Mats Wilander vs Stefan Edberg: Greatest Career?

[Mainad]

I'm always struck by the fact that, unusually for a Swedish great, Wilander could never make any impression at Wimbledon (never even made a semi-final) whilst Edberg made the final of all 4 Slams. This is why Edberg always made a greater impression with me.

 

[Jack the Hack]

I'm always struck by the fact that, unusually for a Swedish great, Wilander could never make any impression at Wimbledon (never even made a semi-final) whilst Edberg made the final of all 4 Slams. This is why Edberg always made a greater impression with me.

For what it's worth, Wilander did win a Wimbledon men's doubles title in 1986 with his childhood friend Joakim Nystrom. I saw an interview where he said that particular title was one of his happiest and most satisfying because he got to share it with his best friend, and it was at a place where he otherwise had so many difficult losses. Mats made the Wimbledon quarterfinals in singles 3 times, losing to Pat Cash (who beat him 3 different years at Wimbledon), Miloslav Mecir, and John McEnroe at that stage. It wasn't like Wilander couldn't play on grass, as those results and his two Australian Open titles on that surface (events where he beat the likes of McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, and Curran to win) attest.

 

[Mainad]

For what it's worth, Wilander did win a Wimbledon men's doubles title in 1986 with his childhood friend Joakim Nystrom. I saw an interview where he said that particular title was one of his happiest and most satisfying because he got to share it with his best friend, and it was at a place where he otherwise had so many difficult losses. Mats made the Wimbledon quarterfinals in singles 3 times, losing to Pat Cash (who beat him 3 different years at Wimbledon), Miloslav Mecir, and John McEnroe at that stage. It wasn't like Wilander couldn't play on grass, as those results and his two Australian Open titles on that surface (events where he beat the likes of McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, and Curran to win) attest.

The fact that he won 2 Slams on grass makes his failure at Wimbledon all the more puzzling (and no, explanations about the different type of grass there won't cut it).

 

[NicoMK]

The fact that he won 2 Slams on grass makes his failure at Wimbledon all the more puzzling (and no, explanations about the different type of grass there won't cut it).

Actually it will. Mats himself said in several interviews that he couldn't adapt to this faster grass, so I guess he knows more than anybody else what he's talking of . This, plus the fact that he lost several times against true grass specialists, as underlined previously in this very topic, his Wimbledon record ain't that bad (but of course not the best either).

 

[Mainad]

Actually it will. Mats himself said in several interviews that he couldn't adapt to this faster grass, so I guess he knows more than anybody else what he's talking of . This, plus the fact that he lost several times against true grass specialists, as underlined previously in this very topic, his Wimbledon record ain't that bad (but of course not the best either).

Excuses excuses, Mat!

 

[Arafel]

The other thing that makes me lean toward is after 1988 he basically gave up so his stats are affected by that

 

[NicoMK]

Excuses excuses, Mat!

You're talking about my childhood hero !!

No worries of course

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Edberg spent more time at no. 1, had the YEC and also fared better at his worst slam than Wilander. It's close but the above IMO neutralizes the 1 slam advantage Wilander has.

 

[Per-Anders]

In Sweden where I live Wilander is considered the greater of the two.
1. Björn Borg
2. Mats Wilander
3. Stefan Edberg
Always when compared by serious newspapers and tennispages Wilander ranks higher than Edberg.
Mostly due to the fact that Wilander has won more grandslams. Sometimes the 11-9 advantage of winning over Edberg is considered. But that he has more Grand slams is why Wilander ranks higher than Edberg. One also has to consider the fact that Wilander quit the tennisplaying at the end of 88. At age 24. Yes he played some tournamens here and there. But it was not serious. After becoming number one in the world he had accomplished what he wanted and did not play on a serious level more.
7 Grand slams at age 24 is impressive.
Another thing one has to consider is that the statistics between Wilander and Edberg was 10-5 at the end of 1988 in favor of Wilander.
When he did not compete serious anymore he lost 4 matches But won the last match.
Hence 11-9 in favor of Wilander.

 

[bluetrain4]

It's so close. Would understand arguments in favor of either. Does anyone feel that Edberg's AO titles at the "old" AO somehow need to be held against him? While there were sometimes diminished fields at the AO, the fields in the years he won his titles were pretty strong.

 

[Per-Anders]

7 slams Wilander 6 Edberg. Wilander wins.

 

[California]

7 slams Wilander 6 Edberg. Wilander wins.

You can take this argument many ways....
Wilander 7 slams Edberg 6
Weeks at number 1. Edberg 72 to Wilander 20
Doubles Slams. Edberg 3 Wilander 2
Tour Finals. Edberg 1 Wilander 0
Singles winning percentage. Edberg 74.8% Wilander 72%

Edberg wins.

 

[King No1e]

You can take this argument many ways....
Wilander 7 slams Edberg 6
Weeks at number 1. Edberg 72 to Wilander 20
Doubles Slams. Edberg 3 Wilander 2
Tour Finals. Edberg 1 Wilander 0
Singles winning percentage. Edberg 74.8% Wilander 72%

Edberg wins.

Wilander has at least 2 titles on all surfaces. Edberg 0.
That's a major achievement (pun not intended). Edge Wilander.

It's practically dead even with these 2.

