Lendl vs Djokovic all time ranking

who will finish his career higher

  • djokovic

    Votes: 8 30.8%

  • lendl

    Votes: 18 69.2%
  • Total voters
    26
D

dominikk1985

Legend
Who will finish their careers higher?

I would say lendl is still higher but novak is still in his prime and with fed declining and nadals health being suspect he might still win a few majors more, if those two are gone he will have an easy time winning slams.

nole is only 1 FO away from winning the career slam which lendl never did. also novak had one of the best years ever.

novak is also only 2 slams behind lendl. both lost a lot of slam finals (lendl was 8-11 while novak is better at 6-6) but also both played in super tight eras (novak first against prime fed till 09 and then against prime nadal, while lendl faced greats of several eras including borg, connors, mac, becker and wilander who all beat him in finals).

novak will probably never touch lendls weeks at #1 (270) and overall titles but don't forget that there were much more tournaments back then (many of them quite easy to win- but on the other hand that also made winning slams harder like the AO skipping did).

I would say novak needs about 10 majors to pass lendl (to make up for the skipped AOs and overall tournaments+ weeks at one). certainly not an impossible task albeit not easy to do.
 
Djokovic looks lost right now, I think he is a clear underdog anywhere outside of maybe Australia (and I think Murray could have given him a REALLY tough match this year/maybe beaten him if not for injury) to both Nadal and Murray (ok, forget RG for Andy). I do think he will win about 2 more majors, putting him roughly even with Lendl. Similar career paths because both of them will end up with more major finals lost than won.
 
Lendl, in addition to 8 slams ( and in 3 venues, not just 2 ) won 7 Master tournaments.

Very hard for Djokovic, who has 8 majors at this point.Maybe Becker, with 10 is closer...
 
Djokovic may surpass Lendl's Slam total, but Ivan's peak just seems stronger right now. Ivan put together great consistency in all sorts of ways over a long time. Nole had one amazing year and two good years, but still seemingly under-achieving. If Nole can win a Roland Garros, maybe he will be thought of higher than Lendl, all-time ranking wise.
 
Lendl, Djokovic has faded majorly the last two years. Not impressed with his play in his losses since 2011.
 
Current Open Era rankings

As you can see from the rankings of players based on events rated Masters 1000 equivalent or greater in points - Djokovic is ahead of Becker, Edberg and Wilander - but behind players like Agassi and Connors. Hence he is, for open era only, in between 2nd and 3rd tier in the open era. The below open era rankings are using the current ATP weighting for tournaments.

Slams + Season End Finals and WCT finals (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.4 for Season end finals * (including WCT finals), 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 71.8

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.4)) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 59.6

Nadal = (13 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) = 58

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 50.8

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 47.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((2 + 1) x 1.4)) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 47.2

Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.4)) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 45.6

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.8

Djokovic = (6 x 2) + (2 x 1.4) + (6 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) = 36

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((3 + 1) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 35.4

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.4

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8

if you wish to see more detail on how this is calculated then go to:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381


As you can see, Djokovic has to exceed quite a few players before he passes Lendl.
 
timnz said:
As you can see from the rankings of players based on events rated Masters 1000 equivalent or greater in points - Djokovic is ahead of Becker, Edberg and Wilander - but behind players like Agassi and Connors. Hence he is, for open era only, in between 2nd and 3rd tier in the open era. The below open era rankings are using the current ATP weighting for tournaments.

Slams + Season End Finals and WCT finals (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.4 for Season end finals * (including WCT finals), 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 71.8

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.4)) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 59.6

Nadal = (13 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) = 58

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 50.8

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 47.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((2 + 1) x 1.4)) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 47.2

Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.4)) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 45.6

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.8

Djokovic = (6 x 2) + (2 x 1.4) + (6 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) = 36

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((3 + 1) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 35.4

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.4

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8

if you wish to see more detail on how this is calculated then go to:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381


As you can see, Djokovic has to exceed quite a few players before he passes Lendl.
Click to expand...
In reality, it doesn't work that way. Players will trade 10 masters for 1 slam easily. Grand Slam is the true measurement of greatness.
 
helloworld said:
In reality, it doesn't work that way. Players will trade 10 masters for 1 slam easily. Grand Slam is the true measurement of greatness.
Click to expand...

