Becker or Edberg ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Becker or Edberg ?

Pages : [1] 2

KarstenBraasch#1
08-30-2002, 07:17 PM
They have both won 6 slams, but never the French Open.

They both reached the no. 1, Edberg a bit longer.

Becker won 49 tournaments, how many did Edberg win ?

Becker never won a clay-tournament, did Edberg win one ?

Becker leads head-to-head 25-10.

Edberg struggled towards the end of his career, Becker was a bit longer a contender.

I would choose option 3, I think.

TheBoiledEgg
08-31-2002, 12:08 AM
Edberg at his best was alot better

he won titles on clay something Becker couldn't do.

KarstenBraasch#1
08-31-2002, 12:59 AM
A completely unbiased judgment, I assume ? ;)

Ace Tracker
08-31-2002, 01:18 AM
ok, Eggy, now answer me this...
who was the best serve&volleyer of the 90's?
Edberg, Becker, Sampras or Rafter? :)

Pea
08-31-2002, 01:24 AM
You mean more of a natural volleyer, Ace?!?!;) Stefan!:o

Nimi
08-31-2002, 11:03 AM
Becker by far, on court AND off-court, Eggy here seems completely biased with lots of things ;)

TheBoiledEgg
08-31-2002, 06:48 PM
best serve and volley of 90's was Edberg

then Rafter followed by Becker and Sampras

Becker and Sampras got easier volleys with a bigger serve.

i'm biased........ so is everyone else :p

Becker off court LMAO ........ you mean in the broom cupboard :p

the cat
09-01-2002, 03:30 AM
Stefan Edberg was my all time favorite men's tennis player. His 1989 French open Final loss to Michael Chang is my most dissapointed I've ever been as a tennis fan! :(

But Boris Becker was the slightly better player because of their head to head record, which he dominated. And Becker won their only 2 Davis Cup matches.

I miss Edberg so much! I just wish we could somehow take some of Stefan Edberg and put it in Marat Safin! :)

Ada Monroe
09-01-2002, 04:57 AM
I think Edberg was a more complete player in that he had more success on clay. But I like Becker better. I think he was more of an exciting player. Also for marrying Barbara Feltus ;)

They were such an excellent couple.

Nimi
09-01-2002, 09:16 AM
Im not biased, i dont know both.
But according to the records, Becker is better, though i have never seen an Edberg match.
Sampras dominated the 90's, & Edberg is the best? Ok.

Scotso
09-01-2002, 09:20 AM
Edberg :D

TheBoiledEgg
09-01-2002, 10:18 AM
Edberg played and beat Pete in their only slam meeting
Stefan was near the end when Pete took over

Stefan Edberg was poetry in motion
Becker more like a raging bull who lost the plot so many times it was almost McEnroe like.

I'm saying Edberg cos Becker to me was like the Hewitt of today, i was just :D :bounce: everytime he lost

TheBoiledEgg
09-01-2002, 10:20 AM
Edberg finished his career on a better note than Becker
Becker was totally useless near the end and couldn't even beat top 50 players

TheBoiledEgg
09-01-2002, 10:23 AM
and another point

Stefan was so good he had an award named after him even when he was still playing.

no one else in the history of the game can say that :p

Also did Becker win an Olympic Gold :p

Hansen
09-01-2002, 10:51 AM
Edberg.

btw, Becker and Edberg will play soon, in Denmark

KarstenBraasch#1
09-01-2002, 01:57 PM
Yes, Becker DID win an Olympic gold. :p (in doubles with Stich)

And Edberg's was only at the demonstration event, that doesn't count. :p

Becker crushed Edberg twice in Davis-Cup-finals. :D

In Wimbledon-final 1989, Edberg was serving at 6-5 40-0 in the 2nd set and lost 12 of the next 13 points. :D

On the other hand, next year Becker came back from 2-6 2-6 to lead 3-1 in the 5th set, only to waste it with dumbest error of all time. :o

TheBoiledEgg
09-01-2002, 05:04 PM
Edberg won GS doubles (3 of them) :p

KarstenBraasch#1
09-01-2002, 05:46 PM
Well, um ... let's see ...

Ah, yes: Becker had the better forehand BY FAR. :p

Also Edberg never dived to reach balls (as far as I remember). :p

TheBoiledEgg
09-01-2002, 07:44 PM
Edberg's backhand was one of the best ever :p
and he had the best backhand volley of all time :p

Edberg didn't have to dive cos he was always in the perfect place at the right time :D

Chloe le Bopper
09-01-2002, 07:49 PM
lol @ you two :p

I never got to see Stephan play, but I saw Becker towards the end of his career.

I wish I'd seen Stephan though, he sounds like he was great to watch - to say the least :p

dbc
09-01-2002, 07:50 PM
Very pleased you gave us the 3rd option.
I just loved them both & always had problems when they played each other - just always hoped it was a good close match & it was the majority of the time.
They had such respect for each other that I can't ever remember seeing either query a call during their matches.
As boildegg said, Edberg was poetry in mothion - just watch any of his shots in slowmothion - and don't think anyone will beat his backhand volley, especially since serve & volley is very unfortunately going out of fashion.
Becker was the more enthusiastic and really did throw himself into his game. I was a bit fan from his 1st Wimbledon title.
Great pity they both had to retire. Stefan's form was going down at the end, but once he made the decision to retire at the end of the year he picked up & started playing better so he didn't retire at a low ranking - which what i'm afraid Pete is going to do unless he makes a decision soon.
As someone else sai, the fact that he lost that '89 RG final to chang was a great pity, especially as he was a break up in the 4th set.

KarstenBraasch#1
09-01-2002, 08:58 PM
Becker: 2 votes.
Edberg: 11 votes.

Somehow I think most of you are rather rating offcourt-'performances'. :rolleyes: ;)

KarstenBraasch#1
09-01-2002, 09:04 PM
BTW, I liked Edberg at lot as well. But I supported Becker when he played him.
Still mad at Stefan that he lost to Stich in Wimbledon semis 1991 without getting broken once. :rolleyes:

So, how many tournaments did he actually win ?

the cat
09-01-2002, 09:44 PM
GoDom and Eggy duking it out! ;)

Eggy, besides the 1992 U.S. open final, Edberg also beat Sampras in straight sets in the 1993 Australian open semifinals.

GoDom, Edberg's semifinal loss to Stich in the 1991 Wimbledon semi's without losing sevrve was awful! :fiery: That match was almost as tough to lose as the Chang match was in the 1989 French Open final! :eek:

TheBoiledEgg
09-01-2002, 10:42 PM
oh yes i forgot about that match

me and GoDom just having a bit of fun ;)

i remember that match and i was pissed off at Stich as he won without breaking Edberg once but i forgave him as he spanked Boris in the final

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 12:01 AM
I assume that this thread was started in response to a discussion I started in the "Blast of the Past" section. I posted the thread in protest of the recently announced nomination of Becker for the 2003 Tennis Hall of Fame, while Edberg -- who retired several years ahead of Boris -- was inexplicably overlooked.

Let me say right at the top that I have high regard for Boris Becker. The point is not whether Boris deserves the nomination, but whether he should have received the nomination while Edberg is snubbed. Yes, snubbed, slighted, a slap on the face.

By the rules published by the Hall of Fame, only players who "have not been a significant factor in competition tennis during the previous five years" are eligible - Becker played on the tour up through June 1999; so he should not even be eligible.

I have my theories about this strange turn of event, see here:
http://www.geocities.com/edhead01us/snubbed.html

Regarding the question of Edberg or Becker: I think they are both great players. Stefan's game is far more graceful, especially when he is "on"; Becker's game is more overpowering and consistent. I prefer Edberg's game by far.

In terms of the person: Edberg is self-contained and reserved, giving away very little of himself; but behind his placid demeanor there is an individual who marches to a different drummer. Becker is the kind of person who brings trouble to himself. Most people find the more vocal Becker more interesting than the more reserved Edberg. I don't.

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 12:05 AM
Hansen wrote:
> btw, Becker and Edberg will play soon, in Denmark

WHERE???

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 12:06 AM
Hansen wrote:
> btw, Becker and Edberg will play soon, in Denmark

WHERE??? I keep in touch with many Edberg fans and some of them will be thrilled to hear about this match.

Please reply to: mlliu@pacbell.net. Thanks.

KarstenBraasch#1
09-02-2002, 01:39 AM
It's also interesting to compare how these 2 players retired.

I think Edberg announce quite early in 1996 that he would retire at the end of the year. Because of that there were a lot of celebrations he had to do, at almost every tournament he played. That must have been annoying as hell.

Becker retired from Grand-Slam-tennis after he had lost to Pete at Wimbledon 1997. He announced that he would only play few regular tournaments from now on, which he did with mixed success.
1998 he was considering to play at Wimbledon again, but when he lost to Hendrik Dreekmann at Halle :rolleyes:, he gave that up.
But 1999 he did come back to Wimbledon, to play his last tournament ever. After saving 2 match-points against Miles MacLagan in the first round :rolleyes:, he went on to beat Kiefer :D and Hewitt :D in straight sets :D, but then lost badly to Rafter. That was it.
And, as you might now, tennis wasn't his only activity during the tournament, Eggy mentioned it already ... :rolleyes:

The worst moment ever was probably Wimbledon 1996. Becker was in super form, he had won the Australian Open and maybe better than ever. There had been quite a lot upsets, and the draw was wide open. But then he played qualifier Neville Godwin in the third round, and on the first point in the first set's tie-break he returned a serve way too late. Result was an awful injury of his wrist, and the tournament was over. :mad: :sad:

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 04:31 AM
> It's also interesting to compare how these 2 players retired.

>I think Edberg announce quite early in 1996 that he would retire at the end of the year. Because of that there were a lot of celebrations he had to do, at almost every tournament he played. That must have been annoying as hell.

>Becker retired from Grand-Slam-tennis after he had lost to Pete at Wimbledon 1997. He announced that he would only play few regular tournaments from now on, which he did with mixed success.

As someone wrote in London Times: "Few champions have retired with more grace than Stefan Edberg." It takes tremendous character to endure one year of farewell. Edberg did announce at the beginning of 1996 that he would retire at the end of that year, during which he played in over 20 tournaments and traveled all over the world, receiving accolades throughout the year. I was at Los Angeles when he played at UCLA for the last time, and the affection for him was tremendous. At the end of the year Edberg was completely exhausted, which led to a very sad first-round exit in the Stockholm Open and an injury that kept him from participating in one more Davis Cup final for Sweden. At the time Stefan also said that once he retires, he will not come back. And he has made good on his words.

It is very hard for a champion to cut all ties to a sport that he/she has identified with all his life, hence the re-re-retirement of Michael Jordan. Most people mistake Edberg's silence for a "boring" personality, but this fellow has tremendous individuality. This is evidenced by the style he chose to play(which was and still is completely orthogonal to the Swedish style), by his choice to live in London when other players sought tax shelter in sunny Monte Carlo, and by his decision in year 2000 to bring his family to return to live in his homeland in spite of a tremendous financial hit (due to taxes).

Throughout 1996, there was a tremendous number of articles that appeared in the media to salute Edberg's retirement. I have collected a few of the best that I located on the web - you can read them here:
http://www.geocities.com/edhead01us/articles.html

dbc
09-02-2002, 04:11 PM
Edhead: I think that semi in '91 was another of my disappooointments. Never liked SticH & for him to beat both my favourites ina row put him even further down on my list of players I don't like.
Probably Edberg has been overlooked because his personality was never flamoyant so unfortunately many people forget him even though he was no. 1 for so long.
What I remember about his last year was that once he decided to retire the pressure seemed to be off and he did better the last few months than he had been doing earlier in the year. Remember he beat some players at RG who he'd lost to in the past.
As you live in the Us you won't have seen the programme Eurosport did on him at the end of 1996 giving his whole career from when he was a junior. I have it on tape & have watched it a couple of times since.

Gandalf
09-02-2002, 05:50 PM
I voted for Edberg, because he was better on clay, and for me a better volleyer (although Becker was more spectacular).

He won titles on clay, got to the RG final (which he nearly won). Becker's best acomplishment on clay was the final in Rome'94, and he lost 6-1 6-2 6-1 to Sampras.

I think Edberg is overlooked because Becker has more media-charisma.

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 06:19 PM
dbc wrote:

> Edhead: I think that semi in '91 was another of my disappooointments. Never liked SticH & for him to beat both my favourites ina row put him even further down on my list of players I don't like.

Well, I thought the same of Michael Chang, but at the same time it's players like them that make Edberg work hard and at times give us spectacular performances. I was watching a tape of a 1991 match between Edberg and Lendl, during which Stefan devastated Ivan. But the good fellowship between the two after the match was really evident and very endearing. Edberg and Stich were good friends, practicing together often. I think the most painful loss of Edberg was the 1989 FO final - if he had gotten past Chang then he would have been elevated several notches in the record books, although I myself don't care about such things.

> Probably Edberg has been overlooked because his personality was never flamoyant so unfortunately many people forget him even though he was no. 1 for so long.

Exactly. Edberg gave the press very little to write about, and that's why they don't pay him any attention. It takes a true fan who takes the effort to observe him over time to appreciate the man: his individuality, his iron will, his nobility. Those qualities are hard to portray and don't sell papers like a good old fashioned scandal.

