PDA

View Full Version : The '0-3' Club


Moose Malloy
11-27-2009, 05:33 PM
Here is the list of all the players to go 0-3 in the RR portion of this event since 1990.

I put a * next to the players that didn't manage to win one set in those years.

Verdasco & Muster are the only players to go 3 sets in all of their 3 matches.

2009: Verdasco, Nadal *
2007: Djokovic *
2005: Puerta, Coria
2004: Gaudio *, Coria *
2003: Ferrero
2002: Safin
2001: Kuerten, Rafter
2000: Norman
1999: Lapentti *
1998: Kucera
1995: Kafelnikov, Muster
1994: Ivanisevic, Berasategui *
1993: Bruguera, Courier
1992: Chang, Korda
1991: Novacek, Stich *
1990: Sanchez, Gomez

Tsonga#1fan
11-27-2009, 05:38 PM
Here is the list of all the players to go 0-3 in the RR portion of this event since 1990.

I put a * next to the players that didn't manage to win one set in those years.

Verdasco & Muster are the only players to go 3 sets in all of their 3 matches.

2009: Verdasco, Nadal *
2007: Djokovic *
2005: Puerta, Coria
2004: Gaudio *, Coria *
2003: Ferrero
2002: Safin
2001: Kuerten, Rafter
2000: Norman
1999: Lapentti *
1998: Kucera
1995: Kafelnikov, Muster
1994: Berasategui *
1993: Bruguera, Courier
1992: Chang, Korda
1991: Novacek, Stich *
1990: Sanchez, Gomez

*Interesting. Djokovic in '07 and Nadal in '09 are by far the biggest names to get swept so badly.

thejoe
11-27-2009, 05:41 PM
I would argue Stich as being a much bigger name than Djokovic.

Andres
11-27-2009, 05:46 PM
I would argue Stich as being a much bigger name than Djokovic.
And Rafter. And Kafelnikov. And Muster. And Ferrero. And Kuerten. And Safin. And Courier. All former #1s.

Tsonga#1fan
11-27-2009, 05:56 PM
*i Said Swept So Badly*, As The Poster Noted They Not Only Went 0-3, But Failed To Win A Set!

I hear the argument for Stich being a bigger name, but I don't buy it. Certainly by the time Djokovic's career is over there will be no comparison.

Carsomyr
11-27-2009, 07:31 PM
Interesting to note: both Djokovic and Stich would go on to win the tournament after their debacles, Djokovic a year later and Stich, two years later.

matchmaker
11-27-2009, 07:51 PM
I guess in a competition with the 8 best players, this is what you are bound to get. At least it sheds some light on Nadal's performance and how it is not the end of the world really.

Blinkism
11-27-2009, 08:29 PM
Djokovic had a horrible start to his 2008 season.

:)

Agassifan
11-27-2009, 08:36 PM
Almost all of those guys are claycourt specialists. So not surprising.

MuseFan
11-27-2009, 08:49 PM
Almost all of those guys are claycourt specialists. So not surprising.

Safin and Djokovic are not claycourt specialists.

kishnabe
11-27-2009, 09:26 PM
Seems like Coria and Gaudio were swept away real bad, Really shows how inconsistent they are! Also make a spoof of French Open 2004.

flying24
11-27-2009, 09:34 PM
I would argue Stich as being a much bigger name than Djokovic.

I wouldnt agree with that in the least. Djokovic has been a top 3 player for 3 years running now. He already has 1 slam and 1 year end title like Stich, but has 5 Masters titles in the last 3 years alone already as well. Stich has never come close to that kind of consistency or overall impact. Stich was never such a prominent figure near the very top of the mens game, and thought about as a possible pretender to #1 and a major contender to maybe win at nearly slam the way Djokovic is now.

flying24
11-27-2009, 09:41 PM
And Rafter. And Kafelnikov. And Muster. And Ferrero. And Kuerten. And Safin. And Courier. All former #1s.