Hmm....so Nadal is happy to trade his 26 masters 1000's for 2 Slams + 1 final of a slam? Or Djokovic trade his 14 masters 1000's for 1 slam + 1 final approx.? Well, that would put both even futher down the field.

So if Federer does that it mean his 17 Slams are now 19 slams (trading his 21 Masters 1000's). Nadal's 13 are now 15 with an extra slam final thrown in. Djokovic's 6 is now 7 with an extra Slam final thrown in.

So lets add it up now:

You'll have Federer at (19 x 2000) Slam wins + (6 x 1400) WTF wins + (7 x 1200) Slam losing finals + 0 (since we got rid of Masters 1000) = 38000 + 8400 + 8400 = 54800

Nadal at (15 x 2000) Slam wins + (0 x 1400) WTF + (6 x 1200) Slam losing finals - we added another one + 0 (since we got rid of Masters 1000) = 30000 + 0 + 7200 = 37200

Djokovic (7 x 2000) Slam wins + (2 x 1400) WTF + (7 x 1200) Slam losing finals - we added another one + 0 (since we got rid of Masters 1000) = 14000 + 2800 + 8400 = 15200


So that makes Djokovic go from 36/71.8 ie about 1/2 of Federer's points to 15200/54800 ie a little over a 1/4 of Federer's points....similar drop against Nadal. So making that change doesn't help Djokovic at all.

Also how do you mean it doesn't work that way? Against what standard? The ATP has designated that a Slam is worth 2 x a Masters 1000. Now I personally disagree with that....but really my opinion doesn't matter - that is what the ATP says it is worth.
 
Last edited:
i dont think # of gs tournaments should be the indicator anymore since the conditions are so different. if djokovic was in lendls era i dont think he would have won wimbledon. if lendl was in djokovics era, i think he would have won a wimbledon and he wouldnt of had to serve and volley to do it
maybe it should be 50% weight on gs tournaments
30% weight on no1 ranking
20% weight on other tournaments and head to heads
 
Last edited:
big ted said:
i dont think # of gs tournaments should be the indicator anymore since the conditions are so different. if djokovic was in lendls era i dont think he would have won wimbledon. if lendl was in djokovics era, i think he would have won a wimbledon and he wouldnt of had to serve and volley to do it
maybe it should be 50% weight on gs tournaments
30% weight on no1 ranking
20% weight on other tournaments and head to heads
Click to expand...

Well with Lendl on over 140 tournament wins (or 94 if you prefer only ATP ones) and nearly 3 times the time at number 1.....then Djokovic is WAY behind Lendl.
 
Lendl easily. Lendl was a tennis machine at its best. He was rock solid in all aspects in his game. Definitely the toughest guy to beat in the 80s.
 
Djokovic would need to reach atleast 9 majors to be considered better than Lendl. I am not sure if he can do that at this point.
 
Of the next 12 majors I see something like Nadal winning 6, Murray 4, and Djokovic only 1 or 2. I also dont see Djokovic winning majors past that point either. He is a major grinder, even more of one than Nadal, and will slow down sooner rather than later.
 
Doubt he matches Lendl. Matching Agassi is very possible though. Just without the true career slam like Agassi (which of course no one has)

Nole's problem is he wasted SO MUCH of his "what should have been prime years" 2008-2010 with tremendous underachieving. Much like Agassi but Agassi really turned it on in 1999. Nole is going to need to do something like that
 
wow it is a blowout so far.

Would people have voted differently had he beaten nadal in the final?

I think right now he gets a little underestimated because he lost 2 consecutive slam finals. not saying he would have been better than lendl had he won them but he is still a top player and far from being finished. his matches against nadal at the FO and USO could have gone either way and I think he will beat murray again too. I see no reason why he should not win more slams. fed is getting old and nadal will have knee problems again. murray is going to stay but he is not federer or nadal albeit he became a tough opponent.
 
Last edited:
Lendl is a true legend. Djokovic is a great player and I love his games, but there is something missing about his aura.
 
He had the aura in 2011. Right now it has faded. Aura will return when if he beats Nadal in slam finals again. Very simple, but that's the way it works.
 
The year 2011 was really stellar for Djokovic, but at this time, I'd still put Lendl comfortably ahead of him. Lendl made eight straight US Open finals and I think he made the finals at the Masters YEC (Masters Grand Prix) nine years in a row from 1981-1988! I do think Djokovic has a good chance of adding considerably to his list of accomplishments and I do expect him to ultimately have a very comparable overall record.
 
5555 said:
The OP asked will Djokovic finish with better career than Lendl.
Click to expand...

That's so tough to project. I think he could, but he's not there yet. If I had to choose I'd say no, but it's possible. Djokovic has won a Wimbledon title, which was impressive. Can Djokovic win the FO? Maybe he will, but I'm just not sure. I still tend to think that Nadal will maintain a clear advantage, but we'll see how the matches progress.
 
Right now, I have Lendl at no. 11 all-time. Djokovic is in the middle 20s.

Lendl's career is over, but Djokovic could (and probably will) move up. Will he catch Lendl?

Doubtful.
 
Djokovic has passed Lendl in almost all areas we can say now. He is the man to beat of 2010. Has at least 200 weeks at no1 if not more. Has more masters, slams, 4 year end finishes (lendl 5) and WTF (4, 3 in a row) are all comparable and he is having AURA unlike Lendl at the moment.
 
the next year or two will be djokovics year to rake in the titles if he can. i dont see any young threats like lendl had to deal with (becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, etc..), and djokovics biggest rival will turn 35 next year..
 
big ted said:
the next year or two will be djokovics year to rake in the titles if he can. i dont see any young threats like lendl had to deal with (becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, etc..), and djokovics biggest rival will turn 35 next year..
Click to expand...
Federer is not Djokovic's biggest rival. Nadal is and he may turn up next year again.
 
KG1965 said:
Djokovic is huge .
But Lendl is still ahead
Click to expand...
If his career finishes today, MAYBE. He has taken over two most important categories, slams and masters.

And he will continue for years
 
Nachiket Nolefam said:
If his career finishes today, MAYBE. He has taken over two most important categories, slams and masters.

And he will continue for years
Click to expand...
Today it may be that many consider superior to Lendl , even many experts .
Not me.
I think Lendl > Djoker , but in a year Djoker to 99 % will surpass Lendl , also for me .

In slams Djoker >> Lendl
 
KG1965 said:
Today it may be that many consider superior to Lendl , even many experts .
Not me.
I think Lendl > Djoker , but in a year Djoker to 99 % will surpass Lendl , also for me .

In slams Djoker >> Lendl
Click to expand...
If you are talking about lognetivity, ofcourse, that takes time.
 
Nachiket Nolefam said:
If you are talking about lognetivity, ofcourse, that takes time.
Click to expand...
No, not talk about longevity .. I think the main difference between Djoker and Lendl is the following .
Slams : Djoker >> Lendl
Other titles Lendl >>> Djoker , despite Djoker has won so many tournaments and above all important, all great ( ... also the last China indoor) .

Djoker to overcome Lendl must win , but above all it must make a record ( 6th Australian or 1th RG ) .
 
I do not want to underestimate Nole .
He's a god of tennis for me .

But I have seen many times Ivan . Lendl was also a god in the 80s . A violent god .
 
helloworld said:
In reality, it doesn't work that way. Players will trade 10 masters for 1 slam easily. Grand Slam is the true measurement of greatness.
Click to expand...
The majors or slams are only one partial aspect of greatness.

