[Blog] National Tennis Careers - Part Two: Sweden

[El Dude]

Read it and weep.

Thanks again to tented for providing the pictures.

 

[Moxie]

This is a great idea for a series, Dude. I missed the US one earlier, but will comment. Especially timely as tennis diversifies, and moves away from mainly Anglo-phone countries, US and Western Europe dominating. A specific question as to Sweden: they have fallen off dramatically in the last few years, but, being a small, cold country, doesn't it pose the question why they've produced the great players they have, in the first place?

 

[Fiero425]

This is a great idea for a series, Dude. I missed the US one earlier, but will comment. Especially timely as tennis diversifies, and moves away from mainly Anglo-phone countries, US and Western Europe dominating. A specific question as to Sweden: they have fallen off dramatically in the last few years, but, being a small, cold country, doesn't it pose the question why they've produced the great players they have, in the first place?

That's been a reoccurring refrain; believe it! It's been asked of Sweden, Belgium (Henin/Clijster), Czechoslovakia, and other small nations with limited resources! In my day I wondered why South Africa had so many pros in the top 100 because Martina had to win Wimbledon one year defeating 3 or 4 of them in route to '83 Chp! It's amazing the droughts we've had here in the States with so much in the way of opportunity and facilities! The women are coming back, but not sure about the guys! Socks will end up being a more improved Roddick, but not a world beater! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Moxie]

Sorry to double-post, but the "Part 1: US" of your blog doesn't seem to have a link to a thread. The drop-off in US men's tennis seems a bit mysterious. The US women have a lot more going, even in the up-and-comers, which makes sense, as tennis is probably about the most lucrative sport for women. But that tennis isn't over-all as popular in the US doesn't wholly explain the drop in competitive men. Private academies and the USTA seem to be trying to fix this, but they have probably waited too long. It's going to take a generation or more to make up the difference. I'm holding out a lot of hope for Francis Tiafoe, particularly. But it will be interesting to see if the efforts bring a significant wave behind him and Donaldson.

 

[Moxie]

This is a great idea for a series, Dude. I missed the US one earlier, but will comment. Especially timely as tennis diversifies, and moves away from mainly Anglo-phone countries, US and Western Europe dominating. A specific question as to Sweden: they have fallen off dramatically in the last few years, but, being a small, cold country, doesn't it pose the question why they've produced the great players they have, in the first place?

That's been a reoccurring refrain; believe it! It's been asked of Sweden, Belgium (Henin/Clijster), Czechoslovakia, and other small nations with limited resources! In my day I wondered why South Africa had so many pros in the top 100 because Martina had to win Wimbledon one year defeating 3 or 4 of them in route to '83 Chp! It's amazing the droughts we've had here in the States with so much in the way of opportunity and facilities! The women are coming back, but not sure about the guys! Socks will end up being a more improved Roddick, but not a world beater! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

South Africa is not surprising, because all of the anglo-phone nations were strong in the early days. And I don't think even the Soviet-era ones are so astonishing, because of government federation support. But as you mention, Belgium is surprising in the same way that Sweden is, though even smaller, and has come up with even creditable players on the men's side.

 

[Kirijax]

El Dude, great, fantastic article! But man, you put my all-time favorite player under Edberg! And here I was thinking you were my friend. Traitor!

 

[Fiero425]

El Dude, great, fantastic article! But man, you put my all-time favorite player under Edberg! And here I was thinking you were my friend. Traitor!

Edberg's few good years IMO were greater overall; Jr GS, 2 Wimbledons & 2 USO's trump Wilander's 3 FO and 1 USO! Matts also dropped like a stone after reaching #1 in '88; just fell off the side of the planet! It couldn't have gotten any worse than the defending champion being upset by some unknown 17 y.o. called Petros Sampras in the 2nd rd of the '89 USO in 5 sets! He was officially DONE! :nono uzzled :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

El Dude, great, fantastic article! But man, you put my all-time favorite player under Edberg! And here I was thinking you were my friend. Traitor!

Edberg's few good years IMO were greater overall; Jr GS, 2 Wimbledons & 2 USO's trump Wilander's 3 FO and 1 USO! Matts also dropped like a stone after reaching #1 in '88; just fell off the side of the planet! It couldn't have gotten any worse than the defending champion being upset by some unknown 17 y.o. called Petros Sampras in the 2nd rd of the '89 USO in 5 sets! He was officially DONE! :nono uzzled :angel: :dodgy:

Fiero, it was in jest. Hence the wink. No need to go write a thesis on how Wilander has not as good as Edberg. That's a dead horse that not even a White Walker can giddyup.

