RS
Bionic Poster
Yes i saw it but just added it is a very small sample to judge .
Did Ivan Lendl have the toughest competition among ATG?
- Thread starter BauerAlmeida
- Start date
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Not really, Agassi was on and off as a top player and he was his biggest rival. Also, he didn't have that many really strong rivals at the end of his career. When the likes of Edberg, Becker, Courier, etc. were declining he had a pretty good field at one point to rack up some titles. He had a very strong era when he was breaking through with Mac/Lendl/Connors still around and Becker/Edgberg peaking + Agassi.
Sunny014
Legend
When we talk of 6 Slams then the person has multiple slams on at least 2 turfs and sometimes even on 3 turfs, so that helps.
Guys with 2, 3, 4 are all no different from guys with 1 who lost a few finals, argument could be made for everyone.
But 6 is a proper cutoff!
Sunny014
Legend
Facing guys like Pioline/Courier in Wimbledon finals, having Agassi as his best rival in a SNV era instead of another SNV specialist?
Never wining Clay?
From his 26th birthday to his 31st birthday never winning anything outside Grass for 5 years in Slams, failure to capitalize the vacuum era of 00-03?
So many holes in his resume!
Agassi winning all 4 slams and then BIg 3 also winning all 4 slams has raised some legit questions on Sampras !
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
I think Edberg and Becker with 6 slams are usually seen as the split between ATG and not ATG. Though maybe Agassi/Lendl/Connors with 8 could be seen as the cut-off if we are being more strict, leaving Becker/Edberg/Wilander just below (I would still include Mac even if he's one below, everyone would agree he's better than Wilander even they're on the same number). There are still different tiers there, obviously, with Borg and Sampras being a level above those, and the Big 3 are by now pretty much their own tier.
Vilas, Murray, Courier, Nastase are elite players but not ATG in my book.
Vilas, Murray, Courier, Nastase are elite players but not ATG in my book.
daggerman
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I think he has a strong case. He played 5 ATGs at least 22 times and caught each of them at or very near their prime. He also played Borg, Sampras, and Agassi 8 times each, where the vast majority of those matches took place outside of Lendl's prime.
But with that said, I don't think his competition from 1985-87, when he was at his most dominant, was all that impressive overall. I don't think it was a "weak era," but it wasn't particularly strong, either.
But with that said, I don't think his competition from 1985-87, when he was at his most dominant, was all that impressive overall. I don't think it was a "weak era," but it wasn't particularly strong, either.
Sunny014
Legend
Mac is a legit ATG.
7 Slams
8 Tour Finals (alternative+official combined) - ( best of 5 setters they were )
He is the Carpet GOAT and and ATG on HCs as well as Grass.
You could put him just below Borg-Sampras's league too if you wanted, definetly a bonafide ATG, definetly ahead of Agassi despite Agassi having 8 slams.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I have him in the level of Connors, Lendl and Agassi and ahead of Wilander. But I would put Agassi ahead of him.
Sunny014
Legend
But he is a more accomplished Grass courter as well as an equally accomplished hard courter + a far more accomplished carpet ATG than anyone
How can Agassi be ahead ??
Mcenroe triumphed over Borg while Agassi was always Sampras's pigeon.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
The interesting case with Lendl is that he really underperformed in slam finals. His stats other than # slams reads way more in the league of Sampras/Big three than in the league of Agassi/Mac/Connors.
19 slam finals (more than Sampras and Borg)
94 tournament wins (still more than Nadal and Djokovic and mostly legit ones not like Connors)
270 weeks at No.1 (more than Nadal, only slightly less than Sampras)
5 YEC (on par with Djokovic and Sampras, along with 9 consecutive finals which even Federer could not match)
He is also the only ATG with a negative score in slam finals, so I do agree that he had the toughest competition but also was a little weak mentally when it mattered most (in the end he also beat the very same competition outside of slams).
19 slam finals (more than Sampras and Borg)
94 tournament wins (still more than Nadal and Djokovic and mostly legit ones not like Connors)
270 weeks at No.1 (more than Nadal, only slightly less than Sampras)
5 YEC (on par with Djokovic and Sampras, along with 9 consecutive finals which even Federer could not match)
He is also the only ATG with a negative score in slam finals, so I do agree that he had the toughest competition but also was a little weak mentally when it mattered most (in the end he also beat the very same competition outside of slams).
