Did Cash cost Lendl Four Majors from 1984-1988?

[buscemi]

From 1984-1988, Pat Cash squared off with Ivan Lendl four times at Majors, with Cash winning three of them. Did Cash's play lead to Lendl losing all four Majors that he otherwise would have won?

1987 Wimbledon Final: This one's the most straight forward. Cash straight setted Lendl in the 1987 Wimbledon final. Quite clearly, if Lendl reverses the result of that match, he wins Wimbledon and ends with a NCYGS. Alternatively, if we shift things and say that Connors beats Cash in the SF, I still probably tab Lendl to take the title. Yes, Connors was a tough matchup for Lendl on grass, famously beating him in a four setter in the 1984 Wimbledon SF. But that was Connors's last win over Lendl before Ivan flipped the script, and Connors was not in great form at the All England Club that year, nearly getting straight setted by Pernfors and being obliterated by Cash in the SF.​

​

1988 Australian Open SF: In the first year of the Australian Open on Rebound Ace, Cash squeezed past Lendl in a five set SF before losing an even tighter final against Wilander, going down 8-6 in the fifth set, So, if Lendl had gotten past Cash in the SF, could he have taken down Wilander in the final? This hard court Major was situated between the 1987 U.S. Open, where Lendl beat Wilander in a four set final, and the 1988 U.S. Open, where Mats won the final in five set over Ivan. Famously, after being beaten from the baseline in the 1987 final at Flushing Meadows, Mats adopted a net rushing strategy against Ivan in the 1988 final, allowing him to squeak out a win. While this strategy worked well on the faster DeceTurf surface in New York, I don't see it succeeding as well on the slower surface of Rebound Ace. So, could Mats have beaten Ivan from the baseline in a hypothetical AO final on Rebound Ace in 1988? Would the net rushing strategy he adopted in New York have worked well enough down under? Or does Lendl add another Australian title if he gets past Cash?​

​

1987 Australian Open SF: Speaking of adding an Australian title, we have the 1987 AO in its final year on the Kooyong grass. Cash beat Lendl in a four set SF before falling to Edberg in a five set final. So, who wins a hypothetical Lendl/Edberg final if Ivan slips past Pat in the SF? In 1987, the Australian Open moved to January, meaning its prior edition was in November/December 1985. In the SF of that event, Edberg eked past Lendl, 9-7 in the fifth set, before beating Wilander in the final. Six months after the 1987 Australian Open, Edberg and Lendl would square off in the Wimbledon SF, with Lendl winning in four sets before falling in the final to Cash (as noted above). So, a hypothetical Lendl/Edberg final at the 1987 AO would have been sandwiched between Edberg barely beating Lendl in the prior AO and Lendl winning a touch more comfortably at Wimbledon later in that year. Does Lendl take the title if he slips past Cash? Or does Edberg still win this grass court showdown?​

​

1984 U.S. Open SF: In what would subsequently be known as "Super Saturday," Lendl came close to beating 19 year-old Cash in four sets before Cash took the fourth set in a tiebreaker and extended Lendl to a fifth set tiebreaker, with Ivan needing to save a match point before notching the win. In the nightcap, McEnroe then won an epic five setter against Connors. Somewhat famously, McEnroe wondered whether he had enough gas in the tank to take the title before seeing Lendl in the locker room, looking worse for wear after his war with Cash. McEnroe then realized that he was actually the fresher of the two and rolled through Lendl to take the title. If Lendl is able to take down Cash in four sets and save some energy, is the dynamic in the final totally different? Or is Super Mac still too good to break through?​

So, what does everyone think? Does Lendl win all four of these Majors if not for Cash? Three? Two? One? None? And, of course, this is all in a vacuum b/c I imagine Lendl's career trajectory could look totally different if, for example, he comes into the 1984 U.S. Open final fresh and takes down the mighty McEnroe.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Huge no the 84 US Open so no.

 

[jrepac]

of the matches you list:

1. Cash played out of his body in W '87...the SF was closer than the score looked...Ivan wasn't beating Pat and who knows how a Connors - Lendl final might have gone...slight edge to Ivan, I'd think, but Jimmy gave him fits on grass.
2. Ivan should have won the 88 AO SF....his miss...the surface favored him
3. '87 AO was probably going to Edberg, even if he wasn't playing as well as 85
4. Cash should have won that '84 USO semi...it was a miss, IMHO. Physically, I don't see how Lendl was any worse off than Mac and Lendl had more time to rest. While I was surprised Mac played as well as he did in that final (wasn't he even a little tired?), I fully expected him to win.

