When these two met for the first time, Ivan was already 30 and won, this particular video, Ivan is almost 34, Pete 22, still, Ivan put up good fight, the season before that, he was able to beat Pete in Philadelphia. There is over 11 years of age difference, and their H2H is at 5 - 3 for Pete, the two wins he has over Ivan came when Ivan was already like 33 years old, but it's also true Pete won all of those important matches, like 2 GS and 1 masters final. Both great champions of their time.
@420League Pretty similar forehands as well. Lendl had a real nice running forehand like Pete did, to.
Ivan wasn't as fast as Pete (few were or are, when Pete decided to explode and really hustle he was a rocket) but he could really drill it down the line on the run, where Pete tended to rip it cross court.
@alin1975 yes, at least 03 - 07 was the least competitive and weakest era ever. And since 06 only Federer and Nadal and only in the finals. No one came close to them. Only now in 2011 it turns out to be an era with 4 very good players, with Federer pushing 30s and declining, though.
@picus11 since 06 only nadal and fed in the finals? Nooooo. lol. Soderling, Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic, Baghdatis and Gonzalez all AT LEAST made 1 final since 2006. You're an idiot. Check your stats before you start sayinh stupid things.
@VerdascoFan youre more stupid than stupid. In 06-10 Soderling, Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic, Baghdatis and Gonzalez in the finals, yeah, but how many GS they have won?????????????? what a great competition.
@picus11 I never said it was the greatest competition ever but it wasn't awful. Federer's dominance made everyone else look worse. His 06 yr is still one of the greatest if not the greatest yrs ever. dJOKOVIC;S year this y could surpass it though. just incredible wat hes done.
I myself prefer today´s tennis, which is quite different from the 70ties. The late 80s & early 90ties were a transfer decade, therefor most people like the players of this era. You could see classical players like Mac & Jimbo playing vs modern powerplayers like Pete, Courier & Agassi, attackers like Goran & Richard vs Muster or Wilander, & very different personalities like Edberg vs Boris.
And of course the great IVAN who did most for changing tennis into a real professional, athletic sport.
@Pitonto Lendl - 8 GS, Sampras -14 GS. Lendl better on clay, Sampras better on grass and fast hard court. Draw on slow hard. Lendl better technique, Sampras better athlete. Sampras gets the nod.
@89Pleasek i agree with u...lendl has got 8 grand slams against all the greatest players of all time. lendl has proved that his technique and gae can win him slams in any era! :)
@timthemartin I think you'd find all the finest commentators regard Federer's as the greatest. I doubt anyone has hit as many forehand winners as he has.
Look at Sampras at the french, capital looser. Lendl at Wimbledon was much closer. But Sampras had a more pure style. But at the same age, Federer seems in better health, we'll see how many more Grand Slam he can win. Since 1969, no one has won the french, WImbledon and the US Open the same calendar year. let's see this september if Roger can be the first in 40 years. So far, he has not been convincing in Montreal.
We were waiting for Federer at the US Open. Montreal (Canadian Open) is a kind of prepraratory tournament ahead to the US Open. Same thing for Cincinnati, as for the Queen's before Wimbledon, Rome, Monte-Carlo before the french. Roger lost in Montreal, not the best way to start the season on hard court. He was impressive at Cincinnati, but finally, he lost at Flushing. Do you understand ?
A better discussion would be: How would a 25 year old Lendl do against a 25 year old Sampras? I think there's an 11 year age difference. And of course, take into account the different court surfaces: Lendl was better on Clay, Sampras was better on grass. Both were great and dominated their respective eras.
Walliegir2-what a pathetic alias-doesn't know anything abt tennis. It was Lendl that took Pete under tutelage and changed his backhand to one-handed from the routine double-handed stuff. Many times Pete himself acknowledged that he practiced at Lendl place in Cn. Lendl shall remain one of the all time greatest though the media and ignoramuses like u don like him. If Wimbledon courts played like present in his time, Lendl would have easily won multiple Wimbies.
Pete's backhand change occurred when he was 14, way before practicing with Lendl. Pete Fisher encouraged Pete to go to a one-hander so he could play a serve and volley game. Lendl had nothing to do with Pete changing to a one-hander.
