Wilander - "Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer and could be the second most important player in history"

[Hitman]

Mats Wilander: Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer, could be 'second most important' player in history - Eurosport

Mats Wilander thinks Carlos Alcaraz's inconsistency and unpredictability will lead to him being one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

www.eurosport.com

Novak Djokovic has dominated the sport in recent years, with the Serbian spending over 400 weeks as world No.1.

Wilander thinks Alcaraz's career will take a very different path.

"No, I don't believe that he can do that [be world No.1 for 400 weeks]. And when I see Carlos Alcaraz play tennis, it reminds me so much of the great Roger Federer."

"Again, I normally call him [Federer] the greatest player of all time, and that has nothing to do with the statistics or the results. It has to do with what he meant for the sport, the expectations that people had. Carlos Alcaraz is going through the same thing."

"People are expecting more than a player winning matches."

"The opponents of Carlos Alcaraz, they love it. They love playing against him, just like Grigor Dimitrov, because it's fun.

"He hits drop shots, he comes to the net.

The fact that Roger Federer was able to stay on top for so long without having that mental intimidation towards his opponents, to me, is one of the reasons why I think he's the most important tennis player to ever play our sport.

"I think Carlos Alcaraz could become the second most important tennis player to ever play our sport because of what he brings to the court."

 

[nolefam_2024]

Wilander the idiot.

 

[Hitman]

Wilander feels Alcaraz historically will be the second most impactful player of all time, after Federer.

 

[Krish872007]

It's not the first time Wilander has said this - only time will tell.

 

[Mainad]

Wonder what Sinner will say?

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

He also serves pretty horrible because he’s so short. There’s no free points on his serve like there was feds. Carlos will never be on feds level. Only sinner has a shot at reaching Big 3 statusb. When the injuries start piling up and Carlos loses that explosiveness and speed it’s all downhill for Carlos. Like it was Hewitt. Abrupt and acute

 

[DSH]

Wonder what Sinner will say?

"Ferma le droghe, nonno".

 

[ibbi]

He's right in the comparison, that it has become as much/more about watching them play than watching them win, and at least he uses the word 'could' when it comes to the bolder part of his point.

 

[jackson vile]

What’s with all these people jumping to such lengths?

He hasn’t even full began his career and he’s already the second most important player in the HISTORY of tennis?????!!!

Also, Federer is not number one, sorry not sorry

 

[Europa1]

Mats Wilander: Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer, could be 'second most important' player in history - Eurosport

Mats Wilander thinks Carlos Alcaraz's inconsistency and unpredictability will lead to him being one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

www.eurosport.com

Novak Djokovic has dominated the sport in recent years, with the Serbian spending over 400 weeks as world No.1.

Wilander thinks Alcaraz's career will take a very different path.

"No, I don't believe that he can do that [be world No.1 for 400 weeks]. And when I see Carlos Alcaraz play tennis, it reminds me so much of the great Roger Federer."

"Again, I normally call him [Federer] the greatest player of all time, and that has nothing to do with the statistics or the results. It has to do with what he meant for the sport, the expectations that people had. Carlos Alcaraz is going through the same thing."

"People are expecting more than a player winning matches."

"The opponents of Carlos Alcaraz, they love it. They love playing against him, just like Grigor Dimitrov, because it's fun.

"He hits drop shots, he comes to the net.

The fact that Roger Federer was able to stay on top for so long without having that mental intimidation towards his opponents, to me, is one of the reasons why I think he's the most important tennis player to ever play our sport.

"I think Carlos Alcaraz could become the second most important tennis player to ever play our sport because of what he brings to the court."

Ouch.He's right about Federer, though. He may not be the GOAT any more but he is still the most important player, and for some of the reasons MAtts cited.

 

[socallefty]

Where does Djokovic rank?

 

[NattyGut]

Matches must be played. Careers must end.

During this time, the geniuses can debate which is the true GOAT or will become the GOAT or maybe some version of the 2nd GOAT.

 

[a10best]

I always thought Rafa was the 2nd most impactful player. He's already changed tennis more for latino sports. The second version doesn't usually do better than the first even with more talent. But if Alcaraz has 10 slams in his pocket at age 25 I'll change my mind.

 

[NattyGut]

I always thought Rafa was the 2nd most impactful player. He's already changed tennis more for latino sports. The second version doesn't usually do better than the first even with more talent. But if Alcaraz has 10 slams in his pocket at age 25 I'll change my mind.

I think I will just enjoy watching Alcaraz, Sinner, and the new American talent. I also think Sinner might bring some new Italian talent to market, as will Alcaraz bring some new Spanish talent into the game.

