Top 10 of All Time - Rivalries

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Most tennis fans and historians alike would consider the following players to be among the Top 10 Best Players of the last 30 years:

Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Andre Agassi
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Mats Wilander
Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker

Note: Many might think Rafael Nadal has entered this top 10.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the head-to-head records of 9 of the players against each other (I, of course, excluded Federer).

Below is what I found:

Sampras 52-31 (62.65%)
Borg 29-17 (63.04%)
Connors 41-78 (34.45%)
Agassi 41-37 (52.56%)
McEnroe 60-67 (47.24%)
Lendl 93-72 (56.36%)
Wilander 35-37 (48.61%)
Edberg 54-66 (45.00%)
Becker 67-63 (51.54%)

The rivalries I found most surprising were:

Borg-Lendl 6-2
Becker-Edberg 25-10
Connors-Edberg 6-6
Wilander-Connors 5-0
 

wangs78

Legend
These winning percentages are largely driven by the point in each players career he was in when he played against the other top players that you list. Connors has a losing record probably because he played a lot of these players when he was past his prime already (and given how long his career was, most of those matches were probably played past his prime). Look at Borg, he retired at age 25 or something so he never really faced the Beckers and Edbergs, etc. Makes sense that Sampras has a great record. He came in when players like Edberg and Becker were just past their prime and then of course he was better than Agassi, so....
 

jaggy

Talk Tennis Guru
Borg had gone before Lendl peaked or that could have been different, or maybe not, you can only guess.
 

britbox

Rookie
Most tennis fans and historians alike would consider the following players to be among the Top 10 Best Players of the last 30 years:

Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Andre Agassi
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Mats Wilander
Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker

Note: Many might think Rafael Nadal has entered this top 10.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the head-to-head records of 9 of the players against each other (I, of course, excluded Federer).

Below is what I found:

Sampras 52-31 (62.65%)
Borg 29-17 (63.04%)
Connors 41-78 (34.45%)
Agassi 41-37 (52.56%)
McEnroe 60-67 (47.24%)
Lendl 93-72 (56.36%)
Wilander 35-37 (48.61%)
Edberg 54-66 (45.00%)
Becker 67-63 (51.54%)

The rivalries I found most surprising were:

Borg-Lendl 6-2
Becker-Edberg 25-10
Connors-Edberg 6-6
Wilander-Connors 5-0


Yeah - matchup issues in some cases, and the time in ones career in others, Although some strange patterns in others. I think Becker won something like 11 of the last matches with Edberg in a row, so they were closer when both in their primes (and Edberg led the grand slam matches 3-1 and beat Boris in YEC final).
 

380pistol

Banned
Most tennis fans and historians alike would consider the following players to be among the Top 10 Best Players of the last 30 years:

Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Andre Agassi
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Mats Wilander
Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker

Note: Many might think Rafael Nadal has entered this top 10.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the head-to-head records of 9 of the players against each other (I, of course, excluded Federer).

Below is what I found:

Sampras 52-31 (62.65%)
Borg 29-17 (63.04%)
Connors 41-78 (34.45%)
Agassi 41-37 (52.56%)
McEnroe 60-67 (47.24%)
Lendl 93-72 (56.36%)
Wilander 35-37 (48.61%)
Edberg 54-66 (45.00%)
Becker 67-63 (51.54%)

The rivalries I found most surprising were:

Borg-Lendl 6-2
Becker-Edberg 25-10
Connors-Edberg 6-6
Wilander-Connors 5-0

The head to head may be a little skewered, cuz all combantants didn't play each other when they were in their primes. The played at different stages of each's respective career, and isn't the tuest barometer.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
I IMO leaving out mult-Major winner/finalists who preceded and/or were contemporaries of Connors and overlapped the other generations further skews the numbers, as these guys clearly had their say, i.e.:

Laver
Rosewall
Newcombe
Kodes
Ashe
Smith
Nastase
Vilas
Courier
Kuerten
Rafter
Hewitt, et al.

Making it an even more questionable barometer.

5
 
Last edited:

AndrewD

Legend
These winning percentages are largely driven by the point in each players career he was in when he played against the other top players that you list. Connors has a losing record probably because he played a lot of these players when he was past his prime already (and given how long his career was, most of those matches were probably played past his prime). Look at Borg, he retired at age 25 or something so he never really faced the Beckers and Edbergs, etc. Makes sense that Sampras has a great record. He came in when players like Edberg and Becker were just past their prime and then of course he was better than Agassi, so....

