I've always heard Becker referred to as an underachiever. I know he's always grouped in with Edberg and Wilander, but did he have the talent to be closer to the level of a Borg?
I wanted to get a better idea of Becker's record against some of the crop - though they never met in a major, Becker was 6-1 against Courier. Goodness.
Courier go could toe-to-toe with Agassi and Edberg, but apparently couldn't handle Becker at all.
becker was also 4-1 against lendl in GS tournaments... definitely a big match player
As mentioned before Beckers mindset hindered him. As a huge Becker fan, I would get frustrated with his stubbornness of trying to beat baseline players from the baseline, mainly Agassi. I do believe that if could have broken through at least once in a clay tournament (any clay tournament) his legacy would be more secure. As it is though, he is definitely one of the the ATG indoors, especially on carpet!
It’s all about matchups. Becker has an overall losing record against Agassi. Don’t mean that much.I wanted to get a better idea of Becker's record against some of the crop - though they never met in a major, Becker was 6-1 against Courier. Goodness.
Courier go could toe-to-toe with Agassi and Edberg, but apparently couldn't handle Becker at all.
Actually i have seen a match between Borg and Becker on the senior tour. Borg had lost much of his magic from the baseline, and ironically he made the most points with volleys. Becker was very much in control, until he tore a muscle and had to retire. So win for Borg.
This senior match is certainly not representative, but it tells something about Beckers weakness. He was bit too heavy and prone to injury. He also had heavy legs and was not mobile enough in long rallies, often giving much room on his forehand, although it was his better side. But on the run, his forehand could become erratic. That said, Becker was a born grass courter, and on major occasions, when he had something left in his tank, he was devastating. He could intimidate people with his blue eyes, had that big serve but also a fine backhand cross return on grass. And he could cover and crowd the net with his big body and long arms. On grass, i see the Boris of say 1986 as a difficult matchup for Borg. On clay, Borg would butcher Becker.
Both were young phenomenons, but Borgs biggest assets were his streamlined, flexible body and his fast, finely defined legs, which were the best in whole tennis, along with those of Graf. The only thing flexible in Boris! body was his wrist, which he could really clap around.
I think Sampras won the us open at 18. Anyway, everyone progresses at a different rate. Some peak earlier but burn out earlier. Becker probably reached his plateau very early. He had some limitations in his game and wasn’t as smooth as some of the others so it’s not that surprising.Becker won his 3rd Wimbledon at age of 21 and by 23 he had already been in 6 finals - Sampras and Federer won their 1st at age of 22. It proves how much potential Becker had and how much he wasted it.
I think Sampras won the us open at 18. Anyway, everyone progresses at a different rate. Some peak earlier but burn out earlier. Becker probably reached his plateau very early. He had some limitations in his game and wasn’t as smooth as some of the others so it’s not that surprising.
5-1. Becker actually had positive H2H against almost every one of his great contemporaries. Not sure though whether he was a big match player as he had the weird habit to have negative slam H2H against people he usually dominated (Wilander, Edberg, Mac to name a few). Lendl is the big exception here where he was 5-1 in slams but 10-11 overall.becker was also 4-1 against lendl in GS tournaments... definitely a big match player
Removing Edberg out of the scene then Becker would have won at least 5 Wimbledons.I've always heard Becker referred to as an underachiever. I know he's always grouped in with Edberg and Wilander, but did he have the talent to be closer to the level of a Borg?
Removing Edberg out of the scene then Becker would have won at least 5 Wimbledons.
Actually he reached Wimbledon final and USO SF, and also won WTF in 1995. In Wimbledon 1996, he just won Queens before that and was basically locked to reach the final (with and without hindsight), but injured his wrist in 2R and had to skip the USO Series.The 96 AO seems like a gift though considering the 1st Round losses inbetween. That kind comes out of nowhere
yeah Agassi-Courier-Becker was one of those weird H2H trianglesI wanted to get a better idea of Becker's record against some of the crop - though they never met in a major, Becker was 6-1 against Courier. Goodness.
