Did Becker underperform at Slams?

[sandy mayer]

Becker was twice Wimbledon champion at 18, and three times champ by 21. He should have won more Wimbledons: at least 6. After his second Wimbledon at 18 there was speculation he would dominate Wimbledon for years. With the talent he had he underachieved. In his autobiography he admits this. He was addicted to sleeping pills and says he was spaced out in the first two sets of the 90 Wimbledon final until he woke up.

 

[jrepac]

I think you can make this argument about a lot of the greats...Agassi certainly, Mac, even Connors and Lendl. Winning 6 slams is nothing to sniff at. I think it's more realistic to say he had some challenges with new found fame and success and new competitors emerged (Sampras). Becker had a very good record against all but Agassi and Sampras...both of whom started to become more prominent in the GS.

 

[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).

Against Lendl it was more than "somewhat" the opposite. Becker is I believe 5-1 against him in Grand Slam matches, including 3-0 in Slam Finals. (Becker beat Lendl in '86 Wimbledon, '89 US Open and '91 Australian Open finals). Lendl is maybe the bigger slam under-performer than Becker, with a slam final win loss record of 8-11. Becker's slam final record is 6-4.

 

[onefineday]

Yes. He could have won five Wimbledons.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Against Lendl it was more than "somewhat" the opposite. Becker is I believe 5-1 against him in Grand Slam matches, including 3-0 in Slam Finals. (Becker beat Lendl in '86 Wimbledon, '89 US Open and '91 Australian Open finals). Lendl is maybe the bigger slam under-performer than Becker, with a slam final win loss record of 8-11. Becker's slam final record is 6-4.

You are right of course that Lendl is also a big slam underperformer. On the other hand, even if he is the only 6+ slam winner with a negative slam final conversion, one can argue, that reaching 19 slam finals in itself is a huge achievement (more than anyone in the OE outside the Big three). Becker on the other hand has a lot of early losses against lower ranked players while Lendl was unbelievably consistent against players he should have beaten.

My initial point was that Becker in general underperformed in the sense that he has a very good H2H against basically all ATGs and solid players of his era, however only has 12 weeks at #1, which would suggest that he more often than other top players lost against lower ranked players he should have beaten (could have been a motivation issue).

 

[Crocodile]

The Becker, Cash, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Mcnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Stich, Lewis, Curren, Gilbert McNamara Courier, kfelnokov, Chang, Rafter ,Connors,Martin, Moya, Krien, Vilas to name a few was a pretty amazing time for world tennis. I think
Boris Becker did quite well in the slams with the variety of great players in the field.

 

[Neptune]

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).

Very good observation, BO5 or 5-setter is not the problem.

 

[JasonZ]

he underperformed in wimbledon finals, should have won at least one more.

 

[socallefty]

Becker has confessed that he had a drinking problem and he drank whisky on the morning of one of his Wimbledon finals against Edberg. Yes, he underperformed at Slams.

Players at that time were grossly unprofessional, used recreational drugs, drank a lot, partied late etc. - they all underperformed.

 

[JasonZ]

Becker has confessed that he had a drinking problem and he drank whisky on the morning of one of his Wimbledon finals against Edberg. Yes, he underperformed at Slams.

Players at that time were grossly unprofessional, used recreational drugs, drank a lot, partied late etc. - they all underperformed.

if all underperformed it is the same as all overperformed

 

[Hard Court]

As has been pointed out, Becker does have more losses than you would have thought against players ranked far below him. A few mentioned were deceiving.
The loss to Nystrom at the US Open in 1985 was not that surprising. Becker only beat Nystrom 9-5 in the 5th set at Wimbledon. Nystrom was the 10 seed and Becker was 8th.

his loss to Mecir was not a major surprise either Mecir was playing well and Becker lost a tough match.

Other times he should be criticized for. Obviously the Doohan match. The Gilbert match at the US Open. Becker wins the first two sets then loses, the next three. In the 5th, it was 6-0 for Gilbert and Becker didn't even seem to be trying. In the 5th set at the US Open.

Unlike say Lendl, too often he didn't take care of the business at hand in the early-mid rounds. He was a big match player; the problem was that too often he lost before he could get to the big match.

To be fair to Becker, the early and mid-rounds were a lot different when Becker played than they have been in the last 20 years or so. The top seeds often did not have cakewalk until the semifinals like they have in more recent times. There was a lot more depth and the players outside of the top 5 were not so intimidated by the stars and usually did not just let the stars walk over them.

 

[jrepac]

I always expected Boris to do well at the USO, but he habitually fell short. I was a bit shocked when he won in '89 honestly. But he was a thorn in Lendl's rear, in most big matches.

 

[NedStark]

I always expected Boris to do well at the USO, but he habitually fell short. I was a bit shocked when he won in '89 honestly. But he was a thorn in Lendl's rear, in most big matches.

I think it is because of his mid-career decline starting after Wimbledon 1991 until late-1994. Before 1989 he was still like 20-21, it’s not easy to be consistent at such a young age.

Boris would have loved to play on the very fast Arthur Ashe courts of 1997-2002 - I am sure he would have done a lot better there than on the slightly slower Forest Hill courts. Unfortunately, he faded away after 1996.

Other times he should be criticized for. Obviously the Doohan match.

IMO the Doohan upset was a history-changing one. It broke Becker’s aura at Wimbledon - he was never as dominant again. IMO, had Becker avoided that upset, he would have won that Wimbledon, and he would have dominated Wimbledon for the rest of the 1980s

 

[Mustard]

Boris would have loved to play on the very fast Arthur Ashe courts of 1997-2002 - I am sure he would have done a lot better there than on the slightly slower Forest Hill courts.

The last US Open at Forest Hills was in 1977. The US Open moved to the current venue of Flushing Meadows in 1978, with Louis Armstrong stadium (aka "Stadium Court") as the main court up to and including 1996.

 

[jrepac]

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.

I was at the FO that year....my one and only visit. I watched Chang play in an early match (2nd round maybe) and I thought, "this kid is very good". Little did I suspect he'd win it all!

 

[jrepac]

The last US Open at Forest Hills was in 1977. The US Open moved to the current venue of Flushing Meadows in 1978, with Louis Armstrong stadium (aka "Stadium Court") as the main court up to and including 1996.

Early Deco-Turf was quite fast...hard to say how much faster than '89, but certainly faster than today's mush

 

[NedStark]

The last US Open at Forest Hills was in 1977. The US Open moved to the current venue of Flushing Meadows in 1978, with Louis Armstrong stadium (aka "Stadium Court") as the main court up to and including 1996.

Yeah right, it was Louis Armstrong. IMO the USO courts in 1997-2002 were clearly faster than in 1995-1996 - it was like an outdoor carpet court (hence we had 2 back-to-back all serve-and-volley finals in 1997 and 1998 - and at least one guy playing S&V on both serves made finals in the entire 1997-2002 period).

 

[NedStark]

I was at the FO that year....my one and only visit. I watched Chang play in an early match (2nd round maybe) and I thought, "this kid is very good". Little did I suspect he'd win it all!

Well, Becker would have butchered Chang had they met - with hindsight Becker beating Chang is a sure fire outcome regardless of surfaces.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Upsets are gonna happen in tennis, that's part of why I think it's a great sport. Saying Becker (or anyone) "should beat a player" based on ranking, is insulting to that lower ranked player. Also, Becker came along in maybe the most loaded era (at least post World War II) in men's pro tennis. Prime Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Mercir, Cash, etc. And then in the 90s he had to deal with Agassi, Sampras, Chang, Courier, etc. Becker had amazing longevity as a top-3 or 4 player, outlasting many of his 80s peers.
He was still at the very top level of the game in '95-'96.

It's easy to say that so and so "underachieved" because they don't have a 8-2 or 10-3 record in Slam Finals. And yes he should've won Wimby 1990 over Edberg...but when you're in a jam packed era of all time great players, the wealth of Slams and big titles are gonna be shared amongst all of them

 

[NedStark]

He was still at the very top level of the game in '95-'96.

It was sad that he vanished so quickly after 1996 - when overall competition began to ease.

Other times he should be criticized for.

And he should be criticized for becoming out of form and out of shape for so long following his Wimbledon 1991 defeat - could have beaten Agassi and won Wimbledon 1992 had he simply been in a better shape and played at his Wimbledon 1991 pre-final level.

I don’t think he should be criticized for his upsets before 1989 other than the Doohan match, because he was still like 20-21. On the other hand, 1991-1994 should have been his peak years, but Courier, Edberg, Agassi and Sampras basically stole his thunder - and the first two did not even have to face Becker.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

It was sad that he vanished so quickly after 1996 - when overall competition began to ease.


And he should be criticized for becoming out of form and out of shape for so long following his Wimbledon 1991 defeat - could have beaten Agassi and won Wimbledon 1992 had he simply been in a better shape and played at his Wimbledon 1991 pre-final level.

I don’t think he should be criticized for his upsets before 1989 other than the Doohan match, because he was still like 20-21. On the other hand, 1991-1994 should have been his peak years, but Courier, Edberg, Agassi and Sampras basically stole his thunder - and the first two did not even have to face Becker.

Definitely agreed. Reaching the Wimby Final and winning the ATP Finals in '95 and being in TOP form in winning the Aussie in '96 (along with some great battles with Sampras in Stuttgart and at the '96 ATP Finals), would lend anyone to think that he would at least be near that same level for another year...maybe two. Would've loved to have seen him at that level in at least '97. I think he would've snagged another USO or Australian

 

[I get cramps]

Other times he should be criticized for. Obviously the Doohan match. The Gilbert match at the US Open. Becker wins the first two sets then loses, the next three. In the 5th, it was 6-0 for Gilbert and Becker didn't even seem to be trying. In the 5th set at the US Open.

Unlike say Lendl, too often he didn't take care of the business at hand in the early-mid rounds. He was a big match player; the problem was that too often he lost before he could get to the big match.

Becker and Edberg once extended Lendl the courtesy of playing on clay against him. They did so on only one occasion in 48 matches played.

Either Becker and Edberg were not as good clay court players as you read on this forum, or "they hid" from Lendl's presence on clay. And to get to play against him just once on red clay (jointly), "they had to hide" in rivers, leaves on rocks, and icy moons.

What a farce those head-to-heads of the aforementioned serve-and-volley players are when someone wields them against Lendl.

 

[CyBorg]

Some people in this thread calling Becker "lazy." Absolutely insane.

I think if he was a bit more fleet of foot he would have won more majors.

 

[buscemi]

Well, Becker would have butchered Chang had they met - with hindsight Becker beating Chang is a sure fire outcome regardless of surfaces.

Becker was 5-1 against Chang and won zero clay titles in his career. Chang's one win over Becker was a 7-6, 6-2 win on hard courts in 1994.

Outside the 1989 French Open, Lendl was 5-1 against Chang and won three French titles. Chang's one win over Lendl outside the 1989 French Open was 9-7 in the fifth set of the Grand Slam Cup in 1991.

So, yeah, Becker clearly had a matchup advantage over Chang, but so did Lendl. And I'd say Chang's win over Lendl at the 1989 French Open was a bigger upset than a hypothetical win against Becker in the final would have been.

 

[barone]

Against Lendl it was more than "somewhat" the opposite. Becker is I believe 5-1 against him in Grand Slam matches, including 3-0 in Slam Finals. (Becker beat Lendl in '86 Wimbledon, '89 US Open and '91 Australian Open finals). Lendl is maybe the bigger slam under-performer than Becker, with a slam final win loss record of 8-11. Becker's slam final record is 6-4.

So 8-0... out in first round 11 times is better then 8-11 with 11 finals

 

[Hard Court]

As for Becker not winning more, you can also look at another way. Look at is 1985 Wimbledon. he was walking a tightrope almost the whole tournament.
Third round- Escaped Nystrom 11-9 in the 5th set.
Fourth round - Mayotte took him to five sets. (Becker won the fourth in a tiebreaker.)
Quarterfinal - Won a tie breaker against Leconte, otherwise it goes to a 5th set.
Semifinal - Wona tiebreaker vs Jarryd, otherwise it goes to a 5th set.
Final - Wona tiebreaker against Curren, otherwise it would have gone to a 5th set.

Becker was an inconsistent player. He lost more often in the early rounds of a tournament than a player of his talent should have. He did that at Grand Slams and in regular tournaments as well. Becker was certainly not a choker. He just could not mentally play close to ability on a consistent basis, and he had trouble beating a lesser player if he was having an off day. If he managed to get to the quarters, he did well.

He did not underperform at Slams compared to how he usually played in tournaments overall.

 

[NedStark]

Quarterfinal - Won a tie breaker against Leconte, otherwise it goes to a 5th set.
Semifinal - Wona tiebreaker vs Jarryd, otherwise it goes to a 5th set.
Final - Wona tiebreaker against Curren, otherwise it would have gone to a 5th set.

Agree with 3rd and 4th rounds, but these QF-F situations are rather normal and happened to quite a few other GS champions as well.

r. He lost more often in the early rounds of a tournament than a player of his talent should have.

To be fair his runs of early Slam losses generally happened during:
1) His 18-20 (1985-1988) years.
2) His 1992-1994 slump (1993 was his lowest point), when he obviously was in poor shape.

He did that at Grand Slams and in regular tournaments as well.

Not at indoor tournaments, though.

Becker was 5-1 against Chang and won zero clay titles in his career. Chang's one win over Becker was a 7-6, 6-2 win on hard courts in 1994.

Outside the 1989 French Open, Lendl was 5-1 against Chang and won three French titles. Chang's one win over Lendl outside the 1989 French Open was 9-7 in the fifth set of the Grand Slam Cup in 1991.

So, yeah, Becker clearly had a matchup advantage over Chang, but so did Lendl. And I'd say Chang's win over Lendl at the 1989 French Open was a bigger upset than a hypothetical win against Becker in the final would have been.

One could say that Chang owned Lendl in BO5. Besides, Becker actually crushed Chang in straight in RG 1991.

He absolutely underperformed against Edberg and somewhat underperformed against Stich in Wimbledon finals, given his overall H2H records against them (25-10 vs Edberg, 8-4 vs Stich). You can see that his tactical choice against Edberg in Wimbledon 1990 was terrible, if you read his Warpsting’s match report.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

As for Becker not winning more, you can also look at another way. Look at is 1985 Wimbledon. he was walking a tightrope almost the whole tournament.
Third round- Escaped Nystrom 11-9 in the 5th set.
Fourth round - Mayotte took him to five sets. (Becker won the fourth in a tiebreaker.)
Quarterfinal - Won a tie breaker against Leconte, otherwise it goes to a 5th set.
Semifinal - Wona tiebreaker vs Jarryd, otherwise it goes to a 5th set.
Final - Wona tiebreaker against Curren, otherwise it would have gone to a 5th set.

Becker was an inconsistent player. He lost more often in the early rounds of a tournament than a player of his talent should have. He did that at Grand Slams and in regular tournaments as well. Becker was certainly not a choker. He just could not mentally play close to ability on a consistent basis, and he had trouble beating a lesser player if he was having an off day. If he managed to get to the quarters, he did well.

He did not underperform at Slams compared to how he usually played in tournaments overall.

Well I created the thread 6 years ago and could have maybe worded it slightly different in the sense thst he generally underperformed in beating opponents he should have beaten. Given his fantastic H2H against big opponents but him only having 12 weeks at No.1., it can only be explained by relatively many losses against weaker guys. Whether this was especially happening at slams I didn't deeper analyse it just sprang into my eyes that he had negative slam H2Hs against guys he owned in overall H2H, sometimes by a big margin (Mats, Edberg, Mac, Rafter, Goran).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

To be fair his runs of early Slam losses generally happened during:
1) His 18-20 (1985-1988) years.
2) His 1992-1994 slump (1993 was his lowest point), when he obviously was in poor shape.

Well those are seven years of his career and in 85-88 he was already a slam champion so we cannot entirely blame this to pre-prime years. Besides, the 95 AO loss against Patrick Mcenroe and his 91 USO loss against Haarhuis were also upsets. His 90 AO loss against Mats was at least unnecessary given that he owned him 7-3 in H2H. At Wimbledon he also had the Doohan loss and at the French, even though his worst surface, losses against R.Gilbert and Vionea should not necessarily happen to a player of his Status.

 

[JasonZ]

Agree with 3rd and 4th rounds, but these QF-F situations are rather normal and happened to quite a few other GS champions as well.


To be fair his runs of early Slam losses generally happened during:
1) His 18-20 (1985-1988) years.
2) His 1992-1994 slump (1993 was his lowest point), when he obviously was in poor shape.


Not at indoor tournaments, though.


One could say that Chang owned Lendl in BO5. Besides, Becker actually crushed Chang in straight in RG 1991.

He absolutely underperformed against Edberg and somewhat underperformed against Stich in Wimbledon finals, given his overall H2H records against them (25-10 vs Edberg, 8-4 vs Stich). You can see that his tactical choice against Edberg in Wimbledon 1990 was terrible, if you read his Warpsting’s match report.

only one wimby title 1988-1991 in 4 finals definetely a big underperformance of becker.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

only one wimby title 1988-1991 in 4 finals definetely a big underperformance of becker.

He should have gone 2-1 against Edberg. The loss against Stich is excusable I guess given that Stich GOATed.

 

[Hard Court]

So for Wimbledon finals, we are really down to the 1990 loss to Edberg. He was capable of playing better in that match, but he certainly played well.

Becker did lose too often in the early round during his career.
He may have benefitted had he played in a different era.
Had he played in the pros in the 1950s and 1960s, he probably would have done well in the 8-16 man fields.
Had he played the last 20 years or so, his early opponents would usually have been too intimidated and handed him the match.

As it was, he sometimes played a determined opponent in the early rounds and if his head wasn't in the game he lost.

 

[buscemi]

So for Wimbledon finals, we are really down to the 1990 loss to Edberg. He was capable of playing better in that match, but he certainly played well.

He certainly had his chance in the 1988 final against Edberg. In that match, Edberg jumped out to an early break in the first set before Boris broke him back and then broke again to take the first set, 6-4.

Then, at 3-3 in he second set, Edberg hit a double fault to go down 30-40 and looked pretty agitated.

After another Edberg fault, I think Boris crept in too much for the second serve return. Edberg got enough juice on it that Becker had to block his backhand down the line, and it sailed a few feet wide into the doubles alley. I think that if Boris had a regular return position, he could have hit a backhand down the line that would have been a winner or made Edberg hit a weak/stretch volley. If he breaks there, he probably takes a two set lead and the match.

Instead, after Becker's miss, both guys held until the tiebreaker, which Edberg took before rolling in sets 3 & 4.

The sequence in question starts at 1:03:52:

 

[JasonZ]

So for Wimbledon finals, we are really down to the 1990 loss to Edberg. He was capable of playing better in that match, but he certainly played well.

Becker did lose too often in the early round during his career.
He may have benefitted had he played in a different era.
Had he played in the pros in the 1950s and 1960s, he probably would have done well in the 8-16 man fields.
Had he played the last 20 years or so, his early opponents would usually have been too intimidated and handed him the match.

As it was, he sometimes played a determined opponent in the early rounds and if his head wasn't in the game he lost.

he definetely didnt play well in the first two sets and was 2 sets down. then he failed to convert a break lead to victory in 5th set. this was uncharacteristic of becker, who always was regarded as a mentally strong player. so he underperformed on tennis level and mental level.

 

[jrepac]

Definitely agreed. Reaching the Wimby Final and winning the ATP Finals in '95 and being in TOP form in winning the Aussie in '96 (along with some great battles with Sampras in Stuttgart and at the '96 ATP Finals), would lend anyone to think that he would at least be near that same level for another year...maybe two. Would've loved to have seen him at that level in at least '97. I think he would've snagged another USO or Australian

He really had a resurgence. I too figured he had a few more good years ahead of him.

 

[NedStark]

He really had a resurgence. I too figured he had a few more good years ahead of him.

Frankly he only had to play as well as 1991-1992 Lendl (who was at the same age as 1997-1999 Becker) to grab at least 2 Slams in 1997-1999. IMO, his experience against Edberg and his strong drive BH return would have helped him prevailing over Rafter.

Plus, don’t forget that his draw at Wimbledon 1996 was essentially Malivai Washington’s draw lmao - he would have 100% made final without the wrist injury. That means, at worst, he would have been seeded within Top 4 seeds in AO 1997 and might have got an easier draw to get to SF/F (plus his 1R upset against Moya was heavily affected by scheduling change).

In fact, Becker would have won Wimbledon 1997 IRL had Sampras somehow rolled his ankle - Becker was weak by then but since the level/form of other opponents (other than Pete) was mediocre at best and abysmal at worst - he would have won.

 

[Mustard]

Plus, don’t forget that his draw at Wimbledon 1996 was essentially Malivai Washington’s draw lmao - he would have 100% made final without the wrist injury. That means, at worst, he would have been seeded within Top 4 seeds in AO 1997 and might have got an easier draw to get to SF/F (plus his 1R upset against Moya was heavily affected by scheduling change).

In fact, Becker would have won Wimbledon 1997 IRL had Sampras somehow rolled his ankle - Becker was weak by then but since the level/form of other opponents (other than Pete) was mediocre at best and abysmal at worst - he would have won.

Not to mention the tax raids back in Germany, which obviously had a big effect.

 

[buscemi]

That means, at worst, he would have been seeded within Top 4 seeds in AO 1997 and might have got an easier draw to get to SF/F (plus his 1R upset against Moya was heavily affected by scheduling change)..

That Moya draw in the first round of the 1997 Australian Open was just plan bad luck. If he draws literally any player other than Sampras (impossible b/c he was a seed) or Moya in the first round, he probably wins.

 

[socallefty]

I would guess he underperformed if he struggled with sleeping pills, pain killers and alcohol for significant portions of his career as he wrote in his autobiography. Apart from the effect of all these chemicals on his match performance, I doubt he was training hard at the gym or in practice when under their influence.

Becker: I fought drink and drugs

Boris Becker told today how he battled addiction to alcohol and sleeping tablets at the height of his playing career.

www.standard.co.uk

Tennis players were not very professional in their training in those days. Lendl was one of the first to be more disciplined.

 

[Mustard]

For large parts of 1992, you can tell (especially with hindsight) that Becker is struggling with insomnia, trying to get off the sleeping pills. He looks scruffy in a lot of his 1992 matches.

 

[NedStark]

I just rewatched some Becker’s footages from 1994 onwards and definitely feel that his serves were much bigger than in 1985-1993. Perhaps this was also a major reason why he bounced back, on top of regain focus in tennis.

Imagine how much more he could have won had he beefed up his serve earlier.