Wilander was one of the most insightful players, and now commentators. He said he recognised Lendl was a better player than him so had to find ways to make Lendl play worse by "spoiling" his game. He was very critical of stefanos Tsitsipas recently - saying he just doesn't understand that there will always be some players where your own natural game just isn't enough, and you have to change it to make your opponent play worse.
Wilander was most underrated and most intelligent player ever. He was so consistent and mixed up the shots to frustrate opponents. He won 7 grand slam singles titles which proved his masterly conquests of opponents.
@@AndreasGautier nothing wrong with being a pusher. The goal is to frustrate the opponent to make errors. A great player should be able to beat a pusher.
@@jamesyu9926 A pusher like Wilander is / was also a great amazing player. Nowadays among the big three Federer is / was the most annoying of the 3 (to me) . Remember: only one thing counts , Winning- doesnt matter how, when, JUST WINNING
Jimmy Connors is bigger player than Ivan Lendl actually. He won 4 grass court major titles in open era actually He won 4 Grass court major titles He won 3 Hard court major titles He won 1 clay court major title. He was world no 1 in year ending for 5 times(1974 to 1978). He was ranked no 1 for 268 weeks in open era. He won 109 single titles in open 😮. He won 8 major titles,3 year ending championship tours titles. He won 17 Grandprix titles in total actually.
The players with most weeks as world no 1 in open era are 1.Novak Djokovic=380 weeks 2.Roger Federer=310 weeks 3.Pete Sampras=286 weeks 4. Ivan Lendl=270 weeks 5.Jimmy Connors=268 weeks 6. Rafael Nadal=209 weeks 7. John McEnroe=170 weeks 8. Bjorn Borg=109 weeks 9. Andre Agassi=101 weeks
I really like this cat and mouse match. Each player taking his time, building the point, fencing, looking for the opening, "thinking" rather than just pounding it with pure power. Totally refreshing to watch compared to today's game of brute force and grunts.
@@andreasmissiroli6915 Take all the modern tech away and the rankings and do a reboot and let's see which players rise to the top by the end of the season.
Wilander was a smart guy and excellent at making more talented players like Lendl or Becker play terrible and lose their mind. At the time I didn't like him because I hated his style and felt that the "better" players are more deserving at winning. Today, I appreciate Wilander much more. He realised that he did not have the weapons to flat out outplay certain opponents but he still found solutions on how to make them beat themselves.
I don’t like his babble on the box, especially with Chris bradnam. Otherwise he is ok I suppose. Helped safin lose to Goran at Wimbledon which I’m grateful for.
Lendl was really dialed in from 1985 to 1987. He only lost 1 set in each of his 3 US Open title runs. Not sure if 1985 or 1987 was his greatest tournament ever. He beat McEnroe, Connors and Wilander in succession in 1987. Wilander played great, and learned well from this. 1988 was clearly Wilander's best season ever.
Always surprised me how little Lendl ran around his backhand. Today's players would be all over so many of these shots, desperate to get it on their forehands. I think it was part of Lendl's problem at times with Wilander - he almost got hypnotised into playing passive tennis.
Yep ! For me, Lendl played his Worse Tennis each times against Wilander the same in the RG 87 Final , RG85( except in the Master Final of the same year ) , Wilander playing his Big Boring Rounds relentless over the net with his Borg's backhand . Lendl like sleeping, playing passive tennis instead of hitting around his backhand among others .. but we see in the end of this match , he is like waking up , and hitting harder . Too bad, because he had much better matches against Edberg and Agassi or McEnroe in this slam.
If Lendl took your advice, TH, he would be spraying unforced errors all over the place. Today's tactics would not work as well in the 80s. Lendl knew what he was doing and won this match.
@@JD-jc8gp except Steffi Graf was willing to run around her backhand and go for forehand winners in that era. Lendl was more than capable of playing that way if he wanted - he often did when he was confident, particularly on faster surfaces. Take a look at how aggressive Lendl was against McEnroe in the 1989 Canadian Open final for an example. I think Lendl had huge respect for Wilander's defence, perhaps too much at times.
