Who was Lendl's biggest rival?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

The only guys of the big names of the 80 that Lendl did have a small rivalry were Borg and Edberg, with Borg it would have been huge but Borg quit before it reached epic proportions

Maybe it was Lendl, and not McEnroe, that prompted Borg to retire. Borg's FO win over Lendl was a real battle for Borg and he knew Lendl would only get better.

[Ramon]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

Lendl had a winning h2h record with many of his rivals

Lend vs rival
. 21 - 15 ... J McEnroe
. 22 - 13 ... J Connors
. 13 - 14 ... S Edberg
. 15 - 07 ... M Wilander
. 11 - 10 ... B Becker
. 02 - 06 ... B Borg

Those stats are very deceiving. Connors was past his prime in most of those encounters, but even in '82-'84 when Connors was losing most of the time and clearly past his prime, he found a way to beat Lendl when it mattered the most. Despite those stats, I think Connors had Lendl's number.

Borg retired before Lendl reached peak form. I think the numbers would have been closer.

Mac, Edberg, Wilander, and Becker were closer contemporaries to Lendl. Early on, Mac had a hard time figuring out how to beat Lendl who seemed to push him around a lot. Mac finally figured out that he had more success by staying aggressive and their matches were more even after that.

I don't think Lendl ever really established a big rivalry in the manner of Borg/McEnroe or Connors/McEnroe. The McEnroe rivalry was starting to build up steam, but then McEnroe suddenly retired. Lendl is a figure that bridged two different eras of tennis. He was competitive in the era of Borg/Connors/McEnroe and also in the era of Wilander/Edberg/Becker. By the time Sampras peaked and Agassi finally got it together, Lendl was through.

[Ramon]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Maybe it was Lendl, and not McEnroe, that prompted Borg to retire. Borg's FO win over Lendl was a real battle for Borg and he knew Lendl would only get better.

I disagree. I read an interview with Borg just before he announced he would try to make a comeback. It seemed that he politely dismissed Connors and Lendl, but McEnroe was the one who truly had him worried.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Ramon

I disagree. I read an interview with Borg just before he announced he would try to make a comeback. It seemed that he politely dismissed Connors and Lendl, but McEnroe was the one who truly had him worried.

I was being a bit facetious. I don't think any of them had Borg genuinely worried. He would have continued to be the favorite at the FO and any other clay event for years to come, and a threat at Wimbledon, the USO and AO (if he wanted to play there). I think he was just burnt, wanted a lighter schedule, and the majors wouldn't give him a free entry into their events without qualifying. So he just quit.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Maybe it was Lendl, and not McEnroe, that prompted Borg to retire. Borg's FO win over Lendl was a real battle for Borg and he knew Lendl would only get better.

I agree, best cc match of the 80 along the 1984 final
Lendl had already beatem Borg in a 5 sets final at Basle,months before their RG final

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Ramon

Those stats are very deceiving. Connors was past his prime in most of those encounters, but even in '82-'84 when Connors was losing most of the time and clearly past his prime, he found a way to beat Lendl when it mattered the most. Despite those stats, I think Connors had Lendl's number.

Borg retired before Lendl reached peak form. I think the numbers would have been closer.

Mac, Edberg, Wilander, and Becker were closer contemporaries to Lendl. Early on, Mac had a hard time figuring out how to beat Lendl who seemed to push him around a lot. Mac finally figured out that he had more success by staying aggressive and their matches were more even after that.

I don't think Lendl ever really established a big rivalry in the manner of Borg/McEnroe or Connors/McEnroe. The McEnroe rivalry was starting to build up steam, but then McEnroe suddenly retired. Lendl is a figure that bridged two different eras of tennis. He was competitive in the era of Borg/Connors/McEnroe and also in the era of Wilander/Edberg/Becker. By the time Sampras peaked and Agassi finally got it together, Lendl was through.

Amen I must say

[kiki]

Lendl vs Clerc,Gerulaitis,Vilas and Noah were almost as good
Tremendously competitive era

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I was being a bit facetious. I don't think any of them had Borg genuinely worried. He would have continued to be the favorite at the FO and any other clay event for years to come, and a threat at Wimbledon, the USO and AO (if he wanted to play there). I think he was just burnt, wanted a lighter schedule, and the majors wouldn't give him a free entry into their events without qualifying. So he just quit.

