Who is the greater player? Mcenroe or Wilander?
- Thread starter FedTheMan
- Start date
Ballmachine87
Rookie
Wilander in 1988 > any year MacEnroe hadyou can't be serious...
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Lol what? You might have heard about Mac’s 84?
Winners or Errors
Legend
Yes, no one who watched Mac in 1984 and Wilander in 1988 would claim Wilander's year was superior. Before he even got half way through that year, the vibe at RG was insane. Wilander never generated that level of passion from anyone, and never dominated the field like Mac. He also had a worse burnout after 1988 than Mac had after 1984.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I would even argue McEnroe's 81 might have been better than Wilander's 1988 too. That era wasn't all about slam wins. Wilander didn't even take #1 from Lendl, despite the 3 slams, until nearly the very end of the year. 84 is a no brainer, as great as Wilander's 88 was.
Um, just a hard "no" to that
Ballmachine87
Rookie
Wilander won three slams in year which McEnroe never did. Plus he won Lipton which was basically the 5th slam that year.
Winning more tournaments in the middle of nowhere does not eclipse Wilander`s supremacy at the impirtant tournaments.
Moreover the overal quality of the field was much better in 1988 then it was in Mcenroes peak years 1981-1984. No debate about that
medieval_remnant
Rookie
The field was weak. The baby boomers were older than Mac and the genXers were teens. John bailed on the younger competition in the late 80s and he hasn't sufficiently criticized for that
Um, no. Just no. Borg, Connors and Lendl not as good as Wilander's competition in 1988? That's patently absurd.
I love Mats, but he is not on the same level as McEnroe, most notably when viewed in terms of career accomplishments.
He had a terrific 1988 and some great results at the AO and FO, in particular, but tended to struggle at W and USO.
Him winning the USO in '88 was a HUGE accomplishment for him.
And then he was done.
In 1984, McEnroe had:
-7 matches against #2 Lendl, going 6-1
-6 matches against #3 Connors, going 6-0
-3 matches against #4 Wilander, going 3-0
That's 15-1, with Lendl (who won the French Open that year) and Wilander (who won the Australian Open that year) already at a high level and Connors a bit long in the tooth, but still very game, having won the 1983 U.S. Open and very likely being a Major champion in 1984 if not for McEnroe.
In 1988, Wilander had:
-1 match against #2 Lendl, going 1-0
-1 match against #3 Agassi, going 1-0
-1 match against #4 Becker, going 0-1
That's 2-1, with Becker and Lendl being at a high level (albeit the latter a bit dinged up) and 18 year-old Agassi being pre-prime.
Much tougher competition for McEnroe. 16 matches against the top 4 vs. 3 for Wilander.
Last edited:
Lendl was hampered by separate foot, thigh and shoulder injuries in 1988 as well. As a result he was clearly better in 1984, even though in that year he hadn’t yet reached the same levels of fitness that he did by 1986.
Also we know that Mecir was a very talented player (amongst ‘slamless’ players I personally think he was definitely more talented than Rios), and a difficult match-up for Wilander. But the fact that Wilander lost all 6 sets that he played against him in 1988, on the big stage in a Davis Cup QF match in Sweden and then in their Wimbledon QF, isn’t insignificant when comparing that year against other remarkable seasons achieved by other players.
Also we know that Mecir was a very talented player (amongst ‘slamless’ players I personally think he was definitely more talented than Rios), and a difficult match-up for Wilander. But the fact that Wilander lost all 6 sets that he played against him in 1988, on the big stage in a Davis Cup QF match in Sweden and then in their Wimbledon QF, isn’t insignificant when comparing that year against other remarkable seasons achieved by other players.
Last edited:
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
When you're talking THAT MUCH better, the comparison ceases to be useful.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Connors was definitely not fully prime in 84, and Lendl was def. below the Lendl of 85-87, yes but even with that a much tougher field. The fact Wilander had so few matches against the top 4 ranked of 88, shows that nobody but him was even playing particularly well that year. Lendl's showings at the other slams (particularly a slam he is usually extremely strong in like the French) show how off his form he was that year, and it still took Wilander playing his best, playing Lendl in one of the worst big matches I ever saw him play in the 88 US Open final, to barely win there. Not to sound harsh, I actualy like Wilander, but just how I see.
