Clay Court Players 1990-2004

[egn]

So up until 1990 clay court tennis was dominated by about 2 to 3 players at time, you had Borg in control in the 70s basically, Lendl and Willander took it for most of the 1980s, but then from 1990-2004 there were so many forces. Sure Lendl and Willander only won 3, but it was 6 out of 10 for the decade with one going to Borg and two random lucky winners. However the 90s and early 2000s was filled with randomness. So many clay court power houses existed but so many never really stepped up.

To name a few:
Jim Courier - Only 5 clay titles, 2 French Open titles (91.92), 1 runner up (93) one semi
Sergi Bruguera - 14 clay titles, 2 French Open titles (93,94), 1 runner up (97) and one semi finish
Thomas Muster- 40 Clay Court Titles, 1 French Open title (95), 1 semi final
Gustavo Kureten- 15 clay court titles, 3 French Open titles (97, 00, 01)
Carlos Moya- 16 titles on clay, 1 French Open (98)
Andre Agassi- 7 clay court titles, 1 French Open (99), 2 runner ups (90,91),
1 semi final
Alberto Berasategui- 14 clay court titles, 1 runner up (94)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov- 3 clay court titles, French Open (96)
Albert Costa - 12 clay court titles, 1 French Open (02)
Alex Corretja- 11 clay court titles, 2 French Open runners ups (98, 01)
Marcelo Rios- 9 clay court titles, no runner ups.
Juan Carlos Ferrero- 1 French Open (03), 8 titles
Guillermo Coria- 8 clay titles, 1 runner up FO
Gaston Gauido- 8 clay titles, 1 French Open (04)

So now here comes the questions.
1) Who got the luckiest?
2) Who had the worst luck?
3) Who is the most overrated?
4) Who never lived up to their potential?
5) Who was the best?

1. I think Courier was the luckiest, I think he just fell right into place were there was time with no real clay courter. He beat Agassi a young inconsistent player and Korda who never made it past the quarters outside of 1992 and never won a clay title. He only won 5 clay court titles and as stronger Clay Court specialist came around his clay court days quickly faded. His clay court game was good, but I think he benefited from a lack of really strong clay courters.

2. Alex Corretja I think had the worst luck, he just never caught a break. He had two shots at winning that one grand slam, but he just could not do it. His game was very good, but he seemed to suffer from some case of cold feet in the final and never could push it.

3. Although Marcelo Rios seems a perfect fit for this category it is hard to just hand him the award. Agassi is a great player, but I always would like to look at his win in 1999 with a bit of luck in his favor, but he was playing phenomenal so I am going to have to give this to Marcelo Rios. Sure Marcelo Rios was a great clay court player in his prime, but he just could not seem to get past the quarters in the French Open. He might have won all the master series and held the number one rankings, but the guy couldn't play the big game. Everyone is quick to jump on his bandwagon but I just feel a bit of upset towards him, his slam final came on a hard court but the surface he was so dominate on he struggled on in slams so much.

4. So I think almost all are up for this you have Marcelo Rios obviously a leading candidate, let us not forget Guillermo Coria and his famous flake out after winning the first two sets (one 6-0) losing the final, you have Moya who won French Open at 22 in 98 but then never could make it to a semifinal after that even though he won 12 clay court titles after that win, Costa whose one slam came 3 years after his prime and so many more. However I honestly have to give this one to Thomas Muster. 40 Clay Court Titles, but only one was a French Open. Only one French Open final? It is absurd. From 90-96 he accumulated tons of clay court titles, and set records on the surface, but could only get one French Open Title. He exited early so many times in the French Open. In 93 and 96 he beat so many top level clay courters in tournaments outside of the French Open, but the minute he stepped foot there he just stopped knowing how to win. His record on clay in 93 was 55-10 and a whomping 43-3 in 96. Yet he had no French Open from either of those years. He was so destructive on clay but never won more than one french open.

5. The best, Sergi Bruguera just not Kuerten fan, Bruguera played a better game in my opinion just ran into a couple of tougher opponents but I think Bruguera played better clay court tennis overall and had more consistent performances.

Interesting to see all your opinions.

 

[lendledbergfan]

Guga would be the best for me, followed by Sergi. With Segi the fitness seemed to be a problem (although he did beat Courier in 5 sets), Guga could go on and on.

 

[lambielspins]

1. Who got the luckiest? Kafelnikov. Worst clay court player to win the French Open by far and had a joke draw with all fast courters in the late rounds to do it.

2. Who had the worst luck? Muster. Way too good not to have more than 1 French Open title. Unlucky to have the car accident, unlucky to run into Stich playing out of his mind clay court tennis in 96, unlucky to run into Courier at his peak in 91, and then some other bad losses at the French.

3. Most overrated? Moya or Coria. Both are very good but people who talk about them being having reached near the level of clay court tennis of Nadal, Kuerten, Muster, or even Courier is overrating them. Federer is superior on clay in fact. Moya never made another semifinal at the French so he isnt that great.

4. Who never lived up to their potential? Ferrero. Totally should have won the 02 final vs an aging Costa but blew it. Probably could have won again in 2004 and been one of the top clay courters after 2004 had he stayed healthy.

5. Who was the best? I would have to go with Kuerten of this group.

By the way I am adding my own category called most underrated.

6. Most underrated? Courier. Just based on your comments on him alone. He really was a great clay courter in the early 90s, and better then most of those on your list.

 

[lendledbergfan]

By the way, OP has underrated Lendl in his post, IMO. He would classify as one of the top clay courters of all time, maybe behind Borg, Nadal and Kuerten.

 

[cristiano]

in my opinion the best was Courier in 1992. I agree with Lambielspins with all his other considerations.

 

[egn]

By the way, OP has underrated Lendl in his post, IMO. He would classify as one of the top clay courters of all time, maybe behind Borg, Nadal and Kuerten.

No I think Lendl is a great clay courter I meant sure he only one 3 but he clearly dominated on clay I know that. I said the other 2 winners were lucky...Lendl was a great clay courter I didn't really rate him just to avoid the topic.

1. Who got the luckiest? Kafelnikov. Worst clay court player to win the French Open by far and had a joke draw with all fast courters in the late rounds to do it.

6. Most underrated? Courier. Just based on your comments on him alone. He really was a great clay courter in the early 90s, and better then most of those on your list.

Luckiest I think you are right I forgot about kafelnikov. However I am still not sold on Courier, he was a really good clay court player but it was who he played in his French Open draws. I'd say his 91 draw was tougher than the 92. He faced Edberg in 91, but Edberg was not a huge threat on clay and Agassi was his only other tough opponent. 92 he did have to deal with Muster but other than that nobody was a real clay court threat except for his semi finals against Agassi. I don't doubt his clay court skill, but I feel he was really lucky for winning two slams on clay. I guess we see things differently, I still think he was a great tennis player I just think he was lucky to win his two slams.

