Ivan Lendl totaly underated

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

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).

He lost to great names like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Cash. All except Cash are all time greats.

Becker was the Lendl nemesis in majors defeating him in five majors and three finals, one in the finals of Wimbledon in 1986, the second at the 1990 US Open final and the third in 1991 Australian Open final. The only time Lendl beat Becker in a major was in five sets in the round of sixteen in the 1993 US Open. Lendl, according to the ATP records had an overall 11 to 10 edge.

Of course Connors beat him in two straight US Open finals in 1982 and 1983. McEnroe beat him in a number of majors finals as did Wilander.

When Lendl lost in a major final I guess it was generally to all time greats.

[Benhur]

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.

There seems to be some confusion here.

The ATP site lists 94 official titles for Lendl and 50 finals.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...endl.aspx?t=tf

And the ATP site lists 109 titles for Connors and 51 finals.

Both Lendl and Connors records at the ATP site contain their WCT tournaments, of course. As do the records of all the players that played them. Those were real tournaments, just like the slams are real tournaments without being held by the ATP.

Besides that, 40 additional titles are listed by wikipedia on the Connors pages, and 53 additional titles are listed in Lendl career statistics page. Some of these were small fields and others were pretty strong fields. Adding these titles would bring the total to 149 for Connors and 147 for Lendl.

Agassi is listed with 60 titles and 30 finals on the ATP site.
Sampras 64 titles and 24 finals

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

Thanks Mustard. I took the rankings from the Steve G Tennis rankings site. I guess they used the wrong date for 1997.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Benhur

There seems to be some confusion here.

The ATP site lists 94 official titles for Lendl and 50 finals.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...endl.aspx?t=tf

And the ATP site lists 109 titles for Connors and 51 finals.

Both Lendl and Connors records at the ATP site contain their WCT tournaments, of course. As do the records of all the players that played them. Those were real tournaments, just like the slams are real tournaments without being held by the ATP.

Besides that, 40 additional titles are listed by wikipedia on the Connors pages, and 53 additional titles are listed in Lendl career statistics page. Some of these were small fields and others were pretty strong fields. Adding these titles would bring the total to 149 for Connors and 147 for Lendl.

Agassi is listed with 60 titles and 30 finals on the ATP site.
Sampras 64 titles and 24 finals

I'm not sure what confusion you're referring to? You haven't said anything that contradicts what I said.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Benhur

Thanks Mustard. I took the rankings from the Steve G Tennis rankings site. I guess they used the wrong date for 1997.

No probs. I've seen the 122 rank incorrectly listed from a few sources. Maybe because the World Championships and the Davis Cup final were over before the end of November in 1997.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

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.

The windup may have been great, but it fails to show on the results. Agassi has distinctly lower winning percentages than Lendl on every type of surface: Hard, clay, grass, carpet, indoor or outdoor. His grass winning% is lower than Lendl's by nearly 3 percentage points. But the biggest difference shows up on carpet, where Agassi is an astonishing 19 percentage points below Lendl (!!).

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Benhur

The windup may have been great, but it fails to show on the results. Agassi has distinctly lower winning percentages than Lendl on every type of surface: Hard, clay, grass, carpet, indoor or outdoor. His grass winning% is lower than Lendl's by nearly 3 percentage points. But the biggest difference shows up on carpet, where Agassi is an astonishing 19 percentage points below Lendl (!!).

So what? Don't you think that Agassi's mid-career crash was a major cause of his "career" winning percentage being lower than Lendl's? The problem with looking at discrete statistics without considering outside factors that have a significant effect on such statistics is that it leads to incongruous conclusions. The bottom line is that Agassi's career winning percentage doesn't accurately reflect his level of play for the majority of his career.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

So what? Don't you think that Agassi's mid-career crash was a major cause of his "career" winning percentage being lower than Lendl's? The problem with looking at discrete statistics without considering outside factors that have a significant effect on such statistics is that it leads to incongruous conclusions. The bottom line is that Agassi's career winning percentage doesn't accurately reflect his level of play for the majority of his career.

Limpinhitter,

I think in Agassi's best year in winning percentage he was 73-9 if memory serves. A little below 90 percent. Lendl won at about a 91% rate over a period of FIVE YEARS. That is sustained brilliance that Agassi couldn't have even in one year at his highest level of play.

