Why wasn't Edberg better at the 3 biggest indoor events?

[buscemi]

Edberg had a game that seemed tailor-made for indoor/carpet events and did in fact win 18 indoor titles during his career. But he wasn't that great at the three biggest indoor events:

WTF: He won it once and made another final, but only had an 18-14 record overall.
Grand Slam Cup: He was 2-4 with 3 first round losses.
WCT Finals: He was 5-5 with one final and no titles.

Obviously, this isn't bad by any means, but it's pretty underwhelming when you compare him to his main rival Becker, who went:

WTF: 3 titles, 5 other finals, 36-13 record overall.
Grand Slam Cup: He was 7-4 with one title.
WCT Finals: He was 5-1 with one title and one final in the two years he played.

Both Edberg and Becker won 6 Majors, and Edberg was the more consistent player, with many more weeks at #1. So, why was Becker so much of a better player than the relatively underwhelming Edberg in the biggest indoor events?

 

[urban]

Edbergs return game came along better on grass, He had a smooth slice return, which stayed low and was directed to the feet of the volleyer. On grass, this was a formidable weapon. On the indoor courts with a higher and more solid bounce, Lendl and Becker had more firepower on the groundies. Edberg with his fast speed, could match Lendl and Becker from time to time, albeit not always, a Tokyo final, he won over Lendl, was one of the best matches of the whole era.

 

[Cashman]

Yeah in general it was the higher and more consistent bounce on indoor courts that worked against him... helped his kick serve but was generally slightly worse than grass for all other aspects of his game

Becker was kind of the reverse - as formidable as he was on grass, his height and power from the back of the court meant that higher and more consistent bounce indoors took him to another level

Becker really was the complete indoor player, IMO nobody did it better

 

[Crocodile]

His service action would have caused him back problems, which it did, and he had a continental forehand so playing on grass was his best scenario;

 

[timnz]

Edberg had a game that seemed tailor-made for indoor/carpet events and did in fact win 18 indoor titles during his career. But he wasn't that great at the three biggest indoor events:

WTF: He won it once and made another final, but only had an 18-14 record overall.
Grand Slam Cup: He was 2-4 with 3 first round losses.
WCT Finals: He was 5-5 with one final and no titles.

Obviously, this isn't bad by any means, but it's pretty underwhelming when you compare him to his main rival Becker, who went:

WTF: 3 titles, 5 other finals, 36-13 record overall.
Grand Slam Cup: He was 7-4 with one title.
WCT Finals: He was 5-1 with one title and one final in the two years he played.

Both Edberg and Becker won 6 Majors, and Edberg was the more consistent player, with many more weeks at #1. So, why was Becker so much of a better player than the relatively underwhelming Edberg in the biggest indoor events?

One word answer was Becker. Their H2H was 25-10 in Beckers favour and a lot of their match-ups were indoors. 20 out of their 35 matches on Indoor Hard or Indoor Carpet and Edberg only won 5 of those 20. Basically Becker was better indoors.

 

[jrepac]

I actually think Edberg was a bit better J on grass and Becker indoors, no question. The grass suited Stefan's game quite well, notably for S&V, whereas I think Boris was more an all-courter, actually.

 

[dryeagle]

I don’t think he got the kick on his serve that he did on hard courts and grass. Plus Becker, his biggest rival, may have been the best indoor player ever.

 

[andreh]

^^ And by contrast, Becker's 1st serve skidded off the fast carpets and made it all the more impossible to return.

 

[andreh]

And I question that Grand Slam Cup is "one of the big ones". It was controversial and new at the time, with no history and prestige. Only loads of money. And I suppose WCT was also on its way out in those days. No question, though, that Edberg would've preferred to win them.

 

[GuyForget]

Edberg had a game that seemed tailor-made for indoor/carpet events and did in fact win 18 indoor titles during his career. But he wasn't that great at the three biggest indoor events:

WTF: He won it once and made another final, but only had an 18-14 record overall.
Grand Slam Cup: He was 2-4 with 3 first round losses.
WCT Finals: He was 5-5 with one final and no titles.

Obviously, this isn't bad by any means, but it's pretty underwhelming when you compare him to his main rival Becker, who went:

WTF: 3 titles, 5 other finals, 36-13 record overall.
Grand Slam Cup: He was 7-4 with one title.
WCT Finals: He was 5-1 with one title and one final in the two years he played.

Both Edberg and Becker won 6 Majors, and Edberg was the more consistent player, with many more weeks at #1. So, why was Becker so much of a better player than the relatively underwhelming Edberg in the biggest indoor events?