>What I remember about his last year was that once he decided to retire the pressure seemed to be off and he did better the last few months than he had been doing earlier in the year. Remember he beat some players at RG who he'd lost to in the past.

I think Edberg was just plain burn out from years of net play. If you had to charge the net hundreds of times in each grand slam for 14 years in a row, you would be burn out too. His play style was so demanding that without the enthusiasm he simply could not deliver the goods. Stefan always plays best when his game is the most effortless, or maybe it's the other way round.

> As you live in the Us you won't have seen the programme Eurosport did on him at the end of 1996 giving his whole career from when he was a junior. I have it on tape & have watched it a couple of times since.

If it's in English I would be very much interested in borrowing that tape, if you can bear to part with it temporarily. Please email me: mlliu@pacbell.net. Thanks in advance.

dbc
09-02-2002, 08:11 PM
Edhead: Of course the other hearbreaker was the 1990 AO final vs Lendl when Edberg had won the 1st set & was cruising in the 2nd when he injured his back. He lost that and finally had to retire at 2-5 in the 3rd.
He also still holds the record for the number of Slams plays consecutively - it's 39 if I'm not mistaken.
I'll find that tape & mail you - but don't think we have the same VCR system in Europe.

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 09:34 PM
dbc wrote:

> Edhead: Of course the other hearbreaker was the 1990 AO final vs Lendl when Edberg had won the 1st set & was cruising in the 2nd when he injured his back. He lost that and finally had to retire at 2-5 in the 3rd.

From what I read, it was Edberg's stomach muscles that time that caused him to have to default, a rare thing for Stefan. In the 1991 AO he also had a sad loss to Lendl - he was serving for the match, double faulted, then went on to lose the tournament title.
All said, Edberg could easily have claimed a few more titles in the record books, including these two AO titles and the all important 89FO. But I am not into could-have's and should-have's, and I think Stefan's records are spectacular as they are. Instead of dwelling on these sad losses, I think of the heroic wins such as his 1988 Wimbledon semi, his 1990 Wimbledon final, his 1992 USO 5-set matches, his 1996 FO win over Chang, and his last win over Muster. If you like, you can read an article I wrote about Edberg's greatest matches here:
http://www.tennis-ontheline.com/02eddy2.htm

> He also still holds the record for the number of Slams plays consecutively - it's 39 if I'm not mistaken.

Yes - while Becker and others frequently skipped the demanding AO, Stefan showed up unfailingly. He freely admitted that he played for the grand slams. I used to say that he's a "slam junkie" :-)

> I'll find that tape & mail you - but don't think we have the same VCR system in Europe.

Thanks in advance. The format is not a problem - I can get it converted to our format here. The language might be. I have a tape from Europe (Edberg vs. Muster 96) which I love to watch, but I cannot understand a word that was said, which is way frustrating :-)

TheBoiledEgg
09-02-2002, 09:49 PM
Stefan played all his 54 Slams consecutively and didn't miss one in his career, there was no AUS Open in 1986

thats still an Open era record

Edhead01
09-02-2002, 10:05 PM
TheBoiledEgg wrote:

> Stefan played all his 54 Slams consecutively and didn't miss one in his career, there was no AUS Open in 1986

> thats still an Open era record

You are right, it's 54, although I understand that Wayne Ferrera is getting close, but of course the two's records do not compare.

BTW thank you, TheBoiledEgg, for responding to my postings and for posting my "greatest matches" article in the "Blast of the Past" section.

To all Edberg/Becker fans: Please note that there is indeed an exhbition match to take place in Denmark this November (thanks for alerting us to it, Hansen!) --
Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker are scheduled for an exhibition match this November.

The match is to take place in Ĺrhus, Denmark, on November 6th (a Wednesday), 19:00. The event is titled "Legends Live III". It is to be broadcasted live on TV2 Zulu, followed by an hour long re-broadcast in the evening on TV2. Tickets cost 185-485 DKK each. Further information can be found here:
http://www.f-reklame.dk/docs/LL3/ramme.asp

I hope you support the event - I understand that the venue seats 5,000.

Assuming that the event will take place, I am looking for someone who can get the broadcast to tape it for me and other Edheads in the United States. If you know someone who can help, I shall be grateful if you will let me (mlliu@pacbell.net) know.

KarstenBraasch#1
09-03-2002, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Gandalf
Becker's best acomplishment on clay was the final in Rome'94, and he lost 6-1 6-2 6-1 to Sampras.


Well, this not really true. Becker had many more great clay-results:

He reached the FO semifinals 3 times ! 1987 he lost to Wilander, 1989 to Edberg (he came back from 0-2 sets dwon only to lose the 5th set) and 1989 he lost to Agassi.

1989 he was in the Monte Carlo final and lost a close 4-set-match against Alberto Mancini.

1990 he reached the final in Hamburg. Then he received a clay-court-lesson by oldie Juan Aguilera, losing 1-6 0-6 6-7. :o

1991 he was in Monte Carlo finals again, and again he lost a very close 4-set-match to Sergi Bruguera. :(

1994 the Rome final which you mentioned.

1995 again final in Monte Carlo, this time against Thomas Muster, who was really peaking at that time. Becker won the first 2 sets, then led 6-4 in the 4th set tie-break and served a double-fault. :mad: :( He lost the 5th set 0-6. :sad:

When you hear 'he never won a tournament of clay' you think that he was a total idiot on clay, more like Pete nowadays. But that's not true. He hated clay and had a lot of bad losses, but the results show that he was able to play on it.

TheBoiledEgg
09-03-2002, 01:36 AM
even when Muster was brilliant on clay and unbeatable on it, he still couldn't beat Edberg on clay :D

Edhead01
09-03-2002, 06:32 AM
And, as I understand it, one of the reasons that Edberg didn't win the 89 FO final against roadrunner Michael Chang is that he was exhausted from the semifinal, in which Stefan beat -- Boris Becker.

In his last year on tour (1996), Edberg played spectacular serve-and-volley to demolish an 19-year old hot shot at the French Open. The name of that red-hot rising star, is -- Carlos Moya. If you like, read about that match here:
http://www.geocities.com/edhead01us/1996FrenchOpen.html

Gandalf
09-03-2002, 06:51 AM
Go Dom,

You're right, I didn't remember the Montecarlo final. He had really a good chance there. The others, I don't find them that impressive. My point is that, even if he was a decent clay court player, I don't think he rated even in the top 20. Of course you favoured clay specialist over him, but normally you had to favour also the rest of the top players. Strange, considering that his groundstrokes were pretty good...

Hansen
09-04-2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Edhead01
Hansen wrote:
> btw, Becker and Edberg will play soon, in Denmark

WHERE???

Ĺrhus Denmark, but now you know ;) sorry I did not see this post here, before today...

dbc
09-05-2002, 09:30 PM
Edhead haven't had time to get back on here once the sun came out & the tennis resumed in NY. Any chance of watching I take rather than read about it.
When it's all over I'll contact you - have made a note of your e-mail address

MAURO
10-25-2003, 03:50 PM
always Stefan Edberg
the best man in the courts

WyverN
10-25-2003, 04:23 PM
Some of you are so biased.....the question asked who had the better career?

Both equally good however Becker just takes it because Edberg's two Australian Opens came in the mid 1980s, a time when the Australian Open was still not taken altogether seriously.

Plus Becker won two slams in the same year, something Edberg never managed to do. Trivial points but does nudge it towards Becker.

Becker also totally dominated their head to head

Leo
10-25-2003, 04:24 PM
Stefan :hearts:

zephyr_uk
10-25-2003, 05:23 PM
Boris though Edberg was cool

TennisLurker
10-25-2003, 10:20 PM
Becker had the better career, but I like Edberg more.

tennischick
10-25-2003, 10:27 PM
i dunno much about Edberg but i used to have a thing for Becker. does that qualify me to vote? :p

TheBoiledEgg
10-25-2003, 11:04 PM
i had a thing for Becker too........ a punch :tape:

J. Corwin
10-26-2003, 01:14 AM
I haven't seen either play, unfortunately. So I'm gonna pick the third option. ;)

the cat
10-26-2003, 01:26 AM
Stefan Edberg is my all time favorite men's tennis player! :D But to be fair, I voted for the choice that said Edberg and Boris Becker had equal careers.

I am surprised how easily Edberg is winning this poll.

Becker dominated their head to head rivalry. But Edberg won 3 out their 4 grand slam matches including 2 of their 3 Wimbledon finals. :) And Edberg beat Becker in a French Open semifinal. Thus I correctly voted for the equal option.

TC used to have a thing for Becker? Ooh la la! ;) By the way TC, having had a thing for Becker does not disqualify you from voting.

Tommy'sGF
10-26-2003, 01:45 AM
Stefan Edberg is also my all time favorite player!

He was a dancer on the court!!!!!

TheBoiledEgg
10-26-2003, 09:21 AM
if you not seen Edberg playing
i take it you saw Rafter play

think Rafter but only 10 times better

gmak
10-26-2003, 10:24 AM
stefan was one of my all-time faves along with pete
the best serve-and-volleyer

i am a little biased ;) pat was good but stefan was poetry in motion
it's a shame he lost against chang at the 89 FO he was so close to make history :sad:

the cat
10-26-2003, 04:22 PM
gmak, please don't remind me of the 1989 French Open final between Stefan Edberg and Michael Chang. That was a excruciatingly painful loss for Stefan. :( And it was my all time worst day as a tennis fan because I believed that would be Edberg's only great opportunity to win the French Open. :sad:

rogicomel
10-27-2003, 07:18 AM
Edberg.

MisterQ
01-18-2004, 01:49 AM
Well I did a little research and I am astonished at how evenly matched the two careers actually are! It really is a hard decision, to the extent that I don't think it is a cop out to pick the "equally good" option.

In retrospect is sad to think how close Edberg actually came to getting a career grand slam with that '89 RG final.

J. Corwin
01-18-2004, 02:05 AM
Now that I know more about the players, I'd pick Edberg. Overall he outperformed Becker at the majors. He has reached the final of the slam they neither has won (RG), while Becker has only SF appearances. Stefan also reached one more major final. Furthermore, he spent many more weeks at the top, and ended two years at #1.

beckermeister
01-18-2004, 02:33 AM
Although it is close, Becker was the better player and had the better career. They both were a joy to watch. As mentioned, Becker was more like Sampras (power attack) while Edberg was like Rafter (finesse attack). I miss all four :bigcry: - Thank heavens for Federer!

star
01-18-2004, 02:33 AM
Well I did a little research and I am astonished at how evenly matched the two careers actually are! It really is a hard decision, to the extent that I don't think it is a cop out to pick the "equally good" option.

In retrospect is sad to think how close Edberg actually came to getting a career grand slam with that '89 RG final.

It was heartbreaking because all of his fans knew that was probably his one best chance.

Anyway, kudos to him for not attempting to change his game but by playing lovely serve and volley tennis on clay.

Hats off to Noah and Leconte for the same.

CooCooCachoo
01-19-2004, 11:40 AM
Stefan Edberg, obviously, because I totally dislike Becker. I never liked him, nor his game, whereas Edberg is really nice and I love(d) watching his matches.

sigmagirl91
01-21-2004, 07:17 PM
Edberg, most definitely.

Why? The man was gorgeous way back when. And, I even liked the fact that he was totally oblivious to it all.
And because Becker's a damn drama king in need of some serious psychotherapy.

Eden
11-28-2006, 08:40 PM
*bump*

I really liked both players :)

Edberg stayed longer as number one, but therefore Becker was up in the h2h. I voted for the third option.

Klaas_nalbandian
11-28-2006, 08:42 PM
edberg , that he comes from sweden plays a big role and I guess he is a really nice guy

JustmeUK
11-28-2006, 10:06 PM
stefan is in my top 3 players I could sit and watch all day. however if we're looking just at their careers and nothing else I'd have to call it evens. h2h doesn't really come into it if u're comparing careers. n looking at their achievements, there are some areas where boris is better and some where stefan is better.

wally1
11-28-2006, 10:13 PM
Both had pretty much even (and great) careers, but I preferred to watch Edberg. Watching an old video of him playing quickly puts the volleying skills of current players in perspective. Also one of the finest backhands of all time.

Boris Franz Ecker
11-28-2006, 11:23 PM
Becker of course.
He won more, that's undisputable.
He needed less tournaments to win more titles.
And, please.. three Wimbledon titles, that's written history.
Edberg and Becker were good old serve and volley players with the usual main goal to win the championships.

*Viva Chile*
11-29-2006, 12:43 AM
As a player, Becker.
And for kind of person and for sportsmanship, Edberg.

Osama B Hitler
11-29-2006, 05:00 AM
I'd say Becker had the better career though its a close call. I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the lopsidedness of their head-to-head record. 25-10 Becker??!! Becker really dominated.

RonE
11-29-2006, 07:10 AM
Very tough call to make. I have seen both however when I got into tennis Edberg was in the twilight of his career and Becker was still in the top 5. In terms of playing style Edberg was great to watch even though Becker had the more modern game and more penetrating groundstrokes.

