Wilander doesn't want another Federer in tennis

O

OhYes

Guest
"Federer can’t play for too many more years. Nadal and Novak, they have a few more years. But who is going to replace them? It is not going to be a new Federer. Is it rivalries? We don’t need a superstar, we need good rivalries. We don’t need a dominant player like Federer,' said Wilander.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
"Federer can’t play for too many more years. Nadal and Novak, they have a few more years. But who is going to replace them? It is not going to be a new Federer. Is it rivalries? We don’t need a superstar, we need good rivalries. We don’t need a dominant player like Federer,' said Wilander.
There have always been superstars which creates great rivalries. Schlubs do not and will not fill seats.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
Except Federer hasn't been dominant-most of his career has been sharing the limelight with Nadal & Djokovic & this decade mostly taking a backseat to them.
He was dominant long enough - 5 years and among those 3 years with 3 Slams. Considering his mileage, it would be crazy to think he was dominant through his whole career.
What Wilander is implying is that domination of just 1 player is bad for tennis.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
"Federer can’t play for too many more years. Nadal and Novak, they have a few more years. But who is going to replace them? It is not going to be a new Federer. Is it rivalries? We don’t need a superstar, we need good rivalries. We don’t need a dominant player like Federer,' said Wilander.
it has been a matrix of rivalries between the big four for years. They have been playing nothing but big matches against each other.
 
He was dominant long enough - 5 years and among those 3 years with 3 Slams. Considering his mileage, it would be crazy to think he was dominant through his whole career.
What Wilander is implying is that domination of just 1 player is bad for tennis.
He was never dominant at RG. Vamos!
 

oldmanfan

Legend
Why not? It has always been interesting when somebody is the dominant force in a sport for a long time-Hulk Hogan in WWF from 1984-1990. Steve Davis in Snooker in the 1980's, Stephen Hendry in the 1990's etc.
Agreed. A dominant player gives opportunities for interesting stories to emerge. Will he continue? For how long? Will there be a savior of tennis and humanity? When? Fedr?

If no dominant player, randomness and confusions ensue.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
Why not? It has always been interesting when somebody is the dominant force in a sport for a long time-Hulk Hogan in WWF from 1984-1990. Steve Davis in Snooker in the 1980's, Stephen Hendry in the 1990's etc.
:confused: No, it's rather boring.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Almost no one is trained to play tennis like Federer anymore, so 'another Federer' is not really possible.
Tennis is quickly becoming pretty one-dimensional unfortunately. Grinders and servebots.

Kind of like politics. Nuance and common sense is going out the window as everyone sprints to the extremes.

It's easy to be concerned for the future of both.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Agreed. A dominant player gives opportunities for interesting stories to emerge. Will he continue? For how long? Will there be a savior of tennis and humanity? When? Fedr?

If no dominant player, randomness and confusions ensue.
Borg was pretty dominant for several years, was very popular and good for tennis!

Then along came McEnroe and one of the best (albeit brief) rivalries of all time!
 

Jontyg

Rookie
Tennis is quickly becoming pretty one-dimensional unfortunately. Grinders and servebots.

Kind of like politics. Nuance and common sense is going out the window as everyone sprints to the extremes.

It's easy to be concerned for the future of both.
I think its because of slowing down the freaking courts..the 90's in that regard were so good..you got the Musters and the Brugera in the clay...Sampras and the big servers in Grass..with their S&V and the baselines like Courier and Agassi in the HC's...now all you got are grinders who just hit the crap out of the ball...its just survival of the fittest..
 

hipolymer

Hall of Fame
I think what Wilander meant is that we don't need another player to dominate a weak field of tennis like Fed did during 2004-2009
 

Benben245

Banned
If Djokovic dominates the next couple years, people will love it. The will it takes for a man day in and day out to dominate, fans love this. They love it because it shows us we can achieve a sliver of this in our own lives with hard work and dedication in whatever discipline we choose
 
O

OhYes

Guest
If Djokovic dominates the next couple years, people will love it. The will it takes for a man day in and day out to dominate, fans love this. They love it because it shows us we can achieve a sliver of this in our own lives with hard work and dedication in whatever discipline we choose
Hope you are right.
 
We don’t need a superstar, we need good rivalries. We don’t need a dominant player like Federer,' said Wilander
I just can't imagine how a true fighter like Lendl, Connors, Pete, Roger, Rafa, or Novak would say: I don't want to win all the time, I don't care about being the GOAT, I want to share wins with my rivals.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Wilander is half-right. No one wants a return to the mid 2000s when a single all-time great player was dominant against a relatively weaker field. But the near decade after that when we had three all-time-greats scrapping it out has been legendary. The best period in tennis since 79-81 when Borg-McEnroe-Connors were going toe to toe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
O

OhYes

Guest
I just can't imagine how a true fighter like Lendl, Connors, Pete, Roger, Rafa, or Novak would say: I don't want to win all the time, I don't care about being the GOAT, I want to share wins with my rivals.
Well some of them would be polite and said that without his rivals he wouldn't be there at top, some wouldn't say that.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Yeah we need low quality play all around so we have the illusion of being "competitive". Oh wait, we already have that. And it predictably sucks. If a young Federer comes along and wins like 18 million slams over these mugs, yeah it won't be competitive but I'd much rather watch actual high level of play and dominance over a bunch of geriatrics and mugs battling it out. Could go to the local club to watch that, great competition and drama!
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
Why not? It has always been interesting when somebody is the dominant force in a sport for a long time-Hulk Hogan in WWF from 1984-1990. Steve Davis in Snooker in the 1980's, Stephen Hendry in the 1990's etc.
Agreed but can’t compare fake wrestling to real sport.

As much as I love wrestling. :p
 
Top