Ivan Lendl's Slam Finals Record

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by NEW_BORN, Jun 21, 2013.

  1. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    I never had the chance to watch Lendl during his prime, only a little bit of him in the early 90's. But i get the impression that he was a cool customer on court who rarely got rattled, and a hard-working professional off court.

    Now we know he has the infamous record of losing his first 4 slam finals and 6 of his first 7 finals. He ended his career with a pretty abysmal conversion rate of 8 from 19 finals appearances.

    My question is how come he had such a poor conversion rate, was it because of fatigue due to tough previous matches, or is it nerves that prevented him from producing his best tennis, maybe the opponent just rose to the occasion or some other completely different factor.

    Any Lendl experts/fans care to shed some light on this enigma?
     
    #1
  2. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    One word or maybe two

    One word answer for most of Lendl's career, that word is 'competition'. Of the 11 slam finals Lendl lost only 1 of them was against a player who wasn't number 1 sometime in their career. In other words, no bad losses. The other less important word is 'back'. The last few years of his career he struggled with back pain.

    I would argue with your whole premise though. Losing a slam final isn't a black mark, its just a less big good mark. The following sounds strange but is absolutely true "it is a superior peformance to make a slam final than losing in the first round". But some people judge lendls 8/11 win/loss in slam finals as bad. But it is hugely superior to 8/0. It has to be because otherwise losing in the first round is a superior peformance to making the final. If Lendl had lost the first round in those 11 tournaments, then he would be 100% in slam finals!
     
    #2
  3. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    I consider making a slam final a very successful campaign, so no arguments there.
    Out of the slam finals he lost, how many times was he the higher ranked player or favoured to win? Did he play close to his best in those losses?
     
    #3
  4. jxs653

    jxs653 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    225
    If I remember correctly, Sampras appeared in the slam finals the same number of times as Lendl but he won 14 of them in comparison with Lendl's 8. Both Sampras and Lendl did equally great job making all the way to the finals yet Lendl pales in terms of the winning rate vis-a-vis Sampras and what factors are behind it? So I guess OP's question is valid one.
     
    #4
  5. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Yeah Sampras' conversion was insane - 14 out of 18, record 8 finals won in a row. If not for old age, no way Safin and Hewitt would have won those USO against him that easily.

    Lendl's is strange because normally you associate losing on the biggest stage of a sport with being head-cases or mentally weak/unstable, but Lendl was none of these from what i've seen, which begs the question, was the opposition on the day really that good?
     
    #5
  6. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    Yes, they were tough

    Yes, they were that good. As I said before, all but 1 of the 11 were number 1 sometime in their career. Think about it, borg at french open, Connors at the US open, absolute peak Mcenroe at the US open, wilander always did really well on AO grass (finalist 3 years running) and also great at roland garros , becker and cash at wimbledon grass, absolute peak wilander at us open, peak becker at us open and AO
     
    #6
  7. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Yes Lendl did play some hall of famers in those finals he lost, but if you look at the h2h, Lendl leads Becker 11-10, leads Cash 5-3, leads Connors 22-13, leads McEnroe 21-15 and leads Wilander 15-7.

    So again i ask why wasn't he able to beat these guys when it really mattered? Was he not mature enough at the time? Did he lose any finals that he should have won?
     
    #7
  8. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    H2H's

    If you look at those h2h's you will notice that Lendl pulled ahead of connors when Connors stopped making slam finals and was 32/33 plus. Same goes for Mcenroe after the age of 26/27. So when lendl had those losses, those guys weren't on the decline yet. Your h2h reflected the decline. Cash was the only player not on the number 1 list...but he was big trouble on grass.
     
    #8
  9. jaggy

    jaggy G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    12,716
    Location:
    Carrboro, NC
    This has had me thinking and I am not sure, maybe just on the day they went for it and it worked and he let his mental side slip a tiny bit? Its a tough one.
     
    #9
  10. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Digging a little deeper, here are Lendl and his opponents' seedings in those slam finals that he lost.

