How many Slams would Becker have won in 1997-1999 if his decline was a slow one like Lendl/Agassi?

[NedStark]

In 1997, we saw Becker absolutely tanking in form and ranking despite finishing extremely strong in 1996 indoor season. There were two reasons, tax investigations and the bizarre wrist injury caught in 1996 Wimbledon.

What if he avoided both and had a Lendl/Agassi-like career a.k.a keep playing at a high level well into early 30s with a gradual decline?

There were quite a lot of weak Slams, especially hard court Slams, between 1997 and 1999, that featured neither Agassi nor Sampras, that Becker could have won *if his level was anywhere near 1996 form*:

1) US Open 1997: Pete and Andre were busted in 4R, Jonas frigging Bjorkman in SF. While Rafter plays well, his level was not unbeatable. Winnable.

2) Australian Open 1998: Pete was eliminated in QF. Final featured Korda and Rios. Winnable.

3) US Open 1998: Rafter was red hot, but Sampras managed to lead 2-1 before losing due to injury. Uncertain, but not unwinnable.

4) Australian Open 1999: Another joke Slam. But it would depend on Becker's natural rate of decline. Uncertain, but not unwinnable.

5) US Open 1999: extremely stretched. It was a strong Slam. Agassi was powerful and was always a bad matchup for Boris, but IRL struggled against Martin in the final. And, well, Pete was out. Extremely unlikely. But, since 1997, US Open courts experienced surface change that would have massively benefited Boris' game*.

2000 onwards: the New Ball Generation would be too much for a relic from 1985 due to massive technological and technical disparity.

*While pre-1997 US Open courts were fast (still faster than after 2002), the Arthur Ashe US Open courts between 1997 and 2002 were extremely fast, much faster than any US Open events that Becker and his generation participated in between 1985 and 1995. Becker would have really loved to play on 1997-2002 Arthur Ashe.


Look, even winning only one of those Slams above would have placed Becker firmly ahead of Edberg in Open Era ATG ranking. 7>6, 49>41, 25-10 - more than enough.

 

[buscemi]

If we assume that Becker plays at his 1996 level at the Australian Open in 1998 and 1999, I think he's the favorite in 1998 and 1999. Of course, in 1996, he straight setted Kafelnkov in the QF, and he was 6-0 against Korda.

If we assume Becker plays at his 1995 level at the U.S. Open, he still loses (again) to Agassi in the 1999 U.S. Open. I might give him the slight edge against Rafter in the 1997, given that Pat hadn't made a Major final before that event. But I'd go with Rafter in 1998 as he was playing great, having won the Canada/Cincinnati coimbo.

Of course, this is all assuming Becker keeps his late 1995-1996 form. If we assume he dips somewhat, all bets are off.

 

[insideoutforehands]

If we assume that Becker plays at his 1996 level at the Australian Open in 1998 and 1999, I think he's the favorite in 1998 and 1999. Of course, in 1996, he straight setted Kafelnkov in the QF, and he was 6-0 against Korda.

If we assume Becker plays at his 1995 level at the U.S. Open, he still loses (again) to Agassi in the 1999 U.S. Open. I might give him the slight edge against Rafter in the 1997, given that Pat hadn't made a Major final before that event. But I'd go with Rafter in 1998 as he was playing great, having won the Canada/Cincinnati coimbo.

Of course, this is all assuming Becker keeps his late 1995-1996 form. If we assume he dips somewhat, all bets are off.

Considering the threat title is if decline was a slow one, wouldn't it be safe to say he dips somewhat.

And given that his true peak ended in like 1991, and his age, anything else would be unrealistic even in a best case scenario.

I do think he has some chance at winning 98 or 99 Australian Open even in slightly declined form though.

No way do I see even in a "continues slight decline" best realistic scenario do I see him winning another US Open, not even 97.

For the 2 Australians it would also depend exactly how the draw plays out. In his actual 97 form he was now losing to Kafelnikov on grass where Kafelnikov is utterly useless, so would need a big improvement in that real life level to be winning any of these.

And of course one flaw in your reasoning that you already showcased in your Monica Seles "no stabbing" assessment, and are again here as your whole analogy is written out, is winning a tournament is not just about beating one player, it is about surviving a whole draw. This is not the 1800s where you automatically put a player in the final with the challenge system and then decide if they win this final or not. Like at the 97 US Open Sampras did not survive the draw, despite that he is way stronger than Becker would by by that point on a medium paced hard court, even in a best case scenario, Chang wasn't able to do it, and Agassi (granted badly out of shape but still tipped as a top 3 favorite after Sampras went out) was nowhere near doing it, so how do we just assume Becker doing it.

 

[buscemi]

Considering the threat title is if decline was a slow one, wouldn't it be safe to say he dips somewhat.

And given that his true peak ended in like 1991, and his age, anything else would be unrealistic even in a best case scenario.