I agree with you Limpinhitter.

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree, best cc match of the 80 along the 1984 final
Lendl had already beatem Borg in a 5 sets final at Basle,months before their RG final

The RG final that Borg played against Lendl which Borg won in five sets really wasn't indicative of Borg's normal play. I believe Borg was hurt when he played the French in 1981 and despite that he beat Lendl.

[slowfox]

Grass was his biggest rival.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Connors was past his prime before Lendl came into his. Although Connors continued to compete for another 7-8 years after he was passed his prime, he was clearly not as great as he was in the 70's up to 82'.

You might make the same argument for McEnroe. Lendl's prime began in about 1984. After 1984, Mac's level of play dropped off just enough to make him something less than an all time great from there on out. IMO, it was caused by cocaine abuse. If not for that, both McEnroe's and Lendl's careers would not look like they do in retrospect.

Wilander's prime coincided with Lendl's and, IMO, Lendl was clearly the better player.

Becker's peak also coincided with Lendl's, although Becker was a bit younger. Becker may have had a slightly higher level of play at his absolute peak, but, Lendl was the more consistent champion between the two.

Originally Posted by Ramon

Those stats are very deceiving. Connors was past his prime in most of those encounters, but even in '82-'84 when Connors was losing most of the time and clearly past his prime, he found a way to beat Lendl when it mattered the most. Despite those stats, I think Connors had Lendl's number.

Borg retired before Lendl reached peak form. I think the numbers would have been closer.

Mac, Edberg, Wilander, and Becker were closer contemporaries to Lendl. Early on, Mac had a hard time figuring out how to beat Lendl who seemed to push him around a lot. Mac finally figured out that he had more success by staying aggressive and their matches were more even after that.

I don't think Lendl ever really established a big rivalry in the manner of Borg/McEnroe or Connors/McEnroe. The McEnroe rivalry was starting to build up steam, but then McEnroe suddenly retired. Lendl is a figure that bridged two different eras of tennis. He was competitive in the era of Borg/Connors/McEnroe and also in the era of Wilander/Edberg/Becker. By the time Sampras peaked and Agassi finally got it together, Lendl was through.

Yes, I'm well aware that Connors was probably past his prime with many of his meetings with Lendl. I have not yet looked closely at their h2h encounters to determine the trend/exact nature of their rivalry. In sheer numbers tho', with 35 encounters, I believe that it may be second only to Lendl's encounters with J Mac = 36 meetings.

J Mac won his first 2 encounters (1980) with Lendl but then lost the next 7 (81-82). However, with his wins over Lendl in 83-84, McEnroe took the h2h lead 12-9. J Mac dropped to #2 in 1985 but maintained his edge over Lendl, 14-12. J Mac took some time off in 86 (married Tatum) and never regained his dominance in singles. They met again starting in 87 but J Mac won only 1 of their last 10 encounters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lendl%E2%80%93McEnroe_rivalry

Lendl's contemporaries who primes roughly coincided with his own included Edberg, Becker (starting in the mid-80s) and Wilander. Lendl's rivalries with Edberg (13-14) and Becker (11-10) were fairly even overall. Altho' Lendl ruled Wilander in the long run, their early encounters were fairly even. In their first 10 meetings (1882-84) they were even at 5-5. From 85 thru 87, Lendl won 8 of their 9 encounters. Wilander had a stellar year in 1988. He prevailed over Lendl in the final at the 88 USO. After 88, Wilander's performance dropped off sharply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lendl%E2%80%93Wilander_rivalry
.

[Ramon]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

Yes, I'm well aware that Connors was probably past his prime with many of his meetings with Lendl. I have not yet looked closely at their h2h encounters to determine the trend/exact nature of their rivalry. In sheer numbers tho', with 35 encounters, I believe that it may be second only to Lendl's encounters with J Mac = 36 meetings.

