Ivan Lendl's Career v Roger Feder's Career (NON GS Consistency Only, please)

[NadalAgassi]

Yes, Federer had a stronger field.

Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged ****ty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.

 

[Mustard]

Um.. Federer effectively uses a frame which was available in it's first incarnation in 1983. Since then the changes to it amount to about 2% difference - barely a small change in head size and a paint job, that's it. He also uses strings in the mains which were available since even earlier. Since he did so well in his early career prior to poly strings I'd say he of all current players would adapt to the 80s pretty well.

Tell this story again so it makes more sense.

Federer might be able to adapt, yes, but in the second half of the 1980s, when the power game was taking hold in tennis, you would not have the power or depth that today's game has. Nowhere close.

 

[Candide]

Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged ****ty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.

You left out Safin, Philippoussis, Gonzales, Sampras, Murray, Djokovic and an older, stronger Nadal. Looks like a pretty strong field to me. Far tougher than the names you've mentioned. I think Gonzales alone would have murdered Wilander and Connors let alone Safin. The game has moved on. Only Becker and Edberg and McEnroe would have a chance against the modern players. The rest were just too physically small and weak.

 

[Mustard]

Only Becker and Edberg and McEnroe would have a chance against the modern players. The rest were just too physically small and weak.

No, they just had inferior racquet and string technology. Some people wrongly equate the superior technology of today with meaning that there are better players today.

 

[Gizo]

No it wasn't. It was a simple WS. The gold one was Vienna.

My bad it was an international series event in name but some simple research shows that it had exactly the same ranking point distribution as Vienna and other international series gold tournaments apart from Barcelona and Dubai, i.e. 250 points for the winner, 175 points for the runner-up, 110 points for losing semi-finalists. Plus it had a $1,000,000 prize money pool, and all ISG events either had $1,000,000 or $800,000 prize money pools, so it offered more prize money than tournaments like Vienna.

So with exactly the same (or more) prize money and ranking points on offer we can safely say that it was a precursor to a 500 event before 2009 and wasn't a lesser tournament . And the tournament always attracted strong field with some of the best indoor players on the tour like Nalbandian and Henman playing their regularly, Roddick playing there during his peak in 2003 etc.

 

[Gizo]

Speaking of the subject of this thread Lendl, one thing that was underrated about him was his versatility, not just in terms of his outstanding results on all surfaces, but in terms of how he could vary his playing style.

The guy won majors on hard courts while playing as an aggressive, attacking baseliner that would look to over-power opponents and occasionally chip and charge. He also won majors at Roland Garros primarily playing as a defensive, grinder who would rally all day long from the back of the court and look to outlast his opponents. Plus he nearly won majors at Wimbledon playing as an out and out serve and volleyer that would come to the net on both 1st and 2nd serves.

So he had a lot of success at the big tournaments with 3 radically different playing styles.

 

[veroniquem]

My bad it was an international series event in name but some simple research shows that it had exactly the same ranking point distribution as Vienna and other international series gold tournaments apart from Barcelona and Dubai, i.e. 250 points for the winner, 175 points for the runner-up, 110 points for losing semi-finalists. Plus it had a $1,000,000 prize money pool, and all ISG events either had $1,000,000 or $800,000 prize money pools, so it offered more prize money than tournaments like Vienna.

So with exactly the same (or more) prize money and ranking points on offer we can safely say that it was a precursor to a 500 event before 2009 and wasn't a lesser tournament . And the tournament always attracted strong field with some of the best indoor players on the tour like Nalbandian and Henman playing their regularly, Roddick playing there during his peak in 2003 etc.

Once again. It was NOT a gold. It was a world series and it gave 250 points to the winner (at least the 3 years when Fed won it). It became a 500 (and so gave 500 points to the winner) in 2009. Check the ATP site if you won't take my word for it. (The precursors of the 500 were the "gold" or "CS" and Basel wasn't one. The precursor was Vienna. In 2009, they simply downgraded Vienna and made Basel a 500 instead).

 

[Gizo]

Once again. It was NOT a gold. It was a world series and it gave 250 points to the winner (at least the 3 years when Fed won it). It became a 500 (and so gave 500 points to the winner) in 2009. Check the ATP site if you won't take my word for it. (The precursors of the 500 were the "gold" or "CS" and Basel wasn't one. The precursor was Vienna. In 2009, they simply downgraded Vienna and made Basel in a 500 instead).

Once again, it offered exactly the same ranking points round by round as every single international series gold tournament apart from Barcelona and Dubai, and more prize money than every single European international series gold event apart from Barcelona (those were Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel and Vienna).

