Ivan Lendl's Career v Roger Feder's Career (NON GS Consistency Only, please)

[ledwix]

Ferrer was pretty dominant in 2012.

[lendlmac]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Lendl's record and title collection at many of the biggest non-slam events available to him, across the full range of surfaces, was very impressive:

Masters (5) – 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986 and 1987
WCT Finals (2) – 1982 and 1985
Canada (6) – 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988 and 1989
Philadelphia (2) – 1986 and 1991
Boca West/Miami (2) – 1986 and 1989
Forest Hills (4) – 1982, 1985, 1989 and 1990
Queen’s (2) – 1989 and 1990
Stockholm (1) – 1989
Cincinnati (1) – 1982
Las Vegas (1) – 1981
Wembley (3) – 1984, 1985 and 1987
Rome (2) – 1986 and 1988
Hamburg (2) – 1987 and 1989
Monte-Carlo (2) – 1985 and 1988
Barcelona (2) – 1980 and 1981
Sydney Indoor (3) – 1985, 1987 and 1989
Tokyo Indoor (3) – 1985, 1985 and 1990
Milan (3) – 1983, 1986 and 1990
Indianapolis (1) – 1985
San Francisco (1) - 1983
Basel (2) – 1980 and 1981
Madrid (1) – 1980

Looking at quality over quantity, I've always rated Lendl's 94 official titles as more impressive Connor's total of 109. That's because Lendl had at least two good quality title wins on every type of surface, outdoor hard, indoor hard, indoor carpet, red clay, green clay and grass, while Connors didn't win any titles on red clay. Also Lendl's total was more well rounded, with a better collection of titles across the bigger tournaments in both Europe and North America, while Connors's title collection is heavily US dominated (he won about 70% of his official titles in his home country).

Lendl's achievement of winning 3 titles in 3 consecutive weeks on 3 different surfaces in March/April 1985 was very impressive; Fort Myers on hard courts, Monte-Carlo on red clay and then the WCT Finals in Dallas on carpet.

Thans Gizo!

No one is saying lendl is better than roger....but if Grand Slams did NOT exist....now put both their careers next to each other.....Lendl would have kicked rogers a s s upband down the courts...

Also Roger Federer has NEVER ever played the fast courts of the 80's and never will. All the tennis tournaments back in the 80s played waaay far much faster than any current player has even tried....AO was faster...W was faster...FO was faster and USO was faster....and the racquets were far inferior and smaller than todays tech....

So simply remove GS from the equation.....Pretend they didnt exist....Lendls career blows Federers career into the weeds... fact. Just saying...

[zagor]

You're kinda taking away Fed's biggest strength

But yes Lendl does get underrated, he was a pretty dominant player in possibly the strongest tennis era ever, also playing style wise I think those players are very similar (possibly more so than any other tennis greats in comparison).

BTW. Fed agrees that he's not better than Lendl:


Q. I think the World Tour Finals equals a Grand Slam as a major title event. Now you have 16 Grand Slam titles and six World Tour Final titles. How much satisfaction do you have holding both records?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, of course I'm extremely happy and extremely proud. I still don't feel like I'm better than Pete Sampras, or Lendl for that matter. I still believe they are one of the all‑time greats to play the game. I'm just happy to be compared to them.
I'm actually happy that they are mentioned while I'm doing this because they have done amazing things in our sport. Sometimes legends do get forgotten rather quickly, which is unfortunate.
So for me to hear we are talking about Pete, Ivan, other players, I think is great for the sport and great for them. I mean, that I hold both records, sure, I'm very happy about it, I'm proud, because I know the effort that has gone into it. It's longevity, it's something you can't just do over a short period of time.
I used to be famous for not being consistent. I think this one proves to me that I was able, and proves to maybe many people, that if I can be, then many other people can be successful for a long period of time, as well, because I thought that was a very difficult thing to achieve.

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Thans Gizo!

No one is saying lendl is better than roger....but if Grand Slams did NOT exist....now put both their careers next to each other.....Lendl would have kicked rogers a s s upband down the courts...
..

So simply remove GS from the equation.....Pretend they didnt exist....Lendls career blows Federers career into the weeds... fact. Just saying...

Yes but Fed's career has been mostly about slams, he scheduled himself around them, always trying to peak at the right time etc. That has been his focus his whole career, maybe influenced by Sampras being his idol.

