[Alaricus]

Novak has 9 slams, Lendl has 8.

 

[blackwell]

Yes. And his achievements are still counting

 

[Alex999]

Novak is in his prime and has a long way to go. Yeah, he has accomplished much more than Lendl, except weeks at #1 ...

Ivan never manged to win Wimbledon, the holly grail. Djoko has never won RG. Or shall I say not yet . Not sure why you opened this thread to be honest with you.

 

[M.Bison]

Jeez, another Djokovic thread by you. How may does that make?

I'm not sure if it is really funny or really creepy.

 

[talicnitom]

slams: 9 - 8
finals: 8-11

WTF: 4-5

masters: 24-21

YE#1: 3-4 (No1e is big favorit for 2015)
ITF champion: 4-4 (No1e is big favorit for 2015)
weeks: 158*-270 (No1e is stll counting)

close but No1e is on his top and can only improve.

 

[Gabeh99]

As a person, no question. Lendl was (is?) a complete jerk.

 

[cmchelsea]

This is just another thread by a djokotard to make there player look better, On topic though yes he's greater than lendl it's close though the fact that he never won wimby tips it in novaks favour, the thread should be weather he's greater than connors then it wouls be more split

 

[Viscount Thurso]

I don't like comparisons like this....

Different eras...

 

[duong]

I think he will but so far it's not that obvious : Lendl would have had more slams if the Australian open had been on hardcourts rather than grass in 1987 and before,

and clearly it's easier for such a player to win Wimbledon nowadays than in that time (actually Lendl was not well-known as a good volleyer and is not flexible physically as Djokovic but he learnt and managed to volley better than Djokovic does : of course in the same situation I'm sure Djokovic would have learnt better, he seems to have more potential).

Besides, Lendl had many great achievements, including in the WTF it's hard to underrate that.

I already rate Djokovic higher than McEnroe and Agassi, but higher than Lendl and Connors I think he needs to do a little bit more ... which I'm convinced he will.

 

[RFed]

No.

 

[Matt01]

Still Lendl but that will change soon.

 

[thrust]

Novak has 9 slams, Lendl has 8.

True, but slams alone should not determine a players greatness, especially when the slam count is so close. As of now, they are about even, overall. Novak, though, should improve on his stats and overtake Ivan, overall. As of now, slight advantage to Lendl. Though Novak had Roger and Rafa to contend with when he came onto the scene, and then Murray, Lendl had: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg to contend with throughout his career.

 

[thrust]

This is just another thread by a djokotard to make there player look better, On topic though yes he's greater than lendl it's close though the fact that he never won wimby tips it in novaks favour, the thread should be weather he's greater than connors then it wouls be more split

Novak has not won the FO yet either. Lendl did reach 2 Wimbledon finals and won a couple of grass court titles. Ivan also has won many hard, clay and indoor titles as well

 

[phase3]

If you are talking slams ONLY then yes of course. But if you are talking alround. Novak needs more.

LENDL
CAREER TITLES 94
SLAMS 8
WEEKS AT NUMBER ONE 270

DJOKOVIC
CAREER TITLES 54
SLAMS 9
WEEKS AT NUMBER ONE 158

I still have to give it to Lendl for a complete career. 20 more titles and and another slam. And another 50 weeks at number one would edge it in Djokovics favour.

 

[Alex999]

People be logical. Djokovic is better than Lendl. Ask Lendl about it.

Don't be stupid. Do I need to go over the stats?

 

[zippar]

People be logical. Djokovic is better than Lendl. Ask Lendl about it.

Don't be stupid. Do I need to go over the stats?

Lendl, and it's not even close at this moment. Absolute value of grand slams is about as meaningless a measure of who is "greater" as it gets. And pretty please I don't want to hear any more weak/strong era delusional rubbish.

 

[duong]

People be logical. Djokovic is better than Lendl. Ask Lendl about it.

Don't be stupid. Do I need to go over the stats?

honestly subjectively I think Djokovic is a superior player, morer flexible especially,

BUT if you want logic and numbers, what do you have to say for the fact that until 1987, the Australian open was played on grass ?

In his late years, the Australian open was clearly Lendl's best slam then you can imagine what he would have done between 1985 and 1987 there if it had been on hardcourts considering his domination on hardcourts at the moment.

It's very probably 2 or 3 slams more.

Besides, the consecutive US Open and WTF finals, the specific difficulty of Wimbledon then, etc ... honestly by pure logic it's at the moment not at all obvious to me.

Subjectively yes I do thionk so, but logically ? really not clear, unless you counter my arguments with something "logical"

 

[phase3]

honestly subjectively I think Djokovic is a superior player, morer flexible especially,

BUT if you want logic and numbers, what do you have to say for the fact that until 1987, the Australian open was played on grass ?

In his late years, the Australian open was clearly Lendl's best slam then you can imagine what he would have done between 1985 and 1987 there if it had been on hardcourts considering his domination on hardcourts at the moment.

It's very probably 2 or 3 slams more.

Besides, the consecutive US Open and WTF finals, the specific difficulty of Wimbledon then, etc ... honestly by pure logic it's at the moment not at all obvious to me.

Subjectively yes I do thionk so, but logically ? really not clear, unless you counter my arguments with something "logical"

Lendl was a great match player. Very solid on court. The only player to Win the French open and USO 3 times a piece. And 94 career titles is something only bettered by Connors. Federer may surpass that total if he plays a few more years though.

In this era we are putting too much on slams. The total achievements of a players career should be counted. You couldn't compare Lendl to Nadal or Federer because their slam count is much greater.

But Novak needs another slam. And at least 20 more titles before he can say he is greater than Lendl. It's only a matter of time though another year from now Novak will be knocking on Mr BORGS door I think. He will probably have 11 slams at least. 64 career titles and over 200 weeks at the top. That will put him above Borg.

Then there's only Sampras, Nadal and Federer left above him.

 

[Alex999]

Lendl, and it's not even close at this moment. Absolute value of grand slams is about as meaningless a measure of who is "greater" as it gets. And pretty please I don't want to hear any more weak/strong era delusional rubbish.

28 yo and you actually watched Lendl :lol:? Did I mention any eras? I don't think so. Djokovic is better than Ivan. Period.

'Absolute value of grand slams' ... what? Rubbish? Just great. Ok, look at their results outside of majors. You get it? I guess not .

 

[Alex999]

Lendl was a great match player. Very solid on court. The only player to Win the French open and USO 3 times a piece. And 94 career titles is something only bettered by Connors. Federer may surpass that total if he plays a few more years though.

In this era we are putting too much on slams. The total achievements of a players career should be counted. You couldn't compare Lendl to Nadal or Federer because their slam count is much greater.

But Novak needs another slam. And at least 20 more titles before he can say he is greater than Lendl. It's only a matter of time though another year from now Novak will be knocking on Mr BORGS door I think. He will probably have 11 slams at least. 64 career titles and over 200 weeks at the top. That will put him above Borg.

Then there's only Sampras, Nadal and Federer left above him.

Djokovic does not need another slam but he will get it. He also does not need another 20 titles. You are not making any sense.