Mats Wilander - where does he rank?

[bluetrain4]

7 Slams on 3 surfaces: 3 AO (2 on grass, 1 on hardcourt), 3 FO, and 1 USO. Also 4 Slam runner-ups. [I guess you could say 4 surfaces if you consider Rebound Ace at the AO and USO Deco Turf as different surfaces, as some people argue with Agassi. Personally, I just see both as a variant of a hardcourt.]

Also made the Wimbledon QFs 3 times. Wins against all the top players.

Davis Cup champion and ranked No. 1.

But, seems to be considered a level down from other 7 and 8 time Slam champs (Lendl, McEnroe, Connors) and generally placed more at the level of Becker and Edberg (who both have six Slams) (and, actually Wilander won considerably less tournaments overall (33) than Becker (49) or Edberg (42)).

Not a power player, not in-your-face intimidating. Never had a long period of dominance, but did have one dominant year, 1988 when he won 3 of 4 Slams and made the Wimbledon QFs.

And, after that year, he was basically done as true elite player.

A classic case of someone for whom the journey to the summit was enough. And once he acheived that, really lost motivation. And, he didn't seem particularly bothered by this.

The end of his elite period is just before the rise of the young American generation of Agassi, Sampras, Courier (and to a lesser extent Chang). I think if he would have applied himself, he could have picked up one more Slam.

But, he seemed perfectly content to fade into the sunset. And, that's probably why he's often ranked a level down from the aforementioned players.

Just my OP, but he probably just got tired of the mental effort it took to beat players the way he did. Unlike Becker or Sampras or Lendl, he couldn't power his way through matches, so it was always a grind.

 

[ckthegreek]

Magnificent player, remembered especially for that win against Lendl at his peak at the FO. He was unfortunate to play in the same era as Lendl as he would have won more GSs.

His soothing voice and acumen make all the difference when watching those matches on Eurosport.

 

[bluetrain4]

Magnificent player, remembered especially for that win against Lendl at the his peak at the FO. He was unfortunate to play in the same era as Lendl as he would have won more GSs.

His soothing voice and acumen make all the difference when watching those matches on Eurosport.

Looked at another way, he's actually fortunate to have played during Lendl's era of dominance, as it completely legitimizes his resume. He never had a soft field, always had to beat top players (including Lendl 3 times) to win his Slams.

 

[crabgrass]

7 Slams on 3 surfaces: 3 AO (2 on grass, 1 on hardcourt), 3 FO, and 1 USO. Also 4 Slam runner-ups.

Also made the Wimbledon QFs 3 times. Wins against all the top players.

Davis Cup champion and ranked No. 1.

But, seems to be considered a level down from other 7 and 8 time Slam champs (Lendl, McEnroe, Connors) and generally placed more at the level of Becker and Edberg (who both have six Slams) (and, actually Wilander won considerably less tournaments overall (33) than Becker (49) or Edberg (42)).

Not a power player, not in-your-face intimidating. Never had a long period of dominance, but did have one dominant year, 1988 when he won 3 of 4 Slams and made the Wimbledon QFs.

And, after that year, he was basically done as true elite player.

A classic case of someone for whom the journey to the summit was enough. And once he acheived that, really lost motivation. And, he didn't seem particularly bothered by this.

The end of his elite period is just before the rise of the young American generation of Agassi, Sampras, Courier (and to a lesser extent Chang). I think if he would have applied himself, he could have picked up one more Slam.

But, he seemed perfectly content to fade into the sunset. And, that's probably why he's often ranked a level down from the aforementioned players.

Just my OP, but he probably just got tired of the mental effort it took to beat players the way he did. Unlike Becker or Sampras or Lendl, he couldn't power his way through matches, so it was always a grind.[/QUOT

i'd have him at exactly the level you mentioned...not much between becker,edberg and wilander...liked all 3.

 

[borg's headband]

7 Slams on 3 surfaces: 3 AO (2 on grass, 1 on hardcourt), 3 FO, and 1 USO. Also 4 Slam runner-ups. [I guess you could say 4 surfaces if you consider Rebound Ace at the AO and USO Deco Turf as different surfaces, as some people argue with Agassi. Personally, I just see both as a variant of a hardcourt.]

Also made the Wimbledon QFs 3 times. Wins against all the top players.

Davis Cup champion and ranked No. 1.

But, seems to be considered a level down from other 7 and 8 time Slam champs (Lendl, McEnroe, Connors) and generally placed more at the level of Becker and Edberg (who both have six Slams) (and, actually Wilander won considerably less tournaments overall (33) than Becker (49) or Edberg (42)).

Not a power player, not in-your-face intimidating. Never had a long period of dominance, but did have one dominant year, 1988 when he won 3 of 4 Slams and made the Wimbledon QFs.

And, after that year, he was basically done as true elite player.

A classic case of someone for whom the journey to the summit was enough. And once he acheived that, really lost motivation. And, he didn't seem particularly bothered by this.

The end of his elite period is just before the rise of the young American generation of Agassi, Sampras, Courier (and to a lesser extent Chang). I think if he would have applied himself, he could have picked up one more Slam.

But, he seemed perfectly content to fade into the sunset. And, that's probably why he's often ranked a level down from the aforementioned players.

Just my OP, but he probably just got tired of the mental effort it took to beat players the way he did. Unlike Becker or Sampras or Lendl, he couldn't power his way through matches, so it was always a grind.

