[VIDEO] Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras about their French failure

[mauroed79]

Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras: 26 singles Grand Slam titles together, but none in Paris. As the curse for the attacking players at the Roland Garros turns 30 years old (Yannick Noah having been the last to win it with pure serve & volley in 1983), CNN reporter Frederik Pleitgen met the three former world number ones to ask them about the reasons of their French failure. Video from CNN.

Watch the video»

 

[bluetrain4]

Edberg had a legit shot in '89 vs. Chang, as the the final went five sets. Other than that he made 3 QFs.

I think Becker and Sampras both made 3 SFs over their career, but never the final.

I'm still shocked that Becker never won any title on clay. He wasn't that bad on the surface.

 

[mauroed79]

Boris made three French Open semifinals, Sampras just one and never beyond the 3rd round after 1996. Of the three players, Pete was the one with the poorest Roland Garros cv, but when Sampras met Becker in the Rome 1994 final he left him five games in three sets...

Becker, yes, I can't understand how he could not win a title on clay in his entire career, either. In the video he says that's because of his serve & volley style. Actually, I do believe that, had he played on clay the way he did on other surfaces, maybe he wouldn't have won the French, but at least some ATP titles. Instead, he was convinced that against claycourt specialists he had to fight from the baseline, while he should have overpowered them with his usual game, that would have left the majority of them with no answer.

I think Boris' claycourt complex has got something to do with psychoanalysis (consider his 196 kms/h second serve on the 1995 Monte Carlo match point vs Muster) rather than with tennis.

During their careers, Edberg and Sampras proved that they could play very well on clay when it was faster. Sampras won in Kitzbuhel, Edberg in Gstaad and Madrid, all very high places on see level. But Sampras almost never had a complete European claycourt swing to be fit for the French Open. He just didn't like playing on clay, like Roddick after him. The only real chance he had was in 1996, but he had bad luck with the draw and was down and out when he reached his SF against Kafelnikov.

As far as Edberg, there's nothing that hasn't been said about his 1989 final vs Chang. That was maybe the only regret of his career. 1990, with Ivan Lendl already preparing Wimbledon on grass, was another big chance, but he lost to Bruguera in the 1st round. In later years, there were better players than him on clay and his motivation was lower season after season.

But Becker, who, imho, was the most complete of the three, definitely should have done better

 

[robow7]

Tiriac once stated that Boris was driving him mad and wouldn't listen to his advice because he wouldn't play his aggressive moving forward game along with s&v and net play. He claimed Boom Boom was extremely stubborn and thus he felt he could stay back and rally with the specialists.

And that video left Mac out of that select group of number 1's that never got that French?

 

[PeterFig]

And that video left Mac out of that select group of number 1's that never got that French?

The video's goal was to show top players that won the other three grand slams but not the French. Mac didn't win the Australian Open.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Edberg had a legit shot in '89 vs. Chang, as the the final went five sets. Other than that he made 3 QFs.

I think Becker and Sampras both made 3 SFs over their career, but never the final.

I'm still shocked that Becker never won any title on clay. He wasn't that bad on the surface.

I think that stat is a bit misleading. imo he was better on clay than Edberg or Sampras.

He made the finals of 5 masters series on clay(more than either Sampras or Edberg) and he made more semis at Roland Garros than those 2 combined(only one SF each for them)

I have his Monte Carlo finals vs Mancinci & Bruguera on tape, both were incredibly close, brutal encounters that could have gone either way. I think he hit more groundies in that Bruguera match than Sampras did in a month, his groundies could work very well on clay(and I think he would've beaten Chang in '89 had he gotten by Edberg. Becker didn't need to S&V to play him like Edberg did. I have Becker's straight set win over Chang at the '91 French on tape, he was bullying Chang from the baseline easily that day)

The guy was one point away from beating Muster in '95(one of the best years on clay in the Open Era) he could play on that surface. Weird that so many rank Edberg above Becker on clay on the basis of just one match('89 FO semi), other than that his stats are better on clay. And ALL the commentators thought Becker would win that FO semi vs Edberg once he won that 4th set(& he was up a break in the 5th)

I suppose Becker could have won some mickey mouse clay event in his best years had he really made that a big goal, but he just concentrated on the big ones. there is no shame in losing to Mancini, Bruguera & Muster in MS clay finals. the depth in the clay court tennis used to be amazing(unlike today....)

 

[bluetrain4]

I think that stat is a bit misleading. imo he was better on clay than Edberg or Sampras.

He made the finals of 5 masters series on clay(more than either Sampras or Edberg) and he made more semis at Roland Garros that those 2 combined(only one SF each for them)

I have his Monte Carlo finals vs Mancinci & Bruguera on tape, both were incredibly close, brutal encounters that could have gone either way. I think he hit more groundies in that Bruguera match than Sampras did in a month, his groundies could work very well on clay(and I think he would've beaten Chang in '89 had he gotten by Edberg. Becker didn't need to S&V to play him like Edberg did. I have Becker's straight set win over Chang at the '91 French on tape, he was bullying Chang from the baseline easily that day)

The guy was one point away from beating Muster in '95(one of the best years on clay in the Open Era) he could play on that surface. Weird that so many rank Edberg above Becker on clay on the basis of just one match('89 FO semi), other than that his stats are better on clay. And ALL the commentators thought Becker would win that FO semi vs Edberg once he won that 4th set(& he was up a break in the 5th)

Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest that they were better than Becker on the dirt. I was just pointing out the very surprising fact that Becker never won on clay when Sampras and Edberg did, because he was easily just as good or better on the dirt. I guess I didn't say that.

 

[mattennis]

I think that stat is a bit misleading. imo he was better on clay than Edberg or Sampras.

He made the finals of 5 masters series on clay(more than either Sampras or Edberg) and he made more semis at Roland Garros than those 2 combined(only one SF each for them)

I have his Monte Carlo finals vs Mancinci & Bruguera on tape, both were incredibly close, brutal encounters that could have gone either way. I think he hit more groundies in that Bruguera match than Sampras did in a month, his groundies could work very well on clay(and I think he would've beaten Chang in '89 had he gotten by Edberg. Becker didn't need to S&V to play him like Edberg did. I have Becker's straight set win over Chang at the '91 French on tape, he was bullying Chang from the baseline easily that day)

The guy was one point away from beating Muster in '95(one of the best years on clay in the Open Era) he could play on that surface. Weird that so many rank Edberg above Becker on clay on the basis of just one match('89 FO semi), other than that his stats are better on clay. And ALL the commentators thought Becker would win that FO semi vs Edberg once he won that 4th set(& he was up a break in the 5th)

I suppose Becker could have won some mickey mouse clay event in his best years had he really made that a big goal, but he just concentrated on the big ones. there is no shame in losing to Mancini, Bruguera & Muster in MS clay finals. the depth in the clay court tennis used to be amazing(unlike today....)

Agree. Becker was, if not better, definitely more adapted to clay (the way he played on clay) than Sampras or Edberg.

Both Edberg and Becker grew up on clay. They played on clay countless times when children.

Both Edberg and Becker moved well on clay (Edberg was a great mover, everywhere, included on clay; Becker was heavier, but his movement on clay was not worse than on other surfaces).

Sampras case is different. He indeed looked weird on clay, his movement there was so sub-par (he was a great mover on the other surfaces).


Their results on clay are quite similar:

Edberg won 3 titles ( 1 M-1000, 2 other tournaments ) and made 3 other finals ( 1 RG final included).

In RG his best results were 1 final and 3 other QFs.

Sampras also won 3 titles ( 1 M-1000, 2 other tournaments) and made 2 other finals.

In RG his best results were 1 SF and 3 other QFs.

Becker never won a clay titles but he lost 6 finals ( 5 of them M-1000 finals).

In RG his best results were 3 SF and 1 other QF.


Becker finals of Monte Carlo against Mancini ( 1989 ) and Bruguera ( 1991 ) are great matches as you said. He played mainly from the baseline those years on clay and was as good as the best ones of the time. His match against Muster in 1995 Monte Carlo was also great and he was 1 point away from winning. His other M-1000 final losses to Sampras ( 1994 Rome ) and Aguilera ( 1990 Hamburg ) were straight sets and very one-sided losses.


Edberg was much faster (and better mover overall) and was able to play his serve-and-volley , chip-and-charge game even on clay, and he was great doing it. He knew how to make it works on clay.


Sampras was totally different. He looked as if he didn't know what to do on clay. He looked clueless on the surface. He didn't know how to move, how to slide properly. Sometimes he tried to play entirely from the baseline. Other times he tried to be like Edberg. Sometimes he would mix it up. He always looked unsure about how to play on clay.


Also not only Becker and Edberg played a lot on clay when children, they also played a lot more tournaments on clay than Sampras in their pro-careers.


The only reason Sampras was as successful as Edberg and Becker on clay is that overall Sampras was one of the best tennis players ever, and even though he looked totally clueless on that surface (totally different to Edberg or Becker), his amazing talent was enough to make him win some titles and make some good runs at RG, despite how awful he looked moving on clay.


But if you watch those Becker-Mancini, Becker-Bruguera (and many more) great clay matches of Becker, you see a player (Becker) totally confident and adapted to the surface. And Edberg the same. They both kind of maximized their potential on that surface (they were not going to be multi-RG-winners anyway because there were some better players on clay). Sampras case (in my opinion) is different. He should have learnt to play on clay and to maximize his options there, but he seemed to "hate" that game and it seems he never put the huge effort (mainly mental, but also tactical and physical) neccesary to learn the clay game.

 

[mauroed79]

Totally agree with mattennis

Agree. Becker was, if not better, definitely more adapted to clay (the way he played on clay) than Sampras or Edberg.

Both Edberg and Becker grew up on clay. They played on clay countless times when children.

Both Edberg and Becker moved well on clay (Edberg was a great mover, everywhere, included on clay; Becker was heavier, but his movement on clay was not worse than on other surfaces).

Sampras case is different. He indeed looked weird on clay, his movement there was so sub-par (he was a great mover on the other surfaces).


Their results on clay are quite similar:

Edberg won 3 titles ( 1 M-1000, 2 other tournaments ) and made 3 other finals ( 1 RG final included).

In RG his best results were 1 final and 3 other QFs.

Sampras also won 3 titles ( 1 M-1000, 2 other tournaments) and made 2 other finals.

In RG his best results were 1 SF and 3 other QFs.

Becker never won a clay titles but he lost 6 finals ( 5 of them M-1000 finals).

In RG his best results were 3 SF and 1 other QF.


Becker finals of Monte Carlo against Mancini ( 1989 ) and Bruguera ( 1991 ) are great matches as you said. He played mainly from the baseline those years on clay and was as good as the best ones of the time. His match against Muster in 1995 Monte Carlo was also great and he was 1 point away from winning. His other M-1000 final losses to Sampras ( 1994 Rome ) and Aguilera ( 1990 Hamburg ) were straight sets and very one-sided losses.


Edberg was much faster (and better mover overall) and was able to play his serve-and-volley , chip-and-charge game even on clay, and he was great doing it. He knew how to make it works on clay.


Sampras was totally different. He looked as if he didn't know what to do on clay. He looked clueless on the surface. He didn't know how to move, how to slide properly. Sometimes he tried to play entirely from the baseline. Other times he tried to be like Edberg. Sometimes he would mix it up. He always looked unsure about how to play on clay.


Also not only Becker and Edberg played a lot on clay when children, they also played a lot more tournaments on clay than Sampras in their pro-careers.


The only reason Sampras was as successful as Edberg and Becker on clay is that overall Sampras was one of the best tennis players ever, and even though he looked totally clueless on that surface (totally different to Edberg or Becker), his amazing talent was enough to make him win some titles and make some good runs at RG, despite how awful he looked moving on clay.


But if you watch those Becker-Mancini, Becker-Bruguera (and many more) great clay matches of Becker, you see a player (Becker) totally confident and adapted to the surface. And Edberg the same. They both kind of maximized their potential on that surface (they were not going to be multi-RG-winners anyway because there were some better players on clay). Sampras case (in my opinion) is different. He should have learnt to play on clay and to maximize his options there, but he seemed to "hate" that game and it seems he never put the huge effort (mainly mental, but also tactical and physical) neccesary to learn the clay game.

 

[Devilito]

and if this was the 90s we might be asking "Why can't Nadal win Wimbledon or the US Open". It's easy to criticize past players based on current factors. If this was 1920 with 20oz racquets that resembled 2x4s and bare wood for a grip, we might be asking "why can't Nadal win a single tournament period"