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Agassi still has one more slam and also the “Career Super Slam” (only player to ever do so). He is also comfortably ahead of clay. It is very close, but I can see a case being made for either one.
Last edited:
Sounds like Djokovic dethroning Roger and Rafa, except Rafa didn't give up like Borg did the moment a guy with higher level of tennis showed up.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
You're like the dormouse in the teapot at the Mad Hatter's Party, aren't you?
RS
Bionic Poster
Was Murray a 8/10 or above in any of his slam finals?
yea and in that Borg/Connors/Mac triangular rivalry lendl was like Murray at the beginning... always the bridesmaid lol
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
This pretty much. Agassi has one extra slam over Mac and won them all (and reached the finals of all of them in a row) in a very heterogenized era. That aside from having won also the YEC, Olympic Gold and 7/9 M1000. It's close but that gives him the edge imo.
vandre
Hall of Fame
lendl had to contend with 6 multiple slam winners: borg, connors, macenroe, wilander, becker and edberg.
lendl also skipped the french a couple of times to focus on grass for wimbledon. i don't think it would be out of the question for lendl to have snagged another french open title or possibly two. gomez (who won in 90) had an unfortunate habit of losing to lendl at the french so who knows what would have happened had lendl shown up at the french in 90. also there was no aussie open in 1986. had that tournament been held that year, it would have been sandwiched between lendl's 85 uso title and his 86 french open title. the same year (86) he also made the final at wimbledon and won another uso title.
lendl also skipped the french a couple of times to focus on grass for wimbledon. i don't think it would be out of the question for lendl to have snagged another french open title or possibly two. gomez (who won in 90) had an unfortunate habit of losing to lendl at the french so who knows what would have happened had lendl shown up at the french in 90. also there was no aussie open in 1986. had that tournament been held that year, it would have been sandwiched between lendl's 85 uso title and his 86 french open title. the same year (86) he also made the final at wimbledon and won another uso title.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Mac and Agassi are close, but I think McEnroe is a bit higher. Agassi's performance was very up and down over the years while McEnroe was consistently great during his peak years so he ended up with far more weeks at #1 than Agassi and ended 4 years as #1 to Agassi's 1. Mac's consistency also gave him a significantly higher career win/loss percentage than Agassi, 82% to 76%.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
While I agree with your sentiment that Lendl was a late bloomer that was helped by Connors' aging (the turnaround in their head-to-head is staggering), Borg more or less retired at age 25 so Lendl never faced an "old Borg."
Sunny014
Legend
Connors clearly missed many slams, he probably missed a French Open or 2, he missed many of those Aus Opens where journeymen were making the finals and winning it. All that added on his resume he emerges greater than Lendl who pretty much played every AO and did not miss any chance to win slams. He already maximized his winning chances.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Yeah, had Connors played the 10 Australian Opens and 5 French Opens he missed during his prime, he could have easily ended up with 12 or more major titles. The only 2 times he played the Australian, he won it once and was a finalist the other time.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
If you count the number of head-to-head matches played against opponents who have won at least 3 Slams or if you want 5 Slams, who do you think will come out on top? The count should be done of only matches after those players won that many (3 or 5) Slams and not include matches played prior to that. So, playing a very young Federer, Agassi or McEnroe before they won 3 or 5 Slams should not count.
I have a feeling that the answer might be Djokovic, but am not sure.
I have a feeling that the answer might be Djokovic, but am not sure.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Cashman
Hall of Fame
lol
I have a feeling you thought of your answer and then worked your way back to a question, but am not sure.
abmk
Bionic Poster
so you can't reply to actual points countering yours and resort to utter gibberish.
Typical of the insecure Murray goggle eyed chutiya that you are.
RS
Bionic Poster
So the 3 Murray won and maybe Wi 2012?
Beckerserve
Legend
No Sampras dominates his era which had loads of Major champions. Arguably 3rd of all time after Nadal and Federer
Beckerserve
Legend
Courier was a great player but Sampras got better of him as well as a rejuvenated Becker 1995-1996. Then Agassi appeared and Sampras overwhelmed him.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
What's the point of trying to counter any of your points? You just enjoy trying to shoot down anything I might point out that favours Murray coz that's the kind of guy you are.
