2nd greatest Swede: Edberg or Wilander?

2nd greatest Swedish tennis player?

  • Total voters
    98
speedysteve said:
Every dog has his day..
Click to expand...
Ver true. I was addressing another poster talking about why his results declined. Another factor I didn't address is that I think Edberg lost motivation and was kind of sick of the tour and the grind. He was married and had a daughter, tennis wasn't as important as it was.
 
California said:
Ver true. I was addressing another poster talking about why his results declined. Another factor I didn't address is that I think Edberg lost motivation and was kind of sick of the tour and the grind. He was married and had a daughter, tennis wasn't as important as it was.
Click to expand...

If that's true then it means all 3 of the big Swedish players (Borg, Wilander and Edberg) eventually lost their enthusiasm for tennis and gave up earlier than they might have done!
 
It's very close but I give the edge to Edberg because he stuck around longer and his style of play was more entertaining. Wilander would be better if you were looking to bore someone to death. I'm sorry but ultimately these guys are entertainers and that needs to be considered. It's a big reason why Connors and McEnroe were so popular.
 
True. Between the travel training and bodily punishment it seems like a hard way to make a living.
California said:
They had lives outside of tennis. Fed is an anomaly and Nadal for example, isn't married and doesn't have kids.... some people get sick of the same thing after a while, just the way it goes.
Click to expand...
 
I think most will say Edberg and he probably is the better player, and certainly had the better peak level play IMO. However I honestly think Wilander had the slightly better career. Multiple slams on all surfaces, a fairly historic 3 slam year in 1988, and 1 extra slam are hard to ignore.
 
Yeah but did you ever watch him play? Snooze fest.

And longevity matters. Just ask any Patriots fan. Imagine if Tom Brady had packed it in after his third super bowl.
 
I take Edberg here. Granted, Wilander had 1 more slam. But they are even in Master's series titles at 8 each. And Edberg won a year-end championship, whereas Wilander didn't. So far, Wilander is ahead.

Edberg pulls ahead with his year-end rankings.

Here are their best year-end rankings:

Edberg: 1,1,2,2,3,5,5,5,5
Wilander: 1,3,3,3,4,4,7,12,41

Edberg's longer career accounts for something too. He was 806-270, .749 overall, Wilander was 571-222 .720 overall. Wilander was 51-54 vs the top 10 whereas Edberg was 93-107 vs the top 10.

I'll take Edberg by a decent margin here.
 
WestboroChe said:
Yeah but did you ever watch him play? Snooze fest.

And longevity matters. Just ask any Patriots fan. Imagine if Tom Brady had packed it in after his third super bowl.
Click to expand...

Yes I hated watching him play but his career is still mighty impressive and Edberg unfortunately lacks a number of things. Never winning 2 slams in the same year when Wilander once won 3 in a year, not winning a slam on clay (only noting is since Wilander did win 2 slams on grass, even if not at Wimbledon).

As for longevity Wilander certainly did not lack longevity. He was one of the top from 82-88 and won his first slam at the 82 French and last at the 88 U.S Open. Edberg isnt significantly better here really, he fell off super badly after 92 and especialy after 93, and despite his Australian Open title in 85 he didnt really start to be a consistent top 4 or 5 player until starting in 87.
 
yatestwile said:
Yes I hated watching him play but his career is still mighty impressive and Edberg unfortunately lacks a number of things. Never winning 2 slams in the same year when Wilander once won 3 in a year, not winning a slam on clay (only noting is since Wilander did win 2 slams on grass, even if not at Wimbledon).

