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

[hoodjem]

The 'forgotten more about tennis' argument is nonsense. McEnroe knows plenty about tennis yet he still spouts out gems like calling Donald Young the future of tennis some years back.

Mac is one-of-a-kind, and often uniquely weird in what he spouts. I have no doubt that he would call Young the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Just because some knowledgable former players make stupid statements does not mean that all statements by former players are stupid.

 

[Pioneer]

He was unplayable on hard courts really. If my memory serves me right he only lost to Nadal, Safin and Nalbandian in 2005 but Pete was equally unplayable on grass. Even when Pete was sh&t everywhere else he would do well at Wimbledon. Nadal is unplayable on clay but he's very fragile on hard. It's a pain to watch him play because sometimes his level would slip terribly and he would get clearly outplayed technically by guys lower-ranked guys, and it's kind of embarrassing to watch the world number 1 player run like a water boy for... murray.

Wilander is a reasonably intelligent person, his predictions are pretty good and he actually tipped Soderling to reach the semi finals / final of RG 2009 before it even started, I believe - he can be biased and he's not Federer's biggest fan, but Wilander is a very good tennis commentator.

Although I disagree with Wilander - Federer had plenty of tough players, what maybe Wilander doesn't understand is that at Federer's peak, he was unplayable - regardless of Nadal, Sampras, Lendl, Borg, etc, if you put them against Federer on a hard-court or a grass-court in 2005-2006, each of them would have lost, again and again and again. He was that good. Agassi once said that Federer was the greatest heaver - and Agassi faced a lot of good players in his generation.

 

[hoodjem]

If we were talking about how to hit the ball, or footwork sure, his opinion would hold more wait than anyone's in here, but him being a tennis player means nothing to his knowledge of this being a weak era or not.

It's spelled weight, by the way. And it should read "his being a tennis player."

But you are correct, he could not know that much about tennis history. I shall quote you on this: "him being a tennis player means nothing to his knowledge of this being a weak era or not."


I have often wondered how much current pros know about the history of the game.

 

[TMF]

It's spelled weight, by the way. And it should read "his being a tennis player."

But you are correct, he could not know that much about tennis history. I shall quote you on this: "him being a tennis player means nothing to his knowledge of this being a weak era or not."


I have often wondered how much current pros know about the history of the game.

Well hoodjem, homophones gets in the way sometime in English for non-native English speakers.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Mac is one-of-a-kind, and often uniquely weird in what he spouts. I have no doubt that he would call Young the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Just because some knowledgable former players make stupid statements does not mean that all statements by former players are stupid.

Wilander has a similar track record of making outlandish statements - saying Nadal was scared of Soderling and would lose in the RG final. Every opinion is biased, Mats is no exception. To act as if his opinion should hold more weight than someone on here just b/c he's a former player is an error for that reason.

 

[Deleted member 60695]

Mac is one-of-a-kind, and often uniquely weird in what he spouts. I have no doubt that he would call Young the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Just because some knowledgable former players make stupid statements does not mean that all statements by former players are stupid.

No, but what it DOES mean is that ability at something does not make everything one says on that subject accurate, logical, or even sane.

 

[P_Agony]

Wilander is a reasonably intelligent person, his predictions are pretty good and he actually tipped Soderling to reach the semi finals / final of RG 2009 before it even started, I believe - he can be biased and he's not Federer's biggest fan, but Wilander is a very good tennis commentator.

Although I disagree with Wilander - Federer had plenty of tough players, what maybe Wilander doesn't understand is that at Federer's peak, he was unplayable - regardless of Nadal, Sampras, Lendl, Borg, etc, if you put them against Federer on a hard-court or a grass-court in 2005-2006, each of them would have lost, again and again and again. He was that good. Agassi once said that Federer was the greatest heaver - and Agassi faced a lot of good players in his generation.

Yep, Federer was pretty much unplayable at the time. His quality of play was not only nearly flawless, his confidence was so high it was nearly impossible to beat him mentally. Fed made his rivals look bad, and when he declined, suddenly all the Djokovics and the Murrays look good, and some would claim they are superior players to the likes of Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, but are they really? Those 3 have 5 slams combined and multiple other slam finals. Djokovic, Murray and DP have 2 slams combined and a few more finals. Roddick and Hewitt, even today, are fully capable of beating the likes of Murray and Djokovic in their good day (I believe Roddick even has a positive H2H against the two).