@@zeddeka Lendl was more aggressive against McEnroe because he was more comfortable playing him. He had a harder time attacking Wilander because of Mats's varied pace and shot selection. It's easy for you to say that Lendl should have ran around his forehand more - that's not easy to do when your opponent feeds you deep junk to your backhand side. And really - comparing the men's game to the women, not even worth addressing.
Until the Federer/ Nadal / Djokovic era, these two held the record for most grand slam finals played against each other. 5 in total. 1 Australian, 2 French and 2 US. Wilander was also the first male player to win at least two grand slams on each surface type: 2 on grass at the Australian Open, 3 French Opens on clay, and two on hard courts (one at the Australian Open when it moved from grass to hard courts in 1988, and the 1988 US Open).
Max; lovely guy. Jack of all shots, master of none. Which he had made his forehand a bit flatter at times. Very much played like Borg. So much consistency but no BIG shots
I like this tennis a lot. But this was just one type of match you would see in those days. There were many contrasting styles at the time. Today it's all the same.
@@JD-jc8gp Maybe it's all the same but at least it's fun to watch, this match is basically just boring pushing until Lendl decides he's had enough and hits a big forehand.
When I watched that, I thought, how is he ever going to beat this guy again?. it was such a grueling defeat because they played so hard for every point. In 1988, Mats with some luck won the A O vs Cash, destroyed Leconte in the final of R G. If I remember correctly, defeated by Mecir in the quarters of Wimbledon. That was one guy that really could give anyone severe problems. Anyway, in the final of US' 88, Mats came in with a new plan against Lendl. It sort of looked like the same plan, burt oh, so much better executed. Three slams in the same year, slams on all surfaces during career and World no 1. Proper tennis career. Then, at 25, like Borg, drifted away too early 'cos lack of motivation. I loved his smartness on court.
Wilander lo adoro, mi piace come tipo, come tennista ma se guardi solo gli highlights e non un match per intero, viene da chiederti come ha fatto a diventare numero 1 del mondo e a vincere tra gli altri, sette tornei del Grande Slam..
I understand the criticisms about Wilander his game was boring, unspectacular and his lack of power is obvious. But the way he worked to create specific weapons was a masterpiece of tactical intelligence...and this final against Lendl is an epic fight between 2 chess masters
In so many aspects of the game Ivan was a head of his time. He was a future of tennis back then. When I see Mats play in this finale I do not like tennis as much.
Part of what made Wilander successful is that he understood that he didn't have the weapons to go out and roll over opponents, so he had to find ways of making his opponent play worse. It was very successful - he won grand slams on grass, clay and hard courts, something only he, Connors, Agassi, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have done. So many players could learn a lot from the strategic way he learned to play matches.
I get that racquets used to be heavier etc, but you can clearly see that the phisycal effort was not the same as today. So I just wonder: how come nobody "thought" of just hitting WAY stronger, hence suddenly becoming a champion?
In fairness to Lendl, he was very capable of playing much more aggressive, powerful tennis when he wanted to. There seems to have been something about Wilander's game that almost hypnotised Lendl at times, and lulled him into playing very defensive tennis. I think Lendl had a lot of respect for Wilander's retrieving ability, perhaps too much, and it made him very hesitant at times. Wilander said many years later that he realised he didn't have big weapons, so he had to work out strategies to "spoil" his opponents' games. When playing Lendl, that seems to have involved playing very cagey tennis and trying to wear Lendl down, and mixing it up at times with sneak attacks.
Because they couldn't hit stronger as the racket technology didn't allow it with the same control they have today. Get it? Agassi, Boris Becker, Lendl, Aaron Krickstein, Thomas Muster, Petr Korda etc were all pretty much hitting it as hard as was possible with the tools they had. Today's generation wouldn't have been hitting it any harder either (provided they wanted the ball to land in that is). It's all very fine for people to criticize Wilander, Mecir, McEnroe, Gilbert etc for not hitting so hard, but they didn't NEED to because they had more complete games with which they could use multiple tactics. It's not the brainless ball- bashing tactics of today's generation who wouldn't be performing any better if they were using the same racket and string technology of these players if they were plonked into this era. For example, Wilander's tactic is to loop and spin the ball in to dampen Lendl's power, and hence Lendl is forced to generate all the pace which would wear him down or force him to get impatient. impossible to hit endless outright winners as was not possible to hit it that hard AND control the ball at the same time. Unlike today.
