AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
I wonder when it got changed back, since 'warning-point penalty-game penalty-default' is the scheme now again.
Did Edberg squander opportunities?
- Thread starter BGod
- Start date
roysid
Legend
Becker was leading 3-1 in fifth set and that volley would have made it 4-1 with 2 breaks
A truly unusual match. Not so much that Connors won, as he was still a highly ranked player, but that Edberg played so poorly on top of it all. Night match, USO, Connors, certainly a tough challenge for him. But, his game was just not there, Connors smelled blood, got on a roll and Stefan was not able to rebound. Those last few months of '89 were quite good for Jimmy (his last 2 titles), before his wrist blew out in '90.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I would say the most obvious ones were.
89 French obviously
91 Australian- He had match point vs Lendl in the semis. IMO likely beats Becker in the final had he won, although not for sure.
91 Wimbledon- he mostly outplayed Stich in a high quality match, but lost the important points in the tiebreaks, couldn't convert on key points to break the sets he lost, etc... I am sure he beats a lackluster Becker in the final.
I would say Australia 90, which he should have won hands down in the form he was in, but got injured, so that isn't really his fault. 92 and 93 Australian Open finals his chances were also hurt by injuries, again beyond his control.
I would not say Wimbledon 92 when he was 3 wins away, and all 3 were legitimate opponents- Ivanisevic (who he lost to), Sampras (who isn't a total gimme, even in 92), Agassi. Even if you could argue Edberg is favored in all 3 matches, so obviously could have gone through the draw possibly, I don't agree with the principle of saying an event you are 3 wins away, and none is a certain win, as this big missed opportunity.
I think it is very unlikely he beats Sampras at the 94 Australian Open anyway.
90 US Open he should have probably won in the form he came in with, but he ultimately lost 1st round, so it would be silly to name this.
And before his win at Wimbledon 88 he wasn't that strong mentally in big matches, so I am not even going to bother much with any before that point.
89 French obviously
91 Australian- He had match point vs Lendl in the semis. IMO likely beats Becker in the final had he won, although not for sure.
91 Wimbledon- he mostly outplayed Stich in a high quality match, but lost the important points in the tiebreaks, couldn't convert on key points to break the sets he lost, etc... I am sure he beats a lackluster Becker in the final.
I would say Australia 90, which he should have won hands down in the form he was in, but got injured, so that isn't really his fault. 92 and 93 Australian Open finals his chances were also hurt by injuries, again beyond his control.
I would not say Wimbledon 92 when he was 3 wins away, and all 3 were legitimate opponents- Ivanisevic (who he lost to), Sampras (who isn't a total gimme, even in 92), Agassi. Even if you could argue Edberg is favored in all 3 matches, so obviously could have gone through the draw possibly, I don't agree with the principle of saying an event you are 3 wins away, and none is a certain win, as this big missed opportunity.
I think it is very unlikely he beats Sampras at the 94 Australian Open anyway.
90 US Open he should have probably won in the form he came in with, but he ultimately lost 1st round, so it would be silly to name this.
And before his win at Wimbledon 88 he wasn't that strong mentally in big matches, so I am not even going to bother much with any before that point.
Yes, '89 French was another lost opportunity. I actually thought he'd pull that one out.
Also, Stefan was dominating Lendl in an AO final and had to withdraw due to a serious injury.
I would say Edberg's balance sheet is pretty even. As others have noted, there were some Majors he could have/should have won.
OTOH, there were some Majors he won that he easily could have lost:
So, yeah, there were some squandered opportunities by Stefan, but also some gutsy matches to take 4/6 Majors he won.
OTOH, there were some Majors he won that he easily could have lost:
1985 Australian Open: In the SF, Edberg faced a more experienced Lendl, who was coming off a win at the U.S. Open, his second Major title. Meanwhile, this was Edberg's first Major SF. Edberg was able to eke out a win 9-7 in the fifth set before taking the title against Wilander in the final.
1987 Australian Open: In the final, Edberg coughed up a two set lead against Cash but was able to break early in the fifth set. With Edberg seeming to visibly tire, Cash collected break points in two different games but squandered them with mostly bad play, rather than Edberg really stepping up.
1990 Wimbledon: He was down 2-1 in sets to Mansdorf, who held with more ease during most of the fifth set before Edberg pulled out a 9-7 win. Of course, we all know about the final, where Becker came from 2-0 down in sets before being up a break in the fifth set, with Edberg eventually coming back.
1992 U.S. Open: A point here or there and he loses the five set matches he won against Lendl and Chang. Not sure how close he was to losing the five set win he had over Krajicek. In the final, Sampras served for a 2-1 set lead before Edberg broke and won in four sets.
So, yeah, there were some squandered opportunities by Stefan, but also some gutsy matches to take 4/6 Majors he won.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Why "should"? They played the matches. I can see people saying "well, Becker had that huge lead in the h2h." But, I'd argue that if Becker can otherwise manage that sort of H2H but can only manage one Slam win out of four, then there really is no "should." Edberg won 2/3 of his Wimbledon matches against Becker, 3/4 of his Slam matches, but I wouldn't say he "should" have beat Becker in their remaining Slam match.