 

[Fiero425]

El Dude, great, fantastic article! But man, you put my all-time favorite player under Edberg! And here I was thinking you were my friend. Traitor!

Edberg's few good years IMO were greater overall; Jr GS, 2 Wimbledons & 2 USO's trump Wilander's 3 FO and 1 USO! Matts also dropped like a stone after reaching #1 in '88; just fell off the side of the planet! It couldn't have gotten any worse than the defending champion being upset by some unknown 17 y.o. called Petros Sampras in the 2nd rd of the '89 USO in 5 sets! He was officially DONE! :nono uzzled :angel: :dodgy:

Fiero, it was in jest. Hence the wink. No need to go write a thesis on how Wilander has not as good as Edberg. That's a dead horse that not even a White Walker can giddyup.

Just flexing my failing and feeble memory! I can't remember what I did yesterday, but I can come up with scores from '75 Wimbledon finals OTTH! :-/ :nono :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

Thanks, folks, it is a fun series.

I forgot to mention that Sweden is the only nation, along with Australia due to Laver's 1969, to have a calendar Slam - 1988 when Wilander won three and Edberg the other. It is almost surprising that the US never did it, either with Connors/McEnroe or Sampras/Agassi/Courier.

 

[Fiero425]

Thanks, folks, it is a fun series.

I forgot to mention that Sweden is the only nation, along with Australia due to Laver's 1969, to have a calendar Slam - 1988 when Wilander won three and Edberg the other. It is almost surprising that the US never did it, either with Connors/McEnroe or Sampras/Agassi/Courier.

I have to go look it up, but I'm having a faint recollection of a Russian Slam with the women; maybe 2004 or '05 with Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, and another! Anyone want to test their memories w/o looking it up? - Update found it and I was off; Henin took the AO at the beginning of the year in '04! I should have remembered her and Myskina winning medals at the Olympics as well! Dementiava was always there with the group of winners, but just couldn't finish! Surprise! What a "head-case!" She had all the talent in the world and was huge and powerful! Reminds me of another "also ran" who never fulfilled her potential, Vera Zvonareva! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

I would go with Mats over Stefan. Mats is the only player - along with Rafa - to have two majors on each of grass, hards, and clay. I also think his early burnout, like Borg, adds to his myth more than it detracts from his career. But I think Stefan was great too, and a brilliant doubles player, and at that stage Sweden looked set fair to be the major tennis nation in the 90's - which didn't happen.

Maybe there's a generational thing to consider, that the bloodline gets strong in some nations for maybe only two generations, then thins out. The traditional powerhouses - the US and Aus - are the only ones who had several generations of dominant players. These are old school tennis nations. Course, nowadays they're largely spectators on the big stage.

Good series, Dude! looking forward to more... :clap

 

[Kirijax]

I would go with Mats over Stefan. Mats is the only player - along with Rafa - to have two majors on each of grass, hards, and clay. I also think his early burnout, like Borg, adds to his myth more than it detracts from his career. But I think Stefan was great too, and a brilliant doubles player, and at that stage Sweden looked set fair to be the major tennis nation in the 90's - which didn't happen.

Maybe there's a generational thing to consider, that the bloodline gets strong in some nations for maybe only two generations, then thins out. The traditional powerhouses - the US and Aus - are the only ones who had several generations of dominant players. These are old school tennis nations. Course, nowadays they're largely spectators on the big stage.

Good series, Dude! looking forward to more... :clap

Good choice Keiran! You are my new best friend.

 

[Kieran]

It's a very minor quibble, more a preference actually, because a good case can be made for Edberg, but I remember watching Mats instantly fill the Swedish void left by Borg in Paris, and everything about him screamed "Cool." In the tennis iconography, the chilled Mats and his remarkable ability to rally and stay with big hitters in the shark-infested era of the 80's is one which is permanent. 1988 is one of the greatest seasons in tennis history, and after this?

Greta Garbo, more or less. Classic swede trick...