Even eliminating all subjective elements, McEnroe's year was clearly better. Wilander's only edge is technically winning 1 more slam, but that is virtually nothing when the Australian was still regularly missed in 84. McEnroe won both slams he played, and narrowly lost in the final of the other, and skipped the then only partly meaningful slam. Wilander won 3 of the 4 he played, but did horribly in the other, so even in terms of slam performances (ignoring calibre of play and McEnroe's sheer dominant level at Wimbledon) I would say McEnroe was probably superior in the context of the time, and super far ahead everywhere else.
Angrybirdstar
Rookie
don't know much about Mecir besides the talent; why was he a particularly difficult matchup?
Mecir's ability to disguise his groundstrokes, mix up the pace and angles, glide effortlessly around the court, come to the net a lot and volley well, and his placement allowed him to skillfully keep Wilander off balance and keep him guessing what he'd do next. Plus with his return he was really able to punish Wilander's serve. And Wilander wasn't a power hitter, so Mecir was often able to take charge of their baseline duels, retrieve what ever Wilander threw at him and overpower him (as well as outfox him), and his backhand down the line was often a big weapon during their matches.
This was what Wilander said after Mecir destroyed him in Dallas in 1987:
''Mecir just gets to everything. You never feel like you're controlling the match, even if you're playing great. He's so quick and he disguises his strokes so well, it's hard to see."
Mecir's demolitions of Wilander in both Hamburg and Rome on clay within the space of a few weeks in 1985, were especially impressive. Wilander looked largely helpless in those matches, which both seemed even more one-sided than the scorelines indicated. During Wilander's win over Mecir at the 1987 US Open, it still felt at times that Mecir was in charge and was toying with him. Wilander largely won thanks to his tremendous baseline consistency, sheer determination and his ability to outlast Mecir.
Last edited:
Mecir was Mats' kryptonite. I always found it unusual that Mecir struggled more w/Connors than he did Wilander, who at that point in time was the steadier player. He made his demolition of Mats look all too easy. Really enjoyed watching "The Cat"
Ballmachine87
Rookie
Ballmachine87
Rookie
Prime Lendl, Prime, Edberg, Prime Becker, rising star in Agassi, past prime but still solid McEnroe and Connors....
There you go with those pesky facts again.
He did in 1981 which was mentioned
Vincent-C
Hall of Fame
Pheasant
Legend
To me, weeks at #1 ends the debate between Mac vs Wilander for careers. Wilander likely gets shut out in that metric if Lendl doesn't have a whole string of injuries in 1988, which Sports Illustrated documented at the end of that 1988 season. Lendl missed over 2 months that year and had only 41 match wins, by far his lowest total from 1980-89. Once he recovered from shoulder surgery and got back on track, he reeled off another 80 straight weeks at #1.
As far which player had the best season between the two, that isn't even a debate either. Mac's 1984 curb-stomps Wilander's 1988 season. Does Mac have another season that beats Wilander's 1988 season? That's a good question. Some have said 1981, which is a compelling thought there. I'd argue that his 1979 season was better than Wilander's 1988 season was well with his tidy 95-14 record, which includes going 7-5 against the top-5(Wilander was only 3-2 vs top-5 in 1988). In 1979, Mac won the WCT tourney crushing #1 Connors in the semis, then beating #2 Borg in the final. In all, Mac was 11-3 in finals that year, including wins over Gerulaitis, Roscoe Tanner, Arthur Ashe, and Bjorn Borg. He was 14-5 in the semis of tourneys, which includes wins over Gerulaitis(twice), Connors(twice), and Roscoe Tanner.
As far which player had the best season between the two, that isn't even a debate either. Mac's 1984 curb-stomps Wilander's 1988 season. Does Mac have another season that beats Wilander's 1988 season? That's a good question. Some have said 1981, which is a compelling thought there. I'd argue that his 1979 season was better than Wilander's 1988 season was well with his tidy 95-14 record, which includes going 7-5 against the top-5(Wilander was only 3-2 vs top-5 in 1988). In 1979, Mac won the WCT tourney crushing #1 Connors in the semis, then beating #2 Borg in the final. In all, Mac was 11-3 in finals that year, including wins over Gerulaitis, Roscoe Tanner, Arthur Ashe, and Bjorn Borg. He was 14-5 in the semis of tourneys, which includes wins over Gerulaitis(twice), Connors(twice), and Roscoe Tanner.
Similar threads
