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

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles overall and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant amount.

However I started looking through the Wimbledon draws from 1983–90; Lendl's prime grass years. Here's what I found:

• Sandy Mayer
• Roscoe Tanner
• Pat Cash
• Henri Leconte
• Boris Becker
• Slobodan Zivojinovic (x2)
• Miloslav Mecir
• Anders Jarryd
• Kevin Curren
• Goran Ivanisevic

That's a partial list of players who during those years reached the quarter-finals or better as unseeded players. Some, like Mayer and Tanner, were past their best. Some, like Cash and Ivanisevic, were callow youths. And all of them were indeed seeded in other years. But on at least one occasion all of them were considered not among the best sixteen grass court players when the tournament began; any one of them was a potential R1 opponent for the pre-event favourites. This is to say nothing of the many players who never made the quarter-finals, but did at least reach R3 or R4 on several occasions and demonstrated a decent grass court pedigree: Woodforde, Fitzgerald, van Rensburg, Annacone, Pernfors, Anger. Add in also the very competent doubles players like Scott Davis, Leach, Seguso, Visser, and Gunthardt who were all at home on the surface and did well at least once. Compare that to Roddick's era. (Or worse, compare that to Djokovic's comically talent-free opposition of late.)

I've cited Andy's "35–0 vs everyone except Federer" several times on TTW.[Source1][Source2] It's an ample demonstration of how tough he was on the surface during his peak. But if we give him the same conditions as Lendl — sixteen seeds instead of 32, the kind of grass court depth of talent that I just listed, and a greater necessity to come forward and volley — do we really think the American could repeat his feats?

On the flip side, if we give Lendl a draw with 32 seeds instead of sixteen, take away some of the fast court/volleying specialists who were his biggest bête noire, and slow the grass down just enough that Wimbledon becomes theoretically winnable from the baseline, how does that pan out? "Lendl would do way better in Roddick’s era than Roddick would do in Ivan’s", as @BorgTheGOAT wrote. (For the record I think Ivan would do better but still wouldn't be able to get past a Federer-level talent, so maybe not "way" better.)

If OP gave a third option — "they're about equal" — that might have been the most popular choice; it's how I would have voted.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant amount.

However I started looking through the Wimbledon draws from 1983–90; Lendl's prime grass years. Here's what I found:

• Sandy Mayer
• Roscoe Tanner
• Pat Cash
• Henri Leconte
• Boris Becker
• Slobodan Zivojinovic (x2)
• Miloslav Mecir
• Anders Jarryd
• Kevin Curren
• Goran Ivanisevic

That's a list of players who reached the quarter-finals or better at Wimbledon during those years as unseeded players. Some, like Mayer and Tanner, were past their best. Some, like Cash and Ivanisevic, were callow youths. And all of them were indeed seeded in other years. But on at least one occasion all of them were considered not among the best sixteen grass court players when the tournament began; any one of them was a potential R1 opponent for the pre-event favourites. This is to say nothing of the many players who never made the quarter-finals, but did at least reach R3 or R4 on several occasions and demonstrated a decent grass court pedigree: Woodforde, Fitzgerald, van Rensburg, Annacone, Pernfors, Anger; add in also the very competent doubles players like Scott Davis, Leach, Seguso, Visser, and Gunthardt who were all at home on the surface and did well at least once. Compare that to Roddick's era. (Or worse, compare that to Djokovic's comedically talent-free opposition of late.)

I've cited Andy's "35–3 vs everyone except Federer" several times on TTW.[Source1][Source2] It's an ample demonstration of how tough he was on the surface during his peak. But if we give him the same conditions as Lendl — sixteen seeds instead of 32, the kind of grass court depth of talent that I just listed, and a greater necessity to come forward and volley — do we really think the American could repeat his feats?

On the flip side, if we give Lendl a draw with 32 seeds instead of sixteen, take away some of the fast court/volleying specialists which was his biggest bête noire, and slow the grass down just enough that Wimbledon becomes theoretically winnable from the baseline, how does that pan out? "Lendl would do way better in Roddick’s era than Roddick would do in Ivan’s", as @BorgTheGOATwrote. (For the record I think Ivan would do better but still wouldn't be able to get past a Federer-level talent, so maybe not "way" better.)

If OP gave a third option — "they're about equal" — that might have been the most popular choice; it's how I would have voted.

Great post.

 

[andreh]

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles overall and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant amount.

However I started looking through the Wimbledon draws from 1983–90; Lendl's prime grass years. Here's what I found:

• Sandy Mayer
• Roscoe Tanner
• Pat Cash
• Henri Leconte
• Boris Becker
• Slobodan Zivojinovic (x2)
• Miloslav Mecir
• Anders Jarryd
• Kevin Curren
• Goran Ivanisevic

That's a partial list of players who during those years reached the quarter-finals or better as unseeded players. Some, like Mayer and Tanner, were past their best. Some, like Cash and Ivanisevic, were callow youths. And all of them were indeed seeded in other years. But on at least one occasion all of them were considered not among the best sixteen grass court players when the tournament began; any one of them was a potential R1 opponent for the pre-event favourites. This is to say nothing of the many players who never made the quarter-finals, but did at least reach R3 or R4 on several occasions and demonstrated a decent grass court pedigree: Woodforde, Fitzgerald, van Rensburg, Annacone, Pernfors, Anger; add in also the very competent doubles players like Scott Davis, Leach, Seguso, Visser, and Gunthardt who were all at home on the surface and did well at least once. Compare that to Roddick's era. (Or worse, compare that to Djokovic's comedically talent-free opposition of late.)

