Was edberg as good as ....
- Thread starter dgold44
- Start date
I'd rank Hoad higher than Edberg. Hoad was also higher tha Newcombe and just a little higher than Sedgman.
Edberg - a little bit better than Newcombe and Sedgman. Newcombe wasn't consistent enough. If you analyse his CV - you see great peaks but below that not a lot of titles of quality below his Grand Slam wins (The 1974 WCT Finals being the exception).
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Edberg was faster and better on his feet. He also had the benefit of 85" mid for 2nd serve and kick. I think edberg volleyed much better.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Isn't the old guys (Kramer, Hoad, etc.) ranked Sedgeman as the best volleyer of the pre-Open Era? That's based on what I read - never saw him play.
So where would you guys rank Johnny Mac? Who for me is a better volleyer than Edberg?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
When Newcombe was in shape and at his peak I think he was superior to Edberg at his peak. Edberg was a bit faster but Newcombe had the much bigger serve, first and second. The forehand was superior although as you wrote Edberg had the better backhand. Volleys were close although I would say Edberg's was a bit better. Both were great at moving in to his the first volley off the service return. I think Vic Braden said that Edberg and Newcombe moved in closer to the net on the first volley than anyone.
Sedgman is one of the few who can be said to be equal or perhaps even superior to Edberg on the volley. Many feel Sedgman was the greatest volleyer in history. He was extremely fast also like Edberg.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'd like to address a few comments. I definitely disagree about Edberg's serve. In my view, he had one of the best, if not the best, S&V serves of all time, first and second serves. He also had one of the greatest backhands of all time. His forehand was unorthodox and underrated, but, not as good as Newk's. He was also bigger and, in my opinion, faster and more athletic at net than Newk and was one of the greatest volleyers of all time. Adjusting for equipment, it would be close, but, I would give the edge to Edberg.
As for Sedgman, I don't agree that his volley's per se were as good as Edbergs. What Sedgman is most noted for is his physical conditioning and athleticism, and, as a result, his net play overall. Some attribute the beginning of the age of serious conditioning to Lendl. It was Sedgman. In his prime, Laver was dubbed the best conditioned athlete of any sport. Getting a little OT, sorry.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I didn't write that Edberg didn't have an excellent serve but I felt Newcombe's first serve and second is among the top serves ever. Edberg was no doubt a great player. Kramer for example wrote that Newcombe's second serve was the best in history by far in 1978. Ashe described Newk's first serve as not the fastest serve (but very fast) but it was a very heavy serve that could sting your hand. Ashe thought it was the best first serve in tennis.
Don't forget that peak Jimmy Connors had problems breaking Newcombe's serve while past peak Connors could return Edberg's serve well and defeat him at times. Connors was able to beat Newcombe later but only after Newcombe was way past his prime.
I believe Connors could defeat Edberg because his serve wasn't as overpowering as Newcombe's serve.
My thought is that Newcombe was more likely to break Edberg's serve than the other way around.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It was a great second serve but Newcombe's is arguably THE greatest second serve. Edberg won the last three matches against Connors I believe. I know Connors was ahead in the head to head. I believe it was Connors ability to return the Edberg serve aggressively.
Interestingly enough even though Kramer wrote Newcombe had the best second serve, Kramer himself may have had a superior second serve to Newcombe's. In the last 70 years I would say the most praised second serves were Kramer, Newcombe and Sampras.
Last edited:
That 1989 Connors win versus Edberg was an immense upset, for after 1985, Connors had a record of 1-22 against the Big 4 of the second half of the 1980s (Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Wilander). Even while still a member of the Top 10, from 1986 through 1988, Connors could manage only 3-21 against other Top 10s.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I think Connors was greater than both Edberg and Newcombe. So, those results don't surprise me. Nor does Newk's win at the 75 AO surprise me. It was a big upset, but, not unpredictable given that Newk was on his best surface and playing in front of his home crowd. National pride can play a big part in national finals, which explains, at least in part, Connors' 5 USO titles in my mind.
