Borg was such a master of the game, but dear god was he boring to watch. You could leave the stadium to go get a drink, then come back and they would still be hitting the same rally
@Aaronthegreatest That's a good observation. Borg's backhand was a product of its time. When racquet technology changed, it became easier to generate topspin and it no longer made any sense to hit with this kind of exaggerated quirk. Of course Borg retired by then.
u call this tennis there is hardly any class and agression in it its simply retrieving tennis and still people nver stop comparing it with modern era tennis which is 10000 times better and interesting than this one
@ahmedjeh you tell it But for me it is not true: personally I prefer the tennis of the 90's and end of ewighties. my favourite players are Edberg, Agassi And Sampras. Today i like just Mr Roger that for me it'e the greatest of the history. I don't like the tennis of the power shoot of nadal even if his tennis win today. It's just for this reason that i like the tennins of 20 and more years ago
@Gamereo every one has his own thinking point of view as far as im concerned tennis is for classes not for masses and class changes with time if u still say that u prefer 80's tennis then my friend u are quite antiquated and out of date as class has changed totally however some people like to watch aggressive and power tennis some just want it to be the way it was a million years ago so u have your own choice i cant object it..
@ahmedjeh Yeah now I agree with you everyone has his point and of view everyone has his choice but in the previous comment it doesn't seem that you are aware of it. Concerning this commetn i remember you that this video is referred just to 30 and not 1 million years ago . The class never changed : what changed is tennis that is now just a game for Popeye. If you like them you can see the video with Nadal and avoid to tell stupid nonsense here. Today only one has class i.e. Roger Federer
@ahmedjeh That's your point of view, but it's misinformed. Contemporary tennis is homogenous. Most players play essentially the same style. What you see in this video is one of many styles of tennis played in the 70s and 80s. You had the grinders like Borg. The early breed of the power baseliner of Lendl. The finesse serve and volleyer McEnroe. The power serve and volleyer Noah. The flat-hitting counterpuncher Connors. Today, almost everyone is like Lendl. The other styles are gone.
the pass at 2:16. borg barely reaches out for it. in todays game this would be struck far harder and lets be honest the guy at the net would be expected to at least read the direction, and in most cases probably hit a volley. the pass lands a full meter inside the trams. watch the players today, off of that first volley from borg, anyone in the top 50 is going to plant the pass smack on the line.
@BDBK15 im sure it wont (i actually do play at regional level btw) but unlike borg, i doubt im going to win 11 grand slams. his technique frankly ludicrous. what does this mean in real terms????? that the players were not as fit/strong/able/athletic than the players today
@paradorn7 Thanks for your opinion that "borg's backhand is utter wank". I'm glad that you've revealed to everyone that you're a troll and not to be taken seriously. :)
@chapaev36 16 seconds, backhand follow through arm bent finishing high. 19 seconds, backhand with lower left hand release, slightly bent arm follow through finishing chest height. 24 seconds, backhand bent arm finishing high. 26 seconds, left hand release well after contact, arrow straight arm on the follow through finishing high. i could go on through the whole video but my point is that the technique on each stroke is different, sometimes by miles. read on.................
@chapaev36 and the first four backhands, (maybe with the exception of the third one) come at him pretty much the same, yet we still see varying technique. the reason he is able to get away with this is because the pace of play in his day was slow enought that minor shot to shot variations in hitting position could be excused. By the way i do play to a high level and have seen the work of many coaches, hence understanding the need for a solid stroke foundation in order to play at todays intensity
@paradorn7 Either you are a troll or just really dense. Borg's backhand was obviously modeled to succeed for the tennis of his time. Much like Laver's forehand was modeled to be effective in his time. Much like Federer's strokes are modeled to work in his time. Your particularly naive assumption is that something is automatically better simply because it exists in your time.
@chapaev36 Actually mush, its not an assumption im making, its an observation. "federer's strokes are modelled to work in his time". NO. federer's strokes would work in any time ever because, as my point was which you seem to have missed, they are technically sound and are always hit from the same base. take federer to 1981, he would be awesome, bring borg to 2011, he would make a ludicrous number of errors. and insulting people via youtube is rather poor form by the way. do you play tennis?
@paradorn7 It's a bad observation. Federer's strokes would not work in the past due to how early he takes the ball. Contemporary string and racquet technology allow for more control and consistency. Nadal's strokes are also a good example - the windup he takes every time he hits the ball would be unworkable with older rackets because the ball would never land where he would want it. All of these things are understood by people who have followed the evolution of the game over the years.
@paradorn7 And yes, you are either a troll or very close-minded. I can tell by your other comments here. I'm willing to let you humour me for a little while, but I can see that your mind is already made up.
I admire those great players for paving the way for the new generation, however, I don't seem them being able to beat the current generation. For example the form of Borg's backhand looks so unnatural comparing to Federer's form. The only player from the older generations that I still enjoy watching is Laver. IMHO.
CONNORS LENDL FINALS 4-2 & LENDL won the last 2 in 1985 & 1986 when Connors was 33-34 years old.
Another strange thing between Connors & Lendl most of the time was Lendl over hitting Connors in smaller tournaments . In 1984 they played the final of Rotterdam & before the matched was called off for a bomb trait Lendl was leading Connors 60 10 & then they played semi at forest hills Lendl b. Connors 60 60 after that semi Wimbledon Connors b. Lendl 67 63 75 61
@BORGCONNORS How about the 1986 Lipton when Connors was leading Lendl 2 sets to 1 and Lendl came back and force a 5th set.In the 5th set it was 4 all and Lendl rip a forehand up the line and actually hit the line to get a break point.Coonors went nuts on the linesman and Umpire wanted an over rule didnot get one and stormed off the court and forfeited the match.Classic Connors.
Lendl great player but had problems in great matches. Connors had a record of 13-5 win lost until he was 32 years old in 1984 & then he lost the last 17 matches after 1985 but Connors won the 2 GRAND SLAMS FINALS AT THE US OPEN 82-83. Probably Lendl was the better player already in 1982 but he couldn't win the Slam.He beat Connors 61 61 in Cincinnati 1982 just 2 weeks before but lost the 82 US OPEN FINAL 63 62 46 64 same happened in 1983 beat Connors 61 63 but lost the US OPEN FINAL 63 67 75 60
Borg beat Lendl 64 62 62 in this final & then beat Lendl at the French in 5 61 46 62 36 61 it was 1981. 10 years later Lendl beat Sampras in 5 sets in Philadelphia or Sampras beat Lendl in 5 at the us open in 1990 & in 2001 Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 5 sets. So all the matches in different era they were pretty close & is hard to say who was the better player.
Non si è detto che Lendl nel gioco di volo era più forte di Borg ma solo che era più potente.
Borg fu un grandissimo giocatore ma ebbe contro solo Connors e il primo McEnroe. Si ritirò appena quest'ultimo cominciò a batterlo anche a Wimbledon. Lendl oltre a Connors e al miglior McEnroe, sull'erba affrontò Becker, Edberg e Cash che avrebbero potuto tranquillamente sconfiggere anche lo svedese.
@Pitonto Infatti Becker, edberg e Cash sono stati più forti certamente di Nastase, Tanner e Gerulaitis, anzi Becker ha giocato 7 finali a Wimbledon con 3 vittorie..alla fine un Palmares migliore di Connors e Mcenroe.
Mi domando cosa avrebbe fatto Borg nel 1986 a 30 anni contro Becker a Wimbledon, un giocatore così potente e tecnico Borg non lo ha mai incontrato.
Borg ritirandosi nel 1982-1983 ha preservato il suo mito e i suoi record..lo avrei visto volentieri affrontare Agassi ,sul cemento !
@blualberto1966 Mcenroe ha vinto 7 slam ( 3 w 4 uso e ha perso 4 finali negli slam), Connors 8, Becker 6 (3w 1 uso 2 ao e ha perso 4 finali a w). Becker ha un palmares inferiore agli americani .
Sinceramente penso che Borg avrebbe vinto contro Becker soprattutto per capacità di concentrazione e per resistenza fisica.
qualcuno ha avuto l' ardire di dire che lendl era più offensivo di borg, e questo èfalso-.
Borg ha vinto 5 wimbledon , lendl nessuno, nelle volè borg era scolastico ma efficace, lendl solo ridicolo, i numeri fanno la storia borg 11 slam , lendl solo 8, borg si è ritirato dagli slam nel 1981 a soli 24 anni lendl ha giocato fino a 34 anni, nel 1994 ultimo slam giocato a us open dove perse al primo turno dal tedesco karbacher.
Lendl had problems at finals of the Slams losing to Borg & Connors. When he was in his prime he won finals Slams against Pernfors, Mecir twice, Wilander twice & Edberg for retirement; in 1985 beat Connors at the Us Open in semi but Connors was 33 years old & Mc in final but he was not the same player of 1984.
Lendl won 109 matches, 7 tournaments(5 from October) won in 1980 & finished the year at n.6,won 96 matches in 1981,10 tournament n.2 ranking,won 106 matches in 1982 with 15 tournaments n.3 ranking. He won 311 matches in 3 years so how people they can say he was not at his best?
se borg non si fosse ritirato nel 1982 lendl non avrebbe mai vinto il roland garros , in quanto era solo una pallida copia di borg e in questi casi vince sempre l' originale.
