Very good points. To me it's pretty much a tie. On Edberg's side, he won Wimbledon which Wilander never got past the quarters, and Edberg got to the finals of the FO. I was a fan of both of them, but I think I liked Edberg's style a little better. He was the flashier player and he played some of the most incredible points in tennis.
Mats Wilander vs Stefan Edberg: Greatest Career?
- Thread starter King No1e
- Start date
Leconte had a "deadly" attack on secondserves. Wilander gave him one or two for the whole match, smile
I remember it. It was excellent!
Mats was very, very good at that. He did it to McEnroe, Connors....he could break up their rhythm and pacing with no ill effect on himself. That's not an easy thing for a baseliner to do. I always thought he was very steady, crafty and clever. Was bummed when he reached #1, only to plummet a year later :-(
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, very smart.
TomTennis495
Professional
Went with Edberg though my heart wanted to say Mats. Wasnt there a third Swede coming up at the same time these 2 broke it open?
It was 30 other swedes thought none of them the same class as theese 2
TomTennis495
Professional
Hmmm I’m thinning of one in particular. Let me do some searching and see what I find
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Kent Carlsson was probably the closest, but was forced into retirement due to injuries. A beast on clay.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Jarryd was top 5 at one point, very close too.
Cabeza del Demonio
Professional
Somewhat surprised no one's said "Federer" yet.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Who did their main rivals fear more in general? I would have to say Edberg. So as their achievements are extremely close that swings it to Edberg for me. Neither answer is wrong though. @helterskelter, arent you a big fan of both Edberg and Wilander? Do you have an opinion.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Ask McEnroe and Becker when they played Wilander in Paris. They had absolute 0% chans of wining.
angrybirds89
Rookie
McEnroe in 84 would have beaten Wilander had they met at RG I am pretty sure. In general yes they would probably lose to Wilander at RG, but they would probably lose at every single RG even if Wilander were not in the draw, so it isnt exactly a big deal to them.
angrybirds89
Rookie
On clay Wilander, but are there any other slow courts. Slow hard courts, slow grass, I imagine they still would fear Edberg more.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Wilander beat McEnroe at 1983 RG and again at 1985 RG, only losing 1 set total.
But you think McEnroe would have won in 1984?!?
angrybirds89
Rookie
Absolutely. 84 McEnroe was way better than 83 or 85 McEnroe anyway; even 80 and 81 McEnroe are much better than those years, especialy 85, and 84 is by far the best McEnroe ever. Wilander wasnt that good in 84 either. McEnroe was barely beaten, and should have beat, by an on fire Lendl who is clearly better than Wilander in 84 ever would have been.
barone said:
Ask McEnroe and Becker when they played Wilander in Paris. They had absolute 0% chans of wining.
Ask McEnroe and Becker when they played Wilander in Paris. They had absolute 0% chans of wining.
Probably? They DID loose, 2 times each
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I'm only a big fan of Edberg. I was a fan of Wilander but not to anything like the same extent. I was often very disappointed when Edberg lost to him, so I wasn't indifferent between them at all. I think it's close in career terms. Edberg certainly had a (somewhat) longer career and did better in minor events, but partly because he tried harder in them. And both were very inconsistent. Edberg also had a clearly higher peak. Wilander had a clearly better strategic brain.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Do you think people tend to underrate Wilander due to some of the perceptions of his game and personality aka boring, not as offensive, steady. That plus he has proved to be clearly unlikeable in his post tennis career. Which is the opposite of say Courier who was thoroughly unlikeable during his tennis career, but has become a sweetheart and true gentleman in his post tennis career.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Pretty much agree on all of that, but just curious do you think Edberg had the higher peak level even on clay, or would you consider clay the one exception?
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Courier didn't seem that unlikable during his career. He was a class act.
angrybirds89
Rookie
Really? Do you remember Wimbledon 93, where amongst other things he invited a British journalist to "step aside".
Eh, he was pretty unfriendly to the fans. Saw it more than once at the USO. Couldn't be bothered, stand-offish.
70後
Hall of Fame
Courier once told a story of a fan coming up to him while he was at dinner wanting an autograph, and he said he signed it and threw it on the ground. That kind of class act.
As for Courier becoming a sweetheart after his tennis, I have posted this before, here is Djokovic personally correcting Courier on the pronunciation of his name while Courier puts on the "slow child who doesn't get it" act.
