Why did Muster only win 1 French open
- Thread starter The_Begum_of_Bhopal
- Start date
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Muster's form in the first half of 1991 had been dreadful.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
excellent post
As others have sort of referenced, Muster faced a number of difficult draws at the French. This was partially due to only 16 players being seeded back then. The 32 seed format didn't come into play until several years after Muster had left the tour. Certainly the luck of the draw is what it is, and we'll never know if anything would have gone differently for Muster, but he absolutely did not get much luck.
He was forced to play Courier twice in the early rounds in the midst of Courier's prime in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, he drew Agassi in the second round, beat him in a five set thriller, and was rewarded with a 3rd round matchup with Rafter, who posed a terrible matchup for Muster on any surface. Muster's draw looked pretty good in 1996, but the dangerous, experienced Stich, who was no stranger to Grand Slam success, played with nothing to lose and frustrated Muster into a poor 4th round performance. Stich went on to nearly win the tournament.
As another poster mentioned, 1997 was an oddly down year for Muster on clay. He started the year on fire on hard courts only to bizarrely lose early on clay week after week in the spring. Muster partially blamed his struggles on his transition to a new extra long racquet, which helped him on faster surfaces, but wasn't what he was used to on clay. I'm sure there was some truth to that, but I always felt that Muster was slightly fatigued from all of the hard court matches he played from January through March and maybe even slightly less hungry for the clay season, having accomplished a majorly satisfying victory in Key Biscayne. Regardless, most felt that he could still contend at Roland Garros. He got through his first two matches without playing that well before having the misfortune of drawing then unheard of Gustavo Kuerten in the 3rd round. Muster played very well for periods of that match and actually led 3-0 in the fifth set, but Kuerten's serve and ability to go from defense to offense with huge angled groundstrokes from well behind the baseline were too much. Kuerten famously went on to win the title, beating Kafelnikov, Medvedev and Bruguera among others. Ironically, those were all players that Muster typically dominated in his career. Despite his less than stellar form that year, had Muster found a way to get past Kuerten, he would've become a big favorite to win the title.
Looking back on things, I believe Muster set out in 1998 to make one last big push on clay. He didn't play well in Australia or in Dubai and had only played three official tour matches until making a strong run to the semis of Indian Wells in March. Muster skipped Key Biscayne and instead got ready for the clay court season, where he performed much better than in 1997. Though it was nowhere near the vintage Muster of 1995-96, he did reach the final of Estoril, along with the quarters of Hamburg and St. Polten and the 3rd round of Rome. Ranked in the 20s and thus unseeded at the French, Muster actually received a "favorable" draw in 7th seeded Jonas Bjorkman. Muster easily beat Bjorkman, crushed German up and comer Nicolas Kiefer and then got through four and five setters in rounds 3 and 4 to reach the quarterfinals. Spanish clay courter Felix Mantilla, who Muster had beaten in a testy match in Rome a few weeks earlier, took Muster out in four sets, effectively ending the Austrian's last decent Roland Garros hope. In 1999, Muster seemed to have quietly decided to play through the clay court season and then fade away into retirement without telling anyone. He recorded a good result in Sydney to begin the year, but that was about it. He disappeared after a first round loss to Lapentti at the French.
He was forced to play Courier twice in the early rounds in the midst of Courier's prime in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, he drew Agassi in the second round, beat him in a five set thriller, and was rewarded with a 3rd round matchup with Rafter, who posed a terrible matchup for Muster on any surface. Muster's draw looked pretty good in 1996, but the dangerous, experienced Stich, who was no stranger to Grand Slam success, played with nothing to lose and frustrated Muster into a poor 4th round performance. Stich went on to nearly win the tournament.
As another poster mentioned, 1997 was an oddly down year for Muster on clay. He started the year on fire on hard courts only to bizarrely lose early on clay week after week in the spring. Muster partially blamed his struggles on his transition to a new extra long racquet, which helped him on faster surfaces, but wasn't what he was used to on clay. I'm sure there was some truth to that, but I always felt that Muster was slightly fatigued from all of the hard court matches he played from January through March and maybe even slightly less hungry for the clay season, having accomplished a majorly satisfying victory in Key Biscayne. Regardless, most felt that he could still contend at Roland Garros. He got through his first two matches without playing that well before having the misfortune of drawing then unheard of Gustavo Kuerten in the 3rd round. Muster played very well for periods of that match and actually led 3-0 in the fifth set, but Kuerten's serve and ability to go from defense to offense with huge angled groundstrokes from well behind the baseline were too much. Kuerten famously went on to win the title, beating Kafelnikov, Medvedev and Bruguera among others. Ironically, those were all players that Muster typically dominated in his career. Despite his less than stellar form that year, had Muster found a way to get past Kuerten, he would've become a big favorite to win the title.
