Did Edberg have a higher peak than Becker at all 4 Majors?

[buscemi]

There's been a lot of discussion on this forum on whether Edberg or Becker is better and a lot of discussion on the main forum about which players have higher peak levels relative to other players. But I can't recall a comparison between Becker and Edberg regarding peak levels at the 4 Majors. I think the conventional wisdom might be that Becker takes the day, but my own review made me think Edberg has a good case for having a higher peak level at every Major. Here are my thoughts:

U.S. Open: Edberg's peak was clearly 1991 when he was never really in any trouble throughout the tournament, straight setted Lendl in the SF, and crushed Courier in the final (6-2, 6-4, 6-0). Peak Becker was 1989, where he was saved by a net cord against Rostagno in the second round, straight setted Krickstein in the SF, and beat Lendl, 7-6, 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 in the final. I think Edberg is comfortably ahead here with his dominant play in 1991 vs. 1989 Becker being a bit lucky to even make it past the second round and struggling a lot more against Lendl (albeit a better version of Lendl).​

​

French Open: It feels like the 1989 SF that Edberg won in 5 sets really tells the tale here, with Edberg beating Becker in that battle. Boris's other SFs were in 1987, when he got smoked by Wilander in straight sets, and 1991, when Agassi beat him 6-1 in the fourth set. I think 1989 is the peak form for both, with Edberg's level just a little bit higher.​

​

Australian Open: This one's a bit tougher to compare b/c Edberg's best results were on grass while Becker's best results were on Rebound Ace. That said, it's tough to top 1987 Edberg smoking Mecir in the QF (6-1, 6-4, 6-4) and beating the version of Cash who would go on to cruise to the Wimbledon title mere months later. Also, 1985 Edberg crushing two-time defending champion Wilander (who was really good on Kooyong grass), 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 was another strong showing. By way of contrast, Becker really struggled in both his AO title runs, being extended to 14-12 in the fifth set against Camporese in 1991 and needing two 5 set wins just to get to the third round in 1996. Overall, I'd give 1991 Becker the nod over 1996 Becker, with his 4 set win in the final against Lendl being more impressive than his 4 set win over Chang. If we're going by strict level, I might still rate 1990 Edberg at the AO (especially his SF win over Wilander) over any version of Becker on Rebound Ace, but that's complicated by the injury that Edberg carried into the final, causing his retirement. Overall, I'd still say Becker had a higher peak on Rebound Ace than Edberg, but I'd say that Edberg's peak level on Kooyong grass was higher than Becker's peak level on Rebound Ace, giving Edberg the nod.​

​

Wimbledon: Clearly, this is the closest call, with Edberg's biggest claim being his 2-1 record over Becker in Wimbledon finals. Becker's best argument is that he straight setted Edberg in the 1989 final. But that final was preceded by Becker's tight 5 set SF against Lendl, with Edberg straight setting an arguably better version of Lendl in the SF the following year. Indeed, I might say that 1990 SF was Edberg's peak performance at Wimbledon and more impressive than Becker's own straight set win over Lendl in the 1986 final (given Lendl's better grass game in 1990).​

Summing up, I easily take peak Edberg over peak Becker at the U.S. Open, the 1989 French Open SF tells the tale there, Edberg on Kooyong grass > Becker on Rebound Ace, and I have Edberg's peak by the slimmest of margins over peak Becker at Wimbledon. What do others think?

 

[travlerajm]

There's been a lot of discussion on this forum on whether Edberg or Becker is better and a lot of discussion on the main forum about which players have higher peak levels relative to other players. But I can't recall a comparison between Becker and Edberg regarding peak levels at the 4 Majors. I think the conventional wisdom might be that Becker takes the day, but my own review made me think Edberg has a good case for having a higher peak level at every Major. Here are my thoughts:

U.S. Open: Edberg's peak was clearly 1991 when he was never really in any trouble throughout the tournament, straight setted Lendl in the SF, and crushed Courier in the final (6-2, 6-4, 6-0). Peak Becker was 1989, where he was saved by a net cord against Rostagno in the second round, straight setted Krickstein in the SF, and beat Lendl, 7-6, 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 in the final. I think Edberg is comfortably ahead here with his dominant play in 1991 vs. 1989 Becker being a bit lucky to even make it past the second round and struggling a lot more against Lendl (albeit a better version of Lendl).​