@@jordanaus75wilson prostaff , used by sampras and federer was available . production began around 1984. contemporary player are taller and stronger , adjusted to faster pace .
@jimsmailorg head sized changed, composition of the raquet changed as did the the make-up of the strings....basically the only thing that stayed the same during the evolution of the pro-staff was the basic shape. True, the players that consistently succeed at the top are now bigger and stronger but there are exceptions, like there were back then, and also the are required to be bigger and stronger to evolve with the speed of the ball. But don't forget that the first Wilander vs Sampas 89 US Open match was a close evenly matched 5 setter and Wilander was not at his best.
Djoko is basically and advanced version of Lendl but the latter was more elegant. He revolutionized tennis in terms of playstyle and physical training, djoko followed the path :)
evisto barios videos jugando de Wilander y no lo entiendo como llego a hacer número uno en el 1982 cuando su ambición hera solo debolver la bola y esperar el error del rival de turno merecido o no el número uno el peor que evisto que obstenta ese palma o sería por secretaria por que se vee carente de herramientas y temperamento para esa obtención…
@@bwembyamwamba1737 LOL. How could they possibly survive against a top-10 player like Andrey Rublev. One of the lowest tennis IQs I've seen among top-10 players.
Wilander was one of the most insightful players, and now commentators. He said he recognised Lendl was a better player than him so had to find ways to make Lendl play worse by "spoiling" his game. He was very critical of stefanos Tsitsipas recently - saying he just doesn't understand that there will always be some players where your own natural game just isn't enough, and you have to change it to make your opponent play worse.
Thank you for the great highlights and memories. I had the same shirt as Lendl. He, Becker and Edberg had the most iconic shirts at the time.
I had the same one as wilander. I was obsessed with wilander.
@@Efrenlm10 Mats was AWSOME, even as a doubles player brilliant, won Wimbledon in 86 with Nyström " Jocke "
Loved all 3 of them and their iconic shirts
The silence is so nice to hear. No insane grunting.
Wilander was most underrated and most intelligent player ever. He was so consistent and mixed up the shots to frustrate opponents. He won 7 grand slam singles titles which proved his masterly conquests of opponents.
he was such a pusher.... most annoying of all players
@@AndreasGautier nothing wrong with being a pusher. The goal is to frustrate the opponent to make errors. A great player should be able to beat a pusher.
@@jamesyu9926 A pusher like Wilander is / was also a great amazing player. Nowadays among the big three Federer is / was the most annoying of the 3 (to me) . Remember: only one thing counts , Winning- doesnt matter how, when, JUST WINNING
Jimmy Connors is bigger player than Ivan Lendl actually. He won 4 grass court major titles in open era actually
He won 4 Grass court major titles
He won 3 Hard court major titles
He won 1 clay court major title.
He was world no 1 in year ending for 5 times(1974 to 1978). He was ranked no 1 for 268 weeks in open era.
He won 109 single titles in open 😮.
He won 8 major titles,3 year ending championship tours titles. He won 17 Grandprix titles in total actually.
The players with most weeks as world no 1 in open era are
1.Novak Djokovic=380 weeks
2.Roger Federer=310 weeks
3.Pete Sampras=286 weeks
4. Ivan Lendl=270 weeks
5.Jimmy Connors=268 weeks
6. Rafael Nadal=209 weeks
7. John McEnroe=170 weeks
8. Bjorn Borg=109 weeks
9. Andre Agassi=101 weeks
Wonderful highlights! Thank you US open!
I really like this cat and mouse match. Each player taking his time, building the point, fencing, looking for the opening, "thinking" rather than just pounding it with pure power.
