Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
How is he far behind. He already has the same # of slam titles on hard courts as Lendl and only 1 less than Agassi at only 25. He already has a ton of Masters titles, 2 WTFs (which is always played on an indoor hard court these days), and many additional slam finals and semis. He was far more dominant overall on hard courts than Agassi ever was apart from maybe 1995, and even then Agassi wasnt able to win the U.S Open due to Sampras, and his dominance at the U.S Open far exceeds what Lendl was able to show at either slam (going 3-5 in U.S Open finals is not dominance, sorry). Furthermore most now consider him the Australian Open GOAT, which alone elevates him to a high ranking.
Now regarding Lendl I think a large reason I ranked him where I did is I flat out think all those others were better hard court players and prime to prime would all beat him more often than not in a head to head. Keep in mind Lendl didnt win squat on hard courts until McEnroe fell way off form, and Connors was 32, despite being top 3 for years at that point. Connors at 30 and 31 beat Lendl at the U.S Open and generally was still dominating their rivalry. As for the what ifs about the Australian Open, one could make just as many about Agassi had he played it all those years before 1995, and one could point out he almost certainly won the 1990 Australian Open only due to Edberg's injury in the final, etc...Note what Connors himself said of Lendl at the 1992 U.S Open:
Yes you make valid point. I still rank Lendl higher because, while he has no more major than Nole, he has at the moment five more finals appearance in hard court majors. Sides things is that he has still more total hard-court tournaments and (I'm not sure) more "master 1000 equivalent" hard-court tournaments. Of course Novak will top this number. However I doubt that Novak will top his winning percentage on hard-court, which is at the moment higher than Novak's, as winning percentage tend to decrease with long careers (which Lendl had). For the argument of the peak play you may be right, but I don't care for peak play level and don't enter into argumentation about that as I feel it to difficult to assess.
As for Agassi, he has still one more HC major title, more HC major final, more master 1000 HC titles, more HC tournaments titles in general. His winning percentage is lower though.
As for the AO goat titles, it is nice and all but frankly that is not the most outstanding record in tennis considering so many top players didn't care to play it for so long. AO is still the small slam in term of legacy. And, while some may consider him the AO goat, few would consider him the AO goat by a large margin: he has no more titles than Fed and Agassi.
I don't doubt that he will rank higher at the end of his career. He will have more majors titles, maybe even at the end of the year or next years. On the other hand his winning percentage will decrease with time and age. He has only 1-2 years at the very top left (altough he can remains extremely competitive longer like Fed)
Note: i will look at your video at home