Did Wilander do anything better than Borg?

B

BringBackWood

Professional
Not only do I see this as a horrible matchup for Mats if they faced each other, I also can't think of anything Mats did better than Borg.
He was a better defender, quicker, had better passes. Had the better serve & return in my opinion.
Mats could get very passive and struggle against guys who had the power to penetrate his defence. To his credit he could change tactics and start coming in a lot, which is where his 'tennis brain' is praised, but Borg did the same thing when he was in trouble and imo was a better volleyer and he had more offensive weapons than Mats.
Borg could hit winning & forcing shots from neutral positions, flattening out his FH in paticular. Mats wasn't even comfortable putting balls away from an offensive mid court position, just loop it back and reset the rally.
 
Hey BBW,

We will never know what an official head to head would have been between these two greats.

Young Wilander once said in an interview in 1982 that he « wasn’t Borg number two » but he was « Wilander number one », I liked that.

Obviously Mats had a much better slice backhand than Borg and this is one of the weapons that allowed him to beat Ivan at the 88 USO. I also think that Mats could adapt his game depending his opponent better than Bjorn could do, even if Borg won 5 Wimbledon. I’d say that Bjorn adapted his game to the surface and Mats tried to adapt his game to the surface as much as he could (he didn’t like the Wimby grass for instance...) and also to his oponent.

If you watch the semis against Noah at Key Biscayne in 1988, you will see Mats hiting 90% of two-handed backhands, to counterattack Yannick who was coming to the net.

The day after against Connors, he used a lot of deep and slow slice backhands on Jimmy’s forehand, which was his weakest shot. That is one example that came to my mind.

Also, I think that Mats was a much more natural net player than Borg.

On YouTube, you can see snippets of one of the exhibitions that those two played in 1994 in Sweden. At that time, Mats was trying to compete again at the highest level and Bjorn decided to stop his comeback on the ATP tour so I guess they were both in pretty good shape (of course far from their best)... I like to watch it form times to times.

Both are immense players and Mats will be my personal GOAT for the rest of my life (as he’s been since I was a teen).

 
Last edited:
Pebbles10 said:
You never saw wilander in 88? A peak wilander would had won over Borg.
Click to expand...

Though to say, as much as I love Mats.

Would peak Wilander beat peak Borg? That, we will never now. Maybe on medium fast outdoor courts like the USO back in the days, maybe. On grass I don’t think and on clay... who knows? I’d say 55/45 for Borg.

Nice avatar btw ;)
 
Last edited:
Wilander was "over it" after his stellar 1988 year. I'm surprised that doesn't happen more often - top level pros who's window closes earlier than expected - not because of injury or aging out, but because they just do not want to grind it out anymore. Wilander still played after 1988, but he never seemed fully engaged, and he didn't seem to have a problem with that.
 
NicoMK said:
Hey BBW,

We will never know what an official head to head would have been between these two greats.

Young Wilander once said in an interview in 1982 that he « wasn’t Borg number two » but he was « Wilander number one », I liked that.

Obviously Mats had a much better slice backhand than Borg and this is one of the weapons that allowed him to beat Ivan at the 88 USO. I also think that Mats could adapt his game depending his opponent better than Bjorn could do, even if Borg won 5 Wimbledon. I’d say that Bjorn adapted his game to the surface and Mats tried to adapt his game to the surface as much as he could (he didn’t like the Wimby grass for instance...) and also to his oponent.

If you watch the semis against Noah at Key Biscayne in 1988, you will see Mats hiting 90% of two-handed backhands, to counterattack Yannick who was coming to the net.

The day after against Connors, he used a lot of deep and slow slice backhands on Jimmy’s forehand, which was his weakest shot. That is one example that came to my mind.

Also, I think that Mats was a much more natural net player than Borg.

Click to expand...

Ok that' some good points there. Yeah the slice was a big difference in how they played. Borg of course could beat a peak Connors without resorting to that, & actually I think earlier one he did use more slice, then later on found it better to keep it deep with topspin

The 88 final I was impressed by Mats' sheer doggedness & resilience. He had way more guts than Lendl.