In response to Lendl changing Pete's backhand, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Pete's former mentor, Dr. Pete Fischer was responsible for the change so Pete could Wimbledon. All you need to do is check the Wikipedia article on Pete Sampras. Please get your facts straight before making moronic and fictional comments.
Why do knobs like Voltairec, proudly show off complete factual ignorance and state their fantasies as fact? I'll never understand that about youtube.... as you say, Fischer decided to make the change, Landsdorp coached and drilled the change (though ironically, he didn't and still doesn't agree with the decision to make the switch). Lendl only had Sampras as a practice partner for a week at the Masters when Sampras was 17. That was the first meeting between them. Sampras had just turned pro.
As noted above, Lendl had absolutely nothing to do with the backhand change. Lendl practicing with Sampras came MUCH later, just as Sampras was beginning his transition to the pro tour, and it was only for a week. You have to love how idiots spout off factually incorrect things so confidently on the internet.
I have no idea what this means. But you've now been corrected by several people on something which is not a secret. It has been documented in numerous places. Why you made up the lie in the first place is beyond me. Actually, the agent who set-up the practice session with Lendl as Sampras was turning pro was Blumberg, if memory serves...
Oops, I was wrong, Blumberg didn't come in till the next year, which means Sampras would still have been with Forbes. Of course, in Voltairec's ignorant fantasy world, none of these people existed. Lendl took Sampras in as an orphaned youth and taught Sampras the backhand at 14....Landsdorp and Fischer...who are they?! LOL.
Lendl was great. However, he did not have any instincts for volleying. Borg and Wilander had much more interest in volleying. I never could understand why Lendl didn't come to net. Had he been more willing to come to net, he could have won many more majors. Just weird that he never overcame this propensity. Sampras' ability to come to net is one big advantage he had over Lendl.
@Pitonto You say "Lendl for many aspects was better than Sampras." Serve: Sampras (Pistol Pete) Forehand: Very close. Backhand: Baseline.. too close. Lendl had a better backhand passing shot. Net game: Sampras Overhead: Sampras. Quickness: very close. Fitness: Lendl. Clay courts: Lendl Grass: Sampras Hardcourts: Lendl won more tourneys, but Sampras won more Majors. I think I covered all the bases. Nobody could hold there serve like Sampras.
Pete had more variety and imagination to his game than Lendl, which is a huge advantage. Lendl was so solid in all areas, but what really hurt him was his transition game wasn't that dominating and variety of shot was somewhat limited. Sampras is the better player.
If Lendl was better than Sampras, than how come he doesn't have more grand slams than Pete. Does it have to do with losing 11 Grand Slam Finals, and winning 8. Last I checked, Pete won 14 grand slams, which is almost twice as many as Lendl won. You complained that Lendl would have won several Wimbledon titles on the newer surface, but Pete could have won some Frech Opens as their courts are much faster than the old French.
And you forgot to acknowledge Pete's T. Minor condition. Pete wins.
Sampras ended his carreer at the top, by winning his 14th slam. Lendl kept on for just about a year and a half, and did not say goodbye in a good way.
Screw Lendl and his robotic game. Yes, he was really great, but not on Pete's level. He has always been jealous of Pete. He may have had the upperhand on Mac but he has a complex when it came to Pete.
You are a complete joke dissing Lendl all over the place. Why would he be jealous?? Sampras was in his prime in the middle of the ninetees, and Lendl had his prime ten years earlier. You obviously don´t have a clue.
How close was Sampras to win in Paris? Talk about a total robot. To win on clay you have to have some feel in the game.
'To win on clay you have to have some feel in the game.' It might not be correct. Do you mean Sergei Bruguera (2 Titles and 1 runners up) had more feel of tennis than Pete. Clay is slow and so players have more time to react to returns. It takes the element of deep shots out of the game as one has a chance to reach them.
