View Single Post
Old 11-13-2012, 02:16 PM   #5
Bobby Jr
Bobby Jr's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,168

Originally Posted by lendlmac View Post
Good Stuuf!

Take away Roger's GS wins..for the sake of this post...I'd take Ivan Lendl's career any day, all day over Roger Feder's career, week end and week out..for sheer consitency and dominace. No? all with inferior equipment, faster surfaces on every surface, and playingmore tournaments than any other, except for Jimmy Connors, and maybe a few others... LOL

Just saying, at 31, lendl had 89 tournametn wins, to Roger's 77 wins at 31....
If you want to make a non-slam comparison you need to include the fact that, in the 80s, there were far more tournaments on offer to play than nowdays. In the US for example there were 35+ ATP equivalent level tournaments in the US late 70s/early 80s. In 2013 there will be only 13.

Lendl, like Connors and others, racked up tons of titles at tournaments which, by today's standard, would be the equivalent of Federer or Djokovic rushing around the calendar playing 250 level or lower tournaments like Zagreb, Sao Paulo, Houston, Belgrade, Umag, Auckland etc. Those guys often played close to 30 tournaments a year in the late 70s and early 80s, compared to more like 17 nowdays.

As an example, Lendl in 1982... won 15 titles out of 25 tournaments played (60% win rate). Exclude the two majors he played (he missed the Aussie Open and Wimbledon) and the average draw size of these tournaments was less than 36 players (35.82) - giving him a 5 match average draw (excluding first round byes which he had 3 of).

Federer by contrast in 2006 played 18 tournaments for 12 titles (67% win rate). Exclude the four majors and and his average draw size was 46 (46.2) - i.e. he had to win an extra match per tournament on average to win each title (excluding first round byes of which he had 4) - and, the level of the tournaments was also higher on average too. Over the course of a year that's 12 more matches that Federer had to play... 10% more basically to be rewarded with 3 fewer titles than Lendl. His titles were harder to win - by some margin - and he had fewer of them available to play as well.

Now, I chose 1982 because it was was nowhere near Lendl's peak but chose 2006 for Federer because it was. But looking at crude numbers and excluding majors you'd be forgiven for thinking Lendl had a better year - but you're not really comparing apples with apples. Not even close.

Let's not let nostalgia blur the fact that guys in the early 80s were able to rack up shitloads of titles in comparatively easy circumstances.

Last edited by Bobby Jr; 11-13-2012 at 02:24 PM.
Bobby Jr is offline   Reply With Quote