Typical US commentator arrogance. They will mangle up the names of players they despise with a sneering, cavalier tone.
Read the comments on that video. Everybody is disgusted with Courier's behaviour.
Oh but when Courier interviews Federer, the adoring, rapturous look on his face while attentively treating every word dropping from the lips of Fed as the finest pearls is impossible to tolerate.
HarveyPitnik
Professional
I started to follow tennis in late eighties and Wilander was my nr. 1 idol. I used to consider him very clever, smart player. Then I saw 2 or 3 of his matches against Miloslav Mecir and Mats was like a total fool in those matches - outsmarted time and time again!?
Mecir was not able to troll other top players, like Lendl, in similar vein at all.
I learned to like and respect Edberg too, a little later. His net game was at times simply mindblowing!
These players are hard to compare. They had very different kind of game and career (not that different kind of girlfriend, though!
) In that respect Edberg stands out of the Swedish greats of the time that he had very different game than basically any other Swede. On the other hand ATP-tour was full of wannabe-Wilanders those days.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Wilander stated in a video interview that he hated playing Mecir more than anyone else.I started to follow tennis in late eighties and Wilander was my nr. 1 idol. I used to consider him very clever, smart player. Then I saw 2 or 3 of his matches against Miloslav Mecir and Mats was like a total fool in those matches - outsmarted time and time again!?
Mecir was not able to troll other top players, like Lendl, in similar vein at all.
(There is a good reason that Mecir was called the "Swede-killer.")
BorgTheGOAT
Hall of Fame
Aa equal as it can get. One of the rare cases where the guy with one slam less could nevertheless be considered greater. However, mats had the better “best year” and also won slams on every surface, even though Edberg came closer to having a CGS. Mats leads the H2H even though very close. If Edberg was leading H2H I would be inclined to give it to Edberg. As things stand Mats wins but as close as possible.
No shocker there! He could out-Mats, Mats.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
If Mats was a cat, Mecir was a tiger.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
And yet, why did Mats win 7 slams, and Mecir zero?
Why could Mats outsmart Lendl, and Mecir couldn’t?
Always fascinating how match ups play out.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
I just meant in terms of being crafty and outsmarting Wilander when they played against each other. Obviously Wilander was a far better player.
aliceinpains
Rookie
Wilander
Winning grand slams on three different surfaces is rare.
Winning grand slams on three different surfaces is rare.
Just some numbers that put up this discussion for some people...The truth is: If Wilander never played tennis , nobody would miss anything that he gave to tennis (he his probably the biggest pusher in history) , but Edberg still is an Icon to millions of fans arround the world , and an Icon to the majority of tennis players in the 80´s , 90´s and 00´s...The best serve and volley player ever and the best sportsman ever.
Saying or even thinking that Wilander was better that Edberg it´s an offense to tennis...
But dumb people , still look at the Grand Slam wins and think that it´s everything in tennis. Ranking the best tennis players in history by Grand Slam Titles only works for donkeys...
Watch a video of the two playng at their best tennis , and if you can´t figure out who´s the best ,by an huge difference than you are just stupid...
Happy tennis for everyone...
Saying or even thinking that Wilander was better that Edberg it´s an offense to tennis...
But dumb people , still look at the Grand Slam wins and think that it´s everything in tennis. Ranking the best tennis players in history by Grand Slam Titles only works for donkeys...
Watch a video of the two playng at their best tennis , and if you can´t figure out who´s the best ,by an huge difference than you are just stupid...
Happy tennis for everyone...
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Wilander had an 11-9 head to head record against Edberg. Usually, the better player is the one that wins more matches directly against the other, especially when that person also has more Grand Slam singles titles as well. So there is a legitimate discussion to be had. Both guys were #1 and are Hall of Famers on most people's list of the top 20 all time greats.
Look, I get it. Edberg had a prettier, more exciting game to watch. His Wimbledon matches against Becker are legendary, as is the US Open he won in 1992 with those 5 set wins over Lendl and Chang in the quarters and semifinals, followed by the 4 set win over Sampras in the final. Those are the things that made him more memorable than the things Wilander accomplished.
I was a huge fan of both players when I was a teenager. I had posters of both of them on my walls. I emulated aspects of both their games into mine. For some reason, Wilander just happened to be my favorite.
Saying that Edberg was clearly better or that people are stupid to lean towards Wilander...
asifallasleep
Hall of Fame
I grew up watching both these guys and liked them both. However, i'm only in awe of Edberg....................Edberg was special.
