Did Lendl dominate Becker

roysid

roysid

Hall of Fame
A popular thought among everyone is that Lendl dominated his rivals. That's because his superior head to head record, being No. 1 most of the time etc.
That's what Pete Sampras regularly says.

But look closely, did Lendl dominate Becker?

The H2H is 11-10 in Lendl's favour. But a look at the Slams it tells
86' Wimby Final - Becker
88' Wimby SF - Becker
89' Wimby SF - Becker
89' US Final - Becker
91' AO Final - Becker
92' US 4th round - Lendl

Becker defeated him in 3 slam finals, 2 slam semis and lost only 1 4th round. Had he won those 5 matches, Lendl probably would go on to win 4 more Slams.

In Year end masters final, Lendl won '85 and '86 final while Becker won '88.
 
Last edited:
T

timnz

Legend
Lendl won 92 US Open

Your last entry is wrong. Lendl won the 92 US Open encounter.

I think Becker was a better 'big match' player. However, he was not as good year-in year-out as Lendl ie no-where as consistent.
 
roysid

roysid

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
Your last entry is wrong. Lendl won the 92 US Open encounter.

I think Becker was a better 'big match' player. However, he was not as good year-in year-out as Lendl ie no-where as consistent.
Click to expand...
Sorry I corrected this.
U're right that Becker was not consistent. But the big matches do make a difference.
 
F

flying24

Banned
I dont buy much into that overall slam head to head.

So Lendl lost 3 times to Becker on grass. yet Becker never gets far enough to play Lendl at the French on clay. If they played 3 times at the French instead Lendl almost certainly wins all 3 times. Highly unlikely Becker even comes as close as Lendl came vs Becker at Wimbledon. Lendl is punished there for being better on grass than Becker is on clay.

On hard courts Becker was nowhere near as consistent or strong overall as Lendl. It just happened the only times he got far enough to even play Lendl where some of the best hard court tournaments of his whole career. The 1991 meeting especialy was Lendl past his prime too. The 1989 U.S Open final was his most impressive win over Lendl ever no doubt.

The year end Masters is the biggest non slam event on Becker's best surface of carpet back then. Lendl leads Becker 3-1 overall there and 2-1 in finals.

Their overall head to head is 11-10 Lendl. Only 1 meeting on clay so if you take out their 1 meeting on clay (won by Lendl of course) it would be 10-10 even with 0 matches between them on clay. You look at their overall head to head they played 11 (just over half) of their matches on carpet, and another 4 on grass despite the obviously short grass court season. Only 5 on hard courts, despite all the hard courts events that were in existence even then, and as mentioned only 1 on clay. That about sums it up. Lendl was around at the end of every surface, including Becker's favorites (carpet) or Lendl's less favorite (grass). Becker wasnt good enough to consistently be around at the very end on clay, and even to a large degree on hard courts to play someone like Lendl.

One ironic thing though is despite the age difference their primes were arguably during the same time period. 1985 to 1989 for each was arguably their primes. Becker was an extremely early bloomer, while Lendl was a later bloomer than some.

On another note had it not been for the rain delay at Wimbledon 89 in the semis might Lendl and not Becker been 89 Wimbledon Champion? Especialy since Edberg was a virtual no show in the final.
 
Last edited:
O

OrangeOne

Legend
^^Great post. The lack of clay meetings biases this H2H, just like some may say the lack of grass biases the Nadal-Fed H2H.
 
D

Datacipher

Banned
I'm suprised you even think that the premise is possible, but apparently we have quite a few Lendl fanboys currently.

The feeling at the time, was just the opposite. That Lendl was the one being dominated. In the sense that he lost to Becker at the slams and it was VERY clear that he was psyched out by Becker. Becker wasn't always winning those matches through superior game but because Lendl, would get very tight playing Becker. He had trouble hitting out, serving well etc. The bottom line was that he was somewhat intimidated by Becker, something he was used to doing to other players. In that sense, one could still see the mentally weak Lendl of his early days.
 