As for longevity Wilander certainly did not lack longevity. He was one of the top from 82-88 and won his first slam at the 82 French and last at the 88 U.S Open. Edberg isnt significantly better here really, he fell off super badly after 92 and especialy after 93, and despite his Australian Open title in 85 he didnt really start to be a consistent top 4 or 5 player until starting in 87.
Click to expand...
I think all those were addressed in a previous post. they are close but the entertainment value cannot be overlooked. These guys are entertainers and if I wanted to be put to sleep I'd watch baseball!
 
yatestwile said:
I think most will say Edberg and he probably is the better player, and certainly had the better peak level play IMO. However I honestly think Wilander had the slightly better career. Multiple slams on all surfaces, a fairly historic 3 slam year in 1988, and 1 extra slam are hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

NA, how can we justify Edberg's peak level being better or being the better player when in the next statement you state Wilander's triple slam of 1988 in the tough men's 80's? In 1988 Wilander was beating great players in his triple. Edberg never had three slam year or two slam year. Wilander's triple seems nearly forgotten, ignored. Wilander's great slam battles with Lendl were the Ray vs Djok of the 80's. I didn't find their matches dull. (actually I appreciate Ray/Djok a lot more now too) Battles of wits, strength, technique, tactics, court coverage. Two heavy weights going at it toe to toe neither releasing all their power at once. US final was a battle from all afternoon to late evening, a 15 round super heavy weight finish.

Although Edberg is graceful, slender and attractive, to say nothing of immediately running up to the net after he served, I can't agree with the poll at all, which shows Edberg leading by 21-9. In 1988 Mats was only three matches away from CYGS. But he didn't win the Wimbledon bit, because, there is Wimbledon, and there are.....just some other locations somewhere else. If a Swede and a Czech both fell off Empire State Building, who would hit the ground first? Who'd Care? Likely not the Wimbledon Fundamentalists.
 
70後 said:
NA, how can we justify Edberg's peak level being better or being the better player when in the next statement you state Wilander's triple slam of 1988 in the tough men's 80's? In 1988 Wilander was beating great players in his triple. Edberg never had three slam year or two slam year. Wilander's triple seems nearly forgotten, ignored. Wilander's great slam battles with Lendl were the Ray vs Djok of the 80's. I didn't find their matches dull. (actually I appreciate Ray/Djok a lot more now too) Battles of wits, strength, technique, tactics, court coverage. Two heavy weights going at it toe to toe neither releasing all their power at once. US final was a battle from all afternoon to late evening, a 15 round super heavy weight finish.

Although Edberg is graceful, slender and attractive, to say nothing of immediately running up to the net after he served, I can't agree with the poll at all, which shows Edberg leading by 21-9. In 1988 Mats was only three matches away from CYGS. But he didn't win the Wimbledon bit, because, there is Wimbledon, and there are.....just some other locations somewhere else. If a Swede and a Czech both fell off Empire State Building, who would hit the ground first? Who'd Care? Likely not the Wimbledon Fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you also enjoy watching the neutral zone trap in hockey or seeing teams in soccer park the bus. I think the rather one sided results of the poll vindicate my point. People want to see players attack. Lendl was a baseliner yes but he was far from passive. He was a tactical genius. Wilander's prevailing tactic simply seemed to be push the ball deep and wait for an error and as a result his achievements are largely forgotten as you said. A lesson for those who wish to make their mark.

To paraphrase Wesley Snipes from Mo Better Blues. "The people don't come cuz you don't play the music they like. If you played the music they like the people would come."
 
yatestwile said:
I think most will say Edberg and he probably is the better player, and certainly had the better peak level play IMO. However I honestly think Wilander had the slightly better career. Multiple slams on all surfaces, a fairly historic 3 slam year in 1988, and 1 extra slam are hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

To have a three slam year in the men's 80's is quite an extraordinary feat. Not many have made the calendar three slam category. Mats didn't just have a slightly better career than Edberg. As a Mats contemporary, Edberg just isn't on that level, though certainly his beauty and blonde hair and good looks (Edberg was a megastar in Japan in the 80's). In terms of competition, whose triple slam year would you say was tougher, Mats 1988, Nadal 2010, Djokovic 2011 or Federer 2006? Maybe @NA would like to weigh in? ;)
 
WestboroChe said:
Perhaps you also enjoy watching the neutral zone trap in hockey or seeing teams in soccer park the bus. I think the rather one sided results of the poll vindicate my point. People want to see players attack. Lendl was a baseliner yes but he was far from passive. He was a tactical genius. Wilander's prevailing tactic simply seemed to be push the ball deep and wait for an error and as a result his achievements are largely forgotten as you said. A lesson for those who wish to make their mark.