Think about it. In 2008 Basel offered exactly the same number of ranking points as Vienna, and over €200,000 more in prize money to its players. Therefore does Basel sound like a smaller tournament than Vienna to you. What are the main incentives for players at these tournaments? Money and ranking points of course.

Roland Garros awarded 1000 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 2000 points from 2009. Indian Wells awarded 500 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 1000 points from 2009. Basel awarded 250 points to the winner from 2000-2008 but doubled that to 500 points from 2009.

So Basel's standing has remained completely unchanged between 2000-2008 and 2009 onwards. It's simple really .

 

[Bobby Jr]

Federer might be able to adapt, yes, but in the second half of the 1980s, when the power game was taking hold in tennis, you would not have the power or depth that today's game has. Nowhere close.

I agree (I assume you were talking about the 80s guys not having the power/depth that today's players have).

The power hitting of today makes the late 80 look like slow motion by comparison. Sure, they could hit amazing cannon winners when they were on the run etc but it's the average rallying pace and depth of modern tennis which would just overwhelm the big hitters of the 80s like Lendl, Becker in general imo.

I don't think Federer would be disadvantaged that much if he suddenly had to play with all natural gut strings or another combo without poly against the likes of Lendl. Perhaps he'd be using gut crossed with kevlar - which would be a different approach to most of the 80s guys.

 

[veroniquem]

Once again, it offered exactly the same ranking points round by round as every single international series gold tournament apart from Barcelona and Dubai, and more prize money than every single European international series gold event apart from Barcelona (those were Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel and Vienna).

Think about it. In 2008 Basel offered exactly the same number of ranking points as Vienna, and over €200,000 more in prize money to its players. Therefore does Basel sound like a smaller tournament than Vienna to you. What are the main incentives for players at these tournaments? Money and ranking points of course.

Roland Garros awarded 1000 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 2000 points from 2009. Indian Wells awarded 500 points to the winner from 2000-2008, but doubled that to 1000 points from 2009. Basel awarded 250 points to the winner from 2000-2008 but doubled that to 500 points from 2009.

So Basel's standing has remained completely unchanged between 2000-2008 and 2009 onwards. It's simple really .

The old point system was quite confusing but its status (ws from 500) changed regardless.

 

[Gizo]

The old point system was quite confusing but its status (ws from 500) changed regardless.

Nope it's ranking points being doubled right across the board as was the case with so many other tournaments, means that its status has remained unchanged. If Basel was a lesser tournament before 2009, it would have awarded 175/200/225 points to its winner like the smaller events did, but it didn't.

It really shouldn't be that difficult for posters here to ignore which players they like/dislike (and which tournaments are strongly associated with their favourite and least favourite players) and actually post objectively through the use of their brain cells .

 

[veroniquem]

well, gold is a superior status to world series regardless of points. In the past, the point system was pretty anarchic. They still had different status (categories) for tournaments for a reason. Otherwise they could have called all of them WS and that's it.

 

[TheFifthSet]

well, gold is a superior status to world series regardless of points. In the past, the point system was pretty anarchic. They still had different status (categories) for tournaments for a reason. Otherwise they could have called all of them WS and that's it.

So by that logic, you can argue Monte Carlo is of lesser value than the other Masters Series. Same points, but it's non-mandatory.

I mean, if you're being consistent it makes sense, right?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed doesn't even have to play best of 5 except in slams. He has it easy compared to Lendl.

 

[Gizo]

well, gold is a superior status to world series regardless of points. In the past, the point system was pretty anarchic. They still had different status (categories) for tournaments for a reason. Otherwise they could have called all of them WS and that's it.

No the international series gold/international series differential was completely meaningless for tournaments like Basel, Vienna, St Petersburg, Tokyo etc. And the 2000-2008 system was very clear.

Basically Basel and St Petersburg were held on the same week as each other and they were both very lucrative optional events. So both tournaments were international series events in status, but international series gold in money and points. In those days optional events either awarded 300, 250, 225, 200 or 175 points to the winner. Basel offered the second highest total possible, so was always considered to be one of the best tournaments outside the slams/masters events. So Vienna was superior to Basel in absolutely no-way whatsover, and in-fact year after year Basel usually got the better fields, despite being sandwiched the week in-between the Madrid and Bercy masters events. I wonder why.

As TheFifthSet has said, if you (wrongly) considered Basel to have been a lesser event from 2006-2008, then you must also consider Monte-Carlo to be a lesser event to the other 8 masters series tournaments nowadays. Consistency needs to be applied regardless of player preferences.

