Becker - Edberg: Redux

[shakes1975]

Hi,

I wanted to continue this from a previous thread as that one fizzled out.

In any case, I was wondering how Edberg scored so high in that poll over Becker regarding who was the better player between the two.

I rated Becker higher overall, and my criteria were as follows.

Like I said before:

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/winpct_slam.html

Slam win %:

Becker - Overall: 80.3%, AO: 76%, FO: 74%, Wim: 86%, USO: 79%
Edberg - Overall: 79.1%, AO: 85%, FO: 70%, Wim: 80%, USO: 78%

Becker's overall consistency in slams is better than Edberg's in 3 out of 4 slams.

And if you include their peak years (I define peak year as a year in which they either won a slam or made a slam final).

I am not counting matches in which they retired hurt and which are officially counted as a loss (1996 Wim 3rd rd for Becker, 1990 AO F against Lendl for Edberg).

Becker: (1985-1986, 1988-1991, 1995-1996) - 84.78% (117-21)
Edberg: (1985, 1987-1993) - 84.75% (139-25)

Becker was more dominant during his peak (winning 2 slams a year), has the much superior Davis Cup record, performed much better against the other top players, won more titles overall.

Davis Cup singles record:

Becker - 38-3 (including 8-1 on clay).
http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110

Edberg - 35-15
http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110

How they performed against their top peers:

Becker-Lendl: 10-11
Becker-McEnroe: 8-2
Becker-Connors: 6-0
Becker-Wilander: 7-3
Becker-Agassi: 4-10
Becker-Sampras: 7-12
Becker-Courier: 6-1
Becker-Chang: 5-1
Becker-Krajicek: 4-4
Becker-Ivanisevic: 10-9
Becker-Stich: 8-4

Overall: 75-57



Edberg-Lendl: 14-13
Edberg-McEnroe: 6-7
Edberg-Connors: 6-6
Edberg-Wilander: 9-11
Edberg-Agassi: 3-6
Edberg-Sampras: 5-8
Edberg-Courier: 4-6
Edberg-Ivanisevic: 9-10
Edberg-Chang: 12-9
Edberg-Krajicek: 3-4
Edberg-Stich: 6-10

Overall: 77-90

I am curious as to why people find Edberg to be the better player, when most stats lean towards Becker.

 

[pmerk34]

Hi,

I wanted to continue this from a previous thread as that one fizzled out.

In any case, I was wondering how Edberg scored so high in that poll over Becker regarding who was the better player between the two.

I rated Becker higher overall, and my criteria were as follows.

Like I said before:

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/winpct_slam.html

Slam win %:

Becker - Overall: 80.3%, AO: 76%, FO: 74%, Wim: 86%, USO: 79%
Edberg - Overall: 79.1%, AO: 85%, FO: 70%, Wim: 80%, USO: 78%

Becker's overall consistency in slams is better than Edberg's in 3 out of 4 slams.

And if you include their peak years (I define peak year as a year in which they either won a slam or made a slam final).

I am not counting matches in which they retired hurt and which are officially counted as a loss (1996 Wim 3rd rd for Becker, 1990 AO F against Lendl for Edberg).

Becker: (1985-1986, 1988-1991, 1995-1996) - 84.78% (117-21)
Edberg: (1985, 1987-1993) - 84.75% (139-25)

Becker was more dominant during his peak (winning 2 slams a year), has the much superior Davis Cup record, performed much better against the other top players, won more titles overall.

Davis Cup singles record:

Becker - 38-3 (including 8-1 on clay).
http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110

Edberg - 35-15
http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110

How they performed against their top peers:

Becker-Lendl: 10-11
Becker-McEnroe: 8-2
Becker-Connors: 6-0
Becker-Wilander: 7-3
Becker-Agassi: 4-10
Becker-Sampras: 7-12
Becker-Courier: 6-1
Becker-Chang: 5-1
Becker-Krajicek: 4-4
Becker-Ivanisevic: 10-9
Becker-Stich: 8-4

Overall: 75-57



Edberg-Lendl: 14-13
Edberg-McEnroe: 6-7
Edberg-Connors: 6-6
Edberg-Wilander: 9-11
Edberg-Agassi: 3-6
Edberg-Sampras: 5-8
Edberg-Courier: 4-6
Edberg-Ivanisevic: 9-10
Edberg-Chang: 12-9
Edberg-Krajicek: 3-4
Edberg-Stich: 6-10

Overall: 77-90

I am curious as to why people find Edberg to be the better player, when most stats lean towards Becker.

Because he beat Becker 2-3 Wimbledon finals I guess

 

[hawk eye]

I think it's because he looked way more stylish then Becker, who moved kind of heavy and plumb in comparison.

 

[CyBorg]

Becker, oddly enough, didn't reach world #1 until 1991 and stayed there very briefly.