To paraphrase Wesley Snipes from Mo Better Blues. "The people don't come cuz you don't play the music they like. If you played the music they like the people would come."
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree in regards to Wilander's tactics. First of all, Wilander was a pretty good volleyer, and he played attacking tennis on grass. Second, if you watch his games indoor and on HC, you'll se a player who very cleverly mixes up his game. Wilander's finals against Lendl in the USO in 87 (even though he did lose that one) and 88 are brilliant – and you can see how he was able to outthink Lendl in the latter of the finals through varying pace and rushing the net, which he did very frequently in that match. Wilander was a joy to watch: very cool and very smooth. A thinking man's player who mastered every shot in the book. And yes, sometimes on clay he grinded it out, because that was the best way to beat his opponent.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Wilander was a joy to watch:
Click to expand...

Well obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. But i think he has the reputation of being a boring grinder because that was his overarching style. I know I'm not the only one that
Thinks this and there is no doubt he was one of best players of the 80s. But his reputation is based in reality.

as Brad Gilbert said it's better to win ugly than lose pretty. But that doesn't mean I have to watch it. :D
 
WestboroChe said:
Well obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. But i think he has the reputation of being a boring grinder because that was his overarching style. I know I'm not the only one that
Thinks this and there is no doubt he was one of best players of the 80s. But his reputation is based in reality.

as Brad Gilbert said it's better to win ugly than lose pretty. But that doesn't mean I have to watch it. :D
Click to expand...

In the 1988 final he against Lendl he came to net 131 times, winning 58%. That's pretty aggressive, even though he was clearly playing the percentages. He was a clever guy, a human tennis computer. He changed his game radically from 1982 to 1988. After that, he just lost interest.
 
70後 said:
To have a three slam year in the men's 80's is quite an extraordinary feat. Not many have made the calendar three slam category. Mats didn't just have a slightly better career than Edberg. As a Mats contemporary, Edberg just isn't on that level, though certainly his beauty and blonde hair and good looks (Edberg was a megastar in Japan in the 80's). In terms of competition, whose triple slam year would you say was tougher, Mats 1988, Nadal 2010, Djokovic 2011 or Federer 2006? Maybe @NA would like to weigh in? ;)
Click to expand...

Wilander's triple slam was the most impressive of those you mentioned. His level of competition was incredible. He had some monsters to contend with, including Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Agassi, and McEnroe. His level of competition was off the charts compared to the others listed above, IMHO.

I agree that Wilander's peak year blows away Edberg's. But I chose Edberg here because his whole career was simply better. Edberg won over 200 more matches than Wilander for his career while sporting better winning pct. He finished with 2 #1 rankings(Wilander 1) and 4 top-2 rankings(Wilander 2). And they are only 2 years apart in age.

It always comes down to definition. If "greater" means which player peaked at a higher level, then it's easily Wilander in a landslide. But I look at which one accomplished more over his career. And in that case, it has to be Edberg.

Of course, there's no right or wrong to which definition a poster will use. I just wanted to throw it out there.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
In the 1988 final he against Lendl he came to net 131 times, winning 58%. That's pretty aggressive, even though he was clearly playing the percentages. He was a clever guy, a human tennis computer. He changed his game radically from 1982 to 1988. After that, he just lost interest.
Click to expand...
Very well. I'll give the 88 final against Lendl a watch on the big video site. But I remain skeptical that these cherry picked examples are representative of his style of play. Regardless the original point was that Edberg is the more popular player in this poll because his style of play was more entertaining. As I said, one doesn't get a reputation for being boring because they are exciting to watch.

Perhaps Wilanders legacy is a result of the fact that he made his bones playing against other boring players. For example Borg had the fortune to play two Wimbledon finals against McEnroe whom no one ever accused of being boring and not just because he was emotive.
 
