PDA

View Full Version : Ivan Lendl picks Rafa!, Lendl would handle Roger on Clay, and Rafa Indoors


lendlmac
01-14-2011, 02:08 PM
Great read! Ivan Lendl, pick Rafa to win the AO!

And, if you take Lendl in peak form Circa 1987, against Roger in 2011, Rafa in 2011 Rafa, I'd Take Lendl of 1987 anyday....anyday you don't mess with Lendl...no one did. LOL :)

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2011-01-14/201101141294970028914.html

Mustard
01-14-2011, 02:43 PM
you don't mess with Lendl...no one did. LOL :)

Connors, Becker and Cash had his number in big matches.

IvanAndreevich
01-14-2011, 02:47 PM
Why not take Federer from 2005 or 2006 then? Bleh.

sunof tennis
01-14-2011, 02:48 PM
I would definitely take Rafa on clay. Only Borg is comparable.
I also would take Roger on hardcourts. Better forehand (especially with the variety), better serve, better volleys, etc. than Lendl.

Mustard
01-14-2011, 02:49 PM
Why not take Federer from 2005 or 2006 then? Bleh.

Because that's prime Federer.

Bobby Jr
01-14-2011, 04:32 PM
I detect a none-too-subtle Lendl dig at the state of women's tennis...

"If you win majors, you deserve to be No.1. If you don't win majors, and you're No.1, there's something wrong with the rankings.

dandelion_smiley
01-15-2011, 12:25 PM
Because that's prime Federer.

So why compare a prime 1987 Lendl to an almost 30-year old years past his prime Federer?

You want it fair compare the best Lendl to the best Federer and I swear to God Federer would beat Ivan on every surface.

JustBob
01-15-2011, 01:56 PM
Doesn't matter, even 30 y/o Federer would crush Lendl on every surface. So would Rafa. The absurd notion that a player who was in his prime 23 years ago could compete, let alone beat, one of today's top player is ludicrous. This is just another case of the acute nostalgiaitis one often encounters on these forums.

The-Champ
01-15-2011, 02:19 PM
Take it easy! you guys make it sound as if Lendl said something bad about Nadal and Federer. Lendl actually respects both guys.

Gorecki
01-15-2011, 02:38 PM
Lendl : "Play golf, don't play tennis. Tennis is for sissies."

borg number one
01-15-2011, 02:39 PM
In my opinion, Lendl in his prime years would be extremely tough to beat at the US Open. He would be aided by today's technology as well. I think he was more fit in some ways than Federer is, at the French Open for example. Federer has the edge at Wimbledon in my opinion, although the slower courts would now help Lendl, especially with current technology. On hard courts, Lendl was a very tough customer, as revealed by his record of eight straight finals at the US Open. I wonder, what current frame would he have preferred? Imagine that Lendl forehand with a 90 sq. inch frame and say a hybrid string job.

('85 US Open) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJfttxunpdU

Lendl was great indoors as well.

('86 Masters) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3q9Y5fAdMo

Gorecki
01-15-2011, 03:26 PM
what current frame would he have preferred?

Volkl C-10 screams Lendl all the way imho

The-Champ
01-15-2011, 03:47 PM
look..lendl is a pusher ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ger4MIWsHoU&feature=related

Fedex
01-15-2011, 03:58 PM
Why not take Federer from 2005 or 2006 then? Bleh.

And give Federer and Nadal the tiny racket Lendl played with and see how they get on.....

Fedex
01-15-2011, 04:06 PM
I would definitely take Rafa on clay. Only Borg is comparable.
I also would take Roger on hardcourts. Better forehand (especially with the variety), better serve, better volleys, etc. than Lendl.

So why compare a prime 1987 Lendl to an almost 30-year old years past his prime Federer?

You want it fair compare the best Lendl to the best Federer and I swear to God Federer would beat Ivan on every surface.

Doesn't matter, even 30 y/o Federer would crush Lendl on every surface. So would Rafa. The absurd notion that a player who was in his prime 23 years ago could compete, let alone beat, one of today's top player is ludicrous. This is just another case of the acute nostalgiaitis one often encounters on these forums.

Absurd that Lendl had to play with a tiny racket.

pjonesy
01-15-2011, 04:10 PM
Connors, Becker and Cash had his number in big matches.

I don't know mustard, Lendl certainly beat those guys plenty of times. But, there is some truth in your statement. Lendl did not close the deal as many times as he should have in big matches. I think that sometimes Lendl did not possess the variety to adapt to certain players in specific situations. He did win 8 majors, but maybe he should have won 10 or 11.

Mustard
01-15-2011, 04:19 PM
I don't know mustard, Lendl certainly beat those guys plenty of times. But, there is some truth in your statement. Lendl did not close the deal as many times as he should have in big matches. I think that sometimes Lendl did not possess the variety to adapt to certain players in specific situations. He did win 8 majors, but maybe he should have won 10 or 11.

Lendl could have won a lot more than 8 majors. I mean, apart from Federer, he's appeared in more slam finals than anybody, even more than Sampras. Yet Lendl lost 11 of his 19 slam finals, including losing 6 of his first 7.

When Connors was the right side of 32, he always beat Lendl when it mattered most. 2 US Open finals and a Wimbledon semi final, all 3 matches came soon after Lendl had beaten Connors comfortably in their previous match, even a double bagel in their previous meeting before their Wimbledon match.

With Becker, he beat Lendl in a Wimbledon final, a US Open final, an Australian Open final, a Masters final, and 2 Wimbledon semi finals. That's a lot of big matches.

With Cash, he beat Lendl in a Wimbledon final and 2 Australian Open semi finals, at a time when Lendl had won neither tournament before.

We should also mention Wilander, who also had plenty of his moments over Lendl in big matches. A 17 year old Wilander beat Lendl in the 1982 French Open when Lendl was the tournament favourite. Wilander also beat Lendl in an Australian Open final, a French Open final and a US Open final.

Bryan Swartz
01-15-2011, 04:25 PM
Since Lendl himself has said that stars of this era are better than his generation ...

I don't think even he himself would agree with the OP.

pjonesy
01-15-2011, 04:25 PM
Doesn't matter, even 30 y/o Federer would crush Lendl on every surface. So would Rafa. The absurd notion that a player who was in his prime 23 years ago could compete, let alone beat, one of today's top player is ludicrous. This is just another case of the acute nostalgiaitis one often encounters on these forums.

