Is Wilander severly underrated on this forum?

[TheFifthSet]

I think he is. It's rare that a guy who wins 7 majors and 32 tournaments barely after his 24th birthday CAN be underrated (because at the time you'd think that some would have jumped the gun and falsely anointed him GOAT, thus leading to more exposure).

But he is, IMO. The guy was very good on all surfaces (remember, two of those AO titles were on Grass). He was a top five player for years, won the 7 majors, and his combined record against Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Vilas, and countryman Edberg is 39-39.

I believe he belongs in the second tier of great open era players (in no order, Laver, Federer Sampras, Borg tier 1, followed by Lendl, Mac, Agassi, Connors, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc. etc. etc. etc.) I'd say a case can be made for Wilander being maybe even better than Edberg and Becker (I don't believe he was), he may not have had the longevity, but unlike the other two he had a truly historic year. And above all, he contributed a lot to the lore of Tennis, took part in a lot of classics, esp. with Lendl, and was a fixture in claycourt Tennis for a number of years.

And yet seldom does he get the appreciation he deserves. Why?? And where do you rank him all-time?

 

[GameSampras]

Definitely some where in my top 20-25 I think. One of the greats. somewhere in there with Becker, Edberg and Agassi. Probably below Andre but right there with Becker and Edberg

 

[charliefedererer]

Wilander had that rare quality of appearing oh so smooth on the court. Think Federer.
But something happened to him after his great year in 1988 when he won three slams. It seemed like he just lost all motivation. And that's why he is in the third tier of open "greats".

 

[TheFifthSet]

Wilander had that rare quality of appearing oh so smooth on the court. Think Federer.
But something happened to him after his great year in 1988 when he won three slams. It seemed like he just lost all motivation. And that's why he is in the third tier of open "greats".

That's what is so enigmatic about him to me. The guy was in his prime, coulda accomplished as much as Mac or Lendl (this is to me a best-case scenario, mind you, I'm not saying he would).

Maybe he was content with being "just another" all-time great, but you're right, he was so fluid, I love watching old vids of him playing.

 

[thalivest]

Definitely some where in my top 20-25 I think. One of the greats. somewhere in there with Becker, Edberg and Agassi. Probably below Andre but right there with Becker and Edberg

I think he should definitely be over Becker and Edberg. For a number of reasons. Winning slams on all 3 major surfaces, even though no Wimbledons obviously remember he won 2 Australian Opens on grass when it was played on grass. Having an incredible 3 slam year, heck Edberg never even had a 2 slam year. Winning 1 more major than both.

 

[Fearsome Forehand]

Mats is definitely underrated.

I can still see Mats with his Rossignol F200 Carbon. Great racket, I have a couple of them and I see them on the bay now and then. I'm always tempted to pick up a couple more.

 

[egn]

Far underrated. People have said Kuerten, Muster, Courier and Brug were all better on clay then him. He is also said to be vastly behind Lendl on the surface when he took out Lendl on the surface quite a few times. Many don't take into the account that he is the only man with 2 slams on three different surfaces and frankly it is sad that he gets put down the way he does. Wilander was a vastly talented player who was not the biggest or strongest yet challenged and beat these guys. I would rate Wilander ahead of Becker and Edberg. It is hard to place him but I think he can get top 20 all time have to do some revaluating of the list but at times I feel like he is as good as Agassi/Connors etc. He is a difficult guy to place just like John Newcombe.

 

[theagassiman]

Definitely some where in my top 20-25 I think. One of the greats. somewhere in there with Becker, Edberg and Agassi. Probably below Andre but right there with Becker and Edberg

Where would Federer rank on your list GameSampras?

 

[GameSampras]

Where would Federer rank on your list GameSampras?

Top 5 somewheres. I dont think he is the greatest to ever play the game but he should be in the discussion though.

 

[VGP]

Anyone who's not Federer is underrated on this forum.

I did see a poll where the majority of the posters that replied were less than 25 years old.......so it makes sense when your only frame of reference is the guy with the initials RF.

 

[darthpwner]

Wilander had that rare quality of appearing oh so smooth on the court. Think Federer.
But something happened to him after his great year in 1988 when he won three slams. It seemed like he just lost all motivation. And that's why he is in the third tier of open "greats".

