Who is more "deserving" - Lendl at Wimbledon, Djokovic at French

[McEnroeisanartist]

Who do you think was/is more deserving of a title - Lendl at Wimbledon or Djokovic at French Open?

Lendl reached two finals, and 5 other semifinals. He lost to the eventual champion there on 5 occasions, the eventual finalist on 3 occasions. His biggest win there was Edberg in 1987.

Djokovic has reached two finals, and 5 other semifinals. He lost to the eventual champion there on 6 occasions, the eventual finalist on 1 occasion. His biggest wins there was Federer in 2012.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Is this even a question? Asked like that, Djokovic by a mile.

 

[mavsman149]

The only difference in those stats is how many times they lost to the eventual champion so just based on that I think you have to go Novak.

Unfortunately, as a 25 year old, I have not seen Lendl play so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Grass is for cows= lendl

 

[ollinger]

It's obviously a trick question since nobody ever "deserves" a title -- you either go out and win it, or you don't.

 

[xan]

well he did ask who is more deserving not who deserves it

 

[Cenarius]

You don't deserves the stuff you get them.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

With the polarized conditions in Lendl's time, and the sheer amount of great grass court players at the time, there's a strong argument for the Czech. It was much more difficult to win all 4 Slams. Nobody had done it with the 4 different surfaces. His efforts included changing his game considerably. Novak hasn't changed much, he just waited for his rival to decline.

 

[ivan_the_terrible]

Lendl made huge sacrifices in an attempt to win that elusive title.

I recall he skipped FO once and changed his game to S&V on grass - unfortunately Pat Cash crashed the party

 

[OhYes]

Even after so many years, cases where some champions miss just one trophy, are really sad.
I wish all of them could catch it like Federer did in 2009, if they couldn't in hard way.

 

[xan]

With the polarized conditions in Lendl's time, and the sheer amount of great grass court players at the time, there's a strong argument for the Czech. It was much more difficult to win all 4 Slams. Nobody had done it with the 4 different surfaces. His efforts included changing his game considerably. Novak hasn't changed much, he just waited for his rival to decline.

yes, he was just fishing for a few years then came back when everyone became bad.
do you even hear yourself and how stupid this sounds?

 

[Mustard]

Lendl became more and more obsessed with winning Wimbledon with each passing year from 1983 onwards, peaking during 1989-1992. At 1983 Wimbledon, I think Lendl surprised even himself with the ease in which he got to the semi finals. He then lost a close 3-set match against McEnroe, with Chris Lewis being the other finalist. I think Lendl knew how close he was at that point, and his desire to win Wimbledon just grew and grew.

Lendl made huge sacrifices in an attempt to win that elusive title.

I recall he skipped FO once and changed his game to S&V on grass - unfortunately Pat Cash crashed the party

It was Stefan Edberg who defeated Lendl in the 1990 Wimbledon semi finals, after Lendl skipped the whole clay season and won 1990 Queen's Club without dropping a set in what Dan Maskell described as "the finest grass-court tennis that he had ever seen".

Cash defeated Lendl in the 1987 Wimbledon final. That was after 2-time defending champion, Becker, had gone out in the second round to Peter Doohan. Lendl came through a tough draw, beating Leconte and Edberg in the quarter finals and semi finals, before losing to Cash.

It's clear that Lendl's most painful loss was the semi final against Becker at 1989 Wimbledon, with Lendl up 2-1 in sets and 3-2 up (with a break in the fourth set), only for Becker to come back and win in 5 sets. That's when Lendl announced almost straight away that he'd be skipping all of the 1990 clay season to practice on grass. He also got the US Open replica court at his house changed into a grass court.

 

[ivan_the_terrible]

Lendl became more and more obsessed with winning Wimbledon with each passing year from 1983 onwards, peaking during 1989-1992. At 1983 Wimbledon, I think Lendl surprised even himself with the ease in which he got to the semi finals. He then lost a close 3-set match against McEnroe, with Chris Lewis being the other finalist. I think Lendl knew how close he was at that point, and his desire to win Wimbledon just grew and grew.



It was Stefan Edberg who defeated Lendl in the 1990 Wimbledon semi finals, after Lendl skipped the whole clay season and won 1990 Queen's Club without dropping a set in what Dan Maskell described as "the finest grass-court tennis that he had ever seen".

Cash defeated Lendl in the 1987 Wimbledon final. That was after 2-time defending champion, Becker, had gone out in the second round to Peter Doohan. Lendl came through a tough draw, beating Leconte and Edberg in the quarter finals and semi finals, before losing to Cash.

It's clear that Lendl's most painful loss was the semi final against Becker at 1989 Wimbledon, with Lendl up 2-1 in sets and 3-2 up (with a break in the fourth set), only for Becker to come back and win in 5 sets. That's when Lendl announced almost straight away that he'd be skipping all of the 1990 clay season to practice on grass. He also got the US Open replica court at his house changed into a grass court.

Thx for that journey back in time - much appreciated!

I was a huge Lendl fan, partly because he was very much the underdog for a huge chunk of his career. I don't recall him ever getting much crowd support in those days, but he stuck it out. I think he overcame a lot coming from a communist country and all. It was a very different atmosphere in his era.

 

[struggle]

Yes, tennis players these days will never face the issues dealt with by the likes of Lendl, Martina etc.

Not to mention the homogenous nature of court surfaces these days.

 

[Mustard]

Thx for that journey back in time - much appreciated!

