The underrating of past greats

[Wuornos]

I am toying with the idea that sometimes past greats are under valued because their playing style was not as attractive as other players rather than the effectiveness of it.

E.g. I consistently see negative comments relating to players like Mats Wilander, Jim Courier and Ivan Lendl.

In my opinion all three of these players deserve a place in the top 10 of the open era but many fans don't see it this way.

Mats Wilander won three majors in 1988, admittedly not Wimbledon, but it did include the US. Add this to the two finals he appeared in in the previous year of the US and French and you have a player that was both dominant and consistent. Consider also that he was doing this against players like Stefan Edberg, Pat Cash and Ivan Lendl. Not really a weak period for the sport. I wonder whether he is underrated because his style was so defensive, I have him at 5th best male singles player of the open era based on these performances.

For me James Martin said it all in relation to Jim Courier and the very point I am driving at. He said 'The small-town roots, the baseball cap, the nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic— Jim Courier was red-blooded Americanism personified. He used his inside-out forehand to muscle the ball around the court like no player before him. Courier made you tired just watching the effort he put into his strokes. Not surprisingly, his blue-collar game gave rise to the knock that he wasn’t talented but simply worked hard. “That’s the biggest compliment anyone could give me,” the Florida native once said. It was a ludicrous notion, and Courier knew it. Anyone who can dominate his peers with a single stroke has more than a modicum of talent. Courier rode his forehand to the top in the early 1990s. In ’92, he became the first U.S. man to finish No. 1 since John McEnroe in ’84, and he took ownership of Roland Garros. From 1991 to ’94, Courier’s worst finish in Paris was a semifinal in ’94; he played three finals there, winning in ’91 and ’92. Yet the image of Courier as the lunch-pail player endures, especially when he went up against flashier rivals like Andre Agassi. It was easy to imagine Courier muttering beneath those sarcastic smirks, “You can have the girls and jets. I’m here to win. Now get out of my way'. I rate Jim Courier as the 9th best male singles player of the open era.

Ivan Lendl dominated the US open and the top of the sport. He was mR consistency personified. People always remember his record of 8-11 in major finals but they don't remember that with 19 major appearances he was the GOAT of making major finals. His game was one of fitness and power rather subtle stroke play and again I feel his worth is grossly underestimated . I rate him as the third best male single player of the open era.

I would be interested in other peoples thoughts.

Regards

Tim

[Gorecki]

Tim:
i second your opinion because based on my experiece on court... whenever i play a no non-sense game, i trash most of my Hitting partners, even if they are more talented than me. that said, i learned to apreciate the game of those 3 great players...

[Nickognito]

I don't know if they're underrated.

Lendl maybe not. Ivan is considered by most people to be the 4th or 5th player in the atp era, behind Federer-Sampras-Borg and before or tied with McEnroe. Maybe he deserves on of the first three spots, but I personally don't think so, and so I don't think he's underrated

Wilander is usually underrated by many, but I think that it's difficult to put him in the first seven spots ot the atp era. He was not better than Connors and Agassi, I think.

Courier is maybe underrated but I think that you're overrating him. Top 10 in open era? I think Federer, Sampras, Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, McEnroe, Newcombe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Borg are surely better than him. If you say that he deserves the 10th position, you have to put it before four of the above players, and I think it's not possible.

Courier dominated in a way that Becker or Edberg or Newcombe, or Rosewall (in the open era) or Agassi never did, but he did it for just an year, an year without any top player at his best. Nevertheless Courier did not win Wimbledon and Us Open and the Masters, and won only 4 slams in his career.

He has good head-to-heads with Agassi and Edberg, but he's 4-16 with Sampras (2-7 even in 1991-93, his best years), 1-6 with Becker (in his best years) and he wasn't able to win five games in a 9 set vs. Lendl in his career.

c.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Nickognito

Courier is maybe underrated but I think that you're overrating him. Top 10 in open era? I think Federer, Sampras, Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, McEnroe, Newcombe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Borg are surely better than him. If you say that he deserves the 10th position, you have to put it before four of the above players, and I think it's not possible.