Looking back on things, I believe Muster set out in 1998 to make one last big push on clay. He didn't play well in Australia or in Dubai and had only played three official tour matches until making a strong run to the semis of Indian Wells in March. Muster skipped Key Biscayne and instead got ready for the clay court season, where he performed much better than in 1997. Though it was nowhere near the vintage Muster of 1995-96, he did reach the final of Estoril, along with the quarters of Hamburg and St. Polten and the 3rd round of Rome. Ranked in the 20s and thus unseeded at the French, Muster actually received a "favorable" draw in 7th seeded Jonas Bjorkman. Muster easily beat Bjorkman, crushed German up and comer Nicolas Kiefer and then got through four and five setters in rounds 3 and 4 to reach the quarterfinals. Spanish clay courter Felix Mantilla, who Muster had beaten in a testy match in Rome a few weeks earlier, took Muster out in four sets, effectively ending the Austrian's last decent Roland Garros hope. In 1999, Muster seemed to have quietly decided to play through the clay court season and then fade away into retirement without telling anyone. He recorded a good result in Sydney to begin the year, but that was about it. He disappeared after a first round loss to Lapentti at the French.
He changed something in his game in 1995. I remember watching a clay tourney at Munich in 1993 or 1994. Muster had to face a big Czech guy, Karel Novacek, and before the match he stated that he was really afraid of his power. Also Nicola Pilic made some statements, that Muster was a small guy, and that he hadn't the power, others like Novacek or Medwedew had. If you asked someone in 1993, who would be the next big clay champion, most would have said: Medwedew, who was young, big, had fluent strokes from both sides, and was seen as natural successor of Courier.
Since 1995 Muster suddenly got more power and leverage into his shots, and he bolstered especially his backhand, which was a weakness before. All of a sudden he got a deep backhand cross, to open up the court and give him time to set up his now more powerful forehand.
Since 1995 Muster suddenly got more power and leverage into his shots, and he bolstered especially his backhand, which was a weakness before. All of a sudden he got a deep backhand cross, to open up the court and give him time to set up his now more powerful forehand.
Agreed and a very nice post.
During 1992-1994 after all his success as a teenager, I to thought that Medvedev would become the next king of clay taking the reigns from Courier and Bruguera. If you'd asked me back then whether I thought Muster or Medvedev would have won the title at RG first (or who was more likely to win one), I would have said Medvedev.
During his 1995 RG title run, Muster and Medvedev played each other in the 4th round (Medvedev had recently won his 2nd straight Hamburg title), and Muster demolished him 6-3 6-3 6-0. I've only seen very brief highlights of that match. I wish I could have seen it in full with what sounds like Muster at the absolute peak of his powers. Then in the next round he had a tough quarter-final against Costa; those peak Muster vs. Costa battles at RG and Kitzbuhel in 1995 and Monte-Carlo in 1996 were a treat.
Obviously he'd already had a lot of success and won a lot of titles on clay before then that year anyway (not least in Barcelona and Monte-Carlo), but his improved and more powerful backhand really stood out to me during his title run in Rome notably his victory over Bruguera in the final.
I was lucky enough to watch him defend his Barcelona title in 1996 live. There was certainly a huge aura around him on clay at the time, and a lot of the players that I spoke to were talking about him in reverential terms.
Last edited:
tennistiger
Professional
Stich only lost the FO Final because of Bad luck. Was in front every Set against Kafelnikov.
Muster lost may be his best chances in 89 due to Key Biscayne Crash and 90 to Gomez in a match which he had won in his mind before playing it.
Last edited:
dominikk1985
Legend
I agree it was a good era on clay and muster often lost to great players.
1993: lost in 4 to runner up courier
94: lost in 4 to rafter
95:won
96: lost in 4 to runner up which
97:lost in 5 to winner kuerten
1993: lost in 4 to runner up courier
94: lost in 4 to rafter
95:won
96: lost in 4 to runner up which
97:lost in 5 to winner kuerten
How is it bad luck he lost every big point of the match? Stich was a choker and proved it in that final.
