Worst of the 2 time winners

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's stunning to me that Nastase only won two majors. Nastase is about as talented as any majors winner ever. Stan Smith and Nastase for a short time was such a great rivalry and you would have thought it would be THE rivalry of the 1970's. Never turned out that way.

Of course Nastase did win a ton of the Year End Championships with four championships in five tournaments.

I agree.They ahd a short but exciting rivalry, with opposing styles and personalities.

Smith won 2 DC finals over Nastase, a Wimbledon Final and a Masters .

Nasatse beat Stan in two Masters finals but didn´t beat Stan anywhere else - major titles-

H2H seems like Smith was the dominant guy, although Nastase was more talented.

I think it was a pitty Smith turned off by 1974 and never regained old form.At least, nastase was an outsider till 1976.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Is the year-end such a big deal? It didn't seem like much this year.

Come on Dan...you know for the past 40 years it has been a very big deal...are you just stiring things up?

Here is a clipping about Nastase winning the 1975 event. Despite the reporter making a mistake about connors at the australian, it says that the masters was a major event.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=5051,880292

And this, again calling the Masters a major event

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5068,4041836

[kiki]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Kriek...I have never really heard of him or the guy he beat in both of his major finals. I had to look him up because I could not even recall his first name off hand. The guy he beat in the finals was a nobody really to, except for beating J Mac in 1 final. In the jam packed 80's talent group...Kriek is like...nobody.

Kriek was very very talented.Strong and ultraquick, one of the fasstest and nimblest players that I have ever seen.

it´s true that his 2 AO wins were in a quite depleted field.But the guy has an excellent record on grass, indoor, hards and even reached a SF at his worst surface, the clay courts of Roland Garros.

reached the USO semis once and twice the QF, reached a FO sf, twice the Masters and Wimbledon QF, another sf and another QF at melbourne and a semi and a final at the WCT finals.You cannot do much better than that unless you are a Borg, a Lendl, a Connors or a Mc Enroe.

In any other era, with less competition, he may have won two more majors.he was a nut case, however, much like Mandlikova for the ladies.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

Come on Dan...you know for the past 40 years it has been a very big deal...are you just stiring things up?

Here is a clipping about Nastase winning the 1975 event. Despite the reporter making a mistake about connors at the australian, it says that the masters was a major event.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=5051,880292

good post.1975 was a great year with Ashe,Nastase,Newcombe,Borg and Orantes winning the biggest titles while Connors lost the 3 finals he played...in spite of being generally considered as the best player of the world.

We also had Ramirez winning at Rome and Marty Riessen winning at the US indoors.An exciting year, whatsoever.

[Gizo]

In terms of both talent and career achievements, Nastase was clearly the best out of those players. Smith isn't that far behind in second place and the two of them had a good rivalry. However in addition to Nastase's greater volume of career titles and major indoor titles, he was more versatile as he was far better on grass than Smith was on clay.

Kriek has to be bottom of the list given that he won his two Australian Open titles during the tournament's bleakest period. Still he was a pretty fun to player to watch when he was playing well.

[timnz]

I find it really interesting that Newcombe never beat Nastase, in fact he only ever won 1 set from him. In contrast Newk lead the head to head against Smith.

Correction : Apparently Nastase lost to Newcombe in their first match in 1969. My point still stands though about Nastase's dominant head to head over Newk.

[hoodjem]

I'll say Kriek.

I always thought of him as more of a journeyman, with occasional flashes of brilliance. (Like a lesser Leconte.)

His highest ranking was no. 7, and he won only 14 titles in his illustrious career.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

I find it really interesting that Newcombe never beat Nastase, in fact he only ever won 1 set from him. In contrast Newk lead the head to head against Smith.

Correction : Apparently Nastase lost to Newcombe in their first match in 1969. My point still stands though about Nastase's dominant head to head over Newk.

