From 1983-1988, Wilander made 5 Cincinnati finals, winning 4 of them. Some of the players he beat included Lendl, McEnroe, Connors x 2, Edberg x 3, and Jarryd. The one final he lost during this period was to Becker in 1985, soon after he had won Wimbledon. Even during his slump year in 1989, Wilander breezed through 4 straight set matches before losing to Edberg in the SF, 7-6, 7-6.
So Wilander won 4 Cincinnati titles, and only one other player in the Open Era -- Federer -- won more than 3.
So, my question is "why"?
By far Mats's best surface was clay, where he won 20 titles. OTOH, he only won 9 hard court titles, meaning that nearly half 4/9 of his hard court titles came at Cincinnati. Of course, other than being known here as "The Real Slam," Cincinnati is known for being a very fast hard court, not necessarily the best surface for Wilander, although of course he was fairly good across surfaces.
So, does anyone have anyone have any thought on what made Mats so good at Cincinnati?
So Wilander won 4 Cincinnati titles, and only one other player in the Open Era -- Federer -- won more than 3.
So, my question is "why"?
By far Mats's best surface was clay, where he won 20 titles. OTOH, he only won 9 hard court titles, meaning that nearly half 4/9 of his hard court titles came at Cincinnati. Of course, other than being known here as "The Real Slam," Cincinnati is known for being a very fast hard court, not necessarily the best surface for Wilander, although of course he was fairly good across surfaces.
So, does anyone have anyone have any thought on what made Mats so good at Cincinnati?