Ivan Lendl totaly underated

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Benhur

In the first place, I think the technique of taking an all time great out of his era and imposing his presence on another era -- this technique can be liberally used at will to enhance the career of those blessed with the imaginary departure of such a player, and taint the career of those cursed with his imaginary arrival. It is not a very convincing argument if you think about it. Furthermore, Agassi wasn't even the number 2 player during most of the years when Sampras was number 1. I think only in 94 and 95. And there are some years in the 90s where Agassi is nowhere to be found in the top 10. Hard to see anything "Federesque" about it even if Sampras hadn't been around.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I don’t think Lendl is really that underrated by most people who followed tennis since at least the early 80s. They know what he did and know how to compare it. Like any other player, he is underrated only by those who started following tennis after he was in decline or no longer playing. This is normal and even understandable. We all do it to some extent. No matter how much I am reminded of what the pre-open era greats accomplished, the reflex is just not there for me to think about them that much, since I only started following tennis in the mid 70s and only followed it closely since the early 80s.

Good post. It depends on what criteria you want to evaluate Lendl by. Lendl was one of the most consistent most durable champions in the last 50 years. IF you value those two traits highly then Lendl will be higher up on your list than those that value other aspects of the game.

[Moose Malloy]

Yeah I never could understand why people perceived this as a weakness. I mean 8 wins and 11 finals is better than 8 wins and 10 finals which is better than 8 wins and nine finals etc etc. it has to be that way because if he lost in the first round rather than reach those 11 finals would that that be somehow better? After all his finals record would then be 100%! And if that is superior, then losing in the first round is superior to reaching a final.

No, making a grand slam final is a great achievement in itself. And Lendl did it 11 times!

For what's its worth:

I've heard Lendl say numerous times that he was sort of embarassed that people brought up his 8 straight USO finals so often ("I would rather be known for winning 3 USO's than losing in 5 finals")

He's also been one of those players that has said "2nd place really doesn't matter."

[pc1]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

If you read this board long enough everyone is under rated.

I don't think so. The players who people think are overrated on this board often aren't mentioned.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

IMO, to compare Lendl to Agassi on the basis of their respective dominance of the game ignores the fact that Agassi had the misfortune of playing in the same era with Sampras, a higher tier champion than either of them. Further, IMO, if Sampras played in Lendl's era, I don't think Lendl's record would have been any better, perhaps not as good, as Agassi's. It certainly wouldn't have been as good as it was, and Agassi's record would have been Federeresque.

Linpinhitter,

I don't think Agassi compares to Lendl in terms of tournaments won and overall record by a long shot. Lendl won about 140 plus tournament in his career and Agassi 60 tournaments in his career. Lendl won more than double Andre's amount.

I don't think Pete Sampras is going to have Lendl reduce his tournament victory total by over 80 to Agassi's level considering Sampras only won 64 tournaments in his entire career. Sampras is a great champion and he was at his best on grass but considering Lendl won zero Wimbledons I don't think it possible for Sampras to lower Lendl's Wimbledon championship total or general major grass tournament total since Lendl didn't win the Australian on grass either. It can go either way with the other majors. The Australian on hard court would have been very tough for either player so would be the US Open. I would give Lendl an edge on the slower Australian courts and Sampras an edge on the US Open hard courts but it's close. I don't think Samrpas's amount of French Opens (zero) would be affected by the presence of Lendl obviously.

Lendl won 81.8% of his career matches and Sampras 77.4%.

Both Lendl and Sampras were great players but I'm not convinced Sampras would affect Lendl by that much or vice versa.

Incidentally Lendl, Agassi and Sampras are the perfect examples of how much we should value majors. Do we overrate the importance of majors? Sampras won 14 majors, half at the grass at Wimbledon and Lendl 8. Is Sampras that much better?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by urban

If i see the success of Djokovic and his baseline game even over greats like Nadal or Federer, i wonder, how Lendl with his more powerful baseline game would fare today. Maybe Djoker is more fluent, but i reckon Lendl as more powerful and with more weight of shot. With the homogenization of surfaces and the focus on majors, Lendl would be a tough customer for sure.

