Did Edberg squander opportunities?

[BGod]

Stefan Edberg had a somewhat unique career on paper winning 3 Slams twice each and making a French Open Final in which he lost in 5 sets to 17 year old Michael Chang. He had 3 additional Slam Finals he lost all in Australia on hard court along with 3 additional semifinals there (again on hard court).

He also had additional semifinals 3 times at Wimbledon and twice at USO. Now his Wimbledon finals lost to Becker was standard no way he wins that, neither are his 93 or 87 semis lost to Lendl and Courier (even if he beats Lendl, Cash would destroy him).

These are the following matches he could have well won in SFs with Final aside from the FO Chang.

88 AO SF: 5 set loss to Wilander, remains to be seen how he'd play against Cash but Mats came back from 1-2 and it was an epic 5th set. Edberg beat Cash the year prior to a stronger 5 set but on grass.
91 AO SF: 5 set loss to Lendl from 2-1 and Becker won final in 4.
91 WMB SF: 4 set loss to Stich who routined Becker in the Final, Edberg lost in 3 consecutive tiebreaks from 1-0 including back to back 5-7
94 AO SF: 4 set loss to Martin which saw 3 consecutive tiebreak losses, two at 7-9, he'd face Sampras in the Final who he had a mental edge on though not so much favoured I imagine

HM: 1992 Wimbledon QF 5 set loss to Goran where I think he'd be a better match-up against Agassi than Ivanisevic was but that's my opinion. They never faced on grass but Edberg had 2-1 on indoor carpet for whatever it's worth. Just would have been interesting considering McEnroe was not at all comparable when Andre beat him in the semis if someone wants to point that out.


I personally aside from that FO (I think everyone can agree he let slip away) think the 91 AO and WMB were missed opportunities considering how the final goes and it's Becker both times. 94 is weird but I also think Edberg wins that considering he beat Sampras in straights the year prior and beat him at 93 Cincy as well but Sampras was progressing. Those tiebreaks suck bad man.

 

[jorjipy]

He has the correct number of slams….shouldn’t have won Wimbledon 88 is one example so that makes up for 91….cushy draw at the 87 Aussie ( Masur and Cash to win a slam!) makes up for possible wasted chance in 90….

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Typical weird B takes.

1991 AO/WB were possibly missed opportunities as Edberg was the better player in both semis and let them slip away, but Becker in the final would've been a tough nut to crack. 1988/94 AO Edberg was actually outplayed and did well to make it closer but winning was a tall order. (The semis of 1991 Wimbledon and 1994 AO have a similar scoreline but the actual point progression was vastly different.) I'd say 1990 USO was the worst: Edberg arrives at the tournament as the new #1 on the back of winning Wimbledon and Cincy, only to crash out in the first round. One of the most disappointing losses in his career. 1989/90 AO were the most painful for being injury-related through no fault of his own, sigh.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

He lost fair and square to Lendl in the Wimby '87 semis but why would he be destroyed by Cash in the final? He already beat Cash in the AO ´87 final on grass.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

He has the correct number of slams….shouldn’t have won Wimbledon 88 is one example so that makes up for 91….cushy draw at the 87 Aussie ( Masur and Cash to win a slam!) makes up for possible wasted chance in 90….

Why should he not have won Wimby in '88? He was the better player that day.

 

[jorjipy]

Mecir led two sets to love in the semis and demolishing Edberg……should have beaten him as he did later at the Olympics

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Mecir led two sets to love in the semis and demolishing Edberg……should have beaten him as he did later at the Olympics

Edberg won that by improving his game. Adjusted his tactics and played brilliantly in the next three sets, winning them pretty comfortably 64 63 64. It's not like he's the only player who won a match after being down 0-2. And yes, I watched that match in 1988.

 

[jorjipy]

Your opinion….I have a different view….lucky to win the final as well in my view, second set breaker went his way otherwise he was down two sets….so I stand by my assessment, lucky in 88

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Your opinion….I have a different view….lucky to win the final as well in my view, second set breaker went his way otherwise he was down two sets….so I stand by my assessment, lucky in 88

He won the tiebreak convincingly 7-2 and won the next two sets 6–4, 6–2. Not what I would call lucky.

