Becker could have won a few more Majors had he sorted out his game plan earlier

[NedStark]

Watching Boris’ matches in the late 1980s and then watching his matches in late 1994-1996, I can obviously see that he served a lot bigger in the mid-1990s (basically tried to ace every first serve and served almost as big as Pete/Goran/Richard) than in his supposed peak years, and he also stopped trying to beat his opponents from the baseline. His efforts to beef up his serves clearly paid off; IMO was a key driver of his resurgence.

I mean, Becker serve between 1985-1993 was a “normal” big serve. His 1994-1996 serve, OTOH, was a servebot serve, like Sampras, like Ivanisevic, like Krajicek.

I think Becker wasted quite a few years between 1986 and 1993, especially during 1989-1991, trying too much to beat his opponents from the baseline instead of maximizing his serve potential, because he felt the latter approach too boring. Plus, he also did not have a clear serve strategy in his early years, unlike in the mid-1990s. His coaches, especially Tiriac, all wanted him to play his mid-1990s botting strategy from the start - going all in on his serves and following up to the net.

 

[Galvermegs]

But he did have that great year in 1989... so you specifically mean that going into 1990 to 1993 he coiluld have harnessed the right template for some actual sustained dominance?

 

[dryeagle]

After winning the Aus in 1991 and finally becoming #1, he was not fully committed for the next few years. He achieved a lot during this time including 5 GS plus Masters and 2 Davis Cups.

He recommitted in 1994 with team Bolletieri and enjoyed success over next 3 years with Top 5 finishes, a GS, a Masters and memorable matchups with Pete and Andre. He had a great all around game and greatly improved from the baseline.

 

[tennistiger]

Sometimes it depends on one or a few points. As French Open SF 89 or Wimbledon Final 88 and 90. But he also could have lost Wimbledon SF 89 and US Open 2R 89.
The most important thing is that the era was interesting and I enjoyed watching on TV that time.

 

[Cashman]

Terrible take on 80s tennis from Ned Stark, nice to see nothing has changed around here

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

But he did have that great year in 1989... so you specifically mean that going into 1990 to 1993 he coiluld have harnessed the right template for some actual sustained dominance?

Wilander went missing, Edberg had a bad year, Agassi still on the rise. Only Lendl was really playing well amongst the top guys. Also a factor.

 

[dryeagle]

Wilander went missing, Edberg had a bad year, Agassi still on the rise. Only Lendl was really playing well amongst the top guys. Also a factor.

Edberg had a very good year - French, Wimbledon and Davis Cup Finals plus Masters Championship.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Edberg had a very good year - French, Wimbledon and Davis Cup Finals plus Masters Championship.

Only won the latter. Must have been a disappointing year for him. Not as bad as Becker’s ‘87, though.

 

[dryeagle]

Only won the latter. Must have been a disappointing year for him. Not as bad as Becker’s ‘87, though.

I am sure he was disappointed losing in major finals, but to call it a “bad” year is far from it.

 

[Mustard]

Perhaps Boris Becker parting ways with Bob Brett as coach, soon after the 1991 Australian Open, after around 2 and a half years together, was a mistake. Brett went on to coach Goran Ivanisevic from 1991-1995.

 

[NedStark]

But he did have that great year in 1989... so you specifically mean that going into 1990 to 1993 he coiluld have harnessed the right template for some actual sustained dominance?

Yes, I do mean so. He lost Wimbledon 1990-1991 and Masters 1989, and also underperformed big time in AO 1989-1990. He went into complete tailspin after Wimbledon 1991 defeat. Messing up with his serves was a big reason for his loss in Wimbledon 1990 final.

I think he might have also won more in 1985-1988 with his 1994-1996 game plan. If you look at his H2H against Lendl in 1985-1988, he either won or lost very close whenever he served and volleyed all the time, and whenever he tried to hang on the baseline against Lendl he got wrecked hard (most notably Masters finals 1985 and 1986). On top of that, trying to play from baseline too much against Mecir in 1986 USO also costed him a place in that Slam final.

