PDA

View Full Version : Courier's performance at the 1992 French the greatest ever French Open performance


grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 09:35 PM
Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

Look over that draw. Muster in the 2nd round!?!? Just insane but he smoked him. Mancini has won BOTH Monte Carlo and Rome in his career, he was an excellent clay courter, and Courier thrashed him in the 3rd round. Medvedev was one of the hottest up and comers in the game at the time, and of course would go on to multiple Masters titles and a near French Open title in the futue. Ivanisevic is a many time slam finalist who has played well on all surfaces in his career, including clay. Agassi thrashd Sampras the round before, had been in the finals the last 2 years, and would win Wimbledon a month later, so was in good form, Courier just mauled him though. The easiest opponents were probably the first round of course and the final (for final standards) but remember Korda did win a slam in the future. So with an incredible draw including potential French Open winners in 2 of the first 3 rounds Courier ran roughshed over everyone. Possibly the greatest French Open performance ever?

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 09:46 PM
Courier vs Muster highlights of the 92 French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT9NNP3smNM&feature=related

Courier vs Ivanisevic highlights of the 02 French Open: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZZUapEEQkI&feature=PlayList&p=A532C1980F2AC8F6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Courier vs Agassi highlights of the 92 French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXBe7yNWNG0

Courier vs Korda highlight of the 92 French:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCeXFXwUAz0

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 09:52 PM
Agreed. I would put Courier that year up against ANYONE on clay and like his chances. Lendl, Borg, Nadal you name it.. Courier was unreal


Though I do have my reservations of 95 Muster beating Courier though.. Im not sure if Ive ever seen the level of play produced that Muster produced in 95

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 09:59 PM
Agreed. I would put Courier that year up against ANYONE on clay and like his chances. Lendl, Borg, Nadal you name it.. Courier was unreal


Though I do have my reservations of 95 Muster beating Courier though.. Im not sure if Ive ever seen the level of play produced that Muster produced in 95

Muster of 1995 vs Courier of 1992 would be an amazing match on clay! On hard courts or grass Courier of 1991-1993 would slaughter any Muster of course but on clay the 1995 Muster vs the 1992 Courier would be incredible.

It is amazing the glaring lack of respect Courier gets on these boards. People comparing him to 1 slam wonder Roddick and some other chumps. As if Roddick would win 4 slams in the 90s, he would be lucky to match the 1 he has now.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:02 PM
Muster of 1995 vs Courier of 1992 would be an amazing match on clay! On hard courts or grass Courier of 1991-1993 would slaughter any Muster of course but on clay the 1995 Muster vs the 1992 Courier would be incredible.

It is amazing the glaring lack of respect Courier gets on these boards. People comparing him to 1 slam wonder Roddick and some other chumps. As if Roddick would win 4 slams in the 90s, he would be lucky to match the 1 he has now.

Oh definitely a french open matchup of Courier of 92 vs. Muster 95 would have been one for the ages.. I agree though, Muster wouldnt stand a chance against a peak Courier on other surfaces.

Courier is very underrated IMO due to his peak/prime not last long.. But when he was at his best, he truly was a great great player. If he had longevity, I shudder to think how his career might have ended up.


Its a shame american men's tennis has dropped so far since Courier, Andre, and Pete graced the courts.


Since then all we have had left to root for are guys like Blake, Roddick, Isner, and Young.. YIKES.


It sunk so low so fast. Once Pete and Andre, that was it for america. But obviously you arent going to produce an array of players like Pete, Andre, Courier every generation. Not on their level anyways

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:07 PM
Oh definitely a french open matchup of Courier of 92 vs. Muster 95 would have been one for the ages.. I agree though, Muster wouldnt stand a chance against a peak Courier on other surfaces.

Courier is very underrated IMO due to his peak/prime not last long.. But when he was at his best, he truly was a great great player. If he had longevity, I shudder to think how his career might have ended up

Yeah he did have a short prime/peak and burnt out quickly, but boy he was a darn tough player during that peak. Had prime Sampras and peak Bruguera on clay not come along in 93-94 he might have ended up with 8 or 9 majors even with a short pime. It is too bad he didnt last longer really. It would have been amazing to see prime Sampras, resurgent and fitter Agassi, a prime Courier, and even a still strong Becker, all battling it out on all surfaces.

People on this board seem to worship longevity. I respect it to a point. I certainly respect the longevity of say Chris Evert who won atleast 1 slam for 13 straight years, or the longevity of Steffi Graf winning atleast 1 slam for 10 straight years, or the longevity of Pete Sampras- winning atleast 1 slam for 9 straight years. However I dont see what is so great about being in the top 10 forever like Roddick and winning only 1 slam. So you spend all that time near the top and that is all you have to show for it, 1 lucky slam.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:08 PM
In some good knows for America.. Roddick's confidence seems to have carried over from Wimbeldon. He took out Isner today in Washington . He'll be in the finals vs. Del Potro the defending champ..

Of course, that momentum will prolly only last until the late stages of the USO (quarters, semis, or maybe finals depending on his draw) than he will be back to mediocrity and we wont hear from his again until Wimbeldon next year.


Not sure if youre american.. But I am SO SICK of not having a great player to follow behind and repesent my country. Its truly a shame. We are represented by HACKS these days

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:13 PM
Oh I definitely agree about the longevity part. Longevity in the top 10 is something good to have on your resume. As it shows consistency.. But at the same time when you only have 1 slam to show for yourself for a decade, that shows me you werent good enough to get it done on the big stage. To me I look at that more as a 'era filling" not really accomplishing a great career for yourself.

True greats, prove themselves on the biggest stage.. Roddick never proved he could.

And even Roddick's solo slam was questionable due to the crazy calls in his match with Nalbandian.. Very questionable in deed. Roddick could very well be sitting on a big goose egg in the slam count

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:14 PM
Its a shame american men's tennis has dropped so far since Courier, Andre, and Pete graced the courts.


Since then all we have had left to root for are guys like Blake, Roddick, Isner, and Young.. YIKES.


It sunk so low so fast. Once Pete and Andre, that was it for america. But obviously you arent going to produce an array of players like Pete, Andre, Courier every generation. Not on their level anyways

It was just amazing when you had Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Chang all there at once. I woud even give honorable mention to Todd Martin as a pretty good 5th man, one of the better players to never win a major. I feel for Chang in a way as he was the first of the big 4 to win a major and never won a 2nd but boy he played some incredibly good tennis in his pursuit of another. He lost to the eventual champion of the U.S Open so many times, really the next best hard court player after Borg to never win a hard court slam. Of course he was a tough little clay courter too and did win a French, and reached another final there. Courier was actually the first of that group to dominate, even though he obviously ended up less accomplished than Sampras and Agassi both those guys have a tremendous amount of respect for him and how good he was. I remember both telling the press when the were #1 and #2 and Courier was only #14 that they always played Courier as if he were still a top 5 player. Of course Agassi such a long career with some up and downs which he kept coming out of a victor at the end, and endured him all the more to the public. Sampras, well what can you say about him, the guy is just the king. There were so many great matches between those 4 I remember too.

Now it is a joke like you said. What a joke to hear the hype about Blake the now perennial #2 (on occasion even #1, eek) American. How sad we have to hear talk about the supposed potential of John Isner and Donald Young, and a few years back had to hear the press trying to build up Ginepri, Fish, and Dent. Ugh. You wouldnt have even heard of those guys 15 years ago, except Roddick who would be more like Todd Martin back then, a respected and solid player who probably couldnt quite breakthrough to win a slam vs the killer field (except much less of a gentleman than Todd of course). How I miss the good old days, especialy for America tennis.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:19 PM
Oh I definitely agree about the longevity part. Longevity in the top 10 is something good to have on your resume. As it shows consistency.. But at the same time when you only have 1 slam to show for yourself for a decade, that shows me you werent good enough to get it done on the big stage. To me I look at that more as a 'era filling" not really accomplishing a great career for yourself.

True greats, prove themselves on the biggest stage.. Roddick never proved he could.

And even Roddick's solo slam was questionable due to the crazy calls in his match with Nalbandian.. Very questionable in deed. Roddick could very well be sitting on a big goose egg in the slam count

Yeah I agree with that. I respect it to a degree. It shows he mantained being a good solid player for a long time. However to be that high up in the game that long, and come through with only 1 slam (and a lucky one at that) really isnt a measure of true greatness IMO. I mean that long, that many chances, and that is all you have to show for it. Of course Roddick fans will hide behind Federer, but Roddick has lost to many more players than Federer. Anyway Federer as great as he is, isnt unbeatable. Nadal certainly has proven that. Nadal hasnt let the "Federer is too good" mantra weight him done, he has simply gone ahead and won slams anyway, if he had to beat Federer he did- which he has done for all 6 slams he won. The bottom line is you either get it done or you dont, and Roddick hasnt shown the ability to get it done on the biggest stages hardly ever.

