PDA

View Full Version : Would Lendl have won a Wimbledon with current conditions?


OrangeOne
07-22-2006, 12:31 AM
What do you think?

Premise: Imagine that the 80's and 90's Wimbledon tournaments were played on the current, slower surface, with the current, slower balls.

Under these conditions, would Lendl have won a Wimbledon title?

My thoughts - from things I've said before -

1. He was good on grass part 1 - he made it to two consecutive Wimbledon finals, only to meet and lose to two excellent grass-courters (Becker-86, Cash-87) at the peak of their powers, both of whom were playing fast-court tennis at it's best.

2. He was good on grass part 2 - The following three years (88, 89 & 90) he lost in the Semis to Becker or Edberg, on two of the three occasions to the eventual winner. He also won Queens in 89 & 90, beating Becker in straight sets in the final in 90.

3. (And of primary relevance) - He won the French & US double in both 86 & 87, the years he made the Wimbledon final - meaning that he was *the man* for those 3 GS's that year. Just like Nadal this year - who made it through on the grass at least partly because he's playing so so well full-stop!

Me - I think he'd have won at least one. Others?

Polaris
07-22-2006, 01:28 AM
A what-if question that is actually interesting. I think that, given his dedication, he might have won it at least once, were Wimbledon as slow as it is today.

Volly master
07-22-2006, 05:14 AM
i believe he could have.

Lendl was untouchable in the 85-88 era, so i would have the odds on him with the current conditions at hand.

dmastous
07-22-2006, 05:37 AM
Given the current conditions he would have probably dominated Wimbledon in the same way he dominated everywhere else.
He was never a really comfortable serve/volley player. He had a very good serve and a great return game. That's how he had the success he had. His mid-court and approach game was what let him down time after time. He never had the inventiveness of McEnroe, Agassi, or Federer.

andfor
07-22-2006, 05:45 AM
Great question. I say "yes", two or more. Unfortunately history such as this can't be undone.

For what it's worth I have predicted that Wimby will speed conditions up next year. I do like the variety that the faster conditions create. This years Wimbledon was a rediculous grind fest. One French Open a year is enough.

Rabbit
07-22-2006, 08:23 AM
I agree, great question. I said "Yes' to one, but I wouldn't rule out more than one. Lendl's game at its peak would have been damn near impossible to beat with the current conditions at Wimbledon. Think about it, Lendl had a great service game, one of the best forehands of all time, a penetrating backhand that didn't have too much top, it was by all accounts a heavy stroke like his forehand, a reliable slice backhand. His net game would have been more than adequate to put away weak replies set up by his serve or ground game. He took the best of his day on fast grass to the limit, there's nothing to suggest that he'd have not done better on a slightly slower, higher bouncing surface like today's Wimbledon.

The more I think about it, he'd have had an easier time at today's Wimbledon than the French.

cuddles26
07-22-2006, 10:15 AM
I voted for one. It is possable he could have won none, or more then one, but one seems the most likely answer.

killer
07-22-2006, 10:34 AM
To add to Rabbit's post, he took the best of his day on grass (Edberg, Becker, Cash et al) to the limit while playing serve and volley tennis, a style which he had to learn from Tony Roche. If he'd been able to play his 'regular' aggressive baseline style, he certainly would have won at least one Wimby.

boris becker 1
07-22-2006, 11:20 AM
no because Becker would have still been playing and he owned Lendl on hard courts as well

Jack the Hack
07-22-2006, 04:42 PM
no because Becker would have still been playing and he owned Lendl on hard courts as well

Uhh, yeah... if you consider a losing record on hard surfaces "owning" somebody.

You might want to check your stats because Lendl had an 11-7 record over Becker on hard surfaces (cement and carpet).

This is all speculative, but a slower grass surface would have given Lendl a little more time on the return and passing shots, which would have made him even tougher to beat. As dominant as he was in '85-'87, you have to think that might have made a difference in his chances at Wimbledon if the surface or balls were a little slower.

fastdunn
07-22-2006, 05:15 PM
He would. But there still are these uncertain bounces on grass.
Wimbledon still forces you to improvise. Lendle has similar game
as Federer's (Oh, I'll get burned by Federer fanatics for saying that).
But he is more mechanical version of Federer and I don't think
he would have been very successfull Wimbledon champion even
with current slowed conditions. Maybe 1 or 2...

cuddles26
07-22-2006, 05:52 PM
Lendl's game is more about power and intensity, and Federer's more about shotmaking and creativeness. The only similarities I see between them is for both their great forehands are their best weapon and shot, but other then that not too similar.

cuddles26
07-22-2006, 05:55 PM
Uhh, yeah... if you consider a losing record on hard surfaces "owning" somebody.

You might want to check your stats because Lendl had an 11-7 record over Becker on hard surfaces (cement and carpet).



Maybe he meant in Grand Slam meetings where Becker leads 2-1, and 2-0 in Grand Slam finals.

Jack the Hack
07-22-2006, 06:15 PM
Maybe he meant in Grand Slam meetings where Becker leads 2-1, and 2-0 in Grand Slam finals.

Would you consider a 2-1 or 2-0 record "owning" someone... especially when all of those matches were close?

cuddles26
07-22-2006, 06:25 PM
Would you consider a 2-1 or 2-0 record "owning" someone... especially when all of those matches were close?

No I wouldnt. Also I would look at two of those three matches, and one of two slam finals, being when Lendl was in his 30s and past his final year of winning a slam as well.

The tennis guy
07-22-2006, 08:28 PM
He would. But there still are these uncertain bounces on grass.
Wimbledon still forces you to improvise. Lendle has similar game
as Federer's (Oh, I'll get burned by Federer fanatics for saying that).
But he is more mechanical version of Federer and I don't think
he would have been very successfull Wimbledon champion even
with current slowed conditions. Maybe 1 or 2...

I sort of agree with you once. Lendl was too mechanical to be a sure thing on grass. So it comes down to a maybe.

The problem with this excercise is everyone is assuming all other players would have played the same way even if the condition were different. If condition were like today in 80s, then other players wouldn't have been the same either.

laurie
07-23-2006, 04:00 AM
It's a very inetersting question but unfortunately we will never know any answer to this. But I suppose, why not?

There is one thing to look at about Wimbledon. The same logic actually still apllies today as it did ten and 20 years ago, the best and most athletic movers around the court wim Wimbledon. Federer and Mauresmo won Wimbledon this year. The Williams sisters dominated Wimbledon between 2000 and 2003. Sampras and Graf dominated Wimbledon in the 1990s. Navratilova before Graf, Novotna got to three finals. Then there are the likes of Becker, McEnroe, Edberg. The most athletic players will continue to win Wimbledon with the odd exceptions like Sharapova and Davenport who will the tourney just once in their careers.

Lendl was a great player no question. Was he very athletic?

nadalgirl26
07-23-2006, 04:31 AM
Not today casue my Nadal would have killed him. If Nadal lost early he would have a good chance though. He would humiliatea losers like Federer, Hewitt and Roddick and Safirn.

