Ivan Lendl totaly underated

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pepe01, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. pepe01

    pepe01 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Obregon city
    I am so surpriced that every thread regarding to who is better, must of people forget Ivan Lendl, even i remember that cover from a fameous magazing ´´ The champion that nobody cares´´, to me, Lendl is into best 5 players of all time, the best one hand backhand and powerfull forehand.
     
    #1
  2. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Personally, I would put Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Gonzales, Nadal, Connors, Agassi and maybe Mac ahead of Lendl. He had a great forehand, very good serve and backhand, great conditioning, and good mental toughness. Close but not quite top 5 IMO. Top 10 for sure.
     
    #2
  3. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    I put Lendl at number 4 in the Open Era, behind Federer, Borg and Sampras.

    From what I know of pre-open era, certainly Laver and Gonzalez are clearly ahead of Lendl. Tilden, Budge and Rosewall probably as well. So somewhere in the top 7-10 of all time.

    It should be clear I am talking about measuring accomplishements in their respective times, not about speculations as to who was intrinsically better than who.
     
    #3
  4. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You think Lendl was better than Connors, Agassi and Mac at their best? I agree that Lendl maintained his domination longer than they did. But, IMO, his peak wasn't quite as great as theirs.
     
    #4
  5. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    i think it's a good question but given the difficulty in comparing eras i'd put guys like Lendl, Connors, Mac and Andre in the same group of top players of all time. I'd be willing to call them equal for all intents and purposes. And Lendl's peak was pretty "nation of domination". Very few guys could touch him. I think it's tough to compare given the stupid records we have today like Fed and Djokovic going entire seasons with only a few losses compared to the late 80s and 90s which were stacked with competition.
     
    #5
  6. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    1982

    He got to 21 finals that year winning 17 (that is including 3 non ATP tournaments). Destroyed McEnroe indoors at wct finals and masters which was not at all easy to do. In 1981 and 1982 McEnroe could only get one set from him in all the official matches they played. Yep he is underrated.
     
    #6
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Lendl was obviously a fabulous player. I think one of the main reasons was that while he won 8 majors, he also lost 11 majors in the finals. I think Lendl was one of the finest players ever.
     
    #7
  8. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Lendl is underrated because he wasn't well liked and he had to wait until Connors got past 32 and McEnroe went into self-destruction mode before he took over properly as the main man to beat on the biggest stages. It was the fall of 1985 by this point, and Lendl was 25 and had won a load of tournaments, yet precious few of the very big ones considering how consistently good week-to-week he had been for so long. At the same time, once he got to the top, he was very good at staying there. The one big weakness he had during his peak was his obsession with winning Wimbledon, which grew with each passing year, even to the point of skipping the entire spring clay-court season in 1990 to practice on grass.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2011
    #8
  9. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Lendl was a great player and I would put him in the top 10 all time. Great clay courter. Great hard court results, with 8 straight US Open finals. Great indoor player as well. He had some very good results at Wimbledon, but faced the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg. Cash played brilliantly when he faced him in the 1987 final. He faced so many great players. How would you like to have had a lot of experience facing the likes of Connors, Borg, and McEnroe? All those matches and losses, as well as wins over all three, taught him so much and he developed into much greater "clutch play" by 1984. Great forehand, backhand, and serve, among other things. Matches between Lendl and such players as Wilander, Becker, McEnroe, Edberg, Connors, and Borg were great to see.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2011
    #9
  10. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Another great Lendl record is 9 Masters finals in a row, winning 5.
     
    #10
  11. rofl_copter3

    rofl_copter3 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    Lendl was awesome, and in many ways his game was the 1980's version of Roger Federer the resemblance is frightening (well except for the freakishly short shorts). Lendl stayed on top because he was consistant, he may not be top 5 but in his prime he would have been hard for any of the top 5 to beat!!!
     
    #11
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Finals are important too

    Yeah I never could understand why people perceived this as a weakness. I mean 8 wins and 11 finals is better than 8 wins and 10 finals which is better than 8 wins and nine finals etc etc. it has to be that way because if he lost in the first round rather than reach those 11 finals would that that be somehow better? After all his finals record would then be 100%! And if that is superior, then losing in the first round is superior to reaching a final.