You are right his U.S Open was suspect in some ways. So many things working against Nalbandian- the ridiculous schedule which was manipulated to cater for Roddick (with all the rain delays he was allowed to finish the next round when other guys hadnt finished a previous round in one of the rounds IIRC), and Nalbandian still was totally outplaying him and should have won in straights. Then that cheap fake OUT call by a fan which decided a huge point, a quesionable line call, that tiebreak where Roddick survived by the skin of his teeth was fortunate to say the least.

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1



He lost a set to Goran.

Thread failed. :)

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:22 PM
He lost a set to Goran.

Thread failed. :)

That was his off day of the tournament. :)

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Nadal last yr for me. The way he destroyed guys like Almagro and Verdasco, reputable clay courters soundly, and of course the beatdown he gave Fed in the finals. To me that's easily the greatest FO performance, to go through

Niemenen-only lost 5 games.
Verdasco-only lost 3 games
Almagro-a guy that actually led the tour in CC wins going into the FO...triple breadstick
Djokovic-a guy most thought could take a set or two, beat him in straights
Federer-only lost 4 games, bageled him in the final set, most embarassing loss at a slam for one of the greatest of all time.

That's impressive, and IMO the greatest FO performance I've ever seen.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:25 PM
Nadal last yr for me. The way he destroyed guys like Almagro and Verdasco, reputable clay courters soundly, and of course the beatdown he gave Fed in the finals. To me that's easily the greatest FO performance, to go through

Niemenen-only lost 5 games.
Verdasco-only lost 3 games
Almagro-a guy that actually led the tour in CC wins going into the FO...triple breadstick
Djokovic-a guy most thought could take a set or two, beat him in straights
Federer-only lost 4 games, bageled him in the final set, most embarassing loss at a slam for one of the greatest of all time.

That's impressive, and IMO the greatest FO performance I've ever seen.

I agree Nadal's 2008 French Open performance certainly is a candidate as well. However his draw was still nothing like Courier's in 92. Federer is the only one who compares to the guys in Courier's draw at the 92 French. Djokovic is a good clay courter but he isnt Agassi, Medvedev, Muster, or even Mancini on clay yet. Nieminen, Almagro, Verdasco are clowns compared to the likes of Medvedev, Mancini, or even Korda.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Nadal's performance last year was great.. But really the main threat had had last year was Djoker. (Fed proves as no threat at the French vs. nadal as history has shown). The first 3 guy: Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro.. I dunno... What type of careers have these guys really provided for themselves?

Verdasco can get hot and be on fire as we saw at the AO. But then totally sink into ground zero other times.. Very streaky.


Muster, Medvedev, and ANdre had their share of streakiness but at least they had some great results over their careers to show for themselves. Muster has an RG title, we know Andre's success, and Medvedev has quite a few clay master titles under his belt.. What have guys like Verdasco shown?

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:29 PM
Nadal's performance last year was great.. But really the main threat had had last year was Djoker. (Fed proves as no threat at the French vs. nadal as history has shown). The first 3 guy: Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro.. I dunno... What type of careers have these guys really provided for themselves?

Verdasco can get hot and be on fire as we saw at the AO. But then totally sink into ground zero other times.. Very streaky.


Muster, Andreev, and ANdre had their share of streakiness but at least they had some great results over their careers to show for themselves.. What have guys like Verdasco shown?

Except for this years Australian Open, Verdasco doesnt even show up to play Nadal either. I say that as a Nadal fan also. He grossly underperforms each time he steps on court with Nadal, even getting spanked and barely getting games vs a pre prime Nadal on hard courts back in 2005. Remember the two are close friends. I think many of Nadal's Spanish amigos underperform vs him, except for Moya who seems to be the other way around- Nadal has a hard time getting up for his young age mentor and big brother figure. Ferrero and Nadal arent close and Ferrero is able to step up and perform with more a chip on his shoulder and has a couple big wins over Nadal even past his prime.

Dont forget about Mancini who has won both Rome (beating Agassi in the final) and Monte Carlo in his career. To put it into perspective even Federer in a much weaker clay court field hasnt won either event. Imagine playing Muster and a Rome/Monte Carlo Champion in his career in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. You would never see that today, never. Instead today you see Ljubicic in the semis of the French, LOL!

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:32 PM
Yeah, Courier was awesome.

For two years.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:32 PM
Im sorry about the typo .. I met medvedev not Andreev...


We look at the results..

Medvedev- Many clay masters titles.. proved he could win some big tourneys on clay.

Andre- We know his career.. All around successful.

Muster- Streaky but a beast and proved he could win the French and due so in maybe the highest tennis level on clay ever played arguably of course.



Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro? Hmmmm.. Not much in terms of big career titles there.. None of which are very accomplished.



Im not sure how anyone could think that the 00's produced as many quality, solid clay courters as the 90s

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:34 PM
Niemenen I agree is a clown...lol.

But Almagro was a top 10 clay courter last yr...had the most CC wins last yr going into the FO, had 2 titles on clay...I'm not saying he had any shot to beat Nadal, but people I remember thought he'd at least challenge him...and Nadal totally destroyed him. Same w/ Verdasco and Federer.

Federer no threat at the FO? Fed had at least taken a set off of Nadal in every single one of their RG meetings before last yr. 6-1 in the 1st in 2006, anyone? But for Nadal to totally beat him down the way he did was shocking...after that performance, the thought was Nadal would go 3-4 yrs w/o losing a French. But then this yr....but that's another topic. :D

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:35 PM
Im sorry about the typo Grafrules .. I met medvedev not Andreev...


We look at the results..

Medvedev- Many clay masters titles.. proved he could win some big tourneys on clay.

Andre- We know his career.. All around successful.

Muster- Streaky but a beast and proved he could win the French and due so in maybe the highest tennis level on clay ever played arguably of course.



Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro? Hmmmm.. Not much in terms of big career titles there.. None of which are very accomplished.

I am actually not grafrules who is another poster, but I know who you meant when you said Andreev. :) Yeah I agree. Medvedev, Agassi, Muster are in another planet from Verdasco, Niemenen, Almagro on clay (well Agassi on everything else). Just compare their credentials, they say it all, and the Nadal excuse doesnt fly here as how many times have those three lost to Nadal (well Verdasco alot but he loses to a horde of other players too). As I said even Mancini who has Monte Carlo and Rome in his career is far superior a clay courter to those three.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:36 PM
Im sorry about the typo .. I met medvedev not Andreev...


We look at the results..

Medvedev- Many clay masters titles.. proved he could win some big tourneys on clay.

Andre- We know his career.. All around successful.

Muster- Streaky but a beast and proved he could win the French and due so in maybe the highest tennis level on clay ever played arguably of course.



Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro? Hmmmm.. Not much in terms of big career titles there.. None of which are very accomplished.



Im not sure how anyone could think that the 00's produced as many quality, solid clay courters as the 90s


More parity comes from less dominant players.

Just look at the WTA.

Yes, the 90s were the ATP equivalent of today's WTA. Even Yevgeny "Where can I collect my check?" Kafelnikov made out with multiple slams.

World Beater
08-08-2009, 10:36 PM
korda the king of topspin.

goran the versatile all court player

incredible opponents, i agree!

Mansewerz
08-08-2009, 10:37 PM
When you guys are done tooting each other's horns, stop dissing Roddick.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:38 PM
Dang I always get you two confused. LOL..



But Im waiting for fed fans or some other fan to chime in saying, no one else was allowed to achieve much success due to Roger and Nadal taking it all.


There may be some truth to that as no doubt Nadal and Fed are all time greats.. But I do think there comes a point when some responsibility or blame has to be placed on the opposition for not stepping up to the plate and winning.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:40 PM
More parity comes from less dominant players.

Just look at the WTA.

Yes, the 90s were the ATP equivalent of today's WTA. Even Yevgeny "Where can I collect my check?" Kafelnikov made out with multiple slams.


Kafelnikov could play on clay. Another very underrated player around here..

akv89
08-08-2009, 10:40 PM
I agree Nadal's 2008 French Open performance certainly is a candidate as well. However his draw was still nothing like Courier's in 92. Federer is the only one who compares to the guys in Courier's draw at the 92 French. Djokovic is a good clay courter but he isnt Agassi, Medvedev, Muster, or even Mancini on clay yet. Nieminen, Almagro, Verdasco are clowns compared to the likes of Medvedev, Mancini, or even Korda.

Nadal's draw in 08 was reasonably difficult, although not as difficult as Courier's. And Courier's draw, although quite difficult, isn't as gargantuan as you make it out to be either. The reason Nadal was more impressive in his run to the title was because of the extent of his domination. Nobody's won a major title that conclusively since Borg.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:40 PM
More parity comes from less dominant players.

Just look at the WTA.

Yes, the 90s were the ATP equivalent of today's WTA. Even Yevgeny "Where can I collect my check?" Kafelnikov made out with multiple slams.

