mike danny
Bionic Poster
Such is the state of the younger guys.Yes you are crazy.
Such is the state of the younger guys.Yes you are crazy.
Lol! You're still going?! Fed made the SF of the Australian Open, THIS YEAR! QF of the US Open last year. He's in the top 3. But who cares about that right Mike Danny? Because YOU choose when beating him counts.Ok, let's look at level. How has he done at HC slams since winning his last slam?
Such is the state of the younger guys.
Such is the level of Federer.Such is the state of the younger guys.
Yeah, and he lost to Dimitrov and nearly lost to Millmsn and Sandgren.Lol! You're still going?! Fed made the SF of the Australian Open, THIS YEAR! QF of the US Open last year. He's in the top 3. But who cares about that right Mike Danny? Because YOU choose when beating him counts.
No. Some of his points (not all, imo) are good.I don't post here much if at all anymore. Is this Mike Danny guy the resident nutcase? Can people answer this?
Hit by car driven by crazy driver and broke his leg and comes back to win FOAustria does not have many good tennis players but those two were pretty solid. Obviously thiem can do more and clearly overtake muster but if thiem had to retire next year who do you have ahead now?
Highest rank:
Muster 1
Thiem 3
Grand slam wins
Muster 1
Thiem 1
Grand slam finals
Thiem 3
Muster 1
Overall titles
Muster 44
Thiem 17
Masters 1000
Muster 8
Thiem 1
Right now I think it is still muster as he simply has won more hardware albeit thiem is clearly the better non clay player (muster has two AO semis but thiem still did more on non clay).
To this day I still can’t fathom out how Muster ONLY won one French Open. The 90s had a lot of depth when it comes to clay-courters, many of whom specialised on that one surface. He was clearly the second best (I’m not referring to accolades) clay-courter of that decade, behind Guga. 1995 Muster was at a (clay) ATG level, a level I’m quite certain Thiem will not attain. Right now, it is by far Muster that’s ahead, however I can safely guess that Thiem will win at least another 2 slams. That’s when I’ll consider him greater than Muster.
To this day I still can’t fathom out how Muster ONLY won one French Open. The 90s had a lot of depth when it comes to clay-courters, many of whom specialised on that one surface. He was clearly the second best (I’m not referring to accolades) clay-courter of that decade, behind Guga. 1995 Muster was at a (clay) ATG level, a level I’m quite certain Thiem will not attain. Right now, it is by far Muster that’s ahead, however I can safely guess that Thiem will win at least another 2 slams. That’s when I’ll consider him greater than Muster.
35+ Federer has won slams. He might not be as good as 28 year old Federer but he was still better than almost everyone muster faced.
And people said this slam would be an asterisk
Muster is the second best dirtballer of the 90s only if you put lots of stock in non-Slam events. FYI he won 62.0% and 61.4% of his games on clay in '95 and '96 respectively - impressive numbers for sure (the 60% Club is a pretty exclusive one), but still lower than the career season highs of Courier, Bruguera and even Djokovic and also the peaks the former two (plus Guga in select matches) demonstrated at RG. And turns out Jim and Sergi won an extra FO in the '90s. Do they really deserve to be ranked lower than Thomas because they won fewer 2nd-rate events?
Now lest this come across as dressing him down too harshly I'll give Muster this: I'd long suspected that given his underwhelming FO record he did quite a bit of vulturing outside the regular CC season (before IW and after RG), but when I looked at his disappointing '96 campaign I found that his GW%s during and outside the regular CC leg were virtually identical: 61.4%* vs. 61.3%. And the party spoiler Stich won a respectable 57.8% of his games (all GW%s at RG in this post include TBs, as opposed to the rest which don't) on his run to the FO final, so I'm fine with cutting Thomas slack for that particular loss.
And the former "King of Play" did play like it when he won an eye-popping 64.5% at '95 RG... but that is still dwarfed by Jim's 67.5% in '92 and Sergi's 68.8% in '93. Again given these actual results I find it hard to rate him over the latter two plus Guga among the '90s dirtballers.
*The 61.4% includes stats from his 1st-rounder at St. Polten vs. unranked Nasser-Ghanim Al-Khulaifi (yes, not even in the thousands - hence the ATP site's discrepancy in Muster's service/return %s between the '96 Stats Leaderboards and his '96 Player Stats). Without those #s his regular-season % would be 60.8%.