Totally refreshing to watch compared to today's game of brute force and grunts.
Grunts maybe but only idiots can say that todays game is just brute force
@@andreasmissiroli6915 Take all the modern tech away and the rankings and do a reboot and let's see which players rise to the top by the end of the season.
@@nordattack No time to waste in theory . Again , only idiots can think that nowadays elite sport / tennis is just brute force
@@andreasmissiroli6915 Ignorance reigns...🤦♂
@@nordattack 100% incompetence reigns on the subject on your side
Wilander was a smart guy and excellent at making more talented players like Lendl or Becker play terrible and lose their mind. At the time I didn't like him because I hated his style and felt that the "better" players are more deserving at winning. Today, I appreciate Wilander much more. He realised that he did not have the weapons to flat out outplay certain opponents but he still found solutions on how to make them beat themselves.
1988 is best year of Swedish tennis, Wilander won 3 AO RG and USO and Edberg won Wimbledon
1988 was a great year in sports. How swede it was.
Great. Thank you very much! Top notch quality. Now waiting for the 1988 final highlights -- or better : the entire match!
I remember this match, so fantastic !
Wilander great guy, great commentator. Fab that he is still part of the T family
I don’t like his babble on the box, especially with Chris bradnam. Otherwise he is ok I suppose. Helped safin lose to Goran at Wimbledon which I’m grateful for.
Lendl was really dialed in from 1985 to 1987. He only lost 1 set in each of his 3 US Open title runs. Not sure if 1985 or 1987 was his greatest tournament ever. He beat McEnroe, Connors and Wilander in succession in 1987. Wilander played great, and learned well from this. 1988 was clearly Wilander's best season ever.
Wilander was one of best tennis player in the world
This match was the highlight of a great year for me.
Nadal -Djokovic way before Nadal-Djokovic.
Lendl's game resembles much more Federer's.
Lendl is the greatest tennis player ever
Always surprised me how little Lendl ran around his backhand. Today's players would be all over so many of these shots, desperate to get it on their forehands. I think it was part of Lendl's problem at times with Wilander - he almost got hypnotised into playing passive tennis.
Yep ! For me, Lendl played his Worse Tennis each times against Wilander the same in the RG 87 Final , RG85( except in the Master Final of the same year ) , Wilander playing his Big Boring Rounds relentless over the net with his Borg's backhand . Lendl like sleeping, playing passive tennis instead of hitting around his backhand among others .. but we see in the end of this match , he is like waking up , and hitting harder . Too bad, because he had much better matches against Edberg and Agassi or McEnroe in this slam.
@@relaxmax6808 Wilander's backhand doesn't resemble Borg's at all.
If Lendl took your advice, TH, he would be spraying unforced errors all over the place. Today's tactics would not work as well in the 80s. Lendl knew what he was doing and won this match.
@@JD-jc8gp except Steffi Graf was willing to run around her backhand and go for forehand winners in that era. Lendl was more than capable of playing that way if he wanted - he often did when he was confident, particularly on faster surfaces. Take a look at how aggressive Lendl was against McEnroe in the 1989 Canadian Open final for an example. I think Lendl had huge respect for Wilander's defence, perhaps too much at times.
@@zeddeka Lendl was more aggressive against McEnroe because he was more comfortable playing him. He had a harder time attacking Wilander because of Mats's varied pace and shot selection. It's easy for you to say that Lendl should have ran around his forehand more - that's not easy to do when your opponent feeds you deep junk to your backhand side. And really - comparing the men's game to the women, not even worth addressing.
Until the Federer/ Nadal / Djokovic era, these two held the record for most grand slam finals played against each other. 5 in total. 1 Australian, 2 French and 2 US. Wilander was also the first male player to win at least two grand slams on each surface type: 2 on grass at the Australian Open, 3 French Opens on clay, and two on hard courts (one at the Australian Open when it moved from grass to hard courts in 1988, and the 1988 US Open).