I do think he has some chance at winning 98 or 99 Australian Open even in slightly declined form though.

No way do I see even in a "continues slight decline" best realistic scenario do I see him winning another US Open, not even 97.

For the 2 Australians it would also depend exactly how the draw plays out. In his actual 97 form he was now losing to Kafelnikov on grass where Kafelnikov is utterly useless, so would need a big improvement in that real life level to be winning any of these.

And of course one flaw in your reasoning that you already showcased in your Monica Seles "no stabbing" assessment, and are again here as your whole analogy is written out, is winning a tournament is not just about beating one player, it is about surviving a whole draw. This is not the 1800s where you automatically put a player in the final with the challenge system and then decide if they win this final or not. Like at the 97 US Open Sampras did not survive the draw, despite that he is way stronger than Becker would by by that point on a medium paced hard court, even in a best case scenario, Chang wasn't able to do it, and Agassi (granted badly out of shape but still tipped as a top 3 favorite after Sampras went out) was nowhere near doing it, so how do we just assume Becker doing it.

Let's randomly assign Becker the #5 seed at all four tournaments for consistency's sake:

1997 U.S. Open:
1R: Henman
2R: Ferreira
3R: Gimelstob
4R: Larsson
QF: Rafter
SF: Chang
F: Rusedski

1998 Australian Open:
1R: Witt
2R: Stark
3R: Woobridge
4R: Escude
QF: Kiefer
SF: Rios
F: Korda

1998 U.S. Open
1R: Clement
2R: O'Brien
3R: Johansson
4R: Kafelnikov
QF: Philippoussis
SF: Moya
F: Rafter

1999 Australian Open
1R: Gumy
2R: Dosedel
3R: Novak
4R: Spadea
QF: Haas
SF: Kafelnikov
F: Enqvist

Looking at this, I still feel pretty good about Becker at the two Australian Opens, I still don't see him winning the 1998 U.S. Open, and the 1997 U.S. Open still seems like a possibility, albeit with some obvious pitfalls. But, if could make it to the SF, I'd really like his chances. Of course, Boris was prone to early upsets, and any significant drop in level from late 1995/1996 could call off all bets.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Let's randomly assign Becker the #5 seed at all four tournaments for consistency's sake:

1997 U.S. Open:
1R: Henman
2R: Ferreira
3R: Gimelstob
4R: Larsson
QF: Rafter
SF: Chang
F: Rusedski

1998 Australian Open:
1R: Witt
2R: Stark
3R: Woobridge
4R: Escude
QF: Kiefer
SF: Rios
F: Korda

1998 U.S. Open
1R: Clement
2R: O'Brien
3R: Johansson
4R: Kafelnikov
QF: Philippoussis
SF: Moya
F: Rafter

1999 Australian Open
1R: Gumy
2R: Dosedel
3R: Novak
4R: Spadea
QF: Haas
SF: Kafelnikov
F: Enqvist

Looking at this, I still feel pretty good about Becker at the two Australian Opens, I still don't see him winning the 1998 U.S. Open, and the 1997 U.S. Open still seems like a possibility, albeit with some obvious pitfalls. But, if could make it to the SF, I'd really like his chances. Of course, Boris was prone to early upsets, and any significant drop in level from late 1995/1996 could call off all bets.

You can't even do that safely as if Becker is hypothetically playing well enough to be the #5 seed, he is playing well enough to change the results of some top players/people in other matches to the exact same rankings and draws for everyone is unlikely. This is too remiscent of how you skipped Seles straight to a 94 Wimbledon final with Conchita Martinez (ridiculous, with the huge number of people who have good chances to beat BOTH women on grass, and the likelihood of a new and completely altered draw with Seles playing as a #2 or #3 seed of a new draw) since you were so desperate to give Seles a Wimbledon title. I atleast appreciate you made some effort, but again if Becker is hypothetically playing well enough to be a #5 seed there is likely of some changes in these draws, as there were alot of guys close in the rankings outside of Pete both years and the likelihood of him being the exact 5th seed each time with no variance is even pretty low.

For arguments sake though I will start:

97 US Open- If he has declined even a bit, which is clear is the premise of the post, and the best realistic scenario. It is not realistic he would be playing at his exact late 95/early 96 level which was his best level since 91, and when he had numerous injuries since then, and was aging by now. I don't see him surviving this draw as it is. Henman in the 1st round, Ferreira in the 2nd round, Larrson in the 4th round, Rafter in the quarters, Chang in the semis, and Rusedski in the final are ALL dangerous opponents for him. No way do I not see him falling in one of those rounds given his best realistic level by late 97 (a clear notch down from late 95/early 96). It doesn't matter if his chances are reasonably good in each match which I would agree with, he isn't surviving all that.

