How many Slams would Pete Sampras have won with Becker-Edberg 5 and 4 years younger to him ?
- Thread starter Sunny014
- Start date
-
- Tags
- petehammer
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
14-16
I think Pete at his best on grass is too good for any version of Becker/Edberg... and give him a younger less experienced Edberg and he could win 1992 USO, 1993 AO. Possibly 15-16 slams for PETE here.
I think Pete at his best on grass is too good for any version of Becker/Edberg... and give him a younger less experienced Edberg and he could win 1992 USO, 1993 AO. Possibly 15-16 slams for PETE here.
Sunny014
Legend
Lol, so Becker 85-87 and the Edberg of those times could not challenge him if they were at a different gen ?
R u sure?
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Well Pete is 100% invincible in Wimbledon SF/F, so I don’t think they can beat him imo.
Real life Wimbledon matches -> Sampras 3 - 0 Becker
Sunny014
Legend
3-0 where Sampras 71 vs Becker 67
But Sampras 71 vs Becker 76 means aged 17 Becker of 1985 faces Pete in 94 and then in 95 too
Edberg would also be there in the mid-late 90s .... 
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Pete lost a Wimbledon SF to Goran in 1992.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Becker didn’t decline that much, just faced better players..3-0 where Sampras 71 vs Becker 67
But Sampras 71 vs Becker 76 means aged 17 Becker of 1985 faces Pete in 94 and then in 95 too
Sunny014
Legend
Thats the problem, you fail to give credit to evolution in sports.
Better players arrived because genetics and nutrition in general improved and of course he was 27 yrs old in 94 which was considered old in 80s and 90s.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Pete was 3-0 against Boris in slams, all at Wimbledon. However, Edberg was 2-0 against Pete in slams (AO and USO). This is a tough question, but Pete's slams go from 14 to about 9. I don't think either would ever beat him at Wimbledon, but everywhere else they'd have their chances.
Becker also had that invincible look at Wimbledon in the eighties. His serve was better in the clutch in those prime years.
Sunny014
Legend
They surely have a better shot at beating him than Goran ever had.
Maybe they might steal some wimbledons too ...
Even I agree with the 9 slam count, it seems accurate. 4-5 slams loss is a real possibility, nobody would want 2 ATGs below them and 1 of them a teenage prodigy like becker.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I actually cap his total at 12 in this scenario. I mean you're putting both those players firmly in the 90s to mid 00s. At the same time as some mentioned this would make his early 90s load lighter but it comes back to haunt him later on. I definitely think Becker takes at least 1 Wimbledon from his 97-00 period and both are a problem at AO & USO.
I mean up to 97, Sampras has 8 Slams and 2 losses to Edberg. You may look at him having 10 Slams without Edberg but he has teen prodigy Becker for Wimbledon 93-95. It's easy to forget how great Becker was and yes I would argue better than his older self who faced Sampras 2 of those 3 years. Sure, same thing could happen and Sampras keeps his titles but he could also lose 1 of these. Then 97 AO he probably doesn't win with Edberg/Becker in the draw while 97 WMB, ooooh, how exactly does this affect Pioline? Remember Stich should have met Sampras in that final then who knows? Certainly 21 year old Becker is plain better competition than his older self in the QF. By 98-00 Wimbledons, Pete is getting weaker draws. Obviously you could see both Edberg/Becker on the other half battling with Andre, Goran and Rafter. But odds are he gets a tougher opponent in his half. I can see Sampras losing all 3 of those Wimbledons. 2002 USO could still happen but Edberg/Becker may easily spoil that too.
Essentially you're looking at Sampras gaining 2 titles max but potentially losing 6. So I cap it at 12 because the dynamic would have surely been changed.
I mean up to 97, Sampras has 8 Slams and 2 losses to Edberg. You may look at him having 10 Slams without Edberg but he has teen prodigy Becker for Wimbledon 93-95. It's easy to forget how great Becker was and yes I would argue better than his older self who faced Sampras 2 of those 3 years. Sure, same thing could happen and Sampras keeps his titles but he could also lose 1 of these. Then 97 AO he probably doesn't win with Edberg/Becker in the draw while 97 WMB, ooooh, how exactly does this affect Pioline? Remember Stich should have met Sampras in that final then who knows? Certainly 21 year old Becker is plain better competition than his older self in the QF. By 98-00 Wimbledons, Pete is getting weaker draws. Obviously you could see both Edberg/Becker on the other half battling with Andre, Goran and Rafter. But odds are he gets a tougher opponent in his half. I can see Sampras losing all 3 of those Wimbledons. 2002 USO could still happen but Edberg/Becker may easily spoil that too.
