courier - edberg rivalry.

seems like edberg was having real trouble with courier around 92-94
does anyone know what dynamic meant edberg was lsoing these matches
given that in theory he was at his his peak...i would have thought those kcik serves high to the backhand would have given courier trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNeX22yiha0

after watching abit of this seems like edberg was having trouble holding serve.

In 92-94 Courier was at his peak. Arguably Edberg's peak might have been more like 88-91.

But Courier was one of a group of players that ushered in a whole new level of pace in the men's game. From what I saw when Courier started beating Edberg Courier could deal with Edberg's spin, and dish out enough pace that those beautiful volleys of Edberg's weren't quite enough often enough to get the job done. Edberg could not dish out enough pace to keep Courier off balance enough of the time to prevent Courier from setting up and firing.

Just as great as Sampras vs Becker.Courier seemd to take Edberg´s number for a while, with great wins at the AO and Wimbledon, but Ednerg beat Jim on his favourite surface, the hard courts of Flushing Meadows.

rkelley said:

In 92-94 Courier was at his peak. Arguably Edberg's peak might have been more like 88-91.

Click to expand...

Agree with this. In 92-94, Edberg was experiencing some of the back problems that would plague him until his retirement in '96, so this was definitely closer to the twilight of his career, rather than his peak.

courier was a beast when given the time to unload on his forehand

also, edberg made his own downfall; he always served that kick serve to the backhand

you do that to a one hander, even one like courier's that is 'just ok', then you will play it into form

more the point, players like courier and sampras were power players, pure hardcourters

edberg relied too much on finesse and touch

eventually, the power wins out

kiki said:

Just as great as Sampras vs Becker.Courier seemd to take Edberg´s number for a while, with great wins at the AO and Wimbledon, but Ednerg beat Jim on his favourite surface, the hard courts of Flushing Meadows.

Click to expand...

disagree with this

courier's best surface was the AO, no doubt about it

the slams, the record there, the remaining competitive there even when past his best

no doubt that courier is maybe underrated for his versatility. isn't given enough credit for reaching all for 4 finals when the surfaces played drastically different, and in such a short space of time

however, his game plan was more or less the same on all surfaces. he didn't particularly adjust much

he'd try and serve and volley on grass but didn't really posses the hands to do so. he also didn't slide or move great on clay, despite being a beast at RG. he played hardcourt tennis, and his fitness was good enough for him to make it work

he was hardcourt player, first and foremost. US was his home slam, but AO was his best slam

Tagg said:

disagree with this

courier's best surface was the AO, no doubt about it

the slams, the record there, the remaining competitive there even when past his best

no doubt that courier is maybe underrated for his versatility. isn't given enough credit for reaching all for 4 finals when the surfaces played drastically different, and in such a short space of time

however, his game plan was more or less the same on all surfaces. he didn't particularly adjust much

he'd try and serve and volley on grass but didn't really posses the hands to do so. he also didn't slide or move great on clay, despite being a beast at RG. he played hardcourt tennis, and his fitness was good enough for him to make it work

he was hardcourt player, first and foremost. US was his home slam, but AO was his best slam

Click to expand...

You are completely right.Courier reached the big 4 finals ( and yet the Masters final too) and was extremely tough to beat on any surface from 1991 to 1994.He had great confidence as well.

Jimmy forehand baby...a real game changer...especially hit low at Edberg's feet...Edberg was not a stranger to facing big forehands like Becker, Lendl, Agassi...but Jim was a baseball player playing world-class tennis.

Courier had a HUGE return of serve when he was at his peak. He would crush backhand winners left and right. His backhand was also a weapon when in the rallys.

Try to find some footage of the 93 Ausie Open and you will see Couriers backhand in at its peak.

By 95 he had lost a lot of confidence in the shot and it was downhill from there. When Courier was confident he was a top 5 player. When he wasnt he was an outside the top 100 type player. Tough for him to win when he wasnt feeling it.

This comes from a big Courier fan by the way. Jim was a pretty big overachiever in the end. A bit one dimensional but a tough fighter and very quick athlete. He probably could have played a lot of different sports at the professional level if he didnt go with tennis. The guy was a classic jock.

I still watch a lot of his old matches among other favorites of mine. His rivaly with Edberg is one of my favorites. Edberg struggled with Jims intensity big time. Another pure S&V Patrick Rafter owned Jim.

Jim is youngest Open era player who made finals of all 4 Majors

I remember it as being a more substantive (in terms of number of matches) rivlary than it actually was. Courier led 6-4. Their primes didn't really overlap, maybe briefly. Not surprisingly, most of Edberg's wins were earlier in the rivalry. Most of the ten matches had the losing player taking at least a set.

They played in Slams six times I think. Edberg beat Courier in 5 sets at the 1990 French Open, only to have Courier return the favor and beat Edberg in 4 sets at the 1991 French Open. I'm sure no one was expecting Edberg to then, later that year, absolutely destroy Courier in the 1991 USO final, in what was probably one of Edberg's greatest matches. From there, Courier had a bunch of routine 4-set wins (that were never really in doubt) against Edberg in Slams, incuding the 92 and 93 AO finals, and the 93 Wimbledon semis. Courier beat Edberg in Scottsdale in 3 tight sets in 1995, when Courier himself had started to go downhill a little. [Note: I haven't accounted for all 10 matches].

It was a good matchup, contrasting styles. Courier "having Edberg's number" wasn't really anything specific. I don't think he was in Edberg's head. 92 and 93 were arguably Courier's prime and Eberg had dropped off just slightly, which was enough to result in those routine 4-set wins at Slams that I referenced.

I got the impression Edberg had more trouble reading/ anticipating the direction of Courier's shots than with other similar players. He appeared a bit more flatfooted at net vs Courier.

magnut said:

Courier had a HUGE return of serve when he was at his peak. He would crush backhand winners left and right. His backhand was also a weapon when in the rallys.

Click to expand...

First thing that came to mind. I remember the Courier/Edberg semi at Wimbledon, and Courier was crushing returns off both wings.

Rattler said:

First thing that came to mind. I remember the Courier/Edberg semi at Wimbledon, and Courier was crushing returns off both wings.

Click to expand...

The only time I ever really saw Courier hit backhands at that level in his later years was when he would run up against Agassi or Chang. He seemed to have a different level of belief when he played his old rivals. Once Pete really developed his serve (93-94) Jim really never got ahold of him again. He played a good match in the 95 US Open semis but Petes serve had him marching back and fourth like he was in a band during the return games. Jim just got a little intimidated by Pete. Both the 95 Aussie Open and the 96 French open Jim was up 2 sets to love and Pete came back both times. Those were probably the two biggest career changing matches for Jim. He was never the same after the 96 French Open loss.

Jim had a decent push at the Beginning of 97 but Muster kept taking him out of the big events. Jim had a 7-0 record beating Muster (I think) and then Muster crushed him three matches in a row.

From there on out the only real highlights of Jim's career were Davis Cup matches. The Spanish clan started to excell and Jim couldnt keep up anymore. Most of those Spanish players played a lot like Courier but they were younger, faster, and hungrier.

Jim was having pretty major trouble just winning first rounds when he retired. It was a pretty sad decline after being such a dominant force on the ATP tour. In the end though he had a hell of a career for about 5 years.

Like I said earlier. I am a Courier fan and still watch a lot of his matches. He was extremely mature at a young age both physically and mentally. I think the drive and the hunger for him was there when things were new and exciting. Once he went through the tour grind of ups and downs he just went off kilter. He could not bounce back from bad losses very well. He once said in an interview that the greatest asset an athlete can have is the ability to forget. Jim just could not get over the losses in the long run.

Interesting guy for sure. When he was number 1 he did not come across as an early 20s type player. He seemed like a veteran out there.

He also had some of the all time great commercials for those who might remember.

I always thought Courier just burned himself out. If the dude wasn't going all-out on court, he was going all-out on the track or in the gym, and that mindset (and stress on the body) can wear on you pretty fast.

Granted, it also earned him a pretty dominant run, but it definitely wasn't a long-term approach. !Tym once likened Courier to a lighter going full blast nonstop during his prime, then flickering on and off until the end, and I've gotta agree with that assessment.