​

French Open: It feels like the 1989 SF that Edberg won in 5 sets really tells the tale here, with Edberg beating Becker in that battle. Boris's other SFs were in 1987, when he got smoked by Wilander in straight sets, and 1991, when Agassi beat him 6-1 in the fourth set. I think 1989 is the peak form for both, with Edberg's level just a little bit higher.​

​

Australian Open: This one's a bit tougher to compare b/c Edberg's best results were on grass while Becker's best results were on Rebound Ace. That said, it's tough to top 1987 Edberg smoking Mecir in the QF (6-1, 6-4, 6-4) and beating the version of Cash who would go on to cruise to the Wimbledon title mere months later. Also, 1985 Edberg crushing two-time defending champion Wilander (who was really good on Kooyong grass), 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 was another strong showing. By way of contrast, Becker really struggled in both his AO title runs, being extended to 14-12 in the fifth set against Camporese in 1991 and needing two 5 set wins just to get to the third round in 1996. Overall, I'd give 1991 Becker the nod over 1996 Becker, with his 4 set win in the final against Lendl being more impressive than his 4 set win over Chang. If we're going by strict level, I might still rate 1990 Edberg at the AO (especially his SF win over Wilander) over any version of Becker on Rebound Ace, but that's complicated by the injury that Edberg carried into the final, causing his retirement. Overall, I'd still say Becker had a higher peak on Rebound Ace than Edberg, but I'd say that Edberg's peak level on Kooyong grass was higher than Becker's peak level on Rebound Ace, giving Edberg the nod.​

​

Wimbledon: Clearly, this is the closest call, with Edberg's biggest claim being his 2-1 record over Becker in Wimbledon finals. Becker's best argument is that he straight setted Edberg in the 1989 final. But that final was preceded by Becker's tight 5 set SF against Lendl, with Edberg straight setting an arguably better version of Lendl in the SF the following year. Indeed, I might say that 1990 SF was Edberg's peak performance at Wimbledon and more impressive than Becker's own straight set win over Lendl in the 1986 final (given Lendl's better grass game in 1990).​

Summing up, I easily take peak Edberg over peak Becker at the U.S. Open, the 1989 French Open SF tells the tale there, Edberg on Kooyong grass > Becker on Rebound Ace, and I have Edberg's peak by the slimmest of margins over peak Becker at Wimbledon. What do others think?

The 25-10 H2H overall suggests that Becker was in general the better player, but the 3-1 H2H in slams in Edberg’s favor (reversing the overall trend) gives you confirmation in support of your thesis.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

I think that Becker winning one more and reaching more finals at Wimbledon seals it for him – even though Edberg leads him 2-1 there.

 

[travlerajm]

I think that Becker winning one more and reaching more finals at Wimbledon seals it for him – even though Edberg leads him 2-1 there.

But the question was higher peak? Not most accomplished overall.

 

[HBK4life]

I think Edberg being the fitter player helped him over a 2 week tournament.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

But the question was higher peak? Not most accomplished overall.

I think Becker had a higher peak at Wimbledon, yes. Edberg could never have dismissed Lendl like Becker did in 1986. And I'm an Edberg fan (duh).

 

[buscemi]

I think Becker had a higher peak at Wimbledon, yes. Edberg could never have dismissed Lendl like Becker did in 1986. And I'm an Edberg fan (duh).

Becker beat Lendl in 1986, 6-4, 6-3, 7-5. Edberg beat Lendl in 1990, 6-1, 7-6, 6-3. I would say 1990 Lendl at Wimbledon > 1986 Lendl at Wimbledon, with Edberg losing 10 games vs. Becker losing 12 games.

 

[Mustard]

Becker is more naturally talented, has a better cruise game and has more power.

With Edberg, it's about his timing, both with the footwork and hitting his shots, requiring higher concentration. Edberg was also fitter than Becker.

Becker beat Lendl in 1986, 6-4, 6-3, 7-5. Edberg beat Lendl in 1990, 6-1, 7-6, 6-3. I would say 1990 Lendl at Wimbledon > 1986 Lendl at Wimbledon, with Edberg losing 10 games vs. Becker losing 10 games.

