Wilander - "Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer and could be the second most important player in history"

abmk said:
Whether federer is the most important player in history or not , he increased global popularity significantly unless you are living under a rock or just as delusional as Trollander.
US ratings only are proof of global impact? In which world? Contrary to your opinion, US is not the only part of viewership of world.
Click to expand...
Tennis is a more global sport today than it was in 1981 but there are also 3.5 billion more people in the world today than 1981. There's a lot more to choose from but Borg/McEnroe made it mainstream and got massive ratings, more than Federer did. I'm not saying Federer didn't have an impact but it was a collective effort that including him, the Williams sisters, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Not to mention the impact players like Li Na had in China, or Barty in Australia, etc. But saying Federer made it more global all on his own? That's a stretch.

And I wasn't just talking about the US but also the UK, Wimbledon's biggest audience. Alcaraz's win was higher rated on the BBC than any match Federer had against Djokovic at Wimbledon. That's without even including BBC streaming where they got another 4 million.
 
NoleFam said:
Tennis is a more global sport today than it was in 1981 but there are also 3.5 billion more people in the world today than 1981. There's a lot more to choose from but Borg/McEnroe made it mainstream and got massive ratings, more than Federer did. I'm not saying Federer didn't have an impact but it was a collective effort that including him, the Williams sisters, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Not to mention the impact players like Li Na had in China, or Barty in Australia, etc. But saying Federer made it more global all on his own? That's a stretch.

And I wasn't just talking about the US but also the UK, Wimbledon's biggest audience. Alcaraz's win was higher rated on the BBC than any match Federer had against Djokovic at Wimbledon. That's without even including BBC streaming where they got another 4 million.
Click to expand...

Federer is the biggest tennis star of this century and helped increase its popularity significantly globally.

That others also contributed to varying degrees (Nadal the 2nd most after Federer) doesn't change the above. never said federer was the only one.

As far as Wimbledon and UK is concerned, you do realise Wim 19 final also had 2 other big events at the same time? The cricket world cup final in England (with England in the final vs New Zealand) and some big F-1 event. else it'd be over Wim 23 final for sure. doesn't mean popularity of fed-djoko is lesser than djoko-alcaraz.
 
Last edited:
"Again, I normally call him [Federer] the greatest player of all time, and that has nothing to do with the statistics or the results. It has to do with what he meant for the sport, the expectations that people had."

Amen. The pundits get it.
 
messiahrobins said:
Borg was more important to the sport than Federer. Borg literally dragged tennis from croquet standard elitism to the mainstream and made it a billion dollar industry.
That being said with Nadal having not basically played since RG 2022 and Federer retired since the fall of 2022 and Djokovic now looking a spent force, as recency bias fades there does seem to be a pendulum swing back to Federer being GOAT. He has been retired 18 months yet still gets mentioned all the time as a benchmark.
Click to expand...
It's inescapable. I said long back that the slam race is not the GOAT race and I stand by it. Federer will still be considered GOAT by a significant chunk of tennis viewers just due to the titanic impact he had on tennis and for having carried the sport and having been the face of the sport for a long, long time. Tennis hasn't seen a classier, more impactful ambassador and these things matter, whether you like it or not. All this in addition to the arguably the greatest, most dominant peak ever witnessed in the open era and the unmatched aesthetics and raw talent. There you have it. The whole package. The GOAT.
 
Last edited:
Krish0608 said:
It's inescapable. I said long back that the slam race is not the GOAT race and I stand by it. Federer will still be considered GOAT by a significant chunk of tennis viewers just due to the titanic impact he had on tennis and for having carried the sport and having been the face of the sport for a long, long time. Tennis hasn't seen a classier, more impactful ambassador and these things matter, whether you like it or not. All this in addition to the arguably the greatest, most dominant peak ever witnessed in the open era and the unmatched aesthetics and raw talent. There you have it. The whole package. The GOAT.
Click to expand...
I think Nadal has basically subtly said that recently.
Soccer arguably is the best example of this. If it was about just numbers, Maradona wouldnt be in the conversation, yet many soccer fans call him GOAT who are old enough to have seen him live.
Barcelona is seen by many fans as big a club as Real Madrid despite nowhere near the number of European Cups, Manchester United is seen as bigger than Liverpool despite less European Cups. Barcelona and Manchester United are associated with very attacking football.
Alcaraz v Sinner is perhaps even better an example. Obviously their careers are just starting and there is only one slam between them, but Alcaraz is a household name everywhere, Sinner blatantly isn't.
Rafa was very smart about this as he realised years ago how it works. It is why he didnt make a big deal about 20, 21 and 22 when he won them.
Wilander often talks nonsense but on this occasion he does actually make an interesting point
 
I just imagine the guy in Face Off any time Mats comes out with another pearl of wisdom.

