Had the courts been this slow in the 80s Lendl would have ruled Wimbledon for years.
I don't think the speed of the court hurt Lendl at Wimbledon so much as the bad bounces.
I don't know if Lendl playing in this era would win a Wimbledon vs. Fed/Nadal/Djokovic. Then again, if the courts were slower in the 80's, guys like Becker/Edberg/Connors/McEnroe would surely have played differently.
As I was saying clearly its very subjective talking about the best players ever. Slams, weeks #1, record against top players,level of competition, big titles like master series and WTF's, davis cup. So much goes into it. With those two its pretty clear though, imo.
Not really. Nadal has 2 more slams and the career slam, sure, but Lendl leads in every other category.
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
The idea and structure are fine, just not convinced of all the findings. I'll put it like this Lendl actually played on very fast surfaces with a quick ball, this is something Nadal hasn't done. This can't be measured numerically, but impacted on their results.
It's the great what if and they suck. Lendl on this grass would win Wimbledon multiple times and Nadal playing on very fast and low bounce grass wouldn't. However since they are products of their particular environments, got to take it within their own sphere.
Hence why Agassi (and you know how much I hate the prick) his career Slam is a greater achievement as there were much bigger differences between the conditions than currently.
Yes of course I am aware of the surface homogenization. I also know that if the courts in the 80's were as they were today, the top guys of that time would all play differently. Would Lendl have won Wimbledon in that scenario? Who knows.
Would you rate Agassi higher than 14?