    1981 French Open - Lendl seed 5 lost to Borg seed 1
    1982 US Open - Lendl seed 3 lost to Connors seed 2
    1983 US Open - Lendl seed 2 lost to Connors seed 3
    1983 Australian Open - Lendl seed 1 lost to Wilander seed 3
    1984 US Open - Lendl seed 2 lost to McEnroe seed 1
    1985 French Open - Lendl seed 2 lost to Wilander seed 5
    1986 Wimbledon - Lendl seed 1 lost to Becker seed 4
    1987 Wimbledon - Lendl seed 2 lost to Cash seed 11
    1988 US Open - Lendl seed 1 lost to Wilander seed 2
    1989 US Open - Lendl seed 1 lost to Becker seed 2
    1991 Australian Open - Lendl seed 3 lost to Becker seed 2

    So out of the 11 slam finals that Lendl lost, in fact, he was the higher ranked seed on 7 occasions, meaning he was in all likelihood the favourite to win.
    Interesting to say the least.
    What can we conclude from this?
     
    #10
  11. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Lendl was the type of player who usually played at a pretty high level consistently but unlike some other champions he didn't have that "extra gear" to call upon when things got really close and as a result he lost more major finals than he won. Also look at the competition he faced - Sampras never faced the quality of competition that Lendl did throughout the 80s.

    Also I think the racquet he used, with that super small head, hurt him more than helped him.
     
    #11
  12. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I agree with this. His rivals, though less consistently excellent week-in and week-out, were capable of rising above him on occasion, especially Becker.

    I don't know about this. I think it might be the opposite.
     
    #12
  13. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    If this is true, then does that mean most of the guys he lost to had a greater peak level of play than Lendl?
    Prior to this exercise, i always thought of Lendl as being greater than Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and of course Pat Cash, just not Borg. But after hearing some of these comments, i'm starting to wonder if he's slightly overrated in my books.
    As far as consistency is concerned, i still consider him up there with the best of them, but perhaps not quite as high in peak level of play.
     
    #13
  14. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,426
    A big factor about Lendl's career which was evident if you watched was he was good at losing to more talented players. Many of them he far out-achieved across his career, Wilander, Edberg and Becker are three good examples - but if they played on the biggest stages you rarely had the feeling he had their number when they walked on the court.

    He was a legend at rolling through draws beating anyone he should beat but then his ability to raise the bar that last extra bit in finals was less than many of his peers. He seemed especially vulnerable in finals if he'd had a good semifinal win over a top peer.

    I liken it, maybe a little unfairly but the analogy suits somewhat, to the example of a less talented person who works twice as hard. They will often shine but right at that last hurdle the more talented person who may be more erratic overall still has the edge more often than not.

    When majors finals fell apart for Lendl they really fell apart.
    1981 FO - borg slaughtered him in the 5th set 6-1.
    1983 US Open - Connors slaughter him in the last set 6-0.
    1984 US Open - McEnroe destroyed Lendl in 3 sets. Final set score 6-1
    1985 FO - Wilander beat him in 4, final two sets were 6-2, 6-2.

    A couple of overall h2hs with the majors h2h as a comparison

    Vs Becker he had an 11-10 winning record, but was 1-5 in majors.

    Vs Edberg he had a (very close) losing 13-14 record, and was 4-5 in majors (including one he was gifted when Edberg pulled out injured)

    Vs Wilander he had a huge 15-7 winning record but was only just ahead at 5-4 in majors.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
    #14
  15. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    This is very surprising to hear, given that i've always thought of him as an "unwavering" character, meaning he would at least have an advantage in the mental department against most of his peers, even if he may not be quite as talented as say Borg or McEnroe.

    I don't want to ask this because it feels disrespectful to Lendl, but i'll ask anyway - achievements aside, how is Lendl different to Ferrer?
     
    #15
  16. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    Please, don't ask that
     
    #16
  17. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,426
    He was unwavering - but to the point it often felt like he wasn't as able to elevate himself in the key moments as well as some of his contemporaries - Edberg and Becker in particular. Lendl had some great wins but their great wins were more amazing in terms of the level of tennis they peaked with. (Edberg's 1991 USO is a good example)

    Lendl was great at not letting an opponent out of his sights if they were the slightest bit vulnerable - that was a huge strength of his, but he lacked a little creativity and x-factor compared to others around him. It's hard to criticise the results he got with his methods but he let a fair few slip from his grasp too.