No more drugs for that man.
man.jpg
 
abmk said:
Whether federer is the most important player in history or not , he increased global popularity significantly unless you are living under a rock or just as delusional as Trollander.
US ratings only are proof of global impact? In which world? Contrary to your opinion, US is not the only part of viewership of world.
Click to expand...
It is sometimes actually funny how many posters are citing US ratings here and think this would represent the whole world. Lost count on how many times someone has mentioned Serena's USO ratings in the US here to 'prove' that she is bigger than big three. On topic, Fed and Borg were imho the biggest stars popularity wise in tennis history.
 
messiahrobins said:
I think Nadal has basically subtly said that recently.
Soccer arguably is the best example of this. If it was about just numbers, Maradona wouldnt be in the conversation, yet many soccer fans call him GOAT who are old enough to have seen him live.
Barcelona is seen by many fans as big a club as Real Madrid despite nowhere near the number of European Cups, Manchester United is seen as bigger than Liverpool despite less European Cups. Barcelona and Manchester United are associated with very attacking football.
Alcaraz v Sinner is perhaps even better an example. Obviously their careers are just starting and there is only one slam between them, but Alcaraz is a household name everywhere, Sinner blatantly isn't.
Rafa was very smart about this as he realised years ago how it works. It is why he didnt make a big deal about 20, 21 and 22 when he won them.
Wilander often talks nonsense but on this occasion he does actually make an interesting point
Click to expand...
Comparing numbers in football is pointless due to the different positions. Goals or assists in football is not comparable at all to number of slam wins and neither are trophies since it is a team sport. If we blindly compared goals and assists, Zidane would not be top 100 all times and Iniesta one would need to ask why he was even allowed on the pitch and not sitting on the bench.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Comparing numbers in football is pointless due to the different positions. Goals or assists in football is not comparable at all to number of slam wins and neither are trophies since it is a team sport. If we blindly compared goals and assists, Zidane would not be top 100 all times and Iniesta one would need to ask why he was even allowed on the pitch and not sitting on the bench.
Click to expand...
You can compare players in the same position
 
Anecdotally i have encountered many casual tennis fans and club players who talked about the sport or tuned in to matches while Federer was active, but now either don’t follow the sport at all or seem to know anybody aside from Djokovic, Nadal and maybe Alcaraz. These are the types of fans that probably aren’t aware Andy Murray is still an active pro. So not hardcore fanboys or anything even close to that.

One such group who live together in Aus, tuned in for Sinner Medvedev recently at the AO and said they all went to bed long before the match ended as it was simply not very interesting and they had no idea who Sinner was, so a low care factor all round.

So I do think Federer captivated the general public in a way that was historically significant for the sport.

It will be good if Alcaraz and some of the other young guys can become a key part of the broader sporting zeitgeist in a similar way, as it can only be a good thing for keeping tennis vibrant and relevant.
 
Tennis is about more than numbers. It is possible to have two thoughts in the head at the same time, but not on TT.
 
Federer is the most important tennis player of all time and only Borg can be in the same conversation. His influence played a pivotal role in popularizing tennis on a global scale. His skill, and creativity, which inspired many fans and players around the world. There will never be another Roger Federer, sorry Wilander
 
Last edited:
Growing up, Borg was a household name in my neighborhood. Everybody knew who he was, despite not being from my country. For popularity, at least from what I've seen(not based on actual stats), it's:

1. Borg
2. Federer

Borg had rock-star popularity. I remember this quite well. I cannot think of another player that are in these two's universe.
 
NoleFam said:
Wilander - "Carlos Alcaraz is similar to Roger Federer and could be the second most important player in history"
Click to expand...