So, maybe the 1988 AO was one that was within Ivan's reach. The surface would have been pretty neutral in a face off vs. Wilander, IMHO

 

[GuyForget]

Cash certainly dented Lendl's legacy (as did Connors + Becker)

 

[insideoutforehanders]

of the matches you list:

1. Cash played out of his body in W '87...the SF was closer than the score looked...Ivan wasn't beating Pat and who knows how a Connors - Lendl final might have gone...slight edge to Ivan, I'd think, but Jimmy gave him fits on grass.
2. Ivan should have won the 88 AO SF....his miss...the surface favored him
3. '87 AO was probably going to Edberg, even if he wasn't playing as well as 85
4. Cash should have won that '84 USO semi...it was a miss, IMHO. Physically, I don't see how Lendl was any worse off than Mac and Lendl had more time to rest. While I was surprised Mac played as well as he did in that final (wasn't he even a little tired?), I fully expected him to win.

So, maybe the 1988 AO was one that was within Ivan's reach. The surface would have been pretty neutral in a face off vs. Wilander, IMHO

On a hard court Lend should be clear favorite over Wilander more than any other surface (clay, grass, even carpet). He is the far better hard court player, the 88 US Open final was a pretty big aberration, which IMO makes Wilander beating Lendl in Australia too even more unlikely as Wilander beating Lendl in 2 huge finals on hard courts in the same year is super unlikely.

 

[GuyForget]

Wilander more clutch in slam finals tho

 

[buscemi]

Huge no the 84 US Open so no.

Yep, that seems to me to be by far the unlikeliest win for Lendl, even if he dispatched Cash with ease.

 

[buscemi]

of the matches you list:

1. Cash played out of his body in W '87...the SF was closer than the score looked...Ivan wasn't beating Pat and who knows how a Connors - Lendl final might have gone...slight edge to Ivan, I'd think, but Jimmy gave him fits on grass.
2. Ivan should have won the 88 AO SF....his miss...the surface favored him
3. '87 AO was probably going to Edberg, even if he wasn't playing as well as 85
4. Cash should have won that '84 USO semi...it was a miss, IMHO. Physically, I don't see how Lendl was any worse off than Mac and Lendl had more time to rest. While I was surprised Mac played as well as he did in that final (wasn't he even a little tired?), I fully expected him to win.

So, maybe the 1988 AO was one that was within Ivan's reach. The surface would have been pretty neutral in a face off vs. Wilander, IMHO

I'd put the 1988 AO and Wimbledon in 1987 on pretty equal footing, if we're assuming it's Connors in the latter final. A bad matchup for Lendl on grass for sure, but I just don't know if Jimmy had enough in the tank at that point of his career.

 

[jrepac]

On a hard court Lend should be clear favorite over Wilander more than any other surface (clay, grass, even carpet). He is the far better hard court player, the 88 US Open final was a pretty big aberration, which IMO makes Wilander beating Lendl in Australia too even more unlikely as Wilander beating Lendl in 2 huge finals on hard courts in the same year is super unlikely.

I would like to think so, but Mats was a pretty crafty fellow....he could surprise you.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I'd put the 1988 AO and Wimbledon in 1987 on pretty equal footing, if we're assuming it's Connors in the latter final. A bad matchup for Lendl on grass for sure, but I just don't know if Jimmy had enough in the tank at that point of his career.l

You think Wilander vs Lendl on any hard court is 50/50? Yes I know Wilander beat Lendl in the Open final on hard courts than year, and full credit to him for that, but as I said the gap between them on hard courts was more than any other surface ( even though Lendl is ahead on every surface really, although surfaces like clay and grass it is pretty slight). I just can't see Lendl losing in 2 big hard court finals to Wilander in the same year. Not impossible I guess, just not likely

 

[buscemi]

You think Wilander vs Lendl on any hard court is 50/50? Yes I know Wilander beat Lendl in the Open final on hard courts than year, and full credit to him for that, but as I said the gap between them on hard courts was more than any other surface ( even though Lendl is ahead on every surface really, although surfaces like clay and grass it is pretty slight). I just can't see Lendl losing in 2 big hard court finals to Wilander in the same year. Not impossible I guess, just not likely

No, I'm saying I have Lendl as equally likely to win a hypothetical 1987 Wimbledon final against Connors and a hypothetical 1988 Australian Open final against Wilander, with Lendl being the favorite to win both matches.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

No, I'm saying I have Lendl as equally likely to win a hypothetical 1987 Wimbledon final against Connors and a hypothetical 1988 Australian Open final against Wilander, with Lendl being the favorite to win both matches.