 

[madhavan]

Nothing lucky about Wimb 88, that's how many best-of-5 matches go. Wasn't like Becker played very badly, Stefan just outplayed him. I'd say he was actually more fortunate in the Wimb 90 final where Becker missed a pretty easy high forehand volley to let Edberg break back in the 5th.

 

[big ted]

well every player has squandered opportunities except maybe sampras

 

[Mustard]

Obviously, Edberg had many more chances.

The 1987 Wimbledon semi final match against Lendl was a close and winnable match, but he lost in 4 sets

The 1988 Australian Open semi final, losing a close 5-setter to Wilander

The 1989 Australian Open R16, getting injured late in the match when he defeated Cash, and then had to withdraw before his quarter final against Muster

The 1989 French Open final, leading 2 sets to 1 against Chang, and having lots of break point opportunities in the fourth set, failing to take them and losing in 5 sets

The 1989 Wimbledon final, while Becker won 6-0, 7-6, 6-4, Edberg did break to go 6-5 up in the second set and went up 40-0 with 3 set points, before Becker won 12 of the next 13 points to go 2 sets up.

The 1990 Australian Open semi final, Edberg got an abdominal injury in the last game of a brilliant performance where he thrashed Wilander. Edberg played the final against Lendl while injured, and Edberg won the first set, also served for the second set but lost it, and Edberg retired 2-5 down in the third set

The 1991 Australian Open semi final against Lendl, Edberg had match points to win in 4 sets, and ended up losing in 5 sets.

The bizarre case of 1991 Wimbledon. Edberg, the reigning Wimbledon champion, won his first 5 matches all in straight sets to reach the semi finals. In his semi final against Stich, Edberg held serve in all 23 of his service games but lost the match anyway. Stich won 4-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, and the only break of serve was Edberg breaking Stich in the fifth game of the first set. An odd way for a champion to be dethroned, really.

1992 Wimbledon. Was the tournament favourite, but lost a classic 5-set match to Goran Ivanisevic in the quarter finals on the old Court 1.

1993 Wimbledon. Edberg had beaten Sampras at both the 1992 US Open and 1993 Australian Open. Could he have done so again had they met in the 1993 Wimbledon final? Perhaps. Instead, Courier played his best match on grass to take Edberg out in the semi finals.

Plenty of missed opportunities for Edberg, really.

 

[Mustard]

well every player has squandered opportunities except maybe sampras

He has too. The 1995 Australian Open final against Agassi was winnable. The third set tiebreak was the important bit.

 

[Mustard]

(The semis of 1991 Wimbledon and 1994 AO have a similar scoreline but the actual point progression was vastly different.)

A lot more breaks in the 1994 Australian Open semi final, despite a similar scoreline. I think Edberg broke Martin's serve 6 times, and Martin broke Edberg's serve 4 times in that match, so 10 breaks of serve. The 1991 Wimbledon semi final, by contrast, only had 1 break of serve in the entire match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

He has too. The 1995 Australian Open final against Agassi was winnable. The third set tiebreak was the important bit.

Didn't do anything wrong there though. Tough life when your first serve up set point gets returned for a winner.

 

[jorjipy]

By the rationale used on here ‘that’s how 5 set matches go’, there is no such thing as being lucky or conversely squandering….no one on here looks at the 92 US and all those fifth set wins from a break down and says that was lucky because ‘Stefan raised his game’,’Stefan changed tactics’, ‘that’s how 5 set matches go…’

Get real…..

 

[Cashman]

Edberg throughout his career was dogged by accusations that he lacked fight and rolled over too easily

As @jorjipy mentions the 1992 US Open was notable for him coming back from a break down in the fifth three matches in a row (vs Krajicek, Lend and Chang) to eventually take the title against Sampras. He spoke at the time as this being vindication against those sorts of accusations. Nonetheless as @Mustard mentions there are many cases in his career of him being in commanding positions in important matches and eventually losing.

I do think that a lot of this is a little unfair and down to the nature of being a very pure serve-and-volley player, where breaks of serve on both sides of the net are incredibly critical. Entire matches can swing on one player going off the boil for ten minutes. But certainly you can point to a number of situations where Edberg could have accrued more titles had he played a little better in a handful of key moments. Just the nature of the sport, really. It's why it takes big brass ones to serve and volley.