NoleFam said:
Tennis is a more global sport today than it was in 1981 but there are also 3.5 billion more people in the world today than 1981. There's a lot more to choose from but Borg/McEnroe made it mainstream and got massive ratings, more than Federer did. I'm not saying Federer didn't have an impact but it was a collective effort that including him, the Williams sisters, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Not to mention the impact players like Li Na had in China, or Barty in Australia, etc. But saying Federer made it more global all on his own? That's a stretch.
Click to expand...
The truth in bold. Wilander's statement about Federer is absurd in the extreme. He did not transform or advance the sport in any way that would merit lone recognition, and he's talking out of his rear to think he's "helping" tennis by making the same, idiotic claim about Alacraz--of all players. Wilander is smoking the same crack some were in the late 80s when they predicted Agassi was going to be some GOAT player (yes, some said that), yet the player never--not once--ever displayed the ability to deserve the claim.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
The truth in bold. Wilander's statement about Federer is absurd in the extreme. He did not transform or advance the sport in any way that would merit lone recognition, and he's talking out of his rear to think he's "helping" tennis by making the same, idiotic claim about Alacraz--of all players. Wilander is smoking the same crack some were in the late 80s when they predicted Agassi was going to be some GOAT player (yes, some said that), yet the player never--not once--ever displayed the ability to deserve the claim.
Click to expand...
To me, they always do this with the players that are well liked or popular. Federer is a great player, no doubt, and I will never try to take away from his brilliance and genius as a player, but they hyped him to the gods and back. Now they're already trying to do it with Alcaraz and he's only won 2 Slams. It was a group of players that moved the game forward, not just Federer like Wilander and others say. I don't remember it with Agassi but I didn't watch tennis day in and day out back then, but I do remember they hyped him and painted Sampras as boring.
 
Razer said:
Actually Federer is number 1 as far as the most important player in history goes ..... Tennis's popularity today globally is largely because of the rise of Federer ....

What Wilander is saying is that if Alcaraz dominates like that with style and charisma then he can again take Tennis out of the Doldrums that 1990s gens have pushed it into... the game needs young stars and it's been a while since anyone showed up and became the people's fav.

Novak's case let accept it, not many people care for him outside Serbia..... Nadal is great but even his stardom does not compare to Federer's.... Nadal is more in the Djokovic ballpark.
Click to expand...
You may have not thought clearly but that last sentence is inaccurate and a thumb in the eye to Spanish and Portuguese speaking fans. Nadal has been a star for quite a long time with latinos in the US, Mexico and South America. The poor and rich people in these countries know about him very well just as they do their football stars. Some know more of Nadal than Federer and this can easily be confirmed.
 
messiahrobins said:
Borg was more important to the sport than Federer. Borg literally dragged tennis from croquet standard elitism to the mainstream and made it a billion dollar industry.
That being said with Nadal having not basically played since RG 2022 and Federer retired since the fall of 2022 and Djokovic now looking a spent force, as recency bias fades there does seem to be a pendulum swing back to Federer being GOAT. He has been retired 18 months yet still gets mentioned all the time as a benchmark.
Click to expand...
Though I was never a fan of either, both Connors and McEnroe were very important in the modern day popularity of tennis, at least in North America as Borg was in Europe. Though most disagree here, Sampras and Agassi also cotributed to the popularity of Tennis in North America and elsewhere. I do think Wilander overstates Federer's importance to the popularity of tennis. Of course, Roger did contribute, but not much more than Rafa or Novak. Had Novak been born in the: US, Spain, the UK or France, he would have been more popular than he is, though he does have many fans wold-wise.
 
Apun94 said:
Even if Borg Mac were more important for tennis's global reach, what Federer did for tennis cannot be denied. You may deny it but Federer really did take tennis's reach to a whole new level. He packed stadiums like no other in the last 35 years. Anyone who say Federer play live knows this. I used to hate Federer back in the mid 2000s, as a big Nadal fan, that everywhere he would go, the stadiums would be full, tv ratings would be sky high and he was all everyone talked about. Everyone was gushing over him. Him, and then his rivalry with Nadal, pulled a lot of tennis fans back in, who had gone away in late 90s and early 2000s. He revived the sport back to its former glory.
I am interested in the numbers of the Borg Mac days. Pls show them
Click to expand...

Yep

Sports Illustrated ran a cover story: "Is Tennis Dying?"

PETE and all the servebots were great players and of course they were all better than Federer, but it wasn't exactly must-see TV when all the points were just a guy blowing a serve past another guy or coming in to net and ending the point within 4 shots
 
Rosstour said:
Yep

Sports Illustrated ran a cover story: "Is Tennis Dying?"

