Top 7 in the Open Era History : Lendl / Edberg under rated ?

[Gizo]

Mac vs. Lendl at the US Open is also an interesting comparison. Mac has 4 titles, 1 more final, 3 more semi-finals and 1 more quarter-final there. Lendl has 3 titles, 5 more finals, 1 more semi-final and 3 more quarter-finals there.

So it’s basically a trade-of between Mac’s extra title, and Lend’s greater consistency there, with them both winning 3 consecutive titles there at some point.

Their US Open h2h is 3-2 to Lendl, with all 3 of his victories in 1982, 1985 and 1987 coming in straight sets.

Ultimately winning is the name of the game, so if I was a pro I would definitely prefer Mac’s US Open record over Lendl’s, as I would value his extra title over Lendl’s extra final appearances. Give me a 4-1 record in US Open records over a 3-5 one any day. Also Mac beat Lendl, a prime Connors and a peak Borg in succession to win his 1980 US Open title, which was an incredibly special achievement.

 

[eldanger25]

Looking at timnz's lists, the most evenly matched comparison is between Wilander and Lendl at RG. Both players won 3 titles, reached 5 finals and reached 7 quarter-finals there. Their h2h is level at 1-1 in RG finals and 2-2 in RG matches. The only minor difference is that Wilander reached 6 semi-finals there to Lendl's 5.

However I would personally rank Lendl ahead there, given that he successfully defended his RG title in 1987 which Wilander failed to do, and was more more dominant there with 3 titles and 4 consecutive titles there from 1984-1987. To me that that definitely outweighs Wilander’s 1 extra semi-final appearance. Also subjectively I do think that Lendl at his best at RG was better and more dominating than Wilander at his best. I would favour the Lendl of 1986-1987 to beat any version of Wilander at RG.

Maybe so, but what Wilander did in 1982, going through Lendl/Vitas/Clerc/Vilas to win RG at age 17, was surely the most impressive and exciting of any of their combined 6 titles. I think that counters somewhat Lendl's brutal, brilliant mid-80s peak.

I rate this a true tie - if there was an Open Era monument to the best of the best during different eras at RG, it would to me include Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, and a joint bust of Wilander and Lendl as co-kings of the 1980s.

 

[eldanger25]

Mac vs. Lendl at the US Open is also an interesting comparison. Mac has 4 titles, 1 more final, 3 more semi-finals and 1 more quarter-final there. Lendl has 3 titles, 5 more finals, 1 more semi-final and 3 more quarter-finals there.

So it’s basically a trade-of between Mac’s extra title, and Lend’s greater consistency there, with them both winning 3 consecutive titles there at some point.

Their US Open h2h is 3-2 to Lendl, with all 3 of his victories in 1982, 1985 and 1987 coming in straight sets.

Ultimately winning is the name of the game, so if I was a pro I would definitely prefer Mac’s US Open record over Lendl’s, as I would value his extra title over Lendl’s extra final appearances. Give me a 4-1 record in US Open records over a 3-5 one day. Also Mac beat Lendl, a prime Connors and a peak Borg in succession to win his 1980 US Open title, which was an incredibly special achievement.

I lean this direction as well on the Lendl/Mac question, though it is very close. I do think that substantial consistency such as Lendl's can at times overcome one extra title (but not two) at an event in these comparisons. However, you do have to credit Mac for signature victories in each of his four great runs (the Connors SFs in 1979/80 and 1984, the Borg finals in 1980/81), whereas Lendl's 1986 title was not that high on the degree of difficulty front (I of course rank very highly his demolition of old man Connors and Mac at the 1985 Open, as well as his tremendous '87 run).

 

[beast of mallorca]

Not much to separate Edberg from Nadal at WImbledon. The reason I chose Edberg because he beat his nemesis Becker, while Nadal faced his pigeons Fed and Berdych.

Also Edberg was great on carpet and he does not get credit.

At the Uso, Like you said Edberg defended titles beating SAmpras and Courier.