In terms of results I would put Edberg slightly ahead because of the fact that he had better results than Becker on the clay, one French Open final appearance to none and was #1 for consistently longer periods of time than Becker.

dorkino
11-29-2006, 09:20 AM
Surprisingly,They both had close careers. I liked them both but at different times.;)

Edberg was my favorite of all times. I started watching tennis when both players were having their glory days and i truly think Edberg was an important reason i liked this game, for his on and offcourt wonderful attitude. He was very good at serve and volley and he had elegant net plays as well as his sportsman ship .

Taking a general look on his career now , i guess one way or another he's a little ahead of Becker. He got all four GS titles as a junior and was a number one in both( singles and doubles), something not very ordinary.

The bad thing i didn't like about Edberg was his surprising matchups. I still remember his loss to Chang in RG finals. It was a rainy day..and i waited hours finally to see him losing the final was a very sad event for me.:sad: so as his famous loss to Stich at Wimbledon.

Comparing him to Becker ,i guess Becker had tougher mental stability something that contributed much to their head 2 head results.

Afterwards, i liked the enthusiastic spirit of Becker a lot , his famous diving style ,his annoying comments at sometimes...i guess this added a lot to the excitement of the game at that period and i missed him a lot after his retirement .

So to summarize it all, i'd go with choice number 3.:p

Boris Franz Ecker
11-29-2006, 01:38 PM
.

Taking a general look on his career now , i guess one way or another he's a little ahead of Becker. He got all four GS titles as a junior and was a number one in both( singles and doubles), something not very ordinary.

Are you serious? junior and doubles results?
Becker was Olympic champion in doubles and that was the only thing he wanted to win. He nearly never played doubles at Grand Slam tournaments.
In doubles, the Gold Medal has more value than anything else. At least for a top player who's by definition not interested in the regular doubles tour.

Dancing Hero
11-29-2006, 01:52 PM
I chose option 3. Becker and Edberg was a great rivalry. Both won 6 Slams and both missed out on the French. Becker had a big lead in the H2H but Edberg won his fair share of the big Slam meetings, including 2 of 3 Wimby finals and the French semi final 89. Becker had the better of the Davis Cup matches in return.

I preferred to look at Edberg's game than Becker's, Edberg had a nicer flowing style, easier on the eye. Becker at his peak and playing well though was probably better than Edberg, if I had to say.

dorkino
11-29-2006, 02:06 PM
Posted by Boris Franz Ecker
Are you serious? junior and doubles results?
Becker was Olympic champion in doubles and that was the only thing he wanted to win. He nearly never played doubles at Grand Slam tournaments.
In doubles, the Gold Medal has more value than anything else. At least for a top player who's by definition not interested in the regular doubles tour.

Sorry, if u took a good look on the rest of my post, I didn't make any choice about Edberg's /Boris's career regarding their comparative juniors/ doubles tourneys, though i won't be that bothered if anyone did.
I was just trying to point out that Edberg had really interesting accomplishments. U don't usually see a player who gets the number one ranking in both doubles and singles during his actual professional life. Do u ?

So it didn't make me vote for him having the better career, but I surely see an interesting accomplishment in it as well as his winning all four GS titles as a junior. If u don't agree with it, u're completely free but i can't figure out why u're so bothered :)

Julio1974
11-29-2006, 02:28 PM
Edberg, I loved his game.

Pigpen Stinks
11-29-2006, 03:38 PM
This one I actually find interesting. As opposed to debates such as Bill Tilden vs. Marcelo Rios, these two played at the same time and had remarkably similar careers on the whole.

My friends and I debated who would have the better career when these two were still in their teens. Since Edberg was one of my favorites, I argued on his side, even though Becker had earlier success as a pro with the two Wimbledons. I reasoned that Becker relied too much on his serve, and that Edberg's more complete game would serve (no pun intended) him better over the long haul.

Looking back now, I think even most of the so called experts tend to give Edberg a slight edge, however I would favor Becker ever so slightly.

Many have pointed to the lopsided head to head in favor of Becker, but as a caveat, didn't Edberg lead 3-1 head to head in Slams? So, if we call that a wash, I would look at Davis Cup as the significant difference. If the Davis Cup website is correct, Becker went 38-3 in singles. There have been some very good DC records, but that is insane! Plus, one of those losses was in his very first DC tie in a dead rubber for a match West Germany had already clinched against Spain. Interestingly, 2 of his 3 singles losses came to Sergio Casal. The other was to Paul Haarhuis. He also had some epic wins in DC including against McEnroe and Agassi.

Edberg had an outstanding 35-15 career tally himself, but as has been noted, Becker won all 3 head to head in DC. Each of those meetings came in DC finals, with West Germany going on to win 2 of the 3 Cups.

corporalclegg
11-29-2006, 04:27 PM
Edberg

Nando_L
11-29-2006, 05:48 PM
Becker :rocker2:

Myrre
11-29-2006, 08:34 PM
I've been fortunate enough to watch Edberg at Manchester 1986/87.

Edberg was my favourite player, but careerwise I have to go for option 3.

In the 1991 US Open final Edberg played at an incredible level thrashing Courier 6/2,6/4,6/0. I think even Becker at his best would have got beaten that day.

Voo de Mar
11-29-2006, 10:34 PM
Edberg has had a better career because he won on all surfaces and was No. 1 in singles and doubles (he was only 20 years old at No. 1 in doubles!!!) which is an amazing achievement. But Becker was a better player in my opinion on account of skills:
- better 1st serve
- better overhead
- better forehand volley
- better forehand
- mentally stronger

Edberg:
- better 2nd serve
- better backhand volley
- better footwork -> that was the key to win a clay-court events (between these two)

Backhand from the baseline: equal

Voo de Mar
11-29-2006, 10:36 PM
I've been fortunate enough to watch Edberg at Manchester 1986/87.

Edberg was my favourite player, but careerwise I have to go for option 3.

In the 1991 US Open final Edberg played at an incredible level thrashing Courier 6/2,6/4,6/0. I think even Becker at his best would have got beaten that day.

I saw several tens matches of Edberg and this one was the best. He played on unbelievable high level - faultless. Courier didn't play badly...

Boris Franz Ecker
11-29-2006, 11:38 PM
I saw several tens matches of Edberg and this one was the best. He played on unbelievable high level - faultless. Courier didn't play badly...

Maybe.
Did you see Becker-Edberg at the Masters 92 in Frankfurt? Edberg had no chance. He lost something like 64 60.
And at the Masters, Becker had a great record. Reaching 8 finals and winning 3. That should be the decider in favour of Becker (and of course the prestigious Wimbledon titles).

But at the end, it's a matter of taste wether Edberg, Becker or others.
In Sweden they list Edberg usually as no 2 behind Borg and that's a good thing. He should easily top Wilander.

Don't forget: Becker stays the youngest Wimbledon champion ever. Edberg stays the ... the.... he stays a sportsman from Sweden.

Voo de Mar
11-30-2006, 02:26 AM
Maybe.
Did you see Becker-Edberg at the Masters 92 in Frankfurt?

No. I saw only seven meetings between these two.

Action Jackson
11-30-2006, 05:17 AM
In Sweden they list Edberg usually as no 2 behind Borg and that's a good thing. He should easily top Wilander.

So you read Swedish papers then do you? They don't say that. You say that, there is a difference. No, if you are going to give me this crap that Edberg and Wilander didn't as a base to distinguish between the two, then we will just go around circles and I will just highlight your biases.

As to the question of who had the better career, well Edberg overall did better at the Slams and while he only won 10 out of 35 matches, he did better in their matches at Slams. The Slam matches have been bolded.

Boris BECKER (GER) v Stefan EDBERG (SWE)

1984 Cologne Carpet (I) 32 Stefan EDBERG 4-6 4-6
1985 Philadelphia Carpet (I) 32 Stefan EDBERG 3-6 1-6
1985 Las Vegas Hard (O) 16 Boris BECKER 6-3 6-7 6-2
1985 Davis Cup (WG-F) Carpet (I) R2 Boris BECKER 6-3 3-6 7-5 8-6
1986 WCT Finals Carpet (I) SF Boris BECKER 7-6 7-6 4-6 7-6
1986 Canadian Open Hard (O) FR Boris BECKER 6-4 3-6 6-3
1986 Tokyo Indoor Carpet (I) FR Boris BECKER 7-6 6-1
1986 Masters Carpet (I) SF Boris BECKER 6-4 6-4
1987 Indian Wells Hard (O) FR Boris BECKER 6-4 6-4 7-5
1987 Canadian Open Hard (O) SF Stefan EDBERG 2-6 4-6
1987 Cincinnati Hard (O) FR Stefan EDBERG 4-6 1-6
1988 WCT Finals Carpet (I) FR Boris BECKER 6-4 1-6 7-5 6-2
1988 Queen's Grass (O) FR Boris BECKER 6-1 3-6 6-3
1988 Wimbledon Grass (O) FR Stefan EDBERG 6-4 6-7 4-6 2-6
1988 Masters Carpet (I) RR Stefan EDBERG 6-7 6-3 4-6
1988 Davis Cup (WG-F) Clay (I) R2 Boris BECKER 6-3 6-1 6-4
1989 French Open Clay (O) SF Stefan EDBERG 3-6 4-6 7-5 6-3 2-6
1989 Wimbledon Grass (O) FR Boris BECKER 6-0 7-6 6-4
1989 Paris Indoor Carpet (I) FR Boris BECKER 6-4 6-3 6-3
1989 Masters Carpet (I) FR Stefan EDBERG 6-4 6-7 3-6 1-6
1989 Masters Carpet (I) RR Boris BECKER 6-1 6-4
1989 Davis Cup (WG-F) Carpet (I) R2 Boris BECKER 6-2 6-2 6-4
1990 Queen's Grass (O) SF Boris BECKER 6-4 6-4
1990 Wimbledon Grass (O) FR Stefan EDBERG 2-6 2-6 6-3 6-3 4-6
1990 Sydney Indoor Hard (I) FR Boris BECKER 7-6 6-4 6-4
1990 Stockholm Carpet (I) FR Boris BECKER 6-4 6-0 6-3
1990 Paris Indoor Carpet (I) FR Stefan EDBERG 3-3 Retired
1991 Stockholm Carpet (I) FR Boris BECKER 3-6 6-4 1-6 6-2 6-2
1992 Brussels Carpet (I) SF Boris BECKER 4-6 6-4 6-2
1992 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Boris BECKER 6-4 6-0
1993 Doha Hard (O) SF Boris BECKER 6-4 6-4
1994 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Boris BECKER 6-7 6-4 7-5
1995 Basle Hard (I) QF Boris BECKER 6-4 3-6 6-3
1996 Doha Hard (O) 32 Boris BECKER 6-2 7-5
1996 Queen's Grass (O) FR Boris BECKER 6-4 7-6

Boris BECKER (GER) leads 25- 10

To answer the question they are about the same.

oz_boz
11-30-2006, 08:51 AM
Maybe.
Did you see Becker-Edberg at the Masters 92 in Frankfurt? Edberg had no chance. He lost something like 64 60.
And at the Masters, Becker had a great record. Reaching 8 finals and winning 3. That should be the decider in favour of Becker (and of course the prestigious Wimbledon titles).

But at the end, it's a matter of taste wether Edberg, Becker or others.
In Sweden they list Edberg usually as no 2 behind Borg and that's a good thing. He should easily top Wilander.

Don't forget: Becker stays the youngest Wimbledon champion ever. Edberg stays the ... the.... he stays a sportsman from Sweden.

Masters, h2h and DC favour Becker; h2h in Slams, clay record (hence all surface skill), doubles titles and #1 weeks favour Edberg. And he won the Olympics too ;) Pretty equal if you ask me.

Edberg should easily top Wilander? Well, Wilander has seven Slams won on all surfaces, and a super year 1988 of 3 slams. I'd say they are equal as well.

Becker is the youngest Wimbledon champ ever. Edberg is the only one winning the Junior GS. And Becker would be "just a sportsman from Germany" if Borg were German.

Carlita
11-30-2006, 08:52 AM
Stefan :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Boris Franz Ecker
11-30-2006, 11:02 AM
So you read Swedish papers then do you? They don't say that. You say that, there is a difference. No, if you are going to give me this crap that Edberg and Wilander didn't as a base to distinguish between the two, then we will just go around circles and I will just highlight your biases.

As to the question of who had the better career, well Edberg overall did better at the Slams

Swedish paper listed Edberg as no 2 behind Borg as Enqvist retired.
Enqvist with 19 titles was no 4 and ahead of 1-time Slam Winner Tommy Johannson (I'm sure it would have been different, if Johansson won another thing than the Australian Open).

In reality Becker's Grand Slam record is a little bit better than Edberg's.
Edberg reached some more quarter finals, but does that count? he didn't win a tournament three times.
And of course, Becker reached 9 times the semi final at Wimbledon, the crown juwel of men's tennis.
Edberg reached 8 times the semi final at Australian Open. That was indeed his best tournament. He won it two times as Becker, but as Edberg won it, it was a comparably small event.
Be honest, Beckers record is preferrable... at slams.
At the Masters, Becker is far ahead of Edberg.
Becker even won more AMS tournaments, but these don't count.