Courier go could toe-to-toe with Agassi and Edberg, but apparently couldn't handle Becker at all.
not sure he did, the game just went up a gear in the 90s, with emergence of Pistol, Agassi, Courier, Goran, +Stich, + Edberg better than Becker for most of 90+91 as well. Was still a monster indoors, but not that much of a threat at most slams vs a field like that, + I say that as a huge Becker fan (he only had Lendl+Edberg to contend with in 80s, + he owned Lendl mentally when it mattered). Sampras+Agassi were just better than him, both beat him 3 times in slams, + he doesnt have a winning H2H slam record against anyone else on the list aboveBecker won his 3rd Wimbledon at age of 21 and by 23 he had already been in 6 finals - Sampras and Federer won their 1st at age of 22. It proves how much potential Becker had and how much he wasted it.
not sure he did, the game just went up a gear in the 90s, with emergence of Pistol, Agassi, Courier, Goran, +Stich, + Edberg better than Becker for most of 90+91 as well. Was still a monster indoors, but not that much of a threat at most slams vs a field like that, + I say that as a huge Becker fan (he only had Lendl+Edberg to contend with in 80s, + he owned Lendl mentally when it mattered). Sampras+Agassi were just better than him, both beat him 3 times in slams, + he doesnt have a winning H2H slam record against anyone else on the list above
Should have beat Edberg in 90 and Stich in 91. When he played Stich in 93 wimbledon qf one of best matches ive seen in my life.
I don't think I can explain his astronomical decline in 1997, starting with the defeat against Moya. At least with Sampras, Edberg, Lendl, Agassi, Courier, we were able to observe their decline. But Becker, it was just too rapid.
Yet, had Pete caught an injury in 1997 Wimbledon, Becker would have won his last. Wimbledon 1997 was essentially a meme tournament, worse than 2000 (where Agassi/Rafter/Phillippoussis/Henman draw was actually good).
I always think of Becker as an absolute master of the 1-4 personal 'hi't point. Whether he was serving, at net or from the baseline returning or passing, if he went for the big shot he could overpower anyone on any big point.
Boom (serve/return)
Boom (first strike/first volley or OH
Boom ( second strike forcing approach or passing shot/ first volley or OH.
On red clay, give him one more 'Boom' to finish.
But he had to stay very bold, very aggressive and keep those points short, not because he did not have groundies, but because he did not have the movement or temperament to do much more. The math got a lot worse as he sliced his 'rally' shots and started to pretend he was a tactician because he sure as hell was not that!
I honestly cannot think of any champion, including McEnroe, Edberg or Sampras, where I felt the average length of point stat was more vital to his success.
Its also true, that he was not very good at spotting problems in his strategy, tactics or strokes in the middle of matches. He did not 'self correct' or adjust as well as his contemporaries. He just got more frustrated that things weren't flowing well and waited for the timing on his serve to get him out of all sorts of messes that the rest of his game or his opponents game had induced. He really should have benefited from a rule change allowing coaching.Spot on. And that is because all those players you mentioned had considerably better movement than Becker. He just needed to keep points short at all costs, and not be moved side to side.
I think Sampras won the us open at 18.
Should have beat Edberg in 90 and Stich in 91. When he played Stich in 93 wimbledon qf one of best matches ive seen in my life.
Its also true, that he was not very good at spotting problems in his strategy, tactics or strokes in the middle of matches. He did not 'self correct' or adjust as well as his contemporaries. He just got more frustrated that things weren't flowing well and waited for the timing on his serve to get him out of all sorts of messes that the rest of his game or his opponents game had induced. He really should have benefited from a rule change allowing coaching.
He's been accused of being 'stubborn' or obstinate, not stupid. Matter of fact I think he's a very smart intelligent man. The heat of battle on the court ( or sometimes life), obscures. He can't see his own match clinically, dispassionately as he is playing it. He's not a good problem solver like Wilander.Well, he was never the sharpest tack in the box, that's for sure. If he had half the tennis IQ of a guy like Wilander, he would have won had twice the amount of slams he did.
It is not surprising that his resurgence in 1995-1996 coincided with coaching change and his adoption of a more tactical approach.He's been accused of being 'stubborn' or obstinate, not stupid. Matter of fact I think he's a very smart intelligent man. The heat of battle on the court ( or sometimes life), obscures. He can't see his own match clinically, dispassionately as he is playing it. He's not a good problem solver like Wilander.
He's been accused of being 'stubborn' or obstinate, not stupid. Matter of fact I think he's a very smart intelligent man. The heat of battle on the court ( or sometimes life), obscures. He can't see his own match clinically, dispassionately as he is playing it. He's not a good problem solver like Wilander.
Becker is 1980s Kyrgios