Fate robbed him of the 1990 Australian Open though - no way Lendl was beating a fit Edberg that day. As an Australian fan of Edberg that one still hurts.

 

[madhavan]

By the rationale used on here ‘that’s how 5 set matches go’, there is no such thing as being lucky or conversely squandering….no one on here looks at the 92 US and all those fifth set wins from a break down and says that was lucky because ‘Stefan raised his game’,’Stefan changed tactics’, ‘that’s how 5 set matches go…’

Get real…..

I don't get what you're trying to say. My point is that Wimb 88 was not some lucky win for Edberg. Becker was favored, but not to some great extent since Edberg was already an elite player who had won slams on grass and had beaten Becker several times before. Becker's grass aura was also diminished by his loss to Peter Doohan the year before. Edberg had major weapons on grass (serve, volley, speed, backhand, etc) and the only doubt was his supposed lack of fight. So nothing lucky about his win, he played better than Becker and fully deserved it. So what if the 2nd set went to a tiebreak, plenty of grass sets do.

 

[madhavan]

Edberg throughout his career was dogged by accusations that he lacked fight and rolled over too easily

As @jorjipy mentions the 1992 US Open was notable for him coming back from a break down in the fifth three matches in a row (vs Krajicek, Lend and Chang) to eventually take the title against Sampras. He spoke at the time as this being vindication against those sorts of accusations. Nonetheless as @Mustard mentions there are many cases in his career of him being in commanding positions in important matches and eventually losing.

I do think that a lot of this is a little unfair and down to the nature of being a very pure serve-and-volley player, where breaks of serve on both sides of the net are incredibly critical. Entire matches can swing on one player going off the boil for ten minutes. But certainly you can point to a number of situations where Edberg could have accrued more titles had he played a little better in a handful of key moments. Just the nature of the sport, really. It's why it takes big brass ones to serve and volley.

Fate robbed him of the 1990 Australian Open though - no way Lendl was beating a fit Edberg that day. As an Australian fan of Edberg that one still hurts.

Yes, Stefan was playing great that day before the injury. The final score (before the retirement) shows Lendl leading but that was mostly because Edberg kept going for some time after the injury.
He was playing great at the 89 AO also before he had to withdraw.

 

[jorjipy]

if you notice, I say what I want to say and I don’t quote and reply to specific messages. I think that’s the best way to be…. Say what you want, and let others have their opinion

Edberg won 5 setters in either the semis or final at the AO85, AO87, W88, W90, US92….. that’s either really impressive or an example that he got a fair amount of luck in his slam wins. You can decide…. But please don’t quote me, it’s inflammatory

 

[Mustard]

I don't get what you're trying to say. My point is that Wimb 88 was not some lucky win for Edberg. Becker was favored, but not to some great extent since Edberg was already an elite player who had won slams on grass and had beaten Becker several times before. Becker's grass aura was also diminished by his loss to Peter Doohan the year before. Edberg had major weapons on grass (serve, volley, speed, backhand, etc) and the only doubt was his supposed lack of fight. So nothing lucky about his win, he played better than Becker and fully deserved it. So what if the 2nd set went to a tiebreak, plenty of grass sets do.

If Edberg was "lucky" to win 1988 Wimbledon, it was because of the semi final against Mecir, not because of the final against Becker. Edberg beating Mecir the way he did silenced a lot of his critics.

 

[Mustard]

Edberg won that by improving his game. Adjusted his tactics and played brilliantly in the next three sets, winning them pretty comfortably 64 63 64. It's not like he's the only player who won a match after being down 0-2. And yes, I watched that match in 1988.

I thought Mecir continued to outplay Edberg in large parts of the latter sets as well.

Break point conversions per set:

1st set: Edberg 0/1, Mecir 1/1
2nd set: Edberg 1/1, Mecir 3/6
3rd set: Edberg 1/2, Mecir 0/6
4th set: Edberg 1/2, Mecir 0/6
5th set: Edberg 2/2, Mecir 1/2

Mecir's best chance to win the match was in the 7th game of the 4th set. At the time, Mecir was holding serve much more comfortably than Edberg, and Mecir missed all 4 break points that he had in that 7th game of the 4th set. Edberg broke Mecir in the next game.