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Also Roger Federer has NEVER ever played the fast courts of the 80's and never will. All the tennis tournaments back in the 80s played waaay far much faster than any current player has even tried....AO was faster...W was faster...FO was faster and USO was faster....and the racquets were far inferior and smaller than todays tech...

Actually, I get the impression that FO was slower in the 90s and 80s.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Thans Gizo!

No one is saying lendl is better than roger....but if Grand Slams did NOT exist....now put both their careers next to each other.....Lendl would have kicked rogers a s s upband down the courts...

Also Roger Federer has NEVER ever played the fast courts of the 80's and never will. All the tennis tournaments back in the 80s played waaay far much faster than any current player has even tried....AO was faster...W was faster...FO was faster and USO was faster....and the racquets were far inferior and smaller than todays tech....

So simply remove GS from the equation.....Pretend they didnt exist....Lendls career blows Federers career into the weeds... fact. Just saying...

If Slams didn't exist Federer would have played(and would be playing) all the Masters 1000/500/250 tournaments around and won most of them. You're incredibly dense and deluded with the argument you're making.

[Gizo]

Obviously Lendl is clearly not in the same tier of greatness as Federer.

I agree that he has been underrated though. Many people just look at his total of 8 grand slam titles and ignore his other achievements (the same goes for guys like Borg, Connors and Mac), when they all played in eras when the grand slam title count was meaningless.

It's a shame that these guys didn't have a crystal ball to predict the future, and didn't know during their primes that after they retired, people would be judging their careers and 'greatness' just based on their number of slam titles. Maybe in the 90s Sampras then would have been chasing someone else's record instead of Emerson's.

Non-slam tour events, invitational tournaments and exhos were all way more important back then. The gulf in importance between the slams and best non-slam events was significantly smaller in the 70s and 80s than it has been in the 90s and 00s, when the 'only slams matter' mentality became more common.

Also the tour was so incredibly disorganised back then. I mean a huge tournament on carpet (the WCT finals in Dallas) so soon before RG on red clay, the Australian Open held so soon before the Masters in New York.

Comparing Federer/Nadal to Sampras/Agassi is easy because all of those guys have played in eras when slam counting has actually mattered, and all 4 slams have been equally important. Comparing any of those guys to Borg, Lendl, Connors etc is far more difficult, because the tour set-up and players' priorities were so different in those previous eras.

[Bobby Jr]

Lendlmac has a hilarious and conveniently selective way of looking at things - discounting all that doesn't support his/her pre-decided point of view. These all-encompassing views are anything but and the argument for Lendl being a greater player than Federer outside of majors is flawed up the wazzoo.

My previous post on the number of tournaments that were played by guys like Lendl is a prime example of shining a spotlight on the fallacy that Lendl had it tough - he had it easier than Thomas Muster did in the 90s when he'd spend most of his year avoiding the hard court tour to play clay tournaments in backwater locations than hardly any other top players considered.

[zagor]

BTW. Here's a great youtube clip from Krosero of Lendl Vs Becker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3q9Y5fAdMo&feature=plcp

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Sorry to burst your bubble... Aside from 94 ATP titles which Federer may ever come close to, let alone pass... Lendl won nearly 40+ more titles than that beating top 10 to top 5 players routinely..even in the smaller tournaments....

You fail to understand... When you put these two players careers Outside of Grand Slams....forget the GS even existed.....now the body of work the level of players and the sheer dominance in mens tennis goes to Ivan Lendl....

Lendl s not chasing Federer folks....fact is there still many Ivan Lendl records Roger Federer can never achieve still nor come close to....yet. Lendls career is written....Its done....Federer is chasing history.......but hes still casing connors and ivan lendl....

But why remove the grand slams? The four majors are the most valued tennis tournaments by far. Whats the point of removing them?

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Sorry to burst your bubble... Aside from 94 ATP titles which Federer may ever come close to, let alone pass... Lendl won nearly 40+ more titles than that beating top 10 to top 5 players routinely..even in the smaller tournaments....

You fail to understand... When you put these two players careers Outside of Grand Slams....forget the GS even existed.....now the body of work the level of players and the sheer dominance in mens tennis goes to Ivan Lendl....

Lendl s not chasing Federer folks....fact is there still many Ivan Lendl records Roger Federer can never achieve still nor come close to....yet. Lendls career is written....Its done....Federer is chasing history.......but hes still casing connors and ivan lendl....

