Wimbeldon 2010

[NADALbULLS]

Well, you don't have to do anything with me, because it doesn't matter whether I agree with you or not....All that matters is that we state our opinion, and I've done that, that's all that we can do.

[oberyn3]

Honestly not sure how one could not agree with me on this.

There seem to be a lot of former players, sportwriters, etc. who cite the extremely lopsided head-to-head as the lone "black mark" against Federer.

Basically, every candidate for the mythical G.O.A.T. title has something on their resume that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sampras never won the French Open and his results on clay overall were abysmal for a player of his caliber.

Laver's first calendar Slam occurred when he was an amateur and when, by Laver's own admission, the best players in the world were playing professionally. There are also some questions as to the caliber of competition overall during this era.

Borg never won the U.S. Open despite having opportunites when the Open was played on grass, green clay (har-tru), and hardcourt. If they'd played Roland Garros on grass or hardcourt for several years in the 90s or Wimbledon on clay or hardcourt in the mid-to-late 80s, it's a fair bet that Sampras and Lendl would have found a way to win the respective majors that eluded them.

For Federer, the lone black mark is that he's come up short, repeatedly, on the biggest stages, against his greatest rival. It's up to the individual to determine how much weight they want to give this, but one can't pretend it's not there. Federer's 2-6 against Nadal in majors, 2-5 in major finals, and has lost to Nadal at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, and the Australian Open. That's Becker v. Lendl territory, and Lendl's losses in slam finals are one of the reasons why people rank Lendl lower on the all-time list than guys like Connors and Agassi.

As for the oft-repeated argument that the head-to-head is skewed because most of the matches are on clay, my only devil's advocate response to this is that Federer backers can't have it both ways here. If you throw out clay, then you're also throwing out Federer's status as the 2nd best clay court player of his era . . . which is a significant reason so many people view him as the greatest to ever pick up a racquet. For anyone who's seen these guys play, it's obvious that Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer on any surface.

As far as how other players have been treated generally, something I will say is what I assert as correct, I recognize isn't universally agreed upon. However when I'm adamant, it's because the other side is clearly not taking everything into account.

Or, people can take everything into account and simply disagree with you, in the same manner that you disagree with them.

There's also the matter than he was much less popular than Connors and Agassi - which I hope doesn't play a major role, but might.

I think this plays a huge rule. Lendl wasn't given full credit for his accomplishments while he was competing, I think it's pretty clear this has carried over into retirement, as well.

The one other thing I'll say which I'm not sure how it factors in at all: Zero grass majors while playing primarily in an era where grass was the dominant surface.

IMO, while Wimbledon remained the preeminent tournament, by the time Lendl reached his peak, hardcourt had pretty much replaced grass as the dominant surface. Lendl became obsessed with winning Wimbledon (to the extent that he likely cost himself another French Open title in 1990 by skipping Roland Garros entirely to get in early preparation time on grass).

On one hand, it's a reason to say - hey, if he'd played a little later, he'd have done even better! On the other hand, being unable to play on lawn

Hold on a second. He didn't win Wimbledon, but that's a far cry from being unable to play on grass. Lendl was a Wimbledon finalist in 1986 and 1987. He made the semis in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, and 1990. The guys he lost to at Wimbledon in those years were: McEnroe, Connors, Cash, Becker, and Edberg. That resume, to me, doesn't equate to a player who couldn't play on grass. That would be like saying, pre-2009, that Federer couldn't play on clay just because he didn't have a French Open title.

[Doctor MJ]

As far as how other players have been treated generally, something I will say is what I assert as correct, I recognize isn't universally agreed upon. However when I'm adamant, it's because the other side is clearly not taking everything into account.

Or, people can take everything into account and simply disagree with you, in the same manner that you disagree with them.

Honestly, you and Nadal both are calling me out on this, and it's an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Typically, I'm known for being a guy not expressing opinions like this. I may have gotten carried away here. With that said, there is a reason I'm like this in tennis discussions: The logic many people use is incredibly bad because a tendency to deify the 4 Grand Slams and ignore the rest. The is particularly wrongheaded when making historical comparisons because back then the 4 Grand Slams just weren't nearly as important to anyone.

