One of the most dominating in tennis history: between the 1985 USO and the Final of Chicago in late March 1986 he won 60 out of 61 matches, losing only to Stefan Edberg in five sets on grass in the 1985 AO. His record over the year from the 1985 USO to the 1986 USO was 97 Won, 4 Lost.
Extending this, from the 1985 USO until the 1988 AO (inclusive) his match record was 188 Won, 14 lost. Given that his opponents during this time included Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at close to their best then surely his record is underrated - probasbly more than any other player in the Open Era.
Over to you, Whisper............oh, and I know he didn't win Wimbledon.........
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2dd19$62k$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...> One of the most dominating in tennis history: between the 1985 USO and the> Final of Chicago in late March 1986 he won 60 out of 61 matches, losing > only> to Stefan Edberg in five sets on grass in the 1985 AO. His record over the> year from the 1985 USO to the 1986 USO was 97 Won, 4 Lost.>
Extending this, from the 1985 USO until the 1988 AO (inclusive) his match> record was 188 Won, 14 lost. Given that his opponents during this time> included Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at close to their best then surely > his> record is underrated - probasbly more than any other player in the Open > Era.>
Of the 4 opponents that Lendl regularly faced between 85-88, only Wilander was at his best, Becker was at his peak in 89 and Edberg in 90 -91. Apart from Wilander, Becker and Edberg were inconsistant and they were at their best on faster surface such as indoor and grass, their game were not matured enough to challenge Lendl on hard court, but after 88 as Lendl's game started to slip off.
Over to you, Whisper............oh, and I know he didn't win> Wimbledon.........>
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:jPq2e.157$8Y4.2229@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Of the 4 opponents that Lendl regularly faced between 85-88, only Wilander> was> at his best, Becker was at his peak in 89 and Edberg in 90 -91.
Becker peaked in the latter half of 1986 and then played as if sybarititism had taken over for some of 1987; Edberg, however, played well throughout and won two Slams in the period. Wilander, oddly, was often unmotivated..........
No doubt it would've been harder for Lendl if his opponents were even better than they were but they were certainly not ordinary opposition.
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2ddod$737$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:jPq2e.157$8Y4.2229@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Of the 4 opponents that Lendl regularly faced between 85-88, only >> Wilander>> was>> at his best, Becker was at his peak in 89 and Edberg in 90 -91.>
Becker peaked in the latter half of 1986 and then played as if > sybarititism> had taken over for some of 1987; Edberg, however, played well throughout > and> won two Slams in the period. Wilander, oddly, was often> unmotivated..........
Becker and Edberg had great game for grass court, this was highlighted by their victories in Wimbledon and Australian Open in 85-87, both of these slams were played on their favourite surface grass, but moving onto clay and hardcourt both of them are lesser factors than Wilander. Both Becker and Edberg did not peak during Lendl's prime in 85-87 but they were moving ahead of Lendl's old rivals such Connors and McEnroe. Becker had a few lean year between 87 to 88 and he really peaked at 88 Masters and Edberg really showed maturity in his game in 89 despite his losses in Wimbledon and FO final. Until 1988 both guys did not have the consistancy off their ground shots and indeed other part of their game to challenge Lendl in grand slams other than Wimbledon.>
No doubt it would've been harder for Lendl if his opponents were even > better> than they were but they were certainly not ordinary opposition.>
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112162475.402304.302510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> John wrote:>> "Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in> message>> news:d2ddod$737$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>> >
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> > news:jPq2e.157$8Y4.2229@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>> >
Of the 4 opponents that Lendl regularly faced between 85-88, only>> >> Wilander>> >> was>> >> at his best, Becker was at his peak in 89 and Edberg in 90 -91.>> >
Becker peaked in the latter half of 1986 and then played as if>> > sybarititism>> > had taken over for some of 1987; Edberg, however, played well> throughout>> > and>> > won two Slams in the period. Wilander, oddly, was often>> > unmotivated..........>>
Becker and Edberg had great game for grass court, this was> highlighted by>> their victories>> in Wimbledon and Australian Open in 85-87, both of these slams were> played>> on their favourite>> surface grass, but moving onto clay and hardcourt both of them are> lesser>> factors than>> Wilander. Both Becker and Edberg did not peak during Lendl's prime in> 85-87>> but they>> were moving ahead of Lendl's old rivals such Connors and McEnroe.> Becker>> had a few>> lean year between 87 to 88 and he really peaked at 88 Masters and> Edberg>> really showed>> maturity in his game in 89 despite his losses in Wimbledon and FO> final.>> Until 1988 both>> guys did not have the consistancy off their ground shots and indeed> other>> part of their game>> to challenge Lendl in grand slams other than Wimbledon.>> >
No doubt it would've been harder for Lendl if his opponents were> even>> > better>> > than they were but they were certainly not ordinary opposition.>> >
Johnny Boy, your lack logic. If Lendl won those slams, Masters Cups and> those matches, it is obvious that Becker, Edberg or Wilander wouldn't> have. Only one guy can "dominate" at a time (else it would not be> called "domination" in the first place).
I am not denying Lendl was the dominating player between 85-87, Wilander as always was not the power baseliner of Lendl's calibre, Becker and Edberg were more talented players with their game well suited in fast court conditions. But it is lack of logic to say both Becker and Edberg were at peak of their career, clearly that was not the case. I know you like of Lendl but it is illogical to say that he dominated peak Becker and Edberg, clearly he was not able to dominate Becker in their 89 US Open encounter when it was regarded as Becker at his peak.
No doubt it would've been harder for Lendl if his opponents were even
better> than they were but they were certainly not ordinary opposition.
Didn't Lendl beat Pernfors and Mecir to win FO and USO during that time...?
You're right, that's not ordinary opposition, that's pretty pathetic opposition...
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
So essentially, if one guy is dominating the field then the others> would definitely not be at peak. Edberg/Wilander/Becker were not at> peak because Lendl was at his peak.
Lendl did dominate Wilander from late 85 thru early 88 - he won all 5 of their matches, including 2-0 at the slams.
But Lendl was only 8-6 vs. Becker/Edberg overall during that same time, and most important they were a combined 2-2 vs. Lendl at the slams from late 85 to early 88, so that strongly suggests that Becker/Edberg weren't at peak yet, not that they didn't win *because* of Lendl.
When either guy got to play Lendl in the slams, they were collectively 50-50 to beat him. The problem was they weren't good enough to make it that far - they were losing to inferior competition in earlier rounds.
John is correct - Lendl faced soft competition, feasted on Pernfors and Mecir at the slams...
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2dd19$62k$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...> One of the most dominating in tennis history: between the 1985 USO and the> Final of Chicago in late March 1986 he won 60 out of 61 matches, losing > only> to Stefan Edberg in five sets on grass in the 1985 AO. His record over the> year from the 1985 USO to the 1986 USO was 97 Won, 4 Lost.>
Extending this, from the 1985 USO until the 1988 AO (inclusive) his match> record was 188 Won, 14 lost. Given that his opponents during this time> included Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at close to their best
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won those 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where he'd compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for edberg.
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:qKv2e.33411$Fz.27192@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won those> 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where he'd> compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for> edberg.>
So essentially, if one guy is dominating the field then the others> > > would definitely not be at peak. Edberg/Wilander/Becker were not at> > > peak because Lendl was at his peak.
LOL - this is the typical terminated/rahaha response when his argument has been demolished.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112196544.232027.155220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> bob wrote:>> "Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in> message>> news:d2dd19$62k$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>> > One of the most dominating in tennis history: between the 1985 USO> and the>> > Final of Chicago in late March 1986 he won 60 out of 61 matches,> losing>> > only>> > to Stefan Edberg in five sets on grass in the 1985 AO. His record> over the>> > year from the 1985 USO to the 1986 USO was 97 Won, 4 Lost.>> >
Extending this, from the 1985 USO until the 1988 AO (inclusive) his> match>> > record was 188 Won, 14 lost. Given that his opponents during this> time>> > included Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at close to their best>>
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won> those>> 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where> he'd>> compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for>
edberg.>
Becker, Edberg and Wilander were not at their best because Lendl did> not "allow" them to be at their best.
Wilander's best was not as good as Lendl's best, but same can't be said of Becker and Edberg. Becker and Edberg simply did not have the score on the board during Lendl's peak years of 85-87, their hard court games were good but not to the consistant level that Lendl achieved during those years, Peak Edberg and Becker have thrashed Lendl a few time on hard court specially Edberg's thrashing of Lendl in 91 US Open semi showed us what Edberg can do on hard court at his absolute peak. Becker and Edberg were not at their best simply because their game has not reach the peak that their talent allow them and Lendl's game of 85 to 87 was simply more consistant and better than Becker and Edberg of those years. He was the best player for those 3 years and he was clearly better player than both Becker and Edberg on hard court, clay and even on indoor surfaces.
Why are you bullshiting about Lendl? I can say the same about Sampras.> Sampras dominated 1993-94 and 1996-97 becuase Agassi's best was yet to> come (post 1999), Becker, Edberg and Courier had gone done the hill.>
I say again when I guy is dominating others cannot because it is stupid> to believe more than one guy can dominate at the same time (because> that violates the definition of "domination"). And if a guy is not> dominating, he is at his best. You figure out.>
"stephenj" <sjaros3@home.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:1112205442.253226.272430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> Heck, one of those two Lendl wins was a semis win over Edberg at 1987> *Wimbledon*. And no one in their right mind would suggest that Lendl> could beat peak-Edberg at Wimbledon, so Edberg obviously wasn't at peak> then.
So voluntary losing to Edberg (SF Wimb87) would have been better for Lendl?
"stephenj" <sjaros3@home.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:1112208908.770479.211610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> >Lendl led 5-3 against Edberg from 1985-87 (2 of Edbergs win came on>
Lendl is 6-3 against Becker from 1985-87>
raja, at least pretend to be smart. Lendl was 4-3 vs. Becker and 4-3> vs. Edberg during the time frame being discussed, which was *late*> 1985, from the USO onwards.>
Most importantly, Lendl was 2-2 at the slams during that time vs.> Edberg and Becker.>
If that's "domination", you are intelligent...
With your logic it is indeed hard to find dominant champion.
Connors 74, Borg 79-80, Mac 84, Fed 04 are probably the best domination eras anyway (the only who surpass Jaros' test?)