I totally agree. In fact, if you discount grand slams... AND tour events... AND non-sanctioned events... AND exhibitions, and only measure their careers by counting Czechoslovakian Tennis Association-supervised tournaments during the 1970s, then Lendl absolutely dominates Federer.


Regards,
MDL

[helloworld]

Lendl would kill to get just 1 Wimbledon from Federer.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

We're in a stronger era.

That's funny.

[TMF]

I agree with Gizo that Lendl is very underrated. He's not Federer, but he should be ranked #1 in the 2nd tier great. Connors, Agassi, Mac doesn't doesn't hold tennis records like Lendl, who also was more consistent...multiple years with a 90+ winning percentage.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

That's funny.

We're talking about the ATP not the WTA.

[PrimeChoice]

Well, you know what they say. "Going to McDonalds for a salad is like going to a prostitute for a hug."

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Lendl would kill to get just 1 Wimbledon from Federer.

No, according to this guy, East Rutherford is where it's at, who cares about that little UK tourney.

[PCXL-Fan]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Lendl's record and title collection at many of the biggest non-slam events available to him, across the full range of surfaces, was very impressive:

Masters (5) – 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986 and 1987
WCT Finals (2) – 1982 and 1985
Canada (6) – 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988 and 1989
Philadelphia (2) – 1986 and 1991
Boca West/Miami (2) – 1986 and 1989
Forest Hills (4) – 1982, 1985, 1989 and 1990
Queen’s (2) – 1989 and 1990
Stockholm (1) – 1989
Cincinnati (1) – 1982
Las Vegas (1) – 1981
Wembley (3) – 1984, 1985 and 1987
Rome (2) – 1986 and 1988
Hamburg (2) – 1987 and 1989
Monte-Carlo (2) – 1985 and 1988
Barcelona (2) – 1980 and 1981
Sydney Indoor (3) – 1985, 1987 and 1989
Tokyo Indoor (3) – 1985, 1985 and 1990
Milan (3) – 1983, 1986 and 1990
Indianapolis (1) – 1985
San Francisco (1) - 1983
Basel (2) – 1980 and 1981
Madrid (1) – 1980

Looking at quality over quantity, I've always rated Lendl's 94 official titles as more impressive Connor's total of 109. That's because Lendl had at least two good quality title wins on every type of surface, outdoor hard, indoor hard, indoor carpet, red clay, green clay and grass, while Connors didn't win any titles on red clay. Also Lendl's total was more well rounded, with a better collection of titles across the bigger tournaments in both Europe and North America, while Connors's title collection is heavily US dominated (he won about 70% of his official titles in his home country).

Lendl's achievement of winning 3 titles in 3 consecutive weeks on 3 different surfaces in March/April 1985 was very impressive; Fort Myers on hard courts, Monte-Carlo on red clay and then the WCT Finals in Dallas on carpet.

Who is amazed at Federer's Basel Open wins? Nobody.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Lendl would kill to get just 1 Wimbledon from Federer.

And Sampras would kill him for his 1 RG title! Obviously, not many players have won all 4 slams. But one has to admit that the obsession with slams is relatively recent. Even in the 90s, Agassi skipped AO for several years and some players skipped Wimbledon regularly. It didn't seem like such a big deal at the time. The "counting slams" frenzy started with the Fed era.
Anyway, in the case of Lendl, it's true he was desperate to get a W title. But if we're talking about total # of slams won, I don't think it seemed as important at the time as it does now.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by TMF

We're talking about the ATP not the WTA.

You are off on another rant.

TheFifthSet's post on page one illustrates just how grand Lendl's competition was throughout his career. This generation does not come close, and the idea of anyone trying to sell that is comedy at best.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

Who is amazed at Federer's Basel Open wins? Nobody.

Well for Federer to win his home city title 5 times in 6 years is a noteworthy achievement. Federer finally winning the title at Basel for the first time in 2006, was one of the proudest moments of his career, just like him losing his 5 set final against Henman in 2001 (a year after losing the 2000 final to Enqvist) was one of toughest.

When Lendl won his first title at Basel in 1980, he beat a peak Borg in 5 sets in the final which was no mean feat. For many years Borg was considered to be unbeatable in 5 set matches, having won 13 in a row until the 1980 US Open final against McEnroe. But still there were numerous much bigger indoor tournaments around during Lendl's time, nearly all of he which he won at some point during his career.

[veroniquem]

By the way, Fed won Basel 3 times as a 250 and twice as a 500. It makes a difference imo as it's not the same level of competition.