Djokovic vs Becker vs Edberg vs Wilander
- Thread starter bahamasboy32
- Start date
It appears that the points-awarded system would have changed at some time in the early 1990s. For example, Edberg received 536 points for winning Wimbledon 1990, whereas Sampras received 787 for the same feat in 1994, a difference too great, in my opinion, to be made up by bonus points. I would be surprised if you could find some examples of non-Masters events scoring higher than Masters events beyond the first few years of the 90s.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
I excluded all events except Majors in making my list. Too much difference now to include them IMO. Should I have included that?
I agree Djokovic prob should not be in this discussion currently. Man these 3 are so close in achievements they are basically equal IMO.
I agree Djokovic prob should not be in this discussion currently. Man these 3 are so close in achievements they are basically equal IMO.
Another great difference was that during the 80s and 90s, top players need not to do well in all the Masters Series because they were not mandatory. A top player could skip (or lose early) in any one Masters-Series but later could win two other tournaments that would give him more points (the two combined) than a title in that Master-Series he skipped (or lost early). There were no 0-pointer for skipping a Masters-Series, neither a first or second round defeat had to compute in his ranking.
It makes a whole of a difference.
For example, a player like Kafelnikov was nº1 and he never won a Masters-Series, but the thing is that when he was nº1 he had obtained more points than many other players that won Masters-Series tournaments.
Prior to 2000 the Masters-Series results were not very indicative of how good or bad a season was for a given player.
Not even the four GS results were very indicative. Normally only one third of total points (or even less) for a given top player were from the sum of the four GS events. The other two thirds were from many other tournaments (Masters-Series + the rest of tournaments) and even in this two thirds, the Masters-Series points obtained was, many times, the small part.
It makes a whole of a difference.
For example, a player like Kafelnikov was nº1 and he never won a Masters-Series, but the thing is that when he was nº1 he had obtained more points than many other players that won Masters-Series tournaments.
Prior to 2000 the Masters-Series results were not very indicative of how good or bad a season was for a given player.
Not even the four GS results were very indicative. Normally only one third of total points (or even less) for a given top player were from the sum of the four GS events. The other two thirds were from many other tournaments (Masters-Series + the rest of tournaments) and even in this two thirds, the Masters-Series points obtained was, many times, the small part.
Thank you for explaining why it is worthless to try and compare Masters titles of current players to players before 2000.
For example:
In 1996 Sampras was Year-End-Nº1 with 4865 points:
1757 of those points came from GS tournaments.
731 of those points came from Masters-Series tournaments.
2377 of those points (the rest) came from the rest of tournaments.
It was computed simply your 14 best results (in terms of points per tournament).
That same year, Michael Chang was Year-End-Nº2 with 3597 points:
1294 of those points came from GS tournaments.
1162 of those points came from Masters-Series tournaments.
1141 of those points (the rest) came from the rest of tournaments.
You can see that in those years, under that ranking system, the Masters-Series did NOT have much importance for the ranking of a player.
In fact Michael Chang did quite better than Sampras in Masters-Series tournaments that year (1162 points versus "only" 731 points from Sampras), but Sampras not only did quite better than Chang in GS tournaments ( 1757 points versus 1294 points from Chang), but he also did much much better than Chang in the rest of other tournaments ( 2377 points versus 1141 points from Chang).
Almost half of the total points ( 2377 out of 4865 ) from Sampras that year came from non-GS-non-Masters-Series tournaments.
Under the current ranking system that is TOTALLY impossible to happen.
In the current system the M-1000 tournaments are mandatory (if you skip it, you get a 0 point, if you lose in the first round, you get ver few points that do compute to your ranking), and they earn 1000 points versus 500 or 250 of the rest of tournaments.
That is why today players do fight very seriously in every M-1000 tournament, because today it is really really important for their ranking.
During the 90s, 80s, 70s it was TOTALLY different, you could earn much more points (in total, combined) in the rest of other tournaments as this 1996 example clearly shows.
Hope this help to make people understand why comparing achievements across different eras is senseless.
In 1996 Sampras was Year-End-Nº1 with 4865 points:
1757 of those points came from GS tournaments.
731 of those points came from Masters-Series tournaments.
2377 of those points (the rest) came from the rest of tournaments.
It was computed simply your 14 best results (in terms of points per tournament).
That same year, Michael Chang was Year-End-Nº2 with 3597 points:
1294 of those points came from GS tournaments.
