Did Wilander do anything better than Borg?

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
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.
Courier’s career was similar in that way.
 

galain

Hall of Fame
I think you guys are forgetting this more recent match, where Borg again showed he had the youngster's number...

 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Wilander was better at keeping the ball in play.

When he had to--if it was a really important point--Borg would come to the net and volley to end the point.
Wilander would keep the ball in play with slices and no-pace bunts till he could frustrate his opponent into making a mistake. (Worked well in the 1988 USO final.)
 

NicoMK

Professional
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.
Not so bad. His game in the early 80s was clearly not adapted to fast grass. He was successful in Australia but the grass was kinda different, with a higher bounce - that's what he said several times - so he could adapt and even beat true grass specialists, such as Curren or McEnroe.

His game really started to evolve to the net in late 84, 85 so with the exception of his 1st round loss that year (against Zivojinovic I think… another strong S&V player), in 1986 he lost to Cash in the R8, in 1987 he lost to Cash again in the quarters, Cash winning the title that year. In 1988, he lost to Mecir who played incredibly. After 1988 that was another story. In 1989 he still managed to reach the quarters where he lost a tight match against Johnny Mac.

Surely not an incredible record there in my opinion, but that ain't so bad either, is it? AND he won the 1986 Doubles title :cool: .
 
Last edited:
Not so bad. His game in the early 80s was clearly not adapted to fast grass. He was successful in Australia but the grass was kinda different, with a higher bounce - that's what he said several times - so he could adapt and even beat true grass specialists, such as Curren or McEnroe.

His game really started to evolve to the net in late 84, 85 so with the exception of his 1st round loss that year (against Zivojinovic I think… another strong S&V player), in 1986 he lost to Cash in the R8, in 1987 he lost to Cash again in the quarters, Cash winning the title that year. In 1988, he lost to Mecir who played incredibly. After 1988 that was another story. In 1989 he still managed to reach the quarters where he lost a tight match against Johnny Mac.

Surely not an incredible record there in my opinion, but that ain't so bad either, is it? AND he won the 1986 Doubles title :cool: .
In 86, it was the fourth round (R16) against Cash.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
You never saw wilander in 88? A peak wilander would had won over Borg.
Wilander hardly ever made an error and was a master of defense and a nightmare back board player
However he would win few games against Djoker or Nadal as he had very little power
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Did Wilander do any thing better than Borg? Yup. Marriage, managing his finances and controlling self-medication (ish).
All infinitely more important in the 'real world'.
 

NicoMK

Professional
It was a tad tongue in cheek, but Borg overdosed and Wilander failed a drugs test.
I think it was in 1989 for Borg... as for Mats, they said he was tested positive during the French Open 1995. I was still a kid back then and Mats was almost a God to me: posters, photos everywhere, rackets, apparel, shoes, magazines, videotapes, everything that I could collect... I remember when it came out, the day of the 1996 Australian Open final... when I heard the news I think I kinda died for a few minutes o_O...

But well, they never proved anything so for me nothing happened. Period :X3:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

NicoMK

Professional
However he would win few games against Djoker or Nadal as he had very little power
Hard to say, recurring debate. As many other players from the 80s field, Mats would have adapted.

Mats in 1995 hit harder and was probably physically stronger than the younger Wilander in 1982-83, but he was also not as tough mentally (as said before) and probably less resistant too.
 
Last edited:

Notorious_Junkballer

Professional
I loved Wilander and his Rossignol rackets, even though he was a pusher that never took any chances. :)
The only times disliked him when he was facing Lendl and won.
 
Last edited:

Sabratha

Banned
I don't think so - but different time periods and equipment breed different results. Borg definitely had more success and (to me at least) had more effective weapons against the field.

Wilander was an inhuman backboard with unmatched tenacity.
 

goldenera

Semi-Pro
You can see their US Ooen final in 88
Not sure the Aussie match is reachable
And in their first encounter at RG 82 Mats played some very efficient serve and volley too
 

Thetouch

Professional
In a peak vs peak comparison Borg might have been the better player and maybe dominate him in a h2h record but Mats proved something that Borg couldn't due to his retirement: he proved himself against the new generation of hard hitters and serve & volley players (Becker, Edberg, Cash, Agassi) and against peak Lendl and peak McEnroe on multiple ocassions. The only thing that makes Mats look weaker was his shorter career on top but then again Borg's career wasn't that long either. Had he continued playing tennis he might have played just like Wilander after the '88 season.
 

barone

Rookie
Many rem Wilander wrong. Rem only the grinds but he could hit hard serves to and play offensive. Just saw 88 au openfinal against Cash and he throw in some great serves now and then and followed up to the net. He played procentage-tennis.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Better backhand slice, better volleys, much better doubles player. Probably better tactician. Also, he had better opposition with Lendl, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker, Mecir, Cash, Noah, Leconte and an army of clay court specialists.
 

goldenera

Semi-Pro
Not fast..raw speed is laver,borg,kriek,vitas
Great footwork andcanticipation yes..he compares to movers like Chang,Rosewall maybe mac in that sense
 

goldenera

Semi-Pro
Better backhand slice, better volleys, much better doubles player. Probably better tactician. Also, he had better opposition with Lendl, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker, Mecir, Cash, Noah, Leconte and an army of clay court specialists.
Much doubt that he had better oppodition
Cash is onetimer,noah too..mecir? ..never played peak connors peak vilas peak nastase peak newcombe peak gerulaitis..and so on
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Much doubt that he had better oppodition
Cash is onetimer,noah too..mecir? ..never played peak connors peak vilas peak nastase peak newcombe peak gerulaitis..and so on
"And so on!"? Who? By the way, Gerulaitis was a one-timer too (AO). I'd say, Tanner (also a one-timer, AO) was pretty dangerous for Borg, though. Newcombe was not really peak in the Borg-era, and neither was Nastase. All in all, I think that Wilander's competition was tougher than Borgs due to the variety of good players. Wilander had Peak Lendl (Borg did not), Peak McEnroe – and Edberg/Becker along with the others.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Tanner leads 1-0
Vitas is 1-1
And not certainly Borgie worst oppobents so far
What do you mean "leads 1-0" and "1-1"? What do those numbers represent? Borg was 16-0 H2H with Gerulaitis and 10-2 against Tanner. And I never said they were his worst opponents. They were pretty mediocre.
 

goldenera

Semi-Pro
Imagine mats is 1-2 behind those " mediocre" opponents...
Not a one single indoor title for Wilander..only one final ,the most one sided of all time in Masters history
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Mats was a kid back then, not in any way relevant for his career. And Borg was still a kid when he faced prime Nastase. These match-ups aren't really relevant in terms of their careers overall. It's not like Gerulaitis or Tanner were Wilander's rivals. Nastase was over the hill in '77 when Borg went into his prime.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Imagine mats is 1-2 behind those " mediocre" opponents...
Not a one single indoor title for Wilander..only one final ,the most one sided of all time in Masters history
Mats won Stockholm Open indoors in 1983 (and Brussels Indoors twice) which is also the year he had as many GS-titles as Gerulaitis and Tanner had between them. I never said Wilander was better than Borg, I just think that he had tougher, more varied competition. Borg had Connors and McEnroe as his main rivals – and Wilander had McEnroe, Lendl, Becker and Edberg (and a still pretty good Connors) – and a broader field of competent opponents.
 

goldenera

Semi-Pro
Borg obviously was the better player..ask them to switch records.
Much more power,speed and a better competitor as well
 
Top