It is fair most rank Wilander lower than both Becker and Edberg?

[lewisgibson]

One thing that is pretty clear to me is the vast majority of people rank both Becker and Edberg higher than Wilander. I am not entirely sure who more people rank higher between Becker and Edberg, I think that is largely split, and their games and legacies are so different in nature and neither is in the GOAT range, so often a definitive choice isn't made, nor do people feel the need to make it. However Wilander it seems is generally regarded as clearly beneath both.

Is this fair howevever? Wilander has more slams- 7 to 6. Only 1 more, but in non double digit slam winners I think even 1 is significant, and it is also a big separation as you have a large cluster of all time greats at 7 and 8 which Wilander is part of, and then a drop off after that.

Wilander also had an amazing year in 88 which no year of Edberg or Becker really comes close to that I can tell. Not even Becker's 89 or whatever Edberg's best year would be deemed to be.

Wilander won multiple slams on all surfaces, including 2 Australian Opens on grass when people were starting to play there again, and he won in legit fields over legit opponents such as McEnroe, Lendl, and Wimbledon winner Cash. He was kind of a flop at Wimbledon, but this is still huge when neither Becker or Edberg won the French or a clay slam.

So is it fair and accurate he is so easily placed behind both? Is this an inherit bias of sorts to someone who is probably deemed to play a "boring" game, and have a rather boring personality. Neither being super explosive or exciting or controversial with a huge personality like Becker? Nor being elegant and beautiful, both on and off the court, with also an exciting and just fluid and silky smooth game like Edberg? I sometimes see Rosewall downplayed to a degree in a relative sense, and his game style and personality is a lot like Wilander's. I don't know if it is a factor but that he has gone on to be a horrendous and obnoxious commentator and person in his post tennis life, probably doesn't help.

 

[fezer]

you can find reasons in their achievements - if you want to - why Becker or Edberg can be ranked higher than Wilander. it is a close race, of course, but it is not totally unreasonable.

Wilanders ao titles on grass can be downgraded, because the price money was significantly lower than in the other slams. 1985 ao 650k wimb/rg 1mio . and the field was lacking depth. Wilander in 85 had his first top 100 opposition in the qf and he had a bye in the 1st rd. so there are tennis fans who dont think that simple slam count is accurate in this case. ao until 1988 (change to flinders park) can be seen as an 80%-slam. still it is a very respectable achievement esp for a player like Wilander.
Wilanders weakest spot in slam performance is Wimbledon - which is the the ultimate tennis tournament. Wilander only reached the qf, whereas Edberg and Becker in their weakest slam (rg) had better results. Edberg was runner up in 89 and Becker reached the semis three times (87,89,91) and both had an additional qf showing.
Wilander never won a tour final (masters, yec, wtc dallas). he was masters runnerup in 87 as his best performance, whereas Becker and Edberg accumulated several titles and finals at those events, which were very big in the 80s/90s.
all of them reached #1 - one could argue that Wilanders 88 was the most outstanding performance (which is certainly right), but Wilander was a toptenner for about 8 yrs (82-90), but even the inconsistent Becker was a toptenner for about 11 yrs (85-96) - so the longevity point goes to Becker/Edberg
Wilander won 33 atp tour titles which is significantly less than Becker (49) or Edberg (42).
so it's not just a matter of playing style, personality or hype.

 

[jrepac]

well, it's the Wimbledon bias....you can be missing a FO from your roster, but missing Wimby is always something of a black mark. Connors and Lendl have the same # of slams, but people often point to Wimbledon as why Connors is "better" (which is valid, but arguable). Still, in many ways, I think Wilander was a better player, but he pretty much fizzled out after his run to #1 in 1988. Bizarre, really.

 

[timnz]

My reason for putting is that indoor tennis was a big deal in th 1980s and 1990s. Becker won 5 major indoor championships, Edberg 1 and Wilander 0

Becker’s total especially is more significant than 1 more slam by Wilander .

 

[Tshooter]

 

[abmk]

Big lack of success at Wimbledon. AO wasn't that highly regarded/attended in 83/84 when Wilander won those 2 on grass.
Lack of success indoors, which was fairly important in that time period.

Both Becker and Edberg won more titles than Wilander did.

Becker had significantly more longevity (85-96) in the top 10
Edberg also had more (85-94)
as compared to Wilander's 82-88

so, yes it is perfectly fair to rank Wilander lower than both.

 

[BGod]

People look at Borg retiring at 26 and forget Wilander dropping off at 24 largely because of Flight 103 and the death of his father but people will argue he was already in decline. I myself don't ignore those 2 very big psychological reasons.

But career wise Becker achieved a hell of a lot on carpet and that's my pick for him over Edberg but I put Mats ahead of Edberg.

 

[PMChambers]

1. Becker
2. Edberg
3. Wilander

 

[jrepac]

People look at Borg retiring at 26 and forget Wilander dropping off at 24 largely because of Flight 103 and the death of his father but people will argue he was already in decline. I myself don't ignore those 2 very big psychological reasons.

But career wise Becker achieved a hell of a lot on carpet and that's my pick for him over Edberg but I put Mats ahead of Edberg.

Flight 103? Can you elaborate?

 

[California]

Flight 103? Can you elaborate?

Mats was supposed to be on that flight that blew up over Scotland. He missed his connection so he didn't make the Pan Am flight. This is the quick version of the story. I read this in a book about Bjorn Borg and the super swedes.

 

[jrepac]

Mats was supposed to be on that flight that blew up over Scotland. He missed his connection so he didn't make the Pan Am flight. This is the quick version of the story. I read this in a book about Bjorn Borg and the super swedes.

Wow, I did not know that. Fate is a funny thing. I could see how someone might be rattled by that.

 

[heninfan99]

Yes it's wrong but we do it because Edberg played beautifully and Becker brought in-your-face power.

We can't deny that Wilander won big on hard, clay & grass.

 

[Mainad]

Mats was supposed to be on that flight that blew up over Scotland. He missed his connection so he didn't make the Pan Am flight. This is the quick version of the story. I read this in a book about Bjorn Borg and the super swedes.

It's ironic that if If Mats had made that flight it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to his tennis career as he was done by then and his reputation already sealed (he only won 1 other title, a small one, after that). Of course, tennis fans and commentators would have speculated endlessly on what he might have achieved if he hadn't boarded that plane. They could not have realised that the tragedy would have been purely personal and not professional. Of course we would never have had any episodes of 'Game, Set & Mats' and never witnessed his co-hosting partnerships with the delightful Annabel Croft and Barbara Schett!

 

[BGod]

Missing the ill fated flight and the death of his father absolutely affected Wilander's career. I don't know which happened first but he was the #1 the day of the flight so you can't ignore that and say he was already done that's delusional. He's only talked about it a few times. What's he going to say about the two issues otherwise when he was 24? He's not going to say "well if my father hadn't died and I cheated death I probably win 6 more Majors".

Guy had nothing else wrong with him physically.

 

[boredone3456]

Wilander playing his peak level is right there, toe to toe with Becker and Edberg. Sadly things off the court really took a mental toll on him and he really never processed them in a way that transpired to continued on the court success following them.

 

[muddlehead]

I rank Wilander higher than Edberg / Becker. Probably a style factor. Mats is one of my all time 5 to watch old matches on u-tube. Mac Lendl Borg and Vilas are the other 4.

 

[NicoMK]

Re. the story of Flight 103, he was supposed to take that plane in December 88 to go somewhere (don't recall exactly where...) to try to heal his sore right knee. He finally decided not to have this treatment and that's why he didn't take that flight... at the latest moment.

Mats aslo explained several times that after being no1 in 1988, which asked him a lot of focus and effort and energy, he just felt that he could never do better than he did that year, that he could not go higher. And that was it.

And the death of his father in 1990, yes...

He was only 24 in 1988. Who knows what he could have acheived the following four, five years?

I loved the smart player and I loved the wise man so for me, it will always be 1. Wilander.

 

[thrust]

Becker never won a clay court tournament
Edberg reached One FO final, Wilander won 3 FO titles, 2 AO on grass, 1 USO on hard courts.
Wimbledon, especially today, has always been overrated.
Overall, they are fairly equal, but I would prefer Wilander's record.

 

[Mainad]

Becker never won a clay court tournament
Edberg reached One FO final, Wilander won 3 FO titles, 2 AO on grass, 1 USO on hard courts.
Wimbledon, especially today, has always been overrated.
Overall, they are fairly equal, but I would prefer Wilander's record.

Because Wilander never did well there?

 

[Mainad]

Missing the ill fated flight and the death of his father absolutely affected Wilander's career. I don't know which happened first but he was the #1 the day of the flight so you can't ignore that and say he was already done that's delusional. He's only talked about it a few times. What's he going to say about the two issues otherwise when he was 24? He's not going to say "well if my father hadn't died and I cheated death I probably win 6 more Majors".

I'm just stating the facts. After his great 1988 season he never did anything else of consequence so it made no difference to his career that he missed that fatal flight. Of course we only know this with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[California]

Becker never won a clay court tournament
Edberg reached One FO final, Wilander won 3 FO titles, 2 AO on grass, 1 USO on hard courts.
Wimbledon, especially today, has always been overrated.
Overall, they are fairly equal, but I would prefer Wilander's record.

That is only 6 majors for Mats... you are missing one.

 

[thrust]

Because Wilander never did well there?

NO, because Mats is the only one of the three who won slams on grass, 2 of his AO titles, 3 on clay and 2 on hard- I AO and 1 USO.

 

[Mainad]

NO, because Mats is the only one of the three who won slams on grass, 2 of his AO titles, 3 on clay and 2 on hard- I AO and 1 USO.

All very true. Given his grasscourt record at the AO it's always puzzled me why he did so poorly at Wimbledon, the only 1 of the Slams he could never play his best.

 

[thrust]

That is only 6 majors for Mats... you are missing one.[/QUOT

All very true. Given his grasscourt record at the AO it's always puzzled me why he did so poorly at Wimbledon, the only 1 of the Slams he could never play his best.

Mats, probably like Rosewall, had problems on the Wimbledon grass because the grass there was faster and less spongy than the grass at the USO or the AO.

 

[Mainad]

Mats, probably like Rosewall, had problems on the Wimbledon grass because the grass there was faster and less spongy than the grass at the USO or the AO.

But given he was so good at adapting to other surfaces why couldn't he adapt his game to suit Wimbledon conditions?

 

[NicoMK]

From what I read several times, he couldn't really adapt on grass at Wimbledon because it was really fast (that was said before), because the rebound was very low and also because he felt that his second serve wasn't good enough - and players could attack this very shot.

Plus, I think that he didn't have enough time to adapt from clay to grass (he did always well at the French) and back in those days, clay and grass were REALLY different, unlike today.

The grass at Kooyong had a higher rebound, this is why Mats played well there.

He also won the doubles in 86 at Wimbledon, that ain't too bad, is it?

 

[NicoMK]

I'd add that winning a Slam even in doubles and making three quarters is pretty damn good. I'd sign for this.

 

[NicoMK]

That is only 6 majors for Mats... you are missing one.

The 1988 Australian open was played on rebound ace. It makes seven.

Watch the 1986 match against Cash at Wimbledon. I think that's a good example of why Mats struggled at Wimbledon. Cash always rushed at the net, attacking Mats' shots every time he could. The match was close but in the end, Cash had it. Would it be played at the French or, two years later on the rebound ace, the story could have been different.