98 Australian Open- Yeah good chance if he was in this optimal best realistic form we are thinking of, but Rios was playing very well before the final, and his chances would be infinitely better than playing Becker on grass like Wimbledon 97. A red hot Korda obviously isn't a walkover for old Becker either, despite their head to head. No other huge obstacles in the draw although Woodbridge, Escude, Kiefer were all competant opponents not to be taken lightly. I would say 50% chance if he was in very good form though. This still requires WAY better form than he was showing in summer of 97 in real life when he stopped though.

98 US Open- LOL no.

99 US Open- Hmm this isn't easy upon 2nd look. Spadea played a great match and took out Agassi, in what would pan out to be Agassi's best year ever. Most were picking Agassi for the title given the draw at that point, and his form. If he beats Spadea he has young Haas who was playing very well until the semis where the nerves got to him (which probably would against fellow German and hero Becker too). Kafelnikov who was playing very well, and Becker is 32 by now. Enqvist who was playing excellent at this event, but underperformed in the final vs Kafelnikov. I don't think he wins this at 32 years old, at best he probably falls to Kafelnikov in the semis. And again by summer 97 he was losing to Kafelnikov on grass (where Kafelnikov is so useless he makes Seles, Capriati, or Del Potro look like a total grass god) so his trajectory would have to be eons better than it was in real time, to be beating a top form Kafelnikov on a slow hard court by early 99, getting even older.

I would say only the 98 Australian Open maybe, and even that 50% shot only. Slim shot at the 99 Australian too maybe.

 

[NedStark]

No way do I see even in a "continues slight decline" best realistic scenario do I see him winning another US Open, not even 97.

97 US Open- If he has declined even a bit, which is clear is the premise of the post, and the best realistic scenario. It is not realistic he would be playing at his exact late 95/early 96 level which was his best level since 91, and when he had numerous injuries since then, and was aging by now. I don't see him surviving this draw as it is. Henman in the 1st round, Ferreira in the 2nd round, Larrson in the 4th round, Rafter in the quarters, Chang in the semis, and Rusedski in the final are ALL dangerous opponents for him. No way do I not see him falling in one of those rounds given his best realistic level by late 97 (a clear notch down from late 95/early 96). It doesn't matter if his chances are reasonably good in each match which I would agree with, he isn't surviving all that.

First, if he declined a bit every year from his 1996 level, say like Lendl 1990-1991, then he absolutely would have had his chance in US Open 1997 (which featured Jonas frigging Bjorkman in SF) and Australian Open 1998-1999.

Second, the Arthur Ashe US Open edition between 1997 and 2002 was very fast, much faster than say, the 1995 edition that Becker participated in - and Becker always excelled on courts that were very fast (unfortunately he never had a chance to play USO in such conditions).

I atleast appreciate you made some effort, but again if Becker is hypothetically playing well enough to be a #5 seed there is likely of some changes in these draws, as there were alot of guys close in the rankings outside of Pete both years and the likelihood of him being the exact 5th seed each time with no variance is even pretty low

I would even give him Top 4 seeds, since the point of divergence in my premise begins with avoiding the bizarre wrist injury in 1996 Wimbledon, which ruled him out until the indoor season. At the minimum, he would have reached Wimbledon final (unlike in 1992-1995, his draw was a lot more favourable in 1996) if not winning it outright (the final against Richard would be 50-50) - combined with good performance in the US Open series and the indoor season, he could have finished the year #4, #3, or even #2 - but most likely #4 IMO.

As I said above, if we assume that Becker's trajectory resembles that of Lendl in 1990-1992 (Becker 1997-1999 was at the same age as Lendl in 1990-1992) after removing the key reasons for his rapid real-life decline, he should be good enough to get inside Top 4 and win Slams during 1997-1999.

Lendl at that time won 1990 AO, closely lost to Sampras in 1990 USO (either him or Pete would have taken that title), reached 1991 AO final and USO SF, 1992 AO and USO QF - and while Lendl was a better hardcourter than Boris, those tourneys were A LOT harder (I mean, real hard mode) than the 1997-1999 hard court Slams.

I might give him the slight edge against Rafter in the 1997, given that Pat hadn't made a Major final before that event. But I'd go with Rafter in 1998 as he was playing great, having won the Canada/Cincinnati coimbo

98 US Open- LOL no.

Something that both of you failed to take into account is that not winning US Open 1997 could have derailed Rafter's career and thus his 1998 run might have never materialized.

Of course, Boris was prone to early upsets, and any significant drop in level from late 1995/1996 could call off all bets.

He was actually quite consistent on courts that were truly fast - and with the US Open court pace being significantly increased after 1996, I'd like his chance here. I mean, we did not have 2 back-to-back full serve-and-volley USO finals in 1997-1998 for no reason.

Unlike conventional wisdom, speeding up the courts would improve Boris' consistency and resistance to upsets.

 

[Mustard]

In 1997, we saw Becker absolutely tanking in form and ranking despite finishing extremely strong in 1996 indoor season. There were two reasons, tax investigations and the bizarre wrist injury caught in 1996 Wimbledon.