For us, we don't have an answer but only speculate. But Lendl gave us his opinions...he's already answered this question for us. He doesn't believe he(and his peers) can compete with the modern players. He said Fed/Nadal are "way better than them". The game has changed...players are much better athletically, faster, stronger, fitter, etc... due to natural evolution.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Lendl was a far better player at his peak or generally than Agassi, and his level in 1985-1987, especially those last 2 years, was higher than anything Agassi displayed during his career. He was also more technically complete player than Agassi, who was more one dimensional than any other great player of the open era.

I have to agree; Andre is a notch below that Connors-Mac-Lendl tier.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

I don't think so. The players who people think are overrated on this board often aren't mentioned.



Linpinhitter,

I don't think Agassi compares to Lendl in terms of tournaments won and overall record by a long shot. Lendl won about 140 plus tournament in his career and Agassi 60 tournaments in his career. Lendl won more than double Andre's amount.

I don't think Pete Sampras is going to have Lendl reduce his tournament victory total by over 80 to Agassi's level considering Sampras only won 64 tournaments in his entire career. Sampras is a great champion and he was at his best on grass but considering Lendl won zero Wimbledons I don't think it possible for Sampras to lower Lendl's Wimbledon championship total or general major grass tournament total since Lendl didn't win the Australian on grass either. It can go either way with the other majors. The Australian on hard court would have been very tough for either player so would be the US Open. I would give Lendl an edge on the slower Australian courts and Sampras an edge on the US Open hard courts but it's close. I don't think Samrpas's amount of French Opens (zero) would be affected by the presence of Lendl obviously.

Lendl won 81.8% of his career matches and Sampras 77.4%.

Both Lendl and Sampras were great players but I'm not convinced Sampras would affect Lendl or vice versa.

Incidentally Lendl, Agassi and Sampras are the perfect examples of how much we should value majors. Do we overrate the importance of majors? Sampras won 14 majors, half at the grass at Wimbledon and Lendl 8. Is Sampras that much better?

PC1, the total titles you credit Agassi and Sampras are limited to ATP titles. Federer surpassed Sampras in total ATP titles about a year ago. However, the total titles you credit Lendl with are all titles including non-ATP events. Connors holds the record of total ATP titles of 109, if I remember the total correctly.

You may have some doubt about Sampras vs. Lendl, but, I don't. IMO, Sampras would have a winning record against Lendl on every surface but clay. Further, IMO, Agassi would have a winning record against Lendl on grass and faster hard courts, and perhaps be even with Lendl on slower hard courts and clay.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by jrepac

I have to agree; Andre is a notch below that Connors-Mac-Lendl tier.

IMO, he was a notch above them.

[Devilito]

he was in the same notch

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by pc1

I don't think so. The players who people think are overrated on this board often aren't mentioned.



Linpinhitter,

I don't think Agassi compares to Lendl in terms of tournaments won and overall record by a long shot. Lendl won about 140 plus tournament in his career and Agassi 60 tournaments in his career. Lendl won more than double Andre's amount.

I don't think Pete Sampras is going to have Lendl reduce his tournament victory total by over 80 to Agassi's level considering Sampras only won 64 tournaments in his entire career. Sampras is a great champion and he was at his best on grass but considering Lendl won zero Wimbledons I don't think it possible for Sampras to lower Lendl's Wimbledon championship total or general major grass tournament total since Lendl didn't win the Australian on grass either. It can go either way with the other majors. The Australian on hard court would have been very tough for either player so would be the US Open. I would give Lendl an edge on the slower Australian courts and Sampras an edge on the US Open hard courts but it's close. I don't think Samrpas's amount of French Opens (zero) would be affected by the presence of Lendl obviously.