Close behind is Lendl 85-87, Wilander 88, Sampras 93-95, 97
It can admittedly be argued that Agassi aside, Pete's generation was a> little thin -- falling between the decline of Becker/Edberg and the> rise of the New Ballers. This is one reason why Borg might take "best> ever" because he achieved his amazing 11-slam run during a period where> McEnroe and Connors were consistently playing him in slam finals and> semis.
yes, but the amazing thing is that sampras-agassi only played 3 times in slams during pete's 6 year reign at #1, and never during the last 3 years.
and that was all about agassi - two of those three times came during 1995, when agassi played his best tennis and vaulted to the top (the other was at the very dawn of pete's era, 93 W).
for much of that time, agassi wasn't near the top, and that wasn't directly pete's doing. andre just wasn't getting far enough in the slam draws to face pete...
You're right that if Lendl had won all his slam finals he would be best> ever. Nonetheless, he didn't win them -- and you can't get around that.
that sure won't stop the lendl-lickers (i.e., raja) from trying...
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Most importantly, Lendl was 2-2 at the slams during that time vs.> > Edberg and Becker.> >
If that's "domination", you are intelligent...>
With your logic it is indeed hard to find dominant champion.
Don't be silly. I wasn't making a general claim about what it means to be dominant, i was replying specifically to raja's claim that the reason Edberg and Becker didn't win loads of slams during that time was because of Lendl. It obviously wasn't, since they only collectively lost twice at slams (Becker not at all).
Lendl clearly was the top player from late 85 to early 88, winning 5 slams when no one else won more than 2. I was just replying to raja's dumb argument about edberg and becker being "peak" during that time.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
No question Lendl was awesome. He's one of my favorites of all-time,> clearly. Too bad for that annoying guy named....Becker...denying the> Czech of immortality.
Yes, Lendl never denied Becker anything, not a single slam (even when Lendl beat him at 91 USO, Becker wasn't going to win that event anyway).
In contrast, Lendl is a tier III player instead of tier I because of Becker alone.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com> wrote in message news:1112202300.964854.22600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Setting aside the obvious argument -- that some of Pete's potential> rivals (a la Goran) didn't have great careers because Pete himself> prevented them from doing so
But he didn't. Apart from W there were loads of opportunities for other players to make their marks.
-- we still have one clear rival for him,> Agassi. Agassi won 8 slams (as many as Lendl) which makes him a major> champ, 7 of those slams being won during a period "bracketed" by Pete's> own slam wins (1990 USO to 2002 USO); and Sampras faced him in 5 slam> finals, winning 4 of those. This is more than the number of times Borg> and McEnroe faced off in a slam final (4).>
By any reasonable standard, that's a decent rival.
As you well know, during Pete's period of "dominance" Agassi was only serious some of the time.........
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:qKv2e.33411$Fz.27192@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won
those> 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where he'd> compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for> edberg.
Please Bob, actually check out the records before you open your mouth. When did Becker have his best run of matches?
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d2e71r$6g5$1@plaza.suomi.net...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä> news:qKv2e.33411$Fz.27192@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won> those>> 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where he'd>> compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for>> edberg.>>
88-90 definitely average more than 85-87, so my pt holds since you're nitpicking..
Paradoxally Becker won USO on his not-absolutely-best hd year percentage> wise>
Edberg's hd win-loss / year>
1985 25-7 78,1%> 1986 32-5 86,5%> 1987 42-5 89,4% (Ed was #2 that year with 7 titles, 4 final + GS record> Win-2r-SF-SF)> 1988 28-9 75,7%> 1989 29-6 82,9%> 1990 39-5 88,6% (Ed's massive tune-up streak before USO)> 1991 39-7 84,8%> 1992 32-6 84,2%> 1993 low> 1994 33-9 78,6%
Again he had better percentages during other years than his hd slam years> 91-92...
but neither won a non grass slam til 89 if i recall? to me that's where the rubber meets the road.. 2% pts more counting cincy etc.. is irrelevant to me...
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112196544.232027.155220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> bob wrote:>> "Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in> message>> news:d2dd19$62k$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>> > One of the most dominating in tennis history: between the 1985 USO> and the>> > Final of Chicago in late March 1986 he won 60 out of 61 matches,> losing>> > only>> > to Stefan Edberg in five sets on grass in the 1985 AO. His record> over the>> > year from the 1985 USO to the 1986 USO was 97 Won, 4 Lost.>> >
Extending this, from the 1985 USO until the 1988 AO (inclusive) his> match>> > record was 188 Won, 14 lost. Given that his opponents during this> time>> > included Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at close to their best>>
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won> those>> 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where> he'd>> compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for>
edberg.>
Becker, Edberg and Wilander were not at their best because Lendl did> not "allow" them to be at their best.>
Why are you bullshiting about Lendl? I can say the same about Sampras.> Sampras dominated 1993-94 and 1996-97 becuase Agassi's best was yet to> come (post 1999), Becker, Edberg and Courier had gone done the hill.>
I say again when I guy is dominating others cannot because it is stupid> to believe more than one guy can dominate at the same time (because> that violates the definition of "domination"). And if a guy is not> dominating, he is at his best. You figure out.
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2ftfe$rag$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:qKv2e.33411$Fz.27192@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won> those>> 2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where he'd>> compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for>> edberg.>
Please Bob, actually check out the records before you open your mouth. > When> did Becker have his best run of matches?
when did he win ALL of his non grass slams? 89-96. winning slams on a surface that is NOT tailor made to your game says you have your best stuff, IMO, much more than winning cincy type tourneys..
as for winning Ws, boris could do it with lendl as main competition even BEFORE his game peaked..look at more than just stats lloyd, we have waltz for that nonsense...
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2ftfd$rag$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com> wrote in message> news:1112202300.964854.22600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
Setting aside the obvious argument -- that some of Pete's potential>> rivals (a la Goran) didn't have great careers because Pete himself>> prevented them from doing so>
But he didn't. Apart from W there were loads of opportunities for other> players to make their marks.>
-- we still have one clear rival for him,>> Agassi. Agassi won 8 slams (as many as Lendl) which makes him a major>> champ, 7 of those slams being won during a period "bracketed" by Pete's>> own slam wins (1990 USO to 2002 USO); and Sampras faced him in 5 slam>> finals, winning 4 of those. This is more than the number of times Borg>> and McEnroe faced off in a slam final (4).>>
By any reasonable standard, that's a decent rival.>
As you well know, during Pete's period of "dominance" Agassi was only> serious some of the time...
looking at pete on other side of net, i'd probably try to find an off court life too.
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:WRW2e.34451$Fz.5635@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
edberg 19 and becker 17? during lendl reign? wow..edberg won his first
grass slam not until 91, beck in 89 i believe? being able to win a slam
the grass signified to me that they were beginning to play their best> tennis, i.e. winning slams even off the surface that suited them best..
that> rules out the lendl 85-87 period llloyd.
Check out the records, Bob. Edberg was winning non-grass tournaments as early as March, 1984; won three non-grass events in 1985, and SIX non-grass tournaments in 1987. Becker beat both Edberg and Wilander on carpet in the Davis Cup Final 1985, won Cincinatti on hardcourt that year, was runner-up in the Masters (beating Wilander once again), and Wembley, as well as making two claycourt semi's. In 1986 he won five non-grass tournaments and was runner-up in three more.
Perhaps both players did improve later in their careers but there's a strong case to be put that Becker peaked in 1986 and that Edberg wasn't far off his peak as well
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:K7X2e.11786$vd.7505@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
looking at pete on other side of net, i'd probably try to find an off
court> life too.
Actually, I've done a good deal of research on players' careers recently and - contrary to the rumours - Pete was the most beatable alltime great in history.........
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:u6X2e.20535$Pc.14150@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
when did he win ALL of his non grass slams? 89-96.
AFTER LENDL DECLINED..........
winning slams on a> surface that is NOT tailor made to your game says you have your best stuff,> IMO, much more than winning cincy type tourneys..>
as for winning Ws, boris could do it with lendl as main competition even> BEFORE his game peaked..look at more than just stats lloyd, we have waltz> for that nonsense...
No, Bob, you look at all the stats, not just cherry-pick what ever suits your favourite dogma. Becker's non-grass slam record was always fairly ordinary by his standards. Of course he could win the odd slam when the draw panned out his way and the competition was ordinary (like Woodforde and Chang to take the '96 AO)but do you really think he coud've regularly beaten Lendl on hardcourt at Lendl's peak?
The facts say that both Becker and Edberg weren't the green juveniles you're trying to portray them as when Lendl was dominating. And could it be they couldn't win non-grass slams at this period because the competition was hotter?
when did he win ALL of his non grass slams? 89-96.>
AFTER LENDL DECLINED..........
What did Lendl have to do with Becker not winning HC slams before you claim Lendl declined? Did he ever beat Becker at an HC slam during that time?
but do you really think he coud've regularly beaten> Lendl on hardcourt at Lendl's peak?>
The facts say that both Becker and Edberg weren't the green juveniles
you're> trying to portray them as when Lendl was dominating.
They obviously were far from peak.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:S%W2e.11783$vd.6183@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
they were mere children raja.
Edberg was born Jan. 19th, 1966, which makes him 19 1/2 to 22 when Lendl peaked. Becker was born Nov 22, 1967, which made him 17 1/2 to 20. Edberg wasn't even close to being a child and Becker was described at the time as "perhaps the greatest prodigy in tennis-history", winning two Wimbledons by the time he was 18 1/2.
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:BG43e.13871$TZ.2843@okepread06...> > > when did he win ALL of his non grass slams? 89-96.> >
AFTER LENDL DECLINED..........>
What did Lendl have to do with Becker not winning HC slams before you
claim> Lendl declined? Did he ever beat Becker at an HC slam during that time?
AFTER LENDL DECLINED..........
What did Lendl have to do with Becker not winning HC slams before you claim>Lendl declined? Did he ever beat Becker at an HC slam during that time?
Really hate to return Graf/Seles (Graf's slump case 90-92) but I recall you not to confess Graf's being in a slump even though players she regurlarly othewise beat (unusually often lost before finals at slams at period). Now your excuse for Lendl winning is not Lendl's domination but Becker's non-peak...