Lendl hatte immer Sägespäne in der Tasche, das war wichtig für sein Tennis und brachte Erfolg 🏆
This was such an intense fight! Great final! 😃
Amazing how much the game has changed since '87.
Max; lovely guy. Jack of all shots, master of none. Which he had made his forehand a bit flatter at times. Very much played like Borg. So much consistency but no BIG shots
2 great Masters of tennis !!
Lendl and Wilander both had a simple, secure and nice looking kind of serve. Wilander looked cool / Sweden
Lendl, the man born in the wrong racket era.
Strings more so
How? He's one of the greatest of all time and his style perfectly worked throughout his career
And to think that people say todays game is boring.
Not enough power!!
Old fashioned attritional tennis.
Baseline rallies are better but Wimbledon has slowed down alot when imo there should be one fast court within the 4 grand slams
I like this tennis a lot. But this was just one type of match you would see in those days. There were many contrasting styles at the time. Today it's all the same.
@@JD-jc8gp Maybe it's all the same but at least it's fun to watch, this match is basically just boring pushing until Lendl decides he's had enough and hits a big forehand.
When I watched that, I thought, how is he ever going to beat this guy again?. it was such a grueling defeat because they played so hard for every point. In 1988, Mats with some luck won the A O vs Cash, destroyed Leconte in the final of R G. If I remember correctly, defeated by Mecir in the quarters of Wimbledon. That was one guy that really could give anyone severe problems. Anyway, in the final of US' 88, Mats came in with a new plan against Lendl. It sort of looked like the same plan, burt oh, so much better executed. Three slams in the same year, slams on all surfaces during career and World no 1. Proper tennis career. Then, at 25, like Borg, drifted away too early 'cos lack of motivation. I loved his smartness on court.
Amazing lvan 😍
A victory. A champion.
Wow, the commentators seem so amazed by a two-hander that can hit a one handed slice
Beautiful!
I still remember that Wilander forehand on set point...
Wilander reste mon idole et j'étais même pour lui contre Noah !!!
Wilander lo adoro, mi piace come tipo, come tennista ma se guardi solo gli highlights e non un match per intero, viene da chiederti come ha fatto a diventare numero 1 del mondo e a vincere tra gli altri, sette tornei del Grande Slam..
I understand the criticisms about Wilander his game was boring, unspectacular and his lack of power is obvious. But the way he worked to create specific weapons was a masterpiece of tactical intelligence...and this final against Lendl is an epic fight between 2 chess masters
Wilander était un joueur d'échecs.
Il savait utiliser la géométrie du court.
First minute is a practice session
Chess match, stupendous
The next year Wilander switched to mainly slicing his backhand and defeated Lendl.
In so many aspects of the game Ivan was a head of his time. He was a future of tennis back then.
When I see Mats play in this finale I do not like tennis as much.
Part of what made Wilander successful is that he understood that he didn't have the weapons to go out and roll over opponents, so he had to find ways of making his opponent play worse. It was very successful - he won grand slams on grass, clay and hard courts, something only he, Connors, Agassi, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have done. So many players could learn a lot from the strategic way he learned to play matches.
@@zeddeka Your insight is great, he was intelligent and successful but that style looks so ordinary.
@@mirnesnuhanovic9597 he have 7 major titles which matters in tennis sport in open era
Did Wilander ever hit a winner from the back court?!
Compared to game today by Djokovic, Alcaraz, Sinner and others, the shot seem to be slow.
I get that racquets used to be heavier etc, but you can clearly see that the phisycal effort was not the same as today. So I just wonder: how come nobody "thought" of just hitting WAY stronger, hence suddenly becoming a champion?
In fairness to Lendl, he was very capable of playing much more aggressive, powerful tennis when he wanted to. There seems to have been something about Wilander's game that almost hypnotised Lendl at times, and lulled him into playing very defensive tennis. I think Lendl had a lot of respect for Wilander's retrieving ability, perhaps too much, and it made him very hesitant at times. Wilander said many years later that he realised he didn't have big weapons, so he had to work out strategies to "spoil" his opponents' games. When playing Lendl, that seems to have involved playing very cagey tennis and trying to wear Lendl down, and mixing it up at times with sneak attacks.