Of course Becker won 2 Grand Slam titles in one year... another thing, Edberg failed to do.

thrust
11-30-2006, 02:07 PM
Very close call, for sure. Actually Edberg had many more weeks at #1 than Becker. Edberg probably would have won another AO as he was dominating Lendl for a set and a half, but had to retire due to a serious injury. Also, though it may not be very relevant, Edberg is just about the only top player in his time to have a winning record against Lendl. Edberg was indeed poetry in motion, while Becker was stronger and seemed to hit harder. Both were great and a joy to watch, therefore, I would vote for option 3. Overall though, I prefer Edberg who was not only a great player but also a great sportsman.

Jim Courier
11-30-2006, 06:28 PM
Tough choice..
Edberg not only had perfect technique and great hands at the net, but he had an uncanny attracted the ball to him like a magnet with his clever approach shots and first volleys. He was the total net player, that's why he was such a wall, and i think of that era's volleyers, he would be the one who could still rush the net against today's passers, more so than Sampras (because Sampras relied on his impossible attack half-volleys ability to serve and volley, and he would have a harder time with this tactic today). If only he had beaten Chang that day, but Roland-Garros is like that.
Becker was more of a net-oriented power player, but his intensity and fighting spirit are legendary. Apart from Sampras i don't think there ever was another big server with a better ability to come back from 0-40.
Draw:)

Eden
12-25-2006, 07:41 PM
The Wimbledon final of 1989 is on Youtube now. Enjoy it :)

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nO6yMmZx7s

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=941YF0u8YXI&mode=related&search=

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ZoGK_s0Io&mode=related&search=

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqQyjERniTs&mode=related&search=

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFj1asAO2LA

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twcNubagtxs&mode=related&search=

Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-iqkESi6dU

Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Els5tWiccdM&mode=related&search=

Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMZzwSFaGk

Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqwWXS5DOJI

Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZJbm_DtZQ

Part 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZAi4VQKmXM

Part 13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd_qRFezSZc

Part 14: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1VISdhOZik

Part 15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJyFJt9JEvo

Eden
12-25-2006, 07:48 PM
Here are some minutes from their Wimbledon final in 1988. Notice: The commentary is in French.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNk_U7Uouyw

CmonAussie
12-26-2006, 07:21 AM
and another point

Stefan was so good he had an award named after him even when he was still playing.

no one else in the history of the game can say that :p

Also did Becker win an Olympic Gold :p
:wavey:
YES Becker did win an Olympic Gold:p
..
Boris partnered Michael Stich to win the doubles gold at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics;)

Garlichead
12-26-2006, 08:49 AM
Edberg now plays 1st league squash in sweden!

Peta Pan
12-26-2006, 01:04 PM
Stefan Edberg was the reason I started watching tennis :worship:

Becker, I never liked at all. So for completely biased reasons I will vote for Edberg :)

Action Jackson
12-26-2006, 01:25 PM
Swedish paper listed Edberg as no 2 behind Borg as Enqvist retired.
Enqvist with 19 titles was no 4 and ahead of 1-time Slam Winner Tommy Johannson (I'm sure it would have been different, if Johansson won another thing than the Australian Open).

Which paper was that? I'd be interested to know and for every one that named Edberg as 2nd, there were others that named him 3rd, so it's a factually incorrect statement. As for Enqvist been the 4th best Swedish player of all time hahahaha.

You show your bullshit Wimbledon bias as usual. It's not the crown jewel for every player and we have been through this so many times. How many times did Becker make the Roland Garros final? Yes, it was one less than Edberg and how many clay titles did Becker win? You can't discount things just to suit your particular point of view that is otherwise known as spin doctoring, something you seem to be very good at.

Boris Franz Ecker
12-26-2006, 07:38 PM
Which paper was that? I'd be interested to know and for every one that named Edberg as 2nd, there were others that named him 3rd, so it's a factually incorrect statement. As for Enqvist been the 4th best Swedish player of all time hahahaha.

You show your bullshit Wimbledon bias as usual. It's not the crown jewel for every player and we have been through this so many times. How many times did Becker make the Roland Garros final? Yes, it was one less than Edberg and how many clay titles did Becker win? You can't discount things just to suit your particular point of view that is otherwise known as spin doctoring, something you seem to be very good at.

1. I don't know which paper.

2. Forget it.
There are surely a lot of fans who can't accept the obvious thing, but that doesn't matter. It's only a fan opinion, nothing else.
As long as every serious source (the relevant players - not a Coria!, the media, the world, etc...) always repeats something about the special importance and prestige of Wimbledon in a routine way, a little fan can shout against it, but nobody should really be interested.

3. Finals don't count.
Who is Edberg on clay? a little Berasategui? a Carretero? a nobody in history?
I think, he's a nobody as Sampras, Becker, McEnroe etc... are. Maybe comparable to Berasategui.
Edberg won't be remembered for his clay performance.

CarstenL01
12-26-2006, 07:46 PM
Becker by far, on court AND off-court,

do you mean off-court in case of beeing a real joke? Yes there Becker is unbeatable :lol:

And Edberg was the better player, too... with a great personality :worship:

Action Jackson
12-27-2006, 04:21 AM
1. I don't know which paper.

Considering I happen to be able to read Swedish and these were the only sources of info I was able to get on tennis for a long while, and it was variable at best. If you read it in a Swedish paper, then you should be able to remember it.

2. Forget it.
There are surely a lot of fans who can't accept the obvious thing, but that doesn't matter. It's only a fan opinion, nothing else.
As long as every serious source (the relevant players - not a Coria!, the media, the world, etc...) always repeats something about the special importance and prestige of Wimbledon in a routine way, a little fan can shout against it, but nobody should really be interested.

Forget it, cause it doesn't suit your point of view. In other words is it that hard to accept not every tennis player and ones who have won Slams as well don't consider Wimbledon the be all and end all of tennis. Hey! I forgot guys like Noah, Wilander and Muster don't count, cause when asked would they trade any of their GS titles for a Wimbledon and they said no. It's not hard to admit that not everyone rates Wimbledon as the most important Slam title, for a large amount of people it is, but that doesn't go for everyone and that includes former Slam winners.

3. Finals don't count.
Who is Edberg on clay? a little Berasategui? a Carretero? a nobody in history?
I think, he's a nobody as Sampras, Becker, McEnroe etc... are. Maybe comparable to Berasategui.
Edberg won't be remembered for his clay performance

And of course, Becker reached 9 times the semi final at Wimbledon, the crown juwel of men's tennis.

That above proves you are a joke. You say finals don't count, but the Masters does? Yet mention Becker made 9 semi finals, cause it was Wimbledon while discounting other Slams. It's either one or other and you can't have it both ways, like you are trying to do again.

Edberg made a RG final and surprise who did he beat in that semi some guy called Becker, but success on all surfaces counts.

I have already answered the question, that they are around the same and the reasons for this conclusion have been highlighted more than enough. Some areas Becker was better and others Edberg was better.

Eden
03-25-2007, 11:05 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ycs2yG_v0

Some scenes from their ATP final 1990 in Stockholm

Burrow
03-25-2007, 11:17 AM
25-10 head to head? they mustve got bored playing each other.

Kolya
03-25-2007, 01:23 PM
Edberg now plays 1st league squash in sweden!
Edberg would be an awesome squash player with his great volley skills.

Aphex
03-25-2007, 02:49 PM
Which paper was that? I'd be interested to know and for every one that named Edberg as 2nd, there were others that named him 3rd, so it's a factually incorrect statement. As for Enqvist been the 4th best Swedish player of all time hahahaha.

You show your bullshit Wimbledon bias as usual. It's not the crown jewel for every player and we have been through this so many times. How many times did Becker make the Roland Garros final? Yes, it was one less than Edberg and how many clay titles did Becker win? You can't discount things just to suit your particular point of view that is otherwise known as spin doctoring, something you seem to be very good at.

Name your best Swedish tennis players? Hasn't that poll alredy been done?

stebs
03-25-2007, 04:14 PM
They are almost entirely equal. If they had to be parted on game then I would say Becker, he played very well more consistently than Edberg. However, I far prefer Edberg as a player. He is fantastic to watch when playing well, arguably the greatest volleyer of all time.

jenanun
03-25-2007, 05:25 PM
Stefan Edberg was the reason I started watching tennis :worship:

Becker, I never liked at all. So for completely biased reasons I will vote for Edberg :)

same here!

edberg :worship: :worship: :worship:

CyBorg
03-25-2007, 06:11 PM
Becker was significantly better but he started to choke big matches away once he got a bit older and fame got to him. He partied it up, got into some questionable relationships and of course we all know of the scandals.

He owned a 25-10 record against Edberg and was one of the finest indoor players ever in addition to his greatness on grass.

1996 really salvaged Becker's career. He was great then and gave Pete a run for his money.

aulus
03-25-2007, 08:28 PM
They are almost entirely equal. If they had to be parted on game then I would say Becker, he played very well more consistently than Edberg. However, I far prefer Edberg as a player. He is fantastic to watch when playing well, arguably the greatest volleyer of all time.

i agree 100%. edberg was my favorite player and becker was my least favorite of that time, but becker was a fantastic player, like an earlier version of sampras.

for some reason the becker edberg videos on youtube seem to have been removed. :mad:

gmak
03-25-2007, 08:33 PM
Stefan :worship: :yeah:
i really loved his game, poetry in motion especially at the net!

such a shame he couldn't close out Chang in that RG final :sad:

All_Slam_Andre
03-25-2007, 09:53 PM
Edberg's superior ranking history (ending 2 years at no.1 and 72 weeks at no.1 in total) gives him the edge over Becker for me. I was a big fan of the Swede. His destruction of Courier in the 1991 US Open final was one of the finest displays of tennis that I have ever seen.

SBruguera
03-26-2007, 12:15 AM
Edberg all the way. The classiest player in tennis history.

maskedmuffin
03-26-2007, 03:58 AM
Becker was no slouch on clay, he made it to 3 fo semifinals, losing to wilander, edberg and agassi

The one against edberg is a bummer since he really was motivated that way and had a chance to beat stefan but played his bullish s&v tactics in the 5th set when he was way more patient in the previous sets

He had the 1990 final in the bag on a bad wheel to (his hamstring was wrapped) but gave it away


Here is the thing about becker, at his best he could challenge sampras at his prime..

Dont think so? Look at the 1995-1996 year...from wimby 95 when he played a GREAT 1st set tiebreak and coulda really forced something in the 4th set against sampras before making some absurb unforced errors

To those amazing indoor matches they had..which sampras himself called heavyweight dogfights.

Problem was becker was never all at one place at one time..he says it himself in the book..the guy if he ever had kept that mentality which brought him up as a child prodigy he coulda won soo many more slams. Losing to the likes of adrion voniea on clay, having that absolutely FREAK ulnar nerve mishap at wimby 1996 against that south african when he was red hot and woulda probably won that title considering the bottom half got desrtroyed and m. washington came outta it to play kraijeck

The mind fart against mcenroe at the aussie open when his shotmaknig was superior but mentally he was somewhere else

Absolutely somewhere else against stich at wimby91..the guy's eyes looked like he was puffing some hash with ion tiriac.


Those fleeting glimpses when boris kept his mind in the game and focused..mostly shown at davis cup..he was a ferocious player..absolutely ferocious..and coulda done much more

(shoulda beat muster at the monte carlo or was it italian open in 1995? up triple championship point on clay and blowing it)

1994 us open winning EVERYTHING in site and being the 2nd (?) seed and the hottest us hardcourt player..and promptly losing to richey f'n reneberg when he decided to let a ball DROP down 4-5 in the fifth set on his patented.. racket up..pull racket down ball going out trick

I remember a lot about ole boris..a lot that made me cry :(

HewittHenman
03-26-2007, 04:12 AM
Becker was lucky... Edberg was talented

Kolya
03-26-2007, 05:51 AM
If you include Edberg's doubles career, he was better overall. But Becker also had a solid doubles career too.

CyBorg
03-26-2007, 05:52 AM
If you include Edberg's doubles career, he was way better.

Doubles career? Nitpick much?

Kolya
03-26-2007, 05:57 AM
Doubles career? Nitpick much?

Its too close to call so we have to go down to the doubles to decide :lol:

Rommella
03-26-2007, 12:59 PM
They both had the same number of slams, even as Becker may have had the h2h edge. However, Edberg is Mr. Nice Guy so he gets my vote.

Federerhingis
03-26-2007, 02:20 PM
I've watched quite a few tennis matches over the past decade or so and I must say I've yet to witness a player more comfortable at net and who covers that part of tennis court better than Mr. Edberg at his prime.

Only Rafter can give him a decent challenge with the way he would cover the net so quickly and effortlessly. These two are by far the best volleyers of their generation.

I totally agree Becker and Pete had easier volleys to contend with because their serves were so potent.

On this note I would give to nodge to Edberg, his game was just classic. I just wish I had been born 8 years sooner to have appreciated him at the time he was playing at his prime.

