Who won the Edberg-Becker rivalry?

Who won the rivalry?

  • Edberg (3-1 in slams, 3 W finals and RG semifinal)

  • Becker (25-10 overall, but most in best of 3).

  • Too close to call.

Results are only viewable after voting.
travlerajm

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Becker leads the overall H2H 25-10.

But in slams, Edberg leads 3-1 with all the meetings coming in huge matches at the peak of their primes.
 
Becker won both their DC matches - they were pretty important as well.

Becker was 11-4 in Bo5 vs Edberg.

Overall, Becker.
 
Becker had the massive overall lead, but Edberg led 4-1 in their biggest matches, costing Becker 2 Wimbledons and even a potential Career Slam (Becker would have a good chance against Chang in RG F for sure, Edberg "should have" won in 4 and Becker has a better matchup with Chang). Becker did potentially cost Edberg 1-2 Davis Cups, but Edberg is a double DC champ anyway. Becker did cost Edberg 1-2 WCT Finals too though. Guess it's about even.
 
The one that should hurt Becker the most is the French semi loss…..he wasn’t losing to Chang as the result the following year at the French and his overall dominance of Chang emphasises…..Becker made French semis quite a few times, a shame he lost to Edberg in the Swede’s lone French semi
 
jorjipy said:
25-10 is too big a lead for it to be a contest…..sorry, if it’s about ‘winning’ as you say
Click to expand...

Maybe Kyrgios IS better than Djokovic!

We're all sorry here for Becker underperforming throughout his career, but that's just the way the cookie crumbled.
 
You can have an opinion and let others have an opinion. It’s allowed….

as for Becker vs Edberg overall, I love Edberg and yes Becker underperformed but still considered the greater of the two…..thank god Edberg won those Wimbledon finals against Becker otherwise his record would be full of too many slam runner ups…..I wish he just could have won more than one slam in one year….

are other tennis forums like this place: a battle? It’s horrible
 
As for Djoker and Kyrgios, not enough matches …..I fancy that the Kyrgios style would always bother the joker and the Aussie might always win that rivalry….so yeah, Kyrgios wins that rivalry

isn’t the topic about who wins the rivalry? Then why start with ‘maybe Kyrgios is better…’? You changed the rules.

I mean Simon wins the rivalry with Cilic, but Cilic is better…..Santoro wins the rivalry with Safin, but Safin is better….and here, Becker wins the rivalry and Becker is better
 
jorjipy said:
You can have an opinion and let others have an opinion. It’s allowed….

as for Becker vs Edberg overall, I love Edberg and yes Becker underperformed but still considered the greater of the two…..thank god Edberg won those Wimbledon finals against Becker otherwise his record would be full of too many slam runner ups…..I wish he just could have won more than one slam in one year….

are other tennis forums like this place: a battle? It’s horrible
Click to expand...

A battle??? This is merely a skirmish!

Seriously, I'm not mad at you for being wrong ;) It's just friendly banter.
 
I had such a weird dream a few weeks ago. I dreamt Becker and Edberg had returned to the tour and played the AO semis which Becker won in 3 sets but they both looked as if they were in 1990. I was so excited to see Becker in the final but it wasn't said who he was gonna face. None of the big 3 crossed my mind. After decades I was excited to see Becker play the final and then I woke up.. lol
 
jorjipy said:
25-10 is too big a lead for it to be a contest…..sorry, if it’s about ‘winning’ as you say
Click to expand...
I already knew about the 25-10. But I was previously unaware of the slam H2H being in Edberg’s favor, which is why I posted this thread. It suggests something about how a rivalry edge can be tilted when the pressure is higher. Edberg was my favorite player back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s when I was in high school, and I modeled my playing strategy after him. So I always rooted for Edberg when he played Becker, and I enjoyed watching my guy come through in the biggest moments.
 