Jack Romeo
07-23-2006, 05:12 AM
Lendl was a great player no question. Was he very athletic?

yes, very much so. he, like navratilova on the women's side, emphasized strength, fitness and athleticism at a time when sports science started becoming more and more incorporated into the individual training methods or pro athletes. remember that before pete sampras won his first us open in 1990, he trained with lendl because he wanted to know how to attain his own peak performance level.

with regards to the original question - yes, i think ivan would have won wimbledon under current condtions.

nadalgirl26
07-23-2006, 05:18 AM
I was young girl when Lend was finishing playing but I did not think he was very athletic in some ways. He was fast and fit, but he was not that agile or strong reflexed or flexable so some ways more athletic than alot, other ways not. He was not a maleae Navratilova and my Nadal was more athlietc.

dmastous
07-23-2006, 05:21 AM
yes, very much so. he, like navratilova on the women's side, emphasized strength, fitness and athleticism at a time when sports science started becoming more and more incorporated into the individual training methods or pro athletes. remember that before pete sampras won his first us open in 1990, he trained with lendl because he wanted to know how to attain his own peak performance level.

with regards to the original question - yes, i think ivan would have won wimbledon under current condtions.
Well, I would dissagree that he was athletic on the level of Navratilova. It's all relative. He empasized fitness and repetative motion, and technique because he didn't possess the athletisism of his peers. He was a groundstroking machine. That's not to say he wasn't athletic, just not as gifted an athlete as other great tennis players. He made himself an athlete through hard work and dedication.
If everything remained the same (and he wasn't "alergic" to grass in his younger days) he may have won Wimbledon, but there was always a more athletically gifted player to stop him at some point.
As the surface has slowed down, benifitting the baseliners, and the baseline game has become even more effective with passing net rushers through technique and technology, he would have had a better chance in this period.
laurie is absolute correct when she (or he?) describes Wimbledon as a athletic event. It takes more shot making and athletisim to win Wimbledon than the French or the US Open. The French takes sheer grit and determination and shot looses it's effectivness.

nadalgirl26
07-23-2006, 05:30 AM
If Lendl played fruity Federer in 4 Wimbledon finals he would win all 4. If hea played my sweet Nadal in 4 he would lose all 4. It depends how he palys, a loser like Federer would not stop him ever though, but My Nadal always would since Lendls best surface was not grass.

Jack Romeo
07-23-2006, 06:11 AM
...It's all relative. He empasized fitness and repetative motion, and technique because he didn't possess the athletisism of his peers.

i don't think he was off in terms of being a natural athlete compared to his peers. the fact that he did train harder and more scientifically than everyone else at that point gave him an advantage. he was able to tap into his potential more and bring it on court. so maybe he isn't a natural athlete like pete sampras. but the only players who i can think of that surpass him in athleticism are becker and edberg and maybe cash. but cash was often injured. i think athletically, lendl was better than wilander, mcenroe and connors.

also, i think going back to the original question would he have won wimbledon under current conditions, his athleticism, combined with his groundstrokes and aggressive play, would have been enough to take him to the title at least once, even over the beckers and the edbergs.

Volly master
07-23-2006, 06:29 AM
If Lendl played fruity Federer in 4 Wimbledon finals he would win all 4. If hea played my sweet Nadal in 4 he would lose all 4. It depends how he palys, a loser like Federer would not stop him ever though, but My Nadal always would since Lendls best surface was not grass.

okay, stop refering to him as "yours"

2nd, Lendl wouldnt beat federer on grass because federer is like all the grass court players who beat him at wimbledon, IE: Becker, Edberg, Cash, ETC.

Lendl would MURDER the likes of Nadal on grass, even though its not their best surfaces, but Lendl has a better serve and better ground strokes and doesnt moon to the ball like Nadal does. Lendl for a guy who didnt have as much talent of say, a Borg, a McEnroe, a Conners, He trained UNBELIVABLY hard to match that kind of talent with sheer hard work and deturmanaton. Because he was in better shape and stronger then most guys in the 1980's, thats how he was able to be so dominate.

and wasnt the nadal would was BAGELED in the first set of wimbledon final this year, by a guy that Lendl should be able to beat on grass?

Your nadal obsession has to stop, hes a great clay couter, mediocure hard court player, and a horriable grass player. He isnt god, so stop treating him like one.

OrangeOne
07-31-2006, 11:28 PM
Was just watching some youtube of old wimbledon summaries, and heard this statistic, from the 4 set semi in 1987 where Lendl beat Edberg:

"In a match lasting more than 3 hours, there were only 4 points that were longer than 6 shots".

Wow - that gives a guide as to how much the grass - and the way people play it - has changed!. Lendl playing Edberg is in some ways similar to Fed playing Nadal, and I think there were some games in this year's final that would have had more points with longer rallies than that! :)

The Gorilla
12-02-2006, 03:59 PM
yes! lol:)

Richie Rich
12-02-2006, 04:43 PM
he would have won at least one if the conditions were slower. would have neutralized becker/edberg/cash a little

Rafa's best friend
12-02-2006, 05:09 PM
Rafa would be too tough there, Lendl could not get by RAFA.

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 05:18 PM
Rafa would be too tough there, Lendl could not get by RAFA.

Please go away.

Rafa's best friend
12-02-2006, 05:42 PM
Please go away.

Best of RAFA will beat BEst of Lendl anyday and anynight and anywhere....................:D

vive le beau jeu !
12-02-2006, 05:46 PM
Best of RAFA will beat BEst of Lendl anyday and anynight and anywhere....................:D
you mean even on a golf course ? :rolleyes:

and between nadalgirl and you, who's the best ?... ;)

Rafa's best friend
12-02-2006, 05:49 PM
you mean even on a golf course ? :rolleyes:

and between nadalgirl and you, who's the best ?... ;)

I don't know Nadalgirl so could not tell you, if she is hot, i can introduce her to you and maybe you and her can hook up.............??;)

vive le beau jeu !
12-02-2006, 06:13 PM
I don't know Nadalgirl so could not tell you, if she is hot, i can introduce her to you and maybe you and her can hook up.............??;)
well...... thx for the proposition, but i'm afraid it won't match well ! ;)
(maybe we could have some points of disagreement, her and myself)
if possible it's better that you reproduce yourselves between nadal fanatics, i think... :rolleyes:
how would you name the RBF Jr. ?

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 06:18 PM
if possible it's better that you reproduce yourselves between nadal fanatics, i think... :rolleyes:
how would you name the RBF Jr. ?

Every possible name that came to mind would get me banned from TW in a millisecond.

CanadianChic
12-02-2006, 06:25 PM
Woulda, shoulda, coulda - this type of argument can go on forever with no real outcome. There are too many variables to consider. What if the weather was different, what if the opponents were different, what if the rules were different, what if that darn plane had not flown overhead......... :)

Mick
12-02-2006, 06:25 PM
Q Would Lend have won a Wimbledon with current conditions ?

I highly doubt it, considering Lendl would have to play against either Pete Sampras (in the late nineties) or Roger Federer (today) in the final and those two guys got too much fire power for him to overcome.

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 06:32 PM
Woulda, shoulda, coulda - this type of argument can go on forever with no real outcome.