I don't think the wrist injury was the reason. He was playing amazing tennis in late 1996 after the wrist injury. The whole criminal tax investigation has to be the reason, and the fact that it was ongoing for years after 20 December 1996, concluding in October 2002 with him being found guilty of tax evasion between 1991-1993 and him getting a suspended prison sentence. During all that, he also got a random woman pregnant in July 1999 after losing to Rafter at Wimbledon, which ended his marriage to Barbara. He has a knack for chaos as well as brilliance.

 

[NedStark]

I don't think the wrist injury was the reason. He was playing amazing tennis in late 1996 after the wrist injury. The whole criminal tax investigation has to be the reason, and the fact that it was ongoing for years after 20 December 1996, concluding in October 2002 with him being found guilty of tax evasion between 1991-1993 and him getting a suspended prison sentence. During all that, he also got a random woman pregnant in July 1999 after losing to Rafter at Wimbledon, which ended his marriage to Barbara. He has a knack for chaos as well as brilliance.

Indeed. However, I also heard that his wrist did flare up again in 1997.

Anyway, avoiding that injury would have helped - Becker would have had the chance to end the year within Top 4, if not No. 2 (likely even No.1 if he beats Krajicek) had he got to play the full season. He lost lots of points in Summer & Autumn 1996 due to the injury.

Like at the 97 US Open Sampras did not survive the draw, despite that he is way stronger than Becker would by by that point on a medium paced hard court, even in a best case scenario, Chang wasn't able to do it, and Agassi (granted badly out of shape but still tipped as a top 3 favorite after Sampras went out) was nowhere near doing it, so how do we just assume Becker doing it.

Don't forget that Becker won AO 1996 specifically because Sampras & Agassi *did not survive the draw*.

 

[buscemi]

Indeed. However, I also heard that his wrist did flare up again in 1997.

Yes, he withdrew from Dubai when the wrist injury flared up again. Then, he was back for about a month before withdrawing from the French Open with an unspecified injury. He came back to play Halle and Wimbledon (losing in the QF to Sampras in 4 sets), then injured his knee in his next tournament at Stuttgart. All of which goes to say, he certainly had legal problems, but I don't know that he was every fully healthy in 1997.

 

[NedStark]

All of which goes to say, he certainly had legal problems, but I don't know that he was every fully healthy in 1997.

Well, there was no info about any of his injuries between 1995 and Wimbledon 1996, so I guess he was healthy in that time period. His wrist injury was a freak accident rather than general body breakdown.

Anyway, just one more Slam and he would have been firmly ahead of his nemesis Edberg in any credible ATG rankings.

 

[GuyForget]

none, it took 5 years to win another one after AO91. He's not beating Samps at Wimby, + kind of a flash in a pan to win an AO. YE title in 98 at the most

 

[GuyForget]

as an aside, despite Becker's brilliance indoors, Agassi also effectively knocked him out of the 90 and 91 YEC's

 

[NedStark]

as an aside, despite Becker's brilliance indoors, Agassi also effectively knocked him out of the 90 and 91 YEC's

none, it took 5 years to win another one after AO91. He's not beating Samps at Wimby, + kind of a flash in a pan to win an AO. YE title in 98 at the most

There were neither Agassi (who was in deep doo doo) nor Sampras (who somehow got busted before final) in hard court Slams between USO 1997 and AO 1999.

Look, USO 1997 had Jonas Bjorkman in SF and Rusedski in F, while Pete was out from 4R. AO 1998 was also a ****ing joke as well (and Pete somehow was defeated in QF). At the same time, Agassi was still high on meth. So, 2 Slams up from grab already.

Becker actually played consistently at a high level between mid-1995 and 1996, as he did have renewed dedication to tennis. You can easily see that between July 1995 and December 1996 he kept getting better. He ended 1996 with a straight set destruction of Ivanisevic in Grand Slam Cup final.

Plus, without the wrist injury he would 100% reach Wimbledon 1996 final. His chance against Krajicek would be 50% IMO.

 

[buscemi]

There were neither Agassi (who was in deep doo doo) nor Sampras (who somehow got busted before final) in hard court Slams between USO 1997 and AO 1999.

Look, USO 1997 had Jonas Bjorkman in SF and Rusedski in F, while Pete was out from 4R. AO 1998 was also a ****ing joke as well (and Pete somehow was defeated in QF). At the same time, Agassi was still high on meth. So, 2 Slams up from grab already.

Becker actually played consistently at a high level between mid-1995 and 1996, as he did have renewed dedication to tennis. You can easily see that between July 1995 and December 1996 he kept getting better. He ended 1996 with a straight set destruction of Ivanisevic in Grand Slam Cup final.

Plus, without the wrist injury he would 100% reach Wimbledon 1996 final. His chance against Krajicek would be 50% IMO.