 

[lambielspins]

Luckiest I think you are right I forgot about kafelnikov. However I am still not sold on Courier, he was a really good clay court player but it was who he played in his French Open draws. I'd say his 91 draw was tougher than the 92. He faced Edberg in 91, but Edberg was not a huge threat on clay and Agassi was his only other tough opponent. 92 he did have to deal with Muster but other than that nobody was a real clay court threat except for his semi finals against Agassi. I don't doubt his clay court skill, but I feel he was really lucky for winning two slams on clay. I guess we see things differently, I still think he was a great tennis player I just think he was lucky to win his two slams.

Here is Courier's draw for the 1992 French Open:

First round: Kroon, Nicklas 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2
Second round: Muster, Thomas (AUT) 6-1 6-4 6-4
Third round: Mancini, Alberto (ARG) 6-4 6-2 6-0
Fourth round: Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) 6-1 6-4 6-2
Quarters: Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 6-2 6-1 2-6 7-5
Semis: Agassi, Andre (USA) 6-3 6-2 6-2
Final: Korda, Petr (CZE) 7-5 6-2 6-1

I would say that is a darn tough draw in fact, tougher than any draw Nadal has had to win the French Open. There are 4 really tough opponents on clay atleast. Muster in the 2nd round, Medvedev in the 4th round, Agassi in the semis. Mancini won the Italian Open in 1989 and was a finalist at the Italian Open in 1991. So that makes a 4th tough opponent on clay. Ivanisevic and Korda may not be that top notch of oppponents on clay but remember they were only the 5th and 6th toughest clay court opponents that Courier had to face. For the 2nd and 3rd easiest opponents you have in the whole draw to win, in that context they were awfully tough opponents to have.

Courier was really the best clay courter in the world still in 1993 IMO. He absolutely dominated in winning Rome again that year, including easily straight setting Bruguera, who he would lose to in the upcoming French Open final. He just had a bad day in the French Open final IMO and still it took 5 really hard sets for an inspired Bruguera to beat him. OK my comments on 93 are really getting into more subjective territory but isnt that what a thread with most/luckiest type questions is about. :wink: My personal feeling is he could have easily had 3 French Open titles, just as yours is he was lucky to have 2.

 

[egn]

Here is Courier's draw for the 1992 French Open:

First round: Kroon, Nicklas 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2
Second round: Muster, Thomas (AUT) 6-1 6-4 6-4
Third round: Mancini, Alberto (ARG) 6-4 6-2 6-0
Fourth round: Medvedev, Andrei (UKR) 6-1 6-4 6-2
Quarters: Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 6-2 6-1 2-6 7-5
Semis: Agassi, Andre (USA) 6-3 6-2 6-2
Final: Korda, Petr (CZE) 7-5 6-2 6-1

I would say that is a darn tough draw in fact, tougher than any draw Nadal has had to win the French Open. There are 4 really tough opponents on clay atleast. Muster in the 2nd round, Medvedev in the 4th round, Agassi in the semis. Mancini won the Italian Open in 1989 and was a finalist at the Italian Open in 1991. So that makes a 4th tough opponent on clay. Ivanisevic and Korda may not be that top notch of oppponents on clay but remember they were only the 5th and 6th toughest clay court opponents that Courier had to face. For the 2nd and 3rd easiest opponents you have in the whole draw to win, in that context they were awfully tough opponents to have.

Courier was really the best clay courter in the world still in 1993 IMO. He absolutely dominated in winning Rome again that year, including easily straight setting Bruguera, who he would lose to in the upcoming French Open final. He just had a bad day in the French Open final IMO and still it took 5 really hard sets for an inspired Bruguera to beat him. OK my comments on 93 are really getting into more subjective territory but isnt that what a thread with most/luckiest type questions is about. :wink: My personal feeling is he could have easily had 3 French Open titles, just as yours is he was lucky to have 2.

Yea good point lol it is all about it the debate over it.

 

[380pistol]

So now here comes the questions.

1) Who got the luckiest?

I don't know. Kafelnikov maybe. But all 3 times Guga won in Paris he gave Kuerten all he could handle. Coria, with no serve, average groundstokes, I guess.

2) Who had the worst luck?

Kuerten and Ferrero. If not for hip injury Guga likely wins 2002 French Open and contends fr 2002 and 2004 French Open, as he was 28 at time of 2004 French. He would be held higher with 4-5+ French titles. Ferrero should have beaten Costa in 2002. Contracted chicken pox and was never the same after 2003. No Guga and no Nadal and he is favoured over anyone in 2004. He'd probably be the 2nd best claycourter last 3-4 yrs behind Nadal.

3) Who is the most overrated?

Coria. Racked up most of his accomplished post Ferrero chicken pox and pre Nadal dominace. Nobody rates Costa and Gadio that highly but the have French Open titles while others who are clearly superior on clay don't.

4) Who never lived up to their potential?

Rios. He's a headcase. Can play well when he wants, then other times just wont. Could have had a much better career. Ferrero. He did live up to his potentioal (see 2003), but contracted chicken pox and other injuries and was never able to sustain it.

5) Who was the best?

Gustavo Kuerten.

 

[matchmaker]

So now here comes the questions.
1) Who got the luckiest?
2) Who had the worst luck?
3) Who is the most overrated?
4) Who never lived up to their potential?
5) Who was the best?

1) Kafelnikov / Agassi / Courier

2) Ferrero, could have won the FO several times, but bumped into a prime Guga at several occasions. 1 FO is not enough for him IMO.

3) Coria, Rios, actually I don't know why they are on your list, they are the only two who never won the FO, so they are not on the same level as the others.

4) Rios.

5) Kuerten

I am adding a category:
6) Who caused the greatest evolutionary change in clay court tennis:
Bruguera. Courier was the last person to win RG with a mid and flat and hard strokes. Bruguera invented the modern clay court game with lots of topspin. When Bruguera defeated Jim Courier, that was the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

 

[matchmaker]

Edited: double post

 

[matchmaker]

Edited: double post

 

[lendledbergfan]

6) Who caused the greatest evolutionary change in clay court tennis:
Bruguera. Courier was the last person to win RG with a mid and flat and hard strokes. Bruguera invented the modern clay court game with lots of topspin. When Bruguera defeated Jim Courier, that was the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

Borg and Wilander used a lot of topspin as well. Infact, Borg used some heavy topspin with those wooden rackets. Courier mainly won due to his agility and superb inside out forehands.

 

[FiveO]

1) Who got the luckiest?

Agassi* his RG win 1999 was, by his own admission [to his credit] "a bit of a fluke". Between '94 and '05 he played the event eleven times and beat only one player inside the top 10, Moya in that tourney. While overall Moya is considered a "quality" clay courter and was ranked/seeded #4 in the '99 RG, he was in the midst of his own "Agassi-like '97 slide" which would see Moya hit bottom at #69 by mid '00. Agassi's win also required a "Martin v. Washington '96 Wimbledon SF-like" yack from Medvedev in that final.


2) Who had the worst luck?

a) Agassi* '88 to '92, whether his then "gunslinger" metality was a better fit for him on clay, or merely because he didn't know any better, AA was a better player on clay in this period of his career. In '88 he met Mats Wilander in the SF who ended the year match wins short of a Grand Slam and took Wilander to 5 sets. For Wilander it was his 5th final and 3rd title there in seven tries.