1990 Lendl was not that good at Wimbledon, apart from the Hlasek match, having peaked at 1990 Queen's Club instead. In 1986, Lendl was in good form overall, even if he was still a bit uneasy on grass, so it got him through some tough matches at Wimbledon.

 

[buscemi]

Becker is more naturally talented, has a better cruise game and has more power.

With Edberg, it's about his timing, both with the footwork and hitting his shots, requiring higher concentration. Edberg was also fitter than Becker.


1990 Lendl was not that good at Wimbledon, apart from the Hlasek match, having peaked at 1990 Queen's Club instead. In 1986, Lendl was in good form overall, even if he was still a bit uneasy on grass, so it got him through some tough matches at Wimbledon.

In 1986, Lendl had to save set point to avoid a fifth set against Matt Anger in the fourth round (Lendl won the fourth set tiebreaker, 12-10), was extended to 9-7 in the fifth set by Mayotte in the QF, and slipped by Slobodan Živojinović, 6-4 in the fifth set in the SF. All three matches were described by articles as relatively low quality affairs.

I agree that Lendl didn't live up to the standard he set at Queen's Club in 1990, but I'd still say his level was higher in 1990 than 1986.

 

[Mustard]

Lendl had to save set point to avoid a fifth set against Matt Anger in the fourth round (Lendl won the fourth set tiebreaker, 12-10), was extended to 9-7 in the fifth set by Mayotte in the QF, and slipped by Slobodan Živojinović, 6-4 in the fifth set in the SF. All three matches were described by articles as relatively low quality affairs.

I agree that Lendl didn't live up to the standard he set at Queen's Club in 1990, but I'd still say his level was higher in 1990 than 1986.

But in 1986, Lendl had the winning habit a lot more than he did in 1990. That can help you win close matches.

In 1986, Lendl was in great form on other surfaces, perhaps in his greatest form ever, but he was still a bit uneasy on grass. In 1990, Lendl was supposed to be peaking on grass, and at 1990 Wimbledon most of all, after he skipped the 1990 clay season entirely.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Becker beat Lendl in 1986, 6-4, 6-3, 7-5. Edberg beat Lendl in 1990, 6-1, 7-6, 6-3. I would say 1990 Lendl at Wimbledon > 1986 Lendl at Wimbledon, with Edberg losing 10 games vs. Becker losing 10 games.

Sorry, I meant in a final. I know he beat Lendl clearly in 1990. I was very surpised when I watched that semi, because Lendl had been so strong at Queens. And the way Becker beat Edberg in 1989 was more convincing than Edberg's two final wins against him. I do think that Edberg was scary good in 1991 and should have won it – but Stich just somehow won that semi.

 

[Mustard]

Sorry, I meant in a final. I know he beat Lendl clearly in 1990. I was very surpised when I watched that semi, because Lendl had been so strong at Queens. And they way Becker beat Edberg in 1989 was more convincing than Edberg's two final wins against him. I do think that Edberg was scary good in 1991 and should have won it – but Stich just somehow won that semi.

Stich played like an Edberg clone in that 1991 semi too. It was eery to watch.

 

[fezer]

IMO Edbergs 89 RG Campaign was the best Edberg version. QF vs tournament favorite Mancini was already a masterpiece. But the SF vs Becker was insane. Becker played really well, but Edbergs netgame, shotselection, moving, everything seemed just right.

 

[jrepac]

Jeepers...a tough call...becker rose to the big occassions

 

[tennistiger]

IMO Edbergs 89 RG Campaign was the best Edberg version. QF vs tournament favorite Mancini was already a masterpiece. But the SF vs Becker was insane. Becker played really well, but Edbergs netgame, shotselection, moving, everything seemed just right.

The match was poor quality compared to their Davis Cup clay court best of five match only six month before in Dezember 1988 and simply decided by Beckers errors in the second and fifth set when leading with a break.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Becker won Wimbledon at a historic 17 years of age, and defended the title. Edberg never matched that.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

The match was poor quality compared to their Davis Cup clay court best of five match only six month before in Dezember 1988 and simply decided by Beckers errors in the second and fifth set when leading with a break.

What are you talking about? Edberg was terrible in that Davis Cup match. He basically didn't show up.

 

[buscemi]

Becker won Wimbledon at a historic 17 years of age, and defended the title. Edberg never matched that.