    No, making a grand slam final is a great achievement in itself. And Lendl did it 11 times!
     
    #12
  13. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    If i see the success of Djokovic and his baseline game even over greats like Nadal or Federer, i wonder, how Lendl with his more powerful baseline game would fare today. Maybe Djoker is more fluent, but i reckon Lendl as more powerful and with more weight of shot. With the homogenization of surfaces and the focus on majors, Lendl would be a tough customer for sure.
     
    #13
  14. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Lendl was a far better player at his peak or generally than Agassi, and his level in 1985-1987, especially those last 2 years, was higher than anything Agassi displayed during his career. He was also more technically complete player than Agassi, who was more one dimensional than any other great player of the open era.
     
    #14
  15. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    McEnroe had the best peak year in the open era, but it was one year. Prior to that his domination was spotty. It all depends how much weight you put in that particular criteria.

    Reasonable arguments can be made for Connors over Lendl, but then again they can also be made for Lendl over Connors. It’s very close between those two.

    As for Agassi, great player though he was, I can't see any reasonable way he could be put in the same league as Connors or Lendl. I am not even sure when exactly Agassi ended a year as clearly the best player in the world. Lendl was clearly the best player from 85 through 87, and most of that time he kept a large distance between himself and those below him. He also had the best overall record in 89 and arguably in 82 as well. He was ranked number 1 continuously from Sept 1985 until July 1990, except for about 4 months in the last part of 1988 when he was second. He was firmly in the top 3 for 10 consecutive years (1981 through 1990). He ended 5 of those years with winning percentages above 90 (by comparison, Agassi’s best year [1995] is below that, and most of his years are far below). Lendl’s career winning percentage is nearly 6 full points ahead of Agassi, a very large difference. He has 147 tournament wins (92 listed by ATP, but many of the non-listed events had very strong fields). His performance in majors is also significantly better than Agassi’s if you give any value to finals and semifinals reached, or to winning percentage in majors. The fact that he won the year-end Master’s 5 times and reached the final 9 times in a row against the year’s best players gives an idea of Lendl’s caliber. In sum, it just doesn’t make any sense to me to compare Agassi’s accomplishments with Lendl’s. They are just not in the same league. Now, if you wish to reduce the comparison to speculating about who would beat who on their best day, it can be fun. But that's not what these comparison's are about. By that method, you could argue that Safin or Cash or any number of players, on their best day, would have beaten anyone who ever played the game.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #15
  16. Wilander Fan

    Wilander Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,558
    Lendl really had no weaknesses that could be exploited today. The game plan against him was to get to the net because no one could survive on the baseline against him. Most guys who had success against Lendl were S&V players. With the heavier balls and slower courts, Lendl might be unplayable today. People talk about his FH but he may have had one of the best BHs of his era as well. It never really broke down despite people going to it all day and he could really whip it when it got opponents became too predictable.
     
    #16
  17. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Of course you're correct.
     
    #17
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    IMO, to compare Lendl to Agassi on the basis of their respective dominance of the game ignores the fact that Agassi had the misfortune of playing in the same era with Sampras, a higher tier champion than either of them. Further, IMO, if Sampras played in Lendl's era, I don't think Lendl's record would have been any better, perhaps not as good, as Agassi's. It certainly wouldn't have been as good as it was, and Agassi's record would have been Federeresque.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #18
  19. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,212
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    If you read this board long enough everyone is under rated.
     
    #19
  20. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    In the first place, I think the technique of taking an all time great out of his era and imposing his presence on another era -- this technique can be liberally used at will to enhance the career of those blessed with the imaginary departure of such a player, and taint the career of those cursed with his imaginary arrival. It is not a very convincing argument if you think about it. Furthermore, Agassi wasn't even the number 2 player during most of the years when Sampras was number 1. I think only in 94 and 95. And there are some years in the 90s where Agassi is nowhere to be found in the top 10. Hard to see anything "Federesque" about it even if Sampras hadn't been around.