WestboroChe said:
Very well. I'll give the 88 final against Lendl a watch on the big video site. But I remain skeptical that these cherry picked examples are representative of his style of play. Regardless the original point was that Edberg is the more popular player in this poll because his style of play was more entertaining. As I said, one doesn't get a reputation for being boring because they are exciting to watch.

Perhaps Wilanders legacy is a result of the fact that he made his bones playing against other boring players. For example Borg had the fortune to play two Wimbledon finals against McEnroe whom no one ever accused of being boring and not just because he was emotive.
Click to expand...

Nah. But I actually do not think that players like Lendl or Borg are bland just because they didn't grunt or behaved lige assholes all the time.They had all the shots and and athleticism of great players. Tennis is a wonderful game. Even though some players like Becker and Leconte (big fan) are at times flashy, I enjoy smart players who make the most of what they have gamewise, you should be subjective. Wilander won two AO on grass playing aggressively. You should take that into account, and Wilanders AO against Cash (not boring) in 1988 was a fine display of mixing defensive and offensive play against a hungry contender like the local hero. Wilander did not win that one by staying behind the baseline.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Nah. But I actually do not think that players like Lendl or Borg are bland just because they didn't grunt or behaved lige assholes all the time.They had all the shots and and athleticism of great players. Tennis is a wonderful game. Even though some players like Becker and Leconte (big fan) are at times flashy, I enjoy smart players who make the most of what they have gamewise, you should be subjective. Wilander won two AO on grass playing aggressively. You should take that into account, and Wilanders AO against Cash (not boring) in 1988 was a fine display of mixing defensive and offensive play against a hungry contender like the local hero. Wilander did not win that one by staying behind the baseline.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand my point. McEnroe was an entertaining player because he played non stop attacking tennis. Not because he occasionally threw a tantrum which really wasn't that often. Edberg never displayed any emotion that I can recall but he also played non stop attacking tennis.

I don't consider Borg to be boring (although I challenge anyone to sit through a Borg-Vilas Match on clay) and not look at the score and think my god it's only 3-3 in the second set and we've been here since noon.

Likewise I don't consider Lendl to be boring. However I noticed that many of the examples of Wilander playing attacking tennis seem to come from his 88 3 slam year. What about the other years? I won't claim to have watched all his matches or even a lot of them but perhaps he was a passive baseliner who learned the value of attacking tennis and then lost interest. I really don't know.

This thread has been fun. It's given me an idea for another argument. Second best Swiss player Stan or Hingis?
 
Pheasant said:
Wilander's triple slam was the most impressive of those you mentioned. His level of competition was incredible. He had some monsters to contend with, including Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Agassi, and McEnroe. His level of competition was off the charts compared to the others listed above, IMHO.

I agree that Wilander's peak year blows away Edberg's. But I chose Edberg here because his whole career was simply better. Edberg won over 200 more matches than Wilander for his career while sporting better winning pct. He finished with 2 #1 rankings(Wilander 1) and 4 top-2 rankings(Wilander 2). And they are only 2 years apart in age.

It always comes down to definition. If "greater" means which player peaked at a higher level, then it's easily Wilander in a landslide. But I look at which one accomplished more over his career. And in that case, it has to be Edberg.

Of course, there's no right or wrong to which definition a poster will use. I just wanted to throw it out there.
Click to expand...

I was responding to yatestwile's ( er.... ;) ) post about who had the better peak level and is the better player.

Yes, 1988 for the men was a monster year with insane competition to look at it now. If we are already in unison that Wilander's peak year is better than Edberg, when they were competing on equal grounds, and if we agree that 7 beats 6, then since Edberg and Wilander are contemporaries, not intergenerational, and it is a level comparison between them, it is hard to reason that Edberg's career was better, solely on the basis of more match wins + winning percentage (74.7 vs 72.01 according to wiki). Edberg has more titles (41-33) but that is not significantly more in a way that makes Wilander's slams flukes, and most of all I just don't see how extra atp titles + wins + match% can be placed over the +1 slam trump and triple slam. Wilander had a goal, to overtake Lendl, so he kept steadily improving different facets in his game including volleying, approaching, slicing. According to him, he was that slightly better in 88 compared to 87 hence the slam reversal vs Lendl when Lendl had been winning the finals in 87. That all came together in the USF 1988. After that great heavyweight match, what else was left for Mats to do? More of the same? The Swedish guys of the 80's, Wilander/Edberg/Carlsson/Jarryd/Nystrom, they had a different mentality. They were great competitors, but life isn't all about win until you drop.

