Vilas versus Lendl on Clay

[hoodjem]

They were both great clay-court players, and they played each other 15 times. The H2H is 10-5 for Lendl.

Starting in 1980 near Vilas's peak (1977-78 ) but when Lendl was fairly young, Vilas won the first three matches all on clay. Their last matches were in 1983 were Lendl first became no. 1.

Vilas won all 5 of his matches on clay. Lendl won all three of their meetings on carpet (of course), but I was a little surprised that Lendl won 7 matches on clay (more than Vilas).

Both were obviously excellent clay-courters. It would seem that the chronological overlap favors Lendl (being 8 years younger).

 

[BTURNER]

They were both great clay-court players, and they played each other 15 times. The H2H is 10-5 for Lendl.

Starting in 1980 near Vilas's peak (1977-78 ) but when Lendl was quite young, Vilas won the first three matches all on clay. Their last matches were in 1983 were Lendl first became no. 1.

Vilas won all 5 of his matches on clay. Lendl won all three of their meetings on carpet (of course), but I was a little surprised that Lendl won 7 matches on clay (more than Vilas).

Both were obviously excellent clay-courters. It would seem that the chronological overlap favors Lendl (being 8 years younger).

My guess is that Lendl's greater fire power both on serve and the forehand to open up the court, would have made the decisive factor.

 

[big ted]

heres a 1980 match of theirs in good quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8HiVZ5wfk0

 

[Gizo]

It’s very impressive that Lendl ended up with a winning 7-5 record against Vilas on clay. It’s also worth pointing out that Lendl twice beat Vilas in straight sets in Vilas’s home turf in Buenos Aires, in the 1980 Davis Cup semi-finals and in the 1981 tournament final there. Very nice going.

I’ve only seen a couple of their earlier matches from 1980 on clay, but at that stage Lendl wasn’t really fit enough to continuously slug it out with Vilas in endless rallies, so he was playing far more aggressively, looking to attack and finish points quicker and coming to the net a fair bit. It paid off a lot though, because after their 1980 Kitzbuhel final, he began to dominate their head to head. He varied his tactics quite a lot in his earlier matches on clay, i.e. power hitting from the baseline, mooballing, and even serve-volleying from time to time, which must have helped throw Vilas off balance. Plus Lendl had more power and had bigger weapons than Vilas with his forehand and serve.

Now by the time that Lendl won his 2nd and 3rd titles at RG in 1986-1987, he had evolved into almost a human backboard on clay. His strict workout regime had paid off and he had become ridiculously fit. Not even Wilander could keep up with him in long baseline wars any more, and he had to shorten the points to be able to beat him. He could grind/moonball away in a 60 shot plus rally and then suddenly amp it up with his forehand and/or a net approach. At RG in 1987 he had numerous rallies with over 80, 90 or even 100 shots.

A match between the Vilas of 1977 and the Lendl of 1986-1987 on clay would have been ‘interesting’, and incredibly long ! I would favour Lendl to have the upper hand there though, again because they would be fairly even matched fitness-wise but Lendl would have bigger weapons and more variety in his locker.

 

[kiki]

Watched most of their cc clashes.Vilas had a big problem as he grew old: he never had a big serve and, very specially, his heavy top spin landed short allowing Lendl blast his FH to win points.But Vilas was superfit in 1982, much like Lendl from 1985 onwards, and won their 2 big matches coming off a two sets deficit.Very good cc rivalry.

 

[itoaxel]

Prime Lendl would blitz Vilas. Baby Lendl gave Borg a way tougher match at the French than peak Vilas had ever managed to do. Lendl would match Vilas in fitness and consistency, was much faster and a better mover than Vilas who was only an average mover, and would easily overpower him and outhit him off the ground. Would not even be a contest. Wilander gave Vilas a way way harder time than Vilas would have ever managed.

 

[Vensai]

Ivan Lendl would probably win the majority of their matches.

 

[itoaxel]

I don't know why people always assume the "younger" player has the advantage. I see this thrown out all the time. One has to examine when the matches took place, not just who was younger. In the case of Vilas vs Lendl, any matches from 81 or earlier would give Vilas the unfair advantage, and any from 82 onwards Lendl. So if more of the matches, particularly on clay were 81 and earlier (and I seem to recall they were) this would favor Vilas, not Lendl.