But this is about peak level. Becker was on the brink of losing several matches at Wimbledon in 1985. I don't think anyone considers that his peak level at Wimbledon. I would guess that most people say it is 1986 or 1989.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Its a peak when he not only won it '85, as a teenager, but proved it was no fluke by defending the title. For a teenager, take took an enormous amount to determination guiding his talent to overcome everyone who wanted to prove 1985's Wimbledon was a fluke or lucky outcome.

 

[buscemi]

Its a peak when he not only won it '85, as a teenager, but proved it was no fluke by defending the title. For a teenager, take took an enormous amount to determination guiding his talent to overcome everyone who wanted to prove 1985's Wimbledon was a fluke or lucky outcome.

So, do you think 1985/1986 Becker at Wimbledon beats 1989 Becker at Wimbledon?

 

[GuyForget]

Becker won Wimbledon at a historic 17 years of age, and defended the title. Edberg never matched that.

he did in Australia

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

he did in Australia

Edberg did not defend the title after winning at the age in question--the full point about Becker's peak.

 

[GuyForget]

but essentially did the same thing, two successive slams on grass as a teenager, against formidable opposition (Wilander, Lendl, Cash).
I prefer Becker, but Edberg didnt anywhere near get enough credit for that compared to Chang + Sampras, probably because AO wasn't considered so important bf 88

 

[adil1972]

[06/11, 12:41 pm] Adil Khan: Did boris becker said wimbledon is my backyard

[06/11, 12:41 pm] Meta AI: Yes, Boris Becker, the renowned German tennis player, famously said:

"Wimbledon is my backyard."

Becker first uttered this phrase after winning Wimbledon for the first time in 1985 at just 17 years old, becoming the youngest men's singles champion at the time. He repeated it throughout his career, emphasizing his comfort and dominance on the grass courts of the All England Lawn Tennis Club.

Becker's statement reflected his:

1. Confidence: He felt at home on Wimbledon's grass courts.
2. Familiarity: He trained extensively on grass and knew the surface well.
3. Success: Becker won 3 Wimbledon titles (1985, 1986, 1989) and reached 7 finals.

This phrase has become an iconic quote in tennis history, symbolizing Becker's association with Wimbledon and his impressive achievements on the court.

Would you like more information on Boris Becker's career or Wimbledon history?

 

[buscemi]

[06/11, 12:41 pm] Adil Khan: Did boris becker said wimbledon is my backyard

[06/11, 12:41 pm] Meta AI: Yes, Boris Becker, the renowned German tennis player, famously said:

"Wimbledon is my backyard."

Becker first uttered this phrase after winning Wimbledon for the first time in 1985 at just 17 years old, becoming the youngest men's singles champion at the time. He repeated it throughout his career, emphasizing his comfort and dominance on the grass courts of the All England Lawn Tennis Club.

Becker's statement reflected his:

1. Confidence: He felt at home on Wimbledon's grass courts.
2. Familiarity: He trained extensively on grass and knew the surface well.
3. Success: Becker won 3 Wimbledon titles (1985, 1986, 1989) and reached 7 finals.

This phrase has become an iconic quote in tennis history, symbolizing Becker's association with Wimbledon and his impressive achievements on the court.

That's great, but he still went on to lose 2/3 Wimbledon finals to Edberg.

 

[adil1972]

That's great, but he still went on to lose 2/3 Wimbledon finals to Edberg.

Not only this but he only won 3 titles despite reaching 7 WB finals as far as I know.

Where as sampras, fed & djok are 7-0, 8-4 & 7-3 in WB finals

Edit
not only this but all becker slam final losses came at WB

He win 2 AO & 1 USO also but never reach FO final

 

[JasonZ]

Not only this but he only won 3 titles despite reaching 7 WB finals as far as I know

Where as sampras & fed are 7-0 & 8-4 in WB finals

yes, becker totally underachieved in wimby finals, he also said the 1990 edberg loss is the most bitter loss of his career.

 

[tennistiger]

he also said the 1990 edberg loss is the most bitter loss of his career.

In his book he said that it was the 91 final against Stich!

 

[JasonZ]

In his book he said that it was the 91 final against Stich!

ah ok, i dont know the book, only remember some interviews from him.