 

[merlinpinpin]

The "counting slams" frenzy started with the Fed era.

Absolutely not. Sampras was the one who started the craze. Of course, he had stopped playing in 2005, so I guess you may be forgiven for forgetting he had even existed.

By the way, Fed won Basel 3 times as a 250 and twice as a 500. It makes a difference imo as it's not the same level of competition.

Definitely. So I guess you must be horrified that Nadal's MC wins are still being counted as legitimate M1000's when this tournament is now non-mandatory and with a much weaker field. Please allow me to sympathize.

 

[jokinla]

And Sampras would kill him for his 1 RG title! Obviously, not many players have won all 4 slams. But one has to admit that the obsession with slams is relatively recent. Even in the 90s, Agassi skipped AO for several years and some players skipped Wimbledon regularly. It didn't seem like such a big deal at the time. The "counting slams" frenzy started with the Fed era.
Anyway, in the case of Lendl, it's true he was desperate to get a W title. But if we're talking about total # of slams won, I don't think it seemed as important at the time as it does now.

Those were clay courters that were protesting their low seeding by not playing, it was a big deal.

And Sampras didn't clear out his schedule on a crusade to win RG the way Lendl did Wimbledon, so I wouldn't say he'd "kill" for it, in the same way that Lendl would have.

 

[joeri888]

What is this place, people arguing over the status of a BASEL TITLE? For Real?

 

[veroniquem]

So by that logic, you can argue Monte Carlo is of lesser value than the other Masters Series. Same points, but it's non-mandatory.

I mean, if you're being consistent it makes sense, right?

I don't follow YOUR logic. I am not following the points, quite the opposite. I'm following the status of the event. Monte-Carlo IS a master. Basel was not a gold, it was a world series.
Anyway, Basel is still Fed's 3rd best event on the tour after Wimbledon and WTF. I guess we can all agree on that.
Fed's 10 best events:
1- Wimbledon: 7w, 1f
2- WTF: 6w, 2f
3- Basel: 5w, 4f
4- Halle: 5w, 2f, 1s
5- Dubai: 5w. 2f
6- USO: 5w, 1f
7- Cincy: 5w
8- AO: 4w, 1f, 4s
9- Hamburg: 4w, 1f
10- IW: 4w, 3s

 

[Mick3391]

Good Stuuf! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics

Take away Roger's GS wins..for the sake of this post...I'd take Ivan Lendl's career any day, all day over Roger Feder's career, week end and week out..for sheer consitency and dominace. No? all with inferior equipment, faster surfaces on every surface, and playingmore tournaments than any other, except for Jimmy Connors, and maybe a few others... LOL

Just saying, at 31, lendl had 89 tournametn wins, to Roger's 77 wins at 31....so Roger, CAN be another Jimmy Connors, in longevity.... Lendl's severe back and disc problems did him in and out in 1994...

These are Tournament WINS ASIDE from his 94 ATP Tournament Wins... LOL

Other singles titles - Draw at least 8 players (37)Year Date Tournament Surface Final opponent Final result Winners prize