Kafelnikov was one of the worst #1s in history, probably the second worst after Rios. He got there by virtual default. Rafter was a great player, but also a very weak #1 considering he was never close to a dominant player and spent only 1 week there. Muster was a great clay courter, but likewise a weak #1 as he got there very briefly only on the basis of his clay court excellence. Ferrero sure as heck was never a better player than Djokovic is today, better on clay, but not overall. Being #1 at some point in your career does not automaticaly make you a better player than someone who wasnt. By that logic Rios would be a better player than Guillermo Vilas for example. And for the record none of those guys would have come within 3000 points (or more) of the #1 ranking for a single week anytime the last 6 years with Federer and later also Nadal there.

Mustard
11-27-2009, 09:50 PM
Muster was a great clay courter, but likewise a weak #1 as he got there very briefly only on the basis of his clay court excellence.

Thomas Muster beat Sampras on indoor carpet at the 1995 Essen Masters on his way to winning the tournament. People conveniently forget Muster's win in that tournament. Also, it's funny how they never mention how all of Agassi's 1995 titles were on hardcourt, but never fail to mention that Muster won a load of titles on clay and make out that dominating clay was somehow a bad thing. As Muster said in February 1996 in response to his critics, "I didn't buy my points in a supermarket. What do they want me to do, write the computer a letter of apology?"

Ferrero sure as heck was never a better player than Djokovic is today, better on clay, but not overall.

2003 Ferrero is better than Djokovic today, IMO. He was the best player on clay at the time, was getting better on hardcourts all the time and wasn't bad on grass. After his problems in the spring of 2004, he's never really managed to recover to his former level.

GustafsonFanatic
11-27-2009, 11:10 PM
Thomas Muster beat Sampras on indoor carpet at the 1995 Essen Masters on his way to winning the tournament. People conveniently forget Muster's win in that tournament. Also, it's funny how they never mention how all of Agassi's 1995 titles were on hardcourt, but never fail to mention that Muster won a load of titles on clay and make out that dominating clay was somehow a bad thing. As Muster said in February 1996 in response to his critics, "I didn't buy my points in a supermarket. What do they want me to do, write the computer a letter of apology?"

2003 Ferrero is better than Djokovic today, IMO. He was the best player on clay at the time, was getting better on hardcourts all the time and wasn't bad on grass. After his problems in the spring of 2004, he's never really managed to recover to his former level.

Ferrero should have been RG champion from 2002-2004, if he had more luck. He started getting better on hardcourts at that time as well, but ... But, it's undisputable that Djokovic has more consistency across all surfaces, although in 2008 he had some luck getting his major titles(AO,IW,Rome,YEC). Still, Ferrero's success on clay must put him above Djokovic IMO.

Tsonga#1fan
11-28-2009, 01:40 AM
Kafelnikov was one of the worst #1s in history, probably the second worst after Rios.

I know I am in the minority on this one, but IMO Leyton Hewitt was an over rated #1. His fairly long tenure was sandwiched between post prime Sampras and pre greatness Federer.

joeri888
11-28-2009, 01:42 AM
I know I am in the minority on this one, but IMO Leyton Hewitt was an over rated #1. His fairly long tenure was sandwiched between post prime Sampras and pre greatness Federer.

Hewitt became the victim of Federer, he was not just exposing the vaccuum of power imo. He could have been a power himself, he just was not as good as Federer.

MuseFan
11-28-2009, 01:44 AM
Hewitt became the victim of Federer, he was not just exposing the vaccuum of power imo. He could have been a power himself, he just was not as good as Federer.

No ****. Hewitt lost 5 times in 2004 to Federer including that US Open demolition job. He was Federer's primary victim along with secondary victim Roddick.

Cody
11-28-2009, 01:48 AM
Hewitt became the victim of Federer, he was not just exposing the vaccuum of power imo. He could have been a power himself, he just was not as good as Federer.

I also believe that the slowing of the courts hurt hewitt, he always played awesome tennis when players came to net and the faster courts suited his counter punching style, after those injuries he came back and federer was in pre god mode in 2004 and nothing could stop him.

He could have achieved much more.

Blinkism
11-28-2009, 01:52 AM
It's funny how the memory of Hewitt has been morphed into some low-grade pusher who was lucky to take over from Sampras before Federer arrived

Wow...

either it's a lot of short-term memory or a lot of people here started watching tennis a few years ago...