1162 of those points came from Masters-Series tournaments.
1141 of those points (the rest) came from the rest of tournaments.
You can see that in those years, under that ranking system, the Masters-Series did NOT have much importance for the ranking of a player.
In fact Michael Chang did quite better than Sampras in Masters-Series tournaments that year (1162 points versus "only" 731 points from Sampras), but Sampras not only did quite better than Chang in GS tournaments ( 1757 points versus 1294 points from Chang), but he also did much much better than Chang in the rest of other tournaments ( 2377 points versus 1141 points from Chang).
Almost half of the total points ( 2377 out of 4865 ) from Sampras that year came from non-GS-non-Masters-Series tournaments.
Under the current ranking system that is TOTALLY impossible to happen.
In the current system the M-1000 tournaments are mandatory (if you skip it, you get a 0 point, if you lose in the first round, you get ver few points that do compute to your ranking), and they earn 1000 points versus 500 or 250 of the rest of tournaments.
That is why today players do fight very seriously in every M-1000 tournament, because today it is really really important for their ranking.
During the 90s, 80s, 70s it was TOTALLY different, you could earn much more points (in total, combined) in the rest of other tournaments as this 1996 example clearly shows.
Hope this help to make people understand why comparing achievements across different eras is senseless.
Thanks again for clarifying. I knew it was pointless to compare, but did not know how to explain it in the detail that you have.
Kafelnikov achieved his high rankings by playing a large number of events. Had he played 18-20 (or fewer) annually as Sampras or Agassi typically did, he usually wouldn't have been a Top 10.
Other players achieved high ranking even though they failed in the majors or masters. Thomas Muster, in 1993, had a record of 77-21, with seven tournament wins, which at first glance, would suggest a Top 5 finish at worst. All of the Ws came on clay, but all of them were relatively minor events. Equally revealing is the fact that from all of those 77 match wins, he defeated just one Top 10 player, a surprisingly low total.
Sorry for straying off topic. Those who claim that the Masters had little impact on the achievements of the players who had most of their success in the 1980s or early 1990s appear to be correct.
bahamasboy32
Banned
Why are people putting Wilander so low. The guy had a 3 slam year, had super longevity as a top player, and beat Lendl in slam finals on 3 different surfaces. He also won multiple slams on all 3 surfaces, a feat only he and Nadal have ever managed. He should be 1st probably, even though I put Becker over him. No way he is below Edberg for instance, or probably Djokovic yet either.
bahamasboy32
Banned
Too he is the only one with 7 slams. Only 1 slam difference but I think that is a big difference as he joins a huge group of legends with 7-8 slams: McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, Rosewall, Cochet, LaCoos, Perry, the oldies who share the all time U.S Open and Wimbledon records with 7, Newcombe. The 6 group is much smaller and far less glamorized than this one.
So comparison is impossible and worthless?
I thought the subject of the thread was comparing Djokovic with Becker, Edberg and Wilander.
So are you are saying the thread is pointless?
In my view - the 2000 break off isn't an impossible barrier to breach. People all the time talk about Agassi's 17 Masters 1000's - and he earned most (though not all of them before 2000) - they don't put a * next to it.
Top 9 events
Regardless of the points offered - are we able to come up with a list of the top 9 events every year (outside of slams and season end finals) from 1968/1969 to 1989 - realising that they change from year to year? Once that list is agreed on -we can look at players wins in those events.
Regardless of the points offered - are we able to come up with a list of the top 9 events every year (outside of slams and season end finals) from 1968/1969 to 1989 - realising that they change from year to year? Once that list is agreed on -we can look at players wins in those events.
I didn't say that it was impossible to compare the players or that this thread was pointless. I said that the analysis used by one poster to compare the players was worthless.
Nobody can take away the Masters that he earned, but you can't say that he would have won the same number if the ranking system had been the same as is now in the 1990s. If that had been the case, he likely would have entered more of the Masters tournaments and won a significantly lower percentage of them since he would have faced tougher competition in them.
