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

[TMF]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

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.

That's just an opinion, not a fact.

Lendl himself said the players today are WAY better than him than his peers. I take his words over Fed detractor like you.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not really. Under the 2000-2008 ranking system Basel was an International Series Gold tournament. Those tournaments were effectively the precursor to the 500 events, which were introduced from 2009 when the new ranking system was implemented. Tournament ranking points were pretty much doubled across the board from 2009.

International series gold tournaments awarding 250 points to the winner from 2000-2008 (apart from Dubai and Barcelona which awarded 300), then all doubled that to 500 points from 2009 provided they weren't demoted in status.

So when Federer won his Basel titles from 2006-2008, the tournament had effectively the same status/tier as it did from 2009 onwards.

[big ted]

it was easier to win smaller tournaments back in lendls era esp in the early 80s since the top players werent required to play in all the "masters series" tournaments. the top players played each other alot less then they do now throughout the year.

[Federer20042006]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Not really. Under the 2000-2008 ranking system Basel was an International Series Gold tournament. Those tournaments were effectively the precursor to the 500 events, which were introduced from 2009 when the new ranking system was implemented. Tournament ranking points were pretty much doubled across the board from 2009.

International series gold tournaments awarding 250 points to the winner from 2000-2008 (apart from Dubai and Barcelona which awarded 300), then all doubled that to 500 points from 2009 provided they weren't demoted in status.

So when Federer won his Basel titles from 2006-2008, the tournament had effectively the same status/tier as it did from 2009 onwards.

Besides which, the way Srichaphan played in the 2006 Basel semifinal was as well as anybody could ever play from a shot making standpoint in an indoors match. He was unbelievable...Roger Federer is the only guy playing in the past 10 years who would have beaten him in that match.

THAT'S what competition is. Not some top 5 player showing up and half-assing it.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by 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.

..flawed up the wazoo

[joeri888]

Rosol's career vs Sampras career?


Now let's take away all slams, masters, rankings, and only look at second rounds at wimbledon while being outside the top 99.

I think Rosol's career eclipses Sampras's

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by 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.

The difference in field comment also then highlights that many dozens of Lendl's titles won in conditions/fields which often wouldn't even compare to a 250 tournament of today.

[lendlmac]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

..flawed up the wazoo

There is no flaw....your logic is flawed. So, I agree, FEDERER BLOWS Lendl's career into the weeds.. He is the BEST EVER...right? I got it!!!!

The topic was suppose there WERE NO GRAND SLAMS, period.

Now look at the Head-to Head- in Career Stats, winning percentages, titles, DOMINANCE, Faster courts, smaller racquets, inferior technology, and Lendl thrashes Federer's career in a landslide...

To Bring Federer into the 80's would not work, because in the 80's NO ONE, NO ONE, not even the BEST forehand in the game as Lendl or Agassi, swings the racquet head speed like Federer does in today's game... that "Style" did not exist back inthe 80's due to racquet technology...Roger's game is alien to the 80's men's game... it is "alien"... LOL In the 80's Roger could not even "hang" playing fast courts 24/7.... he's neve even played the same fast courts as the men's field ever from the 80's era... the 2000-2012 era tennis courts are SLOOOOW comared to the game inthe 80's.... LOL

When Federer "upgraded" to the NEWEST racquet technology using 90" inches and the new strings...you see Federer's forehand swing speed ultra fast... that was never going to happen inthe 80's era....So Federer would NOT play the same today, back in the 80's....

So, OUTSIDE the Gand Slams...which is EASY TO DIGEST, Which tenis player, Lendl or Federer, DOMINATED their ERA more.... the answer is easily IVAN LENDL.

ROGER - When opponents face up to Federer, they are all in "in awe of him, mesmerized by his gracefulness on the court, his effortless shot making, and opponetns RELISH the thouht of playing against Federer, as they are in aweo of him...and rightly so..

LENDL - However, ask ANYONE in the game... NO ONE, I MEAN NO ONE EVER WANTED TO FACE IVAN LENDL...they ALL FEARED HIM to death... game over... that was how much he instilled fear inot he men's fiedl back then.