It is just how I keep reading Martina managed to be 9-9 vs Graf despite being 13 years older. Yet atleast 10 of their 18 matches (85-87) were during Martina's prime and outside of Steffi Graf's. They didn't even play often when Martina was "old" since she wasn't getting far enough often, and was avoiding slow surfaces and Steffi (later Monica too) on those on purpose. Yet since Martina was the older player, this false assumption is just made for the sake of it.

 

[hoodjem]

I don't know why people always assume the "younger" player has the advantage. I see this thrown out all the time. One has to examine when the matches took place, not just who was younger. In the case of Vilas vs Lendl, any matches from 81 or earlier would give Vilas the unfair advantage, and any from 82 onwards Lendl. So if more of the matches, particularly on clay were 81 and earlier (and I seem to recall they were) this would favor Vilas, not Lendl.

Good point.

The matches between Vilas and Lendl were spread over four years, from 1980 to 1983.

Here's the breakdown--
1983 Hilton Head Clay F
6-2, 6-1, 6-0 Lendl, Ivan

1983 Detroit Carpet F
7-5, 6-2, 2-6, 6-4 Lendl, Ivan

1982 Madrid Clay F
6-7, 4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-3 Vilas, Guillermo

1982 Monte Carlo Clay F
6-1, 7-6, 6-3 Vilas, Guillermo

1981 Masters NYC Carpet RR
6-4, 6-1 Lendl, Ivan

1981 Buenos Aires Clay F
6-1, 6-2 Lendl, Ivan

1981 Barcelona Clay F
6-0, 6-3, 6-0 Lendl, Ivan

1981 Indianapolis Clay S
6-3, 7-5 Lendl, Ivan

1981 Nations Cup Germany Clay RR
7-5, 6-4 Lendl, Ivan

1980 Masters NYC Carpet RR
7-5, 6-4 Lendl, Ivan

1980 Barcelona Clay F
6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 6-1 Lendl, Ivan

1980 Davis Cup TCH V ARG SF Argentina Clay RR
7-5, 8-6, 9-7 Lendl, Ivan

1980 Kitzbuhel Clay F
6-3, 6-2, 6-2 Vilas, Guillermo

1980 Hamburg Clay S
6-4, 6-3, 6-1 Vilas, Guillermo

1980 Nations Cup Germany Clay RR
6-2, 2-6, 6-3 Vilas, Guillermo

 

[hoodjem]

Ivan Lendl would probably win the majority of their matches.

Hmmm.

And I bet it would be 7-5 for Lendl.

 

[itoaxel]

Interesting breakdown. I would say Vilas winning the first 3 clay matches over green Lendl, 4 years away from his first slam, was expected. However Lendl winning the next 6 clay matches in a row, still only 1980-1981 is quite bad for Vilas, who was probably still closer to his prime at that point than Lendl was, or atleast as close. Vilas winning 2 of their 3 82-83 matches however is in Vilas's favor.

Overall the head to head indicates Lendl still having the edge on clay prime to prime, just as I suspected would be the case before even seeing the head to head in detail. Lendl would not win every match over Vilas on clay the way Borg did, but I think he would win the majority of them. What is most noticeable are the scores. It seems when Lendl was really on his game he could hit through Vilas and tear him apart, even on clay. As many of Lendl's winning scores are extremely lopsided.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Lendl was better than Vilas on any surface

 

[Clintspin]

How much of a factor was it that Vilas stayed with wood composites until his switch to Puma?

 

[itoaxel]

How much of a factor was it that Vilas stayed with wood composites until his switch to Puma?

That is a good point. That was a factor in Evert vs Navratilova while.

Still Vilas losing his last French Open final to a baby (17 year old) Wilander who Lendl owned in Wilander's prime, pretty much seals the deal to who is better on clay. Along with that all the stats are heavily in Lendl's favor already. Along with baby Lendl's 81 French final vs Borg vs Vilas's numerous uncompetitve efforts vs Borg. Vilas didn't even dominate the field outside of Borg on clay, and had numerous losses before the finals of RG, some of them pretty bad ones, and the 82 final was a bad loss too. Lendl rarely had bad losses on clay, especialy at the French, although he had the occasional one too, but was usually to the eventual winner or in a minor upset to someone like Wilander.