I saw the 1974 Year End Masters match between Nastase and Newcombe. Nastase hit some miracle shots in that match and totally in control. The shot of the match was when Newcombe hit a good overhead that seemed headed toward the stands. Nastase leaped up and smashed the overhead passed a stunned Newcombe! This was the only Masters that Nastase didn't win. He lost a great final in five sets to Vilas. Considering it was on grass you would have to say in retrospect it was a mild upset. To me that was the best tournament performance of Vilas' career. He beat Newcombe, Nastase, Borg, Ramirez and Parun. That's a great list of opponents that he beat.

[NadalAgassi]

While I understand Kriek being the weakest I am surprised Kafelnikov doesnt have more votes. He wasnt even good enough to win a Masters titles, and top players of the time did not fear him at all. Also he has virtually no big wins in slams, and his draws to his 2 slam titles were quite easy. What is his biggest ever win in a slam, an injured and immobile Agassi at the French (not the one he won either), Sampras on clay a the French, Todd Martin on hard courts. Then some of his head to head records, 5-9 vs Tomas Johansson who many consider the worst 1 slam winner, I think he lost 8 in a row at one point, 1-7 vs Lleyton Hewitt mostly when he was in his prime and Hewitt was on the way up, 0-9 vs Sampras outside of clay.

Seeing Hewitt and Safin combining for the same # of votes as Kafelnikov as funny. Those two are at a way higher level than he is, atleast in terms of singles play.

[Mustard]

Kafelnikov won the 1996 French Open for the loss of just 1 set, which included straight set wins over Sampras and Stich. Sampras was not a dud on clay at the time, but a regular quarter finalist or better at the event. Kafelnikov's best win at a major was clearly this win over Sampras. Try and undermine it all you want, but it was an excellent win.

[NadalAgassi]

If you think Sampras and Stich in the semis and finals is a tough draw to a French Open title compared to the norm you can keep deluding yourself to that. Even at that it might not be too bad if he had numerous wins in slams on par or bigger than that, but for a 2 slam winner to have your biggest ever wins in slams being Sampras on clay or Todd Martin on hard courts is pretty shocking to put it mildly, and compared to all others on this (minus Kriek) falls WAY short.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

If you think Sampras and Stich in the semis and finals is a tough draw to a French Open title compared to the norm you can keep deluding yourself to that.

Sampras was a former 3-time French Open quarter finalist and 1994 Rome champion.
Stich was a former French Open semi finalist and had reached 2 Hamburg finals in a row in 1992-1993, winning in 1993.

If you don't think these are bigger victories than Todd Martin at the 1999 Australian Open, then I don't know what to say. They are clearly bigger. Even Krajicek, who Kafelnikov beat in the quarter finals of the 1996 French Open, is a former French Open semi finalist, a Rome finalist and Barcelona champion.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Even at that it might not be too bad if he had numerous wins in slams on par or bigger than that, but for a 2 slam winner to have your biggest ever wins in slams being Sampras on clay or Todd Martin on hard courts is pretty shocking to put it mildly, and compared to all others on this (minus Kriek) falls WAY short.

Kafelnikov dropped 1 set on his way to winning the 1996 French Open. Of the 2-time major winners mentioned in this thread, only Nastase at the 1973 French Open has done better (with no sets dropped).

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If you don't think these are bigger victories than Todd Martin at the 1999 Australian Open, then I don't know what to say.

Martin has reached 2 slam finals on hard courts. Sampras has only made it past the quarters once at RG (that semifinal blowout loss to Kafelnikov). Martin on hard courts > Stich or Sampras on clay. Of course Sampras or Stich are better than Martin on every surface probably (Stich vs Martin on hard courts is debateable) but it is comparing Martin on his best surface to them on by far their worst.