Devilito

Devilito

Hall of Fame
Becker was not a bad clay court player. He had good groundstrokes. Lendl wouldn't have dominated him on clay IMO
 
Winners or Errors

Winners or Errors

Legend
Devilito said:
Becker was not a bad clay court player. He had good groundstrokes. Lendl wouldn't have dominated him on clay IMO
Click to expand...

Ummm... Is this the same Boris Becker who won less than 65% of his matches on clay and won ZERO clay titles in his entire career? Are you saying he could hold his own with Ivan Lendl who won over 81% of his clay court matches and took home 28 clay titles in his career? Really? Really?
 
Devilito

Devilito

Hall of Fame
Winners or Errors said:
Ummm... Is this the same Boris Becker who won less than 65% of his matches on clay and won ZERO clay titles in his entire career? Are you saying he could hold his own with Ivan Lendl who won over 81% of his clay court matches and took home 28 clay titles in his career? Really? Really?
Click to expand...

yeah really. I mean with your statistics and **** why even play the matches at all? If you actually played a sport you'd realize statistics mean nothing when the match begins. If you just watch Becker play then watch Lendl you’d realize Lendl would not dominate him on any surface. Close matches, Lendl winning? Sure. Dominate? No.
 
O

OrangeOne

Legend
Devilito said:
yeah really. I mean with your statistics and **** why even play the matches at all? If you actually played a sport you'd realize statistics mean nothing when the match begins. If you just watch Becker play then watch Lendl you’d realize Lendl would not dominate him on any surface. Close matches, Lendl winning? Sure. Dominate? No.
Click to expand...

Becker made the FO semis 3 times in his career, on one of those times losing to renowned clay-court genius Stefan Edberg :)confused:).

Lendl won the event 3 times, and made the final another 2 times.

Statistics mean something when they represent a career's ability on a surface. We're not talking about one year of their careers here, we're talking about two complete careers. Lendl was an accomplished clay-courter, and arguably one of the best (certainly of his generation). Becker was a fast-court specialist who struggled on clay.

In fact, I'd go as far to say (and I'd be correct in the process) that Lendl was a much better Grass-court player than Becker was a clay-courter!
 
Winners or Errors

Winners or Errors

Legend
Devilito said:
yeah really. I mean with your statistics and **** why even play the matches at all? If you actually played a sport you'd realize statistics mean nothing when the match begins. If you just watch Becker play then watch Lendl you’d realize Lendl would not dominate him on any surface. Close matches, Lendl winning? Sure. Dominate? No.
Click to expand...

Wow. Touchy. Don't like facts? Of course, since they only played on clay one time, in 1985, and Lendl won that match 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, there's little factual data. That said, the reason Becker and Lendl never played each other again is probably because Becker was not a very good clay courter and lost before he reached Lendl in the draw, being only marginally better than that renowned clay court genius Pete Sampras. He was simply not making it deep into clay court tournaments.

Being a big fan of pretty much all the top players of the 80s, I don't have a pony in this race. Though Becker was one of my favorite players, that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. He was not a good clay courter. I suspect, just like Sampras with his love of quick points, he "lacked the patience to play on clay" (Agassi's words about Sampras, not mine).

It's amazing how clay is the achilles heel of so many top players. What is perhaps more amazing is that some top players, like Lendl, Borg, and Wilander, were able to translate their clay roots into quite nice records on the hardcourts and grass. I suspect Nadal is not far behind in doing so; hopefully, his knee holds out.

By the way, I agree that Lendl certainly did not dominate Becker. 11-10, with the H2H in grand slams almost entirely in Becker's favor demonstrate what a threat Becker was when he could boom-boom. Becker was a lot streakier player than Lendl, and I think his highest level (everywhere but on clay) was a tad higher than Lendl's, hence the grand slam H2H. I watched those matches. It wasn't Lendl choking. It was Becker playing solid tennis, IMHO.

Of course, Lendl would tell you that he was the least talented #1 player in history, and that he got there only through meticulous preparation. I don't think that's entirely true, but partly....
 
Last edited:
theagassiman

theagassiman

Rookie
roysid said:
A popular thought among everyone is that Lendl dominated his rivals. That's because his superior head to head record, being No. 1 most of the time etc.
That's what Pete Sampras regularly says.

But look closely, did Lendl dominate Becker?