Kafelnikov had a Serena Williams like approach to tennis. He tanked many of the regular tour events. The only difference is he never had the major endorsements of Serena so he played tons of events and tons of singles and doubles to collect as much prize money cheques as possible, but only the slams did he really care about 100%. Many people have a misconception of his abilities since he did make himself look bad in some ways with things like never even winning a Masters title and his long losing streaks to inferior players like Thomas Johansson However when it came to the slams the guy was a tough player. He has wins over Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Krajicek, and Stich in slams. He took Kuerten to 5 sets twice and a really tough 4 setter the 3 years he won the French. Otherwise he probably wins 1 or 2 of those 3 in addition to the 1 he already has. He played amazing tennis at the 97 year end Championships, thashing World #2 Chang and many other top ranked players before falling to a red hot Sampras in the final. In Australia he won the title then was runner up the next year. The guy could play some serious tennis on all surfaces except for grass where I admit he was mediocre. He just only really showed it in the big events.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:41 PM
Dang I always get you two confused. LOL..



But Im waiting for fed fans or some other fan to chime in saying, no one else was allowed to achieve much success due to Roger and Nadal taking it all.


There may be some truth to that as no doubt Nadal and Fed are all time greats.. But I do think there comes a point when some responsibility or blame is placed on the opposition for not stepping up to the plate and winning.

I wouldn't have to come in here to tell you you're wrong if you allowed for the possibility that Pete and the other "clay court giants" of the 90s just weren't that good on the stuff. Again, less dominant players will allow their opponents to achieve more, thereby making their resumes look better. It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

akv89
08-08-2009, 10:42 PM
Dang I always get you two confused. LOL..



But Im waiting for fed fans or some other fan to chime in saying, no one else was allowed to achieve much success due to Roger and Nadal taking it all.


There may be some truth to that as no doubt Nadal and Fed are all time greats.. But I do think there comes a point when some responsibility or blame has to be placed on the opposition for not stepping up to the plate and winning.

It's hard to do when Roger and Nadal are taking it all :p

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:43 PM
korda the king of topspin.

goran the versatile all court player

incredible opponents, i agree!

What a surprise that the queen Federer cheerleader showed up in this thread. Heaven forbid anyone be allowed to praise a non Federer contemporary without you showing up. Yes Goran and Korda are not legendary clay courters but keep in mind these were only the FIFTH and SIXTH toughest opponents of Courier's draw. So compare them to the fifth and sixth toughest opponents of a Nadal or Federer French Open draw, then we can talk.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:45 PM
What a surprise that the queen Federer cheerleader showed up in this thread. Heaven forbid anyone be allowed to praise a non Federer contemporary without you showing up. Yes Goran and Korda are not legendary clay courters but keep in mind these were only the FIFTH and SIXTH toughest opponents of Courier's draw. So compare them to the fifth and sixth toughest opponents of a Nadal or Federer French Open draw, then we can talk.



Like the dreaded Hanescu, almost 30 yr old Moya, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), ), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils and all of the rest of Roger's main RG conquests. LOL


Certainly looks like a regular king arthur round table of losers to me

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Again, less dominant players will allow their opponents to achieve more, thereby making their resumes look better. It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

Yes I agree entirely. Like how less dominant clay court players like Federer himself, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and whover ever constitutes a top clay courter today allow Nadal to achieve more on the surface, thereby making his resume look better. Even moreso how less dominant fast court players like Roddick, Hewitt, pre-2008 Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian allow Federer to achieve more, thereby making his resume look better. Not that difficult a concept to understand at all, for once we are in complete agreement. :)

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:47 PM
Kafelnikov had a Serena Williams like approach to tennis. He tanked many of the regular tour events. The only difference is he never had the major endorsements of Serena so he played tons of events and tons of singles and doubles to collect as much prize money cheques as possible, but only the slams did he really care about 100%. Many people have a misconception of his abilities since he did make himself look bad in some ways with things like never even winning a Masters title and his long losing streaks to inferior players like Thomas Johansson However when it came to the slams the guy was a tough player. He has wins over Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Krajicek, and Stich in slams. He took Kuerten to 5 sets twice and a really tough 4 setter the 3 years he won the French. Otherwise he probably wins 1 or 2 of those 3 in addition to the 1 he already has. He played amazing tennis at the 97 year end Championships, thashing World #2 Chang and many other top ranked players before falling to a red hot Sampras in the final. In Australia he won the title then was runner up the next year. The guy could play some serious tennis on all surfaces except for grass where I admit he was mediocre. He just only really showed it in the big events.

The point is that there's several slam winners in the 90s that will go down in the history books as "solid" players. Players like Kafelnikov are a great example of that type of player. Good all-around, but not that great. The only reason that they look like they were great is because they won a major (or two). What I'm saying is that some people here place too much of a correlation between 1-2 slams and greatness.

Pete was vulnerable to upsets outside of Wimbledon, Andre was physically or mentally absent for a substantial portion of the 90s, the 80s hold-overs were getting ready to retire, etc. Nadal and Federer take a lot of flak from people on these boards for winning so much and making the field look bad; I just don't think it's fair to hold their dominance (or Pete's lack of dominance) against the modern field.

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:47 PM
If we're talking about greatest performance....the only answer is Nadal. Nadal would have beaten all of Courier's opposition in straights in his 2008 form...I don't think you could say the same for Courier in his 1992 form against Fed and Djokovic. Don't just look at draw, think back to how dominant Nadal was, how invincible he seemed,...I don't see how the Courier performance can be better than Nadal's, simply for the fact that Nadal is a better clay courter than Courier.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:48 PM
Like the dreaded Hanescu,almost 30 yr old Moya, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), ), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils and all of the rest of Roger's main RG conquests. LOL

Haha thanks for posting that. Even the blind should be able to see what a joke the clay court field today is reading that. Heck if I had been in a coma for 6 years and read that I would assume you were posting Federer's first week (first 3 rounds) draws of the Frenh Opens the last 6 years or so. I would have never imagined that was all he had to beat to make 4 finals in a row and win this years French. Muster and Mancini are better than all of those players and they were just in Courier's first 3 rounds in only ONE draw.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:50 PM
Haha thanks for posting that. Even the blind should be able to see what a joke the clay court field today is reading that. Heck if I had been in a coma for 6 years and read that I would assume you were posting Federer's first week (first 3 rounds) draws of the Frenh Opens the last 6 years or so. I would have never imagined that was all he had to beat to make 4 finals in a row and win this years French. Muster and Mancini are better than all of those players and they were just in Courier's first 3 rounds in only ONE draw.

And People wonder I actually would give Sampras a chance in grabbing a French Open title somewhere between 02-04. Look at some of the field around that time. Sampras went out to far greater clay courters during that time.. Bruguera, Courier, and Andre.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 10:50 PM
If we're talking about greatest performance....the only answer is Nadal. Nadal would have beaten all of Courier's opposition in straights in his 2008 form...I don't think you could say the same for Courier in his 1992 form against Fed and Djokovic. Don't just look at draw, think back to how dominant Nadal was, how invincible he seemed,...I don't see how the Courier performance can be better than Nadal's, simply for the fact that Nadal is a better clay courter than Courier.

First of all I never implied Courier deserves to rank ahead of Nadal on clay. Nadal with his longevity and dominance over almost 5 years (even vs a crummy clay court field) is clearly ahead on the all time greatest clay courters list. Nowhere did I imply he wasnt. All I said was Courier's performance at the 92 French is IMO one of the greatest in history, considering the way he simply demolished a sick draw I would put his performance up there vs anyones in French Open history. That is all.

As for Courier in his 1992 form yes I think he could have easily gone through the 2008 draw in straight sets all things considered. He went through a much tougher draw in 92 losing only 1 set after all. You seem to forget Federer was playing horrible tennis at the 2008 French, the worst tennis he had played in a slam since 2002 probably (and I am far from a Federer fan). The fact he made the final at all playing that badly is testement to the field, of course even a 40% Federer can scrape past a clown like Monfils. Federer of 2005-2007 at the French might take sets from Courier 92, but not Federer of the 2008 French. Djokovic isnt some amazing clay courter. What has he proven so far, 1 win over Federer on clay in a bunch of tries, 0-3 or 0-4 vs David Ferrer on clay (LOL), 0-6 vs Nadal (even Fed has a couple wins atleast), 1 Masters title, and his biggest wins at the French are Gonzo and Mathieu. Courier of 92 absolutely would smack down Djokovic in 3 sets on clay. Djokovic would probably lose 9 of the first 11 games then retire with some "injury" or exhaustion

I also wouldnt be so sure at all Nadal of even 2008 goes through the 1992 draw in straight sets. Mancini, Muster, Medvedev, and Agassi all were in good form all might have a shot to take a set, or atleast make a closer score than they did with Courier. I have no doubt Nadal of 2008 would win the 1992 French if you replace Courier with him, but I wouldnt gaurantee him doing it as easily as Courier did.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:51 PM
Yes I agree entirely. Like how less dominant clay court players like Federer himself, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and whover ever constitutes a top clay courter today allow Nadal to achieve more on the surface, thereby making his resume look better. Even moreso how less dominant fast court players like Roddick, Hewitt, pre-2008 Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian allow Federer to achieve more, thereby making his resume look better. Not that difficult a concept to understand at all, for once we are in complete agreement. :)

And hey, that's fine. That's your opinion. I'm just tired of the gag reflex reaction of some of Sampras' acolytes whenever anyone mentions anything from the 90s.