I don't know how to measure talent and total skills except in results and Lendl beats Agassi for a short period and a long period.

Another thing is that while Agassi had some of the best groundies ever on a subjective basis, you can say the same about Lendl but Lendl, unlike Agassi, had a great serve, at least according to just about everyone who saw and played him. Isn't a great serve one of the great neutralizers that can cover up weaknesses, if any? Lendl had one of the best serves in his time.

On a stroke by stroke, mobility and stamina basis, where is Agassi superior to Lendl? I will gave you that Agassi's backhand is superior but I think Lendl's forehand is superior. You can decide the rest.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by pc1

Limpinhitter,

I think in Agassi's best year in winning percentage he was 73-9 if memory serves. A little below 90 percent. Lendl won at about a 91% rate over a period of FIVE YEARS. That is sustained brilliance that Agassi couldn't have even in one year at his highest level of play.

These are Lendl's percentages for the decade (1981-1990) from highest to lowest. The average for the best 5 years is 92.08. The average for the entire decade is 87.9.

1985: 93.4
1986: 92.5
1982: 92.2
1989: 92.0
1987: 90.3

1981: 87.4
1988: 85.7
1990: 83.3
1983: 82.6
1984: 79.5

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

So what? Don't you think that Agassi's mid-career crash was a major cause of his "career" winning percentage being lower than Lendl's? The problem with looking at discrete statistics without considering outside factors that have a significant effect on such statistics is that it leads to incongruous conclusions. The bottom line is that Agassi's career winning percentage doesn't accurately reflect his level of play for the majority of his career.

Even if you looked only at Agassi's better years, Lendl performed better by a huge margin on both clay and carpet. On hard courts and grass their performance levels in their best years are about equal.

You make it sound like Agassi's slumps and up and down career can just be dismissed as a non factor. They actually detract from his greatness, not enhance it.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by pc1

He lost to great names like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Cash. All except Cash are all time greats.

Becker was the Lendl nemesis in majors defeating him in five majors and three finals, one in the finals of Wimbledon in 1986, the second at the 1990 US Open final and the third in 1991 Australian Open final. The only time Lendl beat Becker in a major was in five sets in the round of sixteen in the 1993 US Open. Lendl, according to the ATP records had an overall 11 to 10 edge.

Of course Connors beat him in two straight US Open finals in 1982 and 1983. McEnroe beat him in a number of majors finals as did Wilander.

When Lendl lost in a major final I guess it was generally to all time greats.

Becker could overpower Ivan, one of the few who could back then and Ivan was candid about Becker's power being a big factor in his defeats.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Even if you looked only at Agassi's better years, Lendl performed better by a huge margin on both clay and carpet. On hard courts and grass their performance levels in their best years are about equal.

You make it sound like Agassi's slumps and up and down career can just be dismissed as a non factor. They actually detract from his greatness, not enhance it.

Sorry dude Agassi won Wimbledon. Lendl did not so no they aren't about equal on grass. and frankly Lendl would not have beaten Goran that day.

As for the slumps you are correct -if Andre had not gone south for three season in his physical prime he would probabaly be ranked ahead of Ivan. But he did not and did not have a s great a career.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Becker could overpower Ivan, one of the few who could back then and Ivan was candid about Becker's power being a big factor in his defeats.

And, Agassi could overpower Becker!

[Benhur]

One more thing to note about the Lendl-Sampras head-to-head is that the last 2 matches were played in 1994, the year Lendl retired with a chronic injury, as his level of play took a terminal dive and he was losing in early rounds everywhere. 1994 also happens to be Sampras best year as far as I can see: he won two majors + the year-end championship + three Super-9 tournaments.

So if you ignore 1994 for being so obviously indicative of nothing but a total mismatch, and you look at the rest of their head to head (1990-1993), you are left with the following fact: A 19-22 year old Sampras is 3-3 against a 30-33 year old Lendl. All the Lendl wins were on carpet. Two of Sampras wins were on hard.

Again, from this, you can hardly conclude that Sampras in his prime would have thoroughly “dominated” 25-27 year old Lendl on everything but clay. A more reasonable assumption is that Sampras would have dominated on grass, Lendl would have dominated on clay, and it would have been too close to call on other surfaces.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

And, Agassi could overpower Becker!

