How in the world did Wilander win two Slams on grass? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How in the world did Wilander win two Slams on grass?

mouse
07-03-2007, 11:39 AM
Warning: Sorry. This is for the over-30's.

Wilander won the Australian Open twice - in '82 and '83. How?

The guy had no serve to speak of and no net game.

Kolya
07-03-2007, 11:41 AM
Simple - because Wilander is fucken good :D

Action Jackson
07-03-2007, 11:43 AM
Warning: Sorry. This is for the over-30's.

Wilander won the Australian Open twice - in '82 and '83. How?

The guy had no serve to speak of and no net game.

Brains and the fact the ball bounced higher at Kooyong cause of the climatic conditions than at Wimbledon.

Kolya, answered the rest.

mouse
07-03-2007, 12:08 PM
Still, one would have expected the conditions to favour natural grasscourt players - even at Koo-fucking-yong. I must admit - never watched any actual footage from the Aussie Open back then.

Anyway - Wilander was one of the game's best overachievers. Can't believe the guy ended up with more slams than Becker, Edberg and Co. No forehand, no backhand, no serve or athleticism to speak of. Must have had an IQ of 150.

Having said that, who can explain Jim Courier's 4 majors - especially in that era?

Action Jackson
07-03-2007, 12:14 PM
Still, one would have expected the conditions to favour natural grasscourt players - even at Koo-fucking-yong. I must admit - never watched any actual footage from the Aussie Open back then.

Anyway - Wilander was one of the game's best overachievers. Can't believe the guy ended up with more slams than Becker, Edberg and Co. No forehand, no backhand, no serve or athleticism to speak of. Must have had an IQ of 150.

Having said that, who can explain Jim Courier's 4 majors - especially in that era?

It makes sense how Wilander did it, but since you didn't watch anything of that time, then I don't expect you to understand it.

So Wilander lacked power, if it was about power then Fernando Gonzalez would have 10 Slams by now, there are different ways of getting the job done?

Courier, fitter and stronger than anyone else at the time, once they caught up he was passed over.

helen phillips
07-03-2007, 12:16 PM
He won it 3 times - twice on grass and once on rebound. A lot of it was timing - who was playing at the time and the scheduling of the event. Wilander had a decent serve and volley (but rarely together) - the guy owns a Doubles Slam or two. In addition to the better bounce the other big advantages were that he had a great return and superior foot speed. Hitting aces does not foretell success on grass - look at the ace leader board at Wimbledon - not many of the big servers are still in. Wilander had an effective 1st serve and he was a master at keeping his first serve % high. Also I think the grass helped make his serve more dangerous - as it does for Ferrero or Hewitt. The other big factor is a lot of players served and volleyed on the grass - Wilander didn't have the most powerful game but his foot speed anticipation and control made him deadly on the passing shot.

mouse
07-03-2007, 12:21 PM
Helen - most useful reply so far. Even though the question was more rhetorical than anything else. Your reply doesn't answer the question, 'why was he basically a tool at Wimbledon then?'. Oh wait - I think that's been answered, the bounce at Kooyong.

Thinking about it, you have a point about how the major players viewed the Aussie back then. Johan freaking Kriek won back-to-back titles there in '81 and '82.

Nuff said.

Action Jackson
07-03-2007, 12:29 PM
Helen - most useful reply so far. Even though the question was more rhetorical than anything else. Your reply doesn't answer the question, 'why was he basically a tool at Wimbledon then?'. Oh wait - I think that's been answered, the bounce at Kooyong.

Thinking about it, you have a point about how the major players viewed the Aussie back then. Johan freaking Kriek won back-to-back titles there in '81 and '82.

Nuff said.

Wilander didn't believe he could win Wimbledon and said that many times. If you know the weather conditions then it's obvious the courts aren't going to play the same when comparing an English summer to an Aussie one, just cause it's the same surface. Wilander liked playing in Australia, but not in England.

More top players played it from 82 onwards.

mouse
07-03-2007, 12:33 PM
Wilander didn't believe he could win Wimbledon and said that many times. If you know the weather conditions then it's obvious the courts aren't going to play the same when comparing an English summer to an Aussie one, just cause it's the same surface. Wilander liked playing in Australia, but not in England.

More top players played it from 82 onwards.
You're making him sound like a superstitious fellow.

'Oh, the wind is blowing south-westerly here, I can't win.':)

Action Jackson
07-03-2007, 12:36 PM
You're making him sound like a superstitious fellow.

'Oh, the wind is blowing south-westerly here, I can't win.':)

He said he couldn't believe he would win Wimbledon when he was playing. That is obvious and not getting past the QFs is clear enough he wasn't comfortable there and he made the final losing to Edberg at Kooyong, point proven.

helen phillips
07-03-2007, 12:37 PM
Helen - most useful reply so far. Even though the question was more rhetorical than anything else. Your reply doesn't answer the question, 'why was he basically a tool at Wimbledon then?'. Oh wait - I think that's been answered, the bounce at Kooyong.

Thinking about it, you have a point about how the major players viewed the Aussie back then. Johan freaking Kriek won back-to-back titles there in '81 and '82.

Nuff said.

Except that he was a great player and you couldn't possibly know that if you didn't see him play. A major factor in his performance a Wimbledon would be its' close proximity to the French - while i applaud those like Borg who can make that quick transition from clay to grass not many players have been able to do it with much consistency.

CmonAussie
07-03-2007, 12:39 PM
Helen - most useful reply so far. Even though the question was more rhetorical than anything else. Your reply doesn't answer the question, 'why was he basically a tool at Wimbledon then?'. Oh wait - I think that's been answered, the bounce at Kooyong.