Yeah, but to be fair - this sort of discussion is one that happens on here! Almost any non-scientific, non-mathematical discussion is based on a level of subjectivity. For me - I think he would have, and I was keen to see if others thought so too.

Have a look at almost any thread you participate on here, and see if many of them have a real outcome, most are not based on fact but opinion, as this one is...

There are too many variables to consider. What if the weather was different, what if the opponents were different, what if the rules were different, what if that darn plane had not flown overhead......... :)

Sorry, CC, but I disagree. I was, when I created this thread, changing but two things - the court and the balls. Same rules, same weather, same era, same players, same *everything* other than the "conditions". Maybe you came into the thread at the last post and didn't see the OP?

Q Would Lend have won a Wimbledon with current conditions ?

I highly doubt it, considering Lendl would have to play against either Pete Sampras (in the late nineties) or Roger Federer (today) in the final and those two guys got too much fire power for him to overcome.

Nope, the players were to stay constant. I was thinking - new, slower conditions, Lendl would have had a better chance at racking up a W (and maybe a career GS) back in the 80s. Again as with CC, maybe you came in late and didn't see the OP? For the record, it posed:

Premise: Imagine that the 80's and 90's Wimbledon tournaments were played on the current, slower surface, with the current, slower balls.

Under these conditions, would Lendl have won a Wimbledon title?

Mick
12-02-2006, 06:35 PM
Nope, the players were to stay constant. I was thinking - new, slower conditions, Lendl would have had a better chance at racking up a W (and maybe a career GS) back in the 80s. Again as with CC, maybe you came in late and didn't see the OP? For the record, it posed:

Premise: Imagine that the 80's and 90's Wimbledon tournaments were played on the current, slower surface, with the current, slower balls.

Under these conditions, would Lendl have won a Wimbledon title?

Oh I see. Sorry, I missed that.
I would have to change my vote to YES :)

CanadianChic
12-02-2006, 06:35 PM
Okay, that's fair - if only the court and the balls were different, I still stick with my original vote - No, I do not think it would affect the outcome (perhaps the score but not the result). IMO. :)

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 06:39 PM
Oh I see. Sorry, I missed that.
I would have to change my vote to YES :)

It's all good :). It's funny that this poll got resurrected anyways - it was from a few months ago.

Okay, that's fair - if only the court and the balls were different, I still stick with my original vote - No, I do not think it would affect the outcome (perhaps the score but not the result). IMO. :)

Harsh, very harsh :grin:. Personally, I'd like to think he'd at least have prevented Cash from getting a W title. Sure, I may be Australian, but I think even Australian's could see he was an idiot during his career. Post-career, he's lived up to that rep by proving he's just $$-for-comment with a big mouth (I wanted to say cash-for-comment, but I couldn't bring myself to!).

CanadianChic
12-02-2006, 06:44 PM
I hear ya, and the fact that you're an Auzzie makes you a-ok in my books alone. It's hard sometimes to gauge the past with altered variables, but I try to offer a little something to the discussion. LOL

vive le beau jeu !
12-02-2006, 06:47 PM
Sorry, CC, but I disagree. I was, when I created this thread, changing but two things - the court and the balls. Same rules, same weather, same era, same players, same *everything* other than the "conditions". Maybe you came into the thread at the last post and didn't see the OP?so we even keep the darn plane of CC ? ;)

you're right not to move too many things in the past, because appart from changing wimbledon results, we could disrupt the space-time continuum, and the consequences could be disastrous ! :rolleyes:

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 07:27 PM
I hear ya, and the fact that you're an Auzzie makes you a-ok in my books alone. It's hard sometimes to gauge the past with altered variables, but I try to offer a little something to the discussion. LOL

Heh - aussie is a right to being a-ok? Sweet :). And you have offered to the discussion, above and beyond the last line of your signature which makes me laugh everytime I see it

so we even keep the darn plane of CC ? ;)

you're right not to move too many things in the past, because appart from changing wimbledon results, we could disrupt the space-time continuum, and the consequences could be disastrous ! :rolleyes:

If we're keeping the plane, we'll avoid butterflies with it, ok?

(I wonder if the darn plane was a side-reference to the 9/11 threads? ;))

Rafa's best friend
12-02-2006, 07:51 PM
I hear ya, and the fact that you're an Auzzie makes you a-ok in my books alone. It's hard sometimes to gauge the past with altered variables, but I try to offer a little something to the discussion. LOL

Who is this Nadalgirl, she seems to be even more of a RAFA supporter than i am but then i know RAFA personally so .................:p

nadalgirl26
12-02-2006, 07:59 PM
If he wear e playing today mey sweet Nadal would ahvea overpowerd him, just hit hims oof the court, used him excellents net games to powera past Lendl, too tough mentally tou fast runningsd won ball ssor Lendl. Lendl couldas beat Federer or Raddick on grass, burta not my sweet Nadal. If eh were playing back then on teah gress then he woulas have beter chance vs McEnreo and Connors I guess and Becker.

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 08:10 PM
How, oh-god-how, did an innocent Lendl / Wimbledon thread end up with the two biggest Nadal trolls in it? Disappointing.

FitzRoy
12-02-2006, 08:55 PM
How, oh-god-how, did an innocent Lendl / Wimbledon thread end up with the two biggest Nadal trolls in it? Disappointing.

Rafa's Best Friend is so much more than that. But to get the thread back on track: I don't see how Lendl wouldn't have been able to win at least two of them, with the way the courts are playing currently.

capriatifanatic
12-02-2006, 09:43 PM
Well what I dont understand about the question is does it mean if the courts were like they were now when Lendl was playing and he faced the same people he did then, or Lendl was in his prime now instead of then. I am not sure which one gives a better shot in fact, but I cant really think about the question until I know which situation is being considered.

FitzRoy
12-02-2006, 09:44 PM
Well what I dont understand about the question is does it mean if the courts were like they were now when Lendl was playing and he faced the same people he did then, or Lendl was in his prime now instead of then. I am not sure which one gives a better shot in fact, but I cant really think about the question until I know which situation is being considered.

My understanding was that he meant Lendl playing when he played, against the players he played against, but on the courts like the ones at Wimbledon now, as opposed to then.

OrangeOne
12-02-2006, 10:29 PM
My understanding was that he meant Lendl playing when he played, against the players he played against, but on the courts like the ones at Wimbledon now, as opposed to then.

You're correct. It came from thinking that gee, Lendl struggled sooo hard for that career grand-slam, and he may well have found it much easier to come by on the surfaces as they are today. Put the AO on rebound ace a few years earlier, and make Wimbledon a little slower - and I think Lendl would be in much better GOAT contention!

Serve and Volley
12-02-2006, 10:33 PM
Great question. I say "yes", two or more. Unfortunately history such as this can't be undone.

For what it's worth I have predicted that Wimby will speed conditions up next year. I do like the variety that the faster conditions create. This years Wimbledon was a rediculous grind fest. One French Open a year is enough.

No way in hell. Lendl would not have been able to deal with Federer or Nadal.

it was Just out
12-02-2006, 11:08 PM
I hate Lendl. He was a jerk.

capriatifanatic
12-02-2006, 11:30 PM
My understanding was that he meant Lendl playing when he played, against the players he played against, but on the courts like the ones at Wimbledon now, as opposed to then.