Regarding second serves, Newk's was great, but, not the greatest. Even adjusting for equipment there are quite a few that were greater, in my mind.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I can't disagree with you that Connors was better than both Newcombe and Edberg. Newcombe's Australian Open win in 1975 wasn't a huge upset but it was an upset in that Newcombe only had a little time to get himself back in shape.
Connors' serve, while not exactly the greatest was pretty decent in that he usually spun it in to get in good position to control the rally. He was a lefty which obviously helped him and he could hit it pretty hard when he needed too. Connors really didn't have a major weakness as a player. You could get picky and say perhaps a low short slice to his forehand was a problem in that he would net it at times but that was because he attempted tough placements with that shot. He later learned to hit that fairly well as an approach shot.
It's funny but I think I appreciate Connors more now that he's retired than when he was playing. In watching some of his old matches I like the pure ball striking ability, his movement and his overall game. While I think Laver was the greater player I do think Connors would be a problem for the Rocket because of the great Connors' return and his great baseline game.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I had the privilege of seeing Connors in his prime, once in a team tennis match against Rosewall. His ground game was brutal (think Rosewall with more depth, power and accuracy), his net game very good and his serve very much underrated. He could crack it when he wanted to, and, otherwise, it was a very good serve.
PS: Prime Laver was just a little too good for Connors. At least as good in the ground game (for different reasons), better serve, significantly better net game and just a greater athlete. Cliff Drysdale called Laver the greatest athlete to ever play the game. I would say that Laver played at a higher level of intensity than anyone has ever played.
PS: Prime Laver was just a little too good for Connors. At least as good in the ground game (for different reasons), better serve, significantly better net game and just a greater athlete. Cliff Drysdale called Laver the greatest athlete to ever play the game. I would say that Laver played at a higher level of intensity than anyone has ever played.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Connors was an awesome player. They compared his power to players like Hoad and Vines when he was in his prime. They were in awe after seeing his returns at the 1975 Wimbledon against Tanner.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You've seen Budge in person so you know. Kramer did compare Connors' strokes to Budge as did Vines. Vines did add he felt Connors was quicker than Budge. Budge did have a superior serve.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Connors was amazing in his footwork and groundstrokes. Budge and Connors are two of the greatest pure hitters in the history of tennis according to many experts.
Ciaron
Semi-Pro
You're not going to throw Mac in the mix?!
We know Mac was up there at top
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Connors in today's game would be a sight to see, that's for sure. I won't ever forget how long he held on for. Wasn't he 36 years old and still within the top 10? Absolutely amazing consistency.
Connors better than Newk on clay and rubber (especially USO), Newk better than Connors on grass.
The problem with two-handed backhands was in the volleying technique, and the restricted reach which the two-handed stroke imposed on range.
Today's players would have difficulty in the serve-and-volley game, which may be why you see so little SV play today.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
This is super tough to rank. Clearly the two best serves of this group are Newcombe and Hoad but Sedgman had an excellent serve. Sedgman is arguably the best volleyer ever. He was very decisive with his volley and his was very quick at the net so I would say Sedgman was the best volleyer of the three. Yet at the same time both Newcombe and Hoad were superb volleyers.
Newcombe's first and second serves to me are the key here. They were among the best in history and his second serve is the best of all three. Of the three players I believe Newcombe was thought to get closer to the net for the first volley off the serve than the other two (until Edberg perhaps closer than any player in history) so he could hit a stronger first volley.
So I would say Newcombe is number one, Sedgman number two and Hoad number three. It's very close. The reverse order isn't bad either.
joe sch
Legend
Agree, Edberg was maybe the last great SV player from an era where the mid to OS graphite technology starting giving the baseliner a big advantage. Even Federer played more SV as a young pro and turned into mostly a baseliner after the early 2000s.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I believe you're correct but I do think if we use Jimmy Connors as a sort of control I think Newcombe has the edge. Newcombe had the edge over peak Connors and Edberg had problems with Connors until Connors declined. It's tough either way.
Actually we should put Edberg's great rival, Boris Becker into the equation. Is Becker, with his superior first serve a better overall serve and volleyer than Edberg?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I would say Rafter and 99+ Sampras were the last overall proponents of the S&V game, neither were as good at it as Edberg though.
Yes Federer used to S&V lots in his youth, first and second at Wimbledon. In 2003 at Wimbledon he came in on just the first serve throughout.
I don't really like using comparisons like that to compare to players. Connors would have been helped more by the racquets by the time he played Edberg I imagine. Match ups can also have subtleties that are hard to put a finger on.
Becker vs Edberg is interesting. I'll let others weigh in before I give my thoughts
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't really like using comparisons like that to compare to players. Connors would have been helped more by the racquets by the time he played Edberg I imagine. Match ups can also have subtleties that are hard to put a finger on.
Becker vs Edberg is interesting. I'll let others weigh in before I give my thoughts
Good points. You can't use comparisons as far as mutual players are concerned. I do think that Newcombe at his best held his serve more often when serving and volleying than Edberg.
britbox
Rookie
Jimmy Connors is getting undersold a bit on the thread too IMO. In fact, he gets routinely undersold in general. If Connors played on a structured tour like they have now, then he'd be well into double figures on the major count. He gets thrown into the era of Mac, Lendl etc..., yet many overlook his dominance of the early to mid 70s.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Not by me. I think Jimmy Connors is fantastic and extremely underrated.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
The T2000 was a very powerful racquet. I don't see much more power with a modern frame. More spin, yes. And Connors could hit pretty heavy topspin when he wanted to even with the T2000.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Re Whether becker was a better S&V player than Edberg. How bout I use some stats to answer that? For example Edberg came to net twice as much as Becker in their 5 setter at Roland Garros(btw I highly recommend this to anyone who hasn't seen it, it's way more entertaining than any of their Wimbledon matches, you get to see all aspects of their games) and Becker served 20 more pts than Edberg, so who's the real serve and volleyer? The pattern continues in their indoor matches I have stats on as well - Edberg at net a lot more often than Becker. Becker was like Sampras, not a real serve and volleyer, just a world class server who happened to serve and volley on all serves on grass and a fair amount on other surfaces at times. While Edberg served and volleyed a ton on first and second serves, on all surfaces. Some of the net stats on Edberg are staggering, I've come across 4 matches where he came to net over 200 times, there are probably more. While I've never come across anything remotely close to that for Becker or Sampras or even mac(to be fair he played in a time when nets stats weren't commonly mentioned) Also Edberg was a serve and volleyer when hardcourts became a big part of the tour(yes I know the USO went to hardcourt in 78, but it wasn't until the mid 80s when the Lipton started that the real shift to a hardcourt kind of tour started. Compare macs surface schedule in 84 to say Edberg in 91 to see what I mean. Big difference. So we now have Edberg, a guy without a big serve like Becker or sampras(or groundies like they had) playing guys who have better racquets for returning than they had In the 70s, playing on surfaces that had truer bounces than grass or carpet in the 70s, and he serves and volleys on 1st and 2nd serves and manages to get to #1 in the world. The more I think about, he may be the best serve and volleyer of all time, considering what he had to deal with (calm down I'm not saying he's a better player than laver, Mac etc) let me explain.
When someone like Newcombe plays smith for 5 sets on grass, and both players are coming in on all serves, there aren't gaudy net numbers for either player, since for the most part there isn't the opportunity to get to net on your opponents serve. And also grass isn't a surface with as true a bounce as hardcourt so players will be missing a fair amount of returns as well, so they won't have to hit as many volleys as they would on a hardcourt. Let's compare that to Edberg going 5 sets vs Chang at the USO. I didn't do stats for this match, but I did see it a few times over the years, and it's safe to chang was making a lot of returns and Edberg was attacking on
Changs serve relentlessly. The official stats were a staggering 250 net approaches for Edberg but that probably doesn't tell the whole story. Points didnt just end with one volley like they so often did in 1971 on grass, but there would be 2 or 3 or 4(we are talking Michael Chang here) or there would be lobs to get Edberg to retreat, then restart the point. Then get to net again. And again. And again. Who knows how many actual volleys were hit in those 250 attempts, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hit more volleys in that one match than Newcombe hit in the 70 and 71 Wimbledon finals combined. I watched the 73 USO final recently, an incredibly high quality match. Newcombe served huge, probably bigger than I ever saw Edberg. He had to since his oponent was returning like Agassi. We all like to talk about raquets, when comparing players from different eras, but what about surfaces? While watching this match I thought, newcombe was lucky this wasn't played on a hardcourt
One other thing about Edberg - he really didn't get a lot of free points on serve. For example I mentioned the French open semi vs Becker. In the 5th set Becker didn't miss one return. That sort of stat is pretty rare, players usually miss at least a few returns when playing someone coming in on everything. And if they aren't getting free points on serve you would think they are in trouble, having to hit volleys on every point. Well look what Edberg did in this set when he had to do just that. And when you compare to Mac you see how much harder he had to work. Mac is rightfully considered one of the greatest serve and volleyers, maybe the best. But I think a lot of people forget just how great his serve was. In the 84 Wimbledon final almost 50% of his serves were unreturned. In the 84 USO final, 45% were unreturned, that is a lot of free points. And he had around 40% in several other matches I've tracked. While edbergs numbers are noticeably lower, even in some of his famous matches(91 USO final which I was lucky to see in person - came in 94 times in a very short match!) he was a true serve And volleyer.
When someone like Newcombe plays smith for 5 sets on grass, and both players are coming in on all serves, there aren't gaudy net numbers for either player, since for the most part there isn't the opportunity to get to net on your opponents serve. And also grass isn't a surface with as true a bounce as hardcourt so players will be missing a fair amount of returns as well, so they won't have to hit as many volleys as they would on a hardcourt. Let's compare that to Edberg going 5 sets vs Chang at the USO. I didn't do stats for this match, but I did see it a few times over the years, and it's safe to chang was making a lot of returns and Edberg was attacking on
Changs serve relentlessly. The official stats were a staggering 250 net approaches for Edberg but that probably doesn't tell the whole story. Points didnt just end with one volley like they so often did in 1971 on grass, but there would be 2 or 3 or 4(we are talking Michael Chang here) or there would be lobs to get Edberg to retreat, then restart the point. Then get to net again. And again. And again. Who knows how many actual volleys were hit in those 250 attempts, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hit more volleys in that one match than Newcombe hit in the 70 and 71 Wimbledon finals combined. I watched the 73 USO final recently, an incredibly high quality match. Newcombe served huge, probably bigger than I ever saw Edberg. He had to since his oponent was returning like Agassi. We all like to talk about raquets, when comparing players from different eras, but what about surfaces? While watching this match I thought, newcombe was lucky this wasn't played on a hardcourt
One other thing about Edberg - he really didn't get a lot of free points on serve. For example I mentioned the French open semi vs Becker. In the 5th set Becker didn't miss one return. That sort of stat is pretty rare, players usually miss at least a few returns when playing someone coming in on everything. And if they aren't getting free points on serve you would think they are in trouble, having to hit volleys on every point. Well look what Edberg did in this set when he had to do just that. And when you compare to Mac you see how much harder he had to work. Mac is rightfully considered one of the greatest serve and volleyers, maybe the best. But I think a lot of people forget just how great his serve was. In the 84 Wimbledon final almost 50% of his serves were unreturned. In the 84 USO final, 45% were unreturned, that is a lot of free points. And he had around 40% in several other matches I've tracked. While edbergs numbers are noticeably lower, even in some of his famous matches(91 USO final which I was lucky to see in person - came in 94 times in a very short match!) he was a true serve And volleyer.
Last edited:
