Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Chillaxer, Aug 11, 2012.
In terms of all time greats? The guy was pure class.
He is regarded in very high regard. He is one of the greats of a very popular generation.
But he is not on the level of some of the others.
Edberg is very respected on this board. Besides from his fh, I dont think I heard anything negative about him on this board!
he also always kept a low profile.
I'm not bothered by where people place their posts but to get a better discussion you might be better off posting this in the former pro player section.
As for Edberg I think his place is pretty realistic - he sits in that level just below the Lendls, Connors and McEnroe's of the tennis world.
Wonderful guy though - I interviewed him in Adelaide (Australia) in the early 1990s.
Beautifully mannered (as one would expect) and his long-time coach Tony Pickard was a delight.
Sorry, yeah, forgot.
I like the guy precisely because of what people say-isn't limelight hungry, (refers to my early post about some ex champs just being over-exposed and a tad immodest) just wanted to win and did it in style. I'm not sure he does actually deserve to be below those you mentioned?. How many slams did Connors and Mcenroe win? And Becker seems much higher regarded.
Borg won less than Fed and the same as what Rafa is on now but is regarded higher than his slam no's.
No need to apologise to me - I'm not bothered - some will be though I expect.
Yeah, he's the polar oppposite of McEnroe in exposure stakes that's for sure.
Six majors for him - Mc has 7, Connors and Lendl 8.
They also made a greater impact in terms of time spent at No.1 etc
Don't you think time at high rankings is somewhat irrelevant when compared to slams? If anything if someone's ranking stats are better relative to their slam victories than other players that does not imply good things about them when assessing greatness. I'd put him with Becker and Mc.
Well, all three (Connors, Mc and Lendl) beat him in the major (slam) count as well.
I know, but read my above point. It's just other guys self-promote more I guess.
In terms of accomplishments the trio I've named are a considerable distance ahead of Edberg - that's a fact not an opinion.
In terms of majors won, time at No.1, other big titles won (Masters) he trails.
Also, when you been No.1 for 270 weeks (Lendl), 268 weeks (Connors) and 170 weeks (McEnroe) one doesn't need too much "self-promotion".
Sadly Edberg is a fair way back isn't he? 72 weeks from memory.
Nice run but not a giant of the game by any means.
edberg beats chang in that rg final = instantly jumps up a tier in greats discussion
at his best, was as good as anyone 2 ever play the game and did it on all surfaces. unfortunately was never the same after his back injury, n didnt really take non-slam events as seriously. so ppl who look at his stats n see he didnt win a ton of titles tend 2 underrate him
personally i rate him on a par with mac
Like I said, I'd rather take slams than that, and if he has a good slam to weeks at no.1 rationa nd less minor titles, that's actually does not count badly against in my book, and I think it is a pretty subjective. I take your point about more slams, but Mc only has one more and Becker? They are the bracket of guys I think he deserves to be more talked about in, but as I say it may just be that he's about less and does get some credit unbeknownst to me.
Exactly, and who the hell blames him? They could be virtual hitting practice for top players. It seems people want to pump those events up too much, its like judging Brazil on whether they win warm up games more than whether they win world cups.
One more major is significant.
As for Becker I certainly rate him lower than Edberg.
Can I ask why? Becker had a dominent head to head against edberg. He won many more major indoor titles (4 or 5 compared to edbergs one) and had same number of slams. i just dont understand the view that edberg is rated higher than becker.
Edberg won two/three Wimbledon finals against Becker did he not, that's pretty big.
Probably the best volleyer to grace the game. Take what I say with a grain of salt as I have never seen him play live. But, what a beautiful game. I love Edberg!
Edberg won 2 out of the three wimbledon finals they played. However one of those wins was a five setter, that could easily have gone the other way. Hence edberg is only barely ahead in that category. Comapre that to the Massive lead that becker has in the head to head.
He is very high regarded anyway and he deserves it.
Winning five setters is a bonus. Shows character.
Was Roddick as good as McEnroe, Connors and Becker? Obviously a big NO. So that's why Edberg may well be better than prime Federer. Edberg's competition was far greater.
Are you trying to say that its not a fact that McEnroe, Connors, Becker are all better than Roddick?
Answer my question first.
Because I witnessed the 1980s, live. That's how I know. Roddick/Federer would have a lot of problems vs the elite players.
I witnessed the 1980s live too. Roddick certainly would have a few problems, but Federer wouldn't have. Prime Federer was on another level.
yeah, federer would not have 17 slams with them all around.