You're right. It would probably look similar to the Federer/Sampras exhibitions. Roger could serve with more variety, return just as well, hit winners off both wings from any place on the court, absorb Lendls' pace, get to net, hit volley winners, hit with more spin and hit more acute angles. Lendl would be looking to stay patient and set up for his forehand. Roger would not need to set up anything, just hit winners when he has the opening. If Lendl could keep Federer deep in the court and force him to trade shots, he would have a small chance to win some points (if Ivan was very aggressive). But, Roger also takes the ball much earlier than Lendl ever did. If anyone is going to be pinned behind the baseline, it would be Lendl.

pjonesy
01-15-2011, 04:30 PM
Lendl could have won a lot more than 8 majors. I mean, apart from Federer, he's appeared in more slam finals than anybody, even more than Sampras. Yet Lendl lost 11 of his 19 slam finals, including losing 6 of his first 7.

When Connors was the right side of 32, he always beat Lendl when it mattered most. 2 US Open finals and a Wimbledon semi final, all 3 matches came soon after Lendl had beaten Connors comfortably in their previous match, even a double bagel in their previous meeting before their Wimbledon match.

With Becker, he beat Lendl in a Wimbledon final, a US Open final, an Australian Open final, a Masters final, and 2 Wimbledon semi finals. That's a lot of big matches.

With Cash, he beat Lendl in a Wimbledon final and 2 Australian Open semi finals, at a time when Lendl had won neither tournament before.

We should also mention Wilander, who also had plenty of his moments over Lendl in big matches. A 17 year old Wilander beat Lendl in the 1982 French Open when Lendl was the tournament favourite. Wilander also beat Lendl in an Australian Open final, a French Open final and a US Open final.

Can't argue with that. Good post.

Mustard
01-15-2011, 04:32 PM
Since Lendl himself has said that stars of this era are better than his generation ...

I don't think even he himself would agree with the OP.

I think if you gave 2011 Nadal and 2011 Federer the tennis equipment of 1986 and got them to face 1986 Lendl, Lendl would win. Likewise, if you gave 1986 Lendl the tennis equipment of 2011 and got him to face 2011 Nadal and 2011 Federer, then Nadal and Federer would win.

JustBob
01-15-2011, 05:39 PM
Yeah, we all know that the only factor that matters in the evolution of sports/athletes is equipment. The only reason Usain Bolt runs faster than Carl Lewis is because of his shoes.

Mustard
01-15-2011, 05:51 PM
Yeah, we all know that the only factor that matters in the evolution of sports/athletes is equipment. The only reason Usain Bolt runs faster than Carl Lewis is because of his shoes.

There are other reasons as well.

Fedex
01-15-2011, 06:05 PM
Yeah, we all know that the only factor that matters in the evolution of sports/athletes is equipment. The only reason Usain Bolt runs faster than Carl Lewis is because of his shoes.

What are you trying to say?
That current rackets don't give today's players a big advantage.
Would you say Schumacher is faster than Jim Clarke because of the car or the driver?
Impossible to know.
Sprinting is a far easier sport to make comparisons so your analogy is wrong IMO.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 06:09 PM
Great read! Ivan Lendl, pick Rafa to win the AO!

And, if you take Lendl in peak form Circa 1987, against Roger in 2011, Rafa in 2011 Rafa, I'd Take Lendl of 1987 anyday....anyday you don't mess with Lendl...no one did. LOL :)

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2011-01-14/201101141294970028914.html

I pick Federer 2004 USO v. Hewitt.


Game Over

Messarger
01-15-2011, 06:13 PM
What are you trying to say?
That current rackets don't give today's players a big advantage.
Would you say Schumacher is faster than Jim Clarke because of the car or the driver?
Impossible to know.
Sprinting is a far easier sport to make comparisons so your analogy is wrong IMO.

really? but some on here say that the current world number one is using a BabolaT Rocket Launcher:confused:

Fedex
01-15-2011, 06:15 PM
really? but some on here say that the current world number one is using a BabolaT Rocket Launcher:confused:

haha
10 rackets

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 06:17 PM
In my opinion, Lendl in his prime years would be extremely tough to beat at the US Open. He would be aided by today's technology as well. I think he was more fit in some ways than Federer is, at the French Open for example. Federer has the edge at Wimbledon in my opinion, although the slower courts would now help Lendl, especially with current technology. On hard courts, Lendl was a very tough customer, as revealed by his record of eight straight finals at the US Open. I wonder, what current frame would he have preferred? Imagine that Lendl forehand with a 90 sq. inch frame and say a hybrid string job.

('85 US Open) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJfttxunpdU

Lendl was great indoors as well.

('86 Masters) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3q9Y5fAdMo

I think he would use the Bosworth racket.

pjonesy
01-15-2011, 08:07 PM
I think he would use the Bosworth racket.

Yeah, or a frying pan. What has happened to this thread?

JustBob
01-15-2011, 08:23 PM
What are you trying to say?
That current rackets don't give today's players a big advantage.
.

What I'm saying is that it's not just about equipment. There are a number of other factors that contribute to the evolution of sports, including advances in coaching/training methods, biomechanics, sports medecine/physiology, nutrition, etc... Arguing that if you gave "prime" Lendl or Borg a new racket, they'd magically be able to compete at a high level against today's players is just silly.

pjonesy
01-15-2011, 10:01 PM
What I'm saying is that it's not just about equipment. There are a number of other factors that contribute to the evolution of sports, including advances in coaching/training methods, biomechanics, sports medecine/physiology, nutrition, etc... Arguing that if you gave "prime" Lendl or Borg a new racket, they'd magically be able to compete at a high level against today's players is just silly.

Agree. I think you have to look at the evolution of the sport collectively, rather than just focusing on racquet technology. Comparisons like this are very subjective.

Jchurch
01-15-2011, 10:55 PM
Yeah, or a frying pan. What has happened to this thread?

Beats me...... just answer a posters question he posed to the board. That is all :)

Fedex
01-16-2011, 02:47 AM
What I'm saying is that it's not just about equipment. There are a number of other factors that contribute to the evolution of sports, including advances in coaching/training methods, biomechanics, sports medecine/physiology, nutrition, etc... Arguing that if you gave "prime" Lendl or Borg a new racket, they'd magically be able to compete at a high level against today's players is just silly.

And if you want to compare modern day players to the likes of Lendl then you have to take away those advances and imagine the player with the technology and coaching of that era.
Of course I'm not saying it's as simple as handing Lendl a modern racket.
Obviously you assume Lendl was brought up and playing in the modern era with modern technology, coaching, nutrition etc.
I still maintain the racket would be the single most important factor.
To summarise, if you want to take a modern day player back in time then you have to take modern advantages away.
Conversely, if you want to take the likes of Lendl forward then you must give him those same advantages assuming he was brought up in that era not just plonked down with no acclimatisation.

