Controversial, but serious question. Who was better on grass courts, Roddick, or Lendl?

Greater grass court player, Roddick or Lendl?

  • Total voters
    77
Pheasant

Pheasant

Legend
This is a tough call for me picking Roddick vs Lendl on grass courts.

Here are some basic stats:

Roddick:
86-22, .796 record overall
2-8, .200 vs top 5
2-9, .182 vs top 10
Roddick won 5 titles overall
Best slam results: 3 finals and 1 semi, which all happened in a 7 year span

Lendl:
81-27, .750 overall
2-5, .286 vs top 5
3-10, .231 vs top 10
Lendl won 2 titles overall
Best slam results: 2 finals and 5 semis in an 8 year span:

This apppears a lot closer than most would think. Lendl was incredibly consistent. But I think that Roddick peaked higher. However, Roddick peaked on the much slower grass with a large racket. How would Lendl do on the much slower surface? I think he'd be very tough. Why? Because Lendl was a killer on carpet; a very fast surface. He won 32 titles on that surface, including 5 year-end titles(9 straight finals) while going 37-19, .685 vs the top 5. He had a 51 match winning streak on that surface.

What do you guys think and why?
 
Last edited:
Lendl. He did better against a deeper field in conditions that didn't suit him, unlike Roddick who couldn't win the title when it was practically handed to him on a platter - that in hotter conditions that made his forehand and serve more effective.
 
Give Lendl the kind of grass Roddick got to play on and he'd have been in the finals and winning as often as he did the US Open. He'd have at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles. Of course, Roddick only really had a shot at one title in 2009 against a subpar Federer, and might've won it had he been able to hit a high backhand volley. Still I just don't see him as a better grasscourter than Lendl. Even with his serve, he never had the groundies to win that one... or the mentality.
 
Lendl couldn't win a set in a Wimbledon final, Roddick was a point here+ there from winning a couple of titles (04 and 09). Lendl couldn't have taken sets off prime Federer on grass, + Roddick's serve would been utterly unplayable on 80's grass
 
Wow didn’t think it was a hot take to say Roddick

Relative to era it’s him no contest. Lendl never came close to a 2004 or 2009 level at Wimbledon. What makes you think he was capable of pushing the GOAT grass player to his limit twice? When did he do something similar to that in reality?

Lendl obviously a better overall player by far and I’m sure in this era he could’ve figured it out, but enough to come within a couple points of beating Federer at Wimbledon? I understand he played that one great match vs Edberg in Australia but that’s basically it for him giving a fight to elite competition on the surface.

Seems like a big stretch.
 
Last edited:
Kralingen said:
Wow didn’t think it was a hot take to say Roddick

Relative to era it’s him no contest. Lendl never came close to a 2004 or 2009 level at Wimbledon. What makes you think he was capable of pushing the GOAT grass player to his limit twice? When did he do something similar to that in reality?

Lendl obviously a better overall player by far and I’m sure in this era he could’ve figured it out, but enough to come within a couple points of beating Federer at Wimbledon? I understand he played that one great match vs Edberg in Australia but that’s basically it for him giving a fight to elite competition on the surface.

Seems like a big stretch.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I picked Roddick with no hesitation at all. And the #s support it. To me, it's not a H2H question, just who did better on the turf. And, I think it's Andy, clearly. He was a few points away from the title. Ivan never got that close. Ivan really could not beat the top grass players of the 80s when it mattered most (at W). So, I just have to go w/Andy. He also seemed to be more comfy on the turf than Ivan ever did.
 
Kralingen said:
Wow didn’t think it was a hot take to say Roddick

Relative to era it’s him no contest. Lendl never came close to a 2004 or 2009 level at Wimbledon. What makes you think he was capable of pushing the GOAT grass player to his limit twice? When did he do something similar to that in reality?

Lendl obviously a better overall player by far and I’m sure in this era he could’ve figured it out, but enough to come within a couple points of beating Federer at Wimbledon? I understand he played that one great match vs Edberg in Australia but that’s basically it for him giving a fight to elite competition on the surface.

Seems like a big stretch.
Click to expand...
If Lendl played 2009 Federer on 2009 grass with 2009 resources he would have completed the career slam.
 
Winners or Errors said:
Give Lendl the kind of grass Roddick got to play on and he'd have been in the finals and winning as often as he did the US Open. He'd have at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles. Of course, Roddick only really had a shot at one title in 2009 against a subpar Federer, and might've won it had he been able to hit a high backhand volley. Still I just don't see him as a better grasscourter than Lendl. Even with his serve, he never had the groundies to win that one... or the mentality.
Click to expand...
but that's not the question...it's about who did better....and it's not Ivan. You don't need so much of a ground game to win at W, that's been proven. Plus, Ivan lost some crucial backcourt battles on the grass as well (84). I certainly think Ivan is the better player, and he might take Andy out on grass, particularly today's grass, but Andy did better overall, IMHO
 
I also have to go for Roddick as well. Lendl was clearly an astronomically greater player than Roddick overall, and was also IMO clearly a far more talented player as well - his ability in 1986-1987 to win RG titles playing as a defensive grinder, reach Wimbledon finals serve volleying behind pretty much 100% of 1st and 2nd serves, and win US Open and Masters titles generally adopting styles somewhere in-between, was incredible.

