Mustard
Bionic Poster
It was just something that I added to the discussion.
Controversial, but serious question. Who was better on grass courts, Roddick, or Lendl?
- Thread starter Pheasant
- Start date
Aside from Wilander, I'd say this is a pretty tough roster of excellent grass court players...all who were much more comfortable on the turf than Lendl ever was.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Exactly what is the problem for Lendl winning on clay ? He was having a great serve and big groundstrokes. He also was able to cover the net very well. That he did not win a single Wimbledon while being singly focused on the tournament is really bad.
Roddick was very close to beating Federer in Wimby 2009.
Roddick was very close to beating Federer in Wimby 2009.
Hard Court
Rookie
I guess I don't get the argument for Roddick as being better because he almost beat Federer. That by itself doesn't mean he was better than Lendl.
And we somehow know that Lendl could not beaten Federer on the slow grass? Because why? Lendl have been in baseline rallies which was Lendl's game. Lendl was much more likely to win Wimbledon in the 2000s than when he played.
As for Roddick playing on the grass that Lendl had to play on;
He probably would have held serve almost all of the time. However. Roddick would have hardly ever broken serve against a good player. From about the 3rd round on, he would have been ion matches that had multiple tiebreakers with no one breaking serve. Most years he would not have got past the mid-rounds on grass.
And we somehow know that Lendl could not beaten Federer on the slow grass? Because why? Lendl have been in baseline rallies which was Lendl's game. Lendl was much more likely to win Wimbledon in the 2000s than when he played.
As for Roddick playing on the grass that Lendl had to play on;
He probably would have held serve almost all of the time. However. Roddick would have hardly ever broken serve against a good player. From about the 3rd round on, he would have been ion matches that had multiple tiebreakers with no one breaking serve. Most years he would not have got past the mid-rounds on grass.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
You can't place him in Lendl era and vice versa. Players played as per their surface dictated.
Question isn't why Roddick is better, its why Lendl didn't win a single set in finals? He made 1 less final and was never close to winning any title.
Musterrific
Hall of Fame
He absolutely made the right decision. He had already won RG three times, so really had nothing more to prove there, so I'd say it was an easy decision to sacrifice a potential 4th title there (which wouldn't have been guaranteed anyway) when the biggest prize in the sport was still missing from his resume. If anything, I'm surprised he didn't use that strategy years earlier - he waited until he was 30 and past his peak, which in those days was normal retirement age from the sport, aside from rare freaks like Connors. He should have tried it somewhere during his peak, from '86-'88. Maybe even '89 would have been a better year to try skipping the entire clay season, since he had Becker on the ropes in the Wimbledon semi, with a sub-par Edberg waiting in the final. A few extra months of intense grass court training might have gotten him over the line there.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Lendl was desperate by then. For 1989, he was more seriously aiming for the Grand Slam (i.e. winning all 4 majors in 1989) more than thinking of skipping the 1989 French Open. He was already saying in July 1989, however, that he was skipping the 1990 French Open, not long after the narrow 5-set loss to Becker in the 1989 Wimbledon semi finals. His obsession with winning Wimbledon was deepening. In 1990, Lendl peaked too early on grass, showing his best form at 1990 Queen's Club rather than at 1990 Wimbledon.
How a hypothetical 1989 Wimbledon final between Lendl and Edberg would have gone is anybody's guess. In reality, Edberg made a slow start in the 1989 Wimbledon final, being subpar in the early games, but not in the rest of the match. Becker also started that 1989 final fast, a complete contrast to his slow start in the 1990 final and the constant rain delays on the Sunday in the 1988 final. Edberg broke Becker's serve in the second set of the 1989 Wimbledon final to go up 6-5, and then went up 40-0 on serve to bring up 3 set points that would have levelled the match at 1 set all. Becker responded by winning 12 of the next 13 points to go 2 sets up.
