Why was Wilander so bad at Wimbledon?

[buscemi]

Looking at Wilander's career:

He won the Australian Open on grass in 1983/1984 before making the final in 1985 and losing to Edberg. He had some big wins in those years, including beating McEnroe in 1983. Yes, the grass in Kooyong played differently than the grass in London, but it was still serve-and-volleyer Edberg who won the next two titles after Wilander. Then, when the Australian Open switched to Rebound Ace in 1988, Wilander immediately took the title.

We don't need any explanation of Wilander's prowess on clay, but, of course, he won three French Opens and made two other finals.

At the U.S. Open, Wilander took the title in 1988 by actually coming to the net quite a lot against Lendl. He also made another final that he lost to Lendl and a SF, where he lost a five setter to McEnroe. The U.S. Open played very fast at the time, as did Cincinnati, where Wilander won four titles and made another final.

At WTF, Wilander played solidly on carpet, making three SFs and a final in 1987, beating Cash, Mečíř, and Edberg before losing to Lendl. He also won back-to-back Brussels titles on carpet, beating McEnroe in the second final.

That then takes us to Wimbledon, where Wilander managed a measly three QFs, only winning one set across those three matches (in a four set loss to McEnroe in 1989). It's a struggle to find even one good win for Wilander at Wimbledon, with the best I can find being a win over Živojinović in Wilander's career-year on 1988. And most of Wilander's losses were one-sided, with none of them being especially close.

So, what gives? Wilander was amazing on clay, great on fast hard courts and the Kooyong grass courts, and solid enough against the best in the world on carpet. And we know from a number of matches, especially the 1988 U.S. Open final, that he could hold his own at net (in fact, he won Wimbledon doubles in 1986 w/Nyström).

All of this leads me to the question in the title: Why was Wilander so bad at Wimbledon? How could his best win in 11 years of playing the tournament be against world #23 Zivojinovic in his career-year, without him coming close to even one other decent match win?

 

[martinezownsclay]

He just wasn't a good grass court player. Even greats like Henin, Seles, Lendl, who all struggled badly on grass, were still all IMO better on grass than he was. PS- not a single of those won Wimbledon either. His win at the 83 Australian on grass was super impressive but IMO one of those unlikely, just happened, fluke things, like Martinez's performance and win at Wimbledon 94. Australia 84 can be chucked up to a non slam field, which still happened many years at the Australian until atleast 87.

 

[bobcolbert]

Same question for Vilas and in my opinion same answer. English grass was different from Australian grass, and for clay court players, Australian grass was less difficult. Furthermore Vilas and Wilander needed a long preparation on grass and there was too little time between Roland-Garros and Wimbledon

 

[buscemi]

Same question for Vilas and in my opinion same answer. English grass was different from Australian grass, and for clay court players, Australian grass was less difficult. Furthermore Vilas and Wilander needed a long preparation on grass and there was too little time between Roland-Garros and Wimbledon

Yeah, it's definitely a solid comparison. Where the two differ for me is that, as noted, Wilander was quite good on the fast courts at the U.S. Open, even coming to net frequently when he took the title over Lendl. Meanwhile, Vilas played at the U.S. Open on hard courts from 1978-1982 when he was in the top six and had four fourth round losses (to Butch Walts, Eddie Dibbs, Wojciech Fibak, and Roscoe Tanner) to go along with one semifinal appearance (beating Steve Denton and Tom Gullikson before losing to Connors).

 

[martinezownsclay]

Same question for Vilas and in my opinion same answer. English grass was different from Australian grass, and for clay court players, Australian grass was less difficult. Furthermore Vilas and Wilander needed a long preparation on grass and there was too little time between Roland-Garros and Wimbledon

Not totally fair as the fields Wilander won at in Australia were FAR above the years Vilas won. 83 is another planet. Even he beat Kevin Curren and a young Edberg, a whole other league from anything in the years Vilas won.

That is the other valid point though, I mostly agree on. The Australian grass was also considerably different than the Wimbledon grass. It was still true grass, but it also was much closer to playing like a hard court in some ways than slick Wimbledon grass ever was. Hence why players like Wilander and Vilas and probably Austin (had she bothered to play in 79 and 80 when at her injury ended peak) would play much better there then at Wimbledon. Hence why Navratilova was not that dominant in Australia on grass, but was more than anyone in history on Wimbledon grass. Hence why Evert was more formidable (the only reason she has only 2 titles is both Martina and skipping almost the entire 70s, and often skipping after 85) there than Wimbledon grass, and much more of of a threat to Navratilova here than Wimbledon too. Even if Vilas still would never win an Australian if it were a real slam, the overall point still stands.