After 1989 it looked like Agassi toyed with Boris

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

Limpinhitter,

I think in Agassi's best year in winning percentage he was 73-9 if memory serves. A little below 90 percent. Lendl won at about a 91% rate over a period of FIVE YEARS. That is sustained brilliance that Agassi couldn't have even in one year at his highest level of play.

I don't know how to measure talent and total skills except in results and Lendl beats Agassi for a short period and a long period.

Another thing is that while Agassi had some of the best groundies ever on a subjective basis, you can say the same about Lendl but Lendl, unlike Agassi, had a great serve, at least according to just about everyone who saw and played him. Isn't a great serve one of the great neutralizers that can cover up weaknesses, if any? Lendl had one of the best serves in his time.

On a stroke by stroke, mobility and stamina basis, where is Agassi superior to Lendl? I will gave you that Agassi's backhand is superior but I think Lendl's forehand is superior. You can decide the rest.

IMO, Lendl had the better serve, although Agassi's serve is underrated, they were about equal on forehand, and Agassi had the better backhand. Agassi hit harder than Lendl and was just as steady. But, most importantly, not only was Agassi's return game better than Lendl's (he probably had the best return game in the history of tennis), Agassi's return game was better than Lendl's serve game on a relative basis.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Benhur

One more thing to note about the Lendl-Sampras head-to-head is that the last 2 matches were played in 1994, the year Lendl retired with a chronic injury, as his level of play took a terminal dive and he was losing in early rounds everywhere. 1994 also happens to be Sampras best year as far as I can see: he won two majors + the year-end championship + three Super-9 tournaments.

So if you ignore 1994 for being so obviously indicative of nothing but a total mismatch, and you look at the rest of their head to head (1990-1993), you are left with the following fact: A 19-22 year old Sampras is 3-3 against a 30-33 year old Lendl. All the Lendl wins were on carpet. Two of Sampras wins were on hard.

Again, from this, you can hardly conclude that Sampras in his prime would have thoroughly “dominated” 25-27 year old Lendl on everything but clay. A more reasonable assumption is that Sampras would have dominated on grass, Lendl would have dominated on clay, and it would have been too close to call on other surfaces.

As soon as someome uses terms like "thoroughly dominated" when discussing the relative greatness of all time greats, you know they are not thinking clearly. Having said that, I don't recall anyone saying that about Sampras and Lendl.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

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.

Lendl was by some distance better on fast hard courts than agassi. By some distance better at the US Open and miles ahead at the year ending championships. In general , quite a bit better on indoor.

yes, agassi was better on grass, but that was due to lendl not being that comfortable there with the movement and bounces in comparision to the hard courts.

And agassi himself was better on slower HCs than on fast HCs , and better on slow HCs than lendl IMO ...

And of course lendl was quite a bit better on clay.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

IMO, Lendl had the better serve, although Agassi's serve is underrated, they were about equal on forehand, and Agassi had the better backhand. Agassi hit harder than Lendl and was just as steady. But, most importantly, not only was Agassi's return game better than Lendl's (he probably had the best return game in the history of tennis), Agassi's return game was better than Lendl's serve game on a relative basis.

you are under-rating the difference in their serves IMO ....

Also I think lendl's FH was a bit better than agassi's ; the running FH in particular is a no-contest.

You also neglected the movement factor. Ivan was a better mover than agassi.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by abmk

Lendl was by some distance better on fast hard courts than agassi. By some distance better at the US Open and miles ahead at the year ending championships. In general , quite a bit better on indoor.

yes, agassi was better on grass, but that was due to lendl not being that comfortable there with the movement and bounces in comparision to the hard courts.

And agassi himself was better on slower HCs than on fast HCs , and better on slow HCs than lendl IMO ...

And of course lendl was quite a bit better on clay.

Not entirely convinced about the grass. These are their best 6 years on grass:

Lendl
1989: 11-1
1990: 10-1
1986: 6-1
1987: 10-2
1988: 5-1
1985: 7-2

Agassi:
1992: 7-0
1999: 6-1
1995: 5-1
2001: 5-1
1991-4-1
2000: 6-2

Best year, Agassi has a better record
Second best year Lendl has a better record
Third best year Lendl has a better record
Fourth best year is equal
Fifth best year Lendl has a better record
Sixth best year Lendl has a better record.

Does this mean that Agassi was better on grass? Why?