IVAN LENDL WINS vs Opponents....aside from the 94 ATP Wins

1980 Sept 10-14 São Paulo - Brazil Invitational Cup Clay
Gene Mayer 6–3, 7–5

1980 Feb 25-27 Genoa - Bitti Bergamo Memorial Carpet
Johan Kriek 6–2, 6–2

1981 Aug 26-30 White Plains - AMF Head Cup [1]
Hard Ilie Năstase W/O $50,000

1981 Nov 23-29 Milan - Master Brooklyn Chewing Gum
[2] Carpet John McEnroe 6–4, 2–6, 6–4 $85,000

1982 Feb 4–7 Toronto - Molson Light Challenge
[3] Carpet John McEnroe 7–5, 3–6, 7–6, 7–5

1982 Oct 19-24 Melbourne - Mazda Super Challenge
[4] Carpet Vitas Gerulaitis 6–2, 6–2, 7–5 $100,000

1982 Nov 30-Dec 5 Antwerp - European Champions' Championship
[5] Carpet John McEnroe 3–6, 7–6, 6–3, 6–3

1983 Jan 10-16 Rosemont - Lite Challenge of Champions
[6] Carpet Jimmy Connors 4–6, 6–4, 7–5, 6–4 $100,000

1984 Jan 30-Feb 5 Toronto - Molson Light Challenge
[7] Carpet Yannick Noah 6–0, 6–2, 6–4 $100,000

1984 Aug 20-26 Jericho - Hamlet Challenge Cup
[8] Hard Andrés Gómez 6–2, 6–4

1984 Nov 12-18 Antwerp - European Champions' Championship
[9] Carpet Anders Järryd 6–2, 6–1, 6–2 $200,000

1985 Aug 19-25 Jericho - Executone Hamlet Challenge Cup
[10] Hard Jimmy Connors 6–1, 6–3

1985 Oct 28-Nov 3 Antwerp - European Champions' Championship
[11] Carpet John McEnroe 1–6, 7–6, 6–2, 6–2 $200,000*

1986 Jan 6-12 Atlanta - AT&T Challenge of Champions
[12] Carpet Jimmy Connors 6–2, 6–3 $150,000

1986 Apr 28-May 4 Ede - Audi Championship Clay Stefan Edberg 7–6, 6–3

1986 Aug 19-24 Jericho - Norstar Bank Hamlet Challenge Cup
[13] Hard John McEnroe 6–2, 6–4

1987 May 7–10 Ede - Audi Championship Clay Paolo Canè 7–6, 6–3

1987 Jul 22-26 Stowe - Head Classic[14] Hard Jimmy Arias 6–3, 6–3

1987 Oct 27-Nov 1 Antwerp - European Community Championship
[15] Carpet Miloslav Mečíř 5–7, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3 $250,000