An easy way of reasoning why he's below Edberg for me is - he won 3 out of 4 slams and made it to the QF at the one remaining. Edberg on the other hand won 3 out of 4 slams and made it to the final in his one remaining slam.
Also, i like the way Edberg's slams were consistent - 2 titles each at the ones he caught. This way proving that it wasn't just a one hit wonder with all the stars aligning at one time in history (like Chang 1989).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[davidahenry]

Magnificent player, remembered especially for that win against Lendl at his peak at the FO.

Was that the final where Wilander had an amazingly low number of unforced errors? (I think zero unforced errors in one of the sets?)

Take care.

DH

 

[Wuornos]

In my opinion Mats Wilander is rated far to low by most people for three reasons.

1. Most peoples definition of greatness is heavily weighted toward total career achievement. I don't subscribe to this view believing a period of domination at the top of the game can outweigh total career achievement. E.g Monica Seles or Maureen Connolly.

2. Most people who do allow for a players domination rather than just career achievement do not adjust their opinions for the standard of players at the top of the game at a particular point in time instead assuming that if someone achieves more within a limted time frame (but significant time frame)the evidence is greater than that for someone who achieves less in the same time frame.

3. His style was not as attractive to watch as some other players even though his results were good against quality oppostion when playing at his peak. These type of aesthetic considerations are the prerogative of the person making the evaluation but I prefer cold hard results as an evidence of a players claim to greatness.

For my money, while at his short peak Mats Wilanders played a standard of tennis that puts him firmly inside the top 10 male singles players since WWII.

Just my opinion.

Tim

PS you might not have noticed but I'm a Mats Wilander fan first and foremost because I feel he is grossly underrated by most people along with Ivan Lendl who has a valid claim for GOAT and Jim Courier who was the best player to win less than 5 majors and better than many players who won more.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Anyone on here worth their 10 cents of tennis knowledge should
agree mats is underated...it's just to what degree.

I wouldn't put him top 10 since ww2 wournos...but top ten open maybe and top 20 all time def..

I was going to start a thread like this but was beaten to it after all those lendl threads starting.

Watched Mats play Cash live in 88 and the guy not only had great strokes ..all the shots...but great court sense and footwork as well.....maybe one thing he lacked was a huge *weapon* i put like that because footwork...all technique is weapons in a way
but he didn't have huge serve like becker etc..

put him level with becker and edberg in my book.

 

[Azzurri]

I agree with everything that has said been said about Mats. It seems as if his quiet nature and no real dominance over an extended period of time has cause people to "underrate" this truly terrific tennis player. I always admired Mats and his fighting spirit on court, I really respected him and Edberg. Here is the issue (IMO), someone always gets the "underrated" title and it seems like Mats is the one. Partly due to what I said above and also his style/game was not something typical people remember. His all-around game was solid and was just good all over the court. But his lack of "personality", dominance, one big weapon and fan base probably put him into the "underrated" category. His 1988 year was incredible, he just was the best player in the world that year.

 

[Winners or Errors]

His 1988 year was incredible, he just was the best player in the world that year.

All the more remarkable if you look at his competition.

 

[CyBorg]

In my opinion Mats Wilander is rated far to low by most people for three reasons.

1. Most peoples definition of greatness is heavily weighted toward total career achievement. I don't subscribe to this view believing a period of domination at the top of the game can outweigh total career achievement. E.g Monica Seles or Maureen Connolly.

2. Most people who do allow for a players domination rather than just career achievement do not adjust their opinions for the standard of players at the top of the game at a particular point in time instead assuming that if someone achieves more within a limted time frame (but significant time frame)the evidence is greater than that for someone who achieves less in the same time frame.

3. His style was not as attractive to watch as some other players even though his results were good against quality oppostion when playing at his peak. These type of aesthetic considerations are the prerogative of the person making the evaluation but I prefer cold hard results as an evidence of a players claim to greatness.

For my money, while at his short peak Mats Wilanders played a standard of tennis that puts him firmly inside the top 10 male singles players since WWII.

Just my opinion.

Tim

PS you might not have noticed but I'm a Mats Wilander fan first and foremost because I feel he is grossly underrated by most people along with Ivan Lendl who has a valid claim for GOAT and Jim Courier who was the best player to win less than 5 majors and better than many players who won more.

Tim,

You cannot claim that Wilander is inside the top 10 for male singles players since WWII, since your research completely ignores the pro circuit pre-open era.

Doesn't all of this strike you as a little unscientific?

 

[CyBorg]

It's pretty close between Wilander and Edberg. Wilander had the best year of the two, but also had more bad stretches (1986). Edberg's career runs in a nice consistent wave.

However what no statistical analysis can show you is that Lendl had considerable health problems in 1988, which contributed to his temporary decline and Mats's ascendance. Either way, Wilander's year is still legit but not dominant considering the lack of titles and lack of consistent domination from event-to-event.

I think I prefer Edberg by a hair. Wilander should have been playing some of his better tennis in years like 1985 and 1986, but instead delivered only five titles combined.

1987/1988 were his peak years, but still go grand slam titles in 1987. In '83 he won many smaller clay events, which padded the totals. 1982/1984 were two good, but not great years.

In other words, quality player. Best in the world only once in 1988 and even then with a caveat.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

I would put Wilander in the group of Edberg, Becker and Agassi. Another good guy from Sweden as always.

 

[hoodjem]

20. Newcombe
21. Nadal
22. Edberg
23. Becker
24. Wilander
25. Trabert
26. Jack Crawford
27. Sedgman
28. Riggs
29. von Cramm
30. Vilas

 

[saram]

Truth be known--most of the people posting here have never seen him play. I appreciate him for seeing him play. But his getting credit on this board is going to be tough--just like Pete, Laver, Bjorg, Chang, Courier, Lendl, Graf, etc...