The H2H is 11-10 in Lendl's favour. But a look at the Slams it tells
86' Wimby Final - Becker
88' Wimby SF - Becker
89' Wimby SF - Becker
89' US Final - Becker
91' AO Final - Becker
92' US 4th round - Lendl

Becker defeated him in 3 slam finals, 2 slam semis and lost only 1 4th round. Had he won those 5 matches, Lendl probably would go on to win 4 more Slams.

In Year end masters final, Lendl won '85 and '86 final while Becker won '88.
Click to expand...

Actually, Lendl lost the 1986 masters final to Becker.
 
B

BTURNER

Legend
Becker: one of the best 1-2 punch masters in the business, whether it was a serve/volley or a return serve / pass combo. the power of each of these strokes was incredible. Almost all of it useless on clay against Lendl . Yes he could rally awhile, before hitting hit forcer or winner on a hard court or grass. But his forehand pales against the Lendl forehand on clay which is both potent and constant. Becker's backhand is not as steady, his shot selection more suspect and his serve gets returned deep consistently. As for stamina in a five setter on clay, Lendl has no tank. He is an oil field. Sorry Lendl wins 3/4 of the matches on a clay court.
 
G

GuyForget

Semi-Pro
roysid said:
Sorry I corrected this.
U're right that Becker was not consistent. But the big matches do make a difference.
Click to expand...
Lendl's was Becker's biatch when it mattered, was definitely psched out by him, 3 times at Wimbledon, once at US and once in Australia, and the 4th round US92 didnt matter since Lendl was done then and it was just a personal consolation for him and neither had any chance of winning it, and none of them were really major forces in the game by then (aside from Becker's surprise YE win)
 
G

GuyForget

Semi-Pro
Winners or Errors said:
Wow. Touchy. Don't like facts? Of course, since they only played on clay one time, in 1985, and Lendl won that match 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, there's little factual data. That said, the reason Becker and Lendl never played each other again is probably because Becker was not a very good clay courter and lost before he reached Lendl in the draw, being only marginally better than that renowned clay court genius Pete Sampras. He was simply not making it deep into clay court tournaments.

Being a big fan of pretty much all the top players of the 80s, I don't have a pony in this race. Though Becker was one of my favorite players, that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. He was not a good clay courter. I suspect, just like Sampras with his love of quick points, he "lacked the patience to play on clay" (Agassi's words about Sampras, not mine).

It's amazing how clay is the achilles heel of so many top players. What is perhaps more amazing is that some top players, like Lendl, Borg, and Wilander, were able to translate their clay roots into quite nice records on the hardcourts and grass. I suspect Nadal is not far behind in doing so; hopefully, his knee holds out.

By the way, I agree that Lendl certainly did not dominate Becker. 11-10, with the H2H in grand slams almost entirely in Becker's favor demonstrate what a threat Becker was when he could boom-boom. Becker was a lot streakier player than Lendl, and I think his highest level (everywhere but on clay) was a tad higher than Lendl's, hence the grand slam H2H. I watched those matches. It wasn't Lendl choking. It was Becker playing solid tennis, IMHO.

Of course, Lendl would tell you that he was the least talented #1 player in history, and that he got there only through meticulous preparation. I don't think that's entirely true, but partly....
Click to expand...
yeah i'd say the final sentence does him a disservice, Lendl way more talented than Rios, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Roddick, he had beautiful clean biomechanics, and nicer to watch than pretty much all today's players
 
B

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
roysid said:
A popular thought among everyone is that Lendl dominated his rivals. That's because his superior head to head record, being No. 1 most of the time etc.
That's what Pete Sampras regularly says.

But look closely, did Lendl dominate Becker?

The H2H is 11-10 in Lendl's favour. But a look at the Slams it tells
86' Wimby Final - Becker
88' Wimby SF - Becker
89' Wimby SF - Becker
89' US Final - Becker
91' AO Final - Becker
92' US 4th round - Lendl

Becker defeated him in 3 slam finals, 2 slam semis and lost only 1 4th round. Had he won those 5 matches, Lendl probably would go on to win 4 more Slams.