But why could he never adapt to Wimbledon, whearas Borg adapted to all surfaces. I don't see Mats being better at net, more conventional perhaps, but in terms of effectiveness I put Borg ahead.
 
I have never heard anyone say that wilander was equal to borg. Wilander had a fantastic career but borg is in the goat tier. He only won 11 slams but did so while regularly skipping the AO, he could have easily won 15-16 had he played played the AO regularly.

Wilander is more in the becker and edberg tier of greats which is fantastic but not borg level who has more in the laver, sampras and djokovic, nadal tier
 
NicoMK said:
Hey BBW,

We will never know what an official head to head would have been between these two greats.



Obviously Mats had a much better slice backhand than Borg and this is one of the weapons that allowed him to beat Ivan at the 88 USO. I also think that Mats could adapt his game depending his opponent better than Bjorn could do, even if Borg won 5 Wimbledon. I’d say that Bjorn adapted his game to the surface and Mats tried to adapt his game to the surface as much as he could (he didn’t like the Wimby grass for instance...) and also to his oponent.

If you watch the semis against Noah at Key Biscayne in 1988, you will see Mats hiting 90% of two-handed backhands, to counterattack Yannick who was coming to the net.

The day after against Connors, he used a lot of deep and slow slice backhands on Jimmy’s forehand, which was his weakest shot. That is one example that came to my mind.

Also, I think that Mats was a much more natural net player than Borg.

On YouTube, you can see snippets of one of the exhibitions that those two played in 1994 in Sweden. At that time, Mats was trying to compete again at the highest level and Bjorn decided to stop his comeback on the ATP tour so I guess they were both in pretty good shape (of course far from their best)... I like to watch it form times to times.

Both are immense players and Mats will be my personal GOAT for the rest of my life (as he’s been since I was a teen).

Click to expand...

I think he also said something like "If I had played Borg in the 1982 RG finals, I would've lost 6:1 6:1 6:1".
 
Last edited:
skaj said:
I think he also said something like "If I played Borg in the 1982 RG finals, I would've lost 6:1 6:1 6:1".
Click to expand...
Yep. They did officially play against each other once, in Geneva on outdoor clay in 1981. Borg won: 6-1, 6-1.
 
Wilander was the 80% of Borg, in the sense that he played in a similar but less effective way, I think for an essentially power problem.

In almost all the shots, Borg compares favorably, but Mats also had important cards to play.

Mats was less continuous but taking his best two years (sure 1988 :eek: and partially 1983) maybe he got close to Bjorn.

I think Mats was better in the return vs. to the s&v players.
McEnroe gave the feeling of being particularly distressed v Mats, more than v Borg.
 
Last edited:
KG1965 said:
I think Mats was better in the return to the v s&v players.
McEnroe gave the feeling of being particularly distressed v Mats, more than v Borg.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Mcenroe sharply declined post 85, hence he could be distressed against all sorts of players. In january 85 Mcenroe made Mats look like a challenger tier crushing him 6-1 6-1. Borg was superior against s & v, he just had a few tactical issues like standing too far back at the open.
 
Also, in the mid 70s Borg brought something to the game: the lift, the 2 handed-backhand and also he was such a strong athlete! At the time when Mats hit his first big wins in early 82, such a game was less a surprise. Vilas also played that kind of game.

