Lendl needed Wimbledon

[Deleted member 688153]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Maybe it's why he lost the desire to coach Murray.

He finally kinda got it.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Maybe it's why he lost the desire to coach Murray.

He finally kinda got it.

I felt really happy for both of them when Murray won Wimbledon last year (with Lendl as coach), just for that reason.

 

[realplayer]

With the much slower surface nowadays Lendl would have won wimbledon three times already. He was unlucky that grass was superfast in his days.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Grass is for cows lol

 

[helloworld]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

I agree that Wimbledon is the most important tournament, but the French is probably on par or even less important than the US Open.

 

[Strobe Lights]

With the much slower surface nowadays Lendl would have won wimbledon three times already. He was unlucky that grass was superfast in his days.

Yeah, it is another one of these factors that makes even Open era only arguments difficult.

Rafa has struggled at times during the first week of Wimbledon even on the new grass. Would Rafa have won Wimbledon on the grass of the 80's? Unlikely. But on today's grass, he is a 2-time champions and 5-time finalist.

Would Lendl have won Wimbledon on today's grass? Likely. But on old grass, he is only a 2-time finalist.

So you can look at it one way, in that Lendl did not win Wimbledon and that's it. Or another, the fact that Lendl had to alter his game and managed to reach 2 finals on super-fast grass is a sign of his greatness.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

Well Lendl wouldn't be in top 5 even with a Wimbledon title. With no title, you're right, he's not even in the conversation.

 

[Mustard]

Lendl did absolutely everything in his power to win Wimbledon. It became his holy grail, and he failed.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Lendl is the 5th best player of the open era. He's career exceeds McEnroe, Connors and Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I like Lendl. Would have loved to see him win.

I guess he kind of did...through Murray.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Philstar ur assuming too much.Each era is different.You cant say that without it happening.

 

[hoodjem]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

Former Pro Player section?

 

[bluetrain4]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

Lendl never was in the GOAT or Top 5 conversation. I've never even heard anyone argue that. Yes, he is one of the "greats" of the game, but not a GOAT candidate or a Top 5 contender. So, your view isn't any different than generally everyone's view.

 

[helloworld]

Lendl never was in the GOAT or Top 5 conversation. I've never even heard anyone argue that. Yes, he is one of the "greats" of the game, but not a GOAT candidate or a Top 5 contender. So, your view isn't any different than generally everyone's view.

Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal already took that spot. Lendl is tier 2 at best.

 

[CEvertFan]

Lendl felt he needed to transform into a serve/volley player to win Wimbledon and tried his absolute best to do that but it just wasn't his game and I honestly feel he went too extreme. If he had picked his spots and was just more aggressive, both off the ground and when given the opportunity to come to the net I think he might have had a better chance.

He played so out of his comfort zone that it hurt him more than helped him IMO.

That said, he was and still is one of my all time favorite players.

 

[newpball]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me.

I can understand Lendl is not happy with that but why is that troubling you?

Over 99.99999% of the population, and I assume that includes you, has not won Wimbledon either. :grin:

 

[bluetrain4]

Lendl felt he needed to transform into a serve/volley player to win Wimbledon and tried his absolute best to do that but it just wasn't his game and I honestly feel he went too extreme. If he had picked his spots and was just more aggressive, both off the ground and when given the opportunity to come to the net I think he might have had a better chance.

He played so out of his comfort zone that it hurt him more than helped him IMO.

That said, he was and still is one of my all time favorite players.

And, it sort of was a monumental achievement to make those two finals. He suffered fairly bad losses in those finals, but beat some great players along the way. And, he was in 5!! additional Wimbledon semifinals.

Totally agree on the strategy. He could have served and volleyed less, and and been more of a serve-big ground stroke (or two)-volley type player, with some pure serve and volley thrown in from time to time. Though, that's easy for me to say now. Lendl probably would have loved the switch to all rye grass.

 

[Fedinkum]

Had Ivan not ignored Wimbie earlier in his career, he would have at least a win, he had himself to blame only. He also had to compete with really good grass court players (Edberg, Becker, & Cash) when he decided to take Wimbie more seriously, but by then, it was too late.