Absolutely spot-on. The only rivalries that involved players in their prime at the same time were Edberg-Becker and Sampras-Agassi.

Even then you have to look more closely at the results. Becker had a 25-10 winning record over Edberg but, if you look at their record at events that really mattered (Davis Cup, Majors, Masters) it was only 6-5 to Becker. With Agassi-Sampras, if you do the same you find Sampras has a 6-3 advantage. However, all of Sampras' wins come on the fastest courts at Wimbledon and the US Open. As soon as the pace drops a touch - at the Aus Open- or quite a bit - the French Open- Agassi wins.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Ivanisevic seemed to take more sets off of Sampras than anyone else. I'd love to see data on sets lost & 5 setters. I actually think Pete feared playing Goran more than Agassi because he knew it would come down to a few points in tie breakers.

The Federer/Nadal rivalry is incredible. Interestingly, Nadal's winning record over Federer makes Sampras clear domination of his contemporaries even more impressive.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Becker had a 25-10 winning record over Edberg but, if you look at their record at events that really mattered (Davis Cup, Majors, Masters) it was only 6-5 to Becker.

It's 8-5 Becker, when you just count those events.

I think Becker won something like 11 of the last matches with Edberg in a row, so they were closer when both in their primes (and Edberg led the grand slam matches 3-1 and beat Boris in YEC final).

Becker won their last 8 meetings. And 4 of those 8 were when Edberg was ranked #2. I think its a bit of a stretch to explain the lopsided head to head by saying Edberg was 'past his prime' for any significant part of their matches.
 

britbox

Rookie
It's 8-5 Becker, when you just count those events.



Becker won their last 8 meetings. And 4 of those 8 were when Edberg was ranked #2. I think its a bit of a stretch to explain the lopsided head to head by saying Edberg was 'past his prime' for any significant part of their matches.

Sorry - I stand corrected. It was 10 of the last 11 and 8 in a row.
It was still closer when both were at the top of their games - think it was 10-7 at one point. Edberg also enjoyed the better of Becker in slams (3-1) including 2 Wimbledon Finals and an FO Semi which I guess Boris would swap for a H2H count.
 

andreh

Professional
I think its a bit of a stretch to explain the lopsided head to head by saying Edberg was 'past his prime' for any significant part of their matches.

I agree with this. Becker dominated Edberg throughout their respective careers except maybe in the years 1987 to 1990 where Edberg kept up decently, but was still behind. It was between these years that almost all of Edbergs wins came.

I think it has to be explained with:

1) Becker had a strategic strenght that played against a strategic weakness of Edberg, namely Becker's superb return of serve. Like almost no other player in that day he could step in and take that high bouncing kickserve on the rise and overpower Edberg at the net. And Edberg really only had one kink in his armor - overpowering returns.

2) possibly the psychological dynamic between the two players. I think Becker got into Edberg's head a little. And Edberg into Beckers. Maybe Becker woke up the moring after losing in the 1990 W final, looked at himself in the mirror and said to himself "I lost a big one again. I swear I'm never going to lose to him again". And he didn't.
 
Last edited:

andreh

Professional
I specifically said, " Davis Cup, Majors, Masters", nothing else. The tally is 6-5, exactly as I said.

You're talking Year End Masters and not Master series events?

If you are talking master series events I get the tally to 10-7 Becker counting Indian Wells and Cincinnatti in 1987 (at which time Master series didn't exist) which later became master series events in 1990. Not counting those two would be 9-6 Becker.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
I specifically said, " Davis Cup, Majors, Masters", nothing else. The tally is 6-5, exactly as I said.

The Year End Masters changed its name to the ATP World Championship in 1990. They played each other there in '92 & '94 as well, which makes it 8-5. I assumed you just made a mistake, if not I'm not sure why you would intentionally exclude those 2 meetings in your revised head to head. A name change didn't change the importance of the event.

Sorry - I stand corrected. It was 10 of the last 11 and 8 in a row.
It was still closer when both were at the top of their games - think it was 10-7 at one point.