Essentially you're looking at Sampras gaining 2 titles max but potentially losing 6. So I cap it at 12 because the dynamic would have surely been changed.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Adding more and younger ATGs to Sampras' competition during his peak years can only result in fewer slams rather than more for Pete. Basically, if you bump Becker and Edberg back a decade, they emerge in 1995 instead of 1985 and are a high level competition from then until the emergence of Federer and company.
I suppose it opens more opportunities in the front end of his career from 1990-1993 before he took off in 1993, but I'm not sure it results in much more. The draws would be different, so I'll just look at the competition in general.
Pete won USO in 1990. He didn't do much in 1991 at slams, only reaching the QF of the USO. Edberg won it, but if him and Becker are younger, I don't think this is Pete's event anyway. Courier, Lendl, Stich are playing better at this point. No slam for Pete.
1992 is a bit interesting. I don't think Edberg and Becker's absence change Pete's luck at the French in general - there are just better clay court players during the 90's. Wimbledon 1992 is a tough one. Stich, Goran, Agassi, maybe Mac and Forget are the other good competition there. Pete's got a good chance of picking this up, but it's not guaranteed. In the actual tournament, he lost to Goran in the SF's. At the USO, Lendl, Change, Agassi, Courier, and Ferreira and in the QF with Sampras (who lost to Edberg in F). Another good chance for Pete, but no guarantee. I don't think much changes from 1993-1994, Pete was excellent regardless. He lost AO in 93 to Courier, was upset in 4R at USO in 94.
The real question is from 1995-2000, Pete has to deal with the competition he already had at Wimbledon and USO and also young, excellent Becker and Edberg. I'm sure Pete still wins several of these, but making the field that much stronger can only make things more difficult. Becker was extremely good when he was on and young as was Edberg. I think peak Pete has another level on them, but they're better competition than anything Pete DID face from 1995-2000. I'm sure one of them picks up a slam anytime Pete slips up (like he did at Wimbledon in 1996, well, he just got out played by Krajicek) and frankly, I think they probably win more as the decade closes and the next decade starts. We've seen that the post Sampras-Agassi generation was pretty weak, but that changes if you add these two.
Also, instead of the weak era from 2001-2003, you've got Edberg and Becker competing. I thought they might lose some slams with this switch, but they might pick them back up here.
I suppose it opens more opportunities in the front end of his career from 1990-1993 before he took off in 1993, but I'm not sure it results in much more. The draws would be different, so I'll just look at the competition in general.
Pete won USO in 1990. He didn't do much in 1991 at slams, only reaching the QF of the USO. Edberg won it, but if him and Becker are younger, I don't think this is Pete's event anyway. Courier, Lendl, Stich are playing better at this point. No slam for Pete.
1992 is a bit interesting. I don't think Edberg and Becker's absence change Pete's luck at the French in general - there are just better clay court players during the 90's. Wimbledon 1992 is a tough one. Stich, Goran, Agassi, maybe Mac and Forget are the other good competition there. Pete's got a good chance of picking this up, but it's not guaranteed. In the actual tournament, he lost to Goran in the SF's. At the USO, Lendl, Change, Agassi, Courier, and Ferreira and in the QF with Sampras (who lost to Edberg in F). Another good chance for Pete, but no guarantee. I don't think much changes from 1993-1994, Pete was excellent regardless. He lost AO in 93 to Courier, was upset in 4R at USO in 94.
The real question is from 1995-2000, Pete has to deal with the competition he already had at Wimbledon and USO and also young, excellent Becker and Edberg. I'm sure Pete still wins several of these, but making the field that much stronger can only make things more difficult. Becker was extremely good when he was on and young as was Edberg. I think peak Pete has another level on them, but they're better competition than anything Pete DID face from 1995-2000. I'm sure one of them picks up a slam anytime Pete slips up (like he did at Wimbledon in 1996, well, he just got out played by Krajicek) and frankly, I think they probably win more as the decade closes and the next decade starts. We've seen that the post Sampras-Agassi generation was pretty weak, but that changes if you add these two.
Basically. I'm seeing something between 7 at the low end to 12 at the top end, probably somewhere in the middle between these, maybe 9-10.
Also, instead of the weak era from 2001-2003, you've got Edberg and Becker competing. I thought they might lose some slams with this switch, but they might pick them back up here.