He also had only one year in which he was considered commonly to be the best player in the world - that was in 1989.

But even in that year there was some debate on whether Lendl may have been better. Becker only won five tournaments - good, but not amazing.

Edberg, conversely, is believed by many to have been the world best in consecutive years of 1990 and 1991. He was ranked #1 in parts of 1990, 91 and 92 (Becker only 91).

I'm not saying that Edberg was better, but there's definitely a case to be made in his favour.

 

[shakes1975]

Because he beat Becker 2-3 Wimbledon finals I guess

If so, that's not the complete picture. Becker also beat Edberg in some very important matches (3-0 in Davis Cup including on clay).

 

[bluetrain4]

I was surprised by that poll too. I like both players, but actually like Edberg better, but I still think if we must rank them (and this is TW, so God knows, we must rank them), I'd but Becker above Edberg, if only slightly.

Edberg was No. 1 for much longer, yet he never won two Slams in a year, as did Becker in 1989. Overall titles are fairly even (47-43 I think), a few more for Becker. Slams even at 6.

Becker's range of Slam years (1985-1996) is longer than Edberg's (1985-1992), so if you longevity is a factor for you, that favors Becker.

Becker's glaring 25-10 head-to-head can't be ignored, though Edberg leads 3-1 in Slams and also beat Becker enroute to the Masters title in 1989, so he leads 4-1 in the biggest events. BUT, Becker crushed him a few times in Davis Cup, so that brings the "biggest event" factor more even.

Edberg won 2 Kooyong-era Australian Opens (the last two if I remember correctly). Now, everyone gets on the pre-Melbourne Park AO as being weak, but they fields were pretty good when Edberg won, and he beat guys like Wilander, Lendl, and Cash enroute to his victories. But, you still could use those AOs against Edberg when comparing Slams, as they weren't top to bottom as strong as the other Slams at that time.

If Edberg would have won the 1989 French Open, I'd put him just ahead of Becker, and the fact that he made the final of all 4 Slams is a minor advantage. But other than that final, he made 3 QFs at the French, as where Becker made 3 SFs. Interestingly, Edberg has several clay tounament wins, but Becker, though he as some good results, never actually won a tournament on clay.

All of this is just to say that it's close, but I give the slight advantage to Becker.

Edberg's career is just one exampee of how fickle sport is. He could easily match Agassi with 8 Slams and a career Slam. Besides the near-miss at the French, he was ahead a set and a break vs Lendl in the final of the 1990 AO when he pulled his stomach muscle (pretty important for that serve of his). He retired with the sets tied at 1-1 and down 5-2 in the third, not able to play. He was playing lights out when he got injured. He has a winning H-2-H with Lendl. I absolutely believe he would have won. But, as always, would, could, shoulda. That's sports.

 

[SirSweetSpot]

CyBorg nailed it.

 

[Polaris]

I personally always rooted for Becker and came to appreciate Edberg much later when the baseliners took over.

Regarding why many people consider Edberg to be better, Cyborg's a posteriori explanation makes sense to me.

 

[pc1]

Becker, oddly enough, didn't reach world #1 until 1991 and stayed there very briefly.

He also had only one year in which he was considered commonly to be the best player in the world - that was in 1989.

But even in that year there was some debate on whether Lendl may have been better. Becker only won five tournaments - good, but not amazing.

Edberg, conversely, is believed by many to have been the world best in consecutive years of 1990 and 1991. He was ranked #1 in parts of 1990, 91 and 92 (Becker only 91).

I'm not saying that Edberg was better, but there's definitely a case to be made in his favour.

Agreed. Perfectly logical.

 

[egn]

Becker, oddly enough, didn't reach world #1 until 1991 and stayed there very briefly.

He also had only one year in which he was considered commonly to be the best player in the world - that was in 1989.

But even in that year there was some debate on whether Lendl may have been better. Becker only won five tournaments - good, but not amazing.

Edberg, conversely, is believed by many to have been the world best in consecutive years of 1990 and 1991. He was ranked #1 in parts of 1990, 91 and 92 (Becker only 91).

I'm not saying that Edberg was better, but there's definitely a case to be made in his favour.

100 percent the reason.

Becker was just a bit too much hit or miss sometimes. When Edberg was at his best he was at his best for a while, Becker just never seemed to maintain that top level of play for a long period of time..

 

[pc1]

100 percent the reason.

Becker was just a bit too much hit or miss sometimes. When Edberg was at his best he was at his best for a while, Becker just never seemed to maintain that top level of play for a long period of time..

When I think of Edberg, I think not of the Wimbledons he won but the two US Opens he won. The first in which he played an almost perfect match in beating Courier and the second in which he won so many five set matches to win the tournament. It showed his brilliance (the Courier final) and his courage as a player.