PETE and all the servebots were great players and of course they were all better than Federer, but it wasn't exactly must-see TV when all the points were just a guy blowing a serve past another guy or coming in to net and ending the point within 4 shots
Click to expand...
But in that case the big change was the change in surfaces/balls that allowed more baseline rallying. Which, by the way, I agree with. I also left tennis for a while due to so much servebotting
 
NoleFam said:
To me, they always do this with the players that are well liked or popular. Federer is a great player, no doubt, and I will never try to take away from his brilliance and genius as a player, but they hyped him to the gods and back. Now they're already trying to do it with Alcaraz and he's only won 2 Slams. It was a group of players that moved the game forward, not just Federer like Wilander and others say. I don't remember it with Agassi but I didn't watch tennis day in and day out back then, but I do remember they hyped him and painted Sampras as boring.
Click to expand...
Anyone who says that Pete's game was boring, is either unfamiliar with his game off the Wimbledon grass of his time, or out of prejudice. His game on hard courts and indoor surfaces were very exciting and a joy to watch for anyone who enjoys great, all-court tennis. He and Federer had similar games and were a joy to watch as were Rafa and Novak with their game styles.
 
thrust said:
Anyone who says that Pete's game was boring, is either unfamiliar with his game off the Wimbledon grass of his time, or out of prejudice. His game on hard courts and indoor surfaces were very exciting and a joy to watch for anyone who enjoys great, all-court tennis. He and Federer had similar games and were a joy to watch as were Rafa and Novak with their game styles.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't see him that way back then and did label him as boring. Maybe it was more of his personality than his game but he did dominate Wimbledon in a time where it was mostly serve and volleys, and not many rallies.
 
Rosstour said:
Yep

Sports Illustrated ran a cover story: "Is Tennis Dying?"

PETE and all the servebots were great players and of course they were all better than Federer, but it wasn't exactly must-see TV when all the points were just a guy blowing a serve past another guy or coming in to net and ending the point within 4 shots
Click to expand...
That was true of the fast grass of his day but not on hard or indoor surfaces.
 
NoleFam said:
Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't see him that way back then and did label him as boring. Maybe it was more of his personality than his game but he did dominate Wimbledon in a time where it was mostly serve and volleys, and not many rallies.
Click to expand...
His serve was so effective - and his game appeared so boring to me because of that and other very quick 1-2s - it drove me away from watching tennis for a good while.
 
Rosstour said:
Yep

Sports Illustrated ran a cover story: "Is Tennis Dying?"

PETE and all the servebots were great players and of course they were all better than Federer, but it wasn't exactly must-see TV when all the points were just a guy blowing a serve past another guy or coming in to net and ending the point within 4 shots
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY what happened to me as a fan.

Fed vs the big 4 starting in 2011 got me back watching the game closely again.

And then going back to watch Fedal reruns.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
The truth in bold. Wilander's statement about Federer is absurd in the extreme. He did not transform or advance the sport in any way that would merit lone recognition, and he's talking out of his rear to think he's "helping" tennis by making the same, idiotic claim about Alacraz--of all players. Wilander is smoking the same crack some were in the late 80s when they predicted Agassi was going to be some GOAT player (yes, some said that), yet the player never--not once--ever displayed the ability to deserve the claim.
Click to expand...

All I can say is that Sampras game bored me to death and I stopped watching tennis for a good while due in part to him.

Even when Fed was killing everyone I wasn’t a fan. I didn’t watch much and just heard he was winning everything so I didn’t want to. I didn’t know his game was so cool to see.

It was when he started slipping in 2011 that I came back.

And Carlos game is exactly - to me - what Wilander says - it’s fun in a way that Federer’s was to me.

I may not speak for everyone, but I hear a lot of folks say the same.

And it’s what makes a player popular - not the other way around.

Federer was popular because his game was fun to watch. Same as Carlos.
 
Last edited:
I was such a PETE fan that I stopped watching when he retired. "Who is this Federer clown? Or is it Ferrer? I can never tell all these guys apart anymore"

But the US2005 F brought me back. I didn't hate Agassi so I wanted to see him smash this new clown

Whoops
 
Federev said:
His serve was so effective - and his game appeared so boring to me because of that and other very quick 1-2s - it drove me away from watching tennis for a good while.
Click to expand...
Back then, women's tennis was getting most of the attention. At least from the late 90s to mid 2000s.
 
NoleFam said:
Back then, women's tennis was getting most of the attention. At least from the late 90s to mid 2000s.
Click to expand...

I remember that I think - that the women’s game actually had interesting rallies then men were rarely having.

I did like Andre. I was always rooting for him vs Pete.

His later career run brought me back for a bit.
 
Federev said:
I remember that I think - that the women’s game actually had interesting rallies then men were rarely having.

I did like Andre. I was always rooting for him vs Pete.

His later career run brought me back for a bit.
Click to expand...
The women overshadowed them for years. The Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Clijsters, Henin, Pierce, etc. were ruling the headlines and had all the great rivalries.
 
Robert F said:
At the same time, Federer definitely has had more impact on the sport than Djoker. He helped tennis boom again with the William sisters. No foreign men's tennis player has been as popular in the US since Borg.

