What happened to Mats Wilander after 1988?

[El Dude]

A random curiosity. I didn't really follow tennis much back then, plus was just a teenager in the late 80s, so can't remember. Looking at his record, though, he had a remarkable career through 1988, the year he turned 24. To put the first half of his career in context, he had won 7 Grand Slams at an age when Ivan Lendl was about to win his first.

So what happened? He had one of the greatest years in history in 1988 - winning three Slams during one of the most competitive eras in history. But then he never won another, slipping out of the top 10 in 1989 and never returning. Any thoughts?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

yes. he lost motivation, he didn't want to push himself so hard any more after 8yrs since his 1980 tour debut, he set himself a challenge to get to world no1 in 88..he got there and then slowly declined, he was an intense baseline warrior who physically was a beast and mentally outthought opponents too.

other things were he got married around then (??)..which maybe altered his thinking, his wife noted in 1989 he was more interested in his recording studio than heading to the practise courts, his dad died of cancer in the same timeframe. (I think).

a big mental freakout was that wilander was booked to fly on the pan-am 747 flight that was blown up over Lockerbie on dec21/22 1988, he was delayed and didn't make the flight.

add all this things up and you have the answer, still decent in 1989 I was expecting a Wimbledon assault on his weakest surface but after that he was part timer.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks, Jesus. I think Mats is one of those "what could have been" cases. We tend to think of your namesake, but Mats is also up there.

 

[Moose]

Remember when he said Federer had very small "Wilanders"

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Bjornism...It is a Swedish disease...makes you retire early . Affects roughly half the population. I am glad Edberg was in the other half.

 

[Kieran]

Mats is very much up there with Borg, in so many ways. He had seven majors by the age of 23, and this during the dog eat dog world of the 80's. Lendl was one of the great claycourters and Mats won 3 RG's in this period. He won slams on all surfaces - twice. And in 1988 he won 3 in one year, which had only been achieved by Connors and Laver in the Open Era - and not by anyone since they introduced hards into the equation.

So Mats was special. But JLLB is right: he lost interest. He didn't get to the Courier stage of reading books on the change of ends, but he wasn't the warrior he'd been up until 1988. I think also, his dad died in 1989, and this sorely affected him.

Mats didn't have any big weapons, so his style of play was always going to require top notch commitment, but after 1988, I think he wondered what else was there to do...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

mats tour debut july 1980, bastad aged 15, played davis cup age 16, played the Stockholm masters nov 1980. had borg-mcenroe final.

mats also lost 1-6, 1-6 to borg, Geneva (early round) sept 1981. played Wimbledon 1981 age 16, reached 3rd rd. like borg mats was an early starter.

 

[Kirijax]

JllB pretty much stated everything that has been mentioned about the cause of his descent. Mats was my favorite player from the time he appeared as a force at the '82 French, through his career and even now with his commentary and WOW endeavors. Brilliant player, gave Lendl fits, won more GS than Becker/Edberg, and has been called the smartest player ever (McEnroe). Hated to see his career end so early but he sure did leave his mark. Maybe one of the most overlooked/underestimated players of all time.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, the rate that Mats was winning slams was fairly consistent, bolstered of course by three in 1988. He was an honest player, in his efforts. It's always interesting watching the results of guys like him, after their cut-off season. For example, his next title after 1988 was in November 1990, and he was ranked 40 in the world at the time.

In 1991, he played only 19 matches until Queens, then nothing until April 1993.

It's kind of like Borg, who also didn't "retire" in 1981, but played on for a few more years. Sort of. The "what could have been" questions most surround these two Swedes, who are rightly often called "enigmatic..."

 

[El Dude]

It's kind of like Borg, who also didn't "retire" in 1981, but played on for a few more years. Sort of. The "what could have been" questions most surround these two Swedes, who are rightly often called "enigmatic..."

Emphasis on "sort of." Borg only played on ATP event--Monte Carlo in 1982, losing to Yannick Noah in the QF--and a handful of exhibitions. He announced his retirement in 1983 but was effectively done at the end of 1981.

