Federer vs Lendl on US Open Hardcourt....

[President of Serve/Volley]

Just For fun..

Lendl made 8 straight finals.... Fed made 6 straight and won 5 of them.

Prime Lendl vs Prime Federer.

This would be a pretty good match.

 

[pc1]

When you think about it they are both very similar type players. Great forehand, very good backhands, great serves and both aren't exactly net rushers. Excellent speed too.

On decoturf, neither would blow the other off the court. Lendl recently said he felt he could do more from a defensive position nowadays then he could in the past so it would be interesting how a 25 year old Lendl would be able to do with today's rackets.

I assume the parameters of the match is that both Federer and Lendl use 2010 equipment and both in their physical primes.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

When you think about it they are both very similar type players. Great forehand, very good backhands, great serves and both aren't exactly net rushers. Excellent speed too.

On decoturf, neither would blow the other off the court. Lendl recently said he felt he could do more from a defensive position nowadays then he could in the past so it would be interesting how a 25 year old Lendl would be able to do with today's rackets.

I assume the parameters of the match is that both Federer and Lendl use 2010 equipment and both in their physical primes.

Yes, with 2010 equipment...

 

[Mr_Shiver]

I am a bigger fan of Lendl than I am Federer but I see Fed winning the majority of the matches. I wonder how would Lendl hurt Federer? I am watching the 2005 USO final right now and he didn't seem to have a weakness. The bh was solid. The fh just lethal, not yet plagued by the bouts of shanks he now experiences. The quickness and footwork just unreal. I'm not saying it would be a blowout by any means but i have been watching some older Fed matches and damn, he was so good. I'd love to see him and Lendl face off. A showdown between two of the best fhs ever would be a must see.

 

[abmk]

When you think about it they are both very similar type players. Great forehand, very good backhands, great serves and both aren't exactly net rushers. Excellent speed too.

On decoturf, neither would blow the other off the court. Lendl recently said he felt he could do more from a defensive position nowadays then he could in the past so it would be interesting how a 25 year old Lendl would be able to do with today's rackets.

I assume the parameters of the match is that both Federer and Lendl use 2010 equipment and both in their physical primes.

federer's movement is on another level when compared to lendl's ...

would be fun matches though .... especially the FH-FH exchanges , two of the greatest FHs of all time

 

[NonP]

federer's movement is on another level when compared to lendl's ...

That's what I think would eventually swing the match in Fed's favor. Lendl wasn't clumsy by any means, but he's not exactly one of those players that come to mind when you think of someone with fluid and/or graceful movement.

Now if we're talking about a 10-match series, tough call. I'd say Fed takes it 6-4, give or take 1.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

federer's movement is on another level when compared to lendl's ...

would be fun matches though .... especially the FH-FH exchanges , two of the greatest FHs of all time

I can only imagine how much better Lendl would be if he had Mecir's movement.... Now he, probably one of the greatest movers of all time.

Mecir's movement makes Federer look a bit awkward....

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Who had the better backhand of the two, which, would probably be the key factor in this match?

Forehand.... that's a draw, with a slght edge to Federer... But Running FH would be Lendl for sure.

 

[abmk]

That's what I think would eventually swing the match in Fed's favor. Lendl wasn't clumsy by any means, but he's not exactly one of those players that come to mind when you think of someone with fluid and/or graceful movement.

Now if we're talking about a 10-match series, tough call. I'd say Fed takes it 6-4, give or take 1.

I agree .......

 

[NonP]

Who had the better backhand of the two, which, would probably be the key factor in this match?

Forehand.... that's a draw, with a slght edge to Federer... But Running FH would be Lendl for sure.

Federer's BH does have more variety, but I think given one of today's racquets Lendl would probably drive his BH more and also make fewer errors off that side. So it's a close call, perhaps with a slight edge to Lendl. The exact opposite for the FH.

That's why I think the movement factor would be decisive.

 

[abmk]

Who had the better backhand of the two, which, would probably be the key factor in this match?

Forehand.... that's a draw, with a slght edge to Federer... But Running FH would be Lendl for sure.

I'd give a slight edge to fed on faster courts - deco, indoor and grass, lendl slight edge on slower hard courts and some edge on clay

 

[galain]

I really like(d) to watch them both. They're both confidence players too, so a lot would come down to who got mentally in front or behind first, i think.