Very similar indeed but you seem to have taking either case very subjectively
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:qKv2e.33411$Fz.27192@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won>
those>
2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where he'd>>compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for>>edberg.>
Please Bob, actually check out the records before you open your mouth. When> did Becker have his best run of matches?>
Becker definitely peaked post Lendl peak. He won Wim/USO in '89 (beating Lendl in both slams), & again beat Lendl in '91 AO final to attain No.1.
One of the most dominating in tennis history: between the 1985 USO>>
and the>>
Final of Chicago in late March 1986 he won 60 out of 61 matches,>>
losing>>
only>>>>to Stefan Edberg in five sets on grass in the 1985 AO. His record>>
over the>>
year from the 1985 USO to the 1986 USO was 97 Won, 4 Lost.>>>>
Extending this, from the 1985 USO until the 1988 AO (inclusive) his>>
match>>
record was 188 Won, 14 lost. Given that his opponents during this>>
time>>
included Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at close to their best>>>
wilander was at/near his best yes..but becker, edberg, no..becker won>>
those>>
2 Ws already, but i think his overall best tennis (the ones where>>
he'd>>
compete well VS lendl on other than grass) was yet to come..ditto for>>
edberg.>>
Becker, Edberg and Wilander were not at their best because Lendl did>>not "allow" them to be at their best.>>
Why are you bullshiting about Lendl? I can say the same about Sampras.>>Sampras dominated 1993-94 and 1996-97 becuase Agassi's best was yet to>>come (post 1999), Becker, Edberg and Courier had gone done the hill.>>
I say again when I guy is dominating others cannot because it is stupid>>to believe more than one guy can dominate at the same time (because>>that violates the definition of "domination"). And if a guy is not>>dominating, he is at his best. You figure out.>
they were mere children raja.>
bob >
Yes, & Lendl was seasoned slam competitor having already lost numerous slam finals.
Edberg was born Jan. 19th, 1966, which makes him 19 1/2 to 22 when Lendl> peaked. Becker was born Nov 22, 1967, which made him 17 1/2 to 20. Edberg> wasn't even close to being a child and Becker was described at the time as> "perhaps the greatest prodigy in tennis-history", winning two Wimbledons
the time he was 18 1/2.
Obviously they were amongst the top players during that time (who says otherwise?) but just not at their peak.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2ik31$r4l$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:WRW2e.34451$Fz.5635@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
edberg 19 and becker 17? during lendl reign? wow..edberg won his first> non>> grass slam not until 91, beck in 89 i believe? being able to win a slam> off>> the grass signified to me that they were beginning to play their best>> tennis, i.e. winning slams even off the surface that suited them best..> that>> rules out the lendl 85-87 period llloyd.>
Check out the records, Bob. Edberg was winning non-grass tournaments as> early as March, 1984; won three non-grass events in 1985, and SIX > non-grass> tournaments in 1987. Becker beat both Edberg and Wilander on carpet in the> Davis Cup Final 1985, won Cincinatti on hardcourt that year, was runner-up> in the Masters (beating Wilander once again), and Wembley, as well as > making> two claycourt semi's. In 1986 he won five non-grass tournaments and was> runner-up in three more.>
Perhaps both players did improve later in their careers but there's a > strong> case to be put that Becker peaked in 1986 and that Edberg wasn't far off > his> peak as well
i see you agreeing with me..i never said boris/edberg weren't excellent players pre 89 capable of winning non grass tournaments and they 3 of 4 previous Ws..but IMO their absolute topnotch level was probably closer to 88-92, they actually won non grass slams, beat the best on a surface not perfectely suited to em, etc...
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:K7X2e.11786$vd.7505@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
looking at pete on other side of net, i'd probably try to find an off>
court>
life too.>
Actually, I've done a good deal of research on players' careers recently> and - contrary to the rumours - Pete was the most beatable alltime great in> history.........>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:t1g3e.12766$vd.9574@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
i see you agreeing with me..i never said boris/edberg weren't excellent> players pre 89 capable of winning non grass tournaments
You said they were "children" and implied they weren't any competition for Lendl.
..but IMO their absolute topnotch level was probably closer to> 88-92, they actually won non grass slams, beat the best on a surface not> perfectely suited to em, etc...
Perhaps but if you think about it, both showed during the Lendl reign that they could win slams as well as hard-court non-slam tournaments. Now Becker only ever won one W after Lendl was on the decline so what does this say about his post-87 form on his best surface? On both clay and HC Becker played very well 1985-7; he just couldn't win the only HC Slam at the time. Edberg was the same; he played very well on non-grass tournaments at this time but couldn't break thru at the USO, Lendl accounting for him easily in 1986 in the semi, Wilander at the same stage in 1987. Perhaps Edberg was slightly better post 1987 but it's not a huge difference. As for Becker I very much doubt it..........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:wom3e.336$v47.8571@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Actually, I've done a good deal of research on players' careers recently> > and - contrary to the rumours - Pete was the most beatable alltime great
history.........>
...yet the most winningest in slams lol... ; )
At the least representative slam, yes, but in the others...........?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:HT83e.136$v47.3841@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Becker definitely peaked post Lendl peak. He won Wim/USO in '89> (beating Lendl in both slams), & again beat Lendl in '91 AO final to> attain No.1.
Let's see; in 1986 when Lendl was at his peak Boris beats him at W 6-4 6-3 7-5; in 1989 when Lendl is slumping Becker beats him at W 7-5 6-7 2-6 6-4 6-3 and Becker was better in 1989 than in 1986?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 91 Lendl was how old? And how many years past his peak?
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112423691.098854.22980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>> "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>> news:t1g3e.12766$vd.9574@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>
i see you agreeing with me..i never said boris/edberg weren't> excellent>> > players pre 89 capable of winning non grass tournaments>>
You said they were "children" and implied they weren't any> competition for>> Lendl.>>
Yes I agree. How can world No.2 players be children? If anybody> considers 17 year prodigies like Becker and Edberg who get to world> No.2 beating the crap out of everybody, and then losing to Lendl, they> ought to be stupid. So, Sharapova is a child right now (stop ogling her> and dont expect her to win anything more till she turns 20....LOL).
girls mature earlier than guys, a girl can be far closer to her peak at 16 than a guy -- normally.
In 1986 before the Masters final people were discussing whether Lendl> or the "child" Becker should be considered No.1?
how bout in 89? just because boris won W in 86/86 on his best surface doesn't mean he was playing his best tennis..it means he was better than the field those 2 yrs..boris winning on NON GRASS slams tells me he really is playing his best tennis..if he loses W those yrs, maybe he has somebody else to contend with (edberg first, then sampras)..
Lendl put all doubts> to rest by emphatically thumping Becker who was almost crying because> of frsutration through the entire match. That match was one of the most> clinical match I saw anybody playing. Becker was playing very well but> Lendl hit one winner after the other. And he volleyed away successfully> 99% of the time also. So it was a total all court destruction by Lendl.>
Lendl also thumped Becker similarly in 1985 Masters and 1987 Masters.
teenage becker..
The question is if Becker won those slams, then people will say Lendl> did not dominate. So for Ivan, it is a lose-lose situation. Even if he> emphatically thumps everybody (which he did) he gets slammed for no> competition. And if he loses frequently during his dominant (which he> did not) he is accused of not-dominant at all.> I see similar injustice can be heaped on Sampras or Graf by the> detractors. I am not one of them. So I wouldn't do so. But the> injustice heaped on Lendl is not only funny (because it is so stupid)> but also inane and defies any kind of logic.
chicken egg stuff again..did lendl dominate because borg/mcenroe were past it and becker/edberg before it, or if they all peaked together lendl would still dominate..now, raja, use real logic here
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2ik32$r4l$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:K7X2e.11786$vd.7505@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
looking at pete on other side of net, i'd probably try to find an off> court>> life too.>
Actually, I've done a good deal of research on players' careers recently> and - contrary to the rumours - Pete was the most beatable alltime great > in> history.........
yes, every player saw sampras in their draw at USO/W/AO and started to lick their chops, eh? lol llloyd..
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2ikdv$rki$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:u6X2e.20535$Pc.14150@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
when did he win ALL of his non grass slams? 89-96.>
AFTER LENDL DECLINED....
chicken / egg argument..did lendl dominate 85-87 because others were before their peak or did the others dominate 88-2005 because lendl was past it? all we have is our "non biased" eyes to tell us..
winning slams on a surface that is NOT tailor made to your game says you >> have your best> stuff, IMO, much more than winning cincy type tourneys..>>
as for winning Ws, boris could do it with lendl as main competition even>> BEFORE his game peaked..look at more than just stats lloyd, we have waltz>> for that nonsense...>
No, Bob, you look at all the stats, not just cherry-pick what ever suits> your favourite dogma. Becker's non-grass slam record was always fairly> ordinary by his standards. Of course he could win the odd slam when the > draw> panned out his way and the competition was ordinary (like Woodforde and> Chang to take the '96 AO)but do you really think he coud've regularly > beaten> Lendl on hardcourt at Lendl's peak?
read that last paragraph and call me "cherry picker"? gosh.
The facts say that both Becker and Edberg weren't the green juveniles > you're> trying to portray them as when Lendl was dominating. And could it be they> couldn't win non-grass slams at this period because the competition was> hotter?
i'm going to start calling you chicken/egg/lloyd along with chicken/egg/cottrell....
they weren't green, but they were not at their peaks..end of story.
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d2ival$kpr$1@plaza.suomi.net...>
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> kirjoitti viestissä> news:BG43e.13871$TZ.2843@okepread06...>> > > when did he win ALL of his non grass slams? 89-96.>> >
AFTER LENDL DECLINED..........>>
What did Lendl have to do with Becker not winning HC slams before you> claim>> Lendl declined? Did he ever beat Becker at an HC slam during that time?>
AFTER LENDL DECLINED..........>
What did Lendl have to do with Becker not winning HC slams before you >>claim>>Lendl declined? Did he ever beat Becker at an HC slam during that time?>
Really hate to return Graf/Seles (Graf's slump case 90-92) but I recall > you> not to confess Graf's being in a slump even though players she regurlarly> othewise beat (unusually often lost before finals at slams at period). Now> your excuse for Lendl winning is not Lendl's domination but Becker's> non-peak...
i don't want to get into this, but boris was 17-19 yrs old when lendl was peak/dominating..if you believe he had peaked at that age, fine. not how i saw it.