I've cited Andy's "35–0 vs everyone except Federer" several times on TTW.[Source1][Source2] It's an ample demonstration of how tough he was on the surface during his peak. But if we give him the same conditions as Lendl — sixteen seeds instead of 32, the kind of grass court depth of talent that I just listed, and a greater necessity to come forward and volley — do we really think the American could repeat his feats?

On the flip side, if we give Lendl a draw with 32 seeds instead of sixteen, take away some of the fast court/volleying specialists which was his biggest bête noire, and slow the grass down just enough that Wimbledon becomes theoretically winnable from the baseline, how does that pan out? "Lendl would do way better in Roddick’s era than Roddick would do in Ivan’s", as @BorgTheGOAT wrote. (For the record I think Ivan would do better but still wouldn't be able to get past a Federer-level talent, so maybe not "way" better.)

If OP gave a third option — "they're about equal" — that might have been the most popular choice; it's how I would have voted.

This is the internet. Third options or well-measured opinions suggesting things like compromise aren't allowed.

 

[jrepac]

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.

I remember being surprised by Lendl beating Edberg in '87; I figured Stefan would outplay him. Personally, I always felt '87 was his best shot. Cash was just otherworldly that tournament.

 

[Musterrific]

I remember being surprised by Lendl beating Edberg in '87; I figured Stefan would outplay him. Personally, I always felt '87 was his best shot. Cash was just otherworldly that tournament.

Very bad luck for Lendl that after those impressive back to back wins that he ran into a GOATing Cash who zoned for 2 weeks during a rare injury-free period.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles overall and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant amount.

However I started looking through the Wimbledon draws from 1983–90; Lendl's prime grass years. Here's what I found:

• Sandy Mayer
• Roscoe Tanner
• Pat Cash
• Henri Leconte
• Boris Becker
• Slobodan Zivojinovic (x2)
• Miloslav Mecir
• Anders Jarryd
• Kevin Curren
• Goran Ivanisevic

That's a partial list of players who during those years reached the quarter-finals or better as unseeded players. Some, like Mayer and Tanner, were past their best. Some, like Cash and Ivanisevic, were callow youths. And all of them were indeed seeded in other years. But on at least one occasion all of them were considered not among the best sixteen grass court players when the tournament began; any one of them was a potential R1 opponent for the pre-event favourites. This is to say nothing of the many players who never made the quarter-finals, but did at least reach R3 or R4 on several occasions and demonstrated a decent grass court pedigree: Woodforde, Fitzgerald, van Rensburg, Annacone, Pernfors, Anger; add in also the very competent doubles players like Scott Davis, Leach, Seguso, Visser, and Gunthardt who were all at home on the surface and did well at least once. Compare that to Roddick's era. (Or worse, compare that to Djokovic's comically talent-free opposition of late.)

I've cited Andy's "35–0 vs everyone except Federer" several times on TTW.[Source1][Source2] It's an ample demonstration of how tough he was on the surface during his peak. But if we give him the same conditions as Lendl — sixteen seeds instead of 32, the kind of grass court depth of talent that I just listed, and a greater necessity to come forward and volley — do we really think the American could repeat his feats?

On the flip side, if we give Lendl a draw with 32 seeds instead of sixteen, take away some of the fast court/volleying specialists which was his biggest bête noire, and slow the grass down just enough that Wimbledon becomes theoretically winnable from the baseline, how does that pan out? "Lendl would do way better in Roddick’s era than Roddick would do in Ivan’s", as @BorgTheGOAT wrote. (For the record I think Ivan would do better but still wouldn't be able to get past a Federer-level talent, so maybe not "way" better.)

If OP gave a third option — "they're about equal" — that might have been the most popular choice; it's how I would have voted.

Wow. Excellent detailed analysis. And I think the Roddick did better, Lendl was better, line, might be the closest to the truth of summary in comparision of them on grass. Curious what @abmk, @Mainad, @BTURNER, and @BorgTheGOAT think on this particular topic too.

 

[Mustard]

How would you rate Lendl’s 1989 semi against Becker?

Very good. Lendl was unfortunate with a few things during that match, from the rain delay at 3-0 to Lendl (2 breaks) in the third set when it was 1 set all, to Lendl being a break up at 3-2 in the fourth set (and Lendl leading 2-1 in sets) but getting broken back immediately, to Lendl having several line calls that went against him as the match slipped from his grasp.

Becker admitted afterwards that he needed the rain delay at 0-3 (2 breaks) down in the third set to clear his mind. Becker did very well himself to win the first set brilliantly late in that set, and to get out of the hole that he was in during the fourth set enough to win that set, and then win the decisive fifth set.

