(Why) did Edberg trouble Sampras more than Becker?

[Deleted member 512391]

Even though Sampras had positive H2H record against both Edberg (8-6) and Becker (12-7), it seems to me that Edberg troubled Sampras more.

After 1991, Sampras started to dominate Becker, beating him basically everywhere and especially in best-of-five matches.

On the other hand, Edberg really had Sampras's numbers in best of five, winning two Slam matches and the only Davis Cup (although Sampras retired after losing first set, I don't know anything about this match) and very close H2H, too.

One could argue that, unlike Becker, Edberg didn't face "the best" Sampras, because their Slam matches were before Wimbledon in 1993. On the other hand, when you beat a guy in a Grand Slam final (USO 1992), where he'd already won a title (1990), and then you beat him again in the very next Slam (in straight sets), the previous sentence sounds like a bad excuse.

In my opinion, the reason for this is Edberg's aggressiveness (including a better movement). Becker had more power than Edberg (especially in his serve and forehand), but he wasn't as aggressive as him. Edberg would approach the net, usually by chip and charge, attacking opponent's backhand, which would put them (including Sampras) under pressure they weren't used to.
In every of their matches, Edberg didn't hesitate to approach the net with that beautiful backhand, whenever he thought he has the slightest chance to win the point.
That wasn't the case with Becker. He was a little bit conservative, he would try (relatively often) to beat Sampras from the baseline, usually losing most of those rallies. He might have had more success had he employed the Edberg playbook...

What are you thoughts?

 

[josofo]

i think u had it right a lot of it is just timing.

edberg played his best tennis 90 to 93 and he was a lot better then becker in 94 as well.

becker had so, so 93 an 94s and by the time he was playing significantly better than edberg in 95 and 96 sampras was in his prime.

 

[big ted]

i agree about the timing. sampras said he was basically a different player after he lost to edberg in 92us open. he worked alot harder and his career took off after that

 

[illusions30]

Becker tried to beat Sampras by overpowering him which was virtually impossible to do. The same way he tried to beat Agassi by outrallying him from the baseline, except in the case of the Sampras match it was more his natural game and still wasnt enough vs Sampras.

Edberg was also still at his best in the early 90s. Becker's best tennis ended in early 91, although he made a resurgence in 95-96. This also explains his lopsided losing record to Agassi for awhile, who when back in form in late 95 played much tougher.

 

[urban]

Becker in his prime had the better backhand return than Sampras. Edbergs serve, especially the second serve, had always the same pattern, he hit a high kicker to the backhand. Becker, when on song, could crucify Edberg with his cross court return.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Becker tried to beat Sampras by overpowering him which was virtually impossible to do. The same way he tried to beat Agassi by outrallying him from the baseline, except in the case of the Sampras match it was more his natural game and still wasnt enough vs Sampras.

These are my thoughts, too. I think that Becker's strategy against Sampras wasn't good. He should have attacked him in the Edberg (and, by the way, the Krajicek) way, by attaching his backhand and forcing him to hit a passing shot.

 

[mattennis]

Loved their matches!!

Here Edberg coming from behind 6-7 1-4 to beat a young Sampras ( 21 y.o. but already nº1 ) in very fast conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3p2YwsQ8Is

 

[Bobby Jr]

Edberg was generally much more mentally strong than Becker so he didn't have to fight himself so much in close matches like Becker did (even if Becker was one of the best ever at berating himself into form).

Similarly, while they were both attacking players, when Edberg came into the net he came in more judiciously and cunningly, putting himself into positions to hit good volleys more often than Becker. Becker had a lot of success until the early 90s coming in on more kamikaze-type approaches and backing himself to make stab/lunge volleys - which he was very good at. But, once baseline tennis started to swing more and more into the Agassi/Sampras/Courier-era from the baseline those sort of volleys became harder and harder to pull off. I think that's why Becker was undone somewhat more vs the new-school top guys than Edberg was. Edberg was on his own boat game-style wise and it wasn't easy to defend against no matter how limited his forehand was or how low power he generally was compared to Agassi/Courier/Sampras etc.