I agree with most though. I can't really see how Lendl would be able to consistently damage Federer throughout a best of 5 match. His movement doesn't match up so well with Fed's. He may well hit the ball harder with modern gear, but I think Fed has the more complete game, especially if he stays loose.

 

[Bobby Jr]

That's what I think would eventually swing the match in Fed's favor. Lendl wasn't clumsy by any means, but he's not exactly one of those players that come to mind when you think of someone with fluid and/or graceful movement.

Now if we're talking about a 10-match series, tough call. I'd say Fed takes it 6-4, give or take 1.

I'm not sure.. Even with new technology and in-prime Federer's forehand is miles, miles, better than Lendl's ever was. Lendl's forehand where he catches the follow-through shows the vast different in racquet-heat speed - it's not even close in that respect.

Lendl won by hitting the ball harder than his peers and not making as many mistakes - not by hitting astonishing winners one after another like Federer was in his prime.

Lendl also suffered from lack of imagination/flare in his matches (a big reason he lost so many close/memorable matches in his career imo), something prime Federer had in bucketloads.

In a 10 match series... 9-1 to Federer and only then because he'd muck around in one of them.

Movement/speed: Federer by miles
Forehand: Federer
Backhand top: Even
Backhand slice: Federer by miles
Serve: Federer by miles
Clutch winner hitting ability: Federer by miles
Disruptive/antagonistic playing style: Federer by miles
Ability to choke in big matches: Even

IMO I can still see how when people factor in newer technology the tendency is to think it would close the gap but really, short of the 80s player having an improved and quite different game overall (which would make them a different player and thus a pointless comparison), these theoretical 2010 vs 1985 match-ups would be an absolute slaughter in 19 out of 20 cases.

2 years post-prime Wilander couldn't even keep up with the 20-ish year old Courier/Chang/Agassi crew and those guys couldn't come close to Federer/Nadal etc if they played how they did at that age (not talking about later when they improved). And Wilander fared pretty well against Lendl on the big stage.

 

[WCT]

federer's movement is on another level when compared to lendl's ...

would be fun matches though .... especially the FH-FH exchanges , two of the greatest FHs of all time

Agreed on the movement. It's not that Lendl's is bad, it's that Federer's is elite.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

I also look at Federers ability to run around his bh. He made so many bhs into fhs. I think that is why his bh seems weaker now. He has lost a step and can't do it as cleanly and often as his prime.

 

[Limpinhitter]

When you think about it they are both very similar type players. Great forehand, very good backhands, great serves and both aren't exactly net rushers. Excellent speed too.

On decoturf, neither would blow the other off the court. Lendl recently said he felt he could do more from a defensive position nowadays then he could in the past so it would be interesting how a 25 year old Lendl would be able to do with today's rackets.

I assume the parameters of the match is that both Federer and Lendl use 2010 equipment and both in their physical primes.

I don't see Lendl having very much success against Federer on hard court. 2 maybe 3 out of 10 matches, IMHO. The only advantage Lendl has is his backhand against Fed's backhand. And I don't see Fed having too much trouble running around to hit his forehand. Although Lendl had a great forehand, it wasn't as versatile as Fed's, and his movement wasn't as good.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

Clay would be a better surface for Lendl against Federer. It dimishes at least some of Federers speed and quickness edge.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Clay would be a better surface for Lendl against Federer. It dimishes at least some of Federers speed and quickness edge.

Who would win on clay?

 

[Limpinhitter]

Who would win on clay?

Lendl would have a winning record against Fed on clay, IMHO! Lendl is the steadier, more disciplined player (close to Borg in that respect), and the clay would help neutralize Fed's forehand.

 

[abmk]

I'd give a slight edge to fed on faster courts - deco, indoor and grass, lendl slight edge on slower hard courts and some edge on clay

Well, when I wrote this, I was thinking of against the overall field, not when they played against each other ... their BHs would be pretty close when pitted against each other except on clay where lendl would have the edge ....

Also I'd say 7-3 to fed at the USO .....

 

[abmk]

Who would win on clay?

I'd give the edge to lendl, perhaps 6-4 or 11-9 ....something like that ...

 

[The-Champ]

Federer would slaughter lendl on any court. federer is just better on everything.