J Mac won his first 2 encounters (1980) with Lendl but then lost the next 7 (81-82). However, with his wins over Lendl in 83-84, McEnroe took the h2h lead 12-9. J Mac dropped to #2 in 1985 but maintained his edge over Lendl, 14-12. J Mac took some time off in 86 (married Tatum) and never regained his dominance in singles. They met again starting in 87 but J Mac won only 1 of their last 10 encounters.

On the Connors rivalry, I don't have all the numbers, so I'm basically just giving you my subjective impression and why I think Connors got the better of it. When Lendl first burst onto the scene with upset victories over Borg and Mac, tennis writers and analysts were wondering why Connors dominated him. Something about Connors' style just bothered Lendl. As Connors aged and Lendl improved, it's no surprise that Lendl began to win against Connors, but if you look at their H2H in grand slams, even when Connors was nearing the end of his career he knew how to beat Lendl when it really counted. If you ask Connors or Lendl if they would trade any 10 tournaments for 1 grand slam tournament, I think they would unhesitatingly say "yes".

Good analysis of the Mac rivalry, BTW. Mac was never the same when he came back from retirement (and neither was Borg for that matter).

[kiki]

Connors took the ball early and 'used Ivan power against him.Looked like Ivan was playing against himself,that was not the case with Borg and Mc Enroe
Lendl played Connors first at 79 Indianapolis qf and a few weeks later played first time Borg (Toronto sf)
He had played Mc in the juniors but their first pro match were the qf of the Milan 1980 event which was part of the WCT tour

[CyBorg]

Rewatched the 1988 US Open final recently. Amazing tennis.

Mentally, maybe two of the toughest players at a particular moment in time. Wilander was so locked in, as was Lendl.

Lendl may have played better in that match than in most of his finals wins. But still lost.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I agree with you Limpinhitter.



The RG final that Borg played against Lendl which Borg won in five sets really wasn't indicative of Borg's normal play. I believe Borg was hurt when he played the French in 1981 and despite that he beat Lendl.

Only Orantes had stretched Borg to five at Paris and that just before Borg peaked and only Panatta twice at RG and Connors twice at FH would ever beat Borg at a cc major

And Pecci beat him at Montecarlo where Borg never lost since the start of mankind
Lendl showed he was the only possible rival for Borg at a short term

[kiki]

Panatta and Pecci, the only men to beat officialy Borg on clay since many years had a great mixture of touch,net reach and great S&V ability being the only s&v players raised on clay until Noah developed latwr

On US faster clay only Connors defeated Borg and that is due to the extremely bold and agressive all court attack that middle 70 Connors was able to play consistently and with unmatched confidence,as well as har tru being a bit
faster than red clay

[Paul Murphy]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Rewatched the 1988 US Open final recently. Amazing tennis.

Mentally, maybe two of the toughest players at a particular moment in time. Wilander was so locked in, as was Lendl.

Lendl may have played better in that match than in most of his finals wins. But still lost.

I would agree with that.

[Paul Murphy]

Lendl is a figure that bridged two different eras of tennis. He was competitive in the era of Borg/Connors/McEnroe and also in the era of Wilander/Edberg/Becker. By the time Sampras peaked and Agassi finally got it together, Lendl was through.[/quote]

Indeed his career bridged two eras.
I would have thought his greatest rivalry was with Mc.

[ramos77]

the saw dust

[Down_the_line]

I would have to say McEnroe, although tennis history is not exactly my forte.

If this counts, remember too that McEnroe's and Lendl's games were almost polar opposites of eachother, much like those of Sampras and Agassi. McEnroe was one of the best S&V'ers to play the game and had perhaps the best hands at the net, while Lendl pretty much pioneered the modern power baseline game.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Lendl may have played better in that match than in most of his finals wins. But still lost.

I don't know about that. I thought Wilander made his win a lot harder than it could have been. Wilander was well in control at 6-4, 4-1 up, when the umpire called Wilander for a time violation and Wilander's form disappeared until the third set. The fourth set was winnable for Wilander, yet he lost it, and he also went from 2-0 up to 2-3 down in the fifth set, before eventually coming back to lead 5-3 and then win it 6-4 in the fifth set.

It was a great match though, yes.