Well, Edberg has more wins than Borg. Of course Borg's win % blows away both Wilander and Edberg.

Using your filter, who would be greater, for example, Woz or Kvitova?
 
Last edited:
I would only take titles over slams if it is 10 masters career, or the equivalent, vs a one and only slam and absolutely nothing else career.
 
btw Since this thread is about who is 2nd greatest, I would think that means who climbed the second highest mountain, not who climbed more mountains generally.
 
70後 said:
I was responding to yatestwile's ( er.... ;) ) post about who had the better peak level and is the better player.

Yes, 1988 for the men was a monster year with insane competition to look at it now. If we are already in unison that Wilander's peak year is better than Edberg, when they were competing on equal grounds, and if we agree that 7 beats 6, then since Edberg and Wilander are contemporaries, not intergenerational, and it is a level comparison between them, it is hard to reason that Edberg's career was better, solely on the basis of more match wins + winning percentage (74.7 vs 72.01 according to wiki). Edberg has more titles (41-33) but that is not significantly more in a way that makes Wilander's slams flukes, and most of all I just don't see how extra atp titles + wins + match% can be placed over the +1 slam trump and triple slam. Wilander had a goal, to overtake Lendl, so he kept steadily improving different facets in his game including volleying, approaching, slicing. According to him, he was that slightly better in 88 compared to 87 hence the slam reversal vs Lendl when Lendl had been winning the finals in 87. That all came together in the USF 1988. After that great heavyweight match, what else was left for Mats to do? More of the same? The Swedish guys of the 80's, Wilander/Edberg/Carlsson/Jarryd/Nystrom, they had a different mentality. They were great competitors, but life isn't all about win until you drop.

Well, Edberg has more wins than Borg. Of course Borg's win % blows away both Wilander and Edberg.

Using your filter, who would be greater, for example, Woz or Kvitova?
Click to expand...

7-6 edge in slams for Wilander doesn’t trump Edberg’s 8 extra titles, 200+ more wins while having a higher winning pct), 54 more weeks as World #1(74-20 blowout for Edberg), Edberg’s 2-1 edge in top 1 finishes,Edberg’s 4-2 edge in top 2 finishes, etc.

As I said before,some people judge more by peak. That is fine.

As for Woz and Kvitova, this is much closer. But I would take Woz by a whisker.
 
Pheasant said:
7-6 edge in slams for Wilander doesn’t trump Edberg’s 8 extra titles, 200+ more wins while having a higher winning pct), 54 more weeks as World #1(74-20 blowout for Edberg), Edberg’s 2-1 edge in top 1 finishes,Edberg’s 4-2 edge in top 2 finishes, etc.

As I said before,some people judge more by peak. That is fine.

As for Woz and Kvitova, this is much closer. But I would take Woz by a whisker.
Click to expand...

If all of Wilander's slams came in one slam years as did Edberg's, that would be discussable. Edberg didn't even have a double slam year. As I posted, it is 7-6 in slam + the 3 slam year X 80's era multiplier. Connors had one 3 in 1974. Nobody else could do that in the 80's or 90's until all within a few years FedNadDjok all did it. In the four slam majors + polarised conditions era, only Wilander accomplished that feat. That's incredible. It is very hard to take away from such a tremendous factor when talking about who did more. We accept that in the 70's, three polarised slam majors were most important.

Lets look at GS win/loss. Although Edberg won more slam matches, mainly due to Wilander disappearing, guess who between Wilander and Edberg has the match % in slams? Are we still going to go with overall career match% ?

