Thomas Muster comeback?

[Blinkism]

Has anyone heard of this?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/20...e_worried.html

Apparently, former world #1 and French Open Champion, Thomas Muster is back on tour!



He played his first match since 1999 last week at the Braunschweig Challenger in Germany, losing to Connor Niland in the first round.

He's playing in the Kitzbühel challenger in Austria now and, apparently, the organizers of the Vienna ATP 250 event are considering giving him a wildcard into the main draw in October (source: http://austrianindependent.com/news/...est_tournament)

Thoughts? This is relevant to our interests

[OKUSA]

losing in the first round in a challenger doesn't bode well me thinks

[Xemi666]

Sounds like an ill-advised comeback to me if he's losing in challengers. But, I'd like to see a match between him and Nadal on clay just for kicks (I know Nadal destroys him at this point of their careers, but it would be fun nonetheless).

[Dream_On]

Got 4 and 4 off of dustin brown, not bad at all only one break in each set.

If only he can manage to draw an american which isnt isner or querrey on clay somehow

[Mustard]

I wish him the best

[J011yroger]

Dude looks to be in sick shape.

Go Muster!

J

[Bobby Jr]

I love how the article says he was the "best claycourt player" in the mid 90s. That's a pretty big claim especially since Sergi Bruguera won 2 French Opens and was runner-up another time. Muster beat a 33 year old Chang in his French win and faced pretty much bunnies for most of his matches (with Courier, Agassi, Bruguera etc all having poor matches earlier on).

Should Nadal be worried? Good one . He can do anything Muster ever could do, and more - but also hits the ball harder and is faster. Even if he played as good as he did back then, which is impossible, anyone the top 20 would slaughter Muster without much trouble I imagine.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Blinkism

Has anyone heard of this?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/20...e_worried.html

Apparently, former world #1 and French Open Champion, Thomas Muster is back on tour!



He played his first match since 1999 last week at the Braunschweig Challenger in Germany, losing to Connor Niland in the first round.

He's playing in the Kitzbühel challenger in Austria now and, apparently, the organizers of the Vienna ATP 250 event are considering giving him a wildcard into the main draw in October (source: http://austrianindependent.com/news/...est_tournament)

Thoughts? This is relevant to our interests

He looks closer to 52 in the pic

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

I love how the article says he was the "best claycourt player" in the mid 90s. That's a pretty big claim especially since Sergi Bruguera won 2 French Opens and was runner-up another time. Muster beat a 33 year old Chang in his French win and faced pretty much bunnies for most of his matches (with Courier, Agassi, Bruguera etc all having poor matches earlier on).

Should Nadal be worried? Good one . He can do anything Muster ever could do, and more - but also hits the ball harder and is faster. Even if he played as good as he did back then, which is impossible, anyone the top 20 would slaughter Muster without much trouble I imagine.

You do realise that Muster went 65-2 on clay in 1995 and 46-3 on clay in 1996? Bruguera had no such numbers, and Muster won 12 out of 15 matches against Bruguera in their head-to-head.

[President of Serve/Volley]

1995 Muster vs 2008 Nadal.

Would be fun to watch.

[rodrigoamaral]

good to see him back.. hope he put some wins together at the challenger level and play some big-name guy in a big tournament.. would be cool

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You do realise that Muster went 65-2 on clay in 1995 and 46-3 on clay in 1996? Bruguera had no such numbers, and Muster won 12 out of 15 matches against Bruguera in their head-to-head.

Yep. But Bruguera achieved more of importance in the mid 90s. 2 FO wins and a runner-up means more than any number of the tiny claycourt tournaments Muster used to go to instead of facing his peers on hard or grass. In fact I understand Muster getting to number 1 ranking was one of the drivers in ranking system changes - so guys couldn't get to the top without achieving mushc in the slams as he did.

The same h2h logic can be used re: Nadal and Federer but no-one can claim Nadal has achieved what Federer has until he actually has. In that respect I think Bruguera trumps Muster as a mid-90s clay court player.

[blackfrido]

I don't see anything wrong at his age to play challengers and have some fun.
GO Muster!!!

[thalivest]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

I love how the article says he was the "best claycourt player" in the mid 90s. That's a pretty big claim especially since Sergi Bruguera won 2 French Opens and was runner-up another time. Muster beat a 33 year old Chang in his French win and faced pretty much bunnies for most of his matches (with Courier, Agassi, Bruguera etc all having poor matches earlier on).

Should Nadal be worried? Good one . He can do anything Muster ever could do, and more - but also hits the ball harder and is faster. Even if he played as good as he did back then, which is impossible, anyone the top 20 would slaughter Muster without much trouble I imagine.

Bruguera probably belongs at the same level as Courier and Muster but still no way should he lead the list as best clay courter of the 90s over either of them. Courier has the same French Open record (2 wins and 1 other runner up) as Bruguera, but was more imposing and untouchable on clay in 1992 than Bruguera ever was. Even in 93 when Bruguera beat Courier to win the French it was a major upset and a huge win for Bruguera, and Courier had spanked Bruguera in their other meeting on clay that year. As for Muster he has less success at the French but still won it, and all his other success on clay gives him the edge over Bruguera, plus as Mustard said he owns Bruguera in head to head majorly (clay and otherwise).