Right. Becker's form at the 1996 Australian Open was better than the form of any of the SFs at the 1998 or 1999 Australian Opens: Kucera, Korda, Escude, Rios, Kafelnikov, Haas, Enqvist, Lapentti. This seems pretty clear from the 1996 QF, where Becker straight setted Kaflenikov, who would go on to win the next Major at the 1996 French Open.

Looking at the U.S. Open, we have 1995 Becker taking Agassi to 4 sets w/2 tiebreakers in the SF after Andre's summer of terror. The SFs at the U.S. Open in 1997-1998 were Bjorkman, Rusdeski, Rafter, Chang, Sampras, Rafter, Philippoussis, Moya. Becker's form at the 1995 U.S. Open was better than all of those players, other than Rafter and Sampras, who was injured in the 1998 SF. I'll take Rafter in 1998, given that it was his second Major final and he's won Canada/Cincinnati, and potentially Sampras. But in 1997, it's Bjorkman, Rusdeski, Rafter, Chang. If it's a final w/Rafter, that's almost a toss-up given the nerves that come w/being a first time finalist.

And yeah, Becker's not beating Sampras at Wimbledon, but in 1996, w/out injury, he's making that final against Krajicek, who was redlining but who also faced Washington in the final. He could have been pretty nervy against Becker in that final.

 

[NedStark]

Becker's form at the 1995 U.S. Open was better than all of those players, other than Rafter and Sampras, who was injured in the 1998 SF. I'll take Rafter in 1998, given that it was his second Major final and he's won Canada/Cincinnati, and potentially Sampras

Sure, but don't you think that not winning USO 1997 could have easily derailed Rafter's development and butterflied away his 1998 run?

But in 1997, it's Bjorkman, Rusdeski, Rafter, Chang. If it's a final w/Rafter, that's almost a toss-up given the nerves that come w/being a first time finalist.

Plus, Becker would have been a bad matchup for Rafter due to his strong BH return, meaning that he never had problems with high kick serves.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Becker was never winning in 98 not just due to Rafter, but his hypothetical draw Buscemi broke down was insane, with nearly every round a tough opponent. No a 31 year old Becker is not surviving that, LOL!

This whole thread is ridiculously silly anyway as in real time Becker had declined enough he was losing to Kafelnikov on grass by the time of his actual retirement. Becker himself retired since in his own words he wasn't playing at the level to possibly win a slam anywhere, including Wimbledon, anymore. You are having to suspend reality, imagine him playing at nearly twice the level he was at the time of his actual retirement, and have only a marginal/almost no decline with age, at a time that was not the norm. Especialy not for someone who began peaking as a teenager (Becker) and began a permanent overall decline at about 24/25, and had a lot of injuries. I laugh how my post got all kinds of ire from an obvious Becker diehard fanboy, when in fact it was extremely generous to Becker considering, and already suspending all reality that I just spoke of, to an unrealistic point. And we have people talking about him winning back to back US Opens, an event he won only once in his peak years, and that after saving a match point in one round. Insanity.

 

[buscemi]

Sure, but don't you think that not winning USO 1997 could have easily derailed Rafter's development and butterflied away his 1998 run?



Plus, Becker would have been a bad matchup for Rafter due to his strong BH return, meaning that he never had problems with high kick serves.

Yeah, there certainly could be a butterfly effect there.

 

[buscemi]

Becker was never winning in 98 not just due to Rafter, but his hypothetical draw Buscemi broke down was insane, with nearly every round a tough opponent. No a 31 year old Becker is not surviving that, LOL!

This whole thread is ridiculously silly anyway as in real time Becker had declined enough he was losing to Kafelnikov on grass by the time of his actual retirement. Becker himself retired since in his own words he wasn't playing at the level to possibly win a slam anywhere, including Wimbledon, anymore. You are having to suspend reality, imagine him playing at nearly twice the level he was at the time of his actual retirement, and have only a marginal/almost no decline with age, at a time that was not the norm. Especialy not for someone who began peaking as a teenager (Becker) and began a permanent overall decline at about 24/25, and had a lot of injuries. I laugh how my post got all kinds of ire from an obvious Becker diehard fanboy, when in fact it was extremely generous to Becker considering, and already suspending all reality that I just spoke of, to an unrealistic point. And we have people talking about him winning back to back US Opens, an event he won only once in his peak years, and that after saving a match point in one round. Insanity.

Becker's loss to Kafelnikov on grass was at Halle in 1997, his first tournament back after missing the French Open due to injury. A couple weeks later at Wimbledon, he looked fine, winning 4 matches in straight sets before Sampras beat him in 4 sets in the QF.

 

[Mustard]

There were neither Agassi (who was in deep doo doo) nor Sampras (who somehow got busted before final) in hard court Slams between USO 1997 and AO 1999.

Look, USO 1997 had Jonas Bjorkman in SF and Rusedski in F, while Pete was out from 4R.