Courier dominated in a way that Becker or Edberg or Newcombe, or Rosewall (in the open era) or Agassi never did, but he did it for just an year, an year without any top player at his best. Nevertheless Courier did not win Wimbledon and Us Open and the Masters, and won only 4 slams in his career.

He has good head-to-heads with Agassi and Edberg, but he's 4-16 with Sampras (2-7 even in 1991-93, his best years), 1-6 with Becker (in his best years) and he wasn't able to win five games in a 9 set vs. Lendl in his career.

i second that.
he's definitely not in the same league...

[Wuornos]

Originally Posted by Nickognito

I don't know if they're underrated.

Lendl maybe not. Ivan is considered by most people to be the 4th or 5th player in the atp era, behind Federer-Sampras-Borg and before or tied with McEnroe. Maybe he deserves on of the first three spots, but I personally don't think so, and so I don't think he's underrated

Wilander is usually underrated by many, but I think that it's difficult to put him in the first seven spots ot the atp era. He was not better than Connors and Agassi, I think.

Courier is maybe underrated but I think that you're overrating him. Top 10 in open era? I think Federer, Sampras, Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, McEnroe, Newcombe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Borg are surely better than him. If you say that he deserves the 10th position, you have to put it before four of the above players, and I think it's not possible.

Courier dominated in a way that Becker or Edberg or Newcombe, or Rosewall (in the open era) or Agassi never did, but he did it for just an year, an year without any top player at his best. Nevertheless Courier did not win Wimbledon and Us Open and the Masters, and won only 4 slams in his career.

He has good head-to-heads with Agassi and Edberg, but he's 4-16 with Sampras (2-7 even in 1991-93, his best years), 1-6 with Becker (in his best years) and he wasn't able to win five games in a 9 set vs. Lendl in his career.

c.

Some excellent points as usual Nick, but I think it's a bit harsh to reduce Courier's domination to a single year.


I see him as having made six major finals in the space of two years wining three of them.

I always prefer to look at a players peak playing standard rather than longevity nad he was a very good player at his peak even if his style was unattractive.

Yes Connors and Agassi made more major titles, Connors converted eight majors into titles from 41 Quarter Final appearances. Agassi made eight from 36. Courier only made 4 from 15 Quarter final appearences, but when he was at his best boy was he better at claiming majors than Connors or Agassi.

You're right I couldn't put Courier above Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, Björn Borg, Mats Wilander, Pete Sampras, John McEnroe or Ken Rosewall.

At his best though I would rate him above Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi.

I know my opinion differs widely from popular concensus on this subject but that's what I meant by underrated. I see Connors and Agassi very much as players who had long careers and waited for top flight players to move over and make way for them to be able to score their eventual eight majors each count. In Connors case it was Borg and to a lesser extent MEnroe, while for Agassi he had to wait for Sampras to make way. I just don't see their peak standrad of play as being top 10.

I will now stand back and wait for the backlash given my above sinful statement.

Regards

Tim

[cuddles26]

Originally Posted by Wuornos

At his best though I would rate him above Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi.

I know my opinion differs widely from popular concensus on this subject but that's what I meant by underrated. I see Connors and Agassi very much as players who had long careers and waited for top flight players to move over and make way for them to be able to score their eventual eight majors each count. In Connors case it was Borg and to a lesser extent MEnroe, while for Agassi he had to wait for Sampras to make way. I just don't see their peak standrad of play as being top 10.

I will now stand back and wait for the backlash given my above sinful statement.

Regards

Tim

I actually agree with your comparision of Courier to Connors and Agassi, particularly compared to Agassi. Courier had a short prime, but in it he was more impressive then Connors or Agassi in theirs. At his peak had to deal with Edberg and Becker still in their primes, as the early 90s they were still close to their best, and the mid 90s they began to fade just at the same point Courier began to burn out. Courier won his first slam title at the 91 French Open by beating both Edberg in the quarters, and the much more experienced Agassi (appearing in his 3rd slam final) in the finals. Courier then won the 92 Australian Open by again beating Edberg in the final, won his 2nd straight French by destroying everyone including Muster and Agassi. Then won the 93 Australian Open again beating Edberg in the final. Courier even reached the finals Courier reached the final of Wimbledon in 93, his worst surface, beating Edberg in the semis, a stronger win then any Agassi ever had at the French Open then I can recall.