He was a brilliant thinker on court but didnt have weapons like lendl or sampras

 

[kiki]

Clay Courters in the open era:

1 st tier: Borg and Nadal
2 ond tier: Lendl,Wilander,Kuerten
3 rd tier: Vilas,Bruguera,Courier and Vilas

 

[robow7]

Clay Courters in the open era:

1 st tier: Borg and Nadal
2 ond tier: Lendl,Wilander,Kuerten
3 rd tier: Vilas,Bruguera,Courier and Vilas

Have to move Vilas to second tier, not sure anyone won as many clay court tourneys as him in total (realizing that they weren't all RG)

 

[chrischris]

He was a brilliant thinker on court but didnt have weapons like lendl or sampras

Id say his ability to anticipate and read the game was certainly a weapon.

 

[BTURNER]

Not by anyone who views tennis weaponry as more than a blunt instrument !

 

[Mustard]

Mats Wilander, when motivated enough, could achieve anything he wanted in tennis IMO. He understood the percentages and tactics of tennis almost perfectly. There was nobody better at recognising his opponents strengths and then playing the percentages to combat them.

For Wilander, getting to the top required a huge amount of dedication and intense concentration to want to get there. Wilander wanted to get to number 1 because he wanted to prove the critics wrong and he thought it would be nice for him to achieve and look back on when he was older. Once Wilander had gotten to number 1, winning 7 slams in his career at that stage too, he lost the motivation to do the increasing amount of work that he would need to do to stay at the top. Wilander said he had got so bored of tennis that he got more joy out of cutting the lawn at his house than playing tennis, and that he wanted to spend more time playing his guitar.

If Wilander was going to be successful in tennis, he had to be motivated and be able to go into that zone of intense concentration where he plays the percentages so well and gets his tactics spot on. He seldom had free points or a cruise control comfort zone.

It shows how there are different characters in tennis. Connors, for example, loved the challenge of playing tennis more than anything else. That is what drove Connors throughout his career and why he had such amazing longevity. Wilander is a different character altogether. Wilander knew how good he was and saw no need to fight so hard unless he thought there a good reason to do so. For Connors, Wilander's sort of attitude is just crazy and the concept of not being motivated everytime he steps on court is anathema to him. But for Wilander, Connors' sort of attitude is taking tennis a bit too seriously and he'll think that tennis is just not THAT important in the grand scheme of things. Different philosophies, different characters.

 

[olliess]

Definitely some where in my top 20-25 I think. One of the greats. somewhere in there with Becker, Edberg and Agassi. Probably below Andre but right there with Becker and Edberg

These 4 only make your top 20-25? Talk about a tough audience!

 

[kiki]

Have to move Vilas to second tier, not sure anyone won as many clay court tourneys as him in total (realizing that they weren't all RG)

I realized I mentioned twice Vilas on the 3 rd tier.I really meant Jan Kodes, the 2 times RG winner in the early 70´s.Rosewall would also be a third tier ( from 1968 ownwards, of course)

 

[kiki]

Mats Wilander, when motivated enough, could achieve anything he wanted in tennis IMO. He understood the percentages and tactics of tennis almost perfectly. There was nobody better at recognising his opponents strengths and then playing the percentages to combat them.

For Wilander, getting to the top required a huge amount of dedication and intense concentration to want to get there. Wilander wanted to get to number 1 because he wanted to prove the critics wrong and he thought it would be nice for him to achieve and look back on when he was older. Once Wilander had gotten to number 1, winning 7 slams in his career at that stage too, he lost the motivation to do the increasing amount of work that he would need to do to stay at the top. Wilander said he had got so bored of tennis that he got more joy out of cutting the lawn at his house than playing tennis, and that he wanted to spend more time playing his guitar.

If Wilander was going to be successful in tennis, he had to be motivated and be able to go into that zone of intense concentration where he plays the percentages so well and gets his tactics spot on. He seldom had free points or a cruise control comfort zone.

