Did Sampras really take the keys from Becker?

[sandy mayer]

Boris Becker has often said he owned the keys to centre court until Sampras took them from him. Let's look at the facts to see if it's true:

Becker lost 9 times at Wimbledon in his years as a top pro 1985-1997 (I won't count 96 when he retired due to injury).
He lost 3 times to Sampras, twice to Edberg, and once each to Doohan, Stich, Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Sampras was his toughest opponent at Wimbledon but 6 of his 9 losses were to other players. 5 of those losses happened before Sampras met Becker for the first time at Wimbledon. I have to say I can't see that Becker had the keys and Sampras took them off him. Becker hadn't won Wimbledon for 4 years before Sampras won for the first time in 93.

How many Wimbledon titles did Sampras cost Becker? That is hard to answer for sure. In 93 Becker lost to Sampras in the semis. But supposing Agassi had won the 5 setter he lost to Sampras and played Becker in the semis, who would have won? I say it's 50 50. I put Becker at slight favourite over Courier in the final.

Lets's go to 95. Becker lost in the final to Sampras, but Sampras edged past Ivanisevic in the semis. If Becker had faced Ivanisevic I make Ivanisevic the favourite though Becker would have had a chance.

In 97 Becker lost in the quarters to Sampras. If Becker had got past Sampras I would have favoured him to beat Woodbridge in the semis and Pioline in the final.

I think Sampras cost Becker one or two titles at Wimbledon.

I certainly don't agree that Becker lost the keys to centre court to Sampras. When Sampras turned up Becker was still one of the best grass court players in the world but very vulnerable to the likes of Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Becker never really dominated Wimbledon like Sampras at any point. Becker won 3 titles to Sampras' 7, a big difference. Coming into Wimbledon 87 I remember people saying they thought Becker would win Wimbledon many many times. He had won Wimbledon twice by 18. But then Becker lost to Doohan and only won one more title.

 

[JasonZ]

Boris Becker has often said he owned the keys to centre court until Sampras took them from him. Let's look at the facts to see if it's true:

Becker lost 9 times at Wimbledon in his years as a top pro 1985-1997 (I won't count 96 when he retired due to injury).
He lost 3 times to Sampras, twice to Edberg, and once each to Doohan, Stich, Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Sampras was his toughest opponent at Wimbledon but 6 of his 9 losses were to other players. 5 of those losses happened before Sampras met Becker for the first time at Wimbledon. I have to say I can't see that Becker had the keys and Sampras took them off him. Becker hadn't won Wimbledon for 4 years before Sampras won for the first time in 93.

How many Wimbledon titles did Sampras cost Becker? That is hard to answer for sure. In 93 Becker lost to Sampras in the semis. But supposing Agassi had won the 5 setter he lost to Sampras and played Becker in the semis, who would have won? I say it's 50 50. I put Becker at slight favourite over Courier in the final.

Lets's go to 95. Becker lost in the final to Sampras, but Sampras edged past Ivanisevic in the semis. If Becker had faced Ivanisevic I make Ivanisevic the favourite though Becker would have had a chance.

In 97 Becker lost in the quarters to Sampras. If Becker had got past Sampras I would have favoured him to beat Woodbridge in the semis and Pioline in the final.

I think Sampras cost Becker one or two titles at Wimbledon.

I certainly don't agree that Becker lost the keys to centre court to Becker. When Sampras turned up Becker was still one of the best grass court players in the world but very vulnerable to the likes of Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Becker never really dominated Wimbledon like Sampras at any point. Becker won 3 titles to Sampras' 7, a big difference. Coming into Wimbledon 87 I remember people saying they thought Becker would win Wimbledon many many times. He had won Wimbledon twice by 18. But then Becker lost to Doohan and only won one more title.

yes i agree with you. also becker clearly underperformed at wimbledon finals. should at least have won one of his 2 lost finals against against edberg, and also didnt play well against stich.

wimbledon 1995 ivanisevic was in great form and bettter than becker, and beat him in the year before, but becker was mentally superior to goran, dominated him in finals and tiebreaks. so it would be 50 - 50.

 

[Cashman]

I certainly don't agree that Becker lost the keys to centre court to Becker. When Sampras turned up Becker was still one of the best grass court players in the world but very vulnerable to the likes of Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Becker never really dominated Wimbledon like Sampras at any point.

I think you are interpreting the statement in the wrong way.

When Becker says he held the keys to Centre Court, he means that he was the gatekeeper to the title. From 1984 to 1997 - fourteen years - you essentially had to beat Boris Becker to win Wimbledon. Leaving aside his injury year, the only champions who didn't have to slay him were Cash in 1987 and Sampras in 1994.