But both statistically and to according to the ‘eye test’, IMO Roddick was a better player on the grass of his era and also looked more comfortable to me on it.

Lendl was 0-9 in sets in major grass court finals. Roddick nearly won the 3rd of his 3 Wimbledon finals in 2009 against Federer who had lost 1 of his last 72 matches on grass post-2002, and was very competitive in the 1st one in 2004 against Federer who had already won his last 23 matches on grass by that stage. Roddick himself won 23 consecutive sets on grass that year, with Ancic the only player to win a set against him at Queen’s, and win a set against him at Wimbledon en-route to the final.

I don’t think it’s a cast iron guarantee that Lendl wins Wimbledon had there been 100% rye grass there during his era either. McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg and Cash all beat him in big final and semi-final matches in majors on hard courts as well and still would be formidable opposition. I’d imagine that he’d reach his semi-finals and finals more comfortably though, conceding fewer sets along the way. I also think it’s highly likely his game-plan would be different, at least staying back a lot more often behind his 2nd serves - I personally thought that he was 100% correct to serve-volley behind his 1st serves, but should have generally stayed back and only come in as a surprise tactic behind his 2nd serves (like Borg).
 
Roddick and not even close.
People who are claiming that on current era Lendl will be winning 3-4or 5 Wimbledon then give me one answer that why didn't he win single AO on grass..
Give those draws to Roddick and Roddick will clean those AO on grass in 80s
Lendl fans should thanks their destiny that AO was changed to HC or Lendl would have stopped on 6 slam( with no AO and Wimbledon)
This is why I always put Connors above Lendl as circumstances allowed Lendl to clean two extra slam while Connors was made handicap by 75,76,77 clay us open when he was best player in world
 
GuyForget said:
Lendl couldn't win a set in a Wimbledon final, Roddick was a point here+ there from winning a couple of titles (04 and 09). Lendl couldn't have taken sets off prime Federer on grass, + Roddick's serve would been utterly unplayable on 80's grass
Click to expand...
I AGREE!
 
Kralingen said:
Yeah maybe. If the question is solely who is a better player it’s Lendl by a distance. No argument there.

But I can’t so readily dismiss the player who actually did demonstrably better on the grass of their era.
Click to expand...
Lendl had a demonstrably deeper grass field than Roddick did by a distance too, and had a better record against the best.
 
I’ve seen very good arguments for both players. This is a tough one for me. It’s possible Roddick with his bomb serves steals a Wimbledon title in any other decade on that fast grass. From 2001-2010, he was the #1 rated server 4 times. Karlovic was #1 5 times. Roddick truly was an incredible server and he held the record for the fastest serve at one point at 155 mph.

From 2003-2005, Roddick went 32-3. His only 3 losses were to the very peakiest form of Fed on that surface. I see why so many pick Roddick. That’s why I said this thread is controversial. I figured Roddick would get the most votes.

Lendl’s peak on grass was probably from 1989-90 when he went 21-2 on that surface while bagging 2 straight Queens titles. In 1989, he pushed peak Becker to 5 sets in the semi at Wimbledon. Becker went on to slaughter Edberg in the final. Lendl should have won that match. But he couldn’t quite close the deal. There was a bad call in there and he couldn’t get over it. He should have moved on from that call and it seemed to have an impact on him. The following year, Lendl skipped the entire clay season to work on his serve and volley for the grass court season. And he looked amazing. He absolutely slaughtered everybody to bag the title in Queens, which includes crushing McEnroe in straight sets in the semi, followed by wrecking Becker in straight sets in the final. That final I saw was one of the best grass court matches I’ve seen. Perhaps watching that tourney is why I’m skewed towards Lendl. He was absolutely amazing at Queens in 1990. But then at Wimbledon when he made his 7th semi in 8 years, Edberg took him to the cleaners. That match seemed to demoralize Lendl for good on that surface. He was never the same afterwards. Skipping Roland Garros 2 straight years to try to win Wimbledon backfired. I think he was a year too late. Perhaps 1989 would have been the best year to skip the entire clay court season
 
Last edited:
Pheasant said:
I’ve seen very good arguments for both players. This is a tough one for me. It’s possible Roddick with his bomb serves steals a Wimbledon title in any other decade on that fast grass. From 2001-2010, he was the #1 rated server 4 times. Karlovic was #1 5 times. Roddick truly was an incredible server and he held the record for the fastest serve at one point at 155 mph.

