So great to see these matches again after all these years ! Edberg will always be my favorite player from that period. His gesture when serving, not to mention his play at the net, were absolute perfection.
Edberg war so ein Tier am Netz, konnte es damals schon nicht fassen. Und Becker war zwar eine umstrittene (und zuweilen nervige) Berühmtheit aber eben auch ein astreiner geiler Tennisspieler mit hohem Unterhaltungswert. Danke das dieser Kanal diese Schmuckstücke wieder ausgräbt und uns auf eine Zeitreise mitnimmt.
Full marks to Boris for his sportsmanship at the end. Edberg's movement was something else. I see some comments about short rallies but this pair showed serve and volley pretty much as good as it got (Sampras vs Rafter was pretty decent too). Changes to rackets (especially), balls and courts have pretty much equalised game across all surfaces since then.
And that has led to all players play the exact same way. It’s taken variety from the game. People like volley’s. Probably why pickle ball has become so popular. Play is dominated by variety and versatility. IMO
@@whyaskwhy000 Indeed. It's certainly more dominated by tall "athletes" now. Still it's good to see Alcaraz use more variety to break down opponents, as the exception.
I have found memories of this day, was on holiday in Germany and stayed at Hotel just outside of Berlin. As a Swede i was thrilled to watch Edberg win the Wimbledon and we were teasing the Germans of course. But later that day they got their revenge on us when the German fotball team won the Worldcup. 1990 what a year!
Die Entscheidung war bei 3:1 im 5 Satz, es war bereits angerichtet für Becker das er nach 85/86/89 erneut das Double schafft. Nur diesesmal konnte EDBERG sein Nervenkostüm in Zaum halten , den der Schwede war leider bekannt dafür das er bei solchen Matches gerne seine Nerven verlor und auch das Match. Ausschlaggebend war der Lob bei 5:4 für Edberg. 27:21 da hat sich alles entschieden , da wusste Edberg das er es gewinnt!!
True. Though he can close. Dropped three tiebreakers to Stich (who went on to beat Becker in the final) in '91, and I think lost to Courier in the semis in '92 or '93.
En 1991 Edberg semblait pouvoir conserver son titre tant il semblait en pleine forme, mais Stich en demi-finale n'a absolument rien lâché...et 96,sans sa blessure au poignet du 3ème tour,Becker pouvait remporter un 4ème titre à Wimbledon...même si Washington, Todd Martin et Krajicek auraient été de rudes adversaires pour Boum Boum....
Becker looks like he was serving three-quarter pace in the first two sets. Lots of kick serves and stabbing at volleys. This was a great performance by Edberg - elegant as always - but Becker looked out of sorts.
Becker said a few things about this final. One of them was that he had a sleeping pill addiction for several years in the 80s because he couldn't handle the pressure. He said it left him very groggy in the first two sets and took him a while to wake up.
In many Matches you can see how he become his Strength more and more from Middle until the End of the Game. Actually he had Edberg in the Middle of the 5 Set down but he lost for a view Moments the final Focus.After 1990 Edberg never reached this Form again.
@@kl6990In 1991, he played two Grand Slam finals, won six titles and finished world no. 1. In 1992, he played two Grand Slam finals, won the US Open and finished ranked no. 2. In 1993, he played in the Australian Open final for a fifth time. Get your facts straight.
@@kl6990 You didn't specify that. Even if we look at just Wimbledon, he reached the semis in 1991 and was unfortunate not to win. Stich could not break his serve in the semis. In 1993, he again reached the semis, before Wimbledon switched to a slower surface. In terms of form, I believe semis is a great run.
Maybe his real biggest chance for a 4th title. So close, but he lost it caused by own mistakes. Sleeping the first 2 sets and the 5th he was dreaming again. Complete opposite of the year before!
may be 3 or 3 and 1/2 hours play .two great champions play all the shots in the book. This is much better than 5 hours match played between the top 3 now . Without serve and volley wimbledon has no charm. They made game changes in cricket from test match to one day match to T20 to make more entertaining . But tennis it has gone in reverse way . Wimbledon is almost like Rolan garros . no bounce ,ball becomes slower , no fun at all.
I totally disagree. That's one of the most boring matches I've ever seen. Virtually every rally was two shots or less. Of the three and a half hours, how much was actual tennis? Maybe 40 seconds? The rest was just walking fro side to side. There's a reason that tennis became twice as popular once Federer and Nadal took over. Suddenly there were rallies, and the public started to take notice.