Bwahahaha.......you are so funny my cyber friend........:twisted:

 

[Strobe Lights]

Very good posts altogether, mate. Do you think Rafa is never gonna win anymore GS outside of the FO ?

As a Fed fan, he has shown me enough times never to count him out.

It has to end some time and with each passing year and more injuries, it seems like it might be the time.

But he has still reached the final of 5 of the last 6 HC Majors he has played, winning 2 of them, so if he returns well from the injury he is definitely still within a big shout of winning one of them.

I'll predict that he will win one more non-RG Major.

 

[triforce defender]

Nadal beat Fed whom he has a 23-10 advantage.

Edberg beat Becker whom he had a 10-25 disadvantage.

Isnt this obvious ?

It's official: YOU ARE A TROLL. Your rationale is illogical in any kind of context.

1. You are punishing Nadal for having a good record against Federer.

2. Even accounting for Nadal's great record versus Federer, it's still not like that at Wimbledon. Federer is 2-1 versus Nadal at Wimbledon and was the 5-time defending champion in their 2008 encounter. So Federer is not Nadal's pigeon at SW 19.

3. You have stated many times in other threads that h2h is an irrelevant stat. Yet here you use it to decide between Nadal and Edberg.

 

[tennisaddict]

It's official: YOU ARE A TROLL. Your rationale is illogical in any kind of context.

1. You are punishing Nadal for having a good record against Federer.

2. Even accounting for Nadal's great record versus Federer, it's still not like that at Wimbledon. Federer is 2-1 versus Nadal at Wimbledon and was the 5-time defending champion in their 2008 encounter. So Federer is not Nadal's pigeon at SW 19.

3. You have stated many times in other threads that h2h is an irrelevant stat. Yet here you use it to decide between Nadal and Edberg.

H2H as a metric to compare players who do not have similar achievements is what is irrelevant.

Using h2h to judge what odds were overcome is analysing the achievement( when everything else is equal).

 

[Gizo]

Maybe so, but what Wilander did in 1982, going through Lendl/Vitas/Clerc/Vilas to win RG at age 17, was surely the most impressive and exciting of any of their combined 6 titles. I think that counters somewhat Lendl's brutal, brilliant mid-80s peak.

I rate this a true tie - if there was an Open Era monument to the best of the best during different eras at RG, it would to me include Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, and a joint bust of Wilander and Lendl as co-kings of the 1980s.

True Mat's 1982 run there was incredibly special and exciting, but Lendl had some great runs of his own, Gomez/Wilander/peak Mac in 1984 and Nystrom/Gomez/Mecir (who Mats was terrified of and desperate to avoid)/Wilander in 1987. In fact out their 4 matches at RG, Lendl's 1984 semi-final win was the most impressive and dominant performance out of the lot.

Also Lendl was denied another title by Borg in 1981 whom he pushed to 5 sets in the final. No-one had won 2 sets against Borg at RG since Panatta had won 3 to beat him there in 1976, so that was very good going.

Overall I would rate 3 titles in 4 years as more impressive than 3 in 7 years with no successful title defence, as many athletes say that defending big titles is one of the most difficult things to do in sports. I think that when their overall results are so similar, and they have a similar number of impressive scalps at the tournament (Lendl even straight setted Bruguera there in 1992 which was very impressive), Lendl's greater domination is a pretty significant tiebreaker, and gives him the slight edge i would say

Still I agree it's very close between them at RG, the tighest comparison out of the lot between the greatest players at any major. On clay in general though Lendl opens up a clearer advantage with more titles overall, more big titles, a better overall win-loss record with fewer defeats despite playing in more matches, a positive 6-4 h2h on the surface etc.

 

[eldanger25]

True Mat's 1982 run there was incredibly special and exciting, but Lendl had some great runs of his own, Gomez/Wilander/peak Mac in 1984 and Nystrom/Gomez/Mecir (who Mats was terrified of and desperate to avoid)/Wilander in 1987. In fact out their 4 matches at RG, Lendl's 1984 semi-final win was the most impressive and dominant performance out of the lot.

