PDA

View Full Version : Who's better on clay: Muster vs Federer


Cyan
05-18-2010, 05:21 AM
Who would you vote for?

P_Agony
05-18-2010, 05:24 AM
Nadal.

10 chars.

Cyan
05-18-2010, 05:32 AM
What about Vilas vs Federer?

abmk
05-18-2010, 05:38 AM
borg

10 chars

viduka0101
05-18-2010, 05:59 AM
Inigo Montoya

Ambivalent
05-18-2010, 06:13 AM
Rezai Rezai

borg number one
05-18-2010, 06:38 AM
At his very peak, I'd say Muster gets the nod over Federer. Both have one FO title. Looking over several years of play though, the analysis of Federer versus Muster on clay must also involve all the finals Federer has reached at clay tourneys, especially at the French Open.

Yet, Muster has 40 official clay titles, while Federer has 9 right now. So, how much do you give weight to RG finals reached by Federer vs. the 40 total clay titles of Muster? Then, to try and analyze who would actually be better in a hypo match is completely subjective of course. So, the short answer is that there really is no wrong or right answer here.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mu/T/Thomas-Muster.aspx?t=mr

Legend of Borg
05-18-2010, 06:39 AM
borg

10 chars

I second that.

Cyan
05-18-2010, 06:40 AM
At his very peak, I'd say Muster gets the nod over Federer. Both have one FO title. On average though, looking over several years of play, Federer is more competitive with Muster on clay, given all the finals he's reached at clay tourneys, especially at the French Open, Yet, Muster has 40 official clay titles, while Federer has 9 right now. So, how much do you give weight to RG finals reached by Federer vs. the 40 total clay titles of Muster? Then, to try and analyze who would actually be better in a hypo match is completely subjective of course. So, the short answer is that there really is no wrong or right answer here.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mu/T/Thomas-Muster.aspx?t=mr

What about prime Vilas vs prime Fed on clay? Both lost 3 FO finals and won 1 FO.

borg number one
05-18-2010, 06:48 AM
What about prime Vilas vs prime Fed on clay? Both lost 3 FO finals and won 1 FO.

That's tough to call as well, with the wood racquet era. Vilas is much more accomplished overall on clay. He won the US Open over Connors on rubico (green, fast clay). So, I'd give him the edge if I had to pick between the two. He also had a record streak on clay (since broken by Nadal) and 46 total clay titles vs. only 9 for Federer. I've seen Vilas play in the mid- 1980's on red clay live (when he was well past his prime vs. Pernfors, etc. at River Oaks in Houston). He could hit one handed topspin backhands that could literally push a player back to the backstop. Now, imagine if Federer had to face that with a wood frame in his hands and with his one handed backhand. Think of that dynamic, with no graphite frames involved against Vilas. How do you win points unless you are someone like Borg who could outlast him and who could defend with his two handed backhand.

http://product.images.prosportsmemorabilia.com/33-97/33-97290-F.jpg

davey25
05-18-2010, 07:20 AM
Peak Muster is easily better than any Federer on clay. However peak Muster only lasted 2 years. The Federer of 2005 until today I would give the edge over any other version of Muster on clay. So I dont know how to answer this poll, it isnt specific enough.

jean pierre
05-18-2010, 08:17 AM
What about Vilas vs Federer?

Vilas of course. He won FO, US Open, Rome, Madrid, Monaco, Hambourg, all the big tournaments on clay, beating all the players (except Borg).

Tsonga#1fan
05-18-2010, 09:02 AM
Muster's one handed backhand would NEVER break down as badly as Federer's does, on clay.

nikdom
05-18-2010, 09:04 AM
That's tough to call as well, with the wood racquet era. Vilas is much more accomplished overall on clay. He won the US Open over Connors on rubico (green, fast clay). So, I'd give him the edge if I had to pick between the two. He also had a record streak on clay (since broken by Nadal) and 46 total clay titles vs. only 9 for Federer. I've seen Vilas play in the mid- 1980's on red clay live (when he was well past his prime vs. Pernfors, etc. at River Oaks in Houston). He could hit one handed topspin backhands that could literally push a player back to the backstop. Now, imagine if Federer had to face that with a wood frame in his hands and with his one handed backhand. Think of that dynamic, with no graphite frames involved against Vilas. How do you win points unless you are someone like Borg who could outlast him and who could defend with his two handed backhand.

http://product.images.prosportsmemorabilia.com/33-97/33-97290-F.jpg

Looks like he doing the Travolta disco move from Saturday Night Fever. :)

http://images.worldcupblog.org/www/travolta%20disco.jpg

Li Ching Yuen
05-18-2010, 09:38 AM
Federer would destroy him in straight-sets.

borg number one
05-18-2010, 09:42 AM
^^No way. Equalized for technology? I don't see that happening. It's so subjective to try and assess, but I've watched both a lot, live and otherwise. Vilas was a beast on clay. Federer would have his hands very full playing Vilas. He may very well lose the majority of matches on clay to him.

Cyan
05-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Muster's one handed backhand would NEVER break down as badly as Federer's does, on clay.

Good point.

Bilbo
05-18-2010, 01:35 PM
Andres Gomez is, IMO, the best 1 FO having clay courter ever... next to Vilas (but he doesn't count, lol) but, uh, he's not a choice, so ill go with:

Federer, i mean, really? Is this even a question? The guy would arguably have 3 FO titles if not for the second best clay courter ever...