FlamEnemY
11-28-2009, 03:33 AM
^^ Agree, Hewitt is no slouch. If anything, he would have loved playing in the 90s, he eats S&V players for breakfast. And no Federer, of course. It's not a stretch at all to consider that he'd have achieved more during that period.*

I actually find it pretty funny that Djokovic managed to win the YEC next year, despite being 'raped' in 2007. I forgot he didn't even win a set...

*please do tell if I messed up the verb tenses.

Psyballa
11-28-2009, 03:42 AM
And Rafter. And Kafelnikov. And Muster. And Ferrero. And Kuerten. And Safin. And Courier. All former #1s.

I would say Djokovic is a bigger name than Ferrero and Safin right now.

statto
11-28-2009, 03:53 AM
The quality of some of the names there shows how this isn't the end of the world for Nadal, the way some posters here are making it out to be.

vive le beau jeu !
11-28-2009, 04:19 AM
Here is the list of all the players to go 0-3 in the RR portion of this event since 1990.

I put a * next to the players that didn't manage to win one set in those years.

Verdasco & Muster are the only players to go 3 sets in all of their 3 matches.

2009: Verdasco, Nadal *
2007: Djokovic *
2005: Puerta, Coria
2004: Gaudio *, Coria *
2003: Ferrero
2002: Safin
2001: Kuerten, Rafter
2000: Norman
1999: Lapentti *
1998: Kucera
1995: Kafelnikov, Muster
1994: Berasategui *
1993: Bruguera, Courier
1992: Chang, Korda
1991: Novacek, Stich *
1990: Sanchez, Gomez
one player is missing in your list, but here is a clue: i'm glad you omitted him.
(andres will find too...) ;)

by the way, i made another list in another thread, a different one as it only includes set-less players since the beginning of the year-end masters (in 1970):
mmmh... worst player in london ?
don't be too harsh with nadal, guys: i heard robert dee (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article3822523.ece) was making some shopping at harrods this week. :rolleyes:

and also, please take into account that finishing "set-less" in a masters cup (having played 3 RR matches) is a relatively rare achievement in history of this tournament:
- nadal [2009]
- djokovic [2007]
- coria & gaudio [2004]
- rafter [2001] :(
- lapentti [1999]
- berasategui [1994]
- stich [1991]
- mecir [1987]
- solomon [1974 and 1978]
- hewitt [1972] (bob !)
(Nb: it was a direct elimination draw from 1982 to 1985)
(... list that i corrected thanks to your own list, as lapentti was missing... but hey, we're here to help each other, aren't we ?!) ;)

zagor
11-28-2009, 05:16 AM
one player is missing in your list, but here is a clue: i'm glad you omitted him.
(andres will find too...) ;)

True,although he lost to 3 of the best attacking players ever,not that I'm making excuses but there are many,many players throghout the history of tennis who would have a decent chance to go 0-3 against those guys on carpet(Pete,Boris and Edberg).

Polvorin
11-28-2009, 05:21 AM
It's funny how the memory of Hewitt has been morphed into some low-grade pusher who was lucky to take over from Sampras before Federer arrived

Wow...

either it's a lot of short-term memory or a lot of people here started watching tennis a few years ago...

Agreed. I never liked Hewitt either, but I have to say he was very dominant during his short reign at #1. Alas, the legs do not last forever.

vive le beau jeu !
11-28-2009, 05:22 AM
True,although he lost to 3 of the best attacking players ever,not that I'm making excuses but there are many,many players throghout the history of tennis who would have a decent chance to go 0-3 against those guys on carpet(Pete,Boris and Edberg).
and had he won that damned 3rd set tie-break in his 1st match against becker (grrr !!!)... i think he would played better in the other matches. :?
but true, that was such a strong group ! ;)

zagor
11-28-2009, 05:23 AM
and had he won that damned 3rd set tie-break in his 1st match against becker... i think he would played better in the other matches. :?
but that was such a strong group ! ;)

True,that first with Becker was heartbreaking,he might have done better in other ones if he won.

That group was amazingly strong,possibly the strongest RR group I've ever seen.