@drumtum Your right about saying Sampras was in his prime mid 1990's and Lendl Ten years earlier. But then you say "to win on clay you have to have some feel for the game". Well, Sampras had great feel for the game. He made it to the French Semis 1 time and quarters twice. What prevented him from winning it was that he wasnt top shape like a Muster, Brugera, Courier, or Kafelnikov. Clay court specialists are known for that, cause they are baseliners. Sampras won Clay tourneys though.
blah blah blah.....i like saying stuff which cannot be proven right or wrong....blah blah blah - let me try that: i could beat everyone if i only started young enough......wow, it works, i feel so much better
When these two met for the first time, Ivan was already 30 and won, this particular video, Ivan is almost 34, Pete 22, still, Ivan put up good fight, the season before that, he was able to beat Pete in Philadelphia. There is over 11 years of age difference, and their H2H is at 5 - 3 for Pete, the two wins he has over Ivan came when Ivan was already like 33 years old, but it's also true Pete won all of those important matches, like 2 GS and 1 masters final. Both great champions of their time.
fdsfjsdfjjl 7 months ago
the 2 best forehands 1n sport, and backhand also
420League 7 months ago
@420League Pretty similar forehands as well. Lendl had a real nice running forehand like Pete did, to.
Ivan wasn't as fast as Pete (few were or are, when Pete decided to explode and really hustle he was a rocket) but he could really drill it down the line on the run, where Pete tended to rip it cross court.
SerUresto 2 days ago
Lendl was a monster. I truly hated him back then being an Edberg fan lol, but he was the master of his time.
Sampras was incredible too.
For me, least impressive is the current era.
alin1975 8 months ago
@alin1975 yes, at least 03 - 07 was the least competitive and weakest era ever. And since 06 only Federer and Nadal and only in the finals. No one came close to them. Only now in 2011 it turns out to be an era with 4 very good players, with Federer pushing 30s and declining, though.
picus11 8 months ago
@picus11 since 06 only nadal and fed in the finals? Nooooo. lol. Soderling, Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic, Baghdatis and Gonzalez all AT LEAST made 1 final since 2006. You're an idiot. Check your stats before you start sayinh stupid things.
VerdascoFan 7 months ago
@VerdascoFan youre more stupid than stupid. In 06-10 Soderling, Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic, Baghdatis and Gonzalez in the finals, yeah, but how many GS they have won?????????????? what a great competition.
U stupid malignant cunt
picus11 6 months ago
@picus11 I never said it was the greatest competition ever but it wasn't awful. Federer's dominance made everyone else look worse. His 06 yr is still one of the greatest if not the greatest yrs ever. dJOKOVIC;S year this y could surpass it though. just incredible wat hes done.
VerdascoFan 6 months ago
Lendl's fitness was probably better than lots today,.....he was a machine...still is.
In that way ...he had no one to play with back then......like tiger in his day.
00Billy 1 year ago
I myself prefer today´s tennis, which is quite different from the 70ties. The late 80s & early 90ties were a transfer decade, therefor most people like the players of this era. You could see classical players like Mac & Jimbo playing vs modern powerplayers like Pete, Courier & Agassi, attackers like Goran & Richard vs Muster or Wilander, & very different personalities like Edberg vs Boris.
And of course the great IVAN who did most for changing tennis into a real professional, athletic sport.
ulizinho 1 year ago
Lendl was a nutcase. Sampras cool and calm at all times.
rahulmisra2000 1 year ago
King Federer :D lolll <3 anyday
DropDead444 1 year ago
Lendl defeated Sampras even at 33 when Sampras was 22 and no. 1 in the world!!
Lendl in his prime was way better.
Pitonto 1 year ago
@Pitonto Lendl - 8 GS, Sampras -14 GS. Lendl better on clay, Sampras better on grass and fast hard court. Draw on slow hard. Lendl better technique, Sampras better athlete. Sampras gets the nod.
mrbobevans 1 year ago 2
But who Lendl had to play with in 1980-1992, Borg, Wilander, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Agassi and compare it to Sampras' what? 1 Agassi?