Courier absolutely owned Agassi in the early 90s, dominating him baseline to baseline, outwilling, outhitting, and outhustling him. Agassi may have won several more slams then except the dominant Courier was always in his way. He beat Agassi at the 92 U.S Open in the quarterfinals too, another potential slam title for Agassi gone by the wayside due to Courier, and Courier went 5-0 vs Agassi in 91-92. Even in 1995 a past his prime Courier won their only meeting on hard courts in straight sets, the year Agassi was so dominant on hard courts. Agassi did not finally get another win until the 1996 Australian Open quarters, the 2nd last slam quarterfinal ever for the declining Courier, and even that took 5 sets.

In contrast to Courier's success in 91-93 at the prime age of a tennis player, Agassi on the other hand went into Sampras-phobia depression for much of Sampras' prime, winning 2 of his 3 slams when Sampras was eliminated for him, and mysteriously found more motivation to work harder and fulfill his potential only as Pete's dominance ended with injuries and the physical and mental wear of so many years of top flight tennis. Agassi thus peaked late and piled up most of his slams after the Pete era and before the party was over for good when the Federer era arrived.

Even Connors had his most dominant year ever with 39 year old Ken Rosewall as his finals victim of both Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and Phil Dent in the other final. He then won only 2 slam titles the next 7 years, then won his final 3 after Borg's burnout and benefitting from McEnroe's letdown after the Borg retirement.

So I can see your argument that Courier perhaps played at a higher level during his short peak then either Agassi or Connors during theirs.

[Wuornos]

Originally Posted by cuddles26

I actually agree with your comparision of Courier to Connors and Agassi, particularly compared to Agassi. Courier had a short prime, but in it he was more impressive then Connors or Agassi in theirs. At his peak had to deal with Edberg and Becker still in their primes, as the early 90s they were still close to their best, and the mid 90s they began to fade just at the same point Courier began to burn out. Courier won his first slam title at the 91 French Open by beating both Edberg in the quarters, and the much more experienced Agassi (appearing in his 3rd slam final) in the finals. Courier then won the 92 Australian Open by again beating Edberg in the final, won his 2nd straight French by destroying everyone including Muster and Agassi. Then won the 93 Australian Open again beating Edberg in the final. Courier even reached the finals Courier reached the final of Wimbledon in 93, his worst surface, beating Edberg in the semis, a stronger win then any Agassi ever had at the French Open then I can recall.

Courier absolutely owned Agassi in the early 90s, dominating him baseline to baseline, outwilling, outhitting, and outhustling him. Agassi may have won several more slams then except the dominant Courier was always in his way. He beat Agassi at the 92 U.S Open in the quarterfinals too, another potential slam title for Agassi gone by the wayside due to Courier, and Courier went 5-0 vs Agassi in 91-92. Even in 1995 a past his prime Courier won their only meeting on hard courts in straight sets, the year Agassi was so dominant on hard courts. Agassi did not finally get another win until the 1996 Australian Open quarters, the 2nd last slam quarterfinal ever for the declining Courier, and even that took 5 sets.

In contrast to Courier's success in 91-93 at the prime age of a tennis player, Agassi on the other hand went into Sampras-phobia depression for much of Sampras' prime, winning 2 of his 3 slams when Sampras was eliminated for him, and mysteriously found more motivation to work harder and fulfill his potential only as Pete's dominance ended with injuries and the physical and mental wear of so many years of top flight tennis. Agassi thus peaked late and piled up most of his slams after the Pete era and before the party was over for good when the Federer era arrived.

Even Connors had his most dominant year ever with 39 year old Ken Rosewall as his finals victim of both Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and Phil Dent in the other final. He then won only 2 slam titles the next 7 years, then won his final 3 after Borg's burnout and benefitting from McEnroe's letdown after the Borg retirement.

So I can see your argument that Courier perhaps played at a higher level during his short peak then either Agassi or Connors during theirs.

Wow, thanks Cuddles. I wasn't expecting that !

