it's right up there with henin's backhand and stan wawrinka's backhand. those 3 had the best backhands

Of course then...his forehand was a liability.

Actually I think Edberg's forehand was a more reliable, high percentage stroke because he rarely used it as an offensive weapon. Wawrinka backhand is very reminiscent of Lendl. In terms of aesthetics, I think Federer is probably the best because of his (more) fluid motion.

@@radiohead2206No it wasn’t. It was well designed for his net attacking game and he could paste it when needed. There is no way that FH could be considered a liability, even in contrast to his great BH and superb volleys.

@ppm120667 Definitely! His kick serve out wide in the ad court and that backhand volley were the equivalent of the modern serve + forehand. His block return on the backhand was also gorgeous. He had so much variety and he moved like a ballerina (similar to Federer). He's my favorite player from the 80s/90s.

Sampras the very best ever

@ppm120667 Australian open is not that fast court. Just Look at the opponents he had to beat in his time to get his 14 GS

@ppm120667 I am not arguing with the fact that samprass style is more suitable for faster courts . 7 Wimbledon is proof enough but i think overall he is the best given the variety of styles of the opponents he had to beat to win gs. Think lendl mcnroe Agassi becker edberg stich ivanesivic to name a few . I think his stats against them head to head are in his favor

I don't like it too much, his arm is too stiff when he's hitting it. His backhand volley however is the most beautiful I've seen.

yeah so fun with 2 ball rallies. those were the days

Yes, I can barely stand the dinglydonglypinglypongly 273-stroke rallies nowadays. I can go make myself a cup of coffee and come back to find the same point still on-going.

Completely agree but the fault lies with those (ATP) who changed the surfaces, especially the grass of Wimbledon...since that year, it was 2001, Golden Era of tennis ended…

@@scottstorchfantoday’s tennis is a drag.

@@scottstorchfanSonsimole by your side. In that era you had serve and volley and at the same time, clay players, Agassi… You had different styles. But enjoy the present, with only one style! You have a lot of tennis now, what are you doing watching two serve and volley beasts?

And no french open title 😉

Yes..not like the ogres that play today.

@@FUsheK well, up to you, if you like to jerk off on cups piles , bullshit fanboys goat debate, grunting baseline grinders ...people watching and commenting here just want to enjoy classy technique,classy attitude , nice serve and volley...

@@FUsheK Well, they played in the era where the surfaces were really different. The clay at Roland Garros was really slow, and grass at Wimbledon was really fast. For a while the very best players had not won a career slam; Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Wilander and Lendl all had that in common. In the cases of Lendl (grass), Edberg (clay), McEnroe (Clay) and Borg (Hardcourt at Flushing Meadows) reached the finals on their most challenging surface but couldnät win. Of these champions, I think Edberg was closest against Chang in Paris. He was up 2-1 sets, and he had so many break balls in the fourth, but he couldn't close the deal in the heat, and Chang won in five. The only player from that era who had a career slam is Andre Agassi. After that, the grass became slower in Wimbledon, and players like Nadal and Djokovic benefited a lot, whereas players with big serves like Raonic, Isner, Federer, Roddick etc were nerfed, along with the serve-and-volleying became a lost art. Instead, we must watch the old legends how it was done.

@@MrClebophd yeah... That's right.... Grass was fast and clay was slow at that time.... And u know what abt the games that was played at that time was very much reasonable to watch.... That's so great and wonderful.....

100% hell yeah man!

Mine too! I think I was around 10 when I started watching him. He will always be my fav.

Couldn't agree more!

Edberg, Wilander, Borg…a wonderful Swedish trio! Edberg was such a class act!

@@houstonbalaji4768 He stood out from the Swedish trio, being the greatest Swedish serve and volleyer, the guy glided on the court so gracefully. I was fortunate enough to see him in junior years and through his senior years. there just won't be another like him, he was a wonderful tactician on court, we have lost this part of the game with all the changes with courts, strings and racquet

Shame that serve and volley has disappeared nowadays

@@soothingpiano2901 I think it's not a shame that those two things are disappeared.... It's like totally the game is changed along with the surface of the courts and fastness on those courts.....

@@HONORTONUMERIC123 sure it is a shame. same show all around the planet. "changed" ? maybe ... poorer surely. think just coaches forgot to learn it. this knowledge is disappearing it is very sad and ... quite boring.

My ranking: #3 Edberg, #2 Becker, #1 Sampras.

Man this is Sampras, not Becker!! :D

otherwise known as the golden era of tennis...from 1985 to 2001

@@mtklaric Yes. I totally agree.

@@mtklaric It really was, except for Sampras at Wimbledon. Seven of eight from 93' to 00', with 96' loss to R.K, from running the table for eight years.

Agree!

30 years later, I still can't find a racket that has the control of that one :). If only my arm could handle it still :)

@@Belgarath777 yeah... That's right... Copy that....