 

[messiahrobins]

Borg was more important to the sport than Federer. Borg literally dragged tennis from croquet standard elitism to the mainstream and made it a billion dollar industry.
That being said with Nadal having not basically played since RG 2022 and Federer retired since the fall of 2022 and Djokovic now looking a spent force, as recency bias fades there does seem to be a pendulum swing back to Federer being GOAT. He has been retired 18 months yet still gets mentioned all the time as a benchmark.

 

[messiahrobins]

Mats Wilander: Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer, could be 'second most important' player in history - Eurosport

Mats Wilander thinks Carlos Alcaraz's inconsistency and unpredictability will lead to him being one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

www.eurosport.com

Novak Djokovic has dominated the sport in recent years, with the Serbian spending over 400 weeks as world No.1.

Wilander thinks Alcaraz's career will take a very different path.

"No, I don't believe that he can do that [be world No.1 for 400 weeks]. And when I see Carlos Alcaraz play tennis, it reminds me so much of the great Roger Federer."

"Again, I normally call him [Federer] the greatest player of all time, and that has nothing to do with the statistics or the results. It has to do with what he meant for the sport, the expectations that people had. Carlos Alcaraz is going through the same thing."

"People are expecting more than a player winning matches."

"The opponents of Carlos Alcaraz, they love it. They love playing against him, just like Grigor Dimitrov, because it's fun.

"He hits drop shots, he comes to the net.

The fact that Roger Federer was able to stay on top for so long without having that mental intimidation towards his opponents, to me, is one of the reasons why I think he's the most important tennis player to ever play our sport.

"I think Carlos Alcaraz could become the second most important tennis player to ever play our sport because of what he brings to the court."

Bit that stands out there is 'mental intimidation'. That is provocative and makes one wonder what may be coming in the future regarding news.

 

[ND-13]

What Wilander says is so much sense. People watched Federer because it was an "experience" to cherish. The strokes were natural, not learnt. The flow was supreme. Everything was instinctive. Same with Alcaraz.

 

[Razer]

Also, Federer is not number one, sorry not sorry

Actually Federer is number 1 as far as the most important player in history goes ..... Tennis's popularity today globally is largely because of the rise of Federer ....

What Wilander is saying is that if Alcaraz dominates like that with style and charisma then he can again take Tennis out of the Doldrums that 1990s gens have pushed it into... the game needs young stars and it's been a while since anyone showed up and became the people's fav.

Novak's case let accept it, not many people care for him outside Serbia..... Nadal is great but even his stardom does not compare to Federer's.... Nadal is more in the Djokovic ballpark.

 

[nolefam_2024]

What Wilander says is so much sense. People watched Federer because it was an "experience" to cherish. The strokes were natural, not learnt. The flow was supreme. Everything was instinctive. Same with Alcaraz.

Change your username

 

[fedfan24]

Borg was more important to the sport than Federer. Borg literally dragged tennis from croquet standard elitism to the mainstream and made it a billion dollar industry.
That being said with Nadal having not basically played since RG 2022 and Federer retired since the fall of 2022 and Djokovic now looking a spent force, as recency bias fades there does seem to be a pendulum swing back to Federer being GOAT. He has been retired 18 months yet still gets mentioned all the time as a benchmark.

none of Djokovic recent wins have really moved the general public or had any sort of impact, a lot of routine wins over mentally fragile 90s weaklings.

of course some will argue fed had it easy in 03-06, but difference is he was at his absolute peak and blowing opponents away. 34-36 Djokovic quite often is more solid and waits for his opponent to implode with unforced errors, DF etc.

 

[Sudacafan]

Why does Wilander have that urge of saying stupid things?

 

[Apun94]

Wilander the idiot.

I will believe a multiple time slam winner over a pathetic troll. Just saying

 

[NuBas]

What Wilander says is so much sense. People watched Federer because it was an "experience" to cherish. The strokes were natural, not learnt. The flow was supreme. Everything was instinctive. Same with Alcaraz.

Say whaaaatt?!? No one compares to Federer. Alcaraz like poor mans Nadal.

 

[Apun94]

Mats Wilander: Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer, could be 'second most important' player in history - Eurosport

Mats Wilander thinks Carlos Alcaraz's inconsistency and unpredictability will lead to him being one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

www.eurosport.com

Novak Djokovic has dominated the sport in recent years, with the Serbian spending over 400 weeks as world No.1.

Wilander thinks Alcaraz's career will take a very different path.

"No, I don't believe that he can do that [be world No.1 for 400 weeks]. And when I see Carlos Alcaraz play tennis, it reminds me so much of the great Roger Federer."