Regards

Tim

[tzinc]

Pancho Gonzalez is very underrated in my opinion. If you look at what he did there's an excellent arguement that he was the GOAT!

[noeledmonds]

Originally Posted by Nickognito

I don't know if they're underrated.

Lendl maybe not. Ivan is considered by most people to be the 4th or 5th player in the atp era, behind Federer-Sampras-Borg and before or tied with McEnroe. Maybe he deserves on of the first three spots, but I personally don't think so, and so I don't think he's underrated

Wilander is usually underrated by many, but I think that it's difficult to put him in the first seven spots ot the atp era. He was not better than Connors and Agassi, I think.

Courier is maybe underrated but I think that you're overrating him. Top 10 in open era? I think Federer, Sampras, Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, McEnroe, Newcombe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Borg are surely better than him. If you say that he deserves the 10th position, you have to put it before four of the above players, and I think it's not possible.

Courier dominated in a way that Becker or Edberg or Newcombe, or Rosewall (in the open era) or Agassi never did, but he did it for just an year, an year without any top player at his best. Nevertheless Courier did not win Wimbledon and Us Open and the Masters, and won only 4 slams in his career.

He has good head-to-heads with Agassi and Edberg, but he's 4-16 with Sampras (2-7 even in 1991-93, his best years), 1-6 with Becker (in his best years) and he wasn't able to win five games in a 9 set vs. Lendl in his career.

c.

I concur with just about everything this post says. The reason I think these players are viewed as underrated as they had less flamboyant game styles and personalities than many other great players.

[CyBorg]

Courier was okay until a Bruguera and Muster began to blossom, whereby they started to routinely hand him his *****.

[Zimbo]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Courier was okay until a Bruguera and Muster began to blossom, whereby they started to routinely hand him his *****.

Courier's h2h against Muster was 7-5

Courier's h2h against Bruguera was 5-2 (Though Sergi did beat Jim in the '93 FO final and the '94 FO semi's)

As you can see they did not routinely hand him his *****.

[!Tym]

Originally Posted by Zimbo

Courier's h2h against Muster was 7-5

Courier's h2h against Bruguera was 5-2 (Though Sergi did beat Jim in the '93 FO final and the '94 FO semi's)

As you can see they did not routinely hand him his *****.

That says more about Muster than Bruguera. In my opinion, if Bruguera's at his best on clay and Courier is too, Bruguera takes that match almost every time in my opinion. Bruguera didn't play with the same heart and determination as Muster. Muster always gave it his all...Bruguera routinely didn't and as one tour insider told me was "always half-azzed."

Courier was a guy like Muster who gave it his all and put in on the line all the time, so his head to head with Bruguera is deceptive in my opinion, just as Muster's is.

Muster dominated Bruguera according to their tour head to head, and yet I don't think it was because he was more talented; but rather because he simply tried harder, wanted it more, and was more physically fit.

Bruguera tired, and would go into moments of rest in matches where he would go through the motions to conserve his energy and catch a second wind; Courier and Muster never did anything of the sort.

On the senior tour, Bruguera has turned the tides on Muster, in my opinion, because Muster's no longer in beastly shape to intimidate guys.

Bruguera hated playing Muster more than anybody on tour, he said, because he just never stops and gives 110% every point to the point where he found it unbelievable.

What does that tell you? To me it tells me that Bruguera was a talented grinder who didn't like to be forced to grind 110% from the word go to the word stop.

If you put Bruguera against other grinders like Chang, Courier, and Muster; he'd often just get frustrated and throw in the towel. IF however he was all there mentally, he'd give it his all. As his father once said of him, when the going gets tough, Sergi can get tough.

The CONTEXT of that comment though was that Sergi DOESN'T always get tough. Meaning? As that tour insider told me, "always half-azzed, sometimes motivated, sometimes not." An EITHER-OR type player, with not much in between. As Patrick McEnroe said of him, "Sergi can be a GREAT competitor..." WHEN he's feeling good. In other words, think of it this way, great minds think alike.

