Originally Posted by big ted
2. lendl, kuerten, courier, vilas, wilander were probably all better claycourters than muster imo so i dont know why hes so highly regarded for winning it once. even bruguera won it twice.
Muster is flattered somewhat by clay-court history revisionists. He often got beaten by nobodies on clay in his prime - other than one magical year where he was on fire. The guy could play no doubt but he was not a GOAT on clay - his nick-name at the time, the King of Clay
, now seems more like an attempt at humour, as if taunting him for his avoidance of non-clay court tournaments for much of the year.
The year he won the French he beat Chang in the final - an otherwise second string clay-court player since he won the FO in '89 - and a string of players who under-performed in Medvedev, Carlos Costa and Kafelnikov. That year 11 of the 16 seeds failed to make it past the 4th round.
In his prime years (91-9
Muster only once it past the 4th round at the French other than the year he won it. King of Clay? In his prime alone Courier and Bruguera achieved more than him imo.
Given time to get used to them Nadal has too much game for Muster using the strings available at the time (something like a gut/kevlar combo perhaps?)