The Dream Masters [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Dream Masters

federer express
01-31-2005, 11:11 PM
Group A

Pete Sampras
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Boris Becker

Group B

Roger Federer
Bjorn Borg
Andre Agassi
Ivan Lendl

All at their peaks...played indoors as the end of year event should be...what ya think?

Scotso
01-31-2005, 11:37 PM
At their peak? Definitely Lendl.

federer express
01-31-2005, 11:41 PM
At their peak? Definitely Lendl.

But its indoors

Scotso
02-01-2005, 12:50 AM
Und?

Scotso
02-01-2005, 12:51 AM
Sampras wasn't that good indoors was he?

federer express
02-01-2005, 12:52 AM
Und?

Outdoors on anything but grass i would say lendl. But indoors, on a fast court, i would have to say sampras

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 12:59 AM
Lendl only made the TMC finals 8 times in a row on a very fast surface and won countless titles indoors and that was his favourite surface.

If you don't believe me look it up.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:01 AM
Lendl only made the TMC finals 8 times in a row on a very fast surface and won countless titles indoors and that was his favourite surface.

If you don't believe me look it up.

OMG...am saying i think sampras at his peak on a fast court would beat lendl. didn't need a stat throwing at me cuz it doesn't change my opinion.

TennisLurker
02-01-2005, 01:06 AM
Indoors was Lendl´s best surface, he won the masters 5 times, Had a 66 match winning streak indoors between October 1981 and January 1983, probably the best ever on that surface.

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:08 AM
OMG...am saying i think sampras at his peak on a fast court would beat lendl. didn't need a stat throwing at me cuz it doesn't change my opinion.

Just like your more grass theory you don't have a very good comprehension of what some other posters are saying and got confused with your point when countered with different arguments.

When did I say Lendl would win? I have not voted on this poll at all.

Ok, for what reasons can you give that would make Sampras a winner in this? I am interested to read them.

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:09 AM
Indoors was Lendl´s best surface, he won the masters 5 times, Had a 66 match winning streak indoors between October 1981 and January 1983, probably the best ever on that surface.

Stop stating the obvious. :)

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:18 AM
Ok, for what reasons can you give that would make Sampras a winner in this? I am interested to read them.

Records and number of titles won is irrelevant in answering it I think. Its simply who do u think at their best is better. I think sampras at his best surpasses lendl at his best. Regardless of how many titles won. And I understood your point perfectly...assumed your spouting about lendl's record meant u thought him. If u do fine, if u dont fine. Personally not overly interested

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:20 AM
And in that record run u and tennis lurker are so keen to point out, how many times did he face sampras at his peak? Or anyone else as good as sampras at his peak? Wait...maybe 0

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:23 AM
Records and number of titles won is irrelevant in answering it I think. Its simply who do u think at their best is better. I think sampras at his best surpasses lendl at his best. Regardless of how many titles won. And I understood your point perfectly...assumed your spouting about lendl's record meant u thought him. If u do fine, if u dont fine. Personally not overly interested

Done a wonderful job of not answering my question at all, you said a whole lot of nothing.

It's a Dream Masters yes? You are asking who would win aren't you? How is the success of Lendl or Sampras on the respective surface irrelevant as to who would be considered a winner? This is not about the best overall player, and you have said yourself that this tournament was to be played indoors. Did you watch Lendl at his best indoors then?

Incorrect yet again, I haven't answered the question for the simple reason is I haven't thought about it enough and take everything into consideration

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:27 AM
It's a Dream Masters yes? You are asking who would win aren't you? How is the success of Lendl or Sampras on the respective surface irrelevant as to who would be considered a winner? This is not about the best overall player, and you have said yourself that this tournament was to be played indoors. Did you watch Lendl at his best indoors then?

Watched lendl from 84 onwards and sampras all his career. I just think sampras took the game up to a new level...thats why I say sampras

TennisLurker
02-01-2005, 01:30 AM
Lendl leads Sampras 3-1 Indoors

Lendl´s prime was 1985 1986 1987, so Sampras never never had the chance to play Lendl in his prime.
Ivan had to play against Becker and Edberg in the 80´s.


An almost 33 years old Lendl played a 22 years old (If I recall correctly) Sampras in 1993 in Philadelphia on indoors carpet and Lendl won 76 64, it is up to you if you think Sampras was in his prime back then or not.