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112375866.293127.309030@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>> "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>> news:S%W2e.11783$vd.6183@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>
they were mere children raja.>>
Edberg was born Jan. 19th, 1966, which makes him 19 1/2 to 22 when> Lendl peaked. Becker was born Nov 22, 1967, which made him 17 1/2 to 20.> Edberg wasn't even close to being a child and Becker was described at the> time as "perhaps the greatest prodigy in tennis-history", winning two> Wimbledons by the time he was 18 1/2.
but what other slams did he win? he won on his best surface at that age, but won non grass slams at a much later date..how did he master that?
Some "children".......>
Lloyd, stop arguing to Whisper a.k.a bob a.k.a. Roast. Agree with them> (him). Lendl is 10th best (and even worse) in Open Era and Sampras is> the best and Agassi second best.
agassi's not #2.
If you don't stop posting about Lendl's achievement, he will find where> you live, where you work and come and kill you. I have already got the> warning. I have been told not to post anything related to Lendl's> achievements in future. I am going to stop doing that (because I am a> chicken). I am serious about this. This is not the first time, I have> been warned. So I have to been serious about it. I can send you> persoanl hate mails I have received from this guy.>
You might be next on his "hit list". I am already shitting in my pants> here
raja, after you i was probably lendl's biggest fan in usa..but i've got eyes.
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:fbj4e.29663$Pc.594@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> people tend to forget how dominant sampras was at USO because of beign even> more dominant at W..i'll forgive lloyd for that mistake.
1988: Loses first round to Yzaga in five sets 1989: Loses in 4th round to Jay Berger in straight sets 1990, beats an over-30 Lendl in five sets, then beats an over-30 Mac in four, then beats Agassi impressively in Final (concedes 4 sets and 93 games) 1991: Loses to Courier in straight sets in QF. 1992: After struggling through Martin and Forget in five sets in the 3rd and 4th rounds, loses to Edberg in four in the Final. 1993: Wins title but beats Chang, Volkov, and Pioline in last three rounds (hardly Mac, Connors, etc) 1994: Loses in fourth round to unknown Jaime Yzaga. 1995: Wins title with impressive four-set win over Agassi but still hardly a performance to equal Mac's in 1984 or Lendl's in 1985, 6, and 7. 1996: Wins title but has to struggle against Novak in round 2 and barely gets thru Corretja in the semi. after that it's Goran on HC and Chang in the Final. 1997: Loses to Korda in 4th round. 1998: Loses to Rafter in SF 1999: Doesn't play. 2000: loses to Safin in straight sets in Final. 2001: Loses to Hewitt 6-7 1-6 1-6 in Final. 2002: Wins after third round struggle against Rusedski. Impressively beats Agassi in four sets in F.
A very good record but let's compare to Lendl: 1979: Loses 2nd round to Tanner in straight sets 1980: Loses to Mac in four sets in QF 1981: Loses in fourth round to Gerulaitis in five sets (vitas then taking Mac to five). 1982: Loses Final to Connors in four sets but beat Mac in straights in semi 1983: Again loses final to Jimbo (after having set-point for two sets to one lead) but makes F without losing a set. 1984:Loses F badly to Mac. 1985: Wins title beating Mac in straights and only concedes one set and 60 games throughout even though he also has to beat Noah and Connors. 1986: Wins title and again drops only one set and 60 games on way. Beats Edberg in straights in semi. 1987: For third straight year wins title with the loss of only one set and 59 games. Beats Jarryd, Mac, Connors, and Wilander back-to-back. 1988: Loses Final in five sets to Wilander but injury is getting to him. This is the last tournament he plays until the Masters. Struggled thru in five sets against Mansdorf in first round. 1989: Loses Final in four sets to Becker. Almost loses to Chesnokov in 4th round. 1990: Upset by sampras in five sets in QF, 1991: Thumped by Edberg in straight sets in the semi. Ed does the same thing to Courier in the F. Lendl had a difficult draw: five sets against Krajicek in 1st round, Ivanisevic in the 4th round, and Stich in the QF, 1992: Loses to Edberg in four sets in the Semi. Beat Connors and Becker earlier. 1993: Retires in first round against Neil Borwick. 1994: Retires in 2nd round against Bernd Karbacher in his last match.
Look at it objectively, considering quality of opposition, dominance, etc.........
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:8hj4e.19868$vd.19515@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> i don't want to get into this, but boris was 17-19 yrs old when lendl was> peak/dominating..if you believe he had peaked at that age, fine. not how
saw it.>
bob
Seles was at same age 91-93.
Boris played his most convincing Wimbledon 86. (85 he lost sets left and right to nobodies, 89 he almost lost to Lendl SF)
I agree they are trying to point out Lendl's competition, when he> dominated. But it was clearly much better and in fact probably the best> in Open Era. Borg had his bunch of jokers in finals also. But Sampras> OMG! he had jokers one after the another.
Pathetic excuses.
The only decent rivals Sampras faced in slam finals were>
1) Agassi (a total timid player. And he always met him on faster> surface slam finals. The one time he lost to Agassi on a slow surface> at AO, he lost)> 2) Becker when he was clearly past it> 3) Edberg and he lost to him.
Too pathetic for words...
So Sampras faced 3 decent opponents and won against 2 of them.>
Lets look at Lendl's effort in slam finals>
1) Borg (only once when Lendl was not mature)
No, Lendl was at top-notch peak as he was 20. Ask Lloyd - Becker peaked at 17.
2) McEnroe (beat him twice)
Lendl said Mac's best was far too good for him. The record backs this up (7 Wim/USO v 3)....
3) Connors (twice, lost both of them, but Lendl was not near his peak)
Lendl said Jimbo's best was far too good for him. The record backs this up (7 Wim/USO v 3)....
4) Wilander (beat him twice)
At respective peaks I'd give slight edge to Wilander. Smarter & more versatile than Ivan...
5) Edberg (beat him once)
Lendl said Edberg's best was too good for him. The record backs this up (4 wim/uso v 3 - no Wimbledons for Lendl while Edberg multiple champion)....
6) Becker (lost all three times, but met only once at peak on his worst> surface)
More pathetic excuses. Lendl said Becker's best was far too good for him. Record clearly backs this up - 3-0 in slam finals, 3 Wimbledons v 0...
So Lendl faces 6 great opponents and won against 3 of them.
Lendl admitted all the good players in his era were better than him, & he hoped to win when they lost to other guys or were badly off form. That's exactly the way it panned out....
Which is better facing 6 great opponents winning against 3 of them or> facing 3 great opponents winning against 2 of them?>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:fbj4e.29663$Pc.594@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
people tend to forget how dominant sampras was at USO because of beign>
even>
more dominant at W..i'll forgive lloyd for that mistake.>
1988: Loses first round to Yzaga in five sets> 1989: Loses in 4th round to Jay Berger in straight sets> 1990, beats an over-30 Lendl in five sets, then beats an over-30 Mac in> four, then beats Agassi impressively in Final (concedes 4 sets and 93 games)> 1991: Loses to Courier in straight sets in QF.> 1992: After struggling through Martin and Forget in five sets in the 3rd and> 4th rounds, loses to Edberg in four in the Final.> 1993: Wins title but beats Chang, Volkov, and Pioline in last three rounds> (hardly Mac, Connors, etc)> 1994: Loses in fourth round to unknown Jaime Yzaga.> 1995: Wins title with impressive four-set win over Agassi but still hardly a> performance to equal Mac's in 1984 or Lendl's in 1985, 6, and 7.> 1996: Wins title but has to struggle against Novak in round 2 and barely> gets thru Corretja in the semi. after that it's Goran on HC and Chang in the> Final.> 1997: Loses to Korda in 4th round.> 1998: Loses to Rafter in SF> 1999: Doesn't play.> 2000: loses to Safin in straight sets in Final.> 2001: Loses to Hewitt 6-7 1-6 1-6 in Final.> 2002: Wins after third round struggle against Rusedski. Impressively beats> Agassi in four sets in F.>
A very good record but let's compare to Lendl:> 1979: Loses 2nd round to Tanner in straight sets> 1980: Loses to Mac in four sets in QF> 1981: Loses in fourth round to Gerulaitis in five sets (vitas then taking> Mac to five).> 1982: Loses Final to Connors in four sets but beat Mac in straights in semi> 1983: Again loses final to Jimbo (after having set-point for two sets to one> lead) but makes F without losing a set.> 1984:Loses F badly to Mac.> 1985: Wins title beating Mac in straights and only concedes one set and 60> games throughout even though he also has to beat Noah and Connors.> 1986: Wins title and again drops only one set and 60 games on way. Beats> Edberg in straights in semi.> 1987: For third straight year wins title with the loss of only one set and> 59 games. Beats Jarryd, Mac, Connors, and Wilander back-to-back.> 1988: Loses Final in five sets to Wilander but injury is getting to him.> This is the last tournament he plays until the Masters. Struggled thru in> five sets against Mansdorf in first round.> 1989: Loses Final in four sets to Becker. Almost loses to Chesnokov in 4th> round.> 1990: Upset by sampras in five sets in QF,> 1991: Thumped by Edberg in straight sets in the semi. Ed does the same thing> to Courier in the F. Lendl had a difficult draw: five sets against Krajicek> in 1st round, Ivanisevic in the 4th round, and Stich in the QF,> 1992: Loses to Edberg in four sets in the Semi. Beat Connors and Becker> earlier.> 1993: Retires in first round against Neil Borwick.> 1994: Retires in 2nd round against Bernd Karbacher in his last match.>
Look at it objectively, considering quality of opposition, dominance,> etc.........>
Sampras hands down.
You're losing it Lloyd. Just accept Sampras for the great player he is & move on. The only guys in the conversation are Borg/Laver - no one else. You sound retarded trying to compare Lendl, when Lendl himself admitted his best wasn't good enough.
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d2taoo$434$1@plaza.suomi.net...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä> news:8hj4e.19868$vd.19515@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> i don't want to get into this, but boris was 17-19 yrs old when lendl was>> peak/dominating..if you believe he had peaked at that age, fine. not how> i>> saw it.>>
Seles was at same age 91-93.
don't compare the athletic maturation age of women/men please.
Boris played his most convincing Wimbledon 86. (85 he lost sets left and> right to nobodies, 89 he almost lost to Lendl SF)
wimbledon, yes..how bout USOs?? (i.e. on a court that wasn't his fave suface?)