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 seem to recall that Edberg was very good against McEnroe in the 1989 Wimbledon semi final, but it's been a while since I've seen that match. Edberg had a slow start in the 1989 Wimbledon final against Becker, but played better after that. Becker was too good for Edberg on the day, with Edberg blowing his big chance when serving for the second set at 6-5, going up 40-0, and not getting it done.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I do agree Edberg was off in the final, but he still played decently after the 1st set, and ran into a red hot, overpowering Becker. And still was very close to and probably should have won the 2nd set. Becker in the semis was also not the same Becker as the final at all, and in fact it was one of his poorer matches that period at Wimbledon, and he still managed to beat Lendl (even if with the obvious help of what happened). I say Lendl at best would be 50/50 vs Edberg in the final, at best, especialy seeing how easily Edberg beat Lendl the next year (yes I know Edberg was in better form at Wimbledon 90 than 89, but even so).

 

[timnz]

I do agree Edberg was off in the final, but he still played decently after the 1st set, and ran into a red hot, overpowering Becker. And still was very close to and probably should have won the 2nd set. Becker in the semis was also not the same Becker as the final at all, and in fact it was one of his poorer matches that period at Wimbledon, and he still managed to beat Lendl (even if with the obvious help of what happened). I say Lendl at best would be 50/50 vs Edberg in the final, at best, especialy seeing how easily Edberg beat Lendl the next year (yes I know Edberg was in better form at Wimbledon 90 than 89, but even so).

I don’t think you can transfer edberg‘s 1990 form to 1989

 

[mike danny]

Wow. Excellent detailed analysis. And I think the Roddick did better, Lendl was better, line, might be the closest to the truth of summary in comparision of them on grass. Curious what @abmk, @Mainad, @BTURNER, and @BorgTheGOAT think on this particular topic too.

I'd also add that Lendl faced more varied and solid grass court opposition, while Roddick faced by far the singular toughest challenge.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I'd also add that Lendl faced more varied and solid grass court opposition, while Roddick faced by far the singular toughest challenge.

I totally agree on that too. The depth of the grass field was much more in Lendl's time, but Roddick faced the single toughest opponent by far. Especialy when you consider, as great as Becker is on grass, he in fact has a career losing record in Wimbledon finals..

 

[Gizo]

I'd also add that Lendl faced more varied and solid grass court opposition, while Roddick faced by far the singular toughest challenge.

I agree with that.

And it makes sense as the 80s field would have featured many players that took up / seriously focused on tennis when there were 2 majors on grass (or even 3 for at least a reasonable chunk of their junior careers). Even if they didn't grow up playing primarily on grass, they would have had far more exposure to the surface, and many players would have adopted styles naturally suited to playing well on it. Many players that featured in the 00s took up tennis or at least started playing it seriously after the Australian Open had switched to rebound ace, when hard courts were becoming more and more dominant, and when it became far more appealing to learn to play mainly as a baseliner (especially in the interests of enjoying strong junior careers and getting in sponsors as early as possible). Other posters have talked about Alexander Popp, and how the likes of McEnroe were shocked when at Wimbledon in 2000 (so before the switch to 100% rye grass), he followed up huge, booming serves by remaining at the baseline.

Of course that trend has continued and intensfied further since then, resulting in the present day grass court field which let's just say I don't rate highly.

I think that Lendl's consistency at Wimbledon and in general, when there were 16 seeds in majors, so many dangerous opponents in early rounds to worry about etc, was incredibly impressive.

And alongside Roddick facing the singular toughest challenge, he fared better there (winning 3 sets) than Lendl did when facing his challenges. If Lendl had been more competitive during either his finals i.e. maybe going 2-6 in sets instead of 0-6 (and even the fact that he took Cash to a tiebreaker in the opening set in 1987 was misleading, as he was getting outplayed and was hanging on for dear life there), maybe I'd lean towards him. But because he didn't I have to lean towards Roddick. I watched the 1986 and 1987 finals and quickly thought that the best that Lendl could do was make them reasonably competitive (and he didn't really manage that), without being able to win. I watched the 2004 and 2009 finals and thought that Roddick had at least a reasonable chance (better than reasonable in 2009) of actually winning. The case for Lendl here seems to be more contigent on the word 'if', which is another reason why I lean towards Roddick.

 

[timnz]

I agree with that.

And it makes sense as the 80s field would have featured many players that took up / seriously focused on tennis when there were 2 majors on grass (or even 3 for at least a reasonable chunk of their junior careers). Even if they didn't grow up playing primarily on grass, they would have had far more exposure to the surface, and many players would have adopted styles naturally suited to playing well on it. Many players that featured in the 00s took up tennis or at least started playing it seriously after the Australian Open had switched to rebound ace, when hard courts were becoming more and more dominant, and when it became far more appealing to learn to play mainly as a baseliner (especially in the interests of enjoying strong junior careers and getting in sponsors as early as possible). Other posters have talked about Alexander Popp, and how the likes of McEnroe were shocked when at Wimbledon in 2000 (so before the switch to 100% rye grass), he followed up huge, booming serves by remaining at the baseline.

Of course that trend has continued and intensfied further since then, resulting in the present day grass court field which let's just say I don't rate highly.

I think that Lendl's consistency at Wimbledon and in general, when there were 16 seeds in majors, so many dangerous opponents in early rounds to worry about etc, was incredibly impressive.

