Was LENDL the biggest CHOKER?!?~Ivan made the MOST slam FINALS~similiar to Goolagong# [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was LENDL the biggest CHOKER?!?~Ivan made the MOST slam FINALS~similiar to Goolagong#

CmonAussie
10-18-2006, 02:39 PM
:devil:
LENDL remains somewhat of an enigma~ he doesn`t rate very high in the popularity stakes & surprisingly is rarely mentioned in the same breath as Agassi, McEnroe, Connors etc.;)

However if you take a thorough look at his career you`ll see that he was clearly one of the top 2-3 most successful players ever. In fact he made more slam finals than Sampras~> however he lost 11-Slam finals & some of them multiples times to the same old rivals^ especially Wilander & Becker did a good job of stalling Lendl`s march towards greatness:p ...Even the hot tempered Ringwood boy Pat Cash managed to deny Lendl the opportunity of the career slam [since he never won Wimby]:eek: !

Anyway here`s the question: WAS LENDL A CHOKER:confused: Also WHERE DOES HE RANK among the list of ALL TIME GREATS:confused:

Wins (8)
1984 French Open John McEnroe 3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 7-5, 7-5
1985 U.S. Open John McEnroe 7-6, 6-3, 6-4
1986 French Open (2) Mikael Pernfors 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
1986 U.S. Open (2) Miloslav Mečíř 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
1987 French Open (3) Mats Wilander 7-5, 6-2, 3-6, 7-6
1987 U.S. Open (3) Mats Wilander 6-7, 6-0, 7-6, 6-4
1989 Australian Open Miloslav Mečíř 6-2, 6-2, 6-2
1990 Australian Open (2) Stefan Edberg 4-6, 7-6, 5-2 (retired)

Runner-ups (11)
1981 French Open Björn Borg 6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2
1982 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4
1983 Australian Open Mats Wilander 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
1983 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-7, 7-5, 6-0
1984 U.S. Open John McEnroe 6-3, 6-4, 6-1
1985 French Open Mats Wilander 3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2
1986 Wimbledon Boris Becker 6-4, 6-3, 7-5
1987 Wimbledon Pat Cash 7-6, 6-2, 7-5
1988 U.S. Open Mats Wilander 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4
1989 U.S. Open Boris Becker 7-6, 1-6, 6-3, 7-6
1991 Australian Open Boris Becker 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4


It seems Evonne Goolagong was the female equivalent of Lendl--> she played in 18-Slam finals but only won 7-Slams & she lost nearly all of the close battles><...

Slam wins = 7
1971 French Open Helen Gourlay Cawley 6-3, 7-5
1971 Wimbledon Margaret Smith Court 6-4, 6-1
1974 Australian Open Chris Evert 7-6, 4-6, 6-0
1975 Australian Open (2) Martina Navrátilová 6-3, 6-2
1976 Australian Open (3) Renáta Tomanová 6-2, 6-2
1977 Australian Open (December) (4) Helen Gourlay Cawley 6-3, 6-0
1980 Wimbledon (2) Chris Evert 6-1, 7-6

Runner-ups = 11
1971 Australian Open Margaret Smith Court 2-6, 7-6, 7-5
1972 Australian Open Virginia Wade 6-4, 6-4
1972 French Open Billie Jean King 6-3, 6-3
1972 Wimbledon Billie Jean King 6-3, 6-3
1973 Australian Open Margaret Smith Court 6-4, 7-5
1973 U.S. Open Margaret Smith Court 7-6, 5-7, 6-2
1974 U.S. Open Billie Jean King 3-6, 6-3, 7-5
1975 Wimbledon Billie Jean King 6-0, 6-1
1975 U.S. Open Chris Evert 5-7, 6-4, 6-2
1976 Wimbledon Chris Evert 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
1976 U.S. Open Chris Evert 6-3, 6-0

BlueSwan
10-18-2006, 02:53 PM
He was DEFINITELY not a choker. He was one of the toughest players on the tour - perhaps the toughest of them all.

I think the main reason why he didn't won more slams is the very same reason why he's rarely mentioned amongst the very best ever despite staying at #1 forever and reaching more GS finals than anyone else: His top-level wasn't as fantastic as the true greats of the game. This is why he often lost to his opponents in GS finals where he'd usually play the very best playing at their best (otherwise they wouldn't have made the final).

Llendl was a very strong and stable player who would beat anyone NOT playing at their very very best. GS finals would be the one place where he'd meet someone great playing out of his mind.

Take someone like Sanchez-Vicario on the WTA tour. Although she didn't have anywhere near the power of Llendl, she was also a very very stable player who always made it to the finals or semifinals, but regularly lost to the true greats when it mattered (Graf & Seles mainly).

KaxMisha
10-18-2006, 03:00 PM
He was DEFINITELY not a choker. He was one of the toughest players on the tour - perhaps the toughest of them all.

I think the main reason why he didn't won more slams is the very same reason why he's rarely mentioned amongst the very best ever despite staying at #1 forever and reaching more GS finals than anyone else: His top-level wasn't as fantastic as the true greats of the game. This is why he often lost to his opponents in GS finals where he'd usually play the very best playing at their best (otherwise they wouldn't have made the final).

Llendl was a very strong and stable player who would beat anyone NOT playing at their very very best. GS finals would be the one place where he'd meet someone great playing out of his mind.

Take someone like Sanchez-Vicario on the WTA tour. Although she didn't have anywhere near the power of Llendl, she was also a very very stable player who always made it to the finals or semifinals, but regularly lost to the true greats when it mattered (Graf & Seles mainly).

Couldn't disagree more. Lendl played the most modern game of all of them and had shots more pwerful and, if you will, just plain "better", than anyone else at the time. I'd say he had the highest maximum capacity of them - definitely not the lowest. It's obvious it was choking to some extent. He lost his first four, but once he finally broke through in that epic five-setter against McEnroe, he did okay.

Dancing Hero
10-18-2006, 03:08 PM
Interesting question. Lendl BECAME a great player and a champion. He should definitely be mentioned in the same league as Connors, McEnroe and Agassi as a player, his persona was different. Lendl came from Czechoslovakia as it was then, and must have had a different upbringing to the Americans, he wasn't brash, he let his tennis do the talking.

I was a Connors and Mac fan, so I didn't mind Lendl losing those early finals.:) I always thought he was a very good player who couldn't win on the big occasions, I guess you could call him a 'choker' to a certain degree. Lendl overcame that somewhat though and DID start to win the big tourneys. 8 GS is not a bad haul. Mac of course choked himself in the RG final 84 for Lendl's first GS win.

The fact that Lendl never won Wimbledon is the biggest knock against him when you look back at his career. He made finals and semis but always found someone better than him on grass when it came to it. Lendl was a very consistent player overall, regular tournament winner on the tour, clear no.1 for 3 straight years. 8 US finals in a row is outstanding.