 

[egn]

When I think of Edberg, I think not of the Wimbledons he won but the two US Opens he won. The first in which he played an almost perfect match in beating Courier and the second in which he won so many five set matches to win the tournament. It showed his brilliance (the Courier final) and his courage as a player.

Yes Edberg truly was an amazing talent and had a huge heart and love for the game.

 

[pjonesy]

100 percent the reason.

Becker was just a bit too much hit or miss sometimes. When Edberg was at his best he was at his best for a while, Becker just never seemed to maintain that top level of play for a long period of time..

Yeah, Becker seemed tortured by his own talent and the expectations following his '85 Wimbledon win. He just never seemed totally comfortable with being the best tennis player in the world. Although Becker had the talent, (like you said) he was only the #1 player for a short period of time. Edberg just seemed more focused and less distracted.

 

[borg's headband]

And in 1989 when some people regarded Becker the best player in the world, Edberg beat him 2-1 in the important tournaments (RG, W and Masters).

 

[shakes1975]

100 percent the reason.

Becker was just a bit too much hit or miss sometimes. When Edberg was at his best he was at his best for a while, Becker just never seemed to maintain that top level of play for a long period of time..

But if that were really true, it would show up in their percentages. Like I showed in the first post, Becker's career percentages are, overall, better than Edberg's. So, considering that their careers lasted for 12 yrs, he also must have been pretty consistent overall. Both ranked 10 yrs in the top 10.

IMO, he was not as hit and miss as people think. There was a time (from 1992-1994) when he WAS disinterested, but from 1985-1991, and 1995-1996, he was really consistent.

Also, one cannot dismiss their performances against the field and their peers.

 

[shakes1975]

And in 1989 when some people regarded Becker the best player in the world, Edberg beat him 2-1 in the important tournaments (RG, W and Masters).

Actually they were 2-3 in favour of Becker. Edberg won RG SF and Master's F, while Becker won Wim F, Davis Cup, Master's RR.

 

[borg's headband]

Who cares about Masters RR when Edberg won the final? I know about the Davis cup but wouldn't count that one as a tournament.

 

[shakes1975]

Who cares about Masters RR when Edberg won the final? I know about the Davis cup but wouldn't count that one as a tournament.

Fine about the Master's RR. But the Davis Cup is a very important tie, esp. back then. It was a very important match, doesn't matter if it is a tourney or not. It is counted as a result. You can check the ATP stats.

Davis Cup is a very important tie for all Europeans, even now.

 

[pjonesy]

But if that were really true, it would show up in their percentages. Like I showed in the first post, Becker's career percentages are, overall, better than Edberg's. So, considering that their careers lasted for 12 yrs, he also must have been pretty consistent overall. Both ranked 10 yrs in the top 10.

IMO, he was not as hit and miss as people think. There was a time (from 1992-1994) when he WAS disinterested, but from 1985-1991, and 1995-1996, he was really consistent.

Also, one cannot dismiss their performances against the field and their peers.

I cannot argue with you, the facts speak for themselves. But, the underlying question is, why do people tend to favor Edberg over Becker? In my opinion, Becker was just too emotional and not as comfortable with the pressure. Edberg was much more relaxed (generally) and seemed more focused in his prime years. Edberg winning 2 of the 3 Wimbledon matches against Becker might also be the reason. As far as talent and overall head to head matchups, Becker may have had the edge. Its just a matter of perception.

 

[pc1]

I cannot argue with you, the facts speak for themselves. But, the underlying question is, why do people tend to favor Edberg over Becker? In my opinion, Becker was just too emotional and not as comfortable with the pressure. Edberg was much more relaxed (generally) and seemed more focused in his prime years. Edberg winning 2 of the 3 Wimbledon matches against Becker might also be the reason. As far as talent and overall head to head matchups, Becker may have had the edge. Its just a matter of perception.

Do people favor Edberg over Becker? Maybe it's just me but I never felt that way.

 

[ywk999]

Between Becker and Edberg, clearly Becker was the better. But to answer the question, there are other things we have to take into account.

Both Becker and Edberg were accomplished players when they came on the tour at around the same time. But power-to-power Becker definitely held the advantage, and he outshone Edberg in terms of impact on tennis.

Becker had a seven-game winning streak until Edberg finally broke it successively in the summer of 1987 which was a big deal for Edberg. Edberg had to figure out how to cope with the game of Becker, and he eventually did as most will agree.

In their mid-career from 1988 to 1992, they played 19 times but suprisingly never on an outdoor hardcourt (arguably Edberg's favorite surface). But Becker took the vast majority of the indoor &and grass court matches (except of course two Wimbledons and one Masters) during that time.

Also, interestingly, Edberg never once beat Becker since his 1990 Wimbledon win (except injury retirement) in his 11 tries. This perhaps due to the fact that those matches were all played indoors and once on grass and twice on hardcourt (Doha).

In fact, out of their 35 matches, 21 were played indoors. Here, Becker lead Edberg 16-5. Becker was perhaps the best indoor player ever, hence, perhaps, the lopsided result.

Like others have said, my opinion is that Becker might have been the greater player in terms of tennis history. But Edberg does not lag far behind.

 

[Mustard]

I've always backed Becker over Edberg. I just felt that Becker had a much higher level to his game. The 1989 Davis Cup final was sheer magic by Becker, where his game just seemed to go up to another level.

 

[hoodjem]

IMO their records are very similar. I might have picked Edberg for gentlemanly attitude, and maybe for aesthetics.

 

[pjonesy]

Do people favor Edberg over Becker? Maybe it's just me but I never felt that way.

I was referring to the poll results from the previous Edberg/Becker thread. I think this thread was intended to continue the discussion of the comparison of the 2 players and address the poll results. From my perspective, as far as their physical makeup is concerned, Becker was more powerful and Edberg was faster. There was a contrast in their playing styles and I really enjoyed watching them play each other. Lendl was still in the mix as well and they all seemed to have similar overall talent. One of my favorite eras to watch tennis.

 

[boris becker 1]

more stylish lol.

edbergs forehand was awful with a continental grip.

his serve was a 110 mph kicker.



becker had a huge serve.

a big forehand.

hit that buggy whip passing shot.

and hit the becker block backhand return which was also stylish.

becker was a far better champion than edberg.

edberg had as much charisma as a wet paper bag. becker oozes charisma

 

[hawk eye]

Well regarding your user name your answer does't really surprise me.

Anyway, I was talking about movement in the first place.
And Edberg was one of he best and gracefull movers the game has ever see, also lighting fast. Which can't be said about Becker.
Boris had more power on his strokes yes, at least on his serve and forehand. They didn't call him Boem Boem Boris for nothing. But they wouldn't have nicknamed him like that that there was any grace in his movement.

Yes the Edberg forehand was a little awkward (nobody's perfect), but then again his style of play wasn't exactly based on trading forhands from the baseline, he hardly had to hit more than twice in a row.
His backhand was a thing of beauty, and so was his kick serve, whatever you might think of it. His volleying was pure artistry and stood out in technical perfection.
I even think it's a testament to his game that he didn't need a big forehand to dictate play and to end points with, which started to become the dominant style at that time. He was one of the few champions where finesse was prevailing over power, at least since the late eighties.
As far as charisma is concerned, i don't see a lot of difference in on court demeanor between Borg and Edberg, and for many Borg was the most charismatic tennis player ever. Probably he had the advantage over Stefan that he looked like Jesus Christ Superstar with a headband. But he certainly was no 'wet paperbag', and neither was Edberg.

 

[ywk999]

When both are serve-and-volleying on fast courts, they look pretty much alike. On slower courts, their contrasting strategies, techniques and styles are magnified. Such contrasts are pretty well shown in the following videos.

Becker v Edberg - 89 French SF (1/13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RzobPD010Y

Becker v Edberg - 87 Cin F (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwQ64SrGdBM

Whether you appreciate the aesthetics of Edberg's forehand or not, it would be unfair to call it a 'weak' shot. Edberg certainly knew how to use it to torment his opponents and play out his style against just about anybody. He was able to defend with it using big topspin to keep the opponent at bay, hit dippers below the net when the opponent attacked, and hit sharp, flat, angled shots off rising ball for effective approaches.

His mind was not in hitting forehand winners from the baseline, but the entire time he was looking to attack at the right moment and the opponent just could not be complacent. All he had to do to win was get into the net behind a reasonable approach shot, and more often than not he would be in a winning position. He might get passed again and again and again, but when it came to crunch time, with his world-class volleys and backhand drive/slice to back it up, his opponent would find it extremely difficult to do it one more time.

Thanks to such unique style of Edberg, we were always treated - whether he won or lost - to a game of maneuver, position and finesse. To me, it's become a lost art with ridiculous amount of power in today's tennis.

 

[pjonesy]

When both are serve-and-volleying on fast courts, they look pretty much alike. On slower courts, their contrasting strategies, techniques and styles are magnified. Such contrasts are pretty well shown in the following videos.

Becker v Edberg - 89 French SF (1/13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RzobPD010Y

Becker v Edberg - 87 Cin F (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwQ64SrGdBM

Whether you appreciate the aesthetics of Edberg's forehand or not, it would be unfair to call it a 'weak' shot. Edberg certainly knew how to use it to torment his opponents and play out his style against just about anybody. He was able to defend with it using big topspin to keep the opponent at bay, hit dippers below the net when the opponent attacked, and hit sharp, flat, angled shots off rising ball for effective approaches.

His mind was not in hitting forehand winners from the baseline, but the entire time he was looking to attack at the right moment and the opponent just could not be complacent. All he had to do to win was get into the net behind a reasonable approach shot, and more often than not he would be in a winning position. He might get passed again and again and again, but when it came to crunch time, with his world-class volleys and backhand drive/slice to back it up, his opponent would find it extremely difficult to do it one more time.

Thanks to such unique style of Edberg, we were always treated - whether he won or lost - to a game of maneuver, position and finesse. To me, it's become a lost art with ridiculous amount of power in today's tennis.

Edberg had an unique, cerebral finesse game for the most part. But, along with Pat Rafter at a close 2nd, there is no doubt that Edberg had the best kick serve of all time. He moved as smoothly at the net as anyone ever has and his volleys were sharp, powerful and clean.

Because he had such a beautiful game and was relatively quiet, I think some people presume he was weak or passive. I'm reminded of what Dominique Wilkins said about Larry Bird, "He may not be the most powerful, dominating player around, but make no mistake, look into his eyes and you will see a killer." People forget about how great of a competitor Edberg was.

 

[World Beater]

Edberg had an unique, cerebral finesse game for the most part. But, along with Pat Rafter at a close 2nd, there is no doubt that Edberg had the best kick serve of all time. He moved as smoothly at the net as anyone ever has and his volleys were sharp, powerful and clean.

Because he had such a beautiful game and was relatively quiet, I think some people presume he was weak or passive. I'm reminded of what Dominique Wilkins said about Larry Bird, "He may not be the most powerful, dominating player around, but make no mistake, look into his eyes and you will see a killer." People forget about how great of a competitor Edberg was.

92 usopen. lost of comebacks.

edberg was certainly a killer.

he appeared to be mentally very strong.

 

[andreh]

I'd say Edberg probably counts as better because he was at his best when it mattered. That kind of thing won't show up in your statistics because it gives equal weight to all matches.

The W finals Edberg won are much more important than the other matches in the Becker Edberg head to head. Same goes for the head to head against the other playes, without the context in which they were played the statistics are useless.

Ask Becker how many of those other matches he would trade for those 2 W finals Edberg one. My guess would be all of them.

 

[hawk eye]

When both are serve-and-volleying on fast courts, they look pretty much alike. On slower courts, their contrasting strategies, techniques and styles are magnified. Such contrasts are pretty well shown in the following videos.

Becker v Edberg - 89 French SF (1/13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RzobPD010Y

Becker v Edberg - 87 Cin F (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwQ64SrGdBM

Whether you appreciate the aesthetics of Edberg's forehand or not, it would be unfair to call it a 'weak' shot. Edberg certainly knew how to use it to torment his opponents and play out his style against just about anybody. He was able to defend with it using big topspin to keep the opponent at bay, hit dippers below the net when the opponent attacked, and hit sharp, flat, angled shots off rising ball for effective approaches.

His mind was not in hitting forehand winners from the baseline, but the entire time he was looking to attack at the right moment and the opponent just could not be complacent. All he had to do to win was get into the net behind a reasonable approach shot, and more often than not he would be in a winning position. He might get passed again and again and again, but when it came to crunch time, with his world-class volleys and backhand drive/slice to back it up, his opponent would find it extremely difficult to do it one more time.

Thanks to such unique style of Edberg, we were always treated - whether he won or lost - to a game of maneuver, position and finesse. To me, it's become a lost art with ridiculous amount of power in today's tennis.

I agree, his forehand may not be pretty but was effective and versatile in his own way..

 

[shakes1975]

I'd say Edberg probably counts as better because he was at his best when it mattered. That kind of thing won't show up in your statistics because it gives equal weight to all matches.

The W finals Edberg won are much more important than the other matches in the Becker Edberg head to head. Same goes for the head to head against the other playes, without the context in which they were played the statistics are useless.

Ask Becker how many of those other matches he would trade for those 2 W finals Edberg one. My guess would be all of them.

Some good points, but I don't entirely agree. For instance, their Davis Cup head-to-head was nearly as important, if not more, than their slam h2h. Davis Cup is huge in Europe, even now. Back then, it was very, very important and it has it's own standing. All players were "jacked" for Davis Cup.

Further, Edberg did lose some important matches to his peers. For instance, he lost to Connors in straight sets in the 1989 US Open. Connors was 37 years old at the time. He lost to Lendl in the 1986 USO, 1987 Wim SF, 1991 AO SF. Becker never lost to Lendl in a slam match until 1992 USO. These count for something too.

Agree Becker would've loved to win their wimbledon rivalry, esp. their 1990 F. But then it can also be said that Edberg would have loved to exchange his extra USO for Becker's extra Wim title. Wimbledon, back then, was the most important slam and Becker had a much better career there.

I think it is more than just h2h (for eg., look at Fed vs. Nadal) that we should look at. We should look at their performance against their rivals too. Becker definitely did better against the field than Edberg. Becker's game also handled the "generation" gaps better (whether it is against the past generation or future generations).

 

[pjonesy]

Some good points, but I don't entirely agree. For instance, their Davis Cup head-to-head was nearly as important, if not more, than their slam h2h. Davis Cup is huge in Europe, even now. Back then, it was very, very important and it has it's own standing. All players were "jacked" for Davis Cup.

Further, Edberg did lose some important matches to his peers. For instance, he lost to Connors in straight sets in the 1989 US Open. Connors was 37 years old at the time. He lost to Lendl in the 1986 USO, 1987 Wim SF, 1991 AO SF. Becker never lost to Lendl in a slam match until 1992 USO. These count for something too.

Agree Becker would've loved to win their wimbledon rivalry, esp. their 1990 F. But then it can also be said that Edberg would have loved to exchange his extra USO for Becker's extra Wim title. Wimbledon, back then, was the most important slam and Becker had a much better career there.

I think it is more than just h2h (for eg., look at Fed vs. Nadal) that we should look at. We should look at their performance against their rivals too. Becker definitely did better against the field than Edberg. Becker's game also handled the "generation" gaps better (whether it is against the past generation or future generations).

All important factors to be taken in to account. I have said this numerous times, but I think it bears repeating. The rivalry between Becker, Lendl and Edberg was great. Three different personalities, three different games but relatively equal talent. Becker's power serve and volley game, along with strong, effective groundstrokes. Edberg's speed and athleticism at the net, along with the best kick serve in history. Lendl's powerful and precise groundstrokes, fitness and a reliable and powerful serve. I absolutely loved to watch these guys play each other. But, I will agree that Becker probably had a better head to head record against common opponents, especially in big matches.

 

[andreh]

Some good points, but I don't entirely agree. For instance, their Davis Cup head-to-head was nearly as important, if not more, than their slam h2h. Davis Cup is huge in Europe, even now. Back then, it was very, very important and it has it's own standing. All players were "jacked" for Davis Cup.

Further, Edberg did lose some important matches to his peers. For instance, he lost to Connors in straight sets in the 1989 US Open. Connors was 37 years old at the time. He lost to Lendl in the 1986 USO, 1987 Wim SF, 1991 AO SF. Becker never lost to Lendl in a slam match until 1992 USO. These count for something too.

Agree Becker would've loved to win their wimbledon rivalry, esp. their 1990 F. But then it can also be said that Edberg would have loved to exchange his extra USO for Becker's extra Wim title. Wimbledon, back then, was the most important slam and Becker had a much better career there.

I think it is more than just h2h (for eg., look at Fed vs. Nadal) that we should look at. We should look at their performance against their rivals too. Becker definitely did better against the field than Edberg. Becker's game also handled the "generation" gaps better (whether it is against the past generation or future generations).

Point taken, although there are definitely thing speaking in Edbergs favor such as the fact that Becker never won a clay court title while Edberg won 3. Weeks at no. 1 is even more lopsided than the H2H only in Edbergs favor.

One might also make the argument that it was a fundamental weakness in Becker that he lost just those big ones in the H2H. If he had such an easy time in lesser tournaments why couldn't he perform when it mattered the most?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care who was better, I just get a little supiscoius when someone goes out their way to prove a point by quoting a lot statistics. They don't neccessarily tell the whole truth. I would even bet that one could produce stats that say Edberg was better. It all depends on what questions you ask and how you do the math. Statistics have limitations, and it's frequently used to present a point of view as hard facts when it's really arbitrary. And my point is that maybe this is what you're doing here?

 

[ywk999]

Becker definitely did better against the field than Edberg.

Selective head-to-head results can be inherently misleading. I thought there was something amiss in the original sample group so I've decided to widen the field to include other notable players (to my knowledge).

Edberg-Berasategui 2-1
Becker-Berasategui 0-1
Edberg-Bjorkman 0-1
Becker-Bjorkman 1-2
Edberg-Boetsche 10-1
Becker-Boetsche 2-1
Edberg-Bruguera 6-3
Becker-Bruguera 2-2
Edberg-Cash 8-2
Becker-Cash 3-1
Edberg-Cherkasov 4-2
Becker-Cherkasov 7-1
Edberg-Chesnokov 5-1
Becker-Chesnokov 5-2
Edberg-Corretja 3-1
Becker-Corretja 1-2
Edberg-Curren 7-1
Becker-Curren 5-0
Edberg-Enqvist 0-3
Becker-Enqvist 2-1
Edberg-Ferreira 3-1
Becker-Ferreira 9-2
Edberg-Forget 7-6
Becker-Forget 10-3
Edberg-Gilbert 15-4
Becker-Gilbert 6-4
Edberg-Gomez 4-0
Becker-Gomez 3-1
Edberg-Haarhuis 5-0
Becker-Haarhuis 3-3
Edberg-Henman 2-0
Becker-Henman 2-0
Edberg-Hlasek 15-1
Becker-Hlasek 7-1
Edberg-Jarryd 9-2
Becker-Jarryd 6-3
Edberg-Kafelnikov 1-2
Becker-Kafelnikov 4-2
Edberg-Korda 4-5
Becker-Korda 6-0
Edberg-Krickstein 7-4
Becker-Krickstein 7-1
Edberg Larsson 2-2
Becker-Larsson 4-2
Edberg-Leconte 6-1
Becker-Leconte 10-3
Edberg-Mancini 2-0
Becker-Mancini 1-2
Edberg-Mansdorf 10-0
Becker-Mansdorf 3-2
Edberg-Martin 3-4
Becker-Martin 2-2
Edberg-Masur 7-0
Becker-Masur 5-1
Edberg-Mayotte 5-1
Becker-Mayotte 6-2
Edberg-Mecir 10-5
Becker-Mecir 7-2
Edberg-Medvedev 4-2
Becker-Medvedev 1-0
Edberg-Moya 1-0
Becker-Moya 2-2
Edberg-Muster 10-0
Becker-Muster 2-1
Edberg-Noah 6-0
Becker-Noah 4-2
Edberg-Philippoussis 1-1
Becker-Philippoussis 1-0
Edberg-Pioline 4-2
Becker-Pioline 9-0
Edberg-Rafter 3-0
Becker-Rafter 2-1
Edberg-Reneberg 6-1
Becker-Reneberg 7-1
Edberg-Rios 2-0
Becker-Rios 3-2
Edberg-Rosset 3-1
Becker-Rosset 4-3
Edberg-Rostagno 4-0
Becker-Rostagno 2-1
Edberg-Rusedski 1-0
Becker-Rusedski 3-0
Edberg-E. Sanchez 9-3
Becker-E. Sanchez 6-2
Edberg-J. Sanchez 6-0
Becker-J. Sanchez 6-0
Edberg-Santoro 3-1
Becker-Santoro 1-1
Edberg-Siemerink 6-2
Becker-Siemerink 3-3
Edberg-Stoltenberg 6-1
Becker-Stoltenberg 5-0
Edberg-Wheaton 4-1
Becker-Wheaton 6-0
Edberg-Woodforde 2-1
Becker-Woodforde 5-0

Source: ATP Site

Take your pick. They look pretty similar to me.

No amount of data will conclusively prove which player was greater. A player may have do well against A type than B type. And the other may be exactly the opposite. Should we also weigh in whether a player was focused, sick, tired or tanking? Also, the surface, temperature, humidity, wind, play schedule, etc.?

I might add that if Becker had Edberg's work ethic and focus, then
he could've achieved a lot more. You just can't have it all, I guess.

 

[kandamrgam]

Selective head-to-head results can be inherently misleading. I thought there was something amiss in the original sample group so I've decided to widen the field to include other notable players (to my knowledge).