 

[big ted]

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.

why do you think roland garros is more prestigious than the us open? i think alot of people would agree wimbledon is the most important, but not that RG is 2nd.

 

[newpball]

why do you think roland garros is more prestigious than the us open? i think alot of people would agree wimbledon is the most important, but not that RG is 2nd.

I happen to be one of those people who think that Roland Garros is number two.

And when we talk about prestige, it is not a coincidence the word is French.

Furthermore we all know that tennis has French roots.

 

[helloworld]

I happen to be one of those people who think that Roland Garros is number two.

And when we talk about prestige, it is not a coincidence the word is French.

Furthermore we all know that tennis has French roots.

There's a good argument to be discussed regarding the prestige between the US Open and The French. However, saying that Roland Garros is easily the second most important is just wrong.

 

[newpball]

However, saying that Roland Garros is easily the second most important is just wrong.

In these matters there is not really a right or wrong, it is merely a matter of opinion.

I think the US open has far less tradition than Roland Garros. Think logos, venues, culture and society etc.

How many places has the US open been played? So much for tradition!

I am telling you if some mogul comes with a big bag of dollars they wouldn't mind moving it to Vegas with laser lights following each ball. :grin:

 

[CEvertFan]

And, it sort of was a monumental achievement to make those two finals. He suffered fairly bad losses in those finals, but beat some great players along the way. And, he was in 5!! additional Wimbledon semifinals.

Totally agree on the strategy. He could have served and volleyed less, and and been more of a serve-big ground stroke (or two)-volley type player, with some pure serve and volley thrown in from time to time. Though, that's easy for me to say now. Lendl probably would have loved the switch to all rye grass.

I totally agree with you. Lendl never had trouble with the court speed (he was a beast indoors and carpet was often as fast if not faster then old fast grass) but I left a couple of thoughts out in my earlier post which could have been a factor as well:

1). Lendl didn't always adjust well to bad bounces which was pretty common on the old fast grass. Bad bounces don't seem as common now with the new slower, hardier grass they use now.

2). His coach Tony Roche was an old school serve/volleyer and probably told Lendl that you can't win Wimbledon as a baseliner.

 

[7zero]

Grass is for cows lol

.. and goats too

 

[Tennis_Bum]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

Somehow, I think Lendl is fine with all of his accomplishments even though you don't think he's that great. Who the hell are you anyway posting all of this craps about your view about GOAT?

 

[Raphael]

I agree that Wimbledon is the most important tournament, but the French is probably on par or even less important than the US Open.

I'd say:

1) Wimbledon
2) US Open
3) French Open
4) Australian Open

 

[heninfan99]

Like Mac's lack of a French?

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT, or even top 5 conversation in my eyes without this trophy. I really do believe that in terms of prestige, the other 3 slams are secondary to WIM, although any won over and above the first count the same as the others, one must win Wimbledon at least once to be in the conversation.

RG is easily the second most important in my view, but is still secondary to The Championships.
Also, in Lendl's defence, he did make the finals there twice, which is better than Sampras at the French.

This is obviously just my opinion, so feel free to disagree, of course.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I like Wimbledon, but how on Earth can Wimbledon be the consensus most prestigious major when (a) nobody grows up playing grass tennis, (b) barely any grass tennis is played at the professional level, and (c) the game has shifted almost entirely away from the style that is favored on grass courts?

You can say Wimbledon (and grass) is the most prestigious, but facts seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Arafel]

I totally agree with you. Lendl never had trouble with the court speed (he was a beast indoors and carpet was often as fast if not faster then old fast grass) but I left a couple of thoughts out in my earlier post which could have been a factor as well:

1). Lendl didn't always adjust well to bad bounces which was pretty common on the old fast grass. Bad bounces don't seem as common now with the new slower, hardier grass they use now.

2). His coach Tony Roche was an old school serve/volleyer and probably told Lendl that you can't win Wimbledon as a baseliner.