On a side note I think I remember the player we're talking about complained about slow court and heavy balls for the masters cup that year.

Andres
11-28-2009, 08:15 AM
one player is missing in your list, but here is a clue: i'm glad you omitted him.
(andres will find too...) ;)

by the way, i made another list in another thread, a different one as it only includes set-less players since the beginning of the year-end masters (in 1970):

(... list that i corrected thanks to your own list, as lapentti was missing... but hey, we're here to help each other, aren't we ?!) ;)
Sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :mrgreen:

Moose Malloy
11-30-2009, 11:17 AM
one player is missing in your list, but here is a clue: i'm glad you omitted him.


I edited my post, thanks.

Goran was 3-0 in the RR portion in '92 however (& 6-0 in sets, which I think is rare)

and also, please take into account that finishing "set-less" in a masters cup (having played 3 RR matches) is a relatively rare achievement in history of this tournament:
- nadal [2009]
- djokovic [2007]
- coria & gaudio [2004]
- rafter [2001]
- lapentti [1999]
- berasategui [1994]
- stich [1991]
- mecir [1987]
- solomon [1974 and 1978]
- hewitt [1972] (bob !)


Berasategui did the worst of all the 'setless' players listed(won only 7 games in 6 sets!)

Rafter's shoulder was pretty much shot by the time of the '01 Masters Cup, not sure he should have even played(he retired at the end of the year)

Tough group for Mecir in '87 - Cash, Edberg, Wilander.

Cosmic Charlie
11-30-2009, 03:14 PM
Rafter's shoulder was pretty much shot by the time of the '01 Masters Cup, not sure he should have even played(he retired at the end of the year)


Coria was coming off a shoulder surgery in 2005 and shouldn't have played-it almost appeared he was there for the 0-3 cash grab. I don't think he recovered his confidence after that surgery. Or maybe it was the '04 FO Finals as some suggest.

flying24
11-30-2009, 04:35 PM
Thomas Muster beat Sampras on indoor carpet at the 1995 Essen Masters on his way to winning the tournament. People conveniently forget Muster's win in that tournament.

People dont forget that. It simply isnt important enough in the big picture when Muster failed to get past the 4th round of any of his last 3 hard court slams (95 Australian Open, 95 U.S Open, 96 Australian Open).

Also, it's funny how they never mention how all of Agassi's 1995 titles were on hardcourt

Agassi made the semis of Wimbledon, and the quarters of the French Open in 1995. Muster as I said didnt make it past the 4th round of any of the hard court slams around that time, and didnt even play Wimbledon in 1995 (or 1996, or most other years). There are also more hard court events than clay court events, and there are more different type of hard court surfaces than clay court.

but never fail to mention that Muster won a load of titles on clay and make out that dominating clay was somehow a bad thing.

Nobody said it was a bad thing. He was the undisputed king of clay in 1995-1996 despite his big upset loss at the French (I have been one to point on many occasions that no way in hell Kafelnikov was close to Muster on clay in 96 even with his FO title). He deserves very high praise for that, particularly when talking about great clay court players past. However it does not mean his being ranked #1 is automaticaly free of criticsm, or sufficient to not be considered a weaker #1 overall.

As Muster said in February 1996 in response to his critics, "I didn't buy my points in a supermarket. What do they want me to do, write the computer a letter of apology?"

Tennis Magazine actually ridiculed him for that exact statement, breaking down his overall results and pointing out how it was ludriciuous that not only was he in contention for the #1 ranking, but actually complaining about not yet being ranked #1 by the computer. So funny you should use that to defend him.

2003 Ferrero is better than Djokovic today, IMO. He was the best player on clay at the time, was getting better on hardcourts all the time and wasn't bad on grass. After his problems in the spring of 2004, he's never really managed to recover to his former level.

I totally disagree. Yes Ferrero was clearly the best on clay in 2002 and 2003 (despite losing the FO final in 2002), and would have been in 2004 and maybe 2005 without his health problems ruining his career. However it is not like he would be as good as Nadal of 2006-2008 on clay, probably close to on par with Federer of 2005-2009 on the surface. Djokovic's level of the last 2 years on clay I am sure would be pretty close to Ferrero's in 2003 too. On all other surfaces even prime Ferrero comes nowhere near Djokovic. On hard courts he posted some strong results, but still could easily lose early and often did in his prime from 2001-2003, and even in his good hard court events he was much more easily to be completely overpowered by guys like Roddick, an old Agassi, and alot other non-Federers than Djokovic is.