So you think Edberg was 'at the top of his game' in '87 to '89 because he fared better against Becker those years, but not from '90 to '92, when he was higher ranked & won more majors? Some of these scores are incredible, Edberg finished 1990 #1, but was humiliated by Becker in Stockholm that year. Edberg won the 1992 USO and was thrashed by Becker at the Word Championship later that year. Becker was always a bad matchup for him. Even the 2 times he beat him in the Wimbledon final, the oddsmakers had him as a pretty big underdog.

And as far as those 10 of the last 11, the one win for Edberg was 1990 Paris when Becker retired due to injury at 3-3 in the 1st set (& Becker had already beaten Edberg twice in straights that fall), so the head to head could've been even worse.
 

britbox

Rookie
The Year End Masters changed its name to the ATP World Championship in 1990. They played each other there in '92 & '94 as well, which makes it 8-5. I assumed you just made a mistake, if not I'm not sure why you would intentionally exclude those 2 meetings in your revised head to head. A name change didn't change the importance of the event.



So you think Edberg was 'at the top of his game' in '87 to '89 because he fared better against Becker those years, but not from '90 to '92, when he was higher ranked & won more majors? Some of these scores are incredible, Edberg finished 1990 #1, but was humiliated by Becker in Stockholm that year. Edberg won the 1992 USO and was thrashed by Becker at the Word Championship later that year. Becker was always a bad matchup for him. Even the 2 times he beat him in the Wimbledon final, the oddsmakers had him as a pretty big underdog.

And as far as those 10 of the last 11, the one win for Edberg was 1990 Paris when Becker retired due to injury at 3-3 in the 1st set (& Becker had already beaten Edberg twice in straights that fall), so the head to head could've been even worse.

I didn't say it wasn't a bad matchup for Edberg. I said it was closer when both players were in their primes than it ended up overall. Which is fact.

As for the almost "11 in a row" which you refer to, I pointed out 11 in a row originally to which you rightfully corrected me on.

Fact is Becker would likely swap the overall H2H for the 3-1 slam H2H that Edberg enjoyed including 2 Wimbledon titles. On the next biggest stage - a YEC final, Edberg also went home with the silverware.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
I said it was closer when both players were in their primes than it ended up overall. Which is fact.


http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=B028&playernum2=E004

Edberg finished in the top 5 every year from 1985 to 1993. I don't know what your definition of prime is, but that sounds like one to me. Becker was 21-9 vs Edberg in those years.

And Becker was 6-2 vs Edberg from '90 to '92 (with one of the 2 wins for Edberg being a retirement) 4 of those 6 wins were in straight sets, including 2 bagels. Edberg was certainly in his prime from 1990 to 1992(a time in which he won 3 majors & finished #1 twice), no?
 

britbox

Rookie
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=B028&playernum2=E004

Edberg finished in the top 5 every year from 1985 to 1993. I don't know what your definition of prime is, but that sounds like one to me. Becker was 21-9 vs Edberg in those years.

And Becker was 6-2 vs Edberg from '90 to '92 (with one of the 2 wins for Edberg being a retirement) 4 of those 6 wins were in straight sets, including 2 bagels. Edberg was certainly in his prime from 1990 to 1992(a time in which he won 3 majors & finished #1 twice), no?

Well seeing as you wish to be pedantic and labour a point I that I didn't dispute then yes 21-9 is closer than 25-10.

At the height of their rivalry when they were contending those Wimbledon titles it was closer but Becker still had the edge overall.

As for the rivalry itself, the 3-1 H2H slam count, the 2 Wimbledon titles, a french open final and the YEC title all in favour of Edberg is something I would prefer as a player.
 

urban

Legend
I think the Becker-Edberg rivalry was heavily influenced by a match in the winter 1984/5 in Birmingham on a fast indoor court, when both were juniors and played for an unofficial world junior title. Becker won that match in five sets, and afterwards Dan Maskell declared him, as to be the next Hoad. As it is said by Moose and others, Becker, when on song, could crucify the Edberg kicker, which always went to the righthanders backhand.
 

krosero

Legend
Fact is Becker would likely swap the overall H2H for the 3-1 slam H2H that Edberg enjoyed including 2 Wimbledon titles. On the next biggest stage - a YEC final, Edberg also went home with the silverware.
"Next biggest stage" could be endlessly debated, but I would definitely regard those three Davis Cup meetings as bigger than the YEC final. I'm not even German yet as an American fan I would want Becker to keep all 3 Davis Cup victories over Edberg -- even the one in '85 which ultimately did not result in a German win -- rather than trade one of them in for the YEC final.