Ok thanks for clarifying exactly what the question what meant as. I now understand what I am trying to figure out my opinion on atleast, LOL!

Well in that case it makes for an interesting analysis.

In my opinion Lendl was definitely the better player between he and Becker in their primes on any surface outside of grass, including hard courts. Becker I do think had even more of an ability to rise for those big days if he somehow made a final though. So with grass playing as close to a hard court as it does now, I am not sure. I think Becker-Lendl becomes a very close call.
Lendl vs Edberg becomes closer too. Edberg was never mentally as strong a player as Lendl, but on the other hand Edberg has beaten him at the Australian Open and plenty of times on hard courts. Edberg-Becker becomes a tougher call too. Lendl-Wilander, most of their primes Lendl had the edge on any surface. Lendl vs Connors and McEnroe earlier on, well he had trouble closing the deal in slams back then anyway so moot.

I would say atleast 1 Wimbledon probably, not sure on 2 though.

ShooterMcMarco
12-03-2006, 12:25 AM
lol @ nadalgirl and rbf in the same thread

jukka1970
12-03-2006, 01:31 AM
This was definitely a great "what if?" post, as others have already said. I like this one because it's not one of those who would beat who.

Lendl was definitely one of the greats. Even with the conditions changed, I actually voted that he still wouldn't win one. As for the explanation to why, to me Lendl for some reason just couldn't get that last bit of luck needed for the title. I mean I'm really not sure how else to put it because he had the skills, and the mental game, but for some reason that final game never clicked. And I guess that's why I use the word luck, that 1% or less that is involved in anything. I mean what else is left after skill, mental game, training, etc?

He bought a place in England, and had a grass court put in, done the same way as Wimbledon, specifically so he could practice and win that tournament one time. I mean if it's possible to say it, he is just one of those professionals that for some unknown reason was never going to win that specific tournament. I mean he did everything that one could possibly due as a professional tennis player to win that tournament one time. You just have to say it wasn't in the cards. And I wouldn't say it was just because of who he played. I mean I sware for the years that he got close, if you could go back in time and have his opponent lose in an earlier round so that he got someone different, I think he still would have lost it. And it's that feeling that makes me think that even changing the grass conditions to what they are now, that he still wouldn't have won it.

Jukka

jukka1970
12-03-2006, 01:34 AM
If he wear e playing today mey sweet Nadal would ahvea overpowerd him, just hit hims oof the court, used him excellents net games to powera past Lendl, too tough mentally tou fast runningsd won ball ssor Lendl. Lendl couldas beat Federer or Raddick on grass, burta not my sweet Nadal. If eh were playing back then on teah gress then he woulas have beter chance vs McEnreo and Connors I guess and Becker.

Looks to me like someone was drunk when trying to post this, as there are so many typing errors.

Jukka

Gut Reaction
12-03-2006, 06:31 AM
Lendl could not win Wimbledon even though he used a graphite racquet and everyone else was playing with a wood racquet!!

In fact how the hell would Lendl deal with Nadal?? Borg dominated Lendl with only a wooden racquet while Lendl used a graphite one.

omniexist
12-03-2006, 06:43 AM
Looks to me like someone was drunk when trying to post this, as there are so many typing errors.

Jukka

LOL...good one!

35ft6
12-03-2006, 04:29 PM
Yeah, he probably would have won 1 at least. The dude got to the finals playing serve and volley exclusively, which is the style that went against his very nature.

I wonder how the Wimbledon courts compare to the US Open courts these days in terms of speed? I know they're still faster but...

Grimjack
12-03-2006, 05:04 PM
What if we had Wimbledon with today's slower, baseline-friendly conditions in the 80's? We did. We called it the Australian Open.

Wilander and Edberg owned it. And Lendl was never able to come though against those guys until the surface went to Rebound Ace.

civic
12-03-2006, 05:11 PM
I think he would have won one title since he got to two finals and since the two changes (slower balls and court) would probably favor his game. The two reasons I think he didn't win was his racquet and netplay. But with todays slower conditions he wouldn't have had to come to net as much.

Gut Reaction
12-03-2006, 07:45 PM
You're correct. It came from thinking that gee, Lendl struggled sooo hard for that career grand-slam, and he may well have found it much easier to come by on the surfaces as they are today. Put the AO on rebound ace a few years earlier, and make Wimbledon a little slower - and I think Lendl would be in much better GOAT contention!

Well in that case Borg would have stayed on and not retired. Borg would have beaten everyone including Lendl. I mean Borg already beat Lendl and gave Lendl a handi cap....Borg played with a wood racquet and Lendl played with a graphite and still lost to Borg.

Mick
12-03-2006, 07:53 PM
Well in that case Borg would have stayed on and not retired. Borg would have beaten everyone including Lendl. I mean Borg already beat Lendl and gave Lendl a handi cap....Borg played with a wood racquet and Lendl played with a graphite and still lost to Borg.

according to the posts from some of the people who have played with the racket that Lendl used in the 1981 French Open final, it does not play that much different than a wood racket. Graphite rackets have advanced a lot in the last 25 years. Also, you are comparing Borg at his prime (25 yrs old) with a young Lendl (21 yrs old).

andfor
12-04-2006, 09:00 AM
No way in hell. Lendl would not have been able to deal with Federer or Nadal.

Re-read the OP's question. You obviously did not.

Colpo
12-04-2006, 01:19 PM
I'm a Lendl fan, and I dont think Ivan would've have ever won Wimbledon assuming a full player field. For every tennis pro player generation, there have been and will always be a handful of better grass players than Ivan could ever be, and that's fully acknowledging that in his prime Lendl was arguably the second-best grass court player in the world. But, if Becker was off one year, Edberg was on, and so on (through to today). Despite the Wimby SF and F that he racked during his career, I never got the feeling he was anywhere close to winning the event.

Gut Reaction
12-04-2006, 07:48 PM
Borg beat lendl with a woodn racquet against Lendl graphite one. Could things have gotten any better for him?? Check out just how bad Lendl looked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Cl3fQgPwU

OrangeOne
12-04-2006, 08:38 PM
Well in that case Borg would have stayed on and not retired. Borg would have beaten everyone including Lendl. I mean Borg already beat Lendl and gave Lendl a handi cap....Borg played with a wood racquet and Lendl played with a graphite and still lost to Borg.

Look, I know you're a Lendl hater, we all saw the thread that you created. But honestly - could you please show a bit of logic?

Borg was using the racquet that he felt he could perform best with, no questions there. Same goes with Lendl. If Borg had have felt he'd play better with a *legal* whatever-racquet, he would have. It's not a handicap.

Gut Reaction
12-05-2006, 04:51 AM
What if we had Wimbledon with today's slower, baseline-friendly conditions in the 80's? We did. We called it the Australian Open.

Wilander and Edberg owned it. And Lendl was never able to come though against those guys until the surface went to Rebound Ace.

OMG!!!.... GAME SET AND MATCH ....MR GRIMJACK!!!

