Matchups, mental strength and just performing on the day!

In light of the recent, but ongoing, fedal debate kerfuffle, I would like to veer quite far off that topic. So far off infact I wont even mention their names.

What i want to ask the elder statesmen of this forum and just those who can shed any light on the matter to this young curious fan, is with some of the great rivalries, of lets say the open era, were the results down to any of the reasons mentioned in the topic title in particular?

For example:

Sampras-Agassi: Head to head = 20-14. One of the best servers ever against one of the best returners. Was pete's serve just too good for agassi who was probably stronger from the back of the court? Was one player able to dig deeper than the other and pull out the win or was it just who played better on the day?
Sampras was 6-3 in slams and 4-1 in finals. I didn't get into tennis until 2001 so you knowledgeable tennis folk please enlighten me i'm intrigued!

Edberg-Becker: 10-25. A Very lopsided rivalry this one, however Edberg won 3/4 of their slam meetings, perhaps Edberg prioritized the slams more or just raised his game at slam level and against becker? Again was this a matchup, mental or an opportunistic occurrence?

Lendl-McEnroe: 21-15. A topsy turvy rivalry where both players registered a few consecutive wins over their opponent rather than one each at a time. Lendl had the upper hand in every tournament level even from an early age where Lendl was still waiting for his first slam he generally had the upper hand. I think mentally he may have been tougher, or perhaps McEnroe couldn't maintain his concentration. However Lendl's slam final record isn't the best as he lost more than he won.

Borg-McEnroe: 7-7 on the main tour (9-11 overall). 1-3 to McEnroe in slams. Same question applies. From 1978-mid 1981 Borg had the upper hand but from then onwards the pendulum swung towards McEnroe. I have heard that Borg was a bad matchup as his high topspin shots from far behind the baseline were cut off by McEnroe at the net, feel free to correct me if im wrong, as I say I'm keen to find out the answers.

And finally
Borg-Connors: 15-8 on the main tour (16-14 overall). Connors won 6 of their first 7 meetings (Borg suffered these defeats from the age of 17-20) before Borg later accumulating a 10match winning streak against Jimbo. After reading a few threads on rivalries many have said Borg's improved depth was a factor in turning the tide against Connors in his favour.

So that is it a blast from the past.
So over to you, what was it down to??

I think that is a tough question and the answer isn't universal. The Edberg-becker thing I honestly think that Borris was better, if anything edberg was the mentally tougher of the two while Boris could reach another gear that I don't think Edberg possessed in terms of raw power.

Borg and Connors I think its hard to say that either of these guys lost because the other was mentally tougher. But this matchup was bit before my time.

Agassi and Sampras: Pete was just better than Andre on a medium to fast court. Plus back then the conditions differed and the courts were quicker. Therefore I think this one was just a case of Pete being a bad matchup and just being better than Andre. Also mentally, Pete was a very focused and tough competitor and he rarely got much credit for that. Andre was a player who went up and down a lot more during his career and didn't always seem to be into every match.

thanks man was lendl-mcEnroe before ya time?

LS, there is a great book called HIgh Strung, that talks a lot about that era. Beautifully written:
https://www.606v2.com/t6664-poetry-corner-high-strung-by-steve-tignor?highlight=high+strung

Read it if you can.

socal1976 wrote:I think that is a tough question and the answer isn't universal. The Edberg-becker thing I honestly think that Borris was better, if anything edberg was the mentally tougher of the two while Boris could reach another gear that I don't think Edberg possessed in terms of raw power.

In short when reading this post, you switch the names and it's about right.

Here is the correct version:

socal1976 wrote:I think that is a tough question and the answer isn't universal. The Edberg-Becker thing I honestly think that Edberg was better, if anything Becker was the mentally tougher of the two while Edberg could reach another gear that I don't think Becker possessed.

but tenez why was as you say the mentally tougher becker on the receiving end in their slam encounters?
Don't slams show triumphs show greater mental strength as it is a bigger occasion?