In the 5th set, Mecir broke for a 3-1 lead, and then Edberg broke right back. Edberg gutsed it out, found a way to win.

 

[jorjipy]

Well done, Mustard, those stats confirmed my recollections of the match….Mecir was the much better player throughout the match….it was exasperating to watch as a Mecir fan.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Well done, Mustard, those stats confirmed my recollections of the match….Mecir was the much better player throughout the match….it was exasperating to watch as a Mecir fan.

Edberg was a bigger fighter than most credit him for. He had a five setter against Mecir in Davis Cup that year as well where he had to fight really hard to come out on top. He said later that he preferred to win those two matches instead of the one at the olympics which he lost. He said it before the Davis Cup final though, where Germany took the win. On clay. In Sweden. Both Wilander and Edberg were out of form by then.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

By the rationale used on here ‘that’s how 5 set matches go’, there is no such thing as being lucky or conversely squandering….no one on here looks at the 92 US and all those fifth set wins from a break down and says that was lucky because ‘Stefan raised his game’,’Stefan changed tactics’, ‘that’s how 5 set matches go…’

Get real…..

It's like just your opinion, man. Doesn't really make it facts. Most facts point to Edberg being a pretty deserved Wimbledon 1988 champion.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

I don't get what you're trying to say. My point is that Wimb 88 was not some lucky win for Edberg. Becker was favored, but not to some great extent since Edberg was already an elite player who had won slams on grass and had beaten Becker several times before. Becker's grass aura was also diminished by his loss to Peter Doohan the year before. Edberg had major weapons on grass (serve, volley, speed, backhand, etc) and the only doubt was his supposed lack of fight. So nothing lucky about his win, he played better than Becker and fully deserved it. So what if the 2nd set went to a tiebreak, plenty of grass sets do.

Yeah, and he won that tiebreak 7-2. Becker was never close to winning that one.

 

[jorjipy]

Polemicist

 

[helterskelter]

Typical weird B takes.

1991 AO/WB were possibly missed opportunities as Edberg was the better player in both semis and let them slip away, but Becker in the final would've been a tough nut to crack. 1988/94 AO Edberg was actually outplayed and did well to make it closer but winning was a tall order. (The semis of 1991 Wimbledon and 1994 AO have a similar scoreline but the actual point progression was vastly different.) I'd say 1990 USO was the worst: Edberg arrives at the tournament as the new #1 on the back of winning Wimbledon and Cincy, only to crash out in the first round. One of the most disappointing losses in his career. 1989/90 AO were the most painful for being injury-related through no fault of his own, sigh.

I think Edberg would have been favorite against Becker in both 91 finals. Yeah, yeah, I'm a bias Edberg fan. But, seriously, I say this because while his overall head to head against Becker was terrible, it was good in slams, and he was generally in better form at both events, especially Wimbledon (where he hadn't dropped a set until the Stich semis). Stich beat Becker much more easily than he beat Edberg. And while Becker did beat Lendl, it was no easier for him than the Edberg win would have been had he closed it out at 4-6 7-5 6-3 6-4.

Agreed on 88 and 94 AO, especially 88. And, anyway, 94 he would not have won the final.

Yes, 1990 US Open is a big missed opportunity. Should have made the final. Ordinarily would probably be 50-50 against Agassi but Agassi had problems in slam finals in those days. Who knows though?

Don't see any mention of the 89 RG final, which is interesting. Had several break points that would have left him serving for it at 1-6 6-3 6-4 5-4. And the 1-6 first set is a balls-up in and of itself. Takes a special player to make the channel slam finals back to back and lose one first set 1-6 and the other first set 0-6.

By the way, I also don't agree with the OP that Cash would have crushed him in the 87 Wimbledon final. Probably Cash slight favourite, but an easy win not at all likely.

 

[helterskelter]

He also had additional semifinals 3 times at Wimbledon and twice at USO. Now his Wimbledon finals lost to Becker was standard no way he wins that, neither are his 93 or 87 semis lost to Lendl and Courier (even if he beats Lendl, Cash would destroy him).

