Racquet_smash
Semi-Pro
Edberg is the epitome of tennis when it comes to volleying
2nd greatest Swede: Edberg or Wilander?
- Thread starter Phoenix1983
- Start date
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
I do think this is closer than many people recognize it. Wilander has more slams (7 to 6), has a 3 slam year while Edberg doesn't even have a single 2 time year, has won multiple slams on all 3 surfaces, and atleast the 83 Australian Open was quite a strong event/field. I would still give the edge to Edberg but I don't see how some are laughing at the question or that Wilander has any argument.
Plus Wilander led the H2H 11-9, including 3-2 at Majors. I still think I give Edberg a slight edge, but it's really close.
Vincent-C
Legend
Agreed- it's not a laughable question at all.
Not at all....I think Wilander is a better all court player and master of multiple surfaces, even if he didn't win Wimby. Still, Stefan has a pretty sweet trophy cabinet with 2 W and 2 USO, which Mats can't touch (w/only 1 USO).
Sampras led the H2h with Edberg 8 to 6. You may have meant that in the earlier years of their engagement Edberg had a slight lead
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Or perhaps that Edberg won both their matches in majors, i.e. 1992 US Open final, 1993 Australian Open semi final.
The 1993 Australian Open semi final was a bit crazy. Edberg foot faulted about a dozen times in the match, Sampras raced into a 4-0 lead in the first set and looked impressive at that point, but Edberg won 7-6, 6-3, 7-6.
javitennis
New User
Edberg is more of a fast-court player and more talented in volleying, but my vote goes to Wilander. He's more complete player.
IMO the fact that Edberg came 5 points away from winning the RG title in 1989, while Wilander came no closer than 6 points away from merely winning a 2nd set in a Wimbledon quarter-final and forcing a decisive 5th set at that stage (in his 1989 QF vs. Mac when serving at 4-4 in the 4th set with a couple of deuces after previously facing break points), is ultimately decisive here. That was effectively a 7 set plus 1 point difference in Edberg's favour, in terms of how close they came to winning their respective weakest majors. And that's without even considering the fact that Wimbledon was still clearly a bigger deal than RG at that time - I personally think that the 00s is the first full decade during which we can say that the 4 majors were genuinely equally important to each other.
Clearly indoor tennis was also a very big deal in general then. Edberg won the same no. of titles on clay (Gstaad, Hamburg and Madrid) as Wilander did on indoor carpet / hard (Stockholm and Brussels x 2), with Wilander entering slightly more indoor tournaments than Edberg did on clay.
Clearly indoor tennis was also a very big deal in general then. Edberg won the same no. of titles on clay (Gstaad, Hamburg and Madrid) as Wilander did on indoor carpet / hard (Stockholm and Brussels x 2), with Wilander entering slightly more indoor tournaments than Edberg did on clay.
Last edited:
Yeah, Wilander's career record on carpet was only 72-53 (57.6%), including a 9-10 record at WTF. If we're talking about versatility across surfaces, that's a mark against Mats in comparison to Stefan.
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
Those are the biggest reasons I side with Edberg as well. Although as I said I still think it is a close call as Wilander has some edges on Edberg too.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Wilander had a lot of variation. He could be patient from the back, he could serve and volley and he could lob. There wasn’t anything he couldn’t do. We all know about his tactical ability against players, that isn’t anything in dispute. When I hear that all this guy did was bore you to death, I wonder what more could you want from a player? He had a plan for players and that meant incorporating different strategies that propelled him to the top.
Lendl most definitely caused Wilander to change his approach on and off the court. A former player Matt Doyle suggested he get a little stronger to give him a more powerful serve and penetrating ground strokes. He needed to get stronger to overcome Lendl and achieve the Number 1 ranking. He developed that slice backhand to which he used throughout his match against Lendl at the 1988 US Open. A match I thoroughly enjoyed.
airchallenge2
Hall of Fame
7 is more than 6, so Mats wins this one.
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
Lets not forget sampras could hold easier than edberg allowing him more energy to have a go at trying to break without worrying as much about trying to hold. I am not sure how much better sampras moved than edberg, but he probably turned defence into attack better from the backcourt.
Last edited:
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
3 more wimbledon finals (and some semifinals) is more than zero for mats. Wilanders early burnout .. whatever the reasons.. compares worse to edberg and indeed becker.
But all 3 are pretty much in the same tier. I wouldnt choose to watch a random wilander match unless it was a compelling matchup. The other guys always brought box office attributes.
Vincent-C
Legend
I
under himself better, and moved forward better.
Samps was superior moving to the FH side, of course- deadly.
Samps and Eddy were both very good+ movers. My preference in that realm is the latter, though. Eddy kept his feet
under himself better, and moved forward better.
Samps was superior moving to the FH side, of course- deadly.
Last edited:
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
I guess i wasnt trying to say i had a preference and it was close on movement. One point i saw of sampras chasing a lob from kuerten in 1999 is unforgettable... an impecable backhand winner that no one expected. But week in week out edberg was blasting elegant bhs which he always aimed to engineer, rather than sampras need for that extra gear.
But definitely for counterpunching power that shocked his rivals the edge would be for pete.. That even extended to the return of serve where he could do more than just neutralise huge first serves..i dont really think edberg could do more than hope to let goran for example break himself whereas sampras has come up with some amazing efforts that forced an error.
And i also would say sampras could take raw pace from agassi, courier etc and cause them problems off both wings. Again edberg while quick and balanced didnt like those rallies as much.
Its pretty hard to separate movement from the groundstrokes themselves. So yes edberg was decent from the baseline but he would never want different conditions to what he played in compared to someone like lendl.
Vincent-C
Legend
Thanks for this comment.
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
No problem. Ive had a very low key week and not been on the boards much in general. Still a wealth of discussion a few clicks awaym
Hard Court
Rookie
Wilder did win more Grand Slams, but we got to past that as the only yardstick. People need to get past this. The amount of Grand Slams is a good place to start, but it's not the end all be all.
Edberg won more tournaments and had a higher winning %. It is very close, but Edberg was a little better. If Wilander would not have declined so much after 1988 it might have been a different story.
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
Yes i have edberg a touch better but still not out of the same league. Wilander managing to dent lendls hopes in several major finals and having such a commanding hh against connors are worth remembering. Although i criticise wilander for not really being strong at wimbledon he was still good across all surfaces, in a way becker and edberg were not quite so much.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
yeah. edberg benefits from being an all-timer in a particular style of play, and honestly he just looked like the archetypal tennis player...not the biggest serve by any stretch but one of the coolest-looking deliveries imo as well. time at #1 is big, too.
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
Edberg has a good record at no1. But the early 90s saw a change where lendl declined and no true dominance was really going on. Edberg didnt exactly dominate the tour like sampras federer or djokovic but he did do damage more often than not on his very best surfaces, and sometimes had a decent outing on clay.
Wilander like becker had to cope with the machine like consistency of lendl. I think those two rivals of edbergs had some brilliant play in the mid to late 80s which can be overshadowed by putting too much stock in that no 1 ranking metric. Head to heads also can be misleading.
No, tennis is more than 8 weeks a year. The top events, yes, but not the only important achievements
Last edited:
airchallenge2
Hall of Fame
For sure. Has anyone wonder what Edberg would actually choose? My guess is that we would trade all the other achievements for one extra GS title. I remember when McEnroe was teasing Becker that Agassi was better than him as the American had one extra GS trophy more than the German.
Last edited:
Back in the 80s and 90s indoor tennis was a big deal and Edberg and particularly Becker had a very much superior record to Wilander, with 5 important indoor titles (Becker 3 Wtf’s, 1 WCT championship, 1 grand slam cup). Wilander just 1 runner-up at the wtf. Edberg won the wtf and also was runner-up once and runner-up at the WCT-finals.
Last edited:
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
For such a genius, mcenroe couldnt do grade 2 maths very well
I get cramps
Semi-Pro
I was half astounded, half haunted by the Furies, to learn that when Mats moved to Manhattan in ‘87, a New Yorker with a captured mind said to him: ’You know what's more boring than... (I can't remember now which image he used as an example to compare with the one dedicated to Wilander) A US Open final between a Swede and a Czech.’
That made Mats' blood boil; it was grossly unfair to say such a thing to him.
It's great that you can't stand Ivan or me or our match-up, but we are the two players who are most serious about the sport and are trying to become more complete in our tennis skills among all the players on the circuit.
I must be stranger than a dodo, but for better or worse, the two matches that made me a hardcore tennis fan in my teens were the finals of Roland Garros and the US Open in 1987. Instead of watching two football or basketball players, I was watching two ‘athletes’ who seemed to consider the immediate action of their opponent on their first shots after they served and who were able to change their play patterns intermittently. They didn't have a set of two play patterns, far from it. And to top it off, noticing a drop in the degree of concentration of both players in these matches was a challenge. Those were protean matches.
airchallenge2
Hall of Fame
Didn't Mac go to Stanford?
I get cramps
Semi-Pro
The 1991 Stockholm final (a five-setter) between Boris and Stefan should be considered a classic. The match has nothing to envy to the best finals played at the NY and Hannover Masters.
Stefan can't play better on that court (I guess the surface was still Boltex, as it is very fast, ostensibly faster than Hannover). He does everything with panache and perfection. Sometimes, Edberg makes Boris look silly. However, the Bavarian remains undaunted, and in the fifth set, he comes back from 0-2 down through overwhelming returns and shotmaking.
Stefan looks as quick as ever and deals with volleys astonishingly tough as though nothing. He returns with astonishing accuracy, and his passing shots are worthy of a goldsmith of the sport. In the semis, the Nordic finished off Krickstein in less time than it takes for players to warm up before a match.
I haven't seen him play that well indoors. That night, he was better than Boris, and yet he lost. Boris in Stockholm was fearsome. The match he won in ‘94 by a double 6-4 against Sampras was breathtaking.
Indoor carpet/hard - clearly Becker, then Edberg, then Wilander
Clay - Wilander , Edberg then becker
Outdoor hard - Becker(3 slams) , then Edberg (2 slams plus 3 runner-ups) then wilander (2 slams)
Grass - Becker 3 wimbledons plus 4 runner-ups) , Edberg (2 wimbledons and 2 Australians) and then Wilander (2 Australian)
So Becker on top in 3 out of the four conditions. Though outdoor hard is pretty close.
Last edited:
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
Im also referring to the maths brainteaser scene in borg v mcenroe ... a pretty underwhelming film despite the potential.
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
A good rivalry indeed. I am also praising lendl for beating the field better than anyone else during thr mid to late 80s.
Vincent-C
Legend
I am amazed amazed amazed that Eddy could make that FH work at the top level (including an FO final that he coulda won). Kudos to him.
Last edited:
Vincent-C
Legend
Boris massively underperformed on grass.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Becker is not form Bavaria. He's from Baden-Württemberg. Different state.
Grass is pretty close, too. Edberg had 4 grass Majors vs. 3 for Becker (albeit 3 Wimbledons for Becker vs. 2 Wimbledons/2 AOs for Edberg), and Edberg beat Becker 2-1 in their trilogy of Wimbledon finals. Overall, it's really close between the two.
Hard Court
Rookie
I know people make these kinds of comparisons a lot, but you really have to think what is being said.
-You are saying that all four surfaces are of equal importance.
- you are saying that it doesn't matter the difference between the three players regarding the surfaces. i.e. it doesn't matter that Wilander was a lot better than Edberg and Becker on clay and that Becker was barely better than Edberg on grass and hard and the gap between Becker, Edberg, and Wilander on hard is not as much as one might think.
-We are counting non-Grand slam titles for Indoors, obviously out of necessity. However, non-Grand slam clay court, grass, and hard court don't count at all.
For several years, the Lipton internation was a big deal. People called it the 5th major. Wilander won it. Edberg and Becker did not. Wilander also won other big tournaments like Cincinnati multiple times.
Not saying that Becker was not the best of the three. Just think the reasoning is well thought out.
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
Not sure Becker was really better than Edberg on hard courts at all, even if he did technically win 1 more major. Edberg defended his US Open title, which I don't believe Becker would be capable of doing at any hard court slam. His 91 US Open win was also one of the most dominant ever, and better than anything I have ever seen from Becker on hard courts. Subjectively speaking (since this entire topic is subjective anyway, while using some objective stats and evidence) Edberg was robbed of the 90 Australian Open title he was 100% certain to win by injury in the final vs Lendl, and would then have the same number of hard court slams as Becker. Anyway who saw that event and the form Edberg was in that event, would agree with me on that. Bud Collins and others said the same thing. There is also a very high likelihood Edberg beats Becker in the 91 Australian Open final, causing a 2 swing between them, had he converted match point vs Lendl in the semis, although he didn't so of course Becker definitely deserved that of course, but comparing people on a surface is always speculating on ability to some extent. If the 2 Australian Opens Edberg won were on slow hard courts rather than grass, do you really believe Edberg doesn't win atleast 1, possibly both, and have atleast as many hard court slams as Becker too. Edberg has more hard court titles, 22 to 16. I believe he has more significant hard court titles outside the slams than Becker too.
