Dear Sir:

First of all, please allow me to express my appreciation of you as a great tennis player as well as an excellent tennis match commentator/instructor, and for all your contributions to the sport of tennis.

Kat Anderson referred me to you about an enquiry regarding the recent announcement of the 2003 Tennis Hall of Fame nominations. According to a news articles that I read, "(Boris) Becker is the lone nominee in the Recent Player Category."

This was rather startling news. I and many fans of the Swedish player Stefan Edberg had long assumed that Mr. Edberg, who retired in 1996, would be a shoo-in for the nomination and induction, just as soon as he becomes eligible, which happens to be this year. To us, the announcement that Mr. Becker rather than Mr. Edberg as this year's nominee is jarring, as it amounts to a slight on Mr. Edberg.

And it is rather baffling. According to the literature 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

In terms of “records of competitive achievement”, I think it is generally agreed that Mr. Edberg and Mr. Becker have comparable records - 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, both players deserve to be honored. (Incidentally, the announcement made a mistake about Becker’s records, stating that he was number one ranked for 109 weeks, which is wrong – Mr. Bjorn Borg holds that record. Mr. Becker occupied the number one rank for twelve weeks.)

Consider the "ancillary consideration" of sportsmanship and character then. This is what we found especially bewildering, because on those terms our belief is that Mr. Edberg is universally considered exemplary.

But most puzzling is that it seems to us that Mr. Becker should not even be eligible for the nomination 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." According to official records, Mr. Becker played through June 1999 and reached final in Hong Kong in April of that year. My calculation tells me that it has only been three years since Mr. Becker has “not been a significant factor in competition tennis.” Meanwhile, Mr. Edberg retired at the end of 1996, and certainly satisfies that criterion.

To us, the nomination of Mr. Becker instead of Mr. Edberg is bewildering and, frankly, smacks of favoritism. To us, this nomination has brought into question the validity of the Tennis Hall of Fame. On behalf of the fans of Stefan Edberg, I would like to request an explanation of the rationale behind this year’s nomination of the Recent Player Category. Specifically, I would appreciate an explanation of (i) why is Mr. Becker eligible so soon, and (ii) why is Mr. Edberg overlooked.