And alongside Roddick facing the singular toughest challenge, he fared better there (winning 3 sets) than Lendl did when facing his challenges. If Lendl had been more competitive during either his finals i.e. maybe going 2-6 in sets instead of 0-6 (and even the fact that he took Cash to a tiebreaker in the opening set in 1987 was misleading, as he was getting outplayed and was hanging on for dear life there), maybe I'd lean towards him. But because he didn't I have to lean towards Roddick. I watched the 1986 and 1987 finals and quickly thought that the best that Lendl could do was make them reasonably competitive (and he didn't really manage that), without being able to win. I watched the 2004 and 2009 finals and thought that Roddick had at least a reasonable chance (better than reasonable in 2009) of actually winning. The case for Lendl here seems to be more contigent on the word 'if', which is another reason why I lean towards Roddick.

It’s really interesting that Lendl is in this conversation on his very weakest surface at a time when there was true surface variation. He was that good that even on his weakest surface he made 3 slam finals and 7 slam semi-finals.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I agree with that.

And it makes sense as the 80s field would have featured many players that took up / seriously focused on tennis when there were 2 majors on grass (or even 3 for at least a reasonable chunk of their junior careers). Even if they didn't grow up playing primarily on grass, they would have had far more exposure to the surface, and many players would have adopted styles naturally suited to playing well on it. Many players that featured in the 00s took up tennis or at least started playing it seriously after the Australian Open had switched to rebound ace, when hard courts were becoming more and more dominant, and when it became far more appealing to learn to play mainly as a baseliner (especially in the interests of enjoying strong junior careers and getting in sponsors as early as possible). Other posters have talked about Alexander Popp, and how the likes of McEnroe were shocked when at Wimbledon in 2000 (so before the switch to 100% rye grass), he followed up huge, booming serves by remaining at the baseline.

Of course that trend has continued and intensfied further since then, resulting in the present day grass court field which let's just say I don't rate highly.

I think that Lendl's consistency at Wimbledon and in general, when there were 16 seeds in majors, so many dangerous opponents in early rounds to worry about etc, was incredibly impressive.

And alongside Roddick facing the singular toughest challenge, he fared better there (winning 3 sets) than Lendl did when facing his challenges. If Lendl had been more competitive during either his finals i.e. maybe going 2-6 in sets instead of 0-6 (and even the fact that he took Cash to a tiebreaker in the opening set in 1987 was misleading, as he was getting outplayed and was hanging on for dear life there), maybe I'd lean towards him. But because he didn't I have to lean towards Roddick. I watched the 1986 and 1987 finals and quickly thought that the best that Lendl could do was make them reasonably competitive (and he didn't really manage that), without being able to win. I watched the 2004 and 2009 finals and thought that Roddick had at least a reasonable chance (better than reasonable in 2009) of actually winning. The case for Lendl here seems to be more contigent on the word 'if', which is another reason why I lean towards Roddick.

That is also a great breakdown. Particularly the last sentence when it comes to Roddick's case. It sums up why I finally fell on voting Roddick in this poll after taking awhile to decide, but Lendl has a strong argument too. Unlike many TW polls where the results are almost comical, this one being so close either way makes perfect sense.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Wow. Excellent detailed analysis. And I think the Roddick did better, Lendl was better, line, might be the closest to the truth of summary in comparision of them on grass. Curious what @abmk, @Mainad, @BTURNER, and @BorgTheGOAT think on this particular topic too.

Yeah @King_olaf_the_hairy is completely right, Lendl is definitely better imho. I might be a little biased as I find it always incredibly impressive when a player completely changes his style (same as Borg) to win at specific surfaces and battle the specialists there. Given that SnV was not his natural game Ivan did incredibly well even though it was in General arguable whether full-out SnV (at least on second serve) was ever a winning strategy to begin with (89 semi Becker hit 17 clean return winner passes on Ivan's second serve).
Anywho, Roddick never had to do anything çlose to it. He could play his normal game, but put him into the 80s with old equipment and 16 seeds I doubt he would adapt as well as Ivan despite his better serve. Ivan in the 00s would not beat prime Fed either, but could easily match Roddick's "achievements".

 

[martinezownsclay]

One thing about Roddick is his serve was very hard to break (except for Federer to some extent) even on slowed down, rye grass. So it would be extremely hard for even good returners to break on old, faster grass. However on the contrary, Roddick's return of serve was never his strength, and he struggled to break good opponents even on the slower grass. So he would have a big challenge to break the top servers or a good serve and volleyer on the old, much faster grass. You would probably see him in a lot of tiebreaks, not so much the earlier rounds, but in the late rounds for sure.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

One thing about Roddick is his serve was very hard to break (except for Federer to some extent) even on slowed down, rye grass. So it would be extremely hard for even good returners to break on old, faster grass. However on the contrary, Roddick's return of serve was never his strength, and he struggled to break good opponents even on the slower grass. So he would have a big challenge to break the top servers or a good serve and volleyer on the old, much faster grass. You would probably see him in a lot of tiebreaks, not so much the earlier rounds, but in the late rounds for sure.

While grass was slowed down, all serve stats sans double-faults have gone up over the years. So if we teleport Rod in the 80s his serve likely becomes weaker in absolute terms with the older racquets. His return and passes were also mediocre at best and the question is what he does after the serve. If he stays back a good 80s grass courter will eithèr chip and Charge or attack the net quickly within the rally. Not sure whether Roddick could adapt to play SnV himself and attacking the net in rallies I can only remember him for the dumbest approaching shots ever. All in all also for the reasons @King_olaf_the_hairy gave I think he was quite lucky to play in the era he played. In Lendl's time he would have had less success.
Lendl otoh I see doing more than two finals had he played in the 00s.