I agree that some of the 90s players were more mentally strong than today's generation, but if you watch an average match from today and compare it to an average match from the 90s, you'll find that the game is played at a much higher level. Just about every tennis journalist these days claims that the level of the game is the best its ever been, mental issues aside.

I could argue that the lack of mental fortitude in some players comes from conditioned defeatist attitudes due to Federer and Nadal's dominance, though. :)

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:52 PM
And People wonder I actually would give Sampras a chance in grabbing a French Open title somewhere between 02-04. Look at some of the field around that time. Sampras went out to far greater clay courters during that time.. Bruguera, Courier, and Andre.

And he could also lose to much worse players than those three, lol.

Again, if you can't beat Galo Blanco and Santoro, you can't win a French Open.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:55 PM
And he could also lose to much worse players than those three, lol.

Again, if you can't beat Galo Blanco and Santoro, you can't win a French Open.


Not during that time at the French though. This is when Sampras at his best and firing on all cylinders on clay. Sampras made deeps runs and would eventually fall prey to Andre, Courier, and Bruguera around 92-94.. Take these 3 out and Sampras sees a much bigger window of opportunity 02-04

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:56 PM
And hey, that's fine. That's your opinion. I'm just tired of the gag reflex reaction of some of Sampras' acolytes whenever anyone mentions anything from the 90s.

I agree that some of the 90s players were more mentally strong than today's generation, but if you watch an average match from today and compare it to an average match from the 90s, you'll find that the game is played at a much higher level. Just about every tennis journalist these days claims that the level of the game is the best its ever been, mental issues aside.

I could argue that the lack of mental fortitude in some players comes from conditioned defeatist attitudes due to Federer and Nadal's dominance, though. :)


You summed up the 00's field with those simple 3 words :).

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:56 PM
Not during that time at the French though. This is when Sampras at his best and firing on all cylinders on clay. Sampras made deeps runs and would eventually fall prey to Andre, Courier, and Bruguera around 92-94.. Take these 3 out and Sampras sees a much bigger window of opportunity 02-04

Are you talking about 1992-1994 OR 2002-2004???

JeMar
08-08-2009, 10:57 PM
You summed up the 00's field with those simple 2 words :).

Yeah, shame that Sampras didn't have the game to do that to his opponents.

The sword cuts both ways.

Oh, and bold the whole sentence, not just the words that you like.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 11:00 PM
Are you talking about 1992-1994 OR 2002-2004???

Im saying if we put Sampras circa 92-94 into the 02-04 French Open draws. We take out Andre, Bruguera, and Courier.. Its no doubt Sampras sees a bigger window of opportunity open to grab a french.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 11:01 PM
And People wonder I actually would give Sampras a chance in grabbing a French Open title somewhere between 02-04. Look at some of the field around that time. Sampras went out to far greater clay courters during that time.. Bruguera, Courier, and Andre.

Yeah I totally agree. I dont think he would have beaten Ferrero in 2003 (although you never know since Sampras is an amazing big match player and Ferrero is 1-2 in slam finals all winnable matches so obviously is not), but 2002 and 2004 would be definite possabilities. 2004 would be the biggest of all, in fact I would be very surprised if you put Sampras of 1994 there if he didnt win it. If a time machine could be invented I would put some money down on that year. Who would he have to beat- the ridiculously overrated Coria who fell apart and gave away a title that should have been gift wrapped for him in that years worst ever clay court field, Gaudio who I think has no other quarters of the French and no Masters finals on clay, Nalbandian the slam semifinal choker who is mostly a hard court/indoors specialist anyway, Henman in the semis on clay, LOL!

People harp on many of Sampras's bad showings at the French or on clay in general but forget his prime on clay was 1992-1996, and during that time he had only one bad loss at the French. As for the other tournaments, Pete knew he wasnt cut out for the month to month grind of clay court tennis, he focused on the French and except for 1 time performed very well there in his prime, just losing to great clay courters and taking out several of them as well. Even so outside the French he won Rome, the second biggest clay court title, and a title Federer has yet to win, along with single handedly winning that Davis Cup final for the U.S on clay, again another title Federer has yet to attain.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 11:01 PM
Im saying if we put Sampras circa 92-94 into the 02-04 French Open draws. We take out Andre, Bruguera, and Courier.. Its no doubt Sampras sees a bigger window of opportunity open to grab a french.

Oh, can I borrow your time machine? I have some investments I'd like to make.

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 11:02 PM
The name 'Sampras' should not be brought up in a thread discussing the greatest FO performances ever...I'm sorry, that's just principle. :D

And big surprise how this shifts to a thread to bash this era once again...:roll:

Really guys, I didn't bash any of Couriers opponents, why feel the need to dismantle others arguments?

Using the eye test, not just rankings and whatever you 90s-***** use...Nadal last yr was the greatest I've ever seen. To say schooling Federer isn't impressive...only fooling yourselves.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 11:03 PM
Im saying if we put Sampras circa 92-94 into the 02-04 French Open draws. We take out Andre, Bruguera, and Courier.. Its no doubt Sampras sees a bigger window of opportunity open to grab a french.

I would also like to see 2004-2006 Federer play Costa for the RG title in 2002.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 11:06 PM
To say schooling Federer isn't impressive...only fooling yourselves.

To not recognize Federer was playing some of his most ever sh1t tennis at the 2008 French, and only made the final due to the joke clay court field and draws of today is to be really fooling yourself. I am a way bigger Nadal fan (one of my favorite players) than a Federer fan (I cant stand the guy as you well know anyway) so why on earth would I make that up if it werent true anyway. It is the truth. It was such a joke to see Federer play as badly as he did at last years French and still somehow scrape into the final due to the non existence of quality clay courter after Nadal, Federer, and to a lesser extent Djokovic (who was in Nadal's half as usual of course). Sad to see that even a really bad Federer on his worst surface by far is better than everyone else on it except Nadal and sometimes Djokovic.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 11:07 PM
I would also like to see 2004-2006 Federer play Costa for the RG title in 2002.

Federer lost to a clearly past his prime Costa when they played on clay in Rome in 2004.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Fed's advantage comes from the fact he gew up on clay, which obviously helps. Then there is style of play, Roger is point construction, while Pete is moreso point destruction. The clay blunts both of them as they are both shotmakers who fair better on quicker surfaces, but the clay blunts Sampras more. Federer uses spin while Sampras hits flat, and the clay accentuates the spin more.

Sampras on any given can likely beat anyone on clay and he's shown that. Look at the 1995 Davis Cup on an extremely slow clay, which became much slower when the Russians watered it down (to beat Germany and play the USA) and were even fined for doing so. Of 7 matches, or over a course of tournaments is where the style of play favours Roger. His style will hold up and is more adept than Sampras. Using an eastern grip small frame and hitting much more flatter than many who hit with spin(since Borg approx.) will no fair well unless you transplant him to the 1960's when everyone was doing that.

I've always said that the gap between the 2 is not as big as many like to portay it to be.
FRENCH OPEN
-1992 QF Agassi (Dre was in and favoured in the previous 2 French finals)
-1993 QF Bruguera (won the title that year, won 19 straight at RG, and ended Courier's 20 match win streak at RG)
-1994 QF Courier (this victory by JC made him 24-1 in his last 25 at RG only losing to Bruguera)
-1996 SF Kafelnivkov (beat Bruguera and Courier, Kafelnikov won the title and was in SF in 1995 beating Agassi in QF and losing to Muster and his 40 straight on clay in SF)

The only bad loss was 1995, which was 5 sets over 2 days. he won Rome, made the SF of Rome and Hambrug(twice) and QF of Rome. In 1997 Sampras came to RG with a plan to get through early rds ASAP, as he was gassed in SF in 1996 after 5 setters with Bruguera, Martin and Courier. He would have made a dep run as he went through 1st 2 rds with out incident, but fell ill with some kind of stomach virus before 3rd rd and lost. Maybe he would have won it, maybe not, but he was primed to make another deep run QF, SF or so.

After that it became sort of a phobia or Pete didn't care. Cause he didn't much after 1997. 1999 is also blown out of proportion. People talk about depth. Sampras lost to Medvedev in the 2nd rd. Medvedev won Monte carlo and Hamburg(3 times). 4 times(Courier 1992, Bruguera 1993, Muster 1995, Kuerten 1997) all beat him en route to RG titles. And after beating Sampras in 1999, Medvedev then beat Kuerten and was up 2 sets to love on Agassi in the final. The guy could play on clay.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 11:09 PM
Federer lost to a clearly past his prime Costa when they played on clay in Rome in 2004.