Last edited:
I AGREE!
I remember that...I was really bummed, because I felt he could have won
all gutsy wins....tho' I really felt bad for Cash, I must say :-(
ME TOO!
Vincent-C
Legend
Please don't mention that final. Arrghh.
Vincent-C
Legend
It's hard to see Eddy as "squandering" opportunities when you simply look
at how he did v Becker overall, compared to in Majors. Eddy- one of
my favorites- might have snuck in another Major, or two. I think he dun real good, myself
(though that FO loss to Chang sticks in my craw).
at how he did v Becker overall, compared to in Majors. Eddy- one of
my favorites- might have snuck in another Major, or two. I think he dun real good, myself
(though that FO loss to Chang sticks in my craw).
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Lendl led by an early break in the fifth set in that 1985 Australian Open semi final against Edberg. I watched this match a while back, and found it one of the best Lendl vs. Edberg matches that I've seen for entertainment value. Lendl had won his previous 31 matches in a row, dating back to the start of the 1985 US Open, so Lendl hadn't lost a match since the 1985 Canadian Open final in Montreal against McEnroe.
I know Krajicek led by a break in the fifth set against Edberg during their 1992 US Open fourth round match.
Hard Court
Rookie
Edberg certainly managed to escape a lot of tough close calls in winning the US Open that time.
I don't think he "squandered" opportunities more than others.
In an era with a ton of depth He was 6-5 in finals,11-8 in semifinals, 19-7 in quarterfinal matches. Statistically speaking, that isn't blowing it.
On clay at the French open, he managed to make it all the way to the final and the 5th set of the match.
Sure, you can he should not have lost to this guy or that guy in a given tournament. There were others who were better. but he was not a guy that should be pointed out for blowing it too many times.
I don't think he "squandered" opportunities more than others.
In an era with a ton of depth He was 6-5 in finals,11-8 in semifinals, 19-7 in quarterfinal matches. Statistically speaking, that isn't blowing it.
On clay at the French open, he managed to make it all the way to the final and the 5th set of the match.
Sure, you can he should not have lost to this guy or that guy in a given tournament. There were others who were better. but he was not a guy that should be pointed out for blowing it too many times.
Becker had a break lead in 5th set in their 1989 FO and 1990 Wimbledon matches (especially in their Wimbledon match, Becker bungled his break lead by missing an easy putaway volley). Even in their 1988 Wimbledon match, Becker had a set lead and the second set went to tiebreak.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
And? Players miss shots all the time, sometimes in big moments. Edberg himself has done it. Players lose breaks. Edberg himself has done it. None of this makes me think that the missed shot/lost break player "should" have won.
BUT, Becker didn't make the volley and lost the match fair and square. DEAL WITH IT!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The fifth set of the 1990 Wimbledon final was Becker's own fault. He admitted later that he was thinking of what he'd say in his victory speech after he won! His preparation was bad all round, from the sleeping pill disaster (he woke up close to midday!), a poor start, and then the wrong frame of mind in the fifth set. A year earlier was Becker with the perfect attitude going into the 1989 Wimbledon final, a fast start, responding to adversity late in the second set with the perfect response, and then bossing the third set also.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
i think he did about right for his game, results-wise.
huge hypothetical though, he chose a very specific play style early on, kicking the serves, the conti forehand etc...he was an exceptional athlete, and my guess is if he had adopted a more traditional game he might have won even more with that speed, balance, and those hands.
huge hypothetical though, he chose a very specific play style early on, kicking the serves, the conti forehand etc...he was an exceptional athlete, and my guess is if he had adopted a more traditional game he might have won even more with that speed, balance, and those hands.
That was my response to people who lamented Edberg’s losses in FO 1989, AO 1990, AO 1991, Wimbledon 1991.
And I disagree that Edberg would have beaten Becker in AO 1991 and even Wimbledon 1991.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I think Edberg losing to Stich at 1991 Wimbledon completely threw Becker. Becker was mentally preparing for a fourth Wimbledon final in a row against Edberg, and was then suddenly faced with facing a fellow German in Stich in a Wimbledon final instead, which became a nightmare for Becker on the day.
Worse, that Stich loss derailed Becker’s career.
I mean, up until the Wimbledon 1991 final, we were expecting the coming of “the Becker years” - as Becker had been posting strong and consistent results in big events since FO 1989 and just won AO earlier that year - and he was already a 5-time Slam winner at like 23.
After the loss, despite climbing to No.1, he was never the same again until Wimbledon 1995. Becker started crashing out early, beginning with the Paul Harhuis loss in USO 1991 and then Courier jumped ahead of him by year end.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yeah, Becker did have some high moments afterwards, like late 1992-early 1993 under Bresnik's coaching, or the odd tournament here and there (like the 1992 Brussels final win over Courier in 5 sets), but the general trend was down after 1991 Wimbledon until around 1995 Monte Carlo or thereabouts.
At that stage of the match, I certainly expected Becker to win. I guess he did too, which was his undoing.
