My impressions from match Noah-Wilander.

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Just have watched 1983 RG final between Wilander and Noah.

I want to talk about how UNtalented was Wilander. Once I rised this and started face pressure from his fans. I really don't have any dislike to him. Simply it is the place to share yr expressions.

O my Allah, how stupid can a player be ? How ungifted, untalented can a winner of many GS be ? Noah hardly is keeping the racquet in his hand, trembling, being surrounded in his birthland by French crowd. It is enough just press him a little, very little as he will crash himself mentally. But Wilander can't. His every shot is so stupid, so boring, he want Noah simply exhaustes, but Noah doesn't. He doesn't come to net, doesn't risk, doesn't hit even passing shots. Neither net game, no at least one combination, nothing, zero. Boring retriever. Stupid retriever.

Could Federer, Agassi, Coria, Nadal play in the same manner in 1983 ? In the final ? NOOOOOOO. One can really start consider that even Grand Slam is not so great tournament if you see 7 times GS champion acting so poor, ineffectively on the court. Really tennis loses when such ungifted players win GS.

 

[Ravi]

Well I haven't watched the '83 RG Final since June 1983, but man my memory of this match and Wilander in general is a lot higher than yours. I loved the fact that a guy who hit softer balls than anyone just kept winning and winning and winning....

 

[Ravi]

I mean I was just a piker when I first caught Wilander's action against Vilas in the '82 French final, and I became a fan overnight. I never did buy a Rossignol though.

 

[Tchocky]

You can't judge a player by one match. I remember the match but have not seen it recently. I remember Noah constantly attacking the net. The crowd was definitely behined Noah wanting to see a Frenchman win their country's championship for the 1st time in a long time. Wilander was only 18 and the defending champion. He improved his game and stayed in the top 10 for the rest of the decade. You watch any match from the 80's or 70's and you almost think you can hit with these guys.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Yeah, until you see them hit now. Saw Arias practicing recently he can hit a ton, probably harder than he was in '83 when he was top 5.

 

[Ravi]

Well, sure, racquet technology has come just a little bit since '83. And Arias could always slug.

 

[Grimjack]

O my Allah, how stupid can a player be ?

Not that you've got a lot of credibility to begin with, but there went the rest of it. Wilander may be one of the least athletically imposing figures ever to carve out a nice professional sports career. He may be considered boring to any number of fans. He may be a lot of things that you find objectionable. But the last thing he is, is stupid. He won seven slams, became number one in the world, and retired at the top of his craft following one of the best seasons ever strung together in the modern era. And he did pretty much the whole thing with his brain.

He, more than any other player I've ever seen, approached tennis like a poker game. He knew the odds, he knew the statistics, and he knew the film breakdowns...better than anybody. He knew that slice backhands to the robotic Lendl backhand followed by rolling angles with heavy spin would subject him to hundreds of the patented Lendl running forehands over the course of a USO final. But he also knew that no matter how bad it looked when it came back and thumped him, that this exact play had a better-than-breakever return against Lendl.

He knew from breaking down his own game that a 3/4 pace first serve wasn't going to win him any cheap points, but that combined with his machine-like backcourt precision, if he got in a HUGE, and I mean SUPERHUMANLY HUGE percent of his firsts, he was practically unbreakable. And so he did. He went entire 5-set matches only missing a few first serves, at times. One, famously, in a GS final.

To follow up the poker analogy, the Wilander game was like Hold 'Em -- going all in, heads up with 22 against AK. Every time you lose, you're going to look like a moron. But play that hand a billion times, and you're rich.

Wilander was percentage tennis incarnate, and as good a proponent of that cerebral style as has ever graced a court.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Aykahn,
watch the '88 Cash-Wilander Australian Open Final. It might change your mind about Mats(though I doubt it, you seem to be ripping him at least once a month, what did he do, kick your dog or something?)

