Ivan Lendl totaly underated

krosero · Oct 19, 2011

I was referring mostly to Lendl's grasscourt game, but he also had a net game in some key matches on hardcourt.

He came in 77 times during the '88 USO final. CBS had him at 63% success late in the match.

His number of approaches during the '87 USO final, which he won, was probably very similar. (He was at 50 approaches after 3 hours).

The '85 USO final was a much briefer match with fewer approaches, but his volleys were working to perfection that day.

Agassi's numbers are much, much lower. In his 2000 AO win over Sampras, he approached just 26 times over five sets, a typical number for him. And he won 19 of those, but at that frequency of approaches you're basically coming in when the point is already half won as another poster put it.

Agassi does have a crazy number of approaches in his five-set loss to Wilander at RG (1988 ), something around 100 approaches. And they were successful rushes. But that stands out because he never took that anywhere in later years, and retreated firmly to the baseline.

Edit: Lendl had 28 volley winners in the '88 USO final, and 24 in the '87 final. Agassi in the 2000 win over Sampras had just 3.

urban · Oct 19, 2011

On a lighter note. i remember the Wilander-Agassi match at RG 1988. Maybe Andre did too much running in the first four sets. In the last set he he couldn't stand erect anymore, let alone run. His thin legs gave up on him, and he was grimacing from cramps.

pmerk34 · Oct 20, 2011

olliess said:
Were there a lot of two-handed BHs winning Wimbledon during that era? Did I miss something?

For backcourt players like Lendl only Borg, Connors and Agassi won it and they all had two handers on the BH to help them be able to drive the serve return. Lendl was forced to chip it a lot on grass.

pmerk34 · Oct 20, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Volleying skills and net play capability are not the equivalent of the frequency of serve and volley. Agassi didn't serve and volley because he had one of the best ground games in the history of tennis and had a better chance of winning by staying back. But, so did Lendl, IMO. Lendl's election to try to win by emphasizing his weakness doesn't establish superior volleying, it establishes poor judgment.

As for slices, once again you confuse frequency with superiority. Agassi correctly used his slice sparingly because his 2hb was the best backhand in the history of tennis. Lendl used his slice more frequently because his topspin bh wasn't that much better.

I've seen them both play live, up close. I already know how they play.

Absolutely incorrect. tony Roche and Lendl team agreed the only way for him to win Wimbledon was to serve and volley every point and they were correct. This question is not meant to insult but how old are you? Did you see any Wimbledon matches from the 80's and 90's?

NadalAgassi · Oct 20, 2011

The funniest comment of all was Agassi would have had a Federer esque career without Sampras. What nonsense. Agassi lost 4 slam finals to Sampras. That would give him max 12 slams, even if we assumed all else remaining the same. Even if you argue he might have won another slam where he lost to Sampras before the final, like 93 Wimbledon or 2001 U.S Open, both disputable at best, you could even more easily argue some of the 4 finals he lost to Sampras. 1990 U.S open he probably wins against no decent opponent the way he played the final, especialy if it were Lendl who totally owned Agassi up until to that point. 1995 U.S Open he might have had to face Courier who had a 6 match win streak dating back to 91 (and including a straight sets win in 95). 2002 U.S Open he might have had to face Hewitt in the final, and beating him in the semis is no guarantee of the same outcome in the final, especialy with the semifinal turnaround which is much harder on older players. Hewitt was the clear #1 at the time and had owned Agassi most of the previous year. So 12 is a generous estimate, and possibly a high one.

1999 was his only potential year of sort of total dominance without Sampras, but not really as he didnt even win a tournament the first 5 months of the year. 1995 he was amazing on hard courts which was spoiled by Sampras at the U.S Open. It would have been one of the best hard court seasons ever without Sampras, but virtually nothing achieved on clay, grass, or carpet that year (other than a respectable semifinal at Wimbledon). Dropping out of the top 100, and dropping out of the top 5 and sometimes top 10 many different years is not Federer esque in anyway, and I say that as someone who likes Agassi and does not like Federer.