Edberg would have won whatever Slams Rafter won in real life, maybe plus AO 1999 and 2002. He would have been outgunned in Wimbledon. Also, Edberg would not last beyond 2003 with his shoddy groundgame - any fool and their mother of the New Ball Generation could outgun him from the baseline - unless their combined existence somehow convinces organizers not to slow down fast courts.
Becker would have had a strong shot in Wimbledon 2000, 2001, 2002, maybe 2003-2005. Goran might not even reach final in 2001. He would have had solid shot at USO and AO from 1999 to 2003. Becker emerging in 1996-1997 might have even bigger serve than Krajicek, plus very strong volleys, ROS and groundies and solid movement as well (certainly stronger than Phillippoussis). Unlike Edberg, Becker should be able to adapt to post-Sampras baseline-dominated tennis.
Becker would have had a strong shot in Wimbledon 2000, 2001, 2002, maybe 2003-2005. Goran might not even reach final in 2001. He would have had solid shot at USO and AO from 1999 to 2003. Becker emerging in 1996-1997 might have even bigger serve than Krajicek, plus very strong volleys, ROS and groundies and solid movement as well (certainly stronger than Phillippoussis). Unlike Edberg, Becker should be able to adapt to post-Sampras baseline-dominated tennis.
Btw, without Becker and Edberg, Goran would have won Wimbledon 1990. He had Becker on the rope in their SF match. This would have made Wimbledon history unrecognizable. A Goran that wins in 1990 could have very likely rolled over Stich and Agassi in 1991 and 1992.
Lendl would have won Wimbledon 1986, 1989 and maybe 1988 (it would have been him or Cash). Both Lendl and Wilander would have surpassed Connors-Mac in total Slam count. Or, Curren winning in 1985 and going on to dominate grass for the remainder of the 1980s.
Sampras would have won USO 1992 and very likely AO 1993 (Courier was red hot there but Sampras almost always pocketed him).
Lendl would have won Wimbledon 1986, 1989 and maybe 1988 (it would have been him or Cash). Both Lendl and Wilander would have surpassed Connors-Mac in total Slam count. Or, Curren winning in 1985 and going on to dominate grass for the remainder of the 1980s.
Sampras would have won USO 1992 and very likely AO 1993 (Courier was red hot there but Sampras almost always pocketed him).
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
This is just another attempt at devaluing the accomplishments of a great player. I don't like it when it is done to anyone in these alternate universe scenarios. We can't we just agree that if everything was different the outcomes would have been different and leave it at that without inventing absolute outcomes?
NonP
Legend
About the same. You jokers are transposing an entire career into another era while leaving everything else intact. Sports don't work like that in the real world, especially when dealing with a historic figure like Sampras.
One more thing:
LOL this Sunny kid couldn't make his agenda more transparent if he tried. Granted most of his ilk don't bother to venture here so I can see why several posters haven't caught on, but he's been at this for months now. Time to stop humoring him.
One more thing:
LOL this Sunny kid couldn't make his agenda more transparent if he tried. Granted most of his ilk don't bother to venture here so I can see why several posters haven't caught on, but he's been at this for months now. Time to stop humoring him.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
. . Sampras wouldn't have won any.
. . Feel better OP?
. . Guy was a hopeless bum on clay, couldn't hit a backhand to save his life....
. . .....anything else I forget?....
.
Sunny014
Legend
Being born 5 or 8 years later makes a big difference....
Nobody realizes this ....
Even Lendl said that when Sampras arrived then he was serving bigger than anyone till then and 5 years later there were 8 guys serving that way and everyone adapted.
So if Boris is placed 4 years ahead instead of 4 years behind Sampras then things would make a big difference, Pete's entire legacy would be tarnished by Boris and Stefan.
That again would be like placing Novak or Rafa into the Gustavo Kuerten age group which 5-6 years before Federer, imagine what Federer would do to them from 2003 onwards? LOL..... he would eat them for breakfast (assuming Safin hasn't already eaten them).
Nobody realizes this ....
Even Lendl said that when Sampras arrived then he was serving bigger than anyone till then and 5 years later there were 8 guys serving that way and everyone adapted.
So if Boris is placed 4 years ahead instead of 4 years behind Sampras then things would make a big difference, Pete's entire legacy would be tarnished by Boris and Stefan.
That again would be like placing Novak or Rafa into the Gustavo Kuerten age group which 5-6 years before Federer, imagine what Federer would do to them from 2003 onwards? LOL..... he would eat them for breakfast (assuming Safin hasn't already eaten them).