Last edited:
Not true because now the top 9 events now have close to a slam level of competition with nearly all top players entering. The events were more balanced before 2000, so the top 9 would not have had the same level of competition. Also, each individual player would likely have not entered as many of the top 9 events prior to 2000.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Putting Becker over Edberg and Wilander is a rather idiosyncratic choice. It's true that he had the head-to-head, but he never got a year end #1 (yeah, yeah, he should have done in 1989: he didn't), whereas they both did, and Edberg got 2. Wilander had an extra Slam. Edberg made the final of all four Slams. Edberg won tournaments on clay and Wilander on grass; Becker never got one on clay.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I don't think Edberg was very consistent. Remember that, in 1990, he made the final of two of the Slams (winning one and probably winning the other had he just thought to have a pain-killing cortizone injection prior to the match, even if it would have kept him out injured for months) but losing in the first round of the other two.
John Feinstein got this right in hard courts: Edberg looked very laconic and as though he were asleep half the time. But in fact his emotions was as variable as Becker, and both needed to feel the emotional intensity to be able to perform at their best.
Lendl was much more the model of consistency.
Edberg's year end #1 in 1990 was an epic joke. First round loser at 2 different slams. Had he won a 2nd major event it wouldnt matter, but he didnt. Year end #1s should really be one for both of them.
Becker has a way better record at the YEC (and we know how much you Federer fanboys love the YEC, and it was way more prestigious back then than it is today) than either Edberg or Wilander. Better than Djokovic as well. 3 titles and an astonishing 8 finals. Wilander's YEC record is as dire as Nadal's with 0 titles and only 1 final in fact.
Becker's Wimbledon record with not only 3 titles but an incredible 7 finals, and that he has 49 tour titles which is by far the most is more than sufficient to rank him #1 of this group. Only Djokovic would have a real case to be above him. Edberg who was owned by Becker in head to head, has less tournament titles, a much weaker YEC record, and whose only edge is the bogus year end rankings of both 1989 and 1990? Not a chance.
Becker has a way better record at the YEC (and we know how much you Federer fanboys love the YEC, and it was way more prestigious back then than it is today) than either Edberg or Wilander. Better than Djokovic as well. 3 titles and an astonishing 8 finals. Wilander's YEC record is as dire as Nadal's with 0 titles and only 1 final in fact.
Becker's Wimbledon record with not only 3 titles but an incredible 7 finals, and that he has 49 tour titles which is by far the most is more than sufficient to rank him #1 of this group. Only Djokovic would have a real case to be above him. Edberg who was owned by Becker in head to head, has less tournament titles, a much weaker YEC record, and whose only edge is the bogus year end rankings of both 1989 and 1990? Not a chance.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I thought you were the one who dealt only in "facts". (All "facts" have to be interpreted before they can be made useful, but let's not mind that). Regardless of who "should" have been #1 in 1989 and 1990, the "fact" is that Becker wasn't #1 in 1989 and Edberg was #1 in 1990.
I'm not a Federer fanboy, but good point about the year-end championships. That is something in Becker's favor.
Wilander's major claims are: 1) He won 7 Slams to Becker's 6 (and that's obviously a very important one; 2) He won 3 Slams in a year and was the only man in a 30-year period to do so. That's also obviously pretty big. Oh, and 3) He won Slams on all three different surfaces (four if you count Decoturf and Rebound Ace separately).
Minor claims: 1) Wilander won two different Slam three times each, whereas Becker only won Wimbledon that often. 2) Becker's Grand Slam record outside Wimbledon was weak, with only three finals (admittedly, he won all three). Wilander did a lot better than that if you discounted his favorite Slam, with six finals outside Roland Garros. [Note that this shows it's not true that people only make "lack of versatility" arguments about Nadal's Roland Garros reliance].
Wilander has only 33 tournament wins to Becker's 49. Wilander was generally not successful either in winning the "big" tournaments outside the slams, like what today would be referred to as Masters and even 500 events. Becker was much better in that regard too.
Given that Wilander spent relatively scant little time at #1 too, there isnt even a real edge for him over Becker there despite ending a year at #1. I believe his only time at #1 was at the end of 88 until the end of the Australian Open in January. Becker had a stint in early 1991 and that was it for him too.
Wilander's edges are obviously his 3 slam year (a very legitimate one and his 1988 was an exceptional year), and his winning slams on all surfaces. The Australian Open at that point was still clearly not on par with the other majors yet then though, and pretty much never had a full field. It was better than the late 70s, but it still wasnt all the way there yet, and just has to go through the draws for each slam in each year to see this is a fact. Given the known Australian Open situation of the time, and that he couldnt even get past the quarters of Wimbledon once, I take his 2 Australian Opens on grass with a grain of salt even though he did bet a few good opponent there. Becker has a much significantly French Open record than Wilander does at Wimbledon.