 

[martinezownsclay]

While grass was slowed down, all serve stats sans double-faults have gone up over the years. So if we teleport Rod in the 80s his serve likely becomes weaker in absolute terms with the older racquets. His return and passes were also mediocre at best and the question is what he does after the serve. If he stays back a good 80s grass courter will eithèr chip and Charge or attack the net quickly within the rally. Not sure whether Roddick could adapt to play SnV himself and attacking the net in rallies I can only remember him for the dumbest approaching shots ever. All in all also for the reasons @King_olaf_the_hairy gave I think he was quite lucky to play in the era he played. In Lendl's time he would have had less success.

The first part is true, I was more thinking of him in the Sampras era, as that is the hypothetical most often used for him. The graphite racquets came in the mid 80s so as long as his prime began then or after his serve should still be very hard to break, but before then, who knows.

 

[Gizo]

That is also a great breakdown. Particularly the last sentence when it comes to Roddick's case. It sums up why I finally fell on voting Roddick in this poll after taking awhile to decide, but Lendl has a strong argument too. Unlike many TW polls where the results are almost comical, this one being so close either way makes perfect sense.

Yes it's very close one away or another and there's definitely not an overwhelming advantage for either player. The fact that I watched all 5 Wimbledon finals involving either player live in real-time, and as events unfolded the only 2 finals out of those 5 that I thought either of them stood a decent (or better than decent) chance of winning, were the ones involving Roddick in 2004 and 2009, was ultimately decisive for me.

For me as well, speculation about how each player would do if they faced each others' set of circumstances is ultimately fantasy, and IMO irrelvant to this debate. I only care about how they fared under the actual circumstances that they faced. There are some circumstances when I understand dabbling in hypotheticals, but not here.

I agree that this very even poll result here is definitely appropriate.

 

[Pheasant]

I wanted to comment on this thread way back when it was posted, so I'm very late to the party. Not sure I have too much to add.


My summary would be: Roddick did better, Lendl was better. (@jrepac, that one little word is why I disagree with this post of yours, based on OP's thread title.)

The former is easy. In terms of accomplishments, 3x Wimbledon finals > 2x Wimbledon finals, 3x consecutive Queens titles > 2x consecutive Queens titles, plus Roddick has more titles overall and a better career win percentage. Andy is ahead for sure by a small but significant amount.

However I started looking through the Wimbledon draws from 1983–90; Lendl's prime grass years. Here's what I found:

• Sandy Mayer
• Roscoe Tanner
• Pat Cash
• Henri Leconte
• Boris Becker
• Slobodan Zivojinovic (x2)
• Miloslav Mecir
• Anders Jarryd
• Kevin Curren
• Goran Ivanisevic

That's a partial list of players who during those years reached the quarter-finals or better as unseeded players. Some, like Mayer and Tanner, were past their best. Some, like Cash and Ivanisevic, were callow youths. And all of them were indeed seeded in other years. But on at least one occasion all of them were considered not among the best sixteen grass court players when the tournament began; any one of them was a potential R1 opponent for the pre-event favourites. This is to say nothing of the many players who never made the quarter-finals, but did at least reach R3 or R4 on several occasions and demonstrated a decent grass court pedigree: Woodforde, Fitzgerald, van Rensburg, Annacone, Pernfors, Anger. Add in also the very competent doubles players like Scott Davis, Leach, Seguso, Visser, and Gunthardt who were all at home on the surface and did well at least once. Compare that to Roddick's era. (Or worse, compare that to Djokovic's comically talent-free opposition of late.)

I've cited Andy's "35–0 vs everyone except Federer" several times on TTW.[Source1][Source2] It's an ample demonstration of how tough he was on the surface during his peak. But if we give him the same conditions as Lendl — sixteen seeds instead of 32, the kind of grass court depth of talent that I just listed, and a greater necessity to come forward and volley — do we really think the American could repeat his feats?

On the flip side, if we give Lendl a draw with 32 seeds instead of sixteen, take away some of the fast court/volleying specialists who were his biggest bête noire, and slow the grass down just enough that Wimbledon becomes theoretically winnable from the baseline, how does that pan out? "Lendl would do way better in Roddick’s era than Roddick would do in Ivan’s", as @BorgTheGOAT wrote. (For the record I think Ivan would do better but still wouldn't be able to get past a Federer-level talent, so maybe not "way" better.)

If OP gave a third option — "they're about equal" — that might have been the most popular choice; it's how I would have voted.

Great post. You summed this up nicely.

As for ties, I don’t do those, which is why I intentionally left that option out. I will always use a tiebreaker. Consider it like the 2nd set of the Masters Cup match between Safin and Federer. I think Federer won that tiebreaker 20-18, or some crazy number. I ultimately had to pick Lendl, due to his consistency. 7 slam semis in 8 Wimbledon tourneys is amazing consistency; especially considering the 16 seed draws back then and the large number of surface specialists. Yes, Roddick peaked a little higher. But Lendl was great for twice as long. That ultimately was the tiebreaker for me.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Yes it's very close one away or another and there's definitely not an overwhelming advantage for either player. The fact that I watched all 5 Wimbledon finals involving either player live in real-time, and as events unfolded the only 2 finals out of those 5 that I thought either of them stood a decent (or better than decent) chance of winning, were the ones involving Roddick in 2004 and 2009, was ultimately decisive for me.

