View Single Post
Old 12-04-2012, 06:23 PM   #40
krosero
Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrepac View Post
Still, I am not convinced that 1 RG title makes Lendl the de-facto #2 player for the season that year. You do have to give some consideration to the entire season...in the last 10 years (?), we've had a lot of one-shot wonders at RG who accomplished little else during the year. Not the case w/Lendl, surely, but '84, if not for the RG win, would've been one of his weakest years ever. Mac was just that good. Not to mention the complete turn in their rivalry, since Lendl had been cleaning his clock prior to that point, as you have stated.

You can go either way for '84's runner up slot....not a lot separated Jimmy and Ivan that year....aside from Mac gobbling up nearly everything in sight.
"Not a lot" is not a good way to refer to a RG title.

This is the first time I can recall that a 5-3 edge in tournaments is argued to cancel out, or even to overcome (!), a 0-1 deficit in GS titles. A 5-3 edge in tournaments is practically nothing. Yes of course Lendl's title haul was one of the poorest of his career. So was Connors'. The only question is which is greater between them, not where each man's title haul fits into his overall career.

And really I see little else for Jimmy other than the 5-3 edge, in tournaments. We've spent so many posts arguing about the H2H in '84 between Lendl and Connors, and particularly the Wimbledon meeting, that we've practically forgotten: Lendl won the H2H with Connors in '84, three matches to two. At best, Connors' win at Wimbledon, being somewhat bigger than Lendl's win at the Masters, makes them approximately equal in the H2H.

So really it's Jimmy's 5-3 edge in tournament titles, and possibly a thin edge, at best, in the H2H, that would have to cancel out Lendl's Slam victory -- or even overcome it, as the argument seems to be.

Just don't see the numbers for Connors here, on this we just have to agree to disagree.
krosero is offline   Reply With Quote