Sampras also made Agassi a better player. Agassi had to push himself harder than ever for periods, and get over his teenage rebel ways, just to reach a level he could even compete with Sampras. Without Sampras there, Agassi probably isnt even the same player. Also if Agassi had already won about 8 slams he probably retires at age 30 after his mostly poor 2000, and doesnt win his last 2 Australian Opens either.

As well who is the best rival Agassi had other than Sampras. Considering he and Becker were only playing mutually top tennis for about a year, that would leave Courier perhaps. In that case lets eliminate all the long term contemporary rivals Lendl faced better than Courier- McEnroe, Connors, Becker, and now figure out how many slams he has. Alot more than 12 it would seem.

kiki · Oct 20, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
- Having seen them both play, up close, Agassi hit harder than Lendl.

- Agassi had great drop shots that Lendl didn't have.

- I didn't say anything about slices, I don't know where you got that from, although both had decent, but not great, slices.

- Agassi had better touch at the net, although neither were comfortable at net.

- Neither were great movers, but, Lendl's wristy forehand was more effective on the stretch than Agassi's.

Limpin,

as much talented as Agassi was, and certainly he was more fun to watch than Lendl, I gotta agree with the poster´s comparison.Anybody of both could beat the other but Lendl moved better ( not great, but better), had a better serve ( his return was a bit better than Agassi´s serve), and while Agassi would hit you off court in series of 3-4 strokes, like a boxer, Lendl needed just one booming forehand.It is close, but my opinion is Lendl was a bit better as a player.It´s true that in Lendl´s peak, he hadn´t to face a monster champion like Sampras as Agassi had to face in his own peak.

Benhur · Oct 20, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
There's nothing twisted about my logic. You just chose to ignore my explanation. Your logic, however, suffers from the same flaw suffered by Moose Malloy.

Your logic is not only twisted. It is so heavily muddied that it contradicts its own premises.

So let’s look at your belief system more carefully. With a much worse return game everywhere, a worse ground game on grass, and now also a worse net game (according to you), we are left to wonder how on earth did Lendl on grass manage to have overall better results than Agassi (or at least not inferior ones).

Ability at net cannot be compared when the difference in the frequency of approaches is so large. The heavy selection process by the player who seldom comes in makes the comparison meaningless. It would be like comparing the results between two shooters, one of whom shoots at all kinds of moving birds, while the other one shoots only at sitting ducks. You might as well conclude that Agassi was better at net than guys like Becker or Edberg, based on the fact that he probably had a better ratio of success on net approaches.

Agassi may have secretly possessed a better net game than Lendl, but he sure chose not to reveal that ability.

Lendl and Agassi’s game on grass does say something about the issue of versatility. The natural habitat of both players was definitely the baseline. But only one of them chose to depart from his natural instinct and adopt a s&v game on grass. And as it turns out, he had at least as much success with it on that surface, probably more, than the player who stuck to his baseline game.

The bolded part is important for the logical conclusion. If you really, really believe that Lendl’s decision to play s&v on grass showed poor judgement (and maybe it did, I don’t know), then you must also believe that if he had stuck to his baseline game he would have done better than he actually did. And since what he actually did was already as good or better than Agassi, then your belief implies that Lendl would had done distinctly better than Agassi on grass if he had kept his usual ground game. There is no escape from that implication.

Which means you own belief system leads to the conclusion that Lendl’s ground game on grass was better than Agassi’s, thus coming full circle to contradict your own premises.