 

[Moose Malloy]

In 1983 players were being paid appearance fees to play the Australian Open, that's why it had a better field (Mac talks about it in in his book), but it still wasn't a real major. Mac played one the worst matches of his career vs Wilander in the semis, serving less than 40% for the match. And Lendl played that final like an exo, it was almost a Kyrgios tank like effort. He even joked with Wilander during the match, does that sound like typical Lendl? It felt like no other major final I've seen. Felt nothing like the other 3 major finals Lendl lost from '81 to '83 in terms of stakes. He said in the awards ceremony that he might be back next year if he could fit it in his schedule and no one booed(guess even fans in Australia knew it wasn't really an imortant tournament for the players). Watch the actual matches instead of looking at Wikipedia and going "great field, this must mean it was a legit major" etc)

Oh and re the grass - look at Becker at Kooyong and Wimbledon. I also have Tennis magazines from then, they had surface rankings. I don't believe they even ranked Wilander as one of the top 5 grass players for '83 or '84, such was the impression by the media of the Australian Open's "grass."Becker could've been triple bageled at Kooyong and still be unanimously voted the best grasscourt player in the world in 1985.

I guess you had to be there, as a diehard fan back then it's weird to hear modern takes on past eras sometimes. Also no one in the 80s called the USO very fast (try watching the matches, all the commentators consistently called it a medium paced surface - making some correlation to Wimbledon's court speed back then is a bit silly - Wilander and Lendl still had insanely long rallies at 88 USO, that was simply impossible to do at Wimbledon in '88)

Wilander S&Ved a lot on first serve at Wimbledon, but stayed back on 2nd serve. That sort of strategy didn't work at Wimbledon (yeah Borg did it, but 80s grass tennis was a bit different than 70s grass tennis due to equipment. And Borg got a lot more free points off serve) Wilander's 2nd serve was a meatball, Mecir just teed off on it in 88(and Mecir S&Ved on both 1st and 2nd serve, he knew how to adjust his game to Wimbledon - we all know how weak his serve was). And Bobo/Cash basically chipped and charged on every Wilander 2nd serve, so Mats was under a lot of pressure throughout.

 

[Cashman]

Kooyong was a lot more baseliner-friendly than any grass court you would find at Wimbledon. Its bounce was a lot higher, and the court sloped away from the net in each direction to aid drainage (meaning that serve and volleyers had to run slightly uphill)

 

[Galvermegs]

Not too sure wilander is the best coach. He coached safin for a brief time. At least he got his man to the same stage of a quarterfinal (2001). Later safin only did well again in 2008 when he poached djokovics draw.

I think in doubles he was good on any surface with the right partner.

 

[Ronaldo]

Not too sure wilander is the best coach. He coached safin for a brief time. At least he got his man to the same stage of a quarterfinal (2001). Later safin only did well again in 2008 when he poached djokovics draw.

I think in doubles he was good on any surface with the right partner.

 

[grandefrankie]

Aussie grass was different from Wimbledon grass. Much better suited to his game. He was very good on Australian grass, but only fair at best on Wimbledon grass and never was going to be a real contender there. The Australian also wasn't a real slam in those days. If it were a slam better attended with everyone putting in a full effort I doubt he wins twice there on grass. Maybe once if lucky.

He did not have all the tools needed for slick, fast grass with bad bounces. Barely came to net, not a lot of free points on serve, and not a true slice backhand or slice forehand.

 

[WCT]

Kooyong was a lot more baseliner-friendly than any grass court you would find at Wimbledon. Its bounce was a lot higher, and the court sloped away from the net in each direction to aid drainage (meaning that serve and volleyers had to run slightly uphill)

I think it was pretty clearly different grass than Wimbledon, but it was still grass. Players won there coming to the net. Vilas, Wilander did not win titles there by basically staying on the baseline.

I still maintain that the biggest factor in the improved fields was the date change. You can give Mcenroe an 100k guarantee and he's not playing there over Christmas and New Years.

I'm going to have to watch that Lendl Wilander match to see just how much I think he treated it like an exhibition.