Don't know I agree about 87. I do agree about 93 - the Courier loss was a bad loss but it was pretty one-sided after the first set and Sampras was waiting in the final. Even with Edberg having beaten him at the 92 US Open and the 93 Australian Open (while injured on the second occasion and still a straight sets win), Sampras would probably have won that easily.

But Edberg was playing very well in 87 and I think that at least the SF was a lost opportunity. Serving at 6-3 4-5 he was up 40-0 but dropped serve. Then had opportunities in the third set tiebreak. And I don't think Cash would have been more than slight favorite in the final.

Even in 89, he was up 6-5 40-0 on serve in the second set, before dropping 12 points out of 13 and five straight on serve to lose the tiebreak 7-1. Sure, Becker would probably have won in four even if it went to 6-0 5-7, but there are lost opportunities in many matches for many players.

 

[Mustard]

It's like just your opinion, man. Doesn't really make it facts. Most facts point to Edberg being a pretty deserved Wimbledon 1988 champion.

Of course Edberg deserved it. Regarding the semi final, it's some achievement to win a match where you were largely outplayed, when people said that you tended to mentally fold in such situations. Mecir had beaten Edberg at Wimbledon before as well, in 1986. Mecir played so well for so long in the 1988 semi final, but was guilty in the end of not striking the killer blow, as not even going up 3-1 in the fifth set, after all those previous missed break points, was that. Edberg dug deeper at that moment, while Mecir suddenly seemed flatter, as if finally getting that break for 3-1 in the fifth set had taken a lot of wind out of his sails.

 

[BGod]

Don't know I agree about 87. I do agree about 93 - the Courier loss was a bad loss but it was pretty one-sided after the first set and Sampras was waiting in the final. Even with Edberg having beaten him at the 92 US Open and the 93 Australian Open (while injured on the second occasion and still a straight sets win), Sampras would probably have won that easily.

But Edberg was playing very well in 87 and I think that at least the SF was a lost opportunity. Serving at 6-3 4-5 he was up 40-0 but dropped serve. Then had opportunities in the third set tiebreak. And I don't think Cash would have been more than slight favorite in the final.

Even in 89, he was up 6-5 40-0 on serve in the second set, before dropping 12 points out of 13 and five straight on serve to lose the tiebreak 7-1. Sure, Becker would probably have won in four even if it went to 6-0 5-7, but there are lost opportunities in many matches for many players.

Just from everything I've seen Cash was deep in the zone for that Wimbledon run is all.

As for 93 Wimbledon, Courier did have a legit chance to beat Pete in that final while having serious limitations and not much of any edge while Sampras did so if it got tight and Edberg goes up 2-1 for example I think he ends it.

 

[bluetrain4]

IF the standard for squandering opportunities is losing in five sets or an otherwise close match, then nearly every player has squandered opportunities.

 

[andreh]

IF the standard for squandering opportunities is losing in five sets or an otherwise close match, then nearly every player has squandered opportunities.

Good answer. Edberg may have had a bit of bad luck. The injuries at the AO comes to mind. The rest is just tennis.

 

[GuyForget]

Don't know I agree about 87. I do agree about 93 - the Courier loss was a bad loss but it was pretty one-sided after the first set and Sampras was waiting in the final. Even with Edberg having beaten him at the 92 US Open and the 93 Australian Open (while injured on the second occasion and still a straight sets win), Sampras would probably have won that easily.

But Edberg was playing very well in 87 and I think that at least the SF was a lost opportunity. Serving at 6-3 4-5 he was up 40-0 but dropped serve. Then had opportunities in the third set tiebreak. And I don't think Cash would have been more than slight favorite in the final.

Even in 89, he was up 6-5 40-0 on serve in the second set, before dropping 12 points out of 13 and five straight on serve to lose the tiebreak 7-1. Sure, Becker would probably have won in four even if it went to 6-0 5-7, but there are lost opportunities in many matches for many players.

err Jim beat Stefan at AO92

 

[jorjipy]

He meant the Wimbledon 93 loss to Courier

and when he says ‘even having beaten him at the 93AO etc….’ he is referring to Edberg beating Sampras.

