Is Lendl the current WTF GOAT?

[user]

This question originates from the 2nd best Open Era season debate. There were some people saying that 2006>2015, and that even though Federer won 4 M1000, they are worth more than Djokovic's 6 , because 3 out of those 4 title matches were Bo5, and Bo5>>>>>>>>>>>>Bo3.

Now, the thing is, I want to compare Lendl to Federer. They have almost identical stats, 4F + 3SF, with Federer having 1 more title. But, Lendl is undefeated in those 5 tournaments he won (sudden death format = more difficult to win logic), while Federer is not (1 RR loss in 2007). Also, all of Lendl's title matches were Bo5, while Federer won 3 out of 6 in Bo5 format. Federer can still add more, but currently, taking all of this into consideration, is 5>6?

(I'm not including Sampras. He does have 5 titles, but believe it or not, every time he won it, he was 2-1 in RR.)

 

[Tennisanity]

Djokovic's 2015 competition was weaker.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

It was a stronger era (still weak though) in 2006 compared to 2015, that's why his 4 M1000 is worth more.

 

[OhYes]

By logic that Federer has better 2006 than Novak 2015 because of Bo5 format in masters, and that Lendl played in tougher era than Federer, it can be said that Lendl is WTF GOAT.

 

[user]

Djokovic's 2015 competition was weaker.

It was a stronger era (still weak though) in 2006 compared to 2015, that's why his 4 M1000 is worth more.

Stay on topic, please. There are other threads for that mumbo jumbo.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Stay on topic, please. There are other threads for that mumbo jumbo.

Yeah sorry, but was just answering the OP.

 

[Tennisanity]

Stay on topic, please. There are other threads for that mumbo jumbo.

I thought that that was what this thread was ultimately about, hidden though.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I thought that that was what this thread was ultimately about, hidden though.

Nope, its about hypocrites trying to fit anything to their theory, like this logic sounds right, lets add weak era.

 

[user]

I thought that that was what this thread was ultimately about, hidden though.

Well, you got it wrong. It was meant to be used as a consistency test, but the question is Lendl or Federer, not Federer or Djokovic. We already had more than enough of that.

 

[Livedeath]

Lendl made it to the WTF finals for 9 consecutive years i.e., from 1980-1988, of them he won it 5 times. Many people are not aware of that, in his playing days there used to be 2 types of WTFs, one was Masters Grand Prix (which we call WTF now) and the other one was WCT finals, but after 1989 it was merged into WTF. He won WCT finals twice, so it can be said that he won 7 WTFS.

In my opinion he is the WTF GOAT.

 

[metsman]

try harder. Best of 5 is not tougher than best of 3 in the context of that tournament (well it is but for Novak it would have made no difference because he would have won anyways) but best of 5 is tougher when talking about playing another tournament starting in a day and also having to play 6 matches to win instead of 5. That's why Federer's 4 are worth as much as Djokovic's 6. Because Federer had to play 6 matches in Toronto and then start in a day at Cincy. Because he had to play best of 5 in Rome and pull out of Hamburg. Because Paris was the week before the WTF. The bigger impact is having to play 6 matches instead of 5 to win a masters and the scheduling...not the b05 final itself.

Federer wins his WTF in best of 3 or best of 5 and being the last event of the year, there is no residual effect. So nice try, but you gotta do better than that.

 

[metsman]

And also the only reason that 2004 wasn't B05 was because of the rain and Federer would have destroyed hewitt in that day in 2 or 3 sets so it seems unfair to penalize him for the rain. Further ripping your argument to shreds, sorry.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Lendl made it to the WTF finals for 9 consecutive years i.e., from 1980-1988, of them he won it 5 times. Many people are not aware of that, in his playing days there used to be 2 types of WTFs, one was Masters Grand Prix (which we call WTF now) and the other one was WCT finals, but after 1989 it was merged into WTF. He won WCT finals twice, so it can be said that he won 7 WTFS.

In my opinion he is the WTF GOAT.

Not to mention the people he faced. Peak Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Connors plus many more. Fed has only really faced Nadal and Djoko.

 

[metsman]

Lendl made it to the WTF finals for 9 consecutive years i.e., from 1980-1988, of them he won it 5 times. Many people are not aware of that, in his playing days there used to be 2 types of WTFs, one was Masters Grand Prix (which we call WTF now) and the other one was WCT finals, but after 1989 it was merged into WTF. He won WCT finals twice, so it can be said that he won 7 WTFS.