Edberg. Boris has been found guilty in the UK of four charges under the Insolvency Act (bankruptcy). Could face jail time, lived a lavish lifestyle by any standard. Blew millions on houses, apartments, women and all of the necessary accoutrements.
 
Becker. Don't forget to count the 3 matches in Davis Cup finals (big matches). Becker won all 3 of them, 2 of them very one-sided.

So in late 1989 for example, while Becker beat Edberg in the Masters RR and Edberg beat Becker in the bigger match with the Masters Final, it was Becker who then beat Edberg in the 1989 Davis Cup final in 3 straight sets.
 
Mustard said:
Becker. Don't forget to count the 3 matches in Davis Cup finals (big matches). Becker won all 3 of them, 2 of them very one-sided.

So in late 1989 for example, while Becker beat Edberg in the Masters RR and Edberg beat Becker in the bigger match with the Masters Final, it was Becker who then beat Edberg in the 1989 Davis Cup final in 3 straight sets.
Click to expand...
At the time, I always thought of Becker as the more talented player, and it was surprising when Edberg won those W finals. This was well before Edberg rose to #1 in the early ‘90s behind his superior athleticism. Perhaps Boom Boom didn’t prep to his fullest for those pivotal meetings in slams?
 
Becker for me. The Wimby Finals record is tricky, as Boom Boom was up 3-1 in the 5th set of their 1990 Final, with a point for 4-1. He could've (and probably should've) won that match. He also beat Edberg several times in non-Slam tournaments
 
Becker.

Kudos to Edberg - if you're gonna have a 10-25 record vs. a rival, having your 10 wins encompass a 3-1 Slam record (including two finals), plus a Masters (YEC) final win is the way to have that losing record. Nice, quality, big-stage wins.

But, remember Davis Cup was a huge deal back then too, a big stage, and Becker beat Edberg 3 times in Davis Cup (including a couple absolute beatdowns) and has, I think, a WCT win over Edberg (another event that was a big deal back then).

So, the "biggest stages wins" are fairly equal or Becker leads narrowly. True, the Slam stage is the biggest and Edberg leads 3-1, but with Becker's own big stage wins plus the very fact of a 25-10 dominant record, I think he "wins" the rivalry fairly clearly.

I was always surprised they didn't play at least a few more times in Slams.
 
Last edited:
RS said:
Weird H2H.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. In fact I think it is the strangest head to head in tennis history. Comparing the two players is actually quite difficult. Becker won more titles, they won the same number of slams, Edberg was number one longer. There is not too much to choose between their careers. I think Becker was more talented, but underachieved whereas I don't think Edberg underachieved. Given how equal their careers were, 25-10 is a surprisingly one sided head to head. Yet 3-1 to Edberg in slams is surprisingly one sided too (it's one sided in matches won, even if it's not one sided in sets won). I think the 25-10 stat tells us Becker was the more talented player, but 3-1 to Edberg in slams tells us Edberg made more of his talent than Becker. If I was Edberg or Becker at the beginning of my career and I was offered either Becker's 25-10 in matches or Edberg's 3-1 in slams and especially 2-1 in Wimbledon finals, I think I would choose Edberg's stats, because I would rather win Wimbledon an extra time and get to a French final than win 15 matches more than my rival.
 
bluetrain4 said:
Becker.

Kudos to Edberg - if you're gonna have a 10-25 record vs. a rival, having your 10 wins encompass a 3-1 Slam record (including two finals), plus a Masters (YEC) win is the way to have that losing record. Nice, quality, big-stage wins.

But, remember Davis Cup was a huge deal back then too, a big stage, and Becker beat Edberg 3 times in Davis Cup (including a couple absolute beatdowns) and has, I think, a WCT win over Edberg (another event that was a big deal back then).

So, the "biggest stages wins" are fairly equal. True, the Slam stage is the biggest and Edberg leads 3-1, but with Becker's own big stage wins plus the very fact of a 25-10 dominant record, I think he "wins" the rivalry fairly clearly.

I was always surprised they didn't play at least a few more times in Slams.
Click to expand...
A couple of WCT wins and yes that was a big deal then…..I can’t quite believe that Edberg winning a 5th set in a Wimbledon final makes the slam H2H a demolition……it’s one set! Becker wins it and it’s 2-2…..
 
jorjipy said:
A couple of WCT wins and yes that was a big deal then…..I can’t quite believe that Edberg winning a 5th set in a Wimbledon final makes the slam H2H a demolition……it’s one set! Becker wins it and it’s 2-2…..
Click to expand...

I don't think people think it's a "demolition" - it just is what it is; Edberg beat him 3 of 4 times in Slams. I don't think people have ever thought that this meant Edberg had some power over Becker in Slams or anything. Two of the matches Edberg won were in five sets. It's just a quirk of their rivalry; one that I'm sure Edberg is pleased with given his poor overall record v. Becker.
 
jorjipy said:
3-1 in slams…..9 sets to Edberg, how many for Becker, let’s see: 3 +2+ 2+1= 9 sets

3-1 is so misleading.
Click to expand...

Is it? The goal in tennis is to win the match. Having equal sets or equal games is immaterial if you lose most of the matches. Like I said in my previous posts, I don't think anyone believes Edberg has some "hold" over Becker in Slams just because he has a 3-1 H2H in Slams, and given the overall big-stage H2H (Slams, YEC/Masters, Davis Cup, WCT) and Becker's gaudy 25-10 record overall, IMO Becker clearly "won" the rivalry. That said, Edberg won 3 of the 4 Slam matches. It's just fact. I don't see how those matches encompassing equal sets makes anything "misleading" - Edberg won the matches. IMO, pointing out that the sets are equal would be more misleading because what is it supposed to suggest - that their performance/results across those four matches are equal even though Edberg actually won 3 of the 4 matches?
 
Last edited:
bluetrain4 said:
Is it? The goal in tennis is to win the match. Having equal sets or equal games is immaterial if you lose most of the matches. Like I said in my previous posts, I don't think anyone believes Edberg has some "hold" over Becker in Slams just because he has a 3-1 H2H in Slams, and given the overall big-stage H2H (Slams, YEC/Masters, Davis Cup, WCT) and Becker's gaudy 25-10 record overall, IMO Becker clearly "won" the rivalry. That said, Edberg won 3 of the 4 Slam matches. It's just fact. I don't see how those matches encompassing equal sets makes anything "misleading" - Edberg won the matches. IMO, pointing out that the sets are equal would be more misleading because what is it supposed to suggest - that their performance/results across those four matches are equal even though Edberg actually won 3 of the 4 matches?
Click to expand...

One of the best things of tennis is that you win/lose a match, without qualifiers.
 
Next I will be hearing that Stan won the rivalry with the Joker…..’ oh the Joker would give up all those other wins to win that French final! Therefore Stan won the rivalry…’.
 
bluetrain4 said:
Is it? The goal in tennis is to win the match. Having equal sets or equal games is immaterial if you lose most of the matches. Like I said in my previous posts, I don't think anyone believes Edberg has some "hold" over Becker in Slams just because he has a 3-1 H2H in Slams, and given the overall big-stage H2H (Slams, YEC/Masters, Davis Cup, WCT) and Becker's gaudy 25-10 record overall, IMO Becker clearly "won" the rivalry. That said, Edberg won 3 of the 4 Slam matches. It's just fact. I don't see how those matches encompassing equal sets makes anything "misleading" - Edberg won the matches. IMO, pointing out that the sets are equal would be more misleading because what is it supposed to suggest - that their performance/results across those four matches are equal even though Edberg actually won 3 of the 4 matches?
Click to expand...
Winning 6 out of 8 slam matches would show something….. but 4 matches is too small a sample….. and those matches were ALL between 88-90…. My God that’s a small sample of a players career!
 
jorjipy said:
Winning 6 out of 8 slam matches would show something….. but 4 matches is too small a sample….. and those matches were ALL between 88-90…. My God that’s a small sample of a players career!
Click to expand...

What are you debating? I, as well as others, have said multiple times that I agree Becker clearly "won" the rivalry. Winning 3 of 4 Slam matches isn't "showing" anything other than Edberg won 3 of 4 slam matches. What is so difficult to accept about that? If the majority of tennis fans used that 3-1 record to surmise that Edberg is the overall clearly better or greater player or otherwise "won" the rivalry, I can see you and other Becker fans taking issue. But, I really don't think that's the general consensus. Most people seem to be pretty aware of the "small sample size," Becker's other big-stage wins, and of course Becker's dominant 25-10 overall record. We're just giving credit to Edberg where it's due because, again, he actually won those Slam matches.
 
Last edited:
I am not a Becker fan. I prefer Edberg and find him better to watch. I am a tennis fan. I am not debating anything. I am expressing an opinion. Time for me to leave, this place is toxic.
 
The 1990 Wimbledon final is key. It set things in motion that led to Edberg, not Becker, being the one to finally oust Lendl from the no.1 spot in the rankings, a position he had held more or less permanently since 1985. And for the next 85 weeks Edberg held Becker at bay for 72, leading to that Becker only accumulated a measly 13 weeks at the top and never ending a year as the no. 1 player. When Edberg was finally ousted it wasn't by Becker but by Courier. In the list of no.1 players per year, Edberg appears twice, Becker zero times. It's not just about counting matches won or lost -- what matches you win and consequences of them matters more. Nobody cares about a QF match in Basel in 1995 after they were both has-beens. Losing the 1990 Wimbledon final had a major detrimental effect on Becker's overall standing in the sport. That year, 1990, (and 1991), was his chance to be the best, his one chance, as it turned out. He was never close again. Instead Edberg took the top spot and was the best in the sport. And this is why Edberg won the rivalry.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm, I try to resist the stupidity on this topic but…… anyone remember 1989? Becker wins Wimbledon and the US open….Becker is the Player of The Year. And the year before Wilander is Player of the year….. but of course, Edberg ended Lendl’s reign….. the lack of genuine knowledge on these boards is staggering.
 
andreh said:
The 1990 Wimbledon final is key. It set things in motion that led to Edberg, not Becker, being the one to finally oust Lendl from the no.1 spot in the rankings, a position he had held more or less permanently since 1985. And for the next 85 weeks Edberg held Becker at bay for 72, leading to that Becker only accumulated a measly 13 weeks at the top and never ending a year as the no. 1 player. When Edberg was finally ousted it wasn't by Becker but by Courier. In the list of no.1 players per year, Edberg appears twice, Becker zero times. It's not just about counting matches won or lost -- what matches you win and consequences of them matters more. Nobody cares about a QF match in Basel in 1995 after they were both has-beens. Losing the 1990 Wimbledon final had a major detrimental effect on Becker's overall standing in the sport. That year, 1990, (and 1991), was his chance to be the best, his one chance, as it turned out. He was never close again. Instead Edberg took the top spot and was the best in the sport. And this is why Edberg won the rivalry.
Click to expand...

Who had the greater career, who is higher on the GOAT list is a different conversation than who won the rivalry. IMO (and it's just my opinion; everyone has their own), Edberg and Becker are closer when talking GOAT standing than they are on the rivalry front. From my perspective, the "rivalry" only encompasses the matches between them, not all the stuff outside their matches. I made my case above for why I think Becker clearly "wins" the rivalry.
 
andreh said:
The 1990 Wimbledon final is key. It set things in motion that led to Edberg, not Becker, being the one to finally oust Lendl from the no.1 spot in the rankings, a position he had held more or less permanently since 1985. And for the next 85 weeks Edberg held Becker at bay for 72, leading to that Becker only accumulated a measly 13 weeks at the top and never ending a year as the no. 1 player. When Edberg was finally ousted it wasn't by Becker but by Courier. In the list of no.1 players per year, Edberg appears twice, Becker zero times. It's not just about counting matches won or lost -- what matches you win and consequences of them matters more. Nobody cares about a QF match in Basel in 1995 after they were both has-beens. Losing the 1990 Wimbledon final had a major detrimental effect on Becker's overall standing in the sport. That year, 1990, (and 1991), was his chance to be the best, his one chance, as it turned out. He was never close again. Instead Edberg took the top spot and was the best in the sport. And this is why Edberg won the rivalry.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. I remember that the feeling I had at the time was that Edberg with winning that final was on top, was the better player and the number 1.

Becker wins many matches towards the end of the rivalry, but they are mostly inconsequential.
 
So Edberg wins the first two matches when they both very young, Becker in particular ( you guys know Edberg was almost 2 years older than Becker? I doubt it ) …..and he also has a win through retirement…..so the head to head is 25-7 taking away the wins over a 17yo Becker and the retirement …..yep, Edberg is the clear winner . I have been convinced. Congratulations
 
ill cut becker some slack on the 1-3 GS h2h considering he said he was still on sleeping pills in
that '90 W match, and didnt even wake up until the 3rd set..
 
bluetrain4 said:
Who had the greater career, who is higher on the GOAT list is a different conversation than who won the rivalry. IMO (and it's just my opinion; everyone has their own), Edberg and Becker are closer when talking GOAT standing than they are on the rivalry front. From my perspective, the "rivalry" only encompasses the matches between them, not all the stuff outside their matches. I made my case above for why I think Becker clearly "wins" the rivalry.
Click to expand...

Point well taken, but I think discussing their matches as if they existed in a vaccum is a rather pointless discussion. A sports rivalry is for something, namely in the case of tennis, tournament wins and ranking points (and money). If that's not part of the discussion I'm going back to bed! :)
 
Last edited:
andreh said:
The 1990 Wimbledon final is key. It set things in motion that led to Edberg, not Becker, being the one to finally oust Lendl from the no.1 spot in the rankings, a position he had held more or less permanently since 1985. And for the next 85 weeks Edberg held Becker at bay for 72, leading to that Becker only accumulated a measly 13 weeks at the top and never ending a year as the no. 1 player. When Edberg was finally ousted it wasn't by Becker but by Courier. In the list of no.1 players per year, Edberg appears twice, Becker zero times. It's not just about counting matches won or lost -- what matches you win and consequences of them matters more. Nobody cares about a QF match in Basel in 1995 after they were both has-beens. Losing the 1990 Wimbledon final had a major detrimental effect on Becker's overall standing in the sport. That year, 1990, (and 1991), was his chance to be the best, his one chance, as it turned out. He was never close again. Instead Edberg took the top spot and was the best in the sport. And this is why Edberg won the rivalry.
Click to expand...
Yes this! :)
 
I was a big fan of Edberg and voted « too close to call ».
To be fair I would like to mention that I watched a lot of tennis at that time and it seemed to me that at his best, Becker was a bit stronger Edberg and I didn’t like that.
However there are several factors to consider, well discussed in this thread and that’s why I maintain « too close to call ».
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gary20
Becker v Edberg......Who was better?
2
Replies
85
Views
8K
scotus
S
Mainad
Becker v Edberg on grass
2
Replies
69
Views
6K
punterlad
P
S
Becker - Edberg: Redux
Replies
41
Views
6K
70sHollywood
7
M
Would Edberg have beaten Becker in the '91 AO Final?
Replies
17
Views
5K
Bobby Jr
Bobby Jr
P
Edberg vs Becker- who should rank higher on each of hard courts or grass
Replies
7
Views
281
BorgTheGOAT
BorgTheGOAT
Back
Top