I'm going to watch this one over the weekend to assess....usually, Ivan struggled a bit returning on grass. So, I'm curious to see what was different here. Roddick did not have a great return game, so no, not going to see that vs. someone like Boris.
Controversial, but serious question. Who was better on grass courts, Roddick, or Lendl?
- Thread starter Pheasant
- Start date
Hard Court
Rookie
Surprised the voting is as close as it is. Lendl played about 20 years before Roddick. Doubtful that too many people that were too young to see Lendl would vote for him.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Lendl skipped the entire clay-court season in 1990 (which had been his intention since July 1989). Lendl spent weeks and weeks from April-June 1990 playing golf and practicing tennis on grass. This was obviously a huge factor in his excellent 1990 Queen's Club form, but he peaked too soon compared to what he intended.
Lendl won 6-3, 6-2, breaking Becker's serve 4 times in 2 sets.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Well the question is Lendl vs Roddick on GRASS. It isn't Lendl vs Roddick as players overall, in which case I doubt Roddick gets a single vote.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Watching the 90 Queens final the other day I do think that is better than Roddick ever played on grass, even at Wimbledon 2009. I do still believe Roddick played better at Wimbledon in some matches in either 2009 or 2004 than Lendl ever did at Wimbledon, although I have not seen all of Lendl's matches at Wimbledon, I did see his 87 semis and final, his 89 semi final, his 90 semi final, his 84 semi final.
Hhhmmm....sometimes yes and sometimes no. Lendl played some strange matches as well....the '84 W semi for instance, it was hard to fathom what his strategy was against Connors.
true, i think his strategies took off with Tony Roche from '85 on tho.. hence the streaks with connors, mac, wilander
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
He seemed to have the strategy in that match he always had against Connors. To just plain hit him off the court. Which was a mistake in general, until Connors really began to fade in 85.
In the build up to Wimbledon in 1990, I remember Connors (sidelined through injury and working for NBC), being asked if he thought Lendl would win the title, on the back of his outstanding showing at Queen’s, and responding with a firm no. Of course things were often a bit ‘frosty’ between those two ! Connors’ interviews with Mac after his Wimbledon defeats in both 1990 and 1991 also felt surreal. At times it felt that Bud Collins and him were talking about Mac, in the room, as if he was a sick patient.
Becker after the 1990 Queen’s final, said that he could take comfort from the fact that Lendl couldn’t play any better than that on grass, while he knew he himself had much room for improvement (although at that time I certainly didn’t predict that he would never win Wimbledon again). I did think it was a shame that Lendl’s level so noticeably declined from Queen’s to Wimbledon that year. As I said earlier, I don’t think any version of Lendl on grass, including what we saw at Queen’s in 1990, could have beaten Edberg in that form (with just flawless volleying and returning) in their Wimbledon SF that year, but I was hoping it would be a bit more of a contest.
Becker after the 1990 Queen’s final, said that he could take comfort from the fact that Lendl couldn’t play any better than that on grass, while he knew he himself had much room for improvement (although at that time I certainly didn’t predict that he would never win Wimbledon again). I did think it was a shame that Lendl’s level so noticeably declined from Queen’s to Wimbledon that year. As I said earlier, I don’t think any version of Lendl on grass, including what we saw at Queen’s in 1990, could have beaten Edberg in that form (with just flawless volleying and returning) in their Wimbledon SF that year, but I was hoping it would be a bit more of a contest.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Becker was asked about Lendl's Wimbledon chances before their 1990 Queen's Club final, and about Lendl skipping the 1990 French Open, and Becker was supportive of Lendl's actions, saying that Lendl had every chance of winning Wimbledon for the next 2-3 years. Becker was also very confident of his own chances, naturally.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Dan Maskell thought Lendl at 1990 Queen's Club was the finest grass form he had ever seen.
I think you are right about that...he seemed to be more consistent once Roche came aboard...could be coincidental w/his improved fitness, but still
Yep I know (I also mentioned that in one of my earlier posts in this same thread). He was phenomenal. I probably wouldn't quite go that far as I thought that Mac's ridiculous level at Wimbledon in 1983-1984 was even better, and I'd also seen exceptionally y good performances from Borg and Becker on grass by that stage.
It looked to be the perfect culmination of him practicing extensively and exclusively on grass for 2 months in Australia, Connecticut and then the UK. Sadly that perfect culmination came at the wrong event, with a clear decline across his first 5 matches at Wimbledon before he faced Edberg.
I did then think that Edberg's level across 5 consecutive sets against Lendl and Becker at Wimbledon in 1990, was also even better than Lendl's at Queen's that year, with gold standard volleying and returning. Ultimately with Edberg's superior volleying (though minus Mac everyone else I saw was inferior at the net than him so there's no shame there), return of serve (a noticeably better backhand return on grass) and better movement and footing on the surface, when playing so well and confidently, I don't think Lendl at his best including playing at his 1990 Queen's level wouldn't be able to topple him on grass.
I’ve revisited the 1986 Wimbledon final.
It was another example of Lendl volleying well but losing in straight sets at Wimbledon, as he did against McEnroe in 1983 and Edberg in 1990.
It had an almost identical scoreline to the 1999 Wimbledon final, with the winner conceding 12 games and breaking serve 3 more times than the defeated opponent; Becker broke 5 times to Lendl’s 2 while Sampras broke 3 times to Agassi’s 0. But it was certainly far more competitive than the 1999 final, and also much more competitive than the scoreline suggested (on the flipside the 1st set of the 1987 final was more one-sided in Cash’s favour than the scoreline suggested). Lendl certainly had his chances to at least extend the contest for longer, with him a break up in the 1st and 3rd sets and also with 3 set points in that the 3rd set. In 1999 Agassi was largely powerless in 14 out of Sampras’s 16 service games, including in each of the last 12.