In '90 he ran into an ultra hot Gomez, who had shellacked Muster in the SF that year.

'91-'92 Courier was a beast and either on his way to or at #1. From '91 to '95 they played 5 times and Courier was 5-0 vs. AA. Keep in mind that Agassi won Wimbledon in '92 and was at his absolute best in '95 when Courier was one of the few guys who took him out on hardcourts. This match-up also brought in their prior junior experience dynamic which IMO had a major effect on their h2h in the pros.

b) Kafelnikov '95 to '01. Met Muster in the '95 SF and Kuerten in the QF in '97, '00 and '01. Had he been in the opposite half of those draws YK likely would have had one or two more Major final appearances to add to his title there in '96, which may have served to dispel opinions that he was an unworthy champion.


3) Who is the most overrated?

Chang, on this surface. The expectations ascribed to him after his "fluke win" in '89 were unreasonable. There was an interesting story told by Nick Saviano, who was then serving as US Junior coach, who described, by Chang's own admission, how much of a "fish out of water" Chang was on clay. Yet despite doing very little on this surface, red Euro clay, after '89 he was always talked about as a contender.

Honorable mention: Agassi, for the reasons stated above.

4) Who never lived up to their potential?

Through no fault of his own: Kuerten. Guga clearly had the potential to put up 4-6 RG titles but suffered that catastrophic hip injury which ended any chance he had to put up those numbers.

5) Who was the best?

Kuerten.

5

 

[!Tym]

Borg and Wilander used a lot of topspin as well. Infact, Borg used some heavy topspin with those wooden rackets. Courier mainly won due to his agility and superb inside out forehands.

I wouldn't say it was his agility, it was his intimidating fitness level and impeccable powers of concentration. I thought it was clear from watching the 93 final that Bruguera had more talent and more clay court tools, but Courier had BY FAR the greater fitness, focus, and concentration. Watch again and you'll see Bruguera go into one of his infamous "mopey", "lethargic", "he looks like he's dying" spells, many times during this match. Courier? Never. Courier's body language from start to finish of a loooong five-setter was always the same, ROCK solid. And that's why Luke Jensen gave him the nickname, "The Rock."

In his prime, players thought they had no chance of outlasting Courier and they were already defeated before they entered the arena. It was the same with Muster in his prime. He gave a great interview on this subject before. He said that other players would just look at his fitness and get scared (Bruguera being one of them, as Bruguera feared playing Muster more than any other BY A LANDSIDE for this very reason). He said that they would maybe try hard for a set, but at the slightest hiccup, they'd just throw in the towel because they would say oh, man look at him, he's so fit, I have no chance, what's the point, and after that they'd just try to go for stupid winners that have no shot of going in and make his job ten times easier after that and inside he'd just be smiling and laughing thinking to himself, thank you very much.

That's what intimidating fitness does for a player. Not many have had this level of fitness that it would intimidate other players into submission, but Courier, Lendl, and Muster definitely did do this to great effect.

 

[cristiano]

and Nadal ;-)

 

[lendledbergfan]

I wouldn't say it was his agility, it was his intimidating fitness level and impeccable powers of concentration.

Yeah, thanks for correcting me. I meant to write fitness, but well these things happen when there are too many things in ming

Anyway, I still don't know how Sergi managed to win that '93 FO final. By his looks it was always like he'll fall down to ground the next moment. He might have played smart by giving up on the 4th set (after being broken) and conserving energy for the decider. Maybe Courier choked a bit in the 5th set, but Sergi seemed a lot more pumped up in the 5th and suddenly seemed energized.

 

[AndrewD]

Luckiest - Agassi. Gets to play the underwhelming Andrei Medvedev in the final (who caused a huge upset by beating Kuerten -struggling with the expectation of being defending champion), needs 5 sets to win and is gifted by a monumental break-down from Medvedev.

Agassi's draw the year he won:
R128 Franco Squillari (rank 38)
R64 Clement, Arnaud (81)
R32 Chris Woodruff (158)
R16 Carlos Moya (rank 4)
Q Marcelo Filippini (rank 140)
S Dominik Hrbaty (rank 30)
W Andrei Medvedev (rank 100)

Most overrated - Agassi. See above. Needs to play a third-rater like Medvedev in order to win.

Unluckiest - Yevgeny Kafelnikov. He had the misfortune to run into Gustavo Kuerten, one of the greatest clay-courters of all time, in the 97, 00 and 01 quarter-finals. Each time Kuerten went on to win the title. Two of those matches went the distance (5 sets) and the other went to 4 sets. In 97 Kafelnikov won the doubles title (for the second year in a row).
Anyone who thinks Kafelnikov was a lucky winner just doesn't know anything about tennis.

 

[GameSampras]

Agassi overrated? Cake Draws? What do u call Fed and Nadal's trips to the RG finals then? They certainly havent been difficult draws at all. Nowhere near what it took to reach the RG finals in the 90s

 

[380pistol]

Luckiest - Agassi. Gets to play the underwhelming Andrei Medvedev in the final (who caused a huge upset by beating Kuerten -struggling with the expectation of being defending champion), needs 5 sets to win and is gifted by a monumental break-down from Medvedev.

Agassi's draw the year he won:
R128 Franco Squillari (rank 38)
R64 Clement, Arnaud (81)
R32 Chris Woodruff (158)
R16 Carlos Moya (rank 4)
Q Marcelo Filippini (rank 140)
S Dominik Hrbaty (rank 30)
W Andrei Medvedev (rank 100)

Most overrated - Agassi. See above. Needs to play a third-rater like Medvedev in order to win.

Unluckiest - Yevgeny Kafelnikov. He had the misfortune to run into Gustavo Kuerten, one of the greatest clay-courters of all time, in the 97, 00 and 01 quarter-finals. Each time Kuerten went on to win the title. Two of those matches went the distance (5 sets) and the other went to 4 sets. In 97 Kafelnikov won the doubles title (for the second year in a row).
Anyone who thinks Kafelnikov was a lucky winner just doesn't know anything about tennis.

First of all in 1999 the defednding French Open champion wasn't Kuerten it was Moya, who Agassi took out. Also along with beating Sampras and Kuerten en route to the 1999 French Final, Medvedev also owns 4 masters on clay (Monte Carlo and 3 in Hamburg). Also in in 1992 (Courier), 1993-94 (Bruguera), 1995 (Muster) and 1997 (Kuerten), he lost to the evntual RG champ. Including 1999 that's 6 of 8 times from 1992-99.

Agassi's Roland Garros credentials include.....
-1 title
-2 finals
-2 semis
-4 quarters

And losses at RG came to Wilander (when Dre was 18 and Mats won 3 slams that year, and it went 5 sets), Courier (3 times), Muster, Kafelnikov, Ferrero (at 32), Coria during is short peak (at 33). His loss to Gomez looks bad, but Dre just turned 20 was ranked #5, and Gomez was ranked #7... yes #7!!!!!

Agassi can also claim victories over young Courier, Chang, Becker, Sampras and Moya at RG. Not bad for someone "lucky" or "overrated".

 

[380pistol]

So now here comes the questions.
1) Who got the luckiest?
2) Who had the worst luck?
3) Who is the most overrated?
4) Who never lived up to their potential?
5) Who was the best?

