Wilander "You have to say that the era Federer dominated was the worst of all time"

Status
Not open for further replies.
LazyNinja19

LazyNinja19

Banned
Mats Wilander said on insidetennis.com, "You have to say that the era when he (Federer) played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so much… His era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we've had‚ the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger dominated so much."
Click to expand...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dal-goat-talk-unfairly-dismisses-pete-sampras

http://www.insidetennis.com/2011/01/sampras-my-game-hold-generation/

The article talks about the Greatness of Pete Sampras, which people seem to forget, & dismiss him when having GOAT debates!


The article fairly ends with "The G.O.A.T. argument is intriguing conversation for tennis fans, provided it is academic and without name calling. Yet, to claim it has anything to do with reality is pure fantasy."
 
Rafa was number 2 a long time under Rodge's tenure, does it mean Mats categorise Rafa in the same mold?:rolleyes: Or is he just being specailly selective?
 
When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.

Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.
 
Sampras is bitter because he knows the general public believe Roger > Pete. And now Nadal is about to pass him he's not happy either.

Great player can't accept being a lesser player no matter how much others have surpassed him and fans view him below.

Even ESPN which is a notorious biased toward American athlete wouldn't pick Sampras as the greatest.
 
Top Jimmy said:
When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.

Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.
Click to expand...
Oh come on this is cherry picking. Gilles simon first of all was top 10 in 2008 when roger's domination ended.
\
YOU FAIL
 
Wow, so basically Wilander is being disrespectful to Federer AND Hewitt, Roddick, and Nalbandian. Great guy.

Not to mention the argument doesn't hold up. "Federer won almost all the tournaments, so his era was weak!" Really? He was supposed to win almost all the grand slams AND have competitors than won the same tournaments? Nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Top Jimmy said:
When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.

Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.
Click to expand...

These kinds of arguments make no sense. There have always been and will always be players that make it into the top 10 and wont be remembered as incredible champions years later.

Moreover, it's usually done when a player is older, out if his prime, and struggling. People imagine the player being in the top ten at their current level and think that is evidence of a weak era.

In 5-10 years, people will probably not be too impressed by players like Gasquet, Tsonga, and even Ferrer being at the top of the game.
 
Wilander has always been butthurt.

So we are supposed to believe him and rule out agassi completely who said federer is better than Sampras? and say he is butthurt too?

this is called selective picking
 
I agree about Nalby and Hewitt, but Roddick's serve was the fastest in history at that time before the Doctor came along
 
Top Jimmy said:
When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.

Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.
Click to expand...

There are lesser players than Simon in the past generations and was a threat at the slam. Simon only made the top 10 is a testament of a greater depth/strong field.

There's no way of knowing what Roddick would have done in the past generation. He could have won multiple slams without Federer in his way.
 
Vcore89 said:
Rafa was number 2 a long time under Rodge's tenure, does it mean Mats categorise Rafa in the same mold?:rolleyes: Or is he just being specailly selective?
Click to expand...

Lol yea, baby Rafa was number 2 in those years. So all those other players weren't even as good as pre-prime Rafa.
 
Morj said:
Lol yea, baby Rafa was number 2 in those years. So all those other players weren't even as good as pre-prime Rafa.
Click to expand...
So bash Rafa just to make Fed look bad. Pathetic.

Instead of admiring rafa's effort as a teenage prodigy obviously something has to be wrong.

Open your eyes. Rafa is now a GOAT candidate. Based on this i am not surprised on bit why he was no.2 back then
 
mike danny said:
Wilander has always been butthurt.

So we are supposed to believe him and rule out agassi completely who said federer is better than Sampras? and say he is butthurt too?

this is called selective picking
Click to expand...

Yes he's butthurt. I don't think he likes the idea of Nole 2011 was better than his 1988 year.

Lendl's opinion is more sincere. He's big enough to accept tennis progress overtime, and have said Federer and Nadal are way better than him and his peers.
 
Grand Slam is hard enough and he thought his 3 out of four is pretty hard to accomplish until Rodge did it thrice and then there's Rafa and Nole.
 
Last edited:
A bit disrespectful, especially coming from someone who was found taking illegal supplements. Would love to see Wilander face Roddick of Wimbledon 2004, would love to see Wilander get killed by Safin at AO 2005, would love to see Wilander try to beat Nadal at FO 2005.
 
LazyNinja19 said:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dal-goat-talk-unfairly-dismisses-pete-sampras

http://www.insidetennis.com/2011/01/sampras-my-game-hold-generation/

The article talks about the Greatness of Pete Sampras, which people seem to forget, & dismiss him when having GOAT debates!


The article fairly ends with "The G.O.A.T. argument is intriguing conversation for tennis fans, provided it is academic and without name calling. Yet, to claim it has anything to do with reality is pure fantasy."
Click to expand...

Wilander is a fraud as a commentator. He described the 6 hour Djokovic - Nadal AO final as exciting.
 
LazyNinja19 said:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dal-goat-talk-unfairly-dismisses-pete-sampras

http://www.insidetennis.com/2011/01/sampras-my-game-hold-generation/

The article talks about the Greatness of Pete Sampras, which people seem to forget, & dismiss him when having GOAT debates!


The article fairly ends with "The G.O.A.T. argument is intriguing conversation for tennis fans, provided it is academic and without name calling. Yet, to claim it has anything to do with reality is pure fantasy."
Click to expand...

One of the best articles I read in a long time .
 