35ft6
12-05-2006, 05:33 AM
^ Isn't Rebound Ace faster than what the Aussie used to be played on?

Gut Reaction
12-05-2006, 06:18 AM
^ Isn't Rebound Ace faster than what the Aussie used to be played on?

AO was played on a slower grass surface. VERY simialr to what Wimbledon is played on today. Lendl could not win the AO....i guess this debate is over. You never quite see someone lose a debate quite this bad.

Grimjack slammed this door shut...wow!!

Gut Reaction
12-05-2006, 06:24 AM
Borg was using the racquet that he felt he could perform best with, no questions there. Same goes with Lendl. If Borg had have felt he'd play better with a *legal* whatever-racquet, he would have. It's not a handicap.


Wrong...even Mcenroe used a wood racquet at the time. Most everyone did. Graphite was a new technology and Lendl was smart enough to figure it out before everyone else did. Lendl had a huge advantage with a graphite and still lost.

It doesnt matter because this debate is over...as Grimjack pointed out the AO was played on a slow grass and lendl still couldn't win (graphite racquet and all!!!).

PimpMyGame
12-05-2006, 07:03 AM
The Wimbledon surface was too inconsistent and fast for someone who had been virtually tied to the tennis courts as a child to win a title on. The guy was like a robot, there's very little that's natural about his game.

I thought he always looked awkward on court and showed very little emotion, the exact opposite to someone like McEnroe.

OrangeOne
12-05-2006, 02:47 PM
Wrong...even Mcenroe used a wood racquet at the time. Most everyone did. Graphite was a new technology and Lendl was smart enough to figure it out before everyone else did. Lendl had a huge advantage with a graphite and still lost.

It doesnt matter because this debate is over...as Grimjack pointed out the AO was played on a slow grass and lendl still couldn't win (graphite racquet and all!!!).

Wrong? Nope, not wrong. That's a failure in logic on your part.

I'm not bothering discussing things with you anymore. You can't follow logic, and you're clearly an anti-Lendl troll. I liked Lendl as a player, and think his dedication and example took our game in good places. I know he had positives and negatives, and I'm happy to discuss both of them with people who are willing to use logic. You're clearly not. Just when I thought the anti-Federer trolls and anti-Nadal trolls were the main annoying ones....

At least Lendl's retired now (and has been for over a decade), and there'll be little food for your trolling....

AndrewD
12-05-2006, 07:58 PM
AO was played on a slower grass surface. VERY simialr to what Wimbledon is played on today. Lendl could not win the AO....i guess this debate is over. You never quite see someone lose a debate quite this bad.


Absolutely INCORRECT. The grass at the Australian Open was in no way slow and absolutely NOTHING like it currently is at Wimbledon. The bounce was always higher but the speed was never slower and could often times be quite a deal faster than Wimbledon (we don't get continual rain to make the courts softer, the bounce lower, and the speed reduced).

Anyone suggesting otherwise hasn't got the vaguest clue what they're talking about.

OK.
12-05-2006, 10:39 PM
I think he would have won one title since he got to two finals and since the two changes (slower balls and court) would probably favor his game.

I'd have to agree, i think possibley one, no sure about anymore though :confused: :-D

Gut Reaction
12-06-2006, 02:41 AM
Absolutely INCORRECT. The grass at the Australian Open was in no way slow and absolutely NOTHING like it currently is at Wimbledon. The bounce was always higher but the speed was never slower and could often times be quite a deal faster than Wimbledon (we don't get continual rain to make the courts softer, the bounce lower, and the speed reduced).

Anyone suggesting otherwise hasn't got the vaguest clue what they're talking about.

The courts a the AO were slower. But lets take what you said "the ball bounce higher at the AO"

If the balls bounce higher at the AO then you have more time to get to it as they do not skid!! The thing that makes Wimby so difficult is that the balls skid!!! By your very own admission they "bounced higher" at the AO....this advantage was still not enough for Lendl. lendl still was not able to win even one AO! face it...the man could not win it on grass.

The main difference in the grass at Wimby and at the Australian was mainly due to the weather. The grass at wimby is very slick due to the rain and humidity in the air. On the other hand the grass at the Australian was influenced by their very dry summer months (January is summer in Australia). The grass there was far dryer and not slick at all. The ball did not skid....lendl still could not win!!! Wilander on the other hand was able to win the AO on both grass and rebound ace. Mats then went on to win Wimby in doulbles.

Mats is a far better example of someone who would win Wimby if the surface were slower! Lendl could not even win at the AO.

Puffdaddy
12-06-2006, 04:17 AM
I don't think people fully appreciate how much of an achievement it was that Lendl made those Wimbledon finals appearances. Winning Wimbledon was his "white whale" and nobody ever gave him any respect on grass.

Trust me when I say that his first finals appearance was akin to, say, Sampras reaching a French Open final.

35ft6
12-06-2006, 05:40 AM
AO was played on a slower grass surface. VERY simialr to what Wimbledon is played on today. Lendl could not win the AO....i guess this debate is over. You never quite see someone lose a debate quite this bad.

Grimjack slammed this door shut...wow!! You have a really strange definition for "debate."

I'll say the X-Factor is how much Lendl wanted Wimbledon. Lot more than the Australian.

AndrewD
12-06-2006, 05:49 AM
The courts a the AO were slower.

I spent a good 10 years playing each summer on the grass courts at Kooyong, called the lines at two of the early Colonial Classics and spent 12 months calling lines in England, including 2 days at Wimbledon and the qualifying at Roehampton. So, I think I'm in a pretty good position to judge whether the grass courts at the Aus Open played faster or slower than Wimbledon. How about you?

[/QUOTE] If the balls bounce higher at the AO then you have more time to get to it as they do not skid!! The thing that makes Wimby so difficult is that the balls skid!!! By your very own admission they "bounced higher" at the AO....this advantage was still not enough for Lendl. lendl still was not able to win even one AO! face it...the man could not win it on grass.[/QUOTE]

Grass is still grass, no-matter where you play so the ball DOES still skid, especially in the early stages of the event when the court hasn't worn. While the bounce is higher in Australia the pace of the court can be quite a lot faster than at Wimbledon as the extreme heat bakes the court and, once hard, the ball comes through very quickly. While a groundstroker has a better bounce to play his shot he also has less time to prepare so it takes someone with exceptional returns to win from the back of the court, ie Mats Wilander.

Where did I say that I believed Ivan Lendl would have won Wimbledon?

Oh, and while I appreciate you telling me that January is summer in Australia, I think I'm pretty well informed as far as our seasons go. Of course, the Australian Open was played in December (going back to Jan in 87) but we call that summer as well.

Gut Reaction
12-06-2006, 06:09 AM
The grass at the Australian Open was in no way slow and absolutely NOTHING like it currently is at Wimbledon. The bounce was always higher. .....


Where did I say that I believed Ivan Lendl would have won Wimbledon?
.

Oh I agree with you...Lendl would not have been able to win Wimby.

Logically if the ball bounced higher then you had more time to get to it. That is why we both agree that a guy Like Wilander was able to win it.