If it were not for youtube...many here would not even know his style of play or his dominance of the past.

 

[swedechris]

very smart and good player. not a powerhouse but used what he had very very well. i would put him in the top 20 of all time,

 

[Azzurri]

Truth be known--most of the people posting here have never seen him play. I appreciate him for seeing him play. But his getting credit on this board is going to be tough--just like Pete, Laver, Bjorg, Chang, Courier, Lendl, Graf, etc...

If it were not for youtube...many here would not even know his style of play or his dominance of the past.

Actually, that would be nearly every thread regarding players pre 2000. I have said this more than once, if you never saw the guy play, say so. I love how people give "opinions" on someone they never saw play. I rarely talk about Laver, Borg or Tilden because I never saw them play. I may have seen Borg a couple times but don't remember much. Its odd how people will rate players from 60 years ago, yet never saw them play.

 

[pmerk34]

Actually, that would be nearly every thread regarding players pre 2000. I have said this more than once, if you never saw the guy play, say so. I love how people give "opinions" on someone they never saw play. I rarely talk about Laver, Borg or Tilden because I never saw them play. I may have seen Borg a couple times but don't remember much. Its odd how people will rate players from 60 years ago, yet never saw them play.

Well I saw Lendl play numerous times but I believe Sampras was better.

 

[GameSampras]

Actually, that would be nearly every thread regarding players pre 2000. I have said this more than once, if you never saw the guy play, say so. I love how people give "opinions" on someone they never saw play. I rarely talk about Laver, Borg or Tilden because I never saw them play. I may have seen Borg a couple times but don't remember much. Its odd how people will rate players from 60 years ago, yet never saw them play.

I agree. How many people could have actually got to witness first hand Laver in his prime? Im sure alot of it is heresay. Its one thing watching youtube videos. Its another thing actually experiencing that player first hand. I try not to comment on Laver Borg etc all too often. Youtube videos just dont do the justice.

 

[pmerk34]

I agree. How many people could have actually got to witness first hand Laver in his prime? Im sure alot of it is heresay. Its one thing watching youtube videos. Its another thing actually experiencing that player first hand. I try not to comment on Laver Borg etc all too often. Youtube videos just dont do the justice.

And one wonders how often they were on TV back in the day......

 

[Azzurri]

Well I saw Lendl play numerous times but I believe Sampras was better.

can someone please explian to me what Perk is talking about??? This thread is about Wilander. I was not speaking directly to Perk. Perk had not even posted here...maybe its me.

 

[Azzurri]

And one wonders how often they were on TV back in the day......

I don't follow. So you believe you can rate players and era even though you were not witness to them? Yes, I would assume there is more tennis on TV now (actually there was more tennis on TV in the 80-90's then now) then pre 1980, but the point is living in the era really matters. You can also READ about their match and watch them LIVE.

Only sport I believe you can rate a player you never saw based purely on stats is baseball. Not much has changed since Ruth's day. If he were a 25 year old guy today, he would spank more HR considering the balls are lighter and the bats are stiffer. Other than steroids, the game has not really changed. You can pluck any player from any era and they will basically be the same player. But football, hockey, basketball and tennis cannot be done as easily. equipment, size and speed has changed to much for these sports those aspects matter within their sport more so than baseball. John Kruk played a high level, Kirby Pucket..and Babe was twice the athlete those two were.

 

[helloworld]

About the same tier as Edberg and Becker. Just a rung below McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl.

 

[pmerk34]

I don't follow. So you believe you can rate players and era even though you were not witness to them? Yes, I would assume there is more tennis on TV now (actually there was more tennis on TV in the 80-90's then now) then pre 1980, but the point is living in the era really matters. You can also READ about their match and watch them LIVE.

Only sport I believe you can rate a player you never saw based purely on stats is baseball. Not much has changed since Ruth's day. If he were a 25 year old guy today, he would spank more HR considering the balls are lighter and the bats are stiffer. Other than steroids, the game has not really changed. You can pluck any player from any era and they will basically be the same player. But football, hockey, basketball and tennis cannot be done as easily. equipment, size and speed has changed to much for these sports those aspects matter within their sport more so than baseball. John Kruk played a high level, Kirby Pucket..and Babe was twice the athlete those two were.

What is it you don't follow? 99% of most of the matches we see is because of television. My point was even if you are old enough to remember Rod Laver in say the 60's how often would you really have seen him play to make an accurate judgement?

There was more tennis on tv in the 80's and 90's which is why people got to see a TON of Lendl, Becker. wilander, Mac,sampras etc etc.

 

[Azzurri]

What is it you don't follow? 99% of most of the matches we see is because of television. My point was even if you are old enough to remember Rod Laver in say the 60's how often would you really have seen him play to make an accurate judgement?

There was more tennis on tv in the 80's and 90's which is why people got to see a TON of Lendl, Becker. wilander, Mac,sampras etc etc.

I made my point, you just did not get it. Its obvious you think you can rate Tilden based on youtube...good for you.

 

[pmerk34]

I made my point, you just did not get it. Its obvious you think you can rate Tilden based on youtube...good for you.

Who said anything about youtube?