"Again, I normally call him [Federer] the greatest player of all time, and that has nothing to do with the statistics or the results. It has to do with what he meant for the sport, the expectations that people had. Carlos Alcaraz is going through the same thing."

"People are expecting more than a player winning matches."

"The opponents of Carlos Alcaraz, they love it. They love playing against him, just like Grigor Dimitrov, because it's fun.

"He hits drop shots, he comes to the net.

The fact that Roger Federer was able to stay on top for so long without having that mental intimidation towards his opponents, to me, is one of the reasons why I think he's the most important tennis player to ever play our sport.

"I think Carlos Alcaraz could become the second most important tennis player to ever play our sport because of what he brings to the court."

Wilander keeps saying weird things all the time. Isnt he always changing his mind over who the greatest is? I swear the dude will say anything to stay in the news

 

[Apun94]

What Wilander says is so much sense. People watched Federer because it was an "experience" to cherish. The strokes were natural, not learnt. The flow was supreme. Everything was instinctive. Same with Alcaraz.

Alcaraz still doesnt have the X factor as much as Federer did. But hes by far the most exciting player to watch since Fedal and it's not even close. Delpo was someone that I really enjoyed watching too (my God that FH and that languid movement) but he was never healthy for long enough periods unfortunately

 

[Fabresque]

Wilander is a TTW poster. Changes opinions more than his underwear and thinks greatness is measured by his own definition.

 

[Razer]

I will believe a multiple time slam winner over a pathetic troll. Just saying

Same here, I too will trust an ATG over trolls who've not watched any tennis before 2012.

 

[SonnyT]

Let these youngsters win a few slams, which I expect them to do, before crowning them.

 

[Apun94]

Same here, I too will trust an ATG over trolls who've not watched any tennis before 2012.

I dont even believe he started watching in 2012. Maybe he came to know of tennis in 2012, but hes been watching tennis for only a few years. Why otherwise would anyone say such braindead stupid things. Cant believe he freaking thanked me for randomly praising djokovic on a post completely unrelated to him, as if djokovic is his family member. How pathetic is this dude. Very unhealthy for people to base their whole lives around celebrities who dont even know or care about them

 

[Razer]

I dont even believe he started watching in 2012. Maybe he came to know of tennis in 2012, but hes been watching tennis for only a few years. Why otherwise would anyone say such braindead stupid things. Cant believe he freaking thanked me for randomly praising djokovic on a post completely unrelated to him, as if djokovic is his family member. How pathetic is this dude. Very unhealthy for people to base their whole lives around celebrities who dont even know or care about them

Yes, too much of obsession for any celebrity is unhealthy when the celeb does not know us and we personally have no benefit from that celeb. That user has a habit of being oversmart and disrespecting former players and even posters because he thinks he knows better. It is funny because like you said he is probably been watching only for a few years, before that he must be that occasional fan who was just cheerleading Novak and he himself says he has not followed any tennis before 2012. This sort of fanfare is truly cringe.

 

[RacquetAbuse101]

Why does Wilander have that urge of saying stupid things?

something something meatball something

 

[Impetus]

Borg and McEnroe are by far the most important players in the history of tennis.

Federer has the honor of keeping tennis in the popularity loop in a time when tecknology turned the game into a serve-baseline-topspin-game. I know a lot of people love the big 3, but that’s only for the hardcore fans. Most people just want to see all court attacking tennis with a lot of drop-shots, volleys, half-volleys, tweeners, lobs and varity between speed and soft hands.

 

[messiahrobins]

none of Djokovic recent wins have really moved the general public or had any sort of impact, a lot of routine wins over mentally fragile 90s weaklings.

of course some will argue fed had it easy in 03-06, but difference is he was at his absolute peak and blowing opponents away. 34-36 Djokovic quite often is more solid and waits for his opponent to implode with unforced errors, DF etc.

I tend to see the same thing in terms of fan reactions. I have always found in any sport that when players achieve their best achievements in their mid 30s's fans from other sports, or casual fans, tend to place less emphasis on the achievements when they come after their contemporary rivals have long since gone. Messi v Ronaldo a good example. Messi finally got the world cup but i havent seen it move the needle his way beyond where it was before he won it. Those who think Ronaldo was greater still think that.
Same with boxing, when a boxer say wins a world belt after a rival has gone it definitely lessens the impact, Vladimir Klitscko an example as few puts him ahead of Lennox Lewis i dont think
As for Federer having it easy i dont quite get that argument as his peers were Ferrero, Roddick and Hewitt all of whom won slams. He then had a younger generation of Nadal Djokovic and Murray and Del Potro behind him. Thats very different to 4 years of Medvedev Zverev and Tsitsipas as the next gen behind a player.
The so called GOAT debate will rumble on an on, its not even settled on the womans side so i dont see why people think it is on the mens.