But far more importantly why didnt lendl win the AO? Wilander's game was SLOWER than Lendls game and he Wilander still won the AO...why didnt Lendl?????.....he just couldn't!

Gut Reaction
12-06-2006, 08:40 AM
You have a really strange definition for "debate."

I'll say the X-Factor is how much Lendl wanted Wimbledon. Lot more than the Australian.


That because this debate is really over. Lendl did not win the AO and clearly had a far better chance there with its "high bouncing " balls. In fact this is proven by the fact that Wilander who had a far slower game was able to win it.

Your contention that "Lendl" didn't want to really win the AO is an absurd one. last I checked everyone likes $$$$$ and fame.

Q&M son
04-22-2008, 09:07 AM
I think probably would win one.

Wuornos
04-23-2008, 07:45 AM
I think Lendl was unlucky not to win Wimbledon anyway.

Even being cautious I must vote for 1 Title.

Regards

Tim

CEvertFan
04-23-2008, 09:58 AM
If the grass was slower like it is now when Lendl played he wouldn't have felt it was necessary to serve/volley on every point like he did on the fast grass of the past and I think he would have had a much better chance to win at least one Wimbledon and probably 2. The current grass courts aren't that much slower though, as I've read that they are only about 15% slower than the fast grass.

It was Lendl's insistence on ALWAYS playing serve/volley tennis (which really took him out of his comfort zone) that contributed greatly to him not winning a Wimbledon title. I even think that if he had stayed back more and picked his times to come to net better he still would have won a Wimbledon, even on the fast grass courts as he had an excellent return game and a very good serve of his own and great passing shots and groundstrokes.


As for Lendl not winning the Australian, he never looked at that tournament as being anywhere near as important as winning Wimbledon. If you know anything about Lendl's career you know that to him Wimbledon was the most important and prestigious tournament and the one he most desired to win.

Benhur
04-23-2008, 11:54 AM
Lendl played 106 matches on grass in his lifetime and won 81 of them for a 76.4% winning percentage on that surface.

For perspective of what this means (keeping in mind that grass was his worst surface) Lendl's winning perecentage on his worse surface is higher by 2 points than the lifetime winning percentage of Edberg on all surfaces, higher than Wilander's an all surfaces by 4 points, and barely lower (0.3%) than Becker's on all surfaces. So much for a guy who supposedly can't play on grass.

None of the above is too surprising for those who know that he reached 10 GS grass semifinals or better (7 at Wimbledon and 3 at the AO) plus 3 finals (2 at Wimbledon, 1 AO).

Not surprising either for those who also know he won Queen's twice, the second time beating McEnroe in the semis and Becker in the final. Last I checked, they didn't have clay at Queen's. He also beat Edberg in one of the W semifinals, and had two tight matches with Becker in the semis, one a long five-setter.

The notion that there is a universal cosmic law that would prevent Lendl from winning Wimbledon under any circumstances is silly.

The racquet issue brought up by Gut is even sillier. In the first place, the primitive graphite racquet Lendl used in 81 was not significantly different from wood racquets. If that had offered such a great advantage, should we assume that Borg and McEnroe, and all the others who didn't start using them until 83-84 were ********? They didn't use them until they used them because they didn't feel there was any great advantage until they felt it. In any case, by 84 most players were playing with graphite (larger by then) and even those who didn't, like Cash, remained very very good at what they did.

In the second place, one could try to make the silly argument in reverse, just to see how silly it is, and say that Lendl played most of his career with a relatively primitive graphite racquet that had a very small head. Of course he was perfectly aware that you could get more power with other configurations, but never felt confortable changing until the very last part of his career. That's why it would be an equally silly argument to say that *if he had* played with a bigger racquet... then blah blah blah. Player's play with the racquet they like most, and that's that.

chaognosis
04-23-2008, 12:46 PM
I don't mean to get into this again, but I think it's clear that, for Lendl, the Wimbledon issue is not indicative of a surface problem, but rather a weakness in coping with the pressures of a really big match. You are right to point out his solid career statistics on grass. Lendl proved that he could win grass-court matches against guys like McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, and Cash, but nevertheless his combined record against these four in semifinal and final round contests at Wimbledon is 1-7 (the lone victory coming against Edberg in the 1987 semis). Being able to win lots of matches over a long span of time, and being able to win just a few very big ones in a concentrated period, are two entirely different matters... that is the beauty of the single-elimination tournament format, where the stakes rise with each round, and players must summon their best tennis when it matters most. This, I think, is why a question like the present one cannot be answered: Lendl's shortcomings at SW19 were not principally technical. Human beings are not machines--though perhaps Lendl, in his prime, came closer than anybody! ;)--and there is really no way of knowing whether Lendl's fortitude would have held up under different circumstances.

CEvertFan
04-23-2008, 03:24 PM
You could also argue that he psyched himself out because his desire was soooo great to win Wimbledon that he put a huge amount of pressure on himself, not to mention the pressure already present when playing a big important match.

I've also said this before but in retrospect I think he made a tactical error by always playing serve/volley tennis at Wimbledon. It was never comfortable for him and even though he made himself into a halfway decent volleyer, he was never going to be a great one and that's what you needed to be if you tried to win Wimbledon by playing serve/volley tennis on the fast grass.

Once Lendl improved his mental toughness and became #1 he usually always played at a naturally high level and was consistently tough to beat but he also didn't have that extra special gear to call upon when things weren't going his way, unlike some of the other great players, and if he had he might just have won one Wimbledon title even playing uncomfortable serve/volley tennis.

Rabbit
04-23-2008, 04:12 PM
Considering that Lendl made:

the semis in '83 losing to McEnroe in 3 sets
the semis in '84 losing to Connors in 4 sets
the finals in '86 losing to Becker in 3 sets
the finals in '87 losing to Cash in 3 sets
the semis in '88 losing to Becker in 4 sets
the semis in '89 losing to Becker in 5 sets
the semis in '90 losing to Edberg in 3 sets

all of whom were accomplished grass court players and pretty much all Hall of Famers


and along the way in those victories had wins over good/great grass court players like (best rounds at Wimbledon and overall won/loss titles on grass):

Mark Woodforde - R16 3 times 51/44 on grass
Bryan Shelton - R16 24/21 with 2 titles on grass
Tim Mayotte - SF 1, QF 5, 90/37 with 1 title on grass
Johan Kriek - QF 2, 85/32 with 5 titles on grass
Stefan Edberg - Wins 2, F 1, SF 2, QF 1, 99/27 with 5 titles on grass
Henri Leconte - QF 2, S 1, 60/33 with 2 titles on grass
Slobodan Zivojinovic - SF 1, QF 1, R16 2 33/18 on grass
Dick Stockton - SF 1, 58/37 with 1 titles on grass
Jimmy Connors - W 2, F 4, SF 5, QF 3, 165/34 with 7 titles on grass
Pat Cash - W 1, SF 1, QF 2, 104/37 with 2 titles on grass
Roscoe Tanner - F 1, SF 2, QF 1, 115/40 with 3 titles on grass
I feel it a safe assumption to say that had the courts been as firm as they are now and the grass as slow...Lendl would have won more than one Wimbledon trophy.

