Grace under pressure

Stefan Edberg.

Once in a while you come across interviews that seem to be of the unhurried type, meandering along taking a life of its own. Worth reading for the breadth of topics covered and the number of nuggets it yields. This interview with Edberg fits right into that category. (Note, it is slightly dated but still very relevant, and do note that it is over multiple pages).

Some notable insights:

PF: Agassi and Laver are the only men players to win all four Grand Slam events during the Open Era. But you came very close when y ou led Michael Chang two sets to one and had W break points in the fourth set and then were twice up a service break in the fifth set of the French Open final. Was losing that exciting final your biggest disappointment?

SE: Not at the time because I thought I'd have more chances. But as the years went by, I realized that was my great opportunity. It was similar to the great chance McEnroe had against Lendl [in the 1984 French Open final]. With my game I wasn't going to get that many chances in Paris. And I was playing very well that year. If I had played one big point better, that would probably have been enough to win the match. But Chang had God on his side, or whatever you call it. [laughing] Maybe he was destined to win that year. That was a big, big chance, and it's obviously something I regret today. But, what the heck, you can't win everything.

PF: You. won a gold 'medal at the 1984 Olympics when tennis was a demonstration sport. Are you pleased with the way tennis is staged at the Olympics?

SE: Yes and no. In 1984 having tennis in the Olympics was a bit suspect. But at the same time you have to be supportive because the Olympics is a big event. It wasn't until Agassi won it [in 1996] in the U.S. that you got a little pop about winning the Olympics. But I don't think tennis really needs the Olympics. I'm not sure football [soccer] does either. Tennis can stand on its own feet without it.

PF: You were one of the most elegant, athletic and effective serve-and-volleyers in tennis history. But today there are only seven frequent serve-and-volleyers in the top 100 and another seven who serve and volley occasionally. What should tennis do so that this entertaining and important style of play does not die?

SE: That's a good question. If I was playing today, I would not play as aggressively as I did because it's too predictable and the guys return serve far better than previously. With serve-and-volley, it takes a couple of more years to learn about the game. It's riskier, there is less margin for making mistakes. I don't think serving-and-volleying will die. I just wish there will be more serving-and-volleying because it's beautiful to watch.

SE: Because you go to all these other sports-basketball, football and ice hockey-and it's loud and they scream and there's popcorn. It's nice to have a sport for people who like it a little more quiet where you sit down and enjoy what's going on out there. You don't need to stand up and scream at everything. You need respect for other people, too. Tennis is very different because you keep quiet when the point is on, and you clap after the point.

I vividly remember many of Edberg's matches. Mostly for his fluidity of movement. He seemed to glide across the court (a la Federer) even when he lost the point. He was quite mentally strong, too. In 1992, at the US Open, he won three consecutive 5-setters after being down a break in the 5th set - a feat unmatched in tennis history.

John McEnroe once said that this man had the best first volley he had ever seen in tennis. That's high praise indeed.

Edberg was a five-time recipient of the ATP Sportsmanship Award, so much so that, upon his retirement from the game the ATP renamed the award the "Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award"! (Interesting sidenote: for the last 5 years the award has gone to Roger Federer!)

Here are some Stefan Edberg highlights. This one's for you, DSC/BD.