Should Edberg be higher regarded?

[Chillaxer]

Originally Posted by timnz

Edberg won 2 out of the three wimbledon finals they played. However one of those wins was a five setter, that could easily have gone the other way. Hence edberg is only barely ahead in that category. Comapre that to the Massive lead that becker has in the head to head.

Winning five setters is a bonus. Shows character.

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

Was Roddick as good as McEnroe, Connors and Becker? Obviously a big NO. So that's why Edberg may well be better than prime Federer. Edberg's competition was far greater.

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

Originally Posted by SQA333

How do you know for sure? I know this is the "net" but get your facts straight, around me at least.

Are you trying to say that its not a fact that McEnroe, Connors, Becker are all better than Roddick?

[SQA333]

Originally Posted by nadal2012uso2013ao

Are you trying to say that its not a fact that McEnroe, Connors, Becker are all better than Roddick?

Answer my question first.

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

Originally Posted by SQA333

Answer my question first.

Because I witnessed the 1980s, live. That's how I know. Roddick/Federer would have a lot of problems vs the elite players.

[SQA333]

Originally Posted by nadal2012uso2013ao

Because I witnessed the 1980s, live. That's how I know. Roddick/Federer would have a lot of problems vs the elite players.

I witnessed the 1980s live too. Roddick certainly would have a few problems, but Federer wouldn't have. Prime Federer was on another level.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by nadal2012uso2013ao

I'm not stating anything we don't already know. Becker, McEnroe, Connors, all better than Federer's opponents (at least on grass and hardcourt). Clearly Edberg had it tougher. How many slams would Federer have won vs Becker, McEnore, Connors, Wilander etc.? Obviously not close to 17.

yeah, federer would not have 17 slams with them all around.

But rafa would have zero slams outside of clay with them around. mac/connors/edberg/becker would have thrashed him in the 2nd half of the season , @ wimbledon where grass was faster and lower bouncing , @ USO on decoturf II, and on indoor ( oh wait, he'd have got thrashed in one season and then used his injury excuses to skip other indoor seasons )

[SQA333]

Edit...................

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy

Also, when you been No.1 for 270 weeks (Lendl), 268 weeks (Connors) and 170 weeks (McEnroe) one doesn't need too much "self-promotion".

Sadly Edberg is a fair way back isn't he? 72 weeks from memory.
Nice run but not a giant of the game by any means.

I agree. He is not at the same level of Connors, Mc and Lendl. He is a tier below with Becker IMO.

[Paul Murphy]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

I agree. He is not at the same level of Connors, Mc and Lendl. He is a tier below with Becker IMO.

That's generally the accepted view and it's hard to mount a strong argument against it.

[TeflonTom]

Originally Posted by timnz

Can I ask why? Becker had a dominent head to head against edberg. He won many more major indoor titles (4 or 5 compared to edbergs one) and had same number of slams. i just dont understand the view that edberg is rated higher than becker.

Your thoughts?

pwned becker in slams h2h. becker had a much better non-slam record but in slams edberg was far superior:

titles: becker 6, edberg 6
runner-ups: becker 5, edberg 6
semis: becker 8, edberg 8
quarters: becker 5, edberg 7

tended 2 beat better players too IMO

[Chillaxer]

Originally Posted by SQA333

I witnessed the 1980s live too. Roddick certainly would have a few problems, but Federer wouldn't have. Prime Federer was on another level.

Edberg had too much upstairs and all round for Roddick. I could see him beating him in big matches

[mental midget]

i think most people have edberg's career about right, he's a 'tier 3' guy.

from an athletic/talent standpoint imo, though, he's tier one, and very close to the top. he learned the game a certain way and did pretty well for himself, but i think had he adopted a more 'conventional' forehand and developed his ground game further, he could easily be sitting on 8-10 slams or more. he speed, balance, and coordination are among the best i've ever seen.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by nadal2012uso2013ao

I'm not stating anything we don't already know. Becker, McEnroe, Connors, all better than Federer's opponents (at least on grass and hardcourt). Clearly Edberg had it tougher. How many slams would Federer have won vs Becker, McEnore, Connors, Wilander etc.? Obviously not close to 17.

My guess is... 6 ?

[Magnetite]

He's already considered to be one of the greats in the sport.

Practically everyone loves Edberg.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

My guess is... 6 ?

and my guess is Kodes would have won zero and laver 2 ......( oh wait, that would probably be true for any era except the weakest era of all time --- 1960-73 ! )

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

and my guess is Kodes would have won zero and laver 2 ......( oh wait, that would probably be true for any era except the weakest era of all time --- 1960-73 ! )

Did I mention how many titles would Kodes or Laver win in today´s extremely weak era?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Did I mention how many titles would Kodes or Laver win in today´s extremely weak era?

Like I said , in most other eras they would probably end up with 0 and 2 majors respectively - that includes this era >> wayyyyyy stronger than the era in which they played ..... They only won more because they played in the weakest era of all time ..

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

I understand you are in a bad temper...maybe because I left out 2 ALL TIME GREATS that add up to the pathetic list of Fed´s victims like:

¡¡Bagdhatis¡¡ ( from an island that has a tree´s name, I can´t remember which )
¡¡Davidenkho ¡¡ ( the guy that mostly rassembles Vladimir Putin, maybe one of his non recognized sons)

Sorry for that unforgiving mistake I made.

I am not angry at all ......

All I am doing is making fun of your total ignorance about the present era ( or for that matter tennis of any era )

davydenko is better than the likes of ralston/drysdale whom you keep parading as greats ....... LOL .......

those are pathetic victims ......

davydenko has a YEC beating federer, delpo, nadal on the way ...... also leads nadal 6-1 on HC ..

what do ralston/drysdale have ? a lone slam final in totally inept , joke amateur fields ?????? LMAO !!!!! davydenko would have won multiple majors in fields like those ....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

I am not angry at all ......

All I am doing is making fun of your total ignorance about the present era ( or for that matter tennis of any era )

davydenko is better than the likes of ralston/drysdale whom you keep parading as greats ....... LOL .......

those are pathetic victims ......

davydenko has a YEC beating federer, delpo, nadal on the way ...... also leads nadal 6-1 on HC ..

what do ralston/drysdale have ? a lone slam final in totally inept , joke amateur fields ?????? LMAO !!!!! davydenko would have won multiple majors in fields like those ....

Kodes won the 1973 Wimbledon title facing all time greats like peakest nastase and extremely close to prime Connors and prime Borg ( among others like Amritraj,Metrevali and Taylor)...that means, won a GS title with 3 of the best ever players in the field.

At msot, Federer can say he has faced 2 of the best modern era players ( Hewitt and Safin in his starting days, Nadal and Djokovic in the last 5 years)...so FEDERER never won a championship as tough as 1973 Kodes ( not to mention the other slams Kodes won)...

Live with that, you obsessed youngster