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
On the contrary, it seems obvious to me. If you move great players from one generation to a different one, it's going to change the dynamics. If you add two more great players to a different player's competition it's going to make things more difficult for him. Duh.
Also, Pete's legacy wouldn't be "tarnished." He'd just have fewer slams, likely. The same could be said of any great player. If you add another or several great players to their era, they're going to win less. If they're younger than them, then it's possibly even more problematic. It's true for Pete, it's just as true for Becker and Edberg, it's true for Lendl, it's true for Borg, and it's likely true for Federer, Novak and Rafa as well.
Sunny014
Legend
Federer already suffered with 2 ATGs in the immediate generation below him.
What more can we ask for ?
Other ATGs are lucky.
This is obviously true, and we should always take into account the strength of field when evaluating the great players. Just saying that a player has X-many Grand Slams does not tell us very much, we need to know which players offered some opposition.
Frankly, the 1990's does not impress me as one of the strongest eras in tennis history.
NonP
Legend
Not even wrong. That's what Pauli would say about this newb and his fellow bots if he had any interest in debunking dumb nonsense on tennis boards.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Nice edit
I am kinda into this thread because I am really fascinated with a 1990s version of Boris Becker born in 1975 or 1976 - a true ATG contender. We do know about Mark Phillippoussis - now imagine a version of Phillippoussis with much better volleys, movement, consistency and discipline - that would be a 1975-born Becker.
Edberg, OTOH, would not go anywhere in this timeline, if his tennis still resembles our real-life Edberg, Rafter or Henman. He would have won 4 Slams at most, with no more 1 Wimbledon.
Edberg, OTOH, would not go anywhere in this timeline, if his tennis still resembles our real-life Edberg, Rafter or Henman. He would have won 4 Slams at most, with no more 1 Wimbledon.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Misread the OP.
Karma Tennis
Legend
Doesn't matter.
Pete still wouldn't have won a Roland Garros Title. The only thing that would have enhanced Pete's status was to win at least one, and preferable more than one Roland Garros Title.
More Wimbledons, AOs and USOs would not have enhanced his status.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I really don't know, but if you put more great players into an era, yeah, the guy/guys at the top is/are going to suffer.
OTOH, he would have benefited quite a little bit in 1990-1993, most likely 2 more Slams in that period. You have created a vacuum in the late 1980s and early 1990s by removing Becker and Edberg.
Meanwhile, if the duo were born in 1975/1976, only young Becker would have troubled Sampras. Edberg wouldn't have been an ATG candidate if his tennis still resembles the real-life Edberg.
California
Semi-Pro
Yet Edberg lead Sampras 2 to 1 in slams.... such an Edberg hater. Edberg always played Sampras tough even towards the end of his career when he was less interested in tennis. Why? He pressured Pete, put him on the defensive, and made him come up with passing shots. If Rafter was still doing well into the early 00s, Edberg would be fine as he was much better player than Rafter.
Now if you want to move Edberg to today, with court conditions and exclusively baseline wars, I agree he would’ve had to change his forehand and stay back much more. Late 90 to early 2000s no problem. Don’t kid yourself.
slipgrip93
Professional
Another funny thing to conjecture about these player timeline transplanting ideas in order to screw up a goat's legendary status (more neverending debate of one "goat"'s always "weak era" compared to another's? ) is that like many sci-fi timeline screwup stories messing with "fate", they can often invariably have unforseen, wild and unintended consequences and repercussions.
So we have Becker and Edberg transplanted 5-6 years later to cut down Sampras' slams. Then what happens to the dearth. Does it get picked up for more slams for Lendl, Chang, maybe McEnroe making another slam win in his 30's? What if McEnroe transplants 10 years later. Can he also take a slam from Sampras? Does he also switch to luxilon poly strings in '97 to get more spin? Then what happens in the 80's; does Borg continue to play seven more years, possibly reaching 20+ slams first, also picking up U.S.Open slam wins finally? becoming the first big longevity goat of the open era (and hopefully switches to graphite along the way while still a pro), so 15-20 years later the Big-3 perhaps get more motivated to reach Borg's record slams earlier? haha. It's all over the place. Good friday night.
So we have Becker and Edberg transplanted 5-6 years later to cut down Sampras' slams. Then what happens to the dearth. Does it get picked up for more slams for Lendl, Chang, maybe McEnroe making another slam win in his 30's? What if McEnroe transplants 10 years later. Can he also take a slam from Sampras? Does he also switch to luxilon poly strings in '97 to get more spin? Then what happens in the 80's; does Borg continue to play seven more years, possibly reaching 20+ slams first, also picking up U.S.Open slam wins finally? becoming the first big longevity goat of the open era (and hopefully switches to graphite along the way while still a pro), so 15-20 years later the Big-3 perhaps get more motivated to reach Borg's record slams earlier? haha. It's all over the place. Good friday night.