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

In the match between Noah and him at least Noah risked despite he was more nervous: so many fans were waiting his victory. Not to tell that he also can't play tennis in comparison with players of our decade, but when this Frenchman undrestood that his boring opponent, so called 1982 RG champion ( how it happened ?) Wilander is even weaker than him and simply hits ball back, he decided to come to the net, to risk and in a result - he won. Not to call it risk, it was at least a little, at least something, because his opponent simply hited the ball back.


No, I didn't make conclusions from 1 match. Another catastrophe for me was match between Lendl and Wilander. In this case it was match between two SUPER boring players. In the first match at least Noah wasn't so boring. But when these 2 boring retrievers met it was catastrophe to watch that match. It was not tennis, it was stamina and patience competition.

I really don't know. Some peoples regard them as GREAT tacticians, poker players and etc.. But I don't agree. Not Federer, say even Coria would be enough for them - for these boring players on every surface. And it is very remarkable that both of them couldn't win Wimbledon. It is good in my opinion. IMHO one must risk, battle, do something in order to win Wimbledon.

 

[Matt Riordan]

Yeah, Aykhan, I seem to recall you laying into Lendl recently too, calling him talentless and whatnot. But calling him a retriever..? Puh-lease... Granted, Wilander was a retriever, but not Lendl. And both of them were extremely talented players, who obviously played a style you don't like to watch. I could name many great matches featuring these two that you ought to watch to learn something about tennis... but you're not interested in hearing it so I won't bother...

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Matt Riordan, maybe u are right. Lendl is not complete retriever as Wilander , anyhow his style of game is not less boring. I recall his match against Cash. That was catastrophe also. Every talented player suh as Fed, Agassi, Coria or say Nadal could somehow damage in such a situation Cash. Agassi being base-liner had even harder opponent Ivanicevic and could somehow outplay him at W final.

Again, of course they all are talented - in comparison with us, but here I'm comparing them with each other.

Conversely, I'm interested to hear from all forum members.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Aykhan, Coria or Nadal could not beat Cash on grass in '87, playing the way they do now. Wimbledon grass of 1987 is not the same grass of 2005. 1987-very fast grass, very worn out, bad bounces, etc. Grass today is like a hardcourt. Also did any pro play with the babbleot in 1987? Very small frame raquets in 1987.

Also Coria is very mentally fragile. He collapsed more at the '04 French Open than Lendl did at '87 Wimbledon. I don't know why you think so highly of Coria, he isn't 1/10th as mentally tough as Lendl. He will never win 8 majors.

Also you need to realize how the game has changed due to equipment & racquets. If Federer & Coria were born when Lendl, Wilander, Cash were, they would not play the same way they do today. No tennis coach would teach them the way they play today, because no one played that way. So stop saying players today are so much better, they are only better because of equipment changing the way the game is taught.

Lendl, Wilander, Cash played with graphite racquets, but played their junior days with wood raquets.
I really wish there was a wood raquet only event with todays players. You probably wouldn't recognize them, they wouldn't be able to do anything with the ball.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Kevin, Coria was leading 2 sets to 0 and in the 3-rd set he was ahead as suddenly he had convulsions of the leg ( what happened with him also before). Do you really think that Coria lost because of the nerbvousness ? Absolutely - NOT. That day was successfull for Gaudio merely.

I highly think about Coria not because he has great results. Simply I appreciate his tennis, and I know that he could have better results if he had great health or stamina as the same Lendl or at least as anybody from first 20-30 today ( except Davydenko). The only reason he loses IMHO is his weak health. IMO he has great feeling of the ball. Kevin, look at his drop-shots, does anybody have the same kind mastership on tour? THIS IS FEELING of the ball ! His drop-shots is ART.

I think you overestimate equipment significance. First, if todays racq. are 12.5 oz, wood could be 13, max 13.5-14, and you had a choice to choose lighter. Of course they were not so powerful, but players don't need so much powerful racquets today. And finally, you told yourself that they played also with graphite racquets.