The broader point though is that the only really reasonable way to evaluate players is based on how good they are on a normal day for a match they really care about. To insist that you can measure that simply by looking at the colors on a Wikipedia chart is just foolishness.

Honestly not sure how one could not agree with me on this.

There seem to be a lot of former players, sportwriters, etc. who cite the extremely lopsided head-to-head as the lone "black mark" against Federer.

Basically, every candidate for the mythical G.O.A.T. title has something on their resume that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sampras never won the French Open and his results on clay overall were abysmal for a player of his caliber.

Laver's first calendar Slam occurred when he was an amateur and when, by Laver's own admission, the best players in the world were playing professionally. There are also some questions as to the caliber of competition overall during this era.

Borg never won the U.S. Open despite having opportunites when the Open was played on grass, green clay (har-tru), and hardcourt. If they'd played Roland Garros on grass or hardcourt for several years in the 90s or Wimbledon on clay or hardcourt in the mid-to-late 80s, it's a fair bet that Sampras and Lendl would have found a way to win the respective majors that eluded them.

For Federer, the lone black mark is that he's come up short, repeatedly, on the biggest stages, against his greatest rival. It's up to the individual to determine how much weight they want to give this, but one can't pretend it's not there. Federer's 2-6 against Nadal in majors, 2-5 in major finals, and has lost to Nadal at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, and the Australian Open. That's Becker v. Lendl territory, and Lendl's losses in slam finals are one of the reasons why people rank Lendl lower on the all-time list than guys like Connors and Agassi.

As for the oft-repeated argument that the head-to-head is skewed because most of the matches are on clay, my only devil's advocate response to this is that Federer backers can't have it both ways here. If you throw out clay, then you're also throwing out Federer's status as the 2nd best clay court player of his era . . . which is a significant reason so many people view him as the greatest to ever pick up a racquet. For anyone who's seen these guys play, it's obvious that Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer on any surface.

Well first off, seems like I wasn't clear on my point. My point is not that you won't ever be able to use Nadal's head-to-head advantage over Federer, it's that it's crazy to treat that as a huge factor unless Nadal ends up rivaling him in base accomplishments for the reason that it essentially rewards Nadal for losing early. I don't see how there's any disputing this, and so any use of head-to-head matchups that doesn't also take a more nuanced perspective is clearly wrong.

As far as the "black mark" point. You're right it's used, but it really needs to be used with that nuance. Failure to beat Player X, is not a reason to knock him relative to Player Y unless you're willing to say Player Y was as good or better across the board than Player X. People've brought it up as if Federer's a choker, but even if that's true, if Federer only chokes against a guy who is better than everyone else in history, it shouldn't affect any comparisons except the one between Federer and the guy he chokes against.

Not following your "throw out clay" reasoning. I'm not advocating that we do throw out clay, I'm advocating that we don't use it to judge X% of one player comparison and Y% of another player comparison. It only makes sense to do player comparisons at all if we're at least trying to be consistent in how we do it.

On one hand, it's a reason to say - hey, if he'd played a little later, he'd have done even better! On the other hand, being unable to play on lawn

Hold on a second. He didn't win Wimbledon, but that's a far cry from being unable to play on grass. Lendl was a Wimbledon finalist in 1986 and 1987. He made the semis in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, and 1990. The guys he lost to at Wimbledon in those years were: McEnroe, Connors, Cash, Becker, and Edberg. That resume, to me, doesn't equate to a player who couldn't play on grass. That would be like saying, pre-2009, that Federer couldn't play on clay just because he didn't have a French Open title.

You're right that my shorthand hyperbole is not accurate.

Lendl was an excellent grass tennis player. However, there's a clear difference of levels here between him and say, Federer on clay. Federer went through a period of years where he tore through everybody but one guy who may very well be the best ever at that surface. Lendl played I believe 19 majors on grass, made a total of 3 finals over a 5 year period, each losing to a different player, none of which is considered as good on that surface Borg, McEnroe, or Sampras.

Lendl was less successful on grass than Agassi or Connors were on any surface, so that's real. If you object to me acting as if there's a clear threshold level on that weak surface, that's not unreasonable. If you object to using all-court ability as a criteria, that's also not unreasonable.