From 2003-2005, Roddick went 32-3. His only 3 losses were to the very peakiest form of Fed on that surface. I see why so many pick Roddick. That’s why I said this thread is controversial. I figured Roddick would get the most votes.

Lendl’s peak on grass was probably from 1989-90 when he went 21-2 on that surface while bagging 2 straight Queens titles. In 1989, he pushed peak Becker to 5 sets in the semi at Wimbledon. Becker went on to slaughter Edberg in the final. Lendl should have won that match. But he couldn’t quite close the deal. There was a bad call in there and he couldn’t get over it. He should have moved on from that call and it seemed to have an impact on him. The following year, Lendl skipped the entire clay season to work on his serve and volley for the grass court season. And he looked amazing. He absolutely slaughtered everybody to bag the title in Queens, which includes crushing McEnroe in straight sets in the semi, followed by wrecking Becker in straight sets in the final. That final I saw was one of the best grass court matched I’ve seen. Perhaps watching that tourney is why I’m skewed towards Lendl. He was absolutely amazing at Queens in 1990. But then at Wimbledon when he made his 7th semi in 8 years, Edberg took him to the cleaners. That match seemed to demoralize Lendl for good on that surface. He was never the same afterwards. Skipping Roland Garros 2 straight years to try to win Wimbledon backfired. I think he was a year too late. Perhaps 1989 would have been the best year to skip the entire clay court season
Click to expand...
I would love to see Roddick attempt to nab a Wimbledon in the 70s-90s on fast grass with pure gut, a small racket head, his pitiful return and of course legendary volleys - especially on the backhand side.
 
I usually don't vote in such polls, but I did swing a vote to Andy.

As others have pointed out, Ivan Lendl had the MUCH greater career, which isn't the question. Without looking at the stats, I thought "Roddick" and the results (though close) didn't dissuade me.
 
Pheasant said:
I’ve seen very good arguments for both players. This is a tough one for me. It’s possible Roddick with his bomb serves steals a Wimbledon title in any other decade on that fast grass. From 2001-2010, he was the #1 rated server 4 times. Karlovic was #1 5 times. Roddick truly was an incredible server and he held the record for the fastest serve at one point at 155 mph.

From 2003-2005, Roddick went 32-3. His only 3 losses were to the very peakiest form of Fed on that surface. I see why so many pick Roddick. That’s why I said this thread is controversial. I figured Roddick would get the most votes.

Lendl’s peak on grass was probably from 1989-90 when he went 21-2 on that surface while bagging 2 straight Queens titles. In 1989, he pushed peak Becker to 5 sets in the semi at Wimbledon. Becker went on to slaughter Edberg in the final. Lendl should have won that match. But he couldn’t quite close the deal. There was a bad call in there and he couldn’t get over it. He should have moved on from that call and it seemed to have an impact on him. The following year, Lendl skipped the entire clay season to work on his serve and volley for the grass court season. And he looked amazing. He absolutely slaughtered everybody to bag the title in Queens, which includes crushing McEnroe in straight sets in the semi, followed by wrecking Becker in straight sets in the final. That final I saw was one of the best grass court matches I’ve seen. Perhaps watching that tourney is why I’m skewed towards Lendl. He was absolutely amazing at Queens in 1990. But then at Wimbledon when he made his 7th semi in 8 years, Edberg took him to the cleaners. That match seemed to demoralize Lendl for good on that surface. He was never the same afterwards. Skipping Roland Garros 2 straight years to try to win Wimbledon backfired. I think he was a year too late. Perhaps 1989 would have been the best year to skip the entire clay court season
Click to expand...
I recall Lendl winning at Queens handily in 1990, but I don't recall seeing the match...maybe I did, maybe not. Anyone have a link to it? Net, net he was the favorite going into Wimbledon and fizzled out by the semis. Him beating Mac on grass was quite the eye-opener, but Mac '89-90 was not Mac of the early 80's. Still, makes you take notice. It's been written about so many times...he was unlucky and it was just not his best surface by any stretch. It happens, even w/the all time greats. I get that he faced very steep competition all through the 80's on grass, a murderers row of Wimbledon winners, let's face it. But, I still think Roddick was inherently better on the grass...a more natural affinity for it than Lendl ever exhibited.
 
jrepac said:
I recall Lendl winning at Queens handily in 1990, but I don't recall seeing the match...maybe I did, maybe not. Anyone have a link to it? Net, net he was the favorite going into Wimbledon and fizzled out by the semis. Him beating Mac on grass was quite the eye-opener, but Mac '89-90 was not Mac of the early 80's. Still, makes you take notice. It's been written about so many times...he was unlucky and it was just not his best surface by any stretch. It happens, even w/the all time greats. I get that he faced very steep competition all through the 80's on grass, a murderers row of Wimbledon winners, let's face it. But, I still think Roddick was inherently better on the grass...a more natural affinity for it than Lendl ever exhibited.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair shake there. Roddick was killer from 2003-2005. And he should have won in 2009, even though that version of Federer wasn’t as good at returning serves compared to his true peak.
 