Sampras had been huge favourite to win the 1997 US Open. When Sampras did lose to Korda, suddenly the pressure shifted to Chang, i.e. people saying that Chang would never have a better chance to win the US Open. Chang then lost to Rafter in the semi. And even though Chang avenged this loss to Rafter in a Davis Cup tie soon after, it seemed to change Chang's career forever, worsened still by that bizarre knee tweak at 1998 Indian Wells after he had slipped on water from those sprinklers.

AO 1998 was also a ****ing joke as well (and Pete somehow was defeated in QF).

Kucera outplayed Sampras on the day pretty comfortably. I thought Kucera would win the event after that.

At the same time, Agassi was still high on meth. So, 2 Slams up from grab already.

Agassi was very serious again by November 1997, when his ranking was at 141 in the world. Brad Gilbert had told him "get serious again and play some challengers, or retire". Agassi chose the former. Agassi was serious from that point on. Outside of the majors and matches against Rios, 1998 was an extremely good year for Agassi.

Becker actually played consistently at a high level between mid-1995 and 1996, as he did have renewed dedication to tennis. You can easily see that between July 1995 and December 1996 he kept getting better. He ended 1996 with a straight set destruction of Ivanisevic in Grand Slam Cup final.

Plus, without the wrist injury he would 100% reach Wimbledon 1996 final. His chance against Krajicek would be 50% IMO.

Becker was indeed very unfortunate with that wrist injury at 1996 Wimbledon and with the criminal tax investigation from 20 December 1996 that lasted for nearly 6 years afterwards.

 

[NedStark]

Kucera outplayed Sampras on the day pretty comfortably. I thought Kucera would win the event after that.

That's quite similar to Phillippoussis in AO 1996 or Curren in Wimbledon 1985. Often these folks ended up losing to the next higher-ranked opponent or running out of steam in the end.

Sampras had been huge favourite to win the 1997 US Open. When Sampras did lose to Korda, suddenly the pressure shifted to Chang, i.e. people saying that Chang would never have a better chance to win the US Open. Chang then lost to Rafter in the semi.

Korda here is another similar case.

Agassi was very serious again by November 1997, when his ranking was at 141 in the world. Brad Gilbert had told him "get serious again and play some challengers, or retire". Agassi chose the former. Agassi was serious from that point on. Outside of the majors and matches against Rios, 1998 was an extremely good year for Agassi.

Late 1997 & early 1998, not yet. And even by late-1998 he certainly was not yet consequential to the state of the tour.

Becker was indeed very unfortunate with that wrist injury at 1996 Wimbledon and with the criminal tax investigation from 20 December 1996 that lasted for nearly 6 years afterwards.

Sure

 

[Mustard]

Late 1997 & early 1998, not yet. And even by late-1998 he certainly was not yet consequential to the state of the tour.

On 10 November 1997, Agassi reached his lowest point of 141 in the world rankings. Before the end of the month, Agassi played in two Challenger events in Las Vegas and Burbank, finishing runner-up and champion respectively, getting his world ranking up to 110 by the end of the year. Agassi then started 1998 back on the main ATP Tour, finishing as runner-up in Adelaide (losing to ranked 550 16-year-old Lleyton Hewitt), which got Agassi back into the top 100, and getting to the fourth round of the Australian Open, losing from 2 sets up against Alberto Berasategui. Agassi then won in San Jose and Scottsdale, which included match wins over Chang and Sampras, before losing to Gambill in Indian Wells which ended a 13-match Agassi win streak. Agassi then reached the final in Key Biscayne, the match where Rios won to become world number 1. Agassi was now back in the top 30.

The only problem for Agassi in 1998 (and early 1999) was not going further in the majors. To go from #141 to #4 in just 12 months is incredible, even if you are falling short in the majors.

 

[NedStark]

On 10 November 1997, Agassi reached his lowest point of 141 in the world rankings. Before the end of the month, Agassi played in two Challenger events in Las Vegas and Burbank, finishing runner-up and champion respectively, getting his world ranking up to 110 by the end of the year. Agassi then started 1998 back on the main ATP Tour, finishing as runner-up in Adelaide (losing to ranked 550 16-year-old Lleyton Hewitt), which got Agassi back into the top 100, and getting to the fourth round of the Australian Open, losing from 2 sets up against Alberto Berasategui. Agassi then won in San Jose and Scottsdale, which included match wins over Chang and Sampras, before losing to Gambill in Indian Wells which ended a 13-match Agassi win streak. Agassi then reached the final in Key Biscayne, the match where Rios won to become world number 1. Agassi was now back in the top 30.

The only problem for Agassi in 1998 (and early 1999) was not going further in the majors. To go from #141 to #4 in just 12 months is incredible, even if you are falling short in the majors.

He fell way too short in Slams and most of the Super 9 events. He ended 1998 as #6 actually - which obviously was very impressive given what happened in 1997.

Btw, hypothetically, if we give Boris AO 1998, deep runs in Wimbledon and USO 1998, an indoor Super 9 (let's say Paris), and YEC 1998 - he would have had a real shot at #1 in that year.