Greatness is evaluated and accumulated on many factors, obviously, otherwise Emerson would be one of the supreme greats--higher than Laver, Borg, Tilden, and much higher than Gonzales or Kramer (which he is absolutely not).
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
hoodjem said:
The majors or slams are only one partial aspect of greatness.

Greatness is evaluated and accumulated on many factors, obviously, otherwise Emerson would be one of the supreme greats--higher than Laver, Borg, Tilden, and much higher than Gonzales or Kramer (which he is absolutely not).
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct.
 
pc1 said:
Absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

I agree that slams are not the be all and end all, but Djokovic has been extraordinary outside of the slams too. I think he has more Masters titles than even Federer now (who is 6 years older) and 4 World Tour Finals titles and counting. Who would you favor between Lendl and Djokovic? Both of them are/were supremely consistent players. I am not a fan of Djokovic at all by the way, but I have to acknowledge his greatness.

Kind of off topic, but the all time great who really seemed to slack outside of the slams was Sampras. From what I have read/seen, he seems to be inferior to guys like Lendl and Djokovic by most metrics (let alone players who are usually considered on Sampras' level like Federer, Borg, and Nadal), outside of total majors won. Far fewer masters titles, significantly worse career winning percentage,more losses to "random" players, etc. Do you think that is just because he was a naturally inconsistent player or was it the nature of conditions in the 1990's? Correct me if I am wrong by the way.
 
KG1965 said:
No, not talk about longevity .. I think the main difference between Djoker and Lendl is the following .
Slams : Djoker >> Lendl
Other titles Lendl >>> Djoker , despite Djoker has won so many tournaments and above all important, all great ( ... also the last China indoor) .

Djoker to overcome Lendl must win , but above all it must make a record ( 6th Australian or 1th RG ) .
Click to expand...
I don't think that after Wimbledon,that he won not just once,Djokovic need to do anything to prove that he's bigger than Lendl.
 
President said:
I agree that slams are not the be all and end all, but Djokovic has been extraordinary outside of the slams too. I think he has more Masters titles than even Federer now (who is 6 years older) and 4 World Tour Finals titles and counting. Who would you favor between Lendl and Djokovic? Both of them are/were supremely consistent players. I am not a fan of Djokovic at all by the way, but I have to acknowledge his greatness.

Kind of off topic, but the all time great who really seemed to slack outside of the slams was Sampras. From what I have read/seen, he seems to be inferior to guys like Lendl and Djokovic by most metrics (let alone players who are usually considered on Sampras' level like Federer, Borg, and Nadal), outside of total majors won. Far fewer masters titles, significantly worse career winning percentage,more losses to "random" players, etc. Do you think that is just because he was a naturally inconsistent player or was it the nature of conditions in the 1990's? Correct me if I am wrong by the way.
Click to expand...
I think it was the latter to be honest. Sampras was an awesome talent but even in his BEST YEAR he was only 77-12 (87%) in winning two of four majors entered and 10 tournaments out of 18. Players like Lendl, Connors, Federer, Nadal and of course in recent years Djokovic have been far more consistent as players. Sampras never had a year in which he won 90% of his matches while players like Lendl Connors and Federer have averaged over 90% for five years. Does it mean that Sampras is inferior to these players I mentioned? Perhaps or perhaps not. It depends on how you evaluate players.
 
I think it's very hard to compare Lendl's era with Djokovic. To a degree Lendl was self developed, he did not get a world class coach until early 80's. His net game and all round consistency bloomed under Tony Roache he added so much to his game both mentally and skill wise. The main difference to me is Lendl was world class in the late 70's playing in the wooden era. He was a bit of a rarity being 6'3" playing against mainly 5'9" to 5'11" players in Mac, Borg, Vilas, Connors (Not saying there was not tall players but not many in the Top 5). He then transitioned to the power graphite era. Djokovic struggled to transition from one similar racquet to another during his career going from Wilson to Head. But my main point is if Lendl had world class coaching in the 70's he would have been a far better player 3-4 years before he became the dominant force that he was in the late 80's. This is one benefit of Becker who had a well rounded game by 16-17 except mentally which never really developed.