 

[Rabbit]

I was lucky enough to talk to Mats Wilander for a few hours over adult beverages on a couple of occassions. Wilander's own assesment of his game was that it made for "boring tv". His proudest achievement? His Wimbledon title. Yes, Wilander won the doubles in 1986 partnered with Nystrom. Wilander gave a full account to me of the tournament and he, after all those years, is still very much enthusiastic to talk about it. His eyes lit up when he said that in the finals he and Nystrom played Peter Fleming and Gary Donnely. He said Fleming was just proud to have made a final at Wimbledon without McEnroe and Donnely was so scared that he didn't know where he was. In typical Wilander fashion, he gave most of the credit to Nystom saying (more than once) that Nystrom had the best return of anyone anywhere anytime, even better than Connors and Agassi. He said their biggest win in the tournament was over Flach/Seguso.

His French Open wins, he is less enthusiastic about his French Open victories. In the conversation, I wound up defending him from himself! He said his win over Henri Leconte was probably the most boring tennis ever on TV. I countered with "but you got 100% of your first serves in for the match...". Nothing would defer him.

My own perception of Wilander is that he is underrated because he won more with guile and defense than with offense. Wilander countered all his opponents. The match he became world famous for against McEnroe in St. Louis is probably the greatest statement of his career. Wilander was prepared to stay out there for as long as it took. His final at the US Open in '88 against Lendl was a then record for longest final (it may still stand). Wilander just broke his opponents down with a metronome-like consistency. He didn't possess the power of a Lendl or Becker, or the touch of an Edberg or McEnroe, but he did have world-class footspeed, great courtsense, and a superb ability to hit the ball to open court.

Wilander is still in awe of Borg. The year Wilander won the French, 1982 (the year after Borg's last victory there), he was practicing with Borg on clay. By his own account, he couldn't win a set off Borg. This is just typical of the guy, he is very self-effacing and downplays his own accomplishments. He is one of the greats.

Wilander is truly a player one would have to witness to appreciate. As I've mentioned, he didn't own a big weapon other than his mind and footspeed. But, Wilander was very competent from the entire court. He was superb from the baseline and his accuracy was unrivaled. I really thought it a shame that 1988 took so much out of him. After that year, he was never the same player.

 

[pmerk34]

I was lucky enough to talk to Mats Wilander for a few hours over adult beverages on a couple of occassions. Wilander's own assesment of his game was that it made for "boring tv". His proudest achievement? His Wimbledon title. Yes, Wilander won the doubles in 1986 partnered with Nystrom. Wilander gave a full account to me of the tournament and he, after all those years, is still very much enthusiastic to talk about it.

His French Open wins, he is less enthusiastic about his French Open victories. In the conversation, I wound up defending him from himself! He said his win over Henri Leconte was probably the most boring tennis ever on TV. I countered with "but you got 100% of your first serves in for the match...". Nothing would defer him.

My own perception of Wilander is that he is underrated because he won more with guile and defense than with offense. Wilander countered all his opponents. The match he became world famous for against McEnroe in St. Louis is probably the greatest statement of his career. Wilander was prepared to stay out there for as long as it took. His final at the US Open in '88 against Lendl was a then record for longest final (it may still stand). Wilander just broke his opponents down with a metronome-like consistency. He didn't possess the power of a Lendl or Becker, or the touch of an Edberg or McEnroe, but he did have world-class footspeed, great courtsense, and a superb ability to hit the ball to open court.

Wilander is still in awe of Borg. The year Wilander won the French, 1982 (the year after Borg's last victory there), he was practicing with Borg on clay. By his own account, he couldn't win a set off Borg. This is just typical of the guy, he is very self-effacing and downplays his own accomplishments. He is one of the greats.

Wilander is truly a player one would have to witness to appreciate. As I've mentioned, he didn't own a big weapon other than his mind and footspeed. But, Wilander was very competent from the entire court. He was superb from the baseline and his accuracy was unrivaled. I really thought it a shame that 1988 took so much out of him. After that year, he was never the same player.

After 1988 the power game really started taking over as well. I remember a Wilander-Alberto Mancini match in 1989 where Mancini just blew him off the court.

 

[Rabbit]

After 1988 the power game really started taking over as well. I remember a Wilander-Alberto Mancini match in 1989 where Mancini just blew him off the court.

Well, I think you're not totally accurate.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Mancini didn't hit the ball anywhere near as hard as Lendl. The power game was exactly what Wilander loved. He blunted it with his own consistency. Wilander was great against the big hitters.

 

[pmerk34]

Well, I think you're not totally accurate.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Mancini didn't hit the ball anywhere near as hard as Lendl. The power game was exactly what Wilander loved. He blunted it with his own consistency. Wilander was great against the big hitters.

Mancini smoked the ball he would have been frightening with luxilon and a Babolat. And the big hitters were hitting harder than the mid 80's at the point. In fact Agassi blasted winner after in his 1988 match at the French vs Wilander. Now, he lost 6-0 in the 5th as he wasn't in the marvelous shape Wilander was. After that match Mats stated that was the most winners he'd ever seen struck on a clay court. He knew where the game was headed.

I've always heard Mats was a real nice guy....

 

[Rabbit]

Mancini smoked the ball he would have been frightening with luxilon and a babolat.

Clearly we differ. Having seen Mancini play (live) and others who I would term big hitters, Mancini isn't even in the park. He certainly isn't a player that would have intimidated Wilander.

As to the rest of your post, it is totally inaccurate as well. Mancini beat Wilander 3 times, all in 1989. I don't think the Babolat was out then, so Wilander wouldn't have been too scared.

My point, and I stand by it, is that 1988 took the wind out of Wilander's sails, not "the modern power game".

