Did Becker underperform at Slams?

[BorgTheGOAT]

I know Boris Becker is an ATG and 99% of all professional tennis players ever existed would give their right arm to have a career like his, but when checking his H2H stats you can wonder why he has "only" won 6 slams. Apart from Lendl (10-11) Agassi (4-10) and Sampras (7-12) ( with the latter two being the dominating forces of the 90s and actually a little younger than him) he is leading almost every great and decent player he crossed paths with, some of them by a huge margin. His H2H include:

Ivanisevic 10-9
Edberg 25-10
Connors 6-0
McEnroe 8-2
Stich 8-4
Chang 5-1
Courier 6-1
Gilbert 6-4
Wilander 7-3
Noah 4-2
Mecir 7-2
Korda 6-0
Muster 2-1
krajicek 4-4
Kafelnikov 4-2
Hewitt 1-0
Rafter 2-1
Henman 2-0
Kiefer 2-0
Bruguera 2-2

So in the end he is not only leading great players from the generation before ( e.g. Connors, McEnroe) but also the great players of his prime like Stich, Wilander and Edberg and even most of the next generation (courier, Chang, muster, rafter, Hewitt) many of them by huge margins.

What is however interesting is that he has the strange habit of having loosing records in slams against players he usually routined:

Edberg 1-3 in slams (25-10 in overall!!)
Ivanisevic 1-2 in slams (10-9 overall)
Rafter 0-1 in slams (2-1 overall)
McEnroe 0-1 in slams (8-2 overall!!)
Wilander 0-3 in slams (7-3 overall !!!!! all his losses here came at slams)

Only against Lendl it was somewhat the opposite.

Apart from that, if I remember correctly he lost a couple of times against far lesser players at slams, (Patrick McEnroe R1 AO 1995, Peter Doohan 2R Wimbledon).

So I think it is safe to say, that he somehow underperformed at Slams and could have won way more, his overall H2H stats against big name opponents of his career actually do not look much worse than those of Fed or Pete.

The best of 5 format cannot be the reason here (he actually has a great Davis cup record).

 

[JasonZ]

He underperformed in wimbledon finals. Lost 4 of his last 5 finals. He owned Edberg, but lost 2 out of 3 finals there. He said that the 90's wimbledon final is his most bitter loss.

He also is 8-4 against Stich. And defeated him in 1993 wimbledon in the quarters. 1993 was Stichs overall best year and Beckers worst, still he won. But in the 91 final he lost in 3 sets. Stich played great, but Becker clearly underperformed.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Clay was always his worst surface, but loosing against Goran and Edberg here was not completely necessary. Losing against Wilander and 33 year old McEnroe at the AO (as the defending champion) was unnecessary as well, given that he owned both of them usually.

 

[bluetrain4]

The Edberg stats always surprise me. A lot of their matches were on indoor carpet, which I think was Becker's best surface (and overall conditions). But, still, given the similarity in their overall resumes, I could see Becker being, say, 21-14 vs Edberg - still clearly ahead but not nearly so dominant. But, 25-10 always surprises me. As you point out, Edberg was 3-1 in slams and 2-1 in Slam finals vs. Becker. That's pretty clear under-performance for Becker. Though to be fair, Becker absolutely schooled Edberg twice in Davis Cup (on indoor carpet). Then again, Edberg beat Becker in the final of the 1989 Masters (YEC) - so the H2H for the biggest events was 4-3 Edberg, which doesn't look quite as bad for Becker (and of course, he does hold that 25-10 lead overall). Always surprised they didn't play more in Slams given their career overlap.

 

[Moose Malloy]

The simple answer would be that there was great depth in tennis from 1985 to 1992. I think winning 5 slams then was pretty darn good when you look at the other players who won slams in that time.

And of course there were a lot of other factors as well, motivation, health etc.

you mentioned the loss to Goran at RG in 1990, I have that match on tape. Goran was basically in the zone that day, he hit so many winners from everywhere. Just a tough first round. At RG in 1989 Goran made the round of 16 at the age of 17. Cliff Drysdale said Goran would surely win RG someday. He was considered quite an all around talent at the time, not just a servebot.

Also Doohan played a great match in 87 Wimbledon, I believe he made less than 10 unforced errors, and made 70% of his returns.

The Mac loss in Australia was surprising, but I don't think Becker was 100%, he had strapping on his thigh.

The loss to Edberg at 89 RG was tough because he was up a break in the fifth. I don't believe Becker missed a return in that set either, but Edberg volleyed incredibly well.

Pretty much all top players except Lendl in mid to late 80s had shocking early round losses at majors. I don't think Becker was any less consistent than Edberg or Wilander.

I was most disappointed by his shock losses at the USO from '91 to '94, it would have been nice to see him in the later rounds there.

 

[big ted]

might be the red hair but I remember people comparing him as the van gogh of tennis and a tortured player. he probably should have dominated more than he did but he won with his athletic skills, instinct, and emotion as opposed to lendl who's approach was very methodical, which seemed to work better day in and day out. not to mention he was also pretty stubborn, and even tho coming to net was his A game, he'd still choose to try and beat opponents from the baseline and often come up short..
I skimmed thru his biography and his career seemed to be somewhat chaotic: multiple references to german pressure/fame, injuries, and sleeping pills. if I remember correctly I think he mentioned a Wimbledon final against edberg when he lost the 1st two sets because he took too many sleeping pills the night before and they didn't wear off yet...

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It seems that Becker could not motivate himself against lower ranked players (similar to Kyrgios in this regard). It is true that schocking losses of top players were far more common in the 80s and 90s than today (leaving out Lendl and Borg here) but Becker actually has a lot of them.