Do you think, right now, any player in toda's game, sa, "Oh, no I fear Djokovic? LOL Oh, no here comes Del Potro...? LOL or, wait, I got Roger Federer in the 1st round? "How cool is that!" No one ever feard Roger, Djoker, Nadal, Del POtro... players RELISHED playng them...they lost, but they never feard them...never...

With Lendl, it was ", Oh #@%^!"! This can't be happeing to me...please don't let me play Lendl, please. LOL

But if you TAKE AWAY, REMOVE the GRAND SLAMS, from tennis altogether... you see the DOMINANCE of IVAN LENDL next to say JIMMY CONNORS in the men's game....where NO ONE could beat them and live to tell about it.. LOL

just saying... Roger is better than Lendl ever was... period. Now remove the GS from the equation, and Lendl overwhelms Roger's career in a landslide....

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

To Bring Federer into the 80's would not work, because in the 80's NO ONE, NO ONE, not even the BEST forehand in the game as Lendl or Agassi, swings the racquet head speed like Federer does in today's game... that "Style" did not exist back in the 80's due to racquet technology...

When Federer "upgraded" to the NEWEST racquet technology using 90" inches and the new strings...

Um.. Federer effectively uses a frame which was available in it's first incarnation in 1983. Since then the changes to it amount to about 2% difference - barely a small change in head size and a paint job, that's it. He also uses strings in the mains which were available since even earlier. Since he did so well in his early career prior to poly strings I'd say he of all current players would adapt to the 80s pretty well.

Tell this story again so it makes more sense.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Not really. Under the 2000-2008 ranking system Basel was an International Series Gold tournament. Those tournaments were effectively the precursor to the 500 events, which were introduced from 2009 when the new ranking system was implemented. Tournament ranking points were pretty much doubled across the board from 2009.

.

No it wasn't. It was a simple WS. The gold one was Vienna.

Originally Posted by TMF

Yes, Federer had a stronger field.

Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged shitty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Um.. Federer effectively uses a frame which was available in it's first incarnation in 1983. Since then the changes to it amount to about 2% difference - barely a small change in head size and a paint job, that's it. He also uses strings in the mains which were available since even earlier. Since he did so well in his early career prior to poly strings I'd say he of all current players would adapt to the 80s pretty well.

Tell this story again so it makes more sense.

Federer might be able to adapt, yes, but in the second half of the 1980s, when the power game was taking hold in tennis, you would not have the power or depth that today's game has. Nowhere close.

[Candide]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged shitty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.

You left out Safin, Philippoussis, Gonzales, Sampras, Murray, Djokovic and an older, stronger Nadal. Looks like a pretty strong field to me. Far tougher than the names you've mentioned. I think Gonzales alone would have murdered Wilander and Connors let alone Safin. The game has moved on. Only Becker and Edberg and McEnroe would have a chance against the modern players. The rest were just too physically small and weak.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Candide

Only Becker and Edberg and McEnroe would have a chance against the modern players. The rest were just too physically small and weak.

No, they just had inferior racquet and string technology. Some people wrongly equate the superior technology of today with meaning that there are better players today.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

No it wasn't. It was a simple WS. The gold one was Vienna.

My bad it was an international series event in name but some simple research shows that it had exactly the same ranking point distribution as Vienna and other international series gold tournaments apart from Barcelona and Dubai, i.e. 250 points for the winner, 175 points for the runner-up, 110 points for losing semi-finalists. Plus it had a $1,000,000 prize money pool, and all ISG events either had $1,000,000 or $800,000 prize money pools, so it offered more prize money than tournaments like Vienna.

So with exactly the same (or more) prize money and ranking points on offer we can safely say that it was a precursor to a 500 event before 2009 and wasn't a lesser tournament . And the tournament always attracted strong field with some of the best indoor players on the tour like Nalbandian and Henman playing their regularly, Roddick playing there during his peak in 2003 etc.

[Gizo]

Speaking of the subject of this thread Lendl, one thing that was underrated about him was his versatility, not just in terms of his outstanding results on all surfaces, but in terms of how he could vary his playing style.