Probabilmente se Borg non si fosse ritirato, sarebbe stato competitivo fino al 1985-1986 quando avrebbe avuto sì solo 30 anni ma 14 anni di carriera , dal 1973, sulle spalle.
Sicuramente Borg era più veloce di Lendl e più resistente, lo si vede dal gioco di gambe.
Sarebbe stato comunque molto interessante vedere Borg contro Wilander, Edberg, Becker , Mecir e anche Agassi e Sampras.
@jesolo1976 Assolutamente falso. Lendl era un giocatore molto diverso da Borg. Quest'ultimo era un regolarista, Lendl era un attaccante da fondocampo, molto più potente dello svedese. Al suo meglio era più forte.
@jesolo1976 Lendl una pallida copia di Borg? Sicuramente non l'hai mai visto giocare, perché i due erano molto diversi. Borg era un regolarista, Lendl un attaccante da fondo, molto pù potente di Borg. Al suo meglio era più forte.
A little bit of all those three points plus the better ability of modern players to hit returns, which might also be a result of the three points you mentioned.
@jochentier Players are not being developed from an early age to play this style. Add to that it is harder to be successful at net nowadays with the racket technology advancements/
My question is: Why is S&V on grass no longer he number one strategy (as it was in the late 80's and 90's). Do you have other explanations than: 1. Strings, 2. Surface, 3. Balls
I think it is fair to say that after Borg it was impossible to win Wimbledon as a baseline player (McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Cash). I think that Agassi brought the power baseline game (Lendl played) to a different level. Here is my question: Why do we not see those S&V player's not even in Wimbledon anymore.
my pleasure to matteidinno...get hold of the book by Vic Braden's Mental tennis, pg 237.he quoted that Lendl has worked hard and perfected his strokes with astonishing power plus top-spin.Players related to Braden that they got blisters from hitting volleys at the net of Lendl's ground strokes. The average player would simply have his racket knocked right out of his hand.
Refer to Lendl vs Mcenroe's match where Lendl hit a stinging shot that hit Mcenroe's belly .
Federer has had it so easy.....poor Lendl had to face Borg, Connors and Mac at the beginning of his career, then Wilander, Edberg and Becker in the middle, then Sampras, Stich, Muster, Agassi at the end....if he had 1 rival like Roger, Lendl would have had at least 20 slams....he was so consistent throughout his entire career, and against all that talent, no one ever had to play through more talent in one career than IVAN
@fromanotherstar Roger's GOAT can be legitimately disputed because of this very fact: lack of serious competition. Where Lendl had to deal with greats from two generations, Federer really only had to contend with one, namely Rafa, and now Novak.
@sarasmilepiano oh i think that is obvious to everyone. I never believed in a GOAT anyway because the variables change. Impossible to compare eras. But I do know that Borg and Lendl would be in any debate, they were both amazing
@fromanotherstar You would think so but many, including the overzealous media-hype-types, insist on placing the GOAT label on someone and it usually goes to the person with the most GS. Personally I think this is a grossly, oversimplified measure of determining the greatest player. A head-to-head record has much more merit (especially since singles involves mano-to-mano combat), but since this is impossible among players, unless they have an unusually long career
@sarasmilepiano the GOAT handle tends to lend itself to speculatory conjectures. I do believe, however, that players do improve over time through better training, fitness knowledge, so the greatest player of all time might yet to be determined...
Ivan Lendl is the Larry Holmes of tennis. Like Holmes, his record is absolutely incredible, but gets overlooked because he did not have a magnetic personality.
really ... the reason the game is the way it is today is raquet technology combined with modern strategy which is to play deep drives moving the opponent and really then attack a short ball and come in....so they hit hard from the baseline and come in on short balls with huge approaches....voila....borg was my favorite player.....by far the smoothest player....and the hair
spacecated, Sampras used S&V on hard courts all the time on his first serves and sometimes on his second serve. He did it on first and second serves all the time on grass and indoor. Lendl has forced himself into going to the net, it was absolutely not in his style of play in his young days. Have you actually watched tennis these past 30 years?
Your so way off. As Sampras got older, he became more serve and volley. Just check the 2001 and 2002 US Open matches against Agassi. He was serve and volley on most of his service games. Pete considers himself a serve and volley player. He should know more about his game than you do.
Lendl was not a big fan of the net. There is absolutely no dispute on that. He is one of the all-time greats. Being a net player is something your born with - can't be created. My 10 yr. old son is farther ahead in his net game than baseline game. He enjoys the angles, touch and overall creativity that comes with playing net, plus he has good hands. I can't get him to be aggressive from the baseline - all he wants to do is hit finesse shots. Bottom line - your born to play or not.
Oh! Now it's "Lendl was not a big of the net". What happened to your "no net instincts statement?"
Being a net player can't be created, eh? Wonder if Sampras and Edberg know that? Sampras was 14 when coach Fischer made him dump the 2 hand backhand and attack the net. Same was done with Edberg by the Swedish junior coach.
Looks like Sampras and Edberg weren't aware of your "Bottom line."
Just because Sampras and Edberg switched to a one hander does not imply they weren't natural volleyers. Most kids start with the two hander and switch when they get older. I don't see why you are trying to argue about Lendl not being a natural volleyer. Lendl is one of the all time greats (no doubt), but his game was a power baseline game. I personally enjoy more creativity like Edberg, Sampras and Federer. I believe the player with more variety and less power will beat the power player.
Correction! I never said Lendl was a natural volleyer. I disputed YOUR statement about Lendl having "no net instincts", and backed it up Lendl's Wimby record.
YOU, on the other hand, firmly stated that "Being a net player is something your born with - can't be created." A statement made false by the transformation of Sampras and Edberg from baseliners to net players.
Per Sampras: "I played just like Chang, grinding from the baseline."
Nice try! But all you achieved with this statement is one big cop out, and you pretty much bailed on your "Being a net player is something your born with - can't be created" statement!
Let me reiterate what you conveniently left out: It was their coaches that made them switch!
Yes, great net play can't be created. Just because Pete or Stefan started with the two hander does not mean that the talent for net play wasn't there. It takes a different skill set to be a natural volleyer. Hand speed, feel and imagination are essentials . Most two handers are not predisposed to being a net player. I am curious for you to name the great two-handed volleyers. I can name about 50 amazing one-handed volleyers. I play two-handed and never had great volleying instincts.
You haven't answered my question. Can you please name any two-handed players that were great net players?
Borg was adequate as a volleyer because he had a very good serve and had a brilliant tennis mind. Connors and Borg are probably the two best in my mind. Bjorkman wasn't too bad. None were natural serve and volleyers.
Sure! Anders Jarryd and Frew McMillan! Both cat-quick at the net! Also multiple GS doubles title holders! Great net players with 2 handers!
Just in case you're wondering, you don't win doubles from the baseline!
Heck, I'll throw in Wilander and Nystrom. While S&V was not their style, they were no slouches at the net when they came in! Winning the Wimby doubles in 1986 is proof!
OK then. Borg, Connors, Bjorkman were adequate volleyers. Despite the volleying TALENT that was clearly present among the 3, none adopted S&V as their style of play. Why? They were NATURAL baseliners.
Sampras ADDED an attacking game, and Edberg CHANGED to an S&V game VIA INTERVENTION from their coaches! NEITHER DID IT NATURALLY, but both has great success!
So far, post Laver, I count 1 Natural S&V player; McEnroe! No one told McEnroe to S&V. He did ON HIS OWN...NATURALLY!
How do you mention Bjorkman in the same sentence as Connors and Borg??? I never really cared for Connors, but he was a winner. How can anyone say Borg wasn't a great volleyer? He won Wimbeldon 5 times and lost in another final..He would have won many more majors , but quit at 25
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I can't remember what major titles Bjorkman won?? He was a good player with a fine record, but he doesn;t belomg in ANY conversation with Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe..Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, They all have multiple major titles.
he did volley occasionaly and he won the points when he took the net....
he won Wimbys due to his superior serves, accurate and consistent groundstrokes, superb returns and passing shots plus superb retrieving all over the courts...
Well, who do you think Federer emulates more? I am sure he would say Laver. Lendl was obviously really great - maybe the greatest power player ever. But he did not have great imagination in terms of shot making. Pre Fed, Laver was the greatest shot maker ever, with McEnroe right behind him. Federer, in his prime and yes his best days are behind him, took Laver's shot making to another level. Laver is the Father of Modern Tennis, and that position will be the same 30 yrs. from now.
I am saying that most one-handers start off as two handers. I play two handed. But would have loved to play one-handed as it gives your options and creativity. Pete made the absolute right decision by going to a one-hander. There is an article on the internet about what tennis would have been like if Pete had stayed as a two hander. I forgot what pro that Pete's two hander looked like.
BTW the "Pete" that made the right decision on switching to a 1-hander was Fischer, not Sampras!
"Most one-handers start off as two handers?" Now, you're completely backwards! Kids get frustrated by not being able to hit a 1-handed backhand and start using 2 hands. The added strength and stability of using 2 hands improves their ball contact, so they stick with it! If they do switch to a 1-hander later on, it will be at the behest of a coach, and not out their own volition!
What I have seen with very young tennis players is that almost all are shown the two-handed backhand. They then switch when they get older. Some do start with a one-handed backhand. Anyway, the one-hander obviously has its advantages, just look at the great one-handers which are too many to name.