Outside clay, sure, but as I pointed out just earlier today Thiem has yet to even come close to breaking the 60% mark and won a mediocre 56.1% and 56.3% in '18 and '19. That long backswing/return position is really a liability for him even on clay, and the fact that he made the FO final in both '18 and '19 despite those numbers is an indictment of the depth of today's CC field.
It's a legit Slam, but definitely comes with a question mark if we're comparing levels of play.
It's so weird. Muster seemed like a man to me. Thiem at 27 seems like a boy.
Maybe it's because I'm older now.
Anyway, Muster.
Thiem has to get to world No.1 once Big 3 are done. Then he gets the title of Austria's greatest.
This is all due to massu otherwise we'd be just sitting here waiting for the Clay results to tally up. Tim is almost like a phoenix getting too close to the sun right now hopefully he doesn't come crashing down at RG of all places
How did Muster do against the big clay guys (burgera, courier...) in those non RG clay tournaments? Did he mostly avoid them in his wins?
This. We'll reevaluate if/when Thiem gets hit by a drunk driver and has ligaments in his knee severed. Then see how he does in the majors...However, I can see the case for Muster. We can't do "what if" scenarios, but it is interesting to consider what Thomas would have achieved, were it not for his horrific car crash injury.
You've made some good points. Gotta say i'm not one for researching stats and percentages, I just go by the good old eye test. From what I remember in the 90s around the time I started following tennis, I recall Muster kicking ^ss on the red dirt and schooling Bruguera more often than not, hence why I'd rate the Austrian above, although he's won 1 slam less. But not just that, It's also the numerous Masters 1000 he's won, the overall titles compared to the Spaniard, getting to No1 and of course that 1995 season of which both Bruguera and Courier never came close to achieving on the clay. It's kinda how I rate say Roddick above Kafelnikov, or Becker over Wilander.....and quite a few on here rate Murray above Courier for similar reasons.Muster is the second best dirtballer of the 90s only if you put lots of stock in non-Slam events. FYI he won 62.0% and 61.4% of his games on clay in '95 and '96 respectively - impressive numbers for sure (the 60% Club is a pretty exclusive one), but still lower than the career season highs of Courier, Bruguera and even Djokovic and also the peaks the former two (plus Guga in select matches) demonstrated at RG. And turns out Jim and Sergi won an extra FO in the '90s. Do they really deserve to be ranked lower than Thomas because they won fewer 2nd-rate events?
Now lest this come across as dressing him down too harshly I'll give Muster this: I'd long suspected that given his underwhelming FO record he did quite a bit of vulturing outside the regular CC season (before IW and after RG), but when I looked at his disappointing '96 campaign I found that his GW%s during and outside the regular CC leg were virtually identical: 61.4%* vs. 61.3%. And the party spoiler Stich won a respectable 57.8% of his games (all GW%s at RG in this post include TBs, as opposed to the rest which don't) on his run to the FO final, so I'm fine with cutting Thomas slack for that particular loss.
And the former "King of Play" did play like it when he won an eye-popping 64.5% at '95 RG... but that is still dwarfed by Jim's 67.5% in '92 and Sergi's 68.8% in '93. Again given these actual results I find it hard to rate him over the latter two plus Guga among the '90s dirtballers.
*The 61.4% includes stats from his 1st-rounder at St. Polten vs. unranked Nasser-Ghanim Al-Khulaifi (yes, not even in the thousands - hence the ATP site's discrepancy in Muster's service/return %s between the '96 Stats Leaderboards and his '96 Player Stats). Without those #s his regular-season % would be 60.8%.
Outside clay, sure, but as I pointed out just earlier today Thiem has yet to even come close to breaking the 60% mark and won a mediocre 56.1% and 56.3% in '18 and '19. That long backswing/return position is really a liability for him even on clay, and the fact that he made the FO final in both '18 and '19 despite those numbers is an indictment of the depth of today's CC field.
It's a legit Slam, but definitely comes with a question mark if we're comparing levels of play.
I agree that Muster is still ahead on numbers, but weak era? Come on, Thiem played against the Big 3 for his whole career up to now. Switch his competition with Muster’s and Thiem would be the only one even talked about. Muster was almost exclusively a clay player and would have done nothing against Nadal. Thiem in the 90s would be a multiple Slam champion already at his current age.Muster easily. He won a number of big titles in probably the strongest era there has ever been. Thiem hasn't really won anything, despite very weak era.
