Should Edberg be higher regarded?
- Thread starter Chillaxer
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
no Kodestard, you are the one who needs to do research and take of those Kodes tarred glasses ...
yes, there were multi-slam winners, but they didn't actually play in many of those events ..., or past their prime or yet to hit their prime
no defending champion laver in FO 70, no rosewall ( best CC player of the generation ) .. best opponent was franulovic ...... LMAO ...
in 71 FO, no rosewall, laver again ..... Laver beat Kodes in 71 rome final of course ...
and 73 wimbledon as I already explained - weakest wimbledon of open era without a shadow of doubt
as far as the USOs goes, that is precisely what shows Kodes may not have won even a single slam in full fields, he may have beaten one top player in each of them, but couldn't back it up when he faced the other ...
LMAO, you are totally clueless , the guys you mentioned are like the cilics , gasquets, wawrinkas of this era ....guys like murray, davydenko etc are a million times better than them ....
murray would thump all those guys left right on anything except clay ...
davydenko would thump them all on HC and many of them on clay ...etc etc ...
davydenko won a YEC beating federer, nadal, delpo , all of them .. Kodes didn't win a single event close to beating that sort of competition ..... As far as drysdale/ralston are concerned, they could only dream of doing such a thing ........
LMAO, putting in list of great players over a period of 25 years to tell something, genius :roll:
Leaving aside all that, what kodes had was luck, pure luck ..... Fact ......
safin, hewitt, roddick >>>>>>>>>> Kodes .........
safin thrashed 14 time slam champion sampras in his own backyard in his first slam final ....... Now that is balls .......
not taking advantage of weak fields like Kodes did, with laver/rosewall missing in the FOs and with the worst wimbledon of the open era ...... that doesn't qualify .....
Of course he still got thrashed around left right by the likes of laver, rosewall ( both well past their primes ), connors, newk ( barring the odd occasion ) ........
Last edited:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
LOL.
This kiki guy continues to embarass himself again and again. So insecure that he needs to jump into any thread and denigrate the current players, and make some absurd comments that display his lack of knowledge about eras he professes to know so much about.
This kiki guy continues to embarass himself again and again. So insecure that he needs to jump into any thread and denigrate the current players, and make some absurd comments that display his lack of knowledge about eras he professes to know so much about.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I think he's just gone nuts because federer overtook Laver in the GOAT debate in general opinion...... Can't bear it ......
Not sure where his fascination with Kodes comes from ... Maybe Kodes gave him a candy when he was young ?
reversef
Hall of Fame
This is true. I was never a fan because I'm not a fan of Serve and volley. Still, I liked him a lot. His game was wonderful. A SV player, but not a huge server, a very fluid game. And a great sportsman, very humble, low key and everything you can hope to get. Edberg is highly regarded, and it's well deserved.
kiki
Banned
I think he's just gone nuts because federer overtook Laver in the GOAT debate in general opinion...... Can't bear it ......
Not sure where his fascination with Kodes comes from ... Maybe Kodes gave him a candy when he was young ?
Your new teen mate....did you give him a candy, as well...
Laver: 1962, 1967, 1969
Federer:?????????
kiki
Banned
Another dummy teenager that, as unmature teenagers always do, needs somebody to follow blindly, even if he doesn´t know the difference between a tennis racket and a paddle racket...
kiki
Banned
1973 Wimbledon had 3 players Federer can´t even dream of playing: Borg,Nasty and Jimbo.
Davidhenko? Bagdhatis? Cilic? Murray? hahaha
Safin, yeah, great match against Sampras.He is one of the few that I can save from Federer´s era, as Hewitt,Nadal and Djokovic.
Del Potro is just another choker.Kodes would eat him for breakfast on fast grass, not the pinky grass that has turned Wimbledon into a joke.
No shame in being trashed by Laver and Rosewall.In fact, that is a honour for Kodes to be able to compete and win majors against those guys.
As for your comment on Becker´s choking, I know he choked on the ocassion.But seldom in a big final.If you had ever been able to watch tennis in 1991, you would know that Stich played a perfect match, just like Cash against Lendl in 87.Did Lendl choke? maybe, but Cash ( and Stich to Becker) never let him in.
But, of course, you started seeing some tennis around 2001 or 2002, as your clueless posts t4estify.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Well, he sort of did. They won the same amount of singles majors and, granted Becker is ahead elsewhere > 11-9 in 1000 equivalent tournaments and 5-4 in Grand Prix level tournaments. Not huge margins really except at year ending championships.
Becker though lost earlier than his ranking donated throughout his career far more often than Edberg which is one reason I consider Edberg to have had the better career - in addition to the stuff I said earlier (doubles titles etc).
In terms of career-long consistency the number one ranking seems to be a big criterion for greatness on these boards generally. In that respect, Edberg absolutely owns Becker - Becker's peak playing ability was possibly been beyond compare in his era but he raised his game to that level too infrequently imo.
Last edited:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
LOL.
I'm probably older than you.
I dont follow anyone blindly - i follow the the sport of tennis.
Last edited:
Taking out Federer at the US open in the fifth set aged just 20? Comign back from sudden death set in the olympics a break down against roger and then levelling it? I'd hardly call that choking material, and he's ha dthe major injury. He also took Fed to five sets at Roland Garros, not having a game massively suited to it.
SQA333
Hall of Fame
So if Federer's competition is ****, and Nadal belongs to the same era, doesn't that mean Edberg may well be better than prime Nadal?
Just to remind you again, Nadal couldn't even rank #1 for more weeks than he has ranked #2 in this so-called weak era. So what does that make Nadal? A complete wimp? (Given how he reacts after losing with all his excuses, he sure is looking like one.)
:lol:
/thread
Last edited:
nadal2012uso2013ao
Banned
So if Federer's competition is ****, and Nadal belongs to the same era, doesn't that mean Edberg may well be better than prime Nadal?
Just to remind you again, Nadal couldn't even rank #1 for more weeks than he has ranked #2 in this so-called weak era. So what does that make Nadal? A complete wimp? (Given how he reacts after losing with all his excuses, he sure is looking like one. Thank God for tendinitis. :lol:
:lol:
/thread
Notice I said on grass and hardcourt?
On clay, a guy like Ferrer would have been lethal in the 80s/90s. I never said Nadal was the greatest hardcourter or grasscourter ever. Nadal is without doubt the clay GOAT (the only surface GOAT in tennis, as each of the other 3 slams have multiple all-time leaders), and on the way to a surreal number of slams. But I would say Edberg would beat Federer AND Nadal on grass and hardcourt. Oh and by the way, Nadal has been ranked number one for 102 weeks (and he's only age 26). You seriously sneezing at that?
/THREAD
Last edited:
SQA333
Hall of Fame
Yes, and Federer at age 26 had been ranked #1 for 204 weeks, CONSECUTIVELY - that is precisely TWICE the number of weeks.
Last edited:
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
And, as usual, a thread not even vaguely about Federer or Nadal gets taken over.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, dumbo, like I said, borg was nowhere near his peak , connors not yet his peak , nastase bombed out ...
just putting in a list of names proves zero, zero and zero ......
if it has been a full field including newk, smith, laver, rosewall, it would have been at max a semi for Kodes ... nothing more ...
2004 AO for example had : federer, agassi, safin, hewitt, roddick, ferrero, nalbandian amongst others
2005 USO for example had:federer, agassi, hewitt, nadal,roddick ,nalbandian, ferrero amongst others
2005 AO for example had: federer, agassi, safin, hewitt, nadal, roddick, nalbandian amongst others
2007 USO for example had: federer, nadal, djokovic, roddick, hewitt, davydenko amongst others
2009 USO for example had: federer, nadal, djokovic, delpotro , hewitt, roddick, soderling amongst others
all extremely strong fields .......kodes couldn't even have dreamt of reaching SFs in such fields ....
oh jeez ........really ....there are plenty of other good players as well , just that you are clueless about tennis .......
LOL, you dumbo, del potro beat nadal and fed back to back to win the USO >> something your crush Kodes can only dream of doing ....... he can maybe cause one upset here and there, but never even dream on winning a major event by beating 2 great players ...
not just laver,rosewall, he was thrashed by pretty much every great player at that time - laver, rosewall, connors, newk, borg ...
and fact is he did NOT win a single major in which these 2 guys participated - laver, rosewall ....
wrong, wrong and wrong. Cash's highest level on grass was better than that of Lendl's. He played brilliantly and therefore won
Not relevant to the becker-stich match in 91 ....where becker was lackluster, though granted stich was playing very well ....
I mentioned two other examples as well, dumbo , which you couldn't answer .....wimbledon 90 final and RG 89 SF ....... you said he never chokes in a major final , which is not true .....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
he doesn't have a clue who delpo is ( just like his knowledge of tennis of any era ) .......
For all you know he thinks delpo is a midget at 5'9'' ........ :twisted:
abmk
Bionic Poster
So if Federer's competition is ****, and Nadal belongs to the same era, doesn't that mean Edberg may well be better than prime Nadal?
Just to remind you again, Nadal couldn't even rank #1 for more weeks than he has ranked #2 in this so-called weak era. So what does that make Nadal? A complete wimp? (Given how he reacts after losing with all his excuses, he sure is looking like one. Thank God for tendinitis. :lol:
:lol:
/thread
of course edberg is better than nadal on grass , outdoor HC and indoors (HC and carpet ) .... oh wait, nadal would run away/whine and threaten to boycott if asked to play an important event on carpet ...... :twisted:
egn
Hall of Fame
Now normally I would avoid this. However let's be a bit more fair here when we assess them. First of all good oversight on Djokovic. Second of all who on earth did Kodes beat in his major finals? He beat Željko Franulović, Nastase and Metreveli in the WORST WIMBLEDON DRAW in the history of the sport. Combined his major finals opponents have 2 majors between them all from one man.
Lets look at Laver's 1969 grand slam, he beat Roche, Gimeno, Rosewall and Newk. Rosewall was great, Newk was really good and Roche and Gimeno were one timers. Roche actually won his major in that awkward era the late 60s. The era where all the best players weren't playing it as most Laver fans sight and frankly he most likely would have not won that major had he Rosewall been around to play France. So that means he beat a zero timer.
Now lets again use some damn logic. If Federer was winning all the majors from 04-07 because he was that good the only people around with a decent count would have been old (see Agassi) yet he gets discredited because he is old. From 64-69 he Laver won 13 of the 20 pro majors. Yet nobody discredits his field at that point in time for being unable to win majors off him. People still sight Pancho to be some fearsome opponent to him, when it was clear he couldn't compete with Laver at all in the 60s. Rosewall is considered to be his equal yet outside of 66 he was practically being destroyed by Laver. Considering 33 of his 63 wins came in 1963 that goes to show when Laver actually hit his best in 1964 until they reitred he was 68-33 against him. Man that Rosewall must have been fortunate to thrive in some weak ass era right?
Now if you couldn't sense my SARCASM let me make the point clear. When the true greats get going, THEY THRASH EVERYONE. Rosewall actually had done very similar things right before Laver showed up. Laver actually became that person on the tour who proved somebody could beat Ken. Anyway the point is greats dominant the tour and to say "they played a weak era because so and so won only 2 majors or won only one major or none" well it's because they ran into that great over and over again. It's easy to say Roddick/Hewitt/Safin etc. look bad when they played prime Federer. However with Fed out the equation these guys become 4-7 major winners and you'd all be ranking them in the Courer-Wilander ranger. Yet tennis doesn't work like that, we can't say Hewitt is as good as Edberg because he had to place Fed or you can't say Edberg is better than Fed because he played people with 6 majors. I can easily argue had Edberg been as good he would have crushed the likes of Becker and them. So take the stupid logic that can be twisted and go with what are the facts and what is known. Please also you have to be kidding me if you really think Jan Kodes is a great and I'm laughing my ass of at the chance of a 1973 Borg/Jimbo/Nastase being able to stop Fed in his prime.
Also if you are going to give credit for Kodes winning majors against Rosewall and Laver don't call Agassi old. Rosewall was 39 in 73.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Kodes didn't even win a major when Rosewall/Laver played ....
His one and only victory of note in the 3 majors he won was nastase in 71 FO ...
guys like scud, henman,murray, even ancic , in-form soderling, tsonga ( not to mention roddick, lendl ) would have easily won 73 wimbledon ...
His one and only victory of note in the 3 majors he won was nastase in 71 FO ...
guys like scud, henman,murray, even ancic , in-form soderling, tsonga ( not to mention roddick, lendl ) would have easily won 73 wimbledon ...
Last edited:
JustBob
Hall of Fame
Of course, egn above is right, but this has been repeated countless times, i.e. using the number of slams a player's opponents won to argue "weak era" is just silly. The number of slams which can be won in period of time 'X' is always a finite number, not a variable number...
For example, let's take 5 years, which is 20 slams. If one player wins the majority of these slams (say 12), of course there are only 8 slams left to distribute amongst other players. Then it's unlikely that the player with 12 slams would face multiple players with 5+ slams unless these players won them in a previous "era" and are nearing the end of their career...
Furthermore, people falsely equate unequal distribution of slams with "weak era". Let's take these same 20 slams and distribute them as follows:
A: 12, 3, 2, 2, 1
B: 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1,
Era 'A' is not inherently "weaker" than era 'B', the distribution is simply different. And why would some people immediately conclude that the player with 12 slams faced "weak" competition and not that he was simply a far superior player? Tell me what's more likely: that an era produced 1 good player and a bunch of mediocre players or 1 fantastic player and a bunch of good players? The later of course, unless you are arguing that some weird factor caused all players to play bad tennis or that all good coaches died in a plane crash...
P.S. I don't know why people bother arguing with kiki. He/she lives in some bizarro tennis universe where time stands still and has absolutely no understanding of the evolution of the sport...
For example, let's take 5 years, which is 20 slams. If one player wins the majority of these slams (say 12), of course there are only 8 slams left to distribute amongst other players. Then it's unlikely that the player with 12 slams would face multiple players with 5+ slams unless these players won them in a previous "era" and are nearing the end of their career...
Furthermore, people falsely equate unequal distribution of slams with "weak era". Let's take these same 20 slams and distribute them as follows:
A: 12, 3, 2, 2, 1
B: 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1,
Era 'A' is not inherently "weaker" than era 'B', the distribution is simply different. And why would some people immediately conclude that the player with 12 slams faced "weak" competition and not that he was simply a far superior player? Tell me what's more likely: that an era produced 1 good player and a bunch of mediocre players or 1 fantastic player and a bunch of good players? The later of course, unless you are arguing that some weird factor caused all players to play bad tennis or that all good coaches died in a plane crash...
P.S. I don't know why people bother arguing with kiki. He/she lives in some bizarro tennis universe where time stands still and has absolutely no understanding of the evolution of the sport...
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He is seen in high regard around here.
kiki
Banned
Becker won 7 GS titles to Edberg´s 6.He owned Edberg in most of their matches.period.
kiki
Banned
Ih¡ now the little dummie has another hero¡¡¡
I know Del Potro is 1,98 or 1,99.So what? Do you have a problem with your sizes, just like TMF?
kiki
Banned
Scud? cilic? Henman? Murray? Tsonga? maybe if the four played AT THE SAME TIME against Kodes, they might pull a 5 set.How comes you adore so much born losers?
Wilander Fan
Hall of Fame
Not up there statistically with the rest but I think Edberg had the most consistently unstoppable game. In a h2h of all players at their peak, Edberg might be 2 behind Federer on all surfaces except clay. Everyone knew what was coming...kick serve and a volley but no one really could stop it. It was really his back that kept him from doing more in his career or he would have had more slams.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Weird thread. Edberg is already very highly regarded, regarded as a "great" of the game. His accomplishments are celebrated, as well as his character and sportsmanship. His style and particular skills (volleying) are praised immensely. Further, I don't think he's underrated in terms of his place among other players.
So, my answer would be "no".
So, my answer would be "no".
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
They actually both have 6 Slams.
But, Becker certainly dominated the H2H 25-10. Though, weirdly, Edberg was 3-1 vs. Becker in Slams (can't believe they only played 4 times), 2-1 in Slam finals, and also beat Becker (indoors no less) to win the 1989 YEC (then called the Masters). So, he leads 4-1 in these biggest events, while having a pretty dismal overall H2H. On, the other hand, you could probably add Davis Cup as a "biggest event" and Becker destroyed Edberg a couple of times in DC.
I'm not making an argument for Edberg over Becker - at all. I was just pointing out a worthwhile aspect of their H2H, which was, overall, dominated by Becker. I'm sure Edberg is much less bothered by his 10-25 record vs. Becker since he has had success against him on the biggest stages. But, obviously, the overall H2H is far in favor of Becker.
Last edited:
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Wow. Just when you think Trolling can't get any worse... If you're an older gentleman, you may want to consider a testosterone shot. At least get back on your meds.
Back to Edberg: definitely underrated. His serve and volleys get a lot of praise. But his backhand was very good too. Came over it and of course sliced to come to net behind.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
2006 Federer would be a nightmare for anyone.
kiki
Banned
What about Dallas 1988?
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
+1. Prime Federer would be able to compete with the best of any period. Regardless of what some people who are stuck in the past think.
egn
Hall of Fame
My apologies for making a spelling mistake for the person who spells it davidhenko.
Dallas 1988
Having said that Edberg was a wonderful champion. Fantastic player to watch. When his game was on - it was spectacular. I remember so many times his absorbing Lendl's power with his backhand slice.
Becker won that - I think he is clearly ahead of Edberg. The only stat that Edberg is ahead on is weeks at number 1. (You could throw in 2 - 1 wimbledon finals - but I think that is arbitary).
Having said that Edberg was a wonderful champion. Fantastic player to watch. When his game was on - it was spectacular. I remember so many times his absorbing Lendl's power with his backhand slice.
Last edited:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
Kiki thinks that Becker won 7 slams.
LMAO.
LMAO.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Um, no he didn't. They both won 6 singles majors as bluetrain4 pointed out above.
Becker may have a very good h2h against Edberg but on the major stage Edberg completely owns Becker 3-1. 4-1 if you include the YEC.
That is a miles better h2h ratio even than Nadal has over Federer. Not that it matters because the h2h is an almost irrelevant detail in a tennis player's greatness - their benchmark/milestone achievements are.
Becker's only nods over Edberg are his winning Wimbledon at such a young age and his YEC record. Elsewhere Edberg basically had the better career - especially if you include his doubles success which, to me, significantly adds clout to his career in the same way it did for McEnroe.
Last edited:
I don't think you people understand how crazy Kiki actually is. Look at this thread he made in the former pro player section recently:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=435618
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=435618
Head to head with becker in important tournaments
Whats the edberg/becker head to head in the following Important tournaments added up together?
Slams + Davis Cup + YEC + WCT Finals?
I have 8 to becker and 5 to edberg (this is all rounds not just finals)
Still a mystery to me why people put edberg ahead of becker
Whats the edberg/becker head to head in the following Important tournaments added up together?
Slams + Davis Cup + YEC + WCT Finals?
I have 8 to becker and 5 to edberg (this is all rounds not just finals)
Still a mystery to me why people put edberg ahead of becker
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
in-form tsonga/scud/murray/henman would crush Kodes on anything other clay ...
it would be worse, much worse than this humiliation of nadal by tsonga :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4TibCXz-EE
Kodes in his dreams couldn't have played half as well
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
As I said, the h2h doesn't matter overly since in tennis you are not playing that person, it's each person vs the whole draw in front of them.
They achieved almost identically in majors in terms of singles but Edberg completely owns Becker in possibly the next most highly regarded metric in determining tennis greatness: time at number one ranking. When you look at that metric Edberg is a fair distance ahead of Becker.