Given that Wilander spent relatively scant little time at #1 too, there isnt even a real edge for him over Becker there despite ending a year at #1. I believe his only time at #1 was at the end of 88 until the end of the Australian Open in January. Becker had a stint in early 1991 and that was it for him too.
Wilander's edges are obviously his 3 slam year (a very legitimate one and his 1988 was an exceptional year), and his winning slams on all surfaces. The Australian Open at that point was still clearly not on par with the other majors yet then though, and pretty much never had a full field. It was better than the late 70s, but it still wasnt all the way there yet, and just has to go through the draws for each slam in each year to see this is a fact. Given the known Australian Open situation of the time, and that he couldnt even get past the quarters of Wimbledon once, I take his 2 Australian Opens on grass with a grain of salt even though he did bet a few good opponent there. Becker has a much significantly French Open record than Wilander does at Wimbledon.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Wilander didn't have nearly the same longevity as Becker. In discussions of greatness, there's often a slight tension between whose candle burned brighter and whose burned longer. Although Becker's highest level of play was unquestionably higher than Wilander's (but not unquestionably higher than Edberg's, and probably lower), Wilander's candle burned brighter in that he won more Slams, got a 3-Slam year, won on all surfaces, and had a greater spread of Slam results. Becker's did burn longer and that helped him get more minor tournaments. Although note that Becker never won a single clay-court tournament, which must be a mark against him.
As for the Australian Open being weaker, I think that it started getting full draws minus Connors from 1983 onwards. (1987 was a weak draw, but Wilander didn't play that year either). In 1983, Wilander beat McEnroe and Lendl in the final two rounds, (and Kriek, the double-defending champion, in the quarter-finals). In 1988, he beat Edberg and Cash in the final two rounds, that is the reigning champion and the Wimbledon champion. Cash had beaten Lendl in the semis. In 1984, Wilander did benefit from McEnroe not playing the Australian Open, but wasn't he injured rather than not bothering?
I think the big thing that helped Wilander in Australia compared to Wimbledon is that the grass was slower in Australia (rather than the competition). Lendl couldn't take advantage of that because his problem wasn't the speed but the regularity of the bounce, and the courts at Kooyong were poorer in quality, so the bounce was even less regular there than at Wimbledon.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Hang on, ripitup, we need to move this to the Former Player Section. Don't worry, I'll open up a thread just for "loonies" like you. 
1983 Australian Open- Connors, Noah, Vilas, Clerc, Arias, 5 of the top 8 did not play. Yes I know probably only Connors was a big threat for the Championship, but that still shows my point the Australian drew far from full fields in this day. This was a rare year atleast most of the real elite played. Connors's absence alone is already significant given that he would have been the clear favorite over Wilander on grass had they played, and Wilander's surprising performance vs McEnroe especialy does not change this. Teltscher who was the #14 seed at the U.S Open and ended the year directly after the Australian Open only #14 in the World (not sure his exact ranking going into the Australian but I presume it was in roughly this ballpark) was the #4 seed which already sums things up.
Can one guarantee Wilander wouldnt have won in a full field? No. Nonetheless my point about it being far from a full field still is very true, and this wasnt randomly due to injuries, but the every year reality of what the Australian Open was then.
1988- Becker being absent is HUGE, as he would be overwhelmingly favored over Wilander on any type of grass court. Other top players like LeConte, McEnroe, Connors, Mecir, and Mayotte were also missing. Again atleast half of the top 10 were absent. That most of these players were not potential champions is aside the point (and if one is arguing from that avenue Connors in 83 and Becker in 88 being absent is already enough).
I stand by my original point the Australian Open was a known highly depleted slam still in the 80s, and this was true on an every year basis. I still credit Wilander for winning 7 slams, but I also would not readily credit this as proof of his far greater surface versatility compared to Becker by any means given his Wimbledon record.
Can one guarantee Wilander wouldnt have won in a full field? No. Nonetheless my point about it being far from a full field still is very true, and this wasnt randomly due to injuries, but the every year reality of what the Australian Open was then.
1988- Becker being absent is HUGE, as he would be overwhelmingly favored over Wilander on any type of grass court. Other top players like LeConte, McEnroe, Connors, Mecir, and Mayotte were also missing. Again atleast half of the top 10 were absent. That most of these players were not potential champions is aside the point (and if one is arguing from that avenue Connors in 83 and Becker in 88 being absent is already enough).
