Originally Posted by illusions30
I also find Lendl and Wilander too close. Despite that both won 3 French Opens they really werent that close to be right next to each other in history (not just Open Era) in clay tennis. Lendl was way more dominant, much higher win percentage, higher peak level play, more overall clay achievements. I think Kuerten, LaCoste, and Laver could all easily be higher so I would put 1, 2, or all 3 of those between Lendl and Wilander just to create some seperation between them. It is easiest to compare people of the same era and despite both winning 3 French Opens Lendl >> Wilander by a not too large but obvious margin on clay (or any surface, even grass despite Wilanders's 2 grass slams).
Both of them have won it three times and been runner-up two times. They have beaten each other here. They have been in their prime nearly at the same time, playing the same field. I don't think that you can reasonably argue that they are not in the same league!
Wilander did it younger tough, and I believe he could have won RG many times more if he had Lendl, Sampras, Federer or Nadal's dedication to chase titles. He stopped to care after being number 1 in 1988 (only 24 years old!).