 

[nighthawkrr]

I will believe a multiple time slam winner over a pathetic troll. Just saying

And do you know what Mats favorite thing outside of tennis was? Because once you do it explains him.

 

[NoleFam]

Wilander talking out of the side of his neck as usual. Federer was the most important player in history? Ok. For the people that think Federer greatly increased global popularity, I'd like to see their proof of that. The ratings say it was Borg/McEnroe, guys who pulled over 8 million viewers for Wimbledon finals in the US, which are records. They also had massive USO ratings, along with Connors. Let Alcaraz win at least 5 Slams before all this hyperbole.

 

[Apun94]

And do you know what Mats favorite thing outside of tennis was? Because once you do it explains him.

Bro I know. Take it like this. I will literally believe anyone over that pathetic troll. He regularly disrespects posters and old players. He should be banned from this forum. Even tho Mats regularly changes his takes and says anything to stay in the news, i still would believe him, over this weirdo

 

[Apun94]

Wilander talking out of the side of his neck as usual. Federer was the most important player in history? Ok. For the people that think Federer greatly increased global popularity, I'd like to see their proof of that. The ratings say it was Borg/McEnroe, guys who pulled over 8 million viewers for Wimbledon finals in the US, which are records. They also had massive USO ratings, along with Connors. Let Alcaraz win at least 5 Slams before all this hyperbole.

Even if Borg Mac were more important for tennis's global reach, what Federer did for tennis cannot be denied. You may deny it but Federer really did take tennis's reach to a whole new level. He packed stadiums like no other in the last 35 years. Anyone who say Federer play live knows this. I used to hate Federer back in the mid 2000s, as a big Nadal fan, that everywhere he would go, the stadiums would be full, tv ratings would be sky high and he was all everyone talked about. Everyone was gushing over him. Him, and then his rivalry with Nadal, pulled a lot of tennis fans back in, who had gone away in late 90s and early 2000s. He revived the sport back to its former glory.
I am interested in the numbers of the Borg Mac days. Pls show them

 

[nighthawkrr]

Even if Borg Mac were more important for tennis's global reach, what Federer did for tennis cannot be denied. You may deny it but Federer really did take tennis's reach to a whole new level. He packed stadiums like no other in the last 35 years. Anyone who say Federer play live knows this. I used to hate Federer back in the mid 2000s, as a big Nadal fan, that everywhere he would go, the stadiums would be full, tv ratings would be sky high and he was all everyone talked about. Everyone was gushing over him. Him, and then his rivalry with Nadal, pulled a lot of tennis fans back in, who had gone away in late 90s and early 2000s. He revived the sport back to its former glory.
I am interested in the numbers of the Borg Mac days. Pls show them

Big 4 all did it together. Watching Nadal vs Fed was must see TV. Then we added Novak and Murray. Stan doing his thing.

Raz, Sinner and hopefully Rune, Shelton because those two need some villains.

 

[mental midget]

Ouch.He's right about Federer, though. He may not be the GOAT any more but he is still the most important player, and for some of the reasons MAtts cited.

the greatest players capture fan's imagination, they make you want to see what they'll do next...jordan was the same. novak, what he'll probably do next...is win the point, but probably, in much the same way he won the last one. fed was different, like alcaraz, like mcenroe before them...it's their flair for the unpredictable that makes you want to watch. mats has it right here.

 

[NoleFam]

Even if Borg Mac were more important for tennis's global reach, what Federer did for tennis cannot be denied. You may deny it but Federer really did take tennis's reach to a whole new level. He packed stadiums like no other in the last 35 years. Anyone who say Federer play live knows this. I used to hate Federer back in the mid 2000s, as a big Nadal fan, that everywhere he would go, the stadiums would be full, tv ratings would be sky high and he was all everyone talked about. Everyone was gushing over him. Him, and then his rivalry with Nadal, pulled a lot of tennis fans back in, who had gone away in late 90s and early 2000s. He revived the sport back to its former glory.
I am interested in the numbers of the Borg Mac days. Pls show them

Packing stadiums isn't the same as massive global outreach. The ratings are proof of global impact. Little Alcaraz's win in 2023 was higher rated than any final Federer played against Djokovic. In 2017, both Federer and Nadal had the floor with no Djokovic and Murray at the top, and outside of the AO the ratings flopped. So Federer may be a tennis genius, which he was, but this big global impact people are talking about, I seriously must have missed it.