    FWIW, I didn't include his stats versus McEnroe above because their careers only overlapped. McEnroe was generally on the decline from about 86 whereas Lendl was in his prime so the numbers from then on are heavily in Lendl's favour.


    Lendl bludgeoned people off the court all the time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2013
    #17
  18. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Looking at the scoreline of those finals Lendl lost, it's interesting to note that he only ever won the 1st set on 2 occasions, both times ended up losing in 4. He never had a 2 sets to 1 lead and only twice did he manage to extend the match to 5 sets.

    Well at least Lendl owned his fellow Czech - Miloslav Mečíř.
     
    #18
  19. vsdtrek

    vsdtrek Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    449
    I was a huge fan of Lendl and watched as much as I could back then. As I look back at these matches, I think your analysis is spot on. It was frustrating because you'd see him just clean clock through the draw and then get to these finals and not win. I would sit there thinking "WTH is going on?" (especially vs Cash at Wimbledon) and I think you hit it - while still very talented, his game was pretty straightforward (albeit powerful) and there wasn't going to be a moment of something flashy. I think his first US Open against Mac showed a bit of creativity in that he came to the net more than I would have thought. IIRC, that initial set looked to be heading in a bad direction then all of a sudden he did some net play and everything clicked.

    Even look at his Wimbledon approach - he would switch frames to a slightly larger head and string it differently. I sort of understand what he was trying to do but I just don't recall other top guys having to do all this to try and succeed there. Also, that whole skipping for a few years too. I understand the grass was different but just shows how he really had this rigid game.

    Still, he's why I got into tennis. I loved watching him destroy opponents and had all the iterations of the Adidas Lendl outfits. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2013
    #19
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The bottom line is: you just have to be an all time great to beat Ivan.And only truly exceptional players ( except Cash, but he was zoning that whole Wimbledon) could beat him more often than not at major finals.Otherwise, He´d have a record number of majors, he seldom missed a final when required to.
     
    #20
  21. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    Bobby Jr explained perfectly.

    Lendl was like a scientist. He would study the game deeply, all the details, the nutrition, the fitness, all the strokes, strategies, tactics.....he would master it all.

    He was really really good and complete tennis player (in all the facets). He was the more consistent good player of his era (he spent 270 total weeks at nº1 between 1983 and 1990, 157 of them consecutive).

    He could really hammer the lesser players, he would destroy many of his early rounds opponents like no other, and he very rarely lost an important match against a way lesser player (he also was really good at winning very close matches against lesser players when it happened).

    He almost always played at his 85-90 % level, at least, no matter the round or the rival.

    He had it all so studied and analysed that somehow his game could be a bit "rigid".

    Other great players from that era (or from other eras) were way less "scientific" and much more "instinct" players. So their level varied MUCH MORE from match to match.

    Those other great players sometimes would loosen up and by pure instinct they got to higher and higher levels in the most important matches (not many players though, but there were some great players that had this fantastic ability).


    Also he played against amazing players.

    He lost to Borg in 1981 RG final. Nothing to say. Borg was unbeatable in RG and in fact Lendl was so good that the match went five sets, a truly feat.

    He lost to Connors in both 1982 and 1983 US OPEN finals. Connors at that time used to beat Lendl more than not, and Connors in a US OPEN final, on fast hard courts, was possibly the hardest rival to beat.

    He lost the 1983 Australian Open final to Wilander, and this one is in fact one of these matches where the other guy, this time Wilander, played out of his skin. Wilander had beaten McEnroe in the SF and played a fantastic match in the final (winning 6-1 6-4 6-4 , though Lendl had his chances in both the second and third sets, but lost each of those sets by very few important points).