Last edited:
I mean, the problem is that reaching deep enough to meet Pete would have been a major problem for 1976-born Edberg - assuming he would still be a serve-and-volleyer.
Assume that Edberg is born in 1975 or 1976 in this scenario - and his style is still serve-and-volley without a big serve. He would enter the Tour in 1995-1996. Here would be some background trends:
- Two-handers and baseliners were rapidly taking over the tour during 1998-2004. 2003 was the last year a serve-and-volleyer made a Slam Final. 2004 was the beginning of the Federer onslaught.
- We all know how well Edberg fared against two-handers and big hitters.
- Serve-and-volleyers were no longer able to reach deep in Australian Open after 1997. 2000 was abnormal (Pete reached SF) because the surface was crazy fast, but Agassi was too zoning that event.
- Forget about French Open.
- No more than 2 serve-and-volleyers were able to qualify for Year-end Tour Final every year between 1997 and 2003. In 1999 and 2000 it was essentially Pete Sampras vs 7 baseliners. Btw, by 1999, the surface had already been converted from carpet to hard.
- Wimbledon by that time was already firmly dominated by big servers. Sampras was still unbeatable there in 1997-1999.
- And here is the biggest obstacle for this hypothetical Edberg: The OP also inserted a hypothetical 1976-born Becker into the scenario as well. As lopsided as the Edberg-Becker rivalry was for Stefan, such a rivalry with 1990s racquet tech would be even worse.
Conclusion:
His window of opportunity would be between 1997 and 2003. Specific opportunities would include US Open 1997-1999, Australian Open 1999 and 2002 (if the draw is favourable), Wimbledon 2000-2003. Of course he could not win all of them. By 2004, the transition of tennis away from serve-and-volley is complete, and also, the Federer onslaught begins.
He could win 2-4 Slams and end up like Rafter, Courier or Wawrinka.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
It’s kind of funny how contradictory the previous two posts are.
Sunny014
Legend
LOL, Edberg was definitely miles ahead of Rafter and how can he end up in the same league when placed in a zone of comfort with ageing ATGs above him?
At the AO - Edberg won the Aus open at 19 and 21 (AO was not held when Edberg was 20), plus after the AO shifted from Grass to RA he still made 3 finals there and multiple semis too, a guy like that would have won 3-4 AOs if placed at 1975/76 with a 5-6 years lead over Agassi who himself won 4 AOs in his career.
At the FO - 0 titles, I agree, no chance.
At Wimbledon -Sampras would still be dominant but that doesn't mean Edberg cannot win 1 or 2 Wimbledons reducing Pete's 7 to 5 or 6. Ivan Lendl himself said that Sampras served hardest to anyone before him when he arrived but after 5 years the field started serving big like him and adapted. ......So a 5 years younger Edberg would also be automatically serving bigger....... he could win 1 or 2 wimbledon ...... R u saying an ATG SNV specialist from Sampras's next generation cannot take away at least 1 wimbledon ??? Even Goran won 1 wimbledon, Rafter had his chances, Edberg is too good to not win 1 or maybe even 2.
At the USO - He has 2 USOs in 91-92, obvious born 9 years later his chances would automatically improve in the late 90s and maybe in the early 00s he might suffer due to youngsters like Safin-Hewitt-Roddick but then if Sampras-Agassi could play a final in 02 then he could at least have 1-2 USOs considering even Rafter has 2 USOs.
So thats 3-4 AOs + 1-2 WImbledons + 2 USOs = 6-8 Slams for him.
He would still win the same number of slams.
Sunny014
Legend
I sincerely doubt being more motivated would have helped, it wasn't lack of motivation that stopped Pete's dominance circa 99-00, the game was shifting towards baseliners and Pete would have had to evolve, his backhand was too outdated I think so.
Nd who say "I lost because I was not motivated" ? ..... It is a big lie...
Everybody is motivated to win against youngsters, even Federer was enough motivated in the 2010s but he simply could not beat Djokodal outside Grass. Maybe if Federer had changed his racquet he would have competed harder nd maybe stole some slams but then motivation was never an issue.
