Is Mats Wilander the most underated player of all time?

[The Pusher Terminator]

In 1988 Mats Wilander almost pulled off winning all the grandslams...he won the US, French, and the AO! The AO was on grass back then!

He has won a total of 7 grandslam titles...AO-83,84,88/ French 82,85,88/ US 88.

His 82 French open title made him the first unseeded grand slam winner in open history.

He broke lendls 157 week run as No. 1 and was one of the only players ever to win Grand slam titles on grass , clay and hard with intelligent and relentless defensive play.

He has as many GS titles as Mcenroe and only one less than Lendl...but no one ever talks about this guy. What the heck is going on here???

 

[VGP]

I think it's a reflection of his personality. He let his racket do the talking.

No one in the tennis world underrates Wilander.

 

[opiate]

No one who is a real tennis fan dares to underrates his achievements, IMO. But to the general public, I guess. Because the media and publicity machines are stumped on how to publicise him. He's very... well, eloquent on court, but... *shrugs* like that.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

I think it's a reflection of his personality. He let his racket do the talking.

No one in the tennis world underrates Wilander.

Borg let his racquet do the talking as well....but there is a heck of lot more discussion about Borg. With 11 grandslams and never winning the US open. A better record than Mats' 7 for sure....but Mats did win on all three surfaces.

Lendl let his racquet do the talking as well with 8 GS's compared to mats' 7...but there is a heck of lot more talk about Lendl. I am not reallysure lendl was the better player! Mats won on every surface and in 88 he almost won it all!

Edberg also let his racquet do the talking with 6 GS titles compared to Mats' 7...yet there is a lot moe talk about Edberg.

Finally..the Book of tennis by Chris Bowers has this description of Mats:

"Often underestimated Swede who was world's top player in 88 and topped rankings for 20 weeks."

Shall I go on?

 

[VGP]

Well, as to Borg, before him there were no big Swedish tennis stars. Also, his personality stood in contrast to the brash Connors and firey McEnroe. The same could be said about Lendl.

Lendl's contribution to fitness also stood out. Although I remember and SI cover with Lendl on it saying "the champion that nobody cares about."

Edberg was a supreme S&V player. Not typical Swedish play and he stood in contrast to Becker.

Mats Wilander kinda stood in the middle of all of this. He had that rock solid mental toughness and baseline game with the subtle usage of the one-handed slice backhand. He was quiet and had a game that wasn't considered flashy. He was part of a then growing Swedish tennis tradition.

I always thought Mats was a great player and a good role model. But, it probably didn't help that once he reached number 1, at the time he was the first top player to quickly lose and not regain the top spot.

People that underestimate Mats Wilander are the people that don't understand the great tennis player that he was.

 

[chaognosis]

Wilander's a great player, and I think most serious tennis fans rate him fairly. He's not at the level of Borg, McEnroe, or Lendl, though.

 

[FiveO]

Borg let his racquet do the talking as well....but there is a heck of lot more discussion about Borg. With 11 grandslams and never winning the US open. A better record than Mats' 7 for sure....but Mats did win on all three surfaces.

Lendl let his racquet do the talking as well with 8 GS's compared to mats' 7...but there is a heck of lot more talk about Lendl. I am not reallysure lendl was the better player! Mats won on every surface and in 88 he almost won it all!

Edberg also let his racquet do the talking with 6 GS titles compared to Mats' 7...yet there is a lot moe talk about Edberg.

Finally..the Book of tennis by Chris Bowers has this description of Mats:

"Often underestimated Swede who was world's top player in 88 and topped rankings for 20 weeks."

Shall I go on?

Anyone who knows tennis knows Wilander is one of the greats. JMc speaks of him more than anyone other than Borg. The explanation for why he doesn't have his name thrown about as much as others most likely lies in the following:

1) he wasn't controversial (Lendl, McEnroe and Connors were)

2) he was never a teen idol (Borg)

3) he wasn't the first Swede to make his mark in history (Borg)

4) he simply wasn't Bjorn Borg and didn't win like Borg did.

5) he didn't play to the crowd (Connors, McEnroe)

6) most importantly, I think, of his seven majors he never won a Wimbledon crown and only (sarcastically) one US Open.

Contrast that to the players above:

Lendl 8 US Open finals in a row winning 3 Open titles and controversial to boot.

Edberg 2 US Open and 2 Wimbledon crowns and in '88 when Wilander won those 3 majors, Edberg won what is still widely regarded as the crown jewel of tennis, Wimbledon, ending any talk about a Grand Slam for Mats that year by July.

He was great, but he wasn't a media darling and he wasn't as great in the two events the American media love most, Wimbledon and the US Open.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Well, as to Borg, before him there were no big Swedish tennis stars. Also, his personality stood in contrast to the brash Connors and firey McEnroe. The same could be said about Lendl.

Lendl's contribution to fitness also stood out. Although I remember and SI cover with Lendl on it saying "the champion that nobody cares about."

Edberg was a supreme S&V player. Not typical Swedish play and he stood in contrast to Becker.

Mats Wilander kinda stood in the middle of all of this. He had that rock solid mental toughness and baseline game with the subtle usage of the one-handed slice backhand. He was quiet and had a game that wasn't considered flashy. He was part of a then growing Swedish tennis tradition.

I always thought Mats was a great player and a good role model. But, it probably didn't help that once he reached number 1, at the time he was the first top player to quickly lose and not regain the top spot.

People that underestimate Mats Wilander are the people that don't understand the great tennis player that he was.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion....but I think that Mats Wilander was the greatest runner/counter puncher the world has ever seen. Chang's style was similar to Mats....but Mats made Chang look like an amateur. Incidentally...everyone talks more about Chang than Mats. And Chang was another player who let his racquet do the talking.

Mats did not regain the top spot because he was tired! After winning three out of four grandslams on three different surfaces in one year...he was pooped! His style of play did not help much either. As the book of tennis points out:

"His energy-intensive style of play prevented lengthy period of dominance"

The guy ran and ran and ran until he just could not run anymore.

 

[FiveO]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion....but I think that Mats Wilander was the greatest runner/counter puncher the world has ever seen. Chang's style was similar to Mats....but Mats made Chang look like an amateur. Incidentally...everyone talks more about Chang than Mats. And Chang was another player who let his racquet do the talking.

Mats did not regain the top spot because he was tired! After winning three out of four grandslams on three different surfaces in one year...he was pooped! His style of play did not help much either. As the book of tennis points out:

"His energy-intensive style of play prevented lengthy period of dominance"

The guy ran and ran and ran until he just could not run anymore.

Mats supposedly is a really honest and introspective guy and I recall him admitting in more than one interview that once he reached number one he suffered a spiritual and motivation let down asking himself something like "what else is there" and questioning whether he had the will to maintain that level and do what it took to stay at the top. I remember he himself stating that he knew his run was over at that point.

 

[big ted]

wilander won 33 singles totals which is 1/2 to 1/3 the amount that lendl, mac, connors, sampras, agassi, etc. did/are..., he never won wimbledon as fiveo pointed out , didnt even get past the qtrs there in his career if i remeber correctly, and was a year end no 1 ,one time in 88 compared to the other greats who were multiple year end no 1s (except agassi). taht said he is overlooked i think he had as good or better mental game then anyone and he might be underrated as much as boris becker is overrated -

 

[davey]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion....but I think that Mats Wilander was the greatest runner/counter puncher the world has ever seen. Chang's style was similar to Mats....but Mats made Chang look like an amateur. Incidentally...everyone talks more about Chang than Mats. And Chang was another player who let his racquet do the talking.

Mats did not regain the top spot because he was tired! After winning three out of four grandslams on three different surfaces in one year...he was pooped! His style of play did not help much either. As the book of tennis points out:

"His energy-intensive style of play prevented lengthy period of dominance"

The guy ran and ran and ran until he just could not run anymore.

Could Nadal have a similar fate?

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Could Nadal have a similar fate?

Quite possible - he really needs to trim back his schedule from last year's to avoid burnout and injury.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Mats supposedly is a really honest and introspective guy and I recall him admitting in more than one interview that once he reached number one he suffered a spiritual and motivation let down asking himself something like "what else is there" and questioning whether he had the will to maintain that level and do what it took to stay at the top. I remember he himself stating that he knew his run was over at that point.

FiveO, your recollection of Wilander's loss of motivation is correct. Wilander is a very intropective and intellectual person. He was the thinking man's player because he was a thinking man himself! Based on the articles that I read, once he reached the top spot and dominated like he did in 1988, he looked around and said "is this all there is?" Wilander then embarked on a period where he wrote music and started a band. He also started several business ventures, and got heavily involved in charity causes, including several to help fight diseases in third world countries. And last, but not least, he had been married to Sonja Mullholland for a couple years by that time, and they began start their family.

Pusher, Wilander is my all-time favorite player, and one of the first people I ever modeled my game after. My parents were big Borg fans, but I was young enough that I never really paid attention to Bjorn. (I did get to see Borg play live at a senior tour event about ten years ago, but I really missed it when he was at the top of his game.) However, my earliest memory of watching any tennis match was the epic 6 hour 45 minute, five set Davis Cup match that a young 17 year old Wilander played against John McEnroe in 1982. I just remember being completely enthralled by how he could run and run, and never seemed to sweat or show stress. He was the ultimate example of grace under pressure.

My favorite quotes about Wilander are as follows:

"The greatest weapon in men's tennis today is Mats Wilander's brain." - Brad Gilbert

"Wilander had no identifiable stroke weapon, but that doesn't mean he went into battle ill-equipped. In fact, one of his biggest strengths was his lack of a weakness. He was solid on both wings, possessed a decent volley, could place his serve with pinpoint accuracy (though not with bullet-like pace). He also was incredibly well-conditioned, never faltering during long matches and always maintaining a positive state of mind. These attributes put tremendous pressure on his opponents, who needed to perform at top level from the first through the last point. Most importantly, though, Wilander may have been one of the greatest court tacticians of all-time. He worked a point like Michelangelo painted ceilings." - David Higdon

My only correction to your original post would be that in 1988, the Australian Open was not played on grass. That was the first year they played it at Flinders Park on the Rebound Ace surface that is used today. However, Wilander did win two other Australian Opens when it was played on grass at the old Kooyong stadium. Some say that those Aussie wins don't count as much because the tournament wasn't as popular then, but in 1983, he beat McEnroe (on grass!) in the semi-finals and Lendl in the final. In 1984, he beat Edberg in the quarterfinals and Kevin Curren in the final. As you alluded to, Wilander is one of only three people (Agassi and Connors are the others) in the history of the game to win a Grand Slam tournament on grass, clay, and hard courts.

Critics of Wilander will point out that he never won Wimbledon. However, to counter those criticisms, Wilander did make several quaterfinals there and did win a Wimbledon doubles title in 1986.

On a final note, Wilander may not be a household name that most people recognize and most new fans to the game may not know who he was. However, I don't think that Wilander really gets disrepected that much, especially with tennis observers that saw him play or have a good historical perspective. Also, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame a couple years ago and Tennis Magazine put him at 15th on their list of the top 50 greatest tennis players of all time, so he's not doing too bad!

 

[Yours!05]

FiveO, your recollection of Wilander's loss of motivation is correct. Wilander is a very intropective and intellectual person. He was the thinking man's player because he was a thinking man himself! Based on the articles that I read, once he reached the top spot and dominated like he did in 1988, he looked around and said "is this all there is?" Wilander then embarked on a period where he wrote music and started a band. He also started several business ventures, and got heavily involved in charity causes, including several to help fight diseases in third world countries. And last, but not least, he had been married to Sonja Mullholland for a couple years by that time, and they began start their family.

Pusher, Wilander is my all-time favorite player, and one of the first people I ever modeled my game after. My parents were big Borg fans, but I was young enough that I never really paid attention to Bjorn. (I did get to see Borg play live at a senior tour event about ten years ago, but I really missed it when he was at the top of his game.) However, my earliest memory of watching any tennis match was the epic 6 hour 45 minute, five set Davis Cup match that a young 17 year old Wilander played against John McEnroe in 1982. I just remember being completely enthralled by how he could run and run, and never seemed to sweat or show stress. He was the ultimate example of grace under pressure.

My favorite quotes about Wilander are as follows:

"The greatest weapon in men's tennis today is Mats Wilander's brain." - Brad Gilbert

"Wilander had no identifiable stroke weapon, but that doesn't mean he went into battle ill-equipped. In fact, one of his biggest strengths was his lack of a weakness. He was solid on both wings, possessed a decent volley, could place his serve with pinpoint accuracy (though not with bullet-like pace). He also was incredibly well-conditioned, never faltering during long matches and always maintaining a positive state of mind. These attributes put tremendous pressure on his opponents, who needed to perform at top level from the first through the last point. Most importantly, though, Wilander may have been one of the greatest court tacticians of all-time. He worked a point like Michelangelo painted ceilings." - David Higdon

My only correction to your original post would be that in 1988, the Australian Open was not played on grass. That was the first year they played it at Flinders Park on the Rebound Ace surface that is used today. However, Wilander did win two other Australian Opens when it was played on grass at the old Kooyong stadium. Some say that those Aussie wins don't count as much because the tournament wasn't as popular then, but in 1983, he beat McEnroe (on grass!) in the semi-finals and Lendl in the final. In 1984, he beat Edberg in the quarterfinals and Kevin Curren in the final. As you alluded to, Wilander is one of only three people (Agassi and Connors are the others) in the history of the game to win a Grand Slam tournament on grass, clay, and hard courts.

Critics of Wilander will point out that he never won Wimbledon. However, to counter those criticisms, Wilander did make several quaterfinals there and did win a Wimbledon doubles title in 1986.

On a final note, Wilander may not be a household name that most people recognize and most new fans to the game may not know who he was. However, I don't think that Wilander really gets disrepected that much, especially with tennis observers that saw him play or have a good historical perspective. Also, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame a couple years ago and Tennis Magazine put him at 15th on their list of the top 50 greatest tennis players of all time, so he's not doing too bad!

Very popular, and appreciated, in Australia. I didn't realise it wasn't universal. Big buzz for me to be sitting close to him at the AO last year. BTW, he didn't say much.

 

[jeebeesus]

wasn`t he caught taking banned substance at the same time as Horst Skoff?

 

[Rabbit]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion....but I think that Mats Wilander was the greatest runner/counter puncher the world has ever seen. Chang's style was similar to Mats....but Mats made Chang look like an amateur. Incidentally...everyone talks more about Chang than Mats. And Chang was another player who let his racquet do the talking.

Mats did not regain the top spot because he was tired! After winning three out of four grandslams on three different surfaces in one year...he was pooped! His style of play did not help much either. As the book of tennis points out:

"His energy-intensive style of play prevented lengthy period of dominance"

The guy ran and ran and ran until he just could not run anymore.

I agree completely. And, I think that may well be why he never made a big splash with the casual tennis fan. Wilander's coming out party in the U.S. was his Davis Cup match against McEnroe. It was a quick 6-hour affair.

Where Borg started like Wilander, he transitioned to one of the most powerful players of his era. Wilander never made that transition. He continued his counterpunching style until he retired. I still remember his French Open final against Henri Leconte. In that match, Wilander's first serve percentage was 100%. This is a clear indication that he didn't live and die by the serve.

Wilander also made the same observation, he left his beloved Rossignols and went to Prince to try and gain some more power.

 

[Jack the Hack]

wasn`t he caught taking banned substance at the same time as Horst Skoff?

At the 1995 French Open, Wilander and his doubles partner for the tournament, Karol Novacek, tested positive for trace amounts of cocaine. They initially filed an appeal accusing the ITF test procedures of being flawed and argued that their urine samples had been mishandled. However, after reviewing the test results and related laboratory documentation, they acknowledged the positive results although they maintained that they were unaware of the presence of cocaine in their bodies and said the drug was unknowingly consumed. Each of them were suspended for 3 months, which was the minimum sanction at the time for this type of offense.

Personally, I believe Wilander's story that the cocaine was unintentionally consumed and that he didn't know the source. First off, he was far too smart of a person to get involved with drugs (especially cocaine) and jeopardize his health, career, reputation, and family. Second, physical fitness was always one of the cornerstones of his playing ability (and it remains true today - the man's waist size is the same today in his early 40s as it was when he won the French Open at age 17), so I know he wouldn't knowingly throw that away. Third, Wilander did not have a reputation as a wild man or a partier and there were no off-the-court rumours of drug use during his career. And finally, Wilander never tested positive for drugs before that 1995 incident, and has never tested positive since.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Very popular, and appreciated, in Australia. I didn't realise it wasn't universal. Big buzz for me to be sitting close to him at the AO last year. BTW, he didn't say much.

Since Wilander won three Australian Opens, I could imagine how he would be much more well known and popular in Australia. Besides, I think tennis is a bigger sport in general Down Under. If Wilander had won three US Opens, including an epic one over a popular American in a final (like Wilander did over Aussie Pat Cash in 1988 ), he probably would have been more recognized in the US. (Lendl, of course, won three US Opens - including one over McEnroe - and everyone knew who he was here.)

By the way, that's pretty cool that you got to spend some time in close proximity with Wilander!!! I think I would have been tempted to strike up a conversation with him. I've heard he can be quite personable, and has a lot of opinions about the game. On the other hand, since he is the Swedish Davis Cup coach and a television commentator, he might have been working/scouting. (Although, I remember they kept showing him on the sidelines during telecast of the Safin-Federer semifinal, and he looked like he was truly enjoying the show like any regular fan.)

 

[Rabbit]

Wilander did party. There were reports of he and Edberg(!) quaffing record amounts of champagne after the French.

 

[35ft6]

I think Lendl is, but Mats is a close second.

 

[killer]

I grew up watching tennis in the 80s, and Wilander was the silent, deadly Swede...you never got the feeling that his game amounted to much; he didn't have one particularly huge weapon in comparison to Lendl's forehand, Becker's serve, or Mac and Edberg's dynamic net game, but he always found a way to win. Intelligent tennis epitomized.

There are plenty of amazing matches Mats played against top players, but one that really stands out to me is the 88 USO final vs Lendl. Five set thriller, and Mats was PUMPED! He popularized the 'vischt' in tennis, that odd Scandinavian fist pump that uses a backwards-pointing open hand instead of a clenched fist. Coolest way to celebrate a good point, bar none.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

wilander won 33 singles totals which is 1/2 to 1/3 the amount that lendl, mac, connors, sampras, agassi, etc. did/are..., he never won wimbledon as fiveo pointed out , didnt even get past the qtrs there in his career if i remeber correctly, and was a year end no 1 ,one time in 88 compared to the other greats who were multiple year end no 1s (except agassi). taht said he is overlooked i think he had as good or better mental game then anyone and he might be underrated as much as boris becker is overrated -

Lendl never won Wimbledon either and Becker was far from overated. In fact i think he was a far better player than Lendl...he sure had Lendl's number at Grand slam events. Becker should be known as the Lendl terminator...lol. The problem with the ranking system is that it is based on how much you play rather than who is truly the best player. But I digress from the topic at hand.

Wilander never won Wimbledon but he did win on grass at the AO beating none other than John Mcenroe! (thanks Jack for that tidbit). he also did win Wimbledon in doubles (Thanks again Jack).

Jack,

You are right that Wilander being placed on the all time Tennis mag list as 15 is not that bad (and #9 if you minus the women). But Lendl was ranked way higher and really was not way better. I mean sure he won more often than Wilander....but does that really make Lendl the better player? If I had to bet on Lendl at his peak or Wilander at his peak then I would have to say that Wilander would win on grass or clay for sure and 50-50 on hard court. What I really would have loved to see is Wilander Vs. Borg at their peaks on red clay...I think that would have been the longest game in tennis history. Clearly it would have been to of the greatest tennis minds ever. I love your quotes and need to reprint them:

"The greatest weapon in men's tennis today is Mats Wilander's brain." - Brad Gilbert

"Wilander had no identifiable stroke weapon, but that doesn't mean he went into battle ill-equipped. In fact, one of his biggest strengths was his lack of a weakness. He was solid on both wings, possessed a decent volley, could place his serve with pinpoint accuracy (though not with bullet-like pace). He also was incredibly well-conditioned, never faltering during long matches and always maintaining a positive state of mind. These attributes put tremendous pressure on his opponents, who needed to perform at top level from the first through the last point. Most importantly, though, Wilander may have been one of the greatest court tacticians of all-time. He worked a point like Michelangelo painted ceilings." - David Higdon

 

[Moose Malloy]

Lendl has a 15-7 edge on Wilander head to head. (6-4 lead on clay, 5-2 on hardcourt, 4-0 on carpet)
He has 94 titles to Wilander's 33.
He was year end #1 four times, while Wilander was only once.
He was ranked #1 270 weeks, Wilander-20.
Lendl made the finals of Wimbledon twice & the semis 5 times.
Wilander never made it past the quarters there.
Lendl made 19 GS finals(more than anyone in the open era) Wilander made 11.
Lendl is one of only 5 players to make the finals of all 4 majors in the Open era.
Lendl was "way better."

 

[killer]

Thanks for the clarification Moose; saved me the trouble. I should think that the head-to-head record between Ivan and Mats ("rhymes with 'hots,' not 'hats'"!) should be a clear enough indication. They had some incredible battles, but a few blowouts too; in 1987 USO final, Lendl def wilander in 4 sets, but at the Nabisco Masters just two months later he destroyed Mats 2, 2, and 4 (or something like that). Just a couple of examples, really...
As far as the 3-month suspension goes, i'm not too surprised...i mean come on, he and mac hung out and played guitar together, partied together...i'm sure they had a few all-nighters...

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

In 1988 Mats Wilander almost pulled off winning all the grandslams...he won the US, French, and the AO! The AO was on grass back then!

He has won a total of 7 grandslam titles...AO-83,84,88/ French 82,85,88/ US 88.

His 82 French open title made him the first unseeded grand slam winner in open history.

He broke lendls 157 week run as No. 1 and was one of the only players ever to win Grand slam titles on grass , clay and hard with intelligent and relentless defensive play.

He has as many GS titles as Mcenroe and only one less than Lendl...but no one ever talks about this guy. What the heck is going on here???

The fact that u ask this question proves my opinion on Wilander. From one point a lot of members try to prove that he is among greats and that they surely know him very well, but from 2-nd point of view there are such fans of tennis as u who think Wilander is underrated. Why?

Because IMHO Wilander never was bright figure in tennis as well as say Edberg or Lendl despite the number of GS they won. They all 3 were working horses. Their movements never were so light and fascinating as that we see in Fed game, they never were such extraordinary say as Agassi, not so much talented as McEnroe, they never could be so unbending as Borg. They never were catching stars from heavens.

That is IMO they were overrated, not underrated. Generally, I find some period after Mc very sad and not impressive.

 

[AndrewD]

Jack,
Wilander had a reputation as a party monster, not just a party animal.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Lendl has a 15-7 edge on Wilander head to head. (6-4 lead on clay, 5-2 on hardcourt, 4-0 on carpet)
He has 94 titles to Wilander's 33.
He was year end #1 four times, while Wilander was only once.
He was ranked #1 270 weeks, Wilander-20.
Lendl made the finals of Wimbledon twice & the semis 5 times.
Wilander never made it past the quarters there.
Lendl made 19 GS finals(more than anyone in the open era) Wilander made 11.
Lendl is one of only 5 players to make the finals of all 4 majors in the Open era.
Lendl was "way better."

I think that I may have not made my point clear. What I was trying to say is that people judge who is better by the amount they win throughout the year. Its the quantity vs. Quality argument. For example ...In Sampras last year he won the US open beating Andre Agassi. However Sampras was not even ranked in the top 10......was that right? Do you really think that he was not one opf the 10 best players in the world? The rankings mean nothing and should be overhauled. Serena was the best player for many years yet was not ranked #1. The list goes on and on. The rankings promote players who play the most tournaments and they do not reflect who is actually the best. Why is it that Boris Becker who beat Lendl most of the time in grand slam events never finished the year ranked #1? Clearly he had Lendls number at GS events. Clearly the reason is Lendl won more of the minor tournaments throughout the year.....but Becker was the better player at Grand slams. Again Quality vs, Quantity. To me the grandslams are way more important.

Same with Wilander. Lendl has a winning record of 15-7....but not in the grand slams. I believe they are tied in their meetings at the grandslams or Wilander has an edge (not sure ,..go to atpplayers.com). Furthermore , Wilnder was able to win on every surface...Lendl could not win on grass. Lendl one more "meaningless" tournaments ...but so what!

 

[Jack the Hack]

Jack,
Wilander had a reputation as a party monster, not just a party animal.

Andrew,

I know you are a very reputable poster, so please share the stories you have heard about Wilander's "party monster" ways!

I was 10 years old in 1982 when I first became a Wilander fan, and I used to collect every magazine story and newspaper article about him in the same way that other kids might idolize a baseball, football, or basketball star. I seriously had a couple boxes worth of material, and I still have at least a dozen of his matches on video tape. In that whole time, I do not remember reading any stories about Wilander behaving in any extremely crazy manner. In fact, I distinctly remember one particular article which talked about how mature Wilander was at such an early age, how he adjusted well to the pressures of turning pro when he was only 17, and how proud his parents were of him.

I do know that the team of Swedes that he ran around with (Joakim Nystrom, Anders Jarryd, and Stefan Edberg) were all very, very good friends and they were a pretty fun loving group. In addition, I think that Swedes in general (much like Australians) love to hang with their mates and live life well. And finally, I also know that Wilander, Nystrom, Jarryd, and Edberg were never hurting for attention from adoring females. However, that being said, there is a big difference to me between being a dude that hangs out with his buddies after a successful tournament, drinks a bunch of beer (or champange as another poster mentioned), and loves up the ladies from time to time... and somebody that is a wreckless jerk who shoots drugs, trashes hotel rooms, and lives like a troubled rock star!

(I suppose I may have a different picture in mind when you say he was a "party monster". It's one thing to be a fun guy that has an occasional good time, and another to be someone that is self-destructive, which is what I associate a party monster to be.)

In any case, if you have some Wilander stories to tell (or Nystrom, Jarryd, or Edberg stories for that matter), I would love to hear them. I am very curious to learn about a side of those guys that I didn't know about!!!

 

[Jack the Hack]

I think that I may have not made my point clear. What I was trying to say is that people judge who is better by the amount they win throughout the year. Its the quantity vs. Quality argument. For example ...In Sampras last year he won the US open beating Andre Agassi. However Sampras was not even ranked in the top 10......was that right? Do you really think that he was not one opf the 10 best players in the world? The rankings mean nothing and should be overhauled. Serena was the best player for many years yet was not ranked #1. The list goes on and on. The rankings promote players who play the most tournaments and they do not reflect who is actually the best. Why is it that Boris Becker who beat Lendl most of the time in grand slam events never finished the year ranked #1? Clearly he had Lendls number at GS events. Clearly the reason is Lendl won more of the minor tournaments throughout the year.....but Becker was the better player at Grand slams. Again Quality vs, Quantity. To me the grandslams are way more important.

Same with Wilander. Lendl has a winning record of 15-7....but not in the grand slams. I believe they are tied in their meetings at the grandslams or Wilander has an edge (not sure ,..go to atpplayers.com). Furthermore , Wilnder was able to win on every surface...Lendl could not win on grass. Lendl one more "meaningless" tournaments ...but so what!

Just my two cents...

As I have mentioned, Wilander was my favorite player of all time and the first person I ever modeled my own game after. However, I don't think that there is any doubt that Lendl was a greater player overall (mainly for a lot of the reasons that Moose listed).

(By the way, Lendl could win on grass... two Wimbledon finals, one Aussie final, and several Queens Club tournament wins on that surface show how good he was. He was just a little unlucky a couple times - like in '89 against Becker - or he would have been in the exclusive "all surface" club with Wilander, Connors, and Agassi. Borg never won a Slam on hard courts, but nobody holds that against his greatness.)

For a controversial topic, how about comparing Wilander to McEnroe as far as greatness and over/under achievement? They each made 11 Grand Slam finals and won 7, and were Davis Cup heroes for their countries. McEnroe may have been one of the all-time greatest natural talents, but Wilander probably got more out of his own talent by comparison. Wilander won a Slam on all surfaces, but McEnroe didn't...

I'm feeling verklempt...

Discuss among yourselves...

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Just my two cents...

As I have mentioned, Wilander was my favorite player of all time and the first person I ever modeled my own game after. However, I don't think that there is any doubt that Lendl was a greater player overall (mainly for a lot of the reasons that Moose listed).

(By the way, Lendl could win on grass... two Wimbledon finals, one Aussie final, and several Queens Club tournament wins on that surface show how good he was. He was just a little unlucky a couple times - like in '89 against Becker - or he would have been in the exclusive "all surface" club with Wilander, Connors, and Agassi. Borg never won a Slam on hard courts, but nobody holds that against his greatness.)

For a controversial topic, how about comparing Wilander to McEnroe as far as greatness and over/under achievement? They each made 11 Grand Slam finals and won 7, and were Davis Cup heroes for their countries. McEnroe may have been one of the all-time greatest natural talents, but Wilander probably got more out of his own talent by comparison. Wilander won a Slam on all surfaces, but McEnroe didn't...

I'm feeling verklempt...

Discuss among yourselves...

I believe that when rating tennis players we should be more like Hockey or basketball or evey other sport. In those sports the regular season does not count for very much...its who wins the championships that really matters. In tennis we have four "championships" ...the grand slams. Wilander won an astounding 3 out of four in one year. In that year he could have beaten almost anyone on almost any surface.

I know that almost every single person will rate Lendl higher than Wilander. That is exactly why I posted the thread "Wilander may be the most underrated player ever." No one will agree with me. But that does not mean my point is not true. If you are using the "criteria" that the establishment uses....i.e. most wins or highest rankings then of course Lendl is the better player. However, I truly believe the ranking system is an absolute joke and does not reflect the true best players. Becker was never a year end number one yet he has a winning record against Lendl at the grand slams. As far as the number of wins...well that is the old quality vs, quantity argument . I only care about grandslams...in fact thats what people really remember. I believe that for a time Lendl was ranked #1 without winning a grand slam. Lendl had a very hard time winning his first GS and was never considered a "great" player until he won a GS.

It is not the rankings and the number of B.S. tournamnets that are important. Rather its the GS's that are important. Would Yannick Noah ever have made the hall of fame if he had never won the French? Would Chang be even talked about if he had never won the French?

So I guess its who's criteria you are using. If you use the mass publics criteria of "rankings" and " most wins of meaningless tournaments"...well Lendl wins hands down. However, if you use the quality criteria then the answer is a little more difficult. For example Lendl was NOT dominant over Wilander at GS events. Lendl could not win a GS event on grass, And finally if you compare each player at their peak who was better? Wilander put a lot of effort into 1988 and won an astounding three grand slams in one year......no one has done that since Laver The fact that Wilander lost interest in tennis afterwards does not really make him a "worse" tennis player than Lendl. Wilander at his best did something that Lendl could never do.

Its sort of like the Seles vs, Graf controversy, In my book Seles was the better player even though Grafs record is far better. I am arguing who is "really" the better player and not who has the higher "ranking". In other words...if you took both playrs at their peaks who would win on most surfaces.....I think in this case it would be Wilander over lendl and maybe even Wilander over almost anyone else. Thats why Wilander is the most underated player of all time. At Wilanders peak he could beat just about anyone on any surface.

Life can deal hard blows to everyone. Seles got stabbed in the back. Wilander on the other hand won three out of four grand slams and simply lost interest in tennis. He won just about everything and then thought to himself "Is this all there is inlife?". He decided to pursue life rather than tennis....does that make him a worse player than Lendl.....NO WAY!!!

 

[Grimjack]

I know that almost every single person will rate Lendl higher than Wilander. That is exactly why I posted the thread "Wilander may be the most underrated player ever." No one will agree with me. But that does not mean my point is not true.

I think your insistence on pushing the point vis-a-vis Lendl is hurting your cause. Just because people are not jumping to agree Wilander is better than Lendl doesn't mean Wilander is being criminally underrated. The list of players with a legitimate claim to a better career than Lendl's is VERY small. That's no slight on those who were great, but didn't quite match up.

I believe Lendl even carried a slight edge in their GS matchups, but even without that, it's hard to make a case that Wilander was the better player. Lendl won more slams, and went deep into an even greater number. Add that to his dominance (as highlighted by Moose above) in virtually every other category, and it's impossible for a thinking man to rate Wilander as Lendl's better.

A quick scan of the ATP site shows Lendl with a 5-4 hth edge over Mats in the slams, but even apart from that, head-to-head in the slams is not enough to make up for dominance by one party over the course of a career, is it? George Bastl was undefeated against Sampras in Grand Slams. You wouldn't say his was the greater career, would you? While the level of disparity isn't as great between Mats and Lendl, it isn't exactly nip-and-tuck, either.

Wilander might well be underrated if people are comparing him to the Changs and Stichs of the world. He fits neatly on the tier right below (but CLEARLY below) the one on which Lendl resides.

Accurately judging him by his results isn't a slight. He was a great player with a small but obvious handful who were greater.

 

[FiveO]

Push,

Having read this thread from beginning to end I don't see where you are getting much resistance to Wilander being recognized as a great player. What's being offered are possible explanations for why the media never embraced him and why the uninitiated tennist may not know his name as well.

I believe that when rating tennis players we should be more like Hockey or basketball or evey other sport. In those sports the regular season does not count for very much...its who wins the championships that really matters. In tennis we have four "championships" ...the grand slams. Wilander won an astounding 3 out of four in one year. In that year he could have beaten almost anyone on almost any surface.

3 slams in one year is a great achievement. No one in their right mind argues that. But it has also been outdone by Budge and by Laver, twice and repeated by Fed in 2004. 16 years is a long time. But not as long as other records have stood and still stand in tennis.

There were alot of things which conspired to cause the media not to call incredible attention to Wilander's feat of '88. Two being:

1- The Grand Slam is what the media notices in tennis. As I pointed out earlier Wilander's run at the Slam was gone by July with his loss at Wimbledon.

2- Unfortunately, the very same year, 1988, the Grand Slam was accomplished. By Steffi Graf. And she accomplished a truly rare feat of a Golden Grand Slam winning the Olympics that year. Yeah I know the Olympic tennis ain't a major. And yes I know it's women's vs. men's tennis. But does the general sports media even know the difference when alot of them don't know an overhead from an "overhand"?

Who do you think the media spotlight was on that year post July '88? A general sports media who basically could care less about tennis. Wilander or Graf?

So Wilander's accomplishment, in the media's eyes was, wasn't THE tennis story even in the year he achieved it. Graf's was.

I know that almost every single person will rate Lendl higher than Wilander. That is exactly why I posted the thread "Wilander may be the most underrated player ever." No one will agree with me. But that does not mean my point is not true. If you are using the "criteria" that the establishment uses....i.e. most wins or highest rankings then of course Lendl is the better player. However, I truly believe the ranking system is an absolute joke and does not reflect the true best players. Becker was never a year end number one yet he has a winning record against Lendl at the grand slams. As far as the number of wins...well that is the old quality vs, quantity argument . I only care about grandslams...in fact thats what people really remember. I believe that for a time Lendl was ranked #1 without winning a grand slam. Lendl had a very hard time winning his first GS and was never considered a "great" player until he won a GS.

Yes. But head to head in the majors Wilander v. Lendl, was a push, 4-4. So where are we if your goal is to argue who's better? Where can anyone go with this? Factor out the 16 or 32 man draw events? What about Davis Cup h2h's or the Master's? You seem to want to argue Wilander is better than Lendl. Hard to do when their h2h is one sided in totality and a push at the majors. Arguing grass? Cuts both ways. One AO title and not getting past the QF at Wimby for Wilander vs. multiple finals at both the AO and Wimby for Lendl.

#1 finishes are important to some. Important enough to Sampras who wanted set that standard nearly as much as he wanted to amass GS titles.

It is not the rankings and the number of B.S. tournamnets that are important. Rather its the GS's that are important. Would Yannick Noah ever have made the hall of fame if he had never won the French? Would Chang be even talked about if he had never won the French?

I don't think anyone argues either Noah or Chang are anywhere near the level of a Lendl or Wilander. Again the media had a story with Chang (especially with the US media) and Noah, because they were the first Frenchman and American to win at RG in ages, and especially Chang because he did it at such a tender age. When Wilander won RG in '82 a Swede had already been there done that, a few times to boot.

So I guess its who's criteria you are using. If you use the mass publics criteria of "rankings" and " most wins of meaningless tournaments"...well Lendl wins hands down. However, if you use the quality criteria then the answer is a little more difficult. For example Lendl was NOT dominant over Wilander at GS events. Lendl could not win a GS event on grass, And finally if you compare each player at their peak who was better? Wilander put a lot of effort into 1988 and won an astounding three grand slams in one year......no one has done that since Laver The fact that Wilander lost interest in tennis afterwards does not really make him a "worse" tennis player than Lendl. Wilander at his best did something that Lendl could never do.

Absolutely. But again '88 was an 'almost' overshadowed by Steffi's Golden Slam the very same year, at least by the general sports media, being forced to look at tennis because it was the rarest of rare occurrences, "the whole enchilada" as opposed to a 3/4 eaten taco.

The rest of it gets into too many what-ifs, which can go on forever.

Its sort of like the Seles vs, Graf controversy, In my book Seles was the better player even though Grafs record is far better. I am arguing who is "really" the better player and not who has the higher "ranking". In other words...if you took both playrs at their peaks who would win on most surfaces.....I think in this case it would be Wilander over lendl and maybe even Wilander over almost anyone else. Thats why Wilander is the most underated player of all time. At Wilanders peak he could beat just about anyone on any surface.

For one year? Yes. But the feat had been outdone and since repeated.

I'm no Lendl supporter. But talking about under-rated feats. How many people talk about the fact that he reached 8 US Open finals in a row. Hardly anyone and personally, I can't say which record on the men's side is more likely to fall sooner:

-a Grand Slam
-Borg's combo of 6 Wimbys and 5 RG's or
-Sampras' career majors
-Sampras' year end #1's, or
-Lendl's 8 finals in a row at the same major (a very under-rated record)

Also, don't discount the American media gravitating to Lendl and giving him more press for another reason. Vs. McEnroe/Connors the potential for literary drama in the story was there. The Cold War was still a back story and writer's loved the contrast between the Capitalists doing battle with an imposing Communist figure across the net. The American press loved the villain vs. the American hero, even if the heroes were villains themselves. Think the USA v. Russia hockey game in the '80 Olympics. This dramatic license also gave Lendl more press, let alone that he was omnipresent in the finals of "America's" tennis championship.

Life can deal hard blows to everyone. Seles got stabbed in the back. Wilander on the other hand won three out of four grand slams and simply lost interest in tennis. He won just about everything and then thought to himself "Is this all there is inlife?". He decided to pursue life rather than tennis....does that make him a worse player than Lendl.....NO WAY!!!

It can be what-if'd to death. The reference to "is that all there is", wasn't a knock on Mats. It's just what was. More power to him. But just because he chose a path, which may have contributed to not repeating his feat of '88, that doesn't translate that if he took a different tack he was assured of equal success. Factoring out career h2h's in all but the majors is a bit of a contrivance, to me, when the history is there to see. I agree with you that the majors mean more to every player, not just Wilander, Sampras being a prime example, however they played those matches. If two players played their major matches to a push, where do you go for the career tie-break, the numbers, or subjectivity? Especially on this board where people argue whether Sampras or Federer are the better player to their deaths, based on practically no history.

I think you should be heartened by the fact that most of the posters here, myself included, recognize Wilander's achievements, in spite of the media's, especially the American media's, naivete or complacency toward it. Again those who know tennis know how great Wilander was. Whether he is better than tennis great X, Y or Z, is another matter, which will be colored by each individuals subjectivity and conjecture.

Did the American media largely ignore his accomplishments? Yes. But I would bet that his accomplishments were much more noticed in both Australia and Europe as well.

Taking your argument into a debate of whether Mats is better than this guy or that is where you will meet resistance because the other guy likes his guy as much as you do yours.

You seem to be a huge fan of Wilander. Wilander is one of the greats! You know it, I know it and alot of people in this thread know it. You should take heart in that.

 

[laurie]

For me in England its an easy explanation. Any great male player who doesn't win Wimbledon is not really mentioned.

You can win one Wimbledon and nothing else but you will always be remembered anyway.

You can win the French Open 3 times and the US Open and Aussie Open and your name will still hardly be mentioned ever.

Lendl and Wilander are two perfect examples.

 

[VGP]

To follow up on laurie's post, The Pusher Terminator, do you live in England?

As it stands now, I suppose I'd agree with your observation that to the casual observer that Wilander is less considered than other (not all) #1s.

I do recall though in 1988 along with Graf's golden slam, Wilander winning three of the four slams (at least here in the US) amongst tennis enthusiasts was considered a big deal.

 

[jhhachamp]

First off, he was far too smart of a person to get involved with drugs (especially cocaine) and jeopardize his health, career, reputation, and family.

I don't know if I agree with you here on your assumption that he would never try cocaine. As for the first point, I have known many people who are very smart who have gotten involved with cocaine.

Second, physical fitness was always one of the cornerstones of his playing ability (and it remains true today - the man's waist size is the same today in his early 40s as it was when he won the French Open at age 17), so I know he wouldn't knowingly throw that away.

Yes, but this happened in 1995 didn't it? This was well after his prime. After he won 3 slams in one year in the late 80s, he lost a lot of motivation to stay on top. It would not surprise me if his focus on fitness also waned after this. Obviously he has stayed in good shape since then, but I doubt he kept up as intense a fitness regime as in his prime. Also, citing the same waist size now as when he won the FO does not really prove to me that he could not have tried cocaine. I have heard many stories of coke addicts losing lots of weight, and never heard about cocaine causing someone to gain weight.

Third, Wilander did not have a reputation as a wild man or a partier and there were no off-the-court rumours of drug use during his career. And finally, Wilander never tested positive for drugs before that 1995 incident, and has never tested positive since.

Based on this, I would have to say I think he did not do coke very often, but if someone does coke from time to time in a somewhat private setting, they are not going to gain a reputation as a wild partier. I personally think that he may have tried coke at least a few times in his life, but kept it under control. I cannot think of any good reason off that he would test positive for cocaine without being guilty.

 

[jhhachamp]

Lendl has a 15-7 edge on Wilander head to head. (6-4 lead on clay, 5-2 on hardcourt, 4-0 on carpet)
He has 94 titles to Wilander's 33.
He was year end #1 four times, while Wilander was only once.
He was ranked #1 270 weeks, Wilander-20.
Lendl made the finals of Wimbledon twice & the semis 5 times.
Wilander never made it past the quarters there.
Lendl made 19 GS finals(more than anyone in the open era) Wilander made 11.
Lendl is one of only 5 players to make the finals of all 4 majors in the Open era.
Lendl was "way better."

Good post, it is hard to try and argue that Wilander had a better career than Lendl. The post above makes it pretty clear Lendl had a much better career. If you want to argue who was best at their peak, that is a whole different discussion. Wilander certainly had the potential to be as good or better than Lendl, but he lost motivation. When talking about who was better in the history of the game, how good one's career was is most important.

 

[jhhachamp]

I think that I may have not made my point clear. What I was trying to say is that people judge who is better by the amount they win throughout the year. Its the quantity vs. Quality argument. For example ...In Sampras last year he won the US open beating Andre Agassi. However Sampras was not even ranked in the top 10......was that right? Do you really think that he was not one opf the 10 best players in the world? The rankings mean nothing and should be overhauled. Serena was the best player for many years yet was not ranked #1. The list goes on and on. The rankings promote players who play the most tournaments and they do not reflect who is actually the best. Why is it that Boris Becker who beat Lendl most of the time in grand slam events never finished the year ranked #1? Clearly he had Lendls number at GS events. Clearly the reason is Lendl won more of the minor tournaments throughout the year.....but Becker was the better player at Grand slams. Again Quality vs, Quantity. To me the grandslams are way more important.

Same with Wilander. Lendl has a winning record of 15-7....but not in the grand slams. I believe they are tied in their meetings at the grandslams or Wilander has an edge (not sure ,..go to atpplayers.com). Furthermore , Wilnder was able to win on every surface...Lendl could not win on grass. Lendl one more "meaningless" tournaments ...but so what!

Yes you may be able to make the argument that Wilander was better at his peak than Lendl, but it is a close call. Nothing else is close. It is not only quality that counts, it is also quantity. A player who dominates for one year and wins all 4 slams but never wins slams in any other year will not be as highly regarded as Sampras. Peak vs. peak is important when the career stats are close, which is not the case here.

 

[Jack the Hack]

I don't know if I agree with you here on your assumption that he would never try cocaine. As for the first point, I have known many people who are very smart who have gotten involved with cocaine.
.............................................................

Yes, but this happened in 1995 didn't it? This was well after his prime. After he won 3 slams in one year in the late 80s, he lost a lot of motivation to stay on top. It would not surprise me if his focus on fitness also waned after this. Obviously he has stayed in good shape since then, but I doubt he kept up as intense a fitness regime as in his prime. Also, citing the same waist size now as when he won the FO does not really prove to me that he could not have tried cocaine. I have heard many stories of coke addicts losing lots of weight, and never heard about cocaine causing someone to gain weight.

...............................................................

Based on this, I would have to say I think he did not do coke very often, but if someone does coke from time to time in a somewhat private setting, they are not going to gain a reputation as a wild partier. I personally think that he may have tried coke at least a few times in his life, but kept it under control. I cannot think of any good reason off that he would test positive for cocaine without being guilty.

Steve, all of these are valid points.

As I've explained in previous posts, I have been a huge Wilander fan since I was a kid, so I might be blinded by bias. However, as an adult now, I am aware that our sports heroes are not infallible. As I've mentioned, I followed Wilander's career very closely and read every article I could find about him, and I do not recall any indications that he was the type of person that would be even a casual user of cocaine. On the other hand, there were other very intelligent, very fit, very successful, and even family oriented players from the 80s that also were either rumored to have tried drugs of that type or have outright admitted it (McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Gerulaitis, and Borg for example). Therefore, I suppose that it is possible that Wilander could have dabbled in that as well. However, I have a hard time believing that him and his doubles partner would casually decide to snort up during a Grand Slam event, knowing full well that they were likely to be tested in the event. Like almost all athletes that test positive, they claimed that they did not know how the drug got into their system and that they did not intentionally ingest it. In this particular case, I believe Wilander and Novacek's plea... and I would say that the ITF gave them the benefit of the doubt also by only suspending them for the minimum sanction at the time.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Yes you may be able to make the argument that Wilander was better at his peak than Lendl, but it is a close call. Nothing else is close. It is not only quality that counts, it is also quantity. A player who dominates for one year and wins all 4 slams but never wins slams in any other year will not be as highly regarded as Sampras. Peak vs. peak is important when the career stats are close, which is not the case here.

There is an old saying:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

I simply feel that quality is much more important than quantity. Everyone on this board has ignored the fact that Lendl was ranked #1 for a period without ever winning a grand slam. In my humble opinion...that is wrong and the ranking system is a joke. However, I do recognize that everyone is entitled to their opinion and their own criteria. I realize that I am completely in the minority and no one agrees with me. Yet I still believe that at their peaks ...Wilander was a better player than Lendl.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Everyone on this board has ignored the fact that Lendl was ranked #1 for a period without ever winning a grand slam. In my humble opinion...that is wrong and the ranking system is a joke.

Pusher, since you have brought it up several times now, which year are you talking about where Lendl was unjustly #1?

Lendl finished as the year end #1 player four times, in '85, '86, '87, and '89. In each of those years, he won at least one Grand Slam tournament. Here is the breakdown:

'85: Lendl won the US Open, and 10 other tournaments (including the year end Masters). He also finished as runner-up in 3 tournaments, including the French Open.

'86: Lendl won the French and US Opens, and 7 other tournaments (including the Masters). He also finished as runner-up in 3 tournaments, including Wimbledon.

'87: Lendl won the French and US Opens, and 6 other tournaments (including the Masters). He also finished as runner-up in 3 tournaments, including Wimbledon again.

'89: Lendl won the Australian Open, and 9 other tournaments. He also finished as runner-up in 2 tournaments, including the US Open.

Boris Becker did win Wimbledon and the US Open in '89, so there was a little controversy about how he should have been the year end #1. However, he only won only 3 other titles that year and was a finalist twice. On the other hand, Lendl won a Slam, and was far more consistant throughout the year - as the 10 overall titles and 2 runner-up finishes show. That is also the year that Lendl probably had the best chance to win Wimbledon, and he was leading Becker two sets to one and was up a break when there was an unfortunate (for him) rain delay that stopped play for quite awhile. When they came back on the court, Becker was on fire and ended up winning the match in 5 sets.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Jack,,,,,as far as Boris becker and a "little controversy"...well thats just what I mean. Becker clarly should have been #1. Furthermore Becker is a far better example of quality vs. Quantity. Becker had just about an even all around head to head record with Lendl....but when it came to the grand slams ...becker had a commanding winning record. In my opinion becker was absolutely a better player than Lendl yet he was never ranked #1.

As to Lendl being ranked #1 without winning a grand slam, I have to do a little research...which you are far superior at than I am. maybe you can help me out ...I am working from memory. Back then there were actually two ranking bodies...I believe that you may be only looking at one. Was it the Grand prix and the WCT? I can't remember ...but I believe that on one of them he was ranked number one for a preiod of time without ever winning a grandslam. I believe Davenport just last year was ranked #1 without winning a slam that year as well...am I correct? If that is true then that is clearly wrong. I mean what sport declares you the champion without winning the championship? In any event we digress....lets just agree to disagree....I believe that at their peaks Wilander would have beaten Lendl on most surfaces.

 

[Grimjack]

There is an old saying:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

I simply feel that quality is much more important than quantity. Everyone on this board has ignored the fact that Lendl was ranked #1 for a period without ever winning a grand slam. In my humble opinion...that is wrong and the ranking system is a joke.

We "ignored" that? It's irrelevant. If we were so inclined, we could easily take one of Lendl's year end #1's, throw it in the trash, ignore it completely, and have it stricken permanently from the record, never to be mentioned again...and he would still dominate Wilander from a career vs. career standpoint.

I understand that you prefer "quality" over "quantity," but you seem incapable of acknowledging that Lendl was Wilander's superior in both categories. There may be a certain poetic grace to only stepping up in the slams, but when somebody does it even more often than you do, AND brings it all year long as well? He's simply a better player.

Yes, Lendl had far more "small tourney" victories. And we could hold it against him if that were the bulk of his resume...but Lendl had the edge in slams won as well. Yes, Lendl had the advantage overall h2h...but he also had the edge head to head in slams.

His career was superior to Wilander's by almost every measurable metric, INCLUDING "quality" wins. I was behind your ambition to get Wilander even more respect -- he certainly deserves to be mentioned among the greats. But when you try sincerely to put together an argument declaring his career superior to Lendl's, you sound a little like the Wilander version of that creepy Graf pimp who is posting all the time lately.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Grimjack,

again...simply stated...Wilander would have beaten Lendl on any surface except maybe carpet at the peak of their careers. I also think that Seles was better than Graf at the peak of their careers. Seles went downhill because she was stabbed in the back,,,by analogy , Wilander went downhill because he just got bored of tennis.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

again...simply stated...Wilander would have beaten Lendl on any surface except maybe carpet at the peak of their careers.

My problem with that statement is that it's completely unsupportable.

For Wilander, the peak of his career was clearly '88. That year, Wilander beat Lendl in a close five-set match in the US Open final.

However, for Lendl, that year was CLEARLY NOT his peak. He won only three tournaments all year - FAR fewer than in his best years.

So, we've now established that they've never played each other when both were at their peaks. So HOW exactly can you claim that "Wilander would have beaten Lendl at the peak of their careers" as anything besides baseless opinion?

 

[jhhachamp]

However, I have a hard time believing that him and his doubles partner would casually decide to snort up during a Grand Slam event, knowing full well that they were likely to be tested in the event.

Maybe they snorted up a while before and expected it to be out of their systems well before the next time they would be tested. Do you have any idea how much time elapsed between their previous passed test and the failed one? Also, do you know how long it takes cocaine to clear the body? Knowing these answers would help me develop a better guess at what happened.

Like almost all athletes that test positive, they claimed that they did not know how the drug got into their system and that they did not intentionally ingest it.

Has there ever been an athlete who admitted to intentionally taking a banned substance after they tested positive?

 

[jhhachamp]

Yet I still believe that at their peaks ...Wilander was a better player than Lendl.

I would agree with you there. Wilander's best year was better than Lendl's best year IMO.

I understand that we differ on our criteria of how to rate people. Just curious if by your criteria you would rate Federer above Sampras if Federer retired tomorrow. Federer's quality is better than Sampras, though Sampras is clearly way ahead in quantity. None of Sampras' years are as good as either of Federer's last 2 years. Is this enough to say that Federer is the greater player for you since you feel quantity is so unimportant?

 

[GrassCourtFan]

By that token, Rod Laver is better than either of them by a long shot - 4 Grand Slams in one year.

 

[opiate]

most probably off topic, here.

But is it possible for somebody to win the real GS and not be #1. I guess it's mathematically possible. But is there any ruling about this?

Anyway... *ducks out from sundry flying objects*

 

[devila]

Mats and Federer are alike. They won when they play opponents' worst matches. Plus, they played their best when competition wasn't great.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Jack,,,,,as far as Boris becker and a "little controversy"...well thats just what I mean. Becker clarly should have been #1. Furthermore Becker is a far better example of quality vs. Quantity. Becker had just about an even all around head to head record with Lendl....but when it came to the grand slams ...becker had a commanding winning record. In my opinion becker was absolutely a better player than Lendl yet he was never ranked #1.

As to Lendl being ranked #1 without winning a grand slam, I have to do a little research...which you are far superior at than I am. maybe you can help me out ...I am working from memory. Back then there were actually two ranking bodies...I believe that you may be only looking at one. Was it the Grand prix and the WCT? I can't remember ...but I believe that on one of them he was ranked number one for a preiod of time without ever winning a grandslam. I believe Davenport just last year was ranked #1 without winning a slam that year as well...am I correct? If that is true then that is clearly wrong. I mean what sport declares you the champion without winning the championship? In any event we digress....lets just agree to disagree....I believe that at their peaks Wilander would have beaten Lendl on most surfaces.

First of all, the official ATP computer rankings, which have been in place since 1973, are the only rankings that I have quoted. Second, Boris Becker was ranked #1 for 12 weeks on the official ATP computer during his career. And third, Lendl was the clear #1 overall player in 1989 and deserved the top year end ranking on the computer if you examine the following:

1989 Season

Boris Becker played only 13 tournaments, and had a 47-8 record (not counting Davis Cup and the World Team Cup, which don't award ATP points for participation). He made 7 finals and won 5 events, lost in 3 semifinals, 1 fourth round, and had 2 second round tournament losses. In Grand Slams, he lost in the fourth round of the Australian, semifinals of the French, and won Wimbledon and the US Open.

Ivan Lendl played in 17 tournaments, and had a 75-7 record. He made 12 finals and won 10 events, lost in 4 semifinals, and had 1 fourth round defeat. In the Grand Slams, he won the Australian, lost in the fourth round of the French, the semifinals of Wimbledon, and the finals of the US Open. He was the only player on tour that year to accomplish the rare feat of winning a tournament on every surface, which included the Australian, Scottsdale, Key Biscayne, Montreal, and Sydney tournaments on hard courts, Queens Club on grass, Forest Hills, Hamburg, and Bordeaux on clay, and Stockholm on carpet. (Notice that 3 of these events are now classified as Masters Series tournaments - Key Biscayne was considered the "fifth Slam" at the time, and the Montreal and Hamburg tournaments were just as prestigious then as they are now.)

Lendl had 1 less loss and 28 more wins while playing only 4 more events than Becker. He won twice as many tournaments that year, and had only one tournament where he failed to reach the semifinals or better. He was dominate on all surfaces, and was by far the best player overall for the entire year.

Becker won two Slams that year for the first and only time in his career. Normally, a player that wins two Slams in a year would be the odds on favorite to be #1, but Becker was not as consistant throughout the year, did not play as much, did not win as many matches or tournaments, and had several really bad losses.

Regarding the ranking systems, please note that the men's ATP computer ranking system (otherwise known as the "entry" system) and the women's WTA computer ranking system are completely different and are administered seperately. Both systems calculate rankings based on a sliding scale of points awarded for tournaments, with Grand Slams worth twice as much as any other event.

For men, points are totaled from the 4 Slams, 9 Master Series events, and a player's 5 best other tournaments in the last 52 weeks and are multiplied by 5. The calculated total represents the player's place in the rankings. If you miss a Slam or Masters Series event, you get 0 points for that event and it can not be made up by playing a bunch of smaller tournaments because only your 5 best non-Masters or Slam events count toward the rankings. Winning a Slam is worth 200 points, a Masters Series event is 100 points, an International Series Gold is worth 60 points, and other International Series tournaments are worth 35 to 50 points. (Challengers, Satellites, and Futures are obviously worth much less.)

For the women, the points from your 17 best tournament results in the last 52 weeks are calculated to form the ranking. An explanation of the women's system, including the points scale for different tournaments can be found here:
http://www.wtatour.com/global/includes/TrackIt.asp?file=/global/Pdfs/rankings/howitworks.pdf

In the 22 year history of the ATP computer ranking system, only two men have ever finished the year #1 without winning a Slam that year. Jimmy Connors did it in 1975 and 1977, and John McEnroe did it in 1982. In 1975, Connors won 9 tournaments and was runner-up in 6 tournaments, including the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open. In 1977, Connors won 7 tournaments, and was runner-up in in 6 tournaments, including Wimbledon and the US Open. In 1982, McEnroe won 5 tournaments, and was runner-up in 5, including Wimbledon... but frankly, I can't figure out how he beat out Connors for the year end #1 that year when Connors won 7 tournaments (including Wimbledon and the US Open) and was a finalist at 4 others that year. That is the only dubious year end ranking that I could find in the history of the ATP tour.

As for the WTA, several players have become #1 for several weeks without winning a Slam (like Mauresmo and Clijsters), but only Davenport has actually ended a year as #1 without winning any Slams during that year.