2005-2006 Federer then?

I'm just playing.

I'm 75% sure GameSampras doesn't have a time machine!

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 11:12 PM
9 of 13 yrs, Pete Sampras lost in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds of the FO (69% of the time)

8 of 13 yrs he lost in the 1st or 2nd rounds (62%)

He lost in the 1st round as many times as he made the QF, lost in the 2nd round more times than he made a QF or SF combined...yet this is all due to the strength of field? :roll:

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 11:14 PM
Fed's advantage comes from the fact he gew up on clay, which obviously helps. Then there is style of play, Roger is point construction, while Pete is moreso point destruction. The clay blunts both of them as they are both shotmakers who fair better on quicker surfaces, but the clay blunts Sampras more. Federer uses spin while Sampras hits flat, and the clay accentuates the spin more.

Sampras on any given can likely beat anyone on clay and he's shown that. Look at the 1995 Davis Cup on an extremely slow clay, which became much slower when the Russians watered it down (to beat Germany and play the USA) and were even fined for doing so. Of 7 matches, or over a course of tournaments is where the style of play favours Roger. His style will hold up and is more adept than Sampras. Using an eastern grip small frame and hitting much more flatter than many who hit with spin(since Borg approx.) will no fair well unless you transplant him to the 1960's when everyone was doing that.

I've always said that the gap between the 2 is not as big as many like to portay it to be.
FRENCH OPEN
-1992 QF Agassi (Dre was in and favoured in the previous 2 French finals)
-1993 QF Bruguera (won the title that year, won 19 straight at RG, and ended Courier's 20 match win streak at RG)
-1994 QF Courier (this victory by JC made him 24-1 in his last 25 at RG only losing to Bruguera)
-1996 SF Kafelnivkov (beat Bruguera and Courier, Kafelnikov won the title and was in SF in 1995 beating Agassi in QF and losing to Muster and his 40 straight on clay in SF)

The only bad loss was 1995, which was 5 sets over 2 days. he won Rome, made the SF of Rome and Hambrug(twice) and QF of Rome. In 1997 Sampras came to RG with a plan to get through early rds ASAP, as he was gassed in SF in 1996 after 5 setters with Bruguera, Martin and Courier. He would have made a dep run as he went through 1st 2 rds with out incident, but fell ill with some kind of stomach virus before 3rd rd and lost. Maybe he would have won it, maybe not, but he was primed to make another deep run QF, SF or so.

After that it became sort of a phobia or Pete didn't care. Cuz he didn't much after 1997. 1999 is also blown out of proportion. People talk about depth. Sampras lost to Medvedev in the 2nd rd. Medvedev won Monte carlo and Hamburg(3 times). 4 times(Courier 1992, Bruguera 1993, Muster 1995, Kuerten 1997) all beat him en route to RG titles. And after beating Sampras in 1999, Medvedev then beat Kuerten and was up 2 sets to love on Agassi in the final. The guy could play on clay.

Excellent breakdown. Your memory of that time period is great. You really documented well the strength of the 90s clay courts field, hence why I am so highly praising such dominant run as Courier's in 92, as that was almost unheard of in the 90s with the depth of the clay court fields.

The gap between Sampras and Federer on clay is indeed exagerrated. Federer is superior on clay but not by nearly the extent as their results. Federer gets a free ride to the French Open final every year, and with Nadal ever out like this year pretty much a free ride to the title. Heck he had a free ride to the title in the joke 2004 field and still blew it by losing to a hip cripped 90s holdover.

Put Sampras of 1992-1994 in the 2002-2004 clay court field and see what happens. Heck even 1997 to 1999 he probably could do better looking at the French looking at what is around now.

Put Federer of 2005-2009 vs the 1995-1999 fields and see if he is still making every big clay court final.

Datacipher
08-08-2009, 11:22 PM
korda the king of topspin.

goran the versatile all court player

incredible opponents, i agree!

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 11:23 PM
Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

I agree with everything you said on those 3 particular players. Many TW posters who are belittling those three have probably never even seen them play (especialy Mancini and Korda).

zagor
08-08-2009, 11:32 PM
@OP I agree,one of the best FO performances ever,his draw was brutal that year and yet he passed with flying colours.Funny that Courier destroyed so many claycourt specialists that year but Goran who's supposedly "just a serve" gave him some trouble,people forget that Goran while at his best on grass and carpet still reached 3 FO QFs,not too shabby.

I also agree that Courier is underrated as a player in general.

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

He was being sarcastic.Anyone who ever saw Korda play knows he hit flat,always loved to watch him when he's on.Had some great matches with Pete in the 90s(even at Wimbledon he managed to give him a good battle).

grafrules
08-08-2009, 11:40 PM
The French Open that year was marked by pure brilliance from Courier, a coming out party for the talented Korda, an emotional final attempt of a title run by the super taleted LeConte which ended in tears for him and the crowd by a brilliant Korda in the semis. Also great performances by Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Sampras against the odds, Agassi having a horrible year up until then and Ivanisevic and Sampras fast courters impressing on the red stuff.

On the womens side also brilliant. An amazing final between Graf and Seles, an amazing semifinal between Sabatini and Seles. A pretty good semifinal between Graf and Sanchez Vicario. An amazing performance by the unknown Kijimuta (spelling) who nearly took out Seles in the 4th round. Amazing quarterfinals where Zvereva nearly took out Graf 4 years after her finals humiliation, and Martinez and Sabatini, 2 of the greatest clay courters to never win the French, slugged it out over 3 tough sets.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 11:43 PM
I think that Courier maxed out on his talent with 4 slams and numerous other Masters and 250/500 titles. His playing style lent to an early burnout and that's why his peak was only 2.5 years.

Datacipher
08-08-2009, 11:55 PM
He was being sarcastic.Anyone who ever saw Korda play knows he hit flat,always loved to watch him when he's on.Had some great matches with Pete in the 90s(even at Wimbledon he managed to give him a good battle).

Yes. I figured he was, but of course, it's idiotic to belittle Korda for NOT using a lot of topspin, it was his ridiculously fast, deep drives that MADE him so dangerous. Amazing shotmaker. I'll never forget the night he made an amazing USO impact by rocking Andre Agassi in a nightmatch with forehand and backhand flat blasts out of nowhere. Agassi only stole the limelight back from him when he (out of frustration), got into a tiff with the ump that SHOULD have left him defaulted. Had Korda not fallen and hurt himself later in the match, he might have swung Agassi out anyways. (though people who saw the US Davis Cup tie, ALREADY knew about Korda)

Further, he made his post even more ridiculous, by implying Goran was NOT versatile. What a way to show you are spouting off about things you know NOTHING about. Goran made the QF or better of every slam. Won, multiple titles ON EVERY SURFACE, indoors, hard, clay, grass. The guy was a super dangerous on EVERYTHING.

PS. An interesting team to me was Ivanisevic and Korda. I first heard they were teaming in 1990. They actually made the FO doubles final. What a SCARY team that would be to face.

Datacipher
08-08-2009, 11:58 PM
The French Open that year was marked by pure brilliance from Courier, a coming out party for the talented Korda, an emotional final attempt of a title run by the super taleted LeConte which ended in tears for him and the crowd by a brilliant Korda in the semis. Also great performances by Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Sampras against the odds, Agassi having a horrible year up until then and Ivanisevic and Sampras fast courters impressing on the red stuff.
.

Agassi was trying to have a good FO, and really, was playing very well. Seem to recall him handling the solid Emilio Sanchez quite handily. What was amazing was how anti-climatic the showdown with Courier was. After their last few battles at the FO, this one was totally controlled by Courier. Mcenroe asked Agassi after, what he had tried, he said that thought he had noticed Agassi trying more topsin, flat balls, and other strategies, and Agassi admitted he threw everything at Courier but just couldn't get him off his game.

And of course, just a few weeks later, Agassi would get his first slam.

Cesc Fabregas
08-09-2009, 12:58 AM
Great performance from Courier, still some people on here think Roddick is better than him.

World Beater
08-09-2009, 01:08 AM
grafselesfan and gamesampras rubbing each other..how cute!

World Beater
08-09-2009, 01:12 AM
Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

LOL. you obviously didnt get it.

World Beater
08-09-2009, 01:15 AM
What a surprise that the queen Federer cheerleader showed up in this thread. Heaven forbid anyone be allowed to praise a non Federer contemporary without you showing up. Yes Goran and Korda are not legendary clay courters but keep in mind these were only the FIFTH and SIXTH toughest opponents of Courier's draw. So compare them to the fifth and sixth toughest opponents of a Nadal or Federer French Open draw, then we can talk.

no...the surprise is you hyping korda and ivanisevic to the sky.. LOL.

great run for courier. but those two aren't the reasons for it.

funny how the 5th and 6th toughest opponents also happen to occur in the FINALS and QUARTERFINALS. Really, now! the easy opponents are supposed to be in the first week, not the second week.

next time try harder.

