Across The Net 10.15.07: What if Match #3 - Federer vs. Lendl

Posted by Dan Martin on 10.15.2007

Lendl’s consistent dominance is often overlooked. Federer is Federer, but their runs at the top have more in common than one might expect.

Players of the Week:

6'10" Ivo Karlovic won his 3rd title of 2007 by taking the Stockholm Open. Karlovic has been a bit of a sideshow with his height and high ace totals, but winning 3 titles in a season as well as a runner-up finish earlier in the year proves he is a true threat. Russian Nikolay Davydenko is ranked 4th in the world and won the Kremlin Cup in his native country. World #3 Novak Djokovic won his 5th title of the year in Vienna Austria. Both Djokovic and Davydenko are building nice momentum for the season ending Masters Cup and the 2008 Australian Open.

On the ladies' side, Elena Dementieva won the Kremlin Cup on her birthday by defeating Serena Williams 5-7, 6-1, 6-1. Dementieva, who has a weak serve, has really been one shot away from being an elite player. If she is healthy again, her competitiveness ought to place her back among the WTA elite. At the Bangkok Open, Flavia Pennetta took home the top prize. This is a nice result for Pennetta who had been best known as being (having been?) 1998 French Open champion Carlos Moya's girlfriend.

Lendl and Federer's Consistent Dominance

Roger Federer's fluidity of movement resembles Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras' court coverage. Lendl had a far more mechanical manner on court. However, Federer's run from 2004-07 is similar to Lendl's run from 1986-1990. In that time period, Lendl won 2 French Open titles, 2 Australian Open titles, and 2 U.S. Open titles. Lendl also showed up with big results on his worst surface with Wimbledon runner-up finishes in 86 and 87 along with semifinal losses in London 88-90. Federer has been so strong in hard and grass court Grand Slam matches, but his 2 runner-up finishes in Paris along with his semifinal loss at the French Open in 2005 mirror Lendl not conceding anything on his worst surface even if neither ever wins a Grand Slam on his worst surface.

All told Lendl was exceptionally consistent in his career. In Australian Opens contested on Grass, Lendl was runner-up in 83 and a semifinalist in 85 and 87. In hard court Australian Open play Lendl won the event in 89 and 90, was a runner-up in 91 and a semifinalist in 88. At the French Open, Lendl won the event in 84, 86 and 87 along with runner-up finishes in 81 and 85. At Wimbledon, Lendl was runner-up in 86 and 87, but also was a semifinalist in 83, 84, 88, 89 and 90. At the U.S. Open, Lendl reached 8 consecutive finals between 82-89 winning the title in 85, 86 and 87. This is the most similar to Roger Federer's current run of reaching at least 14 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals and at least 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals. Other dominant players tended to space some of their great results out more or have one surface that interrupted consistent semifinal and final showings at tennis' 4 biggest stages.

Updating Lendl: Combine Federer and Ljubicic

In order to do a comparison between two great players from different eras, one has to update the game, equipment and training of the older player. This is not an exact science, but Lendl won by hitting huge ground strokes, big serves and dominating with his forehand. By today's standards, Lendl serving in the 115 mph range most of the time would be considered somewhat average. However, Lendl was 6'2" and had long arms and was very strong. If he had grown up with more powerful rackets and the attitude of hitting lots of aces that has taken hold since Becker emerged in 1985, Lendl would likely have developed a massive serve. With today's strings, Lendl would likely have hit incredibly dominating topspin.

Lendl playing a heavy baseline game and hitting a one handed backhand sounds a bit like Federer's game. Still, Federer is more fluid, more imaginative and his generally more varied game does not match Lendl's style. Stan Smith once said Lendl was fast without being quick. He developed incredible strength and stamina but was never the natural player that McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras and Federer were. Also, while Federer is fit, overwhelming strength and an imposing physical presence are not a large part of his winning formula as they were for Lendl. Ivan Ljubicic is a big strong, somewhat mechanical player who uses a one handed backhand. Lendl was much better than Ljubicic, but his style would be a hybrid of Federer and Ljubicic's styles. An updated Lendl would be more powerful but less fluid than Federer.