I rate Lendl highly myself. He worked hard and made the most of his ability. All time he's a player to be considered a great in his day.

trickcy
10-18-2006, 03:18 PM
I must say that Lendl's achievements are good. 8 GS is a pretty neat number, but, he made 19 GS finals, and won just 8 of them, so, yeah, that's tough. But the players he lost to, McEnroe, Connors and Becker were good players, they are legends. So, maybe it was a mixture of him choking a little plus opponents who made use of it and won the match. I'd say the only big blemish is him not winning Wimbledon.

CmonAussie
10-18-2006, 04:10 PM
#@@#
BlueSwan, KaxMisha, Dancing Hero & trickcy~>> thanks a lot for all your thoughtful comments<:) To a certain degree I agree with everything that you guys said- even though that may mean some contradictions><.

KaxMisha
10-18-2006, 04:15 PM
#@@#
BlueSwan, KaxMisha, Dancing Hero & trickcy~>> thanks a lot for all your thoughtful comments<:) To a certain degree I agree with everything that you guys said- even though that may mean some contradictions><.

So you agree that Lendl wasn't as good at his maximum as the other greats of his era, while also agreeing that he had the highest maximum capacity pf them all? Well, if that works for you, I guess it's okay. :)

Midnight Express
10-18-2006, 04:18 PM
Lendl was a choker and I mean before he has won his first GS, so many jokes on his person, caricatures atc.
I remember I say a document about him and most of the ATP former players really hated him (Noah atc.) because of his attitude and less sense of humour!
But great player and the best we ever had and may be ever will.

CmonAussie
10-18-2006, 04:25 PM
So you agree that Lendl wasn't as good at his maximum as the other greats of his era, while also agreeing that he had the highest maximum capacity pf them all? Well, if that works for you, I guess it's okay. :)
:wavey:
I agree that Lendl had a more complete power game & that in the majority of tournaments [other than Slams]~ he showed that he was the dominant player of the mid-to-late 1980`s:worship: ! However at times he did seem somewhat one-dimensional & unable to adjust his game at the crucial moments:sad: ...Which is why I believe players like Becker & Wilander were able to take advantage of him when the pressure was greatest~>> in the Slam Finals:eek: . However after losing his 1st four Slam finals Lendl managed to win 8 of the next 15~ so to a certain degree he overcame his choking ways;) .. Then again he ended on a bittersweet note~ winning the 1990 AO when Edberg retired hurt & then losing the next AO final 12-months later to Becker [after Ivan had taken the 1st set]~ that would prove to be his last major final:sad:
-->>> Surely I contradicted myself a few times there??

thrust
10-18-2006, 04:39 PM
Once Lendl won his first Slam, he did quite will in Slam finals. Also, Lendl was younger than both Connors and McEnroe, so losing his first Slam finals to them is understandable. He has a winning H-H with all the top players of his era except Edberg, which is somewhat surprising. Had Edberg not suffered a severe injury in that AO final he probably would have won it, in that he was totally dominating Ivan before the injury.

That tennis kid
10-18-2006, 04:50 PM
Runner-ups (11)
1981 French Open Björn Borg 6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2
1982 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4
1983 Australian Open Mats Wilander 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
1983 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-7, 7-5, 6-0
1984 U.S. Open John McEnroe 6-3, 6-4, 6-1
1985 French Open Mats Wilander 3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2
1986 Wimbledon Boris Becker 6-4, 6-3, 7-5
1987 Wimbledon Pat Cash 7-6, 6-2, 7-5
1988 U.S. Open Mats Wilander 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4
1989 U.S. Open Boris Becker 7-6, 1-6, 6-3, 7-6
1991 Australian Open Boris Becker 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4

Of course - just look at all those clowns he lost to in Grand Slam finals...

trickcy
10-18-2006, 05:49 PM
I seem to remember reading that Lendl won his I GS after winning 41 titles. Does anybody know if that's true? He's played 4 GS finals before winning his I GS. So, a conversion % uptil then of 20%. But overall % somewhere around 42%.

DrJules
10-18-2006, 05:58 PM
He did play in the incredibly competative period. McEnroe (peak 81-84), Becker (peak 85-91) and Edberg (peak 88-92) all had their best periods during his era and Connors played some of his best tennis from 82-83. All won over 5 grand slams in their career, but Lendl's record was the best of this group.

Pigpen Stinks
10-18-2006, 07:26 PM
It's been rightly noted that Lendl's career completely turned around after the '84 French final against McEnroe. He became an extremely mentally strong player after that breakthrough Slam win.

I don't know if choker is the proper term for his early career performance. I would call it more of a tanker, particularly his losses to Connors at the '82 and '83 US Opens. He was already a better player than Connors in both of those years, but he just went away in both matches once Connors nudged ahead. Those pathetic showings really soured me on Lendl, but he made a remarkable transformation midway through his career

Lendl had some very interesting comments during the Canadian Masters event this summer. He spent a few games in the booth with PMac on ESPN's coverage and spoke about his daughter's golf game, and how it wasn't so important how she was doing in competitions, but how it was far more important for her to learn how to control her mind and deal with executing under pressure. He then related that to his mental development in his tennis career, and what a huge role the mind plays in professional tennis and golf.

As for his losses post '84 French, I think in most cases he just lost to the better player that day, and in the case of Wimbledon, players that were just better on that surface.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 12:08 AM
It's been rightly noted that Lendl's career completely turned around after the '84 French final against McEnroe. He became an extremely mentally strong player after that breakthrough Slam win.

I don't know if choker is the proper term for his early career performance. I would call it more of a tanker, particularly his losses to Connors at the '82 and '83 US Opens. He was already a better player than Connors in both of those years, but he just went away in both matches once Connors nudged ahead. Those pathetic showings really soured me on Lendl, but he made a remarkable transformation midway through his career

Lendl had some very interesting comments during the Canadian Masters event this summer. He spent a few games in the booth with PMac on ESPN's coverage and spoke about his daughter's golf game, and how it wasn't so important how she was doing in competitions, but how it was far more important for her to learn how to control her mind and deal with executing under pressure. He then related that to his mental development in his tennis career, and what a huge role the mind plays in professional tennis and golf.

As for his losses post '84 French, I think in most cases he just lost to the better player that day, and in the case of Wimbledon, players that were just better on that surface.
:wavey:
Wow Pigpen Stinks:cool: ~ Thanks very much!!
That`s a great post of yours & I really appreciate the insights you had about his comments regarding the mental side of the game;)

As for choking~ yeah those two losses to Connors in the 1982 & 1983 US Open finals kind of stand out as tank jobs~ with the way he finished in those finals... I guess Connors working of the New York crowd really worked:devil: ! As for the Wimbledon losses~ considering it wasn`t his best surface I guess it`s admirable that he atleast was able to make the finals there in back-to-back years:angel:

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 02:08 AM
Lendl wasn't a choker. He had one gear and a very good gear and that is what cost him at Wimbledon, guys like Becker, Edberg and McEnroe (early days) could take it up to another level and Lendl was still his ultra consistent self.