1988 Jan 7-10 Gold Coast - Sanctuary Cove Classic Hard
Wally Masur 6–7, 7–6, 6–4

1988 April 28-May 1 Atlanta - AT&T Challenge of Champions
[16] Clay (Har-Tru) Stefan Edberg 2–6, 6–1, 6–3 $150,000

1989 Dec 28-Jan 1 Newcastle - N.S.W. Invitational Hard
Carl-Uwe Steeb 6–3, 7–6

1989 Feb 6-12 Chicago - Volvo Tennis Carpet Brad Gilbert 6–2, 7–6

1989 Aug 21-27 Jericho - Norstar Bank Hamlet Challenge Cup
[17] Hard Mikael Pernfors 4–6, 6–2, 6–4

1989 Oct 2–7 Stuttgart - Eurocard Classic[18] Carpet
Miloslav Mečíř 6–3, 4–6, 4–6, 6–1, 6–4

1989 Oct 19-22 Essen - Germany Invitational Carpet
Miloslav Mečíř 6–4, 6–2

1989 Oct 23-29 Antwerp - European Community Championship
[19] Carpet Miloslav Mečíř 6–2, 6–2, 1–6, 6–4 $250,000

1990 Jun 4-10 Beckenham - Kent Grass Court Championships Grass
Darren Cahill 6–3, 7–5

1990 Aug 20-26 Forest Hills, New York - WCT Tournament of Champions Hard Aaron Krickstein 6–4, 6–7, 6–3 $100,000

1990 Oct 17-21 Hong Kong - Marlboro Championships
[20] Carpet Michael Chang 1–6, 6–2, 6–1, 6–2 $200,000

1991 Jan 2–6 Salamander Bay - Roche Racquet Classic Hard
Carl-Uwe Steeb 6–4, 6–2

1991 Jun 3–9 Beckenham - Kent Grass Court Championships Grass
Pat Cash 3–6, 7–6, 7–6

1991 Oct 16-20 Hong Kong - Marlboro Championships[21] Carpet
David Wheaton 6–3, 7–5, 6–1 $200,000

1992 Jul 27-Aug 2 Boston - U.S. Pro Championships Hard
Richey Reneberg 6–3, 6–3

1992 Oct 19-25 Hong Kong - Marlboro Championships Carpet
Michael Chang 6–3, 4–6, 6–4, 6–4 $200,000

1993 Jul 13-18 Boston - U.S. Pro Championships Hard
Todd Martin 5–7, 6–3, 7–6

1994 Jul 12-17 Boston - U.S. Pro Championships Hard
Malivai Washington 7–5, 7–6

1981 Nov 4–5 Calcutta - Indian Classic Cup Hard
John Alexander 6–4, 6–2

1981 Nov 7–8 Jakarta - Indonesian Grand Prix Tennis Hard
Wojciech Fibak 6–1, 7–6, 9–7

1984 February San Juan - Governors Cup (Porto Rico) - 4-men exhibition ? Gene Mayer 6–3, 6–2 $80,000

1984 Apr 7–8 Tokyo - Suntory Cup
[22] Carpet John McEnroe 6–4, 3–6, 6–2 $110,000

1985 Apr 20-21 Tokyo - Suntory Cup
[23] Carpet John McEnroe 6–4, 6–2 $110,000

1985 Oct 8–9 East Rutherford - The Members Only Meadowlands Tennis Challenge[24] Hard John McEnroe 7–5, 6–4

1985 Nov 21-23 Canberra - Rio International Challenge Carpet
Tim Mayotte 6–4, 6–4

1987 May 5–6 Barcelona - Royal Polo Club
[25] Clay John McEnroe 6–2, 3–6, 6–2

1987 Nov 25-29 West Palm Beach - The Stakes Matches
[26] Hard Pat Cash 11–21, 21–18, 21–7, 22–20 $583,200

1988 Jul 21-24 Monterrey - Hartmarx Racquet Club Apparel Tennis Classic Hard Kevin Curren 6–4, 7–6

1989 May 27–28 Marseille - Charity Matches Invitational
[27] Clay Andre Agassi 6–3, 6–3

1989 Oct 24-25 Bologna - All Stars Tennis Classic Carpet John McEnroe 6–4, 7–5

1990 Nov 10-11 Rome - Big Four Tennis Carpet Stefan Edberg 5–7, 7–6, 7–6

1990 Nov 12 Milan - Muratti Shoot Out Tie-Break Carpet
Jonas Svensson 7–5, 5–7, 7–4

1990 Dec 3–5 Bolzano - Ebel Tennis Trophy Carpet
Goran Ivanišević 6–2, 7–6

1990 Dec 8–9 Zürich - Swiss Invitational Tennis Cup Carpet
Pete Sampras 3–6, 7–6, 6–4


Now compare with Roger Feder's Career, (NON GS Wins)..... Pretty dominant? No? now you see Roger has a long ways to go... just saying... yes 17 GS is better than Lendl's 8...No question about it. NONE! Today's tennis fans and players have NO comprehension how difficult and FUN tennis was in the 80's PRE-Sampras era... just saying, using Today's players, with advanced technology, SLOWER courts all around...the players of the 80's era, had more challenges, tougher draws and faster surfaces, and smaller racquets to achieve more than most players are achieving still today... What Lendl did in the 80's is utter DOMINANCNE..not only did he win 94 ATP Tirels, but look at all the OTHER TITLES he WON outside of the ATP...is mindboggling....

Jimmy Connors has more overall wins....utter dominance. Connors and Lendl were FREAKS!!
Also Connors as he got older and slower got larger and larger racquets to stay in the game to compete with the younger players...so he played longer....

Discuss. Is Roger Feder GOAT, most likey, yes...does Roger have more GS than ANYONE? Absolutely. But is he as consistent as Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl were, year end and year out? Utter domiance? ? Nope. Not even close.

It's so hard to compare one to the next, you have different surfaces, equipment, opponents, etc.

It's common for Mexican boxers to have their first world title fight with records of 70+ wins and many national titles against an American with only 30 fights, only to get blown out.

I don't judge because of how many Grand Slams, too many variables, for example if Nadal wasn't around and the surfaces were faster Fed would probably have more GS's. I'm sure there are many other factors for the older guys who would give them more or less GS's.

Marciano was undefeated, but one of the worse Heavyweight Champs, in comparison to other Champs who lost.

I have no clue who the GOAT is. Too many variables, I mean what if Mac started as a child training with modern equipment, and played today? Would Fed be Fed is he grew up in the 60's-70's?

Just my two cents

 

[TheFifthSet]

I don't follow YOUR logic. I am not following the points, quite the opposite. I'm following the status of the event. Monte-Carlo IS a master. Basel was not a gold, it was a world series.

But the fact that it is non-mandatory and the others ARE mandatory (every other one), says something about its' status, right?

Do you think a player would base their decision on playing Basel vs. playing another event that had the same amount of points and similar prize money, on the fact that it's not a Gold?

Same points, equal/better prize money, considerable prestige (many great players have played it over the years). Very little discrepancy, if any.

 

[veroniquem]

But the fact that it is non-mandatory and the others ARE mandatory (every other one), says something about its' status, right?

Do you think a player would base their decision on playing Basel vs. playing another event that had the same amount of points and similar prize money, on the fact that it's not a Gold?

Same points, equal/better prize money, considerable prestige (many great players have played it over the years). Very little discrepancy, if any.