Ok I agree in that case. About 30% for the underdog in both. Ironically I think Connors might be more of a threat in the Wimbledon final than Wilander in the Australian despite that completely going against their general position in the game at the time (Wilander well above Connors at that point, and Lendl owning the now aging Connors overall bh then, while Wilander being Lendls next biggest threat/rival after Becker and maybe Edberg). All about surface and the situation. Lendl likely being way more nervous for a Wimbledon final than an aging Connors with nothing to lose, and the unlikelihood of seeing Wilander beat Lendl in both hard court slams in the same year, although who knows if Lendl now does not find a way to win the Open final if he loses the Australian final to Wilander.

 

[barone]

I'd put the 1988 AO and Wimbledon in 1987 on pretty equal footing, if we're assuming it's Connors in the latter final. A bad matchup for Lendl on grass for sure, but I just don't know if Jimmy had enough in the tank at that point of his career.

Why would it be Connors in the final when he lost 0-3

 

[buscemi]

Why would it be Connors in the final when he lost 0-3

The only player who won a set off of Cash was Schapers, and I don't see him making the final.

Wilander lost to Cash in the QF and could cause Connors a lot of problems, but I don't know that he could beat him at Wimbledon.

 

[jrepac]

The only player who won a set off of Cash was Schapers, and I don't see him making the final.

Wilander lost to Cash in the QF and could cause Connors a lot of problems, but I don't know that he could beat him at Wimbledon.

Connors wasn't playing badly at the time....even though he got into a huge hole w/Pernfors. He had just beaten Cash in the Queens SF in straight sets, and pushed Becker to the brink in the final (which he should have won, IMHO). I think Connors would have a slight edge over Wilander at W....just better on grass all around.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

The only player who won a set off of Cash was Schapers, and I don't see him making the final.

Wilander lost to Cash in the QF and could cause Connors a lot of problems, but I don't know that he could beat him at Wimbledon.

Yes would favor even old Connors over Wilander at Wimbledon given Wilander's pretty dire Wimbledon history.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

On a hard court Lend should be clear favorite over Wilander more than any other surface (clay, grass, even carpet). He is the far better hard court player, the 88 US Open final was a pretty big aberration,

really? i would think that Lendl would be the clearest favorite over Wilander on carpet.

You think Wilander vs Lendl on any hard court is 50/50?

i'd say Cinci would be at least 50/50, or even outright favoring Wilander (though it's tricky given Lendl seemed to favor playing in Canada as USO prep)

 

[barone]

The only player who won a set off of Cash was Schapers, and I don't see him making the final.

Wilander lost to Cash in the QF and could cause Connors a lot of problems, but I don't know that he could beat him at Wimbledon.

I say... Why even speculate somebody else then Cash in the final?

 

[jrepac]

I say... Why even speculate somebody else then Cash in the final?

well, at the time Cash was not a lock. Maybe in retrospect it looked that way. He lost to Connors in the last tourney, in straight sets. Connors was coming off a pretty stellar match with Bobo, winning in straight sets. So, the bettors expected a Connors v. Lendl final. What Cash pulled off is one of those all-timers....beating Wilander, Connors and Lendl in succession, w/out dropping a set? that's not small taters!

 

[jm1972]

My childhood would have been happier if Cash never existed.

 

[Mustard]

well, at the time Cash was not a lock. Maybe in retrospect it looked that way. He lost to Connors in the last tourney, in straight sets. Connors was coming off a pretty stellar match with Bobo, winning in straight sets. So, the bettors expected a Connors v. Lendl final. What Cash pulled off is one of those all-timers....beating Wilander, Connors and Lendl in succession, w/out dropping a set? that's not small taters!

Going into the 1987 Wimbledon semi finals (i.e. Connors vs. Cash, Edberg vs. Lendl), Lendl was considered the favourite to win the tournament, with Connors seen as being the best bet to stop Lendl.