Lendl didn't lose to schmucks in those GS Finals and once he won his first GS against McEnroe, he got the absolute most out of his abilities and realised he wasn't the most gifted, so he worked the hardest. As for Connors well he won 15 or 16x in a row against him.

Merton
10-19-2006, 02:18 AM
Lendl is quite underrated, look at how many slams his opponents who stopped him in the finals won (apart from Cash). Besides, it would usually take a great performance for an opponent to take Lendl out.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 02:29 AM
Lendl wasn't a choker. He had one gear and a very good gear and that is what cost him at Wimbledon, guys like Becker, Edberg and McEnroe (early days) could take it up to another level and Lendl was still his ultra consistent self.

Lendl didn't lose to schmucks in those GS Finals and once he won his first GS against McEnroe, he got the absolute most out of his abilities and realised he wasn't the most gifted, so he worked the hardest. As for Connors well he won 15 or 16x in a row against him.
:wavey:
Thanks for your contribution George:cool:

I agree with most of what you said~~ but the fact that Lendl dominated Connors so much highlights the fact that Lendl choked to a certain extent in those two US Open finals [82 & 83] & even after Lendl`s breakthrough French Open win in 84 he lost the very next slam~ Wimbledon at the SF stage again to Connors:p ... So despite Lendl`s domination of their rivalry we could say that Connors won the three most important encounters they ever played->> can`t we call that choking:eek: :confused:

Below are the details of their Head-to-Head;)

1992 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R64 Lendl 3-6 6-3 6-2 6-0
Stats
1988 Montreal / Toronto
Toronto, Canada Hard S Lendl 6-4 6-4
1987 Masters
NY, U.S.A. Carpet RR Lendl 4-3 RET
1987 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 6-4 6-2 6-2
1987 Montreal / Toronto
Montreal, Canada Hard S Lendl 7-5 6-4
1987 Washington
DC, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 6-4 7-6
1987 Key Biscayne
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 3-6 7-6 7-6 6-3
1986 Stratton Mountain
VT, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 6-4 3-6 6-2
1986 Fort Myers
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Lendl 6-2 6-0
1986 Boca West
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 1-6 6-1 6-2 2-6 5-2 DEF
1985 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 6-2 6-3 7-5
1985 Stratton Mountain
VT, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 6-0 4-6 6-4
1985 Roland Garros
France Clay S Lendl 6-2 6-3 6-1
1985 Dallas
TX, U.S.A. Carpet S Lendl 6-3 2-1 RET
1985 Fort Myers
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Lendl 6-3 6-2
1984 Masters
NY, U.S.A. Carpet S Lendl 7-5 6-7 7-5
1984 Wembley
England Carpet S Lendl 6-4 6-2
1984 Tokyo Indoor
Japan Carpet F Connors 6-4 3-6 6-0
1984 Wimbledon
England Grass S Connors 6-7 6-3 7-5 6-1
1984 Forest Hills WCT
NY, U.S.A. Clay S Lendl 6-0 6-0
1984 Rotterdam
The Netherlands Carpet F Connors ABD
1983 Masters
NY, U.S.A. Carpet S Lendl 6-3 6-4
1983 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Connors 6-3 6-7 7-5 6-0
1983 Montreal / Toronto
Montreal, Canada Hard S Lendl 6-1 6-3
1983 London / Queen's Club
England Grass S Connors 6-0 6-3
1982 Masters
NY, U.S.A. Carpet S Lendl 6-3 6-1
1982 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Connors 6-3 6-2 4-6 6-4
1982 Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard S Lendl 6-1 6-1
1981 TCH V USA QF
U.S.A. Hard RR Connors 7-5 6-4
1981 La Quinta
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Connors 6-3 7-6
1980 Masters
NY, U.S.A. Carpet RR Connors 7-6 6-1
1980 Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard Q Connors 6-2 6-0
1980 North Conway
NH, U.S.A. Clay S Connors 6-4 6-2
1980 Dallas WCT
TX, U.S.A. Carpet S Connors 6-4 7-5 6-3
1980 Memphis
TN, U.S.A. Carpet R16 Connors 6-2 6-3
1979 Indianapolis
IN, U.S.A. Clay Q Connors 6-2 7-6

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 02:42 AM
[B]:wavey:
Thanks for your contribution George:cool:

I agree with most of what you said~~ but the fact that Lendl dominated Connors so much highlights the fact that Lendl choked to a certain extent in those two US Open finals [82 & 83] & even after Lendl`s breakthrough French Open win in 84 he lost the very next slam~ Wimbledon at the SF stage again to Connors:p ... So despite Lendl`s domination of their rivalry we could say that Connors won the three most important encounters they ever played->> can`t we call that choking:eek: :confused:


It was already explained clearly enough by other posters like Pigpen Stinks and if you are going to forget that it was until 1984 when he broke through for a Slam and Connors only won 1 match after Lendl broke through for a Slam, well Lendl got better and Connors was on the decline.

It never occured that he could have lost to the better player in any of those Slam finals, the Cash one is probably the worst one as that was his only chance to ever win at Wimbledon and he couldn't it.

You can call him a choker, but I won't.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 02:47 AM
It was already explained clearly enough by other posters like Pigpen Stinks and if you are going to forget that it was until 1984 when he broke through for a Slam and Connors only won 1 match after Lendl broke through for a Slam, well Lendl got better and Connors was on the decline.

It never occured that he could have lost to the better player in any of those Slam finals, the Cash one is probably the worst one as that was his only chance to ever win at Wimbledon and he couldn't it.

You can call him a choker, but I won't.
:cool:
Okie dokies~ I guess we`ll agree to disagree on this point;) !!!... I understand that things turned around dramatically for Lendl after his 1984 breakthrough>> however he was obviously capable of beating Connors well before that & the fact is Lendl lost their Top-3 most important encounters despite dominating overall. To my mind there has to be a degree of choking in that:eek: !! Same thing applied to Kim Clijsters in 2003/04 when she was beating Henin consistenly until they played Slam finals~ then the skinny one showed her fire under pressure:devil:

spencercarlos
10-19-2006, 02:53 AM
He was DEFINITELY not a choker. He was one of the toughest players on the tour - perhaps the toughest of them all.

I think the main reason why he didn't won more slams is the very same reason why he's rarely mentioned amongst the very best ever despite staying at #1 forever and reaching more GS finals than anyone else: His top-level wasn't as fantastic as the true greats of the game. This is why he often lost to his opponents in GS finals where he'd usually play the very best playing at their best (otherwise they wouldn't have made the final).

Llendl was a very strong and stable player who would beat anyone NOT playing at their very very best. GS finals would be the one place where he'd meet someone great playing out of his mind.

Take someone like Sanchez-Vicario on the WTA tour. Although she didn't have anywhere near the power of Llendl, she was also a very very stable player who always made it to the finals or semifinals, but regularly lost to the true greats when it mattered (Graf & Seles mainly).