Regarding,
Sampras was an awesome talent but even in his BEST YEAR he was only 77-12 (87%) in winning two of four majors entered
Click to expand...
Sampras benefited from the Non-homogeneous courts of the 90's with no compulsory tourneys. He could pick and chose what he entered and definitely did. He is excelled on grass where is was only one real tourney. Though Queens was considered prestigious it had little points and money. He also did well at the USO on the slick HC with those dodgy 90 Penn balls, and he played in an era where the WTF was on carpet and had big prize money compared to the Majors and Super 7's. Winning 2 GS + WTF secured No.1 and big prize money. There where still not many big fast courts Tourneys. Aust was slower then than now, FO was slow, IW was as slow as AO with higher bounce, the (5th major) Rome was slower than FO. I can't remember Cinccy enough to comment as I missed most of the US swing as they did not televise here. He was basically a pro at excelling at 3-4 Tourneys and got enough points through the WIM, US & WTF. With a sound showing at IW, KB & Cin to keep No.1. Sampras did what he had to be No.1 and make a living. He still had a very sound ground game and given the right condition could do well.
 
Nachiket Nolefam said:
Federer is not Djokovic's biggest rival. Nadal is and he may turn up next year again.
Click to expand...
He is now and as much as you like to downplay his age, he's still going to be 35 next year.

There's some pretty easy slams ahead for Djoker. Perhaps we'll use the weak era argument against you in time when you feel Djokovic is the "GOAT" and everyone on planet Earth feels otherwise.
 
Nachiket Nolefam said:
WTH is proven legend? Either you would have a point or you don't.
1 what is proven legend?
2. what Djokovic don't have to be proven legend?
Click to expand...

OMG...some of you Djokovic fans can be so insecure at times. Always seeking approval and wanting everyone to love your player. I simply expressed my appreciation of a player I liked and said nothing about Djokovic on that post.

Anyway, since you brought it up...Ivan was a proven legend because by the end of his playing career, not only he had the stats to back up his achievement, he also managed to maintain both his character and professionalism as a tennis player. He never felt the need to yield to the media or to please the spectators other than playing great tennis. He was often mistreated by reporters and fans, but you rarely hear him complain about the mistreatment. He just carried on and kept working on his game. He was once the most despised champion, yet he managed to turn the tide and earned respects from his peers and many champions to follow.

Stats & titles alone do not make you a legend, your character does. Ivan's character was tested and proven. I can't say the same for Djokovic...not yet anyway.
 
Fedinkum said:
OMG...some of you Djokovic fans can be so insecure at times. Always seeking approval and wanting everyone to love your player. I simply expressed my appreciation of a player I liked and said nothing about Djokovic on that post.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Lendl is a proven legend, period. The problem is, it seems many of the insecure Djoker posters here at about 15 years old and have no clue who Lendl was. They probably weren't even watching tennis when Ivan coached Murray, much less alive when Lendl wielded a racket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JoelSandwich
  • Poll Poll
Ivan Lendl vs Jimmy Connors?
2 3
Replies
142
Views
12K
jrepac
J
Pheasant
  • Poll Poll
Controversial, but serious question. Who was better on grass courts, Roddick, or Lendl?
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
5K
RS
RS
msunderland71
Agassi, Connors or Lendl?
2
Replies
61
Views
5K
superman1
superman1
BGod
  • Poll Poll
Lendl vs. Connors?
2 3
Replies
106
Views
4K
sandy mayer
S
R
Wilander-Lendl an underrated rivalry
Replies
0
Views
460
roaringsounds
R
Back
Top