 

[Galvermegs]

In his book he said that it was the 91 final against Stich!

What confuses me is that apprarently he planned to quit if he won that wimbledon. Would be borg to the nth degree.
I think he has more reason to regret 1990 as he was not far from winning that one. And stich never won another major, so its easier to just see it as a lesser player having his one big day.
If 1990 was his then he may not have minded a loss in 1991 as much not that he ever wanted that either.

 

[tennistiger]

He said so, he was emotionally down as a result of the situation in the first half of 1991 and crying at his rented house after the final.
1990 was not so a case because it was the day Germany won the WM 90 in Italy.
Even 96 was more heartbreaking he said because of loosing the unique chance of the title and the No 1 spot in1996.

 

[Galvermegs]

He said so, he was emotionally down as a result of the situation in the first half of 1991 and crying at his rented house after the final.
1990 was not so a case because it was the day Germany won the WM 90 in Italy.
Even 96 was more heartbreaking he said because of loosing the unique chance of the title and the No 1 spot in1996.

Sorry i am not clued up on boris and renting... was he already managing to mess up his money to that extent?

A real contradiction of super talent on court and chaotic mess off court.

 

[Vincent-C]

Not only this but he only won 3 titles despite reaching 7 WB finals as far as I know.

Where as sampras, fed & djok are 7-0, 8-4 & 7-3 in WB finals

Edit
not only this but all becker slam final losses came at WB

He win 2 AO & 1 USO also but never reach FO final

Maybe the vaunted Borisco is not that super-good in charged situations?
Check his record say v. Edberg overall, compared to v. Edberg in Majors..

 

[mental midget]

In his book he said that it was the 91 final against Stich!

will take his word on that but it wasn't like he choked it...stich was freaking on fire that match.

 

[mental midget]

this is a tough one. i was a HUGE edberg fan, but if you just line them up shot-for-shot i'd probably give boris the edge, he had it all, great groundies, serve of course, net game. but then again, when edberg was really on, the thing he did, he did darn well...and he certainly has the edge in movement, and at the highest level of the game that weighs maybe the most of all.

 

[Vincent-C]

this is a tough one. i was a HUGE edberg fan, but if you just line them up shot-for-shot i'd probably give boris the edge, he had it all, great groundies, serve of course, net game. but then again, when edberg was really on, the thing he did, he did darn well...and he certainly has the edge in movement, and at the highest level of the game that weighs maybe the most of all.

Becker had a telling hitch in his FH swing, and some players (like AA) could eventually read read his serve like a book. I admit to being prejudiced in favor of the good-to-great movers (like Eddy), though.

 

[mental midget]

Becker had a telling hitch in his FH swing, and some players (like AA) could eventually read read his serve like a book. I admit to being prejudiced in favor of the good-to-great movers (like Eddy), though.

hard to know of course but i believe that had stefan adopted a more traditional forehand, and been less enamored with the s&v at all costs play style, he might have become an even greater player. his movement was top tier, he had great feel, a live arm (easily could have developed a less kick-centric serve with more mph, in fact i think i've heard he had one earlier on but stuck w the kick for the overall s&v game), a fantastic slice and drive bh, VERY good return, and just exceptional athletic body control/balance. and as people have mentioned, exceptional endurance as well--that back to back to back 5 setters at the uso was crazy.

btw on the forehand, it wasn't necessarily a tremendous weakness, but with that grip he took the 'run around and rip it', or demolish the short ball, club out of his bag almost completely.

at the end of the day...he did more than ok, but i do wonder about it.

 

[jrepac]

Is it fair to say that I found Becker a much more exciting player, but overall, Edberg was better? At Wimbledon, Boris was a "must see" kind of guy. To me, just like Connors at the USO. Wimby was his backyard. Outside of Wimby, Boris was dicey at best, sad to say. But I always enjoyed watching him play Lendl, as he could pretty much stick it to him . But against Edberg, with Stefan's very sleek S&V game, sometimes Boris looked outclassed.

 

[Mustard]

yes, becker totally underachieved in wimby finals, he also said the 1990 edberg loss is the most bitter loss of his career.

In his book he said that it was the 91 final against Stich!

He's said the 1995 Monte Carlo final against Muster too.