 

[HBK4life]

If they were the same age and Lendl was playing with a modern racket and string......wow I dont know. I would pay real money to see that one. Seems Lendl's fhand was a bit heavier but Fed goes through the court more it seems.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

I'd give Lendl a slight edge on clay, winning 6 out of ten matches. No straight setters or easy victories. I find it tough to gauge Federer on clay given that he often lost to the greatest clay courter of all time and that many of those matches were quite close. Still Lendl has the game and mindset for clay.

 

[hawk eye]

Lendl would take 6-7 out of 10 on HC as well as clay.. all in all he's got a little more game.

 

[jrepac]

Lendl?

His forehand and serve were both consistent and devastating at times. I think he'd give Fed quite a tussle on hard courts and certainly would outplay him on clay. Fed's forehand penetrates well, but Lendl hit it awfully hard. With common equipment, he'd be right up there w/Fed going toe-to-toe. I think Fed would prevail like 6-4 over 10 matches. [On clay, I'd go w/Ivan 7-3, he was just so comfortable on that surface. Grass, well, Fed would smoke him, I think.]

Fed has better movement. But, on the backhand, I think Lendl could actually do a bit more....varying from slice to coming over on the ball.

Fed's best play would be to pressure Lendl on the serve and get to net on all the shorter balls...he's a far better volleyer than Ivan...much like Connors did in their early matches....Ivan never liked to be rushed on his strokes. He needed/wanted the time to set up, otherwise his shots would start to break down/become inconsistent. Connors won his 2 USO's over Ivan doing just that.

 

[BevelDevil]

If they were the same age and Lendl was playing with a modern racket and string......wow I dont know. I would pay real money to see that one. Seems Lendl's fhand was a bit heavier but Fed goes through the court more it seems.

The problem with Lendl is technique. He's got a great FH, but in the larger scheme of things it is still a relatively "old school" stroke, and new rackets and strings are only going to do so much.

Fed's forehand is on another level because he combines the pull stroke with a straight arm. This allows for a, seemingly, maximal exploitation of the modern racket and poly strings.

I also look at Federers ability to run around his bh. He made so many bhs into fhs. I think that is why his bh seems weaker now. He has lost a step and can't do it as cleanly and often as his prime.

I think this also explains a decline in his forehand consistency and power. When he does step around the bh he doesn't back up enough and he ends up getting crowded by the ball. This is a huge issue because the straight-arm forehand requires more room. Thus, anyone thinking of adopting it should either have a good backhand or good side/backwards movement.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The problem with Lendl is technique. He's got a great FH, but in the larger scheme of things it is still a relatively "old school" stroke, and new rackets and strings are only going to do so much.

Fed's forehand is on another level because he combines the pull stroke with a straight arm. This allows for a, seemingly, maximal exploitation of the modern racket and poly strings.




I think this also explains a decline in his forehand consistency and power. When he does step around the bh he doesn't back up enough and he ends up getting crowded by the ball. This is a huge issue because the straight-arm forehand requires more room. Thus, anyone thinking of adopting it should either have a good backhand or good side/backwards movement.

I don't agree that Lendl's forehand technique was any kind of detriment compared to more modern SW forehands. Lendl hit his FH harder with his 14 oz racquet than most top modern players today. He could hit hard AND keep his forehand and backhand in play indefinitely. I would agree that, Federer's forehand is better than Lendl's overall (I think Fed's forehand is the best shot in tennis history), because it's more versatile. He could hit winners from anywhere to anywhere on the court. Lendl's backhand was better overall than Feds. Fed also has an advantage in terms of mobility. That's why I think Lendl would have a hard time winning matches against Fed on hard court or grass. But, Fed's advantages would be neutralized on clay, and Lendl (like Borg), was much more patient and able to stay in rallies indefinitely and wait for openings, required for sustained success on clay, than Fed ever was.

 

[Bobby Jr]

(I just take it as a given that we're talking about Lendl playing his strokes how he did but with new equipment. If he changed his strokes to match new techniques significantly then the comparison is sort of pointless.)

People who think Lendl's forehand comes within a lightyear of Federer's - new equipment or not - need to go watch some old Aussie Open videos.