You are describing Michael Chang and not someone who reached 19 GS finals in singles.
And i think he lost that many of those finals mentally more than anything, he always felt the pressure in those GS finals, its not a coincidence that he lost his first 4 GS finals and his first 3 Usopen finals lost as well.
I remmember him quoting the press back then that he was labeled "The Grand Slam Champion of the losers" or something like that because he used to lose in grand slam finals.
Lendl had a very imposing game, he had a huge serve, and huge groundstrokes, his forehand reminds a lot of Graf´s dominant and feared stroke.
You Arantxa comparisson does not even fit well here, as Lendl finished with more grand slams than most of the players that beat him in the GS finals. He was a true great.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 02:55 AM
:cool:
Okie dokies~ I guess we`ll agree to disagree on this point;) !!!... I understand that things turned around dramatically for Lendl after his 1984 breakthrough>> however he was obviously capable of beating Connors well before that & the fact is Lendl lost their Top-3 most important encounters despite dominating overall. To my mind there has to be a degree of choking in that:eek: !! Same thing applied to Kim Clijsters in 2003/04 when she was beating Henin consistenly until they played Slam finals~ then the skinny one showed her fire under pressure:devil:

Well did Lendl have the required mental toughness then? Lendl pre 84 was different to after 84. It's like Federer he had a lot of talent and it took him a while to breakthrough, but I think you could say he has done that now and there were plenty of matches that he shouldn't have lost, but did.

It goes back to the type of player Lendl was, all of those great players have shat themselves in GS finals at one stage, then call of them chokers. McEnroe did it at RG 84, Wilander did it, Lendl has done it, Federer did it, Agassi did it, are they all chokers?

sawan66278
10-19-2006, 02:57 AM
Lendl started off a choker, but became later a champion. Yes, he won only eight of the majors he played in...but look at his record at the U.S. Open...It really represents a nice snapshot of his career: Lost his first three finals there, won his next three finals there, and then lost the final two in close, tough matches...But to get to eight finals in a row!!!!

To me, Lendl was clutch...how many matches did the guy come back from sets, breaks, and match points down...to Edberg in the Aussie Open, Cash as the U.S. Open...from two sets down to Mac at the French...The man fought and fought...but at times, the breaks didn't go his way...One huge example was the 1992 U.S. Open...Lendl is playing Edberg in the Quarters and is down two sets to one...and is down triple match point...he saves the match points and a fourth one, and rallies to lose in a fifth set tiebreak...Now in that match, he had the momentum after saving the match points, but had to come back the next day to finish the match because of rain...much like his match against Boris at Wimbledon in the semis when he had a two sets to one lead and a break in the fourth...only to lose because the momentum was stopped because of a rain delay...I don't remember the year...

To me, a choker does not win the year-end Masters a record five times...and makes the final eight times I believe...What more needs to be said!!!

NYCtennisfan
10-19-2006, 03:51 AM
Definitely not a choker. He rarely gave a match away--somebody had to step up and take it from him. As mentioned, he lost to some of the greatest players of all time playing at their peaks. Dr. Jules mentioned that he played a JMAC at the height of his powers in the early 80's, a Becker in the mid to late 80's and early 90's, an Edberg on top of his game in the late 80's to early 90's so it was difficult to win more than he did.

The loss to Pat Cash really hurt him. Cash played unbelieveably well that day and that fortnight in general. If he had won, he would have been elevated above JMAC, Connors, and Agassi, which is the group where is at right now. Many people don't realize that this guy was afraid to even approach the net in his early career and he eventually learned to serve and volley on both serves for Wimbledon. To me, that is an incredible achievement. It's like Coria s/v'ing on both serves in next year's Wimbledon (not quite since the grass is not the same, but you get the picture).

An amazing, amazing career and very far from a choker.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 03:57 AM
The loss to Pat Cash really hurt him. Cash played unbelieveably well that day and that fortnight in general. If he had won, he would have been elevated above JMAC, Connors, and Agassi, which is the group where is at right now. Many people don't realize that this guy was afraid to even approach the net in his early career and he eventually learned to serve and volley on both serves for Wimbledon. To me, that is an incredible achievement. It's like Coria s/v'ing on both serves in next year's Wimbledon (not quite since the grass is not the same, but you get the picture).

An amazing, amazing career and very far from a choker.

Lendl was ahead of his time actually and it's funny now looking back. If he played the way he normally did, look what Hewitt did later on, but in retrospect Lendl had to be more aggressive in coming forward, but he was a manufactured volleyer and the Cash loss is the one that really hurt.

Then Wimbledon became an obsession for him.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 04:16 AM
Well did Lendl have the required mental toughness then? Lendl pre 84 was different to after 84. It's like Federer he had a lot of talent and it took him a while to breakthrough, but I think you could say he has done that now and there were plenty of matches that he shouldn't have lost, but did.

It goes back to the type of player Lendl was, all of those great players have shat themselves in GS finals at one stage, then call of them chokers. McEnroe did it at RG 84, Wilander did it, Lendl has done it, Federer did it, Agassi did it, are they all chokers?
:wavey:
George mate;) .... please look more carefully at the results between Lendl v Connors immediately before & after those 3-matches I mentioned [82 & 83 USO plus 84 Wimby]:eek: .... Lendl had pretty much figured out Connors game before & after losing those big Slam matches~> yet in the crunch pressure time he folded:sad: ...
>>>
RE ..McEnroe, Wilander, Agassi & Federer~ no we can`t compare them to Lendl since all those other greats choked far less:p .. If you look at their respective performances in Slam finals it is only Lendl who lost more than he won:eek: !! Agassi was a choker for a while but he really picked it up & finished his career of very well~ so the enduring impression of Andre is that of a man who learned how to win & made the most of his opportunities in the 2nd half of his career [yes he still lost USO finals to Sampras & Federer but they are two of the best ever];)

MisterQ
10-19-2006, 04:26 AM
Here are the numbers of some of the other greats, for comparison:

Number of GS Finals played

Ivan Lendl 19
Pete Sampras 18
Björn Borg 16
Andre Agassi 15
Jimmy Connors 15
Stefan Edberg 11
John McEnroe 11
Mats Wilander 11
Boris Becker 10
Roger Federer* 10
Guillermo Vilas 8
Jim Courier 7

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 04:27 AM
Lendl started off a choker, but became later a champion. Yes, he won only eight of the majors he played in...but look at his record at the U.S. Open...It really represents a nice snapshot of his career: Lost his first three finals there, won his next three finals there, and then lost the final two in close, tough matches...But to get to eight finals in a row!!!!
!!
:wavey:
Essentially you & I agree sawan mate:cool:
-->>>> What I`ve argued is that Lendl started off as a choker & ended off his career as a choker,~ but during the 3-4 years in between he was undoubtedly the dominant player of his generation;)

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 04:31 AM
Here are the numbers of some of the other greats, for comparison:

Number of GS Finals played

Ivan Lendl 19 ~ won 8 slams
Pete Sampras 18 ~ won 14 slams
Björn Borg 16 ~ won 11 slams
Andre Agassi 15 ~ won 8 slams
Jimmy Connors 15 ~ won 8 slams
Stefan Edberg 11 ~ won 6 slams
John McEnroe 11 ~ won 7 slams
Mats Wilander 11 ~ won 7 slams
Boris Becker 10 ~ won 6 slams
Roger Federer* 10 ~ won 9 slams +++
Guillermo Vilas 8 ~ won 4 slams
Jim Courier 7 ~ won 4 slams

:wavey:
Thank you;)

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 04:32 AM
RE ..McEnroe, Wilander, Agassi & Federer~ no we can`t compare them to Lendl since all those other greats choked far less:p .. If you look at their respective performances in Slam finals it is only Lendl who lost more than he won:eek: !! Agassi was a choker for a while but he really picked it up & finished his career of very well~ so the enduring impression of Andre is that of a man who learned how to win & made the most of his opportunities in the 2nd half of his career [yes he still lost USO finals to Sampras & Federer but they are two of the best ever];) [/B]

It's not the point, but you still miss that and there is no way you are going to convince me that Lendl was a choker. I have already stated why and the only match that he could really be pissed off about losing in a GS final.

You can't accept he lost to great players, there were reasons for that and that has already been explained. As for who choked less or didn't bring it on that day, that is irrelevant, it still happened and happens to great players. It's not that hard, you can only play as well as your opponent lets you.

Look at who Lendl lost to? If you are going to tell me Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, Connors and Wilander are jokes and players he shouldn't have lost to, then really you are refusing to look at the overall picture.

MisterQ
10-19-2006, 04:34 AM
Here are the numbers of some of the other greats, for comparison:

Number of GS Finals played

Ivan Lendl 19
Pete Sampras 18
Björn Borg 16
Andre Agassi 15
Jimmy Connors 15
Stefan Edberg 11
John McEnroe 11
Mats Wilander 11
Boris Becker 10
Roger Federer* 10
Guillermo Vilas 8
Jim Courier 7

It's interesting that of all these greats, Lendl is the only one to have lost the majority of his GS finals. It need not be a knock against Lendl, though...the fact he reached more than anyone else counts for something. ;)

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 04:39 AM
It's interesting that of all these greats, Lendl is the only one to have lost the majority of his GS finals. It need not be a knock against Lendl, though...the fact he reached more than anyone else counts for something. ;)

Exactly, look who he lost to. It wasn't to the Kevin Currens, Andres Gomez, Chris Lewis types of the world.

Merton
10-19-2006, 04:52 AM
Perhaps it will be more clear if we compare Lendl and Agassi, both having won 8 slams. Agassi's wins and finals:

RG 1990, L to Gomez
US 1990, L to Sampras
RG 1991, L to Courier
WI 1992, W vs. Ivanisevic
US 1994, W vs. Stich
AO 1995, W vs. Sampras
US 1995, L to Sampras
RG 1999, W vs. Medvedev
WI 1999, L to Sampras
US 1999, W vs. Martin
AO 2000, W vs. Kafelnikov
AO 2001, W vs. Clement
US 2002, L to Sampras
AO 2003, W vs. Schuettler
US 2005, L vs. Federer

Agassi had 11 different opponents in those slam finals. Apart from Sampras and Federer, having 23 slams (and Federer ongoing) the other 9 finals opponents have 9 slams among them. Now compare that to Lendl's opponents slam successes.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 05:48 AM
Perhaps it will be more clear if we compare Lendl and Agassi, both having won 8 slams. Agassi's wins and finals:

RG 1990, L to Gomez
US 1990, L to Sampras
RG 1991, L to Courier
WI 1992, W vs. Ivanisevic
US 1994, W vs. Stich
AO 1995, W vs. Sampras
US 1995, L to Sampras
RG 1999, W vs. Medvedev
WI 1999, L to Sampras
US 1999, W vs. Martin
AO 2000, W vs. Kafelnikov
AO 2001, W vs. Clement
US 2002, L to Sampras
AO 2003, W vs. Schuettler
US 2005, L vs. Federer
Agassi had 11 different opponents in those slam finals. Apart from Sampras and Federer, having 23 slams (and Federer ongoing) the other 9 finals opponents have 9 slams among them. Now compare that to Lendl's opponents slam successes.
:wavey:
Okie dokies that`s a good point Merton;) :cool: !!

However something else which gets Agassi more respect is the fact that he had such incredible LONGEVITY~ 1st Slam final in 1990 & last Slam final in 2005:worship: :worship: .. Also he made a couple of SFs at USO & FO in 1988~ 17-years of challenging at the slams.. #Lendl couldn`t quite match Agassi for charisma nor longevity:angel:

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 05:54 AM
:wavey:
Okie dokies that`s a good point Merton;) :cool: !!

However something else which gets Agassi more respect is the fact that he had such incredible LONGEVITY~ 1st Slam final in 1990 & last Slam final in 2005:worship: :worship: .. Also he made a couple of SFs at USO & FO in 1988~ 17-years of challenging at the slams.. #Lendl couldn`t quite match Agassi for charisma nor longevity:angel:

Merton said exactly the same thing I did about the opponents. As for charisma, what you mean Lendl didn't have to be PC and just talk in cliches and pretend what a nice guy he was. Lendl was a prick in his own way, but he did on his terms.

Agassi never made 8 finals in a row in one Slam or the end of season champs, did he?

Frank Winkler
10-19-2006, 05:55 AM
crazy the fact that he made more finals should be considered a positive
He was there more than the other greats and and he won 8 finals
Only two comteporaries beat him Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras.
Therefore he is better than all the others as many wins and more finals.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 06:02 AM
Let me break down each of Lendl`s Slam losses#@@#.

Runner-ups (11)
1981 French Open Björn Borg 6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2 ~~ Borg was on his last legs & Lendl faded badly in the final set!
1982 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4 ~~ 30yrs Connors took the lead & Lendl tanked!
1983 Australian Open Mats Wilander 6-1, 6-4, 6-4 ~~ simply outplayed!
1983 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-7, 7-5, 6-0 ~~ serious case of tanking in the 4th set against 31yrs dinosaur!
1984 U.S. Open John McEnroe 6-3, 6-4, 6-1 ~~ didn`t put up a fight on his best surface!
1985 French Open Mats Wilander 3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 ~~ defending champion took a 1-set lead & then folded!
1986 Wimbledon Boris Becker 6-4, 6-3, 7-5 ~~ still wasn`t confident with the volleys!
1987 Wimbledon Pat Cash 7-6, 6-2, 7-5 ~~ led 5-1 in the 3rd set & then lost 6-games straight to "one slam wonder" Cash!
1988 U.S. Open Mats Wilander 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4 ~~ lost his nerve at the end of the 5th set!
1989 U.S. Open Boris Becker 7-6, 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 ~~ Lendl could have won this in 4-sets instead he lost by that margin!
1991 Australian Open Boris Becker 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 ~~ smashed Becker 6-1 in the 1st set & then slowly faded!

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 06:07 AM
Let me break down each of Lendl`s Slam losses#@@#.