 

[jean pierre]

That is a good point. That was a factor in Evert vs Navratilova while.

Still Vilas losing his last French Open final to a baby (17 year old) Wilander who Lendl owned in Wilander's prime, pretty much seals the deal to who is better on clay. Along with that all the stats are heavily in Lendl's favor already. Along with baby Lendl's 81 French final vs Borg vs Vilas's numerous uncompetitve efforts vs Borg. Vilas didn't even dominate the field outside of Borg on clay, and had numerous losses before the finals of RG, some of them pretty bad ones, and the 82 final was a bad loss too. Lendl rarely had bad losses on clay, especialy at the French, although he had the occasional one too, but was usually to the eventual winner or in a minor upset to someone like Wilander.

I agree, against Wilander it was a bad loss (even if Vilas was very unlucky). But losses against Pecci and Noah are not : Pecci played a great tennis, and Noah, who's a Grand Slam winner, too. Against Solomon in 1980, Vilas was very sick.
The finals against Lendl in Monte-Carlo and Madrid 1982 were greats matches.

 

[Gizo]

I think that both Lendl and Wilander at their peaks on clay would be too strong for a peak Vilas on the surface more often than not. Lendl we've talked about, at his 1986-1987 level he would have no issues waging war with Vilas in the long, gruelling rallies, plus he simply had more weapons and power at his disposal.

And Wilander would just be too tactically and technically smart for Vilas more often than not as well. Wilander's tactical brain alone was a bigger weapon than any of Vilas's own strengths. Plus like Lendl I also think that he was also a more technically complete player. After beating Vilas in the 1982 RG final as a 17 year old, he went on to easily beat him in the Barcelona final later that year as well.

 

[hoodjem]

Prime Lendl would blitz Vilas. Baby Lendl gave Borg a way tougher match at the French than peak Vilas had ever managed to do.

True, but remember that Borg was playing hurt in the 1981 FO final and was not playing at top-level. (Borg has a lot of minor and major injuries for a good portion of 1981 probably in part due to his tremendous workload over the previous few years.)

 

[kiki]

That is a good point. That was a factor in Evert vs Navratilova while.

Still Vilas losing his last French Open final to a baby (17 year old) Wilander who Lendl owned in Wilander's prime, pretty much seals the deal to who is better on clay. Along with that all the stats are heavily in Lendl's favor already. Along with baby Lendl's 81 French final vs Borg vs Vilas's numerous uncompetitve efforts vs Borg. Vilas didn't even dominate the field outside of Borg on clay, and had numerous losses before the finals of RG, some of them pretty bad ones, and the 82 final was a bad loss too. Lendl rarely had bad losses on clay, especialy at the French, although he had the occasional one too, but was usually to the eventual winner or in a minor upset to someone like Wilander.

Baby Lendl in 81?
Did you live the era?

 

[itoaxel]

In maturity and relative to his prime level tennis and most of all mentality he was a baby. He, a future 8 slam winner, didn't win his first slam for another 3 years, what does that tell you.

 

[kiki]

In maturity and relative to his prime level tennis and most of all mentality he was a baby. He, a future 8 slam winner, didn't win his first slam for another 3 years, what does that tell you.

major indoors were just as much important back then

I agree he was not the 1985 Lendl but he was close to it, already very strong.I watched him live in many different years and he was terrific, although I admit not as consistent, for long parts of 1980-81

 

[Hard Court]

Vilas won way more matches. Won way more tournaments. Much higher winning %. You really have to reach to favor Courier.

 

[onehandbh]

Which racquet was Vilas using? The Head Vilas wood racquet with an open throat?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Lendl is a bit ahead.

I think Lendl is above Vilas, Kuerten, Wilander, Federer, Bruguera, Courier, etc.


I think he has a strong case as the 3rd best claycourter in the open era. Although I put Djokovic a hair ahead because of longevity and consistency (and being a bit biased as he's my 2nd favorite player ever).