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:4qv4e.297$OV3.5207@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Lloyd wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:f_N3e.660$v47.19114@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
Sampras 5 of 8 finals>>>Jimbo 5 of 7>>>Lendl 3 of 8>>
So even using your simplistic system of rating Connors is ahead?>
How so?>
They both won 5, yet Pete made an extra final. Ratios are for Waltzian > fuckwits - I'm interested in solid results not airy fairy abstracts...
according to lloyd's logic, a guy who wins 1/1 is better than a guy who wins 7/8..wow 100% is greater than 87.5% you know...
You play a match & you win or lose - no one counts Tilden's 'ratios'.
BTW what were the scores in two of Pete's losing Finals?>
How old was he? You think it's just coincidence he lost those 2 finals in > the period he failed to win a tournament anywhere for 2.5 yrs? You're > quick to make excuses for peak age Becker being past his best (age 25 lol > : ), yet Sampras at 29, 30 gets no such consideration? Wtf's up with > that....?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:exv4e.299$OV3.5298@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Raja wrote:>>
I agree they are trying to point out Lendl's competition, when he>> dominated. But it was clearly much better and in fact probably the best>> in Open Era. Borg had his bunch of jokers in finals also. But Sampras>> OMG! he had jokers one after the another.>
Pathetic excuses.>
The only decent rivals Sampras faced in slam finals were>>
1) Agassi (a total timid player. And he always met him on faster>> surface slam finals. The one time he lost to Agassi on a slow surface>> at AO, he lost)>> 2) Becker when he was clearly past it>> 3) Edberg and he lost to him.>
Too pathetic for words...>
So Sampras faced 3 decent opponents and won against 2 of them.>>
Lets look at Lendl's effort in slam finals>>
1) Borg (only once when Lendl was not mature)>
No, Lendl was at top-notch peak as he was 20. Ask Lloyd - Becker peaked > at 17.>
2) McEnroe (beat him twice)>
Lendl said Mac's best was far too good for him. The record backs this up > (7 Wim/USO v 3)....>
3) Connors (twice, lost both of them, but Lendl was not near his peak)>
Lendl said Jimbo's best was far too good for him. The record backs this > up (7 Wim/USO v 3)....>
4) Wilander (beat him twice)>
At respective peaks I'd give slight edge to Wilander. Smarter & more > versatile than Ivan...>
5) Edberg (beat him once)>
Lendl said Edberg's best was too good for him. The record backs this up > (4 wim/uso v 3 - no Wimbledons for Lendl while Edberg multiple > champion)....>
6) Becker (lost all three times, but met only once at peak on his worst>> surface)>
More pathetic excuses. Lendl said Becker's best was far too good for him. > Record clearly backs this up - 3-0 in slam finals, 3 Wimbledons v 0...>
So Lendl faces 6 great opponents and won against 3 of them.>
Lendl admitted all the good players in his era were better than him, & he > hoped to win when they lost to other guys or were badly off form. That's > exactly the way it panned out....>
Which is better facing 6 great opponents winning against 3 of them or>> facing 3 great opponents winning against 2 of them?>>
Lendl is tier 3. Stop wasting b/w dickhead.
the mistake you're making is that lendl had more wins at cincy/indy as a % basis than anybody in their respective peaks, provided they were not >18yrs old, 4 mos..
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:jav4e.295$OV3.5220@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Sampras never bear Edberg at W and Becker only once.>
Once? He beat him 3 times & never lost serve - final, s/f & q/f.
Umm, I was referring to how many timed Becker beat EDBERG...........
Edberg lost to Curren> > in '85, Mecir in '86, Lendl in '87, Becker in '89, Stich in '91,
Ivanisevic> > in '92, Courier in '93, Carlsen in '94, Norman in '95, and Tillstrom in '96> > (note the sudden decline from '92 on). BTW Bob, and I know you're too lazy> > to do any research and it's far easier just to rely on vague memory,>
Says the guy who fucks up as per above lol... : )
Actually, you're the one who fucked up your interpretation.........
Sure, but his best tennis was better than Lendl's, as Lendl himself> freely admits...
C'mon, produce a quote.........or is it once again vague memories........?
Clearly, Lendl would've had a much harder time if '84-era Mac, Borg and> > Jimbo at their peaks were present, but it's a much weaker argument to> > suggest that Becker and Edberg weren't competition purely on A Priori> > notions of age. Becker was certainly as good as he ever got (with the> > possible exception of '89) and Edberg was very close........>
No, Becker was only good at Wimbledon as a boy - you can't extrapolate> that to absolute form...
You did see his '86 record..............?
Oh, and how many slams would Pete have won if he'd had to contend with> > peak-Becker and Edberg on grass and peak_lendl on hardcourt?>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:kzv4e.303$OV3.5298@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Sampras hands down.
So losing to guys like Yzaga, Berger, Korda, Rafter, and Courier, Safin, Hewitt in straight sets and only beating guys like Chang and Pioline to win the title is better than only losing to guys like Jimbo, Mac, Vitas, Edberg. Lendl won three years in a row and only lost 59-60 games total each year. Pete's wins were 1990 (lost 4 sets and 93 games); 1993 (lost two sets and 82 games but look at the opposition.....); 1995 (lost three sets and 96 games); 1996 ( lost five sets and 104 games once again against weak opposition); and 2002 (lost 4 sets and 111 games).
Face the facts: 1993 apart he struggled while Lendl blitzed better overall opposition.
You're losing it Lloyd. Just accept Sampras for the great player he is> & move on. The only guys in the conversation are Borg/Laver - no one> else. You sound retarded trying to compare Lendl, when Lendl himself> admitted his best wasn't good enough.
If it was Pete doing it you'd be saying how modest that showed he was...........
Point is, Pete has been rated as far and away the Greatest Ever while Lendl hardly gets a look in. Objectively I think the facts speak otherwise (unless you're so besotted with Wimbledon that you can't think objectively....)
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:4qv4e.297$OV3.5207@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
BTW what> > were the scores in two of Pete's losing Finals?>
How old was he?
Younger than Lendl or Connors were when they were winning slams and making the other guys struggle.....
You think it's just coincidence he lost those 2 finals> in the period he failed to win a tournament anywhere for 2.5 yrs?
You mean the Greatest Ever couldn't even win a tournament for two and a half years? Just proves my point........
You're quick to make excuses for peak age Becker being past his best> (age 25 lol : ), yet Sampras at 29, 30 gets no such consideration?> Wtf's up with that....?
Oh, I give consideration but when a guy rated as by far the Greatest Ever can't get a look-in against two non-greats in a slam Final when he's still under thirty, uninjured, it makes you think, doesn't it?
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:ekD4e.44600$Fz.18028@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Seles was at same age 91-93.>
don't compare the athletic maturation age of women/men please.
Bob KNOWS that players can't peak at age 18. He read it somewhere....can't remember where though.........>
Boris played his most convincing Wimbledon 86. (85 he lost sets left and> > right to nobodies, 89 he almost lost to Lendl SF)>
wimbledon, yes..how bout USOs?? (i.e. on a court that wasn't his fave> suface?)
He made the semi in '86 and lost in five sets to Mecir. In '88 he lost in second round in straight sets, in '91 he lost third round in straight sets, in '92 he lost in fourth round to 32 year-old Lendl but as this information doesn't confirm The Dogma Bob just ignores it.
After all, all that counts is that Becker didn't win a HC slam in three tries from 1985-7 but was able to win three out of 16 after that (and with Lendl out of the picture for most of that....)
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:TKD4e.21775$vd.6178@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> > Lendl is tier 3. Stop wasting b/w dickhead.>
the mistake you're making is that lendl had more wins at cincy/indy as a %> basis than anybody in their respective peaks, provided they were not>18yrs> old, 4 mos..>
Sampras didn't win W until 1993, you tosspot! What about all the other >>years>>when Becker could've won? Can't you see he was in decline? I saw it,>>wondering where the hell the great player of '86 had gone but apparently >>you>>were so blinded by "well, he's 23/4 now, he MUST be at his peak" dogma >>that>>you were oblivious to the obvious...>
i would agree except that boris was winning USO in that timeframe, arguably > much tougher for a guy with boris's style/game to do..you still cannot > answer how he did it?? luck maybe? >
bob >
You've checkmated him here. His only comeback is 'Becker faced weak opposition', which of course is unacceptable given who he beat. His only option is to ignore thread (a tactic he's used often).....
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> kirjoitti viestissä news:d2vpql$6pq$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...> > > Oh, and how many slams would Pete have won if he'd had to contend with> > > peak-Becker and Edberg on grass and peak_lendl on hardcourt?> >
My guess about 14 - how about you?>
About 4........
7-8 (Surely Sampras had 4 titles from Wimbledon written all over him even if you could bring on the best forces from 80:ies to stop him.
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:OID4e.44635$Fz.34172@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> > Becker was certainly as good as he ever got (with the> > possible exception of '89) and Edberg was very close........> > Oh, and how many slams would Pete have won if he'd had to contend with> > peak-Becker and Edberg on grass and peak_lendl on hardcourt?>
they'd ALL have less..but who would have MOST?>
bob
Hypotetical 10 year frame situation which brings Wilander, Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl competing each other at their best. I think the result would be (I leave some room for lesser GS champions) AO FO WIM USO ATPC YEAR#1 1 Sampras 1 0 4 2 3 3 - Still the king 2 Lendl 1 3 0 3 2 3 3 Becker 1 0 3 1 3 1 4 Agassi 3 1 0 1 0 1 5 Wilander 2 3 0 0 0 1 6 Edberg 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Courier 1 1 0 0 0 0
Some slams goes to Cash, Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Muster, Kafenikov, Kracicek...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:kzv4e.303$OV3.5298@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Sampras hands down.>
So losing to guys like Yzaga, Berger, Korda, Rafter, and Courier, Safin,> Hewitt in straight sets and only beating guys like Chang and Pioline to win> the title is better than only losing to guys like Jimbo, Mac, Vitas, Edberg.
You said we can't count Becker's Wimbledon losses to Sampras because he was 25, 27 & 29 yrs old, yet all of Sampras' losses are counted?
Lendl won three years in a row and only lost 59-60 games total each year.
But against what level of opposition?