There were a few matches in 1985-1992 in which he played his 1994-1996 tennis - I mean, going all out on his serves and attacking the net relentlessly, such as Wimbledon 1985 final and Dallas 1988 final.

He recommitted in 1994 with team Bolletieri and enjoyed success over next 3 years with Top 5 finishes, a GS, a Masters and memorable matchups with Pete and Andre. He had a great all around game and greatly improved from the baseline

Yes, he managed to regain his focus, but in terms of game plan, he beefed up his serves was fully committed on net-rushing. I mean, compared to 1985-1993, he never played from the baseline that much anymore. You would never see him staying back on 40-50% or more of his first serves in 1994-1996. Also, he started hitting 20-30 aces per match much more frequently in 1994-1996 than in earlier periods.

Perhaps Boris Becker parting ways with Bob Brett as coach, soon after the 1991 Australian Open, after around 2 and a half years together, was a mistake. Brett went on to coach Goran Ivanisevic from 1991-1995.

I don’t think he would have maintained success even with Bob Brett staying without the game plan changes he eventually made in 1994-1996 that I mentioned above. His serve as it was in 1985-1989 was rapidly becoming “average” in the early 1990s with the emergence of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek as servers and Agassi as returner. But, it would have been a net gain since Bob Brett generally “found the right words” to communicate his ideas to Boris, according to Boris himself.

 

[Hard Court]

When Becker first came to prominence in the scene in 1985, he was the consummate net rusher. It seemed that he improved his groundstrokes by 1989 and stayed back more on non-grass surfaces. He was still clearly a better at the net than at the baseline. However, he was not as predictable which made it harder for opponents.

However, he seemed to start staying back too much not long after that. He started making too many errors and not using his biggest weapon, his serve and volley game. He seemed to want to prove that he could beat people from the baseline. That was a mistake.
That seemed to be a big part of him declining.

He also was not always in good shape physically, and never was the smartest tool in the shed.
Also seemed that his volleying gradually declining over the years. Remember him at Wimbledon in 1985 and 1986. That seemed to almost disappear.

 

[Thetouch]

I have a different take on it. We probably all agree that Becker wasted too much time and his talent.

BUT I will also say this: Playing S&V is not easy and one needs to be physically in good shape at least, even with a big serve. You have to serve hard and rush to the net and the way Becker served and played he also suffered physically, especially considering his height and weight. Him playing from the baseline at times was probably also a sign of losing energy or trying to save some energy because you can't rush to the net for 3 hours straight. Around 1991 you could tell his service movement also changed to what would become his signature service until his retirement. I think his service got bigger since 1991 but that was also due to finish the point sooner instead of trying to serve and volley. Age simply matters too becuase when you get older you would rather hit an ace instead of rushing to the net or playing a long ralley. That's why Edberg declined sooner than Becker because he also had physical issues but he could never rely on his serve only. Sampras might have hit way more aces past the mid 90s than in his earlier career and I think he also felt more comfortable at times to do a short ralley and finish it with a cross forehand than rushing to the net and lose the point. Serve and volley takes a lot of guts.

And Becker simply was never 100% the athlete that he needed to be to stay on top anyway. Tennis might have been only about 80% of his focus at most.

 

[tennistiger]

Around 1991 you could tell his service movement also changed ...

It was later. You can say his motion changed with Bresnik in autumn 92. And later again with DePalmer. It simply became more economical. Smoother with less back and knew bending.

 

[Mustard]

Becker = Power
Edberg = Movement
Wilander = Brain

Becker had a powerful cruise game, full of natural talent. Edberg needed his movement and timing to be going well and to work in sync, and Wilander was an expert at playing the percentages and thinking up great strategies and tactics. Because of the strengths of Edberg and Wilander, they didn't have the best cruise games compared to a player like Becker. Wilander playing to his strengths was mentally tiring over a long period, and Edberg needed his movement and timing to be working in sync or he wouldn't play well. Even an out of form Becker could still be dangerous, could still beat you, could still have moments of brilliance.

 

[Galvermegs]

Wilander went missing, Edberg had a bad year, Agassi still on the rise. Only Lendl was really playing well amongst the top guys.

Becker = Power
Edberg = Movement
Wilander = Brain

Becker had a powerful cruise game, full of natural talent. Edberg needed his movement and timing to be going well and to work in sync, and Wilander was an expert at playing the percentages and thinking up great strategies and tactics. Because of the strengths of Edberg and Wilander, they didn't have the best cruise games compared to a player like Becker. Wilander playing to his strengths was mentally tiring over a long period, and Edberg needed his movement and timing to be working in sync or he wouldn't play well. Even an out of form Becker could still be dangerous, could still beat you, could still have moments of brilliance.

Edberg always could count on beating that muster chap though? Was that a case of a favorable match up overcoming form ? I don't mean to knock thomas though.. he certainly did more with his career, especially given the accident he had, than boris. Wilander maybe could have had 2 more majors if he didnt burn out.

 

[Rosstour]

Too much Boom Boom (or is it Broom Broom?) in the crucial parts of his career. He could have done much more

 

[Mustard]

Edberg always could count on beating that muster chap though? Was that a case of a favorable match up overcoming form ? I don't mean to knock thomas though.. he certainly did more with his career, especially given the accident he had, than boris. Wilander maybe could have had 2 more majors if he didnt burn out.

Muster and Edberg had a few close matches, like 1994 Monte Carlo, 1996 Queen's Club, 1996 Vienna.

 

[NedStark]

I have a different take on it. We probably all agree that Becker wasted too much time and his talent.

BUT I will also say this: Playing S&V is not easy and one needs to be physically in good shape at least, even with a big serve. You have to serve hard and rush to the net and the way Becker served and played he also suffered physically, especially considering his height and weight. Him playing from the baseline at times was probably also a sign of losing energy or trying to save some energy because you can't rush to the net for 3 hours straight. Around 1991 you could tell his service movement also changed to what would become his signature service until his retirement. I think his service got bigger since 1991 but that was also due to finish the point sooner instead of trying to serve and volley. Age simply matters too becuase when you get older you would rather hit an ace instead of rushing to the net or playing a long ralley. That's why Edberg declined sooner than Becker because he also had physical issues but he could never rely on his serve only. Sampras might have hit way more aces past the mid 90s than in his earlier career and I think he also felt more comfortable at times to do a short ralley and finish it with a cross forehand than rushing to the net and lose the point. Serve and volley takes a lot of guts.

And Becker simply was never 100% the athlete that he needed to be to stay on top anyway. Tennis might have been only about 80% of his focus at most.

Except that Becker served-and-volleyed much more towards the end of his career. It was in the earlier phase that he attempted to duck it out from the baseline.

With his big serve, great net skills and at the same time slow lateral movement, the best strategy for Becker would have been serve and “ideally not having to volley” a.k.a Ivanisevic/Krajicek tennis - which he eventually employed from 1994 onwards.

Still, his most braindead approach by far IMO was holding off on his first serves in 1988 and 1990 Wimbledon finals against Edberg. I mean, if you watch those matches and do not watch Becker’s other matches, Becker’s “Boom boom” nick name is very questionable. You would never see Sampras or Ivanisevic castrating their own biggest weapon like that.

When Becker first came to prominence in the scene in 1985, he was the consummate net rusher. It seemed that he improved his groundstrokes by 1989 and stayed back more on non-grass surfaces. He was still clearly a better at the net than at the baseline. However, he was not as predictable which made it harder for opponents.

However, he seemed to start staying back too much not long after that. He started making too many errors and not using his biggest weapon, his serve and volley game. He seemed to want to prove that he could beat people from the baseline. That was a mistake.
That seemed to be a big part of him declining.

He also was not always in good shape physically, and never was the smartest tool in the shed.
Also seemed that his volleying gradually declining over the years. Remember him at Wimbledon in 1985 and 1986. That seemed to almost disappear.

He even stayed back a lot on *first* serves in many matches before 1991, including on indoor carpet. This was a key reason why he went down very quickly against Lendl in Masters 1985 and 1986 finals (compared to say, 1985 Wembley final) - he should have understood that he had no business playing from the baseline against Lendl. He did correct his mistakes towards the end of his career, and that helped him nail a Slam and a Masters.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I think the biggest reason for his decline was having to deal with all the false and salacious accusations made against him by gold-digging women. How dare they?! That girl looks nothing like him!

 

[NedStark]

It was later. You can say his motion changed with Bresnik in autumn 92. And later again with DePalmer. It simply became more economical. Smoother with less back and knew bending.

I read somewhere that Becker parted way with Bresnik because he could not handle Bresnik’s training program or something like that.

 

[JasonZ]

I think the biggest reason for his decline was having to deal with all the false and salacious accusations made against him by gold-digging women. How dare they?! That girl looks nothing like him!

she was conceived in 1999 when becker was already 90% retired.

 

[JasonZ]

i was felt that becker underachieved at slams. he had a much higher peak than edberg or wilander and longer longevity, still same number of slams or one less. at least he should have won one of those lost wimby finals against edberg.

 

[tennistiger]

Yes, the 1990 Wimbledon Final was crucial with the unlucky serving game at 3:1 up in the final set. With 4:1 it would have been his!

 

[Galvermegs]

Muster and Edberg had a few close matches, like 1994 Monte Carlo, 1996 Queen's Club, 1996 Vienna.

Indeed. Even ferrer should have beaten federer at least once. I was hoping for an actual answer to my main question as you raised interesting points about the actual importance of the players' main respective strengths

 

[Galvermegs]

I think the biggest reason for his decline was having to deal with all the false and salacious accusations made against him by gold-digging women. How dare they?! That girl looks nothing like him!

Boris long stockings..

 

[Galvermegs]

i was felt that becker underachieved at slams. he had a much higher peak than edberg or wilander and longer longevity, still same number of slams or one less. at least he should have won one of those lost wimby finals against edberg.

But wilander is probably the least famous of the 3 (no wimbledon final or title) and also won at least one AO with a fairly humdrum field.

 

[Mustard]

Indeed. Even ferrer should have beaten federer at least once. I was hoping for an actual answer to my main question as you raised interesting points about the actual importance of the players' main respective strengths

Obviously Edberg had a matchup advantage, with the serve and volley style and he was never going to just stay at the baseline and grind, but Muster did make a few of the matches close.

 

[NedStark]

i was felt that becker underachieved at slams. he had a much higher peak than edberg or wilander and longer longevity, still same number of slams or one less. at least he should have won one of those lost wimby finals against edberg.

He *would* have won more Slams in 1997-1998 without that wrist injury in 1996 at Wimbledon and tax issues at the end of that year. Winning one more in that period, let’s say US Open 1997, would have firmly put him ahead of Edberg and Wilander.

 

[Mustard]

He *would* have won more Slams in 1997-1998 without that wrist injury in 1996 at Wimbledon and tax issues at the end of that year. Winning one more in that period, let’s say US Open 1997, would have firmly put him ahead of Edberg and Wilander.

The criminal tax investigation and trial lasted nearly 6 years (December 1996 to October 2002). I think this is the main reason why Becker in 1997 looked a different player altogether compared to 1996. Becker was initially facing tax evasion charges for the period from 1991-1996 that totalled 10.4 million Deutschmarks, but prosecutors later dropped some of the charges, focusing on 1991-1993 and 3.3 million Deutschmarks, for which they considered that they had serious evidence.

 

[Galvermegs]

Yep.. of course muster had the perfect game for clay and could beat sampras and ivanisevic off clay at a time when edberg couldnt. I bet he didnt like that record standing but if edberg prolonged his retirement just maybe there would be a win or two for the austrian.

 

[Galvermegs]

He *would* have won more Slams in 1997-1998 without that wrist injury in 1996 at Wimbledon and tax issues at the end of that year. Winning one more in that period, let’s say US Open 1997, would have firmly put him ahead of Edberg and Wilander.

Rafter did capitalise on the field at the us open but still played extremely well, given he had just been 2nd tier mostly before those summer months im 1997.

 

[buscemi]

Yep.. of course muster had the perfect game for clay and could beat sampras and ivanisevic off clay at a time when edberg couldnt. I bet he didnt like that record standing but if edberg prolonged his retirement just maybe there would be a win or two for the austrian.

Muster had the perfect game for clay...when playing against other baseliners. His game was far from perfect on clay when he played against players who could come into the net.

 

[Mustard]

she was conceived in 1999 when becker was already 90% retired.

Anna was conceived at Nobu, a Japanese restaurant on the premises of the London Metropolitan Hotel, on the evening of the day where Boris Becker had lost to Patrick Rafter at 1999 Wimbledon. That was the very last match of Becker's professional tennis career. When Angela claimed later that she had given birth to his daughter, Becker just dismissed it initially, until he saw a photo of Anna all over the media. LOL. We all had a right laugh about it in Britain at the time. Becker admitted paternity in February 2001. This ended Becker's marriage to Barbara, another huge turbulence in Becker's life at a time when the criminal tax investigation in Germany was ongoing.

 

[Galvermegs]

Muster had the perfect game for clay...when playing against other baseliners. His game was far from perfect on clay when he played against players who could come into the net.

Well i didnt mean 'perfect' just considerably less flawed than edberg or becker. Of course wilander was somewhat better, but usually far less exciting and also lacked muster's gung ho persona oncourt.

 

[Galvermegs]

Anna was conceived at Nobu, a Japanese restaurant on the premises of the London Metropolitan Hotel, on the evening of the day where Boris Becker had lost to Patrick Rafter at 1999 Wimbledon. That was the very last match of Becker's professional tennis career. When Angela claimed later that she had given birth to his daughter, Becker just dismissed it initially, until he saw a photo of Anna all over the media. LOL. We all had a right laugh about it in Britain at the time. Becker admitted paternity in February 2001. This ended Becker's marriage to Barbara, another huge turbulence in Becker's life at a time when the criminal tax investigation in Germany was ongoing.

I was a bit young to laugh at an idol like boris.. still feels wrong on some level given how much his matches meant to me. I was however royally ****ed at pat rafter.. at that point a total stranger to me. Over time he grew on me but unfortunately he only had a couple of years himself left before leaving the main tour. No problems in his marriage that are so glaring.

 

[urban]

Paradoxically, I think, he would have won some more, if he had lost the first Wimbledon. It came to soon for his own sake.

 

[NedStark]

Rafter did capitalise on the field at the us open but still played extremely well, given he had just been 2nd tier mostly before those summer months im 1997.

US Open 1997 and Australian Open 1998 (plus AO 1999) were really the low points of those 1997-1999 years.

 

[timnz]

Watching Boris’ matches in the late 1980s and then watching his matches in late 1994-1996, I can obviously see that he served a lot bigger in the mid-1990s (basically tried to ace every first serve and served almost as big as Pete/Goran/Richard) than in his supposed peak years, and he also stopped trying to beat his opponents from the baseline. His efforts to beef up his serves clearly paid off; IMO was a key driver of his resurgence.

I mean, Becker serve between 1985-1993 was a “normal” big serve. His 1994-1996 serve, OTOH, was a servebot serve, like Sampras, like Ivanisevic, like Krajicek.

I think Becker wasted quite a few years between 1986 and 1993, especially during 1989-1991, trying too much to beat his opponents from the baseline instead of maximizing his serve potential, because he felt the latter approach too boring. Plus, he also did not have a clear serve strategy in his early years, unlike in the mid-1990s. His coaches, especially Tiriac, all wanted him to play his mid-1990s botting strategy from the start - going all in on his serves and following up to the net.

Becker’s peak year, in terms of game (not necessarily results), was according to Becker himself was 1996. He won the AO , then was unlucky to injure his wrist during Wimbledon but bounced back in the indoor season to have a superior indoor h2h that year against peak Sampras and though he narrowly lost the wtf final after beating Pete in the round robin, he won the Grand slam cup.

 

[Mustard]

Becker’s peak year, in terms of game (not necessarily results, was according to Becker himself was 1996. He won the AO , then was unlucky to injure his wrist during Wimbledon but bounced back in the indoor season to have a superior H2h against Sampras and though he narrowly lost the wtf final after beating Pete in the round robin, he won the Grand slam cup.