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Vilas getting the short end of the stick here. Vilas would have more FO titles (because we all know that would tip the scale in the minds of many posters), had he not run into prime Borg twice in the Finals. The loss to 17 y/o Wilander was shocking at the time...but being that Wilander immediately backed that up with great wins throughout '83 (including reaching the French Finals again and beating Lendl in Australia for the first of back to back titles), the loss to Wilander isn't like Coria losing to Gaudio or something

 

[martinezownsclay]

Vilas getting the short end of the stick here. Vilas would have more FO titles (because we all know that would tip the scale in the minds of many posters), had he not run into prime Borg twice in the Finals. The loss to 17 y/o Wilander was shocking at the time...but being that Wilander immediately backed that up with great wins throughout '83 (including reaching the French Finals again and beating Lendl in Australia for the first of back to back titles), the loss to Wilander isn't like Coria losing to Gaudio or something

Federer and Djokovic both would have won MANY more RG titles without Nadal, and most people here, even Federer and Djokovic fans, do not give either virtually any extra unofficial credit for that. Now maybe you would disagree with that perspective, but that is the perspective most take here, with only marginal few dissenters. So naturally you shouldn't expect much to be given to Vilas for only losing out on 2 max RG titles to Borg, as that is the number of times he lost to Borg at RG. And anyway removing Borg at RG, particularly when factoring in the depleted RG field many of those as this was the period of the warring factions on tour leading to absences many times, Lendl's competition at RG and on clay in general is now far inferior to Borg.

Actually Lendl lost the 81 RG title to Borg in 5 sets, and almost for sure there was clearly nobody else beating him that year. Examining the draw, the form of the players, head to head of players who made it deep at the time, his toughest opponent would be Clerc, who he already beat in 5 sets in the semis (Lendl already straight setted McEnroe in the quarters that year btw, Vilas played that year and went out early). So removing Borg, Lendl still has more RG titles than Vilas, LOL! That hypothetical argument does not even work.

Another argument is who would they have beaten for these hypothetical titles, and who did they beat for their actual ones. Vilas beat Brian Gottfried for his lone RG title. Who does he beat for his possible other 2 without Borg? Well in 1978 the semi final losers to Borg and Vilas were Corrado Barazzutti and Dick Stockton. 1975 the semi final losers to Borg were Adriano Pannata (lost to Borg) and Eddie Dibbs. Actually considering Pannata won 2 of his 3 clay matches (their only matches on any surface) in 75-76, it is 50/50 at absolute best if Vilas even wins 75 without Borg. Panatta is also the man who beat Borg on route to the 76 RG title, he was a beast on clay around then. I am leaning to Vilas does not win 75 without Borg, but at best it is 50/50. So in fact removing Borg he might well be down 4 RG titles to 2 to Lendl, with a weaker field than Lendl now faced, particularly at RG to boot. Regardless the wins he has for his hypothetical 77 (well already real) and 78 titles are obviously extremely weak, with only 75, if he does win, being any quality opponent. Lendl by contrast beat peak McEnroe, even if on his worst surface, in 84. Beat Mats Wilander in 87. Beat Mikael Pernfors in 86, ok not that strong, but his wins in 84 and 87 were very strong. That is before even considering his hypothetical ones.

And if we are going to remove players might as well even remove Wilander, who is now FAR superior to anyone Vilas has left facing on clay, now that Borg is removed. Lendl obviously wins 85 now. Lendl lost to Wilander in 5 sets in the round of 16 in 82. Lendl and Vilas have a head to head history which opens with Vilas winning their first 3 matches, but then Lendl winning 10 of their remaining 12, starting in mid 1980. While it is possible Vilas somehow wins a likely hypothetical 82 RG final with Wilander, the more likely scenario clearly is Lendl winning that hypothetical final, even with his sketchy early history in major finals (not even meaning much in comparision to Vilas who is noted for his nerves in big matches and vs his main rivals too anyway), which would lead Lendl to 6 RG titles vs only 2 or 3 for Vilas in this new hypothetical. I also haven't gone into listing the players both actually lost to at RG, but while both had some bad losses, believe me this would also make Vilas look the worse of the two, even with his relatively shorter career. Yeah this argument doesn't work for Vilas at all. Lendl >>>>>>>>> Vilas at RG point blank, not even a hypothetical game helps Vilas here.

I am not surprised at all nearly everyone rates Lendl higher than Vilas on clay. The only argument I can see for Vilas is his large number of smaller tour clay titles, but Lendl has a very large number there too, even while less than Vilas. And that seems to come mainly down to willingness to play, Lendl was certainly no less dominant on clay in general, even outside of Borg.