Chanwan said:
Mats Wilander won 7 slams! That's as many as McEnroe and 1 more than Becker, Edberg and Djokovic.
He's truly a guy who maxed out his potential and then some.
But seriously speaking - would Wilander have won any of those had he played against Federer in 04-07 or 04-09? I have a hard time seeing what even a modern trained Wilander would be able to do to Federer.
But if someone can explain it to me, I'm happy to listen
Click to expand...

Let's reverse that and contemplate how much Federer would have beaten Wilander in Wilander's era.
 
crazyups said:
Let's reverse that and contemplate how much Federer would have beaten Wilander in Wilander's era.
Click to expand...

A lot is my best guess. Nowadays, you don't see 17 year olds winning slams. I think Fed does pretty much everything better. And Roger's game is less dependent on certain strings of the modern era and so and so forth than other players. So to me, Roger would be just fine.
Let's not forget than in this easy era, Fed is still the one next to Lendl with most slam finals lost.
 
Another GOAT thread. RUN..

cats-running.gif
 
What is most ironic is the three he named (Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt) would probably crush Wilander in his prime. This guy is a joke. What more do these guys have to prove? They all have wins over the supposed "Gods" from this generation.

Furthermore I see he tried to tip toe around the fact that Agassi was there in the early stages - another guy who smoked Wilander. His only two losses to him were when he was coming up at 16 and 18 - after that, he went on a streak of 5 straight wins. Oh btw he also played until 34+ and won slams in his 30's.
 
Last edited:
Top Jimmy said:
When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.

Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.
Click to expand...

Simon was top 10 in 2008. Fail.
 
Well I clearly understand it now - Wilander has 100+ troll accounts on here. That explains the people who aren't too sharp.
 
He still has a right to his opinion.

At least that's what I've always heard on this board when it applied to other players.
 
Interpretation of the Article:

1) Federer fanatic: Federer is GOAT he has the most slams, H2H is meaningless

2) Nadal fangirl: Nadal is GOAT because he dominates Fed, being injured should not count against you

3) Sampras sockpuppet (i.e author of the OP article): Sampras was completely eclipsed by Federer and soon Nadal therefore there is no GOAT and GOAT is meaningless. LOL, he was guilty of the very thing he criticized.
 
These oldies are just butt hurt because Nadal, Fed and Novak are making their records look silly.

After a few years, if future players get to 30 majors, probably Nadal will be singing the same tune.

God, forgive them for their stupidity.
 
tennisaddict said:
This article is from year 2011. OP resurrected because his life is miserable.
Click to expand...

The first article which talks about Sampras & mentions Wilander's quote, is from October 2013!
I also gave the link to the original article from 2011, from where Wilander's quote has been picked.
 
LazyNinja19 said:
The first article which talks about Sampras & mentions Wilander's quote, is from October 2013!
I also gave the link to the original article from 2011, from where Wilander's quote has been picked.
Click to expand...

The thread and the main reference is to the 2011 article. Dont try to twist the facts now. The 2013 article is from a nobody.
 
tennisaddict said:
The thread and the main reference is to the 2011 article. Dont try to twist the facts now. The 2013 article is from a nobody.
Click to expand...

The title of my thread, yes.
But along with it in my OP, I have mentioned the article content related to Sampras too.
So my idea was to club both together, since both revolve around Goat stuff.
 
What's funny is you know if Wilander had said this about Nadal, the very same rabid Fedites who have their undies in a twist, would give themselves whiplash nodding in agreement.
 
I find it odd how people say numbers aren't the whole story when they evaluate Federer but then do the exact same thing when they diss his competition.
 
Top Jimmy said:
When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.
Click to expand...

Not a good example in my opinion. Simon was a very good player and still is capable of getting back in the top 10 if he steps up his game a bit.

Top Jimmy said:
Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think Roddick would have been more successful in most other eras. He was still able to be successful against top players long after his prime.
 
TMF said:
Sampras is bitter because he knows the general public believe Roger > Pete. And now Nadal is about to pass him he's not happy either.
Click to expand...

I don't interpret his comments in the article that way. I see it that Sampras is very confident in his abilities, but not bitter at all. From everything I have seen, Sampras has great respect for Federer and all that he has done.
 
crazyups said:
Let's reverse that and contemplate how much Federer would have beaten Wilander in Wilander's era.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't underestimate Wilander. He's one of the most intelligent players that there's ever been on a tennis court, and had a knack of playing the percentages and exploiting his opponent's weaknesses with a lot of accuracy when he was motivated and focused.
 
Mustard said:
I wouldn't underestimate Wilander. He's one of the most intelligent players that there's ever been on a tennis court, and had a knack of playing the percentages and exploiting his opponent's weaknesses with a lot of accuracy when he was motivated and focused.
Click to expand...

He was also completely impotent at Wimbledon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hoodjem
Present=Weak Era Voiced by Wilander, Sampras
2 3 4
Replies
182
Views
19K
CyBorg
CyBorg
A
Mats Trollander at it again: "Federer played in the worst era of all time"
2 3
Replies
135
Views
16K
Wilander Fan
W
Smecz
If the Federer era was weak, what was missing to make it strong?!..
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
mike danny
mike danny
R
Roger Federer and Pete Sampras: Not Greatest of All Time Article
Replies
31
Views
3K
IvanAndreevich
IvanAndreevich
T
The Ten True Changes Of The Guard In Tennis!
Replies
24
Views
1K
Tennis Devolution
T
Back
Top