Pete's wins were 1990 (lost 4 sets and 93 games); 1993 (lost two sets and 82> games but look at the opposition.....); 1995 (lost three sets and 96 games);> 1996 ( lost five sets and 104 games once again against weak opposition); and> 2002 (lost 4 sets and 111 games).>
Face the facts: 1993 apart he struggled while Lendl blitzed better overall> opposition.>
Who did Lendl beat '85 - '87? Tip : Mac was done winning slams, Pernfors/Mecir are clown level opposition by alltime standards...
You're losing it Lloyd. Just accept Sampras for the great player he is>>& move on. The only guys in the conversation are Borg/Laver - no one>>else. You sound retarded trying to compare Lendl, when Lendl himself>>admitted his best wasn't good enough.>
If it was Pete doing it you'd be saying how modest that showed he> was...........
I wouldn't be on Pete's bandwagon with that kind of record. ie I'm unbiased & only go on achievements.
Point is, Pete has been rated as far and away the Greatest Ever while Lendl> hardly gets a look in. Objectively I think the facts speak otherwise (unless> you're so besotted with Wimbledon that you can't think objectively....)
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:ekD4e.44600$Fz.18028@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
Seles was at same age 91-93.>>
don't compare the athletic maturation age of women/men please.>
Bob KNOWS that players can't peak at age 18. He read it somewhere....can't> remember where though.........>
Boris played his most convincing Wimbledon 86. (85 he lost sets left and>>>right to nobodies, 89 he almost lost to Lendl SF)>>
wimbledon, yes..how bout USOs?? (i.e. on a court that wasn't his fave>>suface?)>
He made the semi in '86 and lost in five sets to Mecir. In '88 he lost in> second round in straight sets, in '91 he lost third round in straight sets,> in '92 he lost in fourth round to 32 year-old Lendl but as this information> doesn't confirm The Dogma Bob just ignores it.>
After all, all that counts is that Becker didn't win a HC slam in three> tries from 1985-7 but was able to win three out of 16 after that (and with> Lendl out of the picture for most of that....)>
Becker beat Lendl in all 3 slam finals they contested - 3 different slams, & none going 5 sets. That's pretty conclusive as to who was 'best at best'.....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>>news:kzv4e.303$OV3.5298@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
Sampras hands down.>>
So losing to guys like Yzaga, Berger, Korda, Rafter, and Courier,>
Safin,>
Hewitt in straight sets and only beating guys like Chang and Pioline>
to win>
the title is better than only losing to guys like Jimbo, Mac, Vitas,>
Edberg.>
Lendl won three years in a row and only lost 59-60 games total each>
year.>
Pete's wins were 1990 (lost 4 sets and 93 games); 1993 (lost two sets>
and 82>
games but look at the opposition.....); 1995 (lost three sets and 96>
games);>
1996 ( lost five sets and 104 games once again against weak>
opposition); and>
2002 (lost 4 sets and 111 games).>
I completely agree. Based on length of domination Lendl outscores> Sampras. I will soon produce conclusive evidence for that. Hold on till> then.>
Face the facts: 1993 apart he struggled while Lendl blitzed better>
overall>
opposition.>>
You're losing it Lloyd. Just accept Sampras for the great player>
he is>
& move on. The only guys in the conversation are Borg/Laver - no>
else. You sound retarded trying to compare Lendl, when Lendl>
himself>
admitted his best wasn't good enough.>>
If it was Pete doing it you'd be saying how modest that showed he>>was...........>>
Point is, Pete has been rated as far and away the Greatest Ever while>
Lendl>
hardly gets a look in. Objectively I think the facts speak otherwise>
(unless>
you're so besotted with Wimbledon that you can't think>
objectively....)>
Pete is rated as GOAT by the same jokers who consider Emerson was great> because he won 12 slams....LOL.....>
To be great you have to dominate for a long time against a great> competition on all surface.>
Sampras:> Dominated long time: Yes> Dominated great compeition: No> Dominated on all surfaces: No>
Lendl> Dominated long time: Yes> Dominated great competition: Yes> Dominated on all surfaces: Yes (Grass is an irrelevant surface which> can be ignored)>
You make the choices>
Lendl : 0 Wimbledons, 3 USO - total of 3 (not bad actually - tough to get 3 in open era)
Sampras : 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO - total of alltime best 12 (4 x better than Lendl).
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissä news:ELN4e.219$6_4.2987@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Pernfors/Mecir are fine players - Wilander never went past> q/f at Wimbledon & only won 1 USO. Lendl won bulk of his slams against> this opposition (5 of 7 slam finals - not counting '90 AO).
Lendl beat 2 x Wilander + 2 x Mac at slam finals
Still think that AO 90 final is not just Edberg defaulting. Edberg definitely injured himself at third set (stomach muscle) when the situation was 1-1 sets and even games. Next year 91 Lendl beat Edberg in semi. (Edberg was #3 during 1990 AO and #1 during 1991 AO, though Becker went to #1 with winning the final)
Why don't you ever dismiss Connors USO 78 final (Borg with his infected cucumber sized thumb) which is similar case? Or Lendl 1983 USO stomach cramps (though I think they came because Lendl's nervous system...)
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissƤ> news:ELN4e.219$6_4.2987@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Pernfors/Mecir are fine players - Wilander never went past>>q/f at Wimbledon & only won 1 USO. Lendl won bulk of his slams against>>this opposition (5 of 7 slam finals - not counting '90 AO).>
Lendl beat 2 x Wilander + 2 x Mac at slam finals>
Still think that AO 90 final is not just Edberg defaulting. Edberg> definitely injured himself at third set (stomach muscle) when the situation> was 1-1 sets and even games. Next year 91 Lendl beat Edberg in semi. (Edberg> was #3 during 1990 AO and #1 during 1991 AO, though Becker went to #1 with> winning the final)>
Why don't you ever dismiss Connors USO 78 final (Borg with his infected> cucumber sized thumb) which is similar case?
Borg got creamed 6-4 6-2 6-2 - ie never had a chance. Edberg was serving for 2 sets to love lead. 98% chance Edberg woulda romped it in if no injury.
Or Lendl 1983 USO stomach> cramps (though I think they came because Lendl's nervous system...)>
Please. Lendl hadn't proven himself in a slam at that point.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissä news:rmO4e.245$6_4.2998@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Why don't you ever dismiss Connors USO 78 final (Borg with his infected> > cucumber sized thumb) which is similar case?>
Borg got creamed 6-4 6-2 6-2 - ie never had a chance. Edberg was> serving for 2 sets to love lead. 98% chance Edberg woulda romped it in> if no injury.
But lost his serve, lost tie-break and then in the 3rd set injured himself.
Another of course is Philippo withdrawing Wimb99 after leading 1-0 sets, against Sampras early rounds...
Mikko ƄmmƤlƤ wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissƤ> news:rmO4e.245$6_4.2998@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Why don't you ever dismiss Connors USO 78 final (Borg with his infected>>>cucumber sized thumb) which is similar case?>>
Borg got creamed 6-4 6-2 6-2 - ie never had a chance. Edberg was>>serving for 2 sets to love lead. 98% chance Edberg woulda romped it in>>if no injury.>
But lost his serve, lost tie-break and then in the 3rd set injured himself.
Then why did Edberg say he was thinking about pulling out, but waited to see if he could lead 2 sets to love & maybe struggle through? If he got injured in 3rd set then this thought process would be impossible early in 2nd set.
Another of course is Philippo withdrawing Wimb99 after leading 1-0 sets,> against Sampras early rounds...>
You have double standards, Whisbias.>
Sampras often lost sets at Wimbledon (eg Henman, Goran) but waltzed through. You're insane if you're comparing these 2 situations.... Flipper is a joke, Edberg a top notch champion.
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d2vs00$9qh$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:4qv4e.297$OV3.5207@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
BTW what>> > were the scores in two of Pete's losing Finals?>>
How old was he?>
Younger than Lendl or Connors were when they were winning slams and making> the other guys struggle.....>
You think it's just coincidence he lost those 2 finals>> in the period he failed to win a tournament anywhere for 2.5 yrs?>
You mean the Greatest Ever couldn't even win a tournament for two and a > half> years? Just proves my point........>
You're quick to make excuses for peak age Becker being past his best>> (age 25 lol : ), yet Sampras at 29, 30 gets no such consideration?>> Wtf's up with that....?>
Oh, I give consideration but when a guy rated as by far the Greatest Ever> can't get a look-in against two non-greats in a slam Final when he's still> under thirty, uninjured, it makes you think, doesn't it?
IMO, he's a small tick ahead of borg/laver..but comparing 12 time W/USO champ to 3 timer (0 Ws) is really ridiculous..lendl was a $ hungry fellow who played a lot of meaningless tournaments (and won lots of them), don't compare it to winning 7 Ws, 5 USOs-- those are for history/glory aspect, much more meaningful unless you're from ukraine..
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:x1N4e.204$6_4.2552@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> bob wrote:>>>
Sampras didn't win W until 1993, you tosspot! What about all the other >>>years>>>when Becker could've won? Can't you see he was in decline? I saw it,>>>wondering where the hell the great player of '86 had gone but apparently >>>you>>>were so blinded by "well, he's 23/4 now, he MUST be at his peak" dogma >>>that>>>you were oblivious to the obvious...>>
i would agree except that boris was winning USO in that timeframe, >> arguably much tougher for a guy with boris's style/game to do..you still >> cannot answer how he did it?? luck maybe? >>
You've checkmated him here.
it wasn't difficult..the #s are solidly on my side..
His only comeback is 'Becker faced weak opposition', which of course is > unacceptable given who he beat. His only option is to ignore thread (a > tactic he's used often)..
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d3087e$6f3$1@plaza.suomi.net...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> kirjoitti viestissä> news:OID4e.44635$Fz.34172@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> > Becker was certainly as good as he ever got (with the>> > possible exception of '89) and Edberg was very close........>> > Oh, and how many slams would Pete have won if he'd had to contend with>> > peak-Becker and Edberg on grass and peak_lendl on hardcourt?>>
they'd ALL have less..but who would have MOST?>>
Hypotetical 10 year frame situation which brings Wilander, Agassi, > Courier,> Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl competing each other at their best. I think> the result would be (I leave some room for lesser GS champions)
funny you did this, i did one myself last night but added mcenroe/connors/borg while removing agassi/courier..and i didn't put #s on it, only said who would win "most" on grass/HC/clay..i didn't send the post for fear of inciting a riot..