And I didn't even mention Nalby, Davy, Blake, Ferrero - all where fully capable players at their time. Fed just made them look average. What is most fascinating to me is that Federer, who is past his prime and is nearing 30 and is working past time as ******** - the king of shanks, just beat #5, #4, #3, and #1 players in the world one after another losing just one set in the process, and that is the "superior" team according to Wilander.

 

[BrooklynNY]

And I didn't even mention Nalby, Davy, Blake, Ferrero - all where fully capable players at their time. Fed just made them look average. What is most fascinating to me is that Federer, who is past his prime and is nearing 30 and is working past time as ******** - the king of shanks, just beat #5, #4, #3, and #1 players in the world one after another losing just one set in the process, and that is the "superior" team according to Wilander.

Why is it fascinating? Wilander isn't saying Fed will be lucky to win tournaments now, or is bad, he is just saying Fed will not be winning like 19/20 tournaments or whatever the record is I'm sure you guys have it memorized. When the other so called "threats" were mediocre, half committed guys like Davy,Nalby,Blake, Gonzo, all of whom were top 7 2-3 yrs ago, and now are nowhere really.
Fed is great, he is not saying that he isn't one of the all time greats, its just that there aren't many other extremely great players during that time early in the decade, there was a bunch of good players who all play the same style game for the most part, just do it at different levels, depending if you're ranked 100, 50, or whatever David Ferrer is ranked, and Fed makes them look average, because thats all they really are. We know the name of the only other GREAT player of this era is Nadal,

I think thats what Trollander (funny name btw) is trying to say, but I still give Fed the credit he deserves for actually going out and winning, I mean a good portion of his wins were given to him by players with limited underdeveloped games, but he did have to show up and win. :evil::twisted:

 

[fed_rulz]

Why is it fascinating? Wilander isn't saying Fed will be lucky to win tournaments now, or is bad, he is just saying Fed will not be winning like 19/20 tournaments or whatever the record is I'm sure you guys have it memorized. When the other so called "threats" were mediocre, half committed guys like Davy,Nalby,Blake, Gonzo, all of whom were top 7 2-3 yrs ago, and now are nowhere really.
Fed is great, he is not saying that he isn't one of the all time greats, its just that there aren't many other extremely great players during that time early in the decade, there was a bunch of good players who all play the same style game for the most part, just do it at different levels, depending if you're ranked 100, 50, or whatever David Ferrer is ranked, and Fed makes them look average, because thats all they really are. We know the name of the only other GREAT player of this era is Nadal,

I think thats what Trollander (funny name btw) is trying to say, but I still give Fed the credit he deserves for actually going out and winning, I mean a good portion of his wins were given to him by players with limited underdeveloped games, but he did have to show up and win. :evil::twisted:

Hey, look another GameSampras-like weak-era theorist....

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Why is it fascinating? Wilander isn't saying Fed will be lucky to win tournaments now, or is bad, he is just saying Fed will not be winning like 19/20 tournaments or whatever the record is I'm sure you guys have it memorized. When the other so called "threats" were mediocre, half committed guys like Davy,Nalby,Blake, Gonzo, all of whom were top 7 2-3 yrs ago, and now are nowhere really.

Age and injuries suddenly are irrelevant, I guess. :roll:

And you ignore how Roddick still owns the 'better generation' Djokovic and took out the 'better generation' Murray in their last slam meeting.

Not to mention Safin on his worse surface rolling past Djokovic in 08.

 

[cc0509]

Yep, Federer was pretty much unplayable at the time. His quality of play was not only nearly flawless, his confidence was so high it was nearly impossible to beat him mentally. Fed made his rivals look bad, and when he declined, suddenly all the Djokovics and the Murrays look good, and some would claim they are superior players to the likes of Safin, Roddick and Hewitt, but are they really? Those 3 have 5 slams combined and multiple other slam finals. Djokovic, Murray and DP have 2 slams combined and a few more finals. Roddick and Hewitt, even today, are fully capable of beating the likes of Murray and Djokovic in their good day (I believe Roddick even has a positive H2H against the two).

And I didn't even mention Nalby, Davy, Blake, Ferrero - all where fully capable players at their time. Fed just made them look average. What is most fascinating to me is that Federer, who is past his prime and is nearing 30 and is working past time as ******** - the king of shanks, just beat #5, #4, #3, and #1 players in the world one after another losing just one set in the process, and that is the "superior" team according to Wilander.