Cheers nitb im goona check dat one ooot!

Sampras-Agassi: Sampras mentally much tougher. on the day? close but I think Pete was still better.

Edberg-Becker: Edberg had a complex when facing Becker. He was in my view more talented but did not have the mental strength of Becker. Edberg should have finished with more slams and more weeks at number 1...despite his weaker mental. That's why he was more talented.

Lendl-McEnroe: The more I re-watch McEnore, the more I tend to think his talent is over rated (sadly as I was a big fan too). Don't get me wrong, still a huge talent. Stronger mentally than Lendl, no doubt but Lendl was more professional and ended up having the better of the two. Talent wise there isn't such a big difference as people think. Lendl's talent was that he was able to play modern tennis (whack the ball and paint the lines with a small wooden frame) while McEnore was simply moving and timing the ball like a cat.

Borg-McEnroe: Borg's talent in the footwork. McEnore's was in the eye/hand coordination. Mentally ....I still would say Borg was stronger....except when facing McEnroe.

And finally
Borg-Connors: No contest. Borg more talented and mentally stronger....However Borg v Connors + US crowd....different matter.

Tenez beg to differ on McEnroe. Ridiculously talented but that wasn't enough by itself when Lendl left no stone unturned in his fitness and match preparation regimes (think Novak but nearly twenty years previously).

Mac seemingly wasn't prepared to put in the hard work once Lendl had caught him up but had more natural talent in his little finger than Ivan had in his whole body.

I think Becker was a far better player than edberg. Edberg was a superb volleyer but really didn't rate rest of his game much. Never really liked his game for whatever reason. I still miss that Becker service motion, truly awesome. 25 wins to 10 says it all really. Shame they didn't meet more in the slams

Agree with Newballs, Mac was much more talented than Lendl but lendl put in the hard yards and was a much more focused player. Mac was never a guy who was into weight training and cross training in a big way. Like a little bit of the wacky tabacky as well. That can't be too good for your motivation to train.

Completely, disagree with Tenez on Edberg being a bigger talent than Becker. Becker shocked the world with his talent winning wimby at age 18. He had a bigger serve than Edberg and a superior forehand. Edberg the better backhand and slight edge in the volleys both were great volleyers. The shocking victory of becker coming out of the nowhere to destroy everyone in his path at wimby to me shows Becker's edge. Becker had more raw power, I think before Sampras and ivanisivic he had the fastest mph serve on tour. Plus Edberg's first australian open was an australian open in the early to mid 80s right before the Australian open began to be attended by all the top stars. And this additional gear of power that Becker possessed is reflected in their head to head matchup and by the success that Becker enjoyed at wimbeldon.

newballs wrote:Tenez beg to differ on McEnroe. Ridiculously talented but that wasn't enough by itself when Lendl left no stone unturned in his fitness and match preparation regimes (think Novak but nearly twenty years previously).

Mac seemingly wasn't prepared to put in the hard work once Lendl had caught him up but had more natural talent in his little finger than Ivan had in his whole body.

That's beacuse McEnroe had an obvious talent we could all appreciate. But being able to whip the ball and send it in all corners at the pace Lendl did required as much talent...even if his moving was not as smooth as McEnore. Lendl was talented way before becoming super fit. He just got fitter to compensate for a fragile mental...essentially cause his game was very risky and needed to be super fit to play it over 5 sets.

We see "talent" in the animal kindom like cats for instance but we do not see that other animals might be more successful even if they look more clumsy.

I believe Becker was 17 when he won Wimbledon.

So just to summarise from what you guys said:

Becker was a bad matchup for edberg
Borg for connors and the rest is just players were better mentally and on the day?

Well I mean luvsports there is a reason why the person who had the edge in the h2h, I don't know if I would summarize it exactly as you put it. Sampras was better and mentally more focused than Andre. Bjorg was better than Connors. Becker was better than Edberg, despite what Tenez believes. The h2h record and the successes at wimbeldon I think demonstrate that for Becker.