1) Kafelnikov / Agassi / Courier

2) Ferrero, could have won the FO several times, but bumped into a prime Guga at several occasions. 1 FO is not enough for him IMO.

3) Coria, Rios, actually I don't know why they are on your list, they are the only two who never won the FO, so they are not on the same level as the others.

4) Rios.

5) Kuerten

I am adding a category:
6) Who caused the greatest evolutionary change in clay court tennis:
Bruguera. Courier was the last person to win RG with a mid and flat and hard strokes. Bruguera invented the modern clay court game with lots of topspin. When Bruguera defeated Jim Courier, that was the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

Thses type of posts make me laugh.

Kafelnikov is considered "lucky" to you, although he had to face Kuerten(who you considered the best) 3 times (all years Guga won RG), pushing him to 5 sets twice, but Ferrero is unlucky due to the Kuerten plague, though he only played Kuerten once at RG ad Kuerten beat him 6-4,6-4,6-3.

Ferrero could have 2-3 French titles like I stated in an earlier post in this thread. He should have beat Costa in 2002 (though f not for hip injury, I would have favoured Guga iin 2002), but JCF woud have dealt with Coria/Gaudio in 2004. He contracted chicken pox in late 2003 and was never the same. Other injuries didn't help him either.

 

[!Tym]

Individual style matchups are a critical factor when you get to the upper echelon of the game. It's just like in MMA, "Styles make fights."

Kafelnikov has been quoted as saying that Guga had nothing for him, and that the only reason he ever beat him at the French was because he let him, because his mind failed him, because he lost focus, but that Guga's game had nothing to do with it basically. Remember Kafelnikov's the guy who ran over Guga at the US Open like he didn't even exist. Yes it was on a fast hard court, but irrespective of surface; I believe and always have believed that the ideal counter to Guga's style is someone w. PRECISELY Kafelnikov's style (and yes also Medvedev...who guess what also took Kuerten the distance in 97 and later beat him in straight sets on his way to the final).

Medvedev and Kafelnikov are almost like virtual mirrors of each other in terms of build, style, techniques, and attributes. Guga uses an extreme western grip on BOTH his backhand and forehand, and his main attribute (other than his heart and endurance) was that he would take huge sweeping cuts at the ball off both wings. When he was on, he was virtually unbeatable. He was like the Petr Korda of western grippers-clay basically. Went for the winner...but had the heart and stamina to withstand the bad patches unlike Korda.

Medvedev and Kafelnikov were both very accomplished clay courters, and both had forcing groundies. What made them unusual among other great claycourters of their day, however, was that they actually hit pretty flat balls and used fairly traditional technique/grips on their groundies. They were also robustly built and tall. They had the upper body strength and height to not let Guga's topspin affect them too badly, and they had the margin for error over the net to hit their flat groundies w. consistency (...except of course when their miserable hearts and poor powers of concentration were failing them of course...which with them happened all too often). Their simple, methodical stroking technique w. very littel squirel to it held steady against the often times unpredictable nature of Guga's strokes. They were strokes made to turn Guga's power/spin combo against him like a solid BRICK wall at their best. If they were shorter and less robustly built they would have had problems, but their builds were the perfect counter, AND their average bounce height was not plum in Guga's prime stroke zone while Guga's average bounce height was in theirs. When Bruguera got in the zone, he tooled Medvedev so bad it was almost shocking...even on hard courts at the Lipton. But note that Bruguera hit an abnormally exaggerated high-bouncing style of topspin. This COULD get out of Medvedev's strike zone, even w. his height & build because of his not so extreme grips.

It's been said that at this level of the game, the biggest factor in style matchups is where players' typical groundies land relative to each other's ideal strike zones. EVERY player, height, build, and stroking technique has an ideal strike zone, it's proverbial sweet spot, and playing your best means getting as many chances as possible to hit balls in your ideal strike zone. Is Santoro some clay court giant of the game? No, but he played Kuerten tough because he was able to get balls out of Kuerten's ideal strike zone throwing his signature dragonesque flame throwing out of whack, out of rhythm. Note, that Bruguera's balls which would bounce out of Medvedev's ideal strike zone, landed exactly in Guga's. Why is that? Because Guga's a very tall guy too, like Medvedev...and yet Guga uses an extreme grips and wiggly motiohns, perfect to sweep over Bruguera's balls that would practically bounce over Arazi's head on one hand in their quarterfinal but land right in Guga's sweetspot. Put it this way, if you're at batting practice and want to look good you tell the pitcher hey throw it right where you like it w. just the right kind of spin and just the right kind of pace that you prefer. If your hired pitching dummy does his job right, you look like the next coming of Babe Ruth.

Note that McEnroe was sinfully GUSHING over Arazi coming into the Bruguera quarterfinal. He had him up on a HIGHER pedestal than Kuerten believe it or not, and acting like he was the messiah Jesus himself come to save tennis and bring back the panache of the old days and Laver and all. He was basing all this, however, on the match he had just seen from Arazi in which he took out Rios in straights. Rios afterward said if he can continue to play like that, he'll win the whole thing. In fact, according to McEnroe the grounds and players were all buzzing saying that this kid Arazi had just played some of the best tennis they had seen in a long, looong, LONG time. What McEnroe did not take into account, however, was that Rios' neither flat nor whirlwind laden balls land on average, guess what? Yup right exactly in Arazi's ideal strike zone given his similarly neither quite classic nor modern forehand and backhand swings/grips/techniques and also his diminutive height/build. By the end of the Bruguera match, however, a much more sober McEnroe says hmm, he's talented enough...but the question is IS HE TALL ENOUGH? Gee, as if that doesn't seem unbelievably obvious now looking back...and yet somehow that escaped McEnroe's "logic" coming into the match. All it took was this ONE match to expose that gasp it was possible to get balls OUT of Arazi's ideal strike zone and make him misfire more often than not, make him run out of gas very quickly, and generally demoralize him and send him into one of his infamous whimsical flaky modes. Gee...I wonder why he was able to maintain his focus and endurance against Rios but so suddenly not against Bruguera? See, that's what flaky players do. When things are going their way, they don't act flaky, they like appearing like a genius. When things aren't going their way, they start acting flaky, because it masks the fact that there are more logical rules on which the universe is governed...you know, "Styles make fights."

Note that Hewitt always made Henman and Kafelnikov his little b*tch. Why is that? STYLE. Hewitt's game is the PERFECT counter for these two. Kafelnikov, for example, was a consistent 90-93 fastball type player w. impeccable placement and precision at his best...and yet to get Hewitt out of his comfort zone you need to either bounce the ball high and out of his strike zone like Bruguera types or be able to bring more heat than that. He just didn't have a way to get to Hewitt. His all-court volleys? So what, if Hewitt didn't sniff at Sampras or Henman, he certainly wouldn't be afraid of Kafelnikov's volleys. Kafelnikov coulnd't outlast Hewitt, outgrind him, outrun him, hit quite enough topspin to faze him, or hit quite hard enough to shellack him. Yev's average pace/spin/bounce height level on his groundies were PRECISELY what Hewitt dreams of in a dream world, it's what he sets his ball machine to when he wants to look good for Bec. Watch Kafelnikov vs. Hewitt at the US Open to see how Kafelnikov can go from looking unbelievably impressive the day before in humilating Kuerten, then look like the world's most hapless player w. the least chance of winning a match of any professional you've ever seen against Hewitt the next. That's indidvidual matchups folks, and speaks nothing to the individual ability of each of these fine, fine players.