Now Edberg has way more slam match wins than Borg and also 200 more overall match wins than Borg. So going by your filter these are in Edberg's favour against Borg. Borg's Grand Slam match win % though sends Edberg's and Wilander's straight to oblivion. He also blows away Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Nobody is anywhere close to Borg's GS %.

There's a reason why we start from the biggest factors (depending on what those were in the day) downwards to tiebreak. We don't trade greatest accomplishments with being on average more successful in smaller factors, as with the Woz Kvitova example. If we can't agree on that, then we've both stated our respective positions and you can decide whose career you want. You will really take 0>2, if 0 is slightly ahead in overall matches/overall %/overall titles/number 1?
 
Last edited:
70後 said:
In the four slam majors + polarised conditions era, only Wilander accomplished that feat.
Click to expand...

Well, you ignored the fact that the AO's had converted to medium speed hard court since 1988, and this clearly favoured baseline game over Serve & Volley. AO, USO and FO was not that polarized as we thought. Agassi actually achieved something close to that: winning FO 1999, USO 1999, and AO 2000, while reaching Wimbledon 1999 Final.

Wilander, and later Lendl and Courier benefited from AO court switch at the expense of well, Edberg, who could have racked up 2 to 4 additional AO if it was still grass.

Pheasant said:
As for Woz and Kvitova, this is much closer. But I would take Woz by a whisker.
Click to expand...
However, I must disagree with this. Saying Woz > Kvit is like saying Rios better than Chang and Stich.
 
70後 said:
If all of Wilander's slams came in one slam years as did Edberg's, that would be discussable. Edberg didn't even have a double slam year. As I posted, it is 7-6 in slam + the 3 slam year X 80's era multiplier. Connors had one 3 in 1974. Nobody else could do that in the 80's or 90's until all within a few years FedNadDjok all did it. In the four slam majors + polarised conditions era, only Wilander accomplished that feat. That's incredible. It is very hard to take away from such a tremendous factor when talking about who did more. We accept that in the 70's, three polarised slam majors were most important.

Lets look at GS win/loss. Although Edberg won more slam matches, mainly due to Wilander disappearing, guess who between Wilander and Edberg has the match % in slams? Are we still going to go with overall career match% ?

Now Edberg has way more slam match wins than Borg and also 200 more overall match wins than Borg. So going by your filter these are in Edberg's favour against Borg. Borg's Grand Slam match win % though sends Edberg's and Wilander's straight to oblivion. He also blows away Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Nobody is anywhere close to Borg's GS %.

There's a reason why we start from the biggest factors (depending on what those were in the day) downwards to tiebreak. We don't trade greatest accomplishments with being on average more successful in smaller factors, as with the Woz Kvitova example. If we can't agree on that, then we've both stated our respective positions and you can decide whose career you want. You will really take 0>2, if 0 is slightly ahead in overall matches/overall %/overall titles/number 1?
Click to expand...
 
First off, I didnt just use career wins. I used career wins+winning percentage as one of many important things. I listed several other things in my previous posts regarding this comparison. So stop twisting my words. Actually, please stop flat-out lying about my so-called criteria. Never once did I say that career wins was the only thing that I use.

And secondly, it would easy to play your twisting game and say that based on your criteria,then Wilander>Federer. Why? Because having far more wins while having a far greater career winning percentage is meaningless. Slam-wise, Wilander’s 1988 season was far more impressive than what Federer ever did due to the tougher competition and the more diverse surfaces.

But I won’t do that. I think that obviously, you would pick Federer over Wilander.

We will have to agree to disagree on Edberg vs Wilander. So far in this poll, Edberg is crushing Wilander.

And lastly, My post to yours was quite civil by saying there is no wrong way to look at greatness. I have no problem with somebody picking Wilander. As I said, Wilander peaked much higher than Edberg. And some people judge by peak, which is completely fine.
 