JeMar
05-18-2010, 02:02 PM
I think the clay court game is too different these days for accurate comparisons.

big bang
05-18-2010, 02:11 PM
Andres Gomez is, IMO, the best 1 FO having clay courter ever... next to Vilas (but he doesn't count, lol) but, uh, he's not a choice, so ill go with:

Federer, i mean, really? Is this even a question? The guy would arguably have 3 FO titles if not for the second best clay courter ever...
Im confused here:confused:

davey25
05-18-2010, 02:15 PM
Federer would probably have 4 French Open titles without Nadal. 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009. However the clay court field without Nadal would be the biggest joke in history. It would be even worse than the grass court field today.

paulorenzo
05-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Federer would probably have 4 French Open titles without Nadal. 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009. However the clay court field without Nadal would be the biggest joke in history. It would be even worse than the grass court field today.

if nadal wasn't here for the past few years on clay, the clay field would have been considered a lot more "competitive" since no one would dominate the surface. see the allusion i've presented?

Mustard
05-18-2010, 03:34 PM
If we're talking peak for peak on clay, then Thomas Muster.

On top of 1 French Open each, Muster has also won 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Romes, tournaments that Federer has never managed to win. As far as Hamburg goes, Muster never played it during his peak.

fed_rulz
05-18-2010, 07:39 PM
If we're talking peak for peak on clay, then Thomas Muster.

On top of 1 French Open each, Muster has also won 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Romes, tournaments that Federer has never managed to win. As far as Hamburg goes, Muster never played it during his peak.


and whose fault is that? And muster's peak lasted for all of 1 yr -- the yr he won the RG. Plus Muster did not have any one of the caliber of nadal to contend with;

World Beater
05-18-2010, 09:05 PM
in a one match situation..muster was certainly amazing.

but got to give props to rodge to keep fighting every year at RG even though he lost to nadal again and again. Federer showed tremendous heart to win in his 4th final.

muster never had to deal with federer's pressure. Muster also did not have longevity.

over the course of their career...federer. but a peak muster won more, but to a certain degree was less dominant. sounds strange...but muster didnt crush everyone. he had tough matches. federer pretty much owned the competition except nadal for some time.

Justdoit10
05-18-2010, 10:09 PM
Muster was good but he doesnt trump Federer on clay by any means. He made 1 RG final and he faced Michael Chang in it. Federer made big runs at RG for 5 years and lost to Nadal in the late stages of that event 4 times.

Its funny how people bring up this Nadal head to head all the time when berating Federer of his possible GOAT status. lol I would love to see pete sampras's head to head against Nadal with 12 meetings on clay.:lol:

Make no mistake? Nadal's h2h over federer is amazing and deserves all the praise it gets but saying that Federer is a 'mentally weak midget who cant even beat his main rival' is excessive. Nadal is so good on clay that he will skew any h2h in his favor through 12 clay meetings.

dropshot winner
05-18-2010, 10:45 PM
Muster's one handed backhand would NEVER break down as badly as Federer's does, on clay.

True.

But Muster's forehand, serve, slice and netgame are nowhere near Federer's. Even Federer's movement on clay is at least as good Muster's.

Federer can afford hitting 20 backhand errors against most because he compensates them with great serves, and amazing forehand winners.

Hitman
05-19-2010, 12:56 AM
in a one match situation..muster was certainly amazing.

but got to give props to rodge to keep fighting every year at RG even though he lost to nadal again and again. Federer showed tremendous heart to win in his 4th final.

muster never had to deal with federer's pressure. Muster also did not have longevity.

over the course of their career...federer. but a peak muster won more, but to a certain degree was less dominant. sounds strange...but muster didnt crush everyone. he had tough matches. federer pretty much owned the competition except nadal for some time.


Great post! This is exactly what I think too.

Halba
05-19-2010, 01:42 AM
If we're talking peak for peak on clay, then Thomas Muster.

On top of 1 French Open each, Muster has also won 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Romes, tournaments that Federer has never managed to win. As far as Hamburg goes, Muster never played it during his peak.

muster for sure. back then those titles were very valuable, not to be sneezed at. now masters are sneezed at by top players like federer.

Li Ching Yuen
05-19-2010, 01:49 AM
I think the clay court game is too different these days for accurate comparisons.

This is the correct answer to any of these threads.

^^No way. Equalized for technology? I don't see that happening. It's so subjective to try and assess, but I've watched both a lot, live and otherwise. Vilas was a beast on clay. Federer would have his hands very full playing Vilas. He may very well lose the majority of matches on clay to him.

Federer's footwork is about a hundred billenias ahead of what anyone of those "past" greats could ever dream of or could even comprehendedly imagine.

big bang
05-19-2010, 04:13 AM
This is the correct answer to any of these threads.



Federer's footwork is about a hundred billenias ahead of what anyone of those "past" greats could ever dream of or could even comprehendedly imagine.
LOL, just LOL!

Mustard
05-19-2010, 05:53 AM
[/B]

and whose fault is that? And muster's peak lasted for all of 1 yr -- the yr he won the RG. Plus Muster did not have any one of the caliber of nadal to contend with;

Muster's peak was February 1995 - March 1997.

In this 25 month period, Muster won 21 titles, 18 of them on clay:

1995 Mexico City (Clay)
1995 Estoril (Clay)
1995 Barcelona (Clay)
1995 Monte Carlo Masters (Clay)
1995 Rome Masters (Clay)
1995 French Open (Clay)
1995 St. Poelten (Clay)
1995 Stuttgart Outdoor (Clay)
1995 San Marino (Clay)
1995 Umag (Clay)
1995 Bucharest (Clay)
1995 Essen Masters (Indoor Carpet)
1996 Mexico City (Clay)
1996 Estoril (Clay)
1996 Barcelona (Clay)
1996 Monte Carlo Masters (Clay)
1996 Rome Masters (Clay)
1996 Stuttgart Outdoor (Clay)
1996 Bogota (Clay)
1997 Dubai (Hardcourt)
1997 Miami Masters (Hardcourt)