I can see all 3 of them for different reasons. The 1990 Wimbledon final against Edberg saw Becker lead 3-1 in the fifth set and Becker said he briefly thought of what he was going to say after he had won, and then he lost. The 1991 Wimbledon final against Stich was not an opponent that Becker expected to face (he expected Edberg) and Becker never believed that Stich could actually beat him in that match, and then got beaten in straight sets by a fellow German on "his court", so that was Becker close to losing it totally on the court mentally. The 1995 Monte Carlo final against Muster, Becker led by 2 sets, led most of the fourth set tiebreak, had 2 championship points and failed to take them, then lost that tiebreak, and Muster won the fifth set 6-0. As a result, Becker never won a clay-court singles title.

 

[Galvermegs]

Is it fair to say that I found Becker a much more exciting player, but overall, Edberg was better? At Wimbledon, Boris was a "must see" kind of guy. To me, just like Connors at the USO. Wimby was his backyard. Outside of Wimby, Boris was dicey at best, sad to say. But I always enjoyed watching him play Lendl, as he could pretty much stick it to him . But against Edberg, with Stefan's very sleek S&V game, sometimes Boris looked outclassed.

If we stick to the OP and main question then hh boris and stefan didnt meet at all 4 majors.. i would put more faith in edberg at the uso in the 90s but not the 80s where he seemed really shaky. The ao would come down to the speed of court and if the roof was closed.

If we open up indoors then it is not fair to say edberg outclassed boris.. it is the key to why their hh is so oddly skewed. And davis cup was on par with majors too and often indoors (obviously sweden and germany couldnt guarantee good weather).

 

[Angrybirdstar]

hard to know of course but i believe that had stefan adopted a more traditional forehand, and been less enamored with the s&v at all costs play style, he might have become an even greater player. his movement was top tier, he had great feel, a live arm (easily could have developed a less kick-centric serve with more mph, in fact i think i've heard he had one earlier on but stuck w the kick for the overall s&v game), a fantastic slice and drive bh, VERY good return, and just exceptional athletic body control/balance. and as people have mentioned, exceptional endurance as well--that back to back to back 5 setters at the uso was crazy.

the thing for me is that sometimes i think about Edberg and wonder whether the difference between his and McEnroe's accomplishments basically comes down to the serve or if there's something else? because Edberg was a better mover (not sure about passing shots and defense), a better 1st returner (2nd probably goes to McEnroe), better on backhand, comparable transitioning to and being at net, comparable on stamina... the only other difference i can see is McEnroe's forehand ball striking being ahead and making him a better baseliner overall, but outside of '84 McEnroe i'm not sure how much that's even true or how much that would matter in this comparison

 

[Galvermegs]

the thing for me is that sometimes i think about Edberg and wonder whether the difference between his and McEnroe's accomplishments basically comes down to the serve or if there's something else? because Edberg was a better mover (not sure about passing shots and defense), a better 1st returner (2nd probably goes to McEnroe), better on backhand, comparable transitioning to and being at net, comparable on stamina... the only other difference i can see is McEnroe's forehand ball striking being ahead and making him a better baseliner overall, but outside of '84 McEnroe i'm not sure how much that's even true or how much that would matter in this comparison

Despite his volatile nature most of the time mcenroe was strong mentally (before his decline). He was just not someone to ever give up (the tie break at wimby 80 a prime example). I feel edberg could let some close matches slip away. Also its hard to see mcenroe not converting a lead like the swede managed in the 89 wimbledon final.

So a mixture of killer instinct and desperation not to lose separate them. Mcenroe obviously sustained a high level one season more than edberg did, but that is a double edged sword (cf wilander).

I would say the serve and forehands are big differences. Edberg could serve well but it still took a toll on him and he also still had to play a lot of points at the net. Mcenroe probably saved himself some wear and tear from having a more effective serve.

 

[thrust]

The 25-10 H2H overall suggests that Becker was in general the better player, but the 3-1 H2H in slams in Edberg’s favor (reversing the overall trend) gives you confirmation in support of your thesis.

Also, Edberg has many more weeks at #1-71-12 and YE at #1- 2-0.

 

[jrepac]

If we stick to the OP and main question then hh boris and stefan didnt meet at all 4 majors.. i would put more faith in edberg at the uso in the 90s but not the 80s where he seemed really shaky. The ao would come down to the speed of court and if the roof was closed.

