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

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.
I don't know about and would have to disagree based on data from that era, even though that was before my time.

U.S. OPEN MEN’S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED:
1. 1980, John McEnroe d. Bjorn Borg, 11.0
2. 1982, Jimmy Connors d. Ivan Lendl, 9.9
3. 1983, Jimmy Connors d. Ivan Lendl, 9.5
 
Yes, tennis has been replaced by golf. Every weekend, there's at least one golf tournament on free TV, in USA. Now only RG is shown on free TV, a few hours on the last Friday and weekend.
 
I don't know about and would have to disagree based on data from that era, even though that was before my time.

U.S. OPEN MEN’S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED:


This data doesn't disprove my point. The tennis boom was in the 1970s and the decline began in the early 80s.

In the mid 70s about 35 million Americans played tennis. It's about half that number now.
 
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.


Borg and McEnroe did build on / push tennis into the kind of stratosphere of popularity associated with that "Tennis Boom" period of history. Aside from their deluge of media coverage of the era, they were seen in the company of some of history's more notable personalities, such as Muhammad Ali, Elton John, et al.:

kv9IW2P.jpg


ifURvk2.jpg


While tennis was no stranger to seeing famous people watching from the stands, for the above players to be in the company of the biggest sports star of the 20th century (arguably) and a huge, international music star right at the point when tennis was in the process of divorcing itself from the lifeless country club image/culture, was significant, and certainly evidence of just how big the two players were on stages other than the court.
 
Federer who? He’s on his way to fourth or fifth at best. Don’t get me wrong as we all know he has beautiful tennis, but he doesn’t have the numbers and we all know he vultured all those slams before Novak and Nadal exposed him as they peaked.
 
Federer who? He’s on his way to fourth or fifth at best. Don’t get me wrong as we all know he has beautiful tennis, but he doesn’t have the numbers and we all know he vultured all those slams before Novak and Nadal exposed him as they peaked.
Yes, but nobody cares about Djokovic anyway. Borg is still an icon because he had x-factor. Roger has always had it. Djokovic just doesn't. When Djokovic retires he'll be a celebrity in Serbia and not much anywhere else.
 
Yes, but nobody cares about Djokovic anyway. Borg is still an icon because he had x-factor. Roger has always had it. Djokovic just doesn't. When Djokovic retires he'll be a celebrity in Serbia and not much anywhere else.
Again, Federer is talented and we love him for that, but when it comes to records/history he’s a non-point just like Borg, Rios, Safin, etc

In competition we fight for records and our targets are those that own those records.
 
Again, Federer is talented and we love him for that, but when it comes to records/history he’s a non-point just like Borg, Rios, Safin, etc

In competition we fight for records and our targets are those that own those records.
But that’s not the point of this thread!
 
Back
Top