Lendl's forehand racquet head speed was so slow comparatively (to practically all top players now) that he usually caught the racquet with the other hand on the follow through. Federer, Nadal etc - their racquet ends up wrapped around their body - if they tried to catch it they'd end each match with a broken finger or two. Whereas Lendl spent most of his time winning by playing control at 80% pace all day to grind people down Federer/Nadal etc spend it hitting much harder, with way more spin and way bigger angles generally. And they have winner-hitting abilities Lendl couldn't even dream of.

As jrepac also said above, Lendl wasn't overly good when rushed - he liked to dominate play and wasn't nearly as good when pushed around. Against a player like Federer who routinely beats most big players and guys like Roddick by rushing them out of their comfort zone - never letting them get comfortable - Lendl would be rick-rolled.

For what it's worth I went to the Australian Open a number of times in the early 90s and saw Lendl play a few times - ditto for Federer in the last couple of years. There is no way Lendl could be competitive with these guys. For his era he was awesome but in this era he'd just be completely outrun, outgunned fodder for a player like Federer. Lendl's famed consistency would barely even matter either - you simply can't run faster than a tennis ball, especially one being hit harder shot after shot than anyone you ever faced in your career.

Lendl is even frank enough to admit it. He could only beat Chang and Wilander half the time in his prime. Beating Federer would just be a fantasy.

 

[pc1]

Lendl is even frank enough to admit it. He could only beat Chang and Wilander half the time in his prime. Beating Federer would just be a fantasy.

Here's Lendl's head to head against Wilander and Chang from the ITF website.

Versus Mats WILANDER (SWE)
Year Tournament Round Surface Winner Score
1982 French Open 16 Clay (O) M.WILANDER 6-4 5-7 6-3 4-6 2-6
1982 U.S. Open 16 Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-2 6-2 6-2
1982 Barcelona QF Clay (O) M.WILANDER 6-7 1-6
1983 Brussels Indoor SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 7-6 7-6
1983 Cincinnati SF Hard (O) M.WILANDER 0-6 3-6
1983 U.S. Open QF Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-4 6-4 7-6
1983 Australian Open FR Grass (O) M.WILANDER 1-6 4-6 4-6
1984 World Team Cup Clay (O) I.LENDL 7-6 7-5
1984 French Open SF Clay (O) I.LENDL 6-3 6-3 7-5
1984 Davis Cup 1984 Clay (O) M.WILANDER 3-6 6-4 2-6
1985 Monte Carlo FR Clay (O) I.LENDL 6-1 6-3 4-6 6-4
1985 World Team Cup Clay (O) I.LENDL 6-4 6-3
1985 French Open FR Clay (O) M.WILANDER 6-3 4-6 2-6 2-6
1985 Tokyo Indoor FR Carpet (I) I.LENDL 6-0 6-4
1986 Lipton-Boca West FR Hard (O) I.LENDL 3-6 6-1 7-6 6-4
1986 Masters SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 6-4 6-2
1987 French Open FR Clay (O) I.LENDL 7-5 6-2 3-6 7-6
1987 U.S. Open FR Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-7 6-0 7-6 6-4
1987 Masters FR Carpet (I) I.LENDL 6-2 6-2 6-3
1988 U.S. Open FR Hard (O) M.WILANDER 4-6 6-4 3-6 7-5 4-6
1994 Sydney 32 Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-2 6-1
1994 Coral Springs 16 Clay (O) I.LENDL 6-3 4-6 7-5
Ivan LENDL (TCH) Leads Mats WILANDER (SWE) : 15 to 7 *


Versus Michael CHANG (USA)
Year Tournament Round Surface Winner Score
1989 French Open 16 Clay (O) M.CHANG 6-4 6-4 3-6 3-6 3-6
1989 Masters Carpet (I) I.LENDL 6-1 6-3
1991 Grand Slam Cup SF Carpet (I) M.CHANG 6-2 6-4 4-6 6-7(5) 7-9
1992 Cincinnati SF Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-3 6-2
1992 New Haven QF Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-3 7-6
1992 Long Island SF Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-2 6-3
1992 Tokyo Indoor SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 6-3 6-4
Ivan LENDL (TCH) Leads Michael CHANG (USA) : 5 to 2 *

I'm not sure exactly how Lendl would do against Federer on hard court. I would tend to favor Federer but Lendl himself said that with the rackets today he could do more from a defensive position than in the past. As far as the racket speed is concerned, I think often Lendl wasn't necessarily going for great power in those days but depth and control against some player but he could unleash shots with great racket head speed and power if he wanted to.