 

[GuyForget]

Cash +Edberg squared off in the AO final that year on grass (Edberg's 2nd successive AO win), they had a chance here, dinosaur Connors was never winning this Wimbledon

 

[Mustard]

Cash +Edberg squared off in the AO final that year on grass (Edberg's 2nd successive AO win), they had a chance here, dinosaur Connors was never winning this Wimbledon

I'm saying what the BBC were saying. Lendl was the favourite to win the tournament going into the semi finals (one of Lendl's best wins on grass was beating Leconte in the 1987 Wimbledon quarter final), with Connors (after his own impressive quarter final win over Zivojinovic) seen as the best bet to stop Lendl. Connors had beaten Cash in the semi final of 1987 Queen's Club a few weeks earlier.

And 1987, if anything, was a resurgence of form for Connors after his chaotic 1986 disciplinary matters and suspension. He had also finally ditched the T-2000 for good.

 

[jrepac]

Cash +Edberg squared off in the AO final that year on grass (Edberg's 2nd successive AO win), they had a chance here, dinosaur Connors was never winning this Wimbledon

On grass vs. Lendl? Much greater chance than zero, I can assure you. How did that "Dinosaur" push Becker to the very brink 2 weeks earlier? You seem to have a hangup re: older players.

 

[jrepac]

I'm saying what the BBC were saying. Lendl was the favourite to win the tournament going into the semi finals (one of Lendl's best wins on grass was beating Leconte in the 1987 Wimbledon quarter final), with Connors (after his own impressive quarter final win over Zivojinovic) seen as the best bet to stop Lendl. Connors had beaten Cash in the semi final of 1987 Queen's Club a few weeks earlier.

And 1987, if anything, was a resurgence of form for Connors after his chaotic 1986 disciplinary matters and suspension. He had also finally ditched the T-2000 for good.

Exactly. I suppose you have to have been there. Wasting your breath otherwise. The guy got back to #4 in the world, but he was a "dinosaur"....same folks saying Agassi was godlike at 35 but Connors was over the hill while reaching SF rounds. Yeah, whatever floats your boat in the alternate dimension. Lendl was going to have a tough go of it no matter who he faced, but I do think his chances were better vs. Connors. But not worlds better, because Connors's groundstrokes on grass gave him problems. Not to mention the return of serve. I would've liked to see Lendl play Agassi on grass, because I do think the problems would have been similar. He needed more time to set up his shots, which he didn't get from aggressive baseliners or heavy attackers (constantly rushing him).

 

[GuyForget]

Agassi was pushing Federer to the limit, Connors was pushing Krickstein + Penfors, that’s the difference

 

[Mustard]

Agassi was pushing Federer to the limit, Connors was pushing Krickstein + Penfors, that’s the difference

At age 35, Connors got to the US Open semi final in 1987.

 

[GuyForget]

Yes and look how that went..

 

[jrepac]

Agassi was pushing Federer to the limit, Connors was pushing Krickstein + Penfors, that’s the difference

Krickstein took out your hero Agassi in straights in 1991, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You seem to have excuses for Agassi losing, but many demerits for Connors winning. Which is pretty funny. Advancing forward in an event is the most important thing, period. I don't see the later periods of Agassi and Connors, at similar points in age, as being radically different...Agassi won 4 slams at 30'ish, Connors won 3...both along with other tourneys. Both reclaimed the #1 ranking. Connors played longer, with clearly diminishing returns as he approached 40. Agassi had to retire earlier at 36 due to his bad back. But that's about it.

 

[GuyForget]

im not knocking Connors of 82-83, im just saying there's no comparison between Connors post 85 and Agassi of 2004-05 (+certainly not Agassi 95 or W92), who was pushing Feds and Safin to brink in hard court slams. Re: Krickstein, clearly Agassi just had a bad day there, but he'd been in 3 slam finals in 1.5 years at that point, was reigning world champion + totally carried Sampras in the DC that year (+ that was considered massive underachieving given his talent). Connors was just there for the crowd's amusement (the ageing warhorse/underdog), he got mauled in both 87 semis when he faced real class, that's not the case for Agassi. Exactly as Mac was never winning W89, US90 or W92, again absolutely taken apart in the semis by the next generation who'd moved the game to another level