Andy G
08-09-2009, 01:18 AM
Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

Look over that draw. Muster in the 2nd round!?!? Just insane but he smoked him. Mancini has won BOTH Monte Carlo and Rome in his career, he was an excellent clay courter, and Courier thrashed him in the 3rd round. Medvedev was one of the hottest up and comers in the game at the time, and of course would go on to multiple Masters titles and a near French Open title in the futue. Ivanisevic is a many time slam finalist who has played well on all surfaces in his career, including clay. Agassi thrashd Sampras the round before, had been in the finals the last 2 years, and would win Wimbledon a month later, so was in good form, Courier just mauled him though. The easiest opponents were probably the first round of course and the final (for final standards) but remember Korda did win a slam in the future. So with an incredible draw including potential French Open winners in 2 of the first 3 rounds Courier ran roughshed over everyone. Possibly the greatest French Open performance ever?


Best FO performance ever??
Steffi Graf 1988

R1 def Guerree-Spitzer 6-0 6-4
R2 def Reis 6-1 6-0
R3 def Sloane 6-0 6-1
R4 def Tauziat 6-1 6-3
QF def Fulco 6-0 6-1
SF def Sabatini 6-3 7-6
F def Zverera 6-0 6-0

yes double bagel in the final

look at all those 6-0 & 6-1 games. But, let me guess, its the WTA so for some reason it doesn't count. In 1988 I don't think any of the men could beat her.

grafselesfan
08-09-2009, 01:20 AM
no...the surprise is you hyping korda and ivanisevic to the sky.. LOL.

great run for courier. but those two aren't the reasons for it.

funny how the 5th and 6th toughest opponents also happen to occur in the FINALS and QUARTERFINALS. Really, now! the easy opponents are supposed to be in the first week, not the second week.

next time try harder.

If you actually knew anything about tennis and watched your first tennis before your 2007 you would realize that the French Open seed by rankings, not surface ability. Back in the days mens tennis actually had competition and depth there was such a thing as "specialists". Specialists of all kind- clay court specialists, grass court specialists, indoor specialists, hard courters, and all arounders who played well on all surfaces too. Players like Mancini and Muster often did not perform well on non clay surfaces (although Muster also sometimes did perform well on non clay surfaces) thus their seedings (if they even were seeded) would not be reflective of their clay court abilities. Players like Ivanisevic and Korda who performed well on all surfaces would get a pretty good seeding as a result, as they would be ranked highly based on their ability to perform on all surfaces.

Your insinuation is that the final round opponent is always the toughest. By your logic I guess Kuznetsova was the toughest opponent for Henin at the 2007 French, not Venus and Serena the rounds before. Next time think before you speak, try even making it a habit. It would do wonders for you.

grafselesfan
08-09-2009, 01:22 AM
Best FO performance ever??
Steffi Graf 1988

R1 def Guerree-Spitzer 6-0 6-4
R2 def Reis 6-1 6-0
R3 def Sloane 6-0 6-1
R4 def Tauziat 6-1 6-3
QF def Fulco 6-0 6-1
SF def Sabatini 6-3 7-6
F def Zverera 6-0 6-0

yes double bagel in the final

look at all those 6-0 & 6-1 games. But, let me guess, its the WTA so for some reason it doesn't count. In 1988 I don't think any of the men could beat her.

Graf is my all time favorite player, male or female, but yes you cannot compare mens and womens tennis really. Also while Graf was absolutely brilliant that isnt exactly the toughest ever draw for a women either (though it was still tougher than any draw at this years womens French Open).

World Beater
08-09-2009, 01:42 AM
If you actually knew anything about tennis and watched your first tennis before your 2007 you would realize that the French Open seed by rankings, not surface ability. Back in the days mens tennis actually had competition and depth there was such a thing as "specialists". Specialists of all kind- clay court specialists, grass court specialists, indoor specialists, hard courters, and all arounders who played well on all surfaces too. Players like Mancini and Muster often did not perform well on non clay surfaces (although Muster also sometimes did perform well on non clay surfaces) thus their seedings (if they even were seeded) would not be reflective of their clay court abilities.
.

oh right. the specialists, competition, depth argument. havent heard that one before...

muster won Monte Carlo and Florence that season and basically flunked every other MAJOR clay tournament before RG. would you like me to cite all his clay losses? that was not exactly a muster in clay prime form - he was not even ranked in the top 20.


here you go...

muster lost to that season:

R32 Vaclav Roubicek (CZE) N/A W 6-2, 6-4

R32 Renzo Furlan (ITA) N/A L 7-6(2), 3-6, 4-6

R16 Ivan Lendl (USA) 9 L 3-6, 4-6

R32 Lars Jonsson (SWE) 102 L 5-7, 4-6

R32 Paul Haarhuis (NED) 35 L 7-5, 3-6, 6-7(1)

R64 Jim Courier (USA) 1 L 6-7(1), 4-6

R64 Jim Courier (USA) 1 L 1-6, 4-6, 4-6

R32 Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 57 L 4-6, 1-6

R16 Emilio Sanchez (ESP) 19 L 5-7, 0-6

S Andrei Medvedev (UKR) 100 L 2-6, 2-6

S Alberto Mancini (ARG) 38 L 6-7(1), 1-6

R64 Henri Leconte (FRA) 96 L 6-7, 6-7, 4-6

Q Bernd Karbacher (GER) 82 L 3-6, 3-6

Muster in his best season could get to #1 with most of his pts coming from clay ...what does it tell you about him not even in the top 20 at this time? what was his clay form? muster kind of was owned by courier during this period. so it wasn't a huge surprise. do the research. courier beat muster bad in rome and earlier in the year on hardcourts.

so what is this crap about muster not having a high ranking because he was a specialist? he actually got to #1 by actually winning lots of clay tournaments and being essentially that - a specialist. muster deserved to draw courier in the second round - he wasn't all that hot.


Players like Ivanisevic and Korda who performed well on all surfaces would get a pretty good seeding as a result, as they would be ranked highly based on their ability to perform on all surfaces.

Your insinuation is that the final round opponent is always the toughest. By your logic I guess Kuznetsova was the toughest opponent for Henin at the 2007 French, not Venus and Serena the rounds before. Next time think before you speak, try even making it a habit. It would do wonders for you.
.

so what if goran and korda got a high seeding (korda was #9 btw)? they still have to win matches to get to the final rounds. its still NOT IMPRESSIVE and indicative of CLAY DEPTH when those guys are playing in the second week.

if ur clay depth argument is correct, other CLAY specialists who should have taken both korda and goran out on their non-preferred surfaces. mancini, medvedev and muster aren't the only clay players around, right? But where was the clay depth to take care of goran (surface specialist) and korda (clay was not his preferred surface)?

a difference of semi vs quarter...or final vs semi is no problem.

but a difference between 2nd round and QF...3rd round and final...yes that is usually a difference in quality. the best players get to the latter rounds - one or two rounds not necessarily a huge difference... but 1st week vs 2nd week - definitely.

and i still havent figured out what the hell federer has anything to do with this thread, but somehow you managed to include him in your post. you are quite amazing, really!

not sure where i referred to nadal's performances as more impressive, either, LOL. you just pulled that one from thin air.

bottomline - i found your characterizations of goran and korda hilarious. now you are just backtracking claiming they were actually among the weakest opponents in courier's draw. so i guess courier had a nice fortune in the second week with two of his opponents playing on their least preferred surfaces.

World Beater
08-09-2009, 02:01 AM
medvedev wasn't even top 100 at the time and wouldnt hit make a major ranking jump until later in the year that too..not on CLAY. it was the HC season.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-09-2009, 02:04 AM
Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

Look over that draw. Muster in the 2nd round!?!? Just insane but he smoked him. Mancini has won BOTH Monte Carlo and Rome in his career, he was an excellent clay courter, and Courier thrashed him in the 3rd round. Medvedev was one of the hottest up and comers in the game at the time, and of course would go on to multiple Masters titles and a near French Open title in the futue. Ivanisevic is a many time slam finalist who has played well on all surfaces in his career, including clay. Agassi thrashd Sampras the round before, had been in the finals the last 2 years, and would win Wimbledon a month later, so was in good form, Courier just mauled him though. The easiest opponents were probably the first round of course and the final (for final standards) but remember Korda did win a slam in the future. So with an incredible draw including potential French Open winners in 2 of the first 3 rounds Courier ran roughshed over everyone. Possibly the greatest French Open performance ever?

Fantastic performance, no doubt!! However, Muster was FAR from his prime in 1992, Kroon was an overweight Swedish journey-man who spent the night playing poker and chasing women, and how in the hell did he lose a set 2-6 against Goran on clay??:shock:

World Beater
08-09-2009, 02:06 AM
Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.


*sarcasm*

10 char.

allcourter2008
08-09-2009, 02:07 AM
Courier played some great tennis, but that's hardly the best ever FO performance.

Agassi was still a ballbasher, Ivanisevic was never a threat on clay, Muster way below his 95 level, Korda's a better version of Blake.