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 04:33 AM
And if you want to compare modern day players to the likes of Lendl then you have to take away those advances and imagine the player with the technology and coaching of that era.
Of course I'm not saying it's as simple as handing Lendl a modern racket.
Obviously you assume Lendl was brought up and playing in the modern era with modern technology, coaching, nutrition etc.
I still maintain the racket would be the single most important factor.
To summarise, if you want to take a modern day player back in time then you have to take modern advantages away.
Conversely, if you want to take the likes of Lendl forward then you must give him those same advantages assuming he was brought up in that era not just plonked down with no acclimatisation.

This sounds like anyone who won some majors before the 90's would be a threat today. The modern technology gives an advantage to EVERY player nowadays, not only Federer. I'd say that's why Federer is even more at a disadvantage cause he has to deal with guys playing various styles, you've got top spin Nadal, heavy hitting Del Potro/Soderling/Berdych, you got counterpunchers, defenders, guys playing total offence, big servers like Isner/Karlovic whilst in the 80's (and before that) everyone was more or less forced to play the same way, therefore making it easier to adjust.

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 04:51 AM
This sounds like anyone who won some majors before the 90's would be a threat today. The modern technology gives an advantage to EVERY player nowadays, not only Federer. I'd say that's why Federer is even more at a disadvantage cause he has to deal with guys playing various styles, you've got top spin Nadal, heavy hitting Del Potro/Soderling/Berdych, you got counterpunchers, defenders, guys playing total offence, big servers like Isner/Karlovic whilst in the 80's (and before that) everyone was more or less forced to play the same way, therefore making it easier to adjust.

HUH?

10 xanax pills now please...

Dilettante
01-16-2011, 05:02 AM
And if you want to compare modern day players to the likes of Lendl then you have to take away those advances and imagine the player with the technology and coaching of that era.

I don't want to be rude but do you realize how stupid sounds that.

You can't imagine a player with the coaching and training of another different era. Players aren't videogame characters with preset skills on a 1 to 10 scale. They are a total product of their coaching and training.

if you want to take a modern day player back in time then you have to take modern advantages away

It would make a great movie: US Army versus Roman Empire, but no airplanes or tanks or modern advantages, who would win? I tell you who doesn't win: common sense.

shanked_it
01-16-2011, 05:19 AM
It would make a great movie: US Army versus Roman Empire, but no airplanes or tanks or modern advantages, who would win? I tell you who doesn't win: common sense.



haha, good one :D

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 05:25 AM
HUH?

10 xanax pills now please...

exactly what I said, you can do way more things now with the current racquet than with a wooden one

Clay lover
01-16-2011, 05:26 AM
I don't want to be rude but do you realize how stupid sounds that.

You can't imagine a player with the coaching and training of another different era. Players aren't videogame characters with preset skills on a 1 to 10 scale. They are a total product of their coaching and training.



It would make a great movie: US Army versus Roman Empire, but no airplanes or tanks or modern advantages, who would win? I tell you who doesn't win: common sense.

yet some member beats the "give player X a wooden racquet and he will suck" argument to death...wonder who that is...:twisted:

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 05:30 AM
exactly what I said, you can do way more things now with the current racquet than with a wooden one

i agree.. there are so many more S&V's and All Courters these days... :rolleyes:

mandy01
01-16-2011, 05:57 AM
HUH?

10 xanax pills now please...

LOLz :mrgreen: http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Schleifchen-Girls/smilie_girl_123.gif

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 05:59 AM
LOLz :mrgreen:

seriously, how can someone say in the full use of his intelectual faculties that today there is more variety in the game????

i have seen some pretty stupid things form the usual suspects, but that one is most surprising!

mandy01
01-16-2011, 06:02 AM
seriously, how can someone say in the full use of his intelectual faculties that today there is more variety in the game????

i have seen some pretty stupid things form the usual suspects, but that one is most surprising!

http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Schleifchen-Girls/smilie_girl_088.gif

Sid_Vicious
01-16-2011, 06:04 AM
seriously, how can someone say in the full use of his intelectual faculties that today there is more variety in the game????

i have seen some pretty stupid things form the usual suspects, but that one is most surprising!
Im assuming you are talking about the statements that make you go like this (http://files.sharenator.com/lolwut_RE_America_is_********-s533x594-102700.jpg)?

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 06:07 AM
Im assuming you are talking about the statements that make you go like this (http://files.sharenator.com/lolwut_RE_America_is_********-s533x594-102700.jpg)?

i'm talikng abot those: Rafa already is GOAT, Serena Is GOAT, Sabatini More talented than Graf or Kei Nishikori is Nr. One material...


they make me go more like this...

http://files.myopera.com/Jeni10/albums/89377/faint.gif

Sid_Vicious
01-16-2011, 06:07 AM
more like this...

http://files.myopera.com/Jeni10/albums/89377/faint.gif
That happens to me when I read Nadalslamking's posts

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 06:12 AM
That happens to me when I read Nadalslamking's posts

oh shut up. he can see the future! he is on par with chuck norris :)

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 06:19 AM
Doesn't matter, even 30 y/o Federer would crush Lendl on every surface. So would Rafa. The absurd notion that a player who was in his prime 23 years ago could compete, let alone beat, one of today's top player is ludicrous. This is just another case of the acute nostalgiaitis one often encounters on these forums.

crush Lendl? Lendl's game would equate well today. he is far better than Murray, Novak, etc...he would give Fed trouble and win matches. he would be a top 5 consistent player and win a major here and there. but to say crush is laughable. he would be a much better player than the rest of the field not names rafa/roger.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 06:22 AM
Since Lendl himself has said that stars of this era are better than his generation ...

I don't think even he himself would agree with the OP.

they all say that. if they don't, the idiots will scream. you forget Agassi did well in this era. Lendl was a better player than Agassi and the forefather to the modern game. if any player from those days (80's) could play in this era it's Lendl.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 06:25 AM
And if you want to compare modern day players to the likes of Lendl then you have to take away those advances and imagine the player with the technology and coaching of that era.
Of course I'm not saying it's as simple as handing Lendl a modern racket.
Obviously you assume Lendl was brought up and playing in the modern era with modern technology, coaching, nutrition etc.
I still maintain the racket would be the single most important factor.
To summarise, if you want to take a modern day player back in time then you have to take modern advantages away.
Conversely, if you want to take the likes of Lendl forward then you must give him those same advantages assuming he was brought up in that era not just plonked down with no acclimatisation.

the string is more important. Agassi, when he first tried poly, said this string should be illegal. the string has changed tennis. guys are mostly playing with racquets developed in the early 90's.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 06:27 AM
HUH?