In my opinion he is the WTF GOAT.

he definitely has a strong case but you can't double count his titles lol...Fed would have at least 10 if they played two WTF's a year.

 

[metsman]

Not to mention the people he faced. Peak Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Connors plus many more. Fed has only really faced Nadal and Djoko.

he did destroy Agassi in the finals in 2003. Not peak Agassi but still quite good.

 

[xFedal]

he definitely has a strong case but you can't double count his titles lol...Fed would have at least 10 if they played two WTF's a year.

Novak would have about the same if not more.

 

[metsman]

Novak would have about the same if not more.

I didn't say anything about novak...

 

[xFedal]

I didn't say anything about novak...

You said Fed would have won like 10 had there been 2 wtf tournies I said the same about Novak.

 

[user]

for Novak it would have made no difference because he would have won anyways

Thank you.

Federer's 4 are worth as much as Djokovic's 6.

Go on...

best of 5 is tougher when talking about playing another tournament starting in a day and also having to play 6 matches to win instead of 5

Those are/were the ATP rules. No M1000 tournament Djokovic won in 2015 was starting in a day, so Bo5 or Bo3, no problem.

Federer wins his WTF in best of 3 or best of 5 and being the last event of the year, there is no residual effect

Last tournament after long year... Fatigue... Bo5...

Federer would have destroyed hewitt in that day in 2 or 3 sets so it seems unfair to penalize him for the rain. Further ripping your argument to shreds, sorry.

Ripping my arguments with coulda woulda shoulda talk, right? All this empty talk, and you still couldn't answer a simple question.

 

[timnz]

Lendl made it to the WTF finals for 9 consecutive years i.e., from 1980-1988, of them he won it 5 times. Many people are not aware of that, in his playing days there used to be 2 types of WTFs, one was Masters Grand Prix (which we call WTF now) and the other one was WCT finals, but after 1989 it was merged into WTF. He won WCT finals twice, so it can be said that he won 7 WTFS.

In my opinion he is the WTF GOAT.

McEnroe won 8 combined....but didn't have as good a record at the Masters as Lendl

Note Sampras won 7 combined Wtf and grand slam cups (and having seen a lot of the action at the grand slam cup it was at lease as hard to win than the WCT finals)

 

[metsman]

Thank you.



Go on...



Those are/were the ATP rules. No M1000 tournament Djokovic won in 2015 was starting in a day, so Bo5 or Bo3, no problem.



Last tournament after long year... Fatigue... Bo5...



Ripping my arguments with coulda woulda shoulda talk, right? All this empty talk, and you still couldn't answer a simple question.

I don't care about what Djokovic won in 2015. The point is that Fed could have won at least 5-6 in 2006 under the current format with 5 matches instead of 6, more break between tournaments, and bo3 finals. Meanwhile under the current format or Lendl's format Federer doesn't lose any of the WTF that he did win. I suppose you'll pretend not to understand this very simple line of logic as well.

 

[metsman]

I don't care about what Djokovic won in 2015. The point is that Fed could have won at least 5-6 in 2006 under the current format with 5 matches instead of 6, more break between tournaments, and bo3 finals. Meanwhile under the current format or Lendl's format Federer doesn't lose any of the WTF that he did win. I suppose you'll pretend not to understand this very simple line of logic as well.

furthermore fed has won 3 (really 4) YEC after playing a year with B05 masters finals. There is no doubt that he can do it. On the other hand we have never seen Djoker as a top player under the old format of Bo5 finals, less breaks, and 6 matches.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

he did destroy Agassi in the finals in 2003. Not peak Agassi but still quite good.

Yeah true. But Agassi post 2000 was so much worse than in 1990-95.

On paper he was maybe better in 2003 but only because is was a much weaker era he could take advantage of.

 

[Steve0904]

Federer is greater than anybody at the YEC for now, but Djokovic has a solid shot at surpassing Federer before his career is out.

 

[user]

I don't care about what Djokovic won in 2015. The point is that Fed could have won at least 5-6 in 2006 under the current format with 5 matches instead of 6, more break between tournaments, and bo3 finals. Meanwhile under the current format or Lendl's format Federer doesn't lose any of the WTF that he did win. I suppose you'll pretend not to understand this very simple line of logic as well.