I was a huge Lendl fan, partly because he was very much the underdog for a huge chunk of his career. I don't recall him ever getting much crowd support in those days, but he stuck it out. I think he overcame a lot coming from a communist country and all. It was a very different atmosphere in his era.

I don't get that, because Lendl was more right-wing than nearly all his fellow players. Mecir was popular enough in the 1980s, expressing a liking for many western sports and fishing, and he always resided in Czechoslovakia. American establishment paranoia about "communism" (even the distorted Stalinist form) showed the fear of the big business class that the people would take their privileges away.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

yes, he was just fishing for a few years then came back when everyone became bad.
do you even hear yourself and how stupid this sounds?

It's a fact that he has a better chance of winning when his rival isn't playing well, is it not? And that his chances have increased dramatically over the past two years. Amazing how some people make a scandal out of a simple statement of fact.

 

[xan]

Fact it is, but saying "he just waited his rivals to decline" is outright stupid.

 

[PDJ]

Even after so many years, cases where some champions miss just one trophy, are really sad.
I wish all of them could catch it like Federer did in 2009, if they couldn't in hard way.

That's very true. My grandmother still bemoans that Rosewall never won Wimbledon.

 

[bluetrain4]

Neither. You deserve what you win.

 

[Arafel]

I'm going with Lendl, because the surfaces were a lot different back then, and Lendl tried to become a serve/volley player specifically to win Wimbledon. He was coming in on first and second serves, trying to play grass the way it almost had to be played back then. It was a stretch for Ivan, who was the original power baseline player.

In contrast, Djokovic hasn't had to make any changes to his game to try to win the French. He plays the same way in Paris as he does in Melbourne, SW19, and New York. All he has to do is outlast the roadrunner, which he did this year.

 

[Phonco]

Tough to say, I think you can argue for it both ways.

Lendl tried to become everything he was not in order to Wimbledon. That is true dedication in an attempt to win one title, especially since surfaces were different back than. Then you have to add in how there were many great grass players back then, so it was a real mountain for Lendl to climb in his attempt to win Wimbledon. You can say that with all that effort, and all that sacrifice, he should deserve one.

Djokovic, on the other hand, benefits from surfaces being less polar so he should be able to easily win one since it's conducive to his game. However, you could also say that it is a real pity that he can't win the FO even when the game is geared toward his favor. That, and barring his mini decline in '09 and '10, only Nadal and Federer stopped him. I think it speaks a lot when you can say the only people to stop him were an all time great and the greatest clay court player ever.

If you look at their losses, it's pretty similar. Becker seemed to be Lendls verison of Nadal, the guy who was always stopping him. Lendls 1983 loss was like Djokovics 2013 loss where all you had to do was make the final. Pat Cash was like Federer in 2011 where he ruined Lendls best ever chance to win in terms of form and competition.

I think the whole surface homogenization gets cancelled out by the fact that Djokovic faces the clay GOAT pretty much every time. Roland Garros hasn't changed since forever, so regardless of what the rest of the tour is like, RG surface is still the same every year. You can say that there was a polar switch from clay to grass, but there was a time where Lendl sacked the clay season to practice solely on grass which takes the clay to grass switch out of the equation. However, you might say that Lendl was out of his prime at that point, which is quite possible.

Personally, I think Djokovic is more deserving. One, because Nadal has denied him the at the highest of stages (SF's and F's). Becker/Edberg on grass =/= Nadal on Clay. As great as those two are, I don't think anyone would say they were best on the surface like Nadal is on clay. Two, which to me is the kicker, is that Djokovic has won on, what many consider, his worst surface, twice. You're telling me he can't win on one of his best surfaces, yet he can win twice on his weakest? That's depressing.

 

[ultradr]

Nadal makes everything uncertain. Such an exception on clay.

 

[Paul Murphy]

I'm going with Lendl, because the surfaces were a lot different back then, and Lendl tried to become a serve/volley player specifically to win Wimbledon. He was coming in on first and second serves, trying to play grass the way it almost had to be played back then. It was a stretch for Ivan, who was the original power baseline player.

In contrast, Djokovic hasn't had to make any changes to his game to try to win the French. He plays the same way in Paris as he does in Melbourne, SW19, and New York. All he has to do is outlast the roadrunner, which he did this year.

Agreed.
That Lendl was able to change his game so much to be highly competitive on grass says a lot about his ability.
Can't fault his determination either.
To not play the French was a big call - pity it didn't come off.

 

[Mick]

You don't deserves the stuff you get them.

I am with you. The winner of the tournament is the guy who deserves it, whoever he happens to be. The guys who tried and failed don't deserve anything.

 

[jg153040]

I'm going with Lendl, because the surfaces were a lot different back then, and Lendl tried to become a serve/volley player specifically to win Wimbledon. He was coming in on first and second serves, trying to play grass the way it almost had to be played back then. It was a stretch for Ivan, who was the original power baseline player.

In contrast, Djokovic hasn't had to make any changes to his game to try to win the French. He plays the same way in Paris as he does in Melbourne, SW19, and New York. All he has to do is outlast the roadrunner, which he did this year.

Interesting argument. At first I didn't know, but you convinced me.

Yeah, it was a stretch. That's why Borg's FO/W doubles are more impressive as well. He had to completely change his style.

FO today isn't hard to win. It's only because Nadal is there. Without Nadal FO today wouldn't be a stretch at all.

Even guys like Ferrer and Wawrinka and Soderling make RG finals. Murray, who is bad on clay, due to homogenization makes 3 semis. Or does he have 4 semis? I lost count.