    One thing I forgot to mention is that I don’t think Lendl is really that underrated by most people who followed tennis since at least the early 80s. They know what he did and know how to compare it. Like any other player, he is underrated only by those who started following tennis after he was in decline or no longer playing. This is normal and even understandable. We all do it to some extent. No matter how much I am reminded of what the pre-open era greats accomplished, the reflex is just not there for me to think about them that much, since I only started following tennis in the mid 70s and only followed it closely since the early 80s.
     
    #20
  21. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,212
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    Good post. It depends on what criteria you want to evaluate Lendl by. Lendl was one of the most consistent most durable champions in the last 50 years. IF you value those two traits highly then Lendl will be higher up on your list than those that value other aspects of the game.
     
    #21
  22. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,911
    For what's its worth:

    I've heard Lendl say numerous times that he was sort of embarassed that people brought up his 8 straight USO finals so often ("I would rather be known for winning 3 USO's than losing in 5 finals")

    He's also been one of those players that has said "2nd place really doesn't matter."
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #22
  23. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    I don't think so. The players who people think are overrated on this board often aren't mentioned.

    Linpinhitter,

    I don't think Agassi compares to Lendl in terms of tournaments won and overall record by a long shot. Lendl won about 140 plus tournament in his career and Agassi 60 tournaments in his career. Lendl won more than double Andre's amount.

    I don't think Pete Sampras is going to have Lendl reduce his tournament victory total by over 80 to Agassi's level considering Sampras only won 64 tournaments in his entire career. Sampras is a great champion and he was at his best on grass but considering Lendl won zero Wimbledons I don't think it possible for Sampras to lower Lendl's Wimbledon championship total or general major grass tournament total since Lendl didn't win the Australian on grass either. It can go either way with the other majors. The Australian on hard court would have been very tough for either player so would be the US Open. I would give Lendl an edge on the slower Australian courts and Sampras an edge on the US Open hard courts but it's close. I don't think Samrpas's amount of French Opens (zero) would be affected by the presence of Lendl obviously.

    Lendl won 81.8% of his career matches and Sampras 77.4%.

    Both Lendl and Sampras were great players but I'm not convinced Sampras would affect Lendl by that much or vice versa.

    Incidentally Lendl, Agassi and Sampras are the perfect examples of how much we should value majors. Do we overrate the importance of majors? Sampras won 14 majors, half at the grass at Wimbledon and Lendl 8. Is Sampras that much better?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #23
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    For us, we don't have an answer but only speculate. But Lendl gave us his opinions...he's already answered this question for us. He doesn't believe he(and his peers) can compete with the modern players. He said Fed/Nadal are "way better than them". The game has changed...players are much better athletically, faster, stronger, fitter, etc... due to natural evolution.
     
    #24
  25. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    I have to agree; Andre is a notch below that Connors-Mac-Lendl tier.
     
    #25
  26. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    PC1, the total titles you credit Agassi and Sampras are limited to ATP titles. Federer surpassed Sampras in total ATP titles about a year ago. However, the total titles you credit Lendl with are all titles including non-ATP events. Connors holds the record of total ATP titles of 109, if I remember the total correctly.

    You may have some doubt about Sampras vs. Lendl, but, I don't. IMO, Sampras would have a winning record against Lendl on every surface but clay. Further, IMO, Agassi would have a winning record against Lendl on grass and faster hard courts, and perhaps be even with Lendl on slower hard courts and clay.
     
    #26
  27. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    IMO, he was a notch above them.
     
    #27
  28. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    he was in the same notch
     
    #28
  29. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,212
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    In 1990 Sampras beat Lendl in the quarterfinals of the USO. If Sampras was not there Lendl would have beaten Mac in the SF and beaten Andre in the final. I would say based on the limited overlap they had Sampras would have affected Lendl
     
    #29
  30. lendlmac

    lendlmac Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    san diego, ca
    Lendl was already 30 years old and way past his prime! Little Pete Sampras was barely 19! and coming of age Can't compare overlap..

    Just like Agassi didn't start to beat Lendl until Lendl was already 32 yrs. old! and he retired at 34 in '94 Before then, Agassi was top 10, but losing badly to Lendl...

    the magic number intennis is 29/30 years old....somethng happens, and your game slips, slower, and the younger guys exlpoit that...
     
