Becker v Edberg......Who was better?

[fezer]

Simple question, who had a better career.

Both had 6 Majors, Becker leads h2h 25-10 but in Majors Edberg leads 3-1. Edberg beat Becker on every surface, Becker never beat him on clay. Edberg was world no.1 longer.

The media and ex pros almost to a man say Becker.

What do you guys think?

one correction: becker beat edberg easily on clay. 1988 davis cup final IN SWEDEN

 

[Gary20]

one correction: becker beat edberg easily on clay. 1988 davis cup final IN SWEDEN

What was the score?

 

[timnz]

What was the score?

Becker won 6–3, 6–1, 6–4

 

[timnz]

On balance I would probably agree with you that Becker had the greater career. There are a few things in Edberg's favor besides the fact that, as you rightly say, his game was obviously aesthetically more pleasing. (By the way, Edberg is not just my favorite tennis player but my favorite sportsman or sportswoman ever, so I know a lot about his career).

1) Edberg had a better career record than Becker at all of the Slams apart from Wimbledon. (Yes, it was better at the Australian Open. By a lot, in fact).
2) Edberg won four of their five most important matches (the fifth most important being the Masters final of 1989).
3) Edberg finished as world #1 twice, and Becker never finished as #1. I know that Becker had a case in 1989 and that Edberg's case in 1990 wasn't unquestionable (and that even in 1991 he was only a narrow #1). I know that you don't count rankings in your system, and I can understand why, but the fact is that many people do think that rankings matter and they probably weight that in their calculations.
4) Relatedly, Edberg ranked higher than Becker in all of 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Moreover, although Becker did rank higher in both 1988 and 1989, I think most view Edberg as having had a better season in 1988. Bearing in mind that Edberg also ranked higher in 1987, I think that that means that many would think that Edberg was better than Becker in six out of seven years in the heart of their careers (1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993). I think that this points to an important reason as to why *some* people think that Edberg had a better career, or at least think that it's closer than you allow: Becker had a horrible mid-career slump, while Edberg did not. Although Becker did much better later on in their careers (from 1994 onwards) and slightly better early in their careers, he wasn't the best player in the world, and was clearly not the best player in the world, in either period. Thus, there was a substantially longer period of time during which Edberg was at least roughly as good as anyone else than there was with Becker. I think this leads to a widespread perception of Becker as a talented underachiever who never made the most of his early promise. I believe that you think achievements should be quantified to purify us of those misperceptions, but I am here trying to explain what the perceptions are. As I said, I would agree with you overall, but not by as much as you say.

On another note, I have read your system of quantification and do have some thoughts on it. I will say that I think it's a pretty good system. I do think that there are arguments that can made about the things that you include and the things that you don't, however. If you would like to discuss it, I am happy to give you my thoughts, but please give me a few days first!

I welcome discussion. As you say, you are giving perceptions. One of the reasons I created my system was to give the objective view - what did the player actually achieve? Note: This is not to say the objective view is superior to the subjective view - it is, what it is. Objectively Becker achieved far more than Edberg. Its just a fact. Slams equal, but Becker 5 season end final championships vs 1 for Edberg, Becker 13 masters 1000 equivalents vs 8 for Edberg. H2H (and I give the least credence to H2H - but here it is anyway) Becker 25-10 over Edberg, of which Becker ahead 10 to 5 in best of 5 set matches.

 

[helterskelter]

I welcome discussion. As you say, you are giving perceptions. One of the reasons I created my system was to give the objective view - what did the player actually achieve? Note: This is not to say the objective view is superior to the subjective view - it is, what it is. Objectively Becker achieved far more than Edberg. Its just a fact. Slams equal, but Becker 5 season end final championships vs 1 for Edberg, Becker 13 masters 1000 equivalents vs 8 for Edberg. H2H (and I give the least credence to H2H - but here it is anyway) Becker 25-10 over Edberg, of which Becker ahead 10 to 5 in best of 5 set matches.

Okay, I will give you my more detailed thoughts when I get a chance. One of the things that I should say in advance is that I'm skeptical about the "objective-subjective" distinction (and I'm a social scientist, so that's part of a broader worldview that will underlie what on say on this issue). That's not to say that I don't see a problem with partiality (or people interpreting data to support their preconceived opinions on a particular topic), but that I don't think it's possible to reach a value-free standpoint that doesn't reflect a particular set of standards.