Wilander is a moron. It does not matter if you take the best players from Federer's prime or the best players from today, when Roger is on his game, nobody can beat him. He can do it all and has a variety of shots that the other players just don't even come close to having. You can spin it anyway you want to, but that is the truth.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Wilander is a moron. It does not matter if you take the best players from Federer's prime or the best players from today, when Roger is on his game, nobody can beat him. He can do it all and has a variety of shots that the other players just don't even come close to having. You can spin it anyway you want to, but that is the truth.

Well, no. Federer has been beaten by Nadal at least, when Federer was playing his best, ever since he became number 1. That is unless of course you've forgotten 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and of course most recently 2010. Like it or not, Federer at the top of his game can be beaten by the likes of Nadal, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. No one is unbeatable.

Only reason Wilander is now being called a "moron" is because of what he stated. I seem to remember a time when the Fed diehards thought he was a genius.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Safin and Nalbandian could not and have not beaten Federer at the top of his game. Not sure who 'etc' is but they probably couldn't either.

 

[cc0509]

Well, no. Federer has been beaten by Nadal at least, when Federer was playing his best, ever since he became number 1. That is unless of course you've forgotten 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and of course most recently 2010. Like it or not, Federer at the top of his game can be beaten by the likes of Nadal, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. No one is unbeatable.

Only reason Wilander is now being called a "moron" is because of what he stated. I seem to remember a time when the Fed diehards thought he was a genius.

I am not a Fed "diehard" and I think Nadal is one of the best as well for different reasons. I should have clarified that Nadal was an exception to the rule. However, I still think Federer is a more skilled tennis player than Nadal is for the most part. By this I mean in terms of his shot variety.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Safin and Nalbandian could not and have not beaten Federer at the top of his game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6LeILBuPik

 

[NadalAgassi]

Wilander is lucky to have won as many slams as he has. He never would have won the 82 French had Borg not retired and the early part of his rise from 82-84 no doubt benefited from Borg's early retirement. He later also benefited even more from McEnroe's burnout, Connors finally aging well out of his prime, Becker's inconsistency outside grass/indoors from 85-88, and Edberg's delayed maturation. He is by far the weakest player to win atleast 7 slams. Nobody considers him even in the same league as Connors, Lendl or McEnroe who have similar # of slams, while many consider Becker and Edberg as better players with 6 slams.

 

[P_Agony]

Well, no. Federer has been beaten by Nadal at least, when Federer was playing his best, ever since he became number 1. That is unless of course you've forgotten 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and of course most recently 2010. Like it or not, Federer at the top of his game can be beaten by the likes of Nadal, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. No one is unbeatable.

Only reason Wilander is now being called a "moron" is because of what he stated. I seem to remember a time when the Fed diehards thought he was a genius.

Nadal only beat Federer playing at his best about once, and that was in Rome 2006, where it was on clay, and Federer still had two MPs.

 

[ATP100]

Wilander was a jerk in the early 80's also...Nothing has changed.

 

[dandelion_smiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6LeILBuPik

The funny thing is that if Safin failed to beat Federer in Australia in 2005 he'd be considered a not-so-much great player (1 Slam, 1-11 h2h with Federer only 1 minor win in Moscow in 2002). Someone on youtube actually said that Fed wrote in his book he got slightly injured after playing Agassi the round before but I don't buy it. Well untill I read it myself at least.

Federer-Nalbandian Masters Cup Nalby was playing out of his mind and he barely took out an ankle-strapped Federer. That said, Nalby had the game to beat Federer in a big match. He's the last man to beat Federer in a hc Slam before Fed's super Slam semi serie. In fact he did it twice (AO 2003, UO 2003)

You're right. No-one is unbeatable. But if anyone can come close to it, it's definately Federer.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

Wilander was a jerk in the early 80's also...Nothing has changed.

The sad part about Wilander, is that when he tested positive and was given a two-year ban, the tennis community at-large really didn't care a great deal. At that point in his career, he was pretty much washed-up.

Wilander is one of those odd fellows in tennis history that people tend to forget about. Its probably why he has bouts of tourette's during media interviews. Some people just can't stay away. Most probably wouldn't care if they ever saw or heard from him again.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse

 

[hoodjem]

Well hoodjem, homophones gets in the way sometime in English for non-native English speakers.

True that.

 

[Wilander Fan]

The sad part about Wilander, is that when he tested positive and was given a two-year ban, the tennis community at-large really didn't care a great deal. At that point in his career, he was pretty much washed-up.

Wilander is one of those odd fellows in tennis history that people tend to forget about. Its probably why he has bouts of tourette's during media interviews. Some people just can't stay away. Most probably wouldn't care if they ever saw or heard from him again.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse

It's pretty sad considering he had at least 3 good years left and likely would have walked away with a couple more slams. Wilander accomplished a lot in a very short career.

Federer is a unique player and commentators need to stretch to find comparable players. After 03, federer was virtually the door to a slam. You simply could not win a slam without going through him. No one else has been so dominant for so long.

 

[DMan]

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.

Obviously, it's the years of smoking weed and doing coke that have made Wilander's mind go to mush!

 

[Kobble]

I think Pete said it best about the comparison of the 1990's to the 2000's. That the number 30 player is head and shoulders above years ago, but proficiency in diverse playing styles is was better in the 1990's.

What comes to mind would be a comparison of Tursunov to Ivanisevic or Rusedski.

Tursunov has bigger average strokes and seemingly better footwork than Rusedski. However, his serve is not nearly as scary, and volleys not as sharp. Therefore, someone like Federer would feel like he can keep up with (or exceed) a Tursunov in all departments, but he can't keep up with the serve of a Rusedksi or Ivanisevic. I feel like Federer could find a way to either out serve or out return Tursunov by not serving or returning his best. Facing an Ivanisevic, he is going to have to return great to stay out of tie-breakers which could swing either way. It is hard to always beat someone who has such a high top end performance.

I think Federer has faced the toughest 1st and 2nd round opponents, but I'm not sure he has faced the most dangerous 4th round opponents.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

I think Pete said it best about the comparison of the 1990's to the 2000's. That the number 30 player is head and shoulders above years ago, but proficiency in diverse playing styles is was better in the 1990's.

What comes to mind would be a comparison of Tursunov to Ivanisevic or Rusedski.

Tursunov has bigger average strokes and seemingly better footwork than Rusedski. However, his serve is not nearly as scary, and volleys not as sharp. Therefore, someone like Federer would feel like he can keep up with (or exceed) a Tursunov in all departments, but he can't keep up with the serve of a Rusedksi or Ivanisevic. I feel like Federer could find a way to either out serve or out return Tursunov by not serving or returning his best. Facing an Ivanisevic, he is going to have to return great to stay out of tie-breakers which could swing either way. It is hard to always beat someone who has such a high top end performance.

I think Federer has faced the toughest 1st and 2nd round opponents, but I'm not sure he has faced the most dangerous 4th round opponents.

It's funny you should mention that, because Sampras used to fairly regularly drop sets within the first couple rounds in majors.

Up until this year, it was pretty much unheard of for Federer to drop a set in the first 2 rounds.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Rusedski is not that good a volleyer and his serve is overrated. Serving isnt just about mph, his serve overall is nothing compared to Sampras, Ivanisevic, even Krajicek, or Karlovic, Roddick, and even Federer today. He isnt that good and Federer and Nadal would not be scared to play him at all. The only place he might pull an upset over either is in some mickey mouse event.

Ivanisevic is only a really tough opponent for top players on grass and carpet, and even so he isnt mentally strong enough to beat a legendary champion in a big match. He pretty much never has in fact, other than an over the hill Becker at Wimbledon 94.

 

[above bored]

I think Pete said it best about the comparison of the 1990's to the 2000's. That the number 30 player is head and shoulders above years ago, but proficiency in diverse playing styles is was better in the 1990's.

What comes to mind would be a comparison of Tursunov to Ivanisevic or Rusedski.

Tursunov has bigger average strokes and seemingly better footwork than Rusedski. However, his serve is not nearly as scary, and volleys not as sharp. Therefore, someone like Federer would feel like he can keep up with (or exceed) a Tursunov in all departments, but he can't keep up with the serve of a Rusedksi or Ivanisevic. I feel like Federer could find a way to either out serve or out return Tursunov by not serving or returning his best. Facing an Ivanisevic, he is going to have to return great to stay out of tie-breakers which could swing either way. It is hard to always beat someone who has such a high top end performance.

I think Federer has faced the toughest 1st and 2nd round opponents, but I'm not sure he has faced the most dangerous 4th round opponents.