 

[Fiero425]

It's a very minor quibble, more a preference actually, because a good case can be made for Edberg, but I remember watching Mats instantly fill the Swedish void left by Borg in Paris, and everything about him screamed "Cool." In the tennis iconography, the chilled Mats and his remarkable ability to rally and stay with big hitters in the shark-infested era of the 80's is one which is permanent. 1988 is one of the greatest seasons in tennis history, and after this?

Greta Garbo, more or less. Classic Swede trick...

True enough, winning 3 majors and the Masters should have sealed his legend, but it didn't! He's noteworthy, but like Nadal, he was just a human backboard that ran down shots and made you hit 3 or 4 winning shots to take a point; BORING! OTTH, his '88 looks as impressive as Nole's '11, but it isn't "to me" or most other commentators and so called experts! There's winning with confidence and ability, then there's war of attrition and waiting out the opposition! He couldn't sustain it and he was "burned out" after such a great season! :cover :nono :angel: - Like McEnroe after his '84 season, he never won much else, not even making major finals!

 

[Kieran]

Bear in mind, Fiero, that your idol Borg was the original and best attritional tennis player. There wasn't much more to his game than a safety-first checklist and the ability to rally his opponent until they began to snooze...

 

[Fiero425]

Bear in mind, Fiero, that your idol Borg was the original and best attritional tennis player. There wasn't much more to his game than a safety-first checklist and the ability to rally his opponent until they began to snooze...

He started out like that and believe it or not, I thought he was unwatchable at times! I can still remember '74 FO with Borg/Orantes; I left to go play myself! I was not sitting through 5 sets of his moon-balling! Borg got more offensive later, esp. after winning Wimbledon in '76 so he vacillated between being a backboard and offensive juggernaut at times losing only 1 more match to Connors at USO in '78; injured hand kept in mind though! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

He didn't really become an actual "offensive juggernaut" but he was more aggressive as he became better, particularly on serve, and at times when he was digging himself out of holes in the early rounds of Wimbledon, against blokes like Amaya and Armitraj, he almost looked reckless in the way he flailed ruthlessly at the shot. But his default gameplay was to wear the opponent down. He only swung wildly when it seemed all was hopeless.

By the way, there's a theory which suggests that Borg was fortunate in his timing, winning five Wimbos in a row during a lull for great grass court play. He was after the great Australians and before the 80's heyday of remarkable net-rushers. He didn't face any greats of that surface until McEnroe. I can see merit in this argument, because it contains truth, but it does him a disservice. The man was built on clay and he adjusted slowly on grass, playing himself into the tournament, then dispatching useful players like Nastase and Gerulaitus, not to forget Tanner, and genuine great players like Connors - three times, including two thrashings - and Mac.

Borg, anyway, is the greatest of the swedes, still the most iconic star the sport has seen, and his five in a row was something ridiculous and unheard of at the time. Every year it seemed like an unwritten dogma of life: Borg was Wimbledon champion...

 

[Fiero425]

He didn't really become an actual "offensive juggernaut" but he was more aggressive as he became better, particularly on serve, and at times when he was digging himself out of holes in the early rounds of Wimbledon, against blokes like Amaya and Armitraj, he almost looked reckless in the way he flailed ruthlessly at the shot. But his default gameplay was to wear the opponent down. He only swung wildly when it seemed all was hopeless.

By the way, there's a theory which suggests that Borg was fortunate in his timing, winning five Wimbos in a row during a lull for great grass court play. He was after the great Australians and before the 80's heyday of remarkable net-rushers. He didn't face any greats of that surface until McEnroe. I can see merit in this argument, because it contains truth, but it does him a disservice. The man was built on clay and he adjusted slowly on grass, playing himself into the tournament, then dispatching useful players like Nastase and Gerulaitus, not to forget Tanner, and genuine great players like Connors - three times, including two thrashings - and Mac.

Borg, anyway, is the greatest of the swedes, still the most iconic star the sport has seen, and his five in a row was something ridiculous and unheard of at the time. Every year it seemed like an unwritten dogma of life: Borg was Wimbledon champion...

The 2 baseliners ruled for the most part; Borg on clay and grass plus Evert on the ladies' side with 4 straight USO's, 3 on clay and quite a few FO's! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Moxie]

I hope you're doing Spain next. Obviously, they were The Armada for a time, but there are big questions about where their program is going.