@@stevefowler3398 Thanks for the very grown-up critique Steve. Nonetheless, for the benefit of those who don't have your forensic grasp of this subject, could you be a bit more specific about which part of what I said it is that you dispute? Do you for example dispute that tennis is more popular now than it was in the heyday of serve and volley? If so, perhaps you could give some numbers to support your case. Eg you could tell me how much TV companies used to pay for the rights to broadcast grand slams. Or you could let me know how many people went to the likes of Wimbledon and Roland Garros in 2024 vs in 1994. I await your fact-based rebuttal with interest, and am not at all worried we'll discover that all you can do is throw around childish insults.
I watch these matches of that era bcoz of Serve & Volley . These days miss this. For me Wimbledon means Serve & Volley. This brings variety bcoz one can enjoy long rallies from Baseline in French Open.
I'm sure tennis pros have considered your criticism. They probably think, "which is more important - having a backhand that will get me lots of likes on RU-vid or a backhand that will ... win me tennis matches". Gosh, I wonder which they're likely to choose.
@@haroldsdodge They don't pick goofy. Tennis pros are forced into the game when they are barely past toddlers and all get taught two handers. A few brave ones make the switch later.
@@jamesbyrd5175 Yeah right. Coaches know a one-hander is more effective but "force" kids to use two-handers because ... because ... what, the Illuminati told them to? Grow up FFS. I have two kids, both of whom have had lessons since age 7, both of whom play international tournaments, including ITFs. One picked up a racquet and automatically played two-handed (long before he ever met a coach), the other played single-handed, both still play that way. No coach ever tried to change them. Face it: one-handers have died out because they're not as effective. Maybe on grass (though even that's debatable) but not on any other surface. Only crackpots deny that at this stage. Even Federer agrees - he said if his kids wanted his advice he'd advise them to hit two-handed. The idea that there's some evil plan to force kids to play a way that's less effective is just childish nonsense. Tennis is possibly the most ruthless meritocracy in history - not just in sports but in any field. If there were a devious plan to force people to play two-handed then it would have been exposed long ago, by the simple fact that one-handers would eventually prevail. The opposite has happened. By the Darwinian process of winning more matches, the two-hander has emerged as better. Sell your sore loser conspiracy theories somewhere else.
@@Ruataism if you are trying to argue that Chang was the better player... should we analyze their career grand slams total? I'm really confused how you even put Chang in the same conversation as either of those 2. Are you just a major fan of Michael Chang? The one slam wonder?
Head To Head: Becker 25 - Edberg 10, Head To Head Davis Cup: Becker 3 - Edberg 0 And Here? Becker Had The Possibility To Win In His Hands And On The Racket.
Too true! Becker has said that he had a sleeping pill addiction for several years in the 80s because he couldn't handle the pressure. He said it left him very groggy in the first two sets and took him a while to wake up.
To each his own. Nowadays baseline camping bots apart from some rare exceptions are 100x more boring than this. Better Elmer Fudd than Slowpoke Rodriguez
@@skylaxx The first part of your comment is true, when you respond to the criticism that Becker vs Edberg is boring by saying: "to each his own". Then you appear to have forgotten what you'd just said, and say that in fact it's modern tennis players who are "boring". Aren't you the guy who just said, "to each his own"? Or maybe you meant, "to each his own, as long as everyone agrees with me"? As it happens, your opinion that the short Becker vs Edberg rallies (average 2.5 shots) are more exciting than modern tennis is not widely shared. Tennis is far, far more popular now than it was then. Global audiences are at least 10x higher. It's far harder to get into grand slam tournaments now than it was. In those days you could just rock up to Wimbledon any given day and walk onto Centre Court. You might have to queue for a bit but you'd get onto a show court for sure (I did it lots of times in the 1980s). Now you can't get anywhere near Centre Court, even if you book months in advance. You have to enter a lottery. I've been entering said lottery for ten years and haven't got anywhere near Centre Court. Not once. The bottom line is that audiences prefer modern tennis. The serve volley style turned them off in their droves, so much so that Wimbleon changed the grass to make the game less serve-dominated. And the golden age of tennis began. You may not like that fact but it's a fact nonetheless.
30 Minuten nur zusammen Schnitte von fail Momenten in diesem Match mit diesen vlog von dir😵.. Gähn😒.. nach ungefähr 9min konnte ich nicht mehr weiterschauen, - sorry...
