Is Wilander severly underrated on this forum?

[Carolina Racquet]

I think the reason Wilander gets less respect than other multi-grand slam winners is that he lacked shot-making weapons. Please tell me another male pro who won a grass court slam without a big serve, volley or groundstrokes? Might have to go back to Rosewall for that one.

When I think back about Wilander's career, he won ugly because he had to. He couldn't just go and blast guys off the court. Because he won ugly, he's under-rated.

To me, he's a great PLAYER in that he had great match focus, strategies and execution. A superior role model for us mortals who need to rely on what's between the ears to win critical matches.

Another note about Agassi. He didn't start winning the big events until he became more like Wilander... smarter and strategic.

 

[pmerk34]

I think the reason Wilander gets less respect than other multi-grand slam winners is that he lacked shot-making weapons. Please tell me another male pro who won a grass court slam without a big serve, volley or groundstrokes? Might have to go back to Rosewall for that one.

When I think back about Wilander's career, he won ugly because he had to. He couldn't just go and blast guys off the court. Because he won ugly, he's under-rated.

To me, he's a great PLAYER in that he had great match focus, strategies and execution. A superior role model for us mortals who need to rely on what's between the ears to win critical matches.

Another note about Agassi. He didn't start winning the big events until he became more like Wilander... smarter and strategic.

Plus he never won Wimbledon and never made a final there. He only won one US Open and never won the masters. He was only number one for a short time in 1988 and was not a huge threat to be number one at any other times in his career. (Lendl was clearly the best player in 1987) Three of his grand slams were at the Australian at a time especially in '83 and '84 when not all the top players played and televisions coverage was sparse and the quality of the television signal not top notch. It just wasn't looked at as the huge event it is now.

 

[abmk]

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.

And Muster, Gomez and Agassi

You know there are these guys named federer and ferrero, last I heard they could play on clay too !

P.S. Doesn't Pannatta deserve a mention ?

 

[pc1]

P.S. Doesn't Pannatta deserve a mention ?

Panatta's good but he really had that one great clay year but he certainly was a dynamic clay court player. According to the ATP site, he won nine total tournaments in his career and 8 on clay. That's not too many clay titles.

 

[pmerk34]

Panatta's good but he really had that one great clay year but he certainly was a dynamic clay court player. According to the ATP site, he won nine total tournaments in his career and 8 on clay.

What most of us know is that Panatta is the answer to the trivia question of "Who was the only player to Beat Bjorn Borg at the French Open". HE did it twice. Does that necessarily mean he's an all time great clay court player or does it mean he was a bad match up for Borg?

 

[pc1]

What most of us know is that Panatta is the answer to the trivia question of "Who was the only player to Beat Bjorn Borg at the French Open". HE did it twice. Does that necessarily mean he's an all time great clay court player or does it mean he was a bad match up for Borg?

Panatta was capable of reaching great levels on clay but he beat Borg before he was THE BORG (not the Star Trek villains by the way) even though Borg was even at that time a great clay player. Panatta could be a bad match up for anyone on clay but I think Borg c. 1978 would have beaten Panatta on red clay almost all the time. When Panatta gave Borg some problems in the 1978 Italian Final it was mainly due to the awful home town calls and the crowds throwing objects at Borg. It was incredible Borg won the match. Given normal line calling I think Borg would have won it very straightforwardly.

 

[1970CRBase]

Wilander didn't lack any strokes, what he lacked was Becker/Lendl type of power so he made up for that with mental power. In the end it was just burn out. He got tired of it and after he had achieved what he wanted, didn't see the point anymore.

Mats liked his guitar and pottering around his garden, Mecir preferred fishing and sipping his tea...

 

[Mustard]

Plus he never won Wimbledon and never made a final there. He only won one US Open and never won the masters. He was only number one for a short time in 1988 and was not a huge threat to be number one at any other times in his career. (Lendl was clearly the best player in 1987) Three of his grand slams were at the Australian at a time especially in '83 and '84 when not all the top players played and televisions coverage was sparse and the quality of the television signal not top notch. It just wasn't looked at as the huge event it is now.

