Mats Wilander thoughts on the final [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Mats Wilander thoughts on the final

Tom_Bombadil
06-12-2006, 10:21 AM
Here is a video of him talking about the final to some journalists of L'Equipe. I thought it was interesting, and maybe it can bring new points to people who are a little 'wrong'. Just watch it if you want. ;)

The video is in his blog main page, this: www.matswilander.com (http://www.matswilander.com)

By the way, there are funny parts. :D

jmp
06-12-2006, 11:02 AM
Thank you for posting this video. I'm going back to the site later to listen to his other commentary.

Mats is candid, tough, and blunt. As I've written about other knocks on Roger about this match I think that Mats, too, was being too hard on Roger. I agree that Roger should have been to the net waaaay more in this match, though. I was interested in Mats speaking about players from the past and using the word 'choke' so often.

mdhallu
06-12-2006, 11:47 AM
I like how Mats was like "no, no, i'm not going to give my opinion...(1 second later)...oh okay i'll tell you what i think...haha I wonder if he was drunk in this video cause he seemed like it...

dkw
06-12-2006, 12:35 PM
LOL at the image of Lendell running around Paris and then peeping in his pants and saying "surely my balls must have grown by now". Mats a nut

Halba
06-12-2006, 12:38 PM
perfect...mats was perfect!

Pureracket
06-12-2006, 01:16 PM
He seems very fixated on "balls". . .lol!

MisterQ
06-12-2006, 02:02 PM
Now that's a great tennis mind. :cool: Love listening to Mats.

Thanks for the link!

Mrs. B
06-12-2006, 02:21 PM
lol, he's obviously drunk! :lol:

he sounds more sober and serious when he's commentating for Eurosport, and i love his commentaries. he is so spot on!

star
06-12-2006, 03:02 PM
I listened to him talking about the women's semis before I listened to him talking about the men's final. It was an interesting juxtaposition. I love listening to Mats. I think people who didn't see his career can't appreciate Mats' tennis mind. He really thinks about the game.

I guess one of the reasons I liked the clip is that it said what some of us here have been saying. The players need to grow some cojones when they play against Federer. Federer stuns players with some brilliant shot making and they basically go away for the rest of the match instead of saying... ok... that was brilliant... lets see if you can keep playing like that, and make him play well.... and maybe he is too good, and you lose.... but at least play with some "balls and heart" as Mats like to say... over and over. :) :) :)

Bibberz
06-12-2006, 03:21 PM
What a lush! That was hilarious. I particularly love how he seems so reluctant to speak about the match at first, but then he launches into a 20-minute monologue. He seemed genuinely mad at Federer--as if he was wasting his talent. I wonder how Federer would have performed in the match if he had been coached by Wilander....

RonE
06-12-2006, 05:30 PM
Mats you rock :worship:

He put into words everything I was thinking during the match. Spot on!

And yes, I seriously believe if Mats was coaching Roger he would have shook him up badly and thats what he needs!

gillian
06-12-2006, 05:38 PM
Ok, he's fun to listen to - as always, but I can't devote 20 minutes to it in the middle of the work day :)

Drunk or not, he makes good sense about Roger's mindset v. Nadal.

Thank you for sharing.

MisterQ
06-12-2006, 06:32 PM
It's great to hear him talk freely, without time constraints, and really expound on his thoughts. I enjoyed that a lot.

It's interesting how those players with certain limitations, or without a big flashy "money shot," are often the ones who develop into great analytical minds, because they really have to!

Raquel
06-12-2006, 06:38 PM
I particularly love how he seems so reluctant to speak about the match at first, but then he launches into a 20-minute monologue.
Yes I have noticed in his Eurosport commentaries that once Mats starts talking, he talks a lot ;) but he's a really good commentator so it's fine. It's a shame he is only on Eurosport during RG. He's very honest too. He was commentating on Mauresmo v Vaidisova and said right from the start he knew Amelie well and wanted her to win, but at the same time he was full of praise when Vaidisova played well. He's always full of praise for Roger too, but I think he likes Nadal even more. There's something about Nadal's game and mentality that he really admires and you can tell in the commentary.