 

[helterskelter]

err Jim beat Stefan at AO92

Yes, he did. Also a disappointing defeat for Edberg. I said nothing to dispute that. Here's my post to which you replied, edited with names instead of pronouns:

"Don't know I agree about 87. I do agree about 93 - the Courier loss was a bad loss but it was pretty one-sided after the first set and Sampras was waiting in the final. Even with Edberg having beaten SAMPRAS at the 92 US Open and the 93 Australian Open (while injured on the second occasion and still a straight sets win), Sampras would probably have won that easily.

But Edberg was playing very well in 87 and I think that at least the SF was a lost opportunity. Serving at 6-3 4-5 EDBERG was up 40-0 but dropped serve. Then had opportunities in the third set tiebreak. And I don't think Cash would have been more than slight favorite in the final.

Even in 89, EDBERG was up 6-5 40-0 on serve in the second set, before dropping 12 points out of 13 and five straight on serve to lose the tiebreak 7-1. Sure, Becker would probably have won in four even if it went to 6-0 5-7, but there are lost opportunities in many matches for many players."

To sum up, the matches and tournaments I discussed were:

1. Wimbledon 1987: Edberg lost to Lendl 6-3 4-6 6-7 4-6 in the semis. Lendl then lost to Cash 6-7 2-6 5-7 in the final. My claim was that Edberg would have had a decent shot against Cash in the final.
2. Wimbledon 1993: Edberg lost to Courier 6-4 4-6 2-6 4-6 in the semis. Courier then lost to Sampras 6-7 6-7 6-3 3-6 in the final. I agreed that Edberg would have had a very slim chance against Sampras in the final.
3. Wimbledon 1989: Edberg lost to Becker 0-6 6-7 4-6 in the final. I pointed out that he led 6-5 and served for the second set, went 40-0 up, but then dropped five points in a row to drop serve and then lost the tiebreak 1-7.

 

[bluetrain4]

The only big "squander" was the 1990 AO final he had to retire from vs. Lendl. He finished with an overall winning h2h vs. Lendl and he had won the first set. of course it's all speculation, but uninjured, I assume he "could" have won. But is that even a squandered opportunity since it was largely out of his control? "Missed" opportunity may be more accurate.

I don't know what the standard is for "squander." If it's just simply that a player loses to an opponent they've beaten before and had a lead at some point or the match was very close overall, then lots of players squander lots of opportunities. He did have those other five-set losses at Slams, but doesn't everyone?

 

[jorjipy]

There’s a couple of H2H that are very flattering for one player because they never played on clay…..not even once. There is an obvious winner if they had played 5 times, say, on clay but they never did

Borg- McEnroe and Lendl -Edberg…..so Edberg finishing with a winning head to head against Lendl is rather misleading, they always played on a surface that suited Edberg….

 

[bluetrain4]

It's not that flattering - he only finished 14-13 ahead of Lendl. He beat him enough on hard courts and indoors, where Lendl was great, to not make the h2h overly "flattering." And Lendl wasn't some schlub on grass even it wasn't his best surface.

 

[jorjipy]

Yes yes yes. You are right. Not playing on clay made no difference one iota to the end head to head….. of course. I mean Edberg was fantastic on clay…. He might have even extended his lead if some matches had been on clay

what was I thinking!

 

[BGod]

IF the standard for squandering opportunities is losing in five sets or an otherwise close match, then nearly every player has squandered opportunities.

The only big "squander" was the 1990 AO final he had to retire from vs. Lendl. He finished with an overall winning h2h vs. Lendl and he had won the first set. of course it's all speculation, but uninjured, I assume he "could" have won. But is that even a squandered opportunity since it was largely out of his control? "Missed" opportunity may be more accurate.

I don't know what the standard is for "squander." If it's just simply that a player loses to an opponent they've beaten before and had a lead at some point or the match was very close overall, then lots of players squander lots of opportunities. He did have those other five-set losses at Slams, but doesn't everyone?

Of course every player has those matches but I'm looking more at chokes just didn't want to title thread "Edberg greatest chokejobs".

