Is Mats Wilander the most underated player of all time?

[The Pusher Terminator]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very long responses . Wouldn't it be so much easier to just admit that you were wrong? You are like a mouse caught in a maze...at every impasse you make another turn. Every time you are cornered your response is "I didnt mean it this way or that way...bla bla bla." You sound like Clinton...when Billy said he was never alone in the whitehouse with Monica he was telling the truth...because what he meant was that he was never alone with her because there were people in other rooms in the White house.

Maybe we should call you "slick Jimmy"..lol. For example , now you say you didnt really mean that Edberg would pretty much beat Mats on cement. When you said "cement" you really meant anything other than "grass or clay". We all misunderstood you. Its all our fault! Are you kidding?....you are really funny....Game set and match Mr. Grimberg. You are classic Clinton:

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.

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.

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]

Ok, have it your way, it is pointless to debate with you obviously.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Ok, have it your way, it is pointless to debate with you obviously.

game set and match...like Wilander I outlasted you...lol

 

[ironchef21]

This has been a very interesting thread to go through. I am also a very big fan of Wilander - behind McEnroe he's probably my favorite all-time player.

I don't think Wilander is underrated by die-hard tennis fans who remember him but he is underrated by the casual tennis/sports fan.

On the court he & his fellow Swedes did not come across as having great personalities - which is ironic considering the stories of how many of them liked to party. Having a personality should be irrelevant in the context of what makes a player great, but for some reason that seems to matter to the general public.

In addition to his on-the-court demeanor, Wilander's game was seen as boring. Personally I never thought of Wilander's game as boring because I loved watching him execute his gameplan. But most casual fans want the 130 mph serve, the booming forehand, etc. Especially here in the US where tennis highlights consist of a) 1 really exciting point; b) match point. Wilander's game doesn't translate well to SportsCenter like Sampras' or Becker's.

 

[JohnThomas1]

game set and match...like Wilander I outlasted you...lol

you turn what could be good decent debate into a contest of ridicule. you also take things out of context and don't truly read or listen to what the poster has to say. Not my idea of fun or fruitful passage of time.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

you turn what could be good decent debate into a contest of ridicule. you also take things out of context and don't truly read or listen to what the poster has to say. Not my idea of fun or fruitful passage of time.

Oh I see]....first we all misunderstood you. Now we are taking things out of context. Can't you just admit you were wrong? What is the big deal?:

Wouldn't it be so much easier to just admit that you were wrong? You are like a mouse caught in a maze...at every impasse you make another turn. Every time you are cornered your response is "I didnt mean it this way or that way...bla bla bla." You sound like Clinton...when Billy said he was never alone in the whitehouse with Monica he was telling the truth...because what he meant was that he was never alone with her because there were people in other rooms in the White house.

Maybe we should call you "slick Jimmy"..lol. For example , now you say you didnt really mean that Edberg would pretty much beat Mats on cement. When you said "cement" you really meant anything other than "grass or clay". We all misunderstood you. Its all our fault! Are you kidding?....you are really funny....Game set and match Mr. Grimberg. You are classic Clinton:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Pusher,

Nobody has to be declared a winner or loser in this discussion. Everybody has different opinions and they are entitled to expressed them, even if they are disagreeable.

This thread had a lot of interesting conversation about a great champion who is often overlooked. JohnThomas1 made some interesting points, and overall, I think he agrees that Mats was good. However, he doesn't have to start worshipping the guy or "admit" that he was wrong... especially regarding the serve and volley aspect of Wilander's game.

Anyway, there is a concept of grace where allowing someone to save face in an argument often allows you to be more influential in making your overall point. Food for thought...

(After all, haven't we all posted something wrong from time to time on this forum? )

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Jack,

Awww man! Do you always have to come in on your white horse to save the princess!


You are absolutely right. However that is not the case here. This was all over and done with. The string and dissussion were over. John bowed out... (sorta like a sore loser by saying "no point in debating with you" )....but he did bow out. It wasn't very nice.....I gave him a very delicate jab back by saying "game set and match" and it was all over.

But John could not stop. He had to have the last word. He again hit below the belt By saying that it was "I who took everythiing out of context...that it was I who didnt read what he said etc etc" . He is still actually defending his Edberg comment!!!

Therefore I simply asked him to defend his position:

John said that Edberg would beat Wilander on grass and plenty on cement. Grimjack clearly proved him incorrect.

No problem with that! Nothing to "save face about" as you put it. We are all human and make mistakes. As you pointed out...I have made some as well....however I also admit when I have made a mistake.

But John, rather than admit his mistake , literally goes on and on for paragraph after paragraph dishonestly defending his position. John actually said that by cement he really meant other surfaces than cement! He dishonestly says that I must have misunderstood by what he meant by CEMENT. He then goes claiming what he meant by cement. What he really meant was not CEMENT but actually carpet and other surfaces. How silly of me!!!!

You would think that John would stop with his "cement distortion". But he does not! He then goes on for the icing on the cake...so Now . John adds , if you add up carpet and other stuff then Wilander only lead 10-8..."hardly a dominance".....what???? Johns original statement was that Edberg dominated Wilander?

Not only does John NOT admit when he is wrong....he distorts the entire argument and then has the balls to attack me! It was I who misunderstood
his cement comment...it was I who took everything out of context. The truth is that John is wrong and if he would just forget it this would have been long over and he would have "saved face." But he just goes on an on ...distorting confusing and attacking...rather than Just moving on. His narcissitic ego will not allow him to just forget it.

Now if you want to do some saving then get back on your white horse and go save John from himself.



I want John to save face....bu he just keeps on coming with both barrels blazing.
Besides, this was all over. But John just couldnt stop. He had to have the last word....he ame back and said that I have quoted himout of context

 

[I.hEaRt.KeAbLe]

did you take some dexxys??that is all.xx

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

did you take some dexxys??that is all.xx

look in the mirror

 

[I.hEaRt.KeAbLe]

oi dude i think youve got the wrong end of the stick here.i was joking i wasnt being serious its just that you wrote soo much.and it took me ages to read.that was the only reason.that is all.xx

look in the mirror

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

oi dude i think youve got the wrong end of the stick here.i was joking i wasnt being serious its just that you wrote soo much.and it took me ages to read.that was the only reason.that is all.xx

I was joking to....ha ha.

 

[I.hEaRt.KeAbLe]

haha.good one.that is all.xx

I was joking to....ha ha.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

I found some interesting Wilander quotes:

"all my career I dreamed of being number one. But when I finally achieved it and the initial excitement wore off, I felt nothing. I had no sense of elation or pride. I was world champion but so what? It got to the stage where I got more satisfaction out of cutting the grass than playing tennis."

"Comparing Pat Cash to Mats Wilander is likening a crack in the wall to the Grand Canyon."
(John Newcombe, on the eve of the 1983 Australia -Sweden Davis cup final, with a cheap shot that credited a lifelong feud with Pat Cash. In his 2002 autobiography, Newcombe wrote, "I take total responsibility for the hurt it caused pat because I'd been too busy to OK the ghost writers copy." )

"In the Future if if there is too much pressure, too much publicity, I won't want to be to be number one." (Mats Wilander in 1983 who eventually became number one in 1988 ).

"You cant be considered to be a great player unless you win Wimbledon. That's the way it is." (Wilander...1989... at that point had won seven grand slam titles but never Wimbledon).

"They (John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, and Jimmy Connors) were not the nicest people in the world, they were the most selfish tennis players, but they were great for the game. Tennis needs people who don't care about pleasing the sponsors, who don't care about being nice." (1999).

"If I am boring, it's not my fault." (Stefan Edberg.... just thought I'd throw that in).

"Tennis needs To be played on the slowest surface possible. like we saw in Shanghai in the Davis cup final in Paris, you cant play better tennis than that. When you have guys hitting great groundstrokes, sometimes 15 in a row ...that builds character. If it's serve and NO volley, that builds no character."

"There's too much money in the world. We should be worried about water and starvation, not money. If you care me about money, you're lost.

"I wanted to be like Jimmy Connors or Ilie Nastase. You don't idolize someone is like yourself. You idolize somebody you'd like to be like."

 

[JohnThomas1]

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???

also "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."

Ok we will continue then. I'll actually look thru the whole thread and dissect your words as you have mine. You complain Lendl is much higher regarded historically and maybe shouldn't be. Well read above, Mats was number one but for 20 weeks while Lendl held the vaunted title for 157 weeks. Not much comparison is there. Lendl dominated the tennis world for ages, while Mats could hardly be called dominating, even in his 20 week reign.

 

[JohnThomas1]

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.

Oh what crap we see in here. Everyone talks about Chang more than Mats?? Whatever you are on i will have a pound of! Do you board in the Changs family home? As for Mats not regaining the top spot because he was pooped, omg. Borg ran and ran and ran just like Wilander yet won and won and won and kept doing it year after year. Borg makes many of the above statements easily dispendable.

 

[JohnThomas1]

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.

WTF? Lendl at his best would beat any Mat's most times, even on clay. At his best Lendl had Wilanders number, and put some fearful beatings on him.

 

[JohnThomas1]

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.

Mat's used attacking the net more as a surprise tactic than anything else. His serve and volley weren't good enough to do it all the time like a Becker, Cash, Edberg etc.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Actually the big crunch is just how much have you seen of Mat's? What entire matches have you watched?!?!?

 

[JohnThomas1]

and if getting beat 3-6 1-6 3-6 in the 1/4 's at Wimbledon means he "almost" won the slam welllll. I will admit tho it was his best ever showing there i think.

The sad thing here is that i liked Mats and thought his returning, passing and retrieving was brilliant.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

I found some interesting Wilander quotes:

"all my career I dreamed of being number one. But when I finally achieved it and the initial excitement wore off, I felt nothing. I had no sense of elation or pride. I was world champion but so what? It got to the stage where I got more satisfaction out of cutting the grass than playing tennis."


"Comparing Pat Cash to Mats Wilander is likening a crack in the wall to the Grand Canyon."
(John Newcombe, on the eve of the 1983 Australia -Sweden Davis cup final, with a cheap shot that credited a lifelong feud with Pat Cash. In his 2002 autobiography, Newcombe wrote, "I take total responsibility for the hurt it caused pat because I'd been too busy to OK the ghost writers copy." )


"In the Future if if there is too much pressure, too much publicity, I won't want to be to be number one." (Mats Wilander in 1983 who eventually became number one in 1988 ).


"You cant be considered to be a great player unless you win Wimbledon. That's the way it is." (Wilander...1989... at that point had won seven grand slam titles but never Wimbledon).


"They (John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, and Jimmy Connors) were not the nicest people in the world, they were the most selfish tennis players, but they were great for the game. Tennis needs people who don't care about pleasing the sponsors, who don't care about being nice." (1999).


"If I am boring, it's not my fault." (Stefan Edberg.... just thought I'd throw that in).


"Tennis needs To be played on the slowest surface possible. like we saw in Shanghai in the Davis cup final in Paris, you cant play better tennis than that. When you have guys hitting great groundstrokes, sometimes 15 in a row ...that builds character. If it's serve and NO volley, that builds no character."


"There's too much money in the world. We should be worried about water and starvation, not money. If you care me about money, you're lost.


"I wanted to be like Jimmy Connors or Ilie Nastase. You don't idolize someone is like yourself. You idolize somebody you'd like to be like."

John,

I simply wanted to end this with some interesting quotes. I was not making any points or trying to embarass you in any way shape or form. Therefore rather than continue this any longer I will just let Mats' quotes stand because they are interesting,. Their only purpose is to gain insight into this very interesting Tennis figure.

 

[JohnThomas1]

John,

I simply wanted to end this with some interesting quotes. I was not making any points or trying to embarass you in any way shape or form. Therefore rather than continue this any longer I will just let Mats' quotes stand because they are interesting,. Their only purpose is to gain insight into this very interesting Tennis figure.

No worries. I am really a fan of Mats, i have about 5 matches here at home involving him. His AO final against Cash is a top match, as is his 88 USO final against Ivan. If you want to see him at his best, watch the 88 match. Bear in mind tho that this is an inspired Mat's, and a declining Lendl, tho Ivan was still one heluva player.

 

[wimble10]

Mats was great, especially in the '88 USO final when he outlasted Lendl in a classic 5 set battle lasting almost 5 hours. Mats had an amazing game which improved greatly toward the end of his career, mixing in an amazing slice backhand with a serve and volley. That '88 Wilander-Lendl match was a great one. Raw power from the baseline vs. all-court spin tactician. On clay I think Lendl surpassed him because he had so much more power from the baseline. Wilander didn't do well at Wimbledon because the grass didn't suit his game. He liked to use tactics and develop points with amazing spin shots, as opposed to cracking the ball or serve-volleying. He was probably the most successful spin player of his era, and demonstrated how a topspin counterpuncher could beat an overpowering opponent (Lendl).

 

[helloworld]

I guess he just didn't have 'balls' ...

 

[tguru]

I have not had time to read many of the posts here. Clearly, many here never saw Mats play. He was a baseline player. All Court players take all short balls and move forward. Someone referred to his excellent physical regimen. Did you know that he was throughout his career and maybe to this day a heavy cigarette smoker? This is,apparently to this day, a little known fact to many tennis fans. Take a look at a color shot of his complexion during his playing days(if you can find one) . Sallow and grey. Also, at the time of his withdrawal from tennis, his fathers recent death was cited as a contributing factor.

 

[wimble10]

Maybe they could change the weight of the balls at the French to make them faster.

 

[Hal]

I certainly wouldn't call Wilander a serve and volley player, or even an all courter. However, Wilander did use a surprise S&V tactic to beat Lendl in the 1988 US Open final.