Eden
03-21-2008, 09:05 PM
Becker - Edberg Wimbledon final 1990

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCwI9Z-wPc (1/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy8LRYlWHBM (2/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPOODHVkjsw (3/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIprVsv2nxA (4/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDTE2qmtKNU (5/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmr-GdCxxaI (6/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnjjarnGMM8 (7/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv5rfYRM0ko (8/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3iPUsiEXME (9/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neDxX99lHEI (10/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X30nYkx0nAk (11/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucM2dZWyz6I (12/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXd5GE2Dx1k (13/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkidEapv6Ow (14/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qztrm-Op5XI (15/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePeePvGm9c0 (16/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzQMiLE6r8A (17/18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePUSFz8fPSk (18/18)

alfonsojose
03-22-2008, 12:00 AM
Edberg

thrust
03-22-2008, 12:26 AM
I would choose Edberg, though perhaps because I liked him more than Boris. Becker has a big edge H-H,but Stefan had many more weeks at #1 and he beat Boris 2 of the 3 Wimbledon finals they played. Also, Stefan is one of the few players who had a slight edge over Sampras H-H. It is a very close call, for sure. Too bad Stefan did not win that FO final,but then, Chang did deserve to win at leas one Slam.

Sunset of Age
03-22-2008, 12:26 AM
Stefan Edberg will always be one of my favourite players of all time.

cardio
03-22-2008, 01:06 AM
Edberg. He was my favourite player, his S&V game was so elegant and beatyful to watch. And he was clearly better on their worst surface, on clay. He won 3 singles titles on clay(Becker 0), including MS in Hamburg beating Stich in final. Too bad he couldnt win this memorable fivesetter in RG against Chang and missed his chance to make career Slam.

binkygirl
03-22-2008, 06:15 AM
Edberg, because he hasn't embarrassed himself in life after tennis. Plus, I don't like Boris' sleeping pill addiction. It cost him a Wimby, IMHO.

Eden
09-08-2008, 04:21 PM
Plus, I don't like Boris' sleeping pill addiction. It cost him a Wimby, IMHO.

How do you mean this? :scratch:

Henry Kaspar
09-08-2008, 04:39 PM
Slight advantage for Becker. Becker won back-to-back GS titles (Wimbledon and US Open 89) and reached 5 consecutive GS semi-finals (1991/92), runs Edberg never got together. Edberg was more consistent, but Becker at his best was more dominant.

miura
04-09-2009, 11:50 PM
Becker had more titles, but liked Edberg more!

Voo de Mar
04-10-2009, 12:38 AM
Edberg's service games should be an inspiaration for young tennis players :worship:

duong
04-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Edberg just took more his chances : he had less ones but took them more. His physical condition was also crucial, I think, comparing to Becker.

It's strange that Becker has not been often described as "mentally weak" because with the same carreer and results, most of the players would be described like that.

But personally I preferred Becker, undoubtedly.

I remember his early matches on clay especially (like Monte-Carlo 1989) : sometimes he had a great touch and variation.

Later in his carreer he was too much focused on his serve and power, which was less pleasant for me (actually Noah and Sampras also evolved like that : many players rely on their serve when they get older)

duong
04-10-2009, 08:16 AM
Edberg. He was my favourite player, his S&V game was so elegant and beatyful to watch. And he was clearly better on their worst surface, on clay. He won 3 singles titles on clay(Becker 0), including MS in Hamburg beating Stich in final. Too bad he couldnt win this memorable fivesetter in RG against Chang and missed his chance to make career Slam.

A legend, not a reality.

Definitely clay was the surface where Becker was better than Edberg (before 1990), comparing to the other surfaces, my memories are clear about that. Becker had more variation and capacities on this surface.

Just Becker didn't take his chances, and Edberg took the few ones he had. Hence the legend.

Becker went to 5 Masters Series finals on clay, 3 semi-finals in RG. Lost all of them.
Edberg 1 and 1 ... but won both of them, among them one in 5 sets in RG against Becker in his best year.

duong
04-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Slight advantage for Becker. Becker won back-to-back GS titles (Wimbledon and US Open 89) and reached 5 consecutive GS semi-finals (1991/92), runs Edberg never got together. Edberg was more consistent, but Becker at his best was more dominant.

Also in Davis Cup Becker made great performances.

Jimnik
04-10-2009, 08:37 AM
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=B028&playernum2=E004

But Edberg leads the most important meetings 3-1. The three Wimby finals and RG semi. Two of them went the distance. Very surprising when you consider Boris had one of the best 5-set records and was no mental midget.

Bazooka
04-10-2009, 09:09 AM
In term of achievements they're pretty tied, but Edberg is one of my favourites. What a beautiful game.

His decline was painful to watch, though.

Elena.
04-10-2009, 09:13 AM
Edberg had a better career,Becker could have won something more for his potential,while Edberg won exactly what he could.

Action Jackson
04-10-2009, 09:26 AM
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=B028&playernum2=E004

But Edberg leads the most important meetings 3-1. The three Wimby finals and RG semi. Two of them went the distance. Very surprising when you consider Boris had one of the best 5-set records and was no mental midget.

Edberg won the matches that counted .

Puschkin
04-10-2009, 09:36 AM
Edberg's BH volley is still unsurpassed. Nothing from Backer was ever so special.

duong
04-10-2009, 09:48 AM
Edberg won the matches that counted .

Yes ... typical is also Masters Cup 1989 : Becker was often considered as the "world champion" that year.

He beat Edberg in the Round Robin ... but lost the final against the same opponent ... before destroying him in the Davis Cup final several weeks later (62 62 64 on carpet)

And young people should think that despite all of these bad statistics, Becker was a great force mentally ... but his physical condition especially betrayed him sometimes.

Although, Becker won all of their 3 Davis Cup matches.

prima donna
04-10-2009, 09:55 AM
1-zdhRwasuU

Action Jackson
04-10-2009, 10:06 AM
The Becker fanboy is in the house.

Action Jackson
04-10-2009, 10:07 AM
Yes ... typical is also Masters Cup 1989 : Becker was often considered as the "world champion" that year.

He beat Edberg in the Round Robin ... but lost the final against the same opponent ... before destroying him in the Davis Cup final several weeks later (62 62 64 on carpet)

And young people should think that despite all of these bad statistics, Becker was a great force mentally ... but his physical condition especially betrayed him sometimes.

Although, Becker won all of their 3 Davis Cup matches.

Slams, greater than the Masters Cup, not even close.

Polikarpov
04-10-2009, 10:20 AM
Edberg. Love his weird-looking service motion. One of the sickest volleyers too.

duong
04-10-2009, 10:47 AM
The Becker fanboy is in the house.

You behave like an absolute fanboy ;) if I look at the previous exchanges on the topic :shrug:

At least, I can see that there are some persons you like, which reassures me :smooch:

vince evert
04-10-2009, 11:01 AM
Boy this is tough one to assess.

Yeah I give a slight edge to the Swede but Boris did win most of their matches. Also Boris won the 1996 Australian open (then aged 28) some 11 years after he first won Wimbledon. By 1997 Boris was good as retired. Stefan last grand slam win was 1992 U.S. Open, aged 26. He played on
until 1996. My fave Becker vs. Edberg matches are these two -

1) 1989 French open semifinal, Edberg defeated Becker, 6-3,6-4,5-7,3-6,6-2
2) 1990 Wimbledon final, Edberg d. Becker, 6-2,6-2,3-6,3-6,6-4

Interesting that out of their 35 matches, only three matches went five sets.

Yes that correct about Boris never won a tournament on Clay. Strange isn't it.


It's good to hear Edberg is now playing in the veterans tour and a match up against his arch rival will still draw crowds. Be great to see this in australia.

Navratil
04-15-2009, 12:08 PM
No doubt: Edberg was much more consistent throughout his career.

Edberg was # 1 for 72 weeks - Becker for only 12!!

Voo de Mar
04-15-2009, 02:07 PM
1) 1989 French open semifinal, Edberg defeated Becker, 6-3,6-4,5-7,3-6,6-2
2) 1990 Wimbledon final, Edberg d. Becker, 6-2,6-2,3-6,3-6,6-4

Interesting that out of their 35 matches, only three matches went five sets.

Yes, it's interesting that they hadn't too many tight matches and had been breaking each other quite easily. Generally their H2H is weird, Becker had big advantage but I'd say Edberg won 4 out of 5 the most important matches they played (3 Wimbledon's finals, RG semifinal and Masters final).

Action Jackson
04-15-2009, 02:11 PM
You behave like an absolute fanboy ;) if I look at the previous exchanges on the topic :shrug:

At least, I can see that there are some persons you like, which reassures me :smooch:

I don't even like Edberg and never have, but when someone presents a flawed argument, then it has to be treated as such.

Edberg better on clay, had a better record in GS matches, spent more time at number 1.

duong
04-15-2009, 02:15 PM
Yes, it's interesting that they hadn't too many tight matches and had been breaking each other quite easily. Generally their H2H is weird, Becker had big advantage but I'd say Edberg won 4 out of 5 the most important matches they played (3 Wimbledon's finals, RG semifinal and Masters final).

For Voo de Mar who is used to judging players' mental abilities just by their statistics,

shouldn't Becker be considered as a mental midget ?

All the more as according to my memories, the matches he lost he didn't play his best tennis : that was more the reason why Edberg won than a wonderful performance by Edberg usually.

(personally I don't think he was, I rather think he didn't have enough physical condition, totally opposite to Edberg's for whom this quality was very important in his carreer

... but as I know that you are many ones here, especially Voo de Mar, who judge those mental things by statistics, I would be interested to know what you think about that)

Action Jackson
04-15-2009, 02:20 PM
It's simple, when there are players that are very close together in achievements, then other things come into it. I have already stated many times why Edberg gets the nod. Better record in the matches that count GS level, he won a major clay title, made a RG final beating the guy he is competing against, more weeks at number 1.

duong
04-15-2009, 02:30 PM
I don't even like Edberg and never have, but when someone presents a flawed argument, then it has to be treated as such.

Edberg better on clay, had a better record in GS matches, spent more time at number 1.

This is silly :rolls:

If you are not a fanboy I can really not understand that you judge that Edberg was better on clay (on clay is my only problem : apart from that I have no problem to admit that Edberg may be better than Becker, there are many arguments for that and I said myself that he made a better carreer ... but once I even read you saying that "Edberg was better because he was better on clay" ... which is the silliest argument for me :rolleyes: ),

at least if you judge it only from the fact that Edberg won their semi-final in Roland-Garros (Edberg also won 2 of their finals in Wimbledon : then I believe he should also be considered as better on grass) and that he won the final he played against Stich in Hamburg,

whereas Becker lost his 3 semifinals in RG and 5 finals in masters series.

You can have technical arguments,

but considering this silly "supposingly statistical" argument as so valuable is unworthy of someone who, I think, is really fond of clay game.

Except if you are a big fan of Edberg's, which was the only way for me to understand such silly argument from you :shrug:

Liking someone is highly respectable.

Assessing something stupid just "to be the one who's right" is something stupid for me.

Anyway I liked Becker, but this argument about these two matches on clay is totally stupid.

For somebody like me who rather judges from what he SAW, which means many many matches in that time, there was only one surface where Becker was clearly better than Edberg, it was clay. Except that his lack of physical condition was more of a risk on that surface, it's true, whereas Edberg was very good at that.

Leconte has done many good matches on clay, Becker also, Edberg did only few of them. And the fact that once he reached Roland-Garros's final changes nothing about that. Pernfors also was RG's finalist : he was not really what you could call a claycourt specialist :rolleyes:

Anyway if you persevere in that argument (I say it again : you may have technical arguments but don't count beans like that :rolleyes:), I will have a more accurate opinion about you : really disappointed :confused:

Voo de Mar
04-15-2009, 02:38 PM
For Voo de Mar who is used to judging players' mental abilities just by their statistics,

shouldn't Becker be considered as a mental midget ?

All the more as according to my memories, the matches he lost he didn't play his best tennis : that was more the reason why Edberg won than a wonderful performance by Edberg usually.

(personally I don't think he was, I rather think he didn't have enough physical condition, totally opposite to Edberg's for whom this quality was very important in his carreer

... but as I know that you are many ones here, especially Voo de Mar, who judge those mental things by statistics, I would be interested to know what you think about that)

It's good time to answer on this question because this week I watched carefully their both very similar final matches:

Wimbledon 1988: Edberg def. Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2
Masters 1989: Edberg def. Becker 4-6 7-6(6) 6-3 6-1

My impression is: Edberg in those matches played all 4 sets being 100 % concentrated whilst Becker maybe 70-80 %, obviously it's very tough to say authoritarlly. The scenario in both cases was almost identical. Edberg had better start because Becker had problems to warm up quickly, then Becker was a clearly better player, and should have led 2-0 in sets in both cases, especially in that Masters final. But Edberg was amazingly patient and had been waiting for his chances. In Masters final '89 he had only 4 aces in the entire match but 3 of them in the tie-break! He also saved setpoint there at 5:6 with a service winner. What does it say? He was able to increase own concentration on the highest possible personal level when it was required. He managed in both matches to break Becker's momentum. Becker instead of 2-0 sets up had 1-1 and began to irritate himself, but Edberg on the other hand wasn't a player who could lose his mind when he had been ahead.