Bear in mind that Lendl did quite well against a young and powerful Agassi in those days and I think overall that Agassi, off both sides could hit with as much power as anyone today. Lendl handled Andre's power at the US Open a few times also. However to be fair Agassi wasn't at his peak yet.

Brad Gilbert, who played both Agassi and Lendl thought Lendl hit the ball harder than Agassi but Agassi's ball come back at you faster because Agassi hit it earlier.

Another point is that we all forget about what a fantastic serve Lendl had and it would be very hard for anyone to break Lendl on a hard court.

Versus Andre AGASSI (USA)
Year Tournament Round Surface Winner Score
1987 Stratton Mountain SF Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-2 5-7 6-3
1988 U.S. Open SF Hard (O) I.LENDL 4-6 6-2 6-3 6-4
1988 Masters Carpet (I) I.LENDL 1-6 7-6 6-3
1989 TOC Forest Hills SF Clay (O) I.LENDL 6-2 6-3
1989 Canadian Open SF Hard (O) I.LENDL 6-2 3-6 6-4
1989 U.S. Open SF Hard (O) I.LENDL 7-6 6-1 3-6 6-1
1992 Canadian Open FR Hard (O) A.AGASSI 6-3 2-6 0-6
1993 New Haven QF Hard (O) A.AGASSI 3-6 4-6

Ivan LENDL (USA) Leads Andre AGASSI (USA) : 6 to 2

 

[Limpinhitter]

^^^ Well said! I reject the notion (that I have witnessed upon very single changing of the guard in the past 40 years), that the game has changed and that prior greats would be unable to compete with the current heros du jour. I've seen too many greats throughout the decades and know that, although the depth of World class players is deeper than ever due to more money and more players striving play pro tennis, the level of play of the greats at the top of every era has changed little.

Look no futher than other pro sports like baseball, football, basketball, etc., in which it is manifest that "expansion" has resulted in an overall decline in the quality of these games over the decades.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Here's Lendl's head to head against Wilander and Chang from the ITF website.

OK, maybe I was being overzealous with the Wilander and Chang comparisons. The point can be made that Wilander was almost as successful at Lendl in slams and in 1988 was, by-far, the dominant player - while Lendl was in his prime.

Versus Andre AGASSI (USA)

The Agassi comparison isn't as valid. Agassi was a veritable child until 1990 at the earliest. They never really played each other in their primes to be fair.

I hear you on the strong serve etc but from having watched them (Lendl and Federer) both play in their primes in Melbourne the difference in the pace, the movement, the angles, the shot-making ability etc is night and day. I just can't see Lendl having any game to challenge the current top guys be honest and, to reiterate, he said himself he couldn't compete.

Although it isn't a completely fair comparison - remember when Connors made a come-back and faced Courier at the 91 US Open? He was playing pretty well (for a 38 yr old!) - beating two rather uninspiring but still top 10 players in the tournament - and then just got destroyed by Courier. At that stage Courier was no doubt a better player than Lendl... I know you can't just roll time forward saying that 2 years later Courier had become fodder for a couple of the top guys, who then in turn got overtaken by the next generation and make entirely fair assumptions from it but the crossover of generations with Connors-Courier there does show something of the vast difference of top players of each generation. At least to me.

 

[jrepac]

The problem with Lendl is technique. He's got a great FH, but in the larger scheme of things it is still a relatively "old school" stroke, and new rackets and strings are only going to do so much.

Fed's forehand is on another level because he combines the pull stroke with a straight arm. This allows for a, seemingly, maximal exploitation of the modern racket and poly strings.




I think this also explains a decline in his forehand consistency and power. When he does step around the bh he doesn't back up enough and he ends up getting crowded by the ball. This is a huge issue because the straight-arm forehand requires more room. Thus, anyone thinking of adopting it should either have a good backhand or good side/backwards movement.

???? this sounds like a bunch of rubbish, sorry. A good stroke is a good stroke, period. There really is no old school vs. new school in that regard. Style of play, use of spin, is another matter. And Ivan really came over the ball, hard and fast, with a crushing shot. As others have noted, he was not looking to crush every ball, but some of them. Again, I do think Fed has a better forehand, but not light years ahead of Ivan. And, Ivan has a better serve I believe..and, in his prime, more fit than Fed. Edge to Fed, but Ivan would be a stiff challenge on the hard courts.