 

[pmerk34]

Clearly we differ. Having seen Mancini play (live) and others who I would term big hitters, Mancini isn't even in the park. He certainly isn't a player that would have intimidated Wilander.

As to the rest of your post, it is totally inaccurate as well. Mancini beat Wilander 3 times, all in 1989. I don't think the Babolat was out then, so Wilander wouldn't have been too scared.

My point, and I stand by it, is that 1988 took the wind out of Wilander's sails, not "the modern power game".

Wilander knew where the game was heading.

You misread my post. I said Mancini WOULD have been frightening with a Babolat and luxilon strings.

The 1988 French match I was talking about was with Agassi.

I think the 1989 match I saw involving Mancini and Wilander was the Us open or the Italian open.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

so far we know Wilander was:

An Underachiever
an Overachiever
a Guy who dominated
a Guy who got lucky in between slumps...
...

i'm loving this thread...

 

[Azzurri]

Clearly we differ. Having seen Mancini play (live) and others who I would term big hitters, Mancini isn't even in the park. He certainly isn't a player that would have intimidated Wilander.

As to the rest of your post, it is totally inaccurate as well. Mancini beat Wilander 3 times, all in 1989. I don't think the Babolat was out then, so Wilander wouldn't have been too scared.

My point, and I stand by it, is that 1988 took the wind out of Wilander's sails, not "the modern power game".

I don't think Perk makes much sense either and I also disagree with is "assessment" of the power game...Mancini??? Whatever.

Nice story about Wilander and you coudn't be more correct. His game was certainly different than the other greats from the 80's. He was smart and fast. He really knew "how to play the game" and had no real weapon (except his mind) and was just a class act.

I remember 1988 because of how well he played and also how the game would change with the younger Americans coming in. I remember Agassi from 1986 and then a young Pete with his serve (for nbeing so skinny he just hit it a ton). Lendl was still the best, but Mac, Edberg, Wilander, Becker and some of the younger players getting better just made the late 80's special.

Power game?? I have no clue what Perk is even talking about. There was still a great mix of player well into the 90's. 88 was not at all a turning point in the game. Becker, Edberg, Mac, Sampras, and lots of other S&V players were still the best out there. Mancini???

 

[Rabbit]

Wilander knew where the game was heading.

Really?

Hmmmmm....if the game was headed in that direction, how does one explain Mancini's defeat to another counter puncher, Michael Chang, in 1992 7-5 7-5 on a hard court no less. Mancini was 0 - 2 versus Chang. And Mancini is 1 - 2 versus Santoro.

Where is the game headed????????

You misread my post. I said Mancini WOULD have been frightening with a Babolat and luxilon strings.

OK...np....as it was, Mancini was a journeyman with any frame/string combo. Wilander is a 7-time Major winner. I see the comparison.

The 1988 French match I was talking about was with Agassi.

And yet....Agassi lost. Agassi probably remarked that he had never seen so many balls come back. Did Agassi also know where the game was going?

This is also very much like the match Richard Krajicek played against Yvgeney Kafelnikov at the US Open in 1999. No one, including Kafelnikov, had ever seen that many aces in one match. RK scored 49 aces. Funny thing, just like the match you reference, Richard Krajicek lost. Winners, aces, and hitting hard have very little to do with the final result. The final result is always determined by who hit the last ball in, no matter how hard that ball was hit.

I think the 1989 match I saw involving Mancini and Wilander was the Us open or the Italian open.

Again, 1989 was a dreadful year for Wilander. 1988 just plain took it out of him. He quit using his Rossignol, picked up a Prince frame, and basically went through the motions.

 

[Rabbit]

I don't think Perk makes much sense either and I also disagree with is "assessment" of the power game...Mancini??? Whatever.

Nice story about Wilander and you coudn't be more correct. His game was certainly different than the other greats from the 80's. He was smart and fast. He really knew "how to play the game" and had no real weapon (except his mind) and was just a class act.

I remember 1988 because of how well he played and also how the game would change with the younger Americans coming in. I remember Agassi from 1986 and then a young Pete with his serve (for nbeing so skinny he just hit it a ton). Lendl was still the best, but Mac, Edberg, Wilander, Becker and some of the younger players getting better just made the late 80's special.

Power game?? I have no clue what Perk is even talking about. There was still a great mix of player well into the 90's. 88 was not at all a turning point in the game. Becker, Edberg, Mac, Sampras, and lots of other S&V players were still the best out there. Mancini???

Yeah, the 80s were a great time for tennis and I agree it was in transition from the some players who played with wood as pros to players who came up using graphite. The great thing was the tactics employed were still not the Academy tactics and there was variety in the game.

I've always thought of Mancini as a poor-man's Corretja. He was certainly closer in game IMO to Corretja than to Gonzalez.

 

[Azzurri]

Yeah, the 80s were a great time for tennis and I agree it was in transition from the some players who played with wood as pros to players who came up using graphite. The great thing was the tactics employed were still not the Academy tactics and there was variety in the game.
I've always thought of Mancini as a poor-man's Corretja. He was certainly closer in game IMO to Corretja than to Gonzalez.

great point, although many of the great players were in junior programs (especially foreign country players) lots of them still had their own "game" so to speak. If you think about it, choose today's top 10 players and they are not much different than each other. But look at the top ten from 1988 and the variety of the players is incredible....

Corretja was a solid player. you are really giving Mancini props for giving him the "poor man.."

 

[Moose Malloy]

pmerk34 is right about Mancini, he was considered a power player at the time, on par with Agassi(and I also agree he would have been scary with a babolat)

I have an old tennis magazine from 1990/1991 where Becker(among others) calls him the biggest hitter in the game.

