Ivan Lendl picks Rafa!, Lendl would handle Roger on Clay, and Rafa Indoors

[lendlmac]

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]

you don't mess with Lendl...no one did. LOL

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

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Why not take Federer from 2005 or 2006 then? Bleh.

 

[sunof tennis]

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]

Why not take Federer from 2005 or 2006 then? Bleh.

Because that's prime Federer.

 

[Bobby Jr]

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]

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]

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]

Take it easy! you guys make it sound as if Lendl said something bad about Nadal and Federer. Lendl actually respects both guys.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Lendl : "Play golf, don't play tennis. Tennis is for sissies."

 

[borg number one]

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

 

[Deleted member 21996]

what current frame would he have preferred?

Volkl C-10 screams Lendl all the way imho

 

[The-Champ]

look..lendl is a pusher

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

 

[Fedex]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Fedex]

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

haha
10 rackets

 

[Jchurch]

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]

I think he would use the Bosworth racket.

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

 

[JustBob]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

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]

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]

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

 

[dandelion_smiley]

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]

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:

 

[Deleted member 21996]

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...

 

[mandy01]

HUH?

10 xanax pills now please...

LOLz :mrgreen:

 

[Deleted member 21996]

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]

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!

 

[Sid_Vicious]

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?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Im assuming you are talking about the statements that make you go like this?

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...

 

[Sid_Vicious]

more like this...

That happens to me when I read Nadalslamking's posts

 

[Deleted member 21996]

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]

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]

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]

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.