Remember, Rafter and Edberg owned Muster...yet Bruguera owned Rafter (he admitted to basically letting him win in 96 because he was tired after the Olympics and didn't want to expend himself)...even beat him on gasp grass just as Rafter and Edberg beat Muster on clay. And yet Muster owned Bruguera and struck fear in him like no other. Again, it's all about matchups. Rios in terms of style was a perfect counter for Agassi, and made him look silly at his best, and yet a guy who no one thinks of being talented, regularly made Rios look...for lack of a better word...ordinary, routine. And that would be Michael Chang doing that to Rios.

Note, that Courier AND Malivai Washington both beat Kuerten before the French that year ON CLAY *in Brazil* in Davis Cup on a day so scorching Courier had to immediately get IVs afterward. Courier said he was about to collapse from heat exhaustion and had to get IV's immediately afterward. Guess what, Courier & Washington are robustly built, and don't rely on getting balls up HIGH out of an opponents strike zone to win like Bruguera.

Note how Safin was HUMILIATING Courier in Davis Cup Ivan Drago style, when Courier tried to bang w. him off both sides, and would you try to bang with Ivan Drago? Heck no. Courier decides to start throwing nothing but junk at Safin, give him no pace, and wouldn't you know it wins! Safin's chink has been exposed. ...but then again Santoro could have already told you that. See what happened when Agassi desided to go toe to toe w. a young and green Safin at the French...he lost a close one, but he still clearly lost the battle against a bigger Terminator than he...who looked invincible. You don't need to think that much or have that much experience when guys just VOLUNTEER to throw balls right into your strike zone, giving you the exact kind of balls and pace and bounce height that you want time and time again. Note that Pioline, hardly a legend like Agassi, then of course, would go on to do what Agassi couldn't later that tournament. He chopped the giant down, and by the end had brought him to his knees begging for mercy. Pioline MIXED IT UP w. flair, he got Safin dizzy w. a combination of flat shot one second, slice the next, topspin moonball the next, short angle the next, surprise net approach the next, etc. By the end, Safin looked utterly wasted, discombobulated. Pioline smoked him the final two sets. Styles make fights.

 

[julesb]

Kafelnikov has been quoted as saying that Guga had nothing for him, and that the only reason he ever beat him at the French was because he let him, because his mind failed him, because he lost focus, but that Guga's game had nothing to do with it basically.

All that means is that he is delusional.

 

[FiveO]

All that means is that he is delusional.

Just another example of why YK was generally disliked. I could never bring myself to root for him, and lament that Guga had his career ostensibly ended by injury.

In reality, he's actually right. Their h2h ended with YK 5-7 against Guga. That's only a one match swing. Had one of those two RG five setters gone the other way they would have ended 6-6. To me, Guga is one of the greatest RG champions ever. On that level, while YK never ended up being that guy, it demonstrates just how close Kafelnikov was to that level and being that guy at RG and, to a slightly lesser degree, at the AO. I think what also detracts from his legacy is the expectations/failures he always entered/exited the USO with, which in that era of highly polarized speeds, was clearly his third best, or second worst surface.

5

 

[navratilovafan]

In reality, he's actually right. Their h2h ended with YK 5-7 against Guga. That's only a one match swing. Had one of those two RG five setters gone the other way they would have ended 6-6.

The thing is that 5-7 with Kuerten is not their clay court head to head. That is their head to head counting all their matches on non-clay surfaces as well where Kuerten was far from a great player despite very occasional spurts of strong play. Their clay court head to head is not competitive at all, 4-1 for Kuerten, and Kafelnikov's only win came when Kuerten was a 19 year old complete unknown in 1996. It actually speaks even more favorably to Kuerten and less so to Kafelnikov that even with the benefit of over half his matches with Kuerten being off of clay Kuerten still has the winning head to head. Most top 10 players of the 90s with the benefit of 7 of 12 matches with Kuerten being not on clay would probably have an even winning head to head, on the basis of winning atleast 5 of the 7 non-clay matches (could easily be 6 or 7) and beating 19 year old nobody Kuerten on clay.

On that level, while YK never ended up being that guy, it demonstrates just how close Kafelnikov was to that level and being that guy at RG and, to a slightly lesser degree, at the AO.

This is simply not true at all. Just because Kafelnikov lost to Kuerten three times in the quarterfinals does not show he would have won any of those titles otherwise. That would be along the lines of reasoning that Gomez would have won all those French Open titles where he lost to Lendl and been a clay court legend. There were quite a few other better and more accomplished clay courters to likely take Kafelnikov out had Kuerten not been there during that span: Bruguera Corretja, Moya, Ferrero. If anything he was lucky that his draw kept coming out that Kuerten was the first decent opponent he faced each of those years so he came out looking to some people losing to Kuerten instead of losing to someone else.

!Tym was right on one thing. Kuerten obviously was a good matchup for Kafelnikov. As their matches at the French were far closer than their respective abilities on clay really are. Despite that Kuerten still managed to not only own Kafelnikov on clay but play him even on non-clay surfaces too.

 

[matchmaker]

Thses type of posts make me laugh.

Kafelnikov is considered "lucky" to you, although he had to face Kuerten(who you considered the best) 3 times (all years Guga won RG), pushing him to 5 sets twice, but Ferrero is unlucky due to the Kuerten plague, though he only played Kuerten once at RG ad Kuerten beat him 6-4,6-4,6-3.

Ferrero could have 2-3 French titles like I stated in an earlier post in this thread. He should have beat Costa in 2002 (though f not for hip injury, I would have favoured Guga iin 2002), but JCF woud have dealt with Coria/Gaudio in 2004. He contracted chicken pox in late 2003 and was never the same. Other injuries didn't help him either.

These posts with wrong facts really make me laugh.

Kuerten played Kafelnikov three times in the QF. In 1997 the result was:6–2, 5–7, 2–6, 6–0, 6–4; in 2000: 6–3, 3–6, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2; and in 2001:6–1, 3–6, 7–6(3), 6–4. Each time the last sets were convincingly won by Kuerten and the last time he needed less than a five-setter.

Ferrero crossed the path of Kuerten twice: the first time in 2000 in the SF: 7–5, 4–6, 2–6, 6–4, 6–3, when he took him to five sets, and only the second time he was swept away in straight sets in 2001, again in the SF: 6–4, 6–4, 6–3 in one of the most spectacular claycourt performances ever seen. Guga played otherworldly that day.

Had Kafelnikov won, he would certainly not have had the title in his pocket yet, having to play against Ferrero in the next round. The H2H between them is 2-1 in favor of Kafelnikov, but the only time they played on clay Ferrero brushed him aside 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, in a Davis cup rubber, so I doubt Kafelnikov wasn't motivated.