To be fair regarding your second point, in Lendl's era that was true. People remember that Borg won five straight Wimbledon's, but they forget that he was serving and volleying an awful lot in those matches. Connors did too in his four Wimbledon finals. Wimbledon didn't really become a baseline event until the grass was changed before the 2002 final, and then all of a sudden Hewitt was contesting it with Nalbandian. Before that, almost all winners save one (Agassi) were serving and volleying a majority of the time.

 

[Xavier G]

Lendl was a great player, but he's not a Best Ever candidate. Back in his day, there were just too many elite serve and volleyers around at Wimbledon. Different times. If he were around in this era, he might have picked up a Wimbledon title.

 

[slice bh compliment]

Lendl was undeniably a great champion, but his lack of Wimbledon is actually a huge deal for me. It is the most important championship in the sport, and there is no way he can be in the GOAT....

YES, Wimbledon is the cathedral of the sport.
But, ivan lendl ... GOAT? Nah. Even he and his family would not expect to be in that conversation.
^truth^

I admire Lendl, but i actively remember rooting for mac, Edberg, cashy and becker all those years at wimbledon. Lendl had to be a fighter in a tough era. Tough crowd, too. But what a bad-***** player. Respekt.
GOAT? Nope.

He is a notch above wilander, who also won everything but wimbledon.
As for mac never winning rg or oz...yeah, definite holes in the resume, but he makes up for it with seven dubs slams and some davis cup heroics.

As for federer, no davis cup...that is a gaping hole.
Connors, no french, sadly. The 1974 ban from rg.
Nastase could have won wimbledon amid the boycott of 73, but did not.

Ok, back to lendl... He would get a kick out of being mentioned by the OP. I am guessing still cringes at the pressure he out on himself at wimbledon, in the same way mac regrets letting the 1984 rg final slip.

 

[jrepac]

And, it sort of was a monumental achievement to make those two finals. He suffered fairly bad losses in those finals, but beat some great players along the way. And, he was in 5!! additional Wimbledon semifinals.

Totally agree on the strategy. He could have served and volleyed less, and and been more of a serve-big ground stroke (or two)-volley type player, with some pure serve and volley thrown in from time to time. Though, that's easy for me to say now. Lendl probably would have loved the switch to all rye grass.

He probably would not have had to S&V on today's slower grass. The game has slowed down considerably overall.....slower grass, slow clay, slower hard courts, etc. Lendl would be a happy camper. As noted, he was stuck facing off against some incredibly strong fast court players...aside from Cash, he lost to multiple Wimbledon title winners. So, I've always said he was a bit unlucky.

 

[Mainad]

I like Wimbledon, but how on Earth can Wimbledon be the consensus most prestigious major when (a) nobody grows up playing grass tennis, (b) barely any grass tennis is played at the professional level, and (c) the game has shifted almost entirely away from the style that is favored on grass courts?

You can say Wimbledon (and grass) is the most prestigious, but facts seem to suggest otherwise.

History and tradition! Wimbledon is the Granddaddy of ALL tennis tournaments the world over. Simply put, there would be no tennis at all if it weren't for Wimbledon, at least not of the kind we see being played today!

All other tennis tournaments follow in Wimbledon's wake which is why, despite the fact that all the other big tennis events have long since abandoned the original surface it was meant to be played on, Wimbledon continues to remain by majority consensus, 'primus inter pares' of all tennis tournaments!

 

[slice bh compliment]

I like Wimbledon, but how on Earth can Wimbledon be the consensus most prestigious major when (a) nobody grows up playing grass tennis, (b) barely any grass tennis is played at the professional level, and (c) the game has shifted almost entirely away from the style that is favored on grass courts?

You can say Wimbledon (and grass) is the most prestigious, but facts seem to suggest otherwise.

I see your point. I wish i could play on grass more!
Imho....Based on your facts, grass is the least common surface. This is different from prestige. In a way, your argument that grass is uncommon and unfamiliar makes me feel it is more prestigious.

To the point....
Based on player opinion over the generations, and among current players and coaches, wimbledon is seen as the most prestigious tournament.