Again, this is not between Federer and Djokovic. Different times, different rules.

But, what about that Bo5 2005 final Federer lost? Had it been Bo3, maybe Federer would have won it. But it was not meant to be. Can you guarantee that Federer would have won WTF 2010 or 2011 had it been Bo5, especially 2010 match vs Nadal? I think not.

 

[timnz]

furthermore fed has won 3 (really 4) YEC after playing a year with B05 masters finals. There is no doubt that he can do it. On the other hand we have never seen Djoker as a top player under the old format of Bo5 finals, less breaks, and 6 matches.

1971 was the only year there were 6 matches per player at the Wtf.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

try harder. Best of 5 is not tougher than best of 3 in the context of that tournament (well it is but for Novak it would have made no difference because he would have won anyways) but best of 5 is tougher when talking about playing another tournament starting in a day and also having to play 6 matches to win instead of 5. That's why Federer's 4 are worth as much as Djokovic's 6. Because Federer had to play 6 matches in Toronto and then start in a day at Cincy. Because he had to play best of 5 in Rome and pull out of Hamburg. Because Paris was the week before the WTF. The bigger impact is having to play 6 matches instead of 5 to win a masters and the scheduling...not the b05 final itself.

Federer wins his WTF in best of 3 or best of 5 and being the last event of the year, there is no residual effect. So nice try, but you gotta do better than that.

You cannot blame any side effect for him losing Cincinnati that year. It is not the system's fault that he played 4 consecutive 3 setters against players like Tursunov, Malisse, Gonzo and Gasquet. Underlining that that was peak Federer back then. It is not the system's fault either that he lost to a teenager Murray in the second round.
As for Paris, even if it is the worst ever Masters, it is still more prestigious than some tournament in Basel. But Federer deciding to go for the other is only his problem and not the system's. Not to mention that between Paris and WTF there was also a one week rest just like today.
Giving Federer imaginary bonus Masters in 2006 doesn't help. You can't put any of his Masters seasons level with a record breaking one in 2015.

 

[metsman]

Yeah true. But Agassi post 2000 was so much worse than in 1990-95.

On paper he was maybe better in 2003 but only because is was a much weaker era he could take advantage of.

Agassi is tough to tell. He was pretty bad for stretches of 1990-1993. His peak definitely seems to be 1994-1995 and 1999 but parts of 2003 and 2004 and 2005 USO aren't far off because he's not your standard 33+ year old in terms of mileage on the body.

 

[metsman]

Again, this is not between Federer and Djokovic. Different times, different rules.

But, what about that Bo5 2005 final Federer lost? Had it been Bo3, maybe Federer would have won it. But it was not meant to be. Can you guarantee that Federer would have won WTF 2010 or 2011 had it been Bo5, especially 2010 match vs Nadal? I think not.

You can't guarantee any hypothetical but chances are good yes. Nadal was cooked after the second set after a long SF against Murray and a long season overall while Federer upped his game. He's not losing to Tsonga in 2011...Fed choked the second set and Tsonga hit some crazy shots but Federer was clearly the better player and fatigue was not a factor.

 

[metsman]

You cannot blame any side effect for him losing Cincinnati that year. It is not the system's fault that he played 4 consecutive 3 setters against players like Tursunov, Malisse, Gonzo and Gasquet. Underlining that that was peak Federer back then. It is not the system's fault either that he lost to a teenager Murray in the second round.
As for Paris, even if it is the worst ever Masters, it is still more prestigious than some tournament in Basel. But Federer deciding to go for the other is only his problem and not the system's. Not to mention that between Paris and WTF there was also a one week rest just like today.
Giving Federer imaginary bonus Masters in 2006 doesn't help. You can't put any of his Masters seasons level with a record breaking one in 2015.

In Toronto Federer played 6 matches and then after a travel day had to turn around and play again on Tuesday BECAUSE NO BYE. He was fatigued against Murray, basically playing 7 matches in 8 days and didn't want to compromise his chances for USO. That doesn't happen if he plays 5 matches in Toronto and then gets two days off before playing Murray instead of having to play a first round match. Same deal in Rome Hamburg...6 matches in Rome capped off by an epic 5 setter so there is no way he can turn around and play 6 matches in Hamburg

I'm not adding Paris to federer's tally but under the current format he likely wins Hamburg and Cincy.