I don't think Ivanesivic or Rusedski would have been more difficult opponents than the one's Federer has faced during his reign. He is 2-0 against Ivanesivic and 4-1 against Rusedski, with most of those matches occuring pre-2003, before he started to find his best level.

I think it's time for people to accept that Federer is a great great player, better than anyone in the 00s, 90s, 80s or before. It has nothing to do with him miraculously being born into a weak era. Tennis is populated with too many excellent and competitive athletes for it to ever be weak in any real sense. Furthermore, Federer raised the level from prior efforts, so must be given credit for being able to sustain that dominance.

 

[Justin Side]

Wilander is hilarious. I'd love to see all the crazy quotes he's had about tennis in the last 5-6 years, that would make a fun thread.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

It's pretty sad considering he had at least 3 good years left and likely would have walked away with a couple more slams. Wilander accomplished a lot in a very short career.

Federer is a unique player and commentators need to stretch to find comparable players. After 03, federer was virtually the door to a slam. You simply could not win a slam without going through him. No one else has been so dominant for so long.

Mother Marjorie is curious why you think Mats Wilander had 3 good years left and 2 more slams?

After winning three grand slam events in 1988, Wilander was 29-17 at Grand slam singles events until his eventual retirement.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse

 

[thirty_forty]

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.

I think the 2,3,4 and 5 ranked opponents theory is an interesting one. How would you propose setting up a comparison that tried to approximate objectivity here? In terms of measuring "quality" -- would you look at aveerage win percentage of the 2-5 ranked players against the no. 1? GS titles by the 2-5 guys?

 

[jackson vile]

I don't think Ivanesivic or Rusedski would have been more difficult opponents than the one's Federer has faced during his reign. He is 2-0 against Ivanesivic and 4-1 against Rusedski, with most of those matches occuring pre-2003, before he started to find his best level.

I think it's time for people to accept that Federer is a great great player, better than anyone in the 00s, 90s, 80s or before. It has nothing to do with him miraculously being born into a weak era. Tennis is populated with too many excellent and competitive athletes for it to ever be weak in any real sense. Furthermore, Federer raised the level from prior efforts, so must be given credit for being able to sustain that dominance.

One thing you have to consider as well is that WB slowed and by a lot after 2000 and perhaps the USO as well.

 

[NicoMK]

You guys are pretty hard with Mats IMO.

Apart from the Nadal-Federer debate when Mats can sometimes say one thing and its contrary the following morning, I find his analysis pretty good and interesting, funny sometimes. Maybe we shouldn't take all this TOO seriously. But just my opinion, never mind.

Also, Mats has never been suspended for two years. He had a three month ban after his supposedly positive test to cocaine in 1995 (ban to be effective in early 97) but he had already retired then (he played his last match in summer 96).

He also took two years off the courts (1991-93) but nothing to see with drug suspension.

 

[Bobby Jr]

It's pretty sad considering he had at least 3 good years left and likely would have walked away with a couple more slams. Wilander accomplished a lot in a very short career.

Say what?

His tested positive for drugs in 1995, almost 7 years after his last slam win. His best result in the 28 slams held in that period was one semifinal showing. He had little chance at all after 1989 of being competitive in slams again.

 

[Carolina Racquet]

I'm a Wilander fan... he was kind of "Borg Lite" when Bjorn retired and he had a great career winning majors on all three surfaces and leading Sweden to three Davis Cups(7 consecutive finals).

However, making stupid statements about comparing players from different eras is really pointless... isn't it? Doesn't matter if you're Wilander or just another fan... how can you argue something that is based simply on opinion?

Let each era have their icons.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Mother Marjorie is curious why you think Mats Wilander had 3 good years left and 2 more slams?

After winning three grand slam events in 1988, Wilander was 29-17 at Grand slam singles events until his eventual retirement.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse

I meant physically. It was clear he mentally burned out in 89 after his great year. To go from a 3 slam year to never coming close to winning another is telling. People like to say he was being overpowered in afterwards but he was being overpowered by everyone and not just guys like agassi and Sampras. It was more a matter of not mentally. Being in points.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Say what?

His tested positive for drugs in 1995, almost 7 years after his last slam win. His best result in the 28 slams held in that period was one semifinal showing. He had little chance at all after 1989 of being competitive in slams again.

He basically took long breaks after 88 to hang out with his rock buddies. I remember a tennis magazine article in 89 talking about his decline and it really seemed like he just didn't care anymore in the interview.