Djokovic in the last 3 years has been in 7 slam semifinals or better, 9 quarterfinals or better. He has been Nadal's toughest head to head opponent on clay by far, even if his overall results on clay are 3rd best behind Nadal and Federer. He has been a semi dominant force on hard courts with a slam, another slam final, a TMC title, and 4 other Masters titles (and multiple other Masters finals) on hard courts. He has won a Masters and had many excellent showings in Masters and the French Open on clay. He has been to the Wimbledon semis and Queen Club final where he lost very tight matches to Nadal. Even prime Ferrero never comes anywhere close to that overall body of work across all surfaces, and while prime Ferrero was the best clay courter in the World for awhile (and not a weak default one like Coria in 2004) he is still not a Nadal or even a peak Muster on clay to compensate for how superior Djokovic is on the other surfaces.

Mustard
11-30-2009, 08:39 PM
People dont forget that. It simply isnt important enough in the big picture when Muster failed to get past the 4th round of any of his last 3 hard court slams (95 Australian Open, 95 U.S Open, 96 Australian Open).

Muster first became world number 1 on the 12th February 1996. At that point, the computer had 4th rounds exits at the 1995 US Open and the 1996 Australian Open and a missing Wimbledon from 1995, yet such was the extent of his clay-court dominance that it made up for all that. But Muster's tournament win at the Essen Masters on indoor carpet was also a big factor in him eventually getting to number 1. Muster was number 1 fair and square for the 6 weeks that he held that ranking. He earned it.

Agassi made the semis of Wimbledon, and the quarters of the French Open in 1995. Muster as I said didnt make it past the 4th round of any of the hard court slams around that time, and didnt even play Wimbledon in 1995 (or 1996, or most other years).

Which rather shows how Muster played and won so many events that it made up for any lack of rankings points from poorer finishes in slam events and missing Wimbledon. Sampras and Agassi did not have Muster's workrate.

Nobody said it was a bad thing. He was the undisputed king of clay in 1995-1996 despite his big upset loss at the French (I have been one to point on many occasions that no way in hell Kafelnikov was close to Muster on clay in 96 even with his FO title).

Of course he wasn't. Muster totally overpowered and outplayed Kafelnikov in the Stuttgart Outdoor final in July 1996 by a score of 6-2, 6-2, 6-4. I've seen the match many times and it was very one-sided with Muster's fitness and power totally dominating the recently crowned French Open champion.

He deserves very high praise for that, particularly when talking about great clay court players past. However it does not mean his being ranked #1 is automaticaly free of criticsm, or sufficient to not be considered a weaker #1 overall.

To call Muster a "weak number 1" is utterly ridiculous. People feared playing him at that time, and a lot of tennis fans have either forgotten, brought into the "clay-court specialist" criticisms of the time, or just look at his 6 weeks at number 1 and think "that's not very long, he must have been a weak number 1".

Tennis Magazine actually ridiculed him for that exact statement, breaking down his overall results and pointing out how it was ludriciuous that not only was he in contention for the #1 ranking, but actually complaining about not yet being ranked #1 by the computer. So funny you should use that to defend him.

When Muster was number 1, he had the best overall results from the previous 52 weeks. It's that simple. When he was number 1, he had almost total clay-court domination, a Masters title on indoor carpet and two fourth round losses at the hardcourt slams.

Mustard
11-30-2009, 09:03 PM
Coria was coming off a shoulder surgery in 2005 and shouldn't have played-it almost appeared he was there for the 0-3 cash grab. I don't think he recovered his confidence after that surgery. Or maybe it was the '04 FO Finals as some suggest.

It was the service yips that ruined Coria, which he got in the summer of 2005 and which got worse over time. By 2006, it was completely ruining his game apart from one match against Djokovic in Miami where he served no double faults.