 

[chjtennis]

I agree it's the timing. By 1994, Edberg wasn't reaching deep stages in Slams and big tournaments, hence Sampras didn't have enough chance to beat him more. Who can forget Sampras' self destruction in the finals of US Open v Edberg in 1992? That's a good example of pre-prime Sampras losing to Edberg.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras wasn't knee deep into his prime yet in 92-93. So that may had a lot to do with it. Becker faced PEAK Sampras. Edberg did not



1992? Sorry. Before Pete's prime began

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Sampras wasn't knee deep into his prime yet in 92-93. So that may had a lot to do with it. Becker faced PEAK Sampras. Edberg did not



1992? Sorry. Before Pete's prime began

It's not just "It was before Pete's prime". You simplified it without taking into consideration the other facts.

Sampras crushed Courier in the semis, the number one seed (and No. 1 player in the world), the man who had already won two Majors that year (and who, by the way, dethroned him the year before), he reached the final and he'd already won this tournament, so he wasn't novice.

On the other hand, Edberg played three consecutive five setters on his run: in fourth round against Krajicek, QF against Lendl and SF against Chang. In every of those matches he was a break down in the fifth, so it wasn't easy at all. And his SF match against Chang lasted five and a half hours!
Sampras could only dream about those circumstances, but he lost anyways.

So, no, the explanation "he wasn't in his prime" is not good enough.

 

[josofo]

It's not just "It was before Pete's prime". You simplified it without taking into consideration the other facts.

Sampras crushed Courier in the semis, the number one seed (and No. 1 player in the world), the man who had already won two Majors that year (and who, by the way, dethroned him the year before), he reached the final and he'd already won this tournament, so he wasn't novice.

On the other hand, Edberg played three consecutive five setters on his run: in fourth round against Krajicek, QF against Lendl and SF against Chang. In every of those matches he was a break down in the fifth, so it wasn't easy at all. And his SF match against Chang lasted five and a half hours!
Sampras could only dream about those circumstances, but he lost anyways.

So, no, the explanation "he wasn't in his prime" is not good enough.

also now that we are going REAL on each other. the difference between 6-8 and 7-12 isnt really that significant. heck becker beat sampras more times than edberg did.


in fact to say that becker was more of a hitter and edberg was more of a percentage player and thats why sampras has a better record vs becker than he does vs edberg is a much bigger leap given just the 7-12 vs 6-8 records.


also to further the point of us guys who say it was timing. before 1995 edberg was 6-6 vs sampras and becker was 5-6. which to me isnt a significant difference. to say yep edberg went to his back hand more, that is why he did SO GREAT VS Sampras while becker did horrible. well you just dont have the evidence that edberg did better vs sampras at all.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

also now that we are going REAL on each other. the difference between 6-8 and 7-12 isnt really that significant. heck becker beat sampras more times than edberg did.

Now it's interesting that you deliberately ignored the fact that Becker had more chances to beat Sampras more times than Edberg. After 1994, Edberg played Sampras only two times, where Becker played him eight times. So to say that "he beat him more times" doesn't tell anything.
And, by the way, I mentioned those records to verify the claim that Sampras did have positive H2H against both - they are not an indicator of Edberg's superiority.

in fact to say that becker was more of a hitter and edberg was more of a percentage player and thats why sampras has a better record vs becker than he does vs edberg is a much bigger leap given just the 7-12 vs 6-8 records.

That's what I was hoping to find here, the technical analysis of their game and why one player troubles the other more.

also to further the point of us guys who say it was timing. before 1995 edberg was 6-6 vs sampras and becker was 5-6. which to me isnt a significant difference. to say yep edberg went to his back hand more, that is why he did SO GREAT VS Sampras while becker did horrible. well you just dont have the evidence that edberg did better vs sampras at all.

You exaggerate. Nobody stated that Becker did horrible, but that he just wasn't as good as Edberg against Sampras.
To say that I don't have "evidence" - well, the title of the topic is "(Why) did Edberg ...?", which doesn't necessarily mean he did. I explained why I think he did better.