Wilander beat some very good players in his 1983 and 1984 Australian Open runs. He beats players like Tanner, Kriek, McEnroe and Lendl in 1983, and Edberg, Kriek and Curren in 1984. The Kooyong grass was a good service for Mats, much more similar to today's Wimbledon surface.

 

[Carolina Racquet]

I'm not into ranking all time greats on different surfaces. Exercise in futility.

IMO Wilander over-achieved because he got the most out of his physical play, lacking power and big weapons and beat a whole lot of guys who did in the biggest matches. He took 3 grand slams from Lendl who was the dominating player in his era and I'm sure Lendl would kill for that '83 AO crown despite poor television coverage

I'll state again that he gets my respect because I will never have a serve like Sampras/Becker, a volley like Cash/Edberg/McEnroe or a forehand like Lendl/Agassi... but I can strive to grind it out and out-think my opponent, just like Wilander.

 

[pmerk34]

Wilander beat some very good players in his 1983 and 1984 Australian Open runs. He beats players like Tanner, Kriek, McEnroe and Lendl in 1983, and Edberg, Kriek and Curren in 1984. The Kooyong grass was a good service for Mats, much more similar to today's Wimbledon surface.

You are correct. McEnroe said the courts at Kooyong were angled slightly down hill on both sides for drainage which changed the equation enough to make it so serve and volley did not dominate even though it was grass. I played on uneven courts all the times and always had much more success serving and volleying on the courts that were uneven going downhill towards the net. It was always harder to hold serving uphill.

Kooyong was the problem anyway. I've never been there but everything I read says those facilities were outdated and way to small for a real grand slam event. Before the move to Melbourne I think the event couldn't even attract (or hold) more than 200,000 spectators for the entire two weeks. Not they get upwards of 600,000 and with HD flat panel TV's it's a great viewing experience too from home.

 

[pmerk34]

I'm not into ranking all time greats on different surfaces. Exercise in futility.

IMO Wilander over-achieved because he got the most out of his physical play, lacking power and big weapons and beat a whole lot of guys who did in the biggest matches. He took 3 grand slams from Lendl who was the dominating player in his era and I'm sure Lendl would kill for that '83 AO crown despite poor television coverage

I'll state again that he gets my respect because I will never have a serve like Sampras/Becker, a volley like Cash/Edberg/McEnroe or a forehand like Lendl/Agassi... but I can strive to grind it out and out-think my opponent, just like Wilander.

Grinding out, court coverage and out thinking are skills too which can win you many a match!

But I understand what you are saying. I too am fascinated with raw power becuase I and no one else I see regularly can serve and hit with the power the pros make look so routine.

 

[Wilander Fan]

No huge strengths but no weaknesses. He had an underrated serve and was an excellent volleyer. Also, power tennis was considered poor strategy back then. Becker caught alot of flack for overhitting.

Really, until Lendl, none of the greats were known for their huge ground strokes. They moved guys around until they could put the ball away at the net.

 

[pmerk34]

No huge strengths but no weaknesses. He had an underrated serve and was an excellent volleyer. Also, power tennis was considered poor strategy back then. Becker caught alot of flack for overhitting.

Really, until Lendl, none of the greats were known for their huge ground strokes. They moved guys around until they could put the ball away at the net.

Mats Wilander went 34-18 in 1989 and won zero titles, finishing the year ranked 12.

 

[jrepac]

Wilander beat some very good players in his 1983 and 1984 Australian Open runs. He beats players like Tanner, Kriek, McEnroe and Lendl in 1983, and Edberg, Kriek and Curren in 1984. The Kooyong grass was a good service for Mats, much more similar to today's Wimbledon surface.

This is true; the field at the AO was becoming better in the early 80's. It was not the embarrassment of the 70's. Mats came up at a time when there was incredibly stiff competition...you are talking the end of Borg's run with Connors, Mac and Lendl as the top guns trading off the top 3 slots during any given period. Yet, Mats was able to break into that triumvirate....essentially making it a quartet for a few years. I don't think his game was ugly at all...(brad gilbert's was ugly)...Mats played a fairly smooth, strategic game. One of the smartest players out there....yet, in the end, maybe his mind was his weakness as well. He just got tired of it all...

 

[Moose Malloy]

and I'm sure Lendl would kill for that '83 AO crown despite poor television coverage

during the trophy presentation in '83, Lendl said he "might be back next year." and no one booed or whistled. guess they knew where that event stood in the big picture.

after losing in '85, Lendl said the AO was 'not a real major, only on the level of the WCT Finals.'

maybe in today's major obsessed context he would 'kill for it,' but the attitude surrounding that event was very different in the 80s. even guys that won it didn't return to defend some years (see vilas)

Its cool that Mats can say he won majors on all surfaces, but the fact that never even reached one semi at Wimbledon(even Becker & Edberg reached semis at the French) makes me think his 'all surface prowess' is a bit overstated. Lendl reached 2 finals & 5 semis at Wimbledon, who was really the better grasscourt player?

I wonder if Mac was paid an apperance fee to play the AO in '83(he says that he was offered them for Australia, didn't specify what years)

And you can see ranking info on the AO on the atp website. It offered way less points than the other majors in the 80s(wasn't equal in points until '95 I believe)

I think he is just as good as Lendl on clay and hard courts and better than Ivan on grass

seriously? mats equal to lendl on hardcourts? wow...

He only won one US Open and never won the masters. He was only number one for a short time in 1988 and was not a huge threat to be number one at any other times in his career. (Lendl was clearly the best player in 1987

and lendl had a shoulder problem throughout '88, played a lot less that year. had surgery right after the USO final. a lot of things fell into place for mats that year.

 

[magnut]

Mats had a beautiful game. Pretty textbook classicaly. He also had pretty exceptional movement.

Great player all around. Just not as flashy as many of the other greats.

 

[jrepac]

No huge strengths but no weaknesses. He had an underrated serve and was an excellent volleyer. Also, power tennis was considered poor strategy back then. Becker caught alot of flack for overhitting.

Really, until Lendl, none of the greats were known for their huge ground strokes. They moved guys around until they could put the ball away at the net.

I think today's concept of "power tennis" might be equated with over-hitting
constantly and continually, actually

Seriously, when you look back at Agassi, Becker, Lendl and Connors...even Borg, none of these guys hit a powder puff ball. I'd say Agassi and Lendl hit the hardest pure ball, whereas a Connors could pretty much handle any pace/speed you gave him. However, the way some of these guys used the court is way, way different from the way it is done today. Today, I do think some players simply try to outhit, or hit the ball out of reach of the opponent. Whereas in the past, it may have been more of a waiting game, moving the other guy around a lot more (ala, Agassi and Connors styles), creating your opportunity for a winner (andre) or an approach/volley combo (connors). Just very different approaches.

 

[Mustard]

The more pace the better for Connors. He'd totally love it out there today.

maybe in today's major obsessed context he would 'kill for it,' but the attitude surrounding that event was very different in the 80s. even guys that won it didn't return to defend some years (see vilas)

Vilas came back to defend his Australian Open titles. He won it in 1978 and 1979, and lost to Warwick in a 5-set semi final in 1980.

 

[juanparty]

he liked cocaine!!

 

[pmerk34]

The more pace the better for Connors. He'd totally love it out there today.



Vilas came back to defend his Australian Open titles. He won it in 1978 and 1979, and lost to Warwick in a 5-set semi final in 1980.

Ivonne Warwick?

 

[Mustard]

Ivonne Warwick?

Kim Warwick. Warwick was runner-up of the 1980 Australian Open, losing the final to Brian Teacher.

 

[pmerk34]

Kim Warwick. Warwick was runner-up of the 1980 Australian Open, losing the final to Brian Teacher.

Boy, that tells you where the Australian was ranked back then. Teacher-Warwick final? Wow.

 

[magnut]

he liked cocaine!!

So did everyone else! A lot of them did coke back then. Cocain was just a rich party drug in the 80s. Now when we hear about a player with cocain its like they kill puppies or something. The 80s were a different time. As is now.

 

[Mustard]

Boy, that tells you where the Australian was ranked back then. Teacher-Warwick final? Wow.

There's an old saying, you've got to be in it to win it. Besides, I've already pointed out some of the top-class opponents that Wilander beat to win his first 2 Australian Open titles, guys like Tanner, Kriek, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg and Curren.

 

[pmerk34]

There's an old saying, you've got to be in it to win it. Besides, I've already pointed out some of the top-class opponents that Wilander beat to win his first 2 Australian Open titles, guys like Tanner, Kriek, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg and Curren.

Well in 1980 it appears to be a lower class of participants with a final like that

 

[magnut]

There's an old saying, you've got to be in it to win it. Besides, I've already pointed out some of the top-class opponents that Wilander beat to win his first 2 Australian Open titles, guys like Tanner, Kriek, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg and Curren.

Yup. Everyone was welcome to play. Hard to blame a guy for actually showing up and performing. If anything I would say it shows more class to support the Aussie open back then.

 

[NicoMK]

When I think back about Wilander's career, he won ugly because he had to. He couldn't just go and blast guys off the court. Because he won ugly, he's under-rated.

C'mon mate, Mats never won "ugly". If it's true that he was a baseliner at the very beginning of his career, waiting for his opponent to miss a shot, he worked hard on his game to make it more efficient on faster surfaces. If you never watched his final at the Australian Open in 1984, he was serving and volleying, and he did that pretty well. Images exist.

He also had a great weapon : his two-handed backhand down the line, which he won a lot of points with, throughout his career.

His final against Cash at the AO in 1988 is one of the best matches I've ever seen. Even today it's still great to watch. You can see Mats serving and volleying, hitting amazing passing-shots - because Cash was such a volleyer - during 4 hours, and believe me, it's not what you can call "winning ugly".

His final against Lendl the same year was VERY interesting as well, a mixture of baseline rallies, slice backhands, topspin forehands, volleys and smashes which prevented Lendl from dictating the rallies. A must of intelligent playing.

People won't remember him because his "true" career ended too early and because Mats is a nice and quiet guy who never had issues with referees, opponents or spectators.

When people think about Wilander, they have the image of the "boring baseliner" he was in 1981-82 when he won his first RG title, which is a WRONG image. He was able to adapt his game to - almost - any opponents and to any surfaces, fast grass excepted.

A great player and a great guy I had the chance to meet on several occasions.

;-)

 

[NicoMK]

One more word about Mats. No one yet mentioned his attitude on court, and what he did at the French in 1982 en route to the final was, and still is, amazing. The story is well-known but…

Mats is playing against Jose-Luis Clerc in the semis that year. Up 6-5, 30-40 in the fourth, he's got match point. After a long rally, Clerc misses his forehand, which gives Mats the match, "game, set and match Wilander".

Clerc complains as he saw his ball on the line, and Wilander asks Jacques Dorfmann, the chair umpire, to replay the point. After a long standing ovation, point is replayed and a last backhand in the net finally gives the victory to Mats.

When we talk about fair-play, Mats has to be remembered for this very, very rare gesture.

You can watch it on Youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2n9PsEC8Ek

Cheers all ;-)

 

[Zimbo]

and lendl had a shoulder problem throughout '88, played a lot less that year. had surgery right after the USO final. a lot of things fell into place for mats that year.

Hey Moose you posted many times that Lendl lost that match because of his shoulder injury. First off that injury wasn't that bad cause Lendl played pretty well that tourny. He was hitting a mean ball in the finals and in the semi's against Agassi. Secondly, If you re-watch both '87 and '88 finals you can see no difference in the way Lendl played. However, Mats play in '88 was totally different. He mixed it up a lot more and tactically kept Lendl off balance a lot better in the '88 match. Thirdly, Mats had major shin splints also in '88.

I always felt that if the other greats were playing well Mats would and did lose (minus on clay of course). But what people don't understand was that though his game wasn't flashy Mats had the tactical mind to keep his opponents off balance causing them to play poorly. He got inside their heads and drove them looney. He gave Lendl and Connors no pace to work with. He hit everything to Lendl's, Mac's, and Becker's backhand. He looped the ball deep in order to keep Edberg and Mac from attacking. He looped high to Edberg's forehand which Edberg hated. He moon ball Connors to death. He served and volley to keep people honest. He was smooth and had great anticipation. Not ugly to watch at all.

Mats only down fall was his lack of success at the big W. Mecir and Cash were his W krytonite. If he was still motivated I think he had another 1-3 slams left in him.

 

[Mustard]

Wilander should have won the 1988 US Open final a lot easier than he did. He had serious chances to win both the sets that he went on to lose.

 

[Carolina Racquet]

C'mon mate, Mats never won "ugly". If it's true that he was a baseliner at the very beginning of his career, waiting for his opponent to miss a shot, he worked hard on his game to make it more efficient on faster surfaces. ;-)

Don't misunderstand me as I too am a Wilander fan and 'winning ugly' is actually a compliment. My comment was based on EVERYTHING he had to do to beat the best.

Didn't mean to belittle him... just give him a badge that not many have the brains to wear.

 

[krosero]

What most of us know is that Panatta is the answer to the trivia question of "Who was the only player to Beat Bjorn Borg at the French Open". HE did it twice. Does that necessarily mean he's an all time great clay court player or does it mean he was a bad match up for Borg?

Panatta had those two great French Open wins over Borg in '73 and '76. Then in January '77 he held three match points over Borg in the semis of the Pepsi Grand Slam (also on clay). He opened a blister on the third match point, and Borg then took the last 10 points of the match (6-2, 4-6, 7-5).

I just mention it because I hope next time Tennis Channel premieres some Pepsi matches that they show that match. CBS must have broadcast it. Who knows when or if those FO matches will ever show up, and whether there's any good quality video of those matches. But if we could see this match at Pepsi we might get a better idea why Panatta was able to play Borg so tough. And besides, Panatta had an entertaining style of play; the match looks like it was entertaining in every way.

 

[krosero]

Something Jay Berger said in '88, when asked if Agassi's forehand was the biggest weapon in tennis: "No, Wilander's brain is."

 

[SusanDK]

C'mon mate, Mats never won "ugly".

His final against Lendl the same year was VERY interesting as well, a mixture of baseline rallies, slice backhands, topspin forehands, volleys and smashes which prevented Lendl from dictating the rallies. A must of intelligent playing.

People won't remember him because his "true" career ended too early and because Mats is a nice and quiet guy who never had issues with referees, opponents or spectators.

A great player and a great guy I had the chance to meet on several occasions.

Well stated. I cannot imagine anyone calling Wilander's style "winning ugly." He was smooth, controlled, and floated around the court, and as you so well pointed out, versatile.

Do tell about your meetings with him!

You can watch it on Youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2n9PsEC8Ek

Thanks for that clip which looks like it was posted recently. I'd been looking for it some time ago and couldn't find it.

But what people don't understand was that though his game wasn't flashy Mats had the tactical mind to keep his opponents off balance causing them to play poorly. He got inside their heads and drove them looney. He gave Lendl and Connors no pace to work with. He hit everything to Lendl's, Mac's, and Becker's backhand. He looped the ball deep in order to keep Edberg and Mac from attacking. He looped high to Edberg's forehand which Edberg hated. He moon ball Connors to death. He served and volley to keep people honest. He was smooth and had great anticipation. Not ugly to watch at all.

Again, another very good description of just how versatile Mats was, and how much variety he had in his game. He knew what it would take to beat different opponents, but more importantly he could execute it and not get stuck in one style of play. He read the game very well.

Compared to today's players, he would be considered an all-courter, able to win both from the baseline and by coming in and volleying. In 1988, in addition to improving his slice backhand, and using it more, he also vastly improved his serve.

And let's not forget that he did win a Wimbledon doubles title.

 

[jrepac]

I always felt that if the other greats were playing well Mats would and did lose (minus on clay of course). But what people don't understand was that though his game wasn't flashy Mats had the tactical mind to keep his opponents off balance causing them to play poorly. He got inside their heads and drove them looney. He gave Lendl and Connors no pace to work with. He hit everything to Lendl's, Mac's, and Becker's backhand. He looped the ball deep in order to keep Edberg and Mac from attacking. He looped high to Edberg's forehand which Edberg hated. He moon ball Connors to death. He served and volley to keep people honest. He was smooth and had great anticipation. Not ugly to watch at all.

Mats only down fall was his lack of success at the big W. Mecir and Cash were his W krytonite. If he was still motivated I think he had another 1-3 slams left in him.

Great observations here; perhaps I'm a bit too "pro-Mats", but I do think he had a great game and could take out anyone, on any surface, on a given day. He could really mix it up and give them fits.

Yes, that top tier of Mac, Lendl and Connors during that 80's era ultimately accomplished more, on a consistent basis. But, Wilander was a real threat to them, to Lendl in particular at the GS events. And, Mac always had to bring his A game against Wilander. I think his lack of success at the Big W is a bit of bad luck and bad timing...he certainly had the skills. Proven by taking out Mac and Lendl at the AO years earlier, I believe.

Connors was aging out of the GS finals by the mid-80's, so those 2 never squared off at a GS. Only at lesser events or at exos (aside from the awful Davis Cup match in '84 when Connors had his head up his A##). But, always wanted to see Connors v. Wilander on grass...would've been real entertaining, I think. Jimmy won the exos, but Mats won all of the ATP matches. Very interesting match up between 2 all-court players.

 

[SusanDK]

Jimmy won the exos, but Mats won all of the ATP matches.

Mats won the ATP matches because those were the ones that counted.

He was known for not giving 110% for less important events, something that irritated Connors no end. We know Jimmy was always giving his best, even in exos.

 

[NicoMK]

Do tell about your meetings with him!

Hi SDK ;-)

Not so much to say actually. First time I saw him was for his last French Open tournament. Back then, I was very young (21) and he was a true god to me. I went to Paris especially to see him without knowing if I could even reach him. I finally managed to enter the stadium the week before the tournament and saw him under Court Suzanne Lenglen (back then, "Court A"), at the players' restaurant. I felt sooooo good when I saw him, believe me or not it was a dream coming true, I felt so emotional. Mats seemed to be in a hurry - I can remember he was with some Argentinean players, but can't remember whether it was Frana or Jaite. Mats took time to sign a picture, make a photograph and say a few words. I also saw him practicing with a Swedish fellow the day after. I have pictures of both meetings. My camera was of poor quality back then, but still I have souvenirs from these special moments to me.

I met him 3 years later during a Senior Tour event in Paris. I saw some of his matches (won against Mayer and lost to McEnroe) and managed to see him practicing with Jose Luis Clerc. We had a short chat too straight after, one or two more pictures and he also signed one of the picture we made 3 years earlier, my Swedish "Global Caps" cap and then he had to go, I think.

On both occasions, he was very kind to me.

I also found a nice summary of his final against Lendl in 1988 on YT, thanks Krosero… Great final !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efmy72bXH0c



Cheers all, and Mats's the GOAT ;-)

 

[magnut]

Hi SDK ;-)

Not so much to say actually. First time I saw him was for his last French Open tournament. Back then, I was very young (21) and he was a true god to me. I went to Paris especially to see him without knowing if I could even reach him. I finally managed to enter the stadium the week before the tournament and saw him under Court Suzanne Lenglen (back then, "Court A"), at the players' restaurant. I felt sooooo good when I saw him, believe me or not it was a dream coming true, I felt so emotional. Mats seemed to be in a hurry - I can remember he was with some Argentinean players, but can't remember whether it was Frana or Jaite. Mats took time to sign a picture, make a photograph and say a few words. I also saw him practicing with a Swedish fellow the day after. I have pictures of both meetings. My camera was of poor quality back then, but still I have souvenirs from these special moments to me.

I met him 3 years later during a Senior Tour event in Paris. I saw some of his matches (won against Mayer and lost to McEnroe) and managed to see him practicing with Jose Luis Clerc. We had a short chat too straight after, one or two more pictures and he also signed one of the picture we did 3 years earlier, my Swedish "Global Caps" cap and then he had to go, I think.

On both occasions, he was very kind to me.

I also found a nice summary of his final against Lendl in 1988 on YT, thanks Krosero… Great final !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efmy72bXH0c



Cheers all, and Mats's the GOAT ;-)

Great stories

 

[Mustard]

Cheers all, and Mats's the GOAT ;-)

Well put this way, is there any other player who could recognise his opponents strengths and then play the percentages so well to combat them? I think Wilander is the GOAT at that.

 

[magnut]

Well put this way, is there any other player who could recognise his opponents strengths and then play the percentages so well to combat them? I think Wilander is the GOAT at that.

I agree here 100%. Best tactician of all time. Ashe did it against Conners at Wimbledon once. But Mats did it all the time with patience that is second to none.

 

[NicoMK]

Great stories

Well, glad you like them, thanks ;-). Great memories…

 

[NicoMK]

I agree here 100%. Best tactician of all time. Ashe did it against Conners at Wimbledon once. But Mats did it all the time with patience that is second to none.

Magnut and Mustard, excellent analysis!

 

[Mustard]

The 1988 French Open final had Wilander vs. Leconte. Leconte had been punishing his opponents' second serves all tournament. Wilander recognises this and only misses 2 first serves in the entire match, getting in 97% of his first serves.

Leconte tried to power through this and had some success early on as he actually served for the first set, but Wilander's consistency totally wore him down in the following 2 sets.

 

[pmerk34]

The 1988 French Open final had Wilander vs. Leconte. Leconte had been punishing his opponents' second serves all tournament. Wilander recognises this and only misses 2 first serves in the entire match, getting in 97% of his first serves.

Leconte tried to power through this and had some success early on as he actually served for the first set, but Wilander's consistency totally wore him down in the following 2 sets.

What else was he going to do? Ace him 30 times?

 

[Mustard]

What else was he going to do? Ace him 30 times?

He could had a first serve percentage of 50% or something and would probably have lost.

 

[pmerk34]

He could had a first serve percentage of 50% or something and would probably have lost.

He did the same thing against Lendl in the US Open Final hit like 38 first serves in a row.

 

[jrepac]

Mats won the ATP matches because those were the ones that counted.

He was known for not giving 110% for less important events, something that irritated Connors no end. We know Jimmy was always giving his best, even in exos.

when money was on the line, it always counted for Connors
plus, there was some pride involved....I think that's why I always enjoyed watching his exos w/Bjorn...they could get pretty intense.

I just remember watching an exo w/Jimmy & Mats where they played a close first set where Jimmy had the upper hand (not by much). Jimmy won the set and from there just steam rolled Wilander, it did seem like he stopped trying. Exo or no, people paid money to be there, it was on TV, etc. Really, take some pride in your "job", which is to play solid tennis.

exos in the late 70's/early 80's were big money events and often very entertaining; you really don't see them in the US today, because tennis has fallen out of favor (sad but true)

And the whole ATP sanctioned thing...well, I'm not sure how much it really means at the end of the day...WCT events were far better in many cases...and some of the exos, with 8 man fields often had the best players in the game squaring off. sometimes much more exciting than the sanctioned stuff.

 

[SusanDK]

Cheers all, and Mats's the GOAT ;-)

Thanks for sharing, sounds like some good memories. You should try to take one of Mats' WOW clinics someday.

 

[jrepac]

Perhaps a more interesting question for the group...."is there a player out there today who does (or can) play the game like Wilander? in terms of strategic thinking and all court ability?" I can't easily think of anyone.

 

[Mustard]

He did the same thing against Lendl in the US Open Final.

What? He certainly didn't get 97% of his first serves in against Lendl in the 1988 US Open final. He attacked the net quite a lot, used intelligent shot selection, including using his one-handed slice backhand to good effect. He certainly changed his tactics from the previous year's US Open final when he mostly tried to outlast Lendl from the baseline.