 

[jrepac]

im not knocking Connors of 82-83, im just saying there's no comparison between Connors post 85 and Agassi of 2004-05 (+certainly not Agassi 95 or W92), who was pushing Feds and Safin to brink in hard court slams. Re: Krickstein, clearly Agassi just had a bad day there, but he'd been in 3 slam finals in 1.5 years at that point, was reigning world champion + totally carried Sampras in the DC that year (+ that was considered massive underachieving given his talent). Connors was just there for the crowd's amusement (the ageing warhorse/underdog), he got mauled in both 87 semis when he faced real class, that's not the case for Agassi. Exactly as Mac was never winning W89, US90 or W92, again absolutely taken apart in the semis by the next generation who'd moved the game to another level

to your point, you can look at their respective rankings at similar ages as well, not so shockingly different. If you point to exactly 35yrs old, exactly, well yes, Andre was magnificent in getting to a USO final and pushing Fed. But if you look at 2004-2005, when he was pushing 34-35 you can see his wins declined markedly (only 2). He managed to stay in the top 10...similar to Jimmy. Connors managed to win 4 final tourneys at 36-37yrs old. Age, and injury, is a wicked curse upon players over 30yrs. Hard to escape if you are playing hard court tennis for 20yrs. Then Connors went and played seniors event for another 10yrs. His reward? 2 hip replacements. Andre maybe the smart one in moving on to pickleball!!!

 

[Mustard]

Yes and look how that went..

Like Agassi losing to Federer.

 

[jrepac]

Like Agassi losing to Federer.

the diffference of one round. But all kudos to Andre, because he did give Fed some fits during that match. it was a good one.

 

[GuyForget]

Like Agassi losing to Federer.

Like Agassi losing to prime Federer

 

[GuyForget]

to your point, you can look at their respective rankings at similar ages as well, not so shockingly different. If you point to exactly 35yrs old, exactly, well yes, Andre was magnificent in getting to a USO final and pushing Fed. But if you look at 2004-2005, when he was pushing 34-35 you can see his wins declined markedly (only 2). He managed to stay in the top 10...similar to Jimmy. Connors managed to win 4 final tourneys at 36-37yrs old. Age, and injury, is a wicked curse upon players over 30yrs. Hard to escape if you are playing hard court tennis for 20yrs. Then Connors went and played seniors event for another 10yrs. His reward? 2 hip replacements. Andre maybe the smart one in moving on to pickleball!!!

i care about the actual shots they're hitting: speed, trajectories, athleticism, not rankings - do we really believe Connors would be winning games off mid-noughties Fed without a topsin forehand?

 

[jrepac]

i care about the actual shots they're hitting: speed, trajectories, athleticism, not rankings - do we really believe Connors would be winning games off mid-noughties Fed with a slice forehand?

He did not hit a slice forehand...he could, but it was generally flat and he could hit some top on the pass. Again, you need to watch more of his matches. You get the ranking by winning the matches. It's not that complicated.

 

[Vincent-C]

Connors also sometimes hit the FH- esp the approach shot- with sidespin, to good effect. BH too, for that matter.

 

[GuyForget]

ah well armed with that yeah he'd obviously be troubling Federer in the mid-noughties

 

[Hard Court]

I guess we all fall into the trap of cherry picking from time to time. Yes Agassi gave Federer some trouble when he was old. Yes Connors lost badly to Courier and Lendl when he was old.
However, there are other matches to consider:
At 34, Agassi lost Jerome Haehnel in the first round of the French.
At 35, Agassi lost to Jarko Kalerno Nieman in the first round of the French Open.
At 36, Agassi lost to Benjamin Becker in the 3rd round of the US Open.

I will take wins over Pernfors and Kricskstein over losses to these guys any day.

Yes, Agassi gave Federer some trouble.
At 36, Connors beat Edberg in straight sets at the US Open.
I will take straight sets win against Edberg over loss in four sets to Federer any day.

When a player gets older, he gets varying results. Occasionally he might be almost as good as his normal performances in his prime.
Occasionally he is feeling fatigue, or old injuries crop up and he has next to nothing.
He could also be anywhere in between.
Great example are the matches between Agassi and Connors at the 1988 and 1989 US Open. An old Connors played gave Agassi a lot more trouble in 1989 than 1988.

