laurie said:You guys are right. It is a strange argument by Mr Terminator. Lendl got to two Wimbledon finals and at least three semifinals. Thats a much better record than Sampras, Becker and Edberg on clay. Besides, Lendl with his big serve, big groundstrokes and reasonable volleys could have won the tournament with a bit of luck, or been in the right place at the right time. Just look at Hewitt in 2002 for that.
The tennis guy said:I hate to say this, you are pathetic in your arguments. They are full of errors. Yeah, clay doesn't count. Then why Becker tried so hard to win at least one clay court tournament if it doesn't count? How about we only play on grass, get rid of all other surfaces?
For argument's sake, let's not count clay, Lendl vs Becker was still tied 10-10. Most of their matches were played on carpet and grass which favored Becker more, and Lendl was still even ahead in head to head. It just showed how good Lendl was. Even they have played more on clay, Lendl would be way ahead. The problem was Becker usually didn't get to later rounds on clay. Learn the fact before you speak.
spinbalz said:According to Pusher Terminator's scale of greatness/accomplishment, Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Cash who won Wimbledon are greater players than Ivan Lendl who only reached the final at Wimbledon!!! Even worst, Lendl is just on par with Kevin Curren, David Nalbandian, and Malivaï Washington who all reached the final at Wimbledon, like Lendl. What kind of severe brain damage does Mr Pusher suffers from?
The Pusher Terminator said:Now if you really look at their records you will note that Becker & Lendl met 6 times in Grand slams and Becker beat him five out of six times. Becker beat him at The Australian, Becker beat him at the US open, and Becker beat him three times at Wimbledon. I'm sorry, but I think that Becker completely dominated Lendl because he kicked his butt in almost everry grand slam encounter. When you look at their grand slam record its 5-1 in Beckers favor! Becker is the Lendl terminator...
The tennis guy said:Any bumper sticker description of today tennis is not accurate.
You are off your point yourself. Your examples just don't wash. Again, I just don't agree achievement is based on style of play, it is based on talent. Sampras and Federer are just two genius in the past 15 years. It happens. Tell me if Agassi had the big serve of Sampras, he wouldn't have dominated with his one dimensional style of play. Borg and Lendl did with so called one dimensional game.
As of Lendl and Becker, if you think only grand slam count, OK, who had more grand slam titles? who stayed at No. 1 longer? Your argument just doesn't hold up. You only used Wimbledon as benchmark which is flawed. It just says goodness of Lendl by getting far at Wimbledon which was obviously his weakest surface. They didn't get to play much on slower grand slam surface at Aus and French because Becker couldn't get far enough to even have a chance to play Lendl. All your argument comes down to Becker is greater than Lendl at Wimbledon. No one argues about that. It is your other conclusion you draw most people here have problem with, and rightly so.
The Pusher Terminator said:In any event, Lendl is a great player but he simply was never able to win the grand slam of tennis: Wimbledon. Therefore, He will never be in the same class as Becker, Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Sampras etc etc.
federerhoogenbandfan said:Lendl is at a higher level than Becker, I doubt there are many tennis experts,
that are detached from their own biases that would put Becker, who has 2 few slams, never ended a year #1(although I agree he should have in 89 but that would still be only once to Lendl's remaining three), only had a 2 year streak of winning atleat one slam(to Lendl's 4), only won 2 slams in one year once(to Lendl's 2), and does not even come close to Lendl's record of slam finals and slam semis reached, higher than Lendl.
Lendl, McEnroe, Conners? I dont know who would be considered better, I suspect there are split opinions. They are definitely all in the same league though.
The Pusher Terminator said:I don't know how this turned into Becker vs. Lendl... but this post is not about whether becker or Lendl was the better player. Its about whether Hank Pfisters argument is valid:
Todays tennis has become one dimensional and players like Federer are so dominant because they can play the "whole game" as opposed to the rest of the tour.
The tennis guy said:It is you who put Becker vs Lendl as 'whole game" player vs one dimensional player.
His point is not valid simply because he picked one of the most talented players in history in Federer to make a point. OK, for argument's sake, let's say his point is valid, so doesn't it mean Sampras dominated because the rest of the tour players didn't play the "whole game"? That's simply not true. There were many more different style of players in first half of 90s, and Sampras still dominated. It is Sampras' talent, Federer's talent that enabled them to dominate. Why Lendl dominated in mid 80s? He didn't have the whole game as Sampras and Federer! Neither you nor him could explain. You tried to explain away by saying Lendl wasn't that great, not even as good as Becker, which most people don't agree, and rightly so!
His point can be valid only if two players with similar talent, one with "whole game" dominated the field while the one with one dimensional game couldn't.
Now, Lendl didn't fit in your argument, Lendl suddenly is not one dimensional player anymore! If Lendl is not one dimensional, then not too many players today are one dimensional. Of the current top 10 players, at least 5 of them volley better than Lendl.
johnmcc516 said:Ya know, I agree with you. Everyone these days wants to pound out groundies and winners from the ground,....
andfor said:I am jumping in not reading the thread. My 2 cents. I have always said since the power game started with Lendl and then Agassi the following. "The tennis players will catch up to the power athleticly over time." Gasquet is one example of that, Fed is another. What I mean is that players will find ways through training to be able to thwart their opponents power by facing the power more often, developing better timing and becoming stonger and better trained. Look for example all the guys who serve 120 mph+ today. Ten years ago there was only a few guys who could do that and they lead the aces leaders board. Nowadays if you can't serve 120 you will have a hard time on the ATP succeeding. Nowadays 120 MPH serves get returned with authority. You'll see the game change. It's always is changing despite how it may appear.
Viva la return of the Serve and Volley player.
The Pusher Terminator said:Here is my point, Lendl would not know what to do against someone like Fed or Sampras (Didnt Sampras beat lendl at the US open?). Lendl had no answers because he only had one style of play. He has no plan "b" and thats the problem with the modern game. If the plan "A" game gets dismantled then what do you do? What can Agassi do against Fed? NOTHING! Agassi's baseline game plan obviously isnt working. But he is dead because he has no plan "b" . Hewitts "a" game is not working either....but he is dead because he has no plan "b". Roddicks "a" game is not working but he is also dead because he has no plan "b" (although he is trying to get a serve and volley game going). This is precisely why Fed is so dominant!...Its a one dimensional game today. Fed agrees with Pfister and so do I.
devila said:They are both conceited and overrated. Their fans cannot praise them without whining about other players.
They beat other overrated players. They stink on clay when the draw is difficult.