In Year end masters final, Lendl won '85 and '86 final while Becker won '88.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a popular thought among "everyone". Just as one example, I've known ever since their careers ended, that Edberg had a winning h2h v. Lendl. 14-13, including 5-4 in Slams.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Peak Lendl was a rock off grass, barely losing big matches (1985-87, won all 3 Masters (YEC) and 5/6 non-grass slams). Outside of that he suffered plenty of big losses, isn't that well-known. Of course, losing mostly closely in 1989-92 to peak Edberg or Becker on HC as he himself was drifting away from peak doesn't mark them as superior players.
 
T

tennistiger

Professional
Beside Lendls physical problems later in his career he was by far a better Player >92 than in the 80. The only problem which it makes difficult to see ist that he was overtaken by the whole game.
 
J

jrepac

Hall of Fame
While their peak periods overlapped, Lendl started his career earlier than Boris and ended it nearly when Boris finished. Ivan played far longer, and was far more consistent that Boris. Boris was a fine 'big match' player, I agree. And, on grass, Ivan's troubles were well known....he was good, but others were better (and nearly everyone he lost to on grass was/became a Wimbledon champ). I do think on hard court, Ivan was better...indoors, Boris had a great record overall, so likely a toss up. While Boris could hold his own on clay, Ivan was much better. But, on a given day could Boris eke out a win on any surface? Certainly.
 
T

thrust

Legend
Winners or Errors said:
Ummm... Is this the same Boris Becker who won less than 65% of his matches on clay and won ZERO clay titles in his entire career? Are you saying he could hold his own with Ivan Lendl who won over 81% of his clay court matches and took home 28 clay titles in his career? Really? Really?
Click to expand...
Good points! Becker was better on grass and fast hard courts? Lendl was better on clay and slow hard courts? Lendl was more consistent, Becker was more dynamic? Lendl, overall, had the superior career, IMO.
 
F

fezer

Rookie
BorgCash said:
Peak Lendl dominate everyone. He almost did not loose during 1986-88.
Click to expand...
Dominate Like in the Wimbledon final 86, sf 88, Masters final 88. Besides that Lendl got bageled by Becker in Sidney 86 and defeated in Chicago 86.
Of course Ivan was the major force in the 2nd half of the eighties and He had memorable wins over Becker (Masters 85/86 eg), but He certainly feared Boris the most during that period.
Becker was the only player then, who really troubled Lendl even when Lendl was playing his a-game. Becker could outrally Lendl and also take the net.
I was really looking towards a big cc Match between those two, but mostly they were seeded too far apart in the draw. In 89 Becker even surpassed Lendl in RG. Besides that Boris had several f/sf showings at MC, Hamburg and Rome and won the DC on Swedish Clay vs Edberg (#3), Wilander (#1) and Edberg/Jarryd (#1). But a clash with Lendl in the red dirt wasnt meant to be. A Lendl win wouldve been expected, but by no means guaranteed.
 
B

BorgCash

Legend
fezer said:
Dominate Like in the Wimbledon final 86, sf 88, Masters final 88. Besides that Lendl got bageled by Becker in Sidney 86 and defeated in Chicago 86.
Of course Ivan was the major force in the 2nd half of the eighties and He had memorable wins over Becker (Masters 85/86 eg), but He certainly feared Boris the most during that period.
Becker was the only player then, who really troubled Lendl even when Lendl was playing his a-game. Becker could outrally Lendl and also take the net.
I was really looking towards a big cc Match between those two, but mostly they were seeded too far apart in the draw. In 89 Becker even surpassed Lendl in RG. Besides that Boris had several f/sf showings at MC, Hamburg and Rome and won the DC on Swedish Clay vs Edberg (#3), Wilander (#1) and Edberg/Jarryd (#1). But a clash with Lendl in the red dirt wasnt meant to be. A Lendl win wouldve been expected, but by no means guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Lendl was concentrating on wimning most im
fezer said:
Dominate Like in the Wimbledon final 86, sf 88, Masters final 88. Besides that Lendl got bageled by Becker in Sidney 86 and defeated in Chicago 86.
Of course Ivan was the major force in the 2nd half of the eighties and He had memorable wins over Becker (Masters 85/86 eg), but He certainly feared Boris the most during that period.
Becker was the only player then, who really troubled Lendl even when Lendl was playing his a-game. Becker could outrally Lendl and also take the net.
I was really looking towards a big cc Match between those two, but mostly they were seeded too far apart in the draw. In 89 Becker even surpassed Lendl in RG. Besides that Boris had several f/sf showings at MC, Hamburg and Rome and won the DC on Swedish Clay vs Edberg (#3), Wilander (#1) and Edberg/Jarryd (#1). But a clash with Lendl in the red dirt wasnt meant to be. A Lendl win wouldve been expected, but by no means guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Lendl was concentrating on winning the most important tournaments.
 