The guy won majors on hard courts while playing as an aggressive, attacking baseliner that would look to over-power opponents and occasionally chip and charge. He also won majors at Roland Garros primarily playing as a defensive, grinder who would rally all day long from the back of the court and look to outlast his opponents. Plus he nearly won majors at Wimbledon playing as an out and out serve and volleyer that would come to the net on both 1st and 2nd serves.

So he had a lot of success at the big tournaments with 3 radically different playing styles.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Gizo

My bad it was an international series event in name but some simple research shows that it had exactly the same ranking point distribution as Vienna and other international series gold tournaments apart from Barcelona and Dubai, i.e. 250 points for the winner, 175 points for the runner-up, 110 points for losing semi-finalists. Plus it had a $1,000,000 prize money pool, and all ISG events either had $1,000,000 or $800,000 prize money pools, so it offered more prize money than tournaments like Vienna.

So with exactly the same (or more) prize money and ranking points on offer we can safely say that it was a precursor to a 500 event before 2009 and wasn't a lesser tournament . And the tournament always attracted strong field with some of the best indoor players on the tour like Nalbandian and Henman playing their regularly, Roddick playing there during his peak in 2003 etc.

Once again. It was NOT a gold. It was a world series and it gave 250 points to the winner (at least the 3 years when Fed won it). It became a 500 (and so gave 500 points to the winner) in 2009. Check the ATP site if you won't take my word for it. (The precursors of the 500 were the "gold" or "CS" and Basel wasn't one. The precursor was Vienna. In 2009, they simply downgraded Vienna and made Basel a 500 instead).

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Once again. It was NOT a gold. It was a world series and it gave 250 points to the winner (at least the 3 years when Fed won it). It became a 500 (and so gave 500 points to the winner) in 2009. Check the ATP site if you won't take my word for it. (The precursors of the 500 were the "gold" or "CS" and Basel wasn't one. The precursor was Vienna. In 2009, they simply downgraded Vienna and made Basel in a 500 instead).

Once again, it offered exactly the same ranking points round by round as every single international series gold tournament apart from Barcelona and Dubai, and more prize money than every single European international series gold event apart from Barcelona (those were Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel and Vienna).

Think about it. In 2008 Basel offered exactly the same number of ranking points as Vienna, and over €200,000 more in prize money to its players. Therefore does Basel sound like a smaller tournament than Vienna to you. What are the main incentives for players at these tournaments? Money and ranking points of course.

Roland Garros awarded 1000 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 2000 points from 2009. Indian Wells awarded 500 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 1000 points from 2009. Basel awarded 250 points to the winner from 2000-2008 but doubled that to 500 points from 2009.

So Basel's standing has remained completely unchanged between 2000-2008 and 2009 onwards. It's simple really .

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Federer might be able to adapt, yes, but in the second half of the 1980s, when the power game was taking hold in tennis, you would not have the power or depth that today's game has. Nowhere close.

I agree (I assume you were talking about the 80s guys not having the power/depth that today's players have).

The power hitting of today makes the late 80 look like slow motion by comparison. Sure, they could hit amazing cannon winners when they were on the run etc but it's the average rallying pace and depth of modern tennis which would just overwhelm the big hitters of the 80s like Lendl, Becker in general imo.

I don't think Federer would be disadvantaged that much if he suddenly had to play with all natural gut strings or another combo without poly against the likes of Lendl. Perhaps he'd be using gut crossed with kevlar - which would be a different approach to most of the 80s guys.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Once again, it offered exactly the same ranking points round by round as every single international series gold tournament apart from Barcelona and Dubai, and more prize money than every single European international series gold event apart from Barcelona (those were Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel and Vienna).

Think about it. In 2008 Basel offered exactly the same number of ranking points as Vienna, and over €200,000 more in prize money to its players. Therefore does Basel sound like a smaller tournament than Vienna to you. What are the main incentives for players at these tournaments? Money and ranking points of course.

Roland Garros awarded 1000 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 2000 points from 2009. Indian Wells awarded 500 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 1000 points from 2009. Basel awarded 250 points to the winner from 2000-2008 but doubled that to 500 points from 2009.

So Basel's standing has remained completely unchanged between 2000-2008 and 2009 onwards. It's simple really .

The old point system was quite confusing but its status (ws from 500) changed regardless.