Lendl won 81.8% of his career matches and Sampras 77.4%.

Both Lendl and Sampras were great players but I'm not convinced Sampras would affect Lendl or vice versa.

Incidentally Lendl, Agassi and Sampras are the perfect examples of how much we should value majors. Do we overrate the importance of majors? Sampras won 14 majors, half at the grass at Wimbledon and Lendl 8. Is Sampras that much better?

In 1990 Sampras beat Lendl in the quarterfinals of the USO. If Sampras was not there Lendl would have beaten Mac in the SF and beaten Andre in the final. I would say based on the limited overlap they had Sampras would have affected Lendl

[lendlmac]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

In 1990 Sampras beat Lendl in the quarterfinals of the USO. If Sampras was not there Lendl would have beaten Mac in the SF and beaten Andre in the final. I would say based on the limited overlap they had Sampras would have affected Lendl

Lendl was already 30 years old and way past his prime! Little Pete Sampras was barely 19! and coming of age Can't compare overlap..

Just like Agassi didn't start to beat Lendl until Lendl was already 32 yrs. old! and he retired at 34 in '94 Before then, Agassi was top 10, but losing badly to Lendl...

the magic number intennis is 29/30 years old....somethng happens, and your game slips, slower, and the younger guys exlpoit that...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Lendl was already 30 years old and way past his prime! Little Pete Sampras was barely 19! and coming of age Can't compare overlap..

Just like Agassi didn't start to beat Lendl until Lendl was already 32 yrs. old! and he retired at 34 in '94 Before then, Agassi was top 10, but losing badly to Lendl...

the magic number intennis is 29/30 years old....somethng happens, and your game slips, slower, and the younger guys exlpoit that...

Lendl had only just lost the world number 1 ranking at the time of the 1990 US Open, and that was because he skipped the entire clay-court season in his ultimately failed quest to win Wimbledon.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Lendl was already 30 years old and way past his prime! Little Pete Sampras was barely 19! and coming of age Can't compare overlap..

Just like Agassi didn't start to beat Lendl until Lendl was already 32 yrs. old! and he retired at 34 in '94 Before then, Agassi was top 10, but losing badly to Lendl...

the magic number in tennis is 29/30 years old....something happens, and your game slips, slower, and the younger guys exploit that...

Magic number? Come on. What does 1994 and his back injury have at all to do with 1990? Nothing. Lendl was a great player in 1990 and he would have won the USO most likely if Sampras had not showed up. Sampras gave everyone problems on anything but clay.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Magic number? Come on. What does 1994 and his back injury have at all to do with 1990? Nothing. Lendl was a great player in 1990 and he would have won the USO most likely if Sampras had not showed up. Sampras gave everyone problems on anything but clay.

Of course Sampras would give everyone problems. But remember Sampras was in the zone serving in that tournament. He served well even for him with what seemed like a trillion aces. He was fantastic.

But at the same time let's face it I still think Lendl in his prime would give everyone problems also.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

You may have some doubt about Sampras vs. Lendl, but, I don't. IMO, Sampras would have a winning record against Lendl on every surface but clay. Further, IMO, Agassi would have a winning record against Lendl on grass and faster hard courts, and perhaps be even with Lendl on slower hard courts and clay.

The last part makes no sense considering Agassi has a much better record on slow hard courts than fast, and Lendl a much better one on fast hard courts than slow. So how on earth would Agassi fare better on fast hard courts.

Lendl would definitely have the edge on fast hard courts, his U.S Open record vs Agassi's is no contest. Also if we want to talk about competition note who Agassi beat to win his 2 U.S Opens, pretty much a string of second rate stars and relative nobodies, with the very best foes beaten en route being Stich, Kafelnikov, and Todd Martin. Lendl atleast beat guys like McEnroe, Wilander, Connors (albeit aging) to win his, and in other years he made finals. Agassi's biggest ever wins at the U.S Open was beating Boris Becker, his pigeon, twice.