Muster was the most talentfree number 1 ever, very limited. Can be happy that he won one french open
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
In terms of the Masters level clay court titles, Muster only had two dominant years, 1995 and 1996, when in both years he won both Monte Carlo and Rome. In 1995 he won the French Open. In 1996 Muster lost at the French Open to Michael Stich in Stich's best ever match on clay. After dropping the first set and falling behind in the second, Stich rarely put a foot wrong. In 1990, Muster won Rome and in 1992 he won Monte Carlo, but he wasn't as dominant as in 1995-96. In 1995 Muster won a huge number of tournaments and even beat Pete Sampras in the Masters series indoor carpet event at Essen. But Muster was only near the very top for a relatively short period. Nadal has won at least 2 clay court masters titles in 10 different years (an astonishing record), whereas Muster only did this twice.
AlexanderTheGreat08
Hall of Fame
Thiem could end up with more RG’s if he doesn’t burn out in his late 20’s while the Nadal and Djokovic are on their way out
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
The court was too fast for him in 96. Bearing in mind the conditions that year, him losing to Stich wasn't such a surprise. Sampras beat Bruguera and Courier in the same tournament.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't say that Muster in 95 was better than Nadal in 2007 or 2012. He was within two games of losing to Albert Costa (6-2 3-6 6-7 7-5 6-2). And it wasn't the only time that year that Costa pushed him hard. Sure, Costa wasn't anything to scoff at in any way, but he was a kid back then. It's really stretching it to say he was better than Federer of 07 or Djokovic of 12.
Have you guys actually watched tennis in the 90s? Muster of 1995 would have been trashed by any version of Nadal, even 2009. He would be destroyed. Federer between 2005 and 2012 and Djokovic would also destroy him.
Muster is so overrated, his game was limited.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It was a huge surprise at the time. Muster had his chances. He led 6-4, 3-2 (with a break) and it was a typical Muster match up to that point. Then Muster had a poor service game and the rest of the second set and early part of the third set became a struggle, where Stich broke through to win both sets. In the fourth set, Muster led 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2, and lost the set.
Injury wise, both Muster and Stich came into the tournament with suspect ankles.
Albert Costa gave a peak Thomas Muster the most trouble on clay. 3 times they went to 5 sets (Muster winning 2 of those), and they had a close 3-setter in 1996 Rome that Muster won.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal is today's Muster in terms of playing style, with poly strings and modern tech and minus having a surgery repaired knee after being hit by a car. Much harder to keep the unforced errors down in rallies when you have to play with gut strings.
What????? Nadal is a million times better and complete than muster. Give muster today rackets and give nadals 90s rackets and nadal wins easily.
Even if muster would have nadals legs he would still be the limited player he was. 0-10 against edberg says it all.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I watched the Stich match and remember it well. (I was doing A-levels that year and supposed to be revising but ended up mostly watching Roland Garros. Roland Garros 1994 - the year of my GCSEs - and 1996 are the two Slams that I watched the most closely, other than some years at Wimbledon). It was definitely a surprise, but I really don't think it was that much of a surprise, given the playing conditions. None of the traditional clay courters did especially well at Roland Garros that year, whereas more attacking players did better than expected. And Muster always struggled against players who came to the net frequently - for example, he never beat Edberg. But the main point is the clay was different - the ball wasn't bouncing anywhere near as high as it had done the year before, when Chang had so much time to chase it down and pass Stich again and again and again.
I also remember Muster's rivalry with Costa. My point in raising their match in 1995 was not particularly to denigrate Muster. He did very well to beat Costa. But the claim had been that Muster in 1995 was better than Nadal any year other than 2008. That sets the bar really, really high. You know that - you're a Nadal fan, yourself.
Stich with his attacking, all court game (it would be wrong to label him as a flat out serve volleyer), was a tough match-up for Muster. Their h2h on the clay was 2-2, and one of Muster’s wins came in their epic 1994 Davis Cup match when he saved a match point and won 12-10 in the 5th set. So he had already beaten Muster on clay before at Hamburg in 1993 en-route to winning his home city title, and had very nearly beaten him for a second time on the surface in a big match in 1994.
Obviously Muster in 1996, having won 99 out of his last 102 matches on clay going in their 4th clash at RG and already successfully defended 5 titles that he won in 1995, was a different proposition to 1993-1994. Urban highlighted the improvements he had made to his game, not least his backhand.
But Stich was the most technically complete player of the 90s in my opinion (and I also thought that his game was smoother and more elegant than Edberg's). 5 years earlier in 1991 he reached the semi-finals at RG and then won the title at Wimbledon a few weeks later. Courier, who he lost to in his SF in RG but then beat in his QF in Wimbledon, along with John Newcombe showered him with praise for his all court game and ability to vary and change his game so much between the 2 events.