    He lost the 1984 US OPEN final to McEnroe ( 4-6 1-6 2-6 ) but Lendl was totally spent, totally dead, after his absolutely gruelling SF match the day before, when he defeated young Pat Cash in five titanic sets, saving an amazing match-point at the end of the fifth set and really "should" have lost that SF match (Cash made an ace that was clearly in and would have been another match-point with his serve but it was called out and he couldn't believe it, and could not recover his cool after that). McEnroe also had an amazing five sets SF against Connors, but it wasn't under the sun, and McEnroe's game was always easier on the body than Lendl's.

    He lost the 1985 RG final against Wilander ( 6-3 4-6 2-6 2-6 ). This match was another epic example of what I am trying to say. From the middle of the second set till the very end, Wilander played, possibly, the best clay court match of his life. He just made Lendl go crazy. Wilander just didn't make any unforce error in second half of the match, he would rally patiently and suddenly he would come to the net in perfect moments and would win so many points with perfect volleys. Lendl seemed totally rattled, not knowing what to do.

    When he tried to attack from the baseline, Wilander was just SO quick and would return everything with intention, when he tried to come to the net after a good shot, Wilander just KILLED him once and again with perfect passing-shots and even better top-spin lobs. To confuse Lendl even more, on almost all crucial points on Wilander's serve, Wilander did serve-and-volley and won almost all those important points. Wilander played at a way higher level than he normally played on clay (and he was, along with Lendl, the best claycourt player of that era).

    Lendl also lost the 1986 and 1987 Wimbledon finals against Becker and Cash in straight sets. Not much to say about those finals. On fire Becker and on fire Cash, on grass, were just better than Lendl on grass. Those two matches were closer than what the scores seem to indicate, but in reality both Cash and Becker, playing at their highest level (and they both did play at their highest level in those finals) were just better grass court players than Lendl.


    Gotta go now, in other post I'll talk about the other three losses: ( 1988 US OPEN final to Wilander, 1989 US OPEN final to Becker and 1991 AusOpen final to Becker ) that were pure cases of "the rival playing out of his skin".
     
    #21
  22. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    yah, aside from Cash, he lost those finals to some all-time greats. it's not like they were pikers. The career H-2-H against Connors and Mac is very misleading....Lendl did not pull ahead of them until the mid-to-late 80's, when Connors was on the decline due to age.
     
    #22
  23. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Interesting read from the last few posts.
    So basically Lendl's losses come down to 3 primary factors:
    1) The quality of opposition, sometimes playing on their favoured surface / home court advantage.
    2) The opposition raising their level, whilst Lendl simply maintains his usual level, not able to find that extra gear when under pressure.
    3) To a lesser extent, fatigue from previous matches.

    I want to touch on Point2 - opponents raising their level.
    How did his opponents outplay Lendl?
    Did they outhit, out-serve, out-manoeuver, out-grind him?
    And under those losing circumstances, did Lendl try out different tactics mid-match to wrestle away the momentum?

    Another telling stat is that Lendl never once in all 11 of his slam final losses manage to win 2 consecutive sets.
     
    #23
  24. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    NJ, USA

    Lendl's peak level of play was pretty high no doubt about it - it's why he made so many major finals and won 8 of them but you always felt that if he was playing against someone who was making the match really close or beating him he just wasn't the type of player who had that certain special something to call upon to get him through.

    I loved watching Lendl play and he's one of my all time favorite male players but I always got worried for him if things got tight because I knew he couldn't raise his game, anymore than it already was, to produce something extra special and pull out a super tough match. When he was in his prime he rarely ever choked either though and to beat him you had to actually BEAT him by playing better than he did. Before he was in his prime there was a choking/tanking phase he went through however.

    Another way to look at it is that he was a bit less naturally talented than some of the other greats like Connors, Borg, McEnroe etc but got to where he was by sheer hard work. It's what made his game look a bit robotic at times.

    He was always a sight to behold though if he smelled weakness in an opponent and took command of a match - great stuff to watch him bludgeon opponents off the court.