    #30
  31. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Lendl had only just lost the world number 1 ranking at the time of the 1990 US Open, and that was because he skipped the entire clay-court season in his ultimately failed quest to win Wimbledon.
     
    #31
  32. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,212
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    Magic number? Come on. What does 1994 and his back injury have at all to do with 1990? Nothing. Lendl was a great player in 1990 and he would have won the USO most likely if Sampras had not showed up. Sampras gave everyone problems on anything but clay.
     
    #32
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Of course Sampras would give everyone problems. But remember Sampras was in the zone serving in that tournament. He served well even for him with what seemed like a trillion aces. He was fantastic.

    But at the same time let's face it I still think Lendl in his prime would give everyone problems also.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #33
  34. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The last part makes no sense considering Agassi has a much better record on slow hard courts than fast, and Lendl a much better one on fast hard courts than slow. So how on earth would Agassi fare better on fast hard courts.

    Lendl would definitely have the edge on fast hard courts, his U.S Open record vs Agassi's is no contest. Also if we want to talk about competition note who Agassi beat to win his 2 U.S Opens, pretty much a string of second rate stars and relative nobodies, with the very best foes beaten en route being Stich, Kafelnikov, and Todd Martin. Lendl atleast beat guys like McEnroe, Wilander, Connors (albeit aging) to win his, and in other years he made finals. Agassi's biggest ever wins at the U.S Open was beating Boris Becker, his pigeon, twice.

    Neither Sampras or Lendl were dominant in Austraila, so most likely the years they peaked and won there wouldnt even coincide or impact the other. Sampras would have zero impact on Lendl at the French Open obviously (and for that matter it is unlikely Agassi would). So the only place Sampras could have impacted Lendl's record in all likelihood is the U.S Open. However if we add Sampras in a hypothetical for Lendl we might as well remove all the other greats- McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, Borg, that Agassi never faced while winning any of his slams other than their very most twilight years.

    There is no argument for Agassi being greater than Lendl. He was never as dominant. He was nowhere near as consistent. He wasnt really more or even as versatile overall despite his career slam when you consider Lendl won frequently on hard courts, clay, and carpet, which Agassi only did on hard courts. His peak level of play was definitely not higher considering in his best year ever he barely beat Medvedev and Todd Martin in his 2 slam final victories, and lost to Vince Spadea in one of the remaining two. His longevity being superior is debateable considering Lendl reached slam finals for 10 consecutive years. I do think Agassi probably had more talent but unfortunately his off court problems prevented him from following it maximizing it the way Lendl did his.
     
    #34
  35. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    The overlap consists of 8 matches played between 1990 and 1994. Sampras won 5 and Lendl won 3. All the Lendl wins were on carpet, the last one in 1993. Considering this was the tail end of Lendl's career, the results of the overlap hardly suggest that Sampras would have easily dominated Lendl in 85-87.
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L018&oId=S402
     
    #35
  36. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Agassi would have a winning record against Lendl on fast hard courts for the same reason he would have a winning record against Lendl on grass, his compact windup was more amenable to faster courts than Lendl's.
     
    #36
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    My friend, a number of that non ATP tournaments were very strong WCT tournaments also. Sampras was a great player no doubt but hardly unbeatable, especially off grass courts where he won half of his majors. Lendl would undoubtedly trouble Sampras on almost all surfaces except for grass and Sampras would trouble Lendl on all surfaces except for clay.

    Sampras, with a 77.4% lifetime winning percentage against all players is great but to I think it would be very tough for either player. I can see Sampras getting inspired and beating Lendl on occasion on red clay like he did against Russia in the Davis Cup and Lendl may on occasion upset Sampras on grass but I do think it unlikely for either event to happen.

    As far as Agassi is concerned, I would agree Agassi would have an edge on grass but Lendl wasn't exactly a poor player on grass, reaching the finals of Wimbledon twice and winning some grass tournaments with a lifetime 76.4 winning percentage. That's not bad.

    On every other surface Lendl's winning percentage is over 81%.
     
    #37
  38. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    To say that Agassi would have had "Federeresque" domination if Sampras hadn’t been around is contradicted by the evidence. These are the year-end rankings through the 90s. The only years when Sampras prevented Agassi from being number 1 are 94 and 95.