While as I said before I always thought that Lendl’s returning was far more of a roadblock to him winning Wimbledon than his volleying, it was apparent that compared to Edberg, McEnroe, Becker etc., he was required to hit far more difficult / awkward volleys, notably low backhand volleys. That was a major reason why I thought he should have stayed back more behind his 2nd serves, many of which were returned low to his feet.
In both the 1986 Wimbledon and 1990 Queen’s finals, Becker and Lendl both had the same number of break points as each other (9 each in 1986 and 5 each in 1990). On both occasions the winner was far more clutch during those break points, and generally rose to the occasion when facing them. As said earlier when serving to stay in the 3rd set and facing 3 set points 0-40 down in 1986, Becker responded with 3 volley winners, an ace and then an unreturnable serve, before grabbing the decisive break in the next game. In the 1990 Queen’s final Becker won the first 7 points as Lendl was down 0-40 in his opening service (and then faced 2 more break points in the same game). Lendl fended them off with a combination of aces, service winners and volley winners, and faced no more break points for the rest of the match.
And in general regarding Becker in 1986, while I don’t like to use terms like overrated or underrated much if I can avoid it, I did think that this 1986 title defence is pretty underrated, given that he was only 18 years old and that his standard of play was so exceptionally good (and noticeably better than his already tremendous performances in 1985). He was especially good against Leconte in his SF, and Newcombe was very complimentary of his performance in that match and general level.
It was another example of Lendl volleying well but losing in straight sets at Wimbledon, as he did against McEnroe in 1983 and Edberg in 1990.
It had an almost identical scoreline to the 1999 Wimbledon final, with the winner conceding 12 games and breaking serve 3 more times than the defeated opponent; Becker broke 5 times to Lendl’s 2 while Sampras broke 3 times to Agassi’s 0. But it was certainly far more competitive than the 1999 final, and also much more competitive than the scoreline suggested (on the flipside the 1st set of the 1987 final was more one-sided in Cash’s favour than the scoreline suggested). Lendl certainly had his chances to at least extend the contest for longer, with him a break up in the 1st and 3rd sets and also with 3 set points in that the 3rd set. In 1999 Agassi was largely powerless in 14 out of Sampras’s 16 service games, including in each of the last 12.
While as I said before I always thought that Lendl’s returning was far more of a roadblock to him winning Wimbledon than his volleying, it was apparent that compared to Edberg, McEnroe, Becker etc., he was required to hit far more difficult / awkward volleys, notably low backhand volleys. That was a major reason why I thought he should have stayed back more behind his 2nd serves, many of which were returned low to his feet.
In both the 1986 Wimbledon and 1990 Queen’s finals, Becker and Lendl both had the same number of break points as each other (9 each in 1986 and 5 each in 1990). On both occasions the winner was far more clutch during those break points, and generally rose to the occasion when facing them. As said earlier when serving to stay in the 3rd set and facing 3 set points 0-40 down in 1986, Becker responded with 3 volley winners, an ace and then an unreturnable serve, before grabbing the decisive break in the next game. In the 1990 Queen’s final Becker won the first 7 points as Lendl was down 0-40 in his opening service (and then faced 2 more break points in the same game). Lendl fended them off with a combination of aces, service winners and volley winners, and faced no more break points for the rest of the match.
And in general regarding Becker in 1986, while I don’t like to use terms like overrated or underrated much if I can avoid it, I did think that this 1986 title defence is pretty underrated, given that he was only 18 years old and that his standard of play was so exceptionally good (and noticeably better than his already tremendous performances in 1985). He was especially good against Leconte in his SF, and Newcombe was very complimentary of his performance in that match and general level.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Lendl beat Edberg in their 1987 Wimbledon semi final, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-4.
well im just saying those grass court naturals were the ones that stopped him at Wimbledon. that year was cash in the finals. i can't see roddick stopping lendl so much.. not a natural
Hard Court
Rookie
I am a 80s and 90s guy and voted for Lendl. Couldn't stand the guy.
If it is at all close, the guy from further back is always at a disadvantage. People that started following tennis after Lendl was gone usually aren't going to vote for him. And down the raod, they will think people that were too young for their favorite players will irked when their opinions. Some kind in 10 years who never won anything will get ranked higher than Roddick by younger fans.
Obviously all around, Lendl was better than Roddick. Yes I understand that isn't what we are debating.
But I would also argue that he was better on the grass that he played on than Roddick was on the grass that he played on. Obviously, it was Lendl's worst surface, but I think he still has a slight edge.
Statistically they are about even.
People like to use the Roddick was closer against Federer than Lendl was line. But there is more to it than that?
Look at who Lendl actually beat on grass:
Lendl beat Edberg, McEnroe, and Becker.
Who did Roddick beat ?
If it is at all close, the guy from further back is always at a disadvantage. People that started following tennis after Lendl was gone usually aren't going to vote for him. And down the raod, they will think people that were too young for their favorite players will irked when their opinions. Some kind in 10 years who never won anything will get ranked higher than Roddick by younger fans.
Obviously all around, Lendl was better than Roddick. Yes I understand that isn't what we are debating.
But I would also argue that he was better on the grass that he played on than Roddick was on the grass that he played on. Obviously, it was Lendl's worst surface, but I think he still has a slight edge.
Statistically they are about even.
People like to use the Roddick was closer against Federer than Lendl was line. But there is more to it than that?
Look at who Lendl actually beat on grass:
Lendl beat Edberg, McEnroe, and Becker.
Who did Roddick beat ?
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Isn't Edberg missing from the draw list?
Similar threads
- Poll