I think Courier's opponents had a combined amount of 0 slams and 1 slam finals at that point.

World Beater
08-09-2009, 02:09 AM
Courier played some great tennis, but that's hardly the best ever FO performance.

Agassi was still a ballbasher, Ivanisevic was never a threat on clay, Muster way below his 95 level. I think his opponents had a combined amount of 0 slams and probably 0 slam finals at that point.

pretty much agree. although i wont comment on agassi.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-09-2009, 02:09 AM
Great performance from Courier, still some people on here think Roddick is better than him.
Not on clay, but a lot better on grass, a little better on HC.

allcourter2008
08-09-2009, 02:14 AM
pretty much agree. although i wont comment on agassi.

Agassi was a ballbasher in his earlier days, he went way too often for broke. That's why he wasn't consistent back then, he could lose and win against pretty much anyone.

jamesblakefan#1
08-09-2009, 02:29 AM
Nadal's 2008 French Open:

R128 Thomaz Bellucci (BRA) 76 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
R64 Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 148 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-1
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 26 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R16 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 23 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 20 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(3)
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

Nadal won 21 sets during the 08 FO. 12 of those sets were either 6-0 or 6-1.

Nicolas Almagro-led the tour in CC wins going into the FO last season (24). Was playing the best tennis of his career, coming off 2 titles and career high rank of 17.

Again, the fact not that he lost, but got TRIPLE BREADSTICKED is what is so impressive.

Novak Djokovic-had won the MS title in Rome coming into the FO. Former QF and SF at the French. Nadal took it easy on him-he at least got to a breaker. Another straight sets victory.

Roger Federer-in 3 previous RG meetings, had at least managed to take a set off of Nadal. Yet Nadal absolutely embarrases him, allowing him to win only 4 games. Sure, Fed was off form, but 4 GAMES? Even a minorly off form Fed would get more than 4 games, Nadal was just playing exemplary tennis at this stage, the most impressive GS final performance seen in a long time.

To put 7 matches together like this, IMO no question, Rafael Nadal 2008 was the greatest performance in FO history.

fluffy Beaver
08-09-2009, 02:40 AM
Nadal last yr for me. The way he destroyed guys like Almagro and Verdasco, reputable clay courters soundly, and of course the beatdown he gave Fed in the finals. To me that's easily the greatest FO performance, to go through

Niemenen-only lost 5 games.
Verdasco-only lost 3 games
Almagro-a guy that actually led the tour in CC wins going into the FO...triple breadstick
Djokovic-a guy most thought could take a set or two, beat him in straights
Federer-only lost 4 games, bageled him in the final set, most embarassing loss at a slam for one of the greatest of all time.

That's impressive, and IMO the greatest FO performance I've ever seen.

Niemenen I agree is a clown...lol.

But Almagro was a top 10 clay courter last yr...had the most CC wins last yr going into the FO, had 2 titles on clay...I'm not saying he had any shot to beat Nadal, but people I remember thought he'd at least challenge him...and Nadal totally destroyed him. Same w/ Verdasco and Federer.

Federer no threat at the FO? Fed had at least taken a set off of Nadal in every single one of their RG meetings before last yr. 6-1 in the 1st in 2006, anyone? But for Nadal to totally beat him down the way he did was shocking...after that performance, the thought was Nadal would go 3-4 yrs w/o losing a French. But then this yr....but that's another topic. :D

Nadal's 2008 French Open:

R128 Thomaz Bellucci (BRA) 76 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
R64 Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 148 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-1
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 26 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R16 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 23 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 20 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(3)
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

Nadal won 21 sets during the 08 FO. 12 of those sets were either 6-0 or 6-1.

Nicolas Almagro-led the tour in CC wins going into the FO last season (24). Was playing the best tennis of his career, coming off 2 titles and career high rank of 17.

Again, the fact not that he lost, but got TRIPLE BREADSTICKED is what is so impressive.

Novak Djokovic-had won the MS title in Rome coming into the FO. Former QF and SF at the French. Nadal took it easy on him-he at least got to a breaker. Another straight sets victory.

Roger Federer-in 3 previous RG meetings, had at least managed to take a set off of Nadal. Yet Nadal absolutely embarrases him, allowing him to win only 4 games. Sure, Fed was off form, but 4 GAMES? Even a minorly off form Fed would get more than 4 games, Nadal was just playing exemplary tennis at this stage, the most impressive GS final performance seen in a long time.

To put 7 matches together like this, IMO no question, Rafael Nadal 2008 was the greatest performance in FO history.

umm, do you just keep copying and pasting your own post but slightly keep editing each one? You've basically said the same thing 3 times, I think we get your point.

prosealster
08-09-2009, 04:21 AM
Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

sure korda was a awesome ball striker....i was a big fan of his...but we cant ignore the fact that he has done nothing on clay...when he is on..he is awesome...but he lacked the consistency to succeed on clay..

agree with mancini....huge ball striker

aphex
08-09-2009, 05:05 AM
Wow! korda made the RG final?

The 90s is clearly a very weak era.

Amirite GS?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-09-2009, 05:12 AM
Wow! korda made the RG final?

The 90s is clearly a very weak era.

Amirite GS?
Lol, you are gonna give him grey hair:)

drwood
08-09-2009, 05:09 PM
Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

Look over that draw. Muster in the 2nd round!?!? Just insane but he smoked him. Mancini has won BOTH Monte Carlo and Rome in his career, he was an excellent clay courter, and Courier thrashed him in the 3rd round. Medvedev was one of the hottest up and comers in the game at the time, and of course would go on to multiple Masters titles and a near French Open title in the futue. Ivanisevic is a many time slam finalist who has played well on all surfaces in his career, including clay. Agassi thrashd Sampras the round before, had been in the finals the last 2 years, and would win Wimbledon a month later, so was in good form, Courier just mauled him though. The easiest opponents were probably the first round of course and the final (for final standards) but remember Korda did win a slam in the future. So with an incredible draw including potential French Open winners in 2 of the first 3 rounds Courier ran roughshed over everyone. Possibly the greatest French Open performance ever?

Agreed...I loved Courier's game -- VERY underrated on these boards. His record against Sampras after 91 was like Roddick vs. Fed -- good enough to get deep into slams, but couldn't beat Pete when it mattered (92 US Open semis, 93 Wimby final, 94 Aus SF, 95 Aus QF, 95 US SF, even 96 French for goodness sakes -- only win was 94 French)

Muster 95 was great, but he was getting KILLED in the final against Chang 5-2 in the first set before Chang choked. Prime Courier beats prime Muster b/c he did it in the same era against much better competition. Prime Courier would have never lost to someone like Stich on clay.

I'm not sure how prime Courier would stack up against prime Nadal on clay. Would probably give the edge to Nadal b/c superior movement and backhand, but its not by much...

The-Champ
08-09-2009, 08:39 PM
Nadal's performance last year was great.. But really the main threat had had last year was Djoker. (Fed proves as no threat at the French vs. nadal as history has shown). The first 3 guy: Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro.. I dunno... What type of careers have these guys really provided for themselves?

Verdasco can get hot and be on fire as we saw at the AO. But then totally sink into ground zero other times.. Very streaky.


Muster, Medvedev, and ANdre had their share of streakiness but at least they had some great results over their careers to show for themselves. Muster has an RG title, we know Andre's success, and Medvedev has quite a few clay master titles under his belt.. What have guys like Verdasco shown?

I'd pick Djokovic over medvedev anytime anywhere. Djokovic had to face Nadal twice in a semi-final at the FO. Everytime he makes a final of masters series on clay, Nadal was always there to stop him, how many times did that happen this year for instance?

You could argue for muster and AA though.

thalivest
08-09-2009, 09:02 PM
I'd pick Djokovic over medvedev anytime anywhere. Djokovic had to face Nadal twice in a semi-final at the FO. Everytime he makes a final of masters series on clay, Nadal was always there to stop him, how many times did that happen this year for instance?

You could argue for muster and AA though.

There are many others who can stop Djokovic on clay besides Nadal. He is 0-3 vs David Ferrer on clay for goodness sakes. He only beat Federer once and Roger played awful in that match and still had break points to go up a set and two breaks. This years French he wasnt in Nadal's half and Kohlschreiber stopped him in 3 straight sets. The 3 Frenchs before that he lost to Nadal but who did he have to beat. One good win over Gonzalez, and one so so win over Mathieu, thats it.

Djokovic would never beat prime Kuerten in straight sets at the French as Medvedev did once.

JennyS
08-09-2009, 09:08 PM
An American man having a dominant French Open. What a concept!

egn
08-09-2009, 09:10 PM
Borg 1978 lost ONLY 32 GAMES ALL TOURNAMENT.

Courier lost 63...that is nearly twice as many. Not to mention Courier was winning it all on his forehand, he was very good on clay, but a primed Borg, Lendl, Muster, Kureten or Nadal would have disposed of him in my opinion within 4 sets.