 

[California]

Wilander has at least 2 titles on all surfaces. Edberg 0.
That's a major achievement (pun not intended). Edge Wilander.

It's practically dead even with these 2.

Edberg has 3 career titles on clay... not majors, which I think you are getting at...

Wimbledon, biggest thing in tennis: Edberg 2 Wilander 0

 

[TennisLBC]

Tough call because both players are ATGs. I give the nod to Edberg because he made it the Roland Garros final, where as Mats didn't make a Wimbledon final.

 

[fezer]

I go with Edberg. Since they are very close in gs achievements - Wilander has won one more, but Edberg made the RG final, and their h2h is almost a coin flip, i find my tie breaker in yec/masters/atpworldchampionship, whre Edberg won in 89 and Wilander only had one final in 87. Edberg had another final in Dallas (losing to Becker) whereas Wilander never made the final there( if memory serves me right). Edberg had a longer stretch at #1 and also was #1 in doubles. Edberg has a significantly higher number of atp titles overall (41-33) and atp match wins (801-571). It's a close call - Edberbg winning in five!

 

[magnut]

I like Matts but Edberg was on another level.

I do put Matts in GOAT territory for inteligence on court though. He shares that title with Rafter IMO. Smartest two players I have ever seen both with completely different styles.

 

[Cashman]

This looks a lot closer statistically than it is in reality.

Wilander's advantage over Edberg in terms of Slam count is a bit meaningless, because in the '80s slam count wasn't a thing yet.

 

[barone]

if was a pro i sure would take 2 wim and 2 us-open but i aggre its difficult decide between them

 

[bluetrain4]

Edberg really had a great chance to move the argument strongly in his favor with the 1990 AO title - but he had to retire in the final with a torn stomach muscle. I think he would have won it if healthy. But, that's all speculation, and a player can't get credit for what he didn't actually achieve.

 

[hoodjem]

Barely anyone remembers Wilander anymore, while Edberg is a tennis legend, so... Stefan.

Wilander's 1988 was pretty amazing, though.

 

[andreh]

Edberg really had a great chance to move the argument strongly in his favor with the 1991 AO title - but he had to retire in the final with a torn stomach muscle. I think he would have won it if healthy. But, that's all speculation, and a player can't get credit for what he didn't actually achieve.

The torn abdominal muscle was 1990

 

[bluetrain4]

The torn abdominal muscle was 1990

My bad. Edited my original post. Thanks.

 

[mental midget]

who's career would you take? major count lead is a legit point of contention, but, 2 trophies at the biggest tournament on earth v. zero...i'm going w edberg's trophy case here. and the YE final win is big, historically.

 

[bluetrain4]

The other thing that makes me lean toward is after 1988 he basically gave up so his stats are affected by that

I have no problems with anyone choosing Mats, but I just can't agree with this reasoning. No credit for things that were never achieved - for whatever reason. I'm a huge Seles fan, and I don't give her credit for Slams she could have won if she wasn't stabbed on court and missed Slams. So, I'm sure as heck not going to give Wilander credit for for Slams or anything else he could have achieved after he decided to "give up". If so, why not give Edberg credit for having to retire from the 1990 AO final with an injury - he very well could have won that match. Every player's career is filled with potential higher achievement.

 

[netlets]

It's a bit like Borg vs Connors, where one player leads in the biggest metrics but behind in pretty much everything else, although the margins in each specific category were much wider for each player compared to Wilander v Edberg. It's a tough one.
I'd go with Wilander, barely. Because of the surface distribution, in that elite group of multi-Slam winners on every surface (just him and Nadal)

Not really like Borg and Connors - Borg was way up in head to head, 15-8, won more slams 11 - and only played 28 of them! His record was 141-16. He only once went to AO - he was 15. I met the guy who beat him! Connors won 8 slams in 57 appearances. Borg's career win percentage for Slams was just under 90% and Connors was 82.5%. Both great players, but Borg was on another level.

 

[aliceinpains]

Interesting both players made 11 GS finals. Wilander holds the edge (7-4) Edberg -(6-5)

 

[NicoMK]

Barely anyone remembers Wilander anymore

Ahah good one. You're kidding right?

while Edberg is a tennis legend, so... Stefan.

Yep, Stefan is a tennis legend but so is Mats.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Yeah, why would people have trouble remembering Wilander?

In reality, Mats has been more involved with the game after retirement than Stefan has been. Wilander is a frequent commentator on Eurosport, teaches clinics all over the world through WOW, was the Swedish Davis Cup captain, played fairly regularly on the senior tour, and coached a few ATP and WTA pros. He says outlandish or controversial things that people get their panties in a bunch about here on TT at least once a year. In contrast, Stefan had a short run as a coach/consultant for Fed, but largely stays behind the scenes except for a few appearances at Wimbledon from time to time.

BTW, this was one of my favorite videos/podcasts from last year:

 

[magnut]

LOL....Edberg left tennis so he could make some real money....

Ex-tennis star nets a fortune

from Sunday Timesby Alexandra GossFame and fortune. Stefan Edberg talks to Alexandra Goss. The former world No1 is applying his winning attitude to fund management.STEFAN EDBERG is a former world number one tennis player who has now set out to domin

stefanstennis.free.fr