Just to clarify: I do not think Lendl’s ground game on grass was better (you do, without realizing it). I do think that his net game was a lot better, if only because Agassi’s net game was comparatively non-existent.

abmk · Oct 20, 2011

Moose Malloy said:
how can you know if they are accurate numbers though? krosero has posted many times on how many matches on their site pre 2000 have incorrect serving stats(counting aces & doubles twice)

true, but that error is only with respect to counting aces/doubles. That is not going to affect return games won % .... well unless there are noted errors with respect to games won/lost.

abmk · Oct 20, 2011

pmerk34 said:
For backcourt players like Lendl only Borg, Connors and Agassi won it and they all had two handers on the BH to help them be able to drive the serve return. Lendl was forced to chip it a lot on grass.

I'm not sure what exactly you are getting at here. Becker punished serves, 2nd serves even more so with his one-hander on grass ( and other surfaces as well ).

Edberg did well with his one-handed return on grass ( and other surfaces as well )

its not the fact that he had a one-handed BH , but rather how his one-handed BH was that mattered. On the faster grass, an average 1-H BH was probably quite a bit more useful or more of a weapon than an average 2-H BH

pmerk34 · Oct 20, 2011

abmk said:
I'm not sure what exactly you are getting at here. Becker punished serves, 2nd serves even more so with his one-hander on grass ( and other surfaces as well ).

Edberg did well with his one-handed return on grass ( and other surfaces as well )

its not the fact that he had a one-handed BH , but rather how his one-handed BH was that mattered. On the faster grass, an average 1-H BH was probably quite a bit more useful or more of a weapon than an average 2-H BH

Did you see Lendl play at Wimbledon on TV as it happened? Or god bless, if you did live at Wimbledon?

abmk · Oct 20, 2011

pmerk34 said:
Did you see Lendl play at Wimbledon on TV as it happened? Or god bless, if you did live at Wimbledon?

what exactly are you on about ?

Lendl's return especially on the BH side was a relative weakness for sure on grass . But its not just because it was a 1-H BH as other 1-H BHs did have success returning on grass in the same era.

its not the fact that he had a one-handed BH , but rather how his one-handed BH was that mattered.

to put it in much simpler terms, not all 1-H BHs are alike .

Limpinhitter · Oct 20, 2011

pmerk34 said:
Absolutely incorrect. tony Roche and Lendl team agreed the only way for him to win Wimbledon was to serve and volley every point and they were correct. This question is not meant to insult but how old are you? Did you see any Wimbledon matches from the 80's and 90's?

How old am I? Hahaha! Put it this way, I started playing tennis in 1969. I've seen every great champion of the past 40+ years play live, including Tony Roche. I've seen both Agassi and Lendl play live on several occasions. IMO, Agassi was the harder hitter and the better, more talented, player. He wasn't as consistent a performer as Lendl. But, his peak level of play was higher.

Agassi had some of the best touch that he demonstrated with some of the most brutally well executed drop shots I've ever seen. His chip backhand on the stretch was also very good when he was able to get in decent position to hit the ball. His net game was competent at best, but, that's all I can say about Lendl's net game, despite Tony Roche's efforts.

pmerk34 · Oct 20, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
How old am I? Hahaha! Put it this way, I started playing tennis in 1969. I've seen every great champion of the past 40+ years play live, including Tony Roche. I've seen both Agassi and Lendl play live on several occasions. IMO, Agassi was the harder hitter and the better, more talented, player. He wasn't as consistent a performer as Lendl. But, his peak level of play was higher.

Cool. I saw Agassi play live and twice and both times I said to myself How on earth does this guy ever lose a match. No one except Nadal has destroyed low slice off both wings like Andre did

abmk · Oct 20, 2011

Benhur said:
Back to the numbers on grass, Lendl has 2 Wimbledon finals, one Australian Open final, 5 Wimbledon semis, another AO semi, 2 championships at Queens and 2 Beckenham - Kent Grass Court Championships. He is 3 perecentage points higher than Agassi lifetime on the surface, and 1.35 higher on their 6 best years.

I still think you are dismissing all the information except one match of one year. The fact of winning one of those finals is very relevant if you want to measure accomplishment. Agassi accomplished more by winning that. But if you want to see who had better results on the surface in general, you cannot base it all on one match. Agassi played 68 matches on grass, and Lendl played 107. You need to take a look at what they did beyond one single match.