 

[buscemi]

Vilas would have more FO titles (because we all know that would tip the scale in the minds of many posters), had he not run into prime Borg twice in the Finals.

We don't know that.

One of those finals losses was to Borg in 1975. Borg had beaten Panatta in a tight 4 set SF before smoking Vilas in straight sets in the final. Panatta and Vilas played twice in 1975, both on clay, with Panatta winning in Madrid and Vilas winning in Buenos Aires.

The other finals loss to Borg was in 1978 when Borg lost 6 games to Ramirez in the QF, 1 game against Barazzutti in the SF, and 5 games against Vilas in the final. I'm guessing the final is Ramirez/Vilas if Borg isn't there. Ramirez and Vilas played once in 1978, with Ramirez winning, 2-6, 6-0, 6-3 in Monte Carlo (on his way to the title).

 

[martinezownsclay]

We don't know that.

One of those finals losses was to Borg in 1975. Borg had beaten Panatta in a tight 4 set SF before smoking Vilas in straight sets in the final. Panatta and Vilas played twice in 1975, both on clay, with Panatta winning in Madrid and Vilas winning in Buenos Aires.

The other finals loss to Borg was in 1978 when Borg lost 6 games to Ramirez in the QF, 1 game against Barazzutti in the SF, and 5 games against Vilas in the final. I'm guessing the final is Ramirez/Vilas if Borg isn't there. Ramirez and Vilas played once in 1978, with Ramirez winning, 2-6, 6-0, 6-3 in Monte Carlo (on his way to the title).

I would still lean to Vilas for 78, but you are right even that isnt a for sure. I was being too generous in automatically giving that one to Vilas.

What is almost for sure (not 100% but pretty close) is Lendl winning 81 without Borg.

I find the whole without Borg argument a total fail here, even if I were one who believed in those type of arguments to beginw ith. It is not like Borg was deprving Vilas of oodles of RG titles while he dominated the field at RG for years, the way Nadal did to Federer first, then Djokovic. Regardless how you feel about Federer or Djokovic on clay vs Vilas, there is no question at all both dominated "the field" at RG over the years many times more than Vilas did at RG in his time. And Lendl very likely lost an additional RG title because of Borg himself anyway. And I even dismiss the argument as I don't believe in that type of what if reasoning in general, but it would be infinitely more valid than it is for Vilas.

 

[buscemi]

I would still lean to Vilas for 78, but you are right even that isnt a for sure. I was being too generous in automatically giving that one to Vilas.

What is almost for sure (not 100% but pretty close) is Lendl winning 81 without Borg.

I find the whole without Borg argument a total fail here, even if I were one who believed in those type of arguments to beginw ith. It is not like Borg was deprving Vilas of oodles of RG titles while he dominated the field at RG for years, the way Nadal did to Federer first, then Djokovic. Regardless how you feel about Federer or Djokovic on clay vs Vilas, there is no question at all both dominated "the field" at RG over the years many times more than Vilas did at RG in his time. And Lendl very likely lost an additional RG title because of Borg himself anyway. And I even dismiss the argument as I don't believe in that type of what if reasoning in general, but it would be infinitely more valid than it is for Vilas.

Yeah, agree that Lendl winning in 1981 w/out Borg is much more of a sure thing.

 

[abmk]

Vilas getting the short end of the stick here. Vilas would have more FO titles (because we all know that would tip the scale in the minds of many posters), had he not run into prime Borg twice in the Finals. The loss to 17 y/o Wilander was shocking at the time...but being that Wilander immediately backed that up with great wins throughout '83 (including reaching the French Finals again and beating Lendl in Australia for the first of back to back titles), the loss to Wilander isn't like Coria losing to Gaudio or something

1+2 = 3
and Lendl lost in 5 sets to Borg himself in 81 RG.
so without Borg, it'd still be 3 to 4.

and 75, Vilas is no lock at all with Panatta around anyway. Lendl clearly more sure in 81 without Borg..even compared to Vilas 78.
Giving Vilas 78 and Lendl 82, it'd be 4-2 for Lendl to Vilas.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I would still lean to Vilas for 78, but you are right even that isnt a for sure. I was being too generous in automatically giving that one to Vilas.