How a hypothetical 1989 Wimbledon final between Lendl and Edberg would have gone is anybody's guess. In reality, Edberg made a slow start in the 1989 Wimbledon final, being subpar in the early games, but not in the rest of the match. Becker also started that 1989 final fast, a complete contrast to his slow start in the 1990 final and the constant rain delays on the Sunday in the 1988 final. Edberg broke Becker's serve in the second set of the 1989 Wimbledon final to go up 6-5, and then went up 40-0 on serve to bring up 3 set points that would have levelled the match at 1 set all. Becker responded by winning 12 of the next 13 points to go 2 sets up.
Wimbledon still towered above RG in terms of importance then. I do see analyses of tennis from that era, portraying the majors as equally important to each other, which clearly wasn't the case. As painful as McEnroe's defeat to Lendl in the 1984 RG final was and remained for decades afterwards, the idea of him wanting to trade in any of his Wimbledon titles (let's say his 1983 one when he didn't beat / face either Borg or Connors) for a RG title was laughed at by commentators as a complete absurdity. However Lendl explicitly said that he'd trade in all 3 of his RG titles for a Wimbledon title, and to be honest it wasn't really that outrageous a thing to say. It's a reason why I think there is a strong argument to rank Mac above Lendl overall (alongside his legendary Davis Cup status - though there are of course also strong arguments in Lendl's favour), when both players would have much preferred to have ended up with Mac's collection of majors than Lendl's (7-3 to Mac at the 2 majors that they both valued the most).
Him trying something different and skipping RG in 1990, especially with the 2 week turnaround time before Wimbledon made sense. Another (potential) RG title would have been very nice, but wouldn't really have added a great deal to his legacy IMO. He said in 1990 that if he didn't take that decision and never won Wimbledon, he'd have regrets about whether he should have done so. He went on say that if that move still didn't help him win the title, at least he could be comfortable knowing that he tried everything in his power there.
In line with earlier posts, I don't consider completely hypothetical arguements about how the players would do if they had to deal with each other's respective conditions to be a remotely serious factor here. I think they both have to be judged on how they did, under the actual conditions that they faced.
Lendl nearly took Becker and Cash respectively to a 4th set in the 1986 and 1987 finals. Roddick actually took Federer to a 4th set in the 2004 final (and was leading 4-2 in the 3rd set before the 2nd rain delay), and very nearly beat him in the 2009 final. IMO Roddick nearly beating Federer in a Wimbledon final shouldn't be over-egged in comparisons to players that actually won Wimbledon like Agassi and Ivanisevic. But I think that it is a big factor in comparison to a player like Lendl that also didn't win it.
Going into the 2004 final where Roddick broke him 4 times, Federer had held 119 of his last 121 service games at Wimbledon (or 120 of his last 122 before his 2nd service game in the final when he was broken). He had a streak of 105 consecutive service holds at Wimbledon from 2003-2004, before Hewitt broke him at 3-3 in the 4th set of their QF (Grosjean also broke him once during the 3rd set of their SF). He also didn’t face any break points across his last 3 matches during his 2004 Halle title defence. And as said previously, going into the 2009 Wimbledon final Federer had won 71 of his last 72 matches on grass, and 46 of his last 47 at Wimbledon.
Him trying something different and skipping RG in 1990, especially with the 2 week turnaround time before Wimbledon made sense. Another (potential) RG title would have been very nice, but wouldn't really have added a great deal to his legacy IMO. He said in 1990 that if he didn't take that decision and never won Wimbledon, he'd have regrets about whether he should have done so. He went on say that if that move still didn't help him win the title, at least he could be comfortable knowing that he tried everything in his power there.
In line with earlier posts, I don't consider completely hypothetical arguements about how the players would do if they had to deal with each other's respective conditions to be a remotely serious factor here. I think they both have to be judged on how they did, under the actual conditions that they faced.