Domino
02-01-2005, 01:30 AM
Here's my dream masters at Frankfurt again:

Berasetegui
Bruguera
Muster
Medvedev

Costa
Corretja
E. Sanchez
Gaudenzi

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:31 AM
Watched lendl from 84 onwards and sampras all his career. I just think sampras took the game up to a new level...thats why I say sampras

Thanks for answering the question, albeit it was a very simplistic answer, but come on what specific reasons then? No, just cause Sampras was better isn't good enough.

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:32 AM
Becker is one of the greatest ever players indoors as well.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:32 AM
Lendl leads Sampras 3-1 Indoors

Lendl´s prime was 1985 1986 1987, so Sampras never never had the chance to play Lendl in his prime.
Ivan had to play against Becker and Edberg in the 80´s.


An almost 33 years old Lendl played a 22 years old (If I recall correctly) Sampras in 1993 in Philadelphia on indoors carpet and Lendl won 76 64, it is up to you if you think Sampras was in his prime back then or not.

No...dont think sampras was at his best then

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:33 AM
Becker is one of the greatest ever players indoors as well.

I dont think becker could handle sampras either....both at their bests

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:34 AM
Here's my dream masters at Frankfurt again:

Berasetegui
Bruguera
Muster
Medvedev

Costa
Corretja
E. Sanchez
Gaudenzi

I like this line up though I would do it a little different

Muster
Skoff
Berasategui
Gomez

K.Carlsson
Krickstein
A. Costa
Mancini

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:35 AM
No...dont think sampras was at his best then

Sampras had won Slams by then and Lendl was well past it suffering from injuries a lot at this time, but that more than likely wouldn't register.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:36 AM
Thanks for answering the question, albeit it was a very simplistic answer, but come on what specific reasons then? No, just cause Sampras was better isn't good enough.

Its about opinions as their peaks didn't coincide. But if u take the view that the standard of the game is generally always on the up, which I think is true, and having watched both at the time and videos since....i give it to sampras. Not much to choose between the two, but aside from their backhands I dont think lendl beats sampras on any shot

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:38 AM
Sampras had won Slams by then and Lendl was well past it suffering from injuries a lot at this time, but that more than likely wouldn't register.

Oh I forgot winning one match against someone meant u were a better player than them. Yes Sampras had won a slam, beating lendl at the US Open when he was a newcomer. And sampras hadn't even won wimbledon once at that stage....nevermind the 7 times he went on to win it

TennisLurker
02-01-2005, 01:40 AM
Lendl could win on clay with that forehand

papa_papped_a_lop
02-01-2005, 01:41 AM
Federer express is full of BS as usual and can't come up with a decent argument to save his life.


Their set ratings at their peak:
1 McEnroe, J. (USA ) 2536
2 Borg, B. (SWE ) 2458
3 Lendl, I. (USA ) 2455
4 Federer, R. (SUI ) 2445
5 Sampras, P. (USA ) 2385
6 Connors, J. (USA ) 2379
7 Agassi, A. (USA ) 2372
8 Becker, B. (GER ) 2360

Domino
02-01-2005, 01:41 AM
I like this line up though I would do it a little different

Muster
Skoff
Berasategui
Gomez

K.Carlsson
Krickstein
A. Costa
Mancini

Nice, I like the addition of Skoff and Karlsson, really got the spin masters working.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:41 AM
Lendl could win on clay with that forehand

I said i would go for lendl on clay

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:42 AM
Its about opinions as their peaks didn't coincide. But if u take the view that the standard of the game is generally always on the up, which I think is true, and having watched both at the time and videos since....i give it to sampras. Not much to choose between the two, but aside from their backhands I dont think lendl beats sampras on any shot

Don't necessarily agree with the overall analysis, but thanks for the explanation.

Oh I forgot winning one match against someone meant u were a better player than them. Yes Sampras had won a slam, beating lendl at the US Open when he was a newcomer. And sampras hadn't even won wimbledon once at that stage....nevermind the 7 times he went on to win it

Keep up with the absolute Sampras worship it suits you. Lendl past his peak won more against Sampras than the other way around and if it wasn't for Lendl then Sampras wouldn't have achieved a lot of what he did.

Don't try and be sarcastic it doesn't suit you.