Those percentage points difference are not that significant. A match or two here or there brings it to even.

kiki · Oct 20, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
How old am I? Hahaha! Put it this way, I started playing tennis in 1969. I've seen every great champion of the past 40+ years play live, including Tony Roche. I've seen both Agassi and Lendl play live on several occasions. IMO, Agassi was the harder hitter and the better, more talented, player. He wasn't as consistent a performer as Lendl. But, his peak level of play was higher.

Agassi had some of the best touch that he demonstrated with some of the most brutally well executed drop shots I've ever seen. His chip backhand on the stretch was also very good when he was able to get in decent position to hit the ball. His net game was competent at best, but, that's all I can say about Lendl's net game, despite Tony Roche's efforts.

What a great year to start playing tennis¡¡¡¡

Limpinhitter · Oct 20, 2011

kiki said:
What a great year to start playing tennis¡¡¡¡

It was a great year for rock and roll, too!

kiki · Oct 20, 2011

Woodstock? Stones concert in Hyde ?

Laver-Gonzales-Hoad-Rosewall= Dantley-Entwisthle-Townshed-Moon

jrepac · Oct 20, 2011

pmerk34 said:
tony Roche and Lendl team agreed the only way for him to win Wimbledon was to serve and volley every point and they were correct.

well, not sure how "correct" they were....he never did get the trophy. It's often debated if Lendl stuck to his "regular" game, he might've been better off. Not so sure about that either....grass just did not suit him, period.

kiki · Oct 20, 2011

problem with Lendl on grass was timing and footwork, it simply didn´t match him at all, no matter how hard did he try.grass is better suited for instinct players, at least old grass, like that of 1970-1999

jrepac · Oct 20, 2011

abmk said:
what exactly are you on about ?

Lendl's return especially on the BH side was a relative weakness for sure on grass . But its not just because it was a 1-H BH as other 1-H BHs did have success returning on grass in the same era.

its not the fact that he had a one-handed BH , but rather how his one-handed BH was that mattered.

to put it in much simpler terms, not all 1-H BHs are alike .

Have to agree, his backhand did not serve him well on grass...whereas the 1-handed backhand of McEnroe was magical, Ivan's was problematic at best.

pc1 · Oct 20, 2011

jrepac said:
Have to agree, his backhand did not serve him well on grass...whereas the 1-handed backhand of McEnroe was magical, Ivan's was problematic at best.

On many surfaces Lendl's backhand was excellent but not on grass where his backhand return was a bit of a weakness. Players like Borg, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe among others who played on that type of grass had superior grass court returns. Oddly enough I'm not sure if Sampras had a superior grass court backhand return but he was so strong on holding serve and his movement on grass was superior to Lendl's. Fred Perry did not think Lendl moved well on grass.

Limpinhitter · Oct 20, 2011

kiki said:
Woodstock? Stones concert in Hyde ?

Laver-Gonzales-Hoad-Rosewall= Dantley-Entwisthle-Townshed-Moon

Grand Funk Railroad
Rare Earth
Steppenwolf
Zeppelin
BS&T
Santana
Sly & the Family Stone
Chicago Transit Authority
King Krimson
The Doors
The Young Rascals
CSNY
CCR
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Three Dog Night . . .

DON'T GET ME STARTED!

urban · Oct 20, 2011

Interesting thing is, relating to the question of a natural grass game, that Lendl won the junior Wimbledon. Later on, his problem was his deep backhand volley. Becker crucified him with cross backhands returns, drawing many nets and long errors from the backhand volley. Maybe Lendl better had stayed back more on second serves. I think Borg did stay back on second serves, especially against good returners like Connors.