You've made some good points. Gotta say i'm not one for researching stats and percentages, I just go by the good old eye test. From what I remember in the 90s around the time I started following tennis, I recall Muster kicking ^ss on the red dirt and schooling Bruguera more often than not, hence why I'd rate the Austrian above, although he's won 1 slam less. But not just that, It's also the numerous Masters 1000 he's won, the overall titles compared to the Spaniard, getting to No1 and of course that 1995 season of which both Bruguera and Courier never came close to achieving on the clay. It's kinda how I rate say Roddick above Kafelnikov, or Becker over Wilander.....and quite a few on here rate Murray above Courier for similar reasons.
Which goes back to my earlier post expressing how to this day I'm perplexed at how Muster only won the FO once, and as you pointed out, one other SF to his name. Well I guess it's similar to the Nalbandian story. How on earth did he never win a slam? In my view he was a better player than Johansson or Gaudio, but it's not what history tells us. 1>0.I get the overall gist of your post.
@ the underline part :
But in this comparision of Muster vs Courier/Bruguera. its not just about the number of RGs won.
Muster made only 1 more GS semi at FO apart from his 95 win - FO 90. that's 1 win, 1 SF.
Bruguera made the final of 97 FO and semi of 95 FO. That's 2 wins, 1 final, 1 SF.
Courier made the final of 93 FO and semi of 94 FO. That's 2 wins, 1 final, 1 SF.
I agree that Muster is still ahead on numbers, but weak era? Come on, Thiem played against the Big 3 for his whole career up to now. Switch his competition with Muster’s and Thiem would be the only one even talked about. Muster was almost exclusively a clay player and would have done nothing against Nadal. Thiem in the 90s would be a multiple Slam champion already at his current age.
The fact that Sampras is mentioned as clay competition just tells you how hilariously different the standards are.Thiem had the luxury of only playing against 3 good players. Muster had 10. Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Lendl, Wilander, Bruguera, Chang etc etc.
And all those players never were present at the same time. Some of them Muster only met a late stage of their career. Also Nadal is the decisive factor anyway. If not for him we would talk about guys like Ferrer, Murray etc. as great competition because they would have won RG. They are the Agassi/Courier/Bruguera/Chang of today if not for Nadal. Or Federer/Djokovic would have shared 10+ RG titles and we would say Thiem has to compete with the two greatest RG champions ever.The fact that Sampras is mentioned as clay competition just tells you how hilariously different the standards are.
I think we should judge this solely by the H2H
Thiem literally ended Muster.Weird how Muster's last ever pro match was against Thiem.
I guess I should change my answer given that Thiem has made 4 slam finals to Muster's 1. And at 3/4 slams too.What really does it for me is Muster only ever making one RG final
He might be talking about competition overall, not just on clay. If so, though, then why exclude Becker?The fact that Sampras is mentioned as clay competition just tells you how hilariously different the standards are.
How many excuses are we gonna make for a guy with 3 career HC titles.He might be talking about competition overall, not just on clay. If so, though, then why exclude Becker?
Thiem has 4 GS finals.
This will be our new ANTHEM \O/
When all is said and done: most probably Dominic Thiem - Muster was one hell of a gritty tennis player, though. Che grinta!
Austria does not have many good tennis players but those two were pretty solid. Obviously thiem can do more and clearly overtake muster but if thiem had to retire next year who do you have ahead now?
Highest rank:
Muster 1
Thiem 3
Grand slam wins
Muster 1
Thiem 1
Grand slam finals
Thiem 3
Muster 1
Overall titles
Muster 44
Thiem 17
Masters 1000
Muster 8
Thiem 1
Right now I think it is still muster as he simply has won more hardware albeit thiem is clearly the better non clay player (muster has two AO semis but thiem still did more on non clay).
To this day I still can’t fathom out how Muster ONLY won one French Open. The 90s had a lot of depth when it comes to clay-courters, many of whom specialised on that one surface. He was clearly the second best (I’m not referring to accolades) clay-courter of that decade, behind Guga. 1995 Muster was at a (clay) ATG level, a level I’m quite certain Thiem will not attain. Right now, it is by far Muster that’s ahead, however I can safely guess that Thiem will win at least another 2 slams. That’s when I’ll consider him greater than Muster.