Lendl nearly took Becker and Cash respectively to a 4th set in the 1986 and 1987 finals. Roddick actually took Federer to a 4th set in the 2004 final (and was leading 4-2 in the 3rd set before the 2nd rain delay), and very nearly beat him in the 2009 final. IMO Roddick nearly beating Federer in a Wimbledon final shouldn't be over-egged in comparisons to players that actually won Wimbledon like Agassi and Ivanisevic. But I think that it is a big factor in comparison to a player like Lendl that also didn't win it.
Going into the 2004 final where Roddick broke him 4 times, Federer had held 119 of his last 121 service games at Wimbledon (or 120 of his last 122 before his 2nd service game in the final when he was broken). He had a streak of 105 consecutive service holds at Wimbledon from 2003-2004, before Hewitt broke him at 3-3 in the 4th set of their QF (Grosjean also broke him once during the 3rd set of their SF). He also didn’t face any break points across his last 3 matches during his 2004 Halle title defence. And as said previously, going into the 2009 Wimbledon final Federer had won 71 of his last 72 matches on grass, and 46 of his last 47 at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Roddick's return/ground game was better than he is given credit for. He wasn't a servebot at all. You look at the scorelines of matches of guys like Isner, Anderson, etc. and they are usually full of tiebreaks. It wasn't the case with Roddick who could break serve against some of the guys with top serves or groundgames.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick's return game won % is a whoppin' 2% bigger than Tsitsipas's on grass and HC (ha!).
I'd probably make Edberg the 60-40 favourite to win a hypothetical Wimbledon final against Lendl in 1989. Lendl had won their biggest grass court match (clearly their 1987 Wimbledon SF was a bigger deal than their 1985 Australian Open SF), but Edberg had won 3 majors on grass by that stage most notably of course Wimbledon the previous year, while Lendl hadn't won a set in a major final on the surface.
Plus clearly both players would serve volley behind 100% of 1st and 2nd serves, so I'd have to favour the player far more naturally suited to that style under that scenario, with the noticeably better movement and footing on the surface to boot, and also clearly the better return of serve on grass. And as has been previously said, there's no guarantee that Edberg would get off to same slow start vs. Lendl as he did vs. Becker, and he did play very well during his SF win against McEnroe in what was a serve volleying masterclass by both players. And Lendl's nerves and desperation to win that elusive prize that he so desperately wanted, would surely be a factor.
Their match-up was pretty even on carpet and hard courts at that stage (with them splitting wins against each other on both of those surfaces that year), but on grass I'd have to give Edberg the advantage. Lendl beating Becker and Edberg back to back to win a major on hard courts would be tough enough, let alone at Wimbledon on grass. When past his prime he nearly beat them back to back merely to reach the US Open semis in 1992 after coming from 2 sets to 1 down to beat Becker in the 4th round, and then coming from 2 sets to love down before leading Edberg by a break in the 5th set of their QF, but he couldn't quite pull it off.
Now at the 1990 Australian Open, if Edberg hadn't suffered that abdominal injury during his final service game of his flawless SF demolition of Wilander, I'd say that going into it his final against Lendl would have been pretty much 50-50.
Plus clearly both players would serve volley behind 100% of 1st and 2nd serves, so I'd have to favour the player far more naturally suited to that style under that scenario, with the noticeably better movement and footing on the surface to boot, and also clearly the better return of serve on grass. And as has been previously said, there's no guarantee that Edberg would get off to same slow start vs. Lendl as he did vs. Becker, and he did play very well during his SF win against McEnroe in what was a serve volleying masterclass by both players. And Lendl's nerves and desperation to win that elusive prize that he so desperately wanted, would surely be a factor.
Their match-up was pretty even on carpet and hard courts at that stage (with them splitting wins against each other on both of those surfaces that year), but on grass I'd have to give Edberg the advantage. Lendl beating Becker and Edberg back to back to win a major on hard courts would be tough enough, let alone at Wimbledon on grass. When past his prime he nearly beat them back to back merely to reach the US Open semis in 1992 after coming from 2 sets to 1 down to beat Becker in the 4th round, and then coming from 2 sets to love down before leading Edberg by a break in the 5th set of their QF, but he couldn't quite pull it off.