Tennis didn't need reviving when Federer came along. It needed some great players since the level had declined with Sampras gone and Agassi aging. Sampras and Agassi carried tennis just fine and the fans did not go away in the 90s and early 2000s. Sampras/Agassi pulled almost 6 million viewers in the US for their 1999 Wimbledon final which was only 3 sets, and got higher ratings in the US during the USO than any Federer win.

https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/pr_wimbledon_thru07.pdf

 

[thrust]

Wilander the idiot.

I wouldn't go that far, but surely overstated concerning Federer, or any other player for that matter.

 

[big ted]

why second most important?? hes already won 2 slams, shouldnt he be most important player of all time?

 

[GrandSlam24]

Where does Djokovic rank?

Place 12,678

 

[GrandSlam24]

Actually Federer is number 1 as far as the most important player in history goes ..... Tennis's popularity today globally is largely because of the rise of Federer ....

What Wilander is saying is that if Alcaraz dominates like that with style and charisma then he can again take Tennis out of the Doldrums that 1990s gens have pushed it into... the game needs young stars and it's been a while since anyone showed up and became the people's fav.

Novak's case let accept it, not many people care for him outside Serbia..... Nadal is great but even his stardom does not compare to Federer's.... Nadal is more in the Djokovic ballpark.

I am outside Serbia

 

[inflation_era]

Wilander does occasionally get things right.

 

[Arak]

Wilander said sometime ago that Novak was the goat. I was shocked at his superficial logic. Today he regained my respect.

 

[Mustard]

Well played Mats. Always play the percentages.

 

[thrust]

I am outside Serbia

ME, TOO!

 

[abmk]

Wilander talking out of the side of his neck as usual. Federer was the most important player in history? Ok. For the people that think Federer greatly increased global popularity, I'd like to see their proof of that. The ratings say it was Borg/McEnroe, guys who pulled over 8 million viewers for Wimbledon finals in the US, which are records. They also had massive USO ratings, along with Connors. Let Alcaraz win at least 5 Slams before all this hyperbole.

Packing stadiums isn't the same as massive global outreach. The ratings are proof of global impact. Little Alcaraz's win in 2023 was higher rated than any final Federer played against Djokovic. In 2017, both Federer and Nadal had the floor with no Djokovic and Murray at the top, and outside of the AO the ratings flopped. So Federer may be a tennis genius, which he was, but this big global impact people are talking about, I seriously must have missed it.

Tennis didn't need reviving when Federer came along. It needed some great players since the level had declined with Sampras gone and Agassi aging. Sampras and Agassi carried tennis just fine and the fans did not go away in the 90s and early 2000s. Sampras/Agassi pulled almost 6 million viewers in the US for their 1999 Wimbledon final which was only 3 sets, and got higher ratings in the US during the USO than any Federer win.

https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/pr_wimbledon_thru07.pdf

Whether federer is the most important player in history or not , he increased global popularity significantly unless you are living under a rock or just as delusional as Trollander.
US ratings only are proof of global impact? In which world? Contrary to your opinion, US is not the only part of viewership of world.

 

[Robert F]

I think of GOAT as the best performer in their field. The answer is Djoker--he holds all the records. Regardless of style and how they win. Yes Fed's game is funner to watch, but didn't hold up as well as Djoker's game.
Perfonally, I'd rather have Fed's game--but that is beyond results.

At the same time, Federer definitely has had more impact on the sport than Djoker. He helped tennis boom again with the William sisters. No foreign men's tennis player has been as popular in the US since Borg.

Probably, gross numbers wise Fed had more fans than Borg/McEnroe, but the game has grown so much that the pie is bigger than it was in the 70s. And as other's have pointed out Borg/McEnroe were around when tennis was really able to blossum. They really brought it mainstream. I'd say tennis is a little less mainstream than it was in the early 80s. But, back then there was much less recreation to compete with. People would watch the US Open on CBS because there was nothing else to do on a Sunday (also less channels to watch). Now you can watch 15 different sports when the US Open is going on. All sports were not as big as they are today, there are more sports, and generally less interest in sport for other recreational activities--media/internet etc.

So maybe we are in a similar situation. If Alcaraz can keep winning some, his flair and style will make him popular and give him opportunties to influence tennis maybe more than Sinner even if Sinner wins more titles. People like the flair, but it has to be backed up with wins otherwise Santoro and Monfils would be household tennis names and they are not. Alcaraz will be more popular while Sinner might be the better player on court. Still too early to tell