Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,159 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Of course you have Laver's CYGS,Federer's 04 and 06-07 seasons, as well as Nadal 2010 and Djokovic 2011. The only other 3 grand slam season in Open era was Connor 1974, when hardly any of the top players went to the AO.

Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Borg, etc. never managed to win 3 grand slams in a single year.

Not to mention he went two very good 5 setters in the final at both AO and USO (ending Lendl's 3 year reign there)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
Of course you have Laver's CYGS,Federer's 04 and 06-07 seasons, as well as Nadal 2010 and Djokovic 2011. The only other 3 grand slam season in Open era was Connor 1974, when hardly any of the top players went to the AO.

Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Borg, etc. never managed to win 3 grand slams in a single year.

Not to mention he went two very good 5 setters in the final at both AO and USO (ending Lendl's 3 year reign there)
Timing is my guess, his name is always heard. He has as many slams as McEnroe and Djokovic. But he was overshadowed by players like McEnroe, Becker, Lendl and Edberg. And one major reason was because he made absolutely no impact AT WIMBLEDON. All the others made it at least to the final a couple of times.

Think about it, Wimbledon is very High profile on the tennis world stage. Who for example has heard of Gustavo Keurten??? He won the FRENCH OPEN three times between 1997--2001. But he did nothing at Wimbledon. So unless you are a big tennis fan. You will know nothing about him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,733 Posts
it also doesn't help than every time he opens his mouth now a load of shit seemingly designed to humiliate him spews out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
it also doesn't help than every time he opens his mouth now a load of shit seemingly designed to humiliate him spews out
True he is a Swede with a lot to say which is the opposite of more humble refrained Swedes like Borg and Edberg.

That' said I think he was underrated in his time. Some of those rallies in the 1988 US open against Lendl were breath taking. And they make tennis exciting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
There is also an issue of being No.1 very short time.
Thats not a factor at all, if Mats had 18 slams, do you think it would matter to anyone if he had NEVER been world number one? You guys on these forums have got to get a better perspective on things.

SLAMS make a legend not a points system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,059 Posts
Thats not a factor at all, if Mats had 18 slams, do you think it would matter to anyone if he had NEVER been world number one? You guys on these forums have got to get a better perspective on things.

SLAMS make a legend not a points system.
Murray fan I assume?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
Timing is my guess, his name is always heard. He has as many slams as McEnroe and Djokovic. But he was overshadowed by players like McEnroe, Becker, Lendl and Edberg. And one major reason was because he made absolutely no impact AT WIMBLEDON. All the others made it at least to the final a couple of times.

Think about it, Wimbledon is very High profile on the tennis world stage. Who for example has heard of Gustavo Keurten??? He won the FRENCH OPEN three times between 1997--2001. But he did nothing at Wimbledon. So unless you are a big tennis fan. You will know nothing about him.
THIS!!

People on here - because we are tennis fans who follow the tour closely - tend to think that a slam is a slam, but that is so NOT the case. Wimbledon is in a different league to the others. It's the difference between winning the World Cup in soccer and winning the Copa America.

People hear about the Wimbledon winners. The players all want to win Wimbledon more than any other tournament.

When asked whether he would trade just one of his 7 wimbledon trophees for the single RG trophy that kept him from completing the Career Grand Slam, Pete Sampras flat out said no. And he was probably being honest.

With the possible exception of Roger Federer (who probably wouldn't trade his sole RG win for an 8th Wimbledon), there are probably no players in history who wouldn't trade a non-Wimbledon slam win for a Wimbledon slam win.

I know a lot of people on here will have trouble stomaching this, but it is true. And this is NOT an underhand attack on Nadal, just stating the facts (Nadal has two Wimbledon wins and three finals anyway and is a legitimate GOAT candidate).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,394 Posts
Timing is my guess, his name is always heard. He has as many slams as McEnroe and Djokovic. But he was overshadowed by players like McEnroe, Becker, Lendl and Edberg. And one major reason was because he made absolutely no impact AT WIMBLEDON. All the others made it at least to the final a couple of times.

Think about it, Wimbledon is very High profile on the tennis world stage. Who for example has heard of Gustavo Keurten??? He won the FRENCH OPEN three times between 1997--2001. But he did nothing at Wimbledon. So unless you are a big tennis fan. You will know nothing about him.

You don't need to be a big tennis fan to have heard about G. Kuerten.
You may be the right tho that some old bitter people who are still living in the past think that only Wimbledon really counts and only winners of that tournament are really great players and deserve respect...hopefully these times will be over soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,408 Posts
In fairness Wilander does actually get a lot of recognition among serious tennis fans and MTF is not remotely representative of serious tennis fans. However there is a lot of truth in this

Timing is my guess, his name is always heard. He has as many slams as McEnroe and Djokovic. But he was overshadowed by players like McEnroe, Becker, Lendl and Edberg. And one major reason was because he made absolutely no impact AT WIMBLEDON. All the others made it at least to the final a couple of times.