Because they couldn't hit stronger as the racket technology didn't allow it with the same control they have today. Get it? Agassi, Boris Becker, Lendl, Aaron Krickstein, Thomas Muster, Petr Korda etc were all pretty much hitting it as hard as was possible with the tools they had. Today's generation wouldn't have been hitting it any harder either (provided they wanted the ball to land in that is). It's all very fine for people to criticize Wilander, Mecir, McEnroe, Gilbert etc for not hitting so hard, but they didn't NEED to because they had more complete games with which they could use multiple tactics. It's not the brainless ball- bashing tactics of today's generation who wouldn't be performing any better if they were using the same racket and string technology of these players if they were plonked into this era. For example, Wilander's tactic is to loop and spin the ball in to dampen Lendl's power, and hence Lendl is forced to generate all the pace which would wear him down or force him to get impatient. impossible to hit endless outright winners as was not possible to hit it that hard AND control the ball at the same time. Unlike today.
It’s not so much the raqueta have change as it is the strings . Contemporary stringing gives more spin and more power
@@jordanaus75wilson prostaff , used by sampras and federer was available . production began around 1984. contemporary player are taller and stronger , adjusted to faster pace .
@jimsmailorg head sized changed, composition of the raquet changed as did the the make-up of the strings....basically the only thing that stayed the same during the evolution of the pro-staff was the basic shape. True, the players that consistently succeed at the top are now bigger and stronger but there are exceptions, like there were back then, and also the are required to be bigger and stronger to evolve with the speed of the ball. But don't forget that the first Wilander vs Sampas 89 US Open match was a close evenly matched 5 setter and Wilander was not at his best.
I rather watch Lendl than Joko.
Djoko is basically and advanced version of Lendl but the latter was more elegant. He revolutionized tennis in terms of playstyle and physical training, djoko followed the path :)
Djokovic is greatest player of all time in all eras he is Offensive baseline player and all court player also after Goran Ivanisevic became his coach.
Highlights and that too without score. Come on!
their ball speed looks like today's players practicing
Surfaces are fast but rackets are not modern advanced mostly
Surfaces slowed down it is balanced because of advanced strings and modern rackets
Geometrical tennis
The big mistake of wilander when he decide to change his backhand on slice.
Huh? That slice got him to #1
Excactly. He mixed more between the two shots, but he just lost interest in tennis after 1988. @@HCaulfield115
As much as I admire these two guys in there late 80s and early 90s they would get murdered against the likes of Nadal Federer and Djokovic
Mala leche, otro que se unió cuando tenía 15 años DANI. Se acabó.
score ...
evisto barios videos jugando de Wilander y no lo entiendo como llego a hacer número uno en el 1982 cuando su ambición hera solo debolver la bola y esperar el error del rival de turno merecido o no el número uno el peor que evisto que obstenta ese palma o sería por secretaria por que se vee carente de herramientas y temperamento para esa obtención…
Wilander winning 7 titles is biggest mystery. He did not deserve more then 1 or 2
He was 24 when he basically retired, should have won 10 or 12 actually. Mats rocked!
@@niamhbrennan4482 Wilander was worn out by his own terrible playstile... running marathons to get the ball back.
Wilander had an all court game, that was what tired him out.
looking atthe style of play here looks like lolypop tennis, novak or nadal would destroy these players.
Lucky that didn’t go to a fifth 😂
Ivan il terribile
These two would not be in the present day ATP 100.
That's just silly.
@@JD-jc8gp The guy has a point. These guys would not survive against today's big hitters.
And Stefan Edberg would still be World Number 1
@@bwembyamwamba1737 LOL. How could they possibly survive against a top-10 player like Andrey Rublev. One of the lowest tennis IQs I've seen among top-10 players.
@@JD-jc8gp but you have to admit that the guys back in the day didn't the ball as hard as today's players.
Ivan il terribile