 

[sandy mayer]

80s graphite era tennis on Wimbledon grass did not suit Wilander's game. McEnroe, Becker, Cash and Edberg all had better serves than him as did most of the players who surpassed Wilander at Wimbledon without winning it eg Curren and Lendl. Connors had more success even in his 30s than Wilander at Wimbledon because Connors was more aggressive in his return and groundies.
Wilander's volley was actually very good, but he was never anywhere near the best serve volleyer.
McEnroe said differences in the Australian grass reduced the advantage serve volleyers had at Wimbledon.

 

[Vincent-C]

Looking at Wilander's career:

He won the Australian Open on grass in 1983/1984 before making the final in 1985 and losing to Edberg. He had some big wins in those years, including beating McEnroe in 1983. Yes, the grass in Kooyong played differently than the grass in London, but it was still serve-and-volleyer Edberg who won the next two titles after Wilander. Then, when the Australian Open switched to Rebound Ace in 1988, Wilander immediately took the title.

We don't need any explanation of Wilander's prowess on clay, but, of course, he won three French Opens and made two other finals.

At the U.S. Open, Wilander took the title in 1988 by actually coming to the net quite a lot against Lendl. He also made another final that he lost to Lendl and a SF, where he lost a five setter to McEnroe. The U.S. Open played very fast at the time, as did Cincinnati, where Wilander won four titles and made another final.

At WTF, Wilander played solidly on carpet, making three SFs and a final in 1987, beating Cash, Mečíř, and Edberg before losing to Lendl. He also won back-to-back Brussels titles on carpet, beating McEnroe in the second final.

That then takes us to Wimbledon, where Wilander managed a measly three QFs, only winning one set across those three matches (in a four set loss to McEnroe in 1989). It's a struggle to find even one good win for Wilander at Wimbledon, with the best I can find being a win over Živojinović in Wilander's career-year on 1988. And most of Wilander's losses were one-sided, with none of them being especially close.

So, what gives? Wilander was amazing on clay, great on fast hard courts and the Kooyong grass courts, and solid enough against the best in the world on carpet. And we know from a number of matches, especially the 1988 U.S. Open final, that he could hold his own at net (in fact, he won Wimbledon doubles in 1986 w/Nyström).

All of this leads me to the question in the title: Why was Wilander so bad at Wimbledon? How could his best win in 11 years of playing the tournament be against world #23 Zivojinovic in his career-year, without him coming close to even one other decent match win?

I do love a well-posed question, and hope to learn something from the responses.

 

[Vincent-C]

Aussie grass was different from Wimbledon grass. Much better suited to his game. He was very good on Australian grass, but only fair at best on Wimbledon grass and never was going to be a real contender there. The Australian also wasn't a real slam in those days. If it were a slam better attended with everyone putting in a full effort I doubt he wins twice there on grass. Maybe once if lucky.

He did not have all the tools needed for slick, fast grass with bad bounces. Barely came to net, not a lot of free points on serve, and not a true slice backhand or slice forehand.

One thing I remember -maybe accurately- is that Mats's BH slice was not a penetrating shot. His whole game was boring as hell to me actually, though I have respect for the wins that somehow came from it. Call me a Philistine.

Adding: does anyone have memories of the Wilander v. Mecir '88 Wimbledon QF match? I did not see it.

 

[Mainad]

Wilander is the only 1 of the 3 Big Swedes of the 80s and 90s (Borg, Edberg and himself) who couldn't crack Wimbledon. The other 2 notched up 7 titles between them. Wilander couldn't even make a semi.

 

[Vincent-C]

> Wilander couldn't even make a semi.

Which strikes me as a kind of "true level" statement, though that might be unfair. Nah..

 

[Gizo]

Wilander himself said that he really struggled with the transition from clay to grass and quick turnaround from RG to Wimbledon. He also said that he never felt his serve was good enough. His volleys were very good, but weren’t going to cut it when facing more natural volleyers and behind a relatively weak serve.

Regarding the 1983 AO, while I’m not denying that it was an impressive title win for Wilander, I also never considered that to be a ‘fully fledged’ major, or the final to be on a par in status or importance with those at Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows and RG. Lendl said that his goal was to win the Grand Prix, not win his first major, which was telling. Wilander and him both showed up in 1983 due to the chance to win the Grand Prix and resulting 600k bonus, but also in Wilander’s case because Sweden’s Davis Cup final against Australia later that month was in the same Kooyong venue. His Swedish team-mates also entered and spent 6 weeks in Australia, And Wilander made it clear that the Davis Cup final was a far bigger deal than the Australian Open, and that the pain of losing the Davis Cup final completely overshadowed his joy at winning the AO title.