federerfanatic
04-23-2008, 05:56 PM
Considering that Lendl made:

the semis in '83 losing to McEnroe in 3 sets
the semis in '84 losing to Connors in 4 sets
the finals in '86 losing to Becker in 3 sets
the finals in '87 losing to Cash in 3 sets
the semis in '88 losing to Becker in 4 sets
the semis in '89 losing to Becker in 5 sets
the semis in '90 losing to Edberg in 3 sets

all of whom were accomplished grass court players and pretty much all Hall of Famers


and along the way in those victories had wins over good/great grass court players like (best rounds at Wimbledon and overall won/loss titles on grass):

Mark Woodforde - R16 3 times 51/44 on grass
Bryan Shelton - R16 24/21 with 2 titles on grass
Tim Mayotte - SF 1, QF 5, 90/37 with 1 title on grass
Johan Kriek - QF 2, 85/32 with 5 titles on grass
Stefan Edberg - Wins 2, F 1, SF 2, QF 1, 99/27 with 5 titles on grass
Henri Leconte - QF 2, S 1, 60/33 with 2 titles on grass
Slobodan Zivojinovic - SF 1, QF 1, R16 2 33/18 on grass
Dick Stockton - SF 1, 58/37 with 1 titles on grass
Jimmy Connors - W 2, F 4, SF 5, QF 3, 165/34 with 7 titles on grass
Pat Cash - W 1, SF 1, QF 2, 104/37 with 2 titles on grass
Roscoe Tanner - F 1, SF 2, QF 1, 115/40 with 3 titles on grass
I feel it a safe assumption to say that had the courts been as firm as they are now and the grass as slow...Lendl would have won more than one Wimbledon trophy.

I agree completely. Also if Lendl were to be born to be in his 20s in the 2000s instead of the 80s that would also be true IMO.

Lendl and Federer Fan
04-23-2008, 08:33 PM
Ivan Lendl had no problem with fast surface, as he won many indoor tournaments, the problem was those crazy grass bounces (the luck always seemed to work against him.) No doubt he could win at least one with the current more predictable ball bouncing condition.

Lendl and Federer Fan
04-23-2008, 08:40 PM
What was the big deal about Wimbledon anyway, I didn't understand why he put so much pressure or obsessed about winning the big W. He probably won it anyway if he let it come naturally.

On the other hands, his opponents had a lot to do with it. Like Rabbit and many others pointed out, there were so many good S&V grass court players in the 80's.

big ted
04-24-2008, 12:15 AM
What was the big deal about Wimbledon anyway, I didn't understand why he put so much pressure or obsessed about winning the big W. He probably won it anyway if he let it come naturally.

On the other hands, his opponents had a lot to do with it. Like Rabbit and many others pointed out, there were so many good S&V grass court players in the 80's.

wimbledon used to be THE biggest prize in tennis tho the usopen and french seem to have caught up and/or surpassed it

btw for more lendl info, check out his myspace page
www.myspace.com/ilendl

andfor
04-24-2008, 05:26 AM
wimbledon used to be THE biggest prize in tennis tho the usopen and french seem to have caught up and/or surpassed it

btw for more lendl info, check out his myspace page
www.myspace.com/ilendl

How do you measure that the US Open and French has "caught up and/or surpassed it" (Wimbledon)?

big ted
04-24-2008, 01:46 PM
How do you measure that the US Open and French has "caught up and/or surpassed it" (Wimbledon)?

the money, prestige, environment/surroundings of the other 3 gs tournaments have caught up to wimbledon ... i think 30 years ago if u asked the top 50 players if they could only win one tournament which would it be, most would say wimbledon, but if u asked the top 50 players today u would get a mixed bag of 4 different answers...

chaognosis
04-24-2008, 02:02 PM
the money, prestige, environment/surroundings of the other 3 gs tournaments have caught up to wimbledon ... i think 30 years ago if u asked the top 50 players if they could only win one tournament which would it be, most would say wimbledon, but if u asked the top 50 players today u would get a mixed bag of 4 different answers...

Pure speculation, but I think at least 40 out of the 50 would still say Wimbledon. (Nadal, e.g., said that winning Wimbledon is his ultimate dream.) The rest might opt for the major championship of their home country, for more personal reasons... though even then I doubt that somebody like Hewitt would honestly trade in his Wimbledon trophy for a title down under.

andfor
04-24-2008, 02:43 PM
Pure speculation, but I think at least 40 out of the 50 would still say Wimbledon. (Nadal, e.g., said that winning Wimbledon is his ultimate dream.) The rest might opt for the major championship of their home country, for more personal reasons... though even then I doubt that somebody like Hewitt would honestly trade in his Wimbledon trophy for a title down under.

Agreed. Now all we have to do is to get the ATP or ITF to run that poll past the top 50 players.

BeHappy
04-24-2008, 05:35 PM
You could also argue that he psyched himself out because his desire was soooo great to win Wimbledon that he put a huge amount of pressure on himself, not to mention the pressure already present when playing a big important match.

I've also said this before but in retrospect I think he made a tactical error by always playing serve/volley tennis at Wimbledon. It was never comfortable for him and even though he made himself into a halfway decent volleyer, he was never going to be a great one and that's what you needed to be if you tried to win Wimbledon by playing serve/volley tennis on the fast grass.

Once Lendl improved his mental toughness and became #1 he usually always played at a naturally high level and was consistently tough to beat but he also didn't have that extra special gear to call upon when things weren't going his way, unlike some of the other great players, and if he had he might just have won one Wimbledon title even playing uncomfortable serve/volley tennis.



1) Lendl turned himself into a friggin awesome volleyer!

2)He couldn't play from the baseline on grass, no one cuold, the courts, until the very early 90's, were just inconcievably bad, the ball didn't bounce higher than your shin and the bounce was incredibly inconsistent.If you didn't go to the net, your opponent got there first and easily put away your weakened groundstrokes.

Lendl had arguably the best serve in the world, it would have been insane for him to stay at the baseline.IMO he was just unlucky, Pat Cash played out of his mind in that final.

Tshooter
04-24-2008, 06:06 PM
Would Lendl have won it back then if he focused on it earlier in his career? If he didn't say he was allergic to grass and then be found on the golf course during Wimbledon? He was immature early on and it caught up with him. By the time he put all of his effort into W it was too much pressure and too late.

BeHappy
04-24-2008, 06:11 PM
Would Lendl have won it back then if he focused on it earlier in his career? If he didn't say he was allergic to grass and then be found on the golf course during Wimbledon? He was immature early on and it caught up with him. By the time he put all of his effort into W it was too much pressure and too late.

???????????????????????????????????????????????

You have quite an imagination lol ;)

Rabbit
04-24-2008, 07:17 PM
How do you measure that the US Open and French has "caught up and/or surpassed it" (Wimbledon)?