For example, I don't think it's possible to judge players of different eras by a standard that is fair to both of them, because the different eras had different standards that encouraged them to prioritize their schedule differently. An example of this is your decision to leave 250s out of the equation. While I agree that it was much easier for players in the past to win them, and so agree that including them would be easily susceptible to partial analysis by advocates of a particular player, I don't think that we resolve the problem by just discounting them. That doesn't mean that we then judge yesteryear's players by neutral standards, it means that we judge them by today's equally partial standards. Although the 250s were easier to win then than now, the tour was structured in such a way that it wasn't possible for players to base their schedule on the standards that would be appropriate today. Judging them as though they should have done so is thus not fair to them.

I thus really see no way of making the comparison completely fair: either we include material that gives older players an advantage or we exclude that material, which means giving today's players an advantage.

That doesn't mean that there's no point in comparison. But it does mean that the comparison must involve the exercise of judgment, either implicitly or explicitly. You make the judgment implicit by leaving it in the choice of categories that get counted in the metric. I prefer to make it explicit by constructing arguments rather than relying purely on data that purports to be impartial, but in my view isn't actually impartial.

 

[helterskelter]

I welcome discussion. As you say, you are giving perceptions. One of the reasons I created my system was to give the objective view - what did the player actually achieve? Note: This is not to say the objective view is superior to the subjective view - it is, what it is. Objectively Becker achieved far more than Edberg. Its just a fact. Slams equal, but Becker 5 season end final championships vs 1 for Edberg, Becker 13 masters 1000 equivalents vs 8 for Edberg. H2H (and I give the least credence to H2H - but here it is anyway) Becker 25-10 over Edberg, of which Becker ahead 10 to 5 in best of 5 set matches.

I don't think that those statistics mean that Becker achieved far more, just that he achieved more. The only one that is really significant is the season-ending championships, and even then we'd need to add the caveat that they were played on the one surface that suited Becker much more than Edberg (indoor carpet). [Carpet suited Becker much more than Edberg because, while fast, it had an even bounce, which reduced the advantage that Edberg could get from his superior volleys by making it easier to return serve and hit groundstrokes while also giving power players a significant edge because of their ability to hit through the ball].

As you say, H2H isn't really an achievement. At best, it involves a form of double counting that is, presumably, why you don't include rankings in the calculation. If you were to include rankings, you'd probably end up seeing that as a category in which Edberg achieved quite a bit more (depending on how you calculated it).

As for the Masters series: the thing is that it's a false equivalency. They didn't in any way call them that until 1990, by which time Becker and Edberg were both halfway through their careers. In tournaments that were actually called Masters Series, I believe that Becker leads only by 5-4. (I may be wrong in this: I just calculated it right now and I was rushing so I may have misread the ATP website). The other thing is that they weren't really compulsory tournaments until far later, and so they just didn't have the status that they do now. Moreover, there were significant differences in importance within the series that treating it as one category doesn't quite capture.

 

[Gary20]

So guys, Becker or Edberg? It seems pretty split thus far.

 

[CEvertFan]

You are all forgetting that Edberg spent way more weeks at #1 than Becker ever did. Boris was only ever #1 for 12 weeks which is really weak considering his talent, game and achievements. Edberg was far more consistent and spent 72 weeks at #1 and also has 2 year end #1s (1990 and 1991) under his belt to zero for Becker. It's extremely close between the 2 but IMHO Becker was the slightly better player with a higher peak play but Edberg was more consistent and that paid off for him with the better career.

I for one always enjoyed their matches against one another - their matches were entertaining.

 

[BTURNER]

Okay, I will give you my more detailed thoughts when I get a chance. One of the things that I should say in advance is that I'm skeptical about the "objective-subjective" distinction (and I'm a social scientist, so that's part of a broader worldview that will underlie what on say on this issue). That's not to say that I don't see a problem with partiality (or people interpreting data to support their preconceived opinions on a particular topic), but that I don't think it's possible to reach a value-free standpoint that doesn't reflect a particular set of standards.

For example, I don't think it's possible to judge players of different eras by a standard that is fair to both of them, because the different eras had different standards that encouraged them to prioritize their schedule differently. An example of this is your decision to leave 250s out of the equation. While I agree that it was much easier for players in the past to win them, and so agree that including them would be easily susceptible to partial analysis by advocates of a particular player, I don't think that we resolve the problem by just discounting them. That doesn't mean that we then judge yesteryear's players by neutral standards, it means that we judge them by today's equally partial standards. Although the 250s were easier to win then than now, the tour was structured in such a way that it wasn't possible for players to base their schedule on the standards that would be appropriate today. Judging them as though they should have done so is thus not fair to them.

I thus really see no way of making the comparison completely fair: either we include material that gives older players an advantage or we exclude that material, which means giving today's players an advantage.

That doesn't mean that there's no point in comparison. But it does mean that the comparison must involve the exercise of judgment, either implicitly or explicitly. You make the judgment implicit by leaving it in the choice of categories that get counted in the metric. I prefer to make it explicit by constructing arguments rather than relying purely on data that purports to be impartial, but in my view isn't actually impartial.

This would be an excellent contribution to just about any thread in this forum. I recommend not only a reading but a second reading.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Edberg was better. Just look at Wimbledon, the arena when it really mattered and Edberg won twice as many matches as Becker did.

 

[Fedinkum]

I was a Becker fan when I was a kid. His game had slightly more variety than Edberg...and much heavier backcourt game. But I now appreciate Edberg's touch and elegance more when I re-watch his matches. I think Becker was the better player, though.

Forehand: Becker
Backhand: Edberg
Backcourt game: Becker
Volley: Edberg...but Becker was no slough either...
First Serve: Boom Boom
Second Serve: Edberg but Becker's kick was no slough either...
Mobility: Edberg...but Becker could dive like no others...
Overhead: even
Mentally: Edberg

 

[Fedinkum]

What baffled me as a kid was when Brad Gilbert beat Becker. lol I remember I was 9 yrs old and was so annoyed that this weaponless guy was neutralizing Becker's attack on the Cincy hardcourts. I would soon find out how high Gilbert's tennis IQ was well before he wrote his book Winning Ugly.

Becker had a very short temper and could go internally combusted in between points...talking to himself alot like Murray these days. Brad knew how to frustrate Boris.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I welcome discussion. As you say, you are giving perceptions. One of the reasons I created my system was to give the objective view - what did the player actually achieve? Note: This is not to say the objective view is superior to the subjective view - it is, what it is. Objectively Becker achieved far more than Edberg. Its just a fact. Slams equal, but Becker 5 season end final championships vs 1 for Edberg, Becker 13 masters 1000 equivalents vs 8 for Edberg. H2H (and I give the least credence to H2H - but here it is anyway) Becker 25-10 over Edberg, of which Becker ahead 10 to 5 in best of 5 set matches.

I would rather say that Becker achieved more than Edberg according to criterions which are precisely stated. This allow a rigorous comparison of the players, by making sure that they are all systematically examined through the same criterions. It's doesn't guarantee that the criterions are objective.

 

[timnz]

I don't think that those statistics mean that Becker achieved far more, just that he achieved more. The only one that is really significant is the season-ending championships, and even then we'd need to add the caveat that they were played on the one surface that suited Becker much more than Edberg (indoor carpet). [Carpet suited Becker much more than Edberg because, while fast, it had an even bounce, which reduced the advantage that Edberg could get from his superior volleys by making it easier to return serve and hit groundstrokes while also giving power players a significant edge because of their ability to hit through the ball].

As you say, H2H isn't really an achievement. At best, it involves a form of double counting that is, presumably, why you don't include rankings in the calculation. If you were to include rankings, you'd probably end up seeing that as a category in which Edberg achieved quite a bit more (depending on how you calculated it).

As for the Masters series: the thing is that it's a false equivalency. They didn't in any way call them that until 1990, by which time Becker and Edberg were both halfway through their careers. In tournaments that were actually called Masters Series, I believe that Becker leads only by 5-4. (I may be wrong in this: I just calculated it right now and I was rushing so I may have misread the ATP website). The other thing is that they weren't really compulsory tournaments until far later, and so they just didn't have the status that they do now. Moreover, there were significant differences in importance within the series that treating it as one category doesn't quite capture.

Indoor was a very important surface/conditions in the 80's and 90's.

Re. Masters 1000's - I don't see how Beckers win at the Paris indoor in 1989 was a lesser achievement than at the same event in 1992. (1990 being the first year of 'official' masters 1000's even though even then they weren't compulsory) And if that is the case then totalling of equivalents is legitimate.

 

[timnz]

Edberg was better. Just look at Wimbledon, the arena when it really mattered and Edberg won twice as many matches as Becker did.

If you believe that Wimbledon is the arena 'where it really mattered' - how is 2 championships and 1 runner - up (Edberg) superior to 3 championships and 4 runner-ups (Becker)?

 

[HRC-E.B.]

That's the thing: choosing to focus on a given criterion and excluding others will inevitably lead to only one conclusion: the one we were looking for in the first place!

Why not simply ask: who was your favorite between Edberg and Becker, instead of who was best, because whenever we ask the latter question, all we are getting is an answer to the former. Let's get real!

 

[Gary20]

I was a Becker fan when I was a kid. His game had slightly more variety than Edberg...and much heavier backcourt game. But I now appreciate Edberg's touch and elegance more when I re-watch his matches. I think Becker was the better player, though.

Forehand: Becker
Backhand: Edberg
Backcourt game: Becker
Volley: Edberg...but Becker was no slough either...
First Serve: Boom Boom
Second Serve: Edberg but Becker's kick was no slough either...
Mobility: Edberg...but Becker could dive like no others...
Overhead: even
Mentally: Edberg

You have it as dead even!!

 

[Gary20]

In Becker and Edberg's day did tournaments below the majors have the same importance as they do now? Indian Wells in their day was never the '5th Major' it is today for instance.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I actually think Edberg was a better tennis player, although achievements wise it has to be Becker.

One of those cases where I'm not sure achievements tell the whole story.

Well he certainly wasn't when the two of them played each other!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Well he certainly wasn't when the two of them played each other!

 

[Noleberic123]

Boom boom!!!

 

[Djokovic2011]

Only 10 wins in 35 matches though.......

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Only 10 wins in 35 matches though.......

I think Becker's overrated.
He's a good coach though, so I'll give him that.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think Becker's overrated.
He's a good coach though, so I'll give him that.

As someone who grew up watching him, I can tell you that Becker was certainly not overrated. The guy was a really great player.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

As someone who grew up watching him, I can tell you that Becker was certainly not overrated. The guy was a really great player.

I did say "I think".
How much my thoughts are worth is a different discussion.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I did say "I think".
How much my thoughts are worth is a different discussion.

Three Wimbledon titles alone are worth much more.

 

[Gary20]

Well he certainly wasn't when the two of them played each other!

What is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying Becker is better? On this thread you have to pick one or the other.

 

[Djokovic2011]

What is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying Becker is better? On this thread you have to pick one or the other.

Yes, I think Becker was the better player and had a better career than Edberg.

 

[Gary20]

As someone who grew up watching him, I can tell you that Becker was certainly not overrated. The guy was a really great player.

You have failed to answer the question....Becker or Edberg? Who had the better career?

 

[Gary20]

Yes, I think Becker was the better player and had a better career than Edberg.

Really?!! How fascinating, how fascinating. You do know Edberg was world no.1 longer dont you!!!

 

[Djokovic2011]

Really?!! How fascinating, how fascinating. You do know Edberg was world no.1 longer dont you!!!

Timnz has already outlined the reasons why Becker had the better career. I defer to him on this one.

 

[Gary20]

Timnz has already outlined the reasons why Becker had the better career. I defer to him on this one.