Limpinhitter · Oct 20, 2011

urban said:
Interesting thing is, relating to the question of a natural grass game, that Lendl won the junior Wimbledon. Later on, his problem was his deep backhand volley. Becker crucified him with cross backhands returns, drawing many nets and long errors from the backhand volley. Maybe Lendl better had stayed back more on second serves. I think Borg did stay back on second serves, especially against good returners like Connors.

Maybe Lendl would have been better off staying back on both serves and playing to his strength.

urban · Oct 20, 2011

The heavy hitting baseline game was indeed Lendl's natural game. Problem is, if Lendl had stayed back on all serves, on old grass against people like Becker, Edberg, Mac or Cash, they would have come in on the return, making the court very small. Lendl found some rhythm on grass at Queens in the late 80s, but at Wimbie he always lost it again.

Limpinhitter · Oct 20, 2011

urban said:
The heavy hitting baseline game was indeed Lendl's natural game. Problem is, if Lendl had stayed back on all serves, on old grass against people like Becker, Edberg, Mac or Cash, they would have come in on the return, making the court very small. Lendl found some rhythm on grass at Queens in the late 80s, but at Wimbie he always lost it again.

Agassi won on the old grass staying back beating Ivanisovic, McEnroe and Becker along the way. It seems to me that Lendl would have had a better chance staying back and only coming in on short or weak shots.

urban · Oct 20, 2011

The 1992 Mac was not the 1983 prime Mac, nor was the quite unfit 1992 Becker the 1986 Becker. Ivanisevic was a nervous wreck, he butchered his volleys in the last set of the final. In a final Lendl-Goran i would bet on Lendl. He would be close, but he would beat him, like he beat Zivojinovic.

Mustard · Oct 20, 2011

urban said:
The 1992 Mac was not the 1983 prime Mac, nor was the quite unfit 1992 Becker the 1986 Becker. Ivanisevic was a nervous wreck, he butchered his volleys in the last set of the final. In a final Lendl-Goran i would bet on Lendl. He would be close, but he would beat him, like he beat Zivojinovic.

I think Goran would have won. Goran was absolutely dominant on serve on his way to the 1992 Wimbledon final. For example, he beat Lendl in the R16 and didn't even face a break point, then he beat Edberg in 5 sets, dropping his serve once after only facing one break point in the whole match, and then he beat Sampras in 4 sets whilst not even facing a break point. What cost Goran in the final were several things, dropping his serve in the opening games of both the second and third sets, not taking advantage of his break point chance at 3-3 in the fifth set, and double faulting twice in a row from the start of the tenth game when serving at stay in the tournament at 4-5. Goran was more up and down with his serve in the final, with the superb and the disastrous, the latter coming at some crucial moments.

I mentioned that Goran beat Lendl in the R16 whilst not facing a break point. Goran won 6-7, 6-1, 6-4, 1-0 ret. Lendl retired because of a lower back injury, in pain both physically and mentally from failing to win Wimbledon yet again. Goran then made this interesting comment after the match:

Sometimes I feel sorry for him (Lendl) because he's a great athlete, a great tennis player, but he's never going to win Wimbledon. He's coming in only because he has to, but on the hardcourt or the clay, he never comes in, only to shake hands. Inside yourself, you have to be a serve-and-volley player to win Wimbledon.

After brilliant wins over Edberg in the quarter finals and Sampras in the semi finals, that bolded bit would come back to bite Goran in the final.

1970CRBase · Oct 20, 2011

In retrospect Lendl perhaps traded off a much greater chance of winning two French opens for a lesser chance of winning one Wimbledon. Another US was less likely but at least 90/91 FO he had the best chance of winning those against mostly guys he owned outside of Becker/Edberg whom he could probably beat on RG clay. Five FO's and ten slams would have put his career in a whole new light today.

krosero · Oct 20, 2011

1970CRBase said:
In retrospect Lendl perhaps traded off a much greater chance of winning two French opens for a lesser chance of winning one Wimbledon. Another US was less likely but at least 90/91 FO he had the best chance of winning those against mostly guys he owned outside of Becker/Edberg whom he could probably beat on RG clay. Five FO's and ten slams would have put his career in a whole new light today.