10 xanax pills now please...

confused me too. I think he means the 80's had all the variety and today its easier to adjust since everyone plays the same way...but yes a BIG huh is in order.

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 06:29 AM
i agree.. there are so many more S&V's and All Courters these days... :rolleyes:

weve got only all courters* nowadays, when you're a top 5 player you can play well on every surface, federer, nadal, djokovic, murray (to some extend on clay courts, could get better), del potro (except grass), soderling, berdych, roddick (except clay but he was decent on it in 2009)

as for the s&v - it didn't dissapear because of racquet technology fcs! it just doesnt pay to keep playing like it since theres no carpet tournaments, grass is twice slower, the hard courts are slower and theres a general trend of slowing things down

*or depends on your definition of an all court player - does it mean have great results on all surfaces or make big adjustments on a particular surface (more evident 20 years ago since we had courts with various speeds)

jack_kramer
01-16-2011, 06:29 AM
In general, it seems most former greats prefer Nadal over Fed. I guess they prefer heart and balls over virtuosity and technique.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 06:31 AM
weve got only all courters nowadays, when you're a top 5 player you can play well on every surface, federer, nadal, djokovic, murray (to some extend on clay courts, could get better), del potro (except grass), soderling, berdych, roddick (except clay but he was decent on it in 2009)

as for the s&v - it didn't dissapear because of racquet technology fcs! it just doesnt pay to keep playing like it since theres no carpet tournaments, grass is twice slower, the hard courts are slower and theres a general trend of slowing things down

what are you spewing? re-read the post he gave you the HUH and then try to make sense.

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 06:41 AM
what are you spewing? re-read the post he gave you the HUH and then try to make sense.

So you think that racquet technology disallows serve-and-volleyers to succeed today?

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 06:49 AM
seriously, how can someone say in the full use of his intelectual faculties that today there is more variety in the game????

i have seen some pretty stupid things form the usual suspects, but that one is most surprising!

My point was, current racquet technology allows you to do more stuff with the ball, hitting extreme hard forehands, play top spin (give Nadal a 70's racquet and check if he can hit his forehands with half the top spin he does now), play a power volley (not just the drop volley). THIS IS what I mean variety. And I assure you that if the ATP decied to bring back carpet and made the grass courts and Wimbledon and some hard court tournaments faster, the s-v would come back at some stage.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 06:55 AM
So you think that racquet technology disallows serve-and-volleyers to succeed today?

did I even remotly say that? racquet technology..unless you play with a Prince there is NONE. most pro's play with racquet technology from the early 90's. the string is the biggest factor in the game's change and the court speed change. that is what killed S&V..NOT racquet technology.

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 06:59 AM
did I even remotly say that? racquet technology..unless you play with a Prince there is NONE. most pro's play with racquet technology from the early 90's. the string is the biggest factor in the game's change and the court speed change. that is what killed S&V..NOT racquet technology.

When did I say that racquet technology killed s-v? I wrote that because there's a tendency of slowing things down there are no more serve and volleyers and Gorecki came up with his big fat HUH

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:00 AM
My point was, current racquet technology allows you to do more stuff with the ball, hitting extreme hard forehands, play top spin (give Nadal a 70's racquet and check if he can hit his forehands with half the top spin he does now), play a power volley (not just the drop volley). THIS IS what I mean variety. And I assure you that if the ATP decied to bring back carpet and made the grass courts and Wimbledon and some hard court tournaments faster, the s-v would come back at some stage.

holy crap. who is talking about wood rac quets? the topic was Lendl and of course his grpahite racquet. but ignoring this, you are still wrong. people where hitting with extreme topspin in the early 80's (kent carlson) and I know people have talked about topspin in the wood era. you talk about Nadal..WHAT OTHER PLAYER HITS TOPSPIN LIKE NADAL? Its more than technology you have Nadal. your definition of variety is not the typical one. just so you know, all pro's in the 70's could hit extreme hard FH, top spin (if they chose to), power volley..guess you never saw Mac. it's very evident you are new to tennis, but my god man read up on the hsitory a bit more and please, foe heaven's sake, mention its just your opinion.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:03 AM
When did I say that racquet technology killed s-v? I wrote that because there's a tendency of slowing things down there are no more serve and volleyers and Gorecki came up with his big fat HUH

"The modern technology gives an advantage to EVERY player nowadays, not only Federer. I'd say that's why Federer is even more at a disadvantage cause he has to deal with guys playing various styles, you've got top spin Nadal, heavy hitting Del Potro/Soderling/Berdych, you got counterpunchers, defenders, guys playing total offence, big servers like Isner/Karlovic whilst in the 80's (and before that) everyone was more or less forced to play the same way, therefore making it easier to adjust."

this post makes no sense and is wrong. this is why Gorecki gave you a HUH. you said Fed is even more disadvantaged today, yet he has become the most achieved player in the history of the game. How is he disadvantaged?

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 07:10 AM
holy crap. who is talking about wood rac quets? the topic was Lendl and of course his grpahite racquet. but ignoring this, you are still wrong. people where hitting with extreme topspin in the early 80's (kent carlson) and I know people have talked about topspin in the wood era. you talk about Nadal..WHAT OTHER PLAYER HITS TOPSPIN LIKE NADAL? Its more than technology you have Nadal. your definition of variety is not the typical one. just so you know, all pro's in the 70's could hit extreme hard FH, top spin (if they chose to), power volley..guess you never saw Mac. it's very evident you are new to tennis, but my god man read up on the hsitory a bit more and please, foe heaven's sake, mention its just your opinion.

I dont have any comparison between the players from the 70's or 80's to now since I didn't watch tennis before the 90's.

Btw everything we say is an opinion, so is mine, I could be wrong but who cares

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 07:30 AM
I dont have any comparison between the players from the 70's or 80's to now since I didn't watch tennis before the 90's.

Btw everything we say is an opinion, so is mine, I could be wrong but who cares

oh man, this is just a waste of time. have a nice day.

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 07:59 AM
weve got only all courters* nowadays, when you're a top 5 player you can play well on every surface, federer, nadal, djokovic, murray (to some extend on clay courts, could get better), del potro (except grass), soderling, berdych, roddick (except clay but he was decent on it in 2009)

*or depends on your definition of an all court player - does it mean have great results on all surfaces or make big adjustments on a particular surface (more evident 20 years ago since we had courts with various speeds)

we got only baseliners, with exception of Llodra, Mahut ,Stepanek, and a few more who swing between S&V and All Court game depending on the surface!! got it?