Tom_Bombadil
06-12-2006, 06:41 PM
Mats you rock :worship:

He put into words everything I was thinking during the match. Spot on!

And yes, I seriously believe if Mats was coaching Roger he would have shook him up badly and thats what he needs!

Arghh, it's always the same. I wonder how many more matches needs Rafa to win Federer to get people like you to respect him a little more. :rolleyes:

Maybe when he's 10-1 you can say Federer could win him, though it would be difficult. But yeah, it's always the same, whatever you say dude: Federer is going to kick Nadal's ass badly next time they meet. Federer is clearly better than him and Rafa has no options against him. :rolleyes:

RonE
06-12-2006, 07:13 PM
Arghh, it's always the same. I wonder how many more matches needs Rafa to win Federer to get people like you to respect him a little more. :rolleyes:

Maybe when he's 10-1 you can say Federer could win him, though it would be difficult. But yeah, it's always the same, whatever you say dude: Federer is going to kick Nadal's ass badly next time they meet. Federer is clearly better than him and Rafa has no options against him. :rolleyes:

Huh?

Where did I say Roger would beat Nadal the next time they played :confused:

Don't try to twist my words- all I said is that Roger needs to be shaken up. I am not talking about Nadal only but in general. His mindset is not as strong contrary to what many people believe and it shows in other matches he plays not just against Rafa (ie losing serve when serving for sets/matches, wasting too many breakpoint opportunitites etc). The difference is, most other players usually cannot take advantage of such situations to actually win the match.

Yes he has improved his mental strength a lot over the course of the years, certainly since 2003, however it is still a chink in his armour.

I give all credit to Nadal, I really do since no one else has a strategy and mindset quite as effective as he has against Roger and certainly against everyone else on clay and the vast majority of others on hardcourt. Rafa is a great player in his own right

But yeah, you can go on and call me a blind Fedtard and whatnot for speaking my mind if that makes you feel better :)

daze11
06-12-2006, 07:18 PM
wow, he was really articulate and enjoyable. go mats. i love when he said, "roger MAY have big balls, but they shrink to an incredibly small size against nadal" :lol:

i'm surprised to hear him single out connors as a guy federer would hit a stone wall against....i've seen hundreds of connors matches, and it is a compelling argument....i'm not sure he's right, but i like the idea of that match-up.

and that nutty comment that nadal may be the 'smartest guy out there today' :lol: ....we're talking about a guy who bites trophies with his teeth.

but most was worth the 20 minutes it took to watch.

anyway, thanks for sharing it. :yeah:

star
06-12-2006, 07:51 PM
It's worth listening to him talk about the women's semi's too --- even though it's longer than this one about the men's final. He talks about Marat in there too.

Long ago I read an interview with Borg where the interviewer was trying to get Borg to talk about how he raised his game against a player when it counted (something Borg was reknown for doing -- or seeming to do at least). He asked What do you do when someone is playing really well against you. Borg responded, I just keep playing and try to maintain concentration and hope he doesn't keep playing that well. But, the interviewer pressed, what if he does keep playing that well well. Then, I lose, Borg responded calmly. Borg in his more laconic way was saying exactly what Mats said at length in both those "interviews."

Tennis Fool
06-13-2006, 04:24 AM
What does he say about Marat not winning Slams again like the way he did against Pete :confused:

jmp
06-13-2006, 05:06 AM
What does he say about Marat not winning Slams again like the way he did against Pete :confused:

He was speaking about watching women's tennis and the fact that they don't seem to have a Plan B. They go out there and try to hit winners on every shot instead of constructing points. Also, they go out and play "my game" instead of considering the opponent on the other side of the net. That's when he gave the example of Marat. When he tried to coach Marat for a short while he told him that he would NEVER play a match like the one he played against Samprass to win the USO. Marat played out of his mind and he hit winner after winner. Mats told Marat that this tactic probably won the match for him, but, it will not lead to his long term success. Marat needed to learn the percentage shot that would never let him down. Then he brought up how Rafa's FH was a sure thing no matter what his opponent was doing. That's what causes the opponent to miss eventually because they will go for too much. Then he went back to Marat and said that Marat's search for the magic he had in his USO victory is why Marat is always mad on the court. Marat will never be able to recapture that moment. Yet, Marat fails to realize that.