That's a really good point. But at least he knows he tried everything to win Wimbledon. If he had played those French Opens, and actually played 7 full and tiring rounds, he might be wondering today whether he could have won Wimbledon if only he had skipped the grueling task of winning the French and doing the difficult transition to grass.

abmk · Oct 20, 2011

urban said:
The 1992 Mac was not the 1983 prime Mac, nor was the quite unfit 1992 Becker the 1986 Becker. Ivanisevic was a nervous wreck, he butchered his volleys in the last set of the final. In a final Lendl-Goran i would bet on Lendl. He would be close, but he would beat him, like he beat Zivojinovic.

I don't think so. The returning makes a huge difference and agassi was crushing returns that day vs Goran , which was part of the reason for Goran getting nervous. Lendl rarely, if ever , returned like that.

kiki · Oct 21, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
Grand Funk Railroad
Rare Earth
Steppenwolf
Zeppelin
BS&T
Santana
Sly & the Family Stone
Chicago Transit Authority
King Krimson
The Doors
The Young Rascals
CSNY
CCR
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Three Dog Night . . .

DON'T GET ME STARTED!

Oh man¡¡ get started soon...and don´t forget Who,Stones,Cream,Jefferson.. and all those magic moments tennis babies will never even dream of....GO ON LIMPIN¡ MAY BE IT WILL BE 4-5 OF US, But we´ll enjoy it...lte´s create a club¡¡¡

pepe01 · Oct 21, 2011

Do you think this tennis era is better than 1988 to 1994 era?

Limpinhitter · Oct 22, 2011

pepe01 said:
Do you think this tennis era is better than 1988 to 1994 era?

Not for American tennis! And, I do think the field of champions was a bit deeper then.

big ted · Oct 22, 2011

1970CRBase said:
In retrospect Lendl perhaps traded off a much greater chance of winning two French opens for a lesser chance of winning one Wimbledon. Another US was less likely but at least 90/91 FO he had the best chance of winning those against mostly guys he owned outside of Becker/Edberg whom he could probably beat on RG clay. Five FO's and ten slams would have put his career in a whole new light today.

thats true gomez himself said one of the main reasons he won the french open that year was because lendl didnt play it, his h2h record against him was not very good!

Mustard · Oct 24, 2011

big ted said:
thats true gomez himself said one of the main reasons he won the french open that year was because lendl didnt play it, his h2h record against him was not very good!

Lendl could easily have fallen victim to another Svensson or Chang. His 1992 return to the French Open saw him blow a 2-set lead against Oncins. Lendl also got bagelled by Huet in 1993.

NadalAgassi · Oct 24, 2011

Mustard said:
Lendl could easily have fallen victim to another Svensson or Chang. His 1992 return to the French Open saw him blow a 2-set lead against Oncins.

That is true, but if he got to his pigeon Gomez, he would have been toast, even with how well Gomez was playing at the 1990 French. When you a veteran and have lost to someone that many times in a row and been so dominated in most of those defeats, especialy when you have been around as long as Gomez has been, you dont really believe you can beat them, especialy when you are in the own twilight of your career no less.

Nathaniel_Near · Oct 24, 2011

kiki said:
Oh man¡¡ get started soon...and don´t forget Who,Stones,Cream,Jefferson.. and all those magic moments tennis babies will never even dream of....GO ON LIMPIN¡ MAY BE IT WILL BE 4-5 OF US, But we´ll enjoy it...lte´s create a club¡¡¡

Why would it only be 4 or 5 of you.

Are you implying that very few young people know of older times?

Limpinhitter · Oct 24, 2011

Nathaniel_Near said:
Why would it only be 4 or 5 of you.

Are you implying that very few young people know of older times?