89Pleasek 1 year ago 2
@89Pleasek i agree with u...lendl has got 8 grand slams against all the greatest players of all time. lendl has proved that his technique and gae can win him slams in any era! :)
masterofmucus 1 year ago
This would be like nadal playing Federer when he was 35....
hattrickster33 1 year ago
lendl backhand is the best in the century..no doubt..
jimboy70 2 years ago
@jimboy70 Laver's backhand > Lendl's backhand
mrbobevans 1 year ago
@mrbobevans True but Lendl's forehand > Anybody in history
timthemartin 1 year ago
@timthemartin I think you'd find all the finest commentators regard Federer's as the greatest. I doubt anyone has hit as many forehand winners as he has.
DanimalLawlz 11 months ago
@timthemartin lol no.
VerdascoFan 7 months ago
Backhand: Lendl
bigdivision24 2 years ago
love lendls hat and he my idol
after roddick of coars
dassmanen44 2 years ago
chi vinse ?? who won???
pakeb 2 years ago
Look at Sampras at the french, capital looser. Lendl at Wimbledon was much closer. But Sampras had a more pure style. But at the same age, Federer seems in better health, we'll see how many more Grand Slam he can win. Since 1969, no one has won the french, WImbledon and the US Open the same calendar year. let's see this september if Roger can be the first in 40 years. So far, he has not been convincing in Montreal.
sidh05 2 years ago
What does Montreal have to do with winning a major title??
greatmya 2 years ago
We were waiting for Federer at the US Open. Montreal (Canadian Open) is a kind of prepraratory tournament ahead to the US Open. Same thing for Cincinnati, as for the Queen's before Wimbledon, Rome, Monte-Carlo before the french. Roger lost in Montreal, not the best way to start the season on hard court. He was impressive at Cincinnati, but finally, he lost at Flushing. Do you understand ?
sidh05 2 years ago
Didn't know I was conversing with such a genious..How he fairs in a tournament 1 month beore another is soo relevant..
greatmya 2 years ago
A better discussion would be: How would a 25 year old Lendl do against a 25 year old Sampras? I think there's an 11 year age difference. And of course, take into account the different court surfaces: Lendl was better on Clay, Sampras was better on grass. Both were great and dominated their respective eras.
drumdude1000 2 years ago 7
There is an 8-year age difference...
911801111801 7 months ago
@911801111801 Lendl was born in march of 1960, Sampras August of 71. Wikipedia.
drumdude1000 7 months ago
You're right...
911801111801 7 months ago
Walliegir2-what a pathetic alias-doesn't know anything abt tennis. It was Lendl that took Pete under tutelage and changed his backhand to one-handed from the routine double-handed stuff. Many times Pete himself acknowledged that he practiced at Lendl place in Cn. Lendl shall remain one of the all time greatest though the media and ignoramuses like u don like him. If Wimbledon courts played like present in his time, Lendl would have easily won multiple Wimbies.
Voltairec 2 years ago
Pete's backhand change occurred when he was 14, way before practicing with Lendl. Pete Fisher encouraged Pete to go to a one-hander so he could play a serve and volley game. Lendl had nothing to do with Pete changing to a one-hander.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 2
In response to Lendl changing Pete's backhand, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Pete's former mentor, Dr. Pete Fischer was responsible for the change so Pete could Wimbledon. All you need to do is check the Wikipedia article on Pete Sampras. Please get your facts straight before making moronic and fictional comments.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 2
Why do knobs like Voltairec, proudly show off complete factual ignorance and state their fantasies as fact? I'll never understand that about youtube.... as you say, Fischer decided to make the change, Landsdorp coached and drilled the change (though ironically, he didn't and still doesn't agree with the decision to make the switch). Lendl only had Sampras as a practice partner for a week at the Masters when Sampras was 17. That was the first meeting between them. Sampras had just turned pro.
robotontoilet 2 years ago 2
As noted above, Lendl had absolutely nothing to do with the backhand change. Lendl practicing with Sampras came MUCH later, just as Sampras was beginning his transition to the pro tour, and it was only for a week. You have to love how idiots spout off factually incorrect things so confidently on the internet.
robotontoilet 2 years ago 2
And you were Pete's agent- supposedly- to utter ever confidently utter baloney!