F

forehandblast

Rookie
The fact they had 3 slam meetings at Wimbledon and 0 on clay (where Lendl would win everytime guaranteed, Lendl even has better shot vs Becker on grass than Becker on clay) and 1 of those was in 91 when Lendl was well past his prime, pretty much a meaningless stat. About as meaningful as the 7-2 Venus vs Henin head to head Williams turds pass around all the time. I rate Venus higher than Henin but sure as heck not due to the head to head given its context. Head to head is overrated anyway, but in this case the slam head to head is pretty much meaningless.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
forehandblast said:
The fact they had 3 slam meetings at Wimbledon and 0 on clay (where Lendl would win everytime guaranteed, Lendl even has better shot vs Becker on grass than Becker on clay) and 1 of those was in 91 when Lendl was well past his prime, pretty much a meaningless stat. About as meaningful as the 7-2 Venus vs Henin head to head Williams turds pass around all the time. I rate Venus higher than Henin but sure as heck not due to the head to head given its context. Head to head is overrated anyway, but in this case the slam head to head is pretty much meaningless.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's meaningless that Becker beat Lendl in the final of every major tourney bar the French:

- 1986 W
- 1988 WTF
- 1989 US
- 1991 AO
 
F

forehandblast

Rookie
Phoenix1983 said:
I wouldn't say it's meaningless that Becker beat Lendl in the final of every major tourney bar the French:

- 1986 W
- 1988 WTF
- 1989 US
- 1991 AO
Click to expand...

I guess when you put it that way you have a point. Meaningless is probably overstating it but it is not as simple as 5-1 either with 3 meetings at Wimbledon, by far Becker's best and Lendl's worst surface/slam, and 0 at RG where Lendl would be an overwhelming favorite. If people say the Federer vs Nadal head to head and slam head to head is skewed, which is true to a degree, it certainly is here too probably to a greater degree.

So yeah you have to say Becker got the better of Lendl in the slams where it mattered, but in context not to the degree it sounds like.
 
F

fezer

Rookie
forehandblast said:
The fact they had 3 slam meetings at Wimbledon and 0 on clay (where Lendl would win everytime guaranteed, Lendl even has better shot vs Becker on grass than Becker on clay) and 1 of those was in 91 when Lendl was well past his prime, pretty much a meaningless stat. About as meaningful as the 7-2 Venus vs Henin head to head Williams turds pass around all the time. I rate Venus higher than Henin but sure as heck not due to the head to head given its context. Head to head is overrated anyway, but in this case the slam head to head is pretty much meaningless.
Click to expand...
H2H hast a decisive meaning in exact this context!
The question ist, If Lendl did dominate Becker and the H2H tells us that Lendl did Not. Only 2/3 clear victories (Masters Finals 85/86) for Ivan. Even when Becker was in a slump (87&92) they went the distance. And even on Beckers worst surface it took Lendl three sets to outplay a teenager. Dominance ist somewhat different to me.
I never would rate Becker over Lendl! Of course Lendl ist the more accomplished player. But when these two met on the court, Lendl didnt feel comfortable, even in his prime. Becker was the only player who could Turn matches around and loosen Lendls grip (W98, AO91).
Btw there ist no data proving that Lendl would win every cc match! I support the assumption that Lendl ist the favorite (65:35), but when these two met notging was guaranteed! I really miss a big cc match between these two!
 