Pheasant said:
First off, I didnt just use career wins. I used career wins+winning percentage as one of many important things. I listed several other things in my previous posts regarding this comparison. So stop twisting my words. Actually, please stop flat-out lying about my so-called criteria. Never once did I say that career wins was the only thing that I use.

And secondly, it would easy to play your twisting game and say that based on your criteria,then Wilander>Federer. Why? Because having far more wins while having a far greater career winning percentage is meaningless. Slam-wise, Wilander’s 1988 season was far more impressive than what Federer ever did due to the tougher competition and the more diverse surfaces.

But I won’t do that. I think that obviously, you would pick Federer over Wilander.

We will have to agree to disagree on Edberg vs Wilander. So far in this poll, Edberg is crushing Wilander.

And lastly, My post to yours was quite civil by saying there is no wrong way to look at greatness. I have no problem with somebody picking Wilander. As I said, Wilander peaked much higher than Edberg. And some people judge by peak, which is completely fine.
Click to expand...


I neither changed anything you said nor did I say anywhere that career wins was the only thing you use.

These are the things I said, "I just don't see how extra atp titles + wins + match% can be placed over the +1 slam trump and triple slam."

and " You will really take 0>2, if 0 is slightly ahead in overall matches/overall %/overall titles/number 1?"

Each time I was including what you said. I didn't use the word "criteria", you did. Your filter includes things like overall matches/overall %/overall titles/number 1.

in paragraph 2 and 3 of my #80 post, I was bringing out an example of where Wilander also has better match winning %. Also Borg. Which do you think is more important, overall match win% or GS match win%?

It was you who replied to my reply to another poster. I was more than civil to you in each reply.

It is you who is flat out lying now.
 
Pheasant said:
And secondly, it would easy to play your twisting game and say that based on your criteria,then Wilander>Federer. Why? Because having far more wins while having a far greater career winning percentage is meaningless. Slam-wise, Wilander’s 1988 season was far more impressive than what Federer ever did due to the tougher competition and the more diverse surfaces.
Click to expand...

Of course not, now it is you who is playing a twisting game by twisting it into Wilander vs Federer and then comparing that with how I compare Wilander vs Edberg. I'm saying and said several times that 1988 is what puts Wilander way ahead of Edberg. If all of Wilander's slams were 1 slam years, then it is debatable whether 7-6 trumps all the other factors in Edberg's favour.
 
Pheasant said:
And lastly, My post to yours was quite civil by saying there is no wrong way to look at greatness. I have no problem with somebody picking Wilander. As I said, Wilander peaked much higher than Edberg. And some people judge by peak, which is completely fine
Click to expand...

If you have no problem with my picking Wilander why did you respond to my reply to another poster when I said nothing to you to begin with?
 
Pheasant said:
First off, I didnt just use career wins. I used career wins+winning percentage as one of many important things. I listed several other things in my previous posts regarding this comparison. So stop twisting my words. Actually, please stop flat-out lying about my so-called criteria. Never once did I say that career wins was the only thing that I use.

And secondly, it would easy to play your twisting game and say that based on your criteria,then Wilander>Federer. Why? Because having far more wins while having a far greater career winning percentage is meaningless. Slam-wise, Wilander’s 1988 season was far more impressive than what Federer ever did due to the tougher competition and the more diverse surfaces.
Click to expand...

Your first lie, never once did I say that career slams are the only thing you use. Each time I was including your list of factors.

Your second lie, I never made up a criteria about "having far more wins while having a far greater career winning percentage is meaningless".

So I agree with you that you should please stop flat-out lying about my so-called criteria. Talk again if you stop lying. Thanks.
 
Well the thread was fun. But then it got really serious. Let's remember we're just engaging in some mental gymnastics here.

I don't think anyone will convince the other but I would like to summarize the points in favor of each player and then I suggest we move on to a new thread.

Mats: 3 slam year in 88. Winning a slam as a teenager. Overall greater achievements at slams. Winning on grass, clay and HC. Simply quit

In favor of Stefan: Longevity better winning percentage more match wins. Subjectively more entertaining style of play. Higher and more consistent year end rankings.