Think about it, Wimbledon is very High profile on the tennis world stage. Who for example has heard of Gustavo Keurten??? He won the FRENCH OPEN three times between 1997--2001. But he did nothing at Wimbledon. So unless you are a big tennis fan. You will know nothing about him.
As much it may piss off many people Wimbledon remains the most prestigious event in tennis. Even one off Wimbledon champions are widely remembered where as one off champions elsewhere tend not to be. Just think of how well known Pat Cash is compared to say Thomas Johannson or Gaston Gaudio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,805 Posts
Wilander had an amazing season but burnt out fast and then you tend to be forgotten more quickly too.

The ordinary fan gets most of his tennis spoonfed from the media. Media likes to build up a superstar and ride with it a longer time because it sells. A flash in the pan like Wilander was maybe exciting during his short peak but after that it was hard to build him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,230 Posts
Wilander had an amazing season but burnt out fast and then you tend to be forgotten more quickly too.

The ordinary fan gets most of his tennis spoonfed from the media. Media likes to build up a superstar and ride with it a longer time because it sells. A flash in the pan like Wilander was maybe exciting during his short peak but after that it was hard to build him.
You can't call someone who won 7 slams over 5 years "a flash in the pan". :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,805 Posts
You can't call someone who won 7 slams over 5 years "a flash in the pan". :lol:
yeah that wasn't a good expression :) but as nr1 and a real big shot. Today we are used to the likes of Murray being a superstar. But will he be remembered in 20-30 years? It's about perspective and Wilander surely feels like he had a short peak, shorter than it was I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,370 Posts
Thats not a factor at all, if Mats had 18 slams, do you think it would matter to anyone if he had NEVER been world number one? You guys on these forums have got to get a better perspective on things.

SLAMS make a legend not a points system.
It depends on point of view. For me, being No.1 is second most important thing after slams. So no, your point of view is not something universal, it is debatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,004 Posts
There is also an issue of being No.1 very short time.
True, as his career sort of faded after that great season. The years he won the AO, on grass, most of the top players competed He was also, along with Lendl, the finest clay court player of that time. The idea the many of the top players never competed in Australia, before 1990, if pure fiction. That is also true concerning the women's game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Thats not a factor at all, if Mats had 18 slams, do you think it would matter to anyone if he had NEVER been world number one? You guys on these forums have got to get a better perspective on things.

SLAMS make a legend not a points system.
If somebody won 18 Grand Slams I think it would be extremely likely they would've been world number 1 at one point in their career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,004 Posts
THIS!!

People on here - because we are tennis fans who follow the tour closely - tend to think that a slam is a slam, but that is so NOT the case. Wimbledon is in a different league to the others. It's the difference between winning the World Cup in soccer and winning the Copa America.

People hear about the Wimbledon winners. The players all want to win Wimbledon more than any other tournament.

When asked whether he would trade just one of his 7 wimbledon trophees for the single RG trophy that kept him from completing the Career Grand Slam, Pete Sampras flat out said no. And he was probably being honest.

With the possible exception of Roger Federer (who probably wouldn't trade his sole RG win for an 8th Wimbledon), there are probably no players in history who wouldn't trade a non-Wimbledon slam win for a Wimbledon slam win.

I know a lot of people on here will have trouble stomaching this, but it is true. And this is NOT an underhand attack on Nadal, just stating the facts (Nadal has two Wimbledon wins and three finals anyway and is a legitimate GOAT candidate).
Mostly nonsense! Wimbledon, due to their great self promoation has been overrated over the past 80 years or so. The American and Australian tennis establishments, basically Anglophiles, helped to promote Wimbledon too. Sampras, of whom I am very fond, was brainwashed to have this attitude. True, clay would never be his favorite surface, but he was foolish not to taken the FO as seriously as he should have. Since 1925, the French and US championships had all top players competing as did Wimbledon. In the 50's most of the top Americans competed in Australia most years. Many of the top players of the 50 and 60's were Australian then, so competition was tough, even if the top American's did not compete. In that the US and Australia had most of the top players then, the Davis Cup finals were played either the US or Australia about the time of the Australian or US championships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,081 Posts
He also won Miami that year, which had a 128 player draw and best of 5 set matches in every round. An excellent year. He didn't become world no. 1 until after he won his 3rd slam of the year at the US Open in September. That's arguably the toughest road a player has ever had to gain the no. 1 ranking.

I have a copy of that US Open final on tape and it was a very entertaining match, with Wilander serving so well and also coming to the net and volleying a lot. He knew that if he stayed back and traded groundstrokes with Lendl who was a fitness machine at the time, he would lose just like in their 1987 slam finals, so he was able to successfully shorten a lot of the points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
Probably because everything about Wilander is boring. The only thing I will ever credit Wilander for is losing the French Open to Yannick Noah. Well done Mats.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top