Thinking about it, you have a point about how the major players viewed the Aussie back then. Johan freaking Kriek won back-to-back titles there in '81 and '82.

Nuff said.


Johan Kriek wasn`t a bad player at all~~~ check out his CV mate;)

>>>>
BTW, I saw Wilander win AO in 1984, though I was only 6yrs [nearly 7] at the time, my dad was enough of a sports freak to keep me informed:cool:

The really big win for Wilander was surely 1983, when he defeated Kriek, Tanner, McEnroe & Lendl for the loss of just 2-sets:worship:
BTW, Wilander also took out Edberg in the QFs of the 1984 AO;)

***
Anyway to answer your question, Wilander was simply a great player & mentally one of the strongest ever [atleast up to the end of 1988 where he achieved all his goals]:angel:

Also Wilander loved AUS & the Aussies [plus many Swedish backpackers] loved him back:)

CmonAussie
07-03-2007, 12:45 PM
####
...
Wilander simply loved AUS~~~ irrespective of surface Mats always played well in AUS [check his AO record]:


Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 16-Jan-95, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Eltingh, Jacco (NED) 24 3-6 6-7(4) 4-6 Stats



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 17-Jan-94, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Velev, Milen (BUL) 126 6-1 4-6 6-0 6-0 Stats
R64 Delaitre, Olivier (FRA) 102 6-1 2-6 7-5 6-4 Stats
R32 Mronz, Alexander (GER) 143 4-6 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-3 Stats
R16 Washington, MaliVai (USA) 26 7-6(7) 2-6 7-6(3) 4-6 1-6 Stats


Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 14-Jan-91, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Denman, Heath (AUS) 430 7-6(5) 6-3 6-4 Stats
R64 Saceanu, Christian (GER) 151 7-6 6-4 3-6 4-6 6-4 Stats
R32 Gilbert, Brad (USA) 10 7-6(6) 6-1 6-4 Stats
R16 Yzaga, Jaime (PER) 86 5-7 6-2 1-6 6-3 1-6 Stats



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 15-Jan-90, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Fromberg, Richard (AUS) 88 7-6 7-5 7-5
R64 Wostenholme, Martin (CAN) 138 6-2 7-5 6-3
R32 Masur, Wally (AUS) 36 6-4 5-7 6-4 1-6 6-3
R16 Paloheimo, Veli (FIN) 120 7-5 6-4 6-0
Q Becker, Boris (GER) 2 6-4 6-4 6-2
S Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3 1-6 1-6 2-6



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 16-Jan-89, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Svantesson, Tobias (SWE) 100 6-3 2-6 7-5 5-7 6-3
R64 Krishnan, Ramesh (IND) 51 3-6 2-6 6-7



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 11-Jan-88, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Reneberg, Richey (USA) 80 7-6 6-1 6-3
R64 Youl, Simon (AUS) 120 6-4 6-2 6-4
R32 Gustafsson, Magnus (SWE) 54 6-1 6-4 6-1
R16 Saceanu, Christian (GER) 86 6-2 6-4 6-3
Q Jarryd, Anders (SWE) 15 7-6 6-2 6-3
S Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 2 6-0 6-7 6-3 3-6 6-1
W Cash, Pat (AUS) 7 6-3 6-7 3-6 6-1 8-6



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 25-Nov-85, O, Grass , Draw: 96


R64 Muller, Gary (RSA) 199 3-6 6-3 7-6 6-4
R32 Shiras, Leif (USA) 130 6-2 6-3 6-2
R16 Wilkison, Tim (USA) 45 7-6 6-3 6-3
Q Kriek, Johan (USA) 10 6-3 7-5 6-2
S Zivojinovic, Slobodan (YUG) 66 7-5 6-1 6-3
F Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 6 4-6 3-6 3-6



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 26-Nov-84, O, Grass , Draw: 96


R64 Mustard, David (NZL) 173 1-6 6-3 7-5 6-3
R32 Houston, Dale (AUS) 451 6-3 2-6 7-6 6-1
R16 Simonsson, Stefan (SWE) 132 2-6 6-1 5-7 6-2 6-3
Q Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 22 7-5 6-3 1-6 6-4
S Kriek, Johan (USA) 15 6-1 6-0 6-2
W Curren, Kevin (USA) 21 6-7 6-4 7-6 6-2



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 29-Nov-83, O, Grass , Draw: 96


R64 Testerman, Ben (USA) N/A 6-4 4-6 6-7 6-3 6-2
R32 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) N/A 6-4 6-7 6-3 6-1
R16 McNamee, Paul (AUS) N/A 6-4 6-2 7-6
Q Kriek, Johan (USA) N/A 6-3 6-4 7-6
S McEnroe, John (USA) N/A 4-6 6-3 6-4 6-3
W Lendl, Ivan (USA) N/A 6-1 6-4 6-4



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 24-Dec-81, O, Grass , Draw: 64


R64 Kronk, Paul (AUS) N/A 6-3 3-6 4-6 5-7

Kolya
07-03-2007, 01:09 PM
Still, one would have expected the conditions to favour natural grasscourt players - even at Koo-fucking-yong. I must admit - never watched any actual footage from the Aussie Open back then.

Anyway - Wilander was one of the game's best overachievers. Can't believe the guy ended up with more slams than Becker, Edberg and Co. No forehand, no backhand, no serve or athleticism to speak of. Must have had an IQ of 150.

That is so wrong.

Wilander was mentally the strongest player and had immense concentration abilities. He was so consistent and his retrieving abilities wore his opponents down. Obviously he was fit to play in the Australian sun. But IMO Wilander was one of the best tactical players of all time and is probably the best passing shot player ever (better than Borg).