ALL COURT IS NOT ALL SURFACE

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 08:02 AM
we got only baseliners, with exception of Llodra, Mahut ,Stepanek, and a few more who swing between S&V and All Court game depending on the surface!! got it?

ALL COURT IS NOT ALL SURFACE

this guy claims he has been watching tennis since 90...has not learned much.

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 08:03 AM
hitting extreme hard forehands,

Courrier, Ferreira...


play top spin (give Nadal a 70's racquet and check if he can hit his forehands with half the top spin he does now),

Berasategui, Costa...

play a power volley (not just the drop volley).

sampras, rafter...

THIS IS what I mean variety.

and yet you never watched tennis before the 90's...:confused:

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 08:04 AM
this guy claims he has been watching tennis since 90...has not learned much.

i saw that later... oh well! it would seem nadal invented top spin game.. go figure!

Torres
01-16-2011, 08:05 AM
Lendl would handle Roger on Clay, and Rafa Indoors

Er, except that Lendl never said that.

Mustard
01-16-2011, 08:37 AM
(give Nadal a 70's racquet and check if he can hit his forehands with half the top spin he does now).

What a clueless thing to say. Of course there wasn't as much topspin in the 1970s as the modern racquets make possible, but several players were using topspin in the 1970s. Do Borg and Vilas ring any bells?

Fedex
01-16-2011, 09:24 AM
I don't want to be rude but do you realize how stupid sounds that.

You can't imagine a player with the coaching and training of another different era. Players aren't videogame characters with preset skills on a 1 to 10 scale. They are a total product of their coaching and training.

It would make a great movie: US Army versus Roman Empire, but no airplanes or tanks or modern advantages, who would win? I tell you who doesn't win: common sense.

You got the wrong person here because that is exactly the point I'm trying to make!
It's practically impossible to compare players from different eras for the above reasons, and many more.
Obviously not getting my point across if it sounds so stupid to you.
We are in agreement.
Btw next time you don't want to be rude, don't call people stupid especially when you take them out of context.
People come on here and say Federer would crush Lendl and I'm trying to say how the hell could you possibly know.

dandelion_smiley
01-16-2011, 10:12 AM
Courrier, Ferreira...




Berasategui, Costa...



sampras, rafter...



and yet you never watched tennis before the 90's...:confused:

Even if Im wrong (and I probably am) you came out with player who played 10-15 years ago. I was talking about tennis pre 80's

Dilettante
01-16-2011, 10:15 AM
You got the wrong person here because that is exactly the point I'm trying to make!
It's practically impossible to compare players from different eras for the above reasons, and many more.
Obviously not getting my point across if it sounds so stupid to you.
We are in agreement.
Btw next time you don't want to be rude, don't call people stupid especially when you take them out of context.
People come on here and say Federer would crush Lendl and I'm trying to say how the hell could you possibly know.

OK, point taken, I misunderstood your post out of context so I take back my words. Anyway, I wasn't calling you stupid: I said that an argument sounded stupid, but intelligent people can make stupid points and that doesn't make them stupid people. Being stupid and saying a stupid thing it's not the same.

BTW, back on topic, I can understand comparing different era players as a fun exercise, but many people take it as an established truth. "X player would beat Y player", that's a hard thing to say because even among same era players, matchups often come with very odd results. People see two player's game separately, they think they know how their matchup will work, but there are many things involved in a matchup and often it works far different from expected.

Speaking in general, of course Lendl would do fine in this era, because he was objectively an all time great, with an awful lot of slam finals and a strong (and modern) game. But how would he do against Nadal or Federer? How could we know? All these three players (and the rest of alltime great level players) are far too complex to calculate matchups. See what happened with Fed and Nadal, they've beat each other on their respective favorite surfaces more than once, and sometimes it seemed Federer was too much for Nadal, and sometimes seemed Nadal was too much for Federer. So throw a past era Lendl in the mix and you have a complete mistery that we could only solve... well, if there was a time travel machine.

Fedex
01-16-2011, 11:01 AM
Agree with all you say Dilettante.
My personal opinion is that the likes of Lendl and McEnroe would still be dominant in this era given the same coaching, rackets etc. and Federer and Nadal would not have enjoyed the same level of dominance shown over recent years.
I was priviledged to watch both eras but as you rightly say, impossible to prove and it's only my opinion.
Some sports like boxing and running are easy to compare.
Cassius Clay would still be the greatest and Usain Bolt the fastest.
Comparing the likes of McEnroe and Lendl to Federer and Nadal is a much tougher exercise.

JustBob
01-16-2011, 11:10 AM
crush Lendl? Lendl's game would equate well today. he is far better than Murray, Novak, etc...he would give Fed trouble and win matches. he would be a top 5 consistent player and win a major here and there. but to say crush is laughable. he would be a much better player than the rest of the field not names rafa/roger.

Look, we've already gone through this with Sampras... And the point remains that if you just transplanted prime Lendl into this era with a new racket there's no way he could compete at a high level with modern players because, as I stated previously, evolution of sports is not just about equipment. But when someone brings this up, the argument changes to "but he would adapt!", meaning take a younger Lendl and let him develop in the modern era with ALL of the advantages of said era. That's silly because when the original argument is made, people are clearly referring to THE Lendl we all know, not to some hypothetical Lendl brought up in a different era, whom we have no way of knowing what kind of player he might develop into.

Fedex
01-16-2011, 11:35 AM
Look, we've already gone through this with Sampras... And the point remains that if you just transplanted prime Lendl into this era with a new racket there's no way he could compete at a high level with modern players because, as I stated previously, evolution of sports is not just about equipment. But when someone brings this up, the argument changes to "but he would adapt!", meaning take a younger Lendl and let him develop in the modern era with ALL of the advantages of said era. That's silly because when the original argument is made, people are clearly referring to THE Lendl we all know, not to some hypothetical Lendl brought up in a different era, whom we have no way of knowing what kind of player he might develop into.

And if you take prime Federer back into Lendl's era and give him a small racket...

BukShy
01-16-2011, 11:46 AM
well this topic became a bit crazy but whats important is that you just can't compare theese 2 worlds,because there is ~30 yrs difference.so all the arguing was pointless to me.
Enjoyed reading tho. :D

Xemi666
01-16-2011, 12:18 PM
Do you guys think Rafa would surpass Connors and Lendl if he wins AO? I think so, I know they have a lot more tournament wins and weeks at #1, but winning 4 slams in a row would surpass that I think (and IF he wins AO there's a big chance he'll make it 5 in a row at RG).