Also Lendl was denied another title by Borg in 1981 whom he pushed to 5 sets in the final. No-one had won 2 sets against Borg at RG since Panatta had won 3 to beat him there in 1976, so that was very good going.

Overall I would rate 3 titles in 4 years as more impressive than 3 in 7 years with no successful title defence, as many athletes say that defending big titles is one of the most difficult things to do in sports. I think that when their overall results are so similar, and they have a similar number of impressive scalps at the tournament (Lendl even straight setted Bruguera there in 1992 which was very impressive), Lendl's greater domination is a pretty significant tiebreaker, and gives him the slight edge.

Still I agree it's very close between them at RG, the tighest comparison out of the lot between the greatest players at any major. On clay in general though Lendl opens up a clearer advantage with more titles overall, more big titles, a better overall win-loss record with fewer defeats despite playing in more matches, a positive 6-4 h2h on the surface etc.

Yes, I suppose I agree - if I had to choose, when push comes to shove, I do think Lendl edges Wilander by a nose at RG (defending titles is a big deal to me as well). Their careers at RG feel so entwined though in the end, it is difficult to separate them. Each was present for so many great moments there in the 1980s (even in losing matches, like Noah 1983 for Mats and Chang 1989 for Lendl).

 

[90's Clay]

How Federer is better than Sampras at Us with two less finals? With the same criteria you put Fed over Sampras at Wimbledon ...

Look at who the OP is:shock:

 

[90's Clay]

Federer ahead of Djoker at the AO? Laughable. (Nole has had the upper hand of Fed at the AO. Including a win vs. Fed during his prime. Fed is 0-3 vs. Nadal at the AO) Ahead of Agassi? Arguable

Fed ahead of Pete at Wimbledon? Once again very arguable. Pete won same number of wimbledon titles, Fed with more finals but Pete with more condensed dominance at Wimbledon

Fed ahead of Pete at the USO? Pete has more finals appearances there and they have the same number of USO titles. Again.. Arguable

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer ahead of Djoker at the AO? Laughable. (Nole has had the upper hand of Fed at the AO. Including a win vs. Fed during his prime. Fed is 0-3 vs. Nadal at the AO) Ahead of Agassi? Arguable

Fed ahead of Pete at Wimbledon? Once again very arguable. Pete won same number of wimbledon titles, Fed with more finals but Pete with more condensed dominance at Wimbledon

Fed ahead of Pete at the USO? Pete has more finals appearances there and they have the same number of USO titles. Again.. Arguable

It's not arguable that this is is actually one of your better posts, which admittedly isn't saying much.

 

[Chanwan]

It's not arguable that this is is actually one of your better posts, which admittedly isn't saying much.

haha, damn right about the bolded part. I mean for starters, why is it relevant that Fed is 0-3 vs Rafa at the AO? Why is it not relevant that he has more finals and semis than Novak + Agassi.
And even worse, how is it relevant that Pete has more finals at the US (to be sure, I think this is relevant), but not relevant that Fed has more finals than Pete at Wimbledon?
As with any 90's clay post, there's a logic when it comes to Fed and a completely different logic when it comes to Pete.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

AO it really depends on the surface.

On Plexicushion, Djokovic clearly has the edge. Rebound Ace, I'd give the nod to Federer or Agassi.

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer ahead of Djoker at the AO? Laughable. (Nole has had the upper hand of Fed at the AO. Including a win vs. Fed during his prime. Fed is 0-3 vs. Nadal at the AO) Ahead of Agassi? Arguable

Fed ahead of Pete at Wimbledon? Once again very arguable. Pete won same number of wimbledon titles, Fed with more finals but Pete with more condensed dominance at Wimbledon

Fed ahead of Pete at the USO? Pete has more finals appearances there and they have the same number of USO titles. Again.. Arguable

How many times do we have to repeat that the list does not rank the player in any specific order other than the number of majors ?