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:43 AM
Lendl could win on clay with that forehand

His running forehand was outstanding, it's because it's Lendl it doesn't get the credit it deserves.

Lendl was a lot fitter in his prime as well.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:44 AM
Keep up with the absolute Sampras worship it suits you. Lendl past his peak won more against Sampras than the other way around

Again...before sampras was at his peak!

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:45 AM
His running forehand was outstanding, it's because it's Lendl it doesn't get the credit it deserves.

Lendl was a lot fitter in his prime as well.

Yes lendl was fitter...but think sampras would be fit enough to complete the tournament unscathed

Domino
02-01-2005, 01:46 AM
Again...before sampras was at his peak!

Actually, 1993 Philly, Lendl beat Sampras on carpet, and in 1993, Sampras won Wimbledon and US Open, plus Key Biscayne and Indian Wells. Sampras was number one, and pretty near his peak level of tennis.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:48 AM
Lendl at his peak had McEnroe and Connors and later Becker and Edberg as his main rivals...none are as good as sampras at his best for me. Thats why lendl's number of wins doesn't change my mind

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:49 AM
Actually, 1993 Philly, Lendl beat Sampras on carpet, and in 1993, Sampras won Wimbledon and US Open, plus Key Biscayne and Indian Wells. Sampras was number one, and pretty near his peak level of tennis.

93 was first time sampras won wimbledon. Again I dont think sampras was at his best yet

Domino
02-01-2005, 01:52 AM
93 was first time sampras won wimbledon. Again I dont think sampras was at his best yet

Yet, Lendl was way past his prime, and 33 to boot.

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:54 AM
Yet, Lendl was way past his prime, and 33 to boot.

He is a total apologist for Sampras and is stumped by logical arguments.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:55 AM
Yet, Lendl was way past his prime, and 33 to boot.

I am aware of that. Thats why i said they didn't clash when both at their best. And why I said it is about judging who was better at their respective bests. Again, I think the lendl backhand was better. Forehands too close to call in my opinion. Serve and volleys both to sampras. And movement again a very close call. So....sampras for me

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 01:55 AM
Again...before sampras was at his peak!

Sampras was in the top 3 then and Lendl was nowhere near that form and Sampras still couldn't get the better of him consistently.

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:56 AM
Sampras was in the top 3 then and Lendl was nowhere near that form and Sampras still couldn't get the better of him consistently.

Sampras in the top 3 is not sampras at his best when he was ending year after year ranked number 1

federer express
02-01-2005, 01:57 AM
Yet, Lendl was way past his prime, and 33 to boot.

So why did u vote for sampras??

Domino
02-01-2005, 02:06 AM
Because he beat Lendl at the year end championships on the surface they would play on, when he was not at his best. However, I still think the choice is 50/50, but I am not discounting Lendl. The fact of the matter is, I was probably hasty in my thought process. Thing is, it is also a bit of favoritism, in that I was a big Sampras fan, and not so much a Lendl fan as much as I respected his ability. I don't often do polls objectively anyway, but that is my flaw.

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 02:09 AM
Sampras in the top 3 is not sampras at his best when he was ending year after year ranked number 1

Still don't get it do you. Sampras was at a much higher level at that time as Lendl was when they played or do you want to deny that as well.

federer express
02-01-2005, 02:11 AM
Still don't get it do you. Sampras was at a much higher level at that time as Lendl was when they played or do you want to deny that as well.

I get it...but I am saying I think there was a huge improvement in sampras. Being the best and ranked number 1 improved his whole game, every aspect for me and made him a much more formidable opponent...to such an extent that he knew he was going to win. He didn't have that before he reached his peak and was not nearly as tough an adversary

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 02:15 AM
He wasn't the best at ever single aspect as that is not possible, but Sampras always struggled with Stich and that included indoors and as much as I respected Stich I don't think he was a patch on Lendl indoors and that goes for a few players as well, though the overall depth was better, but the quality at the top was just as high.

I see your original point though.

federer express
02-01-2005, 02:18 AM
He wasn't the best at ever single aspect as that is not possible,

Wasn't saying he was the best at every aspect of the game. Was saying every aspect of his game was better and improved when he started to dominate mens tennis

Fedex
02-01-2005, 02:20 AM
Sampras wasn't that good indoors was he?
You're kidding, right?

Fedex
02-01-2005, 02:23 AM
Federer, Borg, or Lendl would have the best chances to win it, I think. But then again, anyone of those guys could.

