it could/would have been a different story if their careers had overlapped more with Sampras. Rafter cannot be considered as great on grass as Becker/Edberg simply because of his results. I think Lendl played below his ability in the '87 final, but the sort of form he showed in '89 might have given him a chance. So his top level on grass may have been close to Rafter. Agree with your last paragraph.


I have both Becker/Edberg above Rafter on grass. Sampras got some of Becker (2nd half), but not really Edberg. As Sampras was entering his peak, Edberg was exiting his, so their peaks never really overlapped for an extended period of time.

Lendl may have not played his best on grass in 87 final, but Cash was on fire, he's gotta get some credit. He destroyed Connors and Wilander en route to final, and Lendl wasnt doing that badly Maybe (not as well as he played in 1989 SF... well before the rain delay anyway) as he beat Edberg in SF who had 2 Aus Opens on grass (including that year). If Cash can beat Lendl, and quite easily in peak form, I believe Rafter could as well. Maybe not a straight set destruction, but Rafter late 90's early 00's ws a problem on grass. Ask Agassi?

Gizo
05-18-2009, 12:43 PM
On clay, Lendl easily.
On grass, I don't think that Lendl would have a chance against Pete at Wimbledon. He would be able to beat him at Queen's (which used to have much firmer and higher bouncing grass than Wimbledon) where Sampras pretty much half-assed it most of the time.
On hardcourts and indoors, I think that these 2 players could hypothetically have had a superb rivalry with each other.
I would give Sampras the edge at the US Open, and Lendl the edge at the Australian Open and indoors.

SpaceCadet
07-29-2009, 10:49 AM
Australian Open - Lendl (don't see Sampras surviving the brutal heat of an Aussie Summer for 5 sets)

French Open - Lendl easily...not even close! We're talkin' a beat down here!

Wimbledon - Sampras...but not as bad as the beating that Sampras gets from Lendl at the French.

US Open - Hmmm....tough one.

If the Final is played during the day, hot, sweltering, gotta go with Lendl (Sampras' conditioning has always been suspect)

At night, under the lights? Sampras all the way. Lendl freely admitted that his night time match vision sucked!

ClarkC
07-29-2009, 05:13 PM
I guess Mac should be thrown into the mix then. He won 43 carpet titles (I was recently informed much to my surprise). So Mac has 10 more than Lendl..IMPRESSIVE.

The flip side of the coin is that McEnroe did not do a lot on surfaces other than carpet when compared to Lendl et al. McEnroe won 77 titles, and 43 of them were on indoor carpet. That leaves 34 for all other surfaces combined, which is odd and surprising. 9 of those 34 were indoors on hard courts. A tennis player does not usually build his GOAT case indoors. This is an outdoor game for the most part, but McEnroe won 52 titles indoors vs. 25 outdoors.

25 is a good number, but it makes McEnroe's game seem a little unbalanced and not really an all-court game. McEnroe won 3 titles on clay.

I have always defended McEnroe in the GOAT debates, not as being the very best of all time, but as deserving credit for his combination of singles and doubles accomplishments. I was a big Lendl fan, but had to admit that doubles was not Ivan's strong suit. Still, Lendl has a much better all-court record than most players he is compared to.

papatenis
08-01-2009, 04:46 PM
SAMPRAS of couse, have all of you forgetten that prior to July, Sampras had the record for most slams 14