Becker's loss to Kafelnikov on grass was at Halle in 1997, his first tournament back after missing the French Open due to injury. A couple weeks later at Wimbledon, he looked fine, winning 4 matches in straight sets before Sampras beat him in 4 sets in the QF.

Indeed, his QF loss against Pete overshadowed the fact that he got to that QF without dropping a set. Had he been in bottom half he would have gone deeper.

 

[ChrisRF]

Impossible to predict, because Becker generally was very unpredictable. He could beat anyone on any day and he could lose anyone on any day. Therefore we cannot simply go through the draws, see players like Bjorkman etc. in semi-finals and say that Becker would have won that tournament. Just look against which players he lost at Slams, and it becomes obvious. On a good day he could be close to unplayable, but on a bad day he was in more danger to suffer a suprise loss than maybe any other ATG.

He was good though in 1996. So in this hypothetical scenario (that it doesn't abruptly end in 1997) I would say he wins one more Slam. But in a totally random situation and at a random place, no matter the draw. It just cannot be RG, that's all we know.

 

[NedStark]

Impossible to predict, because Becker generally was very unpredictable. He could beat anyone on any day and he could lose anyone on any day. Therefore we cannot simply go through the draws, see players like Bjorkman etc. in semi-finals and say that Becker would have won that tournament. Just look against which players he lost at Slams, and it becomes obvious. On a good day he could be close to unplayable, but on a bad day he was in more danger to suffer a suprise loss than maybe any other ATG.

He was good though in 1996. So in this hypothetical scenario (that it doesn't abruptly end in 1997) I would say he wins one more Slam. But in a totally random situation and at a random place, no matter the draw. It just cannot be RG, that's all we know.

I see your point, and I agree with most of them, especially the RG part.

However, many of those upsets happened in 1992-1994 when Becker lost focus. Plus I do believe that Becker is much less prone to upsets on very fast courts (grass, indoor), and USO hardcourts between 1997 and 2001 were very fast (unlike 1978-1996 when they were more of moderately fast). So I can see him grabbing 1 to 2 hardcourt Slams.

But in a totally random situation and at a random place, no matter the draw. It just cannot be RG, that's all we know.

Also forget about Wimbledon, Pete would simply say no, and he would always show up in SF/F to deny Boris.

 

[Mustard]

He fell way too short in Slams and most of the Super 9 events. He ended 1998 as #6 actually - which obviously was very impressive given what happened in 1997.

Agassi ended 1998 at number 6, but was at number 4 briefly in November 1998, just 12 months after being at number 141.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Becker's loss to Kafelnikov on grass was at Halle in 1997, his first tournament back after missing the French Open due to injury. A couple weeks later at Wimbledon, he looked fine, winning 4 matches in straight sets before Sampras beat him in 4 sets in the QF.

His draw at Wimbledon was a joke. He beat absolutely no body (Rios on grass is embarassing and no one on that surface, it is like beating Muster at Wimbledon practically). I doubt he would have beaten any of the semi finalists, not even Woodbridge, if he played them. Against Sampras he looked lost, much worse than say 93 when he lost in straight sets or 95 when he was nowhere near winning as well. Obviously Becker himself agrees with me and not you as he said the same thing after that match, that he was retiring since he was way past his prime and no longer playing at the level to ever win a slam anywhere. McEnroe stupidly disputed Becker in the booth and said "well what if Sampras loses", and intelligent Chris Evert ridiculed and mocked him back.

 

[Mustard]

Becker was playing well in the 1995 Wimbledon final until early in the second set when he had an embarrassing slip after Sampras did a service return, although no breaks of serve (I think it was 7-6, 1-1). Sampras battered him silly after that moment, 5 breaks of serve in 3 sets to win 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2.

And yeah, 1997 was much worse, a real hiding, despite Becker winning the second set.

 

[buscemi]

His draw at Wimbledon was a joke. He beat absolutely no body (Rios on grass is embarassing and no one on that surface, it is like beating Muster at Wimbledon practically). I doubt he would have beaten any of the semi finalists, not even Woodbridge, if he played them. Against Sampras he looked lost, much worse than say 93 when he lost in straight sets or 95 when he was nowhere near winning as well. Obviously Becker himself agrees with me and not you as he said the same thing after that match, that he was retiring since he was way past his prime and no longer playing at the level to ever win a slam anywhere. McEnroe stupidly disputed Becker in the booth and said "well what if Sampras loses", and intelligent Chris Evert ridiculed and mocked him back.

Becker beat Johansson, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4. I'm not saying Johansson is any great shakes, but he had made the Wimbledon fourth round the year before, later made a Wimbledon SF, won 2 titles on grass and made a third final, and of course won the Australian Open (plus a Masters Series title). He was also 2-1 against Kafelnikov on grass, winning their one Wimbledon match in straight sets.