Many of us also fall into the trap of thinking the game got magically better when we became fans. No, Agassi's generation did not take the game to the next level.
And yes, Connors would have won games against Federer.

As for the original post, if Cash doesn't enter the 1987, Wimbledon, Lendl probably would have won it, though no guarantee.
However, we need to stop with the "if player A would not have lost in the SF or the QF, he would have won the tournament."

 

[Vincent-C]

I guess we all fall into the trap of cherry picking from time to time. Yes Agassi gave Federer some trouble when he was old. Yes Connors lost badly to Courier and Lendl when he was old.
However, there are other matches to consider:
At 34, Agassi lost Jerome Haehnel in the first round of the French.
At 35, Agassi lost to Jarko Kalerno Nieman in the first round of the French Open.
At 36, Agassi lost to Benjamin Becker in the 3rd round of the US Open.

I will take wins over Pernfors and Kricskstein over losses to these guys any day.

Yes, Agassi gave Federer some trouble.
At 36, Connors beat Edberg in straight sets at the US Open.
I will take straight sets win against Edberg over loss in four sets to Federer any day.

When a player gets older, he gets varying results. Occasionally he might be almost as good as his normal performances in his prime.
Occasionally he is feeling fatigue, or old injuries crop up and he has next to nothing.
He could also be anywhere in between.
Great example are the matches between Agassi and Connors at the 1988 and 1989 US Open. An old Connors played gave Agassi a lot more trouble in 1989 than 1988.

Many of us also fall into the trap of thinking the game got magically better when we became fans. No, Agassi's generation did not take the game to the next level.
And yes, Connors would have won games against Federer.

As for the original post, if Cash doesn't enter the 1987, Wimbledon, Lendl probably would have won it, though no guarantee.
However, we need to stop with the "if player A would not have lost in the SF or the QF, he would have won the tournament."

Lendl, if Cashie hadn't won?

Probably not, to my mind.

 

[GuyForget]

I guess we all fall into the trap of cherry picking from time to time. Yes Agassi gave Federer some trouble when he was old. Yes Connors lost badly to Courier and Lendl when he was old.
However, there are other matches to consider:
At 34, Agassi lost Jerome Haehnel in the first round of the French.
At 35, Agassi lost to Jarko Kalerno Nieman in the first round of the French Open.
At 36, Agassi lost to Benjamin Becker in the 3rd round of the US Open.

I will take wins over Pernfors and Kricskstein over losses to these guys any day.

Yes, Agassi gave Federer some trouble.
At 36, Connors beat Edberg in straight sets at the US Open.
I will take straight sets win against Edberg over loss in four sets to Federer any day.

When a player gets older, he gets varying results. Occasionally he might be almost as good as his normal performances in his prime.
Occasionally he is feeling fatigue, or old injuries crop up and he has next to nothing.
He could also be anywhere in between.
Great example are the matches between Agassi and Connors at the 1988 and 1989 US Open. An old Connors played gave Agassi a lot more trouble in 1989 than 1988.

Many of us also fall into the trap of thinking the game got magically better when we became fans. No, Agassi's generation did not take the game to the next level.
And yes, Connors would have won games against Federer.

As for the original post, if Cash doesn't enter the 1987, Wimbledon, Lendl probably would have won it, though no guarantee.
However, we need to stop with the "if player A would not have lost in the SF or the QF, he would have won the tournament."

dude, the Edberg 89 match was the 4th round. who the hell takes that over a final where you take a set off prime Federer during the era that he won it 5 times in a row? Again clearly Edberg just had a bad day, we're talking about the good days here. If Connors had e.g. got to the 89 or 91 finals (by beating heavy hitters like Lendl or Courier respectively), + lost a tough 4 setter in the final, then id engage this conversation. Similarly, if Agassi had never played Feds at the USO, + only had "heroic" runs to the QFs or semis by beating 2nd tier players only. +If my serve + forehand looked like Connors, i wouldnt even play tennis

 

[pierceforehands]

dude, the Edberg 89 match was the 4th round. who the hell takes that over a final where you take a set off prime Federer during the era that he won it 5 times in a row? Again clearly Edberg just had a bad day, we're talking about the good days here. If Connors had e.g. got to the 89 or 91 finals (by beating heavy hitters like Lendl or Courier respectively), + lost a tough 4 setter in the final, then id engage this conversation. Similarly, if Agassi had never played Feds at the USO, + only had "heroic" runs to the QFs or semis by beating 2nd tier players only. +If my serve + forehand looked like Connors, i wouldnt even play tennis

Hard Court is the resident troll of this site. Don't take his comments seriously, just treat them as humor, either intentional, or more likely unintentional from a complete tennis neophyte.