A person only loses when his level drops +/ next gen rises, Djkodal+Murray were reaching slams semis/finals in 08 and since they were getting stronger on HCs, so automatically 2010-2014 was a very tough period for 30+ Federer, no excuses that he was not motivated, same for Sampras.....
Infact Sampras was outdated, he would have had to reinvent his game and make it like Agassi's to survive
Maybe possible in his early-mid 20s but not possible at 30.....Thing is, by 2002, Sampras' Slam count was already a record and somewhat of an outlier - at least compared to his generation as well as the Edberg/Becker one, with his nearest rival Agassi far behind with no chance to catch up. Federer, OTOH, has at least Nadal (who also already had double-digit Slams when Fed won his 7th Wimbledon).
Borg also retired due to mental/motivational issues. Even if the "McEnroe begins to eclipse Borg" is true, it is not valid on clay, where Borg could have racked up a number of extra RGs.
Sampras was lazy at the end. After his last win in 2002, he did not bother to train - and when his coach talked about Wimbledon 2003, he simply stopped and retired. Note that he could have easily had strong results in 2003, as his biggest problem Hewitt had a big slump that year.
Karma Tennis
Legend
It's true that some of the reasons Borg retired when he did were due to mental and motivation issues. But it was also driven by the fact that Borg let he should have more of a say over what his Tournament schedule should be. At that stage the ATP wanted its top players to play an increasing number of Tournaments each year. Borg wanted to focus on the the biggest events and was not going to be permitted to do so by the ATP. So he promptly Retired from the sport.
Sampras was in a different position. He certainly did appear to lose his motivation. But the rapid rise of Federer probably accelerated Pete's decisio to Retire.
Your argument fails flat when you also had Becker born on 1976. Both would have won 3-4 and gone down in history as Courier-tier players.LOL, Edberg was definitely miles ahead of Rafter and how can he end up in the same league when placed in a zone of comfort with ageing ATGs above him?
At the AO - Edberg won the Aus open at 19 and 21 (AO was not held when Edberg was 20), plus after the AO shifted from Grass to RA he still made 3 finals there and multiple semis too, a guy like that would have won 3-4 AOs if placed at 1975/76 with a 5-6 years lead over Agassi who himself won 4 AOs in his career.
At the FO - 0 titles, I agree, no chance.
At Wimbledon -Sampras would still be dominant but that doesn't mean Edberg cannot win 1 or 2 Wimbledons reducing Pete's 7 to 5 or 6. Ivan Lendl himself said that Sampras served hardest to anyone before him when he arrived but after 5 years the field started serving big like him and adapted. ......So a 5 years younger Edberg would also be automatically serving bigger....... he could win 1 or 2 wimbledon ...... R u saying an ATG SNV specialist from Sampras's next generation cannot take away at least 1 wimbledon ??? Even Goran won 1 wimbledon, Rafter had his chances, Edberg is too good to not win 1 or maybe even 2.
At the USO - He has 2 USOs in 91-92, obvious born 9 years later his chances would automatically improve in the late 90s and maybe in the early 00s he might suffer due to youngsters like Safin-Hewitt-Roddick but then if Sampras-Agassi could play a final in 02 then he could at least have 1-2 USOs considering even Rafter has 2 USOs.
So thats 3-4 AOs + 1-2 WImbledons + 2 USOs = 6-8 Slams for him.
He would still win the same number of slams.
Last edited:
Sunny014
Legend
These guys were teenage prodigies who won slams before 20, such fellows don't end up with 3-4 slams in any era, they would win 6-7 everywhere in every era.
California
Semi-Pro
Edberg should’ve won the 89 FO Open final against a zoning Chang and the Aussie Open final where he was beating Lendl and he had to retire with an abdominal injury... he should’ve won more, not less! He is a far more accomplished player than Rafter, quicker, much better returns, better backhand. If Rafter could still be winning in the late 90s and early 00s Edberg could too. @NedStark is a hater..... but he is entitled to his wrong opinions
Last edited:
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Honestly, Pete might have won more.
Stefan Edberg, had a good record against Pete, during the early parts of his career.
If Edberg wasn't around then Pete could have won the 1992 US Open and possibly the 1993 Australian Open.
Edberg would only have 7 years at most, from 1997 to 2003. Becker, OTOH, could remain relevant until 2006. In those years, you would have to subtract:
- 6 out of 7 FOs.
- AO 1997, 2000, 2001.
- USO 2000, 2002.
- Wimbledon 1997-1999.
Becker and Edberg would only have chances in 15 Slams, and assuming that they would have won all of them is a big assumption.