    Two matches that come to mind immediately and ones I especially enjoyed were his 1988 and 1989 US Open semifinals against Agassi - there was Lendl at his best against the brash, smack talking Andre (Andre had been running his big mouth, trash talking everyone, even Connors who was really ****ed off by it) and he won both and was at his best in both matches. Loved watching every minute...
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2013
    #24
  25. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    The other thing to consider to, is that Lendl was a man of all surfaces, perhaps a true master of none of them. I know that sounds harsh, but I'd say clay was his very best surface, and even then, someone like a Borg, Wilander or even Chang, could frustrate and beat him. He was almost always at a disadvantage on grass, losing to some of the very best grass court players. On hard courts, a younger Connors and a "hot" McEnroe could give him fits. This is true indoors too, if it was fast carpet. This is taking nothing away from him, because all in all, his game was superb and simply deadly at times. His record shows that. But, sometimes, he was plain unlucky.
     
    #25
  26. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    This thread strikes me very funny. Are we really talking about the weaknesses of Ivan Lendl? The guy is a Top-10 best ever player.

    His weakness?

    Being susceptible to losing to other Top-15 greatest all-time players?

    LOL.
     
    #26
  27. sarmpas

    sarmpas Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    On the old fast grass, Lendl with his baseline play was never going to be the favorite against natutal top grass courters on the time like Becker and Cash.
     
    #27
  28. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    The ones that strike me as missed opportunities are the ones against Wilander, especially that 1988USO encounter, and maybe the 1989USO match against Becker as well.
     
    #28
  29. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    yes, this is true! He only lost to other all-time Top 10'ers!:)
     
    #29
  30. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    Not to mention Mac and Connors, who he lost a couple of semis to at Wimby.
     
    #30
  31. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Clay was a very good surface for Lendl but I would disagree when it's called his best surface - I think indoors was his best surface simply because he didn't have to worry about the weather messing with his timing.
     
    #31
  32. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Maybe Indoor Clay is his best surface ;)
     
    #32
  33. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,391
    I was thinking about indoors too....he was awfully good there, but a lot of the top guys were as well (Borg, Mac, Connors, Becker)
     
    #33
  34. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    Thinking back to those early Lendl finals especially, I got the impression that he seemed to find the occasion a bit too much for him. I think he came up against some great players too in Borg on clay and Connors at the US Open with Jimbo having his last great run. At Wimbledon, he just lost to better grass court players than him at the time.
     
    #34
  35. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    Indoor

    I'd agree with you actually. Even though it was a fast surface, the evenness of the bounce and the fact he could hit agressive baseline winners meant he didn't have the problems he had on grass. 9 straight Masters finals in Madison Square gardens! That was no fluke. Throw in a couple of WCT Finals - I believe he was co-number 1 indoor for the 80's (with McEnroe).

    Regarding his best surface - it is hard, we know the grass was his worst....but he was co-number 1 on clay for the 80's (with Wilander), number 1 on hard court for the 1980's and as I said co-number 1 indoor (with McEnroe) for the 1980's - meant he was highly versatile.
     
    #35
  36. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Great thread, thanks for all the very good contributions.
     
    #36
  37. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I didn't see all of Lendl's losses in slam finals, but I saw alot, and I'll comment on those that I saw.

    87 Wimbledon final loss to Cash - back then Wimbledon's grass was a server volleyer's paradise. Cash having one of the best vollies I've seen simply used the surface better to his advantage. A few months later at the AO semi finals Cash was hitting volley winners off his shoe laces, one of the best volley performances I have seen.

    Versus Becker, once Becker beat him in the 86 Wimbledon final, Becker had Lendl mentally and knew it. You always sensed in their subsequent USO and AO finals that when it got tough, Becker could raise the bar, dig deep and draw on all his big wins he had against Lendl at Wimbledon, particularly the 86 final....that, and the final a year later are the wins that Lendl wanted.

    Versus Wilander, Lendl had a 5-4 record against him in slams, but in slam finals, Wilander had a 3-2 advantage. With Wilander, everything Lendl tried, the ball would just come back. Their final on grass at the AO, Wilander was a brick wall. He just outlasted him during rallies and was more patient. In the 85 FO final, Lendl was hot favourite, he was the defending champion and looked to be cruising, winning the first set. But again, Wilander went into brick wall mode and just got everything back. Wilander's concentration was amazing. His 88 USO win was part of his streak of 3 slam wins that year. But the final was close, and again, you could sense that if he got into the match, he would roll Lendl and that's what happened. Wilander and Becker seemed to have psychological advantages over Lendl when the going got tough in slam finals.