Now at the 1990 Australian Open, if Edberg hadn't suffered that abdominal injury during his final service game of his flawless SF demolition of Wilander, I'd say that going into it his final against Lendl would have been pretty much 50-50.
well, that's at the core of it...vs. Edberg, he'd be playing an S&V player who does it much better than he does, is more comfortable on the surface overall, etc. I also feel Edberg would have won that AO final if not injured. He was playing quite well.
Hard Court
Rookie
If we can't do that, then we can't really compare them on two different surfaces. The grass surface that Roddick played on was more comparable to hard court surfaces than it was to the grass surface that Lendl play on.
Wimbledon when Lendl played was serve and volley almost every point. Lendl's matches at the US Open against Wilander was more similar in style of play to Federer-Roddick then Lendl's Wimbledon matches were.
Why did Lendl didn't win a set in the finals?
Lendl was playing on a surface that greatly favored his opponents (Becker and Cash) who in both instances were playing at an extremely high level. It's not like Lendl got blown either time. In fact, one set against Cash went to a tie breaker and another was 7-5. Just to get that far, Lendl had to beat Edberg in the SF.
Don’t forget the Australian open on grass for Lendl. One runnerup and multiple close semis
I feel like folks are starting to make excuses for Lendl now....while most of the circumstances cited are true, the cold hard fact is that Roddick came much closer to winning W than Lendl ever did. Yes, it's not the same grass, yes, Lendl had super-tough competition, but even at his best on grass, he couldn't pull it off. And, even when he stuck to largely baseline play ('84). OBVIOUSLY, Lendl is the better player, but on grass, Roddick certainly played some very good tennis.
Pheasant
Legend
Fed had declined substantially by 2009 on grass. His return numbers started dropping by 2007. It’s no wonder why he got dumped before the semis the next two years. That Fed that Roddick pushed to 5 sets would have been beaten in 5 sets by Lendl on that slow grass at Wimbledon, IMHO.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
This makes sense. Because Federer started losing outside Wimbledon as well, as early as 2009. Or he stopped playing the prep grass tournaments. Its after 2012 when he played regular grass prep tournaments. His game slacked off on grass in 2009 to 2013 (somehow peaked in wimbledon 2012)
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
This is close.
Lendl would have been a lot better on slow grass.
Roddick might have been better on bad grass.
Lendl would have been a lot better on slow grass.
Roddick might have been better on bad grass.
NatF
Bionic Poster
2009 was still prime Fed on the grass, he was much better than in 2010 and 2011...
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I guess you could just say that Roddick would have his arguments even if he doesn't necessarily win this debate. Because I don't think he should be dismissed that easily just because Lendl is the greater overall player.
the voters would agree with you as I see Andy has now inched ahead!
FD3S
Hall of Fame
Not surprised! I've seen this question pop up from time to time and I've never seen a consensus with how people think; it's always seemed razor thin.
Pheasant
Legend
I had only included Wimbledon, as far as grass majors go. But you are right. If we include the AO, which was on grass courts until 1988, then Lendl made 10 semis in 12 tourneys, which includes 3 finals. 10/12 means Lendl was in a grass slam semi in 83% of the tourneys held during that time frame. That is amazing.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
But that is also worse then. He lost to Wilander in grass finals.
Roddick only lost to Federer who is grass GOAT. It's statistically proven he is grass GOAT in open era. Most titles, most match wins, most Wimbledon match wins. Wilander never could win Wimbledon himself.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Wilander beat Lendl comfortably in the 1983 Australian Open final, just after upsetting McEnroe in the semis (McEnroe then went on his 1984 dominance). It played more like today's grass, not like Wimbledon of the era.
Pheasant
Legend
It's possible that Roddick peaked higher. But Lendl showed incredible consistency to reach 10 semis out of 12(7/8 at Wimbledon and 3/4 at the AO).
I like this comparison. And I don't have any issues with anybody picking either Roddick or Lendl here.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I picked Roddick for now but it is very close, and can be persuaded to change my vote (which is an option it turns out).