 

[Sadyv]

I don't agree that Edberg actually did trouble Pete more. They both gave him trouble, as they were great players.

Pete was 6-4 vs Boris in their first 10, 5-5 vs Edberg. Not a big differenc. Pete won 5 of the last 6 vs Edberg, and his "loss" was him retiring. Those matches were during Pete's rise, so it appears Edberg did little to bother a prime Sampras.

 

[Fedinkum]

Sampras got his Becker return serve tips from his mate Agassi: when Boris poked his tougue out to the right, he served to the right, and vice versa.

 

[maskedmuffin]

one has to wonder how good becker really could have been had he not had a crippling injury in 84 at wimbledon

people say he was a plodding mover but the young becker was actually quite quick, and he had a horrific injury on court 2 at age 16 while still growing

i think had he had that same agility he coulda been damn dominant

but yeah he just was more kamikaze than edberg

 

[NLBwell]

I think the comparison of Becker's power vs. Edberg's percentage play is valid.
Versus McEnroe, Becker was 8-2 and Edberg was 6-7. There is a significant difference in their games and the way they match up against other players.

 

[chjtennis]

one has to wonder how good becker really could have been had he not had a crippling injury in 84 at wimbledon

people say he was a plodding mover but the young becker was actually quite quick, and he had a horrific injury on court 2 at age 16 while still growing

i think had he had that same agility he coulda been damn dominant

but yeah he just was more kamikaze than edberg

I agree. Becker was the first tennis superstar from Germany and he was distracted by so many things outside tennis. He wasn't really a dedicated, disciplined kind like Sampras either. I really believe he didn't fulfill his potential.

 

[CEvertFan]

Becker was his own worst enemy sometimes. I used to yell at the TV when I would see him getting into one of his "I'm going to play baseline tennis today and try to beat you that way just because I feel like it" moods because he just wasn't playing to his strengths.

Edberg was a better serve/volleyer than Becker was hands down. By '94 though Edberg was beginning to be a bit past his prime and his results show that.


I wouldn't say that Edberg troubled Sampras more then Becker did - they both gave Sampras a lot of trouble.

 

[illusions30]

Becker was his own worst enemy sometimes. I used to yell at the TV when I would see him getting into one of his "I'm going to play baseline tennis today and try to beat you that way just because I feel like it" moods because he just wasn't playing to his strengths.

Edberg was a better serve/volleyer than Becker was hands down. By '94 though Edberg was beginning to be a bit past his prime and his results show that.


I wouldn't say that Edberg troubled Sampras more then Becker did - they both gave Sampras a lot of trouble.

Agree with all your comments except that last part. Edberg is 6-8 vs Sampras in head to head, despite 8 of their 14 matches being from 93 onwards when Edberg was fading and Sampras was prime and dominant. Becker has a very one sided losing record to Sampras, and except for 97 and 93/94 was always playing top level tennis. Becker never beat Sampras in a slam or even at the ATP World Championships minus a RR defeat which was meaningless as Sampras came back to beat him in the final. Edberg beat Sampras twice in slams, once in a final, just before his dominance began.

 

[Thetouch]

I don´t think Edberg troubled Sampras more. I believe had they played like 5 additional times result would be the same as Sampras vs. Becker. Becker´s main problem: he wasn´t as fast as Edberg and therefore he risked being passed after serving and attacking the net (esp. after his 2nd serve) a lot more than Edberg against huge return hitters, mainly Agassi. That´s why he often had to stay on the baseline slugged it out.

Edberg beat Sampras in the early 90s at 2 Slams but I also believe Becker could have beaten him too had they faced between 1990-1992. I truely believe Becker would have won the 1990 US Open against Sampras, just like I believe he would have given Chang alot more trouble at the FO 1989 than Edberg. My conslusion comes from Boxing: styles make the fights. Remember Beckers H2H against Edberg? 25:10 and most of these matches were played in both players prime´s (in Edberg´s for sure at least).

