Do you think Ivan Lendl, in his prime, would be able to defeat Mr. Roger Federer?

Answer 1

Hmm. Tough. I think they'd have a good rivalry, trading wins over each other.

Answer 2

May be on Clay he would have defeated Federer. Lendl in
his prime has the accuracy and power to play from the
baseline. He made to 19 of the grand slam finals and
winning 8 of them.
On Grass, he would loose to Federer. In fact, Lendl also
made to the finals of the Wimbledon but lost.
On hard courts, Federer has an edge because of his
overall play. But I would say 3-2 favoring Federer.

I am glad this question was asked, as many refer or
compare only to Sampras. Lendl was not a fan favorite
and he had his game that could destroy his opponents.

Answer 3

If you could bring Lendl out of the hat at his prime and place him opposite Federer - Federer would win because the game - the equipment even the ball has changed so Lendl would be out of the picture.
The question is if Lendl and Federer were the same age at the same time who would be the better - Dat's the question - the answer would take five or six years to see who made it to the top.

Answer 4

Man, it's about time somebody asked this question!!! THANK YOU!

The temptation is to look at Sampras and Borg and sometimes we forget that there was this guy named Lendl that absolutely dominated the game for years! Nineteen Slam finals with 8 wins over the likes of John McEnroe, Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg.

For the record, I'd say Roger would have his hands full. I don't know if Lendl would be able to beat him because Roger's net game would come into play and Lendl was completely uncomfortable at the net. But Lendl was the human backboard and was unafraid to sit back and trade shots all day long. Think Davydenko with actual offensive weapons.

That brings in the variable of surface. Here's what I would offer best of 5 matches on each surface (I don't think one match would ever tell you who the better player is):

On grass - Roger wins hands down. 5-0
On clay - Lendl wins by a record of 3 matches to 2.
Hard court - Roger wins 3-2

I was going to give Roger a greater edge on hard court but Lendl's consistancy would likely have frustrated Roger into rare mistakes.

Great question!!

Keep it between the lines!

Answer 5

Great, great question.

Lendl would definitely cause Federer more trouble than most of today's overpaid, over-hyped jabronies that call themselves tennis pros. I think so many of today's tennis players are one-dimensional, one-trick ponies (ahem * Roddick * ahem).

Lendl was superbly fit in his prime and could trade ground strokes with anyone. Ivan Lendl's ground strokes were as pinpoint accurate as anyone and he used a very small-faced raquet.

Still I think the type of player that would trouble Federer more is a good serve-and-volley, which Lendl was not. There are not many good serve-and-volley players today. In his prime, there was no better serve-and-volleyer than Stefan Edberg.

I think Federer would beat Lendl in his prime, but I think he would have a lot more trouble with Edberg. It's not that Edberg was greater than Lendl, but I think the serve-and-volley is the way to play Federer.

Answer 6

Lendl in his prime was a very fit baseliner but he would have had trouble beating Federer. This is mainly because of variety in Federer's game. Federer has said many times in his interviews that he adjusts his game depending on how his opponent plays. Remember, Federer was a serve and volley player when he was starting out. He had to change his game because of new string/racquet technologies that makes hitting passing shots easier.

Answer 7

The key to win over Federer is to watch how he serves, there are certain ways that you will notice how he plays his game. If Lendl wants to win he needs to know how to read his opponent.

Answer 8

Well you recognize that is just like the Ronaldo and messi incident; Both the gamers are the 2 first-rate within the industry, in the best way they move approximately the sport, nonetheless their character differs. Ronaldo is the extravagant and boastful participant who likes to play as much as the cameras on and off courtroom, and Messi the shy younger guy who simply indicates his extravagance while gambling the sport. This diverts to roger and rafa; roger is a man or woman who has graced the sport for lengthy and is positive in coming near the clicking and all so he's capable to mention what he desires. Unlike Nadal who's instead shy off the courtroom and even as giving interviews. But hi there there's no challenge in giving credit score in your self greatness you labored for it, Rafa will have to do it too I imply seem at his greatness, hes 22 already gained 6 grand slams and extra to return customarily 10 or extra

Answer 9

if both in their prime, i'd give it to Federer. Federer has very little difficulty with "structure" type of player, who's consistent with their game and strokes, hit with good rhythm and pace. Federer is the ultimate rhythm disruptor, he can easily take mechanically sound players out of their comfort zone.

Answer 10

not a prayer....no on in their prime could match federer, and i mean no one.