Statistically, it is pretty close.
Roddick made it to the finals three times while Lendl only made it that far twice.
Lendl made it to at least the semifinals 7 times, while Roddick only made it to at least the semifinals 4 timed.
Lendl's record at Wimbledon was 48-14. That is similar to Roddick going 41-12.

How we are really comparing apples to oranges. The grass that Roddick played on was far different than what Lendl played. In Lendl's era, it was faster, bounced lower, and you have more bad bounces. This clearly favored a serve and volleyer. In Roddick's era, the grass was (and still is) actually closer to hard courts than it is to the old grass. Not surprising that Roddick's record at the US Open and the Australian Open is similar to what he did at Wimbledon. Lendl on the other hand, was clearly better on hard courts than grass.
 
Lendl had the better results and more consistency, but Roddick was definitely the better grasscourt player capable of a higher level on the surface.

We are really only talking one name that stopped Roddick from having at least 2 Wimbledons.
 
Holmes said:
Lendl. He did better against a deeper field in conditions that didn't suit him, unlike Roddick who couldn't win the title when it was practically handed to him on a platter - that in hotter conditions that made his forehand and serve more effective.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Roddick was not facing a mine field of great grass court players to reach his finals, and with that advantage, he was never going to win with his laughable attempts at volleying, his heavy-footed, awkward movements, etc. Lendl's attempts to raise his game to face the many S&V giants (tennis giants in general) of two eras (and not just on grass courts) took a greater and more impressive effort than anything from the likes of Roddick.
 
The game was so slow back then. I’ve watched Ivan Lendl and I’m not saying He wasn't good in his time, but to say that he would be just as good now, it’s absurd. A big serve back then was like 197 to 200 KM/H. People like Roddick served 220 consistently, to corners. It’s a whole different ball game.
 
In addition to Lendl losing all 9 sets that he contested in major finals on grass (although the Australian Open in 1983 still clearly had a 'lesser status' than the other majors and the Davis Cup as Wilander himself said, and that final really didn't have the feel of big major final), he only had set points in one of those 9 sets, the 3rd set against Becker in 1986, at 5-4 and 0-40 on Becker's serve after he had hit 3 passing winners. Becker quickly saved all 3 of those set points though with volley winners, then fired down an ace followed by an unreturnable service to hold, before securing the decisive break in the next game.

In the first set of the 1987 Wimbledon final which he lost in a tiebreak, Cash had put more pressure on his serve than vice verse going into it (notably with 5 break points in Lendl's opening service game), and Cash won it with his 6th set point (and 5th in the tiebreak after opening up a 6-1 lead). He did lead 5-2 in the 3rd set (serving for it at 5-3) before Cash reeled off the last 5 games to win it and the title.

It's fair to say that Roddick had some notable advantages in his favour vs. Lendl, including the fact that pre-1990 Lendl went into Queen's and Wimbledon having played in more significantly matches at Roland Garros and on clay in general. Even in 1988, a season in which he was hindered by multiple injuries, he still got further than Roddick ever did at RG on the back of winning the titles at Monte-Carlo and Rome, and in 1989 he lost in the 4th round at RG (where Roddick only progressed to once) after winning titles in Forest Hills on har-tru and then Hamburg. With such a short turnaround time between RG and Wimbledon, I think that's a notable factor at play. Roddick was clearly less battle weary and physically and mentally jaded when initially setting foot on grass.

Now in 1990 Lendl of course skipped RG, playing at a tournament in Beckenham during the 2nd week of it which he won, before storming to Queen's title without dropping a set, notably drubbing McEnroe and Becker back to back in the semis and final. Dan Maskell labelled that as the finest grass court tennis he had seen (given that McEnroe's and Becker's exploits in the 80s were not exactly in the distance past, that was some praise). But he peaked too early, and then his level at Wimbledon was clearly well below that, even before his decisive SF defeat against Edberg.

Also 16 seeds vs. 32 seeds wasn't an insignificant factor, and led to Lendl often facing more hazardous / dangerous early round matches IMO.

I still think the fact that Roddick both reached an additional final at Wimbledon, played a legendary dominant, grass court titan with ridiculous numbers on the surface in all 3 of those finals, was more competitive in 2 of those finals than Lendl was in either of his, and very nearly won one of them, is ultimately decisive though.
 
