Best Overall Game between Goran, Krajicek, and Stich
 

In your opinion who had the best overall game of these 3? I say Stich

I'd agree, though this is a very tough call and an excellent question as they all have similar credentials. Stick was definitely the smoothest of the lot and had no real weaknesses. When he was on, like in the Wimbledon final against Becker, he seemed unbeatable.

That said, I think Ivanisevic and Krajicek had better serves. Stick's was still great, obviously, but I'd say Ivanisevic and Krajicek may be in the top 5 servers of all time. Stick is a bit outside of that.

Krajicek may have been a tad better at the net, but it's hard to say. Ivanisevic volleyed just okay. Krajicek's return wasn't too great, nor was his backhand.

So I see the other two as having more semi-weaknesses. Of course, this doesn't take the mental game into account.

The real shame is that we lost all these players too soon, especially Stick and Krajicek. Thought I'd see Stick battling Sampras for many majors, but it never happened. Damn injuries!!

Definitely Stich, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek in that order. All 3 had pretty good overall games though. I am not saying Stich was neccessarily the best of the 3 but his game was most balanced. His serve while excellent was clearly behind the other 3 which actually made it easier to have the most rounded game in a way, as the other 2 have the tough task of living up to the incredible standards of their serve in other areas.

Stich. He was not the best in everything of the 3 but his game was definitely more well rounded and he seemed able to adapt to all the surfaces a little more comfortably than the others could. Goran may have been the most explosive of the three when on his game, but Stich was more consistantly on his game than the others I think.

stich,krajicek and goran in that order

Stich probably did have the most well rounded game. Having said that, Krajicek got to his A game the most consistently of the 3 (discounting injuries), he was also the most mentally strong by far.

Goran, was the least consistent, but had the single biggest weapon, and, was the best athlete, particularly in terms of movement. Stich was great in that department for such a big man as well, but not as much of a sheer jock as Goran. Krajicek was a touch heavy-footed.

Sampras mentioned that Stich was a player he feared. I don't have his book in front of me now but I got the impression he feared Stich more than anyone because he felt Stich had no weaknesses.

Overall Stich was so good in everything but as people have written, Goran had one of the greatest weapons in the history of tennis in his awesome serve so who is to say. Of the three I think it's a no brainer that Goran had the best serve.

Krajicek was also an excellent overall player and all of them had super serves.

I believe Sampras said Stich was the most talented player he ever played against.

Though call b/t the serves of Ivanisevic and Krajicek. Ivanisevic definitely got a lot of press and had that fear factor. He deserved both. To me, his serve was like a McEnroe with a tiny tad less spin, but maxing out at around 135mph instead of Mac's 105mph. Now that's scary.

But Krajicek also had amazing direction and power. Anyone who saw him against Kafelnikov at the US Open will attest to that. He hit something like 50 aces and there was some crazy stat about how only a few of the 1st serves Krajicek got in play weren't aces. Keep in mind, Kafelnikov was a big man at 6'3" with a long reach and was not easy to ace.

To me discussing who had a better serve b/t Ivanisevic and Krajicek is kinda like trying to analyze whether the USSR or USA had better nuclear missiles in the '80's. Both countries had more than enough firepower to destroy the others. It becomes more of a discussion on over reliance on this power and what other flaws these countries (or tennis players) have.

The best player in that group is Stich. But when they're on, Krajicek and Goran I think had more firepower to blow anyone away.

Ivanisevic comes last in the list when it comes to who had better games. And as much as Pete waxed about how "scary" Goran was to be matched up against, he feared Stich and Krajicek more in general.

I remember in 1998 when Goran and Krajicek had that titanic semi at Wimbledon. Pete must've loved the result of that one. Had Krajicek won (and he was playing very well at the time), I would've liked his chances of taking out Pete in the final.

For me this is a no brainer: Stich had the best game of the three mentioned.

He was truly an all courter, all surface player.

Much more versatile than the other two IMO.

They were all effective on all surfaces. All won titles on indoors, grass, clay and hardcourt. All advanced to quarters and semis at every slam, often multiple times. One could argue Stich as more versatile, but I think it is unclear. Again, they all were dangerous on all surfaces.