I'm paraphrasing.

Action Jackson
06-13-2006, 06:17 AM
Basically what Mats said about Safin, was don't expect to play like he did against Sampras all the time or near that, but Marat hasn't understood it.

MariaV
06-13-2006, 07:59 AM
and that nutty comment that nadal may be the 'smartest guy out there today' :lol: ....we're talking about a guy who bites trophies with his teeth.

I think he's quite right. Rafa seems to be the smartest guy out there right now. :)

J. Corwin
06-13-2006, 10:45 AM
He was so candid and refreshing all at once! Very interesting. Maybe Roger should get a tape of this and watch it. ;)

Thanks for the link! :)

tangerine_dream
06-13-2006, 05:27 PM
nadal may be the 'smartest guy out there today'
Besides his improved serve, I think one of the more underrated aspects of Rafa's game is his brain: he's actually thinking out there. He adapts, he changes strategies, and he doesn't panic. He's no dummy, and he's far from being a brainless basher. He does a good job of playing up his youth and cuteness, like a wolf in sheep's clothing. :toothy:

FedererGrandSlam
06-13-2006, 05:40 PM
Very good speech :) I hope Roger will listen to it. :)

DDrago2
06-13-2006, 06:52 PM
I think he's quite right. Rafa seems to be the smartest guy out there right now. :)

I think that Mats is personal about Nadal and he obviously likes him very much and dislikes Federer. "Smartest"? Come on. This is not math, it's tennis. I'd rather go for Raffa's biceps than his brains as the key factor in his success. His tactics mostly come down to "run down everything, don't make mistakes and hit the ball good in key momemnts". He plays this same stuff against everyone. If someone thinks this is very smart, he missed the point

MisterQ
06-13-2006, 09:48 PM
I think that Mats is personal about Nadal and he obviously likes him very much and dislikes Federer. "Smartest"? Come on. This is not math, it's tennis. I'd rather go for Raffa's biceps than his brains as the key factor in his success. His tactics mostly come down to "run down everything, don't make mistakes and hit the ball good in key momemnts". He plays this same stuff against everyone. If someone thinks this is very smart, he missed the point

Smart is using your personal resources properly to ensure a win. It's playing the big points wisely, understanding percentages, the strengths and weaknesses and the psychology of your opponent. Those who have limits in their games are often the smartest players... they have to be!

nytennis
06-14-2006, 05:21 AM
I think Mats is right on the money with his analysis. On top of that Mats likes Fed and and seems disappointed that Fed did not fight and play as well as he could have... I just hope that federers' people get their hands on this video..lol.. The truth hurts but Mats is right.

MariaV
06-14-2006, 08:23 AM
I think that Mats is personal about Nadal and he obviously likes him very much and dislikes Federer. "Smartest"? Come on. This is not math, it's tennis. I'd rather go for Raffa's biceps than his brains as the key factor in his success. His tactics mostly come down to "run down everything, don't make mistakes and hit the ball good in key momemnts". He plays this same stuff against everyone. If someone thinks this is very smart, he missed the point
:rolleyes:
Read what Mr Q wrote. :hatoff: :worship: :worship: *now where's the Q tips thread*
Rafa comes up with best serves at important points and comes to the net (his volleying can be really good :D) and actually uses his head to change the tactics of some things don't work. That's what Fed failed to do. And I don't think Mats likes Nadal that much, he is just being obejctive which is nice to see. And yes, as nytennis said Mats was disappointed that Fed didn't fight, I guess ge wanted Fed to make the GS too.

Action Jackson
06-14-2006, 11:01 AM
He plays this same stuff against everyone. If someone thinks this is very smart, he missed the point

Do you do stand up comedy work?

star
06-14-2006, 01:11 PM
I think that Mats is personal about Nadal and he obviously likes him very much and dislikes Federer. "Smartest"? Come on. This is not math, it's tennis. I'd rather go for Raffa's biceps than his brains as the key factor in his success. His tactics mostly come down to "run down everything, don't make mistakes and hit the ball good in key momemnts". He plays this same stuff against everyone. If someone thinks this is very smart, he missed the point

I think your predjudice is blinding you.