Gizo said:
In addition to Lendl losing all 9 sets that he contested in major finals on grass (although the Australian Open in 1983 still clearly had a 'lesser status' than the other majors and the Davis Cup as Wilander himself said, and that final really didn't have the feel of big major final), he only had set points in one of those 9 sets, the 3rd set against Becker in 1986, at 5-4 and 0-40 on Becker's serve after he had hit 3 passing winners. Becker quickly saved all 3 of those set points though with volley winners, then fired down an ace followed by an unreturnable service to hold, before securing the decisive break in the next game.

In the first set of the 1987 Wimbledon final which he lost in a tiebreak, Cash had put more pressure on his serve than vice verse going into it (notably with 5 break points in Lendl's opening service game), and Cash won it with his 6th set point (and 5th in the tiebreak after opening up a 6-1 lead). He did lead 5-2 in the 3rd set (serving for it at 5-3) before Cash reeled off the last 5 games to win it and the title.

It's fair to say that Roddick had some notable advantages in his favour vs. Lendl, including the fact that pre-1990 Lendl went into Queen's and Wimbledon having played in more significantly matches at Roland Garros and on clay in general. Even in 1988, a season in which he was hindered by multiple injuries, he still got further than Roddick ever did at RG on the back of winning the titles at Monte-Carlo and Rome, and in 1989 he lost in the 4th round at RG (where Roddick only progressed to once) after winning titles in Forest Hills on har-tru and then Hamburg. With such a short turnaround time between RG and Wimbledon, I think that's a notable factor at play. Roddick was clearly less battle weary and physically and mentally jaded when initially setting foot on grass.

Now in 1990 Lendl of course skipped RG, playing at a tournament in Beckenham during the 2nd week of it which he won, before storming to Queen's title without dropping a set, notably drubbing McEnroe and Becker back to back in the semis and final. Dan Maskell labelled that as the finest grass court tennis he had seen (given that McEnroe's and Becker's exploits in the 80s were not exactly in the distance past, that was some praise). But he peaked too early, and then his level at Wimbledon was clearly well below that, even before his decisive SF defeat against Edberg.

Also 16 seeds vs. 32 seeds wasn't an insignificant factor, and led to Lendl often facing more hazardous / dangerous early round matches IMO.

I still think the fact that Roddick both reached an additional final at Wimbledon, played a legendary dominant, grass court titan with ridiculous numbers on the surface in all 3 of those finals, was more competitive in 2 of those finals than Lendl was in either of his, and very nearly won one of them, is ultimately decisive though.
Click to expand...
John Feinstein said the same thing in Hard Courts; Lendl's performance at Queen's that year was exceptional to the point where Roche was quoted as saying afterward that Lendl would never be more ready to win Wimbledon than he was right then, but his form come the actual tournament simply didn't measure up. It wasn't exactly awful (he still made the semis and Feinstein observed that unlike other players, Lendl was such that his level of play generally didn't have massive swings in either direction) but he was up against an exceptional Edberg and the grim reality that if he lost, his clay court sacrifices would all be for nothing.
 
jrepac said:
I recall Lendl winning at Queens handily in 1990, but I don't recall seeing the match...maybe I did, maybe not. Anyone have a link to it? Net, net he was the favorite going into Wimbledon and fizzled out by the semis. Him beating Mac on grass was quite the eye-opener, but Mac '89-90 was not Mac of the early 80's. Still, makes you take notice. It's been written about so many times...he was unlucky and it was just not his best surface by any stretch. It happens, even w/the all time greats. I get that he faced very steep competition all through the 80's on grass, a murderers row of Wimbledon winners, let's face it. But, I still think Roddick was inherently better on the grass...a more natural affinity for it than Lendl ever exhibited.
Click to expand...
Here’s the link:

 
tennis3 said:
The game was so slow back then. I’ve watched Ivan Lendl and I’m not saying He wasn't good in his time, but to say that he would be just as good now, it’s absurd. A big serve back then was like 197 to 200 KM/H. People like Roddick served 220 consistently, to corners. It’s a whole different ball game.
Click to expand...
The father of today's game is Lendl, so he would have 0 need to make adjustments to his style. He even trained more rigorously than the guys today. All he'd need is a modern racket and strings to be stacking up slams.
 
Winners or Errors said:
Give Lendl the kind of grass Roddick got to play on and he'd have been in the finals and winning as often as he did the US Open. He'd have at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles. Of course, Roddick only really had a shot at one title in 2009 against a subpar Federer, and might've won it had he been able to hit a high backhand volley. Still I just don't see him as a better grasscourter than Lendl. Even with his serve, he never had the groundies to win that one... or the mentality.
Click to expand...
Roddick would have won 2 - 3 Wimbledons if Fed wasn’t around.
 
Quaichang said:
Roddick would have won 2 - 3 Wimbledons if Fed wasn’t around.
Click to expand...
Very true. I just think Lendl would have been able to win more were it not for the unpredictable bounces at Wimbledon prior to this century. The only baseliner to win Wimbledon in those conditions was Agassi, who played with a butterfly net. I suspect the oversize racquet probably allowed him to compensate better than Lendl. On the current, utterly predictable grass, Lendl would have been tough to beat. He was a great fast court player.
 