Olli Jokinen

Olli Jokinen

Hall of Fame
fezer said:
Dominate Like in the Wimbledon final 86, sf 88, Masters final 88. Besides that Lendl got bageled by Becker in Sidney 86 and defeated in Chicago 86.
Of course Ivan was the major force in the 2nd half of the eighties and He had memorable wins over Becker (Masters 85/86 eg), but He certainly feared Boris the most during that period.
Becker was the only player then, who really troubled Lendl even when Lendl was playing his a-game. Becker could outrally Lendl and also take the net.
I was really looking towards a big cc Match between those two, but mostly they were seeded too far apart in the draw. In 89 Becker even surpassed Lendl in RG. Besides that Boris had several f/sf showings at MC, Hamburg and Rome and won the DC on Swedish Clay vs Edberg (#3), Wilander (#1) and Edberg/Jarryd (#1). But a clash with Lendl in the red dirt wasnt meant to be. A Lendl win wouldve been expected, but by no means guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Becker did not win against Wilander because they never played each other in the DC 1988 final.
 
T

timnz

Legend
timnz said:
Lendl won 92 US Open

Your last entry is wrong. Lendl won the 92 US Open encounter.

I think Becker was a better 'big match' player. However, he was not as good year-in year-out as Lendl ie no-where as consistent.
Click to expand...
That’s right. The relative weeks at number 1 reflect this. Becker was a great big match player but just didn’t have it in him to play at his top level week in and week out
 
F

fezer

Rookie
Olli Jokinen said:
Becker did not win against Wilander because they never played each other in the DC 1988 final.
Click to expand...
that is certainly right, but the scoreline was 5:0 in Germanys favor against seemingly unsurmountable odds. Becker crushed Edberg and won against the #1 doubles combo Edberg/Jarryd with partner Eric Jelen (a journeyman). What i wanted to point out was, that Becker could make improbable things happen even on clay. So you should never write him off even vs Lendl on clay.
 
M

Mareel

New User
fezer said:
that is certainly right, but the scoreline was 5:0 in Germanys favor against seemingly unsurmountable odds. Becker crushed Edberg and won against the #1 doubles combo Edberg/Jarryd with partner Eric Jelen (a journeyman). What i wanted to point out was, that Becker could make improbable things happen even on clay. So you should never write him off even vs Lendl on clay.
Click to expand...

Also, you should never write off anyone vs Becker on clay.
 
Olli Jokinen

Olli Jokinen

Hall of Fame
fezer said:
that is certainly right, but the scoreline was 5:0 in Germanys favor against seemingly unsurmountable odds. Becker crushed Edberg and won against the #1 doubles combo Edberg/Jarryd with partner Eric Jelen (a journeyman). What i wanted to point out was, that Becker could make improbable things happen even on clay. So you should never write him off even vs Lendl on clay.
Click to expand...

It was 4-1. Edberg beat Jelen in the Sunday match. Both Wilander and Carlsson were injured, so stand-in Pernfors lost a meaningless show match against Kühnen.
 
F

fezer

Rookie
Olli Jokinen said:
His name is Carl-Uwe Steeb, though. My mistake.
Click to expand...
Stern was autocorrection. And in Germany He was called Charly.
He had that upset vs Wilander after losing the first two Sets. Steeb once recalled how important it had been to have Becker in the team, because He boosted the confidence that they really could win.
 
Olli Jokinen

Olli Jokinen

Hall of Fame
fezer said:
Stern was autocorrection. And in Germany He was called Charly.
He had that upset vs Wilander after losing the first two Sets. Steeb once recalled how important it had been to have Becker in the team, because He boosted the confidence that they really could win.
Click to expand...

I know. I watched all the matches in that final back in 1988. A poor performance from the Swedish team and the crowd actually booed them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
1989 - Who was the best player that year, Becker or Lendl?
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
CAM178
CAM178
B
Lendl - Becker 1989
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
Moose Malloy
M
K
Straight set losses in majors
Replies
2
Views
634
krosero
K
O
  • Poll
Would Lendl have won a Wimbledon with current conditions?
2 3
Replies
116
Views
10K
urban
U
G
Lendl losses to Cash
Replies
35
Views
1K
jrepac
J
Top