The status is the category to which the event belongs. I couldn't care less if it's mandatory or not + none of the 500 are mandatory, so it's totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Lots of top players skip supposedly mandatory events for various reasons. That has nothing to do with the status. There are 4 slams and 9 masters, period.

 

[joeri888]

I don't follow YOUR logic. I am not following the points, quite the opposite. I'm following the status of the event. Monte-Carlo IS a master. Basel was not a gold, it was a world series.
Anyway, Basel is still Fed's 3rd best event on the tour after Wimbledon and WTF. I guess we can all agree on that.
Fed's 10 best events:
1- Wimbledon: 7w, 1f
2- WTF: 6w, 2f
3- Basel: 5w, 4f
4- Halle: 5w, 2f, 1s
5- Dubai: 5w. 2f
6- USO: 5w, 1f
7- Cincy: 5w
8- AO: 4w, 1f, 4s
9- Hamburg: 4w, 1f
10- IW: 4w, 3s

Objectively, yes. But in truth, I'd rate his performances at the FO over Hamburg. If he faced Nadal in his Hamburg finals, than he'd not won them either. It's just a matter of Rafa showing up. I think Federer has performed exceptional over the years at Roland Garros.

But I get your point of course. You just look at results.

 

[veroniquem]

I get your point too joeri. 2 of those years in Hamburg, Rafa didn't play. By the way, sorry for the off topic here but that mandatory business for the super 9 is not working very well. I've noticed this season that only 10 out of the top 30 players played all 9 masters ( Djoko, Berd, Tipsy, Raonic, Cilic, Dolgo, Kohl, Seppi, F. Mayer and Melzer) . Murray, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monaco and Simon played only 8 (and apart from Gasquet, M-C was not the one they skipped). Ferrer, Delpo, Almagro, Isner, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Querrey, Verdasco and Youzhny played only 7 (and for a number of those M-C was not even one of the 2 skipped), Federer played 6 and of course Nadal and Fish played less but not of their own willing +Haas.
They try to force the top guns but the players still do pretty much as they like .

 

[veroniquem]

On second thoughts, Fed beat Nadal at Madrid and Hamburg but not at RG. Just for that reason, it would seem legit to have Hamburg on the list rather than RG...

 

[powerangle]

Thans Gizo!

No one is saying lendl is better than roger....but if Grand Slams did NOT exist....now put both their careers next to each other.....Lendl would have kicked rogers a s s upband down the courts...

Also Roger Federer has NEVER ever played the fast courts of the 80's and never will. All the tennis tournaments back in the 80s played waaay far much faster than any current player has even tried....AO was faster...W was faster...FO was faster and USO was faster....and the racquets were far inferior and smaller than todays tech....

So simply remove GS from the equation.....Pretend they didnt exist....Lendls career blows Federers career into the weeds... fact. Just saying...

But if slams did not exist, how do you know that Roger wouldn't have focused on the smaller titles more? Altered his focus, etc? If GS did not exist, Roger would have likely won many more smaller titles as well (instead of gearing up to win the bigger prizes).

And also...if Roger played back in Lendl's era, how do you know that Roger wouldn't have adapted to the different surfaces better?

It's difficult to compare two players from such different eras.

Also, let me show you why this comparison is also unfair: You are comparing a GS heavy era (in the eyes of fans/spectators, aka the current era), versus a not-so heavy GS era (back in Lendl's time, when GS wasn't viewed the same way as it is right now). You are asking to strip away Roger's slam victories, when the focus of this era is totally different from back then. Why don't you compare them the other way around then?? Strip away all the smaller tournies and only compare the slams?? Not so fair for Lendl then is it??

Lendl may look more dominant in smaller tournaments because the focus was different back then. Roger may look more dominant in bigger tournaments because the focus is different these days. Can't really compare. You can't say that Roger wouldn't have been as feared as or even more feared than Lendl, if Roger played back then (and focused on day-in-day out smaller tournaments as well).

 

[RF20Lennon]

Lendl might have been more consistent but Id still take FEDs ANYDAY. Made way more money, has the biggest fan base in the tennis world! Im good with that

 

[RF-17-GOAT]

So you're saying if you take away MJ's 6 rings, then Mcgrady is better?

 

[zagor]

Lendl might have been more consistent...

Yes, in smaller tourneys, they're roughly equal at masters (or the equivalent of it in Lendl's day) with Fed being the clear winner when it comes to slams (notice that the OP put NON GS consistency only, even he realizes that)

Made way more money, has the biggest fan base in the tennis world!

Of all the relevant factors in which Fed's career eclipses Lendl's you name two with absolutely zero relevance when debating who's the better/greater player of the two.