The '89 Italian Open Final between Agassi & Mancini was called by some writers as the hardest hitting match they had ever seen(I have this on dvd, it was some pretty insane hitting)

Problem was he could be very inconsisent (could hit an amazing backhand winner one point, than hit a backhand that could hit the backstop on the fly on the next) I saw him practice up close at the USO in '90 or '91, it was pretty scary how hard he hit. I think he was a big underachiever.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Mancini didn't hit the ball anywhere near as hard as Lendl.

I disagree. Lendl 'could' hit as hard as anyone, but held back often as a strategy(esp on clay, where he played a grinding style ala Borg for the most part. you should rewatch some of his matches with Wilander at the French at '85 & '87, hit hit a ton of moonballs - which Bud Collins really didn't understand - nor did the French crowd, there were lots of boos during those 20-30 ball rallies)

mancini really didn't hold back, and certainly didn't ever moonball(nor did agassi when he played wilander in '88) of course that doesn't mean he could go toe to toe with Lendl on clay(Lendl was a great strategist, when he had to amp up the power, he did. Plus what makes him unique from other baseliners of the 80s, was the big serve, which guys like Agassi & Mancini didn't have. plus the insane fitness. he was still probably the fittest guy on tour when he was 32)

Power game?? I have no clue what Perk is even talking about. There was still a great mix of player well into the 90's

"Power game" means different things in different eras. The media was talking a lot about it from the mid 80s on(the purists were freaking out during the wimbledon finals from '85 on, look at the articles, or listen to the commentaors)

My point, and I stand by it, is that 1988 took the wind out of Wilander's sails, not "the modern power game".

Cliff Drysdale predicted that Mats would be gone from the game soon during the '88 AO final(saying 'no one can play this style for that long')

 

[pmerk34]

pmerk34 is right about Mancini, he was considered a power player at the time, on par with Agassi(and I also agree he would have been scary with a babolat)

I have an old tennis magazine from 1990/1991 where Becker(among others) calls him the biggest hitter in the game.

The '89 Italian Open Final between Agassi & Mancini was called by some writers as the hardest hitting match they had ever seen(I have this on dvd, it was some pretty insane hitting)

Problem was he could be very inconsisent (could hit an amazing backhand winner one point, than hit a backhand that could hit the backstop on the fly on the next) I saw him practice up close at the USO in '90 or '91, it was pretty scary how hard he hit. I think he was a big underachiever.



I disagree. Lendl 'could' hit as hard as anyone, but held back often as a strategy(esp on clay, where he played a grinding style ala Borg for the most part. you should rewatch some of his matches with Wilander at the French at '85 & '87, hit hit a ton of moonballs - which Bud Collins really didn't understand - nor did the French crowd, there were lots of boos during those 20-30 ball rallies)

mancini really didn't hold back, and certainly didn't ever moonball(nor did agassi when he played wilander in '88) of course that doesn't mean he could go toe to toe with Lendl on clay(Lendl was a great strategist, when he had to amp up the power, he did. Plus what makes him unique from other baseliners of the 80s, was the big serve, which guys like Agassi & Mancini didn't have. plus the insane fitness. he was still probably the fittest guy on tour when he was 32)



"Power game" means different things in different eras. The media was talking a lot about it from the mid 80s on(the purists were freaking out during the wimbledon finals from '85 on, look at the articles, or listen to the commentaors)



Cliff Drysdale predicted that Mats would be gone from the game soon during the '88 AO final(saying 'no one can play this style for that long')

Thanks, Moose appreciated. While I didn't have the references like you did I remember watching Mancini play in 1989 ( I was 16) and thinking geeze this guy hits the cr*p out of the ball.

P.S. How can I get a DVD of that Agassi-Mancini match?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Yes, I would assume there is more tennis on TV now (actually there was more tennis on TV in the 80-90's then now)

Actually, there is far more tennis on tv today than there was in the 80s or 90s(esp if you have the Tennis Channel)

I've had the Tennis Channel since 2005, & I'm sure I've seen more Nadal or Federer matches in any one year since then than I did see of Sampras' or Agassi's matches in any one year in the 90s.

The Masters Series & Australian Open had very little coverage in the 90s compared to today(I recall all the european masters series in the 90s having, at most, 4 days of coverage, Thursday to Sunday on espn back then. And they were all only in a 2 hour time slot per day, tape delayed. While I've seen every second of every match played on the Center Courts of the Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Paris, & Madrid masters series the last 4 years.
Plus we get so much coverage of all these small events(I can see Acapulco, Dubai, & Delray this weekend!) that no tennis fan could have dreamed of in the 90s.

And TC has a lot more davis cup than was ever shown in the 90s(espn only showed ties involving the US, & many weren't live, or were edited) now we can see every second of the argentina spain final live.