It´s like an implicit rule, if you like Stefan you like Pete and if you like them you like Roger. They have the same essence!! Sampras was my hero from youngest days and was an Edberg fan too... now is Roger :)

@@nacofichetti314 Exactly. Those of us who grew up watching good positive attacking tennis would always like Edberg, Pete and then Roger.

@@anthonyroberts79 don't know abt stich.... But Becker comes under positive attacking tennis player...... That I have seen in those matches from that decade....

Beautiful description of Edberg’s greatest strengths: one of the finest one handed backhands in tennis history and arguably the best backhand volley of all time. Reading the comments here makes me realize that this kind of s&v game has a legion of fans that would love racquets that gave both the aggressive baseliner or counterpunchers and an all court or serve and volley players all capable of winning when weapon grade racquets with new string technology along with slower courts and heavier balls are done away with because tennis does not feel like tennis any more.

It's so sad that tennis is not watchable anymore! The 80's and 90's had so much variety! Serve and Volley is much needed very much!

Don't forget Mac...

Totally agree. If you think Nadal won Wimbledon twice like Edberg or Djokovic seven times like Sampras, an abomination…

Don’t forget matches of Laver and Newcombe.

True , it's incredible !

Weird that it is not featured more often in 'best rallies' compilations. It 's a thing of beauty!

A truly incredible rally

Not like today's boring baseline game.

@@dougmaverick3287 zverev vs Medvedev 😂😂

@@rishbahpandey8697 Hahaha. Exactly. And they would both be burned out by rhe time they turned 28 or 30. Lol.

Well born in 1978. I remember that MOST were backline bashers in the 90s as well ;)

@@rikuberndtson9246At least they were aggressive and stuck closer to the baseline.

Yeah.... Copy that... That's right....

Period.

sure..

like cats, yeeess, i feel the same, they fly smooth on court, liker Roger, these 3 are my heroes

I think the truth is in the middle...although i m a millenial i gotta say this video amazed me, however a game with only serve and volley can be boring af (especially on grass with players not as good as the ones in this video).

@@adrianoruggiero7918 I mean, the best serve and volley players from this era weren't PURELY serve and volley. They were also exceptional at the baseline, Sampras and Becker especially. Really mixed it up well, which is PERFECT in my opinion. I think the real issue you're getting at is just too many aces or service winners, but that was always player-dependent -- Krajicek or Ivanisevic then, Isner or Karlovic or Anderson now.

@@anonymousLeroy yes, this is perfect in my opinion too. But even Sampras on his run in Wimbledon used to play only with serve and volley (or at least in those 4-5 full matches i watched, i hope i'm saying reasonable things). And that's probably why i prefer hard courts over grass, at least there you can observe points longer than 3 hits

In the end what i wanted to say is that those games, especially in Wimbly, look boring to me, maybe I lost the point for a while in the last comment xD If those games had this quality of serve and volley points i wouldnt say so but i mean, Edberg and sampras are two legends of the game. With the same reasoning somebody can defend the baseline game of this decade by throwing in games as AO 2012 Final etc.. Just my opinion

@Kevin Smith they were fun to watch for me, and at least ivanisevic had a hell of a personality.

That's right. Tennis today is boring, which is why I don't watch it anymore.

@@larrycoker8093 same here

@kal Ke Nowadays all surfaces behave the same almost. Big Three shouldn't be compared with previous generations who were just as good in their respective times. Besides baseline slugfest was a clay court occurrence in those days. Nowadays that happens on every surface which is bad for tennis I believe

Edberg is Federer's hero and childhood idol. He has said so a number of times.

@@soyouseethis both , edberg and sampras are Roger s heros

Interesting, because Sampras said a similar thing in his book, when he was assessing his rivals in the last chapter.

@@BurnsTennis Was that a good read? I read Andre's book, but didnt know Pete had one.

@@chocolatetownforever7537 Pete published his in 2008, one year before Andre did. I enjoyed it but I am sure it is a totally different book to Andre's. I read some of Andre's book but not all of it, maybe I will at some point.

I never watched a live tennis match but wqtche highlight and follows the updates. What u said i can relate easily. Today there is long rally untill one makes mistake or give up. But this match is something else.. Using brain and fast like squash game and badminton

ditto

Agreed

You have been watching golf maybe,

@@Uns_Maps_8 It was skill and not endurance and stamina of the Djokovics and Nadals of nowadays on very slow courts.

Totally. It's actually pretty amazing that Federer has been able to re-mold his game and be so successful in today's game of slow courts and heavy groundstrokes.

@@metblvette that´s because of the pure talent they all 3 man have!!!

They are Roger's idols

Yes Djokovic and Tsitsipas could learn from that

I mean they slowed down the courts because the crowds didn't like the points being over in 1 or 2 shots all the time

Adam Cang djokovic could also win less grandslams than both of em too right?

@@adamcang4683 The actual players are still quite good, but we don't have the variety of style we had in the 90's anymore.

Joshua Thompson...that was probably part of the motivation. But they destroyed the game in doing so. Tennis was my life for many years. Watching these highlights reminds me of how I believe tennis should be played.