The Courier vs. 39yrs old Connors analogy is not terribly relevant...I think Jimmy was physically spent at that point. But, frankly, if he got to the final vs. Edberg, he would've had a damn good shot, as he had Edberg's number, time and time again. He kicked his ass at the USO when he was 37 yrs old...so what does that tell you about the "generational comparison"?? And, what did I learn from that '91 run? A damn old Jimmy Connors was far better than some of the "top" players of that day....if Jimmy was in his more youthful prime, I do think Courier would've been faced with a far steeper challenge.. [and I thought he played a great match vs. Connors only to go out and stink up the joint against Edberg...what a wasted opportunity!]

Agassi is a another good example, I think...he was competitive until 35yrs of age against the likes of Fed & co....he was not "blown away" each and every time he went out there. And, he had played Lendl in his prime as well as aged Jimmy and Mac. He was very much playing across the generations.

The great players don't forget how to "do it"...they adapt and find a way....

 

[pc1]

The Agassi comparison isn't as valid. Agassi was a veritable child until 1990 at the earliest. They never really played each other in their primes to be fair.

I hear you on the strong serve etc but from having watched them (Lendl and Federer) both play in their primes in Melbourne the difference in the pace, the movement, the angles, the shot-making ability etc is night and day. I just can't see Lendl having any game to challenge the current top guys be honest and, to reiterate, he said himself he couldn't compete.

Although it isn't a completely fair comparison - remember when Connors made a come-back and faced Courier at the 91 US Open? He was playing pretty well (for a 38 yr old!) - beating two rather uninspiring but still top 10 players in the tournament - and then just got destroyed by Courier. At that stage Courier was no doubt a better player than Lendl... I know you can't just roll time forward saying that 2 years later Courier had become fodder for a couple of the top guys, who then in turn got overtaken by the next generation and make entirely fair assumptions from it but the crossover of generations with Connors-Courier there does show something of the vast difference of top players of each generation. At least to me.

Yes I do agree that Andre was a veritable child. However I did point out that while Agassi wasn't in his prime but I would venture to say that he may have hit the ball at that time even harder than he did later and Lendl was able to take a number of Agassi's shots on the rise for winners. Agassi was a much more controlled player later.

There is no doubt Courier was superior to Connors and Lendl at that point in time but I don't really think you can use that as an example of vast differences in generations. It's not like it was an evolutionary mutation in genes and all of a sudden Jim Courier come out as the new revolutionary tennis player. Michael Chang, a talented player but not a superman was number two in the world just a few years later.

Honestly, I'll take Connors' and Lendl's talent over Michael Chang's talent but that's just my opinion. Others may disagree.

 

[BevelDevil]

A good stroke is a good stroke, period.

No, the racket and string technology determine what techniques are optimal. Technology and technique compliment each other.

Do you cut a tree down with a chain saw with the same motion as you would with an axe? Of course not.

And wood+gut is different than graphite+poly.


Look at it this way: If Fed and Nadal had to use wooden rackets I think Lendl would have a much better chance, possibly an edge, against them.

The old, small wooden rackets work best with slower swings and more open racket faces (i.e., moderate grips). Otherwise, you are shanking the ball too frequently. You are also not able to pick up the low balls with top spin the same way you can with graphite+poly. Thus, many of Fed and Nadal's strengths are limited when using wood.

 

[0d1n]

Lendl would take 6-7 out of 10 on HC as well as clay.. all in all he's got a little more game.

Care to go a bit deeper with that "analysis" ??

I'm in the camp that says the big difference will be movement. There is no "shot" that can clearly differentiate those 2 players objectively...it's just "personal preference" in my view.
BUT...the movement difference is visible with the "naked eye"...and MOVEMENT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT "SHOT" IN TENNIS.
Federer has clearly superior footwork...even now. In his prime, he was even better.

 

[abmk]

Care to go a bit deeper with that "analysis" ??

I wouldn't bother with "hawk eye" - his observations in reality are exact opposite to his screen name !

 

[Limpinhitter]

Care to go a bit deeper with that "analysis" ??

I'm in the camp that says the big difference will be movement. There is no "shot" that can clearly differentiate those 2 players objectively...it's just "personal preference" in my view.
BUT...the movement difference is visible with the "naked eye"...and MOVEMENT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT "SHOT" IN TENNIS.
Federer has clearly superior footwork...even now. In his prime, he was even better.