Grand slam cup and WCT dont matter (GSC had no ranking points, just a ****load of $$$)

 

[timnz]

And I question that Grand Slam Cup is "one of the big ones". It was controversial and new at the time, with no history and prestige. Only loads of money. And I suppose WCT was also on its way out in those days. No question, though, that Edberg would've preferred to win them.

Grand slam cup - I remember how hard those players played to win it. Also best of 5 in semis and finals.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Yeah in general it was the higher and more consistent bounce on indoor courts that worked against him... helped his kick serve but was generally slightly worse than grass for all other aspects of his game

Becker was kind of the reverse - as formidable as he was on grass, his height and power from the back of the court meant that higher and more consistent bounce indoors took him to another level

Becker really was the complete indoor player, IMO nobody did it better

indoor courts have low bounces

 

[Cashman]

indoor courts have low bounces

clearly you have never played on grass

 

[Mustard]

And I question that Grand Slam Cup is "one of the big ones". It was controversial and new at the time, with no history and prestige. Only loads of money. And I suppose WCT was also on its way out in those days. No question, though, that Edberg would've preferred to win them.

The Grand Slam Cup was run by the ITF (like the 4 majors), was massive in terms of prize money at the time, and best of 5 sets in the semi finals and final, but had no ranking points. Did the Masters YEC in the 1980s have ranking points? I don't think it did.

 

[HBK4life]

The Grand Slam Cup was run by the ITF (like the 4 majors), was massive in terms of prize money at the time, and best of 5 sets in every round, but had no ranking points. Did the Masters YEC in the 1980s have ranking points? I don't think it did.

I bet was Brad Gil$erts favorite tournament.

 

[Mustard]

I bet was Brad Gil$erts favorite tournament.

He was runner-up in the first Grand Slam Cup in 1990, against Pete Sampras.

 

[buscemi]

He was runner-up in the first Grand Slam Cup in 1990, against Pete Sampras.

I think that was one of the chapters in "Winning Ugly." Something like "A Match With David Wheaton for $1 million," referring to his contentious SF w/Wheaton, w/the winner getting $1 million for making the final.

 

[Mustard]

I think that was one of the chapters in "Winning Ugly." Something like "A Match With David Wheaton for $1 million," referring to his contentious SF w/Wheaton, w/the winner getting $1 million for making the final.

And that match was a hardfought win for Gilbert, beating Wheaton 6-3, 3-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4. Their world rankings at the time, Gilbert was #10 and Wheaton was #27.

 

[buscemi]

And that match was a hardfought win for Gilbert, beating Wheaton 6-3, 3-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4. Their world rankings at the time, Gilbert was #10 and Wheaton was #27.

Yes, and a monumental win from Gilbert, the only loss at the GSC by Wheaton, who would win it the following year (the only other time he played). I'm sure Gilbert was happy that Wheaton took out Lendl in the prior round, not a surprising result given the trouble that Wheaton and his game gave Lendl.

 

[timnz]

So

Masters/Masters Cup/WTF/ATP Tour Finals - year end championships Grand Prix/ATP (1970 to Present)
WCT Finals - year end championship for WCT (1971 to 1989)
Grand Slam Cup - year end championship for the ITF (1990-1999)

I think all three should be counted towards a players prime indoor titles.

Becker is the only player to have won all three.

 

[timnz]

I actually think Edberg was a bit better J on grass and Becker indoors, no question. The grass suited Stefan's game quite well, notably for S&V, whereas I think Boris was more an all-courter, actually.

Grass - only 1 set really between them

 

[Mustard]

Grass - only 1 set really between them

Their grass matches:

1988 Queen's Club F: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-1, 3-6, 6-3)
1988 Wimbledon F: Stefan Edberg def. Boris Becker (4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
1989 Wimbledon F: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-0, 7-6, 6-4)
1990 Queen's Club SF: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-4, 6-4)
1990 Wimbledon F: Stefan Edberg def. Boris Becker (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
1996 Queen's Club F: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-4, 7-6)

In sets, Becker won 12, Edberg won 7.

 

[timnz]

Their grass matches:

1988 Queen's Club F: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-1, 3-6, 6-3)
1988 Wimbledon F: Stefan Edberg def. Boris Becker (4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
1989 Wimbledon F: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-0, 7-6, 6-4)
1990 Queen's Club SF: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-4, 6-4)
1990 Wimbledon F: Stefan Edberg def. Boris Becker (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
1996 Queen's Club F: Boris Becker def. Stefan Edberg (6-4, 7-6)

In sets, Becker won 12, Edberg won 7.