Sampras's equivalent period ran from 1993 to 2000, and during the 1993-1997 overlap it quickly became clear that Sampras was the bigger challenge. Thus, the question shifted - no longer 'can he beat Becker?', now 'can he beat Sampras?'

To me, that is what Becker meant when he said he lost the keys - not that previously he was unbeatable, rather that he was no longer the 'final boss level'.

 

[Larry Duff]

I don't get why he didn't get a second copy made, he was rich then.

 

[sandy mayer]

I think you are interpreting the statement in the wrong way.

When Becker says he held the keys to Centre Court, he means that he was the gatekeeper to the title. From 1984 to 1997 - fourteen years - you essentially had to beat Boris Becker to win Wimbledon. Leaving aside his injury year, the only champions who didn't have to slay him were Cash in 1987 and Sampras in 1994.

Sampras's equivalent period ran from 1993 to 2000, and during the 1993-1997 overlap it quickly became clear that Sampras was the bigger challenge. Thus, the question shifted - no longer 'can he beat Becker?', now 'can he beat Sampras?'

To me, that is what Becker meant when he said he lost the keys - not that previously he was unbeatable, rather that he was no longer the 'final boss level'.

I don't agree with you on this. Here's an interview where Becker says he believed no-one could beat him at Wimbledon when he was healthy and playing well, and that centre court was his 'living room' to which he had the keys. He is saying more than 'you had to beat me to win'. He's saying he was so easily the best grass court player that he owned Wimbledon until Sampras showed up. Here's the interview: BORIS BECKER ON PETE SAMPRAS | London Real - YouTube

 

[jrepac]

I don't agree with you on this. Here's an interview where Becker says he believed no-one could beat him at Wimbledon when he was healthy and playing well, and that centre court was his 'living room' to which he had the keys. He is saying more than 'you had to beat me to win'. He's saying he was so easily the best grass court player that he owned Wimbledon until Sampras showed up. Here's the interview: BORIS BECKER ON PETE SAMPRAS | London Real - YouTube

I don't know if I'd take his statement quite so literally. I thought of it as comparable to Connors and the USO which was his 'home'. Though as you point out, perhaps Jimmy was far more consistent in reaching later rounds than Boris was. Nonetheless, Boris was almost always in the running. Of the big matches he lost, I thought the Stich one was his most dismal outing.

 

[Cashman]

I don't agree with you on this. Here's an interview where Becker says he believed no-one could beat him at Wimbledon when he was healthy and playing well, and that centre court was his 'living room' to which he had the keys. He is saying more than 'you had to beat me to win'. He's saying he was so easily the best grass court player that he owned Wimbledon until Sampras showed up. Here's the interview: BORIS BECKER ON PETE SAMPRAS | London Real - YouTube

Becker was just one of those players who always believed the tournament was on his racquet

When basically the only people who beat you in a decade and a half are other people who lift the trophy, it’s an understandable attitude

 

[jrepac]

Becker was just one of those players who always believed the tournament was on his racquet

When basically the only people who beat you in a decade and a half are other people who lift the trophy, it’s an understandable attitude

That's it, exactly. After '86, I became a believer as well. Thought he'd win more than 3, but those are the breaks. Stefan really stepped up in the late 80s

 

[dryeagle]

BB sure did underachieve in the 90 and 91 finals.

His serve was terrible vs Edberg in 90. He played like he didn’t sleep the night before, which he confirmed in his book. Stefan must have gotten nervous in sets 3 and 4; or couldn’t figure out why this was going so easy. Boris played terrible this day and Edberg should have swept him easily.

In 91, I think BB was just too exhausted. If you remember, rain wiped out most of the first week. So these guys were playing consecutive days that second week. I sensed BB was struggling getting through the likes of Bergstrom, Forget and Wheaton. And hand it to Stich, he handled the pressure better and played solid in a big spot.

 

[Herald]

Yes. Becker had the highest peak and on his day could beat anybody and ergo win the title any year. Until Pete Sampras.

 

[wangs78]

I don't agree with you on this. Here's an interview where Becker says he believed no-one could beat him at Wimbledon when he was healthy and playing well, and that centre court was his 'living room' to which he had the keys. He is saying more than 'you had to beat me to win'. He's saying he was so easily the best grass court player that he owned Wimbledon until Sampras showed up. Here's the interview: BORIS BECKER ON PETE SAMPRAS | London Real - YouTube

What Becker meant was that before Sampras, Becker felt the outcome of a match at Wimbledon was on HIS racquet. Ie, if he played well, there was nothing an opponent could do to beat him. I suppose he's indirectly saying that in his previous losses to those other opponents, he didn't play his best. In some other interview, I remember him saying that in Sampras, he recognized that Sampras's best level was better than his best level, which is consistent with what I'm saying. Saying that he held the keys at Wimbledon is just a loose metaphor - it's not to be taken too literally.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Becker then tried to sell the keys.