Sometimes when you have less technical skills than an opponent you can win if you are focused more on the match through the long period of the game. That's what Edberg was able to do playing against Becker, and generally he was able to do in many matches through the whole season, was more consistent, that's why he finished a season as a No. 1 twice whilst Becker didn't do it once.

duong
04-15-2009, 03:07 PM
It's good time to answer on this question because this week I watched carefully their both very similar final matches:

Wimbledon 1988: Edberg def. Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2
Masters 1989: Edberg def. Becker 4-6 7-6(6) 6-3 6-1

My impression is: Edberg in those matches played all 4 sets being 100 % concentrated whilst Becker maybe 70-80 %, obviously it's very tough to say authoritarlly. The scenario in both cases was almost identical. Edberg had better start because Becker had problems to warm up quickly, then Becker was a clearly better player, and should have led 2-0 in sets in both cases, especially in that Masters final. But Edberg was amazingly patient and had been waiting for his chances. In Masters final '89 he had only 4 aces in the entire match but 3 of them in the tie-break! He also saved setpoint there at 5:6 with a service winner. What does it say? He was able to increase own concentration on the highest possible personal level when it was required. He managed in both matches to break Becker's momentum. Becker instead of 2-0 sets up had 1-1 and began to irritate himself, but Edberg on the other hand wasn't a player who could lose his mind when he had been ahead.

Sometimes when you have less technical skills than an opponent you can win if you are focused more on the match through the long period of the game. That's what Edberg was able to do playing against Becker, and generally he was able to do in many matches through the whole season, was more consistent, that's why he finished a season as a No. 1 twice whilst Becker didn't do it once.

Thank you very much :)

You relate roughly what I remember.

Becker was less consistent, that's for sure.

Not only mentally but even more physically as I said.

And he often had problems to warm-up.
Even more : several grand slam he won, he had been very near to lose in the first rounds (even with match points against him) then he was saved ... and then he managed to win the tournament.
He was used to being in danger in the first rounds.

Edberg's physical condition was great, and his concentration also (I would say especially because what he did was usually quite simple). He was utterly consistent, but I don't think people in that time would have said that Becker was weaker mentally : on the opposite he had a great reputation about that, especially about what you said "increasing his level at the important moment".

Usually people speak about "mental" for "mental abilities in the important moments" ... but consistency is at least as important.

You see Blake is supposed to be a mental midget for some, as sometimes he loses matches he was leading and he should easily have won ... but opposite he can change the match in another way, because his game is just like that : many ups-and-downs.

Nalbandian the same ... also because he loses his concentration sometimes ... but in tight important matches he can be great (for instance Davis Cup).

And about Federer ... if one doesn't understand that basically Federer has ups-and-downs because of his game and because of his concentration, and not especially because he "chokes",

And in the opposite if one doesn't understand that Nadal's first (not only far from that) mental ability is his consistency,

I think one loses an important dimension of the game.

It's not only about "having balls" or "choking",

it's also a lot about consistency.

I think Becker-Edberg's example is quite clear in that respect.

Henry Kaspar
04-15-2009, 03:56 PM
No doubt: Edberg was much more consistent throughout his career.

Edberg was # 1 for 72 weeks - Becker for only 12!!

This has more to do with the strength of competition at their peak. Becker didn't make it to #1 in the world rankings in 1989 in spite of winning Wimbledon and the US Open back-to-back -- because there was still Lendl. By contrast, when Edberg made it to #1, the prime Lendl was gone.

Btw, Edberg is the only 6+ grand-slam champion who never managed to win 2 subsequent Grand Slam tournaments.

Boris Franz Ecker
04-15-2009, 09:08 PM
When Edberg won the Australian Open this tournament was much smaller than today.

Edberg's fans know that and they know deep in their mind that Boris has the better titles.

Of course, Edberg's fans know if they are honest that titles are the most important things and that Becker's record is better.
Even Edberg knows it.

oranges
04-15-2009, 09:26 PM
When Edberg won the Australian Open this tournament was much smaller than today.

Edberg's fans know that and they know deep in their mind that Boris has the better titles.

Of course, Edberg's fans know if they are honest that titles are the most important things and that Becker's record is better.
Even Edberg knows it.

:spit: What does this particular Becker fan know deep down?

Voo de Mar
04-15-2009, 09:35 PM
When Edberg won the Australian Open this tournament was much smaller than today.


That's right but when Edberg won this tournament twice it had bigger prestige than in years when Vilas and Kriek won it twice in a row :p When Edberg won Aussie Open twice, all the best players participated, but you had to win 6 not 7 matches when you're seeded, so obviously it was a little bit easier than in other 3 Grand Slams.

Manon
04-15-2009, 11:42 PM
Both probably but I've always loved Edberg's tennis. And his on-off court behaviour.

fast_clay
04-16-2009, 01:33 AM
it is extremely close between these two... almost impossible to sepearte them... both employed a game based around the potential to attack... very proactive games... so, as results are extremely close, it also often requires more effort when their games are both aethetically appealing...

it is exactly the reason why i have developed a foolproof method of seperating greats of this era, for various tennis forums... its called The Wally Factor...

The Wally Factor:

Both players in question have their careers compared and broken down via the tried and tested Wally Masur Head-To-Head Measurement Schema. We can derive from this many things as Masur was considered one of the greatest players never to win Casablanca. Wally Masur possessed an all court game, the type of all court game that enables us to sit back and really get an idea of how good Becker and Edberg really were.

Edberg vs Masur: 7-0

1994 - World Team Cup
Clay
RR Edberg 6-2 7-6(8)

1992 - London / Queen's Club
Grass
R16 Edberg 6-4 6-7(5) 6-4

1992 - Tokyo Outdoor
Hard
R16 Edberg 6-3 6-4

1992 - AUS V SWE QF
Carpet
RR Edberg 6-4 7-6

1987 - London / Queen's Club
Grass
R16 Edberg 6-7 7-6 6-4

1987 - Australian Open
Grass
S Edberg 6-2 6-4 7-6

1985 - Australian Open
Grass
R16 Edberg 6-7 2-6 7-6 6-4 6-2 **



Becker vs Masur: 5-1

1993 - Milan
Carpet
S Becker 6-4 7-6(2)

1991 - Roland Garros
Clay
R32 Becker 6-3 6-3 6-2

1990 - Wimbledon
Grass
R64 Becker 6-7 6-2 6-3 6-2

1990 - Sydney Outdoor
Hard
R16 Becker 6-3 6-3

1989 - Paris Indoor
Carpet
Q Becker 6-7 6-4 7-6

1987 - Australian Open
Grass
R16 Masur 4-6 7-6 6-4 6-7 6-2 *



The first definitive suggestion we can make about this evaluation is that Wally was having him arse handed to him with alarming regularity whenever he drew Edberg or Becker.

The second suggestion we can firmly make is that Wally, at one point in his career held a positive head-to-head record over Becker at 1-0 Masur. This was a stunning upset on grass at Kooyong with Masur abusing Becker 6-2 in the fifth set* - Becker being the then double reigning Wimbledon Champion. Many Australian media outlets far and wide proclaimed that Australia had found its next Ken Rosewall. However, in a severe blow to Masur and his family, it was later found that Masur was not very good at tennis.

DEFINING WAL vs BECKER/EDBERG MOMENT: At the very same tournament Masur had beaten Becker - the Australian Open 1987 - two matches beyond this event, Edberg would go on to beat Masur in the semi finals in straight sets. The 5th set scoreline of 6-2** Edberg defeated Masur in 1985 is exactly the same scoreline as the one that Masur would go on to absolutely crucify Becker with 2 years later - AT EXACTLY THE SAME STAGE: R16 - and thus, adding the necessary 'freaky x-factor co-incidence' value that most valid comparisons require. Futhermore, Edberg never lost to Masur on grass, yet Edberg faced Masur on grass double the amount of times (4) that Becker did (2). Becker also lost to Jeremy Bates 7-5 7-6(8) at Queens in '94 which history considers a roundly fukt result and generally unforgivable.

CONCLUSION: Edberg wins.

Edberg never played Alan Mackin.

Ciarán.
04-16-2009, 02:02 AM
Becker

Henry Chinaski
04-16-2009, 02:05 AM
I voted for Edberg because he's not a cheesy German tool.

ORGASMATRON
04-16-2009, 02:11 AM
I liked both equally. Great rivalry this was as well. Edberg was the squeeky clean gentleman while Becker was the charasmatic bad boy. Great contrast. Their playing style was kinda similar, how i miss the wimby of old :(

Henry Chinaski
04-16-2009, 02:23 AM
can close the thread after fast_clay's post btw. case closed.

finishingmove
04-16-2009, 03:14 AM
can close the thread after fast_clay's post btw. case closed.

+1

Action Jackson
05-08-2009, 09:21 AM
Because an idiot called salut can't use the search tool.

Lopez
05-08-2009, 09:43 AM
can close the thread after fast_clay's post btw. case closed.

+2

Nothing beats a good old fashioned scientific analysis.

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 09:56 AM
Becker and Edberg are two sides of the same coin. Can't have one without the other, Edberg maybe more solid overall as tour dominator but Becker being unbeatable on fast surfaces when he was in his peak.

JolánGagó
05-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Edberg slightly greater but I prefered Becker.

miura
05-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Edberg had the more enjoyable personality.

star
05-08-2009, 12:35 PM
Because an idiot called salut can't use the search tool.

Well, it's easy for you to remember the threads you started. ;)

Stefanos13
05-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Becker and Edberg are two sides of the same coin. Can't have one without the other, Edberg maybe more solid overall as tour dominator but Becker being unbeatable on fast surfaces when he was in his peak.

nicely said

Eden
08-15-2009, 01:53 PM
An interview with both of them from 2003:


CgpyVy9UFAI

KPj3zPaL0E8

Boris Franz Ecker
08-15-2009, 02:09 PM
An interview with both of them from 2003:


CgpyVy9UFAI

KPj3zPaL0E8

Edberg is right, winning the australian thing is not the same than wimbledon, especially in the 80ies.
He is no idiot out of this world.
He knows that Boris won the better things.

oranges
08-15-2009, 03:25 PM
Edberg is right, winning the australian thing is not the same than wimbledon, especially in the 80ies.
He is no idiot out of this world.
He knows that Boris won the better things.

Ah, the eternal Becker fan. Where were you when claims were made Roddick is on par with him? It was painful for me to have to speak up for him :lol:

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 05:48 PM
25-10 it may be, but Edberg won the bigger matches.

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 08:01 PM
Just cause two players have the same amount of slams doesn't mean they're equal in terms of greatness either. For example Nadal is nowhere near Edberg no matter what the slam count says.

Cyrus_Paice
01-07-2010, 08:03 PM
After finding this thread http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=1287&highlight=edberg I was shocked to see how well Edberg did compared to Becker. Therefor I decided to make a poll with a slightly different question: Who was the better player of the two?

In my opinion clearly Becker. He reached the final of the biggest tournament in the world seven times, winning it three times and the final of the masters cup eight times, winning it three times. Edberg won two out of three Wimbledon finals and one out of two masters cup finals. If it weren't for his bad temper, Becker could have won more slams, while Edberg is next to Federer the biggest overachiever in tennis. Becker leads their head-to-head-record 25-10.

TennisOnWood
01-07-2010, 08:09 PM
I'm with German

MalwareDie
01-07-2010, 08:27 PM
Just cause two players have the same amount of slams doesn't mean they're equal in terms of greatness either. For example Nadal is nowhere near Edberg no matter what the slam count says.

+∞.

Orka_n
01-07-2010, 09:54 PM
Just cause two players have the same amount of slams doesn't mean they're equal in terms of greatness either. For example Nadal is nowhere near Edberg no matter what the slam count says.+(∞ + 1)

Also, Edberg too big in the poll. Expected and deserved.

born_on_clay
01-07-2010, 10:06 PM
Both careers were equally good.

Orka_n
01-07-2010, 10:07 PM
After finding this thread http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=1287&highlight=edberg I was shocked to see how well Edberg did compared to Becker. Therefor I decided to make a poll with a slightly different question: Who was the better player of the two?

In my opinion clearly Becker. He reached the final of the biggest tournament in the world seven times, winning it three times and the final of the masters cup eight times, winning it three times. Edberg won two out of three Wimbledon finals and one out of two masters cup finals. If it weren't for his bad temper, Becker could have won more slams, while Edberg is next to Federer the biggest overachiever in tennis. Becker leads their head-to-head-record 25-10.Stop trolling, clown. :o

Cyrus_Paice
01-07-2010, 10:27 PM
Stop trolling, clown. :o

So I'm a clown because you don't share my opinion? Maybe you should stop using forums. :rolleyes:

Pea
01-07-2010, 11:11 PM
while Edberg is next to Federer the biggest overachiever in tennis.

This is why your opinion doesn't matter.

Magus13
01-07-2010, 11:14 PM
Cant this guy just shut the fuck up.

Kolya
01-07-2010, 11:18 PM
Why did you have to start a new thread on this?

Cyrus_Paice
01-07-2010, 11:26 PM
This is why your opinion doesn't matter.

If it doesn't matter where's the problem then?


@Kolya

Because the question is slightly different and I was interested in the answers.

Navratil
01-08-2010, 11:04 AM
They have both won 6 slams, but never the French Open.

They both reached the no. 1, Edberg a bit longer.

Becker won 49 tournaments, how many did Edberg win ?

Becker never won a clay-tournament, did Edberg win one ?

Becker leads head-to-head 25-10.

Edberg struggled towards the end of his career, Becker was a bit longer a contender.

I would choose option 3, I think.