Voltairec 2 years ago
I have no idea what this means. But you've now been corrected by several people on something which is not a secret. It has been documented in numerous places. Why you made up the lie in the first place is beyond me. Actually, the agent who set-up the practice session with Lendl as Sampras was turning pro was Blumberg, if memory serves...
robotontoilet 2 years ago
Oops, I was wrong, Blumberg didn't come in till the next year, which means Sampras would still have been with Forbes. Of course, in Voltairec's ignorant fantasy world, none of these people existed. Lendl took Sampras in as an orphaned youth and taught Sampras the backhand at 14....Landsdorp and Fischer...who are they?! LOL.
robotontoilet 2 years ago
Sampras was better than Lendl. Lendl was great in his day, but not on Pete's level.
walliegirl2 2 years ago 3
Lendl for many aspects was better than Sampras.
Pitonto 2 years ago
Lendl was great. However, he did not have any instincts for volleying. Borg and Wilander had much more interest in volleying. I never could understand why Lendl didn't come to net. Had he been more willing to come to net, he could have won many more majors. Just weird that he never overcame this propensity. Sampras' ability to come to net is one big advantage he had over Lendl.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
rmrooster01 2 years ago
Pete had more variety and imagination to his game than Lendl, which is a huge advantage. Lendl was so solid in all areas, but what really hurt him was his transition game wasn't that dominating and variety of shot was somewhat limited. Sampras is the better player.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Backhand too close?!?!?!? :S. Lendl´s backhand was substantially better than Sampras Backhand in all senses
bragunovskoie 1 year ago
If Lendl was better than Sampras, than how come he doesn't have more grand slams than Pete. Does it have to do with losing 11 Grand Slam Finals, and winning 8. Last I checked, Pete won 14 grand slams, which is almost twice as many as Lendl won. You complained that Lendl would have won several Wimbledon titles on the newer surface, but Pete could have won some Frech Opens as their courts are much faster than the old French.
And you forgot to acknowledge Pete's T. Minor condition. Pete wins.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Sampras ended his carreer at the top, by winning his 14th slam. Lendl kept on for just about a year and a half, and did not say goodbye in a good way.
altfratuben 3 years ago
no one can beat sampras in his prime. No one. they can copy him and learn but no one. he is mroe advance than any other players on his time.
supertrex2 2 years ago
Lendl in 1993 at 33 did it in Philadelphia
Pitonto 2 years ago
Screw Lendl and his robotic game. Yes, he was really great, but not on Pete's level. He has always been jealous of Pete. He may have had the upperhand on Mac but he has a complex when it came to Pete.
walliegirl2 2 years ago
It's only your opinion. Lendl defeated Sampras even few months before his retirement, when Pete was no.1 in the world.
Pitonto 2 years ago 2
You are a complete joke dissing Lendl all over the place. Why would he be jealous?? Sampras was in his prime in the middle of the ninetees, and Lendl had his prime ten years earlier. You obviously don´t have a clue.
How close was Sampras to win in Paris? Talk about a total robot. To win on clay you have to have some feel in the game.
drumtum 2 years ago 2
'To win on clay you have to have some feel in the game.' It might not be correct. Do you mean Sergei Bruguera (2 Titles and 1 runners up) had more feel of tennis than Pete. Clay is slow and so players have more time to react to returns. It takes the element of deep shots out of the game as one has a chance to reach them.
bhandurohit 2 years ago
@drumtum Your right about saying Sampras was in his prime mid 1990's and Lendl Ten years earlier. But then you say "to win on clay you have to have some feel for the game". Well, Sampras had great feel for the game. He made it to the French Semis 1 time and quarters twice. What prevented him from winning it was that he wasnt top shape like a Muster, Brugera, Courier, or Kafelnikov. Clay court specialists are known for that, cause they are baseliners. Sampras won Clay tourneys though.
rmrooster01 2 years ago
blah blah blah.....i like saying stuff which cannot be proven right or wrong....blah blah blah - let me try that: i could beat everyone if i only started young enough......wow, it works, i feel so much better
ufon68 2 years ago
Sampras in his prime, Lendl well beyond his
stell29 3 years ago 7