 

[metsman]

In Toronto Federer played 6 matches and then after a travel day had to turn around and play again on Tuesday BECAUSE NO BYE. He was fatigued against Murray, basically playing 7 matches in 8 days and didn't want to compromise his chances for USO. That doesn't happen if he plays 5 matches in Toronto and then gets two days off before playing Murray instead of having to play a first round match. Same deal in Rome Hamburg...6 matches in Rome capped off by an epic 5 setter so there is no way he can turn around and play 6 matches in Hamburg

I'm not adding Paris to federer's tally but under the current format he likely wins Hamburg and Cincy.

I was wrong about Paris I thought there was no break but I checked and there was.

 

[metsman]

1971 was the only year there were 6 matches per player at the Wtf.

I meant 6 matches in a week for masters

 

[timnz]

FYI Lendl only played 3 matches to win the Wtf 1982 and only played 4 matches to win the wtf 1985. (Note I am a big Lendl fan - so this doesn't take away from his wins IMHO). Yes the final was BO5 but he played less matches than Federer (in 5 out of 6 of Federer's tournament wins, he won all 5 matches)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Volvo_Masters_–_Singles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Nabisco_Masters_–_Singles

 

[user]

You can't guarantee any hypothetical but chances are good yes. Nadal was cooked after the second set after a long SF against Murray and a long season overall while Federer upped his game. He's not losing to Tsonga in 2011...Fed choked the second set and Tsonga hit some crazy shots but Federer was clearly the better player and fatigue was not a factor.

Bo5 vs Nadal... The bolded part and that Nalbandial 2005 match mean that the following is not not necessarily true.

Meanwhile under the current format or Lendl's format Federer doesn't lose any of the WTF that he did win.

 

[metsman]

Bo5 vs Nadal... The bolded part and that Nalbandial 2005 match mean that the following is not not necessarily true.

fine I should have said likely.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

In Toronto Federer played 6 matches and then after a travel day had to turn around and play again on Tuesday BECAUSE NO BYE. He was fatigued against Murray, basically playing 7 matches in 8 days and didn't want to compromise his chances for USO. That doesn't happen if he plays 5 matches in Toronto and then gets two days off before playing Murray instead of having to play a first round match. Same deal in Rome Hamburg...6 matches in Rome capped off by an epic 5 setter so there is no way he can turn around and play 6 matches in Hamburg

I'm not adding Paris to federer's tally but under the current format he likely wins Hamburg and Cincy.

Again, he cannot blame the system for that one extra match he played, which he won easily. He can blame himself for playing 4 consecutive 3 setters against the players I listed in my previous post. The loss he had at Cincinnati was to a much weaker player (Murray was just a teen back then). Also it was an early loss, not a semi or a final loss, so saying he likely wins Cincy is too much.
About Hamburg, if we say Federer plays there, we should also put Nadal, the guy who contested the epic 5 setter vs Fed in Rome. And I would favor Rafa there if both showed up.
Now that I mentioned it, do you maybe know where to find high quality and longer highlights of that Rome epic?

 

[metsman]

fine I should have said likely.

Federer was also not 100% healthy during the Nalbandian match which was obviously not going to be a factor in 2010 or 2011. He was playing on a bum ankle and his movement was compromised especially after the second set. Fed found a second gear and Nalbandian choked pretty hard to let him back into the 5th set (before Fed choked lol)

 

[metsman]

Again, he cannot blame the system for that one extra match he played, which he won easily. He can blame himself for playing 4 consecutive 3 setters against the players I listed in my previous post. The loss he had at Cincinnati was to a much weaker player (Murray was just a teen back then). Also it was an early loss, not a semi or a final loss, so saying he likely wins Cincy is too much.
About Hamburg, if we say Federer plays there, we should also put Nadal, the guy who contested the epic 5 setter vs Fed in Rome. And I would favor Rafa there if both showed up.
Now that I mentioned it, do you maybe know where to find high quality and longer highlights of that Rome epic?

Yes but with 5 matches even after playing all those 3 setters he would have been much fresher for the Murray match. For example in 2014 Federer played 2 3 setters in Toronto followed by a long 2 set final and then played two straight 3 set matches to start in Cincy and was still fine in a 3 set final because there were 5 matches per tournament and not 6.