For me as well, speculation about how each player would do if they faced each others' set of circumstances is ultimately fantasy, and IMO irrelvant to this debate. I only care about how they fared under the actual circumstances that they faced. There are some circumstances when I understand dabbling in hypotheticals, but not here.

I agree that this very even poll result here is definitely appropriate.

Yes that is how I felt too. I did not feel Roddick was even winning the 2005 Wimbledon final, not even when up a break in the 2nd. But I felt during 2004 he had a chance of winning until almost the end (maybe not so much after not converting those break point chances early in the 4th). And definitely during the 2009 one. The 2 Wimbledon finals Lendl lost it never felt upon even a rewatch he was winning either by the 2nd set sometime. Even the Cash one he was the heavy favorite for.

 

[jrepac]

I do agree Edberg was off in the final, but he still played decently after the 1st set, and ran into a red hot, overpowering Becker. And still was very close to and probably should have won the 2nd set. Becker in the semis was also not the same Becker as the final at all, and in fact it was one of his poorer matches that period at Wimbledon, and he still managed to beat Lendl (even if with the obvious help of what happened). I say Lendl at best would be 50/50 vs Edberg in the final, at best, especialy seeing how easily Edberg beat Lendl the next year (yes I know Edberg was in better form at Wimbledon 90 than 89, but even so).

Edberg played well against a still dangerous Mac in the semis. In the finals, Stefan blew it in the 2nd set....I remember that well. 1 set all would have been a very different proposition, as well as mindset, in terms of being seen as winnable.

 

[jrepac]

While grass was slowed down, all serve stats sans double-faults have gone up over the years. So if we teleport Rod in the 80s his serve likely becomes weaker in absolute terms with the older racquets. His return and passes were also mediocre at best and the question is what he does after the serve. If he stays back a good 80s grass courter will eithèr chip and Charge or attack the net quickly within the rally. Not sure whether Roddick could adapt to play SnV himself and attacking the net in rallies I can only remember him for the dumbest approaching shots ever. All in all also for the reasons @King_olaf_the_hairy gave I think he was quite lucky to play in the era he played. In Lendl's time he would have had less success.
Lendl otoh I see doing more than two finals had he played in the 00s.

I tend to think on fast grass, Andy would be serving and volleying. Why not? He has nothing to gain from the backcourt. And as you say, his approaches were mediocre. I recall Connors coaching him on how to play the midcourt balls more effectively, but the improvement was fleeting at best. I think his serve would still be potent...much like Tanner's was in the era.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I tend to think on fast grass, Andy would be serving and volleying. Why not? He has nothing to gain from the backcourt. And as you say, his approaches were mediocre. I recall Connors coaching him on how to play the midcourt balls more effectively, but the improvement was fleeting at best. I think his serve would still be potent...much like Tanner's was in the era.

Tbh I cannot see Roddick playing SnV succesfully. His volleys are ok but on Goran level at best, lightyears away from Rafter/Pete/Edberg/Mac or even Becker/Stich/Henman. Apart from volleys as such his overall net-game/movement leaves a lot to be desired. His serve would still be great of course but the mediocre return and passing shots will be another liability. I can see him as a poorer Version of Goran (worse serve, slightly worse volleys). Maybe reaching a final but not winning the whole thing.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Tbh I cannot see Roddick playing SnV succesfully. His volleys are ok but on Goran level at best, lightyears away from Rafter/Pete/Edberg/Mac or even Becker/Stich/Henman. Apart from volleys as such his overall net-game/movement leaves a lot to be desired. His serve would still be great of course but the mediocre return and passing shots will be another liability. I can see him as a poorer Version of Goran (worse serve, slightly worse volleys). Maybe reaching a final but not winning the whole thing.

Is his volleying any worse than Lendl though? And his serve is obviously superior. Return of serve obviously inferior. Baseline play does not matter much, if both are going to be trying to win by playing serve and volley, other than possibly passing shots.

 

[Curtennis]

roddick is so overrated on this site it’s absurd. Some weird hang up from the Fed days I guess.

 

[jrepac]

Tbh I cannot see Roddick playing SnV succesfully. His volleys are ok but on Goran level at best, lightyears away from Rafter/Pete/Edberg/Mac or even Becker/Stich/Henman. Apart from volleys as such his overall net-game/movement leaves a lot to be desired. His serve would still be great of course but the mediocre return and passing shots will be another liability. I can see him as a poorer Version of Goran (worse serve, slightly worse volleys). Maybe reaching a final but not winning the whole thing.

I would put him on par w/Goran...not graceful, but he can get the job done. When your serve is of such potency, you don't need to be a Mac/Edberg, or even Rafter. I think also of guys like Rusedksi and Scud, who could blast them in so well, that the volley was largely secondary.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Is his volleying any worse than Lendl though? And his serve is obviously superior. Return of serve obviously inferior. Baseline play does not matter much, if both are going to be trying to win by playing serve and volley, other than possibly passing shots.

I do consider Lendl being the superior volleyer and also having the better passing shots. Volleys maybe not by much and it would be interesting to see how much Roddick could improve it if he put in the same effort as Ivan (like building an own grass court at his house and skipping tourneys to prepare for Wimbly). He would never do that though, not many would have Lendl's obsession.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I would put him on par w/Goran...not graceful, but he can get the job done. When your serve is of such potency, you don't need to be a Mac/Edberg, or even Rafter. I think also of guys like Rusedksi and Scud, who could blast them in so well, that the volley was largely secondary.