I think Federer's forehand differentiates his game from everyone else in the history of the game, including Lendl who had an all time great forehand. Fed's forehand is probably the greatest shot in tennis history in so many respects. Fed's mobility advantage and forehand advantage, and his ability to run around and protect his backhand, would easily overcome his backhand disadvantage.

 

[eric draven]

Hard to say on this one. If you watch matches from the 80's vs. now there are two things that really stick out: the angles that exist now that didn't two decades ago and court positioning.

There's not doubt that in terms of conditioning they would be equal. Speed might be an edge to Fed but I think their serves are comparable in terms of placement, spin and speed. Overall movement Fed has the advantage. But when it comes to groundstrokes the equipment would play a big part. We've never seen Lendl's strokes with modern equipment and I doubt they would be as flat (especially off the forehand side) so it changes how he would play. He would have angles available to him that weren't with the equipment he used to play with. I think that would change his court positioning and thus his movement.

All that being said, it is a good match but I give Federer the edge because of his movement being better than Lendl's.

 

[tennisdad65]

Tough call.. Fed 6-4 or 7-3 would be my guess.

btw.. what were Lendl's FH and BH grips?
I recall very mild on both wings.. EFH and Conti backhand?

 

[jrepac]

Honestly, I'll take Connors' and Lendl's talent over Michael Chang's talent but that's just my opinion. Others may disagree.

No disagreement from me. In '91 Connors went toe-to-toe with Chang at the FO until his back gave out....he was shockingly good that day, I have to say, on his least favorite surface. And at his best, Ivan was far superior to Michael. I like Michael, but there is just no comparison to these guys.

 

[jrepac]

No, the racket and string technology determine what techniques are optimal. Technology and technique compliment each other.

Do you cut a tree down with a chain saw with the same motion as you would with an axe? Of course not.

And wood+gut is different than graphite+poly.


Look at it this way: If Fed and Nadal had to use wooden rackets I think Lendl would have a much better chance, possibly an edge, against them.

The old, small wooden rackets work best with slower swings and more open racket faces (i.e., moderate grips). Otherwise, you are shanking the ball too frequently. You are also not able to pick up the low balls with top spin the same way you can with graphite+poly. Thus, many of Fed and Nadal's strengths are limited when using wood.

The racket contributes to the results of the stroke..it is not the stroke....this is a big, fat myth. today's guys would serve pretty well w/the old racquets, but the wood sticks might not hold up over a match. Likewise, in the 70's there were many top spin players....todays racquets and players did not invent the topsin game. Today's guys hit harder overall, and the rackets likely contribute to that. But the players stroke is unique to them...regardless of what racquet they use. And, Ivan used a mid-sized graphite racquet, so this is not adding up anyhow. Sampras used a racquet that was invented in 1984 and it changed very little over the years...he used if for nearly all of his career...and was quite effective. His strokes were that good, independent of the frame. Bigger, better/stronger frames can help augment, as can strings, but the physicality of the stroke is just that. I'm not aware of great players modifying their strokes based on their rackets.

 

[jrepac]

Hard to say on this one. If you watch matches from the 80's vs. now there are two things that really stick out: the angles that exist now that didn't two decades ago and court positioning.

There's not doubt that in terms of conditioning they would be equal. Speed might be an edge to Fed but I think their serves are comparable in terms of placement, spin and speed. Overall movement Fed has the advantage. But when it comes to groundstrokes the equipment would play a big part. We've never seen Lendl's strokes with modern equipment and I doubt they would be as flat (especially off the forehand side) so it changes how he would play. He would have angles available to him that weren't with the equipment he used to play with. I think that would change his court positioning and thus his movement.

All that being said, it is a good match but I give Federer the edge because of his movement being better than Lendl's.

Angles didn't exist in the 80's and Lendl hit flat strokes? hoo-boy, I guess I was watching some game other than tennis...

 

[Bobby Jr]

Angles didn't exist in the 80's and Lendl hit flat strokes? hoo-boy, I guess I was watching some game other than tennis...

I think the point is, the angles used in today's game by guys like Federer/Nadal happened once a match in Lendl's game.

