Stefan Edberg - snubbed by the Tennis Hall of Fame
July 2002
Word came that "(Boris) Becker is the lone nominee in the
Recent Player Category" on the 2003
Tennis Hall of Fame ballot.
(See
here).
This was rather startling news. I had long assumed that
Stefan Edberg, who retired in 1996, would be a shoo-in
for the nomination and induction, as soon as he became
eligible, which happens to be this year. And I am not alone in
making this bold assumption: Among Edberg fans there has
been talks of making arrangements to attend the induction
ceremony next year. And at an exhibition event held in
Cape Cod this past July, Brett Haber -- the emcee -- introduced
Edberg as a "future Hall of Famer."
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't give a rat's care
about Halls of Fame. I had never paid any attention
to them, in any sport. And it didn't escape my attention
that when Mats Wilander was inducted into
the Tennis Hall of Fame this year, hardly anyone noticed.
But the announcement that Becker rather than
Edberg is this year's nominee is jarring, as it amounts
to a slight on Stefan Edberg.
And it is rather baffling.
This is what is posted on the Hall's web site:
ELIGIBILITY
Players are elected based on
their records of competitive achievement, with ancillary
consideration given to sportsmanship and character.
Individuals are elected in one of three categories:
-
Recent Players - are those who were active as competitors
within the last 20 years, but have not been a significant
factor in competition tennis during the previous five years
- Master Players - are competitors in the sport who have been retired for 20 years.
- Contributors - are individuals such as writers, coaches,
and administrators who have made exceptional contributions to the sport.
Let me say right off 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.
Let's consider the foremost criterion for the consideration:
Records of competitive
achievement. I think it is generally agreed that Edberg and
Becker have comparable records in this regard - equal number
of grand slam titles (six), and similar counts in tournament titles (Becker: 49 singles and
15 doubles titles, Edberg: 42 singles and 19 doubles titles.)
The fact is that the careers of these two great players
were entwined from the days when they were juniors, and
their friendly rivalry at the Wimbledon is remembered by many fondly.
On this account, they both deserve to be honored.
Consider the "ancillary consideration" of sportsmanship and
character then. Need I remind anyone that
Edberg is the namesake of the ATP Sportsman of the Year Award?
And does anyone who witnessed his 1992 U.S. Open victory have
doubts about Edberg's character?
But the strangest thing about Becker's nomination is that he
should not even be eligible yet. To repeat
the Hall of Fame's own edict: "Recent Players -
are those who were active as competitors within the last 20
years, but have not been a significant factor in competition
tennis during the previous five years." If you check the
official records (see
http://www.itftennis.com/fl_index.html"), Becker
played through June 1999 and won a few matches that year,
reaching final in Hong Kong in April that year.) Do you
agree with me that it's a real stretch to say that Becker
"has not been a significant factor in competition
tennis during the previous five years"? And even if somehow
an argument can be made
that Becker does meet that criterion, then don't you
agree that, by the same token, Edberg should have been
considered at least three years ago?
Incidentally , a poster on rec.sport.tennis pointed out that
the announcement even made a mistake about Becker’s records,
stating that he was number one ranked for 109 weeks,
which is wrong – Bjorn Borg holds that record. Becker
occupied the number one rank for twelve weeks.
The whole thing is perplexing and smacks of a hidden agenda.
What in the world can the
reason be behind the rush to nominate
Boris Becker while Stefan Edberg is ignored? I have my
theories. Here they go:
-
The folks at the Hall of Fame are not good at math.
-
The folks at the Hall of Fame don't really watch tennis, and
they, sadly, got Edberg and Becker mixed up.
-
Money talks.
-
There is this upcoming exhibition match at Flushing
Meadows that you might have heard of - McEnroe vs. Becker.
The nomination is a desperate attempt to generate some
buzz for the event. (I am not joking, this line appeared in
the Reuter report about the nominations:
"Becker is due to face John McEnroe in an exhibition
match at the U.S. Open next week.")
In any case, to me, this nomination has made a mockery
of the so-called Hall of Fame. I just assume that
Edberg stay away from it. I plan to.
postscript: On August 31 I received a response
from Kat Anderson (kat@tennisfame.com) of the Hall of Fame, as follows:
I understand your feelings toward the ballot announcement this year. Please
be assured that the committee is very aware of both individuals' records and
accomplishments. As I cannot speak for the nomination committee, I suggest
you direct your inquiry to the chairman, Tony Trabert, c/o International
Tennis Hall of Fame, 194 Bellevue Avenue, Newport, RI 02840.
(Unfortunately, Mr. Trabert does not have an email address.) I will also
make sure a copy of this email is sent to the committee.
Sincerely,
Kat Anderson
International Tennis Hall of Fame
Considering that the Hall of Fame's own announcement
(see
here) couldn't even get Becker's records right (109 weeks
of #1 ranking - not in his dream), I would, with all due
respect, say to Ms. Anderson
that no, the committee is not very aware of either
individual's accomplishments.
Nevertheless, I immediately drafted this letter
to Tony Trabert. I expect to receive a response from Mr. Trabert.
