How do you rank Becker, Edberg, Wilander

These 3 are often grouped together. What order would you rank them in. I probably go:

1. Edberg- Simply since he was YE#1 back to back years, which I think is a big thing. Plus winning multiple slams at 3 different venues.
2. Wilander- He has the most slams- 7, and has won multiple slams on each surface, including the Australian Open twice on grass in pretty well attended fields, unlike say Vilas's 2 Australian Opens on grass.
3. Becker- With only 6 slams, only 1 U.S Open, no French final, and little time at #1, his resume on paper is the weakest. It feels strange putting him last, but it seems by the stats that is probably where he should be, unless you credit his YEC highly.
 

madhavan

New User
Wimbledon was supremely important in the 80s (even more so than today) and not just another slam, so Becker's 3 wins there were huge and Wilander should get some marks taken off for not doing that well there. To rank these 3, we can ask which of them would have rather had another's career. My guesses - don't think Becker would trade with either of them. Edberg might take Becker's instead and Wilander would probably take both of theirs over his. So my ranking would be Becker, then Edberg, then Wilander. That also feels right from a game perspective - Becker had huge artillery and was a great big match player. He really should have won a lot more than he did and been much more dominant - witness his superb performances in Davis Cup when he was fully focused. Edberg was also amazing (my absolute all time favourite), incredible on everything on the backhand side (return, slice, topspin, volley, you name it), great forehand volley, wonderful footwork, his speed was a killer. By contrast to these two, Wilander had nothing flashy, but was amazing consistent and his goal was to just never miss. As an aside, I was recently reading the book `Bjorn Borg and the Super Swedes' and there was an interesting revelation from Wilander about how he developed a very good slice in the mid-80s, but starting relying on it so much that he lost technique/confidence in his two-hander! Also, an interview with Tony Pickard somewhere where he said that Edberg (around 1995?) changed his volley grip to get more power, but Pickard made him change it back since he was missing much more.
 
Depends on how you compare them (and there are so many ways...)


Head to head:

1. Becker has a winning record against both Swedes (7-3 vs Mats, 25-10 vs Stefan).
2. Wilander has a winning record against Stefan (11-9), and also dated Stefan's wife Annette when they were at school in Vaxjo.
3. Edberg is a feeble, useless layabout and lollygagger.


Record vs Lendl, the dominant player of their era:

1. Edberg is 14-13, and 5-4 in slams
2. Becker is 10-11, but 5-1 in slams
3. Wilander is 7-15, and 4-5 in slams

...but Wilander and Becker score bonus points because Lendl thinks they're both a***holes.


Social media presence:

1. Becker has 300k followers on Instagram, 600k followers on Twitter, and picks online fights with Nick Kyrgios. Easy win.
2. Wilander has barely 13k followers on Instagram, and has tweeted only five times. And one of those was just a link to his LinkedIn profile. Ewwww.
3. Edberg doesn't seem to have any social media accounts, so even Mats looks cool next to him.


Financial acumen:

1. Edberg runs his own hedge fund. Well out in front here.
2. Wilander recently sold his 80-acre ranch in Idaho for $4.75 million, so he's likely not stressing about paying the bills.
3. Becker's familiar with bankruptcy proceedings.


Most fun at parties:

1. Wilander, with his 1997 suspension for cocaine use and experience shredding his axe onstage with Yannick Noah, tops this list.
2. Becker comes second, unless he's in a broom cupboard with a waitress.
3. Edberg... runs his own hedge fund.


Most likely to impregnate your daughter:

1. Becker by a country mile. In fact, have you seen your daughter in the last five minutes? It may already be too late.
2. Wilander has four kids, so likely as keen a shagger as Andy Murray.
3. Edberg is so nice they named a sportsmanship award after him, and we all know your daughter prefers bad boys.


Most reliable wingman in a bar fight:

1. Edberg. A shock victory here for the mild-mannered Stefan, because he's the only one of the trio to have killed a man. It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for.
2. Becker. Towering over his Swedish rivals, he can not only rely on his Aryan Übermench strength, but the lethal weapons his elbows have recently become.
3. Wilander. Smaller and faster than the others, and therefore less useful in battle and more likely to flee the scene to save himself.


Least likely to require plastic surgery:

1. Edberg remains impressively immune to the passing of time. The hair's a little thinner, but otherwise he's in fine fettle.
2. Wilander. Not a bad looker, but a wee bit wrinkly now that he's in his late 50s.
3. Becker looks like he already went under the knife, and should perhaps be demanding a refund.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
Becker pretty much always figures as #1 between the 3 and for a lot of good reasons. His pure talent and top level game is at least by popular opinion flat out better. He could beat anyone. His time at #1 is a major point of contending that the rankings are trash because it boils down to one man and one man only, Lendl who had more points off playing more tournaments and yes being damn consistent but percentage tennis. So the question always comes down to Mats vs. Stefan.

My take was initially to have Edberg ahead and his 1992 USO run is the stuff of legend but Wilander had fantastic results very young and his 1988 season especially for that time period was insane. Edberg never won multiple Slams in any season and his 1991 YE isn't all that impressive and a product of circumstance rather than dominance.

So Becker 1, Wilander 2 then Edberg.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Depends on how you compare them (and there are so many ways...)


Head to head:

1. Becker has a winning record against both Swedes (7-3 vs Mats, 25-10 vs Stefan).
2. Wilander has a winning record against Stefan (11-9), and also dated Stefan's wife Annette when they were at school in Vaxjo.
3. Edberg is a feeble, useless layabout and lollygagger.


Record vs Lendl, the dominant player of their era:

1. Edberg is 14-13, and 5-4 in slams
2. Becker is 10-11, but 5-1 in slams
3. Wilander is 7-15, and 4-5 in slams

...but Wilander and Becker score bonus points because Lendl thinks they're both a***holes.


Social media presence:

1. Becker has 300k followers on Instagram, 600k followers on Twitter, and picks online fights with Nick Kyrgios. Easy win.
2. Wilander has barely 13k followers on Instagram, and has tweeted only five times. And one of those was just a link to his LinkedIn profile. Ewwww.
3. Edberg doesn't seem to have any social media accounts, so even Mats looks cool next to him.


Financial acumen:

1. Edberg runs his own hedge fund. Well out in front here.
2. Wilander recently sold his 80-acre ranch in Idaho for $4.75 million, so he's likely not stressing about paying the bills.
3. Becker's familiar with bankruptcy proceedings.


Most fun at parties:

1. Wilander, with his 1997 suspension for cocaine use and experience shredding his axe onstage with Yannick Noah, tops this list.
2. Becker comes second, unless he's in a broom cupboard with a waitress.
3. Edberg... runs his own hedge fund.


Most likely to impregnate your daughter:

1. Becker by a country mile. In fact, have you seen your daughter in the last five minutes? It may already be too late.
2. Wilander has four kids, so likely as keen a shagger as Andy Murray.
3. Edberg is so nice they named a sportsmanship award after him, and we all know your daughter prefers bad boys.


Most reliable wingman in a bar fight:

1. Edberg. A shock victory here for the mild-mannered Stefan, because he's the only one of the trio to have killed a man. It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for.
2. Becker. Towering over his Swedish rivals, he can not only rely on his Aryan Übermench strength, but the lethal weapons his elbows have recently become.
3. Wilander. Smaller and faster than the others, and therefore less useful in battle and more likely to flee the scene to save himself.


Least likely to require plastic surgery:

1. Edberg remains impressively immune to the passing of time. The hair's a little thinner, but otherwise he's in fine fettle.
2. Wilander. Not a bad looker, but a wee bit wrinkly now that he's in his late 50s.
3. Becker looks like he already went under the knife, and should perhaps be demanding a refund.
The true ranking must be based on how each feels anout Zverev.
 
Wimbledon was supremely important in the 80s (even more so than today) and not just another slam, so Becker's 3 wins there were huge and Wilander should get some marks taken off for not doing that well there. To rank these 3, we can ask which of them would have rather had another's career. My guesses - don't think Becker would trade with either of them. Edberg might take Becker's instead and Wilander would probably take both of theirs over his. So my ranking would be Becker, then Edberg, then Wilander. That also feels right from a game perspective - Becker had huge artillery and was a great big match player. He really should have won a lot more than he did and been much more dominant - witness his superb performances in Davis Cup when he was fully focused. Edberg was also amazing (my absolute all time favourite), incredible on everything on the backhand side (return, slice, topspin, volley, you name it), great forehand volley, wonderful footwork, his speed was a killer. By contrast to these two, Wilander had nothing flashy, but was amazing consistent and his goal was to just never miss. As an aside, I was recently reading the book `Bjorn Borg and the Super Swedes' and there was an interesting revelation from Wilander about how he developed a very good slice in the mid-80s, but starting relying on it so much that he lost technique/confidence in his two-hander! Also, an interview with Tony Pickard somewhere where he said that Edberg (around 1995?) changed his volley grip to get more power, but Pickard made him change it back since he was missing much more.
Good assessment, but I honestly don't think Edberg would trade his career for Becker. I think he would prefer the time at #1, defending his U.S Open title, along with still winning a couple Wimbledons, but only he knows for sure.

Wilander I could see if he were someone else trading his career for Edberg or Becker, but he was not passionate about Wimbledon at all the way say Lendl was. So I really am not sure at all about him trading his career for Becker's imparticular.
 

dryeagle

New User
In terms of Grand Slams, I have a hard time including Aus Opens before 1988 and calling that a major. Big tournaments but were played in December on terrible grass courts, many top players didn't enter and they didn't even have 128 player draws.

Mats and Stefan drew two early Aussies each. IMO, that puts Boris #1, Mats #2 and Stefan #3.
 

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
In terms of whom I personally rooted for it was Edberg, then ..... probably Wilander followed by Becker.

The other rankings don't really matter to me - they're pretty equal overall.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
These 3 are often grouped together. What order would you rank them in. I probably go:

1. Edberg- Simply since he was YE#1 back to back years, which I think is a big thing. Plus winning multiple slams at 3 different venues.
2. Wilander- He has the most slams- 7, and has won multiple slams on each surface, including the Australian Open twice on grass in pretty well attended fields, unlike say Vilas's 2 Australian Opens on grass.
3. Becker- With only 6 slams, only 1 U.S Open, no French final, and little time at #1, his resume on paper is the weakest. It feels strange putting him last, but it seems by the stats that is probably where he should be, unless you credit his YEC highly.
EDBERG
WILANDER
BECKER
FOR REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. Like Agassi, Becker was somewhat overrated.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
These 3 are often grouped together. What order would you rank them in. I probably go:

1. Edberg- Simply since he was YE#1 back to back years, which I think is a big thing. Plus winning multiple slams at 3 different venues.
2. Wilander- He has the most slams- 7, and has won multiple slams on each surface, including the Australian Open twice on grass in pretty well attended fields, unlike say Vilas's 2 Australian Opens on grass.
3. Becker- With only 6 slams, only 1 U.S Open, no French final, and little time at #1, his resume on paper is the weakest. It feels strange putting him last, but it seems by the stats that is probably where he should be, unless you credit his YEC highly.
TRUE AND WELL STATED!
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Depends on how you compare them (and there are so many ways...)


Head to head:

1. Becker has a winning record against both Swedes (7-3 vs Mats, 25-10 vs Stefan).
2. Wilander has a winning record against Stefan (11-9), and also dated Stefan's wife Annette when they were at school in Vaxjo.
3. Edberg is a feeble, useless layabout and lollygagger.


Record vs Lendl, the dominant player of their era:

1. Edberg is 14-13, and 5-4 in slams
2. Becker is 10-11, but 5-1 in slams
3. Wilander is 7-15, and 4-5 in slams

...but Wilander and Becker score bonus points because Lendl thinks they're both a***holes.


Social media presence:

1. Becker has 300k followers on Instagram, 600k followers on Twitter, and picks online fights with Nick Kyrgios. Easy win.
2. Wilander has barely 13k followers on Instagram, and has tweeted only five times. And one of those was just a link to his LinkedIn profile. Ewwww.
3. Edberg doesn't seem to have any social media accounts, so even Mats looks cool next to him.


Financial acumen:

1. Edberg runs his own hedge fund. Well out in front here.
2. Wilander recently sold his 80-acre ranch in Idaho for $4.75 million, so he's likely not stressing about paying the bills.
3. Becker's familiar with bankruptcy proceedings.


Most fun at parties:

1. Wilander, with his 1997 suspension for cocaine use and experience shredding his axe onstage with Yannick Noah, tops this list.
2. Becker comes second, unless he's in a broom cupboard with a waitress.
3. Edberg... runs his own hedge fund.


Most likely to impregnate your daughter:

1. Becker by a country mile. In fact, have you seen your daughter in the last five minutes? It may already be too late.
2. Wilander has four kids, so likely as keen a shagger as Andy Murray.
3. Edberg is so nice they named a sportsmanship award after him, and we all know your daughter prefers bad boys.


Most reliable wingman in a bar fight:

1. Edberg. A shock victory here for the mild-mannered Stefan, because he's the only one of the trio to have killed a man. It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for.
2. Becker. Towering over his Swedish rivals, he can not only rely on his Aryan Übermench strength, but the lethal weapons his elbows have recently become.
3. Wilander. Smaller and faster than the others, and therefore less useful in battle and more likely to flee the scene to save himself.


Least likely to require plastic surgery:

1. Edberg remains impressively immune to the passing of time. The hair's a little thinner, but otherwise he's in fine fettle.
2. Wilander. Not a bad looker, but a wee bit wrinkly now that he's in his late 50s.
3. Becker looks like he already went under the knife, and should perhaps be demanding a refund.
One of the wittiest posts I've seen here - kudos!
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
These 3 are often grouped together. What order would you rank them in. I probably go:

1. Edberg- Simply since he was YE#1 back to back years, which I think is a big thing. Plus winning multiple slams at 3 different venues.
2. Wilander- He has the most slams- 7, and has won multiple slams on each surface, including the Australian Open twice on grass in pretty well attended fields, unlike say Vilas's 2 Australian Opens on grass.
3. Becker- With only 6 slams, only 1 U.S Open, no French final, and little time at #1, his resume on paper is the weakest. It feels strange putting him last, but it seems by the stats that is probably where he should be, unless you credit his YEC highly.
I think whomever ended up #3 would look weird. I could argue in Beckers case the following

He has the most career titles of the three with 49. Edberg has 41 and Wilander 33. He also has way more match wins then Wilander. He also won the YEC 3 times, which Edberg only won once and Wilander never got at all.

It really is a merry go round argument of what you value most. I could argue any of them being #1...and also justify any of them being on the bottom
 
In terms of Grand Slams, I have a hard time including Aus Opens before 1988 and calling that a major. Big tournaments but were played in December on terrible grass courts, many top players didn't enter and they didn't even have 128 player draws.

Mats and Stefan drew two early Aussies each. IMO, that puts Boris #1, Mats #2 and Stefan #3.
Although by 83 the draws in Australia were already starting to become pretty good. With most people playing.

Still probably not quite the same as the other majors until starting 92 or so though.
 
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Could you give some brief explanations. Sorry to ask that, but I do love reading peoples reasons for their rankings, as I made this thread particularly since I believe it is a tough call between all 3. I am learning some new things about each through this thread. The closest equivalent I can think of is ranking Courier, Muster, Bruguera against each other as a trio of contemporaries from the same era on clay.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I look at records vs the best players. Why? Because it shows the ability to win a tough draw, instead of relying on a cream puff draw.

Records vs #1:
Becker: 19-17, .528
Edberg: 9-16, .360
Wilander: 5-17, .227

Records vs top 5:
Becker: 68-42, .618
Edberg: 49-73, .402
Wilander: 29-39, .426

Due to the above, I'm going:
1. Becker: This was an easy pick for me.
2. Edberg: This was a tough battle with Wilander. But I ultimate chose Edberg, due to his better amount of wins vs the top players, along with his 72 weeks at #1(Wilander had 20, Becker had 12).
3. Wilander: His peak didn't last long enough, otherwise, he's at #2 here.
 
I look at records vs the best players. Why? Because it shows the ability to win a tough draw, instead of relying on a cream puff draw.

Records vs #1:
Becker: 19-17, .528
Edberg: 9-16, .360
Wilander: 5-17, .227

Records vs top 5:
Becker: 68-42, .618
Edberg: 49-73, .402
Wilander: 29-39, .426

Due to the above, I'm going:
1. Becker: This was an easy pick for me.
2. Edberg: This was a tough battle with Wilander. But I ultimate chose Edberg, due to his better amount of wins vs the top players, along with his 72 weeks at #1(Wilander had 20, Becker had 12).
3. Wilander: His peak didn't last long enough, otherwise, he's at #2 here.
Wow thanks for that stat. That is something I had no idea about, but that does shed some light. I think I go back on my original rankings now. That is the most telling stat so far.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
These 3 are often grouped together. What order would you rank them in. I probably go:

1. Edberg- Simply since he was YE#1 back to back years, which I think is a big thing. Plus winning multiple slams at 3 different venues.
2. Wilander- He has the most slams- 7, and has won multiple slams on each surface, including the Australian Open twice on grass in pretty well attended fields, unlike say Vilas's 2 Australian Opens on grass.
3. Becker- With only 6 slams, only 1 U.S Open, no French final, and little time at #1, his resume on paper is the weakest. It feels strange putting him last, but it seems by the stats that is probably where he should be, unless you credit his YEC highly.
Yec was one of the biggest tournament, Becker has 5 yec ( one GS cup, one wtc also) .
Becker ( 6 slam, 13 master level tournament, 5 yec, 49 titles ) > Edberg( 6 slam, 8 masters, 1 yec, 41 tournaments) > Wilander( 6 slam, 8 master, 33 titles, 0 yec)
 
Yec was one of the biggest tournament, Becker has 5 yec ( one GS cup, one wtc also) .
Becker ( 6 slam, 13 master level tournament, 5 yec, 49 titles ) > Edberg( 6 slam, 8 masters, 1 yec, 41 tournaments) > Wilander( 6 slam, 8 master, 33 titles, 0 yec)
I don't think the GS Cup can be considered on par with the WTF at all, but great break down.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
I don't think the GS Cup can be considered on par with the WTF at all, but great break down.
The thing was at that time apart from one odd gs cup like 96 and 98 one others were played with great intensity and were better than masters tournament
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Could you give some brief explanations. Sorry to ask that, but I do love reading peoples reasons for their rankings, as I made this thread particularly since I believe it is a tough call between all 3. I am learning some new things about each through this thread. The closest equivalent I can think of is ranking Courier, Muster, Bruguera against each other as a trio of contemporaries from the same era on clay.
1983 AO was bad in terms of depth, but Wilander did beat Mac and Lendl b2b.
1984 was worse.
Wilander doesn't even have a semi at Wimbledon or a YEC.
His biggest plus over the other 2 of course is his 3 slam year in 1988.
But still 3rd IMO.

Becker was significantly better indoors than even Edberg. Better at Wimbledon.
Edberg better at AO and USO though (pretty unlucky at AO on rebound ace).
Becker's indoor record+Davis cup heroics+better top 10 record seals it in his favour compared to Edberg (who does have the #1 ranking as an advantage)
 

goldengate14

Professional
Wilander is way behind Becker and Edberg as is Lendl. Reason? No wimbledon. Wimbledon is the higgest title in tennis and a player simply has to have it when compared to other Atgs.
Becker v Edberg is hard. Becker more m1000s and better h2h although at Majors was 1-3 v Edberg. Becker never won a title on clay. edberg no.1 much longer.
becker had the greater career for sure. So he would top this mini league. Edberg was a better player though as more versatile and consistent.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
i find this to be an extremely difficult assignment other than the fact that mats didn’t win wimby makes it tough to rank him #1….but the extra slam and teenage slam win do complicate things.

if i must: edberg, becker, mats
 
When Mecir swiftly defeated Wilander at Wimbledon, Wilander was 10 matches'short' of a grand slam. It cannot be taken for granted that he will win uso.
I guess its how you look at it. lol. But nevertheless, he went 25-1 in Grand Slams that year.. Pretty impressive.
 

fezer

Rookie
Well, he did win the Wimbledon men's doubles title. If that counts for anything?
Of course. Additionally He won the decisive rubber in the dc final in Germany in 85 with Nystroem.
Edberg hast by far the best doubles carreer of the trio. Was #1 in singles & doubles! But had the best partner!
Becker has an olympic gold! Which none of the others have! And he beat the #1pair (Edberg/Jarryd) on Swedish clay in 88 dc final.
So it will be a very close call any way.
My vote goes to Becker, Edberg, Wilander.
Reasons: GS Performance ist pretty even, because early AO titles of the Swedes were won vs a depleted field with signifikant less prize money and points. Becker has by far the best YEC and DC performance.
But still you can reasonably speak for any option
 
Last edited:

fezer

Rookie
I guess its how you look at it. lol. But nevertheless, he went 25-1 in Grand Slams that year.. Pretty impressive.
Of course IT looks very impressive now. In the course of 1988 i had never the feeling that Wilander was as dominant as Lendl the years before. Mats had lots of very close matches, that could have gone either way (Edberg, Cash, Sanchez twice, Zivojinovic come to my mind). He did win them. Strong effort No doubt. But still He wasnt such an imposing figure. And hadnt Lendl been injured in fall, He could have easily regain#1 with only a few indoor tourneys!
 
Of course IT looks very impressive now. In the course of 1988 i had never the feeling that Wilander was as dominant as Lendl the years before. Mats had lots of very close matches, that could have gone either way (Edberg, Cash, Sanchez twice, Zivojinovic come to my mind). He did win them. Strong effort No doubt. But still He wasnt such an imposing figure. And hadnt Lendl been injured in fall, He could have easily regain#1 with only a few indoor tourneys!
Regain #1? Wilander was the clear best player that year. 3 slams to Lendl - 0. Wilander's 88 was better than any year Lendl had imo.
 
Of course IT looks very impressive now. In the course of 1988 i had never the feeling that Wilander was as dominant as Lendl the years before. Mats had lots of very close matches, that could have gone either way (Edberg, Cash, Sanchez twice, Zivojinovic come to my mind). He did win them. Strong effort No doubt. But still He wasnt such an imposing figure. And hadnt Lendl been injured in fall, He could have easily regain#1 with only a few indoor tourneys!
It's because he wasn't. 1988 was Wilander's annus mirabilis for sure, but beyond the headline three-slams-in-one-season achievement it was an underwhelming year. Here's how he compared to Lendl's 1985-87:

SlamsTitles wonMatches wonvs Top 5vs Top 10losses to rank <20losses to rank <50losses to rank <100
Lendl, 1985W, F, SF, R41184-7 (92.3%)13-321-3200
Lendl, 19862W, F974-6 (92.5%)11-214-5100
Lendl, 19872W, F, SF874-7 (91.4%)9-116-2400
Wilander, 19883W, QF653-11 (82.8%)3-27-4852

You can see that Lendl's dominance stems from the fact that he rarely lost to players outside the top 10. For three years in a row he never lost to a player outside the top 50, something Mats managed five times in his single greatest season. If you weren't a McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, or Edberg, you really had little chance against Ivan, who was a combined 232-20 over three seasons, 33-6 against the top five, and 58-14 against the top ten. Wilander meanwhile, in his greatest year, found time to lose to Horacio De La Pena (#126) and Claudio Pistolesi (#154).
 
Last edited:
It's because he wasn't. 1988 was Wilander's annus mirabilis for sure, but beyond the headline three-slams-in-one-season achievement it was an underwhelming year. Here's how he compared to Lendl's 1985-87:

SlamsTitles wonMatches wonvs Top 5vs Top 10losses to rank <20losses to rank <50losses to rank <100
Lendl, 1985W, F, SF, R41184-7 (92.3%)13-321-3200
Lendl, 19862W, F974-6 (92.5%)11-214-5100
Lendl, 19872W, F, SF874-7 (91.4%)9-116-2400
Wilander, 19883W, QF653-11 (82.8%)3-27-4852
I would still take year 88 if I had to choose one. The 3 slams trumps anything else.
 

fezer

Rookie
Regain #1? Wilander was the clear best player that year. 3 slams to Lendl - 0. Wilander's 88 was better than any year Lendl had imo.
Lendl didnt Play after uso, because of injury. Had he played a mediocre Indoor season for his standard, he certainly wouldve overtaken Wilander! Wilander took the #1 spot after the uso final and IT was close in terms of Ranking points. Believe it or not. Points are the only thing that matter for the ranking. Lendl wasnt that far behind with qf or better in any slam andcseveral titles (Rome, MC).
 

fezer

Rookie
It's because he wasn't. 1988 was Wilander's annus mirabilis for sure, but beyond the headline three-slams-in-one-season achievement it was an underwhelming year. Here's how he compared to Lendl's 1985-87:

SlamsTitles wonMatches wonvs Top 5vs Top 10losses to rank <20losses to rank <50losses to rank <100
Lendl, 1985W, F, SF, R41184-7 (92.3%)13-321-3200
Lendl, 19862W, F974-6 (92.5%)11-214-5100
Lendl, 19872W, F, SF874-7 (91.4%)9-116-2400
Wilander, 19883W, QF653-11 (82.8%)3-27-4852
Thank you. For supporting my thesis with numbers!
 
Lendl didnt Play after uso, because of injury. Had he played a mediocre Indoor season for his standard, he certainly wouldve overtaken Wilander! Wilander took the #1 spot after the uso final and IT was close in terms of Ranking points. Believe it or not. Points are the only thing that matter for the ranking. Lendl wasnt that far behind with qf or better in any slam andcseveral titles (Rome, MC).
Would've, could've, should've. HA
 
Top