Best Overall Game between Goran, Krajicek, and Stich

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by Kevin T

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.

Thanks, I think Stich and Goran had the biggest mental flakiness. Stich had a very hot temper, which I think did not help him. He tended to get very cranky and snipey when in a losing battle. I thought Krajicek was the most even-keeled of the 3, maybe he did lack some killer instinct, certainly, injuries hurt his career, especially later on. He also didn't have the footspeed/agility of the other 2.

Goran was indeed touted as possibly the next big thing, and there was reason to think so, as a teen, he already had shown some big results and the killer A game. Even in those days, it was noted that he could play on clay and had good groundstrokes and movement. In fact, many experts felt that what he needed was to round out his net game! In any case, b/c of his relationship to Wimbledon, I think people don't realize he made the FO quarters 3 times, won titles on clay, and was runner-up in FO doubles twice. In fact, I think all 3 often get erroneously branded as fast-court only players. The truth is, they were all good, huge-man, all-courters with big weapons, you didn't want to play them on any surface.

[darthpwner]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

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

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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.

I didn't say much. Are you blind?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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).

yeah, because winning a master series against a deep field on a surface is the same as winning a small title on the same surface with not much competition

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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)

perhaps slightly less ??

Only 3 HC titles for goran - ( none of them big) - inspite of stich having a shorter career and krajicek being affected more by injuries.

And as for clay - he could play on it, but wasn't as much a threat on it as the other 2 when they were 'hot'. Ditto with becker who didn't even win a single CC title ...

Which leaves grass and carpet - where goran was better ( peak levels being pretty comparable ) , but then the other 2 were great on grass and carpet as well

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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.

I stated the results for them on the non-grass surfaces wrt to semis . And these results - inspite of krajicek having his career affected much more by injuries than goran . So yes, am being more harsher on goran if you want to look at it that way .

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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.

Having watched them play, IMO it is pretty clear ...

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

I didn't say much. Are you blind?

The post you quoted from me #20, featured extensive quotes from the post I was directly replying to. WHY would you take your post, quote it, then cut out part of my post which, again, had direct quotes from ABMK to which I was replying, to make a weird Frankenstein post, then accuse me of being blind.

The question is: are you blind, stupid, or being purposely obtuse?

[darthpwner]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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.

Look at my original post. Did I say "much?" I said nothing about Stich being much better than specifically Goran. I just felt he was the best of the 3

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Eviscerator

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.

If I had to pick someone to play for me it would be either Goran or Stich, but if i didn't know the surface it would definitely be the latter. Goran was a phenomenal player on grass and slightly less so on carpet, but other than that he sort of lagged behind. Goran was a great player but I was always disappointed that he couldn't transcend from grass at GS level to the other surfaces. He had a big serve, good groundies and a lot of other raw elements that he could have succeeded so much more on other surfaces, and the only other surface he ever seemed to become completely comfortable on other than grass was Carpet. He could have on fire days on the other surfaces but he never seemed as fluid on them as he did when he took to the court of Wimbledon and was playing his best. Stich, though maybe not as explosive at his absolute best, could cover the surfaces better IMO, he certainly did not do some things as well as Goran did...but I think his game overall was slightly better.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

Look at my original post. Did I say "much?" I said nothing about Stich being much better than specifically Goran. I just felt he was the best of the 3

AHA! Now I see, and I apologize. When I wrote that, "OP" was going to be directed at ABMK, but through various editing processes it ended up as that. My mistake. I am having a few problems with this pc right now. In fact, I wrote a rather lengthy, multiple quote rebuttal to ABMK's last post, right after I posted the last one to you, but it was completely lost, and I haven't the will to make another, considering his points use rather irrational, selective logic.

I never intended to imply that you were advocating the same argument. I realize you did not!

[darthpwner]

Apology accepted. Thanks for clarification.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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).

i absolutely agree about these recently overhyped 'masters-series'...

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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.

goran's game on clay (especially in the 1st part of his career) is really underrated.

• ok, no SF at RG, but 3 QF at RG (in 1992, he was the only one to take a set, in the QF, from the lumberjack courier) which is not so bad !
• 3 clay court titles (in 9 clay finals)
• best perf. in some important clay tournaments: SF in monte-carlo, F in hamburg, F in rome (among 4 SF in rome !)
• only player to have defeated the musterminator in davis cup on clay, in 5 sets in 1997 (in austria, of course !)
• bronze medals (single & double) on clay at barcelona in 1992, including 4 straight 5-sets single wins to get his well-deserved medal !
• clay wins over over RG winners of his era: muster, courier, chang, kafelnikov, bruguera

[britbox]

Stich for me. The only surprise was that he didn't win more.

[0d1n]

I would say Stich's ground strokes would make him the best when talking about "overall game".
His volleying was on par if not better than Krajicek's and much better than Ivanisevic's.
His serve is probably marginally weaker than the other 2 guy's but it's nothing obvious like the difference in the ground game was.
I'd take Stich's game over the other 2...he was very much an underachiever in my book. Other life interests and some bad luck with injuries plus a bad temper probably held him back in overall results.
IMO put Becker's head on Stich's shoulders and you will have an all time great. Tough to do ... I know .

[morten]

Stich was an amazing player and talent. He did not have enough desire to win as much as many others, he said so himself. He also said the way he played the year he won Wimbledon would have taken him far on the grass even today...

[dpmitchel77]

Stich. Probably because he was easily the best mover of the three.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

i absolutely agree about these recently overhyped 'masters-series'...


goran's game on clay (especially in the 1st part of his career) is really underrated.

• ok, no SF at RG, but 3 QF at RG (in 1992, he was the only one to take a set, in the QF, from the lumberjack courier) which is not so bad !
• 3 clay court titles (in 9 clay finals)
• best perf. in some important clay tournaments: SF in monte-carlo, F in hamburg, F in rome (among 4 SF in rome !)
• only player to have defeated the musterminator in davis cup on clay, in 5 sets in 1997 (in austria, of course !)
• bronze medals (single & double) on clay at barcelona in 1992, including 4 straight 5-sets single wins to get his well-deserved medal !
• clay wins over over RG winners of his era: muster, courier, chang, kafelnikov, bruguera

And all these acccomplishments were not after a full career of trying hard. Injuries and his crazy personality, made him somewhat inconsistent on all surfaces! But he had a very underrated all-court game. He was a danger to anyone, anywhere.

I couldn't agree more. Again, I think because of his Wimbledon accomplishments, and his serve, people only remember him as a big serve/fast court player. In truth, he could and did play great on anything provided his body was healthy and his head on straight. When his head wasn't there, he couldn't play on anything!