Epilogue:
In February of 2003 I was contacted by the Hall of Fame's CEO,
a kind man, who attempted to sooth my ire by inviting me to
phone him. I did so promptly, and what transpired was
recorded in this piece.
On 7/13/03 Boris Becker was inducted into the U.S. Tennis Hall of Fame.
The ceremony was broadcast on the U.S.'s tennis TV channel (which I do
not get and would not have watched even if I did.)
As an aftermath, there was a thread on
the Tennis Warehouse board entitled
"Congrats Boris but what about Stefan?"
bookem - 12:30pm Jul 14, 2003 PDT
Anyone else perplexed why Edberg isn't in the Hall of Fame yet?
To which I responded thus:
This is a sore point for me.
While I have no qualm about Boris Becker being eventually inducted into the U.S. Hall of Fame (HOF) of tennis, his nomination for the induction was controversial. By the rules of the HOF, Becker is not yet eligible (he has not yet retired for 5 years), while Edberg retired in 1996 and IS eligible. I have written extensively about this issue (see http://www.oocities.org/edhead01us/snubbed.html and http://www.oocities.org/edhead01us/HOF.html.)
I even got to talk to the HOF's director, who, to his credit, attempted to placate irated Edberg fans such as myself.
I don't know if it's a coincidence - the Swedes apparently established their own tennis hall of fame and at last week's Swedish Open in Bastadd there was some kind of ceremony to induct all three greats: Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and Stefan Edberg (see writeup and photo at http://www.oocities.org/edhead01us/).
No matter how you cut it, Edberg was slighted. I've lost my respect for the U.S.'s Hall Of Fame completely.
The Tennis Guy then responsed:
I don't think you understand the rule completely.
"Recent Player Category Eligibility Criteria Active as competitors in the sport within the last 20 years prior to consideration. Not a significant factor on the ATP Tour or the WTA Tour within five years prior to election. A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.
To be inducted as a Recent Player, a panel of the international tennis media votes on Recent Player nominees; a 75% favorable vote is required for Enshrinement."
Becker was ranked in the 100s when he retired, thus he was not a significant factor on the ATP Tour within five years prior to election. Thus Becker IS ELIGIBLE.
Second, a player doesn't get selected in the first two years when he is eligible, he has to wait certain time to be eligible again. Thus when Edberg was eligible, he probably lost to Mats Wilander (2002), Ivan Lendl (2001), which is fair to me.
I understand you are rooting for your favorite player, I am a big fan of Edberg as well. I don't think Edberg was slighted. It is more technicality and timing than anything.
And my final response:
Tennis Guy wrote: Becker was ranked in the 100s when he retired, thus he was not a significant factor on the ATP Tour within five years prior to election. Thus Becker IS ELIGIBLE. Edberg retired earlier when he was ranked No. 14 in 1996.
My response: Becker's year-end rankings were: 6 in 1996, 63 in 1997 and 69 in 1998 respectivly (see http://www.atpstat.de/en/players/becker.htm ), not in the 100s. This is why the Hall of Fame's ECO, Mark Stenner, gave the after-the-fact justification that a player that has fallen out the top 50s is considered no longer a significant factor, so that, by that reasoning, Becker would be eligible for nomination as of 1997. This argument flies in the face of logic and insults 90% of the pro-players on tour - those who are below the 50th ranking. Becker officially retired in 1999, and if he had to wait for 5 years, the earliest that he would be eligible for nomination (NOT induction) is THIS year.
The Tennis Guy wrote: Second, if a player loses in final ballot in the first two (?) years when he is eligible, he has to wait certain time to be eligible again. Thus when Edberg was eligible, he probably lost to Mats Wilander (2002), Ivan Lendl (2001), which is fair to me.
My response: If this were the case, I don't see why the Hall of Fame could not let it be known, especially when so many of us (including Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim) pressed them on the issue. To my knowledge, such a rule has not been articulated and, from my conversation with the Hall's CEO, I don't think he was aware of it either.
Tennis Guy wrote: I understand you are rooting for your favorite player, I am a big fan of Edberg as well. I don't think Edberg was slighted. It is more technicality and timing than anything.
My response: When pressed by Jon Wertheim, the justifications given by the Hall of Fame were (i) Becker was eligible by the rule of out of top 50 equals insignificant, and (ii) the HOF only wants to name one big-name per year to give said name the maximum publicity. These were the same arguments that I heard when I spoke to the CEO in person.
The HOF bent over backward to justify nominating Becker prematurely. If two big-names cannot be nominated at the same time, then why not Edberg now when he's eligible by rule and Becker next year? Also, rumor has it that Steffi Graf is a shoo-in for next year, and so I suppose Stefan will have to wait at least another year, possibly until Sampras, Agassi, and Michael Chang have had their turns?
QED: Edberg WAS slighted and will be viewed so by the tennis community.
Finally, I really hope that this is a reaction to the slight
from the U.S. Tennis Hall of Fame. In July of 2003, Stefan, along
with Bjorn Bork and Mats Willander, were inducted into the
Swedish Tennis Hall of Fame at the Swedish Open - the three
played an exhibition to open the tournament.