I think the answer here is not clear as people will define greatness if different ways. Consider Agassi and Sampras. In terms of on court achievement: it isn't even close. But in terms of what they meant to the game and larger culture Agassi is Sampras's equal if not superior.

Who is the greater player? If we go by the poll the people have spoken. It is Edberg. Your opinions may vary.

So: let's someone start that Kvitova/Woz thread.
 
I think that many people here have seen more of Edbergs matches then Wilanders. And some loves Edberg attack style and not so much Wilanders allgame style.

82 wilander was a bassliner for sure, but he developed an allround gaming style. He won AO to times on grass. With an more attacking style. But he was never a Mac, Becker or Edberg. 1985 in the final he turned the match around against Lendl with a lot more attacking the net at the right points. Wilander developed his slicebackhand to one of the best ever. And in 1988 he was the fittest and could play all the shots.

If we compare the best ever Wilander vs best ever Edberg i think Wilander will come out on top.

Edberg was better over more years. But really wilanders years was only 82-88, the other years he was not motivated.
 
Pebbles10 said:
I think that many people here have seen more of Edbergs matches then Wilanders. And some loves Edberg attack style and not so much Wilanders allgame style.

82 wilander was a bassliner for sure, but he developed an allround gaming style. He won AO to times on grass. With an more attacking style. But he was never a Mac, Becker or Edberg. 1985 in the final he turned the match around against Lendl with a lot more attacking the net at the right points. Wilander developed his slicebackhand to one of the best ever. And in 1988 he was the fittest and could play all the shots.

If we compare the best ever Wilander vs best ever Edberg i think Wilander will come out on top.

Edberg was better over more years. But really wilanders years was only 82-88, the other years he was not motivated.
Click to expand...

So we just don't count that? Imagine if Steffi Graf hadn't been motivated after her 88 slam. She would still be great but she wouldn't be the legend that she is.

Or imagine if Tom Brady had packed it in after his third Super Bowl win.

Longevity counts and if anything his complete lack of interest should be a strike against him. One of the things that has made Fed so amazing is that he has done it for so long. Obviously Edberg isn't on that level but I don't think it can be discounted or ignored. If I play one tournament completely out of my mind and beat all
The top players along the way does that make me an all time great?
 
It nothing wrong to vote for Edberg he was a great player. Im as a swed, Think that Wilander had more impact on the people in sweden then Edberg had. When borg did stop playing everyone thought that this was the end. And then came this 17 year old guy i won the French open title and was the number one player even if he was not top ranked swede all the time in the Swedish davis cup team. He had a karisma and personality that Edberg lacked in the beginning.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
It's a tough call. Wilander lost track after 1988, and with the right motivation (and a new raquet), he could have bagged a few more grand slams. On the other hand, Edberg could have soared into ATG-land without the back injuries. They are both greats that could have achieved more. By the way, it would have been fun to see them play doubles. That could have been a brilliant matchup.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is the reason he played/tried the 6.1.
 
California said:
Sampras was a better player than Edberg based on his superior forehand and serve, but he wasn't a better athlete. Edberg was a great athlete, fast, quick, great footwork, well coordinated. His issue was his forehand and pace on serve.
Click to expand...
Eddy had *those volleys*, though, and was into the net like lightning.
I wouldn't trade Eddy's volleys for anyone else's- including JMac's.
Amazing he got as far as he did with that FH (FO Final, et c).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King No1e
  • Poll Poll
Mats Wilander vs Stefan Edberg: Greatest Career?
2 3 4
Replies
196
Views
26K
mental midget
M
kiki
Becker vs Edberg vs Wilander: The final saying
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
timnz
T
G
Edberg and Wilander shared things
Replies
7
Views
2K
goldenera
G
W
Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Wilander, Australian Open semi-final, 1990
Replies
9
Views
2K
HBK4life
HBK4life
K
Stats for 1990 AO SF (Edberg-Wilander)
Replies
7
Views
3K
krosero
K
Back
Top