What is almost for sure (not 100% but pretty close) is Lendl winning 81 without Borg.

I find the whole without Borg argument a total fail here, even if I were one who believed in those type of arguments to beginw ith. It is not like Borg was deprving Vilas of oodles of RG titles while he dominated the field at RG for years, the way Nadal did to Federer first, then Djokovic. Regardless how you feel about Federer or Djokovic on clay vs Vilas, there is no question at all both dominated "the field" at RG over the years many times more than Vilas did at RG in his time. And Lendl very likely lost an additional RG title because of Borg himself anyway. And I even dismiss the argument as I don't believe in that type of what if reasoning in general, but it would be infinitely more valid than it is for Vilas.

Lendl was a mental mug in slam finals early in his career, I don't think he is a lock without Borg. Just as I don't think Vilas was a lock with Panatta around.

Nonetheless, I don't care much for hypotheticals.

Lendl has 3 RG titles. Vilas has 1 and a USO on clay.

Just like Djokovic has 3 and Federer 1 regardless of what they would have with no Nadal around.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think Lendl gets an overrap for being a bad big match player or choker early in his career. It is somewhat true, I am not denying that, but it is overblown. He did not start losing big finals he arguably should have won until atleast 83, and his first major came in 84. Obviously he wasn't supposed to beat in the 81 French final, and got to a 5th set. His loss to Connors in the 82 US Open final is definitely not a bad loss, and Connors owned him bigtime at this point in his career. It was in 83 he had somewhat of a choke in the 83 US Open final vs Connors where he came into the final in red hot form and served for the 3rd set but didn't close it out, then was mentally broken by that and completely fell apart in the 4th set; but even still Connors still owned Lendl on tour around that point, plus has an incredible US Open record. And the loss to Wilander in the 83 Australian Open final. Wilander was in stellar form that event, easily beating prime McEnroe in 4 sets on the Australian grass, and it was a super windy day in the final, and WIlander handled it better. There is absolutely nothing even out of these matches to indicate he was likely to lose the 81 French final given the results other players already had at this event, and who he already beat in the draw, plus the way he played in the actual final vs Borg.

And it is not like Vilas is some pillar of strength in big matches either, LOL!

 

[Gizo]

Not just at RG, but Lendl overall had a better title distribution at the biggest European clay court events than Vilas:

Lendl:
RG x 3
Rome x 2
Monte-Carlo x 2
Hamburg x 2
Barcelona x 2
Madrid x 1

Vilas:
RG x 1
Rome x 1
Monte-Carlo x 2
Hamburg x 1
Barcelona x 0 (he was the runner-up there 4 years in a row from 1980-1983)
Madrid x 1

Lendl winning each of the 5 biggest European clay court events available to him multiple times (Madrid looked to rank in 6th place there, and then seemed to decline in the mid 80s though after both Vilas and him had already won their titles there) really stands out.

Vilas's 0-3 record against Solomon at RG also stood out to me (though Vilas straight setted him in their 1977 USO SF on har-tru). In 1980, a badly cramping Solomon beat an ill Vilas in the quarter-finals, having also beaten him in their 5 set German Open final that year.

 

[bobcolbert]

Not just at RG, but Lendl overall had a better title distribution at the biggest European clay court events than Vilas:

Lendl:
RG x 3
Rome x 2
Monte-Carlo x 2
Hamburg x 2
Barcelona x 2
Madrid x 1

Vilas:
RG x 1
Rome x 1
Monte-Carlo x 2
Hamburg x 1
Barcelona x 0 (he was the runner-up there 4 years in a row from 1980-1983)
Madrid x 1

Lendl winning each of the 5 biggest European clay court events available to him multiple times (Madrid looked to rank in 6th place there, and then seemed to decline in the mid 80s though after both Vilas and him had already won their titles there) really stands out.

Vilas's 0-3 record against Solomon at RG also stood out to me (though Vilas straight setted him in their 1977 USO SF on har-tru). In 1980, a badly cramping Solomon beat an ill Vilas in the quarter-finals, having also beaten him in their 5 set German Open final that year.

It's true that Solomon has always bothered Vilas, which is surprising. But the 1980 defeat is not representative because Vilas had been very ill two days before (stomach), and had not recovered physically. It's a shame because he was very strong at that time, he had just won Rome and the Nations Cup by beating Borg.