You were saying that Lendl was the father of modern tennis. I can name two players who you could superceded Lendl or Laver as the father of modern tennis: Hoad and Gonzalez.
Hoad hit the ball harder than anyone before him. His peers acknowledge this. He did not have the mental discipline to be consistent.
Gonzalez should be considered because he could intimidate anyone through his sheer presence. In fact, one could say that Lendl's attitude on court was very similar to Gonzalez..
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!! THE QUESTIONNNNN JERRKKKKKK!!!!! Sorry mate, i couldn't resist. When I read your comment, it just made me think of old Johnny Mac blurting that out at the umpire, lol. Beauty.
Lendl is considered by many to be the father of modern tennis not because of his technique, but because of how he revolutionized nutrition and exercise, and made the game exceptionally athletic and in many ways more elite
I can follow what you are saying. The thing about Lendl that was amazing was how efficient his strokes and movement were. I never could understand why he did not impose his game more when he played Borg. I guess he was still young in this video and had not fully developed his power game. One stat said Lendl was 2-6 against Borg, while another said 2-5. Which was correct.
Lendl was 22-13 against Connors. Connors dominated Lendl early and Lendl rolled over him later. Pretty interesting.
u r right. Borg was 6-2 up against Lendl until 1981.Then Borg unexpectedly retired in 1982. At the moment Lendl was at his prime winning more titles than anyone on the tour. Guess Lendl would undoubtely beat Borg from there onwards. So Borg retired because of the threat posted by Lendl and Mcenroe at that time. Bord was asked by a news reporter, "WHO DO YOU THINK WILL BE REPLACING YOU AS NO 1 SOON ? borg replied, Ivan Lendl because he's going to get better and better.
Lendl's strokes were so impressive to view particularly his backhand strokes..he could hit flat, slice, top-spin backhand....just look at his backhand follow-through..i would rate Lendl's backhand even better than Federer....Lendl's one handed backhand was a prove that the stroke can match Borg's double backhand....See for yourselves his strokes...SEEING IS BELIEVING....I can't see other pros who is as fluid as his backhand nowadays ??? any comments ????
u r right as Borg got the 6-2 edge against Lendly before he quite in 1982. Had he stayed a little bit longer Borg for sure will be beaten By Lendlyfrom 1983 onwards as he got better and better. Even Connors and Mcenroe were at their receiving end against Lendly from 1984 onwards.
Prior to 1983, Lendl did not utilise slice backhand instead more on flat and topspin.Under Tony Roche, he perfected his backhand slice and volleys and the results gslams in 1984- 1988.
Agree, Lendl had the most efficient strokes of any player I have ever seen. Had he won some of the GS finals that he lost, his name would be mentioned at the very top. But the tennis gods are not forgiving as he came up empty from those GS losses. Ivan Lendl is the Larry Holmes of tennis - incredible record but does get the respect.
u re right Griffen427, modern tennis is a allround tennis package that focuses on the players' fitness , nutrition, training regime plus techniques.
his strokes were exceptional particularly his backhands were a delight to watch...his long followthrough....plus the velocity of his shots....i've read in the tennis books that Lendl's opponents used to say that his drives/shots were so powerful that could cause the racket to slip out of their grasps while volleying....
just to quote what other great players said on Lendl's strokes.
Wilander in 1987 - Lendl's strokes were excellent and better than mine. he passed the balls so well. he's has been winning frequently with that devastating forehand as no one could handle that forehand.
I wish federer's backhand is as solid as Lendl's backhand. Lendl's backhand strokes were abble to counter the wicked double-handed top-spins by Borg, Wilander and Muster...Just look at Federer's backhand against nadal's top-spin.
The guy that Borg reminds me of is Davydenko. They are roughly the same size and that puts an end to the myth that only huge guys like DelPo or bulls like Rafa can win in today's pro tennis.
I'm a huge Roger fan so I was dissapointed by the US Open finals. When DelPo gets rolling, the guy is incredible. Roger is a tactical genious so let's see what he does to neutralize DelPo this year.
Federer didn't win all those majors against chumps. He beat some solid players just to get to the finals. Would have been nice to see a Borg & Federer match. Borg was something special to watch. The human backboard, with the best backhand the game has ever seen. He could construct points and frustrate opponents like no other.
This is a video of Borg and Lendl not Federer. Federer never faced the competition Borg, Lendl and other greats have. Federer lost to an inconsistant Del Potro whos nerves caused his inconsistant play. Elvis and the Beatles have been out sold, is there anyone better? No! Federer with the luck of being in the right place at the right time found himself in the Tennis talent void. People are impressed by his cheap trick shots that Bahrami and countless others have done in the past with ease.
Yeah sure. Del Potro was ahead the last time they met but this time playing inconsistant he beat Federer exactly the way I said Federer could be beaten. Hit deep and cut off Federers angles. Hit high to his back hand or forehand and he is off balance. Lose his serve and his game is gone. Your GOAT turned into a sheep and many now see him for what he is, a weak player in a talent void.
To call Federer a "weak player" in any context is pretty much laughable. Does he have weaknesses? Sure. But so did all the former greats. The thing that separates them is their ability to win despite facing opponents who try to exploit the weaknesses they do have. Federer served like complete crap in the US Open final (50%, 13 doubles) and still made it a close five set match. Had he been serving anywhere near his normal stats he probably would have won in four sets
Federer still made it close because Del Potro also played like crap. Federers serve is 80% of his game and the rest is the stupidity of his opponents.
Don't waste your time trying to reason with that other idiot. What Federer has done since 2003 is the most amazing run in tennis history. When you consider the depth, and the specialty players out there, and the weekly grind of modern tennis. To have a guy in 6 short years win 15 majors, and finish runner up 6 other times is amazing. Not to mention his semi f streak going back to 2003. Federer is the greatest!
Well put, Federer's record of consecutive Semi-Final's is the greatest accomplishment in all of sports; any sport! People who haven't competed at any sort of high level cannot comprehend this accomplishment. It's right up there with his 15 Majors, if not greater. To put this in perspective, it would be like an NFL team making the last 4, 20+ straight times! It would be like a college basketball team making the final 4, 20+ straight times. In a row. Not total, but in a row. Fed is the greatest.
No doubt fedeeX is the greates in tennis History until someone else set a new record. Records are meant to be broken sooner or later.With new sports technologies n science you can expect more milestones to be created in the near future.
MY POINT is that Lend' should deserves and respect for his achievement of 8 gslams and he even played in the 2 Wimbys finals.
I agree mate, Mr. Lendl is one of the best players to ever play the sport. His forehand and game would hold up fine in today's tennis. With a modern racket, I believe he would be in the Top 10, today. I used to try and copy his game as a kid, especially his forehand and serve. When Jim Courier was ranked #1 in the world, he told a reporter that Lendl's forehand was the best in the game, better than his own. Didn't Mr. Lendl reach the final of the US Open 7 years in a row? Amazing feat. Beauty.
@theatlantean1 No doubt. Ivan was actually in 8 finals in a row and is tied with Pete with 8 US Open finals. Technically very sound on the ground, Ivan is extremely under-rated. Amazingly consistent, perhaps his most impressive record is his 9 consecutive world-tour finals (Masters), where he won 5 of them.
That's just rubbish. Chris Evert has a better record and a total of 48 semis from 49 Slams. Laver won two Grand Slams. Fed's records don't even compare to that.
Why are you comparing women's and men's tennis? It's like comparing the best female basketball player to michael jordan, it just can't be done. Chris Evert is amazing but don't compare her to Roger come on. Not to take anything away from Laver's accomplishments, but he won the calender Grandslam twice when tennis was only played on two surfaces, grass and clay. The hard courts of today offer a whole new dimension to grand slam tennis.
@CuprousChloride True that about the men's and women's tennis. Also, back in Laver's day... that was when tennis just became a profession with prize money and stuff, right? Not a whole lot of competition there... compared to international training nowadays, with a much deeper pool of players and talents to fight against. (Not that I'm saying Laver's accomplishments were nothing, just that a comparison is kinda inadequate.)
I watched the Fed vs. Agassi match at the 2005 US Open. The Fed then and the Fed now is way different. He was much better then than he is now. It is amazing that he continues to win when his game has dropped. His movement and consistency in 2005 was far superior than 2009.
Fed would crush Borg, and Lendl. And so would Delpotro. Fed is 6-1 vs Delp. He's allowed to lose 1 US. Open final after winning 5 in a row. Borg lost 4 finals in US. Open. Lendl lost countless major finals. There's not 1 player from the 60's, 70's, or 80's that Fed wouldn't destroy on most days. Even playing porly as he did Monday he almost won. He's the G.O.A.T
Del Potro won with many mistakes which no true professional would let him get away with in the past but enough to beat little Roger. Either you are stupid or trying to be funny.
The last guy who should call anyone stupid is you. You've made such an ass of yourself everywere on the tennis sights. But kp it up, you are entertaining. "Little Roger" as you call him is the greatest player ever to pick up a racquet. On his worst day he whips your heroes without any trouble.
this was the year that Borg called it quits. It can be said that his game had not deteriorated on bit up to the day he shut it down....but in between the ears, he apparently had enuf when he couldnt figure out Mac..