Ferrero would have at least been only a match away from the title with the opponents between him and that title being: Magnus Norman (H2H: 1-1, no matches on clay) and Alex Corretja respectively (H2H: 4-2 in favor of Ferrero).

 

[!Tym]

Kafelnikov was one of those guys like Pioline to me. Don't count on nothing except consistent inconsistency. It wouldn't surprise me if Kafelnikov beat God one day, then lost to Filip Dewulf the next. He was just that kind of guy, but if he was at his best like Pioline, he had talent to burn.

 

[anointedone]

Thses type of posts make me laugh.

Kafelnikov is considered "lucky" to you, although he had to face Kuerten(who you considered the best) 3 times (all years Guga won RG), pushing him to 5 sets twice, but Ferrero is unlucky due to the Kuerten plague, though he only played Kuerten once at RG ad Kuerten beat him 6-4,6-4,6-3.

Ferrero could have 2-3 French titles like I stated in an earlier post in this thread. He should have beat Costa in 2002 (though f not for hip injury, I would have favoured Guga iin 2002), but JCF woud have dealt with Coria/Gaudio in 2004. He contracted chicken pox in late 2003 and was never the same. Other injuries didn't help him either.

The difference is Ferrero would have very likely beaten everyone else those two years had it not been for Kuerten. Kafelnikov would not have. It also does not matter which was closer to beating Kuerten . As was already noted Kafelnikov gets up for Kuerten and seems to play well above his level, while Ferrero chokes a bit vs certain opponents he doesnt feel as confident against.

By the way if you wonder about how those two would match up on clay the one time they played on clay Ferrero won 6-2, 6-2, 6-2; in the case watching the two play on clay and their overall achievements on the surface are not easily enough to distinguish who is better and would have benefited much more from Kuerten's absence.

 

[anointedone]

Kafelnikov was one of those guys like Pioline to me. Don't count on nothing except consistent inconsistency. It wouldn't surprise me if Kafelnikov beat God one day, then lost to Filip Dewulf the next. He was just that kind of guy, but if he was at his best like Pioline, he had talent to burn.

Kafelnikov has never beaten a top gun in a grand slam on anything but their by far worst surface. He has never beaten Sampras in any match (and he had 9 chances) on a surface that isnt clay. So even his own personal god days are nothing anyone would run and hide from. You are right he has massive inconsistency issues to go along with his limited peak level of play though.

 

[FiveO]

These posts with wrong facts really make me laugh.

Kuerten played Kafelnikov twice in the QF but it went only once to 5 sets. In 2000 the result was: 6–3, 3–6, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2; and in 2001:6–1, 3–6, 7–6(3), 6–4.

Ferrero crossed the path of Kuerten twice: the first time in 2000 in the SF: 7–5, 4–6, 2–6, 6–4, 6–3, when he took him to five sets, and only the second time he was swept away in straight sets in 2001, again in the SF: 6–4, 6–4, 6–3 in one of the most spectacular claycourt performances ever seen. Guga played otherworldly that day.

Had Kafelnikov won, he would certainly not have had the title in his pocket yet, having to play against Ferrero in the next round. The H2H between them is 2-1 in favor of Kafelnikov, but the only time they played on clay Ferrero brushed him aside 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, in a Davis cup rubber, so I doubt Kafelnikov wasn't motivated.

Ferrero would have at least been only a match away from the title with the opponents between him and that title being: Magnus Norman (H2H: 1-1, no matches on clay) and Alex Corretja respectively (H2H: 4-2 in favor of Ferrero).

In '97 Kuerten beat Kafelnikov 6-2 5-7 2-6 6-0 6-4 in their first of three QF meetings at RG.

The thing is that 5-7 with Kuerten is not their clay court head to head. That is their head to head counting all their matches on non-clay surfaces as well where Kuerten was far from a great player despite very occasional spurts of strong play. Their clay court head to head is not competitive at all, 4-1 for Kuerten, and Kafelnikov's only win came when Kuerten was a 19 year old complete unknown in 1996. It actually speaks even more favorably to Kuerten and less so to Kafelnikov that even with the benefit of over half his matches with Kuerten being off of clay Kuerten still has the winning head to head. Most top 10 players of the 90s with the benefit of 7 of 12 matches with Kuerten being not on clay would probably have an even winning head to head, on the basis of winning atleast 5 of the 7 non-clay matches (could easily be 6 or 7) and beating 19 year old nobody Kuerten on clay.



This is simply not true at all. Just because Kafelnikov lost to Kuerten three times in the quarterfinals does not show he would have won any of those titles otherwise. That would be along the lines of reasoning that Gomez would have won all those French Open titles where he lost to Lendl and been a clay court legend. There were quite a few other better and more accomplished clay courters to likely take Kafelnikov out had Kuerten not been there during that span: Bruguera Corretja, Moya, Ferrero. If anything he was lucky that his draw kept coming out that Kuerten was the first decent opponent he faced each of those years so he came out looking to some people losing to Kuerten instead of losing to someone else.

!Tym was right on one thing. Kuerten obviously was a good matchup for Kafelnikov. As their matches at the French were far closer than their respective abilities on clay really are. Despite that Kuerten still managed to not only own Kafelnikov on clay but play him even on non-clay surfaces too.

None of these guys was a foregone conclusion v. Kafelnikov.

Your best case was Ferrero in 2000. As while YK was 2-1 h2h but 0-1 on clay.

Moya would be a coin flip too as he was 3-3 overall, 2-2 on clay. Moya was a non factor in '97, 2000 and 2001, losing 2R, 1R and 2R those years.

But if anything was equal between those two it was their mental fragility.

YK was 4-3 overall and 2-1 v. Bruguera on clay.

Corretja finished 2-5 v. YK, 1-3 on clay. Corretja was 0-3 on clay v. YK until 2002.

5

 

[!Tym]

In '97 Kuerten beat Kafelnikov 6-2 5-7 2-6 6-0 6-4 in their first of three QF meetings at RG.



None of these guys was a foregone conclusion v. Kafelnikov.

Your best case was Ferrero in 2000. As while YK was 2-1 h2h but 0-1 on clay.

Moya would be a coin flip too as he was 3-3 overall, 2-2 on clay. Moya was a non factor in '97, 2000 and 2001, losing 2R, 1R and 2R those years.

But if anything was equal between those two it was their mental fragility.

YK was 4-3 overall and 2-1 v. Bruguera on clay.

Corretja finished 2-5 v. YK, 1-3 on clay. Corretja was 0-3 on clay v. YK until 2002.

5

I once read that Bruguera only really seemed to show up (meaning give his 110%) at the French. Kafelnikov and Medvedev were basically the same player to me, except Kafelnikov would mix in net forays a little more had a less offensive serve moved slightly better but didn't have quite as penetrating groundies. Medvedev got pretty much masacred by Bruguera two years in a row at the French, but beat him on clay everywhere else it seemed. Bruguera had two gears. When he decided to put the afterburners on on clay and was feeling confident like he did to Berasategui in the last set of their final, he was as good as any I've seen on clay. Again, two gear Bruguera. Sampras, Lipton match, there was the one gear in which he was playing hard and trying, then his second gear really kicking in during the second set tiebreak and in the third. 97 semi against Rafter, wasn't playing too great, looked like a guy afraid to lose another chance at a Roland Garros title after two injury-riddled years in a row...best way to describe it is, he played well in patches this match but couldn't really put it all together most of the time. Then, he turned it on in the fourth set tie-break and went up 6-0 in the blink of an eye. That's that second gear I'm talking about. In the final against Kuerten, Kuerten was on fire and later said he would never be able to play that well again, he couldn't believe how well he was playing. Bruguera played very uninspired as well though, he also pretty much started tanking by the end. And started going into his lull you to sleep mode, when he'd look kind of half-hearted like his head was already gone. That was a ploy he used, it's what flaky half-assed players like him and Arazi and others use. And yet if Kuerten had bit, and let up even a little or started thinking about the moment for once, Bruguera would have jumped on him. I've seen a ton of Bruguera matches, and that was a consistent pattern with him. He'd look all out of it, lethargic, mopey, keeling over, or completely disinterested or uninspired...then poof, BAM, he'd wake up oh so suddenly and convienently and try to blitz you (i.e. "The champ maybe playing a little possume there", and "We've seen Bruguera look lethargic in the past...he looked lethargic in the first set against Chang before..."). When he struck though, he'd strike like a cobra and REALLY turn it up. His grunts would get loud, he'd run, sprint, dive after everything in sight, his power, spin, everything would go way up. His eyes would start to bulge and look hyper alert. There really wasn't much in between with him. In his hyped up modes, I've seen him give Becker everything he could handle indoors at the year ending masters semis; even Becker said he should have, would have won that had he not got tight in the second. After that, he kind of just went away completely...immediately. That's how he was. Imo, Kafelnikov was actually a much more consistent day-in, day-out type player at your average tournie than Bruguera (and no, not because anymore inherently consistent or less flaky and half-assed as Bruguera, but rather because he was above all else a MONEY CHASER to no end. I couldn't figure Bruguera a lot of times. At the year ending 97 masters, he looked like he didn't care at all, completely disinterested and uninspired. No bulging eyes, no hyper alert body language (see the end of the 93 final in the final game when Courier threw the kitchen sink at Bruguera but Bruguera still held his ground), nothing, like no pulse rate. I saw him do this against Haas in 98 at the World Team Cup warmup thing on clay. This was the year, Bruguera said in an interview, he'd lost all interest in tennis for the time being due to personal reasons and his head just wasn't there. It showed. In this match, Bruguera tried for a few games then inexplicably he just went through the motions the rest of the way and LET Haas routine him and didn't care one iota.

Granted, Bruguera's my favorite player of all time so I'm biased, but head-to-head records w. Bruguera are misleading I feel sometimes because of this tendency he had. In a one-off situation w. his life on the line, I think I would like his chances over Kafelnikov on clay IF, and it's a HUGE if with someone like Bruguera, if it was at Roland Garros.

Another ex: Patrick McEnroe put it best w. Bruguera during the Lipton semi. He said Bruguera CAN be a GREAT competitor...SOMETIMES. He said Bruguera when healthy, fit, and confident was an unbelievable competitor, but when he wasn't one of things, he pretty much wasn't even there...in body only. That's why one tour insider said he was "always half-azzed. Sometimes motivated, sometimes not." His peak level of tennis at his best though was up there with the very best of his generation. Not many people could have come within two points of taking a six-love set from a non-tanking Sampras indoors on the OLD indoors the way Bruguera did to Sampras at the 93 Masters, but he did it. Cliff Drysdale said of Bruguera in that Lipton match, "don't let his ranking full you, he's a lot better than that," and "this is two heavyweights going at it." Yup, that's right Bruguera and SAMPRAS in the same sentence on hard courts, and yet NEITHER were surprised that Bruguera was able to beat Sampras this match. In fact, before the match, PMac said if he plays the way he's been playing, I actually think he has a real chance...that he had seen him take out Korda and Stich back to back earlier this year and this is no fluke. In other words, they knew that there were two Brugueras. The going through the motions Bruguera, and then the "heavyweight" Bruguera. They had a sense, which one was going to show up on this day. Again, there was really no in between with him. In the finals, he's in the hyper alert mode for MOST of the first set up until the point he should have won it...but didn't...any other time, if that point were replayed a hundred times, Bruguera wins it...then he quit. Instantly & immediately he quit. That's my point, Bruguera was a heavyweight WHEN things were going his way. Kafelnikov was inconsisent in the mind for sure, but in reality he was as close to a tour ironman as we've had. The reason is that unlike Medvedev and Bruguera, he chased the money above all else. Remember, Medvedev saying after ridiculous loss to journeyman Delgado at Wimbledon that his head wasn't in the game right now, but that he knew his talent was as good as anyone's out there and that he could beat anyone if his head was all there and committed. He said though that he's never been the kind of guy you can FORCE to play just to play, he has to make up the mind for himself and no one would ever change that about him. Remember, Bruguera was also like this. He used to tank matches on purpose just to spite his dad when they got into arguments. He was sad to have fought tough and nail being brought to see Jim Loehr, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming by his dad basically to do it. No wonder they were best buds... With money though as your motivation though? Well, there's always another chance to pad your bank account next week, and that's the way Kafelnikov seemed to see it (something for which he was widely criticized throughout his career, always going for the sure thing...the dough...never the peak). That's what FORCED him to not completely half-ass it the way other half-assed players (like Medevedev and Bruguera, coincidentally best friends on tour) would. He saw the dough, the mulah, around every corner. He was motivated in a workman's way. Imo, his actual talent level is much higher than perceived by many on this board. His actual tour contemporaries viewed him as one of the great talents out there. His problem was that instead of playing to peak, he played for the long march, he played for the week-in, week-out, "sure thing" prize money. He blew his load living a mechanical existence in other words, rationing out just how much he would "put out" every week. In doing so, he lost the sprinter's ability to sprint, to REALLY sprint, when you really need to. Becker wasn't a day-in, day-out player, never a day-in, day-out number one like Lendl; but when it mattered most that's when Becker got his wins over Lendl. Inspiration over perspiration sometimes.

 

[!Tym]

Btw, never too impressed by Corretja. To me, he was a very overrated player in that while his heart was as big as anyone's, he didn't really do anything so exceptionally KAZAM! to make me ever truly consider him an elite player or talent. I'm still scratching my head over how he won a year ending masters. Basically, to me he was like the Michael Chang of elite claycourters the same way Chang was among the elite hard courters. Yes, technically, they're both elite clay courters/hard courters, but we all knew full well that even if they might have won a masters event on aforementioned surfaced leading up to the US Open or French, you were never really surprised when a bigger boy giving 110% effort (something not always seen outside the grand slams) routined them on the biggest occasion. "Effort" players like this, for lack of a better description, generally get beat on the biggest occasion but do the beating on the lesser occasions simply because on the lesser occasions the other guy doesn't care (quite) as much as they do.