 

[Pheasant]

Lendl after he fixed his diet from 1985-87 would be too fit and have far too much firepower for Vilas to hang with him. When Lendl had his cholesterol issues in 1984 and earlier, then Vilas would be able to steal some matches.

One thing that I really like to look at is how the ATG players performed on a particular surface against the best players in the world.

Records on clay vs top-5 players for their careers:
Vilas: 15-24, .385
Lendl: 26-14, .650
Wilander: 13-7, .650
Borg: 22-8, .733
Kuerten: 12-4, .750
Courier: 5-4, .555

 

[Gizo]

Yes there was a big difference between the Lendl that won his 1st RG title in 1984, and the Lendl that won his 2nd and 3rd RG titles in 1986-1987.

In 1984, he fitness levels were nowhere near as strong compared to in 1986-1987. He was absolutely dead on his feet after the 1984 RG final (fainting from heat exhaustion in the locker room) and had nothing left in the tank at Queen's the following week, losing his R1 match (against the eventual finalist Leif Shiras) in straight sets. Mac on the other went to Queen's and won the title.

In 1984, other than getting schooled by Mac in the first 2 sets in the final (after also getting schooled by him on har-tru and than red clay in Forest Hills and Dusseldorf) before turning it around, he did look to play extremely well throughout those 2 weeks. His SF win against Wilander was a strong contender for the most impressive victory of his career at RG. He completely bullied and dominated Wilander from the baseline and pinned him back there in that match. Wilander tried to relentlessly target his backhand, but it held up very well under that pressure, and he his bludgeoning forehand was ultimately decisive. It was the most one sided of the 4 Lendl-Wilander matches at RG.

He had to play more proactively at RG in 1984 compared in 1986-1987, which IMO made him more enjoyable to watch. In 1986-1987 with his significantly enhanced fitness, he essentially won his titles there playing as a defensive grinder, though after long, seemingly endless rallies (many of which exceeded 50 shots round after round), he could suddenly amp things up with his forehand. And in the 1985 and 1987 finals vs. Wilander, the player that had more success at the net ultimately won. I'd much rather watch back Lendl's victory over Wilander in their 1984 RG semi-final, than in their 1987 RG final that's for sure !

In terms of Vilas, I've only seen part of the match which is on YouTube, but it seems like he was completely bullied by Pecci in his 1979 RG QF, especially in those first 2 sets, and really struggling to deal with Pecci's serve and net-rushing (of course Pecci had a stunning run to the final that year, and once there made it an entertaining contest vs. Borg). It looks like he only broke Pecci's serve once during that match, at the start of the 3rd set. According to the ATP website, that was Pecci's only win against Vilas during their first 12 matches against each other (all on clay). The next time Pecci beat Vilas, in their 1981 Italian Open SF, Vilas basically admitted that he underestimated him and was already thinking about the final and a potential showdown against his compatriot Clerc, who had beaten Lendl in the first SF.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Not just at RG, but Lendl overall had a better title distribution at the biggest European clay court events than Vilas:

Lendl:
RG x 3
Rome x 2
Monte-Carlo x 2
Hamburg x 2
Barcelona x 2
Madrid x 1

Vilas:
RG x 1
Rome x 1
Monte-Carlo x 2
Hamburg x 1
Barcelona x 0 (he was the runner-up there 4 years in a row from 1980-1983)
Madrid x 1

Lendl winning each of the 5 biggest European clay court events available to him multiple times (Madrid looked to rank in 6th place there, and then seemed to decline in the mid 80s though after both Vilas and him had already won their titles there) really stands out.

Vilas's 0-3 record against Solomon at RG also stood out to me (though Vilas straight setted him in their 1977 USO SF on har-tru). In 1980, a badly cramping Solomon beat an ill Vilas in the quarter-finals, having also beaten him in their 5 set German Open final that year.

Lendl after he fixed his diet from 1985-87 would be too fit and have far too much firepower for Vilas to hang with him. When Lendl had his cholesterol issues in 1984 and earlier, then Vilas would be able to steal some matches.

One thing that I really like to look at is how the ATG players performed on a particular surface against the best players in the world.