I disagree that he couldn't figure out John McEnroe's gameplay. He was just burnt out by then and didn't want to keep training. Probably John McEnroe's play did force him to retire because he didn't want to train to beat him and maintain his skills, but being on top for so many years, he had had it. Remember, he had a 7 to 7 record against John. So both were equally capable of beating the other. He was just mentally through and John's presence possibly pushed him to retire.
Beg to differ. Lendl would be the father of modern tennis.
Yes, Borg's success made the use of topspin all the rage. Still, Borg's style was to outrally his opponent. Other than Coria, I can't think of any current player that does the same.
Lendl combined topspin AND POWER. Lendl went for winners from the baseline, and that's what you see in today's game: End the point at your first opportunity!
couldn't agree with you more, as an avid American tennis fan, I hated Lendl because of his cold frigid and powerful style of play, but now I respect this man very much, he is indeed the father of modern tennis. I only put Sampras ahead of him because he took Lendl's style to a new height. 1. Sampras 2. Borg 3. Lendl
Greetings! Out of curiosity, would you have hated Lendl if he was American, or from a non-Communist country?
Much as I love Pistol Pete, I can't place him above Lendl. Pete had no chance at the French. In fact, it was considered a big feat each time he made it to the 2nd week.
At that time I did, just because he never smiled nor was he ever too courteous, I have a hard time placing him ahead of Pete just because during the time he reigned, all other great tennis players were only a shell of what they once were, including Connors, Borg and McEenroe. Becker and Edberg were too young, hence he really had no competition except Mats Wilander, while Pete had Agassi, Becker, Courier, Ivanisevic, and more to contend with.
Interesting. The way I see it; when Lendl reigned, he reigned supreme. Lendl had raised the combination of power, fitness, and consistency so high that it took rest of the field a long time to catch up. Sampras trained with Lendl for a week and got a taste of what it took to get there.
Sampras' stumbles at RG show too big an Achilles' Heel for me to place him above Lendl
Lots of people say Lendl is the father of modern tennis.
I say BS. Laver is unquestionably the father of modern tennis. He pioneered the use of topspin. He was a fanatic about fitness. He showed how angles can be found, ie Federer. Laver is the man.
Well, if Federer is considered the GOAT (some may legitimately disagree), he borrowed all the vast array of shots in his game from Laver not Lendl. End of conversation!!!
Got news for you. Going forward in the men's game, the dominate players will be ones who have the power, but also use variety of shots to break the other guy's game down. Look how Federer breaks down his bigger hitting opponent's game. Had he played his average game he would have beaten Del Potro. Sounds like Laver to me.
Also, Being in the mold of Laver, the two players that have dominated tennis in the current era - Sampras and Federer - were multifaceted in their array of shots.
Sorry, not buying it! Look real hard and you'll see that Sampras and Federer only turn to S&V during the grass court season!
Off the grass, their preferred style of play is to stay back and whack winners. Big serve, followed by big forehand. The current 1-2 combination of today's pro game.
Wait, where have I seen that before? Oh yeah! Lendl!!!
Borg was such a master of the game, but dear god was he boring to watch. You could leave the stadium to go get a drink, then come back and they would still be hitting the same rally
mikeblair333 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is boring as hell
iGo0ch 6 months ago
What an awkward-looking backhand Borg has XD I guess you had to do crazy things in those days to produce a lot of topspin off of that side.
Aaronthegreatest 7 months ago
@Aaronthegreatest That's a good observation. Borg's backhand was a product of its time. When racquet technology changed, it became easier to generate topspin and it no longer made any sense to hit with this kind of exaggerated quirk. Of course Borg retired by then.
chapaev36 6 months ago
@chapaev36 Don't forget the strings- they have come a long way, too.
sarasmilepiano 3 weeks ago
u call this tennis there is hardly any class and agression in it its simply retrieving tennis and still people nver stop comparing it with modern era tennis which is 10000 times better and interesting than this one
ahmedjeh 7 months ago
@ahmedjeh you tell it But for me it is not true: personally I prefer the tennis of the 90's and end of ewighties. my favourite players are Edberg, Agassi And Sampras. Today i like just Mr Roger that for me it'e the greatest of the history. I don't like the tennis of the power shoot of nadal even if his tennis win today. It's just for this reason that i like the tennins of 20 and more years ago
Gamereo 7 months ago
@Gamereo every one has his own thinking point of view as far as im concerned tennis is for classes not for masses and class changes with time if u still say that u prefer 80's tennis then my friend u are quite antiquated and out of date as class has changed totally however some people like to watch aggressive and power tennis some just want it to be the way it was a million years ago so u have your own choice i cant object it..
ahmedjeh 7 months ago
@ahmedjeh Yeah now I agree with you everyone has his point and of view everyone has his choice but in the previous comment it doesn't seem that you are aware of it. Concerning this commetn i remember you that this video is referred just to 30 and not 1 million years ago . The class never changed : what changed is tennis that is now just a game for Popeye. If you like them you can see the video with Nadal and avoid to tell stupid nonsense here. Today only one has class i.e. Roger Federer
Gamereo 7 months ago
@ahmedjeh That's your point of view, but it's misinformed. Contemporary tennis is homogenous. Most players play essentially the same style. What you see in this video is one of many styles of tennis played in the 70s and 80s. You had the grinders like Borg. The early breed of the power baseliner of Lendl. The finesse serve and volleyer McEnroe. The power serve and volleyer Noah. The flat-hitting counterpuncher Connors. Today, almost everyone is like Lendl. The other styles are gone.
chapaev36 6 months ago
Borg was such a well-oiled machine....amazing groundstrokes!
fromanotherstar 7 months ago
LOL at the comments, everyone thinks himself Nick Bollettieri here.
nasnek 7 months ago
lol, the ball goes so slow, someone should volley
twngrd 11 months ago
Battle of the metronomes.
gibaudrac1 1 year ago
Playing today with those enormous raquets is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier
Pitonto 1 year ago
the pass at 2:16. borg barely reaches out for it. in todays game this would be struck far harder and lets be honest the guy at the net would be expected to at least read the direction, and in most cases probably hit a volley. the pass lands a full meter inside the trams. watch the players today, off of that first volley from borg, anyone in the top 50 is going to plant the pass smack on the line.
paradorn7 1 year ago
ah, i love older tennis, you just can see the finesse used, compared to today
Heroscrest1 1 year ago
borgs backhand is utter wank
paradorn7 1 year ago
@paradorn7
I am sure your bachand will never be as good as Borgs.
BDBK15 1 year ago 2
@BDBK15 im sure it wont (i actually do play at regional level btw) but unlike borg, i doubt im going to win 11 grand slams. his technique frankly ludicrous. what does this mean in real terms????? that the players were not as fit/strong/able/athletic than the players today
paradorn7 1 year ago
@paradorn7 Thanks for your opinion that "borg's backhand is utter wank". I'm glad that you've revealed to everyone that you're a troll and not to be taken seriously. :)
chapaev36 11 months ago
@chapaev36 16 seconds, backhand follow through arm bent finishing high. 19 seconds, backhand with lower left hand release, slightly bent arm follow through finishing chest height. 24 seconds, backhand bent arm finishing high. 26 seconds, left hand release well after contact, arrow straight arm on the follow through finishing high. i could go on through the whole video but my point is that the technique on each stroke is different, sometimes by miles. read on.................
paradorn7 11 months ago
@chapaev36 and the first four backhands, (maybe with the exception of the third one) come at him pretty much the same, yet we still see varying technique. the reason he is able to get away with this is because the pace of play in his day was slow enought that minor shot to shot variations in hitting position could be excused. By the way i do play to a high level and have seen the work of many coaches, hence understanding the need for a solid stroke foundation in order to play at todays intensity
paradorn7 11 months ago
@paradorn7 Either you are a troll or just really dense. Borg's backhand was obviously modeled to succeed for the tennis of his time. Much like Laver's forehand was modeled to be effective in his time. Much like Federer's strokes are modeled to work in his time. Your particularly naive assumption is that something is automatically better simply because it exists in your time.
chapaev36 11 months ago
@chapaev36 Actually mush, its not an assumption im making, its an observation. "federer's strokes are modelled to work in his time". NO. federer's strokes would work in any time ever because, as my point was which you seem to have missed, they are technically sound and are always hit from the same base. take federer to 1981, he would be awesome, bring borg to 2011, he would make a ludicrous number of errors. and insulting people via youtube is rather poor form by the way. do you play tennis?
paradorn7 11 months ago
@paradorn7 It's a bad observation. Federer's strokes would not work in the past due to how early he takes the ball. Contemporary string and racquet technology allow for more control and consistency. Nadal's strokes are also a good example - the windup he takes every time he hits the ball would be unworkable with older rackets because the ball would never land where he would want it. All of these things are understood by people who have followed the evolution of the game over the years.
chapaev36 11 months ago
@paradorn7 And yes, you are either a troll or very close-minded. I can tell by your other comments here. I'm willing to let you humour me for a little while, but I can see that your mind is already made up.
chapaev36 11 months ago
their strokes are so much longer than in today's tennis. I suppose to compensate for those small underpowered racquets and string
zebatode 1 year ago
I admire those great players for paving the way for the new generation, however, I don't seem them being able to beat the current generation. For example the form of Borg's backhand looks so unnatural comparing to Federer's form. The only player from the older generations that I still enjoy watching is Laver. IMHO.
