Wilander is a mystery to me, sometimes I think he achieved alot mostly because he was a bad matchup for Lendl and Connors/Mcenroe/Edberg/Becker all sucked on red clay and the Australian open was valued so little in the 80s. He was taken to 5 sets by 18 year old Agassi on red clay in his best year 1988 and after that year he did absolutely nothing for the rest of his career, he was 24 1988.....
I am sorry to offend Wilander fans, I really cant think of any greater overachiever than Wilander. I dont think Wilander would even win slams had he been born 10 years later or earlier.
If you don't go on with bandwagoning , then you wouldn't make silly comments like the above. He peaked for the Slams, rest of the tour was boring for him. Lendl had a 15-7 H2H in favour, they were evenly matched in Slams so he wasn't a bad match up.
It was cause of the 80s the Aus Open got on track because Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander played it, then the other top ones played it. Since he peaked for Slams, the others during his era Lendl, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg were better day in day out.
He got taken to 5 sets by Slobodan Zivojinovic as well in 88. He won matches through his mental strength, tactical adaptability and not talent. Once he reached the top in 88, he didn't have the Lendl relentlessness to stay here. It's really not hard to fathom, the information is clearly out there.
The game isn't even close to the same then as it now, so stop using this current timeframe to compare with the game in the 80s when it was clearly different.