I grew up in the us. Going to see the open at Forest hills was the best! Flushing, too. I realize roland garros is equally prestigious in the minds of some europeans and some south americans. The oz open is huge, too, especially since the nineties. All four are the big four...Same/similar cash, same cache in terms of slam cred....but wimbledon is the cathedral. The keepers of the book. The augusta national of tennis. Even racquetball, squash and table tennis people feel a lump in their throats when they see wimbledon.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Lendl was a victim of being in the wrong era with the wrong kind of game.

He would've been better suited to play in today's baseline-dominant game.

If you put Mcenroe or any serve-and-volley in today's era, they will not win Wimbledon. Vice verca, If you transport Federer and particularly Nadal back to the serve-and-volley era, they wouldn't have won Wimbledon.

I think of all the all-time greats, Lendl had the toughest task. Just look at the caliber of his opponents in the majority of his Slam Finals: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, and Edberg.

Tell me who else had to face that kind of caliber?

I agree. The worst part is that when some where fading, other where rising. And he was meeting them on surfaces that suited them!

Nadal had it tough too with Federer and Djokovic in so many finals, but he had a huge match up advantage against Federer and played a lot of these finals on his ground. Still, having to go through Federer in 2005-2009 and Djokovic in 2011-20.. is pretty impressive.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

IMO the only way the to pick the tier 1 open era greats is pick the best from each era so you have

70s Borg
80s Lendl
90s Sampras
00s federer
10s nadal


Then you pick the best of the rest and I'd pick
6.agassi
7.djokovic
8.connors
9.mcenroe
10.becker

 

[Mr.Lob]

IMO the only way the to pick the tier 1 open era greats is pick the best from each era so you have

70s Borg
80s Lendl
90s Sampras
00s federer
10s nadal


Then you pick the best of the rest and I'd pick
6.agassi
7.djokovic
8.connors
9.mcenroe
10.becker

No way Lendl had a better career than McEnroe or Connors. McEnroe gets the 80's. Lendl drops down just ahead of Becker.

 

[Raul_SJ]

I believe Lendl was in eight straight US Open Finals.

Amazing record that may never be equaled.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

IMO the only way the to pick the tier 1 open era greats is pick the best from each era so you have

70s Borg
80s Lendl
90s Sampras
00s federer
10s nadal


Then you pick the best of the rest and I'd pick
6.agassi
7.djokovic
8.connors
9.mcenroe
10.becker

It would be better to pick the best of the rest also on a decade basis:
70's: Connors
80's: McEnroe/Wilander
90's: Agassi
00's: Nadal
10's: Nadal

I think Djokovic is greater than Nadal in the 10's: Both of them won 5 slams, but Nole won more masters 1000 and two WTF.

 

[jrepac]

To be fair regarding your second point, in Lendl's era that was true. People remember that Borg won five straight Wimbledon's, but they forget that he was serving and volleying an awful lot in those matches. Connors did too in his four Wimbledon finals. Wimbledon didn't really become a baseline event until the grass was changed before the 2002 final, and then all of a sudden Hewitt was contesting it with Nalbandian. Before that, almost all winners save one (Agassi) were serving and volleying a majority of the time.

Connors was in 6 Wimby finals, winning 2...and yes, he served and volleyed quite a bit. Agree, once we got into the 2000's, suddenly , it became a baseliners event.

 

[jrepac]

Had Ivan not ignored Wimbie earlier in his career, he would have at least a win, he had himself to blame only. He also had to compete with really good grass court players (Edberg, Becker, & Cash) when he decided to take Wimbie more seriously, but by then, it was too late.

Oh, not so sure, Ivan would've fared better in earlier years. Earlier in his career meant he'd face who? Borg, Mac or Connors? He could not beat Mac or Connors on the grass there; beating Borg would be more unlikely. I thought he had a shot against Becker in '86 honestly, but that went to hell pretty fast. On paper, Cash looked like a win, but not the way he was playing that tourney...he was a buzz saw (cutting thru Wilander and Connors before he got to Lendl).