001FJ 1 year ago
they arent exactly going for the shots!
kurtmandos66 1 year ago
resistance is futile
schlong19 1 year ago 2
i like Bjorn's backhands
kable1808 1 year ago 3
master at MSG in NY????
pablotjob 1 year ago
CONNORS LENDL FINALS 4-2 & LENDL won the last 2 in 1985 & 1986 when Connors was 33-34 years old.
Another strange thing between Connors & Lendl most of the time was Lendl over hitting Connors in smaller tournaments . In 1984 they played the final of Rotterdam & before the matched was called off for a bomb trait Lendl was leading Connors 60 10 & then they played semi at forest hills Lendl b. Connors 60 60 after that semi Wimbledon Connors b. Lendl 67 63 75 61
BORGCONNORS 1 year ago
@BORGCONNORS How about the 1986 Lipton when Connors was leading Lendl 2 sets to 1 and Lendl came back and force a 5th set.In the 5th set it was 4 all and Lendl rip a forehand up the line and actually hit the line to get a break point.Coonors went nuts on the linesman and Umpire wanted an over rule didnot get one and stormed off the court and forfeited the match.Classic Connors.
LittleVinnyCock 1 year ago
Lendl great player but had problems in great matches. Connors had a record of 13-5 win lost until he was 32 years old in 1984 & then he lost the last 17 matches after 1985 but Connors won the 2 GRAND SLAMS FINALS AT THE US OPEN 82-83. Probably Lendl was the better player already in 1982 but he couldn't win the Slam.He beat Connors 61 61 in Cincinnati 1982 just 2 weeks before but lost the 82 US OPEN FINAL 63 62 46 64 same happened in 1983 beat Connors 61 63 but lost the US OPEN FINAL 63 67 75 60
BORGCONNORS 1 year ago
Borg beat Lendl 64 62 62 in this final & then beat Lendl at the French in 5 61 46 62 36 61 it was 1981. 10 years later Lendl beat Sampras in 5 sets in Philadelphia or Sampras beat Lendl in 5 at the us open in 1990 & in 2001 Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 5 sets. So all the matches in different era they were pretty close & is hard to say who was the better player.
BORGCONNORS 1 year ago
Non si è detto che Lendl nel gioco di volo era più forte di Borg ma solo che era più potente.
Borg fu un grandissimo giocatore ma ebbe contro solo Connors e il primo McEnroe. Si ritirò appena quest'ultimo cominciò a batterlo anche a Wimbledon. Lendl oltre a Connors e al miglior McEnroe, sull'erba affrontò Becker, Edberg e Cash che avrebbero potuto tranquillamente sconfiggere anche lo svedese.
Pitonto 1 year ago
@Pitonto Infatti Becker, edberg e Cash sono stati più forti certamente di Nastase, Tanner e Gerulaitis, anzi Becker ha giocato 7 finali a Wimbledon con 3 vittorie..alla fine un Palmares migliore di Connors e Mcenroe.
Mi domando cosa avrebbe fatto Borg nel 1986 a 30 anni contro Becker a Wimbledon, un giocatore così potente e tecnico Borg non lo ha mai incontrato.
Borg ritirandosi nel 1982-1983 ha preservato il suo mito e i suoi record..lo avrei visto volentieri affrontare Agassi ,sul cemento !
blualberto1966 1 year ago
Comment removed
altan35 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blualberto1966 Mcenroe ha vinto 7 slam ( 3 w 4 uso e ha perso 4 finali negli slam), Connors 8, Becker 6 (3w 1 uso 2 ao e ha perso 4 finali a w). Becker ha un palmares inferiore agli americani .
Sinceramente penso che Borg avrebbe vinto contro Becker soprattutto per capacità di concentrazione e per resistenza fisica.
altan35 11 months ago
qualcuno ha avuto l' ardire di dire che lendl era più offensivo di borg, e questo èfalso-.
Borg ha vinto 5 wimbledon , lendl nessuno, nelle volè borg era scolastico ma efficace, lendl solo ridicolo, i numeri fanno la storia borg 11 slam , lendl solo 8, borg si è ritirato dagli slam nel 1981 a soli 24 anni lendl ha giocato fino a 34 anni, nel 1994 ultimo slam giocato a us open dove perse al primo turno dal tedesco karbacher.
jesolo1976 1 year ago
Lendl all'epoca valeva il 5o% del miglior Lendl. Eppure portò Borg al 5 a Parigi e lo sconfisse due volte.
Il Lendl migliore era un giocatore non meno preparato fisicamente e mentalmente, più completo e molto più potente di Borg.
Pitonto 1 year ago
Holy shit I am EXHAUSTED just watching these rallies, let alone being the guys themselves. wow, what a grueling way to win a match.
kegsterino12 1 year ago
know about Tennis?
why did Borg only play the Aust open once in 73?
why was Borg unable to play the French open in 77?
martynhanson 1 year ago
Lendl had problems at finals of the Slams losing to Borg & Connors. When he was in his prime he won finals Slams against Pernfors, Mecir twice, Wilander twice & Edberg for retirement; in 1985 beat Connors at the Us Open in semi but Connors was 33 years old & Mc in final but he was not the same player of 1984.
BORGCONNORS 1 year ago
@BORGCONNORS Lendl-Connors 22-13
Lendl-McEnroe 21-15.
Pitonto 1 year ago
Lendl won 109 matches, 7 tournaments(5 from October) won in 1980 & finished the year at n.6,won 96 matches in 1981,10 tournament n.2 ranking,won 106 matches in 1982 with 15 tournaments n.3 ranking. He won 311 matches in 3 years so how people they can say he was not at his best?
BORGCONNORS 1 year ago
Lendl
BORGCONNORS 1 year ago
se borg non si fosse ritirato nel 1982 lendl non avrebbe mai vinto il roland garros , in quanto era solo una pallida copia di borg e in questi casi vince sempre l' originale.
jesolo1976 1 year ago
@jesolo1976
Probabilmente se Borg non si fosse ritirato, sarebbe stato competitivo fino al 1985-1986 quando avrebbe avuto sì solo 30 anni ma 14 anni di carriera , dal 1973, sulle spalle.
Sicuramente Borg era più veloce di Lendl e più resistente, lo si vede dal gioco di gambe.
Sarebbe stato comunque molto interessante vedere Borg contro Wilander, Edberg, Becker , Mecir e anche Agassi e Sampras.
blualberto1966 1 year ago
@jesolo1976 Assolutamente falso. Lendl era un giocatore molto diverso da Borg. Quest'ultimo era un regolarista, Lendl era un attaccante da fondocampo, molto più potente dello svedese. Al suo meglio era più forte.
Pitonto 1 year ago
@jesolo1976 Lendl una pallida copia di Borg? Sicuramente non l'hai mai visto giocare, perché i due erano molto diversi. Borg era un regolarista, Lendl un attaccante da fondo, molto pù potente di Borg. Al suo meglio era più forte.
Pitonto 1 year ago
Why is S&V not anymore the strategy number one on grass as it used to be in the late 80's and early 90's? Any explanations other than:
1. Strings
2. Surface speed
3. Balls?
jochentier 2 years ago
A little bit of all those three points plus the better ability of modern players to hit returns, which might also be a result of the three points you mentioned.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@jochentier Players are not being developed from an early age to play this style. Add to that it is harder to be successful at net nowadays with the racket technology advancements/
sarasmilepiano 3 weeks ago
My question is: Why is S&V on grass no longer he number one strategy (as it was in the late 80's and 90's). Do you have other explanations than: 1. Strings, 2. Surface, 3. Balls
I think it is fair to say that after Borg it was impossible to win Wimbledon as a baseline player (McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Cash). I think that Agassi brought the power baseline game (Lendl played) to a different level. Here is my question: Why do we not see those S&V player's not even in Wimbledon anymore.
jochentier 2 years ago
Fed still played SV against Sampras and Phillipoussis, at least after first serve.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@jochentier
Wimbledon's grass courts have been getting slower and slower, so S&V players don't really have the advantage like they used to.
Tim Henman was getting ticked off few years back when he commented how slow the grass courts @ wimbledon were.
ryanrenesis 1 year ago
my pleasure to matteidinno...get hold of the book by Vic Braden's Mental tennis, pg 237.he quoted that Lendl has worked hard and perfected his strokes with astonishing power plus top-spin.Players related to Braden that they got blisters from hitting volleys at the net of Lendl's ground strokes. The average player would simply have his racket knocked right out of his hand.