FD3S said:
John Feinstein said the same thing in Hard Courts; Lendl's performance at Queen's that year was exceptional to the point where Roche was quoted as saying afterward that Lendl would never be more ready to win Wimbledon than he was right then, but his form come the actual tournament simply didn't measure up. It wasn't exactly awful (he still made the semis and Feinstein observed that unlike other players, Lendl was such that his level of play generally didn't have massive swings in either direction) but he was up against an exceptional Edberg and the grim reality that if he lost, his clay court sacrifices would all be for nothing.
Click to expand...

I remember an interview with Lendl from just before Wimbledon started in 1990. While he was definitely obsessed with winning Wimbledon, it wasn't an unhealthy obsession IMO. He said that if he retired without winning it, he'd be comfortable with that and not have any regrets, as long as he knew deep down that he'd worked and prepared hard enough (he definitely did that), and had tried everything in his power (including sacrificing RG that year) during that pursuit.

And to be fair after he retired, he immediately made peace with the fact that he didn't win Wimbledon, got over it and and moved on with his life. That was in sharp contrast to McEnroe, who was still bitter about his 1984 RG final defeat for a long time after he retired (and for quite a while banned people from bringing it up in his company) !

Edberg was in outstanding form during that semi-final in 1990 (and during the first 2 sets of the final vs. Becker) - it was a masterclass of flawless volleying and exceptional returning. I personally don't think any version of Lendl on grass, including the version at Queen's a few weeks earlier, would have been to able beat Edberg in that form. The way he was able to adapt to serve-volley so well behind 1st and 2nd serves (even if I thought he should have stayed back more behind 2nd serves), and consistently go deep at Wimbledon (and win back to back Queen's titles), especially after adopting pretty much the polar opposite style at RG, was very commendable. But of course if he came up against a 'natural' / more natural serve-volleyer on grass that was firing and in strong form, it was going to be very difficult for him.

I agree that Lendl's overall level held up very well, match by match and tournament by tournament, allowing him to record such hugely impressive consistency, and be ranked as world no. 1 for so long - there is a lot of focus on 'peak level', but of course tremendous day in day out consistency requires a great deal of talent as well.
 
Last edited:
Gizo said:
I remember an interview with Lendl from just before Wimbledon started in 1990. While he was definitely obsessed with winning Wimbledon, it wasn't an unhealthy obsession IMO. He said that if he retired without winning it, he'd be comfortable with that and not have any regrets, as long as he knew deep down that he'd worked and prepared hard enough (he definitely did that), and had tried everything in his power (including sacrificing RG that year) during that pursuit.

And to be fair after he retired, he immediately made peace with the fact that he didn't win Wimbledon, got over it and and moved on with his life. That was in sharp contrast to McEnroe, who was still bitter about his 1984 RG final defeat for a long time after he retired (and for quite a while banned people from bringing it up in his company) !

Edberg was in outstanding form during that semi-final in 1990 (and during the first 2 sets of the final vs. Becker) - it was a masterclass of flawless volleying and exceptional returning. I personally don't think any version of Lendl on grass, including the version at Queen's a few weeks earlier, would have been to able beat Edberg in that form. The way he was able to adapt to serve-volley so well behind 1st and 2nd serves (even if I thought he should have stayed back more behind 2nd serves), and consistently go deep at Wimbledon (and win back to back Queen's titles), especially after adopting pretty much the polar opposite style at RG, was very commendable. But of course if he came up against a 'natural' / more natural serve-volleyer on grass that was firing and in strong form, it was going to be very difficult for him.

I agree that Lendl's overall level held up very well, match by match and tournament by tournament, allowing him to record such hugely impressive consistency, and be ranked as world no. 1 for so long - there is a lot of focus on 'peak level', but of course tremendous day in day out consistency requires a great deal of talent as well.
Click to expand...
I recall that same exact thing. Lendl made peace with the fact that he gave it his all chasing a Wimbledon crown. He became a much better grass player in 1990 after skipping the entire clay season. Talk about sacrifice. But his problem is that he was 30 years old in 1990 and he was past his prime physically. And yes, Mac still regrets that blown 1984 FO opportunity.

As for Edberg, the guy was a god at volleying. I'd say he's right up there with Mac for being the best pure volleyer ever. He would have given Lendl fits. I think that's simply a terrible matchup for Lendl; even the 1989 version of Lendl that pushed Becker to 5(and probably should have won).
 
tennis3 said:
The game was so slow back then. I’ve watched Ivan Lendl and I’m not saying He wasn't good in his time, but to say that he would be just as good now, it’s absurd. A big serve back then was like 197 to 200 KM/H. People like Roddick served 220 consistently, to corners. It’s a whole different ball game.
Click to expand...
so, what would stop prime Lendl w/todays racquets and strings from serving 220? Nothing, I'd say.
 