I stand by my original point the Australian Open was a known highly depleted slam still in the 80s, and this was true on an every year basis. I still credit Wilander for winning 7 slams, but I also would not readily credit this as proof of his far greater surface versatility compared to Becker by any means given his Wimbledon record.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
1988 was on rebound ace
Sorry I had forgotten that was the year it switched and his other title there was in 1984. Either way the norm of the Australian Open in those days, and it still was in no way yet an "equal to others" slam becomes pretty obvious (it turns out if 88 was on rebound ace his title there year was close to a lock given the players who missed even had they played, but not on grass it wouldnt serve into the whole versatility argument anyway).
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
But the draw opened up for Becker at Wimbledon 1985. The players he beat weren't any more impressive than those Wilander beat in the 1983 Australian. 1986 was a weak year in tennis generally (Lendl excepted), with age finally catching up with Connors, McEnroe MIA, and Wilander mentally checked out. Becker did have to beat Lendl, at least.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Edberg was more consistent than Becker and Wilander, which is why he was twice able to finish a calendar year as world number 1. I agree that Lendl's consistency was on a whole different level.
Becker had the power and the game, but seeked inspiration in the occasion. Wilander had the brains and didn't have a cruise game to fall back on, but he also seeked inspiration. He seeked an inspiration that he felt would justify going into an intense mental focus to win tennis matches. Edberg was always focused on his movement, trying to get everything working in sync.
Last edited:
Every player was in the draw though. That is all that matters. Draws open up all the time. I havent even gotten into which player had the tougher draws or slam semi or final opponents in general as of yet.
Do you dispute the Australian Open was clearly not on par with the other 3 slams yet (I am not saying it had no value, but it was clearly not equal as it is today). I have already shown it was consistent that atleast half of the top 10 and top 15 didnt even attend, usually more than half.
Despite that I am also not disputing Wilander being recognized as a 7 slam winner. I am disputing his Australian Open titles on grass proving he is a much better grass player than Becker is a clay court player, and that significant extra credit should be given for greater versatility due to his Australian titles on grass. Given the known context of the Australian Open at the time, and his Wimbledon record, I am not sold on that at all.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Wilander beat McEnroe in the semi finals of the 1983 Australian Open. McEnroe was the Wimbledon champion, and after losing this match to Wilander, won 42 matches in a row going into the 1984 French Open final. Wilander then took Lendl apart in the final, Lendl being a Wimbledon semi finalist. Wilander also beat Tanner in the R32 at the 1983 Australian Open.
Wilander then stayed in Melbourne for the 1983 Davis Cup final that Sweden had against Australia, and Wilander won both his singles rubbers, beating Cash and Fitzgerald, but Australia won 3-2.
At the 1984 Australian Open, Wilander beat Edberg, Kriek and Curren in succession. Hardly weak opposition, although the best player in the world, McEnroe, was absent, focused on the Davis Cup final on clay in Sweden.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
In 1991, Edberg was indeed fairly consistent: but so was Wilander in 1988. In 1990, Edberg was #1 in spite of not being consistent, because his highest level was so high. The only player who rivaled that level during the whole season was Becker in the indoor stretch, and he'd otherwise had a poor year. Edberg's performance in the Australian Open semis was one of the all-time performances, which is what makes his injury in the final so disappointing. (Even with a torn stomach muscle, he still managed to lead an on-form Lendl 6-4 6-5 and serve for a two set lead. If Lendl weren't so resilient, Edberg would have probably gone two sets up, and who knows what would then have happened? Perhaps Lendl would have won 4-6 5-7 6-2 ret, or perhaps Edberg might even have got it done somehow). And then Edberg's performance in the second week of Wimbledon and through the hard-court summer was also great. But his year also contained some epic lows.
I think that Edberg, liked Becker and Wilander, relied upon inspiration to get to his highest level.
Magic Player
New User
Djokovic is the best in this group. You cannot ignore results.
