Cedric Pioline

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Good points, but Murray also has a lot in his favour. Murray beat Federer and Djokovic en route to his Olympic title . . . Mecir beat Edberg and Mayotte, impressive but I'd say Murray's path was harder. He also has double the titles, double the slam finals (and performed better in his slam finals than Mecir), higher peak ranking, and 8 Masters. But it's a shame Mecir's career had to succumb to injury the way it did, he was a virtuoso on the court with beautiful strokes. Great mover, too.

Mecir was never so good ( and believe, he was great at Phily,Flushing,RG,Wimbledon,Rome) as he was trashing up JMac at Dallas.He had all the answers to whatever Mac tried.And, you know, if you look back at his carrer, Mac´s best event was Dallas.

What about opening a thread with " which was the favourite major event for best players in open era ?".Definitley, for JMac, it was Dallas.

[kiki]

Stich was, probably, the best anti Sampras player of the 90´s, at least, when we talk about fast indoor, grass or hard courts.Remember 93 Masters? He just left Sampras aside...

[Gonzalito17]

Saw Pioline light it up in Monte Carlo the year he won it, wow was he playing some spectacular tennis then. He also beat Kuerten at the US Open around that year, Pioline could play some amazing tennis, a very fluid and athletic player. Awesome talent, just was around in a very tough era with Pete and Andre being the dominators.

[Chillaxer]

Originally Posted by Gonzalito17

Saw Pioline light it up in Monte Carlo the year he won it, wow was he playing some spectacular tennis then. He also beat Kuerten at the US Open around that year, Pioline could play some amazing tennis, a very fluid and athletic player. Awesome talent, just was around in a very tough era with Pete and Andre being the dominators.

You saw it live?

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Chillaxer

How's he for a more forgotten talent? One of the most prominent obscure names I recall. Sure he didn't win a slam, not talking that league, but hell he could play and light up the court with some strokes.
I'd put him above the likes of Murray quite honestly, if Murray ends without a slam. There are better non-slam winners out there, though people talk of Murray as bets never to win a slam.

Originally Posted by kiki

Pioline may be in the second tier of best non slam winners of the last 30 years.Top tie is owned by Miloslav Mecir.Pioline, as you said, would be similar to Murray or Rios.

Surely you must be joking? Pioline in the same class as Murray? Murray has twice the amount of Slam finals, more than four times the amount of titles, and eight times the number of MS1000 events. This isn't even mentioning Murray's consistency of ending the year in the top 5. Pioline ended the year in the top ten ONCE (at #10).

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Surely you must be joking? Pioline in the same class as Murray? Murray has twice the amount of Slam finals, more than four times the amount of titles, and eight times the number of MS1000 events. This isn't even mentioning Murray's consistency of ending the year in the top 5. Pioline ended the year in the top ten ONCE (at #10).

Good points. True on all of these.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Surely you must be joking? Pioline in the same class as Murray? Murray has twice the amount of Slam finals, more than four times the amount of titles, and eight times the number of MS1000 events. This isn't even mentioning Murray's consistency of ending the year in the top 5. Pioline ended the year in the top ten ONCE (at #10).

kiki would go to any extent to "prove" that Federer's era is weak. You know, the only reason Murray was able to do all that, and Pioline wasn't, was because Murray plays in a weaker era than Pioline did.

[The-Champ]

Pioline, very steady player with no real weapons. His biggest asset was that he was capable of playing both from the baseline and net.

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by hoosierbr

Stich was playing the very last tournament of his career. The crowd was behind him as a result even though he was always kind of tough to like, certainly next to Boris Becker.

Stich is one of the few players to have either a winning or even record with Sampras. Pistol Pete didn't scare him. I agree it would have been a great final and Stich could very well have won it. That would have been something. Imagine Pete loses to Krajicek the year before and then Stich in the final the next year. Would that have made a lasting impact on his career? We'll never know but interesting to think about.

Yup...agreed on all points. Stich did have a winning record against Sampras, and was really a handful for Pete on all surfaces. It would certainly have been an interesting final, and much more competitive than the Pete-Cedric one...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

kiki would go to any extent to "prove" that Federer's era is weak. You know, the only reason Murray was able to do all that, and Pioline wasn't, was because Murray plays in a weaker era than Pioline did.

Not at all.While I agree this is a pretty weak era, I didn´t really use that concept to put Pioline along Murray.In my perception of talent and way of playing, Piolina and Murray have some similarities, and so have Mecir and Rios.That is it.I really didn´t think too much and I may have been unfair to Murray.I will say this: Mecir is a better player than Rios and Murray is a better player than Pioline.

Another great player who never won a Major was Tom Okker.And Todd Martin was also a twice beaten finalist.Martin and Okker are as good as them as a choice.