And neither Rusedski nor Scud won a Wimblie (even though the latter underperformed). Scud is actually what I could picture ARod achievement-wise in the 80s or 90s.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah @King_olaf_the_hairy is completely right, Lendl is definitely better imho. I might be a little biased as I find it always incredibly impressive when a player completely changes his style (same as Borg) to win at specific surfaces and battle the specialists there. Given that SnV was not his natural game Ivan did incredibly well even though it was in General arguable whether full-out SnV (at least on second serve) was ever a winning strategy to begin with (89 semi Becker hit 17 clean return winner passes on Ivan's second serve).
Anywho, Roddick never had to do anything çlose to it. He could play his normal game, but put him into the 80s with old equipment and 16 seeds I doubt he would adapt as well as Ivan despite his better serve. Ivan in the 00s would not beat prime Fed either, but could easily match Roddick's "achievements".

Well, Agassi hadn't shown the way just yet.

 

[WCT]

Well, Agassi hadn't shown the way just yet.

Agassi hardly s/v at all. Connors and Borg had both won without doing it both serves on every point, but they were both coming in a lot, far, far more than Agassi. He won it coming in relatively little.

 

[WCT]

I do consider Lendl being the superior volleyer and also having the better passing shots. Volleys maybe not by much and it would be interesting to see how much Roddick could improve it if he put in the same effort as Ivan (like building an own grass court at his house and skipping tourneys to prepare for Wimbly). He would never do that though, not many would have Lendl's obsession.

Absolutely a better volleyer. This guy did not make 2 finals and 5 semis, in that era's grass court tennis, with a mediocre volley. Not when he was playing s/v on every single serve. He wasn't Connors, he wasn't breaking serve that much. He was mainly getting as far as he did because of what he did on his serves. Games that he is at the net all the time. There is a big gap between can't volley like Mcenroe, Cash and Edberg and being a mediocre volleyer.

 

[mike danny]

Agassi hardly s/v at all. Connors and Borg had both won without doing it both serves on every point, but they were both coming in a lot, far, far more than Agassi. He won it coming in relatively little.

Hence my point. He was able to win it as a baseliner.

 

[martinezownsclay]

roddick is so overrated on this site it’s absurd. Some weird hang up from the Fed days I guess.

He is overrated by some people for sure, but I don't know how this is an example of this. He is being asked who is better on a surface, him or a guy with less Wimbledon finals than him, and who was less close to winning in all of those finals. With many picking the other guy.

 

[mike danny]

roddick is so overrated on this site it’s absurd. Some weird hang up from the Fed days I guess.

You act like he has no credentials on grass or something

 

[martinezownsclay]

You act like he has no credentials on grass or something

I could see a response like "get real, Roddick is nowhere near the player Lendl is". Well overall yes, but it would be like a poll asking who is better on grass between Novotna and Seles, or who is better on clay between Sampras and Corretja would be dumb, since Corretja and Novotna are nowhere near the players they are. Or even who is better on hard courts between Clijsters and Evert. Well in fact the answers in those first two cases would be clear cut in favor of Novotna and Corretja, so they would be dumb only in that sense. It is not overrating Roddick to be comparing him to Lendl on grass at all.

 

[jrepac]

I could see a response like "get real, Roddick is nowhere near the player Lendl is". Well overall yes, but it would be like a poll asking who is better on grass between Novotna and Seles, or who is better on clay between Sampras and Corretja would be dumb, since Corretja and Novotna are nowhere near the players they are. Or even who is better on hard courts between Clijsters and Evert. Well in fact the answers in those first two cases would be clear cut in favor of Novotna and Corretja, so they would be dumb only in that sense. It is not overrating Roddick to be comparing him to Lendl on grass at all.

I too, think it's a pretty fair comparison. Of course, Lendl is the better player overall. But on grass, Andy is more than capable and arguably a bit better.

 

[abmk]

Wow. Excellent detailed analysis. And I think the Roddick did better, Lendl was better, line, might be the closest to the truth of summary in comparision of them on grass. Curious what @abmk, @Mainad, @BTURNER, and @BorgTheGOAT think on this particular topic too.

Roddick better with higher peak at Wim - 04 Wim final and 09 Wim final.
Lendl more consistent, but didn't get a set in either one of his Wim finals (Becker, Cash)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I could see a response like "get real, Roddick is nowhere near the player Lendl is". Well overall yes, but it would be like a poll asking who is better on grass between Novotna and Seles, or who is better on clay between Sampras and Corretja would be dumb, since Corretja and Novotna are nowhere near the players they are. Or even who is better on hard courts between Clijsters and Evert. Well in fact the answers in those first two cases would be clear cut in favor of Novotna and Corretja, so they would be dumb only in that sense. It is not overrating Roddick to be comparing him to Lendl on grass at all.

Question is definitely legit, same as asking who is better on clay Federer or Muster (even though that would still ne Fed for me by a hair). Roddick is undeniably more accomplished but if you factor in circumstances it would be Lendl imho. @King_olaf_the_hairy put it well with his "Lendl was better, Roddick did better".