How can you compare these players?

Becker has never been # 1, he has been as high as # 38 in the rankings and he didn't win 49 titles but 1 title plus a few Challenger- and Future-titles.

Also: There is no head-to-head! In fact they never played each other!

Well, Becker might move up in the rankings a little bit (he's top 40 right now) but he is 28 and I don't think he can equal Edbergs success.

:lol::lol::lol:

Orka_n
01-08-2010, 11:24 AM
How can you compare these players?

Becker has never been # 1, he has been as high as # 38 in the rankings and he didn't win 49 titles but 1 title plus a few Challenger- and Future-titles.

Also: There is no head-to-head! In fact they never played each other!

Well, Becker might move up in the rankings a little bit (he's top 40 right now) but he is 28 and I don't think he can equal Edbergs success.

:lol::lol::lol:Either you are trolling (in which case you're not funny in the least), or you are pretty dumb.

Navratil
01-08-2010, 02:05 PM
Either you are trolling (in which case you're not funny in the least), or you are pretty dumb.

Oh, come on, I though it was funny ;)

britbox
01-08-2010, 11:03 PM
This is almost a wash (tie) but I lean fractionally toward Edberg.

Despite both of their hall of fame achievements, I always felt both could have won even more than they actually did. Both should have been sitting on 9 or 10 slams by the time they retired.

Edberg was the last man to hold #1 rank in singles and doubles at the same time and I'd put him up there with John McEnroe as the best volleyer in the last 25 years.

He was classic, graceful and played beautiful tennis. Arguably the best movement of his generation and definitely the best volleyer. At his best (i.e. US Open vs Jim Courier) he was almost unplayable.

On the downside, his forehand was weak (great backhand) and it took him several years to toughen up mentally. Even though he won the AO on grass in 85 and 87, I think Wimbedon 88 against Becker was the biggest breakthrough. (Actually his win over an old nemesis Miloslav Mecir in an earlier round (the quarter finals if I recall correctly) is a match I look at as the turning point to greatness).

Don't forget Edberg was one match away from achieving a career slam - the French Open final loss to Chang was the biggest one that got away. But he could play on clay and was much more comfortable on that surface than Becker. (Strange stat - Edberg was actually 10-0 on his H2H with clay court toughnut Thomas Muster - I think around 4 or 5 were on clay). Edberg was also 2-0 vs Sampras in grand slam matches.

Becker was a great player also. Great booming serve, solid from the back of the court, good volleyer and decent returner. My own feeling was Becker found too many interests outside tennis for a while - i.e. spending too much time in broom cupboards. Like Edberg, he should have won more but his career was excpetional anyway.

Pre-Sampras, Becker was Mr Wimbledon. Despite losing to Edberg in 2 finals, his Wimbledon record was unmatched in that period.

Becker's only strike against is his poor record on clay.

Regarding the H2H, Becker led 25-10 but it was much closer for a large part of their primes (Becker won something like 10 of the last 11 as Edberg declined).
Becker was always a difficult matchup for Edberg as he ate up Edberg's high kickers to the backhand.

However, this is also important when analysing the H2H - Edberg led 3-1 in grand slam matches. (3 finals and 1 semi). Edberg also beat Becker in the YEC final, so you could say Stefan won nearly all the big ones (Davis Cup aside).

I'm going with Edberg by an inch.

fran70
01-08-2010, 11:07 PM
Both . Why I should choose one???

ananthd
01-09-2010, 07:08 AM
Becker....

While Edberg was the more consistent pro(as his 2 year end #1s) indicate, Boris was the better big match player....

Many claim Edberg had an edge in the French record: I say how about 3 SFs for Beckers vs 1 F and none beyond QF for Edberg? Even the 89 SF between the two was a good match with Becker visibly tiring in the fifth....

Besides the lopsided H2H of 25-10, Becker was a phenomenal fall season player(3 masters vs 1)....

Also Becker has a Davis Cup H2H of 3-0 v Edberg, 2 of them in Davis Cup Finals against very strong Swedish teams of the mid-late 80s.....

He almost singlehandedly carried Germany in those days with guys like Eric Jelen or Carl Uwe Steeb, while serviceable, not definitely in the class of a Wilander or Jarryd(Of course Michael Stich came along, but till then Germany was a one man show)....

This in itself was remarkable, but also remarkable were some of the matches Becker has played in the Davis Cup: the epic 6 hr encounter vs McEnroe comes to mind as does his remarkable comeback against Agassi.....

To me this was the biggest thing about Becker: he was involved in some great matches(besides the Davis Cup, the indoor season matches come to mind: Masters 96, Stuttgart 96 etc) while I can't recall too many of Edberg's(other than the 85 AO SF, and 91 Wimbledon Final when he lost to Stich without being broken a single time)....

Both underacheived Becker more so, in my opinion....

Eden
03-21-2010, 12:27 PM
Upload of their Queens final in 1988 can be found on youtube

A3QogooJIzc

vn01
03-21-2010, 12:36 PM
I have watched videos of their matches and I liked Edberg's game more than Becker's

Start da Game
03-21-2010, 06:09 PM
based on just talent, edberg was better........but overall, i think both were equal.......quite fitting that they both ended up with 6 slams each........

Start da Game
03-21-2010, 06:12 PM
Becker....

While Edberg was the more consistent pro(as his 2 year end #1s) indicate, Boris was the better big match player....

Many claim Edberg had an edge in the French record: I say how about 3 SFs for Beckers vs 1 F and none beyond QF for Edberg? Even the 89 SF between the two was a good match with Becker visibly tiring in the fifth....

Besides the lopsided H2H of 25-10, Becker was a phenomenal fall season player(3 masters vs 1)....

Also Becker has a Davis Cup H2H of 3-0 v Edberg, 2 of them in Davis Cup Finals against very strong Swedish teams of the mid-late 80s.....

He almost singlehandedly carried Germany in those days with guys like Eric Jelen or Carl Uwe Steeb, while serviceable, not definitely in the class of a Wilander or Jarryd(Of course Michael Stich came along, but till then Germany was a one man show)....

This in itself was remarkable, but also remarkable were some of the matches Becker has played in the Davis Cup: the epic 6 hr encounter vs McEnroe comes to mind as does his remarkable comeback against Agassi.....

To me this was the biggest thing about Becker: he was involved in some great matches(besides the Davis Cup, the indoor season matches come to mind: Masters 96, Stuttgart 96 etc) while I can't recall too many of Edberg's(other than the 85 AO SF, and 91 Wimbledon Final when he lost to Stich without being broken a single time)....

Both underacheived Becker more so, in my opinion....

good post, welcome to men's tennis forums........

oranges
03-21-2010, 06:22 PM
While Edberg was the more consistent pro(as his 2 year end #1s) indicate, Boris was the better big match player....


Why do you think so given that it's Edberg who won most of their GS encounters?

Mosquito3
03-21-2010, 06:42 PM
Boris all the way!

Eden
04-09-2010, 08:08 PM
Upload of their 1988 Wimbledon final:

QOwrnLml0LM

Lukenole
11-10-2010, 09:53 PM
Boris. :)

missvarsha
11-10-2010, 10:00 PM
In terms of achievements, Becker definitely had the better career.
In terms of talent (which is much more of an esoteric comparison), I always felt that Edberg at his best was better than Becker at his best, and indeed most of his contemporaries....but he tended to be a lot more inconsistent as well.

Finally, and this is not trivial, I feel Edberg lost a lot more matches because he was nicer on court, or rather, lacked as much of the killer instinct.
An analogy could be the Williams sisters, when all the way back in 2001 Richard Williams predicted that Serena would have a much better career, simply because "She is meaner."

fast_clay
11-10-2010, 10:27 PM
man i wish i'd kept that old edberg adidas gear i tarded around in as a junior...classic stuff...

Eden
12-11-2010, 03:53 PM
Masters final 1989

Part 1/16

CTK2DqMxZjo

TennisGrandSlam
06-26-2011, 05:00 AM
Comparison between Becker and Edberg, you cannot ignore Lendl (Even though Lendl should be the generation of McEnroe or Wilander)


For mid-1980s - early 1990s, you should compare among Big Three (Lendl, Becker and Edberg)

Becker 25-10 Edberg (GS: 1-3, GS Final : 1-2), without Wimbledon final's advantage, Edberg is inferior to Becker. 10-25 (-15) is more negative than Federer 8-17 Nadal (-9). Becker has more singles titles than Edberg won (49 > 42), but Edberg won more matches (806 > 713). Edberg was active between 1983-1996 and Becker was active between 1984-1999. Obviously Becker has longer career, but still has less win in matches. It shows that Edberg is more consistent. (72 week NO.1 > 12 Weeks NO. 1, 2 year-end NO. 1 > 0 year-end NO.1)

Edberg 14-13 Lendl (GS: 5-4, GS Final : 0-1), During Lendl Era, beside Becker, Edberg was another one who made trouble for Lendl. Edberg won last 4 meetings including (USO 1991, AO 1992, USO 1992). You could say Edberg ended Lendl era, what Becker failed to do so.

Lendl 11-10 Becker (GS: 1-5, , GS Final : 0-3), Lendl is the father of power tennis, but Becker is more powerful and younger. Lendl could not overcome Becker in GS, but Lendl play well in some Indoor tournaments like YEC. Also, Becker never meet Lendl on Clay, which is the favourite court for Lendl. (Becker is a big-match player, he usually destroyed famous players, but also lost to unnamed players.)

Becker : 49 singles (6 GS), Lendl : 94 singles (8 GS), Edberg : 42 singles (6 GS)

Becker won slightly more titles than Edberg did.





Also, Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang can be an index to measure greatness of Becker and Edberg:

Sampras dominates both Becker and Edberg, but Edberg was Sampras killa in pre-Sampras era, Edberg (USO 1992, AO 1993)

Becker easily defate Courier and Chang, but always be a victim during facing Sampras and Agassi. (Becker played Sampras frequently, but Becker is NOT Sampras' rival. Sampras should be a killa of Becker, like Nadal is killa of Federer. So does Agassi)
So, Becker is a killa of Courier and Chang but a victim of Sampras and Agassi)

Edberg can be rivials among Sampras, Courier and Chang
(Sampras slightly dominated Edberg, but for GS, Sampras 0-2 Edberg;
Courier played Courier for 3 GS finals, Edberg won 1 (in Courier's home country) and Courier won 2, Courier also won first title against Edberg.
Chang was slightly dominated by Edberg, but Chang won FO and 2 Hardcourt Masters in their finals' meeting.)

In Conclusion, Edberg slightly > Becker :devil:

allpro
06-27-2011, 06:30 AM
"boom boom" did more for the game.

careergrandslam
06-27-2011, 08:41 AM
I(aswell as john mcenroe) measure greatness by:

1) # of slams won.
2) # of year-end number 1.
3) # of weeks at number 1.


Edberg:
1) 6 slams(2 AO, 2 Wim, 2 USO) + 1 RG final
2) 2 year-end number 1
3) 72 weeks at number 1


Becker:
1) 6 slams(2 AO, 3 Wim, 1 USO)
2) 0 year-end number 1
3) 12 weeks at number 1



Therefore, Edberg > Becker.

Eden
10-15-2011, 02:26 PM
T3L6O72xeGw

Pirata.
10-15-2011, 04:40 PM
Boris' twitter automatically makes him better :shrug:

TheBoiledEgg
10-15-2011, 04:41 PM
In terms of achievements, Becker definitely had the better career.
In terms of talent (which is much more of an esoteric comparison), I always felt that Edberg at his best was better than Becker at his best, and indeed most of his contemporaries....but he tended to be a lot more inconsistent as well.

Finally, and this is not trivial, I feel Edberg lost a lot more matches because he was nicer on court, or rather, lacked as much of the killer instinct.
An analogy could be the Williams sisters, when all the way back in 2001 Richard Williams predicted that Serena would have a much better career, simply because "She is meaner."

Edberg also won Olympic Gold in 84 when it was an exho but still its not Olympics are anything else than exho these days too.
Edberg had better achivements than Becker 55-45 IMO

DrJules
10-15-2011, 04:45 PM
I(aswell as john mcenroe) measure greatness by:

1) # of slams won.
2) # of year-end number 1.
3) # of weeks at number 1.


Edberg:
1) 6 slams(2 AO, 2 Wim, 2 USO) + 1 RG final
2) 2 year-end number 1
3) 72 weeks at number 1


Becker:
1) 6 slams(2 AO, 3 Wim, 1 USO)
2) 0 year-end number 1
3) 12 weeks at number 1



Therefore, Edberg > Becker.

Becker was much more successful at the prestigous year end masters with 3 wins to 1 win and effectively was the premier indoor event.

LawrenceOfTennis
10-15-2011, 05:36 PM
Great players tho I have to go with Becker.
I like his power game more than Edberg's finesse game. In their primes, both of them were better than Lendl I think.

thrust
10-15-2011, 10:01 PM
Well, um ... let's see ...

Ah, yes: Becker had the better forehand BY FAR. :p

Also Edberg never dived to reach balls (as far as I remember). :p

Outside their overall H-H, Edberg has the better statistics. Stefan was #1 for 72 weeks, Boris about 12. Stefan ended 2 years at #1, Boris had none. Stefan won 2 of their 3 Wimbledon finals and their only French match. Stefan won on clay, Boris never did. Overall, very close, but I give the edge to Edberg.