Not to derail the thread, but as great as Borg was, I think the question of how many Slams he would have won if he hadn't retired when he did would likely have been less than many of his fans might think. I think part of the reason he retired is that he knew he didn't have the drive or desire to play on a level high enough to compete with McEnroe--not to mention a hungry Lendl and a young Wilander. I mean maybe he would have found a second wind, but it seems unlikely. This isn't to degrade the legacy of Borg--who I think ranks as the 4th greatest player of the Open Era after Federer, Nadal, and Sampras--but to say that I think he really shouldn't be judged by more than what he did, which was still great.

 

[Kieran]

It's hard to say with Bjorn. He may have gotten a second wind. People would have said the same about Roger if he retired after Oz in 2009. You can never tell if injury will strike your biggest rival, or if they'll go off the boil. Mac went off the boil in 1982, but it might have been the absence of Borg threw him a wobbly. He says it is, and he's probably right.

But Mac isn't a sturdy consistent fellow, and and if Bjorn played on in 1982, he may have gotten back on top. We'll never know. GSM posted some very interesting exos played between the pair in 1982, where Borg looked great.

I think Bjorn was the greatest of his era, which is all he can be, really...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's hard to say with Bjorn. He may have gotten a second wind. People would have said the same about Roger if he retired after Oz in 2009.

I think the fact that Borg actually retired, while for Federer, the thought pretty much never crossed his mind makes Fed's 2nd wind (which he ended up getting a few months later) far more likely. I like Borg, but the fact that he just threw in the towel says it all about any potential renaissance.

 

[Kieran]

It's hard to say with Bjorn. He may have gotten a second wind. People would have said the same about Roger if he retired after Oz in 2009.

I think the fact that Borg actually retired, while for Federer, the thought pretty much never crossed his mind makes Fed's 2nd wind (which he ended up getting a few months later) far more likely. I like Borg, but the fact that he just threw in the towel says it all about any potential renaissance.

Borg didn't actually "retire". Not formally. It was the tour which wouldn't accommodate him on scheduling issues, which was a major shot in their own foot. But his intention was always to continue playing, and he did, in 1982, keeping himself in shape and playing exos, but he more or less boycotted the tour...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's hard to say with Bjorn. He may have gotten a second wind. People would have said the same about Roger if he retired after Oz in 2009.

I think the fact that Borg actually retired, while for Federer, the thought pretty much never crossed his mind makes Fed's 2nd wind (which he ended up getting a few months later) far more likely. I like Borg, but the fact that he just threw in the towel says it all about any potential renaissance.

Borg didn't actually "retire". Not formally. It was the tour which wouldn't accommodate him on scheduling issues, which was a major shot in their own foot. But his intention was always to continue playing, and he did, in 1982, keeping himself in shape and playing exos, but he more or less boycotted the tour...

...that's still far more extreme than shedding a few tears and crying out "god, it's killing me."

 

[Kieran]

Bjorn had too much class for that...

 

[El Dude]

Borg didn't actually "retire". Not formally. It was the tour which wouldn't accommodate him on scheduling issues, which was a major shot in their own foot. But his intention was always to continue playing, and he did, in 1982, keeping himself in shape and playing exos, but he more or less boycotted the tour...

So you're saying that he went into a monumental pout that prematurely ended his career?

Bjorn had too much class for that...

Seems contradictory to the above!

Anyhow, I get that he was boycotting the tour, but I think it had a lot to do with McEnroe surpassing him (three straight losses to Johnny Mac). Overall, from everything I've read, it just seemed like had lost the drive and passion, and from that came his boycotting etc.

 

[Kieran]

No, he wasn't sulking, he was burnt out and he wasn't allowed to play a schedule which in retrospect seems reasonable. He wanted to play about ten tourneys, plus slams. He didn't want to avoid playing but he had no choice. It wasn't that Bjorn announced he was boycotting the tour, but that's more or less the effect of what happened. He couldn't commit to playing the amount they demanded of him.