 

[martinezownsclay]

Roddick better with higher peak at Wim - 04 Wim final and 09 Wim final.
Lendl more consistent, but didn't get a set in either one of his Wim finals (Becker, Cash)

I agree with this. I do think Roddick played better at Wimbledon in 09 Wimbledon and 04 Wimbledon than Lendl ever did. I did not see enough of Lendl at 1990 Queens yet, but I know that is for sure his best tennis ever on grass.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Roddick better with higher peak at Wim - 04 Wim final and 09 Wim final.
Lendl more consistent, but didn't get a set in either one of his Wim finals (Becker, Cash)

Welcome back bud.

 

[WCT]

Roddick better with higher peak at Wim - 04 Wim final and 09 Wim final.
Lendl more consistent, but didn't get a set in either one of his Wim finals (Becker, Cash)

Putting aside the differences in the grass they each played on, judging them on the grass they played on, agreed. Lendl never reached that peak.

 

[abmk]

Welcome back bud.

Thanks. Just popping in once in a while.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

As an addendum, I think I'd disagree with those who've said Roddick reached a higher peak than Lendl, unless you add the specific caveat "in a Wimbledon final".

Andy's 2004 and 2009 certainly took him closer to the finish line than Ivan ever managed against Becker and Cash, that much is true. But alternatively I think Lendl's three best showings on grass were:

• his victory over Edberg in the '87 SF, a player who'd won the last two Aussie Opens, and who would go 20–1 in the next three Wimbledons;
• his five-set nail-biter against an excellent Becker in the '89 SF, when he was very unlucky against the eventual champ;
• his imperious form at Queens the following year against Becker and a semi-resurgent McEnroe.

I'm not convinced Roddick's highest peak was actually loftier than the level Ivan reached in those matches.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I agree with this. I do think Roddick played better at Wimbledon in 09 Wimbledon and 04 Wimbledon than Lendl ever did. I did not see enough of Lendl at 1990 Queens yet, but I know that is for sure his best tennis ever on grass.

Won without losing a set, never conceded more than four games in a set, never even dropped serve and beat Mac and Becker. In the final against Becker he had 12 aces, 57% unreturned serves and 13 return winners in a short 6-3, 6-2 absolute masterclass.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Won without losing a set, never conceded more than four games in a set, never even dropped serve and beat Mac and Becker. In the final against Becker he had 12 aces, 57% unreturned serves and 13 return winners in a short 6-3, 6-2 absolute masterclass.

Yeah I need to get more footage of his play there. I think there is a good chance it is better than Roddick ever played on grass, but sadly pretty sure he never duplicated it at Wimbledon. He has played very well at Wimbledon, but never that well.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Yeah I need to get more footage of his play there. I think there is a good chance it is better than Roddick ever played on grass, but sadly pretty sure he never duplicated it at Wimbledon. He has played very well at Wimbledon, but never that well.

I think a link has already been posted in this thread, but the entire match is on the LTA's Youtube channel:

Despite the eventual result, Lendl actually started badly, losing the first seven points of the match and being forced to save five BPs in his opening service game. But it was that game where his volleys really started to ping, and he was able to turn things around. Some of his returns on the BH side were outstanding.

What's even better is that the match commentators are Dan Maskell and John Barrett, whose collective knowledge of the game was absolutely encyclopedic. Not only that, but they did something that modern commentators seem completely incapable of: they kept quiet when the tennis spoke for itself.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think a link has already been posted in this thread, but the entire match is on the LTA's Youtube channel:

Despite the eventual result, Lendl actually started badly, losing the first seven points of the match and being forced to save five BPs in his opening service game. But it was that game where his volleys really started to ping, and he was able to turn things around. Some of his returns on the BH side were outstanding.

What's even better is that the match commentators are Dan Maskell and John Barrett, whose collective knowledge of the game was absolutely encyclopedic. Not only that, but they did something that modern commentators seem completely incapable of: they kept quiet when the tennis spoke for itself.

Thanks so much. Excited to watch.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yeah I need to get more footage of his play there. I think there is a good chance it is better than Roddick ever played on grass, but sadly pretty sure he never duplicated it at Wimbledon. He has played very well at Wimbledon, but never that well.

It actually is imho. If you lock down your Service games like that and hit return winners at will there is not much your opponent can do. His volleys were top notch as well. One can of course quibble that it was "only" Queens but cannot see Rod doing similar things against an opponent of Becker's level.

 

[jrepac]

As an addendum, I think I'd disagree with those who've said Roddick reached a higher peak than Lendl, unless you add the specific caveat "in a Wimbledon final".

Andy's 2004 and 2009 certainly took him closer to the finish line than Ivan ever managed against Becker and Cash, that much is true. But alternatively I think Lendl's three best showings on grass were:

• his victory over Edberg in the '87 SF, a player who'd won the last two Aussie Opens, and who would go 20–1 in the next three Wimbledons;
• his five-set nail-biter against an excellent Becker in the '89 SF, when he was very unlucky against the eventual champ;
• his imperious form at Queens the following year against Becker and a semi-resurgent McEnroe.

I'm not convinced Roddick's highest peak was actually loftier than the level Ivan reached in those matches.

Good picks...I'd have to agree w/you! He definitely could have won that semi vs. Boris...it was a painful loss. '87 surprised me as I expected Edberg to romp. Likewise, where did the performance in '90 arise from? Was stellar (and fleeting).