Runner-ups (11)
1981 French Open Björn Borg 6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2 ~~ Borg was on his last legs & Lendl faded badly in the final set!
1982 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4 ~~ 30yrs Connors took the lead & Lendl tanked!
1983 Australian Open Mats Wilander 6-1, 6-4, 6-4 ~~ simply outplayed!
1983 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-7, 7-5, 6-0 ~~ serious case of tanking in the 4th set against 31yrs dinosaur!
1984 U.S. Open John McEnroe 6-3, 6-4, 6-1 ~~ didn`t put up a fight on his best surface!
1985 French Open Mats Wilander 3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 ~~ defending champion took a 1-set lead & then folded!
1986 Wimbledon Boris Becker 6-4, 6-3, 7-5 ~~ still wasn`t confident with the volleys!
1987 Wimbledon Pat Cash 7-6, 6-2, 7-5 ~~ led 5-1 in the 3rd set & then lost 6-games straight to "one slam wonder" Cash!
1988 U.S. Open Mats Wilander 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4 ~~ lost his nerve at the end of the 5th set!
1989 U.S. Open Boris Becker 7-6, 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 ~~ Lendl could have won this in 4-sets instead he lost by that margin!
1991 Australian Open Boris Becker 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 ~~ smashed Becker 6-1 in the 1st set & then slowly faded!

In other words you are looking for something to justify Lendl as a joker and not pay respect to the people that defeated him in those finals.

RG 85, Wilander changed his tactics, but I am not surprised you missed that and it wasn't a question of losing nerve at all in that US Open final of 88, Wilander could have won that in 4 sets, but didn't.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 06:12 AM
The thing is I am not even a huge Lendl fan, but CmonAussie is trying to make me into one.

As for Borg, well Lendl wasn't exactly fit in 81 and he was never beating Borg at RG.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 06:13 AM
In other words you are looking for something to justify Lendl as a joker and not pay respect to the people that defeated him in those finals.

RG 85, Wilander changed his tactics, but I am not surprised you missed that and it wasn't a question of losing nerve at all in that US Open final of 88, Wilander could have won that in 4 sets, but didn't.
:wavey:
That`s OK mate~ I`m just presenting the facts to back up my point:cool: . If others want to break down my argument then that`s fine too;) ... However I will say that I don`t think we should simply look at the names he was playing in those GS finals! What`s more important is the background & how Lendl played his rivals on those particular occasions:eek:

Sure Agassi was a bit lucky with some of the opponents he got to play in GS finals~> still that doesn`t change the fact that Lendl should have come close to equalling Sampras`s slam record if he hadn`t played below par [for his normal standard] in all the GS finals that slipped away from him... That`s all I`m saying><..

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 06:15 AM
[B]:devil:
LENDL remains somewhat of an enigma~ he doesn`t rate very high in the popularity stakes & surprisingly is rarely mentioned in the same breath as Agassi, McEnroe, Connors etc.;)

- Who gives a crap about popularity contests?

- Considering he was from a Communist country and the Cold War was still going, it's not exactly rocket science that they were going to give him favourable coverage in the English language press especially.

- Then again he wasn't the most talented player, but since he didn't have some catchphrase, the media didn't want to know.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 06:19 AM
The thing is I am not even a huge Lendl fan, but CmonAussie is trying to make me into one.

As for Borg, well Lendl wasn't exactly fit in 81 and he was never beating Borg at RG.
;) That`s funny cobber~~ i never realised my alterior motive was to turn you into a Lendl fan:p ... If that`s the effect my thread has had on you then I guess I`ve inadvertedly done Lendl a favour:angel: :devil:

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 06:22 AM
:wavey:
That`s OK mate~ I`m just presenting the facts to back up my point:cool: . If others want to break down my argument then that`s fine too;) ... However I will say that I don`t think we should simply look at the names he was playing in those GS finals! What`s more important is the background & how Lendl played his rivals on those particular occasions:eek:

Sure Agassi was a bit lucky with some of the opponents he got to play in GS finals~> still that doesn`t change the fact that Lendl should have come close to equalling Sampras`s slam record if he hadn`t played below par [for his normal standard] in all the GS finals that slipped away from him... That`s all I`m saying><..

First of all Lendl wasn't anywhere near as talented as Sampras and look at some of the people that Sampras beat in the finals and you will have the same thing as with Agassi. With you overlooking Lendl's opponents at the time and just using raw data makes it very flawed at best and he wasn't as good as Sampras, and I dislike Sampras more than Lendl.

He had 1 gear or is that hard to understand? Lendl couldn't change his game, if he wasn't play well cause he didn't have the tools to do it. You are overlooking Lendl's style of game as well, then there are distinctive periods within his career, but as I said you are not close to convincing me about him being choker in his overall career and that is what counts.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 06:24 AM
;) That`s funny cobber~~ i never realised my alterior motive was to turn you into a Lendl fan:p ... If that`s the effect my thread has had on you then I guess I`ve inadvertedly done Lendl a favour:angel: :devil:

Keep up with the propaganda and you will have done it.

CmonAussie
10-19-2006, 06:31 AM
Keep up with the propaganda and you will have done it.
:wavey:
Remember my nickname around these neck of the woods used to be Rocky Llegs PROPOGANDA MINISTER;) ...Now that my main man is fading slightly~> & he focuses on getting H & A actresses "up the duff" ~then I decided to redirect my attention to the anals of tennis history:cool: ..
....
Anyway mate I always appreciate debating with you George:worship: !! Atleast I know that you know your facts:angel: ~~> unlike other MTF posters- a la Just Cause:eek:

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 06:34 AM
:wavey:
Remember my nickname around these neck of the woods used to be Rocky Llegs PROPOGANDA MINISTER;) ...Now that my main man is fading slightly~> & he focuses on getting H & A actresses "up the duff" ~then I decided to redirect my attention to the anals of tennis history:cool: ..
....
Anyway mate I always appreciate debating with you George:worship: !! Atleast I know that you know your facts:angel: ~~> unlike other MTF posters- a la Just Cause:eek:

Just Cause is a waste of space and yes I called you the Lleyton Hewitt Minister for Propaganda.

As much as I love the oldies, the game evolves and it needs to be seen for what it is as long as Mickey Mouse de Villiers can not try and make a joke of it.

Mimi
10-19-2006, 06:47 AM
he was unlucky not to win more in finals, but that does not mean he is a choker, lendl is a great player :worship:

NYCtennisfan
10-19-2006, 06:13 PM
Lendl was ahead of his time actually and it's funny now looking back. If he played the way he normally did, look what Hewitt did later on, but in retrospect Lendl had to be more aggressive in coming forward, but he was a manufactured volleyer and the Cash loss is the one that really hurt.

Then Wimbledon became an obsession for him.