Also nice to see that Lendl is smart and reasonable and knows that today's level is higher than in the past in every sport, unlike nostalgiatards and 80s and 90s fanboys who have their heads up their asses.

phnx90
01-16-2011, 01:06 PM
I don't want to be rude but do you realize how stupid sounds that.

You can't imagine a player with the coaching and training of another different era. Players aren't videogame characters with preset skills on a 1 to 10 scale. They are a total product of their coaching and training.

It would make a great movie: US Army versus Roman Empire, but no airplanes or tanks or modern advantages, who would win? I tell you who doesn't win: common sense.

Sheer brilliance

Fedex
01-16-2011, 03:01 PM
http://eddiedeguzman.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cartoon-bang-head-jpg.gif?w=200&h=200

pjonesy
01-16-2011, 03:19 PM
HUH?

10 xanax pills now please...

Right there with you, Gorecki. This might be the most disjointed disaster of a thread I've ever seen. Where is Chopin when you need him?

pjonesy
01-16-2011, 03:27 PM
What a clueless thing to say. Of course there wasn't as much topspin in the 1970s as the modern racquets make possible, but several players were using topspin in the 1970s. Do Borg and Vilas ring any bells?Ha! LOL. Good one, Mustard.

Fedex
01-16-2011, 03:41 PM
Right there with you, Gorecki. This might be the most disjointed disaster of a thread I've ever seen. Where is Chopin when you need him?

This thread is making me doubt my sanity.
We mostly seem to be agreeing yet somehow disagreeing at the same time.
I don't have the time to figure or fight it out anymore.

Azzurri
01-16-2011, 04:18 PM
Look, we've already gone through this with Sampras... And the point remains that if you just transplanted prime Lendl into this era with a new racket there's no way he could compete at a high level with modern players because, as I stated previously, evolution of sports is not just about equipment. But when someone brings this up, the argument changes to "but he would adapt!", meaning take a younger Lendl and let him develop in the modern era with ALL of the advantages of said era. That's silly because when the original argument is made, people are clearly referring to THE Lendl we all know, not to some hypothetical Lendl brought up in a different era, whom we have no way of knowing what kind of player he might develop into.

this entire post is rubbsh. tell me one thing Lendl did in the 80's he could not do now and even better (bigger racquet and poly strings). the guy was a machine, he hit groundstrokes incredibly hard, and was a total gym nut. tell me what today's player has he did not?? uh, don't be a total clown and bring up Sampras. His game was tailored for the day. Lendl's game was far different. sick of you morons argueing no one born before 1981 can't play today's game.

Gorecki
01-16-2011, 04:30 PM
if anyone here has any doubts how players 80's and 90's would fare vs todays "animals" just try to see how those "old farts" fare vs some much younger players in the ATP champions tour.

for example i saw Edberg live in Vale do Lobo vs Rusedski going tit for tat and the only thing that stoped him from winning was the thigh micro-rupture..

but hey.. feel free to think otherwise

1970CRBase
01-16-2011, 06:02 PM
I don't want to be rude but do you realize how stupid sounds that.

You can't imagine a player with the coaching and training of another different era. Players aren't videogame characters with preset skills on a 1 to 10 scale. They are a total product of their coaching and training.


Which is also built upon past experience. Without past greats, there wouldn't be Nad/Fed today.

as for OP : Lendl was asked once what he'd do if he were playing today against modern players. Lendl said he'd just pack his bags and go home :)

big bang
01-16-2011, 06:52 PM
this entire post is rubbsh. tell me one thing Lendl did in the 80's he could not do now and even better (bigger racquet and poly strings). the guy was a machine, he hit groundstrokes incredibly hard, and was a total gym nut. tell me what today's player has he did not?? uh, don't be a total clown and bring up Sampras. His game was tailored for the day. Lendl's game was far different. sick of you morons argueing no one born before 1981 can't play today's game.
I agree! todays game would fit Lendl perfectly. The guy was the hardest working guy on tour.
How can doubt that he would be a top 5 player today?. Agassi did pretty good and Lendl had even more power than AA + a much better serve.
Lendl was the first true power player, go learn kids!.

cork_screw
01-16-2011, 06:54 PM
Who gives a **** who lendl picks. He isn't some magical crystal ball. Did he pick Del Potro in 2009 to win the US Open? So who gives a ****.

Fedex
01-17-2011, 04:09 AM
this entire post is rubbsh. tell me one thing Lendl did in the 80's he could not do now and even better (bigger racquet and poly strings). the guy was a machine, he hit groundstrokes incredibly hard, and was a total gym nut. tell me what today's player has he did not??

I think anyone who was watching tennis in Lendl's hey day, and can therefore make better comparisons, would agree with this.
He was formidable.
I didn't actually realise he made as many as 19 Slam finals.
That in itself says a lot.
My opinion only, but I think he would be right up there with Federer and Nadal.
However, then we get into this argument cycle of if he was brought up in this era or dropped into it.

dandelion_smiley
01-17-2011, 04:44 AM
I think anyone who was watching tennis in Lendl's hey day, and can therefore make better comparisons, would agree with this.
He was formidable.
I didn't actually realise he made as many as 19 Slam finals.
That in itself says a lot.
My opinion only, but I think he would be right up there with Federer and Nadal.
However, then we get into this argument cycle of if he was brought up in this era or dropped into it.

Maybe the all-time greats like Wilander, Lendl, Sampras playing in their respective eras is what made them all-time greats in the first place.

I like to use Laver's example. Does anyone believe that such a short guy (5ft7in) would do much damage in today's tennis? I don't think so. Therefore comparing tennis players from different eras (especially when it's a 40, 50 year difference) is dumb

Fedex
01-17-2011, 05:23 AM
Maybe the all-time greats like Wilander, Lendl, Sampras playing in their respective eras is what made them all-time greats in the first place.

I like to use Laver's example. Does anyone believe that such a short guy (5ft7in) would do much damage in today's tennis? I don't think so. Therefore comparing tennis players from different eras (especially when it's a 40, 50 year difference) is dumb

There's a big difference between Lendl and Laver but I basically agree with what you're saying that it's practically impossible to know due to the nature and evolution of tennis.
As I've said before, some sports such as boxing and sprinting are easy to make era comparisons.
Tennis is more difficult.
The most difficult would be the likes of Formula 1 motor racing because the aparatus, the vehicle, makes such a vast difference.