If we open up indoors then it is not fair to say edberg outclassed boris.. it is the key to why their hh is so oddly skewed. And davis cup was on par with majors too and often indoors (obviously sweden and germany couldnt guarantee good weather).

all good points. Boris was a monster indoors.

 

[jrepac]

Despite his volatile nature most of the time mcenroe was strong mentally (before his decline). He was just not someone to ever give up (the tie break at wimby 80 a prime example). I feel edberg could let some close matches slip away. Also its hard to see mcenroe not converting a lead like the swede managed in the 89 wimbledon final.

So a mixture of killer instinct and desperation not to lose separate them. Mcenroe obviously sustained a high level one season more than edberg did, but that is a double edged sword (cf wilander).

I would say the serve and forehands are big differences. Edberg could serve well but it still took a toll on him and he also still had to play a lot of points at the net. Mcenroe probably saved himself some wear and tear from having a more effective serve.

Definitely serve and forehand, Mac was better. He was a lot quicker than people give him credit for. Maybe he didn't look so fast vs. guys like Borg and Connors, but he could get to the net in a heartbeat. It was scary sometimes.

 

[Galvermegs]

Also, Edberg has many more weeks at #1-71-12 and YE at #1- 2-0.

Those are nice statistics to have but like hh are still needing unpicking a lot of the time (when we are at sampras/fed/djokovic levels of dominance there is less room for debate, although still some). I dont always worry about who is the best in the computer rankings but regardless both becker and edberg are as worthy being no1 as they were stylish exponents of their brands of tennis.

There is no bonus for davis cup in rankings but no question that the german eats the swede up on that front for both breakfast and lunch.

 

[Galvermegs]

Definitely serve and forehand, Mac was better. He was a lot quicker than people give him credit for. Maybe he didn't look so fast vs. guys like Borg and Connors, but he could get to the net in a heartbeat. It was scary sometimes.

Mcenroe definitely was fast but once he declined his lack of that very footspeed cost him against a variety of big hitters. He still was always dangerous in doubles.. obviously a different sport with less ground to cover.
I cant forget that amazing passing shot on the run in the famous 1980 tiebreak.. it may not have won him the match but it did probably count in the long run for winning remaining slam meetings against the other stoic swede.

 

[thrust]

Those are nice statistics to have but like hh are still needing unpicking a lot of the time (when we are at sampras/fed/djokovic levels of dominance there is less room for debate, although still some). I dont always worry about who is the best in the computer rankings but regardless both becker and edberg are as worthy being no1 as they were stylish exponents of their brands of tennis.

There is no bonus for davis cup in rankings but no question that the german eats theB

Obviously, Becker was a bad match up for Stefan, but Edberg was a more consistent player which is why he has the superior rankings record.

 

[Galvermegs]

Obviously, Becker was a bad match up for Stefan, but Edberg was a more consistent player which is why he has the superior rankings record.

Im not just talking about that and its very hard to be both consistent and peak at the right time. I also think edbergs failure to win multiple majors in one season is significant and offsets those 2 ye no1s. Hewitt is relatively forgotten now, and he managed the same feat of getting 2 ye no1s. Although edberg was mire talented i do think a lot of pros would fancy their chances, however unlikely in reality.
If becker came out in half decent form with his aura, then it was very much different although that was more unlikely on clay.

I like both players but i make no secret of liking becker a whole lot more. His more vulnerable and goofy nature is more relatable. Its hard to stay objective when even now he is one of my few remaining tennis heroes.

 

[jrepac]

Mcenroe definitely was fast but once he declined his lack of that very footspeed cost him against a variety of big hitters. He still was always dangerous in doubles.. obviously a different sport with less ground to cover.
I cant forget that amazing passing shot on the run in the famous 1980 tiebreak.. it may not have won him the match but it did probably count in the long run for winning remaining slam meetings against the other stoic swede.

when Mac came back from his hiatus, he wasn't quite the same. I recall he did all that strength training, bulked up a bit and he seemed slower to me. His serve still had some punch, mind you, but the footspeed wasn't the same. Yet, he did get back up to #4 in the world and was still making W semis thru '92. His game really was well suited to the fast grass of the era.