GuyForget
Semi-Pro
but lost 3 finals to Djoks and only 1 more win, hmm
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
HMM VERY INTERESTING.
Dude he was 1 pt away from winning Wimbledon at age 37 and 11 months. With 1 pt if the H2H will be 2-2 I don't think it matters if luck factored in.
He is 8 W and 4 F in Wimbledon. 12 slam finals at a particular slam. Second best behind Nadal who played 14 finals at RG.
Outside Wimbledon Federer has won 10 more titles and Djokovic has won 1 more title.
Federer has won it all. And Djokovic has lost it all in BO3. Aside from eastbourne (similar to Federer's stuttgarts) 1 time, Djokovic could NEVER win a grass title.
Fed won 10 top 5 matches here while Djokovic only won 5.
I think Fed is definitely the open era GOAT here. Just like how Djokovic is definitely all time GOAT overall.
Its not bad for Djokovic at all, he is second best in the open era on grass. Not bad at all. If he wins 9 Wimbledons then it will be same discussion as Nadal with 22 slams and Fed with 20, who is better.
Overall VOLUME wise Fed is ahead.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I don't think there is anything djokovic can do CP down. If Federer could hit an ace, the match is gone, and he had hit 3 aces in that game. Its just his bad luck that he was 1 inch lower at the net.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
The CP was completely outside Djokovic control. This is grass and Fed was just unlucky.
Please don't DERAIL the thread. Go back to Lendl vs Roddick.
Please don't DERAIL the thread. Go back to Lendl vs Roddick.
recreationalplayer
Semi-Pro
Federer was a Mt. Everest Roddick could never conquer on grass. IMO, Andy never beat himself at Wimbledon unlike Lendl who couldn't get out of his own way. To borrow a thought from Sharapova, maybe Lendl was a cow on grass.
Hard Court
Rookie
In 2006, Roddick lost in the 3rd Round at Wimbledon.
In 2007, Roddick lost to Gasquet in the QF.
In 2008, Roddick lost in 2nd round at Wimbledon.
In 2010, Roddick lost in the fourth round.
If we are going to criticize Lendl for getting to the Australian final and losing to Wilander, we certainly have to factor in these unimpressive performances by Roddick as well.
Roddick certainly had some good runs at Wimbledon as well. Same with Lendl. It all counts. Lendl's record on the fast grass (with low bounces and more bad bounces) at Wimbledon is similar to Roddick's record on the slower grass.
Obviously, Roddick never played on the grass in Australia, so we don't know how he would have done there.
In 2007, Roddick lost to Gasquet in the QF.
In 2008, Roddick lost in 2nd round at Wimbledon.
In 2010, Roddick lost in the fourth round.
If we are going to criticize Lendl for getting to the Australian final and losing to Wilander, we certainly have to factor in these unimpressive performances by Roddick as well.
Roddick certainly had some good runs at Wimbledon as well. Same with Lendl. It all counts. Lendl's record on the fast grass (with low bounces and more bad bounces) at Wimbledon is similar to Roddick's record on the slower grass.
Obviously, Roddick never played on the grass in Australia, so we don't know how he would have done there.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
This is a really close call. One of those rare instances where the poll results do justice to the question.
He also beat Curren the following year on grass at the AO. So he was not completely inept on it....one of only a handful who are multi-surface, GS winners. The win over Mac in '83 was quite shocking.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
We all know why that is.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Much easier for Djokovic to be mentally strong against an older player. Fed was the same.
Djoko literally played all his Wimb finals against an old Fed.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
QF is not a bad performance and in 2006 he lost to Murray. 2008 was a poor one, but Roddick was pretty average everywhere that year. And in 2010 he was kinda past it, he had a decline that proved to be definitive after the Sunshine Double.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Roddick lost that quarter final to Gasquet after being two sets and a break up too. The following year, Gasquet was on the other side, losing from two sets and a break up himself against Murray in the quarter finals.