Neither Sampras or Lendl were dominant in Austraila, so most likely the years they peaked and won there wouldnt even coincide or impact the other. Sampras would have zero impact on Lendl at the French Open obviously (and for that matter it is unlikely Agassi would). So the only place Sampras could have impacted Lendl's record in all likelihood is the U.S Open. However if we add Sampras in a hypothetical for Lendl we might as well remove all the other greats- McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, Borg, that Agassi never faced while winning any of his slams other than their very most twilight years.

There is no argument for Agassi being greater than Lendl. He was never as dominant. He was nowhere near as consistent. He wasnt really more or even as versatile overall despite his career slam when you consider Lendl won frequently on hard courts, clay, and carpet, which Agassi only did on hard courts. His peak level of play was definitely not higher considering in his best year ever he barely beat Medvedev and Todd Martin in his 2 slam final victories, and lost to Vince Spadea in one of the remaining two. His longevity being superior is debateable considering Lendl reached slam finals for 10 consecutive years. I do think Agassi probably had more talent but unfortunately his off court problems prevented him from following it maximizing it the way Lendl did his.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by lendlmac

Lendl was already 30 years old and way past his prime! Little Pete Sampras was barely 19! and coming of age Can't compare overlap..

Just like Agassi didn't start to beat Lendl until Lendl was already 32 yrs. old! and he retired at 34 in '94 Before then, Agassi was top 10, but losing badly to Lendl...

the magic number intennis is 29/30 years old....somethng happens, and your game slips, slower, and the younger guys exlpoit that...

The overlap consists of 8 matches played between 1990 and 1994. Sampras won 5 and Lendl won 3. All the Lendl wins were on carpet, the last one in 1993. Considering this was the tail end of Lendl's career, the results of the overlap hardly suggest that Sampras would have easily dominated Lendl in 85-87.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=L018&oId=S402

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The last part makes no sense considering Agassi has a much better record on slow hard courts than fast, and Lendl a much better one on fast hard courts than slow. So how on earth would Agassi fare better on fast hard courts.

Agassi would have a winning record against Lendl on fast hard courts for the same reason he would have a winning record against Lendl on grass, his compact windup was more amenable to faster courts than Lendl's.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

PC1, the total titles you credit Agassi and Sampras are limited to ATP titles. Federer surpassed Sampras in total ATP titles about a year ago. However, the total titles you credit Lendl with are all titles including non-ATP events. Connors holds the record of total ATP titles of 109, if I remember the total correctly.

You may have some doubt about Sampras vs. Lendl, but, I don't. IMO, Sampras would have a winning record against Lendl on every surface but clay. Further, IMO, Agassi would have a winning record against Lendl on grass and faster hard courts, and perhaps be even with Lendl on slower hard courts and clay.

My friend, a number of that non ATP tournaments were very strong WCT tournaments also. Sampras was a great player no doubt but hardly unbeatable, especially off grass courts where he won half of his majors. Lendl would undoubtedly trouble Sampras on almost all surfaces except for grass and Sampras would trouble Lendl on all surfaces except for clay.

Sampras, with a 77.4% lifetime winning percentage against all players is great but to I think it would be very tough for either player. I can see Sampras getting inspired and beating Lendl on occasion on red clay like he did against Russia in the Davis Cup and Lendl may on occasion upset Sampras on grass but I do think it unlikely for either event to happen.

As far as Agassi is concerned, I would agree Agassi would have an edge on grass but Lendl wasn't exactly a poor player on grass, reaching the finals of Wimbledon twice and winning some grass tournaments with a lifetime 76.4 winning percentage. That's not bad.

On every other surface Lendl's winning percentage is over 81%.

[Benhur]

To say that Agassi would have had "Federeresque" domination if Sampras hadn’t been around is contradicted by the evidence. These are the year-end rankings through the 90s. The only years when Sampras prevented Agassi from being number 1 are 94 and 95.