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d307a0$5sr$1@plaza.suomi.net...
7-8 (Surely Sampras had 4 titles from Wimbledon written all over him even
you could bring on the best forces from 80:ies to stop him.
I think W was his best shot. I can't really see him beating Lendl at his peak on HC and think he may even have struggled against Becker and Edberg at their grasscourt peaks at W........
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message> > Borg got creamed 6-4 6-2 6-2 - ie never had a chance. Edberg was> > serving for 2 sets to love lead. 98% chance Edberg woulda romped it in> > if no injury.>
But lost his serve, lost tie-break and then in the 3rd set injured
himself.
In fact, Edberg had treatment at the change of ends after the fifth game of the second set.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:x1N4e.204$6_4.2552@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
You've checkmated him here. His only comeback is 'Becker faced weak> opposition', which of course is unacceptable given who he beat. His> only option is to ignore thread (a tactic he's used often).....
He won one USO in many years of trying and I don't agree that the surface was unsuited to him. Check out his HC record in general. As for ignoring threads, I don't have time to respond to every post, especially considering the repetitiveness of the arguments.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:kUN4e.226$6_4.2995@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Courier was the best of the lot. And Lendl whipped him 4-0....LOL...>
5-0>
At his best Courier was a more attractive player than Lendl. I enjoyed> watching him at his best. Lendl was a 'bunter' the last few yrs -
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112850623.695235.83670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... Lloyd wrote:
With everybody at peak for 10 years Sampras would have won 3 Wimbledons (max). Becker would have won 2, Edberg 2, Borg 1 and Mac 2.
With everybody at peak for 10 years Sampras would have won 2 USO on HC, Lendl 3 USO on HC, Edberg 1 USO on HC, Agassi 1 USO on HC, Mac 1 slams and Connors 2 USO on HC
I think you're over-rating Sampras.........I think 1984 Mac, 1986 Becker, 1988 Edberg would've dumped him at W. And can't see him beating 1985/6/7 Lendl at USO.........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:aSN4e.223$6_4.2995@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> You said we can't count Becker's Wimbledon losses to Sampras because he > was 25, 27 & 29 yrs old, yet all of Sampras' losses are counted?
I don't downgrade Becker because of his AGE at the time but his poor form........
Who did Lendl beat '85 - '87? Tip : Mac was done winning slams,> Pernfors/Mecir are clown level opposition by alltime standards...
He beat Wilander who won how many slams? Edberg twice easily, Mac, in the 87 FO he beat Nystrom, Gomez, Mecir, and Wilander back-to-back and if you know your history you'll know how hard that was to do. At the 1987 W he beat Kriek and Leconte in straights and Ed in four on grass.At the 1987 USO he beat Jarryd, Mac, Connors, and Wilander in hot form back to back.......>
Point is, Pete has been rated as far and away the Greatest Ever while
Lendl> > hardly gets a look in. Objectively I think the facts speak otherwise (unless> > you're so besotted with Wimbledon that you can't think objectively....)>
Like Lendl.
I don't give a stuff about Lendl. He means nothing to me. What does have meaning is historical accuracy.....
How can you think Sampras win win more ATP yec on carpet than Lendl?
Sampras has Lendl's game covered. Carpet is ideal for Pete - he's bigger from the baseline than Lendl (ie hits more explosive winners), & we don't have to talk about the serve/volley game....
"Mikko ƄmmƤlƤ" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in>
message>
news:d307a0$5sr$1@plaza.suomi.net...>>
7-8 (Surely Sampras had 4 titles from Wimbledon written all over>
him even>
you could bring on the best forces from 80:ies to stop him.>>
I think W was his best shot. I can't really see him beating Lendl at>
peak on HC and think he may even have struggled against Becker and>
Edberg at>
their grasscourt peaks at W........>
With everybody at peak for 10 years Sampras would have won 3 Wimbledons> (max). Becker would have won 2, Edberg 2, Borg 1 and Mac 2.
Sampras 7, everyone else no more than 1. Lendl 0.
With everybody at peak for 10 years Sampras would have won 2 USO on HC,> Lendl 3 USO on HC, Edberg 1 USO on HC, Agassi 1 USO on HC, Mac 1 slams> and Connors 2 USO on HC
Sampras 5, Lendl 0.
With everybody at peak for 10 yeats Sampras would have 0 FOs, Borg 5> FOs, Lendl 3 FOs, Wilander 2 FOs
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message> news:1112850623.695235.83670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>
With everybody at peak for 10 years Sampras would have won 3 Wimbledons> (max). Becker would have won 2, Edberg 2, Borg 1 and Mac 2.>
With everybody at peak for 10 years Sampras would have won 2 USO on HC,> Lendl 3 USO on HC, Edberg 1 USO on HC, Agassi 1 USO on HC, Mac 1 slams> and Connors 2 USO on HC>
I think you're over-rating Sampras.........I think 1984 Mac, 1986 Becker,> 1988 Edberg would've dumped him at W. And can't see him beating 1985/6/7> Lendl at USO.........>
Sampras woulda beaten everyone at Wimbledon at his best. We saw what happened when he played shithouse ('96)....
Lloyd wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:aSN4e.223$6_4.2995@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
You said we can't count Becker's Wimbledon losses to Sampras because he >>
was 25, 27 & 29 yrs old, yet all of Sampras' losses are counted?>
I don't downgrade Becker because of his AGE at the time but his poor> form........>
Who did Lendl beat '85 - '87? Tip : Mac was done winning slams,>>Pernfors/Mecir are clown level opposition by alltime standards...>
He beat Wilander who won how many slams? Edberg twice easily, Mac, in the 87> FO he beat Nystrom, Gomez, Mecir, and Wilander back-to-back and if you know> your history you'll know how hard that was to do. At the 1987 W he beat> Kriek and Leconte in straights and Ed in four on grass.At the 1987 USO he> beat Jarryd, Mac, Connors, and Wilander in hot form back to back.......>
Where would you rate Becker or lendl if either of them had Sampras' results? - ie won exact same slams as Sampras & same opposition, & Sampras had Lendl's results, ie 3 of his 7 slams v Mecir/Pernfors...
you're so besotted with Wimbledon that you can't think objectively....)>>
Like Lendl.>
I don't give a stuff about Lendl. He means nothing to me. What does have> meaning is historical accuracy.....
Where would you rate Borg if he won 0 slams but still won the same tune-ups... tier1?
I don't give a stuff about Lendl. He means nothing to me. What does>
have>
meaning is historical accuracy.....>
Yes, you are one of the few here who does that. By the way what is your> order of Borg, Lendl and Sampras?>
My order as of now> 1) Lendl // I could have chosen Borg at No.1, if he did not retire so> early and also Lendl was the most versatile champion in open era> history> 2) Borg // better competition than Sampras and ofcourse more versatile> 3) Sampras // docked because of failures on clay and weak competition
You can't dock a player for winning - that's homosexual.
We know for a fact Lendl lost to a lot of players, & we also know Sampras won the most in history. You're assuming Sampras wouldn't have won had he played Mecir/Pernfors/Wilander in slam finals - maybe he woulda lost 6-0, who knows? But maybe he woulda beaten all the greats too. We know he won all his slam finals easily (13 of the 14 were in 3 or 4 sets - he didn't struggle, so why would Lendl of all people hold any fears for him?). It's your opinion he woulda lost to them, which can't be given any merit. It's not a fact of any kind.
Lendl can't rate tier 2 as he has 3 Wim/USO combined. That's very low by alltime standards...
.. Loid wouldn't possibly say that, because he knows that even if Lendl wasn't at his peak, he was surely far closer to his peak than Sampras was to his.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Lloyd wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:kzv4e.303$OV3.5298@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Sampras hands down.>
So losing to guys like Yzaga, Berger, Korda, Rafter, and Courier, Safin,> Hewitt in straight sets and only beating guys like Chang and Pioline to win> the title is better than only losing to guys like Jimbo, Mac, Vitas, Edberg.> Lendl won three years in a row and only lost 59-60 games total each year.> Pete's wins were 1990 (lost 4 sets and 93 games); 1993 (lost two sets and 82> games but look at the opposition.....); 1995 (lost three sets and 96 games);> 1996 ( lost five sets and 104 games once again against weak opposition); and> 2002 (lost 4 sets and 111 games).>
Face the facts: 1993 apart he struggled while Lendl blitzed better overall> opposition.>
Great thread. You have convinced me that Lendl's USO record is greater and Sampras's is slightly less glowing than what meets the eye.
Before, I was of the opinion that Lendl would be killed by Sampras in a hypothetical peak matchup at USO seeing as how Lendl lost 5 finals and also to a 19-year old Sampras. But seeing it in a different light, that 1990 win maybe Pete's best USO performance if you consider how he had the most lopsided victory ever over Agassi (4,3,2) then whereas in the other 3 meetings Agassi was able to take a set at least. Plus it was a 30-year old Lendl who took Pete to 5 sets whereas a 29-year old and a 30-year old Sampras lost more comprehensively to Safin and Hewitt.
Still, I believe peak Sampras would get the better of 85-87 Lendl if only because of his supreme confidence that he is the best player and can come through in difficult situations. Lendl was much more mentally fragile.
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message>>>>news:%9j4e.29662$Pc.23281@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>>>
yes, every player saw sampras in their draw at USO/W/AO and>>
started to>>
lick>>>>
their chops, eh? lol llloyd..>>>>
No, they didn't. They were scared but they were just as scared of>>
Lendl at>>
his peak......>>>
which is about 1/2 as scared as lendl was of jimmy connors.>>
Explains how Lendl beat Connors 60 60 once.>>
How old was Jimbo?
lendl was intimidated by connors, no doubt..i never figured out why though, he was much bigger and had a bigger game, but still, he was..not sure why???