Anyway, Sampras´s service wasn´t even as strong and consistent in the early 90s and he wasn´t mentally/physicly as tough as he became later on, his GS records before winning WB 93 are good proof in my oppinion. His forehand wasn´t as sharpe and powefull. Just look at his body language back then: huge difference from 1990-93 to 94 and onwards.

 

[Chopin]

"Troubled" is not the word I'd use. Edberg got the best of Sampras. 2-0 in slams.

 

[California]

I don´t think Edberg troubled Sampras more. I believe had they played like 5 additional times result would be the same as Sampras vs. Becker. Becker´s main problem: he wasn´t as fast as Edberg and therefore he risked being passed after serving and attacking the net (esp. after his 2nd serve) a lot more than Edberg against huge return hitters, mainly Agassi. That´s why he often had to stay on the baseline slugged it out.

Edberg beat Sampras in the early 90s at 2 Slams but I also believe Becker could have beaten him too had they faced between 1990-1992. I truely believe Becker would have won the 1990 US Open against Sampras, just like I believe he would have given Chang alot more trouble at the FO 1989 than Edberg. My conslusion comes from Boxing: styles make the fights. Remember Beckers H2H against Edberg? 25:10 and most of these matches were played in both players prime´s (in Edberg´s for sure at least).

Anyway, Sampras´s service wasn´t even as strong and consistent in the early 90s and he wasn´t mentally/physicly as tough as he became later on, his GS records before winning WB 93 are good proof in my oppinion. His forehand wasn´t as sharpe and powefull. Just look at his body language back then: huge difference from 1990-93 to 94 and onwards.

Becker give Chang more trouble than Edberg at the 89 French Open final? 5 sets and around 25 break points for Edberg and that wasn't a close match ? Interesting. Plus Edberg 2 to 1 over Becker in majors....

 

[helloworld]

"Troubled" is not the word I'd use. Edberg got the best of baby Sampras. 2-0 in slams.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Fixed it for you.

Sampras had already won a Major when Edberg beat him in the 1992 USO final (the same Major Sampras won in 1990) and few months after their 1993 AO encounter, Sampras became a dominant force in men's tennis.

So, no, that wasn't baby Sampras at all.

 

[kiki]

If there is a reason I would say it is speed and moving around the court

 

[mattennis]

Actually, their results against Sampras are not that different.

Both won more against a very young Sampras:

Becker won 3 out of the first 4 meetings against Sampras:

1990 M-1000 Stockholm SF Becker won 6-4 6-4

1991 Indianapolis Final Sampras won 7-6 3-6 6-3.

1991 M-1000 Stockholm QF Becker won 7-5 7-5

1991 WTF RR Becker won 6-4 6-7 6-1 (Sampras was already qualified to the SF stage after winning the second set).


So even though all their first four meetings were close matches, Becker won the 3 played on indoor carpet and Sampras won the only one played on outdoor hard court.

Since the beginning of 1992, Sampras won 11 out the next 15 matches ( 11-4 ), and the four matches Becker won were all on indoor carpet (Becker lost all matches against Sampras played on clay, grass and outdoor hard courts).

Again, even though 11-4 seems lopsided, many of those 15 last matches were very close and some of them were all-time great matches.


In general, Becker-Sampras were great matches to watch. They played with very similar tactics: On outdoor hard courts they both did serve-volley on first serves and they both used to stay back on second serves, and I think Sampras won all their outdoor hard court meetings because he was quicker and a bit better overall from the baseline.

On clay they only met once, 1994 M-1000 Rome final, where Sampras stayed back even on many first serves, and Becker did serve-volley on first serves and also on some second serves (stayed back on second serves in general). Sampras played great tennis that day, winning 6-1 6-2 6-2, winning the majority of baseline points and also winning a lot of points by means of forehand and backhand passing-shots.