Then the next year in 1984, the organisers begged and pleaded with Connors to play there, after Mac withdrew. I believe Mac when he says that he was offered appearance money to show up in Kooyong including in 1983 - it was known that Goolagong received a guarantee to play there in 1980, much to the annoyance of people like Wendy Turnbull.

Interestingly Wilander, who underrates himself and his own talent more than anyone, was very proud of his doubles title win at Wimbledon in 1986, while not showing much pride in his incredible RG title run in 1982 (in his own words he thought he played ‘boring tennis’).

 

[Waves]

Not the best server or S&V’er, and had some really good grass competition through that era. I think WB is generally acknowledged as being quite fast during those years too.

And thank the tennis gods that he didn’t win it, like watching paint dry.

 

[Vincent-C]

Not the best server or S&V’er, and had some really good grass competition through that era. I think WB is generally acknowledged as being quite fast during those years too.

And thank the tennis gods that he didn’t win it, like watching paint dry.

Mats and Djok are my provisional watching-paint-dry awardees.. I'd rather watch even Raffi (good OH and volleys) play tennis.

 

[Vincent-C]

Not the best server or S&V’er, and had some really good grass competition through that era. I think WB is generally acknowledged as being quite fast during those years too.

And thank the tennis gods that he didn’t win it, like watching paint dry.

'88 was Wilander's best, solidest year, IIRC. And Miloslav routined him in the QFs 3, 1, and 3 on the biggest stage?
Hoping someone weighs in who saw it live.

 

[Galvermegs]

One thing I remember -maybe accurately- is that Mats's BH slice was not a penetrating shot. His whole game was boring as hell to me actually, though I have respect for the wins that somehow came from it. Call me a Philistine.

Adding: does anyone have memories of the Wilander v. Mecir '88 Wimbledon QF match? I did not see it.

He isnt my favourite to watch but his crazy commentary and punditry is never dull.

I have seen a string of points of that match on youtube.
Mecir had his man....well..on a string.

 

[Mustard]

Mats Wilander had a nemesis at Wimbledon named Pat Cash (who beat Wilander there in 1984, 1986 and 1987), and also ran into his career nemesis Miloslav Mecir at Wimbledon (in 1988).

 

[Mustard]

Adding: does anyone have memories of the Wilander v. Mecir '88 Wimbledon QF match? I did not see it.

Mecir dominated, especially the second half of the match.

 

[Galvermegs]

Mecir dominated, especially the second half of the match.

I do wonder if mats would do better versus mecir in a semi final context. If the slovak could falter versus edberg and wasnt good in major finals to boot... but another quality player, likely edberg would be the price for such a draw...

 

[Mustard]

I do wonder if mats would do better versus mecir in a semi final context. If the slovak could falter versus edberg and wasnt good in major finals to boot... but another quality player, likely edberg would be the price for such a draw...

Mecir did outplay Edberg for most of the semi final too. What did Mecir in against Edberg was poor break point conversion in sets 3 and 4, 0/6 in both sets, compared to Edberg's 1/2 in both sets. When Mecir finally broke Edberg to go 3-1 up in the fifth set, instead of reinforcing Mecir's momentum it seemed to take the wind out of Mecir's sails, while Edberg battled harder, contrary to the perception of Edberg under pressure at that time.

 

[Galvermegs]

Mecir did outplay Edberg for most of the semi final too. What did Mecir in against Edberg was poor break point conversion in sets 3 and 4, 0/6 in both sets, compared to Edberg's 1/2 in both sets. When Mecir finally broke Edberg to go 3-1 up in the fifth set, instead of reinforcing Mecir's momentum it seemed to take the wind out of Mecir's sails, while Edberg battled harder, contrary to the perception of Edberg under pressure at that time.

Yes. somehow i just feel mats would have a better showing having progressed in the draw more and wanting to make a 3rd leg of the calendar slam. whether that got him the no1 position already i am not clear (lendl finished at semi stage)

Edberg deserved his win. He then actually played to his proper potential in the final. The difference between him and a very good player like mecir.