Prizeidiot
02-01-2005, 05:23 AM
I'd say Federer. Regardless of surface, unless clay maybe, I think Federer at his best would beat any of them at their best

jacobhiggins
02-01-2005, 05:35 AM
Federer at his best is almost the perfect player, so complete.

motasek
02-01-2005, 06:46 AM
Hi, guys! I am just wondering, why is nobody picking Becker? Are you too young to remember? At his best, which I believe was about 1989+, which in turn was Lendl's best year, Becker was on top, winning 5 matches in a row 1988, through 1989 till early 1990, two of them on carpet. His rivalry with Sampras on carpet ended 7-6 for Boris. He also wiped Connors and McEnroe at every occasion. He matched Agassi 2-2 on carpet (although Andre was his nightmare). Never met Borg or Federer :). He won the Masters 3 times, was in the final 5 other times!!! So I am asking again: why not Becker - once called Hallekoenig????????

Action Jackson
02-01-2005, 06:53 AM
mota cause I thought overall Lendl was better indoors that's why? I am not saying Becker was rubbish indoors as that is not the case, but you better watch the biased Sampras fan they won't like what you just said and good for that asd well.

Riley Finn
02-01-2005, 08:31 AM
was Edberg good indoors?

motasek
02-01-2005, 09:34 AM
Edberg was very good indoors, but not good enough for Sampras and Becker.
As for Samprazzzz fans, I must say that he was my first hero after Boris. Once Boris retired I was all for Pete - just loved his game even once it became so monotonious towards the end of his career.

Nacho
02-01-2005, 10:10 AM
voted for Lendl, the stats speak for themselves

Riley Finn
02-01-2005, 11:00 AM
Edberg was very good indoors, but not good enough for Sampras and Becker.
As for Samprazzzz fans, I must say that he was my first hero after Boris. Once Boris retired I was all for Pete - just loved his game even once it became so monotonious towards the end of his career.

so why is not Edberg on that list? Let's say,scratch Federer and add Edberg.

WyveN
02-01-2005, 11:24 AM
Both Lendl, Becker and Sampras are very good on carpet and it is very hard to say who would win at their peak but you can't use a Philadelphia tournament as evidence for anything. I mean in 1993 Sampras also lost to Carlos Costa on carpet in a tournament far bigger then Philadelphia.

WyveN
02-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Carpet (minimum 75 matches)
-----------------------------------------
84.1% 376 - 71 McEnroe, John
83.1% 296 - 60 Lendl, Ivan
78.7% 259 - 70 Becker, Boris
74.3% 142 - 49 Sampras, Pete
74.1% 157 - 55 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
71.7% 210 - 83 Edberg, Stefan
71.4% 187 - 75 Ivanisevic, Goran

BUT...

Head-to-head on carpet:
Becker 6 - McEnroe 1
Becker 4 - Lendl 7 ......... (Lendl won first 3 meetings when Becker was
17/18 - ok he'd won Wimby but you see the point)
Becker 7 - Sampras 6
Becker 3 - Kafelnikov 1
Becker 13 - Edberg 5

* Lendl was only 5-8 vs McEnroe (despite winning 10 of their last 11
meetings (total))

You have to look beyond winning % to see who won the biggest indoor title -
the Masters/ATP Championships. Lendl and Sampras won the most of those.

a good case can be made for Sampras, Becker, or Lendl as best ever on
carpet. It's very very close...

Action Jackson
02-02-2005, 01:08 AM
* Lendl was only 5-8 vs McEnroe (despite winning 10 of their last 11
meetings (total))

You have to look beyond winning % to see who won the biggest indoor title -
the Masters/ATP Championships. Lendl and Sampras won the most of those.

a good case can be made for Sampras, Becker, or Lendl as best ever on
carpet. It's very very close...

Thanks for those stats those are interesting reading and as for who would be the best out of Becker, Sampras and Lendl indoors well I could never say with a clear certainty and that's why I haven't voted as of yet, but you better watch it the Sampras apologist mightn't like the fact that you backed up your arguments.

lizzieh
02-02-2005, 01:20 AM
They've all had differnt equipment and eras, so it's difficult to say... but I go with my dad on this one and say Borg, because no one could rattle him... even Pete got rattled, and Federer gets rattled sometimes.