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?