The strength of the draws is basically the same, frankly if we are going to talk about the best ever French Open performance calculating draw strength it has to go to 1982 Wilander.

Wilander beat 4 top 5 PLAYERS in a row, who were all outstanding clay players, two won the French Open, one won multiples, Clerc made multiple semifinals and Vitas made semis and finals on the surface. The four were strong clay courters and Wialdner beat all 4 of them in a row in one tournament. That deserves quite a bit of recognition. Mind you 82 was the year Lendl was supposed to win the French, and nobody expected Wilander to get through any of them and especially Vilas. If we are talking impressive that is impressive but best performance is Borg 78, I don't know how this can be argued.

Steve132
08-09-2009, 09:29 PM
Nadal's 2008 French Open:

R128 Thomaz Bellucci (BRA) 76 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
R64 Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 148 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-1
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 26 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R16 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 23 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 20 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(3)
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

Nadal won 21 sets during the 08 FO. 12 of those sets were either 6-0 or 6-1.

Nicolas Almagro-led the tour in CC wins going into the FO last season (24). Was playing the best tennis of his career, coming off 2 titles and career high rank of 17.

Again, the fact not that he lost, but got TRIPLE BREADSTICKED is what is so impressive.

Novak Djokovic-had won the MS title in Rome coming into the FO. Former QF and SF at the French. Nadal took it easy on him-he at least got to a breaker. Another straight sets victory.

Roger Federer-in 3 previous RG meetings, had at least managed to take a set off of Nadal. Yet Nadal absolutely embarrases him, allowing him to win only 4 games. Sure, Fed was off form, but 4 GAMES? Even a minorly off form Fed would get more than 4 games, Nadal was just playing exemplary tennis at this stage, the most impressive GS final performance seen in a long time.

To put 7 matches together like this, IMO no question, Rafael Nadal 2008 was the greatest performance in FO history.

A very impressive performance, no doubt, but Borg's in 1978 can match it. Borg lost only 32 games in 7 matches on his way to the title, beating clay court specialists such as Bertolucci, Ramirez, Barazzutti and Vilas.

Borg was almost as spectacular in 1980, losing just 38 games in 7 matches, but I don't think that his competition was quite as strong. His 1978 tournament and Nadal's 2008 win are in my view easily the most dominant performances at Roland Garros in the Open era.

Blinkism
08-09-2009, 09:46 PM
grafselesfan is actually Jim Courier in disguise

drwood
08-09-2009, 10:05 PM
Borg 1978 lost ONLY 32 GAMES ALL TOURNAMENT.

Courier lost 63...that is nearly twice as many. Not to mention Courier was winning it all on his forehand, he was very good on clay, but a primed Borg, Lendl, Muster, Kureten or Nadal would have disposed of him in my opinion within 4 sets.

The strength of the draws is basically the same, frankly if we are going to talk about the best ever French Open performance calculating draw strength it has to go to 1982 Wilander.

Wilander beat 4 top 5 PLAYERS in a row, who were all outstanding clay players, two won the French Open, one won multiples, Clerc made multiple semifinals and Vitas made semis and finals on the surface. The four were strong clay courters and Wialdner beat all 4 of them in a row in one tournament. That deserves quite a bit of recognition. Mind you 82 was the year Lendl was supposed to win the French, and nobody expected Wilander to get through any of them and especially Vilas. If we are talking impressive that is impressive but best performance is Borg 78, I don't know how this can be argued.

Because the level of Borg's competition in 78 wasn't great -- remember Connors didn't even play the French that year, and he had beaten Borg 2 yrs earlier in the US Open final on clay.

No one has DOMINATED the high level of competition at a French from start to finish the way Courier did in 92. I agree that prime Nadal is better, but prime Courier would definitely beat prime Muster -- he owned him on all surfaces, including clay.

None of Nadal's draws compare with Courier's 1992 draw.

Steve132
08-09-2009, 10:47 PM
Because the level of Borg's competition in 78 wasn't great -- remember Connors didn't even play the French that year, and he had beaten Borg 2 yrs earlier in the US Open final on clay.

I beg to differ. Borg had to get past four clay court specialists on his way to the 1978 title - Bertolucci, Ramirez, Barazzutti and Vilas. They represented competition at least as strong as any that Courier ever faced.

No one has DOMINATED the high level of competition at a French from start to finish the way Courier did in 92. I agree that prime Nadal is better, but prime Courier would definitely beat prime Muster -- he owned him on all surfaces, including clay.

In 1982 Mats Wilander had to defeat Lendl, Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas to win the French Open. That was a stronger clay court field than any seen in the 90's.

egn
08-10-2009, 01:06 AM
Excellent breakdown. Your memory of that time period is great. You really documented well the strength of the 90s clay courts field, hence why I am so highly praising such dominant run as Courier's in 92, as that was almost unheard of in the 90s with the depth of the clay court fields.

The gap between Sampras and Federer on clay is indeed exagerrated. Federer is superior on clay but not by nearly the extent as their results. Federer gets a free ride to the French Open final every year, and with Nadal ever out like this year pretty much a free ride to the title. Heck he had a free ride to the title in the joke 2004 field and still blew it by losing to a hip cripped 90s holdover.

Put Sampras of 1992-1994 in the 2002-2004 clay court field and see what happens. Heck even 1997 to 1999 he probably could do better looking at the French looking at what is around now.

Put Federer of 2005-2009 vs the 1995-1999 fields and see if he is still making every big clay court final.

Sampras could get a final from 2002-2004 but lets be real him winning is still quite a stretch. We all trash on Coria but he played damn good clay court tennis and I am not sure if he would actually be able to choke away that lead to Sampras. The problem with Sampras is his style of play did not suit clay, seriously, whether or not he played the best year of his life a strong defensive baseliner good take him out on the surface. Especially one who could run down his volleys on clay like Coria or Gaudio. Lets be real if you play on clay and use a serve and volley strategy those balls will be sitting up and speedy guys will have tons of time to get to those balls. Coria and Gaudio were two of the fastest players on the tour, Coria was actually praised as the faster player until Monfils came around. Their speed plus the extra time clay would give for them to reach the volleys would hurt the strategy. I doubt Sampras could go toe to toe with them in long baseline rallys with a lot of topspin and as much of a big match player he is, I just frankly don't think he could actually pull it off. Everyone talks oh HENMAN made it to the semis, well Rafter made it to the semis in the 90s and so did Krajicek.

Krajicek fell to Courier in 1993
Rafter to Brug in 1997
Henman to Coria in 2004
Sampras was better than all of them yes, but in reality good serve and volley players and great ones will fall on clay to a strong baseliner even if they play their best. See French Open 1984 final. There are odditys (Panatta/Borg) but I don't think Sampras would be that oddity. He was not comfortable on clay, he never tried hard enough to win there and frankly unless he could completely own Coria's serve I don't see him winning against him. Gaudio who knows..depends on which Gaudio shows up.

So here comes my trashing...

On The Federer statement, no offense who in the late 90s stops a prime Federer..he doesn't win 95..but 96-99 are all possibilities. Lets see Stitch and Kafelnikov, old aching bones Brug and baby Kuerten (OH NO HE LOST TO OLD KUERTEN..lets not bring up though the fact that Fed handeled him pretty easiliy in 2002), then in 1998..Moya, Mantilla, Pilione...Corretja could definitely give him troubles though..I would not be suprised if Corretja 98 could be a prime Fed but I think prime Fed would perform a lot better than he did in 2000 and 1999 a year when nobody in the top 10 was a semifinalist, Corretja played like garbage, Kuerten was not in prime and Medvedev resurged, its fair to say he has a good chance in these French Opens. If we are going to hand Sampras one between 2002-2004 I think you should acknowledge Fed would pikc up 1 if not 2 between 96-99.


Because the level of Borg's competition in 78 wasn't great -- remember Connors didn't even play the French that year, and he had beaten Borg 2 yrs earlier in the US Open final on clay.

No one has DOMINATED the high level of competition at a French from start to finish the way Courier did in 92. I agree that prime Nadal is better, but prime Courier would definitely beat prime Muster -- he owned him on all surfaces, including clay.

None of Nadal's draws compare with Courier's 1992 draw.


Connors beat Borg on clay in 76 so him not being present how makes the field weak? Borg by 78 was far better than he was in 76. Second of all Vilas and Ramirez were damn strong as well as Barazzutti. I don't think of Korda to be that impressive he was not that strong on clay he made a good run, Medvedev is equal to Ramierz and Vilas is equal to either Muster or Agassi whichever one you want though I think he was better than both on clay anyway, Muster was way too inconsistent and Vilas was more suited to the surface. Tanner is just like Ivansevic and the other random players probably slightly favor Borg as the ones he played were clay court specialists though overall Courier wins out because Vilas is like Agassi and Muster trumps one of the Borg clay court specialists for not being as good as Muster. HOWEVER...I am pretty sure Borg not dropping a set and losing about 30 less games than Courier more than makes up for this..