The service yips can strike any player at any time. It's an absolute nightmare if a player gets it as it's impossible to be near your best if you're serving so many double faults. Yet Coria still won some matches at the 2006 Monte Carlo Masters, against Youzhny, Mathieu and Kiefer, at a time when the service yips was embarrassingly bad. Once the point actually started he was fine.

Whether Coria's service yips was related to his August 2004 shoulder surgery, I don't know, but he played the first 7 months of 2005 with an okay serve. The problems came later.

flying24
12-01-2009, 09:27 AM
Muster first became world number 1 on the 12th February 1996. At that point, the computer had 4th rounds exits at the 1995 US Open and the 1996 Australian Open and a missing Wimbledon from 1995, yet such was the extent of his clay-court dominance that it made up for all that. But Muster's tournament win at the Essen Masters on indoor carpet was also a big factor in him eventually getting to number 1. Muster was number 1 fair and square for the 6 weeks that he held that ranking. He earned it.

You make it sound like every single computer #1 can never be a weaker #1. In that case who are the weaker #1s, after all they all were computer #1s, LOL! You also make it sound like every single computer #1 has to be accepted by everyone as the true #1, not be disputed at all, which is completely unreasonable. The ranking system since then has been changed btw, and in part because of the ways Muster, Rios, and Kafelnikov (and possibly also Moya) all reached #1. All those guys are still considered weaker #1s in history today, and for the record I regard Rios and Kafelnikov as weaker #1s than Muster so I am not saying Muster is the worst.

Which rather shows how Muster played and won so many events that it made up for any lack of rankings points from poorer finishes in slam events and missing Wimbledon. Sampras and Agassi did not have Muster's workrate.

Getting to #1 by getting on the tour treadmill sounds alot like Safina or Jankovic, and that didnt make them respected #1s. The major difference between Muster and them is he atleast has a slam, and dominates a single surface, but on the other side his results were actually far less diverse than theirs are.

To call Muster a "weak number 1" is utterly ridiculous. People feared playing him at that time, and a lot of tennis fans have either forgotten, brought into the "clay-court specialist" criticisms of the time, or just look at his 6 weeks at number 1 and think "that's not very long, he must have been a weak number 1".

You say tennis fans, as if fans are the only ones that hold this view. For your information the majority of tennis experts and top players at the time also referred to Muster as a relatively weak #1, and still consider him one of the weaker #1s. You know people like John McEnroe, Fred Stolle, Mary Carillo, Nick Bolletieri, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, the writers of TENNIS Magazine and other major tennis publications.

Other top guys only feared playing him on clay, and yes indeed everyone was petrified of playing him on clay. None of them feared playing him on hard courts or any other surface. Lower ranked guys looked at him on other surfaces as good shot of an "upset".

When Muster was number 1, he had the best overall results from the previous 52 weeks. It's that simple.

That is like saying when Safina was number 1 she had the best overall results from the previous 52 weeks, it's that simple, and expecting no criticism from anyone, LOL! That would have been like expecting nobody to say Kafelnikov was a weak #1 when he ended 1998 ranked low down in the top 10, won the Australian Open, then lost 1st round in 6 straight events, and somehow climbed all the way to #1. Or expecting nobody to complain about when slamless Rios reached #1. Doesnt work like that.

When he was number 1, he had almost total clay-court domination, a Masters title on indoor carpet and two fourth round losses at the hardcourt slams.

and that is still not good enough given the overall results Sampras, Agassi, and even Becker had over the last 12 months. Under todays ranking system for men it would have been impossible for Muster to get to #1 as more priority is given to the Slams and various Masters events, and there are only so many smaller event points you can rack up to add to those on clay. The French Open, Monte Carlo, Rome, and the 500 events Muster would win on clay would still never make up the points he would trail those others in the counting non-clay events.

Matt H.
12-01-2009, 10:39 AM
Coria is all by himself in the 0-6 club. ouch.

ohplease
12-01-2009, 10:45 AM
Didn't Agassi and Chang both do pretty poorly at the Master's in 1989? I remember having high expectations for them both that year (next great Americans, etc.), and being pretty disappointed in their showings.