Mats and Bjorn were both done mentally at the age of 25, that's also something that they have in common, which I regret. Who knows how many GS both could have won had they continued to play at their best…
 
Last edited:
BringBackWood said:
Not only do I see this as a horrible matchup for Mats if they faced each other, I also can't think of anything Mats did better than Borg.
He was a better defender, quicker, had better passes. Had the better serve & return in my opinion.
Mats could get very passive and struggle against guys who had the power to penetrate his defence. To his credit he could change tactics and start coming in a lot, which is where his 'tennis brain' is praised, but Borg did the same thing when he was in trouble and imo was a better volleyer and he had more offensive weapons than Mats.
Borg could hit winning & forcing shots from neutral positions, flattening out his FH in paticular. Mats wasn't even comfortable putting balls away from an offensive mid court position, just loop it back and reset the rally.
Click to expand...
Serve - Borg
Forehand - Borg
Volley - Wilander
Backhand - close
Speed - Borg
 
Borg had plan A-C and then he was done if none of them worked. Wilander had plan A-Z and then, if those didn't work, he'd start in on plan 1-infinity. The biggest thing Wilander had going for him was his brain. He didn't have the strokes of Borg or the physical prowess. He was, though, maybe the smartest player ever. That got him a lot.
 
timnz said:
He was a better volleyer too
Click to expand...
No, during Borg's 5 year Wimbledon run he successfully served and volleyed a lot, Wilander only occasionally served and volleyed. As I said Wilander's slice backhand was better than Borg's but Borg's serve as better, forehand was better, drive backhand was better, Borg was faster and he was a more effective volleyer as proven by his 5 straight Wimbledon wins on the old fast grass where volley prowess meant more than it does today. How many Wimbledon singles titles did Wilander win?
 
Last edited:
JW10S said:
No, during Borg's 5 year Wimbledon run he successfully served and volleyed a lot, Wilander only occasionally served and volleyed. As I said Wilander's slice backhand was better than Borg's but Borg's serve as better, forehand was better, drive backhand was better, Borg was faster and he was a more effective volleyer as proven by his 5 straight Wimbledon wins on the old fast grass where volley prowess meant more than it does today. How many Wimbledon singles titles did Wilander win?
Click to expand...
Not sure fast low bouncing grass is the best determinator of a great volleyer so much as it is a great passing shot artist. Lol, bad volleys and poor approaches win a lot more points on fast low bouncing grass than they do on slower or higher bouncing surfaces. Maybe we should be more impressed by Borg's or Wilanders volleys on clay or hard courts than Wimbledon grass.
 
BTURNER said:
Not sure fast low bouncing grass is the best determinator of a great volleyer so much as it is a great passing shot artist. Lol, bad volleys and poor approaches win a lot more points on fast low bouncing grass than they do on slower or higher bouncing surfaces. Maybe we should be more impressed by Borg's or Wilanders volleys on clay or hard courts than Wimbledon grass.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Borg was a 'great' volleyer, just a better one than Wilander. But volleys were certainly more important to winning Wimbledon in Borg's day than it is now. Borg came to net more at Wimbledon than Wilander did anywhere.
 
And I think Wilander's zero Wimbledon singles wins reflect his inferior volleying--along with everything else other than his slice backhand. You had to be able to volley at Wimbledon back then to win, and Borg won 5 years straight...

I've made my point.
 
JW10S said:
No, during Borg's 5 year Wimbledon run he successfully served and volleyed a lot, Wilander only occasionally served and volleyed. As I said Wilander's slice backhand was better than Borg's but Borg's serve as better, forehand was better, drive backhand was better, Borg was faster and he was a more effective volleyer as proven by his 5 straight Wimbledon wins on the old fast grass where volley prowess meant more than it does today. How many Wimbledon singles titles did Wilander win?
Click to expand...
I was meaning volley alone. If Wilander had got to the net on a good ball, he had superior technique to Borg. Borg had a superior serve and speed to get to the net, it Wilander had better technique on the volley
 
timnz said:
I was meaning volley alone. If Wilander had got to the net on a good ball, he had superior technique to Borg. Borg had a superior serve and speed to get to the net, it Wilander had better technique on the volley
Click to expand...
Mats won the doubles at Wimbledon in 1986, and he was a finalist at the Aussie in 1984 and a finalist at the Open in 1986. He reached a career high ranking in doubles at #3 in the world in 1985 and won 7 other pro doubles titles and reached the finals of the tour masters in 1985 as well. I'd guess he knew what to do at net.