On grass they played three times, all of them at Wimbledon ( 1993 SF Sampras won 7-6 6-4 6-4, 1995 Final Sampras won 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2, 1997 QF Sampras won 6-1 6-7 6-1 6-4 ). Sampras won the three times, but they were all good grass court matches. I think on grass, at Wimbledon, Sampras great and superior athleticism was the key. Both did serve-volley on both serves, but Sampras quickness and forehand and backhand passing-shots were just too good on grass.

On indoor carpet they had amazing matches. That was the best conditions for Becker and it shows because not only Becker won their first 3 meetings on indoor carpet ( as I said earlier, during 1990-91 ) but he also won 4 of the last 10 meetings they had on indoor carpet ( from 1992 to 1997 ). Becker serve (both first and second) was even deadlier on indoor carpet than on grass (because of no wind, perfect conditions) and the truer bounce of indoor carpet helped Becker's compact strokes.They both did serve-volley on first serve on indoor carpet, but Becker also used to serve-and-volley on the majority of second serves on indoor carpet (at least when playing against Sampras), whereas Sampras used to stay back on second serves as usual in him. Their 1994 WTF final, 1996 M-1000 Stuttgart final and 1996 WTF final were all great matches.


All in all, they played a very similar game, but Sampras was overall a bit better (quicker and more athletic) and even though the majority of their matches were close, Sampras won 11 of the last 15 matches they had.




Even though the Edberg-Sampras game dynamics was very different (Edberg attacked the net as soon as possible, in every point, serve-volleyed on first and second serve and chip-and-charged the net on every Sampras's second serve when it was possible), their results are not that different than Becker-Sampras.


Gotta go now, but later I will go on with Edberg-Sampras to show their history is not that different than Sampras-Becker, with the exception of two important victories Edberg had against Sampras in GS tournaments.

 

[Thetouch]

Becker give Chang more trouble than Edberg at the 89 French Open final? 5 sets and around 25 break points for Edberg and that wasn't a close match ? Interesting. Plus Edberg 2 to 1 over Becker in majors....

Becker was a bad match-up for Chang, yes I believe Becker could have won, knowing it would be his first and last chance to win the French O. They met in the FO QF 1991 and Becker won straight in 3 sets so it would have been possible.

Edbergs 2:1 h2H in majors is a bit tricky considering the last to matches were brutal 5 setters, where Becker had to come back from being 0:2 set down. His Wimbledon loss in 1990 probably was his only loss when Becker lost his focus for the last 5 games of the match and troubled while being up 3:1. I am not taking away anything from Edberg because he is one of my ALL times favourites but I just wanted to make clear that sometimes h2h are tricky. Lendl has a slightly positive h2h against BEcker, but his GS h2h is terrible considering Lendl is consodered to be an top 5 GOAT.

 

[ppmishra]

Becker give Chang more trouble than Edberg at the 89 French Open final? 5 sets and around 25 break points for Edberg and that wasn't a close match ? Interesting. Plus Edberg 2 to 1 over Becker in majors....

Becker vs Chang 1991 FO quarter finals 6-4 6-4 6-2

 

[barone]

Becker was a bad match-up for Chang, yes I believe Becker could have won, knowing it would be his first and last chance to win the French O. They met in the FO QF 1991 and Becker won straight in 3 sets so it would have been possible.

Edbergs 2:1 h2H in majors is a bit tricky considering the last to matches were brutal 5 setters, where Becker had to come back from being 0:2 set down. His Wimbledon loss in 1990 probably was his only loss when Becker lost his focus for the last 5 games of the match and troubled while being up 3:1. I am not taking away anything from Edberg because he is one of my ALL times favourites but I just wanted to make clear that sometimes h2h are tricky. Lendl has a slightly positive h2h against BEcker, but his GS h2h is terrible considering Lendl is consodered to be an top 5 GOAT.

isnt the h2h 3-1 in slams

 

[SaintPetros]

Even though Sampras had positive H2H record against both Edberg (8-6) and Becker (12-7), it seems to me that Edberg troubled Sampras more.

After 1991, Sampras started to dominate Becker, beating him basically everywhere and especially in best-of-five matches.

On the other hand, Edberg really had Sampras's numbers in best of five, winning two Slam matches and the only Davis Cup (although Sampras retired after losing first set, I don't know anything about this match) and very close H2H, too.

One could argue that, unlike Becker, Edberg didn't face "the best" Sampras, because their Slam matches were before Wimbledon in 1993. On the other hand, when you beat a guy in a Grand Slam final (USO 1992), where he'd already won a title (1990), and then you beat him again in the very next Slam (in straight sets), the previous sentence sounds like a bad excuse.

In my opinion, the reason for this is Edberg's aggressiveness (including a better movement). Becker had more power than Edberg (especially in his serve and forehand), but he wasn't as aggressive as him. Edberg would approach the net, usually by chip and charge, attacking opponent's backhand, which would put them (including Sampras) under pressure they weren't used to.
In every of their matches, Edberg didn't hesitate to approach the net with that beautiful backhand, whenever he thought he has the slightest chance to win the point.
That wasn't the case with Becker. He was a little bit conservative, he would try (relatively often) to beat Sampras from the baseline, usually losing most of those rallies. He might have had more success had he employed the Edberg playbook...

What are you thoughts?

Becker was a Pete-lite, he fit right into Pete's paws and really nothing he could do about it. Stefan was a much better volleyer/ net approach and could nail Pete's weak backhand returns off servesans volleys like no tmrw

 

[Thetouch]

isnt the h2h 3-1 in slams

Of course. I don't know why I said 2:1, maybe it was a typo or I was referring to something else, I can't remember

 

[skaj]

Better mover than Backer?

Sampras also did basically everything as good or better than Becker.

 

[Mainad]

Better mover than Backer?

Sampras also did basically everything as good or better than Becker.

Becker himself has stated that Sampras was one of the reasons he decided to retire. He felt that he had come up against a player who was just better than him and one that he could never expect to have much success against.

 

[timnz]

Sampras was a nightmare match up for Becker. He was a better server, slightly better volleyer, better passer, significantly better athlete and overall court mover, was probably fitter, had better overheads and trick shots, and was an overall stronger baseliner even with Becker probably having a better drive backhand. He was also mentally nearly or perhaps a complete match for Becker, who was used to winning a lot of matches with both power, intimidation, and sheer will and strength of mind. There is literally no worse match up in the history of tennis probably for Becker than what Sampras was, and I say that as someone who loved Becker and loathed and always rooted hard against Sampras.

Add to all that Becker naturally having been past his prime and on decline since atleast 92/93, and well past it by 97 and injury proned by then. And Sampras's presence made the already fairly natural decision to retire a super easy one.

In late 96 Becker was playing the best indoor tennis of his career

 

[timnz]

Edberg was generally much more mentally strong than Becker so he didn't have to fight himself so much in close matches like Becker did (even if Becker was one of the best ever at berating himself into form).

Similarly, while they were both attacking players, when Edberg came into the net he came in more judiciously and cunningly, putting himself into positions to hit good volleys more often than Becker. Becker had a lot of success until the early 90s coming in on more kamikaze-type approaches and backing himself to make stab/lunge volleys - which he was very good at. But, once baseline tennis started to swing more and more into the Agassi/Sampras/Courier-era from the baseline those sort of volleys became harder and harder to pull off. I think that's why Becker was undone somewhat more vs the new-school top guys than Edberg was. Edberg was on his own boat game-style wise and it wasn't easy to defend against no matter how limited his forehand was or how low power he generally was compared to Agassi/Courier/Sampras etc.

Where is the evidence that Edberg was mentally strong than Edberg.? Their 25 Becker to10 Edberg May suggest the opposite

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I think this is a most interesting H2H. From 1990 to 1992, the H2H was actually 3-3 but the one USO loss biases the mind when it comes to Sampras. BUT after that, from 93 to 95 the years when Sampras was overwhelmingly dominant, he STILL led only 5-3. Granted that includes a walkover loss to Edberg but he actually lost twice to an Edberg past his prime and generally losing to many of the top players in the field. I THINK what really happened between 93 and 96 is Edberg underperformed a lot at the slams (esp post the AO 93 final loss) and rarely got to the business end. It's somewhat like Becker in that respect except that Becker had a revival in 96.

 

[skaj]

It is pretty simple. Becker and Sampras essentialy had the same game, but Sampras being better in just about every area. Becker has a better backhand I am pretty sure, but that was about the least important shot or aspect in their contests given the games both were playing.

Edberg has a completely different style to both. He has less overall power than both and much less serving power, has a much poorer overall rallying and baseline forehand than both, but is a much better volleyer than both, has more finesse overall and a better transitional game than both, is probably a more natural and smooth mover than both (vs Sampras it is closer here, vs Becker it is easily Edberg), and probably returns serve better than both although all 3 are skillfull returners.

The big difference between Sampras and Becker is that Pete was much better from the baseline. (I don't know who I would choose for the better backhand of the two, neither was particularly strong on that side, at least compared to their forehands.)

Edberg "much poorer overall rallying"? That's an odd observation. Also much better volleyer, better transitional game and a smoother mover than Sampras?

 

[Olli Jokinen]

The big difference between Sampras and Becker is that Pete was much better from the baseline. (I don't know who I would choose for the better backhand of the two, neither was particularly strong on that side, at least compared to their forehands.)

Edberg "much poorer overall rallying"? That's an odd observation. Also much better volleyer, better transitional game and a smoother mover than Sampras?

I'd say that Edberg is an underrated rallier. He grew up un clay so he knew the business. Becker's backhand was clearly stronger than Sampras'.

 

[wangs78]

Lots of good arguments here. Another is that Edberg was a faster, better defender than Becker. Both were agressive net rushers, but Edberg was definitely the more lightfooted of the two and more able to make Sampras hit another shot. Becker was also slower than Sampras, so his power was not that effective against Sampras because Sampras could use his superior speed, get to the ball, and reflect that power.

 

[California]

Edberg is a much better mover than Becker, Edberg put a lot of returns in play and made Sampras play, and Edberg took the net keeping Sampras back and forcing him to pass. Becker tried to play Sampras straight up and go toe to toe with him which wasn't a good strategy as Pete was the better mover and could match Becker power for power. Edberg knew better and took it to Pete and made him hit tough passing shots over and over. This is why Edberg faired better against Pete IMO.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

I agree with posters who pointed out Becker's wrong tactics of trying to outhit Sampras from the baseline, he was slower and had less power off his groundies (off the forehand side obviously, his backhand was better though), so it was a losing strategy.

Edberg kept Pete out of his comfort zone by rushing him and making him hit as many passing shots as possible (similar to what Navratilova did to Graf), so Pete never felt as comfortable as against Boris, who usually gave him enough time to properly react.

This is what Pete said about Edberg in his book which nicely summarizes his struggles against him.

"He was always trying to rush you. The most deadly thing you can do to a guy is take away his time—make him rush or feel like you’re swarming all over him. Stefan was very good at that. His volley was superb, especially on the backhand side, and he was a tough guy to lob."

 

[skaj]

I'd say that Edberg is an underrated rallier. He grew up un clay so he knew the business. Becker's backhand was clearly stronger than Sampras'.

I really can't see that. As far as I can remember, both were kind of mediocre on that side. Top spin backhand at least.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

I really can't see that. As far as I can remember, both were kind of mediocre on that side. Top spin backhand at least.

I think that Becker's topspin backhand was clearly better (more powerful and steadier), especially his bh return.

 

[Heuristic]

One could argue that, unlike Becker, Edberg didn't face "the best" Sampras, because their Slam matches were before Wimbledon in 1993. On the other hand, when you beat a guy in a Grand Slam final (USO 1992), where he'd already won a title (1990), and then you beat him again in the very next Slam (in straight sets), the previous sentence sounds like a bad excuse.

Eh... The best HC match I have ever seen Sampras play was the UO final 1990. Total BS to suggest that Sampras wasn't in his prime before 1993.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I really can't see that. As far as I can remember, both were kind of mediocre on that side. Top spin backhand at least.

Edberg's was clearly better, basically just a technically superior shot. Look at the return winner at 4:23. Inside out against a serve coming into him. A Becker serve on grass at that. He does it again in the very next point in this compilation.

For that matter, I think Becker's backhand (topspin) was better than Sampras' too. But Sampras had the better forehand than Becker, especially on the run, hence dominated the match up. I haven't watched that many Edberg-Sampras matches but I'd wager the slice approach into Sampras' backhand gave him problems. Like Navratilova-Graf basically. Sampras made sure he would never have the problems Graf did by attacking the net every opportunity he got (including, of course, serve and volley) and coming over on the backhand a lot more too. I wouldn't say his backhand was liable to break under sustained pressure on hard courts or grass but it was just not a particularly lethal shot. When there was no give from the court surface (like clay), it became a much weaker shot. Edberg's held up better on clay. He really should have seen RG through when he got the chance.

 

[skaj]

Edberg's was clearly better, basically just a technically superior shot. Look at the return winner at 4:23. Inside out against a serve coming into him. A Becker serve on grass at that. He does it again in the very next point in this compilation.

For that matter, I think Becker's backhand (topspin) was better than Sampras' too. But Sampras had the better forehand than Becker, especially on the run, hence dominated the match up. I haven't watched that many Edberg-Sampras matches but I'd wager the slice approach into Sampras' backhand gave him problems. Like Navratilova-Graf basically. Sampras made sure he would never have the problems Graf did by attacking the net every opportunity he got (including, of course, serve and volley) and coming over on the backhand a lot more too. I wouldn't say his backhand was liable to break under sustained pressure on hard courts or grass but it was just not a particularly lethal shot. When there was no give from the court surface (like clay), it became a much weaker shot. Edberg's held up better on clay. He really should have seen RG through when he got the chance.

Nobody said Edberg's backhand wasn't the superior one, just that there is not much difference in quality between the other two.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Nobody said Edberg's backhand wasn't the superior one, just that there is not much difference in quality between the other two.

I think there is. There would have to be because Edberg's forehand was much weaker than Sampras or Becker. He had a great slice too but the backhand being that great was important too. I don't even know where you're coming from calling Edberg's backhand mediocre. Can you point to what it is about his backhand that you find mediocre? At the time stamp I mentioned in that video, they show a slo-mo of his backhand. What exactly is the problem with that shot?

 

[Heuristic]

Edberg's was clearly better, basically just a technically superior shot. Look at the return winner at 4:23. Inside out against a serve coming into him. A Becker serve on grass at that. He does it again in the very next point in this compilation.

For that matter, I think Becker's backhand (topspin) was better than Sampras' too. But Sampras had the better forehand than Becker, especially on the run, hence dominated the match up. I haven't watched that many Edberg-Sampras matches but I'd wager the slice approach into Sampras' backhand gave him problems. Like Navratilova-Graf basically. Sampras made sure he would never have the problems Graf did by attacking the net every opportunity he got (including, of course, serve and volley) and coming over on the backhand a lot more too. I wouldn't say his backhand was liable to break under sustained pressure on hard courts or grass but it was just not a particularly lethal shot. When there was no give from the court surface (like clay), it became a much weaker shot. Edberg's held up better on clay. He really should have seen RG through when he got the chance.

Yeah Beckers BH was better overall but all-court Sampras raised his level on the big points and had a better BH than in the late 90s early 2000s.

 

[skaj]

I think there is. There would have to be because Edberg's forehand was much weaker than Sampras or Becker. He had a great slice too but the backhand being that great was important too. I don't even know where you're coming from calling Edberg's backhand mediocre. Can you point to what it is about his backhand that you find mediocre? At the time stamp I mentioned in that video, they show a slo-mo of his backhand. What exactly is the problem with that shot?

And I don't know where did you see that I was calling Edberg's backhand mediocre.