Somewhat strange, especially for a supposed Fed fan.

Im good with that

You're good with Fed having lots of money and many fans?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

That's just an opinion, not a fact.

TheFifthSet made a logical point, but it is no surprise you will say anything to defend Federer's questionable place in history.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged ****ty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.

All good points he has denied in past threads. Yeah...Roddick? Hewitt? eternal majors washout Nalbandian? quite funny indeed.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Some people wrongly equate the superior technology of today with meaning that there are better players today.

Well said, Mustard.

 

[tennis_pro]

Thans Gizo!

No one is saying lendl is better than roger....but if Grand Slams did NOT exist....now put both their careers next to each other....

Stopped reading after this.

 

[TMF]

You left out Safin, Philippoussis, Gonzales, Sampras, Murray, Djokovic and an older, stronger Nadal. Looks like a pretty strong field to me. Far tougher than the names you've mentioned. I think Gonzales alone would have murdered Wilander and Connors let alone Safin. The game has moved on. Only Becker and Edberg and McEnroe would have a chance against the modern players. The rest were just too physically small and weak.

Fed detractors always left out the important facts. And/or they just have tunnel vision.

 

[TMF]

TheFifthSet made a logical point, but it is no surprise you will say anything to defend Federer's questionable place in history.

Sure. And notorious Fed detractor like you will support anything that's against Federer.

I'm sure you think highly of Lendl's who said Fed/Nadal are way better than them.

 

[TheFifthSet]

That's just an opinion, not a fact.

Of course it's an opinion.

But why, then, did you say, "Federers competition was better" ? That's just an opionion, too.

You said it in a pretty matter-of-fact way. It's clearly far more layered than that.

With that said it's no comparison to me, I think Federer is for sure a more dominant champ than Lendl, and a better player, but to say so casually that Federer had tougher competition is dubious. Both eras had a plethora of great players.

 

[merlinpinpin]

The OP is a bit like saying "Take away clay, and I would take Becker's career over Nadal's any day"... :roll:

 

[Mick3391]

The OP is a bit like saying "Take away clay, and I would take Becker's career over Nadal's any day"... :roll:

Yea, it's like saying "Just take away Ali's titles and compare him with .....".

If Fed played on the faster courts Becker enjoyed he'd have an even more impressive recored.

Sometimes I think these comparisons are useless. I mean "If all Tennis were on clay, Rafael Nadal would be the greatest of all time".

I think the way they do it is not necessarily accurate, but as close as we can get, that is taking in wins, finals, competition, equipment, and most of all what other players say. When I see Borg, Mac, Conners, etc. all saying Fed is the GOAT, I tend to believe them because they see things we don't see.

Fed is so versatile, can play baseline, S&V, such a winning and near win record, LOOKS so great, it's hard to place others above him. Problem is, just like with boxers, people get emotionally attached to someone and that's it. Some will always say Marciano, or Louis, or Dempsey, others Ali. Only way to find out is to have them compete against each other, which is impossible, everything else is speculation.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

All good points he has denied in past threads. Yeah...Roddick? Hewitt? eternal majors washout Nalbandian? quite funny indeed.

Marat Safin and Fernando Gonzalez would murder all of them, Roddick and Hewitt would struggle but I think they would win a fair share of matches against them.

 

[TMF]

Of course it's an opinion.

But why, then, did you say, "Federers competition was better" ? That's just an opionion, too.

You said it in a pretty matter-of-fact way. It's clearly far more layered than that.

With that said it's no comparison to me, I think Federer is for sure a more dominant champ than Lendl, and a better player, but to say so casually that Federer had tougher competition is dubious. Both eras had a plethora of great players.

I never said it was a fact, but agree with Sabratha, and Lendl who said current field is stronger than in the 80s. I disagree with you and especially Thundervolley, who uses your opinion to claim the current competition doesn't come close to Lendl's competition.

TheFifthSet's post on page one illustrates just how grand Lendl's competition was throughout his career. This generation does not come close, and the idea of anyone trying to sell that is comedy at best.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Smaller racquets, inferior technology, and Lendl thrashes Federer's career in a landslide...

If you have the same tech and racket cicumstances as your competition/contemporaries, this is totally irrelevant for the comparison. And still, Federer plays a relatively old school racket in comparison to his contemporaries (not that it matters).
Is lendlmac darknight by any chance? He has the same nonsical, unsubstantial, repetitive, ranting air about him.
"Lendl thrashes Federers career", funny stuff. And selfcontradictory (Lendl does not thrash Federers career, but if...then he thrashes Federers career), very darknightish.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Lendl s not chasing Federer folks

No he is trailing him, in innumerous ways. But still, a great player who won more tourneys than Federer.

 

[lendlmac]

Still true, Federer's forehand today would not have been used in the 80's as the racquet technoligy and that Federer technique using a 90 sq in frame with Luxillon strings didn't allow that racquet head speed around the shoulder using natural gut or synthetic gut....

So Roger's game woudl have been "toned down" immensely..and woudl have been a serve and vollier ala stefan edberg...without that whipping forehand.

Lendl's forehand was the best in the game in the 80's, and Agassi had the best forehand in the 90's.... and Federers forehand of 2005-2012 is alien to the 80's and 90's forehands...

I do see Federer playing like Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Pat Cash, Derrick Rostagno, Guy Forget and Tim Mayotte-ese style of player...

So Federer would have won his share of GS, but Lendl woudl still have dominated the 80's, naturally...that is given.... but Federer woudl have cometed with the likes of Tim Mayotte, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Agassi and Chang.... while Lendl competes with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Noah, Mecir, Wilander, Perfors, Gilbert etc...

 

[lendlmac]

All good points he has denied in past threads. Yeah...Roddick? Hewitt? eternal majors washout Nalbandian? quite funny indeed.

After careful research in tothe career of Federer.. Federers' game is better more suited to the 90's style of play, where baseline tennis was overtaking serve and volley tennis of the 80's... Federer and nadal and Djokovic woudl have THIRVED in the 90's.

90's Tennis

Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Wheaton, Martin and Ivanisevic, Berasetugi, Brugera, Muster, Kaflenkov, Stich, Kriajeck, Enquist, Rios, Henman, Ferriera, Rusedski, Rafter, Kucera, Rosset, Medvedev, Woodbridge, Phillpousis


80's Tennis

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would have been burried and burned by the overwhelmingly fast , slick courts and fast serve and volley tennis of this Golden Era of Tennis....I do not se Federer "hanging with the Big Boys of the 80's:

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Gerulitis, Mecir, Becker, Edberg, Gilbert, Forget, Noah, Cash, Jarryd, Curren, Krickstein, Mayotte, Leconte, Vilas, Clerc, Pernfors

 

[cork_screw]

This is coming from someone who has "lendl" in their user name. Don't you find it kinda strange that he's trying to convince you of how lendl has a better career than roger. And to make his argument at all digestible, he needs to take out the Grand Slam consideration. LOL

Yeah, that's like comparing Kobe Bryant to Kendall Gill minus the championship rings. Some of these threads are just plain ********. If you have a bias towards anything, PLEASE don't let it get in the way of thinking.

 

[JohnnyCracker]

take away all the losses Lendl would be undefeated :mrgreen:

 

[tudwell]

Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged ****ty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.

While your point stands, you're definitely exaggerating. You conveniently leave off Agassi from Federer's list while including Connors for Lendl's. Agassi was 34 and 35 in 2004 and 2005, respectively, both years Federer dominated with Agassi consistently in the top ten. Connors, on the other hand, was 33, 34, and 35 in 1985, 1986, and 1987, respectively, all years that Lendl dominated with Connors consistently in the top ten. So they are very comparable when looking at Federer's and Lendl's respective peaks. You also leave off Safin, who was playing very well in 2004 and 2005 and who we all know was more talented than his two slams show. Another glaring omission is Djokovic, who established himself as a top player in 2007 while Federer was still in his streak of weeks at number one.

Even so, though, a field of McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors consistently performing at a high level is stronger than one with Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin consistently performing at a high level. But throwing in Nalbandian and Ljubicic in there as if they were ever some of Federer's top competition is silly. It's like calling Lendl's era weak because Anders Jarryd and Kevin Curren were each in the top five for a while.

 

[sbengte]

Lendl, like Federer dominated the field across multiple generations. One tends to forget that Becker and Edberg who were considered among Lendl's main rivals were 6-8 years younger to him. Similar to Djoko-Murray-Delpo being as many years younger than Fed.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Still true, Federer's forehand today would not have been used in the 80's as the racquet technoligy and that Federer technique using a 90 sq in frame with Luxillon strings didn't allow that racquet head speed around the shoulder using natural gut or synthetic gut....

Wrong, Federer basically hit the ball the same way with his 85 all gut racket. And if you want to see heavy hitting with a 85 and syn gut, look at Courier. Wrong to the point of funny, actually.