Hahaha! The "olden days." I'll just say that TT has been an enlightening experience for me about how little "young people" know of "older tennis times." Does that mean they are equally uninformed about other older things, like music? I'm guessing that it does. But, for every rule, there are exceptions. Manus Domini is one who seems to have a clue.

pc1 · Oct 25, 2011

Nathaniel_Near said:
Why would it only be 4 or 5 of you.

Are you implying that very few young people know of older times?

Nathaniel,

I believe you're pretty knowledgeable of tennis history and of course anyone can study tennis history and become very knowledgeable because all the resources are there to learn.

Honestly how many people here have seen Bill Tilden play? Very few if any but a number of people have great knowledge of him because he was a legendary player. I've already written that if I had a time machine that I would have loved to have seen the famous Tilden-Cochet 1927 Wimbledon match not just to see the comeback by Cochet but also to see the unique tennis styles of both players.

I know a lot of people in other sports who obsess with studying that sports' history and it amazes me what they know. Some are fairly young.

I just think in reading about the past in any sport that you have to keep an open mind about things and decide whether the person writing about the event isn't embellishing what happened and how great the player was.

kiki · Oct 25, 2011

NadalAgassi said:
That is true, but if he got to his pigeon Gomez, he would have been toast, even with how well Gomez was playing at the 1990 French. When you a veteran and have lost to someone that many times in a row and been so dominated in most of those defeats, especialy when you have been around as long as Gomez has been, you dont really believe you can beat them, especialy when you are in the own twilight of your career no less.

This is no true.Gomez beat Lendl 2 times in major finals in 1989, one of them in the Spanish Open, before he won RG.He could have beat Ivan in 1990, the same way he wouldn´t have had the lesser possibility 4-5 years before

kiki · Oct 25, 2011

Nathaniel_Near said:
Why would it only be 4 or 5 of you.

Are you implying that very few young people know of older times?

Of course, that is why I´m implying.There should be 2 threads over here, one for 35 years old down and another for 35 years old up...and still, I´d be discussing a lot with the second group

kiki · Oct 25, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
Hahaha! The "olden days." I'll just say that TT has been an enlightening experience for me about how little "young people" know of "older tennis times." Does that mean they are equally uninformed about other older things, like music? I'm guessing that it does. But, for every rule, there are exceptions. Manus Domini is one who seems to have a clue.

Domini, at least, is trying to learn a bit, even if he really doesn´t seem to know much about.But he is honest about that...and, for music, yes, but then again, let´s not be hard on them, at the end....What kind a music have they listened to??? I mean, it is not their fault...if there has been no creative music over the last...20 years??? ( to be graceful)

Limpinhitter · Oct 25, 2011

kiki said:
Domini, at least, is trying to learn a bit, even if he really doesn´t seem to know much about.But he is honest about that...and, for music, yes, but then again, let´s not be hard on them, at the end....What kind a music have they listened to??? I mean, it is not their fault...if there has been no creative music over the last...20 years??? ( to be graceful)

OT: Truth be told, to me, I'm a freak for the rock/big band fusion sound of the 60's and 70's. BS&T, CTA, TOP, Chase, Ides of March. Those were amazing bands with an amazing sound that I'll never get tired of. And, to hear it live, all those horns blowing their a**es off, is an experience virtually no one under the age of 50 has had, or will have. Sad really!

Chase "Get it On" (Live with Bill Chase on lead trumpet): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVt_M1bY_Sw

BS&T "God Bless the Child" (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v96P_AXzto&feature=related

CTA "25 or 6 to 4" (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUAYeN3Rp2E

TOP "Soul Vaccination" (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfenEE5s3nY

kiki · Oct 25, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
OT: Truth be told, to me, I'm a freak for the rock/big band fusion sound of the 60's and 70's. BS&T, CTA, TOP, Chase, Ides of March. Those were amazing bands with an amazing sound that I'll never get tired of. And, to hear it live, all those horns blowing their a**es off, is an experience virtually no one under the age of 50 has had, or will have. Sad really!