Slow Hard Courts

Each man has had great success at the slower hard court version of the Australian Open. Lendl's fitness, excessive topspin and ability to bludgeon the ball on a slow surface would be in his favor. Federer's ability to finish points by working his way to the net and his imagination of building points would play well on a slower hard court against Lendl. On this surface, I see Lendl's overwhelming baseline power and spin being pitted against Federer's imagination which may be Roger's most underrated talent. Lendl's game was ideally suited to this surface, but Lendl was also a patterned player. If Federer could force Lendl out of his patterned comfort zone, he would win more often than not. The muscular Nadal has punished Federer twice on hard courts. Nadal is left handed and not nearly as predictable as Lendl was. I see Federer slowly figuring out how to keep Lendl from hitting the shots he likes and winning 6 of 10 hard fought matches on slower hard courts. Score: Federer 6, Lendl 4

Clay Courts

In addition to being a 2 time French Open runner-up, Federer has won 4 Masters Series titles on clay and been runner-up at 4 others. He is clearly a good player on clay. Federer's Achilles' heal on clay has been Rafael Nadal whose left handedness bothers Roger. Nadal's strength, speed and excessive topspin also drive Federer's backhand nuts. Lendl is fast but not as naturally explosive as Nadal. Lendl could however produce the powerful heavy topspin shots to unnerve Federer on clay. Roger is 1-6 vs. Nadal on Clay. I think Lendl would more often than not grind Federer down on the red clay and win 8 out of 10 matches on the dirt. Score: Lendl 12, Federer 8

Grass Courts

Calling Lendl patterned and mechanical is not a knock. If a player has a shot or combination of shots that work the vast majority of the time, then that player ought to be disciplined enough to keep doing those things until his opponent proves he can stop that combination. However, grass is a surface that rewards good instincts and the ability to improvise. Lendl's great success at grass court Australian Open events and at Wimbledon are testaments to how good Lendl was. At any rate, Federer's instincts, imagination, tennis IQ and ability to improvise are off of the charts. Lendl would struggle as Federer won 9 of 10 matches on grass. Score: Federer 17, Lendl 13

Fast Hard Courts

Faster courts can sometime benefit less powerful players because of easier points. Federer has plenty of power, but the faster surface would give him easier service holds than playing on a slow hard court. Faster surfaces also place more value on instincts and reflexes. Lendl was awesome on North American hard courts, but Federer's variety and reflexes would make the difference. I see Federer winning 7 of 10 matches vs. Lendl on a fast hard court. Score: Federer 24, Lendl 16

Indoor Courts

Many of the advantages Federer has on a faster court would carry over into indoor tennis. Federer has not played a lot of indoor tennis, but Lendl was dominant in these events. Patterned players tend to like indoor tennis where the lightening, temperature and wind are totally predictable and do not change as a match progresses. This would help Lendl. Lendl reached the final round of 9 consecutive season championships on indoor courts. Federer has done this 4 times in a row, but two were on outdoor hard courts. I think Federer's game, instincts, and reflexes would have an edge on an indoor court, but Lendl's history gives him the edge. Therefore, I would say they split the 10 matches.

Final Total: Federer 29-Lendl 21

My first two What if? matches favored the old school player. I had Jimmy Connors win a majority of matches against Rafael Nadal in a battle of left-handed warriors. I also had Patrick Rafter slice and dice his way to a majority of wins vs. Andy Roddick. This time the contemporary player prevailed. I mean no disrespect to Lendl. His game is powerful, his fitness overwhelming and his professionalism was off of the charts. In many ways, Lendl launched the contemporary style of professional tennis where big serves and overwhelming ground strokes win matches. Federer is more talented than Lendl was, but Roger has also been on top of his fitness and preparation. If those aspects are more or less equal, I think the more talented player wins more often than not. It must be said that had Lendl grown up and come through the juniors with today's strings, his topspin would have been unreal.