All of which goes to say that I think Becker's 1997 Wimbledon performance was more indicative of his level than his loss to Kafelninkov at Halle in his first tournament back from injury. Now, as you and Becker both note, that level was still not high enough to contend for Majors. But the hypothetical in this thread involves Becker maintaining (mostly) his late 1995-1996 form, which would involve ticking up his 1997 performance a few notches.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Becker beat Johansson, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4. I'm not saying Johansson is any great shakes, but he had made the Wimbledon fourth round the year before, later made a Wimbledon SF, won 2 titles on grass and made a third final, and of course won the Australian Open (plus a Masters Series title). He was also 2-1 against Kafelnikov on grass, winning their one Wimbledon match in straight sets.

All of which goes to say that I think Becker's 1997 Wimbledon performance was more indicative of his level than his loss to Kafelninkov at Halle in his first tournament back from injury. Now, as you and Becker both note, that level was still not high enough to contend for Majors. But the hypothetical in this thread involves Becker maintaining (mostly) his late 1995-1996 form, which would involve ticking up his 1997 performance a few notches.

Fair enough. I just think we are deviating from reality, even in a positive hypothetical to much to bring Becker to a level in 98 and 99 he is potentially winning several majors as the huge Becker fanboy (and I am also a Becker fan, but objective) who started this thread is implying. And forgotten in everything else is Becker turns 31 in 98 and 32 in 99. This is old back then, this was not the 2010s and 2020s where advanced training, science and superior PEDs nearly doubled the longevity of players. Especialy for a guy who began peaking in his teens, and despite his personal problems did not take long breaks from being a serious and competitive player like Agassi did.

Like you mentioned Becker at his 96 Australian Open level was superior to the finalists/winners of 98 and 99 Australian Opens. I agree that is probably true, but that is unrealistic even in a most optimistic scenario if he continued.

 

[Mustard]

Fair enough. I just think we are deviating from reality, even in a positive hypothetical to much to bring Becker to a level in 98 and 99 he is potentially winning several majors as the huge Becker fanboy (and I am also a Becker fan, but objective) who started this thread is implying. And forgotten in everything else is Becker turns 31 in 98 and 32 in 99. This is old back then, this was not the 2010s and 2020s where advanced training, science and superior PEDs nearly doubled the longevity of players. Especialy for a guy who began peaking in his teens, and despite his personal problems did not take long breaks from being a serious and competitive player like Agassi did.

Like you mentioned Becker at his 96 Australian Open level was superior to the finalists/winners of 98 and 99 Australian Opens. I agree that is probably true, but that is unrealistic even in a most optimistic scenario if he continued.

Becker was in a very good place in 1996 before that criminal tax investigation started. He was happier in both his tennis life and his personal life than he had been since at least 1989, in my opinion. And he had been playing amazing late in 1996. He never showed any such form in 1997, and it was almost like a different person.

 

[NedStark]

His draw at Wimbledon was a joke. He beat absolutely no body (Rios on grass is embarassing and no one on that surface, it is like beating Muster at Wimbledon practically). I doubt he would have beaten any of the semi finalists, not even Woodbridge, if he played them. Against Sampras he looked lost, much worse than say 93 when he lost in straight sets or 95 when he was nowhere near winning as well. Obviously Becker himself agrees with me and not you as he said the same thing after that match, that he was retiring since he was way past his prime and no longer playing at the level to ever win a slam anywhere. McEnroe stupidly disputed Becker in the booth and said "well what if Sampras loses", and intelligent Chris Evert ridiculed and mocked him back.

Look, the entire Wimbledon 1997 bar Sampras was a joke. Stich was practically at the same stage as Becker if not worse, Pioline was 0-9 against Becker and kept losing to Becker as late as 1999, Woodbridge was an unseeded journeyman and Becker would have never lost to any kinds of unseeded players at Wimbledon from QF onwards.

hypothetical to much to bring Becker to a level in 98 and 99 he is potentially winning several majors as the huge Becker fanboy (and I am also a Becker fan, but objective) who started this thread is implying. And forgotten in everything else is Becker turns 31 in 98 and 32 in 99. This is old back then, this was not the 2010s and 2020s where advanced training, science and superior PEDs nearly doubled the longevity of players

Lendl was 30 in 1990, 31 in 1991, and 32 in 1992 (and before that Connors in 1983-1985) His level in those years were clearly good enough to win hardcourt Slams in weaker periods like 1997-1999, but in 1990-1992 Edberg (3 times), Becker and Sampras stopped him. The assumption here is that Becker would decline gradually like Lendl in 1990-1992 without his OTL sudden problems in 1996.

 

[NedStark]

Obviously if he gets 1-2 more in this period, he should be placed between Lendl/Connor/Mac and Edberg/Wilander.

One question, what if the extreme case happens and Becker ends his career with 9-10 Slams.

Where would you place him in ATG ranking table now?