In any case, Sampras is no way close to Fed at Wimbledon. That shipped has sailed a long time back.

 

[90's Clay]

How many times do we have to repeat that the list does not rank the player in any specific order other than the number of majors ?

In any case, Sampras is no way close to Fed at Wimbledon. That shipped has sailed a long time back.

I must have missed Fed's 8th Wimbledon title:shock:

 

[cc0509]

Federer ahead of Djoker at the AO? Laughable. (Nole has had the upper hand of Fed at the AO. Including a win vs. Fed during his prime. Fed is 0-3 vs. Nadal at the AO) Ahead of Agassi? Arguable

Fed ahead of Pete at Wimbledon? Once again very arguable. Pete won same number of wimbledon titles, Fed with more finals but Pete with more condensed dominance at Wimbledon

Fed ahead of Pete at the USO? Pete has more finals appearances there and they have the same number of USO titles. Again.. Arguable

Excuse me but Federer, Agassi and Djokovic all have four AO titles but Federer has an extra final so HE is still ahead at the AO you delusional Fed hater.

 

[cc0509]

I must have missed Fed's 8th Wimbledon title:shock:

Federer and Sampras both have seven W's but Federer has two extra finals. Sorry, Sampras loses to Federer again.

 

[90's Clay]

Federer and Sampras both have seven W's but Federer has two extra finals. Sorry, Sampras loses to Federer again.

Guess that automatically makes Sampras as far and away the greater USO Player then since he has more finals there?

 

[90's Clay]

And btw... What does extra Finals appearances (Without winning the Finals) mean anyways? NOTHING. It just means you were the 2nd best at the tourney. ROFLMAO.

If you dont win the tournament, I don't know what the hell it matters anyways. No one remembers 2nd place

 

[tennisaddict]

And btw... What does extra Finals appearances (Without winning the Finals) mean anyways? NOTHING. It just means you were the 2nd best at the tourney. ROFLMAO.

If you dont win the tournament, I don't know what the hell it matters anyways. No one remembers 2nd place

Is that why Sampras lost his FO in R1 and R2 ?

 

[Djokovic2011]

And btw... What does extra Finals appearances (Without winning the Finals) mean anyways? NOTHING. It just means you were the 2nd best at the tourney. ROFLMAO.

If you dont win the tournament, I don't know what the hell it matters anyways. No one remembers 2nd place

So if two players have the same amount of Slams at the same tournament, extra finals don't come into the equation at all in your view? So who do you think is the greater USO champion out of Federer and Sampras? I take it you consider them both equal there?

 

[timnz]

And btw... What does extra Finals appearances (Without winning the Finals) mean anyways? NOTHING. It just means you were the 2nd best at the tourney. ROFLMAO.

If you dont win the tournament, I don't know what the hell it matters anyways. No one remembers 2nd place

I can't agree at all. What you are saying is that making the finals is exactly the same as losing the first round. I just don't think those two performances compare. The ATP doesn't think so - it gives runner-ups 1200 points for making the final (more than a Masters 1000) as opposed to ??? points for losing the first round. No, sorry, making the final is a great achievement in of itself (not as good as winning the tournament, but still a great performance). It certainly is a lot better than losing in the first round.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I can't agree at all. What you are saying is that making the finals is exactly the same as losing the first round. I just don't think those two performances compare. The ATP doesn't think so - it gives runner-ups 1200 points for making the final (more than a Masters 1000) as opposed to ??? points for losing the first round. No, sorry, making the final is a great achievement in of itself (not as good as winning the tournament, but still a great performance). It certainly is a lot better than losing in the first round.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Peakovic]

Wrong bad list

 

[helloworld]

Here comes Federer vs Sampras USO/Wimbledon debate again... The supporters of each side will bring their own beliefs and beat each other to death. In the end, they are still tied at 7 and 5 titles respectively. Unless Fed can do something about it by adding more USO or Wimby, the debate is never going to end.

 

[magnut]

superman is better than batman .....that obvious


the silver surfer sucks!