Mustard
12-01-2009, 11:30 AM
Getting to #1 by getting on the tour treadmill sounds alot like Safina or Jankovic, and that didnt make them respected #1s. The major difference between Muster and them is he atleast has a slam, and dominates a single surface, but on the other side his results were actually far less diverse than theirs are.

I'm speaking about results without taking surface into account. Muster was right up there with Sampras and Agassi and briefly above them in 1996. Muster won 3 masters titles in 1995, a French Open and 8 other titles. You can laugh at that all you want, but to say it's not even worthy of number 1 is ridiculous.

You say tennis fans, as if fans are the only ones that hold this view. For your information the majority of tennis experts and top players at the time also referred to Muster as a relatively weak #1, and still consider him one of the weaker #1s.

Which rather shows how silly they are if Muster could get those results and be considered a weak number 1. Muster was disliked by many players, he dominated on clay, and many "experts" in the American press were in thrall to guys Sampras and Agassi on hardcourts and grass.

You know people like John McEnroe, Fred Stolle, Mary Carillo, Nick Bolletieri, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, the writers of TENNIS Magazine and other major tennis publications.

I disagree with what they said. Some of the names there like Sampras and Agassi (his competitors for number 1), Courier (a long time Muster rival) and Becker (a guy who insinuated that Muster took drugs after he was beaten by him) have very suspicious motives.

Other top guys only feared playing him on clay, and yes indeed everyone was petrified of playing him on clay. None of them feared playing him on hard courts or any other surface. Lower ranked guys looked at him on other surfaces as good shot of an "upset".

Muster didn't have the same intimidation factor off clay as he did on clay, I agree, but it's funny how those other top guys didn't play many clay events, isn't it? I'm just checking the archives and Agassi played 3 events on clay in 1995, while Sampras played 5 events on clay that year. Muster played 7 events on hardcourt and 7 events on indoor carpet in 1995, winning a Masters title on the latter.

That is like saying when Safina was number 1 she had the best overall results from the previous 52 weeks, it's that simple, and expecting no criticism from anyone, LOL!

It's true. Safina has had the best results over the previous 52 weeks when she's been number 1. The slams are the biggest part of the year and have the biggest rewards, and rightfully so, but it's not the only thing that matters.

That would have been like expecting nobody to say Kafelnikov was a weak #1 when he ended 1998 ranked low down in the top 10, won the Australian Open, then lost 1st round in 6 straight events, and somehow climbed all the way to #1. Or expecting nobody to complain about when slamless Rios reached #1. Doesnt work like that.

Around the time Rios became number 1, the computer had him as runner-up at the 1998 Australian Open, a quarter finalist at the 1997 US Open, a fourth round loser at 1997 Wimbledon, and him winning masters titles at Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo (1997) and Rome. That's hardly a "weak" record, even if he didn't actually win a slam.

and that is still not good enough given the overall results Sampras, Agassi, and even Becker had over the last 12 months.

Becker wasn't better than Muster at that time. Why do you go solely by slams instead of seeing slams as the most important, but that there are other tournaments too? Muster won his share of big tournaments and stacked up a load of small ones.

Under todays ranking system for men it would have been impossible for Muster to get to #1 as more priority is given to the Slams and various Masters events, and there are only so many smaller event points you can rack up to add to those on clay. The French Open, Monte Carlo, Rome, and the 500 events Muster would win on clay would still never make up the points he would trail those others in the counting non-clay events.

Muster could play on hardcourts as well, you know. You don't win the Miami Masters, get to 2 Australian Open semi finals and get to 3 US Open quarter finals if you can't play on surfaces other than clay. And he did nearly all this with a knee that couldn't fully bend and which gave him more pain when he played on hardcourts.

pound cat
12-01-2009, 11:40 AM
*Interesting. Djokovic in '07 and Nadal in '09 are by far the biggest names to get swept so badly.

*Interesting. Djokovic in '07 and Nadal in '09 are by far the biggest names to get swept so badly.


No they're not. It all depends on what decade you were watching tennis. Kuertin won 3 Slams...that's a pretty big name.


Many of the others also won at least 1 Slam..Safin, Ivanisevic, Courier, Chang for example