I do sometimes wonder how Becker would have done in the late 1990s if the tax investigation had never happened. A late career resurgence methinks, and he probably plays into his mid 30s, probably forced out properly around 2002 time.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

I do sometimes wonder how Becker would have done in the late 1990s if the tax investigation had never happened. A late career resurgence methinks, and he probably plays into his mid 30s, probably forced out properly around 2002 time.

His body couldn't take it.

 

[CyBorg]

I wish he'd been healthy to play at the '96 Wimbedon. That one was free for the taking.

 

[Galvermegs]

I wish he'd been healthy to play at the '96 Wimbedon. That one was free for the taking.

Perhaps. But how can anyone be sure that sampras and ivanisevic would not be still making the final 4 if becker didnt retire hurt? One small change can affect the whole chain of events.

Also that wimbledon was all about the underdogs anyway. Not one to have every year... but worth celebrating for its unique qualities ( maybe not the rain and cliffs summer holiday)

 

[NedStark]

Perhaps. But how can anyone be sure that sampras and ivanisevic would not be still making the final 4 if becker didnt retire hurt? One small change can affect the whole chain of events.

Also that wimbledon was all about the underdogs anyway. Not one to have every year... but worth celebrating for its unique qualities ( maybe not the rain and cliffs summer holiday)

Becker would have been locked to reach the final of that Wimbledon - his draw was the same draw that allowed Malivai Washington to make final lmao.

OTOH, his chance in the final would have been 50-50 at best, given the way Krajicek played in that tournament (Goran, Pete and Krajicek were in the same draw btw).

I wish he'd been healthy to play at the '96 Wimbedon. That one was free for the taking.

If he remained healthy, even if he lost that Wimbledon final he would have got higher ranking by the end of 1996, which on its own would have significant impact on his 1997 season, for example, possibly avoiding Moya in R1.

I do sometimes wonder how Becker would have done in the late 1990s if the tax investigation had never happened. A late career resurgence methinks, and he probably plays into his mid 30s, probably forced out properly around 2002 time.

2002 would be too optimistic, but I can see him staying until 2000 and winning hardcourt Slams in 1997-1998, thus settling the Becker vs Edberg vs Wilander debate for good.

 

[Galvermegs]

Becker would have been locked to reach the final of that Wimbledon - his draw was the same draw that allowed Malivai Washington to make final lmao.

I will rephrase... make the semis. I know the draw but also with boris still.in it i meant the order of play.. the match length.. everything could be different. We only know what we know though. Countless times i see these hypotheticals but its impossible to know how a draw pans out if someone remains.. but a lot of criticisms of the strength of a major winner comes from the quality of draw and who is left in or not.
(Poor gaudio is singled out sometimes as the worst winner of the open ers by some but i really do not see it).

 

[Galvermegs]

2002 would be too optimistic, but I can see him staying until 2000 and winning hardcourt Slams in 1997-1998, thus settling the Becker vs Edberg vs Wilander debate for good.

As much as becker is my favourite of those.guys its fun to have a debate.. much like connor with lendl and/or mcenroe

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

I wish he'd been healthy to play at the '96 Wimbedon. That one was free for the taking.

Krajicek would have destroyed him. He was on fire that year.

 

[Galvermegs]

Krajicek would have destroyed him. He was on fire that year.

Becker had won a slam that year. Sampras barely won the us open (saving a match point with a russian roulette style shot).

 

[Ballmachine87]

Another question is could he have won another slam or two/ masters cup if he hadn`t lost his drive at the beginning of 97. He was on top of his game in late 96 and it sure looked like he woud be a top contender for 97/98. Had he maintained his form he surely could have won more in the watered down 97 and 98, possibly 99 field. However, at the turn of 96/97 his tax fraud scandal started end he seemed to check out mentally and quickly became a physical shell of his 96 form.

 

[Ballmachine87]

I do sometimes wonder how Becker would have done in the late 1990s if the tax investigation had never happened. A late career resurgence methinks, and he probably plays into his mid 30s, probably forced out properly around 2002 time.

Exactly my thoughts, though I do think that 2002 is overly optimistic. But on papaer he surely should have been a major contender in 97/98 at least.