Krajicek, Bruguera, and Medvedev were all GREAT friends. Friends are often times accepting of each others faults, and sometimes you might even say, like draws like. It was once said of Krajicek by PMac, that he's the type of player who shows on the court and sees how he feels hitting the first five minutes, and if he feels like he's hitting good, he'll give it 110%, if he feels a little off, he'll just pack it in after the first five minutes. Medvedev was the same way. He said when nearing retirement, oh, I know I'm as talented as anyone out there and I can still beat anyone, but my mind's not really there right now, and NO ONE can make me want my mind to be there, because he's just not that type of person. When he feels good, he'll give it his all and play good, when he doesn't? He's getting his azz handed to him by someone like Jamie Delgado.

Courier matched up well with Muster because he was as bullishly strong as Muster and as fit and as determined and felt very comfortable playing against heavy topspin, thus effectively neutralizing Muster's greatest strengths against most of his foes.

Courier on the other hand had a brutish, flatter, forehand drive than Muster which gave him a more decided advantage against Muster than Muster's great topspin backhand had vs. Courier's ugly "Butcher the Beefcake Billy" two-hander.

In contrast, at a pure theoretical level (i.e. ignoring intangibles such as fitness and determination *point-in and point-out* regardless of the score or particular occasion or importance of the match) Bruguera at his best didn't give Courier as much of a hitting/bashing rhythm as Muster did.

Muster applied a more relentless pressure, wheras Bruguera could play that style too but also had a soft touch in his arsenal as well with the finesse slices, drop shots/drop volleys, acute short angles, sloooow moon balls that really flew to the moon and back at Frank Sinatra pace before deciding to land with a snap (wake up Jim! wake up! you have a ball to hit), followed by tornado spin drives "that hurt the ball" and "you won't see a harder hit forehand than that anywhere," etc.

[anointedone]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Courier was okay until a Bruguera and Muster began to blossom, whereby they started to routinely hand him his *****.

Courier beat Bruguera in straight sets in the quarters of Rome in 1993 6-3, 6-4 before losing that extremely tough 5 setter in the 93 French Open final to an inspired Bruguera. So obviously he was competitive with him on clay even during Bruguera's peak. By 94 Courier was obviously not the same player anymore, so not surprising Bruguera would have the clear advantage by now.

Muster and Courier did not really reach their peaks together so I am not sure how you can compare. Muster was still pretty darn good already in 92-93 when Courier repeatedly handed him his *** on clay.

Also Courier had great success on other surfaces and the trouble Bruguera or Muster would give peak Courier is limited to only clay. Courier at his peak would find no threat to his chances of hard court titles (he won 2 Australians remember, and reached multiples times semis of U.S Open, with 1 final) from either Muster or Bruguera, none whatsoever.

[anointedone]

Originally Posted by !Tym

That says more about Muster than Bruguera. In my opinion, if Bruguera's at his best on clay and Courier is too, Bruguera takes that match almost every time in my opinion.

Well that is your opinion. I saw the 93 French Open final as Bruguera at his best barely winning a terrific 5 setter over Courier still pretty far from his best that day.

[Nickognito]

In my opinion no player has been better than Courier at his peak on clay, from 1990 to 2005.

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by Nickognito

In my opinion no player has been better than Courier at his peak on clay, from 1990 to 2005.

Um....ever heard of a fellow called Bjorn Borg?

[Nickognito]

In my humble opinion , Borg was a little worse than Courier in 1990-2005, i'm very sorry

[bluetrain4]

I know we like to argue that the "experts" get it wrong, but I don't think Wilander, Lendl or Courier are underrated at all. These are champions that are talked about often and I've never really heard anyone disrespect them or hint that they achieved more than they should have, or not pay proper tribute to their achievements.

[Legend of Borg]

Originally Posted by Nickognito

In my humble opinion , Borg was a little worse than Courier in 1990-2005, i'm very sorry

Courier managed to win two French Grand Slams, while Borg won six. I don't see the comparison.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Legend of Borg

Courier managed to win two French Grand Slams, while Borg won six. I don't see the comparison.

Hey Legend,

Wake up and read the fine print: Borg didn't win any French Opens or slams of any description "in 1990-2005."

BTW, there is not such thing as "French Grand Slams".

There is the French Open Championship, which is one-fourth of the Grand Slam.