Chase "Get it On" (Live with Bill Chase on lead trumpet): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVt_M1bY_Sw

BS&T "God Bless the Child" (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v96P_AXzto&feature=related

CTA "25 or 6 to 4" (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUAYeN3Rp2E

TOP "Soul Vaccination" (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfenEE5s3nY

Other times, other music, other spirit...what kind of evolution have we really had??? look at Wimbly, what on earth have they done to that wonderful grass?

Limpinhitter · Oct 25, 2011

kiki said:
Other times, other music, other spirit...what kind of evolution have we really had??? look at Wimbly, what on earth have they done to that wonderful grass?

Ides of March "Vehicle" (live): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EBMo8xHGNs

This is some serious ROCK AND ROLL that might be dangerous in the wrong hands. Mamby pampy's, sissies, weaklings, light weights and other slothenly couch potatos, BE WARNED - RISK OF SEVERE BODILY INJURY OR DEATH!

"Hocus Pocus" by Focus (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGaVUApDVuY

"Frankenstein" by Edgar Winter Group (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfQbkFp16cw

Here's a live version with the drum/timbale battle. Just BRUTAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnSSHwmu8I

kiki · Oct 27, 2011

Ja Ja Ja

Limpinhitter said:
Ides of March "Vehicle" (live): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EBMo8xHGNs

This is some serious ROCK AND ROLL that might be dangerous in the wrong hands. Mamby pampy's, sissies, weaklings, light weights and other slothenly couch potatos, BE WARNED - RISK OF SEVERE BODILY INJURY OR DEATH!

"Hocus Pocus" by Focus (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGaVUApDVuY

"Frankenstein" by Edgar Winter Group (original): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfQbkFp16cw

Here's a live version with the drum/timbale battle. Just BRUTAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnSSHwmu8I

Ja ja Ja... and some people loves to call us trogrodlites¡¡¡ Why go out of the cavern if we had it all?

Olli Jokinen · Jun 2, 2019

Limpinhitter said:
Both had bad backs during their peaks that the public didn't know much about. I don't know why you think Lendl was a more complete player. I don't see it. If anything, Agassi hit harder and with more touch and shot variety than Lendl. Nor was Lendl a better volleyer or net player than Agassi, IMO. They were equally uncomfortable at net. The only advantage that Lendl had over Agassi was his running forehand and his serve, and the serve wasn't that much of an advantage.

sredna42 · Jun 2, 2019

pepe01 said:
I am so surpriced that every thread regarding to who is better, must of people forget Ivan Lendl, even i remember that cover from a fameous magazing ´´ The champion that nobody cares´´, to me, Lendl is into best 5 players of all time, the best one hand backhand and powerfull forehand.

He was my favorite player as a little kid, he's why I started with a 1hbh and am such an arsehole lol

bluetrain4 · Jun 2, 2019

Limpinhitter said:
You think Lendl was better than Connors, Agassi and Mac at their best? I agree that Lendl maintained his domination longer than they did. But, IMO, his peak wasn't quite as great as theirs.

I think that's part of the debate - when ranking players do you judge them based on "peak" or do you look at other factors including length of domination. To use an extreme example - "peak" Tracy Austin would certainly rank much higher on any GOAT list than if you look at her career as a whole. IMO, when ranking players, people should look at actual achievement, on-paper achievement. So, I wouldn't really care if a 5-slam player's peak tennis was at a level higher than a 7-Slam player because he/she obviously didn't parlay that peak tennis into more achievements. Though, I understand that people will disagree.

I think people will forever debate how Lendl, Agassi, Connor, and Mac should be ranked - since they're all entirely open-era players and have 8, 8, 8, and 7 slams respectively.

Ivan Lendl totaly underated

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

NadalAgassi

Guest

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

1970CRBase

Guest

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

NadalAgassi

Guest

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads