Mats Trollander at it again: "Federer played in the worst era of all time"

abraxas21

Professional
When IT asked Mats Wilander if Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter. It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.” As for Nadal, Wilander said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been healthy. He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the greatest.” When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire, Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg, for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted forever. Nobody was stopping him.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-mandarin-miners-pistol-packin-mama/

seriously, what a clown. he makes some of our finest trolls around here look like reasonable smart fellows.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
He needs to STFU. Always sour grapes with him. Also I saw a recent picture or video of him and I could not believe it. He looks like he is 65 years old. He has aged terribly.
 

AndyArodRoddick

Professional
I hate this guy. He cant be objective in Eurosport and now this sh*t... For sure Murray is better than Hewitt, Roddick or Nalbandian..yeah..
 

OrangePower

Legend
Mats has a serious flaw in his reasoning.

He would rather believe that the nos 2, 3, 4, 5 are all weaker than the equivalent historical averages, instead of believing that the no 1 is stronger than the historical average #1.

But statistically, what is more likely: 4 players weaker than the norm, or 1 player stronger than the norm?

There's actually a rule of thumb for this kind of thing - Mats should look up "Occam's razor"
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
It is just a stupid comment. He manages to trash 5 tennis players in one comment. Who the hell is he? I know he was a good player and I actually enjoyed watching him play, but these stupid comments are unnecessary.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Mats has a serious flaw in his reasoning.

He would rather believe that the nos 2, 3, 4, 5 are all weaker than the equivalent historical averages, instead of believing that the no 1 is stronger than the historical average #1.

But statistically, what is more likely: 4 players weaker than the norm, or 1 player stronger than the norm?

There's actually a rule of thumb for this kind of thing - Mats should look up "Occam's razor"

Your logical points all fall on deaf ears. I've tried explaining this reasoning to the fed-detractors (mainly Pete-****s), but somehow it's always conveninetly ignored.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Everytime Wilander talks on this topic I have less respect for him... But he does make one potentially salient point on the mental focus aspect - one which I've thought about before. You gotta wonder sometimes if the supreme focus some players have does indeed burn them out somehow.
Wilander said:
......there are a lot of us who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg, for example, or me...
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
.....But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts....

LOL. The 90s had the worst #1 -- Marcelo Rios. And wasn't nadal the #2 from 2005? Federer won 12 grandslams after nadal became #2.
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Give the guy a break. Mats did so much blow he's lucky he can still tie his own shoes.

As for the weak era argument, Federer still has a winning record against the "new and improved" top 10.

Mats Wilander.................more like Mats Whine Louder .........thank you, thank you........don't forget to tip your waitress :mrgreen:
 

P_Agony

Banned
Mats is the one weird fellow. I remember events where he bashed Nadal and praised Roger (FO 2008 for example, before the disaster final), and I remember events where the opposite has happened. Is this recent? Because it'd be funny for him to say that after Fed destroyed the top players one after another in the toughest draw you can possibly get in an event (#5, #4, #3, and #1, oh an also Ferrer :)).

Even if Mats is right about the Roddicks and the Hewitt (he's clearly wrong because those guys beat the younger guys often today as well), he forgets about the Djokovics and the Murrays and the Del Potros Fed beat as well (he owns all of them except Murray but he owns Murray as well where it matters most).

Most importantly, Fed owns Mats' personal king, Robin Soderling. In fact, such ownage is rare in tennis, what is it? 12-1?
 
Last edited:

T1000

Legend
Lol ok so Hewitt and Nalbandian have beaten Prime Federer in 5 set matches and Murray failed miserably both times against a post prime Fed and he's still better haha what a joke.
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
Funny how the weak no 2, 3, 4's (Roddick and hewitt) won 3 slams, and consistently made finals, while this apparently better generation has only 2 slams(Djokovic and Del Potro).

Also Roddick and Hewitt did it at younger ages than the current young generation
 

P_Agony

Banned
Lol ok so Hewitt and Nalbandian have beaten Prime Federer in 5 set matches and Murray failed miserably both times against a post prime Fed and he's still better haha what a joke.

I agree. Until Murray wins a slam he shouldn't even be written in the same sentence as Hewitt or Roddick.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than him

Who exactly are "these guys" that "suddenly" came up and are "better" than Federer?.. Murray? Djokovic? Berdych? Soderling?.. The only player who is better than Federer today is Nadal, hence the rankings. And even Nadal didn't "suddenly" came up, he was there for quite a while, and he was behind Federer, not ahead.

This reminded me of what Federer said somewhere... If I remember correctly, something close to "These guys [the new top guys] didn't reinvent tennis."... I personally don't think the Murrays, Djokovics and Soderlings of the game today are "better" than the Nalbandians, Hewitts and Roddicks of their respective primes.

He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible.

I wonder if he's talking about Federer's age here? If he does, that makes a wonderful contradiction to what he's implying. In any case, saying Federer is consistently playing as well as he did in the past is just weird. Yes, for some matches here and there he still can play his very best, but he was constantly playing at his best when he dominated, that's the thing.
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
^^^

I feel for both those guys, moreso Roddick though. Some of those matches could have gone either way. Oh well...........
 
nah i've seen people say way worse consistently, plus it was kind of fitting

Well if we're going back on topic, Wilander is a slightly confusing guy. First he kissed Federer's medieval donkey and now he's kissing Nadal's. But those words aren't necessary. There are other words to get your opinion forward, but in a nicer way.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Well if we're going back on topic, Wilander is a slightly confusing guy. First he kissed Federer's medieval donkey and now he's kissing Nadal's. But those words aren't necessary. There are other words to get your opinion forward, but in a nicer way.

they were absolutely fitting in this case. what mats says does not even make sense.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
There is one thing for sure fed lovers cannot stand the truth, that is all Mats
is saying.
 
1

15_ounce

Guest
I think Mat is jealous of Federer and Nadal..
00000012.gif
 

OrangeOne

Legend
Mats has a serious flaw in his reasoning.

He would rather believe that the nos 2, 3, 4, 5 are all weaker than the equivalent historical averages, instead of believing that the no 1 is stronger than the historical average #1.

But statistically, what is more likely: 4 players weaker than the norm, or 1 player stronger than the norm?

There's actually a rule of thumb for this kind of thing - Mats should look up "Occam's razor"

Stated more simply:

Mats' reasoning would have Federer as a better player if he lost more often.

:shock:
 
The only players that could (but only could) compete in this era and win something more than a Masters title are prime Sampras, Agassi, MAYBE Lendl (all on hard courts + Pete on grass) and Borg on clay/grass

McEnroe's too cute for today's game, sorry Jimbo but pure determination just won't do it in 2010, Becker, Edberg = nothing better than Andy Roddick at his best. Wilander would be nothing more than today's Andy Murray. I don't see Laver doing sh.it with his height, same thing with Rosewall.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
The only players that could (but only could) compete in this era and win something more than a Masters title are prime Sampras, Agassi, MAYBE Lendl (all on hard courts + Pete on grass) and Borg on clay/grass

McEnroe's too cute for today's game, sorry Jimbo but pure determination just won't do it in 2010, Becker, Edberg = nothing better than Andy Roddick at his best. Wilander would be nothing more than today's Andy Murray. I don't see Laver doing sh.it with his height, same thing with Rosewall.

Your assumption is flawed.

You're assuming that the players would have turned up in today's game and played as they did back then.

Take most players from the past, start them as a junior along with today's players when they were juniors, and we'd see many of the former players succeeding. Not all, but many.
 

BobFL

Hall of Fame
Wilander lost it completely. Fed made his era look weak. I must say that some of the "legends" don't really see how much tennis as a game has improved. Players are stronger and fitter than ever before and balls are pacey and spinny like never before. I think he underestimates today's game...
 

OrangeOne

Legend
Wilander lost it completely. Fed made his era look weak. I must say that some of the "legends" don't really see how much tennis as a game has improved. Players are stronger and fitter than ever before and balls are pacey and spinny like never before. I think he underestimates today's game...

Wilander has coached in today's game, and coached a power-player at that.

If anything, put his comments partly to simple sensationalism - he's saying things that keep him in the media, and thus earn his money. Simple.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Your assumption is flawed.

You're assuming that the players would have turned up in today's game and played as they did back then.

Take most players from the past, start them as a junior along with today's players when they were juniors, and we'd see many of the former players succeeding. Not all, but many.

That is why it is stupid to compare eras and players in those eras in the first place because conditions, technology, etc. etc. have changed so much.
 

BobFL

Hall of Fame
Wilander has coached in today's game, and coached a power-player at that.

If anything, put his comments partly to simple sensationalism - he's saying things that keep him in the media, and thus earn his money. Simple.

Oh yeah, no question about that. He did it before, he'll do it again...
 
Your assumption is flawed.

You're assuming that the players would have turned up in today's game and played as they did back then.

Take most players from the past, start them as a junior along with today's players when they were juniors, and we'd see many of the former players succeeding. Not all, but many.

Well yea you're right. But still I don't see Laver or Rosewall making a dent in today's tennis with their height.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Mats has a serious flaw in his reasoning.

He would rather believe that the nos 2, 3, 4, 5 are all weaker than the equivalent historical averages, instead of believing that the no 1 is stronger than the historical average #1.

But statistically, what is more likely: 4 players weaker than the norm, or 1 player stronger than the norm?

There's actually a rule of thumb for this kind of thing - Mats should look up "Occam's razor"

Good point! Mats is basically saying the top 20 was extraordinarily weak. Hmmm 20 statistical anomalies or one?
 
He needs to STFU. Always sour grapes with him. Also I saw a recent picture or video of him and I could not believe it. He looks like he is 65 years old. He has aged terribly.
To understand why Dear Mats looks so much older than his age, you have to look at the time period during his prime...'80's...snort...snort. Didn't Mats finish his career with a positive drug test and a ban?

You didn't hear that from me, oh, no you did not.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
To understand why Dear Mats looks so much older than his age, you have to look at the time period during his prime...'80's...snort...snort. Didn't Mats finish his career with a positive drug test and a ban?

You didn't hear that from me, oh, no you did not.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse

LOL. I totally forgot about his positive drug testing. Would certainly explain to some extent his aging badly (maybe sun exposure and genetics explain the rest.)
 

TopFH

Hall of Fame
mats desperate for attention and i for one believe hes a bit jealous of all federer accomplished...
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
umm, did Wilander forget Safin?

And remember, Federer, this supposed bad-player, BEAT SAMPRAS ON GRASS. Yeah, Fed's a reeeeal bad player :roll:

Sorry Matts, other players beg to differ with you:

Jack Kramer: "Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, is the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's doing to him." and "I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can."

Andre: "There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody."

Laver: "Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time"

Now for the killing blows:

Robin Soderling: "I never played anyone playing that fast. He doesn’t have any weaknesses at all. He really deserves to be called the best player of all time."

Rafael Nadal: "If he is playing very good, I have to play unbelievable. If not, it’s impossible, especially if he’s playing with good confidence. When he’s 100 percent, he’s playing in another league. It’s impossible to stop him. I fight. I fight. I fight. Nothing to say. Just congratulate him."

and, last but not least:

Mats Wilander: "I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels like to play that way."
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Mats likes federer a lot.

Wilander was hoping that Federer would go onto win the french open in 2006 and become the GOAT. But simply put, Federer let Wilander down.

Wilander was so amazed at roger's talent and game that he thought the only reason why nadal could defeat him was that it was mental.

Hence the "Roger has no balls" comment.

But Wilander really does love Roger..its just that he is a very harsh harsh fan...and thinks that someone with federer's talent should never lose to anyone.

Roger almost makes it look too easy...that wilander feels like he should win everytime.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Mats likes federer a lot.

Wilander was hoping that Federer would go onto win the french open in 2006 and become the GOAT. But simply put, Federer let Wilander down.

Wilander was so amazed at roger's talent and game that he thought the only reason why nadal could defeat him was that it was mental.

Hence the "Roger has no balls" comment.

But Wilander really does love Roger..its just that he is a very harsh harsh fan...and thinks that someone with federer's talent should never lose to anyone.

Roger almost makes it look too easy...that wilander feels like he should win everytime.

Once upon a time...

Now, Wilander follows Brad Gilbert and JMac in praising Nadal...
 
Top