Is Wilander at Wimbledon the most inept ATG at a Grand Slam

[McEnroeisanartist]

Is Wilander at Wimbledon the most inept All Time Great at one Grand Slam?

Wilander was 25-10 at Wimbledon. He never made even the semifinals. He reached 3 consecutive quarterfinals. He never beat a past/future Wimbledon champion.

Sampras was 24-13 at the French Open. He made one semifinal and 3 other quarterfinals.
Sampras beat 4 past/future French Open champions.

 

[TupeloDanger]

Mostly, he was just bad at drawing Pat Cash at the main tournament where you didn't want to draw Pat Cash. Also eliminated by McEnroe and Roscoe Tanner.

I'd hesitate to use the word "inept" to describe a baseliner's inability to unseat the best fast-court specialists at pre-2001 Wimbledon. Mats gave a good accounting of himself there...as good as could have been expected.

Same reason Pete's struggles at the French aren't a real thing for anyone who watched tennis before the turn of the century. The balance of the game worked differently then.

This is also the reason, incidentally, that I think Borg still deserves to be in the GOAT conversation. Nobody else has anything on their resume like that kind of dominance on two such completely dissimilar surfaces.

 

[Mainad]

It's interesting that he won back to back Slam titles on grass at Melbourne (1983-4) so it's not like he couldn't produce his best tennis on that surface. Was there much difference between the grass at the AO and at Wimbledon in those days?

 

[HipRotation]

Mats's's explanation is that he was awed by Wimbledon too much. It was the domain of Borg and his Godlike statue and he felt like he was not worthy to have the Swedish flag next to his name while there.

 

[tennisaddict]

Back in the days, McEnroe at FO or Wilander at Wimb was a disaster to happen any time. Sampras took it a bit further. His 24-13 at FO was even worse.

2R 2R QF QF QF 1R SF 3R 2R 2R 1R 2R 1R

were his results.

 

[Mainad]

Mats's's explanation is that he was awed by Wimbledon too much. It was the domain of Borg and his Godlike statue and he felt like he was not worthy to have the Swedish flag next to his name while there.

What a shame. Stefan Edberg felt no such inhibitions!

 

[Odvala]

In those days clay and grass was like heaven and hell. Modern tennis demands that player have everything in his arsenal. Grass season is only Queens/Halle and Wimbledon. New generations is more focused on durability, stamina, power, endurance then style. We are going to see more and more "Boring" to watch tennis in upcoming years. Only thing that can stop that scenario only to certain level is to pump some air in balls at least.

As someone mentioned above, given the facts i will always find Borg a freak of the nature and 3rd in my ATG list.

 

[Gary Duane]

It's interesting that he won back to back Slam titles on grass at Melbourne (1983-4) so it's not like he couldn't produce his best tennis on that surface. Was there much difference between the grass at the AO and at Wimbledon in those days?

Some people just have bad luck at a particular slam. Borg could not win the USO, which switched to clay then to HCs during his peak. But he had a very good record on HCs.

Rosewall never won Wimbledon, but he was a great grass court player. And so on...

 

[buscemi]

I'm assuming we're excluding Bjorg at the Australian Open, where he only played once and went 1-1. Are we counting John Newcombe as an ATG? 7 Majors: 2 Australian Open wins, 3 at Wimbledon, and 2 at the U.S. Open.

Here were his results at the French: 3R, 3R, 2R, QF, 3R, 4R, QF, 1R, 1R.

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm assuming we're excluding Bjorg at the Australian Open, where he only played once and went 1-1. Are we counting John Newcombe as an ATG? 7 Majors: 2 Australian Open wins, 3 at Wimbledon, and 2 at the U.S. Open.

Here were his results at the French: 3R, 3R, 2R, QF, 3R, 4R, QF, 1R, 1R.

Stop confusing people with facts.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I don't even think Edberg has a great result apart from 89 RG, anybody has his record at RG ?

 

[buscemi]

I don't even think Edberg has a great result apart from 89 RG, anybody has his record at RG ?

30-13. Outside of 1989, he made 3 QFs and 2 4th rounds.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

30-13. Outside of 1989, he made 3 QFs and 2 4th rounds.

Clearly better than Sampras ,btw thanks

 

[Rock Strongo]

I don't even think Edberg has a great result apart from 89 RG, anybody has his record at RG ?

2R, QF, 2R, 2R, 4R, F, 1R, QF, 3R, QF, 1R, 2R, 4R.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Well Rafa is 16-12( 57%) at tour finals with two runner up trophy.

 

[timnz]

Well Rafa is 16-12( 57%) at tour finals with two runner up trophy.

The depth of field is much deeper at the WTF than Slams (everybody you face is in the top 8) - so 16-12 is not that bad really. But yes, it is his worst performed major tournament.

 

[pc1]

I'm assuming we're excluding Bjorg at the Australian Open, where he only played once and went 1-1. Are we counting John Newcombe as an ATG? 7 Majors: 2 Australian Open wins, 3 at Wimbledon, and 2 at the U.S. Open.

Here were his results at the French: 3R, 3R, 2R, QF, 3R, 4R, QF, 1R, 1R.

Funny thing with Newcombe. He won the Italian Open, the German Open, the Canadian Open, the Swiss Open all on clay which were big titles. Newcombe was in the finals of the French Pro in 1968 I believe was at Roland Garros before he lost to Laver. He actually beat the great Ken Rosewall in the quarterfinals (incidentally this is not meant to be mean to Rosewall but to point out that Newcombe played very well on red clay in beating a great clay court player) and Stolle in the semi before losing to Laver in straight sets in the final. Point is that Newcombe was a very good clay player imo. Don't know why his French Championship results weren't that great.

 

[buscemi]

Funny thing with Newcombe. He won the Italian Open, the German Open, the Canadian Open, the Swiss Open all on clay which were big titles. Newcombe was in the finals of the French Pro in 1968 I believe was at Roland Garros before he lost to Laver. He actually beat the great Ken Rosewall in the quarterfinals (incidentally this is not meant to be mean to Rosewall but to point out that Newcombe played very well on red clay in beating a great clay court player) and Stolle in the semi before losing to Laver in straight sets in the final. Point is that Newcombe was a very good clay player imo. Don't know why his French Championship results weren't that great.

Yes, Newcombe was no slouch on clay. The same goes for Sampras on clay (won Rome, beat Chesnokov and Kafelnikov in the 1995 Davis Cup final in Moscow), and, as someone else noted, Wilander on grass (won 1983 and 1984 Australian Opens and lost the 1985 final to Edberg).

 

[roundiesee]

Really surprising. I've always thought of Mats as such an excellent player even on grass; I remembered I watched him at Wimbledon in 1986 when he partnered with countryman Joakim Nyström to win the men's doubles title. Some of the tennis from Mats during that doubles final was jaw dropping. Does anyone else remember this match?

 

[jean pierre]

On grass Wilander = Vilas : they won 2 Australian Open (+ 1 final), but reached only QF in Wimbledon. I think australian grass was not so bad for clay players, by contrast with english grass.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Yes, Newcombe was no slouch on clay. The same goes for Sampras on clay (won Rome, beat Chesnokov and Kafelnikov in the 1995 Davis Cup final in Moscow), and, as someone else noted, Wilander on grass (won 1983 and 1984 Australian Opens and lost the 1985 final to Edberg).

He was no slouch in absolute term but in relation to his greatness it's pretty bad. This resume you speak of belong to Ferrer like player. It's great for Ferrer, it's not great for Sampras.

 

[Vision]

It's interesting that he won back to back Slam titles on grass at Melbourne (1983-4) so it's not like he couldn't produce his best tennis on that surface. Was there much difference between the grass at the AO and at Wimbledon in those days?

quite a lot

Vilas also won two AO and a Masters at Melbourne and just hit the Wimbledon last eight twice in his career

 

[TupeloDanger]

It's interesting that he won back to back Slam titles on grass at Melbourne (1983-4) so it's not like he couldn't produce his best tennis on that surface. Was there much difference between the grass at the AO and at Wimbledon in those days?

They never seemed to harp on it as much, but from the results there, it was clear it wasn't the lopsided attack-favoring grass speed that Wimbledon was. Seemed to play fairly neutral, if anything.

Of course, the fact that the talent pool was always thinner there also played a role.

 

[Vision]

I recall watching at the Devonshire Park the Sweden vs NZ Davis Cup rubber after 1983 Wimbledon.Chris Lewis, the New Zealand number one player had just reached the Wimbledon final a week before, ousting Curren and losing to Mc Enroe in what was one of the most surprising Wimbledon finals ever.
Wilander had been ousted by Roscoe Tanner, past his prime at 32 but still one of the best servers on tour.Well,Matts destroyed the supossedly super fit Lewis, Wimbledon runner up a week before in straight sets.At the end, the problem is whom are you matching up with.