And the Australian Open on ESPN today gives us wall to wall coverage(yet people still ***** here :???:, while in the 90s they only showed the 2nd week of the event(& again a lot was on tape the next day - remember the famous Sampras-Courier QF with the crying? it was never shown live in the US, nor was it shown in its entirety - it was edited to a 2 hr time slot)

I wonder if this is another reason why some fans are so enamored of todays players in comparison to yesteryear's(I may be guilty of it myself). plus with all the live streams I see posted here, one can literally see every match fed plays this year, which would have been impossible for a sampras or agassi fan in 1995(and there was even less on tv in the 80s compared to the 90s. espn2 didn't exist & espn was a developing network. did you know the first year USA started showing 1st week coverage of the USO was 1985? or that CBS didn't show the womens SF's at the USO until 1982? and USA certainly didn't stay on the air all day & night in the 80s like they have been doing in recent years)

This is yet another reason why its hard to compare eras, no one can possibly have seen as many older matches as recent matches(unless you traveled with the tour I suppose). Plus it makes us think more of the lower ranked players today (think about how many more matches you've seen involving guys ranked 50-100 today in comparison to guys you saw ranked that level in the 80s/90s)

I sure wish I could have seen Sampras come back from 2 sets to love vs Magnus Larsson at the '95 AO, or Johnny Mac upset Boris Becker at the '92 AO, or Mark Philippoussis upset Sampras at the '96 AO(not one second of these matches were shown in the US), but at least I can see every second of every match Nadal & Fed play at the grand slams this year.

 

[pmerk34]

Actually, there is far more tennis on tv today than there was in the 80s or 90s(esp if you have the Tennis Channel)

I've had the Tennis Channel since 2005, & I'm sure I've seen more Nadal or Federer matches in any one year since then than I did see of Sampras' or Agassi's matches in any one year in the 90s.

The Masters Series & Australian Open had very little coverage in the 90s compared to today(I recall all the european masters series in the 90s having, at most, 4 days of coverage, Thursday to Sunday on espn back then. And they were all only in a 2 hour time slot per day, tape delayed. While I've seen every second of every match played on the Center Courts of the Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Paris, & Madrid masters series the last 4 years.
Plus we get so much coverage of all these small events(I can see Acapulco, Dubai, & Delray this weekend!) that no tennis fan could have dreamed of in the 90s.

And TC has a lot more davis cup than was ever shown in the 90s(espn only showed ties involving the US, & many weren't live, or were edited) now we can see every second of the argentina spain final live.

And the Australian Open on ESPN today gives us wall to wall coverage(yet people still ***** here :???:, while in the 90s they only showed the 2nd week of the event(& again a lot was on tape the next day - remember the famous Sampras-Courier QF with the crying? it was never shown live in the US, nor was it shown in its entirety - it was edited to a 2 hr time slot)

I wonder if this is another reason why some fans are so enamored of todays players in comparison to yesteryear's(I may be guilty of it myself). plus with all the live streams I see posted here, one can literally see every match fed plays this year, which would have been impossible for a sampras or agassi fan in 1995(and there was even less on tv in the 80s compared to the 90s. espn2 didn't exist & espn was a developing network. did you know the first year USA started showing 1st week coverage of the USO was 1985? or that CBS didn't show the womens SF's at the USO until 1982? and USA certainly didn't stay on the air all day & night in the 80s like they have been doing in recent years)

This is yet another reason why its hard to compare eras, no one can possibly have seen as many older matches as recent matches(unless you traveled with the tour I suppose). Plus it makes us think more of the lower ranked players today (think about how many more matches you've seen involving guys ranked 50-100 today in comparison to guys you saw ranked that level in the 80s/90s)

I sure wish I could have seen Sampras come back from 2 sets to love vs Magnus Larsson at the '95 AO, or Johnny Mac upset Boris Becker at the '92 AO, or Mark Philippoussis upset Sampras at the '96 AO(not one second of these matches were shown in the US), but at least I can see every second of every match Nadal & Fed play at the grand slams this year.

The technology at the time back then made it hard to watch the Australian. the picture was a bit fuzzy and the ball would trail on the screen. Now it is in HD and looks spectacular.

 

[Moose Malloy]

P.S. How can I get a DVD of that Agassi-Mancini match?

http://www.tennislifedvd.org/

Not much has changed since Ruth's day.

Yeah, except that for whole segregation thing.

 

[Azzurri]

Actually, there is far more tennis on tv today than there was in the 80s or 90s(esp if you have the Tennis Channel)

I've had the Tennis Channel since 2005, & I'm sure I've seen more Nadal or Federer matches in any one year since then than I did see of Sampras' or Agassi's matches in any one year in the 90s.

The Masters Series & Australian Open had very little coverage in the 90s compared to today(I recall all the european masters series in the 90s having, at most, 4 days of coverage, Thursday to Sunday on espn back then. And they were all only in a 2 hour time slot per day, tape delayed. While I've seen every second of every match played on the Center Courts of the Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Paris, & Madrid masters series the last 4 years.
Plus we get so much coverage of all these small events(I can see Acapulco, Dubai, & Delray this weekend!) that no tennis fan could have dreamed of in the 90s.

And TC has a lot more davis cup than was ever shown in the 90s(espn only showed ties involving the US, & many weren't live, or were edited) now we can see every second of the argentina spain final live.

And the Australian Open on ESPN today gives us wall to wall coverage(yet people still ***** here :???:, while in the 90s they only showed the 2nd week of the event(& again a lot was on tape the next day - remember the famous Sampras-Courier QF with the crying? it was never shown live in the US, nor was it shown in its entirety - it was edited to a 2 hr time slot)

I wonder if this is another reason why some fans are so enamored of todays players in comparison to yesteryear's(I may be guilty of it myself). plus with all the live streams I see posted here, one can literally see every match fed plays this year, which would have been impossible for a sampras or agassi fan in 1995(and there was even less on tv in the 80s compared to the 90s. espn2 didn't exist & espn was a developing network. did you know the first year USA started showing 1st week coverage of the USO was 1985? or that CBS didn't show the womens SF's at the USO until 1982? and USA certainly didn't stay on the air all day & night in the 80s like they have been doing in recent years)

This is yet another reason why its hard to compare eras, no one can possibly have seen as many older matches as recent matches(unless you traveled with the tour I suppose). Plus it makes us think more of the lower ranked players today (think about how many more matches you've seen involving guys ranked 50-100 today in comparison to guys you saw ranked that level in the 80s/90s)

I sure wish I could have seen Sampras come back from 2 sets to love vs Magnus Larsson at the '95 AO, or Johnny Mac upset Boris Becker at the '92 AO, or Mark Philippoussis upset Sampras at the '96 AO(not one second of these matches were shown in the US), but at least I can see every second of every match Nadal & Fed play at the grand slams this year.

yes, TTC does provide more tennis, but its not part on many cable TV networks (mine anyway). But tennis was more on regular TV back then.