Gil&becker
10-15-2011, 10:13 PM
Becker, for his heart! Tennis is my sport today, because of him when I was a kid. But two living legends they are!

thrust
10-15-2011, 10:22 PM
Great players tho I have to go with Becker.
I like his power game more than Edberg's finesse game. In their primes, both of them were better than Lendl I think.

On grass, yes, but not on clay, indoor or hard courts.

Kolya
10-16-2011, 04:53 AM
T3L6O72xeGw

Boris Franz Ecker
10-16-2011, 02:10 PM
Edberg also won Olympic Gold in 84 when it was an exho but still its not Olympics are anything else than exho these days too.


Edberg is no olympic champion.

Becker is olympic champion.

LawrenceOfTennis
10-16-2011, 02:46 PM
On grass, yes, but not on clay, indoor or hard courts.

Well, im not going to dig deep for stats on indoor courts, but if my memory serves well, Becker has better stats indoors than Lendl.

TennisOnWood
10-16-2011, 03:31 PM
Well, im not going to dig deep for stats on indoor courts, but if my memory serves well, Becker has better stats indoors than Lendl.

I think you need to search for it!! And stats don't tell all.. Ivan is one of the greatest Indoor players ever

Start da Game
10-16-2011, 04:06 PM
it's a bizarre head to head for sure but i still think it's edberg who's slightly ahead......becker had a little more power from the back and that undid stefan a few times more than expected on hardcourts......still both great players though......

Start da Game
10-16-2011, 04:08 PM
Well, im not going to dig deep for stats on indoor courts, but if my memory serves well, Becker has better stats indoors than Lendl.

yep, becker was a beast indoors.....his ball toss for serve was a little complex and indoor conditions boosted his serve immensely......

Start da Game
10-16-2011, 04:10 PM
I think you need to search for it!! And stats don't tell all.. Ivan is one of the greatest Indoor players ever

lendl was amazing too.....i thought he should have switched to a bigger frame like becker......funny that despite being a baseline he stuck with that small frame through out his career.....was there any specific reason for that?

Mountaindewslave
10-16-2011, 11:45 PM
T3L6O72xeGw

this...... Becker was the much better player despite similar records...

haha got to love how he through his racket into the crowd!

LawrenceOfTennis
11-17-2011, 05:04 PM
I think you need to search for it!! And stats don't tell all.. Ivan is one of the greatest Indoor players ever

I was wrong. Lendl is by far the best indoors player from those years.

Mr.Michael
11-17-2011, 05:15 PM
How the hell is Edberg so far ahead?

Becker's career was better. Stefan had two mugslams at Kooyong and their H2H speaks volumes. Really, the only argument is the Wimbledon H2H, but it's not enough.

Shinoj
11-17-2011, 05:15 PM
Becker was pure Natural talent.

I remember one of the matches he had with Agassi, think it was the Wimbeldon Semis 95. Agassi was hitting winners all over the court. he was banging service returns one after the other. He won the first set and was a break up in the second and suddenly out of nowhere Becker raised his game a notch. He started serving better. His volleys went deeper, he gave Agassi lesser and lesser room and bit by bit he had the match in control and by the end of the match there was nothing Agassi could do really.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-04-2012, 07:49 PM
Interesting to see that Edberg is leading by far. I guess most people judging by some compilation or just highlights videos.

Action Jackson
02-04-2012, 08:03 PM
Interesting to see that Edberg is leading by far. I guess most people judging by some compilation or just highlights videos.

Slam H2H was close, both won similar amount of Slams, Edberg was longer at #1, and Edberg did win clay titles and was a runner up at RG.

Li Ching Yuen
02-04-2012, 08:08 PM
Edberg.

One of the best one handers in the game, ever.
Becker was great too, but more of a solid player with memorable accomplishments in the sport rather than a pure raw specimen like Edberg was.

I prefer Edberg as S&V over McEnroe as well.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-04-2012, 08:09 PM
Slam H2H was close, both won similar amount of Slams, Edberg was longer at #1, and Edberg did win clay titles and was a runner up at RG.

That was, but overall H2H is 25-10 for Becker. Actually it has always been a mystery why Edberg is the one of the two who could win clay titles (Madrid for example) because Becker was the one who played a power game, not Edberg.

Li Ching Yuen
02-04-2012, 08:18 PM
Becker won a total of 15 matches against Edberg when he was in his prime (85-89) and when Edberg clearly started struggling relatively speaking career wise(post '91).

Jimnik
02-04-2012, 08:22 PM
Boris choked those two Wimbledon finals in 88 and 90. He should be the clear winner.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-04-2012, 08:23 PM
Becker won a total of 15 matches against Edberg when he was in his prime (85-89) and when Edberg clearly started struggling relatively speaking career wise(post '91).

I would not call it struggling though. I think Becker was just a bad match up for Edberg.

fast_clay
02-04-2012, 08:29 PM
one poster already solved this contentious issue... thanks for posting...

it is extremely close between these two... almost impossible to sepearte them... both employed a game based around the potential to attack... very proactive games... so, as results are extremely close, it also often requires more effort when their games are both aethetically appealing...

it is exactly the reason why i have developed a foolproof method of seperating greats of this era, for various tennis forums... its called The Wally Factor...

The Wally Factor:

Both players in question have their careers compared and broken down via the tried and tested Wally Masur Head-To-Head Measurement Schema. We can derive from this many things as Masur was considered one of the greatest players never to win Casablanca. Wally Masur possessed an all court game, the type of all court game that enables us to sit back and really get an idea of how good Becker and Edberg really were.

Edberg vs Masur: 7-0

1994 - World Team Cup
Clay
RR Edberg 6-2 7-6(8)

1992 - London / Queen's Club
Grass
R16 Edberg 6-4 6-7(5) 6-4

1992 - Tokyo Outdoor
Hard
R16 Edberg 6-3 6-4

1992 - AUS V SWE QF
Carpet
RR Edberg 6-4 7-6

1987 - London / Queen's Club
Grass
R16 Edberg 6-7 7-6 6-4

1987 - Australian Open
Grass
S Edberg 6-2 6-4 7-6

1985 - Australian Open
Grass
R16 Edberg 6-7 2-6 7-6 6-4 6-2 **



Becker vs Masur: 5-1

1993 - Milan
Carpet
S Becker 6-4 7-6(2)

1991 - Roland Garros
Clay
R32 Becker 6-3 6-3 6-2

1990 - Wimbledon
Grass
R64 Becker 6-7 6-2 6-3 6-2

1990 - Sydney Outdoor
Hard
R16 Becker 6-3 6-3

1989 - Paris Indoor
Carpet
Q Becker 6-7 6-4 7-6

1987 - Australian Open
Grass
R16 Masur 4-6 7-6 6-4 6-7 6-2 *



The first definitive suggestion we can make about this evaluation is that Wally was having him arse handed to him with alarming regularity whenever he drew Edberg or Becker.

The second suggestion we can firmly make is that Wally, at one point in his career held a positive head-to-head record over Becker at 1-0 Masur. This was a stunning upset on grass at Kooyong with Masur abusing Becker 6-2 in the fifth set* - Becker being the then double reigning Wimbledon Champion. Many Australian media outlets far and wide proclaimed that Australia had found its next Ken Rosewall. However, in a severe blow to Masur and his family, it was later found that Masur was not very good at tennis.

DEFINING WAL vs BECKER/EDBERG MOMENT: At the very same tournament Masur had beaten Becker - the Australian Open 1987 - two matches beyond this event, Edberg would go on to beat Masur in the semi finals in straight sets. The 5th set scoreline of 6-2** Edberg defeated Masur in 1985 is exactly the same scoreline as the one that Masur would go on to absolutely crucify Becker with 2 years later - AT EXACTLY THE SAME STAGE: R16 - and thus, adding the necessary 'freaky x-factor co-incidence' value that most valid comparisons require. Futhermore, Edberg never lost to Masur on grass, yet Edberg faced Masur on grass double the amount of times (4) that Becker did (2). Becker also lost to Jeremy Bates 7-5 7-6(8) at Queens in '94 which history considers a roundly fukt result and generally unforgivable.

CONCLUSION: Edberg wins.

Edberg never played Alan Mackin.

fsoica
03-01-2012, 06:19 PM
In the grand scheme of tennis' things and for tennis' history books, who is better?

EddieNero
03-01-2012, 06:21 PM
Dodig.

asmazif
03-01-2012, 06:33 PM
Tough, but have to say Becker. 7 Wimbledon finals - higher winning percentage.

homogenius
03-01-2012, 07:03 PM
Becker

Mountaindewslave
03-01-2012, 07:15 PM
Becker and not even that close despite the frequent comparisons and mentions of H2H. I think Edberg was a bit lucky to get some of his titles

abraxas21
03-01-2012, 07:16 PM
wasn't edberg like 3-1 in GS finals v. Becker, though?

Lopez
03-01-2012, 07:18 PM
Edberg because
1) weeks at nr.1 and year end nr. 1 finishes
2) RG final
3) Doubles record (slams + nr.1 ranking)

But it's close.

Mjau!
03-01-2012, 07:19 PM
Becker - much better indoor results.

Pirata.
03-01-2012, 07:21 PM
Becker is a legend on twitter so he automatically wins.

ssin
03-01-2012, 07:27 PM
Very close indeed. I'll just go with my personal preference - Becker, just because of his unique, hot and flamboyant character. One of the guys that made tennis more popular worldwide. Becker was a true sensation when he appeared on the scene.

But choosing Edberg over Becker would not be a big mistake. Very interesting to watch, maybe better all-around player than Becker.

Foxy
03-01-2012, 08:12 PM
Edberg and it is not even close.

LawrenceOfTennis
03-01-2012, 08:16 PM
Becker and not even that close despite the frequent comparisons and mentions of H2H. I think Edberg was a bit lucky to get some of his titles

You have no idea about that era, it seems like.
As a S&V player, Edberg had to work really hard to get those titles even though they played on faster courts. Lucky? I think he is unlucky to have only 6 slams. Definetely better player and bigger potential than 6 slams.

Dougie
03-01-2012, 08:29 PM
You have no idea about that era, it seems like.
As a S&V player, Edberg had to work really hard to get those titles even though they played on faster courts. Lucky? I think he is unlucky to have only 6 slams. Definetely better player and bigger potential than 6 slams.

Not really, 6 slams in an era when surfaces were actually different from each other is a great achievement. Also, his forehand was a major weakness. And I´m a fan of Edberg.

LawrenceOfTennis
03-01-2012, 08:34 PM
Not really, 6 slams in an era when surfaces were actually different from each other is a great achievement. Also, his forehand was a major weakness. And I´m a fan of Edberg.

I thought the same about his forehand for a long time. However, it was better than what it looked. Quite interestingly, in the 96' USO he developed the wrist action in the forehand. Just check out some of those matches. Not like it would have changed his number of slams, though.

thrust
03-01-2012, 08:49 PM
Edberg because
1) weeks at nr.1 and year end nr. 1 finishes
2) RG final
3) Doubles record (slams + nr.1 ranking)

But it's close.

Plus he beat Becker in 2 of 3 Wimby finals and a French semi. Close, but Edberg has the edge.

stewietennis
03-01-2012, 08:52 PM
Becker and not even that close despite the frequent comparisons and mentions of H2H. I think Edberg was a bit lucky to get some of his titles

How was Edberg lucky? His opponents in those majors were:

Australian Open 1985: SF vs Lendl, F vs Wilander
Australian Open 1987: SF vs Masur (Aus), F vs Cash (Aus)

Wimbledon 1988: SF vs Mecir, F vs Becker
Wimbledon 1990: SF vs Lendl, F vs Becker

US Open 1991: 4R vs Chang, SF vs Lendl, F vs Courier
US Open 1992: 4R vs Krajicek, QF vs Lendl, SF vs Chang, F vs Sampras

===========

As opposed to Beckers opponents in his majors:

Australian Open 1991: SF vs Patrick McEnroe, F vs Lendl
Australian Open 1996: SF vs Mark Woodforde, F vs Chang

Wimbledon 1985: SF vs Anders Jarryd, F vs Kevin Curren
Wimbledon 1985: SF vs Henri Leconte, F vs Lendl
Wimbledon 1989: SF vs Lendl, F vs Edberg

US Open 1989: SF vs Aaron Krickstein, F vs Lendl

===========

The only major that Edberg may have had an easy run was the 1987AO however he had the home crowd against him in his last two matches. I'd compare that run to Becker's 1985Wimbledon where he beat a bunch of nobodies. However, Becker never had to play through gauntlets like Edberg's two US Open titles. Additionally, Edberg played champions in 4/6 Semi Finals; Becker only had to play champions in 2/6 Semi Finals.

Becker vs Edberg, achievement-wise, is a lot closer than you think.

LawrenceOfTennis
03-01-2012, 08:54 PM
Plus he beat Becker in 2 of 3 Wimby finals and a French semi. Close, but Edberg has the edge.

25-10. No excuses please.

Snowwy
03-01-2012, 09:19 PM
...

Jimnik
03-02-2012, 12:02 AM
Becker easily, despite those two Wimbledon chokes.