    Versus McEnroe in the 84 USO final, well McEnroe had one of the best years a player could have that year. He was simply too good in that match. He should have beaten Lendl in the FO final that year too, but blew a 2 set to 0 lead. In the final 3 sets, I recall McEnroe trying to out rally Lendl from the baseline, which meant he was playing the game on Lendl's terms.
     
    #37
  38. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,208
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    Indoor carpet may have actually been Ivan's best surface.
     
    #38
  39. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,373
    Ivan had a high toss up on his serve, and his serve could be a bit suspect outdoors, to wind and sun. In his early matches against Mac, Connors and later against Becker he had something of a minority complex, especially on big occasions. Becker psyched him out in big matches, although Lendl was the better player on hard courts.
     
    #39
  40. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,208
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    Lendl was not quite versatile enough win Wimbledon, For (almost) any other player his grass court results are outstanding but he knew he needed to win Wimbledon and became obsessed with it. He was somewhat painful to watch at Wimbledon, it's the only place I'd seen him play where he would lose his footing and look foolish. The footing is what hurt him badly there. His passing shots and movement were just not as good as they were on the other surfaces. Under the guidance of Tony Roach he made back to back finals by serving and volleying on both the 1st and 2nd serves which was the absolute correct strategy back then. If he had tried to play baseline tennis in 86 and 87 at Wimbledon he would not have made those finals.
     
    #40
  41. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    I agree. Ivan often looked uncomfortable on grass back then and against the likes of Becker and Cash, the best serve-volleyers with great court coverage playing the big power game, it told. Straight-sets thumpings.
     
    #41
  42. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,846
    Yeah, I can see why that AO win over Edberg might be considered a semi-gift. Edberg won the first set and was up a break in the second and looked well on his way to winning. He had pulled his abdominal in his previous match, and though it seemed like he could deal with it at first, he couldn't keep up his play and basically it was over.

    But, a couple things - (1) I honestly think Edberg would have won if healthy, but there's no way to be sure, (2) being healthy is part of the sport. Most players have benefited from someone else's injury and most players have provided benefit to another player due to their injury; (3) it's not like Edberg was a player against whom Lendl had no chance if not injured. Lendl had beaten him plenty of times.

    So, I really don't think Lendl was really "gifted" that much. Certainly not enough to have any sort of asterik next to that title.
     
    #42
  43. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    In 1986 against Becker he lost 3-0, but he won only 9 points less than Boris.. in third set he had 5-4 and 40-0 on Boris's serve but it was just not meant to be
     
    #43
  44. leeroy85

    leeroy85 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    I thought too many times, Ivan played not to lose instead of playing to win. Against lesser players this is fine but against the greats of his time it does not work well.
     
    #44
  45. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    After hearing so many insightful comments on Lendl, i have come to question the strength of his mental toughness.

    Compared to the following players, where would you rank Lendl?

    Connors
    McEnroe
    Borg
    Agassi
    Sampras
    Federer
    Nadal
     
    #45
  46. Zimbo

    Zimbo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Messages:
    422
    I would rank Lendl 2nd to the bottom. The last would be Agassi. Lets be clear, all of them had great mental toughness. Its just those other guys had greater toughness
     
    #46
  47. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    Yeah, Boom Boom Boris won the big points! :)
     
    #47
  48. Pebbles10

    Pebbles10 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    Why did lendl had such a hard times against Wilander in the GS?
     
    #48
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Mac also straight setted Ivan, at the 83 semifinal.
     
    #49
  50. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    indoor, no doubt.Record speaks for himslef.

    Lendl was a guy that, as somebody put it before, played in a scientific approach.He was hampered by distraction.But on indoors, his serve toss wouldn´t get winded out, his shots would go straight were aimed at, so he fet very comfortable on indoors.
     
    #50

Share This Page