 

[Azzurri]

http://www.tennislifedvd.org/



Yeah, except that for whole segregation thing.

what is your point? segregation ended in 1947. that was a long time ago. Jackie Robinson would be a great player today as well.

 

[droliver]

Mats was my favorite player during the 1980's. I can remember watching the French Open the year (when I was 11 or 12) he swept through for his first title. He really came out of nowhere, kind of like Kuerten. My first graphite raquet was the Rossignol F200 which I got in 1982, inspired by Mats at the time.

Mats was at the tail end of the last generation to grow up on wood racquets, and I think there's a sharp demarcation with Andre Agassi's arrival in 1988 for modern tennis. It seemed like all of a sudden, the older players just got overwhelmed by pace and power with the exception of Boris Becker (who was kind of a freaky big athlete for tennis). Wilander's game seemed kind of quaint overnite, and he just didn't have much to offer that could win consistantly.

During his career he was also cited for his fitness, consistancy, strategic instincts, and mental toughness as his biggest weapons. He was well rounded in a kind of Richey Reneberg or Gilles Simon kind of way, and had one of the more celebrated 2 handed backhands of his era. Watching some of his late 1980's matches on youtube, he hit the ball a little harder then I remember. I kind of thought of him as a "pusher".


As to the A. Mancini discussion, I can recall that one incredible year he had where he was one of the FO favorites. He had one of the most stylish & vicious backhands anyone had seen and was just a brute on the clay. In the tennis press, he was kind of the proto Fernando Gonzalez

 

[Azzurri]

Mats was my favorite player during the 1980's. I can remember watching the French Open the year (when I was 11 or 12) he swept through for his first title. He really came out of nowhere, kind of like Kuerten. My first graphite raquet was the Rossignol F200 which I got in 1982, inspired by Mats at the time.

Mats was at the tail end of the last generation to grow up on wood racquets, and I think there's a sharp demarcation with Andre Agassi's arrival in 1988 for modern tennis. It seemed like all of a sudden, the older players just got overwhelmed by pace and power with the exception of Boris Becker (who was kind of a freaky big athlete for tennis). Wilander's game seemed kind of quaint overnite, and he just didn't have much to offer that could win consistantly.

During his career he was also cited for his fitness, consistancy, strategic instincts, and mental toughness as his biggest weapons. He was well rounded in a kind of Richey Reneberg or Gilles Simon kind of way, and had one of the more celebrated 2 handed backhands of his era. Watching some of his late 1980's matches on youtube, he hit the ball a little harder then I remember. I kind of thought of him as a "pusher".


As to the A. Mancini discussion, I can recall that one incredible year he had where he was one of the FO favorites. He had one of the most stylish & vicious backhands anyone had seen and was just a brute on the clay. In the tennis press, he was kind of the proto Fernando Gonzalez

I agree with what you said except this part. check the records and you will see the "older" players you speak of were still winning majors into the 90's and still dominating. The turnaround to power tennis took quite a while after the 1988 season.

 

[droliver]

I agree with what you said except this part. check the records and you will see the "older" players you speak of were still winning majors into the 90's and still dominating. The turnaround to power tennis took quite a while after the 1988 season.

I wasn't really referring to some instant change, but I can remember the sense that tennis had entered a new era and style of play. I think Agassi's eruption on the scene was a clear generational fault line, much as Boris Becker's Wimbledon run felt like in 1985 when we saw the dawning of the big serve with modern racket technology. There was no going back to "normal" in the way the game would be played.

 

[hoodjem]

yes, TTC does provide more tennis, but its not part on many cable TV networks (mine anyway). But tennis was more on regular TV back then.

I think the major US networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) carried more tennis back then than they do now. ESPN was fledgling, and TTC did not exist. Heck, I think I remember even PBS had some tennis on occasionally.

Tennis was more mainstream in the US, less of a niche market.

 

[Rabbit]

I think the major US networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) carried more tennis back then than they do now. ESPN was fledgling, and TTC did not exist. Heck, I think I remember even PBS had some tennis on occasionally.

Tennis was more mainstream in the US, less on a niche market.

Yep, I agree. I can still remember going home for lunch, turning on ESPN, and seeing the first tennis on ESPN I'd ever seen. It was Rod Laver and Fred Stolle playing in a Grand Masters event.

 

[Azzurri]

I wasn't really referring to some instant change, but I can remember the sense that tennis had entered a new era and style of play. I think Agassi's eruption on the scene was a clear generational fault line, much as Boris Becker's Wimbledon run felt like in 1985 when we saw the dawning of the big serve with modern racket technology. There was no going back to "normal" in the way the game would be played.

you stated all of a sudden, so it just seemed that way. agassi was a different player yes, but not a game changer. becker is a better example.