Austria Goat Muster or Thiem?

Who is the Austria goat as of Now?

  • Thiem

    Votes: 22 32.4%
  • Muster

    Votes: 36 52.9%
  • To close to tell

    Votes: 10 14.7%

  • Total voters
    68
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).
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
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).
Thiem far better player at this point than Muster. Muster hoovered up clay court titles when a player could hide out on clay most of the season. Thiem would have won lats three RGs if no Nadal; no comparison.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
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.
 

phl92

Semi-Pro
Right now clearly Muster, and I think Thiem needs more than another GS to clearly beat Muster in this comparison. 8 Masters is something!
Having said that, I think Thiem will have a more successful career in 3-4 years from now on!
 

Rickenbacker4003

Hall of Fame
Muster's career is a finished product. Thiem is in his prime now, will add to his tally and if he wins another slam or two that ends the conversation. I've seen Muster play and outside of 1995 he was not the best on clay. From 1991 to 1994 you could say Courier and Bruguera were better, from 1996 onwards to his retirement you could say Moya, Kuerten were better. From 2018 to now only Rafa is better than Thiem on clay. On hardcourt Thiem is in the top 5, AO Final, USO Champion. Results don't lie.
 

Third Serve

Legend
Muster clearly now. But I think Thiem will eventually surpass him. Perhaps by a year from now, though I'll remain cautious.

To clarify, while Thiem has achieved a higher level on other surfaces (even grass -- LOL), Muster on clay is what pushes him above. Not sure Thiem will ever recreate Muster's 1995. However, he can make up for it by adding to his Slam tally.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Thiem, because he's good on several surfaces.
Thiem's 2 hardcourt Slam finals put him ahead on other surfaces but Muster did win 2 hardcourt Masters v Thiem's 1 so he too can't solely be dismissed as a 1 surface specialist.

Neither have made any impression on grass though (so far in Thiem's case).
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
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).
Muster
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Thiem's 2 hardcourt Slam finals put him ahead on other surfaces but Muster did win 2 hardcourt Masters v Thiem's 1 so he too can't solely be dismissed as a 1 surface specialist.

Neither have made any impression on grass though (so far in Thiem's case).
Reasonable point - I still have Thiem marginally ahead though. 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.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
Muster had wins over peak Sampras and Becker. Already better players than 35+ year old Fed.

Fed post AO 2018 also hasn't been a tough opponent outside Wimb 2019 and that's the period when most of Thiem's wins agaibst him happened. They didn't wven play in 2015 and 2017-early 2018.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Muster's career is a finished product. Thiem is in his prime now, will add to his tally and if he wins another slam or two that ends the conversation. I've seen Muster play and outside of 1995 he was not the best on clay. From 1991 to 1994 you could say Courier and Bruguera were better, from 1996 onwards to his retirement you could say Moya, Kuerten were better. From 2018 to now only Rafa is better than Thiem on clay. On hardcourt Thiem is in the top 5, AO Final, USO Champion. Results don't lie.
I'd say Muster gets the edge on clay as besides RG, he was the king of clay for a couple years in the mid 90s. Thiem is obviously much better on HCs, as he's won USO and made the finals in AO. Tbh I'd still rank him below Novak, Rafa, Med and Fed on HCs but ahead of Zverev and Stefanos - Ik Fedal haven't played as much but who would bet against them, I sure won't. They both seem to be dead beats on grass although Thiem has time to change that
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'd say Muster gets the edge on clay as besides RG, he was the king of clay for a couple years in the mid 95s. Thiem is obviously much better on HCs, as he's won USO and made the finals in AO. Tbh I'd still rank him below Novak, Rafa, Med and Fed on HCs but ahead of Zverev and Stefanos - Ik Fedal haven't played as much but who would bet against them, I sure won't. They both seem to be dead beats on grass although Thiem has time to change that
At this point, Thiem is above Fed on HC.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
Thiem far better player at this point than Muster. Muster hoovered up clay court titles when a player could hide out on clay most of the season. Thiem would have won lats three RGs if no Nadal; no comparison.
muster was a great player and it's early in thiem's career, but i think this is true with regards to thiem's greater flexibility. much more of a threat to top players on all surfaces.
 

Vanilla Slice

Semi-Pro
It is Muster right now but not by much. Basically because of the 8 to 1 masters titles and him achieving #1. Otherwise, Thiem is better and will easily surpass him soon enough with one more grand slam title or achieving number 1 in the future
 

Rickenbacker4003

Hall of Fame
Still nothing really outstanding. He also lost them both by the way. :-D

Miami 2019 has bern his only big title since AO 2018. Like I said, nothing spectacular.
Ok, so you decide when it's ok to beat Federer then. We got that. When he doesn't win a tournament, it doesn't count.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Ok, so you decide when it's ok to beat Federer then. We got that. When he doesn't win a tournament, it doesn't count.
I'm saying wins over post 2018 AO Federer should be a given, not an upset. Kinda speaks volumes of these younger guys when wins over 37+ year old Fed are counted as very big wins.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
muster was a great player and it's early in thiem's career, but i think this is true with regards to thiem's greater flexibility. much more of a threat to top players on all surfaces.
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:sick:
 

Rickenbacker4003

Hall of Fame
I'm saying wins over post 2018 AO Federer should be a given, not an upset. Kinda speaks volumes of these younger guys when wins over 37+ year old Fed are counted as very big wins.
No wins over Roger Federer are a given while he's on the professional tour. Until he stops beating people it will count. When he retires it won't count. He's out there because he believes he can win majors. If he didn't believe that he'd be retired. But YOU decide when beating him counts.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Ok, so you decide how many of Joker's wins in the head 2 head over Federer count then? Whats's the cut off date for you? Because you decide when it counts.
Thiem has beaten worse versions of Federer than Djokovic though.

My question is when do wins over an old Fed by guys 12+ years younger stop getting overrated?
 

Rickenbacker4003

Hall of Fame
I'm saying wins over post 2018 AO Federer should be a given, not an upset. Kinda speaks volumes of these younger guys when wins over 37+ year old Fed are counted as very big wins.
They're still counted at victories because he's still in the top 3 at his age. But because it doesn't meet YOUR criteria it doesn't count now? GTFOH. Who the hell are you?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No wins over Roger Federer are a given while he's on the professional tour. Until he stops beating people it will count. When he retires it won't count. He's out there because he believes he can win majors. If he didn't believe that he'd be retired. But YOU decide when beating him counts.
Wins over him the last couple of years aren't as big as wins over peak Sampras and Becker like Muster had.
 

Rickenbacker4003

Hall of Fame
Thiem has beaten worse versions of Federer than Djokovic though.

My question is when do wins over an old Fed by guys 12+ years younger stop getting overrated?
If his level is still as a grand slam contender and in the top 3 any victory over him is still fully legitimate. His game defies his age. You're not looking at his level, you're just looking at his age.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
If his level is still as a grand slam contender and in the top 3 any victory over him is still fully legitimate. His game defies his age. You're not looking at his level, you're just looking at his age.
Ok, let's look at level. How has he done at HC slams since winning his last slam?
 
Top