When checking his Slam losses you will find losses (leaving out the French Open, since clay was always his worst surface) against:

Australian Open:
1984: Got straight setted by Ben Testerman (0 career titles highest ranking 22, ok have to say, that he was 16 here).
1985: Lost against Michiel Shapers (0 career titles highest ranking 25)
1986: -
1987: Lost against Wally Masur (3 career titles highest ranking 15)
1988: -
1989: Got straight setted by Jonas Svensson (5 career titles highest ranking 10)
1990: Got straight setted by Wilander whom he generally dominated
1991: Won
1992: Got straight setted by 32 year old Mcenroe
1993: Lost in first round against Qualifier Anders Järryd
1994: -
1995: Lost in the first round against Patrick McEnroe!!!! (1 career title highest ranking 28)
1996: Won
1997: Lost a five setter against Moya

For a two times winner, those are actually a lot of suprising losses against complete No Names

US Open:
1985: Lost against Joakim Nyström ( 13 career titles highest ranking 7)
1986: Lost against Mecir in the semis whom he generally dominated
1987: Lost against Gilbert
1988: Got straight setted by Darren Cahill!!!! (Career titles 3, highest ranking 22)
1989: Won it
1990: Lost against Agassi
1991: Got straight setted by Haarhuis !!!( 1 career title, highest ranking 18)
1992: Lost against Lendl
1993: Lost against Magnus Larsson (7 career titles highest ranking 10)
1994: Lost against Richey Reneberg !!! (3 career tiltles highest rankin 20)

Again a lot of unnecessary losses for someone with such a dominant H2H against big players.

 

[fezer]

The Edberg stats always surprise me. A lot of their matches were on indoor carpet, which I think was Becker's best surface (and overall conditions). But, still, given the similarity in their overall resumes, I could see Becker being, say, 21-14 vs Edberg - still clearly ahead but not nearly so dominant. But, 25-10 always surprises me. As you point out, Edberg was 3-1 in slams and 2-1 in Slam finals vs. Becker. That's pretty clear under-performance for Becker. Though to be fair, Becker absolutely schooled Edberg twice in Davis Cup (on indoor carpet). Then again, Edberg beat Becker in the final of the 1989 Masters (YEC) - so the H2H for the biggest events was 4-3 Edberg, which doesn't look quite as bad for Becker (and of course, he does hold that 25-10 lead overall). Always surprised they didn't play more in Slams given their career overlap.

Becker also won the WCT Dallas event vs Edberg - also a 'major' event bo5. And you should add that Becker also won a DC-encounter in Sweden on clay in staight sets.
Many posters emphasise that indoor carpet was Beckers best surface (true), but it also suited Edbergs game. They met so often indoors, because they liked to play there and as top seeds it was more likely that both of them reach final rounds.

 

[fezer]

It seems that Becker could not motivate himself against lower ranked players (similar to Kyrgios in this regard). It is true that schocking losses of top players were far more common in the 80s and 90s than today (leaving out Lendl and Borg here) but Becker actually has a lot of them.

When checking his Slam losses you will find losses (leaving out the French Open, since clay was always his worst surface) against:

Australian Open:
1984: Got straight setted by Ben Testerman (0 career titles highest ranking 22, ok have to say, that he was 16 here).
1985: Lost against Michiel Shapers (0 career titles highest ranking 25)
1986: -
1987: Lost against Wally Masur (3 career titles highest ranking 15)
1988: -
1989: Got straight setted by Jonas Svensson (5 career titles highest ranking 10)
1990: Got straight setted by Wilander whom he generally dominated
1991: Won
1992: Got straight setted by 32 year old Mcenroe
1993: Lost in first round against Qualifier Anders Järryd
1994: -
1995: Lost in the first round against Patrick McEnroe!!!! (1 career title highest ranking 28)
1996: Won
1997: Lost a five setter against Moya

For a two times winner, those are actually a lot of suprising losses against complete No Names

US Open:
1985: Lost against Joakim Nyström ( 13 career titles highest ranking 7)
1986: Lost against Mecir in the semis whom he generally dominated
1987: Lost against Gilbert
1988: Got straight setted by Darren Cahill!!!! (Career titles 3, highest ranking 22)
1989: Won it
1990: Lost against Agassi
1991: Got straight setted by Haarhuis !!!( 1 career title, highest ranking 18)
1992: Lost against Lendl
1993: Lost against Magnus Larsson (7 career titles highest ranking 10)
1994: Lost against Richey Reneberg !!! (3 career tiltles highest rankin 20)

Again a lot of unnecessary losses for someone with such a dominant H2H against big players.

A fine list of defeats!
unnecessary - of course, because Becker had the complete arsenal to beat these players!
i watched most of them and many of them can be explained by very simple reasons.

1985-87
pleas keep in mind, that Becker still was in his TEENS - and therefore very volatile! it was sometimes pretty difficult for him to find his game! When did Federer win his 1st slam? even Sampras was 19/20. Agassi had to wait until 92! Wilander had several early exits even at RG! The field was pretty dangerous back then!
Nystroem had his best years 85/86 - they had a tough fight at Wimbledon months before, the Swede was a top10 oponent.
Mecir in 86 was a very tough nut to crack. this guy had straight setted Edberg at wimbledon, destroyed Wilander serveral times, beat McEnroe at WCT finals! the defeat certainly ewas hard to take but nothing to be asahmed of. and becker was not routining Mecir all the time, even in 90ao Becker came back from 2sets down, which also was a factor for the wilander qf-loss.
Schapers was a tall guy from the Netherlands with a stiff grass court game, an upset certainly.
Cahill - Becker was injured
Gilbert - was Beckers nemesis in 87. Becker lost 3 times. Gilbert (winning ugly) was driving 19 years old Boris nuts. it took a few years until he worked that out. btw becker was experimenting with his game in 87, trying to rally from the base line. he had some success at rg but failed on hards/grass. he changed his game to a more netoriented allcourt game under coach Bob Brett (88-91).

1992/93
Beckers slump
after the 91 loss vs Stich Boris had serious motivation problems - at the age of 24/25
what should have been 'The Becker Years" he wasted away. most of the time he had no consistent coaching (Smid, Jelen, Bresnik, Pilic) all of them failed to set Becker back on the rail. There was a short period (end of 92) when he regained his strength, but after winning wtf (pretty convincing performance btw) he slumped nearly completely in 93.
but i have to add that the defeats you mentioned weren't total upsets
Magnus Larsson was a very very dangerous player. had Courier and Bruguera at the edge of defeat in rg! stiff serve HUGE FH. but normally mentally weak.

which leads me to another point:
very many players OVERPERFORMED vs Becker
they had nothing to lose, hit every line they aimed at (which is of course not against the rules!!!!)
eg the Reneberg match: Becker came to the uso with Los Angeles/New Haven wins and was one of the favorites. he had never lost vs Reneberg, but the American played the match of his life in a late night session at the uso! congratulations! that's why we watch sports!!!
but you could add over a dozen of other matches. Agassi played out of his mind at wimbledon 92 and showed up very strong every time he faced Becker! Edbergs rgsf89 was one of the most exquisit performances of constant attacking on clay - world class volleying, court coverage and instinctive netrushing over 5sets! Chapeau! Ivanisevic rg1strd90 was simply unplayable, because he had his nerves under control and played extremely well. sampras beat Becker 3 times at Wimbledon! playing flawless!
Becker always was a good target for other players. the only exception might be Lendl, because in that case Becker never got tight after the 88wtf win and played excellent almost every time.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You listed a lot of very good reasons and I think that all of these might be possible explanations. However, considering the number of defeats I don't think, that you can explain eveything with injury or the opponent was playing the match of his life. The fact that Becker only spent 12 weeks at No.1 also shows that he was never really dominant. Since as I have mentioned before, he dominated most of the other greats in H2H, the only explanation for that could be, that he has more losses against no-name opponents, i.e. was worse in beating opponents he has to beat. Just for a comparison, Edberg spent 72 weeks at No.1 and he has losing H2H against Becker 10-25, against Mac 6-7 Wilander 9-11 and Courier 4-6 just to name a few.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

you mentioned the loss to Goran at RG in 1990, I have that match on tape. Goran was basically in the zone that day, he hit so many winners from everywhere. Just a tough first round. At RG in 1989 Goran made the round of 16 at the age of 17. Cliff Drysdale said Goran would surely win RG someday. He was considered quite an all around talent at the time, not just a servebot

I remember this. Goran was actually very prolific from the baseline for most of hs career. He reached three QF at the French and in 92 he was the only one to take a set away from the later winner Courier. In his Wimbledon runs you could see that his returns and passing shots were also far above average and his volley game, while not in the same league as Sampras, Henman, Rafter was also very good (even though he mishit some easy ones more often than he should have).

That today certain people are calling him the "Karlovic of the 90s" is among the most ridiculous things I have ever heard about tennis.

 

[hawk eye]

To me Becker at his very best was the most intimidating player out there.. just downright scary.. He was a prodigy, winning Wimbledon back to back at 17/18 is something we will probably never see again. In his home county, Becker mania reached hysterical heights.. We already had German TV in these days, so I have witnessed quite a few of this. He was the ultimate young German warrior who was expected to win every match. It's very hard to deal with that mentally and no wonder after Wimby 1991 he had a set back and lost motivation. As said, before that he was already struggling mentally.
He had a great career but I think in case he was from a smaller countty, with less pressure he would have been more consistent over his whole career and could have ended up with 8-10 slams. In terms of strokes, (Serve, FH/BH, net game) he arguably had the most complete game of his time. But yes, also he was stubborn and stayed back often were attack would have been to better avail.

 

[fezer]

You listed a lot of very good reasons and I think that all of these might be possible explanations. However, considering the number of defeats I don't think, that you can explain eveything with injury or the opponent was playing the match of his life. The fact that Becker only spent 12 weeks at No.1 also shows that he was never really dominant. Since as I have mentioned before, he dominated most of the other greats in H2H, the only explanation for that could be, that he has more losses against no-name opponents, i.e. was worse in beating opponents he has to beat. Just for a comparison, Edberg spent 72 weeks at No.1 and he has losing H2H against Becker 10-25, against Mac 6-7 Wilander 9-11 and Courier 4-6 just to name a few.

i didnt explain EVERYTHING by saying that opponents were playing extremely well or injuries. i also mentioend motivation problems (at age 24/25. Edberg (eg Cherkasov uso93), wilander (Chesnokov rg86/89), McEnroe (Annacone uso86), Lendl (Chang 89) also had shock exits. but Becker seems to have more. expectations were also skyhigh all the time, because on other occasions he had shown what potential was there. i just wanted to bring these explanations into the discussion. also i mentioend his very young age. Chang, Sampras and agassi werent consistent from the very beginning!
btw another example for an opponent playing extraordinarily well was Leconte rg88. Henri played carefree vs becker but couldnt repeat that few days later vs Wilander.

 

[bluetrain4]

Becker also won the WCT Dallas event vs Edberg - also a 'major' event bo5. And you should add that Becker also won a DC-encounter in Sweden on clay in staight sets.
Many posters emphasise that indoor carpet was Beckers best surface (true), but it also suited Edbergs game. They met so often indoors, because they liked to play there and as top seeds it was more likely that both of them reach final rounds.

My mistake. I didn't see the third Davis cup encounter when scanning the H2H. I thought the two times he schooled Edberg in Davis cup were both on carpet, but it was once on carpet and once on clay. The third DC match, on carpet, was relatively close. And, yes, the WTC finals was a big deal back then. So, overall, on the biggest best-of-five stages, Becker is 5-4 v. Edberg, which isn't really underachievement, though I bet he'd swap a Davis Cup or WTC win for one more Slam win over Edberg.

And, yes, indoor carpet suited both of their games, but, mentally, Becker especially loved playing indoors generally and on carpet indoors in particular. IMO, his confidence got a bigger boost from those conditions.

 

[marc45]

You listed a lot of very good reasons and I think that all of these might be possible explanations. However, considering the number of defeats I don't think, that you can explain eveything with injury or the opponent was playing the match of his life. The fact that Becker only spent 12 weeks at No.1 also shows that he was never really dominant. Since as I have mentioned before, he dominated most of the other greats in H2H, the only explanation for that could be, that he has more losses against no-name opponents, i.e. was worse in beating opponents he has to beat. Just for a comparison, Edberg spent 72 weeks at No.1 and he has losing H2H against Becker 10-25, against Mac 6-7 Wilander 9-11 and Courier 4-6 just to name a few.

great thread, thought he was going to win a lot more after his breakthrough...assumed with all the fire he showed early that competitiveness would never be an issue, or should I say motivation...we've learned some of his personal qualities probably held him back as much as helped him

 

[KG1965]

Great thread.

Why did Boris have few fans?
IMO is never mentioned properly.

 

[marc45]

I'd like to read that autobiography but is it in english?

 

[timnz]

The Edberg stats always surprise me. A lot of their matches were on indoor carpet, which I think was Becker's best surface (and overall conditions). But, still, given the similarity in their overall resumes, I could see Becker being, say, 21-14 vs Edberg - still clearly ahead but not nearly so dominant. But, 25-10 always surprises me. As you point out, Edberg was 3-1 in slams and 2-1 in Slam finals vs. Becker. That's pretty clear under-performance for Becker. Though to be fair, Becker absolutely schooled Edberg twice in Davis Cup (on indoor carpet). Then again, Edberg beat Becker in the final of the 1989 Masters (YEC) - so the H2H for the biggest events was 4-3 Edberg, which doesn't look quite as bad for Becker (and of course, he does hold that 25-10 lead overall). Always surprised they didn't play more in Slams given their career overlap.

People often forget to bring in other best of 5 head to head matches when talking about Becker Edberg - eg 1988 WCT finals, Davis Cup. In those Becker was dominant over Edberg.

 

[big ted]

I'd like to read that autobiography but is it in english?

The Player: The Autobiography https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553817167/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_p3yZzbSF10RBE

 

[Waspsting]

I too have questions about Boris Becker - specifically about his record on hard courts, ... but I don't think he underperformed at Slams and looking at his overall records rather than choice head to heads is perhaps more appropriate to gauge the matter

So I think it is safe to say, that he somehow underperformed at Slams and could have won way more, his overall H2H stats against big name opponents of his career actually do not look much worse than those of Fed or Pete.

At Slams, he's 163-40 @ 80.3%
At non-Slams, he's 550-174 @ 76 %


Furthermore, he over performed on every surface at Slams vs Non-Slams

Hard... Slams 79% vs Non-Slams 76.8%
Clay.... Slams 74.3% vs Non-Slams 64.4%
Grass... Slams 83.7% vs Non-Slams 79.6%

(All stats derived from wikipedia)

Since...he dominated most of the other greats in H2H, the only explanation for that could be, that he has more losses against no-name opponents, i.e. was worse in beating opponents he has to beat.

I guess so. No other explanation

Worth noting is that beating the overall field consistently is a humongous piece of the greatness pie. We tend to lose sight of this now in light of the juggernaut dominance of Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal on clay - and simply assume it

Your reasoning is something like -

a) Becker great h2h against top players
b) therefore, he should be fabulous against lesser players

... is that right?

It's logical enough but there are plenty of exceptions to this. Right now, Nick Kyrgios of all people is in the positive versus the Big 3!

I'd say a) and b) are two different categories, not necessarily related... hence, wouldn't use it as a basis to suggest Becker underperformed at Slams (or off them for that matter)

(Becker) was also pretty stubborn, and even tho coming to net was his A game, he'd still choose to try and beat opponents from the baseline and often come up short..

I hear this a lot and don't entirely agree with it... in my view, Becker was pretty smart and understood his game and how it stacked up against a given opponent

He was not the best of volleyers - I don't mean he was a bad volleyer by any means - but not top tier. Henman and Rafter were better, imo Federer is also and Edberg, clearly.

If he came in without a strong approach, he was more apt to get passed than the best net players... I think he knew this and was wary of charging the net to the extent Edberg did

staying back off the second serve not a bad idea for him on most surfaces (might even have worked against particularly good returners or/and on particular days when the play was running against him on grass)

He was a high end attacking baseliner. No grinding, little point construction but big on power hitting. Particularly off the forehand but he could let rip from the other side too. In other words, it's not like he was toothless if he wasn't at net (like Edberg)

He was an excellent returner - both sides, hit it back with authority. No problems with high backhands

I remember people criticizing him for staying back often to Agassi. .. I saw the ferocity of Agassi's returns and ground shots, and weighing it against Becker's net game, thought it was an understandable decision

And he did chip-charge quite a bit to mix it up when he was hanging back too - a lot more than prime Sampras did

He wasn't McEnroe or Edberg, who basically had to be at net to be threatening, I think his decisions to come in or stay back were pretty sound

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I guess so. No other explanation

Worth noting is that beating the overall field consistently is a humongous piece of the greatness pie. We tend to lose sight of this now in light of the juggernaut dominance of Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal on clay - and simply assume it

Your reasoning is something like -

a) Becker great h2h against top players
b) therefore, he should be fabulous against lesser players

... is that right?

It's logical enough but there are plenty of exceptions to this. Right now, Nick Kyrgios of all people is in the positive versus the Big 3!

I'd say a) and b) are two different categories, not necessarily related... hence, wouldn't use it as a basis to suggest Becker underperformed at Slams (or off them for that matter)

You are totally right here that consistently beating the people you should beat is also some kind of a talent and being good against top guns does not necessary translate in being fabollous against lesser players. However there are different types of player:

a) Player who have great consistency in beating inferior opponents seldom or nothing experiencing surprising losses, but on the other hand are completely useless against the best of the best. Player like that are typically those who are good or very good in every single department of the game, but are not great in any, i.e. are lacking that one big weapon letting them compete with the top guns. Examples of this player types are Ferrer or to a lesser extent Murray.

b) Player who can be great from time to time beating ATGs or perfoming a way higher level than their name or their overall ranking would suggest but in general lack consistency having a lot of surprising losses against lesser players. Examples of this player type are Safin, Wawrinka, Nalbandian or Kyrgios.

Even though player type a) is sometimes more successful overall, it is natural for fans and media to rate players of the second type way higher, which can be perfectly seen on the constant overrating of Safin and Nalbandian here, while Ferrer and Murray are often called mugs. The rationale behind it is, that one will instinctively think, that if you are able to compete with the best of the best you must be able to beat lesser ones with ease and if this doesnt happen, it is said that this is due to lack of motivation etc.

Becker was even another type, he actually has big accomplishments, but on top of that leading H2Hs against almost everyone of name and there were really a lot of depth during his prime. Nick Kyrgios is nowhere near this level, because first he hasnt won anything of worth until now and second his H2H against big three, while good for a player of his name, also happened way after the prime of said big three and there are not enough matches to make for a reliable sample size either.

 

[I get cramps]

The Edberg stats always surprise me. A lot of their matches were on indoor carpet, which I think was Becker's best surface (and overall conditions). But, still, given the similarity in their overall resumes, I could see Becker being, say, 21-14 vs Edberg - still clearly ahead but not nearly so dominant. But, 25-10 always surprises me. As you point out, Edberg was 3-1 in slams and 2-1 in Slam finals vs. Becker. That's pretty clear under-performance for Becker. Though to be fair, Becker absolutely schooled Edberg twice in Davis Cup (on indoor carpet). Then again, Edberg beat Becker in the final of the 1989 Masters (YEC) - so the H2H for the biggest events was 4-3 Edberg, which doesn't look quite as bad for Becker (and of course, he does hold that 25-10 lead overall). Always surprised they didn't play more in Slams given their career overlap.

To give more details to what you stated above, Bluetrain4. Back in the 80's (i was born in 1973) when winning the Davis Cup was nearly as (if not as) important as winning a Slam, Boris spanked Stefan.

1985 Davis Cup final in Germany (carpet): Boris wins in 4.

1988 Davis Cuo Final in Sweden (Clay): Boris allows Stefan to win 8 games!: 6-3, 6-1, 6-4

1989 Davis Cuo Final in Germany (Carpet): Boris beats Stefan. Boris allows Stefan to win 8 games in carpet: 6-2, 6-2, 6-4!

 

[Waspsting]

a) Player who have great consistency in beating inferior opponents seldom or nothing experiencing surprising losses, but on the other hand are completely useless against the best of the best. Player like that are typically those who are good or very good in every single department of the game, but are not great in any, i.e. are lacking that one big weapon letting them compete with the top guns. Examples of this player types are Ferrer or to a lesser extent Murray.

b) Player who can be great from time to time beating ATGs or perfoming a way higher level than their name or their overall ranking would suggest but in general lack consistency having a lot of surprising losses against lesser players. Examples of this player type are Safin, Wawrinka, Nalbandian or Kyrgios.

Even though player type a) is sometimes more successful overall, it is natural for fans and media to rate players of the second type way higher, which can be perfectly seen on the constant overrating of Safin and Nalbandian here, while Ferrer and Murray are often called mugs. The rationale behind it is, that one will instinctively think, that if you are able to compete with the best of the best you must be able to beat lesser ones with ease and if this doesnt happen, it is said that this is due to lack of motivation etc.

Well put

Suspect if a Type A player did achieve things that elevate him to "great" level, many fans would still poo-poo them with a rationale along the lines of -

"Huh... don't know how the hell he did that... oh well, back to the real greats"

Mats Wilander probably best example. Nadal gets a fair bit of it too

Still, I can't say I'm immune to the appeal of the Type B player myself

Two guys I'll mention - Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek. When I saw these two play, I wondered how they ever lose... yet I know they did, frequently and to all manner of fish

Below I've copy-pasted some stuff I posted earlier on an old thread regarding Becker (and Edberg).... It seems to support the notion of Becker being very Hot-&-Cold

----
Boris Becker. Stefan Edberg. Hardcourts. Record in finals.

Two similar players that one would think would have similar levels of success by surface.

And on hardcourts, one would be right

Win-loss record -

Edberg 400-110 @ 78.4% (9th best)
Becker 254-72 @ 77.9% (10 best)

Looks pretty even. However, it all goes haywire when we look at their records in finals

Edberg 46 finals, 22-24 @ 47.8%
Becker 22 finals, 16-6 @ 72.7%

Why the humongous difference in how they performed in finals???

Often, you see Slams records that go against non-slam records, but in the case of Becker, Edberg and hardcourts that doesn't hold -

At Slams,

Edberg 84-21 @ 80%
Becker 60-16 @ 78.9%

But in finals,

Edberg 5 finals, 2-3 @ 40%
Becker 3 finals, 3-0 @ 100%

Edberg and Becker were the top two players in the world when I started following tennis, so have a special place for me

So many strange things with them... like the 25-10 head to head record (reversed at Slam matches to 1-3), Becker's huge superiority on carpet, Edberg's dominance on Australian grass vs Becker's so-so showings there etc.

My memory was of Becker always winning hard court finals and Edberg losing as often as not... and was glad to see the figures backed this up

---

I'll leave you with some trivia I came across about Becker

Do you know what his worst Masters event was? One would think something on clay, right?

Nope. It was Miami - the "5th Slam" - where he accumulated the stunning record of 9-7, best showing a solitary fourth round in 7 appearences

Meanwhile, he was 17-4 at Indian Wells, 2 titles 2 semis in 6 appearances

Go figure

 

[Mainad]

might be the red hair but I remember people comparing him as the van gogh of tennis and a tortured player. he probably should have dominated more than he did but he won with his athletic skills, instinct, and emotion as opposed to lendl who's approach was very methodical, which seemed to work better day in and day out. not to mention he was also pretty stubborn, and even tho coming to net was his A game, he'd still choose to try and beat opponents from the baseline and often come up short..
I skimmed thru his biography and his career seemed to be somewhat chaotic: multiple references to german pressure/fame, injuries, and sleeping pills. if I remember correctly I think he mentioned a Wimbledon final against edberg when he lost the 1st two sets because he took too many sleeping pills the night before and they didn't wear off yet...

The 1990 final. He lost that match 2-6,2-6,6-3,6-3,4-6.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The simple answer would be that there was great depth in tennis from 1985 to 1992. I think winning 5 slams then was pretty darn good when you look at the other players who won slams in that time.

I agree, and it's the one thing I miss the most from that era.
Instead of three players with over 10 Slams, you had 5 or 6 players above 6 Slams.
It was such an amazing time to grow up as a tennis fan. There were rivalries everywhere, at every tournament.
And the indoor mini-season, instead of being the most boring part of the season, was probably the most exciting overall.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Still, I can't say I'm immune to the appeal of the Type B player myself

Two guys I'll mention - Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek. When I saw these two play, I wondered how they ever lose... yet I know they did, frequently and to all manner of fish

I can't say that either and I think no real tennis fan is really immune against player type B since they are far more fascinating. With guys like Ferrer you really knew what to expect from the start. He was constantly beating lower ranked players and reaching QF and SF but it was obvious for everyone that he would never beat the big three nor come close to it. You knew his abilities and the limit of it, while guys like Safin or Stich were more like a Wonder box. When watching their matches you never knew what to expect, and there was always the slight chance that you would witness an ATG performance.

In addition, Player type B leaves a lot of rom for "what could have been..." questions.

Stich and Krajicek are good examples, coincidently the two only players with winning H2H against Sampras. Their respective Wimbledon runs were among the most impressive ones I ever witnessed, Krajicek straight setting the dominating Pete in the middle of his prime and Stich beating Edberg and Becker back to back.

 

[suwanee4712]

I think anyone that wins big early like Becker did has a levelling off point. Becker played a risky game, and once a little of the awe of his game wore off he became more vulnerable early. As early as 88, though, he started showing signs of some mental frailty. He had a tough time dealing with his own stardom at times. Then the rackets and strings changed producing better and harder returns. Overall, I think he did well but missed some key opportunities such as 91 and 92 Wimbledon.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think anyone that wins big early like Becker did has a levelling off point. Becker played a risky game, and once a little of the awe of his game wore off he became more vulnerable early. As early as 88, though, he started showing signs of some mental frailty. He had a tough time dealing with his own stardom at times. Then the rackets and strings changed producing better and harder returns. Overall, I think he did well but missed some key opportunities such as 91 and 92 Wimbledon.

I really enjoyed when came back in 95 and 96 reaching the final of Wimbledon the semi st the US winning the YEC 95 as well as the Australisn Open in 96. Playing great tennis along the way. Then after a little decline coming back to full force in the carpet season culminating in that great YEC final against Sampras.

These three carpet matches in 96 against Pete were as tough as it could get and I felt after Agassi had disappeared Becker somehow jumped in as Sampras main rival. It was short lived but for some time in 96 they had some great competitive matches.

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

He had his chances like at 1989 French Open, 1988 Wimbledon, 1990-91 Wimbledon. Just couldn't produce enough when needed I guess.

 

[parvasedpotens]

If Becker were 15 pounds lighter (trimmer, fitter) he could have won more Slams. But wow, what a game!

 

[I get cramps]

Though to be fair, Becker absolutely schooled Edberg twice in Davis Cup (on indoor carpet).

Yes, https://www.daviscup.com/en/players/player.aspx?id=800178273 Boris in singles: 28-1 on Carpet, 32-1 in indoors and 8-1 in clay (lost to Sergio Casal in 87, what an upset!). What an incredible Davis Cup player he was.

Yes, he obliterated Edberg in 88 (
63 61 64)
in clay and in 89 in Carpet (
62 62 64) Edberg could only win 16 games from Boris in six sets: 2,66 games per set. Those two matches were incredible. I couln't believe what he was doing to Edberg.

 

[bluetrain4]

Yes, https://www.daviscup.com/en/players/player.aspx?id=800178273 Boris in singles: 28-1 on Carpet, 32-1 in indoors and 8-1 in clay (lost to Sergio Casal in 87, what an upset!). What an incredible Davis Cup player he was.

Yes, he obliterated Edberg in 88 (
63 61 64)
in clay and in 89 in Carpet (
62 62 64) Edberg could only win 16 games from Boris in six sets: 2,66 games per set. Those two matches were incredible. I couln't believe what he was doing to Edberg.

You'd generally have say that Becker was a bad matchup for Edberg. 10-25 overall says it all. Though, if you're only going to have limited success against an opponent, having a significant portion of that limited success in Slam finals, a slam semi and a YEC final is good silver lining.

Not that it really says anything, but they both basically had even records against Lendl - 14-13 for Edberg, 10-11 for Becker. I think of them as all the same caliber of player, yet in that trio, Edberg-Becker H2H really stands out for how lopsided it is.

 

[Red Rick]

I know Boris Becker is an ATG and 99% of all professional tennis players ever existed would give their right arm to have a career like his, but when checking his H2H stats you can wonder why he has "only" won 6 slams. Apart from Lendl (10-11) Agassi (4-10) and Sampras (7-12) ( with the latter two being the dominating forces of the 90s and actually a little younger than him) he is leading almost every great and decent player he crossed paths with, some of them by a huge margin. His H2H include:

Ivanisevic 10-9
Edberg 25-10
Connors 6-0
McEnroe 8-2
Stich 8-4
Chang 6-1
Courier 6-1
Gilbert 6-4
Wilander 7-3
Noah 4-2
Mecir 7-2
Korda 6-0
Muster 2-1
krajicek 4-4
Kafelnikov 4-2
Hewitt 1-0
Rafter 2-1
Henman 2-0
Kiefer 2-0
Bruguera 2-2

So in the end he is not only leading great players from the generation before ( e.g. Connors, McEnroe) but also the great players of his prime like Stich, Wilander and Edberg and even most of the next generation (courier, Chang, muster, rafter, Hewitt) many of them by huge margins.

What is however interesting is that he has the strange habit of having loosing records in slams against players he usually routined:

Edberg 1-3 in slams (25-10 in overall!!)
Ivanisevic 1-2 in slams (10-9 overall)
Rafter 0-1 in slams (2-1 overall)
McEnroe 0-1 in slams (8-2 overall!!)
Wilander 0-3 in slams (7-3 overall !!!!! all his losses here came at slams)

Only against Lendl it was somewhat the opposite.

Apart from that, if I remember correctly he lost a couple of times against far lesser players at slams, (Patrick McEnroe R1 AO 1995, Peter Doohan 2R Wimbledon).