I actually think a prime A. Costa had a more fierce clay court game than him, he hit a slightly heavier ball and competed just as tenaciously...w. a bit of a bark to him like Muster actually. Probably the only guy who wasn't afraid to stand up to Muster like a MAN during Muster's reign of terror. Outside clay, he was hurt more though because he didn't have Corretja's more offensive first serve or his volleying ability.

The most underrated clay courter of the 90s are Felix Mantilla and Carlos Costa. Costa was a little lacking in terms of the ferocious punch but was a stylish, elegant player to watch. He reminded me of the Guy Forget of clay courters, that guy who always seemed just that good...yet just a hair lower in pedigree than the Becker/Brugueras of the world. I quite enjoyed watching him play, however, it was like watching Fernando Melligeni w. class and dignity (I don't mean to say that Meligeni wasn't a class guy, but his loosey-goosey strokes always gave me the feeling that they were lacking a center, a.k.a. dignity, just an impression I'm talking about how his strokes made me feel).

The biggest waste of talent of the 90s wasn't Stich, it was by far Medvedev. He was just a bigger, badder version of Kafelnikov to me at his best. Seriously heavy, penetrating groundies, one of the few guys I've seen able to push Agassi around like a rag doll (though yes Agassi was nervous as a lump of wet clay...from peing in his panties at the beginning of that final apparently). One of the most beautiful pure ball strikers I've ever seen, I loved watching him play. Such simple yet effective strokes, I've never seen anyone hit as hard as him with such little effort expended and with such economical stroking motions. He unfortunately didn't take his conditioning seriously enough and just ran into some bad luck at times, and that combined with his stubbornly uncommitted streak make him BY FAR the greatest waste of talent I've ever seen in tennis. To me, it feels almost downright criminal that Yevgeny Kafelnikov will almost definitely get into the hall of fame with his two slams wins and Olympic gold, but Medvedev will go down as a lump of coal in tennis history. I still can't get over the fact that Thomas Johansson and Gaston Gaudio have slams, but this guy who had every tool and the sky's the limit (as was said of him when he first came up) has none.

Had Petr Korda retired without having won a slam I would have felt the same way. About Pioline and Coria I do feel that way. Rios? eh...to be honest I felt he was a little overrated so I don't feel quite that way. All the talent in the world, but I felt he was a little too small and eventually it would catch up to him over the course of a long two week slam with best of five matches. Meaning? He had to rely on that unique "magical", "intangible" "qualiy" he had a little too much to win matches against the big guns. Imo, no matter how talented you are, when you're talking a two week slam with best of five matches the whole way, you need something a little more substantive and whole to fall back on when you wake up slightly less than mercurious. Rios never had that to fall back on (in a way like Berasategui never had that backhand...or serve...or volley to fall back on if his forehand was anything less than murderous on the day); and imo it would eventually always catch up to him at the slams so it was no surprise to me that he never won a slam. He's a sprinter, a Harlem Globe Trotter, not a long-distance runner.

Rios on his off-magical days was just...well...ordinary for lack of a better word.

 

[julesb]

Medvedev can blame himself for choking away that French Open final. One of the most horrific chokes I have ever seen which is overlooked by people since it was Agassi's "big" moment.

 

[lambielspins]

Without Kuerten the French Open winners in the years he won would have been IMO:

1997- Bruguera
2000- Magnus Norman or Ferrero
2001- Ferrero

Ferrero probably also would not have choked the 2002 FO final had he already won there. Ferrero would have been the biggest beneficiary, not Kafelnikov by any stretch.

 

[!Tym]

Without Kuerten the French Open winners in the years he won would have been IMO:

1997- Bruguera
2000- Magnus Norman or Ferrero
2001- Ferrero

Ferrero probably also would not have choked the 2002 FO final had he already won there. Ferrero would have been the biggest beneficiary, not Kafelnikov by any stretch.

One question though, so much is made of Ferrero choking like a dog against Costa, but I think I remember that Ferrero was also very sick that day and that had a lot to do with it. Can anyone confirm? Obviously not everyone wakes up at 100% everyday and this does play a factor (what I was saying about Rios not able to win when he woke up slightly less the mercurial that day). Ferrero really did look sick to me that day. Also, I don't think Costa is given enough credit for that victory either. Say what you will about Ferrero, but make no mistake Costa showed up to win that day. He was in the zone and peaked at the exact right time. He struggled mightily to get to the final and won purely on heart not playing his best tennis, but then in the final he picked the exact right time to peak and played BY FAR his best tennis of the event. I think we have to give him some credit for that.

It actually reminds me a lot of when Edberg won the US Open in 92. He stuggled mightily the whole way not playing anywhere near his best, but he survived round after round tooth, claw, and nail on the gasp of his beating little heart. Then when the final hit, everyone expected Courier the dominant inform guy of the time to roll him. But it didn't happen. Instead it resulted in one of the most lopsided blowouts in grand slam history. For whatever reason, on this day, Edberg chose to peak, it was almost like it was God's gift for struggling so hard to reach the final.

So much of winning and losing at this level, is peaking at the right time, and to the victor goes the applause. I truly feel that Albert Costa gets virtually NO credit for his French victory just because he wasn't some big name, and it's undue. He said a year later about his victory, that anyone can play good when they're playing good, but to win when you're playing bad takes heart. For such a dominant Roland Garros champion it's amazing when you think about just how many times Guga was on the verge of defeat at Roland Garros. The reason I say he was like the Petr Korda of clay but with heart is that Petr Korda on the fast stuff was a winner machine when he was on and went through people like a hot knife through butter on his "on" days as a result. However, if he was off, that was it. It was no question he was going to lose, he was incapable of surviving and winning on heart. Kuerten once famously drew a heart in the clay after surviving match points down against the lowliest of the low in Michael Russel, because why? To symbolize how he was a guy who found a way to win whether he was playing his best, feeling his best, or not.

Guga gets so much love for this aspect of himself, yet Costa gets none for his stirring run to the Roland Garros title.

His will, his heart, would NOT be denied that tournament. And even if Ferrero didn't wake up sick that morning, even if Ferrero had played to his potential; I'm serious when I say I'm not sure if he would have won anyway. I think had Ferrero woke up and come to play that day, we would have been treated to a five-set war. I really think it was simply Alberto Costa's time and year that year. He earned it through years and years of toil on clay (always seemingly just that one hair below the very best at the time), it wasn't given to him on a silver platter. When Costa won the tournament, he was actually on the downslope of his career and most thought his prime years were now behind him. He was just barely hanging on at that point to being seen as an outside force in the game (as he was seen during his "prime"). To me, he summoned all his will and effort like never before for that one last run at a title, and he was rewarded. He should feel no shame in that, and I don't think that should be taken away from him either.

To me, a choke job is Medvedev vs. Agassi or Coria vs. Gaudio, but in this case, I do feel that Ferrero woke up by the end but by that point it was too late Costa's heart and form had swelled and on this day he played bigger than he really was and he would not be denied. Ferrero choked a bit, Ferrero was sick a bit, both things are true; but it's not like he was totally incapacitated by the moment and rendered non-functional like Coria was when his opponent was practically gift-wrapping and begging him to take the title he was choking so bad himself.