Titles by Surface:Ivanisevic
Hard (3)
Grass (2)
Clay (3)
Carpet (14)

Titles by Surface: Stich
Hard (5)
Grass (4)
Clay (3)
Carpet (6)

Titles by surface: Krajicek
Hard (7)
Clay (1)
Grass (3)
Carpet (6)

Pretty decent mix from all. Factor in runner-up finishes and doubles titles, and it becomes even more diverse. I do not believe anyone should say Stich was "far more" versatile.

Isn't the skew for goran on carpet indication enough ? Only 3 HC titles ?? Both master series won on carpet (none on hard) ?

Stich reached the SF of every slam atleast once, krajicek all except the USO where he had 3 QF appearences.

Goran couldn't even make it past the quarters at the AO and at RG , apart from his lone SF appearence at the USO, he didn't do much there either.

Stich and krajicek are close in terms of surface-versatility ( krajicek is perhaps a tad under-rated here ) , both clearly better than goran ...

Excellent points. I would call Stich the most consistent/mentally tough but he just didn't seem to care as much about tennis as the rest of the top 5. He had other interests and it wasn't all-consuming for him. IMHO, Krajicek just didn't have the killer instinct/work ethic of the top players. Maybe he didn't care as much, either. Goran was supposed to be much better. I can remember a Tennis Mag story on him when he was 17 or 18yo and supposed to be the next big thing. Such a head case but an interesing guy and my fave player ever. Goran really should have won 3 Wimbledon titles and this wouldn't even be an argument. He was like magnesium...burns hot and fast but gone in an instant.

Although my favorite of the 3 is Goran, I will take Stich as the best of the 3 for 'Best Overall Game'.

Goran was probably the most charismatic and loved of the three players but probably stich was the best out of the three due to his consistency on other surfaces also ...

Agreed. Stich best player on all surfaces and well rounded game. Pete agreed with your assessment in his book. On grass, though, no question Goran, head and shoulders better, based on his serve. Krajicek not as consistent in results.

All three won Wimbledon.
Stich made it to Grand Slam finals on all 3 surfaces and could win at the net and baseline. He was an all-courter.
Grass: Stich won Wimbledon in 1991, beating Edberg in the semis and Becker in the finals. (By the way, In 1992, he won Wimbledon doubles with McEnroe.)
Hard Courts: He lost in the US Open finals to Agassi in 1994.
Clay: He lost in the 1996 French Open final to Kafenikov.

Goran won Wimbledon in 2001 and lost to Pete in the final 3 times. He reached the Australian and French quarters several times each.

Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996, made it to the semis at Australia (1992), the semis of the French (1993) and reached the quarters of the US Open several times.

On a given day, any of these guys could beat anyone in the world.

Goran was the most successful, but not by much. Having said that, Stich might have been the most well rounded. However if I had to pick one of them to play for me for one match, I'd pick Goran provided he was not having a mental infarction that day.:mrgreen:

Overall, I would take Stich's game. So I guess the German wins.

Goran won as many titles as Stich on clay. Won only 2 less on hard court (sorry, I have NO INTEREST in the marketing "masters" series gimmick, and I'm always amazed at the penetration ATP marketing has made on younger people here). Just because he won an overwhelming number of titles on carpet that the other 2 did not, does not take away from his accomplishments on other surfaces. I do not fathom the logic of calling a person less versatile who has a comparable record on other surfaces (perhaps slightly less), and much greater on one other. I think the rational interpretation is that he was NEARLY as good as Stich on the other surfaces and much better on carpet. (I am not saying that is necessarily the case, these stats cannot be read into too much, but THAT would be a logical interpretation, not one that penalizes Goran for doing exceptionally well on carpet)

Wow, SF's.....Goran only made the quarters...obviously "MUCH" more versatile right? Incidently, funny and ironic that you defend Krajicek for making 3 QF's at the USO, then in the next sentence criticize Goran for not making it past the quarters of the AO and RG. Which he did THREE TIMES at AO and RG.

Again, I think it's not clear. Anyone who wants to say Goran is less versatile, can do so, but saying "much" as the OP did, or "clearly" as you do, invalidates your opinions in my view.