Borg barely broke 50% of his career matches in doubles. In the 5 major appearances in his career he reached three 3rd rounds and two semifinal. he does have 4 doubles titles otherwise.
 
Last edited:
While I'd easily say Borg was better overall and more successful, I would not discount Mats. He was incredibly versatile, a smart crafty player who could shift strokes and styles. As noted above, he could take down a serve and volleyer one day, then shift tactics and take out a top baseliner the next. He also served and volleyed on the AO grass. When he was "on' he was pretty impressive against Mac, Connors, Lendl, etc. Unfortunately, he flamed out after '88, which was massively disappointing.
 
Among the top 100 Borg was not one of the top 50 in the net game.
Mats could perhaps fit in the top 50. Maybe.
 
Pebbles10 said:
You never saw wilander in 88? A peak wilander would had won over Borg.
Click to expand...

Peak Wilander vs. peak Borg, in my view Borg wins at least 80% of the time. Wilander didn't have the power to get through Borg, and he wouldn't have been able to grind him down either, seeing that Borg was at least as consistent as him, and a better athlete. Agree that tactically Wilander is one of the most astute players ever, but his options would have been terribly limited against Borg.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Better slice, more variety, clearly better volleys (Borg's volleys were pretty weak technically, especially backhand), played S/V on grass.
Click to expand...

Don't understimate Borgs strokes, paticularly his volleys and approach, just becuase they didn't look pretty or technically sound. It belies their effectiveness. He had more effective volleys than Mats
 
He won 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams in his peak year of 1988 whereas Borg only ever won 2 but could never reach even a final at Wimbledon which Borg won 5 times in a row.

His Wimbledon record is a curious anomaly because he had already won 2 Slams on grass at the Australian Open so it's not as if he couldn't perform on that surface. He could never get past the quarter-finals at SW19 which he reached in 3 consecutive years, 1987-9. By contrast his fellow Swedish greats, Borg and Edberg, both won multiple titles there so, even by Swedish ATG standards, his Wimby record is a curious anomaly.
 
flanker2000fr said:
Peak Wilander vs. peak Borg, in my view Borg wins at least 80% of the time. Wilander didn't have the power to get through Borg, and he wouldn't have been able to grind him down either, seeing that Borg was at least as consistent as him, and a better athlete. Agree that tactically Wilander is one of the most astute players ever, but his options would have been terribly limited against Borg.
Click to expand...

Wilander did not need power to beat his opponents, such as Lendl. I think Wilander could hang in there with Borg, but as you say, could not grind him down. I think he'd need to take to the net, frankly.
 
jrepac said:
Wilander did not need power to beat his opponents, such as Lendl. I think Wilander could hang in there with Borg, but as you say, could not grind him down. I think he'd need to take to the net, frankly.
Click to expand...

Agreed that this would be his only sensible option. But not having a strong shot to come in behind, I would not fancy his chances there either, given how fast Borg was.
 
Its hard to believe that Wilander's record at Wimbledon is so bad. Not one semi. He was one of my favorite players in the 80's, but his awful wimbledon showings will forever tarnish his legacy.
 
aliceinpains said:
Its hard to believe that Wilander's record at Wimbledon is so bad. Not one semi. He was one of my favorite players in the 80's, but his awful wimbledon showings will forever tarnish his legacy.
Click to expand...

I never quite understood it; he played great at the AO. I know he ran into some top guys like Cash and McEnroe, but he had beaten them elsewhere. It was just strange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Agassi, French Open semi-final, 1988
Replies
15
Views
1K
Galvermegs
Galvermegs
W
Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Smid, Stockholm final, 1983
Replies
2
Views
695
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Edberg vs Wilander, Stockholm final, 1986
Replies
0
Views
797
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Cash, Masters round robin, 1987
Replies
1
Views
541
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Wilander, Tokyo Indoor final, 1985
Replies
1
Views
459
Waspsting
W
Back
Top