Obviously Muster in 1996, having won 99 out of his last 102 matches on clay going in their 4th clash at RG and already successfully defended 5 titles that he won in 1995, was a different proposition to 1993-1994. Urban highlighted the improvements he had made to his game, not least his backhand.
But Stich was the most technically complete player of the 90s in my opinion (and I also thought that his game was smoother and more elegant than Edberg's). 5 years earlier in 1991 he reached the semi-finals at RG and then won the title at Wimbledon a few weeks later. Courier, who he lost to in his SF in RG but then beat in his QF in Wimbledon, along with John Newcombe showered him with praise for his all court game and ability to vary and change his game so much between the 2 events.
The Gomez-Muster matches in 1990 were interesting. Going in to their semi-final in RG, they were probably 2 best players in the world on clay at the time. Gomez had won titles at Barcelona and Madrid and reached the semi-finals at Rome, while Muster had finished as the runner-up in Monte-Carlo and Munich before winning the title at Rome. Chesnokov was also a major title contender having reached the semi-finals the year before, and splitting victories with Muster in that year's Monte-Carlo and Rome finals.
Muster narrowly beat Gomez in their Rome semi-final, fighting back from a set down and saving 3 match points before winning the 3rd set tiebreaker. From the reports Gomez made quite a lot of unforced errors in that match and his drop shots were not very effective. Gomez said that he felt that Muster had made a huge mistake in 'showing his hand' in that match. His words were that "This is Rome, not Paris. You don't show a guy everything you have in Rome. We may meet again." Those words turned out to be true as he won the match that really mattered in Paris.
In that Paris re-match Gomez completely dictated proceedings, hitting nearly 50 winners, much more effective drop shots than in Rome, pounding Muster's serve and coming to the net and volleying pretty well. Muster admitted that he just couldn't do anything to hurt Gomez that day.
Muster narrowly beat Gomez in their Rome semi-final, fighting back from a set down and saving 3 match points before winning the 3rd set tiebreaker. From the reports Gomez made quite a lot of unforced errors in that match and his drop shots were not very effective. Gomez said that he felt that Muster had made a huge mistake in 'showing his hand' in that match. His words were that "This is Rome, not Paris. You don't show a guy everything you have in Rome. We may meet again." Those words turned out to be true as he won the match that really mattered in Paris.
In that Paris re-match Gomez completely dictated proceedings, hitting nearly 50 winners, much more effective drop shots than in Rome, pounding Muster's serve and coming to the net and volleying pretty well. Muster admitted that he just couldn't do anything to hurt Gomez that day.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Very interesting: Stich’s and Sampras’s best year at the FO.
If Sampras could have gotten by Kafelnikov in the semis, he would have faced Stich.
Does anyone think Sampras could have beaten Stich in the final?
Last edited:
I would have favoured Stich to win a hypothetical 1996 RG final against Sampras. I do think that he was the better and more talented player on clay out of the two, and he was a difficult match-up for Sampras with victories over him on carpet and hard courts. Of course we know that Sampras feared him and his complete, all-court game more than any opponent. Their h2h on clay isn't overly conclusive, their 3 matches on the surface all came in the World Team Cup in Dusseldorf from 1992-1994, with Stich winning 2 of those matches. Sampras convincingly won their only grand slam match at Wimbledon in 1992, but Stich beat an absolute peak Sampras in the 1993 YEC final which was a bigger match than a grand slam quarter-final. In those days the YEC final felt just as big as a grand slam final.
I know people will rightly say that Sampras was mentally tougher and a better big match player than Stich. In his 7 Wimbledon finals he was a mental giant, only getting broken 4 times in 131 service games and playing the big points so well. But just how mentally tough would have been in a hypothetical RG final, knowing that it was unchartered and untested territory for him, that if he lost he probably wouldn't ever get such an opportunity again, and that his attacking game and movement weren't suited to the surface? I strongly doubt that he will have been as mentally tough or as clutch as he was in his Wimbledon finals, US Open matches against Agassi etc. He did show signs of nerves plenty of times even in early round matches at RG during his career. It's much easier for a player to be mentally strong on a surface that suits their game perfectly and at a tournament that they enjoy playing in.
Plus physically he was already running on empty going in to his semi-final against Kafelnikov, so had he somehow come through that match he most likely would have been totally spent for the final.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Can't really say that when 40 of his 44 titles came on clay and 6 of them were Masters 1000s (he won 2 more on hardcourt). The sole final and title at RG does detract somewhat from labelling him 'The King Of Clay' as some are prone to do but, whether you agree with that designation or not, he was certainly accomplished on that surface as his titles resumé suggest.