 

[Hard Court]

Hard Court is the resident troll of this site. Don't take his comments seriously, just treat them as humor, either intentional, or more likely unintentional from a complete tennis neophyte.

You are such a nice person.

 

[Hard Court]

dude, the Edberg 89 match was the 4th round. who the hell takes that over a final where you take a set off prime Federer during the era that he won it 5 times in a row? Again clearly Edberg just had a bad day, we're talking about the good days here. If Connors had e.g. got to the 89 or 91 finals (by beating heavy hitters like Lendl or Courier respectively), + lost a tough 4 setter in the final, then id engage this conversation. Similarly, if Agassi had never played Feds at the USO, + only had "heroic" runs to the QFs or semis by beating 2nd tier players only. +If my serve + forehand looked like Connors, i wouldnt even play tennis

You had mentioned that Connors was not beating top players. I pointed out a win that Connors had over one when he was old. Edberg just had a bad day? Ok. But we can just as easily say that Federer had one bad set against Agassi.

You keep saying that Connors had weak competition to get to those semifinals in 1987 and 1991. But Agassi had this magical run in 2005 to get the US Open final.

Really? Take a look at who Agassi actually beat to get to that US Open final. Of his 6 wins, 5 were against unseeded players. The only seed that he did beat, was the 32nd (and last of course) seed !
We keep hearing that Connors lost badly in the semifinals to Cash, Lendl, and Courier. Who did Agassi have to beat in the semifinal? the legendary Robby Ginepri. Wow. Doesn't remotley compare to having to Lendl, Cash (on grass) and Courier.

If people would have been told before the tournament that all Agassi had to do get to the final was beat 5 unseeded players and the 32n seeded player, how many would not think Agassi would get to the final ? That may be the easiest route to the US Open final ever.

And that 1991 easy route that Connors supposedly had to the semifinals? Well it was not brutal. But he did have to beat the 10th seed in the third round. And if they had 32 seeds back then, (instead of only 16) Krickstein probably would have been seeded as well.

As for your comment that you would not play tennis with Connors serve and forehand, wow. I mean, wow.
The 39-year old Connors had a mcuh more diffucult road to the Sf in 1991 than the 35 year old Agassi did in 2005.

 

[GuyForget]

ok fair enough, but Agassi also took Safin to 5 sets in the AO SF in 04 and Feds to 5 in the US that year, he was still a major contender for HC slams, + still probably in the top 4 HC players in the world when on. Connors run in '91 was a once in 4 years aberration, + he certainly wasnt top 10 material at that point (compared to Edberg, Courier, Becker, Agassi, Lendl, Stich, Sampras, Forget, Ivanisevic, Wheaton etc

 

[martinezownsclay]

Agassi was much more a real contender to win big hard court events at ages 32-35 than Connors ever was. I think that is the main point being made. And I think that is pretty simple and straightforward. After mid 85 or so, did anyone seriously consider Connors a possible winner at a major, hard courts or otherwise, anymore? While Agassi was considered a legit contender to win any slam he was in still 2001-2003, and at the 2 hard court slams in both 2004 and 2005.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

What is the argument here? Connors had no competitive losses to top players in slams after '84 except '89 USO [against a very up-and-down Teenassi who lost comfortably enough to Lendl in semis] and '91 RG [retiring in the fifth set against Chang, who then lost easily to Becker, who lost comfortably to Agassi, suggesting that Chang's level was mediocre anyway]. He had many good matches outside of the majors, but always got rekt in slams, whereas Oldassi kept giving top players trouble in HC slams all the way into 2005, so no comparison.

 

[GuyForget]

also ran into Fed at the AO05 QFs, so no shame in losing that

 

[buscemi]

What is the argument here? Connors had no competitive losses to top players in slams after '84 except '89 USO [against a very up-and-down Teenassi who lost comfortably enough to Lendl in semis] and '91 RG [retiring in the fifth set against Chang, who then lost easily to Becker, who lost comfortably to Agassi, suggesting that Chang's level was mediocre anyway]. He had many good matches outside of the majors, but always got rekt in slams, whereas Oldassi kept giving top players trouble in HC slams all the way into 2005, so no comparison.