It was clear to me that Mats liked Federer very much and was wanting to see him play a great match. What came through in the video was his disappointment in Federer's performance. He wanted to see Federer play better. That's not dislike at all.

Also, "hitting the ball good in key moments" is what it takes to win matches. It takes talent and brains and fortitude to "hit the ball good in key moments."

I like players who run everything down and don't make mistakes. That produces good clean tennis. I'm not fond of error strewn tennis with a few brilliant shots inbetween.

Action Jackson
06-23-2006, 08:02 PM
Nothing wrong with what Wilander said.

Action Jackson
12-18-2006, 07:32 AM
Criticism is welcome, especially if it stands on good grounds. Loose mouths, especially the ones that end up making the commentator look stupid is also welcome :)

What are you on about? Federer got roundly criticised for his performance in the RG final and deservedly so? If you have a problem with something that was only said specifically to one match, not for his career, not for the rest of the 2006 season.

Then you must be of the school, if they don't fawn over Federer, then they must hate him.

R.Federer
12-18-2006, 07:36 AM
What are you on about? Federer got roundly criticised for his performance in the RG final and deservedly so? If you have a problem with something that was only said specifically to one match, not for his career, not for the rest of the 2006 season.

Then you must be of the school, if they don't fawn over Federer, then they must hate him.

Seems like you confused Cash for Wilander from one thread to another. The comment was about Cash.

And by the way, talking about the dimensions of genitals to generate some interest or hysteria is hardly interesting. I'll have to look back on this thread to see if I even bothered to comment, it seemed like a transparent attempt to get a few headlines. It does seem though that Federer's balls grew larger after the French but Mats has yet to revise his estimates. Still waiting on that one.

Action Jackson
12-18-2006, 07:41 AM
Seems like you confused Cash for Wilander from one thread to another. The comment was about Cash.

And by the way, talking about the dimensions of genitals to generate some interest or hysteria is hardly interesting. I'll have to look back on this thread to see if I even bothered to comment, it seemed like a transparent attempt to get a few headlines. It does seem though that Federer's balls grew larger after the French but Mats has yet to revise his estimates. Still waiting on that one.

Cash is a clown we all know that.

Mats doesn't have to do anything actually. It's very simple Federer played crap in the RG final and got criticised and reasons were given, you can watch the video yourself and see it.

Did it relate to the rest of the 2006 season? The answer to that is no, so this being the case normal service resumed and people want to fawn over Federer again. He can be criticised when he is not up to scratch, but if you want to be a fanboy, then go ahead.

Here is the link.

http://matswilander.com/media/video/FrenchMensFinal.wmv

R.Federer
12-18-2006, 07:48 AM
Cash is a clown we all know that.

Mats doesn't have to do anything actually. It's very simple Federer played crap in the RG final and got criticised and reasons were given, you can watch the video yourself and see it.

Did it relate to the rest of the 2006 season? The answer to that is no, so this being the case normal service resumed and people want to fawn over Federer again. He can be criticised when he is not up to scratch, but if you want to be a fanboy, then go ahead.

Well the French Final yes, I watched it and it was a pitiful show on Federer's part and tough for him, he will have to deal with it.
He was criticized in so many words and did you see any of those generating their own threads? The answer to that is no, because you will notice that coming out with comments about having tiny genitalia is crass to many while the usual round of criticism is fair game. Sure, it will get the attention, it will generate a few more threads, and I am sure it is locker room spiel for calling it like it is.
Defending Mats for this, well may be you are a fanboy in this regard, but I am happy to call it like it is -which is crass- even though Mats has rarely otherwise spoken out like this.