 

[helloworld]

superman is better than batman .....that obvious


the silver surfer sucks!

Disagreed. Batman with prep beats Superman, every time. Superman is overrated.

 

[Russeljones]

Yeah while the Australian Open had made a big recovery from 1983-1987 after it was a complete joke of a major from 1976-1982 (and possibly even before that as well), it still wasn't on a par with the other 3 majors as it had a smaller draw size, less ranking points, less prize money and terrible facilities at Kooyong.

Edberg himself hasn't given a lot of credit to his own back to back Aussie Open titles in 1985 and 1987, as he has said in the past that he considered his Wimbledon 1988 title to be his first 'real' major. Also he repeatedly talked about how it was a big career regret for him that he never won the Aussie Open title after the switch to hard courts at Melbourne Park in 1988, when the tournament finally had a 128 player draw and moved on a par with the other majors. He was certainly unlucky there from 1988-1993:

1988 – Loses in 5 sets to Wilander in the semis.
1989 – Injures his back near the end of his 4th round demolition of Cash, and has to default his quarter-final against Muster, who he had a perfect 10-0 record against.
1990 – Retires during the 3rd set of his final against Lendl with a torn stomach muscle injury, after he had served for a 2 sets to love lead. The injury had surfaced during the final game of his SF demolition of Wilander, which was the best and most flawless performance of his career up to that point.
1991 – Loses in 5 sets to Lendl in the semis, after holding 2 match points in the 4th set.
1992 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final.
1993 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final. He again suffered a back injury during his 3rd round victory over Mansdorf, and there was speculation over whether he would default his 4th round match.

It's true that he was often over-shadowed during his career. It didn't help that he was considered to be so boring and not have a personality, compared to his rival Becker who was a big personality and superstar everywhere he went.

Also while he was rightly praised for his artistry and elegant game, his resilience and fighting spirit was also underrated a lot during his career. I guess his string of victories during his 1992 US Open title run was the biggest showcase of that, but he fought back from losing positions to win so many matches during his career, big matches, tense 5 setters etc. And the way he fought during that 1990 Aussie final before he was forced to retire, when he was clearly in so much pain was admirable.

Very nice post. Agree with you about his underrated determination.

 

[kandamrgam]

And btw... What does extra Finals appearances (Without winning the Finals) mean anyways? NOTHING. It just means you were the 2nd best at the tourney. ROFLMAO.

If you dont win the tournament, I don't know what the hell it matters anyways. No one remembers 2nd place

Good point. People rate final shows too much. But good consistent showing matters. So it has to be titles + win% during prime to better reflect that.

 

[Gizo]

Yes, I suppose I agree - if I had to choose, when push comes to shove, I do think Lendl edges Wilander by a nose at RG (defending titles is a big deal to me as well). Their careers at RG feel so entwined though in the end, it is difficult to separate them. Each was present for so many great moments there in the 1980s (even in losing matches, like Noah 1983 for Mats and Chang 1989 for Lendl).

Yeah it's the closest and most balanced clay court rivalry in the open era that's for sure (6-4 to Lendl overall and 2-2 at RG). Borg-Vilas was way too one sided in Borg's favour (11-3 overall with 2 easy victories in RG finals), and likewise Nadal-Federer (13-2 overall and 5-0 at RG) and Nadal-Djokovic (14-4 overall and 6-0 at RG) in Nadal's favour.

Lendl and Wilander however split their biggest clay court matches against each other so evenly, almost taking it in turns to beat each other. It's weird though how they only played each other 10 times on clay during their careers, but I guess that can be explained by Wilander's decline/loss of motivation after 1988, and Lendl also losing motivation at RG in the latter stages of his career as his Wimbledon obsession intensified and took priority over his clay court season.

