Originally Posted by Mustard
Are we supposed to believe that Murray is better when he has never had an aura and dominance like peak Muster?
Muster only had an aura of dominance for a brief period on one surface- clay. Lets not pretend for a moment Muster had an aura of dominance over the overall tour for a brief period like say even Hewitt had. Lets not also pretend he was the overall dominant clay court of that era by a clear margin. Courier in his own peak had an easy time with Muster on clay, Bruguera won back to back French Opens, and Muster didnt began his own brief reign on clay until those two guys had fallen well off form, especialy Courier.
For whats its worth as well even while dominating so strongly on clay in 95/96 I dont think Muster had EVERYONE petrified. Courier and Agassi are two guys who would have loved a crack at Muster on clay even then I believe (I am not saying they would have neccessarily won but I dont think they would have bought into the aura of dominance either). Of course they didnt get far enough on any occasion those two years for that to happen, but that is aside the point.