It shows how there are different characters in tennis. Connors, for example, loved the challenge of playing tennis more than anything else. That is what drove Connors throughout his career and why he had such amazing longevity. Wilander is a different character altogether. Wilander knew how good he was and saw no need to fight so hard unless he thought there a good reason to do so. For Connors, Wilander's sort of attitude is just crazy and the concept of not being motivated everytime he steps on court is anathema to him. But for Wilander, Connors' sort of attitude is taking tennis a bit too seriously and he'll think that tennis is just not THAT important in the grand scheme of things. Different philosophies, different characters.

Good post; Wilander looks more like Agassi while Connors is more like Lendl or Sampras.In their menthal approach to the game.

 

[forthegame]

Nothing really stands out...

 

[GS]

If Wilander beat Mecir in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon in 1988, then Mats had a chance at winning the Grand Slam that year. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. 3 out of 4 ain't bad, but people just remember milestone winners these days. Most don't even remember that he used to be #1 in the world.
He's one of my all-time heroes, because he was one of the first to use 2 kinds of backhands---a one-handed slice, and a two-handed topspinner. I do the same now, and it's made me a decent 4.5 player.

 

[jrepac]

Wilander could have accomplished a lot more, I think, if he had not mentally checked out---prematurely. Then, by 1990, Sampras came onto the scene and that was that.

I think he is just as good as Lendl on clay and hard courts and better than Ivan on grass. I also think overall, he may be better than Agassi....more diverse in his game, I think. He really should be right up there...maybe a bit behind Mac/Jimmy/Ivan, arguably ahead of Agassi, Becker, Edberg. He is one of only a few in the Open era scoring slams on all surfaces (Fed, Nadal, Agassi, Connors, Wilander); that's pretty sweet company by any standard.

 

[jrepac]

If Wilander beat Mecir in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon in 1988, then Mats had a chance at winning the Grand Slam that year. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. 3 out of 4 ain't bad, but people just remember milestone winners these days. Most don't even remember that he used to be #1 in the world.
He's one of my all-time heroes, because he was one of the first to use 2 kinds of backhands---a one-handed slice, and a two-handed topspinner. I do the same now, and it's made me a decent 4.5 player.

I thought Mats had a good shot at Wimby '87; I was fully expecting a Wilander-Connors semi. But Cash got real hot and cut thru Mats, Jimmy & Ivan in succession in winning the title. He played some exceptional tennis against some real big guns.

 

[dominikk1985]

Mats Wilander, when motivated enough, could achieve anything he wanted in tennis IMO. He understood the percentages and tactics of tennis almost perfectly. There was nobody better at recognising his opponents strengths and then playing the percentages to combat them.

For Wilander, getting to the top required a huge amount of dedication and intense concentration to want to get there. Wilander wanted to get to number 1 because he wanted to prove the critics wrong and he thought it would be nice for him to achieve and look back on when he was older. Once Wilander had gotten to number 1, winning 7 slams in his career at that stage too, he lost the motivation to do the increasing amount of work that he would need to do to stay at the top. Wilander said he had got so bored of tennis that he got more joy out of cutting the lawn at his house than playing tennis, and that he wanted to spend more time playing his guitar.

If Wilander was going to be successful in tennis, he had to be motivated and be able to go into that zone of intense concentration where he plays the percentages so well and gets his tactics spot on. He seldom had free points or a cruise control comfort zone.

It shows how there are different characters in tennis. Connors, for example, loved the challenge of playing tennis more than anything else. That is what drove Connors throughout his career and why he had such amazing longevity. Wilander is a different character altogether. Wilander knew how good he was and saw no need to fight so hard unless he thought there a good reason to do so. For Connors, Wilander's sort of attitude is just crazy and the concept of not being motivated everytime he steps on court is anathema to him. But for Wilander, Connors' sort of attitude is taking tennis a bit too seriously and he'll think that tennis is just not THAT important in the grand scheme of things. Different philosophies, different characters.

Maybe wilander was too emotionally healthy to continue fighting. those ATGs are all maniacs to some extend. I think it's natural to lose some focus when you have reached the top and earned millions of dollars.

but guys like connors motivated something much stronger than titles, money or fame: the fear of losing.

a famous quote by connors was "I hate to lose much more than I love to win". that sums it up pretty much. I think wilander didn't have that kind of attitude after reaching the top which is especially bad if you are a grinder.

guys like federer, mac or sampras don't need to fight on every point since they have such a strong offensive game. thus they stay at the top till they are nearly 30. but grinders always need 100% motivation and fitness.

 

[pmerk34]

Maybe wilander was too emotionally healthy to continue fighting. those ATGs are all maniacs to some extend. I think it's natural to lose some focus when you have reached the top and earned millions of dollars.

but guys like connors motivated something much stronger than titles, money or fame: the fear of losing.

a famous quote by connors was "I hate to lose much more than I love to win". that sums it up pretty much. I think wilander didn't have that kind of attitude after reaching the top which is especially bad if you are a grinder.

guys like federer, mac or sampras don't need to fight on every point since they have such a strong offensive game. thus they stay at the top till they are nearly 30. but grinders always need 100% motivation and fitness.

He lost motivation and Sampras served notice in 1990 that you weren't going to win US Opens anymore by hitting 38 95 mph first serves in a row and moon balling and chipping from the baseline for 5 hours

 

[jrepac]

He lost motivation and Sampras served notice in 1990 that you weren't going to win US Opens anymore by hitting 38 95 mph first serves in a row and moon balling and chipping from the baseline for 5 hours

that's a bit harsh :twisted: on clay, well, maybe it's true

 

[pmerk34]

that's a bit harsh :twisted: on clay, well, maybe it's true

No that is partly how he beat Lendl in the '88 US Open final

 

[SusanDK]

Mats Wilander, when motivated enough, could achieve anything he wanted in tennis IMO. He understood the percentages and tactics of tennis almost perfectly. There was nobody better at recognising his opponents strengths and then playing the percentages to combat them.

For Wilander, getting to the top required a huge amount of dedication and intense concentration to want to get there. Wilander wanted to get to number 1 because he wanted to prove the critics wrong and he thought it would be nice for him to achieve and look back on when he was older. Once Wilander had gotten to number 1, winning 7 slams in his career at that stage too, he lost the motivation to do the increasing amount of work that he would need to do to stay at the top. Wilander said he had got so bored of tennis that he got more joy out of cutting the lawn at his house than playing tennis, and that he wanted to spend more time playing his guitar.

If Wilander was going to be successful in tennis, he had to be motivated and be able to go into that zone of intense concentration where he plays the percentages so well and gets his tactics spot on. He seldom had free points or a cruise control comfort zone.

It shows how there are different characters in tennis. Connors, for example, loved the challenge of playing tennis more than anything else. That is what drove Connors throughout his career and why he had such amazing longevity. Wilander is a different character altogether. Wilander knew how good he was and saw no need to fight so hard unless he thought there a good reason to do so. For Connors, Wilander's sort of attitude is just crazy and the concept of not being motivated everytime he steps on court is anathema to him. But for Wilander, Connors' sort of attitude is taking tennis a bit too seriously and he'll think that tennis is just not THAT important in the grand scheme of things. Different philosophies, different characters.

This is an excellent post.

One of my favorite quotes about Mats was by Ion Tiriac just after unseeded-Wilander won the French Open at 17 in 1982. Tiriac was quoted as saying "Wilander's mind is a weapon. Let's put it this way: This is an old kid." That's quite an astute assessment of 17-year old Mats. His strategic and tactical abilities were already honed at 17 - this wasn't something he grew into after years on the pro tour.

 

[SusanDK]

He really should be right up there...maybe a bit behind Mac/Jimmy/Ivan, arguably ahead of Agassi, Becker, Edberg.

I'm always surprised by people who put him ahead of Edberg. I give Stefan the edge.

Wilander:
7 GS singles titles (3 FO, 3 AO, 1 USO)
1 GS doubles title (Wimbledon)
20 weeks at #1 in singles (yearend #1 once)
1 week at #3 in doubles (highest rank)
33 total singles titles, 7 total doubles titles
? Yearend Masters singles/doubles
Consistency: In top 10 from 1983 to 1989, fell out of top 20 by 1990.
Only GS singles he did not capture - Wimbledon, best showing quarterfinals.

Edberg:
6 GS singles titles (2 AO, 2 USO, 2 Wimbledon)
3 GS doubles titles (2 AO, 1 USO)
72 weeks at #1 in singles (yearend #1 twice)
15 weeks at #1 in doubles
42 total singles titles, 18 total doubles titles
? Yearend Masters singles titles, 2 Yearend Masters doubles titles
Olympic bronze - singles and doubles
Consistency: In top 10 from 1985 to 1995; top 20 for 12 of his 13 years on tour.
Only GS singles he did not capture - French Open, best showing one final where he was 2 points from the title.

I like both players, but on what planet is Wilander ahead of Edberg?

Mats has one more GS singles titles, but Edberg's two Wimbledons (and second USOs) could arguably trump Wilander's GS titles in terms of prestige. Each missed one GS for a career slam, but Edberg came closer to winning RG than Wilander did to winning Wimbledon. Edberg has Olympic bronze medals in both doubles and singles, also held #1 ranking in doubles, and remained at #1 in singles longer, plus had a far more consistent career.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I can easily see Wilander ranking over Edberg. Wilander won multiples slams on every surface. And that extra slam is meaningful just in the 7 slam winners group is alot more impressive than the 6 slam one if you look at the list. Wilander was a consistent force near the top of the mens game for a long time- 1982 to 1988, atleast as long or longer than Edberg. Wilander had that 3 slam year which eclipses any year Edberg had, heck Edberg doesnt even have a 2 slam year. And he was a top player first in the McEnroe-Connors era and later on in the Lendl era.

Also what is "far more consistent" about Edberg's career. Edberg's final years on tour sucked as well, at 27 he was already on the way down in a big way, and he took awhile to fulfill his potential despite that early Australian Open in 1985. Even if he sometime mantained a respectable ranking you knew he was done as a real contender midway through 1993, and watching him play in 1994, 1995 and 1996 it was clear he was a small shadow of his old self.

As for weeks at #1 Edberg peaked after Lendl's dominance had ended, so little wonder he was able to spend more tiime at #1 than Wilander who usually had McEnroe or Lendl at #1.

Lastly the Olympics in 80s is diddley squat. Even today with infinitely stronger fields and more prestige, most rate it below an ATP World Championship title.

 

[magnut]

Wilander is one of the greatest players in the open era....period.

The guy was the definition of patience. Tactical genius. Seven slams with no weapon other than the mind. Yes he is underated because most only look at external traits. He was just not as flashy as the other greats.

 

[heftylefty]

Maybe wilander was too emotionally healthy to continue fighting. those ATGs are all maniacs to some extend. I think it's natural to lose some focus when you have reached the top and earned millions of dollars.

but guys like connors motivated something much stronger than titles, money or fame: the fear of losing.

a famous quote by connors was "I hate to lose much more than I love to win". that sums it up pretty much. I think wilander didn't have that kind of attitude after reaching the top which is especially bad if you are a grinder.

guys like federer, mac or sampras don't need to fight on every point since they have such a strong offensive game. thus they stay at the top till they are nearly 30. but grinders always need 100% motivation and fitness.

I like your statement about Mats being emotionally healthy. It makes sense, at least to me. Wilander still enjoys tennis and speaks fondly of the sport.

 

[ibbi]

Yes, definitely. In most forums. I don't know what it is with these Swedish guys and just giving in once they hit their mid 20s, but it was really sad that Wilander didn't continue to excel beyond '88. I know he (Like Borg) peaked so young, it has to be hard to keep going mentally much longer, he did have a good 6-7 years at the top, but it seems like far too little for such a mental giant.

I think his inability to ever go all the way (or even till the last 4) at Wimbledon kind of counts against him when it comes to legacy. Lendl might never have gotten it either, but he came so close so many times, Wilander never even got that. It's sad though, that a man who could play on all surfaces, could win at the highest level on all surfaces, doesn't get quite the respect he deserves.

 

[magnut]

Yes, definitely. In most forums. I don't know what it is with these Swedish guys and just giving in once they hit their mid 20s, but it was really sad that Wilander didn't continue to excel beyond '88. I know he (Like Borg) peaked so young, it has to be hard to keep going mentally much longer, he did have a good 6-7 years at the top, but it seems like far too little for such a mental giant.

I think his inability to ever go all the way (or even till the last 4) at Wimbledon kind of counts against him when it comes to legacy. Lendl might never have gotten it either, but he came so close so many times, Wilander never even got that. It's sad though, that a man who could play on all surfaces, could win at the highest level on all surfaces, doesn't get quite the respect he deserves.

He gets it from me. Watch the 88 us open finals and you will respect him real quick. That was peak Wilander there. Incredible match.

 

[pmerk34]

He gets it from me. Watch the 88 us open finals and you will respect him real quick. That was peak Wilander there. Incredible match.

Then the next year Sampras smoked him. Too bad Sampras wasn't in the '88 final to overwhelm him again

 

[pmerk34]

I can easily see Wilander ranking over Edberg. Wilander won multiples slams on every surface. And that extra slam is meaningful just in the 7 slam winners group is alot more impressive than the 6 slam one if you look at the list. Wilander was a consistent force near the top of the mens game for a long time- 1982 to 1988, atleast as long or longer than Edberg. Wilander had that 3 slam year which eclipses any year Edberg had, heck Edberg doesnt even have a 2 slam year. And he was a top player first in the McEnroe-Connors era and later on in the Lendl era.

Also what is "far more consistent" about Edberg's career. Edberg's final years on tour sucked as well, at 27 he was already on the way down in a big way, and he took awhile to fulfill his potential despite that early Australian Open in 1985. Even if he sometime mantained a respectable ranking you knew he was done as a real contender midway through 1993, and watching him play in 1994, 1995 and 1996 it was clear he was a small shadow of his old self.

As for weeks at #1 Edberg peaked after Lendl's dominance had ended, so little wonder he was able to spend more tiime at #1 than Wilander who usually had McEnroe or Lendl at #1.

Lastly the Olympics in 80s is diddley squat. Even today with infinitely stronger fields and more prestige, most rate it below an ATP World Championship title.

I will take two Wimbledon's including three finals in a row and 2 US Opens over Mats winning the French in 1982 because Borg retired as Mats admits and then some Australian opens before most cared. Mats likes to criticize Federer these days which isn't a bad thing.

 

[magnut]

Then the next year Sampras smoked him. Too bad Sampras wasn't in the '88 final to overwhelm him again

Funny. Mats was not the same player in 89. Pete was not Pete then either. A peak Mats would have tooled a pre 90 Sampras. The context of time is so relevent when looking at past results. Sampras was not even that great until 93. Up until then he was very hot and cold. A streaky player.

 

[pmerk34]

Funny. Mats was not the same player in 89. Pete was not Pete then either. A peak Mats would have tooled a pre 90 Sampras. The context of time is so relevent when looking at past results. Sampras was not even that great until 93. Up until then he was very hot and cold. A streaky player.

A peak Mats? When was that? 9 months of his career? Sampras by 1993 had many as Many Us Open finals as Mats did.

 

[bluetrain4]

I think he's ignored more than "underrated." When we do talk about him, there seems to be a lot of support as to his greatness and a lot of talk about his achievments on all surfaces, his superior tennis mind, and the discussion is generally very positive. We just don' talk about him as much as other players.

 

[Mustard]

Wilander got a lot of stick after the 2006 French Open final when he said that Federer's balls shrink to a very small size when he plays Nadal, but that was Wilander's frustration at what Federer was doing in the match. Wilander was probably thinking about what he would have done to conquer Nadal had he been in Federer's position, and he was disappointed with the way Federer lost despite winning that first set, 6-1.

 

[pmerk34]

I think he's ignored more than "underrated." When we do talk about him, there seems to be a lot of support as to his greatness and a lot of talk about his achievments on all surfaces, his superior tennis mind, and the discussion is generally very positive. We just don' talk about him as much as other players.

When he played he was a quiet player and his game did not excite. He wasn't as good as Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, or Sampras so I guess that is part of the reason he isn't talked about around here

 

[Colpo]

Wilander's career was also oddly balanced. By the time he peaked, he was only 23. However, it felt like he had been around for ages and by all rights should have been "older." Then, after reaching #1, he downward spiralled a bit even though he was a good 2-3 years off what most would consider an athletic peak (@ 26). To cap it, he continued playing into the mid-90s, such that his journeyman career in fact lasted longer than his time in the top 10. Weird.

 

[jrepac]

I'm always surprised by people who put him ahead of Edberg. I give Stefan the edge.

[I like both players, but on what planet is Wilander ahead of Edberg?

Mats has one more GS singles titles, but Edberg's two Wimbledons (and second USOs) could arguably trump Wilander's GS titles in terms of prestige. Each missed one GS for a career slam, but Edberg came closer to winning RG than Wilander did to winning Wimbledon. Edberg has Olympic bronze medals in both doubles and singles, also held #1 ranking in doubles, and remained at #1 in singles longer, plus had a far more consistent career.

Well, I did say "arguably"...you make a good point; in terms of accomplishments, Edberg DID do more; as did Agassi for that matter. I think Mats had a lot of skill and intelligence....he just flamed out way too early. I suppose I liked his game better than Stefan's or Andre's but that does not take away from what the other guys got done over their careers.

 

[jrepac]

When he played he was a quiet player and his game did not excite. He wasn't as good as Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, or Sampras so I guess that is part of the reason he isn't talked about around here

Aside from Sampras, he was probably just as good as the other players you list...he just reached the top of the mountain and fell off very quickly.

 

[jrepac]

I can easily see Wilander ranking over Edberg. Wilander won multiples slams on every surface. And that extra slam is meaningful just in the 7 slam winners group is alot more impressive than the 6 slam one if you look at the list. Wilander was a consistent force near the top of the mens game for a long time- 1982 to 1988, atleast as long or longer than Edberg. Wilander had that 3 slam year which eclipses any year Edberg had, heck Edberg doesnt even have a 2 slam year. And he was a top player first in the McEnroe-Connors era and later on in the Lendl era.

Also what is "far more consistent" about Edberg's career. Edberg's final years on tour sucked as well, at 27 he was already on the way down in a big way, and he took awhile to fulfill his potential despite that early Australian Open in 1985. Even if he sometime mantained a respectable ranking you knew he was done as a real contender midway through 1993, and watching him play in 1994, 1995 and 1996 it was clear he was a small shadow of his old self.

As for weeks at #1 Edberg peaked after Lendl's dominance had ended, so little wonder he was able to spend more tiime at #1 than Wilander who usually had McEnroe or Lendl at #1.

Lastly the Olympics in 80s is diddley squat. Even today with infinitely stronger fields and more prestige, most rate it below an ATP World Championship title.

Point and then, counterpoint yeah, just what you said, Mats IS better than Stefan! :twisted:

 

[jrepac]

Then the next year Sampras smoked him. Too bad Sampras wasn't in the '88 final to overwhelm him again

Smoked him???? Didn't the match run 5 sets into the wee hours of the morning?? It was a great debut from Pete...

 

[SusanDK]

Well, I did say "arguably"...you make a good point; in terms of accomplishments, Edberg DID do more. I think Mats had a lot of skill and intelligence....he just flamed out way too early.

Agreed! Don't get my wrong - I wasn't criticizing Wilander. He is still among my top 5 or so favorite players of all time. He was an interesting contrast to the other greats from his era and I always enjoyed his demeanor on court. I also think it is a great credit to him that he realized that tennis is just a game and there were lots of other important things in life.

 

[pmerk34]

Smoked him???? Didn't the match run 5 sets into the wee hours of the morning?? It was a great debut from Pete...

You might be right. I was going off memory.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Clay Courters in the open era:

1 st tier: Borg and Nadal
2 ond tier: Lendl,Wilander,Kuerten
3 rd tier: Vilas,Bruguera,Courier and Vilas

IMO, Orantes, Nastase and Kodes are in there somewhere.

 

[pmerk34]

IMO, Orantes, Nastase and Kodes are in there somewhere.

And Muster, Gomez and Agassi