    1990
    1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
    2 Becker, Boris (GER)
    3 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
    4 Agassi, Andre (USA)
    5 Sampras, Pete (USA)
    6 Gomez, Andres (ECU)
    7 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
    8 Sanchez, Emilio (ESP)
    9 Ivanisevic, Goran (YUG)
    10 Gilbert, Brad (USA)

    1991
    1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
    2 Courier, Jim (USA)
    3 Becker, Boris (GER)
    4 Stich, Michael (GER)
    5 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
    6 Sampras, Pete (USA)
    7 Forget, Guy (FRA)
    8 Novacek, Karel (TCH)
    9 Korda, Petr (TCH)
    10 Agassi, Andre (USA)

    1992
    1 Courier, Jim (USA)
    2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
    3 Sampras, Pete (USA)
    4 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
    5 Becker, Boris (GER)
    6 Chang, Michael (USA)
    7 Korda, Petr (TCH)
    8 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
    9 Agassi, Andre (USA)
    10 Krajicek, Richard (NED)

    1993
    1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
    2 Stich, Michael (GER)
    3 Courier, Jim (USA)
    4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
    5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
    6 Medvedev, Medvedev (UKR)
    7 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
    8 Chang, Michael (USA)
    9 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
    10 Pioline, Cédric (FRA)
    […]
    24 Agassi, Andre (USA)

    1994
    1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
    2 Agassi, Andre (USA)
    3 Becker, Boris (GER)
    4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
    5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
    6 Chang, Michael (USA)
    7 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
    8 Berasategui, Alberto (ESP)
    9 Stich, Michael (GER)
    10 Martin, Todd (USA)

    1995
    1 SAMPRAS, PETE
    2 AGASSI, ANDRE\
    3 MUSTER, THOMAS
    4 BECKER, BORIS
    5 CHANG, MICHAEL
    6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
    7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
    8 COURIER, JIM
    9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
    10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN

    1996
    1 SAMPRAS, PETE
    2 CHANG, MICHAEL
    3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
    4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN
    5 MUSTER, THOMAS
    6 BECKER, BORIS
    7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD
    8 AGASSI, ANDRE
    9 ENQVIST, THOMAS
    10 FERREIRA, WAYNE

    1997
    1SAMPRAS, PETE
    2RAFTER, PATRICK
    3CHANG, MICHAEL
    4BJORKMAN, JONAS
    5KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
    6RUSEDSKI, GREG
    7MOYA, CARLOS
    8BRUGUERA, SERGI
    9MUSTER, THOMAS
    10RIOS, MARCELO
    […]
    122 AGASSI, ANDRE


    1998
    1 Sampras, Pete
    2 Rios, Marcelo
    3 Corretja, Alex
    4 Rafter, Patrick
    5 Moya, Carlos
    6 Agassi, Andre
    7 Henman, Tim
    8 Kucera, Karol
    9 Rusedski, Greg
    10 Krajicek, Richard

    1999
    1 Agassi, Andre
    2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
    3 Sampras, Pete
    4 Enqvist, Thomas
    5 Kuerten, Gustavo
    6 Kiefer, Nicolas
    7 Martin, Todd
    8 Lapentti, Nicolas
    9 Rios, Marcelo
    10 Krajicek, Richard

    2000
    1 Kuerten, Gustavo
    2 Safin, Marat
    3 Sampras, Pete
    4 Norman, Magnus
    5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
    6 Agassi, Andre
    7 Hewitt, Lleyton
    8 Corretja, Alex
    9 Enqvist, Thomas
    10 Henman, Tim
     
    #38
  39. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Lendl under-rated himself

    If that is the case then he under-rated himself. All but 1 of those 11 losing finals were against a player who at some time in his career was number 1 in the world. (So these weren't bad loses by any means).
     
    #39
  40. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Agassi finished 1997 as 110 in the world, not 122.

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=15.12.1997&r=101&c=

    Agassi was 122 in the world on the week starting on the 24th November 1997 when he played and won the challenger tournament in Burbank. Winning the tournament took his ranking up to 110 starting on the 1st December 1997.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #40
  41. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    He lost to great names like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Cash. All except Cash are all time greats.