Mats was a very good player but i never thought I was seeing anything exceptional. Matt's was kinda the light version of Borg.
Heck, a similar player to Mats would be Lleyton Hewitt. If you go only by slam titles, Mats would win by a landslide. However most
including myself would say that Hewitt was by far a much better player than Mats.
Never said that Wilander wasen´t great...Is on the list of the best ever for shure and i liked him too...But Edberg was better , no doubt about it...Wilander had an 11-9 head to head record against Edberg. Usually, the better player is the one that wins more matches directly against the other, especially when that person also has more Grand Slam singles titles as well. So there is a legitimate discussion to be had. Both guys were #1 and are Hall of Famers on most people's list of the top 20 all time greats.
Look, I get it. Edberg had a prettier, more exciting game to watch. His Wimbledon matches against Becker are legendary, as is the US Open he won in 1992 with those 5 set wins over Lendl and Chang in the quarters and semifinals, followed by the 4 set win over Sampras in the final. Those are the things that made him more memorable than the things Wilander accomplished.
I was a huge fan of both players when I was a teenager. I had posters of both of them on my walls. I emulated aspects of both their games into mine. For some reason, Wilander just happened to be my favorite.
Saying that Edberg was clearly better or that people are stupid to lean towards Wilander...
If you wanna go with the ono on one recorde , than the discussion about who´s better , Federer or Nadal , it´s long over...Nadal is the better guy by far than...
Tennis it´s not about a record you have against one particular guy , it´s about playing against the world´s best players and beat them all...
Being a fan of Wilander it´s not stupid , hey i´m one of them , but not knowing that Edberg is better is...I stick with that...
I just don´t agree on the Hewitt thing...I only had success when tennis was dying in terms of players quality...As soon as good players started to come again , being federer the leading guy , Hewitt wasn´t able to do s-hit anymore...He only one for a bit and on a time where ATP had a new number one every two weeks , and with guys that couldn´t win Slams...That was the worst tennis in history...A bit like Rodick too...Guys that are too below to be mentioned...
In the 80´s and early 90´s the roaster was stronger than ever...To win a Slam , you always had to pass throught at least two guys that have a few Slams on their pockets , instead of just cruising to the final...
Edberg was the Special Guy for shure...
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Hmm, I don't agree with the Hewitt comparison with Wilander at all either. Sure, they were both baseliners... but what did Hewitt ever have that's better than Wilander in any phase of the game? Wilander was a taller athlete, just as quick, just as fit. From a stroke production aspect, I think Wilander's entire game (forehand, backhand, volley, serve) was tighter than Hewitt's. Mats was a better tactician, as mentally tough, and had a calmer disposition under pressure than Hewitt. And that's aside from the whole fact that Wilander won more Grand Slams in one season than Hewitt did in his entire career.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
I've always thought that Federer was a better version of Edberg. They are both about the same size physically and have similar athletic abilities. Early in his career, Fed used to attack the net relentlessly like Edberg, and it was easy to see why Stefan was his favorite player growing up. Watch Fed's infamous Wimbledon matchup with Sampras for that style of play. However, Fed has much better groudstrokes, particularly on the forehand side, and he drifted to more of an all-court player or power baseliner as the courts slowed down and the poly strings helped other baseliners pass net rushers from anywhere.
Becker always seemed like a giant back in the day. However, he was only 6'3 and about 190lbs. Guys like Roanic and Berettini outsize Becker, not to mention some of the actual servebot guys on tour now that are nearly 7 feet tall. I didn't like Becker back then (since I was an Edberg, Lendl, Wilander fan), but I do respect the killer attitude he brought to the game. I actually think he was an underachiever, having distracted himself with fame and wealth (and chicks in broom closets).
I agree with every word, except the part about not liking Becker. My coach spent much of the early 80s trying to change my serve and get me to follow through down my left hand side (I'm a righty). I used to pronate really strongly and almost smash the racquet into my shins on follow through, instead of the classic down the left follow through. Then a young redhead guy won Queens serving the same way and when I told my coach (who I'm still friends with), he said when that young German nobody won Wimbledon, he'd stop trying to "fix" my serve. The rest is history.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Becker was never Wimbledon GOAT. Borg and Laver were both better, and Sampras and Federer have since surpassed him.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Now Djokovic too.
Similar threads