Come to think of it I am pretty sure I would personally go with Edberg above on hard courts. He is definitely better at the US Open. At the Australian Open, despite Becker having 2 hard court titles to Edberg's 0, having seen those events and everything that went down, I am not convinced he is much or any better there level wise than Edberg. At hard court events outside the slams Edberg is ahead.
I agree grass is very close between the two. I personally would go with Becker BUT if you are going to try and put Becker over Edberg simply for having 1 more hard court slam, then by that logic Edberg should be ahead on grass for having 1 more grass slam. After all there is literally no reason to ever put Becker above Edberg on hard courts aside from having 1 more hard court slam. I personally don't see how to put Becker above on both hard courts and grass, when literally the only argument ever for Becker to be above on hard courts, if used, would then put Edberg above Becker on grass as well.
Of course you have to mention carpet though where Becker is far above both, and WIlander by far worst.
Come to think of it I am pretty sure I would personally go with Edberg above on hard courts. He is definitely better at the US Open. At the Australian Open, despite Becker having 2 hard court titles to Edberg's 0, having seen those events and everything that went down, I am not convinced he is much or any better there level wise than Edberg. At hard court events outside the slams Edberg is ahead.
I agree grass is very close between the two. I personally would go with Becker BUT if you are going to try and put Becker over Edberg simply for having 1 more hard court slam, then by that logic Edberg should be ahead on grass for having 1 more grass slam. After all there is literally no reason to ever put Becker above Edberg on hard courts aside from having 1 more hard court slam. I personally don't see how to put Becker above on both hard courts and grass, when literally the only argument ever for Becker to be above on hard courts, if used, would then put Edberg above Becker on grass as well.
Of course you have to mention carpet though where Becker is far above both, and WIlander by far worst.
Slams do count for more however it is never as simple as 7 is greater than 6. Becker’s 5 important indoor titles do count for something, particularly in that era. I do agree that outdoor hard court is very close with Becker for Edberg (worthy of note their h2h on outdoor hard is 5-2 in Becker’s favour)
Last edited:
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
If one were to nitpick then maybe separating the grass courts of australia from wimbledon would allow more comparisons.. although surely wilander was not really as adept on grass of any kind compared to edberg
Wilander himself underrates his ability and his record a fair bit. He basically talks as if he doesn't deserve to be compared to the other all-time greats (I stress the word other as he certainly is one himself) that he played against.
He wasn't particularly enthusiastic about his RG titles, including his absolutely incredible title run as a 17 year old beating the 2nd, 5th, 4th and 3rd seeds in succession, as in his own words I stress he thought he played boring tennis. Incidentally he is very proud of his 1986 Wimbledon doubles title, and clearly his US Open title win was his proudest achievement.
I would personally rank both Edberg (for the reasons I already said, notably Edberg coming closer to winning a RG title than Wilander came to merely winning a 2nd set in a Wimbledon QF) and Becker (helped by the fact that I consider him to be the greatest Davis Cup player of the professional era bar none) ahead of him. The Davis Cup was an absolutely huge deal during the 80s, with Wilander himself labelling his victory over Steeb during the opening day of the 1989 final as one of the most important victories of his career after US Open final vs. Lendl the previous year, and so should be considered as such. And it's also not accurate to analyse tennis from that period, as if Roland Garros was equally important to Wimbledon and the US Open when it clearly wasn't.
But his career achievements were phenomenal. Elsewhere, a few us of talked about his wonderful achievement, to complete the Australian Open - Lipton - US Open treble in 1988, with 128 player draw sizes and best of 5 set matches across all 7 rounds in all 3 tournaments. I marveled at his ability to hit 'the right ball at the right time', vary the pace and spin of his shots to confuse his opponents, break their rhythm etc.
He wasn't particularly enthusiastic about his RG titles, including his absolutely incredible title run as a 17 year old beating the 2nd, 5th, 4th and 3rd seeds in succession, as in his own words I stress he thought he played boring tennis. Incidentally he is very proud of his 1986 Wimbledon doubles title, and clearly his US Open title win was his proudest achievement.
I would personally rank both Edberg (for the reasons I already said, notably Edberg coming closer to winning a RG title than Wilander came to merely winning a 2nd set in a Wimbledon QF) and Becker (helped by the fact that I consider him to be the greatest Davis Cup player of the professional era bar none) ahead of him. The Davis Cup was an absolutely huge deal during the 80s, with Wilander himself labelling his victory over Steeb during the opening day of the 1989 final as one of the most important victories of his career after US Open final vs. Lendl the previous year, and so should be considered as such. And it's also not accurate to analyse tennis from that period, as if Roland Garros was equally important to Wimbledon and the US Open when it clearly wasn't.
But his career achievements were phenomenal. Elsewhere, a few us of talked about his wonderful achievement, to complete the Australian Open - Lipton - US Open treble in 1988, with 128 player draw sizes and best of 5 set matches across all 7 rounds in all 3 tournaments. I marveled at his ability to hit 'the right ball at the right time', vary the pace and spin of his shots to confuse his opponents, break their rhythm etc.
Last edited:
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Strange that Wilander would mention his victory over Steeb in the 1989 DC final as important. They lost the final 3-2. Becker was a monster that weekend and totally smoked Edberg and Wilander in straights.
He talked about it after the opening day, before the doubles rubber and his 2nd match against Becker. Clearly the defeat against Steeb in the final in Gothenburg the previous year, when he led by 2 sets to love and had a match point deep in the 5th set, was painful for him. So he was desperate to 'make amends' for that in the 1989 final. But of course Becker was in insanely good form during that final (with a 5 set doubles win sandwiched in-between those two destructions of Edberg and Wilander), and during the competition as a whole that year. Flach/Seguso had a perfect 10-0 record in Davis Cup doubles matches, before Becker / Jelen beat them in the semi-final in Munich.
Wilander also talked about how the pain of losing the 1983 final vs. Australia in Kooyong, far outweighed his joy at winning the Australian Open in the same venue a few weeks earlier, and how the Davis Cup was simply more important than the Australian Open at that time (which was obvious in the tennis world).
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Yeah, but he would hardly put that kind of emphasis on the match against Steeb today. That's my point, because it's a completely irrelevant result today.
Hard Court
Rookie
We can cherry pick things for eternity that will favor one guy or the other.
Wilander did win one more GS than Edberg and Becker. At the end of the day, the big question is whether that outweighs the fact that Edberg and Becker won more matches, more tournaments, and had a higher winning % ? To me, not quite.
Becker was 713-214, for a 76.9 winning %. He won 49 tournaments. In majors, 163-40, for a 80.3 winning %, with 6 titles.
Edberg was 801-270 for a 74.8 winning %. He won 41 tournaments. In majors he was 178-40, for a 81.7 winning % with 6 titles.
Wilander was 571-222 for a 72.0 winning %. He won 33 tournaments. In majors, he was 144-37, for a 79.5 winning% with 7 titles.
To me, looking at these numbers, Becker and Edberg are about as close as can be. Wilander is slightly behind them.
Full disclosure, I was a Wilander fan, liked Edberg. Did not like Becker.
Wilander did win one more GS than Edberg and Becker. At the end of the day, the big question is whether that outweighs the fact that Edberg and Becker won more matches, more tournaments, and had a higher winning % ? To me, not quite.
Becker was 713-214, for a 76.9 winning %. He won 49 tournaments. In majors, 163-40, for a 80.3 winning %, with 6 titles.
Edberg was 801-270 for a 74.8 winning %. He won 41 tournaments. In majors he was 178-40, for a 81.7 winning % with 6 titles.
Wilander was 571-222 for a 72.0 winning %. He won 33 tournaments. In majors, he was 144-37, for a 79.5 winning% with 7 titles.
To me, looking at these numbers, Becker and Edberg are about as close as can be. Wilander is slightly behind them.
Full disclosure, I was a Wilander fan, liked Edberg. Did not like Becker.
Similar threads