So true. If the courts played the way they do now, he might have won a couple of Wimbledon titles. As it was, he had to be taken down basically by Becker or Edberg every time. Becker in '86, '88, and '89 and then Edbeg in '90. I remember he beat up Becker in the Queen's final right befor the 1990 Wimby and Becker said something like Queen's is not Wimbledon and it proved true as Edberg played remarkably well in that '90 SF.

He knew that one Wimby win would elevate him in the ranks fo the all-time greats, probably #3 behind Borg and Laver as Sampras hadn't arrived on the scene yet and thus it became an obsession. I wonder if he could've won another RG title in '88 or '89 or '90- (when eh didn't play) if he wasn't so distracted by Wimbledon and his quest to hunt down his white whale.

CmonAussie
11-13-2006, 01:52 AM
It seems Evonne Goolagong was the female equivalent of Lendl-->> played in 18-Slam finals but only won 7!!

Slam wins 7
1971 French Open Helen Gourlay Cawley 6-3, 7-5
1971 Wimbledon Margaret Smith Court 6-4, 6-1
1974 Australian Open Chris Evert 7-6, 4-6, 6-0
1975 Australian Open (2) Martina Navrátilová 6-3, 6-2
1976 Australian Open (3) Renáta Tomanová 6-2, 6-2
1977 Australian Open (December) (4) Helen Gourlay Cawley 6-3, 6-0
1980 Wimbledon (2) Chris Evert 6-1, 7-6


[edit] Runner-ups (11)

1971 Australian Open Margaret Smith Court 2-6, 7-6, 7-5
1972 Australian Open Virginia Wade 6-4, 6-4
1972 French Open Billie Jean King 6-3, 6-3
1972 Wimbledon Billie Jean King 6-3, 6-3
1973 Australian Open Margaret Smith Court 6-4, 7-5
1973 U.S. Open Margaret Smith Court 7-6, 5-7, 6-2
1974 U.S. Open Billie Jean King 3-6, 6-3, 7-5
1975 Wimbledon Billie Jean King 6-0, 6-1
1975 U.S. Open Chris Evert 5-7, 6-4, 6-2
1976 Wimbledon Chris Evert 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
1976 U.S. Open Chris Evert 6-3, 6-0

sawan66278
11-13-2006, 02:11 AM
Lendl, in my mind, was the most underappreciated and underrated player of all time. As I have stated in previous posts, there is no clear GOAT of all time in tennis history. But Lendl should be CLEARLY included in that discussion....Let's not forget, when thinking about the present Masters Cup: Lendl won the year-end championships (today's Master's Cup) a record five times (tied with Sampras)...and made it to the finals NINE times in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When playing against the best, he proved he was the best five times in a row!!!!:eek: Simply incredible!!!

CmonAussie
11-13-2006, 04:34 AM
Lendl, in my mind, was the most underappreciated and underrated player of all time. As I have stated in previous posts, there is no clear GOAT of all time in tennis history. But Lendl should be CLEARLY included in that discussion....Let's not forget, when thinking about the present Masters Cup: Lendl won the year-end championships (today's Master's Cup) a record five times (tied with Sampras)...and made it to the finals NINE times in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When playing against the best, he proved he was the best five times in a row!!!!:eek: Simply incredible!!!
:wavey:
>>>
If Lendl had been able to beat Becker in 1986 or Cash in 1987 at the Wimbledon finals then I`m sure he would have been included in those GOAT discussions you mention:cool:
The fact is Lendl never won Wimby~> since that is the Slam with the longest history/ most prestige then unfortunately Lendl disqualified himself:sad:

Certainly Lendl is at the top of the list of players who won 3/4 Slams [McEnroe, Connors, Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker etc... except Sampras~ who`s 14-Slams puts him in a higher category];)


PS.. I guess you now know why Lendl obsessed about Wimbledon all those years now;)

sawan66278
11-14-2006, 05:06 PM
Like Snoop Dogg said, "Lendl was the truth";)

Jenrios
11-14-2006, 06:05 PM
Yes, Lendl was a choker at the start of his career - no doubt about it. Part of the reason - as Lendl himself admitted - he didn't have much respect for the tradition of the game, and played to make as much money as possible. By the time he was touted as a 'big player', and was expected to win slams, he found himself to be a choker. Even his 1984 RG win owed much to Mac's loss of cocentration than to improvement by Ivan. It was his 1985 US Open win that saw his grand slam career really take off. He began working with Tony Roche early in 85, and also saw a sports pyschologist. He changed his diet, his physical training and his game.

The reason he is unfavourably compared with Mac and Connors is because they were American and he wasn't, and Mac would always try and incite the crowd against him - this was the 1980's and the 'cold war'. Plus, lendl was immensely private and not a media whore like Mac or Becker.

Jenrios
11-14-2006, 06:11 PM
As for Wimbledon, Lendl left it late to take it seriously - 1986 - and of course, he had to face some of the best volleyers of all time - Mac, Becker, Edberg. The likes of Hewitt never had to face volleyers of that calibre at their peak.

With or without the Wimbledon title, Lendl is one of the GOAT IMO.

Net Cord
11-14-2006, 06:17 PM
Lendl skipped the French Open in 1990 and 1991 to try to focus on Wimbledon. He probably had a pretty decent shot at winning either of those years. I wonder how 1 or 2 more French titles would have effected his legacy.

R.Federer
11-14-2006, 06:19 PM
These stats can only mean one thing of course.The competition in that era must have been fantastic. SInce the competition sucks now, Roger wins 90% of the slam finals he plays. :)

CmonAussie
11-15-2006, 01:29 PM
Like Snoop Dogg said, "Lendl was the truth";)
Yeah it doesn`t make sense to me why the Snoop [funny guy;) ] would pick an obvious nasty straight guy like Lendl:devil: as is fav player:confused:

I wonder if Snoop can actually play tennis:cool:

CmonAussie
11-15-2006, 01:34 PM
Lendl skipped the French Open in 1990 and 1991 to try to focus on Wimbledon. He probably had a pretty decent shot at winning either of those years. I wonder how 1 or 2 more French titles would have effected his legacy.

:wavey:
Yeah i do feel a bit sorry for old Lendl & his Wimby obsession:sad: ...If he had just stuck to what he knew best [ie.played the FOs in 90/91] then he may well have reached double figure Slam wins:p

Also it`s quite remarkable how many Slam SFs & QFs he made:worship: ~> not to mention the 11-Slam finals he lost:eek: ... His standard was incredibly high for a long time:cool:

TennisGrandSlam
12-28-2007, 10:35 AM
Good luck Goolagong, she gains his NO.1 after 31 years :devil:

Boris Franz Ecker
12-28-2007, 10:46 AM
:wavey:
Yeah i do feel a bit sorry for old Lendl & his Wimby obsession:sad: ...If he had just stuck to what he knew best [ie.played the FOs in 90/91] then he may well have reached double figure Slam wins:p


He did.

CyBorg
12-28-2007, 01:50 PM
Lendl won several Masters Cups at the time when it was the fourth biggest tournament on the pro tour. Rarely does anyone mention this and MC was HUGE at the time, held in New York.