Hard Court
Rookie
All true. And he lost every time. We can spin it all that we want, but he lost matches that were pretty winnable. Murray was unproven and not even seeded and lost in straight sets in the next round to Bagdatis. Yes, Roddick was ahead against Gasquet, but lost. Roddick was past it at 27 etc.
We can't be criticizing Lendl for losing to players playing an extremely high level like Becker and Cash, and then use these kind of excuses for Roddick against far lesser players. Occasionally an excuse is legit, these really aren't.
Obviously, you can find things to criticize Lendl for. However, all in all their results on the grass surfaces that they played on are very similar.
We can't be criticizing Lendl for losing to players playing an extremely high level like Becker and Cash, and then use these kind of excuses for Roddick against far lesser players. Occasionally an excuse is legit, these really aren't.
Obviously, you can find things to criticize Lendl for. However, all in all their results on the grass surfaces that they played on are very similar.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I do agree a "prime" Roddick did have worse losses than Lendl at Wimbledon. I do think some of his performances were better than Lendl ever at Wimbledon as well. Lendl's best grass performances were events like Queens 1990, not at Wimbledon.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Gasquet was good back in 2007 and people thought he would be challenging for slams. Not to mention he lost with two TBs and an 8-6.
At the time it wasn't seen as a terrible defeat.
And what good result did he have after 2010 (when he was 28)? Bad year in 2011 as a 29yo and retired at 30 in 2012. He was past it. Ferrero was past it at 24.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Lendl's easiest run to the Wimbledon semi finals was in 1983, the first time that he did it. Lendl then lost a pretty close 3-setter to McEnroe, with Chris Lewis waiting in the final.
Regarding Roddick, I wasn't all that impressed, relatively speaking, with his 2005 Wimbledon run to the final. It was nowhere near as good as 2004 and 2009 (or even 2003 before Federer dismantled him in the semis).
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Oh totally agree on 2005. I wasn't considering that when I said performances that were better than I ever saw from Lendl at Wimbledon. I do think some of the tennis he played in 2004 and 2009, particularly 2009, is better than anything Lendl ever did at Wimbledon. Lendl's best ever tennis on grass was at Queens 1990 for sure IMO.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I think Lendl's most impressive Wimbledon match wins were his quarter final and semi final wins over Leconte and Edberg respectively in 1987. Leconte had given Lendl something of a battering two years earlier at 1985 Wimbledon. After those two 1987 wins, I'd say the quarter final against Tanner in 1983 was Lendl's next best Wimbledon match win. 1990 Queen's Club was the best grass form of Lendl's life, of course. Lendl hadn't beaten Becker for two and a half years at that time, yet Lendl broke Becker's serve four times in two sets in the 1990 Queen's Club final to win 6-3, 6-2.
How would you rate Lendl’s 1989 semi against Becker? My feeling is if he won that match, which he was very close to doing, he would have beaten edberg in the final. Edberg in 1989 was not in his 1988 or 1990 Wimbledon form
I remember being very impressed watching Roddick beat Berdych at Wimbledon in the 4th round in 2009. The match was even more one sided than the scoreline suggested, as he completely toyed with Berdych, employing a lot of variety, especially with the paces and spins off his shots and his volleying, and he never looked troubled at all on his serve. That was a match in which he displayed an effective combination of showcasing his strengths from the earlier stages of his career, alongside newly improved features of his game under Stefanki.
Lendl in 1987, 1 month or so after beating Wilander in a RG final which was effectively a grindathon with a series of long gruelling rallies, beating Edberg in a Wimbledon semi-final serve-volleying behind all 1st and 2nd serves, was an insane achievement. Those matches seemed like 2 different sports.
Lendl in 1987, 1 month or so after beating Wilander in a RG final which was effectively a grindathon with a series of long gruelling rallies, beating Edberg in a Wimbledon semi-final serve-volleying behind all 1st and 2nd serves, was an insane achievement. Those matches seemed like 2 different sports.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