Sure if you following onto historically less important finer details like the h2h or lower tier tournaments you see that Becker was often the more accomplished - but the threshold for considering those is moot considering Edbergs complete pwnage of him in the rankings comparison - it's like saying a nation which won 1 gold and 5 bronze medals did better than a country which won 5 golds (5 golds is better than 6 medals of which only 1 is gold). Edberg was better against the whole field more often than Becker and, appropriately, it is reflected in his much more consistent rankings.
Weeks at #1 - Edberg 72 weeks, Becker 12. - Edberg by a massive majority
Becker's lack of ability to maintain the #1 ranking is actually an anomaly in his career imo. He just couldn't keep it together long enough any time in his career to really make any lasting impact at the top of the rankings. Put in perspective he is significantly beaten in this department by Leyton Hewitt and even Andy Roddick - two pretty lowly regarded former #1s in terms of the upper echelon of tennis - despite winning twice as many majors as them combined!
If, as you suggest, achievements like the Davis Cup should be considered then we should consider Edberg's three doubles major titles - including winning both the singles and doubles titles at the Aussie open one year. If people want to give McEnroe kudos for his doubles prowess then Edberg deserves it also.
In terms of the thread title of Edberg's place in historical regards... I think he's regarded pretty highly already.
Last edited:
Edberg
Don't get me wrong, Edberg was a pretty special player. On certain days eg 1991 us open finals, he could be just spectacular.
Re.rankings...one has to be a little careful here. Rankings are an indicator,but only a secondary one. After all no-one would rank Roddick as being superior to becker even though andy had more weeks at number 1
For you the rankings comparison is the tie breaker (given that they are 6 all in slams). For me the tie breaker falling in beckers direction is beckers overwhelmingly greater achievements in the major indoor championships of the period - the masters, the wct finals and the grand slam cup. Becker won 5 of these tournaments whilst edberg won 1. (if you dont think the grand salm cup should be included you still have 4 to 1). Remember that in the 80s and 90s (unlike now) indoor tennis was a big deal and a huge part of the tennis year.
Don't get me wrong, Edberg was a pretty special player. On certain days eg 1991 us open finals, he could be just spectacular.
Re.rankings...one has to be a little careful here. Rankings are an indicator,but only a secondary one. After all no-one would rank Roddick as being superior to becker even though andy had more weeks at number 1
For you the rankings comparison is the tie breaker (given that they are 6 all in slams). For me the tie breaker falling in beckers direction is beckers overwhelmingly greater achievements in the major indoor championships of the period - the masters, the wct finals and the grand slam cup. Becker won 5 of these tournaments whilst edberg won 1. (if you dont think the grand salm cup should be included you still have 4 to 1). Remember that in the 80s and 90s (unlike now) indoor tennis was a big deal and a huge part of the tennis year.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Yes, I agree.Edberg was a true, pure joy to watch and young Boris, the always daring Boom Boom was just fresh and emotional power.A classic.
kiki
Banned
This is so true.WCT and Masters ( GS Cup, IMO, was an exhibition, of course a MEGAEXHIBITION, but just that) were so huge and exciting, considered by 70´s and 80´s fans as majors.tennis has changed, and the two majors changes, as far as comparing with that era is grass is so much slow and true and hard court have replaced indoors as the main surface of the tour.There were a lot of Supreme indoor events and very few hard courts, and now is just completely the opposite.
kiki
Banned
Crazy? what? having fun? of course, I opened that thread for inteligent people.Few, but inteligent posters made also fun.of course, you are neither fun or smart.
kiki
Banned
he won 3 majors, containing guys like Nastase,Borg who would toy all the players you mentioned on clay and Connors,newk and Smith, who would clobber the whole thousands of Murrays,Cilics,nalbandians and Soderlings that are your crush.
Del Potro a menthal giant??? hahahaha.Saw the Olimpics?
kiki
Banned
those players together have 3 slams less than Jan Kodes.
librarysteg
Hall of Fame
Edberg was my very first favorite player from the first tennis tournament I ever watched, French Open 1989. Our P.E. teacher put it on in junior high study hall, and I was instantly hooked.