Connors's loss to Chang at the 1991 French Open was quite competitive unless you're writing that off b/c he retired in the fifth set. And why should we focus just on close losses to top players when Connors had a huge win over a top player against Edberg at the 1989 U.S. Open?

 

[medieval_remnant]

From 1984-1988, Pat Cash squared off with Ivan Lendl four times at Majors, with Cash winning three of them. Did Cash's play lead to Lendl losing all four Majors that he otherwise would have won?

1987 Wimbledon Final: This one's the most straight forward. Cash straight setted Lendl in the 1987 Wimbledon final. Quite clearly, if Lendl reverses the result of that match, he wins Wimbledon and ends with a NCYGS. Alternatively, if we shift things and say that Connors beats Cash in the SF, I still probably tab Lendl to take the title. Yes, Connors was a tough matchup for Lendl on grass, famously beating him in a four setter in the 1984 Wimbledon SF. But that was Connors's last win over Lendl before Ivan flipped the script, and Connors was not in great form at the All England Club that year, nearly getting straight setted by Pernfors and being obliterated by Cash in the SF.​

​

1988 Australian Open SF: In the first year of the Australian Open on Rebound Ace, Cash squeezed past Lendl in a five set SF before losing an even tighter final against Wilander, going down 8-6 in the fifth set, So, if Lendl had gotten past Cash in the SF, could he have taken down Wilander in the final? This hard court Major was situated between the 1987 U.S. Open, where Lendl beat Wilander in a four set final, and the 1988 U.S. Open, where Mats won the final in five set over Ivan. Famously, after being beaten from the baseline in the 1987 final at Flushing Meadows, Mats adopted a net rushing strategy against Ivan in the 1988 final, allowing him to squeak out a win. While this strategy worked well on the faster DeceTurf surface in New York, I don't see it succeeding as well on the slower surface of Rebound Ace. So, could Mats have beaten Ivan from the baseline in a hypothetical AO final on Rebound Ace in 1988? Would the net rushing strategy he adopted in New York have worked well enough down under? Or does Lendl add another Australian title if he gets past Cash?​

​

1987 Australian Open SF: Speaking of adding an Australian title, we have the 1987 AO in its final year on the Kooyong grass. Cash beat Lendl in a four set SF before falling to Edberg in a five set final. So, who wins a hypothetical Lendl/Edberg final if Ivan slips past Pat in the SF? In 1987, the Australian Open moved to January, meaning its prior edition was in November/December 1985. In the SF of that event, Edberg eked past Lendl, 9-7 in the fifth set, before beating Wilander in the final. Six months after the 1987 Australian Open, Edberg and Lendl would square off in the Wimbledon SF, with Lendl winning in four sets before falling in the final to Cash (as noted above). So, a hypothetical Lendl/Edberg final at the 1987 AO would have been sandwiched between Edberg barely beating Lendl in the prior AO and Lendl winning a touch more comfortably at Wimbledon later in that year. Does Lendl take the title if he slips past Cash? Or does Edberg still win this grass court showdown?​

​

1984 U.S. Open SF: In what would subsequently be known as "Super Saturday," Lendl came close to beating 19 year-old Cash in four sets before Cash took the fourth set in a tiebreaker and extended Lendl to a fifth set tiebreaker, with Ivan needing to save a match point before notching the win. In the nightcap, McEnroe then won an epic five setter against Connors. Somewhat famously, McEnroe wondered whether he had enough gas in the tank to take the title before seeing Lendl in the locker room, looking worse for wear after his war with Cash. McEnroe then realized that he was actually the fresher of the two and rolled through Lendl to take the title. If Lendl is able to take down Cash in four sets and save some energy, is the dynamic in the final totally different? Or is Super Mac still too good to break through?​

So, what does everyone think? Does Lendl win all four of these Majors if not for Cash? Three? Two? One? None? And, of course, this is all in a vacuum b/c I imagine Lendl's career trajectory could look totally different if, for example, he comes into the 1984 U.S. Open final fresh and takes down the mighty McEnroe.

Lendl looked strong against McEnroe in the 1984 US Open final. Maybe the soreness affecting him was too subtle for me to see.