I doubt Becker feels any differently.

As for swapping their H2H at Wimbledon, we're really talking about Becker winning 4 Wimbledons instead of 3. Would he take that and, for example, jeopardize one or both of W. Germany's Cups in 1988-89? I have my doubts.
 

britbox

Rookie
"Next biggest stage" could be endlessly debated, but I would definitely regard those three Davis Cup meetings as bigger than the YEC final. I'm not even German yet as an American fan I would want Becker to keep all 3 Davis Cup victories over Edberg -- even the one in '85 which ultimately did not result in a German win -- rather than trade one of them in for the YEC final.

I doubt Becker feels any differently.

As for swapping their H2H at Wimbledon, we're really talking about Becker winning 4 Wimbledons instead of 3. Would he take that and, for example, jeopardize one or both of W. Germany's Cups in 1988-89? I have my doubts.

If you swapped the results around Becker would have one less Davis Cup (89) and would gain a Wimbledon and a YEC. Splitting hairs I guess - but I'd take the extra Wimbey and the YEC. Guess both players felt fairly satisfied with what the rivalry through up with regard to silverware on the biggest stage.

Edberg - 2 Wimbledon Titles, 1 YEC Title, FO Final
Becker - 1 Wimbledon Title, 2 Davis Cup
 

andreh

Professional
One thing is certain, the question of who was better "Edberg or Becker" always sparks lively debate. That is exactly what I love about this rivalry. If all of Edbergs wins had been insignificant matches then it would be easy to dismiss him as a lesser player, but he took a few big ones too many for it to be a fluke.

No doubt in my mind it was a lapse in Becker's mental game that he relinquished two titles at Wimbledon, the tournament he loved the most, to a man he otherwise seemed to have an easy time with (well, a lot of becker's wins were very close).

And you have to give all that credit to Edberg who manages to raise his game enough to win against a player who he had obvious difficulties with just at the most important time.

And on top of that, they did about evenly against the field of their day, regardless of their h2h struggle.

All of this contributes to a very interesting dynamic that few other rivalries can match.

In contrast, discussing the rivalry between Agassi and Becker (Becker has about the same winning percentage against Agassi as Edberg has against Becker) doesn't seem to be that interesting. It lacks the dynamics above.
 
Last edited:

britbox

Rookie
One thing is certain, the question of who was better "Edberg or Becker" always sparks lively debate. That is exactly what I love about this rivalry. If all of Edbergs wins had been insignificant matches then it would be easy to dismiss him as a lesser player, but he took a few big ones too many for it to be a fluke.

No doubt in my mind it was a lapse in Becker's mental game that he relinquished two titles at Wimbledon, the tournament he loved the most, to a man he otherwise seemed to have an easy time with (well, a lot of becker's wins were very close).

And you have to give all that credit to Edberg who manages to raise his game enough to win against a player who he had obvious difficulties with just at the most important time.

And on top of that, they did about evenly against the field of their day, regardless of their h2h struggle.

All of this contributes to a very interesting dynamic that few other rivalries can match.

In contrast, discussing the rivalry between Agassi and Becker (Becker has about the same winning percentage against Agassi as Edberg has against Becker) doesn't seem to be that interesting. It lacks the dynamics above.

Good post Andreh - Some rivalries do lack that dynamic - I never saw Edberg/Lendl as a dynamic rivalry yet I think they met 27 times. Yet Borg/Mac only played about 14 times and definitely had the dynamic.
 

urban

Legend
And yet, a match, a final at Tokyo between Edberg and Lendl in 1987 or 88 i think,which Edberd won in 3 sets was named by famous writer Richard Evans as the best match of the whole 80s.
 

andreh

Professional
And yet, a match, a final at Tokyo between Edberg and Lendl in 1987 or 88 i think,which Edberd won in 3 sets was named by famous writer Richard Evans as the best match of the whole 80s.

Could be the Seiko indoor final of 87. Which is indeed a fine match. But a stretch to say its the best of the 80s.
 
Top