They took down some videos of Rome. There's a video of Best Roger's points and 1st-3rd and 4set highlights but that's all I could find.

 

[Tennisanity]

Nope, its about hypocrites trying to fit anything to their theory, like this logic sounds right, lets add weak era.

No, you are incorrect and a little naive.

 

[nolefam_2024]

No, you are incorrect and a little naive.

Sure you would like to believe that. Whatever helps you.

 

[Tennisanity]

Well, you got it wrong. It was meant to be used as a consistency test, but the question is Lendl or Federer, not Federer or Djokovic. We already had more than enough of that.

No, YOU got it wrong. Your agenda is clear.

 

[Tennisanity]

Sure you would like to believe that. Whatever helps you.

I don't believe it, I know it. It doesn't help me, it hurts you.

 

[user]

No, YOU got it wrong. Your agenda is clear.

I don't intend to waste time convincing you. Feel free not to participate in this discussion if you think that way.

 

[Djokovic2011]

try harder. Best of 5 is not tougher than best of 3 in the context of that tournament (well it is but for Novak it would have made no difference because he would have won anyways) but best of 5 is tougher when talking about playing another tournament starting in a day and also having to play 6 matches to win instead of 5. That's why Federer's 4 are worth as much as Djokovic's 6. Because Federer had to play 6 matches in Toronto and then start in a day at Cincy. Because he had to play best of 5 in Rome and pull out of Hamburg. Because Paris was the week before the WTF. The bigger impact is having to play 6 matches instead of 5 to win a masters and the scheduling...not the b05 final itself.

This is all well and good, but one could argue that Fed was three years younger in 2006 than Novak was this year so it all balances out in the end anyway.

 

[metsman]

This is all well and good, but one could argue that Fed was three years younger in 2006 than Novak was this year so it all balances out in the end anyway.

Yeah but you have to look at their places at the career arc. Fed's 28 does not equal Novak's 28 does not equal rafa's 28 does not equal agassi's 28 and so on. Regardless I have no problem admitting Djokovic had a better year at the masters in 2015 than fed in 2006 but you can't say that 2015>2006 because 6 masters > 4 masters. He had the most accomplished year ever outside of Laver 69 but not the greatest imo.

 

[Tennisanity]

I don't intend to waste time convincing you. Feel free not to participate in this discussion if you think that way.

Of course not, since you know you're wrong.

 

[timnz]

This question originates from the 2nd best Open Era season debate. There were some people saying that 2006>2015, and that even though Federer won 4 M1000, they are worth more than Djokovic's 6 , because 3 out of those 4 title matches were Bo5, and Bo5>>>>>>>>>>>>Bo3.

Now, the thing is, I want to compare Lendl to Federer. They have almost identical stats, 4F + 3SF, with Federer having 1 more title. But, Lendl is undefeated in those 5 tournaments he won (sudden death format = more difficult to win logic), while Federer is not (1 RR loss in 2007). Also, all of Lendl's title matches were Bo5, while Federer won 3 out of 6 in Bo5 format. Federer can still add more, but currently, taking all of this into consideration, is 5>6?

(I'm not including Sampras. He does have 5 titles, but believe it or not, every time he won it, he was 2-1 in RR.)

Lendl only played 3 matches to win wtf 1982 and 4 matches to win wtf 1985 (and I don't means wins - I mean total matches that he had to play). Still good wins, but it puts things in perspective if you are comparing it to Federer's wins.

 

[user]

Lendl only played 3 matches to win wtf 1982 and 4 matches to win wtf 1985 (and I don't means wins - I mean total matches that he had to play). Still good wins, but it puts things in perspective if you are comparing it to Federer's wins.

Well, there was no RR, some say it's harder to win it that way. Either way, he didn't lose a single set on those two occasions, and the final was Bo5.

 

[BeatlesFan]

In Toronto Federer played 6 matches and then after a travel day had to turn around and play again on Tuesday BECAUSE NO BYE. He was fatigued against Murray, basically playing 7 matches in 8 days and didn't want to compromise his chances for USO.

And Fed had heat stroke that day, as he's referenced several times since then.

 

[ZYW]

Djokovic's 2015 competition was weaker.

I hope you realise it makes you look like clowns, together with ade edburg and sab .