JustBob
01-17-2011, 09:13 AM
this entire post is rubbsh. tell me one thing Lendl did in the 80's he could not do now and even better (bigger racquet and poly strings). the guy was a machine, he hit groundstrokes incredibly hard, and was a total gym nut. tell me what today's player has he did not?? uh, don't be a total clown and bring up Sampras. His game was tailored for the day. Lendl's game was far different. sick of you morons argueing no one born before 1981 can't play today's game.


You have no argument other than "he was great in hi era therefore he would be great today" and you call others clowns and morons? You're a funny guy but you have absolutely no understanding of the evolution of sports (one more time, it's not just about equipment) in general and tennis in particular. By your logic, no world or Olympic records would have been broken in the past 20 years because after all, athletes who held said records 20+ years ago were great in their era.

Again, (some of) you guys seem to live in some alternate tennis universe where time stands still and nothing ever changes aside from equipment. Diagnosis: Acute Nostalgiaitis.

JustBob
01-17-2011, 09:25 AM
I think anyone who was watching tennis in Lendl's hey day, and can therefore make better comparisons, would agree with this.
He was formidable.
I didn't actually realise he made as many as 19 Slam finals.
That in itself says a lot.
My opinion only, but I think he would be right up there with Federer and Nadal.
However, then we get into this argument cycle of if he was brought up in this era or dropped into it.

I started watching tennis in the John Newcombe/Stan Smith era. And I'm not here to brag about my tennis credentials, but although I'm semi-retired now, I've been involved with tennis in different capacities for 35 years. I've seen all these players play LIVE, I've coached top juniors, I worked in player development programs, etc... There's absolutely no comparison between players 20+ years ago and players today. It's night and day. So yes, if you just dropped Lendl in this era, even with a new racket, he would get crushed, and not only by the top 10 guys...

Sorry but if your (not your's specifically, a generic "your") tennis knowledge only comes from watching tennis on tv and YouTube, then you just can't comprehend how much the game of tennis and the players/athletes have changed in the past 20+ years.

JustBob
01-17-2011, 09:38 AM
One example... Azurri mentionned that Lendl was a gym/fitness nut, which is correct. However, anyone can run, go to the gym and get "fit". But that's just generic fitness, not training specifically geared towards tennis. If you look at player development programs 20+ years ago, they were roughly divided into 75-80% technique, 20-25% physical training. In that era, you could be relatively successful as a tennis player just by being technically sound. Today, these percentages have changed to 50/50. And that 50% is a lot more specialized/specifically geared towards "tennis fitness" than it was back then. Players today are (generally speaking) much better athletes than they were 20+ years ago.

Fedex
01-17-2011, 09:57 AM
I started watching tennis in the John Newcombe/Stan Smith era. And I'm not here to brag about my tennis credentials, but although I'm semi-retired now, I've been involved with tennis in different capacities for 35 years. I've seen all these players play LIVE, I've coached top juniors, I worked in player development programs, etc... There's absolutely no comparison between players 20+ years ago and players today. It's night and day. So yes, if you just dropped Lendl in this era, even with a new racket, he would get crushed, and not only by the top 10 guys...

Sorry but if your (not your's specifically, a generic "your") tennis knowledge only comes from watching tennis on tv and YouTube, then you just can't comprehend how much the game of tennis and the players/athletes have changed in the past 20+ years.

And I totally respect your opinion.

pjonesy
01-17-2011, 10:00 AM
If you compare strokes from Lendl's era and Federer's era, then Federer's strokes are more evolved. However, there is no way to objectively compare their games or have them play a fantasy match in their primes. The closest we have to a Lendl in the current game(IMO), is Djokovic. Maybe Lendl has a little more variety and maybe Djokovic is a better athlete. They are about the same size and have machine-like strokes from the baseline. If Lendl was playing in this era, he would probably adopt a 2hbh. Would he be able to compete in this era? Probably, I think he would be a great player in this era as well. Under the right circumstances. This thread..............................it sucks you back in!

Fedex
01-17-2011, 10:11 AM
One example... Azurri mentionned that Lendl was a gym/fitness nut, which is correct. However, anyone can run, go to the gym and get "fit". But that's just generic fitness, not training specifically geared towards tennis. If you look at player development programs 20+ years ago, they were roughly divided into 75-80% technique, 20-25% physical training. In that era, you could be relatively successful as a tennis player just by being technically sound. Today, these percentages have changed to 50/50. And that 50% is a lot more specialized/specifically geared towards "tennis fitness" than it was back then. Players today are (generally speaking) much better athletes than they were 20+ years ago.

So how difficult would it be for you to assess how Lendl would do if he had the modern 50/50 technique to physical training percentage?
I'm not being funny here. I just find this a really interesting topic.
What you said above has got me thinking that maybe that older 75/25 technique to physical training ratio was necessary due to relatively inferior racket technology.
The rackets were inferior so they had to spend more time on technique to master the racket.
I used to play with the old McEnroe Maxply Fort and you had to hit the ball bang in the middle of the racket otherwise it went flying in any direction.

Dilettante
01-17-2011, 10:58 AM
20+ years ago, they were roughly divided into 75-80% technique, 20-25% physical training. In that era, you could be relatively successful as a tennis player just by being technically sound. Today, these percentages have changed to 50/50.

I'm gonna get tired of saying this, but you people underestimate the technical level of today's tennis. Maybe is because the extended -although incorrect- idea that "technique" ,erely equals "touch" and "volleys". But just reviewing the 07, 08 Federer-Nadal Wimbledon finals you can witness the ridiculous level of technical display that is reached in many moments by two players who have really different repertoires.

Older tennis may be aesthetically more pleasant to some, that's subjective and perfectly respectable, but the level of power/precission reached by today's players is really very, very high and at its peak I don't think that peak has been seen before.

pjonesy
01-17-2011, 11:10 AM
One example... Azurri mentionned that Lendl was a gym/fitness nut, which is correct. However, anyone can run, go to the gym and get "fit". But that's just generic fitness, not training specifically geared towards tennis. If you look at player development programs 20+ years ago, they were roughly divided into 75-80% technique, 20-25% physical training. In that era, you could be relatively successful as a tennis player just by being technically sound. Today, these percentages have changed to 50/50. And that 50% is a lot more specialized/specifically geared towards "tennis fitness" than it was back then. Players today are (generally speaking) much better athletes than they were 20+ years ago.

I would agree that players are generally bigger, faster, stronger and are better overall athletes than players 20-25 years ago. But, how can you possibly say for certain that Lendl would not be able to compete if he had the same modern training methods and technology that are seen in the current product? Stroke for stroke, of course the game has evolved. But they were still professional athletes in the '80s. They were competing for a living and worked hard to get to the top of their profession. But, we all need inspiration. Without Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi and Sampras, you have no Nadal or Federer. The game would not have evolved in the way it has without those players laying the foundation and sparking the interest of children who would grow into players that compete for majors.