I repeat, you're like the proverbial Dormouse, always popping his little head out when anyone dares to compare Murray with an ATG in any favourable light.
I can't be bothered with you, I really can't and I repeat, please don't take this as any kind of admission on my part that you've won one of your many pathetic arguments. I'm much more interested in having civilised exchanges with civilised and objective posters who may well not be Murray fans but who don't get their skivvies in a twist whenever anyone dares to make a favourable comparison with any of their own personal favourites.
Now go and bore some other poor soul. Cheerio!
abmk
Bionic Poster
yap yap yap.
You didn't address the point at all because you can't:
I myself have pointed out positives of Murray on many occasions where warranted.
Just that I'm not a Murray goggle eyed nincompoop like you.
I will point out where posts are far off from reality. Your boy Murray ain't special in that regard unlike what your narcissistic self may believe.
I'm not sure about whether he faced the toughest or not and would have to think further about that, but he did face incredibly difficult competition throughout his career. His consistency across the big tournaments, against the backdrop of polarised surface conditions, coming up against and adapting to opponents with a wide range of different playing styles (serve volleyers were much more prevalent on the circuit in the 80s than the 90s), only 16 seeds at the majors, plenty of dangerous unseeded / lower ranked players to worry about in the earlier rounds, young players emerging and snapping at his heels etc., was incredible.
Of course he was brushed aside by Cash at the final hurdle at Wimbledon in 1987, but being able to beat Wilander on clay at RG playing pretty much as a defensive grinder and then a month later beat Edberg on grass at Wimbledon serve volleying behind 1st and 2nd serves (like 2 different sports), was pretty special.
Of course he was brushed aside by Cash at the final hurdle at Wimbledon in 1987, but being able to beat Wilander on clay at RG playing pretty much as a defensive grinder and then a month later beat Edberg on grass at Wimbledon serve volleying behind 1st and 2nd serves (like 2 different sports), was pretty special.
Sunny014
Legend
Sampras's era was a weak era where many people could win championships, thats also 1 way to see things.
Infact that is the truth, if Sampras was that great winning in a tough era then his dominance should only have increased when next gen was weak, but he did not get stronger, Agassi got stronger though.
Pete got exposed
Sunny014
Legend
Nd Nadal is 4th of all time @Beckerserve 
Federer, Djokovic and Sampras are the top 3.
Nadal the 1 trick pony a close 4th
Federer, Djokovic and Sampras are the top 3.
Nadal the 1 trick pony a close 4th
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
lol that’s exactly what popped into my head when I saw that post.
aliceinpains
Rookie
Agassi beat Sampras quite a few times. Only reason Pete had the better record was because Pete wasn't good enough to play Andre on clay. I have Agassi over McEnroe. Mac didn't win two of the slams.
RS
Bionic Poster
Federer beat Murray up in the last 2 sets so who knows
NatF
Bionic Poster
Different era, Mac barely played two of the majors (AO&FO) during his prime.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That is this old myth. Agassi is only 3-2 on clay vs Pete so it is not that he would be expected to completely destroy him had they played more often. Same argument you can say Agassi did not reach Sampras often enough on grass where the difference in ability between those two is bigger than on clay. Also those two meetings at the AO were unbelievably close and could have gone either way.
Sampras would have a positive H2H regardless against Agassi of any hypotheticals.
Connors is not winning a RG title during those years. Not happening on red clay with Vilas, and Borg in the draw. But that Aussie fast grass with the higher bounce and dryer windy conditions is perfect for his game. He loves that target practice and his flat hard strokes and underspin/ sidespin off the forehand will be very effective. He can hit through the Aussie wind and exploit it with his lob. This is not the man I want returning my serve and driving groundies against me, at Kooyoung
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Came awful close to winning the latter during one of the few times he played there.
aliceinpains
Rookie
That's his own fault. But he was never good enough to win a French because he never had the stamina. And he underperformed the years he played AO in his prime.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He played the AO once in 1983 before he basically fell off a cliff in 1985, two times total before 1989...He was two sets up on Lendl so wouldn't say he was never good enough, he was certainly more dominant than Agassi ever was which is a massive tick in his favour when comparing the two.
aliceinpains
Rookie
Disagree. Pete was horrible at the French. Andre destroyed Pete at the French in 92. Andre was a better grass court player, than Pete a clay court player.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
