Mats Wilander vs Stefan Edberg: Greatest Career?
- Thread starter King No1e
- Start date
ron schaap
Hall of Fame
Appearantly skaj doesnt watch Eurosports.
I find it more interesting to discuss why there arent any great Swedish players anymore? There was a long period when in every ATP tournament players from Sweden were dominating with their mostly non stylish baseline game and suddenly no one from that country anymore. How come?
Edhead-Fedhead
Hall of Fame
I know.... I still haven't gotten over it
It is a bit extreme isn't it. In 1985, three Swedes were ranked in the top 10 at the end of the year and another few just outside it. In the 80s Sweden reached the Davis Cup final 7 times, winning 3 times. They won another 3 times in the 90s, Twice after all of the Swedish big 3 (e.g., Borg, Wilander, Edberg) had retired. Remarkable for such a small country. And now, no trace of them.
A few years ago, there was even talk about bringing in Edberg to play Israel in the Davis Cup, because he was still "Sweden's best tennis player". This was at least a decade into Edberg's retirement. I don't how serious this actually was, though, but it did reach the media. Edberg, ever the level-headed, commented on the "request" that he wouldn't have any chance and turned it down.
Edit: this was in 2009
Last edited:
Winners or Errors
Legend
I never saw Wilander annihilate anyone the way Edberg could. That sort of dominance gives Edberg a higher ranking for me. Wilander got as much as he could out of his heady game, but I enjoy watching a good whoopin' on the court.
Cabeza del Demonio
Professional
They're pretty much equal. Edberg leads most of the stats but Wilander has 7 Slams to 6, leads head 2 head, and generally had a more well rounded game. Others have already pointed out that he won 3 Slams on clay while Edberg never did, and he dominated 1988 while Edberg never had a multi-Slam season.
Verdict: Wilander by the slimmest of margins (but I'd still mute his commentary on TV)
Verdict: Wilander by the slimmest of margins (but I'd still mute his commentary on TV)
Cabeza del Demonio
Professional
In 2009, Soderling was already in the top 10, that must have been seriously offensive to him.
NicoMK
Hall of Fame
Sad but true… and in the rest of the world too
And I voted Mats, of course!
Mats has one more Grand Slam and if you consider the doubles -- they count ! -- he won all 4.
I think what also counts in people's mind (and I think it's fair) is that Edberg stayed at his best longer than Mats, let's say from 1985 to 1994 or 95. Mats played at his best "only" between 1982 to 1988. In the early 90s, Stefan was still competing for number one with young Pete, Agassi or even with his old rival Boris, Mats wasn't.
Both retired in 1996 though.
Last edited:
I googled the article - Wilander (then DC captain) said rather that on a fast indoor surface Edberg would still be top 5 in Sweden, rather than the best. I believe Soderling wasn't going to play and the field for the rubber was a bit thin. Edberg said he still performed well in training but wouldn't be able to keep up in a real match, especially not in best of 5.
Either way, that Edberg was even discussed 12 years into retirement says something about the state of Swedish tennis. And this was 2009. It's worse today.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
super close call. giving slight nod to edberg due to winning wimbledon twice, more weeks at #1 and taking the fifth biggest title. but really it’s about a wash.
There is the whole indoor question ie indoor tennis was important then and Wilander won no important indoor titles vs the 1989 WTF by Edberg
trailgraves
New User
Wilander a more well rounded game? Not sure I agree on that. His serve is weaker, he doesnt volley better than Edberg plays off the ground, Edberg can play better defense than Wilander can offense.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Still, you'll have to give Wilander credit for adapting his game well to different surfaces. He played s/v well on grass, and he had good volleys and net approaches which he displayed brilliantly in US Open 1987 and 1988. He was also very good at mixing it up in AO 1988. Beat Edberg indoors too.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
It could depend on whether one values the Wimbledon-USO titles more or less than AO-FO titles.
Mats has three FO titles and three AO titles, but zero Wimbledon and only one USO title.
Stefan has two Wimbledon titles and two USO titles, but zero FO and only two AO titles.
Were the AO and FO worth less 1982-92?
(Is, in this instance, 2+2+2 greater than 3+3+1?)
Or, damn that Chang!
Mats has three FO titles and three AO titles, but zero Wimbledon and only one USO title.
Stefan has two Wimbledon titles and two USO titles, but zero FO and only two AO titles.
Were the AO and FO worth less 1982-92?
(Is, in this instance, 2+2+2 greater than 3+3+1?)
Or, damn that Chang!
Last edited:
mhkeuns
Hall of Fame
Mats was on top of his game, then it seemed he was gone suddenly. He was an over-achiever, imo, who was more of a counter-punching grinder than anything. Edberg, when he was on top of his game, was more dominant. Though Wilander had one more slam title, I think it was Edberg who had a better, more memorable career. Edberg definitely had the style.
True. Wilander had a much more allround game than people seem to remember
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Arguably, Wilander's best surface was clay, and Edberg's best surface was grass.
Wilander was better on grass than Edberg was on clay.
So, I think one could argue that Wilander had a more versatile, well-rounded game than Edberg. (even though I prefer Edberg)
Wilander would actually S&V on grass, whereas Edberg really couldn't groove as a baseliner on clay...
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
I don't know man, 3 GS in one year by Wilander is pretty dominant!
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Edberg did make a FO final, and win on clay at Hamburg in 1992.
And Wilander did win two AOs on grass, but never did better than the quarters at Wimbledon in singles.