Refer to Lendl vs Mcenroe's match where Lendl hit a stinging shot that hit Mcenroe's belly .
zb9775 2 years ago 2
@zb9775 Thank you!
matteodinenno 2 years ago
Federer has had it so easy.....poor Lendl had to face Borg, Connors and Mac at the beginning of his career, then Wilander, Edberg and Becker in the middle, then Sampras, Stich, Muster, Agassi at the end....if he had 1 rival like Roger, Lendl would have had at least 20 slams....he was so consistent throughout his entire career, and against all that talent, no one ever had to play through more talent in one career than IVAN
fromanotherstar 2 years ago 2
@fromanotherstar Roger's GOAT can be legitimately disputed because of this very fact: lack of serious competition. Where Lendl had to deal with greats from two generations, Federer really only had to contend with one, namely Rafa, and now Novak.
sarasmilepiano 3 weeks ago
@sarasmilepiano oh i think that is obvious to everyone. I never believed in a GOAT anyway because the variables change. Impossible to compare eras. But I do know that Borg and Lendl would be in any debate, they were both amazing
fromanotherstar 3 weeks ago
@fromanotherstar You would think so but many, including the overzealous media-hype-types, insist on placing the GOAT label on someone and it usually goes to the person with the most GS. Personally I think this is a grossly, oversimplified measure of determining the greatest player. A head-to-head record has much more merit (especially since singles involves mano-to-mano combat), but since this is impossible among players, unless they have an unusually long career
sarasmilepiano 3 weeks ago
@sarasmilepiano the GOAT handle tends to lend itself to speculatory conjectures. I do believe, however, that players do improve over time through better training, fitness knowledge, so the greatest player of all time might yet to be determined...
sarasmilepiano 3 weeks ago
I agree we could have won 20 Major's!!
leverwork1 2 years ago 2
I wish Bjorn Borg would not have retired when he did. No telling how far he could have gotten with the even more powerful rackets that came.
JimAsian1 2 years ago
Ivan Lendl is the Larry Holmes of tennis. Like Holmes, his record is absolutely incredible, but gets overlooked because he did not have a magnetic personality.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
really ... the reason the game is the way it is today is raquet technology combined with modern strategy which is to play deep drives moving the opponent and really then attack a short ball and come in....so they hit hard from the baseline and come in on short balls with huge approaches....voila....borg was my favorite player.....by far the smoothest player....and the hair
gordorillo 2 years ago
spacecated, Sampras used S&V on hard courts all the time on his first serves and sometimes on his second serve. He did it on first and second serves all the time on grass and indoor. Lendl has forced himself into going to the net, it was absolutely not in his style of play in his young days. Have you actually watched tennis these past 30 years?
severineetfrancois 2 years ago
Sampras S&Ved on hardcourts on his first serves all the time?
Try again! Edberg did, so did Rafter, and so did McEnroe! These 3 are S&V players!
Sampras is not! Sampras is a power baseliner with a good net game.
Watch him play Edberg or Rafter on hard court. Sampras doesn't try to out S&V either. He opts for a baseline duel and trys to hit them off the court!
You've been watching for the past 30 years? Obviously, your reception is way off!
spacecated 2 years ago
Your so way off. As Sampras got older, he became more serve and volley. Just check the 2001 and 2002 US Open matches against Agassi. He was serve and volley on most of his service games. Pete considers himself a serve and volley player. He should know more about his game than you do.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Wrong again! Sampras played the MAJORITY of his points via power baseline and he considered himself an all-court player not S&V.
Calling him an S&V player is about as laughable as calling Federer an S&V player.
spacecated 2 years ago
FYI, just because S&V is not your style of play doesn't mean that you have no instincts for it. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Lendl's best results at Wimby: 2 finals and 2 semis didn't happen because he had no instincts!
Don't know which Lendl you've been watching, but we're dicussing IVAN LENDL here!
spacecated 2 years ago
Lendl was not a big fan of the net. There is absolutely no dispute on that. He is one of the all-time greats. Being a net player is something your born with - can't be created. My 10 yr. old son is farther ahead in his net game than baseline game. He enjoys the angles, touch and overall creativity that comes with playing net, plus he has good hands. I can't get him to be aggressive from the baseline - all he wants to do is hit finesse shots. Bottom line - your born to play or not.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Oh! Now it's "Lendl was not a big of the net". What happened to your "no net instincts statement?"
Being a net player can't be created, eh? Wonder if Sampras and Edberg know that? Sampras was 14 when coach Fischer made him dump the 2 hand backhand and attack the net. Same was done with Edberg by the Swedish junior coach.
Looks like Sampras and Edberg weren't aware of your "Bottom line."
Who's way off again?
spacecated 2 years ago
Just because Sampras and Edberg switched to a one hander does not imply they weren't natural volleyers. Most kids start with the two hander and switch when they get older. I don't see why you are trying to argue about Lendl not being a natural volleyer. Lendl is one of the all time greats (no doubt), but his game was a power baseline game. I personally enjoy more creativity like Edberg, Sampras and Federer. I believe the player with more variety and less power will beat the power player.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Correction! I never said Lendl was a natural volleyer. I disputed YOUR statement about Lendl having "no net instincts", and backed it up Lendl's Wimby record.
YOU, on the other hand, firmly stated that "Being a net player is something your born with - can't be created." A statement made false by the transformation of Sampras and Edberg from baseliners to net players.
Per Sampras: "I played just like Chang, grinding from the baseline."
Sounds like natural volleyer to me! LMAO!
spacecated 2 years ago
It may be that Sampras and Edberg inherently had that skill all along.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Nice try! But all you achieved with this statement is one big cop out, and you pretty much bailed on your "Being a net player is something your born with - can't be created" statement!
Let me reiterate what you conveniently left out: It was their coaches that made them switch!
spacecated 2 years ago
Yes, great net play can't be created. Just because Pete or Stefan started with the two hander does not mean that the talent for net play wasn't there. It takes a different skill set to be a natural volleyer. Hand speed, feel and imagination are essentials . Most two handers are not predisposed to being a net player. I am curious for you to name the great two-handed volleyers. I can name about 50 amazing one-handed volleyers. I play two-handed and never had great volleying instincts.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Bull! Great net play is learned! Edberg and McEnroe have different approaches to S&V, but it's McEnroe that's dubbed the natural.
So far, you have done nothing to bolster your claims regarding Laver as the father of modern tennis, and that Sampras and Edberg were natural S&V!
spacecated 2 years ago
You haven't answered my question. Can you please name any two-handed players that were great net players?
Borg was adequate as a volleyer because he had a very good serve and had a brilliant tennis mind. Connors and Borg are probably the two best in my mind. Bjorkman wasn't too bad. None were natural serve and volleyers.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Sure! Anders Jarryd and Frew McMillan! Both cat-quick at the net! Also multiple GS doubles title holders! Great net players with 2 handers!
Just in case you're wondering, you don't win doubles from the baseline!
Heck, I'll throw in Wilander and Nystrom. While S&V was not their style, they were no slouches at the net when they came in! Winning the Wimby doubles in 1986 is proof!
spacecated 2 years ago
OK then. Borg, Connors, Bjorkman were adequate volleyers. Despite the volleying TALENT that was clearly present among the 3, none adopted S&V as their style of play. Why? They were NATURAL baseliners.
Sampras ADDED an attacking game, and Edberg CHANGED to an S&V game VIA INTERVENTION from their coaches! NEITHER DID IT NATURALLY, but both has great success!
So far, post Laver, I count 1 Natural S&V player; McEnroe! No one told McEnroe to S&V. He did ON HIS OWN...NATURALLY!
spacecated 2 years ago
How do you mention Bjorkman in the same sentence as Connors and Borg??? I never really cared for Connors, but he was a winner. How can anyone say Borg wasn't a great volleyer? He won Wimbeldon 5 times and lost in another final..He would have won many more majors , but quit at 25
greatmya 2 years ago
You'll have to read the full thread to get the Bjorkman context.
Yes, Borg was a not great volleyer. He wasn't horrible either.
Borg's 5 Wimby titles were a product of his superb returns and passing shots, not his volleys.
spacecated 2 years ago
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I can't remember what major titles Bjorkman won?? He was a good player with a fine record, but he doesn;t belomg in ANY conversation with Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe..Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, They all have multiple major titles.
greatmya 2 years ago
For this discussion, Bjorkman was first brought up by mrbobevans as an example of a 2 hander with adequate volleying skills.
There was no intent of comparing Bjorkman's titles with the multiple GS winners you listed.
spacecated 2 years ago
he did volley occasionaly and he won the points when he took the net....
he won Wimbys due to his superior serves, accurate and consistent groundstrokes, superb returns and passing shots plus superb retrieving all over the courts...
zb9775 2 years ago 2
I'll re-phrase my earlier questions, which by the way, you haven't answered.
If Laver is, as you say, the Father of Modern of Tennis, then why are S&V players such the rarity on the ATP?
Why then are the vast majority of the playing styles, power baseline; which was pioneered by Lendl?
Answers, please!
spacecated 2 years ago
Well, who do you think Federer emulates more? I am sure he would say Laver. Lendl was obviously really great - maybe the greatest power player ever. But he did not have great imagination in terms of shot making. Pre Fed, Laver was the greatest shot maker ever, with McEnroe right behind him. Federer, in his prime and yes his best days are behind him, took Laver's shot making to another level. Laver is the Father of Modern Tennis, and that position will be the same 30 yrs. from now.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Beg to differ, strongly! Fed's use of the inside out forehand and power baseline game is pure Lendl!
AND, you did not answer my question. Why?
spacecated 2 years ago
Quit your Bitchin', Bitch!!!!
theatlantean1 2 years ago
Why do you say Bitch, when did he quit 23, played only 7 years.
Comment>
leverwork1 2 years ago
"Most kids start with the two hander and switch when they get older."
Really? Then why are 1 handers on the pro tour such small minority.
