I know you are keen on sweden tennis.I also liked very much seeing Wilander ( whom I also met personally) and specially Edberg ( one of the best ever S&V´rs and an inmense joy to watch when he was keyed up).But Becker, not only won more majors ( in that time, a WCT/Masters was considered a major) but he also had a great H2H against Mats and Stefen ( including Davis Cup play).
You are right that I have a bias towards Swedish tennis, but can assure you that my ranking of this trio is not based on that. Becker is actually also among my favorite players - very entertaining, exciting, and brought a lot to the decade from mid-80's to mid-90's.
I rank Edberg highest of the three because of his consistency throughout his career, from winning the junior GS in '83 until he retired in '96. I don't have the statistic handy just now, but believe he was in the top 10 for something like 12 years, and in the top 5 for a good portion of his career.
He came closer to winning a career slam with his RG final than either Wilander (never past the QF at Wimbledon) or Becker (never past the SF at RG). Edberg also had 3 GS titles in doubles (to Wilander's one and Becker's none), and paired to win the year end Masters Doubles title twice. He stayed at #1 for more weeks (72) than either Becker (12) or Wilander (20), and was #1 in doubles for 15 weeks.
At the Olympics, Edberg has a gold in singles (exhibition year), plus bronzes in both singles and doubles. Becker has a gold in doubles.
It's never fair to compare based on "what-ifs" but Edberg probably would have won another AO had he not been injuried in his final against Lendl, which would have put him one ahead of Becker and tied with Wilander for 7 majors in singles. Had he done that, plus of course, gotten the French which he was a point or two away from serving for the match, I don't think there would even be a debate about who ranks ahead of the others.
Neither Wilander nor Becker had the consistency of Edberg. I concede that Becker could play exciting, unstoppable tennis at times, and was the better clutch player, however, he was also prone to self-destruct and had a lot of inconsistent performances. Yet his '85 Wimbledon and '86 repeat were legendary. Wilander had his great three-slam year in 1988, plus was a peak player at a very early age (he won 7 majors while age 24 or under), and his achievement at age 17 to win the 1982 French Open over some of the great clay court players at the time was amazing, but he lost interest and went on walk-about, plus only rose to the occasion for big tournaments.
Interestingly, I recently read an article in the Swedish news where they ranked the top Swedish tennis players, and they ranked Borg - Edberg - Wilander as the top 3, in that order.
That is why I give Boris the edge.He also had the greatest potential of the three.Better at the backcourt than Edberg and better at the net than Wilander.But, again, it is a very very clsoe call.
Not sure I agree about greatest potential. I think Edberg is the best athlete among the three, plus had the best footwork, although Wilander's footwork is also excellent. Edberg's volleys are superior to Becker's, but Becker was also a great net player. From the backcourt? Even Becker said that Edberg had a far superior backhand to his, although Becker had the better forehand.
Yes, a very close call. In any case, all three are favorites of mine and I still enjoy watching repeats of any of them play, and I understand why this debate is so close among fans of that era.