Action Jackson
12-18-2006, 07:57 AM
Well the French Final yes, I watched it and it was a pitiful show on Federer's part and tough for him, he will have to deal with it.
He was criticized in so many words and did you see any of those generating their own threads? The answer to that is no, because you will notice that coming out with comments about having tiny genitalia is crass to many while the usual round of criticism is fair game. Sure, it will get the attention, it will generate a few more threads, and I am sure it is locker room spiel for calling it like it is.
Defending Mats for this, well may be you are a fanboy in this regard, but I am happy to call it like it is -which is crass- even though Mats has rarely otherwise spoken out like this.

Have you watched the video?

How am I a fanboy cause Mats was disappointed in Federer's performance and said so in a blunt manner? Calling me a fanboy is like calling me pro-Roddick. It doesn't matter how it was said, the points were clear enough, you call it crass and there wasn't anything wrong with the content of the criticism.

If you have ever played sport in a team or an individual environment and have never been harshly criticised by a coach for not coming up to par, then that is adventure land.

R.Federer
12-18-2006, 08:13 AM
I would not call you pro-Roddick. That much I have figured out. Well, you suggested I was fanboy because you equate my finding Mats's comments as crass with hysteric support for Federer. Similarly, to me it seems that finding Mats's comment should be received equally as a comment, say, like "Federer deserved to lose because he played ugly" would come from a fanboy, just as you appear to believe that my finding it crass is due to fanboyhood.

Mats could say this about Cash and I would still find it crass. I enjoy the grudge talk, and I am all ears for hearing criticism for all players, Federer or whoever. Other crass behavior to me includes Coria/Hewitt pointing at each other's genitals and asking if it was not big enough, that kind of stuff. It is irrelevant that Federer was at the deserved end of receiving the criticism. Surprising too, that it came from Mats who had some sort of cordial relation with Federer and also at odds with his other commentary. He has had stuff to say about Roddick, but there was no juicy language there, it was straight off the cuff "He is just another very average player"- or something.

I cannot get any volume on this video but I did read the text. And I have never played team sports.

Have you watched the video?

How am I a fanboy cause Mats was disappointed in Federer's performance and said so in a blunt manner? Calling me a fanboy is like calling me pro-Roddick. It doesn't matter how it was said, the points were clear enough, you call it crass and there wasn't anything wrong with the content of the criticism.

If you have ever played sport in a team or an individual environment and have never been harshly criticised by a coach for not coming up to par, then that is adventure land.

Action Jackson
12-18-2006, 08:22 AM
I look at the content and context of what was said and not how it was delivered. In this particular case it was warranted and it's precisely cause he is a fan of Federer that he was pissed off at how meek he played in this match. Considering Federer was the subject of the criticism then it is relevant in this case.

Therefore it was spot on and he experienced similar feelings in GS finals and was free to admit that. If you want everything sugarcoated in bland language, then that is your choice.

You claim you can handle criticism of Federer, but if you agree he played poorly at RG than why is it important how it was delivered?

R.Federer
12-18-2006, 08:35 AM
I look at the content and context of what was said and not how it was delivered. In this particular case it was warranted and it's precisely cause he is a fan of Federer that he was pissed off at how meek he played in this match. Considering Federer was the subject of the criticism then it is relevant in this case.

Therefore it was spot on and he experienced similar feelings in GS finals and was free to admit that. If you want everything sugarcoated in bland language, then that is your choice.

You claim you can handle criticism of Federer, but if you agree he played poorly at RG than why is it important how it was delivered?

Yes I guess that is what I am saying, that it is my choice that I dislike this below the belt language- although I think there is room between the extremes of crude and bland. And because I dislike that sort of crude language, in print, on air, in my life, it is relevant to me how criticism is delivered. Your saying it (I presume, the particular choice of words) is warranted will not really change my opinion that it was not. It does not amount to hysteric dislike of Mats for the rest of time but I would be interested to see how he puts it should Federer fail a successive time in Paris.

jayjay
12-18-2006, 10:53 AM
Having watched the video a while ago, Wilander was pretty accurate with all he said about the French Final, the only point I disagreed with him on was an early comment in the piece about Federer not caring, but I believe that it was all mixed in with his defintion of a lack of balls as he was later to expand on. As he did not mention not caring again in the 20mins plus, but constant referrals to a lack of balls and/or courage.