Edberg-Berasategui 2-1
Becker-Berasategui 0-1
Edberg-Bjorkman 0-1
Becker-Bjorkman 1-2
Edberg-Boetsche 10-1
Becker-Boetsche 2-1
Edberg-Bruguera 6-3
Becker-Bruguera 2-2
Edberg-Cash 8-2
Becker-Cash 3-1
Edberg-Cherkasov 4-2
Becker-Cherkasov 7-1
Edberg-Chesnokov 5-1
Becker-Chesnokov 5-2
Edberg-Corretja 3-1
Becker-Corretja 1-2
Edberg-Curren 7-1
Becker-Curren 5-0
Edberg-Enqvist 0-3
Becker-Enqvist 2-1
Edberg-Ferreira 3-1
Becker-Ferreira 9-2
Edberg-Forget 7-6
Becker-Forget 10-3
Edberg-Gilbert 15-4
Becker-Gilbert 6-4
Edberg-Gomez 4-0
Becker-Gomez 3-1
Edberg-Haarhuis 5-0
Becker-Haarhuis 3-3
Edberg-Henman 2-0
Becker-Henman 2-0
Edberg-Hlasek 15-1
Becker-Hlasek 7-1
Edberg-Jarryd 9-2
Becker-Jarryd 6-3
Edberg-Kafelnikov 1-2
Becker-Kafelnikov 4-2
Edberg-Korda 4-5
Becker-Korda 6-0
Edberg-Krickstein 7-4
Becker-Krickstein 7-1
Edberg Larsson 2-2
Becker-Larsson 4-2
Edberg-Leconte 6-1
Becker-Leconte 10-3
Edberg-Mancini 2-0
Becker-Mancini 1-2
Edberg-Mansdorf 10-0
Becker-Mansdorf 3-2
Edberg-Martin 3-4
Becker-Martin 2-2
Edberg-Masur 7-0
Becker-Masur 5-1
Edberg-Mayotte 5-1
Becker-Mayotte 6-2
Edberg-Mecir 10-5
Becker-Mecir 7-2
Edberg-Medvedev 4-2
Becker-Medvedev 1-0
Edberg-Moya 1-0
Becker-Moya 2-2
Edberg-Muster 10-0
Becker-Muster 2-1
Edberg-Noah 6-0
Becker-Noah 4-2
Edberg-Philippoussis 1-1
Becker-Philippoussis 1-0
Edberg-Pioline 4-2
Becker-Pioline 9-0
Edberg-Rafter 3-0
Becker-Rafter 2-1
Edberg-Reneberg 6-1
Becker-Reneberg 7-1
Edberg-Rios 2-0
Becker-Rios 3-2
Edberg-Rosset 3-1
Becker-Rosset 4-3
Edberg-Rostagno 4-0
Becker-Rostagno 2-1
Edberg-Rusedski 1-0
Becker-Rusedski 3-0
Edberg-E. Sanchez 9-3
Becker-E. Sanchez 6-2
Edberg-J. Sanchez 6-0
Becker-J. Sanchez 6-0
Edberg-Santoro 3-1
Becker-Santoro 1-1
Edberg-Siemerink 6-2
Becker-Siemerink 3-3
Edberg-Stoltenberg 6-1
Becker-Stoltenberg 5-0
Edberg-Wheaton 4-1
Becker-Wheaton 6-0
Edberg-Woodforde 2-1
Becker-Woodforde 5-0

Source: ATP Site

Take your pick. They look pretty similar to me.

No amount of data will conclusively prove which player was greater. A player may have do well against A type than B type. And the other may be exactly the opposite. Should we also weigh in whether a player was focused, sick, tired or tanking? Also, the surface, temperature, humidity, wind, play schedule, etc.?

I might add that if Becker had Edberg's work ethic and focus, then
he could've achieved a lot more. You just can't have it all, I guess.

Edberg vs top 10 = 48%
Becker vs top 10 = 63%

http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=StefanEdberg&f=ACareerqqITop_10qq
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=BorisBecker&f=ACareerqqITop_10qq

That's a considerable difference.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I always think of them as a pair. That says a lot about their legacy. And they're two of my all time favorite players. It also reminds me of a time when GOAT debates weren't important and almost any player in the top 20 could beat another on the day. Their Wimbledon rivalry was classic.

It's amazing how close they were in terms of the rivalry, their career and their overall legacy. Very hard to find two rivals who match each other like this.

 

[hoodjem]

I cannot argue with you, the facts speak for themselves. But, the underlying question is, why do people tend to favor Edberg over Becker? In my opinion, Becker was just too emotional and not as comfortable with the pressure. Edberg was much more relaxed (generally) and seemed more focused in his prime years. Edberg winning 2 of the 3 Wimbledon matches against Becker might also be the reason. As far as talent and overall head to head matchups, Becker may have had the edge. Its just a matter of perception.

I think many persons consider them as almost equals, then the deciding factor is likability.

Edberg wins there (except with PC1). :wink:

 

[hoodjem]

Do people favor Edberg over Becker? Maybe it's just me but I never felt that way.

I tended to like Becker when he was young, boyish, and enthusiastic. But then I met Edberg, who seemed more so, but retained all that as he grew older.

Whereas Becker seemed (in my memory) to get snarly, brutish, and egotistical as he grew older.

 

[dominikk1985]

Beckers career was seen as a Little bit of a dissapointment after that great start at Age 17. Sampras was just a better Player but from 85 to 92 he had a nice window and still managed to "only" win 5 slams during that period.

in the late 80s mac and connors where declining so many believed he would have a Chance to really dominate at a similar Level like mac, but he could not albeit he had some great wins. just not as consistent as Lendl was.

 

[kandamrgam]

Beckers career was seen as a Little bit of a dissapointment after that great start at Age 17. Sampras was just a better Player but from 85 to 92 he had a nice window and still managed to "only" win 5 slams during that period.

in the late 80s mac and connors where declining so many believed he would have a Chance to really dominate at a similar Level like mac, but he could not albeit he had some great wins. just not as consistent as Lendl was.

I wouldn't call a field with Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, even post/pre prime Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier an easy window. Haven't watched any of them, but that's what I think of it.

 

[70sHollywood]

Just watching Raonic got me thinking that there has never been a really tall (over 6 foot 5) all time great.

I had a look around at heights of players - is Boris Becker the tallest all time great?

I forgot how tall he was, my memory is of him being smaller for some reason. Also, I never realised Wilander was 6 foot.