I think it is not right to compare genius Federer with Lendl. Lendl won 8 GS during his whole career, Fed won 6 in 2.5 years. The people worldwide become taller and taller ( proved in medicine), they reach newer records in running, jumping, tennis is becoming more demanding every year, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE EQUIPMENT. It is because of the competition, money, growing world population makes every competition harder.
There are hundreds of reasons why tennis is becoming faster, more strength demanding and etc...
By the way, Lendl recognises this himself. recently there was an interview somewhere here at forum. Try to find it.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Aykhan,
you ignored the important part. equipment has changed the way the game was TAUGHT. No way would Federer or Coria play the same way had they been born when Lendl, Wilander were. NO ONE played that way. I doubt Coria & Federer would have been able to create this new way of playing with out somebody to show them.

Coria started cramping in the 2004 French Open final because of nerves(just like Noah in 1983)
Everybody who saw that match knows that, including Coria. Rafter, Courier, Blake have cramped due to nerves as well. Why would Coria start cramping after 2 sets? Because he knew he was so close to being French champion, he got nervous & his body started cramping.

 

[Jack the Hack]

In a partial definition, a troll is someone who posts obviously provocative or insulting comments on a message board in order to inflame anger or frustration.

I do not know why I am replying to this asinine thread as we have covered this ground before with Aykhan, and my comments are only "feeding the troll." However, here is my heaping morsel:

Ayk...

In previous replies to your posts in other threads, I've given numerous examples of why Wilander was such a great player, including pointing out that he is considered one of the best tactical minds of all time. His ability to play high percentage tennis (as Grimjack eloquently described), and the tactical brilliance to devise and execute winning game plans against better players was unparalleled. The foundation of his game was rock solid consistency from the baseline, built on speed (Wilander was one of the fastest on tour during his day) and extreme physical endurance. However, as he got older, he also developed a better serve and became very adept at the net. In the '88 Australian final that Kevin mentioned, Wilander mixed up his baseline game with strategic forays to the net that kept Cash off balance. Also, as I've pointed out many, many, many times to you... aside from being one of only three men in tennis history to win a Slam on all three surfaces (for the non-historian readers, the Australian was played on grass in 83 and 84 when he won them), Wilander also won a Wimbledon doubles title in 1986 (meaning he won a title at the grounds you find most hallowed). Clearly, he was much more than a "boring, stupid retriever."

You obviously did not like watching Wilander play, but I can not figure out why you keep bashing him and starting hate threads about his game. The guy retired almost a decade ago!!!

The most ironic thing is that you seem to be a Coria fan, and yet Coria plays a style very similar to Wilander... the difference being that Wilander was more tactically intelligent and mentally tough than Coria will ever be!

(Since you have claimed previously that your troll-like behavior is due to your misunderstood sense of humor, I am guessing that maybe you are really a Wilander FAN in disguise. The reason that you keep posting hate threads about him is because you really like to hear people say good things about him... and you brought up the '83 French final because you were unhappy he lost and wanted to talk about how he became a more complete player as he got older! )

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Im a big fan of wilander.... watching him in late 80s in the Us-open was Amazing.....

 

[35ft6]

He was a great strategist. I'm not sure if poker is the most fitting game to compare his tennis to, though.

Gilbert won ugly, but Wilander was essentially, in terms of strategy, just as ugly, it's just that his strokes were prettier. I think Wilander's mind and fitness intimidated his opponent. When guys played Wilander, they knew he understood their weaknesses and he was going to methodically dismantle their games and there was nothing they could do to frustrate him enough to deviate from his plan. It's like a bul l shi t artist running into somebody that they KNOW can see right through their lies.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Gilbert won ugly, but Wilander was essentially, in terms of strategy, just as ugly, it's just that his strokes were prettier.