But rafa would have zero slams outside of clay with them around. mac/connors/edberg/becker would have thrashed him in the 2nd half of the season , @ wimbledon where grass was faster and lower bouncing , @ USO on decoturf II, and on indoor ( oh wait, he'd have got thrashed in one season and then used his injury excuses to skip other indoor seasons :twisted
I agree. He is not at the same level of Connors, Mc and Lendl. He is a tier below with Becker IMO.
That's generally the accepted view and it's hard to mount a strong argument against it.
pwned becker in slams h2h. becker had a much better non-slam record but in slams edberg was far superior:
titles: becker 6, edberg 6
runner-ups: becker 5, edberg 6
semis: becker 8, edberg 8
quarters: becker 5, edberg 7
tended 2 beat better players too IMO
Edberg had too much upstairs and all round for Roddick. I could see him beating him in big matches
i think most people have edberg's career about right, he's a 'tier 3' guy.
from an athletic/talent standpoint imo, though, he's tier one, and very close to the top. he learned the game a certain way and did pretty well for himself, but i think had he adopted a more 'conventional' forehand and developed his ground game further, he could easily be sitting on 8-10 slams or more. he speed, balance, and coordination are among the best i've ever seen.
My guess is... 6 ?
He's already considered to be one of the greats in the sport.
Practically everyone loves Edberg.
and my guess is Kodes would have won zero and laver 2 ......( oh wait, that would probably be true for any era except the weakest era of all time --- 1960-73 ! )
Did I mention how many titles would Kodes or Laver win in today´s extremely weak era?
Like I said , in most other eras they would probably end up with 0 and 2 majors respectively - that includes this era >> wayyyyyy stronger than the era in which they played ..... They only won more because they played in the weakest era of all time ..
I am not angry at all ......
All I am doing is making fun of your total ignorance about the present era ( or for that matter tennis of any era )
davydenko is better than the likes of ralston/drysdale whom you keep parading as greats ....... LOL .......
those are pathetic victims ......
davydenko has a YEC beating federer, delpo, nadal on the way ...... also leads nadal 6-1 on HC ..
what do ralston/drysdale have ? a lone slam final in totally inept , joke amateur fields ?????? LMAO !!!!! davydenko would have won multiple majors in fields like those ....
Kodes won the 1973 Wimbledon title facing all time greats like peakest nastase and extremely close to prime Connors and prime Borg ( among others like Amritraj,Metrevali and Taylor)...that means, won a GS title with 3 of the best ever players in the field.
At msot, Federer can say he has faced 2 of the best modern era players ( Hewitt and Safin in his starting days, Nadal and Djokovic in the last 5 years)...so FEDERER never won a championship as tough as 1973 Kodes ( not to mention the other slams Kodes won)...
Live with that, you obsessed youngster:cry:
kodes didn't actually face any of nastase or connors or borg in 73 wimbledon. That was the worst Wimbledon of the open era by far due to the boycott..his toughest opponent was roger taylor ..... LOL ...
connors was still to hit his peak, borg was nowhere close to his best on grass ( that came in 76 - 3 years later ) , nastase displaying his inconsistent nature, crashed out .......
kodes 73 wimbledon title = weakest wimbledon of the open era ( weakest of all slam titles in the open era bar probably some of the joke AO fields in the late 70s and early 80s ) ......... Its a fact >>>> deal with it ...
guys like roddick, lendl >>>>>>kodes on grass
even guys like phillippoussis, murray, henman are better than kodes on grass ...
73 was prime borg ????????????? HA HA HA HA HA HA ...... you are really one heck of a clueless guy ........ you keep surprising me by pushing the limits of stupidity .......
Just put him on the ignore list.
Edberg owned Becker in terms of ranking consistency and weeks at #1.
He was able to defend a major title on two occasions. > USO 91-92 and AO 85-87 (there was no AO in 86). Becker by contrast only defended one major title (Wimbledon 85-86).
Edberg also won three doubles majors - including doing the singles/doubles sweep at the 87 AO, an extremely rare feat worthy of tons of kudos imo.
Edberg also won almost 100 more matches in his career than Becker (despite having a slightly lower career win-loss ratio) despite have a career which was around two years shorter.
Coming back to the thread title, I think edberg is fairly rated by most - in the tier along with becker, wilander ...
one thing that that goes against him is the lack of a truly dominant year - never won more than one slam ...... missed out in 90 and 91 .....
could have won in the AO in 90 if not for injury, then the "unfortunate" match vs stich in 91 wimbledon where he was never broken, but lost the match in 4 sets ...
one AO win on rebound ace or that final against Chang at the FO would certainly have elevated his resume quite a bit ......