Problem is you will find that you have also concedd Nadal has the better career and is a better player than Djokovic!! You have highlighted h2h as very important. You ignored time at no.1!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KANZA]

tough one for me:

racket: edberg used the most classic tennis racket of all time (along with others including sampras, courier, etc.), the St Vincent WPS 85. However, becker himself created the iconic Puma/Estusa racket that is one of my top 5 classic tennis rackets. Advantage: Becker

clothing: Becker switches clothing sponsors as much as he changes girlfriends - Ellesse, Puma, Fila, Lotto. Ellesse is an staple 80s tennis brand as a result of beckers influence. Then the incredible Fila lines that becker wears in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Edberg wears nice, but relatively quiet Adidas lines featuring his SE logo. Advantage: Becker

hair: edbergs hair is long and out of control when he wins his first AO. Becker has a bowl cut when he wins the 85 Wimby. Fail on both accounts. Edberg cleans his hair up after 1987 and ends up with a classic look for the rest of his career (though a bit shaggy at the 88 Wimby final). Becker peaks with a great haircut in 1989 when he wins wimbledon. however, he lets his red hair grow shaggy for 1988 and 1990 (and looks terrible in the 88 wimby final). Then he drastically changes to a buzz cut around 1993. His number of different hair styles matches his number of girlfriends. Advantage: Edberg

significant other: Annette Olsen is by edbergs side at most every major and she is a classic beauty.i think they get engaged around 1991. becker has different girlfriends and a wife throughout his career, and they include a stunning array of beauties including a supermodel. Advantage: your preference

coach: Becker's bombastic coach, Ion Tiriac, retires from tennis to become Romania's first billionaire. Advantage: Becker

logo: the adidas SE logo on stefan's shirt vs the BB logo on beakers FILA and Puma lines. Advantage: BB

overall: consistency is edbergs thing. it shows in his career too, as most have pointed out. Becker shines in style and creates a better name for himself as an iconic figure.

 

[Gary20]

tough one for me:

racket: edberg used the most classic tennis racket of all time (along with others including sampras, courier, etc.), the St Vincent WPS 85. However, becker himself created the iconic Puma/Estusa racket that is one of my top 5 classic tennis rackets. Advantage: Becker

clothing: Becker switches clothing sponsors as much as he changes girlfriends - Ellesse, Puma, Fila, Lotto. Ellesse is an staple 80s tennis brand as a result of beckers influence. Then the incredible Fila lines that becker wears in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Edberg wears nice, but relatively quiet Adidas lines featuring his SE logo. Advantage: Becker

hair: edbergs hair is long and out of control when he wins his first AO. Becker has a bowl cut when he wins the 85 Wimby. Fail on both accounts. Edberg cleans his hair up after 1987 and ends up with a classic look for the rest of his career (though a bit shaggy at the 88 Wimby final). Becker peaks with a great haircut in 1989 when he wins wimbledon. however, he lets his red hair grow shaggy for 1988 and 1990 (and looks terrible in the 88 wimby final). Then he drastically changes to a buzz cut around 1993. His number of different hair styles matches his number of girlfriends. Advantage: Edberg

significant other: Annette Olsen is by edbergs side at most every major and she is a classic beauty.i think they get engaged around 1991. becker has different girlfriends and a wife throughout his career, and they include a stunning array of beauties including a supermodel. Advantage: your preference

coach: Becker's bombastic coach, Ion Tiriac, retires from tennis to become Romania's first billionaire. Advantage: Becker

logo: the adidas SE logo on stefan's shirt vs the BB logo on beakers FILA and Puma lines. Advantage: BB

overall: consistency is edbergs thing. it shows in his career too, as most have pointed out. Becker shines in style and creates a better name for himself as an iconic figure.

Brilliant, genuinely funny that.

Only thing is re GF's. How can you say its debatable. Becker takes that hands down surely. The more women the better in my book. At the same time even better! Im with Safin on this point!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mustard]

You can make a convincing case of any of Becker, Edberg and Wilander being better than the other two.

 

[scotus]

You are all forgetting that Edberg spent way more weeks at #1 than Becker ever did. Boris was only ever #1 for 12 weeks which is really weak considering his talent, game and achievements. Edberg was far more consistent and spent 72 weeks at #1 and also has 2 year end #1s (1990 and 1991) under his belt to zero for Becker. It's extremely close between the 2 but IMHO Becker was the slightly better player with a higher peak play but Edberg was more consistent and that paid off for him with the better career.

I for one always enjoyed their matches against one another - their matches were entertaining.

Edberg was also a very consistent #2 behind Lendl.

I remember getting my monthly Tennis Magazine and it was Lendl & Edberg at 1 & 2 for a long time. Don't quite remember how long Becker was #2. He probably spent a lot of time at that spot as well.