Very good point. I think why some rate Edberg over Becker is solely down to the 2-1 Wimbledon tally. But that could have easily gone the other way in 1990 Wimbledon. I would rate Becker overall as above Edberg and certainly indoor with 15-5 indoor hard and carpet

 

[mental midget]

Very good point. I think why some rate Edberg over Becker is solely down to the 2-1 Wimbledon tally. But that could have easily gone the other way in 1990 Wimbledon. I would rate Becker overall as above Edberg and certainly indoor with 15-5 indoor hard and carpet

yeah...as an absolute die-hard edberg fan, i think there's a pretty good argument that becker was the slightly better player. however i'd say stefan was the better athlete and as much as i loved his game, had he embraced a slightly different style of play (more conventional forehand, bigger 1st serve etc.) i think he could have been even more successful.

 

[buscemi]

Very good point. I think why some rate Edberg over Becker is solely down to the 2-1 Wimbledon tally. But that could have easily gone the other way in 1990 Wimbledon. I would rate Becker overall as above Edberg and certainly indoor with 15-5 indoor hard and carpet

I think 2 YE#1s and 72 weeks at #1 vs. 0 YE#1 (despite 1989 being arguable) and 12 weeks at #1 are the other big factors. It's pretty close to a draw for me.

 

[timnz]

I think 2 YE#1s and 72 weeks at #1 vs. 0 YE#1 (despite 1989 being arguable) and 12 weeks at #1 are the other big factors. It's pretty close to a draw for me.

Time at number 1 is partly to do with how other players are performing. I think 1990-to mid 1993 saw Lendl beginning his decline but Sampras not having taken the reigns yet. Not trying to take away anything from Stefan . He still went out and took it

 

[buscemi]

Time at number 1 is partly to do with how other players are performing. I think 1990-to mid 1993 saw Lendl beginning his decline but Sampras not having taken the reigns yet. Not trying to take away anything from Stefan . He still went out and took it

True, but it was a pretty big accomplishment to be YE#1 in both 1990 and 1991.

1990 Top 5: #1 Edberg #2 Becker #3 Lendl #4 Agassi #5 Sampras
1991 Top 6: #1 Edberg #2 Courier #3 Becker #4 Stich #5 Lendl #6 Sampras

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Time at number 1 is partly to do with how other players are performing. I think 1990-to mid 1993 saw Lendl beginning his decline but Sampras not having taken the reigns yet. Not trying to take away anything from Stefan . He still went out and took it

Great point. That's precisely why judging who was better solely by "weeks at #1" is a flawed process. The formula of who gets the #1 ranking has always been inconsistent, and the formula is tweaked every few years. Boris having to wait until he won the '91 Aussie Open to get that #1 ranking is proof of that IMO

 

[bluetrain4]

I think OP is reaching too much with "tailor made for indoor/carpet." Why? Just because he was a serve and volleyer? He was a good server, but not a "big" server, and he wasn't that powerful. His offense is still effective, but I don't think that much more than grass or outdoor hard. Plus he has ward off the big shots of others who are hitting through the quick indoor court.

 

[NedStark]

yeah...as an absolute die-hard edberg fan, i think there's a pretty good argument that becker was the slightly better player. however i'd say stefan was the better athlete and as much as i loved his game, had he embraced a slightly different style of play (more conventional forehand, bigger 1st serve etc.) i think he could have been even more successful.

I heard somewhere that Edberg could not hit flat serves because of an early-career injury.

 

[timnz]

Great point. That's precisely why judging who was better solely by "weeks at #1" is a flawed process. The formula of who gets the #1 ranking has always been inconsistent, and the formula is tweaked every few years. Boris having to wait until he won the '91 Aussie Open to get that #1 ranking is proof of that IMO

I think this illustrated by comparing Becker with Roddick - the latter had more weeks at number 1 but only 1/6th of the slam titles

 

[buscemi]

Great point. That's precisely why judging who was better solely by "weeks at #1" is a flawed process. The formula of who gets the #1 ranking has always been inconsistent, and the formula is tweaked every few years. Boris having to wait until he won the '91 Aussie Open to get that #1 ranking is proof of that IMO

I agree you can't simply look at weeks/years at #1 in a vacuum. That said, I think Edberg's weeks/years at #1 are completely legit when we look at the number of great players competing at a high level when he was #1 in 1990/1991.

 

[mental midget]

I heard somewhere that Edberg could not hit flat serves because of an early-career injury.

that's interesting. i feel like i saw him semi-flatten it on occasion...he definitely had great kinetic chain movement, generated a ton of racket head speed...no doubt he would have had a pretty big flat bomb had he gone that route (or been able to.)

 

[MissileBackHand99]

I agree you can't simply look at weeks/years at #1 in a vacuum. That said, I think Edberg's weeks/years at #1 are completely legit when we look at the number of great players competing at a high level when he was #1 in 1990/1991.

Oh absolutely. Edberg was a legit #1. He won several big tournaments in that '90-'91 stretch