Last weekend I rewatched (on VHS ha ha) the 1990 Aussie Open final where Lendl won by Edberg's eventual default. It is so night-and-day different the level of hitting (pace/spin), angles and player court positioning there really is no way to compare. Lendl would be little more hassle for Federer than Serena.

 

[jrepac]

I think the point is, the angles used in today's game by guys like Federer/Nadal happened once a match in Lendl's game.

Last weekend I rewatched (on VHS ha ha) the 1990 Aussie Open final where Lendl won by Edberg's eventual default. It is so night-and-day different the level of hitting (pace/spin), angles and player court positioning there really is no way to compare. Lendl would be little more hassle for Federer than Serena.

I cannot possibly agree with you...but that's ok...that's why these boards are entertaining.

 

[Datacipher]

No disagreement from me. In '91 Connors went toe-to-toe with Chang at the FO until his back gave out....he was shockingly good that day, I have to say, on his least favorite surface. And at his best, Ivan was far superior to Michael. I like Michael, but there is just no comparison to these guys.

Yes. Chang had wild talent as an overall athlete (eg. quickness, balance, reflex etc) and, more "talent" mentally than Lendl, and even Connors. He is one of the very few (possibly only) who can claim his determination, and drive was greater than Connors.

Having said that, it is for exactly those reasons, that we know he maximized his potential....and it wasn't good enough to be a multiple grand slam champion like Lendl and Connors. It was good enough to be one of the very best players in the world, for many years, at a height of 5'8, during a very competitive era, so he should be proud of that though.

I am always reminded of someone asking Mcenroe what a "couple of more inches" would have meant to Chang's career, and Mcenroe saying "if he were a couple of inches taller, he would have been Jimmy Connors."

 

[hoodjem]

I am always reminded of someone asking Mcenroe what a "couple of more inches" would have meant to Chang's career, and Mcenroe saying "if he were a couple of inches taller, he would have been Jimmy Connors."

Given the source, I am wondering if this is a compliment.

 

[drakulie]

The racket contributes to the results of the stroke..it is not the stroke....this is a big, fat myth. today's guys would serve pretty well w/the old racquets, but the wood sticks might not hold up over a match. Likewise, in the 70's there were many top spin players....todays racquets and players did not invent the topsin game. Today's guys hit harder overall, and the rackets likely contribute to that. But the players stroke is unique to them...regardless of what racquet they use. And, Ivan used a mid-sized graphite racquet, so this is not adding up anyhow. Sampras used a racquet that was invented in 1984 and it changed very little over the years...he used if for nearly all of his career...and was quite effective. His strokes were that good, independent of the frame. Bigger, better/stronger frames can help augment, as can strings, but the physicality of the stroke is just that. I'm not aware of great players modifying their strokes based on their rackets.

Great post. fact is, todays players swing faster. Period. has nothing to do with technology.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The racket contributes to the results of the stroke..it is not the stroke....this is a big, fat myth. today's guys would serve pretty well w/the old racquets, but the wood sticks might not hold up over a match. Likewise, in the 70's there were many top spin players....todays racquets and players did not invent the topsin game. Today's guys hit harder overall, and the rackets likely contribute to that. But the players stroke is unique to them...regardless of what racquet they use. And, Ivan used a mid-sized graphite racquet, so this is not adding up anyhow. Sampras used a racquet that was invented in 1984 and it changed very little over the years...he used if for nearly all of his career...and was quite effective. His strokes were that good, independent of the frame. Bigger, better/stronger frames can help augment, as can strings, but the physicality of the stroke is just that. I'm not aware of great players modifying their strokes based on their rackets.

I think that the bigger, lighter and more rigid racquets today, with their larger sweet spots, allow players to swing harder and still consistently hit the ball in the sweet spot. The larger sweet spot also allows players to hit with a sharper upward swing imparting more topspin and still consistently hit the sweet spot. The heavier, more flexible wood racquets with the smaller sweet spot required most players to employ a more horizontal swing through the contact zone in order to consistently hit the sweet spot. Wood racquets generated power more from their mass rather than from racquet speed. On the other hand, they had better feel and touch than the lighter more rigid racquets.

 

[Datacipher]

Given the source, I am wondering if this is a compliment.

LOL. Yes, but I think it's safe to assume Mac was only talking about the tennis aspect, which is what they were discussing. Though the image of Chang running around giving everyone the finger and calling them abortions is mildly amusing.