Lendl's three-year peak (1985-1987) is probably better than Pete Sampras' three-year peak (most likely 93-95). Over that time Lendl won three US Open titles, two French Open titles (in a final appearance), the 128-man Boca West, all three of the Masters Cups and made two Wimbledon final appearances.

His domination ended when injuries limited his schedule in 1988, but he had excellent years in 1989 and 1990 as well.

stebs
12-28-2007, 07:29 PM
Lendl won several Masters Cups at the time when it was the fourth biggest tournament on the pro tour. Rarely does anyone mention this and MC was HUGE at the time, held in New York.

Lendl's three-year peak (1985-1987) is probably better than Pete Sampras' three-year peak (most likely 93-95). Over that time Lendl won three US Open titles, two French Open titles (in a final appearance), the 128-man Boca West, all three of the Masters Cups and made two Wimbledon final appearances.

His domination ended when injuries limited his schedule in 1988, but he had excellent years in 1989 and 1990 as well.

Lendl was a well oiled machine and his consitency was vastly superior to Pete's. Sampras was never a truly dominant player even though he was #1 for so many weeks. Lendl was always very near the end of tournaments for about 5 years in a similar way to what Federer has been doing except Federer tends to win whereas Lendl had a lot more RU's. The problem for Lendl was he could be outplayed and also it's quite interesting watching him have bad days because of his strong will to win. He could get VERY exhasparated on off days unlike a Safin who would get disinterested or a Federer who would change his game or a Gonzalez who would get angry, Lendl would still be trying VERY hard but as a fairly one dimensional player if your dimension isn't working you;re screwed.

stebs
12-28-2007, 07:30 PM
Lendl won several Masters Cups at the time when it was the fourth biggest tournament on the pro tour. Rarely does anyone mention this and MC was HUGE at the time, held in New York.
TMC was HUGE as you say but it still can't be compared with a slam because of the format. Even if it was exactly as prestigious as a slam it still wouldn't really be comprable.

DrJules
12-28-2007, 11:09 PM
Lendl was ahead of his time actually and it's funny now looking back. If he played the way he normally did, look what Hewitt did later on, but in retrospect Lendl had to be more aggressive in coming forward, but he was a manufactured volleyer and the Cash loss is the one that really hurt.

Then Wimbledon became an obsession for him.

So true. If the courts played the way they do now, he might have won a couple of Wimbledon titles. As it was, he had to be taken down basically by Becker or Edberg every time. Becker in '86, '88, and '89 and then Edbeg in '90. I remember he beat up Becker in the Queen's final right befor the 1990 Wimby and Becker said something like Queen's is not Wimbledon and it proved true as Edberg played remarkably well in that '90 SF.

He knew that one Wimby win would elevate him in the ranks fo the all-time greats, probably #3 behind Borg and Laver as Sampras hadn't arrived on the scene yet and thus it became an obsession. I wonder if he could've won another RG title in '88 or '89 or '90- (when eh didn't play) if he wasn't so distracted by Wimbledon and his quest to hunt down his white whale.

A major problem for Lendl was his balance and movement on a grass court, and his return of serve on grass. Borg and Hewitt, although neither were great serve and volley players, moved incredibly well on a grass court which contributed significantly to them winning Wimbledon.

SwiSha
12-29-2007, 12:17 AM
Lendl a choker?

just look who he has lost to and u got the answer.. all that colorful bs writing for nothing

CyBorg
12-29-2007, 01:12 AM
TMC was HUGE as you say but it still can't be compared with a slam because of the format. Even if it was exactly as prestigious as a slam it still wouldn't really be comprable.

The point is that the results speak for themselves. Lendl's results at MC prove that he had the will to win the big matches against elite opponents.

Kolya
12-29-2007, 03:51 AM
If you want to say Lendl is choker, go watch every single final Lendl lost.

List the number of unforced errors he hit and when he hit them, how many break points he didn't convert and how many service games dropped.

Stats will prove if Lendl choked or was outplayed.

sawan66278
12-30-2007, 05:39 AM
Lendl was a well oiled machine and his consitency was vastly superior to Pete's. Sampras was never a truly dominant player even though he was #1 for so many weeks. Lendl was always very near the end of tournaments for about 5 years in a similar way to what Federer has been doing except Federer tends to win whereas Lendl had a lot more RU's. The problem for Lendl was he could be outplayed and also it's quite interesting watching him have bad days because of his strong will to win. He could get VERY exhasparated on off days unlike a Safin who would get disinterested or a Federer who would change his game or a Gonzalez who would get angry, Lendl would still be trying VERY hard but as a fairly one dimensional player if your dimension isn't working you;re screwed.

As a Lendl fan...sad, but true.

To be honest, the only real times I saw Lendl REALLY choke were the TWO matches he lost against Michael Chang after being up two sets to none: at RG...possibly the worst choke ever (toss up with the Coria debacle against Gaudio) and at the Grand Slam Cup, where he had a two sets to none lead...AND match point. I still remember Mary Carillo's comments during the Grand Slam Cup match...something along the lines that Lendl must be thinking to himself, "I can't believe I fellow for Michael's 'I'll give him the first two sets and come back' routine".:mad:

TennisGrandSlam
12-30-2007, 09:49 AM
If you want to say Lendl is choker, go watch every single final Lendl lost.

List the number of unforced errors he hit and when he hit them, how many break points he didn't convert and how many service games dropped.

Stats will prove if Lendl choked or was outplayed.

The choke was both Wilander and Becker winning Lendl in the finals of three diffrenet Slams. :devil:


lost to Wilander (never win Wimbledon) in
1983 Australian Open (Grass)
1985 Roland Garros (Clay)
1988 US Open (Hard)
3 different Slams, 3 different fields :rolleyes:

lost to Becker (never win Roland Garros) in
1986 Wimbledon
1989 US Open
1991 Australian Open

Kolya
12-30-2007, 01:39 PM
The choke was both Wilander and Becker winning Lendl in the finals of three diffrenet Slams. :devil:


lost to Wilander (never win Wimbledon) in
1983 Australian Open (Grass)
1985 Roland Garros (Clay)
1988 US Open (Hard)
3 different Slams, 3 different fields :rolleyes:

lost to Becker (never win Roland Garros) in
1986 Wimbledon
1989 US Open
1991 Australian Open

That doesn't really prove anything.

Grass at the AO is totally different to the grass at Wimbledon.

CmonAussie
01-14-2008, 12:58 PM
The choke was both Wilander and Becker winning Lendl in the finals of three diffrenet Slams. :devil:


lost to Wilander (never win Wimbledon) in
1983 Australian Open (Grass)
1985 Roland Garros (Clay)
1988 US Open (Hard)
3 different Slams, 3 different fields :rolleyes:

lost to Becker (never win Roland Garros) in
1986 Wimbledon
1989 US Open
1991 Australian Open

:wavey:
excellent observations TennisGrandSlam:cool::worship:
...
thanks also for bring up Goolagong`s achievement [belated #1 ranking recognition]:cool::angel: