Is Mats Wilander the most underated player of all time?

[Jack the Hack]

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

No, the athletes always claim they don't know how it got in their system or that the test was flawed. That was what I was implying when I wrote [paraphrased] "like all players that test positive, they claimed innocence..." However, in Wilander's case, I believed him and maybe, I am being naive.

In regards to when they took the cocaine and how much was in their systems, I wish I could see the ITF report, but it is no longer available (or was never posted as the case occurred before the Internet was really going strong). Both players have long since served their suspensions, and gone on to be clean (as far as we know) since then, so I'm not really going to spend a lot of time trying to rehash the case. Only Wilander and Novacek know if they really snorted up on purpose, so it's not going to solve much for us to debate the subject. You may be of the opinion that they were casual cokeheads, but I choose to believe differently. Neither one of us will ever know whether we are right or not...

I only brought up the details of the case because someone mentioned Wilander getting busted for a banned substance, and I thought it needed elaboration. As it relates to Wilander's greatness as a player, I see it having no effect.

 

[Jack the Hack]

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?

Steve, this is a very good point!

Overall, I just don't see how comparing Wilander to Lendl is a valid debate. Lendl's record is superior in almost every category (Slams, regular tournaments, rankings, head-to-head, etc) compared to Wilander. Also, I think they were pretty much at their peaks during the same years, so I'm not seeing anything in that either. Here's the head to head matchups, which Lendl led 15-7: http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=Lendl,+Ivan&player2=wilander. I think Lendl's best verses Wilander's best might end up like the '88 US Open final, which was a 5 setter that could have gone either way. Wilander won it that day, but there were many other times when Lendl clubbed Wilander even when Mats was playing good. Both were greats, but I consider Lendl greater... and Wilander's my favorite player ever. :neutral:

As I mentioned before, why not compare Wilander with McEnroe since they both had 7-4 records in Slam finals. McEnroe only had a slim 7-6 advantage in head-to-head matchups, but never won three Slams in a year or won a Slam on every surface like Wilander did. Tennis Magazine rated McEnroe 11th on their list of the 40 greatest players of the Open era, ahead of Wilander at 15th. I think that McEnroe was more talented, but Wilander got more out of his talent. Can a case be made that Wilander was greater, or are they equal? That seems like a better comparison to me...

 

[Jack the Hack]

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

Hmmm.... so I guess you are saying that Lendl, Connors, Vilas, Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Noah, Leconte, Mecir, and Muster were inferior competition, at their worst, or weren't great during the years that Wilander was winning Slams ('82-'88 )?

 

[devila]

Mats simply wasn't passionate like Connors, Muster, Lendl and Agassi. If he had worked harder, he would've won at least 10 Slams and defeated Agassi, McEnroe and Edberg at least several more times. Without the bad lifestyle and early retirement, he was good enough to beat Sampras.
I watched one match with John Mc and Mats wasn't trying nearly as hard as John. Very disappointing loss.
His commentating on ESPN was way better than John McEnroe's.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

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?

Ok guys I have come to a conclusion about the people on this board (myself included). Why are we all such avid tennis fans...what drives us so much? Is it simply that we love the sport? Well thats part of it....but I submit that it is also psycological.

Each and every person on this board lives to hit a winner or cause an unforced error. We pursue this on the tennis court, in our lives and in our debates on this board.

I have anlayzed the posts on this string and I have come to the conclusion that no one is going to hit a clean winner. On the other hand Jack is atune to so many facts that he has realized that someone will make an "unforced error" and he will expose them with all of his facts and statistics. Therefor it is no surprise that his favorite player is Wilander...who also happens to be one of the greatest tacticians the sport has ever seen and also relys on unforced erros. Jack is a very dangerous debater and I respect his game as I do Wilander very much. In tennis most points are won on unforced errors rather than clean winners. Therefore , realizing this very important fact I am just going to say that it is simply my opinion that:

at their peaks Wilander would have beaten Lendl. This is simply an opinion and may be wrong. lets just agree to disagree and not be so freaking competitive for once in our lives. Games set and match to everyone! End of string...the question is ....: can we all live with that?

 

[Jack the Hack]

Ok guys I have come to a conclusion about the people on this board (myself included). Why are we all such avid tennis fans...what drives us so much? Is it simply that we love the sport? Well thats part of it....but I submit that it is also psycological.

Each and every person on this board lives to hit a winner or cause an unforced error. We pursue this on the tennis court, in our lives and in our debates on this board.

I have anlayzed the posts on this string and I have come to the conclusion that no one is going to hit a clean winner. On the other hand Jack is atune to so many facts that he has realized that someone will make an "unforced error" and he will expose them with all of his facts and statistics. Therefor it is no surprise that his favorite player is Wilander...who also happens to be one of the greatest tacticians the sport has ever seen and also relys on unforced erros. Jack is a very dangerous debater and I respect his game as I do Wilander very much. In tennis most points are won on unforced errors rather than clean winners. Therefore , realizing this very important fact I am just going to say that it is simply my opinion that:

at their peaks Wilander would have beaten Lendl. This is simply an opinion and may be wrong. lets just agree to disagree and not be so freaking competitive for once in our lives. Games set and match to everyone! End of string...the question is ....: can we all live with that?

Pusher, thank you for the Wilander tactician comparison regarding my posts. It's an interesting observation, and you may very well be on to something there in regards to the link between poster personalities and who they admire. In any case, it certainly doesn't hurt my ego to be compared to my tennis hero!

When I post on this forum, I try to state my opinion and then have facts or statistics that back up my case. My intention is not to "win" or embarrass someone by exposing an "unforced error", but to support my reasoning with researched analysis. However, I do get really embarrassed myself if I misquote something, make a spelling or grammatical error, or if I just simply say something wrong (like one time when comparing players, I posted that Becker had 5 Slams instead of 6 because I missed his 1996 Australian in my count, but Kevin Patrick caught my mistake). As a player, I am primarily a baseliner and I use a heavy ball and placement to pull out errors from my opponents. One of my favorite statistics is that ~80% of points on the pro tour end with an error, and that amount is even higher amongst the amateur ranks. I use that concept to my advantage by being consistent and relying on errors from my opponent. I also practice obsessively, scout out my opponents in tournaments, and track my progress in spreadsheets. On the other hand, there are some people that are free wheeling big hitters that go for winners on every shot (ala Fernando Gonzalez, Marat Safin, etc). They don't get hung up on errors, hit instinctively without a particular strategy, and feel that it's weenie tennis to just keep the ball in play on certain points. They work on their games also, but don't like to keep a regimented practice schedule or worry about developing different strategies for opponents. In the same way, they are probably the same type of posters on here that make wild comments without checking the stats, or whom you can't change their opinion no matter what! There is nothing wrong with either type of approach as they are just different types of personalities...

By the way, I try not to make it personal or be offensive when I am posting. However, sometimes I cross the line - like I did with my tone with you in the Puerta thread (which was a topic we agreed on). We are all entitled to our opinions, and when it comes to speculative topics (like who is better), nobody is really right or wrong... but it's just fun to discuss (or least it should be).

So, as you stated, let's just agree to disagree on certain topics, and live with the fact that we are all big tennis fans here, but may see things in different ways!

Peace!

On a final note, if anybody has any off-the-court stories to share about Wilander or any of the other top Swedish players from the 80s, I would love to hear them. I wasn't being a smartass in my reply to AndrewD, I really want to know about some aspects of these players that I never knew... and if Wilander was a "party monster", I want to know why he was considered that way.

 

[jhhachamp]

Nice post Pusher, however you didn't answer my question!!! Who would you consider greater if Fed retired today, Fed or Sampras?

 

[Freedom]

Mats is so cool. I met him a couple days ago.

EDIT: If Federer retired today, Sampras would be the greater player. Federer is dominant now, but his stats don't match up with Pete's yet.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

As I mentioned before, why not compare Wilander with McEnroe since they both had 7-4 records in Slam finals. McEnroe only had a slim 7-6 advantage in head-to-head matchups, but never won three Slams in a year or won a Slam on every surface like Wilander did. Tennis Magazine rated McEnroe 11th on their list of the 40 greatest players of the Open era, ahead of Wilander at 15th. I think that McEnroe was more talented, but Wilander got more out of his talent. Can a case be made that Wilander was greater, or are they equal? That seems like a better comparison to me...

Don't forget doubles - Wilander was a pretty good doubles player, but couldn't hold a candle to McEnroe in doubles.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Nice post Pusher, however you didn't answer my question!!! Who would you consider greater if Fed retired today, Fed or Sampras?

Still going for the winner....huh? I know I should walk away...I want to walk away...BUT I CAN'T...LOL...I AM AN ADDICT...UGHH. I did try though.

I know you think you have set a trap for me and I see your tactic coming. Its like a long curveball. But the truth is I just don't know! Sampras would have more grandslam wins....so thats both quality & quantity. On the other hand...at their peaks (hwich I am not sure Fed has hit yet), I would have to say Fed would beat Sampras on most surfaces. Clearly Fed is a better player on clay. All that is left is hard and grass. Fed did beat Pete at Wmibledon. Pete was clearly not at his peak...but neither was FED! In my final analysis, if I had to put money on a match between Fed & Sampras , I would have to say that Fed would win. So who is the better player? The one with the better record or the one that would win in at their peaks?,,,Hmmmm...I think if I were forced I would have to pick Fed because I believe that Fed would beat Pete on most surfaces.

 

[Jet Rink]

Without any doubt

Without any doubt, Mats is the most underrated player in tennis history.

The guy started out as a patient clay master and ended his career capable of hanging with any player on any surface.

I contend he is also in the top three of tacticians ever to reach Hall of Fame status.

Great thread. Great guy.

Jet

 

[jhhachamp]

I know you think you have set a trap for me and I see your tactic coming. Its like a long curveball.

No trap at all honestly, I am not planning a way to attack you or anything, I was simply curious about your point of view on the matter since your criteria seems to be quite radical. I was just trying to gauge just how radical it was I guess. Thanks for answering.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

No trap at all honestly, I am not planning a way to attack you or anything, I was simply curious about your point of view on the matter since your criteria seems to be quite radical. I was just trying to gauge just how radical it was I guess. Thanks for answering.

hmmmmmmmmm????..ok. It is radical....I will give you that!

 

[audioaffliction]

Very interesting thread. I think those of us on this board who remember the brief Wilander/Lendl rivalry of 1987/88 will appreciate two great years of slam tennis. Lendl dictated play from the middle of the court with the combo of a big serve and big forehand--especially the inside-out. Wilander, on the other hand, was the ultimate counter-puncher and tactician.

The slice BH that we recall today was something that he developed after 1987--the year he lost TWO slam finals to Lendl at the French and US Opens. The 87/88 swing was also when he started approaching the net a lot more. Those of you who remember the '87 French final will recall that Mats started serving and volleying from the ad court and putting away backhand volleys down the line--a big surprise for Lendl. The pattern continued later that year at the U.S. Open final, but Lendl came out on top both times. It was the addition of the crosscourt slice BH--along with improved serving and volleys--that made the crucial difference. In the 1988 U.S. Open final, Mats rarely used his two-hander, using the slice to take pace off the ball and to keep Lendl pinned deep in the ad court. He also recorded 100% first serves in the second set. It bears remembering that at the time, no Swede had ever won the U.S. Open--a slam that eluded the great Bjorn Borg.

I haven't seen any of these matches from 87/88 in over 15 years, but used to watch them over and over on tape when I was a kid. Oddly, I think my favorite one was the 1988 Australian Open final--five sets of enthralling tennis between Mats and Pat Cash. Classic! The most forgettable was, of course, the 1988 French over Leconte, who was sadly off his game on the day. Wilander's pursuit of the Grand Slam was halted that year by, I believe, Miroslav Mecir (incidentally, another of my favorite players from that era)--can anyone confirm? But the 1988 Wimbledon final between Edberg and Becker was awesome and contributed to the "Swedish Slam" of 1988.

I see Federer today as an amalgamation of Wilander and Lendl. On the one hand, Fed displays the serve and forehand dominance the Lendl brought to the game, but he also possesses Wilander's ability to alter tactics and vary his game according to the opponents he faces. Fed's also more of an artist than either of his forebears; all in all, a fitting number one for our time.

 

[Crichton]

Wilander was beaten by Mecir in the quarters of Wimbledon in '88. Mecir very often beat all of the swedes, sometimes in the same tournament. Mats and all of the other swedes hated playing him.

An aside: One of the forgotten reasons why Wilander hated Lendl was because in '87 before the french, Mats flew into Paris and his racquets were lost, and he had to play an exhibition with sticks out of a dept. store, and Lendl hammered him 6-0, 6-0. Wilander swore after that he would make Lendl hit 100 balls a rally in order to beat him. That's why the '87 French and US Opens were these war and peace drawn out affairs.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Very interesting thread. I think those of us on this board who remember the brief Wilander/Lendl rivalry of 1987/88 will appreciate two great years of slam tennis. Lendl dictated play from the middle of the court with the combo of a big serve and big forehand--especially the inside-out. Wilander, on the other hand, was the ultimate counter-puncher and tactician.

The slice BH that we recall today was something that he developed after 1987--the year he lost TWO slam finals to Lendl at the French and US Opens. The 87/88 swing was also when he started approaching the net a lot more. Those of you who remember the '87 French final will recall that Mats started serving and volleying from the ad court and putting away backhand volleys down the line--a big surprise for Lendl. The pattern continued later that year at the U.S. Open final, but Lendl came out on top both times. It was the addition of the crosscourt slice BH--along with improved serving and volleys--that made the crucial difference. In the 1988 U.S. Open final, Mats rarely used his two-hander, using the slice to take pace off the ball and to keep Lendl pinned deep in the ad court. He also recorded 100% first serves in the second set. It bears remembering that at the time, no Swede had ever won the U.S. Open--a slam that eluded the great Bjorn Borg.

I haven't seen any of these matches from 87/88 in over 15 years, but used to watch them over and over on tape when I was a kid. Oddly, I think my favorite one was the 1988 Australian Open final--five sets of enthralling tennis between Mats and Pat Cash. Classic! The most forgettable was, of course, the 1988 French over Leconte, who was sadly off his game on the day. Wilander's pursuit of the Grand Slam was halted that year by, I believe, Miroslav Mecir (incidentally, another of my favorite players from that era)--can anyone confirm? But the 1988 Wimbledon final between Edberg and Becker was awesome and contributed to the "Swedish Slam" of 1988.

I see Federer today as an amalgamation of Wilander and Lendl. On the one hand, Fed displays the serve and forehand dominance the Lendl brought to the game, but he also possesses Wilander's ability to alter tactics and vary his game according to the opponents he faces. Fed's also more of an artist than either of his forebears; all in all, a fitting number one for our time.

You are the master!! WOW! You really know you ****. Jack you have some competition.....LOL...seriously though...your analogy of federe and Wilander is amazing. i did not realize that in 88 Wilander could serve and volley as well! I guess that year he was an all courter? Was there anything he could not do? Sheesh!

 

[audioaffliction]

i did not realize that in 88 Wilander could serve and volley as well! I guess that year he was an all courter? Was there anything he could not do? Sheesh!

Wilander was still a baseliner for the most part, but he added way more variety to his game with the slice BH and well-chosen trips to the net. As Crichton noted about the 87 finals with Lendl, Wilander learned that he could not beat Lendl by simply engaging in a war of attrition from the baseline.

The thing about Lendl was his consistency--he could grind it out in long rallies from the baseline, but he also had the power to take advantage of any short ball. I've always thought that Lendl would have dominated the French Open for a few more years if he hadn't started skipping it in order to win Wimbledon.

The amazing thing about Wilander really was his ability to change his game--even after years of success. I watched him on the Champions Tour recently and although he didn't have a lot of success in Houston, I was amazed to see that he's even better at serving and volleying now than he ever used to be.

 

[devila]

Pat McEnroe really declared, "Federer's defense is underrated."

At the same time, Captain Mc would do anything to cheat for the American Davis Cup team.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

WOW!!!! Just by coincidence my TIVO recorded Wilander vs. Courier on INHD in an old timers match. They just finished the first set and the reporter says to Mats , something like:

"hey Mats I see you are quite effective against Courier using the serve and volley....is this a new style for you"?

Mats responds " If you followed my career you would have known that I started to serve and volley after 1985"

He actually seemed a little upset that the reporter did not know about Wilanders style. To be honest ...neither did I.

I don't know who will win this match but Wilander has been playing awesome...he has been playing mainly serve and volley but also doing everything else! I never knew he could play serve n volley. I have underestimated this guy as well!!! I thought he was simply a baseliner who ran everything down.....boy was I wrong. This guy really does play more like Federer...he can do everything!! You have got to see this match. I'm gonna finish watching. But the more I watch the more I see the similarities between Feds style and Wilander. WOW!

 

[audioaffliction]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Wilander plays like Federer, but I think the two of them definitely use their brains out on the court. And of course, neither of them really has a drop shot. ;-)

 

[VamosRafa]

We shall see, because I think Wilander may be the most underrated player, after or before Nadal. Lots of similarities in their games, attitudes, and such. It will be interesting to revisit this issue in a few years.

But I see Nadal being in the Wilander mode at some point -- but not for a few years, of course.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Wilander plays like Federer, but I think the two of them definitely use their brains out on the court. And of course, neither of them really has a drop shot. ;-)

I think the drop shopt comment was a joke...butl you should have seen the match because Mats hit some incredible droppers. In fact there was one dropper that Mats hit for an incredible winner. Mats put his hand up to say "I am sorry". Courier made fun of Mats by imitating the feigned "sorry" pose by Mats. Jim meant that Mats was FAR from sorry.


@@@@@@ SPOILER @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


DO NOT READ PAST THIS POIN BECAUSE I DISCUSS THE SCORE:





Mats won the first set 7-6 and lost the second 6-2 and then a tie breaker (Same as USTA rules). I have not checked out atpplayers.com but I do believe Mats was older. After winning the first set he commented on how tired he was and how bad he needed water. His leg also seemed to be bothering him quite a bit.

What shockd me and the reporter and maybe even Courier is that he played the entiore match serving and volleying. HE BLEW MY MIND!!! He also blew the reporters mind who could not stop talking about it and the fact that Mats was upset that the reporter underestimated Mats. ....Mats really zinged it to him when he said :

"If you had watched me play you would have realized that I had been playing S & V since 1985"

Finally,,,,he does have a similar style to Fed because both players can do everything....Fed just does it better. Mats lacks Fed's power.

 

[iscottius]

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.

this is a terrible analogy, Monica Seles was a victim and forces outside of her control drove her down. If what you are saying" Mats was bored" (by the way I don't but it) this was in his control, he let his play suffer and we can not excuse that.

The reason why Mats is under-rated is his style of play. Mats was a pusher and relied on his speed and smarts. Once he lost a half step in speed he became very beatable. I give him credit for changing his game a bit late in his career, but he was at his best when he was in top shape driving the top players crazy with his defensive retriever tennis. as for cocaine, let's be adults here--it was the 80's, coke was somewhat prevelant on tour -vitas, john mac, connors etc. if he tested positive he partied.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

this is a terrible analogy, Monica Seles was a victim and forces outside of her control drove her down. If what you are saying" Mats was bored" (by the way I don't but it) this was in his control, he let his play suffer and we can not excuse that.

The reason why Mats is under-rated is his style of play. Mats was a pusher and relied on his speed and smarts. Once he lost a half step in speed he became very beatable. I give him credit for changing his game a bit late in his career, but he was at his best when he was in top shape driving the top players crazy with his defensive retriever tennis. as for cocaine, let's be adults here--it was the 80's, coke was somewhat prevelant on tour -vitas, john mac, connors etc. if he tested positive he partied.

Wilander a pusher? I think you might be the one who is taking some sort of a drug? The guy had serious groundstrokes...a solid two handed backhand and a good topspin forehand. he also had a very good serve and he could volley as evidenced by his Wimbledon doubles championship amd his Australian win on grass (also is Aus wins on hard and US open on hard). Mats added sevre and volley to his game in 1985. he was "at his best" as you say in 1988 doin it all ...including serve and volleys! He did not win 7 grand slams by pushing. He could do it all....But thanks for proving my point: Mats is the most underated player of all time!

Secondly...Mats went down hill for a number of reason. But basically in 88 he just got bored because he won almost everything. He thought to himself "there must be more to life"...and so he pursued other interests. By 1991 he retired at the ripe old age of 26. One year shy of Borg. In that time he won 7 grandslams on grass, clay, and hard.

Jack!!, you wanted stories ...I have one:

I played at Ivan Lendls club in Bedford NY today (Grand slam tennis). Anyway a pro over there said that he hit with Mats hundreds of times at the club and that Mats was a real stoner! He said mats played stoned all of the time (Pot)He also added.. "hey everyone did". In fact he said that he thinks Mcenroe played worse once he stopped doing coke.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Jack!!, you wanted stories ...I have one:

I played at Ivan Lendls club in Bedford NY today (Grand slam tennis). Anyway a pro over there said that he hit with Mats hundreds of times at the club and that Mats was a real stoner! He said mats played stoned all of the time (Pot)He also added.. "hey everyone did". In fact he said that he thinks Mcenroe played worse once he stopped doing coke.

I actually think that is pretty sad. If Wilander was so tactically brilliant and strategically aware while doped up on wacky weed, just think of how much better he could have been with a clear head...

(Then again, since this came from a pro at Ivan Lendl's club, maybe they are paid extra to spread nasty rumours about Lendl's old rivals like Mac and Mats!!! )

Anyway, I haven't visited this thread for a few days, so I won't fill up the page with quotes from other folks, but let me address a few topics:

Yes, it was Miloslav Mecir that stopped Wilander's bid for the Grand Slam in 1988, and it wasn't even close (6-3, 6-1, 6-3). Mecir was known as the "Swede Killer", and going into the '88 Wimbledon, he had a 19-17 record against the top Swedes (Wilander, Edberg, Jarryd, and Nystrom), including a 7-4 edge over Wilander. (If you pull up the head-to-head record between him and Wilander, you'll see that he beat Mats by some pretty embarrassing scores several times: http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...loslav&playernum1=M052&player2=Wilander,+Mats ). Anyway, after he beat Mats at that Wimbledon, I was rooting for Edberg to win. Mecir actually had a 2 sets to love lead on Edberg, and had several chances to put the match away, but ended up choking and Edberg won in 5 sets. Mecir was a wonderful player with McEnroe-type feel and effortless movement, and when he was "on", he was nearly unstoppable. However, his nerves always seemed to get the best of him in the really big moments. He made two Slam finals, but got clubbed by Lendl in both of them. His career highlight was probably winning the Olympic gold medal in '88 (where he got revenge by beating Edberg in the semis).

I agreed with most of audioaffliction's recollections regarding Wilander's game adjustments from '87 to '88. My addition would be that Wilander had made the comment that previous to '88, he expected to have his own serve broken a lot because it wasn't very big and he relied on his return game to break back in sets and win matches. However, he came to the realization that if he could defend his serve more often, it would be easier to win because he returned so well. Therefore, in addition to the slice backhand and strategic volley forrays, he worked hard on his serve... but he didn't try to hit with any more power, but instead boost the accuracy of placement, vary the spins, and boost the 1st serve percentage. During the US Open final, they interviewed his hitting partner/coach Matt Doyle, and Matt mentioned that Wilander was practicing serves late at night in the dark the Saturday night before the US Open final to keep up the good rhythm he had going.

The only disagreement I have with audioaffliction's comments was that he said Leconte was "off his game" the day Wilander beat him in the French final. Leconte actually played excellent in his last 3 matches coming into the match with Wilander, and lead by a break twice in the first set, including an opportunity to serve for the set at 5-4. However, Wilander figured out that Leconte could not attack him if he got his first serve in and kept his groundstrokes looping deep and high to Henri's one-handed backhand. Wanna' know how many first serves Wilander missed in the entire match? 3! Wanna' know how many unforced errors Wilander made in the second and third sets? 1! Wanna' know how many times Wilander hit to Leconte's forehand in the second and third sets? 36 times total, and 28 of those times were either on a serve or passing shot. During the match, Bud Collins commented that it was like a tennis lesson and Wilander was feeding balls to Leconte's backhand, daring him to get it right, which Henri just couldn't do. The ball was sitting up too high for Leconte to hit aggressive topspin winners, so all he could do was slice, which didn't penetrate enough for him to attack the net against Wilander. In my opinion, Leconte was "off his game" because Wilander made him that way with the perfect strategy and near perfect execution.

In regards to player stories, I do have a funny one regarding Mecir, Wilander, and Nystrom. Before the 1985 Rotterdam tournament, Mats and Joakim had decided to put themselves on a new "healthy food only" diet and were really struggling with it. When they showed up in Rotterdam, they watched in horror all week as Mecir gobbled down greasy hamburgers and fries, topped off with chocolate candy bars... while they ate granola and salads. Wilander ended up losing in the second round to an unknown player, and Nystrom got smoked in straight sets in the semifinals to Mecir, who won the tournament. I guess they trashed the diet, and drowned their misery in some junk food after the tournament. (Who knows, maybe they lit up and got the munchies also? :mrgreen: )

As far as comparing Wilander to Federer, I think there are some similarities in how they both seem cool under pressure, rarely get un-nerved, move very well, and are able to come up with brilliant tactical strategies for different opponents. However, stroke wise, Federer has much more power on his groundstrokes and serve. Federer shocks opponents (and fans) by coming up with absolutely amazing high-light reel winners from all parts of the court. On the other hand, Wilander rarely amazed anyone with the pace or angle of his strokes, but would occasionally bring people out of their seats by continually chasing down shots that seemed like they were impossible to reach. The '88 Australian Open final that audioaffliction lauded had multiple examples where Wilander retrieved volleys and overheads that Cash was just sure he had put away... that was a very entertaining match! It is this scrambling ability that most reminds me of Nadal, who VamosRafa compared Wilander to earlier, and I agree. I also see the same kind of mental toughness in Nadal that was in Wilander in-so-much as they both have a positive never-say-die attitude and are not overwhelmed by big moments at a young age.

 

[iscottius]

Mats was a defensive player and a solid retriever, nothing wrong with his style, but he was a pusher. Mats did play in a down era for tennis. The best players were past thier prime (except lendl) and the new crop just weren't that good. I don't think he is under rated, he is down in the top 15 in Tennis Magazine.

another Mats story:

I was down at Colony Tennis Resort (the orginal Nick B camp) and Mats was there training in the prime of his career- mid eighties had already won a few majors and he played a match with retired Jimmy Arias and he was straight setted off the court. The pro's at Colony who were there then are still there now and said it was a thorough domination, Jimmy lived near by and he wasn't even training, they asked him to come and play Mats cause he was in town.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Mats was a defensive player and a solid retriever, nothing wrong with his style, but he was a pusher. Mats did play in a down era for tennis. The best players were past thier prime (except lendl) and the new crop just weren't that good. I don't think he is under rated, he is down in the top 15 in Tennis Magazine.

You have completely proved my point. You call Mats a pusher and a defensive player. Yet the fact is that he served and volleyed since 1985. He won 3 grandslams using the serve and volley in 1988 alone (not to mention his four other GS'), he won a wimbledon doubles championship as well using his superior and unbelievably overlooked volley techniques. Yet you call him a pusher?? PUSHERS CANNOT SERVE AND VOLLEY!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I mean. Everyone calls him a retriever but the truth of the matter is that he turned into an all courter. He reached the height of his career as an all courter...yet very few people have seen this . Even reporters! Its really strange.

 

[Moose Malloy]

easy there, pusher.
he didn't serve & volley all the time. most of the time he was a baseliner/pusher/counterpuncher. he would S&V occasionally(more as a surprise play), but not enough to be considered an allcourt player. he certainly was a pusher on clay, he never came to net in winning 3 french opens.
it's strange that you seem so adamant about this, considering you just saw him play for the first time a few days ago? in a seniors match? were you even born in 1988 when Mats was #1?
I think iscottius, audioafflication, & jack know quite a bit more about Wilander than you do. You should try to find some of his grand slam finals from '85 onward, you will see that he was primarily a counterpuncher & not nearly as versatile as you seem to think.

 

[iscottius]

You have completely proved my point. You call Mats a pusher and a defensive player. Yet the fact is that he served and volleyed since 1985. He won 3 grandslams using the serve and volley in 1988 alone (not to mention his four other GS'), he won a wimbledon doubles championship as well using his superior and unbelievably overlooked volley techniques. Yet you call him a pusher?? PUSHERS CANNOT SERVE AND VOLLEY!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I mean. Everyone calls him a retriever but the truth of the matter is that he turned into an all courter. He reached the height of his career as an all courter...yet very few people have seen this . Even reporters! Its really strange.

You are mistaken, Mats was not a serve & volleyer, he was a baseliner and a retriever, his best asset was his feet. Let's not re-write history, he occasionally served & volleyed-- he did not S&V from 85 on, and he did not win his three slams in 88 serving & volleying.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

easy there, pusher.
he didn't serve & volley all the time. most of the time he was a baseliner/pusher/counterpuncher. he would S&V occasionally(more as a surprise play), but not enough to be considered an allcourt player. he certainly was a pusher on clay, he never came to net in winning 3 french opens.
it's strange that you seem so adamant about this, considering you just saw him play for the first time a few days ago? in a seniors match? were you even born in 1988 when Mats was #1?
I think iscottius, audioafflication, & jack know quite a bit more about Wilander than you do. You should try to find some of his grand slam finals from '85 onward, you will see that he was primarily a counterpuncher & not nearly as versatile as you seem to think.

Hello Moose,

I never siad he served and volleyed all of the time. If he did that then I would have called him a serve and volleyer. Instead what I called him was an all courter because he could do it all.

He did not use his serve and volley as a "surprise play"....at least not in his doubles championship at Wimbledon!!!

I saw him play Courier and he was serving and volleying a majority of the time. When a reporter asked him " I am surprised you are serving and Volleying so much"...mats' resonse was.."I have been serving and volleying since 1985!!"...mats was really pissed.

It true that he played the back court at the French.....but only because that is what is needed to win the French (with the exception of Yanick Noah & Nastase). He would have been insane to try and win the French serving and volleying.However at the US open and at the Australian both on grass and hard courts he used the serve and volley often as well as playing backcourt. In the match I saw against Courier he served and volleyed almost every point...and he was able to split set with none other than COURIER!!! I mean that guy has one of the most lethal forehands I have ever seen......and Mtas took a set from him serving and volleying...now that is awesome!

audioafflication, & jack do know more than I do; however, I do not believe that either of them would call mats a "Pusher". In fact they are the ones who pointed out that Mats served and volleyed.

Finally what do you classify as an all courter? Mats could play the entire court and thats why he was an all courter. Agassi is a baseliner because he really can't volley and plays from the baseline. Mcenroe is a serve and volleyer because he plays that strategy most of the time. But Mats can play either style,.....thats why he is an all courter.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

You are mistaken, Mats was not a serve & volleyer, he was a baseliner and a retriever, his best asset was his feet. Let's not re-write history, he occasionally served & volleyed-- he did not S&V from 85 on, and he did not win his three slams in 88 serving & volleying.

well Mats does not agree with you. mats says he employ the serve and volley from 85 on. Either you are wrong or mats was smoking again!...Finally , I never said Mats was a serve and volleyer. i said he was an all courter.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I really think you try to find some Wilander matches on **** before deciding on your opinion. Regardless of what he said in that senior match, he did not S&V much when he was on tour. I've seen senior tennis & it seems like a lot of players are playing differently than they did on tour(Krickstein looked very different, he could actually hit DTL backhands, which he never did on tour)
Maybe Wilander S&Vs on the senior tour because it's easier physically since he's older & can't win matches by running around for 4 hrs.

I was impressed that Wilander was able to add different dimension to his game throughout his career, but he didn't really do enough to be called an allcourter in my book.
I agree Mac is an allcourter. Ditto Connors & Borg. They came to net much more than Mats did. And even at the baseline were more versatile & offensive. Mats really did nothing with the ball a lot of the time(in the early part of his career, he looked like he was hitting moonballs & just waiting for his opponent to miss. Not very Borg-like. I know he was called the next Borg, but Borg was infinitely more talented IMO)

And I wouldn't use doubles as an example of his S&V. Everyone S&Ved playing doubles in the 80s, that was the only way to play(unlike today with Massu/Gonzalez staying back & winning the Olympics)

 

[Jack the Hack]

I have the '88 Australian, French, and US Open finals on tape... as well as 2 or 3 other Wilander matches from '87 and '88. I will rewatch them all when I get a chance, and will chart the amount of times that Wilander approaches the net.

I did rewatch the French final yesterday before I made my post and I know that Wilander only came to the net 2 or 3 times (if that) and it wasn't on a serve and volley combination. Rather, Leconte was a dangerous player with a big forehand and great volleys. Mats took Henri out of the game by hitting high loopers to his backhand (which meant that Leconte couldn't hit with any power), serving an insane first serve percentage (97%, which meant Leconte couldn't attack), and making very few unforced errors (Mats had 7 in the 1st set, 1 in the second, and 0 in the third!). It was the perfect strategic combination, and he spanked Leconte 7-5, 6-2, 6-1.

In the other matches, which I've watched dozens of times (but not recently), I do know that Mats mixed in serve and volley or chip and charge tactics as a surprise quite frequently. That was one of the differences with his success in '88 as compared to previous years. However, his main style was being error free from the baseline, and running shot after shot down with his tremendous foot speed. Wilander was quite talented at the net, but it wasn't his natural preference to approach there frequently. I would liken this to his Swedish rival at the time, Stefan Edberg. Edberg was known for his volley, but that didn't mean that he couldn't play from the baseline or didn't from time to time. However, his natural tendency was to get to the net, which was the strategy he used most of the time. Wilander played from the baseline most of the time, and that is what he was known for.

I think the term "pusher" has a derogatory meaning on this forum, but it depends on how you define the term. If you mean that a pusher is a player that hits from the baseline with average power, makes very few unforced errors, uses placement to pick on an opponent's weaknesses, and wins by being steady and mentally tough... that is a good description of Wilander. However, if you are inferring that his game was somehow weak and he was "lucky" to win his 7 Slam titles, that is being disingenuous. Wilander wasn't known for any huge power shots, but he didn't have any weaknesses either. His overall game was fairly ordinary for a top 30 pro, but his speed, mental toughness, and strategic genius turned him into one of the all-time greats.

 

[Grimjack]

Wilander was quite talented at the net, but it wasn't his natural preference to approach there frequently. I would liken this to his Swedish rival at the time, Stefan Edberg. Edberg was known for his volley, but that didn't mean that he couldn't play from the baseline or didn't from time to time. However, his natural tendency was to get to the net, which was the strategy he used most of the time. Wilander played from the baseline most of the time, and that is what he was known for.

I think the term "pusher" has a derogatory meaning on this forum, but it depends on how you define the term. If you mean that a pusher is a player that hits from the baseline with average power, makes very few unforced errors, uses placement to pick on an opponent's weaknesses, and wins by being steady and mentally tough... that is a good description of Wilander. However, if you are inferring that his game was somehow weak and he was "lucky" to win his 7 Slam titles, that is being disingenuous. Wilander wasn't known for any huge power shots, but he didn't have any weaknesses either. His overall game was fairly ordinary for a top 30 pro, but his speed, mental toughness, and strategic genius turned him into one of the all-time greats.

A pretty accurate analysis. Good post.

 

[iscottius]

I think the term "pusher" has a derogatory meaning on this forum, but it depends on how you define the term. If you mean that a pusher is a player that hits from the baseline with average power, makes very few unforced errors, uses placement to pick on an opponent's weaknesses, and wins by being steady and mentally tough... that is a good description of Wilander. However, if you are inferring that his game was somehow weak and he was "lucky" to win his 7 Slam titles, that is being disingenuous. Wilander wasn't known for any huge power shots, but he didn't have any weaknesses either. His overall game was fairly ordinary for a top 30 pro, but his speed, mental toughness, and strategic genius turned him into one of the all-time greats.

I agree with your assessment and when I use the term pusher or retriever it is not in a derogatory sense. His style was high percentage tennis few errors, mental toughness and exploiting weakness's in his opponents. He just didn't have any huge weapons but apparently did quite well without them.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

I have the '88 Australian, French, and US Open finals on tape... as well as 2 or 3 other Wilander matches from '87 and '88. I will rewatch them all when I get a chance, and will chart the amount of times that Wilander approaches the net.

I did rewatch the French final yesterday before I made my post and I know that Wilander only came to the net 2 or 3 times (if that) and it wasn't on a serve and volley combination. Rather, Leconte was a dangerous player with a big forehand and great volleys. Mats took Henri out of the game by hitting high loopers to his backhand (which meant that Leconte couldn't hit with any power), serving an insane first serve percentage (97%, which meant Leconte couldn't attack), and making very few unforced errors (Mats had 7 in the 1st set, 1 in the second, and 0 in the third!). It was the perfect strategic combination, and he spanked Leconte 7-5, 6-2, 6-1.

In the other matches, which I've watched dozens of times (but not recently), I do know that Mats mixed in serve and volley or chip and charge tactics as a surprise quite frequently. That was one of the differences with his success in '88 as compared to previous years. However, his main style was being error free from the baseline, and running shot after shot down with his tremendous foot speed. Wilander was quite talented at the net, but it wasn't his natural preference to approach there frequently. I would liken this to his Swedish rival at the time, Stefan Edberg. Edberg was known for his volley, but that didn't mean that he couldn't play from the baseline or didn't from time to time. However, his natural tendency was to get to the net, which was the strategy he used most of the time. Wilander played from the baseline most of the time, and that is what he was known for.

I think the term "pusher" has a derogatory meaning on this forum, but it depends on how you define the term. If you mean that a pusher is a player that hits from the baseline with average power, makes very few unforced errors, uses placement to pick on an opponent's weaknesses, and wins by being steady and mentally tough... that is a good description of Wilander. However, if you are inferring that his game was somehow weak and he was "lucky" to win his 7 Slam titles, that is being disingenuous. Wilander wasn't known for any huge power shots, but he didn't have any weaknesses either. His overall game was fairly ordinary for a top 30 pro, but his speed, mental toughness, and strategic genius turned him into one of the all-time greats.

As I said before.....of course he played baseline at the French. Thats because thats the best strategy for clay. The reason Wilander won on all three surfaces is because he could change his style depending on the surface or the opponent. You just dont win Wimbledon doubles without having some serious kick asz volleying abilities!!! But don't take my word for it...read Bud Collins' Modern encyclopedia of tennis page 384:

"He was at first a pure topspinning grind it out topspinner, a right hander with a two fisted backhand. BUT Mats developed attacking skills and a good volley, winning the Wimbledon doubles in 1986 with Joakim Nystrom"


Bottom line ...Mats was capable of doing it all. Its sorta like Fed & Sampras. Both are all courters...but Sampras was a seve and volleyer first and a baseliner second. Fed is just the opposite. Fed can play any type of game but he is a better baseliner than a serve and volleyer. I think everyone would agree that Pete had the better serve and the better volley. However they are both all courters. Mats is the same way...he favors the baseline but he has a great s & V game as well. Mats cannot shed his image from his early years....and that is why he is the most underated player of all time.

 

[iscottius]

Pusher,
no one is saying that Wilander wasn't a good volleyer, ala roddick, but you should really watch more of his matches. He stayed at the baseline early in his career exclusively, later in his career he WAS NOT a serve & volley player, he still played mainly from the baseline and would close the net on approaches, he did serve & volley OCCASIONALLY to mix it up, BUT WAS NOT A SERVE & VOLLEY PLAYER. He did not win any of his slams serving & volleying exclusively ala Becker, Edberg, Mac etc. Why can't you accept this?

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Pusher,
no one is saying that Wilander wasn't a good volleyer, ala roddick, but you should really watch more of his matches. He stayed at the baseline early in his career exclusively, later in his career he WAS NOT a serve & volley player, he still played mainly from the baseline and would close the net on approaches, he did serve & volley OCCASIONALLY to mix it up, BUT WAS NOT A SERVE & VOLLEY PLAYER. He did not win any of his slams serving & volleying exclusively ala Becker, Edberg, Mac etc. Why can't you accept this?

the better question is why cant you accept the fact that:

I NEVER SAID MATS WAS A SERVE AND VOLLEYER!!!

I hate to be offensive....but I keep repeating myself and you refuse to hear me. Either you are trying to frustrate me (which has worked) or you simply are to lazy to actually read my posts. FOR THE RECORD ,AGAIN:

MATS IS NOT A S & V PLAYER ...HE NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE A S & v PLAYER!!!! HOWEVER MATS DEVELOPED INTO AN ALL COURTER.

are we clear now? here are some of my posts again...SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I have said it so many times there is not enough room to fit it all in)

Hello Moose,

I never siad he served and volleyed all of the time. If he did that then I would have called him a serve and volleyer. Instead what I called him was an ALL COURTER because he could do it all.

Finally what do you classify as an all courter? Mats could play the entire court and thats why he was an ALL COURTER. Agassi is a baseliner because he really can't volley and plays from the baseline. Mcenroe is a serve and volleyer because he plays that strategy most of the time. But Mats can play either style,.....thats why he is an ALL COURTER.

.OR HPW ABOUT THIS QUOTE:

Everyone calls him a retriever but the truth of the matter is that he turned into an ALL COURTER. He reached the height of his career as an ALL COURTER...yet very few people have seen this . Even reporters! Its really strange.

hOW ABOUT THIS ONE

As I said before.....of course he played baseline at the French. Thats because thats the best strategy for clay. The reason Wilander won on all three surfaces is because he could change his style depending on the surface or the opponent. You just dont win Wimbledon doubles without having some serious kick asz volleying abilities!!! But don't take my word for it...read Bud Collins' Modern encyclopedia of tennis page 384:

"He was at first a pure topspinning grind it out topspinner, a right hander with a two fisted backhand. BUT Mats developed attacking skills and a good volley, winning the Wimbledon doubles in 1986 with Joakim Nystrom"


Bottom line ...Mats was capable of doing it all. Its sorta like Fed & Sampras. Both are all courters...but Sampras was a seve and volleyer first and a baseliner second. Fed is just the opposite. Fed can play any type of game but he is a better baseliner than a serve and volleyer. I think everyone would agree that Pete had the better serve and the better volley. However they are both all courters. Mats is the same way...he favors the baseline but he has a great s & V game as well. Mats cannot shed his image from his early years....and that is why he is the most underated player of all time.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Ok, Mats. Mats was a great retriever who later added some variety and punch to his game and also great tactical sense. e can look at Mats achievements, but i will look at his head to head ability. When Lendl played his best, he always beat Mat's, usually handily. When Mac played his best pre 86 he beat him too. Becker could beat Mats most times, and always if he played well. Edberg also went very well against him. Anytime these guys weren't playing great tennis tho Mats was a chance of wearing them down with his relentless consistency. He could only rise so high tho, and was never going to blow anyone away.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Think of Hewitt as a modern day improved version of Mats.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Ok, Mats. Mats was a great retriever who later added some variety and punch to his game and also great tactical sense. e can look at Mats achievements, but i will look at his head to head ability. When Lendl played his best, he always beat Mat's, usually handily. When Mac played his best pre 86 he beat him too. Becker could beat Mats most times, and always if he played well. Edberg also went very well against him. Anytime these guys weren't playing great tennis tho Mats was a chance of wearing them down with his relentless consistency. He could only rise so high tho, and was never going to blow anyone away.

ok...at least you have responded to me. With that Iscottius guy I feel as though I am speaking to a piece of wood.

Once again , I feel that Mats developed into an all courter. You cannot compare Mac's best tennis vs. Wilander. Mac reached his peak in 1984....on the othe hand Mats did not even begin to add attacking tactics until 1985. As far as lendl....Mats and lendl head to head record at GS are 4-4....I dont give a crap about any other tournaments. Edberg would get his butt kicked at the French. Finally who cares about blowing anyone away...a win is a win is a win. There is an old saying:

Do you know what they call a medical student who graduates with the lowest grades in the class???:

DOCTOR.

aND ONCE AGAIN FOR THE RECORD: IMO MATS WAS AN ALL COURTER BY 1988...IMO.

 

[JohnThomas1]

ok...at least you have responded to me. With that Iscottius guy I feel as though I am speaking to a piece of wood.

Once again , I feel that Mats developed into an all courter. You cannot compare Mac's best tennis vs. Wilander. Mac reached his peak in 1984....on the othe hand Mats did not even begin to add attacking tactics until 1985. As far as lendl....Mats and lendl head to head record at GS are 4-4....I dont give a crap about any other tournaments. Edberg would get his butt kicked at the French. Finally who cares about blowing anyone away...a win is a win is a win. There is an old saying:

Do you know what they call a medical student who graduates with the lowest grades in the class???:

DOCTOR.

aND ONCE AGAIN FOR THE RECORD: IMO MATS WAS AN ALL COURTER BY 1988...IMO.

Ok. I am giving reasons for Mat's underrated/not super highly regarded status. I'll reply to a few points, and let me tell you i consider Mat's a fine player.

I have Lendl ahead 5-4 in grand slams, have i missed something? I also think only counting grand slams when talking overall achievements and how a player is regarded as ridiculous. At the end of the day Lendl was 15-7 over Mats. Rest assured Mats tried his heart out in every one. There is two very very one sided Masters events in this, the fifth slam event many call it. Ivan also won one more GS.

Mats deveoloped to the point of almost being an allcourter but was still a bit underpowered on serve IMHO.

Of course Wilander would kick Stefan's butt on clay, it was Mat's forte. Clay is just one part of the tour, and not an immense one.

Who cares about blowing players away in brillaint fashion?? The people do, that's who. They love dominant perofrmances, awesome skill on display. The Sampras's, Lendl, Becker and now Federer. These players when in full flight are awe inspiring, while Mats on the other hand was workmanlike, many would say boring. I am simply giving the reasons why Mats isn't held in the high regard some of these other guys are.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Ok. I am giving reasons for Mat's underrated/not super highly regarded status. I'll reply to a few points, and let me tell you i consider Mat's a fine player.

I have Lendl ahead 5-4 in grand slams, have i missed something? I also think only counting grand slams when talking overall achievements and how a player is regarded as ridiculous. At the end of the day Lendl was 15-7 over Mats. Rest assured Mats tried his heart out in every one. There is two very very one sided Masters events in this, the fifth slam event many call it. Ivan also won one more GS.

Mats deveoloped to the point of almost being an allcourter but was still a bit underpowered on serve IMHO.

Of course Wilander would kick Stefan's butt on clay, it was Mat's forte. Clay is just one part of the tour, and not an immense one.

Who cares about blowing players away in brillaint fashion?? The people do, that's who. They love dominant perofrmances, awesome skill on display. The Sampras's, Lendl, Becker and now Federer. These players when in full flight are awe inspiring, while Mats on the other hand was workmanlike, many would say boring. I am simply giving the reasons why Mats isn't held in the high regard some of these other guys are.

1. You may think only counting grandlsams is ridiculous. but i don't. Players treat Grand slams far more improtantly than measley little tournaments. The grand slams are the world series of tennis...the rest just does not matter. Do you care if The Yankees won more than Boston during the year? Of course not....its only the world series that matters.

2. Maybe Lendl is ahead 5-4 in GS's...Im not sure. You can check it out at www.atpplayers.com.

3. Whetehr or not someone is underpowered in a serve has nothing to do with whether someone is an all courter or not. Feds serve is way underpowered when compared to Sampras'....yet they are both all courters. The speed of ones serve has nothing to do with whether one is an all courter or not. Mats could serve and volley effectively when he wanted to or he could grind it out from the baseline. As far as I know thats every part of the court...thus the name ALL COURTER.

4. As far as Mats beating Edberg on clay...I am glad you agree. I was merely responding to someone who said that Edberg had mats' number.

5. I submit that blowing people away is not what people want to see as you maintain. Watching a blowout is just boring. I think most people would rather watch a nailbiter....like at the AO ..Safin vs, Fed. Or the famous Mcenroe Borg match that went on forever with a very long tiebreaker. Or the famous Mcenroe vs. Wilander match that was one of the longest in history. Its the close matches people talk about. No one cares about a blow out. Did you think the Fed vs. hewitt AO was exciting? I was bored silly.

6. Mats was not boring compared to the robotic like machine known as Lendl. In fact from what I have read there was a Sports Illustrated article with Lendl on the cover that said something like...most boring champion ever. I'm not sure on that though...can someone help me out?

 

[JohnThomas1]

1. You may think only counting grandlsams is ridiculous. but i don't. Players treat Grand slams far more improtantly than measley little tournaments. The grand slams are the world series of tennis...the rest just does not matter. Do you care if The Yankees won more than Boston during the year? Of course not....its only the world series that matters.

2. Maybe Lendl is ahead 5-4 in GS's...Im not sure. You can check it out at www.atpplayers.com.

3. Whetehr or not someone is underpowered in a serve has nothing to do with whether someone is an all courter or not. Feds serve is way underpowered when compared to Sampras'....yet they are both all courters. The speed of ones serve has nothing to do with whether one is an all courter or not. Mats could serve and volley effectively when he wanted to or he could grind it out from the baseline. As far as I know thats every part of the court...thus the name ALL COURTER.

4. As far as Mats beating Edberg on clay...I am glad you agree. I was merely responding to someone who said that Edberg had mats' number.

5. I submit that blowing people away is not what people want to see as you maintain. Watching a blowout is just boring. I think most people would rather watch a nailbiter....like at the AO ..Safin vs, Fed. Or the famous Mcenroe Borg match that went on forever with a very long tiebreaker. Or the famous Mcenroe vs. Wilander match that was one of the longest in history. Its the close matches people talk about. No one cares about a blow out. Did you think the Fed vs. hewitt AO was exciting? I was bored silly.

6. Mats was not boring compared to the robotic like machine known as Lendl. In fact from what I have read there was a Sports Illustrated article with Lendl on the cover that said something like...most boring champion ever. I'm not sure on that though...can someone help me out?

1. You are talking about the odd elite player. There are hundreds that get fed via other tournaments and will never win a GS. I totally disagree about only the slams mattering.

2. He is i think, i did the ATP thing before replying of course, i thought you might check yourself. If only grand slams matter i figured you would have their GS head to head correct for sure.
3. Goodness, Fed is close to the finest server in the world today. Sampras is the finest server in history. Fed's serve also is not as far behind Samp's as you imply, to say Fed is underpowered on serve is unbelievable. Fed's serve makes Mat's look very ordinary truth be known. Mat's could serve and volley to a decent extent, but his serve volleying was usually a surprise attack. Lendl served and volleyed his way to numerous Wimbledon semi's and finals. He was behind Mats as a volleyer but vastly ahead on serve, which is one of the bigger reasons Lendl almost always played well at Wimbledon but Mat's never really went anywhere. If he served and volleyed as well as you imply he would have went superb at Wimbledon with his excellent returns and passes, but of course didn't. His Wimbledon record is very ordinary. Truth be told he had trouble serve volleying continuously, tho Lendl did at W and had great success.

4. Mat's was murder on clay, and Mat's at his best would never lose to Stefan on clay, Stefan however would pretty much beat him everytime on grass and plenty on cement etc.

5. Fed vs Hewitt was amazing due to the sheer brilliance of the tennis Fed played. Lendl too used to do this some days. I personally love to watch shotmaking of this calibre against great opposition. I didn't say peeps want blowouts every time, but sometimes great players hit their straps and amaze us with their talents. Mats could not do this. Out of Lendl, Mac, Edberg, Becker and Connor's Mats was the least exciting. This is not even debatable.

6. Lendl's early demeanour and seriousness was the boring bit, much of his shotmaking had never been seen before tho. He was the hardest ever hitter when he came on the scene. His shotmaking made Mat's reportoire look routine. Mat's is the softest hitting modern great i can think of, i have seen entire matches of baseline rallies where he couldn't muster 3 winners. Later in his career he got a bit better, coming in more and showing some finesse, but in baseline rallies he just looped the ball back all day without ever doing anything with it. Mat's thru most of his career just puddled the ball back and waited for errors. Where he excelled was when opponents came to net, his passes and lobs were awesome. Add this to the fact that he could outrally anyone but Lendl and you had one very successful champion.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

1. You are talking about the odd elite player. There are hundreds that get fed via other tournaments and will never win a GS. I totally disagree about only the slams mattering.

2. He is i think, i did the ATP thing before replying of course, i thought you might check yourself. If only grand slams matter i figured you would have their GS head to head correct for sure.
3. Goodness, Fed is close to the finest server in the world today. Sampras is the finest server in history. Fed's serve also is not as far behind Samp's as you imply, to say Fed is underpowered on serve is unbelievable. Fed's serve makes Mat's look very ordinary truth be known. Mat's could serve and volley to a decent extent, but his serve volleying was usually a surprise attack. Lendl served and volleyed his way to numerous Wimbledon semi's and finals. He was behind Mats as a volleyer but vastly ahead on serve, which is one of the bigger reasons Lendl almost always played well at Wimbledon but Mat's never really went anywhere. If he served and volleyed as well as you imply he would have went superb at Wimbledon with his excellent returns and passes, but of course didn't. His Wimbledon record is very ordinary. Truth be told he had trouble serve volleying continuously, tho Lendl did at W and had great success.

4. Mat's was murder on clay, and Mat's at his best would never lose to Stefan on clay, Stefan however would pretty much beat him everytime on grass and plenty on cement etc.

5. Fed vs Hewitt was amazing due to the sheer brilliance of the tennis Fed played. Lendl too used to do this some days. I personally love to watch shotmaking of this calibre against great opposition. I didn't say peeps want blowouts every time, but sometimes great players hit their straps and amaze us with their talents. Mats could not do this. Out of Lendl, Mac, Edberg, Becker and Connor's Mats was the least exciting. This is not even debatable.

6. Lendl's early demeanour and seriousness was the boring bit, much of his shotmaking had never been seen before tho. He was the hardest ever hitter when he came on the scene. His shotmaking made Mat's reportoire look routine. Mat's is the softest hitting modern great i can think of, i have seen entire matches of baseline rallies where he couldn't muster 3 winners. Later in his career he got a bit better, coming in more and showing some finesse, but in baseline rallies he just looped the ball back all day without ever doing anything with it. Mat's thru most of his career just puddled the ball back and waited for errors. Where he excelled was when opponents came to net, his passes and lobs were awesome. Add this to the fact that he could outrally anyone but Lendl and you had one very successful champion.

1. Again the grand slams are tennis' world series. Again no one cares how many times the Yankees beat Boston during the year. The only thing that matters is who won the world series...thats who the champion is. The same goes for every single other sport whether it be basketball, Hockey,Football. Why should tennis be any different.

2. You are 100 percent correct..I am lazy.

3. Fed is far from the finest server in the world today.....however I do not want to get into that. Lets save that for another post because that has nothing to do wih this issue. The point is...the speed of ones serve has nothing to do with whether a player is an all courter or not. You said that since Mats' serve was weak that made him come "just short" of being an all courter (by the way Mats' serve is quite effective). My only point is that the speed of mats' serve has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is an all court player. Again...Mats can serve and volley very effectively and he can play from the backcourt...thats why he is an all courter.

4. I do not agree that Stefan would beat Mats everytime on grass and cement. Mats has won grandslams on grass and on cement. On the other hand, Stefan has never won on clay. Clearly Mats is a better all around player.

5. You really thought that the Fed vs Hewitt AO match was exciting? I thought it was boring. It will not go down as one of the greatest matches of all times such as Borg vs. Mcenroe. Do you really think that Feds blowout of Hewitt was more exciting than Fed Vs. Safin at the AO? Come on you have got to give this one to me...people like nailbiters rather thn blowouts! Look at the Mike Tyson fights...they only lasted a minute,.,...so no one watches them...but Ali vs. Foreman is shown over and over and over again. In fact I think tennis magazine listed th greatest matches of all time...you know what they had in common? They were all close! There really is no argument here...people like exciting close matches rather than blowouts. You cant really disagree with that!! Come on...I know sometimes on thois board we dig our heels in and defend our positon to the death...but this is a no brainer. People would much rather watch a close match than a blowout.

6. I dont agree with your analysis of Mats style of play....I also don't know what point you are trying to make. I think you are trying to say that Lendl was a more exciting player than Mats.....I personally don't agree...but thats a matter of taste. Although The Lendl vs. Chang match at the French open was exciting as all hell...but only because of Changs style of play...Chang beat Lendl with a underhanded serve and limping on one leg....but you think Changs & Mats' style of play is boring .... right? Or what about Borg was he boring as well? By the way the Lendl and Chang match was a close one ...I think your theory that people want to see a blowout is wrong.

 

[Grimjack]

Stefan however would pretty much beat him everytime on grass and plenty on cement etc.

Tough argument to make, as they were 1-1 on grass, both at the Aussie. And Mats held a 7-4 edge on the hard stuff.

 

[Grimjack]

BTW, before you (anybody) brings up Stefan's very superior Wimbledon record as grasscourt evidence in the possible Wilander vs Edberg matchup, I retort with "Stefan was measurably superior on really fast surfaces." This showed up not only in his Wimbledon success, but in his huge head-to-head edge versus Wilander on carpet.

But I don't think any of that translates to what Stefan "would do" versus Wilander today, if they were both again magically in their primes. The Aussie grass, when they played there, was considerably slower than Wimby's at the same time. By the same token, Wimbledon's grass now is considerably slower than it was at that time, too. Pure S&V has pretty much been taken out of the picture at Wimbledon, and all-court or predominantly baseline play has become the grasscourt order of the day.

I think Wilander would be in much better position to succeed in today's grasscourt game than Edberg. Edberg had the right game for the right surface at the right time.

So again, yes -- Edberg was demonstrably superior on fast surfaces. But fast surfaces have gone the way of the dinosaur, and today's grass court showcase at Wimbledon would be a struggle for Edberg. A discussion of how they "would do" if faced off against each other probably should use the track record of their matches on the considerably slower Aussie courts of old as a reference point. The similarities to today's grass game are much stronger there than the Edberg-era Wimbledon.

With Mats already the obviously better clay player, owning a pretty solid edge in hard court play, at least an even-money bet on slow grass, and with carpet tournaments largely gone from the radar, I think Mats would thoroughly dominate Edberg over the course of the season if they were active players now.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan however would pretty much beat him everytime on grass and plenty on cement etc. .

Tough argument to make, as they were 1-1 on grass, both at the Aussie. And Mats held a 7-4 edge on the hard stuff.

OUCH! John thomas is still bleeding!!

 

[JohnThomas1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------








OUCH! John thomas is still bleeding!!

Lucky i don't bleed on message boards lol



Edberg was green and developing when Mats beat him in the AO 1984 quarters in a competitive 4 setter. The next year a still developing Edberg blew him off the court in the FINAL, 6-4 6-3 6-3. If they met any time after that on grass Edberg would have beat him most times if not every time. This isn't hard to fathom.

also, my "plenty on cement ETC" must have been misunderstood. I was speaking of any surface other than clay and grass. This includes carpet, indoors etc etc. This puts Wilander up 10-8, hardly a dominance.

 

[JohnThomas1]

1. Again the grand slams are tennis' world series. Again no one cares how many times the Yankees beat Boston during the year. The only thing that matters is who won the world series...thats who the champion is. The same goes for every single other sport whether it be basketball, Hockey,Football. Why should tennis be any different.

2. You are 100 percent correct..I am lazy.

3. Fed is far from the finest server in the world today.....however I do not want to get into that. Lets save that for another post because that has nothing to do wih this issue. The point is...the speed of ones serve has nothing to do with whether a player is an all courter or not. You said that since Mats' serve was weak that made him come "just short" of being an all courter (by the way Mats' serve is quite effective). My only point is that the speed of mats' serve has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is an all court player. Again...Mats can serve and volley very effectively and he can play from the backcourt...thats why he is an all courter.

4. I do not agree that Stefan would beat Mats everytime on grass and cement. Mats has won grandslams on grass and on cement. On the other hand, Stefan has never won on clay. Clearly Mats is a better all around player.

5. You really thought that the Fed vs Hewitt AO match was exciting? I thought it was boring. It will not go down as one of the greatest matches of all times such as Borg vs. Mcenroe. Do you really think that Feds blowout of Hewitt was more exciting than Fed Vs. Safin at the AO? Come on you have got to give this one to me...people like nailbiters rather thn blowouts! Look at the Mike Tyson fights...they only lasted a minute,.,...so no one watches them...but Ali vs. Foreman is shown over and over and over again. In fact I think tennis magazine listed th greatest matches of all time...you know what they had in common? They were all close! There really is no argument here...people like exciting close matches rather than blowouts. You cant really disagree with that!! Come on...I know sometimes on thois board we dig our heels in and defend our positon to the death...but this is a no brainer. People would much rather watch a close match than a blowout.

6. I dont agree with your analysis of Mats style of play....I also don't know what point you are trying to make. I think you are trying to say that Lendl was a more exciting player than Mats.....I personally don't agree...but thats a matter of taste. Although The Lendl vs. Chang match at the French open was exciting as all hell...but only because of Changs style of play...Chang beat Lendl with a underhanded serve and limping on one leg....but you think Changs & Mats' style of play is boring .... right? Or what about Borg was he boring as well? By the way the Lendl and Chang match was a close one ...I think your theory that people want to see a blowout is wrong.

1. If we want to go the importance route the players have long said Wimbledon is THEE tournament, the greatest most important tennis tourney on earth. Do we want to judge Mat's greatness on this one? It wouldn't be pretty.

2. Cool.

3. Fed's serve is revered by those who face it. Have a look at the times he hits unreturnables or aces when in trouble. This is the sign of a class serve.

I am disputing that Mat's was as effective as you say serve volleying because he couldn't do it well at wimbledon, the home of the serve - volley. Even Lendl manufactured a GREAT record here, he may not have won but he had close to the most consistent record there over many years.

4. Keep me in context here please, look for the words "pretty much" and "plenty". The difference between my statement and what you claim i said is huge.

5. I enjoyed watching shotmaking of the likes of which has never been seen before. How could this not be exciting? You would prefer a 5 setter at the french between vilas and Mats where rallies average 35 shots and barely a ball goes less than 8 feety above the net???

Who in the hell said Borg - Mac and close matches weren't exciting??? I am trying to let you know that MANY people also enjoy a rare exhibit of skill, even in a blow out. Mat's never did this of course. You need to stop sensationalising my statements, NOBODY ever said a blowout was BETTER and more wanted than these close matches. Stop putting words in my mouth and stick to the topic. You need to read what i write rather than skipping over it and missing all the facts.

6. Lendl was FAr more exciting than Mat's. Lendl was an aggressive baseliner who hit numerous winners whether playing another baseliner or a serve volleyer. He showed far more skill and power than Wilander, this is why he won as much as he did. Have a look at tennis mags top 40. Mats was certainly exciting against a serve volleyer, his counterpunching skill was extraordinary, but put him against another counterpuncher and he stunk. His power off the ground was very poor, he lived on his consistency and great wheels. Also, Lendl was in far more exciting matches than just the chang one, jesus.

Again, stop taking me out of context. I am tewlling you there is always room for blowouts of immense skill, i am not saying people want to SEE THEM EVERYTIME. For a sensational exhibition of power and skill have a look at Ivan's blowout of Mats 2, 2 and 3 in the 87 Masters final. Rod Laver was in total awe commentating. Mat's tried everything, in the end serve volleying but Lendl simply hammered his serve and volley into submission. The crowd were in awe of Ivan's great shotmaking, and truly enjoyed a great exhibition.