By the way, I agree. It's no contest in my book. In the 90's the three you mentioned were the scariest on serve. There were other big servers, but krajicek, sampras and Ivanisevic were untouchable when they were on.
Stich's serve (and game) reminds me of Nalbandian's game in some ways. Always smooth and beautiful to watch but you never got the feeling they had that extra gear if the opponent got hot.
Wow, this just boggles my mind. I can see why you might think that, but the difference is that Stich was one tall man. Smooth strokes yes, but Stich could end points on a dime if he wanted to. Tall guys like Medvedev and Stich didn't need to take big exaggerated swings to deliver point-ending pace.
Don't mistake smooth for extra gear. Did you see Becker vs. Stich Wimbledon final? That is the very definition of extra gear. He made Becker look like a little school boy that day. His serve ABSOLUTELY in the top tier of his time. If you go back and watch the commentary, his serve was always considered one of the VERY best in its day. Stich and big serve were ALWAYS mentioned in the first sentence. Becker and Goran themselves will tell you that.
I also saw Stich playing Becker another day on clay, and it looked like the same thing. It was BECKER who looked like he didn't have an extra gear. He cared more yes, but Stich you clearly got the sense that if Stich was playing well, Becker had almost no chance.
Ask Courier, who the most talented player of his generation was, and he won't hesitate to tell you what I think quite a few people of that generation thought. It was Stich. No, not Sampras, Stich.
Sampras himself feared Stich's game.
Stich could match Sampras' serve, was far more consistent and balanced off the ground, handled topspin with aplomb, volleyed immaculately, hardly made a whisper when he moved (that's a good thing).
He had the TOTAL package. He could best Muster from the baseline like a red headed step child like he did at the French, he could serve and volley with the very best of them, was comfortable on ANY surface under ANY conditions.
The ONLY thing that held him back was his lack of commitment to the game. I believe it was our very own Thomas Martinez, stringer to the stars, who said Stich was the most relaxed and laid back player in practice he's ever seen.
When Stich was on, he was one of the few guys who made SAMPRAS look like he didn't have an extra gear.
Nalbandian on the other hand needs a little help from Federer to beat him, Fed's off a little, he can get the victory, otherwise no. It wasn't that way with Stich.
Stich was ALWAYS mentioned in the top tier of big servers in the 90s, ALWAYS from the day he served Becker off the court at Wimbledon, his serve was seen as one of the feared weapons in the game.
I don't know where people are forgetting this. In the 90s, Stich was SYNONYMOUS with the term big server. He along with Sampras and Goran and Krajicek were ALWAYS mentioned as the kind of new generation guys who were "ruining" the game with their big serves on the unfairly fast surfaces of those days. He's one of the very reasons the courts were all slowed down.
I honestly don't remember ANY discussions of big servers during the early 90s/mid-90's that didn't include Stich as one of those dastardly culprits who were ruining the game.
The second tier, CLASS, of big servers are guys like Safin, Wheaton, and Leconte, a guy like Guga also fits well into this description.
First tier was UNMISTAKABLY considered Stich, Sampras, Becker, Goran, Rosset, Philipousis, and Krajicek in the 90s. Those were ALWAYS the big names mentioned. Had Forget not suffered the injury problems, and been a bigger name, he also would have been mentioned there by the media puppets (pardon) pundits.
The 90s was a funny era. It is as Moose Malloy once described it PERFECTLY. It was the era of HALF-time champions.
Meaning, guys who like Bruguera, Korda, Krajicek, and Stich who were symptomatic of the era. Guys who had top tier talent, but who were in and out players, "ALWAYS half-azzed, sometimes motivated, sometimes not" type players, or guys who were too frequently injured to ever put it together, etc.
These days, there's fewer top tier talents but I would say more consistent talent.
In the 90s, there were guys who came and went but when they were at their best arguably played as good a tennis as anyone, period, and that includes the "big two" of Sampras and Agassi.
Becker is a guy who would put together a run in spots, Edberg did that, Courier, Bruguera on clay, Muster on clay, Korda on hard and at the Grand Slam Cup championships, Krajicek that one time on grass, Stich at that Wimbledon and the year ending championships, etc. A LOT of in and out and transitioning and injury timeouts and burnout respites in the 90s, it was one of the most exciting eras of tennis ever imo. Even Agassi was in and out.
These days, the top two are ALWAYS bringing it, but you don't really get the feeling that anyone else can beat them if Nadal and Federer are TRULY playing their best.
It wasn't that way back then.
Berdych COULD be considered in the same light as the 90s "half-time champion" types, but imo, he's not.
Why? Because as Federer said about him, I was kind of dissapointed in him, after he beat me at the Olympics, I expected more out of him, better results.
Berdych has NEVER put it all together the way the half-time champions managed to do.
Berdych has the so-called top gear like the true greats in the game, he just hasn't proven he is a TRUE champion DEEP DOWN...*inside*. To do that, you have to prove that you can come trhough even when your dog tired as Bruguera did in the fifth set at the French against peak Courier. That means you have to ACTUALLY *step through the hoop*. Not, get 9/10th of the way and then COWER out.
Safin is another CLASSIC example of a half-time champion type player. Flaky? Inconsistent? You betcha. Able to beat Federer and Agassi at the Australian Open, able to up the ante, and COME THROUGH? You betcha. Able to TAKE IT TO AND FROM Sampras in the Open final as a young pup? You betcha.
Philipoussis is NOT a half-type champion type, however, because he's NEVER proven he can come through when it matters most, to COMPLETE the deed.
That to me just means you don't have it DEEP DOWN, what it takes like another half-time champion type like Rafter.
In the Grand Slam Cup of 93, back then a prestige tournament because of the obscene prize money for its day, Korda played THREE harrowing matches in row, three epic matches in a row over Bruguera, then Sampras, then Stich before winning it.
He wasn't a consistent player sure, but EVEN THEN, he showed that he had it IN him to go all the way. That capacity, that heart, that resolve when he WAS fully activated and all "there" was well...there!
I miss the era of half-time champions. It's funny, because virtually ALL of my favorite players fit that mold. I've never really gotten into the always there all the time, tennis is my life, types. Too boring. The stock market is fun to watch when it's chaotic and unpredictable to me.
I think that's why I take so little joy in watching anyone from this generation. I just don't see anyone whose "got it", but only shows it once in a blue moon. All I see are pretender half-time champion types like Gonzales, Berdych, Soderling, Bhagdatis, Tsonga, Monofils, and the like. They're just teases, nothing more to me.
