Stefan Edberg - snubbed by the Tennis Hall of Fame
by M. L. Liu

Word has come 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 favoritism.
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
I immediately drafted this letter
to Tony Trabert. I expect to receive a response from Mr. Trabert.
|
|