Man! Talk about being waaaay off!
spacecated 2 years ago
I am saying that most one-handers start off as two handers. I play two handed. But would have loved to play one-handed as it gives your options and creativity. Pete made the absolute right decision by going to a one-hander. There is an article on the internet about what tennis would have been like if Pete had stayed as a two hander. I forgot what pro that Pete's two hander looked like.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
BTW the "Pete" that made the right decision on switching to a 1-hander was Fischer, not Sampras!
"Most one-handers start off as two handers?" Now, you're completely backwards! Kids get frustrated by not being able to hit a 1-handed backhand and start using 2 hands. The added strength and stability of using 2 hands improves their ball contact, so they stick with it! If they do switch to a 1-hander later on, it will be at the behest of a coach, and not out their own volition!
spacecated 2 years ago
What I have seen with very young tennis players is that almost all are shown the two-handed backhand. They then switch when they get older. Some do start with a one-handed backhand. Anyway, the one-hander obviously has its advantages, just look at the great one-handers which are too many to name.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Too many great 1 handers, eh?
Riiight...and there are no great 2 handers...suuuure!
spacecated 2 years ago
You were saying that Lendl was the father of modern tennis. I can name two players who you could superceded Lendl or Laver as the father of modern tennis: Hoad and Gonzalez.
Hoad hit the ball harder than anyone before him. His peers acknowledge this. He did not have the mental discipline to be consistent.
Gonzalez should be considered because he could intimidate anyone through his sheer presence. In fact, one could say that Lendl's attitude on court was very similar to Gonzalez..
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Huh? Last I saw you wrote down Laver and 30 years from it will still be Laver!
Now you say Hoad and Gonzalez supercede Lendl or Laver as the father of modern tennis? Waffling, are we?
BTW, you STILL DIDN'T ANSWER my question!
spacecated 2 years ago
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!! THE QUESTIONNNNN JERRKKKKKK!!!!! Sorry mate, i couldn't resist. When I read your comment, it just made me think of old Johnny Mac blurting that out at the umpire, lol. Beauty.
theatlantean1 2 years ago
No worries, mate!
LOL! I had forgotten that particular Mac outburst. Thanks for the reminder!
spacecated 2 years ago
Lendl is considered by many to be the father of modern tennis not because of his technique, but because of how he revolutionized nutrition and exercise, and made the game exceptionally athletic and in many ways more elite
Griffen427 2 years ago
I can follow what you are saying. The thing about Lendl that was amazing was how efficient his strokes and movement were. I never could understand why he did not impose his game more when he played Borg. I guess he was still young in this video and had not fully developed his power game. One stat said Lendl was 2-6 against Borg, while another said 2-5. Which was correct.
Lendl was 22-13 against Connors. Connors dominated Lendl early and Lendl rolled over him later. Pretty interesting.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Lendl is seldom mention when talking about the greats.. that's not right.
greatmya 2 years ago 2
u r right. Borg was 6-2 up against Lendl until 1981.Then Borg unexpectedly retired in 1982. At the moment Lendl was at his prime winning more titles than anyone on the tour. Guess Lendl would undoubtely beat Borg from there onwards. So Borg retired because of the threat posted by Lendl and Mcenroe at that time. Bord was asked by a news reporter, "WHO DO YOU THINK WILL BE REPLACING YOU AS NO 1 SOON ? borg replied, Ivan Lendl because he's going to get better and better.
zb9775 2 years ago
You're wrong. Borg retired because he was getting death threats. He got death threats when he lost to McEnroe during his last US open final.
theriokid 2 years ago
lendl was not absolutely in his prime then. He became 4-5 years later
Pitonto 1 year ago
Lendl's strokes were so impressive to view particularly his backhand strokes..he could hit flat, slice, top-spin backhand....just look at his backhand follow-through..i would rate Lendl's backhand even better than Federer....Lendl's one handed backhand was a prove that the stroke can match Borg's double backhand....See for yourselves his strokes...SEEING IS BELIEVING....I can't see other pros who is as fluid as his backhand nowadays ??? any comments ????
zb9775 2 years ago
Dear Mrbobyevans,
u r right as Borg got the 6-2 edge against Lendly before he quite in 1982. Had he stayed a little bit longer Borg for sure will be beaten By Lendlyfrom 1983 onwards as he got better and better. Even Connors and Mcenroe were at their receiving end against Lendly from 1984 onwards.
Prior to 1983, Lendl did not utilise slice backhand instead more on flat and topspin.Under Tony Roche, he perfected his backhand slice and volleys and the results gslams in 1984- 1988.
zb9775 2 years ago
Agree, Lendl had the most efficient strokes of any player I have ever seen. Had he won some of the GS finals that he lost, his name would be mentioned at the very top. But the tennis gods are not forgiving as he came up empty from those GS losses. Ivan Lendl is the Larry Holmes of tennis - incredible record but does get the respect.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
I meant Lendl does not get the respect he deserves.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
u re right Griffen427, modern tennis is a allround tennis package that focuses on the players' fitness , nutrition, training regime plus techniques.
his strokes were exceptional particularly his backhands were a delight to watch...his long followthrough....plus the velocity of his shots....i've read in the tennis books that Lendl's opponents used to say that his drives/shots were so powerful that could cause the racket to slip out of their grasps while volleying....
ask Mcenroe to verify ??
zb9775 2 years ago 2
@zb9775 I'm an Ivan's fan. What tennis books do you refer to?
matteodinenno 2 years ago
just to quote what other great players said on Lendl's strokes.
Wilander in 1987 - Lendl's strokes were excellent and better than mine. he passed the balls so well. he's has been winning frequently with that devastating forehand as no one could handle that forehand.
I wish federer's backhand is as solid as Lendl's backhand. Lendl's backhand strokes were abble to counter the wicked double-handed top-spins by Borg, Wilander and Muster...Just look at Federer's backhand against nadal's top-spin.
zb9775 2 years ago 2
can't compare Borg's backhand with Nadals.
1. different rackets. Borg played with wood. Nadal uses a "huge", light, graphite stick and hard plastic strings.
2. Nadal is bigger than Borg
3. Nadal is a right-handed person. So he's hitting his thbh with his natural dominant side.
ribcat 2 years ago 2
The guy that Borg reminds me of is Davydenko. They are roughly the same size and that puts an end to the myth that only huge guys like DelPo or bulls like Rafa can win in today's pro tennis.
belitnakoff 2 years ago
@belitnakoff
Except that Federer has dominated those guys for 6 years now.
illogicalman21 1 year ago
I'm a huge Roger fan so I was dissapointed by the US Open finals. When DelPo gets rolling, the guy is incredible. Roger is a tactical genious so let's see what he does to neutralize DelPo this year.
belitnakoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quite yoru Bitchin', Bitch!!!!
theatlantean1 2 years ago
Federer didn't win all those majors against chumps. He beat some solid players just to get to the finals. Would have been nice to see a Borg & Federer match. Borg was something special to watch. The human backboard, with the best backhand the game has ever seen. He could construct points and frustrate opponents like no other.
59lespaul2 2 years ago
fuck you guys federer is #1 ;D del potro is a beast aswell
YourWorstWeekendEver 2 years ago
This is a video of Borg and Lendl not Federer. Federer never faced the competition Borg, Lendl and other greats have. Federer lost to an inconsistant Del Potro whos nerves caused his inconsistant play. Elvis and the Beatles have been out sold, is there anyone better? No! Federer with the luck of being in the right place at the right time found himself in the Tennis talent void. People are impressed by his cheap trick shots that Bahrami and countless others have done in the past with ease.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Yeah sure. Del Potro was ahead the last time they met but this time playing inconsistant he beat Federer exactly the way I said Federer could be beaten. Hit deep and cut off Federers angles. Hit high to his back hand or forehand and he is off balance. Lose his serve and his game is gone. Your GOAT turned into a sheep and many now see him for what he is, a weak player in a talent void.
snoble2k 2 years ago
To call Federer a "weak player" in any context is pretty much laughable. Does he have weaknesses? Sure. But so did all the former greats. The thing that separates them is their ability to win despite facing opponents who try to exploit the weaknesses they do have. Federer served like complete crap in the US Open final (50%, 13 doubles) and still made it a close five set match. Had he been serving anywhere near his normal stats he probably would have won in four sets
Dark0blivion 2 years ago
Federer still made it close because Del Potro also played like crap. Federers serve is 80% of his game and the rest is the stupidity of his opponents.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Don't waste your time trying to reason with that other idiot. What Federer has done since 2003 is the most amazing run in tennis history. When you consider the depth, and the specialty players out there, and the weekly grind of modern tennis. To have a guy in 6 short years win 15 majors, and finish runner up 6 other times is amazing. Not to mention his semi f streak going back to 2003. Federer is the greatest!
iamtman1 2 years ago
Well put, Federer's record of consecutive Semi-Final's is the greatest accomplishment in all of sports; any sport! People who haven't competed at any sort of high level cannot comprehend this accomplishment. It's right up there with his 15 Majors, if not greater. To put this in perspective, it would be like an NFL team making the last 4, 20+ straight times! It would be like a college basketball team making the final 4, 20+ straight times. In a row. Not total, but in a row. Fed is the greatest.
theatlantean1 2 years ago
Dear atlantean1,
No doubt fedeeX is the greates in tennis History until someone else set a new record. Records are meant to be broken sooner or later.With new sports technologies n science you can expect more milestones to be created in the near future.