As usual, agree with andfor. The Big W is still THE tournament to win. It has been since I've been on earth and it probably will be when I've been gone for quite some time.... :)

federerfanatic
04-24-2008, 07:30 PM
Lendl was quite unlucky not to be born in a time like today instead. These days the grass courts are tailor made for baseline experts like Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, and it shows in the results and who is successful at Wimbledon. Granted there are not alot of great serve-volleyers on tour these days anyway, but the courts really cater to the baseliners who are very comfortable playing attacking baseline tennis like on hard courts, or in Nadal's case even agressive counterpunching tennis on grass as if on clay. That is why I think Lendl would have potentially won atleast 1, or possibly more then one Wimbledon even, if the conditions were like today.

The balls in your court.
04-24-2008, 08:31 PM
Lendl was quite unlucky not to be born in a time like today instead. These days the grass courts are tailor made for baseline experts like Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, and it shows in the results and who is successful at Wimbledon. Granted there are not alot of great serve-volleyers on tour these days anyway, but the courts really cater to the baseliners who are very comfortable playing attacking baseline tennis like on hard courts, or in Nadal's case even agressive counterpunching tennis on grass as if on clay. That is why I think Lendl would have potentially won atleast 1, or possibly more then one Wimbledon even, if the conditions were like today.

Lendl would have had no chance. he would have had to deal with federer and nadal. And before that he would have had to deal with Sampras. Lendl couldnt even beat Pete on the hard courts of the US Open.....he would have been destroyed by Pete at Wimbledon regardless of the speed.

OrangeOne
04-24-2008, 08:41 PM
Lendl would have had no chance. he would have had to deal with federer and nadal. And before that he would have had to deal with Sampras.

You're forgetting the "adapting" process you have to allow for if you choose to compare eras (not that this thread is at all about comparing eras, it's about comparing surfaces, but anyways).

You think a player with lendl's talent, fitness and work ethic couldn't have adapted to the modern game if he was born in modern times? You're dreaming.

Lendl couldnt even beat Pete on the hard courts of the US Open.....he would have been destroyed by Pete at Wimbledon regardless of the speed.

Lendl was what, 10 years Pete's senior? Lendl was at the end of his career as Pete came into his prime. Comparing them at the time is useless to this discussion.

andfor
04-25-2008, 06:20 AM
As usual, agree with andfor. The Big W is still THE tournament to win. It has been since I've been on earth and it probably will be when I've been gone for quite some time.... :)

Wow, validation by one of the great posters here! Thanks Rabbit, my day is off to a great start now.

BTW, to The Balls In Your Court. You should watch some Lendl matches his game has many modern elements to it. I trace the modern game as follows. Laver, Borg/Vilas, Lendl/Wilander, Agassi/Sampras/Courier, todays current player. Lendl had a huge serve, giant topspin forehand, great fitness and a better than average backhand. He truley was a great player and would have competed well if playing in his prime today.

Rabbit
04-25-2008, 09:17 AM
^Glad I could help! Have a good one. And thanks in return. :)

federerfanatic
04-25-2008, 09:34 AM
Lendl would have had no chance. he would have had to deal with federer and nadal. And before that he would have had to deal with Sampras. Lendl couldnt even beat Pete on the hard courts of the US Open.....he would have been destroyed by Pete at Wimbledon regardless of the speed.

Well the grass was lightning fast during the Sampras reign so obviously I wouldnt be talking about him. Who is to say Lendl could not be competitive with Federer. Just because I am a fan doesnt mean I am blinded by love to the point of some others on here. Federer stays back mostly, he does come in some but plays more from the baseline. Roger has a great serve but not to the point he can serve you off the court completely like some of the greatest servers. Just like Lendl his forehand is his greater shot, backhand very good but weaker then the forehand. Overall I think Federer is a bit better overall player, but Lendl was mentally much tougher, so they would be competive on most surfaces today probably, including todays grass.

Nadal? What on earth makes you think Lendl could not do well vs Nadal on todays grass. Nadal has shown he is an extremely good grass court player but far from unbeatable. Youzhny, Soderling, and even Kendrick nearly beat Nadal at Wimbledon the last 2 years, in fact they all should have beaten him.

Tshooter
04-25-2008, 08:24 PM
"You have quite an imagination lol "

You're obviously are unfamiliar with Lendl's history and haven't been watching tennis that long, have you? Hence your question marks.

Benhur
04-25-2008, 09:26 PM
You're forgetting the "adapting" process you have to allow for if you choose to compare eras (not that this thread is at all about comparing eras, it's about comparing surfaces, but anyways).

You think a player with lendl's talent, fitness and work ethic couldn't have adapted to the modern game if he was born in modern times? You're dreaming.

Lendl was what, 10 years Pete's senior? Lendl was at the end of his career as Pete came into his prime. Comparing them at the time is useless to this discussion.

Even then Lendl was quite capable of being competitive with Sampras. Hi did beat Sampras on carpet in 90, 91 and 93. In this last match, Lendl was 33 years old and Sampras 22.

Carlo Colussi
04-26-2008, 05:23 AM
Would, if....

Tennisfan!
04-27-2008, 09:16 AM
Carlo Colussi? The guy from wikipedia???

FedForGOAT
04-27-2008, 10:10 AM
This is rather related to another question brought up in a different thread: what would happen if Borg and McEnroe plyed today in Wimbledon? As a poster astutely noted, if they played the same way the played back in 1980, McEnroe would be the clear winner, because they both S&V, but today's slower grass would somewhat expose Borg's weaker volleys, while McEnroe's volleys, which are some of the best ever, would not suffer as much. But, someone else noted, Borg could play from the baseline on today's grass, and therefore have a better chance at defeating Mac.

I believe it boils down to that. Lendl would never win on today's grass S&V, so the question is, will the enhanced baseline play be enough to let him overcome the S&V of his day? I don't think he would have been able to beat Becker, but he probably could have taken out Cash. So I think one Wimbledon, but maybe more.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
05-18-2008, 11:36 PM
Carlo Colussi? The guy from wikipedia???

Hello Tennisfan! No this person hasn't edited anything on the English and French Wikipedia sites. See the following links http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2331638&postcount=79

Benhur
05-19-2008, 05:22 AM
I believe it boils down to that. Lendl would never win on today's grass S&V, so the question is, will the enhanced baseline play be enough to let him overcome the S&V of his day? I don't think he would have been able to beat Becker, but he probably could have taken out Cash. So I think one Wimbledon, but maybe more.

Lendl did beat Becker in the final at Queen's in 1990, when Becker was 23 and Lendl 29. I don't see why he would not be able to beat him on today's wimbledon grass.

carlos djackal
05-24-2008, 08:20 AM
he may have at least 1 wimbledon title had the conditions then like today...slower..if i remember it right there was a year that he didn't play in AO and FO just to concentrate on WO.....i don't know..

TennisExpert
08-29-2008, 06:07 AM
Of course he would won. Grass is too slow now.

jean pierre
08-30-2008, 07:44 AM
Same question about Vilas. On the Australian Grass, he won 2 Grand Slams and one Masters (beating Borg, Nastase, Newcombe).

urban
08-30-2008, 08:45 AM
Lendl wasn't exactly a bad fastcourter. On the contrary, his best surface probably was a fast indoor (Supreme) court. On grass, it was more a problem of true bounces, which he needed for his solid stroke production. I don't know, whether the bounces today are better. On Australian Grass, Lendl lost to Wilander and Cash.