Meanwhile you prove yet again (for about the 100000000th time) you are quite stupid and illiterate. I did not say specifically Martin was a bigger win. I said Kafelnikov's biggest win in a slam was either Sampras at the 96 French OR Martin at the 99 Australian, which means arguably it could be either. Neither is an impressive "best ever slam win" for a 2 time slam winner though, so which you consider his biggest ever slam win means diddley squat.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kafelnikov won the 1996 French Open for the loss of just 1 set, which included straight set wins over Sampras and Stich. Sampras was not a dud on clay at the time, but a regular quarter finalist or better at the event. Kafelnikov's best win at a major was clearly this win over Sampras. Try and undermine it all you want, but it was an excellent win.

that's a kinda clean way through his draw, but pete didn't have much left in the tank in the SF, after 3 five-setters (martin, bruguera, courier)... a fresh sampras would probably have defeated kafelnikov as he did on so many other occasions (even on heavy 'watered' clay in the 1995 davis cup final at moscow).

and of course, he can also thank stich for (brillantly, it's true) taking the musterminator out...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

that's a kinda clean way through his draw, but pete didn't have much left in the tank in the SF, after 3 five-setters (martin, bruguera, courier)... a fresh sampras would probably have defeated kafelnikov as he did on so many other occasions (even on heavy 'watered' clay in the 1995 davis cup final at moscow).

and of course, he can also thank stich for (brillantly, it's true) taking the musterminator out...

Pretty much, a totally gassed Sampras at about 20% on his worst surface, then finals choker and mental midget/headcase Stich on his worst surface in a slam final. An enviable situation to put it mildly. Kafelnikov did play some of his best tennis ever at the 1996 French and fully deserved to win, but it certainly is nothing that puts him above any other 2 slam winners, nor answered the question of his ability to beat the toughest opponents in a major event.

[NLBwell]

I would vote Safin lowest due to inconsistency.
I would also rate him the highest for peak performance.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

and of course, he can also thank stich for (brillantly, it's true) taking the musterminator out...

Thanks for reminding me of that sad day

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Martin has reached 2 slam finals on hard courts.

At the time of the 1999 Australian Open, it was 1 major final, and that had been 5 years previously. His recent form had been very up and down. Deep runs in majors had been scarce for a few years.

Martin was a very good player, and 1999 ended up being the best year of his career alongside 1994, but we didn't know that at the time he played Kafelnikov at the 1999 Australian Open.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras has only made it past the quarters once at RG (that semifinal blowout loss to Kafelnikov). Martin on hard courts > Stich or Sampras on clay. Of course Sampras or Stich are better than Martin on every surface probably (Stich vs Martin on hard courts is debateable) but it is comparing Martin on his best surface to them on by far their worst.

Sampras reached 3 quarter finals in a row at the French Open from 1992 to 1994. In 1994, he was the tournament favourite after just winning Rome, or at least co-favourite with Medvedev. Sampras was a proven major winner, going for 4 majors in a row, whereas Medvedev hadn't won a major. This is not the Sampras of 1997-2002, who would lose early at every French Open, but the Sampras of 1992-1996, who was a serious title contender.

And Stich, as I mentioned, a former French Open semi finalist, losing in 4 sets to Courier in 1991, and the 1993 Hamburg champion. Stich was always around the top 10 in the years before 1996 as well.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Meanwhile you prove yet again (for about the 100000000th time) you are quite stupid and illiterate.

Personal insults? Really?

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I did not say specifically Martin was a bigger win. I said Kafelnikov's biggest win in a slam was either Sampras at the 96 French OR Martin at the 99 Australian, which means arguably it could be either. Neither is an impressive "best ever slam win" for a 2 time slam winner though, so which you consider his biggest ever slam win means diddley squat.

I think your attacks on Kafelnikov are bizarre.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Thanks for reminding me of that sad day

my sincere apologies !
in order to excuse myself, let's also remember their davis cup match in 1994 (6-4, 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 12-10)... how many match points did muster save in that one ? (did you have the chance to see it ?)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by vive le beau jeu !

my sincere apologies !
in order to excuse myself, let's also remember their davis cup match in 1994 (6-4, 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 12-10)... how many match points did muster save in that one ? (did you have the chance to see it ?)

Yes, I have it on DVD. It was epic. Muster saved 1 match point, at 7-8 down in the fifth set.