 

[medieval_remnant]

In 1983 players were being paid appearance fees to play the Australian Open, that's why it had a better field (Mac talks about it in in his book), but it still wasn't a real major. Mac played one the worst matches of his career vs Wilander in the semis, serving less than 40% for the match. And Lendl played that final like an exo, it was almost a Kyrgios tank like effort. He even joked with Wilander during the match, does that sound like typical Lendl? It felt like no other major final I've seen. Felt nothing like the other 3 major finals Lendl lost from '81 to '83 in terms of stakes. He said in the awards ceremony that he might be back next year if he could fit it in his schedule and no one booed(guess even fans in Australia knew it wasn't really an imortant tournament for the players). Watch the actual matches instead of looking at Wikipedia and going "great field, this must mean it was a legit major" etc)

Oh and re the grass - look at Becker at Kooyong and Wimbledon. I also have Tennis magazines from then, they had surface rankings. I don't believe they even ranked Wilander as one of the top 5 grass players for '83 or '84, such was the impression by the media of the Australian Open's "grass."Becker could've been triple bageled at Kooyong and still be unanimously voted the best grasscourt player in the world in 1985.

I guess you had to be there, as a diehard fan back then it's weird to hear modern takes on past eras sometimes. Also no one in the 80s called the USO very fast (try watching the matches, all the commentators consistently called it a medium paced surface - making some correlation to Wimbledon's court speed back then is a bit silly - Wilander and Lendl still had insanely long rallies at 88 USO, that was simply impossible to do at Wimbledon in '88)

Wilander S&Ved a lot on first serve at Wimbledon, but stayed back on 2nd serve. That sort of strategy didn't work at Wimbledon (yeah Borg did it, but 80s grass tennis was a bit different than 70s grass tennis due to equipment. And Borg got a lot more free points off serve) Wilander's 2nd serve was a meatball, Mecir just teed off on it in 88(and Mecir S&Ved on both 1st and 2nd serve, he knew how to adjust his game to Wimbledon - we all know how weak his serve was). And Bobo/Cash basically chipped and charged on every Wilander 2nd serve, so Mats was under a lot of pressure throughout.

McEnroe complained about the upward slope of the court towards the net at the Australian

 

[mental midget]

Not the best server or S&V’er, and had some really good grass competition through that era. I think WB is generally acknowledged as being quite fast during those years too.

And thank the tennis gods that he didn’t win it, like watching paint dry.

yeah, don't think i've seen this question before. he was a great player, but honestly i think there was just always somebody better on the surface...simple as that.

 

[Galvermegs]

I guess his doubles game would he more exciting by nature too.

 

[Quaichang]

Looking at Wilander's career:

He won the Australian Open on grass in 1983/1984 before making the final in 1985 and losing to Edberg. He had some big wins in those years, including beating McEnroe in 1983. Yes, the grass in Kooyong played differently than the grass in London, but it was still serve-and-volleyer Edberg who won the next two titles after Wilander. Then, when the Australian Open switched to Rebound Ace in 1988, Wilander immediately took the title.

We don't need any explanation of Wilander's prowess on clay, but, of course, he won three French Opens and made two other finals.

At the U.S. Open, Wilander took the title in 1988 by actually coming to the net quite a lot against Lendl. He also made another final that he lost to Lendl and a SF, where he lost a five setter to McEnroe. The U.S. Open played very fast at the time, as did Cincinnati, where Wilander won four titles and made another final.

At WTF, Wilander played solidly on carpet, making three SFs and a final in 1987, beating Cash, Mečíř, and Edberg before losing to Lendl. He also won back-to-back Brussels titles on carpet, beating McEnroe in the second final.

That then takes us to Wimbledon, where Wilander managed a measly three QFs, only winning one set across those three matches (in a four set loss to McEnroe in 1989). It's a struggle to find even one good win for Wilander at Wimbledon, with the best I can find being a win over Živojinović in Wilander's career-year on 1988. And most of Wilander's losses were one-sided, with none of them being especially close.

So, what gives? Wilander was amazing on clay, great on fast hard courts and the Kooyong grass courts, and solid enough against the best in the world on carpet. And we know from a number of matches, especially the 1988 U.S. Open final, that he could hold his own at net (in fact, he won Wimbledon doubles in 1986 w/Nyström).

All of this leads me to the question in the title: Why was Wilander so bad at Wimbledon? How could his best win in 11 years of playing the tournament be against world #23 Zivojinovic in his career-year, without him coming close to even one other decent match win?

His serve was not big enough weapon.

 

[Mustard]

His serve was not big enough weapon.

That usually hurt him in the matchup against Mecir. If Wilander didn't start well and have his serve going, Mecir would carve him up.