Records on clay vs top-5 players for their careers:
Vilas: 15-24, .385
Lendl: 26-14, .650
Wilander: 13-7, .650
Borg: 22-8, .733
Kuerten: 12-4, .750
Courier: 5-4, .555

What I'd like to add to this is that Lendl didn't even play as much European clay tennis as he could have. During his peak 1985–89 period, he only competed seven times at Monte Carlo/Hamburg/Rome, out of fifteen available opportunities. He won six of those seven, with a 34–1 match record. So if he'd played a more modern (i.e. 21st century) schedule — rather than being distracted by the big dollars at the Forest Hills TOC — I've little doubt he could have added another few Masters titles to his resumé.

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, his overall clay match record during those peak years was:

• 1985: 31–2 (94%)
• 1986: 17–1 (94%)
• 1987: 14–1 (93%)
• 1988: 15–1 (94%)
• 1989: 21–2 (91%)

That's 98 wins in 105 matches across five years. Rafa and Bjorn are the only guys with better multi-year win rates on the surface in the Open Era. OK, Vilas played and won many more matches in total (almost as many in his best year alone), but aside from 1977 the Argentine was never as dominant as Ivan, despite playing more small events against less challenging opposition.

Vilas's numbers for comparison during his own peak/prime:

• 1976: 50–9 (85%)
• 1977: 95–5 (95%)
• 1978: 39–5 (88%)
• 1979: 30–8 (79%)
• 1980: 48–7 (87%)
• 1981: 60–11 (85%)
• 1982: 49–5 (91%)

 

[Gizo]

What I'd like to add to this is that Lendl didn't even play as much European clay tennis as he could have. During his peak 1985–89 period, he only competed seven times at Monte Carlo/Hamburg/Rome, out of fifteen available opportunities. He won six of those seven, with a 34–1 match record. So if he'd played a more modern (i.e. 21st century) schedule — rather than being distracted by the big dollars at the Forest Hills TOC — I've little doubt he could have added another few Masters titles to his resumé.

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, his overall clay match record during those peak years was:

• 1985: 31–2 (94%)
• 1986: 17–1 (94%)
• 1987: 14–1 (93%)
• 1988: 15–1 (94%)
• 1989: 21–2 (91%)

That's 98 wins in 105 matches across five years. Rafa and Bjorn are the only guys with better multi-year win rates on the surface in the Open Era. OK, Vilas played and won many more matches in total (almost as many in his best year alone), but aside from 1977 the Argentine was never as dominant as Ivan, despite playing more small events against less challenging opposition.

Vilas's numbers for comparison during his own peak/prime:

• 1976: 50–9 (85%)
• 1977: 95–5 (95%)
• 1978: 39–5 (88%)
• 1979: 30–8 (79%)
• 1980: 48–7 (87%)
• 1981: 60–11 (85%)
• 1982: 49–5 (91%)

Yes Lendl had a better overall title win / appearance strike rate at each of the 5 biggest European clay court events than Vilas, and the exact same strike rate at the 6th biggest event in Madrid.

Roland Garros: 3/15 for Lendl vs. 1/18 for Vilas.
Rome: 2/8 for Lendl vs 1/14 for Vilas.
Monte-Carlo: 2/8 for Lendl vs. 2/13 for Vilas. The 1981 final between Vilas and Connors was abandoned due to rain, at 5-5 in the 1st set.
Hamburg: 2/8 for Lendl vs. 1/12 for Vilas. During Vilas's title run in 1978, Orantes won the first set of their SF 6-0 before suffering a neck injury when reaching for a shot at 1-1 in the 2nd set and retiring.
Barcelona: 2/8 for Lendl vs. 0/10 for Vilas.
Madrid: 1/6 for Lendl vs. 1/6 for Vilas.

Clearly both players entered those tournaments before or after their best years (half of Lendl's appearances at Hamburg were from 1991-1994 for example), so it's not being unfair on either of them to consider total appearances.

Given how insanely successful Lendl was on hard courts and carpet (or indoor hard and under a roof in general), i.e. meaning that there was much less scope for him to enter smaller clay court tournaments, the fact that he still won 28 clay court titles in total was incredibly impressive.

 

[Pheasant]

@King_olaf_the_hairy and @Gizo

Those are some fantastic write ups on 1980s clay court tennis. The two of you need to post more often.