Pheasant said:
I recall that same exact thing. Lendl made peace with the fact that he gave it his all chasing a Wimbledon crown. He became a much better grass player in 1990 after skipping the entire clay season. Talk about sacrifice. But his problem is that he was 30 years old in 1990 and he was past his prime physically. And yes, Mac still regrets that blown 1984 FO opportunity.

As for Edberg, the guy was a god at volleying. I'd say he's right up there with Mac for being the best pure volleyer ever. He would have given Lendl fits. I think that's simply a terrible matchup for Lendl; even the 1989 version of Lendl that pushed Becker to 5(and probably should have won).
Click to expand...

In the 1990 SF I thought that Lendl actually volleyed well - it was his returning which was wayward, while Edberg's was absolutely outstanding. But of course in comparison to Edberg's exceptional and far more natural volleying in general and in that match specficially, his netplay looked more mechanical.

In was a fairly similar story 7 years earlier during his 1983 SF against McEnroe. He volleyed very well, but Mac was just in absolutely sublime form, and so his volleying was never going to measure up to that level. I'd rank Lendl's performance in that match, as one of the best I've seen from any player during a straight sets defeat. There is a myth that Lendl only became a serve-volleyer at Wimbledon after he started working with Tony Roche, which was of course untrue when he was already serve volleying behind pretty much all 1st and 2nd serves against Tanner and McEnroe in 1983. He purposefully stayed back specifically against Connors in his 1984 SF, because he was wary of Connors' returns and didn't want to give him a target, but that was a departure from his already standard and ingrained tactical approach.

While his returning was definitely more of a hindrance to him winning Wimbledon than his volleying IMO, I thought that behind his 2nd serves he was often forced himself to hit low, awkward volleys, especially on his backhand side, after his opponents chipped the ball back to him.

While the nature of his 1989 SF defeat against Becker was a bitter pill to swallow and a blown opportunity, I've also never been convinced that he'd beat Edberg in a hypothetical final. Yes Edberg was blown away by Becker in the final, and had lost to Lendl in their 1987 SF there. But I thought that the Edberg-McEnroe SF was pretty high quality stuff between the 2 best volleyers that I watched extensively (with Cash in 3rd place). If Edberg could play that well against Lendl (a nervous Lendl that was absolutely desperate to win the big prize that had continually eluded him), I'd back him to win on grass. And beating Becker and Edberg back to back to win a major on his weakest surface (and still clearly the biggest and most prestigious major of the lot), would be a monumental task for Lendl. Edberg and Lendl were generally splitting wins against each other by that stage, and I think that their 1990 Australian Open final, had Edberg not already been injured when he walked on to the court, would have been intruiging and pretty evenly poised.
 
It is a complicated question. Not sure how to answer. Someone else made a good point though that the idea of Lendl winning oodles of Wimbledon titles in an era of slower grass (even if he didn't have the misfortune of being in the Federer era as Roddick was) is almost certainly false. The Australian Open example, and his failure to win even once there in numerous attempts, when it was on slower grass, is pretty much evidence of that. It is a similar fallacy to the delusion of Seles winning oodles of Wimbledon title which her couple biggest fanatics like buscemi and Mustard believe without the stabbing, except with Lendl the delusion of the hypothetical is much more widespread, and not just a couple fanatics. Which is the sort of argument I suspect will be brought up often for Lendl.

And I also agree a hypothetical 89 final between Edberg and Lendl is 50-50 at best for Lendl. Yes Edberg didn't play a great final at all, but was made to look like he was playing worse than he was by a totally on fire Becker, and also if he wins that 2nd set where he had numerous set points that is a much different match.
 
martinezownsclay said:
It is a complicated question. Not sure how to answer. Someone else made a good point though that the idea of Lendl winning oodles of Wimbledon titles in an era of slower grass (even if he didn't have the misfortune of being in the Federer era as Roddick was) is almost certainly false. The Australian Open example, and his failure to win even once there in numerous attempts, when it was on slower grass, is pretty much evidence of that. It is a similar fallacy to the delusion of Seles winning oodles of Wimbledon title which her couple biggest fanatics like buscemi and Mustard believe without the stabbing, except with Lendl the delusion of the hypothetical is much more widespread, and not just a couple fanatics. Which is the sort of argument I suspect will be brought up often for Lendl.

And I also agree a hypothetical 89 final between Edberg and Lendl is 50-50 at best for Lendl. Yes Edberg didn't play a great final at all, but was made to look like he was playing worse than he was by a totally on fire Becker, and also if he wins that 2nd set where he had numerous set points that is a much different match.
Click to expand...