What he said was fair comment, whether the fanatics believe so or not. What has happened since does not down play Wilander's assessment of that match at all, as he was speaking of that specific match, not Federer's whole season and/or career.

ExpectedWinner
12-18-2006, 05:44 PM
If you have ever played sport in a team or an individual environment and have never been harshly criticised by a coach for not coming up to par, then that is adventure land.

It depends. I've played ice hockey for 11 years (from 10 to 21). Nobody is soft and sensitive in a hockey locker room. Usually bland harsh criticism, profanity language, crass comments are easily swallowed. However, for some guys comments about the goods down the belt from another male are an invitation for a fight, nothing less. That's how they were brought up in their families/environment where they grew up.

Action Jackson
12-19-2006, 06:46 AM
It depends. I've played ice hockey for 11 years (from 10 to 21). Nobody is soft and sensitive in a hockey locker room. Usually bland harsh criticism, profanity language, crass comments are easily swallowed. However, for some guys comments about the goods down the belt from another male are an invitation for a fight, nothing less. That's how they were brought up in their families/environment where they grew up.

Well questioning the size of the grapefruits, you are right in that it can piss some people off, then again it could be used to fire them up and they can improve their performances.

In relation to this subject sure Wilander might have been on the happy juice, but his assessments of what went on in that respective match were accurate and that's all these comments were related to.

Osama B Hitler
12-19-2006, 06:52 AM
He was a little inebriated me thinks.

gillian
12-19-2006, 06:31 PM
He was a little inebriated me thinks.

LOL. Possibly. His commentary was amusing and - more importantly - on point.

However, I'd be really interested to hear Mats' comments on Federer and Nadal's performances for the remainder of the 2006 season, especially the Wimbledon final and the semi in Shanghai.

nobama
12-19-2006, 06:46 PM
LOL. Possibly. His commentary was amusing and - more importantly - on point.

However, I'd be really interested to hear Mats' comments on Federer and Nadal's performances for the remainder of the 2006 season, especially the Wimbledon final and the semi in Shanghai.
He did comment on Wimbledon and basically implied that Federer only won because he's just that much better on grass and complained about Fed's tactics, as an example, that he didn't come in on second serves. I don't have the exact quote but I know he commented on it.

RogiFan88
12-19-2006, 08:45 PM
what final? ;)

cmurray
12-19-2006, 09:16 PM
He did comment on Wimbledon and basically implied that Federer only won because he's just that much better on grass and complained about Fed's tactics, as an example, that he didn't come in on second serves. I don't have the exact quote but I know he commented on it.

You are correct. He basically complained that Roger was still playing Rafa's game even on grass. The thing with Mats is that he usually has a point. Now I personally take offense to the fact that Mats doesn't give Rafa enough credit. On clay at least, Rafa is tough as nails and you can hardly blame Federer for not playing his best game against the best clay-courter in the world. I think mats did a dis-service to both Roger and Rafa. What he said about Roger was true to a point - if he had played aggresive tennis for the entire match, he may have been able to win. But to basically say that he lacked the balls to do so is nasty and unnecessary.

And Rafa is the king of clay at the moment. Despite what some people on here like to say, this guy isn't some scrub who stumbled on 2 consecutive RG championships. He earned them by knowing exactly how to play on clay. His game is tailor-made for it. He, i think, has earned some respect too.

Sunset of Age
12-20-2006, 01:44 AM
I think mats did a dis-service to both Roger and Rafa.

Indeed. By dissing Roger, Rafa didn't get the credits he very much deserved - it was his awesome play that made him win. Roger had no answer to his playing. And dissing Roger the way Mats did - rude and uncalled for.

Action Jackson
12-20-2006, 08:07 AM
Indeed. By dissing Roger, Rafa didn't get the credits he very much deserved - it was his awesome play that made him win. Roger had no answer to his playing. And dissing Roger the way Mats did - rude and uncalled for.

What are you talking about? It's not like he didn't praise Nadal or does he have to overpraise Nadal as well?

tangerine_dream
02-01-2007, 10:50 PM
What has happened to Wilander's blog? I haven't been able to view it for a few weeks now. Did he give it up?