MY POINT is that Lend' should deserves and respect for his achievement of 8 gslams and he even played in the 2 Wimbys finals.
zb9775 2 years ago
I agree mate, Mr. Lendl is one of the best players to ever play the sport. His forehand and game would hold up fine in today's tennis. With a modern racket, I believe he would be in the Top 10, today. I used to try and copy his game as a kid, especially his forehand and serve. When Jim Courier was ranked #1 in the world, he told a reporter that Lendl's forehand was the best in the game, better than his own. Didn't Mr. Lendl reach the final of the US Open 7 years in a row? Amazing feat. Beauty.
theatlantean1 2 years ago 6
Eight years, actually.
illogicalman21 2 years ago
@theatlantean1 it was 8 finals in a row.i agree it was an incredible achievement.
tomloft2000 1 year ago
@theatlantean1 No Lendl actually made 8 US Open finals in a row. Even more impressive was his 9 Season Ending Masters finals in a row.
timthemartin 1 year ago
@theatlantean1 Didn't Mr. Lendl reach the final of the US Open 7 years in a row? - No, it was 8 years in a row.
timthemartin 11 months ago
@theatlantean1 Lendl reached the US open 8 years in a row.
drumdude1000 10 months ago
@theatlantean1 No doubt. Ivan was actually in 8 finals in a row and is tied with Pete with 8 US Open finals. Technically very sound on the ground, Ivan is extremely under-rated. Amazingly consistent, perhaps his most impressive record is his 9 consecutive world-tour finals (Masters), where he won 5 of them.
sarasmilepiano 3 weeks ago
That's just rubbish. Chris Evert has a better record and a total of 48 semis from 49 Slams. Laver won two Grand Slams. Fed's records don't even compare to that.
LeahKat 2 years ago
Why are you comparing women's and men's tennis? It's like comparing the best female basketball player to michael jordan, it just can't be done. Chris Evert is amazing but don't compare her to Roger come on. Not to take anything away from Laver's accomplishments, but he won the calender Grandslam twice when tennis was only played on two surfaces, grass and clay. The hard courts of today offer a whole new dimension to grand slam tennis.
CuprousChloride 2 years ago 7
@CuprousChloride True that about the men's and women's tennis. Also, back in Laver's day... that was when tennis just became a profession with prize money and stuff, right? Not a whole lot of competition there... compared to international training nowadays, with a much deeper pool of players and talents to fight against. (Not that I'm saying Laver's accomplishments were nothing, just that a comparison is kinda inadequate.)
asdfuogh 2 years ago
@theatlantean1
8 finals in a row, actually.
illogicalman21 2 years ago
I watched the Fed vs. Agassi match at the 2005 US Open. The Fed then and the Fed now is way different. He was much better then than he is now. It is amazing that he continues to win when his game has dropped. His movement and consistency in 2005 was far superior than 2009.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Federer lost to Del Potro straight out and simple. He hit deep and choked Federers game. So he would not have much of a chance against borg or lendl.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Fed would crush Borg, and Lendl. And so would Delpotro. Fed is 6-1 vs Delp. He's allowed to lose 1 US. Open final after winning 5 in a row. Borg lost 4 finals in US. Open. Lendl lost countless major finals. There's not 1 player from the 60's, 70's, or 80's that Fed wouldn't destroy on most days. Even playing porly as he did Monday he almost won. He's the G.O.A.T
iamtman1 2 years ago
Del Potro won with many mistakes which no true professional would let him get away with in the past but enough to beat little Roger. Either you are stupid or trying to be funny.
snoble2k 2 years ago
The last guy who should call anyone stupid is you. You've made such an ass of yourself everywere on the tennis sights. But kp it up, you are entertaining. "Little Roger" as you call him is the greatest player ever to pick up a racquet. On his worst day he whips your heroes without any trouble.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Hmmm...on any surface?
spacecated 2 years ago
this was the year that Borg called it quits. It can be said that his game had not deteriorated on bit up to the day he shut it down....but in between the ears, he apparently had enuf when he couldnt figure out Mac..
MisterCrazyLegs 2 years ago
IMHO, more of in between the ears. Borg retired at 26, but had turned pro at 14! By the time he quit, he was 12 year veteran!
Mac factor? Maybe. H2H Borg and Mac are tied at 7 apiece. However, Mac was very fortunate that he never faced Borg on clay!
spacecated 2 years ago
I disagree that he couldn't figure out John McEnroe's gameplay. He was just burnt out by then and didn't want to keep training. Probably John McEnroe's play did force him to retire because he didn't want to train to beat him and maintain his skills, but being on top for so many years, he had had it. Remember, he had a 7 to 7 record against John. So both were equally capable of beating the other. He was just mentally through and John's presence possibly pushed him to retire.
JimAsian1 2 years ago
And both Players were talented with their skill level.
JimAsian1 2 years ago
just ry to rally with people who hit that solid
woodskier 2 years ago
no fair!! Borg hipnotized lendl into missing after his 6th grounstroke,.. Ha ha!
cosmos4 2 years ago
Very boring..this was the case during all the Borg - Lendle matches..
BorlandRIP7 2 years ago
Your looking at the father of modern tennis folks.. Borg using topspin usherd in players such as nadal, federer.
Cmelton925 2 years ago
Beg to differ. Lendl would be the father of modern tennis.
Yes, Borg's success made the use of topspin all the rage. Still, Borg's style was to outrally his opponent. Other than Coria, I can't think of any current player that does the same.
Lendl combined topspin AND POWER. Lendl went for winners from the baseline, and that's what you see in today's game: End the point at your first opportunity!
spacecated 2 years ago 3
couldn't agree with you more, as an avid American tennis fan, I hated Lendl because of his cold frigid and powerful style of play, but now I respect this man very much, he is indeed the father of modern tennis. I only put Sampras ahead of him because he took Lendl's style to a new height. 1. Sampras 2. Borg 3. Lendl
trevinboy 2 years ago
Greetings! Out of curiosity, would you have hated Lendl if he was American, or from a non-Communist country?
Much as I love Pistol Pete, I can't place him above Lendl. Pete had no chance at the French. In fact, it was considered a big feat each time he made it to the 2nd week.
spacecated 2 years ago
At that time I did, just because he never smiled nor was he ever too courteous, I have a hard time placing him ahead of Pete just because during the time he reigned, all other great tennis players were only a shell of what they once were, including Connors, Borg and McEenroe. Becker and Edberg were too young, hence he really had no competition except Mats Wilander, while Pete had Agassi, Becker, Courier, Ivanisevic, and more to contend with.
trevinboy 2 years ago
Interesting. The way I see it; when Lendl reigned, he reigned supreme. Lendl had raised the combination of power, fitness, and consistency so high that it took rest of the field a long time to catch up. Sampras trained with Lendl for a week and got a taste of what it took to get there.
Sampras' stumbles at RG show too big an Achilles' Heel for me to place him above Lendl
spacecated 2 years ago
Lots of people say Lendl is the father of modern tennis.
I say BS. Laver is unquestionably the father of modern tennis. He pioneered the use of topspin. He was a fanatic about fitness. He showed how angles can be found, ie Federer. Laver is the man.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Disagree again!
Laver would attack a weak 2nd serve and finish the point at the net.
Lendl would shove a weak 2nd serve down your throat! No follow-up shot needed.
Do tell, which of the above scenarios do you see in today's game?
Lendl's!!!
spacecated 2 years ago
Well, if Federer is considered the GOAT (some may legitimately disagree), he borrowed all the vast array of shots in his game from Laver not Lendl. End of conversation!!!
mrbobevans 2 years ago
What!? You went from Father of Modern Tennis to GOAT? How is that related?
Got news for ya! The way the pros play the game now, which is power baseline, is due the example that Lendl started and perfected during his prime!
spacecated 2 years ago
Got news for you. Going forward in the men's game, the dominate players will be ones who have the power, but also use variety of shots to break the other guy's game down. Look how Federer breaks down his bigger hitting opponent's game. Had he played his average game he would have beaten Del Potro. Sounds like Laver to me.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Wow! There's gotta be a whole mess of S&V players then due to Laver's influence.
Let's see there's....nope! Oh! How about...nope! Going forward you say? Let's look in the juniors...nope!
Hmmm...if Laver is the Father of Modern Tennis, where are the S&V players?
Federer vs Del Potro = Laver? Suuuure!
It's well documented how much Laver loved to bang from the baseline like those 2 did at US open final...NOT!
spacecated 2 years ago
Also, Being in the mold of Laver, the two players that have dominated tennis in the current era - Sampras and Federer - were multifaceted in their array of shots.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Mold of Laver?
Sorry, not buying it! Look real hard and you'll see that Sampras and Federer only turn to S&V during the grass court season!
Off the grass, their preferred style of play is to stay back and whack winners. Big serve, followed by big forehand. The current 1-2 combination of today's pro game.
Wait, where have I seen that before? Oh yeah! Lendl!!!
spacecated 2 years ago
I think Roger and Pete would definitely say that Laver influenced their game more than Lendl. And that is a no brainer.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Really???
Then what was Sampras doing training with Lendl? Trying to be like Laver?
Riiiiight.
spacecated 2 years ago