Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Blinkism, Aug 4, 2010.
Muster has a very good game in clay. I would love to see him play again.
but the big tournaments bring out the best in the champions, both of them deserve center court Roland Garros
its like me playing in practice..i suck in practice but come the match i play really well.
He was practicing with Serena Williams at the Australian Open this year.
that would have been fun to watch.
He retired again already didnt he?
yes - played his last match in austria.
i know that he played at the australian open in the senior events.
muster is a madman, one of the most energetic, and ruthless competitors to ever play the game. his heart and determination might only be 2nd to Nadal in terms of all time.
the comeback was a gimmick anyway. maybe he needed some time away from his family.
If he was playing, Becker would too as he owes Muster a good beating.
Federer should hire Muster to hit Forehands to Federer's backhand.
Becker only has himself to blame for that 1995 Monte Carlo final loss, going for that big second serve on match point.
just some good playing by muster, that 2nd serve was a beast of a serve just easily returned by muster.
Shape doesn't matter. You can't regain your youth. He's got OLD legs!
Ooh ouch, from 2-0 up to losing in a 5th set bagel
Becker had two championship points when he went 6-4 up in the tiebreak. The first CP was on Becker's own serve, and he went for the big second serve, knocked it long and double faulted. I absolutely love the point at 6-6 in the tiebreak. Here's the tiebreak from 5-4 onwards.
Weak era??? You want to know about weak era look at 41y.o. Connors plowing his way into the 4th round at Wimbledon and quarter finals at USO where he beat the 3th seed and pushed the 6th seed to 5 sets. That was a weak era. Now Muster is struggling to get sets of of players ranked in the top 200 and you are calling this a weak era
Fascinating, since those events never happened. Connors played his last major just when he had just turned 40 (1992 US Open).
yeah, whatever. 40-41 big difference... that is not the point. Point is that when you have someone well past his prime tennis age being competitive and even beating top 10 players in majors 3 out of 5 sets, something is terribly wrong (excellent example of a weak era).
to see the equivalent just imagine the same scenario repeating today - somehow Muster makes it into RG and faces the number 3 seed (incidentally it is the guy who took best advantage of the current "weak" era ) what do you think the score will look like? I say 6:0-6:0-6:0 with Muster struggling to win points not games.
Well, Muster did better in his 2010-2011 comeback than what Borg managed in his 1991-1993 comeback. Muster managed to win 2 matches whereas Borg won zero.
Muster was playing mostly Challengers, which is where he got his two wins, against guys ranked outside the top 100, versus Borg, who was playing tour level events, not Challengers, and almost beat a guy in the top 20, something tells me he could have won some Challenger matches as well, especially against guys ranked in the 500's.
beating leonardo mayer was impressive,and going 3 sets w/haider maurer too
Borg, Muster, Wilander....they are not going to beat current top-10 or top-20 players in their forties or fifties because their game relied heavily on fitness and physical prime.
Connors is very different, he played inside the baseline, taking the balls on the rise and hitting very flat.
McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras...they can still play at a very high level (for a single set) in their forties, fifties (McEnroe) for the same reason, they don't rely heavily on fitness and physical prime.
Borg's comeback was in the early 90's, which is what I was refering to, not today.
Separate names with a comma.