Muster was unbeatable on clay in 1995. It wouldnt have matter who he played at the French that year. Agassi would get destroyed by a peak Muster on clay. Bruguera wouldnt have had a hope that year. Only Courier was a possible threat only due to the matchup issues, but Courier was past his prime by then anyway so probably wouldnt beat Muster on clay at that point (on other surfaces he still would at that point though). And a 33 year old Chang!?! What the heck are you smoking.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by thalivest

Bruguera probably belongs at the same level as Courier and Muster but still no way should he lead the list as best clay courter of the 90s over either of them.

I agree for sure. I was just ignoring courier - specifically saying mid-90s (which I guessed was 93-96).

On the h2h with Muster thing, I can see that side of the reasoning too but, as I mentioned the Nadal-Federer h2h - a h2h is not as important as overall achievement at the highest level. Even the most die-hard Nadal fan can't claim he has achieved what Federer has (yet) even if his h2h was 20-0. In the same respect neither can Muster's h2h over Bruguera supercede the slam wins/finals. At least to me.

How they play - pusher, punisher, lucky/unlucky or whatever - is also irrelevant. You win how you win and performance in grand slams is the most common criteria on which to judge on a person's career. That's how history judges Federer, Sampras, Agassi etc - why not Bruguera?

[BevelDevil]

I thought his "comeback" would be on the seniors tour.


What's his setup? Did polyester strings give him some kind of renewed hope?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Yep. But Bruguera achieved more of importance in the mid 90s. 2 FO wins and a runner-up means more than any number of the tiny claycourt tournaments Muster used to go to instead of facing his peers on hard or grass.

2 French Open wins to 1 is probably the only thing Bruguera has over Muster. Bruguera has 2 masters, his 1991 and 1993 Monte Carlo wins. Muster has 8 masters, 3 in Monte Carlo, 3 in Rome, 1 in Essen on indoor carpet and 1 in Miami on hardcourt. Muster won 21 titles during his 25 month career peak (February 1995 - March 1997) and 44 titles in his career overall. Bruguera, by contrast, won 14 titles in his whole career, the last of which came in Prague in August 1994.

And as for playing on hardcourt and grass, Muster had more success in his career on hardcourts than Bruguera. Muster won 1997 Miami and was a runner-up in 1989. He was a runner-up at 1997 Cincinnati. Twice an Australian Open semi finalist in 1989 and 1997, three times a US Open quarter finalist in 1993, 1994 and 1996. He also reached two semi finals at Indian Wells in 1997 and 1998.

Oh, and Muster did reach a grass-court semi final at Queen's Club in 1996.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

In fact I understand Muster getting to number 1 ranking was one of the drivers in ranking system changes - so guys couldn't get to the top without achieving mushc in the slams as he did.

Kafelnikov getting to world number 1 right at the end of an awful spell of 7 straight losses in singles competition, is what brought about the Champions Race.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The same h2h logic can be used re: Nadal and Federer but no-one can claim Nadal has achieved what Federer has until he actually has. In that respect I think Bruguera trumps Muster as a mid-90s clay court player.

Unless you're using the total number of French Open titles as your criteria, I fail to see how you can come to this conclusion.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Muster beat a 33 year old Chang in his French win.

Don't you mean a 23 year old Chang?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mustard

2 French Open wins to 1 is probably the only thing Bruguera has over Muster.

A pretty significant one imo. Most player would swap all of their masters series wins for a single slam - since that is the criteria by which top player's careers are measured.

Did Bruguera come up with the goods when it mattered in the majors more often than Muster? Yes is the only answer. 2 wins/3 finals vs 1 win/1 final.

The grass/hard/carpet results aren't what I was talking about - if you read back over my posts - I was specifically talking in terms of mid-90s clay court players, not overall. I'm not saying Muster wasn't a good player, rather that the claim made in the article isn't backed up by the results which matter historically.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Unless you're using the total number of French Open titles as your criteria, I fail to see how you can come to this conclusion.

Yep. That is the primary criteria used when comparing players. Sure, it's not always the full picture but, in the end: slam wins are more important than other tournament wins.

Oh, and yes.. re: Chang. Doh! ha ha typo.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

A pretty significant one imo. I can't think of any situation where a player wouldn't swap 10 masters series wins for a single slam - since that is the criteria by which top player's careers are measured.

I'd rather Muster's career than Bruguera's. Much more fulfilling and satisfying.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

On balance, do you agree Bruguera could come up with the goods when it mattered in the majors more often than Muster?

Unless you mean that Bruguera won 2 French Opens to Muster's 1, then no. Only 4 times in his career did Bruguera get to the quarter finals or better in a major, and all of those were at the French Open. Muster did better at the Australian and US Opens than Bruguera, reaching 9 quarter finals or better in the majors overall.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The grass/hard/carpet results aren't what I was talking about - if you re-read my posts - I was specifically talking in terms of mid-90s clay court players, not overall.

Like I said, the number of French Open titles aside, Muster was a far more dominant clay-courter than Bruguera.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Yep. That is the primary criteria used when comparing players. Sure, it's not always the full picture but, in the end: slam wins are more important than other tournament wins.

But masters wins are also important, as the second most important level of tournaments after the 4 majors. Muster has 8 (6 on clay) to Bruguera's 2.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Oh, and yes.. re: Chang. Doh! ha ha typo.

If you knew Chang was 23, then why mention it at all? It's just a typical tennis age, not really young, not really old. It's actually more on the younger side.