[oberyn3]

Lendl was less successful on grass than Agassi or Connors were on any surface, so that's real. If you object to me acting as if there's a clear threshold level on that weak surface, that's not unreasonable. If you object to using all-court ability as a criteria, that's also not unreasonable.

I agree with most of your post, but I can't agree with you on this.

I think in terms of all-court ability, Lendl is at least the equal of Agassi and definitely superior to Connors.

1. Lendl's record on grass is far superior to Connors' record on red clay.

2. By virtue of the fact that he's won Wimbledon, Agassi accomplished more on grass than Lendl did. In analyzing their records, though, both made 2 Wimbledon finals. Agassi went 1-1. Lendl went 0-2. Agassi made 3 semis. Lendl made 5 semis. Lendl also made it to the Australian Open final in 1983 when it was still played on grass.

I know, in the end, winning is everything, but I can't agree that there's a clear-cut difference in all-court ability here. In other words, does Agassi beating Ivanisevic make him a better grass court player than Lendl, because Lendl lost to better grass court players (than Goran)? I'm not so sure I'd agree with that. IMO, it would be a bit like, pre-2009, saying that Federer was a less successful clay court player than, e.g., Carlos Moya or Alberto Costa because Moya and Costa had French Open titles and Federer didn't. I wouldn't have said that about Fed then, and I'm not really willing to say it now about Lendl.

I've enjoyed discussing this with you, though.

[Doctor MJ]

Good points, and I've enjoyed the conversation as well. Hope you'll stick around RealGM.

[oberyn3]

Good points, and I've enjoyed the conversation as well. Hope you'll stick around RealGM.

Thanks. I really like the site.

[NADALbULLS]

Tennis discussion gets very HEA-VY. I post at the most populated tennis forum on the internet, and the moderators are federer fans, and over the last couple of months they've been banning Nadal fans just for the sake of it. I know they do this so I'm very conservative in my approach to posting on that board but they banned me yesterday until November. At least the US Open will still be fairly recent when I return

[oberyn3]

One thing I wanted to add regarding Lendl and Wimbledon.

He lost to Becker in 1986. Becker in the mid-late 80s was the best grasscourt player in the world. From 1985-1991, he made it to the finals 6 out of 7 years.

Lendl lost to Pat Cash in 1987. Injuries did Cash in, but not only was he an excellent grass court player, his run in 1987 was one of the more dominant performances in the open era. Cash dropped only one set the entire fortnight. To reach the final, Lendl beat Edberg (obviously no slouch on grass in his own right) to make it to the finals.

I actually think 1989 was Lendl's best shot to win Wimbledon. He was up on Becker 2 sets to 1 with a break in the 4th before a rain delay. Becker got his head together, broke Lendl twice, and ended up winning in 5 before blitzing a flat Edberg in the final.

It's a shame injuries had such a devastating impact on Cash's career. He was just a year older than Edberg and 2 years older than Becker. It would have been nice to see those three battling it out at Wimbledon into the early 90s.

[NADALbULLS]

I hate rain delays. Remember the 2008 Wimbledon Final, before the rain delay....

Nadal won, but the momentum changed with that delay no question. Also one of Agassi's French Open Finals, he lost momentum big time after rain.

[oberyn3]

I hate rain delays. Remember the 2008 Wimbledon Final, before the rain delay....

Nadal won, but the momentum changed with that delay no question.

Absolutely. There were a couple of rain delays in that match. I just got finished reading Jon Wertheim's book, Strokes of Genius. It's an excellent account of the 2008 Wimbledon Final. What's very interesting is the interplay between Nadal and his Uncle Toni during the last 2 rain delays. Nadal kept himself in a positive frame of mind despite having lost a 2 set lead and blown match points in the 4th set tiebreaker.

Also one of Agassi's French Open Finals, he lost momentum big time after rain.

That was the 1991 final against Courier. Courier's coach, Jose Higueras, advised him to stand further behind the baseline to take some of the sting off of Agassi's groundstrokes.

Although, to balance the cosmic scales, the rain delay in the 1999 French Open Final helped Agassi turn the match around against Andrei Medvedev.