GS titles
Novak Djokovic 8
Mats Wilander 7
Bors Becker 6
Stefan Edberg 6
GS finals
Novak Djokovic 15
Mats Wilander 11
Stefan Edberg 11
Bors Becker 10
ATP titles
Novak Djokovic 50
Bors Becker 49
Stefan Edberg 41
Mats Wilander 33
Masters 1000 or equivalent
Novak Djokovic 21
Bors Becker 13
Mats Wilander 8
Stefan Edberg 8
WTF or equivalent
Novak Djokovic 4
Bors Becker 3
Stefan Edberg 1
Mats Wilander 0
Weeks at no. 1
Novak Djokovic 139+
Stefan Edberg 72
Mats Wilander 20
Bors Becker 12
Year-end no. 1
Novak Djokovic 3
Stefan Edberg 2
Mats Wilander 1
Bors Becker 0
GS titles
Novak Djokovic 8
Mats Wilander 7
Bors Becker 6
Stefan Edberg 6
GS finals
Novak Djokovic 15
Mats Wilander 11
Stefan Edberg 11
Bors Becker 10
ATP titles
Novak Djokovic 50
Bors Becker 49
Stefan Edberg 41
Mats Wilander 33
Masters 1000 or equivalent
Novak Djokovic 21
Bors Becker 13
Mats Wilander 8
Stefan Edberg 8
WTF or equivalent
Novak Djokovic 4
Bors Becker 3
Stefan Edberg 1
Mats Wilander 0
Weeks at no. 1
Novak Djokovic 139+
Stefan Edberg 72
Mats Wilander 20
Bors Becker 12
Year-end no. 1
Novak Djokovic 3
Stefan Edberg 2
Mats Wilander 1
Bors Becker 0
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
He's truly surpassed that whole group IMO.
powerangle
Legend
All true, but this thread was made in September of 2013, when Novak had weaker stats. It was comparable back then. Now, not so much.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
No one is debating this any longer, no clue why someone had to bump this thread to tell us the obvious.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
1. Djokovic
2-4. Edberg, Becker & Wilander
v.hard to separate 2-4.
Becker had the better game but mentally lower. Edberg played better in early 80's before power game took off. Wilander played a opportunist game. Edberg lost out to tech in the same way Mac did, Becker won out in the way Lendl did and Willander neither gained or lost. All played the biggest tech transitional period in history. 80 to 85 if not at thre top of the game but during development. Edberg won GS in 82? Boy's.
2-4. Edberg, Becker & Wilander
v.hard to separate 2-4.
Becker had the better game but mentally lower. Edberg played better in early 80's before power game took off. Wilander played a opportunist game. Edberg lost out to tech in the same way Mac did, Becker won out in the way Lendl did and Willander neither gained or lost. All played the biggest tech transitional period in history. 80 to 85 if not at thre top of the game but during development. Edberg won GS in 82? Boy's.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Novak itself is going to be irrelevant very soon.
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
Wilander has an extra Slam to Becker and Edberg, but would arguably not be as famous or well known as the other 2 - mainly due to them being multi-Wimbledon champions and finalists.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Yes, but I don't count slams or base my decision on slam count. I base my review on other things such as physic, strokes, movement, opposition, etc.
Wilander is as famous as the others outside the US. The majority of USO fans based their knowledge on USO & Wim. Wilander is very famous in Aust and obviously Europe. His appeal is not as high, mainly in part to his game style. But due to some awesome matches like DC final, AO final, FO final, etc he was well liked. His USO final was against Lendl, so typically not the match USO fans really wanted, Lendl was disliked in US media during the 80's, Matts was complex balanced tennis like a L.Hewitt it subtle general public don't want it. They really wanted Agassi, or Mac/Connors resurgence.
I don't think any are any better than each other. As mentioned Becker was better suited to power 90's game but was burnt out by 18-19! Edberg would have dominated the game if it stayed with wood or wood composite much like Mac. Wilander has to wait for a laps in either to win, he can't hit or serve them off the court. Matts has 2 AO on grass which is a little mute, and Edberg 1x. Kooyong grass was higher bouncing and often really a dirt surface during a hot summer, slow grass with odd erratic bounce.
All 3x are absolute champion players.
Wimblodon does generate the hero status more than any other Tourney but most of that is for the general public rather than tennis lovers. It's become an entertainment event rather than a tennis match, much like Monaoc GP, 100m Mens Oly sprint, Melb Cup/Grand Nation/Kentucky Derby, Tour De France, etc.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Novak can't be compared to Mac & Connors too much differences in the game.
Lendl struggle to maybe the late 80's is comparable to a degree.
Agassi, Djokovic already surpass him and they can be compared as Agassi best years where early 2000 poly period. Agassi 90's ranking is mixed up at best.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
At the time this thread was started, where Novak fell was debatable. The deal has been sealed since then.