35ft6,

This is a very good comparison... Gilbert and Wilander's strategic prowess was very similar, and they both did "win ugly" (which is probably why Ayk hates him so much ) However, the big difference between these two was that Wilander was a better athlete (much quicker and stronger, better reflexes) and mechanically sound, which meant that he was able implement a larger range of tactics. The biggest example of this was Wilander adapting his game in order to beat Lendl at the US Open.

(Interestingly, Gilbert made this comment about Wilander in his book:

"I saw Mats Wilander for the first time in Bangkok in '81. I studied him while he played a match and didn't see anything special - no big serve, no big power, no outrageous shots. I figured he was just another solid Swedish player. I was right about Andre's (Agassi) potential and wrong about Mats. Seven months later, Wilander won the French Open. I had to make a few additions to the "Wilander" section of my black book.")

 

[laurie]

I saw this match too and recorded it. ESPN classic sport in Europe showed it.

Its hard to explain Wilander's style of play. I never saw him live. This might help. I would say he was a male version of Sanchez Vicario. Very steady from the baseline. Lots of loopy topspin shots without too much power. Constructed points very well. Not afraid to come to the net. Not a big serve. I would say these two players are pretty similar. Both won Roland Garros three times and US Open once. Wilander didn't last too long. By 1990 at only age 25 he was virtually done.

I was very impressed with Noah in that final. He was very athletic and had stinging volleys. He also had a great slice serve on the ad court. Datacipher always told me this and its true. What happened to Datacipher?

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

And where is Raftermania such a long time ?

 

[35ft6]

35ft6,

This is a very good comparison... Gilbert and Wilander's strategic prowess was very similar, and they both did "win ugly" (which is probably why Ayk hates him so much ) However, the big difference between these two was that Wilander was a better athlete (much quicker and stronger, better reflexes) and mechanically sound, which meant that he was able implement a larger range of tactics. The biggest example of this was Wilander adapting his game in order to beat Lendl at the US Open.[/I])

You're totally right. He could do everything well, which could be said of many journeyman players, but the X-factor was Wilander's exceptional tennis mind, which allowed him to stay calm and "always" play the right patterns at the right times.

Its hard to explain Wilander's style of play. I never saw him live. This might help. I would say he was a male version of Sanchez Vicario.

I saw Wilander play live when I was a kid. An exhibition against a very young Agassi. His strokes actually didn't look very loopy in person. Groundstrokes-wise, right now I would compare him to Coria. Not super-powerful but every shot had a bit of sting to it, and every shot was hit very cleanly and had purpose. He didn't knock you out, more like slowly suffocate you. Karol Kucera also sort of reminds me of Wilander.

And I keep hearing about Nalbandian being an excellent tactician. It's just that Wilander is different from all those guys because he could play pure all-court tennis when he wanted to, which is something I've never seen Coria or Kucera do.

 

[laurie]

I just remebered I saw Wilander play this year at the French Open with Stich vs Leconte and Forget in senior doubles.

Stich still serves damn fast!

Not the same as seeing Wilander during his career of course.

 

[Rabbit]

I think Wilander was a great tactician. He hit just good enough a shot to win the point, or to keep his opponent out on court. In the 83 final, why hit winners? He let Noah beat himself. I think that is the mark of an extremely smart player.

 

[bluegrasser]

Wilander = stupid ?? hmm - You should watch the Lendl/ Mats USO final and tell me he's stupid - geesh ! BTW, what's your game ? smart I suppose...

 

[laurie]

Actually Rabbit, it was Noah who beat Wilander in straight sets.

 

[urban]

As far as i remember that Match, it wqas do or die in the 3rd set. If Noah had lost it, he would have lost the whole match - like McEnroe a year later. It's interesting, that Noah was the last serve-and-volley-player (maybe not in the purest form), who won RG. And he did it with only a slice backhand.

 

[raftermania]

And where is Raftermania such a long time ?

Hi Aykhan, I'm still kicking around. But, now I'm in school with a lot more distractions. It's not summer vacation anymore!!!! WAHHHHHH!

p.s. holla to my brothas in Azerbaijan.