 

[Herald]

What Becker meant was that before Sampras, Becker felt the outcome of a match at Wimbledon was on HIS racquet. Ie, if he played well, there was nothing an opponent could do to beat him. I suppose he's indirectly saying that in his previous losses to those other opponents, he didn't play his best. In some other interview, I remember him saying that in Sampras, he recognized that Sampras's best level was better than his best level, which is consistent with what I'm saying. Saying that he held the keys at Wimbledon is just a loose metaphor - it's not to be taken too literally.

Agreed. /thread

 

[sandy mayer]

What Becker meant was that before Sampras, Becker felt the outcome of a match at Wimbledon was on HIS racquet. Ie, if he played well, there was nothing an opponent could do to beat him. I suppose he's indirectly saying that in his previous losses to those other opponents, he didn't play his best. In some other interview, I remember him saying that in Sampras, he recognized that Sampras's best level was better than his best level, which is consistent with what I'm saying. Saying that he held the keys at Wimbledon is just a loose metaphor - it's not to be taken too literally.

He didn't have his best day an awful lot then, considering he lost 6 times at Wimbledon to players other than Sampras between 1985-1997.

 

[dryeagle]

He didn't have his best day an awful lot then, considering he lost 6 times at Wimbledon to players other than Sampras between 1985-1997.

No George Bastl’s in there though

 

[Dan Lobb]

Boris Becker has often said he owned the keys to centre court until Sampras took them from him. Let's look at the facts to see if it's true:

Becker lost 9 times at Wimbledon in his years as a top pro 1985-1997 (I won't count 96 when he retired due to injury).
He lost 3 times to Sampras, twice to Edberg, and once each to Doohan, Stich, Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Sampras was his toughest opponent at Wimbledon but 6 of his 9 losses were to other players. 5 of those losses happened before Sampras met Becker for the first time at Wimbledon. I have to say I can't see that Becker had the keys and Sampras took them off him. Becker hadn't won Wimbledon for 4 years before Sampras won for the first time in 93.

How many Wimbledon titles did Sampras cost Becker? That is hard to answer for sure. In 93 Becker lost to Sampras in the semis. But supposing Agassi had won the 5 setter he lost to Sampras and played Becker in the semis, who would have won? I say it's 50 50. I put Becker at slight favourite over Courier in the final.

Lets's go to 95. Becker lost in the final to Sampras, but Sampras edged past Ivanisevic in the semis. If Becker had faced Ivanisevic I make Ivanisevic the favourite though Becker would have had a chance.

In 97 Becker lost in the quarters to Sampras. If Becker had got past Sampras I would have favoured him to beat Woodbridge in the semis and Pioline in the final.

I think Sampras cost Becker one or two titles at Wimbledon.

I certainly don't agree that Becker lost the keys to centre court to Sampras. When Sampras turned up Becker was still one of the best grass court players in the world but very vulnerable to the likes of Agassi and Ivanisevic.

Becker never really dominated Wimbledon like Sampras at any point. Becker won 3 titles to Sampras' 7, a big difference. Coming into Wimbledon 87 I remember people saying they thought Becker would win Wimbledon many many times. He had won Wimbledon twice by 18. But then Becker lost to Doohan and only won one more title.

Becker never achieved an annual World No. 1 ranking in his entire career.

 

[dryeagle]

Becker never achieved an annual World No. 1 ranking in his entire career.

True and he didn’t spend many weeks at #1 either.
But in 1989 he was clearly player of the year, winning Wimbledon, US Open and Davis Cup.

 

[Dan Lobb]

True and he didn’t spend many weeks at #1 either.
But in 1989 he was clearly player of the year, winning Wimbledon, US Open and Davis Cup.

The world No. 1 is the player of the year as far as I am concerned.

Becker may have been the best player of 1989, but he was not the No. 1.

 

[dryeagle]

The world No. 1 is the player of the year as far as I am concerned.

Becker may have been the best player of 1989, but he was not the No. 1.

He was No 1. Lendl won 10 titles including Aus, but BB won 2 grand slams both over Lend plus 7-0 in Davis Cup singles with wins over Agassi, Edberg and Wilander. Aus was not as big back then and DC was much bigger then. BB was given ITF player of the year.

Computer ranking can be a bit overrated at times. It’s ridiculous that someone can get to #1 at any point without a GS title over last 12 months - see Sampras in early 93 and Rios in 98. Plus Ferraro and Roddick in 03, yes they did win a GS but seems a bit fluke.