How many players have won a slam at Laver's size in this era?
Time doesn't stay still...tennis has changed a lot since the 60s.
Since you never watched any tennis, or heard of, before 2000, let me isntruct you.
-.If Kodes didn´t play Connors,Borg or Nastase ( who had just won the FO ) it is not Jan´s fault, he reached the finals...
-.Borg would hit his prime a year later, I didn´t say " prime" but " close to prime".In 73 he had already scored wins over guys that you may never heard of (Orantes,Ashe,Rosewall)
-.Kodes beat Smith and lost to Newc at the 1973 USO and beat Newcombe and lost to Smith at the 1971 USO.Newcombe and Smith would laugh to death at the prospect of facing Henman,Roddick,Philipousis,Hewitt and, of course, Davidenkho.In fact, they´d probably WO.
-.Jan beat all greats of his era: Connors,Laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Nastase ( IN A GS FINAL¡¡¡),Smith,Ashe,Orantes,Gimeno,Roche etc etc.All of them multuimajor champs
Henman? a human fail, just like Murray and Philipoussis.
Roddick? a one timer.Good player who had the chance to play in the weakest era ever, so that he could even win a slam.If Edmondson or Teacher had played in this era, their AO title wouldn´t have been the only one...rememember Johansson?
Sorry to slam in your face, once again....
Becker won far more major titles, including WCT and Masters.He never choked in the big finals.
no, clueless, I've watched plenty more tennis than you before 2000
of course it isn't. He was just taking advantage of the weakest wimbledon of the era ...
borg's claycourt prime started in 74 ...grass court prime in 76 ....... so he still had miles to go before reaching his prime on grass ...... But I am not surprised , as you are clueless about tennis ....
clueless , phillippusis straight-setted sampras at the AO in 96 and had him in trouble in wimbledon 99 before retiring with injury ...... he could easily upset newcombe/smith ...
hewitt was tearing apart sampras as early as 2000 when he was just a teenager .... what makes you think he couldn't tear apart the inferior SnVers in Newk/Smith
roddick with his serve and big FH could easily beat newk/smith as well
davydenko can easily beat anyone on a HC ( and quite a few on clay as well )
and hewitt beat federer, agassi, sampras, nadal, djokovic, safin , kuerten etc ...all mutliple slam winners
and roddick has beaten djoker, nadal, agassi ,sampras, safin , federer etc ... all multiple slam winners
want me to go on ?
bah, clueless ........
henman > kodes on grass .... Kodes just got lucky ...
As far as murray, scud are concerned, they were wayyyyyyyy better players in general than that mighty lucky Kodes .... Just unfortunate that they are playing in way tougher eras ( and in scud's case, affected by injuries as well)
roddick >>>>>> Kodes , deal with it .... The reason why Kodes isn't talked about much is because everyone who saw that era knows he was very lucky to win all those 3 depleted slams and would have at max one one slam in full fields
yeah, I bet he was mighty pleased with his performance in the 91 wimbledon finals vs stich .....
and of course he didn't let slip away a break in the final set in the 90 wimbledon final vs edberg ...... oh wait
I bet he was mighty clutch in the RG semi vs edberg in 89 as well, oh wait ...
becker was great mentally many of the times, but he could be flaky the other times .....
Please, make some research about the 1970 and 71 FO, 71 and 73 USo, 70-73 Masters and so forth.In Kodes time, there were multimajor winners, which is not what happened in Fed´s prime.Maybe a couple of guys here and there, that is it.Thatb is why seasoned ( not newtards like you) have aknowledged this era as the weakest of all time.
Philipoussis,Henmans,Murrays and Davidoffs, there were plenty of them in the 70´s and 80´s...you know why they weren´t even aknowledged? easy, becasue the competition was so tough, they never outstood.They would be the Edmondsons,Teachers,Sadris,Mc Namaras,Solomons,Dibbs,Peccis,Scanlons or Frawleys at most.Maybe they would hit the top 10 once a while or the top 15.But that is it.
Maybe, in a given AO of that era, a Roddick or a Murray would take a slam.Like Eddo or Teacher did or make the finals like Warwick,Marks or Sadri got.Maybe.But that is it.
Borg,Connors,Lendl,Mac,Becker,Edberg,Wilander,Vilas,Cash,Nastase,Kodes,Ashe,Smith,Laver,Roche,Newcombe,Rosewall,Tanner,Gerulaitis, just had something they were never blessed with:
Separate names with a comma.