Originally Posted by Datacipher
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
Titles by Surface: Stich
Titles by surface: Krajicek
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.
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.