Probably, gross numbers wise Fed had more fans than Borg/McEnroe, but the game has grown so much that the pie is bigger than it was in the 70s. And as other's have pointed out Borg/McEnroe were around when tennis was really able to blossum. They really brought it mainstream. I'd say tennis is a little less mainstream than it was in the early 80s. But, back then there was much less recreation to compete with. People would watch the US Open on CBS because there was nothing else to do on a Sunday (also less channels to watch). Now you can watch 15 different sports when the US Open is going on. All sports were not as big as they are today, there are more sports, and generally less interest in sport for other recreational activities--media/internet etc.

So maybe we are in a similar situation. If Alcaraz can keep winning some, his flair and style will make him popular and give him opportunties to influence tennis maybe more than Sinner even if Sinner wins more titles. People like the flair, but it has to be backed up with wins otherwise Santoro and Monfils would be household tennis names and they are not. Alcaraz will be more popular while Sinner might be the better player on court. Still too early to tell
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
I think Goat and most influential could be different things. Novak is Goat for me at this point in time, but I think RF is probably going to be equated to modern tennis for a long time. There’s an element of his tennis style and regal elegance (what I call poetry in motion) that is endearing to the viewers including me but there’s also the media generated Jesus like status, especially the tennis dominant western media and its establishment echo chambers (incidentally this deification is also accorded to MJ as well) that is very unlikely to ever go away and that later aspect is what Novak will remain in the shadow of forever. LBJ said he is forever chasing the ghost of MJ and that’s exactly how it will be for Novak. As a more recent Novak fan (2014/2015), I have no choice but to take the trophies and stats and be content.
 
Jonas78 said:
Why cant Alcaraz be world nr 1 for 400 weeks?
Click to expand...
Because thats not important. 99% of all tennis fans are casuals that dont know what it is. Only stats nerds care about weeks #1 record. But who cares what these nerds have to say? They are just angry bums
 
This is peak Wilander, calls Fed the best (which is surprising so credit to him for that) but still manages to get in a little jab.

But with Djokovic's impending mortality we're seeing a pretty big shift in the narrative and Djokovic's numbers are very quickly being brushed aside even from the likes of Wilander who we all know prefers Djokovic to Federer as a general rule.

Djokovic's numbers basically ceased to matter in a matter of a year despite holding all kinds of insurmountable records. I guess that in and of itself is another insurmountable record! Record-ception.

Ned's 14 will always be the gold standard, Pete's 14 was the gold standard until Fed got there, Fed's slam record was the gold standard until Nadal did (and the consecutive weeks at #1, consecutive semis, 18/19 finals are still the gold standard and likely completely unsurmountable). A mark like 24 majors and 400 whatever weeks at #1 (another surefire sign, everyone tennis fans remembers numbers like 237 and 286 or 301, very few can tell you exactly how many weeks Djokovic has), basically is fading from memory less than a year after it was accomplished.
 
Last edited:
GabeT said:
But in that case the big change was the change in surfaces/balls that allowed more baseline rallying. Which, by the way, I agree with. I also left tennis for a while due to so much servebotting
Click to expand...
Me too. Almost stopped watching those servebot fests. Something like Krajicek-Stich on an indoor carpet. So boring. Sampras-Philipoussis on grass? Forget about it.
 
NoleFam said:
Tennis is a more global sport today than it was in 1981 but there are also 3.5 billion more people in the world today than 1981. There's a lot more to choose from but Borg/McEnroe made it mainstream and got massive ratings, more than Federer did.
Click to expand...

Tennis was actually at its peak popularity in the 70s. In the US tennis hit its peak in the early-to-mid 70s. Borg/McEnroe didn't make tennis mainstream. Quite the opposite, they came in at the tail end of tennis's peak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FernandoBiH
Mats Wilander says Carlos Alcaraz is a stronger player than Jannik Sinner, ‘Sinner is #1 only for the computer’
2 3
Replies
100
Views
7K
KingCarlitos
KingCarlitos
BeatlesFan
Wilander claims Carlos will eclipse the Big Three
2 3
Replies
115
Views
7K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
ffw2
Mats Wilander: "Alcaraz reminds me of Roger Federer."
Replies
36
Views
3K
Pheasant
Pheasant
clayqueen
Rafa Nadal - The most important professional tennis player in history
2 3
Replies
140
Views
8K
messiahrobins
messiahrobins
edberg volleys
Australian Open: Carlos Alcaraz targets career Grand Slam in 2025 after 'year of ups and downs' - 'I want more'
Replies
44
Views
2K
Hitman
Hitman
Back
Top