How do you see the competitive spirit of players of today versus 20-25 years ago? Most of the players seem happy to roll over and wilt against players like Nadal and Federer. Their peers are heaping praise on them ad nauseum. These guys are all making commercials together and laughing. Can you imagine Connors and Lendl hanging out and giggling? Connors, Lendl and McEnroe were more effective when they made their opponents the enemy. Borg was different, but his competitive spirit was very evident as he kept his emotions in check and took care of business on the court. Yes, Nadal and Federer have that competitive spirit, but it just felt like Connors would do anything to win. Not sure if we see that anymore.

JustBob
01-17-2011, 01:55 PM
So how difficult would it be for you to assess how Lendl would do if he had the modern 50/50 technique to physical training percentage?
I'm not being funny here. I just find this a really interesting topic.
What you said above has got me thinking that maybe that older 75/25 technique to physical training ratio was necessary due to relatively inferior racket technology.
The rackets were inferior so they had to spend more time on technique to master the racket.
I used to play with the old McEnroe Maxply Fort and you had to hit the ball bang in the middle of the racket otherwise it went flying in any direction.

It was 75/25 simply because there was not much emphasis on being an "athlete" at the time. Much of the physical training was of the generic kind, i.e. not specifically developed for the sport.

And note that I've never argued that Lendl would do badly if given a chance to develop in this era. This hypothetical Lendl might become a different player so who knows how well he'd do.

JustBob
01-17-2011, 01:58 PM
I'm gonna get tired of saying this, but you people underestimate the technical level of today's tennis. Maybe is because the extended -although incorrect- idea that "technique" ,erely equals "touch" and "volleys". But just reviewing the 07, 08 Federer-Nadal Wimbledon finals you can witness the ridiculous level of technical display that is reached in many moments by two players who have really different repertoires.

Older tennis may be aesthetically more pleasant to some, that's subjective and perfectly respectable, but the level of power/precission reached by today's players is really very, very high and at its peak I don't think that peak has been seen before.

Since you replied to my post I'm not sure if this is directed at me but I never argued that current players are technically inferior. :)

JustBob
01-17-2011, 02:04 PM
But, how can you possibly say for certain that Lendl would not be able to compete if he had the same modern training methods and technology that are seen in the current product?

Again, I never argued anything of the sort. My point was specifically referring to transplanting "prime" Lendl (or any other past great player) into the current era and simply giving him a new racket. As I stated above, it's impossible to predict what an hypothetical Lendl growing up in this era would be able to achieve.

But, we all need inspiration. Without Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi and Sampras, you have no Nadal or Federer. The game would not have evolved in the way it has without those players laying the foundation and sparking the interest of children who would grow into players that compete for majors.

That is correct, although I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion. If I say that current players are better than players from another era, it's not mean't to be disrespectful. One can acknowledge the achievements and contributions of past greats while also understanding the evolution of the sport.

Fedex
01-17-2011, 03:36 PM
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to contribute to this topic both off and on .
Really enjoyed it and very interesting and informative.
I still have tons of questions and scenarios but it ends here.
I think....

big ted
01-17-2011, 03:52 PM
multi gs champions like lendl are champions that would translate in any era, imo.. case in point, players like connors and agassi competed with the top players throughout their 20 year career even with changes of equipment, surfaces, players, styles along the way...they just had to make adjustments. connors played from '72 to '92(?), are we to think that tennis didnt change in that time span? same with agassi from '86 to '05.. mcenroe also has shown that top players can transcend and compete in different eras.

timnz
01-17-2011, 04:32 PM
The reality is completely the obvious than what the thread title is saying. Any reading of the quote of Lendl would be not that he feels he could beat Federer or Nadal but instead, on what surfaces he felt he would have the best chance against either of those players. In both cases he chose the players worst surface (Clay for Federer, Indoor for Nadal). What he is saying is completely obvious. He is not saying he would beat them, simply what surface he would have the best chance against them in.

lendlmac
01-17-2011, 04:40 PM
Connors, Becker and Cash had his number in big matches.

well in fairness, how many indoor titles did Lendl win over all in his career? and how many claycourt titles did he also win...
translating,if Lendl were playing today, byt today's standards, equipment, technology, fitness, etc..etc... he would own roger on clay hene the all the clay titles he owns to how many roger doesn't own...LOL and the number of indoor titles rafa owns, to the number that Lendl owns...

LOL not grass or hardcourt..but his best chance..and Lendl would dominate Federer on clay and Rafa indoors...just look at Rafa and Rogders number of tiles

Roger's # of clay court tiles? LOL
Rafas # of indoor carpet titles? LOL

NadalAgassi
01-17-2011, 05:24 PM
Lendl might have the slight edge over Federer on clay but I doubt he would dominate him. Nadal is clearly superior to Lendl on clay, and Federer from 2005-2007 always gave Nadal very tough matches on clay, and he has even beaten him twice on clay (ok one was in 2009) and should have done it 3 times (Rome 06). Lendl would not just walk all over Federer on clay. Lendl in his prime lost to Svenson and Chang at the French, and Wilander was his equal at the French Open so he isnt even hands down the best clay courter of the post Borg era.

As for Nadal indoors, well yeah I could see Lendl dominating there since Nadal hasnt really shown much yet. Then again Nadal is such a fighter that he still remains competitive with everyone except Federer indoors.

pjonesy
01-17-2011, 09:01 PM
Again, I never argued anything of the sort. My point was specifically referring to transplanting "prime" Lendl (or any other past great player) into the current era and simply giving him a new racket. As I stated above, it's impossible to predict what an hypothetical Lendl growing up in this era would be able to achieve.


That is correct, although I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion. If I say that current players are better than players from another era, it's not mean't to be disrespectful. One can acknowledge the achievements and contributions of past greats while also understanding the evolution of the sport.

Ok. No big deal. I've just seen posters refer to "Prime Lendl from the '80s" vs Prime Nadal. You can certainly compare the two, relative to their era, but its not possible to objectively and conclusively predict the effectiveness either would have in another era.



I understand that you can be realistic about the evolution of the sport, while acknowledging the previous generations' value. But I guess that I was referring to the way tennis evolves from one generation to the next. The sport builds on the previous generations' contributions to the sport and the characteristics we see in the current game reflect that. For instance, Agassi certainly had some influence on the prevalence of the 2hbh in the current men's tennis product. I would hate to see tennis' forefathers discounted, because their outdated game would not meet today's standards.