1990
1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
2 Becker, Boris (GER)
3 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
4 Agassi, Andre (USA)
5 Sampras, Pete (USA)
6 Gomez, Andres (ECU)
7 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
8 Sanchez, Emilio (ESP)
9 Ivanisevic, Goran (YUG)
10 Gilbert, Brad (USA)

1991
1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
2 Courier, Jim (USA)
3 Becker, Boris (GER)
4 Stich, Michael (GER)
5 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
6 Sampras, Pete (USA)
7 Forget, Guy (FRA)
8 Novacek, Karel (TCH)
9 Korda, Petr (TCH)
10 Agassi, Andre (USA)

1992
1 Courier, Jim (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Sampras, Pete (USA)
4 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Korda, Petr (TCH)
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED)

1993
1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Stich, Michael (GER)
3 Courier, Jim (USA)
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
6 Medvedev, Medvedev (UKR)
7 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
8 Chang, Michael (USA)
9 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
10 Pioline, Cédric (FRA)
[…]
24 Agassi, Andre (USA)

1994
1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Agassi, Andre (USA)
3 Becker, Boris (GER)
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
8 Berasategui, Alberto (ESP)
9 Stich, Michael (GER)
10 Martin, Todd (USA)

1995
1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 AGASSI, ANDRE\
3 MUSTER, THOMAS
4 BECKER, BORIS
5 CHANG, MICHAEL
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS
8 COURIER, JIM
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN

1996
1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 CHANG, MICHAEL
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN
5 MUSTER, THOMAS
6 BECKER, BORIS
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD
8 AGASSI, ANDRE
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE

1997
1SAMPRAS, PETE
2RAFTER, PATRICK
3CHANG, MICHAEL
4BJORKMAN, JONAS
5KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
6RUSEDSKI, GREG
7MOYA, CARLOS
8BRUGUERA, SERGI
9MUSTER, THOMAS
10RIOS, MARCELO
[…]
122 AGASSI, ANDRE


1998
1 Sampras, Pete
2 Rios, Marcelo
3 Corretja, Alex
4 Rafter, Patrick
5 Moya, Carlos
6 Agassi, Andre
7 Henman, Tim
8 Kucera, Karol
9 Rusedski, Greg
10 Krajicek, Richard

1999
1 Agassi, Andre
2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
3 Sampras, Pete
4 Enqvist, Thomas
5 Kuerten, Gustavo
6 Kiefer, Nicolas
7 Martin, Todd
8 Lapentti, Nicolas
9 Rios, Marcelo
10 Krajicek, Richard

2000
1 Kuerten, Gustavo
2 Safin, Marat
3 Sampras, Pete
4 Norman, Magnus
5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
6 Agassi, Andre
7 Hewitt, Lleyton
8 Corretja, Alex
9 Enqvist, Thomas
10 Henman, Tim

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

For what's its worth:

I've heard Lendl say numerous times that he was sort of embarassed that people brought up his 8 straight USO finals so often ("I would rather be known for winning 3 USO's than losing in 5 finals")

He's also been one of those players that has said "2nd place really doesn't matter."

If that is the case then he under-rated himself. All but 1 of those 11 losing finals were against a player who at some time in his career was number 1 in the world. (So these weren't bad loses by any means).

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Benhur

1997
1SAMPRAS, PETE
2RAFTER, PATRICK
3CHANG, MICHAEL
4BJORKMAN, JONAS
5KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
6RUSEDSKI, GREG
7MOYA, CARLOS
8BRUGUERA, SERGI
9MUSTER, THOMAS
10RIOS, MARCELO
[…]
122 AGASSI, ANDRE

Agassi finished 1997 as 110 in the world, not 122.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings....1997&r=101&c=

Agassi was 122 in the world on the week starting on the 24th November 1997 when he played and won the challenger tournament in Burbank. Winning the tournament took his ranking up to 110 starting on the 1st December 1997.