He was burnt out and frazzled at the end of 1981, and they were foolish not to work with him.

Come on! Can you picture Borgie weeping on the podium and crying out this "deez is killing me!" :lolz:

 

[britbox]

It's kind of like Borg, who also didn't "retire" in 1981, but played on for a few more years. Sort of. The "what could have been" questions most surround these two Swedes, who are rightly often called "enigmatic..."

Emphasis on "sort of." Borg only played on ATP event--Monte Carlo in 1982, losing to Yannick Noah in the QF--and a handful of exhibitions. He announced his retirement in 1983 but was effectively done at the end of 1981.

Not to derail the thread, but as great as Borg was, I think the question of how many Slams he would have won if he hadn't retired when he did would likely have been less than many of his fans might think. I think part of the reason he retired is that he knew he didn't have the drive or desire to play on a level high enough to compete with McEnroe--not to mention a hungry Lendl and a young Wilander. I mean maybe he would have found a second wind, but it seems unlikely. This isn't to degrade the legacy of Borg--who I think ranks as the 4th greatest player of the Open Era after Federer, Nadal, and Sampras--but to say that I think he really shouldn't be judged by more than what he did, which was still great.

I think the McEnroe dimension is really overplayed with Borg's tour departure. My opinion is that he was flat out "burnt out". He didn't quit the tour because of McEnroe, he quit because he wasn't allowed to play the tour schedule on his own terms.

Borg was playing exhibitions against McEnroe, Connors et al in the early 80s AFTER he'd left the tour. For instance, he beat McEnroe in Tokyo in 1983 in an exhibition for mega money (some of these exhos paid out more than winning a grand slam tournament).

Personally I think Borg had got tired of going to the well over and over... he was burnt out and had discovered a life outside tennis. The tour wasn't prepared to accommodate his revised schedule and they lost (at the time) the biggest star in the sport.

 

[Ricardo]

Borg didn't actually "retire". Not formally. It was the tour which wouldn't accommodate him on scheduling issues, which was a major shot in their own foot. But his intention was always to continue playing, and he did, in 1982, keeping himself in shape and playing exos, but he more or less boycotted the tour...

So you're saying that he went into a monumental pout that prematurely ended his career?

Bjorn had too much class for that...

Seems contradictory to the above!

Anyhow, I get that he was boycotting the tour, but I think it had a lot to do with McEnroe surpassing him (three straight losses to Johnny Mac). Overall, from everything I've read, it just seemed like had lost the drive and passion, and from that came his boycotting etc.

if you were to watch more 80s or got better knowledge of it, you'd know that Borg wasn't going to lose at RG any time soon. He was clearly the best player on clay, year in and year out.

Also we should not judge him on slam count. Even if we did, we should know that he accumulated 11 majors by participating in only 3 GS events. At the time AO was NOT important, for all players back then it was an unnecessary tournament on their schedule.

I also think he'd likely have succeeded at USO if he persisted. There has never been a player who ended up winning none after getting so close on 4 occasions (i.e. making finals) in any GS.

Borg would've been too good not to win a couple more RG, and some AO's and maybe 1 USO.

 

[Kieran]

It's hard to say, but I agree with ricardo that Borg would have taken more FO's. Certainly, if you look at the next two seasons, he would have been favourite, but he was already showing signs of fatigue against Lendl in 1981.

He may have taken a USO but we don't know what Mac would have been like if Borg stayed around. It wouldn't be impossible to defeat Mac on either hards or grass, but Borg would have to be sharp.

I dunno if he'd ever have played Oz, but I read in Mac's autobiography that he said Borg urged him to play in Oz (I think it was 1985) in order to get the #1 ranking back from Lendl, so maybe he would have. Oz began to rise after Borg retired and he might have gone there.

But if he played on, I think he could have had between 13 and 15 majors when he retired...