So I think it is safe to say, that he somehow underperformed at Slams and could have won way more, his overall H2H stats against big name opponents of his career actually do not look much worse than those of Fed or Pete.

The best of 5 format cannot be the reason here (he actually has a great Davis cup record).

So basically Becker was basically Slam winning equivalent of Zverev?

"Anyone But Becker"

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

So basically Becker was basically Slam winning equivalent of Zverev?

"Anyone But Becker"

Absolutely not. Becker was a Champion Zverev hasn’t shown anything so far. At zverevs current age Becker had already won 4 slams. The topic of this thread is whether he couldn’t have won more. His H2H stats against the greats he crossed swords with are astonishing and not much worse than Sampras or Federer’s. Considering that he “only” won 6 slams and spent 12 weeks at No 1 one has to ask where all his losses came. The only plausible answer is that he lost way to much against inferior players he should have beaten.

 

[Winners or Errors]

If Becker were 15 pounds lighter (trimmer, fitter) he could have won more Slams. But wow, what a game!

As I recall, Tiriac said that Becker struggled with weight and "heavy legs." Conditioning was a question.

 

[I get cramps]

As I recall, Tiriac said that Becker struggled with weight and "heavy legs." Conditioning was a question.

In 2005, just before the start of RG, Tiriac stated that Nadal weighed as much as Boris in his prime. He followed that saying that Nadal didn't have Boris' body frame, and therefore he would not be able to succed in the long run unless he dropped a significant amount of kilograms.

That's not what he said word for word, but broadly speaking it was. I'm looking for the article but i can't find it.

He was very impressed by him, though.

 

[Thomas195]

1996 Wimbledon was a missed opportunity. Becker injured himself in 2R, and his draw turned out to be a total joke. He was exactly in Washington's draw, and the final would have been very different if we replace Washington with Becker. I strongly believe that he would have reached final that year without playing a single 5-set match if he hadn't injured himself.

 

[Shaj]

I always thought Becker had one of the best "A" games of all time..None in the history had a better game, lethal serve with Top Class volleys and a formidable baseline game..

Now I think he had one of the poorest Backup plan amongst all the Top players of all time..The Djokovic match against Simon in AO, becker would have lost had he been in Djokovic's place.

Only match where he completely outthought the opponent was Against Agassi in Wimbledon 95..Otherwise if he didn't have his A game on,players just defeated him..And what's with that rushing on to the net on the second serve?

 

[FloridaHawaiiMan]

I know Boris Becker is an ATG and 99% of all professional tennis players ever existed would give their right arm to have a career like his, but when checking his H2H stats you can wonder why he has "only" won 6 slams. Apart from Lendl (10-11) Agassi (4-10) and Sampras (7-12) ( with the latter two being the dominating forces of the 90s and actually a little younger than him) he is leading almost every great and decent player he crossed paths with, some of them by a huge margin. His H2H include:

Ivanisevic 10-9
Edberg 25-10
Connors 6-0
McEnroe 8-2
Stich 8-4
Chang 6-1
Courier 6-1
Gilbert 6-4
Wilander 7-3
Noah 4-2
Mecir 7-2
Korda 6-0
Muster 2-1
krajicek 4-4
Kafelnikov 4-2
Hewitt 1-0
Rafter 2-1
Henman 2-0
Kiefer 2-0
Bruguera 2-2

So in the end he is not only leading great players from the generation before ( e.g. Connors, McEnroe) but also the great players of his prime like Stich, Wilander and Edberg and even most of the next generation (courier, Chang, muster, rafter, Hewitt) many of them by huge margins.

What is however interesting is that he has the strange habit of having loosing records in slams against players he usually routined:

Edberg 1-3 in slams (25-10 in overall!!)
Ivanisevic 1-2 in slams (10-9 overall)
Rafter 0-1 in slams (2-1 overall)
McEnroe 0-1 in slams (8-2 overall!!)
Wilander 0-3 in slams (7-3 overall !!!!! all his losses here came at slams)

Only against Lendl it was somewhat the opposite.

Apart from that, if I remember correctly he lost a couple of times against far lesser players at slams, (Patrick McEnroe R1 AO 1995, Peter Doohan 2R Wimbledon).

So I think it is safe to say, that he somehow underperformed at Slams and could have won way more, his overall H2H stats against big name opponents of his career actually do not look much worse than those of Fed or Pete.

The best of 5 format cannot be the reason here (he actually has a great Davis cup record).
[/QUOT

I would probably agree that he did underperform in the Slams. He is, I believe 5-1 against Lendl in Grand Slam tournaments, with wins against Lendl in Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open. Lendl's lone win against Becker in a Slam was in the 1992 US Open, their last meeting in a major.

 

[BGod]

Let's go through the list:

Finals lost: 4 all at Wimbledon. 88 is the best chance where he could have gone up 2-0, 90 went 5 but he really got drubbed in the first two sets so I'm less inclined to prop that one. Overall just by volume I suppose you could say he underperformed to lose both of 88 & 90 to Edberg.

Semis lost: 8, Wimbledon and French are not much of a discussion except again an 0-2 hole against Edberg in 89 where if he DOES win he likely beats Chang, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he underperformed but that was a golden opportunity missed. At the USO, he likely loses to Lendl and twice to Sampras but given his maturity it's plausible he could beat Sampras in 1 of those.

Quarters lost: 5, the 92 Wimbledon loss to Agassi is a big what if as I DO think he beats Goran.

Now given how he won his last Australian Open, we also need to look at some earlier round losses that could have turned the other way (he won 96 AO after 1st and 2nd round 5 setters down 1-2 and 0-2 to less than top contenders). The Doohan loss is something but Cash was on fire, so I'm looking at 87 and 92 USOs. In 92 he loses in 5 to Lendl who in turn loses in 5 to Edberg who ends up beating Sampras in the final after a 5 setter with Chang. Obviously it's not a golden opportunity missed but another scenario Becker could grind one out. Then 1987 is somewhat more interesting. Becker was up 2-0 on Gilbert losing the 3rd set in tiebreak and the 4th at 5-7. Assume he just wins in 3 he gets Connors then Lendl and probably beats Wilander in the final if he gets there. Becker was 6-0 against Connors on his career having beat him twice in 86 already. There is also AO 87 as well, on grass. In that tournament he loses to Masur in 5, for whatever reason but if he beat him one has to imagine he easily wins the proceeding quarter and then gets Edberg in the semis and Cash. Now Becker did have some tough losses to Edberg at Slams but he was on a 6 match win streak at that point which would extend to 7 shortly after and Cash only beat Becker one time on indoor hard at Sydney in 87. That tournament took place in October however and the Australian had been moved to January for this year.


So with all of that, especially given his losses to Edberg at several Slams despite a lifetime 25-10 head to head overall, I can definitely see an argument for him missing several opportunities to win 3-5 more Slams with just more focus or training.

 

[ttwarrior1]

yes he did considering a few thought he was done then won the australian open. He wanted to be a baseliner. He should of came in even more

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

yes he did considering a few thought he was done then won the australian open. He wanted to be a baseliner. He should of came in even more

His whole mid-95-beginning 96 was great with the Wimbledon final, the USO semi the YEC 95 and then culminating in his last slam win at AO96. Unfortunately then injuries caught up with him but still he had a last great indoor season.

 

[thrust]

The Edberg stats always surprise me. A lot of their matches were on indoor carpet, which I think was Becker's best surface (and overall conditions). But, still, given the similarity in their overall resumes, I could see Becker being, say, 21-14 vs Edberg - still clearly ahead but not nearly so dominant. But, 25-10E always surprises me. As you point out, Edberg was 3-1 in slams and 2-1 in Slam finals vs. Becker. That's pretty clear under-performance for Becker. Though to be fair, Becker absolutely schooled Edberg twice in Davis Cup (on indoor carpet). Then again, Edberg beat Becker in the final of the 1989 Masters (YEC) - so the H2H for the biggest events was 4-3 Edberg, which doesn't look quite as bad for Becker (and of course, he does hold that 25-10 lead overall). Always surprised they didn't play more in Slams given their career overlap.

I think that perhaps there was a mental thing Becker had over Stefan, especially on carpet. Still, IMO, Edberg had the better career. They both had 6 slams but Edberg had 2 YE at #1-Becker-0. Stefan had 72 weeks at #1, Becker 12 or so. Becker never did win a slam final, I think they played 3, but did lose to him before the finals.

 

[Rosstour]

He underachieved period, way too much partying

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Becker never did win a slam final, I think they played 3, but did lose to him before the finals.

He beat Edberg in the 89 Wimbledon final.

think that perhaps there was a mental thing Becker had over Stefan, especially on carpet. Still, IMO, Edberg had the better career. They both had 6 slams but Edberg had 2 YE at #1-Becker-0. Stefan had 72 weeks at #1, Becker 12 or so.

Who of the two had the better career is arguable. Edberg had way more weeks at 1 this is true but Becker was a better indoor player and hence way more successful alt the YEC.

 

[thrust]

I think that perhaps there was a mental thing Becker had over Stefan, especially on carpet. Still, IMO, Edberg had the better career. They both had 6 slams but Edberg had 2 YE at #1-Becker-0. Stefan had 72 weeks at #1, Becker 12 or so. Becker never did win a slam final, I think they played 3, but did lose to him before the finals.

I can't imagine why I wrote that Becker never won a slam final, what I meant to say that he never lost a slam final vs Lendl. Senior moment, perhaps-LOL!

 

[Ballmachine87]

Becker generally underpermored because he was lazy , did not take care of himself and could not handle the fame and money. Had he won his first slam at age 20, his career would have become more succesful.

 

[urban]

Many times Boris spent too many hours on the court in preliminary rounds at the slams, and run out of gas in the final rounds. He needed a lot of energy against players like Pioline, Gilbert, or this US guy with the long legs, whose name i forgot (who won the GS Cup once). Of course David Wheaton. Then there were a lot of dangerous floaters, who were unafraid for the stars, and had different styles of play like Larsson or Nystrom or Wheaton. Somehow a top player like Sampras could pace himself better. Boris was at his best in Davis Cup matches, when he had only two or three (doubles) to play.

 

[California]

I think that perhaps there was a mental thing Becker had over Stefan, especially on carpet. Still, IMO, Edberg had the better career. They both had 6 slams but Edberg had 2 YE at #1-Becker-0. Stefan had 72 weeks at #1, Becker 12 or so. Becker never did win a slam final, I think they played 3, but did lose to him before the finals.

I don’t know that Becker had a mental advantage over Edberg on carpet, I just think it was his game indoor. His huge serve, without having to deal with the sun or wind allowed him to hold easily by crushing serves. This gave him confidence to takes rips on the return and put Stefan under pressure and break him. Becker was an excellent fast court player, the longer the point went on he was in trouble. He was really first strike tennis at it’s finest.

I think both Edberg and Becker left slams on the table and could’ve/should’ve won more. You can think of some of the ones they lost and it’s tough to see how they let them get away. Sometimes it seems someone is destined to win, Chang 89 French Open comes to mind, how he managed to win that I will never fully understand. At 17, beating Lendl and then Edberg in the final, and then never winning another major… with cramps, ridiculous.

 

[thrust]

I don’t know that Becker had a mental advantage over Edberg on carpet, I just think it was his game indoor. His huge serve, without having to deal with the sun or wind allowed him to hold easily by crushing serves. This gave him confidence to takes rips on the return and put Stefan under pressure and break him. Becker was an excellent fast court player, the longer the point went on he was in trouble. He was really first strike tennis at it’s finest.

I think both Edberg and Becker left slams on the table and could’ve/should’ve won more. You can think of some of the ones they lost and it’s tough to see how they let them get away. Sometimes it seems someone is destined to win, Chang 89 French Open comes to mind, how he managed to win that I will never fully understand. At 17, beating Lendl and then Edberg in the final, and then never winning another major… with cramps, ridiculous.

Chang did seem destined to win that FO. Though I was more of an Edberg fan, I am glad Chang did manage to win at least one slam.