Even on slower grass serve-and-volley prevailed though, with the racquets and strings of the time. Not the case in the 1983 AO final which was primarily a baseline affair but Lendl just played a bad match there, which wasn't uncommon in his early years, a mental weakness rectifying which in large part enabled him to enter peak. He's not winning many titles with proper competition but might be a tad better grasscourter than Roddick/Murray on current grass imo.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Even on slower grass serve-and-volley prevailed though, with the racquets and strings of the time. Not the case in the 1983 AO final which was primarily a baseline affair but Lendl just played a bad match there, which wasn't uncommon in his early years, a mental weakness rectifying which in large part enabled him to enter peak. He's not winning many titles with proper competition but might be a tad better grasscourter than Roddick/Murray on current grass imo.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I am still not sold on siding with Lendl. I can't see Lendl having such battles with a peak Federer in 2004, and coming a whisker from beating a prime-ish Federer in 2009, as Roddick did, and that is even considering Federer being a naturally bad match up for Roddick to boot. On the other hand I see reasons to doubt Roddick in comparision to Lendl too. I am on the fence on who to pick until I see someone come up with a really strong argument for one or the other to sway me.
 
GuyForget said:
Lendl couldn't win a set in a Wimbledon final, Roddick was a point here+ there from winning a couple of titles (04 and 09). Lendl couldn't have taken sets off prime Federer on grass, + Roddick's serve would been utterly unplayable on 80's grass
Click to expand...
Lendl was close to winning a set during both his Wimbledon finals. In 1986, Becker served at 4-5 0-40 in the third set, got out of it and won the set 7-5. In 1987, Lendl led Cash 4-1 and 5-2 in the third set, before Cash won the set 7-5.
 
Pheasant said:
This is a tough call for me picking Roddick vs Lendl on grass courts.

Here are some basic stats:

Roddick:
86-22, .796 record overall
2-8, .200 vs top 5
2-9, .182 vs top 10
Roddick won 5 titles overall
Best slam results: 3 finals and 1 semi, which all happened in a 7 year span

Lendl:
81-27, .750 overall
2-5, .286 vs top 5
3-10, .231 vs top 10
Lendl won 2 titles overall
Best slam results: 2 finals and 5 semis in an 8 year span:

This apppears a lot closer than most would think. Lendl was incredibly consistent. But I think that Roddick peaked higher. However, Roddick peaked on the much slower grass with a large racket. How would Lendl do on the much slower surface? I think he'd be very tough. Why? Because Lendl was a killer on carpet; a very fast surface. He won 32 titles on that surface, including 5 year-end titles(9 straight finals) while going 37-19, .685 vs the top 5. He had a 51 match winning streak on that surface.

What do you guys think and why?
Click to expand...
Lendl has 3 grass finals.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Lendl has 3 grass finals.
Click to expand...
And also 2 more semi finals while the Australian Open was still at Kooyong.

So Lendl has 3 final losses and 7 semi final losses on grass in the majors.

Lost 1983 Australian Open final to Wilander
Lost 1986 Wimbledon final to Becker
Lost 1987 Wimbledon final to Cash

Lost 1983 Wimbledon semi final to McEnroe
Lost 1984 Wimbledon semi final to Connors
Lost 1985 Australian Open semi final to Edberg
Lost 1987 Australian Open semi final to Cash
Lost 1988 Wimbledon semi final to Becker
Lost 1989 Wimbledon semi final to Becker
Lost 1990 Wimbledon semi final to Edberg
 
I respect Lendl for putting forth the extra effort. He really wanted a Wimbledon title and put his sights on fulfilling that goal. He came up short, but still. Was it "worth it"? It's easy to make judgments in retrospect, and some would say it wasn't since the goal wasn't fulfilled and he possibly missed out on winning another French Open. But, at the time, when he had already proven he could win clay and hard Slams, and Wimbledon was even more of the crown jewel than it is now, I don't think he should have any regrets. He made himself into a very good grass player, but unfortunately surrounded by a handful of excellent grass players.
 
Mustard said:
Lendl was close to winning a set during both his Wimbledon finals.
Click to expand...
Being close to winning a set, not winning a set, not being close to winning a match, just being close to winning a set in both, is not a point in his favor in this discussion, LOL! Roddick in 3 Wimbledon finals won 3 sets, and a guy named Roger Federer was his opponent in all 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pheasant
  • Poll Poll
Who's the greatest carpet player ever?
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Kralingen
K
Pheasant
  • Poll Poll
What was better, Federer from 2008-2022, or Agassi's entire career?
Replies
21
Views
798
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
G
1989 - Who was the best player that year, Becker or Lendl?
2
Replies
72
Views
7K
toth
T
kiki
70 vs 80: Borg vs Lendl
Replies
2
Views
889
kiki
kiki
Pheasant
  • Poll Poll
Where does Seles' peak rank on carpet?
Replies
7
Views
260
Gizo
G
Back
Top