 

[jrepac]

Not totally fair as the fields Wilander won at in Australia were FAR above the years Vilas won. 83 is another planet. Even he beat Kevin Curren and a young Edberg, a whole other league from anything in the years Vilas won.

That is the other valid point though, I mostly agree on. The Australian grass was also considerably different than the Wimbledon grass. It was still true grass, but it also was much closer to playing like a hard court in some ways than slick Wimbledon grass ever was. Hence why players like Wilander and Vilas and probably Austin (had she bothered to play in 79 and 80 when at her injury ended peak) would play much better there then at Wimbledon. Hence why Navratilova was not that dominant in Australia on grass, but was more than anyone in history on Wimbledon grass. Hence why Evert was more formidable (the only reason she has only 2 titles is both Martina and skipping almost the entire 70s, and often skipping after 85) there than Wimbledon grass, and much more of of a threat to Navratilova here than Wimbledon too. Even if Vilas still would never win an Australian if it were a real slam, the overall point still stands.

Although both W and AO are on grass, I think the consensus is that AO was much firmer, had a higher truer bounce than W, where the ball stayed much lower. Makes a lot of sense when you think about the weather conditions at each one. So at AO, baseliners like Mats, Vilas and Evert had a better shot at taking down the S&V greats. The results seem to support that. But, let's not beat up on Mats too much...he's one of the few greats w/GS events on all 3 surfaces. That's a pretty short list.

 

[jrepac]

That usually hurt him in the matchup against Mecir. If Wilander didn't start well and have his serve going, Mecir would carve him up.

Mecir was his kryptonite.

 

[jrepac]

In 1983 players were being paid appearance fees to play the Australian Open, that's why it had a better field (Mac talks about it in in his book), but it still wasn't a real major. Mac played one the worst matches of his career vs Wilander in the semis, serving less than 40% for the match. And Lendl played that final like an exo, it was almost a Kyrgios tank like effort. He even joked with Wilander during the match, does that sound like typical Lendl? It felt like no other major final I've seen. Felt nothing like the other 3 major finals Lendl lost from '81 to '83 in terms of stakes. He said in the awards ceremony that he might be back next year if he could fit it in his schedule and no one booed(guess even fans in Australia knew it wasn't really an imortant tournament for the players). Watch the actual matches instead of looking at Wikipedia and going "great field, this must mean it was a legit major" etc)

Oh and re the grass - look at Becker at Kooyong and Wimbledon. I also have Tennis magazines from then, they had surface rankings. I don't believe they even ranked Wilander as one of the top 5 grass players for '83 or '84, such was the impression by the media of the Australian Open's "grass."Becker could've been triple bageled at Kooyong and still be unanimously voted the best grasscourt player in the world in 1985.

I guess you had to be there, as a diehard fan back then it's weird to hear modern takes on past eras sometimes. Also no one in the 80s called the USO very fast (try watching the matches, all the commentators consistently called it a medium paced surface - making some correlation to Wimbledon's court speed back then is a bit silly - Wilander and Lendl still had insanely long rallies at 88 USO, that was simply impossible to do at Wimbledon in '88)

Wilander S&Ved a lot on first serve at Wimbledon, but stayed back on 2nd serve. That sort of strategy didn't work at Wimbledon (yeah Borg did it, but 80s grass tennis was a bit different than 70s grass tennis due to equipment. And Borg got a lot more free points off serve) Wilander's 2nd serve was a meatball, Mecir just teed off on it in 88(and Mecir S&Ved on both 1st and 2nd serve, he knew how to adjust his game to Wimbledon - we all know how weak his serve was). And Bobo/Cash basically chipped and charged on every Wilander 2nd serve, so Mats was under a lot of pressure throughout.

All good points. Via today's view, the USO Decoturf seems super fast...back then, not so much, and certainly not relative to W. I can't recall if in '83, it was public knowledge that appearance fees were being paid at the AO? I don't think so, but could be mistaken. I think it's fair to say '83 was the first time in awhile that they had a solid men's field. I also remember them courting Connors, but he ultimately declined. Mats was never in the conversation as a great grass court player...you pretty much had Borg, Mac and Connors in that dialogue at the time, pre-Becker. But, his 1983 was quite exceptional...we all talk about '88, but he was in the conversation for player of the year...'83 was unusual w/4 different GS winners. I think if he had beaten Noah at the FO, he would have been the obvious choice.