Last edited:
trailgraves
New User
I was just thinking the same thing. Not sure it is clear Wilander is better on grass than Edberg on clay at all.
mhkeuns
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I agree that Wilander was a dominant player, but as a kid watching him play, I never felt that he was being dominant. It seemed at the time that he did everything well but won his matches via sure will and lots of retrieving, instead of overwhelming the opponents like Lend with his power. I think my image of Wilander had something to do with my favorite player of all time, Mecir. Mecir was merciless against the Swedes, and Wilander was one of his main victims. Mecir almost had Edberg (*I believe was the Wimbledon Semi Final) but ultimately lost his nerves and lost the match in five sets. I had so much respect for Edberg after the that match and became his fan, too.
Almost weird how there are no Swedes in the top 10, when there used to be 2 to 3 Swedes in the top 10.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
2 GS on grass > 0 GS on clay
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
It has always been interesting to me that Wilander didn't do great at Wimby, despite winning 2 grass AO.
Did the grass play that different from AO to Wimby?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I do wonder if the Aussie grass courts were (dare I say it) . . . slow.!?
After all Vilas (clay-court great) won two titles there in 1978, 1979.
Are u arguing with yourself? First u say Wilander was an allround player then u come up with one match and say he was a counter-punching grinder
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
He definitely could play the counter-punching grinder type when needed, it was more than just this one match. Then again he could S&V when needed on grass
The Leconte match is about as grinding/counter-punching as I have seen anyone play besides maybe Chang on clay...
trailgraves
New User
The Australian Open was not a fully merited slam on par with the others just yet then. Would you even say Vilas is better on grass now too, LOL! OK that is an even greater extreme since the Aussie Open by the 80s was not the joke it was in the 70s anymore, and to Wilander's credit he did still beat some good players unlike Vilas for his Australians. Still the real accurate comparision is the French Open results vs the Wimbledon results and Edberg's are much better than Wilander's Wimbledon results.
Still considering the Australian Open status and that Wilander's Wimbledon results are much worse than Edberg's French Open results I wouldnt say it is clear at all. I do acknowledge Wilander's Australian Open titles, as otherwise I would say it was a no brainer in Edberg's favor, but it is not a no brainer in Wilander's either.
And of course even ignoring that the Australian Open should not be regarded as a fully legit slam like the other 3 at that point, having 2 grass slams per year (while the Australian was on grass) vs only 1 on clay is another imbalanced situation. It is not certain but possible Edberg might have won atleast 1 clay slam had there been 2 per year instead of just 1.
trailgraves
New User
Wimbledon grass was faster but it also was a full field with all the best players which the Australian Open NEVER was before the early or even mid 90s at the earliest.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Well, the 1983 AO had Lendl and McEnroe as the top 2 seeds, so it wasn't exactly an ATP 250 event either.
trailgraves
New User
Well, the 1983 AO had Lendl and McEnroe as the top 2 seeds, so it wasn't exactly an ATP 250 event either.
For sure and that is why I said his Aussies atleast werent a total joke like Vilas's.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
yeah you know it's so subjective but to draw an analogy to club play i always felt wilander is the player who beats you and you say 'can't believe i lost to that guy' whereas losing to edberg is more like 'yeah that guy just took me out.' of course flavors of victory and defeat really only exist in the mind, but...there you go.
He definitely could play the counter-punching grinder type when needed, it was more than just this one match. Then again he could S&V when needed on grass
The Leconte match is about as grinding/counter-punching as I have seen anyone play besides maybe Chang on clay...
Was this i didnt agree with "He was an over-achiever, imo, who was more of a counter-punching grinder than anything. " Then u come up with one ex and say he was, then i thought u agreed on what this other guy said. Then u say he was an allround player what is exactly what he was
He played the style that would win him the match better then anybody.
Cabeza del Demonio
Professional
That's a really good way to put it. Wilander forced errors out of the opponent while Edberg intimidated.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I remember (and have re-watched) no-weapons Wilander beating superbly fit, power-player Lendl in that 1988 USO final.
Wilander's stategy was brilliant: hang in there, blunt his power, hit one more ball, frustrate, frustrate, frustrate.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
He had a pretty good first serve, S/V on grass.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
He attacked a lot in that match (132 net points) , almost twice as often as Lendl. Check out the stats. He did not just hang in there, he mixed up his game perfectly, frustrating Lendl again and again, preventing him from getting into the groove. http://tennisabstract.com/charting/19880911-M-US_Open-F-Mats_Wilander-Ivan_Lendl.html
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Interesting that Wilander his twice as many BH slices as BH topspin in that match! (and more BH than FH)
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Yes, he already used it as a weapon to change the tempo in the '87 final where he took Lendl to 4 sets. He built on that experience and basically used his brain to win the match in '88. He was a good volleyer and went in with the backhand slice approach a lot of times in both matches. To this day it's one of the finest displays of tennis thinking ever.
flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
I remember staying up really late to watch this game at my parents, my first day at university was a couple of weeks away. I too was amazed that Wilander was literally dictating play with the BH slice. That for a guy who was predominantly known for his THBH. Extremely smart play, came to the net a lot more than I expected him to. Plus beating Lendl on hard court in the late 80's would have been the hardest thing in the sport. The highest point in Wilander's career, surely.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Good point. Yes, he did mix it up a lot. No rhythm for Lendl.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, Lendl was in his seventh consecutive USO final going for his fourth straight title.
Similar threads