Some legacy players have very few. Like Sampras. Edberg with 6 Slams had a great career but I look at the 6-8 Slam group being separated by very thin margins.

 

[Otacon]

Stich was too good throughout Wim 91 (apart from his match against Volkov), I don't think Edberg deserved more.

 

[Mustard]

Stich was too good throughout Wim 91 (apart from his match against Volkov), I don't think Edberg deserved more.

A harsh way for the reigning champion to go out, though. Edberg hadn't dropped a set in reaching the semis, held serve in all 23 of his service games against Stich and still lost the match. It came down to things like Edberg doing 2 double faults from a mini break up in the second set tiebreak, and Edberg doing a horrendous overhead miss when set point down in the third set tiebreak. Edberg and Stich were almost like clones with their playing styles during the match too, and it must have been unnerving for Edberg. In the first set and early in the second set, Edberg clearly had the momentum edge. From then until late in the third set, it felt like Edberg had the slight momentum edge, but then Edberg had to save a 0-40 service game and once he lost the third set tiebreak the feeling was that Edberg was now in trouble. Edberg continued to hold serve throughout the fourth set as well, but it wasn't enough.

I think Stich perhaps went that slightly extra level to get the job done at the key moments, especially in the fourth set tiebreak where he was really inspired.

 

[helterskelter]

Does anyone know how many times Edberg dropped serve in Wimbledon 91? Famously zero v Stich. But once v McEnroe in a 76 61 64 win (IIRC, he was down 13 or 03 in the third set), and ATP says once v Van Rensburg in a 61 63 62 win. No stats for the QF v Champion and I can’t remember.

 

[Gizo]

Does anyone know how many times Edberg dropped serve in Wimbledon 91? Famously zero v Stich. But once v McEnroe in a 76 61 64 win (IIRC, he was down 13 or 03 in the third set), and ATP says once v Van Rensburg in a 61 63 62 win. No stats for the QF v Champion and I can’t remember.

In his QF against Champion he was broken once, when serving at *3-2 up in the 3rd set, after double-faulting and then hitting a forehand volley long from 30-30. That was the only break point that he faced during the match, after previously looking untroubled on serve.

Against Stich, in his 23 service games he only even faced break points in one of them, when he came from 0-40 down to hold at 5-5 in the 3rd set.

 

[jrepac]

I liked Stefan. His game was pretty to watch. Maybe a smoother version of Mac's style. But there were times where he just seemed checked out. Particularly at the USO...the '89 debacle vs. Connors (which I can give him a pass on, it was Connors after all) and then the 1990 match vs. Volkov which I saw in person. Absolutely dreadful performance; he was practically sleep walking through it. At that point I figure, he'll never win at the USO. Then he pulls off 2 titles back to back! Crazy! Would be nice to see someone play that style in 2024, at least on grass maybe.

 

[Mustard]

That was a bizarre match, i.e. Connors vs. Edberg at the 1989 US Open. Edberg is obvious favourite at that time, and goes 2-0 up in the first set, but then Connors wins the set 6-2. Connors goes berserk with the umpire early in the second set, with vulgar language about masturbation, and gets 3 quick warnings in succession (meaning warning, point penalty and game penalty), with Connors down 0-2 in the second set because of the game penalty. Connors now has to be on his best behaviour or he gets disqualified. Connors still wins the second set 6-3, and then breezes through the third set 6-1 to win the match.

At the start of 1990, the rules were changed to "warning-point penalty-default" instead of the previous "warning-point penalty-game penalty-default", which caught McEnroe out at the 1990 Australian Open against Pernfors.

 

[NedStark]

He won the right number of Slams for his level, if not overachieving.

I mean, Becker should have won at least 2 out of 3 Slam matches against Edberg that he lost.

 

[JasonZ]

He won the right number of Slams for his level, if not overachieving.

I mean, Becker should have won at least 2 out of 3 Slam matches against Edberg that he lost.

yeah, becker also said that the 1990 wimby finalis his most bitter loss.

 

[NedStark]

yeah, becker also said that the 1990 wimby finalis his most bitter loss.

And the 1989 FO SF as well. Boris would have certainly torched Chang in the final.