"Kris" <anon@anon.net> wrote in message news:42554BF8.3000800@anon.net...>
Lloyd wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:kzv4e.303$OV3.5298@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
Sampras hands down.>>
So losing to guys like Yzaga, Berger, Korda, Rafter, and Courier, Safin,>> Hewitt in straight sets and only beating guys like Chang and Pioline to >> win>> the title is better than only losing to guys like Jimbo, Mac, Vitas, >> Edberg.>> Lendl won three years in a row and only lost 59-60 games total each year.>> Pete's wins were 1990 (lost 4 sets and 93 games); 1993 (lost two sets and >> 82>> games but look at the opposition.....); 1995 (lost three sets and 96 >> games);>> 1996 ( lost five sets and 104 games once again against weak opposition); >> and>> 2002 (lost 4 sets and 111 games).>>
Face the facts: 1993 apart he struggled while Lendl blitzed better >> overall>> opposition.>>
Great thread. You have convinced me that Lendl's USO record is greater and > Sampras's is slightly less glowing than what meets the eye.
would u like to buy some swampland in florida? (that's the usual line given to gullible people)
the problem with llloyd is that he needs to quit bring stats into the> arguments because the history/stats always refute him..don't know why he> does that? don't they say a good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't> know the answer to already?
yep.. i hope loid isn't a lawyer, i'd feel bad for his clients (unless he's a criminal defense attorney).
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:fl65e.418$%16.3003@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> You guys having fun with these 'coulda wouldas'?>
That's for losers lol....: )>
I'll just check out the record books.
Yea, it's fun reading about Pete beating alltime greats like Pioline, Chang, Martin, Moya, and Goran.............
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112854078.721884.127020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Yes, you are one of the few here who does that. By the way what is your> order of Borg, Lendl and Sampras?
I can't really go for Lendl over Borg because of the many losing slam finals. If Lendl had had Borg's mental outlook he may easily have been the best but he had the tendency to choke when he couldn't dominate the other player.
"Kris" <anon@anon.net> wrote in message news:42554BF8.3000800@anon.net...
Great thread. You have convinced me that Lendl's USO record is greater> and Sampras's is slightly less glowing than what meets the eye.>
Before, I was of the opinion that Lendl would be killed by Sampras in a> hypothetical peak matchup at USO seeing as how Lendl lost 5 finals and> also to a 19-year old Sampras. But seeing it in a different light, that> 1990 win maybe Pete's best USO performance if you consider how he had> the most lopsided victory ever over Agassi (4,3,2) then whereas in the> other 3 meetings Agassi was able to take a set at least. Plus it was a> 30-year old Lendl who took Pete to 5 sets whereas a 29-year old and a> 30-year old Sampras lost more comprehensively to Safin and Hewitt.>
Still, I believe peak Sampras would get the better of 85-87 Lendl if> only because of his supreme confidence that he is the best player and> can come through in difficult situations. Lendl was much more mentally> fragile.
True, and I think he was always vulnerable aginst serve-volleyers who never let up on him. Pete's problem is that sometimes he was a little lackadaisical and this may have given Lendl the air he needed...........
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112937874.901459.230660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
But you do agree with me that both Borg and Lendl were better than> Sampras when you account for Pete's lack of versatility and lack of> competition, right?
Lendl's record is better than Pete's in most regards except slams won. My opinion is that if you swapped them around with Pete playing in Lendl's era that the slams won may have been at least reversed. How many hardcourt slams would Lendl have won from 1990-2002 if he'd been in his 1980-1992 form?
Also Lendl was vastly better on grass (his weakest surface) than Pete was on his (clay).
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:Ue85e.432$%16.4046@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Where would you rate Becker or lendl if either of them had Sampras'> results? - ie won exact same slams as Sampras & same opposition, &> Sampras had Lendl's results, ie 3 of his 7 slams v Mecir/Pernfors...
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:fx95e.2287$nn5.1307@okepread06...
The same Sampras who whipped Lendl at the USO when Lendl was #2 in the
world> and Sampras a 19-yr old nobody?
Lendl was four years past his peak and had an interrupted USO preparation. He only played one match and lost easily to Malivai Washington in New Haven.
Pete was in the zone for that tournament and may have never played better at the USO.
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message> news:1112854078.721884.127020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>
Yes, you are one of the few here who does that. By the way what is your>>order of Borg, Lendl and Sampras?>
I can't really go for Lendl over Borg because of the many losing slam> finals. If Lendl had had Borg's mental outlook he may easily have been the> best but he had the tendency to choke when he couldn't dominate the other> player.>
So by that you must mean Lendl's game was the best in history, in absolute terms?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:Ue85e.432$%16.4046@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Where would you rate Becker or lendl if either of them had Sampras'>>results? - ie won exact same slams as Sampras & same opposition, &>>Sampras had Lendl's results, ie 3 of his 7 slams v Mecir/Pernfors...>
Exactly the same as I rate Pete.>
Hmm, I thought we were having fun but now I know you have some issues.....
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message> news:fx95e.2287$nn5.1307@okepread06...>
The same Sampras who whipped Lendl at the USO when Lendl was #2 in the>
world>
and Sampras a 19-yr old nobody?>
Lendl was four years past his peak and had an interrupted USO preparation.> He only played one match and lost easily to Malivai Washington in New Haven.>
Pete was in the zone for that tournament and may have never played better at> the USO.>
Same as Becker at Wim '86? By your logic then Sampras was at absolute career peak in '90....?
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message>>news:1112937874.901459.230660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>
But you do agree with me that both Borg and Lendl were better than>>>Sampras when you account for Pete's lack of versatility and lack of>>>competition, right?>>
Lendl's record is better than Pete's in most regards except slams>
won. My>
opinion is that if you swapped them around with Pete playing in>
Lendl's era>
that the slams won may have been at least reversed. How many>
hardcourt slams>
would Lendl have won from 1990-2002 if he'd been in his 1980-1992>
form?>
Also Lendl was vastly better on grass (his weakest surface) than Pete>
was on>
his (clay).>
Excellent post!>
I'm almost 100% certain Sampras would beat Lendl in a one-off clay match. Too much talent & too many big guns for the bunter....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:SRs5e.277$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Lloyd wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:l865e.408$%16.2750@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
I can't really see Lendl beating peak Agassi on a HC, & Sampras handled>>>Andre pretty well. Lendl would be a cakewalk....>>
So why did Pete struggle to beat guys like Corretja and Novak? And Yzaga?>>
Because he wasn't really that good at tennis, & got extremely lucky in > slams?>
It takes a lot of luck to win 13 of 14 slam finals in 3 or 4 sets....
i'm beginning to think sampras was luckiest man alive..
a lot of players can sort of sneak up on the field when they're just beginning (becker 85 W, sampras 90 uso) and it can get tougher when everybody starts gunning for you/studying your game..the great ones still manage to keep winning.
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d353mb$4ts$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message> news:1112854078.721884.127020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>> Yes, you are one of the few here who does that. By the way what is your>> order of Borg, Lendl and Sampras?>
I can't really go for Lendl over Borg because of the many losing slam> finals. If Lendl had had Borg's mental outlook he may easily have been the> best but he had the tendency to choke when he couldn't dominate the other> player.
"tendency to choke" is putting it very mildly.. and that's a very bad trait for true champs..
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:NMs5e.273$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Lloyd wrote:>
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message>> news:1112854078.721884.127020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>>
Yes, you are one of the few here who does that. By the way what is your>>>order of Borg, Lendl and Sampras?>>
I can't really go for Lendl over Borg because of the many losing slam>> finals. If Lendl had had Borg's mental outlook he may easily have been >> the>> best but he had the tendency to choke when he couldn't dominate the other>> player.>>
So by that you must mean Lendl's game was the best in history, in absolute > terms?>
I'm too stunned for words....
i'm not stunned to hear it from raja, lendl's #1 fan, but from lloyd let's just say it caught me by surprise..in fact, can someone to check somehow to see that this is really lloyd?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:HSs5e.278$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... \> Same as Becker at Wim '86? By your logic then Sampras was at absolute> career peak in '90....?
It's not a matter of logic but of observation. Becker played his best W in 1986 and Pete's USO 1990 was one of his best-ever slams........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:SRs5e.277$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > So why did Pete struggle to beat guys like Corretja and Novak? And Yzaga?
Because he wasn't really that good at tennis, & got extremely lucky in> slams?
Lucky with the competition, yes........
It takes a lot of luck to win 13 of 14 slam finals in 3 or 4 sets....
Most slam finals aren't five sets and beating Pioline in three hardly merits the encomia bestowed on him..........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:VTs5e.279$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I'm almost 100% certain Sampras would beat Lendl in a one-off clay> match. Too much talent & too many big guns for the bunter....
And I thought you never hypothesized? This one takes the cake but I do agree if they played 100 times on clay that Pete would definitely win ONE..........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:NMs5e.273$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> So by that you must mean Lendl's game was the best in history, in> absolute terms?>
I'm too stunned for words....
His record is astonishing in most respects although his mental incapacities robbed him of the rewards his game should've given him. On his many days he was certainly one of the most dominating players ever and for length of domination and overall competitiveness his is by far the best record by far in the Open Era. From 1980-1991 he was one of the two or three players to beat on virtually any surface........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:GOs5e.275$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Because Connors took the ball early and swamped him. However, Ivan dominated> > Jimbo after 1983.........
Jimbo was > 31..?>
This is meaningless...
Sure, it doesn't mean the same thing as beating Jimbo a few years earlier but he was still a darn good player and this latter-day domination counts for something......surely?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:NMs5e.273$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
So by that you must mean Lendl's game was the best in history, in>>absolute terms?>>
I'm too stunned for words....>
His record is astonishing in most respects although his mental incapacities> robbed him of the rewards his game should've given him. On his many days he> was certainly one of the most dominating players ever and for length of> domination and overall competitiveness his is by far the best record by far> in the Open Era. From 1980-1991 he was one of the two or three players to> beat on virtually any surface........>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:GOs5e.275$R57.3340@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Because Connors took the ball early and swamped him. However, Ivan>
dominated>
Jimbo after 1983.........>
Jimbo was > 31..?>>
This is meaningless...>
Sure, it doesn't mean the same thing as beating Jimbo a few years earlier> but he was still a darn good player and this latter-day domination counts> for something......surely?>
Jimbo wasn't winning titles anywhere at that age, so that means someone beat him in every tournament. Lendl doing it too is not impressive at all in that context....
Jimbo wasn't winning titles anywhere at that age, so that means someone >>beat him in every tournament. Lendl doing it too is not impressive at all >>in that context....>
jimbo went a very long stretch (maybe some yrs?) w/out winning one if memory > serves...it seemed for a long time he'd neve win another, even small, > tournament.>
bob
This is the period Lendl feasted on Jimbo, when he was old & somebody beat him every week. I'm underwhelmed by the achievement....