    Becker was the Lendl nemesis in majors defeating him in five majors and three finals, one in the finals of Wimbledon in 1986, the second at the 1990 US Open final and the third in 1991 Australian Open final. The only time Lendl beat Becker in a major was in five sets in the round of sixteen in the 1993 US Open. Lendl, according to the ATP records had an overall 11 to 10 edge.

    Of course Connors beat him in two straight US Open finals in 1982 and 1983. McEnroe beat him in a number of majors finals as did Wilander.

    When Lendl lost in a major final I guess it was generally to all time greats.
     
    #41
  42. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    There seems to be some confusion here.

    The ATP site lists 94 official titles for Lendl and 50 finals.
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=tf

    And the ATP site lists 109 titles for Connors and 51 finals.

    Both Lendl and Connors records at the ATP site contain their WCT tournaments, of course. As do the records of all the players that played them. Those were real tournaments, just like the slams are real tournaments without being held by the ATP.

    Besides that, 40 additional titles are listed by wikipedia on the Connors pages, and 53 additional titles are listed in Lendl career statistics page. Some of these were small fields and others were pretty strong fields. Adding these titles would bring the total to 149 for Connors and 147 for Lendl.

    Agassi is listed with 60 titles and 30 finals on the ATP site.
    Sampras 64 titles and 24 finals
     
    #42
  43. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Thanks Mustard. I took the rankings from the Steve G Tennis rankings site. I guess they used the wrong date for 1997.
     
    #43
  44. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I'm not sure what confusion you're referring to? You haven't said anything that contradicts what I said.
     
    #44
  45. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    No probs. I've seen the 122 rank incorrectly listed from a few sources. Maybe because the World Championships and the Davis Cup final were over before the end of November in 1997.
     
    #45
  46. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    The windup may have been great, but it fails to show on the results. Agassi has distinctly lower winning percentages than Lendl on every type of surface: Hard, clay, grass, carpet, indoor or outdoor. His grass winning% is lower than Lendl's by nearly 3 percentage points. But the biggest difference shows up on carpet, where Agassi is an astonishing 19 percentage points below Lendl (!!).
     
    #46
  47. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    So what? Don't you think that Agassi's mid-career crash was a major cause of his "career" winning percentage being lower than Lendl's? The problem with looking at discrete statistics without considering outside factors that have a significant effect on such statistics is that it leads to incongruous conclusions. The bottom line is that Agassi's career winning percentage doesn't accurately reflect his level of play for the majority of his career.
     
    #47
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Limpinhitter,

    I think in Agassi's best year in winning percentage he was 73-9 if memory serves. A little below 90 percent. Lendl won at about a 91% rate over a period of FIVE YEARS. That is sustained brilliance that Agassi couldn't have even in one year at his highest level of play.

    I don't know how to measure talent and total skills except in results and Lendl beats Agassi for a short period and a long period.

    Another thing is that while Agassi had some of the best groundies ever on a subjective basis, you can say the same about Lendl but Lendl, unlike Agassi, had a great serve, at least according to just about everyone who saw and played him. Isn't a great serve one of the great neutralizers that can cover up weaknesses, if any? Lendl had one of the best serves in his time.

    On a stroke by stroke, mobility and stamina basis, where is Agassi superior to Lendl? I will gave you that Agassi's backhand is superior but I think Lendl's forehand is superior. You can decide the rest.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
    #48
  49. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    These are Lendl's percentages for the decade (1981-1990) from highest to lowest. The average for the best 5 years is 92.08. The average for the entire decade is 87.9.

    1985: 93.4
    1986: 92.5
    1982: 92.2
    1989: 92.0
    1987: 90.3

    1981: 87.4
    1988: 85.7
    1990: 83.3
    1983: 82.6
    1984: 79.5
     
    #49
  50. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Even if you looked only at Agassi's better years, Lendl performed better by a huge margin on both clay and carpet. On hard courts and grass their performance levels in their best years are about equal.

    You make it sound like Agassi's slumps and up and down career can just be dismissed as a non factor. They actually detract from his greatness, not enhance it.
     
    #50

Share This Page