I lean this direction as well on the Lendl/Mac question, though it is very close. I do think that substantial consistency such as Lendl's can at times overcome one extra title (but not two) at an event in these comparisons. However, you do have to credit Mac for signature victories in each of his four great runs (the Connors SFs in 1979/80 and 1984, the Borg finals in 1980/81), whereas Lendl's 1986 title was not that high on the degree of difficulty front (I of course rank very highly his demolition of old man Connors and Mac at the 1985 Open, as well as his tremendous '87 run).

Agreed. I also think Mac generally did beat the better players at the US Open than did Lendl did, so 1 extra title there, with more quality, standout wins for Mac, is enough to rank him over Lendl there in my opinion.

Lendl had the edge over Mac in their h2h there, 3-2 overall and 2-1 prime vs. prime from 1981-1985, but surely Mac having a combined 5-1 record against a prime Borg and Connors there outweighs that. Winning 3 matches out of 4 against a prime Connors in his favourite tournament at the US Open is just outstanding. During his 4 title runs, he had 3 wins over Connors, 2 over Borg and 2 over Lendl.

Lendl beat Wilander in the 1987 final, but Mac beat him in their brutal 1985 semi-final. Lendl does have other big victories there against the likes of Edberg, Agassi and Becker (in that incredible comeback and 5 set win in 1992) etc, but still I like Mac's list of big victories more.

It was almost a case of rock, paper, scissors between Mac, Connors and Lendl at the US Open (or overall in big matches) when prime vs. prime, Mac had the edge over Connors, Connors had the edge over Lendl and Lendl had the edge over Mac.

 

[NatF]

Wimbledon: Federer > Sampras > Borg
USO: Connors > Sampras > Federer
AO: Federer > Djokovic > Agassi

IMO

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Fed is USO GOAT b/c of 5 consec. titles (showing intense domination), which is what I think tennisaddict was getting at.

 

[Gizo]

The US Open battle between Connors vs. Sampras vs. Federer is pretty interesting. All 3 players do have strong arguments over the other 2.

Connors had the greatest consistency, with 12 consecutive semi-finals appearances or better from 1974-1985 (and he also went on to reach the semis in 1987 and 1991 as well). He reached 1 more final there than Federer, and 5 more semi-finals and 7 more quarter-finals than both Sampras and Federer, so he was more reliable in reach the latter rounds there year after year. He won titles there on grass, clay (beating Vilas in his semi-final and Borg in the final) and hard courts (with back to back final wins over Lendl).

Sampras reached the most finals there in the open era, 8 compared to Connors's 7 and Federer's 6. He is the also the only player in history to win US Open titles as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s, which is very impressive longevity.

Federer on the other hand has the greatest dominance there. He is the only player to win 5 consecutive US Open titles (or more than 3 in a row) since Tilden won 6 in a row from 1920-1925, so his 40 consecutive match victories there from 2004-2009 is a very comfortable open era record. Winning a hard court major 5 years in a row (and very nearly making it 6 in a row), in a such a hard-court centric and dominated era is incredibly impressive.

Now sure neither Sampras or Federer, had the opportunity to play at the US Open on different surfaces like Connors did. But on the flipside Connors was unlucky, as had the US Open been played on hard courts or grass from 1975-1977 rather than clay, it's likely that he would have more than 1 title in that period and more than 5 titles there in total.

Sampras was unlucky that injuries ruined his US Open preparations following the 2 best periods and highest levels of tennis of his career. In 1994 he had won 4 out of the last 5 majors from Wimbledon 1993 to Wimbledon 1994 (and his Wimbledon title in 1994 was already his 8th of the year) before injuring his ankle. In 1999 he had won 4 titles and 24 matches in row (straight setting Agassi 3 times) and was playing the best tennis of his career since his 1993-1994 dominance, but then injured his lower back.

 

[kOaMaster]

I think this list is skewed due to the fact that Nadal just owns RG like no one ever did anytime before in any grand slam. So in terms of titles, Djokovic and Federer may still be behind all those listed guys but this doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't as great.

We once had a thread where the sum of the 8 or 10 (?) best seasons win-loss at each grand slams were listed. that gave about an idea how good also Nadal was in Wimbledon and at the US Open...